Wobbly Jowell

It's hardly news that Greenwich Park has been slated by the Olympic powers-that-be for the equestrian events in 2012. Good thing/bad thing? Probably bad for many residents and park lovers. Could be good for Greenwich businesses - if only fleetingly.

Well the whole thing's up in the air again - like everything in Greenwich at the moment. Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister, has called for an investigation into the viability of the park as an equestrian venue (click here to see the Guardian's report of the 29th August), among others.

Anyone considering a redevelopment in Greenwich at the moment may be somewhat influenced by the uncertainty.

Post haste

Having commented on the appalling state of the market due to its pigeon population, I expected the usual reaction - nothing.

Imagine my surprise at hearing reports that the post featured in my previous comment has been cleaned and the floor around it disinfected.

I'm looking forward to the installation of bird spikes in the very near future.

Play "Dodge The Droppings" at Greenwich Market!

For a long time now, one of Greenwich Market's greatest attractions for visitors and traders alike have been daily games of "Dodge The Droppings".

The market's population of flying rats have always been a wonderful source of entertainment, but that joy is reaching new heights now that the management no longer take any action to reduce their numbers.

The posts that visitors pass on entering the market bear witness to the pigeons' active bowels and the management's neglect.

...and here's a close-up of the top:-

Here are a few facts about feral pigeons:-

• Feral pigeons carry significantly more diseases that are harmful to humans than the brown rat. Over forty diseases can be passed from feral pigeons to humans.
• The best-known infectious disease passed from birds to humans is psittacosis, which has symptoms similar to pneumonia and typhoid fever and is caused by the bacterium Chlamydophila psittaci.
• Feral pigeons have been shown to transmit cryptococcosis, histoplasmosis and bird flu.
• Other examples of potentially infectious diseases transmitted by pigeons are salmonella and tuberculosis.
• Feral pigeons are a source of allergens, which can cause respiratory illnesses like pigeon fancier's lung and allergic skin reactions. It is possible for these illnesses to be spread to people through contact with pigeon droppings, feathers, pigeon parasites, or where dead infected pigeons get into food or water sources.
• Spores from pigeon droppings can be carried on the wind and inhaled as dust, causing a flu-like illness in healthy people and posing serious problems to those with low immunity.
• Droppings not only cause buildings to look unsightly, but can also cause long-term damage.
• The presence of pigeon droppings, particularly when wet, can contribute to pedestrian accidents on pavements. Many stone and cobbled surfaces are particularly badly affected when wet.

Property owners have a duty to act if the roosting of birds is causing a nuisance or health hazard from their droppings. Greenwich council can serve an abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ordering the removal of the mess. Why they haven't done so yet is a bit of a mystery.

I'm sure the council won't turn a blind eye to this forever, so perhaps GSM should ask their lessor to take action as soon as possible.

Thank you Greenwich Hospital

I don't often offer thanks here, but in only a couple of months the scaffolding (see "Market? What market?") is coming down. The core of the holiday season may have been blighted by the unintentional concealment of the market, but the newly patched and painted buildings do look the business.

Could this be taken as a sign that GH is leaning towards the preservation of what we have over the "redevelopment"?

The signs they are a-changing

Firstly, I apologise to followers of my "Signs" posts, who must have thought I'd lost interest in the topic .

Secondly, I really must apologise to GSM for not recognising their outstanding effort in erecting new banners.

It's just such a pity that they're crap. For a visitor to get the full message they must walk the length of the centre aisle, eyes up, reading every sign. What dingbat came up with that idea? A visitor, who had walked from one end of the market to the other, was heard to say "What a pity they don't have any signs to tell us when it's open".

I know it's a dreadful challenge to appreciate the obvious way to do things, but previous management saw the light and I duplicated their solution on this very blog. Something like this:

at each entrance would do a much better job.

A load of cobbles

Has anyone noticed how badly the cobbles are deterioating these days? The mortar between the stones has eroded so badly that there are holes an inch deep between them.

A young woman was seen extracting the heel of her broken shoe from the cobbles on Saturday. It's only a matter of time before the cobbles' condition results in a broken bone.

