camden-news-debate

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Camden New Journal - By PAUL KEILTHY
Published: 27 December 2007

Eric Reynolds

Debate hots up over future of Smithfield

Lawyers attack expert witnesses at public inquiry

REPUTATIONS were on the line as two competing visions for the future of the ancient Smithfield market clashed at an increasingly heated public inquiry this week.
Star witnesses, including architect Sir Terry Farrell and the entrepreneur founder of Camden Market Eric Reynolds, appeared on Friday to give evidence to the planning inspector charged with deciding the fate of the Victorian market arcade which developers and the City of London Corporation say must be demolished.
The resulting grilling left Mr Reynolds reeling under charges that his evidence was “meaningless drivel” and his vaunted business acumen was “irrelevant”.
The plan’s challengers, English Heritage, who claim the plans were cooked up in secret between Thornfield and the City with an eye on profits and no regard for the market’s historic fabric, envisage a regenerated market of small stalls and independent traders and called Mr Farrell and Mr Reynolds to put the architectural and business case.
Sir Terry said the “concentration and variety of historic fabric in the Smithfield area makes it one of the most important historic areas in London”.
The Thornfield plans would “dramatically diminish both the character and extent of the distinctive market complex”, while English Heritage plans could “draw people in from near and far”, he added.
But while opponents challenged his view without questioning his qualifications, lawyers for Thornfield savagely attacked the standing of English Heritage’s second expert witness, Mr Reynolds.
The man whose expertise in regenerating London markets was forged in the creation of Camden Market in 1974 and has been repeated at Spitalfields and Chelsea, produced a business plan for English Heritage in which he claimed that the existing Smithfield buildings could be retained and converted into a thriving attraction bringing in £2.5 million a year in rent.
But Thornfield barrister David Forsdick questioned him on his qualifications and attacked his figures, forcing him to concede that he had never invested substantial amounts of his own cash or that of his business Urban Space Management in any of the projects in his portfolio.
The Thornfield lawyer’s attack on English Heritage’s witnesses was matched earlier by English Heritage, whose barrister called the evidence of the City of London’s chief planner “nonsense” and “perverse”.
Grilled by Robert McCracken QC on why the Thornfield plan contained no housing as required by law, City planning chief Peter Wynne Rees was forced to list reasons why Farringdon was unsuitable for new residents.
The public inquiry will conclude in the new year, when planning inspector Ken Barton makes a recommendation on the site to government.

Comment on this article.
ong>(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)

Name:

Email:

Comment: