ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL 17 JULY 2019 PUBLIC QUESTIONS 1 Question

COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

1 Question from Simon Pirani, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

At the Council meeting of 26 June 2019, Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald answered questions from Matt Browne (no. 3), and Councillor Matt Hartley (no. 25), by saying that “by smoothing traffic flow, it is anticipated that the new [Silvertown] tunnel will reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions”.

This statement contradicts a large body of published research, which shows (i) that road building projects increase the total traffic volume (so called “induced traffic”), (ii) that increases in total traffic volume and total car use are significant causes of higher greenhouse gas emissions, and (iii) that in order to reduce emissions, it is necessary to reduce total traffic volume and total car use. (Examples of research are: Campaign to Protect Rural England, Beyond Transport Infrastructure (2006); Keith Buchan, A low carbon transport policy for the UK (2008); Lynn Sloman, Lisa Hopkinson and Ian Taylor, The Impact of Road Projects in England (2017).) While this research shows that reducing total traffic volume reduces emissions, research on schemes designed to relieve congestion found that they are unlikely to reduce emissions. (Examples: Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner, The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities. NBER Working Paper 15376 (2009); Alexander Bigazzi and Miguel Figliozzi, “Congestion and emissions mitigation: A comparison of capacity, demand, and vehicle based strategies”, in Transportation Research 17:7 (2012).) Since so much research suggests that the Silvertown tunnel will increase greenhouse gas emissions, could Cllr Scott-McDonald provide examples of research that justifies the claim that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Reply –

I thank Simon Pirani for his question.

The Council’s Local Implementation Plan sets out an ambitious and important commitment to reducing traffic. This includes an aim for 75 per ITEM NO: 8 cent of all trips in Royal Greenwich to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041 (currently only 58 per cent of trips are).

It is widely accepted that just creating new road space generally results in the release of suppressed demand, leading to more traffic. As the question suggests, this affect is known as induced demand. However, there are various ways to manage new capacity to avoid inducing new demand – supported by evidence from a similar range of experts.

In the case of the Silvertown Tunnel, this will be achieved through the tolling mechanism. The Development Consent Order that allows Transport for London to develop the tunnel requires it to set tolls at a level that prevents additional traffic from being ‘induced’.

By monitoring this requirement and through its role on the ‘Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group’ the Royal Borough will work to ensure Transport for London manages its tolls (and any other necessary mitigation measures) to prevent induced demand. The Royal Borough is committed to ensuring TfL delivers on this requirement.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

2 Question from Simon Pirani, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

At the 26 June Council meeting, the Council voted to declare a “climate emergency” and recognised the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible. At the same meeting, it was stated that the Council continues to support the Silvertown tunnel project and participates in the Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group. These activities will inevitably lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously the policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is in direct conflict with the policy of supporting the Silvertown Tunnel. Could the Cabinet Member report on any measures that have been taken, or that will be taken, to resolve this dilemma?

Reply –

I thank Simon Pirani for his question.

The Royal Borough supports the development of a package of Thames River Crossings to improve access to key employment areas and address severance. Transport for London’s proposed Silvertown Tunnel forms one part of that package.

The current Blackwall Tunnel frequently causes significant congestion – as far back as the Sun in the Sands roundabout. Queuing traffic emits significantly more greenhouse gas and by smoothing traffic flow it is anticipated the tunnel will reduce emissions. As described in my answer to the previous question, this effect will be combined with user charging, to stop the tunnel generating unnecessary new trips.

The Tunnel is also an important public transport scheme. One lane in each direction is reserved for buses and taxis. Transport for London is required to provide at least 20 buses per hour, in each direction, through the tunnels during peak periods. This will open up a raft on new bus connections across the river, where only a single bus currently runs. ITEM NO: 8 The Royal Borough has been a leading voice in calling for Transport for London to manage the tunnel effectively. It has:

 secured vital improvements to proposals;  expanded the contents of the Development Consent Order; and  secured a separate legal agreement to deliver additional local mitigation measures.

We will continue this work as the scheme is developed and through the Council’s role in the Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group, to ensure Transport for London meets its requirements.

Transport for London has the Development Consent Order that allows it to construct and operate the tunnel. No legal avenue exists to oppose the Development Consent Order, as the time limit for making a Judicial Review has expired.

The Royal Borough will continue to pursue mitigation measures as the scheme develops.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

3 Question from Victoria Rance, SE3, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

We are in a climate emergency, and it's necessary to sharply reduce fossil fuel use and carbon emissions in the near future. One way to do this without causing undue costs to the poorest is a smart distance-based road pricing, as advocated by the Centre for London and TfL's own report on traffic and congestion. Would you support smart distance-based road pricing in Greenwich and across South and East London?

Reply –

I thank Victoria Rance for her question.

As I have said in answer to preceding questions, the Royal Borough is committed to addressing climate change and making its transport network cleaner, greener and fairer for all.

We have supported Transport for London’s move towards charging the true social, environmental and economic cost of drivers’ trips - through its Low Emission Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone. We are pushing for this to be expanded further to cover all of Royal Greenwich.

Any further road pricing would need to be developed at a London-wide level, to reflect the areas people travel across. We encourage Transport for London to continue this work.

As you suggest, charges should consider the effect of people’s actions and their ability to pay, as accurately as possible. We are closely following developments in this field and the technology to do it in a ‘smart’ way.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

4 Question from Matt Browne, SE10, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

Having declared a climate emergency, will Greenwich Council commit to a new study, using the latest available data, into the impact the Silvertown Tunnel will have upon the Council’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030 or earlier?

