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.

More on the Tidemill redevelopment – the impact on Frankham House

Whilst objections may come from many different perspectives (residents in Reginald Road and Hales Street and the environmentalists in the old Tidemill Wildlife Garden), we take a look here at how the proposals adversely affect Frankham House residents.

Last July, the Council 'appropriated' the Tidemill site 'for planning purposes'. The accompanying report stated its purpose was "in order to enable the powers in Section 237 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to be used to ensure that any restrictive covenants or other rights affecting the land can be overridden in the interests of the proper planning of the area, thereby allowing the redevelopment of the land to proceed".

Plan 1 Deptford Southern Sites July 2015 (drawn 2014). The green amenity is bottom right.

The appropriation took in the Council-owned land surrounding the school site, including the green amenity adjacent to Frankham House which borders Reginald Road and was hitherto part of Creekside Conservation Area, along with Frankham House itself.

Creekside Conservation Area designation (in pink)

It is proposed that part of the green will now be built on, and the rest of it be used as a site compound during construction. Hoardings will surround the perimeters of Frankham for the duration, which is presently estimated to be 20 months, but could be more. The ground floor of the south-facing elevations will lose the sunny outlook they've enjoyed for over 30 years (in some cases) when hoardings go up a few metres from their windows.

Proposed school extension and new Block D infringe on Frankham's right of light

In the Conservation Area Appraisal and designation (2012), Frankham House, along with the other blocks on Crossfields Estate, was recognised as "a good example of its time" and Crossfields is "only the fourth social housing estate within the borough that has been identified for its special architectural and historic interest in its own right, and the first 1930s estate to be recognised as such". Frankham House in particular is noted for "its role in forging an urban gay identity in the 1980s" (hence the name Pink Palace for the TRA accommodation within it).

A Supplementary Planning Document (SDP) that should have laid out management guidelines for the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area has never been written. In the Scoping Report prepared for the non-existent SDP, para 14 states that one of the key objectives is: “To protect and enhance heritage assets and their setting, and use the historic environment as a cue to be recognised in new development and for the creation of sustainable places”. 

But, as the 2015 Appropriation report says, "land which has been acquired or appropriated...is authorised even if that development would interfere with any interest or rights affecting the land. The effect of the appropriation is to extinguish any such interests or rights" (paragraph 6.3)... "In view of the potential rights of light ... and other existing interests and rights which may exist, it is recommended that in order to overcome this problem, the land be appropriated to planning purposes, which will enable the developers to rely on the protection provided by Section 237..." (para 6.7)

The integrity of the Frankham House building is now threatened by the proposal for an extension to the old Tidemill school building, with a resulting loss of light and outlook for west-facing Frankham House residents. A small two-storey schoolkeeper's house will be demolished to make way for the extension. The school-keeper's house is described by the temporary conservation officer as too common an example of its kind to be worth retaining – and yet there are hardly any buildings of its kind left in Deptford.

Image taken from a wobbly pop-up exhibition board, Deptford Lounge consultation 20th April

Section of school extension, hidden in the application documents

And the proposal to build a five storey block (Block D) on the green will create significant overshadowing on Frankham's south-facing elevations. The illustration below was shown in the consultation today but is not included in the application documents. (It shows early morning light, so the impact on Frankham cannot be seen).

"A brand new building will overlook the corner pocket park" – view of Block D (in the mornings)

The 2015 Appropriation report goes on, "the developers are carrying out daylight and sunlight studies to assess and seek to minimise the impact on local properties. Further, they are using key principles of maximising daylight and sunlight, creating attractive amenity spaces and ensuring careful consideration of relationships to neighbouring properties."

In the developer's January 2016 application, the Daylight/Sunlight and Overshadowing studies illustrate predictions for March (but not other times of the year when the days are longer, or indeed, shorter). The drawings show Frankham's west- and south-facing elevations being overshadowed when there was no overshadowing before. But the 3D drawings accompanying the study use a north-easterly aerial axis that obscures any view of Frankham's west and south elevations. The real impact on Frankham House is not shown.

