South London Art Map (SLAM) Launch - Friday 25th February

For the past year or so, every last Friday in the month has been Deptford Last Fridays – when most if not all the art venues in Deptford are open late (6.30-8pm), showing art and serving beer and wine. It complemented the East End's own First Thursdays.

The idea was initiated by Bearspace Gallery's Julia Alvarez, and along with Last Fridays came the Deptford Art Map, detailing events and shows in the neighbourhood.

Now Last Fridays has spread out to cover the whole of South London and the South Bank (including Tate Modern), with a corresponding South London Art Map. Julia is now director of SLAM and the website (www.southlondonartmap.com) has details of all participating galleries (over 90), an online magazine, and exhibition listings. Like Deptford Last Fridays there will also be Art Tours, and the area has been divided into three 'hubs' — Deptford, Peckham and Bankside, to include everything going on from Vauxhall to Greenwich and Brixton to Brockley.

A special badge has been designed by artist Hew Locke for the launch tomorrow evening, which can be collected from participating galleries – the first 30 people through any gallery door can collect one while stocks last...

To see who's participating locally in tomorrow's launch, see Last Fridays. Right on Crossfields' doorstep are APT Gallery, Core Gallery and Hatch Space. ArtHub (and possibly Creekside Artists) will be open (badges available), and a quick walk away are Arch and Bearspace. Walk a bit further (or get on yer bike) and there's Lewisham Arthouse, The Old Police Station, Utrophia, Tea Leaf Arts, The Agency, cueB...Or take a look at the map and venture further west to the next village.

Objection to Betfred Planning Application (3) Children & vulnerable persons

Only 6 days to go. Objections to Betfred's Planning Application must be in by 2nd March (planning@lewisham.gov.uk).

Here is some more ammo for your objection. This time it's about Deprivation, Child Poverty and Vulnerable People...

Good information is hard to find and a lot of the following information isn't up-to-date, even though it's obvious to most of us that things have only got worse. If anyone can update and expand on the information below, please contact us.

Postscript: Since posting, Save the Children Fund have hit the news with some frightening statistics. As the Londonist reports: "the proposed changes to benefits and continued high rate of unemployment will tip more families into poverty". According to the statistics, 20% of Lewisham's kids are living in poverty. The Guardian has mapped the data.

..............
 

The betting industry seems to keep targeting deprived and poor areas. Why? 

• End Child Poverty reported in 2008 that Lewisham has one of the highest rates of child poverty in London and is the 11th most deprived borough out of the 32 boroughs in the capital. 

• Particular issues that Lewisham faces include high levels of unemployment, disadvantage in income, health and crime, low levels of educational attainment and a poor natural environment. 

(The State of the Borough, An Economic Social and Environmental Profile, 2007, The local futures group)

• 55% of Lewisham’s children are from low income families, and 35% of adults in those families are out of work.  Source: HM Revenue and Customs (2006: please update). Provided by the Child Poverty Toolkit

• The problem affecting local children living in poverty because of gambling addiction:  
- when their father or mother spends uncontrollably,
- spends significant amounts of time not at home, conceals or lies about their gambling behaviour
- has no interest in spending time with them
- doesn't attend parent evenings or help with school work
- cannot keep a job, cannot pay the bills and cannot feed them.

• The site at 93-95 is extremely close to Tidemill Primary School. Even when the school moves to its new site, it will still be extremely close. Older children from Addey & Stanhope and St Joseph's also use the high street at lunch time and at the end of the school day around 3.30-4pm. Greggs the bakers at no. 91 (next door to the proposed premises) is a particular favourite for these kids. It is also a favourite with everyone, old and young, including mums with toddlers.

• The staff at Greggs have been told by their Head Office to ignore the shop lifting drug addicts who occasionally barge in to steal a sandwich. This is possibly to avoid the disruption caused by calling the police, so that the store may continue to run happily and productively without interruption.  Staff at Greggs were horrified to hear there is likely to be another betting office right next door, when there is already a problematic betting shop right opposite.

