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.
tom says
rule no. 115 of journalism: if there is question mark at the end of a headline, the answer is invariably “no”.
Blissett says
Andrew,
Please can you clarify exactly what part of the development will destroy part of Greenwich’s heritage. My understanding is that pretty much all of the structures being destroyed (buildings, canopy, cobbles) are comparatively new and certainly not part of the overall cultural heritage for which Greenwich is famous.
I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that a request for Lottery funding automatically means the scheme is in financial difficulties. Surely it’s par for the course these days that any scheme with even the remotest chance of getting funding will at least ask the question?
Oh and finally, your recent article in the Standard was very deliberately misleading wasn’t it? The clear attempt to imply that Greenwich Hospital had claimed they were modelling the new market on Bluewater (including in the headline of the article) when the quote was from a critic of the scheme was very disappointing. Unfortunately, it worked a treat as all the commenters on the website clearly didn’t read the article properly and fell for it hook, line and sinker. I’ve come to expect better of you than that frankly.
Andrew Gilligan says
Blissett,
The cobbles and some of the buildings to be demolished are Victorian. As I said in my original piece on this subject, the cobbles and roof, which hides the 50s buildings, present a powerful heritage ensemble, in keeping with the heritage buildings at either end of the market and the other heritage buildings in central Greenwich. The new scheme will sweep that away and should not under any definition be a candidate for “heritage” Lottery funding.
You’re misreading the Standard headline – it certainly didn’t say that the Hospital had described the scheme as Bluewater-like. It is, though – strikingly so – and we have the pictures to prove it.
Paul T says
Blissett,
A key objection to the plans, or rather the consultation, is that they imply that only recent fabric will be destroyed. There seems to be an agenda to downplay or obscure the removal of old buildings, notably the stables and another building on Durnford Street. Plus the floor.
Personally I like the new buildings (although the main block is a storey too high) – but removing all those elements that give the market texture and resonance will make the place feel bland and suburban – just like Bluewater.
And £29m? is that correct? How much money will they have to suck out of stallholders, shops or tourists to make the figures stack up?
TJB says
At a guess, this developement needs to make back 10% of its costs each year in extra rents to be worth the outlay and effort. Say £3 million per annum more than at pressent.
Of that perhaps a half to two thirds of this additional rent would come from the hotel, leaving £1-1.5 million of additional rents required from the market and shops. This looks a little heroic to me.
Blissett says
Andrew & Paul,
My understanding is that the cobbles, as they are now, were only re-laid in 1984? Losing them is the part of the plans that troubles me most but I’m not sure they should be saved on the basis of heritage when they’re only 25 years old. And the argument on accessibility for wheelchairs etc. seems pretty hard to dispute.
As for the roof, whether it’s 10 or 100 years old has little or no aesthetic merit so I certainly won’t be sad to see that go. The same goes for most of the buildings that surround the market. I must admit though I haven’t been down there with a copy of the plans to confirm which ones are going and if there are any Victorian buildings to be demolished I’d appreciate a pointer on which ones they are.
To my mind, the market is made by the contents, not the surroundings. Aside from the cobbles there is very little of beauty in the fabric of the buildings to get emotional about. As long as it retains the hustle and bustle and mix of stalls, I’m pretty confident it’ll remain a great place to visit.
Oh and Andrew, I fully understand that you didn’t explicitly say that the Hospital described the plans as Bluewater-like. But the way the first sentence is constructed – “The charity which owns most of central Greenwich is seeking planning permission to demolish the town’s historic market and replace it with a “Bluewater-like” precinct.” – makes it very easy to read it that way doesn’t it?
Paul T says
Blissett,
I can’t believe we’re having a discusiosn about cobbles but…
the setts around the edge o fthe market are from the 80s. They’re ugly. The central area is basially as it has been since 1904 or so. If Greenwich hospital simply regrouted the cobbles – which haven’t been touced ni 20 years – and put new setts around the edge, you’d be fine.
The older buildings are here:
http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2008/10/hidden-victim-or-good-riddance.html
You owe it to yourself to look at those plans very carefully. Also, check out the height of the hotel, vs the joseph Kay buildings.
Jim says
Blissett – you say you’ve “I’ve come to expect better of (Andrew) than that frankly” in relation to his latest “story”.
Can you explain why that is? Most of us gave up doing that ages ago…..
Darren says
Blissett – I think the main point here is that the market area does not need regeneration. The closeness of the roof provides a special atosphere, the independant traders (both the stalls and the shops) bring Londoners and tourists in equal measure. Frankly the place is heaving every weekend.
I’ve spent the last 6 years pushing both buggies and strollers around the place with no problems so I fail to see the access issues.
These proposals are all about maximising revenue at the expense of a very precious site. There is no benefit to Greenwich or its residents with this plan.
Paul says
If they apply for heritage lottery funding I wonder how they’ll tackle the question about showing that the community wants the development/project. Perhaps they will have to consider a bit of real consultation!