Tidemill update: the hypocrisy of Lewisham Councillors

Update 12 November 2018: read analysis by Corporate Watch of Lewisham Councillors involved in the demolition of Tidemill Garden and Reginald House here.


Recently, Cllr Paul Bell, Lewisham's Cabinet Member for Housing, described Tidemill campaigners as "middle class anarchists who don't care about working class families in housing need".

Paul Bell's grasp of reality has been questionable ever since he rather hypocritically took up position in the Mayor's cabinet, having also stood in the Mayoral elections on a platform to get rid of the elected Mayoral system (and its unelected Cabinet)! Although all mention of this aim has been deleted from his blog, this Clarion interview with him from September 2017 spells out his previous views: "the reality is that the system of having a directly, elected executive mayor makes collective decision-making we need to fight austerity very difficult, as power is not shared between all councillors, which is why I want to abolish it." The article is worth reading in full.

Click to enlarge

Criticism of Tidemill campaigners has long been aided and abetted by another career politician, Joe Dromey – who, once re-elected in May 2018, along with his fellow re-elected councillor Brenda Dacres, couldn't wait to stand as an MP for Lewisham East when Heidi Alexander stood down. Within a few days of being re-elected!

Joe Dromey has been vigorously defending the Tidemill application on Twitter and Facebook since he spoke in favour of it at the bogus planning meeting back in September 2017, posting up the same mantra about homelessness, getting figures wrong, and refusing to listen to counter argument. His engagement on social media in defence of the scheme has been so sustained (minute-by-minute), it's a wonder he actually does any paid work, either in his day job or as a councillor.

Cllr Paul Bell's assimilation of campaigners is deeply flawed and disrespectful. For starters, some Tidemill campaigners are paid up members of the Labour Party, and some support the Greens. Nor can they all be described as middle class. If opposing a Lewisham Council plan to demolish housing and green space means you're both an anarchist and middle class, then there's thousands of anarchists in Lewisham! The fact is, while Labour won 60% of votes in the local elections, only 37% of the electorate voted. Out of a population of 306,000, less than 20% voted for the current Council. In New X Ward, the turn out was only 33% of the registered electorate, so Dromey's exorbitant claim for a Labour mandate in New Cross and Deptford is totally invalid (and also not very sincere, as he couldn't wait to jump ship!).

Perhaps Bell meant to say "artists" rather than 'anarchists'? There are certainly plenty of them in the campaign and the current occupation – painters, writers, musicians, theatre practitioners, film-makers, photographers, performance artists, sculptors, designers and architects – working collectively with people from countless other professions, jobs and walks of life, and all prepared to defend to the hilt what they believe is right.

Perhaps the only type of people missing from the campaign might be politicians. But no, in fact the campaign has received cross-party support from GLA members Len Duvall (GLA Assembly Member for Lewisham & Greenwich and Chair of London Labour), Caroline Pigeon (Lib Dem), and Caroline Russell (Green Party). The campaign has also been supported by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, London Wildlife Trust, London Play, the Alliance for Childhood and others.

Significantly, Cllr Paul Bell served on the Strategic Planning Committee when the planning application was first submitted in September 2016. Bell said at the time that there appeared to be no justification for the demolition of existing housing (Reginald House).

Because Family Mosaic were only offering 11% 'social' housing (which would in fact be 'London Affordable Rent' not real social housing), the demolition of Reginald House, the loss of green space and neighbours' loss of light could not be justified. Campaigners then pursued all the so-called democratic channels available to them to persuade the council to change their plans. In meetings held before the planning application was resubmitted in September 2017, none of the issues raised by the campaign (such as demolition of sound Council homes against the residents' wishes) were addressed – the Council only wanted to talk about the new landscaping with what they described as "the gardening group".

As previously reported planning permission was granted in September 2017 with only 37% social housing on the table. It was another six months before the the Council announced they had secured 53% social housing by pledging £4.3m of Right To Buy receipts into the plan, effectively subsidising the developer for profits lost on changing previously planned private homes to 'affordable'. 

Since the 2017 decision, campaigners had lobbied countless stitched up Council meetings and bogus Scrutiny Committee meetings – the most recent being the total lack of scrutiny of the new Mayor & Cabinet's decision to renew their contract with Peabody (formerly Family Mosaic) and Sherrygreen Homes. Campaigners saw the contract renewal as an opportunity for the Council to reconsider their plans.

But in response to the campaign group's lobbying of all Lewisham's councillors, Cllr Paul Bell put out a Briefing to the Labour Group explaining the Council's reasons for proceeding – whilst also admitting the Council would not suffer any legal consequences by not renewing the contract.

The fact that Family Mosaic (now Peabody) had spent £3m already but had nothing to show for it was due partly to not being able to get on and build at Amersham Vale (approved in 2015), to which the Tidemill plans were twinned in the Southern Housing Sites scheme, and also due to the delays caused by them not stumping up a high enough quota of affordable housing. They only have themselves to blame. Nevertheless, the Council put out a press story that they would be sued by the developer if they did not go ahead.

Confident that they had won the battle, the Council's Regeneration Team gave notice on the garden for the 'gardening group' (which by now was a full-on campaign known as Save Reginald, Save Tidemill) to hand back the keys. When they came to lock up the garden at 6am in the morning on August 29th, the campaigners were ready to occupy it. Tents and tree houses had been erected the previous night and a vocal crowd gathered outside. Council Regeneration Officers did not even attempt approaching the gates, claiming (untruly) that the protesters were violent and not even part of the campaign group.

Only two days before, the campaign had applied to the High Court for permission to mount a Judicial Review of the 2017 Planning Application, for which they had begun crowd-funding.

