APPENDIX A2a Comments on Lewisham Gateway Note: Comments in Italics refer to comments were made by visitors to the LPA Exhibition 88 Adelaide Avenue Concerned that the road system will not work and the scheme will worsen traffic. The objector also feels that the proposals to move the Quaggy and take away Charlottenburg Gardens will be detrimental to the environment. There must be other ways to improve the roundabout without damaging the area in a way that the proposed scheme will inevitably do. 6 Algernon Road He objects as the site is not suitable for the density of development proposed along with the traffic and pollution problems the development will caused. The plans are not in keeping with London policy in terms of treatment of rivers, care in proposing high rise solutions, loss of green space, alignment of development plans and transport capacity etc. A very low proportion of the housing units are to be made available as affordable housing and he questions the suitability of the site for hou sing. Also questions the business case for a mass of office space when there are large expanses of empty offices close by. The development is being driven by the developer’s business/profit model. The changes to the road system have not been proven to i mprove the situation and it is possible that the new arrangements would make the situation significantly worse. 107 Algernon Road The objector sees no proof that the proposed road system will work and fears that traffic will get worse, especially given all the other developments proposed. He is opposed to moving rivers, especially if it is to accommodate high buildings is concerned about the principle of high rise buildings, is opposed to reductions of air quality, is appalled about the lack of affordab le housing, objects to the replacement of Metropolitan Open Land, supports the QWAGs proposals and can see no business case for more shops and offices. He believes that a cheaper scheme for replacing the roundabout should be promoted without blighting the area in such a permanent way. 204 Algernon Road Concerned whether the re -aligned Rennell Street will be long enough for the volume of bendy buses that will be travelling along it: concerned about blockage on the Low H (with traffic being directed to Gree nwich, Lee Green and Catford); 97 any further widening of the Low H (to accommodate more vehicles could well lead to an even greater River Ravensbourne culvert. 213 Algernon Road The resident made some detailed comments about the planning application and was particularly concerned that the scheme relegated the pedestrian and felt that the sustainability section was very poor. The application is inadequate in a number of respects and despite the multi volume format of the applications with consultancy annex es, the documents are insufficient to the task of enabling a clear description of this vast project. The resident’s key and enduring issue is being able to negotiate the area without being given inferior status or being expected to walk only to pre set pu blic transport links to continue the journey. The private/public interface in respect of pedestrian desire lines is also a strong concern. 16 Belmont Hill There is no proof that the road system will work and could well get worse. Opposed to moving the r ivers and am appalled with the lack of affordable housing. He objects to the replacement of Metropolitan Open Land with a busy road and similarly the loss of Quaggy Gardens and supports QWAG’s proposals. A scheme with more limited infrastructure costs is p referable and a high density scheme could then be focused southward from the roundabout, fully integrated with the existing mall. The present development vehicle could then partner with Land Securities. 20 Belmont Grove The objector sees no proof that th e proposed road system will work and fears that traffic will get worse, especially given all the other developments proposed. Opposed to moving rivers, objects to anything that lowers air quality, is appalled at the lack of affordable housing, objects to t he loss of Metropolitan Open Land, supported QWAGs proposals for the Quaggy and sees no business case for building more offices and retail units. A cheaper scheme for replacing the roundabout should be promoted without blighting the area in such a permanen t way. 54 Belmont Park The photomontage is all very well but they only give a suggestion of the mass involved. The final design might be totally different. The perspectives make one realise what a horrifying prospect is in store (Lewisham looking li ke Croydon). The Low H will take a long time to navigate. Concerned that the bus station will only be a larger version of the present system whereby the bus drivers sit at the bus station having their breaks whilst the passengers stand out in the rain. Not sure that the remodelling the river will not re -introduce the historic flooding 98 problem. We need to make sure that facilities are available in Lewisham for local people and especially facilities to encourage the young to get involved in sport and cultural activities. It is not clear from the plans whether there will be a new leisure centre, cinema, civic hall, theatre. To compare any scheme in Lewisham with St Christopher’s Place is not appropriate; demographics are totally different. 6 Bonfield Road Th e objector sees no proof that the proposed road system will work and fears that traffic will get worse, especially given all the other developments proposed. She is opposed to moving rivers, especially if it is to accommodate high buildings is concerned ab out the principle of high rise buildings, is opposed to reductions of air quality, is appalled about the lack of affordable housing, objects to the replacement of Metropolitan Open Land, supports the QWAGs proposals and can see no business case for more sh ops and offices. He believes that a cheaper scheme for replacing the roundabout should be promoted without blighting the area in such a permanent way. 13 Boyne Road The maximum height of the building is far too great in relation to the space available an d the character of the surrounding area. 25 storeys is far too tall. The minimum height of around 15 storeys is also still too high and at least should be considered to be the maximum height. The development would lead to a cramped over built site, detract ing from the appeal of the development and damaging the appeal of the existing residential, areas around it. The quality of the new buildings looks aesthetically poor, just rectangular building of a type common in the 1960’s and now seen to be detrimenta l. The earlier artist’s impressions showed much more impressive buildings. Lewisham should have quality development, not an eyesore. 22 Boyne Road A 20 storey block of flats will blight the area and £20 million pounds should be set aside for local aff ected residents. What is to stop residents to stop the development due to “right of light” law. Money should be set aside to fund possible court cases. Artist impressions are totally misleading showing 13 storeys when 20 are intended. The buildings will be much closer together and more intimidating. The sun will be blocked by the buildings apart from sunset. The development will be a blot on the landscape and would be aesthetically ugly and may make Lewisham famous on how not to build skylines. High rise, h igh density accommodation has many social problems. Parking is not sufficient. Parking around the centre is already too limited. 1 parking space per flat needs to be allocated and offering only 20% of units as affordable appears like bribery. People living near (in the shadow of this development) will be blighted and St Stephens Church will be obscured by the development. Re -routing the roads would not be able to handle the same amount of traffic. 99 35 Boyne Road The provision of 500 car parking spac es seems excessive. Public transport is very good and to increase car parking will aggravate the already congested Lewisham Town Centre. 43 Boyne Road Response on behalf of the Greenwich and Lewisham Friends of the Earth. Welcome a mixed urban developmen t in principle and approve of the Council’s commitment to high environmental standards and want to ensure that this is delivered in the development. The main areas of concerns are transport with concerns about the number of parking spaces. Suggests a car f ree scheme should be considered and that cycles need the same priority as pedestrians and buses with cycle lanes and a cycle park. The buildings should be highly energy efficient through the use of on site renewables to try to achieve a carbon neutral deve lopment. Sound insulation needs to be of a high standard in noisy environment and roof planting needs to be guaranteed. Rain water and grey water should be harvested. Not convinced that issues of sunlight and wind in Confluence Park have been adequately ad dressed and the sunlight studies are of poor quality. Air quality needs to be safeguarded and permanently monitored. A proper waste strategy is needed. 90 Breakspears Road There is no proof that the amended road system will improve traffic and the resid ent fears that traffic will get worse. He is also opposed to moving rivers, to anything that reduces air quality, is appalled about the lack of affordable housing, objects to the loss of Metropolitan Open Land and can see no business case for ore offices a nd retail units.