Maze Hill Pathways
A lot of people have been asking about the ex-pathway on the south side of Maze Hill station where the new Seren Park development has been built. It's been closed ever since the hoardings went up and I've been regularly asked when it's opening again.
Well, Michael, who lives in Tom Smith Close, has just got back from a meeting with Seren Park developers, Network Rail and Greenwich councillors and thought we'd like an update. His report will prove for anyone who thought that South Eastern don't give a damn about community relations (read 'customers') that you're absolutely right.
He writes:
"Seren Park's land was purchased to include permission to reinstate direct access to the platform using the narrow short path in between the allotments and Tom Smith Close. The pathway is all owned by Network Rail and used to be much longer and previously ran alongside the platform but has been amalgamated with the platform itself a little while ago.
Agreement was made with Connex (South Eastern's predecessors) to grant the access gate and for Seren park to meet all associated costs. But South Eastern are not interested despite all efforts by the developers to make contact and offer both recompense and upkeep generously.
Us residents (of Tom Smith Close- TGP) support the developers on this issue because we don't want people attempting to break down barriers and turn our cul-de-sac into a walk-through - we have minimal pavements and this would cause litter, disturbance, noise and security issues for a predominantly elderly populace. South Eastern don't want any additional hassle and want to avoid additional access points to their stations.
Unless South Eastern change their minds, the access won't be reinstated and permanent barriers will have to be erected by Network Rail, the council and developers to secure their respective boundaries and force Seren Park residents to the long way round. The privacy of Tom Smith Close and security of the allotments will be fought for ! (there has never been any kind of accessway through the cul-de-sac and it's one of our car parks)."
So - there you have it. And just in case those of you who hump prams, wheelchairs, shopping trolleys or small children the long way round from Vanbrugh Hill/Humber Road etc. think there's any kind of chink of hope in this bleak news, read on...
"Also, note that the access was only ever to be exclusive to Seren Park with keyfobs and special security gates," says Michael, "I think newly moved in residents are going to be disappointed at South Eastern and will want to take issue with the developers for unintentionally misleading them about this 'direct access' - could be expensive for them !
This issue has been debated constantly for the past few years and South Eastern have had a tactic of avoidance and failed to show up at every opportunity and meeting."
So - yes - give up now on ever seeing this useful path ever reinstated for anyone who can't afford the ridiculous prices at Seren Park (even the 'affordable' ones require people to have incomes far higher than the average wage) but even if you can manage the squeakingly high prices of the new development, get used to that hike around the north side, eh...
Well, Michael, who lives in Tom Smith Close, has just got back from a meeting with Seren Park developers, Network Rail and Greenwich councillors and thought we'd like an update. His report will prove for anyone who thought that South Eastern don't give a damn about community relations (read 'customers') that you're absolutely right.
He writes:
"Seren Park's land was purchased to include permission to reinstate direct access to the platform using the narrow short path in between the allotments and Tom Smith Close. The pathway is all owned by Network Rail and used to be much longer and previously ran alongside the platform but has been amalgamated with the platform itself a little while ago.
Agreement was made with Connex (South Eastern's predecessors) to grant the access gate and for Seren park to meet all associated costs. But South Eastern are not interested despite all efforts by the developers to make contact and offer both recompense and upkeep generously.
Us residents (of Tom Smith Close- TGP) support the developers on this issue because we don't want people attempting to break down barriers and turn our cul-de-sac into a walk-through - we have minimal pavements and this would cause litter, disturbance, noise and security issues for a predominantly elderly populace. South Eastern don't want any additional hassle and want to avoid additional access points to their stations.
Unless South Eastern change their minds, the access won't be reinstated and permanent barriers will have to be erected by Network Rail, the council and developers to secure their respective boundaries and force Seren Park residents to the long way round. The privacy of Tom Smith Close and security of the allotments will be fought for ! (there has never been any kind of accessway through the cul-de-sac and it's one of our car parks)."
So - there you have it. And just in case those of you who hump prams, wheelchairs, shopping trolleys or small children the long way round from Vanbrugh Hill/Humber Road etc. think there's any kind of chink of hope in this bleak news, read on...
