Letter to the Council

We, the residents of Toland Square (Eastwood South) are writing to lay out our objections to the proposed building of more homes on our precious estate.

We have been opposed to the proposed build from the very beginning and have been extremely active in letting councillors know how much we object. In 2021 we had 250 signatures on an online petition– both residents and non-residents supporting us in our fight against these plans.

This year we went door to door on the estate and 135 Toland Square residents signed a new petition. The estate has 125 homes. This petition is attached for you.

On Saturday 8th July 2023 the residents of Toland Square, supported by residents from the Ashburton estate, held a successful protest on our estate against the proposed plans to build more homes on our beloved green space and the garages. Many residents spoke, from those who have been here for decades, to kids who are growing up here to newer residents. 

Here is a video with short clips of speakers at the protest, including a 13 yr old –  even the young ones realise how awful this build would be for the community: 

https://vimeo.com/872257807

You can also see newspaper articles about our protest: 

http://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?section=info&page=ldrshousing005.htm

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/furious-south-london-residents-protest-27293883

Residents demand council not to ‘wreck’ estate by building homes on green space

https://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/yoursay/news/23176347.toland-square-roehampton-fears-new-homes-instead-playground/

Whilst we are 100% onboard with the need to build more affordable housing, and create new and improved communities for people who desperately need them, our estate is not the right place to build additional homes.

Ours is a peaceful and tight-knit community, and crowding the estate with more homes and another 80-100 residents will not result in a better life for the current residents or the proposed new residents.   In truth we believe that it would degrade the area, not due to any new residents, but through tipping the delicate balance we have on our estate by taking out the spaces that allow for community life to grow.

Squeezing in new housing permanently removes space on the estate and in one fail swoop would do away with all our main spaces, of which there are 3, and 2 of them are 100% green and grassy – spaces for wildlife to thrive and for children and adults alike to play/gather/rest/exercise/socialise.

These spaces are: the garage area, the expanse of grass and trees between Hartley House and Hamilton House, and the beautiful grassy/flowery area between Reed House and Cline House. We do not have other areas of space to go to.

Some residents have been here since a little after the estate was built. Many others spend a lot of time on the estate and need the space it affords. We must not discriminate against long term elderly residents, against those with mental health issues (of whom there are a significant number), against single parents, against immigrant families trying to be a part of the community. A direct result of the proposed build, resulting in overcrowding and loss of any spaces to gather at all, will create social inequity; it is those less privileged and with the most challenges who need these spaces the most, as they are not able, for a variety of reasons, including physical and mental disabilities, time constraints, caring responsibilities, to travel further afield to parks and commons in the area.

The largest overarching concerns are:

1. Overcrowding and loss of the heart of our community. The estate cannot handle an increase of 80-100 residents (that is a huge number given the number of residents we currently have).  The estate currently has the perfect number of residents for its size. The community is peaceful, there is space to play/socialise/congregate and be sociable without invading the privacy of others.

There is enough space for residents and visitors to park, and the community is small enough that we know each other. Everyone knows that overcrowding leads to many problems, including neighbour disputes, unhappiness and tension, and crime. Building more homes and moving the clubroom on our estate will result in more of all of these. In addition, there would be a great loss of privacy, which will have a direct impact on mood and mental health for some, and could lead to increased tension between neighbours who cannot get the peace they deserve. 

2. The loss of the majority of our green spaces. Your plans take away the majority of our grassy areas. Although you have made S2 slightly smaller, the impact on the loss of grass is almost the same. Plus, you are now planning to take away even more grass, as well as biodiverse bushes and flowers, to put in more parking spaces (which we don’t require now).  And, your plans to rebuild sheds and introduce cycle storage take away even more of the tiny grassy areas that remain.

This is bad for the environment, and terrible for the physical and mental health of the residents. Not having access to nature is linked to health issues, including cardiovascular issues/diabetes/asthma, poor immune function, and anxiety and depression, to name a few. We have residents with disabilities who rely on looking out of their windows onto our grassy areas, with the squirrels and the flowers and the birds and trees, to boost their mood (it is scientifically proven that just looking at nature boosts mood). We would no longer be able to use our large green areas for picnics/community gatherings/exercise groups/kids games, as they simply won’t be there.

