Summary of representations receivedcouncilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s43517/Appendix...

Appendix 2:

Summary of representations received

ABLG Petition received

A Better Lee Green - 104 Woodyates Road - Objection – Survey of what issues members and the public have raised with them included below:

Lee Green Assembly Group- Objection

Then main points raised are:

Public spaceSize of proposed AsdaTraffic and PollutionEconomic SustainabilityHousing and Massing

Addresses that signed a document from Cllr Jim Mallory agreeing with Lee Green Assembly Group and are listed below:

21 Aislibie Road- Objection

58 Cambridge Drive- Objection

86 Woodyates Road- Objection

15 Cambridge Drive- Already have comment registered

3 Micheldever Road- Already have comment registered

20 Manor Lane- Already have objection registered

50 Leyland Road- Already have objection registered (petition)

64 Southbrook Road- Already have objection registered

105 Burnt Ash Road- Objection

20 Cambridge Road- Already have objection registered

Lee Gate Community Centre- Comment

Need for compensation for the local shop keepers, traders and tenants

Individual/organisation representations

Objections

23 Burnt Ash Road- Comment

What will happen to the current housing?

23c Burnt Ash Road- Comment

The traffic assessment referred to peak hours which were too short

The proposed cycle parking should be secure

How will secure the site when Asda is closed?

Existing tenants should be given priory when the new housing is being allocated

Why would the new development succeed when the previous shopping centre failed?

The loss of business floor space means that people will have to travel outside of Leegate to find employment


Redevelopment is needed Is a district not town centre Redesign the proposed plans

15 Cambridge Drive- Comment

Supermarket out of scale for area Regeneration is needed

8 Chalcroft Road- Comment

Questions regarding the impact of traffic, extra doctor and school places and about pollution in the area

Flat B, 9 Eliot Park- Objection

Do not need another supermarket

72 Handen Road- Comment

Supportive of redevelopment Changes that relate to the pub

19 Horn Park Lane- Comment

Alarm to pollution levels Agree to redevelopment

76A Lee Road- Comment

Broadly supportive Ease traffic congestion Anchor tenants unnecessary opening hours Moving new pub close to the existing 3 would be over intensification of use

60 Manor Lane- Comment

Do not need another supermarket Good Development

4 Reed Close- Objection

St Mowden’s should rectify – reduced public space Footpaths High density of buildings Lack of small retail shops

60 Southbrook Road- Comment

Improvement to the area but believes there should be conditions regarding traffic and pollution

The height and massing would compromise neighbour amenity The applicant has not been straightforward about the amount of public space proposed The public space on Burnt Ash Road would be too busy, noisy and fume filled Traffic; clarity is needed about the impact of the current TfL works and the rat-running on

the surrounding roads

57 Sunnydale Road- Comment

Lower building, more shops and facilities and removal of old building Different supermarket Proposal is better for future benefits

72 Taunton Road- Comment

Only concern is traffic Would like a Leegate Community Centre

32 Weigall Road- Objection

Traffic and air pollution Public space Parking

The Bridge House, Willowcroft- Comment

Cycle spaces are too many

65 Abergeldie Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic

154 Alnwick Road- Objection-

Traffic

Health and Safety from fumes Do not need another supermarket Wants a community hub


Traffic Small amount of affordable housing and no social housing


Public Space Housing Mass of proposed work Economic Sustainability Traffic and Pollution

11 Bankwell Road- Objection

Traffic and pollution Public space Strain on local doctors and schools

4B Barmeston Road- Objection

Traffic Two identical stores is unnecessary Development does not prioritise housing

Flat B, 16 Barmeston Road- Objection

Object for housing not being Council Housing

22 Belmont Grove- Objection

Traffic and air pollution Do not need another supermarket Increase in more traffic is a danger to local residents

58 Belmont Park- Objection

Traffic Do not need another supermarket Public space (poor) Affordable housing needed

50 Blackheath Park- Objection

Public spaces and community facilities needed Do not need for another supermarket Density and height too big

50 Blackheath Park- Objection

Not enhance the local area Traffic and pollution Missed opportunities for local businesses Removal of trees Unpleasant and noisy public space

156 Bramdean Road- Objection

Traffic Air Quality Open Space Affordable Housing Do not need another supermarket

