Small, dark, polluted: welcome to your new home at 1 Creekside

On 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. 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.

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.  

I wrote about this application when it was submitted last year, although not in a great deal of detail (there is more on Crosswhatfields here). 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. 

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).  

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. 

So committee members are likely to rely quite heavily on the assessment of officers in making their decision whether to approve or not. 

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.

It's possible the clue is in the first item of the report's conclusion: 'The development proposes 56 residential units, which represents 4% of the annual Lewisham housing target of 1,131 units. This has significant weight.'

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. 

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 practice which high-profile politicians of both sides have said should be discouraged, but which is not highlighted as an issue by the report. 

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 'The homes are of a high quality, meeting and generally exceeding minimum standards'. 

It's disappointing that 'meeting and generally exceeding minimum standards' is all we can aspire to these days, especially when some of this land is publicly-owned. 

Let's take a closer look at the detail. 

Size of housing

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. 

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 'the shortfall is only 1sqm' and because the bedrooms and private amenity space (balconies) are big enough, this can be excused. 

Outlook and privacy

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. 

Item 7.57: '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'.

Daylight

Here's a good example of how the wording of the report sways subtly away from neutrality. Item 7.68 of the report states: 'Out of the 55 living/kitchen rooms tested [for daylight and sunlight], the analysis identified only 8 shortfalls against the BRE Guides.'

Why 'only'? Why not simply 'the analysis identified 8 shortfalls'? 

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.

'Most of the shortfalls highlighted are modest and can be considered to be acceptable in this urban context'. 

'Whilst there are 14 bedrooms falling short of the ADF [average daylight factor] criteria, after considering the impact of balconies, only 6 bedrooms fall short of the above 80% daylight distribution criteria'.

Sunlight

'Some rooms see shortfalls against the BRE Guide annual sunlight aspirations simply due to modest areas of single aspect design or because some windows face away from due south'

'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.' [sic] 

Impact on neighbouring properties

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.

Item 7.146: 'Cremer House does experience limited shortfalls in daylight levels to some rooms. However only 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' [sic]

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.

Item 7.149: '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.'

Pollution and air quality

Perhaps most shockingly, air quality and pollution is highlighted as an issue for the future occupants of both the commercial and the residential units. 

For some reason this fact does not even merit a mention in the conclusion of the officers' report.

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). 

'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' says item 7.222. 

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. 

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. 

I wonder how comfortable committee members feel, being asked to approve new housing which poses such health risks? 

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'. 

The report states: '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.'

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. 

Tidemill, Thomas and transparency

In times of austerity there are two things that councils should be particularly scrupulous about.

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.

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.

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.

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 served a notice of eviction ahead of plans to start redevelopment of the site. Although a judicial review brought by campaigners was rejected in October, an appeal against the decision is still unresolved.

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. 

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. 

The cost has been reliably estimated 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 more council budget cuts. 

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.

Councillor Paul Bell (cabinet member for housing) is quoted as saying 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.

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: 

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’.

Say what?

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 press release. The post comes with an annual salary of 'between £175k and £185k'. 

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.

After being elected as mayor, Egan introduced Thomas on May 23rd using the following words:

"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."

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.

Meanwhile Private Eye's take on what it calls Lewishambles 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.

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.

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.

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.

Most of the subsequent coverage focused on scuffles outside the venue 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.

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.

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).

https://www.facebook.com/lucyloveslife1/videos/260681608135901/

Stephen Lawrence Centre fences to go!

It's not often that I am sufficiently moved to put an exclamation mark in a headline, but when I discovered that the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust had submitted a planning application for new landscaping around its building on Brookmill Road, and when I realised that this new landscaping includes TEARING DOWN THE FENCES, my heart sang.

I've always felt that this was a woefully unfriendly building - even finding the entrance door can be a challenge - and the fencing around it makes it look more like a Northern Irish police station at the height of the Troubles than the community building it is intended to be. This may be the reason I've never been inside. I don't dislike the building itself, just the overtly unwelcoming face it offers to its neighbours. 

