Playing with the traffic in Catford

Changes to London’s roads are notoriously difficult. In recent times we have had the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the fierce debate that arose during covid-19. Part of the problem can be found in the history of London and the way that the city has been developed over centuries.

Experts describe London as a polycentric city. A place with many core districts and no clear hierarchy among them. Another popular description of London is a collection of villages. Each with its own identity.

In the book ‘Great Planning Disasters’ by the government advisor and geography expert, Professor Peter Hall, he describes how engineers and planners have been ‘grappling with the problems of London traffic since the start of the automotive era’. There was a Royal Commission on London Traffic as early as 1905. Their report is contained in ‘eight bulky volumes’.

In his descriptions of the political machinations between London Boroughs, the old Greater London Council and the Government in the form of the Department of Transport we learn that the road network today was shaped by public opinion.

Briefly, the M25 went ahead, parts of the North Circular Road proceeded to be dual carriageways and several lanes wide but – significantly – south of the river Thames plans for expansion and widening roads were ‘deleted’ around 1973 following a Labour victory at the GLC local election. This was after years of preparation and technical works. The voters of south east London wouldn’t have it and their parliamentary seats counted towards the formation of the next Government. In the 1970s there were a few changes of Government with general elections in 1970, 1974 (two) & 1979.

The plans for altering the road network in Catford are not new. There have been high level and some low level discussions for at least twenty years. A major scheme did not receive Government funding at the turn of the century. A letter from the Highways Agency following a Parliamentary Question from the conservative opposition in the form of Mr. Bernard Jenkin, MP, dated 28 July 2000 confirms that A205 Catford Town Centre Improvement scheme was cancelled.

Against this historic backdrop, Transport for London have launched a public consultation on their plans to ‘help the council create a greener town centre and ensure Catford is an enjoyable place for people to live, work and visit’.

The boundaries of consultation – and the limits of the road changes – is very interesting. In the schematic map below, TfL exclude any changes to the main south circular road where it narrows to two lanes, one lane in either direction under the Catford railway bridge, it excludes the problematic junctions at Halfords – not shown – and on the other side of the road at Ravensbourne Park – this particular junction is the route for all traffic to Catford Bridge Station, the 635 flats of Barratt’s ‘Catford Green’ development and the old road to Brockley.

This pinch point is arguably the biggest reason for traffic jams in Catford and Lewisham Council has plans for redevelopment here too. Why arbitrarily exclude this?

TfL say: “Unfortunately, we don’t have a map specifically for traffic movements.”

This is startling news given the relationship between the A2, A21 and the A205 in the area, however, the TfL traffic engineers have explained the proposed turning movements like this:

Plassy Road will be two-way operation as will Rushey Green and Brownhill Road

Traffic from Brownhill Rd wishing to go to Bromley would turn left onto Plassy Road and then turn left at Plassy Rd/ Rushey Green junction.

Traffic from Brownhill Rd wishing to go to Lewisham and central London would turn right at the Brownhill Road junction with Rushey Green.

Traffic travelling between London and Bromley would use Rushey Green.

Surprisingly, the images used to publicise the consultation do not bear any relationship with Lewisham Council’s own plans for Catford Town Centre and redeveloping the land

The blocks shown are all relatively low rise along Rushey Green and there are no tall towers. However, in recent planning documents released, the Plassy Road Island site could see soaring towers of 20 storeys. This omission must be corrected before any further plans start as these buildings will generate significant traffic congestion.

The claims for ‘greening’ the Catford Town Centre are rather undermined when shifting the roads will mean losing some of an historic cricket pitch. This was known as the Private Banks Sports Ground and has hosted first class cricket. It is now owned by the private school St Dunstan’s College and called the Jubilee Ground. There is no additional parkland or space proposed to compensate for this bold land grab.

Given that over £50 million of public money is to be spent on this attempt to change one of London’s arterial routes, surely we could expect a better consultation on a more credible plan?

TfL say that they will accept email comments to haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk until midnight 5th June 2023.

Picture credit Archoptical for aerial view of Catford.

All change at Lewisham Homes as closure date 1st October 2023 announced

In answer to a public question from former councillor Alan Hall, Lewisham Council have given the final transfer date for all Lewisham Homes‘ services to be completed by 1st October 2023.

