PLANS TO demolish Greenwich Market were unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council tonight in a decision which stunned both the developers and their opponents alike.
Members of the council’s planning board voted to turn down the highly controversial scheme, which would have seen the existing market replaced by a modern market, a contemporary shopping precinct and a 104-bedroom hotel.
The rejection comes despite Greenwich Council planning officers recommending acceptance of the plans.
The council leader, Cllr Chris Roberts, a member of the planning board, said at the meeting: “I simply don’t believe the design is good enough for the World Heritage Site. I am not convinced it would create a place I would want to spend time in.”
The council’s cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Peter Brooks, also a board member, said he had “grave concerns” about the quality of the design and said: “I’ve not been convinced by anything I’ve heard” from the developers and landowners, Greenwich Hospital.
Tory councillor Dermot Poston said the scheme could be anywhere: “Those shops might be in Brazil, or Canada, or Manchester – not Greenwich.”
Backbenchers from all parties said that the proposed hotel – which would be up to two storeys higher than the existing buildings – was an overdevelopment which could give rise to traffic congestion in the busy one-way system.
They echoed concerns first raised by greenwich.co.uk, which has run many articles analysing the weaknesses in the scheme.
Earlier, the Hospital’s director, Martin Sands, had told the meeting that the landowner was committed to maintaining a retail mix, with small shops of the kind the market has now. He said the hotel would enhance Greenwich’s economy by improving the town’s shopping and allowing more tourists to stay overnight. He was backed by the South-East London Chamber of Commerce.
But, questioned by councillors, Hospital officials pointedly declined to give a clear commitment that all existing traders would be able to return after the redevelopment at rents which they could afford.
David McFarlane, the Hospital’s spokesman, told the committee: “We are prepared to make some concessionary rents, but we have to have regard for the overall viability of the scheme.”
The meeting, which was attended by around a hundred members of the public, also heard from several of the objectors to the scheme. Almost 900 people sent formal letters of objection to the council.
Elaine Marshall, a shopkeeper at the market since it reopened in its present form more than two decades ago, said: “There is nothing wrong with the market as it is. It is vibrant and popular – it is often impossible to get around on Sundays.”
Another objector described one of the most controversial features of the design – a modern transluscent plastic roof – as “like Bluewater” and “a gift to pigeons.”
Two of the three councillors representing Greenwich West, the ward which covers the market, also spoke against the plans from the audience. One, Cllr Maureen O’Mara, said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The leader of the opposition, Cllr Spencer Drury, said the proposal put before councillors was not detailed enough and did not answer critical questions such as what the proposed wooden finish on the buildings would look like and how far the new buildings would disturb famous views and sightlines.
The existing listed buildings on the street side of the market would have been kept, but the issue of how far the new buildings behind would poke up above them became a central concern at the meeting. Councillors criticised the Hospital for not providing any long-distance images of how the town centre would look.
However, the Greenwich Society spoke in favour of the proposals, saying they were an “object lesson” in how to present a planning application. The society’s vice-chairman described them as “welcome” and an “improvement” to the area.
Had the plans been approved, the market would have closed at Christmas for a two-year construction process. Stallholders and a few of the shopkeepers would have been moved to a smaller temporary market on Metropolitan Open Land in the grounds of the Naval College. A separate planning application for the temporary market was withdrawn tonight.
The rejection is a serious blow to Greenwich Hospital, which has spent the last two years preparing for tonight’s meeting. The Hospital engaged a professional PR firm, distributed thousands of leaflets and newsletters and enlisted those it regarded as “key stakeholders,” such as the Greenwich Society and the local MP, Nick Raysnford, as cheerleaders for the scheme.
Mr Sands left the meeting tight-lipped and refused to make any comment when approached. “We will issue a press release tomorrow,” he said. It is not clear what the Hospital’s next move will be. It could appeal against the decision, but the council appears to be on strong ground since the scheme is in breach of more than a dozen of the policies in its Unitary Development Plan, the official statement of its planning policy.
The Hospital could return to the council in future with a revised scheme which addresses councillors’ concerns about the size of the hotel and the quality of the design. But reducing the size of the hotel and improving the design may cost too much to allow the scheme to remain economic in the current climate. Whatever happens, the Hospital’s hope that the scheme can be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics is now at an end.
