Jon asks:

On the page here Greenwich Council states that construction of the “Greenwich Centre” is due to start in December 2010.
 
I’d heard of the plans to build the Centre but I don’t recall seeing that date before.
 
Do you know whether this is part of the Heart of East Greenwich development? If so, has that date been announced officially? Are there now committed plans to do something with that site?

Andrew’s been worrying about this since May:

Whilst walking past the “New Heart for East Greenwich” today – something struck me as I walked past the blue boarded up former hospital site – if the E.Greenwich site were really in need of a new heart – it would be dead by now!

Perhaps the site is on an NHS waiting list ?  I think it needs the kiss of life!

I truly have no idea what’s going on there. The Greenwich Centre  is the one-stop shop for council services intended to go in the large empty space where the hospital was cleared, but any ideas about actual delivery are at best twinkles in eyes as far as I know.

In her latest newsletter Mary Mills says that at the June meeting of the East Greenwich Management Committee (not sure who this comprises of)  it was decided there was “ clarification needed” for the New Heart of East Greenwich (God, I hate typing that name, it just sucks)  but it “is understood a newsletter will soon be available for a developer.”

In June, apparently, this mythical ‘newsletter’ was ‘in the process of being produced. No sign of it yet, which doesn’t bode well for a December starting date.

One of the major problems appears to be that it’s not actually down to Greenwich Council what goes on on the site. It’s managed by (or at least it was last time I looked, but these government quangos seem to change with the wind) the Homes and Communities Agency (HACA) who recently lost their commercial partner, First Base. They now appear to have gone to the HACADPP (Homes and Communities Agency Development Partner Panel for those of you who don’t live in a Douglas Adams-esque world of bureaucracy) to try to find new development partners, which are pretty thin on the ground just now.

For the past – what – five, six years, there’s been a big hole in East Greenwich where the only thing that’s happened is that from time to time a new set of expensively-produced signs have gone up as the quango in charge has changed. My favourite was the jolly yellow set where small children talked about their dreams for the space – “fountains everywhere” said one young chap, who is probably in his twenties now (though unless they were going to reproduce the Tivoli Gardens – now there’s a thought – fountains ‘everywhere’ might be a tad impractical…)

Frankly I think it’s pretty unlikely that anything’s going to happen soon. In the meanwhile, East Greenwich library reels from the loss of the Meridian Music Centre, the Arches get just that little bit tattier and Woolwich Road continues to languish. I understand that the HACA are refusing access to anyone who might want to use the land for temporary purposes – as a sculpture park, for example, or temporary allotments. I’m assuming because they worry they’d have problems evicting people if they did.

There’s a Mitchell and Webb sketch about Richard Dawkins looking for a subject for his new book,  the next thing (after God)  that doesn’t exist.  The question “Do Wimpy’s still exist?” gets the response “There’s still one in Greenwich. ”

Sadly that’s not true, though it wasone of the last old-style Wimpys to go and top marks for local knowledge on the part of M&W (the only working Wimpy I know of is on Margate seafront). Of course the dear old Wimpy beloved of a certain generation of schoolchildren, will live on forever (twice, actually) in the charming Bridge of Tiles but for now, at least, it’s yet another faceless all-purpose takeaway fried chicken place.

A number of people have been noticing strange things happening in that scruffy little shopping ‘arcade’ opposite the end of Royal Hill, though. There was the booze bunfight last year when Bottoms Up closed where yummy mummies kicked toddlers out of pushchairs to fill their buggies up with cut-price Champagne,  and now there’s a presumably slightly-less-attractive-to-parents-of-under-fours closing-down sale of J&S Accessories (that’s the motorbike shop on the other side of the parade.)

Scott tells me the sign in the shop window of J&S says that Sainsburys have applied for a liqour license morning to midnight which sort of implies a mini market.

That must delight the Co-Op, still battling valiantly on in between the two…

And Richard has just directed me to the planning application for the old Bottoms Up – apparently it’s to be the expansion of a tour operator and a new School of English, which sounds inoffensive, if a little dull to me.

Well, well. well.

