Readers may be aware that the government’s plans for taking control of the roads around the Olympic venues in 2012 were put out to consultation earlier this year. I hope that readers are also aware that the Labour Cabinet failed to agree a response within the deadline, but Council officers appear to have sent off an unapproved response prior to councillors seeing it. To my knowlege, no local residents’ groups or other relevant bodies were consulted in forming the Council's response. As Leader of the Conservative Opposition I responded prior to the deadline, and last week received the letter which is laid out below. The letter gives little detail, but I was alarmed to hear that the roads would be designated on 22nd July this year, meaning the Council’s lackadaisical response, is all that will be considered – it is no wonder that they are asking for further consultation in the latest edition of Pravda (Greenwich Time). From July 22nd, however, it appears that the government will be negotiating directly with local businesses and individuals, making the failure of our Council to do its job properly the first time round even more apparent.
 
The letter reads:
 
“Dear Sir/Madam,
 
Designation of the Olympic Route Network
 
Thank you for responding to the Department's consultation at the end of last year on the roads proposed to be included in the Olympic Route Network (ORN). The ORN is a network of roads between venues and accommodation to be used during the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games by vehicles carrying the athletes, officials and media who are at the heart of the Games.
 
I am writing to let you know that the Secretary of State has today laid an Order in Parliament designating the roads that will form the ORN. The Order comes into force on 22 July 2009. The formal effect of designation is to give the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) powers to approve planned road works on the ORN, and to make Traffic Regulation Orders on the ORN roads and designate additional ORN roads subject to consultation and the Secretary of State's consent.
 
The text of the Order, maps indicating the ORN routes, a report on the consultation responses and the Government's response to the issues raised are available on the Department’s website at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/orndesignation.  If you would like hard copies of any of these documents please contact me at the above address.
 
A number of changes have been made to the roads in the ORN in the light of the consultation responses. The Government's response also sets out the ODA's plans, starting this summer, to engage and consult with residents, businesses and other stakeholders on the design, implementation and operation of the traffic management measures to be applied on the ORN roads during the Games. If, in your response, you asked to be contacted by ODA to discuss these measures, ODA will be in contact with you direct.
 
The ODA has created a page on the London 2012 website to provide further information about its plans and a dedicated email address for enquiries: olympicroutenetwork@london2012.com
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Colin Poole”

Ans: When it is in Greenwich
 
CONSERVATIVES in Greenwich revealed today the level of deception and incompetence in the Labour run council after it has delayed the construction of new schools in the “Building Schools for the Future” (BSF) programme.
 
Despite Labour claiming they have started work on the new schools, nothing has happened. According to the government, every other authority in Phase One of the BSF programme, has built at least one school and some have finished all of their schools.
 
Greenwich Labour council promised that these five new schools would be open in the autumn of this year, but the programme is already massively behind schedule and a brick hasn’t been laid.   The only thing Labour has done is put up a hoarding at Thomas Tallis which hides the fact that no building is happening behind it.
 
Adding to the problems in Greenwich is the fact that the council has delayed so long that it may not now be able to afford to build all the schools and is focusing instead on Thomas Tallis and Crown Woods. A report to the Labour Cabinet (labelled urgent) on 14th April 2009, stated “Commencement of construction prior to the end of April is essential to the completion of these schools during the 2010/2011 Academic Year”.
 
Greenwich Conservatives have now established that after the report, apart from the erection of a hoarding on the site of Thomas Tallis, there appears to be no building work happening.  Behind the hoarding, the site has not been cleared.
 
Leader of Greenwich Conservatives Cllr Spencer Drury said: “There is something badly wrong when the Council can’t manage to even start building one new school in Greenwich and most others have completed and opened at least one. 
 
 “Labour claim they have started construction yet the only thing they have done, which they called urgent, is to erect a hoarding around Thomas Tallis (which conveniently hides the lack of work behind it), paint the hoarding in Greenwich Council colours and not even clear the site to start work.   
 
“I feel this is deceitful and disrespectful to the people of Greenwich. The education of hundreds of children is being put at risk by the incompetence of this council. Labour is intent on borrowing even more money – jus like the government. Labour can’t be trusted with the education of our children and we need to get rid of them at every level of government.”
 

 

 
This weekend Greenwich and Woolwich Parliamentary Candidate Councillor Spencer Drury responded to Greenwich Council’s consultation on introducing new dog control orders. These orders 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

 
On Saturday Greenwich and Woolwich Parliamentary Spokesman Cllr Spencer Drury spoke with the London 2012 Organising Committee (LOCOG) Community Relations and Communications Team at an open event for park users to discuss their plans for staging the Equestrian elements of the Games in Greenwich Park.
 
The event, which was held outside the Pavilion Tea Rooms, appeared extremely popular, with many visitors actively engaged in discussing how the park will cope with plans to hold the Olympic Games there in 2010. Among the visitors was former Chairman of  NOGOE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) Michael Goldman who spoke with Spencer at length about the problems which residents and park authorities would face in holding the equestrian events in Greenwich Park.
 
Spencer confirmed with Mr Goldman that the may way in which the Council could affect the organisation of the equestrian events in the park was through the planning process as, in fact, this was mainly a conversation between the Royal Parks and LOCOG. Spencer commented “Greenwich Council has to ensure that residents’ lives are not destroyed by the Games, but when the government consulted on which roads should be closed during the Games the Labour Council did not bother to reply prior to the deadline. Similarly we have real concerns that the Council is not fully engaged in trying to get the best out of the Games for Greenwich in terms of ‘legacy’ (long-term) benefits. The Labour Party seem to think more interest in sport is the major benefit, but this seems to me to be something which will happen without any involvement from Greenwich Council and there have to be more tangible long-term benefits. 
 
I established this week that Greenwich’s team for organising the Olympics is only four officers, which is one of the smallest and looks insufficient when compared to the fourteen people employed by Hackney. I suspect that when funds do become available for parks or better facilities Hackney will get there will before Greenwich, leaving us picking up the scraps rather than getting the best for people across the borough.”
 
“I was also concerned to note that the Council is already increasing its spin programme and in successes lists £1.1m from “Environmental improvements to parks” which includes the £400,000 that Boris had given to Avery Hill Park even though this was obviously nothing to do with the Olympics.”
 
Spencer and Greenwich Conservatives remain committed to getting the best deal for Greenwich out of the Olympics and to minimising the impact of the park being closed on local residents, businesses and other visitors to the Park.