Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

You are here: Greenwich / News

Maplin to open new store at Greenwich Shopping Park

By

Electronics retailer, Maplin, is to open a new branch next Saturday (19th December) at the Greenwich Shopping Park off Bugsby’s Way.

The new branch will be Maplin’s 170th store, and will occupy the final unit at the retail park.

Maplin’s store manager, Phil Jarrett, who will open the store, explained: “We’re delighted to be opening a store at Greenwich Shopping Park and it’s great that we are able to open our doors just in time for the final push for Christmas, when shoppers will be looking to get the best electronic gifts on the market this Christmas.”

You can see the range of products they stock by visiting the Maplin website.

Shop Closures

Elsewhere in Greenwich, there have been a couple of shop closures.

The off licence on Greenwich High Road, Bottoms Up, has closed down after its parent company, First Quench Retailing Limited, went into administration.  In King William Walk, Revolutionz – the ski and skate wear shop – has also closed down. The company is still trading online and with a branch in Norwich, so visit their website if you need to speak to them about any returns or warranty questions.

New train timetables come into effect

By

The biggest shake up of overground rail services for years came into effect today with the introduction of the new train timetables.

Southeastern say that the new timetables “mean an entirely new service pattern throughout the parts of Kent, East Sussex and South East London served by the company”.

For information about how find out how the new train services will effect passengers at Greenwich stations, see our useful guide to the new timetables.

LOCOG Respond to Andrew Gilligan

By

LOCOG have issued the following statement to Greenwich.co.uk in response to Andrew Gilligan’s latest article.

LOCOG believes that Greenwich Park will be a stunning venue for the Equestrian and Modern Pentathlon events in 2012. We take our responsibilities very seriously and our planning application shows the detailed work we have carried out on all aspects of our plans for Greenwich Park. We will make sure that we return the Park in the condition in which we receive it, and we have fully involved The Royal Parks and English Heritage in the development of all studies and plans.

Closure of areas of the Park

  • The majority of the Park will remain open until July 2012.
  • There will be some scheduled closure of the north end of the Park for the Test Event but this will re-open afterwards. Installation of the temporary arena is estimated to begin in April 2012.
  • We have listened to people’s concerns and have reduced the time of full closure for the Park from six to four weeks, from 6 July to 3 August 2012.
  • The Children’s Playground, the Deer Park and the majority of the Flower Garden will remain open throughout, apart from the one day that the Cross Country event will take place.
  • The Park will not start closing from February 2010. Over the next two years, small sections of the Park will be cordoned off to allow ground improvement works to take place. Much of this is similar to the activity that routinely takes place already as part of The Royal Parks’ ground programme, such as mowing and aerating. It will have little impact on visitors to the Park who will still be able to access all areas freely, except for a narrow strip of ground in certain places.
  • We are clear in our Planning Application (Environmental Statement: Section 3.2. Table 3.2 – Indicative programme and extent of public access) that all works related to the Games will be completed by November 2012, other than the Acid Grass Restoration and Enhancement programme which is due for completion in 2015. The amenity grass affected by our activity in the Park will be reinstated within six months.
  • The Acid Grassland Restoration and Enhancement programme is a substantial three-year programme to improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland within the Park. This is a long-term programme to improve significantly the amount and quality of the acid grasslands in the Park, thus improving the Park’s ecology and offering a real legacy benefit.  This is fully supported by The Royal Parks.
    Lorry and vehicle movements
  • For planning purposes we have assessed the number of lorry movements on the basis of the maximum upper limit we may need to use.
  • On this basis the upper limit of lorries or lorry movements required is estimated as 3,210 over a period of 26 weeks. This is an average of 43 per day and 7 per hour for the 15 weeks of set-up, and an average of 58 per day/9 per hour for the 11 weeks of removal.
  • The Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary page 17 states that “Given the relatively low daily vehicle flows involved it is considered that vehicular traffic associated with the set up and removal of the event facilities would have an insignificant effect.  A maximum of seven lorry movements per hour is predicted which is anticipated to have no noticeable impact on the operation of the highway network.”
  • As a construction project in London, we anticipate that a Traffic Management Plan will be a condition of planning approval. This will ensure that affected local residents are kept informed and that measures are taken to minimise the impact of traffic movements. For example, minimising movement at sensitive times of the day and dispersing them throughout the week.
  • We have already said that there will be no residential road closures and Romney Road will remain open.

Heritage impact

  • Loss of heritage features, or preserving by record, are references to what might happen if we were to discover any previously unknown historical or archaeological items that the relevant historical or cultural authorities do not want to keep because they are of such low significance to warrant doing anything other than recording them.
  • If we find anything during our work in the Park we will, of course, preserve and protect it. We will be guided at all times by the appropriate authorities.

