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.

Consultation on redevelopment of No.1 Creekside this Thursday 14th Sept

You are invited to a public exhibition to view proposals for the redevelopment of No.1 Creekside. (This is the MOT site near the Birds Nest, as well as the tree-lined land next to it).

Thursday 14th September, 3-7pm
Creekside Discovery Centre, 14 Creekside SE8 4SA

If you can't make it to the Bluecroft consultation on Thursday, you can email them for information at creekside@kandaconsulting.co.uk or call 020 3900 3676. You might ask why you only heard about the exhibition via this blog, rather than, say, a flyer through your door.

In order to provide context for what's going on at No.2 & 3 Creekside, this blog referred to No.1 Creekside in a recent post about plans for No.2 and 3. This linked to previous news about the No.1 site (e.g. when it was first bought by Bluecroft Property in 2014, and then when Lewisham Council gave them the strip of publicly owned green space next to the site).

The planning application for No.2 and 3 is for temporary meantime use of the land at No.2 whilst the owners wait for Bluecroft Properties (now called Bluecroft Creekside Ltd) to reveal their plans at No.1 – apparently so that any permanent redevelopment of No.2 can be designed in keeping with No.1. In other words, if Lewisham planning allow 'Bluecroft Creekside' to build tall and dense, the precedent will be set for 'Artworks Creekside' to do the same at No.2.

Rather than leaflet Crossfields – or at least the blocks who will be affected most (Cremer, Wilshaw and Castell) – Bluecroft's consultants emailed a pdf to the TRA last Friday (so less than a week's notice). Presumably the TRA and local blogs are expected to disseminate the information on Bluecroft's behalf (as we are doing now!).

Planning application for No2 & 3 Creekside

Following hot on the heels of our previous post, Artworks now have a Planning Application in to redevelop No.2 & 3 Creekside. See the Deptford Dame's take on the situation, and find the application here for case number DC/17/102047. Read the "Design & Access Statement" (dated 7 Aug).

OVERSIZED people create a false impression of the impact the containers will have
on the streetscape (p.54 Design & Access Statement)

The obligatory notice that should get posted to the nearest lamppost (or gate in this case) was put up by the applicant over a week late, and the boating community on Theatre Arm – as neighbouring residents (and therefore statutory consultees) – received no notice at all.

A complaint to Planning has resulted in the deadline for objections being extended to 21st September.  So there is still time write to Planning@lewisham.gov.uk quoting the Ref: DC/17/102047 (include your name and address).

Essentially, there is no reason to object to the land at No.2 being used to accommodate some light industry or creative uses, but this could be done in a much less dramatically dense manner than currently proposed (e.g. a maximum of two storeys with fewer containers) and be considerably more sensitive to the present residents on the wharf, leaving them the space under the DLR they currently enjoy.

Restoring the land to its previous use as a working yard would be an improvement, but as Mushroom noted in our previous post, the yard is an eyesore because the owner has deliberately let it get that way over several years. He also pointed out that the Conservation Area Appraisal strongly opposed the impact of shipping containers on the Creekside streetscape. At three storeys, the impact will be considerable. And instead of using bright colours for the containers, they have chosen a depressingly dark grey.

We also note that the applicant refers to its potential tenants as "commercial office space and retail" (p46), which is a slight twist on the idea of the "creative hub" they bang on about elsewhere.

There will be no walking in the road as it will be full of cement mixers heading to Sun Wharf.
The road will be shrouded in darkness (p.55 Design & Access Statement)

And not content with simply providing overpriced workspace for small business (which would fulfil the Cultural Strategy of the Council for this area), the owners are intent on maximising their profits (extracting wealth out of Deptford), by turning the yard into a night-time economy hotspot. Without any regard for their present neighbours, the boat dwellers.

The No.2 land is constantly referred to as the "Big Red site", which apparently provides "social facilities" for APT, Art Hub, Cockpit Arts and Laban (p.9), even though it's been closed for years after going 'bankrupt'. When it returns, it will be surrounded by a number of pop-up food outlets and an outdoor cinema (p.15), all of which will be open late – and all will be serviced "out of operation hours" (i.e. between 2am and 8am).

The boaters are mentioned only twice in the Design & Access Statement (p6 & 15 of a 61 page document), both times in the context of how the Conservation Area Appraisal referred to them as permanent residential moorings that have "helped to retain the function and flair of the historic wharfs...and make an important contribution." But as our previous post revealed, Artworks are intent on pricing them out, restricting the number of boats they can berth, and removing their access.

