From The Murky Depths

News in London and beyond

Greenwich

Greenwich Cruise Terminal petition launched – more headache for Greenwich Council?

Phase Two is due to include a cruise terminal and taller blocks

A campaign against a lack of on-shore power for cruise ships in Greenwich at a planned cruise liner terminal has been launched.

The cruise terminal was approved in 2015 beside Barratt Homes’ Enderby Wharf development in east Greenwich. Since then the site has been put up for sale.

The plans envisage cruise liners docking in Greenwich but crucially for campaigners not plugging into on-shore power generation whilst berthing but instead using on-board diesel engines. This would mean a substantial increase in pollution in the local area.

A petition has been launched and is quickly approaching 5,000 signatures.

It’s another headache for Greenwich council in the area. Pollution levels are already high and they continue to back the Silvertown Tunnel – almost alone now among London councils.

Construction of Silvertown would not see approach roads changed, and many traffic lights would be installed at the northern end which will do little to smooth traffic.

In reality this many signals will mean gridlock

Silvertown and Blackwall would also be tolled. This is likely to see large numbers of drivers head to Rotherhithe Tunnel which would clog up Greenwich town centre.

More shops

In addition Greenwich Council have continually approved 1980s-style retail parks and sheds over the past five years. Ikea is the most famous example but many others exist, including Brocklebank Retail Park which opened late last year, an extension to Millennium Retail Park before that plus Sainsburys and Marks & Spencer sheds and acres of car parking.

Huge car park brought in £0 but giant superstore brought in over £500k for local street improvements. Still unspent.

The above image shows the monumental waste of land at a time of severe housing shortages.

Incidentally, car park elements of new developments do not bring in any Community Infrastructure Levy income unlike housing. Income per square metre only applies to buildings.

The store buildings themselves did bring in substantial income that should’ve been used to improve local facilities and streets for pedestrians. To date no work has been seen. If it isn’t spent soon it’ll be lost as deadlines approach.

Sainsbury’s alone brought in £1.4 million as seen below. Click to see a bigger image. The fourth column of figures show where income spent.

As seen, £512k allocated for public realm and £300k for transport is unspent despite the money being received from Sainsbury’s under an agreement in 2013/14.

Leadership

Despite this plethora of issues the leadership of Greenwich don’t show much sign of changing direction which is leading to internal issues within the ruling Labour group. Many senior figures live in the south of the borough leading to issues with those in the north.

Over the Thames in Newham borough the leader of 24 years, Sir Robin Wales, has been kicked out due to internal squabbles. The new leader opposes the Silvertown Tunnel.

Low Emission scheme

Greenwich Council are trying to trumpet a Low Emission Neighbourhood scheme (funded by TfL) in east Greenwich as a sign of commitment to environmental quality.

It does have many good aspects though it’s hard to shake the suspicion it’s a bit of candy stuck on top some serious issues. A few electric cycles to hire does not cover over far wider issues.

And all the while there’s little sign that substantial income from Section 106, Community Infrastructure Levy or New Homes Bonus cash (£13.8 million alone annually with much come from Greenwich) is doing much to improve the local area and encourage people out of cars.

Delving into council documents and researching stories can be time consuming. Any help you can give to the site is much appreciated. Donate at Patreon.com/TheMurkyDepths

 

Liked it? Take a second to support fromthemurkydepths on Patreon!

6 Comments

  1. Cynthia

    It’s a very interesting situation we have here. We are told locally by Labour councillors in leaflets and during campaigning that they oppose many of these schemes yet appear to be completely ignored by those in the party at the top of Greenwich Labour.

    So what good are they if ignored? And ome say they oppose plans yet turn up at ribbon cutting ceremonies smiling (eg Ikea) then who knows how forthright they are against plans?

    Surely if that much against take a stand and do not attend. Or attend and make it clear to the press that they oppose.

    As it is we have elected representatives who say one thing yet there’s no sign at all of any change in policy on a huge number of issues.

    • Tiamaria Thompson

      I think it’s the people signing this r out of order…. we need to go clean an what’s wrong with electric. Clean & healthy. With diesel dirty. expensive & will no longer b able to get, as it’s running out.

  2. Cynthia

    As for money not being spent locally from schemes such as Primark and Sainsburys its madness. Where are local Councillors on this issue!?!

  3. ndog

    Labour let down greenwich residents AGAIN! ‘saqiq’ and pennycook have both allowed it to get to this point. Liars.

  4. anonymous201486

    I’m sorry @themurkydepths, but that picture of the Sainsbury’s Charlton empty carpark is somewhat disingeneous. It is not like that most of the time and is jammed packed on the weekends. Further that Sainsbury’s is huge and will be a draw for people doing a big shop. I would be in sympathy with your argument on the housing shortage except that Greenwich council is only interested in ‘big developer’ selling high priced, shoddily built, ticky-tacky rabbit hutches.

  5. east greenwich man

    re enderby wharf … if the terminal had been designed to run on electricity it would have added a lot of business opportunities for the area .. so this is a huge missed opportunity

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Theme by Anders Norén