Developer claims of 'significant concessions' on Convoys masterplan questioned by Deptford Is..

An article in Building Design last week had Convoys Wharf developer Hutchison Whampoa claiming to have made 'significant' concessions in its masterplan following a recent meeting with the GLA.

The article, which noted that the determination of the application by the Mayor of London was now delayed according to the original schedule, said:

“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.”

Unfortunately the developer's definition of 'significant' is at odds with our own understanding of the word, and the changes that have been made are either minimal, or in the case of the Lenox project, non-existent. None of the amendments are sufficient to offer real hope or properly support the long-term viability of either of the community-led schemes.

In truth, the situation for the Lenox project, despite Hutchison Whampoa's claim, is unchanged from the first public viewing of Farrell's revised masterplan. At the first public consultation in July 2012, a large ground-level model of the proposed redevelopment incorporated a model of a wooden ship on the protected wharf area. The model was labelled 'The Lenox Project'.

A verbal offer that the Lenox could occupy the protected wharf for '5-7 years' and then depart to somewhere else is still the only indication from Hutchison Whampoa that they have made any attempt to even consider this fantastic project. But as its promoters have made clear numerous times, a temporary presence on the site is entirely contrary to the central ethos of The Lenox Project vision.

Using the Olympia building for the Lenox would not only offer a tangible link to the history of this listed structure, it would provide a long-term future for the building at the heart of the site.

Although Sayes Court Garden CIC has persuaded the developer to make some adaptations to its masterplan, the implications of these changes for the developer are minimal and have been accommodated with no loss of floor space.

But in order for the educational aims of the proposed John Evelyn Urban Horticulture Centre to be achievable, further changes are required, in particular relocating the centre to a stand-alone building located on the site of the former Sayes Court manor house.

This stance is strongly supported by the National Trust and The Garden History Society. But although Sayes Court Garden CIC has demonstrated how such a change could be accommodated without compromising the developer's return or making significant changes to the masterplan, so far such requests have fallen on deaf ears.

After a recent meeting between the developer and its professional advisers, the Greater London Authority planners, deputy mayor Sir Edward Lister and representatives of the local community groups,  the Mayor of London's planners asked Hutchison Whampoa to make formal offers to both community groups as regards their options for a future presence on the site.

We will report back as and when such offers are received by the community groups.

Royal Dockyard petition tops 1,500 signatures

Support for our alternative vision for the former Royal Dockyard in Deptford continues to grow, with our petition now carrying more than 1,500 signatures, some of them from highly-regarded heritage associations, academics and authors as well as many more from people living, working or running  businesses in Deptford. 

There are also signatures on the petition from supporters as far afield as Australia, the USA, Latvia, and the UAE, showing that the site and its history has vast importance internationally as well as nationally. 

We will be bringing this support to the attention of the Mayor of London, ahead of his determination of the planning application for Convoys Wharf, but if you have not yet signed the petition, there is still time to do so. Supporting comments such as those we have printed below are most helpful, and if you have a particular affiliation which may add weight to your opinion, please include it.

A selection of the comments on our petition which show the high level of support for our proposals:

Dr Ann Coats

Secretary, Naval Dockyards Society

"The Naval Dockyards Society believes that, given the rarity of Tudor, and the non-survival of Stuart naval storehouses, the Great Storehouse, even in its below ground fragmentary state, provides valuable tangible indication of the importance of Deptford Dockyard to Henry VIII and Elizabeth, especially linked to the nearby royal palace at Greenwich. The remains below ground of Tudor, Stuart and Georgian storehouses are fragmentary, but convey a distinctive individual character, intrinsic interest and value to the current community in Deptford and neighbouring boroughs. If that is all we have left, fragments are still important signifiers of cultural heritage which should be valued, as fragments of Tudor castles and Mary Rose are valued.

The below ground remains embody Deptford’s tangible and intangible heritage and ought to give this project a unique character which will distinguish it from many other new developments, inform the overall design and improve its ‘brand’.

Much more can be accomplished to memorialise these below-ground features and make them relevant to today’s residents and visitors than by merely marking their outlines above ground. Footprints should not only be preserved, but integrated."

Professor Mark Laird

Author and historian

"John Evelyn's Sayes Court is among the most important relic sites as cultural and natural heritage. I have written about it on three occasions and my new book, A Natural History of English Gardening, 1650-1800 will bring further attention to its significance as world heritage."

Rob Benbow, Canada

Descendent of Admiral John Benbow

"My ancestor, Admiral John Benbow, was Master Attendant at Deptford in 1696, where he lived at Sayes Court, entertained Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, and sailed from Deptford engaging the enemy for crown and country. We would like to see the history of the Deptford Dockyards preserved, and the plans scaled down to allow the preservation of history. This is the most historical dockyards of the British Royal Navy and should be recognised as such. Please review and adjust the development plans to recognise this importance."

John Kempton

Vice chairman, Medway Queen Preservation Society

"I fully support this petition, and believe that both the development and the Build the Lenox project can work together for the improvement of the area and for the local but also national benefit." 

