British Queen PH (2) - Mr Buckland's Fraud

Three days ago I posted about Rick’s Bar, the former British Queen PH, that is set to become yet another betting shop. I did intend my next post to be about the next owner, Edward Trafford, but I have found out a lot more about William Buckland.

Brewers Meux & Co financed Mr Buckland’s purchase of the public house and the lease was deposited with the brewer’s solicitors as security for the loan. Mr Buckland then borrowed the lease on a pretext and fraudulently obtained another loan from another brewery Reid & Co. When Buckland went bankrupt Reid & Co unsuccessfully petitioned the Bankruptcy Court arguing that they should enjoy the usual precedence enjoyed by an equitable mortgagee. The case was heard on 3 May 1848. The vice-Chancellor ordered the sale of the pub and that (in order) payment of the lawyers, Tyler, Meux & Co and in last place Reid & Co.

The pub is on the corner of Tyler Street and it is a reasonable supposition that the William Tyler that Buckland bought the pub from is the Tyler that the road is named after. Buckland also leased the North Pole PH. We also learn that there was an advertising board affixed to the pub announcing that Meux & Co supplied it with porter.

-o-o-o-o-o-

Ex parte WILLIAM REID, WILLIAM WIGRAM, EDWARD WIGRAM, and OCTAVIUS WIGRAM.
— In the matter of WILLIAM JOHN BUCKLAND.

This was the petition of Messrs. Reid & Co., brewers, for the usual order in the case of an equitable mortgage. The petitioners claimed to be mortgagees of two leasehold public houses held by the bankrupt near Greenwich, one called the North Pole, the other the British Queen. The dispute was as to the latter, the circum stances connected with which, as they appeared upon the affidavits, were as follows:—

By an indenture dated the 14th of September, 1846, and made between William Tyler of the one part, and the bankrupt of the other part, William Tyler agreed to let to the bankrupt the public house called the of British Queen, together with the several fixtures thereon, to hold the Same unto the said bankrupt, his executors, administrators and assigns from the 25th of March, 1846 for the term of 31 years, at the rent of a peppercorn for the first half year of the term, and at the yearly rent of £154 11s for the remainder of the term, payable quarterly, and the bankrupt agreed to take the same, and (amongst other things) agreed that within three calendar months after a licence should be obtained for carrying on the trade of a victualler alehouse keeper or tavern keeper on the premises thereby agreed to be demised, he, his executors, administrators, or assigns, would pay to William Tyler, his heirs and assigns £500 in consequence of such licence having been obtained; and that if such licence should not be obtained within the first year of the term thereby agreed on, then, but not otherwise, William Tyler agreed to allow the bankrupt £85 out of the first year's rent; and it was further agreed that the lease should be granted as soon as a licence should have been obtained for carrying on the said trade or business of a victualler, alehouse keeper or tavern keeper on the premises, and the £500 should have been paid by the bankrupt to William Tyler.

On the 19th of October 1846, the bankrupt deposited the agreement with Messrs. Meux & Co. the brewers, by way of security.

On the 16th of August 1847 Mr Tyler granted to the bankrupt a lease of the British Queen, and also of other hereditaments not comprised in the agreement, in the Woolwich Road, for 75 years from Lady Day 1846, at the yearly rent of £160.

When the lease was executed the bankrupt entered into a bond to Mr Tyler for securing the payment of the £500 mentioned in the agreement, and at the same time he deposited with the landlord the lease, for better securing the payment of that sum.

Shortly afterwards the bankrupt called on Mr. Tyler's solicitors, requesting that they would lend him the lease to produce before the magistrates, who wished to see it before they determined whether they would grant him a licence of the British Queen. To oblige him the solicitors let him have the lease on his positive assurance that he would return it to them, and at the same time he gave them an undertaking to do so.

