Mayor passes application – with conditions

At City Hall on Monday 31st March, the Mayor of London passed the outline planning application for Convoys Wharf after what he called "a marathon session but very, very interesting and educational". It had been hoped he might give more time over the next few days to deliberate the decision, allowing Lewisham Council the opportunity to negotiate better terms, but he returned after half an hour to deliver his judgement in favour of the applicant. He did, however, add two conditions that he thought would assist the two community heritage projects, which he said "have a great deal of merit and are both intrinsically attractive".

Although the developer had only last Friday evening offered the Lenox Project £20k for a feasibility study into the uses of the Olympia building and the Protected Wharf with the proviso that both might be ruled out, one of the Mayor of London's conditions is for a feasibility study with the proviso "that there should be an agreement on the part of the developer to contribute to whichever of these options is the most feasible".

The other condition was for the GLA, Lewisham Council and the developers "to look at the space in the existing park (the council-owned Sayes Court Garden in Grove St) and the wider development, to ensure that there is a viable and deliverable project". So neither project is yet home and dry, but both appear to have the support of the Mayor of London.

Further amendments sought by Lewisham were not forthcoming.

A GLA webcast of the hearing can be viewed here (Mac users may have to download and install an extra bit of software here first). Objector's representations can be found roughly a third of the way through, followed by questions from Boris about halfway through. There is then an intermission followed by Boris's decision at the end. 

Below is a report on the hearing.

THE OBJECTORS:

Lewisham Council
Sir Steve Bullock said, "if we get it wrong now, we won't have the opportunity again in our lifetime." He argued that the heights around the Olympia building "should be reduced, their siting changed to give it a generous and respectful setting" and noted with regard to Sayes Court Garden and the Lenox Project that "the current proposals do not...provide either the space needed to deliver them or a commitment to ensure that they create an enduring legacy". He said "the risk remains that these community projects will be shut out and the energy and enthusiasm they have generated will be lost". He reiterated the council's concern that TfL's current assessment lacked any detailed traffic modelling, and welcomed the addition of a 'financial review mechanism' (negotiated by Lewisham) that will allow the securing of additional affordable housing as the scheme's 'viability' (profit for the developer) improves. He urged Boris "to take just a little more time to ensure that these issues can be addressed and resolved satisfactorily".

Pepys Community Forum
Malcolm Cadman began by noting that Convoys had historically been a big local employment site but would not now offer any real employment opportunities. The scheme was aimed at foreign investors and there was little affordable housing. The proposed towers were too tall and atypical of the area. He drew attention to the petition published the previous day in The Observer (London skyline statement: 200 towers threaten to destroy city's character) and suggested that the density of the development would make Deptford "super dense".

Pepys Tenants Action Group
Dave Fleming noted the poor consultation with the community on this scheme and how the developer's had failed to engage. He pleaded for less density, especially in light of the additional developments going up in the area.

People Before Profit
Ray Woolford asked that the affordable housing provision be protected so that it doesn't in future end up in the hands of buy-to-let landlords. He requested that the GLA begin Air Quality Monitoring of the area immediately, to be continued throughout the 13 year construction period, and said "London's health must be put before off-shore profit". He wanted all local residents, many of whom are in fuel poverty, to also benefit from the cheaper SELCHP waste transfer energy that the development will use. He wants the applicant to address Lewisham's 55% youth employment and make sure jobs go to real local residents rather than cheap foreign labour getting moved onto the site to live in sheds under the guise of living locally, as happened with the Olympia Park construction.

Local resident on Transport
Echoing Lewisham Council's concerns, Helena Russell said the applicant's research had been "woefully inadequate". Their transport assessment used "outdated information", lacked "robustness", and risked creating a "perfect storm" for our local transport network. Car parking provision is well above that which is acceptable for other developments, the Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) were poor, hard to improve and inadequately addressed. New residents will resort to driving, creating extra traffic that will undermine bus services – immediate and robust analysis of the local highways should be given the highest priority. Additional factors include no firm commitment to using the river for construction materials, future changes to the Greenwich line train service, and the Mayor's proposed Super Cycle Highway on Evelyn Street.

