Following Greenwich Council’s decision to reject the market redevelopment plans, Greenwich.co.uk columnist Andrew Gilligan called on the Greenwich Society – supporters of the project – to “change or die“. Today we publish the response of Greenwich Society chairman, Tim Barnes.
I question what positive service Andrew Gilligan has provided to Greenwich and its residents. His comments are uniformly negative. His latest attack on the Greenwich Society is one such example- but not the first such attack. He has used his position with the Evening Standard to argue relentlessly against the Olympic Equestrian events in Greenwich Park, and cast aspersions on those who support the Games as either out of touch with local opinion, or neglectful of the true interests of Greenwich Park and its users. He disregards all assurances given by LOCOG and the Royal Parks, whose care for Greenwich Park over the years has been exemplary, and associates himself with those whose scaremongering includes unfounded allegations of large scale Park closures in 2012, and destruction of trees. Similarly he impugns the motives and questions the bona fides of those who support Greenwich Hospital’s plans for the Market, likening their proposals to the creation of a Bluewater in the centre of Greenwich and aligning himself with a petition based on the false premise that Greenwich Hospital planned to demolish the 150 year old Market in Greenwich Town Centre to make way for a large development of flats or retail outlet.
It is, of course the case that some members of the Greenwich Society are opposed to the holding of the equestrian events and the modern pentathlon in the Park, and it is a matter of sadness that the dispute rumbles on. However the Society earlier this year held a well attended Special General meeting of its members when the Executive Committee’s stand was vindicated by vote and the attempt to force the Society to oppose the cross-country course in the Park was defeated. The Society has worked hard to secure improvements in the planning of the Games. Their concerns, expressed in regular meetings with LOCOG, have resulted in clear commitments as to the length of Park closure in 2012, wholly at variance with the misinformation that has been spread by the antis), a guarantee that the Park will be re-instated to its pre-Olympic condition, assurances as to the protection of tree roots, the keeping open of the Flower Garden and the Children’s Playground except for the single day of the cross-country course, and some form of legacy for the Park and its users post 2012.
The Executive Committee of the Society and I personally resent the assumption that Andrew Gilligan and his followers represent the authentic voice of Greenwich. They may have many names on a petition to Save Our Park with the implication that those who do not sign are somehow seeking to desecrate the Park. But we believe that there is a groundswell of enthusiasm and excitement for the Olympics coming to Greenwich, particularly among the young. The Games promise to provide an unique and unforgettable experience, ( in the positive sense of that word). The Society, together with the other 3 local amenity Societies convened the meeting with LOCOG for all their members on Wednesday 23rd September. I think that most fair-minded observers would have detected widespread positive support for the Games among the audience, and concluded that the LOCOG speakers did a great deal to inform us and to allay concerns.
Now we have to contend with the Gilligan criticism that the Society has sold out to and become the mouthpiece of the developers of Greenwich Market. That is nonsense, as is the suggestion that the Society has betrayed its objective to ‘secure the preservation, and enhancement of the built environment and the landscape within SE10′. We take the view that the present state of the Market could and should be substantially improved, ideally before 2012 when Greenwich will become centre stage for a worldwide audience during the Olympics. We considered that the Stakeholder Forum established by Greenwich Hospital to consider and refine its ideas as their plans moved towards planning application, was an excellent initiative, and any suggestion that such meetings consisted in all present just rolling over to do what the developers wanted, is a travesty. There may be many who signed a Save our Market petition who thought that by doing so they were helping to prevent the destruction of a crucial part of the historic centre of Greenwich becoming a shopping centre or group of yuppie flats. But that was never a serious proposition, not least because the Stakeholder Group at an early stage steered ideas away from the ‘glazed mall’ concept.
The scheme’s opponents could also usefully reflect on the fact that after decades of complaint about Greenwich Hospital not doing anything for Greenwich, they have just rejected, (for whatever reason) its attempts to re-invigorate the Town Centre by means of a £30 million investment in the Market. Although the Society is seeking to persuade the Hospital not to write off their proposals to improve the Market and at the least to spruce it up for 2012, notwithstanding the considerable funds expended in developing their scheme before applying for planning permission, we are concerned that nothing will be done until well after 2012. In light of entrenched local hostility to change, who could blame Greenwich Hospital if they decided to disengage from any scheme to re-develop the market for the foreseeable future? Again we have nothing to apologise for in our involvement with the Stakeholders Forum. Some of our ideas such as the re-instatement of cobbles on the floor of the new Market were accepted by Greenwich Hospital, and we reported on our involvement in the Forum to our members on a regular basis through our Newsletter.
