Heart of Deptford: a site of collaborative genius

Developer Hutchison Whampoa have boldly declared their thorough disregard for the nation's maritime history in their proposals for the site of the former King's Yard at Deptford. Even before archaeology has begun on the John Rennie works to the basin
Hutchison Whampoa's recently submitted master plan to Lewisham Council shows their intention to destroy the opportunity of reintegrating the listed Olympia building with the area of the dockyard's great basin, also preventing the river related building from even being seen from the river.

Hutchison Whampoa have completely disregarded English Heritage guidelines on Maritime and Naval Buildings (2011) that marks out works by John Rennie for a high grade of protection and describes sites such as the basin, basin slipways, basin slipway covers and caisson gate infrastructure, all works by eminent Georgian and early Victorian engineers, as "sites of collaborative genius." The developer's design team have also ignored English Heritage London Area Committee comments from 2003 and 2005 requesting that the Olympia building be viewable for the river.
The basin is where the Mary Rose was harboured in 1517.

Deptford is the first of the royal naval dockyards to have a wet dock or basin. This technology was exported to the outlying dockyards such as Chatham c.1650. Under the administration of Sir George Carteret, Deptford's skilled workmen and naval dockyard officers built the wet dock at Chatham.

The basin is also where John Evelyn carried out the first diving bell experiments,

where Cook hoisted the pennant on board the Endeavour in 1768,

where Bentham built the dry dock in 1802 with Edward Holl,

where in 1814 John Rennie rebuilt the basin entrance with the latest technology of a caisson gate,

where Capt. Sir William Denison built the slipways to the basin

and George Baker &Sons built the slipway covers (Olympia Building)

and George Biddel Airey tested the effects of ships magnetism on navigation instruments.

where in WWI and WWII supplies were sent out to troops stationed across the world.

thanks to War Relics Forum for use of the image

The basin is the heart of the dockyard, the dockyard is the heart of Deptford. It is most likely the reason that Henry VIII established the dockyard here in 1513 as the basin provided shelter for his ships from the tides and dangers of the river.

Hutchison Whampoa would rather you didn't even know it was there. The proposed buildings cut right across this most important of London's maritime heritage assets. If you don't like the l

ook and the sound of this attempt to erase the nation's maritime history and would prefer to see Deptford's history treated with more respect then you can write to Lewisham Planning emma.talbot@lewisham.gov.uk malcolm.woods@english-heritage .org.uk and mark.stevenson@english-heritage.org.uk and visit the blog deptfordis.org.uk to sign the petition for a better future for Deptford, for London and for the nation's maritime history.

Sold Down The River

Deptford Master Plans……they come and go!

For centuries Deptford has been the subject of over ambitious master plans
Following the opening of London’s first railway from Deptford to London Bridge in 1836, the Deptford Pier Company proposed a rail spur from the Deptford station to a Thames-side steam boat terminal for disembarking passengers who could then be whisked into the city in fifteen minutes avoiding the densly packed Pool of London. (Yes, even in 1836 there were four trains an hour.) The bold plan was to demolish several Thames waterfront buildings and houses along the High Street and King Street (now Watergate Street) and several buildings that formed the courts adjacent to King Street.

The project failed due to local resistance based on the detrimental effect on scores of people’s homes and partly due to it being pipped to the post by Brunswick Wharf a short distance down river on the north bank of the Thames. The legacy we are left with today are the grand arches of Paynes Wharf reminiscent of Cubitt’s King’s Cross station, and a detailed plan and description of the use and occupation of every building along the west side of the High Street and the buildings along and either side of the former King Street.

A final legacy worth mentioning is the rare survival of a c.1838 cast-iron wharf wall in front of Payne’s Wharf.

Another ambitious master plan to colonise vast swathes of Deptford was proposed by the Great Steam Dock Company. Their proposal was to build a 55-acre dock that required the wholesale demolition of all the buildings from the Creek, back towards what is now Albury Street (formerly Union Street, up to what is now Watergate Street and back towards the river. The most extraordinary aspect of this doomed proposal was that St. Nicholas Church tower would sit marooned on an island in the middle of the dock.

Have you ever wondered why Deptford Church Street is a dual carriageway?
Late nineteenth century plans proposed a road tunnel under the Thames from the top of Deptford Church Street where it meets Creek Road tunneling under Deptford Green (Charlotte Turner Gardens) This proposal like the others, ran aground.

