How Greenwich ignored TfL advice and neglected street and town improvements

With the election fast approaching it’s a good time to look how one of the country’s largest growth areas at Greenwich peninsula is changing as thousands of homes are built as total residential unit numbers proposed now surpass 25,000.

While many thousands of homes are built  the big question is whether we are seeing related improvements not only on the peninsula but surrounding areas linking people to schools, uses, trains, the tube, doctors, health facilities, a leisure centre and library, shops and much more?

Well, no and what we’ll see below is that despite being told time and again by TfL to alter flawed travel assessments and increase incoming funds to improve links between areas when new developments are decided, Greenwich council have time and again continued to ignore advice – and in turn failed to improve vast areas of the “Royal Borough”.

As a result a strong divide between old and new communities and housing exists and continues, with ongoing failings to link areas by Greenwich council to the detriment of residents both in more established areas and those recently moving in to new housing.

This post is a follow-up to some pretty unambitious TfL plans for street upgrades over this past weekend. It was while reading up a number of reports for that seeing starkly how often Greenwich Council have ignored TfL advice to the detriment of many residents and local businesses.

Greenwich B&Q site and adjacent car park

Let’s begin at this large development on the B&Q and nearby car park outside Ikea. It was recently approved and consists of 1,251 homes.

It’s a site – one of many – in recent years where an Active Travel Assessment drawn up to look at routes in the area on foot and cycle was deemed inadequate by TfL.

TfL commonly highlight these issues as we’ll see below.

Funding to improve the area from development related Section 106 funds was also deemed poor. In a report the only solid number given throughout by Greenwich officers for local improvements is £900,000 for another crossing to the north between two existing crossings.

That’s hardly the most pressing need locally and highlights the impact of flawed travel assessments being made.

At the same time nothing though for improved crossing to existing Charlton shops in the east via this crossing:

And nothing of substance was announced for the Angerstein roundabout and the bottom of Peartree Way connecting new homes to existing homes and shops in east Greenwich and Westcombe Park station in the south.

TfL stated that “Significant funding is needed to improve security and safety under the A102 flyover at Angerstein roundabout, supporting potential public realm improvements.” and “A safe, signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossing should be provided at Peartree Way’s southern roundabout arm”.

Greenwich Officers responded with a vague: “A financial contribution has been secured to contribute towards the crossing over Bugsby’s Way and walking and cycling infrastructure in the area, including under the Angerstein roundabout.”

No exact figure was given by the authority on how much or what exactly is covered at the notorious Angerstein roundabout.

The only solid figure given was £900,000 for a crossing to the north already near existing crossings. Probably the least useful place to spend any revenue as two existing crossings already exist nearby. It’s costed at £900k which ensures that if that is built no funds for improving routes east to Charlton and south heading to east Greenwich appear to exist.

In turn areas in red in the below image still lack any safe crossings on foot heading east-west while those heading between north and south highlighted in blue have detours to make. Cycling? Good luck with that.

Morden Wharf

It’s the same story here as a report on this application – which went before councillors last month and totals 1,500 homes – which saw TfL highlight problems with studies into local walking and cycling routes.

They state “The proposal should go further to support active travel” amd “additional funding should be secured to improve key destinations”.

Greenwich once again refused to do so.

Why would they when it’s such a beautiful, welcoming area?

It’s the same story with nearby areas beneath the A102 flyover.

Greenwich council again demonstrated little interest n making the area any better for those on foot or cycle or allocating funds to any TfL related upgrades despite thousands of new homes either side.

Nothing for Blackwall Lane either which links Cycleway 14 in east Greenwich to the peninsula.

Apparently having prior S106 agreements to only improve areas as late as 2037 (yes, more than a decade away) is good enough so sorry TfL, they’ll ignore you again.

Greenwich Millennium Village tower

This block was recently revised up in height from a previously approved plan. Overall GMV housing numbers total 3,000 units across a number of plots. The tower is phase five.

Blocks in phase four are now all but complete a short distance just west from the tower.

The tower on phase five was approved earlier this year and what do you know, TfL again called out the poor quality analysis into walking and cycling routes.

They highlight the crossing on Peartree Way where you have to run and hope for the best when heading over the road.

Greenwich are in the process of installing a new zebra crossing on Peartree Way – but some distance away from the roundabout. All arms of the roundabout still lack well-located crossings.

In response to TfL Greenwich officers simply ignored their suggestions.

Why break the habit of a lifetime? Did the previous four phases see any funds used to encourage walking and cycling? Not on there key routes.

When it came to allocating funds it was the same old lack of information in the most recent report before Greenwich councillors, stating “Expanding of the existing highway works contribution to include, active travel, lantern upgrades to footpaths adjacent to Yachting Club, wayfinding, and cycle Infrastructure – TBC”.

To Be Confirmed? I think we know what that means. Ignored and neglected once again.

However other areas of spend in the report did have specific amounts listed.