Three weeks later, on September 20th bailiffs served a Possession Order to 'Persons Unknown' (despite the Council knowing who the campaigners are), but this was fought off a week later in Bromley County Court and the possession order was postponed on the grounds that an application for Judicial Review was in progress, and its outcome was to be awaited.

Unfortunately the Judicial Review application was refused by a High Court judge who failed to understand the technical point on which the case was based. Undaunted, the occupation continues, whilst a further 'oral hearing' for Judicial Review is pursued. A third option is to appeal should the oral hearing fail.

In the meantime, a further eviction order has now been served by the Council.

The occupation has now been in place for 8 weeks and has generated much interest in the media, with BBC London Live, BBC Radio London and independent film-makers coming down to report. The garden has been open to the public during most of that time, with local people bringing food and supplies to the occupiers. Support has grown hugely for the campaign, whilst Lewisham Council's popularity ratings have declined considerably (except among themselves).

--------

Update November 2018: the violent eviction of the Tidemill Garden occupation on 29 October (in which two members of the campaign were assaulted, including a grandmother) has been well documented in other places, notably here:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2018/10/30/the-violent-eviction-of-the-old-tidemill-wildlife-garden-lewisham-councillors-make-sure-they-will-never-be-welcome-in-deptford-again/

https://deptfordischanging.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/a-tribute-to-tidemill-garden/

Other accounts can be found on YouTube – search "Tidemill Eviction".

Find the campaign at www.facebook.com/savetidemill

Tidemill & Reginald House update #2 – affordable rents and alternative plans

Following on from our previous post, we wanted to take a further look at that 'key decision' made by Mayor & Cabinet on March 15th 2018: "to change 43 homes from private sale to London Affordable Rent (social rent)" and Cllr Dromey's claim that there will be 117 "socially rented" homes on the new Tidemill development.

There seems to be some confusion. The minutes have "social rent" in brackets after "London Affordable Rent", but the two are not the same. For verification, we asked a friendly councillor in another ward to find out for us and he came back with the following from the Head of Housing Policy (our bold):

‘Social Rent’ and ‘London Affordable Rent’ are both considered types of affordable housing and have very similar rent levels, however they are not the same product.

Properties let at ‘Social Rent’ have long been the most affordable housing product available, typically known as council housing. These properties are allocated to applicants in priority need who apply and are accepted to Lewisham’s Housing Register. The formula for calculating the rents is set by Government and since 2016, rents have been subject to a 1% rent reduction, to last until 2020, when the intention is to return to CPI plus 1% rent rises. 

The Mayor of London introduced ‘London Affordable Rent’ in 2017. London Affordable Rent refers to rents for genuinely affordable homes aimed at low-income households. The benchmark rents have been set by the Mayor and are very similar to social rents. As with social rents, ‘London Affordable Rent’ will also be subject to rent setting guidance and the 1% rent reduction will apply until 2020. Allocations to these properties will be made in the same way as social rent properties mentioned above.

‘London Affordable Rent’ can be confused with ‘Affordable Rent’ which the Government introduced as a form of affordable housing in 2010. The ‘Affordable Rent’ product allows Registered Providers to charge rents of up to 80% of local market rents. Rents at this level are rarely affordable to residents on low incomes and the product is considered to be widely unaffordable in London; thus it is not supported by the Mayor of London. Allocations to ‘Affordable Rent’ properties are also made via the Housing Register, but there is a reliance on Housing Benefit to meet the high cost of the rent.

Finally, ‘London Living Rent’ is a rent which is affordable to households on median incomes, as the rent is set at one third of median local incomes. It is a form of intermediate housing and is aimed at low to median earning working households who are priced out of home ownership and yet have no realistic opportunity to qualify for social housing. A number of the properties at Besson Street will be let at ‘London Living Rent’ levels, offering a range of ways of meeting a genuine housing need in Lewisham. They will enable lower income workers to benefit from lower rents and greater security, and will be priced at a level that means the group of potential beneficiaries is very broad.

Going forwards, homes built using GLA funding in the Affordable Housing Programme 2016-21 are expected to include properties for ‘London Affordable Rent’ and properties for ‘London Living Rent’. 

A rent comparison table was included with the explanation (prices per week) as follows:

Click to enlarge

What is clear from the table is that "London Affordable Rent" is not at all similar to "social rent" (here described as 'Lewisham Stock – Average Rent'). In fact, London Affordable Rent is 63% more than Social Rent (based on a 2-bed flat), and would cost the tenant an extra £3,000 per year. 

Click to enlarge

Although the terms offered to Reginald Road residents may now be to keep them at the same rent levels (real Social Rent/Council rent) how are we supposed to believe Joe when he says all the Tidemill "affordable" rents will be "social rents" if the Council considers the two different rents as "similar" (when they quite clearly are not), and when the development is dependent on GLA funding which is offered only for London Affordable Rents?

We finally managed to get hold of the report for the 15th March Mayor & Cabinet meeting, but all figures are redacted. Nevertheless it refers to how in 2017, the GLA's "new London Affordable Rent model clarified the rent setting process and created rents that were effectively social rents" (p.6). Then in 2018 (p.7) para 5.5 states "...This new offer would increase the proportion of new homes on the development that are affordable – defined as either London Affordable Rent (i.e. social rent) or as Shared Ownership...".

Cllr Dromey is utterly convinced that the rents will be "social rent" and seems to truly believe they will be the same as Council Rents – which actually are genuinely affordable for people on low incomes. For those earning the London Living Wage (£10.20p/h) whose annual salary might be £19,890, they would take home around £326 p/w after tax and national insurance, so the "affordable rent" of £144.25 p/w for a one-bed flat is actually, at 44%, far more than a third of their wages.

Most people on the housing waiting list that Cllr Dromey says will get homes in this new development will be earning £20k or much less. But if he is using the Tory re-definition of social rent as London Affordable Rent (as the Council seem to) then he has either fooled himself or is fooling us.

Alternative plans

We hope Joe is right, because there is a lot of sacrifice involved in this scheme as it stands now with families being forced from their homes and loss of pollution-mitigating mature green space.

However, those sacrifices need not be made if this development was redesigned with the same amount of units without demolishing valuable green space and sixteen sound council homes. The campaigners have already demonstrated to the Council how this might be done, with an alternative plan that shows denser building on the northern side of the site, saving both 2-30A Reginald Road and the garden.

Click to enlarge

But there was a flat refusal from the Council and its partners to work with local stakeholders (aka the community) to reconsider the layout of the site (which was set in stone four years ago when the contractual agreement stipulated that any redesign would have to come out of the partners' pockets).

Architects for Social Housing got the same response from Lambeth Council after working with residents for a year at Central Hill Estate to show how new homes could be added (infill) and the older ones refurbished without demolishing them. Lambeth said the fully budgeted ASH plan was "unviable", despite it costing less. The decision was based on a feasibility study that was only made available to ASH with all the figures redacted; Lambeth refused to give the financial reasons for why they'd rejected the proposals. 

One of the reasons the ASH plans actually cost less was because it costs £50k per unit to demolish the buildings (and then the cost of rebuilding) whereas refurbishment cost £40k per unit (with no rebuilding costs)!

And that's without taking into account the environmental impact and carbon footprint of demolition and new construction, or the emotional and mental health impacts on those whose homes are demolished.

Tidemill and Reginald House update #1 – secrecy and lies

On March 15th, Lewisham's Mayor & Cabinet met in secret to approve further plans for the redevelopment of the Tidemill site that includes the demolition of Old Tidemill Garden and 16 council flats at 2-30A Reginald Road. This was one of two agenda items discussed behind closed doors that night (the other being their plans for Besson Street) due to "commercial sensitivity". While campaigners protested outside the town hall, Cllr Joe Dromey (New Cross ward councillor and  Cabinet member for Policy & Performance) tweeted the outcome of the Tidemill item:

“Great Lewisham Council meeting this eve. Delighted we’ve been able to increase the number of social homes at the Old Tidemill development. It’s now 54% social housing, and 75% affordable. There will now be 117 socially rented homes on the new estate, an increase of 104 social homes. I think that’s the largest amount of social homes delivered in any development in the four years I’ve been a Councillor.” 

While Joe's figures are a little inaccurate (see below) he's right to say it's the largest amount of social homes delivered in any development in the past four years, including any council-led schemes. For example, at Heathside & Lethbridge, the council-led "regeneration scheme" at Blackheath Hill/Lewisham Road, the two estates combined originally consisted of 638 flats (527 on social rents and 111 leaseholders). The Council estimated it would cost £29.3m to do a high quality refurbishment (beyond Decent Homes standards) on all the blocks.

But instead they chose to partner with Family Mosaic housing association to demolish all the blocks and build 1192 new flats at a cost of £272m. According to figures provided by G15 (the group representing London's largest housing associations), at completion of the phased redevelopment in 2020, only 17% will be 'social rents' (199). 21% (248) will be 'affordable rent', 11% shared ownership/equity, and a whopping 52% (616) will be for private sale. This represents a loss of 328 'social rents' – and decanted tenants take priority on the Council's waiting list, depriving others on the list.

So, there certainly a need for some rebalancing! Meanwhile, with no further info than Joe's tweets to go on, the Deptford Dame was able to report four days later that the Council had published some very short minutes of the key decision made on Tidemill (which can also be found here – look for Deptford Southern Housing Sites):

“to increase the amount of affordable housing through increased grant funding, to change 43 homes from private sale to London Affordable Rent (social rent) at a cost to the Council of £4,310,211, and 16 homes from private sale to shared ownership at no additional cost”.

That's more or less it. But let's go back to Joe's figures. If you add 43 additional London Affordable Rents to the original 61 (74 new builds minus 13 demolished tenanted homes) you get 104, as Joe said. But this is not 54%, it is under 50% (of the total 209 units). And if you add 16 additional ‘shared ownership homes’ to the original 22 (25 new builds minus 3 demolished leaseholder homes), you get 38. 104+38 = 142, which is not a 75% total of affordable housing. It is under 68%.  

Never mind, it's a great improvement on the previous quota (8% in 2016 and 41% in 2017) and in fact is well over the 50% required by the GLA to grant funding (at around £60k per affordable flat). Trebles all round. In fact, if there's that much subsidy sloshing about and quite a lot of it coming from the Council itself in previously unused Right To Buy receipts as well as selling the land at "less than best consideration" (actually about 25% of what Family Mosaic paid for its site at Sun Wharf), then why it is still necessary to DEMOLISH 16 HOMES and a much needed mature green space, when no one who actually lives here wants that?

The residents at Reginald Road certainly don't want it, but does anyone listen to them? They have been living with the threat of demolition since 2008 and have several times petitioned against the demolition of their homes. The latest petition was handed in to Lewisham on April 24th and was signed by 12 out of 15 residents (there are 16 homes, but one is presently empty).

Not only have the residents declared several times that they want to keep their homes, but the plans involve a stock transfer (from Lewisham Homes to a housing association), which by law, requires a ballot. Like Heathside & Lethbridge and others, they have never been offered one. Lewisham get round this by offering tenants rehousing in Council property in other parts of the borough if they don't want to move to a new housing association flat.

