Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

You are here: Greenwich / Andrew Gilligan

Andrew Gilligan: Cobblers?

By

In the battle over the future of Greenwich Market, it looks like the developers have blinked first. On Monday, “in response to public consultation,” Greenwich Hospital announced that one of the many controversial casualties of its “Bluewater” market masterplan – the cobbled floor – would be saved. Well, sort of.

As the they put it, “Changes to the regeneration plans have been submitted to Council planners….Greenwich Hospital will carefully raise, refurbish and re-lay all the cobbles in a new configuration interspersed with new granite setts. This will create a market floor of familiar appearance which will ensure this much-loved feature of the market is retained.”

What does that mean, exactly? Surely it cannot be both “new” and “familiar” at the same time? I’d love to be able to tell you what that “new configuration” will look like – but if the Hospital has indeed submitted “changes” to its planning application, the council hasn’t put them on its website yet.

My suspicion is that any changes are rather minor – the Hospital are, after all, the people who presented their wholesale demolition scheme as something which “maintains all the principles of Greenwich Market.” And even if the cobbled floor is substantially retained, the new development’s worst feature – its bland shopping-precinct feel – is still just as bad. This could well be a ploy to make us feel that we have achieved something, when little if anything has really improved.

But even if that is the case, this week’s is still an interesting and useful development. First, it gives the lie to the Hospital’s previous claim that it consulted properly and that people were happy with its plans. As you may remember, its much-bugled “public consultation” took place on two days in October 2007, not far off two years ago. This week’s change certainly didn’t come about “in response to” that – it came about in response to public pressure after coverage on this website, on the Greenwich Phantom and in the Evening Standard.

Secondly, the revision could – perhaps – slow things down further. Are you actually allowed to change a planning application half-way through? The application the public were invited to comment on by the council is now at least ostensibly different from the application that the council is considering. Shouldn’t we get a chance to express our views on the revised application before it goes to the planning committee? Shouldn’t the council’s public consultation process be restarted?

Thirdly, and most importantly, this move is a sign of weakness. It is an acknowledgement that the existing market does, in fact, have a heritage value and that heritage features are important in the context of this site. Which is what the council’s planning policies say; and which is also what, of course, we have been saying all along. By acknowledging this, the developers further weaken their case for their uncompromisingly modern scheme.

Am I reading too much into this? I don’t know. Maybe this change has been cooked up by the developers and the council as a token concession before they wave the bulldozers in. The red line for me is the nasty plastic shopping-precinct roof and the inappropriate shopping-precinct columns. While those remain in the scheme, it will remain unacceptable. Watch this space over the next few days for news of the next stage in the fight.

Andrew Gilligan: Pier Pressure

By

Last week, when I went to look round the part of the Naval College that Greenwich Hospital wants to cover with a temporary market, an actual rather than a potential eyesore sprung into view. What on earth is happening with Greenwich Pier?

Readers with very long memories may recall that planning permission for three new pier pavilions was granted by Greenwich Council in February 2007, two and a half years ago. The pier’s old wooden buildings were swiftly knocked down – but since then, nothing.

No sign yet of the “resolutely modern” development, incorporating new boat ticket offices, toilets and three cafe/bar-restaurants, that we were promised. (Not sure whether that’s a good or a bad thing – from the artists’ impressions, it looks pretty ugly.) There is currently no shelter at all on the pier, and a lot of wooden hoardings; tickets are sold from temporary portacabin-like buildings on the shore. The whole place is incredibly confusing to many pier users and is also, frankly, a mess.

The news I bring you – you heard it here first – is that the development of the new pier is finally supposed to begin soon. Edward Dolby, resources director of Greenwich Hospital, which co-owns the land to be built on, said: “It is my understanding that the work will start in the autumn. It has been a long-drawn-out process getting all the legal agreements sorted out. The devil is in the detail – there are something like 17 documents.”

The problem with the pier area is that it has at least four owners. London River Services, part of TfL, owns the pontoon – that is, the bit that actually floats on the water, and alongside which the boats pull up. The Hospital and the Port of London Authority jointly own the promenade – the bit on dry land between the river and the boundary railings of the pier area, where the new buildings will fo.

Greenwich Council owns the pavement outside, which everyone must cross to reach the pier. To complicate this classic British muddle, the actual development is being built by yet a fifth party – the developer Stonehurst. And then the boats themselves are operated mainly by sixth and seventh parties – City Cruises, for tourists, and Thames Clippers, the high-speed commuter service.

You may not be wholly astonished to learn that the council has been one of the major holdups. According to one source involved with the project, “the developer is spitting feathers because he says he’s got the money but he’s had delays with the council in the final planning stuff that he felt was unnecessary.” You’d think that the council would have considered these issues before it gave planning permission – but apparently not.

I couldn’t confirm my information either with the council (its press office number was permanently engaged this afternoon) or with the developer (its number simply rang out, and its PR’s mobile and landline have been disconnected.) Let’s hope that in the current deeply hostile economic climate for development, the delays have not seen the money vanish and killed the project off.