A couple of days ago, Lee asked:

“We live on the Isle of Dogs across from the former Syral Plant.  We have been watching them dismantle it with interest.  Now there seems to be some sort of noisy construction going on next to the gravel/sand piles place.  They seem to be putting corrugated metal sheets into the shore down to the river.  Do you know what they are doing?
 
While I am asking questions, do you know what they are planning to build or do with the Syral Plant?”

I had no idea, and when I asked a local councillor, they had no idea either. Whatever it was was being kept very much under wraps. But I was watching the news just now, and who should pop up but The Leader, being interviewed about a new Cruise Liner Terminal that they want to build at Enderby Wharf – by 2012…

I guess it would count as industrial or wharf-y which is the required designation for the site, and at first pass, it seems like an interesting idea to me – as long as they do something lovely with Enderby House and restore the Thames Path. It will never be as peaceful again – but I guess we were never going to keep that Long Good Friday-ish, slightly creepy solitude forever.

My one worry is - by 2012?

That’s a BIG ask for anything that’s going to look good, and be built out of decent materials in a solid, non-destined-to-get-really-seedy-very-quickly way.

The story’s not on the BBC website yet, but I’ll post as soon as it is…

Poor King William IV gets a bit of a duff deal all round really. I mean, for starters, he’s the ‘boring’ monarch crammed in between George IV and Victoria that everyone forgets (though in reality he was quite a card), but in Greenwich the poor guy gets a particularly poor time. His slightly snigger-worthy statue is currently surrounded by scaffolding as something rather worrying happens to the ex-graveyard of St Mary’s Church, and the pub named after him in Trafalgar Road isn’t one of the classier hostelries in town.

Or should I say ‘wasn’t one of the classiest hostelries?’ For stuff is happening – or rather, isn’t happening, down Trafalgar-way.

For the past few weeks the place has been dark – devoid of the usual ne’er do wells and underagers hanging around outside, devoid of bunk beds crammed into dormitories upstairs, devoid of lights or, indeed, optics.

What’s gone/going on? Have they gone bust? Is it a refurb? Who can tell. All I know is that it doesn’t look at all well.

I think we need to be treading carefully here. This place, despite its unpleasant nature (who can forget those gullible-fool-baiting  white-goods ’sales’ held at short notice on a Saturday evening when Trading Standards and the local constabulary were looking the other way…) is a really beautiful building – as Benedict’s close-ups  show.

It’s mid-late Victorian, with incredible mouldings, some absolutely lovely interior fittings and a splendid, totally inexplicable oval disc (can you have an ‘oval disc’?) at the top of the side. This could be a FABULOUS venue in the right hands. It suffers, granted, from having no exterior frontage (hence the dodgy blokes – and it did always seem to be blokes – hanging around outside) but even so, this has HUGE potential.

What I fear is that developers, such as the odious London Taverns Ltd will also see it as a having huge potential – as ‘luxury’ flats.

The worst possible thing that could happen is what happened to the Penny Black (for anyone new to the area, the Penny Black was a cute old London pub, opposite and a few doors along  from the King Billy which is now modern flats with a dead shop underneath it, ‘dead’ in this case meaning ‘never actually lived’.) Demolition of the William IV would have this Phantom in tears.

I confess I didn’t like the King William IV as a pub. But just imagine what it COULD be. The Feathers, the Vanbrugh, the Cutty Sark, and most recently, the Pelton Arms, have all reinvented themselves and become seriously enjoyable establishments in East Greenwich. I hope the King Billy will find its time.

Folks, the number of ‘final deadlines’ for comments about Greenwich Hospital Trust’s appeal against the UNANIMOUS decision by Greenwich councillors of ALL parties to reject their proposals to develop the covered market seem to be as confused as the process that you’re supposed to follow to have your say. Below is the The Phantom’s Easy Guide to having your say. If you get bored with my preamble, cut to the bit in red below.

I read only last week that the deadline was 22nd April, but I’m reliably informed the deadline has NOT passed. Instead, if you haven’t commented yet then there is still a teeny tiny amount of time to do so.

Certainly, if you’re one of the people who agree with me that this is a disgraceful presumption on the part of Greenwich Hospital, to assume that absolutely everyone on the council is wrong, don’t rely on our local MP to represent you.

