Daily Photo: 26/02/10 – Thames Path

This little stretch of the Thames Path off Tunnel Avenue was more Thames than path after the rain had come down yesterday.

Daily Photo: 25/02/10 – Spot the difference

After receiving a tip off from Twitter that there was to be a controlled demolition at Syral on Tunnel Avenue, I grabbed the camera and headed off down there. I met up with Darryl from 853 at the Boord St foot bridge and waited with bated breath. Unfortunately it wasn’t the large silos that came down, but instead the smaller, blue silo in the middle of the picture above.

The actual moment of demolition caught me off guard although I did fumble my way into taking a couple of pictures of it coming down…

And here’s how the scene looked once the silo was down and the dust had settled. Spot the difference?

Greenwich Council Meeting: 24th February 2010

Council-owned housing rent

Greenwich Councillors voted through a 1.6% rise in rents on Council homes in the borough at a full meeting of the Council last night.

The move – which will see average rents go up by £1.30 a week – was opposed by Conservative and Lib Dem councillors.

Cllr Graeme Coombes (Con, Kidbrooke with Hornfair) described the proposed increase as “unwarranted and unnecessary”.

Cllr Eileen Glover (Con, Eltham South) said “we should be good landlords. These are stringent times. We should not be putting up council rents at this time”.

Cllr Brian Woodcraft (Lib Dem, Middle Park and Sutcliffe) called the rise “totally unjustified”.

In defending the move, Council leader Chris Roberts (Lab, Peninsula) told councillors that there would be a “loss of subsidy to the council if rents don’t increase” because of the complex funding arrangements for Council owned housing stock.

Recycling

Conservative councillors put forward a motion asking for a commitment to the weekly black topped bin collection and opposing any introduction of “bin taxes”.

Cllr Spencer Dury (Con, Eltham North) told the meeting that whilst the recycling system had been “something of a success”, there was still “substantial concerns about incineration”.

Cllr Graeme Coombes (Con, Kidbrooke with Hornfair) said that collecting the bins was “one of the fundamental tasks in local government” and that any introduction of bin taxes would result in an increase in illegal fly tipping.

Leader of the Council, Cllr Chris Roberts, said the meeting had spent “45 minutes on a Tory motion that’s completely irrelevant” and that because of the council tax package previously voted for by councillors, “all bins will be collected on a weekly basis whether they are blue, black or green”.

Greenwich Foot Tunnel

The council’s formal response to a recent petition opposing the closure of Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels whilst renovation is undertaken contained details of the closure programme that is being proposed.

The works are likely to run from February 2010 to March 2011 and will see Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed weekday nights from 9.00pm to 6.00am.

Woolwich Foot Tunnel will have daytime closures from Monday to Friday. Consideration is being given to starting closures at 10.00am, and only on days when the Woolwich ferry is in operation.

Cutty Sark

Cllr Chris Roberts used a written answer to a question from Cllr Paul Webbewood (Lib Dem, Middle Park and Sutcliffe) to reject recent criticisms of the plan to suspend the famous tea clipper 11-feet off the ground as part of its restoration. He commented:

“The difference between the iconic scheme the council has supported and simply putting the Ship back together as was could not be greater. It will create an attraction which people will want to return to… it will host a range of uses as well as create a stunning visual backdrop to those wishing to visit Greenwich”.

Webcasting Council Meetings

Council leader Chris Roberts was asked by Cllr Nigel Fletcher (Con, Eltham North) about the possibility of webcasting Greenwich Council meetings – an idea which was last month approved by Lewisham Council after local Greens proposed it.

Roberts told the meeting he was fairly open minded but it perhaps reflected “an inflated sense of self importance in the chamber” if they thought people would switch off the football to watch council meetings.

Andrew Gilligan: Council Worried About Park Olympics

Lewisham Council has expressed serious concerns about the controversial plan to stage the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park, we can reveal.

In an email obtained by greenwich.co.uk, Stuart Sharp, Lewisham’s highways development manager, raises a series of pertinent “areas of concern” about the ability of the local road and rail networks to cope with the spectator and competitor influx for the Games, particularly on the day of the cross-country event.