There are now so many damaged areas that an injury is inevitable. Whoever is responsible for maintenance can expect to be sued before too long. No doubt GSM will be the first to pass the buck, but they really should chase up the repairs as a matter of urgency.

Hotel de Fumer

And another thing...

If you were a potential investor in the boutique hotel and you came to see the site, just how put off would you be by the pall of greasy smoke generated by the market?

For the Hospital's sake, I hope they only come to visit on the three days when the market's shut.

Boo-hoo boutique

An operator for the boutique hotel that is intended to form part of Greenwich Market's renovation is being actively sought on behalf of Greenwich Hospital. On Christie & Co's website (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/markets/hotels2/instructions/)they say:

Greenwich Hospital has instructed Christie + Co to secure a professional hotel operator for a boutique hotel opportunity in the heart of its exciting planned regeneration of Greenwich Market.

The proposed project will see the transformation of Greenwich Market into an upscale leisure destination, whilst retaining the essential character and historical context of the market.

The completed scheme will see the creation of a new, modern market, additional office space as well the boutique hotel.

Greenwich Hospital is seeking an operator to partner the planning application for the hotel, which will be submitted by the middle of this year, and also to operate the completed property.

Since February, Christie & Co have had a document available giving an outline of the proposal (http://www.christiecorporate.com/ccc/pdf/Greenwich.pdf). It contains some information that may make a potential investor run away when they know the transportation truth that afflicts Greenwich. The document states:

Ideally located in the heart of Greenwich, the completed hotel will benefit from easy access to a number of high-profile corporate and leisure business generators, including the O2 Arena and Canary Wharf.

and:

Greenwich is located approximately five miles south east of the City of London. Benefitting from excellent public transport links, via the Docklands Light Railway from Cutty Sark station, Greenwich has easy access to Canary Wharf and London’s underground system.

Easy access to Canary Wharf? Via the Docklands Light Railway? You can tell they don't spend a lot of time trying to get from one side of the river to the other on these "excellent public transport links", can't you? To my knowledge the DLR service has been appalling for years - and I see no sign of it improving this side of eternity.

No Ben

Another post prompted by a commenter:

Is Ben yesterday's news now?

Certainly not. I have good news and bad news. First the good news:

• Alex is back! HOORAAAAAAY!!

And the bad news:

• Ben isn't.

Please carry on commenting on the original post at "Ben" about his shafting.

A spark of inspiration

In a comment on "If you can't stand the heat...", Anonymous said:

Whistler could we possibly have a section regarding the electrics on the Market. If I remember rightly it was a trader who wired us all up in exchange for free rent, unfortunately this trader was not qualified in electrics in any way. I thought that all major electrical work in business premises had to be carried out by a registered Part B electrician?

This is going to be a bit dull, but bear with me.

Upon the abolition of the power bars (which had become grossly hazardous themselves) it became a requirement that individual extension leads must be used to carry power from the new boxes by the roof columns to each stall. Extension leads were kindly made available for purchase from the market office for a very reasonable cost and many traders bought them.

Unfortunately they were all wired incorrectly, were electrically unsafe and downright dangerous. As my commenter says, they were assembled by a trader who received a generous rent concession in return. That the trader was of a more artistic than practical bent was regrettable.

I think most of us know the most basic principle of wiring a plug (and also an extension socket) - get the right wire in the right place. The arty sparks can't be faulted on that one. There is more to it than that though. Three more essentials for correct wiring when making up an extension are:-

1. No bare wires should be visible in the plug/extension socket - the bare wires should be hidden by the retaining screws. the retaining screws should be screwed down firmly.
2. The cable should be securely held in place by the cable-clamp - the clamp should hold the outer cable and the inner wires should not be visible outside the plug/extension socket.
3. The earth wire should be longest of the three so that it is the last to be disconnected if the cable is pulled from the plug/extension socket.

The first point was mostly covered. The second was sometimes fine, sometimes not with the clamp not always bearing on the outer sheath. The big failing, especially bearing in mind the patchy application of the second point, was the third. In all cases examined, the shortest wire in the extension sockets was the earth. This was due to a failure to understand wire routing in an extension socket, an apparent inability to look at the simple picture in the socket showing you what to put where and a total incomprehension of the function of the earth in electrical safety.

