English Heritage urges reduction in density

English Heritage has urged Lewisham Council to seek further revisions in respect of reducing the maximum levels of development on Convoys Wharf, in its official response to Hutchison Whampoa's latest planning application.

The response has already been highlighted in the specialist press but we thought it would be helpful to publish additional extracts, to demonstrate the full extent of the comments.

The heritage watchdog's official response is formed of two letters; one from historic buildings & areas advisor Richard Parish, and one from archaeology adviser Mark Stevenson. The former addresses the impact of the proposals on the historic built environment, the latter the impact on the archaeology of the site.

In his introduction, Parish underlines the importance of Convoys Wharf: "As the site of Henry VIII's Deptford Royal Dockyard, Convoys Wharf is of major historic significance."

While he acknowledges the desirability of bringing the site back into use (as indeed does Deptford Is..) he says that EH "remains concerned that the overall scale of the development is such that the opportunity to create a distinctive sense of place which responds to local character, and provides an appropriate setting for designated and undesignated heritage assets, is lost."

Settings for historic buildings - a lost opportunity

He continues: "We would urge the council to seek further revisions in respect of reducing the maximum levels of development, particularly in respect of the immediate setting of the grade II listed Olympia Shed, and to seek further measures to safeguard its significance and secure its beneficial use."

Parish also suggests that the council seek further opportunities to reflect the historic character across the site, as well as ensuring that the tall buildings that are proposed 'offer an elegant and attractive addition to the skyline.'

In setting out the significance of the historic environment, Parish explains:

"Deptford Royal Dockyard was founded by Henry VIII in 1513 and by the mid-sixteenth century....alongside Woolwich Dockyard, was the most important naval dockyard in the Country. In terms of designated heritage assets the site reflects the extensive redevelopment of the late C20th which removed many earlier structures.

The surviving designated assets are the grade II Gateway, the centrally located grade II Olympia Building with its distinctive roof form, the scheduled Tudor Storehouse (scheduled ancient monument), the grade II* Master Shipwrights House, and the grade II* Dockyard Offices on the eastern perimeter (now outside the site boundary). The site also encompasses the remains of John Evelyn’s home, the medieval manor of Sayes Court (demolished 1930) and part of the site of its formal garden, from which it draws historic significance.

Investigations have shed considerable light on the evolution of the site, including the extent of remains of Sayes Court and its gardens, the Dry Dock, the Great Basin and Double Dock, and Mast Ponds. The River Wall is also currently under consideration for listing. As such we consider the site to demonstrate extensive historic and evidential value. It must also be considered to hold significant communal values through its association with John Evelyn and garden history, and maritime history and its proximity to the Greenwich WHS. This communal value has manifested itself in the popular movement to build a replica of Henry VIII’s warship the Lenox on the site."

His assessment of Hutchison Whampoa's plans for the site is unambiguous.

"We remain concerned that the overall scale of development is such that the opportunity to create a distinctive sense of place which responds to the outstanding historic legacy of the site has not been realised. "

In regards to the listed Olympia Shed, he says: "Whilst we acknowledge the reduction in height of the surrounding elements, we remain concerned that the proximity and massing of the feature buildings and 14 storey riverside block create a dominating scale around the listed building."

The link between the Olympia Shed and the river is a crucial one, he says, and the 'narrow, glimpsed view' that is included in Farrell's masterplan 'fails to make the best opportunity of this prominent and centrally-located heritage asset'.

'Unconvincing' visualisations

Parish also remains unconvinced by Farrell's proposals for the three tall buildings, and says that their location and arrangement risks creating a 'canyon' effect. Moreover he questions whether the towers will be sufficiently elegant and well-proportioned to contribute beneficially to the skyline.

"As the proposal is in outline and only refers to parameters of height, mass and location, to be undertaken in accordance with design guidelines. We are concerned that this may not result in this being achieved, and we are unconvinced by the visualisations."

In relation to the public realm works, Parish suggests that "further consideration be given to the design and associated landscaping of the school, to reflect the location of the Sayes Court Garden and the proposed Sayes Court Interpretation Centre."

