Saturday, October 6, 2018

Tideway Tunnel upate – worst fears confimed

We fought the law, and the law won. Or rather, back in 2014, the poor people of Crossfields fought the lawyered up people of Millennium Quay over whether the monolithic Tideway Tunnel would locate a shaft on Deptford Church Street (and destroy 45 trees) or on the river at the privatised Millennium Quay.

Naive campaigners who joined Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart to stop the site at Church Street didn't even realise that the main event would be at Greenwich Pumping Station, just across Deptford Creek. All information on that site was reserved for those living in Greenwich and not open to consultation to anyone living in Lewisham. For Crossfields peeps on the border of Lewisham and Greenwich, the two were both relevant and now we're surrounded by disturbance from both.

Tideway CONsultation has been set in place with so-called regular meetings with the community, but the meetings are always centred on Greenwich and chaired by a Greenwich councillor. The Deptford site is treated as secondary – it's as though no one is actually running the site at Church Street, and therefore no one is answerable.

Yet it is Deptford Church Street which has been causing major noise since mid July. Apologies and notifications come from the Greenwich site about piling in the Creek (indeed very loud, but not continuous), but there is no news or resident notification from the Church Street site where they've been drilling two holes, one of which operations sounds like an air-raid siren stuck on a continuous note for hours at a time. The noise went on for two months. They just denied it had ever happened. The higher tones of the droning noise is lost in this YouTube video:


We now have an update from Tideway on future plans, as reported back by Crossfields TRA from a recent meeting on 2 October. The news is that the local situation is only going to get worse:

Notes from the Greenwich Pumping Station & Deptford Church Street Community Liaison Working Group (Tideway project) Meeting, Tuesday 02 October 2018 
There are three things that will happen soon and affect Crossfield residents, some more than others:
From November 2018 until 2021, the northern lane of Deptford Church Street will be closed to traffic. This is so that Tideway engineers can build an interception chamber and connecting tunnel to the original sewer, built by Joseph Bazalgette, that runs under Church Street. The southern lane will become two-way. This will cause congestion and more cars could come along Creekside, as an alternative route. 
From November 2018 for three months, the acoustic shed will be built over the shaft at the Greenwich Pumping site. The shed will be 70 meters tall. It will be closeto the DLR track and cannot be built during the daytime when the DLR is in operation, because of risk to the travelling public of falling steel girders or tools. It will be built through the night from 01:00 to 05:00, from November for 9 weeks. The engineers claim the usual level of outdoor night-time background noise is 61dB and that the level at the construction site is expected to be 67dB (the sound of a passing car, 7.6 metres or 25 feet away, travelling at 65mph). There will be light pollution. The site will be very brightly light.
Residents affected by the work can ask for support to minimise the disruption, such as black-out blinds or curtains. Do it quickly by contacting the Tideway Helpline on 08000 30 80 80 or email helpdesk@tideway.london
The acoustic shed is designed to reduce tunnelling machinery noise. When tunnelling starts in 2019, it will happen for 24 hours a day, for two and half years. It will connect the shaft at the Greenwich Pumping Station to the one in Deptford Church Street. The tunnel will run 70 meters below Farrer House lawn. It will be 7.7 meters in diameter – as wide as the Channel Tunnel.
When the tunnelling starts the spoil will be taken away by trucks and by barges. At the Greenwich Pumping Station there will be 110 trucks a day arriving empty and leaving full via Norman Road and Greenwich High Road. The site can only accommodate 6 trucks at once. To manage the number of trucks there is a plan to have a waiting area in Greenwich High Road, similar to the one outside Frankham House in Deptford Church Street. So, even more traffic congestion in the area.
Back in 2014, campaigners predicted pollution in the area would increase dramatically with Tideway's plans to partially close Church Street whilst redevelopment at various local sites was set to increase. Yet Lewisham Council not only continue to work with developers on plans for more construction work (Sun Wharf and Creekside Village East), but are actively instigating them too (Tidemill and No.1 Creekside).

---------

Here is Tideway's response to complaints about noise at the Deptford Church St site:

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if you felt we had not answered all your points.
Please see our response as below. I have tried to answer all your points and I look forward to meeting with you.

Thank you for your reply of 24 August. Unfortunately, you haven’t answered all my questions. 
NOISE MONITORING
1. You say that the noise reports are available on your website, but there is still no published noise report on the website for Deptford Church St since April 2018 – or at least not where you’d expect to find them, e.g. https://www.tideway.london/air-quality-and-noise-reports/
2. You did not provide me with the latest noise reports as I requested. 
3. You state that there have been no noise ‘exceedances' recorded in July and August, which I take issue with. 

Noise 
Unfortunately, we do not supply noise prediction data to residents. We prepare noise predictions and associated assessments, based on planned construction activity as part of our Section 61 submission to the local authority. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) then reviews the submission to ensure that the construction activities, and the associated noise mitigation proposed, is appropriate. Only once the EHO is satisfied that we are following Best Practicable Means (BPM) to minimise noise impacts to those living or working around our construction sites, would approval of the Section 61 be granted.   Please be assured that one of the EHO’s key roles is to ensure we are keeping noise levels as low as reasonably practicable and that as a specialist in this field, they review the predicted noise levels in the S61 submission in detail.

During construction, noise monitoring using both fixed and attended monitoring is undertaken to ensure works are in accordance with the approved S61 and any exceedances, together with an explanation of their cause, are reported to the EHO. Residents are advised of any monthly exceedances at the next Community Liaison Working group and this information is also available on the Tideway website within the CLWG presentation.

4. No doubt you are only requested to report peak occurrences (variance from agreed norms) as is the case with construction sites in general. However, the noise we are having to tolerate is a continuous drone with few peaks so is unlikely to get reported. The noise is there all the time, but is particularly accentuated by wind direction, and is notably intolerable when there is a north or north west wind. 