On the 18th of October 1847 the bankrupt took the lease to Mr. John Walker, an auctioneer and appraiser, with instructions to negotiate with Messrs. Reid & Co. for a loan on the security of that lease, and also for its deposit with them for that purpose. Mr. Walker accordingly applied to Messrs. Reid & Co. for the sum of £73 to be paid to himself, of which Buckland was to receive £50 and for £200L to enable Buckland to pay Messrs. Meux & Co. a debt he owed them, and £100 to finish four cottages which had been built on part of the vacant ground demised by the lease, and such further sums as should thereafter be required to finish the houses remaining to be built thereon. On the 2nd of November 1847, Mr. Walker met the bankrupt by appointment at the Dolphin public house in Coleman Street, when Mr. Walker drew up and the bankrupt signed a letter or order in the following words : —

"Mr Walker, I hereby authorise you to hand over to Messrs Reid & Co., brewers, Liverpool Street, the lease of my house and premises the sign of the British Queen, Woolwich Road, on payment to you of the sum of £73 11s.,and upon the understanding that I, Mr. William Buckland shall have advanced to me the sum of £200 more to liquidate my engagements with Messrs Meux & Co., and the further sum of £100 to finish the four cottages already built, with any other sum that I, Mr William Buckland, may require to build the other four cottages, stipulated to be built in said lease; the amount thereof required for the building of the said other four houses to be advanced as the work progresses to the satisfaction of Messrs. Reid & Co's surveyor. This deposit of the lease of the British Queen also applies as a further security for monies advanced upon the lease of the North Pole Greenwich Road. November 2nd, 1847, W, J, Buckland, Witness Samuel Rogers”

Mr Huggins, Messrs. Reid & Co.'s agent, deposed that, prior to Reid & Co.*s making the advance, the deponent particularly and pointedly asked bankrupt whether he owed Meux & Co. anything, and that the bankrupt told him in answer, that he only owed them a book debt of about £200 or between £200 and £300 and that Walker the auctioneer, told the deponent that bankrupt had told him that he only owed Meux & Co. a book debt of about £200. The deponent said that it is not the custom among the porter brewers of London and its immediate vicinity to hold the deeds of public houses as security for a book debt only. He said, that the letter of the 2nd of November was shewn to him, and that he informed Mr. Walker that he did not acknowledge the conditions set forth in that letter, as he held in his hand another letter, which was also dated the 2nd November, and was as follows : —

" Mr. J. Walker, — Sir, — I request you to deliver to Messrs. Reid & Co. the lease of my premises in Greenwich, to be held by them for a security, as the lease of the " North Pole " is now held with them. — Yours, &c. " W. J. Buckland"

The witness further said that Mr. Walker remarked on the inconsistency of the two letters or orders, but that the witness then and there informed him that he knew nothing of the letter which Mr. Walker produced; that the letter which the witness held in his hand was the bankrupt's authority to Walker to deposit the lease with Reid & Co., and that as a proof of the conditions on which the deponent would receive the deed, the deponent gave an acknowledgment for same on the second letter of the 2nd November, and not upon the other; that the deponent suggested to Walker that he should keep the second letter, as that was his authority for parting with the lease, and as on that letter was an acknowledgment in deponent's handwriting that he had received the lease : that in order to have further evidence of the terms of the deposit, the deponent wrote a paper marked H, which contained a copy of the paper F, and at the foot thereof Walker signed his name to the following memorandum : — ''The above is a copy of the memorandum handed to me on giving the lease to Mr. Huggins”

Mr. Taylor, clerk of Messrs Meux & Co., deposed to the existence of a custom, that if one brewer's firm has made a loan on the security of the lease of a public house, and another firm sends in beer to the same public house, the firm so sending in beer is expected, upon application for the purpose, to pay off the debt due to the firm holding the lease as a security; and the deponent stated, that having entirely attended to the business of the “British Queen,” he was enabled to say that Messrs. Reid never applied to Meux & Co. to pay off any debt due to them from the bankrupt, which they claim to have secured by the lease of the “British Queen." He also deposed to there being fixed to the house a board denoting that Messrs. Meux supplied the house with porter.

In support of the petition it was deposed that when the lease of the '' British Queen " was deposited with the petitioners, the petitioners had no notice or knowledge that there was any agreement for the lease, or that any agreement for the lease had been deposited with Messrs Meux & Co., or that Messrs Meux & Co. had any.

