Public Document Pack

AGENDA

MAYOR AND CABINET

Date: WEDNESDAY, 9 MAY 2012 at 6.00 pm

Committee Rooms 1 & 2 Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall London SE6 4RU

Enquiries to: Kevin Flaherty 0208 3149327 Telephone: 0208 314 9327 (direct line) Email: [email protected]

MEMBERS

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (L) Councillor Chris Best (L) Councillor Janet Daby (L) Councillor Damien Egan (L) Councillor Helen Klier (L) Councillor Paul Maslin (L) Councillor Joan Millbank (L) Councillor Crada Onuegbu (L) Councillor Alan Smith (L) Councillor Susan Wise (L)

Members are summoned to attend this meeting Barry Quirk Chief Executive Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU Date: Monday April 30 2012

The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.

ORDER OF BUSINESS – PART 1 AGENDA

Item Page No No.s 1. Declarations of Interests 1 - 3

2. Minutes 4 - 14

3. Matters Raised by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel 15 - 16

4. Outstanding Scrutiny Matters 17 - 18

5. Permanent Primary Places Adamsrill 19 - 59

6. Deptford Creekside Conservation Area 60 - 187

The public are welcome to attend our Committee meetings, however, occasionally, committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.

Agenda Item 1

MAYOR AND CABINET

Report Title Declarations of Interests

Key Decision Item No. 1

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: May 9 2012

Declaration of interests Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the agenda.

Personal interests There are two types of personal interest :- (a) an interest which you must enter in the Register of Members’ Interests* (b) an interest where the wellbeing or financial position of you, (or a “relevant person”) is likely to be affected by a matter more than it would affect the majority of in habitants of the ward or electoral division affected by the decision.

*Full details of registerable interests appear on the Council’s website.

(“Relevant” person includes you, a member of your family, a close associate, and their employer, a firm in which they are a partner, a company where they are a director, any body in which they have securities with a nominal value of £25,000 and (i) any body of which they are a member, or in a position of general control or management to which they were appointed or nominated by the Council, and (ii) any body exercising functions of a public nature, or directed to charitable purposes or one of whose principal purpose includes the influence of public opinion or policy, including any trade union or political party) where they hold a position of general management or control,

If you have a personal interest you must declare the nature and extent of it before the matter is discussed or as soon as it becomes apparent, except in limited circumstances. Even if the interest is in the Register of Interests, you must declare it in meetings where matters relating to it are under discussion, unless an exemption applies.

Exemptions to the need to declare personal interest to the meeting You do not need to declare a personal interest where it arises solely from membership of, or position of control or management on:

(a) any other body to which your were appointed or nominated by the Council (b) any other body exercising functions of a public nature.

In these exceptional cases, unless your interest is also prejudicial , you only need to declare your interest if and when you speak on the matter . d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\9\5\ai00003595\$cukoiinx.doc Page 1

Sensitive information If the entry of a personal interest in the Register of Interests would lead to the disclosure of information whose availability for inspection creates or is likely to create a serious risk of violence to you or a person living with you, the interest need not be entered in the Register of Interests, provided the Monitoring Officer accepts that the information is sensitive. Where this is the case, if such an interest arises at a meeting, it must be declared but you need not disclose the sensitive information.

Prejudicial interests Your personal interest will also be prejudicial if all of the following conditions are met:

(a) it does not fall into an exempt category (see below) (b) the matter affects either your financial interests or relates to regulatory matters - the determining of any consent, approval, licence, permission or registration (c) a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think your personal interest so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.

Categories exempt from being prejudicial interest

(a)Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception) (b) School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which you are a governor; (c) Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt (d) Allowances, payment or indemnity for members (e)Ceremonial honours for members (f) Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)

Effect of having a prejudicial interest If your personal interest is also prejudicial, you must not speak on the matter. Subject to the exception below, you must leave the room when it is being discussed and not seek to influence the decision improperly in any way.

Exception The exception to this general rule applies to allow a member to act as a community advocate notwithstanding the existence of a prejudicial interest. It only applies where members of the public also have a right to attend to make representation, give evidence or answer questions about the matter. Where this is the case, the member with a prejudicial interest may also attend the meeting for that purpose. However the member must still declare the prejudicial interest, and must leave the room once they have finished making representations, or when the meeting decides they have finished, if that is earlier. The member cannot vote on the matter, nor remain in the public gallery to observe the vote.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\9\5\ai00003595\$cukoiinx.docPage 2 Prejudicial interests and overview and scrutiny

In addition, members also have a prejudicial interest in any matter before an Overview and Scrutiny body where the business relates to a decision by the Executive or by a committee or sub committee of the Council if at the time the decision was made the member was on the Executive/Council committee or sub- committee and was present when the decision was taken. In short, members are not allowed to scrutinise decisions to which they were party.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\9\5\ai00003595\$cukoiinx.doc Page 3 Agenda Item 2

MAYOR AND CABINET

Report Title Minutes

Key Decision Item No.2

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: May 9 2012

Recommendation

It is recommended that the minutes of that part of the meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet which were open to the press and public, held on April 11 2012 (copy attached).

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\6\9\5\ai00003596\$dxqwremt.docPage 4 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

MINUTES of that part of the meeting of the MAYOR AND CABINET, which was open to the press and public, held on WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2012 at LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU at 6.08 p.m.

Present

The Mayor (Sir Steve Bullock)(Chair); Councillors Smith (Deputy Mayor), Councillors Best, Daby, Egan, Klier, Maslin, Millbank, Onuegbu and Wise.

Minute No. Action

1. Declarations of Interests (page

Councillor Paul Maslin declared a personal interest in Item 5 as a resident of a CPZ area which was not the subject of this report.

Councillor Janet Daby declared a personal interest in Item 8 as an employee of a fostering provider that had no contracts with Lewisham.

2. Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of that part of the meetings of the Mayor and Cabinet, which was open to the press and public held on February 22 2012, and March 7 2012, be confirmed and signed.

3. Scrutiny Matters

The Mayor received a written report detailing the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel on the item on the Surrey Canal Triangle which he had considered on March 7. The Mayor noted the comments made.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

4. Outstanding References to Select Committees (page

The Mayor received a report on issues which had previously been considered that awaited the responses requested from Directorates.

RESOLVED that the report be received.

5. Matter referred by the Lee Green Assembly – parking and CPZ report (page

Page 5 Minute No. Action

The Mayor explained that although this item had been on the agenda of his last meeting, notice had not been received of the presence of a delegation of residents and consideration of the report had concluded before their admittance to the meeting. The Mayor thus re-invited representations from Councillor Jim Mallory, the Chair of the Lee Green Assembly and from Wendy Lloyd a member of the Assembly Working Party on Parking.

Councillor Mallory explained in detail the background to the submission of the current Lee Green Assembly paper on parking. Councillor Mallory and Wendy Lloyd made a joint presentation on the Assembly’s written report.

In response, the Executive Director for Customer Services indicated he would prepare a response for Mayoral consideration on the issues raised by the Lee Green Assembly, but that there were also broader issues being raised which would better form part of a boroughwide review of parking issues that he expected to complete later in the municipal year.

RESOLVED That the Executive Directors for Customer ED Customer Services and for Resources and Regeneration ED Res & Reg to consider and report back to him on the implications of the `Statement of Community Views’ from the Lee Green Assembly.

6. Comments of the Healthier Communities Select Committee on Premature Mortality in Lewisham (page

The report was presented by Councillor John Muldoon, the Chair of the Healthier Communities Select Committee.

The Chief Executive commented that legislative changes had All Directors created a unique opportunity to localise public health. He reported on discussions he had already held with local health professionals and said he expected the issues raised would be addressed by all Executive Directors at the Executive Management Team. He said over the course of the next year he expected public health to be enmeshed into the fabric of the council.

RESOLVED That all four Executive Directors be asked to ED Community collaborate on a joint response to the Review’s recommendations.

7. Adoption Service Update, Revised Statement of Purpose and Children’s Guides to Adoption (page

Page 6 Minute No. Action

RESOLVED That

(i) the report of the work of the Adoption Service be received;

(ii) the review of the Statement of Purpose be ED CYP approved; and

(iii) the two new Children’s Guides to Adoption ED CYP be agreed.

8. Fostering Statement of Purpose 2012-2013 and Children’s Guide - My Guide to Foster Care (page)

RESOLVED That the Statement of Purpose for the ED CYP Fostering Service for 2012-2013 and Children’s Guide – My Guide to Foster Care be approved

9. Ofsted’s Inspection of Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s Services (page

The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People reported that along with Durham and Lincolnshire, Lewisham has achieved the outstanding grade. The Executive Director for Children and Young People observed that some recommendations had been made for improvement and that the authority would strive to do even better especially in regard to Looked After Children.

The Mayor said he believed the report reflected very well on all those involved and he placed on record his thanks to all concerned.

RESOLVED That the results of the inspection of ED CYP safeguarding and Looked After Children’s Services by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission be welcomed.

10. Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Sixth Form Admissions Arrangements and School Admissions Limits for 2013/14 (page

RESOLVED That

(i) the nursery, primary, secondary and sixth ED CYP form admission arrangements for Lewisham’s community schools as set out in appendices A to F be approved;

Page 7 Minute No. Action

(ii) the admission limits for the academic year ED CYP 2013/14 as detailed in Appendix G be approved;

(iii) the creation of Trinity Primary School, ED CYP including the admissions limit, subject to separate consultation, be noted and that the determined admissions number be included with the determined numbers for clarity; and

(iv) the Pan London Admission Schemes for ED CYP reception and secondary transfer and the local scheme for in year admissions as detailed in Appendix H be approved.

11 Proposals to consult on the provision of additional permanent primary places (page

The Executive Director for Children & Young People updated the report by saying that at paragraph 6.1.4 an announcement had been made concerning the Base Needs Allocation and Lewisham had been awarded almost £16million of the £600million available. She confirmed that the shortfall in funding would not affect the proposals under immediate discussion but that future projections would have to be revisited.

RESOLVED That

(i) the following project should be taken forward ED CYP to increase permanently the supply of primary school places from September 2013:

Publish a Statutory Notice to lower the age of entry at Prendergast Ladywell Fields College so that it offers 2 forms of entry from Reception to Year 6 and retains its current 8 forms of secondary entry

(ii) as the Governors of Trinity Lewisham ED CYP Church of England School have agreed admission criteria of 80% open places and 20% faith-based places for the proposed primary phase, the Statutory Notice to enlarge the school will therefore be published as agreed by the Mayor in April 2011; and

(iii) the decision of Torridon Junior School ED CYP

Page 8 Minute No. Action

Governing Body not to proceed with the option of enlarging to offer 2 forms of entry at the Mornington Centre be noted and the Executive Director for Children Young People continue to explore options to extend provision.

12 Allocations and Lettings Plan (page

RESOLVED That

(i) the lettings outcomes for 2010/11 and 2011/12 and the position on the housing register be noted; and

(ii) the proposed Lettings Plan for 2012/13 be ED Customer approved.

13 Local Listing of former Boone’s Almshouses, 372 – 374, 378 – 380, Lee High Road (page

The Director for Regeneration pointed out the application reported at paragraph 5.4 had been withdrawn and another would be required.

The Mayor stated he had considered the objections of the owners and the support offered by local amenity groups and that he was persuaded that local listing was correct and that he would only consider the use of Section 4 powers for buildings that were in imminent danger.

RESOLVED That the addition of the former Boone’s ED RES/REG Almshouses and associated original front wall and piers to the Local List be approved.

14 Mayoral Response to the Comments of the Housing Select Committee on Social Housing Options (page

RESOLVED That the draft response be approved for Head of reporting to the Housing Select Committee. Committee

15 Formation of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust; outcome of the consultation on the rebuilding of Brent Knoll School; and implications of the Trust arrangements in relation to land transfer (page

RESOLVED That

(i) having noted the positive response to the ED CYP

Page 9 Minute No. Action

consultation, approval be given for Brent Knoll School to be rebuilt and relocated on the old Greenvale School site (69 Perry Rise, London, SE23 2QU) as part of the Council’s BSF Programme, subject to all necessary consents and approvals under the BSF programme being obtained;

(ii) there is no statutory requirement to publish ED CYP a public notice in relation to the proposed relocation of Brent Knoll School as the proposed new site for the school is located within two miles of the existing site (as per the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007);

(iii) the formal agreement of the governing ED CYP bodies of Brent Knoll and Watergate Schools to become foundation schools (trust schools) with an implementation date of 2 April 2012 be noted;

(iv) in accordance with Regulation 2 of The ED CYP School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007), the existing sites for Brent Knoll and Watergate School will be treated as having transferred to the trustees of the school on the implementation date;

(v) officers be authorised to proceed to ED CYP complete the legal transfer of the existing Watergate School site to the trustees of the school for nil consideration as soon as possible following the implementation date and authority be delegated to the Director of Asset Strategy & Regeneration, in consultation with the Head of Law, to finalise the terms of the transfer;

(vi) subject to the proposal to re-site Brent Knoll ED CYP on the old Greenvale Site, officers defer the legal transfer of the existing Brent Knoll site to the trustees of the school.

16 Appointment of Local Authority Governors (page

RESOLVED That the persons listed below be appointed as ED CYP

Page 10 Minute No. Action

School Governors,

Ms Hilary Moore Baring

Ms Bev Feather Downderry

Mr George Elfrida Kwasniewski

Ms Antonia Makinde St Saviour’s RC

Mr Paul Beresford Coopers Lane

Ms Debra Viller Downderry

Mr Lennox Hamilton Adamsrill

17 Formation of the Brent Knoll and Watergate Co-operative Trust; outcome of the consultation on the rebuilding of Brent Knoll School; and implications of the Trust arrangements in relation to land transfer (page

RESOLVED That

(i) having noted the positive response to the ED CYP consultation, approval be given for Brent Knoll School to be rebuilt and relocated on the old Greenvale School site (69 Perry Rise, London, SE23 2QU) as part of the Council’s BSF Programme, subject to all necessary consents and approvals under the BSF programme being obtained;

(ii) there is no statutory requirement to publish ED CYP a public notice in relation to the proposed relocation of Brent Knoll School as the proposed new site for the school is located within two miles of the existing site (as per the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007);

(iii) the formal agreement of the governing ED CYP bodies of Brent Knoll and Watergate Schools to become foundation schools (trust schools) with an implementation date of 2 April 2012 be noted;

Page 11 Minute No. Action

(iv) in accordance with Regulation 2 of The ED CYP School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007), the existing sites for Brent Knoll and Watergate School will be treated as having transferred to the trustees of the school on the implementation date;

(v) officers be authorised to proceed to ED CYP complete the legal transfer of the existing Watergate School site to the trustees of the school for nil consideration as soon as possible following the implementation date and authority be delegated to the Director of Asset Strategy & Regeneration, in consultation with the Head of Law, to finalise the terms of the transfer;

(vI) subject to the proposal to re-site Brent Knoll ED CYP on the old Greenvale Site, officers defer the legal transfer of the existing Brent Knoll site to the trustees of the school.

18 Variation to Instruments of Government – Trinity Church of England Secondary School and Chelwood Nursery School (page

RESOLVED That

(i) the name of the institution be changed to ED CYP Trinity Church of England School, Lewisham (The school is known as Trinity, Lewisham) i.e. to delete the word ‘secondary’ from the title; and

(ii) the Sponsor organisation in the Chelwood ED CYP Instrument be changed.

19. Exclusion of the Press and Public

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to information)

Page 12 Minute No. Action

(Amendments) (England) Regulations 2006 and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

The following is a summary of the items considered in the closed part of the meeting:

20 Catford Town Centre Regeneration Programme update (page)

RESOLVED That

(i) the rationale for commencing the decant of ED RES/REG Milford Towers prior to a commercial deal being completed be noted;

(ii) the proposed amendments to the decant ED RES/REG delivery strategy be approved;

(iii) where agreement can be reached, secure ED RES/REG tenants in Milford Towers be re-housed on a voluntary basis;

(iv) home loss and disturbance payments are ED RES/REG made to displaced secure tenants in Milford Towers where appropriate in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1973;

(v) design options analysis to date and the ED RES/REG recommencement of the Catford Town Centre AAP process (including public consultation) in line with previous approvals from the Mayor and Council be noted;

(vi) officers should proceed with feasibility work ED RES/REG to determine the way forward for the re- provision of council offices;

(vii) the work to date on developing a strategy ED RES/REG for achieving commercial vacant possession and that officers finalise a strategy and budget for this process be noted; and

(viii) the commercial deal update and the ED RES/REG requirement for external legal and commercial advice to complete negotiations be noted.

Page 13 Minute No. Action

21 Deptford Town Centre Regeneration Programme: Delivery of the Southern Site Housing Component of the Regeneration Programme (page

RESOLVED That

(i) the details of the enhanced housing solution ED RES/REG be approved and officers be authorised to proceed with attempts to deliver this scheme over and above the baseline scheme approved on 25 June 2008, subject to consideration of the response to the statutory consultation and the Equalities Analysis Assessment ;

(ii) statutory consultation under Section 105 of ED RES/REG the Housing Act 1985 with secure tenants of the existing housing blocks 22-80 Giffin Street and 82-150 Giffin Street and 2-30 Reginald Road with respect to the enhanced housing solution;

(iii) officers be asked to undertake an Equalities ED RES/REG Analysis Assessment in relation to the enhanced housing solution;

(iv) the details of the soft market testing be noted; and

(v) an OJEU procurement be commenced ED RES/REG using the competitive dialogue procedure for a development partner to deliver the enhanced housing solution.

The meeting ended at 7.45pm.

Chair

Page 14 Agenda Item 3

MAYOR AND CABINET

Report Title Report Back on Matters Raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel

Key Decision No Item No.

Ward

Contributors Senior Committee Manager

Class Open Date: 9 May 2012

1. Purpose of Report

To report back on any matters raised by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel following their consideration of a referral from the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee on 24 April 2012.

The Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel agreed that the following reference be made to the Mayor.

2. Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee Referral to Business Panel – Stonewall Top 100 Employers 2012 report

The Business Panel considered the following referral :

2.1 On 11 April, the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee considered the Select Committee Work Programme for the coming year. During discussions, the Committee discussed the Stonewall Top 100 Employers 2012 report, compiled from the Workplace Equality Index, a benchmarking tool for employers to measure their efforts to create inclusive workplaces for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees. The Committee noted that Lewisham had not been included in the top 100.

2.2 The Committee discussed adding the Stonewall report as an item to the 2012-2014 work programme for the Committee, either as part of the monitoring of the Comprehensive Equalities Scheme or as a separate item earlier in the work programme. The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny suggested that the matter be referred to Business Panel so it could be discussed there.

2.3 The index has been used to assist the Council in the development of best practice. Submissions to the index have been made in previous years, however no submission was made for 2012, reflecting changes in the index itself, some of which the Council would need to accommodate within its existing practices. It is anticipated that a submission will be made in 2013.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\9\5\ai00003597\$4t0i1k3o.docPage 15 2.4 Following their consideration of this referral the Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel would like the Mayor to note that:

i) the Business Panel did not think an in depth review was required by the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee but that

ii) the Business Panel request that this work is carried out this year and subsequent years by Lewisham Council and is submitted and then reported back to the Safer & Stronger Communities Select Committee.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee Work Programme report (16.04.12) Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel report 24 April 2012

If you have any queries on this report, please contact Andrew Hagger, Scrutiny Manager (020 8314 9446), or Olga Cole, Senior Committee Manager (020 8314 8577)

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\9\5\ai00003597\$4t0i1k3o.docPage 16 Agenda Item 4

Mayor & Cabinet

Report Title Outstanding References to Select Committees

Key Decision No Item No. 4

Ward

Contributors Head of Business and Committee

Class Part 1 Date: 9 May 2012

1. Purpose of Report

To report on items previously reported to the Mayor for response by directorates and to indicate the likely future reporting date.

2. Recommendation

That the reporting dates of the item shown in the table below be noted.

Report Title Responding Date Sche duled Slippage since Author Considered Reporting Date last report by Mayor & Cabinet

Comments of the ED Community October 26 June 20 2012 No Healthier Services 2011 Communities Select Committee on the implications of the Health and Social Care Bill.

Matters referred ED Community April 11 2012 July 11 2012 No by the Healthier Services (lead) Communities Select Committee – Review of Premature Mortality

Page 17

BACKGROUND PAPERS and AUTHOR

Mayor & Cabinet minutes, October 26 2012 and April 11 2012 available from Kevin Flaherty 0208 314 93 27.

Page 18 Agenda Item 5 Chief Officer Confirmation of Report Submission Cabinet Member Confirmation of Briefing

Report for: Mayor Mayor and Cabinet X

Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts)

Executive Director X Information Part 1 Part 2 Key Decision

Date of Meeting 9th May 2012

Title of Report Measures to increase the supply of permanent primary school places:Proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School

Originator of Report Chris Threlfall Ext. 49771

At the time of submission for the Agenda, I confirm that the report has:

Category Yes No

Financial Comments from Exec Director for Resources √ Legal Comments from the Head of Law √ Crime & Disorder Implications √ Environmental Implications √ Equality Implications/Impact Assessment (as appropriate) √ Confirmed Adherence to Budget & Policy Framework Risk Assessment Comments (as appropriate) Reason for Urgency (as appropriate)

Signed: Executive Member

Date: 26 th April 2012

Signed: Executive Director

Date 26 th April 2012

Control Record by Committee Support Action Date Listed on Schedule of Business/Forward Plan (if appropriate) Draft Report Cleared at Agenda Planning Meeting (not delegated decisions) Submitted Report from CO Received by Committee Support Scheduled Date for Call-in (if appropriate) To be Referred to Full Council

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\9\5\ai00003599\$3rgdjyg2.docPage 19

MAYOR AND CABINET

Report Title Measures to increase the supply of permanent primary school places: Proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School Key Decision Yes Item No.

Ward Perry Vale

Contributors Executive Director for Children and Young People

Class Part 1 Date: May 9 2012

1. Summary

This report summarises the outcome of the consultation on the proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary school from 2 to 3 forms of entry to meet additional demand in the locality .

2. Purpose

The report requests the Mayor’s permission to move to the next stage necessary to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School from 2 to 3 forms of entry – the publication of a Statutory Notice leading to a 4 week representation period.

3. Recommendations

The Mayor is recommended to:

3.1 note the results of the consultation on the proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School from 2 to 3 forms of entry;

3.2 agree to publish a Statutory Notice to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School from 2 to 3 forms of entry.

4. Policy Context

4.1 The proposals within this report are consistent with ‘Shaping Our Future: Lewisham’s Sustainable Community Strategy’ and the Council’s corporate priorities. In particular, they relate to the Council’s priorities regarding young people’s achievement and involvement , including inspiring and supporting young people to achieve their

Page 20

potential , the protection of children and young people and ensuring efficiency, effectiveness and equity in the delivery of excellent services to meet the needs of the community

4.2 The Local Authority has a duty to ensure the provision of sufficient places for pupils of statutory age and, within financial constraints, accommodation that is both suitable and in good condition.

4.3 In aiming to improve on the provision of facilities for primary education in Lewisham which are appropriate for the 21 st century, the implementation of a successful primary places strategy will contribute to the delivery of the corporate priority Young people’s achievement and involvement: raising educational attainment and improving facilities for young people through partnership working .

4.4 It supports the delivery of Lewisham’s Children & Young People’s Plan (CYPP), which sets out the Council’s vision for improving outcomes for all children and young people, and in so doing reducing the achievement gap between our most disadvantaged pupils and their peers. It also articulates the objective of improving outcomes for children with identified SEN and disabilities by ensuring that their needs are met.

The Primary Capital Programme (PCP) and Lewisham’s Primary Strategy for Change

4.5 A priority in the Primary Strategy for Change (PSfC), is the provision of sufficient places at the right time to meet future needs within and between Primary Places Planning Localities (PPPLs) in the Borough. As stated in Lewisham’s June 2008 PSfC:

“Ensuring that sufficient places are provided in localities at the right time will take precedence over significant investment in schools where the rectification of conditions and suitability issues will not produce additional places. “

4.6 Dependent upon future central government decisions on capital delivery, it is proposed that the borough’s 2011 – 2014 PCP will continue to be governed by the following criteria as set out in the 2008 PSfC:

• Provide sufficient places at the right time to meet future needs within and between planning localities in the Borough • Improve conditions and suitability of schools in order to raise standards • Increase the influence of successful and popular schools • Maximise the efficient delivery of education in relation to the size of the school, removing half-form entries and promoting continuity of education

Page 21

• Enable school extended services for pupils, parents and communities • Optimise the Council’s capital resources available for investment.

School Organisation Requirements

4.7 Proposals to establish additional provision on a permanent basis must comply with the provisions set out in The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England) Regulations 2007. These set out the statutory process for making changes to a school, and statutory guidance on making changes to a maintained school indicates 5 stages to making a prescribed alteration to a maintained school. These are:

1) Consultation 2) Publication of a Statutory Notice 3) Representation period 4) Decision making 5) Implementation

4.8 There are statutory timescales for stages 2, 3 and 4. Stages 1 and 5 are for local determination.. In order to establish additional permanent provision by 2013 at Adamsrill Primary school, the Mayor will need to reach a decision by July 2012.

5. Background

5.1 School expansion 5.1.1 The Mayor and Cabinet have received regular reports detailing the pressure on primary school places and the measures taken to increase supply. The following table summarises the additional places that have been opened since 2008:

Year Permanent Temporary Places opened Places opened 2008/09 60 (2FE) 2009/10 255 (8.5FE) 2010/11 555 (18.5 FE) 2011/12 564 (19 FE) 2012/13 180 (6FE) 1 534 2 (18FE)

5.1.2 The majority of places have been added as temporary increases (“bulge” classes). The allocation of £12.7m to meet Basic Need in 2011/12 has meant that the authority has been able to launch a

1 Kilmorie (45 – 1.5FE) Beecroft Gardens (30 - 1 FE) Kelvin Grove ((30 - 1 FE) Kender (30 - 1 FE) Dalmain (15 - 0.5FE) Gordonbrock (15 – 0.5FE) Sandhurst (15 – 0.5FE) 2 th Figure as of April 11 2012. It is based on on-time applications received, and the pattern of late applications received to date and in previous years

Page 22

programme to increase the supply of places on a permanent basis, using existing council-owned buildings, developing existing school sites and by taking the opportunity to remove half forms of entry

5.1.3 Projections are reviewed at least annually as the information on live births, applications to schools and the uptake of places across each year becomes available.

5.1.4 The most recent update (August 2011) indicates that the demand for places will remain high and measures continue to be required to increase the supply of places through a mixture of permanent and temporary enlargements tailored to meet the needs of each area. Figures are set out in the following table.

Receptio n Reception Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Places Demand 2011/12 3152 3663 3568 3301 3074 2939 2767 2634 2012/13 3332 3914 3668 3575 3291 3056 2927 2765 2013/14 3332 3783 3936 3691 3581 3288 3060 2943 2014/15 3332 4026 3816 3970 3708 3587 3302 3087 2015/16 3332 4029 4062 3854 3989 3717 3602 3331

*shading denotes demand in excess of supply of permanent places

5.2 Further Additional Requirement – Borough Wide

Additional Requirement 2012/13 582 (19.4 forms of entry) 2013/14 451 (15 forms of entry) 2014/15 694 (23 forms of entry) 2015/16 697 (23 forms of entry)

5.2.1 The following table sets out the schools which have opened additional temporary classes

School 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Primary Place Planning Locality 1 Forest Hill & Sydenham Adamsrill √ √ √ √ Christ Church √ Dalmain √ √ √ Expanded Eliot Bank √ Fairlawn √ Haseltine √ Horniman √ Kelvin Grove √ √ Expanded Kilmorie √ √ √ Expanded Perrymount √ Rathfern √ √ St Bartholomew’s √ St Will. of York √

Page 23

Primary Place Planning Locality 2 Lee Green Brindishe Lee √ John Ball √ √ Lee Manor √ Primary Place Planning Locality 3 Brockley, Lewisham & Telegraph Hill Ashmead √ √ Beecroft Garden √ Expanded Edmund Waller √ Gordonbrock √ Expanded Holbeach √ √ John Stainer √ Lucas Vale √ Myatt Garden √ St Stephens CE √ Turnham √ √ Primary Place Planning Locality 4 Catford, Bellingham & Grove Park Athelney √ √ Baring √ Coopers Lane √ √ Elfrida √ Forster Park √ √ √ Rushey Green √ √ Sandhurst √ √ √ Expanded Torridon √ Primary Place Planning Locality 5 Deptford and New Cross Deptford Prk √ √ Grinling Gibbons √ √ Kender √ √ Expanded St Josephs √ √ Primary Place P lanning Locality 6 Downham Downderry √ Good Shepherd √ Launcelot √ Haberdashers Aske’s √ Knights Temple Grove Rangefield √

5.3 Additional Requirement – Forest Hill & Sydenham

5.3.1 Primary Place Planning Locality 1 (Forest Hill & Sydenham) shows a continuing increase in the numbers of young children in the population.

Births September 1 st 2000 to August 31 st 2001 912 Births September 1 st 2008 to August 31 st 2009 1,228 Births September 1 st 2009 to August 31 st 2010 1,297 Increase 2000/01 to 2009/10 42% Increase 2008/09 to 2009/10 6%

Page 24

5.3.2 It is anticipated that this will translate into the following demand for places in the area:

Reception Projection Additional Requirement 2012/13 943 135 (4.5FE) 2013/14 932 124 (4 FE) 2014/15 984 176 (6FE) 2015/16 987 179 (6FE)

5.3.3 The following schools in Forest Hill & Sydenham will be enlarged in 2012:

School From To Increase Dalmain 1.5 2 0.5 Kelvin Grove 2 3 1 Kilmorie 1.5 3 1.5 St Bartholomew’s CE 1.5 2 0.5 Over all 6.5 10 3.5

5.3.4 The Governing Body of St Bartholomew’s CE Primary School has agreed to enlarge the school from 1.5 FE to 2FE. The school will offer 60 Reception places from 2012.

5.3.5 Forecasts suggest that further expansion of up to 2.5 forms of entry is required to meet demand in the area. The recommendation in this report has the potential to contribute 1 form of entry.

5.3.6 Adamsrill Primary School has admitted an additional class each year since 2009. The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 require consultation after 3 consecutive temporary enlargements.

5.3.7 Ofsted Inspections have consistently judged Adamsrill to be a “good” school, with a keen ambition to improve. For the last 2 years outcomes at Adamsrill have been above the national average. The local authority is confident that this level of performance will be sustained. The school has attracted an increasing number of applications over the last three years. Although it is still undersubscribed on first preferences, these have increased as have the number of second preferences. In 2011 the school had a waiting list for places in the Reception class.

