Convoys Wharf update – Lewisham Council and Dame Ruddock respond

The fight to save Deptford's immense heritage on the site of Deptford Royal Dockyard from the owners of Convoys Wharf (Hong Kong developers Hutchison Whampoa, owned by the world's 8th richest billionaire, Li Ka Shing) is gathering momentum, as local campaigners work to influence Boris Johnson and the GLA, who, at the developer's request, took over control of the application from Lewisham Council in October 2013. Boris has promised the developer that he will make a decision by the end of February.

Lewisham Council is now a Statutory Consultant on the application, and last week their Strategic Planning Committee voted to reject it in its present form and back their planning officers in their continued negotiations with the GLA and developer. They want important amendments to be made before the application is approved. The Council thoroughly support the local heritage projects Build The Lenox and Sayes Court Garden, who have yet to secure the right conditions on the site or a full commitment from the developer. See Deptford Is... for a brief digest of Lewisham's proposals and amendments.

Yesterday, Deptford's MP Dame Joan Ruddock spoke on record to Ed Vaizey (Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries) in an "adjournment debate" in the House of Commons. She presented the history of the site and asked Mr Vaizey to bring his influence to bear on the matter of its sensitive redevelopment in relation to the heritage assets and the local heritage projects. Vaizey, who had taken advice from English Heritage to prepare for the debate, thanked Ms Ruddock for bringing the site to his attention and offered his support.
See the half hour debate here or here.
Read the transcript published here.
Read Deptford Is... for a summary.

Also see our analysis of this application and its owner here.

Convoys Wharf update – sign the petition!

Last week the decision on planning permission for Convoys Wharf was taken out of Lewisham's control when the Mayor of London stepped in at the developer's request.

Now that locals can no longer make their objections to the application, local campaigners Deptford Is have set up a petition to give a voice to the community so that we can let Boris know that we don't want this. 

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND SHARE THE LINK WITH FRIENDS.

See Deptford Is... and local papers. Also read this week's Private Eye (click on the image below).

BACKGROUND INFO

Heritage versus housing

Deptford's MP Joan Ruddock, in response to the Boris decision to "call in" the application, has described the site as "a heritage jewel in London's crown". The site is also of international significance, which is why the World Heritage Fund saw fit to include it on their Watch List for 2014-2016.

Boris's glib soundbite to news reporters was that "London needs more housing". Don't be fooled by the notion that London's housing crisis can be solved by the building of 3000 more luxury flats.

Originally, the percentage of "affordable housing" in new developments was set at 50% by Ken Livingstone. But most developers now claim that their sites are not "viable" (= massive profits) unless they deliver affordable housing at below 15%. In the Convoys application it is 14% – an extra 500 units at 80% market rent (still not affordable to the people who keep this city running), bringing the total to an impossibly dense 3,500 units.

It is also feared that, like other major new housing developments, the units will be sold off-plan to foreign investors before going on the market in the UK. Overseas investors currently earn enough from the rise in property values they needn't even bother renting their units out to those who can afford the high rents.   

The developers and Boris

It's feared Boris will look favourably on this application, despite the GLA's own reservations to it in their report to Lewisham Planning (in particular from Transport For London).

The developer is Chinese conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa, one of many holding companies owned by the 8th richest man in the world, Li Ka Shing. He also owns major utilities in water and power (ie, UK Power Assets who run much of the National Grid and London's power), fracking (via Husky, causing community uproar in Canada) and telecoms (3G and others – and they're currently being 'investigated' by the EU on their recent purchases of telecoms in Ireland and Italy), as well as major British container ports (see June 2013 post).

Boris Johnson has recently been courting Chinese trade. David Cameron is due to visit China next month "on a trade mission" and Li Ka Shing has been spotted in and out of No.10.  Boris is also mates with Rupert Murdoch. (Thanks, Transpontine). Having sold the site to Hutchison Whampoa, News International has a profit share in the sale of the 3000 luxury flats planned for the site.

And this week the PM launched the Regeneration Investment Organisation Advisory Board (RIO), "an inward investment body" with the aim of raising billions of pounds from overseas trading partners to "fund urban regeneration projects". Sky News reports, "Its remit has been borne out of a frustration expressed by many major overseas investors about the bureaucracy and complexity of finalising major deals in the UK". Like Hutchison Whampoa, for instance, who accused Lewisham Planning of making "unrealistic demands" and "unreasonable and unwarranted requests" that would damage their profit margins.

Lungs for the City
 
The application proposes to build over almost every inch of the historic site, which was founded in 1513 by Henry VIII as the home of shipbuilding for the Royal Navy (the Royal Dockyard that, along with Woolwich dockyard, preceded the grandeur at Greenwich).

To get an idea of the density, have a look round the development at New Capital Quay. That's 1000 flats with a ground space a third of the Convoys site. Imagine that x3. To get an idea of heights, look at the tallest tower at the new Renaissance development in Loampit Vale – that's 24 storeys, half the height of the 48 storey tower proposed at Convoys (the other two being 38).

Convoys also contains the remains of Sayes Court Garden, where John Evelyn's innovative horticultural theories were developed and  which led to the founding of the National Trust. It was his theory that trees are the lungs of a city.

Considering the latest reports by the No To Silvertown Tunnel campaign, in which it was revealed that pollution levels at the end of Deptford Church Street on Creek Road have been breaching European limits for nitrogen dioxide for more than eight years, his advice is worth remembering more than ever. (Thanks, Deptford Dame).

Especially since Hutchison's plans include parking provision for 2000 cars (all housed in the giant blocks of housing units) that will cause ever greater pollution and congestion on Evelyn Street. The only public transport will be a diversion of the 199 bus and a Thames clipper, putting greater strain on existing services. And don't forget the ten years of construction traffic.

In an ideal world, the entire Convoys site should be planted with trees just to make up for the new IKEA being planned to go on the site the award-winning Sainsbury's eco-building at Greenwich peninsula, which will draw in traffic from miles around to unprecedented levels. (Thanks, 853 blog).

But Hutchisons were arguing over the necessity of widening New King Street to accommodate the bus making a two-way journey.

