Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

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”.

Greenwich Council: July’s full meeting of the Council

By

Councillors met on the last Wednesday of July for their monthly full council meeting. Here’s Greenwich.co.uk’s somewhat-delayed report on what happened.

Meridian Music Centre closure

Following on from a previously submitted petition, council offers reported back on the closure of Greenwich Community College’s Meridian Music Centre. The MMC is based at East Greenwich Library and currently has 87 students with 17 employees.

Steve Wreyford from the Safer Neighbourhood Panel in East Greenwich spoke from the public gallery against the closure, praising its role in providing “diversionary activities” for local youth and called upon the council to come up with a “bridging loan” to keep it going until a “big society bank” or social enterprise fund could provide further funding.

All three Labour councillors for the Peninsula ward in which the centre is based joined Mr Wreyford in support of the MMC.

Councillor Dick Quibell called the closure a “tragedy” and warned it was a “foretaste of what is to come”.

Councillor Mary Mills said she was “very sorry to see them pulling out of East Greenwich Library” and Councillor Miranda Williams said she would be making representations about re-using the centre’s audio equipment elsewhere.

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury (Eltham North) said he was “concerned about the lack of clarity” from Greenwich Community College. He said that before attributing the closure to budget cuts, the GCC’s “initial pitch [for closing] was poor exam results”, and then they claimed “the building wasn’t in good enough condition” despite it being “in the best condition it has been for many years”.

Cllr Drury suggested that options be explored to move the facilities to Shooters Hill Over-16 Campus or The John Roan.

Cllr David Grant (Labour, Greenwich West) derided the claim in council officers’ report that the music industry does “not have a skills shortage” and said it was a “misunderstanding of the nature of adult education” which should not be “limited to getting people jobs” , calling it “one of the  less fortunate aspects of policy from the previous government”.

Cllr Dermot Poston (Conservative, Eltham North) described it as a  “tremendous mistake” for the council to have have handed over Greenwich Community College “twelve or so years ago” to what was then Woolwich College and spoke out against the loss of adult educational activities “for fun” which weren’t linked to examinations.

Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Peter Brooks (Labour, Thamesmead Moorings) commented that “under normal circumstances I could have stood up here tonight and said ‘I reckon we can sort that out for you'” but with the cuts the council is facing, he didn’t know if he could.

The report by council officers stated that “Lewisham College offers the same provision” to which Cllr Harry Singh (Labour, Woolwich Common) curtly replied: “I don’t think so”. Drawing upon his own experience of the industry, he said he didn’t think any college in the South East had such good facilities, adding that it would be a “sad loss if this goes out of the borough.”

“Cutty Sark continues to make progress”

In a written question, Cllr Alex Wilson (Conservative, Blackheath Westcombe) asked for an update on the renewal of the Cutty Sark.

Cllr John Fahy (Labour, Woolwich Riverside), Cabinet member for Culture and the Olympics, replied:

“The renovation of the Cutty Sark continues to make good progress. Work is ongoing to refix hull planks on both sides of the ship.”

The Cutty Sark is due to be lifted into place in October “with a view to reopening next year”.

Greenwich Park and London 2012

In a written question, Cllr Geoff Brighty (Conservative, Blackheath Westcombe) asked Cllr Ray Walker, Chair of Planning, to confirm that LOCOG had not yet submitted a reinstatement plan or any mention financial guarantees, despite applying for partial approval of a Condition of their London 2012 planning application which required both those to be submitted.

Cllr Walker (Labour, Eltham West) replied that this was a “complex issue” and instead referred Cllr Brighty to the Council’s Planning Officers.

Greenwich Time

Greenwich Conservatives put forward a motion calling for an end to the weekly production of the council’s newspaper, Greenwich Time. The motion was defeated and councillors instead voted for an amendment praising the publication. See Greenwich.co.uk’s report on the debate here and also check out Darryl’s write up at 853.

Housing Delivery Vehicle

The council is proposing the creation of a new “arms length company that can own, manage and let mainly family homes below market rent”.  The proposal, which  would see the council disposing of 28 family sized properties and providing the new “Housing Delivery Vehicle” with £50,000 start up costs, will require permission from the Secretary of State.