We monitor the equivalent ‘A weighted sound pressure level’ over standard reference periods, with the daytime period being 10hrs. This metric is used as it is most appropriate and inclusive of all sound energy during the day.

We have a management system on site to ensure that all practicable measures are implemented to ensure that thresholds agreed with the local authority are not exceeded.  Meteorological conditions, do not have great influence on sound pressure levels over relatively short distances and influence is dependent on frequency, with greater reduction experienced in higher frequencies, where some shadow regions may be produced upwind of sound source. Please see below illustration which explains the effects based on wind velocity upwind and downwind.

5. The noise started in July. That is surely significant (see point 6 below). There was minimal noise from the site in April. Now it is exceedingly loud. Is it not important that people can no longer enjoy the quietude of St Paul’s Churchyard since July?

In April, we started site installation works including; platform preparation, office installation, services connections and plant installation ahead of construction of the Diaphragm Wall. The machinery required for those works was light to medium plant.  From June, we started the bulk of the construction work. The first phase of the Diaphragm Wall works, required the use of heavy plant such as cranes, a hydrofraise, (which is a is a drilling machine), and a grab (which is a large vehicle with a hydraulic loading arm).  We expect to continue using both light and heavy machinery during the ongoing construction work.  I am sorry for any disruption caused during this time.

6. You have failed to acknowledge my request that you come and monitor noise levels at surrounding elevated sites (such as my home). I would therefore like to take up your offer to meet with you to discuss the issues. I suggest the meeting takes place at my home so that you can hear for yourself the source of our complaints. 

We currently undertake attended noise monitoring at points agreed with the local authority. We also have static noise monitoring points around the site perimeter.  Myself and a colleague would be happy to make an appointment to attend your address during the day. I would propose either:
  • 11 am on Friday 21 September or 
  • 2 pm   on Monday 1 October
Please let me know if any of these dates and times are suitable for you.

INFO ABOUT WORKS AT THE CHURCH ST SITE

7. Thank you for the information on the Deptford site. I note there two excavations going on at two different parts of the site. You don’t mention or account for the second excavation which increases the noise levels, but only refer to the main shaft construction.

We have recently finished constructing a Diaphragm wall on both the Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO), and the shaft area.
The work consists of the following sequence:
  • Excavation using the hydrofraise for the shaft and the grab machine for the CSO.
  • Installation of reinforcement cages
  • Concreting
We are therefore excavating and pouring concrete concurrently.  We progress the two areas at the same time to concentrate the works during a reduced period, rather than consecutively.

8. I note that this information is STILL not available where you would expect to find it on your website (https://www.tideway.london/the-tunnel/construction-sites/deptford-church-street-deptford/). Where there was absolutely no information before when I wrote to you, now there is a report about the works at Greenwich Pumping Station. This is not the information I expect to find on the Deptford Church Street page. It is not the same site, even if your engineers consider the two sites inseparable. 

There are separate Tideway web pages for both Deptford Church Street and Greenwich Pumping Station worksites. When the latest Information Sheets for each site are distributed they will also be posted on the website.



We do have a joint Greenwich Pumping Station and Deptford Church Street Site Community Liaison Working Group (CLWG).  The last presentation, which includes information about both sites, can be found  athttps://www.tideway.london/media/3987/depcs-greps-clwg-may-2018-final.pdf

9. As stated previously, residents have not received any information via our letterboxes regarding the work at Deptford Church Street. We only get information about Greenwich. Re the points above, the noise from Deptford Church Street began in July and significantly affects everyone who is above ground and first floor level in surrounding ‘receptors’. The noise started without notice, warning or advance apology and there has been nothing to acknowledge that inconvenience.

The previous information sheet sent out specifically for Deptford Church Street was in May, as previously mentioned.  These are only sent out when there is a significant change in work.  A further Information Sheet for Deptford Church Street site, was sent this week and is now on the website. You can find a copy of this here .

Any Information Sheets are hand delivered to a 100m radius of each site, emailed to those who have requested to be kept updated and posted on the site notice boards.  As with all construction sites the information provided is regularly updated.

10. You have indicated that the current phase of construction works will continue until mid-October. Are you therefore able to say what comes next? Our concern is that similar noise will continue for four years; you have not addressed this.

The latest programme of work will be presented at the next Community Liaison Group (CLWG) on Tuesday 2ndOctober and posted shortly after on the websites.

INFO ABOUT THE GREENWICH SITE

11. Prior information to residents about the Greenwich site has been good, unlike at Church St (I assume the notices go to all flats on the estate?). The piling work in Deptford Creek has been intermittently loud, but this has been bearable because it is only temporary, and at the site in general the noise has so far been much less intrusive than Church St, although low frequency noise and vibration has been perceived this past week in the early hours of the morning. 

Information sheets are delivered to a radius of 100m at both Deptford Church Street and Greenwich Pumping Station. The River Times publication is hand delivered to a 250m radius. 

12. Thank you for the update on the acoustic shed at the Greenwich site. I had assumed the lower volume of noise from Greenwich was due to the shed already having been installed, but now I’m concerned that the louder work is still to come and that this will be at night (24 hours). The merits of the acoustic shed at Greenwich have yet to be tested. In my opinion, such a construction is also required at Deptford Church St. 

An acoustic enclosure will not be located at the Deptford Church Street site, nor any other Tideway site not associated with the tunnel boring operation. This approach was agreed with the Secretary of State and Local Authority.  In addition to this, unlike the Greenwich site, we are not intending on working overnight at Deptford Church Street and will be working in accordance with our consented hours (from 0800 to up to 2200 on weekdays, 0800 to 1700 on Saturdays and not on Sundays).

SUB-CONTRACTING DRAIN WORK ON OUR ESTATE (ON A SUNDAY!)

