Here are our suggestions for formal correspondence with the Council.
If you have been told your Formal Objections to the ETOs are being treated as a 'Stage one' complaint, ask the Council to deal with Objections as such, to deal with them transparently, in accordance with law, and in context. The following response includes a request to do this immediately, and an administrative complaint that they have not consulted (also Objection number 3). Scroll down the page for our original suggested objections.
You can write to The Chief Executive, debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk, Transport-Strategy@royalgreenwich.gov.uk, and john.scarborough@royalgreenwich.gov.uk. (John Scarborough is Head of Legal Services.)
Our suggested letter
I write in response to your reply to my Formal Objections in connection with the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme.
On [1 March] 2021 I wrote to you to make Formal Objections to Experimental Traffic Orders made by Royal Borough of Greenwich. These formal objections are not an administrative complaint or ‘feedback’ on the operation of the scheme, but reasons why the statutory objections of the ETOs obtained have not been met.
You say my Objections are being dealt with “under stage 1 of the council’s corporate complaints procedure”. My Formal Objections should not be treated as administrative complaints. They are legal objections to the validity and content of the order and, as you know, should be made publicly available.
You also say: “In line with the statutory requirements of an experimental traffic order, correspondence and complaints received during the public engagement stage will also be considered”. Further “The Council will consider correspondence and complaints received in this period - like yours - as part of the analysis of responses of the wider West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise, so that they can be considered alongside other local feedback received”.
First, the Council has never launched or offered to residents or the public any exercise defined as ‘the wider West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise’.
Secondly, it is not up to Greenwich to decide that a statutory Formal Objection is the same as a complaint or personal feedback on how the scheme is affecting people.
The decision to draw a line under any responses to the scheme on 3 March is arbitrary and unfair to residents and stakeholders who have not been consulted.
Your letter is another attempt to confuse and cover up the true position.
The West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 14(1)
The Scheme was implemented on 20 August 2020, not 3 September as you state in your letter. There was no public consultation about the chosen scheme, before or after its implementation.
The Council wrote to local residents on 12 August 2020 informing them that a new traffic scheme would be installed to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. An Order was obtained by the Council on that date under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 14(1). Legislation creating section 14(1) was made by the Government to:
The letter of 12 August 2020 made serious and substantial misrepresentations about the scheme. It failed to disclose the true outcome of an online survey conducted in November 2019 on the closure of the area to the A2 via modal filters.
The Council did not bring in any of the measures defined by the Order or in the relevant section of the RTRA 1984 s 14(1) and the related Guidance on the Traffic Management Act 2004: network management in response to COVID-19. The measures should have provided among other things for a ‘school street’ on part of Royal Hill to protect pupils at James Wolfe Primary School from heavy traffic on the street at arrival and departure times. Royal Hill is outside the traffic barrier and has become a busy severance road as a result. No social distancing measures or support for pedestrian and cyclist safety were implemented. Turning by vehicles of all sizes creates risks within and outside the protected area. Residents had a reasonable expectation that the Council would provide COVID protections, and that it would do all in its power to avoid injury and harm (such as might arise as a result of the barrier arrangement, and which was the source of strenuous objection by the emergency services.)
Experimental Traffic Order 26 August 2020
Within a fortnight, on 26 August 2020, Greenwich substituted a new Experimental Traffic Order to provide legal validity for the road blocks, effectively dumping the obligation to provide COVID measures. Your ‘Statement of Reasons for the Order’ was not provided to me in time for administrative legal action to be taken. However, the Stated Reasons say the scheme is:
Residents and stakeholders, and the public were not told that you switched the Order, and the purpose of the scheme. No information or evidence was provided. No consultation was carried out. The Council made the Order known in ‘The Gazette’ in the knowledge that very few would be aware of the change.
The purpose of the ETO differs radically from the purposes described in the letter of 12 August 2020 (which the Council’s website still repeats as an explanation for the scheme), and from the purpose of the Pandemic Emergency order (RTRA 1984 s 14(1)). This is misleading.
The scheme placed pedestrians within the area and on the periphery (to which all traffic – local and ‘through’ traffic - was displaced) at increased risk of accidents. Before the scheme, there was a negligible accident record within the area. Currently:
Residents, stakeholders and the public were not informed of the change in policy and regulation, the six-week window for statutory challenge, or the six-month window for Formal Objection under the ETO made on 26 August. That period for Formal Objection ended on 3 March 2021: this does not automatically mean that consultation is at an end. The Council has not stated when the decision will be taken except in response to Formal Objections such as the one I have received.
