The Maids at Greenwich Playhouse

 

A new production of The Maids by Jean Genet is coming to Greenwich. The play, based on the lives of the infamous Papin Sisters, was last performed in Greenwich in 1974 with a cast that included Glenda Jackson and Susannah York, who both appeared in the film adaptation.

The new adaption is being brought back to Greenwich, at the Playhouse theatre, by theatre company Nomads of Bazar.  They promise a production that will fuse “pop culture and our obsession with the media in the 21st century”  and challenge “the boundaries between love, sexuality and criminal intent”.

The Maids is at the Greenwich Playhouse from 9th June – 5th July 2009
Tues-Sat @ 8pm | Sun @ 4pm
Tickets: £12; £10 (Conc.)
Box office 020 8858 9256 | boxoffice@galleontheatre.co.uk

Dance and Draw at Forum@Greenwich

Learn how to draw, and learn how to dance… at the same time! Dance and Draw is a cool new experience taking place at the Forum@Greenwich in Trafalgar Road.

The purpose of the sessions is to encourage people to express themselves, gain self confidence and reduce session.

The innovative Dance and Draw sessions are available in an afterschool slot for teenagers and there’s also evening sessions.

Find out more about Dance and Draw here

Greenwich Hospital Respond to Andrew Gilligan

Earlier this week, Andrew Gilligan wrote about the plans for the redevelopment of Greenwich Market. Here is the response of the market owners, Greenwich Hospital.

Temporary Market

The Environmental Statement referred to assessed the principle locations of the temporary market not the final proposals. We assessed a maximum site area of 10,000 sqm (to include storage, access etc) to  accommodate the temporary market. The final details of the temporary market will be submitted to Greenwich Council in early June. The temporary market will allow for the same number of stallholders as existing and will be of a similar size in terms of floor space.

Paragraph 3.16 of the Environmental Statement refers to the gross Market area which includes the circulation area in front of the shops and the seating areas of George II and the Coach and Horses.

Paragraph 3.25 of the Environmental Statement refers to a brief for the temporary market with a floor space requirement of 1,000 sqm which was an approximate area and not what was tested in site terms. The Environmental Statement relates to the main site application and was written before the final plans for the temporary market were fully defined. The temporary market will be judged on its own merits through the planning application process. The proposed marquee will accommodate the same number of stalls on a similar size footprint.

Retailer relocation

Greenwich Hospital is in discussions with all the retailers in the market and has a relocation strategy in place. Through this process it will be able to relocate all the existing retailers from the current market during construction either into other Hospital owned units in the town centre or 6 of them to the temporary market units.

Obviously it is difficult to give specifics due to the fact that our discussions with tenants are ongoing and confidential.

We have just received planning consent for a change of use of 2-5 College Approach to create 4 retail units. There is only 1 vacant unit in the Greenwich Hospital Estate as the other is under offer and this is by a tenant moving from elsewhere in the estate, however this will in due course create 1 more available unit within the estate.

There is another unit on the estate that the tenant has chosen to vacate and so we expect that this will come back to Greenwich Hospital soon. All this will total 7 units, which together with the 6 retail units in the temporary market will provide 13 options to relocate tenants. This is not withstanding the fact that some tenants have indicated that they would rather leave the estate than be relocated either due to the direction their businesses are taking or because they were merely taking advantage of a short-term let opportunity. There are other possible relocation units around the Hospital’s Estate, for example, the Greenwich Tourist Information Office will vacate 46 Greenwich Church Street to return to the Old Royal Naval College next March.

Regenerated market floor space

Although the covered area of the market has reduced slightly by less than 10% the actual market footprint has remained broadly the same, as have the number of stalls that can be housed. This point is dealt with fully in the Design and Access Statement of the planning application.

The historic footprint remains and is very slightly wider, so the existing stall layout can be accommodated.

The proposed canopy has fewer columns/masts than the existing canopy. They are wider in diameter but they are dual-purpose, as they will carry rainwater down and electrical supplies up to high level lighting etc.

Increase in build density

The total floorspace of the proposals has increased from the existing floor space. This is partly related to the reuse of the existing inefficient service yards with the provision of a new building to the west of the existing market.

There are increases in building heights within the site to accommodate the new facilities. However, the buildings remain below the roofline of the existing Nelson Road roofs and are hardly visible from outside the site.

Transport and Access

The person trips obtained for the hotel are generated from survey information from a series of comparable London hotels found within the TRAVL database, the standard database for trip generation used by local authorities and TfL in London.

Analysis of this information shows that the trips associated with a hotel are typically spread out throughout the day. As such there would be little impact during either the morning or evening peak periods.

Planning policy encourages car free developments in town centres with good public transport links. However, the arrangements were discussed with the Council and stakeholders.

Whilst some guests, when initially arriving, may do so by taxi, the close proximity of the Docklands Light Railway station will encourage the guests, many of whom are likely to be tourists visiting Historic Greenwich, not to drive or use a taxi.

On a daily basis, many of the trips will be guests who have already checked into the hotel, travelling on foot to tourist destinations in Greenwich, or travelling by Docklands Light Railway or Thames Clipper River service to Central London.

The proportion of guests who choose to travel by taxi will be collected by taxis stopping briefly on King William Walk. Due to the dispersed nature of the guests’ arrival and departure patterns this is unlikely to cause significant traffic impact. Any increase in vehicles would be more than offset by the removal of the vehicular traffic associated with the current office buildings within the market and the car park in Durnford Street.

It should also be noted that, in order to reduce the likelihood of taxis waiting on King William Walk consideration is currently being given to the introduction of a system to enable the hotel to summon a taxi from the nearby taxi rank on Greenwich Church Street for guests leaving the hotel.

Public consultation

Greenwich Hospital has not kept ‘disturbing details of the development quiet’, on the contrary the consultation website www.greenwichmarketconsultation.co.uk aims to be transparent and informative which is why agendas and minutes of Key Stakeholder minutes are all online.

Whilst the results of the October 2007 exhibition showed that 50% of respondees commented that they supported the scheme with suggestions; many of these suggestions have now been incorporated into the scheme and therefore we do count these individuals as supportive.

Below is a summary of some of the main issues which have been influenced by the responses of the local planning authority, the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group, Community Liaison Group and all other stakeholders and residents:

• Phasing of the market regeneration was rejected by Greenwich Hospital after the market traders and retailers suggested it would make trading very difficult. Greenwich Hospital responded to this by seeking to find a venue to relocate the market within Greenwich during the regeneration period.
• Cutty Sark Gardens was considered as the first option for temporary market relocation in
  accordance with market traders wishes.
• Market Roof: Hopkins Architects refined the design of the new market and extended coverage of the roof to both ends of the market to enable the largest number of traders to be protected from the weather; this was a direct result of concerns expressed by traders.
• The Community Liaison Group (CLG) was set up following a decision of the KSCG to set up a body to oversee and facilitate the move of the market to a temporary location and to include representatives of the community and residents in the CLG.
• The Old Royal Naval College was selected as a temporary market location following discussions with the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group and market traders.
• Delaying the Closure of Greenwich Market: After many meetings with market traders and after consideration of the effects of the economic slowdown on the market traders, Greenwich Hospital decided to keep the market trading throughout Christmas 2009 in the existing market location to give traders the best chance of trading successfully over the crucial Christmas period.
• Stall Design in the market will be worked up by Greenwich Space Management and Hopkins Architects with the help and assistance of traders who will be utilising the new stall
  designs.
• Construction impact – development of a strategy to address the construction impacts of the market regeneration on surrounding residents has been and will continue to be addressed by ensuring the Community Liaison Group continues to meet post planning application.
• Finish and materials – The finish and materials were the subject of a considerable number of comments made by members of the community following the Public Exhibition in October 2007 and these reflected a wish that the selected finishes should fit well within the context of Greenwich Town Centre and should be of high quality. Greenwich Hospital and Hopkins Architects considered these comments carefully and removed the red brick from the interior walls of the market,  replacing them with timber.
• Accessibility for disabled people was considered after Greenwich Association for Disabled People submitted an email to Greenwich Hospital which stated a preference for even flooring, flat thresholds, lavatories with disabled access and additional enhanced accessibility features.
• Second Public Exhibition was agreed by the KSCG and by Greenwich Council officers as a good method of communicating the final market regeneration plans to as wide a group of residents as possible. Greenwich Hospital was happy to facilitate this exhibition.
• On Site storage capacity in the regenerated market area will match the existing on site storage capacity. This strategy has been developed following discussions with market traders on how storage in the new market would operate.

Greenwich Hospital believes that the application for the regeneration is in accordance with Greenwich Council’s Unitary Development Plan and that it will demonstrate the highest standards in design, landscaping, detailing and finish and that the regeneration will maintain and preserve the architectural integrity and identity of the town centre. Greenwich Hospital does not believe that the essential character of the market will change. Rather the hotel will make the market an attractive place for more people for more of the time and bring a more positive atmosphere to the market in the evenings and on non market trading days. The new roof will be a considerable improvement on the current roof. There is broad support for the principle of regeneration from many Greenwich stakeholders and residents but that is not evident in the article.

