AS GREENWICH faces an unprecedented onslaught of simultaneous development, I am starting to wonder what is the point of the Greenwich Society.
One of its principal aims is “to protect the town’s heritage.” But on the two greatest threats of the moment to the town’s heritage – the redevelopment of the market, and the Olympics events in the park – the Greenwich Society is a supporter and apologist for the heritage abusers.
Its committee fought tooth and nail a substantial number of members who wanted it to oppose the Olympics in the Park, as the Friends of Greenwich Park and the Blackheath Society have done. (Interestingly, the Friends and the Blackheath Society committees were also in favour of the Olympics, until forced to reverse their position by their members.)
Now, we find the Greenwich Society’s spokesman, Ray Smith, actually appearing – complete with photo – in the PR material put out by the developers who would turn Greenwich Market from a bustling and vibrant part of the town’s heritage into a modern shopping precinct and hotel with stalls attached.
Mr Smith says he is “pleased that Greenwich Hospital is bringing forward this planning application, which will help revitalise Greenwich Town Centre.” In fact, it is the existing market which has already “revitalised Greenwich Town Centre” and the new one which threatens that revival.
Under the management of Urban Space, what was in the early 80s an almost derelict fruit and veg operation has been turned into space that is bursting with life five days a week. On Saturdays and Sundays, it is scarcely possible to move in the market, so dense are the crowds. How much more “revitalised” can you get?
The fact that the new market looks like an airport terminal is not the only problem with it. Tucked away in the minutes of the “key stakeholder consultation group” meeting for 26 November 2008 is the uncomfortable revelation that “it was confirmed that the scheme resulted in a net gain in retail space but possibly a decrease in the market stall space.” More shops, less market – how can that possibly be described as a “revitalisation?”
One of the Greenwich Society’s other “key objectives” is “effective traffic management.” It is hard to see how the construction of a 104-bedroom hotel with its traffic entrance right in the middle of the flow of the one-way system can accomplish this.
I rang Mr Smith last night and asked him whether he had found anyone in Greenwich who actually liked the new market scheme. There was a short pause. “The members of the executive committee of the Greenwich Society like it,” he said. Yes, but had they made any active effort to find out what anyone else in Greenwich thought? “We have a facility on our website which says ‘tell us your views,’ he says. “Nobody has said they like it and nobody has said they don’t like it.”
There’s other problem with this. The item on the Greenwich Society website asking for people’s views on the market was posted on 20 April – in other words, after the redevelopers’ PR material was produced quoting Mr Smith as a fan of the scheme. So even if anyone had expressed their views, it would have made no difference to the Greenwich Society.
The real key to the society’s acquiescence, I expect, is that “key stakeholder consultation group.” The idea of such groups is seldom really to consult people, but to co-opt them into whatever has already been decided, while perhaps allowing them to make a few minor adjustments along the way.
Mr Smith did indeed say that they’d secured some changes since the original 2007 proposal – but as far as I can see, the changes since then (a 39% increase in the size of the hotel, a new roof, the removal of the cobbles) have only made the plan worse, are indeed among the most objectionable things about it.
Over the issues threatening our town, the Greenwich Society have by their own admission spent far more time talking to the likes of LOCOG and the Market developers than they have in talking to the people of Greenwich. Enfolded into the cosy embrace of “key stakeholderdom,” the Greenwich Society have forgetten their actual purpose – to find out and represent the views of local residents – and have instead become adjuncts of, and advocates for, the developers.
They are providing PR cover for the forces seeking to mar Greenwich with unnecessary, unwanted and damaging development – which is, in fact, far worse than if they never even existed at all. We may not need to “revitalise” the town centre – but we certainly need to “revitalise,” or perhaps replace, the Greenwich Society.
Very interesting article! I like the comparison of the proposed Greenwich Market development with airport shopping – that’s exactly how it looks like!
As Greenwich is about to be turned into a building site & Olympic funfair possibly losing it’s identity. I too am beginning to wonder what the point of the Greenwich Society is apart from complaining about inappropriate shopfronts & not resisting Greenwich Council’s Marketaphobia.
I would be interested in speaking to any local resident/trader with views on the plan. Please email your number (in confidence) to me at andrew.gilligan@standard.co.uk and I will call you.
Andrew,
I do understand your concerns over the development and appreciate the fact that you are passionate about Greenwich. However, I think it is a touch arrogant of you to assume that because the Greenwich Society disagrees with you and supports the redevelopment, they are automatically not fit for purpose. You clearly have a fair amount of support on this blog but it is a rather self-selecting group of contributors.
