Save Catford

It’s worth looking at this in a bit more detail

The headline figures in the planning application talk about 57% of the development being affordable housing with only 43% being private use. This isn’t quite as good as it looks on the surface

From page 15 of the planning statement we are told

The tenure distribution is broken down into the following categories:
• general needs rented (25.4%);
• shared ownership; (5.4%)
• affordable LWI; (5.0%)
• general LWI; (21.3%) and
• private sale (42.9%)

General needs rented, shared ownership and affordable LWI will be made permanently available as rented/reduced cost housing and as such are designated as an affordable housing against regional and local Policy. General LWI housing will initially be offered to specific Key Worker groups who neither can afford to compete for general market housing nor qualify under regular shared ownership schemes. However in the event that these units are not taken up as initially intended, they will then be offered for private sale. However, whilst not conforming to strict Policy guidelines, these units do provide ‘affordable’ housing and therefore the overall offer for the site equates to 57% of the overall provision.

So out of the 57.1% that is said to be ‘affordable’ only 35.8% actually complies with the official definition of affordable, the remaining 21.3% will ‘initially’ be offered to key workers but the developers are under no obligation to retain them for key worker use, or even sell them initially to key workers. Estimates by people who work in housing associations in London say that out of those who cannot afford to meet the costs of full market housing, only 7% of this group can afford to meet the cost of ‘intermediate’ housing (i.e. key worker housing schemes). So there is a very high chance that the majority of these so called ‘key worker’ homes will end up being sold on the open market due to the inability of those they are aimed at being able to afford them. Additionally under the rules of the London Wide Initiative (LWI) buyers can sell their house on the open market at any time and there is no mechanisms in place to ensure that these homes are continued to be made available to key workers/low income families

Setting that aside though, some might say, there’s still at least 35.8% of new homes which firmly meet the official definition of affordable homes. Yes this is good, but it’s actually way below the level that the local authorities should be providing. The Mayor of London in his London Plan has indicated that 50% of all new housing should be affordable.Lewisham’s record to date so far in this area (according to the latest monitoring report in Feb 07), shows that only 3.8% of new builds were socially rented/affordable which ranks as one of the worst out of all the boroughs in London. The provision of 35.8% of affordable housing from the greyhound site is commendable, however looking at the figures it’s clear that this provision is still miles away from what even the Mayor of London says they should be providing.

Additionally those who are able to qualify for the London Wide Initiative (LWI) proportion (i.e. the 21.3% of so called ‘affordable housing’) are allowed to buy the homes even if they have a combined household income of up to £60,000, so they are not exactly aimed at the lowest of the low paid.

Clearly Lewisham council doesn’t even try to hide the fact that it is not prepared to comply with the Mayor of London’s plan to achieve 50% ‘affordability’ of all new builds, and this can be seen from their own documentation:-

On page 73 of the Catford Town Centre Area Action Plan - Preferred Options report, it quite clearly states that the Mayor of London in his London Plan states that 50% of all new housing should be affordable.

On page 78 of the same report, Lewisham Council state that the percentage of affordable housing of the 11,700 new homes that are planned to be built in the borough between now and 2016 will be set at 35% (i.e. a lot less than the 50% target set by the Mayor)

However it gets worse, on page 13 of the Transport Assessment document it refers to 11,178 new homes being built in the period between now and 2016 (not sure why it’s 11,178 as it should be 11,700 per the other report). However it then states on page 14 that only 2,800 affordable homes will be made available in the period between now and 2016. That only represents 25% of total new builds.

So to recap, the mayor of london says 50% of new homes built should be affordable, Lewisham stick two fingers up to him and say they will only ensure 35% will be affordable, however digging in the detail reveals that actually only 25% is targetted to be affordable.