Whether Andrew Gilligan reads our Newsletter before launching into his public criticisms of the Society and its officers is a matter of doubt. The reality is that all members of the EC, who come both from East and West Greenwich, and outside SE10, and I, as Chairman, give a great of time, and effort in seeking to achieve the objectives of the Society, and reporting to our members as to what we are doing. We do not have the advantage of a column in the Evening Standard to wage our personal campaigns, although I was grateful to the Editor for publishing my letter recently criticising the Gilligan article about the Hospital plans being likened to a new Bluewater.
Obviously Andrew Gilligan is able to continue his disparagement of the Greenwich Society, and any development proposals for Greenwich of which he does not personally approve, through his columns in the Evening Standard and his website.
But we would hope that open minded readers might reflect on who has worked harder for the good of the community, our Society or the self-appointed protector of Greenwich who, in his recent blog admitted/boasted that he had never visited the National Maritime Museum, the Observatory or Rangers House, a fundamental part of this SE10 community.
Tim Barnes
Chairman, The Greenwich Society
Could both Mr Barnes and Mr Gilligan get a room, conduct their passions in private, and leave the rest of us locals and semi-locals alone? Neither respresent the people of Greenwich, and neither seem to be contributing much apart from tedious ball-aching.
The real issue is why the amenity societies seem to be getting priority over the vast majority of locals when it comes to big issues like the Olympics, when they conduct themselves behind closed doors.
Not allowing media access at the Blackheath Halls meeting last week doesn’t indicate a group of people who are open to scrutiny and open to their neighbours: http://853blog.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/societies-secrecy-hides-olympics-good-news/
Apologies for the frank language here, but there’s a bigger issue at stake here than middle-aged, middle-class men flinging abuse at each other.
It is a telling sign of the weakness of the Greenwich Society’s position that Tim Barnes has to resort to a series of misrepresentations to make his case.
The petition I and others collected signatures for did not say that that “Greenwich Hospital planned to demolish the 150 year old Market in Greenwich Town Centre to make way for a large development of flats or retail outlet.” It said nothing of the sort.
I have never said that trees in Greenwich Park will be destroyed for the Olympics, and nor as far as I am aware has anyone in Nogoe. However, many trees will, by London 2012’s own admission, be “pruned.”
Nobody has ever said that the Park will definitely be damaged; what we have always said is that there is a substantial risk of damage – a risk simply not worth taking, given that the Olympics will produce no reward whatever for Greenwich.
It is quite wrong to describe claims of “large-scale Park closures” in 2012 as “scaremongering.” In an interview with me last year, Debbie Jevans, Locog’s director of sport, said: “We anticipate starting major building works in March 2012 and will hand back the park about six weeks after the end of the Paralympics.” The Paralympics end on September 4 2012.
The major building works will close most of the lower part of the park, where the arena and ancillary buildings are to be erected. Ms Jevans said there would be closures of similar areas for “two to three months” in spring and summer 2011.
These sound like “large-scale closures” to me.
Finally, and for the second or third time of saying this, I have never, ever claimed to be “the authentic voice of Greenwich,” the representative of the people, or any such thing. As I have always said (and you can look this up), I speak only for myself. But over the Market it does appear that quite a lot of others, including the actual representatives of the people (the councillors of Greenwich) agree with me.
Darryl 853 – this isn’t personal, on my part. It’s not a quarrel between two middle-aged men; it’s about issues of fundamental importance to our town, and it’s silly to trivialise it in the way you do.
It may, admittedly, have become personal on Tim Barnes’ part. The Greenwich Society was clearly stung by my attack, as I intended. But that is no excuse for the kind of silly personal abuse and misrepresentation Mr Barnes persistently employs.
I think it is clear to all fair-minded readers that Gilligan has built a career on making news from the most extreme positions possible to read into events.
A leftwinger taking power means rich people are under attack, a council being its usual bumbling and incompetent self means taxpayers betrayed, a number of building developments occurring means Greenwich being shut down etc etc.
It’s the tawdry antagonistic stuff that fills our tabloids every day. On the surface it looks like news but really it’s froth and pointless fury.