The Mayor of London (along with Lewisham's Mayor-in-waiting) is now proposing mandatory ballots of residents for schemes where any demolition is planned, as a strict condition of any GLA funding. Soon after consultation on the policy began, Sian Berry (London Assembly member for the Green Party) discovered that the Mayor of London had already signed off funding for 34 estates to dodge his own new ballot rules. Unfortunately, Tidemill is on that list because the GLA signed a contract for funding in January, despite not yet having approved the planning application in full.

We put in an FOI request to see the officer's report that led to the key decision made on 15th March behind closed doors. The answer is as expected – the Council are not required to oblige the request. This is because they are partnering with private companies – Peabody Housing, Sherrygreen Homes and Mullaley – who are not public bodies. This confidentiality applies to any regeneration scheme where Lewisham partners with housing associations and private builders.

Architects for Social Housing (ASH) spent over three years trying to obtain figures from Lambeth Council via FOI when working on alternative community-led plans for the Central Hill Estate in Crystal Palace. They concluded: "The desire of the private sector development partners to hide such information…should be an argument in favour of disclosure in any proposed housing development – let alone one based on the demolition and privatisation of publicly owned assets; let alone one that will receive millions of pounds of public funding…"

They go on, "In the wake of Grenfell, how can any council continue to hide its financial deals with private sector partners behind the cloak of commercial confidentiality?... Who can deny that it is not in the public interest to know the corners being cut by the kind of private deals that made the Grenfell Tower fire a disaster waiting to happen, when those same deals are being withheld from public scrutiny on every estate regeneration scheme that demolishes council homes and replaces them with developments built and managed by private companies?”

Housing associations are private companies. Even the Mayor of London says in the draft new London Plan (para 4.10.5): “Given the impact of estate regeneration schemes on existing residents, it is particularly important that information about the viability of schemes is available to the public even where a high level of affordable housing is being delivered.”

Surely £4+m of public money and the sale of public assets to a private company demands full transparency?

Reginald Road & Achilles Street – trying to be heard and seen

At the Birds Nest roundabout

We first noticed this banner at the Birds Nest roundabout on Sunday 28th January, but it was apparently one of five that went up around Deptford on Friday evening.

Protesters were trying to highlight the plight of Council tenants whose homes (and businesses) are due for demolition to make way for new developments planned by Lewisham Council. Publicly owned green space (Tidemill Old Wildlife Garden) will also be lost. The Council defends its policy of demolition on the basis that more social housing can be built in its place as a result of it partnering with private developers who will of course build even more private housing as well. Never mind that the tenants themselves do not want their homes demolished.

On the overpass at Deptford Bridge DLR

Such deals are common across London Labour boroughs, the most controversial being the Heygate and Aylesbury estate regenerations in Southwark where very little social if any housing has been achieved and so many people have been displaced. The most recent controversy is the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) which has resulted in the leader of Haringey Labour resigning after Councillors who supported the plan to go 50/50 with Lend Lease were voted out in local elections to be replaced with new Councillors who opposed the plan.

At Tidemill Wildlife Garden in Reginald Road

We've covered the Tidemill and Reginald Road story quite a lot on this blog, the last post being an overdue report in November on the September planning decision, surely one of the most undemocratic planning meetings in the present administration's history.

We also caught up in November with what is going on at Achilles Street in New Cross – just the other side of the underpass. Tenants and leaseholders as well as businesses are fighting to save their homes, shops and restaurants, while the Council drags its heels on its plans – without giving any indication that they will change them in any way. As with Tidemill (where the publicly funded subsidy for the affordable housing was not secured till the very last minute) such delays are usually due to the Council finding suitable development partners.

Fordham Park end of the New Cross underpass

Fortunately, another writer is keeping us to date with what is going on at Reginald Road and Achilles Street. PHD student Anita Strasser has just posted on her blog Deptford Is Changing. She notes how tenants' mental health is affected when they have no control over their own futures, and how (often family-run) shops and businesses risk losing their livelihoods. The Council refuses to ballot those affected.

Deptford end of the underpass

The banners remind us of how difficult it is for ordinary people's voices to be heard. A recent YouGov poll found that 71% feel they have no control over the important decisions that affect their neighbourhood and local community.

The campaign to bring back the Deptford Anchor is being hailed by some as a triumph of "People Power", but people's lives were not affected or put on hold while the Council took almost five years to capitulate to the campaigner's wishes. Reginald Road tenants have been living in limbo for almost ten years since regeneration plans for Tidemill were first mooted. Tenants and businesses affected by threats of demolition cannot afford the luxury of waiting so long to find out their fate.

https://www.facebook.com/nosocialcleansinglewisham/
https://www.facebook.com/oldtidemillgarden/?ref=br_rs
https://achillesstreetstopandlisten.wordpress.com
https://achillesstreetstopandlisten.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/fact-sheet/
http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/12/lewisham-residents-fighting-save-homes-demolition-accuse-council-social-cleansing/

Demolition Deptford #2 : events on November 5th & 12th

Bonfire Night Event
Sunday 5th November, 4–8pm
Old Tidemill Garden. FREE

For those interested in the ongoing campaign to save Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden and 2-30a Reginald Road (the block of flats next to it), there's an opportunity to enjoy an evening in the garden while it still exists. There'll be food and hot beverages available. Bring along an instrument and/or songs to share for a musical jam around the campfire.

