Yes, the Honor Oak was listed by the Forest Hill Society (as you know!). They do also include the Blythe Hill Tavern - this was listed by CAMRA. Quite right too but just outside the ward boundary I believe so that would seem to be a mistake. All the others are aspirational.
Spot on @Jerry. The plan does aim to protect the view of One Tree Hill so that, along with a number of other statements, does seem to contradict the development allocation. I think it is also important to protect the view from the hill too but that is not considered. One Tree Hill is no longer part of Honor Oak it seems.
2 Likes
If you attend todayâs final consultation (11:00-15:30, Ewart Road Clubhouse, 44 Wastdale Rd), please reply here to let us know how it went. Cheers!
1 Like
I attended the meeting, were probably around 40 people there in total. Lots of thoughts about it and what they shared, will write a longer post later.
3 Likes
Thank Fran x
I attended the consultation, which was very helpful, if a little difficult due to all the questions in the middle of the presentation.
I was pleased to see the the plan includes upgrading Honor Oak Park to a Local Centre / Neighbourhood Centre, rather than just a parade. Unfortunately the designation only include the businesses on Honor Oak Park, not those on Brockley Rise. The team also said that it would require a change to the Lewisham plan before this designation could be made (something that they have rejected in the past when I have requested it).
Both of the sites allocated for development proved to be controversial, with local residents opposing both, and few people with anything positive to say about them (other than a general need for housing - which the 20 apartments would hardly address). The team made it clear that if there was a majority of responses against these site allocations, then they would be removed from the next version of the document - and given the reaction I saw, I would be surprised if these allocations survive, even with all the caveats applied in the policies. There was a suggestion of a site allocation for the MOT garage on Brockley Rise/Stondon Park, but after the meeting I remembered that this is already in Lewishamâs core strategy, so it wouldnât make much difference.
It should be said that site allocations for housing is the hardest part of any neighbourhood plan and are always likely to be controversial, especially in a built up area with existing gaps in the primary school coverage. However, neighbourhood plans were always designed primarily to allocate sites for development, and benefit from community funding from these developments.
If sites for housing were really wanted, then around the outside of Kingâs College Playing Fields would seem most appropriate. And in designating a few other areas Urban Green Spaces, the loss of green space could be off-set. I reckon there would easily be enough space for a block of flats on Stillness Road, Otford Crescent, and Brockley Rise. Of course I can understand why this would be opposed by local residents and they may have already been considered and rejected by the forum steering committee.
One other piece of feedback that I felt was particularly sensible was to include Stanstead Road in the map of the Brockley Rise / Stanstead Road Local Improvement Area. In the draft, that area stops at the Stanstead Road junction, when it could extend up to the Malham Road Regeneration area.
Beyond these items the Neighbourhood Plan is not particularly controversial and includes a number of positive developments. Perhaps it isnât ambitious enough, but thatâs no really a bad thing.
My final observation would be that if this forum (SE23.life) was seen as hostile and âa little unpleasantâ, then the meeting on Saturday went way beyond the criticisms Iâve read above, with a number of individuals concerned about the housing site allocations, the perceived lack of consideration about parking, and the boundaries of the area. I found the reaction of the room far more hostile than I have seen on this forum, and slightly more hostile than I had expected.
6 Likes
Agreed, it is a shame that this doesnât include Brockley Rise but then it doesnât include all Honor Oak Park businesses either, i.e. east of Stondon Park. As this is not something that can be shaped by the plan, it is an element that actually doesnât require Neighbourhood Planning to achieve.
Agreed also with the comments re the housing sites. Am left wondering whether these were included to provoke a reaction. Certainly, the constitution of the area is provocative, from an Honor Oak resident point of view. @Michael, it may aid your understanding of this that the area consultation process was deeply flawed and people outside the Ward area were mostly ignored, in fact silenced when attending a ward assembly when this agenda item was discussed. Your suggestion of the Brockley Rise MOT garage for housing was interesting but, as you say, if this is already allowed for then this is another area where the plan would not actually contribute anything.
I somewhat agree, re the presentation and interruptions but I do not see how the consultation aspect could have covered the range of material otherwise - the presenters did not seem to have a problem with this and acted professionally I thought. There were people present who only knew about this due to a leaflet through the door. This gave the impression that this was a last chance to have a say, which wasnât strictly accurate. Nevertheless, it did make for a lively meeting, but being on the âwrongâ side of the tracks, I completely get that. Another, probably just thoughtless, aspect was that the first question on the survey form handed out led to a tick of the âregular vistorâ option - not a welcome start if an Honor Oak resident!
