Response to Loampit Vale Planning Application

The application for the major redevelopment of part of Loampit Vale, adjacent to Cornmill Gardens, is going to strategic planning committee for decision in a couple of weeks.

I have submitted the following comments from Ute, Mike and me, which we hope reflect some of the concerns local residents have expressed to us about the impact this development will have on neighbouring roads and local facilities, as well as our own thoughts.

I should stress that these comments are just from the three of us and are not a formal Green group position, as our councillor who sits on strategic planning needs to be free to make his decision based on valid planning grounds and without pre-determination.

Planning Application DC/09/71246/X: Land South Side of Loampit Vale, London, SE13 - submission by Ladywell ward councillors

While in principle we welcome the building of a new leisure centre, new retail and housing units on this site, we have grave concerns about some aspects of the proposals.

We formally object to the height of the buildings proposed. 24 storeys is too high and will tower over Cornmill Gardens and the surrounding area. The fact that there is a very ugly tower (Citibank) adjacent to the site should not act as a precedent to build more. We are supportive of high-density developments in areas with such good public transport links, but would argue that this is overdevelopment.

In addition we would like to flag up other concerns about the proposed scheme, which we would like to see addressed:

1. The impact on existing services, in particular GP services: residents in our ward are concerned that the existing facilities at St John’s Medical Centre are insufficient to cope with an additional 2,000 patients. What work has been done on the impact this development will have on local health services, as well as school places?

2. The impact on neighbouring streets from increased traffic as a result of the development: a controlled parking zone is already in place in part of the surrounding area and a consultation on extending this to further parts of Ladywell is due to commence shortly. Would the stated principle that residents of the new flats will not be eligible to apply for permits for CPZs be confirmed in writing by the Council if the application was successful? What measures will be taken to prevent neighbouring streets such as Algernon Road, Ellerdale Street, Marsala Road, Sandrock Road and Undercliff Road becoming rat-runs and through routes to and from the development?

3. Low level of social housing: while we welcome the fact that a reasonable percentage of the social housing proposed comprises larger, family units, we are concerned that the overall level of homes for social rent in the development is only 19%, and affordable housing overalls is only 24% including intermediate housing. This is below the borough’s stated threshold for developments of this size and does not sufficiently contribute to addressing the dire shortage of affordable housing in the borough.

4. If the committee is minded to pass the application, we would request that S106 contributions for improvements to the railway bridges and the footpath on Loampit Vale are added as a condition. We are concerned that with the new development, the existing businesses further up Loampit Vale and Loampit Hill, which are already struggling, will become even more marginalised.

We would welcome efforts to improve the streetscape along the lower part of Loampit Vale, but urge that these improvements are carried out further up as well, as far as the junction with Tyrwhitt Road, to help connect the two parts of Loampit more successfully than is currently the case. We would suggest that this should include the planting of street trees, installation of cycle racks outside shops and funds for a community artwork project under the railway bridge arches, which are currently an eyesore.

5. We welcome the fact that the leisure centre will reach BREEAM excellent. We acknowledge that code for sustainable homes level 4 is better than many developments in the borough are currently reaching, but given this is such a landmark development and considering the lifetime of the building, we would like to have seen it reach level 5.

6. We welcome the CHP and the potential for this to be used in the future by the neighbouring school, but 11% on site energy generation is lower than the London Plan specifies and leaves future residents exposed to high levels of energy insecurity in a future with dwindling oil supplies and high energy prices.

7. Is there any provision for on site composting of food waste? The volume of waste generated on site will create considerable extra vehicle movements and carbon footprints if it is all to be processed remotely.

8. In the travel plan it mentions the provision of 8 spaces for car club cars – this is to be welcomed, but we would urge that at least some of these are in publicly accessible areas so the wider community can benefit, as suggested, not just in the private car park.

Loampit Vale Planning Application

The application for Loampit Vale has now been submitted to Planning. This is a major application adjacent to Ladywell ward and likely therefore to have a significant impact on residents in nearby streets, so I thought I would flag it up so you can find out more and send any comments you wish on this to planning. You can see the application here. The developers also have a website.

