Residents across Greenwich have called new parking proposals that will add more permit zones “utterly ludicrous” with many viewing the council plan as “another revenue maximising scheme”.
Greenwich Council first released information about its new Sustainable Streets programme at the end of last year.
The project aims to bring in a variety of controlled parking measures across Greenwich which the council said will “prioritise parking for residents and businesses” as well as adding street features such as EV charging points, trees and secure cycle parking locations.
Although Greenwich Council has not confirmed or denied this, many believe the community groundswell of anger that emerged in Shooters Hill and Plumstead was the reason that those areas were scrapped from the scheme last month.
Simon Steptoe has been a Plumstead resident for 40 years and has never had a problem parking in the area. When he first saw what was proposed for his street, it struck him as “utterly ludicrous”.
He said that the number of free parking spots on his road were to be reduced from 16 to six. Simon said: “It is creating a problem which didn’t exist, then charging people for the pleasure of having to drive around and not be able to find a place [to park]. I thought that was wrong.”
‘Stop the Council Cash Grab’ campaign
He set up a campaign called ‘Stop the Council Cash Grab’ to stop Greenwich’s proposals. His first frustration, which was shared by many in the borough, was that the initial deadline for feedback was August 22.
Many residents felt this didn’t give them enough time to fully digest what was proposed, since the consultation had only been launched a month earlier on July 14. The decision to have the consultation take place in the summer holidays was also criticised. Greenwich Council has since extended its deadline to September 30.
As part of his campaign, Simon set up a website and had thousands of flyers printed to distribute around Plumstead. After the council scrapped its Plumstead proposals, Simon felt like the work in his neighbourhood was done. Now, he is helping residents in other parts of the borough organise themselves to formally oppose Sustainable Streets.
One of those residents is Joel Soo who lives in Thamesmead. He is leading a campaign to get his area wiped from the parking proposals, but when he has been chatting to other residents he has encountered a mixed response.
In his neighbourhood, north of Belmarsh Prison, he found that most people were opposed to the plans as it’s a quiet residential area in which motorists rarely struggle to find parking.
Joel found that many people living closer to Plumstead station are more supportive of the plans as commuters regularly park in their roads and take the train into the city, taking up spaces for residents.
However, these supporters reportedly still aren’t sure. Joel said: “They have the dilemma of if they say yes to the CPZ [controlled parking zone], then that’s an additional financial burden. But if we don’t have the CPZ, there’ll be plenty of people that will be parking non-stop over there and walking to the Lizzy Line.”
He also called the consultation a “double-edged sword” that was creating tension between residents. “One resident can afford the parking and so prefers to have it, but then there’s tension with someone living in the same street who cannot afford it, who then will have to pay a couple of hundred pounds a year to park their car,” he said.
Joel also found through his campaigning that many residents initially welcomed the introduction of residents’ permits, but were then shocked to discover that this would be at an additional cost. Greenwich Council said its residential parking permits start from £60.20 per year, but can grow up to £300 per year for the most polluting vehicles.
Charlton residents have their say
Eleanor Restall is the Chair of the West Charlton Residents Association. It was set up in 2023 in response to the council establishing a CPZ in the area that some residents weren’t happy about. At the time, the association felt the council rushed the consultation and didn’t take the views of residents seriously.
With Sustainable Streets, Eleanor feels like history is repeating itself. She said: “This council makes a complete mockery of democracy by sneaking out surveys in holiday periods and repeatedly following its own predetermined plans, regardless of residents’ views.”
The association is chiefly concerned with the new proposals removing free parking spaces from Charlton roads, preventing carers, friends and families from being able to easily visit some of the area’s older residents. Eleanor continued: “Why on Earth would anyone pay for parking in this area when I look out my window now, and there’s umpteen free spaces in our street.”
She believes Sustainable Streets is “another revenue maximising scheme” from Greenwich Council. Eleanor was still optimistic that Charlton could be removed from the council’s plans with continued community pushback.
Fellow Charlton resident Vikki Barrie lives in Delafield Road, just south of Charlton station. In 2021, she successfully campaigned for the streets around the station to have their own CPZ that was separate from the rest of Charlton.
This helped residents protect their parking spots from commuters. However, Vikki feels that if Sustainable Streets is approved, “we will be back to square one, fighting for limited parking spaces”.
She said: “Greenwich Council are proposing to bring in parking meters in our street. This will take out at least 12 to 14 parking spaces. We will be able to use the parking meter bays, but obviously only if they are available.
“Delafield Road is right by Charlton Station. This means that lots of people will use the parking meter bays when they catch the train. This will create a scramble for other available parking spaces, again.”
Suzanne Maddison lives in Sutlej Road and has been a Charlton resident for over 25 years. She appreciates the sentiment of making Greenwich roads safer and more sustainable, but is concerned about the financial impact the scheme will have at a time when many residents are already feeling the pinch.
Suzanne said: “On a personal level, I already feel the pressures of the rising cost of living. Any additional costs linked to transport, parking, or related changes would place further strain on my household budget. I am a teacher working in a Bexley school, so public transport is out of the question.”
She also questioned the long-term affordability of the large-scale scheme, and feared the council would be increasing permit prices annually to pay for it. Suzanne also thought the introduction of parking restrictions could have a negative economic impact, preventing customers from being able to visit local businesses.
She added: “Charlton Athletic supporters and away fans usually park in our street and boost the local economy. Where are these people going to go? Carers, visitors, family and friends are all going to be impacted from these plans that are not necessary.”
Kidbrooke resident Julie O’Connor is in “complete disagreement” with the proposals, believing the council’s push to establish more CPZs across the borough is financially motivated and isn’t to do with making travel more sustainable.
She said: “Many of our streets have no parking problems and even some of the quietest streets have been included in this ridiculous proposal.”
Like others throughout Greenwich, Julie is helping to co-ordinate a campaign with her neighbours against Sustainable Streets.
Bowling club feared its closure
A group that feared the proposals could harm its existence was the Woolwich & Plumstead Bowling Club.
The club joined neighbours in campaigning against the introduction of a CPZ as it felt parking restrictions would have stopped its members from being able to travel and park outside its Foxcroft Road home.
Club President Diane Freshwater was heartened when she discovered that Greenwich Council had scrapped its “ill-conceived plan” in the areas of Plumstead and Shooters Hill as she feared the scheme would have put the 120-year-old club at the risk of closure.
She said: “Places like this are not just sports clubs, we are health and social lifelines supporting people’s physical activity and regular social contact across generations. Staying active is so important to our members of any age, some are retired and rely on driving or lifts as at our age you can’t take a set of bowls on the bus.
“The bowls club remains aghast that, despite the severe impact this would have had on us, we have still never been directly contacted by the council. But it is a relief that now we can move on.”
Greenwich Council were contacted for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.
*Article from Local Democracy reporting Service
