Greenwich riverside pub plan beside Cutty Sark blocked
Looking towards what is now Nando’s with proposed pub in unit to right
A plan for a pub named the Ship Tavern beside the Thames and Cutty Sark has been rejected.
The applicant took Greenwich Council to appeal for non-determination and the planning inspector has blocked approval. Greenwich Council also stated they would have opposed.
Plans would have seen “an outdoor raised seating area, construction of a glazed pergola to the roof terrace, installation of 8x rooflights, a glazed roof access hatch, canopies to entrances and associated alterations”.
The building was formerly in use as a Frankie and Benny’s while the proposed pub operator is the same as the Trafalgar Tavern a short walk down the Thames path.
Council reasons for refusal
Greenwich Council’s reasons for refusal had they decided in time would have been:
- The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site, the Greenwich Park Conservation Area, and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings
- The safe and free movement of pedestrians and cyclists on the Thames Path and Greenwich Pier
The planning inspector in his report states in terms of the current building “none of the evidence before me or my observations on my site visit indicates that it [the building itself] is detrimental to the area.”
The report states however that plans for a glazed pergola structure above the roof terrace would add bulk to the building. Owing to this it the additions “would thereby be harmful to the setting of both listed buildings” in nearby views.
Five fabric canopies were another point of contention with the claim that “on what is an unashamedly modern and simply-styled building, these would be an incongruous feature”.
No objections though were raised about the outdoor seating area which was also a seating area under the building’s previous guise as a restaurant.
The applicant raised the issue that another business in the building were “using timber pergola structures and parasols on the roof terrace of the western pavilion building”.
Greenwich Council stated this was not authorised but the inspector added: “I agree with the appellant that the slightly odd form of words the Council used does not make it clear whether the pergolas and parasols have been (or could be) the subject of enforcement action.”
However they stated the scale at Nando’s was less than that proposed for the pub.
River path
The inspector dismissed Greenwich’s argument about obstructing the riverside path given seating areas were within private land and stated nearby width issues were of more concern:
“Indeed, based on what I saw on my site visit it seems that the narrow “dog leg” in the Thames Path between the appeal site and the Bellot Memorial to its south-west is far more likely to be the limiting factor”.
In addition, Greenwich have form for blocking paths in the area and on the Thames path themselves through the addition of excessive street furniture.
Ultimately it was the pergola and canopies that are the issues, which seem relatively minor things to address. Greenwich Council don’t come out of it looking great given they appear to permit similar two doors down and did not make it clear exactly what action was being taken there.
While not a factor in the decision the report concludes:
“It appears in particular that in a period of six days between initially responding to the internal consultation request and submitting final comments, the Conservation Officer’s stance shifted from recommending approval to raising a set of detailed and comprehensive objections to the scheme”.
They might just be the most tedious council in all of London. I’m not entirely sure what benefits they offer to us residents, except maybe protecting people’s rights to park on the pavement.
You didn’t mention in the decision notice I’ve just read the applicant was told by Greenwich Council staff the plan was fine then six days later given a whole list of reasons why it wasn’t – before they then failed to decide on the application for months!
I’m not a big fan of those who would have run this nor the Trafalgar (lovely building though it is) BUT this raises a multitude of questions again about Royal Greenwich borough capability. Much like the live music blocked nearby from 12-4pm as they fail to enforce at other times, they block this plan yet don’t enforce standards two doors down. They also say visitors would block the path while they do nothing to stop drivers blocking paths every single day nearby despite numerous notifications.
Easy targets but don’t lift a finger elsewhere.
Cheers I’ve added that in now. Not relevant to the decision but does show issues during the process.
The biggest problem is the structure itself which was approved relatively recently (2010?) which blocks views from and to the river. But that’s done now so adding some canopies is hardly going to make much difference. And as your pic shows the funfairs are more garish and domineering in views so if they’re so concerned why allow that (assuming its not another case of poor enforcement?). Not that I oppose the funfair really. Much I like I don’t with the pub plans but I’m not a killjoy!
It would be really nice to leave some of the old London as it is , I lived in these areas for many years and they are beautiful and hold a lot of memory’s and are good to revisit.
Greenwich needs more pubs like Greenwich Park needs more “improvements” – ie, not at all.
The town centre is already filled with idiots at night, why add yet more to the problem?
Not the greatest fan of planning but here they need control and I’m afraid this area needs to be kept absolutely in military precision order as we have patrons from across the planet coming.
There’s a perfectly fine Wetherspoons ticked away by the graveyard and it works perfectly, naturally.
Surely there must a business to put in there not related to eating and drinking, is this all we have in society nowadays? Gorge and scull?
Art gallery in conjunction with art charities or something that can enrich people mentally.
Not sure who the landowner is but if tenants that are national chains aren’t able to afford to stay what chance a gallery?
Greenwich may have a lot of pubs but many are dull. A Wetherspoons is hardly a comparable if this site did a good job. Put it this way; I won’t have a nice meal out at ‘spoons with my wife. I may here if they do it right.
Pubs ran the whole gamut of offerings these days. Greenwich has too many identikit, chain, dull outlets. Don’t Youngs own most of them?Maybe this would be dull too but give them a chance? Saying Greenwich has pubs doesn’t really mean much alone. What do they offer? Good cocktails? Good music? Craft beer? Wine choice? Tasting sessions? Good chefs? So many variables. It’s such a busy area there’s scope for a wide number offering different things and that isn’t really the case now in the town centre at least. Get out and travel further east or west and true there’s many more interesting places but if in town with friends/family/wife it’s often all a bit dull.
The place has been left empty for about 7 years. The ultimate owner is some Kent Council pension fund. Guess they don’t care about paying out sufficiently pension in a couple of years.
The empty state could be left for symbolic value.
Nothing screams more accurately to the tourists coming from all around the world the sorry state of the UK is in now – could have looked nice, but we insist on making it fail, because of some canopy. to protect the heritage of some 10 year old building.