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

Greenwich Market Hotel “will be built” – Nick Raynsford Interview Pt1

Nick Raynsford MP has said that councillors were “absolutely wrong” to reject the redevelopment of Greenwich Market and says that he has “no doubt” that the hotel will be built. The comments came in an extensive interview for Greenwich.co.uk which we are publishing in three parts all this week.

The highly controversial market proposals were unanimously rejected by councillors earlier this year, but Raynsford believes that they will now go through on appeal:

“Having read rather carefully the officer report and I speak as a former minister for planning so I did have to take decisions on issues like this, I think the Hospital have got good grounds for an appeal”

“In that situation when a scheme has been strongly supported by the officers and it is rejected by the politicians then very often inspectors tend to agree with the professionals and grant the appeal.

“I think this thing will be built. I have no doubt.”

Asked whether he had spoken to Council leader Chris Roberts since he rejected the proposals, he replied:

“Yes I have and I told him I think he was wrong. He was absolutely wrong on this issue. I don’t always agree with him.”

Raynsford believes that “vested interests” misled the public about the scheme:

“The proposals didn’t get explained as they should have been to the public who were apprehensive, but you also had some people who had a vested interest in trying to present this as a Bluewater type scheme rather than what it was.”

Greenwich.co.uk: What do you mean by “vested interests”?

“Well Andrew Gilligan had turned his mind against the thing right from the outset. He was totally hostile to it, and he literally would not listen. His view was this was a totally awful scheme, and the article he wrote for the Evening Standard showed an illustration or Turnpin lane, and the argument was, this is all going to get knocked down. Nonsense. The only thing that was going to be knocked down were those steel girders that hold up the roof at the moment which actually protrude into Turnpin lane and make it a less easy area to negotiate. And the only change would have been rather more elegant supports holding the roof up. And that to my mind is not the product of somebody who has looked at it seriously.”

Raynsford still believes that the hotel will bring much needed economic benefits to the town:

“Greenwich has a huge international reputation but it doesn’t get the full benefit of that. It is known to be a beautiful place, but on the whole the tourism revenue we get is the revenue of a day trip destination. People come to London, and they say that one of the things they must do is go to Greenwich. They’ll probably take a boat down the river, they’ll spend five or six hours in Greenwich, go to the Maritime Museum, perhaps go into the park, to the Painted Hall and the chapel and perhaps the Observatory and then they’ll go back. So they come back to central London and they’ve probably spent  £10-15 in Greenwich and they’ve spent hundreds of  pounds [in the centre]”

Asked whether Greenwich Hospital will appeal the council’s decision he replied:

“Of course it is up to them, but I think they are considering whether they are going to make a fresh application or whether to appeal. Frankly I think that if they appeal they have a very good chance of success, because the officer report which is the serious professional appraisal, gave it very strong support… So a good scheme and I think that there is every chance that it will be built in due course.”

In part two of this interview, to be published tomorrow, read what Nick Raynsford has to say about the “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors and the “cult of personality” at Greenwich Time.

No Letter From Legg For Nick Raynsford

As has been widely publicised, many MPs have received letters in the last week requesting the repayment of wrongly claimed expenses following a review by Sir Thomas Legg. The review has asked for thousands of pounds in expenses to be paid back to the public purse, including a request for £12,000 to be repaid by the Prime Minister.

Greenwich and Woolwich MP, Nick Raynsford, has confirmed that he received no such letter and has not been asked to repay any expenses.

Nick Raynsford said today:

“I know that the issue of MPs’ expenses is one that remains high in many people’s minds when they think about politics and I wanted to take the opportunity, in light of the Legg review, to make sure that residents in Greenwich and Woolwich are fully aware of my position.

“I have never claimed for a second home, nor for any furniture or fittings. My expense claim is the 37th lowest out of 646 MPs and the vast majority of my expense claim is spent on employing members of staff who assist me in taking up constituents’ cases whenever they come to me with a problem.

