No1 Creekside – Lewisham passes another bad scheme without any scrutiny

Chair of Lewisham’s Strategic Planning Committee, Cllr John Paschoud, recently posted on his Facebook page about the new scheme that he and three other members of the committee passed with very little scrutiny on 26th March for No1 Creekside.

A visual of  the scheme – we've incorporated the proposed Tidemill development on the left
(where 74 trees were demolished) to show the local impact – No1 Creekside on the right.

He begins: "Following the decision by Lewisham Council’s Strategic Planning Committee (of which I’m Chair) on 26th March to approve the development of 1 Creekside, Deptford, two rather poorly informed stories have circulated..."

Cllr John Paschoud's Facebook post

We wrote about the scheme when it first appeared as a detailed planning application in June last year (here and here). There were so many things wrong with the proposals, but two notable things stood out.

Firstly, the applicant’s own Air Quality Assessment stated that occupants on the lower floors would not be able to open their windows during peak traffic periods because the pollution was so high. Secondly, it was quite obviously a ‘poor door’ scheme.

The “two rather poorly informed stories” which Cllr Paschoud refers to are exactly these: the pollution on the site and the ‘poor doors’ aspect of the scheme.

The first apparently 'poorly informed' story is a Guardian report – 'Housing approved despite pollution warning to keep windows shut'.

The same story was then taken up by The Times (see below), The Independent, the Daily Mail and Sky News, who we can presume were also all poorly informed.

The Times story nicked their headline from local blogger The Deptford Dame

The story seems to have originated from a press release by Green candidate for the London Assembly Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who previously stood for the Greens in the Lewisham East by-election. Rosamund has been campaigning against pollution ever since her young asthmatic daughter died in 2013. The press release was well timed to coincide with Sadiq Khan’s Ultra Low Emission Zone which started on 8 April. And this week, we have Extinction Rebellion, just to rub it in.

The Guardian published the story on 12 April (though Cllr Paschoud claims it was 13 April), soon followed by the others who did a little googling and stole some headlines from local blogs, whilst Sky News popped down to film the site on the 13th for broadcast on rolling news all Saturday evening. Embarrassingly for Lewisham Council, the Sky News story also managed to capture potent images of the current protest on Tidemill Green on the other side of Deptford Church Street.

In his Facebook post, Cllr Paschoud takes issue with the Guardian report, saying, “If the Guardian journalist had read the written evidence in the public reports considered by the Planning Committee, or listened to the discussion at the meeting, she would have realised that the Council had required the developer to provide a ventilation system that will take clean air from the roof and deliver it to the first two floors of the flats…”

Cllr Paschoud's second apparently ‘poorly informed’ story was about ‘poor doors’ and stemmed from a petition begun by one Ray Woolford which was then covered by the NewShopper. Woolford doesn't have many fans in Deptford, let alone Catford, and the petition is badly worded, but Cllr Paschoud claims it was an unsubstantiated “allegation” and insisted that “The development will be made up of two blocks and will not include any ‘poor door’ entrances”.

We were at the planning meeting on March 26, so we'd like to take Cllr Paschoud’s denials one by one in the context of that meeting, and his part in it. But first, a little background…

Background

The owner of the site is Bluecroft Property Development who bought the site in May 2014. They then began pre-planning talks with Lewisham, and in July 2016, Sir Steve Bullock’s cabinet approved the sale of public land adjacent to the site in return for commercial space in the scheme which it would lease back. No local consultation took place over the disposal of this land which had remained undeveloped since the 70s when housing was demolished to make way for road widening which didn't happen. The land grew into a wildlife space full of biodiversity and was presumed by locals to be part of the Crossfields Estate and was used by residents. It also contains several mature trees which have been mitigating the pollution at this part of Deptford Church Street where traffic slows down for the roundabout.