If things do get under way, there is still the risk of massive disruption to the Thames Clippers service, which has seen a gigantic rise in passengers over the past two years and is becoming a real public transport alternative for Greenwich. The pier is not intended to close completely, but Sean Collins, the head of Thames Clippers, says that its capacity is likely to be seriously reduced.

“I am very disappointed with the lack of communication between the council, the PLA and London River Services,” says Collins. “Access could be severely disrupted and it doesn’t appear that they are joined up on it.” The pier redevelopment will cut right through the river’s summer 2010 season and may also touch summer 2011, Collins says. There is no plan yet in place for how the pier will cope with its current boat traffic when it becomes a building site.

One other thought occurs. The delay to the pier redevelopment means that it really starts to clash with several of Greenwich’s other pet development projects. The timings are now extremely difficult.

If planning permission is granted for the temporary market on the Naval College, the traders will load and unload on the eastern side of the Cutty Sark – and construction traffic will use it, too. But that same space will be needed – at the same time – for construction traffic on the pier.

The pier project also clashes with Greenwich Council’s absurd plans to close and tart up the foot tunnel. The council is investigating an alternative ferry service for cyclists. But if the pier’s capacity is reduced, it seems most unlikely that there will be room for a replacement ferry.

I’ve written before about the danger that the whole of central Greenwich is about to become a building site. But what I hadn’t realised until now is that the town centre may simply not be big enough to fit all the various schemes in. We seem to be faced with that most difficult of combinations – a council whose grandiose plans are not matched by the reality of its planning and co-ordination skills.

Andrew Gilligan: Marquee Their Cards

By

As promised, I have been looking through the detail of Greenwich Hospital’s proposal to erect a temporary market and shops in the grounds of the Naval College, while it redevelops the existing market into a modern precinct. The temporary market is not just intimately linked to that highly controversial plan (planning permission for the main market redevelopment will not be granted unless the temporary market is also allowed.) It is also likely to be rather contentious in its own right.

The proposed temporary market – intended to be in place for two years –will be a somewhat featureless, steel structure, seven metres (22ft) high at its highest point. It will have transparent PVC ends, UPVC doors, PVC roofing and a raised, decked floor. The market stalls will be inside this enclosed, lockable marquee-like building.

A row of Portacabin-like structures will be tacked on to the sides of the main structure to house six shops (the other 13 currently in the buildings surrounding market will not be accommodated at the temporary site), and this will be the view of the temporary market that greets most visitors.

Three issues strike me as controversial.

1. The loss of open space.

The temporary market buildings will take up 1,440 square metres of Metropolitan Open Land – intended, in the words of Greenwich Council’s planning policy, as an “open space of strategic importance” which must be “maintained and [its] character safeguarded from built development.” Almost no building of any kind is ever allowed on MOL. And this isn’t just any metropolitan open land, either – it is a prominent part of England’s finest ensemble of Grade I listed Baroque buildings, a scheduled ancient monument and part of one of only four Unesco World Heritage sites in London.

The Mayor’s London Plan – the definitive statement of his own planning policy – is also completely clear. There is a “presumption against inappropriate development of MOL,” with “the same level of protection as the green belt. Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL.”

Surely a bit of a show-stopper? In 2007, even Greenwich Council thought so – when it rejected a proposal for a temporary giant wheel on the same site. But it is a Government planning inspector’s verdict, rejecting that decision on appeal and allowing the wheel to be built, on which the Hospital is now relying.

The inspector said that, because the wheel was temporary, “its installation for a summer’s use would cause no permanent loss of openness.” That is the precedent the Hospital is hoping to use for the market. But the inspector also said that his decision was “finely balanced” – and there are some fundamental differences in the two proposals which might tip the balance the other way. The wheel’s footprint was smaller. It was only in place for three months, rather than two years (the inspector cited the “short period” of the wheel’s operation as a key factor in his decision to allow it.”) And, after the initial erecting period, it was never going to draw any motor traffic. Which brings me to the second problem…

2. The surroundings of the Cutty Sark will be turned into a car park.

The servicing of the market – the daily bringing in and out of merchandise, and the removal of waste – will take place right by the Cutty Sark. The pavement on the eastern side of the ship will be converted into a 14-space loading bay. Every day the market is open, the entire space will be filled with traders’ and service vehicles.

Why should this worry us? The eastern side of the Cutty Sark is a building site. But it won’t be for much longer. The ship is scheduled to reopen, restored and transformed into a visitor attraction, in summer 2010 –five months after the temporary market is due to open. It might put a bit of a dampener on the proceedings if visitors find they’re sharing their space with the municipal dustcarts.

3. Trees will be lost – and possibly more than the developers say.

The developers admit that two trees will be cut down. As for the other trees on this densely-wooded site, the buildings are supposed to go round the other trees on this quite densely-wooded site. But look again at that picture. It looks pretty tight to me. Are we sure all those trees are going to make it? Even if they do, what about the watering, with a building on top of their root systems?

