A new Zebra Crossing has recently been installed on Manor Lane close to the junction of Fernbrook Road and Southbrook Road. Two crossings are planned in total with the second to be constructed later this year.
The crossings replace the previous ‘School Crossing Patrol’ (or Lollipop Lady/Man as we used to call them). No mention is had in the Lee Green Councillors Report (July 2025) as to the fate of the said Lollipop Lady but we must assume that her role has been retired.
Lee Green Councillors have said that the new crossing will provide a safe location for crossing on a 24/7 basis instead of for just a few hours each day during school term time.
Combined with existing School Streets, the Lewisham and Lee Green Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Sustainable Streets programme these new crossings are a part of Lewisham Council’s commitment to making sure that our streets are pedestrian friendly and support active travel throughout the borough.
Whilst traffic in general has seriously reduced along Manor Lane since the LTN was introduced around 4 years ago, this particular junction on Manor Lane remains busy and Lewisham’s Councillors are to be congratulated for finding the funding to implement such works for the safety of all local residents.
Lewisham’s mayor and cabinet have approved plans to extend their Sustainable Streets initiative – involving permit-only parking, street trees and electric vehicle charging points – to streets to the east of Burnt Ash Road. Only three streets are mentioned in the plans given the green light on July 9 although the original proposal unveiled in February covered all the streets on the Dorville Road side of Burnt Ash Road.
Streets referred to in the council plans are Burnt Ash Hill, Cambridge Drive and Upwood Road with no mention of Leyland Road, Dorville Road or Carston Close. In addition, council traffic planners seem to think Burnt Ash Hill, which runs from the south circular to the Lee station bridge, continues all the way to the Lee Green crossroads.
No mention is made of the length of time for which parking restrictions would apply but the changes will be made by extending the existing Lee Green controlled parking zone, covering much of the Lee Manor conservation area, the mayor and cabinet said. Permit parking in this controlled parking zone (CPZ) run from 10 am to 12 noon Monday to Friday suggesting these timings will apply to the east of Burnt Ash Road.
The original plans for the sustainable streets initiative east of Burnt Ash road suggested imposing parking controls from 9 am to 5 pm which apply in some other CPZs. The Society had objected to any such move on the grounds it would make life difficult for carers and tradesmen and the residents themselves.
Consultation of residents in the half-dozen separate CPZ zones that cover Lee showed a general resistance to any extension of the time period covered by parking controls. There was strong support for tree planting and safer crossings and junctions with moderate support for cycle storage and electric vehicle charging points.
Once sustainable measures are installed they will be subject to review after six to 12 months by council officers, not by councillors or the mayor and cabinet. Council officers failed to turn up to a planned meeting with residents in February and refused a Society offer to arrange an alternative meeting.
If the council has confused Burnt Ash Hill with Burnt Ash Road then controls would apply between the Lee station bridge and the Lee Green crossroads. What is not clear is if this would include the narrow parallel road between Leegate and Dorville Road. The Society called for controls on parking alongside the avenue of mature trees along this road to prevent damage and compaction of the soil. No reference is made in council’s paperwork to this issue though tree planting and presumably care is a cornerstone of the sustainable streets policy.
Sustainable streets aims to improve air quality and road safety, reduce noise and traffic congestion and make neighbourhoods greener and healthier by reducing car use. The council wants 80 per cent of all journeys to be by cycle, walking or public transport by 2041. Fifty-five per cent of Lewisham’s streets are covered by CPZs, one of the lowest levels of any London borough.
Lee Manor Society has learned that no final decision has been made about the Sustainable Streets proposal for all-day Controlled Parking Zones in parts of Lee.
A recent meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet agreed “for the Executive Director of Place to use their delegated powers to consider any objections received during statutory consultation on the permanent traffic order and make any applicable decision as a result.”
This led to fears that a decision had already been made to implement the proposed parking measures in several roads east of Burnt Ash Road.
Now, however, a source has told the Lee Manor Society that responses to the consultation earlier this year are still being considered and no decisions have been finalised.
This may result in the original plan for 0900 to 1700 Monday to Friday Controlled Parking Zones being replaced with less draconian measures.
The Lee Manor Society believes that while measures are needed to prevent commuters leaving their cars all day in streets near Lee station, full-fat CPZs operating from 9 am to 5 am are unnecessary. The Society argues that two hour bans from 1000 to noon in other parts of the ward have worked very well.
Lee Manor Society is lodging a formal objection to London Square’s planning application which would pave the way for a Leegate tower even higher than the 15 storeys already approved.
Crucially, the Society argues the application to remove the 15-storey description of the tower, is not ‘non-material’. This is a technical, but vitally important aspect of the planning application.
The Society says that by removing the description it would lead to changes to the height of the proposed tower block, which would indeed be material because “it has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties, including increased traffic due to an increase in residential units and of overshadowing.”
The objection points out that in their application, London Square’s agents say they have been ‘encouraged’ to test the height of the tower, known as Ai in the planning application.
Their Public Consultation document states: ‘“Following meetings with Lewisham Council and the Design Review Panel, the team have been encouraged to test additional height at building A1. The current proposals would increase the height of A1 from 15 to 18 storeys‘”
That suggests Lewisham Council is at least partly complicit in the approach, despite the fact that its own ‘Local Plan’ (although not yet formally adopted) sets a normal upper limit for tall buildings of 12 storeys.
The Society also notes that London Square says it needs to raise the height of the tower above 15 storeys ‘to ensure the scheme remains deliverable.’
“So, the only objective reason provided by London Square appears to be that the current approved scheme is not viable,” says the objection.
It continues “It would be an incredibly incompetent developer who would spend serious amounts of money on purchasing a site with an extant Planning Approval that they knew full well to be unviable in meeting their own requirements.
“From this we can only surmise that London Square are simply ‘testing’ the limits of the current approved Application ref DC/22/126997 to garner more profit because they would not have purchased the rights to a development that was incapable of being achieved.”
The Society reminds Lewisham Council that when Galliard first proposed a 15- storey tower block there were numerous local objections. It argues that Lewisham Council should not denigrate the concern of a material change of height to being a non-material change by the removal of the words up to ‘15-storeys (including basement level) …’ from the Decision Notice because without those words there is no detailed description of the development proposals.
“What is clear to any reasonable person is that the height of the main tower Block A of the proposed Leegate development was a very material concern raised by numerous objections… the height of the Block A tower building was a matter of great concern to local residents throughout the previous (Galliard) planning application and is of no lesser concern now.
“To consider removing the text that relates in general to its overall height would simply be wrong and a dereliction of LBL’s responsibilities to its borough’s residents as this is clearly a material consideration of the proposed development.”
