Greenwich.co.uk

Greenwich news and information

Greenwich Council Meeting: 24th March 2010

By

Last Wednesday night's council meeting was the last full meeting before elections take place in May.

The current Leader of the Council, Chris Roberts, was not in attendance although former Council Leader and current London Assembly member for Greenwich & Lewisham, Len Duvall, was seated in the Public Gallery.

Tributes

The session began on a sombre note as tributes were paid to former Councillor, John Antcliffe, whose death Greenwich.co.uk reported on last week. Councillors from all parties paid tribute to him before a one minute silence was held in his memory.

Tributes were also paid to Councillors who are standing down at this election, with the fondest words of all probably reserved for Councillor Peter King (Con, Eltham South) who has served on the Council since 1978 and has the distinction of being the only Councillor to ever represent the now-abolished Palace ward.

Pedestrianisation

Deputy Leader of the Council, Peter Brooks (Lab, Thamesmead Moorings), was asked by Councillor Paul Webbewood  (Lib Dem, Middle Park & Sutcliffe) for an update on the town centre pedestrianisation proposals.

Cllr Brooks told the meeting that the Council is "a way off" from having a finalised scheme, and that it would most likely be a "hybrid" of the options floated in the recent consultation.

Allowances

Councillors voted to accept a freeze in their member allowances for 2010/11. The basic member allowance for Greenwich Councillors next year will continue to be £10,210.

The Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Council Leader (£52,458) was criticised by Cllr Paul Webbewood, who said Greenwich was a "below average borough in performance" but was "above average in what we pay our leader".

This raised the hackles of Councillor Peter King (Conservative, Eltham South) who said it was an "appalling suggestion" that the Council Leader should be paid less. "A Council Leader does a lot more than an MP", he added.

There was howls of laughter in the chamber when Conservative group leader, Spencer Drury (Conservative, Eltham North) noted that the SRA for the leader of the second largest minority party meant that the leader of the two-man Liberal Democrat group, Councillor Brian Woodcraft (Lib Dem, Middle Park & Sutcliffe), who wasn't present, is "paid £5,000 to lead Councillor Webbewood".

Designated Public Place Order

Councillors voted through an urgent extension to anti social drinking controls in the borough. Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO) are already in place for Greenwich and Woolwich town centres but this will now be extended to cover the whole of the London Borough of Greenwich.

give Police and accredited community officers the power to stop people from drinking in public spaces, confiscate alcohol and issue fines to non-compliant drinkers.

This was brought before the Council as an urgent item in advance of this summer's World Cup.

Greenwich Council Meeting: 24th February 2010

By

Council-owned housing rent

Greenwich Councillors voted through a 1.6% rise in rents on Council homes in the borough at a full meeting of the Council last night.

The move - which will see average rents go up by £1.30 a week - was opposed by Conservative and Lib Dem councillors.

Cllr Graeme Coombes (Con, Kidbrooke with Hornfair) described the proposed increase as "unwarranted and unnecessary".

Cllr Eileen Glover (Con, Eltham South) said "we should be good landlords. These are stringent times. We should not be putting up council rents at this time".

Cllr Brian Woodcraft (Lib Dem, Middle Park and Sutcliffe) called the rise "totally unjustified".

In defending the move, Council leader Chris Roberts (Lab, Peninsula) told councillors that there would be a "loss of subsidy to the council if rents don't increase" because of the complex funding arrangements for Council owned housing stock.

Recycling

Conservative councillors put forward a motion asking for a commitment to the weekly black topped bin collection and opposing any introduction of "bin taxes".

Cllr Spencer Dury (Con, Eltham North) told the meeting that whilst the recycling system had been "something of a success", there was still "substantial concerns about incineration".

Cllr Graeme Coombes (Con, Kidbrooke with Hornfair) said that collecting the bins was "one of the fundamental tasks in local government" and that any introduction of bin taxes would result in an increase in illegal fly tipping.

Leader of the Council, Cllr Chris Roberts, said the meeting had spent "45 minutes on a Tory motion that's completely irrelevant" and that because of the council tax package previously voted for by councillors, "all bins will be collected on a weekly basis whether they are blue, black or green".

Greenwich Foot Tunnel

The council's formal response to a recent petition opposing the closure of Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels whilst renovation is undertaken contained details of the closure programme that is being proposed.

