Responding to HopCroft Forum - Protecting One Tree Hill from development

Continuing the discussion from Neighbourhood Plan Crofton Park and Honor Oak Park - Launching Saturday 15th October:

I’ve been reading through the HopCroft Survey.

Before submitting it I think we ought to get our heads together and identify all the areas we’re concerned with. Then we can use our combined notes to help us all complete the survey.

From a quick look at pages 1-7 of the document I have a few concerns. Would be great if others could chip in, particularly with pages 8-13. I’ve made this post a “wiki post” that all established members are able to edit - otherwise, feel free to reply as usual and I will incorporate your points into this post manually.

Page 1 - General Aims and Design Guide

Seems reasonable. Great to see specific guidelines on preserving the Edwardian / Victorian facades.

Pages 2-3 - Built Environment

Generally looks good. I’m slightly nervous about point iii) “development that is innovative.”

The word “innovative” is a pandora’s box. Lest we forget what kind of “innovative” developments tend to spring up in Lewisham:

But the other clauses in the plan seem to protect against the above, so I think we’re okay.

Seems I’m in an area of designated special character - which is a double-edged sword, of course. But it’s right that a street like Ebsworth should have some protection for its character. I wonder if the terms used on this page are sufficiently strong? Would be good to see several examples of development that would be granted/denied permission.

Again some “pandora’s box” language. BE3 iii) “In particular it will respond creatively to and enhance its context.”

Page 4 - Community Facilities

Looks like a reasonably exhaustive list - no glaring omissions IMO. I assume St Augustines doesn’t fall under the remit of HopCroft?

Some odd wording: “Development proposing the change of use / loss of an existing community resource … will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: … The applicant has been unable to identify an appropriate alternative community use”

If an applicant doesn’t come up with an alternative community use, (s)he’s allowed to go ahead? Maybe I misread?

Page 5 - Economy and Enterprise

In HOP, a new independent, locally-run wine bar (One Tree Hill) was refused permission after a long and drawn-out ordeal with the local planners. I think a lot of residents were disappointed and confused. Perhaps HopCroft could focus on making it easier for new businesses like this? Seems the redundant minimarts are here to stay

Page 6 - Greening

As per the plan, the “local green spaces” deemed worthy of protection are:

• Crofton Park Station Community Garden
• Ewart Road Green Space
• Dalmain Road Wildlife Garden.

I think there may be others!

And there aren’t any explicit mentions of protecting Hilly Fields, Camberwell Cemetery, One Tree Hill or the area around Honor Oak Park Station. Are we to assume that all areas marked in green on the map are protected?

HopCroft proposes building housing next to Honor Oak Park station - implying the protections in this “Greening” section are inadequate.

Page 7 - Health and Wellbeing

Paving over gardens should not be “discouraged” in a concrete jungle like London - it should be banned, IMO.

And we need to see some minimum numbers for the tree planting. And not weasel words like “where ever possible” - the current proposals sound like a mere “best efforts” approach.

Seeing the council and Mayor’s flagrant disregard for trees (e.g. Camberwell New Cemetery), we need get some concrete promises here.

You are such an old man Chris, that Lewisham building is brilliant

I like that building too but it is not out of place where it is IMHO which is the pertinent point in this context.

More importantly, thanks @anon5422159 for putting this together. I have not had the time to read the proposal document yet but will definitely add to this when I have done so.

I am reading through the 76 page (!) plan right now and am thrown by the fact they are calling it the HopCroft neighbourhood as if this is a thing. Ugh. Please don’t let us lose our HOnor Oak Park identity and turn it into some hideous estate agent sounding area. Does anyone actually call it HopCroft other than the owners (who are these people anyway) of this plan?

This is an initiative from Crofton Park Ward. If you live in the Ward then you should have been canvassed on your opinion of their “neighbourhood” area. If you don’t live in the Ward but still in Honor Oak, as we do, then you may have been contacted but probably not. So it splits the area we live in and excludes key features such as One Tree Hill, the allotments and the parish church. It could be of some value to those who live in Crofton Park though but I do wonder how much of this actually requires the Localism act to function.

Hi all,
I’m a member of the neighbourhood forum steering group that developed the plan - main contribution was trying to ‘de-jargon’ it a bit. I also helped trim it down a bit but it is challenging to make the plan valid (in planning terms) and also easy to understand to those without a planning degree!

If you’ve got thoughts or questions we are holding a second (& final) consultation event Sat 14 Jan, Ewart Road Club House, 44 Wastdale Road, SE23 1HN. 11am - 3.30pm with a formal presentation at 11am. It would be great to see you.

Thank you for your thoughts so far and I’d encourage individuals to comment formally through the consultation as well as a joint se23 forum response. Just a few points in response to the comments

Why the boundary of Crofton Park ward?
Admittedly this was decided prior to me joining the neighbourhood plan process and acknowledge it doesn’t really reflect local understanding of neighbourhoods as it doesn’t include some of the roads on the one tree hill side of the railway line.
Outside London, neighbourhood forum areas are determined by parish council boundaries. In the absence of these, in London, communities have to determine their own which is tricky as they morph into each other. I understand the boundary was consulted on and agreed in 2014.

Name of Hopcroft was created to try and include both identifiable communities as few people identify with their local authority ward name and make it a little more engaging.

Who are the steering grip members?
local interested people, some (but by no means all) of who have a professional background in planning, environment, transport, architecture etc. I got involved when I moved to hop 2 yrs ago as I had some involvement in responding to developing Neighbourhood plans on behalf of TfL and comms & community engagement experience that I thought could be useful. I wanted to contribute to the local area that I had chosen to make my home. Others have been resident for much longer than me!

Green space - the plan can only identify areas within the defined boundary hence camberwell cemetry & one tree hill not being defined. Also the plan can only provide protection to areas that are not already protected through the existing planning documents from Lewisham & GLA.
Re the suggestion of development by hop station - the steering grp had lengthy conversations about whether to include this as a development site and is very open to comments from the community. We are trying to balance the need for new homes with green space and biodiversity; the possibility of Network Rail of proposing redevelopment and needing to influence this realistically and the biodiversity quality of the land currently and opportunities to improve it.

Use of terms such as ‘innovative’ & ‘creative’. We are keen to encourage high quality design rather than pastiche and poor ‘mock historical’ design. The design guide gives more detail on the approach to this. We recognise particular building designs illicit very different responses from people and the plan attempts to focus on driving a considered design approach rather than encouraging a particular architectural style.

The plan has to be deliverable, and without identified funding streams we can’t give concrete numbers on things like tree planting as it wouldn’t pass the assessment by the Planning Inspectorate.

Hope this helps provide some background but please do come and speak to us directly if you can.

@Bosunsmee thanks for the detailed information and for being open to feedback.

This is true, to a point. The body that has led this has been Crofton Park Ward not the community. The neighbourhoods envisaged by the Localism Act were never meant to be political bodies but people led.

The consultation excluded so much of Honor Oak as to be invalid in my view.

Additional housing for Crofton Park should be sited there.

The green space next to HOP station is part of an important green corridor of Lewisham borough wide significance but access would presumably have to be agreed by Southwark anyway. This is precisely the sort of situation where a neighbourhood plan could have helped but by following the Ward boundary this just muddied the waters further.

In London, there is nothing to stop a neighbourhood area from crossing Ward or Council boundaries and any people led exercise in Honor Oak would have done so in my view.