Unfortunately the building was vandalised just a week after opening in 2008; the huge wall of glass designed by Chris Ofili was smashed by bricks thrown from outside the perimeter in what was dubbed a racist attack at the time. The fences failed to prevent the attack - finally they are going to be removed and hopefully the centre will start to have a more neighbourly relationship with the local area. 

First phase of the centre's reinvention was this week's launch of the new 'co-working' space which featured in Wallpaper magazine. It seems that the next phase will address the poor public realm on the site itself, and its relationship with Deptford.

There's not much in the way of renderings in the planning application, but the main change is going to be the removal of the steel fences and the gates, with just a low wall retained. A new pedestrian  route into the site will be created right in front of the building entrance, and a range of landscaping, picnic tables and raised planting will be installed within the site. On the Brookmill Park boundary there will be raised allotment beds.

I look forward to getting a full length view of the magnificent windows. 

Cycle superhighway proposals for Creek Road and Evelyn Street

TFL is rolling out plans to expand the cycle superhighway network across this part of London, and is currently consulting on proposals for a new route between Tower Bridge and Greenwich.

As well as creating fully segregated cycle lanes along the entire road, a whole host of other improvements are planned, not just for cyclists but for pedestrians as well. Simplified pedestrian crossings and improvements to public realm are proposed; one bus stop fewer is proposed for the Deptford Park section of the road, and most of those along Evelyn Street are set to be moved one way or another to make spaces between them a bit more even.

The overview map is shown below - there's no detail as yet on the plans for Lower Road, apparently this is still in consultation with Southwark given that the area around Canada Water is due to be heavily redeveloped in the near future.

The plans so far show the segregated cycle lanes crossing from the north side of the road to the south side just before Southwark Park, so that cyclists and motorists will no longer come into conflict on the unpleasant Rotherhithe roundabout. Further along on Evelyn Street they are back on the north side of the road, but as yet there are no suggestions as to where or how this will happen - presumably at one of the junctions that is earmarked for full remodelling.

(Click for a bigger version)

Plans for the bottom end of Deptford High Street are shown below - the current situation top (although this is now slightly out of date with the new, widened pavement already in place) and the proposed segregated lanes on the second image.

The main change to what's there now are restrictions on right turns and the removal of the two pedestrian crossings, which will be combined into one single crossing and brought much closer to the end of the high street.  

Motorists will no longer be able to turn right out of Deptford High Street towards Greenwich, nor will they be able to turn right into DHS from the Greenwich-bound lanes of Evelyn Street, which makes a lot of sense in terms of simplifying the situation for cyclists and pedestrians here. There will also be a ban on right turns out of Watergate Street.

Being a regular cycle commuter I'm firmly in favour of this proposal, and having used the segregated lanes in central London I relish the idea of similar facilities in our local area, making bike travel safer and easier for everyone.

Consultation is open until 19th November and there are plans available in the Deptford Lounge and Canada Water Library throughout the consultation - there's also a consultation event at Deptford Lounge this weekend where TFL staff will be present to answer questions (see below).

The online consultation has links to much more detailed maps of each section of the proposed route.

Consultation events:
Saturday 14 October 11am-3pm, Deptford Lounge 9 Giffin Street, SE8 4RH 
Tuesday 17 October 4-7pm, St Alfege Church Hall, 3 Greenwich Church Street, SE10 9BJ 
Saturday 21 October 11am-3pm, James Wolfe Primary School, 21 Randall Place, SE10 9LA Wednesday 25 October 3pm-7pm, The Finnish Church, 33 Albion Street, SE16 7JG 
Saturday 4 November 11am-3pm. The Finnish Church, 33 Albion Street, SE16 7JG 

Proposals for Crossfield open space landscaping

Consultation is currently under way (both in Deptford Lounge and online) on the proposals for reinstatement of the open space on Crossfield St once the Tideway Tunnel shaft construction is finished.