The Lenox Project CIC
Julian Kingston drew attention to the Great Basin in front of the Olympia building, one of the many buried heritage assets, which he described as "potentially the one remaining dynamic element in front of a static landscape". The architects place the Olympia building at the heart of the development, but the "future uses proposed would not offer a meaningful link to the river, nor engage and educate the local community, nor attract tourism and offer a legacy". The Lenox Project would provide a legacy for the heritage assets, of craftsmanship and training, and for historic shipbuilding. As "living history" the project would draw in visitors to use the retail and restaurants the applicant proposes to build. To encourage shipbuilding, John Evelyn entrusted his land to the Admiralty on condition that a keel should always lie in a slip. The Lenox should be that keel.

Sayes Court Garden CIC
Nic Durston (National Trust) described how the National Trust had formed from their founders attempts to save Sayes Court Garden. The NT fully supports their proposals and requests for flexibility to allow their ambitious plans to be realised. As one of the directors of the community interest project, Bob Bagley reported how their work with the NT, the Eden Project and Harvard University had demonstrated the need for a Centre of Horticulture here "to help us prepare and adapt to the new challenges our city faces in the 21st century". Research conducted by the NT showed that one hectare was required, but the applicant had only been able to offer half of this. The project had put forward a solution which would not impact on the parameters of the masterplan which they hoped the applicant could be flexible enough to adopt.

Dame Joan Ruddock, MP for Deptford
Dame Joan spoke in support of the two community projects and said that years of expertise had gone into designing them, and their presentations today set out what they need to make them a reality. Without them, the Mayor would be asked to approve a development that would  obscure most of the heritage of this site forever. They were not offering "dusty static museums, but living enterprises that honour the past whilst embracing the future".

SUPPORTERS:

A representative from the developer's team then spoke on behalf of the applicant Hutchison Whampoa. No one else spoke in support.

MAYOR'S QUESTIONS:

Housing

Boris also acknowledged Londoners' fears that such schemes, which cause such huge disruption to locals whilst being built, should be to the advantage of Londoners. Who would the homes be aimed at and marketed to? The applicant replied they'd be marketed in the normal way – to Londoners, (and tellingly), "the same as elsewhere". They are working with London & Quadrant to deliver the affordable housing, but "they aren't 100% signed up yet". There is an agreement to use the council's affordability criteria. Sir Steve Bullock explained that if the rental is at 80% the applicant would offer more units, "but that wouldn't help us in terms of the housing need in the borough. With a smaller number, we will have genuinely affordable rents. That doesn't mean that we're happy with the total number. That's why we've asked for a review mechanism." Boris agreed that it would be "absolutely crazy not to come back and have another bite of this".

Johnson noted that there were quite a lot of objections to the "design and massing and height" but the council had not specifically objected on those grounds. Steve Bullock said they were more concerned at this time about reducing heights around the Olympia building. (Lewisham had already negotiated lowering heights on the outskirts of the development).

Later in his summing up, Johnson said, "It's obviously a scheme that's been a very long time in gestation, 13 years nothing much has been happening on that site, you've got a huge housing shortage in London, there's a real crying need to get development done, this has the prospect of three and a half thousand homes and 1500 jobs and I listened very carefully to the representations that were made to me about the height impact, about the architecture, and I listened, obviously, with particular attention to the views of the council and Sir Steve who I very much respect, and clearly I didn't hear passionate objections against the height…certainly not against the principle of development – that is supported, and indeed the quotient of affordable housing was thought by the council to be broadly acceptable in view of the other constraints that the site faces".

Jobs

Boris noted the objection that the jobs created "wouldn't be the right sort of jobs" which wouldn't go to local people. The applicant replied that it wasn't going to be a major office location, but there would be creative industries, reduced rents for start-ups, plus service industry jobs in the shops, restaurants and hotel. Boris suggested that the Lenox Project would "bring in lots of people". He possibly meant in the form of skilled jobs, but the applicant took this to mean 'visitors' and replied, "That's absolutely right...and we have a strategy for the Olympia Building which is to use the building much more diversely than for the Lenox". There were heckles of "Shops!" from the gallery. The applicant went on, "it's built on the Spitalfields/Covent Garden type model where we can have lots of ad hoc events, destination activites, some cultural facilities...rather than a single use that the Lenox is". There were heckles of "No, it's not!" from the gallery. And "shops!"

Social Cohesion

Boris asked Lewisham Mayor Steve Bullock what he had meant by 'social cohesion'. Sir Steve pointed out that prior to the current ownership, a larger amount of Section 106 monies had been suggested and Lewisham would like to return to that figure. The risk was that the development would be an 'enclave' and more money would enable the council to support a wider range of programmes that would alleviate this. A proper pro-rata amount would be £2m towards a 'community trust' that could be endowed to local projects, but the offer from the applicant was for only £0.25m.

