Video - House of Commons debate re Convoys Wharf

Adjournment debate in the House of Commons regarding the national heritage significance of Convoys Wharf, Deptford. A full transcript of the debate is here.

     

House of Commons: Convoys Wharf

 Dame Joan Ruddock MP made an excellent speech yesterday outlining the historic significance of Convoys Wharf. The wharf is currently the subject of an application for outline planning permission made by site owners Hutchison Whampoa, but if Joan had directly raised planning issues then she would have been curtly referred to the Mayor of London (Boris Johnson) who is due to decide whether planning permission should be granted. By concentrating on heritage matters she was able to elicit a response from the government. By putting forward a factual, unembellished, unexaggerated description of the site and its importance she was able to elicit what is, in the circumstances, a very positive response from the government.
 
Full text of the debate:
 
Convoys Wharf, Deptford
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)
6:54 pm

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate. My purpose in calling it is to share with the House one of London’s best kept secrets and one of its greatest opportunities.

Fifteen years ago, representatives of News International contacted me to announce the closure of Convoys Wharf. I met them on site, going down a narrow street in Deptford through an industrial gate set in high fences. I came upon a huge area of concrete peppered with massive sheds stretching to the waterfront. It was a vast, forlorn, windy expanse with a footprint similar to the whole of the south bank. My immediate fear was that the site was destined for millionaires’ housing, a gated community cut off from the rest of Deptford that would continue the hundreds of years of local people’s exclusion from their own Thames waterfront. Then I discovered that Convoys Wharf was the site of Henry VIII’s naval shipyard and the home of the great diarist John Evelyn. I sensed that this would be an historic battle, and so it has been, as I, with local people and Lewisham council planners led by John Miller, have sought recognition of the site’s supreme importance and of the imperative to secure a development appropriate to its unique heritage.

Let me outline the historical record, which I have taken—often verbatim—from the Museum of London archaeology report. The record goes back to the Domesday Book and the manor of Grenviz, the present-day Deptford. In the late 12th century, the manor passed to the de Says family, who named it Sayes court. The mediaeval manor house of Sayes court, which was constructed of wood, was certainly in existence in 1405.

Deptford increasingly felt the influence of Greenwich palace. It was given a great boost when Henry VIII decided to found a royal dockyard there. Lambarde wrote of Deptford:

“This towne was of none estimation at all until King Henrie the eighth advised (for the better preservation of the Royal fleete) to erect a storehouse, and to create certaine officers there”.

This Tudor storehouse was the nucleus of the shipyard. Erected in 1513, it survived in part until 1952. The great dock was probably built at this time, and the old pond at Deptford strand was adapted as a basin to accommodate ships in 1517. In 1581, Sir Francis Drake’s ship the Golden Hind was lodged in a specially constructed brick dock, becoming one of London’s very first tourist attractions. For 400 years, Deptford was the powerhouse of England’s navy. Local boat builder Julian Kingston has recorded:

“Hundreds of warships and countless trading vessels were built or refitted here including ships for exploration, science and empire. It was the ‘Cape Canaveral’ of its day and is associated with the great mariners of the time, such as Drake, Rayleigh and Cook”.

In 1653, John Evelyn took up residence in Sayes court. He modernised the house and laid out its vast gardens. He began with an orchard of 300 mixed fruit trees, and went on to create groves of elm and of walnut trees, a huge holly hedge, plots for melons, pears and beans, as well as a moated island for raspberries and asparagus, beehives and a carp pond. It was here that Evelyn carried out his planting trials, which formed the basis of his famous treatise “Sylva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees”.

That other illustrious diarist Samuel Pepys recorded two visits to John Evelyn’s gardens in 1665. He saw

“a hive of bees, so as being hived in glass you may see the bees making their honey and combs mighty pleasantly”,

and Evelyn

“showed me his gardens, which are for variety of evergreens, and hedge of holly, the finest things I ever saw in my life.”

Samuel Pepys had major business at the dockyard, having been put in charge of Charles II’s great “thirty shipbuilding programme” in 1677. The Lenox, to which I will refer later, was the first of the ships to be built. In 1708, Master Shipwright Joseph Allin built a house on the site, and it remains intact today. It was bought in 1998 by William Richards and Chris Mazeika who are continuously restoring it. As shipbuilding developed, the slipways became vast structures of brick, concrete and timber and were then provided with cover buildings, an example of which is the Olympia.

The Olympia was constructed from 1844 to 1846 and remains on site today.

Let me return to Sayes court. When John Evelyn moved out in 1694, it was rented to, among others, Tsar Peter the Great, who came to Deptford to study shipbuilding. He is reported to have trashed the house and garden during his wild parties. Specifically, he drove a wheelbarrow through the famous hedge. Sayes court changed ownership a number of times and became absorbed into the dockyard expansion of 1830.

In 1869, William John Evelyn, who was a descendant of the original John Evelyn, bought back part of the site. His attempts to preserve the park and museum for the public led him to contact Octavia Hill. Realising that there was no existing legal form that could secure such protection, Hill set about establishing the organisation that was to become the National Trust. Seventeen years later, the gardens were given to the public, only to face their final demise in 1914, when they were leased as a horse transport reserve depot. The gardens were built over and the house was used by the War Office. The last elements of Sayes court manor house were demolished at some time around 1930. It was the Ministry of Defence that eventually sold the site now known as Convoys Wharf to News International in 1979.

In 1952 a debate ensued over the demolition of the Tudor storehouse. It was not listed, despite the existence of a Tudor arch that was 10 feet high and 6 feet wide and a foundation stone bearing the inscription,

“Henricus Rex annus Christi 1513”.

Twenty thousand Tudor bricks were disposed of—some, we believe, to help rebuild the buildings at Hampton Court—and the arch and stone were given to University College London, where they are housed today in the computing department. After a successful campaign by the community group, “Deptford Is”, UCL has agreed to return the artefacts. The campaign has now turned its attention to the clock that was part of the 18th-century storehouse, which currently resides in the car park of the Thamesmead shopping centre.

That is the extraordinary history of Convoys Wharf, which is now the subject of an outline planning application that has been handed to the Greater London authority by the current owners, Hutchison Whampoa. Over the past 13 years, we have struggled to persuade the various developers, architects and master planners to understand the huge responsibility that they have to honour the site’s heritage. Sadly, we have not been helped by the lack of interest from English Heritage.

In 1999, Alan Howarth conducted a ministerial review of royal dockyards to upgrade listing and scheduling. Deptford dockyard was omitted because it was believed at the time that the only structures of value were the Olympia and the Master Shipwright’s house. An application was submitted locally in 2002, which resulted in the scheduling of the undercroft of the 1513 Tudor storehouse a year later. In 2009, another application was submitted by local people to list the docks, slips, basin and mast ponds. English Heritage recommended not to list. There were many errors in the report and the decision was contested. English Heritage withdrew its recommendation. The Council for British Archaeology and the Naval Dockyards Society, supported by local historians, requested that the case be reopened in 2012. Again English Heritage recommended not to list. The Council for British Archaeology then initiated a freedom of information inquiry, which revealed errors and obfuscation resulting in further exchanges. Last year English Heritage recommended the statutory protection of the dockyard wharf wall and the upgrading of the Master Shipwright’s house. Many features remain without protection and await consideration of the final archaeological survey. I am, however, pleased to report that relations with English Heritage have much improved.

Given the GLA’s wish to determine next month, will the Minister activate an emergency listing and scheduling procedure based on the available archaeology? That would ensure that Hutchinson Whampoa and the GLA proceeded with the full knowledge of the heritage protections on the site and how they should influence design and construction decisions. That brings me to the most exciting part of this 21st-century saga. As developers’ plans have come forward, so too have local aspirations. We want to create a destination that both honours the past and creates a vision of the future that embraces the vibrant and dynamic community that is Deptford. Two projects would fulfil that ambition and demand incorporation at this stage of the planning process.

The Sayes Court Garden project, developed by Roo Angell and Bob Bagley and their architect David Kohn, seeks to create a new garden and a centre for urban horticulture. In their own words:

“The remarkable history of Sayes Court is filled with bold ideas which understood that contact with nature is an essential part of healthy urban life. Sayes Court Garden is a project inspired by this history of innovation. Combining stimulating design with a programme which brings together all stages of education, from primary schools and practical training to the latest research, Sayes Court is a garden for the 21st century.”

A comprehensive archaeological survey has revealed the traces of early walls found below an 18th-century building on the site of Sayes court, and nearby garden walls have been confidently reconciled with map evidence of Evelyn’s home. Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the value of these remains and plans to make them viewable. It has also embraced the Sayes court garden project, but in their plan the new buildings will obliterate much of the original garden site and isolate the proposed centre. English Heritage shares our view that the centre for urban horticulture should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. Does the Minister support this view?

The second project, led by Julian Kingston, proposes to build a replica of the great 17th-century wooden ship, the Lenox. The Lenox would be built using modern techniques and enable apprentices to be trained in modern transferable skills. The project also intends to encompass research and training in heritage crafts. Once again, Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the groundswell of support for the Lenox project, but failed to place it appropriately in its plans.

The massive Grade II listed Olympia building, which is 75 metres by 62 metres and 17 metres high, sits at the heart of Convoys Wharf and covers the recently excavated slips on which 19th-century ships were built. Internally, the building boasts wrought iron tied-arch roofs, two of the only seven remaining structures to survive nationally. It is the perfect location for the Lenox project and a host of supporting cultural activities.

In front of the Olympia building is the site of the great basin. Restored or rebuilt, this would provide a means of launching a completed replica ship into the Thames and could replace the water body that the owners currently plan to site elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm that English Heritage has no objection to these plans for the Olympia building and great basin? Will he also acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets will necessitate changes to the master plan?

Finally, let me try to describe the overall development. Yes, it will provide hundreds of luxury waterfront dwellings in very high towers to which many have objections, and many issues will have to be debated and determined at later stages of the planning application about the massing and transport, but the site could also offer an amazing place for locals, new residents and visitors alike. The development would be approached through the extensive Sayes court garden, leading to the horticultural centre and the Olympia building with its myriad activities, and on to the water basin leading to the Thames. It would be a place of which everyone in Deptford could be proud, a place that would sit alongside the world heritage sites that are Greenwich, the Cutty Sark and the National Maritime Museum, a place offering green lungs and riverside walks in the heart of the inner city, a place giving new hope to young people of training and jobs and to enterprising local artists and entrepreneurs. It would be not just for the people of Deptford and Lewisham, but for London and those way beyond this great city. Once again, Deptford and its dockyards could become a jewel in London’s crown.

7:12 pm

Edward Vaizey (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; Wantage, Conservative)

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), whom I congratulate on calling this important debate. I have listened with interest to her remarks on the historic importance of Convoys Wharf, and I certainly echo everything she said.

Convoys Wharf has been one of London’s best-kept secrets. I am not sure how far I should go in revealing my ignorance, but I am pleased that I am now in the position, thanks to her, of being full apprised of this heritage jewel sitting at the heart of our great capital city. At a time when London is once again one of the pre-eminent cities in the world, it is worth our recalling that one of the reasons it is so successful is its rich history and heritage. It says in my brief that Convoys Wharf is of historic interest—well, that has to be the understatement of the century. It is incredibly important. Henry VIII founded his dockyard there, Elizabeth I knighted Francis Drake there and John Evelyn’s house is there—Mr Speaker, you and I will recall the importance that John Evelyn played in our university life, as the diarist of the Cherwell newspaper.

The Master Shipwright’s house and the former dockyard office buildings are grade II* listed, which means that they are more than of special interest, and the Olympia building is grade II listed. We have scheduled as an ancient monument the remains of the Tudor naval storehouse, and more recently, in November, I was privileged to have the opportunity to list the dockyard river wall. And of course there might be further archaeological interest on the site, which is why English Heritage, my statutory adviser on the historic environment, is considering an interim archaeological report to see if anything substantial remains of the original Tudor dockyard.

On a wider point, it is important to say that heritage sits at the heart of many regeneration schemes. The most recent success is King’s Cross station and St Pancras, which is a great example of a Victorian station brought back to life. I was amazed and heartened to hear the other day that the French transport Minister had described St Pancras as the most beautiful railway station in Europe. It is important to put that on the record in the British Parliament.

Focusing on heritage is, as the right hon. Lady points out, not only important for our history—I am passionate, as she is, about heritage—but creates significant benefits for local economies and communities. It breathes new life into areas; it is essential to the economic and social revival of our towns and cities.

I was talking specifically about Convoys Wharf and I mentioned the archaeological report that English Heritage is carrying out for me. In a sense, that answers the first question put to me. The right hon. Lady asked whether I would activate an emergency listing or scheduling procedure. I expect English Heritage to report very soon on whether other parts of the site should be scheduled. I can give her an undertaking this evening that I will consider the report the minute it arrives, and take a decision based on its recommendations in short order.

   
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks so far. I was told, however, that the report and relevant information and advice would not be finalised until the end of this year. That was, of
course, a great concern because we are in a period in which the outline planning application could be determined as quickly as next month.


Edward Vaizey (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; Wantage, Conservative)

That is interesting. I was unaware that the right hon. Lady had been told that. My understanding is that I can expect to receive the report in February. If that is wrong, I will write to the right hon. Lady, but judging from certain nods I am being given, I am pretty certain that that is the case. I will let the right hon. Lady know as soon as possible if that is incorrect.

Having set out the importance of heritage, it is also obviously important that London has redevelopment. Convoys Wharf is the largest redevelopment area in inner London. I cannot really comment on the specific proposals, particularly when I might be asked to consider further elements of the site for scheduling or listing. Echoing what the right hon. Lady said, I can say that English Heritage has been involved in discussions about the site for more than 10 years and is now fully engaged in the process. It has identified potential heritage significance and it will, in its statutory planning role, provide expert advice to the authorities on aspects of the proposals.

It is important to remember that, in preparing development plans and determining requests for planning permission, planning authorities, including the Mayor, need to have regard to the national planning policy framework, including its policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Those policies look to control potentially harmful changes, seeking instead to deliver positive improvements in quality. The NPPF promotes quality in our built environment and balances conservation of the best of our past with support for innovative new design. With that in mind, schedule areas and listed buildings can be given the adequate protection they deserve from both the developer and planners. It is worth pointing out that listing does not amount to a preservation order. The listed building consent regime is built on the philosophy that the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings is to keep them in active use.

That brings me back to the proposals that the right hon. Lady has told us about today. Let me comment on some of the specific questions she put to me. She asked about the centre for urban horticulture and whether it should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. My understanding is that English Heritage considers that the proposed orientation of the blocks does not best reflect the archaeology in respect of the relationship of Sayes court to its garden landscape. It believes that the remains of Sayes court and its garden landscape would be better reflected by making the relationship more legible. The concept of a centre for urban horticulture, incorporating and presenting the remains of Sayes court, is a potentially attractive one—one that better reflects the historic relationship. I believe it is important to note the views of English Heritage in that regard.

The right hon. Lady talked about the exciting Lenox proposal to rebuild one of Charles II’s ships within the Olympia—according to its plans, but obviously not to rebuild it with the original material—and to restore or rebuild the great basin in front of it. Because it has not seen the plans for the scheme, English Heritage cannot comment on it specifically. Obviously, if the scheme is viable and it is possible to secure a long-term reuse of the listed building, and if the impact on the archaeology and the historic fabric is likely to be minimal, English Heritage could, in principle, support it, but I understand that the developer thinks that it would be impossible to rebuild the basin without destroying the archaeology.

The right hon. Lady asked me whether I would acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets should lead to changes in the master plan. I fear that, technically, I must duck that question, as it is clearly for the developers to take into account any listings and scheduling.


Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

There is an issue about whether the basin might be renovated, or whether a new basin might be built within it. There is confusion over whether English Heritage thinks one thing or the other, but we understand that it would be able to approve some treatment of the basin that would not be harmful in any way and would meet our purposes. I wonder whether I might invite the Minister to examine that issue further, and then write to me.


Edward Vaizey (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; Wantage, Conservative)

I will certainly seek clarification from English Heritage in regard to its understanding of what is proposed and of what may be possible, and also in regard to its attitude in principle. However, the overriding principle, which I think we all understand, is that the archaeology must not be damaged in any way.

I recognise the commitment that the right hon. Lady has shown to this project over many years in order to ensure that the architectural heritage was preserved and that we could work towards a better solution. I should also acknowledge the work of the volunteers and members of the local community who have brought their imagination and passion to bear in supporting the project. We should bear it in mind that they are supporting it not just for the benefit of their own community, but for the benefit for the whole of London and the whole nation.

Finally, let me put myself at the right hon. Lady’s disposal. If she needs me to convene a meeting with the developers, with the Greater London Association, or with anyone else whose views she believes are relevant, I stand ready to assist her in any way that she considers suitable.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.

Commons to debate Convoys Wharf heritage issues

Joan Ruddock MP has secured an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday 22 January 2014 to discuss the 'Relevance of national heritage issues in the development of Convoys Wharf, Deptford.'

The debate, which will be held at the end of Wednesday's business (probably at about 7.00pm) will last about half-an-hour. Joan Ruddock will speak and a Minister, presumeably a junior minister from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport will reply. Joan will not have a right of response to the minister, but will be able to intervene in the Minister's speech if the Minister is willing to give way.

As related by the Deptford Dame the London Borough of Lewisham's Strategic Planning Committee resolved last night, Thursday 16 Jan 2014, that the Mayor of London (Boris) be advised that the current proposals for Convoys Wharf should not be approved. The first two reasons given being the relationship with Historic Buildings and Spaces.

They Work for You, Upcoming business, Wednesday, 22 January 2014
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/calendar/?d=2014-01-22#cal37237

Adjournment debates
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/adjournment/

Convoys Wharf Exhibition

Having told us in July 2012 that they would be back in September, Hutchison Whampoa finally return tomorrow (Thursday 28 Feb 2013) and Saturday 2 Mar 2013 to tell us what they are proposing for the former Royal Dockyard site.


The rumour machine tells me that Lewisham, unlike some neighbouring boroughs, have realised that changes to business rates made by the coalition government mean they cannot afford to keep losing employment land to residential development. Whatever is on display in the coming days, I suspect a continuing stand off between landowner and local planning authority.

Charlotte Turner School is here:


View Larger Map

The Albany is here:

View Larger Map

1870 - City of London - proposed Foreign Cattle Market at Deptford Dockyard

Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford
Illustrated London News 1872

After the Deptford Dockyard closed in 1869 it lay empty until the Corporation of London established the Foreign Cattle Market in 1871. The article below from 'The Morning Post' Tuesday 8 November 1870 shows that the process by which the market was established was not entirely simple and straightforward. The dockyard was not the preferred site and it had already been sold to a third party. Some Common Councilmen preferred other sites and some were entirely opposed to the Corporation establishing such a market at all.

In the event the City of London's Foreign Cattle Market was established in 1871 and operated until the 1st World War. In the time that it was open over 4 million sheep and cattle were landed and slaughtered on site. The Foreign Cattle Market is the setting for 'The Gut Girls' by Sarah Daniels. The site was requisitioned for military use in 1914. After the war frozen and chilled meat largely replaced live imports and the Foreign Cattle Market did not reopen. The site is nowadays known as Convoys Wharf.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL
---o--o--o---
PROPOSED FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET

Yesterday a special Court of Common Council was held in the Long Parlour of the Mansion House - the Lord Mayor presiding — for the purpose of receiving a report from the Markets Committee with reference to the erection of a new foreign cattle market. There was a large attendance of members, and the subject appeared to excite a great amount of interest.

Mr J F BONTEMS brought up the report of the committee, in which they stated that from various communications they had had, both with the late and the present Government, and the experience they had obtained from the proceedings in Parliament in relation to the cattle plague and the course to be pursued with respect to the importation of foreign cattle, they were strongly impressed with the belief that there existed a fixed determination on the part of the Government and of a large majority in the Legislature to have a market for the sale and slaughter of foreign animals coming from scheduled countries, entirely separate and distinct from the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and the question to be determined by the Court of was whether the new market should be provided and erected by the corporation or by some other body, and, after a very full and careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, they had arrived at the conclusion that it would be to the credit as well as to the advantage of the corporation that they should provide a market the sale and slaughter of foreign animals pursuant to the powers and provisions for that purpose contained in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869. Assuming that the court agreed with them in this conclusion, the next point to be considered was that of the position in which the market should be placed. The committee considered that the site between the Surrey Commercial Docks and her Majesty's Victualling-yard would have been the most suitable place; but the Lords of the Council having declined to give their assent thereto, the committee were of opinion that the next best course would be to establish the proposed new market upon a portion of the late Royal Dockyard at Deptford, containing an area of about 22 acres, and having a river frontage of about 1,012 feet; and they recommended that they should be authorised to take the necessary steps for effecting the purchase of the freehold estate and interest in that property from Mr. Austin for the sum of £91,500, the corporation taking upon themselves the engagements entered into by Mr. Austin for the construction of a gas-house and the erection of a wall to divide the property from the victualling-yard and from the of the dockyard sold to the trustees of the Evelyn Estate.

Mr Deputy CHARLES REED MP and Mr Deputy BURNELL presented petitions against the site selected by the committee, and in favour of a site on the northern side of the Thames. These petitions were signed by meat salesmen and butchers in Hackney and the eastern part of the metropolis.

Mr RUDKIN and Mr JAMES BREWSTER presented petitions from salesmen and importers of foreign animals and carcase butchers, approving of the site selected by the committee, and requesting the court to take immediate steps to construct the market. They stated that the site proposed had peculiar advantages over any other site whatever. It had direct railway communication with the New Meat Market at Smithfield, was a mile and a half nearer that market than any other site known to the petitioners, and was by direct roads placed in communication with that market without the necessity of crossing any draw-bridges.

In reply to questions that were put to him, one of the petitioners in favour of the site said he did not think the statement that it was in direct railway communication with the Meat Market was true. He, however, stated that the south side of the river was easier of access than the north, and that there was a railway at the victualling-yard, which was at one and of the dockyard, and that large quantities of meat were supplied to the victualling-yard for the use of the army and navy.

In moving the adoption of the report, Mr BONTEMS, the chairman of the committee, described the circumstances under which the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act was passed. He remarked that the home growers of cattle were always opposed to the free importation of foreign cattle, and that the visitation of the cattle plague gave them an opportunity which they never had before of urging upon the Government the necessity of erecting a market for the slaughter and sale of foreign animals. In the result an act was passed which formed the subject of the reference to the Markets Committee, and under that act the corporation had the option of erecting the new market, and if the corporation did not make market by the 1st of January, 1872, it fell to the Metropolitan Board of Works to erect it, and to do so out of the public rates, as the local authority for the metropolis. Certain advantages would be conferred upon the corporation if they made the market, which they would lose if they failed to do so. They would have the power of increasing the tolls at the other market to compensate them for the 1oss of the foreign cattle. No doubt one of the great objections to making the new market was the probable cost of it, but if the court examined the matter closely they would find that it would pay itself. There was at the end of the report a table showing the amount that would be raised at the Cattle Market at the increased rates, supposing the corporation erected the new market, and that table showed an estimated increase of £4,300 per annum. He thought this had been rather over-stated, but he contended that the increase of tolls would make up for the cattle taken away. During its 12 years of existence there had been a total loss on the cattle of about £110,000. Last year the loss was the smallest that it had been (£3,000), and it was to be hoped that there would soon be a profit instead of a loss. There was a considerable quantity of land unlet, and there would probably be an increase of British animals. The estimated cost of the new market was £160,000 which, compared with the cost of the Metropolitan Cattle Market, £469,000, was a comparatively small amount. To meet that expenditure there would be the landing and wharf dues and other charges. The present charges at Odam's Wharf, the principal wharf at which foreign cattle were now slaughtered, were 5s 6d for beasts and 9d for sheep. That was rather higher than the ordinary charge, owing, he believed, to Mr Odams having been obliged to go to a considerable expense in a hurry; but the corporation would not find it necessary to make a charge anything like that in order to render the market a paying concern.

If all the foreign cattle and sheep had been sent to the cattle market during the last three years had been landed at a market on the bank of the river and charged for at Mr Odams’ s rate, the revenue produced would have been nearly £42,000 a year. The interest of £100,000 would be £8,000 a year, and, allowing another £8,000 for the expense of management (that being the cost of managing the market at Copenhagen-fields), there would he a total outlay of £16,000 against a revenue of £40,000 so that there a reasonable prospect not only of making the new market pay, but of helping them to pay off the debt on the old one. (Hear, hear.) It was not their desire that there should be two markets, which would be an inconvenience to the trade, but the erection of a second was forced upon them, and the only thing that could he done was to make the best of a bad bargain. They were not legally bound to purchase the site or erect the market, but it would be remembered that they petitioned in favour of Mr. Forster’s bill which subsequently became law, and against that of Lord Robert Montagu, so that there was a moral obligation upon them. He knew that some members of the court were opposed to making this market, but he would ask them if they were prepared to abrogate their functions, and let the Metropolitan Board of Works take up the matter. Mr Bontems then referred to the various sites that had come under the notice of the committee. The objections to those on the northern side of the river were that in some instances the frontage was not sufficient, that in others the distance was too great, and that in other cases the roadway crossed swing bridges, would cause a delay in the traffic. The committee had in the first instance selected a site between the Surrey Docks at Rotherhithe and the Victualling-yard at Deptford the cost of which would have been from £50,000 to £70,000, but it did not meet with the approval of the Privy Council. They then considered that of the other sites that of the late dockyard at Deptford was the most desirable, and they accordingly put themselves in communication with Mr. Thomas Phipps Austin, the gentleman who had became the purchaser from the Government of that portion of the dockyard which had a frontage to the river. The price paid by Mr Austin was £75,000 and it might appear a considerable premium to pay him £91,500; but Mr. Austin purchased the property with the idea that by cutting it up and dividing the frontage into different wharves he would realise a handsome profit out of the transaction. It was very likely he would have done so, and he had a right to be fairly paid for the responsibility and risk he had undertaken. The committee still thought that the site would be cheap at the price they would have to pay. The place would be very suitable for the market, and there was, besides, a quantity of machinery that would be most useful. There were also some buildings, and if they could be utilised there would be a considerable reduction in the estimate of £160,000.
In conclusion, he moved that the report be adopted, and that it be referred back to the committee for execution.

Replying to Mr Deputy De Jersey, Mr BONTEMS said, with respect to railway communication, that both the London, Brighton, and South Coast and the South-Eastern Railway Companies had intimated that in all probability they would be able to connect the dockyard with their lines, and he did not consider that would cost the corporation anything.

Mr J T BEDFORD said that he with many others repudiated the idea of making this market. It was utterly unnecessary for any possible purpose except that of raising the price of food and putting money into the pockets of the landholders of this country. That was the object of the bill from first to last. If they drew a line round the metropolis, and said that cattle might come in but might not go out alive, they would do away with necessity for a new market, which would be a ruinous undertaking. They were at the mercy of the Privy Council as to the charges that might be made, and the cattle that would go to the new market would be taken away from the existing market in Copenhagen-fields. They were losing £12,000 a year by their markets, and the very name of a new market gave them a financial shudder. (Laughter) It was madness to make a new market; and why were they going to do it? For fear somebody else might have the opportunity. Mr. Bontems said the Metropolitan Board of Works would do it if the corporation did not, because they were the local authority. Well, they knew the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works were numbered-—(laughter)——and if the corporation erected the market as the local authority, they would have the rates to fall back upon, but at present they would have to fall back upon the City's cash. Let them take high ground. This was a bill to raise the price of the food of the people, and therefore they ought to repudiate the whole measure and fallback upon their parliamentary rights, and defy any one to build this market without their consent. Why? Because the corporation had raised £400,000 to build a market under an Act of Parliament which said that no other market should be built within seven miles of St. Paul's. They raised that large sum of money, and then another Act of Parliament was brought in to repeal the first. It was a mistake altogether, and he said again there was no necessity for another market. It was step towards the old abolished system of protection, and he hoped they would not undertake it. He begged to move that the report lie on the table.

Mr. T. S. RICHARDS seconded the amendment. He remarked that among 27,000 animals at Mr Odam’s wharf since the 7th of September there had been only one case of disease.

Mr Deputy BURNELL spoke in favour of a site on the Isle of Dogs.

Mr. LAWLEY remarked that the Privy Council had sanctioned the corporation recouping itself for the loss incurred at Islington. The act was not a protection measure brought in by any one party, but was concurred in by both Whigs and Tories.

Mr. FRICKER spoke in favour of the adoption of the report.

Mr Deputy FRY said he had no objection to the recommendation of the report, but he thought it should be insisted upon that the corporation should be at no loss in respect of the new market.

Mr RUDKIN expressed his approval of the report and of the site selected.

Mr GAINE thought the site at Deptford Dockyard the best, but he was strongly of opinion that there was no necessity for another cattle market.

Mr BONTEMS having replied, The amendment was negatived on a show of hands by a large majority.

Mr Deputy BURNELL moved, as a further amendment, to agree with the report except so much of it as referred to the site at Deptford Dockyard, but this amendment also was negatived, and the report was then adopted, and referred back to the committee for execution.

Convoys Wharf: Time to show Aedas the door

"This is how the German Democratic Republic would have looked if their economie (sic) had worked." Fenster Grau

Herr Grau's remarks posted on a Building Design article (registration required) does a good job of nailing Aedas's 'artist's impression' of how they might develop Convoy's Wharf.

However if you look at the Aedas, sorry Aedas | Global Award Winning Architects website and follow the Our works and then Selected projects tabs you may well be struck by the fact that you have to read the text to figure out where in the world any of these projects are. There is no regard whatsoever for local tradition or culture. If you were blindfolded and taken to an Aedas development then when your blindfold was removed you would be unlikely to know whether you were in the northern or southern hemisphere, the orient or occident, an Islamic republic, a western democracy or a dictatorship.

It is perhaps understandable why countries that have only had money in recent decades such as oil producers since the 1974 OPEC oil price hike or the People's Republic of China since they (more recently) allowed a form of capitalism to flourish might see what Aedas do as aspirational. In such countries their work may well be seen as being just like the rich west.

On a site steeped in as much history as Convoys Wharf their (paucity of) ideas are exposed. Not only are we entitled to something better, future generations would despise us if we failed to fight for it.

In a previous post I pondered just what purpose Sir Terry Farrell's intervention is supposed to achieve. I still wonder, but last night somebody reminded me that he worked for Hutchison Whampoa on their highly controversial Lots Road scheme straddling both the RB Kensington & Chelsea and LB Hammersmith & Fulham.

If you have not already signed up for the Convoys Wharf Community Consultation day on Saturday 24 March do so now :

PLEASE NOTE: The site can be dusty and muddy depending on the
weather, so please bring appropriate footwear and clothing.

11.00 Exhibition opens

11.15 – 12.15 Site and archaeological tour opportunity 1

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

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

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

14.15 – 15.15 Site and archaeological tour opportunity 2

16.00 Exhibition closes

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

Convoys Wharf: Sir Terry Farrell to 'listen to the community'

Sir Terry Farrell

The Architects Journal reports "Terry Farrell and Partners has been appointed to review Aedas’ 18.6 hectare masterplan for the redevelopment of historic Convoys Wharf in Deptford, south east London". Furthermore I understand that Farrells are tasked with listening 'to the community' and gaining 'a full understanding of their perspectives.’

This is hardly a glowing vote of confidence by Hutchison Whampoa in Aedas's work. Either it is an incredibly poorly thought out and ultimately pointless attempt to get an endorsement from Farrells or it is a recognition that Aedas are simply not up to the job. Any endorsement of Aedas is not going to cut any ice with either the community or Lewisham Council, but anything less than a ringing endorsement is going to be more ammunition against the current proposals. I have no idea who in Hutchison Whampoa is excavating this particular hole, if I did then I might quietly suggest that they stop digging. The central problem with Aedas can be viewed on their website namely that you have no idea where anything they have done is located in the world without looking at the text; it is all big, bland and soulless.

Subject of websites, despite the noise that Hutchison Whampoa's Planning Communications people Hardhat are making about the 24th March and Farrells involvement it is noticeable that neither Farrells' website nor their twitter feed @FarrellsLondon make any mention of Convoys Wharf, which might suggest that it is not such a big deal after all. Mind you, if I was in 'Planning Communications' I do not think I would have put this photograph on the company website.