No Social Cleansing in Lewisham Benefit
Sunday 12th November, 6–11pm
Bird's Nest pub. FREE

Since the Tidemill application went through, the Old Tidemill Garden volunteers have been joining up with other campaigners in the area. This event brings them all together in a fundraiser, with the organisers (The Four Fathers) identifying the most pressing issues as:
– Planned destruction of Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden and 2-30a Reginald Road
– Proposed destruction of social housing and shops around Achilles Street in New Cross
– Proposed destruction of green space to build high rise development at No.1 Creekside
– Proposed clearing of boat dwellers on Creek at No.2 Creekside to make way for 'box park' and later development.

On the bill:
Potent Whisper - razor-sharp political spoken word artist
https://www.facebook.com/PotentWhisper/
The Four Fathers - militant rock and roots reggae
https://www.facebook.com/fourfatherslondon/
The Commie Faggots - theatrical singalong politics
https://www.facebook.com/c0mmiefagg0ts/
Asher Baker - Southwark-based rapper
https://www.facebook.com/asherjbaker/
The Wiz-RD - teenage beatbox poet
https://www.facebook.com/The-Wiz-RD-1757117781200290/
Ukadelix - local ukulele group
https://www.facebook.com/ukadelix/

Demolition Deptford #1 : Tidemill update

We're long overdue to report what happened at the Planning meeting on 27 September. It was not a good outcome for Deptford. Yes, there will be new 'affordable' homes built, but at the expense of demolition of both valuable green space and a block of homes where none of the tenants want to move.

Before the meeting, protesters made their feelings known with placards, drums and chants outside the town hall. But once inside the council chamber, those who'd never attended a planning meeting before in their life were quite shocked to see what a flimsy relationship Lewisham strategic planning has with any notion of democracy.

For starters, only 6 out of 10 councillors serving on the Strategic Planning Committee were present, just one of them with extensive planning experience (housing overlord and new Mayor Damien Egan's campaign manager Kevin Bonavia). Quite astonishing for a major and controversial application that impacts so much on the area. See here for 'apologies' (sadly, Cllrs Hall and Curran amongst them).

You can read the minutes here, but here's an additional viewpoint:

Speaking against the application in the short time allowed (and with only one week's notice of the meeting) was a small group made up of the campaign co-ordinator from Deptford Neighbourhood Action (DNA), a resident of Frankham House, two residents from Reginald Road, as well as GLA Assembly member for Greenwich & Lewisham, Len Duvall.

Speaking for the applicant were a 4-person team from Family Mosaic, supported by the Council's Strategic Housing team (remember, this is a Council-led scheme).

Not one representative from the development partner, Sherrygreen Homes, who stand to make such a huge profit out of building the scheme, selling off the private housing, was available to speak. The committee was presented with a cuddly, supposedly ethical housing association applicant, with no mention or sign of the hefty and unnecessary price Lewisham will have to pay to see its scheme proceed.

It was quietly revealed that Family Mosaic had ONLY JUST managed to secure the affordable element of the scheme by "merging" with Peabody Housing Association, a process that had started in December 2016 and completed in July 2017 – a cynical move that gave Family Mosaic access to the GLA grant funding it needed to fund the 'affordable' element on this site, without which the scheme would have collapsed. (And which enables Sherrygreen Homes to continue to make well over 20% in profits).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, with the Council's ambitions and reputation riding so much on a scheme that has been planned for ten years or more, there was some heavy mis-direction from the Head of Planning Emma Talbot and also the Chair Amanda De Ryk. For instance, it was implied that work could not go ahead on the sister scheme at Amersham Vale until this application was approved.

The Council's Strategic Housing team claimed they had consulted fully with the tenants of Reginald House and with the Old Tidemill Garden team. Speaking for the garden, the campaigners countered that the Council's position had not changed at all since the deferral last year. The Chair made much of the fact that Len Duvall had chaired the meetings as if to imply everything had operated democratically.

The fact that nothing about those meetings was democratic was not examined. There had been two meetings of note: one in which how the garden team should fuck off somewhere else (but nowhere else could be found); the other in which all the ideas from Tidemill Garden were incorporated into a slim strip of land like a sort of Disney Tidemill on a very small scale.

When the Housing Team claimed a letter had gone out only the previous week to tenants at Reginald Road explaining all the terms of their re-housing on the new site, elderly resident Pauline stood up from the audience with her hand held up to request to speak.

She was told to sit down by the Chair but members of the audience murmured her concerns – she had not received the letter. Councillors fussed over whether letters had been sent as 'signed on delivery'; the Housing Team admitted they had not and there was no proof letters had been sent. Nevertheless, the lie remained, unexamined any further.

Under "standing orders" (in which Councillors who are not members of the committee are allowed to speak) New Cross Councillor Brenda Dacres said that the Amersham Vale development was being "held to ransom" and there was no reason why it could not go ahead while the Tidemill site was reviewed. (Brenda has been supportive of the campaign against demolition of both the garden and Reginald Road homes, and pointed out that the new Tidemill school had no garden and had been using the old garden).

According to the rules, anything that Councillors say "under standing orders" is not supposed to influence the decision "in any capacity". So it would follow that Brenda's support should not influence Councillors.

Meanwhile, Cllr Joe Dromey sneaked into the meeting late (having arranged with the Chair for "standing orders" to be postponed until he got there because he'd been at another meeting), and spoke fully in favour of the development.

Note: As soon as Dromey was elected he was appointed to Mayor & Cabinet (his mum is Harriet Harman, his dad is Jack Dromey). No one in the Mayor & Cabinet seems capable of speaking against Mayor & Cabinet decisions (tho Joe insists he voted against the Millwall CPO). The committee wouldn't be influenced, right?

