Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

Greenwich Market Hotel “will be built” – Nick Raynsford Interview Pt1

By

Nick Raynsford MP has said that councillors were “absolutely wrong” to reject the redevelopment of Greenwich Market and says that he has “no doubt” that the hotel will be built. The comments came in an extensive interview for Greenwich.co.uk which we are publishing in three parts all this week.

The highly controversial market proposals were unanimously rejected by councillors earlier this year, but Raynsford believes that they will now go through on appeal:

“Having read rather carefully the officer report and I speak as a former minister for planning so I did have to take decisions on issues like this, I think the Hospital have got good grounds for an appeal”

“In that situation when a scheme has been strongly supported by the officers and it is rejected by the politicians then very often inspectors tend to agree with the professionals and grant the appeal.

“I think this thing will be built. I have no doubt.”

Asked whether he had spoken to Council leader Chris Roberts since he rejected the proposals, he replied:

“Yes I have and I told him I think he was wrong. He was absolutely wrong on this issue. I don’t always agree with him.”

Raynsford believes that “vested interests” misled the public about the scheme:

“The proposals didn’t get explained as they should have been to the public who were apprehensive, but you also had some people who had a vested interest in trying to present this as a Bluewater type scheme rather than what it was.”

Greenwich.co.uk: What do you mean by “vested interests”?

“Well Andrew Gilligan had turned his mind against the thing right from the outset. He was totally hostile to it, and he literally would not listen. His view was this was a totally awful scheme, and the article he wrote for the Evening Standard showed an illustration or Turnpin lane, and the argument was, this is all going to get knocked down. Nonsense. The only thing that was going to be knocked down were those steel girders that hold up the roof at the moment which actually protrude into Turnpin lane and make it a less easy area to negotiate. And the only change would have been rather more elegant supports holding the roof up. And that to my mind is not the product of somebody who has looked at it seriously.”

Raynsford still believes that the hotel will bring much needed economic benefits to the town:

“Greenwich has a huge international reputation but it doesn’t get the full benefit of that. It is known to be a beautiful place, but on the whole the tourism revenue we get is the revenue of a day trip destination. People come to London, and they say that one of the things they must do is go to Greenwich. They’ll probably take a boat down the river, they’ll spend five or six hours in Greenwich, go to the Maritime Museum, perhaps go into the park, to the Painted Hall and the chapel and perhaps the Observatory and then they’ll go back. So they come back to central London and they’ve probably spent  £10-15 in Greenwich and they’ve spent hundreds of  pounds [in the centre]”

Asked whether Greenwich Hospital will appeal the council’s decision he replied:

“Of course it is up to them, but I think they are considering whether they are going to make a fresh application or whether to appeal. Frankly I think that if they appeal they have a very good chance of success, because the officer report which is the serious professional appraisal, gave it very strong support… So a good scheme and I think that there is every chance that it will be built in due course.”

In part two of this interview, to be published tomorrow, read what Nick Raynsford has to say about the “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors and the “cult of personality” at Greenwich Time.

Andrew Gilligan: Greenwich Council Leader Does the Chicken Run

By

THEY called it the “chicken run.” In the mid-1990s, as general election defeat loomed, top Tories started abandoning their parliamentary seats and getting themselves safer ones. Among them was this borough’s very own Peter Bottomley, Tory MP for Eltham until he decided he was more likely to keep his job by moving to the rather less marginal territory of West Worthing.

It was seen as a clear signal of the Tories conceding defeat. Labour, both nationally and locally, had a lot of fun at the “chickens'” expense: Frank Dobson, the shadow environment secretary, launched what he called “Operation Chicken Watch,” chortling: “The Government says the feelgood factor will win them the election, but Tory MPs don’t feel good.”

What goes around, comes around. Labour MPs aren’t allowed to do what their Tory counterparts did in the 1990s – but there’s no such rule for Labour councillors. And ahead of the local elections next May, Greenwich, once again, is at the centre of something that looks rather like a chicken run.