If there has been a West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise since 12 August 2020,
The Leader of the Council has recently said that all should be consulted about schemes under consideration. However, the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme is the only scheme not included in the current online Greener Greenwich Consultation. This is despite that fact that traffic displaced from West Greenwich has caused increased traffic in East Greenwich, which the Council has believes is justification for the East Greenwich proposals. It is irrational of the Council to treat neighbouring areas differently in this respect.
I request that you immediately put in hand the open publication of Formal Objections to the Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (no.204) Traffic Order Experimental Traffic Order 2020.
I also request that you
Yours sincerely,
Ms Debbie Warren
The Chief Executive
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Woolwich Town Hall,
Wellington Street,
Woolwich SE18 6PW
debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk
Dear Ms Warren,
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Reference: 08-20 Hills and Vales ETO
I/we wish to make Formal Objections to the following Experimental Traffic Orders that govern the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich obtained the following Orders to enable the scheme:
The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 204) Experimental Traffic Order 2020
The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 205) Experimental Traffic Order 2020
1. The Scheme was explained in writing to Residents by letter dated 12 August 2020 as being part of a temporary national response to a transport ‘emergency’. An order was made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s 14(1) on 12 August 2020 to this end. Residents were told that the reason for the scheme was an urgent need to adopt walking and cycling to combat an expected 40-50% rise in car traffic, and to introduce social distancing measures. There was no such rise in car traffic evidenced by any robust or independent information and no social distancing measures were installed.
2. Residents were not aware that an ETO (no 204) was substituted on 26 August 2020 for the closures provided in the original order, coming into force on 3 September, or that ETO (no.205) was made on 11 November.
3. The Borough failed to undertake a non-statutory consultation of local residents before proceeding either with the Temporary Order or the ETOs that succeeded it. Residents had a legitimate expectation that they would be consulted about an experimental traffic scheme which would have a significant impact on them, particularly as the ETOs were of a substantially different nature from the original Temporary Order. We considered that the letter of 12 August gave rise to such a legitimate expectation, that we would be consulted.
4. A prior consultation by online survey in November 2019 resulted in the rejection by a majority of respondents who are residents of two other versions of the same scheme to block vehicular traffic travelling between the A2 and A206. Residents, who formed the majority of all respondents (among whom a majority also rejected the schemes), held a legitimate expectation that the scheme would not be proceeded with or that the Borough would consult again before overriding their wishes.
5. The Borough consulted statutory consultees in July 2020 but ignored, failed fully to meet their requests to explain the scheme, and otherwise overrode their responses. The scheme consists of modal filters. The London Ambulance Service, The Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade objected to the exclusive use of modal filters because access to the area would be compromised and life, health and property would be endangered. It was wrongly suggested in the letter of 12 August to residents by the Borough that The Metropolitan Police supports the scheme.
6. The Borough failed to comply with procedural requirements to make the relevant documents available for public inspection.
7. The Borough failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for each Order as required by the Regulations. The statement of reasons as: 'to avoid danger' and 'facilitate passage on the road ... of any class of traffic including pedestrians', does not explain the pattern of road closures or take into account continuing free access of A2 traffic including large vehicles (which are a danger to pedestrians). The scant accident history of the blocked highways does not justify the reasons stated for the orders.
8. The Scheme was not a genuine experiment as required by section 9 of the RTRA 1984. The assumptions on which it may have been based as to increasing post-lockdown traffic failed to materialise. Due to pandemic conditions no experiment could be conducted due to unpredictable traffic flows.
9. The reduction in traffic throughout London during 2020 to date meant it was not possible to experience the ETO under normal conditions and as a result, participate in consultation about the ‘experiment’ while it has been in force.
10. The Borough has failed to respond to the impact of the Scheme on the following bus routes on GLA roads which have been affected by displaced traffic as a result: 386, 53, 188, 129, 108 177 180 286.
You can write to The Chief Executive, debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk, Transport-Strategy@royalgreenwich.gov.uk, and john.scarborough@royalgreenwich.gov.uk. (John Scarborough is Head of Legal Services.)
Our suggested letter
I write in response to your reply to my Formal Objections in connection with the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme.
On [1 March] 2021 I wrote to you to make Formal Objections to Experimental Traffic Orders made by Royal Borough of Greenwich. These formal objections are not an administrative complaint or ‘feedback’ on the operation of the scheme, but reasons why the statutory objections of the ETOs obtained have not been met.
You say my Objections are being dealt with “under stage 1 of the council’s corporate complaints procedure”. My Formal Objections should not be treated as administrative complaints. They are legal objections to the validity and content of the order and, as you know, should be made publicly available.