A people's history

The history of this site is amazing – it features loads of important historical figures (Drake, Raleigh etc), was the launch pad for some fantastic scientific discoveries (Cook, among others), and was built and designed by many celebrated pioneers in engineering and shipbuilding (Rennie, Penn etc), as well as being a place where ordinary people who worked in and around the dockyard have fantastic stories to tell (female shipwrights, black and Asian sailors), that were never recorded by Samuel Pepys who ran the yard for Charles II.

So much of Deptford's history has been buried and ignored (perhaps because of the shame of slavery), it is bursting to come through and speak to us. The site is monumentally multi-cultural – with links all over the world – as much as Deptford is now.

The archaeology

Many of the site's surviving below-ground structures (docks) will be buried under dense 12 storey blocks and 38-48 storey towers. The one remaining above ground structure, the Olympia Shed, will be overshadowed and hidden from view by the buildings closely surrounding it. You'll only be able to glimpse a small part of it from the river. Hutchisons were rejecting English Heritage's demands to open the view up.

The plans have been opposed by English Heritage, the Council for British Archaeology, the Naval Dockyard Society and other heritage bodies – not forgetting, of course, the local people who will have to live with ten years or more of building works and construction traffic.

The public space provision in the present application is laughable – a thin strip on the riverside and two strips on the sites of an historic dock and slipway, which are only not being built on because they're "protected". They could actually be listed by English Heritage, but not until the full archaeology report made by a commercial arm of the Museum of London which (had to be) commissioned by the developer has been published. It hasn't been published yet, despite the archaeology work being long completed – although not as thoroughly as it could have been (there is, according to Deptford Is, areas of the site yet to be uncovered).

English Heritage have recently listed the remaining walls on the site (including the river walls), which must make it the longest length of listed Thames wall in London. Meanwhile, with no full report, the archaeology of the site is not "fully understood". It would therefore be premature for the Mayor of London to make a decision until this report is published.

Local campaigners have emphasised the heritage of the site and how it can open up a tourism strategy for Lewisham, bringing in visitors from Royal Maritime Greenwich. Unfortunately, the owner of the site is so fixated on the simple formula of selling luxury waterfront residential units that it cannot envision the advantages of owning a site of world heritage – and the capital value that would add to a smaller number of units.  

Deptford Is are also advocating that an area on the site designated by the Greater London Authority (GLA) as a "protected wharf" (to be used for river business, very often simply cargo) should be developed as a Maritime Enterprise Zone incorporating boat building and repairs and other associated marine business that is presently lacking in this part of the Thames and which would bring great employment opportunities.

But this is strongly opposed by the developer, who will more than likely lobby the GLA, with Cameron, Osbourne and Johnson's help, to change the designation so that it can build even more luxury flats.

If you care about Deptford, you must sign the petition! This application must be opposed so that a better proposal can come forward – one that combines housing with a full appreciation of the site's heritage.

Update 18 Nov:  also see the Deptford Dame's take on the Mayor of London's new role in the process.

 

Save Lewisham Hospital - latest news

Today, the Special Administrator Matthew Kershaw's report to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State, was released. In an emergency question in the Commons, Deptford's MP Joan Ruddock said the report must not be used to justify closing essential hospital services. “120,000 people use Lewisham A&E each year. Over 30,000 children use the Children’s A&E. Over 4000 babies are born in the hospital each year. There is no current capacity at any of the other hospitals in the area to provide for these patients.” She claimed the document was being used to force through a "major reconfiguration of services via the back door", echoing shadow health minister Andy Burnham's assertion that the Administrator's remit does not cover Lewisham.

Despite three months of so-called 'consultation' (in which 90% of the 8,000 who responded to the online form voted against the proposals for Lewisham) and overwhelming public outrage, the original proposals remain. Ironically, the Special Administrator hired to run South London Health Trust (not Lewisham Hospital) and reduce its £65m deficit, had to be granted an extra £1.1m by the government on top of the £4m agreed.

LibDem councillor Chris Maines uncovered the deficit through a Freedom of Information request. The Department of Health said £1m had already been paid to fund Mr Kershaw's office and a further £3.1m has gone on consultants, of which £2m has been paid to lead-contractor McKinsey with Deloitte and PA Consulting Group as sub-contractors (Deloitte charges £500 an hour just to write a letter).

Cllr Maines said “It is beyond belief that a person employed to find substantial savings could not demonstrate how to live within a generous budget himself...I am not surprised that the Management Consultants that profited hugely from the original PFI contracts are now profiting from the effect of those contracts." Read more here (LibDem's story) and here (Evening Standard).

Also see The Londonist's report on today's news. And Transpontine's post...

PROTESTS!!!

Save Lewisham Hospital are staging a protest outside Goldsmiths College this Thursday, 10 January 2013, where the first BBC TV Question Time of the new year is due to be filmed. The show, chaired by David Dimbleby, will be screened at 10.35pm. Panelists are unconfirmed (a list of panelists given to a local who has been given tickets is different to the panel listed on the BBC website). Join the protest from 5.30-9pm at Richard Hoggart Building, Goldsmith’s University, Lewisham Way, SE14 6NW (click on the notice below).

Incidentally, the next day, Friday 11th January, Jonathan Dimbleby will be presenting BBC Radio 4's Any Questions from St Catherine's Church in New Cross (Kitto Road, SE14) with Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats Simon Hughes MP, John Cooper QC and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. Will there be a local flavour to proceedings?

The next big demonstration Save Lewisham Hospital has called is on Saturday 26th January. Assemble at 
Lewisham Roundabout (by the station) at 12 noon.
 The march will go past the hospital to Mountsfield Park for a rally, music and a giant petition. Organisers need help with stewarding the demo, and with publicising the event over the next couple of weeks – see this page to find out how to get involved.

And if you haven't already, please sign the petition (top right of this page) and take it past 25,000.

---o---

UPDATE 12/1/13

See our report on Question Time on Thursday evening here.

Public Meeting Tonight – oppose Thames Tunnel site on Deptford Church Street

Thames Tunnel Public Meeting 
Chaired by Dame Joan Ruddock, MP
Wednesday 12 September 2012, 8pm
The Shaftebury Centre, Frankham Street
(NB the venue has changed from Deptford Lounge)
 
Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart has organised this meeting which is open to all and will be attended by Thames Water's Phil Stride and chaired by Joan Ruddock. Deptford's Heart want to challenge Thames Water to explain why they are continuing with their plan to use the Crossfield green on Deptford Church Street as their preferred site for tunnel works, ignoring their own criteria for site suitability.