111 Brightfield Road- Objection

Public space Do not need for another supermarket Removal of mature trees Public realm will be severely damaged Traffic and Pollution Parking for local residents

23 Brightside Road- Objection

Pollution Public space Removal of trees Premises for local businesses Strain on local schools and doctors Do not need another supermarket

232 Brightside Road- Objection

Increased pressure on schools and doctors due to housing Do not need another supermarket Pollution Traffic Green Space

10 Brookway- Objection

Lacking natural light Open space

Flat 2, 120 Burnt Ash Hill- Objection

Do not need for another supermarket Traffic


Homelessness to residents who currently live there Pollution Loss of business to local retailers


Size and scale of proposed development (too large)


Parking problems for local residents

49A Burnt Ash Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Public space Traffic Height and size of proposed buildings


Loss of parking for local residents The applicant has not had any regard for the existing parking arrangements directly

affected by the development


Traffic and pollution Lee is a district centre not a town centre Do not need another supermarket


Do not need another supermarket Traffic The arcade should not be taken up by trolleys The images of the arcade are misleading The open space should be in the middle of the site to protect users from high levels

of pollution The café proposed is adjacent to a busy road which is unacceptable.

Flat 2, 120 Burnt Ash Hill- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution


Traffic and Pollution Do not need another supermarket Impact on schools and local health services Housing


Scale of the scheme Design and massing (does not respect surrounding streetscape) Affordable housing Bulk of proposed Asda Traffic and Pollution Destruction of trees Social Infrastructure provision Community provision Lack of arts and technology development The additional information submitted did not address the reasons for deferral

Upper Floor Flat, 24 Cambridge Drive- Objection

Size of proposed supermarket Traffic


Traffic Parking


Housing and effect it has on local amenities

15 Carston Close- Objection

St Modwen cannot be trusted Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Local schools


Overdeveloped Balance Congestion Air Quality Open space Does not meet the London Plan Does not meet with the Greater London Authority Report


Public space Prefer low rise housing Range of shops not another supermarket


Scale of development Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Diversity in shops


Property overlooked Traffic and congestion

11 Chalcroft Road- Objection

Traffic Open space Do not need another supermarket


Traffic and Pollution Safety of pedestrians crossing with increase of traffic Height of the development Do not need for another supermarket

Affordable housing Schools and doctors- spaces with more occupants Open Space


Traffic High density of the flats


No new school More community facilities

117 Chudleigh Road- Objection

Impact will have on local traders and retailers Traffic, parking and Air pollution Air Quality Impact Public Areas Damage the economic diversity

23 Corner Road- Objection

Congestion Pollution Limited Public Space

61 Corona Road- Objection

Affordable Housing Public Realm and Open Space- loss of open space Traffic and Air Pollution Size and Massing of the Development Retail Mix- There is already a supermarket close by and should consider smaller

retail shops

47 Courtlands Avenue- Objection

Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Public space Loss of independent traders


Appearance of proposed plans The proposed retail Increased traffic and poor air quality Open public space Housing The additional information still do not address residents concerns There is not a diverse retail offer There is no clear indication of what the Arcade would look like


Does not meet the needs of local community Public Space Traffic


Do not need another supermarket Resident parking


Traffic and Pollution Needs more green space and affordable housing

10 Dallinger Road- Objection

Open Space Not enough Public Services- Health centres, schools Do not need for another supermarket

104 Dallinger Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Public Space The pressure on local public services

3 Dorville Road- Objection

Traffic and Pollution Supermarket proposal is too big Public space Proposed housing is too dense for area

24 Dorville Road- Objection

Traffic and pollution Open space Parking for new residents No social housing, just affordable housing New buildings are too high

13 Effingham Road- Objection

Traffic and Pollution Car Park Do not need another supermarket Public space Inappropriate height and density


Scale of the development Strain on doctors and schools Do not need another supermarket Increase air pollution levels The proposed smaller retail units may not the correct size to be commercially viable The proposed smaller units are not readily visible for users of the car park What if ASDA pull out? The development will be built with a large void in the District Centre Additional stress on local services Poor light to some of the units A higher percentage of social and affordable housing should be provided The proposed dwellings would suffer from noise and air pollution from the close proximity of

the supermarket The proposal would exacerbate the existing congestion on the surrounding roads


