An undesirable turn of events

It's now five months since the sudden announcement that Lewisham's newly-appointed - and much trumpeted - chief executive Ian Thomas would be leaving, after just seven months in the job.

The council claimed that it was down to a 'change of direction' and that the decision was 'no negative reflection' on the then chief executive; other reports variously suggested it was either a case of egos clashing, or maybe Thomas was asking too many awkward questions.

According to Thomas' profile on Linked In, his achievements in just seven months in Lewisham included undertaking 'diagnostics' in children's services, IT, information governance and financial management; 'effective oversight of a major data breach' (anyone remember hearing about this? I don't!*) and he also 'developed Transforming Lewisham discussion paper to address medium term budget gap'.

I can imagine quite a few awkward questions had to be asked in pursuit of answers to some of these.

Copyright Kingston Council

Scroll forwards to March 2019 - Thomas has a new job as chief executive of Kingston on Thames, and some prestigious letters after his name, and Lewisham council is again starting the hunt for a new chief executive.

This week's council AGM includes an item to agree the procedure for recruiting and appointing a new chief executive, and to give officers the go-ahead to start the process without delay. If the item is approved, as seems very likely, recruitment to the post will start immediately, with ads posted and an agency appointed to draw up a long list of candidates.

According to the proposed schedule, the new chief executive is not likely to be in the post until November at the earliest, possibly not even until next February. These procedures take time, candidates have to be ratified by full council, and some may have six month notice periods to work out. (Assuming anyone applies, that is, given the treatment handed out to the previous incumbent.)

But hang on a minute. Item 4.9 of the report gives a hint of what might be in the minds of those driving the new recruitment process, as can be seen in the extract below (my emphasis).

If an appointment were made, there would then be a need to obtain clearances, and for formal offer and acceptance before the successful candidate (if external) could serve notice to terminate their current employment, which may be 3 or 6 months depending on their existing contractual position. It is possible therefore, (if an external appointment were made) that a new Chief Executive may not be in post until November 2019- February 2020.

It does seem odd to mention this explicitly - surely any fool knows that an internal appointment could be in the post much quicker? Why bother mentioning it, unless of course you want to plant the idea in councillors' heads, perhaps prepare them to agree that an internal candidate would be preferable given that they could be appointed quickly and start getting on with the job.

With the cause for Thomas' departure still no clearer outside of council circles, it would seem entirely reasonable for the recruitment and appointment procedure to undergo thorough scrutiny, to iron out any potential issues that might contribute to a repeat of what Private Eye referred to as 'Lewishambles'. Given that the process is expected to cost around £35k, it is important that they get it right this time.

Luckily the premature departure of the chief executive has already been scrutinised by the council's auditors, whose 'Value for Money' report was discussed by the audit panel last week. The report by Grant Thornton refers to it as 'this undesirable turn of events' and notes how it 'consumed additional management capacity at senior level' that 'could have been utilised and directed towards the other significant challenges the Council faces, particularly given the significant issues with transformation governance that need to be addressed.'

'There may be lessons to be learnt in respect of this matter. Members should reflect on what those lessons should be and how future recruitment can be undertaken to minimise the risk of recurrence,' the auditors conclude.

So how are council officers and councillors addressing this urgent matter?

Acting chief finance officer David Austin made no mention of the comment in his report to the audit panel, other than listing it alongside the other recommendations. He certainly did not feel it needed a response. I assume he thought councillors were sure to 'reflect on what those lessons should be' without having to be told to do so.

But it's difficult to know whether such confidence in elected members is justified. The recommendation to council this week, which sets out the proposed recruitment process for this post, is almost a carbon copy of the process by which Ian Thomas was recruited.

One notable difference is that the advisory panel which will be responsible for shortlisting and interviewing candidates has been cut from nine to seven members. I have no idea what lessons this suggests members have learnt their careful reflection on what went wrong in the previous process, maybe they will enlighten the electorate at this week's meeting.

