Raynsford welcomes return of ‘Knife Edge’

Greenwich and Woolwich MP, Nick Raynsford, says he is ‘delighted’ that Henry Moore’s ‘Knife Edge’ sculpture has been returned to Greenwich Park.

Nick said: “I have written on numerous occasions to the Henry Moore Foundation, stressing the significance of ‘Knife Edge’ to Greenwich Park. The Friends of Greenwich Park have also worked tirelessly to secure the sculpture’s return.

“I am delighted that our lobbying has paid off and that ‘Knife Edge’ will be returned in time for the 2012 Olympics, so that this fine piece of work by one of Britain’s greatest sculptors can be admired once again by local Greenwich residents, and also around the world.”

Nick Raynsford: The effect of the CSR on housing

Housing is an issue with which I have been closely involved for almost all my working life, in the course of which I have seen a number of ups and downs. But at no time in the past 4 decades can I recall a bleaker outlook for people looking for a new home or a solution to their housing problem.

We have just come through the most serious recession in my lifetime.  Housing inevitably was badly affected.  Private housebuilding in England fell from just over 150,000 new starts in 2007 to just 60,000 in 2009.  This clearly had a serious impact, but things would have been far worse had the then Labour Government not taken a series of bold measures to counter the downturn.  As a result of the fiscal stimulus and more specific policies targeted at the housing market, repossessions which had been forecast to rise to similar levels to those seen in the recession of the early 1990s peaked at half that level; and because of investment through the Homes and Communities Agency in schemes such as Kickstart, the National Affordable Housing programme and Homebuy Direct, social and affordable housing programmes were maintained and confidence began to return to the market.  In the early months of this year, housebuilders were reporting month on month improvements in house sales and in the output of new homes.  It appeared that we had turned the corner.

Then came the General Election and the formation of the coalition government.  Since then a series of ill-considered, uncoordinated, untested and frankly irresponsible policy announcements and cuts have destroyed the prospects of recovery, brought the housing market to the verge of a double-dip recession and spread alarm and concern around almost every sector of the community in need of better housing.

Confidence in the private housebuilding industry has been severely damaged over the past 5 months by ill-thought out changes to the planning regime, a continuing mortgage famine, fears about rising levels of unemployment, and severe cuts to the Homes and Communities Agency budget that had been supporting many new housing and regeneration schemes.

The Times reported last week (20^th October) that Bellway, Britain’s sixth largest housebuilder had “delivered what one analyst described as an ‘unremittingly bleak’ assessment of the housing market”.

“The Newcastle-based company said that while it had enjoyed a strong spring selling season consumer confidence had ‘slowly ebbed away’ after the general election and subsequent media discussion of how the government planned to tackle Britain’s budget deficit.”

The Daily Telegraph also reported last week (22 October) the Bank of England warning that home prices are likely to remain static or decline in 2011 as home loans become harder to secure after the spending cuts.

“The warning (it commented) will add to growing fears about the fragility of the housing market after values dropped last month by the biggest monthly amount ever recorded”.

The Guardian also reported last week that:

“Britain’s struggling housebuilding industry is ‘bewildered’ by the Government plan to radically change the finances of council houses, as experts warn the measures could have ‘a devastating impact’ on the future supply of social housing’”.

Now one might expect that Ministers, confronted with such dire evidence of the negative impact their policies have had over the past 6 months would now be reconsidering some of their impetuous early decisions and their harsh cuts package.  One certainly might expect Liberal Democrat Ministers to be wondering why they have lashed themselves to the mast of a Tory ship which is heading directly onto the rocks, steered by a demented helmsman, while the captain appears blithely unaware of the immediate perils they face, fixing his gaze instead on some distant coastline and imaginary sunlit uplands.

However instead of changing course, Ministers continue to press ahead on their doomed journey, ignoring all the evidence of impending disaster, and pinning their hopes on the so called ‘Housing bonus’ incentive which is as about as unconvincing as the imagined sunlit uplands.

The scheme has been promised as the panacea for the housing market for the last 6 months or more.  In the summer, the Housing Minister promised anxious housebuilders that it would be launched before the summer recess.  Then we were told all would be revealed in the autumn.  Now we are promised a consultation in November.  Yet all the while, confidence is draining away from the housing market.