The children will especially suffer, as they will have nowhere to run around, play football, hide and seek, make friends etc. Childhood obesity and mental health issues have been on the rise for a while – compounded by the lockdowns and not being able to access green spaces. Taking away these spaces on our estate will have the same effect; children will stay in far more, not getting the physical exercise they need, not getting fresh air, not socialising and interacting with others on the estate, leading to obesity, poor mental health, boredom, loneliness and potentially unsociable behaviour or even crime as a result. We will go into more detail later in this letter.

3. Lack of visibility and unsafe environment. With the new block in the middle of the estate, the majority of the other blocks will have their visibility blocked off. This means some will have no green spaces they can view out of their windows at all, parents will not be able to watch their kids play in the playground or play on the estate in general, and some blocks will now be looking directly into neighbours windows, which is a complete invasion of privacy. 

We will now go through your consultation and respond to your claims step by step:

KEY PRINCIPLES

1. Create a healthy and happy community

Our response: 

• We find it insulting that you think you need to ‘create’ a healthy and happy community. We already have a healthy and happy community in Toland Square. We are very happy and healthy as we are, and your proposed plans will actually create an unhealthy and unhappy community. 
• Overcrowding = unhappiness for all residents, breakdown of relationships between residents because there are too many and we cannot get to know each other well, homes overlooking other homes and being on top of each other will lead to neighbour disputes. 
• Reduced green spaces  = unhappiness due to lack of access to nature. The community will become unhealthy both physically and mentally. 
• Lack of green spaces = inactivity for adults and children. Children will have nowhere to run around in a safe environment, getting much-needed exercise and making friends. They will be more isolated. Adults won’t be able to hold exercise groups on the grass. Adults with limited physical abilities will not have anywhere to take a slow walk in nature (some of our residents are able to take a walk on our current green but cannot go further afield to parks etc. due to disability). Residents with other needs, who cannot access other spaces, will have to remain indoors with no access to green spaces at all. 
• There will be nowhere to hold community events such as picnics as we do now. These community events, whether planned or impromptu, are vital to the health and strength of our community. There will be nowhere to host children’s parties for free, as we do now; multiple families have held kids parties on the grass – this is especially important for low-income families who cannot afford to hire anywhere to host parties. This means kids will miss out on birthday parties altogether or have to be cooped up inside a small flat, which doesn’t really work. 
• The effect on mental health will be devastating; lack of exercise leads to both physical and mental illness. We need to enable people to exercise to fight the obesity crisis. We need access to green spaces to combat loneliness, depression and anxiety. Taking away these spaces will result in increased mental and physical ill-health.

2. Connect neighbourhoods

Our response: your plans are disconnecting our neighbourhood. You are cutting out the heart of the estate and splitting it into different sections, thereby leading to loss and lack of connectivity. Your plans don’t in any way improve connectivity with anywhere else in the surrounding area either.

3. Create a distinctive heart for the community

Our response: again, we already have  a distinctive heart within our community: the green spaces, playground and clubroom where they are in the centre of the estate. Your plans will rip out that heart, as there will physically no longer be a central space for us to gather, and more people = less connection.

4. Promote a safe and secure environment

Our response: 

