Hardys Pub Proposals – Urgent

Hardy's Pud - as it could be

Folks, my blog has come back with only seconds to spare. I’m sorry – I’m starting the new Phantom with a (truly) bad

thing, but time presses. Please don’t leave this entry to read later…

You will have seen this terrifying proposal elsewhere if you follow the local blogosphere, but in case you read only me, read carefully,for, to quote a cliche, I vill say zis only once…

We’re talking about Hardy’s Tavern – a sweet-looking, mid-Victorian, I’d say, pub in Trafalgar Road. It was recently taken over by new owners who argue that Greenwich doesn’t have enough giant, cheapo hotels.

London Taverns Ltd (based in Kent) has put in planning permission for – wait for it – a NINE STOREY monstrosity (ten, actually, if you count the ‘extended basement.’)

This is in a street that is typically TWO storeys high.

Admittedly the building next to it, another modern affair, and no oil painting itself, juts up above the rest of the street and I would argue also interrupts the height levels, but it’s done now, and it shouldn’t be an excuse to try and top it. London Taverns have clearly taken the block of flats as being the thin end of a very long wedge, and, as Thomas points out:

“What is most worrying is that it is considered “a precursor for the improvement and RESCALING of its immediate neighbourhood to be more in keeping with the importance of this main central Greenwich street”. If this building goes up then we will lose the historic East-end character which the area benefits from, and this part of Greenwich will turn into an extension of North Greenwich’s Millennium Village. ”

Hard to argue with that.

The proposed building is red and pink with ‘webbing’ across it. The designers claim it will “reinforce the

local distinctiveness of the area” and “provide and iconic marker to the Historic Centre and the Conservation Area”.

I’m not sure how it ‘reinforces’ the local distinctiveness – it’s a complete contrast to it.  And no – it’s not ‘ iconic’ (god, has that word been debased recently.)

This proposal shows blatent disregard for the nature of Trafalgar Road by people that have no connection with the area and don’t give a stuff about what happens to it – implying that any old thing ‘will do’ here – that we’re already so scruffy that we can’t get any worse. Well, it can, and its name is Hardys. Just take a look at this:

For two weeks, during the Olympics, it might just attract a few tourists. The rest of the time – well, I can only

see it becoming dodgy B&B material.

If you agree, you need to get your objections in TODAY (I’m truly hoping the deadline’s midnight, or I’m giving you no time at all – soz.)

Here’s your step by step guide:

1) Go to: the council website

2) Type the reference into the box reference: 10/0994/F

The next page comes up:

3) Click on the application number at the top of the box

4) Go to bottom of page and click on visit the online form

for comments


the attachments to this post:

hardy's proposals
hardy’s proposals

Not quite in keeping with the area.
Not quite in keeping with the area.

Hardy's Pud - as it could be
Hardy’s Pub – as it could be

Hardy's Pub - as it could be
Hardy’s Pub – as it could be


14 Comments to “Hardys Pub Proposals – Urgent”

  1. Paul says:

    Welcome back, Phant.

    What’s disturbing about this application is its implication that the architects have somehow been given the nod by Council Staff. I do hope they’re being economical with the truth.

    Anyway, 70 objections in so far show they’ll have a fight on their hands.

    It is a Greenwich Practice which has ‘designed’ this, by the way; the ones in the marketplace. Bizarre, I know.

  2. Donovan says:

    Glad to see you’re back, and congratulations on the swish new site.

    As for this utter ridiculousness, quite how it could be deemed in any way appropriate in its context is anyone’s guess. My personal feeling is that it’s a blatant attempt to secure massive income during the olympics when I’d be very surprised if nine storeys didn’t give you pretty good views into the park. If the planning committee and council can’t see through that, then I don’t know what it’s all coming to.

  3. Prof Jim says:

    Welcome back, your ghostly presence has been missed.

    What a truly revolting proposal this is. Trafalgar Road is is need of some renovation but with care and thought to the surrounding area. This would stick out like a, well, like a nine storey sore thumb.

