Disposal of open space land 30-32 Stanstead Road

A number of residents of Stanstead and Rojack Roads are upset that Lewisham Council appear to have taken quite an underhanded approach in the way in which they approached publication of a notice and opening of a consultation period for the Disposal of open space land 30-32 Stanstead Road for the building of 4 * 1 bedroom flats.

Residents of the local area had been contacting Lewisham Council to try to find out where the notice was published. Numerous attempts had been made of various departments within Lewisham Council with no luck - people were directed to departments that were unable to help and no responses were received to communications sent.

The notice was eventually located by the residents albeit too late and after the consultation period had closed. A single public notice was published on the 4th April in the smallest circulating local newspaper The South London Press, which services the whole of South London (please note that this is not a free paper).

We have seen an artist’s impression of the flats which we strongly believe is not in keeping with the local area. We believe that the loss of the space will be a loss to our area. It will generate a huge amount of traffic on two roads, one of which is a no through road. The Montesorri and families doing drop-offs and pickups at the nursery will be adversely affected by the volume of traffic that the building of these flats will generate.

We think that it’s only right and fair that the Council re-open the consultation period for the disposal of this land considering the underhanded way in which the initial notice was published. The council states on its own website that it publishes public notices in the News Shopper (the largest circulating local newspaper) - this did not happen, however. Neither was it published on their website as per other previous unrelated notices.

Is it this area of grass?

If so, another underhanded grab of green space by a local council.

The names “Forest Hill” and “Honor Oak” are becoming sad misnomers

Yep, that’s the one, Chris

Is there an updated application reference for this? Can only find this on the planning portal which is outline application and seemingly expired anyway:
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_18066

Also claims to be in SE26 though.

We are referring to site in SE23. Not sure what this link relates to. There is nothing on their website relating to this. All notices on Lewisham’s website dating back to October 2016 have been checked. See the following link -

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/find-comment-planningapplications/Pages/Public-notices.aspx

The proposed development by Birnbeck Housing Association will provide specialised housing for people with autism in Lewisham. Birnbeck HA appears to specalise in local housing for people with autism and Asperger Syndrome or mental health related problems.

I gather this original consultation revolved around the use of open space. The development still requires planning consent and those wishing to object will have a chance then too sometime around late summer.

Here’s your guy if you want to take this up sooner.

If you have any queries relating to this report please contact Jeff Endean on 020 8314 6213.

Lol it says they published open space notices in “local press” and “no responses were received”.

So basically, it’s a foregone conclusion if all they are doing is seeking the actual planning of the building. Not the use of the land.

I don’t support taking away open space in London. But it’s a piece of unused grass almost backing on to a railway line. People want more social housing in London and they are going to sell off every piece of land they can get their hands on.

I’m not surprised there are plans to build on this site. Assuming it is not of special wildlife importance (which seems unlikely) I had assumed that a house would be planned in the character of the terrace, and replicating what was probably on the site before the war.

But instead this is what is proposed:

It seems about as out of keeping with the street as anything I can imagine. I can’t wait to see reference in the planning application to the windowless side of Travis Perkins to show how this ‘fits in’ with the character of the area.

I’m not sure what counts as a valid objection for land disposal, but agree that an ad in a local paper isn’t that transparent.

One would also imagine that the Council wouldn’t sell, and an organisation wouldn’t buy, a piece of land unless there was some sort of assurance that a development of some sort would be approved. I guess we wait and see if the artists’ impression is a true representation of their vision for the site in their planning application…

This was build a few yards away - has to form some sort of precedent.

That house stands alone beside two houses that are unique for the area, next again to a school. Not at the end of an exposed terrace. And the house is not particularly visible from the road.

Don’t see the huge issue myself tbh. Constant cries for more housing, more facilites etc, yet they are met with outrage for not being similar enough to the surrounding area.
While I appreciate it is a delicate matter to some, I would hope that sense is seen in building buildings appropriate for their purpose, rather than making the local area look matching.