In December 2022, Mayor & Cabinet decided to bring the housing services back under direct management of the Council.

A decision of this type has many complexities. Tenants need to be informed how to contact their new landlord – Lewisham Council.

It should be remembered that Lewisham Homes was an ALMO – an arms length management organisation. This means that it had a separate and distinct management structure, a separate Board and separate accounts. The accounts were included in the overall financial accounts of the local authority as a group account shown separately.

Staff and their contracts require formal consultation. Lewisham Council has announced that this is now closed for all transferring staff. Some 56 staff have now transferred to the Council.

Lewisham Homes had a development function. It built some of the social homes that Lewisham Council promised to build. This part of the operation returned to the direct management of the Council on 1st February 2023 and ICT, Technology, Data and Digital, Finance, Temporary Accommodation and Tenancy Management Organisations services on 1st May 2023.

Lewisham Council state that Service Level Agreements are in place and Lewisham Council will provide both finance and ICT services back to Lewisham Homes until the remaining services transfer on 1st October 2023. This will enable Lewisham Homes to carry out the residual functions that it has today.

Cabinet member for housing, Cllr Sophie Davies said: “A robust reporting and monitoring programme structure is in place with closer working and joint workstreams across both organisations. The programme will now concentrate on the final transfer target date of 1st October 2023, involving around 500 staff, whilst ensuring minimal impact on services to residents.”

A restructure of the senior management of Lewisham Council to incorporate the housing management changes is underway. The formal Appointments Committee to fill the Executive Director of Housing post was held on Monday, 22nd May 2023.

In answer to a further question, promises were given to update Lewisham Council’s website with details of all the housing related restructure plans as soon as possible.

A report on progress of the Housing Futures programme is due to be presented to Lewisham Council’s executive Mayor and Cabinet in June.

Catford Roadworks to cost over £50 million

The proposals under consultation to re-route the South Circular A205 road in Catford are estimated to cost £55 to £60 million of public money. The figures were released following a public question to Lewisham Council’s Deputy Mayor responsible for planning.

Lewisham Council believes that the majority of the funding will come from the Government via the Department of Transport’s Major Road Network Fund. Further contributions are expected from Transport for London and Lewisham Council itself.

Lewisham Council were unable to provide a breakdown nor confirm estimates of their own contributions to the scheme.

An article in New Civil Engineer has appeared here

Main Photo courtesy of Archoptical

Response to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation

The Lewisham Local Plan helps to ensure that planning decisions are made in the best interests of our neighbourhoods and communities. It provides a strategy for Lewisham Council and its partners to direct investment across the London borough. Local Plans are town planning documents. They must be compliant with the Mayor of London’s regional plans in the London Plan.

On the 20th September 2021, as a local ward Councillor, Alan Hall said that he had made a formal response to the Regulation 18 consultation – a statutory consultation on the making of a Local Plan – mentioning the need for more green space and the expansion of the River Pool Linear Park. At that time he said: “I would like to see the biodiversity and green space commitments explicitly included in this Local Plan and at the sites mentioned above. In Bell Green, a community masterplanning approach should be undertaken and the proposals as they stand are unacceptable. The heritage assets of the Livesey Hall, War Memorial and Grounds needs to be fully recognised in any plan for Bell Green.”

Lewisham Council has said that it has considered the responses it has received. The next stage in the process to formally approve a Local Plan is a further consultation called, the Regulation 19 consultation on the Lewisham Local Plan – Proposed Submission document.

The purpose of the Regulation 19 consultation is to provide an opportunity for representations to be made on the amendments to the Local Plan before it is examined by a planning inspector. In accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA). The planning inspector will consider all comments on the plan that are made within the consultation period: This consultation period concluded on the 25th April 2023.

Alan Hall made a formal submission and the full text is below:

Dear Strategic Planning,

I have raised the matters below in the Regulation 18 consultation and I cannot see that they have been addressed in full. Hence, I am submitting these detailed comments as part of the Regulation 19 consultation:

The Integrated Impact Assessment on the Local Plan published November 2020 states:

“There will also be a need to consider in-combination issues and opportunities associated with redevelopment at both Bell Green Retail Park, as the southern extent of the Pool River Linear Park, and two sites at the northern extent, namely Wickes and Halfords, Catford Road and Pool Court (proposed as a gypsy and traveller site; currently comprises a Site of Importunate for Nature Conservation, SINC).

There could feasibly be an opportunity to extend the Linear Park into one or both of the larger development sites, and it is recommended that this option is explored, with a view to an overall biodiversity net gain, as measured/calculated at an appropriate functional scale. Extending the Linear Park would also be in line with open space objectives, noting the key finding of the Lewisham Open Spaces Assessment (2019), which is that a significant amount of additional provision will be required to maintain standards (of access to open space) over the long-term. However, it is recognised that there is a need to balance wide ranging objectives when considering how best to redevelop these sites.

I support the expansion of the Linear Park.

Site specific policy currently states:

• Bell Green Retail Park – “Development proposals must protect and seek to enhance green infrastructure, including SINC, green corridor, Metropolitan Open Land and the Pool River.”

• Wickes and Halfords, Catford Road – “Development should maximise opportunities to enhance the ecological quality and amenity provided by the River Ravensbourne, including by revealing the river through deculverting, repairing gaps in Waterlink Way and improving public access to it.” This site specific policy is broadly in accordance with the Site Specific Design and Development Guidelines set for Wickes and Halfords, Catford Road within the adopted River Corridor Improvement Plan SPD (2015). Figure 9.1 shows one of the figures from the SPD, showing the location of the Pool River Linear Park between BGLS and Catford, also highlighting proximity of Beckenham Palace Park.

• Pool Court – the site specific policy does not reference biodiversity constraints or opportunities; however, it explains: “Applicants should consult with Network Rail and Transport for London on design and development options.”

I would like to see the biodiversity and green space commitments explicitly included in this Local Plan and at the sites mentioned above. In Bell Green, a community masterplanning approach should be undertaken and the proposals as they stand are unacceptable. The heritage assets of the Livesey Hall, War Memorial and Grounds needs to be fully recognised in any plan for Bell Green.

On the proposed Gypsy and Travellers Site the document makes the specific comments:

“9.7.5 Finally, there is a need to consider the proposed strategy in respect of meeting gypsy and traveller accommodation needs.

The background is as follows: The Lewisham Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (2015 and amended 2016) identifies a minimum need for six pitches within the plan period, arising from people currently living in bricks and mortar homes, teenage children and household formation. Having regard to this assessment, the Council commenced preparation of a Gypsy and Traveller Site Local Plan. This set out the approach to meeting identified local need for this group, including through site allocation policies.

A Preferred Site Consultation was then over six weeks in 2018. Consultation responses have been considered and negotiations with landowners are progressing. This is particularly to ensure that any future proposed site is deliverable for the intended use, and that feedback from the wider public is appropriately addressed.

9.7.6 In light of the above, the Draft Local Plan proposes an allocation at Pool Court, which is a 0.3 ha site located to just to the southwest of the Catford Masterplan area; specifically, to the south of the large proposed allocation at Wickes and Halfords, Catford Road. The site comprises a ‘left over’ triangle of land at the point where the two railways south of Catford cross-over one another. The River Ravensbourne borders the site, and the confluence of the rivers Ravensbourne and Pool is near adjacent to the west of the site (separated by the railway); however, the site is shown intersect flood zone 2 (as opposed to flood zone 3, which constrains Wickes and Halfords, Catford Road), presumably because the river is effectively channelled or culverted at this point.

A related constraint is the on-site local nature conservation (SINC) designation, and it is important to consider the biodiversity value of this site not only isolation, but as one element of the ecological network associated with the Ravensbourne and Pool river valleys (see discussion of the Wickes and Halfords site above, under ‘Biodiversity’). Whilst it is recognised that this site has been identified following a site selection process undertaken over a number of years, given the onsite constraints, it is recommended that further detailed assessments of biodiversity and flood risk are undertaken, with additional requirements/guidance included within the site allocation, as appropriate; the council should also continue to explore other opportunities to meet the housing needs of this group.”

Annex-3b-Lewisham-Local-Plan-IIA-Interim-IIA-Report

I support the need for further detailed consideration of the negative impact to biodiversity and the SINC.

