This memorandum should be read in conjunction with our first memorandum 9 June 1998 and our letter submitted on the 24 November 1998[2].

  Our concerns about the unsustainable nature of the transport arrangements to the Dome (as laid out in our first memorandum) have not been allayed.

  We have serious concerns about the non-sustainability of elements of the unfolding transport strategy for the Millennium Exhibition. Our concerns centre around the proposals to have Bus Priority measures in Blackwall Lane and the type of measures envisaged.

  Blackwall Lane is a residential road with three schools on, or within feet of it, and has a playing field/local park on it.

  The current proposal will have appalling consequences for the health and quality of living of residents and pedestrian users of Blackwall Lane, especially school children who already suffer from heavy traffic. Most of the vehicles which will use the road have poor environmental profiles (eg diesel buses, coaches and taxis).

WE ASK THE COMMITTEE TO:

—  Acknowledge the poor quality of consultation on this issue;

—  Recognise that the proposals run counter to local community, Council and Government stated aims;

—  Recognise that the health and quality of life implications for residents and the many school children and youths who have to use Blackwall Lane, make it unsuitable as a main prescribed vehicle route to the Dome;

—  Demand that sustainable alternatives are implemented;

—  Recognise that the community need their own representatives on the Millennium Access Steering Group;

—  Recognise that any contingency plans, should the Jubilee Line Extension not be opened on time, or break down, need to be fully discussed with and agreed by, the local community;

—  We are morally obliged to protect ourselves and our children.

INTRODUCTION

  1.  We are disappointed that our first memorandum was not printed as an appendix to the minutes of the Sixth Report of The Culture Media and Sport Committee (hereafter the CMSC). We asked that it, our letter re London Transport 24 November 1998 and this memorandum are printed in the next report.

  2.  In its Sixth Report "Not Only The Dome" the CMSC stated one of its principle conclusions and recommendations as:

—  "(ix) We urge the Government to bear in mind that the support and involvement of the local community are likely to be integral to the success of the transport strategy and to ensure that the concerns voiced in evidence to this Committee are listened to and, where appropriate, acted upon as the strategy evolves. We will wish to question the Company and Ministers on this matter during our next inquiry".

  3.  Our concerns, as laid out in our June 1998 submission to the Committee, are not being taken seriously by those who should be listening. Below I will outline the response we have received from individuals and organisations who should be listening to us, and why these responses are unacceptable. We hope that the Committee will elucidate more answers than we can and encourage alternative courses of action to those currently proposed, which were they to come reality, would decimate our community in East Greenwich.

  4.  But first we must comment on remarks made by Glenda Jackson in response to concerns about pollution caused by transport to the Dome, raised on our behalf by Mr Keen. Glenda Jackson said:

—  ". . . . there should be no adverse pollution in the sense that we know it now in as much as this is a car-free event, so . . . . not a major polluter as far as road traffic is concerned. .";

—  This statement is wrong and misleading;

—  Coaches and taxis on Blackwall Lane do pollute;

—  Cars being driven to enable their occupants to look at the Dome without going in, or to drop people off at the Dome, do pollute;

—  Conventional buses, of which there will be at least an extra fourteen an hour on Blackwall Lane do pollute;

—  The contingency plans as discussed at the CMSC meeting with London Transport on 26 November 1998 will pollute.

DOES LONDON BOROUGH OF GREENWICH "FIGHT OUR CORNER"?

  5.  In her evidence to the CMSC on 16 June 1998 (paragraph 93 and 94 of the appendix) Glenda Jackson stressed that if we lobbied the London Borough of Greenwich (hereafter LBG), they would fight our corner as residents of Greenwich. She pointed to LBG arguing strongly for, and stated commitment to enforce, the no parking zone for three miles south of The Dome.

  6.  However, LBG have a conflict of interest between promoting the Millennium celebrations at The Dome and protecting the quality of life of residents who live on Blackwall Lane. We, the local community, always seem to lose out in this conflict.

  Here are some examples of this:

  7.  LBG have been keen promoters of having a major Millennium Experience at Greenwich. It was LBG who suggested and promoted the bus lanes on Blackwall Lane.

  8.  Paragraph 3.1 of London Transport's written evidence to the Committee dated 19 November 1998 states that the Millennium Transit Link between North Greenwich and Greenwich Town Centre:

—  "Has been requested by LBG to serve people who might wish to combine the Dome with time spent at the historical attractions of Greenwich."

  9.  Thus East Greenwich is to be sacrificed for the good of Greenwich Town Centre's tourist trade. Health and quality of life implications for locals, especially those who live on Blackwall Lane, always seem to be less important, to LGB, than the need to transport tourists as cheaply, conveniently and as quickly as possible. Even the Controlled Parking Zone is at least in part because of the fear of gridlock if it were not in place and the negative implications for the success of the Millennium Exhibition were it not to be marketed as the "Car-Free Millennium".

  10.  LBG are therefore unlikely to support our arguments against the bus lanes and indeed thay have not. They have obstructed debate on the issue, they have denied our concerns or argument are based on fact.

