Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

In conversation with Cllr Spencer Drury, leader of Greenwich Conservatives

By

What was your highlight of the year?

This is going to sound a bit weird because it’s not the mainstream stuff but to me it was probably going with my kids to the rehearsal of the opening ceremony. That was just spectacular to see it in that setting and it was nice to see it before everyone else. It was quite nice doing something with the kids and I appreciate that’s not a very political answer but it was nice to be there. The telly couldn’t get across quite how big that was.

The council has just launched its London 2012 legacy report and it was recently presented to the Scrutiny Committee on which you sit…

That was a stroke of genius, the way they handled that.

What makes you say that?

Because they tabled two 40-page reports. There was no chance of anyone having read them. All we could do was listen to what was being said and then it was impossible to ask any questions because you hadn’t read the report.They told you about the report in a way that meant you weren’t going to ask any questions. So it was beautifully handled if you were the person presenting it but less good if you wanted any scrutiny.

If you’d wanted any proper scrutiny you’d have sent it out first and let us read it, or even bits of it that we were interested in.

Now that you have had a chance to look at the report, what do you make of the council’s claims over legacy from the Olympics?

The physical legacy is clearly there. The stuff they’ve built is there. The following question is “will they maintain it?” I don’t think they are necessarily best at maintaining these things because they cut the people in the parks department and they are quite good at sticking this stuff in but not necessarily making sure it stays the same way.

There’s other stuff that I asked about at that meeting which I got some follow-up replies on about the schools sports competitions. If you look at the way most of the other boroughs, particularly Bromley or Bexley, run their selection for London Youth Games, they use it as a platform to have local competitions between clubs and schools for say, rugby or football or netball or whatever. Whereas what Greenwich seem to do is find the nearest person they can think of and ask them to put forward a team.

This doesn’t seem, to me, to be sensible. We should be using this as a legacy in terms of promoting sports for all of our kids. I want to see a much bigger emphasis on developing school sports and sports for young people so that they see sport as a habit and something they do as normal.

One of the sports legacy projects was the BMX track at Hornfair Park. There were concerns before it opened about the impact it might have. Have those concerns been justified?

Hornfair Park is interesting. It’s a fascinating example of the lack of planning that the council has. So what you’ve got is Hornfair Park where, in theory, they said they were going to build an £11 million diving centre even though it was quite clear to anyone with a brain but they didn’t have the person to do that.

Then you’re going to redo the swimming pool, fine, and then you’re going to build a vandal-proof set of changing rooms but you haven’t got anyone there to open the vandal-proof changing rooms because there’s no one in the park.

Then you’ve got a bowls green which you semi-restore and then I go round and take some pictures of the tennis courts and put them on the conservative party website and you realise that the tennis courts are dreadful. You re-do the tennis courts and build over the bowling breen which was there and at the same time because you haven’t got anyone in the park, something burns down.

At the very far end of the park you build the BMX track so what you’ve now got is a park with lots of different bits and pieces in. You could have had the new changing rooms in the lido development, that would have made much more sense.

If you had the BMX track down this end, it would have been much easier to keep secure and you would actually be able to charge for the tennis courts if they were somewhere close to the lido rather than over on another side. My point is that any sports facilities will be broadly welcome but this is just a series of piecemeal initiatives which they stuck in one park and I don’t really understand the thinking. That park is emblematic of the lack of forward-thought and lack of planning that Greenwich is serially guilty of.

But just specifically about the BMX track because there were those worries before it opened, do you think those concerns are still there?

I think if you’re a local resident then I’m sure they are. I haven’t heard any complaints so I’m assuming it’s better than they thought. I know things like the gate have been stolen from it but that comes back to things like security. I don’t think it’s the BMX track per se that’s an issue, it’s how it’s used and how it’s supervised in terms of opening and closing. If it had been closer to the lido though it would have been a much better facility because it could have had longer opening hours and more people using it.

Has the council done enough to secure an economic legacy from the games?

No, I don’t think it was ever going to… there were studies saying Olympic towns lose money when the Olympics are there because there is not a massive increase at the time.

In Greenwich you could see that people were going to the stadium and then leaving again. When you talk to some of the traders they’ve been clear to me there was a loss of business. So I don’t think there’s an economic legacy in that sense but one hopes there is a long-term economic legacy in terms of Greenwich’s tourism but I wouldn’t expect to see that in the short term.

I think the council has been slightly disingenuous in talking about a legacy. There won’t be an economic legacy at the moment, in fact I imagine the immediate impact may be quite negative.

Looking ahead, what are the areas you think the council needs to perform better in?

For me, it would have to be schools. It’s three or four years since we said that we needed 17 forms of entry extra at reception level because of the growth of population in the borough. The reaction to that has not been to build more schools but to put more Portakabins into schools and to open old schools. Broadly speaking, we’ve got a lot more crowded schools now with smaller playground space.  That is slowly feeding through and you can see it coming to secondary level soon. I would like to see some serious forward planning.