In the email to Greenwich Council, dated 18 February, Mr Sharp writes: “When does the major cross-country attraction occur – hopefully on a weekend? If it doesn’t, then given the predicted 75,000-plus crowd, plus two to three thousand workforce plus competitors all arriving 90 mins or earlier before the events start at 11am means that most will be attempting to travel… during the morning peak. Similarly, the reverse pattern could occur during the evening travel peak.”

The day of the cross-country event, 31 July 2012, is a Tuesday.

Mr Sharp says that even the Park’s “smaller” events – involving between 22,700 and 55,000 people – will place enormous demands on the local transport network. He protests that the Games organisers have done “no analysis of public transport capacity to absorb the predicted [number of] people requiring to travel to and from the site.”

He asks: “Is there sufficient timetable, line and platform capacity to cope with the predicted numbers, particularly on weekdays? How will bus operations be affected if the bus lanes in Romney Road are used for pedestrian movement? I can’t find any detail [in the plans] of park-and-ride strategy and direct coach arrival and departure arrangements.

“Where are the drop-off, pick-up and coach queuing points? Where will the 200-250 coaches park after drop-off and before pick-up? The [transport plan] suggests the site off Creek Road hitherto earmarked for the Greenwich Waterfront Transit depot – surely that won’t be big enough and will it still be available?”

A failure to set out important plans in sufficient detail is becoming a bit of a theme with the Greenwich Olympics. We still don’t know which trees will be affected by the promised “pruning” operations. We don’t know the full closure schedule. We don’t know where all the temporary buildings will go. We don’t even know exactly what the main arena will look like!

But the transport position is serious. Unlike north of the river, Greenwich is to see no transport capacity improvements (apart from a third car on the DLR.) The existing network will, in fact, be reduced in capacity by the likely creation of a competitors-only lane through the Blackwall Tunnel. As well as the visual, amenity and ecological damage to the park, and the damage to the tourist industry of seeing it closed for weeks, there now appears to be a risk of wider economic damage that the area’s roads and railways will seize up.

Locog’s coyness on transport detail is understandable: their fear must be that Mr Sharp’s questions are impossible to answer. But planning applications require detail. It was a lack of detail, as much as anything else, which doomed Greenwich Hospital’s application for the market redevelopment – and that application was rather fuller than the Olympic one.

As anyone who has used the area’s transport network during the rush hour will know, it is essentially at capacity, sometimes beyond. Although the Games will take place during the summer holiday season – and some of the travel will be against the peak flow – it is a further example of the way in which the Olympic organisers decided this venue on the basis of pretty pictures rather than serious examination.

Lewisham’s borough boundary comes within a few hundred yards of the park, and Mr Sharp’s email raises the fascinating possibility that the council could formally object to the application.

That possibility still seems remote – but it is a real indictment of Greenwich Council’s uncritical cheerleading for the Olympics that important objections are only raised by a neighbouring borough.

Daily Photo: 23/02/10 – Hurricane Clipper

Hurricane Clipper with the Dome in the background. Photo used with kind permission of Nick Agar.

A Brazilian that doesn’t hurt

When people ask for a Brazilian, they subconsciously wince at the thought of it. The one I had didn’t hurt at all. In fact, it tasted very nice. I bought it from Raphael, who owns the stall Gaucho: Son of the Pampas, which sells Brazilian cuisine in Greenwich Market. Aside from those really awesome chocolate and cinnamon Churos (They’re traditionally Caramel), they sell steak and chicken marinated in Chimichurri. Chimichurri is a South American sauce made of parsley, Olive oil, garlic and herbs. Of course, there are regional variations. You could easily imagine that a Guyanese version (or near the French Border), for instance, is made with herb instead of ordinary herbs for a more transcendental culinary experience.

