Greenwich Council's written answers to Greenwich Cyclists:
full Council meeting on Wednesday 28 January 2004
Summary: Greenwich Cyclists have been unable to get straight answers from Greenwich Council about a local planning issue. Greenwich Cyclists therefore triggered the little known right for any local resident to get questions answered at a full Council meeting. They tabled written 14 questions 10 days before the 28 January meeting, and got handed the replies on the night of the meeting.
After some preambles about technicalities and issues, the actual questions and answers are printed below. The Council's minute of the meeting and supplementaries will be placed on this website as they become available.
Technicalities: To table such written questions, contact the Committee Section of the local authority. Ask how to table written questions to the Council for their next full Council meeting. You'll then be asked to table your questions by a specific date about 10 days before the next meeting. They should let you submit questions by email. Each question should not be complex and multi-issue. Simple one point questions are required.
In Greenwich Cyclists case, one person submitted 14 questions on behalf of others in the group. The group agreed the questions in advance. Seven Greenwich Cyclists asked two questions each. Questioners must live in the borough - or pay tax there (Council Tax/Business Rate). Names and postal addresses of questioners must be supplied.
There in no requirement for questioners to be at the meeting but it is obviously useful if they are. Neither the questions nor the answers are read out on the night, but the papers are referred to and read by those present. At Greenwich Council meetings, questioners present may ask two supplementary questions live on the night. This is really useful but there may not be much time to prepare them.
About a week or so after the meeting, the minutes are circulated and should be requested.
The issue: In 1999 the Council granted planning permission for the Royal Artillerys £12m museum - Firepower. There was a very clear planning permission attached ? that bike parking for visitors be provided before the museum opened. That never happened. Greenwich Cyclists have asked several times over the 3years since the museum opened to enforce the condition. Such enforcement action only started after we tabled these questions and is continuing. It turns out that Greenwich Council had sent the file to storage and forgotten that planning condition. This happens a lot, and not simply with low-cost bike conditions. (The scope for deliberate planner amnesia is worrying and could save some developers much money).
The issues rumble on. Greenwich has not even provided bike parking outside its own new museum on site.
Lessons learned:
Nine Greenwich Cyclists turned up for the 7pm meeting on the night. London's worst snow storm for years meant that several questioners didn't make it and so we couldn't get supplementaries asked on those.
There's little time on the night to prepare supplementaries to the given answers. Good preparation is essential. Well try and get the answers in advance next time.
Get there early and so have plenty of time to read the papers released for the meeting and to get used to the very formal and oppressive atmosphere. We all wore smart casuals and so to some probably looked more business-like than if lycra'd.
But the procedure is a very effective way of getting questions answered formally and publically. A number of Council officers would have been involved in drafting the answers and that bolsters our lobbying.
Whilst most of the answers are in typical slippery Greenwich Council style with no targets, firm dates or real commitment, the following useful commitments etc can be extracted:
1. The Council will include a cycle parking condition on all major development proposals.
2. The Council is in discussion with Firepower Museum over the planning condition relating to cycle parking.
3. Firepower Museum is being required to submit a cycle parking strategy which is to be discussed.
4. More cycle parking stands are on their way for Woolwich Arsenal.
5. QE2 hospital: improvements to cycle access are in hand. More cycle parking on site will be provided.
6. Greenwich's 1992 Cycling Strategy is due to be updated.
7. The Council is making good missing links in the Thames Path, secured through planning agreements.
8. School Travel Plans emphasise walking and public transport.
9. Officers have been asked to improve consultation mechanisms around cycling schemes.
10. Primary schools are reluctant to encourage cycling: lack of bike storage, lockers and showers. Lack of safe routes, together with over-busy roads and lack of training for children.
11. The Council's Cycling Officer now spends 100% of his time of cycling matters.
12. The Council cannot set targets for cycle use in the borough. This is a London-wide issue.
Here are the questions and answers:
Under the current timetable there are more weekday evening trains from London to stations in some parts of the Borough and fewer trains to stations in other parts of the Borough than was the case this time last year. Does the Council agree that this appears perverse, particularly as northern parts of the Borough already benefit from the Dockland Light Railway and the Jubilee Line and has the Council made any representations with a view to achieving a more equitable distribution of services?
What financial contribution, if any, has the Council made to the additional services and station improvements consequent to the designation of the stations between Greenwich and Abbey Wood as part of the Overground Network?
