Shardeloes Road rehab response

Cllr Vicky Foxcroft has forwarded us the reply she received from Lewisham Council in relation to the substance abuse treatment centre proposed for 181 Shardeloes Road. She asked about the extent of the consultation (which has been extended until December and which includes a debate at this evening's Brockley Assembly), the key question about whether patients would receive treatment voluntarily and whether there would be any additional policing measures put in place for the area. Here's the response: 


The consultation pack was distributed to roads in the immediate vicinity of 181 Shardeloes Road. Over 1,000 packs were distributed to: Shardeoles Road, Millmark Road, Endwell Road, Geoffrey Road, Brockley Road, Mantle Court, Endwell Court, Steven Court, Coulgate Road and Cranfield Road. 


Staff from the Daat also personally visited local businesses, including the Timber Yard, the nursery, car repair shop next door to 181. In addition they visited all the shops around Brockley Cross as far as the Brockley Barge. 


On the 8th November we ran an outreach event using the Safer Lewisham Partnership Bus which was parked outside of the station. During this time the shops and cafes in the area were visited and we received a very good response. 


During the consultation period some residents have complained that they did not receive the consultation pack, it is possible that some people may have mistakenly thrown the envelope away. In response to this and in response to interest from people living in a wider geographical area all properties within half Km (a 10 minute walk) have been sent an additional pack. 


All the service users would attend on a voluntary basis and we would expect no more than 25 -30 people in the course of the day, this would include family members, parents, carers etc. The building would be carefully managed by CRI who have been commissioned to deliver this service, they successfully manage similar schemes in Southwark and Bromley. 


Outreach workers would be based at the project and they would be available to offer support to people in the wider area, service users would sign up to a behaviour contracts and CRI staff would regularly check/patrol the area around the service. 


If this service goes ahead it would be delivered in a close partnership with the Police and local community, we would envisage that there would be regular meetings with local residents and businesses. 


The Waldron Health Centre had been identified as a possible location for this service several months ago. However, for the delivery of a hub service CRI were looking for 2,000 plus sq ft and this was not available at the Waldron at that time. It is public knowledge that this is being revisited as a potential option and there are ongoing discussions with Health.


Click here for details of the Brockley Assembly.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have not followed enough about this to give a full opinion but just wanted to say that I live near the U-turn facility near Sid's and they are a welcome to the area, they generally nod to say hi and grow flowers and tomatoes and water the plants. They are not there to cause trouble, they just need somewhere to turn their lives around.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong where they are at the moment?

And why didn't they choose the New Cross Waldron Health Centre next to the train station????

That would be a far better site.

Brockley Nick said...

The response from the Council answers your second question.

Anonymous said...

Well, I disagree because the Old Bank is not 2,000+ usable sqft.

It sounds it was rather a random choice (as usual)

fidgad said...

I can't believe there isn't a spare 2000sqft at the Waldron that place is enormous.

Anonymous said...

Does this meant that the Waldron has space now?

Anonymous said...

What a joke! They plan to open a drug rehab centre less than 100 yards from the most obvious drug den in the country...

Anonymous said...

Wow, one of the councillors finally pops up! But what does Cllr Foxcroft think herself? Can she be bothered to work up an opinion?
Seriously unimpressed with their performance on this issue.

endwell said...

"...it is possible that some people may have mistakenly thrown the envelope away"

i wish they would also admit that it was possible that we weren't actually consulted to begin with. why blame us?

Anonymous said...

@anon 14.04

I know ridiculous! But the conservation area has other benefits too.

drakefell debaser said...

I'm intrigued by the word 'pack'. I received a single page A4 letter from the council outlining the benefits of the site, and what to do if I objected.

If that's a pack, then god knows what the postal department classify Lewisham Life magazine as.

TheOracle said...

This is currently B1/B2 Office space, so change if use would surely be needed. Don't know if you have already posted the following, apologies if you have. The estate agency blurb:

Guide Rent £12,500 PA EX

UNDER OFFER

Ref: C2150
•Office with storage space to let
•Approximately 2,000 sq ft arranged over ground, basement and first floor levels
•Located at the junction of Brockley Cross within a few minutes of Brockley mainline station
•Requires substantial redecoration & modernisation to bring property into operating condition
•A new full repairing and insuring lease to be offered by negotiation

Location:

The property is located at the junction of Brockley Cross within a few minutes walk of Brockley mainline station (Zone 2 London Bridge 12 minutes). The property is also located close to the A20 and A2 for access to central London and the South.

Description:

Offices and storage area of 2,000 sq ft over ground, basement and first floor levels. The property is in poor condition and would require substantial redecoration and modernisation to bring the property into operating condition.

The accommodation comprises of main ground floor office areas, several individual offices, toilet facilities, open plan main area.

