New riverside path finally on the horizon

On a morning pootle earlier this week I discovered that the riverside route from Wood Wharf through to New Crapital Quay is finally open! Yes, the much-misused cul-de-sac that used to serve as an impromptu rain shelter for fisherman, not to mention a venue for the misplaced youth of Greenwich, has finally achieved a more useful purpose. 

It's not much of a change at the moment, but does continue the traffic-free link a few hundred yards further towards Deptford. In due course there will be a new pub on the riverside as another stopping off point, but right now it's just a swathe of underwhelming public realm with more oddly-positioned seating (a view directly into someone's front room, anyone?).

From next Monday, of course, the route will continue still further with the opening of the new Deptford Creek swing bridge. The official opening takes place at 9am, for anyone who wants to attend and doesn't have a job to go to.

Asda coming to Deptford High Street

A tip-off last night alerted me to the licensing applications that are plastered all over 5-9 Deptford High Street (currently the cheap end of the row, the 99p Store).

Apparently Asda is applying for a licence to sell alcohol from 7am to 12 midnight at the premises, suggesting that the 99p Store's days are numbered. 

I have never come across one of Asda's 'convenience' stores so I've no idea what to expect, although I know like all the other chains they are looking to the high street as their saviour, and turning away from the out of town megastores. My only experience of shopping at Asda prompts memories of shelves full of enormous boxes of everything, with the only discounts available if you bought multiple enormous boxes. Bugger-all use for a single person in a London flat, unless of course you've got a lock up shed for the extra. 

So what will it mean for Deptford High Street, aside from the lurid green signage and even more places for cheap booze?

Some competition for Tesco won't be a bad thing, although I have to admit that the latter seems to have pulled its socks up a bit recently in terms of its stock. I only ever go in there to buy the things that Deptford High Street has failed on or when everywhere else is shut and I've noticed recently that I've generally been able to find what I need, which is a change from the situation when it first opened. 

Perhaps they got wind of what was happening - they probably had their eye on the unit themselves, hey you can never have too many Tesco stores apparently!

Depending on what they stock - and don't forget that's a pretty spacious retail unit - it could impact on the rest of the food stores on the high street and potentially even the market. With booze on sale 17 hours a day it will certainly offer competition to the multiple off-licenses at that end of the street. 

To challenge the licence application you should email licensing@lewisham.gov.uk no later than 10th February. Be aware though that there are only certain grounds on which you can challenge such an application. For more details see the information on the council website. 

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.

Priapic surge for Creekside East

A year on since I wrote about the plot of land that forms the western section of 'Creekside Village' being sold off to 'rental specialist' Essential Living there are signs that a planning application to Greenwich Council is in the offing.

Earlier this month a 'public consultation' event took place at the Laban Centre - I wasn't able to attend but the boards from that event are available to view on the developer's website for your delectation. 

At the time the developer stated it was planning to develop two towers - one of 16 storeys and one of 11 - on the parcel of land within Greenwich Council's planning remit which borders Deptford Creek. You may remember that a previous planning application for a larger piece of land straddling the border was never approved by Lewisham Council although it was waved through by Greenwich's carefree councillors.

It was with a weary sigh and a massive wave of deja vu that I read on the new boards that these towers have experienced a priapic surge with the 'landmark' building next to Creek Road thrusting skywards by another five floors, to more than 21 storeys. The two blocks will contain 249 residential units, all owned by the developer and rented out. 

Petty I know, but it's become something of a challenge for me, to read through these 'consultation' documents and display boards and work out how the marketing effort has been directed. Whether it's in terms of annexing all the adjacent green space to make your development seem more environmentally acceptable, creating renderings from particular angles to make your tall buildings look smaller, or using language that softens the harsh reality of a proposal.

In the case of Greenwich* Creekside East it's a mixture of these, but I was particularly taken by the description of the two towers. They are not just described by the number of floors or the height, they are a 'tall, slender block of 21 residential levels' and a 'family block of ten residential levels'. From the angle in the image above you might debate 'slender' (definition: gracefully thin) but that argument doesn't pan out when you look at the other renderings and the actual plans.

