The new Lewisham College

MacDonald Egan [the guys who are hoping to redevelop the Brockley Cross scaffolding yard] and Stanhope will lead a £165 million redevelopment of Lewisham College's campus.

The release states:

"Currently the College operates from two sites - in Lewisham Way and Deptford Bridge, but will relocate all its activities to a 350,000 sq ft campus at Deptford Bridge when construction of two new buildings is completed by September 2012.

"Once the campus is finished, the joint venture, known as Deptford Bridge Developments, will also develop surplus land sites vacated by the College's move. The approximately 7 acres of surplus land has the potential for about 500 homes and commercial space to complement the College and contribute to the wider regeneration of Deptford and Lewisham."

In other words, this is confirmation that from 2012 the Lewisham Way campus will be converted in to a residential development, with some commercial space, probably a mix of retail and office space.

48 comments:

Headhunter said...

Are they planning to demolish the building on Lewisham Way with the steps up the front and tall windows? I hope not, I always thought that was a handsome if unoriginal looking building.

Tressillian James said...

500 hundred homes....500? I wonder how many are proposed for Lewisham Way - time to get those For Sale sign boards up

Tressilliana said...

Is there spare capacity in the local schools, hospitals, doctors' surgeries etc for all these new residents? That's an awful lot of people.

Tyrwhitt Michael said...

A quick look on the Stanhope site reveals only 400 homes; 250 in Deptford and 150 on Lewisham Way.

I believe the Tressilian Building which I think is the one HH is aluding to is listed and as such would have to be converted to flats.

The more "massive" concrete Breakspears Building would no doubt be demolished and redeveloped along with the carpark.

The Architects for this are listed, but nothing to do with the project is as yet on their web site.

Anonymous said...

the tressillian building would make a fine loft-conversion style partment building with those big windows. I doubt the flats will be designed with such aspirations though

Creekfan said...

The size of the college building, plus the density of the residential element behind it, will shadow Deptford Creek on all sides, destroying a fragile and precious eco-system. The spare land should instead be a public park for the benefit of ALL Deptford's community. A quiet space in this already overpopulated borough.

nobbly brick said...

lets see how long it takes to become a slanging match - god forbid that i should comment on a development.

liz Cooper said...

This is only the half of it. You should see the other 4 tower blocks they are proposing to put up either side of it. They are ugly monsters that will leave the Deptford side of The Creek very drafty, dark and forlorn. There has already been an application to demolish some nice old buildings on Greenwich High Road, I expect they'll start picking on Creekside and Deptford next.

Brockley Nick said...

Have you got a link please liz?

BrockleyBiker said...

I like that 'massive' concrete building. The concrete has a rare soft look, like pressed sand.

Richard Elliot said...

I think the Lewisham Way site is probably deceptive large when you consider the car park and the current college buildings. 150 homes there doesn't sound unreasonable.

I hope they do something inspiring with the development. In keeping with the conservation and something that gives a boost to the parade of shops on Lewisham way that has never really go going.

Will provide some additional customers for the Talbot!

nobbly brick said...

The plot of land that the college now occupies is not dissimilar, in size, to the site of new housing on Loampit Vale and the Lewisham Gateway - both of these sites have 800 'units' each.

There's probably a developer leaning heavily over a drawing board and gazing fondly at an 'artists impressions' of the 'regenerated' Lewisham College site. These impressions will be of large tower blocks and tiny green spaces set against a blue sky.

This will be the future of this plot of land when, and if, vacated, in a few years time.

have a nice weekend...

Tamsin said...

Has anyone seen the "Regenerating Lewisham" options for the Core Strategy Consulation? There is not only the 10,000 new homes Thames Gateway Target set for the Council, but their Option 1 (which I gather the council itself is plugging for) gives a 40% increase on this requirement.
Where are these people going to work, receive medical care, cross the river, etc. etc.
Daft.

nobbly brick said...

Tamsin, not sure if I've seen that document (may have mistaken it amongst all the other nonsense that Lewisham pump out though), although the Thames Gateway if a slightly different 'housing kettle of fish' than Lewisham itself - have you got a link to that document or website?

