Greenwich Market: More News

WE THINK of Greenwich Council as secretive and unhelpful, but compared to the Planning Inspectorate it’s a beacon of openness.

The deadline is already approaching for comments on Greenwich Hospital’s brazen planning appeal to be allowed to knock down the Market after all. According to an advert in this week’s Greenwich Time, it is March 22nd, less than three weeks away.

But go to the website of the inspectorate, which is handling the appeal, and you find the message: “We regret we are not currently publishing documents for this appeal.” So I can’t tell you if anything has changed about the plans or if any new dodgy claims have been put forward by the developers. A perfect example of what happens when democracy gives way to the quango state.

What I have found, however, is an encouraging decision on another Greenwich Town Centre and Greenwich Hospital planning appeal – and another minor PR own goal by the Hospital.

To start with the latter: they have engaged a new consultancy firm, the accurately-named Sensitive Projects, to get the appeal through. Sensitive Projects (“we advise on projects which are often controversial and unpopular”) consists of David McFarlane, who was the Hospital’s previous PR at another firm, and a woman called Harriet Kerr, who was a director of PPS, another outfit which specialises in getting unpopular developments through. PPS is a very interesting company.

In 2007, in an investigation for my then newspaper, the Standard, and Channel 4’s Dispatches, 17 minutes in, PPS was accused of using forgery, impersonation and even bugging to manipulate the planning process.

I found that fake letters of support for a highly-controversial planning application had been dispatched to councillors – the people whose names appeared on the letters had never written them; and that people posing as PhD students had visited councillors, pumping them for inside information about their views. I was leaked an internal PPS document boasting of how they managed to “create” favourable letters for projects, including that one. I was also leaked, from within PPS, a verbatim, 20-page transcript of a private meeting of councillors

I found mysterious new people who had joined a residents’ association which had opposed the development – then turned the association neutral, and then as soon as the development was approved, had vanished from the scene without trace. It’s a funny old game, the property business.

Harriet Kerr was not involved in the projects I investigated at PPS and there is no suggestion that she acted in any way improperly while at the company, or since. But these lobbyists will still be worth keeping an eye on, I feel.

My second piece of news about the market appeal is that if precedent means anything at all, we might be all right. This is not, it turns out, the first time in recent months that the Hospital have been refused planning permission by Greenwich Council, then taken it to appeal. Last year, the council turned down their bid to put new shop fronts on 2, 3 and 4 College Approach (currently laid out as house fronts) and a remodelled shop front on 5 College Approach.

Last summer Greenwich Hospital appealed – but the appeal was largely refused (they did get permission for the remodelled shop front at No 5.) The inspector, Christine Thorby, said the plan would be “to the detriment of the character and appearance of the… wider historic area,” conflicting with the same council planning policies as the market proposal.

Now it’s true that the College Approach properties are listed buildings, described by the inspector as of “very high quality,” and the market buildings proposed for demolition aren’t. But the decision is one more little thing weighing in the balance against the Hospital getting its ghastly Bluewater scheme past the goalie in injury time.

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.

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.

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.

Greenwich Market under new management

A new management team has been put in charge of running historic Greenwich Market.

Control of the market has been brought in-house by Greenwich Hospital, the naval charity that owns the site and surrounding shops. The market had previously been run by Urban Space Management, who took over the running of it in 1997.

Martin Sands, Director of Greenwich Hospital commented: “We are looking forward to working with all market stall holders to make Greenwich Market an even better place to visit. We are excited about the opportunities that this change in management will bring, and anticipate the stalls and surrounding shops working even more closely together to create a vibrant and genuinely unique retail destination.”

Opening hours will remain unchanged, although the new management team are looking at ideas for using the market space on Mondays and Tuesdays, when market traders aren’t currently operating, to “complement the permanent shops”.

In August last year, Greenwich Hospital’s regeneration proposals were unanimously rejected by the Council’s planning board, although local MP, Nick Raynsford, told Greenwich.co.uk in December that he believed that the development would go ahead, and that Greenwich Hospital had “a very good chance of success” if they chose to appeal.

Nick Raynsford – Nobody Likes a Bad Loser

WHEN you’re in an argument with someone, there are two clear signs that they’re losing. The first is when they resort to abuse – and the second is when they have to distort your case to buttress their own.

In their battle to knock down Greenwich Market, Nick Raynsford MP, the Greenwich Society and the forces of development did both those things – and did, indeed, lose. So it’s rather encouraging to see them reprising exactly the same tactics over the Greenwich Park Olympics.