They also wanted a greater contribution towards ensuring jobs went to local people, and the developer was disputing additional payments towards secondary school education. Lewisham's Head Planner John Miller said, "a certain sum is promised but the rest is dependent on 'viability'. Our view is that we currently have a primary school crisis and that will turn into a secondary school crisis, so that money should be assured".

Boris responded, "So you're down on the cohesion fund? Is this where negotiations have faltered? Have you squeezed this lemon dry?" John Miller that they were grateful that the GLA officers had speeded things up, but "we just think there's a little bit more to go". Boris replied, "Right, what about now?". Miller said, "that's fine if you'd like to agree those payments that would be excellent". Boris then replied "Oh I don't think I'm allowed to do that actually. I've been told I can't, regrettably".

Transport

Boris had noted: "loss of PTAL, disruption during building – moving vehicles, how much by river? car parking? Too many cars?". He deferred to one of his planners, who agreed "The offer's not that great." But he said there were three ways they could improve on it – with a new route for the existing bus service, a pedestian route to train services and a new pier for river services. He thought it was sufficient. £4m was allocated to local highway improvements. "We're not there now on the modelling but we've got an agreement to work on that". Parking levels are in accordance with the London Plan.

Boris asked again about moving things by river and whether that was 'conditioned in' to which the answer was, "We'll be pressing the applicant to maximise use of the river." Boris brought up Air Quality Monitoring, and the GLA planner agreed this was also factored into the Section 106.


(to be continued...)

Can the Mayor of London make the right decision?

Update: 24th March 2014: The GLA's 'Representation Hearing Report' is published and can be read and downloaded here.

The Mayor of London has announced that the representation hearing for the planning application to redevelop the former Deptford Royal Dockyard at Convoys Wharf will take place on 31st March at 4pm at City Hall. At the hearing there will be a 15 minute period for supporters and objectors to restate their case for and against the planning application in front of the mayor himself. Not long then!

The Mayor has five days from the 31st March to announce his decision if he does not pronounce at the end of this hearing.

Previous to this, Hutchison Whampoa have recently submitted some very minor revisions to its masterplan and the GLA invited comments on them, the deadline for which was 20th March (last Thursday). Only two working day later, on 24th March (this Monday), the GLA officers responsible for assessing the application will publish their report into the application, which will include a recommendation to the Mayor.

The consultation on the revisions was the first invitation from the GLA for those affected by the development to comment. They did not, in other words, invite comments on the application in general, since they are already taking into account the comments received by Lewisham Council back in May-July 2013 after the application was first submitted to them in April.

Perhaps the exceedingly short period between the GLA's deadline for receiving comments on the revisions and publishing their recommendations to the Mayor reflects the generally held opinion that ANY revisions to this application will be welcomed by all concerned.

It seems very unlikely that the Mayor will go against the GLA officers' advice unless he wants to make a particular political point (which he could and should do since almost everything about this application goes against the policies of the London Plan). Based on the correspondence we have read, and a couple of meetings that local projects Build The Lenox and Sayes Court Garden have been present at, we believe that the GLA intends to recommend that the mayor approve the scheme – despite the fact that English Heritage have still to publish a report on the applicant's limited archaeological findings.

Download this local objection that comprehensively reiterates all the reasons why this scheme cannot be allowed to proceed in its present form. It includes points raised by statutory bodies such as English Heritage and the Council for British Archaeology and is informed by Lewisham's planning team, and quotes specific references to the Mayor's own London Plan policies. It outlines just how much of his own vision the Mayor will be ignoring by passing this application. 

Read on below our response to the minor revisions and the Mayor's 'call-in' process.

The revisions

Of course we welcome the revisions, but they are exceedingly minor considering the size of the scheme. (Let's not forget the applicant, Li Ka Shing, is the 8th 20th richest billionaire in the world).

Lewisham Council, having rejected the application but also being a statutory consultant on it in the GLA's hands, seem to have been relatively successful in challenging the developer's notion of 'viability' that allows for a little bit more affordable housing. But it in no way represents a return to the 35% (or possibly more) that would have informed their agreement with the developer that goes back to 2006, to build "up to 3500" units which would have allowed for 1,000 new affordable homes in north Deptford.