A spirit of bipartisanship descended upon the council chamber as the opposition voted in favour of the proposal and the Labour group accepted an amendment from the Conservative Group which would make the Housing Delivery Vehicle’s lettings policy specifically prioritise families for the Company’s homes.

There is no full council meeting in August so the next one will take place on the last Wednesday of September.

I was airbrushed out of Greenwich Time, claims councillor

By

A Conservative councillor has told a council meeting that she was airbrushed out of an edition of the controversial weekly council newspaper, Greenwich Time.

The claim was made by councillor Eileen Glover during a debate at Wednesday night’s full meeting of the council at Woolwich Town Hall.

The councillor for the Eltham South ward told the meeting that she had ensured she was in all the photos taken by Greenwich Time at an event in her ward attended by the Council Leader but by the time it went to print, she had been “airbrushed out”.

She was only able to make an appearance in a later edition by changing her hair so that she was unrecognisable to the Leader of the Council, she said.

The debate over Greenwich Time was prompted after Greenwich Conservatives put forward a motion calling for weekly production of the newspaper to be ended.

Cllr Nigel Fletcher (Conservative, Eltham North) questioned whether the newspaper offered value for money and asked if it could really be considered a “front line service”. He expressed his doubts over the impartiality of the publication before mocking the content in this week’s edition.

“Is it really a core function of this council to provide, for example, a review of Toy Story 3? Do we really have a duty to inform our residents … that Prince’s new album is his most ‘soulless yet’?”, he asked. He said ending the weekly printing of Greenwich Time would be an “easy cut”.

Cllr Maureen O’Mara (Labour, Greenwich West) commented that Greenwich Time’s council property pages were “very important” to residents who wanted to move, describing it as providing an “essential service” for those that couldn’t or wouldn’t get the  information online.

Cllr Dermot Poston (Conservative, Eltham North) told colleagues that he regarded it as a “political newspaper” and that he “bitterly resents” it. He said the ruling party have “lost any sense of fairness and democracy”.

Cllr Matt Clare (Conservative, Eltham South) used his maiden speech at a full council meeting to say how he would frequently see “No Greenwich Time” notices whilst going door to door during the election campaign. He asked why only Greenwich and Tower Hamlets were delivering newspapers on a weekly basis if it had “such demonstrable benefits”.

Cllr John Fahy (Labour, Woolwich Riverside) reminded fellow councillors that the Conservatives “fought the election on the arguments of Greenwich Time and lost”. He criticised local freesheet, the News Shopper, for printing “10 pages of stories in Lewisham and beyond, and perhaps 2 or 3 stories about the community in Greenwich”.  He said that in raising the issue, it was “payback time” for the opposition because during the election, the “News Shopper was the extension of Conservative news”.

West Greenwich councillor, David Grant (Labour) also suggested that he had been “airbrushed out” of a Greenwich Time photo but said that because of the cabinet system of the council, it was inevitable most of the coverage would be on the executive although he said would like to see more backbenchers featured.

The Leader of the Council, Cllr Chris Roberts (Labour, Glyndon), said that in strict terms, Greenwich Time is “not a political newspaper” and nor could it be according to the law. In fact, council lawyers check it line by line before it goes to print, he revealed.

Cllr Roberts said the paper was “very close to being self financing” and that the cost of producing it had fallen from 22p per copy to just 3.5p per copy. “We are already making significant savings which run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds”, he added.

He said it was “absolutely right that we should prioritise our spending” but printing Greenwich Time meant the Council was “able to deliver statutory notices almost at no cost”.

The Conservative motion was defeated.

Chris Roberts re-elected as Council Leader

By

Greenwich Council met this evening at Woolwich Town Hall for the Council Annual Meeting.

The meeting, which lasted just 13 minutes, saw Cllr Chris Roberts (Glyndon, Labour) re-elected as Leader of the Council for the next four years – a post he has held since 2001.

Also on the agenda at the meeting was the appointment of Cabinet Members and the establishment of, and appointment of members to, Council Committees and Panels for 2010/11.

Cllr Barbara Barwick (Woolwich Riverside, Labour) was elected as the Mayor of Greenwich for 2010/11 with Cllr Jim Gillman (Kidbrooke with Hornfair, Labour) appointed as her Deputy.

The Mayor-elect’s inauguration will take place next Wednesday at the Old Royal Naval College’s Painted Hall.

