tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73979706490623713662024-03-16T01:09:53.605+00:00The Deptford DameTHE DEPTFORD DAMEUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger805125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-22441924974704508952022-02-08T08:33:00.006+00:002022-02-10T12:37:30.207+00:00Launch of MoSaF map - 'a new way of thinking about Deptford'<p>A group campaigning for a Museum of Slavery and Freedom to be established in Deptford has announced the launch of its latest initiative, the MoSaF Map, this Saturday. </p><p>MoSaF London has issued an invitation to local residents, businesses and community groups to attend the launch and book a place on one of the free walking tours that take place on Sunday. </p><p>Local groups, schools, neighbours and friends are all invited to this event at which MoSaF will present its research and vision for a museum. Artists taking part in MōSaF’s 2022 commissioning programme also will present their ideas for community engagement.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLJSu3UNgLDbGEZ0HYiaFrPeHHqbnsa2G6h7uW17NEgWKqNzRQq026NeUizLbcYrIl5KXwAe1prrREMQufvhT9N16Za9NrsThIEWBxK9aNqkIZIOARA_xDxj23KsHp_lSzlxe0eykCDFfLBSqTWUgf7E9Thw2xeEEaY1dPPGPdUZGjs-5ahTdglrqVg/s587/slavery.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="587" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLJSu3UNgLDbGEZ0HYiaFrPeHHqbnsa2G6h7uW17NEgWKqNzRQq026NeUizLbcYrIl5KXwAe1prrREMQufvhT9N16Za9NrsThIEWBxK9aNqkIZIOARA_xDxj23KsHp_lSzlxe0eykCDFfLBSqTWUgf7E9Thw2xeEEaY1dPPGPdUZGjs-5ahTdglrqVg/s320/slavery.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>"There is no memorial to the slave trade in the UK’s capital, an astounding gap in our country’s cultural landscape. Our railway system, cotton and coal industries, the City of London and the country house movement all owe a substantial economic debt to the trade in enslaved people," the invitation says.<p></p><p>"The MōSaF Map is unique because it goes local. Against the backdrop of such national amnesia, it provides a historical snapshot of how, and exactly where on our streets, Deptford and its citizens were involved in the trade. It marks out places where the fight for abolition took place."</p><p>The local community is invited to RSVP to attend the launch on Saturday 12th February where they can pick up a copy of the map, join the campaign for a museum, and sign up to participate in art workshops and collaborative projects. MoSaF guides are also planning free walking tours on Sunday which can be booked at the event. <br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3YuyKaGWkDj4rlGUmaejGekkMjujsPb8ULQpmZ9dE2gy0y8VTjiDi5_rnwFqr9FtNN4OtMiVx5qXEmcPcV_5aJN4W5n18V3qMKQvCrTdDjJ_EHmVL9Yjj_roq9jl8q8dN3bgu4ynqBZSAtlr5xosUKI73cpdJD13Mkc62ho91xcgGguQF57BbgphQfA/s590/hibbert.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="579" data-original-width="590" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3YuyKaGWkDj4rlGUmaejGekkMjujsPb8ULQpmZ9dE2gy0y8VTjiDi5_rnwFqr9FtNN4OtMiVx5qXEmcPcV_5aJN4W5n18V3qMKQvCrTdDjJ_EHmVL9Yjj_roq9jl8q8dN3bgu4ynqBZSAtlr5xosUKI73cpdJD13Mkc62ho91xcgGguQF57BbgphQfA/s320/hibbert.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>MoSaF deputy chair Judith Hibbert says: “We want to show the true light of what went on, but we don’t want to gravitate to just that. We want young people to get involved, we want to give them a focus. We learn so much about the Tudors at school but not much on slavery. This museum is about true history. Why should what we learn be one-sided?”</p><p>SATURDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2022 from 3pm</p><p>Empathy & Risk Studio, 1 Borthwick Street, London SE8 3GH</p><p>RSVP: info@mosaf.org.uk</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-1928958711030615552022-02-06T20:47:00.007+00:002022-02-06T20:51:12.648+00:00Bread & Butler's Deptford tenure cut short by redevelopment plans <p>As an avid fan and occasional purchaser of <a href="https://www.breadandbutler.com" target="_blank">Bread & Butler's</a> cardamom buns, the news that the Creekside bakery is not reopening was a big disappointment to me. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCyaCaW82RL1_xP6gZVWnFKjq4fngPiXq8DysMGsKx408C7yvZKeH1JCaoj2pHbv8EOqPDm98iEJpMLLn_qXi3YojWnYeJ0Yf2asAvYIz86BjXfy4ut4H-Mu81pP1UKSmRZfEgVkXoMqyM1h3tYZOyfwbMMJIl-0qs1DhsyQ0YRwIF2WyXEYZJ5N_VdQ=s623" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="623" data-original-width="623" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgCyaCaW82RL1_xP6gZVWnFKjq4fngPiXq8DysMGsKx408C7yvZKeH1JCaoj2pHbv8EOqPDm98iEJpMLLn_qXi3YojWnYeJ0Yf2asAvYIz86BjXfy4ut4H-Mu81pP1UKSmRZfEgVkXoMqyM1h3tYZOyfwbMMJIl-0qs1DhsyQ0YRwIF2WyXEYZJ5N_VdQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Bread & Butler</i></span></div><br />Since Bread & Butler set up home in the old Medina Building at 3 Creekside it has become much loved for its great quality bread and waistband-busting morning goods.<p></p><p>It was also one of three tenants that Creekside developer Artworks proudly proffered in its ongoing consultation on development of the site opposite the baker's home as proof of how it is establishing a new 'creative' community. </p><p><i>"Our plans for 2 Creekside build upon the emerging context that the Borough has for Creekside. The character along the Creekside is changing, and Artworks have already invested over the past 5 years in building up a creative business community in the immediate local area. We want to build upon the work we’ve already done, sustaining and growing our creative business community in line with Deptford’s changing market demands."</i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhKzHWrR3JjDaYwKeNQunLa0RN_ufTOoel0y9OlCZ9m6DvnxtThCNWMHhkb-5L-QNsiE3j3cE6iLZAqueiKZLofg0y0qE6H2fZz1dAN2cdL9iuN7LW17RQXcs5cZZG-XPTIsVF4uWBtV3zOO98j5-cVC4Ez5ubrmT31Kq0LWjmZ_V9lqeKbBzKdCMRK0w=s1527" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="815" data-original-width="1527" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhKzHWrR3JjDaYwKeNQunLa0RN_ufTOoel0y9OlCZ9m6DvnxtThCNWMHhkb-5L-QNsiE3j3cE6iLZAqueiKZLofg0y0qE6H2fZz1dAN2cdL9iuN7LW17RQXcs5cZZG-XPTIsVF4uWBtV3zOO98j5-cVC4Ez5ubrmT31Kq0LWjmZ_V9lqeKbBzKdCMRK0w=w467-h249" width="467" /></a></div><p style="text-align: right;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">But while Artworks is keen to boast about the presence of well-loved tenants, claims about supporting them long-term are now ringing rather hollow.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Bread & Butler wanted to renew their lease with a term of at least five years, to make it viable to invest in the business and improve the facilities and space they were using. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But the bakery's announcement of the permanent closure stated: "with only a short term lease on offer and a production space that is no longer fit for purpose, I’ve had to call our time at 3 Creekside to an end." </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUkffEreJrN7DHW_DkUdbS1N4TMWUQOIBng3kglwSxq953D8toSHFAt0uSZv1VAhalk-NuX7sYJpog4B9cnqp8R1VX7sPGtK7v1ZpKmeVLRdNC2aoWw-H1dV3U-faHsX0mo22XDcSxnlkToi2gWfMWfE1hPH4trliNMXOI5y7H1axttkDJcNuuNyLdMQ=s1200" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="825" data-original-width="1200" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjUkffEreJrN7DHW_DkUdbS1N4TMWUQOIBng3kglwSxq953D8toSHFAt0uSZv1VAhalk-NuX7sYJpog4B9cnqp8R1VX7sPGtK7v1ZpKmeVLRdNC2aoWw-H1dV3U-faHsX0mo22XDcSxnlkToi2gWfMWfE1hPH4trliNMXOI5y7H1axttkDJcNuuNyLdMQ=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Although no planning application has yet been submitted, the site is certainly in line for redevelopment, as the map above and renderings below show. Architect <a href="https://maithdesign.com/projects/creekside-3-deptford/" target="_blank">Maith Design</a>, responsible for the outline plans for 2 Creekside has also been scoping out Artworks' other parcel of land - and the corner site where Artworks studios reside also figures in this 'masterplan'.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjolyHE6EcGBLa22c-wdtNmHYDLvapG84ZeZGkMdRXe9SlZGOyY5dkg-D1rOahYTy54ytuEM7apxYpOBJKZNqS_stAMi6K7mToPowcwyMXzJK2V92Q73yv2KxaOWt--0clUlgcG1P0Y-7r-Ax01YjDqCfvZwvNASJZbQilZKTZr3D4KOgMYBqJ376z6sg=s1451" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="729" data-original-width="1451" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjolyHE6EcGBLa22c-wdtNmHYDLvapG84ZeZGkMdRXe9SlZGOyY5dkg-D1rOahYTy54ytuEM7apxYpOBJKZNqS_stAMi6K7mToPowcwyMXzJK2V92Q73yv2KxaOWt--0clUlgcG1P0Y-7r-Ax01YjDqCfvZwvNASJZbQilZKTZr3D4KOgMYBqJ376z6sg=w491-h247" width="491" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The 'masterplan' also shows development on 5-9 Creekside which currently houses studios and other businesses</span> </td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>The architect states: <i>Forming part of a masterplanned approach to repurposing two key sites within Deptford, Creekside 3 will be a striking development of residential apartments on the upper floors set above generously proportioned commercial units activating the ground floor. The development looks to address the intricate issues of scale and massing relating to the local context whilst taking the opportunity of being the link building between the new developments of Creekside 1 and Creekside 5-9 which sit on either side.</i></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjlbDK3Pnrb7KfPzlFcbVUaQKRCC3dFtcjIsd-PZJYN1ww2gbWzvsJHSAEoqYcz6mv0w18OgxcfUy-cOLcnHI19LLUs1bxhjCZigbwcG8fEMHA6M-TJyhajb0Gycnnz22q5UAIckeF9OOXTdu5RVKi95Fo6a9ZYcRvOC4ESZvN-NCQz4D4kjrIgd9VftA=s1200" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="999" data-original-width="1200" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjlbDK3Pnrb7KfPzlFcbVUaQKRCC3dFtcjIsd-PZJYN1ww2gbWzvsJHSAEoqYcz6mv0w18OgxcfUy-cOLcnHI19LLUs1bxhjCZigbwcG8fEMHA6M-TJyhajb0Gycnnz22q5UAIckeF9OOXTdu5RVKi95Fo6a9ZYcRvOC4ESZvN-NCQz4D4kjrIgd9VftA=w443-h368" width="443" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">View along Creekside with the Medina building on the right</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>According to the initial scope, Artworks want to build a 'mixed residential and commercial' development on the site of its 'creative community', including 60 apartments. </div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjzoQoHbGET9UNAE8PjbMTaTDuxk8V00a9gbXjNgoYet0NFbgy-eXfWa5LcE5ZkOPVfkfKWfoAb8yW0H7OIwgavB_YHpGoHkQUrFwl3d49DyBtDQsT1HjASkoGEKUrKRplNScAHMprC_9PuJct6xC6Zk2yIcCqrREstg9oH47Y8L-bASg2cGIScbvQPlg=s1200" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="870" data-original-width="1200" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjzoQoHbGET9UNAE8PjbMTaTDuxk8V00a9gbXjNgoYet0NFbgy-eXfWa5LcE5ZkOPVfkfKWfoAb8yW0H7OIwgavB_YHpGoHkQUrFwl3d49DyBtDQsT1HjASkoGEKUrKRplNScAHMprC_9PuJct6xC6Zk2yIcCqrREstg9oH47Y8L-bASg2cGIScbvQPlg=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Proposed development showing existing Medina building in the foreground</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-60778225334908198972021-12-31T14:57:00.001+00:002021-12-31T15:01:26.306+00:00Birds Nest pub threatened in Creekside redevelopment proposals<p>When <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2019/03/small-dark-polluted-welcome-to-your-new.html" target="_blank">plans for residential development at 1 Creekside</a> (now at its final construction height) were going through the planning process a few years ago, there was great consternation among regulars of the Birds Nest pub and local musicians about whether future residents might object to disturbance from the gigs and all-day festivals that it is famous for. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh4B9tVvxukL3tx-DBhBwQ4BjUO6l0zc4BxlQ7Fb5J-iVhIn6_3_IWlRiVRW8HZQJRJqZz9TQrrF68PHCYPRPUMTSNbWvopHwWoAj-Wv9rCEwjwiPoTf-iCMMAaqiJ9XKsphZCbM3TI7Vb_mestKIdaHFKuUppE8D1HLGYiOo69FMllAtgWLuHl0dWvyQ=s1207" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="714" data-original-width="1207" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh4B9tVvxukL3tx-DBhBwQ4BjUO6l0zc4BxlQ7Fb5J-iVhIn6_3_IWlRiVRW8HZQJRJqZz9TQrrF68PHCYPRPUMTSNbWvopHwWoAj-Wv9rCEwjwiPoTf-iCMMAaqiJ9XKsphZCbM3TI7Vb_mestKIdaHFKuUppE8D1HLGYiOo69FMllAtgWLuHl0dWvyQ=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">View along Reginald Road SE8, existing Birds Nest pub to right</span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>Many were worried that complaints from neighbours might undermine the viability of the pub as a night-time music venue - a petition signed by 2,300 people objecting to the plans was submitted along with a number of personal objections. In response Lewisham's planning department used the 'agent of change' principle to try and pre-empt such threats - this policy places the onus on the developer of a new building to incorporate sufficient sound insulation to protect new residents from noise nuisance and to make them aware that they are moving in/buying a property next to a music venue. </p><p>Unfortunately this won't offer any protection to the building from the most obvious threat - the aspirations of its current owners. They have<a href="https://creeksideconsultation.info" target="_blank"> published outline plans</a> of what they intend to do to the building and its adjacent land - as part of the requisite community consultation process - and are inviting feedback from the public. </p><p>The plans cover not just the pub, but the 'beer garden' out front, the land alongside which is currently home to <a href="https://www.thedeptfordbus.com" target="_blank">The Deptford Bus </a>and the plot behind the pub at 2 Creekside where a collection of converted shipping container units huddle behind the brick wall in the shadow of the DLR viaduct. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFcUT77O9KcbddleAP-N6F3ZI5Ei3vOuB2GsQDe2enMKCLMJ7g6aSYQATcKqvG6S4qAw8_rsNy9PYCP6vOu_zYYhBpwoocKMal2mbYAsxaKQmxrOGEr_ELbJ4GGSWykZ6FczxkujvLBZVeD5EUTnRQ9KuQnt5SCldlLFQ6TiGOJfjLe0fdql_mJcd-Bw=s1200" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="849" data-original-width="1200" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFcUT77O9KcbddleAP-N6F3ZI5Ei3vOuB2GsQDe2enMKCLMJ7g6aSYQATcKqvG6S4qAw8_rsNy9PYCP6vOu_zYYhBpwoocKMal2mbYAsxaKQmxrOGEr_ELbJ4GGSWykZ6FczxkujvLBZVeD5EUTnRQ9KuQnt5SCldlLFQ6TiGOJfjLe0fdql_mJcd-Bw=w400-h283" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fantasy view along tree-lined Reginald Road SE8; redeveloped Birds Nest pub to the right<br /></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>They propose to almost entirely demolish the Birds Nest, retaining only its facade, behind which a new building will be constructed, which will have a pub at ground level and residential units above; new construction to the south overlooking the creek, and a long block to the east, facing onto Creekside. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhA_a9aL1QFO_jZ7A_E1TOQ8IvScFR_E2NXIEqwgSWx8hl0zJCecIL-snpnkmEZJm7F6dsFaf1BB9Ly6XbEKR__MtJLbbeAfP7k4iranJ6S-3l-bkuZ89ah_p3OQ_ObsKe4nnpSILVaM4Mo0HsIXukebS2yKn2Xwf_FTMIRRR2hv_p5wyREn9RWGVsm0A=s645" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="645" data-original-width="553" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhA_a9aL1QFO_jZ7A_E1TOQ8IvScFR_E2NXIEqwgSWx8hl0zJCecIL-snpnkmEZJm7F6dsFaf1BB9Ly6XbEKR__MtJLbbeAfP7k4iranJ6S-3l-bkuZ89ah_p3OQ_ObsKe4nnpSILVaM4Mo0HsIXukebS2yKn2Xwf_FTMIRRR2hv_p5wyREn9RWGVsm0A=s320" width="274" /></a></div><p>Naturally the consultation site is light on factual info (plans, sections, specifications etc) and is more about marketing than genuine communication; as such it's difficult to extract reliable information even from the exhibition boards which <a href="https://creeksideconsultation.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Creekside-Exhibition-Boards-v11.pdf" target="_blank">you are tucked away here</a>. And while the website states that this 'mixed use' development will incorporate 31 residential units, the <a href="https://maithdesign.com/projects/creekside-2-deptford/" target="_blank">project listing on the architect's website</a> suggests it could be significantly more. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPWQqtcMUi-HFq4QkiPJ34uCBcqTep__WXTE09ijRDb6Kr9O1k9JrHhcbixoy4i4z0PTmhk1a1FrKi-GaGibfjXjdRO7VMgLK1ZQGKgHjehRW8Bxc_TCze3Wqmn7p_jijqJIu7Dl1dbo4hn9EY9ExsaFBpU6nbg2VpEK9bvp0szO6D6rm0N-hPiB4mmw=s1090" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="763" data-original-width="1090" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPWQqtcMUi-HFq4QkiPJ34uCBcqTep__WXTE09ijRDb6Kr9O1k9JrHhcbixoy4i4z0PTmhk1a1FrKi-GaGibfjXjdRO7VMgLK1ZQGKgHjehRW8Bxc_TCze3Wqmn7p_jijqJIu7Dl1dbo4hn9EY9ExsaFBpU6nbg2VpEK9bvp0szO6D6rm0N-hPiB4mmw=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>At ground level the building at number 2 Creekside will have 'flexible' commercial spaces which the developer claims will attract new creative industries to the area - similar perhaps to those that came and went rapidly from the repurposed shipping containers, only a couple of which continue to be occupied. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjphxR59JY0db752C9Q88CsW0rzlXk9o7HdU-kqXVHmnaCTX7areS0lGPXFbYdg5pZSZGFV52NnNq9yiNs9dS4VkFKGUHghD6h3kKV3WWqKsM8cqiqXgrXbmXNi7JE29zHFxRqavl3ZJQw_nxvVMAaP5xu7QyUBLR8KfOXxU9ZnKar6BnQXYqnpqHC3_A=s442" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="442" data-original-width="442" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjphxR59JY0db752C9Q88CsW0rzlXk9o7HdU-kqXVHmnaCTX7areS0lGPXFbYdg5pZSZGFV52NnNq9yiNs9dS4VkFKGUHghD6h3kKV3WWqKsM8cqiqXgrXbmXNi7JE29zHFxRqavl3ZJQw_nxvVMAaP5xu7QyUBLR8KfOXxU9ZnKar6BnQXYqnpqHC3_A=s320" width="320" /></a></div><p></p>The area behind the block is earmarked for communal gardens, to be shared between the residents and the <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2017/09/creekside-community-under-threat-from.html">boating community</a> - being within the exclusion zone of the DLR viaduct there is not much else that the land could be used for. On the plus side, it seems the landowner has grudgingly acknowledged the boat dwellers as a relevant factor in the planning process; I understand that discussions are under way between the two parties to seek a permanent solution to retain their residential amenity and right to occupy the wharf.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjy8eSugMJm2T5HKAhUbIHibJiuFwkIIID6aSNlQvCY7_ZtshJEeGCBPRbe6Q0WDQZPHUAhxlx9w7J33k3AJSdEuU6CHC_4HnP7K2Hf_kR-ZYsDpBXXhj4ijfQJvAJKVYps4TABuPEF0ePDh51T7jjf95Zt1y6mmLuLwAWJTsduL1HgTwVgZc0TeIY4bg=s1200" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="728" data-original-width="1200" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjy8eSugMJm2T5HKAhUbIHibJiuFwkIIID6aSNlQvCY7_ZtshJEeGCBPRbe6Q0WDQZPHUAhxlx9w7J33k3AJSdEuU6CHC_4HnP7K2Hf_kR-ZYsDpBXXhj4ijfQJvAJKVYps4TABuPEF0ePDh51T7jjf95Zt1y6mmLuLwAWJTsduL1HgTwVgZc0TeIY4bg=s320" width="320" /></a></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Leaving aside my opinions about the conversion of low-quality 'creative' space to 'flexible commercial space' and land allocated to employment use being built over with mixed-use developments, there are two key issues which I find deeply problematic with these proposals. The first is the loss of the building itself, and the second is the potential impact on the viability of the pub and its contribution to the local live music scene.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7MQTC50lXYkCUkQrNcZ609xrwGMW43QIxwWvTm_Lz2QldiAid73ID5hxAqx0AIjvHWnuPiPhG446jPKMZiOITiOGT2sgRm1qn6WzjiPvkaBgPhC1vElA7rP4Tuk9oKpLJ1Mwdbj53WIENDoom-Si_5IVLMv7iXMS63PeSj7p1m-mcYWwzJzVrQB1Z0Q=s976" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="976" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh7MQTC50lXYkCUkQrNcZ609xrwGMW43QIxwWvTm_Lz2QldiAid73ID5hxAqx0AIjvHWnuPiPhG446jPKMZiOITiOGT2sgRm1qn6WzjiPvkaBgPhC1vElA7rP4Tuk9oKpLJ1Mwdbj53WIENDoom-Si_5IVLMv7iXMS63PeSj7p1m-mcYWwzJzVrQB1Z0Q=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The pub was formerly known as the Oxford Arms and the site also had a theatre, hence the name Theatre Wharf</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><p>In the <a href="https://lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/conservation/conservation-areas/deptford-creekside-conservation-area" target="_blank">Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal</a>, published by Lewisham Council in 2012, the Birds Nest was described as 'a key building within the area' - in a list that also features APT studios, the railway lifting bridge, the listed railway viaduct, Mumford's Mill, the pumping station and St Paul's Church. </p><p><i>"It is an elegant Victorian building with a canted bay turning the corner. The pub frontage on the ground floor is rendered and has large modern timber windows subdivided into small panes. The upper floors have timber sash windows and red brick dressings and pediments.