The Sayes Court Garden project has managed to get the proposed school (known as 'Plot 17' that was planned to be built over the footprint of John Evelyn's gardens) incorporated into the adjacent residential block (Plot 16), but as yet there is no offer in writing for Sayes Court Garden CIC, and no agreement to let them build their Centre of Urban Horticulture that would make sense of their entire project. An offer of sorts has only just been made by the applicant to the Lenox Project (for a place on the site that is unworkable) just two days before the GLA report is to be published.

Building heights have been lowered by just one floor at the eastern border of the site that overlooks the Master Shipwright's House (which will become a public building in the future), but there is absolutely no concession to reducing heights elsewhere. In fact, this reduction in heights will mean an increase elsewhere.There are no changes to the heights of buildings in front of the Olympia. English Heritage are totally infuriated that the view of the Olympia building remains obscured from the river and overshadowed by tall buildings.

Lewisham have been successful in attempting at this stage of the application to build in some flexibility to the 'parameter plans' for the three tallest buildings on the site that would have otherwise have been set in stone. Lewisham wanted a lot more than this (read their report here). They were particularly concerned about the issues of over capacity on the road and public transport networks that are still to be addressed.

The fact is, hardly anything in this application can be improved unless the developer's insistence on 3,500 flats is sensibly and comprehensively reduced. Since the only reason for this development is as a financial vehicle to make money for investors (foreign or otherwise), there can be little hope of Coalition soundbites about Localism having any basis in reality.

The planning process

The Mayor called in the planning application before Lewisham had made a decision on it. His decision on Convoys will set a precedent for the other schemes he has called in since then, and will also have implications for other sensitive redevelopments in London. The London Assembly has recently questioned the Mayor about his stripping of London boroughs' right to make planning decisions by using his power to 'call-in' large planning applications. He has already called-in five schemes in the past year. In many cases, Johnson has been 'calling-in' applications before the local authority in question has even had a chance to examine them.

Darren Johnson, Chair of the London Assembly, said, "The recent acceleration in the number and speed with which the Mayor is taking over planning decisions from boroughs...puts developers and investors before local democracy". The Assembly's motion listed 11 applications – including Convoys Wharf – and said that on many decisions, the Mayor has ignored legitimate borough concerns about issues such as inappropriate density and very low targets for affordable housing.

The Mayor's call-in essentially puts the decision-making power in the hands of one person, which we feel is incredibly undemocratic and inappropriate for a project of such magnitude and significance. It undermines the government's argument for Localism, and takes the decision-making away from local people.

Not only that, one of the things that has become clear to us during the last few months is that the GLA planning department is not equipped to handle this sort of decision-making. Usually the mayor's planners simply comment on planning applications which are being handled by local authorities. They are rarely called upon to make decisions, particular on schemes of such magnitude, and as a result they appear to be under-resourced and unclear about the process.

We also question whether the procedure is fit for purpose. Since the call-in, only minor revisions have been made (which the developer claimed as 'significant concessions') for which there were only three weeks to comment on. The planners cannot possibly have read and digested any additional submissions, let alone incorporate them into the report they intend to publish within two days of that deadline closing, and the hearing will be held (and the decision made) a week after the report is published. Objectors will have just seven days in which to read the report, digest its implications, and formulate responses before the hearing. This seems to be indecently hasty.

Council recommends rejection of Convoys Wharf application

This week Lewisham Council's strategic planning committee recommended that the Mayor of London reject the outline planning application for Convoys Wharf in its current form.

The council is a statutory consultee in the planning process now that the Mayor of London has called in the application; with many years' experience of considering applications for the site, it's reasonable to conclude that Lewisham planners are also a major source of advice to the GLA about the application.

During this week's meeting, the committee considered - and agreed - a report by the council's planners recommending that the application in its current form should not be approved. The committee also made some amendments to the recommendations to further strengthen the case against certain aspects of the application, and added another clause about the handling of construction waste and material deliveries, and other potential nuisance from construction.

The report explains the site's planning history and in its recommendations, raises issues relating to the proposed scheme that in the council's opinion need further resolution before planning permission should be granted.

The committee was first addressed by local MP Dame Joan Ruddock, who highlighted many of the issues that were raised in the report; in common with many of the other presenters she noted that she had been responding to redevelopment proposals for this site for more than a decade, although the current application was only submitted in April 2013. Representatives of local groups such as the Lenox Project, Sayes Court Garden, Pepys Community Forum and other interested parties were allowed to speak, before the committee deliberated its decision.

