Monday, October 06, 2014

Oakfield Site
– Back on the Housing agenda


Message via the Save Oakfield Site (SOS) campaign HQ

The Neighbourhood and Communities Service Committee met on 1st October to consider a report proposing 4 Housing options for public consultation and a decision in early 2015. They are:
  1. The original Oakfields proposal
  2. King George's and Goodmayes Hospitals plus the Ford's Sports Ground
  3. A growth corridor from Woodford to Wanstead
  4. Other land meeting Green Belt criteria
The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration (Cllr Coomb) had a choice:
a) Take the decision to proceed under delegated authority from the Leader of the Council, or
b) Refer the decision back to full Cabinet
Fortunately there were representations at the meeting and written responses from residents, Old Parkonians, Sport England, London Playing Fields Foundation, local councillors and others.

As a result Cllr Coomb has referred it back to full Cabinet which meets on 14th October 7:15pm Town Hall.

WE ASK YOU TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOURS AND THAT AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ATTEND THIS CRITICAL MEETING TO SUPPORT YOUR SOS CAMPAIGN

In September 2013 the then opposition accused the previous administration of a "knee jerk" (Ilford Recorder) reaction to public opinion when they ordered a fresh review seeking alternatives, and congratulated the community on an effective campaign. Now in power, they have tried to quietly slip through a report stating that "including Oakfields will add significantly to capacity and help demonstrate that the Council is doing everything it reasonably can to meet (housing) need".

It is clear that only a campaign based on facts, grounded objections and mass participation will Save Oakfield Site. That campaign has started.

Together we will Save Oakfield Site for the whole community

14 comments:

  1. We need the houses. Stop with the NIMBYism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We also need comments from people sufficiently principled as to identify themselves and not make contentious comments with the protection of anonymity.

      Delete
    2. “Everyone has to say ‘Not in my back yard’ because anyone who doesn’t gets lumbered with whatever it is in their back yard. I have previously described Roding Lane North as the ‘road that gets lumbered with everything’”. – Richard White, Marston Area (Tilekiln) Neighbourhood Watch and Community Association, Newsletter number 50, August 2014.

      Delete
    3. The issue is not about NIMBY-ism but about the loss of the finest grass-pitch sports arena in the Borough and arguably in N.E. London - and for whom do we need the houses?

      People desire to buy houses in Redbridge because their house is close to an open space. Build on the open space and not only is the house not worth what was paid for it but nobody wants to live there.

      Delete
  2. well done to all the labour voters out there (sarcasm)....look what you have done....now I am not saying that conservatives would have done much better but it seems as if a majority in Redbridge see this as "growth" "opportunity" and "wealth" in some cultures and their "friends" this is seen as the norm in the beautiful land that we live in.and I am sure don't even live in the borough ...maybe further out in essexshire so will not be affected or is it effected? and I will write my name

    ReplyDelete
  3. We don't need more houses. We need fewer people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite so. No housing crisis, no schools crisis - uncontrolled immigration crisis.

      Delete
  4. Maybe, just maybe, Redbridge council might like to think about a plan to provide services like education to those people who are here already, before we start attracting even more people to make the situation worse.
    http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/11516898.Report_finds__insufficient_capacity__for_school_places/

    And I do not consider my comment 'unprincipled' or otherwise invalid simply because it is anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What about the extensive plans the new administration had to bring back empty homes? I seem to remember the new Cabinet Member for Housing being very vocal in the meetings before May 2014 - how many Council and Housing Association homes are empty at present? What is the turn-a-around for these properties; i know that in the past Council homes were inspected when vacant and then if needed, updated in terms of bathrooms and kitchens.
    Back in 2005, Shelter said that if ALL the empty homes in London were brought back into use, (private and Council owned) then the housing shortage in London would have been virtually wiped out.
    Yes, I also appreciate that there are far more people living in London than in 2005 - but I bet people can say where an empty property is near them - use them first!
    Vanessa Cole -

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was in correspondence with Housing Department for well over a year about an empty property near me. At no time did the Department show any sense of urgency. How many more are there like it?

      Delete
  6. I'll mention again the the Oakfield site is subject to flooding - does anyone remember the drainage systems put around it about 30 years ago? To build a load of homes is asking for major problems as it sits a bit lower than most other sites and where will the predicted heavy rainfalls go but there. Every year we see modern homes in Britain subjected to terrible flooding and this will be no different with the weather changes imminent.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seeing as the Sports Centre on Oakfields site is Lottery funded, do they not have any concerns about the constant attempts to develop it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Today got letter in post form Labour blaming conservatives. Stop the blame game and think about people and there problems. Oakfields site is nice green field used by neighborhood which people use. Adjoining roads are already overcrowded and has usual traffic jams throughout the day, and putting these many more houses will put pressure on the existing infrastructure, which is anyways insufficient. It's so strange to see these decision makers seeing a opportunity to make money rather than improving the exiting local problems.

    ReplyDelete