What progress has Greenwich Council made towards ensuring that all new developments, both residential and otherwise, have more than sufficient, and secure, bicycle parking?
How does Greenwich Council ensure that planning conditions and planning agreements are adhered to?
What cycle-facility planning conditions and agreement does Greenwich Council apply to developments within the Woolwich Royal Arsenal site?
Why didn't Greenwich Council ensure that its planning condition about bicycle parking at the Firepower Museum was adhered to, and what is the council doing about the unfulfilled Firepower condition now?
Does the Council believe the bike racks that LDA installed by the Thames in mid December 2003 fulfil that Firepower planning condition? If so, why?
Why did the Council not provide cycle parking for its new Greenwich Heritage Centre at Woolwich Arsenal?
On 24 November 2003 Transport for London (Peter Hendy) called the siting of the Woolwich Common QE2 Hospital a planning disaster in transport terms. How will Greenwich Council avoid such mistakes in future?
What is the status of Greenwich Council?s 1992 Cycling Strategy?
Why, given the wonderful Thames Path and other such local assets, is Greenwich Council so lukewarm about cycling?
How does the council intend to co-ordinate the promotion of cycling in the Borough?
What is Greenwich Council doing to encourage children to cycle to school?
What targets has the Council set for increased cycle use?
Does the council support the concept of local sustainability as envisaged in the Local Sustainability Bill, namely: the promotion of local economies, the promotion of local services, the protection of the environment, the reduction of social exclusion,and measures to increase involvement in the democratic process?
The cumulative environmental impacts of over high, over dense developments on the historic town centre of Greenwich and in particular the whole presence and character of the ICOMOS designated World Heritage Site are continuing apace. What guidelines and visual constraints is the council maintaining or creating to protect the World Heritage Site and what progress is it making in contributing to the current review of the World Heritage Site (and hopefully the extension of the buffer zone around it) to prevent the excessive change that is without doubt taking place?
Question 1 - From Paul Webbewood to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. Under the current timetable there are more weekday evening trains from London to stations in some parts of the Borough and fewer trains to stations in other parts of the Borough than was the case this time last year. The effect on various stations is shown in the timetable:
|
Trains arriving from
London between 19.00 & 23.00
|
|
Station
|
Winter 2002-03
|
Winter 2003-04
|
|
Charlton
|
19
|
24
|
|
Eltham
|
11
|
12
|
|
Greenwich
|
11
|
16
|
|
New Eltham
|
12
|
10
|
Does the Council agree that this appears perverse, particularly as northern parts of the Borough already benefit from the Dockland Light Railway and the Jubilee Line and has the Council made any representations with a view to achieving a more equitable distribution of services?
Reply
The Council continues to lobby consistently for improvements to public transport across the borough and has been particularly grateful to its Members of Parliament and Greater London Assembly member in assisting us in this work.
With specific regard to rail, over which the Council has no budgetary or operational role, we have welcomed the termination of the Connex South East contract imposed upon us by the Conservative's rail privatisation.
The Council is working with Transport for London (TfL), neighbouring Boroughs, Seltrans (a south east London transport partnership) and the rail industry, to develop and introduce the south London metro (SLM) concept. This would involve a turn up and go level of frequency; publicity/information/signage strategies; and station improvements. A pilot scheme was introduced last September on the North Kent Line with the intention of rolling this out to the remainder of the south London network.
The SLM concept has been devised specifically with the comparative reliance of the area on heavy rail in mind and should be of particular benefit to south-east London boroughs.
Question 2 - From Paul Webbewood to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. What financial contribution, if any, has the Council made to the additional services and station improvements consequent to the designation of the stations between Greenwich and Abbey Wood as part of the Overground Network?
Reply
I thank Mr Webbewood for notice of his question. The ON (Overground network) is the name adopted for the south London metro SLM concept previously referred to.
The Council does not make any contribution to services or station infrastructure as such - this properly being the direct responsibility of the rail industry.
What the Council does do is to seek 'match/partnership' funding for transport schemes adjacent to and serving stations. These include measures to improve bus/cycle/pedestrian interchange. In this way the totality of funding that can be brought to bear at stations will be greater than the resources of any one particular agency would allow.
Every station in the Borough has been studied with a view to determining a programme of such improvements. A number of schemes of improvement have thus far been undertaken under the aegis of Seltrans.