</i></p><p><i>A pub existed in this location by the early 19th century, known as the ‘Oxford Arms’. Next to it was the old Deptford Theatre which run successfully from the mid 18th century to 1840. After a period of decline, it closed in 1860 and became a coal depot. It was demolished in the early 20th century and in its place Theatre Wharf created. Today’s pub keeps up the tradition by having a small theatre space."</i></p>The developer's claims that the retention of nothing but the facade, pasted onto the front of a larger modern building, shows 'respect' for the conservation area cannot surely be given any credence? It is nothing but vandalism, pure and simple. </div><div><br /></div><div>The building may be run down (no obvious maintenance for the whole two years since its purchase by <a href="https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03762881/persons-with-significant-control" target="_blank">Trac Properties</a>, which has the same directors as developer Artworks Creekside) but surely it is not beyond renovation? A skilled architect could certainly devise a solution that truly respects the existing building and develops the adjoining land with appropriate sensitivity.<p></p><p>My second concern is impact this proposal will have on the pub itself, not to mention the live music and cultural scene both in Deptford and beyond. The Birds Nest is one of the few pubs in the area that still hosts regular gigs and even day-long festivals, with free entry. Both established and up-and-coming bands feature, and the venue provides a valuable focus for musicians and fans alike. The pub is also loved as a meeting place for Deptford life in all its glory - young and old, from all walks of life and backgrounds. Its unpretentious nature may not conform to the modern gastropub mould, for that's the key to its appeal for many of its customers. And there are plenty modern gastropubs around for those who prefer them. </p><p>As noted above, the site's history also featured a theatre; a performance space was part of the existing pub <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/6478654.curtains-close-on-a-famous-pub-theatre/" target="_blank">until 2000</a> and there is no reason this could not be considered as part of a redevelopment.</p><p>The website includes lots of reassuring words about how the developers are working to ensure that the redeveloped pub retains 'its much beloved character, and that its rich music heritage is preserved for current and future residents to enjoy', but in the next breath suggests that the adjoining bus could serve as a replacement pub (and music venue?) during the reconstruction work. </p><p>This certainly raises a whole load of questions about continuity and viability - it seems unlikely that what is essentially an outdoor venue could host the same programme of gigs without causing problems for neighbours, and it also begs the question as to how a much smaller and awkwardly-laid-out floor space can be viable even in the short-term when the existing one is not. In 2020 the Deptford Society applied successfully for the pub to be listed as an Asset of Community Value, to ensure that its importance to the area was officially acknowledged. However this only gives the community the option to intervene if an asset is put up for sale. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><iframe allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="688" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdeptfordsociety%2Fposts%2F1632324296932826&show_text=true&width=500" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" width="500"></iframe></p><p>It's worth pointing out that the information on the consultation site is what they call 'indicative' (i.e. you can't rely on it), and the consultation process is only being conducted as it enables the developer to notch up a few Brownie points ahead of the actual planning application. </p><p>Feel free to submit comments but if you want them to count in the planning process you'll have to replicate them once the application is live; also it's probably a good idea to send comments by direct email, rather than using the website form, just so you have a record of what you've submitted. These things have a habit of getting lost and it is always interesting to see how your own comments have been interpreted (or are even present) in the subsequent report. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiilYO6tXnB2QDQOEHTyTNrhBiB8_L5TT6r7hm0D0n-7M_u3eskXOJwcNjj_HvJ0TJnCkgVoUSDCb2JWDgMkw3FbLjQc0t1x1Kt_-DJIWT2TmNe37oKew_u7FG98n_RYA9lkW_EQfVDqqJdec6gcB7qLWkaBku3SqCcFPvTPsiHaG8kBTfzHnFrgN0h6A=s1200" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="788" data-original-width="1200" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiilYO6tXnB2QDQOEHTyTNrhBiB8_L5TT6r7hm0D0n-7M_u3eskXOJwcNjj_HvJ0TJnCkgVoUSDCb2JWDgMkw3FbLjQc0t1x1Kt_-DJIWT2TmNe37oKew_u7FG98n_RYA9lkW_EQfVDqqJdec6gcB7qLWkaBku3SqCcFPvTPsiHaG8kBTfzHnFrgN0h6A=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">View along Creekside towards APT with new mixed use building on the right</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-75124702543382950282021-03-01T18:39:00.002+00:002021-03-01T18:39:25.315+00:00Albany Theatre garden earmarked for construction in new local plan<p>Deptford's Albany Theatre and its back garden are earmarked for construction of more than a hundred new flats in the <a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is" target="_blank">new Lewisham local plan,</a> the document which sets out the council's planning strategy for the next two decades and which is out for consultation at the moment.</p><p>The Albany is being put forward for 'comprehensive mixed use development' which would see the theatre retained, but with residential accommodation built above and behind it, including on the rear garden which includes more than half a dozen mature trees.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iq5TMBnh3Js/YDwDIxwrL7I/AAAAAAAAIsw/9J5ylT1sDTUtfAPaJR0vEhjFNXmGCbEZACLcBGAsYHQ/s948/snip.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="667" data-original-width="948" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iq5TMBnh3Js/YDwDIxwrL7I/AAAAAAAAIsw/9J5ylT1sDTUtfAPaJR0vEhjFNXmGCbEZACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/snip.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>In happier times, when the cafe at the Albany is open, this garden is probably Deptford's best kept secret for a quiet coffee/beer and sandwich in the sun. It's a little overgrown and has never really been used to best advantage by the facility, but it is a delightful oasis of calm especially on the busy market days we hope to see return again soon. </p><p>If the draft plan is adopted, it will formalise the plans that the Albany has been talking about for more than a decade now - most recently <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2020/02/albany-revives-redevelopment-plans.html" target="_blank">in February last year. </a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CEhRvgiAc7U/XlFqW5fmrwI/AAAAAAAAIi0/l_6pXh8RVuIU3w8CVJkYUxKhDz0XyM9fQCPcBGAYYCw/s1300/ALB_public-space-image-1300x730.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="1300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CEhRvgiAc7U/XlFqW5fmrwI/AAAAAAAAIi0/l_6pXh8RVuIU3w8CVJkYUxKhDz0XyM9fQCPcBGAYYCw/s320/ALB_public-space-image-1300x730.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>While there is no planning application yet submitted for the Albany, having the land included as a 'site allocation' in the local plan essentially enshrines the case its development and sets out the density and type of development that the council would support within the boundaries.<div><br /></div><div>According to the document, the Albany site on Douglas Way is suitable for up to 102 residential units on an area of land measuring just over 0.6 hectares. </div><div><br /></div><div>You can get an idea of the kind of density this represents by taking a look at the development that is just nearing completion on Amersham Vale opposite the police station. This has 120 residential units on around 0.7 hectares, which doesn't include the small park adjacent to it and also doesn't have to accommodate a theatre and 'town centre' uses at ground level. </div><div><br /></div><div>In consultation up to now, the Albany has said it will retain 'outside space' in the development, but it seems unlikely there will be room for anything like the size of what's there now.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0CdjQ0SwnpQ/YD00xQ_z-2I/AAAAAAAAIs4/4rovDyr3bysLDaHDRl9fUYObU_E3ym_aACLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/IMG_2637.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0CdjQ0SwnpQ/YD00xQ_z-2I/AAAAAAAAIs4/4rovDyr3bysLDaHDRl9fUYObU_E3ym_aACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/IMG_2637.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div><br /><p>The Albany land is just one of 18 'site allocations' being proposed for the <a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is/proposals/lewishams-north-area">North Lewisham area</a>, which covers Evelyn and New Cross wards. The majority of those listed have been in the pipeline for at least a decade but the Albany is one of a number of new sites, alongside several which have been planned for redevelopment but which the revised document proposes can accommodate increased density of development. </p><p>I'll be writing more about the draft local plan in the coming days, but if you want to comment on it I suggest you start reading now - the full consultation document is 870 pages long, it's one of a number of documents, and you only have <b>until 11th April </b>to comment. </p><p>You can either <a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is" target="_blank">submit your comments via the Commonplace platform</a> that the council uses for a lot of its consultation, or you can just download the documents from the council website or Commonplace, and send your comments in by email or post. </p><p>The council is also holding a series of <a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is/proposals/online-events" target="_blank">'information sessions' on Zoom</a> for which registration is necessary - those focussing on the borough-wide issues have already taken place although the recordings are being uploaded to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIMP3EdZzbFOUDnfsrgLOfQ" target="_blank">YouTube channel here </a>and the slides are available on the Commonplace website <a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is/proposals/online-events" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><a href="https://lewishamlocalplan.commonplace.is/proposals/online-events" target="_blank">Sessions focussing on the five 'character areas' of the borough,</a> which include the specific site allocations, run over the next few weeks and require advance registration. Just in case you fancy a bit more screen time in between work and home schooling. </p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-18719788634084788732021-01-26T08:00:00.001+00:002021-01-26T08:00:10.607+00:00Plans to build on Charlotte Turner Gardens dismissed at appeal<p>Another case I reported on last year - the <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2020/08/developer-appeals-over-mcmillan-street.html">application to build a three-storey block of flats</a> on the former Blusher's pub site on McMillan Street - has just<a href="https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3251961" target="_blank"> been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate</a> after the applicant took Greenwich Council's decision to reject it to appeal. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FyxZ-Atz_5Q/XzejKPmEM3I/AAAAAAAAInM/7RnDc4N9Hxo76oYJLD00ARqjjWvi5b-ywCPcBGAYYCw/s1200/241542447.jpg.gallery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="603" data-original-width="1200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FyxZ-Atz_5Q/XzejKPmEM3I/AAAAAAAAInM/7RnDc4N9Hxo76oYJLD00ARqjjWvi5b-ywCPcBGAYYCw/s320/241542447.jpg.gallery.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Proposed block of flats on McMillan St</span></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>According to the inspector, the main issues were the effect of the proposed development on: 'the character and appearance of its surroundings, and on the living conditions of neighbouring and proposed occupants with particular reference to light, visual impact, privacy and space standards.'</div><div><br /></div><div>He added: 'The proposed block, in view of its scale, location and visual context, would be crammed onto its site and would appear over-dominant, impinging harmfully on openness and obliterating the pleasant views into the park enjoyed by passers-by, whether on foot, cycle or in cars. To my mind, the development’s intrusive nature would represent the antithesis of good quality urban planning and would case unacceptable harm to the well-balanced townscape that such planning has achieved.'</div><div><br /></div><div>Although the internal floor area of the flats did meet current requirements, the inspector also noted that within the layout, too much of the space was dedicated to circulation rather than living area, so it would not create a 'high quality' living environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>This will no doubt be a huge relief to those who would have been directly impacted by it, and from a planning and green space point of view, I think it was the right decision. It's unfortunate that, for reasons I set out in my blog post last year, it is likely to have implications for the work and funding of local charity <a href="https://www.themidimusiccompany.co.uk" target="_blank">Midi Music Company.</a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-54781699186192081072021-01-24T18:22:00.000+00:002021-01-24T18:22:04.874+00:00Proposal for Noah's Ark reconstruction<p>Draft proposals for the reconstruction of number 229 Deptford High street (the former Noah's Ark pub) have <a href="https://229dhs.co.uk" target="_blank">been made public this month</a> for public consultation. </p><p>The move comes more than a year after I initially reported that <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2019/11/deptford-landmark-torn-down-under-cover.html">an attempt to demolish the structure while full-height hoardings were in place</a> was halted when a local resident reported unauthorised activity to the council. </p><p>Since then the building has stood as a semi-derelict and unsightly reminder of the fragile status of Deptford High Street's conservation area designation. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tpJADsIbSNo/YA2ngXr4uGI/AAAAAAAAIsM/A4gUhtx0GN8WMpT1zJwMzP6KelwknJ87gCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/IMG_0580.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1536" data-original-width="2048" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tpJADsIbSNo/YA2ngXr4uGI/AAAAAAAAIsM/A4gUhtx0GN8WMpT1zJwMzP6KelwknJ87gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/IMG_0580.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><p>The site, at the northern junction of the high street with Creek Road, is adjacent to the Grade II listed building 227 Deptford High Street and the former pub building that occupied it - the Noah's Ark - was considered a key 'gateway building' to the conservation area. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBN35OyXtf0/YA2ngY-9-ZI/AAAAAAAAIsQ/mV3NOum8eUk9T5dVugtZ68akUWoAF9nMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/IMG_0583.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1536" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wBN35OyXtf0/YA2ngY-9-ZI/AAAAAAAAIsQ/mV3NOum8eUk9T5dVugtZ68akUWoAF9nMgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/IMG_0583.JPG" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Listed building number 227</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p><p>After the pub closed, the ground floor was converted to office space and it was used by a firm of solicitors for some years. But subsequently an application was made to divide the existing building up into 11 single-person bedsits/studios with very poor quality accommodation - under permitted development rights as I understand it - and a further application to stick a two-bed apartment on the top in an extension was approved in 2019. </p><p>To say the site has a chequered planning history is an understatement. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMmLo0hOGlQ/YA2jO3Z_d5I/AAAAAAAAIr0/s1k4eV2XLqYnsm-67WmSjSCkgTgpFasLgCLcBGAsYHQ/s753/pic3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="577" data-original-width="753" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uMmLo0hOGlQ/YA2jO3Z_d5I/AAAAAAAAIr0/s1k4eV2XLqYnsm-67WmSjSCkgTgpFasLgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/pic3.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The latest proposals - and it's worth noting they <i>are</i> only proposals, essentially a series of renderings with minimal detail - see an attempt to replicate the structure that was originally torn down, albeit with the addition of a mansard roof. </div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G356_y_Cc9U/YA2jOuavArI/AAAAAAAAIrw/Vhsc_v1z2tszN7SVCHAOwD4oMz4GNg_tgCLcBGAsYHQ/s527/pic2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="474" data-original-width="527" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G356_y_Cc9U/YA2jOuavArI/AAAAAAAAIrw/Vhsc_v1z2tszN7SVCHAOwD4oMz4GNg_tgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/pic2.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>View from the high street looking north</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><p>According to the website, the ground floor will be brought back into use as two commercial units (not a pub sadly) and the upper floors will provide five residential units of one and two bedroom size. One floor plan is shown on the website but there is no detail of the other four although the website does state that the basement will be retained for use by the commercial units.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OTFc50YWOiY/YA2jN_LpX_I/AAAAAAAAIro/SG6RutOUszwzUqY5PRi_OsrchxhzZXXbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s799/pic1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="473" data-original-width="799" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OTFc50YWOiY/YA2jN_LpX_I/AAAAAAAAIro/SG6RutOUszwzUqY5PRi_OsrchxhzZXXbwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/pic1.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3JvoV_Ryfok/YA2jNyrqLPI/AAAAAAAAIrk/osueupnfv28x84sWQfuL0qtTjzfB8oRCQCLcBGAsYHQ/s551/floorplan.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="354" data-original-width="551" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3JvoV_Ryfok/YA2jNyrqLPI/AAAAAAAAIrk/osueupnfv28x84sWQfuL0qtTjzfB8oRCQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/floorplan.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><p>The website also notes that the ground floor facade will 'retain and repair any remaining historic fabric' - there's not much of it left by any account, but it seems right that this is the least that the developer could do. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eVW9gyUSbZc/YA2jNzj6vuI/AAAAAAAAIrs/x5UtiyNCudEwRzTdkGf0rKnNmyjSdaKLgCLcBGAsYHQ/s764/elevation.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="321" data-original-width="764" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eVW9gyUSbZc/YA2jNzj6vuI/AAAAAAAAIrs/x5UtiyNCudEwRzTdkGf0rKnNmyjSdaKLgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/elevation.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's interesting to see on the website that they are sticking with their original story that the building 'became unsafe' during the renovation works and had to be demolished 'for the safety of the public' on the advice of 'structural engineers'. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Notably the latest version of the story is rather at odds with what actually happened. According to the website the full height hoarding had to be put up 'as part of this emergency work' - locals will recall that the building had been wrapped up for some time and demolition work had been ongoing before the scale of it became apparent. The planners had not been notified of this 'public safety' issue, nor the extent of what was going on behind the hoardings, and once they were aware, issued immediate instructions for it to stop. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQwE2haoCw0/Xd1LHwGbp4I/AAAAAAAAIhI/RXy2cnetv3Ek-5hLF0aHTR2pTP6rwV72ACPcBGAYYCw/s640/image2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQwE2haoCw0/Xd1LHwGbp4I/AAAAAAAAIhI/RXy2cnetv3Ek-5hLF0aHTR2pTP6rwV72ACPcBGAYYCw/s320/image2.jpeg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The general public is being invited to comment on the plans via the website - feel free to do so but don't forget that what actually matters is what's in the detail of the planning application. It may or may not align with what you see online. It's all very well to be wooed by some renderings, the developer's statement and one floor plan, but none of it is legally binding till it's on that planning portal - and even then it may be subsequently revised.