• we already have a safe and secure environment. Of course there is room for improvement, but that applies everywhere. Your plans will promote a loss of safety and security. 
• Overcrowding leads to discontent, which leads to issues including crime and potentially violent altercations. Overcrowding increases the risk of having residents who are unsafe individuals. 
• Overcrowding means more visitors to the estate who we don’t know –  we all know about ‘stranger danger’. 
• More residents will mean we have fewer close relationships – communities need to be small to be tight-knit. 
• Fewer close relationships = less trust. At present, we know each other so well, we feel confident letting our kids run around outside without us. With your plans, we will not feel it is safe to do this. There will be too many unknown residents, with too many unknown visitors, so we cannot let our kids run outside without us. 
• The lack of visibility across the estate means parents cannot watch their children playing outside, as we can now. This means it is far more dangerous for kids to play outside unsupervised. Which means either kids do play unsupervised, unseen by their parents or others, and are potentially approached by strangers or bullied etc. Or, kids are not allowed to play out, leading to obesity, loneliness, boredom. Assuming that parents have the time to be outside with their kids all the time is incorrect and disproportionately affects single parents, carers and those with disabilities who do not have the capacity to do so. 
• Your argument is that more homes  = greater visibility = safer environment. Our counter argument is that more homes = less visibility for current residents = less safe environment for our kids. You are also assuming that new residents will be keeping an eye on our kids. This is not a given at all. At present, as we are so tight-knit and a small community, we know each other’s kids so we keep an eye on them. With more residents and more kids around, this won’t happen as we won’t know each other so well, and won’t take that responsibility. Similarly, if we don’t see an elderly neighbour for a while, we check up on them, because we know them and their habits so well. With overcrowding, people will get lost and go unnoticed, and won’t be known well enough to be thought about. 
• Your plan to have the pathway leading out directly onto Roehampton Lane is actually shocking. It is so dangerous. Children could run straight out into the road, which is an extremely busy road and a throughfare. Or they could run off completely.  This means if kids are running out unsupervised they are in a great deal of danger. Or again, they aren’t allowed at all, leading to obesity/loneliness/ boredom/poor mental health etc.
• More strangers will use the pathway as a cut-through, and they will be walking directly past the proposed new block. This is a decrease in safety and security on the estate. This means greater chance of unsavoury characters coming onto the estate and crime. It increases the chances of uni students/party animals coming onto the estate as it will be open and easy access – this could cause greater disturbances. 
• Also, potentially mopeds will use this pathway for their deliveries, which is of course, extremely dangerous. 

5. Make the most of the amenity spaces

Our response: 

• we are happy with our current playground. It underwent improvements a few years ago after much consultation. 
• The proposed new playground backing onto S2 is no bigger, in fact it appears smaller, so there will be no improvement of equipment due to lack of space (as we discovered from the recent refurb). This means you are decreasing the quality and size of the current playground in actuality. 
• Also, this playground will now back onto S2. This means that it is entirely overlooked by the block, which is not desirable or safe for the kids. This playground will either become the playground for S2 residents only, because other residents don’t feel it safe or appropriate to use, as it is an invasion of privacy and noise pollution for S2. Or, it will continue to be used by all children, including Sacred Heart children, and the residents of S2 will be unhappy due to the noise and either shout at the kids or complain to you about it.
• We understand the ground floor flats will have disabled access, who may or may not have children. It is likely they will be extremely unhappy having kids screaming outside their back doors throughout the day. They will complain to the council.
• The proposed new playground  in between Cline and Reed house is apparently aimed at older children. Looking at your plans, it doesn’t fulfil that criteria at all, and more importantly, older children do not want playgrounds but GREEN SPACES TO RUN AROUND AND PLAY GAMES IN. If this second playground is aimed at younger children, this makes no sense. 1 playground for little ones is enough – we do not need another one, especially one that is sandwiched between 2 blocks and overlooked by numerous residents. 
• The new playground is taking away more much-needed green space. It is too small to be effective. 
• It is much too close to Cline and Reed Houses and to the proposed S2. 
• It will be overlooked by all these residents, which is horrid for the kids and horrid for the residents. There will be a significant noise issue, resulting in neighbours either shouting at the kids to be quiet or complaining to you about the noise pollution. 
• Furthermore, we have residents with mental health disabilities in these blocks, and having the playground in such close proximity will have a negative impact on them and therefore the children. One of these residents is known to us, and we know how to respond to him, including when he is agitated. This is because we are a small community. His home backs onto the proposed new wood playground. He likes to enter the playground and talk to the kids sometimes. If you don’t know him, he can naturally be frightening for the kids and parents, even though he is harmless (he thinks he is a child). What will happen is he will either go onto his balcony and shout at the kids in the playground or jump over and try to play with them. If the kids shout back or the parents respond aggressively, this can then escalate the issue; they won’t know him and how to talk to him. This could mean the playground goes entirely unused due to fear or his life is made more difficult because of abuse and complaints. Which leads to unhappy and discontented residents.
• The current clubroom needs some work, so how about you do that for us? No need to build more homes. Just talk to us about how we would like to improve it and action that. 
• The new clubroom is again smack bang in between 2 blocks. We currently have a community charity youth music group in there – they use drums and electric guitars etc. The current clubroom is far enough from residents to not cause noise pollution. In the new block the noise will be too much for residents of Cline and Reed House. Does this mean the music group will have to be disbanded? They were displaced before. This will be devastating for the children who attend. You have not said anything about making the new clubroom soundproof – most buildings are not – so this will definitely be an issue. Also, any parties held there will also cause great disturbance to the residents.