Reply –

I thank Matt Browne for his question.

The Development Consent Order (DCO) that allows Transport for London to develop the tunnel requires it to re-model the highway network, with updated data, ahead of opening. It is also required to propose mitigation measures where “there is likely to be a material worsening of traffic conditions”.

The Royal Borough has to be consulted on this modelling and any mitigation proposals.

Once the Tunnel is operational, Transport for London is required to monitor traffic levels and propose further mitigation if there is a material worsening of traffic conditions.

These requirements – written into the legally binding Order – prevent the Tunnel from significantly increasing traffic and, therefore, emissions.

The Royal Borough is committed to ensuring Transport for London delivers on this requirement. Should there appear to be a risk of Transport for London failing to do so, we will work to ensure they do meet their commitments.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

5 Question from Patrick Ives, SE10, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth

Could the Royal Borough of Greenwich inform residents whether planning permission for the Cruise Ship Terminal at Enderby Wharf has been revoked?

Reply –

I thank Patrick Ives for his question.

Planning permission for the Enderby Wharf Cruise Liner Terminal has not been revoked. However, the new owner has publically confirmed that they no longer intend to progress the cruise liner terminal element of the permission and will commence pre-application discussions to develop a revised scheme for the site.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

6 Question from Joanne Sanderson, SE9, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council

In 2018, Labour committed to producing a Green Paper on consultation in their local manifesto. One year on could you tell me when this paper will be ready for residents to comment on?

Reply –

I thank Joanne Sanderson for her question.

The Council has fulfilled this commitment by introducing a ‘green paper’ stage to decisions involving consultation, so people can have their say at an earlier stage.

This has already been undertaken on a number of key projects such as:

 outline proposals for releasing under-utilised council plots for social housing  developing plans for a new leisure centre in Woolwich  Avery Hill Winter Gardens

We have also improved the way that we have signposted Council consultations with a section in every edition of Greenwich Info and more targeted advertising of consultations on social media.

This has had a huge impact on the number of people we’re reaching. For example, 1400 responded to our engagement exercise on the Greenwich town centre liveable neighbourhood scheme, and 2,500 people engaged with our consultation on Woolwich Leisure Centre.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

7 Question from Joanne Sanderson, SE9, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

Given that the 750 new Council houses proposed were announced before the Government lifted the borrowing cap, are there plans for the Council to increase social housing building further, and if so what is the targets?

26 Question from Siobhàn Trethewey, SE18, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

Given that the 750 new Council houses proposed were announced before the Government lifted the borrowing cap, are there plans for the Council to increase social housing building further?

Reply –

I thank Joanne Sanderson and Siobhàn Trethewey for their question.

In early 2018 the GLA secured a HRA borrowing allowance of £500m, for a London wide local authority house building programme. The development programme of 750 Council homes was proposed on the basis of securing an allocation of GLA grant, and a portion of the GLA secured HRA borrowing allowance. It was my intention at this time that even if RBG was not successful we could use the programme to demonstrate to Government that if they did raise the borrowing cap we could deliver homes and help respond to the housing crisis.

The announcement by central government of the removal of the HRA borrowing cap was made in October 2018.

Since the announcement of the removal of the HRA borrowing cap, RBG has been reviewing both the financing and delivery of an increased number of new Council housing, beyond the amount originally proposed. Officers continue to identify suitable opportunities and work on the feasibility for the delivery of even more housing. These will be presented to Cabinet for their consideration in due course. ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

8 Question from Jessica Currie, SE18, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm

How does the Council ensure that its recycling is being reprocessed in the UK/EU and not shipped to developing nations

Reply –

I thank Jessica Currie for her question.

All plastic recycling collected by RBG is sent to a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) in Southwark. Once the materials have been sorted they are bailed and transported to various reprocessors that have been sourced by Veolia (our contractor). All of the plastic material that is sent out from the MRF is processed in the UK or other European countries. Every end- destination is visited, audited and accredited to ensure the materials collected are actually recycled.

RBG insist Veolia takes its code of conduct in the transportation of waste materials extremely seriously and it is disappointing to see criminal activity in this area bringing the sector into disrepute.

Veolia is the leading resource management company in the UK and meets its legal obligations through the Environmental Protection Act, the Packaging Waste Regulations and the Trans Frontier Shipment Regulations.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

9 Question from Jessica Currie, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

The Council has agreed to implement a half hour free parking in and around the Plumstead High Street area but could it consider what is done in many other areas and implement a restriction on parking between 9-11am instead, in order to help local businesses flourish and for visitors to be able to shoo in several places lasting longer than 30 minutes?

Reply –

I thank Jessica Currie for her question.

The proposed thirty minute free parking concession relates to the Pay & Display (P&D) bays around Plumstead High Street that were introduced as part of the Plumstead Central (PC) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

This CPZ including the P&D bays was introduced in 2018, along with an extension to the existing Plumstead Station (PL) CPZ, following extensive consultation with residents and businesses in the area because of the pressure placed on the limited parking capacity by non-residents.

The majority of respondents supported the introduction of controls between the hours of 9am and 5.30pm, which reflects the types of controls found around most ‘commercial’ areas in the borough.