It is for "The comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the land on the South Side of Loampit Vale, SE13 7DJ between the two railway bridges, either side of Elmira Street and north of Vian Street and Cornmill Gardens as follows: Eight buildings ranging in height from 5 to 22 storeys 819 residential flats A leisure centre (including a swimming pool) (D2) Replacement facilities for the existing London City Mission (D1) Shops, Financial/Professional Services and Business space (A1, A2 and B1) (approx. 1,670m², including Business space for 'Creative Industries' of approx. 620m²) Public and private open space 201 car parking spaces, 893 cycle spaces and 20 motorcycle spaces An energy centre Associated highway works."

Previous posts on this.

Pushing for Action on Enviro-Crime

A lot of the casework we do as councillors we can't talk about on the blog , but there are a few enforcement issues we've been working on for a while that have recently seen some progress.

Howson Road - skip hire lorries
It is over a year ago now since a resident first wrote anonymously to Darren about skip lorries being illegally parked at the end of Braxfield Road and in the forecourt of the council-owned garages on the corner of Braxfield/Howson Road. Sometimes there were as many as three vehicles parked there and the owner carried out repairs to them at evenings and weekends, disturbing the peace of neighbouring residents and making a mess of the road in the process.

Since then, I have chased this up on numerous occasions (well over a dozen times) with environmental enforcement, highways, housing/Pinnacle and the local police. Eventually the lock to the garages gate was changed and the owner of the skip hire lorries evicted from the garages, but he persisted in parking his lorries on the road and carrying out repairs. Finally, after repeated requests and a question to the deputy mayor, there have been more regular visits by parking enforcement and 3 fixed penalty notices were issued. Just over 3 weeks ago (maybe after the 3rd FPN?) the lorries disappeared, and haven't been back since. It's still early days, and the problem may yet come back, but for now residents are breathing a sigh of relief and enjoying the peace and quiet.

This kind of issue really highlights the need for housing, parking, environmental enforcement and the police to work together to solve it. My impression is that this didn't happen as effectively as it should have, hence it took so long to get anywhere, but hopefully we have finally made some headway on this.

Loampit Hill Salvage Yard
Ladywell Safer Neighbourhood Team and ourselves have both received complaints from residents about the salvage yard on Loampit Hill spreading its goods across the pavement, making it difficult for pedestrians to pass safely. Ute followed up on this with environmental enforcement and the owner of the business was given repeated warnings but failed to comply. However, Lewisham Council took him to court and a couple of weeks ago he was fined £2,000 plus £1,390 costs. Hopefully, the pavement will now be kept clear . . .

Mercy Terrace Fly-Tipping

Mercy Terrace is the road off Algernon Road that leads to the mini-industrial estate under Ladywell Road railway bridge. Again, a resident got in touch to complain about the fly-tipping on one site in the terrace. Environmental enforcement followed up on several occasions but the problem continued. Eventually, the Council took legal action against the owner of the land, for failure to comply with their obligation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to secure it against fly tipping and should the fly tipping occur to clear the land.

This was due to go to court a couple of weeks ago, but in the end following negotiations between the Council and the legal representatives for the site owner, the owner accepted a formal caution and share of court costs. The owner has also agreed to erect a fence and regularly inspect the land to make sure it is clear. In return the Council dropped the court action and agreed to provide a 'no fly-tipping' sign for the land. The formal caution can be sited in court should the Council ever need to take action against the same individual for this offence in the future.

So maybe a result on this one too, though we will need to keep monitoring. I understand that the owner is ultimately keen to put flats on the site.

We will continue to follow up on other environmental enforcement issues in the ward and try to get action, though sometimes it can be a painstakingly-slow process. Ute is continuing to push for progress with the derelict shop on the corner of Tyrwhitt Road and Loampit Hill, while I am still pushing for enforcement action against the owners of Nightwatch (46 Ladywell Road). Also on the list are the garages on the corner of Malyons Road/Ladywell Road and the mews to the rear of the shops between Adelaide Ave and Margarets Road.