Nick Raynsford thinks it’s a great idea – in fact it was him who apparently told GH to appeal – against a council led BY HIS OWN PARTY. Of course he would love to see more giant developments going up – his links with the building industry are far stronger than any impulse to actually represent his own constituents – or, indeed, his own party.

No – if you object, you need to say so – you’ll get no joy from Nick. Actually, I guess, if you don’t object, have your say so too – I’m sure GH will appreciate your support.

A few notes on what the Planning Inspectors are looking for. They have to consider objections on points of law. Inappropriate massing, traffic implications and other hotel capacity in the area will all rack up and they WILL take into account the fact that absolutely everyone on the council unanimously rejected the plans. Purely aesthetc ‘quality’ issues, are more difficult to argue, as it’s subjective.

However this IS a World Heritage Site, and I personally think that they would be irresponsible to Britain’s reputation as a tourist destination to create something so wholly inappropriate to a place people flock to from all over the world to see for its history – and, of course, at the same time, spend cash.

A requirement both of National Planning, under PPG 15, and the Borough SPD – Supplementary Planning Document, is that the development MUST ‘preserve or enhance” the conservation area, and protect the setting of the Listed Buildings (which is all of the Joseph Kay, stucco-fronted buildings. A hotel that dwarfs its historic neighbours hardly does that.

The Durnford Street buildings may not be listed, but they ARE part of the conservation area. I can’t see how demolishing them to build a trash compacter will enhance the listed buildings’ setting. And what the hell point is there in getting rid of real cobbles if they’re only going to replace them with fake cobbles – though of course GH refer to as ‘granite sets’? None of this was mentioned in the Hospital’s ‘consultation.’

I’m the first to agree that the 1950s inner buildings and the roof are pretty hideous, but this isn’t the development the market needs. A simple glass roof (without those hideous pillars that close the place rather than open it up,) and discreet replacements for the 1950s monstrosities would be just fine. Greed has ensured that the proposed Hotel Building will tower over the adjacent Joseph Kay buildings, and dominate them from key viewpoints on a World Heritage Site, and with so many businesses reliant on tourists coming to Greenwich, it is our duty to ensure that they still have a reason to visit.

And it CAN be done – you only have to look at the fantastic development at the Old Brewery (by the Greenwich Foundation who sometimes accidentally get confused with Greenwich Hospital Trust, poor things) to see that history and contemporary styling can work.

So – how to object (or support if you happen to think it’s a great idea…)

This is the link to the case. You have until the 4th May to submit comments. Click the very bottom button, which will take you to the planning portal. From there it’s pretty easy to fill in the form, and just put a couple of paragraphs of what you think of the project – you don’t have to send a letter or supporting dcuments if you don’t want to. It can be as long or as short as you like.

If you’re still after ideas, Paul has sent me a list of his “Eight Ridiculous Claims” which you might enjoy:

1 “The scheme enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area. Elements such as the adjacent storage yards adjacent to Durnford Street are of poor quality. Their appearance clearly detracts from the area.” (2.7)

(A major plank of their appeal is that, by knocking down the stables and banana warehouse, they will improve Durnford Street. You have to give them points for sheer cheek!)

2 “The scheme is not visible from viewpoints outside the area.” (2.9)

( There are no drawings supplied to prove this, but Elevation C clearly shows the scheme is visible from the immediate area, and will be visible from many buildings around the market, as well as the park.)

3 “The scheme will not be detrimental to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings.” (2.10)
(see above)

4 “The council has not taken into account the economic benefit of the new hotel in enlivening the area as a visitor destination, this protecting a number of buildings around the conservation area in the long term.”(2.14)

(Will the loss of informal, quirky stalls and the introduction of shops that can afford higher rents really benefit the area, if we lose the distinctive, informal feel of the market?)

5 “Unattractive outbuildings [ie the Durnford Street buildings] create a wholly unattractive entrance to the market and do not contribute positively to the Conservation Area. (2.31)
and
6 “The removal of the [Durnford Street] buildings… and new market roof all enhance the character of the conservation area.” (2.33)

(This is an assertion which even the Appellants don’t believe – otherwise they would have mentioned the demolition of the buildings in their display. Remember they are being replaced by a trash compactor!)

