Residents safety due to compromised site access Small community; living in residential close, with currently 12 privately owned homes and a few rented garages. 
The houses are built wall to wall, parking and access to the close is limited to one small road. A few council garages are being rented out to some of the home owners(for over 28 years); all other non-garage tenants/property owners park on the street in front of homes and or in overcrowded near by streets. The council has only just notified the garage tenants that the garage area is now identified as a site for the development of 3 storey block of 9 flats. Since there is no other access to the close other than by a small road, the increase amount of traffic, lack of parking space will have an overbearing impact. Fire engines may encounter difficulty accessing the close in the eventuality of a fire and access will be limited for most rescue services, as well as for waste and recycling bin lorries. (Cars have already been damaged by recycling lorries due to the current lack of space within the close, documented evidence for these incidents can be provided). Parking issues Note: There is no public transport in the immediate area/ the local demographic is families and retired couples. Past recorded fatalities due to congested road on Biggin Hill (situated next to Arkell Grove) have not been taken into consideration in the planning development safety survey. The removal of the garages would force its current renters (over 15 cars parked inside or outside the garages) to locate currently ‘unprovided’ parking. In addition to this, 9 flats means an average of 12 cars (calculated using Croydon’s statistics of average number of cars per inhabitants as per 2011’s census) which will also require parking. Arkell Grove itself is fully occupied by its residents’ cars. No provision has been made for any parking for the new building, to add to this, additional cars from local residents will require to locate parking in ‘unprovided’ congested adjacent roads, such as Biggin Hill. A Controlled Parking Zone would be of no help, as the area is such that only residents park here (as opposed to streets located nearby developed areas) and would be be additional cost for residents. Residents and children safety Note: as well as families, the close has two active ofsted registered childminders / home based. In this close live numerous families with very young children who use the close as a safe ground, they play and meet in the area of the proposed site. A) Having a building site in such a small and confined area would certainly present a danger to the safety of these children. (heavy lorries, and excavation) B) The new house development would remove the direct area in which family and children play and meet. Overshadowing / Loss of sunlight The height of the building is such that any house in its shadow would lose access to the sunlight they currently have. Residents Privacy The planning is talking about the development of a block of flats which would look directly over the gardens of the adjacent houses and would remove the direct access to their properties. Environment One of the adjacent gardens has a very tall and mature tree on the border of the proposed site and the development plans would compromise the roots of this tree, rendering it unstable and therefore at rick of dying and falling. Sewage issues and waste disposal All the immediate area to the proposed site privately owned, with no access to the site, how will the issue of sewage be resolved? Croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in this area. Again, this could be a major health problem for this area. Questions: 1) Housing mix. The council policy states they need to built approx 30k by 2031, quote: 60% need to be 3 bedrooms or more as this is largest demand. So why so many 2 beds flats are being built? Why not build 2 storey homes? This would be a realistic target and would resolve many of the concerns raised by local residents. 2) Access to sites. How all these issues are being answered? What about the poor access to the site, the narrow roads and lanes; *Cars being required as public transport is not where it should be.. One of Croydon new policy is looking to address issues round creating additional access methods, where is this being addressed in this proposal? What about sewage and waste disposal, when croydon has just announced that they are reducing waste collection in our area…? 3) If the permission was granted, has the following been taken into consideration? Which days a week will the work be carried out? ie solid 5/6 day week or on and off some weeks? Could quieter works be done weekend? Access: Clearly only one point of access , how will this be addressed? 1. Deliveries Times (this is a very important point. Early morning when childminders get children dropped off OR over weekend when local children playing outside is not acceptable.) 2. General car congestions. Frequency of construction vehicles, What and when? initial large delivery of bricks that would block access, pavements, danger to children playing. This is all health and safety Builders need to address. Builders will need restrictions in place for them to park on road. Has this been accurately assessed? We have raised a petition to provide the list of individuals part of the local community and or relatives supporting the appeal if the development permission is granted

Family home since 1982, i moved back in to help my father from illness and to stop my depression, my father passed away suddenly and the council want me and 15 year old son out of the house, my youngest son comes every weekend, has adhd and will not accept change into a new house, explained this to the council but they will not listen, tried to pay the rent but they will not accept it from me.

Our GP services are on their knees Our roads are gridlocked due to sheer number of cars, limited roads out of Midlothian and poor public transport for many areas Our schools are bursting at the seams with children being shipped out of catchment schools due to lack of space Lack of investment into community resources - there are few services for our elderly, teenagers and young children. Our green belt is disappearing - with a significant impact on our health and the environment Private housing is not a priority - we need to prioritise council and housing association accommodation