Loampit Vale Development

Nicked this from Lewisham Central councillor Andrew Milton's blog: a website has been set up by the developers behind the Loampit Vale development (new leisure centre and housing on the corner of Elmira Street/Loampit Vale. They are asking for your views, prior to the planning application being submitted (which is much better than asking after the planning application has been submitted) and they are also organising a public exhibition in mid-May, details to be confirmed. This development will potentially have a significant impact on parts of Ladywell ward (particularly Ellerdale Road, Marsala Road and I am keen to see what they are proposing in terms of highways and parking, as well as affordable housing provision, the sustainability aspect and of course the pool itself.

Full Council

A busy week and I’m only now catching up with posting a few things here, so bear with me as a post a barrage of things I’ve been meaning to post for a few days.

Wednesday was full council, the first one since July. I asked three questions of cabinet members; one on the plans for the new pool (which is aiming for zero carbon emissions, compared to the approximate 636 tonnes the existing pool emits in its annual energy use), another on pest control (killing squirrels, to be more specific, relating to some casework in the ward where pest control had made repeated visits to a council property to trap or poison squirrels in the loft, but as building services had each time failed to block the holes up the squirrels were coming in through, they kept returning and more and more were killed) and a third on whether the Mayor agreed that we need more community notice boards (no, he doesn't, he thinks the libraries and Lewisham Life are sufficient for advertising events and that notice boards contribute to street clutter - not sure I agree, not everyone plans their local event far enough in advance to meet the copy deadlines for Lewisham Life, and many people don't read Lewisham Life or go to local libraries. Arguably we all should, but a poster on a noticeboard can be a way of reaching out to people who wouldn't otherwise be aware of your event or organisation) . The questions and answers can be found here.

The Green Group was disappointed that the Labour and Tory groups voted to end the meeting at 10pm, before business was finished and before we had got to our motion on Adult Social Care, which a number of members of the public had been patiently waiting in the public gallery for. We immediately resubmitted it and it should be the first motion on next month’s agenda. Next time perhaps we will be a bit pushier and try to get the agenda re-ordered if members of the public are waiting and it looks like we won't get through the whole agenda. Labour proposed an amendment to the motion which we were prepared to accept to get cross-party support. Basically, it was calling on the Mayor to "work with London Councils and
other stakeholders to lobby central government to tackle the national adult social care crisis and commit to more appropriate funding levels". More on full council on Dean’s blog.

Loampit Pool: ground floor with windows

Further to the questions I asked yesterday, I've had a reply back from the council officer responsible for overseeing the pool project. Pasted below FYI:

1. Please can you confirm whether the plans are for the pool to be in the basement or on the first floor.
The new pool has not yet been designed. However, the brief includes a requirement that it should be at ground floor with level access.

2 Will it have windows?
The brief requires that the pool should be glazed in accordance with standards for pools regarding water surface glare. The solution will therefore be similar to Downham Lifestyles and other modern pools. The purpose of the Allies and Morrison report was to provide a diagram of how the site could be arranged and an indication of the capacity of the site. It was intended as a technical document for use by architects when they come to the final design. They were also asked to produce an indicative sketch and, unfortunately, it is this sketch that has been misinterpreted as a "design". If we do proceed with this site then the final design is unlikely to look anything like the A&M sketch, especially in view of the negative feedback.

3. Health spa - please can you provide more details of the spec. for this. ie will there be a replacement for the much loved Turkish baths, as well as a sauna, steam room etc?
The brief for the health spa is 3 treatment rooms, a steam room and a Sauna as well as a reception area. It must be DDA compliant.

4. A number of residents have expressed concern over the loss of diving facilities. Please can you outline the reasons behind this.
Diving and swimming in a shared pool creates a conflict of uses. This results in management and supervision problems. A shallower pool is safer for swimmers and provides better visibility for lifeguards. The limited demand for diving facilities suggests that it can be dealt with on a sub regional rather than local basis and this requirement is met at Crystal Palace.