13. You have stated that “neither CVB Tideway nor Thames Water have been working on a Sunday, or on drains near to the Browne House and Castell House as you mentioned”. Whilst I appreciate your information, I find it strange, as the sub-contractors McAllister (01753 916339 according to their van signage) said they were working for Thames Water. 

14. We assumed it was part of the Tideway Project as the three drains in question are major connections to the storm drain on Deptford Church Street. Perhaps McAlister have been called out by Lewisham Council’s housing managers Lewisham Homes. However the three drains they have been working on are not private drains – they belong to Thames Water. I wonder if you have the capacity to investigate this strange anomaly further on our behalf with the contacts you have at TW? Meanwhile I will enquire via Lewisham Homes. 

Thank you for the updated information and for permission to pass on your details and enquiry to Thames Water, this information and request has sent to them. They are currently investigating this matter further and will reply separately.

SPECIAL CASES

15. You have suggested that perhaps rather than follow up with you, I should instead contact Carlo Ombello who deals with specific circumstances on a case-by-case basis. 

16. However, I believe this issue affects more than those identified by Tideway's definition of Special Cases – for instance, retirees in particular and parents with young children. They are not included. Everyone should be protected from the intolerable noise currently being created by your work, however valuable that work is.  

Individuals are entitled to apply if they consider they are being adversely affected. Each case is individually assessed by an independent panel.

17. I also note you do not comment on provisions made for other ‘receptors’ such as St Joseph’s school and Resolution House. I can see that St Joseph’s doesn’t have the promised double glazing on upper floors (especially when the noise from the site is intolerable from the elevated Deptford station platform). 

Whilst we cannot comment on individual circumstances and agreements, I can state that we remain in contact with both the school and the church. The noise mitigation measures agreed with the school have been put in place to their satisfaction.

CLWG MEETINGS

18. I have given up going to these, they are meaningless in terms of consultation. Tideway refused to share any data on baseline noise and dust to Goldsmiths research project Citizen Sense, and that is indicative of how much information you’re prepared to share. 

I am sorry if you feel that the CLWGs are not useful for you. The Code of Construction Practice Part A (S3) outlines the requirements for meetings to be held with the residents (or their representatives), businesses and other local occupiers to keep them informed about the works and to provide a forum for them to express their views. The Terms of Reference for the Community Liaison Working Group can be found here:


19. The last meeting occurred well before this noisy work started. I still receive notifications, but I leave it to our TRA rep to attend. Any information is disseminated in minutes rather than more widely, so it is not enough for you to rely on these meetings as a form of ongoing consultation. Likewise, important information shouldn’t have to be searched for in ‘minutes of meetings’ on your website.

As previously mentioned the last CLWG was held on 8 May.  We deliver Information Sheets to addresses within a 100 metre radius and the River Times to a 250 metre radius of the sites. We also send out these updates and minutes of the meetings via email to those who wish to receive it, place information the notice boards and have a 24/7 helpdesk to answer queries and complaints.  Each email or telephone call is investigated and receives a full response.

20. I note that the September meeting was postponed till October, perhaps not down to holiday arrangements as claimed, but maybe to avoid some difficult questions about noise while that noise has been ongoing for several weeks, yet so far no one at Tideway will own up to it.

The next Community Liaison Working Group as previously stated will be held on 2 October. This postponement was requested by the Chair, Cllr Mahboob, due to his commitments.

---------------







Monday, June 18, 2018

More on No.1 Creekside – the long read!

Our visual showing the impact of No.1 Creekside and the Tidemill/Reginald Road development
As it is now (Google Maps image)
Crosswhatfields reported Bluecroft's acquisition of the MOT site at No.1 Creekside back in November 2014. We were then shocked to discover in July 2015 that Lewisham Council had "disposed" of the adjacent land (a strip of woodland that lines the busy main road) to the developer, in exchange for commercial space in the new development that the Council would lease back. Mayor & Cabinet did this without any consultation with local people. The same evening they were hypocritically patting themselves on the back over their new Biodiversity Action Plan "A Natural Renaissance for Lewisham" which extols the virtues of street trees in the borough and their role in combatting pollution.

The stretch of trees will be demolished and replaced with a building that fronts directly onto the road and dwarfs all the buildings adjacent to it:




The gap between the two towers is because the site lies in the viewing corridor for St Paul's Cathedral (from The Point in Blackheath and the General Wolfe Statue in Greenwich Park). The gap only slightly mitigates the loss of light to Frankham House residents opposite, whose windows will lose more than 20% of their daylight thanks to the towers. They will also be the only people who will be able to take in this particular view.

Ecology and environment 

The trees which Lewisham so carelessly disposed of as "surplus" are described in the applicant's Arboricultural Survey as being of little value except for bird nesting. The accompanying Ecological Appraisal was conducted in January (winter – when nothing was growing!) and states the woodland contains little of any ecological value and little or no biodiversity.

These assertions are strongly contested by local resident Ruth who lives next door to the site and says the area supports lots of wildlife. Bird species include robins, blackbirds, wrens, starlings, blue tits, great tits and goldfinches. Butterflies and moths include Orange Tips, Red Admirals, Painted Lady, Black Arches, Skipper moths and Jersey Tiger moth. The wildness of the area supports insects including Damsel flies, which bats feed on. The report states their survey found no evidence of roosting bats, making no mention of the fact that bats come to feed here in warmer months. Residents say they roost in the old Tidemill school caretaker's house that has been left to rot by Lewisham Council (as they intend to demolish it).