5.3.8 The Governing Body has agreed that, in the context of increasing numbers at the school and new housing development in the area, it is appropriate to consult on a proposal to expand the school.

5.3.9 A building proposal has been developed which will incorporate buildings installed to accommodate previous additional classes. It will link Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 provision and include a lift, making

Page 25

the building accessible for staff or pupils with limited mobility. The Governing Body has nominated a design working group to comment on the development of the design.

5.3.10 The old Greenvale School site in Perry Rise will be available for decant during the construction phase. The detail of the decant arrangements is currently under discussion with the BSF team who will be developing the site subsequently as new facilities for Brent Knoll Special School to ensure that both projects can be delivered with minimal risk.

6. RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION

6.1 Consultation Process 6.1.1. Having received Mayor & Cabinet approval on 15 th February 2012 to proceed with consultation, Lewisham developed the proposal for a formal consultation and in line with DfE school organisation guidance, the consultation has taken place over a four and half week period between 2nd and 30th March 2012.

6.1.2 The following stakeholder groups received copies of the consultation documents (included as Appendix One): • Staff and governors at Adamsrill Primary School • Parents of pupils at Adamsrill Primary School.

6.1.3 The following stakeholder groups were notified of the proposal by letter: • Neighbouring authorities of Greenwich, Southwark and Bromley • Headteachers and Chairs of Governors of local schools • Councillors • Lewisham’s Members of Parliament • Diocesan bodies • Trade Union representatives

6.1.4 The following stakeholder meetings were held: • Adamsrill Primary School Council (20th March 2012) • Adamsrill Primary School staff; (20th March 2012) • Parents of children attending Adamsrill Primary School (20th March 2012)

6.1.5 The Governing Body of Adamsrill Primary School had received a presentation of the proposal in January 2012 and agreed that it should go forward to consultation with the school community. Their response to the consultation is set out at 6.3 below.

6.1.6 All the consultation documents were placed on the Lewisham web site along with an on-line opportunity to complete the consultation response form. Copies of the building proposal were available at the meetings held March 20 th and were left for the school to display.

6.1.7 Responses received are included as Appendix Two.

Page 26

Numbers of responses by category Category of Numbers For Aga inst Not sure Not Respondent Stated Parent/Carer 13 1 1 11 School staff 1 - - - 1 Pupil 0 - - - - Governor 1 1 Local Community 6 - - 6 OLA 1 1 - - - TOTAL 22 2 1 1 18

6.2 Stakeholder meetings 6.2.1 Adamsrill School Council The proposal to enlarge the school was discussed with the School Council whose members included representatives of each Year Group. Pupils asked about the impact on the site of the building works, the increased numbers of pupils and also potential congestion at the school gate. They asked about the scope of the work – why only the Key Stage 1 area would be replaced when the Key Stage 2 building needs renovation - and the potential to incorporate features such as a calm room, a parents room and a garden/allotment area.

The questions asked by the School Council are included as Appendix Three.

6.2.2 Adamsrill Staff Meeting The meeting was attended by approximately 36 people, including teaching and non-teaching staff.

The reasons for the need to enlarge the school and the current building proposal were presented to the staff.

Whilst Staff asked about the future of the school’s Toddler Group most queries centred around the configuration of the building proposal.

Staff questioned the proposed lay-out of the Key Stage One accommodation, making a number of suggestions about how the use of space could be improved. It was noted that there will now be one dining hall for the school. Although this will meet the DfE space recommendations, set out in Building Bulletin 99, there was some concern that dinner time could take longer.

Office accommodation was considered to be too small. Staff also asked if a covered secure lock-up area could be included for cyclists.

6.2.3 Adamsrill Parents Meeting The meeting was attended by approximately 15 parents and by the Chair of Governors and members of the Governing body.

Page 27

There was a presentation on the reasons for the need to enlarge the school and the current building proposal.

Again, those attending the parents’ meeting did not question the fact that there is a need to add school places locally. They were concerned about the future of the school’s Toddler Group and the impact of larger numbers of children on the site. This could also have an impact at the beginning and end of the day with increased congestion at the school entrance.

Parents asked questions about the technical specifications of the proposed building (acoustic qualities & noise transfer). The provision of a single hall was questioned as this might mean increased noise for children in adjacent classrooms.

Parents asked for re-assurance that before and after school provision would continue.

6.3 Adamsrill Governing Body The Governing Body has indicated its support for the proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary School from 2 to 3 forms of entry. Governors have reviewed the responses to the consultation and their written response to the issues raised is included at Appendix 4. They have noted parents’ concern that the Toddler Group should continue. They agree that this is a matter for the Governing Body and note the Local Authority commitment to develop the building proposals to incorporate a range of extended school activities. They re-iterated their view that it is in the interest of the local community to expand provision at Adamsrill Primary but that proposals for the site must be developed carefully to minimise any adverse impact as a result of increased numbers of pupils.

6.4 Written responses 6.4.1 Southwark Council responded, supporting the need to ensure that there are sufficient local places for local children. 6.4.2 The majority of responses (18) focussed on the concern that the Toddler Group would cease to function. It is seen as a valuable part of the school offer whose value had been recognised by Ofsted. It was stated that there are no other similar facilities in the area. Parents made a plea for the provision to be maintained even if it was necessary to reduce the space or outdoor facilities available to the group. 6.4.3 One respondent felt that government funding should be found to build new schools rather than enlarge existing schools. 6.4.4 One respondent expressed concern about the impact on the external area available to each child if the school were enlarged. . 7. Response 7.1 Toddler Group The Toddler Group is a long-established group which is funded by the school from its Revenue budget. It is non-statutory provision. When the school was inspected by Ofsted in 2007, inspectors commented “the

Page 28

toddler group is an outstanding initiative. It helps children to settle in to school, makes them and their families feel welcomed, and prepares them well for the Foundation Stage ” . Inspectors at the subsequent inspection in 2010 commented “ Very good links have been established with parents through the “Toddler Group”. The decision on the future of the Toddler Group is a matter for the Governing Body to consider in the context of the overall extended provision made by the school. As non-statutory provision, space was not allocated as the building proposal was developed in line with DfE Building Bulletin 99 recommendations. The current design includes some non-assigned areas on the ground floor of the existing Key Stage 2 building. The Design Working Group had already been invited to nominate one of these areas as new accommodation for the Toddler Group or other extended provision. The Local Authority will do its best to work with the Governing Body, within resource constraints, with the aim of providing flexibility within the accommodation to deliver extended school activities.

7.2 Building design Following the comments at the staff meeting by Early Years practitioners, the proposals for the Early Years and Foundation Stage have been reviewed and re-configured. The LA is grateful to staff for their constructive input. Other concerns such as office space and general storage will also be reviewed and incorporated where possible. An enlarged school will require a new travel plan which will include arrangements for the appropriate storage for cycles. The proposed new building will be constructed to meet and exceed existing Building Regulations and the DFE Building Bulletin Guides and Regulatory Guidance, including BB 93 Acoustic Design for Schools. The provision of a single hall and kitchen is in line with DfE Building Bulletin 99. The hall will provide a whole school facility that the Governing Body has hoped to provide for a number of years. The new building will be energy efficient, and it is intended to include photo-voltaic cells as part of the design. The Key Stage 2 building will be modified and any planned major repair programme will be incorporated into the site development programme.

7.3 Outdoor space The reduction in playground space is a significant issue in an urban area such as Lewisham. The impact on external space is being monitored across all developments. There are a number of existing schools where limited playground space is well-managed.

The proposed scheme aims to make the best use of space by locating the building where possible to follow the existing contour of the site. This will make more effective use of some current “dead” areas. It will also be possible to remove old buildings from the front of the site which will increase the available playground. Through staggered play times it will be possible to provide the recommended 12m 2 external space for each pupil.

Page 29

Landscaping will be discussed with the Governing Body and should take into account that this is a school in an urban area where children may not always have a garden. The entrance to the school will be re-modelled to provide a better space for parents/carers to leave and to meet their children

7.4 New provision There are few sites in Lewisham where a new school can be constructed. Parents may also prefer to send their child to an established school such as Adamsrill with a clear identity and ethos. The 2010 Ofsted Inspection commented that at Adamsrill “ Care and support are excellent; regular reports are sent to parents together with opportunities to discuss progress with their teachers; behaviour in and around the school is good ”. They also found that “ Adamsrill is an effective school that provides a good education for its pupils ” and that “The Headteacher and deputy headteacher work extremely well together in promoting high expectations of both pupils and staff. There is a clear quest for improvement and both are very ambitious to see the school being successful ”. The development of the Adamsrill site through enlargement offers the opportunity to replace buildings which will soon become a maintenance liability for the school. It will also mean that the two Key Stages can be linked and the building made accessible for pupils or staff with limited mobility.

7.4 Pupils’ questions about Adamsrill’s future Pupils made a valuable contribution to the consultation process. Many of the issues they raised were also mentioned by other groups and are covered in the responses above. Some of their question were about the way that the school will operate during the day – the importance of year groups being located together, communications within the school, ideas to create the best climate for learning. The proposed design recognises that classes need to be located together and aims to achieve that through out the school. Communication systems such as fire alarm and burglar alarms will be shared across the site. Any classroom which is separately located (eg the nursery) should have a telephone link to the main building. Systems such as a tannoy can be discussed with the school, also the potential for this to be used for music. The Design Working Group has also asked that a calm room should be included as well as multi-purpose meeting rooms.

8. Financial implications Capital Finance Implications 8.1.1 Approximately £6.9m will be carried over from 2011-12 Basic Need allocation of £12.6m announced on 13 th December 2010.

8.1.2 In July 2011 the Government announced that a further £500m would be allocated nationally to meet the demand for pupil places. In November 2011 the borough was notified of an allocation of £12.8m.

Page 30

8.1.3 On December 13 th 2011 the DfE announced capital allocations for 2012/13. Lewisham received £12.657m for Basic Need and £5.404m for capital maintenance.

8.1.4 On 11 April 2012 the DfE announced the allocation of £600m additional capital grant for places pressures. The allocation for Lewisham was £15.9m

8.2 Available Capital Resources 8.2.1 On the basis of known Government announcements the total basic needs allocation available to 31 March 2013 is £54.2 million including £6.9 million of the 2011-12 allocation not yet applied. This funding must meet the cost of any required temporary classes in addition to the estimated cost of the project to deliver additional places at Adamsrill Primary School. This means that all projects identified to date for September 2013 can be funded from known capital allocations and a number, but not all, identified for September 2014. This project will be delivered over two financial years, 2012 – 2014 and has identified funding from the capital grant allocations described above.

8.3 Revenue Finance Implications The cost of additional pupils will be met from the Dedicated Schools Grant. Pump priming funding has been agreed in principle to support Headteachers of schools with major capital projects. Any allocation in respect of this project will be met from the Dedicated School Grant.

9 Legal Implications

9.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 safeguards the rights of children in the Borough to educational provision, which the Council is empowered to provide in accordance with its duties under domestic legislation.

9.2 Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 obliges each local authority to ensure that there are sufficient primary and secondary schools available for its area i.e. the London Borough of Lewisham, although there is no requirement that those places should be exclusively in the area. The Authority is not itself obliged to provide all the schools required, but to secure that they are available.

9.3 In exercising its responsibilities under section 14 of the Education Act 1996 a local authority must do so with a view to securing diversity in the provision of schools and increasing opportunities for parental choice.

9.5 The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places requirements on Authorities to make their significant strategic decisions concerning the number and variety of school places in their localities against two overriding criteria: • to secure schools likely to maximise student potential and achievement; • to secure diversity and choice in the range of school places on offer.

Page 31

Section 19 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 provides that where a local authority or the governing body of a maintained school proposes to make a prescribed alteration to a maintained school and it is permitted to make that alteration, it must publish proposals.

9.6 The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England ) Regulations 2007 provide that proposed enlargements of school premises which would increase the capacity of the school by more than 30 pupils and by 25% or 200 pupils (whichever is the lesser), or changes to the age limit of a school are prescribed alterations which means that statutory proposals have to be published, and there must be a period of four weeks for representations before a decision is made. This does not apply to temporary enlargements where it is anticipated that the enlargement will be in place for less than 3 years, or a rise in the number anticipated to last only one year.

9.7 The Council, before making any decision regarding the expansion of a school, must ensure that capital funding is in place, interested parties have been consulted, the statutory notice is published and there has been a four week period for representation.

9.8 The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) brings together all previous equality legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. The Act includes a new public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty), replacing the separate duties relating to race, disability and gender equality. The duty came into force on 6 April 2011. The new duty covers the following nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

9.9 In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act. • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. • foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

9.10 As was the case for the original separate duties, the new duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations.

9.11 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued guidance in January 2011 providing an overview of the new public sector equality duty, including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who

Page 32

they apply to. The guidance covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance was based on the then draft specific duties so is no longer fully up-to-date, although regard may still be had to it until the revised guide is produced by the EHRC. The guidance can be found at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice- and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/equality-act-guidance- downloads/ .

9.12 The EHRC guidance does not have legal standing, unlike the statutory Code of Practice on the public sector equality duty which was due to be produced by the EHRC under the Act. However, the Government has now stated that no further statutory codes under the Act will be approved. The EHRC has indicated that it will issue the draft code on the PSED as a non statutory code following further review and consultation but, like the guidance, the non statutory code will not have legal standing.

9.13 A further report will be brought to the Mayor seeking a decision on the results of the publication of the Statutory Notices and full legal implications associated with those proposals will be set out in that further report.

10 Crime and Disorder Implications

10.1 There are no crime and disorder implications.

11 Equalities Implications

11.1 This report supports the delivery of the Council’s Equalities programme by ensuring that all children whose parents/carers require a place in a Lewisham school will be able to access one.

11.2 Should the Mayor agree the proposal an Equalities Impact Assessment will be included along with the subsequent report on any representations resulting from the publication of the statutory notice.

12 Environmental Implications

12.1 Every effort will be made to enhance rather than detract from school environments in the solutions to providing additional primary places.

Page 33

13 Risk assessment

13.1 There are financial risks if insufficient funding is allocated to support the programme There are also significant reputational risks to the Council if it does not meet its statutory requirement to ensure sufficient primary school places are made available.

14. Conclusion

The proposal to enlarge Adamsrill Primary school is recommended. Places in temporary enlargements since 2009 have been taken up demonstrating that the school is popular with local parents. The additional places will meet the growing local need. The building scheme will improve the operation of the school and the facilities available to it.

Background Documents

Appendix 1 Consultation leaflet Appendix 2 Adamsrill Primary School: Consultation responses Appendix 3 Questions asked by Adamsrill School Council Appendix 4 Response from Adamsrill Governing Body

Mayor & Cabinet February 15 th 2012 Consultation On Provision Of Additional Permanent Primary Places

If there are any queries on this report, please contact Chris Threlfall, Head of School Infrastructure on extension 49971

Page 34

APPENDIX ONE

Adamsrill Primary School Options for the future

Tell us your views

What is this leaflet about?

In order to meet the huge increase in demand for Reception places, which is predicted to continue to at least the end of the decade, the Local Authority wishes to consult on how it can best increase the supply of permanent primary school places across the borough.

As part of this, we are considering whether existing schools can be enlarged to offer additional places. Adamsrill Primary School has been identified as a possible site and we want to hear your views on a proposal to increase the school’s admissions number so that it can admit more children each year.

This leaflet explains: • why we need to increase the number of primary school places across the borough • how your school might help meet this demand • what will happen next after this consultation

It is important to us to gain the views of pupils, parents/carers, governors, school staff, pupils, the local community and other interested parties about this proposal. There is a form at the back of this leaflet for you to fill in and return to share your thoughts. Your feedback will help us to shape possible developments at Adamsrill Primary School.

Completed forms need to be returned by March 30 th 2012

e-copies of this form are available on the Adamsrill School Website

To return the form:

• Email to: [email protected]

• Send to: Margaret Brightman, Pupil Place Manager, 3 rd Floor, Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, London, SE6 4RU

• Leave it in the box provided in Adamsrill Primary School reception

You can also call Margaret Brightman on 0208 314 8034 if you have any questions or comments.

Page 35

The Proposal

The Mayor has asked us to look at the feasibility of expanding Adamsrill Primary School from its current 2 forms of entry to 3 forms of entry. This would mean that from September 2013 the maximum number of children in Reception would rise from 60 to 90. The school has offered 30 additional places each year since 2009 and will do so again in 2012 so some year groups are already 3 forms of entry. Eventually all age groups would have a maximum of 90 children and the maximum number of the children in the school, (excluding the Nursery) would grow to 630.

Why do we need additional places in Lewisham primary schools?

The number of births in Lewisham has increased by over 30% since 2000/2001. This has been a consistent trend and means that we need to provide more permanent school places. We know too that major planned housing regeneration schemes will attract new people into the borough and a proportion of them are likely to be families with children. We estimate that we need to add about 540 permanent school places across the borough and these need to be concentrated in the areas where we expect to see population increases.

We will be able to provide many of these places through enlarging existing schools where there is sufficient room on the site to add new classrooms and the other areas that a school needs. This might be through adding new classrooms or by modifying existing buildings.

We will be monitoring our projections very carefully to ensure that - as far as possible - we get the right number of places in the right locations.

We want to be able to educate as many as possible of our young people close to their homes in Lewisham. We also know that with increasing numbers of young people in the population we need to increase the opportunities for many young people with special educational needs to be educated close to home.

Why enlarge this school?

The population in Forest Hill and Sydenham is increasing. There has been a 35% increase over the last decade from 919 births in 1998/99 to 1,228 in 2008/09. Our projections, which include information on planned housing developments, indicate that there will be a sustained demand for additional places in schools in the area until beyond the end of the decade.

In order to meet local demand, and avoid expecting children to travel long distances, we need to add 135 places (4.5 forms of entry) as permanent expansions in the area as well as some additional temporary

Page 36

expansions to cover the years of peak demand (children entering school from 2012 to 2014. We would like Adamsrill Primary School to offer 30 additional places (1 additional form of entry).

How could the school increase its size?

If the decision is taken to expand Adamsrill, the existing Key Stage 1 building would be replaced with a two-storey building. This would be linked to the existing Key Stage 2 building, and the link would include a new reception area and a lift to ensure that anyone with limited mobility is able to access all areas of both buildings . We will need to provide additional Key Stage 2 classrooms and this will be done by re- modelling within the existing building. The Early Years and Foundation stage would also be re-modelled. The old modular classrooms in the Junior playground will be removed to create more play-space and the dining space and kitchen will be rationalised.

Will the education of the children already in the school be compromised?

There is no reason why expansion of the school should compromise the education of children already in the school. The challenge of needing rapidly to expand existing schools has meant that other Councils have looked at whether there is a relationship between school size and school effectiveness.

Lewisham has many successful schools of all sizes and also has effective local networks which spread expertise throughout the borough.

Educational Research repeatedly finds that school leadership, ethos and the quality of teaching and learning are the key factors which influence school effectiveness. The Local Authority is aware of the challenge that it is setting schools being considered for expansion and will tailor the support that it is able to give to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.

What funding will the school receive for the additional pupils?

The Local Authority will fund the costs of the building works required and will equip the new classes as they open.

In addition to the set-up costs, the school will be funded for each child who joins the school.

How do I find out more?

There will be a meeting for parents on March 20 th 5.30 – 7.30. We will start with a “Drop-in” session where you will be able to see the proposed plans and discuss the enlargement with Governors and people from the Local Authority. There will be a presentation at 6.30 with the opportunity for questions. You are free to stay for whatever time suits you best. If you are unable to attend but have questions please contact Margaret Brightman ([email protected] ) 0208 314 8034

Page 37

What will happen next after this consultation?

We will report back to Mayor & Cabinet in May and the Mayor will make a decision on whether to proceed to the next stage of consultation which is the publication of a Statutory Notice. The final decision would be taken in July for inclusion in the Admission arrangements for 2013.

Page 38

Feedback form

It is important to the local authority and the school to hear your views on this proposal. Please fill in the form below to share your thoughts with us. You can also call Margaret Brightman at Lewisham Council (020 8314 8034) if you have any questions or comments.

To return the form:

• Email to: [email protected]

Send to: Margaret Brightman, Pupil Place Manager, 3 rd Floor, Laurence House Catford Road, London, SE6 4RU

• Leave it in the box provided in Adamsrill Primary School reception

e-copies of this form are available on the Adamsrill Primary School Website

th The deadline for returning the form is March 30 2012

Your views

Do you support the permanent expansion of the school from 2 to 3 forms of entry? [Please tick one box]

YES NO UNSURE

Please indicate the reasons for your views

Page 39

Please could you provide us with some information about yourself overleaf…

Page 40

Your details

□ I am representing an organisation in making this response (please tick and specify)

Name of organisation: ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

How would you best describe yourself in relation to this consultation? (please tick one) □ Parent/carer □ Governor □ School staff □ Pupil □ Member of local community □ Other (please specify) :………………………………………………………… ………..………………………

Equalities monitoring is the collection of information which helps services ensure that they are providing a fair and inclusive service. The information that is provided on this form will remain strictly confidential in accordance with the Data Protection Act. If you are unhappy about answering a particular question you do not have to.

Are you male or female? □ Male □ Female

Please select your age group □ Under 18 □ 18-24 □ 25-29 □ 30-34 □ 35-39 □ 40-44 □ 45-49 □ 50-54 □ 55-59 □ 60-64 □ 65+

To which of these groups do you consider you belong? □ White - British □ White - Irish □ Any other White background, please state: …………………………………… …………..………………….. □ Mixed - White & Black Caribbean □ Mixed - White & Black African □ Mixed - White & Asian □ Any other Mixed background, please state:…………………………………… …..………..………………… □ Asian or Asian British - Indian □ Asian or Asian British - Pakistani □ Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi □ Any other Asian background, please state:.…………………………………… …..………..………………… □ Black or Black British - Caribbean □ Black or Black British - African □ Any other Black background, please state:….…………………………………… ..………..………………… □ Chinese □ Other ethnic group, please state:……………………..…………………………………………………………

Thank you for taking the time to read this leaflet. We look forward to hearing from you.

Page 41

Page 42

APPENDIX TWO DESCRIPTION SCHOOL RESPONSE AGE SEX ETHNICITY COMMENTS GROUP 1. Governor Adamsrill Yes 60 -64 Female White - British I totally support the permanent expansion to 3 forms of entry. We need to be responsive to the needs of the children in our locality and I am also sure that new facilities will be an added bonus for our school and will support all of the pupils. 2. Parent Adamsrill (query) Female Concern about the position of parent s having to deliver children to both KS1 & KS2 sites and then get to work. Can there be any supportive arrangements? 3 Parent Adamsrill No 45 -49 Female White Irish The school is overcrowded as it is. Children need to develop physically and need space and freedom to do this. The children do not have adequate space to run and play in safety. The extra Page 43 children will not benefit the children already in the school, rather deplete the space they already have. The increase in the number of births since 2000/2001 is as a direct result of immigration and the ascendancy of the Eastern European countries such as Poland Bulgaria and Lithuania to the EU. This, as is proved by the survey has put a strain on our schools, our Health Service our housing and our prisons. If this immigration is such an economic necessity and is generating so much money for our country, then central government needs to devolve more money to councils to build NEW SCHOOLS not just cram in more children to the existing ones, Build new classrooms to a school which is not designed for it will not benefit the childs already there 4. Parent. Adamsrill Unsure 35 -39. Female White British While I can see the need to create places for the ever increasing numbers of children in the borough and this area, I am a little uneasy at the size that the school will grow to and

whether this is in the best interests of the children it serves. While the plans look good overall, and I support the modernisation of the school fabric, the issue is more about the volume of kids and their needs, rather than just creating some modern classrooms to put them. The school is more than the sum of it’s parts.

The amount of children and larger children that will be rushing around in the communal spaces and the playground is a big concern (not to mention all the additional parents, prams and younger siblings at the beginning and end of each day). It is hard to imagine the charging around and frenetic melee of this

Page 44 number of kids at playtimes and lunchtimes when looking at the architects peaceful drawings! The amount of space per head is a concern.

The entrance needs careful thought as this area is a real bottleneck, lots of us have prams and getting in and out can be quite dangerous with hundreds of kids and adults funnelled down a narrow walkway spilling out onto a very narrow pavement. A larger area within the school boundary is needed to help diffuse the crush.

Resources

With additional kids inevitably come additional problems – learning difficulties, behavioural difficulties, language needs etc. Will the school have adequate resources to try and deal with these children without disadvantaging the average kids? Those who keep their heads down and are neither exceptional nor

special needs, often suffer in the classroom from b eing ignored due to attention being given to the more demanding kids. The ratio of staff to children needs to increase or some sort of facility or space should be included for taking some of the demanding children out of the classroom on a regular basis for tailored learning, so that the majority can concentrate. Perhaps some of the existing spaces that are now defunct and up for grabs due to the new plans could be considered? 5 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am writing followi ng the recent meeting for the plans for the building work to be carried out on Adamsrill school. I have concerns as there are no plans for the school toddler group included in these plans. My oldest is 9 years old, my middle son is 7 years and my youngest is 11months old and I have used this Page 45 group for all my children. if this facility is shut after the building work is completed it will have a negative impact not only for the children that currently attend the morning and afternoon sessions but the future children that are looking for a toddler group in the surrounding area. With my other two children it helped them to develop the confidence to mix well with other children and learn some key values in life like sharing. If these sessions aren’t available for our future children I can see problems for these. There isn’t many groups like this around the area and it would be a great shame if we were to lose it. 6 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given 1st I would like to say that I am upset t hat the meeting was scheduled so late in the evening. I live in Lewisham and would have loved to attended the meetingbut 17.30 was too late. Was the time set so that not many people would turn up?I know the teachers had their meeting before us. Couldn’t the two meetings have been on different days? 2nd I have attended Dots Toddlers group on and off for 10 years

all my children have come to toddlers. When I moved house Dots Toddler group was the only reason I do not change schools. Dots Toddler group offers such a big part in the childrens lifes. Dot herself is Toddlers. Dot is kind/helpful and considerate. She encourages the children and gives them confidence to go on into nursery. My children had no friends until they came to Dots. We had no garden. At Dots they could run around and make friends in a secure setting. Toddlers has lots of resources to encourage the children so they blossom and turn into the unique children the EYFS want them to be. The emotional/social and developmental benefits of coming to Dots have already been highly commended by Ofsted and should

Page 46 remain in place for future generation to benefit.

I personally have got a lot out of toddlers. It has made me a lot more confident person. So much so that I have become a childminder through her being Dot’s help. I thought the agreement is that if the provision already exist it will not be removed or forgoting. So when I learned that Toddlers have not been allocated space in the move to the temporary Greenvale school I was deeply upset and concerned about the future of Dot’s toddler group. The loss of Dot’s toddler group would be a great loss. Toddlers got an outstanding at the Ofsted inspection. It is a vital part of the school life for the little children. Any space we are allocated would be gratefully accepted . Even if it had no outdoor space. The children need the toddlers group to keep them together and so they can flourish and become independent children. 7 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am writing to you regardi ng the development of Adamsrill Primary School. I have seen the plans and am very concerned

that the current Toddler unit is not included in it. I have used this Toddler Unit for all 3 of my children and have found this a useful resource for both me and the children. The Toddler unit has received an outstanding in an Ofsted inspection and would be a great loss to the community if it did not get a place in the new plans. The children who attend excel and become at ease in the school environment thus making the transition to nursery much easier. The toddler group is always full and has a waiting list as there is not enough in the area.

I would be grateful if my concerns were taken into account. 8 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given Aft er seeing the new build plans and talking to you prior to the Page 47 meeting which I couldn’t fully attend due to its lateness, I was deeply concerned to note that toddler group was not on the plans or included in the move. I am a mum of 3 who has attended toddler group for the last 3 years and it has become a huge part of my children’s daily lives and a big support network for me. My daughter started when she was 2 and it’s thanks to this toddler group that she went from an extremely quiet and unconfident child to one who became settled, confident and able to start school with ease. Due to Dot, who runs Toddler Group and Nikki being lunch-time supervisor I felt confident leaving my daughter who has a long term illness full time as opposed to having to take her home to eat. Although I understand Adamsrill school has no mandated obligation to provide a toddlers group, the social, emotional and developmental benefits of providing this facility are exponentially

positive for the school, the families and the individual children attending the group. This is because these children experience less abandonment anxieties due to higher levels of self- confidence and this, as I understand it is an important an aspect of their education career as their normal class.

And for these reasons and the outstanding Ofsted report after Inspection I think Toddlers is a massive benefit to Adamsrill school. 9 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am writing to you to express my concerns about the possible closure of the toddler group which at this time runs certain hours during the week in term time. Page 48 As you are aware the school is due for re-furbishment – the infant side and the nursery has been mentioned and the plans have been shown to the parents - but no mention of the toddler group! This group is the “missing link” in the school which many parents use in the transition of their children from “Toddlers to early years”. This group has been a life saver for many parents and has been going for approx 25 year and the closure of this group would be a great shame and a loss for the school as well.

PLEASE MAKE SPACE IN THE SCHOOL FOR THE TODDLER GROUP!! 10 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given After attending the meeting at Adamsrill school on 20 th Mar ch I was very disappointed to find out that Toddler Group was not included in any of the plans nor were we making the temporary move to Greenvale, which in turn the group will cease to function meaning there will be nowhere for the children or parents to go when the project is going to take 12 months possibly more. To take away this facility would detrimental to many families where

this group is a vital resource. In my opinion and experience of toddler group is that it is a vital bridge between toddler group and nursery and has made my son’s transition to nursery very smooth and settled. The toddler group has benefitted both my children and given both of them confidence it would be a shame to see such a great facility cease to function. Toddler group gain a very good Ofsted report. There will be many parents/carers that would be very upset that toddler group isn’t being treated as part of the school when it has been there for more than 25 years.

We are a good group of parents who feel like we would only take up a very small space Page 49 11 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Not given Not given My children have been attending toddler group for some time now. It has benefitted their learning and confidence a great deal, so I’m very disappointed to hear that toddler group is not on the plans for the new build and also not in the temporary move to green vale. It would be a great shame to lose toddler group as it has been there for so long and has been very successful in that time. This success has been shown in the Ofsted report. Toddler group will be greatly missed by all children and parents. There is clearly space in the new build and I’m sure that there must be at least one room free at the temporary move for toddler group to use until all the work is completed. So it would be greatly appreciated if toddler group continued to run as usual. 12 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am very sadden to see that toddler group has not be included in the new school plan layout and isn’t included in the temporary move to Green vale. Toddler group is a big part of Adamsrill school and should not be forgotten about. It would be very missed by both parents and the children . Toddler Group is a big

part of my child’s daily routine since starting toddler my child has really come out of himself has made friends and is now a very confident little boy my son loves toddler group without it his social skills are very limited.