And there remain huge question marks over the scheme and how the supposed panacea will work.  Will it as originally claimed, apply to all new homes granted planning consent, or only to net additions to the housing stock?  If the latter how will that incentivise regeneration and brownfield developments where because of the need to demolish existing substandard dwellings, no net increase in the stock is likely for many years.

How many homes will the scheme generate – and how will this compare with the 160,000 homes for which plans have already been ditched since the general election, and the further 120,000 – 140,000 which could be lost in the coming year, according to the report from Tetlow King planning for the National Housing Federation?

And what will be the impact, in terms of cuts to local authorities, of funding the scheme?  Which authorities will gain and which lose?

Given all the questions and doubts that have been raised from all quarters about this scheme, why has it not been trialled or piloted, to test whether there is any realistic prospect of it delivering the benefits which the Minister for Housing constantly assures us it will bring?  How can the Government claim to believe in evidence-based policy-making, while having not a shred of empirical evidence to support the case for the Housing Bonus Incentive Scheme?

As if the damage caused by their harsh Housing Benefit Cuts and their maladroit destabilising of the housing market was not enough, this Government has also embarked, in clear breach of Conservative election pledges, on dismantling the whole basis of social housing in England.

Being able to enjoy security in one’s own home is an asset which almost all of us in this House take for granted.  So do the great majority of the population.  The old adage ‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ reflects a deep-seated belief that a secure home is a bedrock of a decent society.  So why is it that Coalition politicians who take it for granted that they should enjoy the benefit of security, should so lightly – with no manifesto commitment or mention in the Coalition agreement – move to take away that precious security from a whole group of our fellow citizens, who arguably need security more than anyone?

The only credible argument advanced by those who advocate the policy is that it will ‘free up’ social housing, so making more homes available to those in need.  But any serious analysis of the Government’s proposals shows very clearly, first that it will not have this effect, quite the contrary it will discourage mobility, and second that if it did have the intended effect, this would have disastrous social consequences.  Let’s take them in turn.

If existing tenants are not to lose their security, but new lettings will be on a new basis, without traditional security of tenure and at 80% of market rents, what will be the consequence?  Obviously existing tenants who might have considered moving to a small home, so releasing larger accommodation to those in need, will have second thoughts if the result is a loss of security and a rent increase.  So the policy would have the opposite effect of that intended.

Worse still would be the consequence of using the new insecure tenancies to require tenants to move on if their income increased or if they were judged to have enjoyed sufficient time in social housing.  What chance is there of creating mixed and balanced communities rather than ghettos of deprivation, if anyone who gets on, is told they have to leave.  If only the poor and the unemployed can occupy social housing, this is a recipe for residualisation and a total disincentive to aspiration.

So the whole concept is flawed in principle, and it would have catastrophic effects in practice.  How would people on low incomes be able to cope with a near market rent for supposedly social housing.  In the SE10 postal district at the heart of my constituency, average market rents are estimated at £380 a week. 80% of that would involve a rent level of over £300 a week for a supposedly social letting. No one in low-paid work could consider such a tenancy, unless they were to have most of the costs met by Housing Benefit.  And if they did, I can already see the double whammy of some sanctimonious Minister calling for further Housing Benefit cuts or caps on the grounds that people on benefit should not be able to live in such expensive areas.

So who will occupy any homes that are built on this basis.  Some may go, perfectly properly, to people in what is often described as the ‘intermediate’ market.  One of the more encouraging trends in recent years has been the development of mixed tenure communities with opportunities for people to occupy housing on a range of different terms – social renting, intermediate renting, market renting, low cost home ownership and outright ownership.  The whole point of such diversity is to provide for a range of needs and people in different economic circumstances.  So it makes a lot of sense to provide intermediate renting solutions as part of mixed developments.  But it makes no sense to substitute intermediate rent for social renting options, available to those on low incomes.  If in Greenwich, where social rents for council and housing association tenancies are currently in the £80-£110 a week range, all new lettings involved their substitution by lettings at 80% of market rents, the poor would lose out, and even so the scheme would probably fail, because low cost home ownership would provide a more attractive proposition to those able to pay a rent in excess of £300 a week.

