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 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.

I covered this in my previous blog post, 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.

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.

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.

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 procedure? 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?

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.

The latest act of provocation from whoever is directing operations at Tidemill was the arrival of tree surgeons on the site last week.

pic.twitter.com/QBhVwNZBEH

— Reginald Resident (@under_siege_SE8) November 21, 2018

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.

 

(@under_siege_se8)

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. 

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. 

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 pic.twitter.com/AFALseZ0u9

— Joe Dromey (@Joe_Dromey) November 23, 2018

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.

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.

This week it also came to light  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'. 

The job was actually advertised last month and initial interviews were due to be held last week. With Egan's remit officially covering 'planning, emergencies and communications' at least he will have one strand covered. 

"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."

Yes of course it does. 

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/

Tidemill campaigners seek funds for judicial review

Deptford's Save Reginald! Save Tidemill! 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.

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.

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.

Alternative plans have been produced by the campaigners

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.

They say: 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.

The campaign's solicitor is Richard Buxton, an environmental and public law lawyer who is also concerned about social housing and social justice.

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.

For more information, or to make a pledge, visit https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/save-reginald-save-tidemill

1 Creekside planning application

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.

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.

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 high-spec, high-rent Fuel Tank 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. 

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.

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. 

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.

You can find the details of the planning application via the council's planning portal 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.

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. 

Twinkle Park pond update

With Twinkle Park currently a no-go zone and work to reinstate the pond seemingly halted, comes an update from the Twinkle Park Trust.

The bad news is that the reinstatement of the park's pond is going to take longer than expected - but the good news is that the cause of the mysterious loss of water has finally been found (...and the question on everyone's lips is how the previous investigations managed to miss it!)

The official line is as follows:

The work started was due to be completed in mid-May but unfortunately there has been a delay which has resulted in work being halted until July, at which point we will finally get our pond back! 

In the first few days of work, as the vegetation which had taken root over the past few years was being cleared and the contractors began to tackle the liner, they found evidence of subsidence. In the months following the draining of the pond, the Twinkle Park Trust commissioned costly scans of the pond bed to be undertaken, none of which showed any conclusive results, so to finally have found the probable explanation for the water’s disappearance was a relief, but there was obvious concern that the discovery might jeopardise the entire project. 

Further examination quickly followed, and a dig around the area uncovered a brick structure with a void, into which some soil had collapsed. It seems that the pond was originally built on top of an old cesspit or well, which had been disturbed (perhaps by the building or utilities works, ongoing in the area at the time), causing a degree of collapse. 

Following advice from a range of architects and builders, as well as consulting with the project’s funders, the Trust has been able to determine a course of action which will see the safe completion of the pond restoration. Unfortunately, owing to the delay, our contractor was forced to move on to their next scheduled job, forcing our own building work to pause. 

The contractors are scheduled to return as soon as possible and are now expected to return to recommence the work on 2nd July 2018. The Trust is grateful for the assistance and advice we have received from all parties involved in the project over the past few weeks, and whilst we are naturally disappointed that this unavoidable delay has occurred, we are thankful that the project has not been threatened. 

Whilst we recognise that it is not ideal, we are sure that the surrounding community will agree that the return of the pond to Twinkle Park will be worth the price of a couple of extra months of fences and exposed soil.

Twinkle Park to get its pond back

Twinkle Park at the bottom of Watergate St is one of the hidden secrets of Deptford - it used to be one of my favourite haunts in happier days when its pond was a beautiful centrepiece.

Sadly and somewhat mysteriously in October 2013 it sprang a leak and all the water drained out overnight.

Since that time the pond has remained empty, and has turned into a kind of grassy crater in the middle of the park. Not really what was intended.

So I was delighted to discover that the Twinkle Park Trust, which manages the park and neighbouring Charlotte Turner Gardens, has finally raised funds to pay for the pond to be relined and renovated.

Work on the pond is due to start tomorrow (Monday 9th April) and is expected to take about a month. Twinkle Park Trust is hoping to celebrate the reinstatement of the pond at its summer festival this year.

'Liveable neighbourhood' plans for Deptford Park and environs

Late last year Deptford Folk (the user group for Deptford Park and Folkestone Gardens) got the welcome news that a bid for funding from TfL had been successful. The bid was developed in partnership with Sustrans and proposes a number of improvements to walking and cycling routes in and around the parks - some of them quite substantial projects in their own right.

The money is coming from the 'liveable neighbourhoods' fund and the first tranche will be used to cover the cost of further feasibility studies, with a second slice paid out later for the actual work, presumably depending on the projects being proved feasible - a potential total of £2.9 million for these schemes.

The overall package includes six 'Copenhagen Crossings' (improved road crossings for cyclists and pedestrians) at locations around the parks, and seven more substantial 'interventions' which involve improving existing cycle routes, and creating and opening up new ones, among other things.

