Thursday, 7 November 2013

Trussell Trust well researched report on these people

The Trussel Trust have complained about a logo in the window of the Food bank on New Cross Road. audioboo.fm/boos/1707119-t… via @DeloresDeeDee

Download the official Twitter app here



The well-trousered philanthropists: Tory party chums and food parcels for the poor

Active citizen Mel Kelly discovers how private companies with Conservative connections are benefiting from 'reform' of the British welfare state.
Clarification from Our Kingdom, March 2013
Shortly after this piece was published in August 2011, Chris Mould, the Trussell Trust's part-time Executive Chairman and trustee, added a comment that he is a member of the Labour Party. Thereafter, we should have noted this fresh information within the article, which would also have been clearer if it had referred to Noel Atkins a Chairman of the Trustees (he has been succeeded by Sophie Melville) while Chris Mould is its executive chairmen rather than controlling it.
Chris Mould has asked us to note that the Trussell Trust was founded in 1997, and the Trust set up its first food bank to help people in 2000, when Britain was governed by a Labour administration; that the Trussell Trust developed and launched the food bank social franchise in 2004, again under a Labour government; and that the Trust's work is not an initiative related to the Coalition government or a response to recent policy initiatives. "It massively predates all that," he says. We are happy to add these facts.
(May 2013) Trussell have also requested it made clear that they are a registered charity that is not formally affiliated to the Conservative party. 
The Saturday before Christmas I spotted a BBC website article about the government instructing Jobcentre staff in Salisbury and Gloucester to give out vouchers for food parcels in a pilot project that would expand across England, Wales and Scotland this Spring.
The vouchers could be redeemed against food parcels from the Trussell Trust, whose director Chris Mould told the BBC:
"Although it has taken two years of campaigning to get to this point, we are delighted that ministers are listening to feedback from the front line of the voluntary sector.
"Their decision means people on the breadline will now get the help they need more easily and that's of course what matters to us in the foodbank network.
"This is about sensible working between a public service and the voluntary sector."
But that’s not the whole story.
I’m not a professional journalist, I’m an analyst programmer, a working mother with 2 daughters, a three hour daily commute — and a sense of curiosity.
The Trussell Trust’s website explains that the food parcels are designed to feed a family of four for three days and solicits contributions of rice, pasta, jam, biscuits, powdered potatoes, tinned fish, pasta sauce – emergency supplies.
The Trussell Trust describes itself as “a Christian charity that does not affiliate itself with any political party”. At the time this article was published, its chairman was Conservative Party councillor and Mayor of Worthing, Neil Atkins. The current chairman, Chris Mould, a member of the Labour Party, splits his time between the Trussell Trust and the Shaftesbury Partnership.
According to its website the Shaftesbury Partnership is a “social business” and a “practice of professionals committed to large scale 21st Century social reform.”
Immediately the word “reform” caught my eye; it pops up in so much government rhetoric.
Co-founder of the Shaftesbury Partnership was Nat Wei, a former McKinsey consultant experienced in both venture philanthropy and venture capital who was appointed the Government’s Chief Adviser on Big Society in May 2010 and made a life peer. He stepped down from the Shaftesbury Partnership and became an Honorary Founding Partner. (On 24 May 2011, Lord Wei stepped down from his Big Society role).
Other people in the Shaftesbury Partnership with links to the Tory Party include“Associate” Dominic Llewellyn (Conservative party candidate in 2010 election) who co-authored for the Tories what has now become the government’s Big Society policies.  Dominic is an associate in the Big Society Network  which was also co-founded by Cameron’s big society tzar Nat Wei.
Shaftesbury’s recently departed head of operations Antony Hawkins (he’s off toINSEAD business school) states on his LinkedIn profile that he “developed conservative unemployment and welfare reform policy (“The Work Programme”). Planned the implementation of Conservative welfare policies in the Get Britain Working manifesto”.
Shaftesbury’s Patrick Shine worked for 20 years in financial markets and investment management (specialising in “global fixed income and derivatives”) and was a director of Lazard Brothers Asset Management. Co-founder Andrew Tanswell is out of Ernst & Young and Coopers & Lybrand.
Their philosophy: “We recognise that fear, or lack of trust, lie at the heart of these social problems; and that strategies to reduce fear and build trust can be much more effective than traditional resource-intensive interventions.”