To reduce them now as suggested would be contrary to the outcome of that consultation and I do not propose to change the operational period of the zone at the current time. Visitors wishing to stay for longer can park for up to four hours on the P&D bays on payment of the respective charges. There are also good transport links to the area providing more sustainable transport modes. The decision as to whether to introduce the thirty minute free parking concession will be taken in the context of the Council’s recent climate change emergency resolution.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

10 Question from Maria Freeman, SE18, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety

Will the Council give an update on the HMO registration scheme, given that this time last year (June 2018 Council Questions), out of an estimated 6500 HMOs in the Borough, only 882 HMO licence applications had been received. A year on, please would the Council confirm the actual total numbers of a) how many properties have now been registered b) how many applications have been rejected and c) how many applications are in the pipeline/being processed d) how many of the 200 unlicensed HMOs under enforcement action at June 2019 have now been successfully resolved as to registration or further action taken?

Reply –

I thank Maria Freeman for her question.

In June 2018 the service had received 882 HMO licence applications and had licensed 218 HMOs.

In June 2019, the number applications received had grown to 1440 and a total of 868 licenses issued.

227 applications have been rejected since launch.

There are 345 applications currently in progress. The rate of applications remains slow but we are undertaking a range of measures to raise awareness and compliance, for example specific briefing events for landlords and estate agents.

ITEM NO: 8 license and are progressing 2 prosecutions. Notices and warning letters have been served on over 300 properties.

Enforcement Officers continue to deal with those properties deemed to be the highest risk.

The identification and enforcement of HMOs, particularly where associated with ASB is also now one of the main priorities for Integrated Enforcement and which sees a Council and partnership wide focus in this area.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

11 Question from Maria Freeman, SE18, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm

Can the Council outline the Key Performance Indicators for the tree maintenance contract in the Borough?

Reply –

I thank Maria Freeman for her question.

The Council has an in-house workforce that carries out the majority of its tree maintenance work. This in-house team is located within the Council’s Parks, Estate and Open Spaces Department and is responsible for Parks and Open Spaces tree maintenance but also carries out the maintenance of trees for other Council departments. Sometimes due to the volume of work other departments use contractors to carry out tree maintenance on their behalf.

The performance of the in-house tree maintenance team is monitored in the following ways:

1) Target of 100% response within 2 hours for out-of-hours / emergency call outs (assessed following call-out). Target is being achieved.

2) Number of Quality Control / Health & Safety checks (target 8 per month). Target is being achieved.

3) To have a Quality Management System certified against ISO 9001 and an Environmental Management System certified against ISO14001 for tree maintenance work. These accreditations are held and assessed via external audit by the British Standards Institute.

4) To retain annual Fleet Operators Registration Scheme (FORS) certification for operation of the tree maintenance fleet – FORS (Bronze) accreditation via external audit is held.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

12 Question from Deborah O'Boyle, SE18, to Councillor Denise Hyland, Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Apprenticeships

At the Plumstead Stakeholder Forum on 4th July, Sally Williams, of Retail Revival, cited her improvement, in terms of business, crime and community, through her work on Wilton Road in Abbey Wood. Have these improvements be realised and, if so, has this been quantified?

Reply –

I thank Deborah O'Boyle for her question.

The arrival of Crossrail to Abbey Wood Station and investment by the Peabody Group of £340M across the former Gallions Housing Association estate meant change needed to occur in the Wilton Road High Street. It was perceived as shabby and dilapidated, suffered from a very high rate of crime and had a poor reputation. Businesses had not invested in their infrastructure and footfall had been disrupted due to extensive and protracted building works.

The High Street was not the High Street that the community deserved nor wanted. As such the project team in collaboration with Retail Revival needed to understand the views, issues and ideas of a wide range of stakeholders, and then form a business partnership to galvanize the businesses into action.

Due to the lack of available community space in Wilton Road, Retail Revival set up a pop-up consultation tent in the forecourt of the local pub for one week. The location next to the Abbey Wood Station captured the attention and views of a diverse population including; people commuting in and out of London, international tourists staying at the Abbey Wood Caravan Club campsite, families on the school run, developers looking to invest in the area, residents from the low income housing developments in the area and visitors to the pub.

ITEM NO: 8 As well as visiting community groups and every business in the area to hold face-to-face interviews Retail Revival also set up an online community consultation using the digital platform ‘StickyWorld’ to reach people who prefer to engage remotely. Cards with the Stickyworld address were handed to every commuter for one week, and local social media groups were invited to participate online.

The results of 1000+ responses received and extensive desk top research were summarised in the ‘A Future for Abbey Wood’ visioning document. A design and identity guide for the high street was written to inform the capital interventions.

The project team in collaboration with Retail Revival then set up the Abbey Wood Traders Association to deliver some of the recommendations in the document. It continues to meet monthly in the Abbey Arms. A small board of leaders were elected and the project team including Retail Revival created a suitable terms of reference for the partnership and acted as secretariat for one year. The association invites key stakeholders including Crossrail and the local authorities to provide progress reports on the station and housing development work.

By working together traders are able to influence some of the building schedules to minimize disruption. The local police have been working with them to improve anonymous crime reporting and crime prevention, this has been challenging for the businesses as they are under constant pressure not to report criminal activities. The removal of refuse and gangs of men have also been tackled.

The project worked with every independent business and installed 20 new shopfronts, including signage and lighting, and businesses also received grants for internal improvements, new brand identities, menus, and essential business tools, including a new play area for the Abbey Arms and a wheel alignment computer for the motor service centre.