I would love to see toddler group included with the new building and be included with the move to Greenvale 13 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given After attending the meeting on the 20 th of March 2012 I was extremely disappointed of the decision that was made regarding the Toddler group. Our children seem to enjoy coming to toddler group, they really have fun playing so I really don’t know why the Toddler group had not been allocated space in the new build Page 50 and also not making the temporary move to Greenvale. I am sure that there is sufficient space at Greenvale to accommodate. I am looking forward to hear good news about this matter 14 Parent Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am writing with reference to the redesign of the above school. I wish to address two issues that I have with the proposed plans. Firstly I understand that no provision has been made for a toddler group/area to replace the provision that exists at Adamsrill already. This is contrary to the proviso that no facility that already exists as part of the primary school site would be lost. I am concerned that the new building is going to be built without a toddler group provision, which has previously been commended by OFSTED and has proved to be invaluable to previous Adamsrill children. I would like re-assurances from you that the toddler group provision will be replaced as part of the redesign.

I’m also concerned about overall playground size. Although the new design has taken the “dead space” into account, I still

believe that there will not be enough playground space to accommodate all the children in a three form entry school. As you are aware, children’s development includes the physical and children need adequate space to run around in safety without the fear of running into or hitting other children. I do not think that the playground space that has been provided in the plans is adequate for the health, safety and positive development of some 600 plus children. I would like assurances from you that this issue will be addressed. 15 . Staff Adamsrill Not stated Not given Not given Not given After attending the meeting on the 20 th of March I was extremely disappointed to find that the Toddlers Group had not been allocated space in the new build and would also not be making the temporary move to Greenvale, In essence this means that Page 51 the Group will cease to function. I have always given my complete support to the group over many years and have seen it build into a very successful, highly regarded and valued set-up as it now is. The success has been recognised by Ofsted when it rated us as excellent,

16 Local Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given After hearing that Adamsrill’s Key Stage 1 is going to be Community allocated in the new build at Greenvale that there would be no (Toddler Group space for toddlers group. I am extremely disappointed that there User) would be no toddlers group at Greenvale and would not know where else to go with my son. My son is 3 years old who loves to come. English is his second language and 6 month speech delay. Toddlers Group helps my son to socialise and to catch up with spoken language. My son has learnt to play together with other children, children with different ethnicity and singing. As his mother is good to see my child enjoys himself and starts to improve his speech. It would be devastating for both of us as we

no longer can go to Adamsrill toddlers group. 17 Local Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I understand that when Adamsrill school is undergoing an Community expansion building works and relocates to the current location of (Toddler Group Gordonbrock school that there will not be a provision for the User) toddler group. I am shocked and concerned to hear this. I have been coming to the toddler group for over 3 years, first with my daughter and now with both children. It is a wonderful place to come for the children and parents/carers. There is a warm welcome, a safe environment and fun and educational activities for the children, My daughter will start school in September, most likely at Adamsrill, but I hope to continue to come to toddlers with my son Page 52 (aged 2 and a half). He loves coming here , he loves seeing Dot, racing around in the garden, playing and painting and socialising with the other children. He will be very sad if he cannot attend in future. Please ensure that there will be a place for the toddler group, both in the temporary home and when the school returns to Adamsrill Road. It is such a valuable service for the whole community and is a lovely preparation for nursery and school. We both benefitted enormously and I would hope this will continue to do so in the future 18 Local Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am writing this letter to request for not to close this toddlers Community group. (Toddler Group We all from this area enjoying this children’s group’s activities. It User) is really very useful for society’s first step’s education and for first step for baby towards school. I can’t understand why it’s closing? This group is now more than 25 years old why you need to close/terminate. Please keep run…to…. If you do so it will very unjustice for societies very

excellence service. So it is my hartily request to keep it run please If you have some difficulty for space , there is much space in school so think before you take some decision. I feel that it is a great place for my child to develop his new activities like drawing, crafts, playing, singing etc Please don’t close this group. I hope you can do something positive for us. 19 . Local Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given After attending the meeting on the 20 th of March regarding the Community development of Adamsrill school, I was very disappointed to find (Toddler Group out that there would be no provision for toddler group, both User) during the development of the site and once the works had been completed. Page 53 I have attended the toddler group in a professional capacity as a full-time nanny. During my time attending the group with many families I have worked for, I have found the children have flourished whilst attending. It has helped them to form valuable friendships, enabled them to establish routines, basically to develop in all areas of their learning!!! The children have also been helped in their transition to Nursery school. Toddler group has also helped me invaluably. Its enabled me to form friendships with other mums,dads & carers, to discuss any concerns I have and kept me sane! Toddler group has had an outstanding result when inspected by Ofsted a feature that the school should be proud of! I for one would be very sad if because of the development Toddler group would have to close its doors! I would be very grateful if you could take into consideration my concerns about the future of the group

20 Local Adam srill Not stated Not given Not given Not given After attending the meeting Tuesday March 20 th 2012 I was Community extremely disappointed to find that the Toddlers Group had not (Toddler Group been allocated space in the new build and would also not be User) making the temporary move to Greenvale. In essence this means that the Group will cease to function. I have always given my complete support to the group over many years and have seen it build into the very successful, highly regarded and valued setup as it now is. This success has been recognised by ofsted when it rated as excellent. I am sure that there is sufficient space at Greenvale to accommodate Toddler Group accepting that we would not have outside access. Parents have voiced there extreme concern over the forthcoming closing of Toddler group

Page 54 and the resultant loss of ongoing support for them and their children during the preschool period preceding entry into the nursery. 21 Local Adamsrill Not stated Not given Female Not given I am a mother one of children who attend a Toddlers Group in Community Adamsrill Primary school. (Toddler Group After attending the meeting on Tuesday 20 th March 2012 I was User) very disappointed to find that the Toddlers Group had not been allocated space in the new build and would also not be making the temporary move to Greenvale. In essence this means that the Group will cease to function. I have been coming here with my child almost five months and I really think that the Toddlers Group is very necessary for our children. My child really needs this Group, because he is learning English, learns communicate with others children, learns how to share and play with other children. He has learned lots of things like paint, draw, ride on car, ride on scooter and also. The teachers is very helpful and nice. They help to learn

something new to children. This Toddler Group cannot be closed. Please, I asking You to keep and take to new build our Toddler Group

Page 55

APPENDIX THREE

Adamsrill’s Future School Council Meeting with Planning Consultant Tuesday 20 th March 2012 3pm 1. What will happen at the beginning and end of the day when parents have to collect children from KS1 and KS2? Will the school day start and finish at different times? 2. Will the noise from the building work disturb the children’s work? 3. Why can’t KS2 move while the building is taking place? How will you make sure that it is safe? 4. Why are you only knocking down the KS1 building when the KS2 building has damp, amongst lots of other problems? Wouldn’t it be better in the long run to build a whole new school? 5. How are the classrooms going to be set out? It is important that the same year groups are together. 6. Will the classrooms be air conditioned? 7. What will the toilet facilities be like? 8. Will there be group rooms with better facilities? Eg computers, good lighting and airy 9. Will there be a ‘calm’ room for children to go to when they feel troubled? 10. Will there be a Parents’ room where they can relax and have meetings? There will need to be a small kitchen area and computers. It could also be used for visitors. It needs to be private. 11. Will there be a Music Room/auditorium? 12. Will there be a Sports Hall? 13. What is the ‘link’ between the two buildings? 14. Will we have gentle music in the tunnel and in the office, to help people to be calm? 15. How will the office communicate between the 2 buildings? Eg fire alarm, tannoy system for messages around the school. 16. If there are more children we will need more playground space. How will that work? 17. Will there be a garden/allotment area? Lots of children at Adamsrill don’t have a garden. 18. Is the building going to be environmentally friendly? Eg solar roof, solar heating, automatic hand dryers etc. This will be cheaper in the long run.

Page 56

Adamsrill Primary School

The Governing Body response to the Lewisham proposal to enlarge Adamsrill School

There has been a full and thorough consideration by the Adamsrill Governing Body of the Lewisham proposal to expand the school from its current two forms of entry to three with effect from September 2013.

The Governing Body was first made aware of Lewisham’s proposal at the whole Governing Body meeting on 5 th July 2011, when approval was sought and given (to Lewisham) to undertake a feasibility study of the school site. This meeting together with the subsequent meetings held on Tuesday 28th September 2011 and Wednesday 25 th January 2012 were attended by Margaret Brightman, Pupil Places Manager at Lewisham. In addition to providing thorough updates and details regarding the proposal and associated consultation process Ms Brightman was also questioned extensively by Governors on both the scheme and consultation process.

In addition to the meetings attended by Ms Brightman, the whole Governing Body has also been updated and had an opportunity to discuss the proposal at its meetings on 23 rd November 2011 and 7 th March 2012. Further specific and appropriate aspects of the scheme have also been agenda items at the Premises Committee meetings on 12th October 2011 and 28 th February 2012 as well as the Resources Committee meeting on 21 st February 2012. At the meeting on 12 th October the Premises Committee agreed a four person team to work with Lewisham in developing the scheme; this team, as designed, has subsequently met up on several occasions with the Lewisham team.

The appropriate sections of all the meetings referred to above have been extracted and are attached.

All governors were invited to attend the consultation presentation and meeting for parents on 20 th March 2012.

As evidenced above all Governors have had an opportunity to air their views on the proposal.

The underpinning views and expectations of the Governing Body in its consideration of Lewisham’s proposal have been and are

1. That whilst having reservations both in general and to specific aspects of the proposal, a recognition that for Lewisham there were few or no viable alternatives, that our responsibility was to provide education for the local, growing community, that ultimately we might not be able to refuse the project and that as previously demonstrated by the school (in connection with the bulge classrooms) our preferred route was to work with the Local Authority to bring about necessary changes.

Page 57

2. That in agreeing to allow the proposal (to be submitted to the Mayor and Cabinet) (see minutes of 25th January 2012,) we expect to have at least at our disposal all the physical space and resources to provide our core business and the extended provision that we have at present; albeit noting that additional classroom and ancillary provision will, by definition on a limited site, be at the expense of precious and much appreciated outdoor space. 3. That the School maintains its current and improving standards. In this regard we rely on Lewisham’s contention in the consultation papers that “ Educational Research repeatedly finds that school leadership, ethos and the quality of teaching and learning are the key factors which influence school effectiveness ” and that the authority “ is aware of the challenge that it is setting schools being considered for expansion and will tailor the support that it is able to give to ensure that they are not disadvantaged .” Accordingly the Governing Body seek and expect the LA to provide support in the form of additional necessary staff and specifically personnel experienced in the logistical requirements of a decant and enlargement. The Governors are anxious to ensure that specifically Head Teacher and Senior Management Team time and teaching time are not significantly diverted away from core duties and responsibilities in the lead up to and throughout the transitions that will be created by the proposal. 4. The proposal does offer a good and welcomed opportunity to provide new modern classroom and ancillary facilities for whole school use and more principally to EYFS and KS1 pupils; it is recognised that the existing building is becoming outdated, unsuitable in size and sometimes use and will soon be in need of more frequent and expensive repairs. 5. In connection with funding, that the school is not required to finance any part of the enlargement project and furthermore in the uncertainty created by the proposal the school is not penalised for any underspend of its budgets. Additionally and thinking in to the future the school is not penalised and allowed to struggle to maintain and keep the school running in the event of falling pupil numbers.

In respect of the consultation process with the whole school community the Governing Body has the following views and comments on the responses received both verbally at the meetings and in writing to Margaret Brightman.

1. The feedback from staff, specifically at the meeting on 20 th March, was not that of opposition but more of embracing the opportunity to improve facilities. Input in the context of building layout and space requirements was useful and the Governing Body understands these have and will be taken on board by Lewisham’s architects and design team. 2. Staff feedback also questioned the future provision of the toddler unit (see below) 3. Parent turnout to the meeting on the 20 th March was considered low as was the number of written responses submitted to (and subsequently redistributed by) Margaret Brightman. 4. The feedback from the parent meeting was constructive and the clear collective concern of parents related to overcrowding in the playgrounds, dining hall and surrounding corridors and subsequent noise disruption. These concerns reflected those previously raised by governors. The Governing Body have, further to discussions on the issue, confidence that through careful planning of the new building and timetabling of activities and the school day these overcrowding concerns can be minimised; the parents in attendance were probably less convinced by the same expert advice and assurances given in response to their overcrowding concerns. The future of the toddler unit was also raised as a concern (see below)

Page 58

5. Written feedback from the consultation is predominantly concerned with the future provision of the toddler unit. The Governing Body notes these concerns and refers back to its expectation that in moving forward with this proposal it expects to be in the position to provide in the future all that it currently provides. The toddler unit is however only an extended provision of the school and the school has no legal responsibility to provide the service. Accordingly it is the view of the Governing Body that the future provision or otherwise of a toddler unit is an issue upon which it should decide and as such should not shape the Mayor and Cabinet’s consideration of the enlargement proposal.

Margo Lawrence Chair of Governors, for and on behalf of the Governing Body Adamsrill Primary School 17 th April 2012.

Page 59 Agenda Item 6

Page 60 MAYOR & CABINET

Report Title Designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area

Key Decision Yes Item No.

Ward New Cross

Contributors Executive Director for Resources & Regeneration (Head of Planning) and Head of Law Class Part 1 Date: 9 May 2012

1. Summary

This report concerns the proposed designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area. It explains the conservation area appraisal (“the Appraisal”) that underpins the case for designation and considers the outcome of the associated public consultation exercise. It concludes, subject to amendments arising from the consultation, that Deptford Creekside should be designated a conservation area and that the Appraisal should be adopted to inform the future protection and management of the area.

2. Purpose

To consider whether or not to designate Deptford Creekside as a Conservation Area in the light of the appraisal and the response to public consultation.

3. Policy Context

3.1 The contents of this report are consistent with the Council’s policy framework. It supports the achievements of the Sustainable Community Strategy policy objective ‘Clean, green and liveable’, and the corresponding clean green and liveable policy priority, notably improving environmental management and promoting a sustainable environment. Consistency with the Council’s Local Development Framework is explained below.

3.2 Lewisham’s Core Strategy Policy 16, states that, the Council will ensure that the value and significance of the borough’s heritage assets, such as conservation areas, will continue to be monitored, reviewed, enhanced and conserved according to the requirements of government planning policy guidance, the London Plan policies, local policy and English Heritage best practice’.

The Council will work with its partners, including local communities, to ensure

Page 61 that the borough’s heritage assets and those yet to be identified will be valued positively and considered as central to the regeneration of the borough (…).

The Lewisham Core Strategy further states that ‘ the Council will continue to review its conservation areas, designating new ones and preparing associated management plans and policies to conserve their character.’

3.3 Under section 69 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the local planning authority shall from time to time determine which parts of their area are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance, and shall designate those areas as conservation areas.

3.4 Under Section 71 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the local planning authority has a duty from time to time to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas.

3.5 The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) identifies the protection of the historic environment as one of the elements of its drive for sustainable development. It also asks local authorities, when considering the designation of conservation areas, to ‘ ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest .

3.6 English Heritage guidance ‘Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management’ advises that when identifying areas suitable for designation, ‘ it is important to be able to articulate the special interest and support the designation with evidence from some form of historic characterisation – ideally a conservation area appraisal.’

3.7 Policy 7.8: Heritage Assets and Archaeology of the London Plan (July 2011) ) says that London’s heritage assets and historic environment, including conservation areas and archaeological remains, should be identified, so that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing their significance and of utilising their positive role in place shaping can be taken into account.

387 The Appraisal will be included as a background paper in the emerging Local Development Framework (LDF) and, as such, will be a due consideration in the planning process.

4. Recommendations

The Mayor is recommended to:

1. Designate the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area as shown on the map (Appendix 1)

Page 62 2. Adopt the conservation area appraisal as amended following consultation as shown in Appendix 2 available at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=139&MId=2451

5. Background

5.1 The Planning Service has an ongoing programme of reviewing the borough’s conservation areas and indentifying new ones. The potential for designating the southern part of Deptford Creekside was first given consideration in 2008 within the scope of the intended Deptford High Street Conservation Area review. In 2009, the London Development Agency published the Heritage Scoping Study of Deptford Creek which highlighted heritage assets and areas of interest surrounding the Creek. The study concluded with the suggestion to create a cross-border Deptford Creek Conservation Area, including much of the area for which this proposal is made.

5.2 Conservation Areas are designated for their special local interest. To qualify for designation an area must have special historic or architectural interest ‘the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’. In order to establish Creekside’s potential for designation the Appraisal was carried out. It describes the history, fabric and character of the area and analyses what makes the area special in the context of Lewisham. The appraisal is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. The process follows best practice as set out in English Heritage’s ‘Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management’ .

The proposed conservation area

5.3 The proposed conservation area focuses on industrial Creekside south of the railways and the Crossfield Estate, each of which constitute assets of heritage significance to the borough in their own right. The Creek itself has long been recognised as a natural heritage asset to the borough.

Summary of the conservation area appraisal

The history of the area 5.4 Deptford is one of the oldest settlements in Lewisham. The town is well known as the location of the historic Royal Dockyard, whose establishment brought fame and prosperity to Deptford for many centuries. Known to a lesser extent is the significance of the Creek to the development of the area. Here, on the banks of the Creek, as well as on the Thames foreshore, lie the beginnings of settlement, industry and urban growth of the borough.

5.5 Deptford Bridge, the area where the River Ravensbourne becomes the Creek, has been a historic crossing point and place of continued occupation since Roman times. It was part of Watling Street, the Roman route that linked London with Canterbury and on to Dover. In medieval times, it became the

Page 63 focus of a small hamlet that developed into a settlement distinct from Deptford Strand at the Thames waterfront.

5.6 A tide mill was established in the area by the time of the Norman Conquest. By the 12 th century, a tide mill is recorded to the north of Deptford Bridge. The site of the entrance to the Creek ‘Island’ north of Deptford Bridge, today called the Gibbes or Skill Centre Island that forms part of the Lewisham College Deptford Campus, has been the location for a succession of tide mills over the centuries. From the 18 th century, it became the starting point for a cluster of mills at the southern end of the Creek which operated here until well into the late 20 th century.

5.7 The street Creekside has its origins in the 16 th century, as a small lane leading to the King’s Slaughterhouse on the site of Harold’s Wharf (today the APT Studios). It was founded by Henry VIII to supply the Greenwich Palace with meat from cattle grazed locally.

5.8 During the course of the 19 th century, the Creek’s waterfronts became heavily industrialised thanks to the river as a means of easy transport. In 1836, London’s first railway, the London to Greenwich Railway reached Deptford. The banks along the Creek attracted a variety of industries, many of which were of an unpleasant and dirty character, such as chemical, bleach, dye and glue works, and tar distilleries. The land behind filled with small terraced housing for the workers, many of them living in poverty and in crowded conditions. When the Royal Dockyards closed in 1869 and were subsequently turned into a Cattle Market, the town began to lose its more prosperous and respected inhabitants which started a steady demographic shift downwards.

5.9 The fortunes of the area reflect in many respects the socio-economic history of industrial and working-class London. The late 1960s and 70s saw the decline of the riverside industries, leading to widespread unemployment and physical decline. Contrary to other riverside areas, however, Creekside south of the railways avoided the large scale destruction of its industrial heritage as buildings were adapted for new purposes and the entrepreneurial focus of the area shifted to a variety of businesses mainly of the creative industry. Over the last two decades, Creekside has established itself as an Art Hub that has breathed new life into the area and attracts large numbers of visitors.

5.10 The overcrowded and poor condition of the houses in many of its neighbourhoods also made Deptford an early focus of the London County Council’s (LCC) programme to improve living conditions for the poor. Social housing estates are an important part of the development history and have shaped the borough since the beginning of the 20 th century. In the 1930s, the LCC started an extensive programme of slum clearance to both sides of Deptford Church Street, replacing crowded early 19 th century housing with the Crossfield Estate. New government incentives at that time encouraged the construction of apartments blocks rather than cottage garden-type estates that had been built previously outside the established borough boundaries e.g. the Bellingham and Downham Estates.

Page 64 5.11 The Crossfield Estate is notable for its own interesting social history. When Lewisham Council changed its housing policy for the estate in the late 1970s – giving priority to young single professionals – it gave the impetus to the development of a radical arts and music scene that gained Deptford an almost legendary status in the 1970s and 80s. The estate became the base for a number of musicians including members of Dire Straits and Squeeze, performing regularly in local venues such as the Oxford Arms (Bird’s Nest Pub) and the Albany. Dire Straits held their first concert on the lawn behind Farrer House. A number of groups, such as Dire Straits, Squeeze and The Flying Pickets made it beyond the borders of Deptford to international stardom.

The character of the area 5.12 The conservation area comprises two distinct character areas that reflect the two major different historic land uses of the area: industrial and residential.

Character Area 1: Industrial Creekside 5.13 This part includes all the historic wharves along the Creek south of the railways. At its southern end, the area contains the office and warehouse buildings of a former oil refinery and a waste trading business, and a number of other smaller yards and workshop buildings. At the entrance to Creekside stands the historic pub (today the Birds Nest Pub), an ubiquitous feature to any traditional industrial area, ready to welcome the workforce after a long day or night shift. Along the straight 19 th century north-south extension of Creekside up to the railway viaduct lies the Faircharm Industrial Estate. Its post-war warehouses were once occupied by the Lewisham based company Zenith Carburetters whose name still appears at the front.

5.14 The medieval origins of Creekside are still evident in the narrowness of the street and the small urban grain of its southern end. A notable characteristic is the strong sense of enclosure created by the continuous row of buildings and boundary walls standing right at the back of the pavement. The listed viaduct of the London Greenwich railway constitutes the northern boundary to this small character area and is a key feature within the area.

5.15 The industrial buildings are for the most part plain and functional, with only the office buildings being the focus for architectural embellishment. Differences in plot sizes, building types and stylistic treatment reflect the incremental development of the area, although a certain degree of coherence is maintained in the consistent low scale - buildings are generally no more than 2 to 3 storeys high – and the predominant use of traditional materials. The Faircharm buildings A, C and D form the most coherent group of industrial buildings within the area, with the gables of the conjoined warehouses featuring prominently in the streetscene and towards the Creek.

5.16 The vertical lifting bridge that crosses the Creek is a cherished local landmark and a structure of special interest in its own right: It is an extremely rare building type – only three other examples exist in the entire country and it is unique in London. The late 20 th century introduced the DLR into the area which criss-crosses the Creek four times and enables views of the river and

Page 65 surrounding area never seen before. The views from the Ha’Penny footbridge (next to the vertical Lifting Bridge) reveal the extent and dramatic nature of the Creek – an oasis of water, mud, and greenery amongst an intense urban landscape.

5.17 The area’s layout, wharves, yards and buildings combine with the spatial qualities of the Creek to create a clear and distinctive townscape and character. To this, river-related structures and the palette of traditional materials, including granite setts, London stock, red and wire cut brickwork, timber sash and metal windows, add a high level of local identity.

Character Area 2: The Crossfield Estate 5.18 The change to the 20 th century housing estate is immediately obvious in the lay-out of the Crossfield Estate as a series of five-storey apartment blocks surrounded by defined semi-public and private spaces. Ample amenity spaces are an integral part of 20 th century housing estate, and these areas now benefit from mature tree cover and hedges.

5.19 The Crossfield Estate consists of a total of nine apartment blocks separated by Deptford Church Street and the railway viaduct into three separate entities. Consistency in height, style, architectural detailing and building materials distinguish the estate as a single-phase development. The buildings are constructed to the then established LCC standards. These include the preference for the domestic style with open balcony access to all flats. Red brick, hipped roof with deep overhanging eaves and Georgian-style Sash windows all add to the overall traditional appearance and solidity of the buildings. The prevailing height of five storeys was mainly dictated by the wish to avoid the cost of installing lifts, and was supported by the widely-held belief that people could walk up as far as the fifth storey, but no higher.

5.20 The estate’s lay-out is distinctive due to the partial inclusion of pre-existing 19 th century street pattern, which has given the southern part a sense of intimacy and surveillance not usually found in housing estates of that time. Castell House and Farrer House are notable for added individual features, such as the rounded balconies attaching to the stair towers (Castell House) and the rounded balconies to each flat, which add sculptural elements to Farrer House’s south elevation.

The special interest of the area 5.21 English Heritages now promotes a value based approach for defining the special interest of a place. It encourages to look beyond the aesthetics or design merits of a place to embrace more broader and less tangible values, such as evidential, historical or communal value.

5.22 The special interest of the industrial part of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area lies primarily in its historic interest based on its evidential, historical and communal value:

• The area is now a rare survival of a fast disappearing heritage that illustrates the importance of the River Thames and the Creek to the

Page 66 economic, cultural and social self-sufficiency of Deptford.

• The industrial premises and wharves at the southern end of the Creek constitute today the only surviving river-related industrial quarter of integrity and coherence within the borough.

• The area’s lay-out and fabric give evidence and illustrate the evolution, settlement pattern, town planning characteristics and land-uses in Deptford from medieval times to the 20 th century. As such the area has exceptional evidential value to the borough.

• The area contains three sites that have high archaeological potential to yield evidence of medieval occupation and early industries on the Deptford Creekside, notably the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island, where remains of the medieval tide mill and its successors may still be in situ below ground. The same applies to Harold Wharf, the site of the Tudor slaughterhouse, and the Sue Godfrey Park, the site of the early 18 th century Copperas Works.

• Harold Wharf is of particular significance for its association with Henry VIII and as evidence of the influence Greenwich Palace once exerted on Deptford.

• The surviving workshops, offices and warehouses illustrate the last phase of a pre-dominantly river-related industry before its decline in the 20 th century.

• The area’s built fabric combined with the Creek creates a locally distinct townscape and identity.

5.23 The Crossfield Estate is considered to be of special interest for the following reasons:

• It has significance as part of the development history of the area and illustrate for the LCC’s engagement in the borough.

• It illustrates the shift of the LCC’s slum clearance programme in the 1930s.

• It is a good example of its time that illustrates the underlying design principles of the LCC social housing types while containing locally distinctive features, such as the lay-out.

• It has a special social history for its role in the Deptford Music Scene of the 1970s and 80s.

• It has a particular social character - working class – and has high social value for residents, musicians, artists and the gay community.

Page 67 5.24 Most of Lewisham’s 27 conservation areas celebrate the borough’s rich and attractive 19 th century housing stock. Deptford Creekside is in this respect an important addition to the existing designations. The area represents the industrial, more work-a-day aspect of the borough’s history and is an acknowledgement that there is greater diversity to Lewisham’s history and heritage than its importance as a London suburb.

5.25 The Crossfield Estate 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 a such. Other estates that have been identified of significance to the borough include the listed Lammas Green Estate (Sydenham), Ryculff Square (part of the Blackheath Conservation Area) and the 1920s Bellingham Estate (potential for conservation area designation).

5.26 Recognition to the industrial heritage along the River Thames has also been given in other London boroughs, albeit few: The Vauxhall Gardens Conservation Area in Lambeth focuses on the area’s industrial heritage with associated social housing very similar to that of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area, and the Sugar House Lane Conservation Area in Newham was designated in 2009 for its evidential value to the 19 th century industry in the Lower Lee Valley.

Implications of designation 5.27 Conservation Area designation is the main instrument available to the Council to introduce policies to protect and conserve a particular neighbourhood or area. Designation introduces controls over the way owners can alter or develop their properties.

These controls include:

• requirement for the Council to consider the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area, • control over the demolition of unlisted buildings, • permission is required from the Council to fell or lop a tree, • restrictions on the types of development which can be carried out without the need for planning permission (‘permitted development rights’).

5.28 Following designation, the appraisal will be used by the Council in considering proposals for alterations to or demolition of buildings or for any new development within the area or its setting.

5.29 Legislation and government policy also requires the Council to draw up proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas. The Planning Service will prepare a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the wider Creekside area to guide the anticipated regeneration of the area, and this will include management guidelines for the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area, including site specific recommendations.

Page 68 6. Public Consultation

6.1 This section summarises the consultation process detailed in full at Appendix 3, to address the most significant issues raised by the process, and recommend how to respond to those issues.

6.2 In line with English Heritage guidance, public consultation was carried out to seek the community’s and stakeholders’ views on the proposed conservation area designation. Residents, businesses, artists, landowners and other stakeholders were asked whether they agree in principle with the proposal, whether they agree with the proposed boundaries and whether they feel that the appraisal accurately describes the character of the area. Following newly issued English Heritage guidance, stakeholders were also asked what values they place on the buildings and area so that these views could be taken into account when defining the special interest of the area.

6.3 The public consultation was carried out in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement and took place between 5 December 2011 and 27 January 2012. Leaflets, including a questionnaire, were distributed to all residents and stakeholders within the proposed conservation area. The leaflet, questionnaire and character appraisal were also made available for consultation on the Council’s website, Lewisham Planning Information Desk, Lewisham Reference Library and locally accessible places such as Creekside Education Centre and the APT gallery at Creekside.

6.4 All stakeholders within the proposed conservation area were contacted directly, although the consultation was open to any member of the public for comments via the Council’s website.

6.5 A local drop-in session was held on Saturday, 7th January 2012 at the Creekside Education Centre where council officers were present to answer questions. The workshop was well attended with approximately 26 people taking the opportunity to inform themselves. Officers also met with representatives of the Creekside Education Centre, the Faircharm Tenants Group and the Crossfield Tenants Resident Association on request to explain the implications of designation.

6.6 The Council received 112 responses to the consultation, of which one was invalid. The details of representations made and the Council’s responses can be seen in Appendix 3.

Principle of Designation

6.7 99 of the representations received, i.e. 89 %, support the designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area. 10 respondents objected to the proposals. There is a clear distinction between the landowners on the one side objecting to the designation and the community living, working or generally interested in the area supporting the designation. Six of the 10 objections received are from landowners or long-leaseholders. Four more

Page 69 objections were received from members of the public. The reasons for one objection has now been overcome, which reduces the overall number of objections to 9.

6.8 A response was received from the LB of Greenwich Conservation Officer stating neither a preference in favour nor against designation.

6.9 English Heritage was consulted and the Area Adviser provided a number of observations including suggestions for further inclusions into the area.

Support for the principle of designation

6.10 Support for the proposals came from the Heritage Advisor to the GLA, the Creekside Centre, the Faircharm Tenants’ Group, Lewisham Local History Society, the Greenwich Conservation Group and 95 individuals from the community and other stakeholders.

