Greenwich Council Defends £640k CPZ Consultation After Plans Scrapped

Key Points

• Greenwich Council has revealed it spent £640,000 on public consultation for its Sustainable Streets proposals, which included new controlled parking zones (CPZs) and wider parking changes across the borough.​
• The Sustainable Streets scheme was widely criticised by residents and local campaigners, with many branding it an unpopular “cash‑grab” focused on raising revenue through parking charges and permits.​
• The project proposed controlled parking and paid‑for bays in several areas including Shooters Hill, Plumstead, Charlton, Kidbrooke, Blackheath and Thamesmead, as well as the introduction of EV charging points and car club bays.​
• Greenwich Council has defended the £640k consultation expenditure, arguing that without such spending it would have been attacked for failing to give residents “a proper voice” on major transport changes.​
• The Sustainable Streets scheme has now been mostly scrapped or significantly scaled back following strong public opposition, although the council says lessons from the consultation will inform future transport and parking plans.​
• According to the council, all money raised from the Sustainable Streets measures, including parking charges, is ring‑fenced and can only be used for transport purposes, such as funding the Freedom Pass concessionary travel scheme.​
• Critics have questioned both the scale of the consultation cost and the council’s priorities at a time of financial pressure on local services, suggesting the money could have been better used elsewhere.​
• Supporters of stricter parking controls and sustainable transport measures argue that well‑designed CPZs, EV infrastructure and car‑club spaces are necessary to cut congestion and emissions across Greenwich.​
• The council has said it “learned a lot” from residents’ feedback and intends to use this insight when drawing up future transport schemes to make streets more sustainable while addressing local concerns.​
• The row highlights the broader tension facing London boroughs between raising income from parking, meeting climate and air‑quality goals, and maintaining public support for large‑scale traffic and parking changes.​

Greenwich (South London News) January 31, 2026 – Greenwich Council has come under scrutiny after confirming it spent £640,000 on consultation for its widely unpopular Sustainable Streets controlled parking scheme, most of which has since been dropped following a fierce backlash from residents across multiple neighbourhoods.​

Why did Greenwich Council spend £640k on the Sustainable Streets consultation?

As reported by MyLondon’s transport and local government team, Greenwich Council disclosed that the consultation on its Sustainable Streets proposals cost £640,000, covering the design, administration and analysis of an extensive borough‑wide engagement exercise. The council’s leadership has insisted that this level of spending was necessary because the plans represented one of the most far‑reaching transport and parking overhauls in the borough for many years, requiring detailed input from tens of thousands of households.​

According to MyLondon’s coverage, council officials and cabinet members argued that they would have been heavily criticised had they pushed ahead with major changes to parking arrangements and street layouts without first conducting an in‑depth consultation. As reported by MyLondon, Greenwich Council stated that the consultation allowed it to “learn a lot” from what residents and businesses actually wanted before any final decisions were taken on the shape of Sustainable Streets.​

MyLondon’s reporting explains that the £640k sum related specifically to gathering views on the Sustainable Streets project and did not include the cost of any physical works or enforcement. The authority is understood to have used specialist consultation and data‑analysis support to deal with the volume of responses and to map attitudes across areas such as Shooters Hill, Plumstead, Charlton, Kidbrooke, Blackheath and Thamesmead.​

What was the Sustainable Streets project meant to change?

As set out in MyLondon’s report on Greenwich’s transport plans, the Sustainable Streets project was launched in late 2024 as a comprehensive attempt to reshape parking and street use across large parts of the borough. The scheme was marketed by the council as a way to “prioritise parking for residents and businesses”, while also enabling new features aimed at promoting more sustainable forms of travel.​

According to MyLondon, under the initial proposals Greenwich Council sought to introduce or expand controlled parking measures across several districts, including controlled parking zones (CPZs), paid‑for parking bays and resident permit requirements. Areas singled out for changes included Shooters Hill, Plumstead, Charlton, Kidbrooke, Blackheath and Thamesmead, where existing parking arrangements were described as inconsistent or under pressure.​

MyLondon’s coverage explains that alongside parking controls, Sustainable Streets was intended to deliver new infrastructure such as on‑street EV charging points and dedicated car club bays, designed to reduce private car ownership and support the transition to cleaner vehicles. The council framed these elements as part of a wider strategy to cut congestion, improve air quality and make neighbourhoods safer and more accessible, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.​

Why did residents brand the plans a “cash‑grab”?