The wild wood is a bit of publicly-owned land that the Council have neglected to maintain or make anything of for years. Access to it has previously been through the Crossfields Estate – estate children have long played here and a BMX run was created by some lads who cleared the shrubland and used it for ten years or more. Residents thought it was part of the estate. As an ex-primary school teacher who taught in the area, Ruth believes wild areas like this give children "the opportunity to observe, learn and respect the natural world with the likelihood that they will respect each other more and grow into more sensitive adults". Everything Ruth says could be backed up by Lewisham's own Biodiversity Action Plan, but not in Deptford it would seem.

Mayor Egan has now introduced "a new ring-fenced 'greening' fund to support the work of local community groups, already doing so much to protect and enhance our green spaces". Yet more hypocrisy from a Council that wants to demolish all the green space in our area that local people are fighting to keep!

Local Pollution

Like others, Ruth also knows how the tree canopy helps mitigate against the high levels of pollution from the road, and bemoans the number of trees and green spaces being lost in the area. Crossfields Green was lost to Tideway Tunnel (45 trees removed) and Tidemill Garden is about to be lost (79 trees). In the map below we illustrate the lack and loss of green space in the area. Crossfields Estate (and other estates) and Creekside Discovery Centre are not included, because they are not public open spaces.

(Click to enlarge) Loss of green space before and after Tidemill and No.1 Creekside (grey areas are tall buildings over 5 storeys, dark grey areas are polluted roads).
Local studies have shown how polluted and polluting this road is. Our own tests for Nitrogen Dioxide in 2014 showed levels of 62ug/m3 at the Birds Nest roundabout (40ug/m3 is the EU limit) while at the junction with Deptford Broadway, it was 84ug/m3. These readings were taken before some serious building work began to take place at Faircharm, Kent Wharf and Tideway Tunnel on Deptford Church St and at Greenwich Pumping Station on Norman Road, as well as the other developments on Norman Road.

(Click to enlarge)
Goldsmiths academics ran a Citizen Sense project in the area in 2016/2017 to monitor Particulate Matter PM2.5. The highest readings were found at Deptford Bridge, but the second highest were on Crossfields Estate, as a result of the Deptford Church Street traffic to the west, including increased construction traffic, and to the east construction sites at Faircharm and Kent Wharf with attendant HGVs, as well as work at Greenwich Pumping station and sites along Norman Road.

(Click to enlarge) Deptford dustbox monitoring by Citizen Sense – 
Dustbox 103 on Crossfields Estate measured the second highest readings
Shockingly, the applicant's own Air Quality Assessment recommends that a filtration system will have to be supplied to all first floor and above spaces in the new development and that Bluecroft should advise future occupants to avoid opening their windows during high pollution episodes, ie, every morning and evening during the commuter run.

Deptford Church Street is identified by the GLA as one of eight Lewisham Air Quality Focus Areas, but Lewisham's own Air Quality Action Plan focuses on what it calls "The Evelyn Corridor" and fails to identify as hazard spots not only the two Tideway Tunnel sites in the area, but also the two construction sites it has an active interest in (No.1 and Tidemill/Reginald Road).

(Click to enlarge) A map showing the location of the PM2 monitoring box on Crossfields Estate drawn for Citizen Sense showing active construction sites, pending works and the concrete mixer routes using Deptford Church Street, Creekside, Creek Road and Norman Road.
Since pollution from construction work was raised as a concern at the public consultation nine months ago, you'd think the applicant might include a Construction Logistics Map in this application, to show how construction vehicles will arrive at and leave the site and what impact they will have on traffic in Deptford Church Street and Creekside. Especially since there will be construction work going on at Tidemill as well. But nothing, zilch. Already Tideway Tunnel have established a lorry park outside Frankham House (opposite the proposed development) which closes off the bus lane.

Because Lewisham Council became a partner in the scheme with its gift of valuable green space, the proposal for the site is now so over-developed there is no room for construction vehicles to turn, and no space for concrete mixers to queue, with their engines running, as they did in Creekside during the Faircharm redevelopment.

Impact of tall buildings on the local character of the area

The cumulative impact of two adjacent sites being built at the same time should be a consideration for Lewisham planners, and councillors on the Strategic Planning Committee. Also there is the cumulative impact that a new cluster of tall buildings on this corner (see visuals above) has on the local character of the Conservation Area – and local people. For the latter, it's increased pollution and the creation of a wind tunnel that could make for a hostile environment, despite the Council's and developer's excitement about opening up the street frontage.

The Lewisham Tall Buildings Study states that "Tall buildings in Conservation Areas will be considered inappropriate and careful consideration will need to be given to any impact of a tall building on their settings". The area is not identified as a strategic location for tall buildings in this study, and the character of the area is also defined as successful and distinctive in that it has a strong element of human scale whilst it’s acknowledged that at a local scale “significant trees and spaces can act as landmarks”.

In the introduction to the Lewisham Development Management Plan, they state their objective as being "to foster the delivery of sustainable development, not to hinder or prevent development" with an emphasis on 'collaboration'. They say they lead this process by "working closely with those proposing developments and others, particularly the local community". If that's the case, why has there been no further public consultation since 14 September 2017?

Creekside Conservation Area

The applicant waxes lyrically about the design of the building being based on the industrial character of the area with reference to the 2012 Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal's account of its history. But in fact the CA Appraisal praises the 'human scale' of the Crossfield Estate buildings (which make up most of the zone) and the low topology of the warehousing by the Creek. When the appraisal was written, the only tall building was APT Studios at Harold Wharf.

The designation was specifically created by the Conservation team to limit the impact of Workspace plc's redevelopment of Faircharm Trading Estate. Lewisham wouldn't allow them to extend the area further north where they had plans for their own development on publicly owned land behind the Laban Centre. Nor did they want the zone to include Frankham House, for the same reason. The latter had to be fought for to be included, otherwise it would currently be up for demolition as part of the Tidemill redevelopment. Nevertheless, the green area south of Frankham that became part of the Conservation Area, was appropriated without any consultation into the Tidemill redevelopment.