The works are likely to run from February 2010 to March 2011 and will see Greenwich Foot Tunnel closed weekday nights from 9.00pm to 6.00am.

Woolwich Foot Tunnel will have daytime closures from Monday to Friday. Consideration is being given to starting closures at 10.00am, and only on days when the Woolwich ferry is in operation.

Cutty Sark

Cllr Chris Roberts used a written answer to a question from Cllr Paul Webbewood (Lib Dem, Middle Park and Sutcliffe) to reject recent criticisms of the plan to suspend the famous tea clipper 11-feet off the ground as part of its restoration. He commented:

"The difference between the iconic scheme the council has supported and simply putting the Ship back together as was could not be greater. It will create an attraction which people will want to return to... it will host a range of uses as well as create a stunning visual backdrop to those wishing to visit Greenwich".

Webcasting Council Meetings

Council leader Chris Roberts was asked by Cllr Nigel Fletcher (Con, Eltham North) about the possibility of webcasting Greenwich Council meetings - an idea which was last month approved by Lewisham Council after local Greens proposed it.

Roberts told the meeting he was fairly open minded but it perhaps reflected "an inflated sense of self importance in the chamber" if they thought people would switch off the football to watch council meetings.

Peninsula Chinese restaurant gets food hygiene fine

By

The Peninsula restaurant in Bugsby's Way has been handed a fine of £13,500 by Woolwich Magistrates.

The hefty fine was issued last Monday after a number of food hygiene breaches were found in an unannounced inspection by Environmental Health officers at Greenwich Council.

During the inspection, officers found:

  • Dirty equipment, walls, floor and ventilation ducting in the kitchen
  • Food storage containers in a poor state of repair
  • Failure to protect food from contamination in the refrigerator
  • Inadequate procedures were put into place to control pests
  • Mouse droppings were found in the storage areas
  • General cleanliness of the premises was below standard

Peninsula restaurant, which is in the same building as the Express by Holiday Inn hotel, pleaded guilty to the offences and were charged £13,500 and ordered to pay the council's costs of £6,800.

Councillor Maureen O’Mara, Greenwich Council’s Cabinet Member for neighbourhood services, said: “The Council will continue to carry out unannounced visits to food businesses and will take necessary action to safeguard customers’ health. It is essential that food businesses take all the appropriate steps to ensure general food hygiene standards are met".


View Larger Map

Greenwich Hospital confirms Market appeal

By

Greenwich Hospital has confirmed that it will be appealing against the Council's decision to reject its market regeneration plans.

The decision - first reported on this site yesterday by Andrew Gilligan - was relayed to traders at a meeting last night and confirmed by Greenwich Hospital in a press release this morning.

Greenwich Hospital will be asking the Planning Inspectorate to consider the same proposal that was unanimously rejected by Greenwich Council's Planning Board last August.

Martin Sands, Director of Greenwich Hospital, said:

“The Hospital’s criteria for the regeneration of Greenwich Market has always been that any improvements to the Hospital’s properties in Greenwich town centre would need to:

  • Retain the diversity of shops and stalls.
  • Be architecturally, physically and financially viable.
  • Be capable of standing the test of time.
  • Be mindful of Greenwich’s status as a World Heritage Site and as a
  • Maritime Heritage Site.
  • Complement Greenwich’s unique position as a tourist and retail
  • destination.

Greenwich Hospital continues to believe that the market regeneration scheme which was not approved by Greenwich Council in August 2009 meets the above criteria.

Greenwich Hospital says that if permission is granted, work will not begin until 2013.

In an interview with Greenwich.co.uk last December, Nick Raynsford MP said "I think that if they appeal they have a very good chance of success".

Update: A spokesperson for Greenwich Council has told Greenwich.co.uk:

The council will defend the unanimous decision of its Planning Board and would urge all residents who opposed the scheme to make representations to the planning inspectorate.

Cutty Sark Disaster: The £11 Million Nail In the Coffin

By

LAST weekend, in my paper, the Telegraph, I was finally able to tell the full story of the terrible disaster that is the restoration of the Cutty Sark. As you can read:

- the chief engineer, Professor Peter Mason, has resigned, saying the project will damage the ship and should be stopped.

- the project has run massively late and overbudget, with its main funder cutting off payments for most of last year amid deep concerns about its management and financial controls.

- the Cutty Sark Trust has issued a series of misleading statements about progress on the project.