They claim: “In just over two years our work has led to the creation of four social enterprises and charities in a wide range of sectors including healthcare, youth and community, and job creation.”
One of the charities set up by Shaftesbury’s Nat Wei and Patrick Shine is “Challenge Network”, whose chief executive and co-founder Craig Morley has worked for mining company Rio Tinto and Pampers-to-Pringles consumer-goods giant Proctor & Gamble. The Challenge Network got the lion’s share of David Cameron’s Tory Party Big Society Policy of National Citizens Service, to send English Children to camps this summer at a cost of £1,182 per child.
Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson also sent funds — a £100,000 grant — the Challenge Network’s way.
Like three of the Shaftesbury Partnership key people, two of the Challenge Network’s co-founders are McKinsey men.
My head was now swimming with Tory party chums.
I took myself back to the simple announcement of job centre staff giving out food vouchers. I wrote to my MP, Brian Donohoe the next day, and asked him to write to the minister in charge of the Department of Work and Pensions to find out more about this voucher for food parcels pilot scheme.
In February the minister, Steve Webb, wrote back. “These vouchers were only intended for those refused crisis loans or waiting on a benefit payment to be made,” he said.
But “crisis loans”, I learned, are small interest-free loans made by the DWP from the social fund to people in financial crisis due to unforeseen circumstances such as deaths, flooding, a child in hospital. They’re used to buy food and/or credits for gas and electric pre-payment metres in winter when social security benefits are unlikely to cover the weekly winter pre-payments required.
While researching crisis loans I stumbled across a coalition government consultation paper issued in February 2011 stating the government’s intention to abolish the social fund, and instead give the money, un-ring-fenced, to English Councils who could refer people to community schemes (citing the Trussell Trust Food Parcel Service) rather than giving people crisis loans.
I had come a full circle. Hadn’t the minister told me that only those refused crisis loans would be given vouchers for food parcels?  And here was the government proposing to abolish the social fund. . .in which case wouldn’t everyone who currently qualifies for a crisis loan get just a voucher for a food parcel in future? How many people would this affect?
In March I wrote again asking my MP to ask Steve Webb how many crisis loans were given out in England in 2010/2011.  The minister’s stated in reply, dated 26th of March, that “2,697,000” were given out. I was in absolute shock. The government was advising councils not to give crisis loans, as the DWP currently do, but instead to send perhaps 2.6 million families, each year, to their friends at the Trussell Trust with vouchers for a 3 day family food parcel containing no fresh meat, no fresh milk, no fresh bread or vegetables.
On Saturday 25th June, the BBC Breakfast show reported that rising food prices were prompting rising numbers of people to go the Trussell Trust with food vouchers (50% more in the past few months).  The BBC website reported Trussell Trust figures indicating it had fed 41,000 people in 2009-10 and almost 61,500 last year. Director Chris Mould (also Shaftesbury Partnership) told the BBC, “demand could grow to 500,000 by 2015”.
Launch of a 'Trussel Trust' foodbank in Bangor. Flickr, NI Executive, Some Rights Reserved
The BBC didn’t mention that rising demand for Trussell’s products had anything to do with the government instructions to jobcentre staff to refer people to Trussell, or that Chris Mould’s predicted nearly ten-fold increase in referrals might be prompted by the coming abolition of crisis loans.
Nor did the BBC spot Trussell’s links to the Tory Party.
And not a squeak about the Trussell Trust going around the country courting churches to set up food banks for which the churches pay the Trussell Trust £1500 in set-up fees plus a “small annual donation”  (value unstated) and must use the Trussell Trust Branding.
The BBC did indicate the government’s plans to “reform the broken benefits system”.
Channel 4 also gave the Trussell Trust a 15 minute story on their evening news a few months ago regarding their "charitable works" – with nothing of their Tory Party connections or the coming abolition of crisis loans.
Those shoddy news reports provoked me to go back to the Trussell Trust and Shaftesbury Partnership websites, where I spotted that the Shaftesbury partnership was going to start opening schools by setting up their “New Schools Fund” (NSF).
The team working on the project is — Mark Goodchild, Catherine Steven and Mita Bhattacharyya —  is, we’re told, “working on a part time pro bono basis and is looking to secure funding for the start of 2011 to finalise the concept and launch the pilot which would see two new schools created to open in September 2012, before rolling out further funds to support the creation of tens of thousands of new high quality school places across the country."

