Demolition Deptford #4 : Number One Creekside

Another long overdue post...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number One Creekside encroaching on Deptford Church Street

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private Eye prints our MITIE story...

It's hard to get a story into Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs', so well done the resident who got them to publish a story about MITIE's shoddy work for Lewisham Homes in the latest issue. Click below to enlarge and read...

Good riddance to the worst scaffolding firm in the world!

On Tuesday this week, 1st Scaffolding returned to the estate to "strike" the scaffolding they began putting up at Wilshaw House on 18th August but never completed because they were 'sacked' three weeks in. During those first three weeks they made as much noise as it is possible to make on a building site (which we are not). As we reported almost a month ago, they were given the push when MITIE, who had employed them, 'discovered' the firm was not licensed. Apparently, Ist Scaffolding have enjoyed a long term relationship with MITIE but no one has ever actually checked their credentials. How many other estates have had to endure their behaviour?

A dispute followed, with residents kept in the dark about what was happening. At the end of October, Lewisham Homes' newly and specially appointed Major Works Project Manager informed a small  TRA meeting (and no one else) that the preference was for Ist Scaffolding to return to finish the job rather than take it down. This would mean that the other (much quieter and more professional) scaffolding firms that have since been employed on other blocks would not have to rebuild it. It would be quicker to finish what had been started than to have it taken down and rebuilt. But this was not to be.

Having had unalarmed half-finished scaffolding up on their block for the past THREE MONTHS with no work actually taking place on it, Wilshaw residents will now have a brief respite before another company begins building platforms around them again – with a further predicted EIGHT months to be spent in the dark. In the intervening period, scaffolding on seven out of Crossfields' nine blocks has been completed. Wilshaw was supposed to be the first, but now they will be the last.

If that was not bad enough, Ist Scaffolding's return on Tuesday at 8.15am meant more intolerable noise for residents as the men shouted their way through the dismantling job, led by their foreman – the loudest of them all. They banged and clanged as they literally threw pipes and planks to the ground. Complaints fell on deaf ears. The MITIE Resident Liaison Officer did not consider the noise a problem and was only concerned to know if the men were swearing or not. He has obviously never read Lewisham Council's Guidelines on Best Practice. Never mind that these cowboys were laughing like hyenas (the foreman especially), removing their hard hats (daring the rest of the crew to throw poles at them), singing pop tunes loudly and badly, and generally taking the piss.

Despite the complaints, 1st Scaffolding continued in the same vein the following day, from early in the morning till around 3pm. No attempt was made to shut them up, and they could be heard from the main road.

On Thursday morning, there was quiet, with no shouting and no pole clanging. One might have assumed they had finished the job. But no, the foreman and a much smaller crew were on site again to take down the last bits of scaffold. However, this time they were being watched by four or five management types. It seems that finally someone at Lewisham Homes or MITIE had taken notice, and it was great to see the gobby-mouthed foreman going about his work quietly, lifting poles and planks without banging them, and with his mouth clamped firmly shut for once. (However, MITIE / Lewisham Homes insist it was a different company doing the 'strike').

Unfortunately, they have left all their poles and planks piled up all around Wilshaw House – the recently dismantled ones are now added to the ones that never got put up that have been taking up valuable parking space for months. When they come back to pick it up, no doubt they will use their loud fume-emitting unsilenced diesel HGV with the engine powered hoist – because they are too lazy to lift the stuff themselves or use pulleys like the other scaffolding companies. Strange that the other companies do not have to leave their stuff here overnight like this lot. In most cases, they bring what they need and use it, only using a small space to store overnight.

Perhaps Ist Scaffolding are exceptionally cheap – this could be why they were MITIE's firm of choice to work here. We were told a few months ago by Leasehold Services that there is a set fee for the scaffolding – so MITIE were possibly making a dirty fat profit out of Ist Scaffolding, and the more professional firms now being used are eating into their dirty fat profits. MITIE's role is to outsource, to sub-contract, and they can't even get that right. But do MITIE get thrown off the job? No. They are "partners" with Lewisham Homes. More on that another time...

Update 19th December:
Lewisham Homes / MITIE gave 1st Scaffolding till 2nd December to move their stuff out of around 25 parking bays. If they didn't meet this deadline, MITIE would move it for them. The deadline was not met. MITIE promised to remove the stuff themselves on Wednesday 10th. That didn't happen either. Five weeks after the Wilshaw scaffolding was struck, the poles and planks were finally removed today (or at least most of them!).