I only regret that I did not nail the story down sooner. I heard in the autumn that there was something badly wrong - and indeed could guess that to be the case from just looking at the ship (which has shown absolutely no signs of visible change for at least the last year) or the hoardings which surround it (where a succession of promised reopening dates has come and gone.)

But guesswork and off-the-record hints aren't enough, nobody would talk on the record, Mason was still in place at the time, other stories intervened. The result is that on Thursday of last week, before I could publish, a deal had been stitched together to throw another £11 million of public money at the fiasco and proclaim it "rescued."

So hastily was this deal done - maybe they knew the press was sniffing round - that it was actually announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport before the biggest of the funders, Greenwich Council, had even agreed to pay its share. The press release was issued on Thursday morning. The relevant council meeting did not even begin until 2pm the same day. The meeting was only even put on the council calendar the night before, giving no-one the time to consider the proposals or to object.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Cutty Sark, I badly want to see it restored and I would be happy to spend even the colossal sum of £46 million if it achieves that end. But as its hurried and secretive birth suggests, the latest injection of funding is not going to "rescue" the Cutty Sark. It is going to prop up a fundamentally flawed scheme, run by a fundamentally flawed group of people, which could end up destroying the ship altogether.

The scheme's key flaw is its desire to raise the ship eleven feet off the ground, in order to fit a lucrative, glassed-over function space underneath. Steel legs, punched through the hull, would hold it in place. The supposed justification is to better show off the ship's lines, but the Cutty Sark Trust gave a hint of its true motive when, in 2008, it told the Telegraph magazine that "the ultimate aim is to transform [the ship] into a corporate hospitality venue to rival Tate Modern."

The raising, known as the "iconic scheme," means that the lower half of the ship's sides will appear to be swathed in glass. The objection is not just that this will look awful, though it will. Steffan Meyric Hughes, of Classic Boat magazine, says it is "undignified" and makes the Cutty Sark look like a "fairground attraction."

It's not just that it will compromise the integrity of the ship, though it will do that too - a new entrance will be cut into the hull, and a new lift will be installed to comply with disability access regulations (the previous entrance was level.)

No, the main objection is, in Mason's words, that "the lifting support system will do damage to the fabric of the ship. It will have quite an impact on it. They should not lift up the ship. I've turned against that after what I've seen and I'm not happy." Computer simulations were what turned Mason against the plan - simulations that showed the ship would be put at risk.

Researching the issue more, speaking to some experts and reading the words of others, I could not find a single person in the world of classic ship restoration who believes the plan presently being followed by the Cutty Sark Trust is anything other than a ghastly mistake.

Julian Harrap, the architect behind the restoration of Brunel's SS Great Britain, said: "They are actually putting the artifact itself at risk, and that's a fundamental issue." The director of National Historic Ships, Martyn Heighton, said: "This is an extremely delicate object and you don't try out something new on the Cutty Sark."

The Trust itself defends its scheme - but it is no longer trust-worthy. As my Telegraph piece catalogues, the Cutty Sark Trust has over the past two years repeatedly misled the press, saying for instance that the scheme was proceeding smoothly when funding had in fact been cut off and most work stopped, or claiming that the shortfall was only £5 million at a time when they knew it was at least 50% more. We can no longer take their assurances seriously.

Nor can we put much faith in their project-management skills. Even excluding delays caused by the fire in May 2007, the claimed reopening date has also been put back, by my count, at least five times. The original post-fire opening date, announced in June 2008, was March 2010. Then it slipped to summer 2010, then the end of 2010, then spring 2011.

In last week's press release a new reopening date of "in time for the Olympics" (July 2012) was given, itself a further postponement of up to18 months. But in the space of just six days, even that deadline has shifted once more to the right. This week's issue of Greenwich Council's propaganda organ, Greenwich Time, states merely that the Cutty Sark "could be restored in time for the 2012 Games."

You won't read any of the other facts outlined above in Greenwich Time, of course. There's a concerted outbreak of emperor's new clothes at work here, with even the Tory opposition on the council nodding the £7 million through. But for a council which is proposing cuts of £26 million next year, £7m is a huge amount of money - made up of £3 million from general funds, £2 million of section 106 "planning gain" cash which could have been used on something else, and £2 million purloined from the Cutty Sark Gardens landscaping works.