We can reveal that no less a person than Chris Roberts, the leader of Greenwich Council, is to leave his current ward, Peninsula (where Labour scored 45.7% at the 2006 council elections) and has just been selected in the ward of Glyndon (where the People’s Party got an altogether more comfortable 59.4%.)

Peninsula ward is essentially East Greenwich and GMV – everything in SE10 east of the Naval College and north of the railway line, plus a little bit of Charlton. It’s a more socially mixed, middle-class place than Glyndon, which sits between Woolwich and Plumstead town centres. Peninsula will also be heavily affected by the unpopular plans to close the park and roads for the Olympics – could that be a factor in Roberts’ decision?

Denise Hyland, the council’s cabinet member for the economy and skills, is also moving, from Shooters Hill – where she was only 118 votes ahead of the Tories in 2006 – to Abbey Wood, where the bottom Labour candidate was elected by a much more comfortable 357 votes ahead of their nearest rival, a Lib Dem. (Labour’s share of the vote in Abbey Wood was slightly less than in Shooters Hill, but the anti-Labour vote in Abbey Wood was split between Tories and Lib Dems.)

I couldn’t ask either councillor why they are moving – they haven’t returned my calls – but Spencer Drury, the Tory opposition leader, says: “I think it does show they’re worried, and I think they’re right to be worried. I think the council have called a number of issues wrong – for instance, they’ve made the judgment that they want to organise cuts immediately after the elections and not tell people about them before. The response we’re getting on the doorstep is excellent.”

Mr Roberts’ move is particularly interesting, not just because he is council leader but because his current berth, Peninsula, was not seen as a particularly marginal ward. Seven wards with Labour councillors – including four wards where the party holds all three of the council seats – registered a lower Labour share of the vote than Peninsula did.

If Labour lost all those wards, even if it kept Peninsula, it would lose control of the council. Does that mean Labour is in with a serious chance of defeat? I’m not sure; much depends on whether the opposition in each ward coalesces around one party, or whether it is split between two or three.

With the 2006 elections delivering them 36 out of the 51 seats, Greenwich remains one of Labour’s safest councils in London. But Labour got a very bad fright here in last year’s mayoral elections. For the first time in decades, if not in living memory, the Tories won more votes than Labour across the borough of Greenwich. In the current political climate, and with a Westminster election likely to take place on the same day as the local poll, no Labour council can be considered entirely safe. Mr Roberts certainly isn’t taking any chances.

p.s. Michael Stanworth, the Labour Borough Organiser for Greenwich, has been in touch to say “I can assure you that there is nothing sinister about his move to Glyndon ward, it is just closer to where he lives.”

Andrew Gilligan: Leaked Document – Greenwich Council to Make “Significant” Cuts

By

GREENWICH Council is planning “significant” cuts of at least £26.8 million – and possibly “over £30m,” according to confidential council documents leaked to greenwich.co.uk.

Options being discussed by the ruling Labour group for making the saving include:

  • “restrict[ing] access to [council] services;”
  • part-privatisation of health and social care;
  • reducing streetcleaning and recycling services;
  • ending or reducing funding for the local Metropolitan Police violent and organised crime unit;
  • reduced grants to voluntary organisations;
  • a “review of terms and conditions” for the council’s workforce;
  • the scrapping of “services, activities or projects which are low priority.”
  • higher charges for council services, such as parking, and for leaseholders;
  • withdrawal from collective bodies such as London Councils and the Local Government Association.

The plans are contained in a confidential document written by the council’s chief executive, Mary Ney, leaked to this website and downloadable here (PDF file, 612kb).

The document was discussed at a private meeting of the ruling Labour group on October 12, where Labour members talked about the council’s new “medium term financial strategy,” to take effect from April 2011.

The minutes say: “It is known that the financial climate in this next period will be particularly challenging…It is expected that funding will be restricted and the Council will need to make significant reductions in its expenditure. Current best estimates are [of]… a reduction in revenue budgets of £26.8 million over the four-year period of the next administration.”

The minutes add that the council will also need to “consider whether to continue” with some other programmes which “would raise the savings target to over £30 million.” The programmes listed are the violent and organised crime unit, Cleansweep (street cleaning) and waste management (recycling.)

