By Cameron Blackshaw

Copyright yahoo

Greenwich residents protesting against new parking proposals have labelled the plans “Stalinist” and “criminal”, with many believing the cash-strapped council is looking for a payday.

However, a Greenwich councillor has condemned the “dishonest discourse” surrounding the plans, proclaiming they are not a “cash grab” as any money made from them would be ringfenced and must be used on transport in the borough.

A crowd of angry Greenwich residents gathered outside Woolwich Town Hall on Wednesday evening (September 24) to protest against Greenwich Council’s Sustainable Streets proposals, a programme which will bring controlled parking zones (CPZs) into large swathes of Greenwich if approved. The scheme has been unpopular with residents since a public consultation was launched, with campaigns and petitions springing up across the borough.

The protestors chose to demonstrate before a Full Council meeting at 7pm. As well as outside the town hall, Sustainable Streets dominated the discourse in the chamber, with residents putting questions to the council about the proposals and councillors submitting petitions on their behalf.

Madeline Green, a carer from Charlton, was part of the protest. She feels the council is financially motivated to bring in the proposals. The council recently predicted it will have a £45.1m budget gap next year. Madeline said: “I have been living in the Greenwich borough for 60 years. I have never felt so humiliated and just driven to destruction. I’m not living at the moment. I am just fighting this.”

Madeline said she would have to give up caring if she wasn’t able to drive. If Sustainable Streets was approved she would have to purchase a permit to park outside her home at significant cost and she would struggle to park outside the homes of her patients. She has tried to do her rounds in the community on public transport before, but it took an extra three-and-a-half hours, she said.

Madeline added: “Greenwich Council are bringing us all down to our knees and we’ve never had this situation, never in our lives before. It’s just ridiculous. It’s scandalous and criminal. [The council] is supposed to be doing things for us, for their people. They’re just stabbing us in the back.”

Julie Smyth lives on the same road as Madeline with her husband John and a 92-year-old friend. She said that due to her husband’s serious illnesses and her friend’s age, neither of them are able to use public transport and that using a car is “essential” for their household to make health appointments and run other errands.

Plumstead Common resident Tim Waters thought Greenwich Council was exercising a “Stalinist level of control” when it came to the borough’s motorists. He believed the proposals were unfairly targeting car owners. According to the council, 56.9 per cent of Greenwich households were in possession of a car. Tim said: “War against the motorist is war against the majority of their residents.”

Sue Hindley was concerned that businesses would suffer, believing that Sustainable Streets would eliminate parking opportunities for potential customers. She said: “Not one of the shopkeepers on the key parade of shops of Shooters Hill Road, nor the residents who live above those shops, have had a single letter from the council about these proposals from the very, very beginning. It’s like we’re disenfranchised.”

Sue, along with fellow SE3 residents Pamela Rustem and Marco Camurri, launched a petition opposing the plans that has gained 1,750 signatures. Pamela was concerned that if new parking measures were introduced, carers looking after her disabled mother wouldn’t be able to park outside her house and look after her. She said: “This is madness what they’re doing. They’re not listening to the people. Their arguments have been rubbish.”

Marco said the only time he has trouble parking in Kidbrooke or Blackheath is when there are children’s sports events in one of the parks. He welcomes these events as a vital part of the community, especially for young people. He said: “If they put permit parking there, a lot of the teams will be forced to move out of the area, and we know that sport is the best measure against antisocial behaviour.”

This 1,750-strong petition signed by Kidbrooke and Blackheath residents was presented at the Full Council meeting by Cllr John Fahy. Before the meeting, Cllr Fahy said it was “extremely encouraging” to see so many Greenwich residents participating in the Sustainable Streets debate. He said the council “needs to take account of the large number of people that have signed a petition and campaigned”.

This was not the only petition opposing the current Sustainable Streets plans presented at council. Cllr ‘Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi presented one signed by 1,279 West Thamesmead residents and Cllr Jo van den Broek presented two petitions, one signed by 109 residents of Delafield Road and another signed by 2,005 residents from across Charlton.

When answering a public question about Sustainable Streets, the council’s Acting Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Sustainability and Transport, Calum O’Byrne Mulligan, admitted the council withdrew Plumstead and Shooters Hill from the plans in August due to “overwhelming responses to the consultation at that moment in time”.

He also shot down claims that the scheme was financially motivated. He said: “The proposals that are being consulted on are not about revenue generation and any surplus that is generated is hypothecated. It can only be spent on transport-related matters. So I really cannot underestimate just how dishonest some of the discourse around this has been claiming that this is some cash grab. It’s not because it cannot be.”

He encouraged all residents with views on Sustainable Streets to take part in the council’s public consultation, which runs until September 30 and can be accessed online. Those protesting against the Sustainable Streets proposals were also joined by Greenwich residents opposing the potential closure of the borough’s adventure playgrounds and the council’s continued investment in companies supplying goods and services to Israel.