If they actually want to see the Cutty Sark restored before the Olympics, the council, and the other funders, should make their bailout conditional on a complete clear-out of the Cutty Sark Trust, and on the scrapping of the crappy "iconic" scheme, with its absurd attempt to make an historic artifact into a contemporary icon. Doing a straightforward, boring restoration would be cheaper, simpler and less risky.

But yes, you guessed it - Greenwich has actually made its £7 million conditional on exactly the opposite, saying it will not pay unless the "iconic" scheme goes ahead. The serious risk, therefore, is that they are throwing good money after bad. This really could end up another iconic Greenwich embarrassment and a British heritage tragedy.

Council apologises for café blunder

By

GREENWICH Council has apologised to a café in Greenwich after wrongly listing them as having failed to receive a Food Hygiene Award.

The owners of Baba's Sandwich Bar in Greenwich South Street were shocked to see the listing on the council's published listings, which was also included in a report on Greenwich.co.uk.

Mrs Bolsoy, who started the café 14 years ago with her husband, told Greenwich.co.uk:

"To say that we were furious seeing our business name listed as failed inspection,would be an understatement. I immediately contacted the Environmental Health department, who on investigating, realised there had been an error on their part. We have never failed an inspection in all the years we have been trading. We have a reputation of being very clean, not only with Environmental Health, but with our customers."

Upon being made aware of the error, Greenwich Council told us:

"We would like to apologise to Baba's sandwich bar and their customers for any confusion or distress that may have been caused as a result of an error on our website, which incorrectly listed Baba's as not having a Food Hygiene Award.

It seems that there was an error in updating the information on the website relating to this particular establishment. Regular spot checks are carried out on our website in order to reduce the risk of errors like this taking place, but unfortunately this particular error was not caught by those checks.

Following an internal investigation the error has now been corrected on the website. We have written to Baba's apologising and have also contacted them by telephone."

The Food Hygiene Award is given to catering premises where an Enviornmental Health officer has decided that food is handled and prepared safely. Greenwich Council introduced its Food Safety Award scheme in 2004, with the results of inspections published on its website, and say they were the first borough to do so.

The council say they believe this is an "isolate case" and are reviewing their "procedures to ensure that standards of accuracy are maintained and any improvements identified as a result of this review will be acted on."


View Larger Map

Greenwich Council Meeting 27/01/10: Greenwich Time, Council Tax & Royal Borough Status

By

Greenwich Council's newspaper Greenwich Time was branded "appalling" and "blatant propaganda" by opposition councillors at Wednesday night's full council meeting.

The weekly was criticised in a Westminster debate earlier this month, with it and other council publications coming in for attacks from politicians and publishers of local newspapers, who claim it damages free speech and is hurting their business.

Conservative councillor Dermot Poston called it "an appalling piece of paper", adding it was "a shocking indictment" of the council.

"Ask anyone in this borough who reads it - not that anyone does - and they'll tell you," the Eltham North member said.

Brian Woodcraft (Lib Dem, Middle Park & Sutcliffe) said the paper, which was relaunched as a weekly in 2008, was "blatant propaganda".

"It contains a full week's TV listings, which is totally inappropriate for a local authority newspaper," he continued, questioning the cost of employing distributors to deliver it weekly, when previously it had been delivered fortnightly alongside the established local freesheets, the Mercury and the News Shopper.

However, council leader Chris Roberts (Labour, Peninsula) said it was more cost-effective to publish Greenwich Time once a week.

"It's cheaper weekly than fortnightly, and I'm happy to provide figures to any member who asks for them," he told the meeting.

He said the decision was made to distribute Greenwich Time separately because the council had received "too many complaints" that the newspaper was not being delivered, and residents were missing out on important items of public consultation.

"Neither the Mercury nor the News Shopper reach the whole borough," he added.

Addressing charges that the newspaper was propaganda, Cllr Roberts said: "Hammersmith and Fulham Council has its council tax plastered on its lamp posts - well beyond anything that goes on in this borough."

Referrring to criticism from News Shopper editor Richard Firth - who called the newspaper "a self-serving propaganda sheet" - Cllr Roberts called for an "honest debate" on the issue, reeling off a list of local newspapers published by newspaper group Archant, including The Docklands, a version of which appears in Greenwich as The Peninsula.

"I don't think the views of the Archant publishing house somehow go unreported," he said.