So the big long-term issue for me is that, and the short term issue it’s how you deal with the austerity package. How you cope with those cuts that are going to come and how we cope with, potentially, the introduction of business rates as the basis for local funding which is a bit arcane but could be huge in terms of the impact on council finances.

Moving on to Greenwich Time, which has been controversial…

It’s still controversial.

Do you feel at an electoral disadvantage because of the existence of Greenwich Time?

Of course! A Labour councillor said to me in the past, “you’re never going to win anything while Greenwich Time goes through everyone’s doors every week.” They are quite open and blunt about that but the Government should legislate to stop them doing it and that’s the truth. It’s just propaganda paid for by the state. In my view, it’s immoral.

The Government had a go and thought people would abide by the spirit of what it had said but Greenwich did not abide by the spirit at all. That can come as no shock. I think it’s a disgrace that they continue to publish what I consider to be propaganda.

If the Government did tell the council they couldn’t publish it, is that at odds with their localism agenda?

No, I don’t think it is. I read through the government guidelines, I thought they were far too generous anyway about what you could do in terms of local publications. The bottom line is you can do all of the things they claim Greenwich Time is for in much cheaper and more effective ways. It’s wrong for councils to be putting out newspapers that actively undermine the local press.

Question from a twitter user: why are the government attacking people on sickness benefits and blaming us for the rich bankers’ mistakes?

I wouldn’t agree with that analysis of what’s going on.

Do you support all of the government’s measures on benefits?

I think Iain Duncan Smith spent a lot of time coming through with a set of proposals. I’m fascinated to see [Labour MP] Frank Field heavily involved in this as well and the extent to which those two have come to remarkably similar conclusions about the way of dealing with this and frankly I’m absolutely behind it as a programme.

And you support the housing benefit cap?

Yep.

Would you support a cap on housing benefit even without the context of austerity cuts?

Yep.

Do you accept the concerns that a cap will drive people out of central London and in to the outer boroughs?

I think Greenwich Council are being deceitful about the way this is happening. They built the new Ferrier estate, the Kidbrooke Village , and they’re actually giving away two thirds of the homes in that new social housing to non-Greenwich residents. They’ve done a deal, I believe, with Lewisham and Southwark so we’re taking Lewisham and Southwark residents anyway and we were before this housing benefit cap came anywhere close, so they’re just playing it because they want to.

I think the Labour party in Greenwich have been disgraceful over this because they set up their own company which charges 80% of market rates, they said “we’re going to make sure there’s no security of tenure.” Basically everything the Government have done, Greenwich were already ahead of them on and they just don’t want to admit that.

Reader’s question: If you had been elected to parliament at the last election…

That wasn’t likely.

But if you had been, you would now be having decide on the equal marriage debate that’s causing some problems within your party. What’s your view?

I wasn’t expecting to be elected to be absolutely honest. I was hoping to make more progress on the council but that didn’t work. I have to say broadly speaking I’m in favour of plans for same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t want to say I have an in-depth knowledge of what they were exactly but, as I understand it, churches won’t be forced to conduct them and that seems to be a reasonable solution. But if churches are happy to have same-sex marriages I don’t see why that shouldn’t be the case.

Wouldn’t a third tunnel at Blackwall soon just get full up too and add to congestion and damage air quality?

Well, I would have to say that the lesson of the past is that whenever we build roads they soon fill to capacity. Not tunnels particularly but roads anywhere. Having said that, I think I read an interesting statistic recently about car ownership slightly dropping around London so I don’t know. But if we based it on the past, the answer is probably “yes” but that’s not a reason for not building more capacity where it’s obviously completely overladen at the moment and we do need that extra capacity.

Wouldn’t the people of Peninsula ward be paying the price for that in terms of air quality for the convenience of people driving up from Kent?

If we reduce the congestion, which I think it probably would overall, and if they weren’t sitting there in  traffic for a period of time, you’d have thought  that in fact air quality would improve so it’s going to depend partly on whether or not it solves the traffic flow.

We’re still awaiting an independent report in to what went wrong with the foot tunnel refurbishments, but what do you think went wrong?

I know the council think they’re really good at managing these big projects but I’ve got some doubts based on things like the Eltham centre where you had an electrical fault which caused a fire and currently the creche is closed because one of the pools is leaking. This is in a building which is not that old.

In the Woolwich Centre you had some problems with water going through to the computer storage unit which is in the basement. So I think possibly the council aren’t quite as good at this as they think are, it’s just that previously they had lots of money to spend. All of that could be supposition and I’ll be very interested to see what the independent person has to say.

Do you think there’s anything specifically the council can do to help the borough’s town centres or are town centres everywhere just suffering at the moment?

