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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rather more entrancing

Re "Entranced", I just unearthed pictures of the market's entrances taken just last year and I thought you might like to see them for comparison.

Here's the east end of Turnpin Lane:

Blighted by Frank the Yank's doors (not a problem when it was the Cricketers - see below) of course, but still a whole lot more inviting. Note the Greenwich Market sign above Frank's doors.

The Nelson Road entrance has Warwick Leadlay in place and the signs from hell missing:

Shame about the Teddy Bear shop - another victim of rising rents? Even in its closed state it still looks better than the Biscuit mess.

The College Approach entrance looks rather approachable:

Again, note the Greenwich Market sign between the two leftmost columns. A duplicate of the one above the Cricketers/Powder Monkey it helped people at the end of the street to spot the market. No misleading banner and no pall of greasy smoke either.

As promised, here's a picture of the Cricketers, with inward opening doors, before Frank the Yank got his hands on it:

Makes for a better entrance to the market, doesn't it?

By the way, how the hell did Frank the Yank get away with fitting outward opening doors?

Entranced

In one of yesterday's posts I remarked upon the difficulty visitors have finding Greenwich market. Having found it, however, they may still be put off bothering to enter.

Three of the five entrances to the market are off-putting in the extreme. Worst of the bunch visually is the east end of Turnpin Lane:

To the right, there is the horrid scaffolding narrowing the already confined entrance by almost one-half. To the left, Frank the Yank has had his bar fitted with outward opening doors which are locked open, narrowing the entrance still further. GSM complete the hostile picture by having no signage whatever. Would it occur to you to look for one of London's great markets here?

On the south side of the market is the slightly grand Nelson Road entrance. This looks to me like an original Joseph Kay feature, only slightly marred by the pipes and cables routed through it:

The let down here is the emptiness of the shops on both sides. Warwick Leadlay's fascinating shop should be on the left, but I understand they were unable to justify the price hike by Greenwich Hospital when their lease came up. By the by, you'd think Greenwich Hospital, given their naval connections, would have nurtured Warwick Leadlay. Not only was the shop stuffed with maritime prints, model ships, Nelsonia and the wonderful Warwick himself, but Anthony Cross, his business partner, is on the council of the 1805 Club, a charity for the preservation of Georgian naval monuments.

The all but empty Biscuit store on the right is going for the "under offer" longevity award. The shop has been cluttered with Biscuit's promotional material for ages, but there's still no sign of life. Completing the unhappy picture, visible through the arch in the centre, is GSM's "we're only open on Wednesday and we only sell food, so bog off" sign. No surprise there.

And finally, Kay's splendid but restrained north entrance:

Greenwich Hospital isn't doing the portico any favours at the moment by framing it with scaffolding. But that just makes it hard for people to find the market, it doesn't stop them going in. That honour falls to the dead hand of GSM.

I know you'll be getting a terrible feeling of déjà vu, but here it is again - that accursed sign. At the risk of repeating myself; this is not a food market and it isn't only open on Wednesday. This sign puts people off. For **** sake GSM - stop being so intransigent and get rid of these blasted signs.

What a fine fellow

Greenwich Hospital have invited Eric Reynolds, the director of USM and GSM, to submit a proposal for the structure to temporarily house the market while the "island site" is redeveloped. I'm sure Greenwich Market is in safe hands; Eric was recently honoured by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).

The RIBA Honorary Fellowships for 2008 were presented at the Royal Gold Medal and Fellowships Dinner on the 12th February. Honoured for "his major contribution as a client to the urban regeneration of London and to the conservation of historic buildings", none other than Eric Reynolds.

I'm certain we can look forward to an exciting structure that will not only satisfy every requirement of the Hospital, the World Heritage site, the Council and the market traders, but will also draw huge numbers of visitors to Greenwich to gaze in awe at its latest attraction.

Missing, presumed irrelevant

After an embarrassing first brush back in 2005/6 with the idea of town centre redevelopment which was noisily opposed and withdrawn, Greenwich Hospital regrouped to propose a more sympathetic plan.

In January 2007 the Key Stakeholder Consultative Group (KSCG) was set up by Greenwich Hospital to "provide a forum for consultation on a vision for the regeneration and improvement of the Hospital's core property within the World Heritage Site, in particular the Greenwich 'Island Site' - including the market". Chaired by the Member of Parliament for Greenwich, Nick Raynsford, its original members were:-

• Greenwich Hospital
• London Borough of Greenwich
• Greenwich Foundation
• National Maritime Museum
• Greenwich Town Centre Traders Association
• Urban Space Management
• Town Centre Residents
• Chamber of Commerce
• Greenwich Peninsula Partnership
• The Greenwich Society

The list of interests represented was brief but comprehensive. The first and second meetings went ahead and, as well as those interests above, were attended by:-

• Nelson Bakewell
• Hopkins Architects
• Communique
• Drivers Jonas (2nd meeting)

The sharp-eyed among those of you familiar with the market will notice a glaring omission - market traders. In spite of being one of the most potentially affected groups, no trader was invited to the meetings. According to the OFFICIAL Greenwich Market website, "Over 700 small businesses trade with us every year", so it's hard to believe the Hospital didn't think to include them.

I'm sure USM's founding (and only) director and KSCG representative Eric Reynolds was surprised to find no market traders' representative at the meetings and I assume only shock prevented him from expressing his outrage at this omission.

I am advised that the reason for there being no market trader at the meetings was that USM had informed the Hospital prior to the founding of the group that the traders were happy to be represented by USM. As far as I know, traders have still to find one other trader who had given their approval to USM's representation of them. No-one had been approached by USM for their approval. No market trader even knew that the KSCG existed until after the first meeting.

USM's claim to represent the market traders was indeed outrageous, but I doubt they were being truly duplicitous, Perhaps Eric was ill-advised by his people on the ground in Greenwich, though I'm quite sure Barmy wouldn't betray the traders and mislead his employer by suggesting that he had canvassed traders' opinion. In any event, I have no doubt that Eric would have been unaware of these shenanigans as he is a well-known admirer of designers and artists, which many traders at Greenwich still are.

Anyway, I'm delighted to say that when the situation was drawn to their attention, the KSCG immediately invited the traders to the table and their representative has performed the task with integrity and vigour.

Time flees

What's happened to the market clock? It hasn't worked since Christmas but now it's disappeared. Having a non-working clock in the market was risible anyway (given where we are I think visitors expect to be able to believe in the accuracy of our public clocks), so I don't understand why it was left in that state for months. Now it's gone with no word of explanation. One can only hope that someone's having it fixed and will replace it soon.

Earth calling USM

If you'd like a taste of how out of touch with the market Urban Space Management is, just take a look at their wonderful website (at http://www.urbanspace.com/greenwich_market.html).

The first line says:

The Royal Charter covered market is situated in the heart of London’s “Millennium Village” and has over two and a half million visitors a year.

That's odd - I thought the Millennium Village was in the Greenwich peninsula, nowhere near Greenwich Market.

Do watch the slideshow while you're at the website and indulge in a bit of nostalgia at all those traders, artists, goods and "Greenwich Market" signs that just aren't there any more.

The website is also a great place to get clued up on how many markets USM don't manage any more.