6. Increase and improve biodiversity

Our response:

• you are removing the majority of the grassy, green spaces. This is the opposite of this principle. 
• You will also remove trees to build S2. 
• Your new proposed parking spaces remove even MORE green spaces, including biodiverse bushes and flowers; you are taking away grass behind Hartley and Pembroke Houses for parking spaces, and completely demolishing the beautiful green, bushy, biodiverse patch next to the path that leads into Crestway for parking spaces. 
• Your proposed new sheds, cycle storage (we don’t need hundreds of them!) and bins remove even MORE green spaces, which are already at a minimum. 
• You argue that you will put biodiverse rooftops on some of the new buildings, and plant more trees. If you do not build on the estate, you do not need to spend this money and time on these measures. If you do not remove the current trees, there is no need to plant any more – we love our trees, some of which are very old and you want to cut down. We are pretty biodiverse as it is, with lots of wildlife and birds. If you are concerned about the lack of grass diversity, please do plant some different types of grass. No need to build more homes to implement this. 
• Also, of real concern, is the increased cost of maintaining these roofs – this will obviously be an additional service charge, which we can ill afford. Just because some of us own our flats does not mean we have excess money – the opposite in face. We cannot afford ANOTHER increase in service charge, which has gone up by £600 this year already.

7. Work towards a Net zero carbon future:

• Let’s do this anyway – no need to ruin our estate with new homes in order to implement this. 
• Furthermore, your plans are increasing carbon emissions on our estate; more cars = more pollution. 
• These will not be electric cars, as there is no infrastructure for charging points, nor any plans to build these. 
• You cannot expect residents to buy electric cars when there is no means to easily charge them (the charging points on Roehampton Lane are wholly insufficient). 
• Also, electric cars are too expensive for the majority of the residents too. 

KEY BENEFITS

1. Great opportunities to provide high-quality trees and plants to add to the biodiversity on the estate

This can be done anyway, and it should be an independent issue. See response to number 6 above

2. New and improved cycle parking, refuse and storage

• These are all issues that should be addressed by you anyway, if you truly care about us. Using these as bribery for building these homes we don’t want is not very honest. 
• Cycle parking: yes we do need secure cycle parking – please implement this as part of your responsibility to the estate anyway. But we do not need the 100s you have proposed. Especially as these hundreds of proposed facilities take away lots of green spaces and will be an eyesore.
• Refuse: again, for YEARS we have asked for more bins, yet have received none. This is a separate issue and nothing to do with this proposed building plan. Please address it separately. 
• But, in your proposal, although you offer enclosed recycling bins (although now open to squirrels and birds and foxes, when they aren’t at present), there is no evidence of INCREASED CAPACITY. We need MORE BINS right now, and there is no evidence you will provide that. 
• Furthermore, there is a building that backs onto the garages at present, which will be torn down to build S1. This is a large building which is used for A LOT of rubbish, especially larger items. You will be taking away this space, replacing it with smaller bins for new residents, which means you are REDUCING waste capacity for the current residents. 
• This means more overflowing of bins, rubbish on the streets and larger items of rubbish will simply be dumped in plain view. 
• Also, the plans show bins at the end of Number 1 Toland Square’s front garden. This means not only disturbance for these residents, with neighbours constantly coming over to dispose of their rubbish, but they won’t be able to use their front garden because of the smell, potential mess and it being an eyesore. And every time they walk up their pathway to their home, they will have to walk right by these public bins. This is wholly unacceptable.
• Storage: you are not increasing the number of sheds, but keeping the number the same, with perhaps a little increase in capacity in some of them. This will not have a major positive impact – the opposite in fact as there will be the same number of sheds to share between more households, leaving even more residents without storage facilities. 
• Storage is already at a premium and you are lucky to even get a shed as it stands.  
• The new sheds will again, take away more green space, which is a huge negative. 
• And, by taking away the garages, you are reducing a great deal of storage for Wandsworth residents. The majority of the garages are not rented by Toland Sq residents, but many are on the waiting list. Perhaps you could do something about this by keeping the garages and prioritising residents who sorely need the storage space.