It is particularly disappointing that someone who has written on the subject so often failed to attend the recent public exhibition when he could have discussed the plans in more detail Greenwich Hospital response to Andrew Gilligan article of 27 May 2009 with members of the project team; even though he was explicitly invited to do so by the Member of Parliament.

Pub Review: The Pilot Inn

The Pilot Inn
8 River Way, SE10 0BE

Greenwich Millennium Village is a strange place. Despite being the nearest you can get to the tube in this part of town, having the mammoth o2 on its doorstep and being a hefty residential stronghold, it somehow always feels like you’re in the middle of a computer-generated environment, miles from anywhere. The Pilot, GMV’s ‘local’, is much in keeping with its sim-city surroundings and despite being generally ok, it lacks a lot of the character that makes the town pubs successful.

Owned by uber-chain Fullers, the Pilot ticks most of the corporate pub boxes with a wide lager selection, Rosé in bulk and every flavour of j2o you could want. However, there’s a decided mediocrity about the place, with its uninspiring ale selection, forgettable décor and split-level interiors that make it disjointed and a little unwelcoming. The food is rather expensive (£10 for Scampi & Chips), and again, pretty middle of the road. The staff, apart from a standard issue try-hard manager, are a little on the gruff, robotic side – when I asked the barman if I could order food his reply was ‘Yeah why not?’, before taking a good 5 minutes to process my order for one meal. They also had a seafood specials promotion going on, but at 6pm on a Saturday they had crossed 5 out of 7 meals off the list, as they were unavailable.

Despite all this, the Pilot does have one saving grace in its spectacular beer garden. The water features, hanging baskets and ivy fences all look like they’ve been given the creative effort and thought that the rest of the place so conspicuously lacks and it’s a lovely place to sit with your Magners. There’s even a BBQ stand where they apparently cook sausages and burgers in the summer (assuming they have any left). Its only slight drawback is that it being north facing and fully enclosed, it does get rather chilly, but then this is Britain so perhaps I’m expecting too much!

All in all I think the Pilot is trying to be a country pub in a city spot and it’s this air of artifice and sterility that lets it down. It’s certainly not the most terrible pub you’ll ever go to and the garden is definitely worth a look, it’s just that it all left me feeling a bit cold. And not just because I forgot my jacket.

Walking With Dinosaurs at the O2 Arena

Walking with Dinosaurs is the spectaculat exhibition taking place at the O2 from August 5th through to the end of the month. Based on the populat BBC TV series, the breathtaking show gives visitors the chance to get up close and personal with dinosaurs constructed from state of the art animatronics and puppetry.

Buy Tickets for Walking with Dinosaurs at the O2

NOGOE Begin Signature Drive

Local pressure group, No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events (NOGOE), began its signature drive across the bank holiday weekend.  Their representives were out and about in Greenwich and they tell me they collected over 1000 signatures for their petition against the plans to use Greenwich Park as a venue for the 2012 Olympics.

Sev from NOGOE sent me this pic of a protestor who isn’t actually a member of the group, but took a petition and before long had a queue ready to sign up in Tranquil Vale.

Greenwich Market: Disturbing Details the Developers Have Kept Quiet

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.

Labour Leaflet Causes Red Faces

Local Labour officials may be feeling a little embarrassed tonight after the revelation that two “Greenwich Residents” featured in their election literature are in fact closely associated with the Labour Party.

Mark and Miranda Bradley were featured in the leaflet saying “Labour’s really helping us through these tough times… Our borough is really on the up and that’s because Labour are on our side”.

When local journalist, Adam Bienkov, saw the leaflet he was able to identify the “local residents” in the leaflets as Mark Bradley and Miranda Williams. Miranda has revealed on her Twitter account that she works for an MP, has attended a fundraiser for Labour and has also delivered election leaflets for them.

That might be embarrasing enough, but unfortunately things get even worse. Adam was also able to identify Miranda as having been in attendance at a Labour organised public meeting to discuss the Olympics where she got up to attack local NIMBYs and proclaim her excitement at the prospect of the Olympics coming to Greenwich – all without any mention of her relationship to the Labour Party.

Read Adam’s blog for all the details.

Greenwich Society Responds To Andrew Gilligan

Chairman of the Greenwich Society, Tim Barnes, responds to the recent article by Andrew Gilligan titled “What’s The Point of the Greenwich Society?”.