The council's report details the responses to the initial application that were received (p23 onwards) including statutory consultees such as English Heritage, TFL and the Environment Agency, as well as local organisations such as the Pepys Community Forum, Greenwich Society, the Greenwich Conservation Group and other interested parties including London City Airport and the Port of London Authority.

The final section of the report (p44 onwards) sets out the main planning considerations and the council's position; many of these comments are then drawn through into the final recommendations. We have reported the main ones below, in the order they appear in the report.

Principle of redevelopment
The report is clear that the council supports the principle of the redevelopment, but raises questions about the development strategy for the site, and the interpretation and acknowledgement of the site's history in the masterplan. 'Certain aspects of the proposed development.. are considered unacceptable in their current form'. 

Safeguarded wharf
The lack of any proposed use for the safeguarded wharf (on the northern boundary of the site) introduces an uncertainty regarding is use, in particular given the proximity of public space and residential properties. The formal process of reducing the protected wharf area also needs clarification.

Employment space
The council wants a commitment to cultural uses (for example the range of projects set out in the Cultural Strategy) secured through the Section 106 agreement for the site; considers that uses across the site should be secured and the non-residential space and employment use be maximised. The report also highlights the Lenox Project as 'an important employment opportunity..with a clear link to the site's history' and recommends that the GLA should actively promote its incorporation into the site.

Housing
The lack of affordable housing that the development is offering was raised by many of the objectors, and discussed by councillors as a major issue. Although the application claims 15% of the units will be 'affordable', only 6-7% of these will be for social rent, and in fact one speaker pointed out that when assessed against Lewisham Council's definition of affordability, this falls to zero. The council report questions the robustness of the viability calculations the developer has used to assess what percentage of units should be affordable, and wants it to be reassessed. The committee also wanted a mechanism to allow periodic reassessments during the development period. The report also raises questions about whether the daylight/sunlight impact of the development has been properly assessed.

Layout
In a number of key locations, the layout fails to respond appropriately or in a meaningful way to the heritage assets on the site.

Heritage
The setting of the Olympia Building does not reflect its importance to the site; the council wants the heights of the buildings which surround it to be reduced to a general height of ten storeys. In particular, the two buildings which frame the view from the Olympia Building to the river (P02 and P03) need amending to improve this visual connection. In addition the blocks next to the Master Shipwrights House should be reduced in height to respect this historic building; according to the report this request has already been made to the developer. Another area of concern is Sayes Court Garden and the site of John Evelyn's house, which are also not adequately reflected in the masterplan. The layout should be reassessed and a 'green link' between Sayes Court Garden and the site of the house should be established. The masterplan should also identify a dedicated space to allow for the construction of the Lenox.

Scale and massing
Acceptable building heights need to be fixed at this stage, and the council's report states that the proposed reduction in heights could be accommodated without reducing the overall quantum of development.

Transport, access and movement
The report questions the robustness of the transport assessment for the site, in particular the impact of the development on highway traffic, which it claims has been understated. The suggestion that the full investigation of this could be left until after the application is determined 'raises serious concerns'.

Social infrastructure
The section 106 agreement is planned to include provision of a primary school on the site, but the council also wants a contribution to secondary school provision for the borough. At the meeting the committee also requested that this recommendation be strengthened to cover other social infrastructure such as GP provision.

Environmental impact assessment
The report questions the adequacy of the applicant's Environmental Impact Assessment and whether it complies with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. It warns that 'any permission could be at risk of legal challenge on such grounds'

The recommendations that the committee approved are on pages 66 and 67 of the report - amendments agreed at the meeting strengthen them further and an additional recommendation relating to a construction code of practice was added.

The official line from GLA officers is still that a decision is intended to be made in February.

Mayor of London takes over planning control of Convoys

Deptford Is… responds to the news that Boris Johnson has “called-in” Hutchison Whampoa’s outline application...

Recent background

Negotiations between Hutchison Whampoa and Lewisham planners were ongoing with a view to planning recommending the application to the Strategic Planning Committee for a decision in February 2014. Before this, they were hoping to resolve important issues relating to transport, design & heritage, Sayes Court Garden & the Lenox Project, and sustainability.

In July, English Heritage responded to the application and told Lewisham “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 realized.” The link between the Olympia Shed and the river was a crucial one, they said, 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.”

