Local residents will recall last summer’s planning application for a bridge over the mouth of Deptford Creek – linking the new development at Greenwich Reach (New Capital Quay) with Millennium Quay.

That application (a “trapezoidal lattice girder bridge” fifty metres long and several metres in height) drew heavy criticism from locals on the basis of its garish appearance and imposing nature.

At the same time that the Council were receiving responses to the consultation on that planning application it became clear that apparent impediments to a fully opening swing-bridge design – voiced, we had been told, by both the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the Environment Agency (EA) – might actually be surmountable.

For both reasons efforts we made to persuade the developer, Galliard Homes, to return to the drawing board and work with the PLA and EA on revised proposals for an opening swing-bridge that would still allow vessels to access the Creek but would be less imposing than the original design.

Following many months of revision work and extensive efforts to overcome the technical obstacles involved in designing a swing-bridge in this location, revised plans have now been submitted to the Council with a view to taking the proposal to the Council’s June Planning Board. The final revised plans are available to view here and a CGI image (though unfortunately not of fantastic quality) of what the revised footbridge will look like is shown below:

All those consulted on the previous fixed-bridge plans will be consulted on these revisions plus anyone who objected to the May 2012 application. Letters will be going out to those residents today and notice in the press will follow in the coming days.

Greenwich West Councillors are working with representatives of the Millennium Quay residents’ association to arrange a public meeting in the coming weeks to discuss with the revised proposals with MQ residents and to answer any questions that people might have.

We will soon enter the sixth week of a 12 week public consultation into proposals put forward by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) as part of their Fifth London Safety Plan.

The proposals include the closure of 12 stations across the capital including Woolwich, along with the loss of 18 fire engines and over 500 firefighters.

The proposals are the result of the Mayor of London’s decision to reduce the London Fire Brigade’s budget by £45 million over the next two years. They are opposed by the Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU). Indeed, LFEPA only agreed to hold a consultation because of the risk of legal action.

No one is opposed to efficiency savings in the current economic climate but they should not come at the price of public safety. These proposals are reckless and if implemented will jeopardise the long-term safety and security of Londoners.

The closure of Woolwich fire station will increase the time it takes fire appliances to arrive from Greenwich and Plumstead to within seconds of that permitted in the fire authority’s own guidelines. Given the regular traffic congestion in the area there is a real concern that the plans will place the local community at unacceptable risk.

Nick Raynsford MP has written to the LFEPA chairman James Cleverly to voice his concerns but it is crucial that local residents also make their voice heard before the consultation ends on 28 May.

A public meeting is being held to discuss the proposals in Greenwich (Woolwich would have been a more fitting location) on Wednesday 29 May (7-9pm) at King William Building, Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London SE10 9LS.

Alternatively, residents can make their views known by clicking the link below to fill out a questionnaire:

www.london-fire.gov.uk/LSP5.asp

Hard copies of the plan are available from the London Fire Brigade. The contact details to request a copy are below:

Call: 0800 9888 569

Write to:

FREEPOST RRSK-TLGS-YLAK

London Safety Plan Team London Fire Brigade

169 Union Street London SE1 0LL

Email: londonsafetyplan@london-fire.gov.uk

We’ve known for some time of the drastic changes to our social security system enacted by the Coalition but in many ways the last few years have had something of the air of a phoney war. Thus, while the government’s welfare reforms have provoked anger and an immeasurable amount of anxiety on the part of those who stand to be affected; their actual impact has been relatively slight.

All that changed today as thousands of families woke to find their already modest incomes squeezed even further.

As a result of the introduction of a “bedroom tax” as many as 660,000 people in social housing will lose an average of £728 a year. Two thirds of those affected are disabled. In Greenwich, we estimate that around 4,000 people across tenures will be affected, around 1,000 of whom have two or more spare bedrooms and will be hit particularly hard.

