Saturday, 24 June 2017

Outdoor bars proposed for Deptford Market Yard


It took an embarrassingly long time for Deptford Market Yard to reach full completion, and there are still a few kinks that need properly ironing out (parking abuse etc), but overall the end result is pretty pleasing.

The quality of finish on the carriage ramp retail units is pretty good, and the public realm stuff is attractive and seems durable, excepting the flimsy bollards which have almost all been flattened by our local drivers and are currently being replaced. The trees add a very pleasant atmosphere to the yard and soften the somewhat hard edges of the brick, stone, steel and timber that is used throughout the rest of the landscaping. As they mature I think this will only improve.



I like the mix of independent tenants in the retail units, although I do worry how many of them are actually managing to make a living; the promised market has yet to materialise and although the managers of the yard seem to be putting on events now and again, I'm not confident it's enough to generate the footfall to bring sufficient business to these units.

There are also ongoing issues that demonstrate how poor the current management is. The flimsy bollards that were initially installed at each end of the yard were promptly battered and eventually flattened by manoeuvring drivers. Wholesale abuse ensued, and with no parking enforcement the yard rapidly turned into a car park. After weeks of nagging the management company put up parking notices, which has improved the situation somewhat, but the installation of the new bollards seems to be taking an unreasonably long time and there are still some serial parking abusers who are going unchallenged.

But the latest plan by owner U&I plc - to bookend the public spaces with two outdoor bars, one under a posh tarpaulin - seems to be heading in totally the wrong direction. If the planning application that has just been submitted gets the go-ahead, you can kiss goodbye to any opportunity to relax while you eat your sandwiches sitting on the benches in the dappled shade of the trees.

The proposals involve nothing more imaginative than dumping two converted shipping containers down on the new paving, and annexing a large proportion of what is currently public space under a fabric roof connected to the street lights and weighted down with huge water containers. Punters will sit at tables that can be folded away at night for storage, but the roof is intended to stay in place - a permanent temporary arrangement.

Permission for two 'bars' is sought - a large one outside the station and a smaller one down at the other end of the market yard, next to the lower part of the carriage ramp.

The larger one has a capacity of 150. 


The leaves of the trees will not be visible to anyone at ground level - the most visible and significant elements of the landscaping will be annexed to act as supports for a plastic tent to keep the rain off those wanting to indulge in what is essentially middle-class street-drinking. 


As well as being attached to the trees, the roof needs guy ropes to tie it down. The proposal suggests that large water containers will serve this purpose. You know the kind of thing.


The design and access statement which forms part of the planning application also suggests that plants in upcycled oil barrels will be dotted around the bar area, presumably to add a bit of greenery to make up for the greenery that you can no longer see. It proposes that patio heaters - one of the most environmentally-insensitive inventions ever - be used inside the tent. 

It also includes designs for the eight market stalls that will be placed opposite the existing carriage ramp, although this does seem a little like an afterthought. Six 'food trucks' will be parked between these stalls - on the diagram below, which has the high street at the bottom and the station top right, the yellow boxes are the bars, the red boxes the food trucks and the blue boxes the market stalls. 



The bar opposite the station would be placed right in front of one of only two public benches in the market yard, thus cutting public seating by half in one fell swoop. The remaining seat would fall within the bar area so it's unlikely to be available for public use, and even if you do get to sit on it you'll only be looking at a load of people drinking. Not to worry, you can always sit on the picnic tables under the tent - provided you have the money for a drink of course.


You're probably getting the drift that I'm not in support of this proposal. I'll set out a few of the main issues as I see it. 

1. The annexing of the public space. 
It's clear from the diagram above that the proposed bar would take over most of the public space outside the station (and quite a bit of the remainder has already been annexed by the bars and cafes at this end of the ramp). The public realm works very well, it has been refurbished to a high standard with good quality street furniture and it looks good. I often see people sitting on the benches enjoying sandwiches or just hanging out, watching the world go by. It can be, and is, used for events - whether that's dancing or a 'carless car boot sale', or any other temporary use. If a bar under a tent took over the space, this genuine public enjoyment would be lost, and temporary events would only be possible if they fitted in the space and outside the opening hours of the bar.

2. Where are the toilets?
No details have been provided of where the toilets will be - or even if there will be any. There is only one toilet for most of the carriage ramp (Little Nan's and Mousetail each have their own) so where are all these customers going to pee? Deptford already has a problem with public urination, this won't help. Perhaps they are going to dump (pun intended) some ugly Portaloos next to the remaining flower beds. Who needs greenery in any case? 

3. Why is it ok for some people to drink outside and not others?
Street drinking. The anchor got the blame for causing problems down at Deptford Broadway, but the street drinking that used to happen there is now rife in Douglas Square, and still causing problems. Why should that be classified as public nuisance but put the drinkers under a tent and charge them more, and it's a legitimate business. It also neatly leads me into the security issues. What's to stop the 'undesirable' drinkers just bringing their drinks and joining the party? Will they have to put barriers round the seating and have security on the door?