The public realm was improved with new paving, ‘ghost’ signage was painted on flank walls to promote the identity of the Village and the opening of Crossrail completed the regeneration of Wilton Road and Abbey Wood Road.

In all honesty there is no magical panacea and Wilton Road still has its challenges with anti-social behaviour, for example men drinking alcohol on

ITEM NO: 8 the street and urinating in the alleyway. So, we continue to take steps with the local police to try to safeguard residents and commuters.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

13 Question from Deborah O'Boyle, SE18, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth

There have been suggestions, for instance in the London Plan, for local authorities to be able to refuse applications for junk food outlets within 400 metres of schools. Will the Royal Borough of Greenwich lobby Parliament to allow local authorities to introduce area bye laws or other form of optional power in this respect?

Reply –

I thank Deborah O'Boyle for her question.

Policy E9 Retail, Markets and Hot Food Takeaways of the draft new London Plan states that development proposals containing A5 hot food takeaway uses should not be permitted where these are within 400 metres walking distance of an existing or proposed primary or secondary school (Part C) ad that where development proposals involving A5 hot food takeaway uses are permitted, these should be conditioned to require the operator to achieve, and operate in compliance with, the Healthier Catering Commitment standard (Part D).

When the new London Plan is adopted (expected to be early 2020) it becomes part of the Royal Borough’s development plan against which all planning applications are assessed. This will mean the Council could refuse applications that are within 400m of schools as such proposals would not comply with Policy E9.

We are also working outside the planning system in regards to existing hot food takeaways located near schools. The Council and its partners, including Peabody, are piloting a Superzone (a health zone 400m around a primary school) in the Thamesmead area. This will involve working with the fast food outlets in the zone to improve the food offer and work towards becoming part of the GLA Healthier Catering Commitment scheme.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

14 Question from Izzy (Izzet Safa) Hickmet, SE9, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth

TfL plan to develop 619 homes around Kidbrooke Station. Clive Efford MP has called upon the Council to reject these plans as the already overstretched transport infrastructure in the vicinity is inadequately equipped to cope with an increased number of dwellings. Can the Council confirm they agree with Mr Efford's position and will reject TfLs plans?

Reply –

I thank Izzy (Izzet Safa) Hickmet for his question.

The Kidbrooke Station Square application was heard at Planning Board on the 16th July 2019. The published committee report sets out the merits and assessment of the proposed development and the officer’s recommendation.

Planning Board considered the item and resolved to refuse the proposed development on the grounds that they were unconvinced on the transport modelling, the air quality assessment and predictions was not robust and finally the height and density was considered to be excessive for the surrounding area.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

15 Question from Izzy (Izzet Safa) Hickmet, SE9, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

Can the Council explain why they have chosen the short-term fix of purchasing temporary accommodation outside London, which will move people out of their communities, instead of using the money to finance a strategy of building more of their own housing in the borough, preventing the displacement families?

Reply –

I thank Izzy (Izzet Safa) Hickmet for his question.

As you are aware through both written and verbal answers to your previous questions, RBG is already undertaking our biggest house building programme in decades, with 750 council properties to be started on site by 2022, with an additional 250 homes to be provided by Meridian Homestart.

As a Council we are already forced to use out of borough private sector placements for temporary accommodation to meet the needs that we have. With this being the case I would prefer that we know this accommodation is of a good standard, within a commutable distance back to the borough and that a greater number of residents are placed in properties we own rather than the less regulated private sector.

On 10th July a report went to Cabinet which gave details on the reasons as to why we are launching a pilot to purchase properties out of the borough for the use of temporary accommodation.

The key pressures that this report highlighted were: 1) an increase in costs in the Private Sector; 2) a decrease of availability of Social Lets; and 3) a change in the Homelessness Legislation last year.

It is wholly disingenuous to claim that the Council purchasing homes outside the Borough is ‘taking people out of their communities’. It is the housing ITEM NO: 8 crisis is that is forcing the breakdown of communities and as a council we have a moral and financial obligation to meet this crisis in the most robust and humane way possible.

It is important to note that the residents we are talking about present at a point of crisis and at very short notice. We have a moral and legal requirement to house them as suitably as possible. I am unclear as to how simply adding this money into our existing house building programme would help a family if they presented at the Woolwich Centre this evening.

Where families are placed out of the Borough, we undertake an ongoing review of the suitability of their placement and look to move them close to the Borough and to their support networks as soon as we possibly can.

This is not a policy that any local authority would ordinarily wish to pursue. But we have to deal with the world as we find it, not how we wish it could be. This year we have had 1,800 children in Temporary Accommodation - those figures are not unusual for inner city Boroughs and they are a stain on our country.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

16 Question from Karen Janody, SE18, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm

From conversation with Cabinet Members, it is clear that they believe using Round-up type of herbicides is safe. However, a Californian court has ruled in favour of a groundskeeper who claimed that he developed terminal cancer as a result of spraying glyphosate-based pesticide Roundup for his whole career at a value of $80M (2018), leading to another 11,000 cases currently awaiting trial. Additionally, the Environmental Working Group has tested for unsafe levels for glyphosate in children’s food. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/16/weedkiller-cereal- monsanto-roundup-childrens-food (2018) https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/12/health/glyphosate-cereals-ewg- study/index.html (June 2019)

It seems there are grounds for applying the precautionary principle, especially now that the Council has passed a motion to declare a climate emergency, and that the London assembly adopted a motion to eliminate glyphosate (July 2019). In this, will the Council agree to 1. place an outright ban the uneccessary use of harmful pesticides causing harm to humans as well as insects, using existing safe alternatives to pesticides 2. train its park workforce to use their safer alternative ways to manage weeds and green spaces, as other countries have started to do. A useful document is the PanUK Many Little Hammers report https://issuu.com/panuk/docs/alternative_20methods_20in_20weed_2

Reply –

I thank Karen Janody for her question.