There were some positive elements, including improvements for Crofton Park station, but am struggling to see the benefits for Honor Oak as a community which could not be achieved by other means. Will post up some detailed feedback shortly.
3 Likes
Apologies for the delay in responding, although I doubt you were all waiting for my thoughts 
I attended the session on Saturday although I was not able to stay for the full session and did not have an opportunity to ask all the questions that I wanted to.
It was a very welcoming meeting though (there were cakes) and I give the forum full credit for trying to engage the local community, although some other comments on that below. I also got a clear feeling that this was really being driven by a desire to do good in the local community, and there was a real challenge for the team in terms of balancing lots of competing views. Not an easy task I am sure. That said, my views on this being an âarbitrary boundaryâ rather than a real reflection of our actual neighbourhoods still stands.
As Michael mentioned, the formal presentation was derailed a little by questions about housing allocations that came up, predictably, as soon as the âhousing policyâ section was mentioned. People obviously felt very passionately about both of the designated sites, and it was clear that many of those attending had only heard about the whole âplanâ through a note from a local resident specifically about the SE4 proposals on housing that was delivered to those in the local area. I think this shows that the forum probably needs to work a little harder in terms of making sure local people are aware of and understand the plan. As someone at the meeting commented, the plan itself and the questionnaire are very lengthy and not necessarily the easiest to digest and so it would be good to see how the forum could make it a little more accessible for people going forward. I suggest perhaps they could use this forum or their own website to host some Q&A sessions about specific topics, although that doesnât necessarily address those who are not âinternet savvyâ. To try to get the presentation back on track, the forum representatives reiterated that the best way to provide feedback was to fill in the survey, but that does not allow for discussion and dialogue and many of the items are open to interpretation so itâs hard to know if Iâm commenting on the right things.
Overall, I had hoped to get more of a sense of what new powers this plan really will have vs what is already in place or what is just a âwish listâ vs something that is achievable. Iâd also like to get a greater sense of where funding for some of these things comms from such as tree planning and cycle routes, does it get diverted from other areas in Lewisham? Is there additional funding? These may have been answered later on after I left, so Brett or Michael may be able to answer or else Iâll just email them to find out.
The big debate that swelled up in the middle of the formal presentation was around the housing allocation, and Iâve made my views on the HOP designation clear already so I donât need to reiterate that. However, I am not sure I understood the forumâs point of view on this that clearly and @Brett, @Michael or hopefully @HopCroftForum may be able to clarify. The representatives of the Forum stated that by including these sites in the plan was not saying they were in favour of developing these sites, but more that if these sites WERE developed this plan would then help shape what those developments looked like. If the overall plan is saying that ALL development in the designated areas should be held to these overall standards, then I canât see the benefit of putting in these specific sites UNLESS you are advocating they SHOULD be developed on. There was also a vague indication that the forum members knew that Network Rail was going to apply for planning permission, so it was important that the forum tackled that by being prescriptive over what development would be allowed. I felt like there were some mixed messages there but I may have just been confused as there were a lot of people sharing views. That said, either way I believe that there is a real conflict between the planâs views on the importance of green space and air quality, and supporting in some way development on greenfield sites, vs brownfield sites.
As Michael mentions, an attendee raised the issue of needing additional affordable housing and accused those against these developments as being newcomers âraising the draw bridge after themâ. I take issue with that because a) most of my neighbours have lived in the area for 20 years plus and b) i truly canât see how these developments will address the housing shortage/ridiculous cost of housing in the area. The types of housing that the plan deems as suitable do not come cheap, and the planning consultant herself acknowledged that developers are able to get out of the âaffordable housingâ requirements pretty easily. If you look at the new developments in Lewisham, 2 bed flats go for ÂŁ550k so I canât see that developers would be looking for any less than that in HOP. So whereas it would be lovely to think these flats would go to struggling local people, the reality is they will probably be snapped up by buy-to-letters.
However, with a view to not being âhostileâ and being proactive rather than reactive. when it comes to the land re HOP station, Iâve decided that rather than saying âI donât want housing hereâ I want to come with an alternate solution about how we can best use the green space there. If anyone is interested, Iâll set up an alternative thread for discussion and perhaps a meet in person. The forum members all seemed very open to views and opinions (although I am not sure they are wholly representative of the demographics of the Ward, just as this site isnât) and so I want to engage positively and with ideas and suggestions going forward.
