The anchor cometh

The imminent return of the anchor to Deptford High Street is a demonstration that people power really can make a difference - although you do have to be incredibly bloody-minded and tenacious, particularly if it involves dealing with local councils.

Luckily Deptford has got more than its fair share of bloody-minded and tenacious folk, some of whom were not willing to take no for an answer after the council removed the anchor from the south end of the high street during the renovation works in 2013.

The anchor was a much-loved reminder of Deptford's maritime past; it might not have originated from a Deptford-built ship, but it provided a symbolic link to the prosperous days of Deptford's Royal Dockyard and local people did not take kindly to it being removed. Long term followers of this blog may recall that I was particularly narked about the consultation that took place before its removal; the consultation included a question about what should happen to the anchor, and 84% of respondents agreed that it should remain in Deptford.

However council officers chose to interpret this as supporting the permanent relocation of the anchor to Convoys Wharf - something I'll wager not a single one of those respondents even considered would be an option.

Lobbying for its return has been a long and complex process, with the usual meetings, petitions and lobbying being interspersed Deptford-stylee with parades, street interviews, posters, paper bags, tattoos, chalk and red tape - both literally and figuratively. If you want to read all the ins and outs, they are set out in minute detail on the Deptford Is Forever website. Tireless efforts by DIF and the Deptford Society were fundamental to getting this issue resolved, despite repeated efforts by council officers and even some council members to obfuscate, delay and derail the process.

Cutting a long story short, the upshot of all this activity is that a mere five years since being removed (a drop in the ocean of Deptford's history) the anchor will be restored almost to the exact spot, but without the plinth that created a handy seating area for Deptford's street drinkers.

As we all predicted, the street drinkers did not magically disappear when the anchor was removed - they just relocated to other places in the high street where they had somewhere to sit - Giffin Street and Douglas Square are firm favourites now.

Anchor and plinth - ideal for an alfresco pint

Anchor no plinth - not so comfy

Current ETA is February although don't hold your breath; the ETA has slipped a few times already, but there's no reason to think it won't happen. Planning applications have been submitted and approved, funds have been found (from the appropriate part of the community infrastructure levy, one assumes) contractors have been briefed and all they have to do now is get Hutchison Whampoa to let them on the site to pick up the anchor for a good wash and brush up ready for its triumphant return. 

I'll certainly be raising a glass (discreetly of course) to celebrate.

Cycle superhighway proposals for Creek Road and Evelyn Street

TFL is rolling out plans to expand the cycle superhighway network across this part of London, and is currently consulting on proposals for a new route between Tower Bridge and Greenwich.

As well as creating fully segregated cycle lanes along the entire road, a whole host of other improvements are planned, not just for cyclists but for pedestrians as well. Simplified pedestrian crossings and improvements to public realm are proposed; one bus stop fewer is proposed for the Deptford Park section of the road, and most of those along Evelyn Street are set to be moved one way or another to make spaces between them a bit more even.

The overview map is shown below - there's no detail as yet on the plans for Lower Road, apparently this is still in consultation with Southwark given that the area around Canada Water is due to be heavily redeveloped in the near future.

The plans so far show the segregated cycle lanes crossing from the north side of the road to the south side just before Southwark Park, so that cyclists and motorists will no longer come into conflict on the unpleasant Rotherhithe roundabout. Further along on Evelyn Street they are back on the north side of the road, but as yet there are no suggestions as to where or how this will happen - presumably at one of the junctions that is earmarked for full remodelling.

(Click for a bigger version)

Plans for the bottom end of Deptford High Street are shown below - the current situation top (although this is now slightly out of date with the new, widened pavement already in place) and the proposed segregated lanes on the second image.

The main change to what's there now are restrictions on right turns and the removal of the two pedestrian crossings, which will be combined into one single crossing and brought much closer to the end of the high street.  

Motorists will no longer be able to turn right out of Deptford High Street towards Greenwich, nor will they be able to turn right into DHS from the Greenwich-bound lanes of Evelyn Street, which makes a lot of sense in terms of simplifying the situation for cyclists and pedestrians here. There will also be a ban on right turns out of Watergate Street.

Being a regular cycle commuter I'm firmly in favour of this proposal, and having used the segregated lanes in central London I relish the idea of similar facilities in our local area, making bike travel safer and easier for everyone.

Consultation is open until 19th November and there are plans available in the Deptford Lounge and Canada Water Library throughout the consultation - there's also a consultation event at Deptford Lounge this weekend where TFL staff will be present to answer questions (see below).

The online consultation has links to much more detailed maps of each section of the proposed route.

Consultation events:
Saturday 14 October 11am-3pm, Deptford Lounge 9 Giffin Street, SE8 4RH 
Tuesday 17 October 4-7pm, St Alfege Church Hall, 3 Greenwich Church Street, SE10 9BJ 
Saturday 21 October 11am-3pm, James Wolfe Primary School, 21 Randall Place, SE10 9LA Wednesday 25 October 3pm-7pm, The Finnish Church, 33 Albion Street, SE16 7JG 
Saturday 4 November 11am-3pm. The Finnish Church, 33 Albion Street, SE16 7JG 

Consultation on first phase of Convoys Wharf development

Convoys Wharf developer Hutchison Property Group has a public 'consultation' event today and tomorrow (Friday 7th and Saturday 8th July) at the Deptford Methodist Church on Creek Road.

You are invited to attend and give your feedback on the plans for the first detailed planning application for the site, which relates to one plot in the first phase of the work (the one marked in red on the plan below). 

Outline planning permission for the site was granted in 2014 after the developer demanded that the mayor of London call the application in, saying that Lewisham planners were taking too long over it and that they were in a hurry to start work.

Scroll forward three years... 'nuff said. 

You can read my post about the outline application here and there's a lot more background on the development on this blog if you search for 'convoys'. 

The developer's rather woeful website is here.

The consultation is at the methodist church on Creek Road (not Creek Street as the flyer says FFS) from 5-8pm tonight, and 10-1pm Saturday.

Drone footage of Convoys Wharf site

With enabling works having recently started on the Convoys Wharf site, readers might be interested in having a look 'over the fence' with this great drone footage posted by Sayes Court.



The enabling works which are being carried out by contractor FM Conway include building a haul road through the site in preparation for the construction of buildings on the site.