Staircase up to mezzanine level approximately 258 sq ft and to the rear are separate staircases up to the first floor office areas. The unit is also offered with basement storage facilities.

VAT:

We understand that no VAT is applicable

Legal Costs:

Each party to bear their own legal fees

Lease:

£12,500 per annum. A new full repairing and insuring lease to be offered lease term by negotiation.

Rateable Value:

Interested parties are advised to make their own enquiries to London Borough of Lewisham (020 8314 6150). Business rate multiplier is 41.4p in the £.

Tamsin said...

Did you receive it in an A4 envelope at one and half times the postage cost and double the envelope cost of taking the trouble to fold it.

I do realise there are time and worker costs involved in putting things in smaller envelopes and/or more sophisticated machinery. But it is something that really riles me, particularly now there is quite a big differential in the postage rates.

On the other hand the Post Office is practically a charity and needs all the help it can get.

Anonymous said...

I moved into the area recently. I received this letter through the post and my initial reaction was 'no'. As a single woman, I find the idea of a rehab centre next door to me quite intimidating and what's wrong with going to the already exisiting one?

BH said...

The complaints about the envelope are just petty and irrelevant.

At least it's not a paedo centre.

peodogeddon denier said...

Don't push the envelope, paedo centres don't exist.

Anonymous said...

I didn't even get an envelope! What's worse, they are trying to blame the local residents of mistakenly throwing them away instead of admitting they may have not delivered.

Tamsin said...

No idea whether it was in an envelope or not - and if delivered to the area rather than posted it probably wasn't, as the Assembly Notices aren't.

It was a general comment on how wasteful the council often is in sending stuff out in large envelopes when small would do.

But I shouldn't complain as it means that the organisation I work for can cut stationery costs by re-using them.

Anonymous said...

Waldron Health Centre would be the best site. The council need to make a competent plan.

Anonymous said...

I live in Cranfield and have received neither consultation leaflets.

Tamsin said...

plus ca change...

How's this for a snippet from a history of New Cross about a fever hospital

"When the hospital opened in 1877 there were complaints from the Vestry of St. Giles Camberwell, which bordered the site, that such a hospital was injurious to public health and to property prices. As a consequence the smallpox wards were moved from proximity to New Cross Road to the railway embankment."

Anonymous said...

When people say the Waldron Centre is the best place for the rehab unit, what they truly mean is away from where I live.

If people are attending the unit voluntary it indicates they want to change their lifes.

As has been explained the facility in Lewisham High Street houses a number of units that deal with people with various issues, but reading the codswallop on here you'd think every drug/drink crazed gang member of a paedaphile ring was heading towards Brockley.

The reality is the people attending the unit are activately seeking treatment, they could be your local PR guru with a cocaine habit who's only a threat to themselves.

Anonymous said...

Cranfield anon @ 23.26 - you must have 'mistakenly' thrown your envelope away then.

Tamsin said...

What radius are they consulting in? Cranfield is not that close to Shardeloes.

terrencetrentderby said...

this wont affect my property value t? i didnt move here from the home counties to live near pedo druggie, asylum seeking layabouts.

Anonymous said...

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/no-to-drug-alcohol-centre-in-brockley-cross.html

103 signatures so far

Kolp said...

Ok I have projected user stats:


35% Brockley residents (89)
32% Deptford residents (80)
31% New Cross residents (79)

There are 1900 heroin and cocaine registered misusers in Lewisham. The north of the borough accounts for 33%. The Shardeloes centre is intended to be a service hub.

They expect 30 people per day 9.30-5.30 weekdays but also some therapy happening up to 7.30pm and on saturdays for substance misusers who need to arrange treatment around their working hours.

A Dr from Honor Oak said that there 30 Brockley residents using services.



Psychotherapy, art & drama therapy, group will be amongst the treatments taking place.

CRI- the charity/business behind the unit, said Shardeloes is very much plan A. They emphasised working with the community.
CRI perceive Shardeloes road as mixed use area rather than a residential area.

Regarding the alleged place dealing in substances nearby, the response was that there is temptation everywhere, such as pubs.

A previously proposed location in New Cross was rejected as it was felt that service users would be in hostile environment.

There will be needle exchange (around 5 people a day), this normally happens in pharmacies.

CRI were heavily lambasted by most of the room for the quality of the consultation with one person suggesting that it has created such suspicion that it should be re-run.

In terms of strategies for problem CRI suggested CCTV and close liasion with police. Additionally they mentioned "street sweeps" an occasional process whereby CRI staff along with police will proactively look for substance misusers around the area and encourage them to seek treatment.

Source: Notes & handouts from CRI presentation at, Brockley Assembly meeting 23 November 2011, Myatt Garden School.

terrencetrentderby said...

kolp

thanks for the stats, never knew so many junkies lived in lewisham, and thats just the registered ones!

kolp said...

you're welcome. It appears the tide is turning on this project.

Anonymous said...

When people don't have a reasoned arguement against a proposal out comes the 'consultation' was flawed....yawn.

Would the objectors rather the addicts go untreated and are left roaming the streets.

How threatening...someone doing art or drama.

Anonymous said...

I received the 'pack' and I'm on Manor Avenue. I had to sift through all the junk mail/takeaway leaflets to discover it. I wouldn't be surprised if many people threw it away. If you live in a property that is divided into flats, all sorts of perceived junk mail lays around for months if no-one bothers going through it.

The nimby in me doesn't want it on my doorstep. However, in reality, I've visited some of these centres as a journalist and spoken to the centre users. It really is a good thing and not threatening at all. It's the dark dodgy corners where people deal that you need to worry about.

Why on earth would a 'user' hang around outside a well-lit rehab centre? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

Anonymous said...

@anon 13:55pm

Equally those that dismiss residents’ concerns as nimbyism is quite tiresome. The consultation questionnaire was biased and flawed, and under-promoted - and there’s no getting away from it. The questions are written in such a way that you can only give a positive response.

The council have been very clever in letting CRI become the face of the consultation when in fact they oversaw and implemented the consultation, yet they’ve kept an incredibly low profile and let CRI take the questions.

At each stage of the consultation they have deflected questions,given vague answers, and contradicted what they said at previous consultation. One minute they admitted that some service users would have to attend due to court orders and part of a behaviour contracts so not voluntarily then back track at a subsequent meeting and say that all substance misusers will be attending voluntary. They only talked about alcohol and cannabis and only when asked directly did they admit that they will be treating users for crack, heroin and cocaine with a needle exchange.

The council are a master at giving information on a need to know basis, and will only answer question if asked directly. Not once did the council disclose that the service would be open most evenings and every Saturday until last night. The consultation began on the 23 September. Nor did they disclose that the New Cross residents objected to a proposed service and they decided to not locate it their due to residents’ objections. The lack of forthcoming information would try the patience of even the best tabloid hack.

Anonymous said...

Council ~PRs participating as ususal

Dicon said...

The conflicting verbal accounts that residents have received will count for little. All the Council or CRi can be held to is what they have put down in writing, which is practically nothing. Residents need a clear written indications of how things will be if/when the centre opens, and how far that could change over the 10 years of operation.

Anonymous said...

The cri guy (Kevin) said at the Wickham Road consultation in October that there wouldn't be a needle exchange. Fast forward three weeks and he admits that there will be one after all.

He also only spoke of cannabis use and alcohol at the same meeting.

The supporting people manager writing the report's recommendations couldn't answer a direct question about the types of drugs people will be treated for. Asked if it'll be heroin, crack and coke she "replied users will treated for a range of drugs including alcohol".

She also disclosed at the wickham road meeting that she hadn't even been to location despite her own concerns about the length of the lease and also state of disrepair the building was in. (she claims not to recollect that she said that she hadn't been to the venue but there were witnesses.)

These are just a few of examples of inconsistencies they have told residents so far.

I can'd decide whether the council and CRI are:
a) they don't know what they're doing;
b) making it up as they go along; or
c) are deliberately withholding information and only disclose when pressed for an answer

Whatever the answer is one or all of the answers, it doesn't bode well for the service, residents and service users if no one trusts what they say.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon - this is spot on. The consultation has been woeful and I don't mean letters not being delivered, I mean a complete lack of reliable information, evasive answers and contradictory statements. They are obviously concerned about public reaction to this proposal, but instead of tackling concerns head-on, putting their case plainly and trusting residents to behave reasonably, they are dissembling at every opportunity. If they don't trust residents, why should residents trust them?

Anonymous said...

@ anon 24 Nov 2011 16:57

I’m sure some of the users don’t want to hang around the centre, but in my experience working in this field, there will be a small minority that will cause problems and take up a disproportionate amount of staff and police time. That’s not to mention vulnerable service users being targeted by criminals within and outside the community causing misery for them but also residents living nearby. Unfortunately I've to deal with these problems regularly working in this field, dealing with residents’ complaints, anti social behaviour not to mention the local press. It’s no fun I can tell you.

No matter how well run CRI is, they cannot control the behaviour of their clients outside office hours nor those targeting clients to sell them a wrap.

Anonymous said...

watching Newsnight: you can draw parallels of osborne and danny alexander with Lewisham council and CRI.

Lewisham (osborne) drop the news and CRI (Alexander) ends up trying to polish a turd (badly).

With a revised forecast 700,000 public sector cuts, if the council officials and CRI bods involved in this fiasco are looking for a career change they should consider going into banking, journalism or politics. They've certainly demonstrated some of the qualities required of the very worst aspects of these professions.

Anon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!