Greenwich Pier: remember everything looks a bit shiny when it is new

Since the unveiling of the newly-restored Cutty Sark in April, people have asked who was responsible for approving the new copper-clad wooden structures at the pier nearby. I plead jointly guilty, having been chair of the Planning Board (the rather grand title that Greenwich gives to its main planning committee) in 2007, when the new buildings were given planning approval.

(The ship itself is a different story: I sat on the board when the original glazing proposed around the hull was approved, but not the bulkier version and lift tower on the east side that ended up becoming necessary).

One of the hazards of having been Chair of the council’s Planning Board – particularly at a time when an economic recession started, which meant that many schemes which were given permission were then delayed by several years – is when schemes which you voted to approve on paper start appearing in bricks, mortar, concrete and glass. Sometimes the results are very pleasing and sometimes less so.

Take Greenwich Pier: a new set of buildings which has provoked strong reactions, some positive and some very negative indeed (see Greenwich.co.uk’s take on them at http://853blog.com/2012/04/16/cutty-sark-gardens-beauty-and-the-beasts-emerge/).

To be honest, the gold (actually copper) cladding on the wooden building looks a bit, well, “bling”.

The site is incredibly important to anyone who lives in, works in, or visits Greenwich, as the arrival point from the river (I once – many, many years ago – arranged to meet a date under the Cutty Sark’s figurehead – it seemed a good place to start the evening).

Yet when the plans for the pier were consulted upon, and approved, back in 2007 – after a site visit for the councillors before they made a decision, at the suggestion of yours truly – there was hardly a murmur of complaint, from local residents, English Heritage or the amenity societies.

The old pier buildings, apart from one piece of wall and railings (which are due to be re-erected elsewhere in the town centre, according to a planning condition we imposed) were of little historic interest. A Victorian weather-boarded shelter was carefully dismantled and  relocated.

The Cutty Sark’s masts look amazing when the spotlights are on – but the lift tower to the right of the ship has been less warmly received

What about the new buildings? Those people with little interest in “brass plate sheathing”, please look away now. But the story of the cladding on the building is worth telling in detail, as it reminds us that everything that looks old and weathered was once new, and patina cannot be ordered in advance.

The overall design of the pier proposal “sought to reflect the maritime history of the area, including the Cutty Sark ship”, said the application documents. “Below the waterline of its hull the Cutty Sark was originally sheathed with brass plate (indeed, a copper and zinc alloy commonly referred to a Muntz metal in recognition of its inventor). This was essentially an anti-fouling measure and consisted of small sheets which were nailed to the timber planks. At some point in its history this was replaced by another material known as Alumbro, which is an aluminium, zinc, copper alloy. The Weathered Tecu ‘brass’ [on the pier building] is similar to the new material currently being used to clad the hull of the Cutty Sark itself, as an alternative to the Muntz copper/zinc alloy that was originally used to clad the hull,” I am told by the council’s planning department.

So, the light bronze-coloured copper cladding to the first floor of the pavilion may look a bit bright and vulgar for now, but is similar to what clad the hull of Cutty Sark when she was first launched – and apparently it has already started to weather and darken (it won’t turn blue/green like copper does).

The other bone of contention has been the signage of the chain restaurants in the new pier building, which had not obtained planning permission in all cases and which, I am pleased to see from the Greenwich Society’s latest newsletter (http://www.greenwichsociety.org.uk/docs/2012_May_GSoc_Newsletter_Low_resolution.pdf ), has already been removed at the council’s instigation. My colleague Matt Pennycook (Labour councillor for Greenwich West ward, which covers the town centre) summarises the position helpfully at http://matthewpennycook.org.uk/?p=255.

Some people object to having any chain restaurants there at all. I am not so sure. Surely there is room for lots of places to eat and drink in the town centre, and chain restaurants do deliver predictable quality and value to families on a budget. To object in principle to having the likes of Nando’s , Zizzi’s and Frankie and Benny’s in Greenwich town centre strikes me as snobbery.

I don’t think Greenwich is currently dominated by international restaurant chains – indeed the dominant presence is the Inc Group (http://www.greenwich-inc.com ), a family-owned business which owns no fewer than seven pubs and restaurants in Greenwich. But I hope the council’s action shows that the signage rules are being applied even-handedly to everyone, regardless of their financial clout.

Seren Park and Maze Hill station: the path to nowhere carries on…

The Seren Park flats are just feet away from the platform of Maze Hill staiton – but residents have to walk on a detour of hundreds of metres to get there

How long does it take to remove a padlock on a gate? At Maze Hill station it is taking three years and counting.

