APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by Greenwich Action
to Stop Pollution
Greenwich Action to Stop Pollution are an environmental
action group with over one hundred members living in East and
West Greenwich, many of whom live in close proximity to the Peninsula.
Through our commitment to sustainable development as a pre-requisite
for preventing pollution we have developed links to all the other
environmental groups in the borough and to national environmental
organisations.
GREENWICH—NOT
SO MUCH
THE MILLENNIUM
BOROUGH AS
THE POLLUTION
BOROUGH
In preparation for this submission our organisation
has been involved in three meetings with members of the public
and door to door interviews with people in one representative
street close to the Dome. One conversation ran as follows:
— "How do you feel that the development
of Greenwich Peninsula impacts upon you and your family?"
— "Can you tell us how it affects
you on a daily basis?"
— "It leaves holes in our clothes."
This was a shock to us even though we are all
too familiar with stories of how people are made ill or their
homes made dirty by the fumes from the traffic. If the visitors
to the Dome get even a snapshot of the life of a Greenwich resident
it will leave them with the memory of air that you can often taste
as well as smell and street life destroyed by heavy traffic.
OUR CURRENT
PLIGHT
In January the Government released figures which
showed that levels of ground level ozone exceeded standards set
for human health on 20 days during 1997, making it the third worst
in the country. This disturbing pattern was reinforced by the
fact that particulate levels exceeded the standards on 19 days
and Nitrogen Dioxide exceeded the standards on 21 days. The Department
of Health's own experts reported that between 12,000 and 24,000
a year are dying prematurely as a result of pollution from vehicular
exhaust, every year. In the wards alongside the river in Greenwich,
one in 10 people are economically inactive due to a long term
respiratory illness or heart condition. At the same time 21 per
cent of children (between the ages of four and 12) with an SE
10 postal code have asthma according to a survey of 36,000 children
at 124 schools within the area administered by Greenwich and Bexley
Health Trust. In fact research printed in the British Medical
Journal suggest that as many again are undiagnosed. In survey
after survey, for example the Breadline Greenwich Report 1994,
people have continued to link their breathing difficulties with
the high and sometimes very localised levels of air pollution.
THE DOME
AND INCREASED
LEVELS OF
AIR POLLUTION
In our previous submission we highlighted the
statements made in the planning application to build the Dome
submitted by the New Millennium Experience Company. Table 13.2
acknowledged that pollution levels would rise as a result of the
"Experience" and offered no mitigating measures. Though
the organisers have since appointed environmental consultants
who have in turn made some encouraging noises regarding such commitments
as electrically powered vehicles on the site, we still feel that
the access strategy for the Dome is still weak in terms of its
environmental protection.
TRAFFIC ALREADY
ON THE
RISE
Firstly no matter how hard the NMEC and its
consultants try, they cannot act in isolation from the policies
of both local and central government. We have lobbied the local
authority in particular for several years now, urging them to
adopt transport policies that are based upon targets for traffic
reduction. However, even their latest TPP only makes a limited
reference to the safe routes to school and ignores many other
policy areas which could achieve or promote traffic reduction.
The fact is that in three major areas (see appendices 1, 2 and
3)[1]
the Council are responsible for significant traffic increases
at the same time as the traffic attracted by the Dome. Our intention
is not to embroil the committee in a debate over national or local
transport policies but to stress that general demand management
by the Council and the Government will also be necessary to minimise
traffic congestion in the Millennium year, particularly in Greenwich.
THE ACCESS
STRATEGY
The Jubilee line extension continues to be blighted
by poor management, technical problems and union disputes. It
is becoming increasingly obvious that at best the line will open
and be subject to teething problems for the first few weeks or
at worst simply not be available, particularly to those travelling
to adjoining park and ride sites in the North-West quadrant of
London. In these circumstances our organisation is concerned that
dozens of heavily polluting buses and coaches would be press-ganged
into service as an emergency measure. To those finding it difficult
to breathe in East Greenwich, this would be the final blow. We
appeal to members to seek assurances that the contingency plan
for the non-availability of the Jubilee Line is subject to environmental
criteria and is developed in consultation with the whole community
and not just the Council.
London Transport, in partnership with the Council,
held a meeting in Greenwich in October and were asked about the
exhaust emission standards of the buses serving the Dome. Whilst
we received a commitment to the Millennium Rapid Transit Link
running on a low-sulphur diesel and complying with Euro2 standards,
the impression we were given was that only some buses would be
utilising "green technology". We would refer members
to the Council's own pollution reports which have on occasions
recorded that air quality monitors on Blackwall Lane have indicated
Benzene levels 80 times EPAQS guidelines based upon their effect
on human health. We would urge London Transport to use only buses
and coaches which run on compressed natural gas or Hydrogen fuel
cell or electric powered in preference to low sulphur diesel.
It is for similar reasons that we believe that
the number of trips being proposed by taxi, requires some consideration.
The latest figures that are available to us indicate that 8 per
cent by modal split will be comprised of taxi journeys—the
so called "kiss and drop", this is eight per cent of
12.49 million visitors and represents over a million trips. In
consequence we believe that coach and taxi operators to the Dome
should be licensed and that the franchises or licenses should
be issued by NMEC according to whether their fleets utilise "green
technology".
In view of the significant levels of car parking
being sought by developers and retailers attracted to the Greenwich
Peninsula by the Dome, we are calling for a moratorium on planning
permission for parking spaces for all except orange badge holders.
This would include the 1,000 spaces sought by NMEC at Woolwich
Arsenal, the 1,423 spaces sought for the Millennium village and
the 1,450 spaces sought by Sainsbury's and the cinema complex.
Their need must be reassessed in view of their impact upon traffic
levels in the Millennium year and what is known about good practice
in traffic-free development.
Finally we would like to see Greenwich declared
an air quality management area so that any further powers needed
by the Council to control sources of pollution would then become
available under the Environmental Protection Act 1995.
SUSTAINABLE JOBS
Whilst we would like to see as many jobs created
as possible by the "Millennium Experience" we are troubled
by the persistent rumour that over half the jobs created will
be in private security. If this is the case will these jobs be
unionised, paid at the minimum wage and enable the employees to
gain transferable skills which will enable them to acquire jobs
elsewhere once the celebrations are over. We hope your committee
will also be keen to obtain these assurances during the forthcoming
proceedings.
November 1998
1 Not printed. Back
| 