At the moment the public realm is a patchy mix of several separate grassed areas (trees having been chopped down several months ago in preparation for the construction work), the remains of the community garden which never really got off the ground, a dropping off/turning circle in front of the entrance to St Joseph's School with a large paved and bollarded area in the middle of it, and various other bits of grass, pavements, hawthorn hedges and so on. The larger, green open areas are pleasant but the rest is frankly a jumble.

It's going to be way worse than a jumble for the next few years of course, with hundreds of lorry movements, noise, dust, disruption and so on as the shaft for the tunnel is excavated, but eventually the area will be reinstated and Tideway has been consulting with 'local stakeholders' to develop proposals for this work.

The area in question (inside the red dashed lines on the map above) is part of the St Paul's conservation area, which sits in between the Deptford High Street conservation area and the Creekside conservation area. 

In case you were wondering what was here before, helpfully there's an old pre-1945 map on the exhibition boards that are downloadable from the consultation page showing the houses that lined Crossfields St before the bombs fell and the post-war clearance took place.

I wasn't able to go to the consultation in the Deptford Lounge when the staff were there, so I only have the information on the boards to go by. I don't know how fluid or fixed the proposals are, what procedures they still have to go through, or even why the boards have put forward three very different options for the space - which in fact suggests that the 'masterplan' is still very much a work in progress.

If that's the case, then great. Certain aspects of the 'preferred' masterplan are rather disappointing and I would hope to see them improved.

Inevitably there are certain constraints that can't be eliminated - the need for maintenance access to the tunnel shaft, and the presence of some above-ground infrastructure including ventilation shafts will be a permanent legacy. But this still leaves plenty of flexibility to make usable, pleasant spaces. 

First the good stuff. I'm happy to see lots of new trees in the masterplan - let's just hope they make it past the powers that be, and don't have to be eliminated to address 'security' concerns or because they are blocking the vision of the CCTV cameras. The CCTV cameras that are generally worse than useless when it comes to needing evidence of a crime. 

I like the trees that are proposed down the middle of Deptford Church Street - it's an awful road at the moment which is way too wide and consequently when it's not blocked by stationary traffic it is abused by speeding traffic, depending on the time of day. Narrower lanes and a tree-lined central reservation, with wider crossing points, would help reduce traffic speeds.

I also like the proposals to open up the views of the church and access to the churchyard, so that it is more welcoming to the community. The rear gate of the churchyard is kept locked these days, which means I rarely go inside the walls - when it was open I regularly strolled through it. 

One long-term aspiration for pedestrian links in Deptford has been opening up access through the railway viaduct to Resolution Way and Wavelengths, and that's shown on here with the front of the viaduct proposed as a 'dining and events' space. I assume one of the arches would be opened up on this side to accommodate a cafe/bar premises, although there is probably enough space for a purpose-built premises on the land there.

What I find particularly disappointing is the way in which the central green space is criss-crossed by so many footpaths that its 'green' purpose risks being completely eroded and the space turned from a grassy play area to a network of paths with a few bits of green in between. For a start the long footpath that runs parallel to Crossfields St, right through the middle of the green space, seems redundant - surely people would walk down each side of the green if they were passing through, and planting could be used to encourage that? If they are happy to linger, they won't necessarily want to go in a straight line. 

Not only that, retaining highway access and associated parking on both sides of the green space is totally unnecessary in my view. Why not close one side off and claw back more space for greenery and for pedestrians? It seems a retrograde step otherwise.

And how about some greenery at the west end of the street, outside the school? I don't like the fact that it's all been paved rather than greened; seems to suggest that the council has longer term plans for this area than they are willing to admit. 

There are lots and lots of trees but they seem entirely undefended from the vagaries of the drivers dropping their kids off at the school or parking to go to church. We've seen on Frankham St how little respect drivers have for trees, and learned that serious protection is needed, so I hope those lessons learned will come into play.

I think there's a real risk of this space becoming 'over engineered' and turned into something that needs too much maintenance and is ornamental rather than useful. I have the distinct impression of the site being divvied up into packages of land each designed and labelled for a specific use rather than any effort being made to create a pleasant space that is adaptable to a range of uses. 