In its 5 months in office the Coalition Government has already has a disastrous impact on housing in this country. The recovery from recession has been stalled, housebuilding is in crisis, social housing is facing a death warrant, private renting is being undermined by Housing Benefit cuts, hundreds of thousands of tenants are fearful as to how they can continue to afford their rent, many many more are under the threat of having to move or facing the bleak prospect of homelessness.  It is difficult to think of a more inept and deplorable record in such a short period of time.  One can only hope that Ministers will come to their senses and recognize that this is no way to run housing policy.  Our country and our people deserve better.

Jubilee line upgrades will be delayed by a further year

The estimated completion date for upgrades to the Jubilee line has been put back another year.

It was confirmed by TFL today that the new signalling system has been beset by problems and the project will now finish a year later than the revised date. It was originally due to be completed by the end of 2009 before being revised to October 2010.

London Underground are now running the project after their recent acquisition of Tube Lines.

Local MP, Nick Raynsford, has expressed has expressed his “deep disappointment” at the news. He commented:

‘For the past two years, residents and businesses in my constituency have had to put up with serious inconveniences caused by closures. Announcing yet further delays to the programme is a clear indication of bad planning and is only going to cause yet further inconveniences to local residents. It will make businesses, small and large, suffer at a time that they can least afford. I will continue to press London Underground to ensure that the works are fast-tracked and cause as little inconvenience to my constituency as possible’.

Nick Raynsford answers your questions

I asked Greenwich.co.uk readers to send me their questions for the main parliamentary candidates. Nick Raynsford has answered your questions below…

If asked to list the achievements during your time as MP of which you are most proud, what would they be?

1 The transformation of public transport in the area in the last decade, with the Jubilee Line at North Greenwich, DLR extensions to both Greenwich and Woolwich town centres, a hugely improved river bus service, a much better bus network, and improved reliability of the trains – a world away from the lousy service provided by Connex in the late 1990s.

2 Helping to get the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula underway, with the new Greenwich Millennium Village, and the transformation of the Dome into the O2, now the most successful live music venue in the world.

3 Helping to attract high-quality higher education institutions to the borough, including Trinity Laban and Ravensbourne College, and the University of Greenwich’s move into the Old Royal Naval College.

Do you agree with Gordon Brown’s comment (2nd TV Leadership debate) that MP’s should have no extra jobs and consultancies while holding Parliamentary office?

I agree with the Labour Party manifesto commitment that in future all MPs will be required to seek and obtain approval for any outside paid appointments (as I have always done) and should not work for lobbying companies (as I have never done).

Do you think you were representing your constituents wishes by endorsing the move of John Roan school to a location in the blast zone of a gas holding works?

The proposed move of the John Roan School was backed by the governing body and the council and I tried to ensure the new site was as large as possible and was to be built to as high as possible a standard. Ultimately the council and the school decided not to take the new site due to delays in starting work because of the presence of the gasholder, a decision I respected. I am now working hard to ensure an early start is made on rebuilding and refurbishing the buildings on the school’s current sites.

Do you think that Britain wants another 5 years of Gordon Brown?

I am clear about what Britain does not want: a return to the destructive policies of the Thatcher era of the 1980s, which could well result from the election of a Conservative government.

Does your party support the Olympics in Greenwich Park given it would entail long closures of this vital amenity and potential damage to this World Heritage Site, not to mention the obscene cost, lack of legacy and transport problems?

Inaccurate and misleading stores put out by those such as Andrew Gilligan – who falsely claimed that the Olympic events could lead to the destruction of avenues of trees, or that the park could be closed for up to five years – have contributed to vocal opposition to the Olympic equestrian events by a small minority of local residents. As MP for the area, I have talked to a large number of local residents over the last few years, and found that most of them warmly welcome the fact that Greenwich will be hosting six Olympic events in 2012, including the equestrian events in Greenwich Park.

What was the last book you read?

Richard Reeves’ biography of John Stuart Mill, author of the classic Nineteenth Century treatise “On Liberty”

Are you representing your constituents by insisting that the plans for the Market be pushed through?
Would it be democratically acceptable for a Bristol based quango to force upon Greenwich a market redevelopment that is unwanted by the people or their elected representatives in the Council?