As regards the 'family block', from what I can glean it's a block of two and three bed apartments which is described thus because it has a nursery, 'grow your own' rooftop allotments, soft play area and 'Essential Living managed pets corner' (is this somewhere for dogs to poop or will it actually have animals in it? And if the latter, will there be staff to look after them full time or will the concierge just come and chuck a few carrots into the rabbits cages once a day, leaving them at the mercy of all comers the rest of the time? My mind boggles on so many levels at this concept..).

The provision of additional communal storage on each floor and specific design aspects of the apartments such as large storage cupboards and oversized balconies are highlighted as other family-friendly benefits, but I can't help thinking these are fairly basic benefits that all apartment dwellers should have access to. In fact you probably need them even more if you are a group of single people or couples sharing a three-bed apartment because it's the only way you can afford it.

Even the use of 'residential levels' is significant here, because it does not tell the full story. Both blocks have non-residential floors, so both will presumably be higher than the wording suggests. Crafty huh?

The marketing rhetoric also claims that '72% of the site is external open space, including public realm and childs play'.

I gazed at this plan for some time, trying to persuade my mind that this could somehow be the case.
Perhaps the (residents only) rooftop terraces on top of the two buildings are being counted in this open space? 'Deceitful' is probably too strong a word but you get my drift.

Meanwhile the graphic chosen to show the two new buildings in situ includes the tower in the previous (unapproved) planning application, presumably there to make the proposed structures look smaller. While you're looking at this image, don't forget to keep the word 'slender' in mind for the yellow building on the left. I know, it's tricky.

Proposals for the public space at least have the potential to be a positive addition to the existing public realm in 'Creekside Village' which is sterile and unwelcoming. Public access to the banks of the creek should be a given for all developments along here, and ensuring that they are properly joined up, rather than being discrete sections of pathway that will be under-used because they don't lead anywhere, should be a long-term goal for both planning authorities.

Intertidal terracing is proposed on the creek to provide a range of different habitats for plants, birds and so on; I don't profess any detailed knowledge of such matters but at least it seems to be thoroughly considered and in tune with what the Creekside Centre considers appropriate for new developments on the creek. I suspect the building heights are another matter.

* Yes I know. Fight it out among yourselves.

Update: In the comments Marilyn has pointed out that the land on the Lewisham side of the boundary is also being brought forward for redevelopment with developer Kitewood branding it Creekside Future East and posting notice of 'public consultation' events on 10 and 12 January at the Laban Centre. They have clearly been taking soundings locally since the current website makes no attempt whatsoever to claim that the site is in Greenwich - of course this could well be swept away when the marketing starts.

From the renderings on the website it looks as if they intend to put forward a carbon copy of the proposals that were previously approved by Greenwich Council but not by Lewisham - whether attitudes among the planners have changed since the original application remains to be seen. If both schemes are approved in their current forms, it will make for a very disjointed and discordant collection of buildings along the creek - you would hope that some degree of collaboration between the two boroughs can be achieved. 

Unfortunately it seems unlikely, given than the two boroughs are already in disagreement over whether environmental impact assessments are necessary for the two adjoining sites. Greenwich Council is applying the relevant planning guidance in its most basic form, saying that the Creekside East site is not big enough in area to require an environmental impact assessment. 

Just over the border, Lewisham Council believes an EIA is required for Creekside Future East, given that the development proposes a significant change in intensity of use on the land, the fact that it is likely to be contaminated land which poses a potential risk to Deptford Creek, and taking into account the cumulative impact of other developments in the area. 

Hmm, as you were then. 

Deptford Creek bridge close to completion

The new bridge across Deptford Creek has been swinging to and fro over the last couple of weeks, as engineers commission the mechanical and electrical equipment and operators are trained in its use. When I passed by on Friday it looked like lots of snagging was under way on the structure, and I've been told that handover to the council is imminent.