4. Loss of amenity.
The vast majority of the ground-level landscaping that was created as part of the public benefit from the development will be squandered. Seats will be unusable, plants will have their light blocked and the flower beds will become a litter trap, difficult to access for maintenance, the trees will become tent poles (and most likely leaning poles at the lower level).

5. Noise nuisance.
Residents in the Deptford Project already suffer noise from some of the units under the carriage ramp - speakers get brought outside by some tenants even though their leases prohibit it - and with a large bar in a mostly hard-landscaped area, the noise from drinkers can only add to this. Other local bars such as the Job Centre and Buster Mantis have limits on when outside drinking areas can be used, to limit noise for adjacent residents. Allowing a huge open-air bar in front of a huge residential building would make a mockery of this and could reasonably lead to other bars challenging such restrictions.

The planning application can be found online here http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_89709

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

Get a grip you rotten old tart!

Peter said...

How wonderful to be post anonymous abuse. I support everything you say Dame

Justin Addison said...

Totally agree, Dame. I hope the planners are taking note.

Anonymous said...

A canopy, a bar and no loos, what could possibly go wrong? Only an entire building next door being demolished to build a hotel. U+I are the Emperors With No Clothes.

Anonymous said...

This is just another example of the fabulous forces of gentrification at work if you ask me. Very good point about this middle class street drinking somehow being an acceptable reason to monopolise important public space while similar activity by others is regarded as enough of a nuisance to justify removing parts of local history. I've been here 20 years and my blood boils when I hear about things like this.

Jonathan said...

Great Article. Agree with all of it. I can't see it working at all. Aside from the stupid Idea to annex the public space and virtually chop
the trees out of sight I can't imagine any of the residents in the block just behind the yard putting up with the attendant noise. Let me give you and example. Buster Mantis has faced repeated claims from a single tenant in the block that overlooks Resolution Way, that they cause a nuisance on the street and create too much noise. A single persistent voice has been successful in persuading the council to
ask the bar to re apply for it's license. I walk past that bar to and from work and the noise is manageable, the music very low and the staff
constantly go outside to deter groups gathering on the road.

Unknown said...

So they want to compete directly with Little Nan's. 150 seats should make a really serious NOISE. Those silly popup electric points won't last long judging by the way they already keep poping up unasked. I notice the area under the carriage ramp is already badly broken and a serious trip hazard.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with you too Dame. I will send my objection to the council. People who live on Deptford high street, do not need this every evening making noise.. thanks for raising my attention.

Anonymous said...

I sat in the square outside the library yesterday evening whilst waiting for my Vietnamese takeaway and I was shocked by the amount of street drinking going on in the square and how intimidating it was - people getting hassled for money whilst holding a can of high strength lager etc. But I think there is a very clear difference between this aggressive alcohol fueled begging and enjoying a few drinks on my way home outside the station. It is not a class thing. Like the contributor above, I've also been here 20 years but unlike them I embrace the changes that are currently happening.

dormouse said...

Have tried to submit an objection to this but there is a problem with the site and the server times out. Just seems mad to introduce such an ugly proposal at the cost of public space.

Anonymous said...

13:21 Anon - I am the other 20 year-er! I do absolutely agree that's inappropriate, but I think if we're going to clamp down on street drinking, turning a nice, genuinely open space into a more 'trendy' version of just that by canopying it up while generating yet more noise and potential mess for nearby residents is not appropriate either. Begging and harassing people is by no stretch the same thing as sitting and having a drink in an environment such as this proposed one, but I just don't think it's justifiable to actively remove a part of local heritage in a bid to stop people sitting on its base and drinking (which, most of the time that I witnessed, didn't actually involve bothering others too much, but hey, I may well have been lucky to miss some real blinders!) only to then go and actively create another outdoor spot for people to sit and drink at, albeit in a different context. Personal opinions I suppose, but it just doesn't sit with me. Even aside from that, I just don't think it's a nice use of the space - I get the sense it will darken and crowd it, rather than making it feel open, safe and accessible, and monopolise what should be truly public space.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough Anon 15:58. I can see you argument much better with the fuller explanation. All the best, Anon 13:21 !

Anonymous said...

@15:58
Not sure what the anchor has to do with this but hey ho here we go. I've lived in the Lewisham area for 37 years. 23 in Deptford and 20 on the high street. When I first arrived as a student in New Cross, the end of the street at the junction with the Broadway was marked with fine, if dilapidated Edwardian sunken toilets. They in time were filled in with concrete and a nice tree planted above. Then Woolwich council discovered they had a (not very old) anchor to spare and gave it to Deptford. So the Anchor, which is not very historic
at all and has nothing in of itself to do with Deptford replaced a perfectly fine tree. Yes, I know Deptford shipyard was a great producer of vessels for Henry the eighth's navy but that actual anchor was a young freebie plonked on it's drunken throne with less real attachment
to the area than yours truly, or anyone else resident here for 25 years.

