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: 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

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...