7 “The existing market roof is locally listed [but]… is not of particular importance being late Victorian/early Edwardian in date. The current covering comprises corrugated plastic… which does not contribute to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.” (2.36)

(Would a thin plastic roof really be better than a glass structure, which the Appellants have allowed to fall into disrepair?)

8 “The net increase in traffic… is insignificant and would not adversely impact traffic flow.” (2.53)

(No extra traffic from a 105 room hotel? Remember the main entrance and exit would be on College Approach, which is always busy.)

I leave it with you, guys. Yours to object, support or ignore, but you only have until 4th May to have your say.

I know several of you have been busily emailing all sorts of people who should know about such things, asking what the hell is going on with the amazing new development we’re supposed to be getting where the old Greenwich District Hospital used to be, and where the only things flourishing there these days are weeds and regular changes of billboard telling us that yet another government quango’s taken over the sorry mess.

I’m pretty sure that not one of you have enjoyed the decency of a reply.

Well, Jemma has sent me a couple of links that may go part way to explaining why everything’s gone deathly quiet there.

Firstly, a couple of weeks ago, Property News announced that the Homes and Communities Agency is scrapping the capital’s public-private partnership aiming to build new housing in the key worker and affordable sector. Major changes in contracts with sundry developers is pretty much across the board, but First Base, who was promising such marvels for East Greenwich, is having its contract terminated entirely. Apparently First Base are said to be “very disappointed” – though of course they won’t be out of pocket as the HCA has underwritten the developers’ pre-development costs. Great. So it’s just us getting zero out of that particular fiasco.

It’s interesting to note that there’s a comment below the feature that seems quietly pleased as it points out that the ‘affordable’ housing market’s rotten anyway.

The second feature, in Regeneration and Renewal is subscriber-protected and I can’t reproduce in full what it says. If you’re really interested, you could take advantage of the free 30-day trial (I mean – when else are you likely to want to use it – and who knows – you might actually love it and end up a loyal reader…) but what it says in a nutshell is that the site, along with six others across London, will be ‘re-tendered,’ thanks to ”market conditions,” giving “selected developers fast-track access to housing-led public development projects” (whatever that means.)

I don’t know if this is a sensible decision or not for the long-term – it’s possible that re-tendering is the best idea given what’s going on, but for anyone who was hoping to see a) regeneration in East Greenwich b) a new swimming pool c) a new library, d) new affordable homes, get whistling now.

I think what annoys me most is that NO ONE has kept any of us in the loop about this. Jemma found this by accident, and kindly sent it to me. It’s clear the council – and the government – had no intentions of telling anyone.

One good thing. If you go past there at the moment someone (I’m assuming guerrilla gardeners, huzzah!) has tilled the soil in the giant tubs just outside, where the trees are, and is now planting it up with what looks like cuttings from their garden. At least someone gives a damn…

Adrian just sent me this, and for a moment I thought he’d just done a photoshop image to wind me up.

The food had better be damn good.

Kate of the Friends of East Greenwich Pleasaunce has been thinking about the forthcoming elections and is musing on an idea. She says:

“Because we will be getting a new Councillor due to Chris Roberts moving wards, the Friends like the idea of holding a local hustings for candidates for Peninsula ward. All candidates would be invited, there is no hidden agenda, just an opportunity to meet the candidates away from all the flyers we’re getting and get a feel for them and how they view our patch of Greenwich. This could be a bit random, but we’d aim to have it over in a hour (90 mins?) so it’s not long and boring.

So far the Candidates we have approached have been receptive to the idea, but we need to make sure there is sufficient local interest to warrant their (and our) time – Would Peninsula people be interested or is this a major yawn?”

So what do you think folks? It’s obvious we must be a slightly marginal seat, otherwise Our Illustrious Leader wouldn’t have scuttled off to a comfier, safer one, so there is the chance that there’s a bit more to fight for here. If Kate and Co. organised a ‘fluffy hustings’, would you go?