Dromey hadn't even been there to listen to the residents (his parishioners) speak about how they didn't want their homes demolished and how they hadn't been properly consulted or kept informed of what was going on. He's probably not sure where it is.

It's unfortunate for Deptford that two of its Councillors are part of the elite status quo (Mayor & Cabinet – the other being Paul Maslin) that controls everything in Lewisham, including the constituency Labour Party, and has so little regard for what happens locally.

The Chair (Amanda De Ryk, now known locally as Amanda 3rd Reich) ruled against any question of the committee looking at the possibility of the scheme being redesigned (as requested by Deptford Neighbourhood Action and Cllr Brenda Dacres) or examining the contractual arrangements with Amersham Vale that were supposedly holding up the sister project. Apparently, these nuanced aspects were strictly "not under consideration for this application". Nothing at all, in other words, was relevant for consideration except the improvement in affordable housing – which had only been achieved at the last minute by Family Mosaic doing a deal with Peabody.

It was Cllr Bonavia who swayed the vote, head in hands, pretending to find it a difficult decision to demolish a precious green space and 16 flats (even though his career depends on towing the party line in Lewisham in support of Damien Egan – new housing at any cost). The fact that he'd been told that only one resident in Reginald Road had shown support for their home being demolished seemed to be irrelevant.

Cllrs Suzannah Clark (Labour) and John Coughlin (Green) were the only ones brave enough to vote against. So the application was passed 4 to 2 (or 4 out of 10).

Note: NOTHING from Lewisham Homes on this matter. No defence of its tenants, no comment about how they chose not to use Decent Homes money to refurbish the outside of 2-17 Reginald Road (not that a refurbishment by Lewisham Homes' contractor MITIE would have inspired confidence since everything they did was awful and still in dispute). Happy to unload care of its stock onto Family Mosaic Peabody. Also too excited about being in charge of "infills" on estates in its care to understand what it means for its tenants to become part of a building site.

Ironically, on the very same night Jeremy Corbyn made his closing speech at the Labour conference; here's what he said about Labour's new policies on housing:



"Councils will have to win a ballot of existing tenants and leaseholders before any redevelopment scheme can take place."

Clapped by everyone, but obviously not a policy backed by Lewisham nor any other Labour borough currently engaging in regeneration of its own land and properties by selling off land at cut price and demolishing buildings they could have refurbished.

This led to the left in the local Labour Party tabling a motion (carried overwhelmingly, apparently) to ask Sadiq Khan call in the decision on Tidemill. The GLA have to review the application anyway – the question is whether enough social housing is being achieved, considering how cheaply the new owners are getting the land for (in Tidemill's case, a fraction of what Family Mosaic Peabody have paid for private land elsewhere in Deptford – e.g. Sun Wharf).

See also this new piece in The Independent that includes Reginald Road, questioning why Labour Councils feature so prominently in regeneration schemes where tenants don't get a say. "...they are opposed to giving residents ballots because it doesn't fit in with their paternalistic attitude or their culture of having absolute control. They have a big plan and they won't listen to any alternatives" (Sian Berry). 

Meanwhile, the Tidemill Garden campaigners have also written to the Mayor of London asking him to call it in, appealing to the loss of green space, especially when he has just launched the Greener Cities programme, hoping to make London the first National Park City, and has Tidemill as the first example of good practice.

An update by Old Tidemill Garden is also available here.

Also, all this this is about to happen on a bigger scale at Achilles Street in New Cross, with four blocks and several businesses at stake. Another great idea from Lewisham Planning Central that has no regard for the people living or working in the buildings it appropriates (and demolishes) in its grand plan (that ultimately makes loads of money for a developer).

(Post edited and updated 3 Nov 2017)

Deptford Demolition: Tidemill in Planning again

The Tidemill scheme is up again before the Strategic Planning Committee this Wednesday 27th September, 7.30pm at the Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford. 

Local campaigners are hoping supporters will join them outside the town hall at 6.30pm "to demonstrate the strength of opposition to these plans".

It’s likely to be a lively meeting, so if you’re free, please show up and lend your support by filling the Council Chamber with your opposition – or even sceptical amusement and horror, as the planning process is probably one of the best examples of democracy gone wrong that exists close to home. If the decision goes against him, he can appeal knowing the Council does not have the legal resources to fight it. Oh, hang on, this is a Council-led scheme! It would be a brave Councillor who opposes it in favour of the community! Not many of those about.

This is about the Planning Application TO DEMOLISH: 

– the council block at 2-30A Reginald Road

– 74 mature trees and the entire Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden 

– the former caretaker’s house on Frankham Street (which should be a heritage asset as part of the old school)

All in order to construct 209 new flats. Nothing wrong with building new homes, you might think, but at what cost? There could be another way, but architects Pollard Thomas Edwards couldn't find one, because the brief they were given by the Council didn't allow them to. Their job was to satisfy the planners' and developers' brief and no one else's.

One of the main constraints was how high they could go. 6 storeys is probably too high for the area, but when it's at the expense of green space, maybe they could go a bit higher near to the high street? The Deptford Project by the high street went to 8 storeys, no problem, in a Conservation Area. So what about the top left corner on this site near the high street, where valuable parking space is being removed – couldn't that go higher? 

The plans for Tidemill were drawn up in 2015 but were set in stone much earlier. Meanwhile, there is now a new development popping up at No.1 Creekside more or less opposite this scheme. It's not as though the Planners don't know about it, they went on to GIVE AWAY yet more green space to it. It wants to be 12 storeys high and surely affects what could happen on the Tidemill site. (More on No.1 soon).