Click to enlarge

Para 6.9 of the Appropriation report says: "Assessment of compensation for the loss of rights would be calculated on the basis of the before and after market value of the affected properties. It will be for the owners to demonstrate that that the loss is likely to cause inconvenience to them and affect the enjoyment of their properties and to substantiate any claim for compensation".

Para 10.5: "Therefore, in reaching his decision, the Mayor needs to consider the extent to which the decision may impact upon the Human Rights of estate residents and other affected persons and to balance this against the overall benefits to the community which the redevelopment of the Excalibur Estate* will bring. The Mayor will wish to be satisfied that interference with the rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 is justified in all the circumstances and that a fair balance would be struck in the present case between the protection of the rights of individuals and the public interest".

(* Note: The Excalibur Estate is a 1940s prefab estate in Catford. Did anyone in the Council actually read this document?!)

So, the Council has made sure the developer is protected from any claims for compensation, and if it passes this application in its present state, will be harming the human rights of its existing tenants in order to accommodate the rights of new mostly private residents. Affected existing residents can only claim compensation if they can prove (at their own expense) after the development has been built that the value of their properties has decreased.

Firstly, it is unlikely that values will drop (if inflationary estate agents like Cannon Kaller have anything to do with it), and secondly, no amount of money can compensate for the loss of quality of life. Thirdly, it is stated that only 'owners' can claim compensation – how are tenants supposed to prove the value of their property has devalued? At least 12 Frankham tenants will be severely impacted by these plans. They can't just sell up, they are trapped. Their only recourse would be through the courts. 

A Right To Light expert tells us that local authorities often appropriate land so that developments can proceed without the risk of an injunction being sought against proposals. Where a 237 order has been agreed, it reduces the level of any compensation that residents (both leaseholders and tenants) are entitled to in a Right To Light case.

Para 10.4: "In determining the level of permissible interference with enjoyment the courts have held that any interference must achieve a fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the rights of individuals. There must be reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued. The availability of an effective remedy and compensation to affected persons is relevant in assessing whether a fair balance has been struck".

We do not believe there is "reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued" and certainly not a "fair balance". Why should Frankham House residents (and of course, those in Reginald Road) suffer so that the developers can cram more units onto the site, or create, under the guise of providing a "major new public space", a pompous grand central avenue that affords new mostly private flat dwellers more right to light and privacy than existing residents will receive?  And which will be overshadowed by the flats most afternoons anyway? Any what's the need for a hard paved square when there is one a stone's throw away (Giffin Square)...?

Looking south, "A major new public open space for Deptford", featuring an overshadowed square

Looking north, the new public open space, overshadowed every afternoon.

Lewisham's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Residential Standards states "The minimum distance between habitable rooms on the main rear elevation and the rear boundary or flank wall of adjoining development should normally be 9 metres or more".  The proposed Block D is positioned too close to Frankham House, infringing on the outlook and light of south-facing residents. The maximum distance is 16 metres but the smallest gap is just over 10 metres – this encroachment allows for the 4-5 times as wide avenue between Blocks C and B, an edifice for which there is no justification other than to replace the green lungs of Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden with a manicured (yet overshadowed) public lawn in the middle of a road to nowhere.  

The gap between the proposed school extension and Frankham House, at just over 9 metres, represents one of the smallest gaps between buildings on the entire site. There has been a half-hearted attempt to lessen the impact on Frankham residents by setting back the fourth floor of the extension (not shown in the Design & Access statement), but Frankham's lower floors will still be affected. They may never see light again.

Worse still, to avoid overlooking, the extension will have no windows on its eastern wall, presenting a bleak outlook to west-facing Frankham. This drawing was shown in the Deptford Lounge today but does not appear in the planning application:

Image taken from the wobbly exhibition board, Deptford Lounge 20th April

In fact the drawing shows four balcony areas (in gold). What had originally been a staircase area jutting out from the extension now appears to be accommodation with balconies – so much for no overlooking!

The only "effective remedy" would be not to build the school extension next to Frankham House, and not to build on the green amenity. There is ample room on the site to move Block D back, and the units in the extension could be located elsewhere. Why not stick 'em on another building? Oh, we couldn't do that, said one of the developer's representatives – it would ruin the light for those on the development...