Question 3 - From Anthony Austin to Councillor Maureen O'Mara, Chair of Planning. What progress has Greenwich Council made towards ensuring that all new developments, both residential and otherwise, have more than sufficient, and secure, bicycle parking?
Reply
I thank Mr Austin for his question.
The Council negotiates cycle parking provision on all new major development proposals, which includes the number of cycle routes to be provided.
Advice on planning applications for all significant new developments is sought from the Council?s Transport Planning Team, which provides comments based on an assessment of the adequacy of provision or public transport, pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
With regard to cycling, opportunities for providing links to the London Cycle Network and other provision of routes are considered. Cycle parking required is also considered having regard to existing provision, approved planning policies and recommended standards in the Council?s Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Policy M38 supports the provision of cycle parking and Table M4 sets out the guidance for the recommended cycle provision.
In the event of a development being recommended for approval, planning conditions will be imposed, a section 106 agreement may be entered into.
Question 4 - From Anthony Austin to Councillor Maureen O'Mara, Chair of Planning. How does Greenwich Council ensure that planning conditions and planning agreements are adhered to?
Reply
I would like to thank Anthony Austin for his question concerning how the Council ensures that planning conditions and planning agreements are adhered to.
Planning conditions are imposed to ensure that either details of the scheme are submitted to and approved by the Council prior to the development commencing or being occupied, or that the use is controlled through a range of factors e.g. hours of operation. The Council ensures these are complied with through monitoring and when it comes to our attention that a condition is not being adhered to, officers will contact the applicant/developer and if necessary take enforcement action.
Where a development is subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, as with conditions, compliance with the clauses is carefully monitored and the provision of a financial contribution or a specific benefit is controlled through implementation dates or through triggers set in relation to levels of development completed.
Question 5 - From Chris LeBretton to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. What cycle-facility planning conditions and agreement does Greenwich Council apply to developments within the Woolwich Royal Arsenal site?
Reply
The council has negotiated cycle parking provision for all residential buildings and phases 1, 2 and 4 of the 10 commercial developments. The Heritage quarter of the site includes the Firepower Museum and the Greenwich Heritage Centre.
With specific reference to Question 7, the Royal Arsenal site is a mixed development of new and existing buildings with a variety of uses including residential, leisure, heritage and retail. It is being developed by the London Development Agency (LDA) in accordance with an approved Master Plan. This includes the need for cycle provision ? cycle routes and parking. The Council is in discussion with Firepower over the condition relating to cycle provision. However the LDA has installed 6 cycle racks which are located by the pier to serve the public as well as visitors to the museums.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP) cycle policies and cycle parking standards are applied to all appropriate development proposals including the Royal Arsenal site. As detailed planning applications for specific developments within the site come forward, provision for cycling will be a consideration in their determination.
Provision is made for the local and strategic cycle network as part of the master planning for the site. An example is the creation of superb facilities along the waterfront.
A key component of the Master Plan was that the whole area would be traffic calmed and cycle friendly, so that as well as using specific designated routes cyclists would feel free and safe to permeate throughout the site.
All cycle provision and parking is common to the whole site and available to all users of the site.
As the site develops out, the extent of provision for cyclists can always be open to review and amendment.
Question 6 - From Chris LeBretton to Councillor Maureen O?Mara, Chair of Planning. Why didn't Greenwich Council ensure that its planning condition about bicycle parking at the Firepower Museum was adhered to, and what is the council doing about the unfulfilled Firepower condition now?
Reply
I would like to thank Chris Le Breton for his question relating to the planning condition in respect of bicycle parking at the Firepower Museum.
As a result of a revision to the planning application relating to the Firepower Museum, responsibility for the provision of cycle racks fell to the London Development Agency (LDA) with Firepower being required to submit a strategy which is to be discussed.
The LDA has made provision for 6 cycle stands close to the pier but the council is seeking additional provision and is in negotiations with the LDA with regard to this.
Question 7 - From Liz Delap to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. Does the Council believe the bike racks that LDA installed by the Thames in mid December 2003 fulfil that Firepower planning condition? If so, why?
Reply
Please see the response given to question 5.
Question 8 - From Liz Delap to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. Why did the Council not provide cycle parking for its new Greenwich Heritage Centre at Woolwich Arsenal?
Reply
Please see the response given to question 5.
Question 9 - From Julian Dobson to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. On 24 November 2003 Transport for London (Peter Hendy) called the siting of the Woolwich Common QE2 Hospital a planning disaster in transport terms. How will Greenwich Council avoid such mistakes in future?