"Also, note that the access was only ever to be exclusive to Seren Park with keyfobs and special security gates," says Michael, "I think newly moved in residents are going to be disappointed at South Eastern and will want to take issue with the developers for unintentionally misleading them about this 'direct access' - could be expensive for them !
This issue has been debated constantly for the past few years and South Eastern have had a tactic of avoidance and failed to show up at every opportunity and meeting."
So - yes - give up now on ever seeing this useful path ever reinstated for anyone who can't afford the ridiculous prices at Seren Park (even the 'affordable' ones require people to have incomes far higher than the average wage) but even if you can manage the squeakingly high prices of the new development, get used to that hike around the north side, eh...
Labels: News
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
08:07
16 Comments:
Southeastern's attitude to customers should be no surprise to anyone! They are not at all interested in making access easier for customers especially when it makes it more difficult for them to collect tickets/impose fines. When I used to use Lewisham station it drove me mad that I often had to go from platform 4 down the stairs, under the railway lines, back up the stairs, down station approach, round the pub and back under the railway lines to get to Lewisham Road when there was a perfectly good direct footpath from platform 4 which was rarely open.
When the old path was merged into the platform I did wonder what was going on. Now we know.
Given that Seren Park operates on a public road (I think - I haven't been down there since Maze Hill access closed), I really can't see how Seren Park could have justified exclusive access to residents.
Academic now I guess, but hard for me to sympathise with the developers (although I can see the Tom Smith Closers point of view).
When we're out with the pushchair, we'll have to continue to get on at Westcombe Park - which makes South Eastern more money, natch.
My neighbour who is 85 has always lived in East Greenwich remembers that there was a tunnel going under the railway track, from the pottery to the other side. Maybe its still there and could be opened up again
But we east-siders don't want access to TSC from Vanbrugh Hill. We want access to Maze Hill station itself, because that would permit step-free access to the London-bound platform. At the moment getting to Maze Hill with a heavy suitcase or a pushchair is a real ordeal.
Access to the platform has quite clearly been built - you can see it!! - so all that needs to be done is to build a wall between that and TSC and open it out to allow access from Vanbrugh Hill.
Given the fare increases Maze Hill residents have had to suffer in recent years, it really is the very least they can do.
It wasn't that the Seren Park development had permission to reinstate this footpath, it was a planning OBLIGATION under the s106 agreement. I got a copy of the agreement and my understanding from reading it was that the footpath would be open to all.
The real need for the footpath, as others have mentioned, is not just the time saving. It's that it's the only real way of reaching the London-bound platform from the east for people using prams or wheelchairs.
Does anyone fancy a concerted effort to make this footpath happen?
My understanding is the same as Jon. When I went to have a nose around the seren development and asked about their 106 obligations, providing the path was one of the things they mentioned. so my understanding was planning permission was granted on that condition (amongst others no doubt).
not surprised though. got unfairly clamped at seren and cost me hundreds despite a long battle.
and less said about those blood sucking morons at south eastern the better.
i fancy a concerted effort to open the path. the current situation is crap, especially for wheelchair users and families with prams.
south eastern strikes again.
do you think we could get them to turn the heating off heaving commuter trains too?!
I'm up for it, maybe a petition. Talk about morons at Maze hill station. We have been trying to find out the price of a ticket for my 16 year old to go from Maze Hill to Orpington (to go to school) and nobody knows the price. One person says one price, and the next day somebody will say something completely different. It can't be that complicated.
Although petitions are a valuable tool, if that way had been used for a period of time, then a right of way may well have accrued.
This is a complicated area of law, (and I should know I've lectured and advised on it).
If anyone would care to write a summary with maps and dates and copies of relevant documentation, I would be up for a preliminary look.
It would be worth knowing whether you had a properly enforceable legal right, in which case you could threaten litigation which normally concentrates peoples minds, or whether you can only use the public opinion weapon.
I have a vague recollection that South Eastern was very canny about the habitual usage thing and used to periodically shut the path, just to make sure that it never acrued enough time (12 years, if memory serves) to count as a public right of way.
But maybe I'm imagining that.
Presumably the Section 106 thing was served on the developers, not the people who are able to actually deliver the path, South Eastern. In which case the developers couldn't, with all the will in the world, create a path they weren't legally in charge of. Though if it was a Section 106, I'd have thought it would be a path for all - isn't that what they'rea all about?
