Greenwich Market: Bad News

The Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment calls it “alien” and “awkward.” The Victorian Society says it will be “damaging.” The Environment Agency describes it as an “unacceptable risk to the environment.” The leader of the opposition on Greenwich Council calls it “aesthetic vandalism.” I said it would turn an historic market into a “modern shopping precinct with market stalls attached.”

But you guessed it – that doughty guardian of our town, Greenwich Council’s planning department, thinks the proposal to rip up Greenwich Market is absolutely fine.

In one week’s time, councillors on the planning board will decide whether to approve the demolition scheme. Late last week, the council planning officers’ recommendation to the committee was published. It is sure to have considerable influence on what the councillors themselves decide. And it gives the developers everything they want, recommending approval of the demolition with no significant conditions.

The site, say the officers, is “an excellent location” for the proposed 104-room luxury hotel. No, the hotel’s not too big. No, it won’t overshadow everything else, or dominate the listed buildings around it – or at least if it does, that will simply “add to the character of the West Greenwich Conservation Area.” No, the hotel won’t cause more traffic – why, all the guests will come by public transport!

The officers grudgingly admit that the current, locally-listed market roof “has some relevance to local identity” and that the columns are “quite attractive.” They concede that their own planning policy, the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), is that “applications for the demolition of locally listed buildings will be discouraged.” They admit that this is a “valid perspective in this situation.” But they’re approving its demolition anyway.

That new plastic roof which replaces it? Well, it’s lovely – or in the planning department’s words, it gives “significant scope for improvement to the character and appearance of the market space” and is an “appropriate addition in this heritage context.” This is perhaps the planners’ most blatant denial of reality. The “character” and “context” of a World Heritage site cannot be improved by replacing it with something copied from Stratford Bus Station.

The UDP policy about locally-listed buildings isn’t the only one of their own policies that councillors are recommended to ignore. UDP policy TC7 states: “The Council will protect and enhance the site and setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site…. Development within it should preserve and enhance its essential and unique character and appearance.” Indisputably, the new scheme will not do this.

Policy TC8 states that any new development anywhere in the town centre must “demonstrate the highest standards in design, landscaping, detailing, and finishing.” Not here, they mustn’t.

Policy TC12 says that the Council “will…seek to reduce the effects of through traffic on Greenwich town centre.”

Policy M40 states that “developments generating/ attracting coach traffic will need to make provision for dropping off and picking up, coach manoeuvring on site.” This is clearly not the case with the proposed hotel.

Seventy-five individual letters about the development were received from residents. Of those, 74 were against. I have asked dozens of people what they think about this proposal – and I have been able to find only three people who support it. Greenwich Hospital may have sewn up the “community representatives,” whether elected – like Nick Raynsford MP – or self-appointed, like the Greenwich Society. But over the Market it is clear, and perhaps to the developers’ surprise, that these supposed representatives in fact represent nobody.

The action now moves to another set of community representatives. Will the councillors on the planning board go along with their officers? Or, with a local election due in nine months, will they show any kind of awareness of the feeling among their voters? If they choose to ignore the views of the public, then I think we can anticipate a political backlash.

Whatever happens, next week is not the end of the road. Either the opposition – or the developers – can challenge a decision that goes against them, with the Mayor and possibly the Government.