Kate Jaconello, a trader from the market, said she and other traders felt a “huge, huge sense of relief” about the decision. “We can now get on with running our businesses without worrying about our future,” she said.
UPDATED 27/08/09:
Greenwich MP, Nick Raynsford, has responded to the news:
“I am grateful to all members of the Key Stakeholders Consultative Group, stakeholders and residents who have been involved in the Hospital’s plans for the market regeneration and for the huge amount of input received from the local community.
I believe this was, and still is, the right scheme; to ensure a successful future for Greenwich town centre which preserves and enhances the market.
I intend to meet with all parties concerned, and continue to support the sensible regeneration plans which preserve and enhance the market and Greenwich town centre”
Indigo says
Excellent news.
Dean Preston says
What a shame – I saw the designs and thought the proposed development was anything but ‘bluewater like’. Was down in Greenwich last week and the market looks absolutely knackered, especially that awful roof and that horrible bin area to the left on the way in from Church St. I havent heard one good reason for this developments refusal. The roof is knackered, what material do they suggest is used? And the hotel is only 4 storeys high, all the buildings currnently there are 3-4 storeys anyway from what i can see (!). Given the recession, Greenwich Council are pretty brave to reject anyone willing to spend £30m to improve a shabby section of its town centre. Especially given its is the long-term property owner and a charity, not some fly-by-night property developer. I am one dissappointed resident.
Simon says
This has made my day! 🙂
SCAM says
Great News! Interesting that most comments were on the views and look of Greenwich.Little do you relise that soon your scyscape will be further violated by aircraft.
its a pity you didnt stick around. You would have seen the council vote to get into an agreement with London City Airport
Residents who chose to attend Greenwich Council’s Planning Committee last night found themselves presented once again, with yet still unchanged inaccuracies in Mr Neil Willey’s planning report on London City Airport. This really is unprofessional, particularly as these serious inaccuracies were raised with the deputy leader last May.
It is really quite surprising that the planning officer fails to realise that propeller planes are quieter than jets and as a result supports the increase in jets, the very item that causes his borough misery. Has Mr Willey simply copied a LCY press release we wonder?
It’s worth pointing out that jets are category a, and if you look at the LCY noise categorisation report, there they are at the top of the tree of noise nuisance for the communities. A is the noisiest of planes to operate at LCY, b being, well quieter! But don’t worry, Mr Willey continues to report that the jets are quieter….of course, that’s why the noise contour has expanded to include an estimated additional 47,000 residents isn’t it!?
Jon van der Walt says
Best news in months! How can people still contemplate destruction of historic markets? This vile proposal would have ripped the heart out of Greenwich village.
GORN61 says
I’m a resident of Greenwich borough, living just up the hill by the Royal Standard. I had little information about this proposal and the decisions being made. Is there a summary of the proposal and the objections to it available somewhere?
Joseph Thorpe says
This is wonderful news!!! i am so happy that the concil has rejected the plans for the redevelopment of this beautiful site. It is a bit shabby, the roof could do with a clean, but the site has a charm created by ALL that work there. The atmosphere is amazing and is the heart of greenwhich. Why do designers lover that plasic material to cover roofs? Many congrats to all that fought last night and to all who wrote letters. But i have a feeling the fight is not over.
Michael Delaney says
The market undoubtedly needs a refurb – I mean google image “Greenwich Markets” and the pictures speak for themselves. Its like a cattle shed. I think people love to knock proposals which involve change and that was this schemes downfall. People who seem to have an attitude of ‘No’ to changed no matter what that involves. Are the owners of the market meant to wait until it falls down or should they invest in its future? I heard that the market traders were all being accomodated in the Naval College until the works are complete and were getting nice new units after its completed. And dont these traders rely on tourists for the majority of their trade…so they reject an in-keeping overhead hotel?! Hello!
