In the battle over the future of Greenwich Market, it looks like the developers have blinked first. On Monday, “in response to public consultation,” Greenwich Hospital announced that one of the many controversial casualties of its “Bluewater” market masterplan – the cobbled floor – would be saved. Well, sort of.

As the they put it, “Changes to the regeneration plans have been submitted to Council planners….Greenwich Hospital will carefully raise, refurbish and re-lay all the cobbles in a new configuration interspersed with new granite setts. This will create a market floor of familiar appearance which will ensure this much-loved feature of the market is retained.”

What does that mean, exactly? Surely it cannot be both “new” and “familiar” at the same time? I’d love to be able to tell you what that “new configuration” will look like – but if the Hospital has indeed submitted “changes” to its planning application, the council hasn’t put them on its website yet.

My suspicion is that any changes are rather minor – the Hospital are, after all, the people who presented their wholesale demolition scheme as something which “maintains all the principles of Greenwich Market.” And even if the cobbled floor is substantially retained, the new development’s worst feature – its bland shopping-precinct feel – is still just as bad. This could well be a ploy to make us feel that we have achieved something, when little if anything has really improved.

But even if that is the case, this week’s is still an interesting and useful development. First, it gives the lie to the Hospital’s previous claim that it consulted properly and that people were happy with its plans. As you may remember, its much-bugled “public consultation” took place on two days in October 2007, not far off two years ago. This week’s change certainly didn’t come about “in response to” that – it came about in response to public pressure after coverage on this website, on the Greenwich Phantom and in the Evening Standard.

Secondly, the revision could – perhaps – slow things down further. Are you actually allowed to change a planning application half-way through? The application the public were invited to comment on by the council is now at least ostensibly different from the application that the council is considering. Shouldn’t we get a chance to express our views on the revised application before it goes to the planning committee? Shouldn’t the council’s public consultation process be restarted?

Thirdly, and most importantly, this move is a sign of weakness. It is an acknowledgement that the existing market does, in fact, have a heritage value and that heritage features are important in the context of this site. Which is what the council’s planning policies say; and which is also what, of course, we have been saying all along. By acknowledging this, the developers further weaken their case for their uncompromisingly modern scheme.

Am I reading too much into this? I don’t know. Maybe this change has been cooked up by the developers and the council as a token concession before they wave the bulldozers in. The red line for me is the nasty plastic shopping-precinct roof and the inappropriate shopping-precinct columns. While those remain in the scheme, it will remain unacceptable. Watch this space over the next few days for news of the next stage in the fight.

As promised, I have been looking through the detail of Greenwich Hospital’s proposal to erect a temporary market and shops in the grounds of the Naval College, while it redevelops the existing market into a modern precinct. The temporary market is not just intimately linked to that highly controversial plan (planning permission for the main market redevelopment will not be granted unless the temporary market is also allowed.) It is also likely to be rather contentious in its own right.

The proposed temporary market – intended to be in place for two years –will be a somewhat featureless, steel structure, seven metres (22ft) high at its highest point. It will have transparent PVC ends, UPVC doors, PVC roofing and a raised, decked floor. The market stalls will be inside this enclosed, lockable marquee-like building.

A row of Portacabin-like structures will be tacked on to the sides of the main structure to house six shops (the other 13 currently in the buildings surrounding market will not be accommodated at the temporary site), and this will be the view of the temporary market that greets most visitors.

Three issues strike me as controversial.

1. The loss of open space.

The temporary market buildings will take up 1,440 square metres of Metropolitan Open Land – intended, in the words of Greenwich Council’s planning policy, as an “open space of strategic importance” which must be “maintained and [its] character safeguarded from built development.” Almost no building of any kind is ever allowed on MOL. And this isn’t just any metropolitan open land, either – it is a prominent part of England’s finest ensemble of Grade I listed Baroque buildings, a scheduled ancient monument and part of one of only four Unesco World Heritage sites in London.

The Mayor’s London Plan – the definitive statement of his own planning policy – is also completely clear. There is a “presumption against inappropriate development of MOL,” with “the same level of protection as the green belt. Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL.”

Surely a bit of a show-stopper? In 2007, even Greenwich Council thought so – when it rejected a proposal for a temporary giant wheel on the same site. But it is a Government planning inspector’s verdict, rejecting that decision on appeal and allowing the wheel to be built, on which the Hospital is now relying.