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

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Gilligan: Greenwich Council Leader Does the Chicken Run

By

THEY called it the “chicken run.” In the mid-1990s, as general election defeat loomed, top Tories started abandoning their parliamentary seats and getting themselves safer ones. Among them was this borough’s very own Peter Bottomley, Tory MP for Eltham until he decided he was more likely to keep his job by moving to the rather less marginal territory of West Worthing.

It was seen as a clear signal of the Tories conceding defeat. Labour, both nationally and locally, had a lot of fun at the “chickens'” expense: Frank Dobson, the shadow environment secretary, launched what he called “Operation Chicken Watch,” chortling: “The Government says the feelgood factor will win them the election, but Tory MPs don’t feel good.”

What goes around, comes around. Labour MPs aren’t allowed to do what their Tory counterparts did in the 1990s – but there’s no such rule for Labour councillors. And ahead of the local elections next May, Greenwich, once again, is at the centre of something that looks rather like a chicken run.

We can reveal that no less a person than Chris Roberts, the leader of Greenwich Council, is to leave his current ward, Peninsula (where Labour scored 45.7% at the 2006 council elections) and has just been selected in the ward of Glyndon (where the People’s Party got an altogether more comfortable 59.4%.)

Peninsula ward is essentially East Greenwich and GMV – everything in SE10 east of the Naval College and north of the railway line, plus a little bit of Charlton. It’s a more socially mixed, middle-class place than Glyndon, which sits between Woolwich and Plumstead town centres. Peninsula will also be heavily affected by the unpopular plans to close the park and roads for the Olympics – could that be a factor in Roberts’ decision?

Denise Hyland, the council’s cabinet member for the economy and skills, is also moving, from Shooters Hill – where she was only 118 votes ahead of the Tories in 2006 – to Abbey Wood, where the bottom Labour candidate was elected by a much more comfortable 357 votes ahead of their nearest rival, a Lib Dem. (Labour’s share of the vote in Abbey Wood was slightly less than in Shooters Hill, but the anti-Labour vote in Abbey Wood was split between Tories and Lib Dems.)

I couldn’t ask either councillor why they are moving – they haven’t returned my calls – but Spencer Drury, the Tory opposition leader, says: “I think it does show they’re worried, and I think they’re right to be worried. I think the council have called a number of issues wrong – for instance, they’ve made the judgment that they want to organise cuts immediately after the elections and not tell people about them before. The response we’re getting on the doorstep is excellent.”

Mr Roberts’ move is particularly interesting, not just because he is council leader but because his current berth, Peninsula, was not seen as a particularly marginal ward. Seven wards with Labour councillors – including four wards where the party holds all three of the council seats – registered a lower Labour share of the vote than Peninsula did.

If Labour lost all those wards, even if it kept Peninsula, it would lose control of the council. Does that mean Labour is in with a serious chance of defeat? I’m not sure; much depends on whether the opposition in each ward coalesces around one party, or whether it is split between two or three.

With the 2006 elections delivering them 36 out of the 51 seats, Greenwich remains one of Labour’s safest councils in London. But Labour got a very bad fright here in last year’s mayoral elections. For the first time in decades, if not in living memory, the Tories won more votes than Labour across the borough of Greenwich. In the current political climate, and with a Westminster election likely to take place on the same day as the local poll, no Labour council can be considered entirely safe. Mr Roberts certainly isn’t taking any chances.

p.s. Michael Stanworth, the Labour Borough Organiser for Greenwich, has been in touch to say “I can assure you that there is nothing sinister about his move to Glyndon ward, it is just closer to where he lives.”

Andrew Gilligan: Leaked Document – Greenwich Council to Make “Significant” Cuts

By

GREENWICH Council is planning “significant” cuts of at least £26.8 million – and possibly “over £30m,” according to confidential council documents leaked to greenwich.co.uk.

Options being discussed by the ruling Labour group for making the saving include:

  • “restrict[ing] access to [council] services;”
  • part-privatisation of health and social care;
  • reducing streetcleaning and recycling services;
  • ending or reducing funding for the local Metropolitan Police violent and organised crime unit;
  • reduced grants to voluntary organisations;
  • a “review of terms and conditions” for the council’s workforce;
  • the scrapping of “services, activities or projects which are low priority.”
  • higher charges for council services, such as parking, and for leaseholders;
  • withdrawal from collective bodies such as London Councils and the Local Government Association.