3. Improved connections within the estate

Your plans show no evidence of this at all. The opposite in fact, as each block will be blocked off from others by either another block of flats or a clubroom or playground. Connected communities need to be kept small – it is well-known that the larger cities etc. have much less connectivity because it is impossible to maintain. Not being able to see each other and decreased visibility across the estate will lead to fewer connections  – at present we can see each other across large parts of the estate and stay connected. This will be entirely lost.

4. Improved spaces between buildings with potential for more pedestrian-friendly street section

• Again, your plans show no evidence of this at all, but quite the opposite. 
• Spaces between buildings would be greatly diminished and ruined. 
• The following blocks would have space between them and other blocks reduced significantly: Cline, Reed, Hartley, Hamilton, Andrew. 
• And Number 1 Toland Square would be overlooked by S1 – directly into a bedroom in fact.
• S2 will also have very little space between them and Cline, Reed, Andrew, Hartley and Pembroke. 
• Pembroke and Douglas will have less space between them and the other side of the estate.
• You show no evidence for more pedestrian-friendly sections. 
• We already have a number of great pathways, and we can also cross across the grass. 
• In fact, with more residents and more cars, the current ‘roads’ on the estate will not be as safe to use for pedestrians as they are now. At present, we can use them to walk on, cycle on, for kids to run around and learn to cycle and skateboard. This will be taken away with more residents and more cars, reducing the number of pedestrian-friendly sections. 
• Lots of parents cut through our estate to get to Sacred Heart. Already, we have a child have his foot run over, as it is so busy at peak times. With more residents and more cars and generally more traffic, the estate will present more of a danger to pedestrians.

5. Increased visibility around the estate

• Your plans would lead to REDUCED VISIBILITY around the estate. 
• Pembroke, Douglas, Cline and Reed Houses will no longer be able to see the current playground or the main green at all. 
• Pembroke and Douglas will have ALL their grassy views taken away entirely, with views reduced to other blocks and concrete (and into neighbours’ windows) only.
• Andrew House will no longer be able to see the other green. 
• Hartley and Hamilton will have greatly reduced visibility of the playground and central green, as S2 will block this view, as well as reduce light and sunlight into surrounding blocks. 
• Parts of Hartley and Hamilton would not be able to see the other green at all. 
• Cline and Reed would have reduced visibility between them due to the clubroom and playground proposed. 
• Residents will not be able to communicate between balconies as we do now. 
• Children will not be able to run around the estate freely or use the playgrounds without supervision, as their parents will no longer be able to see them from their balconies and windows, as they do now. 
• There will be far too many places for the kids to remain hidden from view, which is too dangerous. So they will have to be indoors a lot more – losing out on the health and social and mental benefits of bonding with others on the estate. This greatly impacts single children, who need this interaction more, and parents who do not have time or ability to be outside with their kids all the time (and any parents under pressure who need some respite could take their frustrations out on their kids because of being cooped up with them all of the time – a negative for the parents and children alike).
• We will not be able to look out for each other as we have in the past due to this reduction in visibility. Our bonds and connectivity will be lost as a result, for both children and adults alike. 
• Number 1 Toland Square would have reduced visibility due to S1. 
• If by visibility you mean Neighbourhood Watch, it may well be that more residents = more opportunities to view criminal activity. But to what end? Residents can report a dumped moped or someone lurking smoking weed, but what will the police actually do about it with no evidence? Nothing. Seeing crimes does not stop crimes. So really this is an ineffective argument. 

6. Opportunity to provide improved play areas

See number 5 above. Your plans are not providing improved play areas – they are reducing capacity of the current playground and backing it onto S1 and the new playground proposed it too small to be effective and in between 3 blocks, leading to issues of safeguarding, noise pollution and disgruntled residents (not all residents want to have screaming kids outside their windows). 