Not only this, I believe that this site is insufficient to meet the needs of the Traveller community and that as a stand alone policy is insufficient to comply with the London Plan.

On the section relating to London Squares, I have sent information that a London Square on Taymount Rise is absent from the Council’s list and this should be included now. 

Genuinely Affordable Housing

If delivery of genuinely affordable housing is a clear corporate priority for Lewisham Council then The Local Plan needs to set a strategic target for 50 per cent of all new homes delivered in the Borough to be locally defined as housing at social rent levels, below the GLA’s London Affordable Rent level. This would recognise the distinctive characteristics of the local housing market and the relative affordability of different types of provision to the resident population.

All other housing products below market levels, whether for sale or rent, are defined as intermediate housing, and should not be conflated with genuinely affordable housing.

To be clear, a target of 50% of all new homes built to be ‘genuinely affordable’, which is defined as housing at social rent levels (which is set on the basis of local income levels); this means that intermediate and market housing products would not be considered as genuinely affordable.

I support the designation of the Bellingham Estate as an Area of Special Local Character and support further consideration to making this a Conservation Area.

The Industrial Estate in Bellingham is a successful employment zone. The designation needs to be reinforced.

Local Green Space and Metropolitan Open Land needs to be designated at Coutrai Road in Crofton Park and along the railway cuttings from Forest Hill, Honor Oak Park through to New Cross Gate.

I understand that the longstanding commitment for a railway station at Surrey Canal Road is in doubt. Lewisham Council paid for the enabling works along the old East London Line many years ago yet, no station has opened. If the tall buildings and high density are to be achieved there needs to be better public transport. The bus services currently are inadequate. Again, tall buildings and increases in density for residential uses require open space. The commitment to a [linear] park along the route of the old surrey canal need to be maintained and strengthened. Mature trees in the area should be mapped and retained where possible. 

The loss of employment spaces in general and in Deptford & Bellingham including Bell Green lacks proper justification. The London Borough of Lewisham needs employment areas. There is insufficient consideration of new employment as a solution.

Finally, the fact that the Regulation 18 consultation was conducted during a pandemic and at a time of limited communication including during an election period needs to be acknowledged. These procedural flaws are compounded by this consultation taking place simultaneously with changes to the Statement of Community Involvement and the fact that constitutional changes to Lewisham Council’s planning arrangements have been agreed by the Council whilst this consultation was underway. That is to say, the whole planning process has been in flux whilst this consultation has been undertaken. Taking all of this in account, more formal consultation is required to achieve a common understanding of all the plans and changes proposed. Therefore, this leads me to conclude that this consultation at Regulation 19 is inadequate. The plans are unsound. There is no evidence that these proposals are compliant with the London Plan nor that neighbouring local authorities have positively engaged. I trust that this letter will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Hall

Former Cllr Alan Hall – Bellingham

Consultation on Catford Road Traffic

Transport for London has started a consultation on changing the road layout in Catford, south east London.

The stated aims of the scheme are to simplify the road network and make it safer and easier to walk, cycle and use public transport.

A part of the Catford Road section of the main A205 South Circular would be moved 100m to a new position south of Lewisham Council’s Laurence House building. That is to say that traffic would be routed through the area currently occupied by Lewisham Council’s Canadian Avenue car park.

Ladywell Live on the TfL consultation

It should be remembered that the area has been identified by both Lewisham Council and the GLA – TfL is part of the GLA responsibilities – as appropriate for tall buildings. A recent proposal for Catford Island or Plassy Road to those who remember the old school on the site put forward a scheme with the tallest building of twenty three floors. The developer said this would create a ‘memorable’ skyline. Interestingly, the schematic drawings from TfL show low level buildings around Catford, probably artistic licence.

TfL have said that work on the Catford south circular re-routing project is estimated to start in spring 2025, taking about two years to complete. However, no cost estimates have been made public.

Catford is a major bus interchange and a list of the bus routes affected is here:

TfL-consultation-bus-route-affected-as-02052023-2a7dc60134ec7682cc7608f2b6d00952_summary-possible-bus-changes-catford

Public events including a drop-in event at the relocated Catford Library in the Catford Centre, Winslade Way, London SE6 4JU on 3rd June from 11am until 3pm. Written submissions can be sent until the consultation closes on 5th June 2023 by email or post.