The inspector said that, because the wheel was temporary, “its installation for a summer’s use would cause no permanent loss of openness.” That is the precedent the Hospital is hoping to use for the market. But the inspector also said that his decision was “finely balanced” – and there are some fundamental differences in the two proposals which might tip the balance the other way. The wheel’s footprint was smaller. It was only in place for three months, rather than two years (the inspector cited the “short period” of the wheel’s operation as a key factor in his decision to allow it.”) And, after the initial erecting period, it was never going to draw any motor traffic. Which brings me to the second problem…

2. The surroundings of the Cutty Sark will be turned into a car park.

The servicing of the market – the daily bringing in and out of merchandise, and the removal of waste – will take place right by the Cutty Sark. The pavement on the eastern side of the ship will be converted into a 14-space loading bay. Every day the market is open, the entire space will be filled with traders’ and service vehicles.

Why should this worry us? The eastern side of the Cutty Sark is a building site. But it won’t be for much longer. The ship is scheduled to reopen, restored and transformed into a visitor attraction, in summer 2010 –five months after the temporary market is due to open. It might put a bit of a dampener on the proceedings if visitors find they’re sharing their space with the municipal dustcarts.

3. Trees will be lost – and possibly more than the developers say.

The developers admit that two trees will be cut down. As for the other trees on this densely-wooded site, the buildings are supposed to go round the other trees on this quite densely-wooded site. But look again at that picture. It looks pretty tight to me. Are we sure all those trees are going to make it? Even if they do, what about the watering, with a building on top of their root systems?

You still have time to object to this development – and thus, also, to the market redevelopment as a whole. I gave the wrong email address last week – thanks to one of my eagle-eyed commenters for pointing it out. It’s louise.thayre@greenwich.gov.uk – application reference number 09/1338/F – and you need to give your home address. Happy commenting!

THE CONTROVERSIAL planning application to demolish Greenwich Market has been delayed and will not now be considered until at least the end of August or later, greenwich.co.uk has learned.

According to the council’s planning website, which gives a “target date for decision” of 8 July, the decision was supposed to have been taken by now. It had been expected that the application would be considered at next Wednesday’s meeting of the council Planning Board.

However, the item is not on the agenda for this meeting and many preliminary steps to the decision have not yet been taken either.

There has been no official site visit by council planning officers – a necessary prelude to their producing their report to councillors setting out their recommendation.

After that recommendation is produced, there also needs to be a further official site visit by councillors on the planning committee.

All three steps are part of the process for major and controversial applications in advance of any decision being made. None has yet taken place.

David McFarlane, spokesman for the developers, Greenwich Hospital, said he expected the application would be heard at the Planning Board’s meeting of August 26. However, Greenwich Council refused to confirm this.

“The idea is that both the application for the demolition of the market and the application for the temporary market [in the grounds of the Naval College] will be heard on the same day,” McFarlane said.

Both the council and the Hospital have said that any demolition of the market will not happen unless planning permission is also granted for a temporary market, intended to occupy the corner of the Naval College grounds nearest the pier for a period of two years while the main site is redeveloped. It may therefore make sense for the two applications to be heard together.

However, this raises the possibility of further delays. The Hospital’s planning application for the temporary market only went in three weeks ago and the statutory consultation with affected parties only started last week.

The council’s website gives a target date for a planning officers’ recommendation on the temporary market as 4 September – which would miss the August meeting, raising the possibility that the whole issue would be delayed further.

The temporary market application (see it here) is itself difficult and controversial. As even the council admits, in bold capital letters on its consultation letter, it is “a departure from the Unitary Development Plan,” the definitive statement of its own planning policy.

It involves, as the Hospital concedes, an “exceptionally sensitive site,” the grounds of the Grade I listed Naval College. It will cause the loss of metropolitan open land, on which there is a presumption that there will be no development, temporary or permanent. It will require the chopping down of trees and the diversion of cycle and other paths. It will spoil one of London’s most important officially-protected views, the so-called “Canaletto View” of the Naval College from Island Gardens. Anyone wishing to object to the applications needs to email the planning officer concerned, louise.thayre@greenwich.co.uk, by 28 July.

It is worth remembering, too, that a planning application to put a giant wheel on the same site a few years back was rejected by Greenwich Council – and only approved on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

I will write more about the specific detail of the temporary market application next week – but the Hospital’s hope that a decision can be made on it by the end of August is, at best, ambitious.

It is, therefore, perfectly possible to imagine the whole process slipping well into the autumn – which in turn will seriously jeopardise the Hospital’s ambition to start demolishing the market in January and to open its brave new mini-Bluewater by the time of the Olympics.

