Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

Council moves flagposts to claim park target success

By

GREENWICH COUNCIL has claimed victory in its long-held target of achieving twelve Green Flag Awarded parks by 2012. But did the council really meet its ambition for 2012, or did it shift the flagposts after failing to get awards it hoped for? Greenwich.co.uk investigates their claims…

Even more parks and green spaces in the Royal Borough of Greenwich have been awarded prestigious Green Flags this year.

The council boasted across two pages of last week’s Greenwich Time newspaper (above) that “thirteen parks and open spaces are flying the Green Flag.”

“We are delighted to surpass our target of twelve welcoming green spaces throughout the Royal borough,” said Councillor Maureen O’Mara.

Terry Powley, chair of the Greenwich Parks Forum, said: “The Forum is delighted that the ambitious target of 12 green flags by 2012 has not just been achieved but over-reached.”

But whilst the rising tally of Green Flags in the borough is good news for the council and residents alike, did the council really “surpass” the target it set itself of twelve Green Flag Parks by 2012, or did it simply change the way it measured its target after failing to get the Green Flags it planned to achieve?

Green Flags and Green Pennants

The Green Flag Awards are a nationwide scheme designed to recognise  high quality parks and green spaces in the UK. Greenwich Council set itself a target of reaching twelve Green Flag awarded parks by 2012.

The Green Pennant award – renamed this year as the Green Flag Community Award – is a different award given to community-run green spaces and has never before been included as part of the council’s target for twelve Green Flags by 2012.

When announcing its Green Flag awards in the past, the council has only counted the Green Flag Award parks in its headline figure and has never included the community-managed Green Pennant-winning parks.

What the council used to say

“Six [parks] in Greenwich have been recognised,” proclaimed the council in 2010. “Greenwich is now half-way towards its target of securing the Green Flag award for 12 of its parks by 2012.”

The two green spaces awarded the Green Pennant that year – Slade Ponds and Twinkle Park – were not included in the headline figure or the council’s stated target for 2012.

“Greenwich parks secure eight Green Flags,” was the council’s proud  in the summer of 2011.

“The achievement ensures that Greenwich is two thirds of the way to meeting its target of securing the Green Flag award for 12 of its parks by 2012,” the press release added.

Again, the two Green Pennant awarded open spaces were not included in their headline figure or their target for 2012.

So with the council “two thirds of the way to meeting its target”, how would it make the leap to twelve for this year?

New candidate parks for Green Flags identified

A report by council officers last year identified the four new candidate parks, and the work required in them, to “reach Green Flag standard as part of the Council’s commitment to secure twelve Green Flag parks by 2012”

Revamps would be required in Horn Park, Fairy Hill Park, Maryon Park and Eaglesfield Park to meet the requirements of the Green Flag Award, the report noted.

But while Horn Park and Fairy Hill Park did successfully get the nod from Green Flag inspectors this year, Maryon Park and Eaglesfield Park were not awarded, despite the Cabinet agreeing to spend £169,400 and £53,800 on them respectively to meet the target.

The failure to get Green Flag Awards for Maryon Park and Eaglesfield Park leaves the council’s Green Flag Award tally standing only at ten – two BELOW the their stated target of twelve.

Turning failure into victory

So how did the council manage to “surpass” its target while simultaneously failing to reach it? The answer is that they counted their total number of Green Flags differently.

This year, for the first time, Greenwich Council included the sites given the Community Award, now up to three, in the headline figure to allow them to claim that they have THIRTEEN Green Flag sites.

So despite two of the parks that were identified by the council’s own officers as new candidate sites for Green Flags failing to get them, and the tally being two less then had been promised, the council’s redefined target allows them to claim they surpassed an ambition they actually failed to reach.

Councillor Spencer Drury, leader of the Conservatives on Greenwich Council, commented:

“The Council’s confused and misleading planning for parks is laid bare in this deceitful claim to have gained 13 Green Flag sites when in fact there are only 10 reaching the proper criteria.

“The fact Greenwich Time is once again pushing out this propaganda reinforces our calls for this Council newsletter to be abolished.”

Greenwich Council had not responded to requests for a comment by the time of publication.

Green Flag Award 2012-13 winners:

1. Avery Hill Park

2. Eltham Park South

3. Horn Park

4. East Greenwich Pleasaunce

5. Blackheath (jointly held with Lewisham)

6. Sutcliffe Park

7. Fairy Hill Park

8. Charlton Park

9. The Tarn

10. Well Hall Pleasaunce

Green Flag Community Award, formerly known as the Green Pennant, winners:

1. Twinkle Park

2. Slade Ponds

3. Plumstead Common Nature Reserve

Councillors blast Greenwich Pier restaurant signs

By

COUNCILLORS have thrown out a planning application for signs and advertising already installed at the new Zizzi restaurant at the Greenwich Pier development.