Traffic and Pollution Density of proposed housing

23 Effingham Road- Comment

Concern about traffic and pollution, have a larger public space Design a store that will reduce traffic


Pollution and traffic Public space


Congestion and Pollution Parking for residents Public Space Increase in housing will add more pressure to schools and doctors


Traffic, rat-running and congestion Pollution Public transport- not connected well with public transport, increase frequency of

buses etc Massing Public area No need for another supermarket Increased traffic/number of cars increases road safety danger for school children The scheme needs to fund realistic and specific measures to cut rat-running,

through the closure of local roads and changing priorities

2 Exford Road- Objection


60 Foxes Dale- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Danger to cyclists No diversity to locals

62 George Lane- Objection

Massing of the supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution Safety of the traffic for schools Public Space Insufficient space for local markets and retailers Lost opportunity to create diversity and sustainable development Agree with the points raised by ABLG

132 George Lane- Objection

Lack of Primary School places with the redevelopment Space could be used for community facilities, cafes and clinics not a corporate

retailer

22 Glenton Road- Objection

No need for another supermarket Parking will be an issue and decrease public space No sense of community with the proposed plans

25 Glenmere Road- Objection


37 Gilmore Road- Objection

Too high Do not need another supermarket Public space No social housing Removal of trees

42 Heather Road- Objection

Fails to meet needs of local residents Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution

34 Heathlee Road- Objection

Traffic and pollution Development should have balance

32 Hafton Road- Objection

Public space Do not need another supermarket No consideration to infrastructure support

52B Halesworth Road- Objection

Oversized supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution

9 Handen Road- Objection

No benefit to the local community Traffic Public Space Jobs are limited Do not need another supermarket


Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket


Increased footfall- more traffic and pollution and safety of children Overdevelopment Public space


Traffic and Pollution Does not another supermarket


Footfall will lead to pollution and traffic Overbuild with the amount of spaces in schools and doctors Height of development Pubic space


Congestion and traffic Air Pollution


Pollution and congestion One supermarket is enough The traffic surveys should be done again after the Tiger’s Head junction works are

complete

(Upper Flat)145B Hither Green Lane- Objection

Air pollution Not keeping in character with the area

1 Horn Park Close- Objection

Congestion Pollution Limited Public Space Traffic

1 Horn Park Close- Objection

Traffic Air quality Inconsistent plans

49 Horn Park Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Too many houses for area- Strain on schools and doctors The proposals would exacerbate current poor air pollution It would put additional pressure on local services such as schools and doctors The size and amount of units proposed is too great for the site

30 Kellerton Road- Objection

Size and density to big for surrounding area Pollution Loss of trees Poor Connectivity Unsustainable Decrease in diversity

48 Kellerton Road- Objection

Parking

21 Leahurst Road- Objection


26 Lee Church Street- Objection

No need for another supermarket- should support smaller local businesses Pollution All affordable housing not social housing Not enough schools or doctors surgery and will worsen with more occupants

28 Lee Park- Objection

Traffic and pollution Diversity and choice of local people

71 Lee Road- Objection

Traffic and Pollution Public space High density and massing of building Supermarket is too big/ Do not need another supermarket Affordable Housing no social housing

Flat 2, 101/103 Lee Road- Objection

Mass of the development Suffering of the local shops

105 Lee Road- Objection

Traffic and congestion Deliveries to Leegate Air Pollution Do not need another supermarket

8 Lenham Road- Objection

Traffic, congestion and pollution Pubic space/access Should be more housing

22A Leyland Road- Objection

Square footage of Asda No need for a public house Pollution

30 Leyland Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Not appropriate for Lee Green Air and noise pollution Outdoor space Height of buildings Rise of housing will dominate the environment negatively Impact of local school, doctors and parking The additional information submitted does not address the concerns of local

residents


Traffic and Pollution Public Space Size and design of proposed Asda

Size and density of development Impact of the development on the local public services


Lack of and poor public space proposed The trees should be retained The buildings are too high Community centre needs to be bigger Traffic and pollution A poor variety of shops are proposed The additional information submitted does not address the concerns of residents


Proposed plans for supermarket are too big Traffic and Pollution Public Space Buildings to dense and high Removal of tree No social housing and not enough affordable housing