The plans are contained in a confidential document written by the council’s chief executive, Mary Ney, leaked to this website and downloadable here (PDF file, 612kb).

The document was discussed at a private meeting of the ruling Labour group on October 12, where Labour members talked about the council’s new “medium term financial strategy,” to take effect from April 2011.

The minutes say: “It is known that the financial climate in this next period will be particularly challenging…It is expected that funding will be restricted and the Council will need to make significant reductions in its expenditure. Current best estimates are [of]… a reduction in revenue budgets of £26.8 million over the four-year period of the next administration.”

The minutes add that the council will also need to “consider whether to continue” with some other programmes which “would raise the savings target to over £30 million.” The programmes listed are the violent and organised crime unit, Cleansweep (street cleaning) and waste management (recycling.)

The minutes say: “Whilst every effort should be made to deliver these spending reductions through efficiencies, the scale of the task may mean that more difficult choices will be needed in relation to continuation of services.”

Council officers will, says the document, “identify a number of cost-cutting workstreams, reporting back to members as work is progressed.” A total of 19 cost-cutting workstreams are identified.

Among the most controversial options is workstream 4, which says that “proposals [will] be brought forward for the delivery of services via social enterprise models.” Among the services listed as suitable for this is “health and social care.”

Workstream 6 is about grants to the voluntary sector and says: “As a minimum, this is likely to require cash-limited and possibly reduced budgets.”

Workstream 10 is to “scrutinise all Council activity to identify those services, activities or projects which are low priority and could cease.”

Workstream 12 is entitled “restricted access to services” and will “examine options to reduce demand and volume.”

There are also plans for “workforce efficiences,” with a review of “terms and conditions,” and for a “review of the charging strategy.”

However, one area protected from cuts is the Olympics, on which the council plans to spend at least £10 million.

Cllr Spencer Drury, leader of the Conservative opposition, said: “Labour have a hidden programme of cuts in place and are refusing to be open about their plans. Greenwich Council’s incompetence and inefficiency is what leads them to have to make these dramatic cuts. They have already wasted £27 million because they are three years late on their new school building programme. There are lots of ways they could have saved money by running themselves differently.”

Cllr Chris Roberts, the council leader, declined to comment when approached by greenwich.co.uk tonight.

However, at the last full council meeting, on 28 October – sixteen days after the Labour group discussed making cuts – Cllr Roberts said: “The issue of cuts has not materialised.” However, he added: “When the financial strategy is developed, it will obviously be brought to the council to be voted on.”

Greenwich Council Meeting 28/10/09: Almshouses, Elected Mayors & Bulky Rubbish

By

Residents in historic almshouses in west Greenwich have been left in “despair, shock and sadness” by news of their possible closure, councillors heard last night.

Tenants in Queen Elizabeth College, Greenwich High Road, have been told they may have to leave under plans by its owner, The Drapers’ Company, to redevelop it.

Local councillor Maureen O’Mara presented a petition, signed by 140 people, to Greenwich Council at a meeting on Wednesday night.

Some 70 residents live in the almshouses, which opened in 1818 to house the “poor elderly people” of Greenwich. More recently, it has been open to residents from both Greenwich and Lewisham boroughs.

Tenants were under threat of being moved to “destinations unknown” by the livery company, Cllr O’Mara (Labour, Greenwich West) said.

“They are in a state of despair, shock and sadness,” she added. “The decision was made with no reference to either the local MP or local councillors.

“We know the council has no influence over the decision, but we hope the oxygen of publicity will make The Drapers’ Company think again.”

The Drapers Company told greenwich.co.uk that it was in regular contact with councillors and Greenwich & Woolwich MP Nick Raynsford.

No firm decision had been taken to close Queen Elizabeth’s College, clerk Alistair Ross said, but the City livery company hoped to eventually build new almshouses elsewhere to replace the Greenwich site and its other homes in Southwark and Tottenham.

Redeveloping the current site was “unlikely but had not been ruled out”.

“As soon as a decision is made and plans formulated the residents and borough officials will be informed and consulted, however, it is likely that the whole process will take a considerable time,” Mr Ross added.