Crossfields Major Works: Scaffolding debacle

As part of 'Decent Homes Major Works' the external refurbishment of our estate began on 18th August with the erection of scaffolding on Wilshaw House, one of the nine blocks on Crossfields. It was originally scheduled to go up on 28th July (if not before).

The scaffolding company, 1st Scaffolding, were very noisy. Three weeks later they were 'thrown off' the site for breaches in Health & Safety. In that time they had only managed to cover less than half the building. By this Monday, the half erected scaffolding will have been up – unalarmed – for NINE weeks.

No Decent Homes work has taken place on the block during this time, so affected residents have had to tolerate a reduction in light for two months for no reason at all. 

Lewisham Homes estimate that scaffolding on each block will be up for around 6 months whilst works take place. However, at Tanner's Hill, scaffolding has been up on Deloraine and Heston Houses since February – nearly 8 months. The most recent 'schedules' have Wilshaw House scaffolding commencing yet again on Monday 20th along with its neighbour Holden House.

Where Wilshaw were supposed to be the first block to receive the 'gift' of major works, it appears they will now be the last – without any explanation for the intervening time.

The only information given to Wilshaw residents was contained in a newsletter published by contractors MITIE (a massive out-sourcing company) in late September. It said "We have recently been in discussion with our scaffolding supply chain partners concerning their work practices, in particular their attention to specific details concerning health & safety. Therefore we have now sourced other suppliers to continue in their place." 

In the meantime, the scaffolding has not come down because there is a contractual dispute that has gone into litigation. We're not sure who's involved with the scaffolding company in this – MITIE or Lewisham Homes. The two have become an interchangeable mess of middle and senior managers saying different things. LH have out-sourced to out-sourcers MITIE, but seem to defer to them. Lewisham Homes defer even more so to surveyors Baily Garner, who earn 1.34% on the total cost of the works (last reckoned to be £36m of central government funds across the borough) and have therefore, unsurprisingly, specified unnecessary work that has gone unchallenged by LH.

A different scaffolding company arrived on the estate on 15th September and began work on Farrer House. Before finishing Farrer, they also worked on Browne House which was the first to be completed. Scaffolders are now working on Castell, Frankham and Finch and have been remarkably quiet and efficient. The contrast between the two companies has been huge – and much noted by residents who have hardly noticed the second company's presence whilst they stealthily cover the whole estate in scaffolding.

The noise made by 1st Scaffolding in the first week was so disturbing that some residents complained to the site office. The nuisance noise was from one scaffolder who never stopped talking/shouting and the vehicle they used to hoist their materials. One complaint was met with "That's scaffolders for you" from the MITIE resident liaison officer. That response was so poor that the complaining resident consequently shouted and swore at the scaffolders themselves, resulting in Lewisham Homes raising an Anti-Social Behaviour complaint against her whilst no action was taken against the scaffolders.

The issue of Wilshaw House scaffolding was raised at a meeting on 11th September, convened by Lewisham Homes' Director of Housing to discuss leaseholder's queries on the Schedule of Works. Leaseholders reported that they had heard that morning from their caretaker that the scaffolders had got the push and that new scaffolders were starting work on another block the following Monday.

The regional head of MITIE, Rod Sutherland, replied: "They have not been sacked. I have slowed the works down because of your queries". 

It was then suggested (and laughed about by some senior managers) that the caretaker was indulging in idle gossip. In fact, he had got the information from the MITIE site foreman and it was true. 

As well as shouting continuously onsite, 1st Scaffolding used a diesel hoist to lift poles and planks (the new company uses pulleys). The hoist was run 30 minutes at a time at intervals whilst they unloaded their materials. It appeared to have no silencer on its exhaust and was pumping diesel fumes into residents' homes. Both the shouting and the diesel hoist vehicle were breaking the guidelines outlined by Lewisham Council's Good Practice Guide, which also states that noise monitoring should be undertaken by the contractors (which it obviously wasn't). There was supposed to be a Scaffolding Inspector on site, but it was three weeks before 1st Scaffolding was asked to leave.

No actual work has started anywhere on the estate yet.

Update: Friday 24 October

No news on the Wilshaw House scaffolding which is still up. Work started on Browne on Wednesday.

We've been told there's a set fee for scaffolding. Some residents have asked for reassurances that just because it makes no difference to the cost how long the scaffolding stays up, works should not be delayed or prolonged because of this, and should be managed so that it is up for the minimum amount of time. The reply given was "the documentation presented to MITIE for tendering purposes required them to charge for scaffolding based on its dimensions alone. However scaffolding companies commonly charge based on dimensions, erection charge, dismantling charge and weekly hire charge. Consequently there is an incentive for MITIE to leave the scaffolding in place for the minimum period necessary to complete the works and have it accepted."

