Dear Mr Salom. Yours sincerely. Barry Leaf Chair of Belvedere Community Forum

Transcription

1 Mr Seb Salom Head of Strategic Planning and Development London Borough of Bexley Wyncham House 207 Longlands Road Sidcup Kent, DA15 7JH 6 th February 2011 Dear Mr Salom Thank you for your letter dated 10 November 2010 asking the Belvedere Community Forum to provide its comments on the Bexley Local Development Framework Core Strategy Proposed Submission Documents and Site Specific Allocations Issues and Options Paper. The area which our constitution includes all of the DA17 postcode and a small part of the SE2 postcode. The Forum is therefore able to offer comments on those parts of the Abbey Wood and Belvedere Geographic areas which are covered in its constitution. Please note that our constitution area covers all of Belvedere ward and parts of the Erith, Lesnes Abbey and Northumberland Heath electoral wards. At the public meeting of the Belvedere Community Forum on 7 December 2010, I drew to the attention of the members of the public present the Core Strategy and reminded them of the importance of reviewing this document and then feeding back their comments directly to the management committee of the Forum. In addition to providing this information, the comments in the rest of this letter were put together by the Forum s management committee as a response to the Core Strategy and were circulated to those present at the meeting. The Forum will feed back any comments back to the council. Due to the size of the Core Strategy I thought it inappropriate to ask the public whether they would endorse the contents of this letter containing the response of the management committee in advance of them having the opportunity to study the document for themselves. However, while I note that the consultation period ends this month, if having reviewed the Core Strategy and the comments of the management committee, the public, at the next Forum meeting wishes to endorse or suggest changes to this response, I would be grateful if you could consider them as part of the policy making process. In addition, as the Core Strategy is developed, I would welcome further updates from you and extend an invitation to you and your colleagues to attend a public meeting of the Forum to engage with local residents. I hope that you have found these comments on use and look forward to receive your views in due course so that I can report these back to the Forum. Yours sincerely Barry Leaf Chair of Belvedere Community Forum

2 Comments on the Bexley Core Strategy from the Belvedere Community Forum s Management Committee, circulated to members of the public at the Forum s public meeting on 7 December 2010 and to Bexley Council for their consideration. Bexley Core Strategy We understand that the Government will shortly be publishing its Localism Bill and note that this will reform the planning system, planning targets and give more powers to local communities and local councils. The comments below therefore relate to the existing Core Strategy proposals. We are aware that if the Localism Bill is enacted there may be substantive changes to the Council s proposals and this may inevitably lead to our views being amended in due course. We therefore ask that the Council ensures that the Forum and the wider local community are kept fully updated with any changes that will follow from this legislation. We support many of the aims of the Core Strategy but wishes to make specific comments on the following issues: a. We note the aim to provide 752 new housing units in the Belvedere, Thamesmead and Abbey Wood area between 2011 and The Forum believes that all major applications such as at Norman Park and any further large scale applications need to be accompanied by appropriate Section 106 conditions to ensure that adequate funding is provided by extra education, health and transport provision. b. We note the aim to provide 2250 additional jobs in the Belvedere, Thamesmead and Abbey Wood area between 2011 and We hope that the current regeneration scheme in the Belvedere Industrial area will lead to additional employment opportunities for local workers. Given the differential employment levels within the London Borough of Bexley, we hope that the Council will ensure appropriate training and support is provided to aid the reduction of unemployment in the north of the borough whether through direct council provision or through Section 106 agreements. We support the comments for the need to enhance the Belvedere employment area. c. We strongly support the development of Crossrail and the fact that it will serve Abbey Wood. We do have concerns regarding the following however: i: Parking around Belvedere Station will increase considerably once the Abbey Wood Crossrail Station is opened. The Borough will need to consider how this parking is mitigated to relieve any disturbance to local residents. ii. The opening of the Crossrail line will increase demand at Belvedere Station. The Council should work with Southeastern railways to ensure that improvements to access, lighting, security, waiting facilities, public lavatories and the retail offer are significantly improved at Belvedere Station in advanced of the opening of the Crossrail line through a variety of funding sources including but not necessarily limited to the Department for Transport, Transport for London, London Borough of Bexley and connected public bodies, Section 106 agreements and contributions from local business where appropriate; iii. If Crossrail is extended east of Abbey Wood, then the Forum would accept the significant regeneration benefits this will bring but will have significant concerns regarding the severe disruption that could be caused to local residents and businesses. d. We support the need to retain Victorian villas and terraces in and around Belvedere Village as outlined in the document.

