THE BIGGEST victim of last month’s council decision to reject the redevelopment of our market was not the market’s owner, Greenwich Hospital. The Hospital may be wounded, but it still has its hands on the real estate. The biggest victim was our so-called “conservation group,” the Greenwich Society, whose credibility has been destroyed.
According to its constitution, the purpose of the Greenwich Society is to “secure the preservation, protection and enhancement of the built environment and the landscape broadly within London SE10,” to “maintain the quality of life for those living or working in or visiting Greenwich,” and to “encourage high standards of development and architecture within the area.”
That seems clear enough. But over the market, unforgivably, the Greenwich Society appointed itself a PR cheerleader for the developers, for a plan which would have demolished the built environment, not preserved or protected it, and for architecture whose standards were more bog than high.
The Society’s glowing endorsement of the scheme as “admirable,” an “object lesson in how to gauge local opinion” and a “well thought through modern improvement” now looks deeply silly in the light of the council’s condemnation of the redevelopment as “unbalanced,” “detrimental,” “visually obtrusive,” and “out of keeping with its historic surroundings.”
The Greenwich Society’s spokesman, Ray Smith, appeared – complete with picture – in the developers’ glossy leaflets, enthusiastically endorsing the demolition. The Society faithfully peddled the Hospital’s untrue PR lines in the press, including the claim that the development had “75 per cent” support. On this website the Society’s chairman Tim Barnes claimed, quite falsely, that I’d said the market would be closed down. And he rubbished his opponents as “not representative” of local opinion.
It turns out, however, that it was the Greenwich Society which did not represent local opinion – unsurprisingly, since it made no effort whatever to find out locals’ views before it backed the demolition. Mr Barnes’ presumptuousness, assuming that whatever he and his executive committee decided was automatically the settled will of the local public, was one of the most unappealing aspects of the Greenwich Society’s behaviour.
The council’s decision is a sign not only that the Greenwich Society has lost its bearings, but that its views no longer carry any real weight. The developers thought the Society was one of their trump cards. The council simply ignored it.
Why am I saying all this? Partly because it needs saying – but partly because the Greenwich Society is up to exactly the same tricks about the year’s other big planning issue, the loony idea of holding the Olympic horse events in Greenwich Park.
Once again the Greenwich Society has forgotten the objectives so clearly stated in its own constitution. Once again, it has fallen naively into the arms of a large monied interest prepared to invite it to a few meetings, make it feel “consulted” and flatter its executive committee’s sense of self-importance.
Once again, the Greenwich Society has become a cheerleader for something which has no benefit for Greenwich and which carries quite substantial risks. Mr Barnes has said that I “seem impervious to the assurances that have been given [by LOCOG]…that there will be no lasting damage to the fabric of the Park or to the trees, and that the Park will not be closed off to users until the run-up to the Olympics in August 2012 when security considerations require closure for about 6-8 weeks.”
You might think I’m “impervious” to such assurances because they come from the same people who also assured us that the Games would cost ÂŁ2.4 billion; or because no detailed environmental studies of the effects of the event on the fabric of the Park have yet been completed to back up such assurances.
But actually there’s a simpler reason why I’m impervious to those assurances – which is that they haven’t actually been made by LOCOG. On the contrary: London 2012’s director of sport, Debbie Jevans, has explicitly said that substantial parts of the park will be closed off to users for much longer than “about 6-8 weeks.” LOCOG has explicitly admitted that there will be damage to some trees – they will have to be “pruned.” So once again, the Greenwich Society’s PR tendencies are getting ahead of themselves; and once again, they appear to be backing a project on the basis of a false understanding.
The Society’s only response, so far, to its humiliation over the market has been to quietly remove all reference to its support for the redevelopment from its website. If the Greenwich Society is to survive as anything other than a joke, it needs to make much bigger changes than that. It needs to start honestly fulfilling the purpose it was set up for, to “preserve and protect the built environment and the landscape.” There can be no piece of landscape more in need of protection right now than Greenwich Park.
This coming Wednesday, the 23rd, the four local societies, including the Greenwich Society, will meet to discuss the Olympics in the Park with LOCOG. It’s a full members’ meeting – if you are a member of any of them, I urge you to attend. At it, we will see whether the Greenwich Society has learned any lessons at all from its recent experiences.
Meh, moving Greenwich Market from ‘Greenwich Village’ is stupid. Put some flats, bars and a supermarket on the old hospital.
Pwned, as geeks say. 🙂
You are absolutely right to point out where those who supported the scheme went wrong and throw light on their foolishness. However, I have two issues with your arguments.
Firstly, the Greenwich Society is a private body with a duty only to represent the interests and wishes of it’s members. It does not speak for all Greenwich Residents. If it’s members believe that their opinion has not been properly reflected then they should demand changes. Non-members can highlighted it’s wrong-headedness as much as they like but they have no right to do the same.
You, and many others, may not think that the market development is in the best interests of Greenwich. But it’s entirely possible that the Greenwich Society honestly believe differently. They have just as much right to lobby in their interests as the rest of us. As I’ve said before, the easiest way to counter their influence would be to set a new body call it the Greenwich Town Preservation Society or some such, and if more people agree with you, you get more members and therefore a louder voice to drown them out.