Justin Reay

Naval historian, and editor of Samuel Pepys' papers at the Bodleian Library

"As a naval historian and art historian, and editor of Samuel Pepys' papers at the Bodleian Library, I am aware of the importance of iconic sites to understanding our shared history. I am sure that the regeneration of the site as proposed by parties to this petition will provide a lasting, meaningful and worthy resource for future generations respecting our maritime, horticultural and artistic history; the proposed development on this site will not significantly add to the social housing stock in London and other sites are available for that."

Andrea Zuvich 

Historian and blogger at The 17th Century Lady http://www.andreazuvich.com/

"Deptford's Royal Dockyard is of great historic value and redevelopment would significantly impact this...for the worse. I, as a 17th century historian, urge you to reject plans for redevelopment. We must protect our nation's history and heritage."

Jean Hood

Maritime and naval author http://www.jeanhood.co.uk/books.html

"Deptford should not be degraded and stripped of its rich history, especially its maritime history, to make profits for foreign investors and allow the government to tick boxes re housebuilding figures.  You cannot reclaim history when it is gone, and too much has been lost to the egos and balance sheets of those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The first maritime book I wrote was about an East Indiaman built in the late 18th century at Deptford, just one of many merchant and naval ships to come from that area over the centuries - ships that played a global role in the development of trade, defence and offensive warfare. Its human community provided many of the craftsmen who built the ships, the men who manned them and their families who waited anxiously for them, and the wider population who provided the services, from shops to taverns and brothels. Please leave something of maritime London well alone."

"From the ground up...up...up..."; comments on recent press coverage.

The 'new' Farrells masterplan, is not a new masterplan.

The previous Aedas masterplan proposed 3,500 homes, three towers above 32 storeys, 2000+ parking spaces, shops, a hotel, some green space, and a nod to the history of the site.

There is not a single new concept in this masterplan, besides a gesture towards the ideas promoted by Deptford Is.... 

Masterplanning is a process of visualising, imagining and re-imagining. But this new-old plan is the same number of Lego bricks in the same size tin. 




© BBC London News, 19 October 2013

When Sir Terry Farrell was selected by Hutchison Whampoa to review the failed Aedas masterplan, Sir Terry, in the presence of Hutchison Whampoa’s UK director Edmond Ho, publicly promised the people of Deptford a new masterplan for the site of Henry VIII’s royal dockyard and John Evelyn’s Sayes Court Garden, now Convoy’s Wharf. They would start "from the ground up". What did he mean?

Farrell’s architects recently claimed on BBC London News (above) to have used the character and history of the site to inform their masterplan. But it must be remembered that the quantum of units at 3,500 apartments, the typology of high rise towers of up to 48 storeys rising out of 12 storey blocks with their enclosed private green spaces resting on the top of four storeys of car parking – plus blanket preservation in situ of the historic dockyard structures – were all features of the previous Aedas masterplan (2012) which was unanimously rejected by the local community, English Heritage, Council for British Archaeology, Naval Dockyard Society and Lewisham Planning and a number of London amenity societies.

The Aedas masterplan – the routes and the real green public spaces

Identical to the Aedas master plan, the Farrell’s masterplan again proposes the historic structures such as the GII listed Olympia Building and the Double Dry Dock remain as marooned stand-alone features amongst the Aedas typology of monolithic blocks. So what does this newly promised “from the ground up” Farrell’s masterplan deliver that the rejected Aedas masterplan did not?

The Farrells masterplan – routes and public spaces

Are the extant Tudor routes through the site expressed in the masterplan? Not yet, rather Farrells have opted to import a circulation feature of “one route back” from the river that has never been a feature of this enclosed self-contained site. What the Farrell’s monolithic gesture of “one route back” achieves is a cutting through of the extant Tudor routes, ignoring the historic perpendicular circulation to the river with pedestrian bridges crossing the potential open mouths of the dock, slips, basin and mast ponds – in favour of an imported notion. Rather than the circulation through the site being informed by the site’s own history and character, specific and characteristic to this internationally important historic site, Farrell’s have opted to impose an idea from elsewhere.

The expression of the historic dockyard structures in the Farrell’s masterplan is limited to an indication of a single slipway illustrated as a green space and the dry dock also illustrated as a green space. This decision to landscape these features does not reflect the historic maritime character of the site. Where, in the former dockyard basin for instance, there might be historic tall ships, a marina, a sailing centre, moored restaurant barges or a floating swimming pool, Farrell’s have proposed – exactly as Aedas did – that the basin is rendered as a dull hard landscaped 'town square feature' fronting the proposed Olympia building shopping centre, described by Sir Terry as the "heart" of the site. The question as to how a shopping centre purposefully reflects the history of London's most important maritime and shipbuilding centre remains unanswered.

When Farrell’s publicly claim that the archaeology and historic features have informed their designs to develop a masterplan from the ground up, it appears that in order to achieve three tower blocks of 48, 38 and 38 storeys, surrounded by monumental blocks of 12 storeys, the precise location for the massive extent of piling required to support this masterplan is determined by the ‘archaeology’. What is the effect of this masterplan on the archaeology? According to Museum of London reports, the effect of this masterplan on the archaeology is "severe". Preservation in situ means that the potential harm to the historic dockyard structures will go unmonitored and unnoticed.

