Chairman of the Greenwich Society, Tim Barnes, responds to the recent article by Andrew Gilligan titled “What’s The Point of the Greenwich Society?”.

I regret the attack on the Greenwich Society by Andrew Gilligan on his Web-site, under the title, ‘What’s the Point of the Greenwich Society.’ As Chairman of the Society I can confirm that he is not a member of the Society nor has he ever approached me about his concerns over the Olympics and Greenwich Park or over the development of the Market. He has used his position as an Evening Standard journalist to claim for himself the ‘voice of Greenwich’, but his views are not representative, and he has not entered into the debate locally by joining the Greenwich Society nor arguing for his point of view, in any local forum, as far as I am aware

Andrew Gilligan’s opposition to the Olympic Equestrian events in Greenwich Park is well-known. He uses his column in the Standard to argue his point, and seems impervious to the assurances that have been given by those responsible for maintaining Greenwich Park and those at LOCOG charged with bringing the equestrian events to Greenwich, that there will be no lasting damage to the fabric of the Park or to the trees, and that the Park will not be closed off to users until the run-up to the Olympics in August 2012 when security considerations require closure for about 6-8 weeks. The Greenwich Society held a Special General Meeting convened by proponents of NOGOE, ( the organisation opposed to the Park being used for the Olympics, with whom it is clear that Andrew Gilligan has had much greater contact than with the Greenwich Society) and the proposal to oppose the holding of the cross-country events in the Park was decisively rejected. There was no dissent from the other motion which committed the Society to engage in constructive dialogue with LOCOG and the other organisations charged with bringing the Olympics to Greenwich. That is what we are doing.

All this information is relayed to our membership through our bi-monthly newsletter, which we would be interested to learn if Andrew Gilligan has read, before committing himself to the disparaging comments in his article.

His attack on the Society’s attitude to the development of Greenwich Market is equally ill-founded. His initial article in the Standard to the effect that Greenwich Hospital was going to close the Market, caused an avalanche of concern. The Hospital is not going to close the Market and never intended to do so. It intended to re-develop the Market and its Greenwich Town Centre estate, and any sensible person would see that there was considerable scope for improvement. The way in which Greenwich Hospital has gone about its plans has been admirable. They have put them on public display in Greenwich Town Centre on 2 week-ends, when there was considerable feed-back. They have actively collaborated with the Stakeholders Group which has been involved in critical examination of the proposals and has revised them as time goes on. It should be said that the stall-holders are represented on this Group.

The end result is in the Society’s opinion a considerably improved Market, which will help to re-vitalise Greenwich Town Centre. We disagree that because the Market is currently extremely crowded at the week-ends, that means there is no room for improvement. The Society is actively seeking to engage with the Council and other interested parties for the partial pedestrianisation of the Town Centre and the regeneration of Cutty Sark Gardens which would enhance further the experience both for visitors to and residents of Greenwich. Why is there no mention of these matters in the criticism of the Society for failing to act in the local interest in matters of traffic management?

The comment that the Society has spent more time talking to LOCOG and the Market developers than they have in talking to the people of Greenwich is a travesty. We have constantly informed our membership of what we are doing and sought feed-back. We have on many occasions taken issue with developers, rather than (as the snide comment suggests) being in the developers PR pockets. The re-presentation of the Lovells Wharf plans after the Society led the opposition to the original multi-storey proposals, is just one example where the Society has taken action to avoid a development which would have a very deleterious effect on Greenwich.

I have little doubt that Andrew Gilligan will continue to use his Standard column to argue that he and his contacts represent the authentic voice of Greenwich. I wonder if he contemplates the possibility that he might not have this unique insight and that others who have had many years of experience and commitment to the local community, among whom I number all members of the Executive of the Greenwich Society, might have an equally valid view.

Tim Barnes Chairman of the Greenwich Society 25th May 2009