It's now two years since developer Hutchison Whampoa secured outline planning permission for the site. They have permission to redevelop the site based on the masterplan that was approved by Boris Johnson after he called in the scheme at the developer's request. This includes construction of 3,500 homes, including three huge towers on the waterfront. Before they can build any of the scheme they must submit (and receive approval for) detailed planning applications. They have just put up a new website for the scheme.

If you are interested in the background to the planning process and the detail of the outline proposal you can find it by searching the archive of this blog. Both of the local community projects that were incorporated in the plans after several years of campaigning - the Lenox Project and Sayes Court Garden - also have information on their websites.

There is also a group called Voice4Deptford which is being run by Pepys Community Forum and is intended to represent the local community in future discussions with the developer. They have a meeting on 6th September at the Armada Community Hall for anyone interested in getting involved.

Convoys Wharf - homes at last!

I've been planning to write a post about all things Convoys Wharf for the last couple of months; events last weekend have finally given me the nudge I needed to actually get on with it.

Having spent years moaning on about how this site should be redeveloped to provide more than just unaffordable and slightly-less-unaffordable housing, I am delighted to report that it's currently providing free housing for a group of travellers who pitched up at the weekend. 

Eleven caravans and their occupants arrived on the site and set themselves up next to one of the big remaining warehouses - this picture on Twitter taken by a resident of Paynes & Borthwick tower on the east side of Convoys Wharf is also a good indication of the scale of the site.

(Photo courtesy @insyncbody)

A day or so later they had relocated to the inside of the warehouse. I guess those doors just swung open in that windy weather we had. 

(Photo courtesy @insyncbody)

The gates on Grove Street are now wide open and the site has officially been declared a home by its current residents.

The guards sit impotently outside, unable to impede anyone from entering or leaving and it seems there will be no change on this for a couple of weeks at least; a new poster stuck on the gates next to the occupants' declaration of residency gives notice of a hearing at Woolwich County Court on 24th July. 

The ticking time-bomb of our capital's housing crisis - which the Mayor of London seems to think will be adequately addressed by allowing developers to build overpriced apartments while shirking any responsibility for housing our low-paid key workers - provides a sobering backdrop to this kind of shenanigans. While some people may prefer to live in caravans, there are an increasing number who are forced to do so out of financial necessity and a lack of options. The number of people living afloat long term is also booming - a few years ago the canals of east London were largely deserted; now they are lined for miles with craft of all shapes, sizes and states of repair which serve as homes for our city's residents. 

I'm sure this is only a minor and temporary thorn in the side of site owner Hutchison Whampoa, but the past 18 months have raised ongoing questions about their intentions for this land.

You may remember that the company demanded the Mayor of London call in the planning application because they were annoyed at Lewisham Council 'taking too long' to consider their proposals. It's a huge site and a very significant piece of land for this borough, being the majority of our waterfront, even before you consider the historical context of the Royal Dockyard, Sayes Court Garden, Pepys and John Evelyn. Hutchison Whampoa's complaint that the council's planners were doing their job thoroughly and carefully says a lot about this developer as an organisation.

So with planning permission granted by the Mayor of London in March last year, and the section 106 agreement finally signed this March, Hutchison Whampoa must be firing on all cylinders, getting mobilised to get moving on this development they've been planning for so long, right?

Wrong.

In the four months since the S106 was signed (and almost 18 months since they received the go-ahead for their outline application) not a single detailed planning application has been lodged with Lewisham's planning department.

You cannot tell me that a developer with the resources of Hutchison Whampoa is unable to work up detailed planning applications in that amount of time. By the volume and extent of their protestations to Boris, you'd think they had the detailed plans all set out and ready to unleash two years ago!

Perhaps HW will try and put the blame on the community projects Sayes Court Garden and The Lenox Project, but the truth is that neither of these schemes is located in the east end of the site, which is scheduled for the first phase works.

In fact I understand that yesterday's planned site visit to Convoys Wharf - on the very first day of the somewhat-controversial feasibility study for the Lenox Project - descended into farce, with the assessor and his team first denied access and then granted it and then eventually denied it again by HW. With the customary lack of manners that reports suggest have been consistent throughout the last couple of years' negotiations, HW staff didn't even bother to attend.

The continued lack of any progress on the site in the face of the demand for intervention, surely begs the question, who's yanking whose chain? Presumably Boris doesn't give a shit that he's been made a fool of over this - he'll be off next year and handing over the reins of (considerable) power.

We, on the other hand, are back to waiting. Good luck to the current residents of the site - at least someone has a home for now.

Deptford to Woolwich - our changing riverside

Photographer Peter Marshall, who has a lifelong fascination for London's industrial heritage, has just published the fifth in his series of London Docklands books, this one focussing on the riverside between Deptford and Woolwich in the early eighties.

Peter has been taking photos of industrial heritage in London for years, and has recently scanned many of his pictures of the city's former docklands and compiled them into a series of books focussing on different parts of the riverscape.

You can see a preview of the book online, including photos of Convoys Wharf in use, the Master Shipwrights House pre-restoration, and the heavy industry of Deptford power station and the scrap dealers of Stowage and Creek Road.

On his own blog, Peter gives some insight into the technical challenges of scanning old film and the havoc that bugs can wreak on gelatin. There's also another blog entry showing some of the images that didn't get chosen for the book.

This latest book and the others in the series are a great record of the largely-disappeared industrial heritage of east London - and a stark reminder of how rapidly our riverside and docklands have changed in just a few decades. Very little remains and it's only through Peter's picture captions that it's possible to place the vast majority of the locations.

21 years of urban change in Deptford - free workshop and seminar

Twenty-one years on from the publication of Jess Steele's seminal book Turning the tide: the history of everyday Deptford, Goldsmiths University Centre for Urban and Community Research is hosting a special event to investigate recent regeneration and its impact on Deptford.

The event takes place in the former Deptford Town Hall council chamber (a reason in itself for attending if you have never been inside!) on Friday April 25th

Programme: 
3.30 – 5.30 Seminar: The changing face of “regeneration” in London 
Short initial interventions by: Alison Rooke, Michael Keith, Heidi Seetzen, Rob Imrie, Luna Glucksberg 

5.30 – 6.00 Screenings and sound intervention: Creative Responses to Urban Change in Deptford (food and drinks provided) 

6.00 – 8.00 Workshop: 21 Years of Urban Regeneration in Deptford 
Short provocations by: Ben Gidley, Jess Steele, Jessica Leech, Neil Transpontine, and Joe Montgomery 

Followed by roundtable discussions: 

• Creative Deptford: arts, culture and regeneration 
• Housing and neighbourhood 
• DIY Deptford: regeneration from below? 
• Convoys Wharf: regeneration or land grab? 
• The changing face of Deptford: migration, identity, diversity and generation

It's free to attend but registration is required - see the website for more information.