You still have time to object to this development – and thus, also, to the market redevelopment as a whole. I gave the wrong email address last week – thanks to one of my eagle-eyed commenters for pointing it out. It’s louise.thayre@greenwich.gov.uk – application reference number 09/1338/F – and you need to give your home address. Happy commenting!

Greenwich Market: Are the Developers Running Out of Time?

By

THE CONTROVERSIAL planning application to demolish Greenwich Market has been delayed and will not now be considered until at least the end of August or later, greenwich.co.uk has learned.

According to the council’s planning website, which gives a “target date for decision” of 8 July, the decision was supposed to have been taken by now. It had been expected that the application would be considered at next Wednesday’s meeting of the council Planning Board.

However, the item is not on the agenda for this meeting and many preliminary steps to the decision have not yet been taken either.

There has been no official site visit by council planning officers – a necessary prelude to their producing their report to councillors setting out their recommendation.

After that recommendation is produced, there also needs to be a further official site visit by councillors on the planning committee.

All three steps are part of the process for major and controversial applications in advance of any decision being made. None has yet taken place.

David McFarlane, spokesman for the developers, Greenwich Hospital, said he expected the application would be heard at the Planning Board’s meeting of August 26. However, Greenwich Council refused to confirm this.

“The idea is that both the application for the demolition of the market and the application for the temporary market [in the grounds of the Naval College] will be heard on the same day,” McFarlane said.

Both the council and the Hospital have said that any demolition of the market will not happen unless planning permission is also granted for a temporary market, intended to occupy the corner of the Naval College grounds nearest the pier for a period of two years while the main site is redeveloped. It may therefore make sense for the two applications to be heard together.

However, this raises the possibility of further delays. The Hospital’s planning application for the temporary market only went in three weeks ago and the statutory consultation with affected parties only started last week.

The council’s website gives a target date for a planning officers’ recommendation on the temporary market as 4 September – which would miss the August meeting, raising the possibility that the whole issue would be delayed further.

The temporary market application (see it here) is itself difficult and controversial. As even the council admits, in bold capital letters on its consultation letter, it is “a departure from the Unitary Development Plan,” the definitive statement of its own planning policy.

It involves, as the Hospital concedes, an “exceptionally sensitive site,” the grounds of the Grade I listed Naval College. It will cause the loss of metropolitan open land, on which there is a presumption that there will be no development, temporary or permanent. It will require the chopping down of trees and the diversion of cycle and other paths. It will spoil one of London’s most important officially-protected views, the so-called “Canaletto View” of the Naval College from Island Gardens. Anyone wishing to object to the applications needs to email the planning officer concerned, louise.thayre@greenwich.co.uk, by 28 July.

It is worth remembering, too, that a planning application to put a giant wheel on the same site a few years back was rejected by Greenwich Council – and only approved on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

I will write more about the specific detail of the temporary market application next week – but the Hospital’s hope that a decision can be made on it by the end of August is, at best, ambitious.

It is, therefore, perfectly possible to imagine the whole process slipping well into the autumn – which in turn will seriously jeopardise the Hospital’s ambition to start demolishing the market in January and to open its brave new mini-Bluewater by the time of the Olympics.

Because the Greenwich council stages are not the final word. The decision also has to be approved by the Mayor, who recently delighted campaigners by saving another threatened market, Queens’ Market in Newham. It could also, I think, potentially be called in by the Secretary of State. “If Boris has serious concerns, all bets are off,” McFarlane admits.

Nobody should relax – the fight to save Greenwich Market from the Hospital’s blandly awful proposals continues. But the delay could work in our favour.

Andrew Gilligan: Are We Getting Full Whack from Nick?

By

“IMAGINE what the last six weeks have been like, waiting for that call from the Telegraph,” a Yorkshire MP friend said to me the other day. Well, on Sunday, they came for our very own Nick Raynsford.

Until now, inner-London MPs, like Mr Raynsford, have been spared the worst of the expenses horrors. They cannot claim the additional costs allowance – even Parliament appears to draw the line at allowing somebody whose constituency is six miles from Westminster to have a second home.

As greenwich.co.uk revealed last month there has, of course, already been the small matter of Mr Raynsford paying his local Labour Party £2000 a quarter for the “use of surgery and office facilities,” even though the contact details for his office (an 020 7219 number) show it is actually based at the Commons and many of his surgeries are not held at the Labour Party office but at other venues including Woolwich Town Hall and West Greenwich Community Centre.

But now something perhaps more controversial has come up. Raynsford, we learn, is one of Parliament’s highest extra-curricular earners – £148,000 a year, to be precise. To speak of second jobs doesn’t do him justice – he actually appears to have seven jobs.

