Greenland Dock – an Olympic Marina

[imported_post]

This is going to be quite a spectacle:

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9542084

And for those who don't want to read the planning 'approval' documentation from “Sail Greenwich Ltd”, here is a summary of what they plan to do to Greenland Dock for the Olympics and the infrastructure they intend to provide.

1. From 12th July 2012 350 floating temporary additional moorings will be installed making a large marina on Greenland Dock (there is an estimated 4 or 5 persons per vessel.)

2. 50-100 vessels from UK/France/Belgium/Germany  entering/leaving via South Dock between 23rd July and 15th August around high tide(s).

3. The Rope St bridge will be up for extended periods of 30minutes once or twice a day with South Sea street emergency access gate on South Sea St. permanently open during the day.

4. Water Sports Centre to provide management and customer services 7.30am -11.00pm.

5. Two floating facility units to provide shower/toilet facilities to augment those of the Sports Centre. One is to be donated permanently to replace the old existing facility on South Dock.

6. The number of bins and collections are to be increased to cater for additional waste created (although they do not specify by how much).

I guess the biggest impact to us at Rainbow Quays will be the Rope Street bridge being up for extended periods but it will be interesting to see difference having an additional 1400 – 1750 neighbours makes, albeit for a short time.

Calum.

[imported_post]

Fortunately, most of what is happening will be at the Western end of the Dock so it shouldn't trouble us too much, unless they all decide to visit the the Wibbley …..
Personally, I much prefer access from Rope Street to South Sea Street be made permanent, so at least will be pleased with the three weeks of tempoary acceess.

[imported_post]

Personally I have no objection to (very) local residents using the South Sea St gate as long as they lock it back afterwards. However some party is persistently locking that gate open. I have personally witnessed black cabs, mini-cabs, apparently “lost” drivers and business vans all using it, presumably as a way of avoiding the one-way system, and I would be very unhappy and concerned for narrow, quiet Rope Street to become used as a through-road.
Calum.

[imported_post]

I commented on the planning application which I think is OK> However it will mean that our local sailing – Tideway Sailability and the Centre will be out of operation for six weeks and they should be compensated for any loss of revenue and inconvenience to users. What with the cuts in funding, any voluntary organisation is struggling to make ends meet.  However it seems that there is another more sinister plan which is being hatched., and I think that we should all unite against this when it emerges. The dock manager, who is a Southwark Council employee would like to make the dock into a floating students village with permanent pontoons. This would spell the end of watersports and that wonderful  sight of coloured sails moving around the dock. There would be lots more muck in the water and the area would be completely changed.
If we are to make our feelings felt, now is the time to muster them. What comments does anyone else have?
>:( 8) ::) :-[ :- :'(
Chris T

[imported_post]

I think turning the dock into a permanent floating students' village is an awful idea, and I would definitely object to it.. Having that large open body of water is aesthetically pleasing to the eye and calming to the mind and it defines the character of the area. It would be good for nothing other than perhaps to generate a cash stream for the council, which is probably what the manager has his eyes on and not the interests and feelings of existing residents; which, as a council employee, should be his primary consideration.

As an aside, and as a user of the gym at the centre, I would also worry also about the hammering the currently excellent facilities at the centre would get with a large population (of students in this case) constantly using them.

[imported_post]

Here is some sample text for those who may want to post objections. I understand this “temporary marina” is the thin end of the wedge and that the place could become a mini-Glastonbury if we don't do more to object….

Addressed to:

Andre Verster,
PO Box 64529
London
SE16 5LX
andre.verster@southwark.gov.uk

Re Planning Application: 11/AP/3157
As a resident of the area very near to Greenland Dock, I wish to register in writing my objection to the proposed “Temporary Pontoons and Floating Facility Units for 350 visitor moorings during the 2012 Olympics”.

I believe that 350 moorings will bring crowds of well between 1000 and 2000 people into a small area near my flat.

Getting so many yachts in and out of the Dock will definitely cause major disruption and delays with locks/bridges being opened far more frequently than usual.