He closes by reiterating that EH has overriding concerns about the proposals, and even goes so far as to say that "the overall scale of the scheme, including the tall buildings, will cause harm to the significance of designated and undesignated heritage assets."

Specialist press highlights English Heritage criticism of Convoys scheme

Specialist trade magazine Building Design has highlighted English Heritage's negative response to the revised masterplan for Convoys Wharf.

Under the headline Farrells' Deptford plan criticised by conservationists the story reads:

English Heritage has criticised Farrells’ £1 billion Convoys Wharf masterplan for failing to put the site’s history at the centre of the scheme. 

Developer Hutchison Whampoa wants to build 3,500 homes on a 16.6ha riverside site at Deptford which once housed Henry VIII’s naval dockyard as well as Sayes Court, the 17th century home of diarist and gardener John Evelyn. 

The plans, which include three towers rising to 40 storeys  [note: the towers actually rise to 48 storeys, not 40], were drawn up by Farrells after an earlier Aedas scheme was criticised as “monstrous”. 

Responding to the planning application, English Heritage acknowledged that the new scheme was a significant improvement and praised the developer for carrying out the largest archaeological investigation of an historic dockyard in the world. 

“The scale of work undertaken is a reflection of the importance of the site, the anticipated quality and quantity of archaeology and that the applicant recognised that a detailed understanding was essential in developing a planning application to redevelop this nationally important site,” said EH’s archaeology advisor Mark Stevenson. 

Yet the eight “overarching design principles” listed in the planning application do not include a consideration of the history of the site as an objective. “This would appear to be at odds with the expectation of heritage being a core element of the design approach alluded to in the heritage statement,” said Stevenson who complained recent archaeological discoveries were not incorporated. 

He urged Lewisham council to “seek further opportunities” to reflect the historic character in the design. A proposed Sayes Court interpretation centre should have been used as a design starting point to provide a distinctive character for the “Evelyn Quarter”, he said, recommending the reconfiguration of two buildings to this end. 

“The position and orientation of the Sayes Court sequence of building and associated space is lost within the proposed arrangement of roads and building blocks,” he said. “Also the inclusion of a garden city green strip along the centre of one of the routes in this area as the main landscape reflection of the John Evelyn legacy is on its own a disappointment.” 

He also recommended “serious consideration” be given to the retention of the 16th and 17th remains of the Navy Treasurer’s House. The site, recognised as being of national importance, was also once the subject of a Rogers Stirk Harbour scheme.

The story can be found via this link, although registration is needed to read it.

Convoys Wharf transport #1: parking

The density of development proposed for Convoys Wharf will undoubtedly create significant demands on the local transport network, in terms of travel requirements, traffic and parking.

A total of 3,500 residential units is proposed, which translates to an estimated 9,697 new residents for the area. On top of this the site has 98,100 square metres of non-residential space which Hutchison Whampoa estimates will generate ‘up to 2,150 permanent jobs’ on the site.

The site is planned to be developed over ten years, during which time construction work will be under way on the site practically non-stop.

HW estimates that the site will employ 1,200 construction workers at its peak, which will presumably extend throughout most of the ten year period. As well as the traffic generated by residents and workers entering and leaving the site, the site transport requirements will also include deliveries to and from the businesses and other facilities on the site, service vehicles and deliveries of materials and removal of spoil from the construction work.

All of these demands will put heavy pressure on the local roads, parking facilities and public transport. 

A total of 1,540 residential parking spaces is proposed, along with 300 non-residential parking spaces.

The transport strategy submitted by the developer includes extensive arguments justifying the number of parking spaces in relation to the number of residential units. We believe it is more appropriate to provide fewer residential units so that the ratio is more suitable to the site.

The transport strategy states that the number of parking spaces that are being provided is well below what would be acceptable in terms of planning guidance for this number of residential units. This document seems to consider this fact a demonstration of the developer’s ‘green’ credentials.