Currently the Council uses weed killing products containing Glyphosate to treat weeds on the public highway, estates and parks.

 This is to reduce trip hazards by preventing weed growth on pathways, sports courts and other hard surfaces ITEM NO: 8  Comply with legal duties to control invasive weed species such as Japanese Knotweed.  Provide high quality turf sporting facilities  Manage weed control cost effectively and efficiently

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides (weed killers) and is widely used around the world. Since it was approved for use, Glyphosate has been subject to extensive testing and regulatory assessment in the EU, USA and other countries.

The EU and UK has rigorous approvals processes for pesticides. The main aim of the processes is to protect the health of people, animals and plants and to safeguard the environment. The EU and UK directive is that Glyphosate is safe to use.

In 2017, The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment reviewed the available scientific evidence and reached the conclusion that “glyphosate is not a carcinogen and does not cause genetic or reproductive effects” when used in compliance with manufacturer instructions.

The Council only uses pesticides when necessary and uses them in compliance with manufacturer instructions so they are not harmful to human health. In addition, the Council only uses pesticides on insects if the insects are identified as being harmful to human health or if the insects have a significant harmful effect on plants.

The Council continually reviews the use of pesticides and has trialled in the last 18 months some pesticide free alternatives to weed removal including mechanical equipment and gas burners. None of these trials so far have been as efficient or cost effective. We are in the process of arranging a trial of hot foam which we hope will have a better overall impact. The Parks workforce is experienced and trained and will continue to use legal pesticides as part of an integrated approach in conjunction with mulching and manual weed control for the control of weeds within parks, but are always open to explore the evidence in relation to alternatives within the financial and operational constraints local authorities face.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

17 Question from Karen Janody, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

There is an excellent and clear article by City Lab University project on the principle of Induced Demand. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/citylab-university-induced- demand/569455/

It cites an example.

In 2004, the State of Texas spent $2.8bn to ease congestion on the Katy Freeway adding an extra, calling it an engineering triumph in a report called Unclogging America’s Arteries. Their argument was that it would save $bn in lost time, millions in fuel and bn pounds of CO2 emissions. Within 2 years, traffic had become worse, and the commute was taking 20 minutes longer. http://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/

“I’m surprised at how rapid the increase has been,” said Tim Lomax, a traffic congestion expert at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. “Naturally, when you see increases like that, you’re going to have people make different decisions.”

In 2016, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said the Katy Freeway expansion “clearly demonstrated that the traditional strategy of adding capacity ... exacerbates urban congestion problems. These types of projects are not creating the kind of vibrant, economically strong cities that we all desire.”

In Los Angeles, the city’s transportation agency, L.A. Metro, voted against another major freeway expansion. “You can’t build your way out of congestion.” Tom Maziarz, chief of planning at the Connecticut DOT.

The tolling of new roads isn’t a practical solution as it is either too cheap and generates new traffic or too high and offers Lexus Lanes for the wealthy. In most cases, it ends up being supplemented by the local authority at a loss to the public purse. ITEM NO: 8 In 2019, an article analysing the Induced Demand theory offers https://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf

In April 2019, the Welsh Government ruled that the £1.4bn M4 relief was not financially or environmentally sound and cancelled the project.

What more historical and current evidence will the Council need to rethink its blind love for the Silvertown Tunnel and any expansion projects, leading to increased traffic, increased emissions, increased pollution, increased death toll and increased ill health?

Reply –

I thank Karen Janody for her question.

As I explained in answer to Question 1, there are various ways to manage new capacity to avoid inducing new demand – supported by evidence from a similar range of experts.

The Royal Borough is committed to ensuring Transport for London delivers on this requirement.

Getting the right level of toll is also key to avoiding unfair impacts on vulnerable groups. The requirements I have described aim to ensure Transport for London does this.

ITEM NO: 8 Furthermore, for at least three years after opening, a discount of not less than 50% will be available for eligible residents of Royal Greenwich on a low income (who register for an online account). Transport for London is also required to provide one million pounds to supporting local businesses adapting to the tunnel and its charges.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

18 Question from Sarah Ingram, SE3, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth

A significant amount of wild grass and flowers on the northwest and southeast corners of the playing fields on Hervey road (SE3) has been uprooted and destroyed by Agripower who were contracted by Royal Greenwich to “tidy up” the fields before they were handed over to Blackheath Rugby club. The Council have long been aware, due to the efforts of the local residents association, that these were both areas rich in insect life which was in turn feeding a colony of bats which live in the trees along the south side of the field. Royal Greenwich therefore wrote into the contract with the rugby club that “Proposals must ensure no net loss of biodiversity and where possible make a positive contribution to Protection, Enhancement, Creation and Management of Biodiversity”. It is unclear how this was communicated to Agripower, and neither does it seem to have entered the consciousness of the rugby club, who have confirmed that they have no management plan for the conservation of insect, small mammal and bat habitat on the field. Last night a small group of us conducted a bat survey on the field which registered 40 passes by common pipistrelle bats and 5 passes by noctule bats – demonstrating that there is still an opportunity to protect what is left of the colony around the playing fields. I hope that this clarifies the context for the following question. 1. In the light of the climate and ecological emergency, how are Greenwich Council going to ensure that promises to protect areas of biodiversity are made explicit in third party contracts and clearly understood by contractors and maintenance teams? 2. What reparation and /or penalty can we as residents have a right to expect when biodiversity protection commitments in planning grants are not honoured?