Tamsin said...

There doesn't seem to be a link to an on-line version of the summary document but the full thing is on http://consult.lewisham.gov.uk/ portal and Malcolm has put a piece on the Telegraph Hill Forums http://thehill.proboards2.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=thsoc&thread=660&page=1
It is rather short notice - the document has only just come out - but we will see if a mention can be slotted in to the Telegraph Hill Ward Assembly tomorrow, whichi is being held in the Honor Oak Community Centre, Turnham Road.

nobbly brick said...

Thanks for that Tamsin, very lengthy document and skimming can only muddy the outlook. However, that's never stopped me in the past:

"Development is resisted on open space, particularly Metropolitan Open Land"

This hasn't stopped the Council losing several acres of MOL in central Lewisham and replacing it, if replaced at all, by paved areas - and this in a flood risk zone that will increase as a risk in the near future.

Regrettably it boils down to one thing: the Council is obliged to produce, and allocate huge amounts of resources and person power (very likely farmed out to external agencies who charge handsomely for the privilege of producing the documents) to the production of these documents, and any point can be overlooked if, at the very least, a trivial reason can be found (often commercial) for it to be overruled.

Tamsin said...

Quite, the whole thing is a farce. Even the summary document says "Historic buildings protected" but Liz Cooper says there are already applications to demolish them in Greenwich High Street

Brockley Nick said...

Population growth is a fact Tamsin. Failure to provide sufficient housing can create enormous social problems. Where should these people live? Should Lewisham not provide its fair share of new homes? Is there not a lot of brownfield land in Lewisham (including Brockley), worthy of development?

Are Paris, Barcelona and New York not successful cities? They have population densities many times that of London? Meanwhile, the population of cities like Liverpool and Manchester fell during the 80s - was this a positive benefit for those places do you think?

Of course we need to consider the infrastructure requirements new people bring with them, but you are pretty hostile to any new development in New Cross, Ross has ruled out Catford in case it gentrifies and Nobbly doesn't want the wide open spaces of Lewisham town centre touched. Some residents are bitterly resentful of any attempt to put houses on practically deserted areas of Deptford.

Meanwhile, "One SE8" successfully managed to squeeze a major development in to an unloved part of Lewisham without the world falling apart.

Brockley Nick said...

Tamsin, still waiting to see that link from Liz.

fred vest said...

"Ross has ruled out Catford in case it gentrifies"

you seem to be suggesting that being against gentrification and being for the provision of homes that are accessible to all, not just some, of society are mutually exclusive nick- this couldn't be further from the truth, however don't let that get in the way of lazy/convenient mud slinging

nobbly brick said...

It's not me who's trying to protect Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), it's enshrined in the London Plan in more than one place, including here:

"Development that involves the
loss of MOL in return for the creation of new open space elsewhere will not be considered appropriate."

it's that bigger picture again...

Brockley Nick said...

@nobbly - "seeing the bigger picture" doesn't mean pedantically trying to apply the letter of the document, it means honouring its spirit and recognising the demand for housing requires some compromise. Do you think pavement that no one uses because of an unforgiving road system is what the document's author's had in mind when they agreed it was important to protect metropolitan open spaces? Of course not.

@Fred - I wasn't trying to reignite the Catford debate again. Happy to clarify that you are not opposed to development in theory, only to the one that's actually on offer, as it would in your view change the balance and character of the area for the worse.

@Tamsin - can we at least agree that new development can also bring more culture, commerce and fun to an area, as well as longer queuues at the doctor?

The starting point for any debate about development should be recognition that change, compromise and proximity to large numbers of other people are three inevitable characteristics of city life. How can we apply realisitic solutions to improve quality of life for all?

welcome to 2009 said...

nobbly the london plan is dead. Boris is in charge now and he doesn't believe in it. In fact guys, his plan is to get poorer boroughs to accept an even greater share of the new housing.

welcome to 2009 said...

oh and by the way nobbly the london plan ain't a legal document, just a strategy. that means that there's plenty of scope for interpretation and blurring the guidelines to meet local need.

