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?
2 Likes
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.
Hope this is useful.
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.
1 Like
I’d be interested to know what the targets for Lewisham are, all the redevelopment in Lewisham centre must go a long way towards that surely.
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
linking to something I wrote back in 2011
Whitehall, City Hall, Localism and The Renaissance of Bogotà
2 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
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!
2 Likes
Hello Fran, offering many different ways to feed back, please use whatever is easiest:
- Online survey is back up: https://hopcroftforum.stickyworld.com/room/presentation?roomid=7#work/165 (has only been down the weekend!) - PLEASE ENSURE YOU CLICK THE GREEN SAVE AND NEXT BUTTON TO SAVE EACH SLIDE’S RESPONSES.
- Download pdf and complete: http://croftonhonoroakpark.neighbourhood.space/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/N-Plan-Feedback-Survey-Form_FINAL-LR.pdf
To send back completed forms:
- scan and email back
- leave at Crofton Park Library - The library also has copies of the plans and the questionnaire surveys
- drop in at consultation event on 14th (Ewart Road Club House) - we will also have printed copies there if no one has access to printer)
- respond to each question by email instead
- take photo of each page with smartphone and email back
If anyone needs a large print version, happy to Post or email one. Email your address to: hopcroftforum@gmail.com
Re communication of neighbourhood issues and future updates:
-
Please subscribe to our newsletter and you will hear about future updates and meetings: http://croftonhonoroakpark.neighbourhood.space/subscribe/
-
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.
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
Updated this post when I read on in the document…
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
Am I misreading the document somehow?
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 today’s 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 Lewisham’s core strategy, so it wouldn’t 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 King’s 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 isn’t ambitious enough, but that’s no really a bad thing.
My final observation would be that if this forum (SE23.life) was seen as hostile and ‘a little unpleasant’, then the meeting on Saturday went way beyond the criticisms I’ve 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