Murky Depths

News in London and beyond

Greenwich borough

Greenwich Council’s changing definition on who funds street improvements

A couple of weeks ago I highlighted a campaign by residents to improve streets around Falconwood station including improved pedestrian crossings.

At the time Greenwich Council responded to a petition stating funds to do so were provided  from TfL.

Now, the petition and council response is before a full council meeting and Greenwich Council have changed their wording. Now, funds are “generally provided by Transport for London”.

Spot the difference

Why is this important? Well, firstly are elected councillors receiving accurate information?

I’ve regularly covered regularly how many other London councils top up annual allocations from TfL related to the Local Implementation Plan. In some cases vastly so, with Hammersmith & Fulham for example adding £20 million each year from parking income towards improving streets and an additional £9 million derived from developers. In Greenwich it’s zero from each.

H&F annual spend

For council reports to state only TfL provide the money is deflecting responsibility. In effect throwing hands up and stating “nothing we can do”. It’s inferring that we can’t improve this crossing, or that public space, or those areas around a school.

If this was a one-off typo it’d be permissible. As part of a long running series of replies and reports passing the buck as little income is invested it sadly follows a pattern.

Latest parking miss

It also removes responsibilities from certain departments. If other boroughs can find millions from parking income yet Greenwich cannot, it brings the ongoing problems at the parking department into stronger focus. For those unaware, it misses targets each year and is now more than £12 million below budgeted targets.

Greenwich spending plans

Lastly, to compensate for not allocating money from developers or parking income, money from other funds are used. Those funds could be spent on health, housing, education and much more in a time of severe cuts from central Government.

In regards to the Falconwood petition, they state: “There is currently no funding available in this financial year’s programme and the area is planned for review during 2020/2021”

6 Comments

  1. Paul SuperUnknown

    Every time I read an article that mentions Greenwich Council’s inability to properly generate revenue from something as obvious as parking fines/fees, I feel like collecting rotten fruits and vegetables for a visit to Town Hall! Royal Greenwich Council have the mind set of small town politics!

  2. Graham

    Royal Borough of Greenwich have lost so many opportinities over many years to raise a large amount of revenue for the Borough from parking fines and fees. Which I believe Murky reported to be around 12 million in loss revenue to the Council.

    I drove down Eltham High Street last Saturday lunch time and so many cars were doubled parked which is dangerous to both road users and pedestrians. Greenwich Council really are losing an opportunity here to raise much needed funds for the Boorugh,

    Greenwich Council have also wasted so much public money on consultaytions and project that was then abandoned over the last few years. Which is also adding to the scale of the cuts that they now need to be make. So therefore Greenwich Council need to take some of responsibility themselves.

    My main concern is also that they spend a ot money by provided by TFL and Developers on GLLAB etc rather than on the projects that the money was intended for like improving older housing estates and public realm near new developments. Improving streets and public transport etc

    I totally agree that the Government have cut fudning to Local Authorities which is far from good and somethiing I do not personally agree with myself. As there is a real need to provide and maintain front line services to children and vulnerable adults including the elderly and disabled. Councils need to make sure these are safeguarded as much as possible.

  3. CDT

    I totally agree services to vulnerable people of all ages need to be safgeguarded and ring fenced from cuts as much as humanly possible.

    Savings and cuts can normally come from back of house services and through eiificent savings in the way of natural wastage staff leaving and staff retitirng etc.

    Alot mote people are also choosing to work less hours or less days per week to get a better work life balance with their families and to reduce stress.

  4. CDT

    from efficiency Savings i meanrt.

  5. CDT

    So many spelling mistakes in my first post so I thought I would try to correct them here.

    I totally agree services to vulnerable people of all ages need to be safgeguarded and ring fenced from cuts as much as humanly possible.

    Savings and cuts can normally come from back of house services and through eiificency savings in the way of natural wastage staff leaving and staff retiring etc.

    Alot more people are also choosing to work less hours per day or less days per week to get a better work life balance with their families and to reduce stress levels.

  6. Ashley

    Surely it’s more beneficial to utilise funds for those in need. Especially when it comes to S106/CIL.

    Why are we taking huge chunks to booster the likes of GLLAB and now we hear from 853 £123,000 from S106 on the television in Woolwich town centre.

    While cuts are being made on street cleaning, adults and child services and what about our decaying Public Realm.

    Really? We need Councillors to take care and to support our communities.

    Why are Greenwich so inept to bring in valuable parking revenues, this should be a priority and it would clearly make a difference to the illegal double parking we see daily.

Leave a Reply

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

Theme by Anders Norén