'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. 

Deptford train service levels set to dwindle further

Local transport campaigners are protesting to Southeastern Railway about its failure to honour a commitment to reinstate train services to the frequency the line enjoyed before the Thameslink work at London Bridge began.

The Greenwich Line Users' Group has been examining the proposed timetable changes due to come into force in January next year when trains on this line will finally begin calling at London Bridge station again. According to chair Mike Sparham, despite Southeastern Railway committing to restore services to pre-2015 levels, the service is actually set to be reduced.

When Greenwich line trains resume stopping at London Bridge next January, it will inevitably result in a rise in passenger numbers on these trains, the group believes. But Southeastern has no plans to increase services to address this, and GLUG points out that the Greenwich line absurdly has more frequent off-peak services than it does in peak hours.

"In the height of the evening peak hour, there is one gap in service of 22 minutes (17.28 – 17.50) followed by a further gap in service of 24 minutes (17.50 – 18.14). In the off-peak hours there would be five trains in such a 46-minute period, compared with only three in the peak hour. To add insult to injury, the 17.28 has only six carriages" the letter says.

In 2014, GLUG points out, there were 17 trains leaving London Bridge for Greenwich in the two-hour evening peak from 16.30 to 18.30, with a total of 126 carriages.

In the 2015 timetable, this was reduced to 13 trains and by August 2016 it was reduced even further to just eight trains (from Cannon Street) with only 62 carriages - less than half the number three years ago.

GLUG acknowledges that this decline was accepted as a temporary measure, but stresses that the reasons for the reduction will no longer apply after January.

"In our response on the August 2016 timetable, we sought an assurance that the full peak hour service would be restored...but [proposals suggest] the evening peak service....will still be well below the previous service. There is no increase at all in the morning peak up to London."

The letter repeats a point which is frequently made across this part of southeast London, that the service plans also fail to consider the huge level of development which is under way in the region. Passenger numbers are rising steadily and will continue to do so as the developments planned for Deptford, the Greenwich peninsula and Charlton riverside come to fruition.

However GLUG is well aware that with Southeastern's franchise due to finish at the end of 2018, little is likely to change in the short term.

Speaking of which, the rather bland 'consultation' document about the new franchise is available online if you are interested - consultation open until 23 May. Or maybe you've got some paint to watch dry over the weekend.

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.

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.

(More) Traffic chaos ahoy for Deptford and surrounds

It seems that the lifting bridge on Creek Road is in need of 'urgent repairs' and Greenwich Council has said it will be closed for three days from 31 May.

That's not going to be welcome news for those who already spent most of this evening stuck in the SE London gridlock or waiting for buses that never showed up.

Not three overnights, or a series of short weekend closures, but three full days. In the week. With lane restrictions currently in place on Deptford Church Street, Edward St still closed to traffic in one direction and the general fuckwittery of Deptford High Street a given, it does seem as if drivers and bus passengers are looking at a week of supreme inconvenience.

The bridge had to be shut without notice last September due to problems with the locking mechanism that connects the two bridge decks when they are lowered, and the closure caused chaos for travellers in the area. The eastbound bus lane is currently coned off, restricting the traffic loading on the north side of the bridge.

Either the problem wasn't fixed properly last year or there's something else wrong - and it does lead to the question of whether the Royal Borough is investing sufficient maintenance funding in looking after this vital piece of infrastructure.

Consultation on proposed Deptford High Street improvements

Lewisham Council is consulting on proposed improvements to the north end of Deptford High Street, being in possession of some funds from Transport for London to tart it up a bit. Which is music to my ears, given I've been banging on about its unloved state for some years now.

The intention is to improve the street for pedestrians and cyclists, which would make a huge difference to those who use it on a regular basis. There's some good stuff in here, but I'm don't believe the proposals go far enough, and in one respect, they miss the target completely.

Yes it's already a 20mph zone!

The overwhelming threat to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Deptford High Street is the traffic - not just the volume of traffic that uses it, but the way that traffic behaves.

Bowling along: a popular rat run with all sizes of vehicles

In the morning rush hour, from 6am or earlier, great convoys of vehicles bowl down Giffin Street and Deptford High Street seeking to escape the traffic jams of Deptford Church Street and Evelyn Street. As the shops start to open and vehicles begin parking along the high street, delivering goods to businesses or building sites, speeds are tempered but space is restricted and the pavements are seen as fair game by drivers.