A Photoshopped view of oversized people standing next to a totally imaginary wharf
wall overlooking an existing barge (p58 Design & Access Statement) 

Lewisham loves trees (except when they're in Deptford)

The Council loves trees

At the Mayor and Cabinet meeting on 29th June, there was an enthusiastic response and approval given to a Biodiversity Action Plan entitled 'A Natural Renaissance for Lewisham'. This was number 13 on the agenda and its priorities emphasised already existing Core Strategies, eg protect all open space including Metropolitan Open Land; protect sites of importance for nature conservation; support and promote local biodiversity; require green roofs and walls where appropriate; implement a Street Tree programme, etc etc.

Point 6.4 of the report states, "Street trees play an important role in London's environment, providing multiple physical and aesthetic benefits. London's street trees principle value is to reducing the impact of climate change on the capital. Trees increase shading, and cooling, they improve street environments and reduce noise and dust from road traffic. Crucially, they also mop up carbon emissions."

Point 6.5 points out the challenges of introducing new trees (for instance, where underground utilities get in the way), but despite this "the Council seeks to maintain, protect and increase the number and quality of trees in the borough through various measures". Point 6.7 acknowledges this is sometimes not possible due to new developments, but "the majority of planning applications achieve a positive biodiversity enhancement from onsite interventions that exceed what existed prior to development."

That sounds like they've got a handle on this tree thing, doesn't it. Apparently "Lewisham's trees are part of what makes the borough so green compared to many other parts of London". Yes, maybe in Brockley and leafy Catford (where there is healthy opposition to the redevelopment of the greyhound track). But not in Deptford, where provision of new (mostly luxury) housing at the expense of trees appears to be much more important than a biodiverse environment, even in Council-led proposals. The Tidemill site is an obvious example.

The Council couldn't care less about trees

After the Mayor and Cabinet had all patted themselves on the back for having such a lovely green borough, they moved through Item 14 and on to Item 15: Disposal of Land at Creekside Part 1.

The accompanying report proposed the "disposal" of Council-owned land on Deptford Church Street/Creekside to Bluecroft Creekside Ltd in return for new commercial space in the development to be owned leased by the Council. It sought authority "to declare the site surplus".

The strip of greenery in question backs onto Crossfields Estate, and can presently only be accessed via the estate. It has long been neglected by the Council and is much overgrown, though has in the past been tamed by some young residents who created a BMX run. An abundance of wildlife exists in the thicket of mature trees and overgrown shrubs. The trees line the road on the approach to the roundabout, reducing the noise and dust from the traffic – and mopping up the carbon emissions.

View of the 'surplus' green area from Reginald Road by the Birds Nest roundabout

Click to enlarge

The report mentioned other options (ie selling the land, doing nothing, or buying the Bluecroft site and building on both plots either on its own or with a partner), but advocated the arrangement described above. Apparently everything was consistent with Lewisham's Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2020:

• Clean Green Liveable – where people live in high quality housing and can care for and enjoy the environment
• Dynamic and prosperous – where people are part of vibrant communities and town centres, well connected to London and beyond

... and with the Council's Community Strategy:

• Strengthening the local economy – gaining resources to regenerate key localities, strengthen employment skills and promote public transport
• Clean, green and liveable – improving environmental management, the cleanliness and care for roads and pavements and promoting a sustainable environment

In addition, the Core Strategy "has the objective to make provision for the completion of an additional 18,165 net new dwellings" [BUT] "This aims to exceed the London Plan target for the borough". [Why?] 

There's nothing in the report that relates specifically to the local residents and people, other than reference to bland policy statements. This is how our lives are shaped – by a remote elite in Catford.

The "commercially sensitive issues around the terms of disposal" were discussed in secret and subsequently approved. Two of the cabinet members backing it are our local councillors, Joe Dromey and Paul Maslin. Perhaps they can explain to their constituents the thinking behind it.

Will the Council's involvement in the Bluecroft scheme help mitigate its potential worst aspects? Could the exchange not have been for accessible social housing instead of commercial space?
Will the commercial space be used to house creative businesses or will it be retail?
Is their control of commercial space in a Council-designated Creative Employment Zone the only way they can ensure that such an employment zone policy is realised (because the other proposed ground floor commercial spaces at the Faircharm and Kent Wharf developments on Creekside will be too expensive for most creative businesses?), ie, will creative space be subsidised?
How much of the Bluecroft development will be genuinely affordable? 
How many more HGVs and cement mixers will be added to our roads?
Does this deal ensure that the development includes an equal amount of green space, ie NO net loss of green space?