Consequently, Lewisham's planners wanted a more sensitive approach to the heritage aspects of the site, and were asking for a “heritage response” to be part of the application’s design principles that were to govern future design. Of particular concern was the positioning and heights of the blocks surrounding the Olympia Shed.

The planning department also suggested that some of the proposed blocks should be further subdivided, so that the resulting development would not exceed the maximum parameters of floorspace and land use already agreed. Other issues requiring discussion were road widening to accommodate a new bus route and other highway adaptations for the proposed cycle superhighway, as well as more thorough Design Guidelines to show how different buildings will emerge and how land uses might evolve.

They were also asking for an update on the local heritage projects, and wished to discuss the possibility of extending the area of Sayes Court Garden and re-siting the Lenox Project to the Double Dry Dock (the developer has failed to talk to either project in recent months).

At this point, Hutchison Whampoa threw its toys out of the pram, as if its masterplan was incontrovertable and not subject to planning processes whereby different stakeholders could give their views on it (the application went in rather unexpectedly in April, without any preliminary discussions). Indeed English Heritage did not respond till July, but well within the consultation period that extended till September. The timetable Lewisham gave this application was ample considering the various stakeholders, and time had to be given for planners to discuss the various detailed objections with the applicant.

Director of European operations, Dr Edmond Ho, told planners “we believe the approach you are taking, in not only requesting further changes to the masterplan but even introducing new constraints and unrealistic demands (eg reference to the Lenox being located on the Double Dry Dock, Sayes Court Garden and the New King Street widening becoming a pre-requisite to outline consent), is both unreasonable and unwarranted, given the already tough viability constraints.”

The call-in

Shortly afterwards, Hutchison Whampoa wrote to the Mayor of London requesting he “call in” the application. Bypassing local processes, and citing “delays” and erosion of profits as a basis for his actions, Ho made a pre-emptive request for a premature decision. The Mayor duly called in the planning application on the grounds that the relationship between the developer and Lewisham had irrevocably broken down. And also that, for some strange reason, the planning process would be derailed by local 2014 elections in May; mystifying, considering there is likely to be no overall change in the council as a result.

This move is almost unprecedented; the Mayor would not normally take over an application from a local authority until a decision had been made. Both inside and outside the council it was assumed Lewisham was not going to reject it. Surely Ho would have realised that the decision-making process the GLA must now go through is likely to take longer than Lewisham have been taking? Despite intimations in the report from his officers that it is not feasible, Boris is promising a decision by February.

By involving the Mayor of London, the process will now take place on a much larger stage. The developer’s refusal to engage with stakeholders and accommodate the worldwide importance of the site's heritage will become ever more visible (it is this non-negotiable stance which has held back the development, not the planners). Meanwhile, by approaching London’s Mayor directly, Ho has terminated the democratic planning process and made a mockery of the Localism Act.

He is also perhaps hoping to bypass the final Archaeology report that is yet to be submitted. The report is expected to acknowledge that some 75% of the infrastructure representing 500 years of dynamic development of the Royal Dockyard at Deptford is essentially intact and ready to reinstate for maritime purposes. Or perhaps the final straw for the developer was the World Monuments Fund putting the site on its Watch List?

Lies, damned lies and conflicts of interest

In his letter to Lewisham – which will also have been seen by the Mayor of London and the GLA – Edmond Ho claimed the GLA and Lewisham's Design Panel have endorsed the masterplan and overall development. It is likely, however, that comments from Lewisham's own design panel prompted further questions that the planners put to the developer. Meanwhile, the GLA have responded favourably in so far as the application fulfills the priorities of the London Plan in terms of housing and employment. In fact the GLA has noted that Lewisham has met its housing targets over and above requirements.

For Lewisham the task is far more complex than simply fulfilling the demands of the London Plan. London Assembly Member for Greenwich and Lewisham Len Duvall said: "While the Mayor could have worked with the borough to progress development, as they have done for years, he cannot ignore the real concerns Lewisham was working through in the run up to a decision."  

Lewisham's CEO, Barry Quirk, told Building Design magazine that Lewisham had a realistic and deliverable timescale for determining the application. Lewisham has "significant concerns" about the proposals but they could be resolved "if the applicant is willing". Quirk pointed out that the developer had submitted its plans at too early a stage, cutting short pre-application discussions, and had recently cancelled meetings at which outstanding issues could have been resolved.

