Lovely, isn’t it. Shame it isn’t an oak.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that the crime this beautiful Copper Maple tree that shades the garden at The British Oak has committed is that it isn’t – well, a British Oak. The landlord has applied for permission to fell it, claiming that “The foliage canopy covers the whole seating area of the garden allowing no light into it”. 

Thing is, judging from this photo, taken at 3.00pm last Monday afternoon, that just patently isn’t true. The seating area is clearly in plain sun. His other claim is that the tree attracts pigeons and squirrels, which upset the customers.

NEWSFLASH: Phantom Towers has a surfeit of pigeons and squirrels too, which is quite incredible, since I am not aware of a Copper Maple anywhere nearby.

Peter tells me that far from being ‘upset’, the customers he sees seem to enjoy the wildlife – and even feed them, which probably has rather more of an alluring effect than a tree.

The landlord intends to replace it with a ‘suitable specimen’ but, um, hang on, wouldn’t a sapling eventually have the same shady, pigeony, squirrel-magnet effect as a mature tree? And if he’s hoping to replace it with a British Oak sapling, he’s in trouble – they don’t exist (and the Oak varieties that do exist get BIIIIIIG).

It’s true that maintenance can be pricey – and the pruning that’s been done in the past has been of the somewhat crude variety, which makes it worse in the long run, but this is an important tree in a lovely garden that would be the poorer without it.

Indeed, Peter reckons it’s “one of the most significant trees in The Rectory Field Conservation area and has been loved by generations of users of the British Oak and is fully deserving of a Tree Preservation Order to protect it until a more sympathetic custodian takes over the Pub. This tree requires careful and responsible husbandry when it will continue to bring pleasure and be a valuable environmental asset. For many its loss would be a local tragedy.”

If you agree (or even if you don’t) by all means comment here, but though I will be delighted to know someone reads the blog I can’t guarantee that those comments will actually get to the person who can make a difference.

The email I gave out for Debi Rogers, the Tree Officer, is bouncing back, so my best suggestion for being able to comment is to go to the link at the top of the post and make a public comment there. The reference is 13/1006/TC British Oak, 109 Old Dover Road, SE38SU - and you don’t have long – you need to do it by Tuesday 21st. May 2013.

Everywhere I look we are losing our mature trees – mainly in streets and new developments, to be replaced by pathetic, weedy excuses for trees because they’re less bother. I still mourn the loss of the fabulous limes at what we must now call Greenwich Square. Greenwich – and the entire country is the poorer without them, and I believe that we have got to the stage where each individual needs to be fought for.

I hand you over to Bob for some quite disturbing news on Lovells Wharf:

The developers of the site called Greenwich Wharves are proposing some substantial changes to
the development:

• increasing the total square metres from 94,825 by 12,695 sq.m – anincrease of 30%
•  increase the number of new homes from 667 to 911 – about 37% increase
• change in the height of the buildings up to 13 storeys on the riverfront
• reduction in the commercial and office accommodation – no details provided about what or how much is reduced

The commercial and office accommodation were an important factor in the consented plans. Before consent there had been an outrageous original proposal for very tall buildings. The developers now appear to be trying to claw back what they were originally refused.

There are consultation meetings on Tuesday 11th December from 5pm to 9pm, and on Wednesday 12th December from 2pm to 9pm, at Rothbury Hall on Azof Street. Locals have had brochures posted through their doors, but I don’t know how widely they’ve been distributed within the rest of Greenwich.

The changes that have been outlined increase the living density by 30% with concomitant increases in the height of the buildings, but reduce the infrastructure that was in the current proposal. They seem to be trying to stack as many people on top of each other as they can, without providing even the infrastructure that was supposed to support a smaller population.

The brochure gives no reasons at all for the proposed changes. One is therefore left to speculate that they are going to try and squeeze as much money out of the development as they can, while cynically avoiding their responsibilities to provide services and a quality environment.

This change therefore provides no benefits whatsoever to people who live here at the moment. If they stopped building today, it would be no loss to locals (apart from the small stretch of riverside that is still closed). Nothing in this proposed change gives us any reason to support it, and plenty of reasons to oppose it. So I hope people will go to the meetings and
make their feelings known to the developers and to the council who will be considering this application.