Farrells masterplan overlaid on historic dockyard structures and Sayes Court Garden

Sir Terry Farrell talks about the ‘memory’ of the extant historic dockyard structures being ‘reflected’ in the masterplan. Why do we need memory to be reflected when the structures themselves exist and no-one yet knows whether these structures can be revealed because expert assessment has yet to take place? For example, studies need to be carried out to determine whether the yellow stock brick and hardwood slipways can be revealed in the masterplan. As heritage consultants, Alan Baxters Associates have stated the masonry and brick openings in the river wall, such as the masonry Dry Dock entrance, may be sustainable as a revealed structure.

If Farrell’s public promise has any value, we will see more than the currently proposed preservation in situ of the entire historic environment of the dockyard and Sayes Court Garden.

Restored cannon on show at Twinkle Park summer festival

Kids and parents alike were fascinated by the restored Saker cannon on show at the Twinkle Park festival last weekend, right next to the Convoys Wharf site.

The cannon was brought to the festival by the Lenox Project as a way of raising awareness about the project and also giving local people a chance to find out about the Convoys Wharf redevelopment proposals and talk about the impact it will have on them.

The cannon, which is has been identified as a 'short' naval Saker of English manufacture, was believed to have been cast some time between 1620 and 1630, some 40 years before the Lenox was launched from Deptford Dockyard.

It was in a sorry state when it was first discovered by a scrap merchant clearing a riverside site in south east London, and has been lovingly restored by Lenox Project founder Julian Kingston.

Julian cleaned the corrosion off the shaft, removed the oversize cannon ball which was jammed into the end, and replaced the trunnions and button with replica pieces turned in wrought iron.

The replica wooden carriage was built using the dimensions of an original carriage in Windsor Castle, which carries a 'long' saker cannon; Julian built the carriage out of elm and used traditional smithing crafts to forge and shape the wrought iron rings and other components.

Kids were fascinated by the cannon and the story of its restoration, and it proved a talking point for visitors as well as a popular photo opportunity!

The Lenox Project is planning to take the cannon out to schools and youth groups to continue raising awareness. If you would like to know more, please contact info@buildthelenox.org

Deptford is.. reviewing recent progress

After something of a hiatus over the summer, this week members of the Deptford Is.. team got together to discuss progress since their last meeting.

At the Convoys Wharf public exhibition in July, the architects were confident that they would be holding another open day in September to show us the final masterplan that they intend to submit to the council as a planning application. With no contact from them at time of writing, we assume that progress has been rather slower than predicted.

Renderings from the previous scheme - little change was seen on the latest masterplan

The Build the Lenox team shared the exciting news that they have acquired two patrons for their Community Interest Company (CIC) - local MP Dame Joan Ruddock, and historian and broadcaster Dan Snow - lending the campaign additional gravitas and respectability that will no doubt stand it in good stead for the months ahead.

Having stepped up the marketing campaign by producing new postcard flyers to distribute in Deptford and environs, and having been featured in the South London Press and News Shopper newspapers, the campaign is starting to attract attention from a wider audience and the team is recruiting new volunteers and continuing to seek donations towards the costs.

They have also launched a Facebook page for the campaign and invite you to 'like' it if you have a Facebook account!

Meanwhile Sayes Court Garden has constituted itself as a CIC and is forging exciting links with high-profile charities and organisations which have similar interests and aspirations. The project also has a Facebook page and a Twitter feed through which they can keep in touch with supporters.

An invitation to meet Tim Smit, the founder of the Eden Project in Cornwall, has led to a continuing dialogue and consolidation of the aims of the Sayes Court Garden project, and this has been given additional impetus by a new collaboration with the National Trust.

The founder of the National Trust, Octavia Hill, has links to Deptford and Sayes Court Garden, and it was discussions over how the gardens could be preserved in perpetuity for the people of Deptford that prompted the creation of the National Trust.

The Sayes Court Garden project is in the process of developing a series of workshops with local schools as part of its long-term aim to get young children interested in gardening, food growing and using and exploring the urban green spaces that are often overlooked. These workshops will be held in November.

On a more general level, the team is working with leading landscape academics and design professionals, moving towards presenting developed proposals for the Sayes Court Garden site and manor house.

Convoys Wharf public exhibition: Deptford Is.. responds

Last weekend developer Hutchison Whampoa and its masterplanners Terry Farrell & Partners held a public exhibition at the Deptford Lounge to present ideas and proposals for the new planning application it intends to submit for Convoys Wharf later this year.

Many members of Deptford Is.. attended the event and talked to representatives from Hutchison Whampoa, Terry Farrell & Partners, Alan Baxter & Associates, Grontmij and SKM Colin Buchanan, all members of the team that is submitting the masterplan.

Our collated comments are presented here.

Deceptive presentation 

The main materials used to present the architect’s new ideas for the masterplan were a large, detailed ‘groundscape’ model and a series of six very small polystyrene models used to explain the process that the architects had gone through to develop the height and massing of building parcels for the development. No representation of final building height or density was given on the main model, which we feel was misleading and confusing in the extreme.

Few of the people attending the exhibition would be familiar with the concept of a groundscape model, and we question the motivation for using such a means by which to communicate the main message of the exhibition. A two-dimensional plan would have been sufficient to show the proposed layout of the site. Using a groundscape model had the potential to mislead visitors into thinking that the new proposal was for building heights similar to those in the surrounding estates.