Woe betide any pedestrians strolling unsuspectingly along those sections which don't have bollards - they are likely to find themselves face to face with scaffolding lorries, tipper trucks, white vans and even mopeds who mount the pavement and drive along it to pass traffic coming the other way, with no regard at all for anyone walking past.

If you live or work in Deptford, or use the high street regularly, you'll be totally familiar with this.

Unfortunately it seems that the people devising the scheme, or those advising them, have no idea about traffic in Deptford.

For example, where is it going and how does it behave?

Naturally in the morning rush-hour, the traffic is all London-bound, following rat-runs in an effort to cut the drive time. But the measures proposed by TFL/The Project Centre/Lewisham Council suggest that someone hasn't done their homework.

The proposals are to put a restriction at the end of Deptford High Street 'to reduce rat-running' and 'create a new public space'. It might do the latter but it sure as hell ain't going to do the former! 

It's clear to anyone who has spent even half an hour observing traffic movements on the north end of high street that the vast majority of vehicles are rat-running down Edward Street, not Evelyn Street. 

They follow the well-worn route along Edward Street and Sanford Street to Surrey Canal Road, where they either turn right to take Trundleys Road towards Surrey Quays/Rotherhithe Tunnel or left towards Ilderton Road and on to the backroads of Bermondsey. 

To eliminate rat-running, any one-way restriction should be on Edward Street or on the high street south of this junction, but this will still only resolve the problem when traffic is in one direction.

(Although of course there's always the possibility that a one-way restriction will be treated with the same contempt as motorists treat the one-way restriction at the end of Crossfields Street.)

A public space would be good though. Can anyone think what kind of iconic monument or sculpture we might put there to celebrate Deptford's incredible history? (Click here for a hint if you can't guess).

(Click to see full size)

The sketch shows potential improvements in front of St Paul's Church, which would be welcome as it's a very uninspiring bit of public realm at the moment; the suggestion that 'unnecessary street furniture' would be removed to unclutter the pavements is also a welcome one.

I was a little confused by the the flyer which is provided on the consultation page, because it includes two sets of objectives, some of which are the same and some of which are different. I've tried to distill them into the objectives, and the means of achieving them

The objectives of the scheme are:

• Make the street more pedestrian friendly and encourage cycling and walking
• Encourage a less cluttered and safer feel 
• Enhance and conserve the historic character of the street 
• Improve accessibility
• Support the introduction of a borough-wide 20mph speed limit, reducing vehicle speeds and improving safety at junctions. 
• Control parking and loading in designated bays
• Provide a safe, attractive and direct route between the river and the High Street 

Here's how they intend to do it:

• Improve footways to make them wider using quality paving materials and provide level crossing areas at junctions
• Remove unnecessary street furniture
• Connect with proposed crossing improvements at the junction with Evelyn Street 
• Assist the local economy by improving power facilities for the Saturday Market between Giffin St and the station
• Retain 30 minute parking provision and provide parking improvements for Blue Badge holders
• Extend the Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) along the whole street 
• Introduce a new taxi rank below the railway bridge to serve the High Street and Deptford Station 
• Improve lighting under the railway bridge
• Provide level crossing areas at junctions

The objectives are all well and good, but some of the measures seem contradictory; I'm not sure if there is room to widen the pavements AND retain designated parking bays without blocking the road - certainly in the stretch to the north of the railway bridge, in front of the Waiting Room, Johnny's DIY and Bearspace Gallery etc. This is already the section where pavement rally driving is rife, and lowering kerbs like they have done at the south end is only going to make that worse.

Pavements are for tipper trucks, apparently.

The two ends of the high street are totally different in their traffic patterns and usage - the south end is one-way along its whole length, has a market on it three days a week, and is not really a direct or convenient route for highway traffic. The north end is a major commuter rat run, and combines this with a large volume of pedestrian traffic going to and from the station and the two schools. I strongly believe that a different approach is needed if there are to be any significant improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

Enhancing and conserving the historic character of the street is going to take a lot more than just some new paving stones - for a start the council's planning enforcement team needs to get to work on all those UPVC replacement windows and oversize illuminated signs that keep sprouting up without planning permission.