• Operators like to think they are successfully operating a "Think 21" policy. But last year, a gambling commission investigation uncovered that 98% of bookmakers allowed under-age gambling. It is estimated that 127,000 young people in the UK aged under 24 have a gambling addiction.

• Gamcare reports that 2% of their calls in 2009/10 were from under 18s, with an increase of 22% from those aged 18-25. Most of the ‘under 18s’ who called the confidential helpline reported gambling in ‘arcades’ and ‘betting shops’.

• The rate of problem gambling is over three times higher in young people as it is in adults according to the Journal of Child Adolescent Substance Abuse, 8, 55-68 (or see page 7 of Gambling Addiction and its treatment within the NHS download here).

• If a young person under 18 or 21 is to understand that a betting premises, like a pub, is an establishment they are not permitted to enter,  it may be observed that with the clustering of betting establishments currently in the high street, an entire stretch of the road has become out of bounds to young people and children.

• It has been suggested that first generation migrants may not be sufficiently socially, culturally or even financially adapted to their new environment to protect them from the potential risks of excessive gambling. Many are therefore vulnerable to the development of problems. This highlights the need for healthcare professionals to be aware of specific groups — increasingly, women and new migrants, as well as young males and adolescents — who may present with gambling problems... BMA Board of Science

• The types of games played also impacted on the development of gambling problems, the BMA report found. Problem games have a high event frequency (fast and allow for continual staking), played mostly by single unemployed males under 30, followed by older males over 40 often of Chinese ethnicity, and adolescent males. BMA Board of Science

• One of the most recent and prominent beggars on Deptford High Street is now a young Chinese man (at least that is how he is perceived and is described by the Safer Neighbourhood Team) which goes against the findings of a 2010 report How Fair Is Britain (by the Equality and Human Rights Commission) in which young Chinese were perceived to be above black and other racial groups in educational achievement. He was such a nuisance that the SNT tried to get him on an ASBO but it didn't stick, he's out there begging right next to BetterBet.

• Shockingly, the same report said "While disabilities often mean lower income levels and life expectancy, the commission found that being black and male appears to have a greater impact on levels of numeracy than being learning disabled". Oddly enough, there are black males in bettting shops who must surely be numerate, just not very lucky.

Next topic: Gambling Addiction and Anti-social behaviour

Meanwhile see the Deptford Dame's post on objecting to Betfred.

Objection to Betfred Planning Application (2) - Template

Only 6 days to go. Objections to Betfred's Planning Application must be in by 2nd March (planning@lewisham.gov.uk).

Here is a template letter written by a fellow objector that you may adapt for your own use, relating to the planning requirements of Lewisham's own Unitary Development Plan with special reference to Shopping (see previous post and Deptford Dame for more info).

Please adapt to your own use regarding your relationship to the high street and don't forget your name and address. If you duplicate the letter exactly it will be recognised as one objection with the original, so please be a little bit creative.

We'll also be posting more shortly with other clues for objections...

.............

Dear Sir or Madam,

Reference planning application DC/11/76362/X

I wish to register my objection to the above planning application, relating to the proposed change of use of 93-95 Deptford High Street.

I am a local resident and regular user of the high street, and I am objecting to the application as I believe it is contrary to a number of policies contained in the council’s Unitary Development Plan relating to shopping areas.

I strongly reject the applicant’s contention that granting the change of use, in order to allow another betting shop to be established on this premises, will ‘enhance the vitality and viability’ of the existing shopping area, and likewise that it will ‘promote a diversity of uses’. 

Within the UDP, Deptford High Street is classified as a District Town Centre, and the unit in question, 93-95 Deptford High Street, falls within the core area of this classification.

I draw your attention in particular to policies STC1 and STC4 in the UDP:

STC1
The council will seek to maintain, and where necessary improve, the function, character, vitality and viability of the established shopping hierarchy … by sustaining and encouraging through a balance of development, regeneration and conservation a diversity of uses appropriate to their function and location and retaining and enhancing each centre as a focus for retail activity.

