I got the same TLERA reply this morning. I want the £50 back I’ve paid out to them over the years, they’ve done nothing to for it, and if they can’t be bothered getting involved, then likewise we’ll stop getting involved too.

Well done Lewisham Council and our newly elected local Councillors. You have successfully divided our community in less than one year after being elected.

My sympathies lay with Labour, but certainly not locally now.

The 2010 elections seen a 64.5% turnout: of that Labour polled 32.5%, Lib Dems 39.8%; in 2014, the turnout was down to 41.47%, of which Labour polled 43.2%, with Lib Dems at 22%. Labour will have absolutely no chance at the next local elections if the turnout rises and the abstainers all come back out to play.

In the meantime, what further havoc will they cause over the next three years?

In short then councillor Upex, will you be taking all the blame if this goes through or will you be sharing it with some of your colleagues?
It seems that if elected you can impose what ever you like on the community because you know what is best for us.

I'm not quite sure what people expect TLERA to do. As mentioned in an earlier post the nursery saga really wasn't pleasant and must have left the association feeling rather bruised and questioning their involvement in what are emotional issues. I expect the association to ensure that anything that happens on the estate is legal and meets any relevant legislation and consider responding to issues on an objective basis not an emotional one. In fact for the 10p a week subscription cost I expect nothing from them.

I don't have children at Fairlawn or Hornimans but understand the concerns of local parents who would like their kids to attend these schools. If the accomodation at Hamilton Lodge is considered temporary and families are moved there won't the children in these families already be attending other schools and continue attending the same schools or will Fairlawn and Hornimans be forced to accomodate the children?

Councillor Upex's emotional appeal conflates four different issues so as to make out that no decent person could reasonably oppose turning Hamilton Lodge into a homelessness hostel.
1) No one denies, in fact everyone agrees, that homeless people in London, including the many children among them, should have acceptable accommodation.
2) But it does not follow that that this accommodation cannot be found in B&B's. They are not all bad, as Mr Upex seems to suggest. There are many that are perfectly well run and it is unfair to condemn them all out of hand.
3) Nor does it follow that so many of Lewisham's homeless people should be concentrated in Forest Hill. Why cannot they shared around the borough, or placed outside the borough? Apparently there are already 6 homeless hostels in Forest Hill and the present plans will add another two. Haven't we already done our bit?
4) Finally, it does not follow that homeless people should packed into large hostels of a 80 beds as will be the case at Hamilton Lodge. Children would be better off coming home to do their homework in smaller scale accommodation than in the institutional environment that will be created at Hamilton Lodge.

How certain is it that the majority of voters in FH ward are opposed to the plan? As for TL Residents Association, if the view is split, what can they do?

The scale of homelessness problem is far greater than school places. The numbers of affected children is in ratio of 10 to 1. So for every child that did not get one of their choices there will be more than 10 without a home. To those who think B&B is not so bad, it is true when you are on holiday and have money to eat out. Most will have no cooking facilities and therefore are completely unsuitable for families.

What is interesting in this debate "Not in our backyard" is that a new school would equally arouse vocal neighbours who would object on the grounds of dangerous road, difficult crossing and more parents parking close to the school need for care home... was there an attack on a nursery nearby not so long ago? The Education department came to FH Assembly back last autumn and did not call for Hamilton Lodge to be given to educational resources. Also no Governor nor School Head has been in touch to ask for support in getting HL under their control.

Understanding how different budgets are constrained by law (often in place by national government rules) means that is almost impossible to give HL to an educational department. Some will maybe recall that some funding was obtained from London for specific purpose of assisting with temporary accommodation.

This post was last modified: 23-04-2015 07:10 PM by Maja Hilton.

Thank you councillor for that robust response. Just to clarify when you say 'there was an attack on a nursery nearby not so long ago' do you mean local residents raised concerns about the use of a private dwelling as a business premises (which has now been resolved) or was there an attack on a nursery?

Of course people are concerned about what happens on their own doorsteps, that's human nature but please don't insult peoples intelligence by using emotive language and dubious stats such as 'So for every child that did not get one of their choices there will be more than 10 without a home'

As a councillor you have to attempt to balance your bosses priorities with what the people that elected you want and will never be able to please everyone but please treat the electorate with a modicum of respect.