Greenwich West councillor, Maureen O’Mara, blasted the restaurant for not having have the “guts” or “courage” to be at the meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee on Wednesday night.

She said: “What I wanted to ask them if they had the guts to turn up is, ‘Why did you do this without any planning permission at all?‘”

The clearly furious councillor added, “This is a World Heritage Site. It’s one of the most precious sites in London. I’ve heard that they say, ‘this is what we do wherever we open up places‘. Well, this is Greenwich and we do not do this in Greenwich. This horrible application needs to be turned down.”

Councillor Dick Quibell (Peninsula, Labour) said the plans were “violently out of keeping with the tone of a World Heritage Site.” Councillor Hayley Fletcher (Hornfair with Kidbrooke, Labour), who was earlier elected as Vice Chair of the committee, commented that the signs looked “hideous.”

Conservative councillor Geoff Brighty, representing Blackheath Westcombe, said he had found the Pier development “disappointing” and that the signs were “trashy.”

The committee unanimously voted against the restaurant’s lettering, menu box and window signs, despite council officers recommending the plans be approved.

Councillors also had the chance to determine the signs, and proposed parasols, at Frankie and Benny’s.

Claims were made by the applicant that advice had been sought from the council before their signs were initially put up but this was disputed by council officers and councillors decided to investigate that point and reconsider the applications at September’s meeting of the committee.

Commenting to Greenwich.co.uk the day after the committee meeting, Paul Mitchell from The Restaurant Group, said they would “proceed with the current application” which they believe is “appropriate for the area”, but added that they would “continue to liaise with the Planning Officer who has been dealing with our application and take advice.”

Asked whether the company had experience of opening branches in sensitive heritage sites, Mr Mitchell commented:

“As a Group we do have a number of sites in our portfolio in sensitive areas where we always work with the Local Authorities and other relevant bodies to achieve a signage scheme which is mutually acceptable to all parties.

“We always seek dialogue and guidance before an Application is submitted to ensure a successful and speedy decision and that our Advertisement Applications take into account the needs of the community in which we are operating.”

Local councillor warns of “return to Rachmanism”

By

COUNCILLOR Maureen O’Mara warned against a “return to Rachmanism” at a council meeting last week.

O’Mara said the borough had a “hidden population” living in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs)  at risk of exploitation.

The Greenwich West councillor, who has cabinet responsibility for community safety, said:

“HMOs are growing and growing and what they’re doing is exploiting the kind of people forced to go and live in these kinds of accommodation. What we need to do is find out where they are because… I think there is a huge hidden population living in our borough who we don’t know about. We need to tackle this problem because if we don’t, we could see a return of Rachmanism.”

The term “Rachmanism” refers to the type of exploitation of tenants that was practiced by London landlord, Peter Rachman in the 1950s and 1960s. Councillor O’Mara added:

“Rachmanism is something we can never go back to because  people’s lives were made hell by Rachman. As a local authority, not just here but across London, we need to do something about rooting out what’s going on in houses of multiple occupation and make it clear to these landlords that we’re not going to put up with it, and we’re going to deal with it.”

Councillor O’Mara was answering question on HMOs in the borough from Eltham South councillor, Eileen Glover at the full council meeting on Thursday evening at Woolwich Town Hall.

Exclusive: Town centre pedestrianisation proposals scrapped

By

Plans to partially pedestrianise Greenwich town centre will not be going ahead, Greenwich.co.uk can reveal.

The proposal, which included pedestrianising College Approach and King William Walk while creating a new gyratory system around Norman Road, Creek Road, Greenwich Church Street, Greenwich High Road, has been put on hold indefinitely.

News of the decision to halt the project, which was put forward by the council after consultations held in 2009 and 2010, was revealed through an exchange of letters between Council Leader, Chris Roberts, and local ward councillors Matthew Pennycook, Maureen O’Mara and David Grant.

The Greenwich West trio, who have undertaken their own consultation, say that the scheme should be “suspended for the foreseeable future”.

“We feel that our focus at the present time should be on introducing measures to address the existing traffic/rat running problems in residential streets in West Greenwich and … any temporary traffic management that may be required to facilitate pedestrian access through the town centre during the Olympic Games”, their letter adds.

In his reply, Chris Roberts agrees “that we should suspend work on our own proposals and focus at this time on what traffic management measures might reasonably be implemented to address concerns about rat running, as well as facilitating the operational needs up to and during the Olympic Games.”