The decision has been a matter for Greenwich Council as the local planning authority, and now the Planning inspectorate. I chaired a consultative stakeholder group which considered options for improvements to the market over a two-year period. The scheme that was eventually proposed by Greenwich Hospital and recommended for approval by Greenwich Council’s planning officers would have safeguarded the long-term future of the Market. As councillors voted to reject the scheme it is now to be decided by an independent planning inspector, who is accountable to an elected politician, the Secretary of State.

I’d like to know what the candidates would do about the Blackwall Tunnel closure, and what their views are on two-way traffic through one 1/2 of the tunnel.

Although the work to make the Blackwall Tunnel safer needs to take place, Boris Johnson chose to do it just after he had cancelled plans to build the Thames gateway bridge, which would provide an alternative cross-river link. Doing the work without any alternative in place has caused massive and unnecessary dislocation and inconvenience.

Do you support reform of the voting system?

I support the Alternative Vote system which retains the constituency link – a very important feature of the current system – but also ensures that no candidate can be elected without securing broad support across their constituency.

How would Greenwich be different in five years time if you, and a Labour government, are elected?

In five years’ time, I hope to see Crossrail at an advanced stage of construction with the Woolwich station on its way to being opened (Only Labour has fully committed to Crossrail at Woolwich), the regeneration of Greenwich and Woolwich as a whole continuing apace, and everyone benefiting from the inward investment that a very successful hosting of the 2012 Olympic Games will bring.

Greenwich Hospital confirms Market appeal

Greenwich Hospital has confirmed that it will be appealing against the Council’s decision to reject its market regeneration plans.

The decision – first reported on this site yesterday by Andrew Gilligan – was relayed to traders at a meeting last night and confirmed by Greenwich Hospital in a press release this morning.

Greenwich Hospital will be asking the Planning Inspectorate to consider the same proposal that was unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council’s Planning Board last August.

Martin Sands, Director of Greenwich Hospital, said:

“The Hospital’s criteria for the regeneration of Greenwich Market has always been that any improvements to the Hospital’s properties in Greenwich town centre would need to:

• Retain the diversity of shops and stalls.
• Be architecturally, physically and financially viable.
• Be capable of standing the test of time.
• Be mindful of Greenwich’s status as a World Heritage Site and as a
• Maritime Heritage Site.
• Complement Greenwich’s unique position as a tourist and retail
• destination.

Greenwich Hospital continues to believe that the market regeneration scheme which was not approved by Greenwich Council in August 2009 meets the above criteria.

Greenwich Hospital says that if permission is granted, work will not begin until 2013.

In an interview with Greenwich.co.uk last December, Nick Raynsford MP said “I think that if they appeal they have a very good chance of success“.

Update: A spokesperson for Greenwich Council has told Greenwich.co.uk:

The council will defend the unanimous decision of its Planning Board and would urge all residents who opposed the scheme to make representations to the planning inspectorate.

Nick Raynsford pays tribute to Alan Cherry

Alan Cherry, the chairman of Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd, has died aged 76. Local MP, Nick Raynsford, has shared his memories of Alan Cherry:

Alan Cherry will be widely and deeply mourned throughout the housing, property and construction industries. As founding Director of Countryside Properties he created and built up one of Britain’s most successful and progressive development companies. His passionate commitment to the creation of high quality and sustainable communities shone through all his work, and has left a remarkable legacy.

Notley Garden Village in Essex, St Mary’s Island in Chatham, Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV) and Accordia in Cambridge have all been widely recognised and praised as imaginative, ground-breaking developments which raised the bar in terms of social, environmental and architectural quality and in doing so helped lift the reputation of the housebuilding and development industries. Accordia is the only housing development ever to have won the RIBA’s Stirling Prize, no mean achievement.
For me personally GMV will remain Alan’s finest memorial. Conceived in 1997 as the first Millennium Community to be promoted by the newly elected Labour Government, it has transformed a previously foully-polluted industrial wasteland into an exemplary mixed tenure development, demonstrating real vision as a brilliantly planned, imaginatively designed and environmentally responsible housing scheme. Alan threw himself with huge energy into the tough challenge of making GMV a success and achieving something special and memorable. When problems occurred, he never left it to others to sort out. He took a close personal interest in working to identify and implement solutions. He could see both the ‘big picture’ and the detail, and was never too grand or busy to deal with the minutiae. I last met him on site last summer when his passion and commitment remained undimmed, despite the onset of the illness that was tragically to end his life.

