Mark Laird is Senior Lecturer in the History of Landscape Architecture at Harvard University and the foremost authority on John Evelyn. He has recently written to the Mayor of London from Harvard Design School with respect to the Convoys Wharf application and in support of the proposals from Sayes Court Garden CIC:
"It is impossible to overstate the significance of Sayes Court and the history of John Evelyn's life and work at the site that is under threat of irreversible development. Over the past twenty years, I have written three scholarly articles on Evelyn at Sayes Court. My forthcoming book, A Natural History of English Gardening (Yales University Press, Spring 2015) will open with a chapter on his significance as horticultural and technological innovator and as environmental policy maker. His Fumifugium (1661), Sylva (1664) and Acetaria (1699) laid the groundwork for a sustainable London of the 21st century – clear air, tree canopy, and food in the city.
"The Greater London Authority has shown leadership through policy documents (from London Biodiversity Action Plan and East London Green Grid Plan to the March 2012 report, London World Heritage Sites – Guidance on Settings). These documents are in line with the new UNESCO Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscape (HUL, November 2011), which seeks to integrate 'policies and practices of conservation in the built environment into the wider goals of urban development'. In the Foreword to the March 2012 GLA document, Boris Johnson reiterates the importance of London's built and natural heritage in benefiting 'our economy, culture and quality of life'. Sayes Court is the test case for his claim: 'How we manage this dynamic juxtaposition in ways that respect the past, while welcoming the future, will be a mark of our success in maintaining London as a really world class city'.
"The arguments in the 'Sayes Court Garden Programme and Analysis' report (February 2014) – and especially the modifications to P16 proposed in the 26 February 2014 statement – are built on very solid foundations. As you are aware, the Sayes Court Garden website features my own reconstructions of Evelyns's parterre and grove, which, until the better winter of 1683/4, lay immediately adjacent to his manor house. The archeaological site plan of Stuart Structures may look insignificant, yet the trace of the garden wall on the west side of the important vestiges of the manor house and the trace of the dockyard perimeter wall on the east side are absolutely critical to what I have reconstructed. The proposed P16 block would forever destroy and cover over these traces and vestiges and obliterate the core of Sayes Court – the manor house that was the intellectual home of Evelyn's environmental vision.
"Creating, by the modifications to P16, a new Centre for Urban Horticulture on the archaeological site of the manor house is precisely the accommodation of the old within the new that the Mayor sees as a measure of success and that UNESCO would deem a model for Historic Urban Landscape. The Centre would join other models of 'best practice' from around the world. Using the Evelyn cabinet of curiosity as a starting point for a modular and flexible layout of the garden spaces would unify the geometries of the blocks with the geometries of urban horticulture and forestry, mediciinal gardening, beekeeping and fruit growning, and greening technologies. The opportunity for local communities to benefit from learning about health and nutrition with environmental education at the primary school level makes Evelyn's teachings relevant now and for the future.
"The Royal Horticultural Society and the National Trust have both identified an acute skills shortage in areas that Evelyn would have understood when writing his Directions for the Gardiner at Says-Court in the mid-1680s. A Centre for Urban Horticulture, while training a new generation of local youth as skilled gardeners, could also become a centre of excellence in the fields of landscape urbanism and ecosystems performance. It could advance natural and cultural heritage studies in cooperation with the World Monuments Fund, English Heritage, National Trust, the Council for British Archaeology and the Garden History Society. In this vision for the Centre, the four pillars of sustainable development identified in the UNESCO statements on HUL – economy, ecology, community and cultural resources – are integrated in an appropriately holistic way: [HUL] seeks to increase the sustainability of planning and design interventions by taking into account the existing built [and natural] environment, intangible heritage, cultural diversity, socio-economic and environmental factors along with local community values'.
"The international community of scholars and practitioners is watching the debate over Convoys Wharf and Sayes Court with great interest and some anxiety. Will the GLA's guidance in the debate feature positively in textbooks to come as it has in the past in books devoted to biodiversity and climate-change planning? I, for one, am putting my faith in the Mayor and the GLA to reach the only right decision."
Showing posts with label expert response. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expert response. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 March 2014
'History guy' Dan Snow defends Deptford Royal Dockyard
At the beginning of February, historian and Lenox Project patron Dan Snow
issued a bleak warning that redevelopment plans for Convoys Wharf could
wipe out the birthplace of the Royal Navy if approved in their current
form.
"The Lenox Project reconnects Londoners and all of us with a vitally important piece of our heritage. London grew rich because it was a port. Ships built at Deptford protected the trade on which London depended, and forged links between the growing city and the rest of the world. Today London is one of the earth’s most dynamic, outward looking, multi-cultural cities. That story starts at Deptford.
"This project is not just about preserving heritage. It is about creating the kind of international profile and draw that is impossible to replicate anywhere else. A block of flats, a nice looking office block is anonymous. They can be built from Shanghai to Seattle. Building a 17th century warship, on the site of one of the world’s greatest dockyards, a short distance from the beating heart of an international city, that is unique. The multiplier effect of interested people, scholars and tourists would be a major boon to the area, the city and the country.
"People travel across the world to see the Vasa in Stockholm, the Victory, Mary Rose and others in Portsmouth, the Intrepid in New York. This would compete with any of them. The Lenox Project illuminates not just the past but the future too.”
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Royal Dockyard petition tops 1,500 signatures
Support for our alternative vision for the former Royal Dockyard in Deptford continues to grow, with our petition now carrying more than 1,500 signatures, some of them from highly-regarded heritage associations, academics and authors as well as many more from people living, working or running businesses in Deptford.
There are also signatures on the petition from supporters as far afield as Australia, the USA, Latvia, and the UAE, showing that the site and its history has vast importance internationally as well as nationally.
We will be bringing this support to the attention of the Mayor of London, ahead of his determination of the planning application for Convoys Wharf, but if you have not yet signed the petition, there is still time to do so. Supporting comments such as those we have printed below are most helpful, and if you have a particular affiliation which may add weight to your opinion, please include it.