Your caption here.

The Deptford Dame tells us further details of the Convoys Wharf Community Consultation day on Saturday 24 March:

PLEASE NOTE: The site can be dusty and muddy depending on the
weather, so please bring appropriate footwear and clothing.

11.00 Exhibition opens

11.15 – 12.15 Site and archaeological tour opportunity 1

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

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

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

14.15 – 15.15 Site and archaeological tour opportunity 2

16.00 Exhibition closes

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

15 March 2012 UPDATE: Farrells managed to squeeze out a tweet at 11.47 this morning:

Sir Terry Farrell to listen to and engage with local community opinion to help deliver a masterplan for Convoys Wharf

— Farrells (@FarrellsLondon) March 15, 2012

The Future of Convoys Wharf

I blogged on 29 Feb 2012 that the Aedas scheme for Convoys Wharf appeared to be on the rocks.

A few minutes ago the above invitation arrived in my inbox. I am not going to speculate on what we are going to be told, or sold, but a tour of the site is not to be missed. Having knocked down most of the buildings I am intrigued as where on site the discussions are going to take place.

The structure pictured is the listed Olympia Building, originally constructed as a (double) slip cover, under which ships were built for the Royal Navy. It was later part of the City of London's Foreign Cattle Market that was on the site 1871 - 1914.


Flyer text:
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
THE FUTURE OF CONVOYS WHARF

Hutchison Whampoa, as the developer of Convoys Wharf, invites members of the local community to join them for presentations and discussions about future plans for the site.

When: Saturday 24th March 2012 11am - 4pm

Where: Convoys Wharf (Entrance to the site is located where the top of New King Street meets Prince Street). PRESENTATIONS START AT 11AM WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO TOUR THE SITE
For further information and to confirm attendance please call 0845 460 6011 or email info@convoyswharf.com

Convoys Wharf: Aedas Scheme on the Rocks

Yesterday the architectural journal Building Design (BDonline) reported that the Aedas architects scheme put forward on behalf of site owners Hutchison Whampoa had been withdrawn.Earlier this afternoon the following 'Reader Comment' was posted on the story:

"A statement from Aedas: This article is factually incorrect. Hutchinson, who are the applicant for the scheme, have not withdrawn the application. However, following the receipt of responses as part of the statutory consultation process, they are pausing to reflect before deciding on a way forward."

There is only one 'n' in Hutchison and if I were reading this on the upper floor of a Hong Kong tower block I would be writing a somewhat corruscating email to Aedas. If a firm of architects cannot be bothered to get their client's name right then what hope is there that they will get the design right. Whether it has been formally withdrawn, or not, is a red herring as it is simply not going anywhere.

Back to the story; BD's Elizabeth Hopkirk focuses on the efforts by Willi Richards and others to obtain formal protection for the entire former Royal Dockyard site (in addition to the already protected structures) quoting Willi, LB Lewisham head of planning John Miller, English Heritage's Malcolm Woods and Jon Wright from the Council for British Archaeology. BD has been reporting on the Convoys Wharf planning saga for many years and if you are not already a registered user of the site it is time that you were.

As for the Aedas design, it is the usual sort of nowheresville north-west Europe stuff, but was best described by Fenster Grau in another BD Reader Comment on 15 September 2011:

"This is how the German Democratic Republic would have looked if their economy had worked."

CONVOYS WHARF

Saturday 5th December 2009 presented a rare opportunity to visit the Convoys Wharf site in Deptford and a small group of us took a stroll around this huge site. Site owners Hutchison Whampoa are intending to amend the current planning application in January 2010 and Saturday was a chance to see the new proposals. Contrary to what some people believe the previous proposals were never formally approved and no Planning Permission was ever granted.

Henry VII originally purchased the site in the late 15th century and his son Henry VIII opened his Royal Dockyard there in 1513. Construction of vessels for the Royal Navy continued until 1869 and then from 1871 until the First World War it was the location for the City Corporation's Foreign Cattle Market. Over 4 million live sheep and cattle were landed and slaughtered on site.

After the war the site lay unused until a director of the News of the World leased part of the site for importing newsprint in 1923. The entire site eventually came into the ownership of News International who continued to import paper until early 2000. News sold the site last year to Hutchison Whampoa for approximately half the price that had been agreed in 2005.

The exhibition and tours take place again on Tuesday 8th December between 2.00 - 8.00pm. Go to the north end of New King Street. Before or after the tour you can stop for a pint or two at the Dog and Bell in Prince Street near the corner with Watergate Street.

View this map on Multimap.com
Bird's Eye view on Multimap.com
Get directions on Multimap.com