There are only a few items for which scaffolding is required – roof works, brick cleaning, brick and masonry repairs, renewing (undamaged) sealant around windows. Even if these are done first, it seems other works (which don't need scaffolding) must be completed before all works can be 'signed off'. On other estates, inadequate work has had to be done again in order to be fully signed off (usually where residents have intervened), and 'snagging' seems to take a long time. So Crossfields residents can expect to remain in the dark (with a 35% loss of light for those on the lower floors) well into the middle of next summer, if not next autumn.

Update: Monday 3 November

Wilshaw House scaffolding has now been half up and unalarmed for 11 weeks with no work taking place.

The TRA was told last Thursday that Lewisham Homes/MITIE are waiting for 1st Scaffolding to get the appropriate certification required in order to either come back and complete the job or take it down. The preference is for them to complete the job  – but only on the balcony sides of the block. Another company will erect the platforms at the back. That way it will take less time than if 1st Scaffolding take down what they've put up and then another company has to re-erect the front as well.

What beggars belief is how long this company has been allowed to operate without appropriate certification (CISRS or CSCS) or membership of any scaffolding associations. We found out weeks ago that 1st Scaffolding did not have NASC membership (the National Access and Scaffolding Federation is the main scaffolding association in the UK). In other words, MITIE/Lewisham Homes do not check.

 

Faircharm Uncreative Quarter (FUQ) #3

(FCQ = Faircharm Creative Quarter. Hence FUQ = Faircharm Uncreative Quarter) 

Workspace claim that there is "general support for the proposed building massing and scale" from local residents. This cannot really be supported, since so few attended the two exhibitions that were held.

It's therefore important now that you comment on these plans, and make sure your views are registered with the Lewisham planners. Tenants' opinions should be equally valuable as those of leaseholders – in fact they're more important, since some leaseholders don't even live here. Please don't be put off by the lack of anonymity in this consultation process. And you don't have to write an essay – just say you don't like it! Remember, the deadline is this Monday (end of the day should be fine)...

Email your objection to: planning@lewisham.gov.uk and include the application number DC/12/82000 and your name and address. Please also copy your objection to Joan Ruddock who has been following this development closely.

SOME POINTERS FOR YOUR OBJECTIONS...(may be added to but don't delay!)

Height and Massing
The 12 storey tower is over twice the height of any building in the immediate area and is therefore out of scale. The other three buildings are also too tall and too close to each other. For those facing the new development, the developers say"Magnitude of change is considered to be large as it will create a major change in view at a close distance to the east." But this is considered as "Moderate – Beneficial impact" since "Low quality views from some of the flats eastwards over the industrial roofscape will be replaced by closer views of the high quality new residential development." You lucky people!

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing
They know it's a problem, but they reckon the effect will be minimal. With those most affected facing East/West it's actually more of a problem for the new proposed blocks. But according to Workspace's own studies Wilshaw and Holden facing Creekside will lose up to 20% of their light. That really is nothing compared to what might have happened if Workspace's original proposals had gone to Planning.

Cumulative Effects of Demolition and Construction
They admit that "the overall effect of dust upon nearby receptors is considered to be minor to major in the very worst case". Major, then, if any of your family suffer from asthma. There will also be up to 90 (one way) trips per day by construction vehicles (180 a day) going in and out of Faircharm. So, pollution, dust, noise, vibration and traffic for three or more years. Their studies do not include the potential Thames Water works on Deptford Church Street, nor acknowledgement of Lewisham's own development at Tidemill.

Parking and traffic
When the development is complete, the lack of parking is not considered to be a problem because "the low car use resulting from "Restricted parking" means that 77% of residents, and 69% of employees and visitors are expected to travel to the site by public transport or other non-car modes in the peak periods". Is this just wishful thinking? They expect the 148 new residential units to accommodate approximately 246 new people. If 77% use public transport, then 56 of them (23%) might drive, but there are only 28 spaces on the drawings (although the Environment Statement says there are 39). If they hope to create a couple of hundred new jobs and predict 50% will live locally, then there's still a potential 31 who'll want to drive to work. In December 2011 there were 60 spaces. Guess where they'll park...

Affordable Housing
This has been reduced from 30% (December 2011) to a measly 15%. 21 units out of 148, and there is only one 3-bedroom unit within the affordable section, when the housing shortage is at its most acute. The reduction is blamed on Lewisham for creating the Conservation Zone and making Workspace have to retain the buildings at the front that they had otherwise planned to knock down and build up to 7 storeys that would have created a dark canyon on Creekside.