Andrew Ibbotson says
yes the market does need a bit of TLC and tbh the canopy/roof could do with being replaced (as could most things erected in the 1950s…) but there is already enough uniform nastiness in Greenwich (the food area at the 02) and you can bet that a brand spanking new hotel wouldn’t want the shops that are currently there to return, wishing them to be replaced with the usual high street fodder and thus turning the centre of Greenwich in yet another carbon copy town centre. And there is already at least one big hotel in the centre of Greenwich – Devonport House (and the Ibis and the Novotel), what Greenwich could do with is a more reasonably priced and decent sized B&B place where people don’t have to take out a loan to come and sample the quirky joys of Greenwich (except on a Friday/Saturday night when it’s best to lock your doors and pretend you aren’t in…)
Michael Delaney says
Andrew – I agree with you points, but from what I heard the hotel was going to be a small boutique hotel which currently opertaed only one other hotel at Borough, not an Ibis or one of the big American chains. Also I read that Greenwich Hospital has made a commitment to the current traders that they would be given new units in the new scheme. The ones that were affected were helped to find other units around the town or are to be relocated to a temporary market in the College. I am sure that Greenwich Hospital is not stupid and knows that what attracts people is the independent stores; they say that they are not allowing any high street chains in at all, except maybe a few food ones to compliment the independents. Which is why i think this ‘bluewater’ scare mongering is just misinformed people with hidden agendas seeking to block developments which stand to actually benefit Greenwich, not hinder it. I am really disappointed in this decision and ask everyone who has commented negatively about it to please tell me what you dont like – as i am one resident who simply cant see whats wrong with it!?!
Rob Powell says
Hi Michael – Ibis in Greenwich has 82 rooms. The proposal for the boutique hotel was that it would have over 100 rooms.
Andrew Ibbotson says
The plans I saw looked as though the hotel would tower above the existing buildings – maybe it is all in the perspective? And on another note, Greenwich Hospital isn’t a charity and doesn’t have to behave like one, as their website says…
“As a unique Crown body, we are governed also by the Greenwich Hospital Acts 1865 to 1996, which have been passed over the years to reflect changing social circumstances and the evolution of the Hospital. We do not fall under the requirements of the Charities Acts of 1992 or 2006, nor the jurisdiction of Charity Commissioners, but we do try to follow the best practices in the charity sector while meeting the requirements of our own Acts.”
My other concern is that there is already enough traffic going through already very crowded roads. As recent ‘short-term’ road works/utilities works have shown, it can take upwards of 20 minutes or more to get from the Mitre to the other end of the one way system. Imagine the chaos a two year building project in small area would cause. Whilst Greenwich is a tourist destination, it is also a residential area and I think the council have made the right decision for its residents (and council-tax payers…) who have to travel to work and back each day.
AJH says
Brilliant news – I am flabbergasted but my faith in local politics is slightly revived.
Andrew Gilligan says
Michael,
The term “boutique” was a misnomer. The hotel would have been up to two storeys higher than the existing buildings and would have dominated and constrained the market – guests paying £150 a night for a room would not want to put up with as much noise and bustle as there currently is.
As the councillors said, the proposal was aesthetically poor. And whatever the Hospital said about encouraging small shops, it noticeably declined to make concrete written commitments. It would almost certainly have been forced by the economics of the scheme to have charged rents in the new development that many existing tenants could not afford.
Andrew
GORN61 says
Anyone point me at a “new readers start here” summary of the proposal and the case against it?
Andrew Gilligan says
If you click on the “Greenwich Market” tag at the bottom of the piece you will get everything we have published on the subject.
Mark Etherington says
Can someone explain to me how council planning officers can recommend acceptance of plans which are “in breach of more than a dozen of the policies in [the council’s] Unitary Development Plan”?
GORN61 says
I’m being thick, I think. I can’t see anywhere a description of the what and why of the proposal that everyone is so animated about.
Both “sides” seem to be communicating their views pretty poorly, if yesterday is the first I’ve heard of eother the proposal or the objections, given I live only about a mile from the market.
Andrew Gilligan says
Yes, this was one of our complaints – that despite the Hospital’s claims of consultation, many people didn’t even know this was happening. The Hospital has a PR website, greenwichmarketconsultation.co.uk, on which there are newsletters with pictures of the plans. We have covered the issue on this website at great length – we are probably as good a place to come as any if you want to keep up to date with what is happening in Greenwich.
GORN61 says
Thanks for that link. After some grubbing around on there, I finally found http://greenwichmarketconsultation.co.uk/sitefiles/upload_docs/Public%20Exhibition%20Boards%20April%202009.pdf
Now, is there a summary of the objections to this proposal somewhere, or is it a matter of working through all the comments on greenwich.co.uk?
As I say, both sides seem to have done a good job of keeping information about this to themselves!