6.11 The GLA expresses its delight in seeing the Council taking their initiative for the heritage protection of the area further and drawing up concrete proposals for the statutory protection and enhancement. The Lewisham Local History Society welcomes the addition of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area to Lewisham’s existing conservation areas, most of which do not reflect the industrial history of the borough. The Greenwich Conservation Group supports the designation in the hope that this might act as a useful planning tool for future development of the east side of the Creek and encourage Greenwich Council in taking a more holistic approach towards development along the Creek involving both boroughs. The Faircharm Tenants Group support the designation for the added protection it would offer to the artistic and historic character of what they consider a unique and cultural area.

6.12 Most individuals used the opportunity to make comments on what they appreciate the area for and these comments are summarised in the ‘Community Value’ section.

Objection to the principle of designation

6.13 Six major landowners/leaseholders object to the designation of the area in principle or wish to see the boundaries amended to see their property excluded. Four more similar objections from members of the public were received. One of these is an objection solely on the grounds that Frankham House was not included in the proposed conservation area. Since the boundary has now been amended to included this building, it can be presumed that this objection has been overcome.

6.14 One of the freeholders and one of the long-leaseholders of Nos. 5-9 Creekside (known for being the location of Art Hub and the Framework Studios) and Workspace, the owner of the Faircharm Industrial Estate, object on the grounds that the area - and their properties in particular - lack the special interest that would warrant designating a conservation area. While the freeholder / long-leaseholder of No. 5-9 do not provide any evidence to

Page 70 substantiate their claim, Workspace’s formal response comprises a comprehensive character assessment.

6.15 Response: The definition of significance and what makes the area special appears to be a matter of divided expert opinions. Based on their evidence base, it is Officers’ professional view that the area meets the statutory criteria for designation. The Heritage Adviser of the GLA considers that ‘ the Creekside creates a very powerful sense of place and a very special character’ , and is of ‘clear special historic and architectural interest which is worthy of this heritage asset status ’. The English Heritage adviser observes that ‘ little remains within Lewisham's boundaries to acknowledge the important contribution that the River Thames and its tidal tributary, Deptford Creek, made to the industrial landscape of this part of London. In this context, I can only agree that the area of the creek below the railway viaduct is, "the only surviving river-related industrial quarter of integrity and coherence" not just in Deptford but in all Lewisham's riverside areas. For this reason I can see that there are good grounds to justify the consideration of this area as an area of special historical, if not necessarily architectural, interest worthy of designation as a conservation area.’

6.16 The freeholder / long-leaseholder of No. 5 -9 Creekside, Workspace and Lewisham College, the owner of the Gibbes Island (also known as the Skill Centre Island, part of the Lewisham College Deptford Campus), consider that their sites should be excluded from the proposed conservation area, because they do not contain any buildings, structures or townscape features of any special architectural or historic interest. Lewisham College also provides its own character assessment of the area in support of its request.

6.17 Response: The group of buildings at No. 5-9 Creekside and the Faircharm Industrial Estate have evidential value and are considered to contribute to the distinctive townscape of the area. As for the Gibbes (Skill Centre) Island, historically Mill Wharf, the site is of considerable historic and archaeological interest. The Appraisal highlights that the current structures on the Island do not make a positive contribution and that the sensitive re-development of the site has the potential to bring about an enhancement to the area’s character and appearance. The forthcoming Creekside SPD will provide further guidance on what form of re-development might be appropriate.

6.18 It is acknowledged that not all elements within the conservation area contribute to its significance and this has been further clarified by amending the Appraisal. Both the LDA and EH heritage adviser have suggested that the appraisal should include a list or a map that identify those buildings that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. In response to these comments, a ‘Townscape Appraisal Map’ has now been added, identifying buildings that make a positive, neutral or negative contribution, to give greater clarity to landowners and assist in assessing proposals for demolition and re-development.

Page 71 6.19 The Arts and Perpetuity Trust (APT), owner of Harold Wharf, 6 Creekside, objects to the designation on grounds that additional controls to protect the area are inherently incompatible with the freedom of artists and creative businesses to use low market value buildings without any interference. The Trust fears that the designation might lead to an increase in land values and accelerate the process of gentrification of the area that would make it become unaffordable for creative businesses. The Trust also points out that the future of their own building is secured and its qualities are naturally appreciated and conserved by its owners, hence no further protection is needed.

6.20 Response: The physical protection of the buildings of the area and the continued use by artists and the creative industry are not incompatible. The predominance of creative uses is recognised as making an important contribution to the character of the area. Conservation area designation does not prevent buildings being adapted and changed to suit the needs of their users. Designation can affect land values, although this is a phenomenon usually related to residential areas and would not necessarily apply to Creekside, which is allocated as employment land. The appreciation of any owner of the qualities of their own buildings is a welcome and important factor in the future management of the area, although designation does not focus on one individual property, but on the buildings of the wider area and the spaces between them. The APT building has been identified as a key structure and Harold Wharf a site of significant archaeological and historic potential.

6.21 Both the freeholder / long-leaseholder of No. 5-9 Creekside and Workspace express their concern that conservation area designation might impede rather than facilitate the potentially beneficial and successful regeneration of their properties and the area.

6.22 Response: Conservation area designation can assist in achieving regeneration that maintains and builds on the existing character. The Appraisal informs what is important and establishes the context for future change. It will inform the forthcoming Creekside SPD that will provide further guidance.

6.23 Workspace consider that the area could be appropriately safeguarded with the proposed SPD for the area, without resorting to conservation area designation. Lewisham College feels that the island is already afforded the necessary planning guidance and protection by existing Core Strategies, such as Core Strategy Objective 10 (Protect and Enhance Lewisham’s Character) and design guidance as specified in Core Strategy Policy 15 Regeneration and Growth Areas. As such, they consider that additional restrictions on demolition of poor quality buildings and their replacement offered by conservation area status are not required. The APT equally consider that since the area of historic fabric is so small, it could be protected by Local Plan policies.

6.24 Response

Page 72 Given the special historic interest of the area, and the distinctive character created by the existing fabric, Officers consider that conservation area designation provides the best and most appropriate means for the conservation, enhancement and future management of the area. The SPD can be a useful management tool, but does not offer the same level of protection, nor do the existing Core Strategy objectives and policies. The appraisal has highlighted opportunities for beneficial change, such as the Gibbes (Skill Centre) Island of the Lewisham Deptford Campus.

6.25 Lewisham Homes has stated its preference not to have the Crossfield Estate included in the conservation area. They consider the Estate to be a typical GLC inter-war development that does not appear special. The buildings have lost their original windows and there might be other examples more suitable for CA designation. Lewisham Homes fear that inclusion might increase costs for future external refurbishment works, but since they have no plans for any external works in the near future, this matter is not a pressing concern for them. They suspect that out of concerns about an increase in costs many leaseholders might oppose the proposed conservation area designation.

6.26 Response: The Appraisal sets out the architectural and historic interest and considerable communal value of the estate, and it is considered that the loss of the original windows has not unduly affected its aesthetic appeal. The possibility of any increased maintenance costs is not a relevant consideration when deciding whether an area meets the criteria for designation, but future management guidelines for the Estate will seek to balance the needs of the social housing estate and conservation requirements. The enthusiastic response with which the proposals have been received show that there is great support for the designation from the tenants and leaseholders who in numerous comments and the petition to include Frankham House show a genuine interest and sense of pride in their Estate.

6.27 Workspace is suggesting that the Council is seeking to use conservation area designation to achieve other, non-heritage related planning objectives, i.e. to support the emergence of Deptford Creekside as a creative industries hub. They point out that this would be contrary to emerging national policy as set out in Draft National Planning Policy Guidelines.

6.28 Response The designation is for the purpose of protecting a distinctive neighbourhood which in officers’ professional view is of special interest to Lewisham and meets the statutory criteria for designation. Designation for other, non- heritage related matters would be contrary to existing guidance and unlawful under current legislation.

Proposed Boundaries

6.29 27 % of respondents did not agree with the proposed boundaries, most of them wished to see the boundaries of the conservation area to be extended to include further areas of its setting.

Page 73

Requests for further inclusions

6.30 16 representations, including a petition signed by 36 residents, were received asking for Frankham House to be included in the conservation area as part of the Crossfield Estate. This should include the green area to the south. The residents of Frankham House argue that the apartment block has always formed an integral part of the Crossfield Estate and also houses the main social venue of the estate, the Pink Palace. A number of representations highlighted the value the building holds for the identity of the gay community. They point to the history of the Crossfield Estate as a centre for the Deptford gay scene, particularly in the 1980s and 90s, many members of which lived in Frankham House and met at the Pink Palace.

6.31 Response: Officers considered that the area to the east of Deptford Church Street best illustrated the historically close relationship in Deptford between working class housing and industry, and the way the Crossfield Estate is architecturally similar to and at the same time distinct from other 1930s LCC housing estates. In view of the comments, Frankham House undoubtedly has strong social within the context of the estate and on its own merits, its inclusion in the conservation area would be fully justified. . • Recommendation: Extend the boundary to the west of Deptford Church Street to include Frankham House and the adjacent amenity space to the south in the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area.

6.32 Four representations were received, including from English Heritage and the London Development Agency, to include the Cockpit Arts Centre into the conservation area. Respondents consider that the 1960s building possesses of some architectural interest in its own right, and the uses it provides (studios for artists) make a positive contribution to the creative character of the area. English Heritage considers that the Cockpit Arts building also has a degree of evidential value to the significant change in the entrepreneurial focus of the area (i.e. from an area of river-related industrial activity to one that is based on creative industry) that would justify its inclusion.

6.33 Response: It is considered that, taken as a group, the premises north of the railways lack the townscape quality and special historic interest that would justify their inclusion. The contribution of the Cockpit Arts building to the area however is recognised, and this will be highlighted in the forthcoming Creekside SPD that will guide the future management of the area.

• Recommendation: Do not extend the boundary to include the Cockpit Arts Centre in the conservation area

6.34 Three requests were received to extend the boundary of the conservation area to include all premises and wharves north of the railways up to the borough boundary, including the Laban Dance Centre. EH also suggests to

Page 74 include the Laban Dance Centre, since it is a building of architectural significance (winner of the Sterling Prize in 2003) and powerful evidence of the way Creekside has changed over recent years.

6.35 Response: With the exception of the Cockpit Arts building and the Laban Dance Centre, the industrial premises north of the railways consist mainly of modern warehousing and lack the townscape qualities and historic interest of the area to the south. It is considered that the protection of key features, such as the historic wharves and significant views across the Creek, and the archaeological potential of the area could be sufficiently addressed in the forthcoming Creekside SPD. The Laban Dance Centre is highlighted in the Appraisal as a key building outside the conservation area.

• Recommendation: Do not extend the boundary to include the wharves to the north of the railways including the Laban Dance Centre in the conservation area

6.36 Seven requests were received in favour of including the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park north of Bronze Street in the conservation area.

6.37 Response: The nature reserve and park as recreational spaces and habitat for wildlife make some contribution to the character and appearance of the Crossfield Estate. Historic map progression show that the area is of historic and archaeological interest, being the site of the Trinity Almshouses (1672-1877) and some significant early industries such as the innovative Copperas Works (an early dye and chemical manufacture, from 1650-1830) and a pottery (1720 – 1961) producing the Deptford Ware for which the town became noted. The site potentially holds some significant archaeological deposits that could contribute to the understanding of the development of settlement and land- uses in Deptford. As such, its inclusion within the conservation area is considered justified.

• Recommendation: Include the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park in the proposed Deptford Creekside Conservation Area.

6.38 Four requests were made to include the Tidemill School in Frankham Street and the Nature Park (also referred to as Tidemill Ground).

6.39 Response: The proposed boundaries focus on the remaining Creekside industrial heritage and the Crossfield Estate. Officer consider that the heritage value and significance of the old Tidemill School should better be investigated within the context of the next review of the Deptford High Street Conservation Area.

The Nature Park to the rear (south) of the old Tidemill School historically contained early 19 th century working class houses that were cleared as part of the LCC slum clearance programme in the area. The area does not seem to

Page 75 have any particular heritage value and its wildlife benefits alone would not justify its inclusion in the proposed conservation area.

• Recommendation: Do not include the old Tidemill School and the Nature Park to the south (also referred to as Tidemill Ground) in the proposed conservation area.

Requests for exclusions of properties from the proposed conservation area

6.40 Requests for exclusion of their properties from the proposed boundaries were made by the above mentioned landowners. Their representations have been considered above under the heading ‘Objection to the principle of designation’.

Accuracy of the conservation area appraisal

6.41 87 per cent of the respondents agreed that the Appraisal accurately described the character of the area. A number of amendments were made as a result of public and internal consultation and these are highlighted in blue within the appraisal (Appendix 2).

6.42 Workspace claims that the Council’s Appraisal is based on assertions rather than evidence, and is therefore flawed.

6.43 Response: The Appraisal follows the guidance as set out in the ‘Understanding Place’ series by English Heritage, namely ‘Historic Area Assessments: Principles and Practice’ and ‘Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management.’ The interpretation of the evidence and the definition of significance, or special interest, appears to be a matter of divided expert views. Contrary to the above opinion, the GLA Heritage Adviser considers that the character appraisal is ‘ most comprehensive, well written and well researched ’ and makes a convincing case for the designation. In consideration of Workspace’s own character assessment, a few amendments have been made to the Appraisal to clarify the significance of individual elements within the area further.

Communal value 6.44 English Heritage asks Local Authorities to consider how the community and other stakeholder value the area when defining the special interest.

6.45 The Council received an enthusiastic response from residents, artists and businesses in the area alike, even from ex-residents or visitors to Deptford. Nearly all took the opportunity to elaborate why and what for they value the place.

6.46 Many respondents cherish Creekside for the qualities that have been highlighted in the character appraisal, i.e. the area’s history and historic character, the atmosphere of ‘times gone by’, the tranquil green spaces and the Creek. Residents in particular also see the area as a source of their

Page 76 identity, of which many seemed to have become aware of more recently in response to the significant changes in the area’s surrounding, and the re- development proposals that have been put into the public for the Faircharm Estate.

6.47 Artists point out the importance of the area for providing affordable workspace and for the network provided by the Cockpit Arts, Faircharm Estate, the Framework Studios and the APT. Three respondents highlight that Creekside has been a particular attraction to their clients and become a ‘brand’ to their business. The establishment of Creekside as an Art Hub and the creative energy it has brought to the area and the community is seen by all stakeholders as one of the major assets to the area.

6.48 The Appraisal has highlighted the area’s communal value of the Crossfield Estate for the music scene although the consultation revealed that the social value of the Estate is more diverse. The gay community claims the Estate as source of identity due to its history as a centre for the Deptford gay scene in the 1980s and 90s, and residents hold the Estate in high esteem for its long history of diversity and inclusiveness. The appraisal has been amended to take account of these comments.

7. Financial Implications

7.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from designating conservation area status. The survey and drafting of the conservation area appraisal was carried out in house and these costs along with costs for the printing and distribution of the leaflet and renting of the venue for the public consultation event will be contained within the planning budget for 11/12. There will be some further costs in advertising, mailings and printing the final documents associated with the designation and these costs will be contained within the 12/13 planning budget.

8. Legal Implications

8.1 Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the Council from time to time to determine which parts of the borough are areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. They should designate those areas as conservation areas and review this designation periodically. The Council also has a duty to determine whether any further parts of the borough should be designated as conservation areas. Section 71 of the same Act places a duty on local planning authorities to from time to time formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of their conservation areas; to hold a public meeting to canvas views; and to take into consideration the views expressed at that time.

8.2 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Council must not act in a way which is incompatible with the rights referred to in the Act. There is an exception to this, in that the Council will not be acting unlawfully if Acts of Parliament mean that it can not act in any other way.

Page 77

The relevant human rights in this instance are the:

right to respect for the home, under Article 8; and
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, under Article 1 of Protocol 1.

8.3 However, these rights are not absolute, and may lawfully be infringed in certain defined circumstances. Where infringement is permissible, it must occur in accordance with, or subject to the conditions provided for by, the law. It must also be proportionate; ie, it must achieve a fair balance between competing interests and not go beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve the purpose involved.

8.4 In the case of Article 8, permitted infringements include those necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With regard to Article 1 of Protocol 1, controls over the use of property are permissible where in the public interest. The right of a person to undertake changes to their properties, in reliance on permitted development rights, is covered by the exceptions to these two Articles.

9. Crime and Disorder Implications

9.1 There are no direct crime and disorder implications.

10. Equalities Implications

10.1 The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) brings together all previous equality legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. The Act includes a new public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty), replacing separate duties relating to race, disability or gender equality. The duty came into force on 6 th April 2011. The new duty covers the following nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.2 In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act. • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not • foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

As was the case for the original duties, the new duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to attach to it is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind issues of relevance and proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations.

Page 78

The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued revised guides in January 2012 providing advice to public authorities on how the public sector equality duty may be met. The guide does not have legal standing unlike the statutory code of practice on the public sector equality duty. The guide can be found at : http://www . equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/public sector-duties/new-public-sector-equality-duty-guidance.

10.3 Equal opportunities will be achieved by making the documents available equally to all and providing other formats when necessary. Documents will be available on the Council’s website, in local libraries and displayed in planning reception.

11. Environmental Implications

11.1 Conservation is inherently sustainable. The principle implicit in the conservation of the historic environment is of repairing and re-using existing buildings and their materials instead of indiscriminate replacement. This avoids the production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the fabrication, transport and installation of new items.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The Appraisal of the southern part of Deptford Creekside and the Crossfield Estate has shown that the area has special architectural and historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Therefore it is considered that the grounds apply to warrant its designation as a conservation area.

12.2 Public consultation on the proposed designation has shown extensive public support for the proposed designation and where considered appropriate the boundary of the area and the contents of the appraisal have been amended in the light of representations made.

12.3 It is therefore recommended to designate Deptford Creekside a conservation area and to adopt the Appraisal as a guidance document for the understanding, protection and enhancement of the area.

Page 79

13. Background documents and originator

Short Title Date File File Contact Exempt Document Location Reference Officer Planning (Listed 1990 Laurence Urban Phil No Buildings & House Design and Ashford Conservation Conservation Areas) Act 1990 National Planning 2012 Laurence Urban Phil No Policy Framework House Design and Ashford Conservation The London Plan 2011 Laurence Urban Phil No House Design and Ashford Conservation English Heritage: 2011 Laurence Urban Phil No Guidance: House Design and Ashford Understanding Conservation Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management London 2009 Laurence Urban Phil No Development House Design and Ashford Agency – Design Conservation for London: Heritage Scoping Study for Deptford Creek

If you have any queries on this report, please contact Regina Jaszinski, Senior Conservation Officer, 5 th floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, Catford SE6 4RU – telephone 020 8314 9112

Page 80 Appendix 1: Map of proposed Deptford Creekside Conservation Area (May 2012)

Page 81 Planning Service – Conservation and Urban Design

Deptford Creekside Conservation Area

Character Appraisal – Part I

Draft for Adoption May 2012

Page 82

Page 83 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 2 Summary of special interest

Deptford is one of the oldest settlements in Lewisham. The town is well known as the location of the historic Royal Dockyard, whose establishment brought fame and prosperity to Deptford for many centuries. Known to a lesser extent is the significance of the Creek to the development of the area. Here, on the banks of the Creek, as well as on the Thames foreshore, lie the beginnings of settlement, industry and urban growth of the borough.

Deptford Bridge has been a historic crossing point and place of continued occupation since Roman times. It was part of Watling Street, the Roman route that linked London with Canterbury and on to Dover. A tide mill was established in the area by the time of the Norman Conquest. The street Creekside has its origins in the 16 th century, as a small lane leading to the King’s Slaughterhouse on the site of Harold’s Wharf (today the APT Studios).

Creekside’s medieval origins are still evident in the lay-out at its southern end, although the area’s character and appearance today is mainly the result of its industrialisation in the 19 th and 20 th century and 1930s re-development with the Crossfield Estate, and the interesting juxtaposition of two entirely different character areas this creates. The area’s layout, wharves, yards and buildings - combined with the spatial qualities of the Creek - create a clear and distinctive townscape, to which river-related structures and the palette of traditional materials add a high level of local identity.

The special interest of the of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area lies primarily in its historic interest based on its evidential, historical and communal value:

The industrial part is now a rare survival of a fast disappearing heritage that illustrates the importance of the River Thames and the Creek to the economic, cultural and social self- sufficiency of Deptford. The industrial premises and wharves at the southern end of the Creek constitute today the only surviving river-related industrial quarter of integrity and coherence within the borough. The area’s lay-out and fabric give evidence and illustrate the evolution, settlement pattern, town planning characteristics and land-uses in Deptford from medieval times to the 20 th century. The surviving workshops, offices and warehouses illustrate the last phase of a pre-dominantly river-related industry before its decline in the 20 th century. The area contains three sites that have high archaeological potential to yield evidence of medieval occupation and early industries on the Deptford Creekside, notably the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island, where remains of the medieval tide mill and its successors may still be in situ below ground. The same applies to Harold Wharf, the site of the Tudor slaughterhouse, and the Sue Godfrey Park, the site of the early 18 th century Copperas Works. Harold Wharf is of particular significance for its association with Henry VIII and as evidence of the influence Greenwich Palace once exerted on Deptford.

The Crossfield Estate has significance as part of the development history of the area and

Page 84 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 3 illustrates the LCC’s engagement in the borough. It is a good example of its time that shows the underlying design principles of the LCC social housing types while containing locally distinctive features, such as the lay-out. Crossfield has a special social history for its role in the Deptford Music Scene of the 1970s and 80s. As a social housing estate it has a particular social character - working class – and has high social value for residents, musicians, artists and the Deptford gay community.

Page 85 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 4

Contents

1 Introduction

The proposed conservation area – location, boundaries and setting Heritage significance Planning policy Public consultation and designation

2 The conservation area today

Population Economy & uses

3 History of the area

Archaeology Development history 4 Spatial character of the area

Topography and geology The Creek Street pattern and townscape Railway viaducts Open spaces and trees Views and local landmarks The natural environment – nature conservation

5 Character areas and buildings of interest

Character Area 1: The Creek, Creekside road and adjoining wharves Character Area 2: The Crossfield Estate 6 Materials and Details

Building materials Roofscape Boundaries Historic paving River related structures and furniture

7 Condition and opportunities for enhancement

8 Sources and References 9 Useful Contacts

Page 86 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 5

Proposed Deptford Creekside Conservation Area

Page 87 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 6 1 Introduction

Deptford is one of the most historic places within the Borough of Lewisham. At its Thames riverbanks and the Creek lie the beginnings of industry and urban growth of the borough.

Although a little run down today, Deptford Creekside still benefits from the proximity to the river, the survival of associated industrial yards and wharfs and a reasonable number of traditionally-built industrial buildings and warehouses. As one of the last central and largely undeveloped corridors in the Thames Gateway, there has been great pressure for re- development. Recent residential developments have already had a significant impact on the character of the area but have come at the price of seeing much of the industrial heritage around the Upper Creek obliterated.

The historic environment enhances our cultural, social and economic life and has an important role to play in the process of managed change set out in the Council’s Core Strategy. As the area will continue to change and evolve there is also a need to ensure that its heritage value is recognised. Conservation Area designation can assist the careful management of change to ensure that the distinctive historic character is preserved and enhanced and used as a cue to be positively recognised in new development.

This character appraisal has been written in support of the proposed designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area. The designation aims to afford protection to a distinctive neighbourhood in recognition of its industrial and working class origins and spatial identity which is unique in the Borough of Lewisham. The following pages set out the special architectural and historic interest of the area and explain why it is considered worthy of designation.

Unless otherwise indicated, ‘Creekside’ refers within this document to Creekside the street only, i.e. not to the full extent of the historic Deptford side of the Creek. The potential for conservation area designation of parts of Creekside were first investigated in 2008 within the scope of the intended Deptford High Street Conservation Area review. Shortly after in 2009, the London Development Agency published the Heritage Scoping Study of Deptford Creek highlighting the heritage assets and areas of interest surrounding the Creek. 1 It provided the incentive to investigate the area further and the findings of the report are included in this appraisal.

The fieldwork, research and analysis to this document have been undertaken in stages since 2009. Whilst every attempt has been made to consider all aspects of the character of the proposed conservation area, there may be elements that have been omitted due to lack of space or inaccessibility (private land or restricted access). Any such omission does not imply that such an element does not contribute to the character of the conservation area.

1 London Development Agency – Design for London: Heritage Scoping Study of Deptford Creek (written by Edmund Bird, London 2009) Page 88 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 7 Location, boundaries and setting

The development and character of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area is defined by its location at the Creek south of the River Thames. The Creek is the 1.2 kilometre long tidal stretch of the River Ravensbourne where it meets the Thames. It defines the borough boundaries and is equally shared by Deptford and Greenwich.

The conservation area lies to the north of Deptford Bridge, which is the historic crossing point of the Creek on the route of Watling Street, the Roman Road linking London to Dover, which is today the A2. It focuses on the remaining industrial estates along the Creek and the Crossfield housing estate.

The proposed conservation area boundary takes the line of the borough boundary running through the centre of the Creek and includes all the historically industrial wharves east of Creekside from the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island (part of Lewisham College Deptford Campus) in the south to the historic London-Greenwich railway viaduct in the north . The boundary includes the viaduct and follows its line to the west up to Creekside where it extends north up to borough boundary to include the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park. The western boundary is for the most part defined by Church Street including all the buildings of the Crossfield Estate and the industrial premises in Creekside down to the entrance of the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island . At the junction with Frankham Street the boundary extends to the east of Church Street to include Frankham House of the Crossfield Estate and the associated green amenity space to the south.

The area has been the focus of settlement since the Middle Ages. The architectural legacy of mainly the 17 th , 18 th and 19 th centuries is recognised in the Deptford High Street and St. Paul’s Conservation Area on the Deptford side, both west of Church Street, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area on the Greenwich side. The Creek’s wharves and river walls on the eastern (Greenwich) side are as much part of the character as those within the conservation area. Two important listed industrial buildings are located here and form the immediate setting of the conservation area: the Mumfords Mill grain silo (1897) and the Deptford Pumping Station (1865). The recent redevelopment of the Merryweather fire engine factory and Skillions site by Galliard Homes has introduced medium to high rise residential blocks into the area, which architecturally do not relate to the distinctive character of the area, turning their back on the Creek and fencing themselves off with industrial palisade security fencing.

To the south, at the busy junction of Church Street and Deptford Broadway (A2) lies Lewisham College. The northern part of campus, the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island, has been included in the conservation area for its archaeological and historic al significance to the area. The modern Sun Wharf to the north of the railway viaduct and Kent Wharf, which has recently been cleared, are not included in the conservation area. The heritage value of their wharves, however, and the contribution these make to the riverscape of the Creek is recognised and these will be addressed in the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Guidance for the area. Page 89 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 8

Heritage Significance

English Heritage promotes a values-based approach to significance as set out in Conservation Principles. This identifies four broad groups of values through which a site or place can be interpreted: evidential, historical, communal and aesthetic. The definition of these values are set out in Appendix A to this document.

The proposed conservation area focuses on industrial Creekside south of the railways and the Crossfield Estate, each of which constitute assets of heritage significance to the borough in their own right. The Creek itself has long been recognised as a natural heritage asset to the borough.

The historic industrial premises at the Creek’s southern end between the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island and the railway viaduct remain today’s only surviving river-related industrial quarter of integrity and coherence within Deptford and along the Creek itself. The principal heritage significance of the area lies in its evidential and historic value. The Creek was the reason for the area’s early settlement and continued to be the focus for development until well into the 20 th century. River-related industrial uses within the proposed conservation area date back as far medieval times with the establishment of a tide mill north of Deptford Bridge. In the 16 th century, the foundation of the King’s slaughterhouse on the site of Harold Wharf established associations with the Royal Palace in Greenwich. The narrow lane that lead to the slaughterhouse was the beginnings of today’s street Creekside (then called Slaughterhouse Lane). Its medieval origins are still evident in the narrowness of the street and the tight urban grain of the wharves at its southern end.

Creekside retains the industrial character that developed in the 19 th Century. The mixed industry along a Thames tributary plays an important role in the development and reflects the evolution of historic Deptford and formed the basis for its economic, cultural and social self-sufficiency. The surviving workshops, office buildings and warehouses within the proposed conservation area, dating mainly from the mid 19 th to the mid 20 th century, illustrate the last phase of a pre-dominantly river–related industry before its decline in the late 20 th century. Although many of the warehouses are utilitarian and individually of modest aesthetic value, collectively and combined with the area’s layout, yards and wharves they have considerable evidential and historic value. The sum of these elements provide evidence of the historic development pattern and land-use along Creekside and combine with the spatial qualities of the Creek to create a clear and locally distinct townscape and character. To this character, the predominant use of brick as building material, Crittall-type windows, river-related structures and other details add a high level of local identity.

The physical integrity of Creekside within the proposed conservation area has been the base for small-scale industrial and creative businesses and encouraged the growing of a vibrant community and network of artists. The creative energy this has brought to Creekside is mutually appreciated from all parts of the community and visitors to the area Page 90 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 9 alike. Buildings and structures are often used as ‘canvasses’ for artworks, as evident in many murals and graffiti works in the area, and these have now have become an established part of Creekside’s appearance.

The history of social housing provision in the borough by the LCC and the local council starts in Deptford. The Crossfield Estate illustrates a new stage of the LCC’s programme when, in response to Government incentives, the focus shifted from creating cottage garden estates outside the established borough boundaries to the clearance of the historic urban grain of inner-city areas, and their replacement with planned, single-phased housing blocks. As a public housing estate it reflects a particular social character – working class – built in a period in which local and regional Councils had accepted the responsibility of state intervention as a necessary pre-condition to create a more civilised and humane industrialised city.

The estate is in many respects a typical example of its time illustrating the underlying design principles dictated by social and economical considerations and built in the ‘domestic’ style that was favoured by the LCC as the appropriate one for social housing. Its lay-out is distinct due to the partial inclusion of pre-existing 19 th century street pattern, which has given the southern part a sense of intimacy and surveillance not usually found in housing estates of that time. Castell House and Farrer House are notable for added individual feature, such as the rounded balconies attaching to the stair towers (Castell House) and rounded balconies to Farrer House, now individual for each flat, which add sculptural elements to its south elevation.

Added to its evidential, historical and, to a lesser extent, aesthetical value, the estate has considerable significance for its communal value. When Lewisham Council changed its housing policy for the estate in the late 1970s – giving priority to young single professionals – it gave impetus to the development of a radical arts and music scene that gained Deptford an almost legendary status in the 1970s and 80s. The estate became the base for a number of musicians including members of Dire Straits and Squeeze, who performed regularly in local venues, satisfying an increasing demand for live Pub Rock (and Punk) music that developed in reaction to mainstream British Rock music. The estate and surrounding area laid the beginnings for a number of British bands that brought it to international stardom and as such also has historical and communal significance at a national level.

