Some Good News
We had a message from the Mayor of London, one of the Interested Parties in our Claim for a Judicial Review, that he will not be claiming the costs awarded to him under the (Costs) Order. However he did draw our attention to the judge’s comment at paragraph 6 of the Order that he was […]
The Judge has decided against our Claim for a Judicial Review
A Judge has given his decision. In a paper exercise, he has ruled against us. His ruling concurs with the arguments of the Defence and Interested Parties, concluding that our Claim should not go to a Judicial Review and it is ‘Totally Without Merit’. This rules out the possibility of making a request for our […]
Statement from Royal Dockyard Society
Thank you to everyone who is backing our campaign for a judicial review to show that the outline planning consent for the Deptford Dockyard, known as Convoys Wharf, is no longer valid. The Naval Dockyards Society (NDS) sent the following statement to V4D on 1st September 2020. It is given here in full and shows […]
Another step forward
Now all three parties – the Defendant, Lewisham Council, and the two Interested Parties, the Mayor of London and the developers – have lodged with the Court their counter arguments to our Claim. The papers will be considered by a judge and he or she will decide whether our claim can go forward for a […]
Our claim for a judicial review is with the court
Action for a Judicial Review of Convoys Wharf Planning Permission We have made our claim for a judicial review to the court. It will take around 6 weeks to be considered and for us to find out if the judge agrees we can go forward to the judicial review. In the meantime we need to […]
Two days to reach our next target
It’s time to have our next payment to our legal team ready. We need to move towards our new stretch target of £7,000 and raise another £1,000 in the next two days. You can help by: Emailing five of your friends asking them to pledge to our case and include the link: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/v4d-action-for-a-judicial-review/ Post a […]
Crowd Justice Update
Our thanks to NHS workers – give them homes they can afford As many of you know Sunday 5th July was the 72nd anniversary of the NHS. A nurse earns £25,000 a year. The majority of care workers are on zero hours contracts. One fifth of NHS staff are from the black, Asian and minority […]
Crowd Justice funding campaign live now
Our Crowd Justice funding campaign was launched this morning and we have already reached more than our initial target. Our campaign is off to a good start. It’s time for the voice of the people of Deptford to be heard. We want to go for a judicial review of the planning consent for Convoys Wharf […]
‘Pitiful’: Frustrated councillors rubber-stamp first Convoys Wharf blocks
From the article: Councillors criticised the low levels of “affordable” housing – Paul Bell, the cabinet member for housing, who also sits in Lewisham’s main planning committee, called it “truly pitiful” and got a dig in at the prime minister’s handling of the coronavirus too, adding: “It is a disgraceful legacy of Boris Johnson, although […]
Loading…
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Developer behind Convoys Wharf proposes ‘poor door
The property group behind the £1 billon Convoys Wharf development was criticised for proposing a “poor door” by Lewisham’s strategic planning committee on Monday (June 22).
Objections Plot 15 Convoys Wharf
Plot 15 has been brought forward, with some non-private affordable housing in Phase 1. Revision in the application to be a slightly higher affordable rental number to intermediate ratio%. The OPP is for 85% private and 15% affordable, giving 3,500 units. The 15% non-private affordable is spread across the whole development as “site wide”. The […]
Strategic Planning Committee June 9th, 2020
Voice4Deptford has been informed that members of the public who have registered to speak and to raise objections at the forthcoming Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) on June 9th, 2020, have only been allocated 5 minutes in total for each of the three RMA’s under discussion. This loss of speaking rights by reducing the time available […]