 

I do think there is more potential in the alternative options that are included on the boards, although there's no annotation so I'm having to go by the pictures alone. This one seems a lot less formal and structured, and also retains more green space at the west end of the site although there's still too much space given over to vehicles in my opinion.

If you didn't manage to attend the consultation in the library, you can still give feedback online at the survey page here (but only until next Tuesday 23rd May) or presumably you could also send it to the email address that's given on the consultation page.

As to what the next phase of the process is, either in terms of the procedure or the timescale, again I don't have that information. If anyone knows, please leave a comment and I'll follow up.

Public exhibition of design proposals for Crossfield Street open space

Proposals for the reinstatement of Crossfield Street open space after the Tideway Tunnel work has been completed are on show at Deptford Lounge for a week from today Saturday 6 May.

Council officers working on the project and representatives from the design team will be available to answer questions and talk about ideas for the space on Wednesday 10 May from 4-7.30pm and Saturday 13 May, 9.30am-12noon.

Temporary housing scheme proposed for Deptford

Lewisham Council has put forward a proposal to build 31 temporary homes on a disused playground in Deptford, using a similar scheme of modular construction to that which was trialled in Ladywell.

An update on the council's new homes programme, which is being presented at the council's housing select committee next week suggests that the Deptford scheme would build on the lessons learned from Place/Ladywell and could provide a mix of two and three-bed housing units for people in 'acute housing need' - i.e. currently housed by the council in temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast. There are 1,800 'households' currently in this situation in Lewisham alone.

At this stage details are outline - a feasibility study has been completed and the next phase will require additional funding from the council so that officers can commission the full design and planning process. The council is hoping to apply for GLA innovation funding to pay for the construction, which is estimated at around £6.5 million. The scheme might also incorporate community and/or commercial space on the ground floor.

The proposal involves modular construction of housing using prefabricated units that are made off site and are designed to stack together. They can subsequently be dismantled and moved elsewhere if necessary, but according to the council report, the intention is to apply for planning permission for the site to be permanently used for temporary accommodation.

The site is currently occupied by a games court which was used by Deptford Green School when it was in its former location, just across the road. Since the school relocated and got new sports facilities, the court has not been maintained and is in a poor state. The gates are being left unlocked to prevent kids scaling the fence to get in. Whatever its condition, the loss of recreation space is something that needs addressing - the report suggests that improvements could be made to the games courts on Evelyn Green, which is very close by.

I went along to have a look at the site and was surprised to find three mature and exotic trees along the strip of land next to the court along Arklow Road. My eye was caught by the beautiful and dramatic flowers on this tree, which I found out via Twitter is a Sophora, probably a type of Kowhai - the Maori name for this species of native New Zealand tree. 

Alongside is a huge eucalyptus with incredibly pungent leaves and another rather less distinctive tree that also looks as if it might be an exotic species. I have no idea how these trees came to be planted on this piece of land - if anyone has any information, please leave a comment as I would love to know!

I note that some trees are shown on the rendering above, but as I know all too well this could just be 'indicative', so I'll be looking keenly at the details of the planning application to check that they are going to be retained.

Smart benches in Deptford

The good news; you can now charge your phone for free!

The bad news; you have to sit right next to the traffic while you do so.

Lewisham is one of two boroughs chosen to pilot 'smart benches' which are intended to offer free phone charging, free wifi and the opportunity to find out about local air quality as well as somewhere to sit.

One of the new benches has landed on Brookmill Road, right next to Broadway Fields, so being a nosey bugger, I went along to have a look. 

First impression - not somewhere I'd naturally chose to sit for an extended time while charging my phone, especially at rush hour when traffic backs right up to this point from the lights on the A2. 

That being said, it is right next to a bus stop so might be handy when you've got a long wait.

The panel on the bench offers two ready-installed charging leads which while not particularly flimsy are bound to be a target for vandalism. One has an Apple-type charger plug but my phone did not recognise the device so I wasn't able to use it (not a massive surprise if I'm honest). 