I believe that this will bring unprecedented extra noise which will continue by day and night. I expect the visitors will be drinking alcohol and playing music in the open air 7 days a week – disrupting quiet family life in the area.

I feel certain that there will be unprecedented amounts of rubbish and pollution as a result of the development – from toilet facilities etc.

The charm of the wildlife in the dock – Swans, Coots, Ducks etc will certainly be disrupted and probably ruined by this proposal.

I understand that the water-sports charity Tideways Sailability will have to close as a result of this proposal and that is surely a blow to those people who regularly use that.

The dock is a beautiful wide-open light and airy space – This is a huge benefit to all those who live here and the arrival of 350 moorings will completely alter this status for the worse.

It is for these reasons that I object to the proposed development and the change of use of the Dock area.

Sincerely

[imported_post]

“However it seems that there is another more sinister plan which is being hatched., and I think that we should all unite against this when it emerges. The dock manager, who is a Southwark Council employee would like to make the dock into a floating students village with permanent pontoons. This would spell the end of watersports and that wonderful  sight of coloured sails moving around the dock. There would be lots more muck in the water and the area would be completely changed.”

This is very worrying news. Suvro and I just cannot imagine how making some of the temporary pontoons permanent and that too into a students' village is going to help the area, the users of the watresports facilities, the residents (the wildlife and us!) any better off. Can they just simply go ahead with this?

And I am not very convinced how much benefit (if any) will the cash, expected to be generated, provide. As a resident in this area for 5 years now, I have had a number of visitors from different parts of London and from other countries who have been very pleasantly surprised on how lovely our little corner of this part of the world is, so I know it is not only me who enjoys the dancing of the Great Crested Grebes , the swans gliding by along with the sailboats and the quiet surroundings – I hate to think of it permanently changed.

I'd like to help – do let me know how I can be involved.

[imported_post]

Just a quick reminder about the meeting this evening (Monday 17 Oct 2011) at 6.30 for 6.45pm at the Moby Dick Pub (Upper Floor), as per the attached invite which I am sure most of us will have received in our letter boxes.

I myself will try to come along, as I am interested to find out on what basis the proposed, temporary 'Olympic Marina' is believed to be essentially “an initial installation to pave the way for a large permanent 'floating village' in the dock that will provide low cost basic rental units, such as student accomodation“.

I suppose the commercial reality is that there may be a temptation to subsequently convert any initial investment into something permanent, especially if the 'test case' was not met with strong opposition from local residents – which may then be a reason in itself to oppose even the temporary installation.

However, please note that according to page 2 of the attached note, factors such as congestion, loss of view, light, and open space are discounted as grounds for opposition. Also, I am not sure a suspicion regarding any future use would in itself be a valid ground for opposing the current proposal.

So, lots of important issues to be discussed – I welcome the meeting initiative and hope to see many of you there.

Thank you.

Tom

[imported_post]

I have just returned from the meeting, which was hosted by the Brunswick Quay Residents and Tenants Association and attended by approx. 120-150 people.

We were alerted to this website which sums up the uncertainties regarding the proposal and, not least, its longer-term implications: http://www.greenland2012.co.uk.

Further action is recommended by this Wednesday 19 October 2011, even if you are in favour of the temporary marina but not a permanent facility.

Tom

[imported_post]

For the sake of completeness (possibly), please see the below '2012 Marina information' website of the Nautisch Evenementen Bureau t/a Sail Greenwich Ltd/Sail Royal Greenwich 2012, the Dutch entity behind the planning application:

http://www.sailroyalgreenwich.co.uk/2012-marina-information

[imported_post]

I have no objection to the temporary marina, as many of the users would appear to be coming from overseas, and this is good for the tourist trade, the economy and jobs. Most of us will probably be letting our homes for the Olympic weeks, and taking holidays on the proceeds, so we won't be here to see it.

However, a permanent low cost shanty town on water is a different matter and should be opposed on the grounds that it will bring our property prices tumbling down amongst many other reasons.

