How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

Having looked at the various documents made available about Site 19, I am strongly opposed proposed to the development. The plans would lead to a loss of valuable industrial space for industries which are struggling to find appropriate space in London from which they can operate. The associated costs of the development inevitably leading to the marginalisation, if not removal, of affordable and social housing. The overlooking and overshadowing of hundreds of local homes would be inevitable. The scale and density of the development is incongruous with what is a low rise, suburban neighbourhood. The plans would lead to the imposition of a visual eyesore on the neighbourhood, which would be a blot on the landscape for the various streets in my immediate vicinity (Leigham Vale, Palace Road, Kingsmead Road, Kinfauns Road & Northstead Road). The site should be removed from the SADPD.

Do you have any comments about the Site Allocation Policy for Site 18?

No part of our town centre sitev is "appropriate for a tall building of a general building height of 36m". Please abandon this part of the plan.

Do you have any comments about the Evidence for Site 18?

I disagree that the highest part of the indicative approach is, eg, "not so large as to be dominant or distracting in the wider townscape" in certain views. It very much would be, and should never be built to such a height in a town centre that has escaped the blight of such unsuitable high-rise building until now.

Do you have any comments about the context information for Site 18?

I agree that within area of the site "Current buildings do not optimise the potential of the site" but that does not mean all of them should be allowed to be demolished. The oldest of them are historic premises, whose frontages should be retained in some way. (However, I would be fascinated if any demolition resulted in Archaeological discoveries related to the Levehurst Medieval Manor House)

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

Not a good plan for the high street. Don't see why the buildings needs to be that high. How about not breaching the tall buildings policy, and having appropriately high buildings, say 6 storeys? Huge risk we will lose some of the great small businesses with long history in the area. How are their interests being taken into account? Like the idea of a better public space, and wider pavements where possible, with more greenery. This should be achieved through an incremental and design-led approach with quality community engagement, not a rushed desktop exercise. There is tons of goodwill and interest in this community that should be harnessed. The current approach is achieving the opposite. Site 18 should be removed from the SADPD and a much better process of engagement and consultation conducted.

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

The plan is out of keeping with the rest of the area, predominantly due to the design and height of the buildings. This high density housing is not what is needed.

Do you have any comments about the Vision Map for Site 18?

Inappropriately large building, much larger than anything at present in the area. No need to demolish large swathes of the high street. Will not help any housing issues

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Neutral

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

As a summary description of a vision, this seems pretty positive and I applaud the intention to make good mixed use of an area that includes some badly neglected land adjacent to a town centre. The problem comes when the wholly misplaced vertical scale of the intention becomes apparent in the absurdly high-rise block foreseen for the site. I am also uneasy about what "renewal" of the Norwood Road frontage would mean in practice. I would not want to see familiar businesses disappear, even in the lengthy timespan planned.

Do you have any comments about the Context Map for Site 18?

I object wholeheartedly to the scale of the proposed developments at Site 18 and Site 19. Please be aware that they are detestable to those who live around here and who care about their neighbourhood and quality of life. Please REMOVE SITE 18 AND SITE 19 FROM THIS CONSULTATION and develop new plans WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. Thank you. P.S. I have indicated my 'AGREEMENT' with several criticisms of the various parts of the proposals submitted by other residents as they have appeared - but it occurs to me that by AGREEING with the negative feedback, the site may have counted my "AGREE" as approval of the proposal aspects. THIS IS NOT THE CASE - so several of those "IN FAVOUR" TICKS are mine which were NOT IN FAVOUR! Poorly designed feedback form.

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

The proposals over develop the local area, destroy the remnants of the Victorian town centre and clash with the remaining housing and infrastructure. Far too tall and bulky.

Do you have any comments about the Site Allocation Policy for Site 18?

This is document does not set out how points will be addressed merely what should be addressed. This proposal lacks depth and detail to be able to establish any positive effect it might have on the area. The proposed tall building would be an eye-sore and not in keeping with the local area at all

Do you have any comments about the Site Allocation Policy for Site 18?

Much of this sounds potentially good, but I entirely disagree with the statement "The central part of the site is appropriate for a tall building of a general building height of 36m (81m AOD), adjacent to a new public space". This is an appalling idea, entirely out of keeping with the area. The central high-street areas of West Norwood / Tulse Hill do not have, and would not benefit from, any buildings of such an overbearing scale.

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

I live on Lansdowne Hill and I do not recall being invited to contribute views or learn more about the process that gave rise to this 'vision'. I fully agree there is ample scope for development, but the scrappy presentation represented on this website for a scheme whose nature and scale has the potential to be disruptive for 15 years is an offence to good governance and community relations. Where are the schematics and modelling? Where was the public exhibition? Where were the explanatory leaflets? Where is the evidence that the highly prescriptive mix suits the neighbourhood best? Does Lambeth BC have a financial interest and, if so, where is this sufficiently declared? Where is the evidence that a tower of the height suggested is appropriate, or desired by the community? The conspicuous lack of consultation might reasonably give rise to the suspicion that scrutiny and accountability are unwelcome. By all means stimulate innovative design and rethink the centre, to make better use of land and better serve the community, but do so with a collaborative, co-creating approach, not this seemingly shabby attempt to slip something through relatively unnoticed by all but those who, thankfully, keep an eye on such things.

Do you have any comments about the Vision Map for Site 18?

I don't really understand why there is just one very tall building (a minimum of 10 metres but typically 25 metres taller than nearby buildings) in the site boundary when there seems to be lots of white space to either side of that building that remains unused. This seems a very poor design - tall buildings have poor social and psychosocial outcomes and so why not use the whole site space to build homes that would be more conducive to a positive community and would benefit the mental health of the residents as well as be better suited to the neighbourhood (ie not towering over neighbouring residences).

Do you have any comments about the Evidence for Site 18?

We don't want our businesses & homes knocked down.

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

I don't think an 11 storey tower is appropriate for our suburban neighbourhood.

Do you have any comments about the Sustainability Appraisal for Site 18?

I was born in the 1960s and grew up in West Norwood. I am now in my 50s and living here again after a 10-year absence. The area has changed. It is more pleasant to be here now and the character of the neighbourhood has evolved. It is clear that many people, those who have moved here as well as those born here, have found a real sense of "community". I oppose very strongly the proposed overwhelming plans for the area (ref the Council's "Site 18" and "Site 19") that would change its nature completely and forever. As a comparison, view the difference between Kings Avenue and Clarence Avenue, adjoining streets in Clapham Park SW4. People now identify Clarence Avenue as being "that road with all the tower blocks". By contrast, Kings Avenue has new buildings that are low rise in keeping with the others that line it either side. Changing an area from "suburban" to "urban" density requires sensitivity and must be done in partnership with the local community that has to accommodate any changes. Please ensure that SITE 18 and SITE 19 are removed from the global consultation and considered in partnership with all the local groups that are so anxious to consult constructively with the Council's planners.

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Mostly negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

Far too bulky and high for the area, destroying the existing Victorian town centre rather than complementing the existing buildings. More like 60s architecture, learnt nothing from its over development and de humanisation

How do you feel about the Vision for Site 18?

Negative

Do you have any comments about the vision for Site 18?

This does not seem to have been consulted on with local people