Another monolithic master plan that hits the buffers and never sees the light of day is by the famous late eighteenth century architect George Dance and was sited at Crossfield Street. A grand terrace stretching from the High Street to Deptford Church was proposed, but failed to get off the ground.

Master plans come and go. The most recent from Hutchison Whampoa is entirely unsuited to a site that holds Lewisham’s and Deptford’s greatest concentration of heritage assets of international significance.

The developer proposes preservation in situ for the monumental naval dockyard infrastructure, however buried more deeply in the proposals is the data that the development will have severe adverse impacts on the areas water table that risks drying out both the vertical timber piling supporting the foundations of the docks, slipways basin and mast ponds and the horizontal timber ties impairing the structural integrity of the walls of the dockyard’s defining structures. On one hand we are told by the archaeologist that the monumental engineering structures are too delicate to work with in some form of presentation or exposure and yet on the other hand we are asked to believe that the sheer density and extensive piling required to support this development can be achieved without any further harm coming to the heritage assets. It has also been indicated that the entire stretch of river wall that testifies to the entrances to the docks, slips, basin, mast pond and landing place stairs, itself not a buried structure but visible from the foreshore, and currently structurally sound, will require wholesale rebuilding, thereby erasing from view any trace of its historic fabric. It is simply the case that this development is wholly unsuited to a site of unparalleled national historic importance on the London Thames. Let's not be sold down the river by accepting these current development proposals to the detriment of the future enjoyment of one of London's most internationally historically significant sites.

Entrenched Positions: An Archaeological Dig to Reveal?

Entrenched Positions: An Archaeological Dig to Reveal?
Chris Mazeika October 2011

Whilst archaeological explorations serve a number of varied and sometimes opposing interests I pose the question, “Is the developer led and developer funded exploration taking place at the former King’s Yard at Deptford, Henry VIII’s royal dockyard, 1513 and the site of John Evelyn’s house and garden at Sayes Court achieving its declared goals, namely that the archaeology will assist in the formation of the Hutchison Whampoa Masterplan?

In 2010 the writer of Londonslostgarden claimed that trenches targeted on the area of John Evelyn’s house and garden at Sayes Court appeared to miss some of the most significant areas that would yield data. The writer, a qualified archaeologist, demonstrates her claim using overlays of a series of maps from the sequence of changes to the site. The site visit of October 8th 2011 followed by on-site debate with the lead archaeologist Duncan Hawkins was inconclusive in assuaging the conviction that trenches are not well placed to encounter the most significant data. This work has been re-considered by a landscape architect who also raises questions regarding the intention of the trial trenching. It is not yet clear what garden archaeology expertise was applied to this site of international interest. If there are published reports of expert garden archaeology taking place at the site of Sayes Court, such as is demanded by PPS5, or expert evaluation even, of the works carried out by CgMs, we have been unable to source these important documents. If Lewisham has a nominated specialist garden archaeologist we are not aware of any published results of that expert’s evaluation of the CgMs excavations. We are aware that during and after the completion of trial trenching on the Sayes Court site that English heritage nominated garden archaeology expert when contacted to determine his opinion of the published results was entirely unaware of the excavations that had taken place.

i. Trial trench plan and overlay of modern warehousing
ii. Trial trench plan and overlay of modern warehousing and Evelyn’s garden plan of 1653
(Courtesy Londonslostgarden)

Given the questions posed above concerning the trial trenching of Sayes Court, I decided to examine the trench plan targeting the dockyard Officers’ Terrace. This terrace may be the earliest palace front terrace in England, and therefore a major contribution in the development of European architecture, data that would be significant in helping to identify the site of the former dockyard as a whole of international importance.

In relation to the development of royal dockyard officers’ housing, Lake and Douet for English Heritage depending on Jonathan Coad’s work The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: Architecture and Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy (1989), claim “The earliest (palace front terrace) was the former Devonport Officer's Terrace, (now part of South Yard and largely destroyed by bombing), which was built between 1692 and 1696 under the direction of the Surveyor, Edward Dummer.” However, had Lake and Douet fully consulted King’s MS 43, Dummer’s renowned survey of the royal dockyards of 1698, the plans of Deptford would have shown that the principal Officers’ Terrace there was in place by 1688.

Dummer’s Survey of the dockyard at Deptford 1688 plan from Kings Ms. 43 1698
Showing the Officers’ Terrace to the upper far eastern boundary of the site (courtesy of the British Library)

The modest palace front terrace at Deptford is clearly evidenced as being built prior to Devonport and as such Deptford not Devonport, as Lake and Douet have claimed, “shows the earliest instance in Britain of a palace front terrace.”