However the presence of the remaining dockyard structures in situ limits the developer’s options on the site – no basement car parking is allowed - and all car parks are accommodated in podium parking at street level and above. In fact the developer has chosen to forego additional parking spaces in preference to using the building envelope for other, potentially more profitable uses, ie luxury housing. 

With restricted on-site parking and such a high density of occupancy, it is inevitable that parking will spill over on to the adjoining streets.

Prince Street next to the main entrance to the site

In anticipation of this, the developer has agreed to contribute to the cost of research into the possibility of controlled parking zones being introduced on roads around the site. It is not clear whether this will apply only to the roads in Lewisham borough, or whether it also extends to Greenwich borough, which also borders the site along Watergate Street and is likely to be similarly affected.

It is also worth noting that the survey on which the assumptions about parking supply and demand are based dates from 2009.

Blue roads were those included in the 2009 parking survey

Many of the residential blocks surrounding Convoys Wharf do not have their own car parks, so residents will most likely have to pay for parking permits whereas now they are able to park on the road for free. 

Parking spaces on New King Street will go

What's more, the developer proposes that the existing 65 on-road parking spaces on New King Street will be removed, to allow site access for construction traffic.

However the establishment of controlled parking zones will only kick in once residents move onto the site. We believe the parking overspill is likely to be just as bad – if not worse – during the construction phase when potentially 1,200 construction workers will be seeking parking spaces. This has been a major issue for residents during the redevelopment of the Paynes & Borthwick Wharf site, which is a relatively small development.

No measures are proposed to control parking by site workers during the construction phase. 

Convoys Wharf planning application: an initial overview

Over the coming weeks the Deptford is.. team will be commenting on a number of aspects of the proposed redevelopment of Convoys Wharf, in order to stimulate debate and encourage local residents and interested bodies to submit their comments on the application to Lewisham Council.

This proposal is going to have a massive impact on Deptford and surrounds, and we want to try and reach as many people as we can, to make them aware of what is happening.

If you are interested in finding out how this development will affect you, we strongly recommend that you read as much of the application as you are able to, follow our blog posts and those of other local bloggers (see sidebar) and talk to your local councillors, your MP and the planning experts at Lewisham Council to get answers to any questions you may have, and listen to what other bodies are saying about the application - we will report those comments here as and when we receive them.

We also invite anyone who is reading the application and wants to raise issues or ask questions to do so in the comments below, or by emailing us directly (deptfordis@yahoo dot co dot uk).

We will try and address those issues we consider most fundamental, including massing and density of the development, transport links, heritage and cultural strategy, and environmental aspects as well as the developer's proposals for the protected wharf.

The official deadline for submitting comments to the planning department is 1 July 2013. However please remember you can submit comments right up until the date at which the application comes before the strategic planning committee. We recommend that you copy your comments to your local councillors and your MP. 

Application: the official description and finding the documents

The comprehensive redevelopment of Convoys Wharf to provide a mixed-use development of up to 419,100 square metres comprising: 

• up to 321,000m2 residential floorspace (up to 3,500 units) (Use Class C3) 
• up to 15,500m2 employment floorspace (Class B1/Live/Work units) including up to 2,200m2 for 3 no. potential energy centres wharf with associated vessel moorings and up to 32,200m2 of employment floorspace (Sui Generis & Class B2) 
• up to 5,810m2 of retail and financial and professional services floorspace (Classes A1 & A2) 
• up to 4,520m2 of restaurant/cafe and drinking establishment floorspace (Classes A3 & A4) 
• up to 13,000m2 of community/non residential institution floorspace (Class D1) and assembly and leisure (Class D2) 
• up to 27,070m2 of hotel floorspace (Class C1) 
• river bus jetty and associated structures 
• 1,840 car parking spaces together with vehicular access from New King Street and Grove Street retention and refurbishment of the Olympia Building and demolition of all remaining non-listed structures on site 

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

Should you wish to download the documents, you can find them on Lewisham Council's planning portal here (application number DC/13/83358).

However in its digital form, the application consists of almost 60 files, some numbering more than 500 pages and many of them 50MB or more in size. Downloading the whole lot from the planning website will cost you more than 1GB of your broadband data.