By a deed of November 6, 1847, made between the bankrupt of the one part, and one James Beales of the other part, the bankrupt demised both the ''North Pole " and the " British Queen " to Mr. Beales, upon trust, to secure all such sums as might be due from time to time from the bankrupt, his executors, administrators, or assigns, to any person, upon any equitable mortgage, by deposit of the title deeds of the property thereby demised, or any part of it.

Mr. Swanston and Mr. Jackson in support of the petition. The petitioners, as incumbrancers without notice, and having possession of the lease, and also having a demise of the legal estate to a trustee in their favour, must be preferred to the landlord and Messrs. Meux. The lease must be considered as granted independently of the agreement which Messrs. Meux hold; for the parcels are not the same, nor is the term; and the lease omits all mention of a premium. If the premium had been mentioned, the petitioners would have enquired respecting it.

Mr Russell appeared for Messrs Meux & Co.; Mr K. Parker and Mr Steere for Mr Tyler.

The Vice-Chancellor— If the deed of November 6th had been out of the case, I should have been of opinion that the petitioners would be postponed to Mr Tyler. The debt of £500 was incurred for valuable consideration. That being so, its origin and nature are immaterial. It is an admitted fact that the lease was deposited with Mr Tyler's solicitor for Mr Tyler. It appears that upon a false pretence — neither Mr Tyler nor his solicitor intending to abandon Mr Tyler’s lien, or to enable a fraud to be practised — the lease was handed to the bankrupt, who made a fraudulent use of it. That circumstance did not give to the petitioners priority over Mr. Tyler or over Messrs. Meux, with whom the agreement had been deposited for valuable consideration, giving them a right, as between them and the bankrupt, to have the lease handed to them, so that they acquired an equitable interest in his title to the lease, and therefore an equitable interest in the lease.

It is said that the lease is a different lease from that for which the agreement contracted to a certain extent, that land is added, the rent increased, and the term lengthened. The contract is not, however, otherwise changed. I cannot, therefore, consider the lease as independent of the agreement.

So far, therefore, as the land and the term included in the agreement, I think that, as against the petitioners, the equitable title of Messrs. Meux remains; but I do not understand that Messrs. Meux claim priority or equality as regards the additional land or the additional term. I wish only to hear the case argued on behalf of Mr. Tyler with respect to the deed of November 6th.


Mr. Russell, for Messrs. Meux, said that it was not necessary for them to claim priority as regarded the additional land or term, as the principle of marshalling would apply.


Mr. Swanston for Messrs. Reid, Messrs. Meux can have no right of marshalling against Messrs. Reid.

Not only is the subject of Messrs. Meux’s security limited by the terms of it, but they have no equity to extend it. Mr. Tyler's claim extends to the whole subject, but you cannot on that account marshall to the prejudice of a third incumbrancer.


Mr K Parker, Mr Bacon, and Mr Steere for Mr Tyler, contended that the deed of November 6 was merely voluntary, and, at all events, could not have the effect of postponing Mr. Tyler, inasmuch as the conversation which had taken place between Mr. Walker and Mr. Huggins, affected the petitioners with notice of the memorandum deposited with Messrs. Meux, and, therefore, of the landlord's rights.

The Vice-Chancellor. — The deed of the 6th of November, affecting the legal estate, might have created considerable difficulty, and have varied the rights of the parties, but for the circumstances which have been referred to. It is established that the petitioners had, by means of their agent, in sufficient time, notice of the first document of November 2nd, and that document alludes to the engagement with Messrs Meux & Co. — a common and ordinary security for a publican to give to brewers for a debt from him to them. Accordingly, we find that the expression attracted the attention of Mr. Huggins, and that he pointedly made inquiries of the bankrupt, from whom he received the assurances which have been mentioned. Now, considering what is the common practice of persons engaged in this business, and the manner in which this expression struck Mr. Huggins, and the nature of the engagement entered into, I am of opinion, that there was amply sufficient to put the petitioners, or their agent, upon inquiry, that is, as between themselves and Messrs Meux, to cause them to make inquiries of Messrs Meux. If they had made those inquiries, they would not only have learned the fact of the deposit, but the title of the landlord to the £500, which would have brought them into communication with the landlord.