STC 4 major and district centres - core shopping areas
Within the core shopping areas….the council will strongly resist any change of use involving the loss at ground floor level of Class A1 shops. The following factors will be taken into account when considering exceptions:
(a) whether the proposal harms the overwhelming retail appearance of the shopping frontage, with an over-concentration of non-retail uses (normally 3 non A1 uses together and 70% maintained in A1 use);
(b) whether the proposal will generate a significant number of pedestrian visits; and
(c) whether the proposal uses vacant units (having regard both to their number within the shopping centre as a whole and the core area and the length of time they have been vacant).

The basis for these policies includes the following reasoning:

The major and district shopping centres are the largest established concentrations of retail activity in the borough. Although a wide range of town centre uses are located in them shopping is considered to be their primary function. Hence a change of use to another function, even another service use, must be carefully monitored and controlled. The preservation of the primary retail function within core areas is a major planning objective as this is considered the best way to protect the character and role of the centres.

The core area of Deptford Town Centre, as defined in the UDP, already has five betting shops – if this application was granted, the total would be six. Moreover, the non-core area of Deptford Town Centre contains a further two betting shops, and the Evelyn Triangle shopping area, which is classified as a local shopping parade and is within half a mile of the core area, contains an additional three betting shops.

Any claim that another betting shop would promote diversity, given the existing number of similar businesses in the area, is clearly nonsense.

What’s more, the unit in question has only been empty for a short time since the previous occupier vacated the premises, and there is no evidence to suggest that it would remain vacant for a long time should this change of use be refused.

Yours sincerely

XXX

Objections to Betfred's Planning Application (1)

Objections to Betfred's Planning Application must be in by 2nd March (planning@lewisham.gov.uk).

We promised a template that you may adapt for your own use. Please visit the next post to read an objection to Betfred which relates to the planning requirements of Lewisham's own Unitary Development Plan with special reference to Shopping, as advised by the Planning Officer. 

We shall also be posting as much detail as we can find regarding all the social and community reasons for opposing a new betting shop asap (as if you didn't know what they were).

Since Lewisham's full website still appears as a temporary site despite a still stated promise that it would be back to normal at 8am Monday morning, here also is a direct link to Betfred's Planning Application Ref 11/76362.

Meanwhile, here is a synopsis of that application that may inform the template letter that follows in the next post...

Financial Service or Retail Outlet – make up your minds!

If you click on the Planning Support Statement you can read that Betfred think they are "one of the UK's biggest privately owned retail outlets" and that "licensed betting shops are regarded as being key town centre uses and are seen to maintain the vitality and viablity of town and city centres. "

Betfred recite the National Planning Policy and pick out a number of salient points from it. For instance, planning should:

• Contribute to sustainable economic development
• Protect and enhance the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside and existing communities
• Ensure development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services for all members of the community
• Promote personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion and create equal opportunity for all citizens

Etc. All good stuff. Betfred's only claim is that the proposed occupation of 93-95 Deptford High Street "will contribute to the local economy and create jobs", in accordance with the aims of National Planning Policy to promote strong, stable and productive economies that aim to bring jobs and prosperity to all.

Hurrah! Any shop on this site is going to employ people so BIG DEAL! It is such a good site, it could not stay empty for long. For those who fear yet another grocer-meat-phone shop, may you save your complaints for another time—a much worse fate awaits.

Betfred then quote national policy regarding economic growth and note that the government requires:

• New economic growth...with the aim of offering a wide range of services to communities in an attractive and safe environment and remedying deficiencies in provision in areas with poor access to facilities
• Competition between retailers and enhanced consumer choice...which allow genuine choice to meet the needs of the entire community (particularly socially excuded groups)
• The historic, archaeological and architectural heritage of centres to be conserved and, where appropriate enhanced, to provide a sense of place and a focus for the community and for civic activity.