Apologies for the late notice on this blog. Please try to come along and support the campaign.

...................................................................................................................................................

The concerns of the Deptford Heart campaign (shared by Lewisham Council) were outlined in full in a parliamentary speech by Joan Ruddock in March, recorded in Hansard:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120229/debtext/120229-0003.htm#12022956001307 

Let me say at the outset that my constituents and I support the construction of the Thames tunnel. There is no doubt that we cannot continue to discharge raw sewage into the Thames. Much as I would like to debate many of the wider issues, I am essentially here to make a statement on behalf of my constituents, because Thames Water has a proposal to intercept the Deptford storm relief sewer that runs through Deptford discharging north into the Thames.

The site selected by Thames Water is a triangle of green, open space—the Crossfield amenity green, which is bounded by Coffey street, Crossfield street and Deptford Church street. For those who do not know it, Deptford Church street is a major dual carriageway intersecting the Crossfield residential housing estate. Thames Water proposes at least four years’ work on the site, the permanent legacy of which will be four main ventilation columns at least 6 metres high, with associated control units and maintenance requirements. During the phase one consultation, the preferred site was Borthwick wharf foreshore, but for the phase two consultation Deptford Church street is the preferred site and the Borthwick wharf foreshore is put forward, together with the Sue Godfrey nature reserve in Bronze street, as an alternative.

We in Deptford cannot understand Thames Water’s change of plans, which will have a great impact on an exceptional area of my constituency. The phase two consultation site information paper identifies three reasons why Deptford Church street is now preferred. The reasons given are, first, that Deptford Church street has relatively good access compared to Borthwick wharf foreshore; secondly, that using Deptford Church street would avoid work to the Thames foreshore; and, thirdly that the potential effects on residents, visitors and business amenity would be less than with the alternative site.

On access, no traffic impact assessment is provided to enable comparison between the two sites, so how can we judge? On avoiding work on the foreshore, there is a particular paradox. The majority of the site selection
assessments favour sites in close proximity to the river, with jetty or wharf facilities. Clearly, the Borthwick wharf foreshore would have a great advantage over Deptford High street, in that material and spoil could be delivered and removed using the River Thames. Furthermore, the alternative site is located at the point at which the combined sewer overflows are discharged into the River Thames. Intercepting the sewer at that point would capture the contents of the entire length of the sewer. Intercepting it further inland, at Deptford Church street, would leave a length of the sewer uncaptured.

Thames Water has provided no data on the number of people, households and businesses affected at both sites, so it is impossible to compare the sites. In addition, the impact on St Joseph’s Catholic primary school on Deptford Church street is direct and severe when compared to any comparable community impact resulting from the use of the Borthwick wharf foreshore. A number of businesses will be directly affected by the use of Deptford Church street, while Borthwick wharf and the adjacent Payne’s wharf are both vacant.

Let me turn to the issues specific to the Deptford site chosen by Thames Water. There are two primary schools close to the proposed site: St Joseph’s Catholic primary school is opposite the site, and the new Tidemill academy is close by. As I say, the proposed works will take at least four and a half years, which represents most of the period of primary school attendance. That area of Deptford appears in the top 10% of areas in the country in the index of deprivation, making primary education of paramount importance. Both indoor and outdoor learning will be impacted by noise and air pollution.

Fire evacuation for St Joseph’s during the period is of concern. The school requires an off-site space near the school for 260-plus children and 25-plus staff, and they need to reach it quickly and safely. The site currently used is the green space that Thames Water proposes using for its shaft and associated construction works. No impact assessment on the school and its fire regulations has been offered.

Sited alongside the green is the grade-I listed St Paul’s church, the single most significant listed building in Lewisham. The proposed shaft and associated building works directly affect the setting and structure of the church, the boundary wall to the church cemetery, which is listed in its own right, and the grade-II listed railway viaduct to the south. It is therefore not surprising that English Heritage has expressed a preference for the alternative site to the Deptford Church street site, as there would then be less impact on heritage assets in our area.

The effects of the disruption to traffic patterns would be numerous, and the disruption would cause congestion and danger. The proposal involves closing the two northbound lanes of Deptford Church street; the two southbound lanes would provide one lane in each direction. Again, no detailed traffic modelling has been provided. There could even be emergency vehicle access restrictions associated with the traffic management measures along the proposed construction vehicle routes. Bus lanes in both north and southbound directions would be temporarily suspended, yet the width of the southbound carriageway is insufficient to accommodate heavy goods vehicles
and buses in a two-way traffic scheme, particularly as Deptford Church street is on the borough’s oversized vehicle route.

There can be no doubt that the proposed works will impact on existing businesses along Crossfield street, particularly given that access, both vehicle and pedestrian, could be disrupted and restricted. The construction vehicle movements would have a highway safety impact in Coffey street, particularly for those accessing St Paul’s church, and when the movements coincide with St Joseph’s school’s arrival and departure times. Narrowing Crossfield street would have an impact on the commercial units on Crossfield street, particularly in relation to deliveries and servicing. A further raft of transport concerns have been raised by Lewisham council in its formal objections to Thames Water, but they are too numerous for me to go into now...

...Overlying all the concerns that I have outlined is an aspect of Deptford that has been completely neglected. Planning consents have already been given for the construction of thousands of new homes in the immediate vicinity of the Deptford Church street site. Work is already under way and the nearby Convoys site, which has a footfall—this is quite amazing—equivalent to the whole of the south bank, is expected to be redeveloped over precisely the same period as the Thames tunnel. This is a prescription for chaos. It is particularly unfortunate because Deptford has enjoyed a prolonged period of regeneration led by Lewisham council, financially underpinned by the Labour Government and supported by a number of private sector partnerships.

Lewisham is the 12th most densely populated local authority in the UK, and my constituency the most dense of all. As a consequence, every small piece of open space is greatly valued and provides essential green lungs for the city. The Crossfield amenity green will be made unavailable and inaccessible for at least four years in an area of very limited open space.

Lewisham borough’s core strategy emphasises the importance of improving connectivity throughout the area for pedestrians and cyclists. The recently completed links project from Deptford high street through to Margaret McMillan park, as well as the work on Giffin square, the Deptford Lounge, Tidemill academy and Wavelengths, demonstrate the implementation of the council’s strategic aspirations for the area.