My other issue is with you comment about “Mr Barnes’ presumptuousness, assuming that whatever he and his executive committee decided was automatically the settled will of the local public”. Have the Greenwich Society been claiming to represent the “will of the local public”? Surely they very obviously only represent the will of their members and discussed above? And forgive if I’m wrong but, wasn’t it only a week before the Council vote that you collected the petition to provide proof that the public was against the development? There were an awful lot of references to “widespread public opposition” in your columns before this suggesting a fair amount of “presumptuousness” on your part also. You may have been proved right in the end but you can’t pretend you knew for certain before that petition.
Blissett,
My point wasn’t that the GS had failed to represent the views of its members – although they weren’t consulted about its stance, and I rather doubt their views would be much different from the rest of the public’s on this subject. My point was about the GS’s failure to live up to its own declared objectives, as quoted from its constitution above.
My attack on Tim Barnes’ presumptuousness was based on the fact that he described opposition to the market as “unrepresentative” and his own views, therefore, as representative. How did he know?
Unlike the Greenwich Society, I did quite a lot of asking around to find out what people thought. Even so, I never claimed to speak for the area, or for anyone other than myself – although my views were, as it turned out, shared by an awful lot of people.
And no misquotation, please – it’s a cheap trick. I didn’t in fact make ANY references (let alone an “awful lot of references”) to “widespread public opposition” in my pre-petition columns.
Andrew
Sorry Andrew, I hadn’t meant to imply that that was a direct quote and it wasn’t intended as a trick, cheap or otherwise. It was an attempt to characterise your argument for the purposes of brevity. A quick look on Wikipedia would suggest this is OK through the use of “scare quotes” but apologies if I’ve misused. Having failed to excel at even GCSE English, that would not be hard to believe.
I do understand your argument that, to those who opposed the Market development, the Greenwich Society would appear to have clearly failed to meet it’s key objectives. The problem is that it is possible that the Society’s members, or at least a significant number of them, believe that their position is entirely consistent with those goals. If ten people were to set up alternatives to the Greenwich Society tomorrow one would end up with ten very similar lists of objectives and ten differing opinions on how to go about achieving them. Â
I think what this does highlight more than anything is the pointlessness of airy-fairy mission statements. It’s all very well stating WHAT you want to achieve but it’s the HOW makes the difference. We all want “to make Greenwich a better place for all who live, work and study there” (as the Greenwich Society mission statement puts it). How that is best achieve is clearly open to debate. It is unfair to imply that minority opinions are objectively wrong and those that hold them will have to “Change or Die”.
I concur with Andrew’s thrust, which is to question the credibility of the Greenwich Society. I have similar questions and concerns with regard to The Blackheath Society. They also appear to be supporting some questionable (contemporary) builds. Blisset points out that these are members’ bodies and it’s reasonable to ask how the views of members are represented. I wonder whether a stance is arrived at as a result of a formal democratic process (ie consulting all members and agreeing a concensus) or whether an executive team have (assumed) the authority to make decisions for the wider membership. I’d certainly feel more confident if I could be assured that such decisions were not just in the hands of a few architects. Only one way to find out and that’s to join up and go along to the meetings! That would strike me as a more sensible solution than setting up an alternate group.
“I concur with Andrew’s thrust, which is to question the credibility of the Greenwich Society. ”
Me too – I’m not sure whether the answer is a mass infiltration of the Greenwich Society to effect change from within, or the setting up of a new, more radical, society, but it feels to me like Greenwich desperately needs a body ( a properly organised, visible body – not a website like this or the Greenwich Phantom, however valuable these may be) to protect our town.
The Market plans may have been rejected, but the Hospital could still appeal.
The Olympics are looming.
Frank Dowling continues to be allowed to do pretty well whatever he likes, ruining a large proportion of the town centre pubs and restaurants, and actually destroying the Cricketers, which I understand will no londger be run as a pub or bar.
Now the Cutty Sark is the subject of rumours( which are common currency in town centre and Royal Hill pubs and have now surfaced on the Greenwich Phantom) to the effect that the money has been squandered, skilled restoration staff and shipwrights laid off, and the project stalled.
The onslaught seems relentless and Greenwich needs an effective body to stand up for our town and World Heritage site.
It’s easier to pretend you’re in charge in a democracy when you “consult” with societies who represent a minority, instead of consulting with the population at large.
Well done Andrew. Perhaps those members of the Greenwich Society who opposed the town centre redevlopment proposal will not renew their membership when it becomes due ? A reduction in their revenue for next year may just make the executive re-consider their position in the future.
I concur with Andrew’s assessment on the complete irrelevance of the Greenwich Society and demonstrated false representation of public sentiment for both important issues of the market development and the Olympics’ use of our park. As most intelligent people in Greenwich are concerned, anyway, their membership consists of “has beens” and “wanna be’s” who crave attention and influence never had or long long long ago lost. Cocktails anyone?
Six years ago I organised (along with stall holders and shop keepers) a large petition to protest about then plans to change Greenwich Market. We got thousands of signatures, lots of press coverage, and it was presented to the Council and got acknowledgement from all the appropriate Council bigwigs.
I was then pretty annoyed a couple of years later not to be contacted by the developers as someone with a clear interest in the future of the market: this was undoubtedly partly vanity, but it also seemed appropriate as someone who had demonstrated a clear interest and commitment to the market.
I have never felt inclined to join the Greenwich Society, despite being an active local resident. I’m loath to criticise when I haven’t joined, but we do need to keep an eye on bodies which developers and the Council use to represent public opinion. And the Societies themselves need to be very careful not to make claims that they are more representative than they are.
For your watchful eye, Andrew Gilligan, I personally thank-you.