If you’re of a timid sort of nature, might be a good idea to stay in bed tomorrow. If you’re of the lobbying sort, then you’ll need to make a choice as to which punch-up to go to…

It’s a big day for NOGOE – the council planning board meeting for the Olympic equestrian events to be held in Greenwich Park. NOGOE themselves will be officially represented, but if you wish to speak, either for or against the proposals, then you’ll need to ‘book’ a space. You will have to contact Committee Services – either by telephone, 020 8291 6311/5102/5857/5145, or email committees@greenwich.gov.uk. It’s probably worth bearing in mind that the meeting won’t be going on forever, so it’s not worth preparing massive speeches.

The meeting’s at 6.30pm at Woolwich Town Hall…

…Which means that if you were hoping to attend the Olympics debate AND the The River Bar for a meeting between residents, the bar owner and the council (clearly councillors are earning their keep tomorrow evening) the fact that it’s at 6.00pm means you’ll have about ten minutes before you have to leave for the horsey stuff.

The beef with the River Bar is, I understand, that instead of the lovely, loungey riverside restaurant that we were all so excited about this time last year, it’s turned into a very noisy nightclub that doesn’t even have a kitchen. I confess I was a bit puzzled when I turned up hoping to eat just before Christmas after having been told it was serving traditional British Food, and found just a large empty space and people drinking bottled beer.

If you look at the website you’ll see the sort of thing they do – food is only mentioned as ‘coming soon.’ Apparently they specialise in noisy ’special events’ – tribute acts, club-nights etc, which, given that the rest of the building is residential, isn’t really on. Apparently the owner applies for – and gets – temporary events notices that allow these nights to go on to the early hours and the guys upstairs are finding it hard to sleep. The place is currently the recipient of a noise abatement order.

It’s such a shame – I was so looking forward to a riverside restaurant – especially if (when) the Section 106 on the development next door kicks in and the Thames Path will go straight past it. Residents are hoping that the owner will be made to go back to to Plan A and have that lovely relaxed restaurant-bar it was granted permission for and. I confess, as a non-clubbing Phantom, from a purely selfish point of view, I’m with them. I’d definitely go to a fabbo riverside restaurant. You won’t be catching me at the Glitz and Glamour launch night – even if it does have an award-winning DJ…

If all the aggro’s not your cup of Black Coffee, try going instead to Borough Town Hall at 2.30pm to see a new PRS Heritage Music Award plaque unveiled. It’s for local lads Squeeze, who played their first gig there when it was the Greenwich Dance Hall in 1975 (and which didn’t have a load of flats immediately above the dancefloor). Glenn Tilbrook and Chris Difford will be there, to see themselves following Blur, Dire Straits and Jethro Tull in being immortalised in ceramic.

A short break from what’s started to turn into ‘archaeology week’ today (more tomorrow, ‘fraid…) to focus on something that’s soon to be history.

A few days ago I learned that there is a planning application for the demolition of the Old Friends (10/0331/D1, if you’re interested – more details from alex.smith@greenwich.gov.uk.) I understand it was a bit of a surprise as it was generally assumed that planning permission wasn’t necessary, but hey – there it is.

The poor old place is in a right state, ever since the scaffolding went up, demolition began then suddenly stopped for no perceivable reason. I can’t see that it can be saved now – even if there was a beery knight on a white charger ready to pour cash into a pub that may or may not get custom if the ‘New Heart for East Greenwich’ ever gets built. It would be nice to think that Woolwich Road could pull its socks up but I’m not holding my spectral breath.

Todya’s story is a bit different, though.

I’m not entirely sure what Janet, living at Gravelbourg in Saskatchewan, Canada, was doing reading this blog last week, but, suddenly realising that the Old Friends we were discussing was the same Old Friends where her great grandfather was licenced victualler between 1881 and 1891 and, indeed, the same Old Friends where her grandfather and his five brothers and sisters were born, hurriedly got on the blower to the property management company dealing with the demolition plans.

She’s just told me the company is going to save the sign for for her, and it will be crossing the Atlantic Canada-wards. I was particularly interested as only the day before Janet’s email arrived I’d wandered past and wondered what would be happening to the sign; I’m glad at least that will be saved, even if it is going abroad. I mean – it’s hardly the Madonna of the Pinks...

Janet’s been told it’s in pretty poor shape, but it doesn’t look that bad to me. I’ve asked her to send us a pic when she puts it up in Gravelbourg.