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">One important question remains - what legal action is being taken against those responsible for the destruction of Deptford's heritage?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'll hazard a guess that there won't be any. It seems to me that the council has traded off the threat of legal action in exchange for cooperation from the developer/owner of the site. I assume they have no appetite for legal action which could be costly and be unlikely to resolve the loss of the building for years. Whether the outcome would have been different had the site been elsewhere in the borough - Blackheath for example - is difficult to say. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-62912587647709368782020-10-11T20:56:00.000+00:002020-10-11T20:56:07.266+00:00Barclays' branch closure set to make Deptford a banking desertPlans announced by Barclays to close a slew of branches next January - including their branch in Deptford, the only bank remaining on the high street - will leave residents in Evelyn and New Cross wards without any local in-person access to banking services. <div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-23IJ4s1J6z8/X4Nt7Ch37rI/AAAAAAAAIoM/1pTXzu2D9ZsPvn66nK-4Ed7OpkNo_30-ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1021/Untitled.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="1021" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-23IJ4s1J6z8/X4Nt7Ch37rI/AAAAAAAAIoM/1pTXzu2D9ZsPvn66nK-4Ed7OpkNo_30-ACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Untitled.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div><div><br /></div><div>After January, Barclays customers will have to travel to London Bridge to visit their nearest branch - and there will be little to be gained by changing banks, as nearby branches of other banks such as HSBC in Greenwich are also closing. </div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7urQKenabb8/X4CE4_CDFLI/AAAAAAAAIoA/yq6uyeJCZqg14wAWjGs7BjI3q3ueKfImACLcBGAsYHQ/s968/banks.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="968" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7urQKenabb8/X4CE4_CDFLI/AAAAAAAAIoA/yq6uyeJCZqg14wAWjGs7BjI3q3ueKfImACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/banks.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /></div><div>Barclays has been the only bank on Deptford High Street for the last decade, since the closure of the Halifax in 2010. At that time many Halifax customers changed to Barclays because they still wanted to be able to do their banking in person. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course in the last ten years things have changed and there's been a huge rise in the number of people using online and telephone banking to manage their money. But if you've ever had to visit the bank, or walked past it during opening hours, then you'll know that it inevitably involves queueing. Clearly there are still a lot of people who either need or want to do their banking face to face.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's also still a high demand for cash in Deptford, especially with a market that is a long way from going digital. Hence the loss of three cash machines that don't charge to withdraw money will be sorely felt. </div><div><br /></div><div>Deptford High Street is awash with cashpoints but the vast majority are the type that get installed as free-to-use facilities and then revert to charging after six months or so. Almost all of them charge a fee of 99p upwards for withdrawals - for those on low incomes whose balance is such that they are only able to take ten or twenty quid out at a time this is a premium that they can't afford.</div></div></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-64681282204267645542020-09-02T00:10:00.006+00:002020-09-02T00:10:51.867+00:00Got a planning objection? If you live in Lewisham you can SoD off!<div>Changes to the way Lewisham Council makes decisions on its planning applications, which favour reducing the council's backlog of cases at the cost of transparency and public scrutiny, are <a href="https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s74711/Item%203.%20Committee%20report%20for%20scheme%20of%20delegation%20-%20September%20update%20final.pdf" target="_blank">now proposed to be retained until at least February 2021</a> - nearly a year since the start of the Covid-19 lockdown. </div><div><br /></div><div>The special measures were brought in three months ago when councillors agreed to temporary changes to the 'scheme of delegation' for planning applications; the reason being to clear a bottleneck of applications caused by the lockdown. </div><div><br /></div><div>Under these changes to the appropriately-acronymed SoD, 75% of applications that would previously have been scrutinised by councillors are now decided by officers under what is called 'delegated powers'.</div><div><br /></div><div>Without being brought to committee there is no opportunity for objectors to argue their case; no scrutiny from elected councillors or the general public; no debate or questioning of applicant or objectors; <b>decisions on permanent and long-lasting changes to the borough's estates, streetscapes and public realm all made behind closed doors by council officers.</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The council's formal constitution states that any planning application with three or more objections - or just one if it comes from a recognised amenity society such as the Deptford Society or the Brockley Society - has to be scrutinised by a committee if officers are recommending it for approval. </div><div><br /></div><div>Under the new powers, five objections are needed just to get your foot in the door, and even with as many as nine objections, applications only get a 'case review' by the committee chair. The chair will decide - in discussion with the very officers who will be landed with the increased workload associated with a committee hearing (#justsaying) - whether an application should go before a committee or not. </div><div><br /></div><div>When the changes were first discussed in June, strategic planning committee members were reassured that they would be able to review these changes after three months, and the review<i> 'would provide an opportunity for [them] to assess success in terms of the quality of the decisions that would be taken, and the transparent and fair processes that would be applied.'</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Officers now want to extend it for another six months, but the report they are putting before the committee on Thursday that <a href="https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s74711/Item%203.%20Committee%20report%20for%20scheme%20of%20delegation%20-%20September%20update%20final.pdf">claims to assess the success of the measures</a><a href="https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s74711/Item%203.%20Committee%20report%20for%20scheme%20of%20delegation%20-%20September%20update%20final.pdf" target="_blank"> </a>only states the number of cases resolved as a measure of success; it neither offers any insight into the quality of the decisions, nor does it list the cases that have been decided in this way, to enable interested parties to make their own assessment. </div><div><br /></div><div>Reading between the lines, officers are clearly delighted to have binned all the tiresome parts of the job like writing committee reports, negotiating with applicants, and spending evenings in meetings (even online ones) and they want to ensure that this joyous situations persists as long as possible. </div><div><br /></div><div>Recently heavyweights such as RIBA and the Town & Country Planning Association have been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/05/englands-planning-reforms-will-create-generation-of-slums" target="_blank">raising merry hell</a> about the impact Tory planning reforms could have on our built environment; but Lewisham has proved we don't need the tories to fuck up planning scrutiny - the ruling Labour group can do just as efficient a job, and get it under the wire without anyone batting an eyelid! </div><div><br /></div><div>We have lost scrutiny in one fell swoop and it's now at risk of being extended from a three month temporary measure to almost a year. An open invite to bang in that application for a badly-detailed conversion that you sketched out on the back of an envelope when you were in the pub the other week.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-56675737495543070482020-08-15T14:55:00.008+00:002020-08-15T15:01:39.742+00:00Developer appeals over McMillan Street plans<p>Campaigners are asking local residents and community groups in Deptford to write to the Planning Inspectorate to reiterate their objections against <a href="https://planning.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_101715&activeTab=summary" target="_blank">an application to build on land </a>on the south edge of Charlotte Turner Gardens.</p><p>The application for a new three-storey block of flats on McMillan Street was refused by Greenwich Council earlier this year on the grounds of being an 'unsympathetic and over-dominant addition to the existing street scene and park'; for 'failing to provide an acceptable internal and external living environment for prospective residents' and for having 'an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers as a result of a loss of outlook, increased sense of enclosure and a loss of light/overshadowing'.</p><p>But the developer has now taken the case to appeal, which means that a final decision will be made by the Planning Inspectorate whose inspector will decide whether to uphold the council's decision, or overturn it.</p><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FyxZ-Atz_5Q/XzejKPmEM3I/AAAAAAAAInI/u-Be2ICVHRcZM1JaPH1mfx5k3oIur0h5wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1200/241542447.jpg.gallery.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="603" data-original-width="1200" height="201" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FyxZ-Atz_5Q/XzejKPmEM3I/AAAAAAAAInI/u-Be2ICVHRcZM1JaPH1mfx5k3oIur0h5wCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h201/241542447.jpg.gallery.jpg" width="400" /></a></p><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The real story here lies in the fact that the site has a complex history, having previously been occupied by a pub that was most recently known as Blushers. </div><div><br /></div><div>The land has been owned by Deptford-based charity <a href="https://www.themidimusiccompany.co.uk" target="_blank">Midi Music Company</a> since the 1990s, when it was donated with a covenant that it be used for the benefit of the community. MMC is a music education and talent development charity that has been working in the local community for more than two decades. </div><div><br /></div><div>The initial intention, as MMC <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18298969.midi-music-responds-developer-plans-build-sold-off-site-deptford/" target="_blank">director Wozzy Brewster has pointed out</a> was to build a new home for the charity with a flat above for use in its youth cultural exchange programme. But having raised funds and demolished the building, the charity was offered the opportunity to bid for the building it already occupied, and so the plans for the relocation were shelved. Planning permission to build three flats on the site was granted in 2004, but this permission has long since expired.</div><div><br /></div><div>And in the interim a lot has changed. </div><div><br /></div><div>As well as a new block of flats being built on the land opposite, with residents enjoying direct views from their balconies across to the park, the pressure on green space in the local area continues to increase, while the residential population rises. Any loss of green space and natural habitat is potentially detrimental, whether that land is publicly accessible or not. </div><div><br /></div><div>On the flip side, charities are under increasing pressure with grant aid cut and increased demand on their services. Generally trustees must ensure that the charity uses its assets to deliver its aims as efficiently as it can, hence MMC would have had to find a way to gain direct financial benefit from the land that they could use to support their valuable work. </div><div><br /></div><div>Demolition of the original building reportedly took place due to concern over the state of the cellars, and between 2005 and 2011, Midi Music Company granted licensed use of the site to Twinkle Park Trust, who agreed to landscape and maintain the land as they already do with Charlotte Turner Gardens and Twinkle Park on behalf of Greenwich Council. When the licence ran out, TPT continued to maintain it on an informal basis. </div><div><br /></div><div>The land was intended to look as if it was part of Charlotte Turner Gardens, but was not to be accessed by the public because of the unknown condition of the cellars below.</div><div><br /></div><div>When the park was remodelled in 2014 <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2014/06/charlotte-turner-gardens.html" target="_blank">I wrote about the changes,</a> and at the time remember noting the rather odd feature at the south end that was fenced in as if it was part of the park, but not planted or landscaped at all.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OCrb5Xv2u9Y/XzfknxOi_lI/AAAAAAAAInU/DiIs8H1VBustYlgMatHfb64KtRzXsxuggCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_0072.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OCrb5Xv2u9Y/XzfknxOi_lI/AAAAAAAAInU/DiIs8H1VBustYlgMatHfb64KtRzXsxuggCLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h300/IMG_0072.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>It would seem to have made sense for this slip of land to be incorporated into the existing park to safeguard it as a green space and community facility, but for the reasons set out above, ownership by one charity does not necessarily align with the aims of another. </div><div><br /></div><div>Hence MMC say that when the decision was made to sell the land, they offered TPT first refusal, but the trust was not able to raise sufficient funds to meet the asking price. The trustees of MMC sought to have the community covenant removed from the land, and sold it in 2018 to the current owner and developer.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've not been able to clarify the full details of the situation to my satisfaction, other than picking up reports from individuals on an anecdotal basis that can't be confirmed or dismissed. But it's hardly surprising since charities of this size tend to be run by a handful of people and the paperwork that's legally required is minimal; efforts are often focussed on delivering the charitable works as a priority.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's worth noting that Wozzy Brewster was also a director of Twinkle Park Trust between 1999 and 2002, overlapping with at least two of the current directors, so to suggest that the two charities have been operating in separate vacuums seems unlikely. </div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile I've read some comments on social media platforms that seek to pit one charity against another in a way that really isn't helpful. Suggestions that MMC's actions to sell off the land were underhand, or done with anything other than the best intentions, don't lend anything to the argument, and only obscure debate of the facts. </div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="http://eepurl.com/haKbWX" target="_blank">latest newsletter from another parks group, Deptford Folk</a>, suggests that the flats will be built 'on a children's play area', which simply isn't true. The impact the new building will have on the adjacent nursery playground and the park itself is clearly part of the case for objectors, and are covered in the council's refusal, but the land has never been formally allocated or used as a playground. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whatever the ins and outs of the back story, there is a concerted campaign to encourage objectors to register their views with the Planning Inspectorate <b>before the deadline of 21 August.</b> Local MP Matthew Pennycook (also a former TPT director) has <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18652986.greenwich-mp-joins-fight-flats-next-playground/?fbclid=IwAR0ayksi2wG-VJKyPlJvVl1JTNyZwMYuZOKuXtQ3_RAjnt4njmv6ZPBO7ms" target="_blank">lent his support to the objectors</a> and there is a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/308843016840094/" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/McmillanStop?s=09" target="_blank">Twitter</a> account as well as <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18643463.petition-planning-inspector-reject-deptford-flats-appeal/?ref=ar" target="_blank">a petition</a> for anyone who wants more details on how to object. </div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-35938951846588754172020-06-08T11:07:00.003+00:002020-06-08T12:37:01.157+00:00Convoys Wharf development plans - a cultural desert?This week sees the first three detailed planning applications for the huge Convoys Wharf site on Lewisham's main river frontage <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=194&MId=5994" target="_blank">come before the strategic planning committee.</a> These applications were intended to be considered by the committee in March, but the meeting was postponed when lockdown conditions were imposed.<br />
<br />
Now they are back - and this Tuesday will be the subject of the first strategic planning committee to be held using the online meetings platform.<br />
<br />
<i>One big question will be how the council plans to address ongoing concerns over the lack of any cultural strategy for the site and the failure of the applicant's efforts to establish a cultural steering group for what is arguably one of the most historically-significant pieces of land in the borough.</i><br />
<br />
With the new online platform, the public are able to 'attend' meetings by <a href="https://lewisham.public-i.tv/core/portal/home" target="_blank">watching them online</a>; while it takes away the fun of the unscripted public heckling that often forms part of the rich tapestry of council planning meetings, it does mean that if you live in Deptford, there's no longer any need to travel all the way to Catford to experience that sinking feeling when another council officer refers to <i>Griffin</i> Square or a committee member reveals their ignorance of Deptford's rich heritage and cultural background.<br />
<br />
I've held off from much analysis of the detailed planning applications for several reasons - mostly that the larger-scale aspects of these schemes have already been approved, and the only aspects up for debate ('reserved matters') are the layout and scale, within the parameters of the outline planning permission; the appearance; the landscaping, and the access. Also because life has a habit of getting in the way at times.<br />
<br />
But I couldn't let the moment pass without some comments on what is being put before our elected members this week - and to highlight the lacklustre efforts to reflect the heritage of the site, a failure that will come as no surprise to those of us who have followed the progress of the development.<br />
<br />
For those new to Deptford, Convoys Wharf is name latterly given to the huge empty swathe of land down on the river front; formerly the site of Henry VIII's royal dockyard, established in 1513, and which became England's premier dockyard and a focus of wooden ship building in the 17th century. It has many other important historic links - Samuel Pepys was a regular visitor in his role as Admiralty of the Navy, and fellow diarist and contemporary <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Evelyn" target="_blank">John Evelyn</a> lived in Sayes Court manor house on the site where <a href="https://londonslostgarden.wordpress.com/2010/02/" target="_blank">he established his garden.</a> Russian tsar Peter the Great rented Evelyn's house for three months, when he came to Deptford dockyard to study shipbuilding, and notoriously trashed his holly hedge in a drunken rampage.<br />
<br />
The site has had outline planning permission for construction of up to 3500 residential units, in a range of high-rise buildings including three 'landmark' towers up to 40 storeys tall, <b>since 2014. </b><br />
<br />