The completion of the Thames tunnel site works is not expected until 2021, resulting in an unacceptable delay to the delivery of the council’s strategic objectives for links to and connections through the area. Furthermore, Deptford high street is classified as a site of nature conservation importance in the adopted unitary development plan. If the borough were the local planning authority for this application, it would either refuse permission that had adverse impacts on nature conservation or, if development were considered essential, it would require an environmental appraisal that included methods of mitigation and proposals for compensation.

I appreciate the need for the Thames tunnel, so I would not be objecting to this site if I thought this was a case of simple nimbyism. It is not. There is so much at stake that we have to make the loudest and clearest objections on the grounds that I have outlined. Already 1,300 people, in an area where there is not a great deal of activism, have signed a petition opposing the use of the Crossfields amenity green. I support the measures in the Bill that will enable Thames Water to undertake a much needed improvement on behalf of all Londoners, but I believe that it can provide the necessary shafts elsewhere with less damage than that which would result in my constituency. My plea to Thames Water is, in the words of the local campaign, “Don’t dump on Deptford.”

Pawnbroker update: Want instant cash now? YOU BET!

Last month, our appeal-wary planning department were obliged to give permission for Change of Use to the fourth pawnbroker on Deptford High Street. Abermarle & Bond's new premises is opposite Ladbrokes, William Hill, and another pawnbroker, The Money Shop. It is quite near Paddy Power and Better, and not far from three other pawnbrokers – in fact there will now be four pawnbrokers within 50 metres of each other.

However, as the Dame recently pointed out, Lewisham Planning did not grant permission for them to change the shopfront, and asked them to apply separately for this. But barely a day had passed after Change of Use was granted (from Sui Generis to A1 Retail) before Abermarle & Bond had set about refurbishing the shop. The shop is almost ready to open (the picture above was taken last week). The target date for their application to be decided is 27th December 2011, but a new shop front is already in place – in time to cash in on the Christmas trade.

The applicant's flagrant disregard for local planning rules is also demonstrated by the distribution of leaflets in the local neighbourhood which confirm the fact that they are first and foremost a Financial Service and NOT a retail outlet:  "Say NO THANKS to banks" "Quick cash loans" "No hassle and no credit checks" APR: 581.9%.

Pawnbrokers are classed as A1 Retail as long as the other services they offer (cheque cashing and pay day loans) remain ancillary to the main use as pawnbrokers/jewellers. But selling jewellery is now a small part of the service since people are selling and pawning their gold rather than buying it.

The Telegraph reported four days ago that Abermarle & Bond said the value of gold it had bought off customers had increased by 83%, adding that the market for retailing gold jewellery remained very weak. It continued to prefer to scrap second hand jewellery if this generated a better return on capital.

Cash loans on jewellery are often third on an advertised list of services, after Pay Day Loans and Speed Loans. Pawnbrokers are no longer simply a place to get a quick cash loan on some jewellery or prized possession, but have instead become extremely aggressive loan sharks. They are part of the cycle of poverty, and not, as they claim, any part of the solution – since a high interest loan can easily spiral out of control, especially when the lender is situated in the immediate vicinity of bookmakers. Abermarle & Bond's advertising "Want instant cash now? YOU BET" is a not very subtle nudge.

Pawnbrokers are also extremely poorly regulated and monitored, hence their nickname "robber's shops" (no pun intended) – who knows where the gold they are buying has come from? And they inevitably set up shop in poor areas where there is a desperate need for cash and people have no credit ratings. Abermarle & Bond's financing is by Speedloan Finance, a sub-prime small loans company specialising in making loans to people who have difficulty maintaining repayment schedules.

We need better alternatives to banks and better solutions to debt management than this new breed of pawnbroker can provide. Like the betting industry, the corporate pawnbrokers are set on a massive expansion in – or, rather invasion of – Britain's poorer high streets, aiming to make huge profits from the recession.

Their present DUBIOUS planning class as A1 Retail (because they sell jewellery) allows them to pop up wherever they like – usually next to bookmakers (for obvious reasons). Local authorities across the country are unable to turn them down in the shopping areas they have designated to be RETAIL ONLY (that is, not Financial Services).


Joan Ruddock MP is leading the fight to stop the corporate Betting Shops by attempting to introduce a Bill to give them a Planning Class of their own. The same should be done to curb the invasion of sub-prime loan sharks masquerading as jewellers. Write to your MP now!

See previous post on Abermarle & Bond here.

Thames Tunnel worksite on our doorstep – say no!

Further to our previous post, we urge everyone who lives on Crossfields or Deptford to visit the Thames Tunnel consultation exhibition at Creekside Discovery Centre, which runs until 4pm on Saturday (see details at the bottom of this post).

Although we've been carrying news of Thames Tunnel's proposals for some time now and the local opposition against them, readers should know that up until recently, the site opposite Farrer and Congers House had been presented by Thames Water as an alternative to a preferred site at Borthwick Wharf down on the riverfront (click on the image below to enlarge).

Now that Phase Two of the consultations have begun, the Deptford Church Street site has become the preferred site. For us, then, this is really Phase One – and the only phase – of any consultation about this site. It's time to speak up!

Thames Water are now saying they prefer Deptford Church Street because there will be less disruption to residential areas. Much work will involve material (or spoil) that is dug up in the construction of an 'access chamber' being transported away from the site in lorries, and the access from Borthwick Wharf to the main road is via Glashier Street through the Millenium Quay development. Not particularly nice for those residents. However, Thames Water boast in their literature that, in general, much (between 50-75%) of the spoil being taken away from such work sites (or new material such as concrete being brought in) will be carried by river. What better site could there be than one on the waterfront?

Meanwhile, at the Deptford Church Street site, all spoil dug out and materials arriving will go and come by road, with no river to lighten the load. Church Street will be reduced to two lanes during a large part of the construction (over three years). There will be noise and dust continually. And here, there are not only a large number of residential homes surrounding the site (as there are at Borthwick Wharf), but also a primary school, several businesses and a listed church. This contradicts Thames Water's own Site Selection Methodology, as pointed out by Crossfields resident Jim Kirk, who says, "Its evaluation criteria specifies that areas close to schools, residential areas and historic buildings are reasons not to pick a site."  Thames Water have argued that we're already used to noise and dust from a busy road and railway. Right, so we want more?

