We believe that the proposals set out by the applicants and their transport management statement are contrary to saved Policy STC9 of the UDP because the number and regularity of moped use in the core opening hours will cause harm to residents living nearby, will be unsafe for pedestrians using the footway on Stanstead Road, and the mopeds will create noise and disturbance.
Policy STC9 of the saved policies of the adopted UDP (July 2004) requires that planning permission for A3 or A5 use should only be granted if certain principles are met. These include a requirement that the proposed development’s location, design, parking and traffic generation are acceptable and does not conflict with other policies in the Plan. In particular the policy sets out that they should not harm the living conditions of nearby residents, including that created by noise and disturbance from users and their vehicles, smell, litter and unneighbourly opening hours; and that parking and traffic generation is not a danger to other road users, public transport operators or pedestrians.
I am not an avid supporter of this application.
However as the Forest Hill Society is a self professed "local civic society for the SE23 postal district" this report does no credit to the required objectivity in its assessment of the wider needs of SE23 civic society whether that be defined in terms of compliance with Lewisham's Planning Policies or the principle that the borough needs to present itself as a positive, competitive and welcoming environment for new business.
An objective report would have to embrace a balanced analysis of benefits and disbenefits of the proposal in a wider context than narrow compliance with that policy. It is evidently clear this short report does not achieve this.
There is no pretext here. However the development is effectively facing on to the south circular route, is opposite Plumbcenter, is virtually adjacent to a specialist retail outlet and is in close proximity to a major chain electrical shop, a thriving garden centre and the local fire station. It is also an a major bus route.
Any impact on the type of increased traffic as proposed that would be introduced here by the development would be negligible to the point of being vanishingly small.
If this site is not viewed in an objective fashion as being suitable for this kind of operation, from where is any reasonable view to emerge or be proposed as to what other location within the borough confines such a development can it be located.
I have heard the argument before from society members that it can only endorse or reject a proposal. I remain unconvinced as to the merits of this type of approach for a civic society. It is suitably empowered to consult on specific issues associated with proposals.
I am certain that the society is sufficiently principled as to resist a narrow populist approach but it remains a fact that this case may be a "best fit" scenario.
It cannot always be the case that it will be a win-win for everyone.
Search
Help
| 