Canny editors have kept Gilligan on a leash and used him as an reactionary attack dog to advance wider political goals … with, let’s say, mixed results. If the same is happening here – and it certainly seems so – then it’s an unpleasant, divisive and ultimately impossible way to progress local politics, which tends to be between individuals and small groups and enthusiasts rather than abstract ideologies and movements.
Tim Barnes claims that the Greenwich Society has obtained “a guarantee that the Park will be re-instated to its pre-Olympic condition”. How much money has been ring-fenced to do this? None. The re-instatement will not happen.
Tim Barnes again, “In light of entrenched local hostility to change” – no, local hostility is not to change per se but, as Mr Barnes knows, is against driving out the elements that make Greenwich Market distinctive and popular.
Tom, I think it is clear to fair-minded readers that Andrew Gilligan has a track record in speaking truth to power, and it takes a very brave man to do that in NuLabour Britain.
Tom,
What a tirade, old chap! You are another one of those people accusing me of saying a whole load of things that have never passed my keyboard or lips.
Are you sure it’s me who’s guilty of “antagonism” and “pointless fury” – or is your comment an example of what Freud called “projection?”
Andrew
Wow, the only word that springs to mind after reading the Greenwich Society response is vitriol…and are the chiarmans remarks the views of the membership of TGS as a whole?
I am against the use of the park for 2012, but I am also against London hosting the olympics at all – there are far more pressing matters to be spending public money on than two weeks of running & jumping. I was against the building of yet another hotel in the centre of Greenwich because as TGS should realise, some of us have to live here, try and get to work and back etc. The current road works leading out of Greenwich towards Maze Hill are already a nightmare, Imagine what chaos the town centre would be if they tried to build a new major building in time for 2012 (which we all know would be an unlikely finishing time…look at the old hospital site – derelict for years now.)
That’s what I think anyway!
Well done Mr. Barnes for speaking up against the constant negative reporting of Mr Gilligan. As a Greenwich resident I wish to once again voice my support for both the market regeneration and the use of the park for 2012. How can Mr Gilligan seriously suggest that “the Olympics will produce no reward whatever for Greenwich”? Does he honestly think that a global audience of up to one billion people seeing the spectacular views from Greenwich Park on TV will not advertize our area in a way which is otherwise unimaginable? Even if a tenth of 1% of the Olympics viewing audience were to visit here as a result of this exposure it would attract an additional one million visitors to the area. Also surely our hotels will be as full of Olympic guests in 2012 as anywhere else in London? Guests which will spend countless millions of pounds locally, pumping money into local businesses (including the markets) and thereby securing jobs? Mind you, given the increasingly run down high street in Greenwich with its boarded up shops such as Luna Pizza, increasing number of naf shops, even a McDonalds sandwich board man (!) and given that the markets look completely knackered, maybe he is right and they will all scarper as soon as they take one look at the place. Maybe then Mr. Gilligan would be wishing he hadnt been so quick to turn away a £30m investment to regenerate the area.
Dean,
Even if you believe that attracting ever more tourists is a good thing (and most Greenwich residents I know would have mixed views on that), the damage caused to the Greenwich tourist industry by the Olympics will far outweigh any benefits it brings. The horse events will close a very large part of one of our principal tourist attractions – the park – for a total of ten months at the height of the 2011 and 2012 summer seasons.
They will close the entire park, plus the Observatory and possibly the National Maritime Museum, for at least a month at the busiest time of the 2012 tourist season.
And the risk, of course, is that they will fundamentally damage the fabric of the park for many years after 2012.
The horse events are not a mainstream TV sport and will get relatively little TV coverage. Even that coverage will mostly, of course, focus on the horses themselves. You will be able to glimpse the Observatory in an occasional cutaway. That is unlikely to bring many more tourists stampeding in our direction – particularly since Greenwich is already so widely known and forms a major part of many tourists’ visits to London.
The fact is that there are no rational arguments for holding this event here. The organisers just thought it would be nice and plonked it in the park without thinking it through. The whole of the last three years has been a frantic, and fruitless, search to find some sort of justification which holds water.
It’s a pity that Tim Barnes and half the audience at last week’s meeting with LOCOG were taken in by what could be described as a PR stunt. The reduction to total Park closures was reduced from THEIR stated 6-8 weeks ( not NOGOE scaremongering) down to 4 weeks but they added 3-4 weeks of closures in 2011 for a test event.