Comment said...

This is a very important issue. I love my fellow human beings. However I cannot help being concerned at the prospect of 500 homes when there is no infrastructure improvement package to go with it.
As it will just mean additonal pressure on resources, as already mentioned. Think about Brockley station on a morning as it is?

Purely as a talking point rather than building a warren of flats why not build some elegant large houses in the vacated space, homes that can attract high net worth individuals to the area. Less pressure on resources, maybe attract some glamour and energy to Lewisham.

Brockley Nick said...

but there is major transport capacity being added to the area already. in 2010, ELL1 will massively increase capacity from Brockley. around the same time, the DLR expansion will increase capacity for Deptford and Lewisham (both convenient for that part of Brockley) by 50% - from two carriages to three per train. Later, we can expect ELL2 and Thameslink to provide some additional options for SE4. All this is likely to be complete before work finishes on the Lewisham College redevelopment.

Bus capacity across London has already increased massively under Ken.

I'm not suggesting that there might not possibly be some issues that need to be debated, but transport infrastructure is possibly the least of them.

fred vest said...

"@Fred - I wasn't trying to reignite the Catford debate again. Happy to clarify that you are not opposed to development in theory, only to the one that's actually on offer, as it would in your view change the balance and character of the area for the worse."

again, if you'd taken the time to read anything i'd written about instead of just projecting a view onto me, you would find that my objections were primarily due to it not providing even the minimum amount of affordable housing as set out by the london plan at the time and also for it's failure to ensure appropriate investment was made in the surrounding infrastructure to cope with the demands of transplanting a thousand new people into an area which is already creaking due to a lack of appropriate resources to address the needs of those living there - that is far from wanting to maintain the 'balance' and 'character' of the area - my position is, and always has been, that the area needs change, but change that benefits both those living there and those hoping to live there, change that is accessible to all not just certain layers of society -

Tamsin said...

Certainly we should take our fair share - just a bit dubious about the council seeking brownie points by going for a 40% increase. But I have not read the 250 pages and don't really intend to do so.

I'm not against any new development and quite agree about brown-land - can't wait for what was planned for the scaffolding yard but it seems to be stalled somewhere. Let's get that moving again (it is on a reasonable scale) and go on from there.

Paris - over-priced in the centre (although quite beautiful) beyond anyone's reasonable reach and riots and racism in the suburbs. (But maybe I'm exaggerating....)

Brockley Nick said...

@Fred - happy to let your words be the final say, although if you're worried about your views being misinterpreted, you might want to change the title of your blog from "Save Catford from gentrification, crime and anti-social behaviour" ;)

fred vest said...

right so having a desire to rid an area of anti-social crime & behaviour translates in your mind into wanting to maintain the 'balance' and 'character' of the area?

having a desire to ensure that the needs & desires of those already living in an area are not ignored during the regeneration process translates in your mind into wanting to maintain the 'balance' and 'character' of the area?

as i said, if you did a little more reading and a little less projecting we wouldn't need to be having this discussion

nobbly brick said...

Nick, there were/are many areas of MOL in Central Lewisham, not just the one you may have been referencing.

And 'honouring its spirit' does not mean allowing developers to do what they like to raise a profit either.

david said...

@Nick
Are you sure that the ELL is going to increase capacity at Brockley? My recollection is that essentially Brockley gets 4 ELL "overland train things" an hour and that that will reduce the number of "real trains" so in the end any capacity increase will be minimal or non-existant (although I may ave remembered this wrong ...)

Brockley Nick said...

David, 100% sure.

There will be 8 ELL trains per hour from Brockley and no decrease in mainline services. Click on the East London Line tag for articles and discussion of this topic.

Comment said...

From my understanding of things having read this blog over the months, was that ELL will bring no change to rail services to London Bridge, and that this had to be won following a vigorous campaign from commuters down the line in Forest Hill things because services to London were going to be reduced.

Brockley Nick said...

In all honesty, I don't think even the Forest Hill campaigners would claim that, Comment.

There was never a reduction planned for Brockley, although there were concerns that there might be reduction in services to Forest Hill (with possible knock on effects at Brockley).

Their campaign resulted in a clarification that this would not be the case.

The Cat Man said...

Actually, from what I remember reading the services stopping at Brockley to London Bridge/Charing Cross will actually increase from an average of 4 per hr to 6 per hr.

Previously, there were some trains from further down the line south (croydon) that were 'fast tracked' to London Bridge. This will now be a stopping service, and compensates for the deacrease due to the termination of the London Bridge/London Victoria circle train that will cease.

I think I am also correct in thinking that all trains to London Bridge will now go on to Charing Cross.

Does anyone know if the above is correct?

patrick1971 said...

I don't think you're correct on either count. The London Bridge-London Victoria via Peckham Rye service is going to cease, but I'm not quite sure when. The freed-up paths to Victoria will be taken up by an increased service from Crofton Park. I thought the freed-up paths to London Bridge were going to be used by Thameslink services, which may or may not stop at Brockley which they don't now.

Re the point about all trains going through to Charing Cross, I am 99.9999999% sure this isn't true. Southeastern and Southern, in their various guises throughout the years, have been desperate to stop as many Metro services as possible going through to Charing Cross. The twice-hourly direct service from New Cross was abolished back in 2002, and they tried to change all Greenwich trains to go through to Cannon Street and only backed down after huge opposition.

That London Bridge-Charing Cross stretch of line is the most congested in the country; it's highly unlikely that Southern and Southeastern would be trying to put more trains through it.

Comment said...

Confusion abounds about trasnport, hence why the idea of so many additonal homes is not wholeheartedly welcome.

Brockley Nick said...

I don't think confusion does abound (at least not until Cat Man wades in ;)). The facts on the East London Line and the DLR are quite clear. The mainline services are being tinkered with and since there are 2-4 different routes serving the stations around SE4, it's reasonably complex to sum up all the changes, but the net effect will be that the train capacity in Brockley will be roughly the same but slightly better.

Hence, I believe that lack of public transport capactity is not really a basis to object to the plans. Which is not to say that there might not be other valid reasons, but we will have to wait and see what is proposed.

Anonymous said...

During the snow I used the DLR..it seems Canary Wharf is not the main destination for commuters.

The vast majority waited or opted for a Bank train.

Anonymous said...

I think the College site is idealy suited for a 17 storey residential tower.

fabhat said...

Anon, it may be that during the snow people were using it to connect with the northern line at Bank, as the trains were not working, rather than it being their usual route to work.

Anonymous said...

Fabhat:
All DLR trains from Lewisham go to Canary Wharf but it was clearly only a minority of people jumping on the first train available.

Anonymous said...

Way back in 2004 part of Lewisham Gateway was identified for possible use by Lewisham College, looks like that's definately not the case?

Headhunter said...

Which are the buildings along Greenwich HR of architectural value earmarked for demolition?

I have to say that most of the buildings at the Deptford Broadway end of Greenwich HR seem to be a ramshackle collection of derelict pubs and light industrial buildings. It looks like a good spot for residential development to me.

As Nick points out, there is considerable pressure on London to find accommodation for all its denizens and rather that new build homes are here than crammed along the mews roads in the Brockley cons area, or, as is currently planned, on Crystal Palace park.

I'm all for retaining a sense of history and past architecture but we can't preserve everything.

silburnl said...

Anonymous, fabhat's point was that you can't use what happened during the snow as a guide to how the DLR is used during more normal times.

I've been getting the DLR a couple or three times a week of late and it was hugely more crowded during the snow because it was virtually the only thing moving reliably. Most of those extra bodies were people who would normally take overland services into the City so it's hardly surprising that the bulk of those additional passengers stayed on to Bank.

On a more normal day I would say about half the train gets off at Canary Wharf.

Regards
Luke

max said...

I just stumbled on this rather somber news on this one.

Anonymous said...

New building plans http://egretwest.com/projects/education-and-culture/lewisham-college/

Please support BC by clicking here when you shop with Amazon

Brockley Central Label Cloud