(*updated - obviously the council wasn't the only one asleep on the watch at the time https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-warns-financial-details-of-6000-people-have-been-hacked/45818 )

Council press release blames protestors for Tidemill eviction costs

The fact that Lewisham Council spent £105k in a single day removing four people from Tidemill Garden has just been revealed in response to a number of FOI requests, and the figures will be made public at tomorrow night's council meeting in response to questions to the council.

The council has refused to provide figures for the ongoing cost of securing the site since the day of the eviction.

But in a deeply cynical move, which will do nothing to improve relations between SE8 and Lewisham's elected representatives, the council has just put out the following press release, which I have reproduced in full.

Counting the cost of the Tidemill eviction 

Lewisham Council has revealed the £105,000 cost of evicting the Tidemill protestors in Deptford could help house more than 20 homeless families in temporary accommodation for an entire year. 

The Council gave the Old Tidemill Garden Group temporary, meanwhile, use of the garden back in 2012 on the clear understanding they would leave once the development of the site was ready to go ahead. The group agreed to this condition. 

The Council had to spend the money to remove campaigners and members of the group after they refused to leave in October. 

Councillor Paul Bell, Cabinet Member for Housing, said: “It is disappointing that the actions of some activists illegally occupying the site meant we had no choice but to spend this large sum of money which could have been much better used elsewhere for those in real housing need. 

“Our housebuilding programme is for the many, not the few, and we won’t let the actions of a small number of people stop us providing decent, secure, social housing for those who need it. 

“In the last three years alone private rents have risen by almost three times as much as earnings in Lewisham. We are fighting the housing crisis by building more homes at social rented levels and working with others to do the same. Tidemill offers an unprecedented amount of social housing and we cannot let those who wish to undermine the scheme for their own motives further delay these homes from being built.” 

The Council’s housing programme will deliver over 1,000 new social homes over the next four years with 117 due to be available for social rent at Tidemill. Overall, redevelopment of Tidemill and surrounding areas will provide 209 new homes, 54% of which will be social. There are nearly 10,000 people on Lewisham’s housing waiting list and over 2,000 households in temporary accommodation because of a lack of social housing in the borough. 

Cllr Bell added: “We are sorry for the residents who live locally and are caught in the middle of this ongoing situation. We are trying our best to resolve it.”

Tomorrow's council meeting, which includes not only questions about the Tidemill eviction, but also an item on the arrangements for replacing the sacked chief executive Ian Thomas, looks set to be a lively one.

Tidemill trees

Since the heavy-handed eviction of Tidemill Garden almost a month ago, the site has been guarded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by a workforce of at least 50.

I covered this in my previous blog post, the contents of which came as news to many observers in the wider SE London area who were aware of the eviction but not the ongoing levels of security and associated cost. In the last few days, with fencing now erected around the site, the number may have been reduced but security staff still remain on the public land around the perimeter of the site, and there are guard dogs inside the former garden. With little to do, the dogs spend their days and nights barking - another unnecessary disturbance for neighbours.

There has been no official word on why the eviction took place when it did, given that there is still an ongoing legal procedure. Although the judicial review that campaigners funded was rejected, they are still going through the appeal process. Neither the council nor the developers is permitted to start work on the site until the legal process is complete.

Councillor Joe Dromey claimed on Twitter that the council is paying the cost of security until the appeal is heard, after which developer Peabody will take it on. As far as I am aware there is no specific deadline for the decision to be made, so no-one can predict what this will cost.

If the council really was concerned about the cost of evicting the campaigners and securing the site, why didn’t they wait till the legal process was complete before initiating this expensive procedure? With legal arguments out of the way, if they had been successful they would have been able to come straight in and take possession at minimal cost. Why choose such a provocative course of action?

Cock-up or conspiracy? Evidence certainly favours the latter, with no senior council members or officers willing to stand up and take responsibility for what is going on, and a deafening silence from Lewisham’s elected mayor Damien Egan.