Lewisham council are planning to demolish Reginald House and Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden – if their plans go ahead, the residents will lose their homes and a unique community wildlife garden will be destroyed. We want the plans to be re designed in partnership with the community. The plans CAN be redrawn to build the same or more social homes, but keep Reginald House and Tidemill Garden. Our community demands: *Refurbish Reginald House, give residents a ballot* Reginald House residents have good homes, but council has refused to listen to them or to consider a plan which keeps their homes. Instead the residents have been lied to and harassed by council officers, and their homes run down. Lewisham Council should respect its residents’ needs and wishes and not break up communities. As in other developments, residents must be given a ballot on regeneration plans. *Keep Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden a community garden for ALL* Any redevelopment must include, not bulldoze, the thriving Garden which was built in the 1990’s by local people, teachers, parents and kids from Tidemill School. An alternative architectural plan shows how the garden and Reginald Road CAN be kept by building on the playground and developing the old school buildings. This area has some of the highest pollution levels in London, which will only get worse if the garden is lost. And the green space on the site should be kept public, not transformed into private gardens as under the current plans. *Public land, and public money, should be 100% used for the benefit of the public* Lewisham Council want to sell this land, meaning a valuable public asset will be lost forever. Millions of pounds of public money is being spent to subside this development, behind a cloak of secrecy due to the ‘confidentiality clauses' of the Council’s private partners. This land should be redeveloped in partnership with the community - to build as many social homes as possible but keep our invaluable current homes and community Garden. We want the council and developers to truly partner with the community to redraw the plans for the site!

Health workers get paid so little, they work long frequently unsociable hours. They need to be able to afford to live near where they work so they don’t have to add huge travel time and costs to their daily life. Our lives are literally in these people’s hands and we need to give them the respect that they clearly deserve and one way we can show this respect is to let them have affordable housing. The house prices in Camden are extremely high, we have a huge amount of very expensive housing already. The average house price in this area is over a million pounds and the average London wage for a nurse is only £24,963. How on earth are the backbone of our health service supposed to afford to live anywhere near where they work? Affordable nurses housing should be sacrosanct. The Royal Free London NHS foundation and Camden council need to backtrack on these plans as a matter of urgency. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/18/royal-free-secretly-planning-to-develop-100-year-old-hospital-into-luxury-flats?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast2018-05-22

Camden's plans for houses on these sites are a really bad idea for several reasons. These will NOT be Social Housing and it is very unlikely that they'll be able to sell these plots at any profit. Camden's previous attempts at developments nearby have resulted in empty apartments. Local Residents' concerns about what will be built on the sites are being ignored so that Camden have a chance of selling them off to a private developer. Please sign our petition to object to development of these 3 sites. It is now time for Camden to listen to the local community. Your voice counts!

Resolving this issue is one which the government should prioritize as gender inequality is an issue which should not be prevalent in 21st century Britain.

Following the Homelessness Reduction Act, which came into force in April 2018, local authorities have a duty to provide interim accommodation for “all people found to be homeless and in priority need” and “In determining who is in priority need, housing authorities will need to be aware that ‘an applicant may be considered vulnerable because of a combination of factors which taken alone may not necessarily lead to a decision that they are vulnerable (e.g. drug and alcohol problems, common mental health problems, a history of sleeping rough, no previous experience of managing a tenancy)” We, the undersigned, call upon the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk to follow on from the successful night shelter funded by Churches Together and fund a night shelter 7 nights a week as part of the interim accommodation

The citizens of Suffolk Coastal already pay significant amounts of council tax, in which waste disposal is included. There is no reasonable explanation to why we should be trying to find extra funds to support a service that is already included.

The preservation of the Sutton Estate is strongly supported by The Victorian Society due to its fine architecture, historic value and its contribution to the Chelsea Conservation Area. Furthermore, RBKC have given no explanation whatsoever for why the Estate was not originally included in the Conservation Area, since all other buildings of that period are, and as a result remain protected from demolition. The Sutton Estate is an Edwarian social housing estate completed in 1913, the largest ever built at that time, comprising 16 red-brick blocks, designed by renowned architect Edward Charles Philip Monson. It was founded in 1900 with the funds of entrepreneur and philanthropist William Sutton who left his fortune to provide housing for the poor. Clarion Group (who took over Affinity Sutton) propose to demolish the historic estate and replace it with an ugly modern block which The Chelsea Society calls “bland and lacking in character”, with a large part of the land to comprise luxury housing. James Hughes of The Victorian Society wrote in support of the estate's preservation, saying “Sutton Dwellings is an early example of social housing which makes a positive contribution to the local area and sits well with the 1915 Samuel Lewis Trust Dwellings opposite. With its handsome proportions it is unsurprising that many residents are unhappy at leaving...Affinity should spend its money on sensitive restoration rather than demolishing this early attempt to address inequality in London.” There has now been a date set, 9th May, for the appeal of their plan, which was rejected on the grounds that it did not provide enough replacement social housing. The new plan will still fall short in social housing by 70 apartments.

The borough of Camden has one of the highest homeless people in the country. Those living on the streets have difficulty accessing basic services. Those homeless with mental health issues are the most vulnerable and require more not less psychiatric care and follow up.

You are removing the annual visitor permit for residents in permit parking zones. The daily parking permits have increased in price by 100%, from £1 to £2. This directly affects the residents who live in areas without off road parking, usually smaller cheaper properties than those who live in non permit roads with off road parking. This means instead of paying £35 a year for a visitor permit, people could have to spend £730 a year to use a daily permit every day of the year. This is a 1986% increase, which is a huge financial increase to residents.