<![CDATA[Eltham North Conservatives Local News]]> <![CDATA[Eltham North Conservatives]]> <![CDATA[ELTHAM REGENRATION AGENCY: FACT OR FICTION?]]>

Conservatives this week revealed that the Eltham Regeneration Agency promised by Labour as part of their budget in the spring has still yet to employ a single person.

The Eltham Regeneration Agency was proposed as part of Labour’s budget in February 2009 and should have received £250,000 a year for four years. Currently, not a single person has been employed and Conservatives can locate no evidence that any job has been advertised.

In addition, Eltham Conservatives have established that just before the February Council meeting, a decision was taken to make the Head of the Woolwich Regeneration Agency redundant at a cost to the taxpayer of around £50,000. The job of leading the Woolwich Regeneration Agency and that of leading the Eltham Regeneration Agency appears to be broadly similar.

Leader of Greenwich Conservatives and Eltham North Councillor Spencer Drury said “At the time I feared that the creation of an Eltham Regeneration Agency was simply another gimmick to try and buy votes in Eltham rather than a serious attempt to address our problems and reinvigorate our High Street. In fact the situation appears to be much worse.

For no one to have been employed as part of the Eltham Regeneration Agency some 5 months after the funding was agreed reflects a lack of commitment to the idea of improving Eltham. And to make redundant the person in charge of another regeneration agency, who had experience and was already on the Council’s payroll, when he could have been offered the Eltham role, suggests that there was simply no planning behind this scheme and typically for Labour, more taxpayers’ money has been wasted. 

 

Once again Labour are making big promises, but failing to deliver anything which might improve the High Street and quality of living for Eltham’s residents.”

 

 

]]> <![CDATA[Labour Council closes the Lido for the summer]]>

 

Conservatives last week revealed that the closure of Charlton Lido to the public for the summer is not to allow vital works (or refurbishment) to take place but because the Labour Council has failed to sign the right paperwork to allow a private firm to take over. According to a notice from Greenwich Council pinned to the gates stating that the Lido will remain closed for the next 18 months.

 
Conservative Councillor for Kidbrooke with Hornfair ward (where the lido is situated) Graeme Coombes has established that there are no works currently taking place at the lido and the closure has come occurred as the Council has failed to sign the lease over to Open Waters as yet. In fact the Charlton Lido Swimming Club are still using the facility, it is just the public that are not allowed in it.
 
The Lido is due a major refurbishment, but Greenwich Council has given virtually no publicity to the closure – just a brief note tucked away deep in the Council website - with the result that many people have turned up expecting to have a swim, not knowing that the Lido is closed. It is understood that Open Waters cannot obtain more funding until the lease has been signed, meaning that no work will even be started until the Council deals with the paperwork.  
 
Cllr Coombes, who is also Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group commented “It is truly astonishing - only Greenwich Council could decide to close an open air swimming pool as schools are also about to break up for the Summer holidays. Our young people, too often denied good sporting facilities in Greenwich, will be denied yet another local facility.
 
I am afraid that this is another example of the Labour Council hiding its inactivity and incompetence behind press releases and walls – from the outside, it is possible to imagine that work is taking place inside the Lido, however, I have established this is simply not the case.
 

Greenwich Conservative welcome the refurbishment of the Lido, but Labour in Greenwich are all talk and no action – they should either open the Lido or start the works, preferably opening the pool for the summer and then starting the works in the autumn. Surely this is just common sense?”

Eltham North Councillor and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich Spencer Drury said "Graeme is absolutely right about this.  I visit the Lido with my family when it is open and its closure will be a real loss to young people across the borough this summer.  I can't understand why this has happened and I hope that the Council responds to pressure from the Conservatives to sort this situation out within the next week.  Not content with demolishing the Eltham Lido, they have now closed the one which remains - in my opinion, Labour really don't have a clue how to run this borough."

]]> <![CDATA[London Bubble Theatre returns to Oxleas Woods]]> Cllr Spencer Drury writes: “Last night I visited Oxleas Meadow and Woods to watch the Odyssey which had been put on by the London Bubble Theatre Company. It was great to see them back after they missed last year following a funding cut and some question marks over whether they would survive.  
 