The latest act of provocation from whoever is directing operations at Tidemill was the arrival of tree surgeons on the site last week.

pic.twitter.com/QBhVwNZBEH

— Reginald Resident (@under_siege_SE8) November 21, 2018

They cut back all the overhanging foliage around the site perimeter, some of it heavy with berries that would have been a valuable food source for local birds this winter, and felled several young trees within the site. A neighbour speaking to the staff doing the work was told that they had also been instructed to fell the larger trees.

 

(@under_siege_se8)

But after two days on the site, contractor Artemis Trees announced that they were pulling out of the job, without pay, having found out about the campaign and the backstory to the work they were doing. They were reported as citing ethical reasons for pulling out. 

Once again, official communication from the council on the subject has been nil, other than councillor Joe Dromey attempting to respond to some of the questions on Twitter. He tweeted a copy of a letter from fellow councillor Paul Bell that he said had been sent to residents - but seemingly not to those living opposite the site on Reginald Road. The letter makes no mention of the campaigners' legal action and unresolved appeal, preferring instead to paint them simply as troublesome protestors. 

I told you the security is high as there have been over 10 attempts to break in to the site. But I’ve said I think the dogs should be removed. I did ask for a letter & this letter has been sent to residents. I asked about security guards, and received this response from County pic.twitter.com/AFALseZ0u9

— Joe Dromey (@Joe_Dromey) November 23, 2018

Dromey also posted a letter that had been received from the bailiffs County Security, in response to complaints about staff covering their faces during the eviction. Eyewitnesses know that the 'skull mask' was not an isolated case - many of those carrying out the eviction covered their faces, and the only 'ID' they carried was a high-viz vest with a number on it. Given that the eviction of any site is potentially a contentious procedure, the council should have been closely involved in scrutinising how the operation was carried out and who was managing it on the day. Someone in authority should have been present to ensure that the procedure was followed to the letter.

Campaigners, neighbours and members of the local Deptford community are genuinely distressed at the utter lack of respect they are being shown by the council. Even if elected officials are not willing to engage with the campaigners, there is an overwhelming case for explaining their actions to the electorate and reassuring local residents that they are following due process.

This week it also came to light  that the council is recruiting an assistant director of strategy and communications to assist the mayor, who as we know is famously heading off in a  'new direction'. 

The job was actually advertised last month and initial interviews were due to be held last week. With Egan's remit officially covering 'planning, emergencies and communications' at least he will have one strand covered. 

"Communicating effectively with our residents is very important for the council," News Shopper's story quotes the council as saying. "Good communications informs and engages residents on all aspects of the council’s work."

Yes of course it does. 

Tidemill, Thomas and transparency

In times of austerity there are two things that councils should be particularly scrupulous about.

The first reads like a statement of the bleeding obvious. To be seen to be visibly wasting money is a massive no-no. When you are closing libraries, reducing children's services and slashing support for the vulnerable, any unnecessary spend or inefficient use of funds is going to rapidly attract the wrong kind of attention.

The second is more subtle, but in my opinion just as important. Communicating with your electorate about why you are making certain decisions, what alternatives you have considered, and why these have been eliminated in favour of a particular course of action is good practice and shows respect for the people you serve.

Transparency and accountability are qualities that all local councils claim to be striving for. But recent events over the last few weeks in Deptford and the wider Lewisham borough suggest that the council's 'new direction', under elected mayor Damien Egan, seeks to abandon any such worthy aspirations.

The ongoing saga of the Tidemill Community Garden and the proposed redevelopment of the land between Frankham Street and Reginald Road came to a head on Monday 29 October when more than a hundred bailiffs, police, dog handlers and dogs, and other assorted heavies turned up at 6am to evict four people from the garden. The community garden had been occupied since August when the council served a notice of eviction ahead of plans to start redevelopment of the site. Although a judicial review brought by campaigners was rejected in October, an appeal against the decision is still unresolved.