Deptford Lounge.

As part of the planning process, applicants are required to provide paper copies of these documents, and one set of the Convoys Wharf application is available at Deptford Lounge. Thanks to the efforts of some of our team, and the kind cooperation of the library staff, these documents are now on display next to the information desk for any member of the public to browse.

Visualisations.
One of the more accessible documents as an easy starting point is the one considering the visual impact of the development - it's not easy to find as it is blandly named Environmental Statement Volume 2C.

We have extracted some of the views that locals will be familiar with. Not all of them have been provided as full visualisations; on some of them the finished outline of the buildings are just shown as a green line.

On those that have been provided as full visualisations, only the three tall buildings are shown in any level of detail; the lower buildings (from five storeys upwards to 20 storeys) are shown as white blocks which to some extent lessens the visual impact as seen on the rendering.

Do look closely; many people are more concerned about the impact of the 'lower' buildings on the streetscape and surrounding properties than the tall buildings. You can view higher quality images in the document linked above.

View from Island Gardens Park, opposite Greenwich

View across Pepys Park (photo of park taken during renovation work)

View from the bottom of Deptford High Street

View from Deptford Strand/Foreshore - the grey building in the foreground is also part of the development

View from Twinkle Park - buildings shown in green outline.

Follow our blog, sign up to our mailing list (in the left hand column) or follow us on Twitter (@deptfordis) to keep updated with our upcoming posts.

Spread the word by sharing this post to Facebook or Twitter using the buttons below the post.

Thank you for signing our petition

Things have moved on considerably since we began our campaign in September 2011. Our online petition to Lewisham Planning, Hands Off Our Heritage, hopefully aided their resolve to work with Hutchison Whampoa to find a better solution for the site. Deptford Is... would like to thank all those who signed and recommended it.

Deptford is...still being talked about!

Lewisham Deptford MP Joan Ruddock last week spoke out against the proposed masterplan for Convoys Wharf, telling News Shopper that she believed Hutchison Whampoa's plans to build 3,500 residential units were too high a density for the site.

The story was further expanded in The Mercury today to include a quote by Malcolm Woods from English Heritage: "It is our view that the regeneration of Convoys Wharf, as it is now proposed, fails to grasp the unique opportunity to create a distinctive sense of place that takes full advantage of the rich historical legacy of the site and its local area." (See our post on English Heritage's response here.)

Ms Ruddock spoke in support of the proposals put forward by Deptford is... at the launch of our alternative vision in November. She is currently working with Lewisham Council to arrange a public meeting at which community groups such as ours can put their proposals to an independent panel. We will bring you more news of this meeting when the date and format have been finalised.

What the experts are saying: the Naval Dockyards Society

Honorary secretary of the Naval Dockyards Society, Ann Coats, has responded to the Convoys Wharf planning application on behalf of the society. We have published extracts from the letter below (with NDS emphasis): the full text can be accessed via the link at the end of the article. 

The NDS is, in the main, commenting on the archaeological statements published on Convoys website and the future use and interpretation of the historic sites within the application site, following points made in the 2004 consultation: 

• In particular both EH and the Naval Dockyards Society felt that an approach was needed, that respected the original layout of the site, in order to restore the community to the lost link with its maritime past. Similarly CABE expressed some disappointment that higher aspirations have not emerged in the masterplanning of a site with a rich historical legacy in a location of strategic importance. (CgMs Ltd Environmental Statement Archaeology Technical Appendix, Convoys Wharf, p.17)

NDS does note and deplore the excessive height of the tall buildings, which will impinge upon vistas between historic Greenwich Park and the City and diminish the human scale at the application site.

It also deplores the project’s high density of buildings which will constitute an unattractive intrusion into vistas along the River Thames, an historic route and the cause of the town’s existence, linking royal Deptford and Royal Greenwich. A high quality design should celebrate 500 years of maritime history.

From the drawings, particularly the 'Finalised Illustrative Masterplan' (Design and Access Statement p. 143), there seem to be no effective views to the river from the site interior, including the historic shipbuilding sheds, which is also deplorable. 

