We Laughed Out Loud when we saw this on the
Deptford Dame's blog on Friday, and since then we've seen lots of the spoof posters in the high street. The Dame was posting her views on the coverage that appeared in the Evening Standard (in Wednesday's rag) about Convoys Wharf, written by a renowned architectural commentator (viewable
online here).
A friend had already sent us a link to the piece with the quote
"his arse must be sore from sitting on the fence" – since journalist Kieran Long seemed to yo-yo between support for the development and sympathy for the campaign against it. The Dame is a tad more polite,
see her post here. Campaigners
Deptford Is... took something positive from the Evening Standard feature, despite being described in the piece as 'vague'.
OK, this blog is biased, but you could hardly describe the opposition to the present proposals as
vague. The people of Deptford know both what they want and what they don't want. Much of their wants and don't wants were recorded in a survey commissioned by Lewisham Council and conducted by
Ipsos Mori in 2008 and reported in 2009.
They said:
Less Traffic Congestion, Better Transport Links, More Green Spaces, More Youth Provision, Better Social Housing, Celebrate Heritage Assets to Enhance Local Identity and Pride, among other things. You can find the
Summary and Recommendations here (they're hidden in the final pages, scroll to page 10 of 18). The rest of the 90 odd pages of the report can be found on the
North Deptford regeneration page on Lewisham council's website.
Anyway, none of these requests are fulfilled in the latest masterplan for Convoys Wharf.
If you're mystified by the
Private Eye cover, the joke refers to the
lamentable excavations being conducted on the Convoys site by Duncan Hawkins, leader of the archaeological dig commissioned by the developers. Hong Kong conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa say they have employed the
top people to do the job: none other than the
Museum of London.
We note that the MoL provide "
Preliminary risk appraisals and assessments for planning" for developers.
Level 1: Historic environment risk assessment: Is heritage going to be a significant risk to my site – are there any showstoppers? (3 working days) Price on request. Etc.
Of course none of that would have been required at Convoys Wharf, since there is already so much on record, there is hardly any need to look for proof that the dockyard existed.
The site itself IS a showstopper. The fact that the old slipways and basins have been buried in concrete by News International (and the MoD), and above ground structures such as Sayes Garden and the Manor House, and the Tudor storehouse, were knocked down, is unforgiveable. As Keiran Long acknowledges
"Most jaw-dropping of all is that...a Tudor storehouse was demolished and its foundations concreted over..."
The MoL also offers developers an
On-site Conservation service that advises on the preservation of
archaeological deposits in situ, along with
"mitigation strategies and reburial of structural remains and archaeological features".
But hang on, Hutchison Whampoa didn't go to the Museum of London to get the work done – they went to private consultants
CgMs, run by Duncan Hawkins. Naturally, the last thing the developers want is for anyone to find any significant
artefacts among the
significant remains, since they plan to pretty much
build over all of the site (excepting the still standing and listed Olympia building). Any significant finds would require a halt in proceedings and a bit of a rethink.
What is this, if not significant findings...
To cut a long story short, Mr Hawkins has been digging up the concrete that News International and the Ministry of Defence have poured in over the years, and declaring
nothing of worth to be found, and then filling the holes back in to be built over.
Some local historians and archaelogists also claim he has been
digging in the wrong places. This claim has been backed up by people who've been working on the dig, as well as informed analysis from other local experts and those from further afield who attended the open day to view the excavations in early October.
A more in depth and passionate view of the (deliberate or careless?) mistakes being made can be found on the
Shipwright's Palace blog:
Entrenched Positions: An Archaeological Dig To Reveal? Stay there long enough to read the next post
Sold Down the River and other posts, and then you will get the joke if you haven't by now.
Below is a picture of people attending the aforementioned open day. It's been suggested they might be engaged in a "L.S.Lowryesque" search for the foundations of
Sayes Court, which have been totally misappropriated by the developer's archaeologists
CgMs.
Oh, and who buried it all and still has a stake in the profits?