The arguments on both sides of the Tidemill case have been widely covered elsewhere, but my particular focus is on the disproportionate and heavy-handed action that has been sanctioned by the council, and the huge sums of money that have been (and continue to be) expended on clearing out and securing this space. 

Since the eviction on 29 October, staff from County Security have been guarding the site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They surround the perimeter of the garden on Reginald Road and stand along the footpaths and car parks next to Frankham House and Reginald House. People living in the buildings that surround the site have bailiffs a few metres away from their windows at all times. 

The cost has been reliably estimated at around £35k per day - on this basis, at the time of writing, the total cost is approaching £750k - three quarters of a million pounds. Awkwardly, this week the mayor and cabinet will be discussing more council budget cuts. 

The unknown is for how much longer this level of spend will continue, nor the process by which the council plans to take things forward. Communication from the council has been non-existent, other than individual councillors defending the development plans in general, and criticising the behaviour of the campaigners when asked by the media to comment. No statement has been issued to confirm who authorised the action, why the bailiffs did not give occupants of the garden the opportunity to leave the site peacefully, what it is costing, who is paying the bill, what the next stage of the process will be, when it will take place, and why they are spending a great deal of money to secure an empty site for an indefinite period.

Councillor Paul Bell (cabinet member for housing) is quoted as saying that he 'did not believe' that the eviction was heavy-handed and that it was a 'straightforward operation'. The fact is, he was not present, and nor were any of his council colleagues. My own eye-witness account and that of many other reliable contacts contradicts this.

The very same day that bailiffs were evicting people from Tidemill Community Garden, the following appeared on the website of the MJ, a weekly magazine for council chief executives: 

The chief executive of Lewisham LBC will stand down at the end of the year following a change of political control at the council. Lewisham has confirmed the departure of Ian Thomas was due to the change in direction by new Mayor Damien Egan and there was ‘no negative reflection’ on the chief, sparking concerns over ousting chiefs ‘on a whim’.

Say what?

This is the same Ian Thomas who was recruited to the post by the council earlier this year with great fanfare and of course, a press release. The post comes with an annual salary of 'between £175k and £185k'. 

The press release announced that his recommendation 'was made following a rigorous selection process by an appointments panel consisting of Sir Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham and a cross-party group of eight councillors.' The cross-party group included Damien Egan, at the time a ward councillor but already selected as the Labour Party's mayoral candidate.

After being elected as mayor, Egan introduced Thomas on May 23rd using the following words:

"One of the personal pledges I have made is a commitment to electing more councillors from black, asian and minority ethnic communities. All parties should be committing to supporting the election of more BAME councillors and I will make it my mission through training, mentoring and through political pressure – that in four years’ time we are more reflective of the communities we represent. We have of course, fantastic BAME role models in our council who inspire many through their leadership. We welcome our new chief executive, Ian Thomas. Ian – welcome to Lewisham. I am looking forward to working with you to shape the future we all want to see for our borough."

Whatever has gone wrong in just five months is not up for discussion. Once again the council is remaining tight-lipped on the issue, although under pressure the pr department started referring to a 'change of direction' by the new administration under Egan, which presumably Thomas was either not invited to, or not keen on.

Meanwhile Private Eye's take on what it calls Lewishambles suggests that an infantile clash of egos was the issue, quoting one council source as saying it was 'dicks at dawn'. Now the former interim CEO is back at the helm and Thomas has gone on gardening leave, with no credible explanation of what has created this embarrassing and expensive situation. The council has to find the funds to advertise for and recruit a new CEO, not to mention cover any severance pay that Thomas may be due.

Neither of these decisions have gone down particularly well in Deptford, hence 'mayor's question time' at the recent New Cross Assembly at the Mulberry Centre became the focal point for a rather angry electorate.

A group of council staff in the audience voiced their concerns and demanded answers about Thomas's departure, while Tidemill protestors wanted to pin the mayor down on the rationale for the eviction of the community garden and the cost to council tax payers. Egan's late arrival from another meeting (with a police escort) meant there was little time for questions, which must have been something of a relief for him.