They are vice-chairman of the Construction Industry Council (£50,000 pa), chairman of Rockpools, a recruitment firm for the public sector (£33,000), chairman of the National House Building Council (£25,000), non-executive director of the housing information provider Hometrack (£18,750), president of the building training agency Constructionarium (£9,000), non-executive director of the Fire Protection Agency (£7,000), and writing assignments at Building magazine and the Municipal Journal (£5,000 plus), not to mention that other little earner – Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich.

Now, I don’t in fact mind MPs having other jobs. We often complain that politicians are too cut off from the “real world,” that they waft up a sealed political career tube from student activist to MP’s researcher to trade union official to Westminster without at any point making contact with the world of work inhabited by most of their subjects.

Raynsford doesn’t fit into this category. Long before he was elected to Parliament, he had a strong record as a housing expert, campaigner and advocate. He became a competent and well-respected housing minister in Tony Blair’s government. There shouldn’t be any problem about his taking jobs in the field now he is a backbencher – so long as he is punctilious, which I’m sure he is, about telling us of his interest when he speaks.

But does such a large number of other commitments leave our MP too little time for the core work? Raynsford told the Telegraph: “On average, I work between 55 and 60 hours a week on Parliamentary and constituency affairs, and my private interests do not adversely affect my ability to discharge my public responsibilities.”

The evidence on this is mixed. Raynsford is a rather active parliamentarian. According to the official parliamentary search engine, he has spoken in the Commons chamber on eight occasions so far this year. According to the Public Whip website, he has attended just under 85 per cent of votes since 2005.

Since leaving the Government Raynsford has also taken part in some fairly high-impact rebellions on key issues. He voted on the rebel side in the Government’s two greatest defeats – against the proposal to detain suspected terrorists without charge for 90 days, and on the settlement rights of ex-Gurkhas. He has opposed and voted against the Heathrow third runway. He voted for a 100 per cent elected House of Lords.

Raynsford also, of course, publicly called for Gordon Brown to stand down as prime minister last month. Could this possibly have anything to do with him being fingered to the Telegraph for his extra jobs this month?

In the constituency, however, his activity levels seem lower. With others, Raynsford has successfully campaigned for a Crossrail station in Woolwich. He has chaired the “key stakeholders consultation group” on the redevelopment of Greenwich Market (and got pretty cross with me when I suggested the plans weren’t much good.) He holds six surgeries a month.

But Raynsford is relatively little seen in the local papers. The most recent press release on his website is nearly a year old. So far in 2009, he has scored just four mentions in the Factiva local press database (not a full record of all the local papers – but by comparison his Greenwich borough colleague, Clive Efford, Labour MP for Eltham, has ten mentions.)

Raynsford has also been accused of not responding to constituents’ letters. I, too, have written to him in the (albeit quite distant) past and failed to get a reply.

Raynsford’s latest annual report to constituents outlines the following set of constituency activities for the year to spring 2009. (By the way, it’s worth noticing that the report, although produced from public funds, has the same colours and typefaces as a Labour Party election leaflet.)

He “[met] regularly with TfL and South East Trains (sic) to discuss their plans and make sure they are responsive to local residents’ concerns.” He has been “working closely with the Olympic Delivery Authority and Greenwich Local Labour and Business to ensure that training programmes [from holding the Olympics in Greenwich Park] are in place and job opportunities are made available locally.”

He has been “working to ensure that regeneration schemes in Greenwich continue despite the economic downturn.” He has helped secure improved paving and lighting around Westcombe Park station and claims “significant progress over the past year” in the project to bring new buildings to a number of local schools.

As readers may know, Southeastern Trains will in December reduce the number of direct train services from Greenwich to Charing Cross, although overall peak services into central London will increase. Job and training opportunities from the Olympics in Greenwich appear conspicuous by their absence, although Mr Raynsford has told Greenwich.co.uk that 137 jobs at the Olympic site have gone to local people. The regeneration schemes at Greenwich Pier and the old District Hospital site are stalled (Boris Johnson proposed to kick-start the latter with mayoral funding, but the Government has called it in). The market development seems to be going ahead despite there being no clear need for it.

Far from there being “significant progress” on new school buildings, works have not yet even started on any of the five schools involved, five years after the programme was first announced (neighbouring Lewisham, which announced at the same time and under the same Government programme, has already finished two of its school rebuildings.)

None of this, of course, is Raynsford’s fault. And it is in many ways refreshing that we have an MP who seems more interested in national issues than in the kind of pavement politics and social work that tie so many parliamentarians down. Pavement politics is, or should be, what councillors are for.

Still, given the many problems with our dear council, perhaps it could be argued that Greenwich needs Nick Raynsford more than the National House Building Council and Rockpools Recruitment does.

Andrew Gilligan: Beardie, Don’t You Dare Shave Our Marathon

By

I HAVE never understood what people see in Richard Branson. His trains are serial offenders against civilised transport, his airline is nothing special and, contrary to his image as the great tycoon, most of his other businesses are distinctly bonsai affairs.