They sell pretty well, but what proportion chicken and steak do they sell? Raphael said that “We sell fifty fifty.” Appropriately, although the beef is rib-eye stake from Argentina, the chicken comes from brazil, the sauce is made locally. The girl who served me said that “we make it (Chimichurri) here a little differently to what they do in South America.” So this is a London variation.

What did I think of the London version, you ask? It’s not hot, but it’s a more European flavour of Garlic and Olive oil, with a hint of lemon. It’s not what I expected, but then it’s more subtle and complex than just having heat like in Mexican or some Indian food. The herbs contribute to this by providing a contrast to both the meat and the garlic, with the lemon adding the right amount of acidity to the proceedings. I really enjoyed it, but it didn’t bring me to the point of culinary hallucination (wrong herb perhaps?). I didn’t see Jah, but I could imagine this as a marinade for anything that requires complex flavours like prawns, other seafood and even cornflakes after twenty pints and a hangover.

If this is a Brazilian without wax, then this is also one without tears of pain but plenty of culinary delight.

Try it yourself…

1/2 cup olive oil
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
1/3 cup minced fresh parsley
1 clove garlic
2 minced shallots
1 teaspoon minced basil, thyme or oregano, or mixture
Salt and pepper to taste

Combine all ingredients and let set for at least 2 hours before serving.

Peninsula Chinese restaurant gets food hygiene fine

The Peninsula restaurant in Bugsby’s Way has been handed a fine of £13,500 by Woolwich Magistrates.

The hefty fine was issued last Monday after a number of food hygiene breaches were found in an unannounced inspection by Environmental Health officers at Greenwich Council.

During the inspection, officers found:

• Dirty equipment, walls, floor and ventilation ducting in the kitchen
• Food storage containers in a poor state of repair
• Failure to protect food from contamination in the refrigerator
• Inadequate procedures were put into place to control pests
• Mouse droppings were found in the storage areas
• General cleanliness of the premises was below standard

Peninsula restaurant, which is in the same building as the Express by Holiday Inn hotel, pleaded guilty to the offences and were charged £13,500 and ordered to pay the council’s costs of £6,800.

Councillor Maureen O’Mara, Greenwich Council’s Cabinet Member for neighbourhood services, said: “The Council will continue to carry out unannounced visits to food businesses and will take necessary action to safeguard customers’ health. It is essential that food businesses take all the appropriate steps to ensure general food hygiene standards are met”.

View Larger Map

Greenwich Hospital confirms Market appeal

Greenwich Hospital has confirmed that it will be appealing against the Council’s decision to reject its market regeneration plans.

The decision – first reported on this site yesterday by Andrew Gilligan – was relayed to traders at a meeting last night and confirmed by Greenwich Hospital in a press release this morning.

Greenwich Hospital will be asking the Planning Inspectorate to consider the same proposal that was unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council’s Planning Board last August.

Martin Sands, Director of Greenwich Hospital, said:

“The Hospital’s criteria for the regeneration of Greenwich Market has always been that any improvements to the Hospital’s properties in Greenwich town centre would need to:

• Retain the diversity of shops and stalls.
• Be architecturally, physically and financially viable.
• Be capable of standing the test of time.
• Be mindful of Greenwich’s status as a World Heritage Site and as a
• Maritime Heritage Site.
• Complement Greenwich’s unique position as a tourist and retail
• destination.

Greenwich Hospital continues to believe that the market regeneration scheme which was not approved by Greenwich Council in August 2009 meets the above criteria.

Greenwich Hospital says that if permission is granted, work will not begin until 2013.

In an interview with Greenwich.co.uk last December, Nick Raynsford MP said “I think that if they appeal they have a very good chance of success“.

Update: A spokesperson for Greenwich Council has told Greenwich.co.uk:

The council will defend the unanimous decision of its Planning Board and would urge all residents who opposed the scheme to make representations to the planning inspectorate.

Council approves O2 as Olympic venue

The Planning Board of Greenwich Council gave permission last night for the O2 to be used as a venue at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

The dome, which will be known as the North Greenwich Arena at the time of the games, will play host to Artistic Gymnastics, Trampoline Gymnastics and the Basketball finals during the Olympic Games, followed by Wheelchair Basketball during the Paralympic Games.

