Posts Tagged ‘eric pickles’
Campaigners against Ikea’s proposed store in east Greenwich have launched an appeal for funds as they look to begin a judicial review into the Government’s decision not to overturn planning permission for the scheme.
Greenwich Council gave outline permission for the store, on the site of the “eco-friendly” Sainsbury’s store in Peartree Way, in March. Planning officers ignored concerns about increased traffic and air pollution, a decision later backed by London mayor Boris Johnson.
Communities secretary Eric Pickles put the scheme on hold, but later opted not to intervene in the scheme. Current Greenwich Council leader Denise Hyland was among the councillors to back the scheme in March, along with then-leader Chris Roberts, then-chief whip Ray Walker, Steve Offord and Clive Mardner; ignoring over an hour of public criticism of the proposals.
More recently, English Heritage turned down a request from the Twentieth Century Society to list the Sainsbury’s store, which opened in September 1999 and was shortlisted for the following year’s Stirling Prize for architecture. Construction work is now well under way on a replacement Sainsbury’s store at Gallions Road, Charlton.
Now the No Ikea Greenwich group needs to raise £2,000 to take the case to solicitors for an initial opinion on a judicial review. Payments can be made via this PayPal page. Judicial reviews need to be launched within three months of the decision they seek to challenge, so the money will need to be raised quickly.
A new petition has also been launched to persuade Sainsbury’s to lift the restrictive covenant on the old store which prevents its use as a supermarket.
The architect behind the Sainsbury’s store, Paul Hinkin, died earlier this month at the age of 49.
“Paul was a very gifted and principled architect with a passion for true sustainability and he will be desperately missed,” his firm, Black Architecture, said in a statement.
Hinkin spoke at the Greenwich Council meeting that approved Ikea’s plans, and earlier this year wrote that Ikea should “do the right thing” and rethink its plans.
“Develop a proposition that meets the needs of the many people of London by developing a store directly served by train or tube and built with the same care, craftsmanship and environmental stewardship that you demand from you furniture,” he wrote.
Ikea certainly has changed its business model in other parts of Europe – a new store in Hamburg is in an inner-city, pedestrianised area.
But there’s been no sign of Ikea announcing any changes to its model for its Greenwich store (indeed, no sign of Ikea representatives for some months, according to Greenwich Millennium Village residents), nor any sign of pressure from Greenwich Council on the flat-pack furniture giant to amend its plans.
Greenwich Council refused an approach from the owner of the Mercury and South London Press newspapers to take over its controversial weekly freesheet Greenwich Time, it’s emerged – and is being accused of misleading its own councillors about the offer.
The offer, made three years ago, is at the centre of a row between the publisher and the council over figures used by Greenwich leader Denise Hyland to justify continuing with the newspaper, one of only two in the country that are published weekly.
It comes as Greenwich Council is defending the paper against new laws brought in by the coalition government, with communities secretary Eric Pickles calling it “propaganda on the rates”.
Before GT went weekly, it had a long-standing distribution arrangement with the Mercury, which is London’s oldest local paper and is run as a sister paper to its Tindle Newspapers stablemate, the South London Press.
Greenwich claims it saves money by publishing GT weekly as it can place public notices – for planning, road closures, and the like – there without having to pay a third party for advertising.
But a letter from SLP managing director Peter Edwards to Hyland, sent earlier this month, claims the council presented “inaccurate data” when justifying this in a council debate in June, which saw councillors vote down an anti-GT motion from the Conservatives.
Greenwich claimed advertising in the Mercury would cost it £1.37m per year – but Edwards says he told council officers in a presentation that the council would only pay 55% of that sum, while the Mercury would also increase its distribution to 90% of the borough.
“We would also establish a channel on the Mercury website to carry notices, online videos and interviews, plus video streaming of open council meetings, all of this within the price quoted,” he added.
“In short, we would ensure every Greenwich resident had full and unfettered access to council messages.
“I am certain that if your meeting on 25th June were in full possession of all the facts it may have reached a different conclusion.”
In response, Hyland claims councillors already had “access to the full range of information you have provided”. But this information was only shared with cabinet members at the time, and not with the full council. While the council admitted in July 2011 that talks had been held with publishers, the details were not shared beyond the cabinet.