Other gripes

It is also proposed that Frankham residents will be barricaded off from the development with one of the tallest fences proposed on the site. They will have no access to the proposed "private community garden" that they will overlook – unless they are willing to pay towards its maintenance. Hardly in keeping with the much vaunted claim for the "permeability" of the development.

The tallest fences protect the new private dwellings in the school and keep Frankham House out

And with the appropriation of the green amenity by the Bird's Nest roundabout, the developers propose a new landscaped area when construction is complete. It is recognised by the application as an area which "buffers" the busy main road – one of the most polluted roads in this city. In 2014, our own NO2 readings at the Birds Nest roundabout were 62 ug/m3 (the EU limit is 40ug/m3). The landscape architects propose vegetables are grown by the side of the road in partial darkness:

Growing veg next to one of the most polluted roads in London

The Lewisham Open Space Strategy emphasises the need to protect and enhance existing open space and ensure major development sites adequately consider the provision of quality new open space. But the ‘Reginald Road Pocket Garden’ cannot be considered “high quality public realm” because of its proximity to the main road and the failure of the design to take into account the high levels of pollution, volume of traffic and the overshadowing from Block D. 

In a different way, the "major new public open space" running down the centre of the site also hardly qualifies as good public realm – it has no interesting or inspired features, such as community growing areas (and where it would actually be safe to grow stuff). It will be overlooked by new private residents who will resent members of the Deptford hoi-polloi cavorting in the space outside and soon be demanding resident-only access. Or perhaps more likely, they'll be campaigning for it to be turned into a car park for the cars that they will inevitably own but have nowhere to park.

Meanwhile, at the latest consultation – held two days before the application is due to expire – a representative of the developer stated they had no intention of making any further changes to their submission. It also appeared that Lewisham Planning's Case Officer was unfamiliar with many aspects of the proposals. And for Frankham House residents it was a bit of a kick in the face to hear that Lewisham are proposing to incorporate the old school buildings into (the high street?) Conservation Area. What bloody use is that when they can't look after the Conservation Areas they have already?

See previous post...

Further Tidemill consultation: Wednesday 20th April at Deptford Lounge

Sherrygreen Homes' application for the redevelopment of the old Tidemill school has still not appeared before the Strategic Planning Committee. The application was scheduled to expire on 22nd April, but we hear now that there is to be a further formal public consultation next week:

Wednesday 20th April, 3.30–7.30pm at Deptford Lounge

You won't find this on the official Deptford Southern Housing Sites website (of which the 'Frankham Street' proposals form a part). Notification has only gone to those who have submitted an objection. Pop along if you want to know more about the development, or voice your concerns (we have quite a few).

*******

Meanwhile, following our initial post about Tidemill back in February (which commented on the paltry level of affordable housing provision provided in Sherrygreen Homes' application and questioned how the proposals might be financed) the Deptford Dame expanded on the subject. She noted that the Council's original requirement was for 37% affordable units but this number had been vastly reduced in the developer's application.

The total number of units proposed had gone up from 204 to 210, but the social rented accommodation had been slashed from 53 to 26, and shared ownership units from 25 to 8. She concluded that cutting the affordable units made way for an extra 50 private units – from 126 to 176 – so that the developer could make a 20% profit from the site. (Any less than 20% and a site becomes an "unviable" proposition for a developer).

The Dame referred to the developer's 'viability report' which had been included in the 92 documents associated with the application that were available to download from Lewisham's Planning Portal. It claimed that the site was still unviable for them but they might manage a few affordable units since the Council wanted them so much. When we looked for this document we found it had been removed from public view. There are now only 91 documents!

The Dame helpfully links to a long but shocking and illuminating Guardian article which looks at how developers use "viability" to maximise their gains and relieve themselves of any local planning or policy obligations. Viability assessments inevitably underestimate the value of the newly finished units (because figures are based on an average of current property values in the area) while vastly overestimating the costs to build (with an allowance for inflation). Viability is worked out on today's property prices, but tomorrow's costs – and often on land they have acquired at a discount. It's a scandalous abuse of a flawed planning system that has contributed to the housing crisis.

Both the Dame and this blog received an email from the Council a week after her post. She updated her post with the Council's response but did not comment on it; we did not publish the response when we received it, but here are the relevant paragraphs:

When the Council owns the land, as in this case, it can choose, quite separate from the planning process, to negotiate the sale of the land and the volume of affordable housing beyond what is required as part of the planning application.

We are pleased to report that, using this flexibility, we have reached a legally-binding development agreement with Family Mosaic, Mulalley and Sherrygreen Homes that will deliver significantly more affordable homes than that set out in the planning viability assessment. As a result, the proposed development of the old Tidemill school and Reginald Road will provide 37% affordable housing – the target level that was reported to Mayor and Cabinet in July 2015. 

One can only conclude that in order to satisfy the developer's demand for a 20% profit, the land is being sold for less than it's worth.

The arrangement allows our local councillor and cabinet member, Joe Dromey, to happily boast "200 new homes, 40% of which are affordable, and investment in Deptford town centre. It's a good development."

Yes, Joe, it could be a good development, but not in its present incarnation. There are still too many things wrong with this application. But is the Council so gung-ho for it to happen that it would do anything to make it so? Including stitching up its existing tenants and residents? As the Deptford Dame reported, land surrounding the Tidemill school site was "appropriated for planning purposes" last July. This included Council-owned land that was part of a designated Conservation Area. The appropriation has afforded the developer greater protection from any potential compensation claims made by those affected by the development. More on the impact of that decision in a follow-up post...

See follow-up post...

Commenting on the Tidemill (old school) redevelopment

Tidemill site masterplan (p31 of Design & Access Statement). Our annotation of existing buildings in pink.

The Tidemill redevelopment is part of Lewisham's 'regeneration' masterplan for Deptford Town Centre and has been on the drawing board for ten years. It has finally been submitted to Planning and you can 'comment' on it by writing to Planning (include your full name and address and the application reference DC_16_095039). The deadline is 2nd March, but 'objections' can be received up until it goes to the Strategic Planning Committee (the date is unannounced as yet). But if you feel strongly, don't delay, object today!

The application can be found here: http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_82154 . There are 92 documents (under "Documents") – download the 4 x Design & Access Statements to start with. It's where all the pretty pictures are.

Lewisham's Deptford Town Centre plan includes the new Tidemill school and Deptford Lounge development. These were "funded by the future redevelopment of the old school site for housing" (p.18). How does that work then?

The Council has partnered with developer Sherrygreen Homes and housing association Family Mosaic to build out the 'old school site'. It is not clear to the layman how this partnership works. Presently the land and existing buildings are owned by Lewisham. Presumably Sherrygreen will stump up the cash for construction and take a profit on the private homes built, whilst Family Mosaic will administer the affordable homes (including an off-loaded block of tenants currently managed by Lewisham Homes). Or will Family Mosaic also run and maintain the whole site? Who will private leaseholders pay their ground rent and maintenance charges to? Is the land to be sold, or does Lewisham lease it? How do Lewisham make money from this scheme to fund the now well established Deptford Lounge and Tidemill School? What is the track record here, when the school governors immediately turned Tidemill into an Academy, and that other town centre co-development (the station/Deptford Project) ended up with flats being sold almost entirely off-plan in Hong Kong?

Affordable housing

210 homes are proposed. 176 of these will be private. The plan boasts 16.2% 'affordable' homes. That's 34, of which 8 will be 'shared ownership', leaving only 26 'affordable' rents (with 12 family homes). However, the existing Lewisham Homes block on Reginald Road will be demolished and its tenants rehoused in the new development – there are 16 flats at 2-30a Reginald Road, of which 13 are still council tenants. Therefore there will only be 13 NEW 'affordable' rental properties. That's only 6% – NOT 16.2%! This must be the lowest number of new affordable homes made available out of all the new developments in Deptford – and it's a Council-led project. So much for solving the housing crisis.*

A diagram of 'tenure' on p.34 of the Design & Access Statement shows that there are only 18 units available for 'social rent'. If you minus the 13 rehoused tenants then there are only 5 NEW flats for social rent. Is this the best deal Lewisham can get out Sherrygreen Homes?! Of course, after 3 years they all have the Right To Buy, which makes a mockery of Sir Steve Bullock's latest boast of building 250 new council homes. Only yesterday Crossfields residents received a glossy 8-page leaflet from Her Majesty's Government enticing tenants into grabbing their discount of "up to £103,900" to buy their flat. RTB includes Housing Association tenants now, of course. Whilst new tenants here may not easily find the extra £300-£500k to buy their new homes, cheaper public housing in the area is depleting at a rate of knots.

