At a time when the Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson chose to fly in the cheaper economy class, Greenwich Council flew Councillors and officials to China for the second time this year.  The size of the party is one of the largest in London, exceeding the Newham delegation where the Olympic Park is being built in 2012.

Ironically the Labour Council claims that the trip is to ’help promote Greenwich’, but has funded the trips by delaying recruitment of a Head of Tourism for the borough.  In recent years, the Labour Council has also cut funding to the Chinese Community School in Greenwich.

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury said “At a time when residents are facing increased bills for food, heating and Council services, I think this is a completely inappropriate use of taxpayers money.  Labour have got their priorities all wrong.” 

At the same time Greenwich Council has chosen for a second year to hire a box at the O2.  In the first year this cost almost £100,000 at a time when a programme of £24 million of cuts have been implemented in Council services.

In addition, following Boris Johnson’s victory in Greenwich in May, Labour has chosen to double the number of issues of their propaganda paper ’Greenwich Time’,  to allow the Council to publicise itself and paper over any problems.  Taxpayers are footing the bill for the extra papers.

Similarly, the Times reported in February, that Erith and Thamesmead MP John Austin claimed £22,110 last year for a flat in Rotherhithe despite living in South East London.

On Wednesday (23^rd July) GLA assembly member Gareth Bacon joined Eltham North ward Councillor Spencer Drury to meet with 31 residents of Archery Road in Eltham to discuss reducing car speeds along their road.

            AM Bacon was invited by Cllr Drury as part of an on-going campaign to have speed humps installed in the road which has involved petitions to Greenwich Council, on-site meetings with Council Officers and the Deputy Leader of the Council and letters to the local MP and Assembly Member.

            Residents informed the GLA member of the high speeds along the residential road even when cars were parked on both sides re-telling a number of stories of dangerous driving.  AM Bacon promised to raise the matter with the Mayor of London, but expressed his disappointment that Greenwich Council had not submitted a bid for speed humps to Transport for London (TfL)

            AM Gareth Bacon said “I do not understand Greenwich Council’s refusal to support residents by submitting a bid for traffic calming along Archery Road.  Residents clearly want speed restrictions and with a primary school, the Eltham Centre and the station all adjacent to the road there must surely be an argument for the speed humps.  The Labour Council is clearly failing the residents of Archery Road.”

            Archery Road resident and campaign co-ordinator Bob Gillespie said “We’re really pleased that Gareth could come and speak with residents.  We have invited both our MP and local Assembly Member but neither has found the time to visit yet.  Even according to the Council’s survey, thousands of cars are speeding down this road each year – something has to be done before there is a serious accident.”

It appears that the Co-op building which has been empty for over a year now have been temporarily leased until January 2009 to Pound Land Ltd and the store should open today (Thursday).  It is understood that the temporary nature of the lease indicates that there is an intention to lease the building to a different retailer in the future, but there are no further details available at present.

At Lidls, it appears that the delays may finally be ending as the dispute with neighbouring building owners over access to the site has been resolved.  The final legal documentation still needs to be sorted out, but Lidls apparently hope to be back on site in the next few weeks.

In addition, residents may be interested to know that 253 Eltham High St  (formerly Cray Pharmaceuticals) is under offer by a firm of estate agents, 220 High Street (formerly Showells) has been granted planning permission to switch to a restaurant from a retail outlet and 199 Eltham High Street (formerly Learn Direct) is due to reopen shortly as Cash and Cheque Express.  Residents will also be aware that the application to redevelop the Grove Market Place by Eltham Renaissance was refused at Planning Board on 26 June.

The National Challenge launched by the Labour government has left at least four Greenwich secondary schools facing closure if their exam results don’t improve.

The National Challenge requires every secondary school in England to have at least 30% of their students achieving 5 A*-C grades at GCSE including English and Maths.  In Greenwich, based on their performance in 2007, this means Woolwich Polytechnic, Kidbrooke School and Eltham Green could be closed if they do not improve (with the soon to close Abbey Wood school also on the list).  In addition, Blackheath Blucoats (31%), Crown Woods (32%) and Plumstead Manor (32%) were perilously close to failing according to the Government’s measure.

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury said “While Labour in Greenwich locally shy away from their failure to educate our children, the national government is quite clear that removing schools from LEA control is the way forward.” 

“This Labour Councillors have blamed parents, teachers and opposition Councillors rather than admit their own failings – a change of approach is badly needed if we are to improve from among the worst in the country at GCSE.”

CONSERVATIVES have called on Labour to come clean about exactly how much it spends on its newsletter Greenwich Time as the council starts delivering it weekly.  There has been no public statement about the extra cost of delivering 48 issues to every household in the borough and it was not specifically approved as part of the Council’s budget.

The increase in spending is all the more remarkable as in the last set of figures for all London boroughs, Greenwich was estimated to have the most expensive Council publication in the capital.  According to Ken Livingstone (when Mayor) Greenwich spent 25p per household on Greenwich Time in 2006 which amounts to £715,000pa. 