A selection of the comments on our petition which show the high level of support for our proposals:
Dr Ann Coats
Secretary, Naval Dockyards Society
"The Naval Dockyards Society believes that, given the rarity
of Tudor, and the non-survival of Stuart naval storehouses, the Great
Storehouse, even in its below ground fragmentary state, provides valuable
tangible indication of the importance of Deptford Dockyard to Henry VIII and
Elizabeth, especially linked to the nearby royal palace at Greenwich. The
remains below ground of Tudor, Stuart and Georgian storehouses are fragmentary,
but convey a distinctive individual character, intrinsic interest and value to
the current community in Deptford and neighbouring boroughs. If that is all we
have left, fragments are still important signifiers of cultural heritage which
should be valued, as fragments of Tudor castles and Mary Rose are valued.
The below ground remains embody Deptford’s tangible and
intangible heritage and ought to give this project a unique character which
will distinguish it from many other new developments, inform the overall design
and improve its ‘brand’.
Much more can be accomplished to memorialise these
below-ground features and make them relevant to today’s residents and visitors
than by merely marking their outlines above ground. Footprints should not only
be preserved, but integrated."
Professor Mark Laird
Author and historian
"John Evelyn's Sayes Court is among the most important relic
sites as cultural and natural heritage. I have written about it on three
occasions and my new book, A Natural History of English Gardening, 1650-1800 will bring further attention to its significance as world
heritage."
Rob Benbow, Canada
Descendent of Admiral John Benbow
"My ancestor, Admiral John Benbow, was Master Attendant at
Deptford in 1696, where he lived at Sayes Court, entertained Peter the Great,
Czar of Russia, and sailed from Deptford engaging the enemy for crown and country. We would like to see the history of the Deptford Dockyards preserved,
and the plans scaled down to allow the preservation of history. This is the
most historical dockyards of the British Royal Navy and should be recognised as
such. Please review and adjust the
development plans to recognise this importance."
John Kempton
Vice chairman, Medway Queen Preservation
Society
"I fully support this petition, and believe that both the
development and the Build the Lenox project can work together for the
improvement of the area and for the local but also national benefit."
Justin Reay
Naval historian, and editor of Samuel Pepys' papers at the Bodleian Library
"As a naval historian and art historian, and editor of Samuel
Pepys' papers at the Bodleian Library, I am aware of the importance of iconic
sites to understanding our shared history. I am sure that the regeneration of
the site as proposed by parties to this petition will provide a lasting,
meaningful and worthy resource for future generations respecting our maritime,
horticultural and artistic history; the proposed development on this site will
not significantly add to the social housing stock in London and other sites are
available for that."
Andrea Zuvich
Historian and blogger at The 17th Century Lady http://www.andreazuvich.com/
"Deptford's Royal Dockyard is of great historic value and
redevelopment would significantly impact this...for the worse. I, as a 17th
century historian, urge you to reject plans for redevelopment. We must protect
our nation's history and heritage."
Jean Hood
Maritime and naval author http://www.jeanhood.co.uk/books.html
"Deptford should not be degraded and stripped of its rich
history, especially its maritime history, to make profits for foreign investors
and allow the government to tick
boxes re housebuilding figures.
You cannot reclaim history when it is gone, and too much has been lost
to the egos and balance sheets of those who know the price of everything
and the value of nothing. The
first maritime book I wrote was about an East Indiaman built in the late 18th
century at Deptford, just one of many merchant and naval ships to come from
that area over the centuries - ships that played a global role in the
development of trade, defence and offensive warfare. Its human community
provided many of the craftsmen who built the ships, the men who manned them and
their families who waited anxiously for them, and the wider population who
provided the services, from shops to taverns and brothels. Please leave
something of maritime London well alone."
Sunday, 28 July 2013
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."
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'.
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."
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."
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
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.
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.
Friday, 10 May 2013
Convoys Wharf plans: 'everything that is wrong with our property industry'.
An opinion piece in the property industry weekly Estates Gazette has given an excoriating assessment of the new Farrell masterplan for Convoys Wharf. The column was written by Paula Hirst, head of regeneration at Mazars (and incidentally also one of hopefuls competing to be chosen as prospective parliamentary candidate for the Lewisham Deptford seat).
As the introduction to the article explains, Hirst 'offers her thoughts on a scheme which seems to hark back to the 80s...'
Thursday's London Evening Standard heralded "a £1bn vision to transform Deptford", announcing a new scheme on the Thames-fronted Convoys Wharf site by Sir Terry Farrell.
With a plan to "turn the rundown riverside neighbourhood into a thriving 'Shoreditch of south London'", the scheme proposals are to include 3,500 homes, shops, restaurants and a primary school, alongside three new parks. Oh, and three high-rise towers of up to 48 storeys (yes, you did read that right), with luxury apartments at the top.
Putting the question of whether London needs two Shoreditches to one side for a moment, reading this article I wondered whether we had somehow been transported back in time to the 1980s where no-one really seemed to know what regeneration meant. It was an era where shiny glossy buildings would somehow "transform" an area through real estate development, although whether for better or worse would be highly dependent on exactly where you sat on the income spectrum.
Well, Deptford is not the London Docklands, and this is not the 1980s. Deptford has some of the highest density housing in the country. Convoys Wharf backs onto an area with more people living in one place than live in many small towns. There are already quite a lot of residential towers on the skyline. And there has been no access to the river for 13 years for local people.
Yes, local people would very much like to be able to have some more open space, more parks would be welcome, a view and the ability to sit by the river would be enjoyed by many. That's why the development of Convoys Wharf is important and a long time overdue.
And there is a local, Londonwide, and national housing shortage, so a few more homes on a site that big would be important. But a high-density scheme that's pretending to be Canary Wharf mark two? Difficult to see what this might bring to local people.
Farrell is not wrong when he says that there are lots of creative people living in Deptford. It's already a thriving hub of creative industries, in no small part due to the successful regeneration schemes already undertaken.
But it's hard to see how three new luxury giant tower blocks of gleaming steel and glass will be of much benefit to that industry. It's hard to imagine how 3,500 homes won't create intense additional stress on existing infrastructure. It's hard to envisage how such towers will be of benefit to anyone locally at all, in fact, unless you count creating a massive shadow over their balconies and gardens a benefit. No, didn't think so.