Meanwhile Ho’s letter to the planning department also stated that HW had “fully considered points raised by English Heritage”. With a familiar arrogance, HW's response to English Heritage’s comments has been "to explain how the masterplan decisions were reached”. Of course, those decisions were made before EH’s report was submitted, and HW has subsequently refused to alter its plans in order to acknowledge EH’s unambiguous request to reduce the density of the development.

The letter went on to say that HW's architect “Sir Terry Farrell himself also took the time to meet with English Heritage to satisfy the concerns being raised – we understand English Heritage have largely accepted the overall approach being taken”. English Heritage have denied such a meeting took place, whilst Farrells have so far been unable to comment. 

It is also interesting to note that Sir Terry is part of the Mayor’s Design Advisory Group, which plays “a significant role in shaping future developments which fall under the Mayor’s responsibility through his regeneration, planning, housing and land powers.” Sir Terry advises the Mayor on “how to secure the best results on new developments through procurement.” Could this not be viewed as a conflict of interests?

Ho insists that making further changes to the masterplan pushes “the viability of the project to its limits”. The owner of Hutchison Whampoa Properties is Li Ka Shing, the eighth richest billionaire in the world. He made a speculative purchase of the land and as such, assumed the risk for his speculation and, with it, any losses resulting from any and all legal decisions made about the site, its use, or future. It is the responsibility of neither London’s Mayor nor Lewisham Council to mitigate the owner’s risk.

However, Boris’s recent trade visits to China suggest a sympathetic hearing for the Chinese conglomerate, and Boris is also very pally with Rupert Murdoch, as is Li Ka Shing. News International, who sold the site to Hutchison Whampoa, retain a profit share in the sale of the residential units. Murdoch’s blatant disregard for the heritage of the site became apparent when he demolished the 18^th century Storehouse (older than the Olympia Shed) in 1984.

We can expect to hear a lot of propaganda about this development’s contribution to solving the London housing crisis, even though 3000 of the 3500 units will be sold off-plan to the many foreign investors who are currently parking their cash, tax-free, in London property and earning enough on their investment to not even need to bother renting it out.

A heritage jewel in London’s crown

Whilst the present owner may hold the freehold, the history, heritage, use and future of this significant Thames site belongs to London, Londoners, the UK and the nations around the world that benefited from the naval and maritime advances that emanated from this site. 

Henry VIII’s Royal Dock at Deptford is now designated as one of the country’s heritage assets at risk – in this case, from insensitive redevelopment. It is the Mayor of London’s role to safeguard London’s heritage – including its value in attracting finance for Lewisham Council. London urgently needs economic growth beyond the financial sector, and a restored heritage site alongside a dynamic, regenerated dock will widen the Thames economy. This is a distinctive and rare opportunity for London’s Mayor to herald London’s world-changing maritime achievements over some 500 years.

Deptford’s MP, Joan Ruddock, has already written to the Mayor to request a meeting, calling the site “an archaeological and heritage jewel in London’s crown.” She said, “I will be trying to persuade the Mayor to recognise the immense heritage value of this site both to local people and the people of London. The development needs to reflect Deptford’s extraordinary past while meeting local needs and fitting into the local environment.”

Meanwhile, in June this year, Boris pledged his support for the Lenox project in answer to a written question from London Assembly member Darren Johnson. He actually agreed that the ship be built at the Double Dry Dock – one of the ideas the developer refuses to agree on. Perhaps Boris will suffer a bout of amnesia when he is reminded of this fact.

So what will Boris do?

The decision to call in the planning decision offers Boris the chance to do two things, which have so far been impossible to reach agreement on.

Firstly, he can use his power and influence to assist the owners to appreciate that they own a very valuable piece of England’s story. The shaping of their development – working with the uniqueness of the site and creating a strong sense of place – can raise the value of the completed development. The highest capital property value in London is at its peak when there is a strong sense of place and history rather than the bland ubiquity of the current Farrell masterplan.

High capital value can still encompass affordable housing in the mix. Boris' relations with the Chinese will have taught him that in China the respect for tradition is as strong as their search for modernity. He has the personal power to broker this change of perspective and to bring the developer into a positive relationship with the inherent values of the site and its story.