He also says in his letter that TFL have raised with him a desire to “engage in public consultation later in the year” on traffic proposals that will “directly affect areas of the borough to the east of the Town Centre.”

Click here to read the full letter from Greenwich West councillors to the Council Leader, Chris Roberts and his reply.

The decision to suspend the scheme, which the council still describes on its website as one that would “address the needs of local residents and visitors whether on foot, on bicycle, or on public transport”, is a victory for residents concerned that the gyratory would increase rat running in the area – concerns which led to separate traffic calming measures in West Greenwich being proposed.

Greenwich Council appointed highways and traffic consultants, Hyder Consulting, to work on the project in May 2009 but declined to answer a Freedom of Information request last year from local journalist, Darryl Chamberlain, asking how much the company had been paid for their work on the scheme.

Greenwich Market campaigners demonstrate against redevelopment

By

Greenwich Market Protest

A group of campaigners gathered outside Greenwich Market on Sunday to protest against proposals to redevelop the market.

Car drivers honked their horns in support and a crowd gathered to watch as demonstrators held their “Save Greenwich Market” banner aloft outside the College Approach entrance to the market.

The demonstration organiser, Cllr Maureen O’Mara, was joined by her fellow councillors for the Greenwich West ward, David Grant and Matthew Pennycook, and concerned local residents. Some stall holders and shop owners from inside the market also came out to lend their support.

Plans to redevelop the covered market and add a new boutique hotel were rejected by Greenwich Council last year but could still go ahead after owners, Greenwich Hospital Estate (GHE), appealed the decision.

Cllr Maureen O’Mara commented:

The market is under the threat of complete demolition. GHE want to put a hotel here and I’ve got arguments about that but my whole principle about this is that the market is a much loved part of london. It’s one of London’s jewels and people come here every weekend – they love it and enjoy it. I think what GHE wants to put in its place is just a homogenised view of London.

Edward Dolby from Greenwich Hospital told Greenwich.co.uk that if they do get planning permission, the redeveloped market would retain “essentially the same footprint and character” and that trading would be continuous throughout the redevelopment – expected to take almost two years – because the market would move to a temporary site in Monument Gardens. He added:

The hotel that features in our regeneration plans will be a welcome addition to the town centre and not a threat or competitor to the market – rather it should provide additional custom for our traders.

Campaigners are planning another demonstration to coincide with the start of the Planning Inspector’s inquiry next month at Woolwich Town Hall.

Listen to Cllr Maureen O’Mara speaking to Greenwich.co.uk at Sunday’s protest:
Listen! 		Listen to Cllr David Grant speaking to Greenwich.co.uk at Sunday’s protest:
Listen!

Greenwich - August 2010 032
Councillor Maureen O’Mara being interviewed about the protest.

Greenwich - August 2010 068
Greenwich West councillors – Maureen O’Mara, Matthew Pennycook and David Grant – outside Greenwich Market

Greenwich Market protest planned this weekend

By

A local councillor is organising a protest against plans to redevelop Greenwich Market.

Cllr Maureen O’Mara (Labour, Greenwich West) will join fellow protestors outside the College Approach entrance to the market on Sunday at 2pm.

Plans by market owners, Greenwich Hospital Trust,  for the controversial redevelopment of the market, which would include  a new 100-bedroom boutique hotel, were unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council last year.

In February this year, Greenwich Hospital confirmed that that would be appealing against that decision.

Protestors at this weekend’s demonstration aim to show the strength of  local opposition to the proposals before the  independent Planning Inspectorate begins its inquiry on the 7th September at the town hall in Woolwich.

I was airbrushed out of Greenwich Time, claims councillor

By

A Conservative councillor has told a council meeting that she was airbrushed out of an edition of the controversial weekly council newspaper, Greenwich Time.

The claim was made by councillor Eileen Glover during a debate at Wednesday night’s full meeting of the council at Woolwich Town Hall.

The councillor for the Eltham South ward told the meeting that she had ensured she was in all the photos taken by Greenwich Time at an event in her ward attended by the Council Leader but by the time it went to print, she had been “airbrushed out”.

She was only able to make an appearance in a later edition by changing her hair so that she was unrecognisable to the Leader of the Council, she said.

The debate over Greenwich Time was prompted after Greenwich Conservatives put forward a motion calling for weekly production of the newspaper to be ended.

Cllr Nigel Fletcher (Conservative, Eltham North) questioned whether the newspaper offered value for money and asked if it could really be considered a “front line service”. He expressed his doubts over the impartiality of the publication before mocking the content in this week’s edition.

