Greenwich Market articles

Tonight, at 6.30pm, at Woolwich Town Hall, Wellington Street, the council’s planning board will consider the application to demolish Greenwich Market.  So a few days ago, a group of us decided to test the claims by Greenwich Hospital, the owners of the Market, that there is “widespread support” for their plan.

We set up our home-made banner and clipboards in the centre of town. In just five hours – three hours on Sunday and two on Monday – 806 people signed formal objection letters to the Hospital’s planning application.

Including others who wrote individual letters, the total number of objections now stands at around 880 – nearly three times the number of responses received by the Hospital to its own public consultation. More than 80 per cent of our objectors were from the borough of Greenwich or from within a few miles’ radius. It is clear that had we done it for a longer period, we could have amassed tens of thousands of names.

We showed people pictures of the proposal, and the text (written by the developers themselves) describing it, and were taken aback by the strength of feeling, verging in some cases on real anger. People were literally queuing up to sign.

There seems to be enormous concern, far greater than I suspected, among local people about “what is happening to Greenwich,” with the closure of the Village Market, the horse events in the Park, and now the Market redevelopment set to cause years of disruption and permanent damage to a unique and cherished place.

We were struck, too, by the large numbers of locals who didn’t really know about what was planned – who refused to believe, until we showed them the plans, that the market was actually going to be demolished and replaced with a modern market.

It is even more clear to me now than it was before that the development has no public support at all. The Hospital has managed to co-opt various local worthies – such as the Greenwich Society and Nick Raynsford MP – but this turns out to be no more than a symptom of how our representatives have lost touch with the people they’re supposed to represent.

Tonight, we objectors will have – ahem – five minutes to make our case (though this can be extended at the chair of the meeting’s discretion.) It is not even clear whether the 800-odd letters signed over the weekend will be formally notified to the meeting – the consultation period is officially closed – but we decided to send round copies of some of them to councillors, just so they could see what the public thought for themselves.

Will councillors take any notice? In a rational world, they should – because the application (and its cousin to put the temporary market on the Old Royal Naval College site) contravenes their own policy, the Unitary Development Plan, in at least five separate respects. However, the officers have recommended acceptance – and Greenwich councillors usually do what their officers tell them.

Greenwich councillors do not have a good record of listening to their voters or obeying their own declared planning policy – they recently approved a very unpopular high-density housing development in King’s Highway, Plumstead, despite its being in breach of 22 policies of the UDP.

I think all this says something important about how our democracy here in Greenwich is failing – partly because one party has a vast majority on the council, and feels secure to do whatever it wants; but more, I think, because of our serious lack of functioning civic institutions.

We no longer have a real conservation body – the Greenwich Society has turned itself into a PR organ for the Market developers and the people who want to tear up Greenwich Park. We don’t have particularly strong local media. Though the Mercury tries hard, it is based outside the borough and does not compare to local newspapers in some other parts of the capital. Hence the lack of information that we found among many.

Over the market, there is still time. Even if the redevelopment gets the nod tonight, the planning process is not concluded. But I think that had anything as bad as the market scheme been proposed in an area where there was a decent local paper and a strong civic group it would already have been defeated by now.

The Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment calls it “alien” and “awkward.” The Victorian Society says it will be “damaging.” The Environment Agency describes it as an “unacceptable risk to the environment.” The leader of the opposition on Greenwich Council calls it “aesthetic vandalism.” I said it would turn an historic market into a “modern shopping precinct with market stalls attached.”

But you guessed it – that doughty guardian of our town, Greenwich Council’s planning department, thinks the proposal to rip up Greenwich Market is absolutely fine.

In one week’s time, councillors on the planning board will decide whether to approve the demolition scheme. Late last week, the council planning officers’ recommendation to the committee was published. It is sure to have considerable influence on what the councillors themselves decide. And it gives the developers everything they want, recommending approval of the demolition with no significant conditions.

The site, say the officers, is “an excellent location” for the proposed 104-room luxury hotel. No, the hotel’s not too big. No, it won’t overshadow everything else, or dominate the listed buildings around it – or at least if it does, that will simply “add to the character of the West Greenwich Conservation Area.” No, the hotel won’t cause more traffic – why, all the guests will come by public transport!

The officers grudgingly admit that the current, locally-listed market roof “has some relevance to local identity” and that the columns are “quite attractive.” They concede that their own planning policy, the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), is that “applications for the demolition of locally listed buildings will be discouraged.” They admit that this is a “valid perspective in this situation.” But they’re approving its demolition anyway.

That new plastic roof which replaces it? Well, it’s lovely – or in the planning department’s words, it gives “significant scope for improvement to the character and appearance of the market space” and is an “appropriate addition in this heritage context.” This is perhaps the planners’ most blatant denial of reality. The “character” and “context” of a World Heritage site cannot be improved by replacing it with something copied from Stratford Bus Station.

The UDP policy about locally-listed buildings isn’t the only one of their own policies that councillors are recommended to ignore. UDP policy TC7 states: “The Council will protect and enhance the site and setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site…. Development within it should preserve and enhance its essential and unique character and appearance.” Indisputably, the new scheme will not do this.

Policy TC8 states that any new development anywhere in the town centre must “demonstrate the highest standards in design, landscaping, detailing, and finishing.” Not here, they mustn’t.

Policy TC12 says that the Council “will…seek to reduce the effects of through traffic on Greenwich town centre.”

Policy M40 states that “developments generating/ attracting coach traffic will need to make provision for dropping off and picking up, coach manoeuvring on site.” This is clearly not the case with the proposed hotel.

Seventy-five individual letters about the development were received from residents. Of those, 74 were against. I have asked dozens of people what they think about this proposal – and I have been able to find only three people who support it. Greenwich Hospital may have sewn up the “community representatives,” whether elected – like Nick Raynsford MP – or self-appointed, like the Greenwich Society. But over the Market it is clear, and perhaps to the developers’ surprise, that these supposed representatives in fact represent nobody.

The action now moves to another set of community representatives. Will the councillors on the planning board go along with their officers? Or, with a local election due in nine months, will they show any kind of awareness of the feeling among their voters? If they choose to ignore the views of the public, then I think we can anticipate a political backlash.

Whatever happens, next week is not the end of the road. Either the opposition – or the developers – can challenge a decision that goes against them, with the Mayor and possibly the Government.

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.”