Visual impact and trees

  • The proposed perimeter security fence will run inside the existing perimeter wall for the Park. The majority of it will not be seen from outside the Park. Lighting for CCTV will be very low level.
  • No trees will be removed. All trees will be protected in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction. A full Tree Protection Plan will be put into effect in partnership with The Royal Parks.
  • Some minor tree pruning is unavoidable but it will be undertaken on a case by case basis with input from an arboriculturist accustomed to working in historic landscapes and in partnership with The Royal Parks. The extent of this pruning is minimal, the majority involving just branch tips, and arboricultural experts have confirmed that the proposed work poses no threat.
  • Minor pruning of this nature takes place routinely as part of The Royal Parks’ normal maintenance programmes.

Legacy

  • The Environmental Statement states that ‘The extent to which legacy benefits are generated by the Greenwich Park Events rather than the 2012 Games as a whole is not clear’. The Environment Statement is part of a formal planning application and as such is required to use quantifiable methodology.
  • We are not surprised, three years out from the Games, that this scientific data is not available. We have always said that hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Greenwich provides a legacy of increased global profile for the Borough and inspiration for its residents, and will bring sport  to new audiences across the Borough and London. We fully recognise that it will take years to quantify the legacy effects of hosting the Games.
  • Nevertheless, the Statement, written by independent planning specialists, clearly identifies that ‘Greenwich Council is actively promoting a range of sports activities and programmes using the 2012 Games to inspire local children and residents to  become more active. The Council is also working with a number of sports governing bodies which are holding events in Greenwich in 2012 to develop opportunities to create meaningful long-term benefits’. This activity and investment has been driven by hosting the Games.
  • Greenwich Council is also working with the British Equestrian Federation’s HOOF project to develop a riding school for the borough, potentially at a site on Shooters Hill.
  • LOCOG is also in discussion with The Royal Parks about leaving behind a permanent legacy feature in Greenwich Park, such as an upgrade to the Children’s Playground. In addition to this, working in partnership with The Royal Parks, we will deliver on our commitment not only to reinstate but in fact to leave a larger area of high-grade acid grassland post-Games than currently exists. This is a long-term environmental legacy for Greenwich Park and, of course, requires a period of growing seasons to establish.
  • The Borough of Greenwich has also already benefited from an £80 million investment in the Docklands Light Railway to extend the line to Woolwich and increase carriage provision by 55 carriages.

Public support

  • We have no interest in ‘rigging’ figures. The research referred to was conducted independently for LOCOG by The Nielsen Research Company. Nielsen is one of the largest research companies in the world. The research complies fully with the MRS code of conduct.
  • The 81% figure in the Evening Standard poll referred to is not a specific figure representing the residents of Greenwich. The research that LOCOG commissioned was directed at local residents and was aimed at understanding their local feelings. These two polls therefore are not comparable.
  • These figures and the methodology of the Nielson survey are robust. They demonstrate the wide support for the Games in Greenwich, subject to certain conditions which we are fulfilling – specifically, closure lasting no more than six weeks and no long-term damage to the Park.

Nick Raynsford replies to NOGOE open letter

By

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

Cyclist seriously injured after being hit by lorry

By

A female cyclist was left seriously injured yesterday after being hit by a lorry in Greenwich.

The incident happened at the junction of Vanbrugh Hill and Woolwich Road on Monday.

No further details are yet known but this article will be updated as soon as more information is made available.

In May this year, a female cyclist was killed after colliding with a lorry at the junction of the A102(M) and Woolwich Road.

See also: Greenwich Phantom

UPDATE – The Metropolitan Police have not confirmed any further details at all about this, but local sources have told Greenwich.co.uk that the victim was 66 year old Stella Chandler and that she has since died due to her injuries.

Santa arrives at East Greenwich Pleasaunce

By

FATHER Christmas was the guest of honour today at East Greenwich Pleasaunce as families joined together for a day of fun, music and mince pies.

Over 400 people turned up to the Green-Flag awarded park in East Greenwich to take part in Carols at the Pleasaunce, organised by the Friends of East Greenwich Pleasaunce. The carol singing was led by the Halstow Community Choir, and there was also music to be enjoyed from The Los Dawsons.

Father Christmas arrived in a specially decorated “chariot” and gave all the kids a balloon and chocolate bar.

Thanks very much to Kate from the Friends of East Greenwich Pleasaunce who sent in these photos of the special day.

Friends pay tribute to life of Michael Joyce

By

A young actor, known to many locally as drag artist Estee Applauder, has been killed in a car accident. Michael Joyce had gone home to Tasmania for Christmas where the incident happened on Wednesday. His mother was also in the car at the time and has been very seriously injured.

Michael was well known for his appearances as “Estee” in local gay venues such as the Rose & Crown pub on Crooms Hill and in the George and Dragon. He had recently completed a role in a forthcoming movie, filmed in Greenwich, called The Cost of Love. One of his co-actors in that film, Robert Gray from the Number 16 B&B, told Greenwich.co.uk:

“Michael Joyce was a one off, who always wanted to know what you had been up to before talking about himself. He was funny, hard working, and Greenwich will be much more dull with his passing. I do hope The Cost of Love will be a great tribute to him”

Friends of the actor gathered in the Rose and Crown this evening to pay tribute to Michael and a Facebook group has been set up in his memory.