Firstly I think it's great that Cllr Upex and Cllr Hilton are involved and commenting on this issue.

I agree with Antony's sentiments that Cllr Upex's emotional appeal is
out of place. We are not a city of millionaire's and billionaire's. Infact, less than 3% of London are millionaires, even less in our ward.

The majority of us are ordinary tax paying citizens who have financial pressures. I’d say nearly every single person in the borough cares about homeless people and cares about homeless children. To appeal on these grounds I do not think is fair. We already have Miriam Lodge, a 125 bed homeless hostel, as well as several others. So to say people are making “not in our backyard” arguments I don't think is the case.

The real issue, as mentioned, is that Lewisham Council and all councils in London can not find enough permanent housing. And from the recent BBC Panorama show, it also appears that they have issues regulating the use of the private rental market to supplement the shortage.

The focus should be on creating sustainable long term accommodation (either Council owned or regulated through the private sector), while at the same time providing enough services to the residents who already live in the area. Not overwhelming existing services with temporary fixes such as Hamilton Lodge. How is moving “homeless children” from a B&B to an 80 bed homeless hostel, with no permanent staff, a solution? It's a band-aid fix and questionable whether it's in their best interests.

The council should be more efficient in finding permanent solutions. The council should be proactive and build more services in Forest Hill (GP/School places). Then we can think about supporting even more of the most vulnerable people in London.

Well at least councillor Hilton has stepped forward to support councillor Upex and take some of the blame for the councils
planned attack of the area.
I would guess that for every one person directly affected by the proposals for Hamilton lodge (not in my back yard people)
Councillor Upex and councillor Hilton will be amongst the thousands of other people who will smugly be able to say it’s not in my back yard.
Maybe if planning permission is granted we can change its name to... The Upex Hilton, in recognition of what they have done.

To quote Cllr Hilton (post 146): “What is interesting in this debate "Not in our backyard" is that a new school would equally arouse vocal neighbours who would object on the grounds of dangerous road, difficult crossing and more parents parking close to the school need for care home... was there an attack on a nursery nearby not so long ago?”

So we could introduce traffic calming measures for the “dangerous road” bit.

As to…“difficult crossing and more parents parking close to the school need for care home... was there an attack on a nursery nearby not so long ago?”

Sorry, this makes no sense, could you please clarify what you mean by this?

I understand the fear about the parking bit, with the swell at school start and close times, but there are such things as CPZs; and anyway, the Council’s own Parking Survey for this proposal says there is no problem here.

And Cllr Upex says, “it is better to provide decent temporary accommodation than subject them to the roulette wheel of unpredictability that B&B accommodation provides.” A hostel is no different, it is also a “roulette wheel of unpredictability.” Or can you prove otherwise?

I have asked the Council this simple question, one which should not require a Freedom of Information Request:

“Could you please let us know the exact number of anti-social incidents reported to both the Council and the Police by the tenants of the homeless hostels directly managed by Lewisham Council over the past 12 months. We would take it that your management, support and caretaking staff would carefully monitor and record these instances, so this is a straightforward question to which a straightforward answer would be much appreciated, without the need for an FOI request.”

To which the Council responded: “As you are seeking information from the Council this is a Freedom of Information Request.”

I wish I had some hair to pull out! Maybe I could do it at the Upex Hilton…

Am I alone in finding Councillor Hilton's contribution to this discussion quite unintelligible?

Creating more hostels as a housing solution, given the deterioration of children’s behaviour and educational achievement in these institutions (B&Bs and hostels), is simply not fair, and there are plans to utilise the Children’s Act and Human Rights Act to protect these children from such institutionalisation. Especially if they are as large as that proposed at the Upex Hilton. This will be three times the average size of borough-run hostels, and will place one in ten of all borough-run hostel licencees here in this small area of Forest Hill, one very much populated by primary schools.

Shame on those Councillors who can only see this in one dimension – sometimes thinking inside the box might help, as long as they stay there.

I do admire your fortitude on fighting this but I think we all know it is a done deal already.

Russell Jackson, Conservative, has replied to the Email I sent to all parliamentary candidates. He strongly supports opposition to the Council's plans and points out the benefits of cooperating with other boroughs on homelessness. This is an extract from his reply:

'I am very much against the proposals. The pressure on local services is already extreme and increasing density is not going to help. We do need more homes built but we need to make sure these are properly planned and supported. Unfortunately I think the local Labour Council actually have a pretty poor record of thinking strategically about these issues across the area or in conjunction with neighbouring boroughs such as Bromley to try to manage homelessness and housing capacity issues.