3 e. We support the need to protect and improve nature conservation in the area as outlined in the document. f. We support the need to improve wharves & bus routes as outlined in the document. The Forum has a number of ongoing concerns regarding bus route provision particularly that Belvedere lacks a night bus route and a direct service to North Greenwich. The Forum asks that the London Borough of Bexley works with Transport for London, local businesses and local developers to ensure that these bus routes are introduced to the Belvedere area. g. Bexley College Site, Tower Road We note the wish of Bexley College to move to Erith Town Centre. If this land is to be redeveloped for housing there should be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere and Erith residents. h. Lesnes Abbey New Visitor Centre and improvements to access and signage We note and support the Council s aim to seek 1.5 million of external funding to provide a new visitor centre and improvements to Lesnes Abbey. We consider that the London Borough of Bexley must ensure that adequate regard of how these changes may affect local residents and conduct appropriate consultation. i. Belvedere Splash Park Aim to use 100,000 of funding to provide seasonal changing rooms, grass bank replacement and new water features - We note and support the Council s aim to seek 100,000 of funding for further improvements to the Belvedere Splash Park. We consider that the London Borough of Bexley must ensure that adequate regard of how these changes may affect local residents and conduct appropriate consultation. We would also urge the Council to consider ways to address the current parking problems residents experience while the Splash Park is operational in the summer and work with local residents and businesses to try to improve the situation. j. Drainage in Station Road Belvedere We note the continued support to develop employment opportunities in the Belvedere area. However, we continue to press the London Borough of Bexley to develop an urgent solution to the drainage problems in Station Road and Picardy Street in order to regenerate the area around Belvedere Station. Site Specific Allocations With regard to the site specific allocations document, we have a number of comments we wish to make. We have identified the following two sites that we wish to be considered as potential sites for future housing development: a. 16 Gilbert Road The Forum has previously raised its concerns regarding the length of time (in excess of twenty years) that this property has remained vacant. We understand that there was a fire on this site recently. We would like to see the London Borough of Bexley use its powers in line with environmental health legislation to return this property to a housing unit. b. Station Road/Railway Place, Belvedere - We have identified a number of sites that we believe could be used for future housing and retail development to aid the regeneration of the Picardy Street/Station Road neighbourhood centre and to ensure that local residents and businesses feel more secure in this area. The first site is the land at the junction of Station Road and Railway Place which abuts the railway line. We understand that this land is owned by BRB (Residuary) Ltd a quango

