Greenwich Council has scrapped most of its plans to introduce controlled parking zones (CPZs) across the borough following widespread public backlash.
The council announced yesterday (December 18) that it would only be taking its controversial Sustainable Streets proposals forward in Woolwich, ditching the scheme in Charlton, West Thamesmead, Kidbrooke and Blackheath. Plans for Shooters Hill and Plumstead were scrapped in August.
Greenwich Council first released information about the Sustainable Streets programme at the end of last year, which aims to “reduce unnecessary car journeys and encourage more people to walk, cycle, or use public transport where practical to reduce air pollution, traffic and improve road safety”.
The council hoped to do this by introducing controlled parking measures such as permit zones and paid parking areas, as well as more car club bays, EV charging points, secure cycle parking and street trees on Greenwich roads.
The comprehensive transport scheme was met with widespread opposition from borough residents. Although some welcomed the council’s efforts to promote sustainability, many felt the removal of many free parking spaces and the introduction of permits was financially motivated and labelled it a “cash grab”.
Greenwich Council has continually stated that any money raised from parking permits is ring-fenced and can only be used to fund transport and highways improvement schemes in the borough.
The council received several public petitions objecting to the plans with some residents also protesting outside council meetings. The authority has now admitted that the majority of people who responded to the Sustainable Streets consultation were not supportive of the proposed measures.
Council documents state: “The analysis has found that the majority of respondents feel that the proposed changes either do not reflect what is required on the street or that they object to most elements proposed around controlled parking.
“Many felt that the proposals were not necessary given the existing levels of parking pressure, particularly in locations where permit bays had been suggested, and there was generally limited support for the programme to progress in their area.”
Despite scrapping the scheme in Charlton, West Thamesmead, Kidbrooke and Blackheath, Greenwich Council has identified certain streets within these areas flagged by residents in the consultation process that it may consider introducing further measures in the future.
These ‘parking stress’ areas include Canberra Road in Charlton and Broad Walk in Kidbrooke. If the council were to make changes to these roads, the proposals would come forth on an individual basis and would not be part of the Sustainable Streets scheme.
‘Relieved and delighted’
Joel Soo, a West Thamesmead resident who campaigned to have Sustainable Streets removed from his area, welcomed the news. He said: “West Thamesmead residents are relieved and delighted that the council has withdrawn the Sustainable Streets CPZ proposals for our area.
“More than 1,400 people signed our petition, and this is a real victory for local democracy. It proves that when communities organise and speak with one voice, the council can and does listen.”
Eleanor Restall, Chair of the West Charlton Residents Association, was pleased that Sustainable Streets had been removed from her area, but the association is still keen to have the recently implemented Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough removed as well.
She said: “There is equally strong opposition and very bad traffic displacement to our area from the West & East Greenwich LTNs and we want to see those dropped too.”
The leader of the opposition at Greenwich Council was also pleased to hear about the Sustainable Streets change. Cllr Matt Hartley, leader of Greenwich Conservatives, said: “I am thrilled that everyone’s hard work in opposing these disastrous parking charge proposals has finally paid off.
“The so-called Sustainable Streets policy has been seriously flawed from the start – and I hope that Labour councillors will take this as a lesson in the risks of trying to railroad communities in the way they so often do.
“People should make no mistake, though, that if Labour are re-elected next May they will undoubtedly try this again. We haven’t seen the last of this parking charge agenda – and Conservative councillors will continue to oppose any attempt to impose Controlled Parking Zones in areas where they are not needed, wherever they are in our borough.”
Woolwich still on the table
Greenwich Council will push on with Sustainable Streets in Woolwich, despite only 38 of 649 online consultees in the area responding positively to the statement: ‘The Sustainable Street proposals will help address the problems caused by environmentally harmful vehicle emissions, road safety and poor air quality’.
Council Leader Anthony Okereke has said feedback from Woolwich residents showed support for improving local streets. He said: “This reflects the fact that Woolwich, despite having some of the best public transport connections in the borough, continues to experience high levels of parking stress. Commuter and visitor parking frequently spills into residential roads, reducing parking availability for local households.
“With the number of new homes being built, as well as a state-of-the-art leisure centre opening soon, we need to make sure its transport and parking infrastructure is fit for purpose. This includes providing additional secure cycle parking through bike hangars, expanding electric vehicle charging points, and introducing car club bays in Woolwich.
“Taking Sustainable Streets forward in Woolwich will balance the needs of residents with the demands of a modern town centre.”
Cllr Okereke also said the council had listened to those residents in other Sustainable Street areas, which led to the scheme being scrapped there. He explained: “However, we also recognise through our extensive consultation with residents that in other areas support was limited with some concerns raised and so we have listened and will not be progressing with proposals in those areas.”