5. Please can you provide a more detailed breakdown of the costs given in the table on p5 of the report to Mayor & Cabinet on 16 May 2007 – what does refurbishment include? Can you confirm that the cost of asbestos removal has been subtracted from this, for example? Does it include any new provision/buildings at Ladywell, or purely refurbishing the existing facilities?
The cost estimate provided in the M&C report was based on a cost study carried out in 2000 and that would address the key condition and suitability work required, at the time the estimated cost was £9.5m. In 2002 the Centre was closed following the identification of asbestos in the ceiling areas. The work then undertaken involved the removal of asbestos from the ceilings, public areas and ductwork and other work to the plant including concrete repairs. The site re-opened in 2004. This work was sufficient to deal with risks related to asbestos but did little to address the refurbishment needs of the building.

6. At the Overview & Scrutiny business panel mtg to consider the Loampit Vale report, the officer said that the new pool will be a zero carbon building. Can you confirm that this will indeed be the case and if so, how will that be achieved?
The brief for the new pool, along with the proposed adjoining residential development, is an aim to have zero carbon emissions. This would be achieved by a combination of low energy demand design (insulation, ventilation, etc) and a single energy source that exploits the balanced energy demands between the pool and the housing. If the energy is generated on site then the fuel source would need to be bio diesel and / or woodchips. Electricity generation would from a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) boiler or wind turbines or solar panels. If it is decided to proceed with a new pool at Loampit Vale this will be reported on in more detail when considering the developer submissions. It is difficult to provide figures prior to this more detailed report but it is an issue that will be addressed.

7. The M&C report says that there will be 250 spectator seats alongside the new pool. How does this compare with the provision at the existing pool?
The existing pool has 520 seats. The new pool brief is for 250 seats is the result of the leisure needs report.

8. How will the pool be financed? Receipts from the sale of Aragon Tower, Loampit Vale developers contributions, the sale of Ladywell Leisure Centre site? Can you confirm how much you estimate the new pool will cost the borough, where this money will come from and what any leftover money from the Aragon Tower sale and the anticipated sale of the Ladywell site will be used for? Could the developers subsidising the pool mean that we ultimately get a lower percentage of affordable housing in the development?
The new pool will be funded from a combination of an allocation in the capital programme (part of the Aragon receipt) and the developer's own funds. It would form part of the developers payment for the Council's land. There remains an aim to achieve a level of affordable housing in accordance with the UDP (35%). Details of this are commercially sensitive and if we proceed with a new pool this will be reported to the Mayor on part 2 of the agenda. Any capital surplus will go back into the capital programme.

9. I have assured residents that all views will be noted in the report that the goes to M&C, and that the consultants are recording all comments, including those who ask for refurbishment. Please can you confirm that this is still the case.
The report to M&C on the consultation will include feedback from consultees who expressed the view that Ladywell should be refurbished. The results of the Consultation are likely to be reported to Mayor & Cabinet on 17 July 2007.

I asked one more question that I expect will take a bit longer to respond to:
Residents are unconvinced when I suggest that in this case a new build could be more energy efficient than refurbishment. It would be v useful if you could provide further information about the approximate annual carbon emissions and energy usage at Ladywell and how the new pool would compare to this (including construction – ie carbon used in concrete production, construction transport costs etc). What will the payback period be before the new pool becomes 'greener' than keeping the existing one?

Thanks for the comments on my previous post on this topic, I suspect this may prompt more. I'm a bit tired to comment in much more detail now, but I am increasingly inclined to support the proposals for a new pool at Loampit.

New Pool Consultation

A quick reminder that the deadline for responses to the new swimming pool consultation is this Wednesday, 4th July.