Joan Ruddock chaired a packed hall at a public meeting on Tuesday evening at the Sally Army Hall. Although as Chair she remained impartial, as MP for Deptford she believes the proposals are not acceptable. Although some Lewisham councillors were present, notably Cllr Alan Smith, no local councillors attended the meeting where presentations were made by Thames Water and the Deptford's Heart campaign before a heated debate took place which went on until 9.30pm. See the report at East London Lines.

The previously chosen site at Borthwick Wharf is actually within the borough boundary of Greenwich, bang next door to the riverside development Millennium Quays on one side and a dormant new development, Paynes & Borthwick Wharf, on the other. So Lewisham council have not had to shed too many tears in loyally mustering up support for the Don't Dump on Deptford's Heart campaign against the new preferred site in Deptford in opposition to the previously preferred site in Greenwich (what we call north Deptford). Overall Lewisham supports the plans for the Tunnel, since the Deptford Overflow Sewer is one of the top five offending overflows in London, but if they had had to choose between two 'Lewisham' sites, it might have been a different story.


Not in my back yard

For Crossfielders and all those inhabiting Deptford Church Street this is a NIMBY NO BRAINER – there is no point in pondering which site is going to be least affected when you're faced with three years or more of major disruption. We do not have the option of the river, and don't forget that we will also soon be subjected to yet another building project when the council begin developing the old Tidemill School site. So stand up for yourself, your friends, family and neighbours and VOTE AGAINST this proposal. Unfortunately, it is a case of Us or Them.

Go along to the exhibition at Creekside Centre and pick up a Comments Form. Fill it in there and then, or take it home to fill in and Freepost. By all means, stop and chat to the army of Thames Water representatives who will try to answer your questions. If it is a quiet period, you may find yourself surrounded by fifteen people who may all answer your question differently at the same time – rather intimidating. Stand your ground.

One guy told us today that it wouldn't be lots of lorries, and that some of the vehicles used would be quite small. In that case, mate, go and build your stink pipe by the river! Deptford Miscellaneous has an interesting post that may appeal to your sense of injustice: "Here in Deptford the previously preferred bore site near Borthwick Wharf, where spoil could have left by river, has been replaced by a site in Deptford Church Street, where spoil will leave by road...it is hard not to suspect that...sites near middle class riverside developments have been replaced by sites in poorer areas."

If you haven't got time to hang about at the exhibition, there is plenty of literature to take away, plus some free DVDs featuring different aspects of the project. Don't forget the Comments Form. Or comment online at www.thamestunnelconsultatioin.co.uk.

Friday 18 November 

2.30–8.30pm

Saturday 19 November 

10am–4pm

Creekside Discovery Centre, Creekside SE8 4SA

Post updated: 18 Nov 2011

Our Deptford High Street

A project such as mydeptfordhighstreet.com (see previous post) may help draw attention to a less desirable aspect of our main shopping mall – the over population of betting shops.

The Deptford Dame has recently posted about the Mayor's call for planning controls over betting shops. Boris has finally joined the cross party campaign spearheaded by his rival Ken Livingstone (and Livingstone's campaign manager, David Lammy MP), and other Labour MPs such as our own Ms Ruddock, to change the national planning law to help control the proliferation and clustering of betting shops.

According to the BBC, the Green Party's Darren Johnson says Boris had dodged taking action when he replied to a question from the Greens in a May 2010 London Assembly meeting, preferring to offer the same excuse for inaction that the government and the betting industry has long been giving (that the issue can be dealt with by a local authority's own planning powers).

Boris told Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, that having so many bookies so close together could negatively affect the vitality and viability of town centres and the quality of life of those living nearby. "There is a balance to be struck between having betting shops as part of the high street retail mix and the negative impact they can have on shoppers and visitors when they start to dominate."

The bookies are reported to have reacted angrily to the news. A statement issued by the Association of British Bookmakers said that it was a myth that there had been a sharp rise in the number of betting shops in London. Meanwhile, the ABB, along with William Hill and Ladbrokes are lobbying the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee to remove the limit on the number of Fixed Odd Betting Terminals allowed in their shops. In July 2011 they presented written evidence to the Committee's review of the Gambling Act, saying that betting shops "support the vibrancy and footfall of the high street and pay a higher level of tax" and urging them to "mitigate against the heavy tax and regulatory burden that Licensed Betting Offices face". Despite evidence to the contrary, the ABB did not accept there was any widespread problem with minors gambling in their members' premises, nor that problem gambling was an issue. They also requested a liberalisation in the maximum permitted number of gaming machines since "there is no evidence to link them to problem gambling." (www.parliament.uk)

The ABB boast that the industry voluntarily donates £5m a year towards helping fund the education, research and treatment of problem gambling. Small fry when Betfred, to name but one corporate tax dodger in this industry, turn over £3.5bn and recently paid £265m for the Tote (and their online gambling business, growing at a rate of 80%, is based in Gibraltar to avoid tax).

Whilst the industry was lying and whining to the Select Committee in July, Joan Ruddock presented a bill to the House of Commons proposing to change the planning class of betting shops and allow councils to place a cap on the number of them in any area. Ideally they would be taken out of the A2 Financial Services and put into a class of their own. Joan told the Commons that "a turf war is now under way, as bookmakers, including new entrants, seek to seize a market share." (See our post in July, Joan speaks for Deptford). The ABB said in response, "Extra regulation on our industry would be wholly disproportionate. Local authorities are already able to have their say on betting shops through the licensing process. Under the Gambling Act, councils have the power to decline licensing applications where there is hard evidence that a bookmaker would have a negative impact in a community."

All lies, damn lies. As we have already seen with Betfred, Paddy Power et al, the Licensing Law as enshrined in the 2005 Gambling Act was written by bookies for bookies, and no local authority dares to turn them down. It is only at the planning stage that councils can wield any power – but only if a Change of Use is being applied for. If the premises was already classed as A2 (be it a pub or a bank), planning can do very little except request modifications to shopfronts and signage. The industry is prepared to bankrupt local authorities in constant appeals whenever a decision goes against them.

In the unusual case of Betfred in Deptford High Street (where there was already a condition placed on its A2 useage), the planners could turn them down; they then appealed to the government inspector and lost, and are now trying again, no doubt in the hope that when they are turned down and appeal again, they will get a different inspector – who may let them through. They have enough resources to try and try again, wasting vast sums of public money in the process.