I'm not sure how I feel about a taxi rank at the station - it's not something that I'm likely to use as I'm within easy walking distance of the station, and in any case there are at least half a dozen bus routes within a few minutes' walk. I guess there will only be taxis on the rank if there's a demand, but it will mean taking regular parking bays out of use for something that might not be required.

Enhanced lighting under the bridge, on the other hand, will be a great improvement.

The prospect of enduring another year or so of roadworks and disruption, with only minimal improvements, is not a pleasant one. I do hope that feedback will enable a more effective approach to be developed so that the benefits can be felt.

The council is holding a drop-in session in the Deptford Lounge foyer between 3pm and 7.30pm on 3rd February where you can speak to the project consultants, Project Centre, and the Lewisham Council team about the project, and presumably give your comments.

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.

Deptford Broadway improvements: TFL consultation reports

TFL has published a report into its consultation on proposed improvements to Deptford Broadway junction.

The proposals were heavily criticised by Lewisham Cyclists who pointed out that not only did changes do little to improve conditions for cyclists, in some cases they made it more dangerous.

According to TFL, the following changes have been made to the scheme:

• Deptford Broadway (eastbound) – the advisory cycle lane will be upgraded to a mandatory lane on the approach to the signals, beyond the left turn slip road into Deptford Church Street. However after further review of the design, the advisory cycle lane across the left turn slip will be retained. In addition to this, the footway will be built out up to the loading/parking bay on the slip road by extending the footway kerb line. This narrows the entrance into the slip road which in turn will slow down motorists when crossing the advisory cycle lane. A coloured surface on the slip road as far as the raised uncontrolled pedestrian crossing will also be provided so that to motorists it does not ‘read’ as a conventional part of the carriageway. 
• Deptford Bridge (westbound) and Deptford Church Street (southbound) – The advisory cycle lanes will be upgraded to mandatory lanes on the approach to the signals. 
• Deptford Bridge (eastbound) – The build-out (‘bulge’) at the toucan crossing just west of the DLR Bridge will be reduced to widen the carriageway and the existing bus lay-by modified in order to accommodate two traffic lanes and a 1.5m advisory cycle lane. This will provide a safer passage for cyclists along this section of the road.
• Additional cycle logos will be provided where necessary for motorists’ awareness.

They are minor changes that are some improvement on what was offered; I rarely use the junction on my bike, so I will be interested to see what Lewisham Cyclists have to say about it.

As a pedestrian I'm disappointed that they are not taking the opportunity to bring the crossing on the eastern side of the junction up to the junction itself. Apparently this was because it would have a negative impact on the flow of traffic, which is TFL's main priority. I have to say I find this difficult to believe - it's not like they were putting a crossing in where none existed already, it would simply have meant relocating it by 30m or something. 

The report does not include an updated junction plan, so I've reproduced the one from the original consultation below. 

According to TFL the works are intended to be carried out 'between June and November 2015'. Not sure if that means it's going to take six months, or if it will be carried out within that period.

UPDATED 26 JUNE: The works have now started, so watch out for traffic chaos on the Broadway.

Bike parking in Lewisham - need some near you?

Lewisham Cyclists has shared the following information for anyone who wants to request new bike parking - whether secure on-street parking, if you don't have room inside your own flat for your bike - or new hoops close to shops, a pub or some other place in Lewisham borough where they are needed.

Sheffield stand-type parking

If you want 'Sheffield stand' type parking, for example at your local shopping area, send an email to highways@lewisham.gov.uk with the subject line 'Cycle parking request' and a note of the specific location where you would like stands to be installed.

You should receive a response by email indicating when your request is likely to be reviewed for potential implementation.

Bikehangers on Pepys estate

If you are interested in getting a 'Bikehanger' installed in your street to provide secure on-street parking for bikes, please send a request to highways@lewisham.gov.uk with 'Bikehanger' in the subject line.

Implementing Bikehangers takes longer than Sheffield stands as there needs to be an identified demand in the general area and prior local consultation is often needed. So if you do want one encourage your neighbours to email as well. There is also a modest annual charge for use of a Bikehanger to cover upkeep and key management.

Has TFL finally got the message about Deal's Gateway?