One of the flagship 'interventions' which would impact directly on access to Folkestone Gardens is improvement of the existing crossing of Rolt Street, which links the Woodpecker estate (and the pedestrian and cycle route through it) to the gardens.

Although this already exists as a raised crossing, and is on the bend of a road ostensibly with a 20mph speed limit, anyone who uses it will know that this counts for very little. A lot of traffic uses this route as a cut-through, especially in the rush hours, and much of it takes this corner way too fast. There is no refuge or island to slow drivers down, and visibility is poor for anyone coming out of the park, due to the bend in the road and the density of parked cars outside the houses.

Last year Sustrans held a public workshop which involved restricting the road width with some cunningly-arranged straw bales, and inviting school groups and passers by to experience the new road environment and give their feedback on the idea.

During this 'temporary street event' Sustrans also recorded the number and speed of vehicles that passed in both directions - this was collected over a seven day period, 24 hours a day, including the day of the event. Data (which is published in the report here) showed a reduction in traffic speed of around 23% in one direction and 17% in the other at the counter nearest to the restriction. 

I'm curious as to whether this speed reduction would be a permanent outcome of the traffic calming measures that Sustrans is proposing. How much of the speed reduction was down to drivers wondering why there were bales of straw in the road, and kids were prone on the road behind them? Don't speeds just creep back up once drivers get accustomed to new driving conditions? I presume Sustrans has monitored what has happened in other schemes, and I'd be keen to know how it pans out in the long term.

One of the other major projects that the funding will be used to investigate is the plan to create a new cycle route under Evelyn Street, right next to the Blackhorse pub. This route will provide a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians between the parks and estates on the west side of Evelyn Street and the riverside paths and parks of the Pepys estate and Surrey Docks.

It is a collaboration between Deptford Folk, Sustrans, the Ramblers Association, Lewisham Cyclists and Lewisham Council and would create a new route along the line of the former Surrey Canal.

I'm particularly excited about this as when I looked back in the archive I realised I've been banging on about it for seven years now. Seven years! Turns out I've got stamina!

You can read my initial blog post here which includes a photo of the bridge parapet, and a subsequent one here, in which I remarked on improvements to the layout of the buildings proposed for the Wharves development (now the Timberyard) which would make this route a possibility.

It will also build on Deptford Folk's subsequent work which involved objecting against the planning application for the Shurgard storage facility that has just been built at the end of Blackhorse Road. If this application had passed in its original form, the building would have obstructed the proposed route. But Deptford Folk was successful in challenging the application, with the result that the building footprint was moved slightly to leave space for a cycle route on the west side of the road.

With the recent funding award we may at last find out how feasible this idea is, and perhaps even see it brought to fruition in the near future.

More details of the Deptford Folk plans can be seen on the web page here, and if it's something you want to get involved with, they also have an email newsletter you can sign up to, so you'll be kept in the loop. 

Tidemill Garden celebrates its 20th birthday

This weekend the Tidemill Wildlife Garden is celebrating its 20th anniversary with a family open day including games, story-telling, free veggie food provided by the Deptford People Project, a pop-up bar by Little Nan's and bands including The Ukadelix, Cre8ive Choir, Tom Moody, the Inheritors and Rhiannon & the Nightmare.

It takes place on Saturday 22nd July, running from 4pm till 11pm, and will include a community drum circle, a show by the Magic Book Theatre, a treasure hunt and coconut shy/human fruit machine. 

If you can't make it this weekend, why not pop in another Saturday, it's open to the public every weekend (details here). If the council has its way you won't have much longer to enjoy this lovely green space...

Outdoor bars proposed for Deptford Market Yard

It took an embarrassingly long time for Deptford Market Yard to reach full completion, and there are still a few kinks that need properly ironing out (parking abuse etc), but overall the end result is pretty pleasing.

The quality of finish on the carriage ramp retail units is pretty good, and the public realm stuff is attractive and seems durable, excepting the flimsy bollards which have almost all been flattened by our local drivers and are currently being replaced. The trees add a very pleasant atmosphere to the yard and soften the somewhat hard edges of the brick, stone, steel and timber that is used throughout the rest of the landscaping. As they mature I think this will only improve.

I like the mix of independent tenants in the retail units, although I do worry how many of them are actually managing to make a living; the promised market has yet to materialise and although the managers of the yard seem to be putting on events now and again, I'm not confident it's enough to generate the footfall to bring sufficient business to these units.