I think Oxleas is simply a great setting for the promenade plays that the Bubble Theatre puts on and the Odyssey was particularly suited to this as you felt you were mirroring Odysseus’ journey as you tramped around the woods in the gathering gloom. I loved sitting there looking out across the lights of Eltham as the final scene was played out in the near dark. 
 
I do hope more residents will visit the theatre as I understand it is now focusing its efforts on South East London. I was told there were 300 people there on Saturday night, which must have been an impressive sight. It is great to see our parks used in this way and I hope encourages the Council to make more effort to maintain them.” 
 
In January 2008 Cllr Drury laid a motion before Council supporting the London Bubble Theatre calling on the Arts Council to reconsider its decision to cut funding. The Bubble Theatre can be found at http://www.londonbubble.org.uk/.  
]]> <![CDATA[500 years of Eltham United Charities]]> On Sunday all three Eltham North Councillors and the Mayor of Greenwich attended the 500th anniversary of the creation of Eltham United Charities. 
 
Eltham United Charities (EUC) provides alms houses for elderly residents of Eltham and residents, trustees and friends gathered for the historic tea at Fifteen Penny Fields, located just behind Eltham High Street off of Blunts Road.
 
The charity formed when the first land was left in the will of John Passey in 1509, and has grown to now provide separate dwellings for 25 people.
 
Eltham North Councillor Dermot Poston (as the longest serving trustee) spoke to the gathering and celebrated the great contribution the charity has made over the years to the people of Eltham. 
 
Councillor Spencer Drury, who is also a trustee, stated “There are a couple of spaces in the alms houses at present and I do hope that older Eltham residents who would like to take advantage of this caring environment might enquire about moving in.” 
 
An application to move to the accommodation is available from the Warden, Pam Davis. 
 
]]> <![CDATA[Cllr Drury responds to dog control orders consultation]]> This weekend Eltham North Councillor Spencer Drury responded to Greenwich Council’s consultation on introducing new dog control orders. These rules will fine people who allow their dogs to foul the borough but fail to clean up after them and will require all dogs to be on a lead except in certain specified places.
 
Spencer said “I laid out my views in the letter to the Council which is shown below, however, I would urge all residents to respond as hopefully the Council will listen to their views to ensure that these control orders are workable and improve the quality of life in the borough.”
 
“From a personal point of view I quite agree with the fines for owners failing to clean up after their dogs however, I’m not convinced that keeping dogs on leads is the same as keeping dogs under control which is the real issue currently.”
 
Spencer’s letter reads:
 
“Dear Sir/Madam,
 
RE:      Response to Dog Control Orders Public Consultation
 
I write in response to the consultation on dog control orders. I write as a borough resident and ward Councillor, but the views expressed in this letter do not seek to represent the views of the Conservative Group in Greenwich, which may choose to take a different line if this issue should come to full Council. I should also indicate that I am a dog owner.
 
Before I comment, may I suggest that any report on dogs in the borough is accompanied by a clear set of statistics showing how many people have been attacked by dogs over the last few years and of these attacks how many occurred while the dogs were in the care of a dog walker?
 
While I am aware that there are five offences detailed in the consultation document, I do not intend to address my comments in the order of the offences, but in relation to issues which dog owners and non-dog owners may need to consider in the future. 
 
I am in complete agreement with the requirement that dog faeces should be immediately removed by owners/walkers. Leaving faeces across any public space is unpleasant and if anything I would wish to increase the fine on people who do not clear up after their dogs. My main concern in this area is that I am not convinced that it will be possible to enforce this, as there is not the manpower among PCSOs or park keepers to ensure that all culprits will be punished. What guarantees will Cabinet seek or put in place to ensure that enforcement is adequate to ensure these are not just more empty words?
 
On the other hand I think the requirement to keep dogs on a lead in all areas except those which the Council has indicated is unenforceable and should be abandoned. It seems to me that it will be almost impossible to ensure everyone knows exactly where the areas are that you are allowed to have dogs off a lead and as the legislation specifically states that “having a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an order” is a defence, I would have thought that not having seen a sign would allow almost every person caught under this proposal to escape without a fine. Similarly, as the Highway Code (and I think the Road Traffic Act) already states:
 
“Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.”
 