Workspace's scheme to feather their own nest is disguised as a (less than) brilliant offer to the local authority to increase employment and housing opportunities, but as soon as the Tories said it was OK to reduce the number of affordable housing units in any development, Workspace leapt at the chance. 

Materials
We haven't had time to read through the choice of building materials to make comment on them, except to say that dark grey brick is a huge mistake – wrong, wrong, wrong! Contrasted with that anaemic beige – yuk, yuk, yuk! This author would like to see lots of wood, but it's all a matter of taste, of course...

Waste Water Drainage
It appears they're proposing to use the existing mains and sewerage, yet Crossfields has huge drainage problems (Lewisham Homes doesn't even have a plan of the drains) and there's a few stinky manholes on Creekside. What will be the impact of 2-300 extra bums, showers, baths, washing machines, dishwashers, etc on this already vulnerable infrastructure?

Wildlife
Although Workspace drafted in Creekside Discovery Centre to help their landscape architects design an appropriate plan, and there will be 847 sqm of brown roof, plus bird and bat boxes around the site, the amount of light pollution from the residential development will play havoc with the ecology of the Creek.

Conservation Area
What are they doing plonking four monstrous blocks into a conservation zone? The area was designated a Conservation Area not just because of its buildings, but because of the unique environment of the Creekside area, and the activities and history of the community it covers, the very community which is now threatened by this development.
See Lewisham Council's guidelines on Urban Design in Conservation Areas.

New office spaces and commercial units
How come the Seager development couldn't find any takers for its office space? How come retail units in Creekside Village remain empty? Can this emphasis on small office type B1 Use (light industrial) workspaces for the Creative Industries that uses the reputation created by artists that are about to be, if not already, priced out of the area, really be justified?

Routes through the estate
Crossfields gardeners may wish to note the paths outlined in these proposals that refer to the linkways from and to Faircharm. Yes, it's back to that cycle link path that never got made. It's referred to on page 143 of the Design & Access Statement as "the missing link in the network".  'Deptford Urban Park' specialists WMM are the landscape architects on this project. The good news is that the Ha'Penny Hatch route has been identified as a priority link to be improved. Crossfields itself has been identified as a well-used pedestrian crossing to Deptford High Street, and as a good quality environment safe for pedestrians. About time we all stopped personally paying for the maintenance of a recognised public footpath then, eh.


SOME NOTES ON THE ABOVE... 

Height and massing

That's Crossfields on the left (in both these plan drawings)...

Luckily for those on the ground floor of Holden and Wilshaw, the view of the new tower will be obscured by the existing building, as demonstrated in this diagram:

Policy 18 of Lewisham's Core Strategy makes the following statements regarding overshadowing (quoted on p.270 of the applicant's Environment Statement):

“Tall buildings will be considered inappropriate where they would cause harm to the identified qualities of the local character, heritage assets, landscape and open space features listed below: riverside environments where tall buildings might harm biodiversity interests through overshadowing.” (16.12)
“It is essential that new development does not adversely affect the amenity enjoyed by existing residential properties by unacceptably reducing the level of natural light received or creating an unsightly outlook.” (16.14)

There are plenty of 'wireline' photos showing the impact of the buildings on the surrounding environment, but none to show the impact if you were standing in front of the Faircharm entrance. Here's a wireline photo of Creekside Discovery Centre (page 162 of the Access & Design Statement):

Here's the same photo but we've filled in the 'wireline' to show the true extent of the proposed buildings:

The impact to the Creek is considered "Moderate – Beneficial" since "the Creek environment and access to the waterfront will be significantly improved". Apparently the Creek "has the capacity to accommodate modern development alongside".


In the Consultation section of the Design & Access Statement, they state that  Lewisham planners like the tower: "It was commented that the height of the tall building was considered appropriate given the scale of the emerging townscape in the wider area around the Creek" (p66).

And Lewisham's Design Review Panel (a volunteer group of local architects) are recorded as saying: "Overall the massing strategy is supported and the panel particularly welcomes the shift in scale from the retained buildings through bold and strong architectural forms...whilst the massing is largely appreciated the Panel do question the height and form of the three lower new blocks. Through both their scale and architecture these buildings appear too similar to each other..." (p67)

The Greater London Authority (GLA) says: "In relation to tall buildings and views.....the 6.5 metre tower setback is preferred. This option presents a better response to the constraint of the view corridor, and the spire of St Paul’s Deptford remains visible and immediately identifiable....The proposed massing of these buildings is generally acceptable, but as before, the treatment of the roof elements should ensure that they would not appear too bulky in views." (p 68)

This is disappointing and depressing to read, but it's also why Crossfields residents should object at this stage. Local residents' views have just not been taken into account.

Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing

An analysis of the overshadowing created by these tall buildings is detailed in Chapter 16 of the Environment Statement. (The results can be found in pp.509-518 of the Environment Statement appendices). A quicker read can be found in the "Non-Technical" version of this document (p. 14). They keep saying impact will be minimal, but this statement says otherwise:

"An assessment was undertaken to determine the likely effect of the proposed Development on the amount of daylight and sunlight experienced by residential buildings close to the Site and also the residential accommodation proposed within the Development itself. The assessment also considered whether the new buildings would overshadow amenity spaces within and around the Development. There would be no specific construction-related effects on sunlight, daylight or overshadowing. As construction work proceeds, the levels of daylight and sunlight received by adjacent properties would decrease, while the effect of overshadowing would increase as the Development progresses to completion, as would be expected."

"Owing to the Site currently consisting of relatively underdeveloped, low rise light industrial units, the urban nature of the surroundings and the scale of the Development, there would be some unavoidable adverse effects on the amount of daylight and sunlight experienced at some of the surrounding residential properties. As per the BRE guidance, the resultant daylight and sunlight levels would be consistent with other city developments."

"An accurate 3-dimensional model was developed to identify the effects of the Development on surrounding residential properties. This assessment was based on guidance published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)." There is no picture of this model or any useful diagrams of the sunlight study we can show you, so here's another 'wireline' photo of the view from Ha'Penny Hatch, and a rendering of the tower from Frankham Street:

Cumulative Effects of Demolition and Construction

"During the demolition and construction works of the Development there would be some temporary combined effects, predominantly associated with townscape and visual effects, dust, noise, vibration and traffic. The Site-specific Environmental Management Plan would provide the mechanism by which temporary demolition and construction effects on surrounding receptors would be minimised. The cumulative effects of the Development, in conjunction with the construction of a number of other reasonably foreseeable schemes, were generally found to be minimal."

"However, even with mitigation in place to minimise the effects of dust generated from demolition and construction, it is difficult to completely eliminate such effects. Consequently, the overall effect of dust upon nearby receptors is considered to be minor to major in the very worst-case. However, these effects would be temporary and would depend on the type of work being undertaken, and its location within the Site."

However, during the 3-year construction period there are likely to be 9 construction vehicles per hour entering the site at peak construction times (that's just one-way trips), or 90 (one-way) trips per day but they make out that this is no more than the existing vehicle trips. This simply cannot be true, since noisy construction lorries are not currently turning up at Faircharm's entrance at all.  

Again, none of this is considered mitigating. "As a result, the effects of vehicle emissions would be minor adverse during the peak construction phases but negligible at all other times."

Parking and traffic

28 spaces – or possibly 39 (reduced from the 60 projected in December 2011). 250 residents, 200 employees. They will all continue to park in the street and on Crossfields free of charge, while we pay for the maintenance of these areas (tenants pay too, you just don't see it in your statements). Workspace witter on:

"It is important to understand the type of tenants expected to occupy the new units at FCQ as this will further justify why the level of commercial parking proposed is robust and acceptable."

"Workspace Group caters for micro, small and medium business enterprises and smaller units (less than 40 sqm) will only be typically used by 2 to 5 employees. Almost half of the commercial units (21) proposed at FCQ will be 40 sqm or less... As part of on-going site monitoring, surveys at other existing Workspace Group sites show that 65% of commercial tenants live within 2 miles and the majority travel to/from work by public transport, walking and/or cycling. The main reason given by tenants to lease Workspace units is to maintain a flexible work/life balance and proximity of the unit to their home is a key factor. Of the current tenants occupying Faircharm Industrial Estate approximately 50% live within 2 miles of the site, showing that even now the site attracts local users.

"Therefore, actual employee numbers anticipated at FCQ will be much lower than traditional B1 office use and it is reasonable to assume given evidence of other Workspace sites that 65% of employees are likely to live within 2 miles of the site and choose sustainable modes of travel. On this basis, the modal split has been adjusted to reflect the low level of parking and these local circumstances."

In other words, they have devised a formula that suits them as much as it suits the local authority's desire to see a reduction in car useage. Meanwhile, Creekside Village built an underground carpark. There may be a pay-off here for Lewisham – to sell or rent some land for parking that is currently underused by Crossfields residents (and overused by Faircharm businesses). Any money so gained should be put back into Crossfields, possibly into grounds maintenance, reducing bills for all, including tenants. 

