Please complete and return to crofton park library, or come along and submit on 14th Jan at consultation event and you can find out more then. After all, this is the point of a consultation, to capture both agreements and disagreements. The plan may well change if more people disagree!! All these views are valid and must be documented via the formal consultation survey so the plan can be updated accordingly.
Please also note that many different ideas came from many different residents from across the area and now collated into the draft plan. No one member is solely responsible, so no need for such hostility. Please also remember that over 4500 households with an SE23 postcode do exist in the boundary.
Unfortunately those most affected by the loss of green space around their houses will be denied a final say in these plans (at the referendum stage) due to the way the HopCroft plan has been crafted. I fully understand their anger.
So it is up to the rest of us in SE23 who fall within the arbitrary HopCroft zone to speak on their behalf. I’m out of the country so cannot attend on the 14th but I hope many Honor Oak residents will do so to ensure the precious remaining green space in our corner of London is not concreted over.
And we should stop talking about development as if it’s an inevitability. As @fran points out, the effect on school places, hospital beds and transport infrastructure is crippling. These services are not scaling linearly and immediately with London’s population growth. Building more houses is something that needs to be weighed carefully against the side effects.
Dear Chris
I must admit the hostility of this forum is a little unpleasant. No one is being denied a say. Those living outside but feel a strong connection to the area are being invited to complete survey. How many different ways does one need to spell this out?
The only technicality is about the referendum vote since that is a government rule, you have to be inside. But residents in the forum area are warmly and openly inviting everyone to have a say and encourage all to respond to the survey by completing the survey form. The outcome from consultation will determine how the doc is changed/updated for referendum and will consider the majority of agreements or disagreements including any suggested policy rewording.
Our online version is experiencing some technical issues at the mo but hope will be resolved. In any case I have shared the pdf
Those living outside can also be associate forum members. We infact have a few already who have contributed ideas that are in the plan. To continue to say that it’s ignoring those outside is false. So instead of all trying to play unnecessary turf wars how about uniting to create a great plan?
It’s still a draft and with everyone’s CONSTRUCTIVE feedback we hope it will be contributing to a future, liveable and thriving neighbourhood.
Thanks lots. Please therefore correct your entry to not discourage those outside boundary from responding. I hope everyone instead puts their energy into responding formerly.
Firstly I’m sorry you’ve felt a hostile reception here. This is a very positive forum on the whole. I don’t think there’s any criticism directed at individuals on this topic - but there is towards ideas / proposals, and I’m sure you can understand why people may feel upset if it’s the first they’ve heard of HopCroft, and a plan that will affect them.
Regarding the people around the area of the proposed housing, has there been a poster or leaflet campaign informing them of their last chance to have a say in the plans? (the survey). The people most affected may not be aware of the HopCroft forum since this seems to focus on the Crofton Park ward, and be run by people from Crofton Park. And also there appear to be some technical issues with the website - not just downtime but also the usability, especially on mobile devices.
I have altered my wording to: “those most affected by the loss of green space around their houses will be denied a final say in these plans (at the referendum stage) due to the way the HopCroft plan has been crafted.”
And again, I implore all members to get involved in the consultation. It’s some comfort that those near the proposed housing will at least get some input at this stage.
As Chris says, my anger is directed at proposals that will have a fundamental impact on my local area, on our green space, on our traffic, our parking, our ability to get school places, our ability to get on a train in the morning, to get an appointment at the doctors. Not at individuals. I asked the question about who you all are because it’s very opaque on your website and I didn’t do as Michael did and search through old minutes to find names. I didn’t understand whether this was a political body and for all I know you could be a bunch of property developers trying to make money!
If you are asking for feedback, which I am giving, you have to be prepared for this to be negative without taking it personally. And I have given alternative suggestions such as returning it to green space, or, if it must be developed, creating a school to allow our local children to go to a local school. But yes, I am hostile to the idea of building housing on an area that could be used for so many things, and I am hostile at this being put forward by a community group of which I can only be considered an ‘associate’ member so wouldn’t get a vote in an AGM or a referendum despite living right near something that would hugely Impact my life, much more than other people who do get a vote.
And finally, to reiterate Chris’s point, how are you informing those of us who live right by this proposed development about the plan and the consultation and the event? Are you relying on people looking at your website? Or here? I don’t think anyone on my street will have heard of the ‘HopCroft’ forum. I shall be informing my neighbours but would like to understand your broader plans.
There is a big difference between being allowed to fill in a non-binding survey, and having a vote in a binding referendum. See Southwark Council’s complete dismissal of responses to the survey on One Tree Hill and the cemetery as a case in point.
Will you be extending the deadline for submissions once you have sorted out the online version? I can’t imagine everyone has access to a scanner to email the PDF back, or is able to get to the library or to the event to hand it back in in person?
WRT the boundaries of the ‘neighbourhood’, if I recall correctly the guidance in unparished areas like Lewisham is to follow ward boundaries, as these have already been established in legislation as areas which reflect community identity (albeit for a different purpose). To follow different boundaries would require supplying a lot of additional evidence and may make relations more difficult with the council, which very much thinks in ward boundary terms on planning matters. But I do think this ward is a little less coherent than some Lewisham wards in terms of its ‘identity’ so it’s interesting (but not necessarily bad) that they have established a forum.
As to the housing allocation proposals - I won’t comment on the specific proposal for HOP but I would point out that this plan is required to be in conformity with the Lewisham local plan which in turn must be in conformity with the London Plan. The latter sets highly ambitious housing targets for every single borough in London and therefore any vacant land that could possibly be developed for housing and has no obvious constraints is going to be looked at. This particularly applies to sites which are close to transport connections. As to whether we need more housing - the population of this area is likely to continue increasing so either we have more housing or we have a mixture of higher occupancy per dwelling (ie more people to add pressure to amenities, parking etc regardless) and higher prices/rents. Regardless of whether you accept this or not, “we don’t need more housing” is definitely not going to be accepted as an argument against an allocation of this site. This is a matter of fact in planning terms rather than my opinion.