That is how long it has taken residents of Seren Park (the new development on the south side of the railway) to get the direct access to Maze Hill station they were promised when they rented or bought their flats. The delay is causing huge frustration to the residents of Seren Park, who have to walk on a long detour via Vanbrugh Hill to get to a station platform just a few feet from their block of flats. it has also caused problems for residents of Tom Smith Close next door, who have seen holes appear in their fence and are not used to their cul-de-sac being used as short cut to the station.

Those who read my post of December 1st last year, or who have read elsewhere that Network Rail had reached agreement with the developer back in February over payment for “access rights” to the station, may be wondering why the gate is still padlocked shut, despite lots of lobbying by residents, all three councillors for Blackheath Westcombe ward and local MP Nick Raynsford.

One reason is the wait for an Oyster card reader to be installed – we were told in March that this could take six weeks, which expire later in April. Ominously, Network Rail and Southeastern have muttered about further delays after that – which does not tally with what Network Rail said in mid-February, when their chief executive David Higgins wrote to local MP Nick Raynsford to say that “agreement has now been reached” between Network Rail and the developer, that getting a legal document finalised was just a formality, and that the path could open as soon as an Oyster card reader was in place.

GLA Member Len Duvall and I have asked Southeastern (and Transport for London, which supplies the Oyster readers) to confirm that the path will be opened as soon as it is installed, and to hurry up. I hope that residents can be reassured that once the Oyster Card reader is in place the gate can open immediately.

In the meantime, it would be helpful for any residents concerned to join us in asking Network Rail, Southeastern and the developer Urban Solutions what on earth is going on, why the Oyster  Card reader wasn’t installed months ago, and when the gate will finally be unpadlocked. If you want to do so via me, please do so at alex.grant@greenwich.gov.uk and I will be happy to pass emails on.

Local people have been very patient and have been treated shabbily. I will keep the pressure up until this gate is finally opened.

John Roan school – work finally begins

After many years of discussion – and a possible move to the Peninsula which won planning approval but was halted by tightened safety rules over the gasometer near the site – work on rebuilding John Roan School’s Westcombe Park Road site has begun.

Work there to lay the foundations for temporary classrooms at the back of the Westcombe Park Road site has now started. The new classrooms should arrive in March 2012, with demolition of the current building starting in July 2012 – just as the Olympics start – at the end of the summer term.

Over at Maze Hill, work to refurbish the current building and remove the existing temporary buildings will start in November 2012 – with the southern half of the building done first, then the northern.

Work on both sites should be completed by September 2014, allowing the school to open in its new buildings at the beginning of the 2014/15 school year.

A consultation group is being stablished by the school to ensure that neighbours in Wycherley Close, Westcombe Park Road, Vanbrugh Fields and other local streets are not unduly effected by noise, traffic or disruption. If any residents living near the school have questions about the council’s role in the project, or wish to be put in touch with the consultation group, please mail me at alex.grant@greenwich.gov.uk.

I was at a meeting of governors and staff at the school in February and images of what the new building on Westcombe Park Road will  look like have generally been welcomed by students, parents and neighbours, so I hope it does not disappoint when it is completed. And at Maze hill the proposed new uses of the courtyards look stunning.

Greenwich Park Olympic Events

You read it here last, as this story has been “blogged to death”, but Greenwich Council’s Planning Board voted to approve the planning application for the Olympic events in the park in 2012 on Tuesday March 23rd, by 10 votes to 2.

I normally chair these planning board meetings but was not there on this occasion as I work part-time for the local MP Nick Raynsford, who had expressed firm views on the application, and did not want to create any impression on bias. That said, I have kept an open mind and have been listening carefully to a wide range of views, from vigorous support to outright opposition, for the last two years since Greenwich was chosen as the likely venue for the equestrian events.

What is most interesting is that at the meeting, I am told, there were almost equal numbers of speakers both for and against the events. The council has also imposed strict conditions, such as a full “reinstatement plan” for the park and Circus Field to be finalised before any work can start, and a consultative forum to be set up so local people can be fully involved.

It is crucial in my view that this is not just a talking shop – and that the opportunity is seized to make sure that arrival of the Olympic events can be used as a spur to move coach parking off Duke Humphrey Road and turn it into a grassy area welcoming people from the Park to the Heath, not a sea of tarmac.

