Greenwich Council see £28.6 million funding left unspent in coffers
A Greenwich Council report before a meeting next week has given an update on revenue obtained from development across the borough in recent years.
The authority currently have £58,338,100 in Section 106 revenue obtained from developers; of that just more than half is committed to projects (£29,764,936) while slightly less is uncommitted (£28,573,164).
Uncommitted funding is revenue already received and ringfenced to a general area such as health, education or transport but not yet allocated towards a specific project.
There’s an additional £188,689,227 Section 106 secured but not yet paid by developers.
Transport and town improvements
This post won’t go through every single area of allocation but focus on transport and public realm. It’s a common topic on this site as well as more widely with one recent example being the cycle bus announced as part of the forthcoming Silvertown tunnel. Many approaches are pretty awful on by bike and it’s unlikely many local residents in Charlton, much of Greenwich or Deptford will chance it.
Yet a number of poor quality streets widely evident across the borough starkly contrasts with numerous council reports drawn up in recent years encouraging walking and healthy living. Given that it’s noticeable much public realm income already received via Section 106 is still unallocated (£2,164,671) alongside transport (£8,670,054 is unallocated). That’s money already in council accounts right now.
It again highlights the potential to fund improvements for some of the borough’s worst streets including those linking east Greenwich and Greenwich peninsula.
In recent weeks another accident occurred in the area.
At the last full council meeting a question about the poor quality of the area was met with a response about more signs. That really isn’t the problem.
The issue is the physical environment. In places there aren’t crossings or even paving.
Pedestrians are expected to make large detours heading from home to the shops, or bus stops.
Other funding sources
Section 106 is far from the only source of revenue to improve services and areas of the borough. Community Infrastructure Levy income also totals millions each year and now Woolwich station is paid off will allow supplementary funding for a wave of projects.
In addition when it comes to transport there’s specific sources that can only be spent – by law – on transport projects. This includes revenue from Controlled Parking Zones and fines from parking offences, moving traffic offences caught on CCTV (Greenwich was of the very last councils in London to adopt this but now have it in place) and Low Traffic Neighbourhood fines.
Combine those with CIL and S106 income and it’s hard to see how funding isn’t there to improve some of the boroughs worst streets, not only to improve healthy living and encourage active travel but also to increase civic pride and boost local businesses. After all, if a local shop/bar/cafe etc is a pleasant walk from home it’s likely to attract more custom from nearby residents.
For some years Greenwich have stated that revenue pays for the Freedom Pass which is true across London – though given the growth in revenue from various sources (moving traffic offences, CPZs etc) there could be a surplus for wider transport improvements. Greenwich was quite unusual in previously in allocating all parking income to the Freedom Pass. Many authorities had a surplus after paying their share.
Poor performance of Greenwich Council’s parking department alongside late adoption of moving traffic offences enforcement via CCTV (compared to most of London) are likely to have previously impacted the ability to allocate funding to other projects.
Kidbrooke
Those in Kidbrooke may take interest that a specific part labelled “Kidbrooke Additional” also shows £2,879,046 in received but unspent S106 revenue.
Like Greenwich peninsula the road network in parts of Kidbrooke leaves much to be desired and has seen a large number of collisions. Like Greenwich peninsula the road network’s control is shared TfL. Some stretches are managed by Greenwich and some TfL.
And like Greenwich, sections under both are far from adequate. Unfortunately both seem to like blaming the other.
Yet this report shows once again funds are there for improvements within Greenwich. Will it be spent anytime soon in some of the most pressing areas? One key test will be an imminent project linking almost 2,000 homes currently underway near Plumstead station and not too far from Plumstead High Street with shops, amenities and numerous bus services.
Currently accessible via narrow pavements beside a three-lane gyratory or a bleak underpass, Greenwich Council plan works – but have stated funding is constrained. What is proposed to be spent is external funding previously been allocated as part of Housing Zone status.
Will Greenwich Council supplement that if external funding can only produce limited improvement?
They could improve public realm where it is desperately needed as mentioned several times by John in various articles along with funding some local lbus service improvements to new developments would benefit many more people living on or near new developments. Which would be totallly separate to any planned superloop 2 bus route proposals.
Some of the committed funding has gone towards future bus changes I think. It’s the uncommitted funds – except under the broader “transport” banner – that hasn’t.
Last year it emerged that Greenwich were near the top nationally for unspent S106. It appears the total has grown yet bigger. What gets me is when elected representatives and council staff in the borough reply to a request a new crossing they reply with “no funds” and yet there’s millions for transport sitting there without a project attached. Or they say TFL must fund even if the street in question is on a borough road. Of course the council must engage with TfL (potential impact with signals, bus lanes et al) but that doesn’t preclude changes. I’ve lived in parts of London where they managed it. Far more progressive than Greenwich. Here it’s excuses and bat away hoping people don’t ask any more questions.
Absolutely George. You are not wrong. Councillors like MP’s do need to be held to account has they are there to present us first foremost.
‘… slightly less is uncommitted (£28,573,164).’ If the money is unallocated, then Greenwich cannot be pressed to spend it.
If they have spare money coming to the end of the financial year.Tthey should do right by their resident, business owners and council tax payers and spend the money on the projects the money was allicated for or to better improve the Borough for everyone.
Greenwich Council do not need to make cuts to essential frontline services has have money held in reserves accounts which are not touched. This was told to.me by some staff working on the Council. Who are unhappy with sone of the cuts being planned by the Council and the rise in Council tax from Aprul 2925.
Greenwich still need to make cuts as S106 funding is generally for one-off projects (eg new trees, a new road crossing, station entrance for example) with minimal ongoing maintenance and not day to day spend. Also cost pressures with social care are so high S106 cannot plug that gap by far – and its not designed to.
I should make it clear that the people I spoke to said the reserve bank accounts applies to all Local Authorities and not just Greenwich. Council..
Other Council are better at allocating and spending the money allicated to them from the Developers Government etc on projects in their Boroughs.
Suggest Cllrs explain why such funds remain unspent in the face of cuts to services which we are told are inevitable because of pressure on the Council budget ?
A clear setting out of the situation justifying the retention of these funds is not an unreasonable request.
I agree Kathy Councillors do need to explain how this is allowed to happen..But we know we only see our Councillors once every 4 years at the time of local elections. Otherwise they are virtually invisible and do not reply to correspondence.
We also need to know why are the projects the money was allocated for from Developers TFL and Governments at the ttime have not being completed?.
I like it rahnd EG meself, love ow edgy it is rahnd there. They could do more to elp people walkin I reckon. Yeah I remember earin abahrt a cyclist nearly ittin somone crossin the road. Them cyclists are a real danger to pedestrians. Most of theirn never stop on red lights or zebras n all. We aint all the same n I don’t like sharin a narrow space with them cyclists either on ere.
No doubt we will see another rise in council tax despite the council swimming on Dosh.
Section 106 cannot be used to fund ongoing costs like temporary housing and will make little difference to the councils ongoing and rising cost pressures.
We live locally without a car, so we walk everywhere. Honestly, getting from the Peninsula to East Greenwich is such a hassle. The roads just aren’t made for people. The crossings feel unsafe, some streets are a nightmare, and the sidewalks are narrow, poorly maintained, and often squeezed between fast, noisy cars and industrial sites. All this just to get to places that should be an easy walk, like grabbing groceries, heading to a café, or going to Greenwich Park. It’s loud, uncomfortable, and honestly feels like you’re dodging traffic just to get where you need to go. It’s incredibly frustrating to feel so disconnected from places that are literally right on our doorstep.
With all the new developments going up especially, you’d think they’d prioritize spending that money making the area actually livable so it’s more like a community, with proper walking and cycling infrastructure, especially for all of us that don’t drive.
Absolutely agree with this. Feels like you’re trespassing, just trying to walk the short distance to the O2.