To justify the trend for high-density, high-rise buildings in London's inner city, the developers (probably advised by Lewisham planners) reference the long gone 19th century mills that once stood to the south of the conservation area. Only one remains, Mumford's Mill, outside the zone. It is however, like Crossfields Estate and Harold Wharf, handsomely built of red brick, but that is not referenced in this application. Instead we have here the same boring, drab and bland design with the same colour cladding used in all those other uninspired new builds going up across the capital.

If developers want to refer to the historical character of the area, why not build a windmill surrounded by small terraced homes and market gardens? (This blog is not called Crosswhatfields for nothing). If they must build tall (which is nothing to do with the housing crisis, but about getting maximum returns on expensive land), why do planners restrict architects with this drab 19th century industrial-use nonsense?

Great looking residential and mixed use buildings are being designed and built elsewhere (as a walk down Coldharbour Lane in Loughborough Junction revealed to this writer the other night) that use lots of colour and yet still manage to blend into their surroundings, whilst brightening them. The Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal celebrates the creative culture of the area most of all, but no creativity is apparent here.

We don't want to be surrounded by buildings that are trying to reference long gone dark satanic mills (but then try to avoid the darkness by using light coloured cladding) – so please stop referencing them and design something lovely! Something smaller, something quirky, something locals can be proud of, something that doesn't ruin the local character, perhaps even something covered in greenery, that celebrates the Council's somewhat dubious green credentials, rather than an ugly landmark for Lewisham's new flagship economic hub.

Commercial workspace

The application has been brought to planning far too soon, and one of the issues raised in the only public consultation event remains unaddressed. People wanted to know whether the new workspace would be affordable (especially to locals), and even questioned why it was needed. You would think that might warrant a full business case for the commercial space being presented with this application. That should come from Lewisham Council, but there's nothing.

Several pages of Bluecroft's Design & Access Statement refer to how creative spaces work already in the area, supporting the idea of flexible use. But a statement from Kalmars, the commercial estate agents of choice for Lewisham, reveals that the kind of flexibility the Council are really thinking about is more to do with who they can extract the highest rents from.

Although the scheme is dressed up with exciting visions of a creative industry 'hub', Kalmars suggest that any kind of office-based business could fit in here; the flexibility of the physical space is equally about being able to create rabbit hutches for office users or large floor space for call-centre operations. We wouldn't be surprised if the Council ended up moving Lewisham Homes in here, especially when they start concentrating on expanding their estate regeneration and demolition plans in the area.

Second Floor Studios have been involved in the planning of the space. Second Floor have up till recently been known for their artist studio provision but now seem to have become much more commercially orientated. Artists are described by Lewisham's Economic Strategy officer as not making full and 'sustainable' use of their workspace; the emphasis from Lewisham is on digital enterprise and TMT (technology, media and telecommunications) and for Kalmars, any kind of office/retail use that makes money would fit the bill.

If the space is for the 'creative industries' why isn't music production designed into it along with the sound proofing that would require? Music making is a strong facet of the cultural heritage of the Creekside Conservation Zone. Affordable rehearsal space for musicians is in deficit in the area. Music production/recording/rehearsal space would also support and complement existing community use such as the Birds Nest pub.

If the aim is to make as much income as possible for the Council to prop up services, affordable rents are unlikely, especially for the sort of creatives who established the Creekside area as one of artistic excellence which the Council uses to boast their cultural credentials (for instance, in their bid to become Borough of Culture). Lewisham are shameless 'art washers' – they have always used Creekside to attract developers and inward investment. Their promotion of the borough's creative output is purely about attracting money. What they want here is business that has been priced out of more expensive areas such as London Bridge or Bermondsey. This is not for locals, and especially not for artists or musicians.

Is it needed then? Aren't there going to be new workspace 'hubs' at Faircharm and Kent Wharf? Isn't there already a plethora of un-let office space in the area? Didn't the office space provided in the Seager building get turned into a hotel, there was so little demand? There is certainly quite a lot of un-let retail space (at the Deptford Project and Deptford Market Yard, for instance) which could be changed to other uses without losing too much 'active street frontage'.

That is why a business case should be presented as part of this application. Failure to do so makes it impossible to justify the need for this monster of a building.

Only 35% Affordable Housing and Poor Doors

As we mentioned in our previous post, the affordable housing quota is only 35%, and the affordable units are separated from the private ones by a 'poor door', with the affordable in the north 'core' (overlooking Cremer House) and the private in the south tower (overlooking the Birds Nest).

Mayor Egan's election promise was to achieve 50% 'genuinely' affordable homes in developer-led projects. He also promised to publish developer's Viability Assessments and there is one accompanying this application. The developer states they would struggle to achieve 35%, but a quick analysis of both current sales prices for new builds in the area and comparison with their figures indicates they could stand to make at least £4m more from private sales than they have estimated.

Lewisham's Core Strategy Policy 3 says that "60% of affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate or sale, and that priority should be accorded to provision for family housing". Here the ratio is 55% social rent and 45% intermediate, with family homes being only 30% of the total.

While the Council may argue that they are providing employment space instead, we'd argue that the need for affordable housing is currently greater. That was certainly the argument presented by local ward councillor Joe Dromey to justify the demolition of Reginald House and Tidemill Garden.

Lewisham Labour's 2018 Manifesto also pledged "not to sell strategic council land to private developers", but this not only what the Council is doing at Tidemill by flogging off public land to Peabody housing association and Sherrygreen Homes, but indirectly what they have done at No.1 Creekside through extinguishing ownership of public land.