Flat C, 35 Leyland Road- Objection

Overdevelopment Removal of trees Traffic Lack of local schools

Top Flat, 39 Leyland Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket, smaller shops would be more beneficial Pollution and congestion Not enough parking for residents Not enough Affordable Housing

Top Flat, 39 Leyland Road- Objection

Pollution and congestion. Increase football and traffic Loss of small retailers

Flat 3, 41 Leyland Road- Objection

Existing businesses should be retained Safety of people Traffic and pollution

Housing




Scale of proposed supermarket is too big Public space Traffic and pollution Noise The internal appearance of the Arcade shodul be provided before permission is

granted It is not appropriate to build a superstore on the Lee Gate site.


Size of Asda Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Parking


Overdependence on Asda Supermarket Reduction of local amenities Traffic


Inadequate for St Modwens Community consultation Traffic Public space Proposed supermarket is too big The detailed designs of the arcade and air pollution calculations should be made

public before any decision on the scheme is made.


Urban Scale, Scale and Massing Traffic and Pollution Not enough Schools, Housing or health centres Public Space and Planting Not another supermarket

Sustainability


Traffic and Pollution Unnecessary mass and density

141 Lyme Farm Road- Objection

Parking Traffic and Pollution Removal of trees Open green spaces No need for another supermarket

10 Manor Lane- Objection

Public space Mass of building Traffic and congestion


Size of proposed development Traffic and pollution Open space


Traffic and air pollution Poor public space Unacceptable massing Inappropriate size for supermarket Lack of retail diversity The scheme needs meaningful changes


Supermarket is too large for the site and area Poor traffic and air pollution Decrease of retail diversity Poor massing of site


Traffic

Parking Do not need another supermarket


Traffic and Pollution Junction is unsafe Do not need another supermarket


Pollution and traffic Housing and affect it has on schools and doctors


Pollution Do not need another supermarket Space for proposed people and places in schools and doctors


Do not need another supermarket Traffic, congestion and pollution A new traffic survey should be undertaken given the recent works to the Tiger’s

Head junction and new school proposed


Size and density to big for surrounding area Pollution Loss of trees Loss of retail diversity Public Space

13 Manor Lane Terrace- Objection

Pollution and Air quality Road safety Landscaping Over development Due to increase in housing not enough thought to doctors and schools

18 Manor Lane Terrace- Objection

Massing of site

Traffic and Pollution Parking Lack of affordable housing and no social housing Public Space

65 Manor Park- Objection

Size of Asda Traffic and Pollution Not enough affordable housing and no social housing

99 Manor Park- Objection

Traffic and Pollution Public space Do not need another supermarket Housing and strain on local schools and doctors Small amount of affordable housing and no social housing

9 Manor Way- Objection

Congestion Do not need another supermarket


Public Space Mass of buildings Traffic and congestion Lazy proposal


Traffic Height of proposed development Low percentage of affordable housing Local schools- strain


Size Traffic and Pollution Parking Do not need another supermarket


Traffic and pollution- Safety of children crossing Do not need another supermarket

3 Micheldever Road- Objection

Traffic and Pollution Does not satisfy needs of local community (do not need 2 supermarkets) No Public Space There has not been any consideration of the alternative schemes put forward by the

community


Public Space Traffic and Pollution Not the right design for borough


Noise Traffic and Air Pollution Public Space


Excessive scale and massing Inadequate provision for Affordable Housing Traffic and pollution Loss of open space


Traffic Height of proposed development Do not need another supermarket


Another supermarket is not needed Traffic Not enough housing


Traffic

Massing


No need for another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Public and Green space


Traffic Another supermarket


Traffic and Pollution Public space Proposed building is high density Proposed supermarket is too big/ no need for another supermarket Amount of housing will have a negative effect on doctors and schools No social housing


Not beneficial to community Pollution Overcrowding Strain on transport links Do not need another supermarket Redevelopment is unnecessary


Sainsbury’s fulfil the needs so why another supermarket Parking should be underground due to flooding Public space should be raised Air Pollution


Open Space Congestion, Traffic Residents will increase capacity Affordable housing Parking