The terrace at Deptford accommodated the Master Attendant, Clerk of the Survey, Clerk of the Cheque, Builder’s Assistant, Storekeeper, and Surgeon. The total value ascribed to the terrace by Dummer in 1698 was £3,662. The most expensive house was the corner house occupied by the Clerk of the Cheque valued at more than £950.

Dummer’s survey of the Officers’ Terrace at Deptford shown here in the 1698 Kings Ms. 43 (Courtesy of the British Library)

In relation to the Devonport terrace Lake and Douet continue, “Furthermore it predates Mansart's Place Vendome in Paris, finished in 1698 and usually credited as the first full development of the palace front in Europe.” (Lake and Douet 1998:82) This accolade too must be credited to Deptford where the regular fenestration pattern and rhythm of the terrace together with centralized and rhythmical door placement form the simple but clear palace front on the west elevation particularly. Lake and Douet state “the development of palace-front terraces within the dockyards is of considerable significance in the evolution of English architecture. This form of unified planning was widely used during the eighteenth century and in the first half of the nineteenth century, and is considered one the country's particular contributions to European architectural history.” (Lake and Douet 1998:87) I suggest that it is therefore Deptford dockyard that makes the contribution of considerable significance as the earliest palace front terrace in England.

Given that Dummer became the Surveyor of the Navy in 1692 having joined the navy in 1668, unless sufficient scrutiny is given to the similarities and differences of the Deptford and Plymouth terraces such as to support the possibility of a Dummer authorship at Deptford even prior to his role as surveyor, (since as an extra clerk in the office of the Surveyor from 1678 he had responsibility for drawing), we must look elsewhere to ascribe authorship of Deptford’s early palatial terrace. Celia Fox’s 2007 paper for the British Library, “The Ingenious Mr Dummer: Rationalizing the Royal Navy in Late Seventeenth-Century England” also misses the Deptford officers’ terrace.

From Coad in 1989, Lake and Douet in 1998, to Celia Fox in 2007 the plan, elevations and valuations of the Deptford terrace found in Dummer’s 1698 survey were not included in the authors’ deliberations on early dockyard officers’ housing. This makes the opportunity that the archaeological explorations presents all the more
vital.

Thorough archaeological investigations the earlier Deptford terrace may offer further data, such as brick and mortar dating, timber dating and chimney design and positioning to establish the architectural authorship and date. The Deptford Officer’s terrace may well be one of England’s earliest examples of uniform palatial terracing in the country. The Plymouth and Deptford terraces are related in period design to the Navy Board Office at Seething Lane, Crutched Friars, arguably a Wren and Hooke collaboration and dated to c.1674. (Fox 2007:51) Deptford Master Shipwright Jonas Shish writes to the Navy Commissioner’s on June 22nd 1665 on account of repairs needed to the Clerk of the Survey’s House amounting to £12. (ADM 106/ 28- June 22nd 1665) Further archive based research alongside archaeological data are therefore required to establish beyond doubt the history of the Officers’ Terrace at Deptford, here proposed as dated to c.1660.

In the archaeological reports the stated aim of trenches 43, 44 and 46 was to determine the level of survival of the former officers’ quarters, their form and fabric. No archaeological structures were identified in Trench 46. Trench 40 was targeted on horticultural land, the aim to identify the nature of land use. A modern building occupied the trench.

Trench 46 was placed in the road between the great dock and a green space in front of the terrace. Trench 43 was placed in a parcel of land that was never within the dockyard and only became part of the site during the tenure of the Foreign Cattle market. Trench 44 was placed in the garden of the Officers’ Terrace. Only trench 42 is situated in the area of the Officers’ terrace.

This trench reveals very detailed and interesting data. Suggesting the three phases of building from the terrace shown in the Evelyn map 1623, the terrace shown in Edmund Dummer’s survey of 1688-98 and the known 18th century re-facing of the Dummer surveyed terrace.

Concluding the 2010 report archaeological report that accompanies the planning submission documents (relied on by Lewisham Planners to determine their recommendations to committee) it is stated,
“4.3 Significance
Some of the archaeological remains are nationally important – for example the
scheduled Tudor storehouse. Most of the remains uncovered in the evaluation are of
local or regional significance, however.”