This is one bit of legacy that is firmly within our grasp, and which has wide support from the Blackheath society, Westcombe Society, and other groups and individuals who may have had strong reservations about the Olympic events in general, but are now willing to work to make the events work to bring long-term benefits for Greenwich – and Blackheath.

Alex Grant

St John’s Park: gothic masterpiece or overflow car-park?

Pat, David and I (the three Labour candidates for Blackheath Westcombe ward) visited St John’s Park last Saturday to see the parking problems that residents have been reporting to us.

The road is one of my favourites in Blackheath, going from the motorway to the Heath with some very fine Victorian buildings (mostly converted into flats) – some red brick and other larger ones in yellow brick. It has an intriguing feature in that it goes round St John The Evangelist church, which is a glorious traffic island of Ragstone gothic at the junction with Stratheden Road.

Less romantically, the road also functions as an overflow car park for the shops and offices in the Royal Standard area, and Blackheath and Westcombe Park railway stations, as parking on St John’s Park is uncontrolled.

The council, responding to residents’ concerns, has just surveyed people living and working here and on Old Dover Road about possible changes to the rules to allow people to park here short-term to visit the shops, but discourage all-day parking by commuters. It will be a careful balancing act to ensure there are spaces available for residents and visitors, without making it impossible for shoppers to park short-term, but I hope the council gets it right.

Alex Grant

“Open Source”? – an Open Question

As well as being a Labour councillor for Blackheath Westcombe ward I have, since 2006, chaired the council’s planning board (the rather grand name for the planning committee – not my idea!). I also chair two of the council’s three area committees which deal with smaller applications – the planning board being reserved for larger developments.

Planning committees are a useful testing ground for any councillor, as they normally attract more members of the public than any other kinds of council meeting. In Greenwich, any application that has two or more objections, or is not refused by staff in the planning department as being contrary to policy, comes to an area planning committee for decision.

Area planning committees are multi-party, are not subject to a political whip. Councillors do not vote on party lines but on the basis of planning law. The committees meet monthly, make their decisions in public, and any objectors are allowed to speak for up to three minutes before councillors reach a decision on each application.

Of course the planning process, and these area committee meetings, can be slow and time-consuming – democracy always is. Sometimes planning applicants see it all as too bureaucratic. But on the whole, people who come into contact with the process like it, and even if the committee does not agree with their views, in most cases they feel they have had a fair hearing.

So I am instinctively wary of any politicians who claim that the current planning system is broken and needs major reform.

The Conservative Party has just published a “Policy Green Paper” on Planning, rather oddly entitled “Open Source Planning”. It argues that planning policy should be made more flexible, or “Open Source”, like computer software: as if Planning Law was first invented in someone’s garage in California, presumably. As well as some familiar polices, such as abolishing regional planning strategies (a bit difficult in London, where nearly everyone agrees that the Mayor should retain some London-wide planning powers), there are some unexpected new ones.

For example, the Conservative’s approach to changes of use of existing buildings.

In the last two weeks I have had a deluge of emails about plans to convert a former off-license on Stratheden parade to a takeaway. Under the council’s current policies, units can be changed from takeaways or restaurants back into shops without the need for planning permission, but for sensible reasons planning permission is needed the other way around, to change a shop into a restaurant or takeaway. The council also has policies in place to prevent there being too many takeaways, restaurants, or other non-retail uses in any given area.

The Conservatives seem to see all this as unnecessary bureaucracy, arguing in their Green paper that

“We will amend the Use Classes Order so that people can freely (i.e. without planning permission) change the use of buildings within a range allowed by the local community in its local plan. We will retain the current categorisation of uses (and start with an explicit assumption that all current approved existing uses are legitimate), but allow councils to specify in their local plans the kinds of use they are content to permit for the buildings and land in each given part of their area.”

The paper continues:

We anticipate that most local communities will take the opportunity offered by such Flexible Zoning to adopt a significantly more relaxed approach to changes of use of existing buildings. For instance, they might say that buildings within a particular area can be used for any purpose except general industrial use, or that a street can be used for any kind of retail or service provision.”

If such an approach was made mandatory, local councils could be powerless to stop changes of use from shop to takeaway, and no planning application would even be required. Far from giving more power to local communities and their elected councillors, the Tory proposals would take power and responsibility away.

Local MP Nick Raynsford has given his own verdict on this green paper in the Local Government Chronicle (Interest declared: I work part-time in Nick Raynsford’s Westminster office).

Suddenly, the current planning system – which is far from perfect of course – doesn’t seem so bad after all.

Alex Grant