In an article for this website last week, Mr Raynsford accused Nogoe, the anti-Olympics group, of “scaremongering” and a “complete misrepresentation of the facts.” His evidence? A poster they issued, with a picture of the open area in front of the National Maritime Museum, and beneath it the statement that “this will be a no go area in 2012 for several months.”

It is actually Mr Raynsford who is distorting the facts here. As last week’s planning application confirms, the area depicted in Nogoe’s poster will indeed be closed – for eight months.

Mr Raynsford attacks Nogoe for “continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October this year, when a spokeswoman said it would be ’socially and morally wrong’ for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case.”

The actual BBC report quotes Nogoe’s spokeswoman as saying that it would be socially and morally wrong to close the park during the games. And as last week’s planning application confirms, it will indeed be closed during the games.

The outline facts of the Park’s closure are actually quite uncontested. They have been established everywhere outside the mind of Nick Raynsford for more than a year now. And what the further details published last week show is that, far from “scaremongering,” Nogoe have significantly understated the problems the Olympics will cause.

Forty-two thousand vehicle movements in the park, including more than 6,000 lorry movements; five years of works, starting next spring; the park sliced up with fences for most if not all of that time; full restoration of the park only in 2015. And the more I pore through the planning documents, the more horrors emerge – details to follow.

What other distortions have the pro-Games forces been guilty of? Mr Raynsford describes one survey showing an improbable 85% support for the Games as “independent polling.” Actually, it was a voodoo poll. It was market research, not done to the standards of a professional opinion pollster. It was carried out for Locog, and it was packed with questions so comically loaded that 85% must in fact have been a very disappointing result.

Locog, in another of last week’s ripostes, claimed that “all work related to the Games will be completed by November 2012,” other than the acid grass restoration programme by 2015. Not true: the “amenity grassland” across much of the park will be fenced off until spring 2013.

They also say that the extent of tree pruning will be “minimal” and “routine.” I think the trees which will suffer a “removal of branches to the main stem” might quarrel with that.

In this debate and others Nick Raynsford, in particular, is in danger of becoming ridiculous. Not long ago, he was quoted as saying that he had “no doubt” that the redevelopment of Greenwich Market would succeed on appeal and would be built. The proposal was in breach of so many council and Government planning policies, and its rejection by councillors was so comprehensive, that it in fact seems rather unlikely to win an appeal, or to be built in its current form.

Economics have also turned against the development. At the same meeting that councillors refused the market redevelopment, centred around a huge new hotel, they approved a large new hotel on Greenwich High Road. They’re also currently considering another hotel proposal – the conversion of the upper floors of the Trafalgar pub. So any new hotel in the market now faces even greater challenges to its commercial viability.

Mr Raynsford’s instinct for distortion was also on hand over the market, with a claim that opponents had said Turnpin Lane would be destroyed. Nobody had said anything of the sort, of course. In psychoanalysis, this sort of behaviour is known as “Freudian projection” – when you project on to others the faults and flaws you sense in yourself.

Mr Raynsford may be able to inhabit his own private fantasy world for the majority of the parliamentary term. But with no more than six months before he must face his voters, it seems a rather unwise place for him to be at the moment.

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

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.

Daily Photo: 27/11/09 – Santa Arrives at Greenwich Market

A few hours before the Greenwich Christmas light switch on, Father Christmas was mingling in Greenwich Market and talking to shoppers, and entertaining elves with his witty banter, by the looks of it!

Shopper struck by falling object at Greenwich Market

Greenwich Market closed early today after an object fell through the market roof, hit a market stall and rebounded onto a shopper.

On a day when strong weather conditions caused incidents around the south east, heavy winds dislodged the object – we’re not sure what it was yet – which then fell through the roof of the market.

The shopper who was struck by the falling object had no visible injuries but was taken to hospital as a precaution. The market closed early so that fire officers could attend the scene and ensure it was safe. A full repair of the affected roof section is expected to be undertaken on Monday.

A spokesman for Urban Space, the company that manages Greenwich Market, told Greenwich.co.uk this evening: “The market will be open as usual tomorrow (Sunday) but a small section of the market will be closed that is beneath the section of roof that was damaged to make absolutely sure that customers are safe and our traders products remain dry!”.

Daily Photo 03/11/09: Greenwich Market

Perhaps thinking, “What shall I have?”.

Next Page »