No1 Creekside became a co-development between Bluecroft and Lewisham Council, but at the planning meeting, only Bluecroft was identified as "the applicant" even though Lewisham Council is fully invested in it. It is intended to provide revenue for the Council through them letting so-called ‘creative space’ at ‘affordable’ rent levels. There is no contribution from the developer to subsidise the commercial space as they have already condescended to provide 11 ‘affordable’ and 9 shared ownership out of a total of 56 housing units.

Cllr Paschoud boasts this is 36% affordable housing, when the target set by Mayor Egan is 50%. Because it's not 50%, it doesn’t qualify for the GLA’s fast track subsidy. Anyway, back to those ‘poorly informed’ stories…

Poorly informed story #1 : Housing approved despite pollution warning to keep windows shut

While Cllr Paschoud criticises the Guardian journalist for not having been at the meeting, read the documents or listened to the discussions, it was as if he hadn’t been at the meeting himself.

He certainly doesn’t seem to have listened to anything said in the 20 minutes allotted to local objectors, some of whom will be directly affected by the development.

One objector spoke specifically about pollution, and handed the committee copies of a report produced by Citizen Sense, the Goldsmiths University academics now based at Cambridge University who had scientifically measured the air quality in various parts of Deptford between 2016-17. Their focus was on particulate matter PM2.5 and their research was then gathered into a set of ‘data stories’ with their overall findings for Deptford reported in the press in late 2017.

The report circulated to the committee specifically addressed their findings in Creekside (and can be found here) where the air was monitored for several months from a 4th floor flat on Crossfields. There was, perhaps, no need for the committee to read any further than the opening paragraph of this particular 'data story' which says:

“The Creekside area is adjacent to Deptford Creek, and is surrounded by busy roads, including Deptford Church Street. There are numerous construction sites in the area, as well as cultural spaces and low-rise and high-rise housing. Key findings indicate that automobile and HGV traffic  are primary sources of PM2.5 emissions, especially on Deptford Church Street. These emission levels are most likely made worse by extensive construction activity and construction-related traffic in that area.”  

The objector noted that although the planning officer acknowledged there is evidence of PM10 and NO2 in the area, he had made no mention whatsoever of PM2.5 which is the more dangerous form of pollution.

She explained to the committee that PM2.5 has a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, about 3% the diameter of a human hair. Since it is so small and light, it stays in the air longer than heavier particles, and can bypass the human nose and throat and penetrate deep into the lungs and blood, causing premature death from heart and lung disease, whilst worsening chronic respiratory conditions.

As we have pointed out before, the GLA includes Deptford Church Street in its Air Quality Focus Area (AQFA) monitoring, but Lewisham Council’s own monitoring concentrates on Evelyn Street only. The officer admitted in his report that there is currently no official monitoring location on Deptford Church St.

The Citizen Sense data showed that on multiple occasions, levels of PM2.5 in the area was up to SIX to EIGHT times higher than World Health Organisation guidelines. The high levels measured on the 4th floor at Crossfields were only second to the meter-breaking readings taken at Deptford Bridge at 3rd floor level above the busy A2.

The high readings at Crossfields were due to traffic on Church St to the west (including increased construction traffic and now also the Tideway site), and to the east the construction sites at Faircharm and Kent Wharf (now completed), with attendant HGVS, idling cement lorries, as well as the Tideway site at Greenwich Pumping station (on-going).

However readings taken adjacent to Tidemill Garden were within guidelines. This is where the Council has just demolished 74 trees on the same day as they passed a motion on Climate Change Emergency at Mayor & Cabinet (27th March).

Citizen Sense say the loss of vegetation in the area could influence PM2.5 levels and decrease the ability of vegetation to trap particulates. They also say that mature trees can provide effective means of trapping particulates as well as gasses such as NO2 and CO2, thereby mitigating climate change.

But the objector’s main point was that the highest readings of PM2.5 had been taken at height, and therefore drawing air via a ventilation system from the roof of No.1 Creekside would not help mitigate the air quality on the lower floors. 