Affordable Housing

The reasons given for the reduction in affordable homes in this scheme are typical. A development must be financially viable to be deliverable. Whilst Workspace acknowledges Lewisham's requirement of 42% affordable housing to tackle overcrowding (11,300 overcrowded households in the borough equating to 10.2% of all households in the borough), they blame Lewisham for making them retain the old Faircharm buildings A & C.

4.2 The decision to retain buildings A & C whilst assisting with the conservation aspect will have a direct impact of the viability of the scheme. The cost associated with these works is comparable to that of developing new works space but the retention of these buildings has meant that the applicant had not been able to optimise the amount of workspace on site.

4.6 ...the decision to refurbish buildings A&C has reduced the floor area potential of the scheme which restricts the value of the commercial element and constrains the overall viability of the project. In addition the replacement employment space, whilst a cornerstone of the development proposals in terms of creating a new space required for existing and new creative entrepreneurs, start-ups and small and medium enterprises to grow in, requires residential development to facilitate this transition. It would not be a viable development proposition to re-provide just commercial space as rents would have to rise very significantly making the development unsustainable.

4.7 On this basis the development relies heavily on the residential component to help fund the provision and improvement of the employment offer as well as enabling the package of business continuity associated with it. This inevitably requires the scheme to deliver a balance of outcomes as it is an unviable proposition to try and deliver the new employment proposals and a full package of planning obligations including affordable housing at the level targeted by policy.

Materials etc etc (run out of steam)

The architects draw their influences from the Creek's industrial heritage. The history of this site is that it was a chemical works. Reports are yet to be done on how toxic it is. The developers insist there will always be a barrier of concrete protecting its customers from whatever lies beneath the surface. Perhaps this why there is no underground car park planned. Or any significant archaeology...

This blog would like to acknowlege the infinite patience of Karakusevic & Carson Architects and their associates WMM. Nothing personal! Magnificent drawings, great renderings, lovely people, terrible clients.

Thanks to ER in Castell for suggestions and help. Please feel free to send us your own in the comments section – if you have time...
 

Faircharm Uncreative Quarter #2

Application DC/12/82000

Crossfields residents and Faircharm businesses received a letter only a few days before Christmas (dated 17th December, received 20th) inviting them to make their views known on the above proposal – in the middle of the holiday period and with less than three weeks to respond.

This is the sort of manoeuvre we've come to expect from developers who want to slip things past everyone while they're on holiday (a tactic also favoured by betting shops).

Those living in Holden and Wilshaw houses on Creekside will be most affected by these plans, so may wish to take some time in the next couple of days to comment. Other residents will be affected by the building works which, if the application is approved, will go on for three years (2014-2016). The development will also overshadow the Creek and Creekside Discovery Centre. Others rather more immediately affected are the business tenants in Faircharm.

We last wrote about this proposed redevelopment in December 2011, when the owners of Faircharm, Workspace Group plc, first presented their ideas for redeveloping the site – dressed up as something that would be beneficial for Deptford, local residents and businesses. Their first proposal featured new buildings fronting onto the road that were taller than Crossfields, threatening to create a grand canyon out of Creekside and all-day darkness for Holden and Wilshaw residents. The plan also included a 12/13 storey tower by the Creek, more residential space than there was work space, the promise of 30% affordable housing and parking for 60 cars (surely not enough).

In the same month, Lewisham Council ran a consultation on the creation of the Creekside Conservation Area, a proposal that was adopted by the Mayor in May 2012. The Conservation Zone assignation meant that the buildings at the front of Faircharm had to be preserved, so Workspace's architects Karakusevic Carson had to come up with another plan, a mixture of their original "Do nothing" and Workspaces' wildest dreams for economic recovery, eg as many luxury flats to sell to overseas for local letting as possible...

These new plans were shown in a public consultation in July 2012. Gone were the tall blocks fronting the edge of Creekside. These had simply been moved back a bit to accommodate the conservation of the low (and familiar) Faircharm frontage. The tower block remained. It was to be covered in Cor-ten steel – a weathering material that looks like rust and a design cliché often used in areas rich in 'industrial heritage'. Perhaps because this was already being used in a new building on Greenwich High Road, the tower is now presented to us as dark grey brick. A dark satanic mill. Otherwise there is little change in the proposals.

A further two meetings were held for Faircharm tenants, chaired by Joan Ruddock. The first meeting was with Joan, Lewisham planners and the tenants. A second meeting was held in September 2012 to which Workspace was invited. This is referred to in the Consultation chapter of the Design & Access Statement, where Workspace say "the key concerns raised were in relation to planned timescales, lease renewals and uncertainty".