Having had to look up that date and check it was right has brought into sharp focus just how long the site owner Hutchison Whampoa has been dragging its feet. Six years so far.<br />
<br />
In 2013 HW insisted they were in such a rush to build on the site that they couldn't wait for Lewisham Council to dither about, and they demanded that Mayor of London Boris Johnson (yes, that one) call it in. I expect they insisted that he 'get it done' - a skill he has amply demonstrated his expertise in ever since.<br />
<br />
To eliminate any risk of being sidetracked into the long history of this site, I will simply suggest that if you want to know more, you can read previous posts on this blog, or just <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s73508/Item%204a%20-%20Convoys%20Executive%20Summary%20FINAL%20for%20print.pdf" target="_blank">have a look through part 4.0 of the committee document. </a><br />
<br />
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But while we're speaking about heritage and culture, it's notable that in the <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s73508/Item%204a%20-%20Convoys%20Executive%20Summary%20FINAL%20for%20print.pdf" target="_blank">council officers' executive summary </a>there's a great deal of discussion (and scant resolution) of the lack of progress with the establishment of a 'cultural steering group' for the development.<br />
<br />
The Section 106 agreement stated that the applicant should establish a Cultural Steering Group no later than three months after planning permission was granted. This role of the steering group - which was required to meet at least four times a year - would be to:<br />
<br />
<i>(a) assist in advising on the formulation, development and delivery of the Initial Cultural Strategy and the Updated Cultural Strategies and other cultural commitments of the Development as required; and</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>(b) monitor and review implementation of the approved Initial Cultural Strategy and approved Updated Cultural Strategies and to consider and advise upon any steps it considers could be taken to make the approved Initial Cultural Strategy and/or (as the case may be) the approved Updated Cultural Strategies more effective in achieving their objectives.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
The first meeting of the steering group was held on 8 January 2017 - almost three years after planning permission was granted.<br />
<br />
The second meeting took place in December 2018.<br />
<br />
Since that time there have been no further meetings.<br />
<br />
Similarly with the Cultural Strategy for the site - the S106 agreement set out a huge list of items that it required the developer to consider and submit in its cultural strategy, ahead of the first detailed planning application.<br />
<br />
A cultural strategy was submitted - and promptly refused by the council on the following grounds:<br />
<ul>
<li><i>Lack of understanding how the core intentions of the Strategy will be delivered in practice and how much opportunity for genuine local engagement there will be.</i></li>
<li><i>Lack of concrete commitment to action or principles that would help facilitate community engagement</i></li>
<li><i>Lack of detail of how the voice of local people or the arts sector will be heard.</i></li>
<li><i>Programme of available spaces for meanwhile uses needed to be provided and</i></li>
<li><i>officers wanted to understand how this would be advertised/publicised.</i></li>
<li><i>No information as to how the local arts sector would be engaged</i></li>
<li><i>No indication of affordability so spaces offered to the community</i></li>
<li><i>No programme for activation of the ‘Jetty Park’ </i></li>
</ul>
Oh dear, that's quite damning. You might have thought 'cultural desert' was a harsh comment when you read the headline. Maybe not now.<br />
<br />
But don't worry, the S106 did give a bit of wriggle room - the developer only has to have an <i>approved</i> cultural strategy in place by the time 250 of its units are occupied, so still plenty of time to cobble something else together. And cobble they did, with a recent submission in January, just ahead of the planned committee hearing.<br />
<br />
The executive summary reports that the applicant has since appointed 'specialist consultant' <a href="http://www.fortyshillings.com/" target="_blank">Forty Shillings </a>to engage with the local community and that: <i>'The Council is working with the applicant to agree how this process can be recommenced and inform the production of an acceptable Initial Cultural Strategy.'</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
I'm looking forward to hearing what the strategic planning committee members think about this aspect of the plans. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F08OZOg1zPQ/Xt1T5RGAciI/AAAAAAAAIkQ/GUWEkj3sD4U3iJGgFvtbQuawuJvCQjbKACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/aerial.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="520" data-original-width="589" height="282" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F08OZOg1zPQ/Xt1T5RGAciI/AAAAAAAAIkQ/GUWEkj3sD4U3iJGgFvtbQuawuJvCQjbKACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/aerial.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Aside from overarching cultural considerations, the planning committee will consider three applications - <a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_95605" target="_blank">the romantically-monikered plot 8 </a>(the red bit on the map above), plot 15, which is just to the left of plot 8, and plot 22, the 'jetty', which is the decrepit concrete structure sticking out into the river on the front of the site.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ThaB4esKd2w/Xt1T6H0XTZI/AAAAAAAAIkY/DwKbYkj5qFo4cHxOk3g0plQFienE-4NGwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/model.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1191" data-original-width="1031" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ThaB4esKd2w/Xt1T6H0XTZI/AAAAAAAAIkY/DwKbYkj5qFo4cHxOk3g0plQFienE-4NGwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/model.jpg" width="277" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Plot 8 - shown on the model above, in its setting right next to the listed Olympia Building (the white, ghostly structure in the middle) - is a somewhat pedestrian u-shaped block of flats of varying heights and designs with retail and cafe units at ground level. I'm struggling to say much about it - faceless, bland and designed to shoehorn as many units as possible (456) into the plot while still giving residents some kind of view and enough room to get a double bed into the main bedroom. The blocks range from 11 to 15 storeys high and all of the units will be for private sale.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ObSxdvgznxI/Xt1T6ovXs-I/AAAAAAAAIkc/7aQ-PzOWvPQRwSAzZlwViEWdgiKaL-FhwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/plot%2B8%2Bpic%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1037" data-original-width="1417" height="234" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ObSxdvgznxI/Xt1T6ovXs-I/AAAAAAAAIkc/7aQ-PzOWvPQRwSAzZlwViEWdgiKaL-FhwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/plot%2B8%2Bpic%2B1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
There are private gardens in the centre of the block at upper ground level, which are raised up to create space underneath for the car park. The image below shows the view into the gardens - one that will only be seen by people in the residential blocks opposite.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YuJCWvGxR-0/Xt1T7CgECCI/AAAAAAAAIkk/OjFM6geBAoIYbmRK60cxzaxmCslFNK0ogCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/plot%2B8%2Bpic%2B3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="711" data-original-width="1134" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YuJCWvGxR-0/Xt1T7CgECCI/AAAAAAAAIkk/OjFM6geBAoIYbmRK60cxzaxmCslFNK0ogCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/plot%2B8%2Bpic%2B3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
People at ground level will just see the steps leading up to it from a locked gate.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3h3kcw4loM/Xt36REi7CZI/AAAAAAAAIlw/8ciKiLNj3Bw2rMYKee9nrMkjq8PqHIoYQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/entrance%2Bstairs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="1159" height="128" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h3h3kcw4loM/Xt36REi7CZI/AAAAAAAAIlw/8ciKiLNj3Bw2rMYKee9nrMkjq8PqHIoYQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/entrance%2Bstairs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Meanwhile across the way is <a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_99825" target="_blank">plot 15,</a> shown in green on the plan below. Here you will find the 'affordable' housing - 65 units being 'London affordable rent' and 59 being 'intermediate' (a shared ownership model) and more office and retail space at ground level.<br />
<br />
Within the 'affordable' block the tenure types are proposed to be segregated with separate entrances, demonstrating that the spectre of the 'poor door' is still alive and well in Lewisham.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fgE8eeJxGcY/Xt37iyOu24I/AAAAAAAAImE/EE1TnyKZoqMbuh8Jdrf6FhijlGBS1usKgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Untitled.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="407" data-original-width="412" height="316" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fgE8eeJxGcY/Xt37iyOu24I/AAAAAAAAImE/EE1TnyKZoqMbuh8Jdrf6FhijlGBS1usKgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Untitled.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_99825" target="_blank">Plot 15 </a>hugs the corner of the main road into the site; it rises up to nine storeys and has a pocket-sized garden behind it (accessible to all residents) next to a handful of parking spaces. If you're in the 'affordable rent' section your bike store is only accessible from outside the building, and while this may be via the gated garden, notably less secure and convenient than facilities for other residents. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SK0q7kAt6r4/Xt1ULuj2nlI/AAAAAAAAIlM/yUVcf27-hH0RqhXYTXwoocCnMpbCoQw_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/overview1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="780" data-original-width="1186" height="210" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SK0q7kAt6r4/Xt1ULuj2nlI/AAAAAAAAIlM/yUVcf27-hH0RqhXYTXwoocCnMpbCoQw_QCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/overview1.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The images below show the extent of the garden provided for plot 15. With all that brown space on the aerial image above, you would have thought they could have provided a roof garden too. Or is such a facility now out of fashion?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SKdJGIAAfNo/Xt1ULszUQwI/AAAAAAAAIlI/6r7PQxl1awMybsGtcMVkYkSDcLRCpU93gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sticky%2Bthings%2Blandscape2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="509" data-original-width="1079" height="150" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SKdJGIAAfNo/Xt1ULszUQwI/AAAAAAAAIlI/6r7PQxl1awMybsGtcMVkYkSDcLRCpU93gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/sticky%2Bthings%2Blandscape2.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
However the use of what I refer to as 'sticky things' for cheap and nasty landscaping is clearly still A Thing, going by the images below. After years of seeing them dotted around the uninspiring neighbourhoods of London I am still no clearer as to what their benefit is, either for play, habitat, or anything that you might want in your garden. You can't even rest your can of Special Brew or your falafel wrap on their silly slopey tops FFS. I find the landscape depressingly uninviting.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upXmZsnq2nI/Xt1UMLYfeII/AAAAAAAAIlQ/_wPFNgqPtS4R3myD2NKzIkDOzWRwvRMRACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/sticky%2Bthings%2Blandscaping.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1026" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-upXmZsnq2nI/Xt1UMLYfeII/AAAAAAAAIlQ/_wPFNgqPtS4R3myD2NKzIkDOzWRwvRMRACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/sticky%2Bthings%2Blandscaping.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The third application that is being considered this week is for plot 22, or the <a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_95527&activeTab=summary" target="_blank">'jetty' </a>- ultimately destined to become one of the major landscaping features of the whole site, a 'riverside garden' with a new building which is eventually intended to house a restaurant and bar. The jetty will lead to a pontoon which is designed to be served at some time in the future by a riverbus service. It's worth noting that although the site owner is required to provide the means to enable a riverbus to call at the site, there's no guarantee that this will actually materialise, in the short term at least.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The rendering in the document, with its blank, as-yet undesigned riverfront buildings overlooking the top-heavy structure has distinctly dystopian overtones. Somehow it seems very apt.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6EEbvcrEJNU/Xt1Tvk3dqpI/AAAAAAAAIkE/QmMfHkF1ngszeAx9I2kWe4QUCfI8XNKPACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/jetty1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="772" data-original-width="1600" height="154" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6EEbvcrEJNU/Xt1Tvk3dqpI/AAAAAAAAIkE/QmMfHkF1ngszeAx9I2kWe4QUCfI8XNKPACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/jetty1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Don't get too excited at the prospect of riverside dining; it will be at least five years until you are able to sip an overpriced cocktail on the roof garden of the new building. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LH8t2THrHvU/Xt4K5SK6PII/AAAAAAAAImQ/rXwVsKf1PFg8-WnlL0mNX_3DN45mL659wCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/building.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="275" data-original-width="577" height="152" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LH8t2THrHvU/Xt4K5SK6PII/AAAAAAAAImQ/rXwVsKf1PFg8-WnlL0mNX_3DN45mL659wCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/building.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
To start with, the intention (to be the subject of a subsequent planning application) is that the building will be taken over by the developer as its marketing suite for Convoys Wharf; accessible only by invitation and bringing little value to the local community in terms of opening up the riverfront or providing additional transport options. There won't be any wider landscaping or Jetty Park for some years.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C4JsVeBogYI/Xt1Tv9pr7LI/AAAAAAAAIkI/XWb1TxHCw8oeld7g8B3UuMytArUfgxanwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/marketing%2Bsuite.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1600" height="154" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C4JsVeBogYI/Xt1Tv9pr7LI/AAAAAAAAIkI/XWb1TxHCw8oeld7g8B3UuMytArUfgxanwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/marketing%2Bsuite.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Most people will arrive at the marketing suite by car, the application states. Initial plans were to create a temporary site access by knocking down part of the Grade II listed perimeter wall on Watergate Street - a grossly unnecessary procedure. Happily that seems to have been prevented and access will now be via the existing main gates. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qsYzCEBzHzg/Xt1ULvmI9sI/AAAAAAAAIlE/MDI9hgC1bGYbg1I001o_QOy7gMw-cRckACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/car%2Bparks.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="871" height="261" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qsYzCEBzHzg/Xt1ULvmI9sI/AAAAAAAAIlE/MDI9hgC1bGYbg1I001o_QOy7gMw-cRckACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/car%2Bparks.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The strategic planning meeting takes place on Tuesday 9th June, starting at 7.30pm. Links below:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=25577#mgDocuments" target="_blank">Strategic planning meeting details with papers.</a><br />
<a href="https://lewisham.public-i.tv/core/portal/home" target="_blank">Watch the meeting online.</a><br />
<a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_95605&activeTab=summary" target="_blank">Plot 8 planning application</a><br />
<a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_99825" target="_blank">Plot 15 planning application</a><br />
<a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_95527" target="_blank">Plot 22 planning application</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-90778354408487418132020-02-22T18:34:00.003+00:002020-02-22T18:34:49.455+00:00Albany revives redevelopment plansThe Albany Theatre will this week revive proposals to redevelop its outdated facilities - with funds for the work likely to come from construction of housing on the same site.<br />
<br />
The existing building has remained largely unchanged since it opened in 1982, and there's no question it needs updating and improving in order to make the most of its prime location. I've always thought its gloomy, dark entrance hall could put off potential visitors quite easily - and I suspect a large proportion of Deptford's regular shoppers only go through the doors when they need to use the loo. It has a beautiful garden too - with many mature trees - which is a lovely place for lunch or a coffee on a sunny day.<br />
<br />
Previous plans to team up with the developer of the carriage ramp (Cathedral, now U+I) and build housing over the garden <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2012/10/albany-sells-off-its-back-garden-for.html" target="_blank">were put forward in 2012</a>, but never reached fruition - which I was quite relieved about as it seemed to involve total obliteration of this green lung.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D64NoaV3arE/XlFqTev5VQI/AAAAAAAAIio/ZAVEstjNSe4EH_JHlupxfnhfcmNXyXYFQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/EQk3rDKWsAQP4qp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="1600" height="107" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D64NoaV3arE/XlFqTev5VQI/AAAAAAAAIio/ZAVEstjNSe4EH_JHlupxfnhfcmNXyXYFQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/EQk3rDKWsAQP4qp.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Unsurprisingly, given the need to raise funds for improvements to the building, redevelopment of the site is again in discussion. First consultation takes place on <b>Monday 24th February from 4.30pm-7.30pm at the Albany</b> and is open to the public <a href="https://www.thealbany.org.uk/shows/an-albany-for-the-future/" target="_blank">https://www.thealbany.org.uk/shows/an-albany-for-the-future/ </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Although <a href="https://www.thealbany.org.uk/about-us/transforming-the-albany/" target="_blank">the blurb on the Albany's website</a> states that 'outside space will be maintained', initial renderings suggest that it won't be maintained to the same extent that the site currently enjoys. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CEhRvgiAc7U/XlFqW5fmrwI/AAAAAAAAIis/anlR_KQu8ecZd6nJlH2lIlMBeAFbiNn3QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/ALB_public-space-image-1300x730.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="730" data-original-width="1300" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CEhRvgiAc7U/XlFqW5fmrwI/AAAAAAAAIis/anlR_KQu8ecZd6nJlH2lIlMBeAFbiNn3QCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/ALB_public-space-image-1300x730.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-76378142082868911332019-12-07T10:14:00.002+00:002019-12-07T10:14:28.500+00:00Noah's Ark - statement from the developerFurther to the previous stories, I have received the following statement from the developer, which is reproduced below in full:<br />
<br />
<i>A spokesperson for developer Visionbell, comments: “Following commencement of the approved works, it was established by our professional team that the building was unstable and posed a significant danger to the public. We were advised by specialist structural engineers to urgently reduce the height of and re-build part of the external walls in the interest of public safety. The decision to undertake this work was based solely on health and safety concerns, following recommendations from our professional team. As part of this emergency work, full hoarding went up to ensure the safety of the public.