The six polystyrene models were devoid of interpretative material, which meant that the only way to understand them was to ask one of the staff who were present. We were also concerned at the way existing parks and green spaces had been flagged up on the groundscape model, even though they do not fall within the boundaries of the development.

We felt that this was disingenuous of the masterplanners, suggesting they are seeking to present their proposals as adding a significant amount of green space to the area, when in fact this is not the case.

Designing from the ground up? 

One of the main messages that came out of Sir Terry Farrell’s presentation in March this year was his commitment that the new masterplan would be created ‘from the ground up’. But this very welcome vision has not been translated into the ideas we saw at the public exhibition.

Aside from some changes to the road layouts, the proposals presented last weekend, in our opinion, offered nothing more than tweaks to the original masterplan which was proposed by Aedas, and which is shown below.

Aedas masterplan

In our opinion, the commitment to design from the ground up should result in a development which fully respects and recognises the former heritage of the site. In this regard, Farrell’s groundscape plan offered only minor changes to the Aedas proposal.

The new plan showed a representation of the former great basin in front of the Olympia building, but it was a trimmed and scaled back water feature with no access to the river and no prospect of any practical use. Views of the Olympia building from the river would be only slightly improved with this change, a minor change considering that the previous arrangement was notable for its severely restricted vista.

The locations of a couple of the dockyard’s slipways were marked as public areas by the addition of labels; the presence of the double dry dock as a landscaped public area remained, as in the former plans, and the edge of Sayes Court Gardens had been extended slightly into the site, with a scaled-back version of John Evelyn’s grove created next to it (see more info below).

Density and massing 

Staff at the exhibition, when questioned, were still referring to the development involving the creation of 3,500 new residential units. They also claimed that final building heights have not yet been established, that this information will be made available in September.

When asked why so many units, the standard answer given (by several representatives) was that this was the figure demanded by Lewisham Council and set out in its Core Strategy. We are advised by Lewisham’s planning department that this is not the case. While the figure does exist in the Core Strategy, the council’s planners are adamant that the site cannot sustainably support such a high density development.

Secondly it is worth noting that the situation has changed markedly since the core strategy was published in 2005. At that time, very little was known about the archaeology of the site – don’t forget it was covered in warehouses and storage units – and it is only in the last two years that the extent of heritage assets remaining has been explored in any detail.

What’s more, the full extent has yet to be confirmed – archaeological excavations only took place at the locations on which the developers intend to build. The extent and condition of the double dry dock has not been confirmed, neither has the full extent of the mast ponds at the west end of the site, under the proposed working wharf.

Transport 

We were disappointed to note that transport proposals remained identical to those in the previous application. These included a new bus route through the site, ‘enhancements’ to existing bus routes, and the installation of a waterbus jetty.

Improvements to some road junctions are proposed but in all respects, these suggestions are pitiful in relation to the density of the development. With such a high number of properties on the site, even providing parking spaces for just over half these units (1800) will create an unacceptable amount of traffic for local roads.

A representative for the transport consultant said that this was ‘the best that we can do’ for the site.


The Lenox Project 

Our proposal to build a replica of the restoration warship Lenox was represented on the groundscape plan by a little wooden boat and flag. However the masterplanners have suggested that the project should be housed on the working wharf at the west end of the site.

There are several major problems with this. 

Firstly the fact that if the ship were built in this location it could not be launched in any straightforward or technically-proven manner. This part of the site has no slipway or dock and any boat built here would have to be lifted into the water. In order to do this, the structure of the vessel would have to be adapted to incorporate special lifting points or have extra strengthening built in to allow this to be done safely. It would entail additional analysis and the services of a marine architect, and it would create extra risk for the project as a whole.

If the boat were to be built in a dry dock (such as the one at the east end of the site) or on a slipway (such as the two in the Olympia building) it could be launched in the traditional tried and tested manner, which its original design allowed for.

Secondly the project needs to attract sufficient visitors to be financially viable. We believe that the presence of the National Maritime Museum and the Cutty Sark in Greenwich will aid us greatly in doing so, but we feel strongly that the project needs to be as close to Greenwich as possible in order to make it successful.

Thirdly, we strongly support the creation of a proper working wharf which we believe could offer genuine additional employment opportunities for the area. It would also be appropriate to consider creating a marine enterprise zone on this land, to encourage the establishment of businesses that could not only support the Lenox project, but could benefit from its high profile.

Previous arguments that the remaining dockyard structures were not able to be uncovered because they were at risk of degradation have been dispelled by the archaeological investigations. Duncan Hawkins, who led the archaeological excavation, had no objection to the reopening of the great basin, if it were to be lined.

Several weeks ago, the Lenox Project supplied additional information to Farrell's on request, highlighting these points and also a number of other benefits and considerations material to the project and its proposed site. You can download and read this document here.

Sayes Court Gardens and John Evelyn’s Grove

Landscape architect Grontmij proposed some changes to the previous masterplan with the intention of recognising the significance of John Evelyn and his gardens in the heritage of the site. Apart from a dedicted ‘John Evelyn Centre’ in front of the Olympia building, the focus seems to have been on re-working the existing park (which is outside the boundary of the site).

