Tagged: matt clare

Greenwich Tories want Silvertown Tunnel paused for Eltham DLR

DLR extension report mock-up

The mocked-up DLR extension over Woolwich Road, as depicted in the suppressed 2012 Greenwich Council report

Greenwich Council’s Conservative group has asked Transport for London to halt the controversial Silvertown Tunnel scheme – so it can be assessed along with rejected plans for a Docklands Light Railway extension to Eltham.

The borough’s main opposition group has lined alongside the Labour council’s leadership in backing the new road “in principle”, despite widespread concerns it will increase rather than decrease pollution.

However, it wants the process – which is being rushed through so the planning process can begin before Boris Johnson leaves office – paused so proposals for a DLR link to Eltham can be included in the scheme.

Johnson’s successor can continue with, pause, or scrap the Silvertown Tunnel scheme after May’s mayoral election. A “final” consultation into the proposal ended at the end of November.

In their response to the scheme, the Tories say the tunnel – which relies on the same southern approach road as the Blackwall Tunnel – will be “a much-needed improvement to the resilience of our local transport network.

But the report – from local party leader Matt Hartley and transport spokesman Matt Clare – says that not including a DLR link to Eltham in the scheme is a “missed opportunity” that “would take a significant amount of traffic off the road network” as well as being “transformative for the South East London economy”.

“Our area of London is suffering from decades of under-investment in transport infrastructure because bold decisions were not taken in the past – and we fear that not including the DLR extension is a further example of this,” it adds.

For a scheme that has been flatly rejected by Transport for London, the mythical DLR extension to Eltham has an amazing hold over Greenwich borough politicians – with an ability, in their minds, to magic away the congestion and pollution new road schemes can bring.

The mythical DLR swings across the Kidbrooke interchange

The mythical DLR swings across the Kidbrooke interchange

The return of the DLR on stilts

So what went wrong? In 2011, Greenwich Council spent £75,000 commissioning two reports into a proposal to build a link from Canning Town to Falconwood, following the A102 and A2, providing a service to and from Stratford International.

Hyder Consulting’s first report, which outlined the idea and costed it at £1 billion, was never released publicly – despite being discussed in a cabinet meeting – until this website obtained it under the Freedom of Information Act. Here it is. It was submitted to TfL for comments.

But the follow-up – which aimed to answer TfL’s concerns – was suppressed by the council, hidden for nearly two years, with misleading answers given to anyone who asked about it. It was also never submitted to TfL. It finally emerged in April 2014 after a former Liberal Democrat councillor asked to see it. (Here it is.)

Why wasn’t the report submitted to TfL? Unfortunately for the council, Hyder report concluded that only an extension to Kidbrooke would be feasible – any further would face “disproportionately higher costs”. (It also said the Silvertown Tunnel itself would overwhelm local roads with traffic, expensive advice that Greenwich Council also chose to ignore.)

DLR report, Hyder Consulting

And TfL itself dismissed the scheme, pointing out that the Jubilee Line at North Greenwich may not be able to cope with interchanging passengers, and better capacity on the existing DLR services were coming.

But the report did contain some startling images of the DLR on stilts as it weaved its way above dual carriageways and homes. It’s worth a read just for those alone.

DLR extension mock-up

The Eltham DLR flame still burns for some…

Of course, councillors are paid to be parochial rather than strategic. Which is why Greenwich frets about north/south links within its own borough, and TfL isn’t so fussed. Although if Greenwich councillors were that bothered, you think they’d have pressed TfL on why travelling from Woolwich to Eltham by bus is so lousy.

But there are still keepers of the Eltham DLR flame. After all, Eltham is still a place that can change elections. Less cynically, one of the causes of the Blackwall Tunnel’s jams is the lack of orbital transport in this part of London. A scheme to Kidbrooke, as the report says, could be a goer. But both Tories and Labour want the full Eltham version of a scheme which TfL simply isn’t interested in.

In its 2014 Silvertown Tunnel consultation response, Greenwich Council placed the Eltham DLR as a condition of its continuing support for the scheme. TfL ignored this, Greenwich’s 2015 response still backs the Silvertown Tunnel. Treat ’em mean, keep ’em keen, eh?

The Tories have started banging on about the scheme too – which is how we’ve ended up where we are today, with the Tories backing a scheme which was discredited in a report commissioned by a Labour council which didn’t bother to submit it to a Tory-run transport authority. Phew.

The real shame is that while Greenwich was messing around with the DLR on stilts, Lewisham Council was pursuing a Bakerloo Line extension through Lewisham and Catford – a scheme that’s got every chance of becoming reality. Politicians in Greenwich have belatedly woken up to the benefits of this – but putting Eltham on the Tube would have been a big, big prize.