For anyone interested in the history of Deptford, Turning the tide is a must-read - the text is dense and at first glance can seem impenetrable, but the book is thoroughly-researched and packed with fascinating facts about the area. The enduringly melancholic photo of the clock tower from the dockyard's Tudor storehouse being sailed away to Thamesmead in the epilogue reminds the reader that this heist by Greenwich Council, within whose boundaries the dockyard was at the time, happened only eight years before Jess Steele's book came out.  

Mayor seals the deal for Deptford's high-density future

Very much as expected, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson yesterday granted approval for Hutchison Whampoa's ambitious plans to shoe-horn 3,500 new homes into the former royal dockyard site on the Deptford waterfront.

The entire hearing was filmed and if you have the stamina and love to see our great democracy* in action, you can watch it in its full three-hour-plus glory on the mayor's webcast site  but I wouldn't recommend it. Not sure if it's a Mac thing or my broadband or what, but the quality of picture I get is very poor.

Being a consummate politician, Boris makes a great play of listening carefully to all the objections (yes, even Dave Fleming!) and he does ask a lot of questions, but there are some quite obvious moments where he fails to pursue the investigation to its natural end, raising suspicions that it is mostly for show. He'd already decided, I think we all know that.

Even his 'decision' to incorporate two further conditions into the approval, purporting to support the community-led Lenox Project and Sayes Court Garden CIC, strike me as nothing more than a bit of good news with which to gloss over the approval of a development with tall towers, high density housing, appalling public transport connections and too many car parking spaces.

Architect Terry Farrell also attended the hearing - having not been seen since the famous 'build from the  ground-up' pledge on the first open day - and fresh from his unveiling of the Farrell Review which he worked on for the government. Conflict of interest? Can't think what you mean!

*I use the term ironically of course. One man with the power to make a decision which will irrevocably change the lives of many, and not in a good way.

GLA recommends approval of Convoys Wharf application

The GLA's officers have recommended that the Mayor of London approve Hutchison Whampoa's plans to redevelop Convoys Wharf in Deptford - the ultimate decision will be made by our city's esteemed (ahem) mayor either at the end of, or within five days of, next Monday's hearing.

The recommendation for approval is not really unexpected given that the GLA seems to be all about housing these days, and very little else, and of course it is only a recommendation; since the decision is to be made by a single individual he is free to ignore the recommendation if he wishes, although he would have to have very good reasons as the developer would be sure to challenge a refusal.

But there are plenty of reasons to refuse this application, many of them were previously pointed out by the GLA itself, and it's disappointing that GLA officers don't seem to have made much progress in resolving all the issues they highlighted when they reviewed the previous scheme in 2011. As far as I can see, little has changed since then and the latest report seems to confirm this no matter how much of a positive spin the planners seek to put on it.

The report into the application, which justifies the decision, is 120 pages long, so you'd better get started reading it if you want to have it all fully read and digested by next week's bunfight at City Hall.

Should you have a few minutes to spare after reading that tome, you may wish to read the report put together by Lewisham Council for the strategic planning committee earlier this week, which suggests that all is not as rosy as the GLA suggests in its recommendation for approval.

Anyone can go to the hearing - anyone who doesn't have to go to work, that is, since it's being held at 4pm on a weekday - and if you want to attend, you can find the full details on the website.

A number of objectors have asked for a slot in the schedule, including representatives of the two community projects - the Lenox Project and Sayes Court Garden - along with Malcolm Cadman from Pepys Community Forum and Ray Woolford from local political party People Before Profit (and local estate agent Housemartins). People Before Profit are asking for volunteers to dress up as pirates for a demo at the hearing, so it looks like being a colourful event.

Convoy's Wharf redevelopment; is the end nigh?

The mayoral call-in of the planning application for the redevelopment of Convoys Wharf is set to reach its climax - or some might say its nadir - at the end of this month, with news that the Mayor of London will hold his 'representation hearing' on 31st of March.

As you may remember, the scheme was called in by Boris Johnson at the behest of developer Hutchison Whampoa, after HW sent a moany letter complaining that Lewisham Council was being awkward and slow in making a decision about the site.

Shops in a shed?

With Lewisham Council originally claiming it would make its decision at the end of February, the mayoral call-in has certainly not made the process any quicker. In that case, the only assumption I can draw is that HW believes the application will get a more favourable decision from Boris.

Johnson has spent a lot of time in the last year spouting on about London's severe lack of housing, using this as his excuse for calling-in numerous contentious developments and saying that only foreign investment can solve this problem. It's true, there is a severe lack of housing in London, but it's mainly social housing that is required, properties that public sector workers and those on the minimum wage can rent in order to allow them to live nearer to their workplaces. What interest do foreign investors have in assisting us to meet these needs, when the financial return on such investment cannot match what they would make from private housing?

Despite the disapproval from multiple quarters that his decision to call in the Convoys Wharf application generated, the mayor seems to have no intention of reconsidering his meddlesome ways. In fact it seems to have spurred him on to even more widespread planning-application kleptomania. In December he called in the City Forum planning application for City Road which Islington Council had said it was minded to refuse, and in January he called in an application by the Royal Mail for its Mount Pleasant site, straddling Islington and Camden boroughs, before the two local authorities had chance to make a decision (sound familiar?).

The former (almost 1,000 apartments in buildings ranging from 7 to 42 storeys, a hotel, office space and retail) was refused by Islington because it didn't have enough 'affordable' housing, it would result in a loss of employment space on a site allocated for employment use (sound familiar?), too much car parking provision, too many studio flats of sub-standard quality, and too little attention to minimising carbon emissions.

The Mount Pleasant proposal - to build 683 flats along with shops, restaurants etc on part of the land of the mail sorting office - was called in at the behest of the landowner, Royal Mail. Sound familiar? This also met with strong criticism and the mayor's perceived abuse of power in this regard was criticised by the London Assembly earlier this month.