*UPDATE 4 March: The Deptford Dame's new post explains how the developer has stitched up the Council on the affordable homes quota...

Design

There have been some dreadful design layouts previously on the table which have been modified by Lewisham's Design Review Panel. The GLA have also had an input; a couple of local public 'consultations' may have had a modicum of impact too, though a second consultation with affected residents was very poorly attended – no doubt because they were all extremely depressed, and not because they approve. The layout has certainly grown less dense, and heights in certain places have been modified, but Reginald Road residents still face 5-6 storeys and there is a very questionable extension to the school proposed which will have an enormous impact on the existing Frankham House (more below). The high street will also lose a much needed parking area. There aren't a lot of detailed drawings at this stage so it's a bit hard to comment on the actual design.

Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden

The Tidemill garden was originally created by parents, teachers and children at Tidemill School who worked with Deptford Discovery Team and Groundwork UK to transform the playing field in the late 1990s. So trees planted then are now mature. The new plans involve chopping down ALL the trees they planted, including two magnificent Indian bean trees. According to the Design & Access Statement, 36 trees will be removed in all. Another document specifically about tree removal shows 73 trees being removed, with 64 new trees planted. This leaves a net deficiency in the number of trees in Deptford.

Trees to be removed – click to enlarge

Since the school decanted to the Deptford Lounge, it has been lovingly cared for by the 'Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden' group, one of the few good things to grow out of the meantime use of the site. Although public access to the garden has been rather restricted, the group have been good at getting funding, growing food and running educational events and workshops. The garden's continued existence has allowed wildlife to thrive and offered a highly necessary lung to combat the horrendous pollution from one of London's most congested roads.

Naturally, the garden group are up-in-arms about the loss of green space – you can join their campaign here. They have prepared a document for download which provides an interesting analysis of the application in terms of its breaches of the London Plan, Lewisham's own Core Strategy and its own Leisure & Open Spaces Report. It's a very good reminder of how Lewisham pays no attention to its own policies.

OTWG also have a petition: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-old-tidemill-wildlife-garden

The application claims the group were consulted and their ideas incorporated into the plans. The result falls miles short of the group's ideals and borders on the ridiculous with a "Reginald Road Pocket Garden". Despite identifying the green area on the corner of Reginald Road as a "buffer" from the busy main road, the developer now invites us to enjoy a landscaped garden next to one of the most polluted roads in the city, planted with new trees that will plunge all surrounding flats into darkness.

'Reginald Road Pocket Garden' – click to enlarge

Small public park areas have been included in the plans (see p.49 for the Landscape Masterplan) as well as a "communal garden" which is designed to be more private, with access from Frankham House car park or from the new "pocket garden". But access from both is via a "controlled access gate". What's that when it's at home? Locked tightly shut, we expect. Especially if private owners are paying for its maintenance.

Communal gardens behind flats – click to enlarge

Frankham House will in any case be fenced off from the new development by a 6ft barrier, the highest wall on the site...(see p.64 for Proposed Boundary Treatments).

Frankham House

Frankham House comes off rather badly in these plans. Apart from unwittingly bordering a noisy and dusty construction site for the next 3-4 years, their entire outlook is going to change. Plus ca change, you might say. But how would you like a massive blank brick wall as tall as your block looming up in front of your kitchen window after enjoying such a lovely view (!) for so long?

Current 4th floor view from Frankham House

Potential view from 4th floor Frankham

The old school caretaker's house next to the school is to be demolished, and in its place, an extension will be added to the school that has no windows on the side (because of overlooking). Whilst the temporary (so no longer answerable) conservation officer wrote a glowing report on the school buildings themselves, he deemed the school caretaker's house too common an example of its kind to be worth retaining. What a gift to Lewisham's profit-driven partnering developer, Sherrygreen Homes!