She added that the SLP/Mercury package would have “cost the council more for less” and would have still resulted “in an increase in expenditure”.
In addition, Hyland said the SLP’s offer would not have matched GT’s distribution, and could leave the council open to “a potential reputational risk as our adverts may appear alongside those for adult service providers and chat lines”.
(The sex trade ads are an Achilles heel for the SLP when it comes to dealing with local councils – some years ago, Lambeth withdrew its ads from the SLP in protest. After a spell running a GT-style fortnightly, Lambeth Life, Lambeth took its ads to an independent, Southwark Newspaper, which now produces a weekly Lambeth Weekender featuring four pages of council news plus public notices.)
After the Mercury/SLP offer was rebuffed in 2011, Tindle Newspapers took on a different strategy to push the Mercury, de-emphasising free deliveries in Greenwich borough in favour of creating paid-for micro-editions on sale in newsagents in west Greenwich, Charlton and Blackheath – the first paid-for papers to serve the areas for three decades.
More recently, Greenwich Council has come out fighting to defend Greenwich Time, which the Government believes it has now outlawed.
“I do not understand on what basis the Secretary of State considers that the council’s publicity is not even-handed or objective,” chief executive Mary Ney, whose job is supposed to be politically-neutral, wrote on 29 April in response to a warning from Pickles that he was considering action.
“This is a serious allegation and I am entitled to understand on what basis it is being made.”
Greenwich Council’s full response, obtained by this website under the Freedom of Information Act, lays into critics of Greenwich Time, essentially implying they do not represent the views of the people of the borough as “half are active in local politics”. “The objectiveness of their submissions has to be questioned,” it adds.
If Greenwich Time is axed, it claims, it will be “on the decision of a single minister, based upon the representations of 8 people out of a borough population of 264,000″.
It also claims that Greenwich Time supports the local newspaper industry as it is printed at Trinity Mirror’s presses in Watford, that Greenwich borough has “a strong local newspaper market”, and that it has “given extensive coverage to the Mayor of London”, and lists the (rare) occasions that opposition councillors are featured in it.
But it misses out the fact that its “rigorous sign-off process” includes the sign-off from the council leader, as admitted by Mary Ney last year, while the council’s sums still don’t take into account the time council staff spend on Greenwich Time.
The council’s response also included a dossier of notes of support from various figures, including a bizarre letter from someone at the Greenwich Islamic Centre in Plumstead which hopes the Government will change its mind so “the residents of the borough can enjoy their favourite weekly newspaper”.
Another respondent claims “it is a very balanced publication which does not demonstrate political bias in any way”, while the council response quotes another individual as claiming it runs “fact-based community editorial”.
One response backing GT comes from Steve Nelson of the South East London Chamber of Commerce, who’s regularly invited to the council’s mayor-making jollies at the Royal Naval College and is a trustee of council charity Greenwich Starting Blocks, which features regularly in the paper.
Looking through the responses, with names redacted, it seems that those who appear in Greenwich Time support it, and those who don’t are against it.
Which, in a nutshell, is the problem with Greenwich Time. Just as the Evening Standard has ceased to be a reliable news source because it contains little criticism of mayor Boris Johnson, Greenwich Time is similarly unreliable because it contains little criticism of Greenwich Council. And only one of those two titles is paid for by council taxpayers.
Whatever the failings of this area’s local media, the fact that we’re paying for a weekly paper which delivers just one side of the story is a big problem. And after six years of it, it’s far from certain that a weekly propaganda rag is even an effective communication strategy for the council anyway – how many go straight in the recycling? Simply barking out instructions on a dead bit of tree simply doesn’t cut it these days.
If Greenwich Time goes, the council’s communications and engagement policy will have to be rethought. And a deal with someone will have to be done, be it with the Mercury/SLP or a competitor, for those public notices.
Like alcoholics contemplating a future off the booze, a future without Greenwich Time is one the council leadership simply doesn’t want to contemplate.
Will Eric Pickles take the bottle off them? We’ll have to wait and see.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has confirmed he won’t intervene in Greenwich Council’s decision to allow a huge new Ikea superstore in east Greenwich.
Greenwich Council gave outline permission for the store, on the site of the “eco-friendly” Sainsbury’s store in Peartree Way, in March. Planning officers ignored concerns about increased traffic and air pollution, a decision later backed by London mayor Boris Johnson.