OF course I'm postulating here - I have no real idea what I'm talking about. I'll shut up now...
The s106 obligation was basically to restore access to the ticket-office side of the station from Vanbrugh Hill. Although Restell Close is a private street, access was to be available for all (on foot).
Does anybody know what Southeastern's actual problem is? So long as the developers paid for Oyster validators, the exit is only a mirror of what's available opposite on Platform 2.
Obviously there would be an extra exit to post inspectors on during the occasional ticket check, but this is hardly worth reducing the accessibility of the station for anyone with luggage / children / disabilities.
That whole issue would be avoided by just restoring the fenced-off path as it once was. That way, the path also provides convenient access to Greenwich Park without having to climb Vanbrugh Hill.
It seems that the developers may indeed be faced with an impossible s106 obligation. But, as the Council has obviously identified the benefits of restoring this path, I just hope that they will continue to press Southeastern hard to relent. This is really the opposite direction to the flow that this country is/should be heading in in terms of accessibility.
Could Michael shed any light on what the views of the council were at the recent meeting?
I'll dig around this evening to see if I can work out when the path was closed, but I'm guessing 2-3 years ago? When it opened I would have no clue. We've been here 7 years and it was there then.
I still can't quite get past Michael's reference to Seren Park's 'exclusive access'. I see the s106 obligation, but I certainly recall a 'dedicated' gate to the station being mentioned in the developer's sales material at the earliest stages (because it made me angry then).
If they did make sales based on that, I wonder if they will be taking a legal approach with South Eastern?
I'm going to speak to Southeastern about it at their next "meet the manager" session on 12 November at Cannon Street. I invite anybody to join me, and encourage everybody bothered by the situation to bring it up with them separately.
Having posted to the Phantom, I am not surprised by the strength of feeling about the pathway. Although I am only one resident of Tom Smith Close, I hope that I can clarify some points as far as I understand it all anyway. I think that the majority of the residents I have spoken to are definitely in favour of the path being reinstated and we understand that many people simply want direct access to the platform which we are fine with as then people won't attempt to break a way through. The main issues that residents had against the path were when it was in its former lengthy form and ran in between the platform and the close towards the station - with considerable late night disturbance, litter etc etc. In fact, everyone is in favour of the shorter path being opened - to clarify, at the meeting the councillor was strongly in favour as much as the developers. Network Rail own the land and are happy to acquiesce with the s106 as long as the developers and South Eastern (present leaseholders of the site and trains) reach an arrangement between themselves. Everyone, including the council is pushing for it but it was mentioned by several parties at the meeting South Eastern have new policies that when the new Oyster barriers are operational next year they will need more staff attendance (seems unlikely to me though !!) and are opposed to multi-entry points to their stations where avoidable. The amalgamation of part of the path into the platform happened without consultation with the developers and residents, and I think shows the intentions of South Eastern to do as it pleases without reference to anyone else and without explanation or justification. My limited understanding is that the s106 stipulation is very difficult to enforce against South Eastern despite the considerable financial offers from the developers (note it was they who got ahead of themselves slightly and concreted the path ramp way, although I am not sure if it meets current disabled width access requirements, yet another issue....). I haven't read the s106 but the developers said that they aren't obligated to provide access to the general public and one older resident told me that previously it was access for the nurses’ flats prior to Seren Park. This may explain why I have had the impression that the 'dedicated access' on Seren Park's website is a euphemism for 'exclusive access'. By the way, I have been told that there was definitely an underpass from one platform to another that was filled in when the bridge and the new station were built. There is a meeting between councillors and a South Eastern P.R. bigwig next week (residents not invited) so hoping for sense, logic, and law, to prevail!!
Michael ( A Tom Smith Close resident)
Hi Michael
Thanks very much for the update. Do you know whether this meeting will be minuted?
Would it be possible to let me know if another meeting is scheduled at which local people may attend? My email address is jon . baldwin @ gmail . com
Many thanks
Yes , will let everyone know if i hear any update or results from the meeting coming up. I don't know how formal it will be or if there are any minutes yet. Any meet that Tom Smith residents are invited to are always posted in the hallways or lifts so I will definately know.
thanks
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home