You also say: “In line with the statutory requirements of an experimental traffic order, correspondence and complaints received during the public engagement stage will also be considered”. Further “The Council will consider correspondence and complaints received in this period - like yours - as part of the analysis of responses of the wider West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise, so that they can be considered alongside other local feedback received”.
First, the Council has never launched or offered to residents or the public any exercise defined as ‘the wider West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise’.
Secondly, it is not up to Greenwich to decide that a statutory Formal Objection is the same as a complaint or personal feedback on how the scheme is affecting people.
The decision to draw a line under any responses to the scheme on 3 March is arbitrary and unfair to residents and stakeholders who have not been consulted.
Your letter is another attempt to confuse and cover up the true position.
The West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 14(1)
The Scheme was implemented on 20 August 2020, not 3 September as you state in your letter. There was no public consultation about the chosen scheme, before or after its implementation.
The Council wrote to local residents on 12 August 2020 informing them that a new traffic scheme would be installed to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. An Order was obtained by the Council on that date under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 14(1). Legislation creating section 14(1) was made by the Government to:
- “accommodate measures as part of the Council’s response to the Public Health considerations in connection to the COVID-19 pandemic” and
- “promote active travel to support the recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic”.
The letter of 12 August 2020 made serious and substantial misrepresentations about the scheme. It failed to disclose the true outcome of an online survey conducted in November 2019 on the closure of the area to the A2 via modal filters.
The Council did not bring in any of the measures defined by the Order or in the relevant section of the RTRA 1984 s 14(1) and the related Guidance on the Traffic Management Act 2004: network management in response to COVID-19. The measures should have provided among other things for a ‘school street’ on part of Royal Hill to protect pupils at James Wolfe Primary School from heavy traffic on the street at arrival and departure times. Royal Hill is outside the traffic barrier and has become a busy severance road as a result. No social distancing measures or support for pedestrian and cyclist safety were implemented. Turning by vehicles of all sizes creates risks within and outside the protected area. Residents had a reasonable expectation that the Council would provide COVID protections, and that it would do all in its power to avoid injury and harm (such as might arise as a result of the barrier arrangement, and which was the source of strenuous objection by the emergency services.)
Experimental Traffic Order 26 August 2020
Within a fortnight, on 26 August 2020, Greenwich substituted a new Experimental Traffic Order to provide legal validity for the road blocks, effectively dumping the obligation to provide COVID measures. Your ‘Statement of Reasons for the Order’ was not provided to me in time for administrative legal action to be taken. However, the Stated Reasons say the scheme is:
- “for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising,” and
- “to facilitate the passage on the road or any other roads of any class of traffic”.
Residents and stakeholders, and the public were not told that you switched the Order, and the purpose of the scheme. No information or evidence was provided. No consultation was carried out. The Council made the Order known in ‘The Gazette’ in the knowledge that very few would be aware of the change.
The purpose of the ETO differs radically from the purposes described in the letter of 12 August 2020 (which the Council’s website still repeats as an explanation for the scheme), and from the purpose of the Pandemic Emergency order (RTRA 1984 s 14(1)). This is misleading.
The scheme placed pedestrians within the area and on the periphery (to which all traffic – local and ‘through’ traffic - was displaced) at increased risk of accidents. Before the scheme, there was a negligible accident record within the area. Currently:
- There are regular collisions on Royal Hill, and ambulance and fire crews have told local residents that they have been delayed by the road blocks.
- There are dangerous turning movements by vehicles of all sizes close to modal filters and at the Gloucester Circus/Circus Street/Royal Hill junction.
- Gates restricting entry of large vehicles from the A2 at the Crooms Hill and Hyde Vale junction have been removed as part of the scheme.
- Blackheath Hill to which most local traffic has been diverted has the worst accident record in the Borough, and the Greenwich South Street/Blackheath Hill junction has no pedestrian phase at the lights, creating serious risks to pedestrians attempting to cross this busy, congested A road junction, and cyclists – for whom no provision has been made.
Residents, stakeholders and the public were not informed of the change in policy and regulation, the six-week window for statutory challenge, or the six-month window for Formal Objection under the ETO made on 26 August. That period for Formal Objection ended on 3 March 2021: this does not automatically mean that consultation is at an end. The Council has not stated when the decision will be taken except in response to Formal Objections such as the one I have received.
If there has been a West Greenwich Traffic Reduction Scheme public engagement exercise since 12 August 2020,
- - It has not effectively engaged with residents and other stakeholders.
- - It has not been open and transparent.