Professor Jennifer Gabrys who runs the Citizen Sense project had been unable to attend the planning meeting, so we asked her to comment. She said “the idea that clean air could be taken from the roof of this development to ventilate the building does not hold up to experience – and actually sounds quite hazardous.”

A pollution map showing the accumulated effect of so many construction sites and attendant vehicles in the area was also distributed to the committee.

Click to enlarge

None of this seemed to bother them, as the planning officer proposed conditions for the scheme to mitigate the problem: the homes (and commercial spaces) on the affected lower floors would be ventilated by air drawn from higher up the building (as Cllr Paschoud said) and occupants would be informed of the health dangers of opening their windows. As the Deptford Dame wrote recently, most of those affected would be lower income families, and if the owners of private units were letting out their properties, how would the warnings be passed to the potential tenants?

Another condition proposed was that pollution monitoring would take place over a six month period before construction started – but again PM2.5 was not mentioned. Surely monitoring after an application is passed is plainly a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Lastly, the officer’s report noted that the GLA’s Air Quality Focus Area Policy states that developers must not introduce occupiers into areas of known exceedences. Yet this is exactly what the planning officer is recommending and what the planning committee – and even the GLA itself – have approved.

Poorly informed story #2: Poor Doors

In his Facebook post, Cllr Paschoud kindly provided his understanding of 'poor doors' which he described as “separate entrances or lower quality shared amenities for tenants of social housing compared to the communal facilities enjoyed by those who have purchased flats in the building”.

Er, yeah, John, the first bit about separate entrances?

At the planning meeting, the 'poor door' element of the scheme completely escaped the attention of the committee at first. The applicant’s representative was very keen to point out a new proposal in the scheme – that residents of the two separate towers will share a third floor terrace amenity.

He said he felt this was a timely concession, considering the report in the Guardian the day before. The Guardian’s controversial story of 25 March was about a development in Lambeth where children in affordable housing were blocked from using a communal playground. The committee was so keen to pass the scheme they didn’t notice the implications of this announcement.

It was only some way later into the meeting after one of the audience shouted out “Poor Doors!” that Cabinet Member for Housing Cllr Paul Bell finally picked up on the issue. He asked for clarification. Cllr James Walsh then asked why the affordable flats were not ‘peppered’ throughout the development, as Lewisham policy demanded. The answer from the planning officer was that they would be easier to manage if they were all in one block.

Cllr Walsh then voted for the scheme along with the other three idiots, while Cllr Bell abstained.

In his Facebook post, Paschoud goes on to say “Lewisham Council already has strong planning policies to prevent such discrimination in any new development and 1 Creekside is no exception to this". He said the committee had received “comprehensive assurances that the standards of build and finish was truly ‘tenure blind’. The development will be made up of two blocks and will not include any ‘poor door’ entrances.”

He went on to persist with the red herring about shared amenity space: “Members did raise concerns about any possibility of discriminatory access centred on the communal outdoor play area (at third floor level partly to expose children to lower levels of traffic-generated pollution), and therefore members proposed the following extra condition to be attached to any Planning permission granted:
 "Communal amenity space accessibility: The entirety of the communal outdoor amenity space located at third floor level in the development shall be made fully accessible and available to all residents of the scheme hereby permitted irrespective of residential tenure and the means of access from both the north and south cores (as per approved Drawing 100/006/Rev 0) shall remain serviceable at all times and in perpetuity."

This completely fudges the fact is that there are two separate towers. The north tower will house the ‘affordable’, the south tower the ‘private’. That the towers are joined on the third floors doesn’t excuse the reality that they will have separate lifts, and the entrances to those lifts are, well, ‘entrances’. Different entrances.

The only bit of ‘peppering’ occurs in the north block where the roof will contain a private penthouse. Other than this, it’s a pretty open and shut case, and hardly ‘poorly informed’.