  11.  In June we gave a copy of our first memorandum to the LBG Transportation Department. We also gave a copy to each of our two local Councillors (both Labour). We asked for their written comments on the concerns we raised. We heard nothing. I stressed to one of our Councillors, Marian Mosely, that we needed accurate written information on our concerns as soon as possible. She agreed. We still heard nothing. As the only means of getting such written, accurate answers from LBG, we put in questions for the Full Council Meeting on 29 July 1998. The answers to these questions when given by the Chair of Planning were barely audible. A least one answer was inaccurate, and they did not answer a question what would happen if pollutants went above World Health Organisation levels (hereafter WHO). During answers the above mentioned Councillor, Marian Mosely, interrupted the Chair of Planning to shout at me:

—  "How many more times have you got to be told this? How many more times?"

  The Chair of Planning often states that if there are no bus lanes on Blackwall Lane we will get more cars. This is not based on any evidence I have seen. It is wrong to imply that cars are as bad as buses, coaches and taxis in terms of noise, accidents and air quality. They are not. We would prefer cars given the choice. The reality of the situation is that under current proposals we will get both. There is no "trade-off" situation. This is not acknowledged.

  12.  In June 1998 LBG proposed to widen Blackwall Lane by pavement reduction mainly on the west side. Meridian House is on the west side. Now, and apparently in response to our concerns as raised in our June 1998 memorandum LBG have developed "Plan B", which is to widen the road by reducing the pavement by about 6ft and removing a grass area on the eastern side of Blackwall Lane. The grass recreation area is consistently and misleadingly referred to by the Borough's Chief Transportation Manager, Mr P Thompson, as an "environmental strip."

  13.  LBG have not consulted at all with those people most affected by "Plan B". These are those living adjacent to the road area or beside the road widening. These people will have at least 36 buses an hour just feet from their homes (at present they have 10) and these buses will be running late into the night. This shows the attitude to protecting our interests and its attitude to consultation. LBG is contemptuous to our concerns and these concerns relate to all pedestrian users and residents of Blackwall Lane.

  14.  Meridian House Tenants' Association have made verbal or written representations to every LBG committee where bus lanes on Blackwall Lane have been an item. Our effect has been minimal not because our arguments are weak but as M O'Mara Chair of the Greenwich Area Planning and Highways Sub Committee commented on 6 October 1998:

—  "The London Bus Priority Network has critical deadlines and whilst appreciating that funding may be lost if the decisions were not taken now, members were annoyed at being asked to make decisions in this way";

—  ie "rail-roaded into them."

  15.  This meeting did agree that:

—  ". . . the Borough Transportation Manager hold proper discussions and consultations on the affect of the installation of the bus lanes on the dropping off and picking up of children outside schools; . . . A report back to Committee is to be made, including a solution to the problem".

  The results of this report have not been forthcoming but plans for the bus lane are moving ahead anyway.

  16.  In reply to questions LBG estimates the increase of vehicles on Blackwall Lane in the year 2000 will be about 300 an hour travelling south to north in the peak am. and the same number travelling north to south in the peak pm This indicates that two concurrently operational bus lanes are not needed but that a switchable direction bus lane will be appropriate and would require no road widening. It should be noted, that there is only one bus lane on Romney Road and there are none on Trafalgar Road or Woolwich Road which are the feeder roads in to Blackwall Lane. Rather than just piling up the pollution we could be offered a trade off of HGV's on route to the Blackwall Tunnel (which currently use Blackwall Lane) for buses, coaches, taxis on route to the Dome, Tube, and Sainsbury's.

  17.  Planning Committee on 2 November 1998 did vaguely accept that we should have monitoring and guidelines on pollution possibly based on WHO recommended levels. Details on these are yet to be forthcoming as are the minutes of the meeting.

  18.  The slow choking of our children is not an acceptable option to us. We will protect them.

  19.  Our written concerns about there being no consultation on the transferal of the strip of grass area from Housing Committee to Policy and Resources control, were simply ignored by the LGB Housing Executive Committee on 13 November 1998. And this even though the Senior Engineer for LBG had stated that:

—  "The Directorate of Housing Services had been consulted and it was a matter for them to consult their tenants regarding the proposed land acquisition" (Minutes LBG Planning and Highway Sub Committee, 6 October 1998).

  20.  Len Duvall, Leader of Greenwich Council speaking at a conference looking at regeneration of the Thames Gateway justified use of coaches (even dirty diesel) to transport people to the Dome through East Greenwich by saying it was the only way that less well off people, perhaps from far afield, could get to the exhibition, and they should be able to get to the exhibition. We agree that poorer families should not be excluded from visiting the exhibition but the way to do this is by proper funding of environmentally friendly transportation, not by further impoverishing our quality of life, by using any old coaches or buses.

  21.  These examples illustrate how LBG's conflict of interest prevent it from fighting our corner.

NICK RAYNSFORD OUR MP

  22.  Mr Raynsford, like LBG has a conflict of interest. He is Minister for London and for Construction. Our interests have to contend with perceived income generation schemes for the whole of London such as the Dome.