This park does of course need a little tlc, and the boundary edge will need to be appropriately adapted to feed into the site, but we feel the proposed treatment of the site is facile and not in keeping with the heritage and context.

There were two aspects of the ‘history’ boards which glaringly under-sold the garden: firstly was the claim that although Evelyn's experimental approach and writings on horticulture were influential, the actual layout and design of the gardens was of little significance. Secondly, the importance of the 19th century incarnation of the park was scarcely acknowledged, with no mention of the National Trust or the part the park played in the development of our open spaces on a national scale.

The effects of this mis-information can be seen in the masterplan, which destroys the 19th century layout and creates a nominal ‘grove’, at only two thirds the size of Evelyn's on a different site and orientation to that of the original.

Also of concern was the proposal to relocate some of the residential buildings at the west end of the site; in particular the suggestion that one of the towers may be moved back from the river front to take advantage of views of the park as well as the river. As a consequence, the developer is now planning to build residential blocks on the site of Evelyn’s manor house and over the most important parts of the garden, which is what led to the re-positioning and shrinking of the grove.

Duncan Hawkins confirmed that the manor house represented the most well-preserved remains of domestic architecture on the site, and that it would be desirable to have them exposed - albeit under the protection of a building. We suggest that this would be the most obvious location for the proposed John Evelyn Centre. 

The groundscape plan capitalised on the existing Sayes Court Park, drawing it into the site and extending it up to the Olympia building. Once again we felt that this was potentially deceptive, and made the masterplan seem as though it has a ‘green heart’. However it must be recognised that, at a rough estimate, this masterplan contains negligibly more greenspace than the last, if any. The site of John Evelyn's garden has again been ignored, and this time it has been more extensively built up than before.

Although it did not translate to the plan, in general we believe that the architects support the idea that the development would benefit from ongoing and focused activity. Our various suggestions - the presence of a ship-building project, possible moorings for London’s tall ships in a re-opened great basin, a garden museum and recreated grove, a horticulture school, a sculpture park on the jetty – were acknowledged would be a vital component which would prevent the development becoming a residential ghetto. 

Employment 

As before, the only employment prospects proposed by the developer were retail and service industries. The working wharf was unoccupied on the plan.

Poor publicity 
We note that the exhibition was very poorly publicised in Deptford itself. There were no posters visible on the high street, and only two members of Deptford Is.. (most of whom live in the target area) received letters or flyers.

Second Wave Youth Arts, the local group which gave a presentation at the open day, received no notification of the public exhibition.

A final wish

We respectfully urge the custodian of the site, Mr Li Ka Shing, to further apply the sentiment on his charitable foundation's website; "Every country possesses a unique history and culture formed over thousands of years. We believe that the preservation of historical monuments and cultural relics helps us define the past and points the way to the future."

This sentiment is very much at the heart of our proposals for the Convoys Wharf site.

Further information 

A series of videos made by PR company Hard Hat were shown at the event, you can see them online here.

Visit the Convoys Wharf website.

Submit your comments

The developers have said that they will be holding a second public exhibition in September, at which they will present their proposed masterplan before submitting it for planning permission.

Video of Convoys Wharf Consultation Day

Public Open Day - March 2012 from HardHat on Vimeo.

This short video made by Hard Hat, Hutchison Whampoa's communications team, gives a flavour of the consultation day held in March 2012. You can also read our report of the event here.

What the experts are saying: Council for British Archaeology

The Council for British Archaeology issued the following press release on 13th April; it was picked up by the Newshopper (see previous post). We look forward to seeing its contents reported in other publications.

CBA forms expert panel for Deptford Dockyard

The Council for British Archaeology has convened a panel of independent experts to discuss an alternative future for the former site of England’s first Royal Dockyard at Deptford, founded by Henry VIII in 1513.

Calling on the expertise of the Naval Dockyards Society, the Garden History Society, the Panel for Historic Engineering Works and the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, the CBA are hoping to inform a better, heritage-led scheme that delivers wider public benefit and a more sophisticated approach to this internationally important site – one that served this country for nearly 400 years, harboured the Mary Rose and saw the knighting of Sir Francis Drake on the Golden Hind.

Lewisham Council have sent back the planning application for Convoy’s Wharf, which is for over 3,500 new homes, for revisions, claiming rightly that, it was not sensitive enough to unique heritage assets of the dockyard. As a consequence, the developers, Hutchinson Whampoa, have called in Sir Terry Farrell to look at redrawing the masterplan. Meanwhile, DCMS have asked English Heritage to look again at the heritage status of the site, which along with the adjacent Sayes Court Garden currently has no overall designation.

Working with local group Deptford Is, the CBA and its expert panel are looking to assist the developers and English Heritage in their understanding and enhancement of the dockyard and its remarkable history. There is immense potential here, for a scheme to be delivered that benefits the local community, in our Olympic year and with the 500th anniversary of the founding of the site to follow in 2013, surely our first Royal dockyard deserves both protection and respect.