I'm sure for those who don't or didn't ever live near it, the drunks were nothing more harmful than 'local colour'. If you don't live there,
you can always walk away right? Perhaps we should consult the logs of the local crime prevention officers. They actively recommended
to the council on several occasions that things would vastly improve if the Anchor was removed. The council itself held several meetings on market stalls on the street and the overwhelming response from people at the time (before the last successful re-pave) was for something to be done about the problems focused on the anchor.

So the Anchor was removed and lo.. 70% of the drunks moved too. I'm perfectly aware that they actually moved only a short distance away and that the street drinking problem still exists. But.. my life and the lives of every shop, business and resident on the front line around that lump from another borough greatly improved.

Due to a very good campaign mainly focused on those folks either new to the area or those who have never lived within eyesight of it,
the anchor is now set for a return. There will be a planning notice posted after the current consultation process and people will be
allowed, if they wish, to object. No need to guess which way I'll be swinging.

Ironically some of the strategies used to publicise the return of the anchor were far more creative than the anchor itself. Some shops had personalised anchors set in or above the windows. Something like that for every shop would have been far more attractive, intelligent, personal and memorable.

You can take part in the consultation process for it's reinstalment by suggesting what should be written on its plaque. I'm plumping
for, 'If you're reading this you might be pissing on your shoes'. Maybe it's the ghost of those original lavs..

Anonymous said...

The "portal" is a ballache mainly because it keeps crashing. You can also submit comments to planning@lewisham.gov.uk quoting DC/17/101806 in the subject header.

Toilets will be a major issue here and if this goes ahead those nooks under the bridge will become piss ridden.

It seems unfair to allow bar-shacks with low overheads crop up when there are unused shop units locally.

By all means open a new bar in an existing space with conveniences.

Anonymous said...

Darling Dame, can we have a recommend button on here for the comments? It might improve the footfall on the site.

Anonymous said...

I think a venue like this-if done well- could help making the new area more popular and contribute to the success of the recently moved in independents.

Being the most central space in Deptford it's not directly next to residents so I think noise will not be such an issue. This could be regulated with reasonable open hours. (Sail loft as example, which is actually inside a residential development)

Anonymous said...

Noise is already an issue, we all want to see the heart of Deptford thriving and benefiting local trade (and in particular a market that connects well to the existing ones while offering something new) but what is planned is for food trucks and a bar run by non-deptford businesses. Punters are unlikely to be locals too, and even if they were it will only work for half the year, its litterally a canopy that is being proposed, no amount of heating and music will make it a pleasent place to sit in the winter. Needs to go back to the drawing board.

Anonymous said...

Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee the new baristas are brewing around here. The demographic of Deptford is changing so upscale amenities and services will inevitably follow. Take a walk around Brixton, Camberwell and Peckham to see this trend further on. Not everyone who lives in Deptford wants to drink in dive bars or fear harassment by dossers or drunks when they socialise in a public space at night. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a drink and good company in a nice setting. As a proud newish local I welcome anything that will bring footfall, trade and investment into the area. Those who carp on about Middle Class drinkers are just afraid. If you can't embrace change or up your game when market forces are at work you get priced out. This has always been the case in London. Go live somewhere where the free market doesn't exist and see how you like it.

Chris said...

'Go live somewhere where the free market doesn't exist and see how you like it.'

No. Fight to defend what is yours from incoming yuppies like Mr/Ms Anonymous who wants to live in a flat for a couple of years and then move on after they've got their grubby profits.

Bloody cheek!

Deptford Dame said...

@anon 21.41 sorry I don't think Blogger supports such buttons. If anyone knows different please drop me an email.

Deletante said...

@Chris 13.13 'defend whats yours' Lol! What is that, diddly squat? Unless you mean the mean streets of Deptford, which of course you don't own anymore than any other tax payer resident in the borough. Let me know how that strategy works out for you anyway.


Your righteous indignation is charming. Chipper some might say. But it won't pay your rent when that gets forced up by the upwardly mobile people you despise. And by the way yuppie is a dated term no one uses anymore. A bit like your class politics.

Anonymous said...

The Dame is a moaner who dislikes everything from wonky light posts to supermarkets to new cafes. Some people just can't deal with change and would rather live in the sentimental past (except for the issue of the anchor which as eloquently and factually stated above has nothing to do with DEPTFORD'S past other than an extremely tangential link).

QJ said...

The objectors are NOT afraid of change, we all want to see the market yard used in a way that benefits the most people, for the longest amount of time, and I suspect the vast majority supported the revelopment into a Marketplace - however this is not what is being offered. This proposal is badly designed (no toilets for 150 people!?) and is in contradiction of the council granting the Market Yard a licence until 10pm - it is clear the developer is trying to extract the most profit out of a site that they already made a ton from in the form of the 100+ flat Deptford Project. Time to give back to the community! That means everyone from 'newish' bar-loving residents, but also children, the eldery, and the very very diverse demographic of our area which is not being represented here.