More importantly, and this is a question either of deception or incompetence: they claimed that the course would no longer be going through the flower garden, enabling them to keep it open for all but one day. Hooray. However, their map on the boards at the back was deliberately confusing as far as the Flower Gardens go. Only the part with the lake is going to stay open. All the rest of it will close along with the rest of the park. They obscured this issue by only labelling the part with the lake as “Flower Gardens” and colouring it a darker green. The part with the flower beds and large cedars was unlabelled and the same colour as the rest of the park. I had to look at it for ages before establishing that this was what they had done. If it were their incompetence, then it is more worrying because mistakes could be made during the construction phase from inadequate supervision of contractors, resulting in accidental damage to heritage features.
The reason why LOCOG’s assurances are worthless is because they keep changing their plans. They told NOGOE quite categorically that the Park was large enough and that there would be no need to use Blackheath. At the presentation last week they announced that additional stabling and training areas would be re-located to Circus Fields. Apart from this posing a security nightmare, it demonstrates them going back on their word. They also mentioned no road closures. But how do you get over 23000 spectators from the stations to the Park without closing Romney Road. Even closures for a few minutes would result in huge tailbacks. They talked about the Olympic family coming along theA2 (assuming they get through the tunnel) but did not mention that, as part of the Olympic Route Network, and this road being single carriageway, it would result in normal rush hour traffic being diverted, causing chaos on the roads.
They stated that they would aerate the cross country course to make it soft for the horses. But, when a questioner asked whether any irrigation such as pouring millions of gallons of water through boreholoes would be required, the answer was that they were still working on it. When you consider cordoned off areas for installation of dozens of jumps plus irrigation over nearly 6km of the Park plus confirmed closure of the area in front of Queens House for 6 months, it means most of the Park will be inaccesible for very long periods.
As usual the devil is in the detail. But there is complete lack of transparency in terms of the real cost of holding these events here, and the full negative impact in terms of damage, disruption, security, noise and pollution that these events will have. As for legacy, nothing but token gestures.
Which brings me to The Greenwich Society who have acted like cheerleaders for LOCOG. They believe what they want to believe instead of questioning and challenging. Any concessions made by LOCOG are more down to the direct contact that NOGOE have with them than the toadying of The Greenwich Society. And incidentally, when Tim Barnes refers to the vote taken at an EGM
(a significant 40% said yes to the motion), the voting slip was so confusing that many people after the meeting told me they had ticked the wrong box: they were opposed to the Olympic event but ticked no to the motion.
Andrew, thanks for the response. Given the lengths which cities around the world go to to attract something as massive as the Olympics, I cant believe you are suggesting we should turn it down when its being offered to us. Surely a few weeks of Park closures are a small price to pay to have such a massive event in our locality? And I agree that the events themselves may not get as much coverage as say the athletics, but the spectacular Greenwich location would I am certain be used to form part of daily opening/closing imagery, for filler aerial shots etc… Whilst its important that we monitor whats being done by the organizers, I dont honestly believe that the guardians of Greenwich Park would remotely entertain the idea of holding the horse events there if they felt there would be long-term serious damage to the Park. If I was a Councillor in the Boroughs of Richmond Park, Hampsted Heath, Victoria Park etc… I would be straight on the phone right now; Greenwichs loss would be their gain. Finally I would not overestimate the awareness tourists have of Greenwich. Many stay in central London and never make it down to the deep South.
LOCOG’s map of the Flower Garden (see PLJAIKJ’s comment earlier today above) is not the first time this kind of deception has happened. The bid document which won the Olympics for London was drawn to a scale showing the Park at about twice its actual size and Romney Road was totally omitted implying that the Naval College was part of the same site as the NMM and the Park. Cock-up or conspiracy? When faced with this LOCOG have claimed the former – but make up your own mind.
Doesn’t Dean know that the Maritime Museum is one of the top 10 tourist attractions in London, according to Visit London statistics? You could hardly fit another person in on the pavements or into the DLR most weekends. Yes I know they are increasing the DLR capacity by 50%, but 50% of 2 = 1, and it was desperately needed to cope with normal usage. At the presentation we were told that the Museum would be open throughout, then in the next breath that it would be used for a media centre and offices. And whoever said that the Olympics would put Greenwich on the map must be exceedingly dim – millions of tourists come every year to stand on the meridian line, where all the maps begin. Oh yes, perhaps Tim Barnes would like to explain why all the other societies managed to get tickets out to their members weeks beforehand, while the Greenwich Society incorporated theirs in the newsletter which I received three days after the meeting, postmarked from Wales on 22 October, with a second-class stamp.