With Johnson's megalomaniac tendencies no longer even thinly disguised, I suspect we cannot really expect the floppy-haired one to make a considered and level-headed decision, even on a matter that has implications of national and international significance.

So what can we expect in the redevelopment of the site? When Sir Terry Farrell (a member of the London Mayor's 'design advisory group') came to Deptford two years ago to speak at the much-touted 'open day' - shortly after site owner Hutchison Whampoa withdrew its appalling Aedas-designed proposals for the dockyard - he gave a commitment to develop a new masterplan 'from the ground up'.

He promised to take inspiration from the rich heritage of the site; the ships that were built and launched there, the technology that was tested and developed there, the historic significance of the site in the development of the British Navy, not to mention the many stories great and small, the personal histories and the grand gestures that give the site its incredible past.

Putting the Olympia Building 'at the heart' of the development

Fine words, and an inspiring vision; sadly not one that was ever fulfilled.

Heart and lungs - a much more sustainable vision

The architects had a fine time researching the history of the site and coming up with storyboards galore tracing every nook and cranny of the Olympia Building, every lump of mud excavated from the docks and every seed scattered in John Evelyn's gardens. But from the storyboards to the planning documents, the spirit of adventure and the 'ground-up' masterplan got lost - or in my more charitable moments I like to think that the architects did a fine job but their creativity was crushed by the mighty and unforgiving hand of the master.

I won't go through all my objections again - you can read them in some detail here, alternatively you can ask an obvious question in the comments and risk ridicule - but suffice it to say that in my opinion, very little has changed.

An article in Building Design magazine last month had developer Hutchison Whampoa claiming to have made 'significant concessions' following a meeting with the GLA

“We have made further revisions to our masterplan to address issues raised by local groups,” a spokesman for the developer said. 

"By moving the school, creating new space for a John Evelyn horticultural centre, lowering the height of a building on the boundary adjacent to the listed Shipwright’s House and offering the wharf site for the Lenox project, we have made significant concessions.” He added: “We believe the way is now clear for the mayor of London to determine our application, hopefully by the end of March.”

These claims are at odds with the experiences of the local groups. Yes, the school has been moved and a space made for the horticultural centre, but the developer is unwilling to consider a further amendment that those promoting Sayes Court Garden claim will realistically make the centre viable. This could be done without losing floorspace in the building, but the developer has shut down any further discussion on the matter.

The Lenox Project has fared even less well - the only 'offer' of a presence on the site being a verbal suggestion that the GLA might contribute to the cost of building a dry dock on the protected wharf at the west end of the site. I laughed so hard when I heard this I did actually spit my tea out. HW and the GLA consider it a better use of money to spend several million digging a NEW dock in which to build a ship, rather than using one of the OLD ones that already exist below ground, or the slipways in the Olympia Building! Classic!

What shall we do with the Olympia Building?

Don't be confused by the motives here. The land at the west end of the site - the 'wharf site' - cannot currently be used by the developer for building flats. Its 'protected' status is supposed to mean that it can only be used for certain wharf-related purposes such as trans-shipment of materials or goods, and this protection is supposed to ensure continued use of the Thames. Happily for HW, there is a clause in the contract such that if the business on the protected wharf fails or ceases to operate after five years, its protected status will lapse and the developer can ..er.. build flats on the land! Trebles all round!

Naturally in these circumstances, offering some (useless) land on which to build the ship, and subsequently requiring it to sail off into the sunset, leaving the last bit of land vacant for more riverside apartments would dovetail nicely with the developer's intentions of wringing every last drop of profit from the site.

The 'protected' wharf is the empty bit at the top of the site - and sadly only 'protected' for a few years.

So HW's claim of 'significant concessions' is spurious at best, and any suggestion that they have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into negotiations with local stakeholders is met with derision. Trying to get any kind of face to face meeting with the developer has been nigh-on impossible, according to representatives of the Lenox Project, even with the stalwart support of local MP Joan Ruddock. On several occasions dates have been pencilled in at HW's behest, awaiting confirmation which never came.

And a meeting with culture minister Ed Vaizey, which was intended to bring the two sides together, was scuppered by the developer pulling out the same day. Vaizey did actually give the campaigners a hearing, under pressure, but without both sides present, it was impossible to actually make any progress.

Whether or not the tireless work by local campaigners at Deptford Is.. and its associated projects will cut any ice with the Mayor remains to be seen.

But one thing is certain; if Hutchison Whampoa's proposals for the site are approved as they stand, we can wave goodbye to any meaningful legacy of the former Royal Dockyard, its state-of-the-art shipbuilding technology, maritime heritage and links to the River Thames. And attempts to resurrect the spirit of John Evelyn's Sayes Court Gardens and establish a modern centre for urban horticulture will wither away.

Meanwhile I leave the last words to Samuel Pepys, speaking at the Master Shipwrights House on behalf of The Lenox Project during Open House weekend last September.

)

The ghosts of the deep ford

Deptford old and new, and its historic figures, are the stars of this short film by Willi Richards which was made in 2005 and has at last been made available online. Ferranti's power station, Evelyn's gardens, the McMillan sisters and their nursery, Christopher Marlowe and of course Peter the Great all recount stories of their time in Deptford, while walking its 21st century streets in Vadum Profundum (Deep Ford).



Even since it was made there have been significant changes - I shudder when I remember the old exit from the train station, even if it was much quicker to use! The grounds of the Master Shipwrights House look terribly bare in their pre-landscaped state, although over the wall in Convoys Wharf nothing has changed as yet.

Lewisham strategic planning committee 'rejects' Convoys application

Last night Lewisham Council's strategic planning committee voted unanimously to 'reject' Hutchison Whampoa's outline planning application for Convoys Wharf. They accepted a substantial report compiled by the council's planning department which highlights some serious issues with the application that have still not been resolved, and agreed that as it stands, the application should be rejected.

Why the inverted commas? Although the committee unanimously agreed with the planners' report to reject the application, the fact that Boris Johnson last October called the decision in means that he is now the only person with the legal power to determine the application.