Please write an objection. See the application DC/11/78506/X and Betfred's covering letter here.

Deptford Launch #1 – High...Low

Monday evening saw the launch of High...Low, the light sculpture by Shona Kitchen & Dominic Robson which we reported was installed back in November. Apparently the makers have been ironing out some problems since then, but it is now fully operational.

We found out at the launch, which was attended by Joan Ruddock MP, that the structure houses 165 low power 1 watt LED spotlights which are synchronised using a micro-controller and a database of predicted tide times. A small solar power unit which feeds into the national grid has been installed on the roof of Faircharm to offset the power consumed by the artwork.

More details at www.high--low.com.

Joan speaks for Deptford

Yesterday, Joan Ruddock MP spoke to a rather empty house (no guesses as to why it was less than full apart from it's holiday time) to propose legislation to tighten planning permission restrictions for high street betting shops. Worth ten minutes of your time – check it out at the Beeb's Democracy Live.

As pointed out by recent Crossfields commenter Charlz, she was opposed by some Tory called Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) who said the betting industry contributes greatly to the racing industry, seemingly forgetting that the racing levy only just survived an onslaught from the betting industry to ditch it, and continues to suffer less funding from said industry because most of the betting companies' increasing online activities are based offshore – which is why the levy was increased in February by .75% to 10.75% and the threshold reduced, which the betting industry was not pleased about at all.

Everything else Robertson said can be completely disproved with convincing statistics from highly credible sources and studies, including the government's own Gambling Prevalence Surveys. The man is an ass. Fortunately the 'ayes' went in Joan's favour, which means we may hear more again of this in the autumn.

Congratulations, Joan, and thanks.


Meanwhile, the Deptford Dame has posted about a campaign called Living Streets: the local joke. This is worth looking at, but misses the point a bit, seemingly misunderstanding how planning regarding betting shops works, despite a great cartoon. However, as the Dame says, use it to make your views known.

Betting Shops: Joan's 10 Minute Rule Bill tomorrow

This blogger received news last week from Joan Ruddock's office that she will be presenting a new bill in the Commons tomorrow, as part of the ongoing campaign against betting shops. I was on holiday at the time, so here is the belated news:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday 19 July

Ten-minute Rule Motion

BETTING SHOPS

Joan Ruddock

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to create a new planning use class for betting shops which would require the granting of planning permission; to provide that local planning authorities assess demand for betting shops when considering applications for premises in that planning use class and place a cap on the number of betting shops for which planning permission may be granted in any area; and for connected purposes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to hear Joan's contributing to the cause, but not entirely sure what a Ten Minute Rule Bill/Motion is, so went to the oracle...

The Ten Minute Rule, also known as Standing Order No. 23, is a procedure in the British Parliament for the introduction of Private Member's Bills in addition to the 20 per session normally permissible. It is one of the ways in which a bill may receive its first reading.

Any MP may introduce a bill under the Ten Minute Rule, although in practice it is only used by backbenchers. To qualify to introduce a bill under the Rule, the MP in question must be the first through the door to the Public Bill Office on the Tuesday or Wednesday morning fifteen working days (three weeks) prior to the date they wish to introduce their bill. Due to the popularity of the Rule and the difficulty in launching a Private Member's Bill by other means, MPs have been known to sleep outside the Public Bill Office in order to guarantee a slot.

Ten Minute Rule motions are held in the main Commons Chamber after question time, at around 12:30pm on most Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Whichever MP has reserved the slot presents their bill and is entitled to speak for 10 minutes to convince the house of its merit. After the 10 minutes have passed, another MP may speak for a further 10 minutes to oppose the bill. The Speaker then calls a voice vote to decide whether the bill should be allowed a second reading, which is when the bill is debated at a later date. The Speaker will divide the house for a recorded count of votes if there is some opposition. However, the majority of Ten Minute Rule motions are not objected to, and are allowed to proceed without any debate at this stage. This is because MPs have not yet had time to review the bill's content.

When a Ten Minute Rule motion passes, the bill is added to the register of parliamentary business. It is scheduled for debate along with the other Private Member's Bills, but at a lower priority. The MP presenting the bill must tell the Speaker the date for this second reading debate. The bill is generally printed and published shortly before the second reading.

Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule rarely progress much further, since the Government usually opposes Private Member's Bills in the later stages and, given their low priority in the schedule, there is often insufficient time for the debate to be completed. Most Ten Minute Rule introductions are instead used to stimulate publicity for a cause, especially as the debate follows the media-popular question time and is usually broadcast live on BBC Parliament, or to gauge the opinion of the house on an issue which may later be introduced in another bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Minute_Rule

No more betting shops - update

We wrote to the Mayor and councillors about the latest license application from Betfred and got the following replies:

On behalf of the Mayor & Cabinet Office, Andy Williams wrote:

"Steve has asked me to let you know that In July 2009, Lewisham put forward 3 requests, under the Sustainable Communities Act, to amend the Gambling Act to give local authorities more freedom to limit the number of betting shops in an area. However, currently the Council's Licensing Authority has no power under legislation to refuse an application on the grounds that an area is becoming over congested with betting shops.

Each application is assessed on its own merits and can only be refused if objections by local people or organisations highlight a direct contravention of licensing objectives of the Gambling Act.

That said, objections have been received in relation to this application and it will be determined by the Council's licensing committee soon, possibly in February."

We suggested in response that the Mayor might like to make his position more clearly visible in a public statement, since many people mistakenly seem to think the Licensing Committee must be taking backhanders. They also believe the council has abandoned the Deptford community (and Catford, where there are 10 bookies around the high street), despite the large-scale civil amenities being built (which has led to limited and expensive parking). We are pleased to hear that the Mayor made representations in 2009, but what did he do in 2010?

Our original email to him wasn't just about numbers of betting shops either. We had to point out again that there were more than enough grounds under the Licensing Objectives relating to how gambling is linked to crime for an application from Betfred to be turned down.

But an email response from a member of the Licensing Team, Cllr Stella Jeffreys (Lab, Lewisham Central) clarified their position (without addressing crime):

"Thank you for your email.  I do appreciate your concern and as a member of the Licensing Committee I am aware of the public feeling on the proliferation of betting shops in particular areas.