Planning Policies

Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Council has a duty to identify areas of special historic and architectural interest and to formulate and publish proposals for the management of such areas. In determining applications for development in conservation areas, the Council has also the duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of the areas.

National planning guidance is set out in the recently-published National Planning Policy Page 91 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 10 Framework (2012). It classifies conservation areas as ‘designated heritage assets’ and introduces a national presumption in favour of sustainable development. One of the key dimensions of sustainability is protecting and enhancing the historic environment.

The requirement to protect and enhance the historic environment is reflected in Lewisham’s Core Strategy Policy 16: Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), is the borough's statutory development plan. It states the Council’s commitment to monitor, review, enhance and conserve the value and significance of its heritage assets and their setting.

Character appraisals are a material consideration in the planning process and are used when determining planning applications and appeals. However, the designation itself and the Appraisal do not constitute the end of the process. In response to the development pressure the area faces, the Council will adopt a positive and collaborative approach to conservation, one that focuses on actively managing change in the area in a way that increases confidence in using the historic place to support its regeneration.

In parallel with the designation of the area, the Council is in the process of drafting Creekside Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that will help to guide the form of new development on the Deptford Creekside. It will include the findings and recommendations of this appraisal to develop policies for the conservation of the area and its immediate and wider setting. The draft SPD is expected to go to public consultation in 2012 and residents’ groups, amenity groups, businesses, and stakeholders will be invited to provide input on the issues facing the area and how these might be best addressed.

Public Consultation

The framework for this study follows English Heritage guidance ‘Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management (2011). The Appraisal was made available for public consultation from 6 December 2011 to 27 January 2012.

Residents, businesses and stakeholders were sent details of the proposed conservation area and Character Appraisal and were invited to attend a drop-in session to discuss the proposals with officers.

The findings and issues raised during public consultation, and the Council’s formal response to it, are published in the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Consultation Report on the Council’s website .

Page 92 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 11

Page 93 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 12 2 The conservation area today

Population

Lewisham has a number of severely deprived areas. As part of New Cross Ward, Deptford Creekside falls within one of the five most deprived wards in Lewisham and within the 15% of most deprived LSOA’s in the country. At the Lower Super Output Area Level (LSOA) residents in the area have reported lower than average levels of income, health, housing services and living environment, all between the 10 to 15% lowest in the country.

Deptford Creekside residents have reported higher levels of educations, skills and training ( top 30% in the country) than other parts of the borough. Institutions such as Lewisham College, Trinity Laban College and the Creekside Centre are not only key for the Deptford but for Lewisham as a whole and some of these facilities will need to be enhanced in the future. Although residents enjoy high levels of education, training and skills and the level of employment in the area have improved (ranked within 25% most deprived areas in 2010 rather than the 17% most deprived area in the country in 2004 and 2007), residents in the area have reported low levels of income (within the 15% lowest in the country.

Economy and Uses

The historically predominant use of the area has been industrial inter-mixed with housing for the workers. Following the decline of the river-related industries in the 20th century and subsequent demolition of the power stations, warehouses and mills, the focus has shifted to light industry. The strongest link to the Creek’s historic industrial use is today provided by Brewery Wharf on the Greenwich site south of Creek Road, used by Prior Aggregates whose barges bring sand and gravel from Colchester for the construction industry. Within the conservation area, a variety of small-scale businesses operate from the former wharfs, including garages, scaffolding businesses, and printing, which no longer require the river as a means of transport. Theatre Wharf, which incorporates what was historically Sun Wharf, has become the location of a cluster of houseboats. A number of the residents run their business from the wharf and as such it is not just a place for mooring, but forms part of boat residents’ livelihood.

Over recent years, the southern end of Creekside has established itself as a hub for the creative industries. The surviving warehouses located here have proven to be crucial for providing low-cost starter units and accommodating the needs of new businesses, innovation and creative industries which were pushed out by high rentals from the inner- city areas. Creative industries are now concentrated on all the larger premises, of which Faircharm is clearly the dominant provider. The low rentals in the area have not given the incentive to owners to invest in the buildings, which is particularly noticeable at the wharfs and premises at the southern end of the street which are in low-key industrial use. With the Crossfield Estate housing remains the second most dominant use in the area Page 94 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 13 complemented by community and commercial facilities such as the pub, a café, a gallery and the Creekside Education Centre, the latter a facility promoting the history and wildlife of the Creek. The Laban Dance Centre further north outside the conservation area boundary and Lewisham College at Deptford Broadway have also brought a focus on culture and education to the area. The Laban Centre, built on one of the Creek’s former wharfs in 2003, has brought a cultural asset of London-wide importance to the area, which has helped raising the profile of the area with significant beneficial regenerative effect.

Historic wharves along the southern part of the Creek ( Source: Deptford Creek. Surviving Regeneration, 1999 )

Page 95 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 14

Page 96 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 15

Detail of Rocque’s Map of London and surrounds 1745-6. The orange dot marks the location of the Oxford Arms (today the Birds Nest Pub) at the junction of Church Street and Slaughterhouse Lane (today Creekside).

Page 97 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 16 3 History of the area

Archaeology

The area lies within two archaeological priority zones – Deptford Creek, and Deptford Broadway and Tanners Hill.

The junction of the Thames with the River Ravensbourne at the Creek mouth may have attracted early settlement or ritual use. The area is therefore thought to have high archaeological potential for further finds of the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman period, including organic materials such as timber structures and artefacts, for which the alluvium and peat layers provide good survival conditions.

There has been continuous activity at the southern end of the Creek at Deptford Bridge from at least the times of the Norman Conquest. The Archaeology of the area has the potential to provide further evidence of earlier periods, from the late Iron Age to the Roman period and from the Roman period to the mid-Saxon centuries . A number of sites have high potential to yield evidence of former medieval and post-medieval industries and these have been pointed out within the document.

3 Development History

The following pages describe the development history of Deptford with the focus on Creekside and the area of the proposed conservation area. Site specific information is also included in Chapter 5: Character Areas. The development of the Crossfield Estate is best understood within the history of social housing provision in the early 20 th century, and this is set out as an introduction to the character assessment of the Estate in Chapter 5. Roman (43 AD – 410 AD)

Evidence of human activity in the Deptford area can be traced back to Roman Times. A ford crossing the River Ravensbourne is thought to have been in the location of Deptford Bridge. It was part of Watling Steet, the Roman route that linked London and Canterbury and on to Dover, now the A2. A number of finds in the Deptford Broadway area indicate dense Roman occupation over a long period of time, probably being a roadside settlement based around the river crossing. Early Medieval (410 AD – 1066 AD)

The place name Deptford is thought to be derived from the Anglo-Saxon for ‘deep ford’. (The ‘t’ appeared in the middle from the 15 th century onwards). It is likely that the settlement at Deptford Broadway may have had Saxon successors. Two graves thought to date from the 7 th century have been found in the area and were perhaps part of a Saxon

Page 98 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 17 cemetery. 2

Medieval (1066 AD – ca. 1500 AD)

In the Domesday Book survey of 1086, neither the present Deptford nor Greenwich were mentioned by those names. Deptford was referred to as the manor of ‘Grenviz’ (Ie West Greenwich), held by Gilbert de Magminot, Bishop of Lisieux, from Bishop Odo of Bayeux, brother of William the Conqueror. The Domesday Book describes the population as ’24 villeins, four bordars, and cottar and five slaves’, with their families, and the land comprising arable, meadow, pasture and woodland. 3 The manor was passed on from de Magminot to his decesdants the Maminots, and later the de Says who gave the manor its alternative name of Sayes Court. In 1487, the manor was confiscated by the Crown. In the early 16 th century it was held for several short intervals by royal courtiers, including Cardinal Wolsey, but passed back to Henry VIII in 1535. It has been held by the Crown ever since. 4

The fundamental theme in medieval times was the struggle to reclaim the marshes and control the river to prevent flooding. Earth banks were built and the land behind drained by ditches. The tenants of the manor had the obligation to maintain and repair them. The river banks were often breached, leading to flooding of the fields behind, despite regular royal commissions reviewing the state of repair and ensuring that repairs were carried out. By the late medieval period, two distinct centres of settlement had emerged in the area. One comprised Deptford Strand along the Thames river front and Deptford Green around the parish church of St. Nicholas, later called ‘Lower Deptford’. The other settlement, separated by a an expanse of fields to the south, was the Broadway at Deptford Bridge, later called ‘Upper Deptford’. The two settlements were linked by Butts Lane (now Deptford High Street) and Church Lane and only merged during the course of the 19 th century gradually together to become what we know today as Deptford.

Deptford Strand is thought to have started initially as a small fishing village. In 1420, it became a focus for shipbuilding industry with the rebuilding and refitting of royal ships. Other late medieval industry included tile and brick making for the London market, for which a Dutch craftsman was hired to test the qualities of the local clay. 5

Distinct from the settlement at the Strand, the hamlet at Deptford Broadway clustered around the river crossing at Deptford Bridge. It was named ‘Depeforde vill’ and is known to have included shops and inns, and more substantial buildings of two-storey height with cellars. A wooden bridge is know to have existed here from about the 1230s. It was rebuilt in stone in 1570. To the north of the bridge, in the area that forms today the entrance to the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island, stood a tide mill dating back to at least the 12 th century. It became the starting point for a small concentration of wharves and industries at the

2 Phillpotts, p. 16 3 Phillpotts, p. 19 4 Ibid 5 Ibid, p. 28 Page 99 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 18 southern end of the Creek. There are references to wooden wharves, limekilns and gravel pits at the Creek to the north of the bridge from the late 15 th century. Gravel was probably being dug to provide ballast for ships.

In the 15 th and 16 th centuries, Deptford increasingly felt the influence of Greenwich Palace on its economy. The site had passed into the Crown’s ownership in 1447. It was previously owned by Humphrey Duke of Gloucester who built his residence ‘Bella Court’ there in ca 1427 and laid out Greenwich Park in 1437. The residence was expanded from c1500 onwards by Henry VII and renamed Greenwich Palace by Henry VIII. With the establishment of the court’s household, the pastures of Deptford came to be used for the maintenance of cattle to supply the royal household. Its proximity to Greenwich Palace probably also explains Henry VIII’s decision to use Deptford’s shipbuilding tradition and establish the Royal Dockyards in 1513 on a site west of Deptford Strand. 6 A year later in 1514, the Corporation of Trinity House, responsible for the pilotage and navigation lights on the Thames and British coasts, established its first headquarters at Deptford Strand.

Along the Creek, on the site of Harold Wharf (APT studios) , the King’s Slaughterhouse was built in the 16 th century to supply the Royal Palace at Greenwich with meat from cattle grazed locally. The exact date of its foundation is unknown. 7 The building measured 160 feet (48.8 metres) from east to west and was 50 feet (15.2 metres wide), with a wharf and a pond at its west end. It also occasionally worked for the Navy in the 17 th century, at times when the demand on Navy’s own slaughterhouse was too great. From 1649 the property was leased out to various owners, and in 1663 it was sold to John Evelyn. The site still appears on late 18 th century maps when it was a pottery. 8

The small lane leading off Church Street to the slaughterhouse, with the distinctive bend in northerly direction, was called Slaughterhouse Lane. It became Creek Road in the late 19 th century and was renamed Creekside in ca. mid 20 th century. On the 1867 OS map the stretch between Church Street and Harold Wharf still appears as Slaughterhouse Lane, but by the end of the 19 th century had been re-named into Creek Street.

16 th-to 18 th century Deptford

Following the establishment of the Naval Dockyard, Deptford developed during the 16 th century into a town of some prominence. Royal Dockyards were some of the most considerable industrial units in the country. By the 17 th century, the town also became a centre for victualling the Fleet and in1742, the official victualling depot was established by the Navy Board. It was re-named the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard in the 19 th century. The surviving 18 th century buildings of the Victualling Yard have been incorporated in the Pepys Estate.

6 Phillpotts, p. 28. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid, p. 29. Page 100 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 19 Closer to the Creek itself, the newly formed East India Company began fitting out its fleet of merchant ships in 1601. By 1614, the Company had a shipyard, ironworks and extensive storage facilities around the area that on the maps appear as the ‘Stowage’.

Dockyard and victualling brought prosperity and fame to Deptford, created employment and a steep rise in population as shipbuilders, carpenters, sailers, rope-makers and many others settled here. By the 18 th century Deptford was a prosperous and bustling town, and as important as Greenwich and Woolwich, boasting a population of 12,000 by 1700, rising to 18,000 by 1800. One of London’s finest baroque churches, St Paul’s (1713-30) and one of London’s earliest Georgian Terraces at Albury Street (1707-17) are physical remainders of Deptford’s past wealth and grandeur.

Pre 19 th century Creek and Creekside

Up until the early 19 th century the land to both sides of the Creek was mainly in use as meadows and market gardening. The area today covered by the Faircharm Estate and the Crossfield Housing Estate was common pasture for Deptford in 1608. This land was bought by John Addey’s charity and became known as the Gravel Pits Estate. On the 1745 Rocque Map it is marked as a ‘Gravel Pit’ with a few scattered buildings and market gardens around it. By the mid 18 th century, Church Street was fully enclosed by buildings on both sides. In 1672, the Corporation of Trinity had constructed the Trinity Hospital and Almshouses here, in an area today covered by the Sue Godefroy Nature Reserve north of Bronze Street. Initially, the accommodation was for 24 seamen’s widows, but the building was later extended to 38 houses containing 56 apartments. The almshouses were demolished in 1877 and replaced by terraced housing.

Between the gravel pits and Church Street in the area of today’s Browne House of the Crossfield Estate , a house of correction, the Deptford Bridewell, was constructed in 1707. The Bridewell was an early form of prison, focussing on vagrants and idle paupers. It closed in 1721 and was soon afterwards converted into a workhouse known as St. Paul’s Workhouse. It was enlarged in the late 18 th and early 19 th century but closed in the late 1830s. It is still shown on the 1844 Deptford Tithe map as a large complex south of the railway viaduct but by 1867, the site had been re-developed with housing. To the north of the Gravel Pits Estate, lay the Copperas lands, where early dye and chemical manufacture was established by the mid 17 th century. Here, copperas stones of iron pyrites from Kent and Essex were processed in copperas beds to produce red and black dyes. The works continued until the 1830s. Other industries in this area included potteries producing the Deptford Ware.

Page 101 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 20

Detail from the Deptford Tithe Map of 1844. The former Oxford Arms Public House (The Birds Nest Pub) is highlighted in Orange as a reference point. Page 102 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 21

Detail of the 1868 OS Map The former Oxford Arms Public House (The Birds Nest Pub) is highlighted in Orange as a reference point

Detail of the 1914-16 OS Map

Page 103 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 22 19 th century industrialisation of Deptford and the Creek

The 19 th century saw the industrialisation of the river banks of Deptford and the Creek. New privately owned shipyards and boilerworks appeared on the Thames waterfront and a variety of new industries along the Creek, many of which were unpleasant and ‘dirty’ industries: As early as 1852 The Kentish Mercury listed chemical works, breweries, bleach, dye and glue works, tar distelleries and manure manufacture, making the Creek area ‘one great stinking abomination’. 9 ‘Deptford became a synonym for industry. A Guide to Greenwich and Deptford published in 1893 described the area occupied by ‘almost every industry of importance (…) and the admirable facilities it offers for manufacturing purposes causes the rents in the neighbourhood to stand abnormally height.’ 10 In 1836, London’s first railway, the London to Greenwich Railway, reached Deptford. Much of its four mile route was elevated on a continuous 878-arch brick viaduct bridged over the Creek by a drawbridge.

On the Deptford Creekside, one of the first notable areas of intensification was in the area south of the railway line on the site of today’s Faircharm Estate . The Beneke family founded its verdigris works for the manufacture of copper sulphate here in 1814. This became the Deptford Chemical Works and passed to Frank Hills in c1840 who operated a vitriol distillery here. The Chemical Works continued in his family until the early 20 th century.

On the land of today’s Creekside Education Centre operated the London and Greenwich Railway Gas Company from 1836. The works were closed in 1857, but the land still belongs to British Gas.

In parallel with the increase of industry on the Creek’s bank is the development of the area behind with housing for the workforce. On the former market gardens and gravel pits between Creek Road and Church Street, and west of Church Street up to Butt Lane (Deptford High Street) dense terraced housing for the workers began to emerge. By 1867, the area was nearly fully developed, and at the turn of the century it is one dense conurbation of industry, housing, and complementing facilities and businesses that serve the rapidly growing population.

The southern end of the Creek became the focus for a number of flour and corn mills and warehouses. The historic tide mill at Mill Wharf ( Gibbes / Skill Centre Island ) was joined in the late 18 th century by the Mumford’s Flour Mill. Its tall former grain silo, dating from 1897, still stands today and is one of the most important landmarks in the area, exerting a grand presence over the Creek. The tide mill continued to operate on the same site until it was destroyed by flooding in 1824. It was re-built and taken over by J H Robinson, who turned it into a steam-powered flour mill. Later the mill buildings expanded towards Deptford Bridge and also covered the ground on its east side (Skill Centre site). The mill closed in the 1960s, and was demolished after a fire in 1970.

9 Steele, p. 96 10 Steele, p. 98 Page 104 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 23 On the opposite side of the Creek, south of the railway viaduct, the Deptford Pumping Station was opened in 1865. It was a key part of Sir Joseph Bazalgette’s great scheme to pipe London’s sewage via the new Southern Outfall Sewer to the treatment plant at Crossness. Until then, much of the city’s sewage had run untreated into the Thames and by 1850, had been proving a major health threat for the capital. The new sewers carried their flow to Deptford by gravity where the pumping station raised the contents by 18 feet from where it made its foul way nearly eight miles to Crossness.

Just north of the Stowage, built on the former site of the Trinity House Headquarters, Deptford Power Station opened in 1889. It was the world’s first high tension central generating station, designed by Sebastian de Ferranti to supply electricity to London. It dominated the landscape at the entrance to the Creek and was joined by a second power station (Deptford West) in 1929.

By the mid Victorian era, the Royal Dockyards had become outdated and unsuitable to launch ships. It eventually closed in 1869 and between 1871 and 1913, the dockyard site operated as the Foreign Cattle Market. It became notorious for its ‘gutting sheds’ in which girls and women worked in squalor, gutting animals.

The cattle market and the other heavy unpleasant industries which began to dominate Deptford attracted great numbers of unskilled or semi-skilled workers, most of them living in poverty and deprived conditions. By the end of the 19 th century, new industries, such as the power stations and the railways, provided new opportunities for many, but unemployment remained high and living conditions low. As part of his Inquiry into the Life and Labour of the People of London in 1899, Charles Booth identified the streets east and west of Church Street as amongst the poorest in the area. Addey Street between Church Street and Creek Street (Creekside), later incorporated into the Crossfield Estate , was considered the worst in all Deptford, an area of criminals and prostitutes. 11

Gradually, the town began to lose its more prosperous and respected inhabitants and was generally considered a ‘low neighbourhood’. On the other hand, Deptford avoided becoming a London suburb but remained a separate and self-sufficient community with its own social make-up, own industries and own version of urban life. It also remained also quite clearly divided from its nearest neighbour, Greenwich.

20 th and 21 st century

In 1900, Deptford became a Metropolitan Borough of the County of London. This lasted until the local government reorganisation of 1965, when it was amalgamated with the Metropolitan Borough of Lewisham to become the London Borough of Lewisham. It’s history in the 20 th century is mainly one of economic decline. The town suffered during the depression of the 1930s, with pockets of severe unemployment, and was badly hit during the bomb raids in World War II, resulting in widespread destruction and the death of some

11 Steel, p. 86. Page 105 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 24 650 people. 12 The industries recovered briefly in the 1950s and 1960s, although this proved to be short-lived. By the mid 1960s, a phase of inexorable decline of the riverside industries started. Many of the large firms in Deptford closed down in the late 1960s and 1970s leading to widespread unemployment and physical decline of the area. 13

As a result of economical decline and redundancy, the Creek and Thames waterfront saw much of their industrial heritage demolished to make way for new development, notably the clearance of the Royal Dockyards (to make way for Convoys Wharf – in use until 2002), the Naval Victualling Yard (remainders incorporated in the Pepys Estate), the demolition of the Robinson Mill and other mills at the southern end of the Creek, and the clearance of the Deptford West power station (re-developed for housing by Fairview New Homes). A few sites have remained in industrial use, notably within the proposed conservation area.

In the late 1990s the area benefitted from the ‘Creekside Renewal Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)’ which, for the first time in its history since industrialisation, helped to raise the profile of the Creek as a natural heritage asset. The scheme funded the Creekside Greening and Cleaning Project for Deptford Creek, which aimed to protect and enhance wildlife habitats, enhance and repair floodwalls, remove rubbish, improve local access, and facilitated the establishment of the Creekside Education Centre.

More recently, the process of regeneration and re-development for other uses in the area has continued and gained new impetus with the construction of the Laban Dance Centre and large residential developments in Greenwich High Road and Creek Road. A number of other sites hold outline planning permission for mixed uses.

Within the proposed conservation area, there were at first two important additions to the townscape the beginning of the 20 th century. In 1911, J & A Dandridge Ltd established their wholesale rag and metal merchants business on the site of Harold Wharf (today the APT studios ) for which they built an attractive manufacturing building designed by local architect Alfred Roberts. When the 19 th century workers’ houses west of Creek Street (Creekside) were cleared in the late 1930s by the London County Council (LCC), the company leased further land to expand their business on to the other side of the street, today known as the Framework Studios . The site is shown on the 1952 OS map as ‘Rag and Metal Warehouse’.

The historic Sun Wharf (between Theatre Wharf and Evelyn Wharf) was by the 1920s in use as an oil refinery, the Medina Works, which produced edible oils and fats. Their tanks and part of the refinery were located on the waterfront, while the company built their Art Deco office and factory building on the opposite site of the street, where it still stands today.

The use of the Chemical Works on the site today occupied by Faircharm ceased some

12 LDA, p. 29. 13 Ibid, p. 31. Page 106 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 25 time around 1945, possibly as a result of war damage. The site was subsequently cleared and re-developed between the late 1940s and late 1950s. Contrary to most other premises along the Creek, the area has avoided the physical decline and dereliction, partly because the buildings themselves have proven to be capable of adaptation and conversion allowing a range of businesses, light industrial uses and a growing community of artists to operate side by side.

Page 107 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 26

Detail of the 1952 OS map . The former Oxford Arms Public House (The Birds Nest Pub) is highlighted in Orange as a reference point Page 108 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 27 The Creek as seen from the Ha’Penny Bridge looking north (above) and south (below)

Page 109 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 28 4 Spatial character of the area

Topography and Geology

The topography of the area is fairly flat and has been shaped by centuries-long intervention by man. The surface consists of man-made ground, which conceals the lie of the original strata below.

The solid geology is Upper Chalk overlain by Thanet Sand. The overlying drift geology is gravel and alluvium. The gravel comprises former flood plain terraces of the River Thames laid down and left behind during the last continental glacial period when the Thames lowered its course.

The Alluvium (= soil or sediments deposited by rivers) has been deposited by the tidal flooding action of the Thames and the River Ravensbourne, and by rising sea levels during periods of marine transgressions.

Alluvium deposits tend to be fertile, and prior to the Creek’s industrialisation in the 19 th century much of the area was used as market gardens supplying the markets of London with vegetable produce. The Creek

The Creek forms the northern part of the River Ravensbourne where it meets the River Thames. It runs in a winding course from Deptford Bridge in the south to the Thames in the north and, in contrast to the Ravensbourne further south, it is deep and tidal. The frontages are revetted throughout with a variety of materials, but principally with timber fendering, brick and steel piles.

Most of the course of the Creek is screened by buildings and walls and thus has little presence in the public realm in Creekside. The occasional glimpse can be gained via the yards of Theatre Wharf and Evelyn Wharf, usually only during daytime when the gates are open. More unexpected is the experience from the Ha’Penny footbridge, the Creek’s central crossing point, which reveals the extent and dramatic nature of the river - an oasis of water, mud and greenery amongst an intense urban landscape.

Since the docks and wharfs are no longer in use, the Creek has become an area of tranquillity to which the service yards adjacent to the river embankment add a sense of openness and light.

Page 110 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 29 Street pattern and townscape

Creekside is the main access route and spine to this proposed small conservation area. From Church Street it follows the course of the Creek in north-easterly direction and at Harold Wharf turns in a sharp bend into a straight line towards the north.

Church Street, which bounds the area to the west, is the historic link between Upper and Lower Deptford. Its present appearance is the result of a 1970s highways ‘improvement’ scheme which saw the road widened and straightened.

A network of pedestrian routes in east-west direction provide linkages between Creekside and Church Street, including the Mechanic’s Path to both sides of the railway. South of the railway, the footpath continues over the Ha-Penny Bridge to Greenwich, providing an important central east-west link and currently the only unlimited public access to the Creek in the area.

The industrial premises and wharves along Creekside are of varying plot shapes and sizes which reflect the development history of the area. The historic wharves lining the edge of the Creek have open service yards to the river to allow for loading and unloading of goods – a reminder that the Creek was once a busy working river and main means of transport. The plot sizes of the oldest wharfs south of Creekside up to Harold Wharf are noticeably smaller and so narrow that the footprint of the building at Evelyn Wharf and that of the APT studios nearly cover the full depth between street and water edge. Office buildings are either facing the street or located next to the entrance, as was traditionally the case.

Despite differences in style there is some consistency maintained in the continuous low scale – buildings are generally not taller than two to three storeys - and use of traditional materials. Building forms are typically simple. At the larger premises, such as the Art Hub studios and the Faircharm Estate, a number of warehouses of different age are conjoined creating a more complex and interesting townscape. The group of the buildings A, C and D on the Faircharm Estate provide the most coherent piece of industrial townscape within the area.

The buildings are located right at the back of the pavement, creating a clearly defined street frontage and sense of enclosure. High brick walls with gated entrances separate service yards from the street/footpath and maintain a continuous built frontage and firm boundary between public and private space. The change to 20 th century housing at the Crossfield Estate is immediately obvious in its lay-out as a series of five-storey apartment blocks surrounded by defined semi-public and private spaces. The building line is set back from the street to allow for the provision of amenity spaces and (towards Creekside) for car parking with low front boundaries behind. These areas now benefits from mature tree cover and hedges that add a rather soft, green edge to the street.

The Crossfield Estate incorporates a number of 19 th century residential streets laid out in straight lines to the north and south of the railway viaduct. These are still legible though

Page 111 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 30 only Bronze Street has remained identifiable by name.

Two large open spaces north and south of the railways are laid out as recreational space to the estate. They help to reduce the impact of the railways and greatly contribute to the visual amenity of the area.

Creekside looking towards the east

Creekside at the bend looking towards the north-east

Page 112 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 31 Railway Viaducts

The historic viaduct of the London-Greenwich railway line crosses the area in an east-west direction. It is an attractive brick structure of monumental quality comprising 32 arches from the Creek to Church Street, most of them open and topped with parapets that enclose the railtracks to both sides. The viaduct constitutes a significant physical and visual barrier between the southern and northern part of the area and also effectively splits the Crossfield Estate into two entities.

In 1996 the Dockland Light Railway (DLR) was extended across the Thames to Lewisham. The line took advantage of the clear space above the southern part of the Creek, with one station located to the south at Deptford Bridge. An elegant concrete structure in itself, the DLR has changed the character of the southern part of the Creek, terminating views and affecting the legibility of the area. The line criss-crosses the southern part of the Creek four times, mirroring the route of the river in opposite direction and creating an interesting juxtaposition between these two features.

Open Space and Trees

Public open spaces and trees are not a traditional feature within this historic industrial urban landscapes, but are an integral part of the 20th century housing estate. As such, Creekside features two significant open spaces within the Crossfield Estate, one each side of the railway. These are the lawn and car park north of Holden house and the large green south of Farrer House. Both contain playgrounds and many informally placed deciduous trees, many of them London Planes. Other, smaller open spaces within or surrounding the estate have been turned into wildlife gardens and allotments. Another large public open green space, the Sue Godefrey Nature Reserve, borders the estate north of Bronze Street.

The Creekside Education Centre south of the railways, built on the former Transco Inlet, is the only open space directly abutting the Creek. The former dock was converted in 2002 into a beach for natural colonisation as innovative flood defence.

Spaces and trees alike greatly add to the visual amenity and environmental quality of the area and have value as corridors for wildlife.

Page 113 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 32

A section of the listed 1838 railway viaduct

Farrer House as seen from Mechanic’s Path

Page 114 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 33 Landmarks and views

Landmark buildings provide focal points within the conservation area through their position as individual or corner buildings. The principal landmark buildings within the proposed conservation area are:

• The Birds Nest Public House, • the Art in Perpetuity Trust (APT) studios,

• the railway lifting bridge,

• the railway viaducts.

A number of local landmarks that terminate views or constitute important focal points in long views are just outside the proposed conservation area. These are: • The Laban Centre

• The former Mumford’s Mill grain silo

• The Deptford Pumping Station

• St. Paul’s Church

Despite the limited access to the Creek, there are a number of comprehensive views down into and across it from both within and outside the conservation area. The DLR in particular enables views of the Creek and surrounding area never seen before and has contributed significantly to bringing the area back into the public conscience. The line allows good sequential views even into the private service yards of the businesses situated along the river which are well screened towards the street. From within the conservation area, the Ha-Penny Bridge offers long distance views towards the south and, through the arch of the lifting bridge, towards the north where the view is terminated by the Laban Centre and the multi-storey blocks that have recently gone up behind it. The elevated position of the footbridge also allows for good views into the conservation area from the east down the Mechanic’s Path along the viaduct, onto the Creekside Education Centre and to the Crossfield Estate beyond.

At the Church Street, roundabout the Birds Nest Pub constitutes an important landmark at the entrance to Creekside in views from all approaches. Turning into Creekside, the view down the road is terminated by the sharp bend in the road where the APT building occupies a prominent position. In views from the north down Creekside, the towering grain silo of Mumford’s Mill (now flats) is the defining feature in the distance. The occasional glimpse can be gained of the Creek via the service yards, although these views are dominated by the DLR viaduct, which obstructs long views to the riverbanks at the east side. An unexpected and very attractive view of the lifting bridge can be gained across the yard of the Creekside Education Centre through its gate and railings. Just north of the conservation boundary, the café and terrace at the Laban Centre offer unlimited views of the Creek and adjoining industrial estates to both sides of the river, as far as the

Page 115 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 34 railway viaduct where the lifting bridge creates a key focal point.

The flat topography means that within the Crossfield Estate, views are generally contained by buildings and greenery and the railway viaduct that cuts across.