As a result of a poorly designed reform of Council Tax Benefit millions of the poorest households across the country will see increases in their Council Tax bills. In handing responsibility for Council Tax support to England’s 326 local councils – along with a 10% reduction in funding and rules which mean that levels of pensioner support are protected – the government has created a perverse postcode lottery that will see levels of support vary widely across the country. In Greenwich we reluctantly decided to reduce support to the 18,530 recipients of Council Tax Benefit in the Borough because the alternative – of making up the £2.3 million funding shortfall through cuts to services or steep council tax increases (subject to an expensive local referendum) across the board – was simply not feasible at a time when we are still dealing with deep cuts to our core funding and rising pressures on services such as social care.

Often overlooked, vulnerable residents will also suffer from the further erosion of our once proud legal aid system. The cutoff to claim legal aid will be a household income of £32,000, and those earning between £14,000 and £32,000 will have to take a means test. Those needing support with divorce, child custody, immigration and employment cases will be badly affected. It is estimated that some 650,000 people will be affected by the cuts.

And there is more to follow in the coming weeks: the abolition of community care grants and crisis loans, the 1% benefit uprating cap for certain working-age benefits and tax credits that will hit those in work as well as those looking for it, and the total benefit cap that will affect around 450 families across Greenwich.

Large numbers of residents already approach their Councillors on a weekly basis with concerns about what these changes will mean. Now they are upon us many anxious families who are already struggling to cope will be tipped over the edge – forced to rely on the growing number of food banks springing up across the Borough.

The Council is doing what it can with limited resources to respond to the inevitable hardship these reforms will cause. We have created a dedicated Welfare Reform Team to handle enquiries/referrals. The team can be reached on 020 8921 6375 and more details can be found here. As always, Greenwich West residents can contact me by email, in writing or by telephone.

Yesterday evening I managed (ironically there were disruptions on the Greenwich line at the time) to get to the first part of a public meeting at Davy’s Wine Bar, Greenwich High Road, to discuss the possibility of setting up a rail users’ group for those who travel from Westcombe Park, Maze Hill, Greenwich or Deptford.

The meeting was arranged by the Westcombe and Greenwich societies and representatives from the successful Charlton Rail Users’ Group (CRUG) just down the line and southeastern were also in attendance.

As 853 blog reported on Saturday, the impetus for the meeting was the disruption that forthcoming rebuilding works at London Bridge station will inevitably cause to anyone who uses the line to London Bridge.

Let’s be clear: London Bridge is a dark, cramped, overcrowded and poorly-designed station. It is by no means an adequate key gateway into the capital and often adds to the misery of what are (all too frequently) unreliable services for commuters travelling in to London from Greenwich, Charlton or Woolwich.

The redevelopment will therefore be welcomed by many who yearn for a more spacious and better connected transport hub and an increase in the number of services to and from the station every hour.

But the disruption the redevelopment will cause will be a major challenge. Network Rail and southeastern must do everything they can to ensure the disruption caused is, as much as is possible, mitigated.

Network Rail will be rebuilding the station in distinct phases, each having a different impact on train services. This should mean a number of shorter periods of disruption rather than all passengers using London Bridge being disrupted for the full duration of the project.

Importantly, the redevelopment will only start to impact on residents in the northern part of the Borough from 2015. The disruption will be in two phases:

- From early 2015 to early 2016 services to Charing Cross will be unable to call at London Bridge station

- From early 2016 to December 2017 services to Cannon Street will be unable to call at London Bridge station.

As my colleague Councillor Alex Grant made clear, these plans raise a series of questions: what will the disruption and a reduction of services stopping at London Bridge mean for passengers who need to alight at the station, when both the jubilee and northern lines are running at capacity? Will oyster PAYG passengers be refunded?

My fellow Councillors and I will be seeking to get answers to these and other questions in the weeks ahead but last night’s meeting brought home two things:

1)      Network Rail and southeastern need to start ramping up their publicity on this issue and must begin a more sustained programme of consulting with passengers – many of whom will not be fully aware of the disruption they will face in a few years’ time.

2)      Passengers are going to need a strong collective voice of their own. The establishment of a Rail Users’ Group for those using Westcombe Park, Maze Hill, Greenwich and Deptford seems a good place to start.

On 9 January, MOPAC (the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) published a draft consultation on the capital’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-17.

At the same time the draft MOPAC/Metropolitan Police Service Estates Strategy 2013-16 was published. The documents are still available here.