Deptford, located in South East London in the borough of Lewisham, contains high amounts of social housing, and is within the 10% most deprived areas in the country. Successful regeneration schemes understand the context they are in, seek to integrate within the area, and provide facilities and amenities which open up new opportunities for local people.
They don't seek to create an island of wealth separated from and adjacent to existing areas, which local people don't feel welcome in, cannot afford, and in all likelihood will have limited access to physically.
In developing a scheme that faces Canary Wharf rather than its hinterland, Farrell appears to be giving local people a clear sign that this is not for them. But then Farrell is quite used to this. One only needs to look at the controversial Earls Court scheme to see that existing communities are considered pretty marginal if not totally inconsequential, to development plans.
Where on earth the money is going to come from for a £1bn scheme in this day and age is anyone's guess, but no doubt someone has heard the money bells ringing, knowing there is an almost clear 40-acre site with prime river frontage.
But let's stop for a minute before anyone decides that somehow giving local people access to the river by sticking huge residential towers on their doorstep is regeneration, or that somehow or other they will benefit or be grateful. This is pure real estate development, and represents everything that is wrong with our property industry.
What Deptford needs is not more high-density housing in an area of existing high density, putting more pressure on existing infrastructure. What's needed is more open space, free to enjoy access to the river, and new employment opportunities that go way beyond construction.
Opening up Convoys Wharf once again to local people is a must. But let's do it right. Let's invest in our communities, not take from them. Let's regenerate areas, not just develop them. And above all, let's value the amazing spirit of the people of Deptford by developing a scheme with the community for the community; one that harnesses that spirit and enables it to thrive.
As the introduction to the article explains, Hirst 'offers her thoughts on a scheme which seems to hark back to the 80s...'
Thursday's London Evening Standard heralded "a £1bn vision to transform Deptford", announcing a new scheme on the Thames-fronted Convoys Wharf site by Sir Terry Farrell.
With a plan to "turn the rundown riverside neighbourhood into a thriving 'Shoreditch of south London'", the scheme proposals are to include 3,500 homes, shops, restaurants and a primary school, alongside three new parks. Oh, and three high-rise towers of up to 48 storeys (yes, you did read that right), with luxury apartments at the top.
Putting the question of whether London needs two Shoreditches to one side for a moment, reading this article I wondered whether we had somehow been transported back in time to the 1980s where no-one really seemed to know what regeneration meant. It was an era where shiny glossy buildings would somehow "transform" an area through real estate development, although whether for better or worse would be highly dependent on exactly where you sat on the income spectrum.
Well, Deptford is not the London Docklands, and this is not the 1980s. Deptford has some of the highest density housing in the country. Convoys Wharf backs onto an area with more people living in one place than live in many small towns. There are already quite a lot of residential towers on the skyline. And there has been no access to the river for 13 years for local people.
Yes, local people would very much like to be able to have some more open space, more parks would be welcome, a view and the ability to sit by the river would be enjoyed by many. That's why the development of Convoys Wharf is important and a long time overdue.
And there is a local, Londonwide, and national housing shortage, so a few more homes on a site that big would be important. But a high-density scheme that's pretending to be Canary Wharf mark two? Difficult to see what this might bring to local people.
Farrell is not wrong when he says that there are lots of creative people living in Deptford. It's already a thriving hub of creative industries, in no small part due to the successful regeneration schemes already undertaken.
But it's hard to see how three new luxury giant tower blocks of gleaming steel and glass will be of much benefit to that industry. It's hard to imagine how 3,500 homes won't create intense additional stress on existing infrastructure. It's hard to envisage how such towers will be of benefit to anyone locally at all, in fact, unless you count creating a massive shadow over their balconies and gardens a benefit. No, didn't think so.
Deptford, located in South East London in the borough of Lewisham, contains high amounts of social housing, and is within the 10% most deprived areas in the country. Successful regeneration schemes understand the context they are in, seek to integrate within the area, and provide facilities and amenities which open up new opportunities for local people.
They don't seek to create an island of wealth separated from and adjacent to existing areas, which local people don't feel welcome in, cannot afford, and in all likelihood will have limited access to physically.
In developing a scheme that faces Canary Wharf rather than its hinterland, Farrell appears to be giving local people a clear sign that this is not for them. But then Farrell is quite used to this. One only needs to look at the controversial Earls Court scheme to see that existing communities are considered pretty marginal if not totally inconsequential, to development plans.
Where on earth the money is going to come from for a £1bn scheme in this day and age is anyone's guess, but no doubt someone has heard the money bells ringing, knowing there is an almost clear 40-acre site with prime river frontage.
But let's stop for a minute before anyone decides that somehow giving local people access to the river by sticking huge residential towers on their doorstep is regeneration, or that somehow or other they will benefit or be grateful. This is pure real estate development, and represents everything that is wrong with our property industry.
What Deptford needs is not more high-density housing in an area of existing high density, putting more pressure on existing infrastructure. What's needed is more open space, free to enjoy access to the river, and new employment opportunities that go way beyond construction.
Opening up Convoys Wharf once again to local people is a must. But let's do it right. Let's invest in our communities, not take from them. Let's regenerate areas, not just develop them. And above all, let's value the amazing spirit of the people of Deptford by developing a scheme with the community for the community; one that harnesses that spirit and enables it to thrive.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Naval Dockyards Society conference: 500 years of Deptford and Woolwich Royal Dockyards
The five-hundred year anniversary of the founding of Royal Dockyards at Deptford and Woolwich was the theme of the annual conference organised by the Naval Dockyards Society at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich this weekend.
To mark this historic milestone and draw attention to the plight of these sites that risk being forgotten, the NDS lined up a series of speakers who gave presentations on different aspects of the dockyards.
Local MP Joan Ruddock opened the conference, and voiced her support for the Sayes Court Gardens and Lenox schemes being put forward by Deptford Is.. to recognise the significant heritage of the site.
Chris Ellmers is president of the Dockland History Group and was instrumental in setting up the Museum in Docklands in 2003. His presentation examined the private shipyards at Deptford and how they related to Deptford Dockyard over the period from 1790 to 1869. He pointed out that attention is almost always focused on the Royal Dockyard, but that Deptford also has a very rich history of shipbuilding at private yards. Merchant sailing ships, innovative steamers and early iron ships were also built in these dockyards and during the Napoleonic War the private shipyards also built and repaired naval vessels.
