Morning:
8°c
Here are four words you don't much see, so make the most of them: God bless Greenwich Council.
On Wednesday night, its planning board voted unanimously to reject a scheme that would have torn down Greenwich's Victorian market, replacing it with a contemporary shopping precinct, modern market and 104-bedroom, five-storey hotel.
It would have doubled the area's built footprint and was rightly described as the "Bluewaterisation" of this precious World Heritage Site.
You may be surprised that such a wholesale transformation was ever a serious runner for the very heart of historic Greenwich.
In its current form, the market is thriving. It is rammed every weekend, a magnet for thousands.
The Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment, the Government's aesthetic watchdog, thought the new proposals "alien" and "awkward".
The International Council on Monuments and Sites said the design was "not convincing." The Environment Agency called it an "unacceptable risk to the environment".
Traders feared losing their livelihoods, with no assurances that they could afford to keep their places in the new development.
Nearly 900 people sent formal letters of objection to the council; just one wrote in support.
But the fact was that until Wednesday night, I and every other opponent of the plan thought it would go through.
The council's planning officers backed it. So did Nick Raynsford, the local MP.
Unforgivably, the Greenwich Society, our local so-called conservation group, became a cheerleader for the developers, appearing in publicity material, speaking in favour at this week's meeting, and describing the developer's PR effort as an "object lesson in how to gauge local opinion".
It was actually an object lesson in how powerful moneyed interests can co-opt all the local worthies into a proposal completely unsupported by the public those worthies are supposed to represent.
The Greenwich Society was flattered to be taken into the developers' confidence. Mr Raynsford - although quite a decent MP in many ways - here became an advocate for the developers to the public, rather than for the public to the developers.
But one set of representatives did not fail us. At Wednesday's meeting, I inwardly cheered an eloquent defence of the market from two of our three Labour ward councillors, Margaret Mythen and Maureen O'Mara.
Then, as councillor after councillor on the planning board itself lined up to savage the scheme - the council leader, Chris Roberts, saying it was "simply not good enough for the World Heritage Site", the Cabinet member for regeneration, Peter Brooks, speaking of his "grave concerns" - I realised, my mouth hanging slightly open, that here was a case of local democracy actually working as it should.
Today, SE10 is still rather stunned at its deliverance.
The local authority - named after Greenwich but not based here - has not always been a friend of our town, and this year, suddenly, much of what we think of as the essence of Greenwich has come under threat.
Another of our big markets has closed, the council has a loony plan to shut the Thames foot tunnel for months, and a battle royal looms over the scheme, fervently backed by councillors (and the Greenwich Society), to close much of Greenwich Park for 10 months to host the Olympic riding events.
But the rescue of the market may be part of a turning tide. All over the eastern half of London, brutal box schemes have been collapsing.
In May, after a campaign by the Friends of Queens Market, in Newham, Boris Johnson saved it - overturning the planning permission for a 31-storey tower granted by the local Labour council.
And the admirable OPEN Dalston group is resisting Hackney Council's ghastly plans to corporatise vibrant Dalston.
None of us are nimbys, clinging to a dying way of retail life. In truth, it is the likes of Queens Market and Greenwich Market that could be the only safe long-term future for town-centre retailing. It is now the corporate chains that could find themselves becoming high-street history.
Town-centre chain-shops are caught in a double vice: between the convenience of the web and the convenience of out-of-town retail parks.
The only way to save town centres in the long term may be to make them places where the visit is part of the fun, homes of the unpredictable and the unexpected.
The risk of the Greenwich scheme, and the Queens Market scheme, was not simply aesthetic.
It was that the economics of redevelopment would have forced the landlords, whatever their best intentions, to charge rents that traders selling the unpredictable and unexpected could not afford.
Cynics are saying today that Greenwich Council needed to clear the decks - with the Park Olympic decision coming up, it couldn't afford to anger its residents on too many fronts at once.
There are local elections next year. Maybe councillors looked at the objection letters (copies of which we circulated to them) and took fright.
But you know what, I think maybe our councillors are starting to get it about what makes a place, and that not all "regeneration" is necessary or good.
Perhaps they just looked at the plans and decided to do the right thing. Perhaps they just saw the artists' impressions and, like the rest of us, thought: "Ugh!"
I spend a lot of my working life lashing bad decision-making but I strongly believe in praising people when they get it right.
So well done, Greenwich councillors. Keep it up, and some of us might even vote for you.
Reader views (8)
Nice one, Greenwich Council and Andrew Gilligan. After developers ruined Spitalfields and Thameslink ruined Borough Market, I'm glad to see Greenwich Market resist a frankly awful regeneration idea.
- Vince, London SE3, 07/09/2010 15:16
Report abuse
We visited Greenwich market on a trip to the UK earlier this year and I couldn't believe they were going to tear it down! It's a fantastic place, the venue was awesome, the craft on offer really good quality.
I'm delighted to hear it's been saved, we'll be visiting again next year and the market is top of my list of places to visit!
- Natty B, Coogee, Australia, 07/09/2009 23:09
Report abuse
Well want to see Harts Corner, Smithfield where a new building was rejected because of the conservationist lobby - result it is still an area falling to pieces providing a nice home for rats that could en-danger the future of Smithfield Market.
The scheme was prsented by conservationists as a threat to the Central Market buildings the reality is these buildings were NOT part of the scheme so run down war damaged buildings (a V2 landed here in the war!) are left to blight an area where offices fit in.
As for this market like loads of things fads come and go and no doubt it will end up just selling the same tourist junk that the east end of Oxford has.
- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 01/09/2009 14:27
Report abuse
This decision was a triumph for common sense. Since moving to West Sussex it is clear that you need an articulate and persistent community to resist developments that are patently unsuited to their proposed location. Sadly Littlehampton is about to be ravaged by developers - again - with the willing co-operation of Arun District Council. Any London planner would laugh a multi storey car park out of town, but down here it appears in all the options. So m uch for choice.
- Flora Earl, Littlehampton West Sussex, 28/08/2009 16:13
Report abuse
"vibrant Dalston"? Eh? I work there and the whole place needs to be demolished. It's dirty, tatty and horrid.
You can't equate one campaign that may be genuinely in local interests and every other "save our high street from development" campaign in London - you don't automatically become in the right by opposing something. I didn't even know there was a group that opposed Hackney's plans to develop Dalston. Perhaps they enjoy the dirt?
- S T G, London, 28/08/2009 13:26
Report abuse
Why they even thought Greenwich needed to be "regenerated" in the first place I will never know. It's a lovely place and is always busy whenever I visit.
- Jo, London, UK, 28/08/2009 12:47
Report abuse
"It was actually an object lesson in how powerful moneyed interests can co-opt all the local worthies into a proposal completely unsupported by the public those worthies are supposed to represent."
Yes, you have put into words something that I have struggled to articulate coherently. The powerful moneyed interests did the same with the proposed supercasino - even going so far as to submit to the Casino Advisory Committee faked letters of support from significant local stakeholders - and they very nearly succeeded.
- Rachel Mawhood, Greenwich, London, UK, 28/08/2009 12:12
Report abuse
This is great news and your article helpfully explains the insidious way in which developers manipulate the planning process and local communities. Hope this sets a standard for other councils to be more brave.
- David, London, 28/08/2009 10:36
Report abuse