Mumford’s Mill as seen from the wharf at No. 2 Creekside

Page 116 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 35 Natural environment – nature conservation

The Creek is the only tributary south of the Thames in inner London which has remained relatively intact. Following its decline as transport river and abandonment by the industries, and the general improvement in the water quality of the Thames, the Creek is in a better condition than it has been for more than a hundred years.

In ecological terms the Creek can best be described as a watery wasteland, with a diverse range of habitats that are species rich and locally distinctive. The Creek has an exceptional but often unseen biodiversity value that is a result of this unique ecosystem. The variations in surface topography combined with the variety of artificial and natural substrates and the tidal nature of Deptford Creek has led to the development of a bewildering array of habitat types and specific niches. At low tide the tidal waters retreat to reveal a shallow trickle of freshwater that meanders down the middle of the creek, flanked by the rich mud and shingle banks of the foreshore. The intertidal foreshore provides fish spawning grounds, and it is here that the most abundant algal and invertebrate communities occur. The vertical sea walls lining the Creek support over 120 plant species that exploit a range of opportunities in nooks and crannies, cracks in concrete and wood, the rotten tops of fenders and ledges of wood or concrete, inundated or not.

This combination of wet and fully aquatic habitats that are exposed to different regimes of fresh and salty water along with the infinite variety of substrates is the key why the Creeks is so important as a biological resource and why it supports such a variety of organisms. This is illustrated by the millions of tubifex worms found in a single square metre of mud which each day poke their heads up through the mud when the tide returns to be grazed by birds, other invertebrates and fish. The Thames and its tidal tributaries including Deptford Creek contain vital ecosystems, habitats and species that represent a regionally important ecological resource. This has been recognised in their designation as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation in 1986.

The beach at the Creekside Education Centre, formerly a small dock to the Transco Inlet. The beach was created in 2002 and left for natural colonisation as innovative flood defence.

Page 117 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption- Part I Page 36 Planning Service – Conservation and Urban Design

Deptford Creekside Conservation Area

Character Appraisal – Part II

Draft for Adoption May 2012

Page 118

Proposed Deptford Creekside Conservation Area – Character Areas

Page 119 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 37 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal Map

Page 120 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 38 Additions to townscape appraisal map added at Desk Top Publishing stage :

Listed Buildings : The London-Greenwich Railway viaduct (1936)

Landmark Buildings : The Birds Nest Public House

The APT studios, 6 Harold Wharf

The railway lifting bridge The London-Greenwich Railway viaduct (1936)

The Mumford’s Mill grain silo

The Deptford Pumping

St. Paul’s Church

Important Views: View from DLR into the conservation area View from Ha’Penny Bridge towards the north and South

View from Church Street on to the Birds Nest Pub

View from the footbridge along the Mechanic’s Path to the Creekside Education Centre and Crossfield Estate

View down Creekside towards the Mumford’s Mill View from Creekside on to the north gables of Building C

View from Creekside on to the APT building

View from Ferranti Park to St. Paul’s Church

Positive Open Space: Amenity spaces to Crossfield Estate

Green space to Creekside Education Centre Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park

Page 121 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 39 5 Character areas and buildings of interest

The conservation area can be separated into two character areas that reflect the different uses, spaces and building forms: the first comprises the industrial premises and historic wharves along Creekside, the second is the Crossfield Estate, which was implanted into the area in the 1930s as part of the slum clearance programme by the London County Council.

Character Area 1: The Creek, Creekside road and adjoining wharves

The medieval origins of Creekside are still evident in the narrowness of the street and the small urban grain of its wharves lining the Creek at its southern end. A place of considerable historic significance and archaeological potential is the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island , historically known as Mill Wharf) , which forms today part of the Lewisham College Deptford Campus. The Island is the location of the historic Deptford Tide Mill, the remains of which and its successors may still be in situ and may reveal further evidence of medieval occupation at Deptford Creekside. The Island is an integral and distinctive landscape feature of the Creek may have encouraged the construction of the mill in this location, allowing the creation of a mill pond to the south.

The historic mill building was located in the area of today’s entrance to the campus south of Theatre Wharf. It could take advantage of the flow of the high tide and the flow of the Ravensbourne itself to fill the mill pond , which was created in the bend where the Ravensbourne turned into the Creek. The sluices and weir that regulated the flow area still in place. The current brick and metal-clad Asquith Gibbes Building and sports hall that cover the Island today date from 1979 and are of no architectural interest. Before the industrialisation of the Creek, the island was used as Osier grounds. For most part of the 19 th and 20 th century its northern and eastern part were an open coal and timber wharf with no significant structure on it. Only in the later part of the 20 th century the Robinson Mill extended over the area similar to the footprint of the present building.

Left: The Gibbes / Skill Centre Island as seen from the wharf at No. 2 Creekside. Right: The surviving weir and sluices at the head of the Creek . Page 122 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 40 The Birds Nest Pub at the entrance to Creekside is a key building within the area. Its currently rather isolated position is the result of the widening of Church Street which saw the remaining surrounding 19 th century houses, which until then had survived, demolished. It is an elegant Victorian building with a canted bay turning the corner. The pub frontage on the ground floor is rendered and has large modern timber windows subdivided into small panes. The upper floors have timber sash windows and red brick dressings and pediments.

A pub existed in this location by the early 19 th century, known as the ‘Oxford Arms’. Next to it was the old Deptford Theatre which run successfully from the mid 18 th century to 1840. After a period of decline, it closed in 1860 and became a coal depot. It was demolished in the early 20 th century and in its place Theatre Wharf created. Today’s pub keeps up the tradition by having a small theatre space.

The area between the pub and the entrance to the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island is one of the few areas allowing direct views, and historically also access, into the Creek although the effect is today compromised by the current boundary treatment.

Left: The Oxford Arms with the Robinson Mill behind, picture taken in the 1960s. Right: The Birds Nest Pub today. Below: The Oxford Arms and Deptford Theatre to the right in 1840.

Page 123 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 41 The first four wharves – Theatre Wharf , Sun Wharf (No. 2 Creekside), Evelyn Wharf and Harold Wharf – are the oldest along the Creek, lining the small stretch of river between the historic tide mill and the Tudor slaughterhouse.

No. 2 Creekside appears on 19 th century OS map as ‘Sun Wharf’ or ’Sun Coal Wharf’, not to be mixed up with the modern Sun Wharf north of the railway. From the 1920s it was in use by an oil refinery, the Medina Works, producing edible oils and fats. Their tanks and part of the refinery were located at the waterfront while the company built their elegant office and factory building on the opposite site of the road where it still stands today.

The associated tanks and structures have since been demolished although the former entrance to the yard is still in place; it is now permanently shut, with a metal gate and stacked containers behind. The front elevations of the former adjoining buildings have remained at ground floor level with blocked windows to serve as boundary walls. The site is today used by a number of small-scale businesses, while the wharf has become a permanent mooring place for boat residents. Although the boats in the Creek are today primarily used as dwellings, they have helped to retain the function and ‘flair’ of the historic wharves, which were historically lined with barges, and as such they make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The Medina Works (No. 3 Creekside) opposite, built in ca. 1922, comprises an Art Deco style office and factory building and a warehouse behind. The street facing office block is now occupied by an evangelical church. It comprises a two storey range of wire cut red brick and rendered upper floors with modern brick detailing . The central stepped entrance bay has a classic art-deco fin with the Medina name inscribed and surmounted by a flagpole. To the right is the loading bay and vehicle entrance into the former factory and warehouse behind. The building is a good example of its time and positively contributes to the interest of the area. The red brick warehouse behind with a hipped roof is largely hidden from street views and its contribution thus limited to group value and addition to the variety of roofscape of the area .

No. 4 Creekside is one of the earliest surviving buildings on Creekside. It is a charming early Victorian house with raised ground floor, projecting front entrance and slated mansard. It is notable as the one and only residential building on Creekside’s river-facing side and for much of its history has been in this isolated position. On Charles Booth’s 1899 map, its owners are identified as being socially in a better position than any other of the residential properties east of Church Street.

The historic Evelyn Wharf next to it is now a working yard. It has a 19 th century two storey workshop building facing the street, though much of it appears to have been rebuilt. The yard is notable for the good survival of historic granite setts and the historic brick boundary wall with substantial gates framing the entrance, all of which make an important contribution to the character of the street.

Page 124 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 42

Clockwise from top left: Moorings at the Theatre and former Sun Wharf, the former Medina Works office building, entrance to Evelyn Wharf, and No. 4 Creekside.

Page 125 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 43

Between Evelyn and Harold Wharf (No. 6 Creekside) is an interesting industrial building dating from the late 19 th century with a gently curving frontage, crenellated roof line and cast-iron windows. The building is today used as a workshop building and might be the remainder of a formerly two storey building, perhaps reduced in size by bomb damage. Its rather unusual curved frontage, age and detailing add interest and positively contribute to the streetscene.

Harold Wharf is occupying the site which is thought to be the location of Henry VIII’s abattoir. Remains of the building may still be in situ below ground. The existing prominent building was built in 1911 for J & A Dandridge Ltd. In the 1970s it changed hands to the Stewart & Dennis Engineering Ltd whose diverse projects included the hovercraft which took test trips on the Creek. 1 The building is today known as the APT Studios , owned by the Art in Perpetuity Trust. The Trust has created an important art facility for the area which provides both studios and gallery space for exhibitions. The front elevation of the building is richly decorated with rusticated red-brick pilasters and classical detailing in terracotta, topped by an imposing curving pediment within a high parapet. The side returns and rear elevation are plain and industrial in character, with tall windows and loading bays. The modern sheet pile extension to the front has been built to accommodate a gallery and studiios. Until 2009, the small yard to the side contained one of the two last remaining cranes at the Deptford Creek – once a landscape dotted with cranes. It demolition is the most regrettable loss in the area in recent years.

Left: Industrial building between Evelyn and Harold Wharf. Right: The former Dandridge manufacturing building, today the APT studios

The first premises on the northern side as one enters Creekside from Church Street is t he Greenwich MOT Centre (No. 1 Creekside). The small strip of vacant land at the street’s corner is a left over of the former terraces that were cleared for the widening of Church

1 LDA, p. 36 Page 126 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 44 Street. The Greenwich MOT Centre comprises a 19 th century yard surrounded to the west and north by workshops. At the entrance at the back of the street stands a small Victorian two storey house of three bays with a hipped roof. Behind is an early 20 th century workshop range of two storeys with metal windows and a loading bay. The large workshop building enclosing the yard to the north is of 20th century date (pre-1950s). The building appears to have been built as a warehouse but has had some unsympathetic alterations been made following its conversion into a garage .

Clockwise from the top: Early 20 th century workshop building at Greenwich MOT, office building at the Art Hub studios, boundary to 5 – 9 Creekside.

The strip of land between the Greenwich MOT Centre and Medina Works comprises the remainder of the former Addey Street where it met Creekside. It is now partly covered and enclosed by metal sheeting. The structure is of no significance to the area.

The Art Hub, also known as Framework Studios, occupies the large corner plot No. 5-9 Creekside where the street turns sharply into a northerly direction. Part of the site has been industrial use since at least of the beginning of the 19 th century when it formed part of Dandridge Ltd, a rag and metal business that operated from Harold Wharf opposite. When the surrounding area of working-class housing was cleared by the LCC in the 1930s, Dandridge took the opportunity to expand their businesses in exchange for other properties they owned, which were allocated to the Crossfield Estate. The buildings enclosing the service yard are built in stock brick with flat roofs containing large lanterns, Crittal windows and loading bays. The simple, but attractive office building located at the Page 127 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 45 entrance to Creekside is embellished with an Art Deco fin. Within the service yard, the blank white-painted frontages containing the loading bays for ‘Eurowines’ are the result of the previous 19 th century warehouse in this location having been demolished.

The two warehouses behind of are of red brick with pitched roofs. Their two west facing gables with parapets and copings feature prominently in views from Church Street and in long views from the DLR.

The site today occupied by the Faircharm Estate was one of the first areas of spreading industrialisation along the Creek in the early part of the 19 th century. The 1844 Deptford Tithe map shows a significant cluster of buildings here and by the time of the publication of the first OS map of 1867, the site is fully occupied by the ‘Deptford Chemical Works’. The architectural legacy of the Works has disappeared and the site has been fully re- developed during the first decades after the war, mainly in the 1950s. The site consisted formerly of two wharves – Raleigh Wharf and Hill Wharf – which were amalgamated to create a larger plot. Only a few pre-20 th century features remain: The central spine and access route that divides the area into a northern and southern half was established in the early 19 th century, and the open yard associated with the wharf has been retained over the centuries and is used today for car parking. The existing buildings date from the late 1940s, 1950s and early 1960s (Building B) and include a variety of workshop and warehouse buildings that illustrate the spread of development from the street into the depth of the property towards the waterfront, seeking maximum coverage whilst respecting the historic yard/wharf. The warehouses were once occupied by the Lewisham based company Zenith Carburetters whose name still appears at the front.

The buildings are built in red brick with large metal windows and pitched roofs, except for Building B which is flat roofed. The heights vary between two and three and a half storeys. The Faircharm Estate provides an interesting and today the most coherent group of industrial buildings to the area. Building A consists of two parts, built in two stages. The older part at Creekside dates from the 1950s and comprises three conjoined warehouses whose gables feature prominently in the streetscene. The most northern warehouse has a gable end chimney stack. The range was later extended in the 1950s (also called Building D ) right up to the edge of Creek, possibly as the result of Zenith occupying the site, creating the large unobstructed warehouses type for assembly favoured by the car manufacturing industry . The three warehouses present wide gables with functional but effective detailing towards the Creek. Notable is the strong horizontal emphasis of windows and the curving of the central warehouse to adjust to bend of the Creek. The buildings positively contribute in character, form and roofscape to the townscape towards both the street and the Creek.

Page 128 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 46

Left: Faircharm Estate Building A fronting Creekside, and right: Extension towards the Creek (also called Building D)

Building B occupies the north-eastern part of the site and was the last building to be added to the site in the late 1950s or early 60s. By virtue of its location and scale, it exerts a great presence towards the Creek. Built in the modern functional style of its period, it is in massing and height a notable deviation from the other industrial buildings in the area. Although it reflects the traditional palette of materials, due to its large footprint and boxy appearance the building lacks the townscape interest created by the more traditional conjoined warehouses on the site and elsewhere in the area

Clockwise from the top: Faircharm Estate Building B as seen from the Ha’Penny Bridge, Building C as seen from Creekside, and looking into the estate from Creekside towards the east.

Page 129 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 47 Building C

Building C consists of three conjoined traditional 2-storey warehouses standing parallel to the road. Their gables feature prominently in views from the road across the Creekside Education Centre. The warehouse fronting the street is the oldest part, dating from the late 1940s. It has tall metal workshop windows with white painted lintels and first floor banding. The red brick is laid in a traditional English bond. The two warehouses behind project slightly, with slanted elevations to take account of the route of the northern access. The second, narrower warehouse is linked to Building A by a bridge which provides an focal point in the view from the street into the site, currently enhanced by the art work to the structure. Between the building and the boundary to the Creekside Education Centre a section of a substantial stock brick and masonry boundary wall dating from the 19 th century has survived.

The Creekside Education Centre was opened in 2002 on the site of former gasworks producing town gas, later known as Transco Inlet. Active gas mains run underneath making the site immune from re-development, which helped to secure it as a permanent site for the education centre. A pleasingly designed building incorporating the principles of modern sustainable construction, it has already become an important local landmark and community resource.

The character area is bounded to the north by the monumental viaduct of the London – Greenwich railway line which is the only listed structure (Grade II) within the proposed conservation area. The viaduct consists of a sequence of 22 feet high brick arches that carry the railway bed, enclosed by parapets. Construction was authorised by Act of Parliament in 1833 and the first section from London Bridge to Deptford opened in February 1836. The section between Deptford Creek and Church Street comprising 32 arches is usually considered the most attractive part of the viaduct. Most of the arches have remained open and allow attractive north-south views in both directions. A Mechanic’s Path runs along the southern side of the viaduct, leading to the Ha’penny footbridge that links Deptford with Greenwich. The present Ha’penny footbridge was built in 2002 to re-instate the historic pedestrian and carriage link between the two boroughs in this location. Historically, it was a toll bridge costing half an old penny (ha’penny) to cross. The previous wooden bridge was demolished some time in the 1930s.

The vertical lifting bridge next to it is one of the most imposing structures within the area, notably in long views from the DLR or from the Laban Centre. It was opened in December 1963 replacing a late 19 th century draw bridge. The modern bridge is the third bridge in this location - like its predecessors it had to open to maintain the right of navigation on the Creek for masted boats. The lifting structure consists of four ca. 20 metres high square steel columns that contain the lifting hoists and counterweights, one pair on either side of the channel. Unfortunately, the bridge was welded shut in the late 1970s. The monumental Portland Stone pilasters underneath are the footings of the original bridge. Vertical lifting Page 130 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 48 bridges are an extremely rare type of bridge and as part of this assessment, it is proposed to locally list the structure on grounds of its rarity, engineering ingenuity and landmark character to the area.

Page 131 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 49

Page 132 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 50 Character Area 2: The Crossfield Estate

Social Housing in Deptford

Most of the pre-1945 housing stock in London was built by the LCC, created in 1889, not by the boroughs themselves, with generally smaller schemes undertaken by the metropolitan boroughs themselves . From the turn of the century, the LCC embarked on an extensive programme of slum clearance and tackling overcrowding. Soon after it undertook its first social housing project in 1896 in Bethnal Green in the East End, the LCC extended its programme to Deptford, which was then a separate Metropolitan Borough from Lewisham.

The first council housing to be built just after 1900 was off Macmillan Street. It was later absorbed in the Hughes Field Estate (today within the borders of Greenwich). The second project was Carrington House in Brookmill Road, built as a working men’s hostel to accommodate 800 residents. The building is today Grade II listed on grounds of its innovative architecture.

In the 1920s, national housing policies aimed at rectifying the general housing shortage were introduced. It often involved moving people out of the congested inner city areas to the suburbs, where the County Council built cottage estates of terraced and semi- detached houses. The Downham Estate (1924-1930) on the Lewisham-Bromley border, for example, was built by the LCC to re-house working class families from Deptford and other inner parts of London as there were no suitable vacant sites available within the confined borders of Deptford. By the 1930s, the focus shifted to the state of older housing and this decade saw a massive effort of clearance and rebuilding, primarily with multi-storey blocks of flats.

The Housing Act of 1930 (known as the Greenwood Act after Arthur Greenwood, the Labour Minister of Health) introduced a state subsidy specifically for slum clearance for the first time, including specific subsidies for the building of flats. As a result, the LCC and other local authorities proceeded in the 1930s to built apartment blocks of flats rather than cottage garden estates.2

In Lewisham and Deptford, the LCC constructed the Honor Oak Estate in Brockley spanning the Deptford-Lewisham border, the Speedwell Estate (demolished), and the Deptford Park Estate, all built in the early 1930s. In 1936 it completed the last phase of the Hughes Field Estate and after that started the construction of the Crossfield Estate.

The planning for the blocks begun as early as 1932 and focussed on the areas which the 1899 survey by Charles Booth had highlighted as the poorest with Deptford: Addey Street and Hosier Street between Church Street and Creekside south of the railways, Alvar Street and Bronze Street to the north of the viaduct, and Crossfield Street , Frankham and

2 Housing in Poplar: The Inter-war Years', Survey of London: volumes 43 and 44: Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs (1994), pp. 23-37. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46467 Date accessed: 08 November 2010 Page 133 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 51 Reginald Road west of Church Street. In the LCC minutes of 1933 the streets are described as ‘ very narrow and the houses, which are badly congested, are of a poor type, old and worn-out. ’3

The Crossfield Estate originally consisted of twelve blocks of flats. Two of them, Owen House (west of Congers House) and Bates House on the opposite side of Church Street appear to have been demolished in the 1970s as a result of the Church Street widening. Bevil House, which stood rather isolated at the western end of Frankham Road, has also been demolished for unknown reasons.

The development did not follow one masterplan for the area but the estate was planned as four different entities, generally referred to by the pre-existing street names ie. ‘Addey Street area’ and ‘Bronze street area’. The name ‘Crossfield’ appears in minutes of 1938 when it was decided to add Frankham House to the estate for administrative purposes. The underlying design principle however for all parts was the same: to create better living and health conditions for the residents by providing adequate, well-lit and well-ventilated living space to modern standards, surrounded by ample amenity space. Each flat was provided with its own bathroom, and refuse chutes were standard provision to each block. The open green spaces to the north and south of the viaduct, arranged in these locations to create a distance to the noise and pollution caused by the trains, were a novelty to the area - unheard of in working class housing development of the 19 th century - and re- shaped the character of the area.

Description

The Crossfield Estate consists today of a total of nine apartment blocks separated by Church Street and the Railway Viaduct into three separate entities.

The first group of buildings to be constructed between 1937 and 1939 were the five blocks south of the railway line east of Church Street. They consist of two U-shaped blocks, Wilshaw and Holden House west of Creekside, and three linear blocks along Church Street ie. Cremer, Castell and Brown House which at the time of their completion provided 195 units for the accommodation of 941 residents.

Although a radical change to the houses they replaced, the lay-out of the Estate incorporated remnants of the historic street pattern. The narrow cul-de-sac running north- south between Cremer, Castell and Brown House at the western side, and the east wings of Holden House and Wilshaw House on the opposite side, is the remainder of the historic Addey Street which ran through to Creekside. The slight kink towards the north-west in the arrangement of Castell and Brown House is also a reflection of the historic line of Church Street before its straightening and widening in the early 1970s.

The main vehicular access is from Creekside via two lanes north and south of Holden

3 LCC Housing Committee Report, dated 14 February 1933. Page 134 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 52 House leading to the central cul-de-sac. The change from industrial to housing is immediately obvious in the change in building line, with parking to the front and low front boundaries behind that create amenity space to the ground floor flats.

The three blocks east of Church Street all have the entrances arranged towards the cul- de-sac (the former Addey Street), as a result of which the Estate appears inward looking in relation to Church Street. The cul-de-sac (former Addey Street) however forms a true centre to the blocks and is one of the most distinctive features of this estate. The frontage- to-frontage arrangement of the blocks combined with the comparative narrowness of the street – a remnant of its 19 th century origin – create a sense of intimacy and surveillance not usually found in housing estates of that period.

Left: Access road from Creekside. Right: The central cul-de-sac, formerly Addey Street, which was laid out in th the mid 19 century.

In other aspects, the estate followed the by then established standards of the LCC’s architectural department, notably the preference for traditional solid brick buildings with open balcony access to all flats. The lay-out of the flats followed a standardised pattern of the so-called 1934 (1 and 2) type. The prevailing height of five storeys was mainly dictated by the wish to avoid the cost of installing lifts, and was supported by the widely-held belief that people could walk up as far as the fifth storey, but no higher.

Each block has a centrally placed external stair case tower and two-bay end projections that give the elevations a sense of ‘classicism’. Red brick, hipped roof with deep overhanging eaves and Georgian-style Sash windows all add to the overall traditional appearance and solidity of the buildings.

The open access balconies are a 20 th century invention and became a distinctive feature of LCC housing, adding a modern streamlined horizontal emphasis to the buildings – here highlighted by the exposed white-painted concrete floors. The curved balconies attaching to the staircase towers at Castell House were also a modest, but effective reference to the modern style. Of note are also the solid parapet walls to the balconies with purpose made triangular copings which add to the attractiveness and solidity of the buildings.

Page 135 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 53

As part of his Inquiry into the Life and Labour of the People of London , Charles Booth conducted a survey of Deptford, published in 1899. It is a fascinating record of the socio-economic conditions of the area at that time. The three shades of blue indicate levels of poverty, notably in the areas that were later cleared by the LCC and re-developed with the Crossfield Estate. South of the railways, Addey Street and Hosier Street are marked as ‘poor’, and north of the railways residents in Alvar Street were poor, but in Bronze Street ‘ Very poor, casual, chronic wanted ’. West of Church Street, Reginald Street and Frankham Street were hardest hit with poverty and named as ‘ Lowest class. Vicious, semi-criminal’ .

Page 136 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 54

Only a great deal of standardisation enabled the LCC to undertake its extensive inter-war housing programme within a comparatively short time frame. The blocks of the Crossfield Estate were built to the so-called 1934 Type (1) and (2). Page 137 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 55

The three different types of blocks at the Crossfield Estate. Clockwise from top left: Castell House of the group of inter-war houses south of the railways; Farrer House, the last of the blocks to be built in 1949, and Congers House at Bronze Street built in the late 1940s.

Page 138 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 56 Frankham House west of Church Street is stylistically similar to the above group of buildings and appears to have been built during the same period. It is an L-shaped block at the corner of Frankham Street and Church Street and had originally a counterpart at the western end of Frankham Street i.e. Bevil House.

The Second World War interrupted the construction of the Bronze Street area of the estate but resumed soon after with even greater urgency to address the acute housing shortage in the area. Congers and Finch House date from the late 1940s, though evidently built to the original plans drawn up in the early 1930s, but with more sparing detailing. The buildings still included balcony access, which by that time the LCC had increasingly avoided in favour of staircase access, but the attractive solid brick balcony walls that were used for the earlier buildings have been replaced with railings.

Farrer House was the last block to be built in 1949 and distinguishes itself from the other blocks by its more modern streamlined appearance, with curved access balconies and stair houses, and a parapet that hides the roof. Contrary to the other blocks each flat is provided with a balcony of an elegant elliptical shape that creates a strong rhythm to the south elevation.

Frankham House west of Church Street was also built in the post -war period. The block was planned in isolation from the two entities at Creekside. It is considered that the group of blocks east of Church Street illustrate best the design principles of LCC 1930s housing , and it is proposed not to include Frankham House in the conservation area.

The character area also includes the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park at the northern side of Bronze Street. The area is today perceived within the context of the generous green spaces surrounding the Crossfield Estate, although historically, this site has been the location of the Trinity Almshouses (1672-1877) and some significant early industries such as the innovative Copperas Works, an early dye and chemical manufacture (from 1650-1830), which started the long history of the chemical industry in the area. By 1720, a pottery was established next to the Almshouses, producing the Deptford Ware for which the town became noted. After the 20 th century slum clearances of the area and the closure of the last pottery on site in the 1960s, the site became a wasteland until it was turned into a nature park in 1984 after lengthy campaigning by local residents. A section of the north wall of the pottery survives, consisting largely of 19 th century flower pots fragments, stoneware and crucibles embedded in mortar.

Next to the Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve is the modern landscaped Ferranti Park, named after Sebastian de Ferranti, the designer of the world’s first high tension central generating station, once located at Creekside. The award-winning project was jointly funded by the Council and the London Development Agency and opened in 2004.

The nature reserve and park make some contribution to the character and appearance of the Crossfield Estate as recreational spaces and habitat for wildlife. The site has holds potentially some significant archaeological deposits that could contribute to the understanding of the development of settlement and land-uses of Creekside. An Page 139 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 57 excavation here uncovered late 17 th century or early 18 th century brick walls and mortar surfaces, later 18 th century brick walls, and a 19 th century kiln area.

Crossfield and the Deptford Music Scene

The story of the Crossfield Estate does not finish with its original construction. Over the 74 years of its existence, it has had its own eventful social history involving local activism, the ‘almost demolition’ of the Estate, and the development of a radical community art and music scene in the late 1970s and 80s that produced some of the most successful British bands in music history. The Estate remained under GLC (the successor of the LCC) management until April 1971 when it was handed over to Lewisham Council. The condition of the buildings was by that time appalling – the day-to-day experience of its residents included blocked drains, rats, damp and fungus on the walls. One resident said ‘I have lived on this estate for 22 years. I have spent 21 of them trying to get out.’ 4 Following decades of lack of maintenance, the estate failed to live up to its promise to improve living conditions for the most vulnerable. Crossfield referrals to Social Services for material poverty were four times the local average. 5

The plans for the Church Street widening in the early 1970s, on which they were not consulted, became the tipping point for residents to vent their pent-up anger and actively campaign for the complete demolition of the estate. Their demands found the support of Councillors and the then Chair of the Lewisham Planning Committee. Within two months of the first meeting the Council agreed to re-house all the tenants of the estate who wanted to leave. Having proved ‘unfit’ for the accommodation of families, the Council decided to offer the flats to single professional people without children. After making some minimum improvements, places at Crossfield were offered to ILEA, the Goldsmiths College and the Thames Polytechnic. A new community grew up in the estate - a constantly shifting population of students, artists, musicians, teachers and social workers who brought a new middle class segment to Deptford without the gentrification of the area and displacement of the working class community that was characteristic of the rest of the docklands. Here, key workers lived in the same conditions, or sometimes worse, than their clients and pupils. 6 It also gave the momentum to the development of a radical arts and music scene that gained Deptford an almost legendary status in the 1970s and 80s. Local groups included Dire Straights, Squeeze, the Fabulous Poodles, The Realists, Electric Bluebirds and Mark Perry and his punk rock band Alternative TV. Members of the band Dire Straits lived on the estate and the band had its first gig here in 1977 on the lawn behind Farrer House. A member of the group Squeeze also lived here for a short time. Local venue was the pub The Duke (opposite the junction of Creekside and Creek Road) which hosted regular

4 Steel, p. 202 5 Ibid, p.203. 6 Ibid. Page 140 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 58 Sunday evening concerts under the management of much loved landlord Erich Höfer (1977 to 2000). He has been immortalised in the mural painted in 1982 on the side of Cremer House. Dire Straits, Squeeze and The Flying Pickets were the ones that made it beyond Deptford.

Dire Straits at their first gig on the Crossfield Estate 1977. The building behind is today’s Cockpit Arts.

The Crossfield Community

Residents emphasise that the artist community that developed in the 1980s on the Estate has been more diverse than for its role in Popular and Punk Music. Establishing the full diversity could be the subject of further research and a community project. A number of residents have pointed out in discussions that the community which developed at that time laid the foundation for the Estate’s interesting mix of residents and inclusiveness in terms of age, lifestyle, occupations, ethnicity, cultural and social background, for which Crossfield is much appreciated. The gay gommunity has also laid claims on the Estate as a focus for the Deptford gay community in the 1980s, particularly Frankham House (hence the name Pink Palace for the local venue located in the building), and its role in forging an urban gay identity.

Many residents of that time have moved on now, although the Crossfield Estate is still the centre of an engaged community taking ownership and actively representing the interests of the estate and the area. The high number of right-to-buy leaseholder flats (with nearly 50 per cent significantly higher than on any of the other estates in the area) also shows that Creekside and the Crossfield have become places for living by choice, not because of the lack of it.

Page 141 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 59

Dire Straits at Crossfield Estate

The members of the band lived at No. 1 Farrer House. They are representative in many aspects of the social make-up of the estate at that time: Mark Knopfler, a part time teacher and pub rock player and songwriter, his brother David Knopfler, a social worker and guitarist, and sociology undergraduate John Illsley.