However if you happen to be carrying a USB charging lead with you (I wasn't) there are USB ports on the panel that you can plug straight into, and they also offer wireless charging.

The power comes from solar panels on the totem and according to the bench manufacturer, Strawberry Energy, the design includes batteries so that energy can be stored for days when there is no sunshine (most of the last few!) and at night. 

Wifi access requires creation of an account etc, which would be ok if you were planning to use the free wifi regularly but for a one-off I decided to pass.  

There's also a Strawberry App that allows you to access the information about air quality, noise, temperature which is gathered by sensors in the bench. 

It was obviously as a result of a bit of lateral thinking that the manufacturers came up with the idea that you would be able to donate to Cancer Research via the benches (ah I see now from the press release that it was all about launching in time for World Cancer Day on 4 Feb).

Apparently you can do so by 'simply' tapping your contactless payment card on the bench. I didn't see any kind of hardware on the bench that would enable you to authorise such a payment, so I'm a bit confused about how that is supposed to work. Probably best not to have your wallet in your back pocket when you sit down. 

According to the website there's also some of the benches on Lewisham High Street and one on New Cross Road at the top of Clifton Rise. 

It's something of a double-edged sword. From the point of view of collecting air quality data I can see the logic of putting these benches right next to busy roads, but I'm not sure how attractive that will make them to people wanting to sit for a more than a few minutes to charge their phones. 

Improvements to Deptford High Street

Lewisham Council has got some funding from Transport for London to pay for improvements to the north end of Deptford High Street and the six-month programme of construction work is set to start next week.

Improvements to the south end of the high street were carried out a few years ago with money from the Mayor of London's Outer London fund, and because this fund had a wider scope, the bid also included money for other improvements such as the shopfronts that were jazzed up, and to support the development of the 'food market' which was such a painful flop.

There's none of that fluffy stuff with the TFL funding that's being used for the north end - it's all got to be tangible stuff that makes the street a more pleasant, and safer place for pedestrians and cyclists in particular. But it's not all about getting rid of trip hazards and putting some seats in - there will be some kind of arty lighting installation under the railway bridge designed by light artist Peter Freeman. There's also going to be a few new trees, although not very many, and some new paving with words carved in it on the approach to St Paul's church.

(click to see a bigger version)

I wrote about the consultation for the plans last year; there's been some changes to the original plans, mostly for the better as far as I'm concerned. They have steered away from blunt (and most likely ineffectual) one-way restriction that was suggested for the section of street between Edward Street and the junction with Evelyn Street, and instead gone for some rather more subtle and probably more effective controls.

There will be a ban on right turns out of the high street into Evelyn Street, and into the high street by Greenwich-bound traffic on Evelyn Street; there will be no left turn out of Frankham Street into Giffin Street to prevent traffic rat-running through before the lights; there will be a ban on lorries of more than 7.5t turning into Giffin Street from Deptford Church Street, and there will be a new chicane on Giffin Street outside the former HSBC Bank with priority to eastbound vehicles.

Footways will be widened with parking bays set into them; consequently the highway will be much narrower which should in theory slow traffic down. If you've lived here any length of time you'll be aware that theory doesn't always apply in Deptford, especially when it comes to the highway code. Let's hope that in this case it might.

The main aims of the work are:

• Improved wider footways  
• Connection with future proposed crossing improvements at the junction with Evelyn Street to provide a safe, attractive and direct route between the river and the High Street. 
• Trees and seating to the Evelyn Street junction. 
• Creation of a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment that caters for the expected increase in people using the street. 
• Traffic calming measures. 
• Improvements to parking provision and improvements for Blue Badge holders. 
• Introduction of a new taxi rank below the railway bridge to serve the High Street and Deptford Station. 
• Artistic lighting under the railway bridge. 
• Enhanced design retention of heritage elements at the St Paul’s and Crossfield St junction.

You can download the details from the council's website here or there are plans on show in the Deptford Lounge at the moment - although I'm not sure how long for.