This was actually quite a heated and angry meeting. Joan insisted all the tenants were kept in the loop, and Workspace states in their application that as a result of these discussions they "agreed to meet with all 38 businesses individually to discuss what plans will mean for them. These meetings have been ongoing since September. Updates are also currently issued to the tenants via email on a fortnightly basis." Tenants say this is far from the truth: they have not been kept up to date and have not been contacted individually or otherwise by their landlord.

In their Affordable Housing and Viability Statement, Workspace state:
"4.5 A core part of the redevelopment proposals is the business continuity programme which has been developed by the applicant...This sets out the range of support that will be offered to the existing occupiers on site during the construction process and will provide assistance in finding temporary or permanent relocation options for tenants. This level of support to tenants affected by the redevelopment is over and above the legal obligations of a landlord undertaking this type of development. This business continuity programme is judged by LBL to be a key priority and therefore a legitimate part of the overall Section 106 obligations for the site. A sum of £500,000 has been allocated to fund this package."
All that cash must have gone to the consultancy who have failed to consult.

Workspace say they are not really earning much out of Faircharm. If they merely renovated the present buildings they would be in danger of "a missed opportunity for optimising development at a key location".  They also threaten to close the estate down if they're not allowed to proceed.

In their Environment Statement they say: "In terms of the existing situation the buildings are in good order, but many of the building elements are coming to the end of their economic life. In relation to performance, the current configuration...does not lend itself to the requirements and needs of the majority of contemporary commercial tenants." (4.10) "The quality and the nature of the space means that the rents are low, the existing space is under-occupied and insufficient revenues are being generated to maintain the space. The situation is one that can no longer be sustained by the Applicant. Without intervention the only feasible outcome would be closure of the Estate and the implementation of measures to reduce the ongoing costs of operating the Estate." (4.11)

The premises are indeed under-occupied – tenants are leaving because of Workspace's new plans. According to the Environment Statement (Non Technical), a business survey undertaken in January 2012 found there were 68 businesses. Now there are 38.

Although the site in question is one of Lewisham's last few areas of designated concentrated employment use, the council likes 'mixed use' developments, since it also has to fulfill an unrealistic target for housing. That makes Workspace's proposals for the site relatively attractive even though they go against Lewisham and the Greater London Authority's ideas for this particular area.

Workspace have tarted up their application with the absurd nomenclature "Creative Quarter", based on the notion that Creekside is a 'creative hub' – as defined by the now defunct findings of the 'Creekside Charrette', which identified the area as bustling with artists and creative types. Yes, it was. Because it was cheap. Many of the creative businesses in Faircharm are there because it is cheaper than elsewhere. Some of them are there because there are so few self-contained spaces available locally (although there's plenty of luxury housing).

Workspace says "Creative industries are important to (us), and we support them across London...At the moment, creative businesses in Lewisham are important customers in Workspace centres...We want to encourage more businesses to flourish by creating spaces that we know work...This is our way of contributing to Lewisham's growing creative sector – as part of the borough's 'Creative Industries Strategy'..."

Their September 2012 brochure boasted "more flexible studios and office-based space to consolidate and expand the Creekside/Deptford creative industry cluster, capitalising on the local population..." with apparently "90-100 more jobs on site". There is 100,000sqft (9,300 sqm) of business space which they want to reduce to 50,000sqft (or 4734 sqm).

Workspace's application requests a Change of Use for the site. It includes provision of 'new commercial uses' – 4734 sqm of Use Class B1. This planning class is for offices and light industry appropriate in a residential area. What is meant by Creative Industries then? It appears to be the sort of creativity that involves computers and light crafts in office-type spaces. Not artists, not crafts people, not the much heralded Based Upon (who work in bronze), not Shultz & Wiramu (who dye fabrics for theatre and film), not the sculptors, not the recording studio, not the artists collectives, the printers and publishers, not the fabricators of film props, not the businesses who need more than an office space.

The current tenants which are part of the creative industries Lewisham and Workspace say they want to promote, who do big messy things, or make noise with machinery or power tools and often work late into the night to meet deadlines and require 24 hour access, will not be able to be rehoused in the titchy new office/studio spaces, next door to or below people who have paid over £400K for their quiet apartment beside Deptford Creek.

Perhaps Workspace and the planners would care to look at what happened at Seager Distillery. Two art galleries and lots of office space for small business was proposed. The developer could find no one to run the gallery spaces and no takers for the office space and was soon applying for Change of Use to turn it into a hotel – and then the hotel chain pulled out, resulting in a half finished building. Perhaps Workspace and the planners should also look at all the empty ground floor commercial space lying empty at Creekside Village.

