Greenwich Market articles

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.

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.

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.