The Order, as regarded the British Queen public house, was for sale; and that the monies to arise from the sale should be applied, after payment of the expenses, and the costs of all parties, so far as related to the British Queen, in the first place, in payment of what was due to Mr Tyler; secondly, in payment of what was due to Messrs Meux & Co.; and as to the residue, in payment to the petitioners of what should be found due to them, with the usual directions in the event of a surplus, and the usual liberty to prove in the event of a deficiency.

The British Queen PH

Rick's Bar, 208 Trafalgar Road, Greenwich SE10 (on the corner with Tyler Street) is the latest southeast London pub to succumb to the relentless takeovers by bookmakers. The last pint has been served and the property is on the market with planning permission to convert the upstairs into six flats, but the ground floor is going to be yet another Ladbrokes. For most of its existence the pub was called the 'British Queen'. Whether the original, but now long gone, pub sign featured a female monarch or a ship called the British Queen I do not know. After being known as the British Queen, but before becoming Rick's Bar it was known as the Greenwich Village PH. It was apparently also at one point named the White Hart.

There were two other pubs, or beerhouses, in the area bearing the name of the British Queen. One was at Hughesfields in Deptford and the other at 65 Greenwich Church, but both are long gone.

The road was originally known as Woolwich Road, but this part was renamed Trafalgar Road late in the 19th Century.

The records relating to the British Queen include an attempted murder, allegations of perjury by police, pickpockets and an inquest held at the pub following the drowning of a police sergeant, but the first and last mentions are both bankruptcies: That of William John Buckland in 1848 and that of Arthur James Blackburn in 1968.

William Buckland appears to have been born 1st March 1811 and baptised at Deptford St Pauls on 20th March 1811. His parents James, a Carpenter, and Mary lived at Prospect Place. In 1840 William married Jane Esterford in Lewisham and in 1841 they were living in Brand Street in Greenwich, the census giving his occupation as a clerk and hers as a milliner. A son Edwin was born later in 1841 and a daughter Clara in 1844. It is not known when William and Jane took over the pub, but in early 1848 the following notice appeared in the London Gazette.

LONDON GAZETTE - 25 February 1848 - Issue number:20831- Page number:792 WHEREAS a Fiat in Bankruptcy, bearing date the 16th day of February 1848, is awarded and issued forth against William John Buckland, of the British Queen, East Greenwich, in the county of Kent, Licenced Victualler, and he being declared a bankrupt is hereby required to surrender himself to Henry John Shepherd, Esq. one of Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy, on the 3d day of March next, and on the 14th day of April following, at half past one in the afternoon precisely on each day, at the Court of Bankruptcy, in Basinghall-street, in the city of London, and make a full discovery and disclosure of his estate and effects; when and where the creditors are to come prepared to prove their debts, and at the first sitting to choose assignees, and at the last sitting the said bankrupt is required to finish his examination. All persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or that have any of his effects, are not to pay or deliver the same but to Mr. George John Graham, No. 25 Coleman-street, London, the Official Assignee, whom the Commissioner has appointed, and give notice to Messrs. Dimmock and Co. Solicitors, Clement's-lane.

The family resurface at 44 West Square, Southwark on the 1861 census. William is now an Upholsterer, but in 1864 it all goes wrong again:

William John Buckland, of No. 44, West-square, Southwark, in the county of Surrey. Upholsterer and Furniture Dealer, and late a Prisoner for Debt in Horsemonger-lane Gaol, in the county of Surrey, having been adjudged bankrupt by a Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy in London, attending at the Gaol aforesaid, on tbe 22nd day of June, 1864, and the adjudication being directed to be prosecuted at the Court of Bankruptcy, Basingball-street, London, is hereby required to surrender himself to Henry Philip Roche. Esq., a Registrar of the said last-mentioned Court, at the first meeting of creditors to be held before the said Registrar, on the llth day of July next, at twelve at noon precisely, at the said Court. Mr. Herbert Harris Canniu, of No. 36, Basinghall-street, London, is the Official Assignee, and Mr. W. W. Aldridge, of No. 46, Moorgate-street, London, is the Solicitor acting in the bankruptcy.
(THE LONDON GAZETTE, JUNE 28, 1864. p3301)

William John Buckland died in Holburn in 1885.