Peter Cross-Rudkin from the ICE Panel for Historical Engineering Works spoke about John Rennie, who was effectively the consulting engineer to the Navy from about 1806 onwards. He was involved in planning and designing works at Deptford and Woolwich, as well as Chatham, Milford Haven and Sheerness. The dock gates and parts of the river wall at Convoys Wharf (above) were designed by Rennie.
Archaeologist Duncan Hawkins (above, at one of the open days on the site) who led the excavations at Convoys Wharf presented his findings so far. He noted that while few artefacts were found at the site, the nineteenth-century slipways, entrance to the Great Dock, and the Dockyard basin were in relatively good condition.
Mark Stevenson is English Heritage's archaeology adviser for national planning for South London, and he spoke about archaeology and development management in the context of the developments that have taken place in Woolwich Dockyard and those planned for Deptford.
Finally Chris Mazeika and William Richards (owners of the Master Shipwrights House) presented a paper on the Dockyards Officers Terrace at Deptford (above). Their presentation focussed on the Dockyard Officers' Terrace, tracing its early history from a WWII bomb damage map, plans from the 1930s and a photograph taken around 1900. By analysing these resources and comparing them with earlier naval records as well as further photographic and cartographic evidence, they established that a terrace was present as early as 1623 and survived in part until the post-war period.
To mark this historic milestone and draw attention to the plight of these sites that risk being forgotten, the NDS lined up a series of speakers who gave presentations on different aspects of the dockyards.
Local MP Joan Ruddock opened the conference, and voiced her support for the Sayes Court Gardens and Lenox schemes being put forward by Deptford Is.. to recognise the significant heritage of the site.
Chris Ellmers is president of the Dockland History Group and was instrumental in setting up the Museum in Docklands in 2003. His presentation examined the private shipyards at Deptford and how they related to Deptford Dockyard over the period from 1790 to 1869. He pointed out that attention is almost always focused on the Royal Dockyard, but that Deptford also has a very rich history of shipbuilding at private yards. Merchant sailing ships, innovative steamers and early iron ships were also built in these dockyards and during the Napoleonic War the private shipyards also built and repaired naval vessels.
Peter Cross-Rudkin from the ICE Panel for Historical Engineering Works spoke about John Rennie, who was effectively the consulting engineer to the Navy from about 1806 onwards. He was involved in planning and designing works at Deptford and Woolwich, as well as Chatham, Milford Haven and Sheerness. The dock gates and parts of the river wall at Convoys Wharf (above) were designed by Rennie.
Archaeologist Duncan Hawkins (above, at one of the open days on the site) who led the excavations at Convoys Wharf presented his findings so far. He noted that while few artefacts were found at the site, the nineteenth-century slipways, entrance to the Great Dock, and the Dockyard basin were in relatively good condition.
Mark Stevenson is English Heritage's archaeology adviser for national planning for South London, and he spoke about archaeology and development management in the context of the developments that have taken place in Woolwich Dockyard and those planned for Deptford.
This discovery prompts the question as to whether the terrace at Deptford is the first palace front terrace in a royal naval dockyard.
They also showed a fly-through 3D model of the site showing the location of the former terrace.
The Greenwich Industrial History blog has also published a report on the conference.
Monday, 23 April 2012
Rediscovering John Evelyn's Garden - study day to visit Sayes Court Gardens
The significance of John Evelyn's former garden at Sayes Court, part of which lies beneath the Convoys Wharf development site, is to be explored during a study day organised by The Garden History Society in association with The London Parks & Gardens Trust.
Historians, academics and specialists in garden archaeology will attend a series of lectures at the Linnean Society in Piccadilly before a tour of the site at Grove Street in Deptford. The event will finish with a chance to view a small exhibition and the model of the gardens at the Master Shipwrights House in Watergate Street.
The event, Rediscovering Elysium: John Evelyn’s Garden at Sayes Court will begin with lectures at the Linnean Society (from 11am to 3.30pm) covering the significance, plan and planting of the garden; Evelyn’s scientific interests as a founder member of the Royal Society; the subsequent history of the garden; and current threats and opportunities.
Speakers include: Roo Angell, Robert Bagley, Gillian Darley, Dr Frances Harris, Professor Michael Hunter, Professor Mark Laird, Jonathan Lovie and Dr Jan Woudstra.
At Deptford there will be a tour of the site and a summary of the day from Tim Richardson (gardens correspondent of The Daily Telegraph) at the Master Shipwright’s House, followed by a discussion and drinks. A small exhibition about the garden, with a model, will be on view.
The event will take place on Wednesday 25 April from 11am till 7pm and can be booked for a cost of £48; download the form here or visit the Garden History Society website.
The evening session at the Master Shipwright's House is open to all, with a suggested donation of £3 to cover the cost of refreshments; to attend, please RSVP to Roo Angell. Meet at Sayes Court Gardens at 5.30pm to attend the evening event, or later at the Master Shipwright's House in Watergate Street.
Historians, academics and specialists in garden archaeology will attend a series of lectures at the Linnean Society in Piccadilly before a tour of the site at Grove Street in Deptford. The event will finish with a chance to view a small exhibition and the model of the gardens at the Master Shipwrights House in Watergate Street.
The event, Rediscovering Elysium: John Evelyn’s Garden at Sayes Court will begin with lectures at the Linnean Society (from 11am to 3.30pm) covering the significance, plan and planting of the garden; Evelyn’s scientific interests as a founder member of the Royal Society; the subsequent history of the garden; and current threats and opportunities.
Speakers include: Roo Angell, Robert Bagley, Gillian Darley, Dr Frances Harris, Professor Michael Hunter, Professor Mark Laird, Jonathan Lovie and Dr Jan Woudstra.
At Deptford there will be a tour of the site and a summary of the day from Tim Richardson (gardens correspondent of The Daily Telegraph) at the Master Shipwright’s House, followed by a discussion and drinks. A small exhibition about the garden, with a model, will be on view.
The event will take place on Wednesday 25 April from 11am till 7pm and can be booked for a cost of £48; download the form here or visit the Garden History Society website.