Reply
Can I thank Mr Dobson for notice of his question. The closure of the Greenwich District and Brook Hospitals and the concentration of health facilities at the former Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital at Woolwich Common was a decision of the Conservative Government implemented through the NHS in accordance with Government policies, which applied at that time.
The council supported the development in principle in order to achieve a brand new hospital for local residents, for which resources would otherwise not have been available from the government of the day.
The planning application was eventually approved by John Gummer, the then Secretary of State following a public enquiry with a reduced amount of car parking from that originally proposed and agreed by the Council, and required the provision of specific bus services. This included provision for subsidy from the health authority if fare-box revenue was insufficient to cover costs.
In the event, the bus services have proved very popular and Transport For London (TfL)/London Buses have contracted increased frequencies and additional route diversions and extensions to help meet the needs of workers and visitors. Seven bus routes currently directly serve the hospital.
The Council continues to lobby TfL/London Buses to improve services from the west of the Borough and the possibility of a community bus service from those areas is also being examined.
The Council is determined to secure a 360-degree bus service necessary for the hospital to properly serve its catchment area.
Improved highways access; necessary parking; and bus stops were secured as part of the planning consent. Improvements to cycle access are also in hand, consideration is currently being given to the need to increase the level of parking on site.
Policy in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is clear in that developments attracting and generating high levels of travel demand will normally be located in a town centre or at a location with good access by (public) transport.
Question 10 - From Julian Dobson to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. What is the status of Greenwich Council?s 1992 Cycling Strategy?
Reply
The main elements of the 1992 Cycling Strategy were carried forward in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) published in 1994 and also appear in the new UDP (First Deposit Draft) published in 2002.
The council's 1992 Strategy is due to be updated in the light of the Mayor's Cycle Strategy (just recently published); the London Plan (Examination in Public undertaken last year and the final draft awaited accordingly); and the Mayor's Transport Strategy. This will ensure its applicability and relevance to the present situation.
Cycle policies and programmes are also not merely contingent on the 1992 Strategy but are also embodied in the Interim Local (Transport) Implementation Plan (2001); UDP (Fist Deposit Draft 2002) and Borough Spending Plan (annual bid to TfL for transport funds). These ensure an up to date approach to cycle policy and provision.
Question 11 - From Jason Joyce to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. Why, given the wonderful Thames Path and other such local assets, is Greenwich Council so lukewarm about cycling?
Reply
I reject the assertion that the Council is lukewarm about cycling.
The Borough is probably the only one in London with cycle provision along the whole length of its extensive waterfront; albeit with some minor diversion inland at a few points.
Considerable investment and the making good of missing links along the waterfront have been secured through conditions and Section 106 agreements on planning consents and in partnership with Sustrans.
Each year the Council bids for funds to improve cycle route provision in a number of locations throughout the Borough.
The Council fully participates with TfL in the development of cycle policy; and the funding/programming of provision for cyclists and schemes such as the London Cycling Network+. In that context the budget available to the Borough is not within its sole control to determine ? it is contingent on the overall settlement cycling receives within TfL and then the apportionment of that throughout London.
This is over and above provision made by developers as conditions/Section 106 agreements on planning consents. It is noteworthy that substantial parts of the network at Thamesmead and the Peninsula (just two examples) have and are to be delivered in this way ? at no cost to the public purse.
In traffic management schemes provision is made for cyclists as part of the cost of that scheme e.g. exemption from no entry/one-way street operation.
The Council's extensive programme of highways maintenance (c£930k programmed this financial year) and local safety schemes/20mph zones etc (c£760k) additionally contribute to a safe cycling environment.
Cycle training is undertaken as part of the Council's Road Safety Unit programmes. The trainees are mainly children, although some work with adults has been carried out.
The School Travel Plan programme encourages sustainable transport to school. The emphasis is on walking and use of public transport; it can also include cycling and car sharing schemes.
Question 12 - From Jason Joyce to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. How does the council intend to co-ordinate the promotion of cycling in the Borough?
Reply
Transport for London (TfL) London Cycle Guide maps covering the Borough are available at libraries, stations and other information points. These show recommended cycle routes including the London Cycle Network, cycling tips on the use of cycles on the roads, cycle shops, access to stations, road signs for cyclists and information about the London Cycling Campaign. The maps are updated regularly.