The band's first gig took place in 1977 on the green behind Farrer House at the first Crossfields Free Festival – the electricity for which was provided via long extension leads from their flat, thanks to the meter having been tripped (Knopfler: by a previous tenant). At that time, they were called the Cafe Racers, the name of Mark Knopfler’s previous band, and became Dire Straits soon after, for their first gig at The Albany Empire (with Squeeze)

The band was propelled to stardom with their first hit ‘Sultans of Swing’, which was inspired by their day-to-day observations of Deptford (‘downsouth London town’).

The band’s link to the estate is commemorated in the mural at the Cockpit Arts which is inspired by the band’s Love Over Gold song. It was designed in 1989 by Gary Drostle in collaboration with local primary school children, and was commissioned by Lewisham Leisure, Dire Straits, the ILEA and Outset UK – the disability project which occupied the building before Cockpit Arts.

On 3 rd December 2009, the Performing Rights Society put up a plaque on the wall of the band’s former flat as part of their programme to commemorate the places where music bands had their origins.

Page 142 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 60

The Deptford Music Scene in the 1970s and 1980s

The Bluebirds existed between 1979 and 1984. Their story is told in Bobby’ Valentino’s own words with the sleeve notes he wrote for the release of a “best of” CD in 1996. Bobby, violinist, singer, songwriter and actor born in 1954, was a founder member of the Fabulous Poodles in the 1970s and later a member of the Bluebirds in the early 1980s :

The Bluebirds (the Electric bit came later) started as a Sunday night acoustic band in a pub called The Duke on Creek Road in Deptford.

At that time Deptford enjoyed an almost legendary status, especially the 1930’s council-run Crossfields estate. Due to the ominous presence of a dual carriageway running through the middle, the council had a policy of only letting to young single people and couples without children. This duly attracted students and artists of all sorts to run -down Deptford. I was lucky - I lived in Brockley!

In those days we had many local bands: Dire Straights , Squeeze, the Fab Poo’s, The Realists and Mark Perry & ATV . In fact the line-up for the Crossfields Free Festival - back in ‘78 or ‘79 - was all of the above and more, performing on a makeshift stage on a perfect Sunday afternoon, with long extension leads coming from Mark Knopfler’s ground floor flat powering a makeshift PA - and the beverages supplied by the Oxford Arms, another infamous local hostelry. (Extract from The Electric Bluebirds Sleeve Notes)Source:http://www.bobbyvalentino.co.uk/electric-bluebirds-sleevenotes.html

The mural at Cremer House of 1982 depicting a scene at the pub The Duke at Creek Road. The pub was an important venue for live music at that time and the development of Pub Rock in reaction to the mainstream rock industry.

Page 143 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 61

Excerpt from: 1985-1995 A decade of Lesbian and Gay Identity in Deptford's Crossfield Estate by C. Mazeika

(Inserted at Desk-Top-Publishing stage subject to permission)

Page 144 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 62 6 Building materials and details

Page 145 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 63

Page 146 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 64 Building materials

The predominant building material in the area is yellow stock and red brick of various types, which in places have been painted. The traditional brick type of the area is yellow London stock brick, evident without exception in all surviving 19th century and early 20th century structures. It is also the most consistently-used, and hence the visually most dominant, material for the boundaries in the southern part of Creekside, sometimes in combination with engineering brick. Architectural details are often highlighted in different materials, traditionally in stone and stucco (e.g. No. 4 Creekside) or in red brick, which has been used to great effect at The Birds Nest Public House and the Edwardian APT building for structuring the elevations. The APT building also has attractive terracotta detailing, which was a popular material for embellishments in Edwardian times. The detailing of most warehouses and workshops in the area is simple, in line with their industrial-utilitarian character, and usually restricted to window arches, sills or banding.

The office building of the Medina Works was the first to use mass-produced wire-cut bricks in combination with white render not elsewhere found in the area. Wire-cut bricks and Flettons have also been used for the post-war Faircharm Estate Buildings, at the earlier buildings fronting Creekside (Building A and C) laid in a traditional English and Flemish bond.

The red brick used at the Crossfield Estate is the most commonly used for LCC housing estates of that time, displaying wide colour variations that add more to the aesthetic appeal of these buildings than is normally appreciated.

The use of stone copings for the piers at the entrance to Evelyn Wharf is notable, indicating that this once constituted an entrance for a much more substantial industrial premises. Stone cladding is used for the magnificent piers to the bridge and form part of the listed railway viaduct.

The DLR railway, the Creekside Education Centre and the recent extension to the APT building are bold additions to the area, not just as feat of modern engineering but in their use of distinctively modern materials such as concrete, cedar cladding and galvanised steel.

Windows and Doors The simple detailing of most of the industrial buildings and of the Crossfield Estate makes the windows and doors naturally the most dominant features of the elevations. Traditionally these are timber joinery for the non-industrial buildings, usually sash or casement windows, and timber-panelled doors. The original sash windows have been retained at the Birds Nest Pub and No. 4 Creekside, while the Georgian-type windows of the Crossfield Estate have all been replaced with uPVC windows that at least reflect the original glazing pattern. Page 147 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 65 Industrial buildings have predominantly metal or Crittall windows, sometimes also metal doors, although these are usually modern replacements. The building between Evelyn Wharf and Harold Wharf, which pre-dates most of the other industrial buildings, has cast- iron windows. Windows tend to be large, either of horizontal or vertical emphasis, and subdivided into small-scale panes by slim glazing bars. They are distinctive to the industrial character of the area.

Metal Features

The use of metal is of note and associated with past and present industrial uses of the area. It is most noticeable in the traditional industrial-type windows and as roofing material, where it has been used for its cheapness. There are a number of other features, many of which have no aesthetic pretensions but are nonetheless true to the character of the area. They include the metal gates to most of the industrial premises, external metal stairs or individual features such as the loading bay constructed of steel beams to the rear of the APT building, or the water tank on the Faircharm Estate. Metal in form of galvanised steel has recently been given greater prominence with the extension to the APT building and the railings to the Creekside Education Centre, although the galvanised finish has no historic tradition.

Metal structures such as the water tank, loading bay and the crane are characteristic features in historic industrial area. Regrettably, in 2009 the crane had to be taken down for safety reasons despite efforts by the owners to find funding for its retention.

Page 148 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 66 Roofscape

The roofscape of the area can be fully appreciated in long views from the DLR. As a single-phase development, the Crossfield Estate stands out in scale and common roofline to all buildings with pantile hipped roofs. The roofscape and finishes of the industrial part are much more varied and reflect the organic growth of the area. The most common shape is the pitched or hipped roof, accounting for most buildings on the Faircharm Estate and the historic industrial buildings at the southern end of Creekside. Most of the remaining roofs are flat roofed. There is a wide variety of roofing materials, many of which are of a rather poor quality, such asphalt, metal sheeting, concrete pantiles and asbestos. Perhaps common to all is the predominant matt finish of the materials. The flat roofs at the Art Hub studios have been provided with lantern lights while most warehouses of a deeper footprint have bands of rooflights to provide natural lighting.

Boundaries

High brick boundaries enclosing the industrial premises towards the street shape much of the way Creekside is experienced as a pedestrian and greatly contribute to the character of the area. Access drives and entrances are often marked by piers with copings, a particular good example of which is the entrance to Evelyn Wharf. Most of the walls have simple brick on edge copings or use engineering bricks with rounded edges.

At the residential premises, boundaries are generally low and tend to be built in brick or railings, or a combination of the two. They are an integral feature to the Crossfield Estate used to separate public spaces from semi-public spaces.

The modern railings to the Creekside Education Centre with the beautifully designed gate have become a key feature to the area, introducing a greater sense of permeability to the area as has historically been the case while making references to the local tradition in the reclaimed stock brick for the piers.

Historic paving

The area possesses valuable survivals of elements of historic streetscape. Creekside has retained long stretches of historic granite kerbs while many of the smaller premises and wharfs are noticeable for the survival of granite setts, usually at the crossovers. Evelyn Wharf has had granite setts preserved that cover nearly the entire service yard. Other yards have mainly modern floor treatments, although granite setts may still be in existence underneath. These elements make an important contribution to the character of the area and should be uncovered and retained wherever possible.

River-related structures and furniture

The Creek is embanked throughout, traditionally with timber or brick walls with wooden fenders Page 149 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 67 that protected ship and barges against damage as they pulled into the dock. Many of the th traditional walls were replaced in the 20 century with steel pile sheeting, although some large section have now been re-instated in timber under previous regeneration schemes. Some of the most historic and unchanged parts around Theatre Wharf, Evelyn Wharf, Harold Wharf and the wharf at the Faircharm Estate have large sections lined in stock brick dating from the th 19 century, one part of it, at the Faircharm Estate with masonry footings). Stone copings th within the walls indicate the historic height of the walls which was raised in the 20 century for flood protection. A number of features relating to previous uses, such as mooring rings and hooks, also survive, some of which are kept in continued use by the present river users.

The visually most prominent river-related structure is no doubt the railway lifting bridge, a key feature and local landmark of the area. The section of the river bed underneath has been lined with masonry, which is not found elsewhere within the Creek. The stones are not keyed into the neater masonry finish of the present bridge structure and in some cases stones appear to have been smashed at the junction with the abutments, which could indicate that the bed pre- dates the present bridge piles and was probably related to the first railway bridge of 1838.

Left: Historic granite setts and kerb at Greenwich MOT

Right: The fading sign of Evelyn Wharf and the historic street sign of ‘Creek Street’ painted on the wall of the workshop building at Evelyn Wharf

Page 150 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 68 Murals and Graffiti

Since the 1980s the area has had a tradition of buildings and structures being embellished with artworks, usually in form of murals and graffiti. Early examples are mainly in or around the Crossfield Estate e. g. the elevation of the ‘Pink Palace’ at Frankham House, the murals at Cremer House or the ‘Love over Gold’ mural at the Cockpit Arts building. Since the transformation of Creekside into an art hub, graffiti that advertises the creative spirit of the area now covers significant parts of the Faircharm Industrial Estate’s front elevation and extends to other structures in the area, and has become an established part of the appearance of the area.

(Selection of pictures inserted at Desk Top Publishing stage)

Page 151 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 69 7 Condition of the conservation area and opportunities for enhancement

The character area appraisal focuses mainly on the positive aspects of the conservation area, although the area contains a number of key sites and features whose enhancement could significantly contribute to strengthening the character and appearance of the area.

The Gibbes / Skill Centre Island in its present form makes a negative contribution to the area and the sympathetic and sustainable re-development of this historically so important site has the potential to significantly enhance the appearance of the southern end of the Creek. Next to it at Theatre Wharf , to the right of the ‘Big Red’ bus, historic maps show that there was once open access and views onto the Creek from Church Street. An improvement to the present boundary and better accessibility to the water edge could re-instate this historic viewpoint onto the Creek.

At the entrance to Creekside, the green strip of land east of Church Street is the remainder of the 19 th century properties that were cleared in the 1970s for the widening of the street. It’s unkempt appearance and lack of context detracts from the area and the sensitive landscaping or re-development that would re-create a proper enclosure to Church Street could bring about a great enhancement to the streetscene.

The metal sheet structure that partly encloses and covers the remainder of the former Addey Street between Greenwich MOT and the Medina Works is of no significance to the area and makes a neutral contribution. The site presents an opportunity for creating a north-south link from the Crossfield Estate to Creekside, thus re-instating the historic street pattern, or sensitive re-development.

The widening of Deptford Church Street in the 1970s and change into a dual carriageway has isolated Creekside (the area) from the rest of Deptford ever since. Any landscaping measures that could mitigate this effect would be of benefit to the appearance of the conservation area as to the wider area.

Some street surfaces are in need of sympathetic repair and renewal. Where historic materials such as granite kerbstones and granite setts survive in situ, great care should be taken that these are retained and appropriately repaired. At a number of service yards, granite setts appear to survive underneath modern surface treatments. Their uncovering is actively encouraged. Granite kerbs should be restored where they have been replaced in concrete. Some pedestrian areas have been laid in concrete block paving, and these should be replaced with paving of a more appropriate design and material when the opportunity arises.

Lack of maintenance is evident in the wharfs and premises at the southern end of Creekside, notably the lack of pointing. Many of the historic metal windows are also in need of repair. Poor quality windows, such as those inserted at residential building at Greenwich MOT, detract from the character of the area. The character of No. 2 Creekside (former Sun Wharf) is affected by the stacked containers behind the former entrance to the

Page 152 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 70 wharf and the area could be much enhanced by a sympathetic infill that could provide a permanent space to accommodate the present uses on the site.

Restoration of historic painted signs (e.g. Evelyn Wharf) or the re-instatement of lost key features, such as the crane at Harold Wharf, could help to strengthen the character and distinctiveness of the area.

The Crossfield Estate offers the opportunities for a number of improvements, notably the rationalisation of recent signage, restoration of original features such as the metal and ceramic estate signage, better management of refuse and car parking arrangements, more appropriate lighting/paving and provision of secure cycle parking. The elegant LCC crest and name of the estate pictured on page 50 is a key feature and should be restored with its original paint colours, which have long faded. The natural environment of the Creek has been suffering over the last decade due a lack of strategic overview and commitment to environmental responsibilities, putting even the Creek’s most famous protected species, the Black Redstart, at risk. Future management proposals for the area should seek to ensure that the protection and enhancement of the conservation area and economic and social improvements are sought jointly with improvements to the natural environment, and appropriate mitigation measures are put in place in new development.

Page 153 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 71 8 Sources and References

Bibliography and References

(The current version only lists sources that have been referenced within the text. A full bibliography will be provided after adoption of the document)

London Development Agency (LDA) 2009, Heritage scoping study of Deptford Creek (written by Edmund Bird)

Phillpotts, C, 1997, Deptford Creek. Archaeological desk-based assessment Steele, J, 1993, Turning the tide. The history of everyday Deptford

Steele, J (ed), 1999, Deptford Creek. Surviving Regeneration

Wright, M, 1990, Rock around Lewisham

Guidance Documents

Conservation Principles, Policies, and Guidance (English Heritage 2008) Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management (English Heritage 2011)

Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments – Principles and Practice (English Heritage 2010)

9 Useful Contacts (A full list will be provided after adoption of the document)

Page 154 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 72 Appendix A

Significance and values As recommended in English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies, and Guidance , published in 2008, the significance of heritage assets is articulated as the sum of their heritage values. These can be considered under four principal headings: • Evidential value: the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.

• Historical value: the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present – it tends to be illustrative or associative.

• Aesthetic value: the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place. • Communal value: the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.

Pier and boundary wall at Evelyn Wharf

Page 155 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 73

Page 156 Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Appraisal – Draft for Adoption – Part II Page 74 Appendix 3:

Deptford Creekside Conservation Area Consultation Report

1. Introduction

This document serves as a record of the consultation undertaken by the London Borough of Lewisham on the proposed designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area and the Conservation Area Appraisal (the Appraisal) that had been drafted in support of the designation.

The consultation report sets out the following

• Which stakeholders were invited to make representations • How stakeholders were invited to make representations • A summary of the main issues raised by those representations • A considered response and list of associated actions to amend the appraisal and boundaries, where appropriate .

Consultation process

The public consultation was carried out in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement and took place during the period from 5 December 2011 to 27 January 2012.

A consultation letter including a questionnaire was distributed to all residents and stakeholders within the proposed conservation area. The leaflet, questionnaire and character appraisal were also made available for consultation on the Council’s website, Lewisham Planning Information Desk, Lewisham Reference Library and locally accessible places such as Creekside Education Centre and the APT gallery at Creekside. The letter was sent or e-mailed directly to the landowners and amenity groups and bodies with an interest in the heritage of the area, including English Heritage, The Greater London Authority, Creekside Education Centre, The Creekside Forum, The Crossfields TRA, Deptford Dame, Friends of Deptford Creek, Greenwich Council, The Greenwich Industrial History Society and the Lewisham Local History Society.

The consultation letter outlined the proposals and the implications of designation, and included a map and a short summary of the special interest of the area. In the attached questionnaire, stakeholders were asked whether they agree in principle with the proposal, whether they agree with the proposed boundaries and whether they feel that the Appraisal accurately described the character of the area.

The latest English Heritage guidance highlights the importance of considering the values attributed to the area by the local community and all those with a stakeholder interest when defining the special interest of the area. As part of the above questionnaire, stakeholders were also asked about the values they place on the buildings and the area and any other comments they wish to make.

A local drop-in session was held on Saturday, 7th January 2012 at the Creekside Education Centre, where Council officers were present to answer questions. The workshop was well attended, with approximately 26 people taking part in the discussions and seek further information. Officers also met with representatives of the Creekside

Appendix 3 Page 157 Page - 1 - Education Centre, the Faircharm Tenants Group and the Crossfields Tenants and Residents Association on request to explain the implications of designation.

2. Responses to the consultation The Council received 112 responses in relation to the proposed Deptford Creekside Conservation Area.

99 responses supported the proposal, 10 objected to the proposal, 2 were classified as observations providing further information, 1 was classified as invalid.

The main issues raised in this consultation are set out in the table below and include a considered response as to how these have been addressed, including actions for amendments to the Appraisal or the boundary, where appropriate.

2.1 Principle of Designation 99 of the representations received, i.e. 89 %, supported the designation of the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area. 10 respondents objected to the proposals.

In terms of responses to the principle of designation, there is a clear division between the landowners on the one side objecting to the designation and the community living, working or generally interested in the area supporting the designation. Six major landowners/leaseholders object to the designation of the area in principle or wish to see the boundaries amended to see their property excluded. Four more similar objections from members of the public were received. One of these is an objection solely on the grounds that Frankham House was not included in the proposed conservation area. Since the boundary has now been amended to include this building, it can be presumed that this objection has been overcome.

Comments in support of the principle of designation

Creekside Education Trust

Delighted about the proposals. Noted. NFA

Greenwich Conser vation Group .

Support the designation in the hope that this might Noted, although officers would like act as a useful planning tool for the evaluation of to point out that the case for future development on the east side of the Creek designation is first and foremost and encourage Greenwich Council in taking a based on the special interest of the more holistic approach towards development area and not merely for the purpose along the Creek involving both boroughs. of having an additional planning tool for new development within its setting.

Appendix 3 Page 158 Page - 2 - English Heritage

• Notes the significance of the Deptford Creek Noted. Appraisal to be amended to as an unusual topographical feature in itself, include reference to significance in its history of river-related use and as an area regional context. that contains remainders of past river-related industry; significance not just for Lewisham but in a regional context.

• Considers that little remains within Lewisham’s boundaries to acknowledge the important contribution that the River Thames and Deptford Creek to the industrial landscape of this part of London.

• Agrees with assessment that conservation area encompasses the only surviving river- related industrial quarter of integrity and coherence, not just within Deptford but Lewisham as a whole.

• Considers this to be a good ground to consider this as an area of special historical, if not necessarily architectural, interest worthy of designation as a conservation area.

Faircharm Tenants Group

• The group, representing 36 tenants on the The support is welcomed. The Faircharm Trading Estate, has specifically present uses on the Faircharm been formed to lend support to Lewisham Estate are considered to make an Council for the designation of the proposed important contribution to the present Creekside Conservation Area and bring to character of the area, although the attention the wealth of industries located in criteria for designation are solely the Faircharm special architectural and historic interest of the area.

• Consider Creekside a unique and cultural area.

• Want to save the area from threat of constant Conservation Area designation does re-development, which would dilute the artistic not put a stop to development but in and historic character of the neighbourhood. any proposals due weight needs to be given to Conservation and the desirability to preserve and enhance.

Lewisham Local History Society

• Greatly welcomes the addition to the existing Noted. NFA. conservation areas within Lewisham.

Appendix 3 Page 159 Page - 3 - Considers Creekside to be an important semi- industrial area of Deptford;

Feels that it would be a useful addition to the existing conservation areas, most of which do not reflect the industrial history of the borough.

Greater London Authority (GLA)

• Delighted to see the Council taking their Noted. initiative for the heritage protection of the area further and drawing up concrete proposals for the statutory protection and enhancement.

• Considers the area to be a very distinct and diverse working class neighbourhood and the heritage of Creekside to create a powerful sense of place and a special character worthy of conservation area designation

• Points out that the type and character of the area is a fast disappearing heritage in London and elsewhere.

Individua ls and Stakeholders

• Preserve Deptford’s industrial buildings along Noted. the Creek to maintain sense of place and identity and for future generations to enjoy

• History and diversity of Creekside should be preserved

• Creekside should be made a conservation area. Wishes to see Creekside saved from inappropriate development. There is enough regeneration going on in Greenwich.

• A real chance for Deptford to retain some of its historic and creative / cultural heritage, especially close to Greenwich. Should not be replaced with flats and usual high street retailer. Chance of regenerating the area while retaining its identity should be taken. A long term investment that could change Deptford’s reputation.

Appendix 3 Page 160 Page - 4 -

Objections to the principle of designation

1 freeholder and 1 long leaseholder, Nos. 5-9 Creekside (know as Art Hub and Framework Gallery)

• The property is not characteristic for the As part of a former thriving waste industrial heritage of the area. The current art trading business, the site is in many space use bears no relation to the historic respects representative of the less uses. glamorous Industry that was traditionally located in Deptford. The change of use as such is not a relevant consideration, although it is important to note that the new uses have maintained the integrity and appearance of the buildings and also contribute to the current character of the area. NFA.

• The buildings to not make any positive Officers consider that the site has contribution to the character and appearance evidential value and the buildings of the area and have no value or any positively contribute to the character significance that would justify their inclusion in and townscape of the area. a conservation area. Action: Appraisal to be amended to further specify the significance of the buildings at No. 5-9 Creekside, including highlighting the contribution made by individual buildings on the Townscape Appraisal Map.

• The current rents do not allow for investment The state of repair of a building and in the buildings. The land could, if re- lack of maintenance, or the developed for mixed uses, contribute much aspirations for re-development, are more to the economic vibrancy of the area. not a relevant consideration when deciding whether an area meets the criteria for designation. Conservation area designation does not put a stop to development but due weight needs to be given to Conservation. NFA.

• Consider that designating a conservation area Officers consider that conservation could impede rather than facilitate the area designation can assist in regeneration of the area. They would like to achieving regeneration that see the comprehensive redevelopment for maintains and builds on the existing mixed use purposes in attractive modern character. The forthcoming buildings. Creekside SPD will provide further guidance and highlight opportunities for change. NFA.

Appendix 3 Page 161 Page - 5 - • The historic character has been undermined Officers do not consider that the by the DLR and the Skill Centre, and the dual impact of the DLR, the Skill Centre carriage way and unsympathetic alterations to and the dual-carriage way, or the older commercial buildings. unsympathetic alterations to buildings have undermined the area’s character and special interest to an extent that it would not qualify for protection and enhancement. Elements that detract from the significance of the area and opportunities for enhancement are set out in Chapter 7 of the Appraisal. NFA.

• Feel that the Crossfield Estate is not unique The Appraisal describes the Estate and comprehensive redevelopment of the as one in many respects standard estate could bring about improvements to the LCC 1930s housing development. residents e.g. more spacious and energy- The special interest of the Estate efficient flats derives from its historic interest and evidential and communal value to the Borough of Lewisham. NFA.

A.P.T (Owner of Harold Wharf, 6 Creekside)

• Additional controls afforded by conservation Officers consider that the physical area designation are inherently incompatible protection of the buildings of the with the artists’ and creative businesses’ area and the continued use by freedom to occupy low market value buildings artists and the creative industry are without any interference. not contradictions. The predominance of creative uses is recognised as making an important contribution to the character of the area. Conservation area designation does not prevent buildings being adapted and changed to suit the needs of their users.

• Conservation Area designation might Designation can affect land values, accelerate the inevitable process of although this is a phenomenon gentrification of the area, as land values and usually related to residential areas rents might rise. This would make the area and would not necessarily apply to unaffordable for new businesses. Creekside, which is allocated employment land.

• The Crossfield Estate does not warrant Officers consider that the uPVC designation as it has been aesthetically replacement windows have not compromised by the insertion of uPVC eradicated the estate’s architectural windows. interest altogether. Crossfield’s special interest also derives from its historic interest and evidential and communal value to the Borough of Lewisham.

Appendix 3 Page 162 Page - 6 - • Feels that since the future of the building is The appreciation by owners of the secured by its present owners who appreciate qualities of their own buildings is a the qualities of the building and conserve it, welcome and important factor in the considers that no further protection is needed future management of the area. The designation however aims to afford protection to the character of the wider area, of which the APT building is only one, though important, component.

• Consider that since the main areas of historic Officers consider that conservation fabric cited in the Document are the Crossfield area designation provides the best Estate and the south end of Creekside from and most appropriate means for the Harold Wharf (APT) to the Bird’s Nest pub, the conservation and enhancement of area is so small that it could be adequately the area. Whether large or small, preserved as part of the Local Plan. existing policies in the Council’s Core Strategy do not offer the same level of protection.

Lewisham College (Owner of Gibbes/Skill Centre Island, part of the Lewisham College Deptford Campus, historically Mill Wharf))

• Object to the proposed boundaries on grounds The Appraisal highlights that the that the conservation area appraisal does not island has special archeological and give a compelling case to justify the inclusion historic interest. of their site.

• The historic significance of the site is not The historical value of the site sufficiently explained and the conservation derives by its association with the area appraisal overstates the significance of Tide Mill and its successors and the Gibbes Island. early occupation around Deptford Bridge. This is set out in the Chapter 3 of the Appraisal.

Action: Appraisal to be amended to further explain the special archaeological and historic interest the Island.

• The Island is physically and visually separated The island is an integral and from the rest of the proposed conservation distinctive landscape feature of the area to the north and should be excluded. The Creek and immediate setting to the use is different, and the boundaries should be wharves to the north. The differing redrawn to match the Site Allocation map for use and site allocation are not the Creekside local employment location, relevant considerations when which excludes Mill Wharf. deciding whether an area meets the criteria for designation.

Appendix 3 Page 163 Page - 7 - • The Gibbes Island site is already afforded the Officers consider that conservation necessary planning guidance and protection area designation provides the best by other Core Strategy Objectives and and most appropriate means for the Policies, and therefore there is no need for conservation, enhancement and additional restrictions on demolition of poor- future management of the area. The quality buildings . existing Core Strategy objectives and policies do not offer the same level of protection. The appraisal has highlighted opportunities for beneficial change, such as the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island.

Lewisham Homes (Leaseholder Crossfield Estate)

• Consider the Estate not to be of special The Appraisal sets out the special interest, but a typical GLC inter-war ‘walk-up’ historic interest of the Estate, its development. Buildings have lost their original architectural merits and windows, thus other examples might be more considerable communal value. suitable for CA designation. Officers consider that the loss of the original windows has not unduly affected its aesthetic appeal.

• Prefer the Estate not to be made a CA as this The possibility of any increased might increase costs for future external maintenance costs is not a relevant refurbishment works. However, LH have no consideration when deciding plans for any external works in the near future whether an area meets the criteria and increase in cost is not a pressing concern. for designation, but future management guidelines for the Estate will seek to balance the needs of the social housing estate and conservation requirements.

• Suspect that many leaseholders might be The enthusiastic response with particularly concerned about an increase in which the proposals have been costs and might oppose the designation as a received show that there is great CA for this reason support for the designation from the tenants and leaseholders who in numerous comments and the petition to include Frankham House have shown a genuine interest and sense of pride in their estate.

Workspace (Owner of Faircharm Industrial Estate, Nos. 8-12 Creekside)

• Conservation area designation is unjustified: The Appraisal describes the history, there is too little historic fabric and insufficient fabric and character of the area and architectural and/or historic interest and of the heritage values that can be special interest within it. ascribed to the place and what makes it special in the context of Lewisham. The interpretation of the evidence and definition of the area’s significance appears to be a matter of divided expert opinions .

Appendix 3 Page 164 Page - 8 - • Conservation area designation is unjustified Officers consider that the area has because of lack of coherence of the area and some coherence. Notwithstanding in terms of heritage assets it actually contains that, coherence and the number of heritage assets an area may contain can add to its interest but are not the only determining factor.

• The area could be appropriately safeguarded Officers consider that conservation with the proposed SPD for the area, without area designation provides the best resorting to conservation area designation. and most appropriate means for the conservation, enhancement and future management of the area. The SPD can be a useful management tool, but does not offer the same level of protection.

• The Faircharm Estate and the Gibbes / Skill For the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island Centre Island (part of Lewisham College see above. Officers consider that Deptford Campus) do not contain any the Faircharm Trading Estate has buildings or landscape features of significant evidential value and that the architectural or historic value. buildings positively contribute to the character and townscape of the area. The contribution of Building B has been given further consideration and been amended.

Action: Appraisal to be amended to add a Townscape Appraisal Map that identifies the contribution made by individual buildings.

• The Council is seeking to use conservation The designation is for the purpose area designation to achieve other, non- of protecting a distinctive heritage related planning objectives, i.e. to neighbourhood which in officers’ support the emergence of Deptford Creekside professional view meets the as a creative industries hub. This would be statutory criteria for designation. contrary to emerging national policy as set out Designation for other, non-heritage in Draft National Planning Policy Guidelines. related reasons would be contrary to existing guidance and unlawful under current legislation.

Individuals/ Stakeholders

• There is no access to the Creek and therefore The Creek is visible from a number no public enjoyment of the area. of vantage points and can be regularly accessed in form of organised walks. The enthusiastic response to the public consultation is an indication of public appreciation of the Creek, many members of which consider it as a unique feature.

Appendix 3 Page 165 Page - 9 - • Frankham House has not been included in the Frankham House is proposed for proposed conservation area. inclusion following the comments received by the community.

• The area needs some development – this can Officers consider that conservation be controlled through the normal planning area designation does not prevent process to protect historically important new development. elements of the area.

2.2 Boundaries 27 % of respondents did not agree with the proposed boundaries. The majority of respondents wished to see the boundaries of the conservation area to be extended to include further areas of its setting. The landowners who objected to the principle of designation tended to combine this with a request to have their respective properties excluded.

Requests for further inclusions

7 Individuals / Stakeholders and CET

Add Sue Godfrey Nature Reserve and the Ferranti Historic map progression shows that Park north of Bronze Street the area is of historic and archaeological interest, being the site of the Trinity Almshouses (1672-1877) and some significant early industries and a pottery producing the Deptford Ware for which the town became noted. The site potentially holds some significant archaeological deposits that could contribute to the understanding of the development of settlement and land-uses in Deptford. As such, officers consider its inclusion within the conservation area as justified.

Action: Extend boundary to add the Sue Godrey Nature Reserve and Ferranti Park. Appraisal to be amended to describe the area and its significance.