The process was halted by Pickles in May, leading campaigners to hope the decision could go to a public inquiry.
Now Pickles’ decision means it’s back in the hands of Greenwich Council, which now needs to hammer out what concessions Ikea needs to make to make any store work, before a detailed planning application goes in.
Of course, the biggest worry is traffic and pollution. The development’s bound to be a draw for flat-pack furniture fans from across London and Kent, yet it’s to be placed in an area which can’t cope with any more traffic. The only real proposal from Ikea to solve this was to route traffic away from the notorious Woolwich Road roundabout, sending traffic in the direction of the Millennium Village.
Any ideas? If you do, contact your local councillors – it’s time for them to earn their corn and try to ameliorate the damage their colleagues have caused.
The Government has stepped in to halt the outline planning permission for a new Ikea in east Greenwich after complaints from local protesters.
Greenwich Council gave outline permission for Ikea to build a store on the site of the “eco-friendly” Sainsbury’s store in Peartree Way earlier this year, with planning officers ignoring concerns about increased traffic and air pollution, a decision later backed by London mayor Boris Johnson.
The five Labour members on the planning board – including council leader Chris Roberts, chief whip Ray Walker and regeneration member Denise Hyland – backed the scheme, with two Conservatives voting against.
This was despite every speaker at the planning board meeting – including local outgoing Labour councillors Mary Mills and Alex Grant – voicing objections to the scheme.
Since then, a local campaign has sprung up, gathering cross-party support to call for the decision to be overturned and handed to a public inquiry.
Now Pickles has issued a directive telling Greenwich Council to put final approval on hold while he reviews Greenwich’s process.
Government policy is not to interfere on local matters, so for Pickles to overturn the decision, campaigners have to show that the Ikea decision is of more than local importance.
There’s no timescale for the decision, but those who want to make a representation to Pickles on the issue can email Muredach Diamond at the Department for Communities and Local Government: muredach.diamond[at]communities.gsi.gov.uk, quoting reference NPCU/RTI/E5330/73828.
Separately, English Heritage is considering an application to list the 1999 Sainsbury’s store that’s already on the site, which was lauded at the time for its ecologically-friendly innovations. Work has already started on a replacement store half a mile away in Charlton.
Update 9pm: I’m told by that an Ikea representative was meant to attend a meeting of residents in Greenwich Millennium Village on Wednesday evening, but failed to show.
Greenwich Council’s propaganda weekly got an unlikely airing in the Midlands at the end of last week as Prime Minister David Cameron took aim at Greenwich Time when he launched the Conservatives’ local election campaign.
London boroughs won’t see an election for another year yet, but seats in English county councils are up for grabs on 2 May.
“And what about all those Labour councils shamelessly spending your money on their propaganda?
Greenwich – whose town-hall newspaper is about as balanced as Pravda. And about as interesting to read as well!
Tee-hee! Dave did a funny!
Lambeth – which scare-mongers about cuts – but funnily enough still has cash for posters all over the borough attacking the Government.
These people: when it comes to spending your money, they just cannot help themselves.”
Interestingly enough, I spend a fair bit of time near Shepherd’s Bush Green, where the lamp posts are covered in posters boasting about council tax cuts in Hammersmith & Fulham – a Conservative borough.
That aside, David Cameron’s speech shows how Greenwich Time has become an exposed target for opponents to kick – despite the fact that his government has failed to kill it off after promising to once already.
A recently-introduced code on council publicity was meant to put an end to the likes of GT – but it doesn’t have the force of law, and Greenwich has blithely continued publishing, and is likely to do so up to the next council election.
Now communities secretary Eric Pickles has launched a consultation on making that code law.
“Some councils are undermining the free press and wasting taxpayers’ money which should be spent carefully on the front line services that make a real difference to quality of life. It should not, under any circumstances, be used to fund political propaganda and town hall Pravdas and yet a hardcore minority of councils continue to ignore the rules despite public concern.”
Greenwich Council has always maintained that Greenwich Time covers its own costs and that scrapping it would divert money away from frontline services. This is because the council would have to place its public notices (planning permission, consultations, that kind of thing) in the News Shopper or the Mercury.