“The process of going through other MPs’ expenses will take time and will continue to generate negative comments about politics and about Members of Parliament. I hope that by making my position as clear as possible, local residents will be reassured about my position. If any residents have any queries about any elements of my claims for expenses, which were all published earlier this year, then they are welcome to write to my office to seek further clarification or to visit my website at www.nickraynsford.org.uk”

Nick Raynsford: The Challenge of Regenerating Greenwich

Greenwich is a place of paradox – at the same time very familiar and yet unknown. Mention Greenwich to people living elsewhere in Britain or indeed overseas, and it will almost always strike a light. The home of time, site of the Prime Meridian, location of some of the country’s finest baroque architecture, the magnificent Royal Park with its unparalleled views over London. These are just some of the characteristics that make Greenwich world famous.

But much of the locality remains largely unknown beyond the Borough boundaries. The acres of formerly derelict land on the Greenwich Peninsula might until recently have been part of a different planet. The terraces of housing in East Greenwich nestling at the bottom of the Blackheath escarpment are equally unfamiliar. And traveling east towards Charlton, the swathe of retail and commercial buildings lying between the Anti-Gallican Pub and the river – once the historic ropewalk, so redolent of Greenwich’s naval history – are as anonymous as similar sheds in countless other cities.

When I was first elected MP for the area in 1992 another paradox of Greenwich was brought home to me brutally by an event which shocked the country. The murder of Stephen Lawrence just across the constituency boundary in Eltham, but very much part of the Borough, was a savage reminder of the problems confronting the area. Greenwich had suffered more than most parts of London from the collapse of the traditional heavy industries that had once provided the area’s economic bedrock. In the atmosphere of decline and despair that appeared endemic at that time, it was hardly surprising if racism and inter-communal conflicts reared their ugly heads.

It taught me early on in my time as an MP, the importance of bringing investment, economic development and regeneration activity that would not only create new jobs, but build aspiration, skills and hope. Transport was clearly critical. The shortage of efficient and reliable links to central London and across the river was a major obstacle to new investment. The arrival of the Jubilee line, the DLR and a long overdue riverbus service has begun to redress the balance. Better bus links and easier interchange between different transport modes as oystercard is extended to surface trains will also help. So too will continuing improvement in the reliability and frequency of South-Eastern train services.

But if improved accessibility is vital, so too is the replacement of the largely defunct 19th century industrial base with employers likely to thrive in the very different economic climate of the early 21st Century. Creative industries are an obvious example, with strong links to higher education. So the arrival of Trinity and Laban, the University of Greenwich on the old Royal Naval College site, Ravensbourne College and the O2 on the Peninsula have made and will continue to make a very significant impact on the local economy as well as the area’s cultural vitality.

Another paradox has been tourism. While Greenwich is internationally renowned, it has not realized the full economic benefit of that fame. Most visitors come as ‘day trippers’ admiring Greenwich but returning mainly to central London in the evenings, where the great bulk of their spending also takes place. Yet Greenwich is a beautiful place to stay, and local businesses would benefit from more overnight visitors, so the development of a wider range of hotels is also vital to the area’s long-term economic strength.

The key to successful regeneration is effecting change while protecting and preserving the best from the past. In Greenwich more than almost anywhere else on earth that is the challenge to which we must rise.

A donation was made to the Greenwich Association of Disabled People in lieu of payment for this article.

Greenwich Students Get Downing Street Tour

From L-R: Rahima Choudhury (PSHE Teacher), Jenny Pham (pupil), Ramendeep Pawar (pupil), Nick Raynsford MP

Year 8 pupils from John Roan School experienced a trip around number 10 Downing Street after one politicially minded student wrote a letter to Greenwich MP, Nick Raynsford.

Ramandeep Pawar, 13, wrote to Nick Raynsford to ask him to invite Gordon Brown to John Roan School. The Prime Minister instead wrote back to Mr Raynsford inviting him to bring a group from the school to visit 10 Downing Street.

Ramandeep brought along 23 of his classmates, two teachers, and Headteacher Des Malone, along with him as they took a tour behind the famous black door.

Nick says: ‘It was a real pleasure to accompany children from the John Roan School on this visit. I was particularly impressed with Ramandeep’s initiative in contacting the Prime Minister. This shows that politics is relevant to all ages, and demonstrates John Roan’s commitment to encouraging their pupils to become active citizens in the community’.

Next Page »