Appendix 3 Page 166 Page - 10 - 16 Individuals, Creekside Education Trust , and Petition of 36 residents of Frankham House

• Add Frankham House (FH) Officers considered that the area to the east of Deptford Church Street • FH is the centre for the Crossfield community illustrates best the historically close i.e. Pink Palace, which is the venue for all relationship in Deptford between important (TRA) meetings and decisions working class housing and industry, and how the Crossfield Estate • Omitting FH from the conservation area is conforms and is architecturally illogical and would undermine sense of distinct from other 1930s LCC community housing estates. In view of the comments, Frankham House • FH is as integral part of the Estate – undoubtedly has strong social value architecturally, historically, culturally, visually within the context of the estate and and socially; do not want to see the building on its own merits that would justify excluded because it falls on the wrong side of its inclusion. Deptford Church Street and for reasons that inclusion might affect the current proposals for Action: Boundary to be extended to Deptford Church Street the west of Deptford Church Street to include Frankham House in the proposed conservation area. Appraisal to be amended to describe the relative significance of Frankham House.

2 Individuals / Stakeholders , English Heritage and GLA

Include the Cockpit Arts Centre: Officers consider that the premises north of the railways lack the • The 1960s building is a building of some townscape quality and special architectural interest in its own right. historic interest that would justify their inclusion. The contribution of • The uses it provides (studios for artists) make the Cockpit Arts building to the area a positive contribution to the creative character is recognised, and this will be of the area. highlighted in the forthcoming Creekside SPD that will guide the • EH: the building also has a degree of future management of the area. evidential value to the significant change in the entrepreneurial focus of the area (i.e. from an area of river-related industrial activity to one that is based on creative industry) that would justify its inclusion.

Appendix 3 Page 167 Page - 11 - 3 Individuals and English Heritage

• Extend boundaries to include the Laban With the exception of the Cockpit Dance Centre. Arts Centre and the Laban Dance Centre, the industrial premises north • EH: Include the Laban Dance Centre, since it of the railways consist mainly of is a building of architectural significance modern warehousing and wasteland (winner of the Sterling Prize in 2003) and and lack the townscape qualities powerful evidence of the way Creekside has and historic interest of the area to changed over recent years. the south. Officers consider that the protection of key features could be sufficiently addressed in the forthcoming Creekside SPD. The Laban Dance Centre is highlighted in the Appraisal as a key building outside the conservation area.

1 Individual

Include 18 th century buildings next to Laban. See above.

4 Individuals / Stakeholders and CET

Add old Tidemill School. The proposed boundaries focus on the remaining Creekside industrial heritage and the Crossfield Estate. The heritage value and significance of the old Tidemill School within the context of the evolution of Deptford will be investigated within the next review of the Deptford High Street Conservation Area.

3 Individuals / Stakeholders and CET

• Add old Tidemill ‘Greened’ Area. The area historically contained early th 19 century working class houses • CET: The area has an ongoing loss of wildlife that were cleared within the context habitat. Areas such as the nature park to the of the LCC’s slum clearances. rear of the Old Tidemill School are becoming Although it has developed into a increasingly valuable. nature park, the area does not seem to have any particular heritage value. Officers consider that inclusion on grounds of its value as wildlife habitat alone would not justify the area’s inclusion in the proposed conservation area.

Appendix 3 Page 168 Page - 12 - 1 Individual

Add green opposite (diagonally) the Birds Nest The area will be included as part of Pub. the amenity space associated with Frankham House.

Action: Boundary to be extended to include the green space at the corner of Deptford Church Street/Reginald Road. Appraisal to be amended to include description of this area.

1 Individual

Add open space immediately to the north of The open space is the remainder of Frankham House. historic properties that lined the western side of Deptford Church Street until their demolition for the widening of Deptford Church Street. The buildings and historic boundaries have all gone and officers consider that there is no particular heritage value that can be assigned to the area.

1 Individual

Add St. Paul’s Church and Green Space to the The area is within the boundaries of south of the Church. the St. Paul’s Conservation Area.

1 Individual

Add Deptford High Street to the conservation The High Street is within the area. boundaries of the Deptford High Street Conservation Area.

Requests for exclusion

4 landowners / 2 long -leaseholders

Exclude Gibbes (Skill Centre) Island, Nos. 5-9 See above under ‘Objections to the Creekside, Harold Wharf (6 Creekside), the principle of designation’ Faircharm Trading Estate, and the Crossfield Estate

Appendix 3 Page 169 Page - 13 - 1 Individual

Boundaries are too expansive and cover too large Based on the characterisation study an area. (the Appraisal) officers consider the proposed boundaries appropriate. The Appraisal explains what is of special interest to the area and the significance of individual sites.

2.3 Accuracy of the Conservation Area Appraisal

87 per cent of the respondents agreed that the Appraisal accurately described the character of the area. A number of amendments were made as a result of public and internal consultation and these are highlighted in blue within the appraisal (Appendix 3).

Summary of main issues How the main issues have been taken into consideration

Positive comments

GLA

• Considers the Appraisal most comprehensive, Noted. No further action. well-written and well-researched;

• Gives excellent account of historic evolution of this interesting district;

• Assesses in great depth the economic and social history of Creekside;

• Identification of character areas, account of prevailing building materials, and identification of features that detract are well documented;

• Excellent analysis;.

• Makes a convincing case for the designation of this conservation area, demonstrating its clear special historic and architectural interest.

Individuals / Stakeholders

• Amazing character appraisal. The promotion Noted. No further action. of (Deptford’s) long history has made it all the more fascinating to work here

• Appraisal has greatly enhanced the knowledge of the area.

• Well written.

Appendix 3 Page 170 Page - 14 -

Actual and presumed inaccuracies

1 freeholder and 1 long leaseholders of Nos. 5 - 9 Creekside (know as Art Hub and Framework Gallery)

• The Appraisal does not paint a true picture of Officers genuinely consider the DLR, the character of the area as it does not albeit of great impact, to be an adequately mention the (negative) impact of elegant structure that crosses the the DLR and dual carriageway and alterations Creek in a complementary way. to the existing buildings that has led to an Areas for improvement are unattractive appearance. highlighted in Chapter 7 of the Appraisal. The appearance of the area and buildings are generally not considered to be unattractive.

Action: Appraisal to amended to note Deptford Church Street as an item for enhancement in Chapter 7.

APT • Take exception to the statement made in the Noted. Appraisal that the recent removal of the crane of Harold Wharf is ‘the most regrettable loss in Action: Appraisal to be amended to recent years’ . state: ‘In 2009 the crane had to be taken down for safety reasons despite efforts by the owner to find funding for its retention.’

Creekside Education Trust

• Creek walls should be noted as important The Creek walls are described in historic assets. Lack of recognition has led to Chapter 6 under ‘River-related destruction of the traditional wooden London structures and furniture’. flood walls in the northern part of the Creek.

• Chapter 4 Natural Environment: Add that Noted. Creek has suffered due to lack of strategic approach and failure to adequately consider Action: Appraisal to be amended to the needs of wildlife. raise this particular issue in Chapter 7: Condition of the conservation area and opportunities for enhancement.

• New developments have failed to improve Noted. access, increase moorings and improve wildlife habitat e.g. Galliard Homes The forthcoming SPD for the area development on the Greenwich side. will provide guidance on these issues. No further action.

• Much of the character and landscape around Noted. No further action. the Creek has been destroyed over the last quarter century, particularly in the northern

Appendix 3 Page 171 Page - 15 - part of the Creek

• Features that have been removed without Noted. No further action. permission include the sunken wooden vessels in the Creek which had importance as island habitat.

English Heritage and GLA

• Appraisal should include a map or list that identifies buildings that make a positive, Noted. neutral or negative contribution to the character and appearance of the proposed Action: Appraisal to amended to conservation area. include a Townscape Appraisal Map that sets out the contribution made by individual buildings and structures.

English Heritage

• A summary of special interest should be set at The special interest is summarised the beginning of the Appraisal. under the Heading ‘Heritage Significance’ within the Introduction.

Action: Appraisal to be amended to have a Summary of Special Interest at the beginning as preamble to the document.

• Houseboats along the southern reach of the Noted. Creek and their contribution to the character of the area should be mentioned. Action: Appraisal to be amended to describe contribution of houseboats.

Lewisham College

• The Appraisal wrongly identifies the DLR as Officers genuinely consider the DLR, an elegant i.e. positive structure. The DLR is albeit of great impact, to be an an intrusive structure on the skyline and elegant structure that crosses the creates a visual barrier to the appreciation of Creek in a complementary way. the coherence of the Creekside area. Action: Appraisal to be amended to state that the DLR affects the legibility of the southern part of the Creek.

• The Appraisal overstates the significance of The Appraisal highlights that the the Island. The island is of low significance island has special archeological and compared to the rest of the proposed historic interest. It also notes that the conservation area. It does not contribute to the current structures on the Island do character of the area and the buildings are of not make a positive contribution and no special architectural interest. that their replacement presents an opportunity for enhancement.

Action: Appraisal to be amended to

Appendix 3 Page 172 Page - 16 - further explain the special archaeological and historic interest the Island.

• The Appraisal fails to mention the need to The need to mitigate the negative mitigate the negative impact of the rail lines effects of the railways as set out in i.e. the DLR as has been identified in the the Character Study refers to the Lewisham Borough Wide Character Study Victorian rail lines which have 2010, p. 127. impacted on the permeability of certain areas. No further action.

• The site is no longer the Skill Centre Island but The site is still commonly known as should be referred to as The Asquith Gibbes ‘Skill Centre Island’ and appears as Building, Lewisham College Deptford Campus such on the current OS maps. or Gibbes Island Action: Text to be amended throughout to refer to the site as Gibbes / Skill Centre Island (historically Mill Wharf)

• Areas suitable and expected to be The forthcoming SPD and redeveloped should be highlighted against management plan for the area will those that unlikely to change. The Appraisal include relevant references. should make reference to the probability of further significant change in the lower Creekside area.

• Late 20 th and early 21 st century development Noted. should be acknowledged and described as part of the wider landscape setting of the Action: Galliard Homes development southern area of the Creek to be acknowledged in the introductory part under Location, boundaries and setting.

• The Appraisal should reference the emphasis The forthcoming SPD and of the Core Strategy policies on the management plan for the area will regeneration of the area; particularly include relevant references. encourage the improvement of Lewisham College

• The word ‘sensitive’ with regard to the re- Noted. development of the Gibbes / Skill Centre Island (Mill Wharf) is ambiguous and Action: Appraisal to be amended to unnecessary and should be omitted. replace ‘sensitive’ with ‘sustainable and sympathetic’. GLA

• Appraisal should further elaborate on the key This has been referred to in Chapter construction of the London & Greenwich 3 (History) and in Chapter 4 in the railway. relevant section about the railways.

• Description of Ha’penny bridge should be The bridge is being considered for extended. local listing and a full description will be added as appendix to the

Appendix 3 Page 173 Page - 17 - Appraisal following the adoption of the bridge as Building of Local Interest.

• Elaborate on value of Creek as highly Noted. Action: Appraisal to be distinctive ecosystem. amended accordingly.

• Attractive original ceramic name plates on the Noted. Action: Appraisal to be blocks of the Crossfield Estate should be amended accordingly. mentioned as key features.

• DLR viaduct and Victorian railway viaduct The two structures are described in should be mentioned under ‘river-related Chapter 4 ‘Spatial character of the structures’. area’ due to the great impact they exert on the character and appearance of the area. Future Management • Greater emphasis should be placed on the Noted. The SPD will consider the importance of protecting and enhancing the issue of protecting open spaces and existing open spaces and trees trees.

• Need for restoration of original paint colours of Noted. Action: Appraisal to be the LCC crest and name should be mentioned. amended accordingly.

• Need for improving public realm should be Noted. The need for improvements given greater weight. has been highlighted in Chapter 7 and will be considered further in the forthcoming SPD.

• Enhancement section should elaborate on Noted. Action: Chapter 7 of the opportunities within the Crossfield Estate, Appraisal to be amended accordingly including rationalizing of signage, restoring original features, better management of refuse and parking arrangements, more appropriate lighting/paving etc.

• Suggest a material palette for new Noted. The SPD will consider design development that would complement the issues and materials that maintain character of the area. the local distinctiveness of the area.

• Include statement encouraging the re-erection Noted. Action: Chapter 7 of the of a crane on Harold Wharf similar to the one Appraisal to be amended that has been lost. accordingly.

• Metal sheeting between Greenwich MOT and Noted. Action: Chapter 7 of the Medina Works detracts from the character of Appraisal to be amended the area. accordingly.

Appendix 3 Page 174 Page - 18 - Workspace (Faircharm Industrial Estate)

• The Appraisal is based on assertions rather The Appraisal describes the history, than evidence, and is therefore flawed. fabric and character of the area and the heritage values that can be ascribed to the place and what makes it special in the context of Lewisham. The interpretation of the evidence and definition of the area’s significance appears to be a matter of divided expert opinions .

Individuals / stakeholders

• There was a greater variety in the arts Noted. Appraisal to be amended to community of the 1970s and 80s than mention greater diversity of the described in the Appraisal. musician and artist community.

• Appraisal misses the communal value the Noted. Crossfield Estate has for the gay community. In the 1980s, it provided a safe haven for gay Action: Appraisal to be amended to male and lesbians, gay community particularly highlight the social value of the in Frankham House – hence Pink Palace. Crossfield Estate for the gay community and history of tolerance towards sexual orientation of its tenants.

• Fails to recognise Frankham House as part of The boundaries have been amended the Crossfield Estate. to include Frankham House and the Appraisal will be amended to describe the building and its relative significance.

• Other areas worthy of inclusion in the Areas that have been included will conservation area should be described, such be described and the contribution as Frankham House, old Tidemill School, Sue they make to the special interest of Godfrey Nature Reserve, Cockpit Arts building the area highlighted.

• Describing the ‘spatial qualities of the Creek The particular qualities of a etc’ is just jargon and irrelevant as this part of landscape feature do not necessarily the Creek is not visible. depend on full public access and visibility. The distinctive qualities of the Creek are set out in the Appraisal and in the 2010 Ravensbourne River Corridor Improvement Plan. No further action.

Additional information was received on the following topics:

Creekside Education Trust • History of development and management of Noted. the Creek since the Creekside SRB in the late 1990s

Appendix 3 Page 175 Page - 19 - • Management issues of the Creek i.e. lack of Noted. The forthcoming SPD and procedures and communication between the management plan for the area will LPA, Environment Agency, stakeholders and give consideration to these issues. the LPAs regarding works to the Creek, lack of cohesive vision and approach in planning for the future, and failure of Greenwich Council to engage.

• Threat to the Black Redstart along the Thames Noted. The forthcoming SPD and waterfront and Deptford due to lack of management plan for the area will mitigation measures. give consideration to these issues.

GLA • Similarities between the proposed Creekside Noted. CA and the Vauxhall Gardens Estate Conservation Area in LB Lambeth.

Individuals / stakeholders • Lesbian and Gay Identity in Deptford's Noted. Crossfield Estate.

• Cockpit Arts building - history and Noted. architectural interest.

• Community Artists and musicians of the 1970s Noted. and 80s on the Crossfield Estate.

2.4 Value the community places on the area

English Heritage Guidance asks local planning authorities to consider the values the community and other stakeholder place on the area when defining its special interest. The majority of the respondents took up the opportunity enthusiastically, often responding comprehensively and in great detail why and what for the area is special to them.

Many respondents cherish Creekside for the qualities that have been highlighted in the Appraisal, i.e. the area’s history and historic character, the atmosphere of ‘times gone by’, the tranquil green spaces and the Creek. Residents in particular also see the area as a source of their identity, of which many seemed to have become aware of more recently, in response to the significant changes in the area’s surroundings and the redevelopment proposals that have been made public for the Faircharm Estate.

Artists point out the importance of the area for providing affordable workspace and for the network provided by the Cockpit Arts, Faircharm Estate, the Framework Studios and the APT. Three respondents highlight that Creekside has been a particular attraction to their clients and become a ‘brand’ to their business. The establishment of Creekside as an Art Hub and the creative energy it has brought to the area and the community is seen by all stakeholders as one of the major assets of the area.

The Appraisal has highlighted the area’s communal value of the Crossfield Estate for the music scene, although the consultation revealed that the social value of the Estate is more diverse. The gay community claims the Estate as a source of identity due to the history of the Crossfield Estate as a centre for the Deptford gay scene in the 1980s and 90s, and

Appendix 3 Page 176 Page - 20 - residents hold the Estate in high esteem for its long history of diversity and inclusiveness. The Appraisal has been amended to take account of these comments.

General

1 Individual / Stakeholder For its peacefulness.

1 Individual / Stakeholder For all the reasons set out in the Character Appraisal.

3 Individuals / Stakeholders For Creekside’s unique character.

Green space and Nature conservation

10 Individuals / Stakeholders Green open spaces, greenery provided by trees, local wildlife.

6 Individuals / Sta keholders For its unique character provided by the Creek – nature reserve, wildlife conservation.

History

1 Individual / Stakeholder Identifies themselves strongly with the history of the area and feel part of that history.

1 Individual / Stakeho lder Music and social history.

Character and buildings

15 Individuals / Stakeholders For the area’s history and historic character, tradition of living and working, character of existing buildings: unimposing and reflect history of working people and their families and industrial past of Creekside, retains an atmosphere of times gone by.

3 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Historic buildings, often well-built, full of character and well-weathered.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Diverse architecture.

Appendix 3 Page 177 Page - 21 - 1 Individual / Stakeholder Archaeological importance (not fully recognised and exploited yet).

1 Individual / Stakeholder Mix of traditional versatile work spaces.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Buildings are inspiration for his/her creative work.

3 Individual s / Stakeholder s Historic warehouses and how these have contributed to (attracting) a vibrant arts community. Adaptability of spaces is perfect for their present use and still proving the worth of these buildings.

4 Individual s / Stakeh older s Value industrial buildings for the fact that they bring employment for local people.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Faircharm as an industrial estate with the present solid buildings, which should best remain as it is.

2 I ndividuals / Stakeholde rs For the human scale of the existing buildings.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Buildings Nos. 5-9 are a fine example of their era.

2 Individual s / Stakeholder s ‘Looks and feel’ of the area, especially for creative industries. Area doesn’t feel sterile – has become an iconic part of the brand of their business and is an attraction to clients.

2 Individual s / Stakeholder s Distinctive Character created by the diversity of architecture and diversity of uses and businesses located here.

1 Individua l / Stakeholder Landmark and key buildings to the area: Bird’s Nest Pub and Faircharm Estate; architectural fixtures and fittings in the Crossfield Estate, arches to the Victorian railway viaduct, complementary way the DLR has been fitted into the area.

Affordability and Employment

9 Individuals / Stakeholders Affordable working space / employment area.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Potential for live/work space.

Appendix 3 Page 178 Page - 22 - 1 Individual / Stakeholder For the buzz created by this being an employment area.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Employment for local people; makes it a sustainable area.

1 Individual / Stakeholder A nice place to work.

Community

19 Individuals / Stakeholders (incl. For the artist community and creative businesses 1 Tenant for 35 and one for 27 that have established themselves over the last years) few decades and the creativity and vibrancy it has added to the area, interesting collection of talented and skilled people; artist community has brought new lease of life to the area generating interest in the Arts and being instrumental in the regeneration of the area and changing of popular views about Deptford.

6 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Diverse and thriving business, artists and residential community.

1 Individual / Stak eholder Studio culture created by Faircharm studios, APT, Art Hub and Cockpit Arts.

3 Individuals / Stakeholders The thriving creative environment on the Faircharm Estate.

2 I ndividuals / Stakeholders A sustainable community – a place where people live and work without need for commuting, with a real sense of community, belonging and pride.

1 Individual / Stakeholder A village within London, thriving because of its cultural heart.

7 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Special because of its inclusiveness and diversity – age, lifestyle, occupations (artists, traders), balance between ethnicity, cultural and social background.

3 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Links and participation between artists and local community.

Creativity

1 Individual / St akeholder Amazing place for creativity and inspiration

Appendix 3 Page 179 Page - 23 - 1 Individual / Stakeholder For the creative diversity housed in Faircharm – considers it a creative oasis that brings an edge to Deptford by attracting people from all layers of society.

1 Indi vidual / Stakeholder Creative space for artists and small businesses.

2 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Diversity of creative businesses, galleries, studios and interesting mix of companies.

Education

3 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Value the Creekside Centre as an asset for its educational work and promoting community atmosphere.

Location 1 Individuals / Stakeholder A perfect location for his/her business.

Accessibility 2 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Easy access by public transport.

Estat e 2 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Excellent community on the estate.

2 I ndividuals / Stakeholders Neighbourly environment, community spirit.

1 Individual / Stakeholder A great place to live.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Beautiful and safe estate.

1 Individual / Stakeholder Play areas for children.

1 Individual / Stakeholder The fact that residents objected to the installation of security gates but chose planting boxes instead.

2.5 Other comments

Summary of main issues How the main issues h ave been taken into consideration

New development

Appendix 3 Page 180 Page - 24 - • Recent tower blocks added on the Greenwich The Council is in the process of side erode the character of the area. drafting an SPD for the area that will guide new development. It will take • New high rise apartment blocks have a into account the desirability of domineering effect. sustaining and enhancing the significance of the conservation area, • New high rise apartment blocks are exclusive creating (and maintaining) a and unaffordable to existing community. sustainable community and the desirability of new development • New development in the vicinity damages making a positive contribution to the existing community and identity of the area. area’s local distinctiveness.

• Deptford is in danger of over-development i.e. New government guidance in form of Convoys Wharf. the recently-published National Planning Policy Framework (2012) • Residential homes close to the water edge introduces a presumption in favour of would stifle other forms of activity as residents’ sustainable development. One of the amenity tends to take priority. key dimensions of sustainability is protecting and enhancing the historic • Over-development in the area is destroying environment. history of the area.

• Over-development is turning the area into a sea of commuters with no interest in the community.

• Danger of the character and purpose of the Crossfield Estate being swept away as a result of new high-value residential development going up in the surrounding area.

• Recent redevelopment of the riverside has happened without much consideration and ruined the original wharves.

• Buildings of the recent redevelopment projects in the area are too large in scale. Ongoing regeneration is to be welcomed, but only if sympathetic to the unique character of Deptford and Creekside.

Fear of gentrification and displacement of artist community

• Danger of gentrification whereby artist The area is allocated Employment community in cheap warehousing attracts Land and the present uses are trendy mobile City dwellers, subsequent recognised to make a positive development of the area for residential, rising contribution to the character and rents and driving out existing art community as appearance of the area. These are has happened elsewhere. material considerations when assessing any future application for • Area constitutes an amazing creative hub in redevelopment or change of use. SE London. Equivalent areas has been wiped

Appendix 3 Page 181 Page - 25 - out in Islington, Chelsea, Rotherhithe and are under threat in Hackney and the East End.

Regeneration of the area

• The area has importance as an employment See above. area and should not be allowed to turn into a massive housing estate.

• Creative environment has been instrumental in Noted. New government guidance in the regeneration of areas around London and form of the recently published Europe. If Council is serious about positive National Planning Policy Framework development of the area, it should support (2012) introduces a presumption in existing creative environment rather than favour of sustainable development. ‘soulless’ redevelopments. One of the key dimensions of sustainability is protecting and enhancing the historic environment. • Council should not choose the option which ‘only rewards the fast buck’ (relating to new Noted. See above. development in the area), but should think long-term.

• Market and demand should be critically monitored as to whether new development, Noted. See above. particularly of retail space, many units of which are empty, is needed.

• Height of buildings being built behind the The Council is in the process of Laban and on the Faircharm Estate should be drafting an SPD for the area that will restricted. guide new development. It will take into account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the conservation area.

• Does not wish to see spaces become Noted, but not a consideration overlooked by giant impersonal brick, glass directly relevant to conservation area designation . work or living units.

• Creating a conservation area will prevent Officers consider that conservation necessary development to happen. Such area designation can assist the investment would improve the area as can regeneration of the area. See been seen in the expansive development on comments above . the Greenwich side.

• Redevelopment can ‘improve’ area but Noted, but not a consideration generally it just increases rent costs and directly relevant to conservation area forces out established tenants. Important to designation . retain places for artist community within London.

Appendix 3 Page 182 Page - 26 - Proposed Faircharm re -development

• Introduction of mixed use would endanger Noted, but not a consideration local employment prospects as larger and directly relevant to conservation area noisier businesses are unlikely to be tolerated. designation .

• Likely to create a gated community of Noted. As above. commuters which would be exclusive and with no benefits to the existing community.

• Does not particularly value the aesthetics of the Faircharm buildings but prefers them to Noted. As above. being a canyon of 6-storeys being created.

• Not in favour of redevelopment plans. Have personally invested a lot of money in their unit. Noted. As above. Signed a contract in 2011 for a unit after being assured that there were no plans to re-develop

• Faircharm proposals for redevelopment would wreck and displace businesses, destroy studio Noted. As above. culture, to be replaced with undistinguished housing development.

• No plans for continuity of businesses have Noted. As above. been proposed.

• Faircharm re-development would destroy the Following designation, Conservation industrial heritage and character of the area as Area Consent would be needed for well as the artistic hub which has established the demolition of buildings, requiring itself in the area clear and convincing justification for

the loss of any building within the • Artistic community is under threat by the area. Such proposals would be redevelopment plans but could hopefully be assessed in line with national and saved by conservation area designation. local policies for the protection and

enhancement of the historic

environment.

• Space provided by Faircharm is a vital part of Noted, but not a consideration and contributes to making Deptford a thriving directly relevant to conservation area creative community. designation .

• Proposed redevelopment will not help the Noted. As above. existing community. Homogenised and standard sized workspaces would be counterproductive to the needs of existing community.

• Fears that existing businesses will be priced Noted. As above. out.

• There is a danger of creating another Canary Noted. As above. Wharf type set up while the existing

Appendix 3 Page 183 Page - 27 - businesses are displaced

• Proposed small rental units will not provide Noted. As above. suitable space for the majority of existing businesses.

Importance of existing creative businesses and artist community to the regeneration of the area

• The area adds value to the rest of Deptford. Noted. A relevant reference has Mix of residential and creative employment been made in the introductory part of drives the creative culture of Deptford as a the Appraisal. whole and has made it attractive.

Request for protection

Individuals/stakeholders

• Area’s primary function of employment, The area is allocated employment creative industries and existing housing should land and the residential use is be maintained. established in the Crossfield Estate.

• Faircharm should remain as an industrial Noted. No further action. estate using the present solid buildings.

• Deptford High Street should be made a Deptford High Street is a Conservation Area. conservation area in its own right. It was designated in 1976.

• Greenwich should have a conservation area This is within the remit of Greenwich for parts of the other Creekside bank. Council. The suggestion has been made to Greenwich to create a • complementary conservation area including the vertical lifting bridge and the listed Sewage Works. Greenwich Council has responded that they have no plans to consider the area for designation.

• Diversity created by Cockpit Arts, Faircharm, Noted, but not a consideration APT and Art Hub should be supported so that directly relevant to conservation area they can continue to enrich the local area of designation . the borough.

• Affordability for both housing and businesses, Noted. As above. particularly creative businesses, are harder and harder to come by.

• Unspoilt character of the area should be Noted. Conservation Area preserved, as should its affordability and place designation is not about preventing for ordinary people. change but about managing it in a

Appendix 3 Page 184 Page - 28 - way that is does preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the area.

• Maintaining affordable artist studios in a time Noted, but not a consideration of massive art cuts is important. directly relevant to conservation area designation.

• Very concerned about the threat of re- Noted. development of the Faircharm Industrial Estate. Welcomes any plans to protect and preserve the character of the area for future generations.

• Making the area a Conservation Area would Noted, but not a consideration help restore faith in common sense against directly relevant to conservation area rogue-ish urban planning. designation.

• Creekside should be left alone, should be Noted. maintained as a hidden gem.

Opportunities for the area

• Use of the Creek for transport of goods and Noted. A vision and future potential people, employment and place for moorings. of the area may be addressed in the forthcoming SPD for the area. • Potential of the Creek for providing employment/training use for maritime/marine skills.

• Potential of the Creek to become a tourist attraction due to close proximity of Greenwich World Heritage Site (as yet unexploited).

• Potential for the creation of a local museum/culture/history in the area (as yet unexploited).

Commending the Council for taking action

• Delighted to see Lewisham Council taking the Noted. Future development in the initiative to preserve it rather than trying to area will be managed in a way that it squeeze yet more badly-designed tower is sustainable and conserves and blocks into an already crowded inner city enhances the conservation area. corner.

Appendix 3 Page 185 Page - 29 -

Other

Creekside Education Trust

• Creekside Discovery Centre and other hubs in Noted, but not a consideration the area should receive financial support directly relevant to conservation area under Section 106. designation .

Individuals/stakeholders

• Presence of houseboats provide security. This is as a valuable point. The potential for more moorings will be a consideration in the forthcoming SPD for the area.

• Deptford High Street and market are Noted, but not a consideration deteriorating because of the excessive directly relevant to designation of the numbers of betting shops and butchers. Deptford Creekside Conservation Area .

• Traffic: Traffic in Creekside should be Noted. These comments will be managed as drivers speed down the street to passed on to the Council’s Highways avoid traffic lights on Deptford Church Street. Department.

• The Council should listen more and support Noted, but not a consideration (morally and financially) the existing directly relevant to conservation area community. designation .

• Buildings Nos. 5-9 Creekside are under- The lack of maintenance of a number maintained and have ugly signage, while one of buildings has been highlighted in business litters the area with rubbish. Feels Chapter 7 of the Appraisal and the doubtful whether conservation area impact of any signage on the designation could influence these matters. character of the area will be a material consideration in any forthcoming advertisement application. Powers with regard to the maintenance of buildings are limited unless the lack of it threatens the amenity or the survival of a building.

• The Council should better focus its Noted. No further action. conservation efforts for the area on Deptford High Street. The money invested for conservation area designation should better be used for landscape improvement schemes e.g. junction of Brookmill Road / Deptford High Street.

Appendix 3 Page 186 Page - 30 -

• Suspects that there is a ‘hidden agenda’ as The significance of the building has reason for Frankham House not having been been re-assessed following the many included in the area i.e. any undisclosed future comments received from the public plans for the building. consultation, and the boundaries have now been amended to include it.

• Crossfield Estate: There are car parking Noted. These comments will be problems, parking spaces used by commuters passed on to Lewisham Homes.

• Crossfield Estate: Lack of facilities for older Noted. These comments will be children/teenagers within the Estate passed on to Lewisham Homes

Appendix 3 Page 187 Page - 31 -