A2 traffic jam in Eltham

So what about Greenwich Labour? Don’t hold your breath…

Meanwhile, Greenwich Council’s response to the Silvertown consultation – in the name of regeneration councillor Danny Thorpe – might as well have been written by former Dear Leader Chris Roberts, whose Bridge The Gap campaign ushered in unconditional support for the tunnel. He’s now working for regeneration PR agency Cratus, which is fretting over whether the Tories will win the mayoral election.

The response, which uses the phrase “royal borough” 57 times, backs the tunnel without hesitation despite outlining a host of concerns, from inadequate air pollution monitoring to the effects on traffic through Greenwich town centre. This continued support suggests it may not be entirely sincere about these concerns, which have been repeated in every consultation since 2012.

It continues to demand that Greenwich borough residents get cheaper car trips through the tunnel while wanting express buses to North Greenwich with priority on the A102 as well – surely contradictory aims for a council that once wanted to persuade people to switch to public transport.

One of the more baffling aspects of the response is a claim that the “opportunity should be taken to improve cross river cycling connections, particularly those between Greenwich Peninsula and the Isle of Dogs”. This is from a council which, when it considered the Greenwich Peninsula masterplan earlier this year, completely ignored a call for a fixed crossing between the peninsula and the Isle of Dogs, even though the cost of it could have been covered by the planning gain.

Instead, it appears to go touting for business for Thames Clippers, owned by O2 owner AEG, putting forward a proposal already included in the masterplan: “The Royal Borough [sic] asks that TfL agrees to explore opportunities to introduce a cross river vehicular or boat ‘cycle shuttle’, to address that demand, as part of ongoing work.”

The dear old Dangleway’s not forgotten, either: “Similarly, the Royal Borough [sic] would expect definitive proposals for a reduction in charges for cyclists using the Cable Car to be contained within the DCO submission.” It’s unclear why cyclists should get a discount ahead of pedestrians, but there you go.

Fiddling while London chokes

So while councils elsewhere pass motions against the Silvertown Tunnel and raise the alarm about the scheme, in Greenwich we have councillors who know full well the scheme will do harm, and are just content to fiddle around the edges rather than take a stand.

Essentially, Greenwich residents are having to rely on Lewisham councillors to defend their interests at the moment – a crazy situation.

We’ve got a mayoral election coming up where both main parties’ candidates will claim to be the “greenest mayor yet”. Their party colleagues in Greenwich seem to be doing their best to sabotage these claims – if they get their way, we’ll all pay for it in the end.

Are Boris bikes finally coming to Greenwich? The mayor backs it…

London's new hire bikes feature the Dome - even though there are no terminals near North Greenwich

The Dome features on the new London Cycle Hire branding – but you can’t pick up a bike there


The prospect of London’s cycle hire scheme coming to Greenwich came a step closer this morning after mayor Boris Johnson backed a proposal to bring the scheme to the area.

While the ‘Boris bikes’ – formally Santander Cycles after a recent change in sponsor – are a regular sight in Greenwich, it is impossible to hire or dock a bike in the area.

Instead, visitors take bikes from stations close to Island Gardens and take the bikes through the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, or they cycle from docking stations closer to Tower Bridge.

The scheme has largely avoided south-east London – despite poor transport connections, particularly around Walworth, Camberwell and Bermondsey – pushing out instead to east London and more affluent parts of west and south-west London. But Greenwich’s status as a tourist destination could now help bring the scheme to the area.

Asked by Conservative Assembly member (and Tory mayoral hopeful) Andrew Boff if TfL would consider three to five stations in Greenwich, Johnson said he would back an expansion to Greenwich – with a larger number of terminals.

Presumably 45 terminals would be enough to fill the gap between Tower Bridge and Greenwich. The answer’s a surprise as TfL has appeared to have been prioritising filling in gaps in the existing area rather than expanding the service further.

Later, Boff gave credit to Greenwich Tory councillor Matt Clare – probably Woolwich Town Hall’s keenest cyclist – for coming up with the suggestion.

Boff also asked about a wider expansion towards New Cross and Lewisham, and suggested asking Network Rail for money as such a scheme would help mitigate the effect of the Thameslink works at London Bridge. We’ll find out a fuller answer to that in the coming weeks.

Could this actually happen, though? It’s likely to end up in the next mayor’s in-tray, and it’s worth noting that past expansions of the cycle hire scheme have required local boroughs to contribute £2 million each – are Greenwich, Lewisham and Southwark up for that? The bikes are largely used by tourists and more affluent commuters – but that hasn’t stopped Greenwich, which has stepped up its cycling efforts in the past year, giving funding to Thames Clippers. Other boroughs may take different views.

