700 homes planned for a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature conservation
Here is Bexley Natural Environment Forum’s general submission on the initial proposals from the developers, presented at a public exhibition in July. BNEF is the umbrella body for Friends of Parks and Open Spaces groups, local wildlife experts and conservationists and sustainability campaigners in the Borough.
It has been difficult to be more precise given the flimsiness of the detail available at that point. When quizzed, for example, about the sustainability features of the buildings in terms of energy and water, the proponent’s said they didn’t know yet. How can you know whether a certain number of buildings will turn the required profit without knowing what standards you are going to build them to? We will be able to put forward a more detailed response once some of these questions are answered properly.
It will be noted that the former owners (DHL Ltd) bulldozed the site’s important scrub, with their security outfit claiming this was for ‘Japanese Knotweed control’, and that the new ones have sought to get the SINC status thrown out. Having failed in that, they have sought to present a negative view of the site, implying that it can only be ‘improved’ by building on 70% of it. The developers have also claimed that they are proposing less houses than the Council wanted, whilst a Council officer has claimed that opposite.
Erith Quarry – BNEF’s view of presentation on the initial development proposals
The presentation of the redevelopment was very stereotypical in that it opened by showing photographs of what could be seen to be negative features. There was no acknowledgement that habitats of scrub, e.g. brambles can be very good for birds and insects. From this point of view it was very disappointing.
I believe that the number of units proposed is too great and will lead to an overdevelopment of the site and diminish the sites value to the borough. Within this scheme therefore the design approach is very clinical which will lead to a sanitisation of the site and a loss of character, and not adding anything to the area. The BNEF would hope that the areas assigned to green space do not just turn out to be amenity grassland and a few ‘pretty pretty shrubs’. Planting specification must be for native species with a full management plan and one that is not just ignored once the development is commenced as so often happens.
What is a pedestrian green corridor? Does this refer to areas that appear to be concrete steps with holes for trees, which doesn’t appear to be very practical or viable? Would say in winter, theses areas be salted to prevent icy surfaces? In this instance we know from experience that the salt would be washed into the soil and into the tree systems resulting in the death of the trees. BNEF would like to see further details of these proposals.
No matter what ecological proposals are made, it would be very unlikely that the site can maintain its Grade 1 SINC designation with this level of development and sanitisation. The site would therefore become of less value for biodiversity and fail to meet the borough’s wildlife status.
It is unclear how every unit will have a view of the Thames.
BNEF would like to see a reduction in hardstandings, in particular in relation to car parking. The opportunity should be taken to encourage greater use of public transport and less reliance on the car. Use of geomaterials must be considered for residential parking to reduce the hard standing areas and allow better drainage. In a low lying area such as Erith Quarry, drainage will be an important issue in the development. BNEF would like to see a full flood assessment of the site carried out.
As a former landfill site, BNEF trusts that a full site examination will be carried out to ascertain methane levels both in the soil and any escaping to the atmosphere.
From the design scheme as it currently stands, BNEF thinks that improvements can be made by the developer using green rooves and allowing for the provision of swift boxes, bird nesting boxes and bat boxes.
Traffic and access to site – although other groups will cover these issues, BNEF feels that as usual with these developments the increase in traffic will undoubtedly exceed all projections. The plans as they stand show inadequate allowance for access at current levels. The low level of public transport in the area will again undoubtedly lead to a greater increase in the use of private transport, i.e. cars than anticipated. It is time for these developments to be designed to be car free.
From a site specific viewpoint, BNEF would like to see this site remain undeveloped. However, practically we can see that this may be wishful thinking. But the proposals as they stand look to turn a Grade 1 SINC into an overdeveloped sanitised space with little room for biodiversity.
I look forward to hearing from you on updates and fuller details of your proposals, particularly in respect of ‘wildlife areas’ so that we may comment more fully.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Ray Gray (Chair BNEF)