The dockyard at Deptford was founded by Henry VII IN 1513 to build vessels for the Royal Navy. As the dockyard closest to the Navy Board, Deptford grew to be the most important of all the royal dockyards, at its height it was known as the ‘Cradle of the Navy’ and the docks, slipways and wharves constituted 600 feet of river frontage. Buildings that survive on site include the Master Shipwright’s House of 1708, the first purpose-built dockyard offices of 1720 and Victorian slipway covers of 1846. However, what survive below the ground is more impressive. The Great Dock, slipways, mast ponds and the huge basin, along with Sayes Court Garden, constitute an enormous site – one that has had a pivotal role in England’s history.

Other facts -

 - Elizabeth 1 knights Sir Francis Drake aboard the Golden Hind at Deptford in 1581
 - HMS Bounty re-fitted in 1787
 - The rebuilding of Cook’s Endeavour in 1768
 - Several of the warships that served under Nelson at Trafalgar, designed and built at Deptford

Sayes Court Gardens, which was a key site in the formation of the National Trust, was the creation of Seventeenth century diarist, John Evelyn. Made up of an elaborate parterre, long avenues and a great orchard of three-hundred fruit trees, a lake with an island and a large grove of trees of many different species the garden was tremendously influential at the time. Now, unfortunately, it is now almost completely buried under concrete. The Garden History Society has a study day at the site on the 25th April and has recently stated: “The influence of the garden at Sayes Court on garden design and development in England in the 17th century is well documented and its location beside Deptford Docks was fundamental to John Evelyn's science of experimentation with new plants"

The Council for British Archaeology was established in 1944 and is the national amenity society concerned with protection of the archaeological interest in heritage assets. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places and the people and cultures that made them. Local authorities have a duty to notify the CBA of applications for listed building consent involving partial or total demolition.

Deptford Is.. are "a group of local residents who want to ensure that the redeveloped Convoys Wharf offers the best for Deptford and its future". They have proposed a number of alternative projects for the site; a recent consultation allowed them and other local groups to give their visions of the site. A report on the event can be found here.

Hutchison Whampoa Properties and its architect Aedas has submitted an application for more than 3,000 new homes, with a range of tenures, new public squares and the opening of Deptford's Riverside, details of which can be found here.

Deptford is...in the news again

The News Shopper has reported on the Council for British Archaeology's support for our proposals, and has also stated that English Heritage has been requested to re-examine the status of the site by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

ALTERNATIVES to a controversial £1bn high-rise development at a former royal dockyard will be put forward by archaeology experts.

The Council for British Archaeology has convened a panel of independent experts to discuss Convoys Wharf in Deptford, saying the current plans do not respect its history.

Deptford's dockyard was founded by Henry VIII in 1513 as the first royal dockyard, later harbouring the Mary Rose and the Golden Hind when Sir Francis Drake was knighted.

The panel will work with a group of concerned people in the area who have formed the Deptford Is campaign group.

Hutchinson Whampoa's application for 3,500 new homes at the site is currently undergoing revisions with the help of top British architect Sir Terry Farrell.

And the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has requested English Heritage re-examine the site's status, particularly Sayes Court Garden - created by 17th century diarist John Evelyn.

Open day at Convoys Wharf

The Convoys Wharf community consultation day attracted a large number of people from the local area and beyond, with tours of the site and presentations from local community groups.

It was fascinating to see how much of the original docks are still there, only just below the surface of the ground. Many of the stone and brick structures seem to be in pretty good condition where they have not been damaged by later construction, although the archaeologist Duncan Hawkins, whose company CgMs is working for developer Hutchison Whampoa, would not be drawn on the structural soundness or otherwise of the dock walls.

The turnout was impressive, and quite a few people were unable to find seats in the marquee, which had been set up with tables and chairs, but still remained standing throughout the presentations, demonstrating that they were keen to hear about the alternatives.

The head of the European arm of developer Hutchison Whampoa, Edmund Ho (below), welcomed everyone to the event during the introductions, along with Joan Ruddock, who attended the launch of our alternative vision last year, and declared herself to be in full support of our plans. 

Deptford Is.. member William Richards (below) introduced the three projects that we are proposing, and urged the audience to consider the future of the site very carefully.

"It must be said that anyone here should count themselves as crazy if they were to resist inevitable and necessary regeneration of this site, which has the assets of place, location, scale and heritage to make it remarkable in London.
"It is with a desire to achieve that the community offers its ideas. Some of the specific ideas are relatively new, some are the result of ten years of actively engaging with and researching the site; all the ideas are almost beyond imagination - but the challenge for everyone in this room is to elevate the future of the site beyond the banal, beyond the expedient and reflect the values of the site into the future. It must be excellent.
"It must work, for those who live here today and for those who will come to Deptford in the future."

William introduced other members of the group to talk about our three proposals - the Lenox project, Sayes Court Gardens, and the Seven Bridges, all of which were also presented at our alternative vision launch last year.

Other presentations included inspiring contributions from members of the Second Wave Youth Arts group in Deptford, who urged the planners to consult and engage with the young people of the area. It was not simply a plea to be consulted, it was a confident statement that the young people of Deptford have a lot to offer that the masterplanners can benefit from.