The gazette notice for Arthur Blackburn's bankruptcy:

BLACKBURN, Arthur James, residing and carrying on business as a PUBLICAN, under the style of "British Queen", of 208, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich, London, S.E.10, and formerly residing at Whitehaven, Buckhurst Road, Biggin Hill, Kent. Court—CROYDON. Date of Filing Petition— 22nd Oct., 1968. No. of Matter—119 of 1968. Date of Receiving Order—22nd Oct., 1968. No. of Receiving Order—94. Whether Debtor's or Creditor's Petition—Debtor's.
THE LONDON GAZETTE, 29TH OCTOBER 1968 p11644

and the notice of discharge:

BLACKBURN, Arthur James, residing and carrying on business as a PUBLICAN, under the style of "British Queen", of 208, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich, London, S.E.10, and formerly residing ait Whitehaven, Buckhurst Road, Biggin Hill, Kent. Court—CROYDON. No. of Matter—119 of 1968. Trustee's Name, Address and Description— Murrell, Vernon Charles, 100, Addiscombe Road, Croydon, CRO 5PQ, Certified Accountant.
Date of Release—23rd Sept., 1970.
THE LONDON GAZETTE, 10TH NOVEMBER 1970 p12402

There are fewer records relating to Mr Blackburn than to Mr Buckland. He does not appear in the Register of Electors or Telephone Directories from the 1960s. I presume that he is the Arthur James Blackburn born in Greenwich 18th Feb 1909, who died in Southwark in 1989, but I cannot be certain.

Further posts on the British Queen PH to follow.

The return of Gorgeous George

Once again George Galloway is yet again returning to the House of Commons. He is one of a small group of men in British political history who has sucessfully been elected in three or more completely different constituencies.

Although acres of guff have appeared on news websites, blogs and Twitter today very few commentators have actually looked at the figures. Contrary to codswallop suggesting that people voted along racial lines it is clear that George Galloway afforded Conservative and Lib Dem voters in Bradford the rare opportunity to inflict a bloody nose on the Labour Party. An opportunity that they evidently leapt at.

Bradford West 29 Mar 2012 - result with vote share and change since 2010 general election.

George Galloway, Respect, 18,341 55.89% +52.83%
Imran Hussain, Labour, 8,201 24.99% -20.36%
Jackie Whiteley, Con, 2,746 8.37% -22.78%
Jeanette Sunderland, Lib Dem, 1,505 4.59% -7.08%
Sonja McNally, UKIP, 1,085 3.31% +1.31%
Dawud Islam, Green, 481 1.47% -0.85%

As the old adage goes: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

This is not the first time that the press has got it completely wrong in a George Galloway election victory. In the 2005 general election he ousted the Iraq war supporter Oona King from her Bethnal Green and Bow seat. At the time this was mainly seen as being related to Ms King's support for Tony Blair's Cowboy's Crusade in Iraq, but four months later sore loser Ms King in an interview with Emma Brockes in the Guardian claimed that she was a victim of anti-semitism. Despite coming across in the interview as some sort of poor man's Ali G (Is it because I is Jewish) this nonsense seems to have become an article of faith among Guardianistas. The simple reality as evinced by looking at the figures, is that back in 2005 in Bethnal Green & Bow, Galloway afforded Conservatives and Lib Dems the opportunity of humiliating Labour, which they took.

Bethnal Green and Bow; 2005 result with vote share & change from 2001

George Galloway, Respect, 15,801 35.9% +35.9%
Oona King, Labour, 14,978 34.0% -16.5%
Shahagir Faruk, Conservative, 6,244 14.2% -10.1%
Syed Dulu, Lib Dem, 4,928 11.2% -4.3%
John Foster, Green,, 1,950 4.4% +0.1%

Very simple and straightforward if you look at the figures.

Convoys Wharf - Deptford's Aspirations

The Olympia Building

The Deptford Dame has already written a comprehensive report on last Saturday's consultation event on Convoys Wharf. Transpontine has published some excellent photographs.