The minutes say: “Whilst every effort should be made to deliver these spending reductions through efficiencies, the scale of the task may mean that more difficult choices will be needed in relation to continuation of services.”

Council officers will, says the document, “identify a number of cost-cutting workstreams, reporting back to members as work is progressed.” A total of 19 cost-cutting workstreams are identified.

Among the most controversial options is workstream 4, which says that “proposals [will] be brought forward for the delivery of services via social enterprise models.” Among the services listed as suitable for this is “health and social care.”

Workstream 6 is about grants to the voluntary sector and says: “As a minimum, this is likely to require cash-limited and possibly reduced budgets.”

Workstream 10 is to “scrutinise all Council activity to identify those services, activities or projects which are low priority and could cease.”

Workstream 12 is entitled “restricted access to services” and will “examine options to reduce demand and volume.”

There are also plans for “workforce efficiences,” with a review of “terms and conditions,” and for a “review of the charging strategy.”

However, one area protected from cuts is the Olympics, on which the council plans to spend at least £10 million.

Cllr Spencer Drury, leader of the Conservative opposition, said: “Labour have a hidden programme of cuts in place and are refusing to be open about their plans. Greenwich Council’s incompetence and inefficiency is what leads them to have to make these dramatic cuts. They have already wasted £27 million because they are three years late on their new school building programme. There are lots of ways they could have saved money by running themselves differently.”

Cllr Chris Roberts, the council leader, declined to comment when approached by greenwich.co.uk tonight.

However, at the last full council meeting, on 28 October – sixteen days after the Labour group discussed making cuts – Cllr Roberts said: “The issue of cuts has not materialised.” However, he added: “When the financial strategy is developed, it will obviously be brought to the council to be voted on.”

Andrew Gilligan: A Hole Lotta Trouble

By

Greenwich

WHO SAID the British worker was lazy? Over the last few weeks, an impressive array of Men In Hard Hats have dug up what feels like every single street in West Greenwich, one at a time.

No road appears too insignificant to be turned into a trench. And rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses with new converts, no road completed is seen as simply an achievement in itself – but more as a God-given opportunity to dig up the next one.

But why are they actually doing this? Is it some sort of Doris Salcedo-style art installation? Is it MI6, still looking for those missing Iraqi WMDs, following “compelling intelligence” that Saddam Hussein secretly buried them beneath Ashburnham Grove? Nobody seems to be displaying anything as boring as a sign telling us, so on your behalf, I have tried to find out.

First stop is Greenwich Council’s exciting, interactive new streetworks database, recently launched to tell you everything you need to know about the hole-makers. This informs us that across the borough, there are currently 308 sets of roadworks – one for every five streets.

Greenwich - Road Closed

In Greenwich itself, there are currently 77 sets of roadworks (77!) of which 9 are defined as “high impact.” Some of these (like the ones that recently caused such trouble in the town centre) are the work of Southern Gas Networks, doing gas main replacement. But from the database, it looks like the people who have been digging up most of our side streets are… Greenwich Council.

Why, I still don’t know. I did ask them, naturally, but more for form’s sake than for anything else. I have long ago given up hope of getting any information out of the Greenwich Council press office, which could perhaps be replaced with an answerphone message saying “I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question” for a substantial saving of council taxpayers’ money. (Last week, they refused to tell me what they were spending on the Olympics legacy – a figure freely available from this week’s Greenwich Time.)

The other possibility, of course, is that Greenwich Council does not itself know why it is digging up our roads. This is not as implausible as it sounds. After all, so many of the council’s other actions (closure of the foot tunnel, Olympics in the park) seem to have been taken on the same basis.

What’s undeniable is that the current system for roadworks stinks. Setting aside the council, there are a large number of “statutory undertakers” – mostly water, gas, electricity and telecoms companies – who dig the majority of the holes in London’s endlessly-patched streets.