Leader of the Greenwich Conservatives, Cllr Spencer Drury said “At a time when we are all feeling the pinch with rising prices and below inflation pay rises, Labour’s decision to spend even more money on its propaganda newspaper is a disgrace and a slap in the face for tax payers in Greenwich.

“I am astonished when millions of pounds are being cut from Council services, Labour thinks it can justify spending yet more on propaganda.  This Council is all talk – every word of which is paid for by residents.”

At the March Council meeting Eltham North Councillor Spencer Drury presented a petition signed by over 650 people opposing the closure of the Sub Post Office at 263 Eltham High Street. 

At the Council meeting Spencer also asked the Labour Deputy Leader if the Council had considered the scheme proposed by Essex County Council to help keep Post Offices open, but while the Council had previously spoken to the Post Office with regard to the Crown Post Office in Woolwich, there had been no discussions with regard to Eltham.

In addition, Spencer has written to the Post Office (enclosing the petition) to object to the closure suggesting that the parade of shops needs the Post Office open if it is to remain economically viable and that the Post Office is an important part of the community.  Spencer also suggested that the business case for closure could be faulty if it considered the period immediately prior to Christmas as many people using the Eltham Centre now park in the roads around the Post Office making access more difficult and this may change after the temporary traffic order is reviewed in a few months time.

The presentation of the petition follows Conservative support for a  Labour motion which expressed ‘profound regret’ at the Post Office’s decision to close five Post Offices in Greenwich borough. 

Spencer said “I do hope that the objections of so many in the local community are listened to as the Post Office is essential to the continued survival of this section of Eltham High Street.  Apart from providing essential services, especially for the elderly, the Post Office draws customers to a parade where too many shops are already empty.”

“I was very concerned during the Council meeting to hear that the Council have yet to formally respond to the Post Office consultation which closes next Wednesday.  In theory there is a clear procedure for the Council to submit a response which it cannot now undertake.  If there is no response, the Council has let down the people of Greenwich as the Post Office will assume that it does not care about the proposed closures.” 

“When you consider that our local MP Clive Efford chose not to support a Conservative motion in Parliament to stop the Post Office closures, as 19 other Labour MPs did, I do question whether the Labour Party is really committed to defending our Post Offices.”

At February’s full Council meeting reports were received on petitions presented by Eltham North Councillor Spencer Drury on behalf of residents of Archery Road.  The two petitions requested a width restriction at the end of Glenlea Road (to prevent lorries and coaches using the road as a cut through) and humps along the road (to reduce the speed traffic was travelling at).

Initial conclusions were formed by the Council using a September/October 2006 traffic survey, which was described as ‘classified’.  The survey suggested around 3.5% of vehicles were large vans and a further 40 were larger vehicles but it was not possible to establish how large these were.  In addition, the traffic survey suggested that 85% of vehicles were travelling at less than 27.5mph. 

The response to the request for a width restriction was slightly more positive with the Council agreeing to undertake a visual survey to check the types of coaches and lorries using the road.  There was also a suggestion that delivery vehicles should not be using Archery Road to get to the High Street.

The second petition, requesting speed humps, was rejected, on the grounds that there had only been three personal injury accidents in the area between 2001 and 2006. 

Councillor Spencer Drury addressed the Council regarding the petition, stating that residents were united in their wish for speed humps and their view, together with that of the school crossing patrol man and staff at the local school should carry substantial weight.  He requested that the Council repeat the traffic survey at the mid-point of the road and suggested that the last paragraph of the report, stating “no further action be taken…until such time as the area has been identified for attention within the Council’s Road Safety Plan.” Meant there would have to be accidents before the Council did anything.

Following the acceptance of the petition, Deputy Leader of the Council Peter Brooks undertook to visit Archery Road to see the problems first hand.

Spencer said “I am very sorry that the Council has chosen to ignore the requests of residents as I fear there will be accidents along Archery Road.  I hope that Cllr Brooks visit will lead to a change of heart.”

Conservatives put forward a motion rejecting the proposed cuts to services and suggesting that staff at hospitals in Greenwich, Lewisham and Bexley had all worked hard to address the budget problems which faced them.  In addition, Conservatives noted that the increasing population in Greenwich and cuts at other hospitals meant that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) needed more capacity, not less.  The cuts to all Planned Surgery and Children’s services at the QEH were specifically opposed.  In conclusion, Conservatives stated that the Council should reject the cuts on behalf of the people of the borough.

However, the Labour Council refused to accept the proposal, voting to cut short the debate before everyone had spoken and silencing the Conservative Group Leader, Cllr Spencer Drury, midway through a speech.  Labour preferred instead to boast of their own government’s achievements and ask that everyone contribute to the consultation of the cuts. 

Greenwich Conservatives Group leader Cllr Spencer Drury said “I was shocked Labour did not vote for our motion – the only conclusion I can draw is that they welcome these cuts and are placing the welfare of the Labour Party above the welfare of the people of Greenwich.

