We are Voice 4 Deptford. We live and work in Deptford, teach children, raise families, commute or socialise locally. We believe that plans for the redevelopment of Convoys Wharf, our precious stretch of the river Thames, are out of date, unsuitable for the young, culturally out of keeping with Deptford and should therefore be thrown out and the process started again.
Click on the red button HOW TO OBJECT – where you can register an objection.
Our aims are:
- Social rented housing in every block and phase of the development. The 2015 master plan was for 3,500 units – of which only 500 would be affordable homes. We know ‘affordable’ means ‘unaffordable’ for most people. It is commonly acknowledged that the term ‘affordable’ ranges from £40k to £90k annual income, that is not affordable for most people on regular incomes. Voice 4 Deptford wants the development on Convoys Wharf to provide social rented housing and truly affordable housing in every block and phase of the whole site. In London we have a housing crisis. There are thousands of newly built 1 & 2 bedroom properties standing empty, still unsold, built by developers when the greatest housing need is for homes for larger families, key workers, the young, the homeless and those in networks of support and heritage.
- Exceptional architecture, a building which reflects Deptford, its riverside location and unique maritime heritage. We do not want an ‘anywhere in the world’ set of buildings.
- Suitable spaces for children and young people on both the inside and outside of any building. The interior design and outside landscaping should allow for sufficient places for them to play and move around in safety.
- Buildings, bricks, gardens and walkways which celebrate Deptford’s character and rich history rather than obliterate it.
- A cultural strategy created by and for local people, which informs the site’s design and showcases, to the world, Deptford’s exceptional heritage and creative talent.
- Dodged formally and informally consulting with local people
- Ignored the views of local people
- Shirked meeting with local people
- Sidestepped work on a cultural plan
- Avoided reference to local history and culture surrounding their published site plans