Contrary to popular belief, these companies do not have to get approval from anyone – least of all the local authority – to start work. With only a few exceptions, they have the right to dig up the roads whenever they want. They just have to give notice, and sometimes not even that in the case of work deemed “urgent” or “emergency.” There is little or nothing to stop different statutory undertakers – or even the same one – digging up the same street as soon as a previous dig has finished.

In July 2004, the Government passed the Traffic Management Act – which allowed local authorities to introduce “permit schemes” to regulate and co-ordinate roadworks. However, thanks to heavy lobbying from the utility companies, Whitehall for more than five years refused to allow local authorities to use the powers they had themselves granted. Only last month was the first permit scheme under the Act – for TfL and 18 London boroughs – finally approved by ministers. More sensible regulation of roadworks will probably be implemented only next year, a full six years after the legislation was passed.

There’s one other unfortunate fact, I’m afraid. Our borough is not among the 18 included the permit scheme (although Lewisham is, for the benefit of our more southerly readers.) Greenwich is in fact in the last wave of London councils on this issue, having not yet made up its mind when it wants a permit scheme at all.

Whether through carrying out its own mystery roadworks, or failing to regulate other people’s, Greenwich will continue to be the borough with too many holes in the road for some time to come.

Greenwich Council Meeting 28/10/09: Almshouses, Elected Mayors & Bulky Rubbish

By

Residents in historic almshouses in west Greenwich have been left in “despair, shock and sadness” by news of their possible closure, councillors heard last night.

Tenants in Queen Elizabeth College, Greenwich High Road, have been told they may have to leave under plans by its owner, The Drapers’ Company, to redevelop it.

Local councillor Maureen O’Mara presented a petition, signed by 140 people, to Greenwich Council at a meeting on Wednesday night.

Some 70 residents live in the almshouses, which opened in 1818 to house the “poor elderly people” of Greenwich. More recently, it has been open to residents from both Greenwich and Lewisham boroughs.

Tenants were under threat of being moved to “destinations unknown” by the livery company, Cllr O’Mara (Labour, Greenwich West) said.

“They are in a state of despair, shock and sadness,” she added. “The decision was made with no reference to either the local MP or local councillors.

“We know the council has no influence over the decision, but we hope the oxygen of publicity will make The Drapers’ Company think again.”

The Drapers Company told greenwich.co.uk that it was in regular contact with councillors and Greenwich & Woolwich MP Nick Raynsford.

No firm decision had been taken to close Queen Elizabeth’s College, clerk Alistair Ross said, but the City livery company hoped to eventually build new almshouses elsewhere to replace the Greenwich site and its other homes in Southwark and Tottenham.

Redeveloping the current site was “unlikely but had not been ruled out”.

“As soon as a decision is made and plans formulated the residents and borough officials will be informed and consulted, however, it is likely that the whole process will take a considerable time,” Mr Ross added.

NOGOE Petition

A 13,000-strong petition against Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park gathered by campaigning group NOGOE was also presented to the council, this time by Blackheath Westcombe Conservative councillor Geoff Brighty.

Organising body LOCOG is due to submit the planning application for a temporary stadium and other measures next month. Cllr Paul Webbewood (Lib Dem, Middle Park & Sutcliffe) attacked coverage of the 2012 Games in council newspaper Greenwich Time, saying an issue earlier this month had “made the council look disreputable”.

But council leader Chris Roberts (Labour, Peninsula), dismissed the criticism. “I hope there will be a full and frank discussion on what LOCOG actually submit, and not on what people think they are submitting,” Cllr Roberts said.

Elected Mayors

Councillors from all three parties threw out the possibility of Greenwich switching to a system of having an elected mayor like neighbouring Lewisham.

All London boroughs were required by the government to hold a consultation on the issue, but only 20 residents replied to Greenwich’s call for responses, with 14 of those backing the current system where the council is led by a leader and cabinet.

Cllr Roberts said that despite the low number of responses, “we are some way off the worst – one council only had one response”.

Westminster politicians should leave local councils to to decide how to run themselves, he continued, adding that the tradition of having a ceremonial, non-partisan mayor representing the council would be lost under the different system.