Unlike many others who have achieved huge success from relatively modest beginnings, Alan never lost his common touch and his sympathy for those less fortunate that himself. While some housebuilders stubbornly resisted demands to mix affordable and social homes with those for market sale, Alan showed that mixed income developments could work very successfully and took great pride in the fact that at GMV housing for rent and for sale is indistinguishable.

Alan didn’t keep his passions and skills to himself. He gave generously to a wealth of other causes, contributing to a series of ground-breaking initiatives such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Inquiry into British Housing in the 1980s, the Urban Task Force in the late 1990s and more recently the Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership. He was for many years closely associated with Anglia Ruskin University and supported a range of charities and other good causes in his county of Essex.
It was always a pleasure to meet Alan. He combined a number of characteristics that do not always sit easily together. He was idealistic, entrepreneurial, imaginative, determined, courteous and thoughtful and combined a breadth of vision with modesty and personal kindness. I am very proud to have known Alan, to have called him a friend and to have been associated with one of his finest developments. He leaves behind an inspiring legacy and he will be remembered and honoured by many, many people whose lives he touched.

Nick Raynsford – Nobody Likes a Bad Loser

WHEN you’re in an argument with someone, there are two clear signs that they’re losing. The first is when they resort to abuse – and the second is when they have to distort your case to buttress their own.

In their battle to knock down Greenwich Market, Nick Raynsford MP, the Greenwich Society and the forces of development did both those things – and did, indeed, lose. So it’s rather encouraging to see them reprising exactly the same tactics over the Greenwich Park Olympics.

In an article for this website last week, Mr Raynsford accused Nogoe, the anti-Olympics group, of “scaremongering” and a “complete misrepresentation of the facts.” His evidence? A poster they issued, with a picture of the open area in front of the National Maritime Museum, and beneath it the statement that “this will be a no go area in 2012 for several months.”

It is actually Mr Raynsford who is distorting the facts here. As last week’s planning application confirms, the area depicted in Nogoe’s poster will indeed be closed – for eight months.

Mr Raynsford attacks Nogoe for “continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October this year, when a spokeswoman said it would be ‘socially and morally wrong’ for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case.”

The actual BBC report quotes Nogoe’s spokeswoman as saying that it would be socially and morally wrong to close the park during the games. And as last week’s planning application confirms, it will indeed be closed during the games.

The outline facts of the Park’s closure are actually quite uncontested. They have been established everywhere outside the mind of Nick Raynsford for more than a year now. And what the further details published last week show is that, far from “scaremongering,” Nogoe have significantly understated the problems the Olympics will cause.

Forty-two thousand vehicle movements in the park, including more than 6,000 lorry movements; five years of works, starting next spring; the park sliced up with fences for most if not all of that time; full restoration of the park only in 2015. And the more I pore through the planning documents, the more horrors emerge – details to follow.

What other distortions have the pro-Games forces been guilty of? Mr Raynsford describes one survey showing an improbable 85% support for the Games as “independent polling.” Actually, it was a voodoo poll. It was market research, not done to the standards of a professional opinion pollster. It was carried out for Locog, and it was packed with questions so comically loaded that 85% must in fact have been a very disappointing result.

Locog, in another of last week’s ripostes, claimed that “all work related to the Games will be completed by November 2012,” other than the acid grass restoration programme by 2015. Not true: the “amenity grassland” across much of the park will be fenced off until spring 2013.

They also say that the extent of tree pruning will be “minimal” and “routine.” I think the trees which will suffer a “removal of branches to the main stem” might quarrel with that.

In this debate and others Nick Raynsford, in particular, is in danger of becoming ridiculous. Not long ago, he was quoted as saying that he had “no doubt” that the redevelopment of Greenwich Market would succeed on appeal and would be built. The proposal was in breach of so many council and Government planning policies, and its rejection by councillors was so comprehensive, that it in fact seems rather unlikely to win an appeal, or to be built in its current form.

Economics have also turned against the development. At the same meeting that councillors refused the market redevelopment, centred around a huge new hotel, they approved a large new hotel on Greenwich High Road. They’re also currently considering another hotel proposal – the conversion of the upper floors of the Trafalgar pub. So any new hotel in the market now faces even greater challenges to its commercial viability.