The consultation

A number of residents have contacted me about this, to express concern that there is no 'third option' of refurbishing the pool on the consultation. I have already conveyed local residents' frustration at the lack of a 'refurbishment' option in the consultation to the officer leading on the consultation. He contacted the consultants carrying out the surveys and confirmed that they are "capturing the views of those people who favour the refurbishment option" and has assured me that all views will be included in the report to the Mayor on 11 July 2007. The reason they are only consulting on the two options, is because following officer advice on the cost-effectiveness of refurbishment versus rebuild, the Mayor & Cabinet ruled out the refurbishment option at their meeting on 16th Mayor. The full report prepared for that meeting can be found here.

A meaningful consultation needs to note the views of all residents, yet it would be similarly meaningless to offer residents the option of a refurbishment if the Mayor has already ruled it out on cost grounds.

I have asked for further breakdown of their cost estimates. If it would indeed be cheaper (including running costs) to build a new pool, rather than refurbishing a 30 year old pool and there would be no gap in provision, then this may make sense for the borough.

The Save Ladywell Pool campaign have their own suggestions on how to fill in the consultation.

What facilities will the Loampit pool have?
There seems to be some uncertainty amongst residents (and to an extent councillors!) about what facilities the new Loampit pool would have.
In brief, it will have:

• 8 lane 25 metre competition pool
• 20 metre teaching pool with moveable floor
• Dance, exercise and aerobics studio
• 100 station fitness suite
• Health spa
• Crèche
• Cafe

So on the plus side, it will have a considerably bigger gym than the one at Ladywell.

The new pool will be 8 x 25m lanes, rather than the current 6 x 33m lanes. ie the same swimming space, if not v slightly more than the existing pool at Ladywell. This is so that it will meet Amateur Swimming Association and Sport England competition standards and would be available for County level competition. Sounds reasonable to me. The 33 metre 6 lane pool at Ladywell cannot currently be used for such competitions, having a non standard length.

Other points
I have asked for further information from officers on a number of points, including:

• What facilities will be provided in the health spa, and whether this includes a replacement for the much-loved Turkish baths.
• Further details on why there are no plans for diving facilities at the new pool.
• Windows: my understanding following a conversation with the Mayor is that the new pool will be built on the ground floor and will have windows providing natural light, but again, I've asked for further assurance on this point.
• Funding: I have also asked for further clarification on the funding of the new pool and how any surplus receipts from the sale of the Ladywell site will be spent. Some of the money from the sale of Aragon Tower on the Pepys estate was apparently put aside for a new leisure centre, and the argument for selling the Ladywell site is to pay for the new pool, yet it is also possible that the developers will foot a large part of the bill for the new pool (financed by the flats above it), so I am waiting for further information on this. What I wouldn't want is a trade-off which meant very little affordable housing in the flats above, because of the cost of the pool.
• Energy-saving/carbon-emissions for rebuild vs refurbishment. I've asked for further clarification on the energy-saving/carbon-emissions argument behind building the new pool - how much more energy efficient will it be versus the energy costs involved in building it - how long will it take for it to start 'saving' energy and carbon emissions compared to Ladywell, once construction was taken into account. At a recent meeting I attended, the officer present told me the new building would be zero carbon, but I am awaiting further details on how this will be achieved, if it is in fact the case. Normally, it is considered greener to refurbish buildings than rebuild, but the huge energy use of swimming pools, particularly those built 30-odd years ago, mean that this might not be the case in this instance.
  

I'll post any response I get to the above points (assuming it's not confidential).

When we were elected last year, we stood on a platform of opposing the closure of Ladywell Pool until a replacement with equal or better facilities had been built and that remains the case now. We were delighted the Mayor agreed not to build the new school there and not to demolish the pool before a replacement was ready. I'll reserve my final opinion on refurbishment vs new pool at Loampit until I have answers to the points I raised above, but at the moment, I do think that building a new pool at Loampit Vale could be the better long-term option, in terms of financial cost, energy savings and provision. I don't think building a new pool at the Ladywell Leisure Centre with a minimum 2- year gap in swimming provision would be a good idea (look how long Downham had to wait for their new pool). Loampit Vale will be a bit further for those of us close to the current site, but perfectably walkable/cyclable and with better public transport links than the current site (ie DLR and train as well as being served by buses) for more residents of the borough.