The proposals contained in each warrant close examination as they stand to impact on policing in the Borough if implemented.

Estates Strategy

The draft MOPAC/MPS Estate Strategy proposes the closure of Thamesmead, Woolwich and Greenwich police stations along with a substantial reduction in hours in Eltham. While it is difficult to predict precisely how these proposals will affect Greenwich, given that the MPS did not publish plans for how public access to services will be maintained should they be adopted, there are grounds for concern.

First, the plans appear to have been developed without any real consideration of the needs of specific local areas such as Greenwich Town Centre with its large tourist footfall or the impact that a loss of ‘front counter’ services has in terms of a reassuring presence for local residents and visitors.

Second, while there may be a case for efficiency savings if buildings are not extensively used by the public, the consultation did not take into account the other functions provided by buildings such as Greenwich police station in providing a base for our ward Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT).

Third, the proposals run counter to the Mayor’s prior reassurances on the issue. The Mayor of London had previously promised Londoners that front counter services would not be closed unless an alternative or like-for-like provision was found (like-for-like meaning the same or better opening hours and a face to face service – see Mayor’s Question Time 21 November 2012 and London Assembly Police and Crime Committee 27 September 2012). But the draft strategy has rowed back on this pledge, instead proposing “contact points” at Post Offices, supermarkets and coffee shops. It is not at all clear how such services will function in the event they are adopted as they are uncosted plans and no agreements with potential outlets are in place.

Safer Neighbourhood Teams

Far more concerning are the proposals contained in the draft consultation on the Police and Crime Plan 2013-17, particularly in regards to local policing in Greenwich and other parts of the capital.

Over recent years our local SNT has carried out invaluable work in reducing crime and anti-social behaviour in West Greenwich and in providing a reassuring presence for local residents. The model of Safer Neighbourhood community policing on which this progress has rested, which until now has been protected in the Borough, is now under threat.

This is because the draft MOPAC consultation proposes to strip back the current SNT model of 1 Sergeant, 2 Police Constables and 3 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) to just a single PC and a single PSO per ward and a named but not dedicated Sergeant. These proposals are extremely worrying (and are not allayed by the proposed overall increase in numbers at a sector level) as they would undoubtedly have a negative impact on the number of officers on our streets, the ability of local police to respond to complaints of anti-social behaviour (our local team is uniquely suited to tackling ASB given their understanding of the local area and their partnerships with community groups, councillors and residents) and on the relationship built up between local police teams and the communities they are now firmly embedded within.

These planned cuts will see the Met having the lowest supervisory ratios in the country, lower than our closest comparators around the country, stretching local sergeants and the local knowledge that has been the bedrock of local policing.

We can only hope that the Mayor of London listens to the views expressed by Greenwich Councillors, local community groups and residents before coming to a final decision on these proposals.

On Tuesday 19 March the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Licensing Sub-Committee will meet to determine whether Coral should be given a premises license to operate a betting shop at 279-283 Greenwich High Road (the former Nationwide building).

My fellow Greenwich West ward Councillors and I have all objected to the application on the grounds that, situated below a doctor’s surgery (which actually treats a number of patients for gambling addiction), the opening of a betting shop on this site will put children and other vulnerable persons at risk from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

In the wake of similar objections from local Councillors, local businesses and concerned residents a prior licence application at the same site from Ladbrokes was withdrawn. Yet Coral are determined to press ahead with their application.

We do not yet know what the licensing committee’s decision will be, but the committee’s decision is constrained to a significant degree by the current legal presumption in favour of granting licences. At present local authorities’ can only block an application for a license from a betting shop if there is evidence that the shop will increase crime, will pose a threat to the vulnerable or if there is proof that it will undertake loaded/unfair gambling practices.

But how can you provide evidence that a store is causing these problems prior to its opening? Within this framework, and weighed against the legal resources available to large gambling chains, the reasonable fears of local residents and businesses are often not sufficient grounds for a refusal.