Transport for London has today launched a consultation into further revisions of the major highway junction at Deal's Gateway where Greenwich High Road joins the A2 just east of Deptford Bridge DLR station.

The proposed changes to the highway markings and layout are shown above (and explained in more detail on the consultation site) but the most significant concession is TFL's acceptance that separate green phases are needed for lights controlling traffic from Deal's Gateway and Greenwich High Road. The addition of new pedestrian crossings is also welcomed.

It's now more than four years since the original change that saw the separate green phases being removed after TFL deemed them unnecessary, leading to treacherous conditions for traffic (which includes a large proportion of cyclists) exiting from Deal's Gateway to Greenwich High Road.

A concerted campaign by Lewisham Cyclists - including some hair-raising videos of the conditions - led to some minor changes being implemented, but despite this, no significant change to the signal phasing.

It's great news that they are finally considering bringing the separate phases back, it will make a huge difference to all the traffic that uses this route, not just cyclists.

With changes to the adjacent junction at Deptford Broadway currently under discussion, let's hope they can learn from the experience and pay attention to feedback from user groups such as cyclists and pedestrians so that they can get the improvements right first time round.

Kent Wharf planning application

Crosswhatfields has already written in some detail about the planning application for Kent Wharf on Creekside, a parcel of land which extends from opposite Ferranti Park to the banks of Deptford Creek, and which now includes the VW parts dealer/garage directly opposite the end of Bronze Street. Sun Wharf, which is where Jones Furniture is currently housed, is expected to be redeveloped once Jones' lease expires in 2022 (or earlier presumably if they find another site and decide to move on before they are shown the door - one more sad employment loss for Deptford). It's another prime Creekside spot, so expect lots more high rise residential to be proposed.

The planning application for this site is already with Lewisham's planning department and the 'official' consultation period ended early in January.

But if you want to comment don't let this put you off; the planning officers will accept feedback right up to the time the application is considered by the strategic planning committee, although the sooner you get your comments in, the more likely they are to impact on the final report.

As always, don't forget to copy your comments to your local councillors, as well as members of the strategic planning committee, whose details can be found here. Objections and other feedback is usually summed up by the planning officers for the purpose of the report, so it has a more direct impact if you copy it to the councillors themselves (assuming they read it of course!).

The application is for a mixed use development at Kent Wharf and 24a Creekside which will consist of three buildings ranging from six to 16 storeys, containing 143 flats and 1,375 square metres of 'commercial' floorspace.

What kind of trees are those? Monster trees?!

The 16-storey building has been put at the corner of the site, apparently after a series of pre-application meetings with council planners and feedback from the design review panel, much of which is detailed in the design & access statement if you want to read it. There's a lot of focus on how the buildings reached their final positions and layouts, but little on how they reached their final heights, which I would have been more interested to hear. 

As usual there seems to have been no consideration as to what is appropriate in terms of building heights for the area, with developers always benchmarking their proposals against the tallest examples they can find. It would be so refreshing to read a design statement explaining how the architects had put together a masterplan that respected the four-storey neighbouring residences rather than ones that competed with a series of blocks three streets away. They nearly always try to justify towers as creating 'landmarks' and 'way finders' but fail to acknowledge that it's going to be impossible to identify one from the other when they are all the same height and block views of anything but the street and the nearest facade.

View from Deptford Creek - the white block on the left is the building currently housing Jones Furniture 

In the case of this application, the height of the buildings is my biggest gripe, mainly due to the impacts they are going to have on the neighbouring land, in particular the public spaces and parks which will suffer much greater shadowing as a result. But is there any process for measuring this loss of amenity? Some of the flats on Crossfields estate will also lose light as a result of the tower and they have a case for objecting - ultimately though the greater good of building more housing will no doubt prevail over the quiet enjoyment of a handful of residents. 

The view along Creekside with the three-storey Cockpit Arts in the foreground. More monster trees!

Just one more word about scale: the elevation above, which is looking directly at Kent Wharf from the Deptford High St direction, is useful in that it shows the scale of the smallest buildings - you will have to peer on the extreme right of the image where you can see the Cockpit Arts studios coming into view. And below is a mock-up of the scheme in situ, although the only item for scale here is the shelter in Ferranti Park.