There are also ongoing issues that demonstrate how poor the current management is. The flimsy bollards that were initially installed at each end of the yard were promptly battered and eventually flattened by manoeuvring drivers. Wholesale abuse ensued, and with no parking enforcement the yard rapidly turned into a car park. After weeks of nagging the management company put up parking notices, which has improved the situation somewhat, but the installation of the new bollards seems to be taking an unreasonably long time and there are still some serial parking abusers who are going unchallenged.

But the latest plan by owner U&I plc - to bookend the public spaces with two outdoor bars, one under a posh tarpaulin - seems to be heading in totally the wrong direction. If the planning application that has just been submitted gets the go-ahead, you can kiss goodbye to any opportunity to relax while you eat your sandwiches sitting on the benches in the dappled shade of the trees.

The proposals involve nothing more imaginative than dumping two converted shipping containers down on the new paving, and annexing a large proportion of what is currently public space under a fabric roof connected to the street lights and weighted down with huge water containers. Punters will sit at tables that can be folded away at night for storage, but the roof is intended to stay in place - a permanent temporary arrangement.

Permission for two 'bars' is sought - a large one outside the station and a smaller one down at the other end of the market yard, next to the lower part of the carriage ramp.

The larger one has a capacity of 150. 

The leaves of the trees will not be visible to anyone at ground level - the most visible and significant elements of the landscaping will be annexed to act as supports for a plastic tent to keep the rain off those wanting to indulge in what is essentially middle-class street-drinking. 

As well as being attached to the trees, the roof needs guy ropes to tie it down. The proposal suggests that large water containers will serve this purpose. You know the kind of thing.

The design and access statement which forms part of the planning application also suggests that plants in upcycled oil barrels will be dotted around the bar area, presumably to add a bit of greenery to make up for the greenery that you can no longer see. It proposes that patio heaters - one of the most environmentally-insensitive inventions ever - be used inside the tent. 

It also includes designs for the eight market stalls that will be placed opposite the existing carriage ramp, although this does seem a little like an afterthought. Six 'food trucks' will be parked between these stalls - on the diagram below, which has the high street at the bottom and the station top right, the yellow boxes are the bars, the red boxes the food trucks and the blue boxes the market stalls. 

The bar opposite the station would be placed right in front of one of only two public benches in the market yard, thus cutting public seating by half in one fell swoop. The remaining seat would fall within the bar area so it's unlikely to be available for public use, and even if you do get to sit on it you'll only be looking at a load of people drinking. Not to worry, you can always sit on the picnic tables under the tent - provided you have the money for a drink of course.

You're probably getting the drift that I'm not in support of this proposal. I'll set out a few of the main issues as I see it. 

1. The annexing of the public space. 

It's clear from the diagram above that the proposed bar would take over most of the public space outside the station (and quite a bit of the remainder has already been annexed by the bars and cafes at this end of the ramp). The public realm works very well, it has been refurbished to a high standard with good quality street furniture and it looks good. I often see people sitting on the benches enjoying sandwiches or just hanging out, watching the world go by. It can be, and is, used for events - whether that's dancing or a 'carless car boot sale', or any other temporary use. If a bar under a tent took over the space, this genuine public enjoyment would be lost, and temporary events would only be possible if they fitted in the space and outside the opening hours of the bar.

2. Where are the toilets?

No details have been provided of where the toilets will be - or even if there will be any. There is only one toilet for most of the carriage ramp (Little Nan's and Mousetail each have their own) so where are all these customers going to pee? Deptford already has a problem with public urination, this won't help. Perhaps they are going to dump (pun intended) some ugly Portaloos next to the remaining flower beds. Who needs greenery in any case? 

3. Why is it ok for some people to drink outside and not others?
Street drinking. The anchor got the blame for causing problems down at Deptford Broadway, but the street drinking that used to happen there is now rife in Douglas Square, and still causing problems. Why should that be classified as public nuisance but put the drinkers under a tent and charge them more, and it's a legitimate business. It also neatly leads me into the security issues. What's to stop the 'undesirable' drinkers just bringing their drinks and joining the party? Will they have to put barriers round the seating and have security on the door?

4. Loss of amenity.
The vast majority of the ground-level landscaping that was created as part of the public benefit from the development will be squandered. Seats will be unusable, plants will have their light blocked and the flower beds will become a litter trap, difficult to access for maintenance, the trees will become tent poles (and most likely leaning poles at the lower level).

5. Noise nuisance.
Residents in the Deptford Project already suffer noise from some of the units under the carriage ramp - speakers get brought outside by some tenants even though their leases prohibit it - and with a large bar in a mostly hard-landscaped area, the noise from drinkers can only add to this. Other local bars such as the Job Centre and Buster Mantis have limits on when outside drinking areas can be used, to limit noise for adjacent residents. Allowing a huge open-air bar in front of a huge residential building would make a mockery of this and could reasonably lead to other bars challenging such restrictions.

The planning application can be found online here http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_89709

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.