2+2=5…(more disgraceful double-think)

Cllr Paschoud ends his Facebook post with an image of the planned 'third' floor to illustrate how all occupants will have access to the polluted 3rd floor terrace – as evidence that this is not a 'poor door' scheme.

Click to enlarge

Changing the subject slightly, this illustration is notable in that the Planning Report states with authority that the majority of flats will be dual aspect. 'Dual aspect' refers to windows on two or more walls that allow for views in more than one direction. But the plan clearly shows that only 3 out of 7 of the flats are dual aspect on the 'third' floor.

The so-called 'second' floor plan shows that only 4 of 10 units are dual aspect. On the 'first' floor there are only 5 out of 10. Things improve on the 4th and 5th floors ((5 out of 8), but this is still a clear example of the sort of sales talk that appears in the planning report – and which the committee did not think to question.

Click to enlarge

Perhaps the most glaring fudge (or lie) is the stated heights of the buildings, which are described as 6 and 8 storeys. Objectors claim it is really 8 and 10+, but the officer insisted his numbers were perfectly accurate.

This is because he counts the double height ground floor (which has a mezzanine floor) as one storey, and does not count the roof which will house double height penthouses in both towers. To describe the scheme as “up to 8 storeys’ is duplicitous, but the committee were happy to accept the officer's explanation without question.

If the committee had bothered to look at the plans in any detail (as Cllr Paschoud claims they did) they would have been able to count for themselves. Have a look yourselves (click to enlarge).

Why lie about the true heights? Is it that so many of Lewisham's core policies are being flaunted by this scheme (including their Tall Buildings guidelines in Conservation Areas) that admitting the real heights would stop the scheme?

This is important though. Mainly because no one knows what floor is really the 'second' floor when referring to the occupants’ requirement to keep their windows shut. Nor whether the shared third floor terrace is actually safe for children to play, when it is actually the fourth floor  (the level at which Citizen Sense measured extremely high levels of PM2.5 on Crossfields – or the third floor where readings were off the scale).



More fudging: 'planning harm' not considered reason for refusal!

More ‘fudging’ comes in the form of the attention paid to BRE Guidelines and space considerations play in planning applications, hitherto an important tool for local authorities to measure 'planning harm' (eg detrimental impact to new residents and on the existing community etc). According to the officer’s report, it would seem the BRE guidelines are irrelevant – especially when you’re keen to drive a scheme through.

In the scheme itself, some windows are not BRE compliant, but apparently they are “compliant with the aspirations of the BRE guide”. Since when have ‘aspirations’ been an acceptable measure of ‘planning harm’? 

As the Deptford Dame pointed out, some of the new units will be small, poky and enjoy very little light. But of this, the officer says in his report “this is a planning harm, which when balanced against the proposal’s other planning merits and context of the site, is not considered a reason for refusal.”  

The Dame politely concluded that the report contained an awful lot of steering and not a lot of objectivity. Being less diplomatic ourselves, we'd suggest there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the committee – if indeed, the committee had any role to play in what had already been decided.

Further examples of fudging can be found in the loss of light for existing residents of Cremer, and Wilshaw blocks on Crossfields. The development is only 15m away from them, when the rules usually dictate a minimum of 21m. There is loss of light too for Frankham House and to the existing allotment and amenity areas. Transient Shadow Studies for March showed Cremer residents would lose 4 hours daylight, but none were provided for June and December, as is usually demanded of planning applications.

BRE studies were prepared by the applicant's consultants without access to floorplans, even though the affected buildings are owned by the Council and could have easily been obtained. 28 windows are identified in Frankham House as being affected, Cremer House windows were 5% below the BRE guidelines, there were shortfalls of up to 20% at Wilshaw. The impact on the Birds Nest pub was not considered because it is a pub and therefore not 'residential' even though the top floor is the landlord's residence and there’s a hostel above the pub.