I still maintain the council is far too focused on Woolwich. When you look at the centre of Woolwich they’ve made an enormous change over the last 10 years so you couldn’t criticise them over Woolwich but I think they’ve done that to the detriment of everywhere else.

Thamesmead’s fascinating. As far as I can make out when you look at what Trust Thamesmead are doing, it’s almost all on the Bexley side not on the Greenwich side. Look at the centre of Greenwich: for the Olympics they suddenly got involved but is there a long-term plan there? I’ve got my doubts, if I’m honest. Destination Greenwich might make a difference.

Obviously as someone from the south of the borough, I’ve got to say I don’t think they really care at all. We are there to pay some council tax and be left alone. There is a lack of clarity as well. I’m relatively sure when you look at the revenue from the increased parking charges it’s well off of what was predicted and some of that is because the car parks are so expensive people don’t park in them.

If I pop down to Greenwich, I used to struggle to find a space but now you can park fairly regularly in car parks because it costs so much and that must be hitting businesses.

Has the council missed having a second opposition party since the Liberal Democrats lost their councillors in 2010?

No. No, I don’t think it has. The problem that we’ve got is that broadly speaking we have a small opposition and what we need is a bigger opposition. Now, whether that was the Liberal Democrats or more of us, I don’t think it would much difference. What the council does miss is a serious opposition voice in the north of the borough, in Greenwich, in Woolwich and in Thamesmead. There is a real need in the north of the borough for an opposition voice.

Let’s take the foot tunnels. The nearest opposition councillors you’ve got to that are people who are in Blackheath, both of whom live south of Shooters Hill Road so they’re not necessarily going to be cycling through the tunnel every day and that’s what you’re saying, there aren’t the people on the ground looking at this critically.

I’ll go down when people invite me down, and Alex [Wilson] and Geoff [Brighty] will but without actual opposition councillors in Greenwich and Woolwich, you simply don’t get the kind of response and feedback that’s required.

Is there a possibility that, depending on how popular the coalition parties are nationally at the time of the next council elections, there could be even less opposition in Greenwich?

Yes, there’s a chance…. The big unknowable frankly is the Liberal Democrats. Last time, they got about 20% of the vote doing nothing. They got 20% of the vote in some seats where I know for a fact they didn’t deliver a leaflet. They didn’t knock on a single door.  That 20% of the vote is up for grabs and could go anywhere. That’s going to be the interesting bit. Say for instance in Peninsula if those people all decided to vote Green, suddenly you could end up with some Green councillors.

Will you be standing again at the next General election?

Yeah I think I might do.

Would you stand again in Greenwich & Woolwich because I think it would be fair to say people associate you with Eltham?

Yeah, I think they do although I would hope also across the whole borough because I do a lot of work across the borough. The toughest thing about standing in Eltham where I live is that I do feel there’s a  responsibility as leader of the opposition to make sure you’re going up and visiting people in Thamesmead and Greenwich – that’s an important part of the job.

But I don’t  know is the honest answer. I quite fancy it but we’ll wait and see.

Thanks to Spencer Drury and for questions submitted via twitter and email.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greenwich Conservatives fail to stop Time

By

Greenwich Council’s weekly newspaper, Greenwich Time, will continue after moves by local Conservatives to have its future reconsidered were rejected.

The Tories used their powers to ‘call-in’ the council’s decision to carry on publishing the newspaper but the three-member Overview & Scrutiny Call-In Sub-Committee voted last night not to refer the decision back to cabinet.

The decision to press on with Greenwich Time comes despite doubt being cast on the council’s claim that it saves up to £2 million each year by printing the paper each week.

Conservative opposition leader Spencer Drury told the committee meeting at the town hall in Woolwich that neighbouring Bexley only spent £15,000 annually on placing public notices in a local newspaper.

He was challenging a decision by the council’s cabinet to continue publishing GT weekly, defying a government code designed to restrict local authority publications.

It was also revealed at the meeting that a community publisher is threatening to bring a case against the council for alleged damage to its business.

Greenwich Council has long said that it saves money by using Greenwich Time to publish the notices – which detail planning applications and other formal matters – instead of paying a local newspaper to run them.

A report presented to the council cabinet in July said the council was saving £2.3 million a year by publishing the notices in Greenwich Time – but Cllr Drury said Bexley’s deal with the News Shopper proved the council’s cabinet had “given little consideration to doing anything different”.

“If Greenwich could get a similar deal with News Shopper and let us assume the Mercury, the same could be done for £30,000 for two years. This seems very different to the one to two million pounds randomly inserted in the report,” he said.

But council chief executive Mary Ney said the council’s estimates had been checked, and a comparison with Bexley was invalid because that borough issued far fewer public notices.

“Our volume of council advertising is quite considerable, and doesn’t bear any relation to Bexley, which hasn’t got a regeneration agenda, and doesn’t produce the same volume of housing applications, or licensing applications because of the different entertainment and tourism offers of the boroughs,” she said. “They’re at a very different level of activity.”