“Health and safety remains our number one priority. There is no planning or financial gain and ultimately we have lost a significant sum of money and time due to this. We intend to reinstate the building as it was before, with the addition of the approved extension, ensuring its long term future. We will be liaising with the local authority about this.”
“I can confirm that the appointed contractor, Build With Confidence Construction Limited, is not in liquidation and remains actively involved on the project.”
</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-84255091577938697402019-11-28T16:17:00.002+00:002019-11-28T16:17:17.435+00:00Destruction of the Noah's Ark - an updateTuesday's shocking revelation that the former Noah's Ark pub, a landmark building at the entrance to Deptford High Street conservation area, <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2019/11/deptford-landmark-torn-down-under-cover.html" target="_blank">had been torn down without permission</a> prompted a swift response from Lewisham Council.<br />
<br />
After members of the Deptford Society reported the situation to Lewisham's senior conservation officer Joanna Ecclestone, council staff paid a visit to the site and ordered work to stop immediately.<br />
<br />
Ecclestone subsequently wrote to members of the society with the following information, which has been forwarded to me:<br />
<i>We are very grateful to the resident who alerted the Council to this unauthorised demolition on Tuesday. Officers visited the site that same afternoon and stopped work, and the Council is now investigating the planning breach, which is a criminal offence under Section 169D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and will take robust action.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The existing permissions to convert to residential and change use and add a mansard roof extension <u>are no longer valid as the building no longer exists.</u> </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QoGgi15VE1E/Xd_ywKfPd9I/AAAAAAAAIhc/jviEtMq_NPUa90McJxDkZgVs9OSslmcRwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/image3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QoGgi15VE1E/Xd_ywKfPd9I/AAAAAAAAIhc/jviEtMq_NPUa90McJxDkZgVs9OSslmcRwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/image3.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The planning permissions were granted as 'permitted development' for this particular building. Now that the building no longer exists, these permissions are null and void and new applications will have to be submitted for any new building on the site. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Perhaps a new pub building (or a reconstructed one) would be apt?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meanwhile more details have emerged about the ironically-named contractor <a href="https://www.thebwcgroup.com/" target="_blank">Build With Confidence Ltd,</a> whose logo and contact information is emblazoned across the covers which were put up around the scaffolding to obscure the illegal works taking place within. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h0ogcDaSjro/Xd_ywcJ5iBI/AAAAAAAAIhk/-LTRLn_FsnEIs2D3nxi0Vv94NglGu4h6wCEwYBhgL/s1600/image2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h0ogcDaSjro/Xd_ywcJ5iBI/AAAAAAAAIhk/-LTRLn_FsnEIs2D3nxi0Vv94NglGu4h6wCEwYBhgL/s320/image2.jpeg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-laiwt3jVw00/Xd_ywUo9CrI/AAAAAAAAIhg/WWvvyu6b6ZgD0gTwG4_LfbdVzZ1PO6oHgCEwYBhgL/s1600/image1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-laiwt3jVw00/Xd_ywUo9CrI/AAAAAAAAIhg/WWvvyu6b6ZgD0gTwG4_LfbdVzZ1PO6oHgCEwYBhgL/s320/image1.jpeg" width="240" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07627459/filing-history" target="_blank">Companies House information</a> reveals that <b>Build With Confidence went into voluntary liquidation almost two years ago</b> in January 2018. It's impossible to know whether the people actually carrying out the work were employees of Build With Confidence, or whether they had simply appropriated the hoardings and company logos to give their illegal work a veneer of credibility. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-63222978405478787932019-11-26T16:22:00.002+00:002019-11-28T11:01:53.313+00:00Deptford landmark torn down under cover of renovationAn unscrupulous developer has overseen the demolition of one of Deptford High Street's most prominent landmarks, under the guise of renovating the facade.<br />
<br />
The former Noah's Ark pub, at the north end of Deptford High Street at the junction with Creek Road, had lain empty and untouched for months, despite developer Visionbell Ltd having gained planning permission for residential conversion.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X_7Y5F9UaBA/Xd1B35MH_YI/AAAAAAAAIgQ/eKIkllyczm0m3L1bJyz4tG3zr-PlIZb1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Untitled.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="807" data-original-width="1128" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X_7Y5F9UaBA/Xd1B35MH_YI/AAAAAAAAIgQ/eKIkllyczm0m3L1bJyz4tG3zr-PlIZb1gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Untitled.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In happier days - Noah's Ark in 2008 <i>(Google streetview)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now the top two floors of the building, which falls within the Deptford High Street conservation area, have been torn down, after the whole structure was concealed beneath a shroud of scaffolding and plastic wrap. <b>This includes the facade of the building which has been removed almost entirely to ground level.*</b><br />
<br />
Planning permission was granted earlier this year for the developer to put in replacement windows and renovate the facade, as part of a wider scheme to add new residential units at ground floor level, which was approved in 2018, and a two bedroom flat extension on the roof, approved this year.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SW8fcfAM0Qo/Xd1B-CzyXFI/AAAAAAAAIg4/D6yqJZO9qtIjShKIqOEQD-7eV0GIdYRgQCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_7292.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SW8fcfAM0Qo/Xd1B-CzyXFI/AAAAAAAAIg4/D6yqJZO9qtIjShKIqOEQD-7eV0GIdYRgQCEwYBhgL/s320/IMG_7292.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Scaffolding erected earlier in the year seemed designed for this work, but after being left in place for months, with bags of rubbish piled outside and no sign of work starting, the scaffolding was suddenly removed.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dK_6GldMttw/Xd1B-AXaEiI/AAAAAAAAIg0/9YU1RrNoxqEbWqF6aKV7vanF-5ogR7rwQCEwYBhgL/s1600/IMG_7825.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dK_6GldMttw/Xd1B-AXaEiI/AAAAAAAAIg0/9YU1RrNoxqEbWqF6aKV7vanF-5ogR7rwQCEwYBhgL/s320/IMG_7825.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
After being left uncovered for a short time, the former pub was once again surrounded by scaffolding, but this time it was fully shrouded in plastic wrap - one might suggest this was to prevent anything from being seen from the outside (although I couldn't possibly comment). <br />
<br />
Today local residents were shocked to discover what was actually going on behind the scaffolding, after witnessing skips full of bricks and timbers being removed from the site over a period of days and seeing glimpses of daylight through the building entrance.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQwE2haoCw0/Xd1LHwGbp4I/AAAAAAAAIhE/ouSzfU_Xx1MMjsTR5_COyndjm4eEgWwVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/image2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DQwE2haoCw0/Xd1LHwGbp4I/AAAAAAAAIhE/ouSzfU_Xx1MMjsTR5_COyndjm4eEgWwVgCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/image2.jpeg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Carnage inside the former pub</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Although not having served pints for some years, the former pub has long been recognised as a local landmark, and is a gateway building to Deptford High Street's conservation area. It stands right next to the only listed building on the high street (number 227) and being within the conservation area, is legally protected from unauthorised demolition.<br />
<br />
As Historic England's <a href="https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/uwandhc/offences/" target="_blank">website</a> states: <i>Demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area without planning permission is a criminal offence. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The defences and penalties are the same as for listed buildings. As with listed buildings, an enforcement notice can be served to rectify any works done without planning permission or work done in breach of a condition on such a consent. Breach of the enforcement notice is itself a further offence committed by the then owner.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Shameful that this elegant landmark building is empty and being left to rot. Broken windows letting weather and pigeons in; foliage destroying the brickwork; perhaps the owners are waiting for it to ‘accidentally’ fall down 😡 <a href="https://t.co/4v0oBghUX6">pic.twitter.com/4v0oBghUX6</a></div>
— Deptford Dame (@deptforddame) <a href="https://twitter.com/deptforddame/status/1161697588904640512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(Turns out they weren't willing to wait that long...)</span></i></div>
<div class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; margin-left: -10px; margin-right: -10px;">
<div class="text-col content" style="-webkit-box-flex: 0; box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 66.66667175292969%; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px; margin-left: 115.5px; margin-right: auto !important; max-width: 66.66667175292969%; min-height: 1px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; position: relative; width: 700px;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="Section3Text" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(37, 121, 164); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; box-sizing: border-box; color: inherit; text-decoration-skip: objects; word-wrap: break-word;"></a></div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></div>
No doubt Visionbell Ltd will claim that the building was unsafe and had to be demolished to prevent it falling down and being a danger to the public (the only acceptable 'defence'). However erection of the full heavy-duty scaffolding and wrapping suggest that this was the intention right from the start. Such extensive temporary works would not be necessary just to put some new windows in.<br />
<br />
In its planning application to restore the facade, RRA Architects stated:<br />
<i>The existing building is a disused three storey building covered in posters and adverts. Currently, the facade is run down and does not present a welcoming approach to the High Street. Following the prior approval it is our intention to vastly improve the building. </i><br />
<br />
I only hope that the council takes immediate action to prevent any more of the building being knocked down, and starts legal action to force the landowner to reinstate it.<br />
<br />
<i>*Article updated on 28th November to clarify that the facade has actually been removed too. This was not made entirely clear in the initial blog post, I can only apologise for not meeting my usual standard of clarity; I was fuming when I wrote the post.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-38347742106178704152019-06-20T09:45:00.000+00:002019-06-20T09:45:12.564+00:00Three fundraisers for DeptfordI realise not everyone has spare cash these days (and there are ways you can help these appeals other than by pledging) but if you want to support your local community here are <b>three current crowdfunders that could have a real impact on Deptford.</b><br />
<br />
<u><a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/guardians" target="_blank">Save the arches!</a></u><br />
First up is actually a nationwide campaign led by Guardians of the Arches, representing tenants of railway arches all around the country who are being impacted by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/02/railway-arches-sold-off-with-no-thought-for-tenants-says-watchdog" target="_blank">the sell-off of Network Rail's property portfolio last year to private investors.</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yCwmvVe6Dgo/XQtKr7wKkJI/AAAAAAAAIek/Y3FkswJ4JHMldbbyIRPNzaGoLugkXFNoACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_4480.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yCwmvVe6Dgo/XQtKr7wKkJI/AAAAAAAAIek/Y3FkswJ4JHMldbbyIRPNzaGoLugkXFNoACLcBGAs/s320/IMG_4480.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
Many small businesses and creatives in Deptford rely on the railway arches that run right through the heart of SE8 for affordable premises. Some tenants have already had significant rent rises imposed, and many fear that they will be unable to stay in the area if this pattern is not halted.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eNReqSaX2TU/XQtKDYiTnZI/AAAAAAAAIec/LFcu4bIJ6GAPa2owpchYX8mj_r9UVrWEgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0921.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eNReqSaX2TU/XQtKDYiTnZI/AAAAAAAAIec/LFcu4bIJ6GAPa2owpchYX8mj_r9UVrWEgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0921.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Guardians of the Arches are crowdfunding to pay for staff to support tenants and continue the campaign on behalf of small business owners across the UK. They are very close to their target but <b>you will have to be quick if you want to donate, as the crowdfunder closes at midnight tomorrow (21st June). </b><br />
<a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/guardians">https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/guardians</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
********</div>
<br />
<u><a href="https://www.spacehive.com/thelenoxproject" target="_blank">Establish a Deptford dockyard visitor centre!</a> </u><br />
<u><br /></u>
<a href="http://www.buildthelenox.org/" target="_blank">The Lenox Project charity</a> has been campaigning for some years to ensure that Deptford's incredible maritime and shipbuilding heritage is not lost when the Convoys Wharf development starts construction on Deptford's waterfront. Their long-term plan is to build and sail a full-size replica of the Lenox, the first of Charles II's thirty ships, that was built under the watchful eye of Samuel Pepys and launched in 1678.<br />
<br />
After successfully lobbying during the masterplan planning application process, and being acknowledged in the conditions attached to the grant of planning permission for the site, they are now fundraising to establish a Deptford Dockyard visitor centre in the undercroft of one of the historic buildings on the foreshore next door.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lPs25GyNzlQ/XQtSJngmk2I/AAAAAAAAIe8/Kzxd0ZiYXN8FZOr5EbgtWyxGJDJQXSLTACLcBGAs/s1600/RW01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1149" data-original-width="1600" height="229" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lPs25GyNzlQ/XQtSJngmk2I/AAAAAAAAIe8/Kzxd0ZiYXN8FZOr5EbgtWyxGJDJQXSLTACLcBGAs/s320/RW01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BS_lGfy1Vrc/XQtPUhUX1BI/AAAAAAAAIew/gLkPNf0NfXAlLc49bsFH9YqRzUxlWsm0ACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_7067.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BS_lGfy1Vrc/XQtPUhUX1BI/AAAAAAAAIew/gLkPNf0NfXAlLc49bsFH9YqRzUxlWsm0ACLcBGAs/s320/IMG_7067.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This disused space has been offered to the charity at a peppercorn rent by Hyde Housing, which is responsible for the residential properties above ground. The space will have a workshop where the charity intends to build the ship's model and wooden boats, with some apprenticeships as part of this. It will also house dockyard-related archives and be a public space for meetings and events. But the charity needs to raise funds to restore the space, install toilets and other services, to make it accessible to all, and to fit it out for public use.<br />
<br />
Their crowdfunder runs until mid-August, and it's 'all or nothing', so pledges are only converted if they reach their target.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.spacehive.com/thelenoxproject">https://www.spacehive.com/thelenoxproject</a><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
***********</div>
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;"><u><a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dcgetslit/deptford-cinemas-electric-extravaganza" target="_blank">Put the lights on at Deptford Cinema!</a></u></span><br />
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;">Down the other end of SE8, the independent, <a href="http://deptfordcinema.org/" target="_blank">volunteer-run Deptford Cinema i</a>s celebrating its fifth anniversary and has launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise £15k to upgrade its electrics. </span><br />
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
There's no denying that the cinema is a fantastic part of our local arts scene, with its diverse programming, great-value tickets and not-for-profit philosophy. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: center;">Again this is an 'all or nothing' crowdfunder, and it runs until July 19th - get there quick if you want the best rewards. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
They can tell it far better and with much more pizazz than me, so take a look at their campaign via the link below...</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dcgetslit/deptford-cinemas-electric-extravaganza">https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dcgetslit/deptford-cinemas-electric-extravaganza</a></div>
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-56468087842678982272019-03-31T19:17:00.001+00:002019-04-03T20:54:29.650+00:00An undesirable turn of eventsIt's now five months since <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2018/11/tidemill-thomas-and-trust.html" target="_blank">the sudden announcement</a> that Lewisham's newly-appointed - and much trumpeted - chief executive Ian Thomas would be leaving, after just seven months in the job.<br />
<br />
The council claimed that it was down to a 'change of direction' and that the decision was 'no negative reflection' on the then chief executive; other reports variously suggested it was either a case of egos clashing, or maybe Thomas was asking too many awkward questions.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/ian-thomas-cbe-a8b4183a/" target="_blank">Thomas' profile on Linked In, </a>his achievements in just seven months in Lewisham included undertaking 'diagnostics' in children's services, IT, information governance and financial management; 'effective oversight of a major data breach' (anyone remember hearing about this? I don't!*) and he also 'developed <i>Transforming Lewisham</i> discussion paper to address medium term budget gap'.<br />
<br />
I can imagine quite a few awkward questions had to be asked in pursuit of answers to some of these.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqlquWrqMp0/XJ866fiGBeI/AAAAAAAAIco/A_fC95nL2WIxQRAVLrXgX6TlW0O_ojP9ACLcBGAs/s1600/ThomasIan_GreenLiz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fqlquWrqMp0/XJ866fiGBeI/AAAAAAAAIco/A_fC95nL2WIxQRAVLrXgX6TlW0O_ojP9ACLcBGAs/s320/ThomasIan_GreenLiz.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright Kingston Council</span></i></div>
<br />
Scroll forwards to March 2019 - Thomas <a href="https://www.kingston.gov.uk/news/article/823/ian_thomas_set_to_become_kingston_council_s_permanent_chief_executive" target="_blank">has a new job as chief executive of Kingston on Thames,</a> and<a href="https://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/2006228/former-rotherham-childrens-chief-awarded-cbe" target="_blank"> some prestigious letters after his name</a>, and Lewisham council is again starting the hunt for a new chief executive.<br />
<br />
This week's <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=5131" target="_blank">council AGM</a> includes <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s63981/Chief%20Executive%20Recruitment.pdf" target="_blank">an item to agree the procedure for recruiting and appointing a new chief executive,</a> and to give officers the go-ahead to start the process without delay. If the item is approved, as seems very likely, recruitment to the post will start immediately, with ads posted and an agency appointed to draw up a long list of candidates.<br />