As for the picture Beige posted, exactly, this new proposal is hardly as extreme as that.

What number, and how representative a sample of the residents of these two roads are they when broken down by tenure, e.g. owner occupiers, social housing and private tenants?

Also just wanted to point out that the question of losing local green spaces is surely a bit weird, given that the site has a designated road number therefore was obviously once the site of a property

I’m afraid that did I not discuss with those individuals I met whether they were owners or tenants. I can only speak for myself and I am the property owner.

Can I ask what you mean by the saying that 4 flats will cause a huge amount of traffic? Do you mean just during construction?

Yes, Emily I mean while the flats are under construction.

I just wanted to clear up a few points in relation to this proposed build.

A small number of residents immediately opposite the site were contacted by the developer earlier in the year.
No one was contacted by Lewisham Council.

The ‘Open space ‘ and subsequent transfer of land for development has been agreed in principle at the Mayor and Cabinet meeting.
Birnbeck Housing will be granted a 120 year Lease subject to them receiving planning permission. The land will not be transferred otherwise.
This is not a sale of the land.

This ‘Open space notice’ appeared in 2 consecutive issues of the South London Press on 4th and 11th April.
The South London Press, which services the whole of South London. (all boroughs including; Greenwich, Merton, Lambeth, Bexley, Croydon, Lewisham, Southwark census circa: 1.924,208 people).
Its weekly readership on A Tuesday is 19,210. The readership is less than 1% of the area it serves. This also indicates that the readership in the relevant area of Lewisham would be less than 1%.
South London press Public Notices are also not published online, only in print hence ‘notices’ being undiscoverable.
I eventually found the notice, albeit too late, after much research and eventually calling all the local press and asking them to check all advertising bookings made between March and April 2017.
This is how the public notice was found. It had to be emailed to me by a member of the South London Press staff.

No notification from Lewisham Council or Birnbeck Housing Association was given to any members of our local community that the Public Notice was available for viewing and response.
Many residents contacted the developer and the Council for more information whilst the consultation period was open, none were directed to it.

You would imagine in the 21st century any public notices would be published online.
Lewisham has refused to reopen the consultation period for this notice, with this caveat…
“in light of your feedback we will review how Legal Notices are published in the future with an aim of making them easier to find online”

“Easier”? It has never been published online, anywhere. So pretty impossible to find I would imagine.

Of the dozens and dozens of local residents I’ve spoken to, none are objecting on the basis of this being for social housing. I’m sure all are well aware of the need for additional housing in London.
There is however a list with Lewisham’s ‘Local Plan’ of brown field sites that have potential for development.
These are not in areas designated as ‘deficit in green space’ by the Lewisham Council, as this area is.

Residents that I’ve spoken don’t want to lose the only piece of green space in the area.
The planning application is due in at the end of the month, so we’ll have to wait until then to
see if the building differs from the visual above.
Especially as we were given initial assurances by Birnbeck that the building would be ‘in keeping’ with the surrounding housing stock.

There are multiple reasons why this proposed build would have a detrimental affect on the health and wellbeing of local residents.
Many have been mentioned above.

The yellow notices will go up near the site as soon as planning is in, then we can all have our say based on the actual plans.

the sad truth is that it would have been approved as ‘good design’. ‘in keeping’ is interpreted in many different ways. I hope more of you would respond to the updated neighbourhood plan to emphasise the importance of the deterioration of the very elements that make up the ‘sense of place’ here. We received many comments last time from people who stated that they don’t think there is anything ‘special’ about the architecture of the area, and that we shouldn’t be too prescious about it. Some don’t think this is the dominant view, but more views need to come forward before we finalise the plan to stop the demolition of other good buildings in the neighbourhood. There’s a couple of those as well at the moment.