Existing north elevation (our red shading)

Proposed north elevation (our red shading)

Click to enlarge. Note the gap between Frankham and the new extension is smaller than the one between the two school buildings and most of the space between all the other buildings. Also note there are much taller buildings proposed behind that butt up to the south end of Frankham but not included in this drawing.

 
The application states that "the historic core of Deptford still survives and is protected by the conservation area designation" (p.8). When the Creekside Conservation Zone (that envelopes Crossfields Estate of which Frankham is a part) was established in 2012 to mitigate against the worst aspects of the proposed new developments on Creekside, Frankham House was initially excluded despite being built around the same time. Residents begged to be included. They had heard rumours that the council block in Reginald Road was going to be demolished and feared the same fate.

The Creekside designation succeeded in reigning in the roadside heights of the new Faircharm Creative Quarter development because the old factory buildings' facades had to be retained. But there appear to be no supplementary planning documents that can be used to stop further developments from canyonising (or Croydonising) the rest of Creekside, and away from the Creek, being part of a Conservation Zone offers no relief to Frankham House either – even from a Council-led development.

Update: A "pocket park" has been proposed for the high street end of the development. Why not keep the old caretaker's house (it may not be a unique example of its kind but is certainly unique in Deptford), surround it with a "pocket park" and build the extension at the other end of the old school blocks? Just an idea...

What are the benefits?

In its preamble, the application talks of the council's plans to regenerate the riverside, town centre and housing estates, which "signal the revival of Deptford's economy" (p.17). No jobs though – not that sort of economy, silly! – but lots of new and wealthier citizens not necessarily shopping locally but definitely increasing the borough's council tax revenue.

As with all the other developments in the area, there are certainly no benefits for Deptford in adding thousands more people to an already bursting transport network, taking away what little green space we have, overshadowing existing residents, providing no additional doctors or schools, filling the air with brick dust, and adding to the huge number of construction vehicles that are already polluting our roads and poisoning us and our children.

Time to update our Fifty Shades of Grey route map again! Here it is with 2014's pollution readings...

Click to enlarge

Oh, and here's another petition, ironically from the Newbould 'Guardians', who the Council bought in (not brought) instead of offering the old school buildings to local artists – because Lewisham's Property Services thought they'd go more quietly when the time came to chuck them out...hahaha!
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-old-tidemill-school-deptford-s-creative-community-space Update: we have been asked to make a correction to clarify that the "Save Deptford" campaign was initiated by 'friends' of the 'creative' Guardians in the old school, not the Guardians themselves (who one can assume would be in breach of their contracts).

Sign them all! Or write to planning.

Plans for Tidemill site – second consultation 10th October

Family Mosaic & Sherrygreen Homes are holding a second public consultation about their proposals for the regeneration of the old Tidemill School site, before submitting a planning application.

Saturday 10th October, 1-4pm, Deptford Lounge

A lo-res pdf of the exhibition boards presented in the previous exhibition in July is available to view on the dedicated website. The second consultation may (or may not) show some changes incorporated as a result of feedback from the first. Residents in Frankham House may want to see if there are any alterations to the proposal to build a five storey extension onto the old school that will butt up against the north end of Frankham. See previous post.

And recent visitors to Tidemill Garden during Deptford X 2015 may wonder which of the "mature trees" will be kept – in particular, two fantastic Indian bean trees that were probably planted by the late Jani Llewellyn, a Crossfields resident and Tidemill teacher who created the garden originally.

The developers will also be consulting on their plans for Amersham Vale on the same day (10am–1pm at the Moonshot Centre).

Tidemill redevelopment 'consultation': Saturday 18th July, 2-5pm, Deptford Lounge

Frankham House residents were given under two weeks' notification of the 'drop-in' being held this Saturday at the Lounge, where the plans for the redevelopment of the Tidemill school site will finally be revealed.