Actually, I have had a communication from what I believe to be the developers, London and Regional Properties, who now call Lovells ‘Greenwich Wharf’ (totally annihilating any sense of history) confirming the dates of the consultation:

Stream Arts, Rothbury Hall, Mauritius Road London SE10
on
Tuesday 11 December 17.00 – 21.00
and
Wednesday 12 December 14.00 – 21.00

Consultation is open on that most depressing of things, the change of use from a good old fashioned pub to a two bed flat If the link for the planning application to turn the Morden Arms from public to private use doesn’t open, you can just go to Greenwich Council’s planning page and put ‘Morden Arms’ into the search.

Anyone know what’s going to happen here? Jeremy and I have been wondering what’s going to happen to the old bail hostel in Creek Road for some time now. It’s not the prettiest building ever but all breeze-blocked up it’s frankly a bit grim.

Usually when a sign outside a property says ‘acquired’ it means luxury flats – but does anyone have any further news? I’ve had a look through the council planning site and can’t find anything. I don’t have an agenda here – anything old and lovely (or otherwise, though there certainly were some incredible Georgian shops there not so long ago) clearly disappeared a long while ago – I’m just curious.

Blimey – if this comes about Galleon Theatre will have fallen on their feet and no mistake. If you recall, they were booted out of their old home, the Playhouse, last spring by a landlord who told the newspapers he was going to put on shows himself then, as everyone had suspected, just filled it full of bunk beds to cash in on the Olympics.

Well,  the pic at the top of this post is the plan for a new, purpose-built, 110-seater studio theatre in Greenwich. Apparently there are already ‘advanced discussions with a nationwide builder’ going on, as part of a Section 106 agreement.

The Gallion guys don’t say where it’s going to be though they do say “within a few minutes walking distance on Greenwich High Road”, so I’m assuming it will be up the other end, nearer Deptford Bridge DLR, where all the demolition’s going on just now.

I’m told they need two things for this to happen – for Greenwich Council to approve this as a suitable 106 project, and to raise about £250,000 towards the cost (though I thought that was what 106s were all about…) Nick Raynsford (who, as we all know, is Mr Building Trade) thinks it’s doable through one-off capital cost applications. I’m not entirely sure what that is – I’m guessing it’s those things the government tried to tax a couple of months ago and had to U-turn on.

The details are sketchy at the moment – but if it comes off, I think this sounds exciting (and if it’s purpose-built it will be hard to turn into dormitories later…)

I don’t know – first a recital hall in Vanbrugh Hill, now a studio theatre – whatever next – an opera house in Millennium Village? A corps de ballet in Traf Road? Un salon de philosophie at Phantom Towers?

PS. If you lodged a complaint about Beds & Bars turning the Playhouse into a dormitory and your name isn’t here please let Galleon know: alice@galleontheatre.co.uk

…except the Greenwich Playhouse, that is.

You know, when I first heard that the owners of the now-ex-Greenwich Playhouse were closing it down, I was at first outraged. Then I made a mistake.

Now. I make a lot of mistakes, as any regular reader of this blog knows. I usually blush, admit my stupidity/naivity /ignorance and chalk it up to experience. That’s why I’ll never be a politician.

And here’s another prize Phantom boo-boo.

I decided to actually believe the Group Operations Director of Beds and Bars (who own the building), six months ago, when he went on record in The Wharf as being an outraged, deeply-hurt, hard-done-by landlord accused of something he’d never dream of doing. Go on, enjoy it – it makes entertaining reading now.

So – he didn’t want to cash in on the Olympics – heaven forbid! How could anyone…honestly - he was shocked at the thought. He wasn’t going to lose Greenwich’s Playhouse, he just wanted a more diverse programme than the one resident group, Galleon Theatre Company. Hell – he was going to put the show on right there and run it himself!

Okay, I thought. Fair enough, perhaps he just wants to branch out. Could actually be quite interesting, with a varied fare of new material. Cool.

So I – and many others – held back.