Council leader Chris Roberts was on leave and did not attend the meeting, and nor did any members of the cabinet who took the decision, despite being invited, leaving council officers to explain the authority’s position.

The publisher and editor of of Eltham-based community magazine SE Nine said they would be making a detailed complaint to the district auditor about Greenwich Time, “seeking financial redress for the damage to our business” since the code was introduced on 31 March.

In a statement handed to the panel, Mark Wall and John Webb accused the council of unfairly competing against their monthly, and of having an “in-house bunker mentality sponsored by the existence of Greenwich Time”.

Assistant chief executive Katrina Delaney, whose communications portfolio includes GT, admitted to there being “one or two issues” with SE Nine but said she was satisfied GT’s sales team had not set out to poach the monthly’s advertisers.

Ms Delaney said when the council had discussed working with existing newspaper operators, they freely admitted to not delivering to parts of the borough that did not fit in with their desired target audience.

“One of them told me that essentially, they were looking for people who don’t live in the inner cities and who were Land of Leather buyers,” she said.

“The Mercury sold ads for GT for six or seven months, but pulled out of the deal because it was too labour-intensive to chase advertising in Greenwich,” she said, claiming newspaper groups were less interested in the kinds of small businesses who promote themselves in GT.

“The News Shopper in Bexley carries the same car ads as in Greenwich,” she added.

“I’m not convinced the ads in Greenwich Time would appear anywhere else.”

Locally-based journalist and 853 blogger Darryl Chamberlain also addressed the meeting, claiming that recent coverage in Greenwich Time of the aftermath of Woolwich’s riot was not “objective and even-handed”, as demanded by the government in its code.

He cited an opinion column from leader Chris Roberts criticising media coverage of the riots. “If he wants to rant about the media, he could always start a blog,” he said, adding that it appeared checks and balances designed to ensure Greenwich Time was unbiased were failing.

But Ms Delaney said readers knew what to expect from a council publication.

“The paper covers the council’s view,” she continued.

“If you get a Marks & Spencer card, you’ll get Marks & Spencer’s magazine and it’ll cover Marks & Spencer’s view. The same with the gas board or BT or whoever. I think people understand it represents the views of the organisation.

“Greenwich Time represents the views that come from the decision makers at Greenwich Council.”

The three-member panel split on party lines over the issue, with Conservative Eileen Glover (Eltham South) backing the call for the cabinet to reconsider the decision.

“When other people question our decisions, there should be evidence that we’ve gone out and based the decisions we do make on firm evidence,” she said.

“We should contact other councils who have changed their distribution – ask them how they’re doing, and if they’ve got a better idea that’s more cost-effective, then we should be doing that.”

But Allan MacCarthy (Labour, Charlton) said the cabinet “must be at liberty to do what it considers to be appropriate”, and said there was no evidence that GT had affected the local advertising market.

Chairman Mick Hayes (Labour, Eltham West) said that it seemed to him that most people had already made their minds up about GT and “I’m not sure any evidence would sway people one way or the other”.

He said GT should be judged on its “effectiveness”, and no other paper could reach the number of households it did.

“Is it effective in doing what we as a local council should be doing, and telling people what’s going on in planning, licensing, and lettings? My understanding is that it has been proven to be effective. Have other means been proven to be effective? I’m not so sure they have.”

The panel decided by two votes to one to let the cabinet’s decision stand.

Updated

A Greenwich Council spokesperson said “The Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Panel voted to note the decision of the Cabinet taken on 19 July 2011, with regard to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity and take no further action.

“Greenwich Council will continue to publish GT on a weekly basis in order to keep residents informed about local services, to advertise statutory notices such as planning applications and to promote social housing available through our Choise Based Lettings scheme.”

Councillors back Greenwich budget cuts

By

Greenwich Councillors unanimously supported plans to cut spending by £48.6 million last night.

Council leader, Chris Roberts, presented the council budget to colleagues at the full council meeting at Woolwich Town Hall. He told councillors that it was “a robust budget” but issued the stark warning that there was a “ticking Tory timebomb” underneath it.

The proposed budget would protect the frontline, he said, but acknowledged increased charges for parking and allotments would cause concern for residents.

“It is a budget that will come under increasing strain as Tory policies bite hard. When the poor shift out of central London because they can no longer afford their housing costs, they will land in boroughs like Greenwich in need of affordable housing, schools and social care.”, said Cllr Roberts.

The speech by the Council Leader drew applause from his Labour colleagues, including the Deputy Mayor, and was labelled “the finest I’ve heard in this chamber” by Cllr Don Austen.

Over £7.5 million will be cut through “management de-layering” and over £3 million has been found in back office savings. A pay freeze for employees will save almost £1.5 million and £2million has been cut from grants to the voluntary sector.