I cannot understand why the Council does not simply enforce this provision rather than worrying about introducing another one. 
 
I relation to this provision, there is also a failure to define what is meant by a lead. The long, extendable leads which many dog owners now mean that a dog on a lead may have just as much freedom as one off of a lead. Similarly, I am informed that in the United States many people now have short pieces of leather attached to a dogs collar which they claim are a lead but allow no control over the dogs. As a result, can I suggest that the Cabinet rejects this provision and focuses instead on dogs that are out of control.
 
I feel that proposals to introduce Dog Control Orders are missing the point to some extent. The issue now and for the future is the increasing number of irresponsible owners of dogs and the rise in illegal dog-fighting. I note reports that reported cases of dog fighting have risen by 1,000% in the last three years in the West Midlands and anecdotally I understand there has been a substantial increase in this sort of activity in London too. Surely the Council should use the focus on dogs to try and do something to address this more serious problem? Maybe some sort of licensing scheme or a clear reporting structure for the public if they believe that someone in their community is keeping a dangerous dog. 
 
I would urge the Council to consdier whether this consultation is a genuine attempt to address the problems faced by the vast majority of responsible dog owners or a cheap publicity stunt aimed at looking like you are doing something, but actually not achieving anything very meaningful. As the owner of a lovely Staffordshire Bull Terrier, I live in fear that another piece of ridiculous legislation like the Dangerous Dogs Act will be introduced, banning breeds of dog (like mine) for no better reason than no one has tried to think about how to stop irresonsible owners training their dogs to fight or failing to control their dogs. 
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Spencer Drury
Cllr for Eltham North”
 
Members of the public wishing to respond to the consultation or find out more details at http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/News/HomepageNews/consultation-Dog-Control-Orders.htm.
      
Or prior to 15th June write to:
 
Dog Control (Public Consultation)
Abbey Wood Neighbourhood Office
140 Eynsham Drive
Abbey Wood
London SE2 9PT
 
 
]]> <![CDATA[Methadone Clinic in Eltham?]]> May's SEnine magazine (www.senine.co.uk) carried an article about the establishment of a methadone clinic on Well Hall Road near to the station. The plans apparently meant that a 24 hour drug clinic would be created away from the main chemists to allow addicts to get their drugs in private.
 
Following the publication of the article, Cllr Spencer  Drury confirmed this week that this particular application has been withdrawn.  It appears however, that this will be a brief respite, for the Planners expect another one to be submitted in the near future.
 
Eltham North Conservatives understand that the situation is that the two pharmacies on Well Hall Road (which are owned by one family) are planning on drawing them both together into one larger premises at 136 Well Hall Road.  The methadone service is currently already supplied by their normal pharmacies, but the plans will separate the methadone supply away to another part of the chemists.  
 
Spencer said “This appears to be an unsatisfactory plan, not least because the idea of establishing a 24 hour drug supply in a residential area is unlikely to improve the quality of life for most residents. I do hope that the applicant modifies the plan sufficiently to ensure that there is not an adverse impact on the area around the new shop.”
 
Spencer has asked to be informed if and when the new application for establishing a methadone clinic is received and will pass on this information to residents as required.
]]> <![CDATA[ACE - Cllr Drury reports back]]> Last night I attended a meeting of the Association for Commerce in Eltham which brings together traders in the High Street to discuss issues that are important to them. The main part of the meeting was a question and answer session with the local MP Clive Efford, the Editor of SEnine Mark Wall and the Town Centre Manager Alison Harris. There were a range of issues discussed, from trying to establish what each business was paying for its shop, the litter which makes the High Street such a mess and why the government was allowing shops to remain empty by giving their landlords a rates holiday as normal traders struggled on.
 
It was interesting to meet so many traders and discuss with them the way the High Street is developing. I spoke with the new landlord for the Old Post Office pub, who hopes to reopen it as the OPO in the next few weeks. He hopes to find a market niche between the Banker’s Draft and the Park Tavern, which sounds an interesting prospect with Steeley Dan as the background music. I also met the lady who is signing a lease on the Tudor Barn who hopes to use it as a café, community space, meeting rooms and a restaurant in the evening. I also spoke with a range of already established businesses like the landlord of the Park Tavern and the director of Direct Health 2000 and learnt a lot about people’s views and concerns at the current time.
 