The bridge designer Flint & Neill made a nice little film showing the bridge swinging across for the first time - ooh the excitement of whether it's going to slide smoothly into place and the two ends are going to meet properly as it reaches the other side! (Spoiler - it does!)

According to one of my sources, who lives in a flat with a view of the bridge, it looks 'quite sexy' with its lights on. It's a very pretty little bridge alright, but I think 'sexy' is taking it a bit far. All the same it's much more fulfilling than watching property investors talking about selling Deptford. 

'Rise' marketing leaves Deptford unimpressed

'Rise' developer Cathedral Group seems to have waded into a shit storm in its cosy link up with overseas property investment company IP Global, which bought up all 120+ flats in the development being built next to Deptford Station and is currently flogging them off-plan to its overseas investors.

The property company's promotional video for the Deptford scheme - aka the Deptford Project - in which Martyn Evans, Creative Director of Cathedral Group explained how important the link-up was, because IP Global had such a good knowledge of the Asian market, was pulled from IP Global's You Tube account this morning after complaints from local residents*.

Until this morning IP Global had two films on its website - a 360 degree panorama of Deptford (which claims to have been made using 'drone technology' but looks more like they filmed it from the tower crane), and a promotional film with IP Global CEO Tim Murphy telling all that is great about investing in Deptford - now only the former remains. (See update below for a link to the film elsewhere)

(Believe me you didn't miss much in the latter, but you can probably get a good idea by reading IP Global's wincingly tired piece about Deptford that they published earlier this year when the deal was struck with Cathedral).

There has already been scrutiny of the marketing of these residential units, with Crosswhatfields blog pointing out last month that they were being pitched for more than half a million quid as buy to let investments.

Last week I came across the offending video, and tweeted about it with my comments:

Interesting to hear Cathedral spelling out (3 mins in) its main aim is to sell its Deptford Project flats in Asia https://t.co/jrgyICRCEN
— Deptford Dame (@deptforddame) November 19, 2014

The video was shared on various other places, including the Quay Point and Facebook's I Love Deptford group, where it caused mighty outrage and came to the attention of local resident Maria Livings.

She was so incensed she wrote to Cathedral Group CEO Richard Upton to complain about the company's crass marketing and make some very salient points about the housing issues that dominate our local area.

'The idea that this project is being sold to investors and that the coolness of artists is being touted as the reason why property prices are about to hurtle still further up is completely sickening. None of the interesting, creative people who have contributed to the vibrant culture of the area are able to afford to buy a home and their work spaces are being eliminated wholesale as developers buy up all the land to create yet more unaffordable housing. 

I am an artist/designer and have lived and worked in the area for over 30 years. Although I initially lived in a council flat on Pepys Estate I was able eventually to get a shared ownership home in which I still live. As a result of being part of this fascinating creative community I have become quite successful and have developed a thriving business. 

However, even though I am relatively well off there is no way I could afford to buy a home at today's prices. Where are the people who work in a coffee bar/Sainsbury's/school/garage in Deptford supposed to live? I don't suppose anyone at Cathedral knows or cares. 

You may live in a parallel Universe where moral and social considerations are not an issue and therefore have no interest in anything except making money. However you must know that public opposition to this tastelessly marketed development will be strong. You have made no friends amongst local people and ensured that the cool, friendly vibe that you are using to sell your development will be greatly diminished as a result of your poor grasp of the socio-economic realities of the area.'

The offending video was taken down this morning and Maria has been invited to meet with Cathedral Group to discuss her concerns. She is asking others to join her in writing to the council and meeting with Cathedral - details on the Facebook group.

Cathedral's strong presence in south east London, with developments such as The Mvmt (eugh) on Norman Road, and Morden Wharf on the Greenwich Peninsula, not to mention their ongoing efforts to project a cuddly, fluffy not-like-every-other-property-developer image, presumably make them particularly sensitive to this kind of criticism.

Let's hope they aren't crass enough to try and exploit the meeting to their own advantage - the cynic in me suspects that they may see it as a good opportunity to get a well-respected local creative on their side, although something tells me Maria isn't the type to be taken in.