Betfred's only claim here is that that the change of use from Building Society to Betting Shop will promote a diversity of uses and choice for consumers. There is a contradiction in the policy to be exploited by them here in that while there is no way Betfred will remedy deficiencies in provision by becoming the 6th betting shop within 150 metres, they may still yet offer enhanced consumer choice.

However, this so-called consumer choice is exclusive within the competitive trade of other gambling establishments. They indeed may offer much better or worse odds than the betting shop opposite, and two doors down, whilst the best odds may come from 150 metres away in BetterBet. Much like the inside track on Epsom Downs, but not much to do with racing, since the main earner for all these betting shops are the slot machines, the Fixed Odd Betting Terminals from which they earn over 70% of their takings, and which are designed for punters to lose. A bit different from which shop sells the cheapest bananas.

Then Betfred looks at Lewisham's Unitary Development Plan (UDP), developed in 2004 (see here) which identifies the old Halifax site as falling within the Core Shopping Area. The plan states that the council will strongly resist any change of use involving the loss at ground floor of Class A1 shops (Retail).

• Betfred contend that since the site had been exceptionally allowed to be A2 (with the condition that this was only as a Building Society), if the A2 use was expanded to include betting shops (which A2 use inexplicably usually does), there will be no loss of an A1 unit since it hasn't been a retail shop there for ages (they later go on to add that their service is more akin to retail anyway).

• Since its neighbours are A1 retail (Greggs the bakers and the wig/cosmetics/phone shop), there will not be three non-retail uses together, so not contrary to policy.

• They promise that like other A2 uses (like banks and building societies), the betting shop will attract footfall throughout the day as well as evenings and weekends. Residents in the high street will surely have something to say about that.

• Not only that, but it's a positive thing that the building is not to be left boarded up for a long time since Betfred have jumped in and bought the place up (in reality, no one else had a chance since they were gagging to get hold of it).

• On the other hand, they also state that they will operate like other A1 retailers and will not harm the adjoining occupiers as there will be no noise and disturbance, smell, litter or incompatible opening hours. So there will be no punters hanging about outside smoking and drinking and blocking the pavement for the children, young people, mothers, high street workers, locals and visitors who come to get their bread, lunch and pastries from the bakery next door?

• They say their window displays would not be dissimilar to the window displays of the Halifax. So shall they be completely see-through, unlike other betting shops, so that we can see the Betfred punters staring glassy-eyed at the TV monitors, where we used to see the Halifax customers queuing up to safely deposit or withdraw their earnings or benefits?

• Their premises will have disabled access (not difficult on the ground floor)

In conclusion they reckon that if the condition of only allowing A2 use to a Building Society were removed, Deptford High Street would benefit from an A2 (Financial Services etc) use that is also masquerading as a A1 (Retail) use, should Lewisham Planners wish to revert planning use from A2 back to A1 in deference to their own Unitary Development Plan.

Betfred really isn't sure if it is a Financial Service (which it isn't, since it's not regulated by the FSA) or a Retail Outlet. That is because IT IS NEITHER. Surely the latter is when it is almost certain that if you pay for something on that premises, you will leave it with SOMETHING—usually to eat, wear or use. That has never been a guarantee in a betting shop—not even a promise—merely and simply a possibility.

Betfred's claim to be one of the UK's biggest retail outlets is an insult to retailing and consumers alike.

Local cleaning job available at Creekside Centre

Creekside Centre have recently lost their cleaner so are looking for another. Crosswhatfields is not running an employment agency, but thought this might be ideal for anyone on Crossfields looking for a little local cleaning work. The job has not yet been advertised so get in quick.

Presently it's just 3 hours per week, but may expand to twice a week when the centre gets busier in the coming months. Pay is £10 p/h.

Please ring Karen on 020 8692 9922 (Tuesday or Wednesday) or email creeksidecentre@yahoo.co.uk.