The most annoying thing about this development, apart from its size, is that the Council are partners and will want to drive it through regardless of how local people feel, just as they have done at Tidemill (see previous post). And like Tidemill (where it's taken officers several years to achieve any sort of decent 'social housing' quota on the site to justify demolition of homes and green space), the proposals for No.1 Creekside fulfill Core Strategy Policies on housing and employment whilst negating several others: Core Policy 5 (reduce carbon emissions), Core Policy 7 (protect open spaces and environmental assets), Core Policy 10 (protect local character) and Core Policy 11 (promote community wellbeing). These policies might as well not exist.

Even more annoying is that the new administration has promised change; they won't be like the old administration under Mayor Bullock, they say. But they forget to admit that Bullock's co-driver was Deputy Mayor Alan Smith, the main person responsible for most of the hideous regeneration plans implemented or planned by Bullock's administration, eg Lewisham Gateway and Millwall. Bullock may have gone, but Cllr Alan Smith is still here and has managed to wheedle himself onto all the most important committees so that he can continue to control and influence our futures with the same machiavellian relish he has always done, in cahoots with the same unelected council officials who are still running the show the same way they always have.


Saturday, June 16, 2018

Object to the No.1 Creekside development!

Proposal for No.1 Creekside on Deptford Church Street
Developers Bluecroft, who bought the MOT site in south Creekside opposite the Birds Nest pub, have put in for planning permission. Find their application here on the Lewisham Council planning portal (Ref DC/18/106708).

To object, email planning@lewisham.gov.uk, put DC/18/106708 in the subject heading and be sure to include your name and address in the content. The deadline for objections was Thursday 14 June, but comments can still be received up until the application goes to the planning committee. Advice what you can include in your objection can be found here.

Already the Birds Nest pub has over 2000 signatures on a petition it started only last week. Fears are that the development will threaten the future of the pub as a long-established live music venue.

Lewisham Council are partners in the scheme, having exchanged the publicly owned strip of wild woodland adjacent to the MOT site (without any public consultation) in return for leasing commercial space in the building which they intend to rent out to provide income to fund council services.

The submission has been made after next to no consultation with local people. The first and only public consultation event was held nine months ago, with no further information provided in the interim. We wonder if this is due to the involvement of the Council, who will be strongly invested in the scheme going through without opposition.

The applicant's 'Statement of Community Involvement' states there were a "multitude of offers extended to the Crossfields estate" to discuss the plans but this is completely untrue! Crossfields Resident Association is a statutory consultee but has not heard a peep out of either Bluecroft or the Council. Perhaps this is because the feedback from the one single consultation event back in September 2017 (revealed in the applicant's 'Statement of Community Involvement') was shown to be almost overwhelmingly against the plans.


Concerns raised at that time were about:

– the height and massing and the impact on the streetscape and character of the area in a Conservation Zone
– the loss of light and privacy for adjacent residents and overshadowing of amenities
– the loss of existing pollution-mitigating trees and green space
– the affordability of the housing
– the affordability, necessity for, and unlikely success of the commercial space, and
– the impact of construction in an area already plagued by the pollution of construction work.

After nine months, the applicant has failed to address any of those concerns.

The scheme is still an over-development of the site, greatly impacting on the Conservation Zone. It says it's 8 storeys, but in fact it's 11 in the tower next to the Birds Nest and 9 in the south tower (there are two extra floors in the roofs and two in the double height ground floor). The scheme also fail to take into account the Council-led plan to develop Tidemill on this same corner; two new developments here will change the local character (one of open and green space) forever.

A Daylight Assessment is supplied which shows that BRE guidelines are being breached in many cases, with overlooking issues for some. The impact of overshadowing by the building is shown for March, but omits the detail for June and December which usually accompanies such applications.

The Arboricultural and Ecological Assessments both conclude the trees and green area that will be swallowed up by the scheme have no value, despite the pollution they help mitigate. The Ecology survey was done in winter, omitting to measure the abundant wildlife habitat of warmer months.

The affordable housing quota is only 35% and the affordable units are separated from the private flats by a 'poor door'. The newly elected Labour administration pledged to "achieve 50% genuinely affordable homes in developer-led projects".

There is no full business case provided to justify the need for the commercial space, nor any indication of rent levels. It is hinted that the space could be let out to all sorts of businesses rather than the creative uses it is said to accommodate. Lots of new workspace will be provided by other new developments in Creekside, and there is no shortage of un-let office and retail space in the area.

No Construction Logistics Plan is provided to show how construction vehicles will enter and leave the site during the build. Although one cannot object to the disruption caused by construction, the air quality of Deptford Church Street is extremely poor, so any impact on traffic needs to be shown.

We'll cover the development in more detail in the next post.

Friday, June 15, 2018

Save Tidemill & Reginald House update

Save Tidemill campaigners met with the new Mayor of Lewisham Damien Egan and new Cabinet Member for Housing Cllr Paul Bell on Tuesday evening to demand that the redevelopment plans for Tidemill be re-drawn and that Reginald House residents, whose homes will be demolished as part of the plans, are given a ballot on the regeneration of their homes.

Before and during the meeting protesters staged a demo outside Lewisham Civic Suite, with their numbers swelling as night fell.

Save Tidemill campaigners outside Catford Town Hall on Tuesday evening

The meeting and protest came the day after a small group of Save Tidemill members, accompanied and supported by GLA Member for Lewisham & Greenwich Len Duvall, met with the Deputy Mayor of London for Housing James Murray to discuss how the GLA might 'call in' the scheme in order to explore alternative options that took the local community's needs into account. But later on the same day, to Len Duvall's great annoyance and campaigner's disappointment, the Mayor of London announced his final word on the scheme and passed it back to Lewisham Council, having declined the campaign's request for the GLA to take control of the development. 

But he also urged the Council to give Reginald House residents a ballot. Monday's GLA report stated, "in line with his Good Practice Guide the Mayor wants to see ballots used as widely as possible, and so he would urge the landlord of this scheme to undertake one”. 