But a few weeks ago, it seemed they’d changed their tune:

Ex-Greenwich Playhouse landlords, Beds and Bars, have illegally embarked on building works to convert the theatre on Greenwich High Road into hostel facilities for backpackers attending the Olympics. They have not obtained planning permission and have been issued with a legal notice by the planning department at Greenwich Council instructing them to stop the conversion of the 20-year-old theatre space immediately. Ex-resident Galleon Theatre Company is urging its supporters to email Greenwich Council and Greenwich MP Nick Raynsford, to request that Beds and Bars are forced to comply with the law.

(Arts Professional)

I guess I shouldn’t have been so naive. The clue was in the name – it wasn’t Beds & Bars & Theatre, after all.

It’s not even as though they gave running the theatre themselves a go and realised it was going to fail – to my knowledge not one single show has gone on in the space since the Playhouse was closed.

It now seems that Beds and Bars HAVE finally applied for permission; I don’t know whether building work is ongoing, pending decision, or finished and they’re already back-packing ‘em in (despite the application still being in consultation).

Here is the application. I don’t know what you feel about losing a theatre and gaining a bunch of cheapo bunk beds instead, but I think what makes me most angry is the protestations of injured innocence on the part of Beds and Bars six months ago, throwing naive Phantoms like me off the trail, only to totally shaft us later on.

It’s still theoretically in consultation period. Just saying…

BTW I note that my link seems to be very slow on the application.

Here is a detailed account of how to object.

1. Please click on the following link (it may need copying and pasting) http://onlineplanning.greenwich.gov.uk/acolnet/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=71480

2. Click on ‘View on line form’ and on the next page select ‘if you do not have a reference number’, this will open up the brief Planning Objection form. Please remember, after adding your comments, to select under ‘options’ – OBJECT.

3. Other useful information: Application number: 12/1764/F. Case Officer Jacob Jaarsma Tel: 0208 921 5438; Jacob.jaarsma@greenwich.gov.uk

Sorry about the state of this photo – by the time I got round to taking it the light was failing; I’ll replace it as soon as possible, since the poor old thing needs to be recorded. This majestic lime on the corner of Vanbrugh Hill and Woolwich Road is on Death Row, is due for the ultimate punishment – chipping. It’s crime? Being in the way of developer’s greed.

Ha – thanks to Stephen I actually have a decent photograph now:

I had high hopes that the new Heart of East Greenwich (or whatever they’re calling it these days) would keep those nice wide pavements on Woolwich road that the old hospital had. Wide pavements are what make the difference between people taking their time to walk, shop and enjoy an area, and rushing through, slaloming through pushchairs and shopping trolleys, and just using the road as a thoroughfare. It’s one of the things that’s always bugged Traf Road – the pavements are too narrow to browse, to enjoy, to have tables outside – that’s why the King Billy pub is such a hard sell (though someone’s making a go of it I see…)

Sadly at the consultation last Saturday (did anyone know about this? I don’t recall hearing about it, but there’s much going on at Phantom Towers at the moment and I could have missed it I guess…) John (who took this picture for me, and apologises for the slight fuzziness) was told that it’s in the way of a building and is soon to be sawdust. I don’t care that they’re ‘going to plant a new one’ – it will be one of those daft  ’little’  trees that you almost don’t see, they’re so insignificant in comparison to this splendid, mature lime. It also means that Hadley Mace intend to build as close to the road as they’re allowed, creating mean little walkways instead of worthwhile places to be.

John also tells me that

While most units can apply for parking permits for street-level and underground parking facilities within the development, I was irked to discover up to 40 units (those townhouses along the top end of the development) can only apply for parking permits outside of the development – in other words there could be an additional 40 cars trying to park in Calvert Road. I don’t know if you’re aware of the parking problems already experienced in Calvert Rd, but due to the healthy Sunday trade at the Wing Wah restaurant (cnr of Calvert and Woolwich Rd), it’s nigh-on impossible to find a space at all on the day of rest. An additional 40 cars will clearly compound this problem.

I’m sure at some point there was talk that due to the congestion (and road danger) there already is around that juction, a good proportion of the accommodation would be designated ‘no parking space’ places – I didn’t realise that that meant you just applied for one in the next road instead. Of course ‘apply for’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘get’ but I suspect that it will be difficult for the council to discriminate between residents on the basis of postcode (or anything for that matter, and that’s as it should be.)

