Long long ago, 23rd June 2011 to be precise, Councillor Peter Craske who was at the time Cabinet Member for Public Realm
labelled Greenwich Council “disgraceful” for invoking the GLA Act to prevent Bexley from sorting out
the traffic problems in County Gate. The Act allows an
adjacent borough to ask the GLA to arbitrate if one borough’s actions is likely to impact adversely on another.
The News Shopper reporter heard him say it because she had been tipped off that that the notorious blogger known as Olly Cromwell was likely to be in the chamber. Bexley Council had accused Olly of harassment only the month before, his ‘crime’ was posting articles on Bexley is Bonkers. It wasn’t true then and it wouldn’t be true now, but when has the truth been a Bexley Council priority?
In the event the meeting was a relatively quiet affair except for Councillor Craske's outburst. It earned him front page coverage in the next issue of the newspaper. He was quoted as saying that “Greenwich insisted Bexley should pay for it”. ‘It’ being sorting out the problems that Greenwich thought might arise on their side of the border if Bexley rearranged County Gate.
A couple of years later the boot was on the other foot. Greenwich wanted to put a Controlled Parking Zone close to Falconwood station. Commuter parking was causing a problem in Colepits Wood Road (Greenwich).
Bexley Council objected on the grounds that commuter parking would be displaced into Bexley and used the GLA Act. The Mayor's office told the two boroughs to sort things out amicably but that has proved impossible.
Bexley's self imposed rules for creating a Controlled Parking Zone effectively means that further CPZs are banned in the borough. There have been no new ones for five years. If Bexley residents want one they must pay all the costs involved themselves.
The impasse is to be discussed yet again by Greenwich Council next week.
Scroll or click to see complete source document. Go to Page 6.
Bexley may have a reasonable case for not creating a new CPZ at Falconwood
but when Greenwich Council did something similar it was “disgraceful”. In 2011
Greenwich Council said if Bexley wanted to help its residents it must pay for
any alterations needed in Greenwich too. This time Greenwich is saying that
Bexley must pay for the rearrangements that would be required in Bexley if
Greenwich does what it wants to do. Greenwich presumably operates a heads we win
tails you lose policy. Maybe it is
how they keep
their Council Tax down.
They are both as bad as each other.
From a suggestion by the author of the 853blog.