I’m absolutely astonished by this. We know there is a crisis of lack of housing in the UK, & in London in particular. We also know there is a crisis in adult social care. This is a small development offering very vulnerable disabled people dignity, safety & independence. I absolutely support this development. Frankly, it’s likely that some of those precious Montessori children will be diagnosed with autism at some point. This is exactly the kind of development we should be warmly welcoming into our community.

Leah, with respect to your previous post, no one is debating the need for housing in London particularly for social care. I am sure everyone on this forum feels the same. The good news is that Lewisham do have 100’s of 1000’s of sq. feet allocated for housing development, which is listed publicly in their Site Allocation lists which forms part of the council’s strategic plan for the borough across many unused brownfield sites. But this isn’t about who the 4 flats will be for, this is about where they want to build it – on a local green amenity space in a densely populated area that is listed as already being ‘deficient in open space.’ This green space is used by the local community - in particular families who live in the social housing flats approx. 150m away – who have no gardens - so bring their dogs to exercise here. Children play here and the local community even held an event on this green for the Jo Cox memorial Great Get Together. If you walk past in the daytime in fair weather you’ll even see people sat here from the Malham business estate eating their lunch. While I appreciate you might not be directly affected by this, many people will be, and the loss will have a great impact on local residents. If there were no other land options for this development – fair enough. But there are many options to build on identified unused land in this area. However, there are no options for local people to find more green amenity space.

It’s far too small a space to exercise dogs on. I’ve never seen anyone on it when I’ve gone past. I think saying it will have a ‘great’ impact is an exaggeration. I’ve had a look online at brownfield sites and there is nothing like this that I can see & certainly nothing in SE23. I think providing housing for vulnerable people is more important than maintaining a patch of grass.
Also, it seems locals are more upset that it’s not going to be a faux-Victorian house than anything else.

Leah, I am sure the couple in the social housing flats who own a lovely black staffie and the older lady with a cute white toy breed would disagree with you. The space is 280sqms more than enough space for a dog to have a roam and sniff about particularly when you have no garden. There aren’t exactly many options in close proximity for local people without a car, not enough time or suitable fitness to walk to Blythe Hill Fields or Mayow Park.
I am very surprised you couldn’t find details of Lewisham’s Site Allocations list online. It’s very easy to find on their website. It details no less than 70 sites which have been allocated for 3670-3710 homes. Attaching the link here for your perusal.

You might also want to read this in conjunction with Lewisham’s Core Strategy and their Local Development Plan also to be found on their website. Happy to send you the links if you can’t find them.

Two things. Firstly I have looked through this quickly. Of the minority of sites allocated to housing (rather than business or mixed use, which are automatically ruled out) none are suitable for a single purpose built unit comprising four flats.
Secondly, while I’m a huge fan of dogs, and own one myself, I’m afraid I still think the right of vulnerable, disabled human beings to the dignity of a home tops the rights of dogs to sniff around. I can’t quite believe this is being raised as an equivalent need.

So Leah just to be clear, it’s far too small a site to exercise dogs on, but plenty big enough for FOUR flats to be built on? That seems a little unlikely.

Not one complaint on this thread has been about the building of social housing. The complaints have been (i) the site is not large enough to squeeze four homes on, (ii) the site is a green area which is used by the local community, (iii) the design of the new building is not in keeping with the existing terraced housing, (iv) the access to the site by the machinery needed to build it will cause considerable disruption and/or be dangerous to local residents, and (v) the consultation process to date was bordering on non-existent and feels underhand and deliberately deceptive.

I’m assuming you don’t live in the immediate area and so won’t be directly affected by any of these issues. I think those who will be are entitled to express concerns that have nothing to do with the intended purpose of the flats. No one is disputing that there is a need for social housing.

You can see the plans for the flats. And yes, they are on top of each other, which dogs aren’t. It’s not a dog exercise area. A terraced house is not suitable to provide homes for four people living independently. I expect the residents will survive, even if they think dogs are more important than people. I’m so disappointed by these nimbyist attitudes. I’ll leave you to it, but I have emailed the housing association to express my approval of the plan.