However, the News Shopper is published by Archant's rival Newsquest, part of US newspaper giant Gannett.

Nigel Fletcher (Conservative, Eltham North), complained that Greenwich Time routinely ignored opposition councillors' views, even on non-controversial matters such as Greenwich becoming a royal borough.

"Our views were represented in three of our local media; the Mercury, the News Shopper, and greenwich.co.uk; but the one local newspaper which neglected us was Greenwich Time.

"It was slightly absurd that a photograph of the leader of the council should have been on the front of Greenwich Time and not one of the Queen."

He said it "fully vindicated" his party's pledge to scrap the paper if it took power at May's elections.

Councillors vote for council tax freeze

Greenwich council taxpayers are set for a freeze in their bills after councillors voted through this year's budget proposals.

Council leader Chris Roberts said he had "no desire to slash and burn" public services, citing investment in transport, anti-crime measures, housing and children's centres, adding the cashflow plan was strong enough to deal with any government cuts after the general election.

"Whatever is thrown at us by central government over the next few years, the people of Greenwich will expect us to be prepared," he said.

"It is a budget which protects our essential services, and does not mortgage our futures."

With an eye to the council's own election in May, he said his Labour group had provided "stable and secure financial management for more than a decade".

Conservative leader Spencer Drury said freezing the budget seemed "the right thing to do".

But the Eltham North councillor questioned a sum of £3.7 million which was counted as cash to be held in reserve, but he said looked as if it had actually been allocated to services including continuing weekly black bin collections and covering extra costs in social care.

"These things are essentials," he said, "not things we have any choice over".

If that sum of money really was available, he said, then it should be returned to council tax payers "who are suffering too".

Cllr Roberts said he wanted to keep the extra sum of money aside in case the relevant departments needed extra cash for those services.

Council tax bills will not be finalised until after February 10, when London Mayor Boris Johnson's budget will be settled. He is also planning to freeze his part of the bill.

Royal borough status welcomed by all sides

Greenwich Council could buy a sailing ship to commemorate becoming a royal borough in 2012, Conservative culture spokesman Nigel Fletcher told the meeting.

Councillors from all parties welcomed the announcement, which was made earlier this month.

One idea, he said, would be to purchase a sailing ship to commemorate The Great Harry, a warship built at Woolwich for Henry VIII.

Cllr Fletcher said it was worth noting that royal connections were spread across the borough, and a ship would recognise Woolwich's contribution.

"It's an idea that could have a range of benefits, particularly for our youth," he said.

"There is a challenge to us to answer what becoming a royal borough means in real terms.

"It's up to us to use this to secure real benefits across the borough. There should be a Jubilee legacy to go with an Olympic legacy."

Greenwich will be the first royal borough with a "significantly diverse" population when it is awarded the honour in 2012, council leader Chris Roberts said.

"I have always felt the royal element of the borough has been underplayed," he said.

"Even those who declare themselves to be not tremendous royalists say how proud they are. It's an incredible honour."

Cllr Roberts said discussions would start soon on just what the honour, awarded to mark the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, would actually mean for the council, from possible changes to the council's coat of arms to putting the new borough names on street signs.

"There will be protocols to follow - I've been up to my eyeballs in them - but it will be up to us what to do, in consultation with civil servants and Buckingham Palace," he continued.

"I never thought I'd quote Margaret Thatcher, but 'rejoice, rejoice, rejoice'."

Long-serving Conservative Dermot Poston also spoke of his pride in seeing Greenwich's diverse population honoured, adding that in 1968, the borough had been turned down for the honour by then-prime minister Harold Wilson.

Councillor and historian Mary Mills (Labour, Peninsula) said Greenwich and Woolwich's royal connections had contributed to many of the borough's industries, adding that the honour recognised "all sorts of ordinary people going way back".

Chris Roberts added that he had been touched by letters from people about the honour, adding: "My personal favourite is from a lady who wrote, 'I'm just waiting for the first journalist to knock it.'"

Town Centre Pedestrianisation: Modest Benefits, Big Drawbacks

By

The council's plan to pedestrianise part of Greenwich Town Centre, being consulted on now, is one of those things which looks, at first glance, worth having. But any close examination of the proposals shows them to be damaging, if not indeed unworkable.

No-one, of course, can be happy with the present situation in the town centre - and the new proposal is not without merits. But on balance, what's proposed is appreciably worse than now.