853 blog reports that Cllr Paschoud engaged at the meeting after hearing the evidence from residents of Cremer House, claiming to be concerned about the 'planning harm' to them, but this was all smoothed over by the planning officer and accepted. None of the objectors could argue further as they had had their 20 minutes and were not allowed to speak during the Councillor's question time, which was comparatively short since they hardly had any questions.

According to the planning officer, the breaches in BRE guidelines was justifiable because it’s an urban location and these guidelines only apply to the suburbs. In his report the officer claimed that “BRE levels are guidance only, this is an urban site…the degree of harm is considered to be supportable”.

The attitude appears to be that if existing residents don’t like it they can move, and that they had been lucky to have lived next to a site that had remained undeveloped for nearly 50 years. In other words, their time was up.

Protecting nature and biodiversity

Getting rid of the existing trees and wildlife to make way for this roadside scheme contradicts quite a few of the Council’s policies and objectives. As we have stated before, there is a great deal of biodiversity here, but just to remind you, the applicant’s Ecological Appraisal – which found nothing of ecological value (except the trees as pollution mitigation) – was conducted in January 2017 when everything was dormant.

Not to worry though, because although 10+ pollution mitigating trees will be demolished and there is no room for trees on the site, the applicant is going to contribute a bit of cash (loads more than it is committed to pay for pollution monitoring) to replace them ‘in the surrounding area’, where they will take years to reach the same efficacy as their predecessors in carbon capture and trapping PM2.5.

Where are the new trees going to go? There was no updated Landscaping Plan to back this up and show where the new trees will go, and none of the committee thought to question it.

None of them have even been here (perhaps with the exception of Cllr Paul Bell). Back in the 70s, Cllr Nick Taylor organised a coach for the ignorant councillors at Catford, to come down and actually see Deptford, as they had no idea what they were voting to demolish. Nothing much has changed.

Back to construction pollution (and things that didn't come up at the planning meeting)

Cllr Paschoud was defiant in his Facebook post:  “There are already many older flats on Church Street, and the Council and people living there are well aware of the unacceptably high level of Nitrogen Dioxide and other pollution generated by road traffic. In the present housing crisis, nobody would propose evacuating all the residents of all those homes; what we must do instead is to tackle the causes of the pollution affecting all residents, now and in the future.”

We heard the same hollow ring from local councillor Paul Maslin who spoke in favour of the scheme at the planning meeting.

Never mind the fact that Lewisham Council demolished 74 trees at Tidemill Garden on the same day they passed a Climate Emergency motion at Mayor and Cabinet (24th March). 

Lewisham’s policy of insisting on car-free developments is all very well, but this just gives developers carte blanche to build even more densely and build more private housing than is required by the housing crisis – so dense that an air ambulance can’t find a place to land. Perhaps it would be better to provide facilities for electric vehicles on new developments rather than ban cars completely – even if it takes a while for car owners to catch up.

There is not even enough space at No1 Creekside for six disabled car parking spaces (a request from the GLA). Instead disabled folk must park on surrounding roads and somehow get to their homes or workplace despite their disability. What roads are these? No plan for that was provided.

Meanwhile, it wasn’t made clear how polluting construction vehicles will access the site and whether a build here is sustainable, let alone possible. No Construction Logistics Plan was provided.

TfL had already said no to a loading bay (for the commercial spaces) on Deptford Church Street because of bus and cycle lanes, so the only entrance for the build is on Creekside, where construction vehicles will be taking up space at the entrance to Creekside and where the road is at its narrowest.

When Faircharm was built, cement trucks queued opposite our homes and businesses with their engines idling all the way up Creekside – up to the entrance of Creekside where it meets Deptford Church Street.

But according to the officer, there’ll only be 8 vehicle movements a day, and a Logistics Plan will be secured by Condition. Surely this is something everyone would want to know in advance, before Planning was agreed. "8 vehicle movements a day" sounds rather vague when a Strategic Planning Committee is trying to make decisions about the impact of the development.

Early days on Creekside when redevelopment of Faircharm started.