This attempt to disaggregate the dockyard infrastructure is in direct opposition to stated English Heritage guidelines that states, “A holistic approach should be taken where several original or near contemporary associated structures survive together or where a group of structures displays the evolution of port facilities in one significant place.”
(Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide 2007:05)

The Deptford dockyard site is made up of its constituent parts as an interrelated whole. The history of the development of the yard begins with the double dock, slips, Great Storehouse and basin, forming the earliest foundation of the yard, c.1513-1517. There is record of royal ships being built, repaired and stored at the Deptford site prior to 1513, when the Thomas de la Tour is brought to Deptford for repairs in 1420.

English Heritage has determined that the site is of national importance. It therefore seems illogical and disingenuous on the part of the lead archaeologist to disaggregate the constituent elements of the site in a way that diminishes the significance of the whole. There is a cumulative value that is determined by the setting and by the context of the intimate interrelated functions of the yard, such as the interrelationship between a dock, its saw pits, capstan housings, penstocks and bridge infrastructure that is harmed by such attempts at disaggregation.

Where trenches have not been well targeted, where the desk based surveys are not well aligned with site based surveys and where permissions are sought prior to a good understanding of the archaeology and a thorough understanding of the impacts of development upon that archaeology there are serious causes for concern. As late as May 2011 Lewisham’s Design Panel advised the Developer’s Design Team that the archaeology was not yet adequately understood. English Heritage has recommended that development proposals should not be adopted by Planning Departments until PPS5 legislation is well articulated. PPS5 is referred to as a consulted source by the Developer’s Design Team but I can find no articulation or direct application or reference to it in their submission. This may be a serious omission.

There clearly has been an oversight in relation to the adoption of this current submission. Whilst archaeological explorations continue (and continue to be questioned based on well-researched accounts), is it not underhand on the part of the developer to submit 2010 archaeological reports that are often absolute in their conclusions such as “there will be no upstanding remains of the Basin” or determinations that the dry dock is structurally unsound when little more than trial trenching has occurred on these buildings of monumental naval dockyard infrastructure?

For an area that is likely to be determined as of international significance the submission of reports based on trial-trenching alone that provide only partial data is an insufficient method to establish a good understanding of the archaeology. To ensure that PPS5 is articulated in the developer’s submissions and to ensure no further damage is wrought by the proposed development, to rely solely on the SARM is a highly questionable and a high risk strategy.

The opportunity exists to delay the determination of the application until the archaeology is complete as English Heritage have advised at Old Gun Wharf in Chatham. This is a far more secure way forward in order to satisfy PPS5.

Coad, J.G., The Royal Dockyards 1690-1850: Architecture and Engineering Works of the Sailing Navy (1989)
Fox, Celia “The Ingenious Mr Dummer: Rationalizing the Royal Navy in Late Seventeenth-Century England” Bl(2007)
Lake, J. and Douet, J., The Naval Dockyards: A Thematic Survey (1998 English Heritage, unpublished report)
Liljenberg, Karen http://londonslostgarden.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/dig-manages-to-miss-elysium/ Acessed Oct 9th 2011
Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage, Maritime and Naval Buildings Selection Guide (March 2007)

Brief Objections to the Proposed Development of Convoys Wharf: Heritage

Within Hutchison Whampoa's Design Team’s proposals there is no clear strategic vision for the heritage influence or the realisation of its potential contribution to the site. The Design Team has failed to demonstrate design sensitivity to the majority of historic dockyard structures, the basin, mast ponds and slipways. Better solutions can be found based on a heritage led approach, appropriate for an area of archaeological priority and unparalleled historic significance on the London Thames. The Design team is basing its disregard for the history on the suggested condition of the structures alone and whilst this is controversial what I more controversial is the attempt to instill a disaggregated approach to the dockyard as a whole and a wholesale disregard for historic association of eminent architects , engineers and major national figures and nationally significant events.

The Design teams decisions and their proposals currently demonstrate that they have not been guided by specific Government national policy English Heritage on Naval and Maritime sites (EH April 2011), Thames Gateway, London Plan or more recent heritage policy such as PPS5.

A sensitivity to the Tudor dockyard plan, its routes, circulations, access points, its historic open spaces is not apparent in the Design Team’s proposals. An understanding and familiarity of these resources is absent as they have not been utilized by the Design Team to inform their choices and proposals in the location of buildings. These resources should be used to stimulate alternative designs, stimulate dialogue between the new and the old and encourage better solutions than those currently proposed.

Whilst successful design must respond to the market, market forces should never dictate design decisions affecting the historic environment. Fifty years ago, the earliest naval building in the country, Henry VIII’s Great Storehouse of 1513, was demolished for “economic and strategic reasons”. The building that replaced it stood for less than thirty years. Whilst planners need to understand the market and meet its demands, we must ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated by squandering irreplaceable historic resources.