<br />
According to the proposed schedule, the new chief executive is not likely to be in the post until November at the earliest, possibly not even until next February. These procedures take time, candidates have to be ratified by full council, and some may have six month notice periods to work out. (Assuming anyone applies, that is, given the treatment handed out to the previous incumbent.)<br />
<br />
But hang on a minute. Item 4.9 of the report gives a hint of what might be in the minds of those driving the new recruitment process, as can be seen in the extract below (my emphasis).<br />
<br />
<i>If an appointment were made, there would then be a need to obtain clearances, and for formal offer and acceptance before the successful candidate <b>(if external)</b> could serve notice to terminate their current employment, which may be 3 or 6 months depending on their existing contractual position. It is possible therefore, <b>(if an external appointment were made)</b> that a new Chief Executive may not be in post until November 2019- February 2020.</i><br />
<br />
It does seem odd to mention this explicitly - surely any fool knows that an internal appointment could be in the post much quicker? Why bother mentioning it, unless of course you want to plant the idea in councillors' heads, perhaps prepare them to agree that an internal candidate would be preferable given that they could be appointed quickly and start getting on with the job.<br />
<br />
With the cause for Thomas' departure still no clearer outside of council circles, it would seem entirely reasonable for the recruitment and appointment procedure to undergo thorough scrutiny, to iron out any potential issues that might contribute to a repeat of what <i>Private Eye </i>referred to as 'Lewishambles<i>'. </i>Given that the process is expected to cost around £35k, it is important that they get it right this time.<br />
<br />
Luckily the premature departure of the chief executive has already been scrutinised by the council's auditors, whose 'Value for Money' report was discussed by <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=148&MId=5125" target="_blank">the audit panel last week</a>. The report by Grant Thornton refers to it as 'this undesirable turn of events' and notes how it 'consumed additional management capacity at senior level' that 'could have been utilised and directed towards the other significant challenges the Council faces, particularly given the significant issues with transformation governance that need to be addressed.'<br />
<br />
'There may be lessons to be learnt in respect of this matter. Members should reflect on what those lessons should be and how future recruitment can be undertaken to minimise the risk of recurrence,' the auditors conclude.<br />
<br />
So how are council officers and councillors addressing this urgent matter?<br />
<br />
Acting chief finance officer David Austin made no mention of the comment <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s63866/VFM%20Cover%20report.pdf" target="_blank">in his report to the audit panel</a>, other than listing it alongside the other recommendations. He certainly did not feel it needed a response. I assume he thought councillors were sure to 'reflect on what those lessons should be' without having to be told to do so.<br />
<br />
But it's difficult to know whether such confidence in elected members is justified. The recommendation to council this week, which sets out the proposed recruitment process for this post, is almost a carbon copy of the process by which Ian Thomas was recruited.<br />
<br />
One notable difference is that the advisory panel which will be responsible for shortlisting and interviewing candidates has been cut from nine to seven members. I have no idea what lessons this suggests members have learnt their careful reflection on what went wrong in the previous process, maybe they will enlighten the electorate at this week's meeting.<br />
<br />
<i>(*updated - obviously the council wasn't the only one asleep on the watch at the time <a href="https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-warns-financial-details-of-6000-people-have-been-hacked/45818" target="_blank">https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-warns-financial-details-of-6000-people-have-been-hacked/45818 </a>)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-49905388619618258032019-03-24T16:06:00.002+00:002019-03-24T16:06:39.960+00:00Small, dark, polluted: welcome to your new home at 1 CreeksideOn Tuesday Lewisham Council's strategic planning committee will meet to consider the planning application submitted for the corner of Creekside and Deptford Church Street, opposite the Bird's Nest. <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s63656/1%20Creekside%20London%20SE8%20-%20Committee%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">With approval being supported by the council's planning officers, I took a closer look at the details of the report and was concerned about what I found.</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm not talking specifically about the recommendation to approve, but about whether the report represents a fair and independent assessment of the case, and whether aspects of the development that have been raised as concerns, either by the public or by the planners themselves, have been adequately addressed. <div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXBkU8TKhd4/XJO7bjE90zI/AAAAAAAAIb4/yMSSbL8KUeUnAXDFEkSy2LeoQrEDp-5LQCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1129" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XXBkU8TKhd4/XJO7bjE90zI/AAAAAAAAIb4/yMSSbL8KUeUnAXDFEkSy2LeoQrEDp-5LQCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2018/06/1-creekside-planning-application.html" target="_blank">wrote about this application </a>when it was submitted last year, although not in a great deal of detail (there is more on Crosswhatfields <a href="http://crossfields.blogspot.com/2018/06/more-on-no1-creekside-long-read.html" target="_blank">here</a>). It is notable as being partially on land formerly owned by the council. This strip of land, which is currently full of trees, was sold to the developer Bluecroft, current owner of 1 Creekside, in exchange for commercial space in the development that the council will receive on a long leasehold. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The purpose of the planning report is to summarise the planning application, put it in context, explore whether it meets national and local planning regulations, and also report on objections received from statutory bodies and the public and how/whether they have been addressed. Applications for developments on this scale involve a large number of documents - this one has 76 - and it would be optimistic to expect councillors to have read and understood all of them (although us bloggers occasionally make a good stab at it). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Councillors do not often go against the recommendations of the officers, and in my experience the level of debate and scrutiny at planning meetings varies considerably, even for developments on the scale we are seeing regularly around Deptford. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So committee members are likely to rely quite heavily on the assessment of officers in making their decision whether to approve or not. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've read a fair few reports written by Lewisham's planning department and they certainly vary in quality, as well as the extent to which they cover all the bases. It does increasingly seem that planning officers are making judgement calls themselves, rather than supporting further scrutiny of plans, or highlighting issues that councillors might want to question at committee stage.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's possible the clue is in the first item of the report's conclusion: <i>'The development proposes 56 residential units, which represents 4% of the annual Lewisham housing target of 1,131 units. This has significant weight.'</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gK1SM11RcZo/XJdKG47QKCI/AAAAAAAAIcE/9lQIP6CE45E0oVByZ2I9PfkEAjl3gF3nQCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1141" data-original-width="1600" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gK1SM11RcZo/XJdKG47QKCI/AAAAAAAAIcE/9lQIP6CE45E0oVByZ2I9PfkEAjl3gF3nQCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The application proposes clearing the land of trees and the existing buildings - a house and a commercial property most recently occupied by an MOT business - and replacing it with two towers connected by a lower building, which will contain commercial space over the lower floors, and 56 residential units (64% for private sale, 16% for shared ownership and 20% 'affordable' rent (this is not the same as social rent, it can be up to 80% of market rent)). Although the inclusion of residential property is contrary to the local plan, which allocates this land for employment use, the planners conclude that this is acceptable as there will be employment space at ground level. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The shared ownership and affordable rented properties will be in the lower tower next to the Crossfields estate, the private units will be in the south tower on the corner of the two roads. They will have separate entrances, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/25/poor-doors-developers-segregate-rich-from-poor-london-housing-blocks" target="_blank">a practice which high-profile politicians of both sides have said should be discouraged,</a> but which is not highlighted as an issue by the report. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even though the detail of the report itself mentions issues with the size of the residential units, the limited outlook that some new residents will have, the impact of the building on adjacent residents, and the quality of air at this site, where people have outdoor space in the form of balconies overlooking the road and no green barrier between themselves and the traffic, the main statement of the report's conclusion relating to the quality of the housing being provided is <i>'The homes are of a high quality, meeting and generally exceeding minimum standards'. </i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's disappointing that<i> 'meeting and <b>generally</b> exceeding minimum standards' </i>is all we can aspire to these days, especially when some of this land is publicly-owned. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Let's take a closer look at the detail. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Size of housing</u></div>
<div>
There are national standards for how much space residential units should provide for their occupants. For a one bedroom flat designed for two occupants, that space is 50 square metres; for a three bedroom flat for five occupants it's 86 square metres. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The report notes that four of the 56 units fall below these minimum standards - two of them are one-bed units and two are three-bed. But<i> 'the shortfall is only 1sqm' </i>and because the bedrooms and private amenity space (balconies) are big enough, this can be excused. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Outlook and privacy</div>
<div>
National design standards expect new developments to provide a 'satisfactory level' of privacy, outlook and natural lighting for residents. Of course what is a 'satisfactory' outlook to one person might be objectionable to another, but in general terms most people don't want to look out and only be able to see the wall of another building. Unfortunately that's what some people in this development will be looking at. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Item 7.57: <i>'A minor (unstated) number of units will have an outlook confined towards no 3 Creekside, however given the urban nature of the development context and the limited (unstated) number of units affected, the outlook is considered to be acceptable to all units'.</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Daylight</u></div>
<div>
Here's a good example of how the wording of the report sways subtly away from neutrality. Item 7.68 of the report states: <i>'Out of the 55 living/kitchen rooms tested [for daylight and sunlight], the analysis identified <b>only</b> 8 shortfalls against the BRE Guides.'</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why 'only'? Why not simply <i>'the analysis identified 8 shortfalls'</i>? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This section of the report continues in a similar vein. Some might say defensively so. It does not seem to have been properly proofed, so much so that I'm not entirely sure in some cases whether the argument is for or against. I've quoted directly for that reason.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>'Most of the shortfalls highlighted are modest and can be considered to be acceptable in this urban context'. </i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>'Whilst there are 14 bedrooms falling short of the ADF [average daylight factor] criteria, after considering the impact of balconies, <b>only</b> 6 bedrooms fall short of the above 80% daylight distribution criteria'.</i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<u>Sunlight</u></div>
<div>
<i>'Some rooms see shortfalls against the BRE Guide annual sunlight aspirations <b>simply</b> due to <b>modest</b> areas of single aspect design or because some windows face away from due south'</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>'A total of 22 rooms of 147 rooms tested, all will meet the BRE Guide annual APSH test. Out of these 22 rooms, 13 are bedrooms where sunlight is less important to these rooms.' </i>[sic] </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Impact on neighbouring properties</u></div>
<div>
Residents in some of the blocks on Crossfields estate will lose light if the new building goes ahead, but that's tough because you live in a city, according to the planning report.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Item 7.146: <i>'Cremer House does experience limited shortfalls in daylight levels to some rooms. However <b>only</b> two rooms experience a loss of daylight that exceeds the recommended BRE levels of tolerance. In the context of the urban location, that dwellings in Cremer House the planning harm is considered to be limited in extent and supportable'</i> [sic]</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the application document that provides renderings of how the new development will impact on the existing buildings, only a 'wire frame' rendering has been provided to show what it will look like from Crossfields estate. The picture below shows the outline of the building in blue.</div>
<div>
<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6P3bFq_OPx0/XJdppC_WuUI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/9F29uJZWpcgFxilbbryDu-vbRhFxFARwQCLcBGAs/s1600/effect%2Bon%2Bview%2Bpositive.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="584" data-original-width="888" height="210" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6P3bFq_OPx0/XJdppC_WuUI/AAAAAAAAIcQ/9F29uJZWpcgFxilbbryDu-vbRhFxFARwQCLcBGAs/s320/effect%2Bon%2Bview%2Bpositive.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Item 7.149: <i>'The proposal meets the policies above in the case of nearly all dwellings assessed, resulting in material harm to the living conditions of future residents in terms of inadequate daylight and sunlight. This harm cannot be mitigated; however this is a planning harm which, when balanced against the proposal's other planning merits and the context of the site, is not considered a reason for refusal.'</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<u>Pollution and air quality</u></div>
<div>
Perhaps most shockingly, air quality and pollution is highlighted as an issue for the future occupants of both the commercial and the residential units. </div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>For some reason this fact does not even merit a mention in the conclusion of the officers' report.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is highlighted in the report but considered as having been adequately addressed by imposing a series of conditions, such as fitting an air filtration system for those living on the lower floors, warning them not to open their windows (or presumably use their outside space) when pollution levels are high, and ironically, given the number of trees that have been felled in Deptford in recent months, and the fact that this development will require the removal of many more, seeking a financial contribution towards the cost of planting new trees on the streets surrounding the development (there is no space on the actual site for greenery). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i><b>'Predicted annual mean Nitrous Dioxide concentrations in 2016 and 2021 indicate that the annual mean objective (40 microgram/metre cubed) would be exceeded across the first floor' </b></i>says item 7.222. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The first floor includes 3 three-bed apartments each designed to house five people, 4 two-beds for four people, and three one-beds for two. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>All in all, an estimated 37 residents will be living in conditions where opening their windows or using their outside space would put them at risk of pollution-related illnesses. Seven of these properties are highly likely to be housing families, potentially with young children. </b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wonder how comfortable committee members feel, being asked to approve new housing which poses such health risks? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course Deptford Church Street is lined with residential properties - several of the blocks on Crossfields estate face onto the road. But these properties are set back some distance, they are separated from traffic by a substantial number of trees, which are known to act as a pollution filter, and they are all dual aspect properties with their entrance doors opening onto communal balconies on the opposite sides of the blocks. With the 1 Creekside development being squeezed onto such a small sliver of land, the residential properties will be hard up against the pavement, and almost all of those facing the road have no other windows they can open if they want some 'fresh air'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The report states:<i> 'It is therefore considered appropriate to apply a planning obligation to ensure that occupiers/residents at these (lower three floor levels) are notified of the potential air pollution risks to human health. This would be likely to take the form of marketing information, leasehold clause and welcome pack.'</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Welcome to your new home! Just don't open the windows or use the balcony, even if you are feeling claustrophobic because it's slightly under the minimum size requirements and doesn't get a lot of light. We wouldn't want you to die of pollution-related illnesses, that would be bad for business. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vAh3JONlWJM/XJeqdooZqKI/AAAAAAAAIcc/F4gXKgPjI1grOqRrPzCWJr58O6cfQDlKgCLcBGAs/s1600/church%2Bst2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="882" height="212" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vAh3JONlWJM/XJeqdooZqKI/AAAAAAAAIcc/F4gXKgPjI1grOqRrPzCWJr58O6cfQDlKgCLcBGAs/s320/church%2Bst2.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-72109456135264113262019-03-03T21:58:00.003+00:002019-03-03T22:03:05.670+00:00Tidemill security costs in fullAs the trees in Tidemill Garden were trashed last week, following the conclusion of the final stages of the judicial review and the handing over of the site to developer Peabody, Lewisham Council revealed that the eviction and subsequent months of 24-hour security had cost the council a total of almost £1.4 million.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--3pkBLs9Pt4/XHxCT2R40qI/AAAAAAAAIbY/Hi9oPQDp8Z0JTLFLDkhc-WCxtZuxH8llgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6369.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--3pkBLs9Pt4/XHxCT2R40qI/AAAAAAAAIbY/Hi9oPQDp8Z0JTLFLDkhc-WCxtZuxH8llgCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6369.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