(edit: as the greyhound development is providing 35.8% of affordable homes and the overall target identified by Lewisham for the borough as a whole is 25%, the implication for the other developments in the area (which are sited in more attractive locations) is that the affordable housing provision for these will be even less than 25%, so even further away from the Mayor’s target of 50%)

there’s been a few criticisms of my opposition to this development here, overall my response to these can be summed up by what i wrote in reply to one of these comments, which i’ve copied here below in the hope that it gets wider viewing

——-

my main issue is what does this development do for the existing community in Catford? does it tackle the problems of milford towers and give an opportunity for the residents there to look forward to living in an area that is off acceptable standards and one which they don’t have to live in fear and shut behind their doors in the evening scared of what’s going on outside their doors? no it doesn’t

does it tackle any of the existing public transport network or road burdens we have? no it doesn’t, it adds to them

does it do anything about making catford feel a safer place to be in the evenings? i can’t see any indication of that or how it would

will it ensure that the local community and local shops & businesses will be able to continue to survive and live in catford and won’t ultimately be forced out by the economic transformation of the community by this and the wider developments in the pipeline? you only need to look around london at areas that have already been thoroughly redeveloped/gentrified to get your answer to that one

will it help to reduce crime and anti-social behavior in the wider community? again looking at previous re-developments/gentrifications it could be argued that they are more likely not to reduce crime/asb but just to displace it to other areas or ensure that crime & asb is contained to certain areas (like how the police/council seem to be doing in relation to milford towers at the moment) and eradicated only from the nice new shiny developments that represent the greatest source of value flow to the developers. i mean take islington as an example one of the earliest examples of gentrification in london, it may look great on the surface but look at the statistics and you’ll find out that it’s the 5th most deprived area in the whole of the UK, so i don’t think the majority of residents in islington today are feeling the positive benefits of the supposed ‘trickle down’ effect of such gentrification schemes

does it ensure that people already living in catford in homes that are not of acceptable standards get a chance of an opportunity to be housed in ones of acceptable standards? again i can’t see any indications of that happening

don’t get me wrong it’s good that a proportion of the new homes will be ‘affordable’ (although it’s at the minimum level required to get help from english partnerships on the development), however as most of these schemes are usually in some way tied to the market price ultimately it still doesn’t really introduce a scheme based on the ability to pay, but one that’s still anchored around market prices. also things like part ownership and stuff just allows the developer to retain an interest in capital appreciation after the build so it’s not like it’s some great benevolent strain on the part of the developer. additionally english partnerships, the public body quango that owns the land, was set up specifically to reduce the risks of private development companies, so much for the notions of the benefits of free markets and non state intervention in markets that we usually hear being espoused from capital.

in terms of local priorities, have a look at the message being put across by the majority of comments (at the bottom of the news story in the link below) in relation to the latest murder at milford towers, this is the type of thing that should be receiving first priority and funding in my opinion, not the development of new luxury homes for new residents, but the bringing up to acceptable standards homes of exisiting residents and creating a community where people are not subject to crime, fear, and anti-social behaviour on a daily basis. will any of this change as a result of the development that’s planned at the greyhound stadium site? i can’t see how it will

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.1377895.0.man_shot_dead_after_chase.php

more on the topic of road usage estimates as a result of the development. The company conducted to do a survey on the potential impacts on road traffic are only working to two alternative scenarios in their projections

Two growth assumptions for background peak hour traffic flows have been adopted to assess the impact of the development.

These are as follows:

Traffic Reduction Scenario – This reflects trends identified in Chapter 9 of Lewisham Borough Council’s Local Implementation Plan (March 2006) and assumes that background traffic will reduces over time.

No Growth Scenario–This assumes no further growth during the peak hours beyond the 2007 base year.This is in line with inner London borough targets for traffic growth stated in the Mayors Transport Strategy.

So any predictions made in their report regarding the impact on road usage in the area is based on the wider assumptions that there’s either no growth in other road usage or an actual reduction, fair enough those assumptions are in line with either lewisham council’s strategy or the mayor’s strategy but it still seems a bit misleading for them not to consider a third alternative, that of increased road usage (especially due to elsewhere in the document, and as reported in a post below, they also are predicting a reduction between now and 2014 in people using rail transport. where is this reduction in rail transport going to come from, either they will stop using rail and start using buses or other road transport, which just moves the problem elsewhere, or do the developers expect the overall people in the area to reduce and therefore the associated travel to reduce as well - an odd assumption given the number of new luxury flats they intend to build in the area both at this site and elsewhere in the area)

Regardless of all that however, i discovered this little gem today on page 94 & 95 of the transport assessment document, in relation to the impact of the development on the traffic flow on the catford road/ravensbourne park junction

Junction operation with development under the ‘no growth’ scenario is shown in Table 8-9 below. It is predicted that the right turn from Catford Road into Ravensbourne Park will not operate belowthe typically accepted 85% RFC threshold during the AM peak hour. However, it should be noted that the junction will not operate satisfactorily in 2014 without the development, as illustrated in Table4-4 (which is also equivalent to the 2014 opening year under the ‘no growth’ scenario).