Architect Sir Terry Farrell, whose firm has been employed by Hutchison Whampoa to review the masterplan for the site, rounded off proceedings by explaining that he and his team would go away and consider all the comments and ideas, before starting on the next phase of the consultation process which would inform the masterplan review.


The Deptford Dame has also published a report on the event, which you can read here.

Come to the community consultation day!

The community consultation day which is being hosted by developer Hutchison Whampoa on Saturday 24 March is probably the best opportunity yet to make the strength of feeling in the local community heard by those responsible for the masterplan.

With its existing masterplan attracting strong criticism for riding roughshod over the significant heritage of site, Hutchison Whampoa has asked Sir Terry Farrell's practice to consult with the local community before carrying out a review of the masterplan. He will be attending the open day on Saturday, at which there will be short presentations about some of the ideas being put forward by local groups, including Deptford Is and its proposals.

If you want to show your support for these ideas, in front of the people who have the power to make them happen, you should make every effort to attend. There will also be the opportunity to ask questions of the developers, the architects and the local groups. To take part in the presentations and question-and-answer sessions you must arrive promptly by noon.

You can also join a tour of the site and see the archaeological dig which is underway - tours are either at 11.15am or at 2.15pm and take about an hour.

Full details are listed below - the event will take place on the Convoys Wharf site:


11.00 Exhibition opens

11.15 – 12.15 Site and archaeological tour opportunity 1



12.15 –14.15
Welcome from Hutchison Whampoa, followed by speeches and presentations, including Joan Ruddock MP, Sir Terry Farrell and colleagues, and local community groups.

The presentations will be followed by question and answer opportunities and refreshments will be provided during the two-hour period.

PLEASE NOTE: If you want to take a full part in these sessions, please arrive promptly at noon. Register for one of the site tours on arrival.

14.15-15.15: Site and archaeological tour opportunity 2
16.00 Exhibition closes

You must bring appropriate footwear and clothing for the site tour, bearing in mind that the site can be dusty and muddy depending on the weather.

For further information and to confirm attendance please call 0845 460 6011 or email info@convoyswharf.com

Deptford is.. forging links in the wider community

Last week's Evelyn Assembly meeting offered a great opportunity for Deptford is.. to make new links in the local community and to present its plans to Evelyn ward's councillors.

While we have been working hard to tell people about our ideas, and to get out and about making connections with other local organisations and community groups, there are always more people to meet!

Despite a lack of cooperation from the projection equipment, Deptford is.. member Bob Bagley managed to inspire the audience with verbal imagery of our plans to build the wooden Lenox warship, to recreate John Evelyn's lost gardens, and to install seven bridges over the former waterways that connected Henry VIII's dockyard to the River Thames.

As a result we have established new links with youth groups and community organisations that we had not previously had the opportunity to meet, and intend to work with them to try and establish some common aims which we can cooperate on in the future.

Responses from the community: Twinkle Park Trust

Twinkle Park Trust has sent the following letter to Lewisham Council regarding the planning application for the Convoys Wharf masterplan. Although Twinkle Park is actually in Greenwich borough, the boundary of the two boroughs runs down Watergate Street – the edge of the Convoys Wharf site is on one side of the road, Twinkle Park and Rowley House are on the other.

"I am writing on behalf of the Twinkle Park Trust to object to proposals contained within the master plan, subject of this planning application.

The plans propose to erect a block of 4–7 storeys high on the north west stretch of Watergate Street directly opposite Twinkle Park, south of this block and directly opposite Rowley House the proposals suggest a block of between 2–4 stories high.

The height of the larger block will completely overshadow Twinkle Park which is surrounded by 100 foot London Plane trees, all with TPO status, a large pond and a publicly recognised park of quality and environmental importance. We are also concerned at the detrimental affect these blocks will have upon Rowley House residents. The entrances to these flats face west and therefore the only direct sunlight received is in the afternoon and evening.

Our concern is that the height of the block proposed immediately adjacent to the Park will cause significant deterioration of natural light and detrimentally affect the health of the park and wild life. This light deterioration will be further enhanced by the proposed 47 storey block close by within the site.

In addition we are also concerned that the consequential change to the water table by such dense building will further adversely affect the Park.

Twinkle Park together with Charlotte Turner Gardens is managed by Twinkle Park Trust, who raised all necessary monies to rebuild the Park and refurbish the Gardens."

Responses from the community

At the Deptford Presents launch on Friday 4th November, Joan Ruddock spoke of her intention to hear responses from other groups in the area to the Convoys masterplan. Meanwhile, Deptford Is... has been talking to other stakeholders. One such group is Second Wave Youth Arts who are based at The Mission in Creek Road and who have been working with young people in Deptford for over 25 years. We reproduce part of their written objection here:

Young people in Deptford are entitled to enjoy their lives peacefully, creatively and productively. They deserve support and encouragement in fulfilling their potential as positive individuals and critical citizens. But the modern pressures of urban life tend to work against their aspirations, often leaving them uncertain about their role and responsibilities – marginalised or disengaged from local decision-making.

Second Wave has been working closely with colleagues at the University of Greenwich (the School of Architecture, Design & Construction and the School of Education & Training) to identify how young people can become more actively involved in local initiatives and develop their skills as the next generation of community leaders.