Members of the public were prevented from entering the room by the police, who claimed that it was at capacity. The film I've linked to below shows this was not true. Some of those left outside vented their anger by banging on the meeting room windows and trying to disrupt the meeting.

Most of the subsequent coverage focused on scuffles outside the venue afterwards, but I draw your attention to footage recorded by founder of the Deptford People Project, 'Lucy Loves-Life' who was in the audience. Her short film shows how the mayor responded to a simple question about provision for young people.

In the circumstances, a question that was neither about Ian Thomas nor Tidemill Garden should have been a gift to the mayor; an opportunity for him to win over his audience and convince them that he was a credible leader. Someone the audience could trust to make the right decisions even in difficult circumstances, someone who would listen and respond respectfully, and someone who would take responsibility for his actions and those of the council he leads.

I invite you to make your own mind up about whether he was successful or not (and with apologies to anyone not on Facebook as I have only been able to find it available here).

https://www.facebook.com/lucyloveslife1/videos/260681608135901/

Evelyn ward by-election; runners, riders, and Ray.

It would be foolish to suggest that things are ‘hotting up’ for the by-election in Evelyn ward, which was prompted by the death of long-serving councillor Crada Onuegbu, but there are certainly signs that the outcome of the 13th October vote will hold more interest than usual.

I don't doubt that Cllr Onuegbu cared for her electorate as people, and certainly before she became ill, she was often in attendance at local community events and meetings. For whatever reason, however, she did not feel it necessary to resign her seat when she became too ill to carry out her duties, and this situation persisted for so long that it prompted complaints to the council about her lack of attendance, enhancing the general feeling of disenfranchisement in Evelyn ward.

Evelyn ward’s relationship to Deptford is rather like Deptford’s relationship to Lewisham, but magnified by ten. Largely made up of vast swathes of housing estates interspersed by industrial land, and on the outer reaches of the borough, sandwiched between the watersides of Southwark and Greenwich, it has lain forgotten for many decades. But as the industrial land is gradually hived off to be developed for housing, and existing residents see very little benefit coming back to their communities, the level of discontent has been rising, council decisions are being more closely scrutinised and regularly challenged by residents, and new groups have formed to promote the interests of the forgotten corners of Deptford.

Little wonder then that the forthcoming by-election has prompted an independent candidate to throw down his hat alongside the usual suspects. Scott Barkwith, who is standing under the banner of Independent Evelyn, has been a very active member of the Deptfordfolk group (Friends of Deptford Park & Folkestone Gardens) since its launch, and wants to challenge the borough’s largely supine approach to representation.

Clearly with Labour having a huge majority on the council there's a limit to what an independent councillor (or a councillor from any opposition party for that matter) could achieve borough-wide, but on a local level it would be refreshing to have someone who would assist local groups in campaigning for improvements in the ward in addition to turning up at community events and pursuing casework on behalf of individuals.

It's a very short period of time for any independent candidate to build up sufficient recognition across the ward - but with voter turnout likely to be low, perhaps Scott's existing profile as a local campaigner will be enough to see him through?

From the field of six candidates, Scott is one of only two who actually live in the actual ward - no great surprise there as few of our elected representatives have done so over the years and neither of the incumbent councillors do. The other resident candidate is Joyce Jacca who is representing the Labour Party - for once Labour has put up a candidate who is known and active locally, perhaps responding to the discontent that has been voiced over recent months. Joyce is on the photo above, which is the one that Lewisham Labour chose to accompany its announcement, although they failed to point out which of the women on the picture is Joyce (she's front left if you can make her out!).

Two of the other candidates are fairly well-known in Deptford - one not necessarily for the best of reasons.

Ray Barron-Woolford is standing as candidate for People Before Profit - despite the fact that he seems to think the creation of a parish council is the only way that Deptford can become glorious again. On the surface, his many initiatives suggest he is a tireless local campaigner, but it's hard to banish the suspicion that the main purpose of his heritage festivals, parish council, food bank, books and so on is purely for his own self-promotion, considering the amount of time he spends bragging about his many achievements.