If the ‘no growth’ assumption is correct, the development will also not have any impact on either Westdown Road or Bournville Road junctions.Due to poor performance of the existing Catford Road junction, even without development traffic, theproposals will also not therefore have a material impact on the operation of this junction.

so as i understand it, because the existing traffic forecasts for the catford road/ravensbourne park junctions are deemed to be unsatisfactory in terms of RFC (ratio of flow to capacity), i.e. overcongested, the developers are saying that the development will have no material impact on traffic congestion in this area, because it’s going to be congested anyway, so making it even more congested does not, in their view, change anything as either with or without the development the traffic flow in that area would be unsatisfactory.

what an odd, but very useful (to the developers), binary attitude to take

there’s a discussion forum set up at

savecatford.org/cforums

please feel free to leave any comments that you have on the development either on the threads already started or feel free to start new one

On page 109 of the transport assessment document we are told:-

 

Table 10-3 indicates that 171 inbound train trips, and 296 outbound train trips, will be generated by the development in the weekday AM Peak Period(07:00–10:00), giving a total of 467 trips in the AM Peak Period(07:00–10:00). Comparison of this total with the 2,751 trips estimated by the RAILPLANmodel (shownearlier in Table 3-5) indicates that the residential rail trips generated by the development would result in a 17 per cent increase in rail upon 2006 estimates.              

   

So even by the developers own proposal documents there is an expectation that the development will lead to an increased passenger usage on the trains of 17%. So what do they propose to do to relieve the pressure of this burden? The answer is nothing, because:-

It should be noted that the proposed development will not be fully occupied until 2014. Current rail usage trends indicate a recent decline in passengers(shown earlier in Table 3-3) and if this decline continues, station capacity is unlikely to be an issue by 2014.                

 

So there you go, those increasingly busy trains you may travel on in the mornings are actually less busy than they where the year before, and the year before that too, so an almost ostrich like ability to stick their head in the sand leads them to believe that the 17% extra burden that they themselves have identified is ‘unlikely to be an issue’. 

It’s worth noting that in a separate section of the transport document on car ownership and road congestion it’s pointed out that road congestion shouldn’t be a problem due to the increasing persuading of residents to use public transport - a move which will undoubtedly lead to an increased usage of the train network not less.

I’m skeptical as to the reliability of the figures used to show a decrease in rail passengers in the last few years, but even if they are correct it in no way leads to the assumption that they make being that this reduction will continue for the next 7 years up to 2014

In the mountain of documentation that exists on the lewisham council’s planning proposal website for this, one document called ‘Statment of Community Involvement’ says the following

On behalf of Countryside Properties and Hyde Association in conjunction with English Partnerships, Dialogue undertook extensive stakeholder consultation ahead of the submission of the planning application to redevelop the site. Letters were sent to key stakeholders and flyers were distributed to residents living close to the site. All were given ample opportunity to view the emerging plans for the site. 

I live close to the site but received no letters or flyers nor had ample opportunity to view the emerging plans for the site, did you?

Members of the public, stakeholders from the council and local groups were enthusiastic about the plans during the whole consultation, which comprised public exhibitions and maintenance of both a telephone line and an email addresss. People recognised the benefits the scheme would bring and were happy with the design and the likely catalytic effect it would have on the regeneration of Catford. 