We are also working closely with Lewisham Police and the Crime Reduction Service in the borough. In Section 11 of this response, we indicate the willingness of young people at Second Wave to participate in an ongoing process of consultation, design and decision-making with regard to Convoys Wharf. We also seek to emphasize the potential value of their contribution in strengthening community cohesion, reducing social divisions, and increasing neighbourhood safety.

In our view, this site offers a major opportunity to help meet Deptford’s local housing, employment, commercial and recreational needs as a culturally diverse and vibrant community. We recognize significant local development potential for this area in the riverside location, the archaeological and historic heritage, and the growing cultural and economic vibrancy focused around Deptford High Street. On the other hand this is an exceptionally deprived area where we expect the highest priority in the use of scarce local land to be given to overcoming local deficiencies and addressing local needs.   ...The current Convoys Wharf proposal is a predominantly developer-led project attempting to put as much housing as possible on the site – with limited concessions to matching local needs and potential. 

The issues behind the recent riots are multi-dimensional but they cannot be detached from questions of poverty, housing, unemployment, low aspiration, lack of trust, and the widening of social divisions in our community. These factors cannot be ignored in the future development of Convoys Wharf. For example, an extreme lack of social mobility in a deprived area can result in a loss of hope. Problems arise when groups of young people feel alienated or pessimistic about the future of their neighbourhoods and their own prospects for employment.

Second Wave’s approach is a creative one. We work from the first-hand narrative experience of young people: their own perceptions of place and belonging. Our starting-point is to hear from them, in their own words, what their neighbourhood means to them (their own perspectives of urban reality). This offers insight into prevalent factors associated with local streets, estates, post codes: the territorial issues of gang rivalry, intimidation and survival. Our role is to create opportunities for finding a voice as a young person – to question and influence the decision-makers – and the power to challenge the effects of stark socio-economic divisions in their area.

We believe that the interests and concerns of young people need to be taken seriously and formally incorporated into the whole concept of consultation, urban design and future development of this important site. As the next generation of local citizens and community leaders, they are most likely to live with the consequences of these decisions for many years to come.

At Second Wave, we are prepared to support the development of a Convoys Wharf Youth Initiative – to give meaningful and imaginative attention to these concerns (for example, re. the issues of community safety, urban design, youth facilities, training opportunities, apprenticeships, recreation, youth culture, and job creation) through the direct participation of local young people.

What Deptford is saying: part 2

This objector begins with a plea, then summarises her case below:

May I urge the Mayor, Councillors and Officers of the London Borough of Lewisham to reject this planning application.

The London Borough of Lewisham, right at the moment, has this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a decision that, for Deptford, will be favourable, prestigious, sustainable and permanently economically advantageous.

Precis
Please choose a future for Deptford and not just a clichéd, high-rise past. Evidence shows (Olympic site) that such building works bring only temporary jobs. Should high-rise flats prove be a mistake for Deptford’s riverside, as they have been so proved elsewhere (numerous demolished high-rise blocks), once they are built, and become individually owned, there will never again be an opportunity for the London Borough of Lewisham to reverse its mistake.

Deptford’s historical potential
The reinstatement of Deptford’s historical heritage will inevitably lead to World Heritage Site status. All docks and necessary surrounding areas were, and could be, working docks for didactic, historic and contemporary boat building purposes. Working areas are not compatible with residential uses. Residents complain of industrial sights and sounds (inter alia, Teddington, Isleworth, Eel Pie Island, Brentford and along our Thames)

Deptford’s employment potential
Deptford’s significant maritime and naval south-side Thames bank, with its deep-water, downstream location means that The London Borough of Lewisham is the only London riparian Borough that now has unique and special economic and employment opportunities in the naval, maritime and related industries. Londoners need these industries and Deptford people need relevant local jobs. Financial sector jobs are not relevant to Deptford people (UDP).

Deptford’s economic opportunities through its proximity to the Olympic site
The London Borough of Lewisham has immediate economic opportunities on this site opposite the 2012 Olympics venue.

Destructive effects of high-rise developments on Deptford’s side of the Thames
There are significant material reasons for rejecting the application. These are, inter alia, that the applicant’s submitted documents show that the wind effect of the proposed high-rise blocks located on Deptford’s bank on this curve of the river will cause river mishaps: mishaps that could lead to death. Further, the applicant’s submission shows that its own residents will be blown off balconies. Perhaps the balconies are designed to be cosmetic only?

Factually incorrect, misleading or alarming documents submitted by the applicant
There are errors, misleading statements and alarming assertions in submitted documents. Please eliminate all documents from your consideration that contain errors or misleading statements. Please take very seriously, alarming revelations. It would be a travesty if a decision were to be made on false information or made knowing the damage that the applicant intends to make to Deptford and other parts of London.

What Deptford is saying: part 1

So far, more than 130 objections have been received to the planning application for redevelopment of Convoys Wharf. If you haven't sent one yet, it's NOT too late!

We'll be publishing a few of the objections here, in case you need some inspiration or want to hear what others are saying....

"In 1513 AD the King's Yard was founded at Deptford, a tiny hamlet by a marshy creek on the south side of the Thames on a deep self-scouring bend of the river. Surrounded by mainly oak woodland and close to the Dover Road the choice of site was not accidental.