. Buzzing with activity, as you can see! Takes about 30 seconds to stroll from one end to the other. It could stay like this or itcould provide desperately needed secure homes & the dignity of independence for four people with autism in perpetuity. As for building work, the area is in the throes of major gentrification. Building work everywhere! It’s really upsetting to see people putting the needs of dogs above the needs of disabled people.

To be fair, taking a snapshot at one moment in the day may not be representative.

I personally don’t understand the objection about the disruption caused by building works as that is a finite problem. And as a dog owner, I’d say that piece of land is of limited value to dogs themselves, as it’s not really suitable for full off-leash excercise. A dog will enjoy a sniff around walking along a street more than mooching around a square of grass.

Perhaps we can put aside the use by dogs and look again at how it is currently used by the wider community. Maybe at weekends and on summer evenings, to be more representative?

(With my mod hat on, can we keep comments to debating the various opinions expressed and try not to use language that suggests disparaging people for having said opinions?)

Yes it’s pathetic. If you oppose some sort of social housing or disabled housing development you must hate disabled people!

At the end of the day, you could build social housing on every single piece of green space and on every park in London and it still wouldn’t be enough. Our current social housing model in London is not sustainable. You can only push the people who actually pay their taxes and rates so far before they’ve had enough. Of course they are entitled to object.

Look at Davids Rd. Someone approved God knows how many 1 bed flats in the old gym. Crammed them in there. Now the residents have to live with 10 bins sitting on the street all day because the developer didn’t create enough space for bin storage.

So residents are quite entitled to question the density of the development and anything else they feel like.

I think both sides make good points in this debate. There was obviously a house here once and now it is only used by dogs, wildlife, and children in an area of poor levels of green space (not that this little patch makes up for a lack of local park). This point is actually about the furthest from a local park in SE23 (0.8 miles on foot to Horniman, Blythe Hill, or Mayow).

If this site is to be built on then why not also build across part of the entrance to Rojack Road, allowing for walking/cycle access only?

And the drawing does suggest that the rear garden would be rather small. While there are minimum guidelines for size of outside amenity space for families, no such requirements are needed for autistic adults (although it is generally recommended by other organisations)

Building on this small patch of publicly accessible green space will help preserve local car parks in the immediate vicinity which could otherwise be under threat from development.

There are loads of other sites in SE23 owned by Housing Associations that could easily fit a few flats with suitable amenity space, rather than trying to squeeze them into this spot. Fortunately we have a planning process that will look at the merits of the application when more details are provided. But it is worth considering the merits of this specific development rather than making it a general competition between dogs and people with autism. And it is worth consider which sites could be best to develop in a variety of ways, rather than assuming nothing can be changed from the street planning devised by Nazi bombing (I assume that’s why the house is missing).

What a lovely ‘green space’ - laughable. Build the flats that are clearly needed.

I’ve looked through the link to Lewisham sites and there’s not a single site like this. The top image shows the car park for the dialysis centre. I hardly think that could be built over! Everyone keeps saying there are other spaces which belong to the council without being able to identify a single one.
A small garden is not really a problem.It’s a space to be outside, not to play football - this is providing homes for adults, not kids. It’s amazing to me to people say ‘oh yes, desperately need new housing’ yet when housing is planned it’s always the wrong place for someone. I’d be extremely happy if this was happening in my road.

I get that living in Rojack road is very nice. It’s closed off at the end so is practically a private road. It’s all being gentrified fast - loft conversions & plantation shutters everywhere! - so house prices going up. But you know, tough.

Would be good to hear from more local residents, particularly those able to bring new suggestions and evidence to the table as @Littlefish and @Michael have done.

General debates about gentrification belong in Politicos

Let’s keep things constructive and civil here, and allow everyone to have their say.