But this is not just a bog-standard redevelopment of a bit of derelict land, it's a massive scheme that has the potential to obliterate the history and heritage of Deptford. Whether or not you consider Farrell's 'new masterplan' to be any improvement on the previous Aedas scheme, it is still saddled with major obstacles to creation of anything ground-breaking; the demand for high density development, the inappropriate massing of buildings, the paucity of public transport infrastructure and the restricted highway access to the site which will cause serious problems for the level of car parking provision they propose.

That's before we even come to the proposed use of the listed Olympia Shed, the 'heart' of the development, in Terry Farrell's words, although it is currently without a beat. Yet none of Hutchison's huge team of highly-experienced, well-paid professionals seem to have the imagination or expertise to resuscitate it.  

Although Boris now has all the power, he has absolutely none of the intelligence - naturally I'm using 'intelligence' here in the MI5 sense of the word, I couldn't possibly comment on any other meaning.

Neither do his planners, hence Lewisham's planning officers, who have been dealing with applications for Convoys Wharf and been in meetings with its owners over many years, are acting as advisers to the Mayor's team. The fact that Boris is exerting immense political pressure to get a determination of the application before the end of February is not particularly helpful to anyone involved, I would imagine. As well as being advisers, the council is a statutory consultee in the process,

So it's particularly interesting to read the report that the strategic planning committee approved last night - and this report (with a number of amendments that actually strengthen its recommendations) will be the council's submission to the GLA. Many of the issues that the report raises are the same ones that were highlighted by Lewisham's head of planning John Miller, in his letter just prior to Hutchison Whampoa's demand that the Mayor call in the application last year.

There are two main recommendations, I have cut and pasted below (due to time constraints I haven't interpreted or amended, apologies for all the Unnecessary Capital Letters. Emphasis is mine):

Recommendation A:
Members are recommended to resolve that the Mayor of London be advised that the Council: 

Supports the principle of mixed use development of the site in accordance with Policy SSA2 of the Core Strategy 

Considers that in its current form the application should not be approved and that amendments should be secured prior to determination in relation to the following matters: 

1. Scale, Massing and Relationship with Historic Buildings and Spaces 
Reducing the scale and massing of selected development parcels as outlined in the report to achieve an acceptable urban scale and an appropriate relationship of new buildings with historic buildings and spaces, in particular in relation to the Olympia Building, former Master Shipwrights House and site of John Evelyn’s House. 

2. Sayes Court Garden and The Lenox 
The approach to Sayes Court fails to link the site of the Gardens with the remains of Sayes Court House. The opportunity to link these two historically significant spaces should be fully explored. The Lenox preferred building location is either within the Double Dry Dock or Olympia Warehouse These options need to be explored further, as does the future use of the Olympia Warehouse and an agreement reached on the deliverability of the double dry dock or Olympia Warehouse as options for constructing the Lenox. 

3. Building in the Scope for Design Flexibility, Evolution and Innovation 
The Design Guidelines should either be significantly streamlined to identify what is essential (mandatory) in terms of providing guidance for reserved matters applications and what is too specific/constraining, or should become ‘for information’ only. 

4. Transport Issues 
The site has a relatively low level of public transport accessibility and it is essential that car parking is minimised and the opportunity to provide access to public transport, pedestrian and cycle links are maximised. This includes the widening of New King Street to allow for two-way bus movement and improved pedestrian and cycle access and the re-design of the New King Street/Evelyn Street/Deptford High Street junction to provide a direct single all-red phased pedestrian crossing. 

5. Community Benefits 
Securing appropriate social infrastructure and the maximum possible amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of new residents. There is an identified need for investment in affordable housing and a range of community infrastructure projects directly attributable to the impact of the new development including the need for a new primary school, jobs and training and open space. A number of questions remain about the applicants' assumptions on costs and future values in their viability statement, changes to which could support additional S106 payments and affordable housing. The Council considers that to ensure policy compliance and safeguard amenity, and in addition to any conditions and planning obligations that are imposed or agreed, the following are matters on which clarification and appropriate commitment is required from the applicant prior to determination of the application. The GLA must also satisfy itself that it has the relevant information on which to determine the application. 

6. Clarifications, Commitments and Procedural Compliance 
Operation of the wharf. Process and timing of reducing the area of the safeguarded wharf. Retail floorspace impacts. Housing mix. Transport Assessment modelling. Car parking management. School capacity. Delivery of projects set out in the Cultural Strategy. Mechanism to ensure a mix of uses is secured across the site. Lifetime Homes Standard, wheelchair and housing design standards. Decentralised energy network connection. CfSH Level 4 and BREEAM ‘Excellent'. Environmental Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment Recommendation 

Recommendation (B) 
Authorise the Head of Planning to continue to negotiate with the GLA and the applicant to secure the amendments highlighted in this report and to present a further report to the Mayor at the representations hearing ahead of determination of the application, updating the Council’s position in the light of those negotiations.

The Convoys Wharf application now has a dedicated page on the GLA website for those who wish to bookmark it. 

Convoys Wharf - localism inaction?

Barely two years after the Localism Act came into being, recent events in Deptford mean you'd be forgiven for wondering what the hell is the point of this particular piece of legislation.

Shall I give you a quick reminder of its main aims? (I lifted this straight off the Local Government Association website if you need more information):

The aim of the act was to devolve more decision making powers from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. The act covers a wide range of issues related to local public services, with a particularly focus on the general power of competence, community rights, neighbourhood planning and housing. 

The key measures of the act were grouped under four main headings; 

• new freedoms and flexibilities for local government 
• new rights and powers for communities and individuals 
• reform to make the planning system more democratic 
• more effective reform to ensure decisions about housing are taken locally

In my considered opinion, you'd be right to ask what the point of the Localism Act is, particularly in the light of recent, local events, the implications of which are still unfolding.

In October, Convoys Wharf developer Hutchison Whampoa wrote to the Mayor of London to (somewhat petulantly to be honest, you can read his letter via the Deptford is.. website) demand that the decision on its outline planning application be 'called in' - ie be taken away from the local council and made by the Mayor's office.

Head of Hutchison Whampoa Properties (Europe), Edmond Ho, complained to Boris that his company had been subjected to 'a long pattern of delay and indecision' from Lewisham planners over the last five years, and warned that unless the Mayor took it over, the 'delivery of much needed housing for London' was at risk of further, substantial delay.