The Tidemill scheme was deferred by the Strategic Planning Committee last September, mainly because the developer was not offering the affordable housing he promised. But the GLA have recently stepped in at the last minute with a huge subsidy, so that part of the problem has now been sorted (at our expense, whilst maintaining the developer’s profits at well over 20%). 

The scheme will now achieve about 41% affordable housing, but only a tiny number of socially rented homes. With 59% more private housing being built, the percentage of affordable housing in the borough (and certainly social housing) will increase in deficit. 

To top all that, the land is being sold at less than half price. Lewisham is practically giving it away. (Again, at our expense, whilst maintaining an inflated profit for the developer). We wrote about this in more detail in March 2017.

The other issues for deferral still remain: Right to Light for existing residents in Frankham House and Reginald Road; allocation of amenity spaces (too many private and gated gardens and loss of the Tidemill Wildlife Garden); and concern for the tenants in the council block to be demolished and how they will be reallocated (e.g. their transfer to a housing association with no like-for-like accommodation or secure tenancies).... 

There have been no improvements to these issues after a year. Council officers and the developers insist they have consulted with the residents of 2-30A Reginald Road (but they haven't, and the tenants and leaseholders still don't want to leave their homes). They have had meetings with the garden team but the meetings have been farcical, with north London landscape architects BDP attempting to mimic the features of a mature Tidemill garden into small pocket gardens because the developer and Council would not shift on the building layouts. 

The Council's argument against the garden was that it was only ever 'meantime' use, but the campaigners argue that: 

• It (literally) grew out of a highly successful publicly funded collaborative project in the late 1990s between the old Tidemill School (its children, parents and teachers) and local organisation Deptford Discovery Project working with government-backed green space innovators and facilitators, Groundwork UK, with assistance from Mowlem (who were building the DLR at that time) and supported by Lewisham Council. The most important aspect of it was the contribution the children made to it. Leader of the Council and subsequent Mayor, Dave Sullivan opened it. It seems Lewisham can't remember or celebrate its own achievements.

• In its recent incarnation managed by Assembly, the garden has been cited by the GLA as a celebrated case study in its newly launched Greener City Fund (August 2017). See https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/greener_city_fund_prospectus.pdf

• The garden can cater for children and adults alike to explore nature, wildlife, gardening and growing, in a safe space on their doorstep. It did this when it was part of the school, it did this when Assembly took it on, and it can do it again. It is not a "useless brownfield site", as described by the Council. 

• The tree canopy currently protects the high street from up to 50% of the pollution created by traffic in Deptford Church Street. The Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) readings in the garden and near the high street are 30 micrograms per cubic metre, as opposed to 62 at the Bird's Nest pub (the legal EU limit being 40). 'Particulate matter' readings taken by Goldsmiths academics, Citizen Sense, also tend to back up this theory (though we'll have to wait another two months for their data to be published).

Old Tidemill Garden 20th Anniversary event this Sunday

Campaigners for the retention of the Old Tidemill Garden intended to celebrate the garden's 20th birthday in July, but the event was postponed at the last minute due to a day of torrential rain! Join them instead this Sunday 17th from 2pm.

See our previous post for more information on the campaign and how the garden came to be created 20 years ago.

This event is scaled down in size and ambition from the original, but still offers the opportunity for young and old to enjoy this beautiful secret green space. There's an emphasis on participatory music making later in the day and you're invited to bring your own picnic and musical instruments – so join in or just enjoy the vibes. Rain, rain, stay away!

Old Tidemill Garden 20th Anniversary: 22 July 2017, 4-11pm

Campaigners hoping to save the Old Tidemill Garden from demolition and redevelopment are celebrating the garden's 20th birthday this Saturday 22nd July, 4-11pm.

20 years ago a group of local activists, the Deptford Discovery Team, began a project to create a nature garden in the playing fields at Tidemill Primary School. They worked with green space community developers Groundwork to co-ordinate the landscaping and create a nature space for the children at the school, to be shared with other kids and the general public, and all with proper and full consultation with stakeholders. Along with the local community, the company who were building the DLR at the time helped create the moat pond and bridge structure that forms the centrepiece of the garden. Parents at the time were not too keen on the moat idea for obvious reasons (and it always required an adult to supervise); the compromise was a very shallow water feature that still attracts newts and ducks (to this day).

Teachers and volunteers work on the garden moat, 1997

Children work on the garden moat, 1997

Over the years the garden has grown and matured. But Lewisham Council still refer to the Old Tidemill Garden as a "recent project" (referring to its recent meantime use) and disregard its origins as a project approved by themselves to create a valuable community resource for all.

When the school moved out of the old buildings and into Deptford Lounge, guardians were invited in to occupy the building and play areas on a meantime basis. The garden area was looked after by a group of gardeners called Assembly, who took a lease on the grounds and began to run Forest School activities for children and open the space up to locals.

Meanwhile, the Council worked up plans with developer Sherrygreen Homes and housing association Family Mosaic to build 209 new homes on the site – plans that involved demolishing the garden and removing all the mature trees. These plans were submitted to Planning last September, but permission was deferred by the Planning Committee (see our March post).

One of the issues for deferral was the lack of affordable housing (11%), but a year later and just now the GLA has just agreed to award the grant funding necessary for the development to meet the original target of 37%, if not more. While this is good news, there remains a problem with Lewisham's tendency in Deptford to pit the need for it to be seen to be creating more housing against all its grand policies about defending existing green space (which is ever decreasing). With the London tax-payer now subsidising the developer's profits to supply affordable housing (that the developer originally said they would meet the costs of), the case for keeping a mature greenfield site is reduced.