- - A date for the opening and/or closing of the engagement was not advertised (except after the period had ‘closed’).
- - The basis, objectives and evidence for the scheme were not disclosed, except as described in the letter of 12 August 2020.
- - It has only accommodated people with access to the internet.
The Leader of the Council has recently said that all should be consulted about schemes under consideration. However, the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme is the only scheme not included in the current online Greener Greenwich Consultation. This is despite that fact that traffic displaced from West Greenwich has caused increased traffic in East Greenwich, which the Council has believes is justification for the East Greenwich proposals. It is irrational of the Council to treat neighbouring areas differently in this respect.
I request that you immediately put in hand the open publication of Formal Objections to the Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (no.204) Traffic Order Experimental Traffic Order 2020.
I also request that you
- - Publish an explanation about the discrepancy in the policies underlying the road blocks that make up the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme,
- - State what accident records justify the ETO, both within the area, and on the peripheral, or displacement, roads (including Blackheath Hill, Maze Hill, Trafalgar Road and Greenwich South Street).
- - Provide this directly to residents and stakeholders who received the letter dated 12 August 2020, and
- - Publicise the same explanation on the Council’s website.
Yours sincerely,
Ms Debbie Warren
The Chief Executive
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Woolwich Town Hall,
Wellington Street,
Woolwich SE18 6PW
debbie.warren@royalgreenwich.gov.uk
Dear Ms Warren,
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Reference: 08-20 Hills and Vales ETO
I/we wish to make Formal Objections to the following Experimental Traffic Orders that govern the West Greenwich Traffic Management Scheme.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich obtained the following Orders to enable the scheme:
The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 204) Experimental Traffic Order 2020
The Greenwich (Prescribed Routes) (No. 205) Experimental Traffic Order 2020
1. The Scheme was explained in writing to Residents by letter dated 12 August 2020 as being part of a temporary national response to a transport ‘emergency’. An order was made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s 14(1) on 12 August 2020 to this end. Residents were told that the reason for the scheme was an urgent need to adopt walking and cycling to combat an expected 40-50% rise in car traffic, and to introduce social distancing measures. There was no such rise in car traffic evidenced by any robust or independent information and no social distancing measures were installed.
2. Residents were not aware that an ETO (no 204) was substituted on 26 August 2020 for the closures provided in the original order, coming into force on 3 September, or that ETO (no.205) was made on 11 November.
3. The Borough failed to undertake a non-statutory consultation of local residents before proceeding either with the Temporary Order or the ETOs that succeeded it. Residents had a legitimate expectation that they would be consulted about an experimental traffic scheme which would have a significant impact on them, particularly as the ETOs were of a substantially different nature from the original Temporary Order. We considered that the letter of 12 August gave rise to such a legitimate expectation, that we would be consulted.
4. A prior consultation by online survey in November 2019 resulted in the rejection by a majority of respondents who are residents of two other versions of the same scheme to block vehicular traffic travelling between the A2 and A206. Residents, who formed the majority of all respondents (among whom a majority also rejected the schemes), held a legitimate expectation that the scheme would not be proceeded with or that the Borough would consult again before overriding their wishes.
5. The Borough consulted statutory consultees in July 2020 but ignored, failed fully to meet their requests to explain the scheme, and otherwise overrode their responses. The scheme consists of modal filters. The London Ambulance Service, The Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade objected to the exclusive use of modal filters because access to the area would be compromised and life, health and property would be endangered. It was wrongly suggested in the letter of 12 August to residents by the Borough that The Metropolitan Police supports the scheme.
6. The Borough failed to comply with procedural requirements to make the relevant documents available for public inspection.
7. The Borough failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for each Order as required by the Regulations. The statement of reasons as: 'to avoid danger' and 'facilitate passage on the road ... of any class of traffic including pedestrians', does not explain the pattern of road closures or take into account continuing free access of A2 traffic including large vehicles (which are a danger to pedestrians). The scant accident history of the blocked highways does not justify the reasons stated for the orders.
8. The Scheme was not a genuine experiment as required by section 9 of the RTRA 1984. The assumptions on which it may have been based as to increasing post-lockdown traffic failed to materialise. Due to pandemic conditions no experiment could be conducted due to unpredictable traffic flows.
9. The reduction in traffic throughout London during 2020 to date meant it was not possible to experience the ETO under normal conditions and as a result, participate in consultation about the ‘experiment’ while it has been in force.
10. The Borough has failed to respond to the impact of the Scheme on the following bus routes on GLA roads which have been affected by displaced traffic as a result: 386, 53, 188, 129, 108 177 180 286.