When he stood for a council seat in New Cross ward in 2014, Vice magazine did a great piece on his political background, revealing that he'd crossed the spectrum from one side to the other during his 'career' as a politician.

His campaigns always highlight his 'good works', and rarely mention his day job, which is running an estate agency - formerly Housemartins, now relaunched as London & Country (we'll come to that in a minute). When he does mention it, he claims it as 'the UK only social enterprise estate agency' (sic), whatever that means. In practice it's a private company limited by shares, and with a single shareholder, Ray Woolford.

He claims that his estate agency funds his 'charitable' work, although again there is no proof of that. The 'We Care Food Bank Charity' is not a charity at all, it has no charitable status (the website  has been claiming 'charity number applied for' ever since it was launched) and in fact it is not even a registered company.

Similarly the locally-infamous Deptford Heritage Festival was claimed to be a fundraiser for his local good works, but no proof of that was forthcoming. After criticisms of the first festival and presumably some scrutiny of where the money went, he published a vaguely-worded page about festival costs, with promises of more information to be published once ticket agency payments had been made. No further details were forthcoming.

To get an insight into the tangled business affairs of Ray Woolford you only have to start digging around at Companies House. Under his various monikers (Raymond David Woolford, Raymond Barron-Woolford) and his multiple registered correspondence addresses in London, Oxfordshire and Bristol, he's held offices at quite a few different companies, from the famous 'Come the Revolution' cafe in New Cross Road which came to a sticky and sudden end to a short-lived four-month stint as an officer at the 2000 Community Action Centre in 2015.

His first estate agency - Housemartins Estate Agents, which was founded in 1999 - ran into trouble a couple of years ago. First signs of this were a year ago when Ray applied for his (wholly-owned) company to be struck off the register. Had his application succeeded, any outstanding creditors would have received nothing. But an objection was received, and subsequently it became clear that he'd had some kind of tangle with the Austrian Olympic Committee. In January of this year, following a petition to the High Court in Bristol from the solicitors of the aforementioned organisation, an order was made to wind the company up. The mind boggles as to what shenanigans preceded this - presumably some kind of disagreement relating to rental accommodation provided during the 2012 Olympics? - but when Ray is involved, preposterous is the new normal. Hence 'the UK only social enterprise estate agency' has now been relaunched as London & Country.

You can follow Ray on Twitter, but he's quite twitchy with the blocking button so do be sure not to challenge anything he says.

The other name that people might recognise locally is the Green's candidate Andrea Carey Fuller, who's been involved in setting up the Deptford Neighbourhood Action group and getting the neighbourhood plan off the ground. She's probably better known in New Cross though, rather than Evelyn, as most of her attention has been focussed on Tidemill.

At the last council elections the Tories did not even bother to field any candidates - they've wheeled one out for this election. I see from the election literature that turned up today that James Clark is keen to prevent overdevelopment of Lewisham's waterfront. Horse, stable door etc.

And what a road sign to choose for your photo shoot. I had to look it up to find out where exactly it was in Evelyn ward. Don't worry, I'm sure there's nothing significant in the choice.

Finally the Lib Dems have a candidate, Lucy Salek. In the last by-election their candidate polled slightly higher than the Tories and Ukip, who were neck and neck.

It will be interesting to see what happens. At the last full council elections the Labour councillors were elected with comfortable majorities of at least a thousand votes each. But this is a by-election and turnout at the last one in Evelyn (when the winning candidate was deselected after just three months) was so pitiful that if it's repeated, anything could happen.

In the by-election of May 2013 just 16% of the electorate could be arsed to go to the polling station. The Labour candidate polled 978, and People Before Profit's candidate (not Ray this time) came second with 404. The others trailed with just over 100 each.