The evening session at the Master Shipwright's House is open to all, with a suggested donation of £3 to cover the cost of refreshments; to attend, please RSVP to Roo Angell. Meet at Sayes Court Gardens at 5.30pm to attend the evening event, or later at the Master Shipwright's House in Watergate Street.
Tuesday, 17 April 2012
What the experts are saying: Council for British Archaeology
The Council for British Archaeology issued the following press release on 13th April; it was picked up by the Newshopper (see previous post). We look forward to seeing its contents reported in other publications.
CBA forms expert panel for Deptford Dockyard
The Council for British Archaeology has convened a panel of independent experts to discuss an alternative future for the former site of England’s first Royal Dockyard at Deptford, founded by Henry VIII in 1513.
Calling on the expertise of the Naval Dockyards Society, the Garden History Society, the Panel for Historic Engineering Works and the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, the CBA are hoping to inform a better, heritage-led scheme that delivers wider public benefit and a more sophisticated approach to this internationally important site – one that served this country for nearly 400 years, harboured the Mary Rose and saw the knighting of Sir Francis Drake on the Golden Hind.
Lewisham Council have sent back the planning application for Convoy’s Wharf, which is for over 3,500 new homes, for revisions, claiming rightly that, it was not sensitive enough to unique heritage assets of the dockyard. As a consequence, the developers, Hutchinson Whampoa, have called in Sir Terry Farrell to look at redrawing the masterplan. Meanwhile, DCMS have asked English Heritage to look again at the heritage status of the site, which along with the adjacent Sayes Court Garden currently has no overall designation.
Working with local group Deptford Is, the CBA and its expert panel are looking to assist the developers and English Heritage in their understanding and enhancement of the dockyard and its remarkable history. There is immense potential here, for a scheme to be delivered that benefits the local community, in our Olympic year and with the 500th anniversary of the founding of the site to follow in 2013, surely our first Royal dockyard deserves both protection and respect.
The dockyard at Deptford was founded by Henry VII IN 1513 to build vessels for the Royal Navy. As the dockyard closest to the Navy Board, Deptford grew to be the most important of all the royal dockyards, at its height it was known as the ‘Cradle of the Navy’ and the docks, slipways and wharves constituted 600 feet of river frontage. Buildings that survive on site include the Master Shipwright’s House of 1708, the first purpose-built dockyard offices of 1720 and Victorian slipway covers of 1846. However, what survive below the ground is more impressive. The Great Dock, slipways, mast ponds and the huge basin, along with Sayes Court Garden, constitute an enormous site – one that has had a pivotal role in England’s history.
Other facts -
- Elizabeth 1 knights Sir Francis Drake aboard the Golden Hind at Deptford in 1581
- HMS Bounty re-fitted in 1787
- The rebuilding of Cook’s Endeavour in 1768
- Several of the warships that served under Nelson at Trafalgar, designed and built at Deptford
Sayes Court Gardens, which was a key site in the formation of the National Trust, was the creation of Seventeenth century diarist, John Evelyn. Made up of an elaborate parterre, long avenues and a great orchard of three-hundred fruit trees, a lake with an island and a large grove of trees of many different species the garden was tremendously influential at the time. Now, unfortunately, it is now almost completely buried under concrete. The Garden History Society has a study day at the site on the 25th April and has recently stated: “The influence of the garden at Sayes Court on garden design and development in England in the 17th century is well documented and its location beside Deptford Docks was fundamental to John Evelyn's science of experimentation with new plants"
The Council for British Archaeology was established in 1944 and is the national amenity society concerned with protection of the archaeological interest in heritage assets. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places and the people and cultures that made them. Local authorities have a duty to notify the CBA of applications for listed building consent involving partial or total demolition.
Deptford Is.. are "a group of local residents who want to ensure that the redeveloped Convoys Wharf offers the best for Deptford and its future". They have proposed a number of alternative projects for the site; a recent consultation allowed them and other local groups to give their visions of the site. A report on the event can be found here.
Hutchison Whampoa Properties and its architect Aedas has submitted an application for more than 3,000 new homes, with a range of tenures, new public squares and the opening of Deptford's Riverside, details of which can be found here.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
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.
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.
and call for:
• celebration and revival of Deptford’s history and traditional occupations through a museum/interpretation centre
The NDS is concerned that outline planning permission may be granted in 2011, before the archaeological investigation is completed in May 2012.
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)
• 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;
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.
• 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.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Latest comments from Lewisham's planners
We understand from Lewisham Council's planning department that they are still deeply concerned about the masterplan that is being put forward by Hutchison Whampoa for redevelopment of Convoys Wharf. The fact that they have shared this matter with us is reassuring, and we are happy to note that they are continuing to ask for significant improvements in the masterplan.
What's more, we have learned that Lewisham's mayor, Steve Bullock, intends to hold a public event 'to allow interested parties to present information on the history of the site and share their views on how this could inform and be reflected in proposals'. Joan Ruddock has also voiced a commitment to some kind of public meeting, and both the Mayor and Ms Ruddock have said separately that they will be working together to set something up. We will keep you updated on this as we find out more information.
The planning application will not be brought to committee before the end of the year, and council officers have highlighted three specific concerns which mean that the council is unable to support the current application.
At the heart of the issue, according to Lewisham's planners, is how the heritage assets of the site are reflected in the masterplan and from there will feed into the detailed proposals for the site. Despite repeated requests that the scheme designers demonstrate how the layout of the site responds to the heritage context, planning officers say they still have not seen or heard any convincing arguments in this regard. They say that the layout, massing and specific proposals being put forward are bland and anonymous, and are a long way from representing a sufficient response to the history of the site and its surroundings.
The second issue raised by the planners relates to the type of buildings being proposed for the riverfront. Although the building heights and architectural treatments might be varied, the building type is fixed and is applied along the full length of the waterfront, with no respect for the presence of the historical context. Potentially, Deptford's riverfront could consist of a row of seven residential buildings ranging from 13 to 17 storeys.
Thirdly the planners have highlighted that the wide parameters for which the developers are seeking approval are far too uncertain and unacceptable. At the very least, they say, the developers must specify how the floorspace will be distributed between the various buildings that are proposed, rather than simply being specified as a total for each 'parcel' of land.