4 which is responsible for managing the land of the former British Rail. We understand that this quango is due to be abolished and that all the land it manages will be sold. The second piece of land is Railway Place itself. We understand that Railway Place has never been adopted by the London Borough of Bexley and continues to have concerns regarding the maintenance of the carriageway and footway and parking arrangements due to the fact that this road is not formally adopted. The third piece of land is the site of the former Belvoir Tavern and recently closed Sanfoka restaurant. This land currently has planning permission to be developed for two houses, two retail units and two flats. The fourth piece of land is the London electricity site accessed via Dylan Road and Railway Place. We are unsure whether the company still require all of their land on this site. We believe that if there is any excess land, that it could be added to the above three sites to form one large development site. This larger site could be used to supply new housing in close proximity to local shops, amenities and the station which would aid the regeneration of the shops and amenities. This regeneration will ensure that security around the station is improved through the regeneration of this derelict land and through accompanying Section 106 agreements which could be used to improve lighting, security and access in and around the station area. It may also be appropriate to consider utilising part of this land to increase parking provision. We believe that the London Borough of Bexley should investigate whether there are any other sites in Picardy Street, Station Road, Dylan Road and Railway Place which can be redeveloped to aid the regeneration of this area. We also wish to make the following comments on the sites which are listed in the document as potential development sites: BV001 Upper Belvedere Library, Woolwich Road We have strong reservations about any development taking place on this site which would result in the loss of the Library and Pop in Parlour. The Library and neighbouring Pop in Parlour are well used local facilities. You will note that we have identified a site above which would supply a much larger number of units and we therefore contend that priority should be shown to developments in these locations instead of the Library and Pop in Parlour site. We believe that the local community would prefer for this site to remain in community use. Given the fact that the council aims to provide 752 new housing units in the Belvedere, Thamesmead and Abbey Wood area between 2011 and 2026, it would seem entirely unreasonable to withdraw any existing community provision. Moreover, the Council will also be aware that Belvedere has previously lost its Library in Picardy Street and we would suggest that the loss of another Library in Belvedere would not be particularly well received by local residents. On this point, we note that the council is about to begin a consultation on the future provision of libraries. We understand from the Council s website that the Borough wishes the community to run three libraries and that if the community does not show any interest in managing smaller libraries with lower footfall, as a last resort it will be necessary to reduce the scope of the library service, to achieve the required savings. Given that only two current library sites in Belvedere and Slade Green are listed in the document as potential development sites, we are particularly concerned that the land containing the current Belvedere Library and Pop in Parlour could be developed and these facilities lost without an adequate replacement. We believe that the Forum and the wider public would strongly object to the loss of this site to development. In the event that further proposals come forward in respect of this site, we would urge the Council to ensure that a full and thorough consultation takes place. We would of course expect any such

5 changes to take place with the users and local community fully consulted and engaged throughout and their views on any replacement facilities to be treated with the utmost priority. BV003 - Woodside School Site, Halt Robin Road We note the Council s long term aim to move this school to Royal Park, Sidcup. If this land is to be redeveloped for housing there should be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere residents. BV010 Belvedere Junior and Infant School While we note that there are no current proposals to build on this site, we would like clarification that Belvedere Community Centre is not included in this site designation. We would have strong reservations to any development on the site of Belvedere Community Centre. BV017 Imperial Gateway (Norman Park) We have concerns that 402 housing units and accompanying development will lead to an overdevelopment of this site. We believe that the Council should take all appropriate measures to ensure that the developer cannot drop any of its Section 106 commitments and that if the developer does wish to delete any of them that they should be replaced with adequate Section 106 commitments which provide suitable improvements to the local area in full consultation with the local community. BV018, BV019, BV020, BV021, BV022, BV023, BV034, ER019, ER020, ER027, ER029, ER041, ER043, ER046 Various sites at Church Manorway, Crabtree Manorway South, Hailey Road, Norman Road and Picardy Manorway We support the regeneration of this land and the increased employment opportunities that will be brought to the area as a result of their regeneration. BV024 - Elstree Gardens Allotments We have strong reservations in relation to developments on this site and the loss of amenity. We would urge the Council to consider removing it from the list. BV027 Abbey Road properties We request that any redevelopment of this land is in keeping with the local area. BV029 North Road properties We request that any redevelopment of this land is in keeping with the local area and consideration is given to Section 106 agreements to improve the roads and pavements in this area. BV032 Belvedere Sports Club, Woolwich Road We hold strong reservations about any planned development taking place on this site. BV Abbey Road We request that any redevelopment of this land is in keeping with the local area. ER007 Bexley College, Tower Road If this land is to be redeveloped for housing there should be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere and Erith residents. ER008 Bexley College Holly Hill Campus, Holly Hill Road If this land is to be redeveloped for housing there should be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere residents. ER015 Trinity School, Erith Road Any future development of the site to rebuild educational provision should be fully consulted on with local people and the future development should be in keeping with the surrounding area.

6 ER050 Land to rear of 2-20 Swaylands Road If this land is to be redeveloped for housing there should be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere residents. ER067 Former Shell Service Station, Lower Road We support the regeneration of this site and the extra family homes that will be developed on the site. There should continue to be adequate consultation on the future use of the land with local residents and appropriate Section 106 contributions to improve amenities for Belvedere residents.