Generally, throughout London cycle provision and co-ordination is led by TfL through its Cycling Centre of Excellence and under the aegis of Camden as the lead Borough for cycling in the Capital.
I have asked officers to improve consultation mechanisms on cycling schemes and to review policy when the new L.I.P. is drafted.
Question 13 - From Karen Marks to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. What is Greenwich Council doing to encourage children to cycle to school?
Reply
On-road cycle training targeted at schoolchildren is also a part of the Council?s Road Safety Unit (training) initiatives. Courses are carried out during the Easter and Summer Holidays and during term time. Schools have been offered training for teachers as instructors.
Cyclist training does not have a separate budget and extra funding would need to be sought to make training available to every child in the borough.
In practice, primary schools are reluctant to encourage cycling for a number of reasons including lack of cycle storage, lockers and showers, lack of off road cycle routes, busy roads and cyclist training.
Three schools have recently been successful in obtaining funding from Transport For London (TfL) for the installation of cycle shelters. It is possible that further facilities will be secured through the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) School Travel Plan capital grants.
The Council is implementing initiatives under its "School Travel Planning" programme to encourage walking and the use of public transport. Promotion of cycling through School Travel Planning is dependant on provision of storage and training which is limited at the current time. The Council is currently working with 19 schools with a further 6 schools being added every year.
Question 14 - From Karen Marks to Councillor Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. What targets has the Council set for increased cycle use?
Reply
The Council has not set specific targets for increased cycle use but is committed to implementing the London Cycle Network and other cycle initiatives included in the Mayor?s Cycle Action Plan.
Transport for London (TfL) forecast target for 2010 is to increase cycle levels by 80% over the flows seen in 2000. This is more than double national Government forecasts.
It is not feasible for the Council to set its own local targets as the resources on which these would be contingent are largely outside its own control to determine. For example programming and prioritising the implementation of the London Cycling Network+ is co-ordinated centrally under the aegis of the lead Borough for cycling - Camden.
Question 15 - From Mr & Mrs Scofield to Councillor Jagir Sekhon, OBE, Cabinet Member for the Environment. Does the council support the concept of local sustainability as envisaged in the Local Sustainability Bill, namely:
• The promotion of local economies
• The promotion of local services
• The protection of the environment
• The reduction of social exclusion
• Measures to increase involvement in the democratic process
Reply
The Council supports the principles of sustainability as envisaged in the proposed Local Communities Sustainability Bill. Our commitment to local sustainability is a crosscutting theme within the Greenwich Strategy, which, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000, addresses issues to improve the social, economic and environmental well being of the local community.
The issues of local sustainability are also enshrined within other key policy documents such as the Council?s Economic Development Strategy and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. In addition the Council recently approved a new Sustainable Development Policy (October 2003), which accompanied a review of activity on sustainability issues and an action plan to take these areas of work forward.
Question 16 - From Anna Townend (on behalf of the Greenwich Environment Network) to Peter Brooks, Cabinet Member for Regeneration. The cumulative environmental impacts of over high, over dense developments on the historic town centre of Greenwich and in particular the whole presence and character of the ICOMOS designated World Heritage Site are continuing apace. What guidelines and visual constraints is the council maintaining or creating to protect the World Heritage Site and what progress is it making in contributing to the current review of the World Heritage Site (and hopefully the extension of the buffer zone around it) to prevent the excessive change that is without doubt taking place?
Reply
I would like to thank Anna Townend for her question relating to scale of development in the Greenwich area and its impact on the World Heritage Site.
The World Heritage Site management plan clearly identifies the issues to be considered in relation to the impact on the area. The management plan is currently being revised and this will include a review of the boundary of the buffer zone, following the study carried out by Kim Wilkie. The revised management plan will be the subject of public consultation in February.
UNESCO who inscribed the World Heritage Site recognises the need to engage with all the bodies and institutions involved in development that may impact on it.
The council?s First Deposit Draft of the Unitary Development Plan in policy TC7 recognises the importance of the World Heritage Site and the need to protect its unique character and appearance. While policy TC8 aims to safeguard the historic town centre from inappropriate development. Planning applications and development proposals that are either in or in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site are considered and potential impact assessed.
Through the statutory planning process including existing and revised policies, through partnership and the review of the World Heritage Site management plan the need to protect the World Heritage Site is clearly recognised and its future will be protected. It is anticipated that the London Plan when published will recognise the importance of the World Heritage Site.