I noted, as did the Dame, the absence of anybody with an Aedas badge, but I was also somewhat surprised that nobody from the Port of London Authority was in attendance. Approximately half the site is still safeguarded for wharfage, so I can only suspect that they were not invited.

Deptford Is have done a short write up with photographs of some of the speakers and a short quote from William Richards. William's introduction of other speakers struck me as setting the aspirational tone for the day, so I am publishing it in full for anyone who missed it.

"The tide has turned ..(as the young people of Second Wave have just demonstrated). There have been many historic events on this site in the five centuries since Henry VIII put his cipher in stone on the great storehouse by the waterfront. Today we hope that together the people of Deptford, the owner of the site, Hutchison Whampoa, the architects, planners and politicians will be part of that history and make this consultation worthy of being called an historic moment of the 21st century.

Since the site ceased to be a working wharf became dormant in 2001 the people of Deptford, the planners, heritage protection bodies and the designers (from various practices) have been working in vacuums or separately. Today we are starting a process of engagement that embodies the best of localism, international resources and the best imaginations concerned with heritage led, profitable regeneration.

Firstly, it must be said that anyone here should count themselves as crazy if they were to resist inevitable and necessary regeneration of this site- which has the assets of place, location, scale and heritage to make it remarkable in London.

So it is with a desire to achieve, that the community offers its ideas. Some of the specific ideas are relatively new, some are the result of ten years actively engaging with and researching the site, all the ideas are almost beyond imagination- but the challenge for everyone in this room is to elevate the future of the site beyond the banal, beyond the expedient and reflect the values of the site into the future. It must be excellent.

It must work, for those who live here today and for those who will come to Deptford in the future.

Our proposals start with the ground plan- the water bodies, spaces and buildings that you may have already seen today. Many of These features are described by some as “archaeology”, but in fact they are buildings set into the ground. Were the basin a broken building with its parapet and roof missing, we would certainly be saying lets repair that building, put and new roof and repair the walls, lets find a new use for it! - So lets link the repaired basin to the Olympia building and give it context and a new use. The same could be said of the other features- the slipways and the great dock (a performance space) and mast-ponds a home for swans?

To do this requires imagination and will power – so the challenge to the planners and statutory protection agencies is, USE THE POLICY AT your DISPOSAL TO ENSURE THAT THE BEST FUTURE IS FOUND FOR THIS SITE AND FOR the whole of DEPTFORD.

Research has shown that crime rates fall and other social benefits arise when a community engages in the creation of their neighbourhood, - people feel pride, belonging and distinction.

Heritage is one of the great tourist income generators in this country. But perhaps most important of all is the opportunities that a successful regeneration might bring to jobs and training for the next generation of young people in Deptford.

So when Julian and Richard talk in a moment about building a HUGE ship out of wood in the docks and sheds - we mean to build a ship using local skills and local labour- linked to Lewisham and Greenwich college the local university etc etc. the same is true for the magic of Sayes Court Gardens –apprenticeships, learning centre, tourism, -I will leave Roo and Bob to inspire you with more on that. And Renato will outline how an approach to building bridges can create a vibrant riverscape.

And if you are saying now, IT CANNOT BE DONE! Be careful---- it HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY.

In France the Hermione has been built (and will be launched this year) by the locals of Rochfort and the apprentices can be seen at work and the millions of tourists will tell you of their visit.

GARDENS have been recreated at Chiswick and re-imagined in Kenilworth with public and private money.

But these two projects are only possible if the Masterplan is from the ground up- seeing the heritage assets not as blocks to an easy profit but as constraints that offer the architects and planners, local input and heritage bodies the chance to respond creatively in their design process. Enough of the tyranny of the bland that has dogged the Isle of Dogs for so many years of ill-thought-out development.

Farrells have themselves imagined and realised complex sites that have demonstrated the potential to weave the old and the new, the restored and the state-of-the-art to make something unimaginable -real.
Former naval sites in Copenhagen, Venice, post -industrial Brooklyn, Berlin, Hull, Manchester, Gateshead – they all should offer us inspiration.