Is the government really funding the Tory Party's friends the Shaftesbury Partnership to open schools using their "free schools" policy and our taxes?
The answer would appear to be — yes!
It would appear that Mita Bhattacharyya, in her role in the Shaftesbury Partnership, is using a community website and has set up a Facebook campaign to try to encourage parents to create a demand for a free school to help the Shaftesbury Partnership to set up a free school in Southwark, London. But Mita doesn’t mention on the website or the facebook campaign that she is working on behalf of the Shaftesbury Partnership who hope to control tens of thousands of school places in England
For two months in 2009 Mita Bhattacharyya served on the steering committee of the West London Free School along with former Tory councillor  of Hammersmith Caroline Ffiske.
Is Mita Bhattacharyya involved in trying to set up any other “free schools”?
Already the private company Shaftesbury Partnership’s directors control a charity the government recommends councils should send millions of people to for food parcels, set up a charity to run summer camps for schoolchildren and is now embarking on setting up and controlling free schools by enticing parents into creating demand for the schools that the Shaftesbury Partnership will control.
None of this feels remotely like social reform or philanthropy to me.

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Deptford and New Cross Residents Launch the Global day of Action against greed, cuts & Privatisation agenda.

Protesters challenge police in Deptford as part of bonfire-inspired civil disobedience against austerity measures

People's Assembly Against Austerity protesters in Deptford. Pic: Sara Pigozzo
People’s Assembly Against Austerity protesters in Deptford. Pic: Sara Pigozzo
Guy Fawkes-clad protestors clashed with police and disrupted traffic in Deptford this morning during an anti-austerity demonstration.
Police threatened to arrest protestors for obstruction as they gathered, clanging pots and pans, on either side of New Cross Road near Deptford High Street.
Ray Woolford, of local political party People Before Profit, and founder of the Lewisham Food Bank, said: “[The events today are about] really just showing people that we are the majority and we don’t have to put up with this. The reason that utility bills are big news in the media is because of the activists in the streets. The reason the bedroom tax is a big political issue is because across the UK people are fighting the bedroom tax.”
Protester on New Cross Road. Pic: Sara Pigozzo
Protester on New Cross Road. Pic: Sara Pigozzo
Woolford added: “The reason poverty is an issue is because people like us are out here in the pouring rain and the misery and the decay all around us and we’re saying we will not tolerate this. Enough is enough, and we’ll take to the streets.”
More events in Lewisham are planned today, with a procession beginning at Lewisham Town Hall in Catford at 4:30pm.
The procession will culminate at the Grassy Knoll opposite the Lewisham DLR station in the evening, where organisers will burn effigies of various political figures, including David Cameron, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith and Home Secretary Theresa May.
The protests today, organised by the People’s Assembly against Austerity, mirror demonstrations taking place on Bonfire Night across the UK.  Lewisham drew a diverse crowd of activists from the south east branch of the London People’s Assembly and from People Before Profit.
Police stopping protesters on New Cross Road. Pic: sara Pigozzo
Police stopping protesters on New Cross Road. Pic: sara Pigozzo
Barbara Janiszewska, a People’s Assembly member and a former art psychotherapy student at Goldsmiths College, explained how austerity cuts have affected her personally.
“There’s not much work in my profession [after public sector cuts],” said Janiszweska. “There’s this feeling that we should work for nothing. We’re asked to work on a voluntary basis, and how can anyone work on a voluntary basis when the cost of living is so high?”
Clive Baulch, a People Before Profit member whose benefits were sanctioned after losing his job earlier this year, said: “Some of us are not willing to lie down and play austerity. We’re fighting back, however we can do it. We’re fighting back.”
To find out more about the demonstrations today, visit Lewisham Carnival against Cuts.

Share This Post


Peoples Assembly. National day of action film links Nov 5th 2013

Congratulations to the People's Assembly and Anonymous UK for a great day of actions.

I have collated some of the streams on the OL website, but the streams can also be embedded to the People's Assembly website if needed.
Individual  videos of John Mcdonnell MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP and Owen Jones are also embedded.
Well done to Sylvia for the skit with the two banksters. That had alot of potential and I say take it to Deptford High Street and Oxford Circus on a weekend. Next time music and people to hand out flyers. She had 200 people watching and so far views are at 800.
The Block the Bridge action had 2,000 live viewers.
After Buckingham Palace with the Anons, we reached about 6,000 viewers.
The BBC have deigned to report on it after a twitter storm.
 Well done to you all.
Yours Respectfully.
Obi

http://thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/
https://twitter.com/PeoplesSELondon
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en-GB#!forum/selondonpeoplesassembly
https://www.facebook.com/SouthEastLondonPeoplesAssembly?ref=ts&fref=ts