The council will “endeavour to keep open” all of its Sure Start centres and protect leisure centres. The council has stated there will be no cuts to the library service – although this claim has raised eyebrows in Kidbrooke.

Responding to the Budget on behalf of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury praised the “tough decisions taken by the cabinet” and said they “deserve our support in this chamber”. Any disagreements they did have would be “quibbling around the edges” of what was a “substantial package of cuts.”

The council is anticipating that £63 million worth of savings will be required by 2015 as part of their Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) with most of that front-loaded into the next two years.

The meeting was notable for the lack of protests that have been witnessed at other council meetings in London and elsewhere. A small group of trade union demonstrators congregated at the entrance to the town hall but their protest remained out in Wellington Street and there was no sign of it in the chamber itself.

Greenwich Council Meeting: 27th October 2010

By

Councillors met at Woolwich Town Hall last night for the first full council meeting since the summer recess.

Royal Hill school building

The Victorian school building in Royal Hill which has latterly been used as an annexe for Charlton Special School could be returned to use as a primary school, it was revealed.

In a written response to a question from Cllr Spencer Drury (Conservative, Eltham North), the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Cllr Jackie Smith (Labour, Thamesmead Moorings), stated that the council “is considering plans for the reopening of the school to meet the growing demand for primary school places in west Greenwich”.

The John Roan School

Councillor Alex Wilson (Conservative, Blackheath Westcombe) asked for an update on the re-building of The John Roan School. A written reply from Councillor Jackie Smith revealed that a design team was in place, the process to appoint a building contractor was “well advanced” and work was expected to start in approximately 12 months.

Sleeping Arrangements

Former Liberal Democrat Paul Webbewood used the opportunity of Public Questions to ask council leader, Councillor Chris Roberts, if he had ever slept at Woolwich Town Hall. “No”, replied Cllr Roberts.

Blackheath Fireworks

Cllr Alex Wilson (Conservative, Blackheath Westcombe) said that the decision not to contribute to this year’s Blackheath Fireworks felt like being “a dinner guest who has walked away at the last minute without helping to pay his share of the bill”, and asked for the cut to be justified by the Council.

Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Peter Brooks (Labour, Thamesmead Moorings) said there were “65 million reasons” to justify the decision, alluding to the £65 million the council expects to have to cut. Cllr Brooks said that the share of the costs for Greenwich Council was £37,000 which equated to “a job a bit”.  He said he was “given about two days in the middle of the recess to come up with this decision” and it wasn’t a decision taken “lightheartedly”.

Read more on the issue of Blackheath Fireworks at 853

Disposal of land in Commerell Street

The council resolved to try and sell two houses it owns in Commerell Street. The council has estimated that selling the land will raise £550,000 which it intends to spend on its new Housing Delivery Vehicle, financing decant costs in Kidbrooke and Woolwich and other urgent capital works on council-owned homes. The council will need to gain permission from the Secretary of State for Local Government before proceeding with the disposal.

Nouvelles Racines Free School

A Conservative motion welcoming the attempt to set up a new free school teaching the International Baccalaureate was debated by councillors.

Cllr Dermot Poston (Conservative, Eltham North) praised the “vision” of parents and teachers behind the school who he said had a “passion” for educating children “in depth”.

Cllr Adam Thomas (Conservative, Eltham South) said that the parents and teachers  proposing the free school wanted to “make a difference to the education of children in this borough”.

Cabinet member in charge of schools, Cllr Jackie Smith said it was “wholly unfair to debate in this chamber one particular proposal that is still being assessed by the Department of Education”.

She said that the council was “corncerned about free schools” which she said had “too many unknowns”. She pointed that the borough already a diverse range of schools which within the local authority “family”.

She said she didn’t wish to debate the merits of the IB but didn’t think funding should be taken away from other children in the borough to “set up a bit of elitism”.

Cllr David Grant (Labour, Greenwich West) accused Greenwich Conservatives of “jumping on Mr Gove’s decidedly rickety bandwagon” and said their motion was “trivial and foolish”.

Cllr Alex Grant (Labour, Blackheath Westcombe) – himself a former student of the International Baccalaurate – said it was a good course but not a “magic bullet”.  He also commented that there was “nothing to prevent any state school in Greenwich from starting to do the International Baccalaurate”. He said that as a “through school” catering for all ages, he thought it would be “overwhelming” for young children to be sharing a playground and school building with 17 and 18 year olds.

Cllr Nigel Fletcher (Conservative, Eltham North)  said that there was a “mindset” within the Labour group that they could  allow experimentation and parent involvement with schools “but only up to a point” because “at the end of the day, the council knows best”.

Pickles calls time on Greenwich Council’s weekly newspaper

By

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, has announced proposals to clamp down on “town hall pravdas” and singled out Greenwich Council’s weekly newspaper, Greenwich Time, as “one of the most blatant examples”.