The choice of several credible, locally-known candidates could potentially split the Labour vote and may make the final result a lot closer. But having a stronger choice might also motivate more people to vote.

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.

'Rise' marketing leaves Deptford unimpressed

'Rise' developer Cathedral Group seems to have waded into a shit storm in its cosy link up with overseas property investment company IP Global, which bought up all 120+ flats in the development being built next to Deptford Station and is currently flogging them off-plan to its overseas investors.

The property company's promotional video for the Deptford scheme - aka the Deptford Project - in which Martyn Evans, Creative Director of Cathedral Group explained how important the link-up was, because IP Global had such a good knowledge of the Asian market, was pulled from IP Global's You Tube account this morning after complaints from local residents*.

Until this morning IP Global had two films on its website - a 360 degree panorama of Deptford (which claims to have been made using 'drone technology' but looks more like they filmed it from the tower crane), and a promotional film with IP Global CEO Tim Murphy telling all that is great about investing in Deptford - now only the former remains. (See update below for a link to the film elsewhere)

(Believe me you didn't miss much in the latter, but you can probably get a good idea by reading IP Global's wincingly tired piece about Deptford that they published earlier this year when the deal was struck with Cathedral).

There has already been scrutiny of the marketing of these residential units, with Crosswhatfields blog pointing out last month that they were being pitched for more than half a million quid as buy to let investments.

Last week I came across the offending video, and tweeted about it with my comments:

Interesting to hear Cathedral spelling out (3 mins in) its main aim is to sell its Deptford Project flats in Asia https://t.co/jrgyICRCEN
— Deptford Dame (@deptforddame) November 19, 2014

The video was shared on various other places, including the Quay Point and Facebook's I Love Deptford group, where it caused mighty outrage and came to the attention of local resident Maria Livings.

She was so incensed she wrote to Cathedral Group CEO Richard Upton to complain about the company's crass marketing and make some very salient points about the housing issues that dominate our local area.

'The idea that this project is being sold to investors and that the coolness of artists is being touted as the reason why property prices are about to hurtle still further up is completely sickening. None of the interesting, creative people who have contributed to the vibrant culture of the area are able to afford to buy a home and their work spaces are being eliminated wholesale as developers buy up all the land to create yet more unaffordable housing. 

I am an artist/designer and have lived and worked in the area for over 30 years. Although I initially lived in a council flat on Pepys Estate I was able eventually to get a shared ownership home in which I still live. As a result of being part of this fascinating creative community I have become quite successful and have developed a thriving business. 

However, even though I am relatively well off there is no way I could afford to buy a home at today's prices. Where are the people who work in a coffee bar/Sainsbury's/school/garage in Deptford supposed to live? I don't suppose anyone at Cathedral knows or cares. 

You may live in a parallel Universe where moral and social considerations are not an issue and therefore have no interest in anything except making money. However you must know that public opposition to this tastelessly marketed development will be strong. You have made no friends amongst local people and ensured that the cool, friendly vibe that you are using to sell your development will be greatly diminished as a result of your poor grasp of the socio-economic realities of the area.'

The offending video was taken down this morning and Maria has been invited to meet with Cathedral Group to discuss her concerns. She is asking others to join her in writing to the council and meeting with Cathedral - details on the Facebook group.

Cathedral's strong presence in south east London, with developments such as The Mvmt (eugh) on Norman Road, and Morden Wharf on the Greenwich Peninsula, not to mention their ongoing efforts to project a cuddly, fluffy not-like-every-other-property-developer image, presumably make them particularly sensitive to this kind of criticism.

Let's hope they aren't crass enough to try and exploit the meeting to their own advantage - the cynic in me suspects that they may see it as a good opportunity to get a well-respected local creative on their side, although something tells me Maria isn't the type to be taken in.

* Update: The film is still available for now on You Tube. If you enjoy watching a property developer salivating over the prospect of making shitloads of money, get there quick. But don't say I didn't warn you. 

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.  

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.

)

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.