Reply –

I thank Sarah Ingram for her question.

ITEM NO: 8 Before I address the specific questions I would like to clarify the works undertaken on the site at Hervey Road.

Members and residents will be aware that the Council secured planning permission to bring the playing field back into use for sport as it been underutilised for a number of years.

In order to do this the Council has installed a new pavilion building, reinstated and improved the car parking, installed a new cricket pitch and brought the playing fields back into a condition suitable for sport.

To ensure the site could function as a sports facility it was necessary to remove areas of the boundary vegetation that was overgrown and posed a health and safety risk to the sport use on the site. It was also necessary to remove these areas to provide adequate areas for the sports pitches that have been created. This work was undertaken by the Council in advance of Blackheath Rugby Club taking over the management and operation of the site.

The requirement in the contract with the club to ensure no net loss of biodiversity is from the point of handover. This requirement was written into the contract to ensure that the club manage the site in a responsible way. The club are aware of this and fully on board with the requirements and have spoken to many residents about the potential to bring the community into the site to assist with ongoing management of biodiversity.

In addition, the Council has installed a range of bat, insect and bird boxes to provide wildlife habitat on the site in line with requirement of the planning permission. The Council has also agreed with the club that areas of the site will be left wild to ensure the site provides a good habitat and opportunities for biodiversity. All of the above has been explained at meetings between the Council, the club and local residents.

With regard to your two questions I believe that the measures put in place do protect the future biodiversity of the Hervey Road Site and wherever there are matters relating to biodiversity management the Council will ensure this is incorporated into contracts as necessary. On the Hervey Road site we have maintained and improved habitat wherever possible, but of course have to carefully balance this against operational requirements and providing a safe environment for sport.

ITEM NO: 8 The planning permission and requirements at Hervey Road have been complied with and we have created new habitat and installed biodiversity improvements to secure ecology for the future of the site.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

19 Question from Dr Jonathan Blower, SE18, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

With Council house waiting lists pushing 20,000 and over a thousand families currently in temporary accommodation, the Council's decision to build 750 new Council houses over the next five years is to be welcomed. In light of the climate emergency, these homes need to be carbon neutral. Will they be?

Reply –

I thank Dr Jonathan Blower for his question.

The Council is committed to all of the new council homes proposed being Carbon Neutral.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

20 Question from Dr Jonathan Blower, SE18, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

I understand that the Council plans to spend around £210 million on the construction of these 750 new Council homes, or an average of £280,000 per unit. Given that the homes are to be built on Council-owned land, this figure seems very high. Could the Cabinet Member for Housing explain this high cost?

Reply –

I thank Dr Jonathan Blower for his question.

All of the homes are predominately built on small disused sites, some with demolition and ‘abnormal’ costs such as decontamination. The large number of small sites, each site being unique, gives no economies of scale.

The housing mix is also designed to deliver, in the main, family homes. The costs are within expected acceptable ranges for the type and scale of development.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

21 Question from Peter Guillery, SE7, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

Will the Council make a statement about the housing situation for tenants in the Morris Walk estate, in particular, have they all been rehoused in local social housing?

Reply –

I thank Peter Guillery for his question.

A huge amount of work is being done to ensure that tenants are able to find suitable new properties. Within Morris South (Phase 1 & 2) RBG have rehoused all their tenants within the borough. There are now only a 37 PA Households left, which PA Housing and RBG are working closely to facilitate moves within the borough.

In phase 3 (Viking and Fredrick) the rehousing has now commenced with those tenants being given their bidding numbers to enable them to move to another property of their choice within the borough

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

22 Question from Peter Guillery, SE7, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing

Has the Council considered whether it would be better value for money for the Council's housing repairs to be brought back as a service delivered in- house rather than employing contractors who have to be monitored?

Reply –

I thank Peter Guillery for his question.

Our service is already in-house and employs 190 trade operatives to deliver our responsive repairs service. Our staff undertake close to 70% of the total work the service delivers annually.

We use a number of contractors, who support the in-house teams in periods of high demand or where certain specialisms are required. We will be looking to increase the volume of works that we can carry out in-house (excluding specialist works) in the coming year, linked to increasing our in- house productivity. Specialist works account for approximately 10% of the work going to contractors. Examples of more specialist areas are; Lift Maintenance, communal heating systems and scaffolding.

A report on the repairs service was recently provided to the July meeting of the Housing and Anti-Poverty Scrutiny Panel which can be downloaded from the Council’s Website via http://committees.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=575&MI d=6282&Ver=4

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

23 Question from Paul Trethewey, SE18, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

Following Councillor Danny Thorpe previously stating that the FixMyStreet portal 'was never properly working' - what improvements or changes are being made to the FixMyStreet reporting page on the Council website to ensure that it becomes effective? https://fix.royalgreenwich.gov.uk

Reply –

I thank Paul Trethewey for his question.

Our ICT service is currently looking into a range of options for making improvements to Fixmystreet as part of the digital transformation programme.