Crossfields Green open space - consultation under way

Lewisham Council is consulting with local groups and residents on what they want to see in the master plan for the reinstatement of Crossfields Green after the Tideway Tunnel construction work has been completed.

You may not even know this little slip of land exists if it's not on your route somewhere - it sits alongside St Paul's Church and provides a useful cut-through from the high street to Deptford Church Street and onwards to Greenwich for walkers and cyclists.

It also has some parking spaces, a badly-landscaped turning circle outside the school entrance, and an area of green space, trees and shrubs, part of which has been a community garden and some of which is used as a dog-walking area.

All of this will be taken over next year when construction of the shaft for the Tideway Tunnel interceptor begins. You can read more about the plans in my previous posts and on the Tideway Tunnel website.

Once the construction has finished, Tideway Tunnel is obliged to reinstate the land and Lewisham Council is leading the process of developing a master plan for the site. 

You can comment through the online survey which is open until midnight on 21 December - if you aren't really sure what you want to see on this space, why not consider the 'five radical ideas' being put forward by campaigning group Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart?

Tidemill School & Amersham Vale redevelopments go to committee

Contentious plans to redevelop the old Tidemill School, gardens and adjacent housing on Reginald Road are due to go before Lewisham's strategic planning committee this Thursday 29th at the civic suite in Catford. Objectors will be present at the meeting both outside the building, where they intend to stage a peaceful protest, and inside where they will speak out against the plans and ask for the decision to be deferred.

At the same meeting the committee will consider plans for the associated development at Amersham Vale, on the site of the former Deptford Green School.

I've written about Tidemill before, causing a bit of a hoo-hah by revealing that the claims the council was making for the number of social/affordable housing units the development would deliver were overstated.

The council responded with a statement which you can read at the bottom of the original post, but my point is still valid. The current application for Tidemill is for 209 units; 175 private and just 34 'affordable', not the 78 that the council is trumpeting. The mix that the council is shouting about will only happen if the developer manages to access some mysterious, unspecified 'grant' funding which will subsidise it.

As the committee report states: 'The delivery of this uplift in affordable units is dependent on grant funding being secured by the applicant.' 

While the agreement commits the developer to make 'reasonable endeavours' to secure this unspecified funding, I am sure there are many circumstances beyond the developer's control that could derail the process. It's great to be optimistic but the council's statement that this development 'will provide' 37% affordable housing looks a little threadbare.

There have been a great many objections to the redevelopment plans, including anger at the loss of the green space of the former school grounds; objections to the height, proximity and overlooking/overshadowing impact the new blocks will have on existing housing such as Frankham House and Princess Louise Building; complaints about the lack of consultation from residents of the Reginald Road housing whose block is to be demolished; objections to the creation of gated public space; concern about the demolition of the caretakers house (the smaller building next to the school) and so on.

Some of these objections have been addressed, with the revised application showing amendments to certain blocks to reduce the proximity to existing buildings, and some of the overlooking issues. But objectors say that loss of light and overshadowing is still a major issue.

The loss of the gardens will mean quite a significant habitat reduction in the centre of Deptford. While we have plenty of public space, much of it is hard landscaping with trees, which is of limited interest to wildlife. The open space that will replace the Tidemill garden will also feature a lot of hard landscaping and a few manicured lawns - a pitiful substitute for the existing sprawl of green.

Over at the Amersham Vale site it's a similar story in terms of affordable housing. The proposed development will create 120 flats in blocks of up to five storeys high. Of these 120, only 19 will be for shared ownership/social rent - again the council is banking on the developer being able to achieve grant funding to subsidise additional 'affordable' units and improve this ratio from 16% to 32%. If the grant is not forthcoming, the ratio will remain pisspoor.

The proposed buildings take up half the site - the remainder now being occupied by the newly-built Charlottenburg Park, itself intended to compensate for the part of Fordham Park that was annexed for outdoor space for the relocated Deptford Green School.