No one was aware of the proposal before it came up in Mayor & Cabinet. In their concern for the potential loss of more green space in the area, Deptford Neighbourhood Action (DNA) had previously asked local councillors and officers repeated specific questions about the site but had had no response. The Chair of DNA discovered it was on the agenda at the last minute and attended the meeting, but her request for public consultation fell on deaf ears.

Citing the numerous empty ground floor commercial premises on nearly all the new builds in the area, DNA believe the council will be unlikely to generate ongoing revenue from any commercial space on the site in return for their "gift to Bluecroft". If the Council wants 'planning gain' they'd do better to have accessible social housing there.

Bluecroft could now build up to the boundary of Crossfields, marked by this fence.

Access to the strip via Crossfields

Crossfields Residents Association received a query from officers in charge of the Tidemill redevelopment as to their thoughts on allocating the land to the Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden project as a temporary alternative to the school grounds they will soon be forced to vacate. The offer was not made to OTWG however. It is also part of the Creekside Conservation Zone, but as we have seen in the Tidemill development (where conservation assets have been appropriated into Council-led plans), this means very little – a Supplementary Planning Document, which might have protected the zone and its residents, was never drawn up. 

We wrote about Bluecroft in November 2014, when they had just acquired the MOT Centre at No.1 Creekside and planned 150 flats on the tiny site. With this 'gift' from Lewisham, they now have a larger plot to build in – enough to put up a tower. Locals are now worried that adjacent land (the yard behind the Birds Nest and the building next to the MOT Centre, shown in grey in the map below) may also be sold to Bluecroft by its owner (who also owns the Big Red) – creating an even bigger 'opportunity' for Bluecroft.

Bluecroft own the blue bit; the green denotes present green areas; the thick green line indicates the Conservation Zone; the red hatched area on the left shows part of the Tidemill development which wants to use use the green amenity south of Frankham House as a site compound during construction – after which it will be landscaped just as building starts on the opposite side of the dual carriageway, resulting in a net loss of green space.

Locals also worry that the Council will sell off Sue Godfrey Nature Park, an important site of nature conservation opposite the Laban and Bellway Homes' building site – such is the feeling that the Council don't care very much for Deptford and would be happy to see it turn into a concrete jungle like Lewisham Gateway.

Meanwhle, the canyonisation of the Creek continues, from Fairview Homes at Hope Wharf, Bellway Homes at Sun Wharf, Essential Living at Creek bridge, not to mention another Council 'deal' with developer Kitewood at Thanet Wharf etc etc. No trees will be harmed in the building out of these brownfield sites as none presently exist; but all are very dense developments and only a tiny number of new trees might be planted – in line with Lewisham's view that "the majority of planning applications achieve a positive biodiversity enhancement from onsite interventions that exceed what existed prior to development." 

The Council will always say it can do little to mitigate market forces, but this does not excuse reductions in existing green space as a result of projects that they themselves are involved with. Bluecroft approached the Council to acquire the land at Church Street for a mixed use development; the outcome could have been different if the Council was not trying to exceed the requirement for new homes (most of which will not be affordable) by allowing building on every spare inch of space.

Perhaps the Mayor's cabinet should reflect on the work of Sayes Court Garden CIC, the community project that won space on Convoys Wharf (along with The Lenox Project) and which both Mayors (London and Lewisham) supported. The project celebrates John Evelyn, an influential proponent of the idea of planting trees to clean the air, establishing sustainable resources and giving people access to nature and heritage (the origins of the National Trust).

In other words, the ideas contained in Lewisham's Biodiversity Action Plan had their roots in Deptford, but are at odds with what Lewisham wants to see happen here. Why else are they so complicit in getting rid of what little green space we have?

NB Edited 17 July 2016.

Sun Wharf on Creekside – happening sooner than expected!

Click to enlarge

We touched on Sun Wharf as part of our coverage of the Kent Wharf redevelopment application. Public consultation for Kent Wharf in July 2014 was followed by submission of an application in December 2014 which was passed in March 2015 and work is now well under way. Included in the Bellway Homes' application was an "indicative masterplan" for the entire stretch of land bordering Deptford Creek and Creekside, going all the way down to the railway. It would add a further 242 homes. See Crossfields Estate shaded in red (our addition):

Indicative masterplan, Dec 2014

The Kent Wharf plans mainly showed the present development in context with Laban, as well as an untouched Jones Catering Supplies and Cockpit Arts.