Now, having wreaked so much damage elsewhere in our public realm, the deadliest beard since Lenin is swivelling in our direction. From next year, Virgin replaces Flora as the sponsor of the London Marathon – which, of course, starts in Greenwich Park, passes through Greenwich town centre and spends more than seven of its 26 miles in the borough.

But in my paper, the Standard, yesterday, Sir Richard is quoted as saying he wants to “come up with a better route” because the current one is not “glamorous” enough. It passes, he says, too many dull places in east and south-east London and not enough tourist attractions.

It is stunning how much of what we’ve come to think of as the essence of Greenwich is, all of a sudden, under threat. The Marathon now joins the Market, the Village Market, the park, the Cutty Sark and the foot tunnel on the danger list.

For as our 40-watt council presses blindly on with its plans for a one-off sporting event actively wanted by almost no-one, the Olympic horseriding in the Park, councillors appear to have been completely oblivious to this very real threat to a much more important and genuinely loved Greenwich sports occasion.

The contrast between the stage-managed North Korean spend-fest that is the Olympics and the Marathon could not be greater. The Marathon is democratic: it is the people dressed as bananas we care about, not the manufactured elite athletes at the front. On the morning of the race, you can go into the park and mix freely with the competitors – best of luck if you want to try that in 2012. The Marathon is free for everyone to watch. The Olympics won’t be accessible to most Greenwich people even if they are rich enough to pay.

The Olympics are a giant edifice of lies. The Marathon makes no promises it cannot keep. The Olympics are costing £9.3 billion and could rip up our precious park. The Marathon manages to be one of the greatest sporting spectacles in the world without doing any damage to anything and without costing any taxpayer a single penny.

Now it is perfectly true that south-east London is not glamorous. That’s why I like it, actually. We are protected from fashionability by that impenetrable mountain range of council estates along the Old Kent Road. Madonna and Guy will never be spotted shopping in Somerfield, thank God.

But South Londoners, black and white, embody the real essence of our great city, rather than the rootless cosmopolitanism of the north. We are contrary. We will never be told what to think by Vogue or The Guardian. North London had New Labour; South London had the peasants’ revolt. Turn up the volume on Heart 106.2!

That is precisely why the Marathon, the ultimate people’s sport, should keep on running through the people’s streets. The idea that the route is dull is a slander, too. As anyone except Branson must know, Greenwich is one of the prettiest places in London, the East End is just about the most happening part of town right now, and the Isle of Dogs has been transformed over the exact lifespan of the Marathon itself from vacant wasteland to Europe’s premier financial powerhouse.

The Park, the Observatory, Charlton House, the Naval College, the Cutty Sark (restoration permitting), Tower Bridge, the Tower of London and Canary Wharf must count as tourist attractions, surely? Anyway, if East London is too dull to host a sports event, what does that say for the Olympics?

Beardie is threatening to run the Marathon himself next year, when it will still be more or less on its current course. May I suggest that the people of south-east London line the route and give him, as he passes, the benefit of their unglamorous views?

Andrew Gilligan: Tunnel Closure: Bad News on Two Fronts

By

GREENWICH foot tunnel will be closed to all users for ten months during its refurbishment, council officials have said.
 
Shaun Collins, director of Thames Clippers, the major ferry operator serving Greenwich, told greenwich.co.uk: “We have been asked to tender for a replacement ferry service. We have been told unofficially by Geoff Horseman [Greenwich Council official] that the period of closure will be around ten months or possibly a year. That would be the closure of the whole tunnel, not just the lifts.”
 
In a separate development Peter Brookes, deputy leader of the council, has said that when the tunnel finally reopens the lifts will be “automatic,” raising concerns about security and job losses. Currently the lifts are not automatic and are staffed at all times when they are open, with four attendants on duty across the tunnel and its Woolwich sister.
 
Mr Brookes claimed the refurbishment and the change to automatic lifts would lead to “better security.”
 
The two tunnels are used by around 1.5 million people a year. The Greenwich tunnel is an important tourist attraction and a vital link for cyclists, used by around 250 bikes an hour at peak times.
 
As greenwich.co.uk reported earlier this year, both tunnels are to be given a “substantial refurbishment” running from September 2009 to March 2011 and costing £11.5 million. But news of the closure has horrified local traders, who say a prolonged shutdown would be “disastrous” and could drive them out of business. 

Many cyclists are also opposed and have promised to challenge the closure order. Anthony Austin, chair of Greenwich Cyclists, said: “There’s no point in closing the tunnel. It’s not clear they need to close the stairs when they are doing the lifts. We cyclists have come to use it as an absolutely essential link.”
 
Greenwich Council continued to insist today that no official decision has been taken on how long the tunnel will close. “We are still working out the period of closure,” a council spokesman said.
 
However, minutes of a meeting about the refurbishment between the council and local cyclists’ groups posted on greenwich.co.uk also suggest a substantial period of closure. The minutes were agreed by the council.
 