I regret the attack on the Greenwich Society by Andrew Gilligan on his Web-site, under the title, ‘What’s the Point of the Greenwich Society.’ As Chairman of the Society I can confirm that he is not a member of the Society nor has he ever approached me about his concerns over the Olympics and Greenwich Park or over the development of the Market. He has used his position as an Evening Standard journalist to claim for himself the ‘voice of Greenwich’, but his views are not representative, and he has not entered into the debate locally by joining the Greenwich Society nor arguing for his point of view, in any local forum, as far as I am aware

Andrew Gilligan’s opposition to the Olympic Equestrian events in Greenwich Park is well-known. He uses his column in the Standard to argue his point, and seems impervious to the assurances that have been given by those responsible for maintaining Greenwich Park and those at LOCOG charged with bringing the equestrian events to Greenwich, that there will be no lasting damage to the fabric of the Park or to the trees, and that the Park will not be closed off to users until the run-up to the Olympics in August 2012 when security considerations require closure for about 6-8 weeks. The Greenwich Society held a Special General Meeting convened by proponents of NOGOE, ( the organisation opposed to the Park being used for the Olympics, with whom it is clear that Andrew Gilligan has had much greater contact than with the Greenwich Society) and the proposal to oppose the holding of the cross-country events in the Park was decisively rejected. There was no dissent from the other motion which committed the Society to engage in constructive dialogue with LOCOG and the other organisations charged with bringing the Olympics to Greenwich. That is what we are doing.

All this information is relayed to our membership through our bi-monthly newsletter, which we would be interested to learn if Andrew Gilligan has read, before committing himself to the disparaging comments in his article.

His attack on the Society’s attitude to the development of Greenwich Market is equally ill-founded. His initial article in the Standard to the effect that Greenwich Hospital was going to close the Market, caused an avalanche of concern. The Hospital is not going to close the Market and never intended to do so. It intended to re-develop the Market and its Greenwich Town Centre estate, and any sensible person would see that there was considerable scope for improvement. The way in which Greenwich Hospital has gone about its plans has been admirable. They have put them on public display in Greenwich Town Centre on 2 week-ends, when there was considerable feed-back. They have actively collaborated with the Stakeholders Group which has been involved in critical examination of the proposals and has revised them as time goes on. It should be said that the stall-holders are represented on this Group.

The end result is in the Society’s opinion a considerably improved Market, which will help to re-vitalise Greenwich Town Centre. We disagree that because the Market is currently extremely crowded at the week-ends, that means there is no room for improvement. The Society is actively seeking to engage with the Council and other interested parties for the partial pedestrianisation of the Town Centre and the regeneration of Cutty Sark Gardens which would enhance further the experience both for visitors to and residents of Greenwich. Why is there no mention of these matters in the criticism of the Society for failing to act in the local interest in matters of traffic management?

The comment that the Society has spent more time talking to LOCOG and the Market developers than they have in talking to the people of Greenwich is a travesty. We have constantly informed our membership of what we are doing and sought feed-back. We have on many occasions taken issue with developers, rather than (as the snide comment suggests) being in the developers PR pockets. The re-presentation of the Lovells Wharf plans after the Society led the opposition to the original multi-storey proposals, is just one example where the Society has taken action to avoid a development which would have a very deleterious effect on Greenwich.

I have little doubt that Andrew Gilligan will continue to use his Standard column to argue that he and his contacts represent the authentic voice of Greenwich. I wonder if he contemplates the possibility that he might not have this unique insight and that others who have had many years of experience and commitment to the local community, among whom I number all members of the Executive of the Greenwich Society, might have an equally valid view.

Tim Barnes Chairman of the Greenwich Society 25th May 2009

Allan MacCarthy Is New Mayor of Greenwich

From Left to Right: Outgoing Mayor, Steve Offord, new deputy Mayor, Barbara Barwick and new Mayor, Allan MacCarty

Councillor Allan MacCarthy was elected yesterday as the new Mayor of Greenwich in a ceremony at the Painted Hall.

Having first been elected as an Aldermen in 1975,  he has also represented the Kidbrooke and then the Charlton wards on the council, and has also served as Deputy Mayor.

The Mayor said , “I have known, been acquainted with or simply met, nearly every Mayor of this borough since it was first established. I feel it a massive honour to join their number and to have been given the chance to extend the path they have already made by their work and efforts, with my own.”
 
He added, “I look forward to the year ahead, to promoting the borough and its people and showing everyone how good this wonderful borough is. I am particularly looking forward to visiting the huge number of community groups and faith groups in Greenwich and supporting in any way I can, the selfless work that they do day in and day out.”

The new Mayor of Greenwich has chosen MacMillan Cancer Support, Volunteer Centre Greenwich and Greenwich Mencap as his mayoral charities for the year.

Next Page »