New guidelines put forward by the government would restrict councils to publishing their own free-sheets no more than four times a year.

Speaking exclusively to Greenwich.co.uk, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said:

“Councils should be focusing resources on frontline services, not running one-sided Town Hall papers that threaten the genuine local press. ‘Greenwich Time’ is one of the most blatant examples of this practice that I’ve seen, and demonstrates why tightening the rules is so necessary.”

The new rules, which are subject to consultation, would also impose stricter controls over the content that councils can publish. Local authority publications should only include “information for the public about the business, services and amenities of the council or other local service providers”, according to the proposed code of practice.

Greenwich Council’s controversial newspaper was the subject of a debate at the last full meeting of the council when local Conservatives put forward a motion calling it for to be axed.

Leader of Greenwich Conservatives, Cllr Spencer Drury, welcomed the government’s announcement. He added:

“Greenwich Time undermines local business and publishes what I would describe as propaganda masquerading as news.  I hope that this will encourage our existing local newspapers to revive their news reporting function and to start investigating the failures of Greenwich Council in a more systematic manner.”

Council Leader, Cllr Chris Roberts, defended Greenwich Time at the last full council meeting. He said that the paper, which is delivered to homes across the borough, was “very close to being self financing” and allowed the council “to deliver statutory notices almost at no cost”.

Spencer Drury answers your questions

By

Spencer Drury is the Conservative candidate for Greenwich & Woolwich. Here’s his answers to some of your questions.

What do you think qualifies you to be MP for Greenwich and Woolwich?

The only qualification one needs to be MP for Greenwich and Woolwich is more votes than the other candidates. However, I hope that I can bring a different perspective to the role of MP through my involvement in the local community and knowledge of the different issues around south-east London.

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.

As I have said before I am disappointed that the contra-flow system has not been reinstated, but I understand this is because of a change in EU regulations. This puts a different perspective on the situation as Conservative policy is to bring a range of powers back into this country from a European level and clearly we should be able to make our own decisions about using a system which had not caused any accidents as far as I could see.

Would you like to comment on Greenwich Council’s announcement that it is to snoop on its own staff?

Ironically it was a local resident who passed the letter which has been put in the public domain to me and I sent it on to Dizzy (Phil Hendren) who is a friend of mine and used to live in Plumstead.

I think that the principle of the state creating bigger and bigger databases is one which scares me. It seems the relationship between the state and the individual has changed, with all the power in the hands of the government which can compare our data as an when it wishes. The relationship between the individual and the state has to be rebalanced so that the individual has more power. This is one of the reasons why I oppose the Labour policy of introducing ID cards.

What was the last book you read?

The last book I read was ‘The Return of Sherlock Holmes’ and I am currently picking my way through ‘Suggs and the City’ which I find very relaxing when my days are filled with electioneering.

Greenwich Hospital is appealing the decision to reject their redevelopment of Greenwich Market – do you support redevelopment of the market?

I think Greenwich Market needs refurbishment not redevelopment. This means smartening up what is already there (and is much loved by local residents and visitors) rather than demolishing chunks of it, putting up wood cladding on buildings and ripping up the cobbles. So no, I do not support the redevelopment plans that were bought forward, but I do think that the roof of the market needs replacing.

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?

Linked to the previous answer, no. This is equally true for other planning applications which are overturned in Bristol having been rejected in Greenwich.

Spencer Drury on 2012, Schooling and the General Election: Interview Pt3

By

This is part three of Adam Bienkov’s interview with Spencer Drury – Conservative candidate for the Greenwich & Woolwich parliamentary seat and leader of the Conservatives on Greenwich Council. Part one and part two were published on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

Olympics

Hosting the 2012 Olympics has a been a polarising issue in the borough, but the Greenwich Conservatives have so far been relatively quiet about it. Drury himself has mixed feelings about the Games.

He tells me that while the cross country equestrian events will be “fabulous for the park” and an “amazing event” he admits that “this is not the line that NOGOE would like to hear.”

However, he also thinks that the temporary stadium is a “sticking point”:

“The 20,000 seat stadium I have got serious questions about. I mean the fact that it’s a temporary stadium, I’m already thinking is that worthwhile? But where they’re planning on putting it will actually ruin the views down the park to Maritime Greenwich. I mean if you put a great big stadium in front of that then you’re ruining the very views that they seem to want. That seems to me to be self defeating.”

He also believes the Council have missed a big opportunity to capitalise on the Games.

“The Olympics have got tonnes of money and as far as I can work out Greenwich as an area is going to have no legacy from it. Well I mean I say no legacy, but there might be trees chopped down but no legacy from it in any positive physical way.”

So will the Games be good for Greenwich overall?