The suggested changes will only remove traffic from a relatively small part of the centre. But they will impose extra traffic on the rest of the centre - and across a far wider area. Most options proposed will also devastate Greenwich's bus service, hardly conducive to a car-free future. The only one which doesn't do this will, as the council admits, lead to extra congestion.

The main beneficiaries, as the council explicitly states in its Greenwich Time advert, will be tourists ("the millions who will visit Greenwich in 2012, and in the years to come") and the businesses that serve them. The main victims will be local residents and non-tourist businesses.

The consultation

The consultation is in the very finest traditions of Greenwich Council - a loaded questionnaire; a short deadline for replies (15 January); a public exhibition lasting all of three days, tucked away in a room down a back corridor of a building accessed via a path leading off a side street; and no data to back up their claims. They say some of the pedestrianisation options would "reduce overall congestion and pollution," but the people at the exhibition admit that no modelling has in fact been done on how the proposals will affect traffic flows. If you do want to go, today is the last day of the exhibition and you have until 8pm. Or you can respond online.

The proposals

The easiest way to understand what's proposed is to look at the maps in the consultation booklet, downloadable here. But here's my summary of it.

The plans would pedestrianise the College Approach and King William Walk parts of the one-way system. Traffic travelling east from Creek Road to Romney Road would go the other way round the town centre - that is, turning right into Greenwich Church Street then left into Nelson Road, which would become two-way.

There are two options for what happens to traffic going west after it leaves Nelson Road. In option 1, it would turn right into Greenwich Church Street, which would also become two-way. This option would almost certainly lead to enormous traffic congestion at the junction by St Alfege Church and is thus, as one of the officers admitted to me at the exhibition, probably "unworkable."

Option 2, which the council appears to prefer, is turning the whole of west Greenwich into a giant gyratory system. Greenwich High Road (between the town centre and the North Pole pub) would become one-way, westbound-only. The whole of Norman Road would become one-way, northbound-only. Creek Road (between the top of Norman Road and the town centre) would become one-way, eastbound-only.

Under this option, westbound traffic from Romney Road/ Nelson Road to Creek Road would use Greenwich High Road as far as the North Pole, then turn right into Norman Road, then left into Creek Road.

No traffic would be able to approach Greenwich on Greenwich High Road. Everyone coming from Greenwich South Street, or the lower reaches of Greenwich High Road, would have to go all the way round via Norman Road and Creek Road.

All this, it seems to me, would have the following - positive and negative - consequences.

Advantage: a traffic-free King William Walk and College Approach.

This would make it easier for people to get from the market to the naval college and Cutty Sark. King William Walk and College Approach are the least well used parts of the town centre by pedestrians at the moment, because there are few shops along them. However,

council officials talk lyrically of creating new promenading areas along these streets, with their buildings (currently mostly residential) turned into new shops and restaurants.

Advantage: some widening of pavements elsewhere.

Notably along Greenwich High Road between the station and town centre.

Disadvantage: traffic would increase substantially in the parts of the town centre that most pedestrians actually use.

Neither of the town centre's main shopping streets (Greenwich Church Street and Nelson Road) would be pedestrianised. Traffic on Nelson Road would almost double, since it now becomes two-way (it wouldn't quite double, since traffic from, say, Creek Road to Greenwich High Road would no longer need to go round the one-way system.)

Traffic on Greenwich Church Street would double under Option 1 and increase somewhat under Option 2 (because of journeys into the residential streets of West Greenwich, see below.)

There would probably also be serious congestion on Greenwich Church Street - right in the heart of the town centre - as two lanes of eastbound traffic narrow down into one to pass along Nelson Road.

Disadvantage: pedestrianisation is no panacea.

Pedestrianised streets can be bleak, particularly at night. Pedestrianisation would probably lead to a rise in Greenwich's already growing problem of drunken anti-social behaviour.

Disadvantage: bus services would be devastated.

Assuming, as we probably should, that option 1 is a nonstarter, under option 2 more than100,000 bus passengers a day on all seven routes passing through Greenwich would suffer disruption. Many would suffer massive disruption.

- The 199 (coming from Catford and Lewisham) would simply no longer be able to serve Greenwich town centre at all - the closest it could get would be the railway station. It would have to turn right from South Street into Greenwich High Road, then into Norman Road and then pick up its old route at Creek Road, skipping the centre. Alternatively, it would have to make a double loop of Greenwich, adding perhaps 20 minutes to the journey time.

