The proposed Greenwich Market redesign would see new buildings of “character and potential historic significance”, a planning inquiry heard today.
That was the verdict of Dr Jonathan Edis who was called as a professional witness by Greenwich Hospital.
Dr Edis said that the market buildings dating from the 1950s do not “really hang together” with the rest of the market and are “not worthy of preservation”. He added that the scheme would see “no loss of significance” and would instead create an “attractive way of drawing people into a new and vibrant space”.
He was asked if he knew why Bespoke Hotels, the selected operator for the hotel if it gets the green light, had produced a web page advertising the hotel including “an alfresco restaurant-bar set amidst the cobbled courtyard” but Dr Edis said he had no knowledge of that.
The lawyer representing the council suggested to Dr Ediz that in his written submissions he had tried to “create an argument” with the council’s Senior Conservation Officer, Rebecca Duncan, and he was in fact a “hired gun”.
Dr Edis is a former local authority conservation officer himself and now runs his own cultural heritage consultancy.
Other developments from the inquiry’s fifth day included the Planning Inspector announcing that he will make his own unaccompanied visit to the market on Saturday. The inquiry schedule includes an accompanied visit on Thursday but market trader, Kate Jaconello, suggested earlier in the week that he visit at a weekend which he has now agreed to do.
The inquiry continues at the town hall on Wednesday, the site visit due to take place on Thursday and closing submissions on Friday.
Dr Jonathan Edis has “form” in what one might call cultural vandalism. In September last year, his evidence, on behalf of NPower, was that the setting of the Anglo-Saxon Listed chapel of St Peter-on-the-Wall would not be harmfully affected by the installation of a wind farm, although “turbines will be seen from the chapel, and to the sides of the chapel … and over the roof of the chapel”.
He concluded, “while the turbines will be visible from these listed buildings and from parts of their surroundings, in my view, there would be no impact on setting or on the cultural heritage value of the chapel”.
As it happens, I have been to St Peter-on-the-Wall, Bradwell on Sea, about 35 years ago. It was like one of Yeats’ “thin places” – where the physical world and the eternal blend together. It was like going back a thousand years in time. Dr Edis must be, sorry, a complete and utter philistine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St_Peter-on-the-Wall,_Bradwell-on-Sea
Why do we have philistines giving evidence on culturally important places, anyway? Why aren’t they disqualified?
In Watford, Jonathan Edis told the Development Control Committee of Watford Council in June 2007, “the Robert Peel Public House had been much altered and had lost its original use; it was also an unllisted building in a conservation area and its regeneration was consistent with Government guidance”.
But a Council member pointed out that “the point was to save the Robert Peel building which had been the first police station in Watford, not necessarily saving a pub. She said it was important to maintain individuality and history and not become a cloned town.”
The Development Control Committee resolved, “The loss of the Robert Peel would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape … The loss of the Robert Peel would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area”.
Here is another public inquiry where Edis said (on behalf of Nuon Renewables) that wind turbines would not spoil the view from a Grade II Listed historic hunting lodge (dating from 16th century) near Market Drayton.
http://www.shropshirestar.com/latest/2009/05/15/turbines-would-not-spoil-views/
Two photos taken near Willoughby Lodge:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/531306
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/793435
If the Council planning officers are reading this, may I suggest that you counter Jonathan Edis’ evidence with descriptions of the Greenwich “local narrative” going back two hundred years or so. The sense of continuity with the time when Greenwich streets and taverns were full of seafarers and survivors of the wars with France and Spain, and all the little businesses that existed to serve them. It has always seemed to me that, walking around maritime Greenwich, one could bump into the characters from “Treasure Island” round any corner. That will disappear with the redevelopment of Greenwich Market.
“He added that the scheme would see “no loss of significance” and would instead create an “attractive way of drawing people into a new and vibrant space”.
Yeah, like Greenwich market really needs to attract more people, hardly anyone goes there now. Codswallop.
Remember, also, that these people claim that bulldozing the stables and banana warehouse -“simple, honest, attractive buildings that have been designed with care” , according to the Victorian Society – and replacing them with a garbage compactor will enhance the Conservation Area.
NO doubt they called several experts before they found one who claims that demolishing old buildings, and building overtowering new ones or pastiche Georgian, somehow improves the historic texture of one of the country’s key heritage sites.
I am interested in this case but take a less emotive and more balanced view as a resident of a neighbouring borough. I am not directly affected nor, given my age, will i potentially be able to benfit from the changes. I question what it is that people are seeking to preserve here as the post war existing market cover is less than impressive and is not an architecture gem of repute, simply a functional canapy as i recall. I can only pressume Indigo is a market holder, local business person or resident directly affected and therefore i offer full sympathy. Several years ago my views were ruined by the Mayor’s testicle but given time one can appreciate the change and not resist or fear it. Did English Heritage have a say on the quality or failings of the proposed as pressumably their view will hold weight here.
@RichardW, the – what you call – “Mayor’s testicle” was built on a bomb site.
Gad – talk about not comparing like with like.
Richard, the ‘post war market cover’ is from 1908, some people think it’s architecturally important as it’s locally listed – and the Hospital have acknowledged this by with drawing their application to demolish the roof and replace it with a plastic one (like you see in train stations in Charlton and Stratford).
Most people here want to preserve – the market! WE want to keep it as a working market, as it has been for 200 years, with an old cobbled floor, old roof, old working buildings… rather than have a modern, 100plus room hotel, which towers over the (listed) Joseph Kay buildings, and takes over the market space as dining area.