Megad says
This is so typical of proposals that have destroyed so many historic areas in Britain. Those involved in this have obviously no idea of preservation of historical buildings. To quote the consultation card “All the building materials, including each brick and tile have been offered for re-use within the world heritage site.” So thats alright then! Visit any reclamation yard in Britain and weep at what has been and is no longer. The hotel is also typical of the march of greed through historic towns. 1000 years of history? That’ll pull in the coach loads of tourist won’t it? We can even have some old sepia photos in the brochure! Yep, lets pull it all down and replace it with with a huge cheaply built hotel. Package tours wont even notice – after all they’re only there for one night while they soak up the ‘heritage’. Greenwich ‘hospital’ – go away, change your architects and come back with a scheme that preserves local history and compliments it with decent improvements of appropriate scale!
Michael Delaney says
Thanks for the comments but i still cant pinpoint any clear reasons for the ‘public outcry’ this proposal has caused. The closest I have got is Andrews comment about the hotel being ‘aesthetically poor’. Apart from that , the tems mentioned above i.e. – the number of hotel rooms and price thereof, Greenwichs notorious traffic problems, a 1 to 2 storey height increase of the site to accomodate the hotel, shouldnt be enough to stop the development surely? Anyway, we have missed our chance to get the market cleaned up now so no point discussing further – lets hope the owners dont scrap the intention altogether and just allow the site to decay further.
Blissett says
Some of the comments above really make clear the major issues with the campaign against the development.
On balance, I think the council has made the correct decision. The existing plan is far from ideal and could be much improved. However, I can’t help but feel that the feeble campaign against it has won something of a hollow victory.
As I’ve asked more than once on this site, if there is so much opposition to this plan why was the campaign against it even lower key than the original consultation? Why were the traders quoted above not fighting to protect the market they love so much? If NOGOE can organise a high profile campaign to protect the park from a one off event, why has nobody done the same to prevent a permanent change in Greenwich’s appearance? And if Andrew can gather 800 signature’s on a petition within 5 hours, a week before the council meeting, why on earth was somebody not collecting the “tens of thousands” that could have been amassed months ago? The campaign against may have won but it seems to be far more by luck than judgement.
Secondly, as other posters have alluded to above, many of the arguments raised against the plan seem far from compelling. A lot of people seem to be arguing against the entire principle of change rather than specific problems with this proposal. There appears to be a significant number of people who would like to see Greenwich as some sort of Georgian theme park, untouched by the 21st century (all the better for keeping out those terrible young people). We all love Greenwich’s history and heritage but it cannot exist in a vacuum and progress needn’t be destructive.
I think everyone needs to accept that Greenwich is far from perfect and some sort of regeneration is needed. If people had organised earlier and taken a more pragmatic stance, perhaps a better proposal could have been agreed that everyone could have supported. Instead it now seems likely that we’ll have to wait until parts of the town centre actually start falling down before people will accept the need to do something.
Indigo says
“As I’ve asked more than once on this site, if there is so much opposition to this plan why was the campaign against it even lower key than the original consultation? Why were the traders quoted above not fighting to protect the market they love so much?”
Compulsory purchase orders (shop owners were offered more than their shop was worth, if they would keep quiet); ruthless rent rises (drove out the trouble makers, eg an antiquarian bookshop and an antiques shop). There was quite a lot of intimidation of the traders by the landlord.
” If NOGOE can organise a high profile campaign to protect the park from a one off event, why has nobody done the same to prevent a permanent change in Greenwich’s appearance?”
Whether NOGOE wins or loses, no one is going to lose their livelihood.
“And if Andrew can gather 800 signature’s on a petition within 5 hours, a week before the council meeting, why on earth was somebody not collecting the “tens of thousands” that could have been amassed months ago?”
See above, re intimidation and CPOs. Also, at one point, it did look as if the landlords were to conduct a meaningful public consultation exercise; but as it turned out they did the absolute minimum and then made changes to what had been shown to the public, without going back to public consultation on those changes.
“There appears to be a significant number of people who would like to see Greenwich as some sort of Georgian theme park, untouched by the 21st century …. We all love Greenwich’s history and heritage but it cannot exist in a vacuum and progress needn’t be destructive.”
Thing is, the market is authentic; it has evolved to get like that. It isn’t a synthetic creation, although there is a certain amount of quality control in who is allowed to trade there. People come from all over London to be in Greenwich, with all its endearing grottiness, character, continuity with its great maritime history, the chance of finding a gem in the markets and the remaindered bookshops, and the glorious open space of Greenwich Park. They don’t need Greenwich to be a clone of anywhere else.