Tidemill consultation: Saturday 18th July, 2-5pm, Deptford Lounge

Frankham House sits on the corner of the site, and residents will be affected by building works which are scheduled to start in Autumn 2016. Presumably those also living close to the site in Frankham Street and Reginald Road will also have been notified. The gardening group, Assembly, who have had meantime use of the school garden area have not. Concerned that there will be a considerable loss of green space (the garden is one of the very few 'lungs' in the area), they have long been requesting site of the plans without success, and have even drawn up plans of their own that maximise use of green space.

Most affected by the proposals are the highly concerned residents of 2-30a Reginald Road whose building will be demolished. 

Others not notified will include those who will be affected by pollution and congestion from construction vehicles using Deptford Church Street (the rest of Crossfields, for instance), and Deptford High Street traders who will be troubled by the loss of parking space in Frankham Street.

The plans have been in development for a very long time amidst huge secrecy, and are fully backed by the council and local councillors, as the proposals are said to include a large amount of affordable housing for rent, shared ownership and private sale, with (apparently) relatively low building heights. A planning application will be submitted later this year.

The consultation notification (dated 7th July) came from Family Mosaic & Sherrygreen Ltd, the Council's selected partners, who will also be redeveloping the former Deptford Green School at Amersham Vale. Family Mosaic said (rather ungramatically), "The events will provide an opportunity for you to update you and receive your feedback on proposals for the development, the design and layout of the new homes and provide information about the construction programme and timescales for completion".

The last time there was any form of consultation was about five years ago when a board was displayed in Deptford Lounge, and information was available if you knew where to look – as Marmoset reported on this blog in September 2010.

Plans have since changed. The Council's website presently says: "A previous proposal incorporated the demolition and rebuilding of two blocks on Giffin Street (no’s 22–80 and 82–150), one block on Reginald Road (no’s 2–30a) and the conversion of the old Tidemill School buildings. However, after carrying out further investigation over the past year including in-depth technical surveys of all the above buildings, we have had to re-evaluate this scheme. Recent information about Lewisham Homes’ planned programme of works and the housing market conditions in the area has also led to us investigating a revised scheme which incorporates the following:
    •    demolishing 2-30a Reginald Road
    •    converting the old Tidemill School buildings into residential properties.
Under the current proposals, 22-80 and 82-150 Giffin Street and Frankham Street parking boulevard would be retained."

UPDATE: post consultation

Unfortunately, there were no pretty pictures to bring away from the exhibition and we forgot to take photos! We were told there will be a website soon. Areas on the plans that were debated were:

– an eastern extension to the old school building would, at five storeys, greatly infringe on the north end of Frankham House, whose residents presently look out over the small two-storey school-keeper's cottage. This would be demolished to be replaced by a sheer brick wall (no windows to overlook Frankham). Really bad for Frankham!

– an area of green space in the south eastern part of the site that would be walled off from Frankham House and paid for by new residents through service charges. It was suggested this should not be walled off and the area used for community growing. Oh but people will want a private area, said the architects, who would like to put a children's play area here "so that parents can see their children playing". Why must it be private? Why so exclusive?

– a wide pedestrian avenue would run from north to south in the centre of the development. The only reason for this, apart from opening up the estate, was some old tosh about it meeting the pathway through the blocks on Giffin Street that in turn would meet the gap between Wavelengths and the new Tidemill school/Lounge. There was apparently an earlier vision to open up one of the arches in 'Resolution Way' to lead through to Crossfield Street on the other side of the railway. Well, what a naff reason! The arch will never be opened up! The avenue is welcome, however. It was suggested the children's play area could go here rather than in the 'private' green area. Oh no, they said, we can't have a children's play area in a public space. What planet are these people living on? Inclusivity makes for a better community than fear-ridden security-driven exclusivity!

More soon... 

Frankham House...a short story...

If I were here I would face so much. So much would be different from before. That is what I thought. So much that I feared I would confront. That is what I believed. So much would challenge me. That is what I hoped. And in my hopeful state I saw me rising above all the challenges that came my way. I would hurdle the challenges. A champion hurdler – that would be myself. In Deptford.

Yes. In Deptford.

Why in Deptford?

Because to my parents Deptford was hostile territory.

Slumming – my Mother said.

Slumming – my Father said.

They both talked to me about the slums of Deptford.

National Front and heroin addicts – they both said that. They talked to me separately. They used the same words – almost the same words. They had a script – or, that is how it seemed.