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Million Mask March & Peoples Assembly/People Before Profit gGobal day of Action Nov 5th








Thanks to all the amazing People before Profit people who in the pouring rain insured todays protest was well covered with no shortage of media interest accept for the massive evening protest, and a police presence, which was clearly overkill.
Days after a terrorist escaped, police chose to send 6 police vans and cars to supervise a demo to highlight poverty lead by pensioners and retired lolly pop ladies!
At First light i was given a police escourt to write in chalk at the entrance to Deptford Station , Fight Poverty not the Poor! due to the numbers of local people on there way to work and taking pictures to blog and retweet they felt that i posed no risk and was left alone. We covered our shops with slogans to raise the campaign profile, and at 10am set of to cross the road for our 5 min protest, all the lolly pop ladies had signs clearly saying 5 min protest, as we crossed the road, the police suddenly realised they did not have a clue what to do, how could they man handle a group of ageing lolly pop ladies?solution just pile in anyway, tell every one that they are holding up London and face arrest if they do not get of the crossing faster, some woman in the group were pushed of the crossing and man handled, these people were protesting about Poverty, they posed no treat, it was not an occupation, just a 5 min protest mainly lead by People Before Profit members and some other groups protesting together to raise awareness, needless to say no Labour party presence, even though Peoples Assembley has high profile Labour Party members in its leadership.
As i write this the Food bank was raided by Trading standards after the Tory Trussel Trust reported the Food Bank for trading as food bank with a logo that looked tlike TT, not that we or anyone else had noticed, as this was a one of poster prinyted by a local printer out of good will for the local community. Clearly TT see  the work of We Care and that fact we feed every one in need of food aid decent food as many times as they need iot, without asking for prayers and without any state funding.. We feed people with the kind donations of food and money from local residents..Clearly a letter or an email would not have done the dead, a state visit by 2 officers to enforce trhe law was needed.. welcome to food wars..
At 4.15 today wemarched from Lewisham Town hall to Grassy Knoll to burn the effigies that had been so well made, public response was positive with many asking why we were not burning the present Labour Leadership, what is clear, is that come 2014 Local electioons People Before profit are going to see lots of Councillors elected as we had a speach at every point along the March, support the Hospital, the fire fighters, although sadly they were all out. The Banks, Pay day loans, Housing Office Job Centre . Many then headed to qwest end for the biggest demo ever seen in London that faced an almost total media black out, including at one point my twitter account and others were unable to send out details as tio what was going on, such was the huge numbers,closing Westminster, Trafalgar Square , The Mall with Million Mask Demo plus Peoples assembly London has never seen anything like it, Establishment clearly worried but thanks to blogs and twitter i was able with others to get the story out as it was happening.Community Activism is alive and well, come join People Before Profit.. We get things done! my twitter account is @Raywoolford, please also follow people before profit.

Trussell Trust a very nasty bunch of Tories, send in Trading standards to We Care food Bank Office.

Today We Care Food bank has taken a lead in the fight against Poverty, as part of the all party Peoples Assembly National day of action we lead the campaign in Deptford.
in the midst of police over kill in which police cars and vans poured into the area to make the police state felt, we had a visit from trading standards, who with nothing better to do, had sent 2 officers to warn us that they have had a complaint from the Trussell Trust, about copywrite law, and that a poster donated out of good will by a local company in support of the food bank, had used there style of logo.
If you had an issue, would you not take time to send an email, a tweet a note? This is not Coca Cola!
The Fact we keep well clear of the Trussell trust as is reported in earlier blogs this clearly shows how good We Care Food Bank is, Our Food bank by feeding everyone in need of food aid, without seeking a prayer or treating people with a tiny parcel full of tins, We Care give fresh fruit and Veg and health food for as long as people need it.
We Care does not get its staff to work for free or get the huge grants and funding that TT get or the huge public donations from people unaware what lengths TT clearly seek to take in order to hold some sort of monopoly over the food given and distributed to the people in most need due to this Goverments contant attacks on the poor, when by eradicating poverty should be a decent Goverment aim, not the eradication of the poor.
It costs the tax payer a fortune. Last year £27 Billion in Housing Benefit, billions to the NHS due to health problems directly linked to poverty whilst low pay is nothing else than a tax payer subsudy to big business.
Express your disgust...Please support the We Care Food Bank at 467 New Cross Road Deptford witrh food and cash, it is not cheap feeding the poor with no state grants..
Follow on twitter@Raywoolford
Click on this link to see and here the raid live as at the time, i was being interviewed about the work or We Care by a news reporter who captured this live.


