Smithfield - the inquiry starts this week

[Nemesis]

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/23974/Smithfield-s-future-hanging-in-balance

Another article in the Observer today, rather garbled:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2204968,00.html

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org

has a great deal more info, as has this:

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/Core_docs/CD-25-1.pdf

 

[Nemesis]

And here are more pics, including Red House Cold Store, which I seemed to have played some sort of crucial role in having listed, and. despite the best attempts of the Nasty Developers to rubbish me and my research and have it de-listed, and a pretty long and involved load of historic and legal argument lasting over the past two years, (it's all on the Inquiry website if anyone has several hours to spare...) the DCMS has deferred any decision until next year. That's after I pointed out that the Nasty Developers have actully got a LBC application in for it, and according to PPG15 no application to delist can be considered while a LBC app is pending. So for all the Nasty Developers paying vast sums to City legal bods, they still c*ck it up...

http://www.ludgatecircus.com/smithfield_red_house.htm

 

[Nemesis]

http://londonist.com/2007/10/save_smithfield.php

And yes it is crunch time. Every objection counts, folks! Please do it...

 

[Finbarr]

I work not far from Smithfield and it must be one of the few parts of London that still feels old and full of history, and it's not full of chain shops or trendy winebars, etc. (Well, not too many, anyway !)

I will be adding my voice to the campaign and I'm glad you've done so much already and have brought this to our attention. Thanks.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, though you may wish to see what it is proposed that the General Market is replaced with, and the treatment proposed for the Annexe Market and (Grade II Listed) Red House;

http://www.persona.uk.com/smithfield/Core_docs/CD-26-7.pdf

All this in a conservation area too.

 

[DaveBrigg]

The new design reminds me of a multi-storey car park I sometimes used in Reading, although ironically it has now been demolished.

 

[Nemesis]

But it's going to be wonderful, according to those paid to say so...

Here's a short report on the opening salvo:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3099648&c=1&encCode=00000000013e341c


Yup.

 

[Nemesis]

Lat time I recall the Smithfield traders taking to the street's btw, was in support of a certain Mr Enoch Powell and his views on immigration.

Easily lead I fear...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_7080000/7080395.stm?ifs=1


CoL speak with forked etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/11/20/smithfield_feature.shtml?ifs=1

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12336

SAVE is also of course at the Inquiry, as a Rule 6 party. I suspect without the SAVE campaigning EH would not have been fighting this either, but...

 

[Nemesis]

Sir Simon Jenkins in the Groan, re St Pancras, Smithfield and Philistines...

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2208137,00.html


Headline:

Not just a building, but a joy to behold. Ken Livingstone must hate St Pancras


The station's rebirth is a slap in the face for the old-is-useless mob and all their claptrap about outdated structures

This very week, those acting under the aegis of these men have been arguing at a London public inquiry for the demolition of much of old Smithfield market to make way for more glass boxes. It is a bitter irony that they are fighting the same conservationist groups as fought to save St Pancras, employing the same claptrap about useless outdated structures.

If they lose, they will doubtless hail a conserved Smithfield, like Covent Garden, as "part of London's neighbourhood character" - and invite the Queen to open it. They will forget they fought to have it razed. London is governed by hypocrites. They drink champagne at St Pancras, then go out into the night to find another building to kick in the guts.

 

[Craig]

The joke is that the whole area is full of part empty 70s office blocks which are waiting for refurbishment. However, I guess the City of London doesnt own those...

 

[Nemesis]

It's really I think more about repair of the railway tunnels and palming off th costs.

 

[Craig]

Are the repairs required with the existing buidings left in situ?

Is the City required to pay or does it fall to TFL?

 

[Nemesis]

City. And it's about the crux of so much, and so many 'experts' saying black is white.

A brief report on this week:



A report on the first week of the Smithfield Inquiry from SAVE Britain's Heritage.

The public are welcome to attend the inquiry, which is being held on the 8th floor at Bankside House, 24 Sumner Street, London (directly behind Tate Modern).

The inquiry sits from Tuesday to Friday, 10am-5pm except Friday (9.30am-3.30pm)


The first week at the public inquiry into the proposed demolition of the 1880s General Market building at Smithfield, and a "facadectomy" (for want of a better word) of the 1890s Annex building and Grade II listed Red House Cold Store (the General Market buildings) has seen the battle lines set, attacks launched and defences set.