“Having a civic mayor is like parliament saying, ‘let’s have a president and abolish the monarchy,'” he said.

Conservative leader Cllr Spencer Drury (Eltham North) said sticking with the current system was “the least bad” option.

Lewisham has had an elected mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, taking most of its key decisions since 2002.

Bulky Rubbish Collection

Greenwich Council’s £12 charge for collecting bulky household rubbish was a “very good deal”, insisted neighbourhood services cabinet member Maureen O’Mara.

The fee was introduced for non-council tenants two years ago, and Liberal Democrat Cllr Paul Webbewood said he thought it was leading to a rise in fly-tipping.

Last month, Labour councillor Janet Gillman told a residents’ group in Charlton that she would be pressing for a review of the policy.

But Cllr O’Mara defended the system, adding that residents could get rid of up to three items for their money.

“Bexley Council charges £25 for the same service,” she added.

Kidbrooke Regeneration Begins

By

Yesterday saw the ground breaking ceremony for the huge regeneration project taking place in Kidbrooke.

Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council, joined Sir Bob Kerslake, Chief Executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, Tom Dacey, Chief Executive of Southern Housing Group, and Tony Pidgley, Chairman of The Berkeley Group at the former Ferrier Estate for the official start of the  project.

The first phase of the project, boosted by a £30million cash injection from the HCA, will deliver 449 houses and apartments with the first residents expected to move in next year. Of the first 449 properties, 220 are for private sale and 229 will be affordable homes. When completed, the regeneration will have created 4,000 new mixed-tenure homes in total.

Cllr Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council, said: “It’s excellent to see the progress that’s being made in building the first homes of the new Kidbrooke development. This is an exciting moment for the Council, and for local residents, who have given consistent backing to the Council’s vision for transforming the area, creating a better environment and improving the quality of life.”

David Lunts, London Regional Director of the Homes and Communities Agency said: “Kidbrooke is exactly the kind of transformational project that the HCA was established to support and is a scheme which is at the heart of the HCA’s commitment to supporting regeneration in London. The partnership will be working to transform the estate into a vibrant neighbourhood with new affordable homes, fantastic parks and open space, a new community building and improved travel links.”

From left to right: Tom Dacey (Southern Housing Group), Sir Bob Kerslake (Homes and Communities Agency), Tony Pidgley (Berkeley Homes), Cllr Chris Roberts (Greenwich Council)

Greenwich Council Rejects Market Redevelopment

By

PLANS TO demolish Greenwich Market were unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council tonight in a decision which stunned both the developers and their opponents alike.

Members of the council’s planning board voted to turn down the highly controversial scheme, which would have seen the existing market replaced by a modern market, a contemporary shopping precinct and a 104-bedroom hotel.

The rejection comes despite Greenwich Council planning officers recommending acceptance of the plans.

The council leader, Cllr Chris Roberts, a member of the planning board, said at the meeting: “I simply don’t believe the design is good enough for the World Heritage Site. I am not convinced it would create a place I would want to spend time in.”

The council’s cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Peter Brooks, also a board member, said he had “grave concerns” about the quality of the design and said: “I’ve not been convinced by anything I’ve heard” from the developers and landowners, Greenwich Hospital.

Tory councillor Dermot Poston said the scheme could be anywhere: “Those shops might be in Brazil, or Canada, or Manchester – not Greenwich.”

Backbenchers from all parties said that the proposed hotel – which would be up to two storeys higher than the existing buildings – was an overdevelopment which could give rise to traffic congestion in the busy one-way system.

They echoed concerns first raised by greenwich.co.uk, which has run many articles analysing the weaknesses in the scheme.

Earlier, the Hospital’s director, Martin Sands, had told the meeting that the landowner was committed to maintaining a retail mix, with small shops of the kind the market has now. He said the hotel would enhance Greenwich’s economy by improving the town’s shopping and allowing more tourists to stay overnight. He was backed by the South-East London Chamber of Commerce.

But, questioned by councillors, Hospital officials pointedly declined to give a clear commitment that all existing traders would be able to return after the redevelopment at rents which they could afford.