The NDS does welcome river transport links, as in Venice and Sydney, to diversify travel options for residents and visitors.

The NDS supports stakeholder comments in Community Involvement (2011) which include concern for:

• the excessive height of the tower blocks, the high residential density and concomitant parking which would overwhelm the development and add to traffic problems in the area
• poor interpretation of Deptford’s history
• socially differentiated housing
• mediocre and indistinguishable architecture which is ‘oblivious to local culture’
• Olympia being called a warehouse rather than a slip shed;

and call for:

• celebration and revival of Deptford’s history and traditional occupations through a museum/interpretation centre

• dynamic use of the river, wharves and Deptford’s maritime heritage to ensure the Thames Path is accessible and user friendly.
• retention of the ‘unique sense of place and space’
• inspiring and distinctive architecture which resonates with Deptford’s singular history.

The NDS is concerned that outline planning permission may be granted in 2011, before the archaeological investigation is completed in May 2012.

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."

What Greenwich is saying

Our neighbouring borough of Greenwich (or should I say the Royal Borough, a title which Deptford would certainly deserve ;-)) has registered the following objection to the planning application for Convoys Wharf:

View from Greenwich Park

"Greenwich Council express concern on the excessive height of the northern part of the proposed development (close to the towers of St Paul’s Cathedral as seen from Greenwich Park) and the detrimental impact it would have on the protected vista from Greenwich Park. The towers of St Paul’s Cathedral are integral to the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark, and the viewing corridor of the protected vista from Greenwich Park incorporates these features. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D25 and D26 of the Greenwich adopted Unitary Development Plan 2006, and the Revised Supplementary Planning Guidance, London View Management Framework (July 2010). It is further considered that the views of English Heritage and the Mayor of London should be sought."

Keep your objections coming!

We were delighted to discover this week that the number of objections to the Convoys Wharf planning application has risen by almost two dozen since our campaign began. According to Lewisham Council's planning information portal, the application has attracted 160 responses – just six of which are in favour. In total, a whopping 154 objections have been lodged against the application.

If you haven't written an objection yet, you still have plenty of time to do so. We understand that the application is not going to be brought before the planning committee for at least two months, offering plenty of opportunity for additional objections to be submitted.   

Don't forget that you can find help and inspiration right here on our website – visit our page here to find out how to write an objection and where to send it. You can also read what other people are saying – whether the experts or just your neighbours – by reading our previous posts here.

We are also thrilled to note that since we launched our campaign just two months ago, our petition has gathered more than 200 signatures.

But we still need more – keep 'em coming folks!

Convoys Wharf: transport planning

The recent granting of outline planning permission for the massive redevelopment of the Surrey Canal  site around Millwall's stadium was inextricably linked to improvements in transportation at the site. Not only has the initial application for 2,700 residential units been cut back to 2,400, but the developer Renewal has committed to a large number of transport improvements, most notably topping up the cost of building the new Surrey Canal Road station on the East London Line Extension.

As London Reconnections points out, the transport improvements agreed do not stop at a new station, they are quite comprehensive and offer reassurance that sensible measures are in hand to try and minimise the impact on public transport that this increase in population will have. At the moment, the site has a 'PTAL' rating (a way of calculating the public transport accessibility level) of 2, which on a scale which goes from 1 (lowest) to 6, is poor.

Likewise, the Convoys Wharf site has an average PTAL rating of 2. On a site of this size, to come out with an average of 2 underlines its inaccessibility.

Compared to Surrey Canal's 2,400 residential units, Convoys Wharf developer Hutchison Whampoa is proposing more than 3,500. So how will the impact of this huge increase in population on the public transport system be minimised?

Buses?
According to HW's application, "as part of the redevelopment at Convoys Wharf it is proposed that a bus route would be provided through the development site from the beginning of Phase 2, either by diverting and enhancing an existing route or by providing a new route". So if you move there in phase 1, you will have to fight your way onto the existing buses.