Fixmystreet is a 3rd Party application which is not managed by the Council, however, we are looking at ways in which we can improve the integration between Fixmystreet and some of our back office systems. The existing integration works well in terms of flowing information into back-office systems, but information flow in the other direction does not work as well. We’re therefore exploring options for achieving a complete integration.

Some improvements have already been made to the internal routing of reports, so that they go directly to services as opposed to being emailed to the contact centre. The key objective now is to improve the integration to make it “2 way”, meaning updates made in the back office will automatically be fed through onto the web.

Additionally, we also plan to extend the Fixmystreet integration to cover all relevant back-office systems. Previously, this was not possible, and some reports had to be forwarded to service teams by email, but the Council has procured a waste management system called Whitespace which we will be able to integrate with. Work is also underway to integrate Whitespace with forms on the Council ITEM NO: 8 website.

By improving the integration, we’ll be able to provide a much better and smoother experience for users of both Fixmystreet, and the Council website. This will vastly improve the accuracy of the information on Fixmystreet for existing issues and should also help avoid duplicate reports being raised.

In addition to Fixmystreet, some issues can be reported via the Council website. Residents can visit the following page on the website, where they will be directed to either a Council form, or Fixmystreet, as appropriate: https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/200268/street_cleaning_and_ repairs

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

24 Question from Paul Trethewey, SE18, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth

Following comments made by residents at the first new 'Better Together' meeting (22nd March 2019) what additional consultation has been done with immediate local residents regarding the Waterfront leisure centre move and where will the displaced sports be accommodated? (new Woolwich leisure centre planned will be "for 21st century sport and exercise " so this is more important considering the teams lost with the closure of Plumstead leisure centre as well).

Reply –

I thank Paul Trethewey for his question.

The Council published the consultation results for the new Woolwich Leisure Centre as part of the Cabinet reports discussed and approved on 17th April 2019. The consultation process was extremely well responded to with over 2,300 responses received from local residents. The consultation methodology was extensive and involved online surveys, face to face interviews, resident panels and stakeholder focus groups.

The outcome of the consultation feedback resulted in Cabinet approving the development of a number of models into costed options and that included ‘like for like’ provision as well as more enhanced options. No models were taken forward that reduced provision. It is still early days in the design process but the Council is committed to delivering a statement leisure centre that meets the needs of our community for the next three decades. Until the new centre is built we will continue to improve services at the Waterfront and a programme of investment is being planned.

On the closure of Plumstead Leisure Centre all staff members were relocated to other GLL facilities and user groups offered alternative facilities at the Waterfront or Thamesmere Leisure Centres.

Finally, we look forward to opening the new Plumstead Centre in January 2020 with much improved and modernised leisure and community facilities. ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

25 Question from Siobhàn Trethewey, SE18, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety

What progress has been made in terms of the HMO licencing scheme e.g. How many HMOs are registered now when compared to a year ago, out of the 7000 estimated number in the borough or how many officers FTE are working on a) HMO registrations b) HMO enforcement, when compared to this time last year?

Reply –

I thank Siobhàn Trethewey for her question.

In June 2018 the service had received 882 HMO licence applications and had licensed 218 HMOs.

In June 2019, the number applications received had grown to 1440 and a total of 868 licenses issued.

227 applications have been rejected since launch.

As per our response to previous questions in June 2018, our enforcement continues to increase and we are currently progressing 533 cases for a range of enforcement. We have issued 13 Civil Penalty Notices for failure to license and are progressing 2 prosecutions. Notices and warning letters have been served on over 300 properties.

With regard to properties where enforcement action has been taken, some have since applied for a licence, in other cases the properties have been taken out of HMO use and reverted to single households. ITEM NO: 8 Enforcement Officers continue to deal with those properties deemed to be the highest risk.

Recruitment in the last 12 months was successful with 5 new permanent Technical/EH Officers and a permanent Team Manager starting in March and April 2019. The team is comprised of a Team Manager, 2 Senior EHOs, 9 licensing /enforcement officers, a Tenancy Relations Officer and 3 Intelligence Officers. The Team is supported by a further 7 Technical Support Officers who respond to enquiries and process licence applications.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

27 Question from John Edwards, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

The extended ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emission Zone) will extend right up to the edge ( south circular) of Woolwich Town Centre. There will be significant knock-on effects for air pollution in Woolwich - the ULEZ meaning the most polluting vehicles will just go round the south circular to the ferry to avoid the charge, particularly as the new, bigger ferries have more capacity; cars may also try and park up in Woolwich and then travel into London by public transport to avoid the ULEZ charge; and the future proposed tolling of the Blackwall Tunnel and proposed Silvertown Tunnel will mean many will also cross the river at Woolwich to avoid the tolls. In the light of these developments, what is being done to ensure significantly improved, rather than significantly worse, air quality in Woolwich in the future?

Reply –

I thank John Edwards for his question.

The ULEZ will help to clean-up the cars on our roads. Whilst some people will change their routes, many will be encouraged to change their cars for cleaner ones: reducing emissions across Royal Greenwich. It is important to consider this benefit alongside the risk of diversionary effects posed by the planned ULEZ boundary.

However, an extended ULEZ covering the whole of Royal Greenwich would be the best option. The Royal Borough continues to call for an expanded ULEZ to minimise this risk, including though its new Local Implementation Plan for transport.