NOGOE Respond To Raynsford Criticism

By

Following our interview with Nick Raynsford in which he referred to the “bogus claims” of Olympic protestors, NOGOE have written an open letter to the MP, published in full below.

Dear Nick,

NOGOE very much regrets your uncritical cheer leading for LOCOG (most recently displayed in your interview with www.Greenwich.co.uk). As a constituency MP, we feel that you should respect, even if you don’t always agree with, the genuinely held views of all your constituents. I am therefore writing this open letter to you, which the blog site has agreed to publish.
There have already been a number of criticisms about what you said in that interview on the blog. Nevertheless, I should make the following points on behalf of NOGOE, who was most directly in your line of fire:
NOGOE has been asking LOCOG for details (what you call evidence) of its plans for more than a year; but questions are never answered, other than with generalities and bland assurances. If we had had evidence, we would, of course, have listened. I dealt with the lack of facts from LOCOG in a letter to The Mercury that was published last week (25th November). It has not prompted any response.

If it is to succeed with its planning application, LOCOG will need to establish that the Park will not be damaged (and that is not just the trees, but the archaeological remains and conduits beneath, the acid grassland and the habitats of the animals and insects that live in the Park etc). We expect those topics to be covered in the Environmental Impact Assessment, which accompanies the application, which we anxiously wait to see.

We, but obviously not you, have always found it strange that LOCOG has been able so confidently to assert that there will be no damage to the Park, before publication of the Environmental Assessment. A comment that we have made in the past to LOCOG, but again without response.

Although you have been content to go along with LOCOG’s unevidenced assurances that all will be well, we very much hope that, as our local MP, you do not endorse what Tessa Jowell said in a Radio 4 interview (You and Yours, 27th October), namely that the decision to hold events in Greenwich Park had already been made. Not only does she and others responsible for the Games give the impression that the Council’s decision is already in the bag, but some local residents are beginning to think that as a result, further opposition is fruitless.

On specific NOGOE statements that you said in your interview were false, we have not suggested that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers since LOCOG told us that that was not its intention in early 2009. If you had remembered what was in the NOGOE Report (which I hope that you read), published in March 2009 and which I made a point of sending to you in advance of public distribution, you would have recalled the following statement:

The cross-country course will inevitably pass through and along many of the avenues, whatever its final route. Although it is now accepted that there is at present no intention to fell or cut out more than small branches to improve visibility for the cross-country course riders (despite many months of protest at the lack of information, this has only recently become clear), concern about damage to root systems as a result of compaction remains a major issue.

We have since become more concerned about the extent of branch lopping and we wait to see what precautions will be taken to avoid root damage.

NOGOE has never suggested that there was to be Grand National type event. We keep our ear pretty close to the ground and, as far as we know, the only person who has ever suggested that anyone was thinking of that was Lord Coe. We are, however, concerned about how it would be intended to soften the ground for the cross-country course – you will recall that the LOCOG spokesman failed properly to answer the precise questions about that at the Blackheath meeting on 23rd September.

Your dismissal of the findings of the Bacon survey that 68% of local residents oppose the events in the Park is regrettable, but sadly not untypical of those who dislike inconvenient evidence. We have no idea as to the quality of your “evidence” that the overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive of the events in the Park. Perhaps you should have stood at the NOGOE protest table outside the Park every weekend last summer, when we collected over 13,000 signatures against the use of the Park. Signatories were of all ages, with some of the most enthusiastic being what you would call young people.

Your suggestion that the right approach for Gareth Bacon would have been to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency as “the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views” entirely misses the point. To suggest that LOCOG and the Royal Parks (an agency of the DCMS, which is sponsoring the Games) are best able to judge what is for the best is the equivalent of asking someone to be judge and jury in their own cause. With respect, that is a derisible proposition.

In summary, your charge that NOGOE has been dishonest in making bogus claims and dishonest statements is groundless. I leave local residents to judge whether LOCOG, with its bland, but unevidenced, assurances would have been a more appropriate recipient of the charge.

Please will you stop playing a political game; the preservation of the Park is too important for politics. While we accept that you are personally committed to the highest possible level to Olympic activity in Greenwich, don’t you think that you demean your office by dismissing with such venom anyone, including GLA Member Bacon, who seeks to put a different point of view?

We think that it would be in the interests of all concerned if you were prepared to adopt a more reasoned approach to the consideration of the merits of equestrian events in the Park. We have no doubt that strong pressures will be applied to members of the Council’s Planning Board from a number of quarters to grant permission. However, in fairness to all whom you represent, may I ask that you make it clear to your constituents that no decision has been taken by the Council and that you will expect the Planning Board to approach their difficult task with their focus solely on the planning issues?

Yours sincerely,

John Hine

NOGOE Coordinator

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

By

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

By

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