David McFarlane, the Hospital’s spokesman, told the committee: “We are prepared to make some concessionary rents, but we have to have regard for the overall viability of the scheme.”

The meeting, which was attended by around a hundred members of the public, also heard from several of the objectors to the scheme. Almost 900 people sent formal letters of objection to the council.

Elaine Marshall, a shopkeeper at the market since it reopened in its present form more than two decades ago, said: “There is nothing wrong with the market as it is. It is vibrant and popular – it is often impossible to get around on Sundays.”

Another objector described one of the most controversial features of the design – a modern transluscent plastic roof – as “like Bluewater” and “a gift to pigeons.”

Two of the three councillors representing Greenwich West, the ward which covers the market, also spoke against the plans from the audience. One, Cllr Maureen O’Mara, said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The leader of the opposition, Cllr Spencer Drury, said the proposal put before councillors was not detailed enough and did not answer critical questions such as what the proposed wooden finish on the buildings would look like and how far the new buildings would disturb famous views and sightlines.

The existing listed buildings on the street side of the market would have been kept, but the issue of how far the new buildings behind would poke up above them became a central concern at the meeting. Councillors criticised the Hospital for not providing any long-distance images of how the town centre would look.

However, the Greenwich Society spoke in favour of the proposals, saying they were an “object lesson” in how to present a planning application. The society’s vice-chairman described them as “welcome” and an “improvement” to the area.

Had the plans been approved, the market would have closed at Christmas for a two-year construction process. Stallholders and a few of the shopkeepers would have been moved to a smaller temporary market on Metropolitan Open Land in the grounds of the Naval College. A separate planning application for the temporary market was withdrawn tonight.

The rejection is a serious blow to Greenwich Hospital, which has spent the last two years preparing for tonight’s meeting. The Hospital engaged a professional PR firm, distributed thousands of leaflets and newsletters and enlisted those it regarded as “key stakeholders,” such as the Greenwich Society and the local MP, Nick Raysnford, as cheerleaders for the scheme.

Mr Sands left the meeting tight-lipped and refused to make any comment when approached. “We will issue a press release tomorrow,” he said. It is not clear what the Hospital’s next move will be. It could appeal against the decision, but the council appears to be on strong ground since the scheme is in breach of more than a dozen of the policies in its Unitary Development Plan, the official statement of its planning policy.

The Hospital could return to the council in future with a revised scheme which addresses councillors’ concerns about the size of the hotel and the quality of the design. But reducing the size of the hotel and improving the design may cost too much to allow the scheme to remain economic in the current climate. Whatever happens, the Hospital’s hope that the scheme can be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics is now at an end.

Kate Jaconello, a trader from the market, said she and other traders felt a “huge, huge sense of relief” about the decision. “We can now get on with running our businesses without worrying about our future,” she said.

UPDATED 27/08/09:

Greenwich MP, Nick Raynsford, has responded to the news:

“I am grateful to all members of the Key Stakeholders Consultative Group, stakeholders and residents who have been involved in the Hospital’s plans for the market regeneration and for the huge amount of input received from the local community.

I believe this was, and still is, the right scheme; to ensure a successful future for Greenwich town centre which preserves and enhances the market.

I intend to meet with all parties concerned, and continue to support the sensible regeneration plans which preserve and enhance the market and Greenwich town centre”

Greenwich Council Set To Decide Market Future

By

The Planning Board of Greenwich Council will meet tonight at the town hall in Woolwich to make their decision over the proposed redevelopment of Greenwich Market.

They will consider the plans for a new market development, as well as the related application for a temporary market in the Monument Garden of the Old Royal Naval College.

The controversial plans for Greenwich Market include the creation of a 100 bedroom boutique hotel. Last week, Andrew Gilligan reported in his weekly column that planning officials have recommended to the board that permission be granted.

The Planning Board will also be considering giving permission for a new 82 bedroom hotel in Greenwich High Road, on the site of the old petrol station that is currently operating as a car washing business. Planning approval had originally been granted for 14 flats at the site, but the developer backed out due to the economic climate and Travelodge stepped in, acquiring a 25 year lease.