As you note the law does not allow us to take the number of betting premises in an area into account, unlike alcohol licences in a designated cumulative impact area, and the logic of the Act is presumably that new premises will only open if there is a commercial benefit to the operators.  

In the past Lewisham has tried to stand up to prevent the opening of new betting shops but has incurred high costs when the companies have appealed.  At this time of massive budget reductions for Lewisham Council it would not be prudent for us to repeat that.

The only way forward is for Parliament to change the law.  I am sure that you have already lobbied Joan Ruddock the MP for Deptford on this matter, but as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in power, can I suggest that you also contact the relevant minister, John Penrose MP, Minister for Tourism and Heritage in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport."

We are grateful to Stella for her response. She manages to say that the borough cannot afford to turn down applications where the applicant can afford to appeal.

UPDATE: To be fair, it appears Lewisham Council was the lead authority on a proposal shortlisted by the Local Government Association and submitted to central government as a suggested amendment to the Sustainable Communities Act. It proposed that councils should have the power to cap the number of bookmakers in a certain area...see the Deptford Dame's post from March 2010.

Unfortunately, the implications of that are that if an armed robbery took place inside and outside Coral tomorrow it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to Licensing's response to Betfred's application to open up across the road. They won't turn them down since they know they'd appeal and Lewisham can't or don't want to afford to fight the appeal.

And that Minister for Tourism & Heritage Stella mentioned would be the same John Penrose MP who would like to see the 2005 Gambling Act weakened even further to allow ordinary (adult only) slot machines take higher minimum stakes (from £1 to £2) so that amusement arcades in his constituency of Weston-super-Mare can do better business. Those B3 one-armed-bandits are just not as exciting as the FOBs (Fixed Odd Betting machines) that are only allowed to be installed in betting shops where you can touch the screen every 20 seconds in the vain hope of winning £500. Says Penrose "I would like to ensure these businesses remain competitive in these tough economic times." (Hansard) 

The 2005 Gambling Act debate

Apart from Penrose's initial preferences, in Parliament, the main issues being debated around the Act concern the Horseracing Betting Levy (which has helped fund British horse racing since the 1960s) and The Tote (the state-owned legal betting service founded in 1928 which also helps fund British horse racing, now a state-run casino as it keeps abreast of bookmaking trends, although it remains independent). Areas of debate on the Levy include Offshore Online Betting Businesses that are outside the Levy (Hills and Ladbrokes for instance), Overseas Racing (no Levy), Gross Profits Thresholds (percentage of total profits that can be paid by bookmakers, presently only 10%), Betting Exchanges (that operate outside bookmakers and is unlevied) and Media Rights (which bookmakers resent paying)...

The racing community claims that a series of loopholes exploited by bookmakers have resulted in the size of the levy on bookmakers' profits falling by more than a third in the past two years (£75m instead of £130m-£150m). Bookmakers argue that racing is no longer their main concern, though if you ever glance inside one, you'll know that it's the main event on all the screens. Obviously the shop isn't the only medium for betting and racing isn't the only thing we can bet on, but it can be argued that the demand for racing hasn't decreased (in fact attendance at race meetings has grown), just the opportunity for betting on everything else has increased. See Racing United for more on the Levy.

The Tote is a national asset that the government has been thinking of selling off to the highest bidder for some time (like Waterways and Woodlands), particularly since Gordon Brown as chancellor announced the intention in 2001. It has 517 high street betting shops and the monopoly to run "pool betting" (oh god, don't ask) online and at 60 racecourses in the UK. Allegedly, in the year to April 2010 it made profits of £13.3m on revenues of £2.8bn, and contributed £11.3m to the horse racing industry.

The Jockey Club (which regulates horse racing, owns and operates 13 racecourse etc) opposes the sale of the Tote, whilst Betfred was prepared to pay up to £250m in December 2010 (it was worth £400m in 2007), up against Paddy Power, Sportech (headed by Ian Penrose, shurely no relation) etc. Coral and Ladbrokes already have partnerships with the Tote. They are ruled out of bidding on "competition grounds". (Meanwhile, like they give a shit, Paddy Power was reported in December 2010 as buying Australian company Sportsbet for £86.2m).

I reckon the Tote is worth more than £250m because of its 'pool betting' monopoly but don't ask me why. Obviously I'm of a type that is averse to sell-offs anyway (such as waterways and woodlands, not to mention those already sold off), especially when some bastard gets it cheap. Then again, I've only seen toffs with plenty of money who own racehorses, why should they be subsidised for their jockeys, vets, trainers and prize money?

Both the Levy and the Tote are long-running sagas for the government. Penrose has been reported as considering various options other than a direct sell of the Tote, but is excluded from the Levy debate because his wife is a member of the Jockey Club. Guess who's in charge? Jeremy Hunt, who would probably, like the bookmakers, prefer the levy scrapped, and has possibly already lined up a mate to buy the Tote, if his recent reputation is anything to go by.

If, like me, you have never followed racing or the betting industry, you'll be confused. Anyone who knows and wants to make the above clearer, please do. But with all these vested interests going on and arguments (some moral) centred around tradition & heritage versus 'a modern gambling experience', and state ownership and subsidy versus pure market forces, it is hardly surprising the Labour government made such an enormous cock-up of the 2005 Gambling Act...

During that time, you probably couldn't move in Westminster for betting industry lobbyists. No doubt it is similar now, only more competitive...A box at the races for you and your banking mates, free booze and direct line to tax free exchange betting, anyone?

Whatever, it's beyond ironic that New Labour's complete and utter fumbling of the 2005 Gambling Act has led to New Labour's flagship boroughs suffering the most.

Down on the street

North of the river, in Hackney alone there are nearly 70 betting shops, three times the national average. There were 2,095 gambling licenses in operation in 33 boroughs in 2009, up from 1,721 in 2003 (Gambling Commission and Home Office).

Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe describes betting shops as "sucking the money out of people's pockets".

In September 2010 he joined Ken Livingstone and Tottenham MP David Lammy in a press call at a new Paddy Power in Mare Street, where there are already 9 bookies. Livingstone said:

"We are calling on the government to give local communities a greater say over their high streets...there should be a separate planning class for betting shops to give councils and residents the power to determine their location and overall numbers."