The proposal got the unanimous backing of the Planning Board at last night’s meeting.

Sebastian Coe, Chairman of LOCOG said: “This is very good news and a vital step forward in our preparations for the Games. These venues are an important part of the cluster of sports being staged in Greenwich. North Greenwich Arena is without doubt an outstanding venue and will be a spectacular sporting stage in 2012.”

The Planning Board also unanimously supported the proposal to use Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich for shooting events at the 2012 Games.

Greenwich Market: Developers to Appeal

THE HATED demolition and redevelopment of Greenwich Market could still go ahead with its owner, Greenwich Hospital, likely to appeal against the council’s decision to refuse planning permission.

Traders in the market have been told by Edward Dolby, the Hospital’s resources director, that an appeal against the refusal is to be lodged. “He has been telling people that if they get the appeal, nothing will be demolished until January 2013,” said one person familiar with the situation. The appeal has to be lodged by February 26, six months after the council’s decision.

Greenwich Hospital’s director, Martin Sands, refused to confirm or deny last night whether the Hospital will appeal. However, official confirmation of the position is expected to be given to a meeting of market traders tomorrow.

The plan would see the existing market and the shops around it demolished and replaced by a modern market, contemporary shopping precinct and 104-bedroom hotel. The hotel would rise to five storeys and would loom over the existing buildings. Its entrance would be directly on the busy one-way system.

In August the plan was unanimously rejected by Greenwich’s planning board, which described it as “unbalanced and detrimental,” “visually intrustive,” an “overdevelopment,” “out of keeping with its historic surroundings,” and a “low quality design” which would deliver a “poor environment” and “impact on the free flow of traffic.”

Any appeal would probably be heard by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, though there is a faint possibility the Government or the Mayor could intervene. The inspectorate decides whether to do it entirely in writing, to have a public hearing or to have a full-scale inquiry, with lawyers for each side.
Since this scheme has been so controversial, it is unlikely to be dealt with in writing.

As before, opponents of the scheme will be able to submit written objections and appear in person at the hearing or inquiry if they wish. The criteria on which the appeal is decided are not terribly clear, but they appear to be whether the council has acted in accordance with its own Unitary Development Plan (UDP), the definitive statement of its planning policy.

According to the council, the Greenwich Market application breached no fewer than ten policies of the UDP, not to mention two items of national government planning policy guidance. It is, on the face of it, hard to see how any planning inspector could disagree with this. Take, for instance, UDP policy TC7, which 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, which looks like a bus station, does 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.” Again, the market scheme seems quite clearly not of the highest standards.

The Hospital may argue that the council’s planning officers recommended acceptance of the scheme, though how those officers managed to reconcile it with their own policy is still unclear.
Even if the Hospital wins its case, however, economics may have turned against the scheme. The redevelopment relies on the new hotel for its viability. But since last year, another major hotel scheme has been approved in the area – a new 150-roomer on Greenwich High Road. Frank Dowling’s Inc Group is also sitting on planning permission to turn the upper floors of the Trafalgar Tavern into a 16-bedroom hotel.

There is also a planning application, which seems likely to be granted, for a 450-room hotel at the 02. All this new hotel development is, of course, in addition to the existing Ibis, Novotel and Holiday Inn behemoths which have been constructed locally over the last fifteen years. The real risk for the Hospital is that even if they do get their planning permission, the hotel market in SE10 will already be too saturated for anyone to invest.

The chances of saving the market seem higher, therefore, than at this time last year. Nonetheless, if an appeal is launched, there will need to be another campaign. And how depressing it will be to see this further evidence of Greenwich Hospital’s arrogance, pigheadedness and refusal to engage with the community it claims to serve.

UPDATE: At the meeting with traders tonight, Greenwich Hospital confirmed that it would launch an appeal. The plan will be the same as the one that was rejected by councillors last year. A press release is expected to be issued on Friday.

Next Page »