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. 

Our air, your health - air pollution in Deptford

How has air quality in Deptford changed in the last 350 years? Scientists from the Centre for Environment & Health, which does research into the health effects of environmental pollutants, are hosting a free event at the Deptford Lounge this Monday.

This will be an evening of interactive activities and talks that will give participants the chance to learn more about how air quality can affect their health.

Find out how you could be breathing cleaner air, and learn how traffic noise and other pollutants might also be having an effect. Scientists from the MRC-PHE Centre for Environment & Health will be on hand to offer expert advice and answer questions. The event is part of the Medical Research Council's second annual Festival of Medical Research.

There will also be several presentations during the evening, including one on air pollution in Deptford from 1661 to the present!

Tea, coffee and soft drinks will be available. The event is free, but the organisers ask anyone wanting to attend to register online.

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. 

Silvertown Tunnel and beyond

Transport for London opened the formal 'consultation' on its Silvertown Tunnel scheme recently and is inviting the public to comment on the proposals.

The official line is that the Silvertown Tunnel (which will go under the river from the east side of the Greenwich Peninsula to the Royal Docks) is needed to relieve pressure on the Blackwall Tunnel and make it easier to cross the river in the east side of London.

While it might increase capacity under the river itself by doubling the amount of traffic lanes, this traffic will still have to squeeze into the same road system on each side of the river, so it seems obvious that the congestion on local roads each side of the tunnel will remain - and more than likely, will be exacerbated as it's long been known that new roads generate additional traffic. This was established by the Department of Transport itself, in its infamous Sactra report of 1994.

We already know that pollution levels in south east London are well above the EU recommended limits and additional traffic is only going to make the situation worse, with greater risks to public health, especially in children, the elderly and those who already suffer respiratory problems.

Quite aside from the debatable case for relieving congestion, is the fact that TFL is proposing to impose a charge on users of both the new tunnel and the existing one. They say this will be so that they can 'manage demand'. Hang on a minute, I thought the new tunnel was going to do that? So TFL is admitting that the new tunnel will not relieve the congestion, it will merely generate more traffic that will then have to be 'managed'. As an afterthought they also say that the user charges will pay for the tunnel to be built. Clearly the only reason they think they can get away with imposing charges is surely because there are so few other options for drivers in east London, especially if the Woolwich ferry is closed.

No to Silvertown Tunnel campaigners have published quite a lot of detail on their website, including the case against, and an interesting live air quality widget from the air quality centre at King's College.

We've also very recently seen the knock-on effect of the highway restrictions on Deptford Church Street, which came into play a couple of weeks ago. While these lane restrictions are currently only temporary, they are going to be in operation on and off for the next couple of years, and then for longer periods when the Thames Tunnel construction work actually starts. There's been a noticeable increase in traffic levels rat-running through the high street this last couple of weeks, and not only are there more vehicles, the proportion of heavy goods vehicles and lorries also seems to have increased.

Admittedly I've no solid evidence to back this up (traffic survey anyone?), it is merely perception, but considering I walk or cycle up and down the high street at least once on most days, it is a fairly well-informed perception. There's also been an increase in the number of times I have to dodge out of the way to avoid cars and even HGVs which mount the pavement to drive along because they can't be arsed to wait for parking drivers, or oncoming traffic. This type of behaviour appears to be ingrained as perfectly acceptable in the drivers who use the high street. I think it's high time the council took a proper interest in traffic levels, safety and driver behaviour on Deptford High Street and began to think seriously about how it can be improved.

Recent happenings in and around Deptford

This blog has been shockingly neglected the last few months with my paid work taking up the vast majority of my spare time. Apologies to those of you who have missed getting your fix of cynical sarcasm - I've been keeping up on Twitter but hope to get the blog back to a respectable level of regularity in the coming months.

Of course things move on in Deptford even when bloggers are otherwise engaged, but happily we have a good complement of local voices to cover a lot of the events so I don't feel too bad, you are in capable hands with Crosswhatfields, Brockley Central and the Greenwich Phantom. Even 853 strays down to Deptford from Charlton occasionally, most recently to wade into the Job Centre row.

There's a whole host of upcoming events, new initiatives and places to review that have sprung up since I last did any serious blogging, so I have a lot of catching up to do. There's also a good few stories bubbling under that I hope to do some digging into, and of course you'll no doubt get a dose of my ramblings on new public realm in and around Deptford.

In the meantime, here's some upcoming events, new initiatives and recent stories that have popped up in the last month or so. I apologise in advance for the surfeit of exclamation marks, I was a little overcome by emotion and excitement at my first blog post for weeks.

Deptford Community Garden (aka Deptford Open Garden) on Crossfields St/Coffey St has just been launched, only to find Thames Water are due to start digging trenches around them. In a strange quirk of serendipity the garden group seem to have found a helpful and flexible attitude in their dealings with Thames Water that was sadly lacking from the council contacts supposedly there to facilitate the project.

New Deptford Cinema project! How exciting - plans to start an independent cinema in a disused shop on Deptford Broadway, right opposite the site where the Odeon was originally located! Sadly I missed the first meeting due to total ignorance - I never walk past the shop and I wasn't aware of the meeting, so I'll just have to rely on someone putting something in the comments to tell me how it went! (go on, you know you want to!)

A big row! About a pub name! Move along now, nothing to see here. I'll be reviewing our new hostelry in due course - both the arrival of the pub and my review are long overdue.

Plans for a user group for Brookmill Park, reported on Brockley Central. One of my favourite little Deptford secrets, love to look out for the kingfishers and herons as I ride through this little green strip of parkland. Meet at the park-keeper's shed on Wed 27th August, 6pm, if you are interested. More details on the BC post.