This information came in response to a public question <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/g5131/Public%20reports%20pack%2027th-Feb-2019%2019.30%20Council.pdf?T=10" target="_blank">at last week's council meeting</a>. In his written reply, councillor Paul Bell, the cabinet member with responsibility for housing, stated that the council had 'expected that any ongoing security would be very short-term'. Whatever advice - if any - they were acting on was ill-considered, perhaps even negligent.<br />
<br />
As many observers (myself included) stated at the time, the council acted impetuously and without considering the potential consequences. Yet it was obvious to anyone who stopped and gave it more than a moment's thought.<br />
<br />
Once the eviction had been carried out, the council found themselves in the expensive position of being obliged to pay for 24 hour security around the perimeter of the site to prevent it from being occupied again. With legal procedures still under way, they were not able to start clearing the site until the final judgement was delivered.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OMzdJsWn4qs/XHxCUM6ZAzI/AAAAAAAAIbc/8uDLqcdNUtoUm95PbqsToRLgeOk96PEYACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6365.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="775" data-original-width="1200" height="155" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OMzdJsWn4qs/XHxCUM6ZAzI/AAAAAAAAIbc/8uDLqcdNUtoUm95PbqsToRLgeOk96PEYACLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6365.JPG" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
Hence the council confirmed it has spent £1,372,890 on securing the Tidemill site since 29 October - a sum that no doubt will have to be found from elsewhere in the council's already stretched budget. A cost that could have been avoided if our elected members and their paid officials had given it more than a moment's thought.<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bdwHit4ENYQ" width="500"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
During the eviction, questions were raised about the behaviour of some of the staff from County Enforcement, the private firm hired by Lewisham to carry out the eviction and provide 24-hour security. They covered their faces with masks, did not display proper ID, and were even witnessed assaulting members of the public. Reports of such behaviour did not raise any eyebrows at the council - none of them were present that day, after all, so it was clearly easily dismissed as hysteria and/or fabrication.<br />
<br />
The council had to be presented with incontrovertible evidence in order to take the claims more seriously - and this proved to be the firm's <a href="http://www.countybailiffcompany.co.uk/about.php" target="_blank">website - which boasts about its strike-breaking activities</a>. <br />
Bell has now confirmed that he has asked for County to be replaced and council procurement procedures to be reviewed, since the company 'does not fit' with the values of the council.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-12410784872548533692018-11-27T20:45:00.004+00:002018-11-27T20:45:58.155+00:00Council press release blames protestors for Tidemill eviction costsThe fact that Lewisham Council spent £105k in a single day removing four people from Tidemill Garden has just been revealed in response to a number of FOI requests, and the figures will be made public at tomorrow night's council meeting in response to questions to the council.<br />
<br />
The council has refused to provide figures for the ongoing cost of securing the site since the day of the eviction.<br />
<br />
But in a deeply cynical move, which will do nothing to improve relations between SE8 and Lewisham's elected representatives, the council has just put out the following press release, which I have reproduced in full.<br />
<br />
<i>Counting the cost of the Tidemill eviction </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Lewisham Council has revealed the £105,000 cost of evicting the Tidemill protestors in Deptford could help house more than 20 homeless families in temporary accommodation for an entire year.
</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Council gave the Old Tidemill Garden Group temporary, meanwhile, use of the garden back in 2012 on the clear understanding they would leave once the development of the site was ready to go ahead. The group agreed to this condition. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Council had to spend the money to remove campaigners and members of the group after they refused to leave in October. </i><br />
<br />
<i>Councillor Paul Bell, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “It is disappointing that the actions of some activists illegally occupying the site meant we had no choice but to spend this large sum of money which could have been much better used elsewhere for those in real housing need. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>“Our housebuilding programme is for the many, not the few, and we won’t let the actions of a small number of people stop us providing decent, secure, social housing for those who need it. </i><br />
<br />
<i>“In the last three years alone private rents have risen by almost three times as much as earnings in Lewisham. We are fighting the housing crisis by building more homes at social rented levels and working with others to do the same. Tidemill offers an unprecedented amount of social housing and we cannot let those who wish to undermine the scheme for their own motives further delay these homes from being built.” </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>The Council’s housing programme will deliver over 1,000 new social homes over the next four years with 117 due to be available for social rent at Tidemill.
Overall, redevelopment of Tidemill and surrounding areas will provide 209 new homes, 54% of which will be social.
There are nearly 10,000 people on Lewisham’s housing waiting list and over 2,000 households in temporary accommodation because of a lack of social housing in the borough. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Cllr Bell added: “We are sorry for the residents who live locally and are caught in the middle of this ongoing situation. We are trying our best to resolve it.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=5128" target="_blank">Tomorrow's council meeting,</a> which includes not only questions about the Tidemill eviction, but also <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2018/11/tidemill-thomas-and-trust.html" target="_blank">an item on the arrangements for replacing the sacked chief executive Ian Thomas,</a> looks set to be a lively one.<br />
<i><br /></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-32832094709252413202018-11-24T12:08:00.002+00:002018-11-24T12:08:37.112+00:00Tidemill trees Since the heavy-handed eviction of Tidemill Garden almost a month ago, the site has been guarded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by a workforce of at least 50.<br />
<br />
I covered this in <a href="https://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2018/11/tidemill-thomas-and-trust.html" target="_blank">my previous blog post,</a> the contents of which came as news to many observers in the wider SE London area who were aware of the eviction but not the ongoing levels of security and associated cost. In the last few days, with fencing now erected around the site, the number may have been reduced but security staff still remain on the public land around the perimeter of the site, and there are guard dogs inside the former garden. With little to do, the dogs spend their days and nights barking - another unnecessary disturbance for neighbours.<br />
<br />
There has been no official word on why the eviction took place when it did, given that there is still an ongoing legal procedure. Although the judicial review that campaigners funded was rejected, they are still going through the appeal process. Neither the council nor the developers is permitted to start work on the site until the legal process is complete.<br />
<br />
Councillor Joe Dromey claimed on Twitter that the council is paying the cost of security until the appeal is heard, after which developer Peabody will take it on. As far as I am aware there is no specific deadline for the decision to be made, so no-one can predict what this will cost.<br />
<br />
If the council really was concerned about the cost of evicting the campaigners and securing the site, why didn’t they wait till the legal process was complete before initiating this expensive procedur<span style="background-color: white;">e?</span> With legal arguments out of the way, if they had been successful they would have been able to come straight in and take possession at minimal cost. Why choose such a provocative course of action?<br />
<br />
Cock-up or conspiracy? Evidence certainly favours the latter, with no senior council members or officers willing to stand up and take responsibility for what is going on, and a deafening silence from Lewisham’s elected mayor Damien Egan.<br />
<br />
The latest act of provocation from whoever is directing operations at Tidemill was the arrival of tree surgeons on the site last week.<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="und">
<a href="https://t.co/QBhVwNZBEH">pic.twitter.com/QBhVwNZBEH</a></div>
— Reginald Resident (@under_siege_SE8) <a href="https://twitter.com/under_siege_SE8/status/1065235096431665152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
They cut back all the overhanging foliage around the site perimeter, some of it heavy with berries that would have been a valuable food source for local birds this winter, and felled several young trees within the site. A neighbour speaking to the staff doing the work was told that they had also been instructed to fell the larger trees.<br />
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lzdxrKUQJAQ/W_g7OlOr6sI/AAAAAAAAIa0/5PG7avCB8qQZtfZPg77bswaT2hQ5KHY4gCLcBGAs/s1600/DsmrUQcXQAAN0-N.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lzdxrKUQJAQ/W_g7OlOr6sI/AAAAAAAAIa0/5PG7avCB8qQZtfZPg77bswaT2hQ5KHY4gCLcBGAs/s320/DsmrUQcXQAAN0-N.jpg" width="320" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
(@under_siege_se8)</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
But after two days on the site, contractor Artemis Trees announced that they were pulling out of the job, without pay, having found out about the campaign and the backstory to the work they were doing. They were reported as citing ethical reasons for pulling out. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Once again, official communication from the council on the subject has been nil, other than councillor Joe Dromey attempting to respond to some of the questions on Twitter. He tweeted a copy of a letter from fellow councillor Paul Bell that he said had been sent to residents - but seemingly not to those living opposite the site on Reginald Road. The letter makes no mention of the campaigners' legal action and unresolved appeal, preferring instead to paint them simply as troublesome protestors. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
I told you the security is high as there have been over 10 attempts to break in to the site. But I’ve said I think the dogs should be removed. I did ask for a letter & this letter has been sent to residents. I asked about security guards, and received this response from County <a href="https://t.co/AFALseZ0u9">pic.twitter.com/AFALseZ0u9</a></div>
— Joe Dromey (@Joe_Dromey) <a href="https://twitter.com/Joe_Dromey/status/1065886955257430016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Dromey also posted a letter that had been received from the bailiffs County Security, in response to complaints about staff covering their faces during the eviction. Eyewitnesses know that the 'skull mask' was not an isolated case - many of those carrying out the eviction covered their faces, and the only 'ID' they carried was a high-viz vest with a number on it. Given that the eviction of any site is potentially a contentious procedure, the council should have been closely involved in scrutinising how the operation was carried out and who was managing it on the day. Someone in authority should have been present to ensure that the procedure was followed to the letter.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Campaigners, neighbours and members of the local Deptford community are genuinely distressed at the utter lack of respect they are being shown by the council. Even if elected officials are not willing to engage with the campaigners, there is an overwhelming case for explaining their actions to the electorate and reassuring local residents that they are following due process.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This week it also <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/17232763.new-strategy-and-pr-job-at-lewisham-council-with-up-to-100k-salary/" target="_blank">came to light </a> that the council is recruiting an assistant director of strategy and communications to assist the mayor, who as we know is famously heading off in a 'new direction'. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The job was actually<a href="https://jobs.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/job/123384/assistant-director-of-strategy-and-communications/" target="_blank"> advertised last month</a> and initial interviews were due to be held last week. With Egan's <a href="https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/mayor/Pages/cabinet.aspx" target="_blank">remit</a> officially covering 'planning, emergencies and communications' at least he will have one strand covered. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
"Communicating effectively with our residents is very important for the council," News Shopper's story quotes the council as saying. "Good communications informs and engages residents on all aspects of the council’s work."</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Yes of course it does. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-21345605052331204032018-11-19T21:08:00.001+00:002018-11-20T00:07:15.742+00:00Tidemill, Thomas and transparencyIn times of austerity there are two things that councils should be particularly scrupulous about.<br />
<br />
The first reads like a statement of the bleeding obvious. To be seen to be visibly wasting money is a massive no-no. When you are closing libraries, reducing children's services and slashing support for the vulnerable, any unnecessary spend or inefficient use of funds is going to rapidly attract the wrong kind of attention.<br />
<br />
The second is more subtle, but in my opinion just as important. Communicating with your electorate about why you are making certain decisions, what alternatives you have considered, and why these have been eliminated in favour of a particular course of action is good practice and shows respect for the people you serve.<br />
<br />
Transparency and accountability are qualities that all local councils claim to be striving for. But recent events over the last few weeks in Deptford and the wider Lewisham borough suggest that the council's 'new direction', under elected mayor Damien Egan, seeks to abandon any such worthy aspirations.<br />
<br />
The ongoing saga of the Tidemill Community Garden and the proposed redevelopment of the land between Frankham Street and Reginald Road came to a head on Monday 29 October when more than a hundred bailiffs, police, dog handlers and dogs, and other assorted heavies turned up at 6am to evict four people from the garden. The community garden had been occupied since August when the council <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16402960.old-tidemill-wildlife-garden-eviction-notice-placed-by-lewisham-council/" target="_blank">served a notice of eviction</a> ahead of plans to start redevelopment of the site. Although a judicial review brought by campaigners <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16999072.old-tidemill-wildlife-garden-judicial-review-rejected/" target="_blank">was rejected in October,</a> an appeal against the decision is still unresolved.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RZYbSofSVNU/W-DVg9TksZI/AAAAAAAAIZU/Okimb5BH7m0e6q_YUH_YMDRMGdeoFWmvwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_5168.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RZYbSofSVNU/W-DVg9TksZI/AAAAAAAAIZU/Okimb5BH7m0e6q_YUH_YMDRMGdeoFWmvwCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_5168.JPG" width="240" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The arguments on both sides of the Tidemill case have been widely covered elsewhere, but my particular focus is on the disproportionate and heavy-handed action that has been sanctioned by the council, and the huge sums of money that have been (and continue to be) expended on clearing out and securing this space. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ou8Lv779zX0/W-DVioLoSgI/AAAAAAAAIaI/gEDQIOxqtQ8pXNEXywbTIbrmdvg31ISjwCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/IMG_5432.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ou8Lv779zX0/W-DVioLoSgI/AAAAAAAAIaI/gEDQIOxqtQ8pXNEXywbTIbrmdvg31ISjwCPcBGAYYCw/s320/IMG_5432.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Since the eviction on 29 October, staff from County Security have been guarding the site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They surround the perimeter of the garden on Reginald Road and stand along the footpaths and car parks next to Frankham House and Reginald House. People living in the buildings that surround the site have bailiffs a few metres away from their windows at all times. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ABlmYgr4FOk/W-DVj9DP9oI/AAAAAAAAIZk/4SrdeOBli2QeW7NlVOS8d-1gWYGas41DgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_5433.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ABlmYgr4FOk/W-DVj9DP9oI/AAAAAAAAIZk/4SrdeOBli2QeW7NlVOS8d-1gWYGas41DgCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_5433.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The cost has been <a href="https://corporatewatch.org/tidemill-county-enforcement-lewishams-35000-a-day-private-army-in-skull-masks/" target="_blank">reliably estimated </a>at around £35k per day - on this basis, at the time of writing, the total cost is approaching £750k - three quarters of a million pounds. Awkwardly, this week the mayor and cabinet will be discussing <a href="http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s60814/Revenue%20Budget%20Cuts%202019-20.pdf" target="_blank">more council budget cuts. </a><br />
<br />
The unknown is for how much longer this level of spend will continue, nor the process by which the council plans to take things forward. Communication from the council has been non-existent, other than individual councillors defending the development plans in general, and criticising the behaviour of the campaigners when asked by the media to comment. No statement has been issued to confirm who authorised the action, why the bailiffs did not give occupants of the garden the opportunity to leave the site peacefully, what it is costing, who is paying the bill, what the next stage of the process will be, when it will take place, and why they are spending a great deal of money to secure an empty site for an indefinite period.<br />
<br />
Councillor Paul Bell (cabinet member for housing) <a href="http://www.lfgn.org.uk/old-tidemill-garden/" target="_blank">is quoted as saying </a>that he 'did not believe' that the eviction was heavy-handed and that it was a 'straightforward operation'. The fact is, he was not present, and nor were any of his council colleagues. My own eye-witness account and that of many other reliable contacts contradicts this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U4mUI6tkIAQ/W-DVmMlw4fI/AAAAAAAAIZw/mqhcNLbQZ3gCGdQjrbie0bvtMc5kbVyMQCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_5483.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1179" data-original-width="1600" height="235" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U4mUI6tkIAQ/W-DVmMlw4fI/AAAAAAAAIZw/mqhcNLbQZ3gCGdQjrbie0bvtMc5kbVyMQCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_5483.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The very same day that bailiffs were evicting people from Tidemill Community Garden, the following appeared on the website of the MJ, a weekly magazine for council chief executives: </div>
<i>The chief executive of Lewisham LBC will stand down at the end of the year following a change of political control at the council.