In reality this is not about Workspace's commitment to providing swanky new accommodation and employment opportunities for Lewisham's creative industry – it is simply the usual story of a property developer wanting to cash in on their riverside property with yet another proposal for luxury flats. The residential part of the development will be sold to another developer/builder and Workspace will make a nice tidy profit and possibly even profit share on future sales.

Their commitment is not to solving Lewisham's housing crisis either, having reduced the number of affordable homes in the scheme from 30% to 15%, with the usual developer's threat (since Boris relaxed the rules) that the project simply wouldn't be viable (hugely profit making) if there were more.

Email your objection to: planning@lewisham.gov.uk and include the application number DC/12/82000 and your name and address. Please also copy your objection to Joan Ruddock who has been following this development closely.

Faircharm Creative Quarter – deadline 7th Jan!

Happy New Year! You have until Monday 7th January to comment on Workspace's plans for Faircharm.

The application (DC/12/82000) can be viewed on the Lewisham Planning Portal here. All the plans and statements are listed under Documents (greyed out on the menu, like they don't want you to see them). The most useful documents to read are the Design & Access Statement (Parts 1 & 2 at the bottom of the list) from which the above drawings have been taken, and the Environmental Statement (MAIN TEXT). An easier read is the Environmental Statement (Non Technical). You might also be interested in their Affordable Housing and Viability Statement.

Email your objection to: planning@lewisham.gov.uk and include the application number DC/12/82000 and your name and address. Please also copy your objection to Joan Ruddock who has been following this development closely (ruddockj@parliament.uk).

You may also wish to copy in the New Cross councillors:
Cllr_paul.maslin@lewisham.gov.uk
CllrStephen.Padmore@lewisham.gov.uk
madeliene.long@lewisham.gov.uk
and the Crossfields Tenants & Residents Association Chair: squaregardener@gmail.com

See further posts here and here for comments on the plans and objection points.

Tenants have no water for 6 days followed by water torture

We reported on Monday 8th August that on one side of Wilshaw House, tenants had been without water to flush loos and cold water in the bathroom for three days. We also reported on Friday 12th that this matter had been resolved by Wednesday 10th.

However, we learned yesterday that the matter is far from resolved. For some tenants, normal service was resumed on Tuesday, but others could not flush their loos till Wednesday evening. A leaseholder called Lewisham Homes on Wednesday afternoon and was told the problem was because the ball cock in the water tank had stopped working, and they had no spares to replace it with. They had sent off for the part and it would take a while but perhaps be fixed by Friday.

The choice was whether to keep the water turned off (no toilet flushing) or turn it back on – but, said the LH guy, 'there might be some leaks' – if the water went back on in flats where people were out but had left the taps on, they might experience flooding.

The water was turned back on. And so from Wednesday and ongoing, there has been water cascading from an overflow pipe onto the porch roof below then bouncing onto the area in front of the porch, necessitating the use of an umbrella to get to the first floor or to access the ground floor flats either side of the stairwell.

This is equivalent in noise levels to five days of non-stop rain.

The very same thing occurred at the end of June at Castell House. Stickman posted on June 30th that the water tank in Castell had been leaking for three days. Both he and the caretakers had reported it. He'd been told by Repairs that it wasn't 'an emergency' and would be fixed the following day. Nine days and gallons of wasted water later, on Wednesday July 6th he reported that Repairs had denied that anyone had contacted them the week before, suggesting the first time it had been reported was the day before. They told him it was now classed as an emergency and someone would come and fix it on the following Monday, making it a total of 14 days that residents had had to endure the sound of water crashing onto a tin roof and splashing onto the forecourt.

After that, any sane person would expect Repairs to have a few spare ballcocks, valves and other plumbing necessities in reserve for just these sorts of occasions. But they quite obviously do not. If the job is contracted out, then the contractors should be sacked.

We are also alarmed to realise that our bathroom cold water comes from the water tank rather than direct from the mains, and is therefore not drinking water. What have we been cleaning our teeth with all this time?

Update Tuesday 16th August: The water was turned on this morning, apparently, although it was not clear then whether the problem was actually fixed. But ground floor residents were able to flush their loos. It is probably a co-incidence that Cllr Paul Bell (who sits on the board of Lewisham Homes) was referred to this post yesterday afternoon.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding has been up for a while now (over four weeks front and back of 1-20 Wilshaw and a bit less outside Castell) but no one knows what it's for. During all this time one workman has been spotted with one roof ridge tile.

He was asked if he'd been detailed with clearing the gutters while he was up there – maybe pull out the tree that's growing up on Wilshaw, but alas no. A zoom lens reveals it may be a bird's nest, so probably best to leave, eh.