Mr Raynsford’s instinct for distortion was also on hand over the market, with a claim that opponents had said Turnpin Lane would be destroyed. Nobody had said anything of the sort, of course. In psychoanalysis, this sort of behaviour is known as “Freudian projection” – when you project on to others the faults and flaws you sense in yourself.

Mr Raynsford may be able to inhabit his own private fantasy world for the majority of the parliamentary term. But with no more than six months before he must face his voters, it seems a rather unwise place for him to be at the moment.

Nick Raynsford replies to NOGOE open letter

Last week, we published an open letter from NOGOE’s John Hines to local MP, Nick Raynsford. We now publish Mr Raynsford’s response.

Dear John

Thank you for your open letter of the 3rd December. I have always believed that debates on any issue should be held in a respectful and civilised manner. I have been grateful that you and I have been able to discuss the issue in a non-confrontational way.

This, however, has not always been the case with other members of NOGOE who have repeatedly distorted the evidence and predicated their arguments on a mixture of fear and rhetoric in opposition to the planned Olympic and Paralympic events in Greenwich Park.

You stated in your letter that opposition amongst local residents to the use of the park for the equestrian events stands at some 66 per cent from those who responded to Gareth Bacon’s survey. The reason why I do not accept the veracity of that survey is because it was an unscientific survey prompted by political motives. By contrast, the polling carried out by an independent market research company, Nielsen, shows that just shy of 85 per cent of the residents of Greenwich support the use of the park for the Olympic and Paralympic events. This reflects the balance of opinion among constituents who have discussed the issue with me.

Whilst I will always be open to fresh evidence which indicates a change of opinion, I will not accept the credibility of a survey designed to promote a political point when it is so evidently debunked by independent polling. As the local MP, I have to listen to the views of all constituents, not only those who are the most vocal.

NOGOE has used some very effective campaigning methods. Indeed, I have a poster in front of me now which has a picture of the park with an accompanying caption which reads “This will be a NO GO area in 2012 for several months”. This, with respect, is scaremongering, and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
LOCOG have been very clear that the park as a whole will not be closed for several months. Indeed, the flower garden and the children’s play area will remain open to the public throughout the run-up to the games with a complete closure of the park only on the one day of the events themselves. This, understandably, is for reasons of security.

NOGOE was continuing to perpetuate the myth that the park would be closed in a BBC report in October of this year in which a spokeswoman said that it would be “socially and morally wrong” for the park to be closed, despite knowing that this would not be the case. LOCOG have also stated, quite clearly and repeatedly, that there are no plans for any trees to be cut down and claims that the park and its flora and archaeological heritage will suffer serious damage are unfounded.

I am extremely disheartened that certain elements within NOGOE are misrepresenting the facts in this way and are continuing a campaign of misinformation to oppose the application without considering the facts of the case. I hope and trust that this is not something of which you would approve.
I have received numerous representations from both sides in this matter and will always listen to evidence put before me. I am not an uncritical cheerleader for LOCOG – I support the LOCOG plan because I believe that it will bring substantial benefits to the local area and I am reassured by the plans that they have put forward.

I attended a public meeting on 23rd September at Blackheath Halls where local residents were able to directly question members from the LOCOG team about the plans. It was my impression from the meeting that many people, who had arrived as sceptics, were won over by the calm and fact-based approach of the LOCOG team, who answered the concerns of people who had been led to believe by the NOGOE campaign that the park would be seriously damaged by the Olympic events and closed for long periods of time.
With regards to the forthcoming planning decision, LOCOG will be required to make all aspects of their plan publicly available, as is the case for all planning applications. The application will have been made, mindful of planning regulations and following public consultation. The council will consider the application based on those regulations and I hope that the debate, which will no doubt take place before the planning committee, will be well informed, based on evidence and will provide all interested parties the opportunity to have their say on an equal basis. Sadly, this has not been the form of the debate over the past eighteen months and I can only hope that matters improve in the near future.