The GLA signed off on providing funding for much of the affordable housing on the site earlier in the year, which led to Reginald House residents (as one of 34 sites due for demolition across the capital where planning permission has already been granted) being exempted from the new ballot rules when they are implemented. So this was either a cop-out or a challenge to Lewisham Council: if the council is actually behind the idea of ballots (as promised in the Lewisham Labour manifesto), there might still be time to implement one for this scheme. The GLA knew there was still time to change.

Although the plan to demolish Reginald House was approved by the planning committee in September 2017, the process is still incomplete and requires a sign off on the Section 106 agreement with the development partners, housing association Family Mosaic (now part of Peabody Homes) and private developer Sherrygreen Homes. In addition, the contract with them was signed 4 years ago this very month and is due for renewal. During that time, Family Mosaic have merged with Peabody. So it sounds like a great time to review the contract, and for a new administration to embark on a bold new plan to get a better deal than the original contract which sees our dear leaders disposing of publicly owned land to private developers for a quarter of its value.


Campaign banner on the side of Frankham House

Len Duvall also joined and led the meeting with Mayor Egan and Cllr Bell on Tuesday evening on behalf of the campaigners, and opened up the discussion for everyone to speak. Apart from the demand for a ballot for Reginald House, the main request was that Egan and Bell go back to the drawing board with the plans for the site and not push through the current plans which so many local people oppose. 

Save Tidemill said their alternative architectural plan for the site (which Egan and Bell seemed unaware of) showed that it is possible to keep Reginald House and Tidemill Garden whilst building at least the same number of units as current plans; it demonstrated that there was another way. Unfortunately, when originally presented to the Council and its partners in 2016, it had been quickly dismissed without any consideration. Monday's GLA report noted that the alternative plan hadn't even passed through any pre-application examination, but in reality this was because the Council hadn't permitted any examination to take place. 

Save Tidemill told Mayor Egan and Cllr Bell how they have continually tried to engage with the planning process but have been ignored and even sneered at by the Council's development partners. Len Duvall said the community and the residents of Reginald House had been treated appallingly by the Council and this should never happen again. Both Egan and Bell blamed the previous administration for the way things had been handled, with Bell stating he would not entertain the scheme in its present form if it were to come to him now as a new proposal. 

The fact that the new Mayor was Cabinet Member for Housing in the previous administration and would have therefore overseen the scheme was defended by Cllr Bell with the assertion that the new Mayor will no longer be the sole decision-maker in Mayor & Cabinet, unlike his predecessor, Mayor Bullock. One wonders what exactly Egan was doing all that time as he seemed (as did Bell) not to be at all familiar with any of the details of the Tidemill scheme (other than perhaps the affordable housing quota). Cllr Bell then robustly defended one of the campaigner's claims that making Mayor & Cabinet more democratic made no difference because it was still the same unelected Council Officers who were running the show and lying to Councillors in order to get schemes approved. It was later revealed that Cllr Bell had come to the meeting armed with inaccurate figures prepared by those same officers.


Campaigner outside Catford Town Hall on Tuesday evening

The regeneration plans for Tidemill were drawn up by the Council more than four years ago, in a process which began in 2008 after several permutations looked at how the land at the old Tidemill School could pay for the blingy landmark Deptford Lounge, the development of which LBL had fronted and which the school moved into in 2012 (and promptly became an academy!). The housing element of the scheme was built by Galliard and sold to L&Q and is now known by its tenants as the Titanic as it was so badly built. Two other council blocks in Giffin Street were originally included for demolition in the Tidemill scheme, but were dropped from the final plans due to fierce opposition from leaseholders. In 2014 Family Mosaic won the tender to deliver the scheme and promised to provide 35% affordable housing. However, they were unable to deliver more than 11% (or 16% according to the Council) when the application went to planning in September 2016. This was the main reason it got 'deferred' and sent back to the drawing board by the Strategic Planning Committee. 

Campaigners outside the town hall


Another year went by while Reginald House residents waited to find out their fate – with their lives, as well as repairs to their homes, on hold.

Although very little at all changed on the design of the scheme, the September 2017 application saw quite an improvement in affordable quotas, due to Family Mosaic's convenient merger less than a month before with the much larger Peabody Homes, who have better access to GLA subsidies. The quota rose to 37% (or 41% according to the Council) and the application was passed by 4 out of 6 members of the Strategic Planning Committee (with 3 of the committee being absent!). In the meantime, the GLA policy had changed and they now required schemes to have 50% affordable in order to access funding. So it was another six months before a figure just below 50% (the Council say 54%) was achieved due to the Council accessing its magic money tree and finding an extra £4.2m to contribute to the project in March 2018. As we have written before, none of the figures are publicly available, but it is unlikely that Sherrygreen Homes will be out of pocket and will still make a guaranteed 20% profit on the development, subsidised by public funding. 

Currently the proposals are for 209 homes, of which 74 would be 'socially rented'. While the tenants at Reginald House have been promised (nothing in writing) that they will pay the same Council rents as they do now, everyone else housed from the waiting list in the new 'social housing' will in fact have to pay London Affordable Rent, which in Lewisham is actually around 37% more.


As if you didn't know by now, the Council's plans also require the destruction of the Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden, a thriving 20 year old community garden originally created by children, teachers, and parents from Tidemill School with public funding. When the school moved, the garden was taken over by Assembly SE8 and local volunteers, who developed it into an educational and community wildlife garden that attracted both funding and ultimately accolades from the GLA Greener Cities programme which cited the garden as a case study in August 2017. The planning submission in September 2016 put paid to all this educational and outreach work as who would fund a space that might close at any minute? But volunteers have been trying to keep the garden open ever since with occasional events, and have kept the grounds in great shape. 
Events in the garden this June (click to enlarge)
Meanwhile, the Council insists on referring to it as 'meantime use' which negates the fact that it is an open green space that has existed for more than 20 years in an area where green space is being depleted. They even managed to persuade the GLA planning officers that it was merely a bit of brownfield scrubland that local volunteers couldn't manage to keep open regularly enough for it to be considered a public amenity – conveniently forgetting to remind the GLA how one of its other departments have supported and promoted it so keenly. 