Of the 143 housing units, only 18 will be allocated to anything other than private ownership. They will be 'intermediate', which is officially defined as 'homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing'. As a percentage of the whole development it's pitifully low, even in these supposedly straitened times. I hope the planning committee will raise this as an issue since it now seems to be a favourite theme for Lewisham's mayor.

I put this rendering in to show the view from street level, although it was cropped in the report, preventing me from enjoying the full rearing presence of the main tower. The inclusion of only two cars makes it look very weird, especially without any of the double parking that's usually rife along this stretch of Creekside. 

Which brings me to traffic and parking.

The development includes just three car parking spaces, which I welcome wholeheartedly. The cycle parking provision is not as good as it could be, but still generous. Of course the lack of parking will encourage the new residents to use the surrounding streets - already heavily overloaded both in daytime with local workers and commuters and overnight with residents - making the introduction of a controlled parking zone inevitable. However the site's proximity to the boundary with Greenwich will need the two to work together if this is going to be successful. According to the transport assessment, residents of the new blocks will not be eligible to apply for parking permits if and when a CPZ is introduced.

Construction traffic is stacking up to be a major problem on Creekside - not necessarily due to this development, but the cumulative impact of the multiple developments that are expected to move to construction shortly. Everyone makes noises about using Deptford Creek for material deliveries and spoil removal, but no-one has made any effort to actually put it into practice. 

Don't forget the Thames Tunnel shaft is expected to start construction some time soon, requiring Deptford Church Street to be shut down to just two lanes for a period of three years, and requiring a predicted 140 vehicle movements per day. Faircharm redevelopment is estimated to require 180 vehicle movements per day so Kent Wharf's 20 vehicles (or 40 vehicle movements) is a mere drop in the ocean. But with the two sites next to Creekside Village having applications pending, not to mention Convoys Wharf, we look set to be dodging HGVs for the next five years or more. 

I was particularly confused to read that construction traffic is only being allowed to come via the A2 because the lifting bridge on Creek Road is dodgy (er, get it fixed? It has no weight limit posted as far as I can see). 

The travel plan suggests construction traffic should turn along Creekside at the Birds Nest roundabout which seems like a particularly risky route - not only will traffic be snarled up by the heavy parking that Creekside endures, but it will direct traffic along a quite major cycling route. HGVs and cycles? Rarely ends well.

I also gave a hollow laugh when I read that construction workers would not be allowed to park on the roads in the vicinity, and this would be policed by the contractor. The shambolic situation on Norman Road and surrounds (cars parked halfway up the Ha'penny Hatch footpath) when the Movement was being built was brought to mind, and the efforts and nagging I know people had to exert to get the situation resolved to any extent. It's a fine aim but in my opinion not worth the paper it's written on - many subcontractors are expected to bring their own tools and equipment and in practice I cannot see how this can be imposed.

One of the positives aspects which the design review process seems to have brought to this development is accessibility to the creek and some level of permeability on the site. A new path will open up access to the Creek, and presumably link into one alongside the Laban (otherwise it will be an utterly pointless dead end).

From the ground floor plan (above) you might be forgiven for thinking it is three buildings but in fact the two on Creekside are actually linked about ground floor level (see below)

A walkway leads into what they are classifying as 'semi-private' space - on paper a nice idea but even in this rendering I can't help wondering what those shady-looking characters are doing hanging about in the underpass.

Greenwich Line User Group wants your comments

The Greenwich Line User Group, aka Glug (sounds like my kinda group!) is meeting next week to review the impact of service changes on local train passengers. With no more direct trains to Charing Cross from our local station, how are people coping with these changes and are they finding themselves out of pocket because of it? Are tickets being accepted on alternative routes?

Our local Deptford representative is asking for feedback from passengers on their experiences so far; please either leave comments in the space below or email them to the address in the sidebar and I will forward them.

Revised plans for 'the Wharves' redevelopment on Oxestalls Road

Three years after the original plans for The Wharves got planning permission, a new planning application is being drafted for submission to the council early next year. The site, which is bounded by Evelyn Street, Oxestalls Road and Grove Street, has now changed hands and the new owners, Lend Lease, seem intent on wringing every last penny out of the land, with little regard for the neighbours or the local community. 