Kind regards

Nick Raynsford MP

“It would be a mistake for Ken Livingstone to stand again” – Nick Raynsford interview pt3

In part three of our interview with local MP, Nick Raynsford, he gives his thoughts on a variety of issues…

ON PLANS FOR AN EAST THAMES CROSSING

“I have absolutely no doubt that the Thames Gateway Bridge was necessary and will be built in due course and the mayor in the meantime is using this review as a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment. The reason he rejected the bridge was not a proper appraisal of Transport needs. It was because Ian Clement who was then his Deputy Mayor, now disgraced, was the leader of Bexley Council which politically was totally opposed to the TGB. It was a purely political decision. Boris knows that and he is trying to find a way out from an embarrassing position.

“The idea that you will somehow solve this problem by having some kind of additional ferry where the Bridge was supposed to be is for the birds.”

ON THE SILVERTOWN LINK AND TOLLING BLACKWALL

“In the long term there probably is a need for the Silvertown Link as well but I think the overwhelming priority is to get the Thames Gateway Bridge in first. Actually if you have TGB you would almost certainly have to toll Blackwall as well because you would have the risk of people not using the TGB even though it may be the logical one to use because of the toll.”

ON AIRPORT EXPANSION

“City Airport at the moment is meeting a need but it is a difficult one which has been highlighted by the introduction of these transatlantic flights. They are much, much noisier and you are in a very, very densely populated area and people living there are nervous about further expansion. It’s a small niche airport providing a need for people particularly in Canary Wharf and the City who want to get quick access to an airport and travel faster than they can via Heathrow, but it is not he right location for a major airport certainly not flying transatlantic flights.”

Greeenwich.co.uk: Did you oppose the recent expansion of the airport?

“I didn’t oppose it because at the moment I think that City Airport should continue to expand but if you had an estuary airport, which I back, then clearly that would replace City and the business demand for it at Canary Wharf would gravitate very, very easily to the Estuary Airport.”

Greenwich.co.uk: Doesn’t the same arguments you have made for not expanding Heathrow, also apply to City Airport?

“You’re talking about completely different things. You’re not talking about a major international hub airport. You’re talking about a relatively small niche operation, which closes for half the weekend. No flights at all Saturday to Sunday lunch time because that’s the conditions in which it operates. So it is a small operation which while the planes are small, doesn’t create a great deal of conflict. I get more complaints from
constituents about flights into Heathrow than I do about City Airport.”

ON THE NEXT MAYORAL ELECTIONS AND KEN LIVINGSTONE

“I’ve said no more than that I think it would be a mistake for Ken Livingstone to stand again. I think in many ways he was a very good mayor. He made mistakes but he also did some very brave things which got the mayoralty off onto basically a very sound footing. So I pay a lot of tribute to Ken but I don’t think that he would be the right candidate next time. I think that the Labour party should be looking for a new younger candidate who would be able to take London through really towards well into the second quarter of the century.”

ON BORIS JOHNSON

“I think he has been successful with communicating with the public who like his cheerful slightly eccentric style, but I think he’s made some serious mistakes on policy of which the TGB is an example. He’s clearly made a hash of the tall buildings policy, where he initially said that there won’t going to be any and has stood on his head on that, and he’s also I’m afraid made some very poor choices in terms of people to serve him and that surprises me because his criticisms of Ken for employing Lee Jasper were in my view well justified and you would have thought he would have been rather more careful about who he appointed and how they operated in his office. So it’s a mixed picture.”

Missed the previous parts of this interview?

PART 2: Nick Raynsford on the “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors and the “cult of personality” at Greenwich Time.

PART 1: The Greenwich Market Hotel “will be built” says Nick Raynsford

The “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors and the “cult of personality” at Greenwich Time – Nick Raynsford Interview pt 2

As I walk into Nick Raynsford’s Westminster office, he begins  to tell me about a meeting that he has just had at Greenwich Park.

He talks at length about the benefits he believes the equestrian events will bring from a “new feature” in the children’s playground to a “restructuring” of the Blackheath gate. He also talks about the wider economic development that he believes the games will bring to the town.

But while he is obviously enthusiastic about holding the Equestrian events here in Greenwich, it is striking how dismissive he is of those who oppose them:

“The problem with the NOGOE campaign is that they have not been prepared to listen to any evidence at all. They have their own preset view that this is going to be a disaster. They don’t want it, they don’t like it and they won’t listen to any evidence. That I’m afraid discredits them in the eyes of most rational people and observers”

Raynsford believes that opponents of the events have deliberately been spreading false information about it:

“I have to say that those people who have been campaigning against it have used in my view some extremely bogus claims and made some very dishonest statements that have actually caused alarm and concern to people who genuinely love the park

“And these claims are completely groundless. The claims that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers, that the ground would be destroyed and all churned up and giving the impression that this is some sort of Grand National type event when it is literally seventy horses, on one day, doing one circuit, and that’s it.”