- The pedestrianisation would swallow up the current terminus for the 129 and 286. The people at the exhibition had no idea where these buses would turn round under the new scheme. They too might not be able to serve central Greenwich at all.

- The 180 from Lewisham and 386 from Blackheath would be able to reach the town centre, but would have to make a huge detour via the station, Norman Road and Creek Road, adding at least another ten minutes to their journeys (probably far longer in the peak) and at least doubling the journey time from Lewisham to central Greenwich. If the 199 did not do a double loop, the frequency of service from Lewisham to central Greenwich would also be halved.

- The eastbound 177 would have to make a similar lengthy detour and would no longer be able to serve the railway station.

- The westbound 188 would also have to make a lengthy detour via Greenwich High Road and Norman Road.

- There is currently a bus lane eastbound along Greenwich High Road which significantly speeds buses. However, there will be no bus lane along Norman Road, the proposed eastbound diversionary route, meaning even slower journeys for bus passengers.

- There would be enormous confusion generally among passengers. Many passengers (particularly those travelling to Creek Road and Greenwich High Road) would be faced with longer walks to or from their nearest bus stops.

One possibility to address most of these problems is the council's option 2b, which puts an eastbound bus contraflow lane along Greenwich High Road (between the North Pole and the town centre) and a westbound contraflow lane along Creek Road (between the town centre and Norman Road.)

However, this would, the council admits, result in "additional traffic congestion" because buses turning right at St Alfege Church and stopping on Nelson Road to pick up passengers would significantly slow down the traffic flow through the town centre, causing major jams. It would also preclude the pavement improvements.

Disadvantage: traffic and pollution would be spread over a wider area.

Even if the total number of vehicles does not change, most drivers coming from the east and south will have to use more roads and drive significantly further to pass through the area. This means more pollution for everyone, and more traffic for many.

On Greenwich High Road, for instance, there may no longer be any eastbound traffic - but that will be more than made up for by a significant increase in the amount of westbound traffic. All the westbound traffic which currently uses Creek Road, as well as High Road's current westbound traffic, will have to pass along here. Norman Road will also see much more traffic. Residents of Roan Street, Randall Place, Straightsmouth and the Tarves Way/ Haddo Street estates will effectively find themselves in the middle of a giant roundabout.

There will also be traffic jams in new places: for example, at either end of Norman Road.

Disadvantage: many local journeys will become very long and convoluted.

It will no longer be possible to approach Royal Hill or Stockwell Street/ Crooms Hill from the west - or leave them if you are going east. To reach these streets from central London, or leave them towards east Greenwich, you will have to go round via Norman Road, Creek Road and the town centre (getting caught in all the traffic congestion on the way.) It will become much more difficult to drive to Somerfield or the cinema. There is an option 2a allowing two-way movement on the High Road (as far as Stockwell Street) which would mitigate this.

Disadvantage: more rat-running.

Rather than go all the way round via Greenwich High Road and Norman Road, many rush-hour drivers driving up through Greenwich Park would instead cut through the back streets of west Greenwich, such as Circus Street and Gloucester Circus. The proposals contain nothing to prevent this. The convoluted journeys for local residents will also lead to significantly more rat-running by locals.

Disadvantage: more traffic through the Park and over the Heath.

It is likely that rather than brave the new gyratory, some traffic will divert to the A2 - further increasing congestion on this route - or come through the park, perhaps rat-running through residential streets as before.

Conclusion

Unsatisfactory as it is, the status quo remains the least worst option. The latest proposal seems yet another of the council's ill-thought-out Olympic-related schemes. Its benefits are modest and its drawbacks far greater.

Greenwich Council Meeting 16/12/09: Roadworks, Foot Tunnel, John Roan School & Charlton Lido

By

Greenwich Council has said it wants to join a scheme which will enable it to co-ordinate roadworks in the borough, after a year which has seen serious disruption on Greenwich roads.

Works by Southern Gas Networks and Thames Water have caused traffic to grind to a halt through Greenwich town centre, while Charlton and Blackheath have also been seriously affected by a water main replacement programme.

The issue was highlighted by greenwich.co.uk's Andrew Gilligan in November after it emerged the council had not joined a Transport for London scheme, under which utilities have to get permits from local authorities before they dig up roads.