At this meeting, which took place on 12 May, Mike Freestone, the council’s assistant director for transport and highways, confirmed that the lifts would be closed “for the whole [18-month] refurbishment period” although the tunnels themselves would “probably not be closed for so long.”
 
 
Mr Horseman, the council official who spoke to Thames Clippers, was not present at the meeting but he is quoted by another of the participants as saying that the closure would last “six to nine months.”
 
Mr Brookes, who was at the meeting, admitted that “whilst [the tunnel] is closed, there will be major disruptions.” Mr Brooks rejected suggestions that the tunnel be closed only overnight for the works, saying: “If we choose contract work for nights, it may not be of value, we need to do things more economically.” A “hope” was expressed that some of the closures could be phased.
 
The council says that the lifts will close in October or November and the tunnel will not close before next year.
 
When the tunnel closes, cyclists – who are banned at all times from the DLR – face an eight to ten-mile diversion to reach Canary Wharf from south London. At the meeting with cycle activists, Mr Brookes admitted that any proposed replacement ferry service would “not be frequent.”
 
The DLR link will itself be closed on several weekend over the next eight months as part of the 3-car upgrade programme.
 
The council says the closure is intended to provide “state-of-the-art conditions” in the tunnels in the run-up to the Olympics. It has been widely condemned as unnecessary window-dressing.

Greenwich Market: What People Really Think

By

WHAT fun to see the Greenwich Society keeping its end up as the unofficial ad-man for the market redevelopment. In a letter to my paper, the Standard, its chairman, Tim Barnes, faithfully transcribes several of the developers’ standard PR lines, including the untrue claims that the plans have been “extensively consulted on” and that they have 75% support.

To put that into context, I thought that today I would bring you the actual views of the Greenwich Market traders. Unlike, say, the Greenwich Society, I took the trouble to ask them what they thought. And as you will see, only one trader out of the ten I spoke to expressed unequivocal support for the redevelopment. That’s 10 per cent – so someone did even worse than Gordon Brown last week!

Michael Brandt, Red Gecko: “I don’t actually think it needs demolition. I think it needs a bit of a facelift – if it ain’t broken, why fix it? It will be off limits for a long time. These projects never really keep to schedule. [During the construction phase] people will suffer.”

Stephen Chong, Greenlands Health Foods: “I can see that some refurbishment is necessary, but not at the expense of changing the whole feeling and ambience of the market. This is unique, there is nothing like it. It’s been there 200 years, it’s one of the reasons why people come to Greenwich. I can understand the need to refurbish, but not wholesale refurbishment. [The new design] is a bit sterile.”

Maria Livings, Lush Designs: “The roof needs replacing but I’m worried it’s going to be bland. I’m really anxious [about that] – I would hate the idea that all the stalls were dressed the same. My main concern is that it isn’t going to be like Spitalfields. What’s happened [there] is sad – it’s a bit like a shiny ghost town.

“I don’t mind the cobbles. A cobbled floor looks nice. For a town centre [Greenwich] is very scruffy. It could do with a facelift. But it wouldn’t take a huge amount of effort – it needs soap and water, not redeveloping.”

Mick Gebbett, Hide All: “I think it’s probably the right thing to do. We’ve been here since 1987 and Greenwich Market does need lifting. We have discussed it quite a lot. The biggest concern for me is to make sure it’s completed by 2012, that’s important.”

Rob Toogood, Compendia: “I’ve got mixed feelings about it. It looks like they’re going to apply for planning permission to establish a [temporary market in a] tent down by the pier. It’s a well-presented tent with some secure retail units around the outside. It might work out OK – but not necessarily. I do get the feeling that some of the pedestrian flows in Greenwich town centre have not been analysed very well. I’m a little bit concerned that the temporary market is right down from the main drag, away from the park and town centre traffic.”

The new permanent market space “could affect the dynamics of the market – the pillars [supporting the roof] are moving into the middle, which will chop up the space a bit. The stallholders have some misgivings, but overall they’re quite positive. In terms of the other shopkeepers, certainly several of them are annoyed at the change.”

Anonymous shopkeeper: “In my opinion the market tenants are too frightened to speak out publicly against the plans, in case they are not offered a shop in the new market. At the recent community liason meeting on the 14th May to discuss the relocation of the market stalls, it was too late to raise any objections, as the plans had already been submitted. I wasn´t invited to be in the consultative group, but was represented by two of the market tenants who never got back to me.

“I happened to go to have another look at Hays Galleria today, and have a horrible feeling that Greenwich Market will end up like that with a few token barrows selling souvenirs, surrounded by seating for the hotel’s brasserie bar, and chain stores- Next, Assessorize.etc.”

Anonymous stallholder #1 (NB – all the stallholders requested anonymity – several said they had been asked not to talk to the press): “I see no reason to change. It seems quite nice as it is. It has got quite a nice balance as it is. I can’t see the logic.”

Anonymous stallholder #2: “Look around you – does this look like a market in need of regeneration?”