So, for the sake of saving a few quid on an electrician or other suitably qualified person, traders have been using unsafe equipment sold to them by GSM.

If you're a trader and still have one of these leads, please get it checked by someone who knows their live from their neutral.

A warm welcome

Following my posts about USM's insistence that their tent can't be heated, I decided to seek the advice of those in the know. I emailed some professional companies in the field of temporary structures:

Subject: Heating temporary structures

I am investigating proposals for a temporary structure to accommodate a market for up to three years.

Only one proposal has been submitted for consideration so far and I am concerned that some of the information that has been given may be incorrect. It has been stated that the structure cannot be heated as it would be problematic and illegal. Specifically, we have been told:-

"a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures"

"it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure"

"heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly"

Can I please ask you to comment on these assertions as I believe them to be incorrect and I am concerned that the wrong supplier may be selected.

Thank you in anticipation

Without identifying the companies, I thought you'd like to see the two responses I've received thus far. The first is pretty definite about USM's position and would be keen to help (my asterisks to preserve confidentiality):

Thank you for your ****** and ********* enquiry and for showing interest in ****** Limited. Please be reassured that it is not illegal to heat a temporary building be it insulated or non-insulated - although obviously not practical to heat a non-insulated building!

We have attached a copy of our brochure that illustrates how our multipurpose buildings can be used to create instant space for a variety of applications. Thanks to the robust modular design, our temporary buildings have the versatility of extending/reducing in size or being totally re-locatable in keeping with our client’s requirements and needs.

This is further enhanced with the flexibility to hire or buy a building; there is no minimum or maximum hire period and there is a sell back option available. Our temporary and permanent structures are available for hire or sale in both the UK and overseas. Our buildings are available in 5m modules for both width and length, with eave heights of 4.2m, 5.2m and 6.2m.

We would like the opportunity to work with your company, if you think you have a requirement for a temporary building and would like to discuss the options available to you please do contact us.

The second company is just as positive about heating, and also gives some helpful planning advice:

The situation is that it is definitely not illegal to heat temporary structures - we do it all the time. However if you are talking about getting planning permission for a temporary structure to be up for anything over 2 years, it needs to conform to building regulations. This is where it falls down. Most temporary structures cannot keep the heat retention that is required to satisfy these regulations. However if you were to apply for 2 years, then there is no problem. If you are using a planning consultant perhaps he can advise the best route to go - perhaps apply for 2 years and then extend for 1 year.

I would be pleased to speak to you about this and also to give you a cost to supply you with a proposal if that was possible.

So there you have it. Let's see what excuse USM can come up with next time the subject is raised.

Accountability update

A very brief update to my "Accountability" post.

I've just been going over GSM's financial statements for the year ending 31st December 2006, the latest filed as yet. Note 11 (Commitments under operating leases) states:

The company is committed to the payment of rent to Greenwich Hospital at £200,000 per annum plus a turnover based supplement dependent on certain performance criteria. The rent commitment ceases in March 2012.

Just thought you'd find it interesting.

Compensation

I've been thinking. My conclusions are probably wrong as I haven't heard anyone else voice them, but I hope you'll indulge me.

The one fact I have, which started my addled thinking, is this: the shop owners within the market whose leases have extended beyond the start of the redevelopment have either been bought out or otherwise compensated for their trouble. Similar arrangements must also be in place for leaseholders of other properties on the island site.

This thought led me to two propositions, the first unconnected with the market's future, the second more interesting to market folk.

First, could this explain why Frank the Yank has acquired as much property as possible on the island site? He already had the Admiral Hardy and the INC bar before the redevelopment news first emerged. Since then he has added the Coach and Horses, the W Lounge (ex Powder Monkey) and George II to his portfolio. Say what you like about Frank, he's a very shrewd businessman.

Second, who is probably one of Greenwich Hospital's more significant leaseholders? Step forward GSM/USM, who hold the market's lease. The disruption caused to the market by the redevelopment will be huge. The current lease runs from 1997, when I would guess a clause about redevelopment would be unlikely, to 2012. I find it inconceivable that the leaseholders won't be in line for generous compensation for their trouble. In fact, I imagine they would be due an even greater wedge if the market had to be shut down altogether.