Following a discussion as to whether SAVE should be allowed to cross examine Thornfield and the City's engineering witnesses (Thornfield's QC, Mr Katkowski, generously conceded the point on the grounds that SAVE is a charity); opening statements were read by each of the four parties - Thornfield and the City on the one side, and SAVE and English Heritage on the other.

SAVE's opening statement focussed on the development being about profit, not need nor conservation, and English Heritage made the point that in 2002 the City could have sold the building for £8m (against a repair cost for the railway tunnels under the structure for £6m at that time)

Thornfield made the case that the railway tunnels under the structure are in such a precarious situation that they have to be taken down and a new deck erected - and the only way of doing that in the time table allowed by Thameslink works is through a large commercial development.

The City's opening statement made it quite clear that this is a special case - although the General Market buildings contribute positively to the conservation area (and so there is a legal presumption in favour of their preservation), the benefits of Thornfield's scheme for the travelling public are so great as to outweigh the loss of the buildings.

The order of evidence amongst the main parties is Thornfield, The City, English Heritage and the SAVE Britain's Heritage

Thornfield started their evidence with Mr Polisano of architects Kohn Pedersen Fox. He talked the inquiry through his designs for a seven storey office with shops and a public space on the ground floors (which are on two levels), and for the construction of four storeys within the retained walls of the Annex and listed Red House.

Mr Polisano was cross examined first by English Heritage's QC, Mr McCracken. This showed that retention of the existing buildings was no part of his brief, that the context for his new building was more the Farringdon Road than the Smithfield Conservation Area, and examined details of his design such as his "irregular" braces, "gruyere" screen and "stealth" roof. Mr Polisano mentioned that he had not really thought about other UK market halls while considering his new public space / market hall.

Mr David Cooper, for SAVE Britain's Heritage, aided by Mr David Smith QC cross-examined Mr Polisano on the nature of the materials he chose for the buildings and their relationship with the character of the conservation area, the longevity of the building, and his most recent set of changes to the design (this being his third scheme for the site).

The third day of the inquiry brought with it a request from SAVE for Network Rail to appear at the inquiry to explain, amongst other things, the nature of the timing of Thameslink and how this might impact any schemes above. Should they fail to appear SAVE will ask the Inspector to issue a witness summons.

Following this, Dr Steedman took the stand for Thornfield, on the engineering case for demolition. He noted that the deck structure the General Market sits on is in a poor state of repair, which he considers "unsafe", and that repair is not an acceptable option. He labelled one repair technique devised by Alan Baxter Associates (when acting for Thornfield) as "a waste of time" and pulled the "old foundations" trick.

Dr Steedman was cross-examined first by English Heritage. He stressed that the deck structure was "clearly unsafe" in spite of their being no visible signs of collapse, and that the lower flange fixings were the elements in worst condition. The cross-examination sought to show that the question of timing the works to coincide with Thameslink was a way for the City to save money rather than a matter of necessity, and then demonstrated that the degree of uncertainty about the works needed to demolish and replace the buildings and deck structure would mean that the works would extend beyond 2009.

On the fourth day of the inquiry Mr Cooper for SAVE cross-examined Dr Steedman. This affirmed that the responsibility for the deck was the City's, not Network Rail's, that the deck structures were in their current state through neglect, and had they been maintained properly they would be perfectly serviceable. Mr Cooper focussed Dr Steedman on the question of safety - if the tunnels were so dangerous, why are trains running through them?

Mr Cooper then took Dr. Steedman on to Network Rail's position, as stated in their only communication to the inquiry, from which it was clear that there was extra time after 2009 for works to the decks (meaning repair could be an option), that Network Rail did not appear especially interested in the nature of those works (ie repair or replacement), that safety was not mentioned as an issue in the letter (in spite of Dr Steedman's assertions), and that if repair was truly pressing, Network Rail would have drawn up their own alternative scheme for the decks the buildings sit on, given the number of obstacles the current application faces (including a potential judicial review).

Mr Kut gave evidence on the viability of Thornfield's scheme and on the merits or otherwise of alternative proposals for the General Market buildings by comparing them to standard valuation models.


The inquiry was adjourned around 12.15 on Friday 9th Nov to resume on Tuesday 13th Nov at 10am


For any further information on SAVE's case or the progress of the inquiry, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Adam Wilkinson
Secretary

SAVE Britain's Heritage
70 Cowcross Street
London EC1M 6EJ