Lastly, I looked there this morning, at lunchtime and at 5pm. Not a soul. This is clearly not a well-used park. It’s an unused patch of scrub that nevertheless has the power to transform people’s lives.

Brilliant @anon17648011

Although not entirely relevant, but open space is often more useful as drainage to prevent subsidence and flooding. Although, as most of the properties around there have gardens, this may not be a concern.

Planning application is online
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_91088

The application is still open. I’ve added an objection:

• This is a precious remaining open green space that is an amenity to local residents, in particular, residents of social housing, approx 150m away who do not have gardens
• The design is out of keeping with local architecture
• Construction of the flats will cause major traffic issues on small one-way street that is used by primary school pupils
• Open space is vital for drainage to prevent subsidence and flooding
• No notification from Lewisham Council or the developer was given to any members of our local community that the Public Notice was available for viewing and response.
  Many residents contacted the developer and the Council for more information whilst the consultation period was open, none were directed to it.

Left my objection comment too:

'I strongly object to the proposed building project because it will have negative effect on residents from the neighbouring houses - the place will be overcrowded and ‘overbuilt’, it will increase traffic and noise. The residents will loose their little green recreational space. Green spaces have to be encouraged and protected, please see recommendations from the House of Parliament - https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0538/POST-PN-0538.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjg9Yyj7fzXAhURpqQKHRhfAvUQFggLMAA&usg=AOvVaw1YArt8Qx6-e9F8gbVSvBhz

I would like to see trees planted on this little green patch please. Trees produce oxygen for us to breath, people in London need more trees as the city is very polluted. Air pollution causes various cancers and lung problems in people. Using every single green space for building buildings will eventually affect negatively on people’s mental and physical health which consequently result in more pressure on NHS. ’

I hope they register comnents as it shows 0 comments and 0 objections in their summary:

Good comment, Kat

I noticed that too, and it seemed a bit odd, given there are several strong objections expressed by people here, and surely those people would have submitted an official objection. It certainly shouldn’t show “zero” as I submitted my objection yesterday.

There may, perhaps, be a lag.

Thank you Chris))

I think the portal does not work properly. I remember Lewisham Council has recently had problem with their site - phone numbers missing, customer service got automated, non existing extentions. Could be temporary issues.

Looks like an idesl way to avoid any objections, looking at the Bampton consultation it says only 3 people had concerns not the 86% of residents that signed a petition?
Perhaps it only counts if you use the prescribed form? Something to check on the 14th maybe.

If remember clearly, when we asked if we had to fill-in forms, they said if we wanted to. It was never emphasised that filling in forms were important to register opinions. And if they said that, it would have saved a lot of arguing and shouting, everyone would have taken the form and filled it in to reflect his/her opinion.

Listening to local residents and council tax payers is optional, apparently.

And the planning portal hints that complaints are going into a black hole:

Reminder - the following are material considerations, and all are relevant to this planning application:

• environmental, social and economic impacts
• design of proposal
• views of organisations and individuals
• access and provision of infrastructure

Its a standard response - I got the same word-for-word reply when I submitted an objection over a different planing application earlier this year (which was ultimatley withdrawn).

I think its auto-generated when your objection is entered into their system, so at least you know its been logged.

Got the same email confirmation today. Logged by the look of it.

I just checked the status of the application, it has not been decided yet. Does it really take so long?

http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

From the portal:

|Name |Constraint Type|
|PTAL 3 |Public Transport Accessibility Level - 3|
|Local Open Space Deficiency |Not Available|

What does it mean?

For those interested in the progress of this development I received the below by e-mail today. Note the public meeting on 12 April - though I’m afraid I’m rather sceptical that opposition from residents will have any effect on the decision-making process.

Thank you. I think you should try to attend and to speak.

I’m genuinely interested: what’s involved in making a property better suited for people with autism?

Now we know.