Given their behaviour of late I find it most unlikely that GSM/USM will have their lease renewed in 2012, so perhaps it may be to their advantage were the market to fail to be relocated and have to be closed down. Eric Reynolds is also a very shrewd businessman.

All change

Just when you thought things were gathering pace on the relocation, one of the major players delivers a slap in the face. I'm referring, of course, to Greenwich Council's announcement that they probably won't allow the market to move temporarily to Cutty Sark Gardens (CSG).

Right from the start, CSG has been the preferred relocation site. It's big enough, not far from the original site, on the tourist route and adjacent to the existing retail area. A bit exposed, yes, but with a professionally designed structure in place of GSM's tent it should be viable.

This decision is a complete surprise and a significant kick in the teeth for everyone from Greenwich Hospital down. So what's going on? The council have been involved in the redevelopment decision-making process from the start, so why throw a spanner in the works now?

I reckon some bean-counter in the council has just figured out that they can make more money from other uses, so to hell with the market. Many of their decisions over the years have undermined the market's viability (relocating coach parking to the top of Greenwich park was a real killer), so they're clearly not fans.

In recent years their contempt for the market has become obvious - there now seems to be a market on at CSG every weekend. Presumably there's more money in those rents than the Hospital has offered so far.

Accountability

First a tiny apology - I forgot about this follow-up. I mentioned in an earlier post, "A candidate for promotion", GSM's promotions budget of £30,000 for 2007. I thought you might be interested to see the 2007 budget giving the totals for all categories of income and expenditure. All the figures are net of VAT.

PROJECT INCOME
TOTAL RENT AND FEES	752197
PROJECT COSTS
Service Charge	30000
Building Insurance	1500
Business Rates	31800
Water/Sewerage Rates	1620
Public Liability Insurance	5400
Electricity	5400
Equipment hire	18396
Office phones	2400
Legal	0
Securicor	1800
Office PPS/Sundries	5400
Bank Charges	2400
Maintenance	6000
Market Supervisor	79002
Staff Labour	68347
Other Labour	24413
Stall Cleaners	9807
Holiday Cover	1584
Promotions	30000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS	325269
PROFIT/(LOSS)	426928

Some of these numbers have me scratching my head somewhat, and wondering what may be possible. I'm sure I can count on my readers for some illumination.

If you can't stand the heat...

I'm sorry the promised toilet pictures aren't ready yet - it's surprisingly hard to operate a computer while retching constantly. It'll be done soon and I'll post an update then.

In the meantime I feel the need to resurrect "A heated debate". When I made that post I was unaware that there had been a second CLG meeting, which took place on the 1st July. Eric Reynolds and John Burton missed the meeting, so the hapless Chris Smith was left to restate the dodgy company line. Here's an extract from the minutes:

It was stated that a heating solution for the temporary market was essential. It was commented that heating the tented structure would breach building regulations, would be environmentally unfriendly and would be costly. The current market was not heated and it was thought that the retail units proposed to surround the market tent would provide a barrier to the elements.

Again I ask (and I'm afraid I'll have to shout this time): What building regulations would heating the tent breach?

I know tent heating isn't the most critical issue facing the market, but USM's response to enquiries on the matter gives an indication of why many are deeply uneasy about them having any involvement in the market's future.

Hi Jean

I apologise for seeming to do nothing much this weekend, but I'm actually very busy.

I was asked in "Smoke gets in your eyes..." if I have any pictures of the toilets. Well yes, actually, I do. However, they are truly gross and I'm not too happy to have them at the top of this page.

I'm trying to set up a whole new section of this blog for such delights and I hope you'll bear with me while I struggle to get it working.

Tumbleweed

I do worry about this market. I'm sure everyone, from traders to local visitors, will have observed how much quieter it is now. Is there a recession? No, but there may be one on the way. Traders need to encourage customers to patronise them however they can. GSM needs to promote the market and encourage their customers - traders - to take stalls and pay rents.