Lewisham has confirmed the departure of Ian Thomas was due to the change in direction by new Mayor Damien Egan and there was ‘no negative reflection’ on the chief, sparking concerns over ousting chiefs ‘on a whim’.
</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tn6ou36LeVw/W_FRerhXV5I/AAAAAAAAIao/bM-AmU0QRPQhXFa_cUKA5Z_mxC1Q9G1pgCLcBGAs/s1600/imgID151510554.jpg.gallery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="650" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tn6ou36LeVw/W_FRerhXV5I/AAAAAAAAIao/bM-AmU0QRPQhXFa_cUKA5Z_mxC1Q9G1pgCLcBGAs/s320/imgID151510554.jpg.gallery.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Say what?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is the same Ian Thomas who was recruited to the post by the council earlier this year with great fanfare and of course,<a href="https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/news/Pages/New-chief-executive-for-Lewisham-Council.aspx" target="_blank"> a press release. </a>The post comes with an annual salary of 'between £175k and £185k'. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The press release announced that his recommendation 'was made following a rigorous selection process by an appointments panel consisting of Sir Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham and a cross-party group of eight councillors.' The cross-party group included Damien Egan, at the time a ward councillor but already selected as the Labour Party's mayoral candidate.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
After being elected as mayor, Egan introduced Thomas on May 23rd using the following words:</div>
<i>"One of the personal pledges I have made is a commitment to electing more councillors from black, asian and minority ethnic communities. All parties should be committing to supporting the election of more BAME councillors and I will make it my mission through training, mentoring and through political pressure – that in four years’ time we are more reflective of the communities we represent.
We have of course, fantastic BAME role models in our council who inspire many through their leadership.
We welcome our new chief executive, Ian Thomas.
Ian – welcome to Lewisham. I am looking forward to working with you to shape the future we all want to see for our borough."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Whatever has gone wrong in just five months is not up for discussion. Once again the council is remaining tight-lipped on the issue, although under pressure the pr department started referring to a 'change of direction' by the new administration under Egan, which presumably Thomas was either not invited to, or not keen on.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile <i>Private Eye's </i>take on what it calls <i>Lewishambles </i>suggests that an infantile clash of egos was the issue, quoting one council source as saying it was 'dicks at dawn'. Now the former interim CEO is back at the helm and Thomas has gone on gardening leave, with no credible explanation of what has created this embarrassing and expensive situation. The council has to find the funds to advertise for and recruit a new CEO, not to mention cover any severance pay that Thomas may be due.<br />
<br />
Neither of these decisions have gone down particularly well in Deptford, hence 'mayor's question time' at the recent New Cross Assembly at the Mulberry Centre became the focal point for a rather angry electorate.<br />
<br />
A group of council staff in the audience voiced their concerns and demanded answers about Thomas's departure, while Tidemill protestors wanted to pin the mayor down on the rationale for the eviction of the community garden and the cost to council tax payers. Egan's late arrival from another meeting (with a police escort) meant there was little time for questions, which must have been something of a relief for him.<br />
<br />
Members of the public were prevented from entering the room by the police, who claimed that it was at capacity. The film I've linked to below shows this was not true. Some of those left outside vented their anger by banging on the meeting room windows and trying to disrupt the meeting.<br />
<br />
Most of the subsequent coverage <a href="https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/17211063.lewisham-council-staff-attacked-by-violent-protesters-at-meeting/" target="_blank">focused on scuffles outside the venue</a> afterwards, but I draw your attention to footage recorded by founder of the Deptford People Project, 'Lucy Loves-Life' who was in the audience. Her short film shows how the mayor responded to a simple question about provision for young people.<br />
<br />
In the circumstances, a question that was neither about Ian Thomas nor Tidemill Garden should have been a gift to the mayor; an opportunity for him to win over his audience and convince them that he was a credible leader. Someone the audience could trust to make the right decisions even in difficult circumstances, someone who would listen and respond respectfully, and someone who would take responsibility for his actions and those of the council he leads.<br />
<br />
I invite you to make your own mind up about whether he was successful or not (and with apologies to anyone not on Facebook as I have only been able to find it available here).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/lucyloveslife1/videos/260681608135901/">https://www.facebook.com/lucyloveslife1/videos/260681608135901/</a><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-65508231982621193892018-08-21T22:07:00.000+00:002018-08-21T22:07:03.414+00:00Party in the Park!The fabulous and free Party in the Park is back in Fordham Park on 1st September with three stages for a host of local bands and musicians, community stalls and even a 'wellness' area!<br />
<br />
The Tent City will focus on local housing issues with talks and workshops looking at the serious housing problems that many local people face.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OZf8_pb63K0/W3yL_rdtuXI/AAAAAAAAIZI/bvwEOEkvy68ryTL5mvUOrlK6_BG8bpc3wCLcBGAs/s1600/PITPNXD2018%2B-%2BBand%2Blisting%2Bversion%2B2%2Bfor%2Bprint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1132" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OZf8_pb63K0/W3yL_rdtuXI/AAAAAAAAIZI/bvwEOEkvy68ryTL5mvUOrlK6_BG8bpc3wCLcBGAs/s320/PITPNXD2018%2B-%2BBand%2Blisting%2Bversion%2B2%2Bfor%2Bprint.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<br />
The festival is descended from the legendary Deptford Urban Free Festival which took place in the park in the 1990s. It's still a free festival and still organised by volunteers, community groups and activists.<br />
<br />
Want to get involved? Email vols@pitpnxd.co.uk<br />
<br />
<b>Saturday 1st September, 12 noon - 8pm.</b><br />
<b>Fordham Park</b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-25440508800488970032018-08-16T22:32:00.000+00:002018-08-16T23:00:39.256+00:00Tidemill campaigners seek funds for judicial reviewDeptford's <i>Save Reginald! Save Tidemill!</i> campaign is trying to raise funds on Crowd Justice to challenge Lewisham Council's decision to demolish the council homes of Reginald House and the community-run Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden.<br />
<br />
The demolition is scheduled as part of a regeneration scheme of the Old Tidemill site in Deptford, London, and the community group wants to mount a judicial review against the Council's approval of the plans.<br />
<br />
They want the council and its partners to redraw the plans in partnership with the community, so Reginald House and Old Tidemill Garden are kept, and as many social homes as possible are built on the land.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2jrrT4U4SUc/W3X64X9UPeI/AAAAAAAAIY8/rhjyr3dN4oI0GJyw7xkBgc81iffLvRC8ACLcBGAs/s1600/1531438938792blob.jpg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="985" data-original-width="1393" height="226" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2jrrT4U4SUc/W3X64X9UPeI/AAAAAAAAIY8/rhjyr3dN4oI0GJyw7xkBgc81iffLvRC8ACLcBGAs/s320/1531438938792blob.jpg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Alternative plans have been produced by the campaigners</i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Campaigners claim it is possible, and that they have produced alternative architectural plans to show it, however the Council have so far not pursued the alternatives.<br />
<br />
They say: <i>We need your support to expose how the Council is going against it's own environmental, housing, human rights, equality and air pollution policies, how they have abused the planning process to push the plans through, and the sham nature of their consultation process. And to force them to redraw these plans in partnership with the community, via a transparent and collaborative process.</i><br />
<br />
The campaign's solicitor is Richard Buxton, an environmental and public law lawyer who is also concerned about social housing and social justice.<br />
<br />
The group is trying to raise £10,600 by September 9th in order to pay for legal advice and explore the possibility of a judicial review.<br />
<br />
For more information, or to make a pledge, visit <a href="https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-reginald-save-tidemill">https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-reginald-save-tidemill</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-30790440721306172912018-06-18T07:51:00.002+00:002018-06-18T07:53:24.195+00:001 Creekside planning application<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A planning application has been submitted for the corner site of Creekside/Deptford Church Street for a mixed use development of housing and commercial units.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The land on which the development is proposed, opposite the Birds Nest pub, is currently occupied by the MOT centre at 1 Creekside, and the adjoining unoccupied area which the council fenced off with hoardings a year or more ago. This council-owned land was sold to developer Bluecroft, which owns 1 Creekside, under a deal which will see the council leasing back the commercial space on a long-term basis to generate an income.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I hope that the council has fully tested the viability of its plan, given the amount of new office and commercial space in the area that is either still empty, or just coming on stream. A number of spaces in the Deptford Market Yard building right next to the station still remain unlet, with the starter units in the market yard itself exhibiting a fairly high churn rate. New developments on Creekside such as the <a href="https://www.workspace.co.uk/workspaces/fuel-tank" target="_blank">high-spec, high-rent Fuel Tank</a> at Faircharm and the Artworks spaces at the other end of the Creekside (and the other end of the rental spectrum) mean that the market is becoming somewhat saturated. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XkPraLVrlmc/WxEPx2S7i7I/AAAAAAAAIXs/ToJC8sF1MKA-1LsxB0YDOw7iFA9hXKCxwCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1129" data-original-width="1600" height="225" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XkPraLVrlmc/WxEPx2S7i7I/AAAAAAAAIXs/ToJC8sF1MKA-1LsxB0YDOw7iFA9hXKCxwCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It's a fairly small strip of land and the council's commercial space is intended to occupy an overheight ground floor which accommodates a mezzanine level, so the buildings have to be quite large in order to accommodate just 56 residential units. No matter how you cut it, this is going to have quite an impact on its neighbours. The architects have split it into two 'cores' with the intention of giving it a bit more character than a single block.</div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YxyHQI9vxBo/WxEPxAQZDcI/AAAAAAAAIXo/4m763QHR5Q4Cl698sTFPaUnjdVPvmuarQCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1141" data-original-width="1600" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YxyHQI9vxBo/WxEPxAQZDcI/AAAAAAAAIXo/4m763QHR5Q4Cl698sTFPaUnjdVPvmuarQCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
They've incorporated a yard at ground level which goes through between the two cores and around the back to Creekside. The documents show all kinds of nice landscaping, although I'm not entirely clear what a 'rain garden' is and the landscaping is often the bit that gets cut back when the penny pinching starts. What is intended to be a pleasant space for those who use it, more often turns into a drafty, litter-strewn wasteland. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1g8hAsDKYVY/WxEP0883lGI/AAAAAAAAIX0/usRGiW-ZaBYujvMOErzz25O3fDqbKf0cACLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1093" data-original-width="1600" height="218" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1g8hAsDKYVY/WxEP0883lGI/AAAAAAAAIX0/usRGiW-ZaBYujvMOErzz25O3fDqbKf0cACLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Talking of aspirational landscaping, there are a lot of trees shown on the renderings. Past experience suggests that when it comes to actually planting trees outside new developments there are a myriad reasons why they don't materialise - and considering that this development involves the loss of trees on the existing land, let's hope that the planners are willing to enforce their provision if the proposal gets permission.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oiu7yp6slMo/WxEPw_MnEoI/AAAAAAAAIXk/GTFjhDc8YQIzzYzbNO6wJx7z6Vwey12kgCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="749" data-original-width="1600" height="149" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oiu7yp6slMo/WxEPw_MnEoI/AAAAAAAAIXk/GTFjhDc8YQIzzYzbNO6wJx7z6Vwey12kgCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
You can find the details of the planning application <a href="https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/" target="_blank">via the council's planning portal </a>by searching the reference number DC/18/106708; the official deadline for objections has passed but objections can be submitted up to the date of the committee hearing at which the application will be considered.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dVdWpwc8ZO0/WxEPywHI_II/AAAAAAAAIXw/0wci-DwteLcslomhn6qlQL2Kx0vX8GJNwCLcBGAs/s1600/creekside%2B4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="712" data-original-width="1600" height="142" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dVdWpwc8ZO0/WxEPywHI_II/AAAAAAAAIXw/0wci-DwteLcslomhn6qlQL2Kx0vX8GJNwCLcBGAs/s320/creekside%2B4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7397970649062371366.post-3358636268402829712018-06-04T07:06:00.004+00:002018-06-04T07:06:38.749+00:00999 Club fundraising for a summer shelter <a href="https://www.999club.org/" target="_blank">Deptford's 999 Club </a>is crowdfunding to raise £20,000 to open a Summer Shelter to provide space for 20 homeless people each night.<br />
<br />
<b>Although they have already raised almost £6,000 they still have a long way to go and the appeal closes on 20 June 2018.</b><br />
<br />
This will be the only shelter in Lewisham and one of only three night shelters open in London over the summer.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KMxw3QlL8Bs/WxThOU_2MpI/AAAAAAAAIYI/Vs1tOWDPjNQZApY6wBSqNy6ISvl7k0TVwCLcBGAs/s1600/1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="672" data-original-width="1008" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KMxw3QlL8Bs/WxThOU_2MpI/AAAAAAAAIYI/Vs1tOWDPjNQZApY6wBSqNy6ISvl7k0TVwCLcBGAs/s320/1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Most people are aware of the shelters that open up in winter to provide safe, clean and warm sleeping space for homeless people at a time when the weather is particularly bad.<br />
<br />
Ironically in summer, homeless people find it even harder to find a safe, quiet and unexposed place to sleep.<br />
<br />
With no door to lock behind them, 999 Club reports that homeless people are 17 times more likely to experience violence including being hit, kicked, urinated on, threatened, robbed, sexually assaulted and verbally abused.<br />
<br />
Rough sleeping has a grave effect on homeless people’s mental and physical health resulting in an average age of death of just 43 for women and 47 for men.<br />
<br />
<b>Rough sleeping is a devastating experience – not just in winter but at any time of year.</b><br />
<br />
The 999 Club wants to extend its night shelter so it can open this summer, and is crowdfunding to raise a further £20,000 to fund its summer shelter.<br />
<a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/summershelter">https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/summershelter</a><br />
<br />
The existing night shelter runs at the 999 Club's hall in 10 week blocks. Traditionally night shelters run during the coldest months of the year but the charity is currently delivering a three-year pilot to extend this to provide year-round support. By 2019 their aim is to have the shelter operating for 40 weeks, across all four seasons.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sdl2sbS_P10/WxTjcHlRBSI/AAAAAAAAIYU/cwOokuh9pAAYlOrjdVTABNTP7taZcihcwCLcBGAs/s1600/5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1152" height="213" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sdl2sbS_P10/WxTjcHlRBSI/AAAAAAAAIYU/cwOokuh9pAAYlOrjdVTABNTP7taZcihcwCLcBGAs/s320/5.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It's not just about somewhere to sleep - the work of the shelter combines emergency accommodation with the wider support services offered by the 999 Club to empower people to change their lives.<br />
<br />
It provides respite from sleeping rough which gives homeless people the space and opportunity to engage with the charity's other services:<br />
- the day centre offering access to practical facilities, such as showers, laundry and internet access; <br />
- advice and support to help with benefits and find and keep a home;<br />
- employability support to access training, gain qualifications, get work ready and find a job;<br />
- learning & activities workshops to gain new skills and increase confidence and self-esteem;<br />
- personal transition service for highly personalised one-to-one support;<br />
- health & wellbeing clinics to improve physical and mental health.<br />
<br />
The night shelter provides each guest with a locker, mattress, bedding, towels and a welcome pack including essential items such as deodorant, razors and sanitary products. They are assigned a case manager who assists with securing any missing ID, accessing or maximising benefits, receiving healthcare, getting a job and securing housing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ocRW6npBBbU/WxTklj50AII/AAAAAAAAIYg/BXcyK9INrAA65sq-GIumwftzyTrLc_bOACLcBGAs/s1600/9da51ad130868d1836dd65ec21135e36939ff4c1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1200" height="167" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ocRW6npBBbU/WxTklj50AII/AAAAAAAAIYg/BXcyK9INrAA65sq-GIumwftzyTrLc_bOACLcBGAs/s320/9da51ad130868d1836dd65ec21135e36939ff4c1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Guests arrive at 7.30pm each evening for a nutritious meal cooked by a team of volunteers. During this time guests can also access laundry facilities, showers and computers before settling down for the night in the hall. They get breakfast in the morning and are encouraged to stay on during the day at the charity's Gateway service.<br />
<br />
For more information about the service and the crowdfunding appeal, visit <a href="https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/summershelter">https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/summershelter</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0