Will Convoys Wharf be a public transport-free zone? (Flickr: gritty-but-pretty)

Railway?
The application states: "Particularly as Crossrail and High Speed domestic services will divert a considerable amount of existing rail traffic onto other routes, it is considered that the rail services from Deptford can accommodate the demand likely to be generated by Convoys Wharf." As a reminder, Crossrail services are not scheduled to begin until 2018 - and that's still seven years away, so not exactly guaranteed!

The domestic high speed services are already up and running, so conditions on the trains at the moment should reflect any improvement due to this.

Underground?
The planning application considers that most underground trips will begin at Canada Water. I estimate the walking time from the furthest point of the site to this underground station to be about 20-30 minutes, and I'm a fast walker. Presumably people travelling by underground would take the bus there, so it's really the impact on the buses that carries the greatest weight here.

DLR?
"With 15 trains an hour on this section, each train will only carry a maximum of 5 additional passengers, if those leaving the development all travel in the same direction. This is not considered to be a significant impact."

River bus?
"Discussions are ongoing with Riverbus operators to identify the most effective form of service provision at the new pier. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that from the end of Phase 1

• a dedicated shuttle boat will run between the new pier and Canary Wharf at 20 minute intervals during the weekday morning and evening peak periods, providing a capacity of at least 180 passengers/hour by direction
•   The existing Embankment Pier – Woolwich Arsenal services will serve the pier during off-peak periods. "

Improvements to walking and cycling routes are also proposed, which is just as well.

The transport assessment – available to download here if you wish to read it in detail - also contains extensive justification of the number of parking spaces that the developers want to include (approximately 1800 for residents). You might take this as indication of where the real transport planning is pointing.

And as for the public transport 'improvements', how will they affect the PTAL rating of the site? Even the developer's transport consultant can't gloss over this one. "By routeing a bus service through the development and providing the new river bus service, walk access times to public transport will become shorter. Across the site, PTAL will rise to a minimum of 2 with the area around the New King Street entrance rising to a PTAL of 3."

Broadly speaking (and certainly on average), no change.

Questions to ask the applicant and planners

If you are attending the Drop-In at St Nicholas' Church tonight, here are some questions to ask Lewisham Planning and the representatives of Convoys Wharf s.a.r.l.

1. We are still unclear as to exactly what precisely, apart from a new school, the Section 106 agreements are for the site.

2. What conditions are they currently considering putting on the development should they grant development?

3. This is the last stage at which Lewisham can apply conditions to the development that ensure the very best results for the people of Deptford. 'Outline' planning permission that is being sought for a 'masterplan'. There are no drawings to approve, in fact the visuals provided in this application are extremely poor. 'Parcels' of the site may be sold off to other developers to build what they like (up to an approved height and width). This is the point at which Lewisham should add conditions so that later developments are of good quality.

4. This application is different from and, not as the developers suggest, an amendment to the previous 2005 application. The developers seem to be under the impression that the 2005 scheme is more or less acceptable, despite the fact that it has been dismissed by GLA, Design For London, Design Review Panels and local consultation. Can the applicants clarify this application's relationship to the 2005 scheme?

5. Who is representing the applicant here? HWL, BPTW, Hard Hat, Aedas? Who are the planners negotiating with? With so many different entities representing the developers is it possible to know who is giving the orders about the massive density of these proposals?

6. Why is the history of the site given so little consideration with this application going in before the archaeological excavations have finished? Has Lewisham Council not realised the enormous potential of the site as of national (and international) significance in Britain's heritage? If they have, why have they not conveyed this more strongly to the developers, backed up by other important (and willing) authorities and national bodies?
 
7. What would happen, should the archaeological excavations which are currently ongoing, turn up something of importance? Surely a 46 floor tower block could not be built over such potential finds.

8. What will the Olympia shed to be used for?

9. Why is the site now considered a residential site? The LSE report commissioned by Lewisham says its should only be 25% residential. GLA agreed.