Do not need another supermarket Height of proposed development Traffic


Scale of new building Public spaces Removal of trees Open space Do no need another supermarket The additional information shows how mean the Arcade is proposed to be Could the travellators which currently overcrowd the arcade be relocated to an

external façade? The illustrations show mature trees, but confirmation is required as to how long it

would take the proposed trees to reach maturity and what impact they would have on reducing pollutants

12 Milborough Crescent- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Brings nothing for the community

2 Millers Meadow Close- Objection

The large supermarket could render Lee Gate an eyesore if unsuccessful The traffic problems would be exacerbated, which would also make it more difficult

for pedestrians The additional cars from the proposal would result in more pollution The site should be regenerated but not with this scheme The additional dwellings would cerate additional pressure local resources on such

as schools The supermarket of that scale is not needed in the area The proposal with the proposed school application in Greenwhich would add to the

strain on local infrastructure


Pollution Places in Schools, doctors surgeries


No need for another supermarket Does not want public house Gardens will be overlooked by high rise flats

Traffic, congestion and parking High Rise Flats Road Congestion A new 900 student school is proposed in Blackheath which would further

exacerbate traffic and congestion Smaller, independent shops will not be able to compete with two large

supermarkets The scheme should not have the supermarket but rather a gym, cinema or general

store. Relocating the pub will cause anti-social behaviour and disturbance The scale of the proposed buildings would dominate the centre of Lee Green The development would result in a lack of privacy for nearby residents

46 Mottingham Lane- Objection

Heavy pollution Another supermarket not needed Reduced public space Transport, Schools and Medical Centres in Lee are already full stretch

19 Morden Mews Road- Objection

Traffic congestion High density and population will put strain on local schools, doctors and dentists Large supermarkets are closing ‘favoured’ small shops

58 Murillo Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Affordable housing and community space is more essential to wellbeing rather than

another supermarket Traffic and pollution

29A Old Road- Objection

Not another supermarket Pollution

Flat B, Old School House- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Not another pub

4 Osberton Road- Objection


Parking

29 Parkgate Road- Objection

Damage the environment Traffic and pollution Density of the proposed plans- no footpaths or public space

5 Pitfold Close- Objection

The proposal is too large for the site Poor pollution for users and future residential occupiers Loss of the TPO’d trees Tall buildings are anti social and cast large shadows (reference to City of London_ Refurbish the existing buildings Asda is too large Increased traffic and congestion Increased pollution from the additional traffic Overshadowing form the height of the buildings which are too high Lack of public space in quieter area of the site The open space should be for residents and the public Pressure on schools, doctors and clinics Increase in parking demand

5 Pitfold Close- Objection

Too large, high and density Pollution and Vehicle use Public space Removal of trees Creates private fortress enclave with limited access Low affordable housing provision The applicant has purposefully allowed the site to run-down The scheme should be redeveloped to retain the TPO’d trees in the existing public

area Lewisham Planning Officers should liaise with Greenwich Planning Officers given

the proposals for a new school off Lee Road Traffic

12 Pitfold Road- Objection

Traffic, congestion and pollution Height of proposed buildings Amount of housing and strain on local schools

Plumcroft Primary School- Objection

Loss of public space

Housing not affordable to local people Traffic

4 Riverside Court- Objection

Increase of noise Traffic and Pollution Not environmentally friendly Public Space High Density of buildings Do not need another supermarket

40 Rose Way- Objection

Traffic and pollution Parking Do not need another supermarket

26 Southbrook Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Public space Limited spaces in doctors and schools


Traffic and Pollution Size of proposed Asda Schools Inappropriate for the area


St Modwen lack moral fibre Do not need another supermarket


Scale


Traffic and Pollution Parking for new residents Buildings are too high

9 Spangate, Blackheath Park- Objection

Smaller Asda Pollution Open Space Density Traffic Removal of trees Parking The TPO’d trees should remain The proposed boulevard is too close to the road and users would succumb to pollution Concerns about the affordability of the housing proposed

10 St Peters Church- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic and pollution Public space Not user friendly area Housing will put strain on local doctors, schools and transport

12 St Peters Church- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Footfall and traffic Pollution

55 Taunton Road- Objection

Loss of public space Traffic Failure to devise a comprehensive scheme for the whole site


Do not need another supermarket Frontage for proposed flats look like a barracks Public space