Similar concerns are also being raised by other bodies (as we have seen in some of the objections printed elsewhere on the blog), including the GLA, English Heritage, and the Design Council.
Deptford is.. looks forward to working with Lewisham and other interested parties to present alternative proposals to a wider audience at a public event some time soon.
What's more, we have learned that Lewisham's mayor, Steve Bullock, intends to hold a public event 'to allow interested parties to present information on the history of the site and share their views on how this could inform and be reflected in proposals'. Joan Ruddock has also voiced a commitment to some kind of public meeting, and both the Mayor and Ms Ruddock have said separately that they will be working together to set something up. We will keep you updated on this as we find out more information.
The planning application will not be brought to committee before the end of the year, and council officers have highlighted three specific concerns which mean that the council is unable to support the current application.
At the heart of the issue, according to Lewisham's planners, is how the heritage assets of the site are reflected in the masterplan and from there will feed into the detailed proposals for the site. Despite repeated requests that the scheme designers demonstrate how the layout of the site responds to the heritage context, planning officers say they still have not seen or heard any convincing arguments in this regard. They say that the layout, massing and specific proposals being put forward are bland and anonymous, and are a long way from representing a sufficient response to the history of the site and its surroundings.
Thirdly the planners have highlighted that the wide parameters for which the developers are seeking approval are far too uncertain and unacceptable. At the very least, they say, the developers must specify how the floorspace will be distributed between the various buildings that are proposed, rather than simply being specified as a total for each 'parcel' of land.
Similar concerns are also being raised by other bodies (as we have seen in some of the objections printed elsewhere on the blog), including the GLA, English Heritage, and the Design Council.
Deptford is.. looks forward to working with Lewisham and other interested parties to present alternative proposals to a wider audience at a public event some time soon.
Sunday, 13 November 2011
What the experts are saying: Tom Turner, landscape architect
Eminent landscape architect, academic and writer, currently working at the University of Greenwich, Tom Turner, was moved to post about Convoy's Wharf on his blog Gardenvisit.com. He gave us permission to reproduce his article here.
Steen Eiler Rasmussen concluded the second edition of his brilliant book London: the Unique City with these prophetic words: ‘Thus the foolish mistakes of other countries are imported everywhere, and at the end of a few years all cities will be equally ugly and equally devoid of individuality. This is the bitter END’.
So what would he think of the Hutchison Whampoa Master Plan for Convoys Wharf? He would detest it, utterly.
The architects are Aedas, who claim that ‘We provide international expertise with innate knowledge and understanding of local cultures’. Evidently, this expertise does not extend to the local culture of Deptford – unless they think it is the same as the culture of London/England/Europe or the World.
The planning consultants, let it be recorded, are bptw. Their website promises ‘responsible architecture executed with imagination’. Maybe the firm can do this. Maybe the client’s brief made it impossible at Convoys Wharf. Or maybe what the project required was a firm of Urban Landscape Designers, rather than a firm which sees its main business as architecture.
The architecture makes one yearn for the imaginative approach one sees in Dubai. The spatial pattern resembles that of the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke, the planting design is what Chris Baines calls ‘a green desert with lollipops’. I am not an admirer of the scheme – and I much regret that John Evelyn’s design for Sayes Court has been cast into what Leon Trotsky called ‘the dustbin of history’.
It is a quotation which gives us a lead into the origins of the Convoys Wharf design. In days gone by it might have graced a Parisian banlieue (like Sarcelles), a suburb of East Berlin – or even Moscow itself.
With specific regard to the Sayes Court Garden, we should remember that (1) Evelyn, beyond doubt, was the greatest English garden theorist of the seventeenth century (2) Evelyn played a key role in introducing Baroque ideas on garden design to London (3) the Convoys Wharf site would never have come into public ownership were it not for the generosity of John Evelyn (4) Sayes Court was very nearly the first property to be saved by the National Trust.
THEREFORE the Convoys Wharf site demands a context-sensitive urban landscape design.
John Evelyn's garden at Sayes Court and the Convoys Wharf Urban Landscape masterplan
Steen Eiler Rasmussen concluded the second edition of his brilliant book London: the Unique City with these prophetic words: ‘Thus the foolish mistakes of other countries are imported everywhere, and at the end of a few years all cities will be equally ugly and equally devoid of individuality. This is the bitter END’.
So what would he think of the Hutchison Whampoa Master Plan for Convoys Wharf? He would detest it, utterly.
The architects are Aedas, who claim that ‘We provide international expertise with innate knowledge and understanding of local cultures’. Evidently, this expertise does not extend to the local culture of Deptford – unless they think it is the same as the culture of London/England/Europe or the World.
The planning consultants, let it be recorded, are bptw. Their website promises ‘responsible architecture executed with imagination’. Maybe the firm can do this. Maybe the client’s brief made it impossible at Convoys Wharf. Or maybe what the project required was a firm of Urban Landscape Designers, rather than a firm which sees its main business as architecture.
The architecture makes one yearn for the imaginative approach one sees in Dubai. The spatial pattern resembles that of the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke, the planting design is what Chris Baines calls ‘a green desert with lollipops’. I am not an admirer of the scheme – and I much regret that John Evelyn’s design for Sayes Court has been cast into what Leon Trotsky called ‘the dustbin of history’.
It is a quotation which gives us a lead into the origins of the Convoys Wharf design. In days gone by it might have graced a Parisian banlieue (like Sarcelles), a suburb of East Berlin – or even Moscow itself.
With specific regard to the Sayes Court Garden, we should remember that (1) Evelyn, beyond doubt, was the greatest English garden theorist of the seventeenth century (2) Evelyn played a key role in introducing Baroque ideas on garden design to London (3) the Convoys Wharf site would never have come into public ownership were it not for the generosity of John Evelyn (4) Sayes Court was very nearly the first property to be saved by the National Trust.
THEREFORE the Convoys Wharf site demands a context-sensitive urban landscape design.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
What the experts are saying: English Heritage
The following letter was submitted to Lewisham Council, and copied to the developer's agent last week (emphasis is ours):
In May 2005 your Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for a scheme of redevelopment that is broadly comparable to that which is now being proposed. As the applicants' planning statement points out, "the current proposals represent essential "fine tuning"" of this earlier scheme which has, "resulted in a "shuffling" of uses and little change to the overall scale of the development".
