Larky wrote:JRW always seems to come up with misleading facts on all topics on this forum
No, just sometimes and at other times posts stuff of considerable merit. I really think one should judge posts on their content rather than the poster. Nobody can be right all the time. Except me, of course
JRW wrote:
Meanwhile, Lewisham Council has ignored a proposal to develop their land in Willow Way, and other available land at Bell Green. If you are concerned about the environment, please sign this petition.
In principle it is right that LA planners give petitions of this type in planning matters no weight.
For the gas works matter, a petition was raised in support of the local listing - and which may be interpreted as not being a planning decision in the strictest sense. There is no way we can know what impact it had on members of the sub-committee who adjudicated on that decision.
For those who feel strongly about matters, their feelings can be raised formally as individuals with planners. Let them do so freely and frequently.
Thank you Tim and Tredown Man, it is always fascinating to hear your perspectives.
Firstly, the Hillcrest Estate development has implications for the current residents of the estate. Note that I believe 'long term residents' naturally includes those renting in the estate. The assumption that it is code for homeowners is a bit offensive.
The Estate residents will lose precious green space, and have more pressure on the meagre services available. There is only one road access to the whole estate, a narrow lane which the binmen sometimes find difficulty accessing. The proposed development would increase the pressure on this access route, while actually making it narrower. The opinion of the London Fire Brigade on this decision has not been made public. Anyone who has actually gone to look at the garages will realise how impossible it would be to get machinery and building materials safely there. Only by removing all car parking on the close, some residents being physically disabled, and by preventing children from playing outside, could the project be accomplished safely.
However unimpressive you find the habitat at risk, it is officially recognised as ancient woodland, and a vital habitat for wildlife. It is cared for by the London Wildlife Trust, and has received funding from the National Lottery. No doubt both organisations will express an interest in it being bulldozed. The green chain walk signs are plastered across the estate, and the idyllic Hillcrest wood is a wonderful resource for the families on the estate.
Land has been available for development at Willow Way for years now, but nothing has been done with it. In addition, Bell Green has a large area of unused, derelict land, quite apart from the gasholders. Try looking at a satellite image of the area. Very little going on, except landbanking. Everyone wants to see new social housing, it is simply a question of doing it properly, and not just grabbing an easy option, with no thought for the long term.
A look at a local map will show you the road names indicate the springs and wells in the immediate area, reflecting the history of the area as a spa. The point is that no-one knows where the underground streams currently run, and won't until they break ground. The planning paperwork includes a desk-based risk assessment, which says there is no historical record of streams in the precise areas being developed. That ignores the fact that every time you build, say, a group of tower blocks, the water table and streams will adapt, choosing a new course. It is a gamble that is rather high risk, and is against all planning and environmental guidance to take that punt.
It is sad that some members of the forum are so quick to attack, and show such contempt for people who have actually bothered to read the documentation.
JRW wrote:Thank you Tim and Tredown Man, it is always fascinating to hear your perspectives.
...
It is sad that some members of the forum are so quick to attack, and show such contempt for people who have actually bothered to read the documentation.
Not really sure if this is fair, given that I'm the one who's gone to the trouble of posting links to the actual application, and information from Greenspace Information for Greater London
I just think if people are going to launch internet petitions to stop council housing, it should at least be done on clear facts and not speculation or exaggeration. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
In other happier news - the planning dept has reformed the way support can be logged, I've noticed. You can describe yourself as being in favour, against or neutral, and doesn't presume that everyone submitting comments is a complainant.
I see JRW hopes London Wildlife Trust would object to the bulldozers arriving. Whereas p 96 of the Design and Access Statement (as I pointed out in my previous post) sets out about the 3 year Heritage Lottery Funded (HLF) programme, and that they've met several times and that Lewisham Housing will work in partnership with the London Wildlife Trust to agree the planting strategy and locations, and following DAS pages talk about the specifics of design work to minimise tree loss.
Also see the Transport Statement and the Traffic Management Plan and demolition plan (NB - prepared by companies based in London and Beckenham for those taking offence to architects from Edinburgh working on the project!)
I unfortunately couldn't make yesterday evening's councillor chaired consultation at the Civic Centre (and it wasn't because of the football).
I heard Lewisham Homes, the designers and those wanting to comment on this development were able to have their say and discuss and fine tune the specific plans and proposals in quite a lot of detail.
In my view it's a shame that the developers have put one planning application forward when there are in fact three (originally four) distinct developments.
So just wondering how the discussions about specific details went - especially those mentioned here previously in this forum - and whether those who live on Hillcrest attended and had a chance to speak and what their views were.
It sounds like an interesting and productive event. I'm sorry I couldnt attend.
I do wonder how many of those 600 names on the petition live nearby, and have independently researched what's being planned rather than relying on the survey.
It would be good for Lewisham Homes to put a better explanation online to clarify some of these outright fabrications about 42 "ancient trees" being removed.
Tim Lund wrote:Do these people actually care that what they write is true or not?
I may not be on Chris' Christmas Card list but I find this so outlandish that it's impossible to believe. And if I had any doubts I would, at least, check with her first.
I note she has denied it. So it is up to the tweeter to prove or withdraw and for the RTs to follow.
It would seem this campaign is trying hard to shoot itself in the foot. Have they have been infiltrated? #conspiracymaker
Highly inappropriate as extremely unlikely to have been stated by Chris -its such a silly statement! When exactly is she supposed to have said it? Inaccurate statements such as this do a campaign no favours - as we have seen in relation to other local campaigns!
I don’t think it will work, either. Councillors tend to listen primarily to the factual and legal analysis of their planning officers when making decisions, and compare that to what objectors say. If they conclude that the campaigners are just making up nonsense (this is the campaign, remember, that falsely claimed they wanted to cut down 40 ancient trees, and there was a risk of flooding and housing collapse) as well as misrepresenting their colleagues then they won’t get much of a hearing. A totally self-defeating strategy.
Really sad to see our local community organisations putting out such blatant misinformation to stop new homes. A reader might think “up to 50” ancient trees are being cut down - it’s just untrue.
Looking at the various images it seems this area is not ancient woodland but rather the formation of the former Crystal Palace Railway. The real justification for preventing housing development there, then, is that it is a feasible route for a new tramway.
Do you sincerely believe the Council and Lewisham Homes would have withdrawn a plan they had already spent massively on, unless there were real issues with it? The low key announcement is a sensible way of not stirring up press interest. As I have mentioned many times, happy to show you the evidence any time.
I’d like to see the basis for the Sydenham Society claim - in a letter to the evening standard - that 50 “ancient and veteran” trees would be cut down.