The Trussel Trust have complained about a logo in the window of the Food bank on New Cross Road. audioboo.fm/boos/1707119-t… via @DeloresDeeDee


Download the official Twitter app here



Monday, 4 November 2013


Convoy Wharf November 2013; Is this the worst sort of planning abuse?

Mayor of London takes over planning control of Convoys

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

Recent background

Negotiations between Hutchison Whampoa and Lewisham Planners had been ongoing with a view to Planning recommending the application to the Strategic Planning Committee for a decision in February 2014. Before this, they were hoping to resolve important issues around Transport, Design & Heritage, Sayes Court Garden & the Lenox Project, and Sustainability.

In July, English Heritage responded to the application and told Lewisham “We remain concerned that the overall scale of development is such that the opportunity to create a distinctive sense of place which responds to the outstanding historic legacy of the site has not been realized.” The link between the Olympia Shed and the river was a crucial one, they said, and the “narrow glimpsed view” that is included in Farrell’s masterplan “fails to make the best opportunity of this prominent and centrally-located heritage asset.”

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

They also suggested that in order for the plan to not exceed the maximum development parameters of floorspace and land use already agreed, some of the proposed blocks should be further subdivided. They hoped for a constructive discussion on this and other points, such as road widening to accommodate a new bus route, amendments to accommodate the GLA’s Cycle Super Highway, as well as more thorough Design Guidelines to show how different buildings will emerge and how land uses might evolve.

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

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

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

The call-in 

Shortly afterwards they requested the Mayor of London to “call in” the application. Bypassing local processes, and citing “delays” and erosion of profits as a basis for his actions, Mr Ho has made a preemptive request for a premature decision. The Mayor duly called in the planning application on the grounds that the relationship between the developer and Lewisham had irrevocably broken down. And also that, for some strange reason, the planning process would be upset by local 2014 elections in May. This is most mystifying, since there is likely to be no change there.

This move is almost unprecedented, since the Mayor would not normally take over an application from a local authority until it has been turned down. Both inside and outside the council it was assumed Lewisham were not going to turn it down. Surely Mr Ho would have realised that the processes the GLA must now go through to arrive at a decision may take longer than Lewisham have been taking. However, Boris has promised a decision by February.

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

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

Lies, damned lies and conflicts of interest

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

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

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

Meanwhile Mr Ho’s letter to Planning continued with the statement that his company had “fully considered points raised by English Heritage”. With their usual arrogance, their response to English Heritage’s report has been to explain “how the masterplan decisions were reached”. Of course, those decisions were made before EH’s report was submitted, and they have subsequently refused to further alter their plans to accommodate EH’s unambiguous request to reduce the density of the development.

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

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

Mr Ho is insistent that making further changes to their masterplan pushes “the viability of the project to its limits”. The owner of Hutchison Whampoa Properties is Li Ka Shing, the eighth richest billionaire in the world. He made a speculative purchase of the land and as such, assumed the risk for his speculation and, with it, any losses resulting from any and all legal decisions made about the site, its use, or future. It is neither the responsibility of London’s Mayor or of Lewisham Council to mitigate the owner’s risk.

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

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

A heritage jewel in London’s crown

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

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

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

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

So what will Boris do?

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

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

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

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

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

Come on Boris, help us all to get back on track! Dismiss this masterplan and start again. This site is a benchmark of how we all shape the city of the future. The process will be complex but the result has the potential be a truly multicultural international success.
People Before Profit position on this is clear from earlier postings, we will be calling a public meeting to work with all groups &  residents to insure the 15 years of community action and work on this project are not lost. Residents will also be able to vote for Community activists in all local ward seats in the 2014 Local elections, standing as Lewisham People Before profit. Barbara Raymond life long Deptford activist at this years local by election secured more votes than Tory, Lib Dem, and UKIP combined coming a clear second to Labour. This should insure come 2014 the huge amount of work by PB4P will take all these seats. 
The Developer does state his concern about Local elections in May 2014 when People before Profit are expected to win all the Deptford Council seats with possibility of winning the Mayor, however PBP supports the development potential of the site, subject to all the positive ideas and feed back from London voters and Lewisham residents.