The Mayor's planners decided that it was a good idea too, mainly due to the fact that the relationship between the developers and the council's planning department had broken down irrevocably - although they did not elaborate on the reasons for this in their report (available here), and it is a matter of opinion whether this came about because of the 'delay and indecision' that Ho moans about, or whether HW's arrogance and general failure to address any fundamental issues might have played a part.

Let's be clear, this breakdown of the relationship has not come about through a clash of personalities or anything so straightforward - having come into contact with many of the players involved in this process over recent months and years, it is obvious that Hutchison Whampoa's stance is not a welcoming one. People from all sides of the process have remarked on their seeming indifference to any criticism - constructive or otherwise - while some of those working directly for HW have described them as being one of the most difficult clients they have ever had.

HW's arrogance is ably demonstrated by the fact that in his letter in which he demanded that the Mayor call in the application, Edmond Ho claimed that issues raised by English Heritage 'were understood' to have been resolved, and that both the GLA and the Design Review Panel had 'endorsed' the current masterplan. As the details posted on Deptford Is.. make clear, these claims are largely unsubstantiated. In fact I would say Deptford Is.. has been very charitable in its suggestion that Ho was misinformed, or that information was misinterpreted.

Even while writing this post, news reaches me that HW's project manager who has been present at all the public meetings and events for as long as I can remember, is no longer working on the Convoys Wharf development. He may simply have got another job, or been promoted elsewhere, but it's always interesting to speculate on whether other factors are at play, in particular because of the timing of the move.

But to get back the story: the Mayor agreed to call it in and has taken over responsibility for making the final decision on this outline planning application. It is a very unusual step to take before the local authority has made any decision - usually the call-in happens after the decision has been made, and takes place because the Mayor (or the applicant) is not happy with the outcome. To take responsibility away from a local authority which was still trying to work towards acceptance of an application could be seen as premature and inappropriate.

Whether or not Lewisham planners could have reached a position at which they were happy to recommend acceptance of the application is not known, but head of planning John Miller's letter makes it clear that his team had identified the outstanding issues and suggests possible solutions. Personally I don't see anything unreasonable in his assessment of the situation, and while Ho is annoyed that the process has taken so long, to blame the delay entirely on the planners is disingenuous when feedback suggests the slow progress has been compounded by obstructive and unresponsive behaviour on the applicant's part. I'm reminded of the last few minutes of a football match where one team tries to keep the ball out of play just to deny its opponents the chance of any more goals.

'Affordable' housing (pink bits) 

And indeed the GLA report notes that Lewisham is not generally lax when it comes to meeting deadlines for planning decisions, which is another point in its favour - indeed we have been practically ushering acceptance of housing schemes straight in through the door. Over the last two years, Lewisham has approved 135% of its target for new housing, and it is 'almost exactly on the three year average' of 'affordable' housing in the capital (although as other bloggers point out, 'affordable' is little more than a meaningless label these days).

There are several ways this could go for HW (and indeed for Deptford), not all of them necessarily bad, since the higher profile of the case should now mean greater scrutiny by a wider audience. On the whole though, it is worrying that the mayor of London saw fit to bow to such pressure from a developer - one which owns some huge areas of Thames waterfront and is involved with some major developments in the capital. These include the old Lots Road power station in Chelsea, also being designed by Farrell's office although with piddling small towers of max just 37 storeys and seen here being marketed via HW's Hong Kong estate agency.

Removing the powers from the local planning authority before any decision had even been taken - and when the borough was working hard to reach a situation where approval could be recommended - strikes me as setting a very dangerous precedent for future schemes, and it creates confusion, particularly with the supposed 'localism' policy of the current government. What's more, while the applicant complained that the process was taking too long, moving the decision making process to a new authority will not speed it up any, most likely the opposite.

In the meantime, some perhaps unintended implications of the call-in have already been seen, with the nationals finally sitting up and taking interest in the story - particularly since it follows hard on the heels of the 'at risk' listing of Deptford Dockyard and Sayes Court Garden by the World Monuments Fund which was quite widely reported, and must have royally pissed off HW.

Private Eye's Piloti has written a large article for the current issue which gives a good, if brief explanation of what is a very complex history.
You can read it via the Deptford Is.. post which announces the launch of the campaign's petition via Change.org. The petition, which sends emails to the mayor, his planners, the developer and the architects every time someone signs it, has reached more than 900 signatures in just a week.

I'll try to keep the blog updated as the story develops, although for regular information and the inside goss on the story, I recommend following the Deptford Is.. blog and newsletter which has a lot more information.

Sign the petition

Read the Deptford Is.. post about the call-in.

Read what Private Eye had to say - via Deptford Is..

Blogger Andy Worthington's article kicks off by assessing the claim of 'affordable' housing.

Come and see Deptford's highs and lows in Open House

One of my favourite weekends of the year will be with us in just over fortnight - Open House London, the time when London's grand buildings, architectural follies, private homes and quirky corners are open to the public.

I do love a good snoop around people's houses - something worth remembering if you ever invite me in, although I will always respect your privacy by not actually divulging what I find ;-) - so this is an event that really appeals to me. And whatever you want to say about the opportunity to examine the architectural detailing or admire the historic fabric of a building, I'm damn sure a lot of you love snooping too, you're just too polite to admit it.

So what will there be to see in Deptford? 

There's enough to keep you busy for a whole day in Deptford, and if you aren't from round these parts, I reckon you'll get a good introduction to our neighbourhood by coming down on Saturday 21st September.

Start with a trip to the top of the Seager Distillery Tower - a building which it's definitely preferable to be in looking out, rather than the other way round. I went up it last year and the views are stunning - you can orient yourself with views north to the river, following the route of the Creek, or look south towards the rest of the borough. Be warned space is limited at the top of the tower and you may have to queue.

Once you've descended, you may wish to head over to Deptford New Town where you'll find the pocket-sized Connearn Studio in Friendly Street. I've not been to this one, and from the picture on the website it looks like it won't keep you amused for long - but the walk is a pleasant one, especially if you go through the park and pass by the Stephen Lawrence Centre. Just try and ignore the ugly block of houses they built next to it (replacing the ugly houses that were there before). You can come back along Brookmill Road past Mereton Mansions, or go the other way to pass Wellbeloved's butchers on the bottom of Tanner's Hill, in a row of Deptford's oldest buildings. 

From there I would recommend a wander down our fabulous high street and through the market (not forgetting the huge second-hand stalls outside the Albany) to Tidemill Academy and the Deptford Lounge, to dig out the substance behind the bling. You might want to linger in the library for a while, browse a few books or have a coffee.