The level of expansion is also worth considering. The hill separating Greenwich from Blackheath could be a natural barrier (although being hilly hasn’t stopped an identical bike hire scheme taking off in Montreal), but the mayor’s involvement in redevelopment schemes in Greenwich Peninsula and Woolwich’s Royal Arsenal could see even further expansion.

Santander’s new branding includes the Millennium Dome, even though it’s impossible to hire or dock a bike there. Incidentally, Green Assembly member Darren Johnson has asked TfL to investigate a walking and cycling connection from the peninsula to Canary Wharf – a connection that would make the extension of the hire scheme to the peninsula a no-brainer.

If the hire scheme is extended, private hire operators could lose out for the visitor market – tourists can hire less cumbersome bikes from Greenwich’s Flightcentre for £4/hr, but recent changes to the hire scheme now mean Boris bikes match that price.

An expansion to Greenwich is by no means a certainty, but it’ll be interesting to watch how this plays out in the weeks and months ahead.

Greenwich Council’s Tories in Facebook face-off

This website doesn’t feature Greenwich borough’s Conservatives very often for two very simple reasons. Firstly, they’re not in power, and unlikely to get into power any day soon, so whatever they do doesn’t mean very much. Secondly, and more pertinently, most of them represent seats in and around Eltham, while this site rarely ventures beyond the South Circular.

(Which isn’t to say that Eltham’s not newsworthy – on the contrary, the area would make for a fascinating local blog; indeed, as this tale will prove, there be gold in SE9; but it’s not my patch and deserves someone knows it well and can do it justice.)

But even for those of us with photographs of George Osborne imprinted on our toilet roll, it’s important that Greenwich borough’s ruling Labour clique faces a decent opposition. Unfortunately, the Eltham Popular Front seem to be turning their guns on each other.

If you ever go to a council meeting, the best performers are always the two older Tories. There’s the fabulously erudite Dermot Poston – a councillor, on and off, since 1968 – who brooks no nonsense yet is happy to send himself up; one time having the council chamber in stitches by referring to his days as a rollerskater.

And there’s Eileen Glover, who doesn’t have Dermot’s long years of service, but packs a mean punch beneath her senior citizen demeanour. With a withering turn of phrase and a dedication to serving her Eltham South constituents, she’s ace at exposing the hypocrisy of the council’s leadership.

At the last meeting, just before Christmas, she asked about the retail offer in Eltham High Street, as she’d noticed shops offering less and less. Could the council talk to retailers about offering more? Into the Glover trap walked Denise “Bridge The Gap” Hyland, who blethered on about how it wasn’t the council’s job to tell retailers what to sell, despite the council very much endorsing the huge new Tesco in Woolwich; before going into a weird spiel about how much she loved the borough’s three town centres, as if they were errant children.

Sadly for the Eltham Tories, nobody’s there to report their tactical victories in making the ruling Labour clique look stupid.

Which may be why last week, Eileen Glover found herself deselected by her local party. Should she be tubthumping for privatising everything in sight and sending the unemployed to work in Tesco for nothing instead of sticking up for her residents? Was she not male enough for the Tories? In the mind of the average Conservative Party member in Eltham (you don’t see them show their faces at council meetings, that’s for sure), her work’s not good enough.

Word quickly got out. But curiously, fellow councillor Neil Dickinson was moved to post his support for her on the Facebook page for Greenwich.co.uk. And then he made digs at colleagues Matt Clare and local party leader Spencer Drury, and ex-party leader Peter King. Whoops.

Greenwich.co.uk Facebook page

While the Greenwich Tories generally seem more left-wing than their economy-wrecking national counterparts – leader Spencer Drury is well-liked and is the only Conservative politician I’ve ever heard express concern for the welfare of council tenants – it seems they share the same tendency to have their rows in public.

A Greenwich Conservatives statement says:

In our opinion, it is unfortunate that this issue has come become the subject of discussion in the week that the Labour Council’s Financial Strategy for the next two years is to be decided. As Conservatives we would wish to focus upon our alternative, which attempts to decentralise power to areas such as New Eltham and support local businesses in an attempt to improve employment and prosperity in our area.

With Greenwich Labour fumbling towards the self-destruct button over the ruling clique’s Bridge The Gap fiasco, the Tories might be better off focusing on scrutinising the current sorry shambles rather than bickering among each other, if only to improve their own chances of employment and prosperity next year.