FURTHER OBJECTIONS

1. LOSS OF MUCH-LOVED GREEN SPACES WHICH ARE THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITY

• Physical and mental wellbeing is at an all-time low. 
• The government and indeed everyone knows that we need to be getting outside more, exercising more, and taking regular breaks from screens. 
• This is especially important for children, who are becoming more obese and suffering from more mental health illnesses, and the elderly, who often cannot go far and have minimal access to green spaces. 
• As we heard at the protest, for some, this green space is the only space the children can run around in the majority of the time (parents working from home don’t have time to take their kids to the parks during the week etc.), it is an absolute haven for single parents, who get the support they need, and it is also a sanctuary for the elderly, who can look out onto the green to lift their spirits, and who can manage to walk around the green, as they are not able to travel further afield. 
• We need to be getting outside MORE and exercising MORE and socialising MORE for mental and physical wellbeing. Your plan will prevent this from happening at all on the estate, as there will be nowhere to run/play football/sit /sunbathe/meet new residents/hold impromptu resident gatherings/picnics/parties/waterfights/connect with neighbours. 
• We are sure you will argue that the strip of green left at the back of Andrew House can still be used for this. But this is incorrect. The small patch of grass you plan to leave is too close to Andrew House to be used by the community. It would be an encroachment on their homes and their privacy to stand there. And it would be too overlooked to feel free to talk/play etc. Kids will be told not to play there, as they could kick a ball into someone’s window or into the playground harming a child, or even into S2. Or, if the kids continue to play there, neighbours will get annoyed for these very reasons, and additionally the noise and inconvenience, leading to bad-feeling on the estate. This area will also not get the sun as much due to S2 blocking it out. So it will not be usable except by the residents on the ground floor of Andrew House.
• The other green space will also be very small and unusable for the same reasons – residents of Cline and Reed would not welcome balls flying into their windows at all hours, nor having people outside talking and enjoying a get-together encroaching on their space. 
• There is a lovely strip of grass currently behind Hartley House. The kids currently use this to play games, dance, have waterfights etc. It is a great additional space to the current green for smaller kids if the big kids are playing football. And it is highly visible to parents in that block and Pembroke. You are proposing having parking spaces there – not only taking away grass but taking away ANOTHER play area for kids. You also propose adding parking spaces on the green behind Pembroke House – removing yet more grass. And the gorgeous patch of nature that we walk past as we use the pathway to Crestway will be completely taken away for yet more parking spaces – this is arguably one of the more biodiverse patches on the estate, as it has various bushes and flowers there. Furthermore, the residents of the building opposite will now be looking onto a load of parked cars rather than beautiful nature (and be disturbed by the noise of 8 vehicles coming and going at all hours).
• You are desperately biting into almost all the green spaces on the estate with plans for parking spaces/sheds/bins/cycle storage. We want to keep ALL the current green spaces. 

2. BEING OVERLOOKED

• Number 1 Toland Square would have neighbours in S1 looking directly into their windows on the side of the house. And vice versa. And the neighbouring houses to Number 1 will also have restricted views and be overlooked by S1 too. There could also be an impact on light and sunlight into the current houses.
• Hartley, Reed, Cline and Hamilton will be overlooked with neighbours seeing into their windows from S2 and vice versa. 
• We do not want to have residents peering at us, nor would they want that from us. But it would be inevitable. Leading to unhappiness, residents even on top storeys having to keep curtains and blinds permanently shut to combat this. This prevents light coming in and is not a healthy way to live. 
• Residents will be more cut-off from each other, as they try to maintain privacy. 
• Ground floor residents of Hartley and Pembroke Houses will have cars parking outside their bedroom windows at all hours of the day and night – the drivers will be driving right up to their walls, which is incredibly invasive. Car lights will shine into their rooms – disturbing them at night and early morning. The sound of engines will potentially wake them up or keep them awake, causing sleep disturbances. And the people in the vehicles could look directly into their homes inadvertently, which is unacceptable for the residents. 

3. The playgrounds being too overlooked and causing noise pollution

• Both playgrounds will be grossly overlooked. This is a safeguarding issue for the kids and will cause great disruption for the residents, who will inevitably get annoyed with the kids and cause friction. 
• Furthermore, we have residents with mental health disabilities in these blocks, and having the playground in such close proximity will have a negative impact on them and therefore the children. One of these residents is known to us, and we know how to respond to him, including when he is agitated. This is because we are a small community. His home backs onto the proposed new wood playground. He likes to enter the playground and talk to the kids sometimes. If you don’t know him, he can naturally be frightening for the kids and parents, even though he is harmless (he thinks he is a child). What would happen is he would either go onto his balcony and shout at the kids in the playground or jump over and try to play with them. If the kids shout back or the parents respond aggressively, this can then escalate the issue; they won’t know him and how to talk to him. This could mean the playground goes entirely unused due to fear, or his life is made more difficult because of abuse and complaints. Which leads to unhappy and discontented residents. And more complaints to the council.
• As mentioned before, one of the playgrounds will either become solely used by S2 residents because of the proximity to S2, or S2 residents will be disturbed by a great deal of noise pollution on a daily basis from the kids in the playground. I am sure nobody wants to be living directly next to a playground for this very reason. 
• Reed and Cline Houses will have a playground sandwiched between them – undesirable for kids and residents.

