The introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in East Greenwich has sparked significant controversy and frustration among local residents, with the scheme reportedly generating £16,500 per day in fines for the council. These camera-enforced LTNs, designed to reduce through traffic during peak hours on roads such as Westcombe Hill, Vanbrugh Hill, Halstow Road, and Maze Hill, have left many residents struggling with longer travel times and disrupted daily routines.

Footage captured by MailOnline reveals drivers making hurried U-turns, awkward diversions, and even panicked reversals to avoid fines of £100 for entering restricted roads during enforcement periods. Residents like Irene Asah, a mother of two, lament the impact on school runs and commutes. Once able to drop her son directly at school, she now has to park a distance away, resulting in her often being late due to the extended journey times. Similarly, Colin Gifford has noted how his quick route to the Blackwall Tunnel has been obstructed by the LTN, adding around 20 minutes to his commute and contributing to congestion on alternative routes.

Critics argue the LTNs have simply displaced traffic rather than reducing it. Kirsty Dunlop, another resident, described the scheme as “absolutely ridiculous” and “unhelpful,” highlighting that the traffic congestion has increased on boundary roads and that bus services are now often delayed or unable to navigate narrow streets. This disruption, coupled with unclear signage and perceived poor communication from the council, has exacerbated local resentment. One resident shared how their neighbour was fined just one minute before the restrictions officially began and was told the timing was irrelevant on appeal, illustrating a rigid enforcement approach that some find unfair.

The financial aspect of the scheme has come under scrutiny, with residents questioning where the substantial income from nearly 48,000 fines within five months—totaling around £2.5 million—is being allocated. Concerns include whether funds are genuinely invested in environmental or transport improvements or simply bolster council budgets without clear benefits. Marianne Chapman expressed suspicion, noting that the congestion has worsened on her street and that regular bus routes are impeded, making public transport options less reliable.

Supporters of the scheme, however, emphasise its environmental and safety benefits. Donald Reid stated that the LTN has reduced congestion and pollution, creating a more pleasant walking environment and encouraging shifts towards cycling and walking. He argues that behavioural change is essential to reach net-zero targets and reduce unnecessary car journeys, pointing out that the area previously suffered from heavy traffic and pollution.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich implemented the LTN trial in November 2024 as part of an 18-month neighbourhood management scheme aimed at reducing non-local traffic and improving air quality and road safety. It includes part-time camera-controlled restrictions during weekday peak hours, with exemptions for certain vehicles like blue badge holders and council services. Funded partly by the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Emergency Fund, the scheme complements larger projects such as Transport for London’s Cycleway 4 Extension along the A206.

Notwithstanding, some local politicians and groups are calling for a rethink. Councillor Matt Hartley, Leader of Greenwich Conservatives, criticised the council’s “ideological war on drivers,” highlighting poor signage, widespread confusion, and the displacement of traffic to already burdened boundary roads. He called for the council to listen to residents rather than focus on revenue generation. Similarly, the Coalition for Liveable, Equitable & Accessible Roads (CLEAR) has formed to oppose the LTN scheme, advocating for policies that better balance the needs of residents, businesses, and essential services.

The debate around LTNs in East Greenwich illustrates the challenges of balancing environmental goals with practical local impacts. While the council claims the measures improve public health and reduce pollution, the significant backlash reveals deep community divisions and concerns over fairness, transparency, and the true effectiveness of such traffic restrictions.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services