As reported by MyLondon’s transport correspondent in previous coverage, many residents were deeply sceptical of the council’s motives and labelled the project a “cash‑grab”, arguing that the real aim was to raise more revenue from parking charges and permits. Critics quoted by MyLondon suggested that the scale of proposed CPZs and paid‑for bays went far beyond what was necessary to tackle parking problems, and would instead hit households already struggling with the cost of living.​

MyLondon’s reporting highlights that for some residents, the introduction of controlled zones in areas where parking had traditionally been free felt like an unnecessary financial burden imposed by the town hall, particularly in parts of Plumstead, Shooters Hill and Thamesmead. Opponents also warned that visitors, carers and tradespeople would face additional costs or restrictions, potentially affecting local businesses and everyday life.​

However, as MyLondon notes, Greenwich Council consistently rejected the “cash‑grab” accusation and emphasised that any money generated from the Sustainable Streets measures could not simply be diverted into the general budget. The authority repeatedly stressed that income from parking‑related schemes is legally ring‑fenced and may only be spent on transport‑related initiatives, including concessionary travel and upkeep of the local network.​

How has Greenwich Council defended the consultation cost and funding claims?

As reported by MyLondon, Greenwich Council has mounted a robust defence of both the £640k consultation bill and the principle behind the Sustainable Streets scheme, even as much of the project has been scrapped. Council leaders argue that the consultation provided a genuine opportunity for residents to make their views known and that this feedback directly shaped the decision to scale back or abandon large parts of the original plan.​

According to the same MyLondon article, the council has been keen to stress that the funding arrangements for any future Sustainable Streets‑style measures are tightly constrained by law. Greenwich Council has “continually stated” that all money raised from the scheme is ring‑fenced, meaning it can only be spent on specified transport purposes such as the Freedom Pass scheme, which offers free or discounted travel for older and disabled Londoners.​

As reported by MyLondon, the authority has argued that if it had not invested significantly in consultation, it would now be facing criticism for imposing controversial changes without listening to the community. Council representatives have also suggested that the insights gathered will inform more targeted and better‑designed interventions in future, making it less likely that money will be wasted on unwanted or unworkable schemes.​

What parts of the Sustainable Streets scheme have been scrapped or changed?

MyLondon’s coverage makes clear that the Sustainable Streets project is now “mostly scrapped”, with many of the most contentious proposals dropped after residents’ responses came in overwhelmingly negative in several areas. This includes plans for extensive new CPZs and paid‑parking areas in districts where local people argued there was no clear evidence of parking chaos or a need for such strict regulation.​

As reported by MyLondon, Greenwich Council has not, however, abandoned all elements linked to sustainable transport and parking reform. Some measures, such as EV charging points and a more modest expansion of car club provision, are expected to reappear in revised form within future strategies that draw more heavily on the specific concerns and suggestions raised during consultation.​

The MyLondon article states that the authority sees the exercise as a learning process, even if the immediate political fallout has been uncomfortable. By “learning a lot” from residents, the council says it can now refine where and how it introduces parking controls, potentially focusing on streets and neighbourhoods that clearly back CPZs to tackle commuter parking, rather than applying a blanket model.​

What impact has the controversy had on local politics and residents’ trust?

According to MyLondon’s reporting, the revelation of a £640k consultation spend on a largely abandoned scheme has sparked renewed debate in Greenwich about spending priorities and public trust in the council’s decision‑making. Residents who opposed Sustainable Streets have questioned why such a costly exercise was pursued when the end result has been little change on the ground in many areas, arguing that the funds could have been channelled into frontline services or more targeted traffic improvements.​

MyLondon notes that the episode has highlighted a wider dilemma for local authorities: ambitious climate and transport policies often demand complex, borough‑wide engagement processes, which are expensive and time‑consuming but politically safer than imposing top‑down change. Greenwich Council’s assertion that it would otherwise be attacked for not giving people “a proper voice” reflects a recognition of how sensitive parking and traffic schemes have become across London.​

As reported in the same coverage, the council is now seeking to rebuild confidence by signalling that future proposals will be more clearly rooted in local evidence and shaped by the feedback already gathered. Officials are expected to stress continuity in the long‑term goal of more sustainable streets, while being more cautious about how quickly they roll out controversial CPZs or significant new charges in neighbourhoods that have already voiced strong opposition.​

What happens next for transport and parking policy in Greenwich?

MyLondon’s article indicates that while the initial Sustainable Streets package has largely been shelved, Greenwich Council still intends to pursue policies aimed at making transport more sustainable and streets more liveable over the coming years. The authority is likely to bring forward revised, smaller‑scale schemes that focus on specific hotspots for congestion, parking stress or safety issues, rather than attempting a sweeping transformation in one go.​

According to MyLondon’s reporting, any future proposals will draw heavily on the information collected during the £640k consultation, including detailed data on where residents feel parking controls would be helpful and where they are strongly opposed. This could result in a more patchwork approach to CPZs, EV infrastructure and car‑club bays, aligning interventions with local demand and thereby reducing the risk of another borough‑wide backlash.​

As MyLondon notes, the council will also need to balance its financial realities with political and environmental pressures, given that ring‑fenced income from parking and related schemes often underpins key transport services such as the Freedom Pass. The Sustainable Streets episode has therefore become a test case in how far London boroughs can go in reshaping travel behaviour while maintaining public consent, especially at a time when household budgets are under strain and trust in institutions is fragile.​