Raynsford also believes that Olympic organisers failed to communicate their plans to the public until recently. He says that LOCOG “let their eye off the ball” in the early stages and “were not as responsive as they should have been” to objectors.

But despite this, he still believes that there is strong enthusiasm for the Olympics in the town:

“The overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive, and the interesting thing about this is that there is quite a split between those who have been most vocal against the Olympics who tend to be older, and those under 55, who are in my experience overwhelmingly supportive.”

Yet while he believes that the “overwhelming majority” of young people are “wholly supportive” he is dismissive of a recent survey carried out by Conservative Assembly member Gareth Bacon showing significant opposition to the equestrian events:

“That was completely unscientific and politically motivated and frankly I do not regard it as serious and it is trying to use this for political purposes and I think that is very unprincipled. I think the right approach here has to be to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency, which are the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views.”

Throughout our conversation I am struck by the relative weight he places on the views of officers, experts and agencies against those of politicians and campaigners.

I wonder whether this is a result of his extensive work outside parliament in the private sector.  Does this work interfere with his main role as a constituency MP?

“I think that parliament would be a very much weaker place if MPs didn’t have outside interests. My interests are all in the area I have worked throughout my professional life, so it’s housing, it’s construction, regeneration, that sort of area where I have quite a lot of expertise. I ran a consultancy before I was elected so this is not doing something new and it’s certainly not cashing in on ministerial experience which is one of the other allegations that is made. It’s simply pursuing expertise that I have had as a result of my professional career which I think makes me a better MP to comment on what is happening here at Westminster. So in debates on regeneration housing and construction I can usually give a pretty informed view and without sounding too immodest it does usually command a certain amount of respect rather than just partisan responses.”

I ask him how many days a week he spends in Greenwich. He says that he spends “at least one” to which he adds

“I tend to work around a 70-80 hour week and I’m quite confident if anyone looked at the hours I spend they would see that I spend at least 55 hours a week on parliamentary or constituency business, so the outside work is not interfering with that.”

There is little doubt that Raynsford is closely involved in local politics and on the morning of our interview I spot him on page three of the council’s newspaper Greenwich Time.

In the picture, he is standing alongside Labour Councillor Peter Brooks, celebrating the acceptance of Oyster Cards on Thames Clippers.

I ask him how he can justify appearing in a publication that many people believe is just “electioneering on the rates”

“I think it is important that the council does have a mechanism to communicate but I think it does have to be very careful how it uses that. I took with a pinch of salt some of the criticisms that were voiced about this being party propaganda because it came to a head when the Evening Standard was running an absolutely vitriolic campaign against Ken Livingstone and I think that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander”

Yet in my copy of Greenwich Time I also find reams of advertising for local businesses, a feature on Leona Lewis and even a TV guide. Isn’t this deliberately designed to weaken independent newspapers in the area?

“I think there is a general problem for local newspapers across the country irrespective of whether there are aggressive local council newspapers as well, so I don’t think it is entirely fair to say that the problems facing the News Shopper and the Mercury are simply the fault of Greenwich Time. I think it is a wider problem. I do think we have to have diversity and I’m a strong believer in keeping viable local newspapers and I would certainly not want to see Greenwich Time replacing them as the only voice locally.”

But what about all the non-council related content in Greenwich Time? How can the council justify that?

“I don’t know enough about, I haven’t spoken to Peter Cordwell the editor about his reasons for doing that. My prime concern is that this should be a means of communication between the council and local people.”

But if it is just about communicating with constituents, why have  there been so many front page pictures of Council leader Chris Roberts in recent months?

“I am not myself a great believer in the cult of personality and you will not see many photos of me in Greenwich Time” he replies rather uneasily. “I don’t seek publicity in that form.”

Read part three of the interview tomorrow and find out why Nick Raynsford thinks Ken Livingstone should not stand for London Mayor in 2012.

Missed part one of the interview? Read it here

Next Page »