Plan for east Greenwich Low Traffic Neighbourhood set to be scrapped
A proposal for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood in east Greenwich looks set to be scrapped if Greenwich Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport Sarah Merrill agrees with council officers.
The proposal for Maze Hill is recommended to be dropped as shown in a new council report, which states:
“The displacement of traffic on surrounding road network does not align with the Royal Borough’s Carbon Neutral Plan.
The preferred option recommended through this paper is not to implement the scheme as consulted on. This is likely to have remote or low relevance to the Royal Borough’s Carbon Neutral Plan.”
In place of a LTN, the authority state more signage and road markings will reduce problems in the area.
The issue proved divisive with a consultation held early last year showing opposition to the proposal. Cameras were set to be located in a number of roads in Westcombe Park and Maze Hill.
Fifty five per cent of respondents within the area disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposals according to Greenwich Council. It was 56% against as a whole.
The 2021 consultation looked into whether to adopt cameras all-day or for selected hours. It appears Greenwich have decided not at all.
The report states:
“The response to the consultation and other engagement (including Petitions) set out in Section 8 below, suggests a significant level of concern about the scheme.
Analysis of free text responses suggests this concern is primarily related to:
- Potential traffic-related impacts; and
- The potential for exemptions, for residents and/or groups with specific needs.”
In terms of the latter point, in neighbouring Lewisham borough the Lee and Lewisham LTN is set to remain with changes made, such as permitting blue badge holders to pass through.
Greenwich altered the west Greenwich LTN to permit black cabs but not blue badge holders. It appears considerations of any kind of scheme permitting blue badge holders has not been made.
Council staff also state: “The Cabinet Member would also need to consider the Council’s duty in S122 of the RTRA 1984 when exercising powers under the Act to exercise its functions (so far as practicable) to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway, including a number of particular matters set out in the provision”
Active Travel campaigners will possibly seize on that segment which states “to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic”.
Opponents of LTNs will note council officer’s stating traffic increased on surrounding roads as a reason not to proceed.
The final decision comes down to Greenwich Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport Sarah Merrill.
OK so what’s Greenwich’s plan as traffic will only go up? Some signs is not going to do a jot is it tbh.
Looking through I note that Greenwich make no mention at looking at where consultation responses come from eg duplicate IP address which some councils have done and found many comments were copies or made hundreds of miles away.
An amusing thing for some now so vocal against is that there’s plenty of LTNs already in the area but because they weren’t introduced last year when it was flavour of the month, no one really notices.
@Jo, what’s amusing? Quite an odd statement to make. Furthermore those ‘LTNs’ you giggle about have never impacted traffic the way in which the Hills & Vales scheme has.
You’re forgetting there will be road markings as well! It really doesn’t make sense as to how that’s going to reduce problems in the area. The problem is cars, so the way to reduce the problem is reduce the number of cars. As far as I can tell, the “Royal Borough’s Carbon Neutral Plan” appears to be “avoid doing anything”.
Where do you think the cars are going to go? They don’t vanish into thin air, they’ll just be pushed to the next road, as is evident on blackheath hill.
They go on the scrapheap, Jack, or at least most of them do. And we move away from a model of private car ownership that incentivises car use largely to the exclusion of other modes of transport. Obviously that’s way bigger than LTNs, but has to be the end goal as our over-dependence on cars isn’t sustainable, makes our roads thoroughly unpleasant, and is crap for the neighbourhoods that surround them.
Bit preachy, I know, but has to be said in response to any short-sighted moans about LTNs.
Pingback: Blocked-off roads: New report highlights the cons – and pros – of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods | NEWS FROM CRYSTAL PALACE
Some do. Plenty of research on this.