Photo courtesy of Archoptical.

Lewisham Council cuts and spending challenges

The current Chancellor of the Exchequer , Jeremy Hunt has warned “eye-watering” decisions lie ahead. The Treasury confirmed the chancellor will announce “further changes to fiscal policy” in the Medium-Term Fiscal Plan.

The one certainty is that local government finance will be hit. The Institute of Government and the CIPFA have published their latest ‘Performance Tracker’ report looking at the state of public finances. The report says:

“Many adult social care and neighbourhood services shrinking in scope or reducing levels of support. Meanwhile, schools have not been provided with sufficient resources to enable pupils to catch up on learning lost during the pandemic. All this would have been more manageable had services been in good shape on the eve of the crisis.”

IfG programme director Nick Davies is quoted as saying: “Public services are in a fragile state with little prospect of improvement before the next election. These are not isolated problems in specific services, but interconnected structural failures. The pandemic exacerbated these problems but they are not new. This has been a lost decade for public services, with performance worse now than it was in 2010.”

Back in 2015, Cllr Alan Hall chaired a group that examined the affects of austerity since 2010. This review sought to map public spending across the borough of Lewisham to enable the Council to understand how resources are being deployed by other organisations spending public money in the borough. Unsurprisingly, it revealed that most areas of public spending in Lewisham have contracted and that recent annual
reductions in funding are forecast to continue in future years.

The recommendation that it is crucial that all organisations spending public money in Lewisham work together, understand the services that others provide, and understand the impact that other organisations’ spending reductions will have on all services remains key to ensuring that public services can still deliver today.

Lewisham Council have published cuts proposals for next year’s budget round. These new proposals total £13.796m of which £10.826m are towards a budget gap in 2023/24.

As the public finance narrative is well described by the CIPFA and IfG it will be essential that Lewisham Council’s spending plans are carefully and diligently scrutinised to ensure that high quality public services are maintained whilst paying the workforce fairly and properly during the cost of living crisis.

performance-tracker-2022-cipfa-IfG-102022

Lewisham Council and Bell Green Boundaries

Since Lewisham Council’s Director of Planning, Emma Talbot refused the application for the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area on 24th August 2022, this has sparked a debate about the ward boundaries and their construction. Interestingly, Lewisham Council has been re-warded by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as recently as November 2020 and these new boundaries were used in the local council elections held in May 2022. These changes reduced the number of Bellingham Councillors from 3 elected members to 2 elected members and reduced the size of the ward to reflect this change. Consequentially, there was an increase to the size of neighbouring Rushey Green ward to include a small part of Catford Hill. Also, there was the necessity to place a small number of roads into Perry Vale ward. These changes have caused much of the disputed boundary issues.

Lewisham Council’s website did not contain the detailed ward maps with polling stations however, they supplied these maps reproduced below to help with a common understanding of the ‘new’ ward boundaries that were used in the last local elections held on 5th May 2022.

Bellingham Ward

Bellingham Ward is a two councillor area since 2022 and reduced in size

Perry Vale Ward

Perry Vale ward remains a three councillor area but increased in size extending to the Pool River

Rushey Green Ward

Rushey Green Ward remains a three councillor area with a consequential addition of Catford Hill

Bell Green as a local area over the years has been moved into and out of administrative electoral boundaries

Over 20,000 demand CEO resignation at Royal Mail

After Royal Mail announced that it could cut as many as 10,000 jobs by next August, blaming current strike action among staff and increasing losses across the business a petition has been circulating on social media calling on Simon Thompson to be removed from the role of Chief Executive Officer at the company.

The gloomy announcement says that Royal Mail says it expects to post a £350m loss for the full-year, though the company warned this could reach as much as £450m.

Over 22,000 people have put their name to the petition saying:

Petition online

“Simon Thompson has a history of damaging businesses and the workforce for his own gratification.  He was also managing director of Track and Trace which failed.  According to the business Royal Mail have allegedly suffered losses as a result of the recent industrial action. They are now threatening job losses as a result! Remove the annual bonuses and get rid of the  source problem instead of penalising the frontline workers who keep the business going. Simon Thompson is a self indulgent man and has no empathy or apathy for the workers.”