Meanwhile, the layout of the buildings remains unchanged in the plans and the 20 year old community garden still faces demolition. No attempt has been made to revisit the 2016 plans to revise and make room for retention of an existing mature green space. Loosely worded statements from Mayor & Cabinet in June 2017 remain open to interpretation – for instance “That (the developer) will work in collaboration with the community group to decide the design, use and management strategies for all of the public spaces on the site”. If the Council and developer actually meant and did this, they should be looking at reworking their plans to include as much retention of the garden as possible. Alas, they are not. Nothing has changed since the September 2016 application.

Garden moat 2017

Lewisham wants this development so much. It was supposed to pay for the award-winning bling-like Lounge development, selling off public land for private profit. Ironically, thanks to the dubious ambitions of the head teacher, Tidemill School became an Academy as soon as it moved, leaving the Council wondering how much it should charge the school for being there, outside its own local authority jurisdiction (no longer a peppercorn rent, hopefully). Regardless, the new school location has no green space, and has kept coming back to its old playing fields...

Meanwhile Lewisham insists there is replacement of green space like for like, but new (private) residents will have private gardens that take up what should be considered as public green space but which will reduce that space by half. They have even claimed they are increasing public space because the Tidemill green area was not open to the public – yet they have made sure it hasn't been ever since they decanted the school.

Lewisham have been planning this for so long that all the trees on the Tidemill site already don't exist according to a borough tree survey going back 10 years when they first decided to demolish the garden.

Coincidentally, the garden was an achievement that 'belonged' to the previous Mayor, Dave Sullivan. No love lost there (nor by us, as Sullivan went on to be a developer – including the small development Princess Louise House now affected by the Tidemill development – and was a founding member of Renewal, now renowned for its shady dealings at Millwall).

Mayor Dave Sullivan opens Tidemill School's new wildlife garden in 1997,
with Jess Steele OBE (who helped create the Ha'Penny Hatch among other things,
and later went on to save Hastings Pier, among other achievements)

The green space that has existed since the garden was created and planted in 1997 is now mature and gorgeous, but is still considered a brownfield site by the Council. 20 years ago it was a playing field, and prior to that it was a car park, and a bombed out 2WW site before that. The Council, who you'd expect to keep a good archive and also protect community assets, keep getting it wrong. They don't even know what year the anchor was installed – they say 1990 when we know it was 1988.

Lewisham's plan also involves the demolition of an entire Council block. Lewisham Homes tenants and leaseholders will be rehoused in the new development and will become tenants of Family Mosaic housing association with consequent loss of council tenant rights (yet still with the Right To Buy, although the price they'd have to pay would be double). Leaseholders will retain their current value against the greater value of the new property but their service charges will triple. Currently only 3 out of 17 residents are leaseholders and so far only two tenants have supported the demolition (and subsequent rehousing on a building site, whilst living next to one whilst their new homes are built).

The financial aspects of the new funding arrangements were discussed in private when the proposals came up before Mayor & Cabinet this June, considered to be 'commercially sensitive'. When the decision then came before the scrutiny of the Business Panel in early July, Council officers were requested to make the figures available to the public. So far, they still remain a secret and all figures and sensitive detail redacted. Not just the financial figures to do with the grant funding and how many affordable homes there will be and what it costs us all, but what the tenants and leaseholders of Reginald House think about being rehoused as well.

Come and celebrate the achievements of the community against all odds! Saturday 22nd July at Tidemill Gardens from 4pm till late.

Click to enlarge

The Deptford Take Back

The sun is supposed to make an appearance on Sunday when Squeeze take the stage at On Blackheath – but the weather forecast is often wrong, so we're hoping the rain holds off for this local event on Saturday, which doesn't have Primal Scream playing (equally likely to get rained on up on Blackheath) but is free to get in. This may be the last chance to enjoy the beautiful Tidemill Garden before the Council and its developer partners finally close it down to build on it ! * 

THE DEPTFORD TAKE BACK
Saturday 10 September, 11am–9pm
Old Tidemill Wildlife Garden, Reginald Road SE8 4RS
A FREE family friendly afternoon and evening packed with activities for kids, live music from local artists, art workshops, local films and food. Come and explore the garden!

ALL DAY 11am–9m Food and drink, arts & crafts workshops, face painting and games
2pm–3pm Samba percussion workshop and carnival procession
2pm–6pm Live music from local bands
3pm–3.30pm Vietnamese Fan Dance
4pm–5pm Street Dance Workshop
6pm–9pm Open Mic DJ sets

The emphasis is on fun, but festivities will also contain a serious side and begin at midday with The Deptford Debates – discussing all the changes taking place in Deptford and how local people can have a voice. Deptford Neighbourhood Action (DNA), a group of locals who are developing a Neighbourhood Plan to benefit the community rather than the usual vested interests, will also be holding their AGM at some point between 12 and 3pm and welcome new members.

* The plans for the new Tidemill development propose to deliver only 6% affordable housing (with 176 out of 210 homes being luxury private housing) by demolishing a council block (2-30A Reginald Road for which there is little support from its 16 tenants) and the schoolkeeper's house next to the old school, as well as destroying the existing Tidemill Garden by removing 73 trees and building over it, and removing all green space in Reginald Road until construction is complete. The proposal is due to be decided by Lewisham's Strategic Planning Committee on 29 September. Use the search facility on this blog for previous posts on Tidemill and/or check out this post about the developer's Viability Assessment by the Deptford Dame.

A joint event organised by Deptford Neighbourhood Action, The Deptford People's Project, The Deptford Debates, Evelyn Community Revival in Deptford SE8 and Trade Deptford.