Queues of cement mixers along Creekside

Nightmare of exiting and entering vehicles at Faircharm, holding up all traffic

According to the officer, the plan “will be considered by Lewisham in collaboration with the Deptford Construction Forum (or Deptford Evelyn Zonal Construction Logistics Forum), which aims to provide an overview to all construction activity and optimise operations to ensure impacts on neighbouring areas are minimised”.

First of all, one suspects that no such forum exists because the Planning Officer can't decide what it's called.

He said it was co-ordinated by the Environmental Team, which is a small team of three people who also have to deal with all sorts of other stuff as well as monitor all the developments in Lewisham.

It's likely there is NO Deptford Construction Logistics Forum. If there is one, local stakeholders have not been invited to take part. Without local representation, it cannot be called a ‘forum’. In planning terms, any mention of this should have been 'immaterial'.

Also 'immaterial' to this application was the reference to a Deptford Creekside Masterplan. This was apparently "currently being prepared" according to the officer's report. None of this was questioned by the committee.

There are apparently proposals being developed by Highways & Transport to ‘upgrade the public realm and roads of Church Street and Creekside’ but the only thing mentioned by the officer was a proposal to remove the ‘mini roundabout’ at the top of Creekside.

This is actually a triangle of pavement – not a mini roundabout. It's a traffic calming pedestrian island, not something people drive round and round. One begins to wonder if the officer has ever visited the site...

He claims that removal of the 'mini-roundabout' would "improve the environment for cyclists and pedestrians", but it’s quite obviously intended to make it easier for construction vehicles to navigate the entrance to No1 Creekside (and actually make it worse for pedestrians and cyclists). If the island wasn’t removed, the construction vehicles themselves would probably demolish it all on their own anyway.

Years ago there was talk of upgrading the main 'Birds Nest' roundabout (now referred to by some locals as the 'Democratic Republic of Roundabout'), reducing Church St to single lanes and widening the middle area into a boulevard of trees. Demolishing a small island of pavement seems to be as far as they’ve got in their Masterplan.

A note on ‘affordable housing’...

Cllr Paschoud began his Facebook post by referring to the 36% affordable housing being achieved at No.1 Creekside, explaining that this included “9 shared ownership and 11 social homes”.

This is yet another example of his disregard for what was said at the planning meeting. Moments before the meeting started, papers were hurriedly passed around as amendments to the Planning Officer’s report. Much of these amendments were corrections to typos in the poorly crafted report, but one of the corrections was revelatory:

Lewisham Planning announced that any reference to ‘social’ homes in the report should be replaced by ‘London Affordable Rents’. 

As Tidemill campaigners have been saying for the past year, LAR is 63% more than Lewisham Council Rents, so any reference to London Affordable Rent being a ‘social’ rent is wrong. Yet this is what Lewisham Council have been claiming for Tidemill (where ‘affordable rents’ will be London Affordable Rent, not ‘social rent’).

The Council (and in particular our local Councillor Joe Dromey) has been saying all this time that they are building ‘social’ homes for ‘social’ rent.

Finally Planning (from whom councillors take their cue) has admitted that these are not to be called ‘social’ – because they are not 'social'. In other words, anyone off the housing waiting list who takes up a place at Tidemill or No1 Creekside will not be able to afford the rent (£3k a year more) and is doomed to remain on housing benefit instead of being able to afford a lower rent in real ‘social’ housing.

Cllr Paschoud has not acknowledged this important amendment and continues to call London Affordable Rent ‘social’ rent. Read all the papers, eh, John?

Who is running the show?

To top it all, at No1 Creekside, there is no Social Housing Partner in place to manage the ‘affordable’ housing. This is usually something that should be sorted out before an application goes to planning, but this lot are leaving it to chance.

No one asked and no clue was given, and this important information certainly couldn't be gleaned from the financial figures published in the applicant's Viability Report which only referenced Bluecroft and not the Council's own resources. Any new deals will all go on behind closed doors as usual.