The development site extends to 16.6 hectares on the south bank of the River Thames approximately 1 kilometre west Greenwich, the heart of which is designated as the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. It is a site of significant historic importance as it incorporates what remains of Deptford Royal Dockyard. Following his accession to the throne in 1509, King Henry VIII set about expanding what had become recognisable as a standing Royal Navy and, as part of this expansion, he ordered the building of a storehouse at Deptford Dockyard in 1513. By the mid sixteenth century Deptford and Woolwich Dockyards had become the most important dockyards nationally for the construction and repair of warships. This importance waned during the seventeenth century when Chatham and Portsmouth gained pre-eminence and in 1869 the dockyard was closed.
Significant archaeological remains of the dockyard survive including the remains of the Tudor storehouse, a site that was accorded Scheduled Ancient Monument status in 2003. Above ground, the designated heritage assets that survive from the dockyard are relatively few. Three are within the development site: At the centre of the development site stands a building known as the Olympia Warehouse, an iron framed building of c.1846/7 that provided cover for two slips that opened into the central basin of the dockyard; in the south west corner of the site stand a pair of brick piers and stubs of boundary wall that are the remains of a gateway into the dockyard; and along the site's eastern boundary, is a length of high brick wall dating from the eighteenth century.
All are included in the List of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at grade 2. Outside the development site are two buildings that were part of the dockyard, both of are listed at grade 2*. They are adjacent to the north east corner of the development site and are the former Master Shipwright’s House and the former Office Building of the dockyard which date from 1708 and 1720 respectively. Immediately to the north of the development site on the riverside – and also outside its boundaries – are a pair of former warehouse buildings that date from the late eighteenth century which were part of the Royal Victoria Victualing Yard. Converted to residential use in the mid-twentieth century they are listed grade 2.
The development site also includes the site of Sayes Court – the house occupied by the diarist and gardener, John Evelyn – and its celebrated gardens. However, the archaeological investigations carried out so far have not found any significant remains that can be dated to his occupation of the site.
When my former colleague, Paul Calvocoressi, wrote to your Council on 20 October 2003 commenting upon the previous application, he wrote at some length about the failure of that masterplan to relate to the outstanding historic importance of the site and that an analysis of the dockyard's development and its place in the wider history of the area had not been expressed in the creation of a really distinctive sense of place. He pointed out that an understanding of the site's history should have been used as a stimulus to the creative process and that the archaeological evidence, of which a great deal more is now known, ought to have been used to inform what happens above ground.
The key historic features – the double dock, the Olympia building, the basin (and its connection to the river), the Tudor storehouse, the mast ponds and the slips – could all have been used as catalysts to inform a design that retains a legible link with the river and the former activity of the site and create a more unique place than the rectilinear, grid-like planning of the 'fine-tuned' masterplan now before your Council.
English Heritage is particularly disappointed that the opportunity re-engage with the site's outstanding historic significance has not been grasped. Indeed, we can see no compelling reason why the one real attempt that was originally proposed to interpret the site's history in the new development, i.e. the creation of a significant area of public open space that evoked the dockyard basin in front of the Olympia building, has been 'fine-tuned' out of this latest application. In our view, the creation of a tangential link with the river as now proposed is a distant second best relative to the original proposal.
Turning to the wider impacts of the proposal, English Heritage accepts that this is a major development site which is recognised as an opportunity area in the London Plan and that there is a clear policy basis within Lewisham's Core Strategy that recognises Convoys Wharf as being a site that may be appropriate for tall buildings. However, we are not persuaded that there is a compelling justification for three tall building on the site especially when taking account of the visual impact that they will have upon the panorama from Greenwich Park, a panoramic view that is designated as worthy of management in the current draft of The London View Management Framework (LVMF).
We recognise that the LVMF suggests that development on the river edge at Deptford in the foreground and the middle ground of the designated panoramic view from Greenwich Park, "should help reinforce the composition of the existing view" but we consider that the proposal to erect three towers rising to 46, 38 and 32 storeys concentrated in the central area of the site and close to the river edge fails to fit within the prevailing pattern of buildings and spaces and is therefore at variance with the core LVMF Policy 7.12.D.a. Taken with the two existing tall buildings on the nearby Pepys Estate, the net impact is, we believe, the creation of a cluster of tall buildings within this area of the designated panoramic view that competes dis-advantageously with the existing clusters of tall buildings in the City of London and Canary Wharf. It remains our view that any development at Convoys Wharf should relate to the local scale of Deptford and Greenwich and not to the metropolitan scale of the City or Canary Wharf.
We also note that the proposed tall buildings will have an impact, described by the applicants as "moderate, adverse and permanent", upon views from within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage site and especially from views within – and especially along the northern boundary of – the group of grade 1 listed buildings that comprise the former Greenwich Royal Hospital. We note that in analysing this view the applicants make no reference to the existence of the World Heritage Site and no comment upon whether the proposals have any impact upon its Outstanding Universal Value. We regard this as a significant omission.
Since your Council decided that it was minded to grant outline planning permission for the previous scheme in 2005, there has been an opportunity to re-visit the comprehensive redevelopment of this site and to bring forward a scheme which paid a greater regard to its historic context. English Heritage is disappointed that the applicants have failed to grasp this opportunity and see this current application simply as a fine tuning exercise. Indeed, the one element of the earlier proposals where historic context was positively recognised, i.e. the setting of the Olympia Warehouse, has been omitted from the latest proposals. It is English Heritage's view that the regeneration of Convoys Wharf as 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.
I should make it clear that the comments and views expressed in this letter relate to the impact that the proposals have upon the wider historic environment in general and the site itself. My colleague Dr Jane Sidell will deal with matters relating to the Scheduled Ancient Monument and any applications for Scheduled Monument Consent that may arise and my colleague Mark Stephenson will deal with matters associated with the wider archaeological issues associated with the proposed development. They will be writing to you separately with their comments upon the application for outline planning permission in due course.