If the government is serious about localism, it should realise it is time for change. Legislation can tackle specific aspects of the problem – for example a simple amendment to the categories of Gaming Machines Regulation 2007 would lower the available limits for stakes and prizes on highly addictive “B2” machines – but Councils should be given the power to take action themselves, for example by allowing licensing committee’s to take into consideration the number of existing betting shops in a given area when they are determining an application. At present, Councillors simply do not have the requisite powers to protect their local high streets from the proliferation of these outlets.

In a wider sense Coral’s application is another clear sign of the impact that the economic downturn is having on our local economy. If established, it is likely to be near-impossible to remove. So while I will be making the case for a refusal of Coral’s application on 19 March much more needs to be done at a national level to ensure that I’m not writing again in 6-8 months’ time about yet another betting shop licence application in our town centre.

As reported on www.greenwich.co.uk yesterday a planning application has been submitted for a bridge across Deptford Creek linking the new development at Greenwich Reach (New Capital Quay) with Millennium Quay.

The bridge, a “trapezoidal lattice girder bridge”, would be six metres wide and have lifts at both sides, making it fully accessible to all. It would be fifty metres long and be seven metres above the creek’s average high water mark.

“The PLA considers that this is not a suitable location for an additional (opening) bridge as it may deleteriously affect the viability of existing cargo handling operations within Deptford Creek. Commercial and other vessels that navigate into Deptford Creek need to enter the Creek at limited stages of the tide and any delay in entering the Creek may lead to difficulties in getting under the existing road bridge without a lift, and may result in additional lifting of the bridge. In addition, both bridges lifting on the inward and outward movement of commercial and other vessels using the Creek which will result in the road bridge being raised for longer and create additional traffic problems.”

The proposed bridge therefore needs to be high enough to allow vessels to pass underneath at high tide (a minimum air draught of at least 7 metres above Mean High Water Springs) and it had to be a clear span – no piles being permitted in the river.

The developer is at the same time asking the council for permission to build 22 extra flats on the two 4 storey blocks nearest the Meridian estate to make the project viable – residents will recall it stalled for some time in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

The application will go out for public consultation next week and is likely to come before the Council’s Planning Board in July for a decision.

In recent weeks there has been a fair amount of understandable concern about the series of neon restaurant signs erected on the revamped Greenwich Pier.

It’s worth noting that the final design of new Pier/Promenade was first considered by the Council’s Planning Board back in February 2007. Specific reference was made in reports which the Board considered to the pavilions being constructed using timber and copper because, it was argued, those materials reflected ones used in traditional boatbuilding. Light bronze coloured copper cladding to the first floor of the pavilion buildings was specifically mentioned and local amenity societies considered the use of these materials sympathetic to those found on the adjacent (but at that time unrestored) Cutty Sark.

The pavilion buildings were designated for A3 (restaurant) usage and accordingly a series of restaurant chains (Frankie and Bennys, Bryon Hamburgers, Zizzi and Nando’s) have set up business in these locations.

However, in recent weeks the restaurants have erected a series of neon signs on the external walls of the pavilion buildings which many local residents find objectionable and out of keeping with our much loved World Heritage Site.

The Council is very clear that the only signage that has been granted planning consent on the new pavilion buildings occupied by these restaurants is the externally illuminated signage over the door at Byron Hamburgers. This was granted planning permission under delegated powers (following revision to an earlier unacceptable iteration of their proposals) on 30 January 2012.

Unauthorised signage on pavilion buildings on the new pier now includes:

• Internally illuminated signage at Frankie and Benny’s. This was refused consent 27 March 2012. It was hoped that direct negotiation with the proprietor would render a speedier response than enforcement action (which, unfortunately, can take long periods of time and is open to appeal by the applicant) but this has proved unsuccessful.
• Additional signage at Byron Hamburgers.
• Illuminated signage at Nando’s for which no application has yet been received.

In addition an application has been received to display “halo” illuminated signage at Zizzi’s. This is currently being processed, no decision has been made and I am making enquiries as to whether local residents are able to lodge objections.

In short, all internally illuminated restaurant signage on the site, other than that permitted over the door at Byron Hamburgers, is currently unauthorised.

The Council will take what enforcement action is necessary in the coming weeks and months and I will continue to keep residents updated with developments on the issue.

