Despite strong opposition from local residents to the plans consulted on earlier this year, developers are pressing ahead and have submitted their Planning Application for the redevelopment of the kennels behind Goddard’s vets in Chingford Mount Road.
The proposed development would have 43 flats and three houses, but just 13 parking spaces. The larger blocks would loom over houses in Acorn Close and even the smaller blocks will cause a loss of privacy for existing residents.
In addition, the developer is proposing only 8% of the homes would be “affordable”.
If you would like to object to the application, you can do so via the Council website, via this link - https://bit.ly/GoddardsKennels.
If you would like to support our objection by signing our local petition, please do so below.
John, Sam and Catherine
Your Larkswood Conservative Councillors
SIGN THE PETITION HERE
We object to the proposed development of the former Goddard’s Kennels site on the following grounds:
1. The proposed provision of just 8% affordable homes is contrary to policies of the Waltham Forest Local Plan and the London Plan.
2. The proposed height and massing of buildings will create significant harm to residents of Acorn Close, Chingford Mount Road, Finch Gardens and Genever Close. Private gardens will be loomed over by four storey high blank walls and overlooked from living room and bedroom windows.
3. The parking provision is wholly inadequate. The site has poor public transport accessibility with only bus routes along the heavily congested Chingford Mount Road. Travel to local rail stations at peak times will take at least 30 minutes and they are beyond a reasonable walking distance.
4. There is no Controlled Parking Zone in the area, but there is significant parking stress. Residents with vehicles that are not able to park on site will circulate the local area seeking non-existent parking spaces.
5. The consultation that was undertaken did result in some changes, but the scheme appears to be driven largely by the emerging local Plan, which has been heavily criticised by the Planning Inspectors and which, as simply a draft document, should be given little weight in the decision-making process.
We therefore urge the Planning Committee to reject this application.