A successful scheme is one that will respond to people’s needs beyond housing and retail. The site is bookended by listed buildings of the Master Shipwright’s House and Payne’s Wharf to the east, the buildings of the Royal Victualling yard to the West and backed up by one of the most significant garden sites in the country, John Evelyn’s Sayes Court Garden. This is the greatest concentration of heritage assets in the borough of Lewisham.
Heritage assets exist across the site, creating the opportunity for the creation of an unparalleled stretch of the Thames Path in London that incorporates the influence of the archaeology and historic assets within the design proposals. The incorporation of the areas of the mast ponds, their entrance gates, of the basin and its entrance gates, of the slipways with their brick and stone entrances have not been utilized to inform the design layout. Whether this is achieved as green space in the form of sunken gardens, or the re-introduction of inland water bodiesas has been achieved at the neighbouring Deptford Wharves site, it is clear that there is no demonstration of any of these possibilities coming to bear within the current proposals.
PPS5 demands that field based assessments are carried out prior to the validation of a proposal. The field-based assessments of some of the most significant historic assets recognized by EH as of national importance in 2003 have not yet been achieved.

London Plan GLA
The GLA has reported that the previous proposals fall short of capitalizing on the heritage resources that the site offers. The GLA recognizes the potential for a series of heritage led responses and heritage spaces across the site. The current proposals concentrate the heritage element at the site of the dry dock alone. Isolating the dry dock in this way may impair the future sustainability of this asset.

Olympia Building
Whilst the Olympia Building is listed, its proposed development erases much of its heritage value and the proposal to build on the basin damages the context, setting and legibility of the listed building.

Sayes Court Garden
Declared an open space in the 2004 development proposals, this key site could fulfill the GLA recommendations and meet PPS5 aspirations for nationally significant historic sites. As a public open space the re-instatement of the garden would contribute to meeting health and environmental policies, especially where the current proposals for green space are limited to the landscaped dry dock.

Dry Dock
The landscaping of the dry dock is an unimaginative response. The Head dock is a vast granite built structure. As a unique feature the Head dock could contribute far more to the distinctive sense of place if it were exposed.

Seven Bridges
The opportunity for the reinstatement of seven bridges across the dock, slipway, basin and mast pond openings to the river should be explored to create an unparalleled stretch of the London Thames Path. The proposed 45ft Thames Path is sufficient width for these bridges to be re-instated.

Basin
The basin is the dockyard’s wet dock. Given that the dry dock is protected it makes sense to protect the wet dock. They were first built around the same time c.1517. Both structures were developed through successive centuries, by the eminent engineers of their time. John Rennie designed the basin as it exists now. Both structures were filled in by the late 19th century and they are both major signifiers of the dockyard. To protect only one diminishes both.
If the basin walls are not in a good condition then they should be repaired.

Mast pond
The 17th century mast pond is a unique feature and reported to be in very good condition. Possibilities should be explored to bring it back as an inland body of water or it could become a sunken garden.

Conclusion
Whilst the Design Team’s statements acknowledge the potential contribution of the heritage assets their current proposals do not fulfill these publicly made assertions. To this extent the Design Team’s publicity and recent consultation documentation seriously misleads the public. By engaging local people in the design process and incorporating local people’s knowledge of the site into design proposals, opposition to the scheme will diminish and the chances of the schemes success will be greatly increased.

Deptford is

shipwrightspalace blog is read daily by people like you from all over the world.
If you care about the future of the heritage environment of Henry VIII's former royal naval dockyard at Deptford that has inspired the work of this blog then please go to http://www.deptfordis.org.uk/ and sign the petition. Thankyou

Reconnecting Deptford with the Royal Dockyard

Get to know the historic dockyard structures that still exist immediately below the modern concrete surface. View the Great Dock, the slipways, the Great Basin and mast ponds via this National Maritime Museum link. You'll find this link to the scale model of the yard built in 1774 for George III very useful if you are intending to join the archaeology day on October 8th. If you believe that these structures should inform the redevelopment and not remain filled in and buried (preservation in situ' beneath new apartments then you must write to Lewisham Planning Department before September 27th 2011. The majority of these structures are in brick and stone. They are massive and monumental engineering structures not fragile archaeological remains. Similar docks at Chatham have been retained to enhance the setting of the development, create a sense of place and mark the history of the site.