Contentious proposals to expand the number of flights at London City Airport are also going to be discussed at the meeting, and the board will determine whether to enter into a Neighbouring Authority Agreement with the airport.

The meeting begins at 6.30pm.

Popular Eateries Fail Hygiene Standards Inspections

By

MANY OF Greenwich’s best-known restaurants, pubs and takeaways have been officially judged “not up to standard” for cleanliness and have failed council hygiene inspections, greenwich.co.uk can reveal.

The outlets which the council found did not have a “good standard of hygiene” include:

– Rhodes Bakery.
– Three of Frank Dowling’s Inc Group restaurants – including the Inc Brasserie and Union Square at the 02, and the Coach and Horses pub in Greenwich Market.
– Another restaurant at the 02, Cheyenne Spur.
– Three well-known Greenwich pubs: the Gipsy Moth, the Mitre and the Richard I in Royal Hill.
– The Greenwich branch of the well-known Italian chain, Prezzo.

In total, 59 of SE10’s 194 catering outlets failed the inspection – they are listed at the end of this article. What’s notable, however, is the spread of failure – with a surprising number of upmarket and expensive places alongside the usual-suspect kebab houses.

The Union Square, for instance, is described by Inc Group as its “flagship restaurant” and a “destination eatery in its own right.” Main courses at the restaurant run to as much as £26 for a steak. It failed its inspection just last month. Rhodes Bakery, too, which failed in October, is far from cheap.

The best three restaurants in Greenwich – Inside, the Rivington Brasserie and Dowling’s Spread Eagle – all passed, as did most of the local chains, including Pizza Express, Gourmet Burger Kitchen, Nando’s, KFC and McDonalds. Most of the pubs also passed.

However, other well-known central Greenwich restaurants – including San Miguel tapas bar, the Pier fish and chip shop, the Organic Café opposite the Picturehouse, the new Biscuit ceramic café on Nelson Road and other Nelson Road outlets Café Sol, Pistachios and Saigon – failed. The popular Wing Wah Chinese buffet on Woolwich Road also failed, as did the Queen Anne coffee shop at the University of Greenwich in the Naval College.

The outlets were inspected at various times over the last 18 months as part of the council’s “food hygiene award” scheme. According to the council: “The scheme is about ensuring that food at catering premises is handled and prepared safely.” Outlets which met its standards were awarded a “food hygiene certificate.” Those without an award are, in the words of the council, “not up to standard.”

Embarrassingly for the council, three of its own school kitchens also failed the hygiene test – though none were in Greenwich itself. We haven’t included these or other outlets from other parts of the borough, though there were also substantial numbers of failures in Eltham, Charlton and Woolwich.

Greenwich restaurants have, of course, always been pretty mediocre – the ceaseless flow of tourists means that restaurateurs don’t have to worry about people not coming back. None of the places that failed would have been my top destinations for a meal. But this survey was about cleanliness, not quality.

The full borough-wide list of restaurants which passed and failed – which runs to 102 pages – can be downloaded here

Here are the failures, set out by category.

RESTAURANTS WHICH FAILED

Name Cuisine Address Inspected
Cafe Sol Tex-Mex 13 Nelson Road 8.1.09
Cheyenne Spur American The O2 9.2.09
Inc Brasserie Modern Euro The O2 27.2.09
Kum Luang Thai 326 Creek Road 15.5.09
Organic Cafe Mod Euro 285 Greenwich High Road 3.11.08
Paprika Indian 131 Vanbrugh Hill 7.8.08
Peninsula Chinese 85 Bugsby’s Way (at Holiday Inn) 20.3.09
Prezzo Italian 35 Bugsby’s Wat (by Odeon) 16.2.09
Saigon Vietnamese 16 Nelson Road 4.12.08
San Miguel Tapas 18 Greenwich Church Street 28.10.08
Tai Won Mein Chinese 39-41 Greenwich Church Street 22.1.09
Union Square American The O2 1.7.09
Vietnam Vietnamese 17 King William Walk 15.4.09
Windies Cove West Indian 135 Trafalgar Road 30.10.08
Wing Wah Buffet Chinese 4-6 Woolwich Road 23.6.09