Evidently, Dean Preston has never heard of the IOC’s strict “clean venue” policy, nor of the staggeringly far-reaching powers of the Olympics Act 2006. Having the equestrian events in Greenwich Park would not help local business.
Dean, “I dont honestly believe that the guardians of Greenwich Park would remotely entertain the idea of holding the horse events there if they felt there would be long-term serious damage to the Park.” LOCOG was there before you, I think: long ago, someone from the Government’s pet accountancy firm was seconded into the Royal Parks administration, and one officer was promised a job in Olympics “liaison” when he retired from the Royal Parks (and has already started work). The ODA/LOCOG are well ahead of you, Dean.
I read in detail Gilligan’s articles about Starlight, and the responses from Starlight and learned a great deal about his form of journalism. I would also recommend readers to peruse a Telegraph article from 2004 in which a former colleague describes Gilligan’s work habits.
Well, Tom, what can you be insinuating? In the Telegraph, I read (in a 2004 article) about Gilligan that:
“his writing was ‘immaculate’ and he was ‘very popular with many of his colleagues’, according to a senior executive. ”
“‘a brilliant writer and an extremely intelligent man,’ remembers one colleague”
“remembered by one colleague as ‘a very kind man who really helped me on my first day on the paper. He was always generous and self-effacing.'”
“‘He was the kind of reporter who recognised other reporters and gave them credit where it was due,’ adds another. ‘He had a good sense of humour and laughed a lot.'”
“colleagues remember his ‘gentleness’ and humour”
As to the Starlight Academy investigation: the Academy seems to have had a LOT of “skeletons” in its cupboard and so, predictably, didn’t like having some of them pulled out into the light by a journalist. Hey, thank Heavens for a free press (ie not one that is a slave to shareholders, like the American mainstream press).
Here’s Gilligan’s article about Starlight, so that people can read it for themselves. Comments are interesting, too.
Arts groups linked to Lee Jasper get use of LDA building rent-free Evening Standard 30 March 2009
Oh, I know from personal experience that the LDA does little or nothing to audit how its grants – that’s your money and mine – to business are spent.
But none of this is really relevant, is it? The question here is whether Gilligan has misrepresented the work of the Greenwich Society,
Judging by their recent output, he hasn’t. They still don’t get it. Their recent newsletters described a groundswell of support for the Market redevelopment – when, of course, even in its early stages there were 90 letters of objection – all, I believe, from Greenwich residents – and to my knowledge none in support. Tim Barnes persists in this delusion, by, for instance, insisting the Hospital’s dealings with the market traders were sincere. They patently weren’t. At the planning committee, it became obvious rents would rise substantially, and even the most casual conversation with any market trader revealed they hadn’t been informed or consulted, and had deep-seated, well-founded fears over the development.
Tim Barnes obviously felt – and I believe he was sincere in this – that positive engagement would help influence the hospital. I believe he was wrong. He claims that it was the Greenwich Society helped “save the cobbles.’ I disagree; it was the complaints of residents, local newspaper coverage, and English Heritage – whose word tends to be law in these matters – who made the Hospital back down.
As for other matters – most crucially, the lack of sightline drawings, revealing the true height of the hotel, and how it would affect local views – the Society’s polite requests for more information, or consultation, produced absolutely no response. If they had been more forceful, perhaps the Hospital would have taken heed, and their plans passed.
Yes, the failure of the scheme – and the waste of what I’ve been told is a sum of [i] £2.5 million [/i] on the application – is a tragedy. It will doubtless be used as an excuse by the hospital to leave the market in its shameful, dirty state – for as any resident knows, they could have regrouted the cobbles, or replaced the glass roof, for a relatively small sum at any time over the last 20 years.
Greenwich Hospital, and The Greenwich Society, now need to move on – attacking their critics is not the best start.
Tim, would it be possible to tell me (and other readers): how many members you have in The Greenwich Society, how many attended the meeting you refer to and exactly what the numbers of the votes were? (and whether there were subsequent complaints about the form being misleading?)