[imported_post]

The issue of short-term letting was briefly discussed at the meeting in the light of recent news that people who let their properties during the Olympics could be fined. See e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15083506.

Also, according to the consultation paper on the current planning application, the effect of the development on the value of one's property is not a “relevant planning consideration” and will not be taken into account as a valid objection.

This website: http://www.greenland2012.co.uk contains lots of inspiration for a written response even from those residents who may have no particular objection to a temporary marina but would be strongly opposed to a permanent facility.

[imported_post]

Most of us?? what an extraordinarily bold generalisation.

I have no objection to the temporary marina, as many of the users would appear to be coming from overseas, and this is good for the tourist trade, the economy and jobs. Most of us will probably be letting our homes for the Olympic weeks, and taking holidays on the proceeds, so we won't be here to see it.

However, a permanent low cost shanty town on water is a different matter and should be opposed on the grounds that it will bring our property prices tumbling down amongst many other reasons.

[imported_post]

So if Southwark Council are allowing 350 boats to temporarily moor in Greenland Dock during the Olympics, they are going to look very stupid if they start prosecuting people for letting out their home during the Olympics.  In  practice, of course, it just will not happen as the Council simply does not have the resources to police what goes on in everybody's home during the Olympics unless someone grasses their neighbours.

If there are 50000 properties in Southwark and 10 officials working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week doing the check (say 5000 properties each), and they each spent 5 minutes at each property, it would take them each  of them 10 weeks to get round by which time the Olympics will be well and truly over.

As for my point about “most of us”, if you look at the financial benefits you would certainly see the advantages, especially given the harsh financial times we are now living in. These money-making opportunities don't present themselves very often, but if they come along I grab them with both hands. If you have lived in Wimbledon you will certainly know what I mean.

So whilst I support the temporary mooring because it is good for the economy and jobs, I remain opposed to the permanent shanty town for a whole number of reasons, least of all the fall in property values. If the fall in property values is not a valid reason, although it is good for motivational purposes, there are plenty of other reasons that exist.

[imported_post]

There may still be time to respond to the planning application consultation, if you so wish and have not already.

[…] I remain opposed to the permanent shanty town for a whole number of reasons, least of all the fall in property values. If the fall in property values is not a valid reason, although it is good for motivational purposes, there are plenty of other reasons that exist.

[imported_post]

Having written to Southwark Council objecting the planning application, I received an acknowledgement today with a link to all comments received in respect of the application. After skimming through Batches 1, 2 and 3, I am really glad that an overwhelming majority of local residents have objected this planning application. I love the tranquility of the area and would hate to see it get destroyed.

Here's the link to comments received, for those who are interested

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9542084

[imported_post]

Hello,

I'd like to make a few points on this planning application:

1) Even if you don't object to the disruption of a temporary marina during the olympics, it sets a planning precedent about what local residents will accept. It becomes much harder to object to later plans. So if you don't want a student shanty town later, then dig in your heels now.

2) At the Moby Dick Meeting on 17th Oct, I heard they are planning to leave the lock gates open for the duration of the event (2 weeks). This carries with it the risk of flooding if a storm came along. Underground car-parks could be flooded. Normal walk-ways will be unusable during the event.

3) If you only signed the pre-printed objection letter to the planning application, you will need to get another more individual one written, since the council are “discounting” these as a type of petition. They are also narrowing the “acceptable grounds” for objection, so if you decide to write you must keep it to the relevant points. see http://www.greenland2012.co.uk

4) There was a local news bulletin at 10pm on thursday 27th. They were making the temporary marina sound like a done-deal. A councillor from Peckham was saying it will add “some colour” to the area. People will make a lot of money from ruining Greenland dock. I believe we will have this imposed on us and we won't benefit at all.

5) Planning hearing is provisionally scheduled for 7pm, 28th Nov, 160 Tooley St SE1 2QH (London Bridge). If people have time, then we should gather there to make our numbers felt. I have lived here since 2007 and I feel strongly that these plans will ruin the area.