NOGOE Petition

A 13,000-strong petition against Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park gathered by campaigning group NOGOE was also presented to the council, this time by Blackheath Westcombe Conservative councillor Geoff Brighty.

Organising body LOCOG is due to submit the planning application for a temporary stadium and other measures next month. Cllr Paul Webbewood (Lib Dem, Middle Park & Sutcliffe) attacked coverage of the 2012 Games in council newspaper Greenwich Time, saying an issue earlier this month had “made the council look disreputable”.

But council leader Chris Roberts (Labour, Peninsula), dismissed the criticism. “I hope there will be a full and frank discussion on what LOCOG actually submit, and not on what people think they are submitting,” Cllr Roberts said.

Elected Mayors

Councillors from all three parties threw out the possibility of Greenwich switching to a system of having an elected mayor like neighbouring Lewisham.

All London boroughs were required by the government to hold a consultation on the issue, but only 20 residents replied to Greenwich’s call for responses, with 14 of those backing the current system where the council is led by a leader and cabinet.

Cllr Roberts said that despite the low number of responses, “we are some way off the worst – one council only had one response”.

Westminster politicians should leave local councils to to decide how to run themselves, he continued, adding that the tradition of having a ceremonial, non-partisan mayor representing the council would be lost under the different system.

“Having a civic mayor is like parliament saying, ‘let’s have a president and abolish the monarchy,'” he said.

Conservative leader Cllr Spencer Drury (Eltham North) said sticking with the current system was “the least bad” option.

Lewisham has had an elected mayor, Sir Steve Bullock, taking most of its key decisions since 2002.

Bulky Rubbish Collection

Greenwich Council’s £12 charge for collecting bulky household rubbish was a “very good deal”, insisted neighbourhood services cabinet member Maureen O’Mara.

The fee was introduced for non-council tenants two years ago, and Liberal Democrat Cllr Paul Webbewood said he thought it was leading to a rise in fly-tipping.

Last month, Labour councillor Janet Gillman told a residents’ group in Charlton that she would be pressing for a review of the policy.

But Cllr O’Mara defended the system, adding that residents could get rid of up to three items for their money.

“Bexley Council charges £25 for the same service,” she added.

Kidbrooke Regeneration Begins

By

Yesterday saw the ground breaking ceremony for the huge regeneration project taking place in Kidbrooke.

Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council, joined Sir Bob Kerslake, Chief Executive of the Homes and Communities Agency, Tom Dacey, Chief Executive of Southern Housing Group, and Tony Pidgley, Chairman of The Berkeley Group at the former Ferrier Estate for the official start of the  project.

The first phase of the project, boosted by a £30million cash injection from the HCA, will deliver 449 houses and apartments with the first residents expected to move in next year. Of the first 449 properties, 220 are for private sale and 229 will be affordable homes. When completed, the regeneration will have created 4,000 new mixed-tenure homes in total.

Cllr Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council, said: “It’s excellent to see the progress that’s being made in building the first homes of the new Kidbrooke development. This is an exciting moment for the Council, and for local residents, who have given consistent backing to the Council’s vision for transforming the area, creating a better environment and improving the quality of life.”

David Lunts, London Regional Director of the Homes and Communities Agency said: “Kidbrooke is exactly the kind of transformational project that the HCA was established to support and is a scheme which is at the heart of the HCA’s commitment to supporting regeneration in London. The partnership will be working to transform the estate into a vibrant neighbourhood with new affordable homes, fantastic parks and open space, a new community building and improved travel links.”

From left to right: Tom Dacey (Southern Housing Group), Sir Bob Kerslake (Homes and Communities Agency), Tony Pidgley (Berkeley Homes), Cllr Chris Roberts (Greenwich Council)

Council Tax Frozen for 09/10

By

Greenwich Council has announced a council tax freeze for 2009-2010, meaning a band D taxpayer will continue to pay £980.91 for local services this year.

Councillor Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council, said: “We are all looking to find ways through the current economic challenges, and I hope our commitment on freezing Council tax and other charges sends out a clear message that the Council is doing all it can to support residents.” 

Londoners on the whole seem to have done well this year with average council tax rises of only 1.2%, which compares well with the rest of the country. The average Band D charge in London this year is £1,307.55.