Secondly, Boris has the opportunity to create a stunning local success. He is working with a passionate, informed and vocal local community who have shown vision and relentless commitment to participate in shaping the place they live in. He can choose to demand that the owners, together with architects and specialists, including English Heritage, the World Monument Fund and the London Borough of Lewisham, start with a clean slate and remove all the assumptions about this being just any old brownfield site. Boris can then represent his London electorate and instigate a genuine re-masterplanning of the site as an example of how he and the GLA can ensure Deptford and London can be resolutely connected to its past and vibrantly engaged in its future.

Or, Boris can choose to accept the application (and the cash) wholly on the investors’ terms and ignore the decades of public investment in developing a sophisticated planning process.

Come on Boris, help us all to get back on track! Dismiss this masterplan and start again. This site is a benchmark of how we all shape the city of the future. The process will be complex but the result has the potential be a truly multicultural international success.

MAYOR OF LONDON'S CALL-IN (Oct-Nov)
24 Sept Lewisham Planning to Hutchison Whampoa (via BPTW)
10 Oct  Hutchison Whampoa to Lewisham Planning
13 Oct  Hutchison Whampoa to Mayor of London
30 Oct  Mayor of London to Lewisham Planning – decision letter
Mayor of London to Lewisham Planning – report
5 Nov  Mayor of London's office to Cllr Hall – Process

Convoys Wharf transport #2: public transport

One of the strongest arguments against allowing Convoys Wharf to be developed to the density that Hutchison Whampoa is suggesting, is the fact that the public transport accessibility of the site is so poor. 

This situation has not improved with the new masterplan, so many of the comments made in our last assessment still apply. Many of the people living in these new properties will have to travel into London for work on a daily basis, so how will they do this?

Planners measure public transport accessibility by measuring it on the PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) scale. This provides an assessment of how easy it is to get from the site to public transport, and ranges from 1 to 6, with 1 being the lowest rating and 6 the highest. In London a rating of 4 is generally a good level for major developments such as this to aspire to.

The PTAL rating of Convoys Wharf ranges from 1 to 2 across the site, with 2 being the level at the exit on Princes Street. With Hutchison Whampoa's plans for redevelopment, the rating will rise very slightly, but will still be an average of 2 across the site, and 3 closest to Princes St.

The diagram below indicates the transport plans for the site - in simple terms, HW is in discussion with TfL about the possibility of having a pier for the Thames Clipper river bus, and also proposes either a new bus through the site, or the diversion of one of the existing services that go along Evelyn Street, the 199 having been suggested. 

For a Thames Clipper service to call at the site will require the refurbishment of the existing jetty and the construction of a new pier on the jetty. Although TfL has acknowledged the possibility of a new pier at Convoys Wharf, there is no firm commitment to a date other than during phase one, which is five years long. There is also no confirmation of whether the service would be the regular London-bound boats, or just a shuttle boat to Canary Wharf.

In either case, use of the riverbus service is impractical for many people - not only in terms of its restricted capacity, but also because it serves so few destinations and is slow in comparison to other public transport options.

Aside from the bus and boat services, future residents at Convoys Wharf will have to travel somewhat further afield to access trains or DLR services. Naturally Deptford station is the closest train station to the development, and as the transport strategy points out, the station has recently been refurbished. But although the station is now more pleasant to use and easier to access, and the capacity of the station itself may have been increased, there has been no change to the capacity of the actual trains.

The analysis of available capacity on services from Deptford station depends heavily on completion of Crossrail in 2018; this is predicted to reduce the number of people using London-bound trains from Woolwich, and is entirely credible. However there is no reference to the most recent Office of Rail Regulation figures which showed Deptford station experienced 7.1% increase in usage last year, and this is expected to continue as redevelopments continue and residents move into the new properties.

According to the trip generation figures, 258 people from Convoys Wharf will take the train towards London in the morning peak hour between 8am and 9am. This seems a very low figure considering the total population that could number 10,000 or more. But even taking this point aside, the addition of around 44 passengers to each already-overcrowded train is not a pleasant prospect.

Bus services are also likely to suffer - while the transport plan envisages a bus route through the site, there is no firm commitment to a new service as yet, so it could well be an existing route diverted and hence making journeys longer and more overcrowded than they are now. Almost 500 people from the development are estimated will be catching the bus during the morning peak hour, many presumably going towards Underground or Overground services elsewhere.

Meanwhile less than 200 will catch a river bus, although with only four services in the peak hour, that's still an estimated 50 per boat. The boats in the current fleet each have 220 seats.

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 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.

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.