The other problem is that outside drinking is very different from a marketplace - sitting in the open (even under a canopy) will not work for half the year in sunny London, but as you see on bright winter days on the High Street, a proper market, whether foody, crafty, or just more of what we have (think of Little Nans excellent boot sale the other day) is much more likely to be a sucess. This proposal minimises any oppertunity by offering only 13 stalls!

DD is clearly a very knowledgeable and longstanding local resident who cares about the details of each new proposal, and how these all act together to determine the future direction of our beloved Deptford.

Anonymous said...

DD is frankly a pain in the butt with her non-stop moaning, from traffic to spelling mistakes on restaurant boards, to the price of a potato salad, she's just a joke really, with her ridiculous blog that only caters for those who feel 'left out' supposedly.

I agree with those who see the change as positive, and drinking under a canopy is not just a middle class activity. Bring it on! Honestly, the silliness of this person!

Anonymous said...

1. an outside bar will attract customers to other shops already in the yard such as restaurants.

2. agreed that the lack of toilets is an issue but this is a problem with the design of the entire yard and needs to be rectified whether the outside bars go ahead or not.

3. the condescending comments on this chain about new residents are frankly disgusting. i have been in the area for 20 years and don't feel morally superior unlike others who have posted.

4. great to see people on here looking out for what other people want without consulting them or if they even care about a place they might probably never go, open air bar or not.

5. what "community" functions are desired here? open air creche? weekly book club? the Market Yard is a commercial venture created for no other reason than profit making like it or not, many wonderful community activities can already be found at locations such as the Albany, library etc that don't have profit motives. In case people weren't aware, both the High Street market and the Douglas Way market are commercial ventures without community activities.

6. I fail to see how a car boot sale at Little Nan's "gives back to the community"!!



Anonymous said...

This wouldn't happen in Chelsea!

Deletante said...

The mere mention of canopies and canapes in Deptford and the Corbinites surface. Thread comments on "middle class" drinkers and "non Deptford people" are almost laughable. There are plenty of shoddy public amenities nearby, not all new additions to Deptford town centre must appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Unless there are signs on the proposed bars saying no riff raff, I'm pretty certain everyone that wishes to could use the amenities. Arguments about inclusion and noise are just red herrings. No other area in London with as many bars and restaurants per sq mile lock down at 10pm. The fact is Deptford now has a growing night time economy so you guys better start dealing with it. Besides, you could just exercise your civil liberties and avoid using services you don't like.

Now there's a thought!

Chris said...

Deletante gives an ample demonstration of what is happening to Deptford. New money is pushing real people out and replacing them with banker/media drone types and their bloody canopy bars with no toilets.
That's class war, not other people's negative reaction to the importation of a plastic ersatz culture that attempts to turn places into unaffordable (for the most) ghettos.
You say, "But it won't pay your rent when that gets forced up by the upwardly mobile people you despise."
Charming. Again, your arrogant language is that of a class warrior. A class warrior who enjoys trampling all over people less fortunate than her. Luckily I own my house and have done for some years.

Anonymous said...

Dear Chris,

Can you please define "real" people without resorting to patronising bullshit stereotypes? Or is that beyond your superficial argument? Your description of "banker/media drone types" is blatant and arrogant class warrior language. People in who live in glass houses...

Thanks in advance

Anonymous said...

These bars are symptomatic of a wider issue, but should be discussed on an individual basis, they are singularly very badly designed, with no facilities, no indication of how they are going to be operated and completely out of context in what is supposed to be a marketplace.

On a wider level they will not contribute to the ecconomy of the high street which does not operate on an evening basis - however the yard should be a marketplace with stalls, not just food trucks and bars, and I have no issue with alcohol being served. But a proper market would have been complimentary to the high street without imposing singular night time activities on a residental area. This is not to do with politics - development does not have to be negative, we are about to bring 4000 new homes to deptford over the next few years and clearly the demographic is shifting. However it is important to maintain existing buisness and culture, this proposal is a shame because the wider Deptford Project regeneration has been carried out both sympathetic to heritage and with huge potential to increase commerce and improve the environment for local residents.

QJ said...

@Anon 29 June 2017 at 14:17

1. an outside bar will attract customers to other shops already in the yard such as restaurants.
- What about the high street? Shops and restaurants operate on different timescales, I am only in disagreement of the type of activity I fully support a thriving market in the yard which would also benefit these places. And what is going to attract the most people (the bar) will surely be busiest outside of shop hours? It is the shops in the arches, not the food places that are struggling from lack of footfall the most, however, I suspect winter will reverse this - at which point the outside bars will be empty anwyay!