PUBS WHICH FAILED

Name Address Inspected
Belushi’s (St Chrisotpher’s Inn) 189 Greenwich High Road 5.1.09
Coach & Horses Greenwich Market 28.10.08
Gipsy Moth 60 Greenwich Church Street 3.11.08
Hardys (not the Admiral Hardy) 92 Trafalgar Road 4.6.09
Mitre 291 Greenwich High Road 28.8.08
Pelton Arms 23 Pelton Road 14.1.09
Prince Albert 72 Royal Hill 27.1.09
Richard I 52 Royal Hill 22.7.09

TAKE-AWAYS/ CAFES WHICH FAILED (ALPHABETICALLY BY STREET)

Green Chillies 110 Blackheath Road 13.5.09
Kebab & Burger Bar 111 Blackheath Road 11.1.08
Burger Stall Fountain Food court 28.9.08
Phillies 9 Greenwich Church St 16.6.09
Pier Fish Restaurant 19 Greenwich Church St 4.2.09
Cutty Sark (the cafe not the pub) 38 Greenwich Church St 11.11.08
Real Taste 243 Greenwich High Rd 28.10.08
Gaucho Son of Pumpa Greenwich Market 28.2.09
Jakoba Greenwich Market 28.2.09
Just Coffee Greenwich Market 19.7.09
Love Me Tender Greenwich Market 13.6.08
Teriya Kiya Greenwich Market 4.7.09
Pizza Hot Express (not Pizza Express) 129 Greenwich South St 5.6.09
Le Popadom 141 Greenwich South St 8.7.08
Ultimate Pizza 143 Greenwich South St 9.9.08
Paul’s Cafe 18 Haddo St 11.9.08
Kiosk 8 King William Walk 18.3.09
Rhodes Bakery 37 King William Walk 28.10.08
Beijing Express 79 Lassell St 19.11.08
Biscuit Ceramic Cafe 3-4 Nelson Rd 11.2.09
Pistachios 15 Nelson Rd 12.11.08
Diner Outside North Greenwich Stn 20.4.09
Moza 101 Trafalgar Rd 10.7.09
Milano’s Pizza 106 Trafalgar Rd 3.8.09
Kerala Zone 119 Trafalgar Rd 26.5.09
Mister Chung 166 Trafalgar Rd 22.7.09
Yummy Yummy 180 Trafalgar Rd 15.7.09
Queen Anne Coffee Shop University of Greenwich 24.4.08
Curry Royal 9 Woolwich Road 14.5.09
New Hong Kong Garden 22 Woolwich Road 5.3.09
Greenwich Cafe 27 Woolwich Road 27.2.09
Bengal Spice 44 Woolwich Road 25.6.09
Morleys 117 Woolwich Road 15.7.09
Millennium Pizza 119 Woolwich Road 10.2.09

First Asian Mayor of Greenwich Has Died

By

The first Asian Mayor of the Borough of Greenwich has passed away at his home in Coventry.

Gurdip Singh Dhillon was first elected to Greenwich Council in 1978, representing Charlton and later Woolwich Common. He became the Mayor of Greenwich in 1990 and continued to serve on the council until 2002. In 1996 he was awarded the MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.

Gurdip’s friend, Councillor Jagir Sekhon, herself a former Mayor of Greenwich, commented, “I’ve known Gurdip for the last 38 years. When I came here in 1968 we were living in rented accommodation and our families met at that time when we were both campaigning through the housing association.”

Councillor Sekhon added: “He was fantastic as a campaigner for the whole community. Nothing was ever too much for him. You could call him up at 2am and he’d be there for you. At the same time, he never said he had done something – he always said that the community has done it!”

Greenwich Council Leader Chris Roberts said, “Gurdip’s motto was always to see a better understanding between the different communities, better race relations and religious tolerance. At the same time, he championed the cause of every part of the Greenwich community. He will always be remembered as the borough’s first Asian Mayor.”.