4. LOSS OF COMMUNITY AND MARGINALISING THOSE IN THE CARE OF THE COMMUNITY

We are a little island community hemmed in by the west side of the Dover House Estate, bounded by a hospital, school and the roaring Roehampton lane. If space is removed we can’t spread out to get any more. Our community would suffer. As is touched on in more detail below, there are residents here who benefit from the space and quiet, from the beauty that comes from walking around, from having space, from being in touch with the green heart of the estate. They will not be compensated by bicycle sheds and net zero roofs. Those with mental health issues, those bringing up children alone should be most particularly cared for. That is equity. Making sure there is the support so that others can be pushed up towards the equality that they deserve. It’s not just a matter of treating people equally but giving particular help to those who are most needy. If we don’t care for those on the margins of our community then we will have an increasingly divided and uncaring community and there is the likelihood that community will break down; the retreat from communal engagement, less peacemakers to defuse issues. This will then backfire on those coming into the estate and then back onto the Council in increased social costs, increased needs, increased criminality, increased vandalism (no matter how beautiful things may start off!). And with long term residents thinking of moving out because of these plans, it is quite possible that the landlords move in with tenants who feel no attachment to the area which will exacerbate the problems, which will fall on Toland Square and indirectly on the Council.  We recognise the need for more housing and this may appear a short term solution but it will kill the community.5. ALL RESIDENTS, OLD AND NEW, WILL HAVE REDUCED QUALITY OF LIFEIn short, current residents would be extremely unhappy with these new builds, as their quality of life will be greatly reduced. We support some people need new homes, but not at the expense of others. The aim should be to increase quality of life for everyone, not make some unhappy to try and benefit others. Overcrowding the estate will not be beneficial for the proposed new residents either, as they deserve to live somewhere that isn’t overcrowded and that has the space for them to live well and be happy.
6. Increased traffic on the estate, making it less safe and more polluted. 

• Parts of the estate have no pavements so we have to walk on the roads to access our homes. At present we are happy with this and have NO ISSUE with it at all, because the estate is quiet. With more homes and more cars, this could become a safety issue. 
• The children currently use the roads to learn to cycle, skateboard and to play games – again this could be stripped from them as there will be increased traffic.
• The children also play in the garage area, as this is a safe haven from cars. They learn to cycle there, play footie and tennis and basketball. This is yet another space that will be taken away from them, leaving them with nowhere to safely hang out and play.
• Also, you initially told us new residents would not be allowed cars. Now, all of a sudden, you are proposing taking away multiple green spaces for additional parking for them. We shouldn’t need this if you were true to your word initially.  Your plans REMOVE 2 parking spaces in front of 1 Toland Square, which is not only an incredible inconvenience for them, but where will the residents of that home now park? Adding 14 parking spaces where there is grass, and removing 2 spaces which are already concrete means a total of 12 new parking spaces, which would be woefully inadequate for 21 new homes anyway. But, bottom line, we do not want more cars or more parking spaces, nor is there space for them. Your designs show how you are desperately trying to find space that doesn’t exist. 
• More cars = more noise pollution. Those on the ground floors especially will be notably impacted by increased vehicles driving past their windows and causing all sorts of noise disturbances. 
• More cars = more pollution, potentially leading to illnesses such as asthma. Or exacerbation of those with current lung diseases/illnesses. 

Thank you for taking the time to read through all of our objections. Whilst we welcome improvements to refuse etc., we do not welcome them if they are only offered in exchange for agreeing to these plans. We categorically do not want these new builds, as we have stated from the very first time they were proposed. Our estate is the wrong place to build new homes, and we trust that you will now listen to us and bin them entirely.

Thank you from

THE RESIDENTS OF TOLAND SQUARE