2. agreed that the lack of toilets is an issue but this is a problem with the design of the entire yard and needs to be rectified whether the outside bars go ahead or not.
- trouble is, why was this not part of the wider Dept Proj earlier on? This proposal comes from U+I who were one Cathedral and brought the Dept Proj from inception to completion. Plenty of space if it was integrated before - like the little yard opposite the arches or the empty restaurant unit at the back of st pauls house. Seems they are desperate to get footfall in the yard ASAP and we will be left with a sub-standard solution. There HAS to be toilets based on licencing rules, so expect leaky vandalised portaloos round some dark corner! Also, the nature and design of the bars and canopy is out of place and will not integrate with the existing features of the yard (planters and benches etc) - more proof this whole idea is just a hasty afterthought!

3. the condescending comments on this chain about new residents are frankly disgusting. i have been in the area for 20 years and don't feel morally superior unlike others who have posted.
- I am also a longstanding resident but I dont think I have been morally superior at all, some other objectors may have been, but I prefer to keep this discussion focussed on this single applicaiton, not the wider issue of gentrification

4. great to see people on here looking out for what other people want without consulting them or if they even care about a place they might probably never go, open air bar or not.
- Now who's being condescending? This is just complete guesswork, I enjoy drinking and go to all the local bars (from the Dog&Bell to Buster Mantis), and we all have a right to an opinion based on our opinion and lifestyle.

5. what "community" functions are desired here? open air creche? weekly book club? the Market Yard is a commercial venture created for no other reason than profit making like it or not, many wonderful community activities can already be found at locations such as the Albany, library etc that don't have profit motives. In case people weren't aware, both the High Street market and the Douglas Way market are commercial ventures without community activities.
- A commercialy run bar will, at night time, be designated for a single activity with an age limit. The marketplace was part of the Developers S106 agreement and is very much intended to be giving back to the community. The high street (and douglas) hosts a commercial market (with local independent traders of course) but also plays a role in a huge amount of community activity - processions, events, music, artwork. Relying on free market ecconomics has limitations in a less-well-off area like Deptford, so its important to keep as much open space open to everyone with a real range of uses and activies

6. I fail to see how a car boot sale at Little Nan's "gives back to the community"!!
- I was drawing parallells with Douglas Way flea market, although LNs carboot appealed to a wider range of people you may not see in douglas sq. Also, the variety of local people taking up pitches, of all ages and backgrounds. I do not believe a large enough proportaion of these people enjoying this space will be catered for by the bars which take up far too much of the free space of the yard.

Anonymous said...

As European citizen it makes me feel better that people on this weblog not just hate me, but essentially want a drawbridge keeping every other person out of a Deptford.


Chris said...

"Your description of "banker/media drone types" is blatant and arrogant class warrior language."
Guilty. Guilty of despising people who move in to Deptford and then set about locals who may object to some of their passing fads. The attitude of Deletante sums you up nicely. "....so you guys better start dealing with it." And you accuse me of arrogance!
Go and set up your own blogs instead of insulting the author of this one who I most certainly do not agree with all time but respect where she's coming from totally.
Over and out.

Deletante said...

They say imitation is the best form of flattery, so to those who shall remain nameless, please do keep name checking me and quoting my posts ad verbatim. The interest isn't returned unfortunately.

As for the thread, good to see honest open debate about community participation in Deptford instead of the usual worthy drivel.

Sal665 said...

I think this proposal can be improved, which is why I am objecting. Thats why consultation exists, the developers can easily make changes and produce something that suits their commercial needs, but its up to the public to set them straight when they get it wrong

Anonymous said...

Dear Chris,

Well done - it's good to hear hatred is alive and thriving in Deptford and that you're proud enough to promote it! A diverse inclusive community includes everyone regardless of job, wealth, race, class, not just those that you in your misguided superiority deem worthy.

I was not insulting the author of this blog but was questioning your narrow minded NIMBY post and the reductive language used.

Thanks

Anonymous said...

"3. Why is it ok for some people to drink outside and not others?
Street drinking. The anchor got the blame for causing problems down at Deptford Broadway, but the street drinking that used to happen there is now rife in Douglas Square, and still causing problems. Why should that be classified as public nuisance..."

Seriously? Does this question really need to be asked?? One is licenced, legal, staffed, secure and contained in a small space that would be cleaned regularly. The other is illegal, anti-social, littering and a blight on the area.

Jonathan said...

Very lively thread here dame, well done. I thought your views on the canopy were/are measured, professional and expressed with great clarity.
I suspect some of the 'outraged and insulted newcomers' are actually from the market yard development team. They know your blog is read by the council. Gentrification is a two headed monster. Great for those locals who have bought property but very bad for those renting and being forced to cough up more or move on. It's also bad if you like diversity. And lets be honest about this, diversity is one of the first and biggest casualties. Development brings conformity, homogeneity and the seal of middle-class approval. Deptford has shops, businesses and families from India, Pakistan, West Africa, Jamaica, Vietnam, China, Turkey, Kosovo, Japan, Romania, Afghanistan, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine and many others. Not all of these people will be poor but many are here because historically Deptford was a place you could open a shop with low rents and low overheads.

