Fierce opposition has erupted among Greenwich residents who have branded the council’s new parking scheme proposals as “Stalinist” and “criminal”, with protesters claiming the local authority is attempting to generate revenue through the controversial plans.
The Sustainable Streets programme, which would establish controlled parking zones throughout extensive areas of the borough, has sparked widespread anger among locals who gathered in protest outside Woolwich Town Hall last week.
Demonstrators believe the proposals represent an attack on motorists, with the council facing a projected £45.1million budget deficit for the coming year.
The scheme has generated significant resistance since public consultation began, prompting numerous campaigns and petitions throughout Greenwich as residents mobilise against what many perceive as a financially driven initiative targeting car owners in the borough.
The protests occurred ahead of a Full Council meeting at 7pm, where the parking proposals dominated discussions both outside the town hall and within the council chamber.
Residents submitted questions to councillors about the scheme while elected representatives presented multiple petitions opposing the plans on behalf of their constituents.
The Sustainable Streets initiative would introduce controlled parking zones across substantial portions of Greenwich if approved, requiring residents to purchase permits to park outside their own homes.
According to council data, 56.9 per cent of Greenwich households own a car, leading protesters to argue that the proposals unfairly target the majority of residents.
The parking scheme has been described as ‘Stalinist’
|
PA
The consultation process has been contentious, with the council withdrawing Plumstead and Shooters Hill from the plans in August following what Acting Cabinet Member Calum O’Byrne Mulligan described as “overwhelming responses to the consultation at that moment in time”.
Among those demonstrating was Madeline Green, a Charlton-based carer who has resided in Greenwich for six decades and expressed feeling “humiliated and just driven to destruction” by the proposals.
She explained that purchasing a parking permit would impose substantial costs while making it difficult to park at her patients’ homes, potentially forcing her to abandon her caring role.
Ms Green 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.”
Drivers could be slapped with hefty fees under the new scheme
|
GETTYGreen previously attempted to conduct her care visits using public transport but found it added three and a half hours to her rounds.
Fellow Charlton resident Julie Smyth, who lives with her seriously ill husband and a 92-year-old friend, emphasised that vehicle access remains “essential” for their household to attend medical appointments and manage daily tasks.
Several petitions opposing the scheme have gathered substantial support, with Kidbrooke and Blackheath residents collecting 1,750 signatures on a petition initiated by Sue Hindley, Pamela Rustem and Marco Camurri.
Rustem expressed concerns that parking restrictions would prevent carers from accessing her disabled mother’s home, describing the proposals as “madness” and criticising the council for “not listening to the people”.
Drivers are encouraged to submit their views on the new scheme
|
GETTYAdditional petitions were presented during the council meeting, including one from 1,279 West Thamesmead residents submitted by Councillor ‘Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi, and two from Charlton presented by Councillor Jo van den Broek, representing 109 Delafield Road residents and 2,005 borough-wide signatures.
Business owners along Shooters Hill Road reportedly received no communication about the proposals, with campaigners warning that reduced parking availability would deter customers and harm local commerce.
Acting Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Sustainability and Transport, Calum O’Byrne Mulligan, firmly rejected allegations that the scheme was revenue-driven, condemning what he termed “dishonest discourse” surrounding the proposals.
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.”
O’Byrne Mulligan urged residents to participate in the public consultation, which closes on 30 September, encouraging those with concerns to formally submit their views through the official channels rather than relying solely on protest action.