Reginald House residents have been living with the threat of demolition for 10 years. More recently they have been harassed by council officers continually wanting to assess their housing need and to see proof of identity of everyone living in the property. One resident told the meeting with Egan and Bell how she had been racially abused by a council officer when she refused to answer the door to them, news of which appeared to shock them deeply. The Council has not responded in any meaningful way to the residents’ most recent petition (signed by 80% of them) other than by an acknowledgement from the Housing Strategy Team that could be read as a threat to keep harassing them. 
The Council's response to the Reginald House petition (click to enlarge)
Pauline, Sonia and Diann asked Egan and Bell not only for a ballot but also for Lewisham Homes to undertake repairs needed to their homes to make them safe and decent. Reginald House is structurally sound and has had a new roof, boilers, kitchens and bathrooms within the last few years. However Lewisham Homes has been ignoring requests for minor repairs, whilst failing to carry out more major refurbishment such as double glazing, external decorations and new fire-safety front doors. This has left the tenants with rotting and drafty windows, blocked sinks, unpainted walls, dangerous electrical powerpoints and other neglected repairs including front doors that not only don't meet fire safety regulations but are also falling off their hinges.  

After hearing about the harassment by council officers, the lack of formal written offers and the appalling state of non-maintenance of their homes, Cllr Bell told the tenants at the meeting “I personally guarantee that I will look at it myself” before passing the buck to local councillor Brenda Dacres who was also in attendance. God knows how Dacres is going to find time to liaise with Lewisham Homes on tenant's behalf, having just become joint-Cabinet Member for Parks, Neighbourhoods & Transport with responsibilities for "Arts, Sports, Leisure, Culture, Town Centres, High Streets, Night Time Economy Strategy, Parking Enforcement, Highways and Transport".

The residents kept saying they did not want to lose their homes and were not interested in the new homes, but Bell's response was to continue to encourage them to consider how they would best like to be accommodated in the scheme – ultimately sounding, in his repetition, not dissimilar to a holiday resort timeshare rep – whilst insisting that “the Council’s biggest priority is its residents”.

We have to wonder exactly what Lewisham Homes' role in estate regeneration is. They seem to be complicit in 'managed decline' (when an estate is allowed to get run down over a number of years prior to long-planned redevelopment, a tactic used most often to justify demolition) whilst benefitting from it. An FOI request has revealed that in the time that £104,000 was taken from Reginald House residents in rent and service charges, only £126 was spent on repairs. We have seen the same at Achilles Street in New Cross, where repair expenditure over 6 years was less than £240k while income to Lewisham Homes was over £2.6m, and the Council's plans for that site (the demolition of 87 homes and 15 or more independent businesses) haven't even gone to planning yet. 

Reginald House residents have heard very little from Lewisham Homes but a lot from Lewisham's Housing Strategy Officers, whose verbal promises have not been supported by written assurances. Tenants fear their close-knit community will be broken up, they'll be given smaller homes, have their rent increased and lose their gardens. Even with the best promises in the world, they don't want to leave the homes that they love. Their roots are not just in the area, but in the very fabric of their homes.


Reginald House and the garden beyond (Winter 2018)

Campaigners are hoping that Egan and Bell will spend further time in considering their demands, and come to a more enlightened and progressive view on how the scheme proceeds. Ideally they might reflect on their election pledges to offer ballots to residents threatened by demolition, and not to sell strategic land to developers. Both pledges negate what is happening at Tidemill, and the power is now in their hands to change things. 

They could pay more than lip service to existing core policies such as Objective 5 (to reduce carbon emissions), Objective 7 (to protect and capitalise on open spaces and environmental assets) and Objective 11 (to strengthen quality of life and well-being). With 79 trees proposed to be felled at Tidemill Garden, perhaps they could also pay attention to their Biodiversity Action Plan in which they promise to "maintain, protect and increase the number and quality of trees in the borough" and that's not even mentioning the full biodiversity of Tidemill Garden, let alone the opportunity it offers local people, especially children, to experience nature on their doorstep, instead of being municipalised into a clinical environment by a remote elite in Catford.

In the past, Cllr Bell supported the local campaign "Don't dump on Deptford's Heart" to stop Tideway Tunnel from taking over the green amenity next to St Paul's Church on Deptford Church Street to build a shaft that could have been built by the river. Locals lost that campaign – as well as 44 trees and a large chunk of green. Tideway construction vehicles are now queuing up in a lorry park on Deptford Church Street, adjacent to Frankham House (and opposite Cremer House) with the bus lane disabled, contributing to increased pollution in Deptford Church Street that is unmitigated by the loss of trees at the St Paul's site (till 2022), and will not be helped by the loss of green space at Tidemill. Nor at No.1 Creekside, but that's another urgent post to come. 

In 2013, while serving on the Strategic Planning Committee Cllr Bell was minded to refuse permission to Workspace plc for their redevelopment of Faircharm Trading Estate. At the meeting he made an impassioned speech about how "Deptford is always being 'done to' – and never 'with' ". He's now in a better position to stop us being 'done to', but the impression campaigners got at Tuesday's meeting is that there won't be any changes at Lewisham Council that will benefit Deptford any time soon. 



To arrange interviews with Save Reginald House and Tidemill campaigners, or for more information on the campaign please contact Harriet Vickers, 07817724556, harriet.vickers@gmail.com

Also see the Save Tidemill Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/savetidemill/