A few weeks ago they held 'public consultation' to showcase their new ideas - the presentation boards can be downloaded from their website here if you missed it. 

I've pulled out a few of the fundamental changes I noted, unfortunately mostly of them make the scheme much less appealing from my point of view. And as normally happens when developers and their marketing folks get together, and there's things they don't want to tell you straight, you really have to read every sentence to find out what it is they are trying to keep from you. Which is nice, since otherwise the money they lavish on these marketing consultants would be wasted.  

Here's the brief version for those of you with limited attention span or short on time:

Previously 905 residential units - now 1100

Previously 18 storeys maximum height - now 30

Previously a large facility for Ascot Cabs - now a 'creative hub' (*sigh*)

Previously a commitment to retain the Victoria pub - now 'considering options' for it

Previously a water feature to mark the route of the former Surrey Canal - now a 'greened' path

Previously public space - now private courtyards

And my favourite - buried away in the text without any numbers for those who are skim reading:

Previously a maximum of 370 parking spaces - now 'we are looking at providing up to 1 parking space per dwelling' plus extra for work and retail units - i.e. more than 1100 parking spaces. 

Before we get into the nitty gritty, see the rendering of the new scheme above. In the traditional way, the rendering includes every other tall building in the vicinity, and is arranged from a suitable viewpoint so as to make the new development's own towers seem modest even at 30 storeys.

The second thing you should note if you are an illustrator wanting to make a living out of doing renderings for developers, is that you must take ownership of every scrap of green in the vicinity whether it is within in the boundaries of the development or not. So the inclusion of Deptford Park and Pepys Park on the picture make this new development look like it's really green.

In fact this plan probably gives a better indication as you can more easily see the boundaries of the site. All the brown areas between the buildings are 'private courtyards' - inaccessible to the public and raised above street level to accommodate podium parking at ground level. Most of the other green bits are the oversize trees that they seem to be planning for the whole length of Evelyn Street. Better make those London planes, to cope with the appalling pollution they will be subjected to. 

The two images above show the original building heights (top) and the proposed new building heights. The 'feature' buildings at the corners have shot up - in the case of the one on the corner of Grove St and Dragoon Road, it has had an additional 12 storeys plonked on top of it, rising from 18 to 30 storeys in total. Even by the standards of Convoys Wharf this seems like an excessive increase.

Perhaps this building has had all the extra units lumped on it because it is in the first phase of the development - phasing is shown above. I seem to remember that Lewisham Council kindly offered to compulsorily purchase the land in phase 3 on behalf of the developer, which I struggle to get my head around, in particular the financial and moral implications. They are also doing a similar deal on the Surrey Canal Village development. I always thought compulsory purchase orders were designed for major transport links or other 'public betterment' schemes, not just a means to enable developers to make a profit out of land they don't yet own. Call me old-fashioned etc...

The move to try and shoehorn as many units and car parking spaces onto a development site does not surprise me; it's pure and simple greed. Naturally they will try and justify it all with 'solving London's housing crisis' but unless these flats are going on sale at less than £100k then I'm sorry to say it is unlikely to work.

It's the mean little things that really depress me - the downgrading of the public space provision from a number of permeable squares among the residential buildings to 'green verges' along the edges of the main roads around the boundaries of the site (yes really!) and from an imaginative water feature along the line of the former Surrey Canal to a 'linear park' without water. I would have loved to see something like the water feature that leads into Canada Water replicated here, but I was told firstly that 'there were concerns about safety' (?) and when I challenged this, was given another reason that was so lame I can't even remember it.

The suggestion that the former Victoria pub - the only building of any character within the development - might not 'need' to be retained was also depressing and indicative of the basic mindset of Lend Lease. I hope that responses from the consultation will prompt the developer to reconsider, and if not, any proposal to demolish it will be challenged by the council. There's a lack of pubs in the area and with new housing due to be built right next door, surely this is the perfect opportunity to bring it back into use?

There's no firm commitment on 'affordable' housing ('affordable' being a relative concept and in all honesty only translating as 'slightly cheaper') - the documents suggest the proposed 21% may be retained, but I'm betting this will be revised after the developers have done their mysterious 'viability' calculations and found they can make more profit if they sell their units for higher prices.