That’s what draws people in, and Greenwich Council has been taking the whole area in the wrong direction for several years. The more diverse and “layered” and different, the richer and happier will be everyone’s experience. Go to Greenwich to go back in Time is more of a winner, I think: street markets, one-off shops (not Top Shop), roll down the slopes in the Park where generations of people have rolled down just like you, and so on.
As a resident, I really miss the antiquarian bookshops (although I could afford only one or two) and the doll’s house shop (driven out to Welling).
Megad says
Well said. Rapacious landlords and greed have destroyed historic city centres throughout Britain, which despite our love affair with the National Trust and friendly sounding quangos like English “Heritage”, has one of the worst records for destruction of historic building in Europe. Large supermarket in middle of Bath? Nice little shopping mall in York city centre? No problem – we can always visit Prague or Florence for our holidays! One hopes there will now be rethinking of this proposal based on preservation of the historic heart of the market with any new build being in scale and in keeping with the original purpose and feel of the market zone. I remember someone said that the test of conservation is when your aunt visits your historic property after years of work and says “You’re lucky you didn’t have to do anything to it!” As good a test as I can think of for the central market area. And finally, can we get rid of the clown who thinks donating bricks to another building site and interspersing the ‘much loved’ cobbles in new material is a substitute for conservation!
Diana Gardiner says
I feel a bit guilty. I was partly informed about the redevelopment plans, to the extent at least that I knew it should be opposed. But I didn’t do anything about it. The only thing that I HAVE done recently, for the benefit of Greenwich planning, was to withdraw my membership to the Greenwich Society. During the past 10 years that I have lived in Greenwich I have watched the town center’s uniqueness erode. Every time a new chain store appears my heart sinks a little further. Like many of the commenters here, my list of complaints is long. Andrew, I am grateful for your voice. If there is anybody out there who wants to start an alternative to the Greenwich Society, I’ll be the first to sign up.
Megad says
Step forward good wo/men and true! If there is enough of us, we can save further destruction. In the meantime, anyone who liked the scheme can catch the 188 to Surrey Quay Shopping Centre and enjoy the history beneath their feet – the filled in Canada dock. I fear the alternative is foretold by the DLR complex. Antiquarian book shop for Waterstones, Local butcher for M&S. Local chemist for Boots. All in low-budget high street tacky corporate build.
Paul T says
I’d like to thank Andrew G, the Greenwich Phantom and the Greenwich Mercury, without whom many of the dodgier aspects of this scheme would not have come to light.
A few people here have missed the key aspects of this scheme; firstly, it would cost £28m. That money would have to be recouped. All the small traders would be forced out. It was good that the council caught them out on this publicly. These are landlords who have already forced out many of the shops for which I personally moved to Greenwich, to be replaced by empty units, and mobile phone shops and other franchises. They have no idea what is good for the area.
Secondly, the hospital spent a great deal on PR but were essentially duplicitous; there was no mention of, for instance, the stable blocks being demolished in the consultation; and while there were boxes of plans, which I waded through, there were no sightlines provided, which are normally obligatory with such applications. Whatever the aesthetics of the hotel – I personally liked them – it was far too big. This exemplified the arrogance of the plan, that the new build in the centre would tower over Joseph Kay’s buildings.
Paul G says
Does Greenwich even need a 5th hotel? Especially when there’ll be nothing left of any interest to visit soon?
megad says
Given the public transport links, guess the answer is a definite no. The charm of the market area is its continuity with history and surely that should be preserved above commercial greed – this development was about raising funds for the ‘hospital’s’ other projects, not enhancing the market. Lots of other charnming shops have already gone – I remember a model ship shop which I think became another noodle shop, etc. If the planners now listen, lets have an in scale refurbishment that preserves what is left of this special area.
Graham says
I was pleased to see the Council reject this application- the quality of the design and it’s scale were simply not appropriate for our historic town centre. Additionally any scheme which has the potential to further increase town centre traffic levels, should not be considered as a matter of policy. The Greenwich Society and others, including our member of parliament, should be ashamed that they supported this proposal. Local residents should be thankful that councillors and the Greenwich Phantom have more concern for our town centre than they.