If you like your coffee super-charged, be sure to stop off at the Waiting Room to get your caffeine fix, and a falafel wrap or veggie burger with super hot sauce to keep up you sustained for the afternoon. Any visiting vegans will be happy to discover this place, which serves vegan-friendly fare without making a fuss about it.

Alternatively if the Waiting Room is too crowded - or you want something a bit more substantial for your lunch - Deli X a few doors down is another great option. If you want to eat on the move, or it's too nice to go indoors, I recommend filling up on fresh salt-cod fishcakes or souse from In a Pikkle or try the jerk chicken with rice and peas from the neighbouring stall. Both are in Douglas Square in the middle of the market. 

From here, keep walking towards the river for two more very interesting Open House experiences. Convoys Wharf site is well worth a visit just to get an idea of its vast scale and the glorious riverside vistas it has kept to itself all these years. 

You're too late to see any of the remaining underground structures - they are still there but covered up for now - but you will be able to venture inside the Olympia boat-building shed with its distinctive curved roof and lovely internal iron structure.

According to the Open House listing, there will be displays showing Hutchison Whampoa's redevelopment proposals. It's more than possible they will wheel out the famous groundscape model of the scheme although perhaps they'll also show the little polystyrene blocks (above) which are supposed to show the building density and heights.

Right next door to the site is the historic Master Shipwrights House, which will be open to the public on both days - a rare chance to see this beautiful building. I visited a few years ago during Open House and was mightily impressed - you can read about it here. Normally this house is only visible when glimpsed from the river on a Thames Clipper - don't miss the chance to explore behind the big steel gates.

What's more, I've got it on good authority that there's going to be some very interesting events taking place here over the course of the weekend - of which, stay tuned for more details in due course.

While you are down Watergate Street, it's well worth popping into the Dog & Bell for a pint or two of the best-kept (and by far the cheapest) ale in Deptford. Have a game of bar billiards or sit out in the garden at the back - it's a real old-fashioned boozer of the best kind. 

If you're visiting from outside the 'ford, do take the opportunity to explore our lovely little corner of SE London to the full. Every one of these is only a stone's throw from the high street.

Deptford Creek - tide half in, half out. Look out for herons and swans, or watch the DLR trains rattling over the bridge.

St Paul's, Deptford - a Baroque beauty with a bit of guerrilla gardening on the adjoining green space. The grass circle marks the size of the access shaft that Thames Water wants to dig for its supersewer.

The Laban Centre on Creekside was designed by Herzog & de Meuron and won the Stirling Prize for architecture in 2003. Sadly it's not part of Open House London, which is a shame. But they do have monthly architecture tours you can book at £12 a head  - and it has a very pleasant garden if you want to picnic.

Finally, if St Nick's church in Deptford Green is open, it's worth taking a look inside at the Grinling Gibbons woodcarvings. But even if you can't get inside, you might want to walk past just to look at the famous skull & crossbones sculptures atop the two gateposts.

Other eating and drinking highlights close by are the rotis at Chaconia, grilled pork noodles or banh mi at Panda Panda, cocktails out of teacups with cheese straws in the living room of the painfully hip Little Nan's Bar, a wide range of ales and reliably top-quality dinners at the Royal Albert, and if you are prepared to walk that bit further, there's the small-but-perfectly-formed London Particular, another place for great quality grub, top coffee and fantastic cakes.

Convoys Wharf revised masterplan planning application

The revised planning application for the Convoys Wharf masterplan (ref DC/13/83358, link here) consists of more than 50 files, some extremely large in size. Just to download them all from the planning portal takes a significant amount of time; but do you have to read them in order to formulate your response?

If you want the quick answer, it's no. The good news is you don't have to read them all. The most important part of the planning application is this sentence:

All matters reserved other than access and the siting and massing of three tall buildings.

Which in layman's terms means that no matter how many pretty pictures are in the planning documents, however detailed they seem, there is ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE that the final development will bear any resemblance to them. This is not a detailed planning application, it's an outline planning application.

The renderings are merely 'indicative' of what might be built, so don't be surprised if what ends up on your doorstep is nothing like the pictures.

So if you are writing an objection to the application*, don't bother focussing on the fact that you don't like the cladding on the towers, or you think that there should be more lavender in the planting of the jetty garden, it's not about that at this stage, it's just about how many square metres of development can be shoehorned onto a sensitive, historical, riverside site. (*the 'nominal' date for comments has long gone, but comments can be submitted right up to the date that the application goes to committee, so there's still plenty of time).

If the planning application gains approval, the only things that councillors will be approving are the maximum density of the development, the access routes into the site, and the positions and heights of the three tall buildings (currently two 38-storey towers and one 48-storey tower).

They are shown on the diagram below, which also shows the proposed phasing (yellow first phase, green second and blue third). This is one of the few 3D images in the application that show the whole development.

Do note how the green expanses of Pepys Park, Twinkle Park and Sayes Court Gardens have been included, presumably because there's precious little green space on the site itself and it looks bad without; note also how the angle from which the digital model is viewed has been carefully chosen so that the two 38-storey towers blend into the surrounding blocks. At risk of repeating an old favourite from previous planning application assessments ad infinitum, there's no other blocks or buildings around the site, even in outline, to show relative heights of the buildings in context.

So that's the quick answer, but you didn't think I'd let it lie there, did you?

I've covered some - but by no means all - of the main issues below, and am planning a couple more posts once I've recovered from the effort of this one!

Back to the planning documents; there's a fascinating host of information in the hundreds - perhaps thousands - of pages, should you choose to read them all. Having waded through a considerable number, I can certainly confirm that the staff of new masterplanner Farrells, appointed after the previous Aedas scheme failed to set anyone's pulse racing, have worked hard for the fee, at the very least in terms of research and report writing.

A huge amount of effort has been put into uncovering the history of the site and its surroundings. But considering the fact that the last masterplan was scrapped because it failed to adequately reflect the internationally-important heritage of this riverside site - the former Deptford Royal Dockyard - I'm not sure the latest incarnation really does any better. In fact you'd be foolish to expect this increased knowledge and understanding of the site to be reflected in any meaningful improvement.