  4. SilverSpiral says:

    Objection posted as follows:
    I think that the proposed planning application is inappropriate and ill fitting to the area. It is ugly, too large, and not in keeping with the period nature of the area, nor is it an example of outstanding modern design. I do not think the area requires another cheap hotel, and the existing building is an example of the valued history of Greenwich. I do not believe the proposed development has any merit, and should be summarily dismissed on that basis.

  5. Alto Rhapsody says:

    Many thanks for alerting us to this dreadful proposal. Luckily I read your post before midnight. I have followed your instructions and quickly put in my objection and comments. I hope everyone else who has read your post, and is appalled by this application, will do the same.

  6. Maureen says:

    Welcome back Phantom! The new website looks great.

    Just looking at the pictures of the sore-thumb-in-the-middle monstrosity gives me a headache. Hopefully the council will listen to the 70 objections.

  7. B says:

    this looks like another example of developers proposing something so egregious for the first application that it’s certain to be rejected. For the 2nd they propose what they wanted in the first place, and people heave such a sigh of relief that it passes with a nod. Had they tried it in the first instance they’d have had a scrap on their hands, but they’ve got away with it. The same thing was done for the development at Lovell’s Wharf, and for the market, and for the closure of the Park for the horses. Politicians do it too – witness the way they extended habeas corpus.

  8. will says:

    Great to see you back Phantom – you have been sorely missed.

    One alarming aspect about this are the comments on the application http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/documents/25777_1.pdf
    that say the applicant was told by Greenwich planners that – there is an urgent need for high quality hotels, that ‘iconic’ landmark buildings are encouraged and that there’s no need to keep to the scale of surounding buildings. I reckon there’s enough material for a whole series of blog entries just picking the nonsense out of those statements.

    I sincerely hope those views do not reflect the views of our town planners. Instead I’d like to think this is the way town planners amuse themselves, giving developers blatantly nonsensical guidance and then denying permission. I’d like to think that, but given some of the utter rubbish built here recently(Jet garage anyone?), we certainly can’t be leave it to chance.

  9. Neil says:

    This does like a proper eyesore.

    However, having recently had to book a hotel locally at short notice (not something I’d ever had to do before), I was surprised at a) how little availability there was, and b) how expensive the places that were available were; so I wouldn’t undersestimate the demand for hotel rooms in the area.

  10. Pedro says:

    From a certain amount of knowledge of planning procedure, I’d say that the architects find it pretty easy to win round the planning staff – they’re busy, sometimes lazy, and happy to wave stuff through. Often they’ll overlook blatant errors in applications.

    Looking at the original reasons for objections – building out of scale with its surroundings, affects the amenity of its neighbours – I think this application is indeed a feint; they will have this rejected, then claim they have come up with a more modest scheme, which is in fact worse than the first one. In this case, I think the tactic will be counter-productive, because they’ve stirred up such a hornet’s nest.

    Above all, I’m shocked that architects in Turnpin Lane would be responsible for a building which gives the finger, says ‘up yours’ to its neighbours, in such a flagrant fashion. It is a building without any grace or flair whatsoever.

    I know architects are desperate for clients these days, but I’m still disappointed that a local practice is responsible for this incoherent, inconsiderate mess.

  11. Kat says:

    The fact that the council have already have given planning permission for another budget hotel (actually more probably two on the same road) on Greenwich High Road calls into question just how are they justifying the need for yet more low cost accommodation in such a small area? (Cue nightmares of Greenwich turning into the new Blackpool with neon arcades and influx of more stag/hen-do’s.)

  12. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by blackheathbugle and Gd Old Reliable Nick, Gd Old Reliable Nick. Gd Old Reliable Nick said: RT @blackheathbugle: @tgphantom has spotted a grim hotel being planned in Greenwich – add your objection now! http://bit.ly/aCAkXf [...]

  13. F says:

    87 No’s on website now. This is their third application for a hotel, the previous 2 where building up the existing structure and blocking out the daylight of the apartments next door, both rejected. This monster of a building, now just blocks a few parts of the building next door. You will also notice on the plans, that its shows Hardys is already 4 storeys high, which anyone who knows the building is not true. It just shows how much they are a bunch of cowboys trying to make a quick buck from the Olympics

  14. Paul says:

    105 objections in so far.

    Hopefully, this should put the architect, who’s obviously over-compensating for something, in his place.