Anonymous stallholder #3: “We haven’t been told very much about it but we quite like the market now. I do good business here. I have seen the new designs and I don’t like them – they are not in keeping with Greenwich. They [the developers] say they have consulted some people but they haven’t consulted most of us.”

Anonymous stallholder #4: “Nobody has told us a thing. We don’t know what will happen to us and we are worried.”

Andrew Gilligan: Is the Market Development in Financial Trouble?

By

GREENWICH Hospital may be running into financial difficulties with its controversial plan to redevelop Greenwich Market, a leaked email shows.

The email, obtained by greenwich.co.uk, shows that the Hospital’s property consultant, Gleeds, is appealing for “grant funding” from Greenwich Council to help it complete the £29 million “regeneration.”

Greenwich Hospital confirmed to us that it has also approached the Heritage Lottery Fund for help with funding the redevelopment.

Its spokesman, David McFarlane, insisted that the approaches were for funding “at the margins” and “the whole project team is working on the assumption that we can fund [the redevelopment] from our own resources.”

However, Martin Sands, the Hospital’s director, does say in the charity’s latest annual accounts that the Hospital suffered a drop in the value of its assets of £6.5 million last year “as a result of a sharp decrease in the stock markets.” Its quoted investments declined by more than 13% over the year.

Those accounts only cover the period to March 2008, since when there has been a far more dramatic collapse in the values of shares and property – likely to have taken the Hospital’s losses to far greater levels.

The impact of the credit crunch appears to have been one reason why the Hospital’s planning application for the Market site – originally expected in “autumn 2008,” according to the annual report – has been delayed until now.

Mr McFarlane told greenwich.co.uk in autumn 2008 that the scheme was being reworked “to keep the cost base down.” As a result of the reworking, the most revenue-generating aspects of the scheme have been increased – such as the “boutique” hotel, now increased in size by 73 per cent on the original proposal, from 60 to 104 rooms.

However, the latest email shows that with the crisis in commercial property showing no signs of easing, the reworking may not have been enough.

The email was written on Monday this week by Tonderayi Matopodzi at Gleeds, the property consultants used by the Hospital, and is to Mervyn Fernandes, an officer at Greenwich Council.

It says: “We are currently exploring whether any potential grant funding may be available through Greenwich Council for our client, Greenwich Hospital, who are propos[ing the] Greenwich Market regeneration.

“The project will have a strong impact on inclusion and cohesion, sustainability and prosperity..[it will] enhance Greenwich’s attractiveness as a world heritage site, conserve and enhance the historic environment [and] keep many of the familiar and much-loved features of the Greenwich island site.” No specific amount was demanded in the email.

At the time of writing, Greenwich Council have not told me what their response to it was – I’ll update this post when I hear from them. There would clearly be an outcry if Greenwich Council actually agreed to pay public money towards the destruction of historic Greenwich.

I, for one, would strongly dispute that the redevelopment will enhance the world heritage site or “conserve the historic environment.” The application to the Heritage Lottery Fund is pretty cheeky for a proposal that will clearly destroy part of Greenwich’s heritage. And it also seems deeply questionable to appeal for money from the same body, Greenwich Council, which is supposed to be determining your planning application.

Does the demand for funds mean that in planning terms the scheme is already a done deal? Had the council had effectively given Greenwich Hospital the nod, I asked McFarlane? He insisted not: “We have had a lot of discussions with the council, we hope we’ll get a recommendation for approval, but we’ve had no tip-offs,” he said.

Richard Fleming, UK head of restructuring at the accountants KPMG, said last week that commercial property failures so far were just the “tip of the iceberg… we predict a wave of fallouts in the commercial property market as the true value of losses becomes apparent.”

With retailers everywhere cutting back, with vacancy levels increasing exponentially and with that kind of warning out there, it does indeed seem a very risky time to start building a new shopping centre.

Media, local and political opposition to the redevelopment continues to build. The current issue of Private Eye carries a critical piece. In my own newspaper, the Standard, the leader of the opposition on Greenwich Council, Spencer Drury, calls the scheme “aesthetic vandalism” which is “out of keeping” with the World Heritage site.

In the end, however, the forces of the financial markets may prove to be the most powerful ally of our market. Here’s hoping.

Greenwich Market: Disturbing Details the Developers Have Kept Quiet

By

Greenwich Market (with hotel!)

AN INFALLIBLE rule for journalists is that the glossier any material, the more worthless its contents. In their battle to pasteurise Greenwich Market, the PRs have over the last eighteen months put out a great deal of glossy paper. Ignore it. The actual, dinstinctly matt-finish, planning application documents are much, much more interesting.

The key document is the Environmental Statement (ES). On your behalf, I spent an afternoon last week reading through its 340 pages, along with all the other documents, available here. I also looked at all the minutes back to 2007 of the ” key stakeholders’ consultation group” (KSCG) set up by the developers. Download those minutes here. Then I read the report produced by Electoral Reform Services (ERS) on the developers’ much-hyped “consultation exercise” – undertaken as long ago as October 2007, incidentally. Download that report here.