Artists, designers, crafts people, musicians, all appreciate less wealthy and ethnically diverse areas as well. Living and studio spaces are cheap, the environment may be down at heel but it's lively and constantly surprising. Creatively self supporting (who else is going to do it?) communities spring up, add even more life to the area and then.. the developers start sniffing around. Prices are cheap, but they know the potential is there to push them higher and they know that some suckers will always fall for the 'artistic bonus', the 'creative quarters', the 'market yards'. They also know full well but keep quiet about the rising prices of their involvement pushing out the very people who make the area interesting in the first place. And the incoming buyers and renters slowly but surely see the faces on the street looking more and more like their own. Most of the artists studios in Deptford have been closed down. They are not here in anything like the numbers they once were. The pressure will also be on for the small businesses on the high street. Rents will inevitably rise and the diversity and liveliness will be increasingly diluted

My children went to Tidemill, At that time there were 26 different ethnicities. (though they all spoke english). Five years from now I can't see that being the same.

Anonymous said...

LOL you're so full of nonsense!

No one cares about the 26 different ethnicities, they're not the ones who will be drinking! Nor their parents I suspect!

A breath of fresh air is coming to Deptford, bring it on, young and old need to live life al fresco, this is modern living!

Deletante, I love your posts, thanks for standing up to this bunch of moaners!

Jonathan said...

@ LOL you're so full of nonsense.

Four exclamation marks. Ambassador, you are spoiling us. Is it wet under the bridge?

Anonymous said...

5 actually Jonathan

Jonathan said...

@5actuallyJonathan.

Oops. I thought- LOL you're so full of nonsense! - was your username.

It could work you know.

Anonymous said...

Aren't you busy fundraising for something or other for your little ones' school Jonathan!



Jonathan said...

@LOLyou're so full of nonsense!

The children are all grown up. And you?

Anonymous said...

Grown up onto the next ladder of benefits I am assuming Jonathan!

I'm of drinking age, thanks for asking!



Jonathan said...

@LOLyou're so full of nonsense!

You are assuming you have grown up onto the next ladder of benefits? Are you asking me or making a proclamation?

If it's a question then I think you may be in a better position to answer, if it's a proclamation then you have my heartiest congratulations.

Either way this is such Friday fun. Please don't stop.

Barrel.
Fish.
In.

Anonymous said...

It is possible to have views contra to the anti-development crusaders on here and not be employed by the developer. It is called freedom of speech.

Sal665, the haters on here don't want an improved proposal, they don't want change. I agree with you, the proposal as stands is not adequate, but the idea could be. It seems this conversation can quickly descend to irrelevant issues like noise which is quite amusing given that there are already evening outdoor bars in the Market Yard, there are two large restaurant units next door waiting to be filled and it's under a train line! The noise claim is simply a cover for an anti-gentrification agenda, which quite frankly is a loosing battle in this day and age.




Anonymous said...

Jonathan!

Indeed, great Friday fun! It would be even more fun under the canopy enjoying an alcoholic beverage I'd like to add, whether on a Friday or a Monday straight off the station platform into the beer garden below! Especially with the fabulous summer that is coming our way!

And, while at it, let's also have festivals there, with boozing, dancing and all sorts of merrymaking, council take note!

Jonathan said...

@It is possible to have views contra..

''It is possible to have views contra to the anti-development crusaders on here and not be employed by the developer.''

Absolutely. Just as it's possible to post anonymously views that promote the interests of a multi million pound development.

Noise is always a relevant consideration in planning applications when you have bars and restaurants adjacent to residential blocks. Four or five bars very close together would make much more noise than two or three.

I can't speak for everyone in Deptford but I moved here more than twenty years ago partly because it's in my nature to embrace change and difference. This is, as you know a highly diverse area with one of the most mixed ethnic populations I have ever come across. And as I've said above, gentrification is not all bad. Viewing it as an unavoidable force of nature though is bad. It assumes we can't change it when we can. That's why we have planning applications open to the views of those affected by development.

No one above has addressed two of the specific points in the proposal.

If there are no toilets what do people do?
If the noise, already an issue with Buster Mantis, becomes a problem for the residents of the block above what then?



Jonathan said...

@LOLyou'resofullofnonsense.

Ahh, I thought you'd forgotten me.

Yes. I can see you like a drink. There is something quite interesting about your writing, it's bit like good Russian badly translated. I think the fabulous summer has already.. arrived. Take tip from one longtime leg puller to.. another. Sometime, a bit like method acting which has stuck, pretending to be other person make you other too.

Anonymous said...

