Opposition to Highams Park family homes plan grows

Opposition to family homes plan grows

Opposition to family homes plan grows

First published in Waltham Forest
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

Dozens of people have signed a petition against plans for three-storey homes which neighbours fear will constitute an overdevelopment and invade their privacy.

People living in Armstrong Avenue, Highams Park, are worried that the developments proposed by housing association East Thames will tower over their houses and that their privacy will be invaded by the windows overlooking their homes.

Yvette Sargent, 36, has collected 59 signatures from neighbours also concerned about overdevelopment and parking problems they believe the buildings would cause.

She said: “The number of signatures demonstrates how strongly we feel about this. There’s no space left here to build and they’re just squeezing it in. We think enough is enough.

“We’re worried about what could happen. I have two small children and with our parking issues already I could be forced to park ages away from my house.

“Carrying one child home at a time, past the forest in the dark, leaving the other in the car - I can’t do that.”

Jay Singh, whose garden backs onto the proposed development site, said people were forced to move their possessions out of Waltham Forest Council-run garages around a year ago, where East Thames hopes to build.

He added: “It’s going to cause a dramatic loss of privacy if it gets passed. No-one will enjoy being in their back garden with people staring at them.

“It would be awful being peered at all the time.”

However, a spokeswoman for the social housing company insisted there was a “significant need” for more housing in the borough.

She added: “The two homes we are building in Armstrong Avenue will provide high quality, affordable homes for two local families.

“The homes have been designed to blend in with the other homes in the area. They have front and back gardens and are a similar height to other homes in the street. They will be built to high quality standards and have been well designed.

“Through the design we have ensured the privacy of neighbouring residents and the pathway between homes will be gated and secure.

“We will carry out further sunlight tests to ensure neighbouring homes continue to get natural light, but we are confident the homes will enhance the area and provide quality family housing.”

The Guardian understands a decision on the application is due next month.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:07pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

Nimbyism is fine when you have a nice home and want to deny others from having the same.

There are people who would like the same
Nimbyism is fine when you have a nice home and want to deny others from having the same. There are people who would like the same Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

9:53am Fri 8 Feb 13

LakeBreeze says...

Sorry, Cornbeefur but you just don't get it. You're blinkered and can't see the real issue in cases like these.

I take issue with this "nimby" insult. Since when did it become a bad thing for people to want to protect and preserve something good? Protect and preserve what makes their own home worth living in and a good place to be?

Since when was that something to insult people for?

Walk in someone else's shoes before you put them down for simply having the right to worry that things are going downhill.
Sorry, Cornbeefur but you just don't get it. You're blinkered and can't see the real issue in cases like these. I take issue with this "nimby" insult. Since when did it become a bad thing for people to want to protect and preserve something good? Protect and preserve what makes their own home worth living in and a good place to be? Since when was that something to insult people for? Walk in someone else's shoes before you put them down for simply having the right to worry that things are going downhill. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Cornbeefur says...

'Jay Singh, whose garden backs onto the proposed development site, said people were forced to move their possessions out of Waltham Forest Council-run garages around a year ago, where East Thames hopes to build'

Council Garages are let out on the basis that a car will be parked therein not clutter and junk. It is stipulated in the terms of the let.

Nimby's always bleat the same song 'loss of light, value of their property going down, parking' all of which are not merits for objection.

Nimby's must remember that the situation they were in when they wanted a nest.
'Jay Singh, whose garden backs onto the proposed development site, said people were forced to move their possessions out of Waltham Forest Council-run garages around a year ago, where East Thames hopes to build' Council Garages are let out on the basis that a car will be parked therein not clutter and junk. It is stipulated in the terms of the let. Nimby's always bleat the same song 'loss of light, value of their property going down, parking' all of which are not merits for objection. Nimby's must remember that the situation they were in when they wanted a nest. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Fri 8 Feb 13

red37red says...

visit papermill place e17 to get a good idea of how close they build flats!
visit papermill place e17 to get a good idea of how close they build flats! red37red
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Fri 15 Feb 13

pandoramcv says...

There are very real safety issues with building more houses with no parking here - last year there was a fire on the estate and the fire engines could not get near the burning house due to the car parking situation (very narrow roads with cars parked on the pavement). Unless this is addressed lives will be put at risk - 2 three bed house will bring more cars, we just want to see common sense applied, we're not against people having homes.

The council need to take these very real issuse on board. Furthermore it's a clear over-development - it feels like the local council is attempting to squeeze houses into every tiny available space. Would you agree with putting houses into every spare space throughout England ? do you just want a concrete world ?
There are very real safety issues with building more houses with no parking here - last year there was a fire on the estate and the fire engines could not get near the burning house due to the car parking situation (very narrow roads with cars parked on the pavement). Unless this is addressed lives will be put at risk - 2 three bed house will bring more cars, we just want to see common sense applied, we're not against people having homes. The council need to take these very real issuse on board. Furthermore it's a clear over-development - it feels like the local council is attempting to squeeze houses into every tiny available space. Would you agree with putting houses into every spare space throughout England ? do you just want a concrete world ? pandoramcv
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree