Railway Bridge across Deptford Creek - 1913

View image | gettyimages.com

The railway bridge over Deptford Creek had to be lifted to allow masted vessels to pass. Any failure on the part of the railway, or its staff, to raise the bridge in a prompt and timely manner was a criminal offence. (The offence was abolished in the 1980s.)

The bridge in the photograph was replaced by a lift bridge that simply raised the central span vertically above mast height.

Curiously the 'Ha'Penny Hatch' footbridge is missing from the photograph. As can be seen the railway bridge only occupies part of the supporting stone bases and the footbridge should be seen on the side viewed. It may be that the footbridge was replaced in 1913 and this photograph taken between demolition and rebuilding, or it may be that the photograph actually dates from the mid 1930s (when the Southern Railway demolished and did not replace the footbridge) or after.

McMillan Herb Garden on the Radio

 

On Monday 2nd March 2014 Resonance FM have a one hour programme about the Herb Garden. 

Leanne Bower from Resonance FM writes "The McMillan Educational Herb Garden (to use its official title) is an oasis of calm in the ever increasing urban sprawl of Deptford, SE8. It is run by volunteers and provides workshops and horticultural education to local school children and adults alike. In the summer months, it is also a venue for acoustic performances and poetry. In this programme, Dave Suich interviews some of the organisers and volunteers in the garden and plays some of the recordings from the live events that have taken place there. Production by Stephen Elwell for Shopping Trolley Promotions and Leanne Bower for Resonance FM". 

The show is due to be broadcast on Monday 3rd March at 20:00. It will be repeated on Tuesday 4th March at 09:00. Listeners in London can tune in on 104.4FM, or online anywhere on www.resonancefm.com

McMillan Herb Garden website:
http://mcmillanherbgarden.webs.com/
and Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/mcmillan.garden

Richard MacVicar - MAC - Funeral Details

Mac's funeral will take place at Honor Oak Crematorium (map below) at 1.45pm on Thursday 6th March 2014. The funeral will be conducted by Billy Jenkins, who many will remember from Pete Pope's funeral. Everybody welcome. No flowers.

Ruth Quach has set up a tribute page on facebook simply called Mac
https://www.facebook.com/groups/279643082191027/

Many comments have also been made on Noah's Ark Children's Venture's facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/NACVmacaroniwood?fref=ts

View Larger Map

Richard MacVicar 1947 - 2014

Richard MacVicar 'MAC' who ran the Deptford Adventure Playground in Prince Street until his retirement in the summer of 2012, died this morning. His brother and sister were with him at the end. The world has lost a good guy. RIP Mac.

The Joy of SE8

Reverend Casy were formed in late 2009 in New Cross. They have played at Cafe crema, New Cross Inn, Goldsmiths and the Bird's Nest as well as further afield in Nunhead, Camden, Hackney, Whitstable, Canterbury and Leigh-on-Sea. 

No gigs scheduled at the moment, but if you like their Facebook page  you will be the first to know of any bookings. 

Their album Strike Like Lighting is available on iTunes and at various other places

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/reverendcasy3

Deptford Challenge Trust Small Grants Fund 2014

FUNDING WORKSHOP - Thursday 6 February - Deptford Lounge

Deptford Challenge Trust Small Grants Fund 2014

If you are a Deptford or Lewisham-based voluntary group, charity, not-for-profit organisation or social enterprise and are looking for funding to do a project within the Deptford community, please come along to this workshop to find out more about the fund. The fund is aimed at addressing: crime & anti-social behaviour, provision for older people, unemployment, healthy lifestyles and provision for young people. There will be a chance to discuss your project and gain advice on completing your application.

You can apply for up to £5,000 for up to 1 year, and further information is available on The London Community Foundation’s website: 

http://www.londoncf.org.uk/grants/available-grants/overview.aspx

Date:                     Thu 6th Feb 2014
Time:                     6.30pm-8pm
Venue:                  Deptford Lounge, 9 Giffin Street London SE8 4RJ, Room 4

Please contact Donna Yay at The London Community Foundation on 020 7582 5117 or donna@londoncf.org.uk for more information.

Donna Yay / Programme and Relationships Manager

The London Community Foundation
Unit 7 Piano House
9 Brighton Terrace
London 
SW9 8DJ

Main office telephone 0207 582 5117
Fax 0207 582 4020
www.londoncf.org.uk

Registered Charity 1091263 | Company Number 4383269

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/

Follow the Anchor

Between noon and 3pm on Saturday 5th October, the Deptford Anchor (or a cardboard representation of the same) will be wending its way through the streets of Deptford.

Organised by Rediscovered Urban Rituals and Deptford is Forever the event starts with a gathering at the Dog and Bell PH, 116 Prince Street (near the junction with Watergate Street) which will then Progress via Deptford High Street / Deptford Market to Lewisham Arthouse on Lewisham Way. The Anchor will arive in the market about 12.45pm.

So,
COME FOLLOW THE ANCHOR with its BEARERS and ROUGH MUSIC PLAYERS and REVEL in the SPECTACLE of this ICONIC DEPTFORD SYMBOL on its journey back to its RIGHTFUL PLACE at the head of the HIGH STREET - and beyond.

At around 3pm, the Anchor will arrive at Lewisham Arthouse in a striking crescendo of CELEBRATION and JOY. Wear your anchor tattoos and t-shirts in support.

Transpontine:   
Deptford Anchor Saga: the next chapter

THE DEPTFORD DAME
Deptford X kicks off with a flourish

Lol Coxhill 19 Sep 1932 - 9 July 2012

Lol Coxhill died in hospital last night aged 79. He had been seriously ill for several weeks.

The video above was shot in the McMillan Herb Garden, Deptford on 9 September 2007.  One of many times that Lol played in the Herb Garden, he was joined by drummer Steve Noble and double bassist John Edwards. John's daughter is the dancer.

In recent years Lol regularly played in the Herb Garden two or three times each summer with Steve and John or Charles Hayward, amongst many others.

Gosterwood Street

This pleasing little grove of London Planes at the north-east end of Gosterwood Street, Deptford was planted in the mid 1970s after a short strech of the road from the junction with Evelyn Street was pedestrianised (see Order below). The closely planted London Planes create visual interest without a single leaf on the tree (the photographs were taken at the end of March).

Evelyn Street

The odd collection of Bollards is a LB Lewisham speciality, with different types put in at different times.

South-west

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Town and Country Planning Act 1971

THE CONVERSION OF HIGHWAYS INTO FOOTPATHS OR BRIDLEWAYS

(LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM)(NO.4) ORDER 1975.

Made 6 October 1975

The Secretary of State for the Environment makes this Order in exercise of his powers under section 212 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and of all other enabling powers:-

1. Any right which persons may have to use vehicles on the highway described in Schedule 1 to this Order and shown edged black on the deposited plan is hereby extinguished.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Order, the said highway may be used ‘by vehicles in the cases specified in Schedule 2 to this Order.

3. In this Order "the deposited plan" means the plan munbered "LH38/5024/9/07-1", marked "Highway in the London Borough of Lewisham", signed by authority of the Secretary of State and deposited at the Department of the Environment, St. Christopher House, Southwark Street, London, S.E.1.

4. This Order shall come into operation on the date on which notice that it has been made is first published in accordance with section 215(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and may be cited as the Conversion of Highways into Footpaths or Bridleways (London Borough of Lewisham) (No. 4) Order 1975.

Signed by authority of the Secretary of State 6 October 1975.

G.E. ROWLAND

An Assistant Chief Engineer in the Department of the Environment

SCHEDULE 1

Description of highway to which this order relates

(The distance is approxiamate)

The highway to which this Order relates is in the London Borough of Lewiaham. It is shown edged black on the deposited plan and is a length of Gosterwood Street starting at its junction with Evelyn Street and extending south westwards for a distance of 27 yards.

SCHEDULE 2

Cases where vehicles are permitted to use the

highway described in Schedule 1 to this Order

Where the vehicle is a vehicle of any description and is using the highway:-

(a) for police, ambulance or fire brigade purposes;

(b) on behalf of a statutory undertaker or the Post Office and engged upon the laying, erection, inspection, maintenance, alteration, repair, renewal or removal of any main, pipe, conduit, wire, cable or other apparatus for the supply of gas, water, electricity or of any te1egraphic line as defined in the Telegraph Act 1878 under, in, on, over, along or across the highway or any land adjacent to the highway;

(c) with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in unifom; or

(d) in the service of the Lewisham LBC in pursuance of statutory powers or duties.

Thames Tunnel Update

Dreary suburban planting proposed on what is now informal open space.

Boris Johnson has written to Richard Aylard, Thames Water's External Affairs and Sustainability Director, calling for a re-examination of five aspects of the Thames Tunnel project. One of the said five aspects is Deptford Church Street in regard of which Boris says:

"This site is adjacent to a school and on one of the few open spaces in this deprived area of London. The site will also impact on a busy section of the road network which is also an important bus route. I think there is more scope for alternative sites in this area, including the options examined in the first phase of consultation and again I urge you to search for a site that has lower impact."

Local Campaign: Don't Dump On Deptford's Heart

The full text of the letter:

"Dear Richard

Thames Tunnel Sewer
Further to my response to the Phase 2 consultation, I have reconsidered this project, not least because I have heard of the concerns from some of the Londoners who will be most severely affected.

I remain committed to the project because we must address these sewer overflows. However, I think that there are five areas where the project needs to be re—examined:

1. Overall project cost
2. Chambers Wharf
3. Camwath Road
4. Deptford Church Street
5. Kirtling Street

Overall project cost
My Advisers have had meetings with Richard Benyon MP over the past couple of years on this matter. The scale of the overall project cost appears to me to need tighter control. I have previously requested that the Minister takes direct control of this himself, and I will take this up with the Minister again. I want him to build in incentives to ensure that the project is built to the lowest reasonable cost and to ensure that there are no perverse incentives to you (Thames Water) to make this asset as big as possible.

Furthermore, the way in which Thames Water customers will pay for this, adding £80-£100 per year to bills, is unacceptable to me. We must get to a funding mechanism that enables customers to pay for the necessary infrastructure in a finite amount of time, accepting of course that there will be a degree of operational and maintenance funding.

Chambers Wharf
This site is right up against people's homes. I realise that you are proposing to cover the main works with a warehouse building. However, I can only think that this will be intolerable for local people. You must re-examine the area for a better alternative site and re—examine the option of driving the tunnel from Abbey Mills to this area.

Carnwath Road
This site is also close to people's homes and again you have proposed to cover the main construction works with a warehouse building. I do not think that you have proposed enough use of water transport given the busy urban nature of this area and this is another case where you must look harder for alternatives.

Deptford Church Street
This site is adjacent to a school and on one of the few open spaces in this deprived area of London. This site will also impact on a busy section of the road network which is also an important bus route. I think that there is more scope for alternative sites in this area, including the options examined in the first phase of consultation and again I urge you to search for a site that has lower impact.

Kirtling Street
I realise that this is the singie biggest construction site, being a double drive site. However, the potential impact that this would have on the regeneration of this area is immense. You should ensure that the design, layout and operation of the site does not undermine the regeneration of the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area and in particular have an adverse impact on the Riverlight development.

We all want this project to succeed, but to do so you must find a way of overcoming the huge public concern about some of the construction sites and the cost of the project.

Yours ever,
SIGNED
Boris Johnson
Mayor of London

Cc: Richard Benyon MP, Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State, Defra"

The original letter can be viewed here.

Plan of the proposals at Deptford Church Street.

Lord Clyde PH - A Famous Victory

The Lord Clyde is celebrating the defeat of property developers who want to knock it down and build flats.

From the outside the Lord Clyde public house in Wotton Road, Deptford is an unprepossessing looking place. (Not that my photographic skills do it any favours.) The portrait on the pub sign has long ago faded to nothing, the window boxes are overgrown, and buddelja sprouts from the top of the building.

The Lord Clyde PH has been under threat for some years; in 2009 the freehold of the pub was up for sale at £380,000 (the webpage has oddly disappered in last two days), but by Nov 2010 the price being asked had fallen to £350,000. In May last year the inevitable planning application was made. Landlord Rory McInally set out his case in the South London Press highlighting its community links and boxing heritage and posing for a photo with PC Gary Arterton. For some reason the application was not validated and a new application was made in February this year. This was accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, which in a spectacular display of arrogance stated:

"The current use does not provide any positive contribution to the local area and therefore it’s replacement with a residential building is the most appropriate form of development."

Not a good example of how to make friends and influence people. In response Mr McInally gathered a variety of locals for a photograph in the pub that appeared in the Mercury under the headline Deptford pub landlord defends boxing gym after developers’ slur and set about getting local people to send in objections. It worked and on 26 March 2012 LB Lewisham refused the application on four grounds (in summary):

1. The Lord Clyde public house building has been identified by the local planning authority as an undesignated heritage asset, which has both historical value and architectural character and adds positively to the local distinctiveness of the area. Inadequate justification has been provided for the demolition of the existing building, and as such its demolition would result in an unacceptable loss of a heritage asset and consequently would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, which includes the Grade II Listed London to Greenwich Railway Viaduct.

2. The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of an operational public house and boxing gym which provides a valuable amenity as a social and cultural centre for the local community.

3. The proposed development is of unsatisfactory height, scale, mass and appearance which fails to respond to the local context and character of the site.