From Russia with Lurv Jonny baby xxx

Anonymous said...

Jonathan, I hate to burst your bubble but there is no great conspiracy here. I am a concerned resident who felt the need to speak out in light of some of the delusions posted in this chain. What the difference between posting as anonymous, as a pseudonym or as a christian name is I'm not sure, but I guess such pragmatic considerations don't fit in with your sensational suspicions. Maybe it's those pesky Russian hackers again!!

In answer to your questions:

More toilets are needed in the yard whether the bar goes ahead or not as it is a major design fault.

Noise can be minimised by licencing laws, that's what they exist for. The problem with Buster Mantis is one resident. BM have dealt with the issue by not allowing people to congregate outside after 10pm.

These points will be taken into account by the council when they consider the planning application and will ask for revisions should they deem such points significant.

Jonathan said...

@Anonymous 10:27

No problem. Though I'm not sure which Anonymous you are. There would seem to be a few. Yes the objection against Buster Mantis is from one resident. I may have pointed that out myself. I was using it as an example of how it only takes a single determined soul to make a very effective complaint in the context of bars and restaurants in very close proximity to residential buildings. Because putting to many to close together might not be a good idea. Who'd've thunk it? Think of my 'sensational suspicions'..I like that actually, sounds like a good username, or a line of budget lingerie, as someone who likes to dangle a leg out now and then in order for it to be pulled. I'm pretty sure who was pulling it and it's ok, quite fun every now and then. I don't think there is any conspiracy. Just that if I was a multi million pound development company and a local blog started intelligently chipping away at my latest wheeze I might want to put my best foot forward. In as many ways as possible.

Though the first comment on the thread might not be the best direction of travel. Then again, that could always be just another concerned resident who can't bear another day without another two bars. Under a light blocking, pigeon soiled umbrella. Next to some other bars already there.


The larger questions of the positive and the negative effects of gentrification are still relevant. New toilets, big white tent and impeccably behaved drinkers not withstanding.

Cheerio for now.

Anonymous said...

Noise and facilities particular interest to licencing department. If planning give the go ahead (which would be insane without revisions including location of WCs even if its just a temporary solution) then I suspect licencing will feel inclined to grant a 11pm licence. The developer has put a lot of effort in to Deptford, and have the ear of the decision makers. This is a problem because they obviously feel they can get away with proposals like this that are so ful of holes.

The issue of noice should be a big one - all other venues, Buster Mantis included, take steps to ensure it can be minimised, Job Centre closes the garden at 10, Little Nans are supposed to have a door man who can get punters to shut up if they are making a racket. The big difference is they are ALL indoor spaces, this is entirely outside. 150 people speaking & shouting over recorded music or DJs is going to be very loud, 50 flats line the space, there are families in there and objections are bound to happen. Its just not the right space for this use, I am in no way against outside drinking, bars, music and night culture, it just doesnt work here!

ConstantlyPissedOffDame said...

Ooh what's this area coming to, middle class punters buying a drink and some nosh from local businesses, ooh dearie dearie me what a recipe for disaster

the drawndrip said...

@constantlyP..19:15


''Ooh what's this area coming to..?''

It's coming to a sea of Jeremy's. As Jem and Jemima blow mum and dads cash on boutique cereal outlets and bespoke deckchair oil.

It's what built the British empire. Init.

Anonymous said...

@drawndrip

This chain sounds like a sea of Jeremy bloody Corbyns trying to regress the area back to 1950

drawndrip said...

Yo bro. he's winning. Join in sweetie.

Anonymous said...

@drawndrip

LOL!!! Winning? 2017 election results: Tories 318 seats, Labour 262 seats. I think you need to google what the word "win" means. I suggest you wait to respond until you wake up from your dreamland

Ramona said...

We should get Jezza to open the canopy bar area, that should get some great publicity for the area, how can we do this, anyone know, anyone with contacts?

Alan said...

This is one of the worst schemes concerning what should be public space in Lewisham in decades that will sit empty all winter, every winter. No, its not about the type of people who are already incoming, its not about who are real deptford, its about the change of use from a public square into a bar - an outdoor bar, which wont be able to operate properly because there are no bloody toilets, 100 flats next door (its OUTSIDE remember) and we live in England not mainland Europe where the weather permits this sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

@anon 1 July 23:57

Lewisham Deptford:
Labour, Vicky Foxcroft: 77% 42,461
Conservative, Melanie Mclean: 13.7% 7,762

Deptford does not share your opinions

Paul Prentice said...

I'm a (relative) newcomer to Deptford and I'm a big fan of many of the new businesses in the market yard, which add character (and much needed caffeine for morning commuters too!). But these proposals are just awful and badly thought out. In an area that's clearly had a problem with Street drinking and anti social behaviour anything that attracts it could make residents' lives a misery in summer (I doubt this would be viable in summer). Any outdoor bar needs toilets. Only on Friday I came out of the Station House block to see a man urinating behind the carriage ramp in broad daylight...

