Writing to local faith groups
I wrote to four local faith groups yesterday per the below
stopthetescotoxictowers.blogspot.com
Andy Walker
120 Blythswood Road
IG3 8SG
07956 263088 andy.walker@talk21.com
@andywalker1945
28th January 2022
Dear
Homebase High Rise Development – request that you host a
meeting
I am part of a loose coalition of like minded people across
political parties campaigning against over development per the attached leaflet
about the Tesco development.
The Homebase development was passed by Sadiq Khan on the 24th
January 2022. An appeal can be made to Michael Gove MP, the Secretary of State
responsible for housing per the attached letter from Keith Prince AM. To be
clear, I do not speak for Keith Prince or anyone else pictured in the attached
leaflet.
It is a very high bar for the Secretary of State to call in
an application, the key ground being it is of national importance. Should your
faithful be sympathetic, I would like to meet with them to discuss why this
application is of national importance and why your faithful should also write
to the Secretary of State.
Should you wish to hold a meeting, I will contact other
campaigners who are part of the coalition in the hope of getting a cross party
platform of speakers.
Tesco Development
The decision for this development is to be made by Sadiq
Khan shortly and I would like to discuss this development too.
Regards
Andy Walker
Redbridge Trade Union Party
Standing in elections for the Trade Union & Socialist
Coalition
Enc Letter from Keith Prince & 2021 leaflet
Letter from Keith Prince AM to Secretary of State
|
|
Request
for call-in of Planning Application
Former
Homebase Retail Warehouse, 706-720, High Road, Goodmayes
London
Borough of Redbridge – Ref: 0680/21
As the London Assembly Member for Havering and
Redbridge I am writing to urgently request that you call-in or direct refusal
of the above application.
This follows the decision of the London
Borough of Redbridge to approve this application on 22 July 2021, subsequent
referral to the Mayor of London, and the Mayor’s decision on 24 January 2022 to
allow Redbridge Council to proceed with granting the application.
The scheme has received significant objections
from local residents, a number of local community groups, the London Wildlife
Trust and the borough’s own conservation officer. It raises a number of national planning policy
issues, including heritage, the economy, design and character, infrastructure,
and housing need and choice, which would merit your intervention and further
consideration.
The proposal, at up to 20 storeys, would tower
over the surrounding area, harming the character and amenities of the
surrounding low-rise suburban area, as well as the local townscape along the
High Road. Not only would this cause
unacceptable overshadowing to a number of neighbouring properties, it would
also fail to supply sufficient daylight and sunlight to future occupiers of the
new development. T he design of the scheme would be fundamentally at odds with
the traditional architecture in the surrounding area.
The type of housing proposed would be
overwhelmingly one and two bedroom properties, with just 11% of the new homes
having three bedrooms. This would fail
to provide sufficient housing choice to families, especially in view of
London’s significant long-term overcrowding problem, where at least 8% of homes
are considered overcrowded. The
borough’s housing officer noted in their response that that they “would wish to
see 4 bed flats and more 2 bedroom/4 person and 3b/6p flats, rather than 2b/3p
and 3b/5p as provided.” The scheme would
also fail to supply a sufficient level of children’s play space as required in
the London Plan.
As noted by the borough’s conservation officer
in their objections, the scheme would cause harm to several important heritage
assets in close proximity to the site. These
include St Cedd’s Church, Al-Ihsaan Academy and the Bungalow Estate
conservation area. It would also
adversely impact the local Gurdwara.
The site was designated in the Local Plan as
suitable for a major retail development of 2,500 sqm, along with a smaller
housing development of 179 units. The
current scheme, being predominantly housing with a much smaller commercial
provision, would therefore harm the local economy and represent an unacceptable
loss of retail use to this area. This
would be further exacerbated when considering the cumulative effects of a
similar local scheme at the Tesco Extra site in Goodmayes (local ref: 4309/19).
Indeed, the scale of development proposed in this area would pose significant
challenges to local infrastructure, without sufficient mitigation to meet these
impacts.
In addition to this, the lack of car parking
provision in this scheme would create substantial overspill problems for the
local road network, with adverse consequences for traffic, congestion, air
quality and local amenity.
For the above reasons I would therefore urge
you to give immediate and urgent consideration to calling-in this scheme or
directing refusal in order to avoid these severe impacts to the local area.
Yours sincerely
Keith Prince AM
Comments
Post a Comment