“Well if you could sort out the congestion as a legacy then I think that people in Greenwich would take the rough with the smooth but at the moment we are just getting the rough.   We’re just getting problems from it and we’re getting damage to a much valued park although I don’t think it will be as bad as NOGOE are making out. I really don’t feel that.”

Are NOGOE representative?

“I think they are representative of a certain group of people in Greenwich but when you go out knocking on doors, I mean I was out in Greenwich last weekend and not one person mentioned it to me. Not one person. Schools, bins and recycling are the things that come up. People are more concerneed about other things. I think that is why you won’t see political parties focusing on it in a major way because on the doorstep it is not the major issue that people are concerned about.”


Schools

I’m speaking to Drury after the announcement that the John Roan school will no longer be moved to the Peninsula. He is relieved:

“The plans to put the John Roan school on the peninsula were always ridiculous. They were planning to put a bigger school on a smaller site, five stories tall with a playground on the roof. It was madness.”

While pleased about this, he believes that it is symptomatic of a wider problem:

“The Council’s education policy is in chaos frankly. We’ve still got the worst GCSE results in London.  They’ve improved a lot but they’re still the worst in London. So our kids are leaving education at a substantial disadvantage to most other kids across London.  And that’a huge blow to us and a massive shame”

He supports the Conservative plans to create smaller “Free Schools” run by parents:

“Parental choice is absolutely vital in this and we know parental choice is already happening in Greenwich because so many hundreds of kids at eleven go out of the borough, whether to private or to Grammar schools.  But what’s interesting when you look at the figures is that they are not just going to the Grammar schools they are also going to Welling and other schools along the border with Bexley because they are better run than Greenwich schools frankly.”

The General Election

Drury is set to stand against Nick Raynsford in Greenwich later this year. I ask him if he knows him well. He tells me that while he sees him annually at the borough’s Remembrance Sunday event, he hardly ever comes across him otherwise:

“I think Clive Efford [Labour MP for Eltham] marked himself as a local MP who didn’t care about Westminster very much. Well I think that Nick Raynsford is the opposite to that. There is a local area. He’s aware that it exists, but Westminster is where his heart is.”

Like Efford, Drury has a close attachment to the area. Raised in Woolwich and a long standing councillor in Eltham, Drury still lives within the borough.

With boundary changes giving the Conservatives a real chance of winning Eltham, I ask him why he didn’t choose to stand in his home town again:

“I did [consider it] but it was for various personal reasons. My daughter had been in hospital for two months and then my wife became ill as well. It was in the run up to the selection for the parliamentary seat and I came pretty close to just packing it all in frankly. And ironically it was a letter from Chris Roberts asking if everything was okay that changed my mind.

“It made me think think that maybe politics isn’t just about doing silly stunts and playing silly games. That maybe there is a point to it”

Council leader “can’t seem to work with other people” – Spencer Drury Interview Pt2

By

This is part two of Adam Bienkov’s interview with Spencer Drury – Conservative candidate for the Greenwich & Woolwich parliamentary seat and leader of the Conservatives on Greenwich Council. Click here to read part one of the interview.

I meet Spencer Drury the day after the monthly full meeting of Greenwich Council. As usual the Conservative group raised a motion which was voted down by Labour, with Council leader Chris Roberts dismissing the debate as a “complete irrelevance.” Only a handful of voters were there to hear it.

And yet every week a newspaper promoting the Council’s agenda and featuring exclusively Labour politicians is distributed to the entire borough. Many thousands of voters will go on to read it.

So how can an opposition party ever hope to counter this imbalance?

“There is a real problem in Greenwich. Labour have been in power for 40 years and as an opposition the changing system has made it hard to make any contribution at all. We’re marginalised on scrutiny panels which are 100% chaired by Labour members and we can bring motions to Council which obviously get voted down. So the council side of it is very hard to contribute to at all. And it is hard to break through what is essentially a taxpayer funded infrastructure in place to support the Labour Party.”

So would the Conservatives close down Greenwich Time?

“Yes. Well I think that you would need some kind of communication, so I would look at the Bexley model where you have a quarterly magazine and it is a case of just what’s on in the borough. But this council spends a fortune on advertising itself and Greenwich Time has to go. It is wrong. It is morally wrong to be pumping out propaganda at the expense of the taxpayer”

But is it really just a political vehicle?

“I mean it went weekly the week after Boris was elected. Tell me that wasn’t a political decision. It was fortnightly before then and it went weekly genuinely the week afer he was elected.”

He tells me about the council’s campaign to bring the Oyster card to the Thames Clippers. For Drury this was little more than a show, with the aims of the campaign won long before the council even became involved:

“I asked for the background papers and the Council didn’t actually do anything. They just ran their campaign in Greenwich. They didn’t tell the Mayor they were running this campaign. The Mayor had already made the decision anyway and they delivered their petition to him I believe a week before the decision was announced publically.  So all the decisions had been made and their influence was absolutely zero.”

So why bother to do it?