Kent Wharf plans, Dec 2014

With Jones in possession of a lease till 2022, it seemed we might be spared the continuous onslaught of construction work on Creekside. There might be a bit of a breather before Sun Wharf began.

But it would appear from the above public consultation that all obstacles have been removed and Bellway Homes can plough ahead with their masterplan. Jones may have been offered an alternative site to continue their lease (or their lease has been bought out), and Cockpit Arts have been seduced into getting a new 'purpose-built facility'. The speed with which the Kent Wharf plans turned into reality suggests public consultation at this time means the rest of the masterplan could begin at Sun Wharf as early as 2018, around the time Faircharm and Kent Wharf are reaching completion.

As we predicted then, a tower of 14 storeys could easily rise to 18. Here's 2014's building heights:

Indicative masterplan, Dec 2014 (click to enlarge)

Indicative masterplan, Dec 2014

And here's the (only) picture on the front of the consultation leaflet (black biro is ours). My! How that tower has grown! And gone is the old Cockpit building with the Love Over Gold mural – now they're tucked into the development and overshadowed by a 9 (?) storey building! Looks like there will be a lot more than 242 homes now in the highly dense development...

Sun Wharf, Feb 2016 (click to enlarge)

Whilst these rapid changes on Creekside could be viewed with excitement by some, it's rather depressing for local residents – not everyone is out at work every day, and going by the noise and pollution already being created by demolition works at Faircharm (which we'll cover in another post) the prospect of another five years of being stuck in the middle of a building site is not a happy one. On one side is Thames Tunnel at their Deptford Church Street site, and on the other, five new developments on the Creek, plus more Thames Tunnel work across the Creek. There's also another potential Creekside development when No.3 Creekside is sold (quite possibly to Bluecroft who have already bought the MOT Centre).

The Faircharm development has recently generated convoys of HGVs queuing all the way up Creekside to take away demolition materials, but that is nothing compared to the 180 lorry trips per day planned for when construction begins. Whilst Workspace plc have cheated their way out of using the Creek to transport spoil and materials at Faircharm (not 'financially viable'), Bellway Homes at Sun Wharf should have less of an excuse – but they have not used the Creek at Kent Wharf, and there is also the little matter of Thames Tideway Tunnel's plans to use the Creek themselves. Oh, and did we mention the noise? And the floor shaking and the cracks appearing...

What can we get from all this redevelopment? New 'townscapes', a buzzing new street full of cafes and mini supermarkets perhaps? Even nearer gyms, a few galleries? More parking congestion? A one-way street? At least there might be a few more much needed homes for families at Sun Wharf, which is more than you can say for the Faircharm development. Will the Love Over Gold mural be preserved? Those who value it may have to put up a fight as it's unlikely that Cockpit Arts will argue for its retention. What will happen to Cockpit's craftspeople – will they be the first to be offered new creative spaces in Faircharm and Kent Wharf while their building is demolished? (We'll have to ask our designer friends*)...

View our Pollution Survey (May 2014) results here to get an idea of what's in store while this fantastic brand new environment is being created on our doorstep. Meanwhile find out more on Wednesday 24th Feb (3.30-7.30 at Creekside Centre) and on Saturday 27th Feb (11–3 at Laban).

* We asked a friend at Cockpit and she had no idea of the plans.
 

New developer buys into Creekside gold rush...

Number One Creekside is the latest bit of real estate in our vicinity to be snapped up by developers. The owner of this popular MOT Testing Centre (opposite the Bird's Nest pub) has sold out to Bluecroft Property Development.

On their home page, Bluecroft announce their new land purchase (May 2014, apparently) as a site with "potential for a large residential new build development of circa 150 apartments".

In an effort to distance himself from this boast, one of Bluecroft's two directors, Tom Mulligan, told us that this refers to another site in Deptford, but he wouldn't say where. So it's probably this one. With 150 flats to fit in to this medium-sized plot, it is likely there will have to be a tower block.