Finally, I looked at Greenwich Council’s own statement of its planning policy, the Unitary Development Plan – downloadable here.

And in all this I found some fascinating facts – all there, documented, in black and white – that Greenwich Hospital and its PR allies, such as the Greenwich Society and Nick Raynsford MP, have unfortunately forgotten to tell us. These lead me to the following conclusions.

1. The only way Greenwich Council can pass this application is by totally overriding its own planning policy.

The Unitary Development Plan is quite clear. The market is part of the world heritage site. 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.” From the drawings, the design standards of the proposed scheme look distinctly middling and generic.

2. The temporary market proposed during the construction period will involve a big loss of stall and shop space, freezing out some traders entirely and thus probably destroying their businesses. It will also damage the businesses of all traders, since the temporary site proposed is less central, less visible and less likely to be visited than the existing site.

According to the ES, para 3.16, the market stalls area is currently 1456 sq m. There are also 20 shops in the buildings proposed for demolition, of which 18 are tenanted. The temporary market area will be “approximately 1000 sq m” (ES para 3.25) with 6 shops – a reduction of one-third in stall space and two-thirds in the number of shop units.

Some of the 12 displaced shops may be relocatable elsewhere in the Greenwich Hospital estate, but there are currently only 2 vacant shops in the GH estate (outside the market) – and it is hard to imagine that a further 10 vacancies will open up in the next six months.

According to the KSCG minutes, the site proposed for the temporary market is in the north-west corner of the Naval College grounds. This site is somewhat tucked away. Although it is on the route from the pier to the town centre, most visitors arrive by bus, DLR or train, and it is not on the routes between those arrival points and the centre. The site is also blocked from view of the town centre by the Pepys Building and the building site of the Cutty Sark.

3. The permanent market will involve a smaller loss of stall space.

The proposed new permanent market will be 1316 sq m (ES para 3.16) – a reduction of 10% on now. 18 roof support pillars in the middle of the space (rather than at the edges, as now) and the need for a clear walkway for guests to pass between the two halves of the hotel will further reduce stall space.

4. There will be a vast increase in overall build density and floorspace.

The total built footprint on the site will more than double, from 3165 to 7376 sq m (ES para 3.15). The new hotel is now 73% bigger than originally proposed (was 60 rooms in 2007 according to the KSCG minutes, is now 104 rooms.) Far from being a “boutique,” it will be the third largest hotel in the borough.

5. The damaging transport effects of the new hotel have been grossly underestimated. The developers’ assumptions are unrealistic.

The ES (para 13.78-79) claims that the new 104-room hotel, accommodating 200-plus guests when full, will create only 18 extra person movements in the peak hour – surely unrealistic. Still more unrealistic is the claim (ES para 13.78-9) that 16 of those movements would be on foot, to and from public transport. Most guests arriving at or departing 5-star luxury hotels with heavy luggage do not travel by public transport. The coaches, taxis and cars which will bring and collect them will cause significant traffic impact on the busy one-way system – already one of the most congested places in London – because there will be nowhere else for them to stop and load/ unload but right in the middle of the traffic flow. There is also a bus terminus across from the proposed hotel entrance which cannot practicably be relocated, further adding to the lack of road capacity at this point.

All this is contrary to the expressed policy in the UDP (TC12) that the Council “will…seek to reduce the effects of through traffic on Greenwich town centre.”

UDP policy M40 also 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. Policy M40 also states that coach traffic may be a reason for refusal of planning permission.

6. The consultation with the public was not as extensive or as supportive as claimed.

The only public consultation event was in October 2007 – more than eighteen months ago. It consisted of an exhbition open for a total of 14 hours across only two days and involving, in any case, a plan substantially different from the one now proposed. The developers’ other efforts (eg newsletters) are examples of “transmit” rather than “receive.”

At the 2007 event, 333 responses were received of which only 79, or 23%, fully supported the scheme and a further 50% raised reservations. (source: ERS report.) Most of the reservations (eg the need to maintain the traditional appearance of the market) have not been adequately addressed in the application – it is therefore wrong to count these individuals as supporters, as the developers do.

Although the official deadline for objections has now closed, councils in practice normally continue to accept objections after the deadline. So it’s probably not too late to object, if you still want to. The email address is david.gittens@greenwich.gov.uk.

PS: I enjoyed the response of Tim Barnes, the Greenwich Society chairman, to my attack on the society in last week’s column. I fear it is a sign of weakness, however, that he had to make something up to support his case. Mr Barnes quotes me as claiming that I am the “voice of Greenwich,” something I have never in fact said or written. I would never be so presumptuous – unlike Mr Barnes, who dismisses concerns about the redevelopment of the market as “not representative” of local people’s views, even though, by his society’s own admission, it has done nothing to ascertain what local people’s views actually are.