Let’s deal with the value for money question first. The finances of Greenwich Time are difficult to quantify, since they don’t account for the involvement of the council’s seven-strong press office, which is as involved with GT as the freelancers whose names appear in the paper.
With Greenwich Time the central plank of all council communications – unlike other boroughs, Greenwich doesn’t have advertising space on bus shelters, for example – it’s nigh-on impossible to split it out from the schmoozing, scheming, talking and influencing press officers do. Without GT, Greenwich would have to completely reshape its press operation.
Yet most other councils manage without producing their own weekly newspaper – the only other one is Tower Hamlets’ East End Life. Hillingdon Council’s communications manager Charlotte Stamper says by using the law, “Pickles is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut” – adding that local councils effectively subsidise local papers by placing public notices in them.
If Pickles removed the need for councils to place so many public notices, the justification for Greenwich Time would vanish overnight.
“The line in the sand is clear, publicity material straying into propaganda clearly crosses that line, and this legislation will stop this disgraceful misuse of public money, which damages local democracy and threatens an independent, free and vibrant local press.”
Greenwich Time certainly gets in the way of honest reporting. On a financial level, it’s believed to undercut the ad rates demanded by traditional local papers (and making life hard for potential new entrants – remember Games Extra, the Olympics clone of the Greenwich Visitor?); while on a practical level, council news stories tend to be held so GT gets the exclusive and its rivals are left chasing.
But the problem in Greenwich is that there wasn’t an independent, free and vibrant local press to start with. Despite the work of talented reporters, the owners of the Mercury and the News Shopper have squeezed budgets to such an extent that their papers are barely able to cover the basics. Indeed, distribution is so poor that the only paper many residents will see is… Greenwich Time.
A good case study is Greenwich Council’s scheme to give jobs to residents hit by social security cuts. This has been known about since the end of January, and was launched last Monday with a press conference at the Woolwich Centre – as usual, too late for coverage in the print versions of the Mercury or News Shopper, but guaranteeing oodles of uncritical coverage in Greenwich Time.
On the left, Greenwich Time in September 2009, announcing a scheme to employ people in temporary jobs. On the right, Greenwich Time in April 2013, announcing a scheme to… yep, you got it.
But was the initial scheme a success? Did the people given “green jobs” in 2009 get back into work? We don’t know. An “independent, free and vibrant local press” would have scrutinised this and asked difficult questions. But it hasn’t. It’s a worthy-looking scheme, but we’ve no idea if it’s really going to do something to improve people’s lives for the long term.
So the only coverage most people will see is what they’ll read in Greenwich Time – not just because the council’s trying to smother the market, but because the traditional local press won’t invest to free reporters up to do any real, in-depth reporting. Greenwich Time undercutting their ad rates won’t help them do that, of course, but it’s the editors and proprietors who ceded the space to the council in the first place.
But there’s one other consideration – has Greenwich Time naturally had its day? Are people now seeing through the propaganda after five long years of weekly papers? Does anyone actually read it any more?
Essentially, GT stories tend to associate the council with community initiatives, good deeds with children, and regeneration schemes – this week’s issue sucks up to the developers of (The Heart of East) Greenwich Square. Its favoured worldview also promotes Chris Roberts’ pet projects and people – this week’s features an embarrassing photo of his deputy (and his preferred successor) Peter Brooks with swimmers and Duncan Goodhew at Charlton Lido. Expect to see a bit more of Brooksy over the next year. It’s all getting a bit samey.
Councillors and council officers might think they’ve got people’s attention when they tick off the box marked “get article in Greenwich Time”, but that’s no good if half your taxpayers are binning the thing, and you’ve no other publicity options. I was intrigued that the council’s Bridge The Gap campaign on river crossings only had 795 online pledges of support out of the 84,000 households Greenwich Time is delivered to, despite seven consecutive weeks of promotion there. I’m waiting to find out how many of those pledges actually came from within Greenwich borough.
Yet sometimes it’s best when other people do your publicity for you. Take a look at new-ish blogs The Only Way Is Woolwich and Seen In Greenwich talking about the council’s Environment Champions scheme. This stuff is far better than anything you’ll read in GT – and far more valuable because it removes the “well, they would say that anyway” factor you’d get from a council publication. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing and trust other people to be your messengers, be they journalists, bloggers or residents (or all three at once) instead of trying to force it down people’s throats.