It I were GSM I'd be worried indeed. Last Sunday there were twelve spreads (a trader taking an extra table that would otherwise be empty), the Sunday before thirteen, the Sunday before that ten (including one over three tables). This is at the peak of the tourist season.

I make that a loss to GSM of £1,800 over three days. Some spreads may have been permanent traders taking a day off, mitigating the loss somewhat with their half rent, but still...

On top of Old Smokey

This is a follow-up to "Smoke gets in your eyes..." which rather than relegating to a comment I think deserves its own space. I have been given the minutes of the first Market Trader Representative Meeting held on the 20th April 2008. GSM/USM were represented by Barny, Patrycja, Ben and John Burton.

Item 3 concerns the new Wednesday market.

The traders asked: Can we cook on site?

GSM/USM replied: This will depend on the individual e.g crepes or bain marie or microwave ok. No smelly or smoky activity allowed, nor a common seating area. Individual seats at stalls allowed.

I repeat; No smelly or smoky activity allowed.

So why the change? And if they didn't find it acceptable for Wednesdays, why is it now allowed on every trading day?

There's a new old joke doing the rounds in the market: How can you tell if the market managers are lying? Their lips move.

A heated debate

As many of you know, USM's proposal for the temporary relocation of the market and shops revolves around a tent on Cutty Sark Gardens. This is, I believe, the same tent USM Supremo Eric Reynolds offered to Greenwich Gateway for the millennium. Presumably it will have survived its nine years in storage well and will have the desired "wow factor" when unveiled next year. I'll have more to say on this later; for now I want to confine my comments to the issue of heating.

From the beginning, when the traders found out they were expected to do business in a tent by the river, it has been their contention that the tent must be heated in winter. Given the exposure of the location, this was always a requirement for traders and the comfort of customers.

Throughout the various meetings that the traders had with Greenwich Hospital and others it was always a given that the tent would be heated. Kate Jaconello, Nick Raynsford M.P., and Councillor Maureen O'Mara have all made the heating a sticking point. In meetings, Eric Dolby and Martin Sands of Greenwich Hospital have expressed their agreement with traders over the matter.

In the minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 19th November 2007, at which Eric Reynolds represented USM, it was noted that:

The market would be housed in a tented structure that would be suitable to meet the requirements of the stallholders, e.g. heating, access, lavatories.

For some reason Eric Reynolds has been heard to hum and haw subsequently about the heating issue. The minutes of the KSCG meeting of the 28th April this year make Eric's objections clear:

There were some concerns about the operational aspects of the tented structure. This included concerns about servicing, security, heating, sanitation, water supply and health & safety. In addition it was pointed out that having both ends of the tent open to the elements could create a wind tunnel effect through the structure.

It was commented that a temporary structure would be difficult to heat and in addition it was illegal to heat temporary structures. It was suggested that the entrances could be arranged such that a wind tunnel was not created.

Eric gave further voice to his objection to heating at the first meeting of the Community Liaison Group (CLG) on the 10th June, where he revealed the glorious tent to a wider audience. According to the minutes:

It was questioned whether the tented structure would be heated or not. It was commented that it was not practical to heat an un-insulated structure aside from the fact that it is against building regulations to heat a temporary structure.

Illegal, indeed? Against building regulations? Who says? Have you been a naughty boy again, Eric? As the recipient of one of their honours, surely you could have asked one of your RIBA contacts for clarification before trotting out this line again. You might even have asked one of the architects who are always present at KSCG meetings. Failing to check your assertion that it's "illegal to heat temporary structures" and "against building regulations", when both are false, makes it look like you're lying to the committees. As anyone who's ever been to an outdoor event in the inclement months knows, temporary structures are heated all the time.

Five minutes on Google with the search term "marquee heating" turns up loads of sites offering such a service and lots of advice. Further research unearths some genuine experts in the field of temporary structures. I recommend:

• GL events Owen Brown
  
• Temporary Structures UK
  
• A Structures
  

All would be delighted to provide a proper temporary structure; heated, cooled, lit, ventilated, insulated, secure, etc.

Note to Greenwich Hospital: Ditch Eric and his tent - surely this is important enough to get it done by professionals.