Likewise, there is no proper body to deal with managing the commercial space. The report claimed this would be a job for Shape Lewisham as if this were a credible funded body. Shape Lewisham is not a buildings manager, it is just a quango set up to explore the feasibility of creating Creative Enterprise Zones. It has £50k in funding from the GLA – not enough to manage a whelk store.

No one asked and no clue was given as to how Lewisham Council will be able to afford to let the commercial space at 'affordable' rates. Perhaps such subsidy will come from the GLA in the future, but none of this was established as solid, so is therefore 'immaterial' in planning terms, and should have led to a review, rather than an approval.

Any more shame for Lewishame?

Finally, this application was rushed through with only one public consultation in September 2017 (the bare minimum required). It was attended by 37 people, over 80% of whom did not support the scheme. The applicant claims in the report to have consulted many times with the Crossfields Tenants Association but have not been in contact with them even once.

As a result of the large number of objections to this application, a local meeting was held at Deptford Lounge in November 2018. The minutes of that meeting were never distributed to the attendees for any kind of approval in order to confirm they were an accurate record, even though email addresses were taken. Instead the shabby and, in parts unintelligible minutes were submitted as an Appendix to the Planning Committee for consideration on March 26th 2019.

What did get taken notice of however, was a 2000+ signature petition from Birds Nest pub regulars and supporters, who claimed that new private residents would get the live music venue shut down because of noise. The Planning officer had therefore sat up and organised some sound monitoring and there were lots of lame jokes at the meeting about the loud Norwegian band they’d had to listen to.

His solution was to introduce more Conditions: the Agent of Change principle would be drafted into the private leases – residents would not be allowed to complain about the noise from the pub. Another Condition was extra soundproofing for the walls but not the windows of the new building, so occupants would still be advised to keep their windows closed.

That’ll really work in summer when people are chatting loudly outside the pub and occupants want to open their windows and balcony doors. Or perhaps they won't want to open their windows because of the pollution. But it's not as though the pub itself is the cause of noise, as the Big Red (which is mostly outdoors) is already causing noise problems for local residents in April, with a different landlord who doesn't give a shit.

New to the committee, Cllr Janie Reid expressed a lot of concern for the future of the pub when it was being discussed, but none for the more worrying issues of pollution and poor doors. She voted for the development regardless.

Oddly, Cllr Abdeslam Amrani was on the committee (he asked no questions and voted in favour), although he is not listed on the official list of Strategic Planning Committee members. WTF was he doing there voting?

Turns out any Chair of the other committees A, B & C can stand in at SPC meetings to make it quorate (more than 3 people). At the time, Cllr Amrani was Chair of Planning Committee A (who deal with tiny redevelopments). Cllr Amrani is no longer Chair of anything since the reshuffle on 3 April (that was quite a reshuffle). Without Cllr Amrani and with Cllr Reid arriving late there was a point where there could have been no meeting.

Such is the state of Strategic Planning at Lewisham. In other words it's already been decided anyway.

Telling the truth

At the end of the planning meeting on 26 March, we went to the committee tables to collect all the unread material that had earlier been distributed to Councillors by the objectors. Not one Councillor had taken with them the chunky but beautifully designed and clearly laid out Citizen Sense document.

Cllr Paschoud was collecting his belongings and we asked him incredulously if he had actually read the planning application. He said “no”.

According to those who know him better, he likes to wind people up. But it would be easy to believe in this case that he was actually telling the truth for once.

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.

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.

Demolition Deptford #4 : Number One Creekside

Another long overdue post...

Back in September, Bluecroft Property (now 'Bluecroft Creekside') held a little-publicised consultation on their plans for Number One Creekside. Attendees could admire a lovely wooden model of their neighbourhood but could only express shock and dismay at the balsa wood representation of the building that Bluecroft intend to construct on the corner of Creekside where it meets Deptford Church Street opposite the Birds Nest.