Thanks for sharing. As I understand it, this land is owned by Southwark Council not Lewisham. And, following the cemetery consultation, it is clear they are not that bothered about preserving green space in an area where no Southwark residents live directly. Therefore, that is why I think it is paramount that a community group that is intending to represent the actual community, is more thoughtful about what is ideal for land like this to be used for. Building houses here will not reduce the amount of houses that need to be built in Lewisham, whilst directly impacting Lewisham residents.
Yes, Lewisham TC it’s in what’s called an Opportunity Area (along with Catford and New Cross centres) which is deemed suitable for particularly large scale development. There is supposed to be capacity for a total of 8k new homes across these centres.
The total target for Lewisham is 13,847 from 2015-25 or 1,350 additional new homes a year. I’m not sure what recent completions have been like in Lewisham but overall delivery figures in recent years have been less than half the assessed need across Greater London (roughly 20,000 vs a minimum of 49,000). There has been a particular focus on releasing publicly owned land for development in recent years (as it is in theory easier to develop) so this might be why this NR site has come up.
I find it a bit unpleasant too, but you shouldn’t be surprised, and you shouldn’t take it personally. I think the idea of local Neighbourhood plans is misguided, and as someone who has been a community rep on the Local Assembly for Perry Vale ward for many years, I can say that, had someone suggested it for us, I would have opposed the idea strenuously. @Brett has made the point that our wards aren’t exactly natural areas with which people identify, in the way that parishes out in the countryside might be, and he is right. OTOH, I don’t think any such small area in a large city such as London works for drawing up development plans, which is the point I made earlier today on another thread
I’m really surprised that people are taking my posts personally and I apologise if people have, perhaps I have a thicker skin than most also probably should have put a smiley face after ‘can you tell I’m angry?’ As it was meant a little tongue in cheek. But it is frustrating that the only way I even heard about this proposal was through this forum despite being really close to the impacted site. I accept my passions are running high on this, but surely @HopCroftForum should expect that when putting proposals in place that impact people’s real neighbourhoods, not just arbitrary boundaries. And I hope this doesn’t distract from my points which are well intended and my concerns which I think are valid.
Personally I don’t ever feel any hostility on this forum, just truths & opinions.
On the topic of expressing opinions on this subject it’s quite hard to express as the website etc makes it difficult for Joe Bloggs to have an opinion.
That would mean putting me out of the equation as I’m not fab on IT!
Do you have a list of who has responded and numbers @HopCroftForum After the muck up with your website this might be helpful.
Thank you @HopCroftForum. my neighbours and I (on the wrong side of the tracks) recieved a leaflet about the consultation today. a lot of the neighbours are finding it quite complicated to fill in the entire form or don’t have access to scanners, although I have offered to bring them with me to the meeting next week. However, they have asked if its possible to just email you with comments (without filling in the whole form) and if those comments will be taken into consideration. As the online survey isn’t working it would be helpful if that could be an alternative. Otherwise, will the consultation period be extended to allow people more time to read the extensive documents and fill in the long consultation form. Thanks!
Become a Forum member if you have time to spare to help with any aspect of its delivery (including helping us spread the word! We are all volunteering time, and only so much area/time we can cover: http://croftonhonoroakpark.neighbourhood.space/membership-form/
I hope this gives a few options that work. If there are still issues, please email hopcroftforum@gmail.com, happy to consider any other option.
I have just emailed this to hopcroftforum@gmail.com. If you feel the same way as I do, please try and find some time to put forward your objections.
"Please note the following in respect of your support for the development of land adjacent to Honor Oak Park station:
_I moved to this area several years ago and one of the things that greatly appeals to me is the amount of green space that can be seen and enjoyed each time you arrive at Honor Oak Park station. I have spent a large amount of time with my young daughter in the nearby area which I have found to be a lovely quiet space away from the traffic. _
_In my opinion, this will be ruined by a development of what will no doubt become blocks of modern flats overlooking the station and permanently breaking up the view. Please can you consider the impact on traffic, already at breaking point in this area, the impact on biodiversity by turning the current set-aside green space into a building site and car park for residents (all of which appear to go against a swathe of your proposed policies). _
_I am deeply concerned and find it rather disturbing that a small community group such as yourselves are supporting a development of this kind which will directly impact many hundreds of local residents. it appears to be an incredibly short sighted decision reached by individuals who presumably have never considered how fortunate we are to have one of South London’s rare undeveloped green hillsides in our local area. _
I strongly urge you to reconsider your support of any development in this area.
The community assets list is interesting - I can’t work out whether the list in section 4.6 is a list of existing registered assets or not. It seems like an odd mix.
I’d also add the St Germans Road scout hut as another one.
As far as I’m aware there is only one registered Asset of Community Value in Crofton Park ward, that is the Honor Oak Pub. Adding a number of additional assets to the register is a good idea.
That whole section seems a bit muddled - I can’t work out whether they want to apply for ACV status for everything in s4.6 or Fig 4 (or both) and given that some of the items in Fig 4 are just views rather than actual buildings or land, I don’t think they could have ACV status.
Protecting views is a challenge - for example, given that Blythe Hill Fields overlooks a lot of Canary Wharf and the City, that’s always going to change.
also probably should have put a smiley face after ‘can you tell I’m angry?’ As it was meant a little tongue in cheek. But it is frustrating that the only way I even heard about this proposal was through this forum despite being really close to the impacted site. I accept my passions are running high on this, but surely