Because the Greenwich council stages are not the final word. The decision also has to be approved by the Mayor, who recently delighted campaigners by saving another threatened market, Queens’ Market in Newham. It could also, I think, potentially be called in by the Secretary of State. “If Boris has serious concerns, all bets are off,” McFarlane admits.

Nobody should relax – the fight to save Greenwich Market from the Hospital’s blandly awful proposals continues. But the delay could work in our favour.

WHAT fun to see the Greenwich Society keeping its end up as the unofficial ad-man for the market redevelopment. In a letter to my paper, the Standard, its chairman, Tim Barnes, faithfully transcribes several of the developers’ standard PR lines, including the untrue claims that the plans have been “extensively consulted on” and that they have 75% support.

To put that into context, I thought that today I would bring you the actual views of the Greenwich Market traders. Unlike, say, the Greenwich Society, I took the trouble to ask them what they thought. And as you will see, only one trader out of the ten I spoke to expressed unequivocal support for the redevelopment. That’s 10 per cent – so someone did even worse than Gordon Brown last week!

Michael Brandt, Red Gecko: “I don’t actually think it needs demolition. I think it needs a bit of a facelift – if it ain’t broken, why fix it? It will be off limits for a long time. These projects never really keep to schedule. [During the construction phase] people will suffer.”

Stephen Chong, Greenlands Health Foods: “I can see that some refurbishment is necessary, but not at the expense of changing the whole feeling and ambience of the market. This is unique, there is nothing like it. It’s been there 200 years, it’s one of the reasons why people come to Greenwich. I can understand the need to refurbish, but not wholesale refurbishment. [The new design] is a bit sterile.”

Maria Livings, Lush Designs: “The roof needs replacing but I’m worried it’s going to be bland. I’m really anxious [about that] – I would hate the idea that all the stalls were dressed the same. My main concern is that it isn’t going to be like Spitalfields. What’s happened [there] is sad – it’s a bit like a shiny ghost town.

“I don’t mind the cobbles. A cobbled floor looks nice. For a town centre [Greenwich] is very scruffy. It could do with a facelift. But it wouldn’t take a huge amount of effort – it needs soap and water, not redeveloping.”

Mick Gebbett, Hide All: “I think it’s probably the right thing to do. We’ve been here since 1987 and Greenwich Market does need lifting. We have discussed it quite a lot. The biggest concern for me is to make sure it’s completed by 2012, that’s important.”

Rob Toogood, Compendia: “I’ve got mixed feelings about it. It looks like they’re going to apply for planning permission to establish a [temporary market in a] tent down by the pier. It’s a well-presented tent with some secure retail units around the outside. It might work out OK – but not necessarily. I do get the feeling that some of the pedestrian flows in Greenwich town centre have not been analysed very well. I’m a little bit concerned that the temporary market is right down from the main drag, away from the park and town centre traffic.”

The new permanent market space “could affect the dynamics of the market – the pillars [supporting the roof] are moving into the middle, which will chop up the space a bit. The stallholders have some misgivings, but overall they’re quite positive. In terms of the other shopkeepers, certainly several of them are annoyed at the change.”

Anonymous shopkeeper: “In my opinion the market tenants are too frightened to speak out publicly against the plans, in case they are not offered a shop in the new market. At the recent community liason meeting on the 14th May to discuss the relocation of the market stalls, it was too late to raise any objections, as the plans had already been submitted. I wasn´t invited to be in the consultative group, but was represented by two of the market tenants who never got back to me.

“I happened to go to have another look at Hays Galleria today, and have a horrible feeling that Greenwich Market will end up like that with a few token barrows selling souvenirs, surrounded by seating for the hotel’s brasserie bar, and chain stores- Next, Assessorize.etc.”

Anonymous stallholder #1 (NB – all the stallholders requested anonymity – several said they had been asked not to talk to the press): “I see no reason to change. It seems quite nice as it is. It has got quite a nice balance as it is. I can’t see the logic.”

Anonymous stallholder #2: “Look around you – does this look like a market in need of regeneration?”

Anonymous stallholder #3: “We haven’t been told very much about it but we quite like the market now. I do good business here. I have seen the new designs and I don’t like them – they are not in keeping with Greenwich. They [the developers] say they have consulted some people but they haven’t consulted most of us.”

Anonymous stallholder #4: “Nobody has told us a thing. We don’t know what will happen to us and we are worried.”

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.