In a previous post we wrote about how Lewisham Council gifted the developer a strip of green publicly-owned land that runs alongside Deptford Church Street in exchange for a lease on some commercial space in the new building to be run as creative workspace or artists' studios.

Yes, in order to build this monstrosity, we're to lose at least ten mature trees, which help to mitigate the pollution at this stretch of Deptford Church Street, where pollution readings at the roundabout have been as high as 62microns when the EU limit is 40. That is why we're including it in the 'Demolition Deptford' series – it's wanton vandalism of Deptford's green lungs and it's in addition to the 70+ trees that will be lost at Tidemill across the road. As usual it's green space versus housing and employment.

Apart from 'at least 1200sqm of ground floor workspace', the scheme proposes 55-60 new homes. Nothing on the exhibition boards mentioned affordable housing.

The oddly shaped building is made up of two towers joined together by a lower middle area, described as "preserving views between the two and forming a sculpted townscape proposition above a three-storey podium with shared amenity space connecting the two". This indicates that the entire site would have been one huge structure, but for the necessity to "preserve the view" – presumably of St Paul's Cathedral so that it's visible from Point Hill in Greenwich. (That is the usual reason for holes in buildings – such as the one in the ugly Creekside Village building on Creek Road, no doubt masquerading as a 'sculpted townscape').

The gap certainly doesn't seem to be designed to save any sunlight for Frankham House residents as it doesn't line up. Nope, their morning light will be gone, and all their other light removed by the Tidemill development. We'll have to wait for the daylight/sunlight studies in the planning application to see the impact on other residential buildings next to the site, but Cremer and Wilshaw residents will be affected by the building works, Cremer's south facing windows will lose their light and be overlooked, as will the allotments next to Cremer, and the top of Creekside will be impassable during construction.

View from the east – big gap doesn't help Frankham House behind it

As is the case with other monstrosities in the area, the design draws on "the rugged buildings of the industrial mills which remain around Deptford Creek". Actually there is only one mill building remaining  and that's Mumford's Mill on Greenwich High Road. It used to be much needed creative workspace before it was turned into flats, but it's good that the building was preserved for posterity. Yet God knows why dark satanic mills should continue to be referenced – it's hardly appropriate for the 21st century, but planning departments seem to encourage it, using historical precedent to justify developers' profiteering towers blocks, which now seem obliged to have a pitched roof on top.

The area in the 1940s (that's the Bird's Nest in the middle)

Illustration of Hope Wharf, currently going up in Greenwich High Road and overshadowing
Deptford Creek

Number One Creekside encroaching on Deptford Church Street

The north tower next to Cremer House appears to have seven storeys – two taller than Cremer – but we were told the design is still being worked on, and the strangely shaped roof spaces are likely to accommodate another two to three floors of (pent) housing. The southerly tower has nine storeys, with another two/three to be accommodated in the roof area – so potentially 12 storeys towering over the Bird's Nest and Frankham House. The owner of the Bird's Nest was reported as coming away from the consultation in tears. Apart from the nightmare of two to three years of building works, once built, sensitive new residents will most likely make sure this noisy pub is closed down.

Both the developer and Lewisham Planning obviously envisage this carbuncle as a signature building for Deptford Church Street. Coupled with the plans for Tidemill (six storeys to go up opposite this 12 storey tower), the streetscape here is going to change dramatically.

Strangely, the developer's architects also predict a completely new road environment, as they have drawn Deptford Church Street not as a dual carriageway, but as a two-lane road without a central reservation.

View from the north, showing the 5-storey Castell and Cremer Houses on the left

Oh, they said, that's because Lewisham have plans for the road.

Bluecroft had intended to submit a planning application this Autumn and hoped to commence work on the site in summer 2018. Nothing in planning yet, but if they're anything like other developers, they'll submit over Christmas and New Year when everyone's too busy to notice.