“Is it really a core function of this council to provide, for example, a review of Toy Story 3? Do we really have a duty to inform our residents … that Prince’s new album is his most ‘soulless yet’?”, he asked. He said ending the weekly printing of Greenwich Time would be an “easy cut”.

Cllr Maureen O’Mara (Labour, Greenwich West) commented that Greenwich Time’s council property pages were “very important” to residents who wanted to move, describing it as providing an “essential service” for those that couldn’t or wouldn’t get the  information online.

Cllr Dermot Poston (Conservative, Eltham North) told colleagues that he regarded it as a “political newspaper” and that he “bitterly resents” it. He said the ruling party have “lost any sense of fairness and democracy”.

Cllr Matt Clare (Conservative, Eltham South) used his maiden speech at a full council meeting to say how he would frequently see “No Greenwich Time” notices whilst going door to door during the election campaign. He asked why only Greenwich and Tower Hamlets were delivering newspapers on a weekly basis if it had “such demonstrable benefits”.

Cllr John Fahy (Labour, Woolwich Riverside) reminded fellow councillors that the Conservatives “fought the election on the arguments of Greenwich Time and lost”. He criticised local freesheet, the News Shopper, for printing “10 pages of stories in Lewisham and beyond, and perhaps 2 or 3 stories about the community in Greenwich”.  He said that in raising the issue, it was “payback time” for the opposition because during the election, the “News Shopper was the extension of Conservative news”.

West Greenwich councillor, David Grant (Labour) also suggested that he had been “airbrushed out” of a Greenwich Time photo but said that because of the cabinet system of the council, it was inevitable most of the coverage would be on the executive although he said would like to see more backbenchers featured.

The Leader of the Council, Cllr Chris Roberts (Labour, Glyndon), said that in strict terms, Greenwich Time is “not a political newspaper” and nor could it be according to the law. In fact, council lawyers check it line by line before it goes to print, he revealed.

Cllr Roberts said the paper was “very close to being self financing” and that the cost of producing it had fallen from 22p per copy to just 3.5p per copy. “We are already making significant savings which run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds”, he added.

He said it was “absolutely right that we should prioritise our spending” but printing Greenwich Time meant the Council was “able to deliver statutory notices almost at no cost”.

The Conservative motion was defeated.

School kids work with neighbouring pub to improve area

By


Children from St Alfege with St Peter’s Primary School with, from left to right, Sean Brogan (Landlord of the Gate Clock Wetherspoon Pub), Hazel Burnie (Headteacher at St Alfege with St Peter’s Primary School), Cllr David Grant, Cllr Maureen O’Mara, and Cllr Matthew Pennycook

Concerned children from a Greenwich primary school have met with the landlord of a neighbouring pub to call for improvements to their local area.

Pupils from St Alfege with St Peter’s Church of England Primary School, along with their headteacher, Hazel Burnie, met with Sean Brogan, manager of the Gate Clock in Creek Road. They were joined by all three Greenwich West ward councillors – Maureen O’Mara, David Grant and Matthew Pennycook.

A plan was agreed which includes the Gate Clock pledging not to sell alcohol off-licence to be consumed outside the premises, a bigger effort to deal with litter and a promise to remind customers that areas near the pub are part of a ‘no drinking zone’.

The children’s work is part of South London Citizens’ CitySafe campaign, a community-led response to crime and the fear of crime in the capital.

Hazel Burnie, Headteacher at St Alfege with St Peter’s Primary School, said:

“As a school, we take citizenship very seriously, and that’s why we are members of South London Citizens. We are keen to work with our neighbours to improve our local area. We are pleased about the relationship that is developing between our school, the landlord of the Pub next door to us, and our local councillors. There’s so much we can achieve together.”

Cllr Maureen O’Mara, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Environment, said:

“As local councillors we congratulate the school on this initiative. Anti social behaviour blights everyone’s lives and we are pleased to work with the school to tackle it.”

Sean Brogan, Landlord of the Gate Clock Wetherspoon Pub, said:

“I feel the meeting was very beneficial for us to see a different perspective on our business and how it is viewed by the younger generation. I gained valuable information on how they felt about the surrounding community and businesses, and was pleased to learn about their views on litter and minor crime.”

Greenwich Council Rejects Market Redevelopment

By

PLANS TO demolish Greenwich Market were unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council tonight in a decision which stunned both the developers and their opponents alike.

Members of the council’s planning board voted to turn down the highly controversial scheme, which would have seen the existing market replaced by a modern market, a contemporary shopping precinct and a 104-bedroom hotel.

The rejection comes despite Greenwich Council planning officers recommending acceptance of the plans.