  23.  At the Thames Gateway Regeneration Conference on 17 July 1998 I raised some of our concerns. Mr Raynsford's response was very angry. He told me that we should be grateful and that I was scaremongering. I sent him a copy of our June 1998 memorandum and the evidence I was basing my comments upon. I suggested he might like to apologise and support us in our concerns as I clearly was not "scaremongering". We have heard nothing.

LONDON TRANSPORT

  24.  At a meeting with LGB and London Transport buses in October 1998 looking at arrangements for looking at servicing the tube for North Greenwich (and the Dome), we asked that buses serving the Peninsula should take the opportunity to fit in with the sustainability theme. They should be environmentally and passenger friendly and be routed where people live rather than along a few major roads. This has not been taken up.

  25.  At the Select Committee meeting with London Transport on 26 November 1998 LT stated that residents near proposed car parks were quite rightly concerned about the impact of these car parks on their quality of life. Blackwall Lane has too much of any sort of vehicular traffic, particularly HGVs and coaches. We cannot cope with the proposed increase in traffic if the tube at North Greenwich is up and working, let alone if it is not. It is therefore distressing to read the last sentence of LT's written submission to the CMSC dated 19 November 1998 which states:

—  "Additional [bus] capacity will be provided if required."

  Therefore our concerns have not been listened to. Why doesn't our children's health of life and quality of life count as much as those living further away from the Dome?

  26.  We still do not know, whether bus lanes will save time for buses in their circumstances envisaged in the year two thousand (see our letter to the CMSC 24th November 1998 re: LT)[3]. LBG say Blackwall Lane is no longer the route for coaches from Woolwich Arsenal Park-and-Ride. However we still do not know how many coaches are likely to be using Blackwall Lane. We still have not seen the coach strategy. We do not know how many taxis will be using Blackwall Lane. We do not know how many cars will just drive past the Dome to have a look at it.

NEW MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE (NMEX)

  27.  There is still no coach strategy. There has still been no public meeting in Greenwich as recommended by CMSC. In a letter to us NMEX state:

—  "The Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport have twice recommended that we hold an annual general meeting in Greenwich. We do not believe that this is the best way to consult local residents."


(22 October 1998)

  Such a meeting would be very valuable for us to gain information, express our views and hear those of others.

CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE MEETING WITH LT 26 NOVEMBER 1998

  28.  It was shocking to hear members of the CMSC suggesting that LT declare a "free for all", "get there how you can, even by car" scenario should the Jubilee Line extension not be working by 2000 or should it break. No consideration was given to the air, noise, dirt, movement and accident problems this would cause for the local community. Such a scenario is unacceptable.

DEMANDS

  29.

—  Recognition that Blackwall Lane is a residential road much used by pedestrians and school children and afford us as much consideration as people from other areas of the borough or the United Kingdom;

—  Recognition that our concerns are based upon evidence;

—  Sustainable solutions must be sought as current solutions are unsustainable;

—  Recognition that those who could be expected to be fighting our corner eg LBG, or our MP have a conflict of interest;

—  Acknowledge the unacceptably poor levels of consultation;

—  Set up a body where communities affected by transport arrangements to the Dome can meet;

—  Give the Community their own voice on the Millennium Steering Access Group;

—  Use of the River Thames should be encouraged, by, for example including river buses on travelcards;

—  Should the Jubilee Line Extension fail or not be in place in time, the use of more coaches, buses or Millennium Transit Vehicles are not a feasible solution.

NO TUBE, NO EXHIBITION

—  The long term future of the segregated Rapid Transit Link between Greenwich Town Centre and the Dome must be secured;

—  No road widening of Blackwall Lane, which already has four lanes and is a heavily used pedestrian road;

—  More pedestrian crossings on Blackwall Lane;

—  Pollution and health monitoring on Blackwall Lane now and for projected levels in the year two thousand with agreement to act to reduce if they are over WHO acceptable levels or are unacceptable to the community;

—  The needs of the many pedestrian users of Blackwall Lane especially school children must be put first;

—  The results of the consultation with local schools should be acted upon even if it means that there are to be no bus lanes on Blackwall Lane;

—  Money must be found to ensure that any public tranport, including coaches, which use Blackwall Lane have a very good environmental profile.

CONCLUSION

  30.  Neither of the two select committee recommendations that relate to our plight (ix) and (xix) have been acted upon in any significant way. The local community needs to represent itself on relevant bodies. Local peoples' support was sought to get the Millennium Experience located in Greenwich. This support was given on various assurances and things taken on trust.

  Our trust is being betrayed. In the memorandum submitted by the Department of Environment Transport and Regions to "Not Only The Dome" paragraph three states:

—  "The Government regards making a success of the access to the Millennium Experience as one of its key transport challenges".

  The status of the Dome Project plus the ever pressing deadline are leading to decisions being driven through that do not take due consideration of concerns of the local community.

  We are looking at a traffic nightmare.

December 1998