Free entry to the Fan Museum on 2 August! I've been told this is a fantastic museum by everyone I know who's been, shamefully I haven't made it yet but I certainly intend to. The community open day offers free admission for all Royal Greenwich and Lewisham borough residents, bring ID such as driving licence, utility bill etc. There are curator-led mini tours throughout the day, fan-making demonstrations, kids activity trails and refreshments in the Orangery.

4-17th August 2014: Seventh Greenwich Annuale at Greenwich Gallery, Peyton Place, SE10 8RS
Mon-Fri 9.30am-5.30pm, Sat, Sun 1pm-5pm
Photographic exhibition by the Greenwich Satellite Group of London Independent Photography.

There are also special events - on 7 Aug at 7pm an exhibition critique by Elisabeth Blanchet and Mandy Williams, and on 14th August they have a Pecha Kucha (a series of presentations of 20 slides, 20 seconds each) from 7pm onwards.

New Cross Learning celebrates winning a two-year lease from the council! New Cross Learning is celebrating with our charity Bold Vision after winning a two-year lease from Lewisham Council, starting Thursday 17  July. It has been nearly three years since a group of volunteers backed by local charity Bold Vision took over the running of the former New Cross Library, and turned it into New Cross Learning which has a full Lewisham Library service with 5,000 books, and offers community internet access  - and much more besides. Read more on the link above...

And finally, for now, the thorny issue of river crossings. TfL wants to hear your views about options for river crossings in East London. You can take part in the survey via this link until 12 September.

The London Chamber of Commerce & Industry, on the other hand, is being shamelessly partisan in coming out with its own design for a new highway bridge for us lot downriver. A rather fugly one if I might be so bold - the influence of the architects on this design is undeniably apparent. The impacts the LCCI quotes make no mention of pollution - you might want to remind yourself of the current situation on our roads by visiting No to Silvertown Tunnel website.

Incidentally I see from the LCCI's facebook page of the launch, our own deputy mayor Alan Smith was present at the launch, where he asked a question. I wonder if it was about pollution - can anyone enlighten me?

That's it for now folks. Having discharged my duty to the community in listing a good proportion of the stuff that's been sent to me, along with stuff I've lifted from other bloggers, I look forward to spending my next lunch hour casting a caustic eye over our latest local public realm etc.

Widespread testing reveals appalling pollution levels across Deptford and New Cross

In fact the widespread testing has revealed appalling pollution levels not just in Deptford and New Cross, but right across Lewisham and Greenwich, as well as in parts of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Bromley. The results are incredibly shocking, if not surprising,

More than 150 monitoring tubes were put up by campaigners from Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart and No to Silvertown Tunnel across south east London to measure the concentration of Nitrogen dioxide, a pollutant directly linked to vehicle emissions; only 16 of these tubes showed pollution levels below those permitted by the EU - and some of the worst pollution spots had levels nearly three times higher!

The monitoring follows on from a similar exercise carried out by No to Silvertown Tunnel which I wrote about last year, but this time three times as many pollution tubes were installed over a much wider area. The Silvertown Tunnel campaigners teamed up with local campaigners in Deptford who are protesting against Thames Water's plans to sink a shaft for its 'super sewer' project in the middle of one of the few bits of green space in Deptford.

With funding from various sources - including individual donations from some local residents - they were able to pay for the pollution tubes supplied by the Network for Clean Air, who advise on the process for installation and removal of the tubes, and get them processed by an official lab to ensure they are done in accordance with DEFRA guidelines. Teams of volunteers went out and put the tubes up on lamp posts where they remained for a month, before being taken down and sent away for analysis.

The results for the tubes installed by the Deptford team can be seen in detail on this map but you can get a rough idea of the overall pollution levels on this map; only orange and green blobs are below the recommended level of 40 microgramme per cubic metre set by the EU. Red blobs represent anything between 40 and 60 microgrammes per cubic metre, and black is anything over 60 (and potentially up to 110!).

This map plots the extremely high levels found along the main roads, but perhaps more surprisingly, it shows that levels along Deptford High Street are also worryingly high. Considering the fact that the street is used as a rat run in the morning and evening rush-hours, I'm not quite so surprised, but all the same it gives great cause for concern.

Deptford Church Street also has several black blobs, and it is these measurements in particular - as well as those on Creekside - that local campaigners fear will be exacerbated by the congestion caused by construction traffic on the super sewer, as well as traffic from major developments such as Faircharm and Convoys Wharf. Thames Water's proposal to restrict traffic on Deptford Church Street to single lanes each direction during the construction of the shaft has even greater implications.

The measurements from tubes installed by Silvertown Tunnel campaigners can be seen in detail on this map, but the screen shot above gives a good indication of similarly high levels across the area.

The two campaign websites go into much more detail about the implications of these results, but even without the need to gather hard evidence to argue the case against these two tunnel projects, the fact is that air pollution caused by vehicles is way above acceptable levels in most parts of south east London, even in our high streets, outside schools, houses and other public amenities. Everywhere you go in this part of the capital puts you at risk of harm from nitrogen dioxide and given the levels that are being measured, it seems inevitable that other pollutants are also present in high concentrations. Lewisham council does monitor air quality, but only at four sites and the last time it published results from diffusion tubes like the ones that were used in this survey, was 2012.

Surely it's time that they put a bit more effort into it, especially given these results? Having reliable, frequently-updated information like this is going to be fundamental to any argument against, for example, developers at Convoys Wharf pitching to send all their construction lorries along local roads?