Fairview site

This may shock you but Greenwich officers again ignored using any funds to improve links to east Greenwich via Tunnel Avenue or via the roundabout below the A102 flyover despite the Active Travel Assessment noting “current deficiencies on most routes”.

Even then it was deeply flawed as it looked at 14 routes yet managed to ignore all the worst ones heading south and east. Funny that.

This is either gross incompetence or something really quite bizarre. Unexplainable even. What it does mean by avoiding looking at such routes they don’t have to allocate funds to improve them.

Failure to link new and old communities

Like pretty much every other plan reading this report you’d think council officers only seem to consider North Greenwich station and no one will ever want to head south or east to work, shop, travel, visit schools, the leisure centre or library in east Greenwich and Charlton. Either that or they have zero idea of the area.

Oh, there is one other thing they’re obsessed by and that’s Thames Clipper boats . On that front they seek to allocate substantial Section 106 funding despite ferries having a small capacity and likely to be used by few residents. In total a recent report states funds of “£3,180,000 (indexed linked) towards the delivery of a new Thames Clipper Pier adjacent to Morden Wharf/Enderby Place.

“This is notably short of the projected figures set out by the Thames Clipper (who have set out that £4 – £4.5 million will be required to deliver the pier subject to detailed feasibility work). Therefore, additional financial contributions/funding will be required to make this pier deliverable and as part of this application, a £258,044.28 contribution is to be secured towards this.”

So they regularly ignore walking, cycling and other public realm improvement works across the area but want to give £4.5m to a relatively niche form of transport. With all the will in the world – and I love Thames Clippers and think we should use the river more – it’ll never be used by a fraction of those who would walk or cycle if decent routes existed.

It’s completely in the wrong order. Get the fundamentals right with active travel before a boat. It’s more of a luxury.

And by fixating on that it ensures they think no one will walk down, for example, the long ignored Tunnel Avenue. After all it’s ignored in the Travel Assessment.

Ta da! No need to improve it. Spend the money elsewhere. Maybe boats. Maybe GLLaB. Anything but these streets.

Lack of action

Ultimately the local authority continues time and again to ignore TfL advice, continue to ignore allocating funding of any note to make many of the streets of a basic minium standard, spend what little they do in the wrong areas as Travel Assessments are so frequently flawed (ignoring obvious pedestrians and cycling routes between homes, shops, amenities, stations and employment) while passing the buck endlessly – and so it’s no surprise they get few boosts in funding such seen over in Newham where the authority did allocate millions in revenue from new housing.

In Newham allocated £2.78m Section 106 income and £5.5m from Community Infrastructure Levy for the Royal Docks public realm project and so TfL reciprocated using Silvertown tunnel funds including a further £3.1m boost last year as this extract from a TfL report shows.

In Greenwich no similar amount is to be spent via Silvertown tunnel-related funds. A minuscule amount will be spent in comparison to the other side of the Thames which will achieve little.

Why would TfL bother going above and beyond?

South of the Thames an authority exists that pays little attention to guidance from TfL so they can’t be expected to gain much from such a fund. Even where money is spent from TfL – see Cycleway 4 works – it’s all pretty limited in ambition as Greenwich won’t boost funding.

After more than a quarter of a century here – and with one party dominating – they’ve absolutely failed to do the basic level of improvement across a vast area.

Comment

I’ll end with a comment I made yesterday in response to another on this site:

“The more you read reports about developments in the borough the less knowledge Greenwich demonstrate about substantial parts of major growth areas.

“It’s bizarre decision after bizarre decision with flawed Active Travel Assessments time and time again. And so TfL have to fund projects themsleves and of course they won’t go beyond the basics as Greenwich have so little clue or willingness to assist. The council and ruling party really needs a kick up the behind. They’ve presided over this for 25+ years in east Greenwich and the peninsula.

“Just so many sites and so little willingness to fund street and travel improvement works be it the B&Q site, Greenwich Millennium Village, the former Greenwich hospital site, various Knight Dragon plots, Morden Wharf, Travelodge hotel tower, Enderby Wharf phase two, Fariview’s site beside the A102, Ikea, Charlton blocks off Victoria Way, Retail Parks across Charlton, the approved student tower beside the o2, student blocks on the former Speedy Hire site, River Gardens, homes at the bottom of Blackwall Lane AND blocks on the former Siemens site. Few places get that bonanza in terms of incoming S106 and CIL cash from a vast number of sites and do next to nothing across so wide an area as Greenwich have.

“It contradicts so many things the ruling party are supposed to stand for. Access to public transport? Access to jobs? Additional custom for local business by making them easier to reach from new housing especially independent business in east Greenwich? More children walking and cycling to school improving fitness levels and aiding with congestion? Civic pride? Attractive places to live, work and bring up children? On it goes.

“All things that should be key goals and that can be assisted with any sort of interest is so very often lacking.”

 

Independent sites can only continue with the support of readers.

You can support me via Paypal here

There's the Ko-fi option to buy me a coffee

Many thanks

You can also support the site by adding the Murky Depths as a trusted source in Google here

There's also a Facebook page for the site here