Pollution and Traffic Unattractive and unpleasant


Sustainability

Traffic

13 The Glebe- Objection

Asda store proposal is too large Traffic and Pollution Public space is too small Should have smaller shops and community spaces

8 The Keep- Objection

Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket Public space

17 Thornwood Road- Objection

Size of proposed Asda Congestion Open space


Traffic, congestion and pollution No need for another supermarket


Air Pollution and traffic Safety of the local schools with increase of traffic Size of the redevelopment is too big


Pollution and traffic Effect on small local businesses Parking Public space

Eastnor Garden House, 73 Tranquil Vale- Objection

Affect quality life of local community Traffic Parking Public space Small amount of affordable housing

Air Pollution

26 Upwood Road- Objection

Do not need another supermarket Traffic and Pollution Flooding of area Parking Additional traffic and congestion


Traffic Air Pollution


Traffic and pollution Proposed Asda is too big Density of the development


Traffic No need for another supermarket No green space


Traffic Do not need another supermarket Increase on housing will increase pressure on amenities

5 Wantage Road- Objection

Traffic and Pollution (safety and public health) Sustainability of the scheme in the long run- No thought into the housing on the

development


Open space Housing density will cause increased congestion Parking Traffic and pollution Do not need another supermarket

Removal of trees


Size of the proposed Asda is too large for the site A lack of open space is proposed The loss of business for local shops Increase in traffic The additional information submitted does not address the problems


Environmental Implications No School places to deal with the proposed housing No need for another supermarket Needs more of a sympathetic development Insufficient public spaces

13 Wellmeadow Road- Objection

Public Space Do not need another supermarket


Public Space Pollution


No need for another supermarket Traffic Needs more social housing


No need for another supermarket- should be more local businesses Traffic, congestion and pollution


Not a relevant form of development in the immediate or surrounding area

7 Willowcroft Road- Objection

Supermarket is inappropriate as another supermarket is so close Traffic congestion Pollution More housing is needed

12 Willowcroft Road- Objection

Supermarket is inappropriate as another supermarket is so close Traffic congestion Pollution More housing is needed

83 Winn Road

The proposals will exacerbate existing parking problems without adequate mitigation put in place before planning permission is granted.

75 Quentin Road- Objection

supports the ‘A Better Lee Green’ campaign

Flat 2, 17 Eltham Road – Objection

The arcade is unattractive

Overdevelopment

99 Burnt Ash Road

Traffic and congestion Pollution Low level of affordable housing Nothing cultural A gym is not needed More independent shops are needed

57a Burnt Ash hill

The proposed buildings are too tall and bulky and out of scale with the surrounding area

The scheme would generate additional traffic, to a level of concern No information regarding the displacement of the existing free car parking spaces

on site No information regarding the car parking of the building contractors

12 Holme Lacey Road

The application states that there are 539 places at local schools which must be incorrect

Flat 2, Stafford House, 2a Burnt Ash Road

St Modwen have made no alterations to the planning application in the last year No rationale for another large supermarket in the area Given the recent opening of supermarkets in the vicinity, Asda will not last The scheme should not be considered until the Tiger’s Head junction works are

completed The air pollution figures referenced in the planning application documents are

incorrect Another large supermarket would starve the local economy The protected trees and surrounding open space should be retained The scale and massing of the proposed development is not in keeping with the

surrounding buildings The proposed development would not regenerate Lee Green. The scheme would result in an increase in traffic and pollution There is no allocated space for outside smokers for the new pub The anti-social behaviour would just be transferred elsewhere in the locale The proposal is proposing an insufficient level of affordable housing

29 West Park

Object to the proposals and support the ‘A Better Lee Green’ campaign

49 Manor Lane

The applicant has done nothing to address neighbours concerns and therefore the scheme should be rejected

The proposed design is poor There is a lack of open space in the scheme The proposals would add to existing traffic and pollution levels

54 Handen Road

A large Asda would result in more traffic and pollution Most customers to the store would drive because of Asda’s retail offer The proposals would exacerbate existing traffic and congestion problems The traffic survey submitted with the application was carried out in the holidays and

the current works at the Tiger’s Head junction mean that the traffic surveys should updated

93 Pitfold Close

The proposals would bring more traffic to the Lee Gate Centre The cafes will be located next to the polluted road The proposals do nothing to enhance the community provision

4 Horn Park Pane

There is no need for another supermarket in Lee Green Another supermarket would exacerbate existing traffic and congestion in the area The proposals do not include a path through the site

115 Manor Park

Trinity School has no substantial playground and a new school is being built on Meadowcourt Road.

