Greenwich Council could spend £55,000 on changes including a pedestrian crossing on Vanbrugh Hill near hundreds of recently constructed homes after 165 people signed a petition.
The petition was submitted earlier this year after numerous reports of vehicles driving the wrong way down the road to jump queues placing crossing pedestrians at risk.
The petition states difficulty in crossing the road to reach Maze Hill station: “A further issue is the difficulty in crossing Vanbrugh Hill to get to Maze Hill Station because – in addition to reckless driving – there is no safe designated crossing point in the Calvert Road / Annandale Road section of Vanbrugh Hill”.
Greenwich state they will now look at options including signs and a possible pedestrian crossing.
They also acknowledge that a financially constrained TfL cannot alone foot the bill. They do intend to use money from TfL’s Local Implementation Plan funding (which Greenwich is almost last of any London borough for topping up TfL’s annual funding utilising funding obtained from new developments and parking income) but note that if not possible, other options will be “explored”.
“The cost of the works to be funded by TfL LIP funding for 21/22 and is estimated to cost approximately £55,000. Subject to TfL Settlement figure after December 2021 or alternative funding sources will be explored.”
Previously it was common to read in Greenwich Council reports it was TfL funds or nothing – which was always untrue.
As I’ve recently covered, Greenwich have been failing to collect money from developers from the Community Infrastructure Levy. Initial investigations have found £1.7 million owed and more is likely given Greenwich are bottom of any London boroughs for receiving income in 2019/20 despite being far from bottom for new development.
Not only has income from new development not collected, how they choose to allocate it raises questions as they often opt to ignore the impact of additional residents upon local streets and subsequent infrastructure need.
Finally, there’s potential to use income from parking offences alongside moving traffic offences. Both are ringfenced to transport projects after administration costs.
For many years Greenwich had a skeleton staff for parking enforcement which saw income millions below budget expectations for at least a decade. A typical paragraph in annual reports is seen below:
Greenwich now looking into the matter doesn’t ensure anything will definitely happen despite at least a recognition of issues. TfL may not be able to fund and Greenwich may “explore” then refuse to take any action. One to keep watching.