I totally agree with some of the comments above in relation to schools - (albeit self interestedly) as our children will not be attending any of the (3) schools within 500 meters of our house but a school in Ladywell - 1.67 miles away....

That's c**p Bells. Hope you manage to get a place off the waiting list. If you're willing to move schools early in the year places do seem to come up.

Thanks Hillstop.

Yes, we are quite high up on a waiting list for a school 230 meters away but not sure we will want to move them assuming they settle in the school they have been allocated. Very frustrating - talking with the Lewisham Admissions Team, they have indicated that quite a few parents don't bother informing them when a child doesn't need a place so they do crop up but in terms of procedure, they have to write to the parents and give them 2 weeks to confirm whether or not they require the place. We already know of one family that have moved and not informed them that they don't need their allocated place. It is a shame people aren't always a little more considerate.

If you happen to believe that there is a lack of primary school provision in Forest Hill, then please come along to the Forest Hill Ward Assembly at 7pm tomorrow evening.

Answer: Access road from there, to new Social housing at the field behind Liphook Crescent.

Just received letter from Lewisham Council on a public consultation exercise for the conversion of Hamilton Lodge into temporary accommodation hostel for homeless households.

You have to go to the Civic Suite (Catford) to view the proposals and leave comments on 2 dates

23/10/14 from 6.15pm to 8.30pm
25/10/14 from 10am to 12 noon

e-mail contact address is

hamilton.lodge@lewisham.gov.uk

Cannot understand why they could not have provided us with the proposals on the same letter or a website link and comment using e-mail, also why do we need to go to Catford, they could have held this exercise at a community center such as the the Christian Fellowship Center ? which is only 200 metres away !

By the way they are also proposing conversion of 118 Canonbie Road, SE23 into a temporary accommodation hostel & the consultation details are the same as above.

I've sent a note to the council asking for on-line access to the consultation. I'll let you know if I get an answer.

I can possibly see the potential of using Hamilton Lodge for this purpose - but why 118 Canonbie Road?

You'd have thought they could sell this on the open market and be able to afford to buy maybe as many as 3 flats in a less pricey area with the proceeds.

Unless there's something I'm not aware of, it seems to me that housing a homeless family in this sort of acccommodation might even be construed as misuse of public funds!

As for Hamilton Lodge, I'd love to see it be sympathetically restored and extended to make e.g. flats and, again, I'd have thought that sale on open marlet would produce funding to provide b&b accommodation ten times over.

I think this is a terrible idea.

Increasingly bad news for already stretched schools in the area.

Furthermore, I can't help but be nervous about the potential for other disturbance (thinking anti-social behaviour) these shelters may bring with them.

A report from the council's planning committee meeting in 2012 shows 118 Canonbie road has already been badly managed with over 25 people living at the premises with no authorisation to use the property as a hostel. Not a good starting point for the development if the property is still held by the same management.

I'll certainly be seeking for more clarification about the use of both properties from the council and certainly be attending the consultation in Catford.

Have a look at a map - it looks like 118 Canonbie backs onto Hamilton Lodge property.

Jaradras - the cynic in me might think that by making the consultation times so short and inconvenient to get to, and by not allowing the online option, that the council hope to get this past consultation without objection. But, I'm not a cynical person by nature.

Perhaps if enough residents were to comment and suggest that the property in question may be put to better use as an extension to Fairlawn school (as a nursery/infant site), and that this would free up the existing nursery annexe as a site for temporary housing, which would better serve households unfamiliar with the area for social support and transport links, then the council may take a little bit of notice.

As has been said in this thread before, putting yet more families in an area already overstretched for school provision, just seems ridiculous. And before I'm accused again of NIMBY-ism, I have nothing to gain or lose from this - my children are already at the school, we don't own a property close by (so I'm not worried about house prices), and live far enough the other side of the school not (I hope) to be affected by any potential antisocial behaviour such that has already been evident at 118 Canonbie. Though on that final thought, I do hope that if this proposal goes ahead, the continued safety of children attending Fairlawn who do have to pass the building - both during conversion works (as the pavement there is already narrow and pretty exposed on a busy road) and when the site is fully functional, would be protected.

I agree with Ladywotlunches. It is so obvious that the site should be used as an extension for Fairlawn and the proposed hostel housed on the current Fairlawn nursery site. Parents would welcome not having to slog up and down the hill when they have children at both sites and the homeless people would surely prefer to be nearer to the town rather than stranded up the hill. Any antisocial behaviour could be observed promptly by the Community officers and local police. As far as I know the council have not sent leaflets to many households and that is a disgrace.I feel that every parent at Fairlawn and Francesa Cabrini should be made aware of these plans. The (albeit remote) possibility of even one unvetted, male loner watching the children fills me with dread. The recent tragic murder of teenager Alice Gross by an unchecked immigrant is food for thought. Are there any PTA members on the forum - the school heads will be unlikely to get involved. Finally, I have another suggestion which I will put to Lewisham Council. In an economy drive they have emptied all the offices in the very building where the plans for Hamilton Lodge will be displayed this week. How about using the site as a hostel for the homeless? It would save a fortune for those of us who pay council tax and would be a most practical arrangement for the temporary residents. They will have social services literally on their doorstep, library with computer access, job centre along the road, housing office around the corner, Aldi, Lidl, Poundland, market stalls etc. Can Honor Oak compete with that? The council will be able to demonstrate that they are making a real effort to spend OUR money wisely at a time when their cuts are causing real pain to many in the borough. There is not much time to make your feelings heard, act now.

So Honor Oak is too upmarket for people who don't have a home but old council offices in Catford would be perfect?