I think the forum was really useful, with an exchange of views and an effort by Mark Wall to ensure everyone was pushing a more positive line about Eltham.  I felt that everyone was a little unhappy that of the big stores only Sainsburys had sent a representative along. There was also a brief update on the current situation, the highlights of which were:-
 
v     There are currently 15 vacant business units in the main town centre.
v     London and Quadrant Housing Association have acquired the former Eltham Baths site and expects to submit a planning application for it in the near future which should include some sheltered housing for the elderly.
v     Greenwich Enterprise Board has submitted a planning application to redevelop the former Orangery as a new 2 storey building with space for 11 start up businesses.
]]> <![CDATA[Consultation delayed: update]]> In an update to the consultation which was mentioned in the previous post, it appears that the Council has fallen somewhat behind schedule on this issue. 

Cllr Spencer Drury received confirmation that the letters had not been sent out last week but that they should be sent to local residents next week (week beginning 6th April). 

Cllr Dermot Poston also attended the Eltham Park Residents' Association Annual General Meeting where the issue was discussed and a full range of views expressed.

Once again if residents do not receive their consultation letters, please could they inform Cllr Drury or Cllr Poston as soon as possible so that replacements can be sent out.

]]> <![CDATA[Speed Table proposed for Westmount Road]]> Greenwich Council are currently sending out a consultation document to ask residents about their opinions concerning the construction of a speed table at the junction of Glenlea Road and Westmount Road (where there is currently a mini-roundabout). 

One of the major concerns with this kind of consultation is that all interested parties receive a questionnaire to allow them to express their opinions.  If you do want to respond, but do not have a questionnaire, please contact Councillor Spencer Drury as soon as possible. 

The replies must reach the Council by no later than 30th March.

]]> <![CDATA[Labour reject Conservative proposals for increased police numbers and reduced council tax]]>

 

At Wednesday's Budget meeting Labour and Liberal Democrat members voted against Conservative proposals to create a ‘Town Centre Police Team’ in the borough and to reduce Council Tax.  

The proposal to create a ‘Town Centre Police Team’ based in Eltham for this financial year, to be followed by another in Greenwich in 2010 was made by Conservative Leader Cllr Spencer Drury.  The purpose of the teams, each of which would be composed of one sergeant, two PCs and three PCSOs, would focus on dealing with the specific problems confronting the High Street and Greenwich Town Centre.  
 
Cllr Drury said ”Currently the Safer Neighbourhood Teams for Eltham North and Greenwich West find themselves focused on dealing with Eltham High Street and Greenwich Town Centre rather than the problems of residents in and around their wards, which means residents get a lower level of coverage than elsewhere.  This proposal would have helped reduce crime and improve the number of patrols in town centres and in Eltham North & Greenwich West.  We felt that funds could be found for the police team in Eltham immediately and would aim to reduce the publicity budget to provide extra police in Greenwich West as soon as possible.”
 
The proposal to decrease Council Tax by 0.5% was made by Conservative Finance Spokesman Cllr Andy Jennings who said “Whilst we welcome the fact that no Council Tax increase was proposed, we feel that there is scope to begin reducing the burden of taxation on local people.  The Council has shown over the last year that in difficult economic times it is prepared to spend thousands of pounds of residents’ money on business class trips to China, on doubling the frequency of its propaganda newspaper and on pointless attempts to upstage the Mayor of London at the opening of Woolwich Arsenal DLR station.  A reduction in tax would be an acknowledgement to local people that we are serious about starting to cut out some of this unnecessary spending at a time when they are trying to make their own household budgets balance.”
 
Cllr Drury said “Both of these proposals could be financed with affecting any frontline services.  Labour did not accept that more police were their responsibility although they provided them in Woolwich and on the Ferrier Estate.  I think their priorities are wrong and the fact they admit we need more police, but will not fund them reflects the muddled thinking of this Council.”
]]>