Tom said they specialised in "Affordable Commercial", a mixed use of housing and commercial space – with the affordable emphasis on units for 'creatives' rather than homes that ordinary people can afford. Conscious that he was talking to a local artist, he was keen to show his awareness of the area already being a 'creative and small business environment'. This is also the designation for Creekside given by the Council, though this did little to stop Faircharm Estate owners Workspace cutting its affordable commercial employment space by two thirds in order to build luxury flats by the Creek.

Bluecroft say it will take two to three years to work up suitable plans and they will do their best to consult with their neighbours, since they "are a small company who cannot afford refusals" – in other words, they cannot afford to appeal if planning permission is refused. It is equally true that the Council cannot afford appeals either – there is only so much they can do in the face of aggressive market interests (and practically nothing at all when Boris Johnson steps in and takes planning control from them, eg Convoys Wharf, where the GLA has bent over backwards to give the Hong Kong developer everything it wants). Anyway, just how small can Bluecroft be if they can also boast a £150m project in a secret location in the City?

The north London outfit are also already ensconced in Lewisham – they include Riverdale House next on their list of recent projects. This is a bit odd since Galliard Homes are already actively promoting a whole floor of (15) properties 'off-plan' in this "all private" development (with no 'help to buy'). One way or another, Bluecroft are partnered with some big sharks.

Perhaps they will operate in a similar way to Cathedral plc's Deptford Project. They 'worked with' the Council in its plans for the new station and claim to have 'worked with the community' (the train carriage and low-rent 'creative' spaces in the arches). They certainly threw some money at the area around their site, but where's their investment in Deptford now? Nowhere to be seen. Since they arrived in Deptford, they've acquired large sites in Greenwich. Building on Deptford Project aka Rise was delayed whilst they concentrated on their Greenwich High Road site, and at Morden Wharf on the peninsula they're now pretending to be terribly concerned about the future of the river (and all those terrible high rise luxury developments!).

Then as soon as building started in Deptford they brought in IP Global to sell their properties overseas. See our recent post, and also the Deptford Dame's new post on local reactions to IP Global's marketing strategies. (See the video which provoked protest at the end of this post). It remains to be seen what businesses can exist and survive in the renovated arches, but the busy market and cafe culture depicted in their visuals will be in shade for most of the day.

Will they be offering special rents to social enterprises? Why aren't they doing that now in another part of Deptford – and showing their on-going commitment to the area? As the ex-director of Deptford X Visual Arts festival often noted when trying to raise funding, developers only give money when they are trying to curry favour. Once they have their planning permission, the funding dries up. This year's (late) funder was Anthology – new kids on the block, and making all the right noises and showing themselves to be well cuddly. They only appear 'nice' because they're not as awful as Lend Lease or, indeed, Hutchison Whampoa.

Still, even if Bluecroft intend to pretend to be friendly (quote Tom Mulligan "I come from an artists' background, so I know all about the arts"), it is blindingly obvious that development is their business and they are out to make shitloads of money (as the Deptford Dame coins it). And that is almost preferable to the deception being forged by the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing that is the owner of Number Three Creekside. Mr John Cierach (whose portfolio also includes the yard behind the Bird's Nest and the Big Red Pizza Bus) claims to be creating a "creative hub" for this little corner of Creekside and has tried to convince locals that he is "fully invested in the creative life of the area". Fully invested alright – with his secret plans to buy the Bird's Nest pub and turn it into flats (so far resisted) and his fanciful idea of building flats under the DLR viaduct (nice!).

[Ironically, whilst Cierach's plans to stage weekend late-licensed live music events attracting up to 500 people give nearby long-term residents on Crossfields much cause for concern, a brand new residential development at the MOT-Bluecroft site would be incompatible not only with that, but with the already well-established activities at the Bird's Nest. Venues are often shut down as a result of noise complaints from people who move into new developments knowing full well there is a lively and popular venue nearby – hence this recent e-petition.]

Ultimately, the issue we have with developers is that they are not building the homes that ordinary Londoners can afford. Creating balanced communities is simply not their business; their role in 'regeneration' is totally skewed. Bluecroft Property's plans may include affordable creative business units but they'll probably be the 'micro' kind suitable only for trendy mobile app designers who have been outpriced in Shoreditch. And then only because the Council have asked them to – so that they can continue to attract development money to Lewisham! But Bluecroft are under no obligation to provide any remotely affordable homes. Are they?


"When the artists start coming, that's when you want to get in" Tim Murphy, IP Global.
Er, they're already here, Tim, you knob, and you're pricing them out so they'll all be gone soon.