[imported_post]

There is a world of difference between a temporary marina for yachting families coming from overseas for the Olympics on the one hand, and the prosect of a permanent “marina” to house students and other low income families.

The families coming here for the Olympics, will be on holiday, but for many years as a resident I have watched yachts come into the Marina on a temporary basis for family holidays. They have been no trouble at all. Has anybody ever objected to them being here? I doubt it, or at least I have not heard of any objections. That is just one reason why I find objecting to the temporary application a bit hypocritical, and I simply can not bring myself to object to it.

The permanent application if it should ever materialise, does not involve yachts or as far as I have heard any other moveable river craft that will come and go. I see it as being a totally different application, and will oppose it when the time comes.

Whether the families were here or not, the 17 days of the Olympics is going to turn London into a hell hole, because our transport system can't cope with all the tens of thousands who will be decending on the city. To retain my sanity I will be booking my holiday out of London that fortnight.

[imported_post]

I'm guessing your bedroom faces the couryard. If your bedroom faces the dock like mine does, you would know how noisy it could be just to have one boat partying into late night, let alone 350. I have complained every time when the Gainsborough Trader parties into 4am on a Sunday night/Monday early morning, yet the Council has so far done nothing to stop the madness. I do not know on what grounds the Council and the operator can ensure the area will not be polutted by excessive level of noise when the Council cannot even regulate one single boat.

If this planning goes ahead, it will basically deprive those whose bedrooms face the dock the basic right to sleep for the entire duration.

[imported_post]

Hello Mimimt,

I have had issue with noise from boats on the dock.  The marina office is manned 24 hours a day although the staff can be tardy answering.  However if you log all noise complaints I am confident that Chris Magro the Dock master will deal with them. There are strict terms and conditions of mooring and noise is covered by these.  If you need contact details, let me know and I shall provide.

[imported_post]

Hi Simon, would really appreciate if you could provide the contact details of the Dock master. Thanks, Mimi

[imported_post]

Sent to your inbox.

[imported_post]

I see that the planning permission has been amended:

The application has now been amended with the following changes:
Layout of temporary pontoons changed from a U shape to five linear walkways attached to pontoons along the
south side of the dock. Number of visitor moorings reduced from 350 to 225. Two floating facility units relocated
at the south western corner of the dock. Opening hours of Watersports Centre clarified to be Monday to Friday
from 07:00 to 23:00, and Saturday and Sunday from 07:30 to 23:00 from 23 July 2012 to 15 August 2012 to
provide a management base for the temporary marina, customer reception and facilities for visiting yachtsmen
and their families.

Does anyone know if the fact that it has been amended requires any objections to be resubmitted or do all previous objections stand ?

Calum.

[imported_post]

Calum

Thanks for the update. How did you find out that the application has been changed from 350 moorings to 225? I just checked the Council's website and it still says that the proposal is to have 350 moorings.

No idea if the amendment of the application means we need to submit a revised rejection. But I will submit another objection just to be sure.

[imported_post]

This link has the amended proposal:

http://planningonline.southwarksites.com/planningonline2/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=9542084

Calum.

[imported_post]

Indeed – as also mentioned by our Chairman at last night's (perhaps surprisingly poorly attended) AGM at the Hilton.

[imported_post]

I have looked carefully at the revised application and in my opinion they have responded to all the significant objections. The numbers are reduced, the boats will mostly be at the top of the dock, the nesting areas will be retained, the provision for dealing with waste have been considered properly. In my view if there is anyone in the council seriously considering a permanent extension of the marina, then that is an entirely separate matter. The previously filed objections are still listed. The period of disturbance has been reduced and I see no reason to continue to object.
Chris T

[imported_post]

With respect, I would have thought it necessary to object to the amended application as well, whether or not you are in favour of a temporary installation but if you are, in any event, against a permanent facility:

The objections currently filed were of course in relation to the old application and will not carry the same, if any, weight in relation to the amended proposal.

I was quite sceptical at first, to say the least, but have since learned enough to make me at least suspect that the temporary project could very well be a test case to set a local planning precedent for something permanent.