Lammy said, "It is surely wrong that (councils) cannot deny an application for a betting shop on the basis of the number already open in the area."

The Hackney News reported that the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) has said it would be co-operating with a review announced by Haringey council into the proliferation of high-street betting shops, but denied that new legislation was needed, since under the current Act, local councils can refuse licenses where they can show 'good and sustainable reasons'.

Local campaigners in Deptford (apolitical local residents horrified by the developments on their doorsteps) who went to the trouble of objecting for "good and sustainable reasons" (including planning objections under conservation rules that seem to hold even less weight), to Paddy Power taking over both the Deptford Arms and the John Evelyn pubs within a 4 month period know this is simply not true.

The Local Government Association argues that lax licensing of gambling premises in deprived areas simply increases poverty. "We are a bit concerned...they're taking advantage of people's desperations and concerns at such a difficult time." (Hackney News) Also see the LGA website.

Hackney's MP Diane Abbott has long been campaigning about the clustering of betting shops. She has talked about it on the telly, and before she got drawn into the Labour leadership campaign, as a back bencher she was putting in EDMs (Early Day Motions) to Parliament in an attempt to change the 2005 Gambling Act. 

Time for Lewisham to Speak Out

In a response to our email to Diane Abbott about what is happening in Deptford, her office furnished us with the response she received from John Penrose in October 2010. In the letter, Penrose says there are powers which local authorities can implement to make it harder for certain shops to open under Town & Country Planning legislation. "There are wider issues at play that should be dealt with through the Local Development Framework and Town Centre Management strategies, rather than being addressed by gambling specific legislation."

Unless there is something mysteriously masonic in John Penrose's words that councillors and bureaucrats in boroughs all over the country have missed to the detriment of their communities (that'll be Tory wards that aren't blighted), it needs to be pointed out to John Penrose MP that when a local authority turns down licensing or planning applications to ambitious new betting chains it is inevitable that said betting chains, Paddy Power, Betfred etc, WON'T BE HAPPY until they have BANKRUPTED every local authority in the UK...
in order to maintain and achieve even greater hold over their competitors in our high streets, whilst all along singing merrily that they have only provided us with what we wanted all along. 

Penrose went on to tell Diane Abbott that he's not convinced the law needs changing because he hasn't heard similar complaints from around the country – whilst his government cuts local authority funding to ribbons. Whatever your opinions on how your council makes its cuts, you will probably agree you'd rather keep a library open than fund a hopeless legal case against a wealthy offshore betting chain.

Penrose probably doesn't know either that bookmakers are the second most likely target for armed robbery (after shops and before post offices and banks), and doesn't have to walk down a street where punters hang outside betting shops all day drinking, drug dealing, stealing from the adjacent shops and shoppers, and begging. 

John Penrose's response to Diane Abbott is a WAKE UP call to our powers-that-be in Lewisham (including the Borough Chief of Police) to speak up in support of Deptford shopkeepers, street traders and residents, and join our friends north of the river in a nationwide campaign to change the law.

-0-

At the time of writing, we have had no response to our emails to Joan Ruddock. We visited her surgery at The Albany yesterday afternoon and picked up ticket number 26. There were already 15 people waiting, and ticket number 16 was called at 5.45pm, 15 minutes before her session was to close. We sincerely hope she is able to help those people, some of whom had been waiting since 3pm....

However, we hope Deptford can count on her support in the future. She's always been a jolly good Chair.

Read how to object here. (Objections now closed)

Further update: Some background reading on the local situation...
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/10/paddy-power-licence-granted.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/10/john-evelyn-pub-another-paddy-power.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/05/deptford-arms-planning-applications.html
http://deptforddame.blogspot.com/2010/03/deptford-armspaddy-power.html

Deptford Station - just had to ask....

It seems a long time since the elections. That's around the time I asked Joan Ruddock at the Utrophia hustings what was happening with Deptford station. It's also around the time that the Dame posted about a new developer's contract. Anyway, Joan said it would all be going ahead in the summer.

Since summer's sort of almost over (although perhaps today's weather is just a temporary blip), I wrote to Joan last Friday to get an update. One of her aides, Jessica, kindly replied on her behalf on Monday:

"Joan is currently out of the office at the moment, however she chaired a roundtable meeting a few weeks ago which included Network Rail and the Council.

At the meeting we were told that Network Rail were in the very final stages of signing everything off, the contractor had been appointed by the council and some preliminary work had been undertaken. The main, more noticeable work should begin in the first week of October.

I hope that this information is of assistance to you."

See the Dame's May 27th post here.

Lewisham Council's website is still insisting work will start in Spring (here)

If anyone's got some more detailed news, please let us know.

Deptford Jobcentre news

I did a quick post on this back in March but  missed the Deptford Dame's post on Thursday, 17 June, but it appears that after having been assured of Deptford Jobcentre's survival by a Labour minister this has been overturned by the new government.

Joan Ruddock has raised this volte-farce a couple of times.  On 10 July:

Joan Ruddock MP today expressed her anger at the planned closure of JobCentre Plus on Deptford High Street and accused the Coalition Government of hypocrisy.

She said ‘The government says it wants to get people off benefits but it is taking away the best opportunity people have of getting back into work. The Labour minister had assured us Deptford would retain its Jobcentre.’

‘I am meeting urgently with management and unions to see what can be done.’

‘There is no doubt the negotiations between the department’s property agents and the developer took far too long but a workable solution had been reached. Cutting services to the most needy is exactly what I expected from a Tory led government.’ 

And again on Monday 14 June:

At DWP questions on Monday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions agreed to meet Joan Ruddock about Deptford Jobcentre Plus.

The exchange from Hansard is below:

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): Last week, the new Government announced that the jobcentre in Deptford, serving 2,500 of my constituents, is to be closed. Will the right hon. Gentleman meet me urgently to discuss how he plans to help the unemployed in my area, or is this to be the first example of how the coalition seeks to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from its savage cuts?

Mr Duncan Smith: I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady at a moment of her convenience. I understand that the centre had reached the end of its lease, and we are trying to find a way of ensuring that there is support in the area. I am happy to meet her and deal with those specifics.

It's hard to get nostalgic about anything to do with the DWP, but at least it was convenient for Deptford locals.   I wouldn't hold my breath on a positive outcome from Joan Ruddock's meeting with Duncan Smith.