And if you are still believing that we, the locals, are mad, unrealistic - let us tell you this -
During the last ten years, a group of locals, many of whom are here today, constituted as CONVOYS OPPORTUNITY, suggested that this site could be a liner terminal. “OH no that is not possible, not profitable” was the response in spite of the fact that the PLA suggested it was feasible. Well last year another developer in Greenwich has successfully obtained planning permission for a cruise liner terminal and large residential scheme no more than one mile from where we are now. They are on the starting blocks already with the scheme, about to build, and we are still here discussing.

– So lets get on.

So today, with architects of vision, an owner who by this invitation wants to engage and a site that is bigger than all of us, lets build something that is a case study of excellence, Seven Bridges, Sayes Court Garden, the Lenox -they are not just the history of this site, they are its future!
So first- Julian and Richard will take us to the Lenox

And next Renato on bridges

And lastly Bobby and Roo with take us into Sayes Court Garden …..to grow our imaginations......"

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

The Graduate PH

The London Fire Brigade has served an Enforcement Notice on Mr Andrew Dillon the occupier of The Graduate PH, 107-109 Blackheath Road, London, SE10 8PD. The notice lists a number of matters including :

• Failure to provide a suitable method of giving warning in case of fire.
• Failure to provide adequate means for fire fighting.
• Failure to ensure that emergency routes and exits are adequately lit.

as well as various management failings. Mr Dillon has until 9th August 2012 to comply with the requirements set out in the notice.

There has been a pub on the site for at least 170 years, but the present building is late Victorian. It was originally the Coach and Horses. Greenwich Council include it on their 'Local List' of Buildings of Local Architectural or Historic Interest where it is described as:

107, ‘The Coach and Horses’ P.H. A fine example of late-Victorian Public House design. Part 3, part 4-storey building in red brick with stone dressings and Dutch gable dormer. Somewhat similar to, and forms pair with, the ‘George and Dragon’ P.H., Blackheath Hill, opposite. (Also Locally Listed).

It is, even by the standards of Victorian Pubs, a very large and imposing building and maintaining it, is I suspect an onerous task. I cannot be absolutely certain, but I think that the present building dates from c1890 when William Brewster was the owner and licensee. Brewster took over the old pub at 109 Blackheath Road in about 1880, but died at 107 - 109 in 1995.

William Brewster was born 1843 in Bury St Edmunds, his father Henry had been the landlord of the Three Bulls PH in the Meat Market, before moving to the Old Angel PH in College St (both in Bury St Edmunds) around the time William was born. By the time William was eight, Henry had moved out to Wickhambrook where he ran the Crown Inn, Malting End, but by William's eighteenth Henry was back in Bury St Edmunds itself running the Three Goats' Heads in Guildhall Street. Henry's last pub was the Woolpack in Fornham St Martin where he died in 1872. Henry's mother Mary Ann took on the license until her death in 1877, when William's younger brother Harry took over.

William had left Suffolk around the time of his father's death marrying Matilda Newell in Lambeth in 1873. Matilda, the daughter of Fornham Farmer (and former publican of the Butchers Arms PH Cemetery Road, Bury St Edmunds) Henry Newell.

William and Matilda ran a pub in Park Road, Camberwell. Their firstborn Thirza Matilda died in infancy, but Lillian Maud b1877, Sidney John b1881 and James Harry b1882 all survived them. Matilda died in 1882, presumably either in childbirth or from resulting complications.

Matilda's older sister Ellen came down from Bury St Edmunds to look after her niece and nephews, but it appears that she looked after her brother-in-law as well because within a few months she was pregnant. William and Ellen married on 7 Dec 1882 in Wood Green and their daughter Matilda May was born the following spring. A son Charles was born in 1887.

Up until 1890 the electoral registers show a voter resident at 107, Blackheath Road, but he is not on the 1891 register. The 1891 census taken on 5 April that year described William, Ellen and the children as being at 107-109. It may not be conclusive proof that the present building dates from around 1890, but it is a reasonable conclusion. The left hand side of the pub continues the building line of the adjacent terrace, but the previous 107 may have been wider.
After William's death Ellen and the children moved to 178 Lewisham Road, where she lived until her death in 1924.

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.