I am happy to try and do all I can to stop the proposals. Whilst I was on Bromley Council I chaired the Borough's planning committee so I would be very happy to offer any advice and support that I can on planning matters to try and overturn the proposals as part of the Council's decision making process.'

So, on one hand we have Lewisham Labour's' 'ignore what the local community want and let's just pack 'em into the homelessness warehouses' approach and on the other 'let's take a wider look at this, use some imagination and have consideration for the local community' from the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

I may be barking up the wrong tree but I think local Councils have a nasty habit of taking controversial decisions in a way that impacts on the geographic margins.

The examples that come to mind are Bromley Council with the cinema proposal at Crystal Palace, Southwark with their parks for the dead plan for the Honor Oak Rec and now Lewisham with its plans for HL.

Meanwhile, across town, one of the comments made in relation to local government corruption in Tower Hamlets was a suggestion that boroughs dominated by one party were more vulnerable to corruption. Proportional representation was touted as an antidote.

Back in the Democratic People's Republic of Lewisham....

Oh please let's stop the Tory Bandwagon Jumping

This is an important issue facing Councils across London even in Bromley!

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/115638...ss/?ref=mr

http://orpingtonconservatives.com/news-b...norfields-

http://m.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11...s_hostel_/

Yeah, let's keep this thread on topic and try to keep politics to a minimum....

In 2013 Bromley Council got permission to convert the Belle Grove care home, and some would say the scheme has been successful.

However, Belle Grove is staffed on a 24-hour/365 day basis, with full CCTV coverage and the additional security of restricted access using a ‘fob’.

Lewisham intend to have 2 staff at HL for ‘core hours’, Mon – Fri, 9am – 5pm, and Canonbie will be a satellite, so will effectively have no full-time staff. The research document by Living Streets’ ‘Tackling Anti-social Behaviour’, reveals most incidents occur between 6pm and 11pm, peaking around 8pm, with most incidents occurring on Friday and Saturday evenings.

Bromley Council plans to spend a total of £563,437 on refurbishing Manorfields care home for 44 families, which they estimate will save them £322,324 annually.

According to TLERA, ‘In the Council’s 4 year Budget Plan, a total of £9.6m has been allocated for the development of this site (HL and Canonbie Road).’ The combined properties will house 29 families. Just saying….

The disappointing thing about all this is the failure to recognise an optimum school site when you see it, as in the case of Hamilton Lodge. It was perfect for a school site linked either to Horniman or Fairlawn.
Its much harder to find a suitable location for a school than it is for a hostel or housing. And yes there would have been objections to a school annexe but thats pretty standard.

The other frustrating aspect is a failure of local Councillors to appreciate the extent of the school places crisis which is very real- and a failure to attempt to engage with the concerns and needs of local parents on that front but that would require going against the party line which isnt going to happen is it. Those of us lucky to have kids in the two excellent local schools watch as bulge classes are imposed that result in overcrowded playgrounds which offer below the minimum standard of m2/ per pupil and more pressure on lunch facilities. It is not fair to expect local children to suffer congested schools because of local authority foresight.

Lets not forget however that the latest homelessness crisis is a result of Tory- LibDem policies on the bedroom tax and a squeeze on family incomes at the poorest level. Its also very real and needs a solution but there were and are other suitable sites across the borough that would have suited just as well. The loss of Hamilton Lodge as a potential education site is very unfortunate.

PS

Many of the concerns expressed about the creation of a hostel werent necessarily all of the NIMBY variety - there are genuine concerns about the lack of communal and general family facilities within the current proposals and also safeguarding which is compromised when families have to share toilet and bathroom facilities with complete strangers.

I write and speak as a former manager of homeless hostels for families in Lewisham. The client group then was a very mixed bag but we did have pimps and arsonists and schizophrenics as well as hardened criminals from Londons gangland sharing close quarters with young children and often vulnerable young mothers resulting often in an extremely explosive mix. Lets hope Lewisham have learned from experience and are putting in place adequate safeguarding and support measures for such families.