Deputy leader Peter Brooks told last night's Greenwich Council meeting he wanted the borough to join the programme.

In a written answer to Liberal Democrat councillor Brian Woodcraft, who asked why Greenwich was not part of the scheme, he said: "I am very keen for Greenwich to participate in this scheme, and I hope the trial will be expanded for us to be able to do so very soon."

However, he not answer why the council had not joined the scheme, and Cllr Woodcraft did not press him on the issue.

Lewisham and Bromley councils are involved in the TfL programme, which is due to come into force next year.

Greenwich Foot Tunnel

A petition signed by 1,000 users of Greenwich foot tunnel demanding that closures be kept to a minimum when it is refurbished was presented to the council by Liberal Democrat member Paul Webbewood.

The river crossing, together with its sister tunnel at Woolwich, is due to be refurbished by 2012, with regular users fearing lengthy closures.

Council leader Chris Roberts told the meeting a contractor had been appointed to carry out the works.

"We're discussing what work needs to be done and what the hours will be," he said.

"Then we can advise residents and businesses on arrangements for both tunnels."

John Roan School

Greenwich Council confirmed it would respect John Roan School governors' decision not to move to a new site on Greenwich Peninsula.

Blackheath Westcombe Conservative councillor Alex Wilson asked if a timetable had been set out for works to improve John Roan's existing sites on Maze Hill and Westcombe Park Road.

But children's services cabinet member Jackie Smith said the proposals were still in the "developmental stage".

"It is too early to be definitive about completion dates, but will will want to ensure that the project is progressed as quickly as practicable."

Charlton Lido

Conservative leader Spencer Drury criticised the council for not giving an update on works at Charlton Lido, which is being converted into a diving centre.

Earlier this year his party colleague, Kidbrooke with Hornfair councillor Graeme Coombes, presented a 222-strong petitioning demanding the reopening of the lido for the summer season.

It had been closed in anticipation of leasing the lido out to private firm Open Waters Investments, which is due to re-open the pool by summer 2012.

But the lease was not signed until 14 August, leaving the lido empty for the summer.

Responding to the petition, the council said it would have taken leisure operator GLL two weeks to mobilise its staff, and that opening hours at another centre would have to be cut to staff Charlton Lido.

Cllr Drury called the reply "disappointing". "I hoped there would have been an update on whether work has started," he told the meeting.

But Olympics and culture cabinet member John Fahy said he saw no reason to doubt that the revamped lido would open on time.

New Trees in Greenwich

If you think your street would benefit from having some new trees, then Greenwich Council wants to hear from you.

The council is spending £4.8m on planting 2,012 trees in the borough to mark the Olympics, with planting due to take place next winter.

In response to a public question from the Greenwich Environment Forum's Anna Townend, Olympics and culture cabinet member John Fahy told the meeting the council was looking for places to put the trees in.

"We've been consulting with residents for a number of weeks, particularly at our Great Get-Together events," he said.

Cllr Fahy added that he did not think that a new woodland would be created with the trees.

Council consults on Greenwich pedestrianisation proposals

By

Greenwich Council has initiated a consultation on proposals to part pedestrianise Greenwich town centre.

The pedestrianisation scheme would entail closing College Approach and King William Walk (northern section) to all traffic except for access. Greenwich Church Street north of Creek Road would allow some traffic access.

Cllr Chris Roberts. Leader of Greenwich Council, said, “We are very keen to get the views of everyone who lives in, works in or visits Greenwich, and I hope as many people as possible will take part in the consultation on the Council’s proposals.”

The options currently under proposal are:

Option 1 – two-way traffic on all the non-pedestrianised roads.
Option 2 – create new clockwise traffic gyratory with one-way traffic flows on Norman Road and the affected stretches of Creek Road, Greenwich Church Street and Greenwich High Road.

Those supporting the second option are invited to give comments on three variations:

2a – As Option 2 but with two-way movement permitted on Greenwich High Road southwest of Stockwell Street.
2b – As Option 2 but with a bus contra-flow on Greenwich High Road – Greenwich Church Street – Creek Road.
2c – As Option 2 but with a cycle contra-flow on Greenwich High Road – Greenwich Church Street – Creek Road.

The proposed options can be seen in detail, along with a visual computer model, at an exhibition being held at Devonport House on the 19th/20th/21st December between 10am - 8pm. More information is available from the Council website.