The Council is aware of the need to manage inappropriate parking around Woolowich to avoid it being used as a ‘park and ride’ for central London, particularly when the Elizabeth Line opens. Most of Woolwich is already covered by Controlled Parking Zones and we plan to consult on Zones covering the remaining areas soon. ITEM NO: 8 As described in answers to other questions on Silvertown, the Development Consent Order (DCO) that allows Transport for London to develop the tunnel requires it to re-model the highway and propose mitigation measures where “there is likely to be a material worsening of traffic conditions”. Once the Tunnel is operational Transport for London is required to monitor traffic levels and propose further mitigation if there is a material worsening of traffic conditions.

These requirements prevent the Tunnel from significantly increasing traffic. The Royal Borough is committed to ensuring Transport for London delivers on this requirement.

The Council is also investing in an innovative programme of transport investment through our Local Implimentation Plan. The Plan sets out our ambition that 75 per cent of all trips in Royal Greenwich be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041 (current only 58 percent are). This is the key to improving air quality in Woolwich and across Royal Greenwich.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

28 Question from John Edwards, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

In the light of Greenwich Council's regrettable decision to date not to oppose the proposed new Silvertown Tunnel, can the Council explain exactly what mitigation measures are being put into place to ensure it does not create worse congestion and air pollution in the Woolwich area, and can it provide the evidence base for these measures?

Reply –

I thank John Edwards for his question.

As I described in answer to previous questions, the Royal Borough supports the development of a package of Thames River Crossings to improve access to key employment areas and address severance. Transport for London’s Silvertown Tunnel forms one part of that package.

The Development Consent Order that allows Transport for London to develop the tunnel requires it to set tolls at a level that prevents significant additional traffic from being generated by the Tunnel.

By monitoring this requirement and through its role on the ‘Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group’ the Royal Borough will work to ensure Transport for London delivers on this requirement.

The Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy set out by Transport for London includes roads into Woolwich. This should ensure that traffic into Woolwich, and the associated congestion and pollution, are not significantly affected. As a certified document, Transport for London cannot change this without formal approval by the Secretary of State.

The Tunnel is an important public transport scheme. One lane in each direction is reserved for buses, taxis and HGVs. Transport for London is required to provide at least 20 buses per hour, in each direction, through the ITEM NO: 8 tunnels during peak periods. This will open up a raft on new bus connections across the river, where only a single bus currently runs. This will help to connect Woolwich to opportunities and markets in the major growth areas north of the River, and make public transport a more attractive option for those currently crossing the River by car.

The Royal Borough has been a leading voice in calling for Transport for London to manage the tunnel effectively. We will continue this work to ensure Transport for London meets its requirements in Woolwich.

By monitoring this requirement and through its role on the ‘Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group’ the Royal Borough will work to ensure Transport for London delivers on this requirement.

The Tunnel is an important public transport scheme. One lane in each direction is reserved for buses, taxis and HGVs. Transport for London is required to provide at least 20 buses per hour, in each direction, through the tunnels during peak periods. This will open up a raft on new bus connections across the river, where only a single bus currently runs. This will help to connect Woolwich to opportunities and markets in the major growth areas north of the River, and make public transport a more attractive option for those currently crossing the River by car.

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

29 Question from Paul Billington, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

Thamesmead celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. Barking Riverside was created only seven years ago and is already receiving an Overground service in 2021. Does the Council support a new London Overground link from Barking Riverside, into Thamesmead and via Plumstead & Charlton, creating new, direct links to North, North East and South London or will it take another 50 years for its residents to receive the rail services they desperately need and deserve?

Reply –

I thank Paul Billington for his question.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich is working with the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, and the London Borough of Bexley on a planning framework for the Thamesmead and Abbey Wood Opportunity Area. This is to make sure future development in the area has the infrastructure – including public transport infrastructure – it needs to thrive.

Transport for London is undertaking an assessment of the public transport infrastructure required. This includes options for new London Overground, Docklands Light Rail Railway and Bus Rapid Transit links. This will provide the evidence to help ensure the right public transport is provided.

The exact form this should take needs to be informed by Transport for London’s assessments. However, early indications are that the DLR and Bus Rapid Transit may be the most effective options.

Whatever the outcome, the Royal Borough remains committed to improving cross-river public transport connections - including to Thamesmead and Abbey Wood (as set out in its new Local Implementation Plan for transport).

ITEM NO: 8 COUNCIL

17 JULY 2019

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

30 Question from Paul Billington, SE18, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport

Is the Council speaking to car clubs like Zipcar, concerning the possibility of implementing more electric vehicles for the users of such car clubs (and in the case of Zipcar, introducing their “Flex” parking scheme like they currently do in Lewisham, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets for example)?

Reply –

I thank Paul Billington for his question.

The Council is currently speaking to operators to improve car club provision in the Borough in two ways.

1. We are seeking to expand on the number of operators providing round–trip car sharing. This involves a car club member booking a specific car, located in a dedicated parking bay and returning the car to the same dedicated parking bay. The last contract period has expired and we are looking at introducing more operators in the borough in order to improve the offer for residents through increased competition.

2. We are also seeking to introduce floating one-way car-sharing. This involves a car club member using a smartphone application to identify a suitable vehicle and leaving it at their destination. Zipcar flex is one example of this model but there are other operators who are also interested in coming to Greenwich.

For both schemes the Council is working to have them in place in late 2019. In all of these discussions the Royal Borough is keen to encourage more electric vehicles to be included. As well as directly reducing emissions, electric car club vehicles are a good way to get people used to electric vehicles.

ITEM NO: 8