A better environment should be provided for the whole community We don’t need a new supermarket, we need more schools, playing fields and

housing. The proposals are pre thought out and does not fit into our community

Lee Forum Steering Committee (Designated in January 2016, but Members yet to be voted in)

The proposals are contrary to policy They proposals fail to provide a sufficient variety of retail The proposals are at risk of not being sustainable in the long-term The proposals would result in further exposure to pollution for members of the

public The proposals result in the loss of the existing public space The proposals isolate Sainsbury’s from the rest of Lee Green The current plans do not accord with the Government’s Distressed High Street

report The application is incomplete as it does not provide detailed plans of Arcade, a

social and health impact assessment and fire evacuation plans

Support

1 Carston Close- Support

Area needs refurbishment


No objection to proposed plans


Improve local area New housing is needed


Reinvigorate the area


Regenerating the Leegate


New life to the area

75 Carston Close- Support-

Exciting for the area


Brighter Feel safer Job opportunities


Blight for the area Job opportunities


New makeover for Leegate area

195 Carston Close- Support-

No reason as to why they support

Flat 4- Cambridge Drive- Support

Improvement to area The proposals would provide additional housing It is important that the site is redeveloped as it forms an integral part of the Lee area The benefits of the scheme outweigh any doubts and misgivings

Flat 5 Cherion Court- Support

Improve area Job opportunities Variety of a supermarket

Flat 7 Cheriton Court- Support

More housing

Mixed use development

78 Effingham Road- Support

Attractive More housing- only issue is what will happen to current residents

4 Eliot Place- Support

Inclusion of affordable housing

149 Eltham Road- Support

Huge improvement

Maple House, Bromley- Support

Provision of new homes Creation of jobs Improved public space Creation of a new community centre which will cater for diverse community

12 Micheldever Road- Support

Footprint of the proposed Asda Influence of ‘public realm’

103 Morden Hill- Support

Quality affordable housing Uplift and improvement on environment Employment to the borough

Hyde Housing, 30 Park Street- Support

Quality for affordable homes Job opportunities Positive transformation

Explore Learning Limited, 74 North Street- Support

Excellent location for tuition centre New jobs Community focused scheme

18 Old Road- Support

Well designed Long overdue improvement Long term benefits for local residents and businesses

10 Riverside Court- Support

Welcome investment

27 Strathaven Road- Support

Welcomes proposed plans

34 Upwood Road- Support-

No reason given as to why they support

61 Upwood Road- Support

Current area is eyesore Massive improvement

21 Wantage Road- Support

Site is currently eyesore Jobs and housing

The Gym Group, Woodgate Meadows- Support

Opportunity for a gym in development

South East London Chamber Office- Support

Supports renewal of commercial space for retail, regeneration of communities, ability to live and shop locally

The creation of jobs, training and a better more diverse shopping experience both in the centre and surrounding businesses.

Anchor store supports smaller units by attracting customers. Also to note comments from GLA supporting the application and LBL’s Design Panel

4 Cambridge Drive

The site is currently derelict and needs to be redeveloped as soon as possible

Affinity Sutton

The scheme is providing 229 new homes which is to ‘dovetail’ the investment over the last 5 years of the Leybridge Estate

The creation of 400 jobs Upgrade to the public realm New Community Centre

83 Brightfield Road

Appreciate the efforts of local groups to get the best for the community Prolonging the planning application is making things in Leegate worse Given the close proximity of local parks, no objections are raised to the proposed open

space within the development

8 Clarendon Mews The shopping Centre is a state, bringing down the area

84 Leybridge Court

The area is currently scruffy and unsafe Another feed store is needed for the older residents in the area The proposed development would revitalise the area and create jobs

3 Dallinger Road

The change to the current eyesore is positive Not convinced that Lee needs an Asda, but redevelopment needs an anchor tenant to be

feasible Supportive of the plans as they are

Summary of representations receivedcouncilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s43517/Appendix...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of representations receivedcouncilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s43517/Appendix...