The Thames Tunnel Stage 2 consultation concluded on the 10th February 2012. Scores of residents joined local Councillors in formally objecting to the proposals for the Thames Tunnel project insofar as they relate to the Borthwick Wharf Foreshore off Millennium Quay.

Greenwich West Councillors support the tunnel project and recognise its importance in improving the quality of water in the Thames. We also reluctantly accept the use of the Thames Water site at Greenwich Pumping Station as a tunnelling “drive” site for the purposes of constructing a new arterial tunnel to the river near Rotherhithe.

However, we have very real concerns about the impact that transporting excavated material from this site will have on local residents. In Stage 1 of the Thames Tunnel consultation Greenwich Council sought to persuade Thames Water to consider the use of the adjacent Deptford Creek to transport materials to and from the site.

The proposals outlined in Stage 2 of the consultation made clear that this request had not been taken up as Thames Water outlined plans to transport all material to and from the site by lorry although it is unclear at this stage whether this would mean transporting material to and from the site along Norman Road or Greenwich High Street. What is clear is that the amount of material to be excavated would require approximately 54 trips (108 lorry movements) per day over a twelve month period.

In our response to Stage 2 of the consultation we formally urged Thames Water to do all it could to ensure that excavated material are transported off site by means of river transport. Precedent in this regard has been set by other nearby developments and preliminary discussions with the Environment Agency have made clear that whilst it may be necessary to dredge the Creek in order to facilitate its use in this regard, it might be possible to balance the short term biodiversity impacts of dredging against the long term gains of a cleaner water environment.

There is also ample scope to provide pedestrian access to the Creek adjacent to Greenwich pumping station and the Phoenix Wharf sites, after the completion of the development, to link the recently constructed footpath adjacent to the neighbouring Skillions/Merryweather Place (43-81 Greenwich High Road) site to the west. It is imperative that the complex of opportunities around the use of the Creek for loading be given serious attention at the earliest opportunity.

We recognise, however, that whilst every encouragement should be made to maximise the amount of deliveries of spoil by water, the majority of the excavated material will have to be transported by road. Thames Water needs to think carefully about how they mitigate the effect on local residents of this disruption and we will continue to press them to do so.

The collective efforts of individuals, resident associations and local representatives was instrumental in convincing the Thames Tunnel team at Thames Water that their original proposed site location – where the local combined sewer overflow (CSO), known as the Deptford Storm Relief, joins the main tunnel – on the foreshore at Borthwick Wharf outside the Millennium Quay residential development were ill-advised and highly detrimental to the amenity of local residents and directly.

The Thames Tunnel Stage 2 consultation is now open and it is just as important that residents get in touch with Thames Water to express their support for the new proposed site in Deptford Church Street, near St Paul’s churchyard in the borough of Lewisham and their continued opposition to a site on the foreshore of Borthwick Wharf which, while not being the preferred option in this second consultation, remains a possible location as Thames Water’s second preference.

Any site is likely to cause a degree of disruption to residents but the advantage of the alternative Deptford Church Street site in Lewisham is that there are no houses or flats in the immediate vicinity.

I am therefore asking concerned residents to write to Thames Water to congratulate them on their good sense in making the Deptford Church Street site, near St Paul’s Churchyard, their preferred location and to restate the case for why their second preference on the foreshore of Borthwick Wharf outside Millennium Quay remains ill-advised.

The Thames Tunnel Stage 2 consultation concludes on the 10 February 2012 and residents can write to Thames Water at:

Thames Tunnel Consultation,
Freepost SCE9923,
PO Box 522,
Swindon
SN2 8LA

Or by email at:

Thames.tunnel@thameswater.co.uk  

Lastly, as part of the new proposals now out to consultation Thames Water is also considering a change to the work that would lead to a new tunnel from the river near Rotherhithe to the existing pumping station in Greenwich High Road. They had originally intended the excavation to be disposed off at the Rotherhithe end of the subsidiary tunnel, but now they are considering doing this at Greenwich. Local Councillors and Council officers are currently considering the implications of this part of the latest proposal and making representations to Thames Water.