Paul Prentice said...

I meant it wouldn't be viable in winter, unless all it sold was mulled wine.

Corbynisdoneanddusted said...

Corbyn still LOST you moron, Vicky 77% or not @anon 23.47

Corbynisdoneanddusted said...

@20.45 that was meant to read, sorry Diane was doing the sums

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 23:57

Not my opinions. It's the opinions of the nation. I've got over it, you should too.

Ramona said...

I dont know why your being horrible about Jezza, he seems such a nice man, we should invite him over in Deptford

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Do you really think that the staff at the bar would be serving alcohol to the local anti-social bums? A bit of common sense is required in this issue.

Anonymous said...

Alan,

I hate to break the bad news to you but it's not a public square. It's privately owned by a big bad multi-million pound property developer. The cheek of them to wanting to make money from their investment!!

Anonymous said...

The train carriage had an external toilet in a garden shed and I don't recall such outrage as the comments above, but I guess that was before the Jeremy-fication of Deptford so it either passed under the radar or people have very short memories. The same can be done here - problem solved. Who would have thought taking a dump would be so political!

Anonymous said...

Ironically enough in Deptford the 77% is only a little bit more than the percentage of people living in social housing. However the political discussion here is mute because both main parties have descended into utter incompetence and idiocracy.

Anyway, a little bit more tolerance wouldn't hurt on this forum. Add a toilet, maybe reduce the size a little and have social opening hours and let people enjoy their freaking drink.

Corbynisdoneanddusted said...

Well said Anonymous 10.29

Anonymous said...

Bringing politics into the discussion is such a waste of time and not something the planners will ever take into consideration. The square may be private land (most publicly used open space in London is) but the developer committed to adding a market as a community focussed resource as part of the consultation process and the resulting section 106 agreement. It would be nice to see something that was more varied in use, which could include a smaller bar. I take some issue with the idea of simply adding a toilet, because this is what the developer will do anyway (and given their vision for night time use why wernt proper toilets included earlier as part of the new buildings?) - but they will be portacabins installed somewhere shady and a nightmare to maintain. And yes the train carriage did have a loo in a shed but the whole thing was always a Temporary installation put there by this same developer in order to curry favour with locals prior to turning the station yard into a building site for 2 years. Bad toilets + bad climate + bad accoustics = bad scheme.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 3 July 2017 at 11:43

A temporary installation that was there for 6 years in which I had a very favourable curry when it was on the menu.

Why do you automatically assume they would be badly maintained portacabins? Perhaps the designer could convert part of the containers into loos? This could look very nice and match the overall aesthetic of the bar. And there are things called employees that would clean them as I'm sure a bar with "shitty" toilets would soon lose its customers.

And I wait with baited breath to see this "community focused resource" called a market as this is an oxymoron. Yet one can live in hope!

Anonymous said...

Community focused resource, in this context something adaptable and that doesnt exclude anyone based on age or the activity taking place - Deptford Market is very much one and no reason why the Market Yard can't be too, while being commercially viable and structured.

There is no argument that the train carriage was always intended to be a temporary structure, and it is a shame they couldn't return it to the yard after the construction phase, thank Network Rail for that. The proposal for the two bars is a permanant and long term vision of the operators, it needs to be done correctly. Converting part of the container into WCs isnt on the cards, presumably because they are of a fixed size and need to include a lot of storage for all of the benches and bar equipment outlined in the application. A bar of 150 people would necessitate a minimum of 2 male and 2 female WCs - a fair bit of floorspace. It would be nice to think whatever is provided will be kept clean, but by precident consider Franks in Peckham, an outdoor bar (summer only mind!) on top of a carpark requiring temporary-style toilets that by the mid-evening are really disgusting. However they are not in a publicly used space, or next to restaurants/cafes, or outside someones flat, so it is not much of an issue there. In this situation, combined with the generation of noise and unlikely year-round use, it just doesn't work. Its been a good debate, lets hope the developers provide something with more substantial information rather than making us guess.

Anonymous said...

"Community focused resource" = shopping. Sounds very inclusive!

Anonymous said...

I think its summed up fairly well in the first paragraph of the previous post. Its not a shopping mall and its inclusive based on age, interests and the adaptability of activities taking place. IMO whats proposed will not enhance that, but will restrict a space with great potential.

Jake said...

How about a skateboarding park instead to liven up the space and bring about a nice community spirit

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, i'd like to hear some suggestions of what this inclusive, adaptable, multi-activity, commercially viable, non-shopping, structured community focused resource could be for this space with great potential as your first paragraph says jack about anything other than pie in the sky, non-descript jargon. but i guess it's much easier to obtusely complain than add anything productive to the conversation.

and btw, deptford market is a street of market stalls that are there to make profit. it's laughable to suggest it exists for any other reason.