4. The proposed ground floor bedrooms at the rear of the site would have unsatisfactory outlook onto the car park of the proposed development.

The application documents and the full grounds of refusal can be accessed on LB Lewisham's 'planning search webpage:

under the reference DC/11/77308/FT or postcode SE8 5TQ

The applicants intend to appeal, but LB Lewisham is better at defending such appeals than many boroughs.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-

The pub is named after Colin Campbell, the first and only Baron Clyde. A career soldier Campbell commanded the Highland Brigade at the Battle of the Alma and in November 1857 relieved Lucknow during the Indian Mutiny. He was elevated to the peerage in 1858.

The earliest mention I can find of the pub itself is in The Era on Sunday 28 September 1862 reporting the Annual Licensing Day of the Blackheath magistrates held at Greenwich. Solicitor Mr Marchant appeared on behalf of Mr David Price of the Lord Clyde. Marchant told the court that Price had a 21 year lease that contained a provision that no other pub could be built within 400 yards (The freehold of that part of Deptford was owned by the Evelyn family). The license was granted.

By 1865 the pub had a mutual Loan Society than made £154 loans that year with a total of £480 in borrowers hands on 31st Dec 1965. In October 1871 a dinner for a lodge of the Ancient Order of Oddfellows was held at the pub with over 50 diners inside and a brass band outside. A trade directory for 1874 shows a Lucy Eldredge as licensee.

At the end of the 1870s a young couple Edwin & Clara Bax took over the pub. Both originally from Tooting, Edwin's father is shown on the 1871 census as running the Red Cow PH in King Street, Hammersmith. Edwin married Clara on 10 June 1879 and he is described as an Innkeeper in Deptford. In Feb 1881, the county coroner, Edward Carttar held an inquest on schoolgirl Henrietta Ball at the pub. This is the first of many inquests held at the Lord Clyde PH in the 1880s, some such as that regarding William Bate Curner of considerable historical interest. Juries were made up of middle-class men of the parish and the advantage of relatively wealthy men from across Deptford coming to the pub is obvious. Clara gave birth to two sons and a daughter whilst living at Wotton Road, but towards the end of the 80s the family moved to the Prince Albert PH in Edward Street. Edwin continued to hold the lease for the Lord Clyde. Edwin, but not Clara, remained at the Albert until at least 1911. He died in Carshalton 1933 leaving over £25,000.

Much of the twentieth Century is obscure. George & Mary Cheesman had the pub from c1934 - c1944, but other details are hard to find.

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

LBL Deptford Creekside Scoping Report

Creekside Discovery Centre

The London Borough of Lewisham have launched a consultation on a Scoping Report for Sustainability appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment of a forthcoming Deptford Creekside Supplementary Planning Document. That is a bit of a mouthful but the council are working within a statutory framework that means jargon cannot be avoided.

Basically all the planning policies for the borough form what is called the Local Development Framework (LDF). Where there are significant policies that only apply to part of a borough they are put into a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Some other SPDs deal with particular aspects of policy across a borough. English planning law, which includes transposed European directives, now requires that all new planning policy documents are subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment). The current consultation is designed to ensure that when the Deptford Creekside SPD is produced it is assessed in accordance with all relevant existing policies and directives. LB Lewisham summarize the headline consultation questions as:

1. Are there any other plans, policies or programmes that should be considered?

2. Do you have or know of any other data that should be considered in order to establish the borough baseline – the economic environmental and social factors that should be considered?

3. Do the issues identified in Task A3 cover all the significant sustainability issues relevant to Lewisham?

4. Are the sustainability objectives, indicators and targets suitable? Should there be any additional objectives, indicators or targets?

That is perfect proper and correct, but local people may wish to check that descriptions of the area are factually correct, clear and unambiguous. There is a glossary and basic explanations of the processes involved. If, after a couple of attempts to get your head round a part of the document, you still cannot figure out what is meant then it probably means that the Report can be improved. In theory you could simply be thick, but you have read this far down the page, so it is reasonable for me to presume that you are not.

Comments can be submitted by post or email, but have to be with the Council by 5.00pm on the afternoon of Friday 27th April 2012.

The aim of this rather involved process is to ensure that when LBL draft the actual Deptford Creekside Supplementary Planning Document there is a very clear set of criteria to judge it by. The process is somewhat less than exciting, but spending a few hours on this now might improve the Report and in turn improve the SPD and save a lot of time fighting an inappropriate planning application in a few years time. No policy can stop developers applying for that which is too high, too bulky or simply poorly designed, but good policies can help deter some of the chancers.

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