Pay attention Billie, read all the posts. Honor Oak desperately needs more primary school places. A site has become available that could meet that need without too much conversion work. Horniman Primary and Fairlawn have extended their sites as much as possible. A solution must be found and in these difficult times it would be helpful if we concentrate on putting forward the widest range of suggestions to solve the problem. Nit picking is not a very productive contribution.

Not really nitpicking but questioning the whole range of assumptions underlying the suggestions?

Has anyone been able to visit the council offices tonight to view the plans that can report back, as so far the council seems unwilling to respond to Carole's suggestion they are posted online?

I won't be able to attend either date but would like to know more

I went along and was not impressed with the designs shown. Apparently they had already revised a few aspects and these might be available in the version presented on Saturday.

There was nobody on hand to discuss the other potential uses of the building and the housing officer said that housing was the most important issue for the council to address (well she would, wouldn't she). When pressed why the Catford site was not being used for housing she claimed it would be difficult to convert, but surely nothing that £3.3million (the cost of the purchase of the two sites surrounding the Honor Oak reservoir site) couldn't sort out for temporary accommodation. In this case the offices will be used as offices, a slightly lower priority than housing or education.

It was clear that if this application were to be turned down by the council that other options for using the building, including as a primary school extension, could be considered.

Included in the scheme presented were rooms for single individuals who would be placed in the accommodation at short notice, with toilet facilities shared with families. Not a situation I would be happy about if needing to take a child to the toilet during the night. But it is quite likely that the next iteration of the draft might not include such safety problems for residents.

Also included in the scheme was one studio apartment which would be expected to include 4-6 beds, all in a single bedroom/living room. I have specifically asked the council to provide a better layout than this.

In total the two buildings are likely to have just over 100 beds, although not all would be occupied as the units would need to be used flexibly.

Families would stay in the buildings for an average of 6 months and during that time they would not have the opportunity to transfer to local schools (as their 'permanent' address would not be at the location). So everyday some of the children would need to travel around the borough to the schools that their children attend. I'm sure some of these homeless people would be from Forest Hill, and it is good that these families would be close to their schools, but I don't think these facilities would be exclusively for families from the Forest Hill area.

There are no plans to share any facilities between the two sites or to join them together, although it is quite possible that the council would be interested in the empty plot at 116 Canonbie to expand their housing provision or possibly to maximise the value of the two plots together when they are sold on.

The driver for this conversion is not primarily about quality of accommodation for homeless families (and that is very clear from the plans I saw yesterday), it is about saving the council money - paying for B&B accommodation for homeless families.

There is an opportunity to look at the plans this Saturday and after that there will be a formal planning application, which they expect to have done and dusted in 13 weeks (faster than the planning department normally manage to process the least controversial residential extensions). The planning process will include the opportunity for a local meeting to discuss the plans if more than 10 people object. And the final decision will be made by councillors at a planning committee meeting (for this reason we are unlikely to hear opinions on this development from our local councillors as it could be prejudicial).

This has to be seen in the wider context not just of Forest Hill but of Lewisham. But for the moment I'll stick to Forest Hill. Miriam Lodge already houses 120 homeless people (single individuals not families). Lewisham places very few individuals in this hostel, mainly it is used by other South London boroughs to place homeless people. The owner of this hostel wants to increase the size to 180-200 units, some of which would be for homeless families.

Tyson Road is about to have 70 additional flats built on the backland site between Tyson Road and Dunoon Road. This development is within close proximity to Hamilton Lodge, so the population (permanent or temporary) will substantially increase in this small area.

The council is seeking 5 year planning permission on these sites and seem to think that there will not be a housing crisis in 5 years time, which I believe to be deliberately optimistic.

Meanwhile we continue to have a problem with school places in Forest Hill and the council have yet to provide real plans as to how they will address this in 2015 and beyond. At the last ward assembly officers implies that they were looking at possibly solutions but were not willing to discuss them yet.

I agree that homeless families must be a priority for the council, but I believe that educating residents close to their homes at primary level must also be a priority. There are other sites (in Forest Hill and beyond) that would be suitable for temporary hostels, but there are few sites in Forest Hill that would be more suitable for a school extension.

Thanks for this update Michael, really useful. Thought not necessarily reassuring!

Still, I'm glad there will at least be a planning process to go through - I had thoughts that it could be done without planning as the use would remain the same. Good old planning department - they can push through applications when they want then!!

I'll provide my comments to the email address given for now, then again at the planning stages.

The Council paid £3.3 m for these two sites ?. Where did these funds come from ? from Council Tax payers ?; the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) or the General Fund (GF) ? would be interesting to know as money from any of these budgets can only be spent for a specific purpose & the necessary stakeholders consulted from what little I know, maybe someone can clarify this for us.

If the Council has ownership of these two sites maybe the first task is to manage the sites. 116 Canonbie is looking like a rubbish tip & the car park area of the ex Hamilton Lodge has not been cleaned for a while lots of rubbish and weeds galore.

Saving them money on the B&B means that families can be left for longer in these so called hostels. Can the Council provide us with figures for homeless individuals in temporary accommodation i.e. what are the current figures on how long families stay in these units. I do not believe that the average stay is 6 months, in my opinion it is likely to be around 1 year or even longer. This means the families will register for local schools & make the hostel their permanent address & there is nothing stopping them from doing so, adding more pressure on the existing schools in the area. Then there are those individuals who will not be happy with permanent offers of accommodation to move them along and they can appeal against these offers, causing them to stay on in these hostels for even longer.

100 beds for these two sites is a lot for two sites within close proximity, for them to say they will not all be occupied at any one time is not true.
Does this mean that the other Council hostels also have vacancies if so why the need for these 2 hostels ?.

I do not agree with the Council's proposals for these two sites and will strongly object to these proposals during the planning process. Housing may be a priority in the borough but this is not the way to address the shortage