Last week, when I went to look round the part of the Naval College that Greenwich Hospital wants to cover with a temporary market, an actual rather than a potential eyesore sprung into view. What on earth is happening with Greenwich Pier?
Readers with very long memories may recall that planning permission for three new pier pavilions was granted by Greenwich Council in February 2007, two and a half years ago. The pier’s old wooden buildings were swiftly knocked down – but since then, nothing.
No sign yet of the “resolutely modern” development, incorporating new boat ticket offices, toilets and three cafe/bar-restaurants, that we were promised. (Not sure whether that’s a good or a bad thing – from the artists’ impressions, it looks pretty ugly.) There is currently no shelter at all on the pier, and a lot of wooden hoardings; tickets are sold from temporary portacabin-like buildings on the shore. The whole place is incredibly confusing to many pier users and is also, frankly, a mess.
The news I bring you – you heard it here first – is that the development of the new pier is finally supposed to begin soon. Edward Dolby, resources director of Greenwich Hospital, which co-owns the land to be built on, said: “It is my understanding that the work will start in the autumn. It has been a long-drawn-out process getting all the legal agreements sorted out. The devil is in the detail – there are something like 17 documents.”
The problem with the pier area is that it has at least four owners. London River Services, part of TfL, owns the pontoon – that is, the bit that actually floats on the water, and alongside which the boats pull up. The Hospital and the Port of London Authority jointly own the promenade – the bit on dry land between the river and the boundary railings of the pier area, where the new buildings will fo.
Greenwich Council owns the pavement outside, which everyone must cross to reach the pier. To complicate this classic British muddle, the actual development is being built by yet a fifth party – the developer Stonehurst. And then the boats themselves are operated mainly by sixth and seventh parties – City Cruises, for tourists, and Thames Clippers, the high-speed commuter service.
You may not be wholly astonished to learn that the council has been one of the major holdups. According to one source involved with the project, “the developer is spitting feathers because he says he’s got the money but he’s had delays with the council in the final planning stuff that he felt was unnecessary.” You’d think that the council would have considered these issues before it gave planning permission – but apparently not.
I couldn’t confirm my information either with the council (its press office number was permanently engaged this afternoon) or with the developer (its number simply rang out, and its PR’s mobile and landline have been disconnected.) Let’s hope that in the current deeply hostile economic climate for development, the delays have not seen the money vanish and killed the project off.
If things do get under way, there is still the risk of massive disruption to the Thames Clippers service, which has seen a gigantic rise in passengers over the past two years and is becoming a real public transport alternative for Greenwich. The pier is not intended to close completely, but Sean Collins, the head of Thames Clippers, says that its capacity is likely to be seriously reduced.
“I am very disappointed with the lack of communication between the council, the PLA and London River Services,” says Collins. “Access could be severely disrupted and it doesn’t appear that they are joined up on it.” The pier redevelopment will cut right through the river’s summer 2010 season and may also touch summer 2011, Collins says. There is no plan yet in place for how the pier will cope with its current boat traffic when it becomes a building site.
One other thought occurs. The delay to the pier redevelopment means that it really starts to clash with several of Greenwich’s other pet development projects. The timings are now extremely difficult.
If planning permission is granted for the temporary market on the Naval College, the traders will load and unload on the eastern side of the Cutty Sark – and construction traffic will use it, too. But that same space will be needed – at the same time – for construction traffic on the pier.
The pier project also clashes with Greenwich Council’s absurd plans to close and tart up the foot tunnel. The council is investigating an alternative ferry service for cyclists. But if the pier’s capacity is reduced, it seems most unlikely that there will be room for a replacement ferry.
I’ve written before about the danger that the whole of central Greenwich is about to become a building site. But what I hadn’t realised until now is that the town centre may simply not be big enough to fit all the various schemes in. We seem to be faced with that most difficult of combinations – a council whose grandiose plans are not matched by the reality of its planning and co-ordination skills.
Simon Jones says
A case of bite the hand that feeds from Sean Collins?
Greenwich Council set up Thames Clipper together with Berkeley Homes – subsidised it during the early years before it took off and won a campaign to extend Oyster cards to the service…
Is this the way Sean Collins sees it fit to repay them? Who need friends eh…
Bill Ellson says
Simon – Neither Greenwich Council nor Berkeley Homes had any involvement with nor any investment in the establishment of Thames Clippers. They simply paid for a service to Woolwich. The Greenwich ‘campaign’ to extend Oyster Cards to Thames Clippers was a sham and a farce. The decision was already in the pipeline and Greenwich did not even bother to tell Transport for London of their so-called campaign.
Simon Jones says
Bill – whilst I am happy to correct my earlier statement that the Council and BH set up Thames Clipper, the fact remains that during difficult times both of these parties pumped in large sums of money into keeping the now very profitable Woolwich route. There was a time when the service was promoted week in week out in the Council newspaper, Greenwich Time, presumably free of charge – hence my comment re bite the hand that feeds.
As for the Oyster card campaign being a “sham and done deal” I couldn’t disagree more. Do you really think that this current Mayor would have missed the chance of a photo op if that were the case.
I also never saw any official denial from Boris – just a comment from a Tory GLA member which was refuted by the Council.
And given Greenwich Council’s track record in succesfully campaigning for new transport links (Crossrail/Greenwich Jubilee line extension) and Boris’ record of cutting them (Thames Gateway Bridge, Waterfront bus service) – whilst I dont trust the council on some things, I would over this.
Roy Tindle says
Simon – long before Greenwich tried to claim credit for the Oyster card deal, I asked the Port of London Authority to take the then Vice Chair of TFL, and other board members, for a trip on the Thames. I had already discussed the Oyster card problem with Dave and the idea was to look at how we could improve river passenger services. Present, also, were senior reps of the PLA and the Chair of the Mayor of London’s Thames and Waterways Commission.
The result was that TfL agreed to look at how Oyster cards could be implemented and that took a little time: its about card readers and computer systems.
Our Great Leader’s petition? I think not. After all, this is the same man who told me, last year, that he wanted to close down Charlton’s aggregate yards. Murphy’s and Angerstein’s wharfs share a rail head so that much of the aggregates brought in by river go out by rail. Close those yards and each 5,000 tonne delivery becomes 250 lorry movements.
Beware Greenwich Council leaders bearing gifts!
chrissy stevfens says
I love greenwich, I was born here 62 years ago and never ever get bored over goibng there and looking round the shops and looking over the indoor market,I also love to take a boat ride up the rivcer to the tower and get off and stroll round the gift shop of the tower, or just sit and have a cuppa and watch the many people who visit the tower.
I was so surprised they closed the market and the food stalls in the open market, it really pulled people in.
Please don’t destroy greenwich anymore, I have heard rumours of the indoor market being closed and a hotel being built there, I do hope this is just gossip as it will destroy the heart of greenwich.