Network Wapping September Meeting

Panorama from the roof of fortress Wapping

Dear reader(s?), how could I leave you with such a cliff hanger?

How did the Network Wapping (NW) meeting go?

Did they take over the world as we know it, upturning Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus?

The simple answer- it went quite well in my opinion with no evidence so far of a local illuminati being established.



Fast facts

Representation: 2 out of 5. A good mix of locals but the Asian community very under represented and relatively few men. Overall a good mix of ages. Some native Wapping people, though I don't know what the actual split is within the area to make a judgement.

Quality of discussion: 4 out of 5. A good range of views, led well by John, the meeting ended before the conversation, as the premises had to be vacated.

Progress: 3 out of 5. Views were captured on flip charts to be written up. John and another lady (I think I know who she is but I shan't name to save embarrassment should I get it wrong) were meeting with St George plc to introduce the group on Friday (yesterday) and hopefully share some high level ideas. What hasn't been made clear yet to attendees or the general public is what NW's purpose is. A discussion group is very different to a full neighbourhood planning forum (which I will discuss in a later post) and I think some fundamentals need to be set out, and I've emailed John in this respect.



The detail

I arrived early and with trepidation. The last community meeting I attended was with TfL discussing the Olympic Route Network and which I left early after tiring of the heated discussion/shouting. Wapping is keen to ask a question, and especially until they get the answer they want.

The meeting was reasonably well attended, maybe 20 people at a time with a little rotation through the night. Councillor Denise Jones attended the start (her ward of course extends to the 'bad north' and indeed I believe no longer captures her own home after the boundary crossed the road).

Coming from an accounting background I normally see a lot of very formal presentations, so John's was quite refreshing, based around photos, maps and designs representing concepts of the built environment in Wapping and globally.

Bridge linking the print works to the listed rum warehouse

Most of the meeting was spent discussing the development of the News International site and what we saw as priorities. I didn't express a view during the meeting. My philosophy in meetings is that I know what my views are and wait to get a feel for the meeting and only speak when I feel I can add value. Back during the discussions on the Town Council I was very vocal and I have a horrible feeling that (specifically at the meeting at St George's town hall) I suggested a community group should be established instead of an additional tier of government.

What struck me was the diversity of views and the balance between increasing local amenities without changing the character of the area. What was clear was that people genuinely had great affection for Wapping, but as an example of the disparate views expressed when the possibility of space being left for a high school it felt like two women exclaimed 'yes' and 'no' almost at the same time.

Gate between News International and Tobacco Dock

Similarly when the possibility of Tobacco Dock being used permanently as an events/exhibition centre, the tattoo convention was mentioned in passing. I've always enjoyed seeing a sea of body art flowing down the canal, or queuing up on Wapping Lane at 9.30am on a Sunday morning munching on Mcmuffins as I've walked to church. What I've never really noticed is the rubbish, which made one lady wish it didn't take place in Wapping. Talking it through, what it really needs is for extra stewarding and street cleaning. Perhaps making small changes in organisation could allow residents and visitors enjoy Wapping together. Ultimately, there is going to be a *massive* new development in Wapping. What NW has allowed though is for a lot of people to come together and be part of the discussion. If we want to influence this development we need to speak up, and whether it's as individuals or as a group, you can only blame yourself if your view wasn't expressed.

A quick summary of people's desires for the site is (I didn't take notes so I could be way off track):

• Open access, not another gated community
• Community facilities: GP surgery, community centre, schools (maybe a small vertical high school)
• Routes through the site, both east-west (Vaughan Way to Pennington St and the canal) and north-south ( The Highway to the canal)
• Not too dominant on the skyline
• Some moderate support for truly sustainable building
• Minimise air pollution during the demolition (cf Leman St)

Posted with Blogsy

Network Wapping

As well as attending the paralympics (twice) and standing on the Olivier Stage at the National Theatre (possibly the best week of my year to date) and work, this week I found time to attend, for the second time, a meeting of 'Network Wapping' (NW). I consider here not the content of that meeting (I'll post more on this and my niggles about planning forums later), but the run-up and some of the discussion around it.

The notice for the meeting on our local community website What's in Wapping (WiW), certainly attracted attention, and from looking at old posts about NW it had a flurry of attention in April, when it emerged that there was competition with a local charity, the Turk's Head,  over the creation of a neighbourhood planning forum and a few brisk exchanges were made. Though not much more was heard (or perhaps I wasn't listening), and NW went on to hold its AGM in July. 

WebWapping (by which I mean those residents who actively engage in online discussion) is generally vociferous about anything going on in the commmunity, be it allegations of impropriety (proven or otherwise) in local charities, the creation of a Town Council, the establishment of a Free School or blocking off access to the river. These are things I must confess to often doing. What WebWapping is most suspicious of (and quite rightly) is a lack of openess and transparency.

As part of the story on WiW about the meeting this week, Vickie, who runs the site asked for a list of the names of people who supported the creation of a Neighbourhood Planning Forum (and for the record mine is one and I told Vickie so) at its July AGM. John, who chairs NW didn't want to supply people's names to WiW without asking the individuals first, so said they weren't available but BCC'd them on his reply. WiW neutrally stated the names weren't available As a result, WebWapping unfortunately inferred NW to be acting secretively.

Alas, reality is predictably less exciting than the fruits of speculation - the provisional constitution circulated at the July AGM, includes....<drum roll> publishing of the names of the individuals. A secretive organisation that voluntarily includes such a provision isn't really doing its job. Anyway, as the 21+ individuals weren't all in attendance at the AGM (although I think some were), they have not had a chance to express a view.

In the web 2.0 age, all information is expected to be available at all times to all people and that emails, tweets and forum posts are answered promptly. I freely admit I get...'enraged' when I fill in a web contact form and don't hear back from the company in question within half a day. In this case the absence of an official mouthpiece for NW meant that criticism, speculation and comment which I consider to be somewhat over the top couldn't be effectively dealt with.

The second cause for concern raised by WebWapping was the nature of some mock ups of designs for spaces in the area. They are 'fanciful' and realistically I don't think any of them have the slightest chance of coming to fruition and I think John, who drew them up, knows this. What they do suggest is that John has a passion for the built environment and importantly in my mind, imagination.

The final niggle I perceive is that people aren't quite sure what the boundaries of Wapping are, and aren't comfortable with the name of Wapping being taken in vain (the new free School bears the name but not the location, at least not for now). The real question is, where does Wapping begin and end, and at what point are you not allowed to show an interest because of how far away you live?

The river to the south is a convenient boundary, as is the existence of a small castle upstream. Looking east, King Edward Memorial Park provides a neat boundary, though does one choose the east or west boundary - a big issue when thinking about a super sewer. Historically, the east-west boundary between Wapping and Limehouse is marked with a plaque on a wall in the garden on the Prospect of Whitby! The real issue however is the northern boundary. For many, 'The Highway' AKA the A1203 forms a 'natural' boundary, given the four lanes of traffic and a council estate on the other side. John, who lives in 'the bad north' as he calls the other side of the Highway has adopted an area that broadly maps to the political boundary of the Ward of St Katherine and Wapping. I feel it might be an idea to explore how boundaries of 'Wapping' have changed, even if just an academic exercise.

Paul