To read more....go to smokealondonpeculiar.co.uk

Frankham Street South – A New Residential Quarter

At the time of writing, there is a pop-up banner in the Deptford Lounge with the heading 'The future of Deptford Town Centre'. It stands alone, and there's no information to go with it.

Going to the web address www.lewisham.gov.uk/regeneration given at the foot of the banner will not yield much more information except this two year old leaflet, which states 'the proposal will not go ahead unless the majority of residents support this proposal. This will take the form of an independent ballot. It is hoped that full consultation with local residents on these proposals will take place in late 2010'.

We're pretty sure Frankham House have not been consulted. Happy New Year, Frankham House!

Coming next: Faircharm Creative Quarter Planning Permission details

Tort Notices

Some, but apparently not all, residents at Castell House were served TORT notices on 9th November. Such a notice in the context of Housing is usually served "when there are uncollected goods and/or possessions that have been left or abandoned in premises by a tenant or lessee" under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

In this case it refers to the possessions tenants and leaseholders are keeping on the balconies outside their flats, and residents were given 14 days to remove them. The 'Tort' is a tool landlords can use to give them the power to remove items situated in communal areas such as corridors and staircases that are likely to represent an obstacle or trip hazard, such as on a walkway which is a fire exit from the building.

Since the items in this particular case are not "uncollected", "left" or "abandoned", it's a rather ambiguous way of asking residents to keep the communal areas around their homes clean, tidy, and free from obstruction, and is therefore open to misinterpretation.

Some residents in Cremer House have now been issued with the same letter and 'Tort Notice'. When a Castell House resident, who has a couple of plant pots (plastic) outside her door, called the number provided (the Tenancy Team) she was told it was a blanket letter and to ignore it.

Another resident who called has plants and a bit of wooden furniture outside and was told the same thing. It was only when she questioned further that she was told they knew she had flower pots and wooden furniture that were in contravention of the notice and that she must remove them. Had she not pressed the matter further she might have disregarded the notice and then found her items removed. She removed the wooden furniture, but left her vegetable and flower garden, which is all in non-flamable containers. She has had washing machines, furniture and fridges delivered, and been visited by friends with baby buggies and wheelchairs, with no access problems whatsoever, so didn't consider them as 'obstacles'. She was later called by Customer Services who told her the flower pots would not be removed.

As we reported previously, only about 10 people attended the Fire Safety meeting called by Lewisham Homes on 6th March. We also referred in that post (which we urge you to read again) to the guidance issued in 2011 by the Local Government Group regarding Fire Safety in purpose-built blocks of flats, in which a 'managed use' policy might permit residents to place pot plants and door mats outside their front doors.

After a walkabout with the Fire Safety Officer in March, the TRA suggested that the Fire Safety team print up and distribute a leaflet that explained exactly what is and what is not permitted, with guidelines as to widths and heights of permitted items. This never happened. So residents are not sure what they're allowed to store outside, and neither, it appears, are Customer Services or the Tenancy Team.

We don't know if any personal items have been removed by Lewisham Homes as a result of any resident's non-compliance with the Tort Notice, but if Lewisham Homes wants to continue their stated policy of "managed use" (to avoid a "zero tolerance" policy) they might do better to circulate a leaflet that clearly spells out the issue first (or even a poster in the stairwells), rather than issuing a legal notice that threatens to remove "unwanted" items – when most of the items in question are very much "wanted".


UPDATE 11 December: Some Frankham House residents have also received the Tort.

Charlie Pi at Shoreditch Town Hall

Prolific artist and Frankham House resident Charlie Pi is presently exhibiting in the cavernous and labyrinthine basement at Shoreditch Town Hall, with a massive show of 'work in progress' called The Burning Exhibition. It runs till 12th July, 12noon-6pm.

Charlie's says "It's like an Open Studio, but my studio's too small and my volume of work is enormous, so it makes sense to put it in a suitable and accessible space. Everything from burnt wedding dresses on plywood to paintings on tablecloths. Like a tea party with Miss Havisham, Lizzie Borden and Snow White. I burn frocks. That's what I do."

burningillusions.weebly.com/