4 Likes
As far as I understand no âadditionalâ funding is available for neighbourhood plan proposals. HoweverâŚ25% of Community Infrastructure Levy monies raised from development within an area with an approved neighbourhood plan are passed to the Parish Council / local authority (where a parish council does not exist). These bodies will then engage with the communities where development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding.
2 Likes
I feel the same way.
One of the presenters had a tip off that a developer was interested in the site by the station. Rather than allocate the site for a green use, the response to this has been to request that Network Rail allow a biodiversity survey to establish whether a housing application might succeed by challenging the SINC status (site of importance for nature conservation). I think this runs the risk of courting further developer interest by including in the plan in this way and I agree it sends mixed messages, arguably helps a developer application in fact. If enough people respond to the plan or survey then hopefully this will get dropped.
I agree with the approach of finding a better use for the site. I have been in touch with Network Rail myself about this to find out what might be possible and what their plans are. When I know more will advise.
2 Likes
I am also interested what Lewisham Councilâs view on developing the HOP site is - as it was referenced that the forumâs views were different from the Councilâs.
[As an aside, Iâve just been told I have posted more than 32% of the replies here so Iâll pipe down for a while to allow others to share their views].
1 Like
Iâm not sure this statement is strictly correct⌠my reading of the policy is that if an application were to come forward the neighbourhood plan would require a full biodiversity survey to demonstrate that the nature conservation value of the site has been lost. Iâm not sure that the policy advocates that Network Rail should now carry out a survey to demonstrate there is no nature conservation value. As the landowners it is likely that should Network Rail decide to dispose of the site they would look to challenge the SINC status to ensure that the maximum value of the land was released.
In a situation in which the SINC status was successfully challenged and a residential planning application bought forwards, the planning application would be determined in line with the Lewisham Local Plan. As this is not a site allocation within the plan presumably it would be determined in line with their generic policies on residential development. However, if the neighbourhood plan were to be adopted then the planning application would have to satisfy policy within both Lewishamâs Core Strategy and the Hopcroft Neighbourhood Plan. Is it therefore not best that this site is included within the plan to ensure that the local community have the maximum say in terms of how that development is taken forward?
My take is that this policy is a âworst-caseâ safety net in the scenario that the siteâs SINC status is lost. If it retains its SINC status then it is protected from development in any case.
My understanding from the meeting was that the forum plan was not in agreement with the council plan which would have a presumption of protecting a SINC site. If the plan really wanted to protect it then they could make a âgreenâ allocation rather than for housing and this would then have the added weight of complying with the environmental policies in the plan as well as reinforcing the council core strategy. It isnât super-clear though is it? I think we need @HopCroftForum guidance here.
Yes would be interesting to know whether it would even be possible to allocate it as âgreen spaceâ- might be tricky given its private land and not currently accessible to the public. I would imagine there is some sort of test any proposed allocation would have to pass.
Ok so I think that is what they were trying to say in the meeting, but that wasnât clear to me, and if itâs in the plan then I think it needs to be clearer.
Please donât, Iâm listening to your views
1 Like
Havenât had time to read all these views but will make a point of doing so tomorrow
Donât be discouraged from posting here @Fran - your input has been well received as shown by the likes. I will raise this with the developers of the forum software - the warning serves a purpose, but not in cases where the posts are good like yours.
Update: I have raised this issue with the developers and suggested the number of likes are taken into account - which would have avoided @fran getting the automated message.
4 Likes
Someone who attended the meeting on the 14th was keen to draw up alternatives for greening, and I think above someone mentioned setting up a meeting too. Its important to explore so lets set this up! Please email to arrange a suitable meeting time/date.
2 Likes
Without wanting to offend anyone, this exact mentality is what constitutes a NIMBY and has brought us into exact the position that the London housing market is in at the moment.
The so called âgreen fieldâ site is an unused overgrown plot sitting there unused at the moment without any benefit whatsoever to the local public.
If one wanted to object to change in use of land, they should have objected to designating more land to the cemetery, but maybe we care more these days about the dead than the living.
London needs more homes, everywhere, and many more of them, period. That this requires in turn to provide better services such as schools, health care, transport etc and politics greatly fail on this, granted. However objecting to every new proposal for housing development wonât make the current problems go away either.
Unfortunately, Iâve missed out on this meeting. It would have been interesting to join the debate. Iâm all for discussion about shaping what development should look like, but objecting on some spurious grounds which I can only regard as selfishness really shouldnât be the way forward.