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/explore/object.cfm?ID=SLR2906&picture=36

For Richer, for Poorer: Advocacy, Participation and Social Justice in the Redevelopment of Convoys Wharf

Official advocacy on behalf of heritage environment in Deptford has been and continues to be extremely poor. This lack of official advocacy pitches communities towards adverse relationships with private developers’ interest in financial capital as against communities’ investment in their cultural and social capital. This scenario of official neglect jeopardizes the enjoyment of positive outcomes for extant communities facing new developments.

Expert disdain for local investment in and appreciation of the heritage environment continues to prevail and compounds hostile relationships with administrative elites. In an area of archaeological priority where the country’s only royal dockyard with its Tudor plan extant comprised of docks, slips basin and mast ponds dating from c.1513 alongside one of the nation’s most significant garden sites at Sayes Court, requires that the official primary goal be the articulation of publicly funded policy specific to that environment.

Policies for the preservation of archaeological remains are a woefully inadequate response to vast industrial naval engineering structures intended to be 'below ground'. Development proposals citing preservation in situ are hostile to direct participative inclusion in the heritage environment. Preservation in situ falls far short of national government aspirations enshrined in PPS5.

Advocacy that gives practical voice to the aspirations of national policy and participative needs of local people can be a most effective engine of social inclusion and should stand as the primary objective in the Planning Strategy of Convoys Wharf. It is precisely the intangible material culture of people’s participative interaction with the heritage environment that should take precedence. A focus on the material environment alone is the reason why many so called community regeneration projects falter and fail.

Whilst this may sound like a new approach the thinking is closely allied to the practice of “joined up thinking” by marrying heritage, health, environmental ecological and planning policy rather than setting these policies at odds with one another and promoting hostile relationships between communities and private developers.

Lewisham Planners decisions for the Convoy’s site has great potential for progressive application, fair treatment and equal access in relation to publicly funded heritage policy. Every other royal dockyard in the country currently enjoys the benefits of publicly funded statutory protection. Should Deptford not receive fair and equal access to these policies and therefore be social excluded from such statutory protection then HRA legislation may apply. Whilst this may seem like an extreme claim, to exclude the local population from participation in its heritage environment is itself a tacit demonstration of hostility towards that community. HRA application to social policy issues, in particular with respect to the built environment, is gaining ground as a legal case study arena. Heritage is increasingly appreciated as a dynamic participative relationship and less as scenarios of ‘preservation in situ’ that preclude the opportunity for participative interaction.

In Deptford, social exclusion from fair and equal access to statutory heritage policy is conspicuous and as such is a political rather than a planning issue. in the case of the development of Convoys Wharf the absolute void of officlal advocacy, or at least a void of any advocacy shared with the community that hosts the heritage environment is a HRA issue.

Failure to implement specifically targeted policy compounds the negative social impacts that result and constitutes a form of direct discrimination. Such maladministration of readily available policy engenders community disempowerment. It is neither civil nor just to blatantly ignore the detrimental impacts of such exclusion. Indeed to ignore such detrimental impacts is to actively promote, systematize and further embed social exclusion in an already socially excluded community.

Heritage officials are perceived as elite, distant and largely middle class with little or no significant interest in the heritage of poorer areas. A comparative audit of expenditure in relation to the scope and significance of the heritage environment of the Tudor Royal Dockyard in comparison with for instance Tudor Hampton Court in an area of prosperity and affluence could prove interesting. Where elite political resolve has been habitually absent, individual and community resolve has grown, matured and mastered an unprecedented confidence.

In the interests of social justice and national obligations in the case of the redevelopment of Henry VIII’s royal dockyard, Lewisham Planners have the opportunity to determine a higher resolve than the seductive rateable values to be harvested from Hutchison Whampoa’s proposals and deliver a fair and equal access to the inherent resources of socio-cultural capital embedded in the heritage environment. The theoretical and illusory notion of “preservation in situ” complicitly denies such fair and equal access.

As a source of inspiration and a demonstration that the immaterial culture of the heritage assets at Deptford, the site of Henry VIII’s royal dockyard has served the nation as a military site through five centuries we are reminded that the European Court of Human Rights has created the right to an equality of arms in legal representation.

The monstrous and greedy Leviathan that is Hutchison Whampoa’s proposal for Henry VIII”S royal dockyard in Deptford will be fought with all the spirit and tenacity that historically characterizes the site that launched ships for the battle of the Spanish Armada, launched countless voyages of discovery of Drake, Frobisher, Cook, Vancouver, and set out ships for Nelson’s battles including Trafalgar.