The General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Dave Ward hit back saying:

The CWU hit back at Royal Mail’s forecast

“The announcement is the result of gross mismanagement and a failed business agenda of ending daily deliveries, a wholesale levelling-down of the terms, pay and conditions of postal workers, and turning Royal Mail into a gig economy style courier. What the company should be doing is abandoning its asset-stripping strategy and building the future based on utilising the competitive edge it already has in its deliveries to 32 million addresses across the country.”

He added:

“This announcement is holding postal workers to ransom for taking legal industrial action against a business approach that is not in the interests of workers, customers or the future of Royal Mail. This is no way to build a company.”

However, the Royal Mail trading statement contained some good news for shareholders by revealing: “Notwithstanding challenging trading conditions across its markets, the performance of GLS remains on track to meet full year expectations of an adjusted operating profit between €370 – €410 million.”

London Wildlife Trust concerns about plans for Mais House revealed

A letter from the London Wildlife Trust’s Director of Conservation, Mathew Frith has revealed concerns about the controversial Mais House planning application on Sydenham Hill.

The expert biodiversity and environment charity says that there was no evidence to support the statement of ‘no residual effects’ to the ancient woodland on Sydenham Hill ‘nor are the measures sufficient to safeguard Dulwich & Sydenham Hill Woods’ in the plans.

The letter specifically states that the London Wildlife Trust requests that a detailed lighting strategy is undertaken as soon as possible so that the impact of the proposed development on the woodland and its wildlife – especially bats, protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – bats are known to roost in the area. Other protected species like stag beetles are known to this site.

Questions of the exact height have been raised and the London Wildlife Trust makes the point: “If the wooded skyline of the Sydenham Ridge is to be preserved, as set out in Lewisham’s development framework, then the height of the building requires further reduction so that it no longer forms a visual marker competing with the wooded skyline. It seems paradoxical that the Heritage Statement boasts that it will ignore Lewisham policy in respect of the Sydenham Ridge.”

The Friends of Mais House, who launched two Judicial Reviews into the planning process, said that they had not been aware of the existence of this letter from the London Wildlife Trust which expressed “serious concerns about the applications” at the time of the controversial planning decisions.

They said: “Although the London Wildlife Trust had recorded on Lewisham’s online comments system that they had emailed Lewisham Planning a letter of objection, that email was not read by Lewisham Council’s Planning and therefore not taken into account or its existence made known to the Planning Committees.”

The full letter can be read below now

Mais-House-LWT-to-LBL-objection-to-planning-application-16.03.2020-Matthew-Frith

No more aircraft noise over Lewisham

Lewisham Council has published a letter detailing opposition to any expansion of the London City Airport following a public question at the full Council meeting held on Wednesday, 28th September 2022.

During Covid aircraft noise reduced

London City Airport is owned by a consortium, made up of AIMCo, OMERS, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Wren House Infrastructure Management and is one of the largest private sector employment sites in Newham.

The letter drafted by local experts including Tim Walker of the Forest Hill Society, says: “The London Borough of Lewisham considers that there is no justification for ending the 24 hour ban. The welfare of Lewisham residents remains our paramount concern and they should expect to be able to have a necessary break from noise, and air pollution during their weekends especially during the busy summer leisure flight periods when they will need to go outside.”

In a detailed briefing, Tim Walker explains that there is no evidence to date that new generation planes are noticeably quieter over SE London than the models they replace.

He says: “London City Airport has provided no evidence that new generation aircraft are noticeably quieter as they fly a near-level concentrated path over the same homes every time some 2000 feet over SE London from some 32km/20 miles from landing. Doubling the number of flights simply doubles the disturbance. These new planes only help reduce noise noticeably for communities close to the airport runway, inside a very small geographical area – the ‘noise contour’ area – where London City measures and reports on its noise impact.”

The full text of the letter and the expert briefing can be read below.

London-City-Airport-consultation-response-Lewisham-Council-270922

The publication followed a formal public and a supplementary question at one of Lewisham Council’s shortest ever full council meetings on 28th September, this can be viewed here at 17.59

Formal Council Question on aircraft noise over Lewisham