The council leader, Cllr Chris Roberts, a member of the planning board, said at the meeting: “I simply don’t believe the design is good enough for the World Heritage Site. I am not convinced it would create a place I would want to spend time in.”

The council’s cabinet member for regeneration, Cllr Peter Brooks, also a board member, said he had “grave concerns” about the quality of the design and said: “I’ve not been convinced by anything I’ve heard” from the developers and landowners, Greenwich Hospital.

Tory councillor Dermot Poston said the scheme could be anywhere: “Those shops might be in Brazil, or Canada, or Manchester – not Greenwich.”

Backbenchers from all parties said that the proposed hotel – which would be up to two storeys higher than the existing buildings – was an overdevelopment which could give rise to traffic congestion in the busy one-way system.

They echoed concerns first raised by greenwich.co.uk, which has run many articles analysing the weaknesses in the scheme.

Earlier, the Hospital’s director, Martin Sands, had told the meeting that the landowner was committed to maintaining a retail mix, with small shops of the kind the market has now. He said the hotel would enhance Greenwich’s economy by improving the town’s shopping and allowing more tourists to stay overnight. He was backed by the South-East London Chamber of Commerce.

But, questioned by councillors, Hospital officials pointedly declined to give a clear commitment that all existing traders would be able to return after the redevelopment at rents which they could afford.

David McFarlane, the Hospital’s spokesman, told the committee: “We are prepared to make some concessionary rents, but we have to have regard for the overall viability of the scheme.”

The meeting, which was attended by around a hundred members of the public, also heard from several of the objectors to the scheme. Almost 900 people sent formal letters of objection to the council.

Elaine Marshall, a shopkeeper at the market since it reopened in its present form more than two decades ago, said: “There is nothing wrong with the market as it is. It is vibrant and popular – it is often impossible to get around on Sundays.”

Another objector described one of the most controversial features of the design – a modern transluscent plastic roof – as “like Bluewater” and “a gift to pigeons.”

Two of the three councillors representing Greenwich West, the ward which covers the market, also spoke against the plans from the audience. One, Cllr Maureen O’Mara, said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The leader of the opposition, Cllr Spencer Drury, said the proposal put before councillors was not detailed enough and did not answer critical questions such as what the proposed wooden finish on the buildings would look like and how far the new buildings would disturb famous views and sightlines.

The existing listed buildings on the street side of the market would have been kept, but the issue of how far the new buildings behind would poke up above them became a central concern at the meeting. Councillors criticised the Hospital for not providing any long-distance images of how the town centre would look.

However, the Greenwich Society spoke in favour of the proposals, saying they were an “object lesson” in how to present a planning application. The society’s vice-chairman described them as “welcome” and an “improvement” to the area.

Had the plans been approved, the market would have closed at Christmas for a two-year construction process. Stallholders and a few of the shopkeepers would have been moved to a smaller temporary market on Metropolitan Open Land in the grounds of the Naval College. A separate planning application for the temporary market was withdrawn tonight.

The rejection is a serious blow to Greenwich Hospital, which has spent the last two years preparing for tonight’s meeting. The Hospital engaged a professional PR firm, distributed thousands of leaflets and newsletters and enlisted those it regarded as “key stakeholders,” such as the Greenwich Society and the local MP, Nick Raysnford, as cheerleaders for the scheme.

Mr Sands left the meeting tight-lipped and refused to make any comment when approached. “We will issue a press release tomorrow,” he said. It is not clear what the Hospital’s next move will be. It could appeal against the decision, but the council appears to be on strong ground since the scheme is in breach of more than a dozen of the policies in its Unitary Development Plan, the official statement of its planning policy.

The Hospital could return to the council in future with a revised scheme which addresses councillors’ concerns about the size of the hotel and the quality of the design. But reducing the size of the hotel and improving the design may cost too much to allow the scheme to remain economic in the current climate. Whatever happens, the Hospital’s hope that the scheme can be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics is now at an end.

Kate Jaconello, a trader from the market, said she and other traders felt a “huge, huge sense of relief” about the decision. “We can now get on with running our businesses without worrying about our future,” she said.

UPDATED 27/08/09:

Greenwich MP, Nick Raynsford, has responded to the news:

“I am grateful to all members of the Key Stakeholders Consultative Group, stakeholders and residents who have been involved in the Hospital’s plans for the market regeneration and for the huge amount of input received from the local community.

I believe this was, and still is, the right scheme; to ensure a successful future for Greenwich town centre which preserves and enhances the market.

I intend to meet with all parties concerned, and continue to support the sensible regeneration plans which preserve and enhance the market and Greenwich town centre”