Or maybe we could just gang together and use another Pickles innovation, the community right to challenge, to bid to run Greenwich Time and take it off the council’s hands altogether. Who’s got a few quid spare?
So, sledgehammer or not, I’ll be responding to the government’s consultation. I’m sorry for the other local councils that don’t break the rules – but this one’s screwed it up for the rest of you. Not out of nostalgia for a golden era of local journalism, but because it’s an abuse of power that’s increasingly looking anachronistic. If you’ve got a strong view on GT either way, you might like to do the same.
Greenwich Council’s cabinet members lined up tonight to lavish praise on its weekly newspaper before giving it the go-ahead to continue – but only after it was revealed discussions had been held about selling Greenwich Time to commercial operators.
Leader Chris Roberts said there was an “overwhelming” financial case to carry on publishing 50 times a year, in defiance of a new government code which restricts councils to just four issues of their newspapers.
The cabinet unanimously agreed to back a report endorsing the paper, some of which has been blocked from public scrutiny because of concerns over commercial confidentiality.
But Conservative councillor Matt Clare asked a series of questions referring to the confidential part of the report – including a request for further details about talks over GT being “acquired as a going concern”, which he said he had been pleased to hear about.
However, most of his questions were ruled as being unable to be heard in public, and the meeting broke up with no discussion of the “confidential” matters. Therefore, it was not revealed what discussions took place, or with whom, or how much the council could make from selling the borough’s most widely-distributed newspaper.
The report says the council saved £1.8m over the year in advertising costs by publishing 50 times a year – although once again, the figures which show this are not being published publicly.
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has threatened authorities who break his code with a judicial review, but council officers say his code does not have the force of law behind it. However, Greenwich has made several changes to GT in recent months, dropping a TV guide and adding the council logo to its masthead.
Critics have called the paper “propaganda”, with editions published before the 2010 election aggressively promoting council initiatives, alongside a now-axed masthead saying the paper was “campaigning for an even greater Greenwich”.
Many of the cabinet members put on record their appreciation for the newspaper, pointing to the role it plays in informing council tenants of available properties.
Community safety and environment member Maureen O’Mara said she had always been “taken aback” by the “screaming and shouting” of those opposed to the paper. “I still don’t understand it,” she said, adding she had watched council tenants “come in every Tuesday to see what properties they could bid for”.
“It’s very mean-spirited to complain,” she added.
Housing member Steve Offord said he would be “very sorry” if Greenwich Time disappeared, while deputy leader Peter Brooks said council tenants in neighbouring boroughs had to visit libraries to find out about vacant homes. “My neighbours speak very highly of Greenwich Time,” the Thamesmead Moorings councillor added.
Education member Jackie Smith said Greenwich Time reflected the positive contribution the children of the borough made, “while the rest of the media only covers young people when things go wrong”.
“We are able to give a balanced view of what’s going on,” she said.
Regeneration, enterprise and skills member Denise Hyland said the paper was distributed to all homes and “celebrated the lives of people in the borough, is informative and cost-effective” while commercial freesheets (the Mercury and News Shopper) were only interested in targeting more affluent residents.
Chris Roberts said he did not blame commercial publishers for their “tighter distribution”, but claimed they tended to avoid council estates, citing the News Shopper reporting zero deliveries to the estates west of Well Hall Road, Eltham – but over 4,500 to the privately-owned homes to the east.
“For me, finance, cost savings and distribution make the case for Greenwich Time overwhelming,” he said.
Of the two freesheets which cover the borough, only one, the Petts Wood-based News Shopper, sent a reporter to cover the meeting.
As greenwich.co.uk has already reported, Greenwich Council is set to carry on publishing its weekly newspaper Greenwich Time – despite the threat of a judicial review by government minister Eric Pickles.
A report prepared for a cabinet meeting next week recommends the paper stays as it is after an internal review concluded it would cost more money to either reduce its frequency or place its advertising elsewhere. It also cites the “lack of a significant mass circulation alternative” for council advertising.
Pickles had the likes of Greenwich Time in his sights when he introduced a new code for local government publications earlier this year, declaring that they should be published no more than four times a year.
But Greenwich publishes GT 50 times a year – and the report, prepared by the communications team which publishes the newspaper – says this makes printing more cost-effective, and attracts more advertising. In the last financial year, the council claims it only cost 3.6p per copy to publish – bringing in over £575,000 of advertising.
Indeed, the report says the council saved £1.8m over the year in advertising costs – although the figures which show this are not being published publicly.
Also not being revealed to the public are the results of discussions about Greenwich publishing an insert in an existing local newspaper – a route being taken by Lambeth and Hammersmith & Fulham councils.
While the council says Pickles’ code “is not law, it is guidance”, the report does mention some concessions to it – the inclusion of the council’s logo in the paper’s masthead to “clearly and unambiguously identify itself as a product of the local authority”. Until last year, the paper had merely styled itself as “the newspaper campaigning for a greater Greenwich”. The TV guide and crossword have also been dropped, while the leisure guide has been refocused around local events.
Few of the council’s arguments for continuing to publish the paper will come as a surprise – as well as value for money and the lack of any other significant media outlet, the report also says it helps target minority and deprived communities not reached by the poor distribution of other local papers. The report also reveals that council departments have been encouraged to advertise in GT rather than publish leaflets of their own, to save money.
Apparently, though, GT “helps to keep people informed about the Greenwich Strategy” – the existence of which would be news to most of its readers. It contains “a degree of community news, certain lifestyle features and residents’ opinions where they relate to the Greenwich Strategy, Council and other public services or encourage the Council’s tourism economy”. I wonder if that explains the weekly letter from a Charlton fan urging supporters to get behind the team?
It says GT does not target car dealers or estate agents for advertising, and there is also a sideswipe at the Mercury, pointing out that GT does not accept advertising from “escort services, massage parlours and chat lines” – which has seen its sister paper, the South London Press, dubbed the “South London Pimps“.
There’s also some interesting maps of how the Mercury and News Shopper are distributed around the borough. These claim neither newspaper reaches any of the parts of Deptford covered by Greenwich borough (including the big Millennium Quay development), with the News Shopper not being delivered at all in parts of Charlton and Woolwich, with only a handful of east Greenwich homes getting a Mercury. Neither paper is distributed in the Greenwich Millennium Village or Royal Arsenal, the report claims.
GT reaches 84,151 households, the report says, compared with 39,239 for the News Shopper and an unaudited 44,919 for the Mercury.
(From personal experience, I’ve not had a regular delivery of either paper for many years, although I do see NS distributors in parts of SE7 where the council claims it is not delivered. I’ve also not had a Greenwich Time for about a month, funnily enough.)
But there’s little on how the council plans to steer the paper away from being a propaganda sheet. Certainly, while current council services are promoted, those which have fallen victim to cuts have closed without acknowledgement, and there’s been no discussion within its pages about how the council should go about saving money, beyond the odd letter about parking meters.
A glance at the paper’s archive does show a shift in GT’s priorities, though. Before the May 2010 election most front pages claimed success for many council services (see above) – as close to overt propaganda as it could get away with, quickly ceasing as the “purdah” period before the poll arrived. Once the election was won, the men in high-vis tabards departed the front pages, which are now mostly taken up with beaming kids or grinning grannies.
Even then, though, that can get the council into trouble, as it found with the Hornfair Park BMX track, whose virtues were trumpeted as councillors were preparing to decide whether or not it should be built.
“The paper is reviewed by the council’s chief executive before publication,” the report says. Does the council leader check it, too? Funnily enough, there’s no word on that…
Greenwich isn’t the only council still flouting the code, but it’s certainly a high profile offender. Much of the situation is down to Eric Pickles’ insistence that councils continue to publish public notices in a local newspaper – rather than allowing them to go online.
The current situation is a product of some unique circumstances, though – a council which has successfully found a lucrative way to control and promote its news agenda, helped by local press barons who have bled their titles dry (let’s not pretend that an extra £1m to the News Shopper or Mercury would be spent on employing journalists) but threatened by a cabinet minister who so far has been all talk and little action.
Will Eric Pickles get off his backside and challenge Greenwich? If he does, it looks like Chris Roberts and his Labour colleagues are more than ready for the fight.