* Update: The film is still available for now on You Tube. If you enjoy watching a property developer salivating over the prospect of making shitloads of money, get there quick. But don't say I didn't warn you. 

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.

Deptford Broadway 'improvement' proposals

TFL has announced its proposed 'improvements' to the Deptford Broadway/Deptford Church St junction of the A2; full details and the consultation page are up on its website.

Campaigners have been trying to get this junction improved for several decades so TFL's consultation is well overdue.

The proposal to add signal-controlled pedestrian crossings across three of the four main arms of the junction is welcome, but why has the opportunity not been taken to relocate the existing toucan crossing next to Deptford Bridge station to a position where it might actually be useful, at the junction itself? TFL claims it rejected the idea 'because of junction capacity and low pedestrian flows'.

I wonder if it has low pedestrian flows because it is in a place where no-one wants to use it? People may find it more convenient to risk crossing at the junction itself because that's the route they want to take.

And the provisions for cyclists, which include 'advisory' cycle lanes and no measures to reduce vehicle speeds, have already been criticised by Lewisham Cyclists as  'seriously rubbish'.

It's not easy to re-imagine a junction layout when you have become accustomed to its perils over the decades, but I only have to ask myself why I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have used the junction on a bike to know it is not a layout that makes me feel safe. I regularly go out of my way to avoid it, and I would consider myself a confident and experienced cyclist. I rarely attempt to negotiate it on foot because I don't need to, but I'm sure I would find it seriously annoying if it was part of my regular route.

Just look at the layout on the plan - a cursory glance reveals the main problem with this junction.

Why does a junction connecting the vaguely dual-lane Blackheath Road to the definitely single-lane New Cross Road need so many traffic lanes? It balloons up into an enormous swollen racetrack - not just left and right turning lanes, but two lanes for the traffic going straight ahead, which then has to squeeze into a single lane within yards of the other side of the junction.

All this type of junction design does is encourage drivers to jostle for position as if they are at the start of a race, then roar away when the lights change in an attempt to jump ahead one or two vehicles. It creates the kind of space that encourages aggressive, competitive driving, a space in which cyclists are regarded as an inconvenience and expected to be safe in 'advisory' lines of paint in between the lanes.

Updated: Lewisham Cyclists have posted a full response to the plans on their website.

Silvertown Tunnel consultation

Transport for London has just launched consultation into its planned Silvertown Tunnel, which is intended to increase capacity for vehicles wanting to cross the Thames between east London and the Greenwich Peninsula.

There's plenty of talk about how the new tunnel would 'relieve congestion' and yet in the same breath, TFL also explains that it intends to impose charges on both the Blackwall Tunnel and the Silvertown Tunnel to 'manage demand' (as well as to pay for the new tunnel). Isn't this just an admission that building a new tunnel would generate so much additional traffic that the new tunnel would be congested as soon as it opened.

TFL has put together a fly-through film showing how the tunnel portals and the tunnel service buildings are intended to fit in the existing landscape and link into the existing roads.


What's missing from all the jazzy fly-throughs and optimistic predictions is any explanation of how the roads on either side of the river will cope with this extra traffic. With the 'bottleneck' at the tunnel supposedly removed, the congestion problem will simply move to other parts of the network, increasing congestion elsewhere - outside your front door, your child's school or your local park perhaps?

As we saw from local pollution monitoring earlier this year, levels of nitrogen dioxide are already well above recommended safe levels in many parts of Greenwich and Lewisham. With increased traffic from a new tunnel adding even more congestion, pollution levels will only get worse.

The fly-through produced by TFL offers visualisations of a tunnel with no traffic; campaigners at No to Silvertown Tunnel have created a more realistic version showing the current situation in the Blackwall Tunnel, which is likely to be recreated very rapidly in any new tunnel nearby.


You can find out more about their campaign on the website, including an analysis of the proposed scheme, and some suggested public transport alternatives.

New shop fronts for Deptford High Street

The sharp-eyed among you may have noticed the new shopfronts that have appeared along Deptford High Street.