“The fact they cut short the debate reflects how little they are prepared to listen to the views of others and makes me question how effective the consultation exercise will be.  While Labour are sticking their heads in the sand, Conservatives in Bexley are fighting hard for their hospital and residents – if Labour continue to run scared of standing up for this borough, we could lose even more services.”

The plans, which were heard by the Labour Cabinet in Greenwich on Tuesday, mean the Labour Council will reallocate over half of its £6m budget for Special Educational Needs on the basis of prior attainment rather than the requirements of individual pupils.  This means, (according to the report going to Cabinet) “those schools which admit high numbers of pupils with low levels of achievement receiving more funding for those pupils than those schools which admit relatively low numbers of underachieving pupils.”

Put simply, money will be reallocated away from individual children who need extra help and given to schools which are underachieving

When Greenwich Council consulted on the proposals, the new arrangements were rejected by parents who attended the meetings – although their views appear to have been ignored.

Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury said “This is disgusting. The new arrangements will punish schools for doing well – high achievement will lead to less funds.  This could have particularly devastating effects on primary schools (especially smaller ones) where the reduction in funding could lead to staff losses.  The four primary schools in Eltham North are particularly vulnerable to these changes and Labour seems unconcerned by the potential impact of their policy.

“I am also against the proposals on principle – if a child has special educational needs and requires more help and resources, then these should be given regardless of your parent’s income or the fact you happen to go to a good school.

“We are urging this Labour council to think again about their misguided policy which will punish good schools and adversely affect the children who genuinely need extra help”

Spencer attended the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, where he gave the following speech (please check this against delivery):

“Thank you for this opportunity to speak.  I am here this evening principally as a ward Councillor.

I would ask Cabinet to reject these proposals.  I am not against plans to focus some funding on schools which have poorer achievement (and I believe that there is already some funding available for this purpose and to help schools cope with high levels of mobility among pupils) but I am completely opposed to asking schools which are doing well to help fund the increased spending. 

In this regard, my comments this evening are focused almost exclusively upon primary schools, where I believe the impact of these proposals on small, good primary schools is potentially damaging. 

My concerns focus on a number of points.

The first is that the consultation was poorly done – nationally Cabinet Office guidance states that 12 weeks minimum is good practice for public consultations – this consultation was shorter (only 4 weeks) and failed to respond to the rejection of the proposals by those consulted.  Indeed I find the dismissal of concerns expressed by so many parents at St Marys – which is after all one of our top primary schools – quite disturbing as they reveal something about this Councils attitude to residents of Eltham. 

On a similar front, I do not think that officers consulted widely enough when designing these plans, with no school from the top 10 primary schools in the borough being asked to contribute to the SEN (Funding) Strategy Group.  In my opinion, this means that the range of views which should have been aired while designing the proposals were not heard and I would ask Cabinet members to question officers to establish why 20 hours was chosen as the cut off point below which SEN funding will not be given.

I think the actual proposals are also flawed.  It is my understanding, and I have checked this with officers, that a school will receive funding initially on deprivation levels among it students, but after Key Stage 1 this will switch to prior achievement.  This means that a school which has deprived students, but does a good job of raising their attainment at Key Stage 1 could lose money as a result of doing well.  This is a perverse incentive system and I wonder if schools won’t find themselves in a race to the bottom to achieve extra funding.

I am also against these proposals on principle.  At present students are allocated funds to help with their individual special educational needs – this is the sort of individual education plan or personalised learning which the government says it favours.  The new system is a formulaic system which switches funding from the individual’s needs to a general set of criteria.  So students who would previously have received extra help will not do so as if they go to a good school there will not be the funds available to help them.  Indeed even at a school with poor prior attainment, there will be no link between the funds and the needs of the individual pupil – in my opinion this is a poorer situation which will leave those students who need help in the future in a worse situation than those today. 

I am aware that the statmenting system is laborious & costly and would happily support attempts to streamline it, but the proposal before you tonight is mistaken and should be rejected.”

The Labour Cabinet accepted the proposals unanimously.    

The statement that Greenwich is among the top 83% with its 3* rating for overall services and among the top 75% who are improving well or strongly seems fairly meaningless, but the comparisons of individual services reveal serious weaknesses in Greenwich’s provision.  Greenwich received low scores for Social Care (adults) and the Environment – where it is among the worst 28 Councils out of 150 nationally.  Similarly for Housing (in the worst 33) or Culture (in the worst third) Greenwich scores poorly.

Greenwich was top rated only for Use of Resources and Benefits.

Greenwich Conservatives leader Councillor Spencer Drury said “The publication of these national results show how hollow Labour’s boasts of excellence in Greenwich are.  It is true we are not among the worst overall, but we are definitely not among the best.  Indeed in key areas like Social Care, the Environment and Housing, which have a real impact on the quality of life of residents, Greenwich scores poorly.”

“The facts are that none of the top London Councils are run by Labour and 60% are Conservative.  Only Conservative Councils consistently deliver good services and value for residents.”