10. Why has the number of affordable housing units shrunk from 25% to 14%, when the London Plan asks for 35% to 50%?

11. Does Lewisham have a plan for a post-recession Deptford that isn't just creating a dormitory for jobs in the City or rental income for foreign investors? What does Lewisham want to see in Deptford? Don't we have enough luxury residential developments built on potential employment sites already?

12. Where are the employment opportunities except for in the short term? (Even the Olympics site has failed to employ more than 10% of local people). Where are the future alternatives to jobs in retail and catering?

13. Why is the Working Wharf in phase 2 of the proposal? Why is it so small? Why do the developers have the right to buy back some of the land at a later date?

14. Why has there been so little public consultation? Planning Aid London, Building Communities, the Prince's Foundation, the Stephen Lawrence Centre, could have helped. If other agencies have been consulted are the minutes available for public view?

15. Is the application is being rushed through in order to avoid potential loss of revenue due to the possible application of the Boris tax (the mayor's Community Infrastructure Levy to pay for Crossrail)? Or is it a fact that nothing may actually be built for some years and means this tax won't apply (if it ever comes into existence)?

16. The latest plans will create wind tunnels theatening river navigation as well as residents and visitors. Very tall buildings – not just three exceptionally tall towers – but most buildings will block sunlight not only on the site but for all existing and surrounding housing.

17. Practically non-existent green space and reduced access to the river. Green areas showing on the application are in fact raised gardens above carparks. There is very little public space (green or otherwise) left in these new plans.

18. Parking for 2300 cars is unsustainable, when one fire in a small town house on Deptford Broadway causes our local road networks to stop moving for three days.

19. No additional transport plans in place.

20. OUR HERITAGE: The building over of Deptford's history: John Evelyn's house and gardens, most of King Henry VIII's dockyard (more of which is appearing as the archaeology continues) leaving nothing really for Deptford citizens to engage in and be proud of? Is this site not deserving of World Heritage Status?

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.

Need more inspiration for your planning objection?

Having said already that we believe there are many shortcomings in the planning application for Convoy's Wharf, it is also clear that there are many different ways to write your objection.

In addition to our short summary and contact details here, there is further inspiration/information and technical detail available at the Shipwrights Palace blog here, and at Crosswhatfields here.

*updated: Commenter proctor has pointed out this article by George Monbiot about the government's proposed changes to the planning system. As Monbiot points out, the changes are being sold on the prospect that communities will have the power to decide on developments. The truth is that while they may be able to support developments, they will have no powers to defend their communities against unsuitable ones.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/26/planning-system-authorised-blackmail?INTCMP=SRCH

How to object to the planning application

Please see our separate page here, which will give you some guidance as to how to go about this.

Although the deadline for comments is stated as 27 September, any objections received before the application is considered by the committee will be considered.

Planning objections workshop

Less than a week after its formation, Deptford is.. held its first meeting, intended to be a workshop for people who wanted to find out more about the Convoy's Wharf planning application and formulate an objection to it.

Between 40 and 50 people came along during the two-hour Saturday morning get-together in the Albany. They heard about why we believe the planning application will offer nothing for Deptford residents and businesses, they learned more about the heritage of the dockyard and Sayes Court, and they hopefully went away motivated to submit an objection to the planning application.

It was heartening to see so many people there at such short notice - some had received our email newsletter, some had read about the event on local Deptford blogs or received leaflets through their doors, but quite a few people had just seen the posters that we plastered up and down the High Street in the last couple of days. The turnout gave us hope that there are many, many more people in Deptford who care as much as we do about what happens to our waterfront and want to publicise and celebrate Deptford's maritime heritage, and reinstate its famous garden.

Those who came to the workshop also found out something about the plans we are proposing for the recreation of Sayes Court Garden, and a full-size reconstruction of the Lenox, one of Charles II's navy ships which was built in Deptford. More of that in a future post - there will be an official launch of the project some time in the next month or so.

Meanwhile those who came to the workshop were encouraged to take away a conker (gathered that morning from Sayes Court Park) as a reminder to them to write and send their objection, as well as encouraging them to believe that from small beginnings, big things can grow.