Six shops have had their signs and shutters replaced using the tail end of the Outer London Funding bid that paid for the repaving works and other projects.

I don't believe this work was actually part of the original bid, and I'm not clear where the funding was diverted from, but it is certainly being paid for out of the money that was awarded to Deptford.

One of the regular gripes by those who care about the visual appearance and public realm quality of the high street is the damage to shop fronts caused by cheap 'improvements' which usually involve ripping out the old shop front and bunging in a roller shutter. This is often done at the lowest possible cost and by contractors whose only concern is the speed with which they can get the work done.

There's also ongoing problems with planning applications for changes that are not appropriate to a conservation zone (yes! Deptford High Street is a conservation zone!) such as internally illuminated signs and plastic-framed replacement windows. Many of these have got through in the past but happily the planners at the council are now more aware of the problem and seem to be taking greater note of new applications.

The new shop fronts are intended to showcase 'good design' for the high street and demonstrate the type of solutions the council would like to see applied whenever renovations are carried out.

In my opinion the designs have all been successful to some extent - even those which I consider too gaudy or disappointingly underwhelming have a solid and unified quality. I assume the shop owners were consulted on the designs and colour schemes, which presumably explains why they vary so much.

At the south end of the high street (above) the replacement signage and awning are a huge improvement on the awful gaudy plastic thing that used to scar this lovely building. I like the colour choice and it seems the designer of the sign made the best of a bad job, considering how many words had to be accommodated.

I admit I find the light green squiggles adorning each end a little distracting though, they do put me in mind of a diagram of the female reproductive system.

Next up is Divine - the colour choice might be more reminiscent of a high-viz cycling jacket than anything else, but at least the shop front is in muted colours and the simple design works well.

AK Continental Foods looks good when it's open but the shutter design makes it look quite fun even when it's closed. Not much thought seems to have been given to how the design would fit on the shutters - to be honest it looks a bit like one of my attempts - but it's cheerful and colourful so the end result is a positive one.

Down at the more subtle end of the scale is Fu Quing Chao Shi Chinese supermarket - auspiciously red, no surprise there, and very clean design. The new awning looks great too.

There's always one who wants to stand right out, and in this case it's Family Halal Butchers & Grocers with their gaudy yellow and red sign and even a yellow edging to the bright red awning. Considering they are sandwiched between the non-too subtle shouty awning of Housewives and their other bright yellow neighbour, it's none too surprising.

My favourite of all the shopfront redesigns is Ralph's green grocery which has a strong Farrow & Ball feel to it - not just the colours of the shop front and contrasting awning, but the lower-case shop name and understated design. I'm sure the Guardian would have a field day suggesting that it's an unmistakeable sign of gentrification although you only have to step inside to note the absence of wicker baskets or eggs displayed in beds of straw.

When the previous shopfront was removed, the original sill of the window on the first floor was revealed, leading for calls to redesign the shop sign and reinstate the window to its original level. The building (formerly Caxton House) apparently used to be a ladies school in the 1800s and is one of the more significant historic buildings on the high street, although there are probably many more than you might think. 

As far as I know, extra funding is being sought to adjust the shopfront accordingly, let's wait and see.

And finally, here's the latest new shopfront. As far as the new occupier goes, shame to see another 'chain' on the high street (although in reality it's a franchise) but apparently there are lots of people out there who think buying sandwiches by the foot is a good wheeze.

I'm of the opinion that there are much better sandwich options available on the high street, and the only time I went into a Subway I got rather confused by the aggressive questioning about filling options. I like the old-school method where the customer tells the sandwich maker exactly what they want and the sandwich maker puts aforementioned ingredients in the bread. Mind you I seem to remember it was a branch in the US so I was confused as to why I might want cheese in a ham sandwich, particularly since I was then asked to choose between four types of cheese, none of which sounded real, and all of which had been processed to exactly the same extent except for subtle differences in colour.

I suspect the new Subway will probably impact most on Percy Ingle's and Greggs' sandwich and hot food sales. Other branches seem to open late and I hope this one will too - it would certainly be good to see more places on the high street that open into the evening.