As the officers report points out, the arrangement of the blocks is sufficiently cramped/awkward that some of the new units are overshadowed by their neighbours, and four of them will not receive any direct sunlight in the winter. There is also one living-room window that will not receive the required level of daylight - let's hope the resident is a night worker.

With these two developments on the table and scrutiny of Lewisham's planning process currently rather keen, it will be interesting to see how the meeting on Thursday pans out. I doubt it will be dull, so if you are keen to find out more about how the planning process works without having to stick pins in your eyes to keep yourself awake, this is probably the meeting to go to.

Deptford Open House

This weekend sees the annual Open House event where buildings all across London open their doors to the general public for a free weekend of seeing what goes on behind closed doors.

As a borough, Lewisham's offerings seem woefully few, but Deptford and environs has some notable opportunities to visit buildings which should not be missed, as well as a few walks.

Deptford Town Hall on New Cross Road is open on Saturday, 10am till 5pm and offers "lavish, nautically-themed baroque features" both inside and out.

Have a nebby* behind the great black gates of the Master Shipwright's House on Watergate Street - open Saturday 10.30 till 5 and Sunday 10 till 2, with promises of re-enactors, tea and cakes, and the presence of the Lenox Project and Sayes Court Garden community groups. The oldest remaining building of the former Royal Dockyard. If you haven't been here before, you'll be gobsmacked at what you've missed. If you have been before, you'll be back for more.

(*northern slang for 'nosey' where I'm from)

If the weekend is clear, there are always great views to be had from the top of the Seager Distillery Tower - certainly one local building where it's preferable to be in looking out. Saturday 10-5 and Sunday 10-1. There's usually a short wait to enter, as there's a limit on numbers at the top, but it's worth a look if you want to see Deptford from a different angle.

Walking tours include Sayes Court (pre booking online only), Pepys Park & Surrey Canal Linear Park (meet outside Deptford Park School on Saturday at 11am) and Deptford Town Centre (meet at the north end of the high street outside Boa Lang on Saturday at 2pm).

Despite the lack of places open in Lewisham, Deptford residents have Greenwich and Southwark not too far away so it's worth looking at those parts of the guide if you want something close at hand - and there's plenty a bit further afield that's worth travelling to.

One particular recommendation is the Deptford Creek Swing Bridge (or as the guide would have it, the Greenwich Reach Swing Bridge) where the architects and engineers who designed it will be present on Sunday from 1pm till 5pm. The bridge will be opened on Sunday at 3pm so if you've always wanted to see it swing without being inconvenienced, now's your chance!

Full information is online at http://www.openhouselondon.org.uk

Surrey Canal linear park now open

A new route from the Pepys Estate through towards Surrey Quays has recently been opened up, linking Eddystone Tower and its neighbours, and the under-construction Timberyard development at Oxestalls Road with the various new residential blocks on Plough Way, most of which are named after one wharf or other. Along the route of the former Surrey Canal, it offers a much more pleasant and direct route for pedestrians and cyclists between the Deptford estates and the shopping centre at. Surrey Quays 

The same palette of materials has been retained across the full length of the route - which has been funded by money (presumably Section 106 payments) from the new developments at the west end of the borough.

The public realm is generally quite pleasant with granite edging intended to represent the position of the former canal, shrub and flower planting along the edges and some new trees proposed. At the far west end of the link, right in the middle of the new development, is Plough Way Cafe which is housed in a nice little modern building with outdoor terrace.

While the materials have been matched throughout the route, there's a notable difference between the facilities in each section. The new developments get logs shaped into cute little sheep for kids to play on, and poetry inscribed into the granite edging.

Down at the Pepys estate they have to make do with a couple of logs half buried in gravel and an expanse of timber decking.

Joking apart I am looking forward to the route under Oxestalls Road finally being opened to cyclists and pedestrians - and maybe even a link at the east end of the Timberyard development going under Evelyn Street to Blackhorse Road? The latter is physically possible now thanks to some hard work by Deptford Folk and Lewisham Cyclists to amend a planning application for Shurgard that would have blocked off this access.