“They just wanted to stand around and pose with printed blue cards run in their own council paper saying how fabulous they are.  And it’s just rotten. It’s just wasting time and money when they should be doing things that improve the lives of people in this borough.”

So what can the opposition do in these circumstances. Where can they be effective?

“Well what you can do is be a good ward member and make sure that your residents are represented. And I enjoy that and it is worth doing.”

But do the Council listen to those representations?

“To be honest we’re pretty much excluded. Chris Robert’s political approach is to make sure that the Labour party does what he wants them to and he’s got no interest in paying attention to any other views even those within the Labour party, let alone the opposition. And he will let us contribute occasionally on minor things so I’m hoping that he will be letting us contribute on the coat of arms for the Royal Borough for instance. But this is not something that is going to make much difference to many residents.”

What do you make of him personally?

“Well I think he is very divisive. With Chris you are either with him or against him. And that applies to opposition politicians but that also applies to people within the Labour party. You see very often the Labour group split over the hard line that he has taken over certain issues. And his relations with the Mayor of London are dreadful now and they were dreadful when there was a Labour Mayor of London.  He just can’t seem to work with other people.”

I ask him about reports that Roberts is moving wards at the election. Is he running away from defeat?

“Well he had one of the lowest votes I believe of anyone on the council and he was comfortably lower than the other two Labour councillors in the peninsula. So there is certainly a negative attittude towards Chris and he is certainly the only person who I have spoken to people about on the doorstep and they have said “well I’m not a Conservative voter but I’m definitely not voting for Roberts”. So he definitely isn’t a popular figure”


In part three of the inteview, to be published tomorrow, Spencer Drury is asked about the 2012 Olympics, schooling in Greenwich and the forthcoming General Election campaign.

Blackwall Tunnel U-turn a “huge disappointment” – Spencer Drury Interview Pt1

By

The Conservative’s parliamentary candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich has spoken of his “huge disappointment” after the Mayor broke his promise to reinstate tidal flow in the Blackwall Tunnel.

Speaking during a wide-ranging interview with Greenwich.co.uk, the current leader of the Conservatives on the council Spencer Drury said:

“I think it is a huge disappointment because it does create congestion unnecessarily. For years it worked perfectly well and I can’t see why it suddenly had to change.”

In the run up to the Mayoral elections, Boris Johnson promised to reverse the controversial decision to end tidal flow “at the earliest opportunity.”

The pledge gathered widespread support in the area and formed a major part of his transport manifesto. However, last month he admitted to LBC presenter Nick Ferrari that he would not fulfill his promise:

“If I were to impose my will and say restore that contraflow and if there was then to be some huge conflagration in that tunnel and there were fatalities I’m afraid then under the present law of corporate manslaughter brought in by this Labour government then the tragedy is that I would be liable.”

Asked about the legal implications comments, Spencer Drury replied:

“I’m not aware of the legal position so I will have to take [Boris’s] word for that, but yes it is a disappointment.”

The importance of relieving congestion at Blackwall was highlighted after a recent fire in the tunnel caused widespread traffic chaos in the area. It also comes after reports that Olympic lanes will be installed in the tunnels.

However, on this issue Spencer Drury insists that the Mayor has listened:

“We’ve spoken with the Mayor’s office and they have said that this is not the case, so I don’t believe that the plan that we have seen in the public domain is the plan that we are going to end up with. I think the Mayor is listening to us on this.”

He also hit out at Greenwich Council for failing to deal with congestion in the area:

“I have always said that one of the things that you could have as a legacy from the Olympics is sorting out congestion in Greenwich, that we could get outside organisations involved and say that we want this as a legacy and I think that many more residents would be on board about the Olympics if it meant we could sort out the town centre.”

However, he suggested that the council’s plans to pedestrianise the town centre were little more than an election gimmick:

“If you were cynical about it you might suggest that it is just because there is an election coming up because there doesn’t appear to have been a proper plan behind this. The problem is that they haven’t done a study on the surrounding areas. This is a huge hub within SE London and the impact the plans would have on Lewisham and on Deptford and on the A2 is even bigger. And because the Council have not looked at it on a global scale we might have a situation where it would work for one part of Greenwich but then has a negative effect elsewhere.”

He believes that the council should instead secure funding to widen certain roads in the borough and even to build a road tunnel under Blackheath:

“Well one of my colleagues was very keen on taking one the road across the heath down into a tunnel because you could dig down very easily there and make it wider. I think that would be a lovely idea although I don’t know whether we would ever be able to afford it. But quite clearly if we want to look after our town centre we have to look at something that would be a genuine leagacy from the Olympics”

In part two of our interview Spencer Drury speaks out against plans to build a temporary stadium in Greenwich Park, says that the continued publication of Greenwich Time is “morally wrong” and claims that Chris Roberts is a “divisive” and unpopular leader of the council.