Malcolm Woods
Historic Buildings & Areas Adviser
In May 2005 your Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for a scheme of redevelopment that is broadly comparable to that which is now being proposed. As the applicants' planning statement points out, "the current proposals represent essential "fine tuning"" of this earlier scheme which has, "resulted in a "shuffling" of uses and little change to the overall scale of the development".
The development site extends to 16.6 hectares on the south bank of the River Thames approximately 1 kilometre west Greenwich, the heart of which is designated as the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. It is a site of significant historic importance as it incorporates what remains of Deptford Royal Dockyard. Following his accession to the throne in 1509, King Henry VIII set about expanding what had become recognisable as a standing Royal Navy and, as part of this expansion, he ordered the building of a storehouse at Deptford Dockyard in 1513. By the mid sixteenth century Deptford and Woolwich Dockyards had become the most important dockyards nationally for the construction and repair of warships. This importance waned during the seventeenth century when Chatham and Portsmouth gained pre-eminence and in 1869 the dockyard was closed.
Significant archaeological remains of the dockyard survive including the remains of the Tudor storehouse, a site that was accorded Scheduled Ancient Monument status in 2003. Above ground, the designated heritage assets that survive from the dockyard are relatively few. Three are within the development site: At the centre of the development site stands a building known as the Olympia Warehouse, an iron framed building of c.1846/7 that provided cover for two slips that opened into the central basin of the dockyard; in the south west corner of the site stand a pair of brick piers and stubs of boundary wall that are the remains of a gateway into the dockyard; and along the site's eastern boundary, is a length of high brick wall dating from the eighteenth century.
All are included in the List of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at grade 2. Outside the development site are two buildings that were part of the dockyard, both of are listed at grade 2*. They are adjacent to the north east corner of the development site and are the former Master Shipwright’s House and the former Office Building of the dockyard which date from 1708 and 1720 respectively. Immediately to the north of the development site on the riverside – and also outside its boundaries – are a pair of former warehouse buildings that date from the late eighteenth century which were part of the Royal Victoria Victualing Yard. Converted to residential use in the mid-twentieth century they are listed grade 2.
The development site also includes the site of Sayes Court – the house occupied by the diarist and gardener, John Evelyn – and its celebrated gardens. However, the archaeological investigations carried out so far have not found any significant remains that can be dated to his occupation of the site.
When my former colleague, Paul Calvocoressi, wrote to your Council on 20 October 2003 commenting upon the previous application, he wrote at some length about the failure of that masterplan to relate to the outstanding historic importance of the site and that an analysis of the dockyard's development and its place in the wider history of the area had not been expressed in the creation of a really distinctive sense of place. He pointed out that an understanding of the site's history should have been used as a stimulus to the creative process and that the archaeological evidence, of which a great deal more is now known, ought to have been used to inform what happens above ground.
The key historic features – the double dock, the Olympia building, the basin (and its connection to the river), the Tudor storehouse, the mast ponds and the slips – could all have been used as catalysts to inform a design that retains a legible link with the river and the former activity of the site and create a more unique place than the rectilinear, grid-like planning of the 'fine-tuned' masterplan now before your Council.
English Heritage is particularly disappointed that the opportunity re-engage with the site's outstanding historic significance has not been grasped. Indeed, we can see no compelling reason why the one real attempt that was originally proposed to interpret the site's history in the new development, i.e. the creation of a significant area of public open space that evoked the dockyard basin in front of the Olympia building, has been 'fine-tuned' out of this latest application. In our view, the creation of a tangential link with the river as now proposed is a distant second best relative to the original proposal.
Turning to the wider impacts of the proposal, English Heritage accepts that this is a major development site which is recognised as an opportunity area in the London Plan and that there is a clear policy basis within Lewisham's Core Strategy that recognises Convoys Wharf as being a site that may be appropriate for tall buildings. However, we are not persuaded that there is a compelling justification for three tall building on the site especially when taking account of the visual impact that they will have upon the panorama from Greenwich Park, a panoramic view that is designated as worthy of management in the current draft of The London View Management Framework (LVMF).
We recognise that the LVMF suggests that development on the river edge at Deptford in the foreground and the middle ground of the designated panoramic view from Greenwich Park, "should help reinforce the composition of the existing view" but we consider that the proposal to erect three towers rising to 46, 38 and 32 storeys concentrated in the central area of the site and close to the river edge fails to fit within the prevailing pattern of buildings and spaces and is therefore at variance with the core LVMF Policy 7.12.D.a. Taken with the two existing tall buildings on the nearby Pepys Estate, the net impact is, we believe, the creation of a cluster of tall buildings within this area of the designated panoramic view that competes dis-advantageously with the existing clusters of tall buildings in the City of London and Canary Wharf. It remains our view that any development at Convoys Wharf should relate to the local scale of Deptford and Greenwich and not to the metropolitan scale of the City or Canary Wharf.
We also note that the proposed tall buildings will have an impact, described by the applicants as "moderate, adverse and permanent", upon views from within the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage site and especially from views within – and especially along the northern boundary of – the group of grade 1 listed buildings that comprise the former Greenwich Royal Hospital. We note that in analysing this view the applicants make no reference to the existence of the World Heritage Site and no comment upon whether the proposals have any impact upon its Outstanding Universal Value. We regard this as a significant omission.
Since your Council decided that it was minded to grant outline planning permission for the previous scheme in 2005, there has been an opportunity to re-visit the comprehensive redevelopment of this site and to bring forward a scheme which paid a greater regard to its historic context. English Heritage is disappointed that the applicants have failed to grasp this opportunity and see this current application simply as a fine tuning exercise. Indeed, the one element of the earlier proposals where historic context was positively recognised, i.e. the setting of the Olympia Warehouse, has been omitted from the latest proposals. It is English Heritage's view that the regeneration of Convoys Wharf as 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.
I should make it clear that the comments and views expressed in this letter relate to the impact that the proposals have upon the wider historic environment in general and the site itself. My colleague Dr Jane Sidell will deal with matters relating to the Scheduled Ancient Monument and any applications for Scheduled Monument Consent that may arise and my colleague Mark Stephenson will deal with matters associated with the wider archaeological issues associated with the proposed development. They will be writing to you separately with their comments upon the application for outline planning permission in due course.
Malcolm Woods
Historic Buildings & Areas Adviser
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)