The public exhibitions that they talk off consisted off a stall held in a vacant unit in the winslade way shopping centre in catford, on a wednesday & thursday during the week, of which 90 people in total are said to have dropped by. Hardly a great consultation period with the community as a whole. I walk past that place nearly every day and saw no advertising or leaflets in relation to it

catalytic effect? more like cataclysmic

This site has been setup in response to the proposed development of the former Catford Greyhound Stadium

A planning application has been submitted on behalf of Countrywide Properties, which proposes

The construction of 593 residential units, commercial floorspace and a community centre in 13 blocks, rising to a maximum of eight storeys in height, on the site of the former Catford Greyhound Stadium, including the land in between the railway lines and the South Circular (A205), comprising of 219, one bedroom and 330, two bedroom, self-contained flats; 26 three bedroom and 18 four bedroom houses, as well as retail/commercial floorspace (984 sq.m) and a community centre (198 sq.m), together with associated landscaping, including river naturalisation and creation of a public plaza between Catford and Catford Bridge Stations, provision of a footbridge to Doggett Road, an electricity sub-station, bin stores, 593 cycle spaces and 252 car parking spaces. 

This is a massive development and will significantly impact on the existing community, the proposed accomodation will house over 1,000 people putting an additional strain on an already struggling infrastructure

In addition to the impact on the transport network causing even more overcrowding on local buses & trains, the provision of 252 car parking spaces will increase road traffic congestion in an already thoroughly congested area, not to mention the environmental impact of increased traffic flow through Catford

The impact on the existing community of this massive influx of people will lead to existing local shops & businesses being forced out due to the gentrification of the area. The property development will mainly target wealthy individual working in central london (a way of turning the potentially negative aspect of living in the middle of two train tracks, into a positive selling point), this significant change in demographic will be spun as having a beneficial effect on the community as a whole, but one only needs to look at other areas of London (Brixton, Hoxton etc..) to see what the effect on local residents really is when gentrification starts. The bulk of the existing community will either be forced out of the area completely through the economic spending power of the new arrivals or will be made to feel strangers in their own community as gradually the area will be transformed to meet the needs of the new inhabitants

Catford does need investment though, but it needs investment in the existing community, not the transplantation of a new wealthy community on top of the existing historic community. The propsed development pays lip service to this by throwing in the redevelopment of the area around Catford Bridge & Catford train stations which would be welcome, but this is a big price to pay by the community to let profit hungry development companys redevelop and privatise what was previously part of Catford’s social fabric

The planning process has been designed to minimise objections to this, ‘consultation’ letters were sent out to over 4,000 local residents and a host of other bodies (police, environmental health, highways agency etc..) on received by most on the 17th November. The consultation period potentially only lasts until 5th December, which literally gives less than 3 weeks for any objections to be raised.

After the consultation period has ended a council planning committe meeting will be held to decide on whether the development will be allowed to go ahead, out of the 4,000 residents who have been ‘consulted’ only one individual will be allowed to speak for 5 minutes at this meeting. This process severely undermines the ability of local residents to speak out and put their points across in relation to this development. You can be sure that the developers, Countryside Properties would have had more than 5 minutes of time in ‘persuading’ the relevant authorities of the benefits of this proposal.

Resistance is possible however, recently a propsed development of 50 flats on the site of the old green man pub on bromley road was rejected due to a mass campaign by local residents against the development. 

The existing community in Catford will be massively impacted by this development - only by coming together as a community and resisting this together will we have a chance of letting our voice be heard and have a chance of protecting our community from greedy property development

The developers claim that 35% of the properties will be ‘affordable’ which presumably means that the other 65% won’t (at least to members of the existing community). In addition to this they say that 22% of properties will be low cost key worker accomodation which is commendable, but more details would be required, beyond the headlines, to actually find out how much of a sustainable benefit this would actually be to the existing community (a lot of affordable/key worker accommodation is often of a lower standard to the main development, or is shortly sold back on the open market soon after the development is complete)

I plan to contribute more articles about the development on this site and to try and get as much information out there on the impacts of this development  and urge as many people as possible to take the time to write to the council with any objections that they have and if possible to attend the planning committee meeting in person. The development proposal at the site of the Green Man pub on Bromley Road was rejected after 150 people turned up to the planning committee meeting.

details on the planning application can be found on the council’s website here 

http://tinyurl.com/2y6lah

Unfortunately, this development is not an isolated one, similar developments are intended for many other areas around Catford details of which have been published in a ‘Preferred Options’ document by Lewisham Council. The Greyhound development was mentioned in this document and comments were invited on the proposal which was published a few weeks ago, however it appears that behind the scenes (and regardless of any consideration for the comments that were invited) there has been a massive push by the developers to get this pushed through with as minimal amount of involvement or input from the existing local community.