The old proposal lacked precise details for the immediate removal of the temporary installation and the full restoration of the area, and another concern ought to be the impact on local heritage to the extent that any permanent damage is inflicted.

Our internet connection speed at home does not invite a thorough review of the revised proposal, and the relevant site is blocked from the office as potentially unsafe, so my apologies if concerns like the ones above have now been dealt with satisfactorily.

The new consultation period ends on 26 November 2011.

[imported_post]

All, I strongly urge you to read the planning officer's report.

It seems to me that Council has pretty much dismissed all of the objections and sided with the Sail Greenwich (somewhat disappointed but expected). The planning officer has taken Sail Greenwich's words that yacht occupants will be families, they will have very few visitors who will need to park cars. Frankly I think these are complete jokes. Will Sail Greenwich turn away customers that are not families? Will Sail Greenwich ban visitors?

The planning officer also thinks there can be effective measure to enforce silence after sunset (claimed by Sail Greenwich). Although there is some mention of some sort of quietness being written into the yacht occupancy agreement, but how on earth will they enforce it? Unless Sail Greenwich is prepared to kick those who are not silent after sunset out of Greenland Dock or impose a heavy fine, quietness simply cannot be enforced. The truth is a business enterprise's objective is to maximise profits and it is as simple as that. Sail Greenwich will not care who the occupants are nor will it care whether local residents' life will be severely impacted – even more so if this is indeed a temporary project.

The planning officer also agrees that it will only take 30mins to for 50-100 yachts to move between Greenland Dock and South Dock Marina (that is 3 boats every minute) and that the draw bridge sirens as early as 7:30am on Saturday/Sunday mornings will not disturb life. These are simply lies.

The way that Council's planning officer has argued for Sail Greenwich, especially how this temporary project fits the Council's long-term strategy (e.g. re Borough Open Space, Sustainability, Equality), is extremely concerning. I can't agree more with Tom that this temporary project is a test case to set a local planning precedent for something permanent.

So please read the planning officer's report before you make up your final mind. I know it's a bit long but it's worth the time.

[imported_post]

“…a test case to set a local planning precedent for something permanent…“

Well, at least that is what I have understood (by way of double hearsay) from someone who had been told by someone allegedly close to the action. Although the current proposal looks set to go through on the planning officer's recent recommendation to grant the permission, I am still planning to try and attend the Council's Planning Committee meeting on 28 November 2011 at 7.00pm at 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2TZ, to hopefully learn more.

[imported_post]

“…a test case to set a local planning precedent for something permanent…“

Well, at least that is what I have understood (by way of double hearsay) from someone who had been told by someone allegedly close to the action. Although the current proposal looks set to go through on the planning officer's recent recommendation to grant the permission, I am still planning to try and attend the Council's Planning Committee meeting on 28 November 2011 at 7.00pm at 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2TZ, to hopefully learn more.

I'm going to attend. It's very convenient for me since the Council's office is opposite mine. I'll post summary of discussion on the board.

[imported_post]

Tideway Sailability have got a planning lawyer to write a letter on the revised application. It is a really hard hitter. I would be quite surprised if they allow the application through.
A copy is attached if you would like to read it. In essence it says that this is a major application and should have a full Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). I make no comment.
Chris T

[imported_post]

FYI – the committee tonight voted 3-2 to refuse the application. It is open to the applicants to appeal the decision.

[imported_post]

I am sure you will have all noticed the rebranded “2012 Marina” (http://www.sailroyalgreenwich.co.uk/en/2012-marina/location/south-dock-marina) in our area. Quite colourful, not noisy etc. so far, and apparently not significant enough in size to require planning, although I was mildly surprised to see it suddenly emerging.

[imported_post]

They seem to have nearly all left this morning, which is of course why the bridge was up for a good half hour during the late morning rush hour (the last 15-20 mins of which for no apparent good reason). I suspect we can expect a new influx now that the initial 6-night package from 25 July is up, but we have not minded at all having the small number of visiting boats here.

[Author]

Posts