The Aedas masterplan was purely and simply an architect's vision driven by a developer's bottom line. Roads and building arrangements bore little relation to the buildings remaining below ground, neither did they hold any memory of the site's history, and the arrangement of buildings was just a case of cramming as many as possible on the site, with as many river views as could be shoe-horned in.

The pesky Olympia Building in the centre of the site was just something to be built around, and part of the problem with the Aedas masterplan was the extent to which the residential buildings cut off the connection between the boat-building shed, the buried basin, and the river. Without its connection to the river, the presence of the Olympia Building lost all meaning.

In the new masterplan, Farrells took a bold step; they committed to 'put the Olympia Building at the heart of the development'. Which made me laugh really, it sounded so ambitious and earth-shattering. As if they were going to jack it off its supports, put it on huge self-propelled modular transporters, and wheel it somewhere so that it was right at the centre of the site.

There's no need to do that of course, it's already pretty much literally at the heart of the site. But apparently if you draw a big red heart shape around it on an exhibition board, you immediately elevate its status in your masterplan.

In reality, it hasn't been elevated at all - as you can see from the diagram below, which shows the Olympia Building in the appropriately pink 'heart' of the site, its connection to the river is still funnelled meanly between two lines of buildings. There may be a 'mirror pond' proposed in front of the building, which is supposed to reflect (sorry!) the link between the shed and the river, but anyone looking at the site from outside - whether from the river itself, from the opposite bank or from the new riverside walkway, will struggle to see the listed structure.

In his comment on the new masterplan, English Heritage historic buildings and areas adviser Richard Parish makes a point of referring to this 'narrow, glimpsed view' which he said 'fails to make the best opportunity of this prominent and centrally-located heritage asset'.

EH acknowledges that the extent of the visual connection to the river has varied since the building was constructed, but as Parish writes pointedly: 'the current proposal would appear to historically represent the most restricted view'.

The buildings that line the route of this 'narrow glimpsed view', incidentally, are 14 storeys and 10 storeys high. The other 'indicative' heights are shown on this diagram.

Which brings me to density. 

Essentially the density being demanded from this site is the biggest stumbling block facing any masterplanner. Given the reluctance of the developer to agree to any reduction in this figure, the most a masterplanner can do is juggle the sizes, heights and positions of the buildings around the best they possibly can within the other constraints of the site. And clearly, from the results we have seen so far, there simply is not enough room on the site for this much development.  

And of course ultimately it's the density of the development - the number of apartments, retail units, restaurants, businesses, hotels and so on - that directly influences the other impacts of the development. The number of people needing to get on and off the site each day to go to work; the number of drivers needing to park vehicles; the number of commuters needing to catch a train or bus; the number of service vehicles needing to deliver supplies or remove waste, the amount of electricity and water the development needs, the number of school places, medical services and leisure facilities required etc etc. 

Transport is a particular sticking point for this site; its public transport accessibility level is very poor and there's little that the developer can do to improve this. Hutchison Whampoa is proposing to build a new stop for the Thames Clipper riverboat, which is all very well if everyone on the site works at Canary Wharf and doesn't need to do anything else on the way to work like taking kids to school. Other than that, a bus will be diverted through the site - or possibly a new route created, which might be an idea since even the developer's outdated figures suggest nearly 500 people from the site will want to catch a bus during the 8am-9am peak period. A mere 260 will catch the train in the same hourly period, so nothing to worry about there.*

(*get yourself a bike)

The table above and the transport assessment in the application is analysed more thoroughly over on the Deptford Is.. blog, which also addresses potential issues with parking. 

The other thing that Farrells seems to have gone to town on in terms of its 'placemaking' efforts is naming every inch of the site with a maritime, shipbuilding or similar reference. Raleigh River Gardens, Basin Place, Royal Navy Square, Tudor Rise, Old Officer's Row, Royal Caroline Square and so on. I'd be more than happy to support street names with a real link to the history of the site, but from the plans it looks as if this is as far as proposals to acknowledge the site's heritage goes.

I did wonder whether the towers should be given maritime-inspired names - perhaps Sea View for the 48 storey tower? I'm sure you'll be able to see the North Sea on a clear day.

Sea View? 

I've still got things to say about the protected wharf and the heritage-led regeneration projects such as Sayes Court Gardens and the Lenox Project; both of the latter seem to have gained some ground but are still little more than erasable pencil lines in the empty bits of the site that Hutchison is struggling to fill.

As far as the images, renderings and plans in the documents go - the whole communication side of things, which HW hasn't been too hot on thus far - if I had the time and inclination I'm pretty sure I could write a thesis on this. As it is, I might try and find time for a separate post some time soon.

In the meantime I'll merely make a few observations.

On the positive side, at least they seem to have stopped representing the 'podium' gardens (ie those above street level with private access for residents only) as green spaces on the plans. They are shown on the plan below in white. I haven't checked every plan exhaustively, but it's good to see it's at least not standard.

Of course they still include the green spaces around the site on every plan, rendering, image etc. At first glance it makes the plan look very green, but when you give it proper consideration, it merely emphasises the paucity of green space within the site itself and the extent of green space around it - pretty much all of which is publicly accessible.

There are plenty of renderings within the planning documents; all 'indicative' of course although they do show the height and positions of the main towers, so do have a certain value. If you can pick the conveniently-grey buildings out from the grey clouds of course - funny how on this rendering they have chosen grey for the highest buildings and white for the lower ones, with the result that the viewer's eyes are immediately drawn to the lower ones.

The main planning document with the rendered images can be accessed via this link - it's a big file so may take some time to download depending on your internet connection.

Meanwhile I leave you with further renderings of the proposed streetscape* from carefully-chosen perspectives. (*terms and conditions apply)

View from Twinkle Park

Glimpsed view of the Olympia Building; whatever's in the shed* is proving popular! (*still a mystery)

The river front with 'jetty park'; you'll need freakishly long legs to dip your feet in btw.

There's links to further reading below for anyone who wants to give the application serious consideration and offer informed feedback and valid debate in the comment section.

I'm sure the rest of you will just empty your brains there in the usual fashion.

My comment on the public exhibition earlier this year
Convoys Wharf open day and Farrell's 'listening' process

Deptford Is... initial overview of the application
Comment from Estates Gazette about the masterplan (by former Lewisham-Deptford Labour candidate hopeful)
Deptford Is.. response from English Heritage