As I didn’t know about the consultation, I wasn’t there, but it sounds as though Hadley Mace are pushing their luck here – after all it’s easier to sell a house with a parking space than not and I suspect pressure was applied and the council, desperate for this development to take place, had to agree.

Whatever, HM plan to start properly within six to eight weeks and expect Phase One to be finished (the bit in green) in 2014, Phase Two (orange) in 2016 and Phase Three, complete with seven-storey tower (blue) in 2017. Hadley Mace claim the plans are available on the Greenwich Council website but all I’ve found is this.

I have mixed feelings about this. I, too, am desperate for the development to happen and for the great hole in East Greenwich to be healed, but I’m finding myself to be increasingly upset that corners are literally being cut here – just how hard would it have been to include a fabulous mature tree or two in the scheme, if nothing else for air, ecology and quality of life?

Okay – Paul’s been doing some digging about those signs on the new pier building and has discovered some interesting stuff.

Firstly F&Bs – their sign is up but Paul cannot find that they have applied for permission. He says ‘It is always possible there is some other permission for another building at a different address, before they called it the Promenade, but I don’t think so – they wouldn’t have applied for planning permission when they don’t know who the tenants are…’

However they have now applied, under the slightly-sinister-sounding ‘Restaurant D’ to retain the signage. I’m hoping that this PDF link will work; they don’t always, but if it doesn’t show it’s just a plan of the building + sign. It’s Sign B that is the massive one you see from the river. Here is the application – Their application is coded 12/0258/A.

If you’re planning to comment on the application it’s worth dealing with this as soon as possible because the application went in on 7 February and deadline for objections will stop VERY soon. And with the new greenwich rules you need 8 objections for the committee even to consider it.

Secondly Zizzi. They don’t have a sign up yet but they have applied for permission for one and at least they’re owning up to their name on their application, code 12/0307/A

Just because Zizzi’s signs aren’t up yet doesn’t mean they’re are going to be any less tacky or intrude any less on a classic Protected Vista (from Island Gardens to Greenwich) As Paul says, these signs UNDOUBTEDLY affect the setting of a listed building. He says, and I confess I agree, that this should go before English Heritage before it is even considered.

Remember, folks – each of these applications need at least 8 objections before it’s even discussed. If you don’t care for the signs, now’s the time to speak…

Mick asks:

“I’m looking to open an English style deli in the market sq area,but am getting problems from planners, got any advice on way forward, they think ones not wanted by locals,any help will be appreciated.”

The Phantom is slightly surprised. I thought that they were desperate to open shops there, despite the big fat question mark hanging over the whole area re.development.

At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck the proverbial, are you sure the usage of the store is allowed? I’ve noticed “A3 use will not be considered” on several leases there.

A3 normally refers to cafes and restaurants – the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises – or takeaways – the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises. Perhaps you intended to sell slices of hot roast beef or have a little tearoom at the back? That could be the problem.

It’s where several small cafes have fallen down – the glorious Royal Teas, for one. More recently, according to the sign in their window, the council have got sniffy about the Organic Cafe – and are forcing them to move opposite the cinema (where, frankly, I think they’ll do just fine – as soon as they fix that broken window – bad luck, guys…)

It does seem that the council wants to stop cafes (although I note they don’t seem to have come crashing down on any of the chains – presumably it’s easier to catch the small fish) but I wasn’t aware that they were preventing delis.

I guess what it would be useful to know is who these planners are. Are they Greenwich Hospital (who I presume own the shops) or the council? If it’s the council, then a letter to your councillor might be a good start, asking for exact reasons – it’s hard to know how to fight a vague refusal. I find their argument – that locals don’t want one – fishy – I can’t see tourists bringing their shopping bags ready to lug home mushy peas and Cornish pasties. Is this their written reasons?

If you’re asking whether locals would want one – well – do you, guys? I think if it’s well done, an English deli – especially if it includes local food, would be welcome. But that’s just me…

Actually, now I can’t see the signs in my head it may be that A2 use is the one that won’t be considered – that’s financial and professional services, including bookies (heavens) – which I would absolutely agree with. And looking at it further, it would seem that a deli, unless it served food, would count as A1 anyway.

Hell, I don’t know. But I’d say the first thing you need to do is get exact reasons for their refusal in writing. You can’t fight a phantom (and I should know )