Is there any independent data available on the support for these works? I suspect not, certainly I’ve not seen any, but I suspect that support is considerably higher than you seem to think. It seems to me a little harsh to criticise Mr Smith for failing to produce evidence of support of local people when you don’t seem to be able to produce any evidence to contradict him either.
As with most developments, there are elements of the plan that are far from perfect (losing the cobbles in particular seems unnecessary) but on balance my impression is that there is significant support for the principle of redevelopment. Given that we will never reach a unanimous concensus, a small but vocal minority (if that’s what it is) should not be enough to halt progress.
If there genuinely was widespread public opposition to these plans, if should be very clear for all to see. Local communities are not slow to organise highly visible protests when a new Tesco is opened or a school is closed. If the opposition really is there, it’s about time they made a bit more noise than just grumbling about the perceived flaws in the consultation process. Clearly you are doing your part, and I wish you luck, but until the proof is there that you have popular support, I think it might be wise not to attack people armed only with the assumption that you do.
Firstly, the lack of objections might well be because the public don’t realise exactly what is planned – certain aspects of the development were not mentioned in the consultation documents, which states that only 50s buildings are being demolished, when the truth is anything but.
I see from Greenwich Council’s website – which is now fortunately working, after a week-long break in which responses could not be logged – that there are so far over 40 objections to the scheme, and none in favour.
There are aspect of the scheme I support, for what it’s worth, but it’s undeniably case that The Greenwich Society should be asking some tough questions, not helping sell the scheme as part of what seems an intentionally vague document.
Blissett,
I don’t claim to speak for anyone except myself. The point about the Greenwich Society is that it does claim to speak for the residents of Greenwich – without, in this case, having made any effort to find out what their views are. Judging by the sampling of public responses just so far to the council (42 against – 0 in favour) it looks like the GS view doesn’t represent public feeling on this issue.
Andrew
Andrew,
I can’t pretend to know much about the GS, but judging by it’s Mission Statement and Constitution, there is no clear commitment to present the views of all Greenwich residents. They are a private group rather, representing the interests of their members, not a public one. Indeed one of their key objectives is to support “continuing face lifts for the Greenwich and East Greenwich town centres”.
As for the responses to the council, does anyone ever register a vote in favour of these things? I would be amazed if anybody had, regardless of how popular the proposal was. And a 1.2% response rate on an issue that’s clearly as significant and contentious as this does not suggest to me that “public feeling on this issue” is in any way clear.
I don’t know what the general public view is. I’m not even 100% certain what my own view is. But if there really is a significant number of people who strongly oppose this, now is the time for them to make themselves known, organise and clearly communicate their specific objections. Because right now, it just looks like a small number of people arguing that any kind of progress is bad and that there’s some kind of conspiracy going on to force an unpopular development on an unsuspecting public. If I really should be angry about this, I need better reasons than those.
Blissett – you aren’t alone in what you say. I also feel that the tone of the article – accusatory, conspiratorial and angry – does not reflect the feelings of many people that live in the area. We live in one of the best places in London (the world!), a place that people travel thousands of miles to admire. There are good bits and bad, but due to its heritage change needs to be carefully thought through.
Local politics needs to be more constructive then a few angry men shouting, accusing ‘faceless bureaucrats’ of unspeakable acts. It is interesting to note that both LOCOG and Greenwich Hospital have tried to engage with their critics on this site, but their accusers have been slow to respond. If you ask people to complain then some always will. It is much harder to promote positive change.
Tom,
We do indeed live in one of the best places in London. God forbid that anyone should get “angry” about a plan to spoil it!
Andrew
Endless demands for us to be angry about people that make you “sick, sick, sick” I find quite exhausting, and am not sure gets to the truth of the issue.
In response to Tim Barnes:
Whilst I agree with your comments in relation to the Olympics in Greenwich Park I have no sympathy with your support of the development of the Market site.
Greenwich Hospital have systematically devastated the current site with rent increases that have seen shop after shop close. They have betrayed the trust placed in them by local people and have shown themselves unworthy custodians of the site.
The market is already a vibrant hub of the community and if rents were lowered on the surrounding properties and local residents consulted on those retailers being brought in then I feel everyone could be satisfied.
As ever it seems the Hospital’s only motivator is financial and I do not see how such aims can match those of the Greenwich Society.
But then again I’m not a member – just a resident!
Darren
I am also a resident & I am opposed to turning Greenwich Market into the Hong Kong Airport Terminal.
Much as I like the airport terminal in Hong Kong as an airport terminal whilst I am travelling, I do not wish a poor copy to replace one of the last remaining historic & unique markets in London.
I have not been made aware of it by Greenwich Hospital at all, I only found out about it through an unrelated google search and I now wish to start shouting before they steal away this valuable asset for their own financial benefit.
I am strongly against this development!