Labour-run council is accused of 'destroying fun' after plans to ban ice cream vans in parts of popular London tourist hotspot
A Labour-run council has been accused of 'destroying fun' over its plans to ban ice cream vans from popular streets around London 's iconic Greenwich Park.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich has sparked a backlash over the last two years after submitting plans to ban ice cream vans from trading in more than 30 roads in the area.
The council has denied being 'anti-ice cream', insisting: 'We do love an ice cream, actually.'
But one of the areas that it hopes to ban ice cream traders from is King William Walk, a popular tourist hotspot in the north-west of the park, near the Royal Observatory.
The plans have faced opposition, including from Paul St Hilaire Snr who has been selling ice creams in Greenwich for three decades.
He previously took the council to Bromley Magistrates' Court on the basis that the local authority's decision to prohibit traders from King William Walk was not legally sound.
In a victory for Mr St Hilaire and the ice cream lovers of Greenwich, the council was ordered to re-run the public consultation process and review whether King William Walk should be among the roads banned from selling ice cream.
It was previously revealed by the Local Democracy Reporting Service that Greenwich Council spent £52,000 of taxpayers' money in legal bills.
However, many are bracing for the ban to be approved at a full council meeting after residents and 16 local organisations expressed support for the fresh proposal, with nine opposing.
Councillor Pat Slattery, the council's cabinet member for neighbourhoods, told a recent meeting: 'I think it is important to say that the council is not anti-ice cream. There are ice cream vendors in a reasonable spit of where this ice cream van regularly parks up.'
Meanwhile Councillor Anthony Okereke, leader of the council, said: 'We are not banning ice creams in Greenwich in any way, shape or form. We do love an ice cream, actually.'
But Tory London Assembly member Susan Hall, told the Telegraph the plans were 'ludicrous', adding: 'The council should rethink this policy. Are they all hell-bent on destroying any fun in Sadiq Khan's London?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
37 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Senior council leader ‘confident' of more spending review support for the poor
Rachel Reeves announced that nine million pensioners in England and Wales will receive the winter fuel payment this winter, in a £1.25 billion U-turn on the Government's previous position. Speaking exclusively to the PA news agency, Sir Stephen welcomed the move and other recent measures such as the extension of free school meals. Sir Stephen Houghton is leader of Barnsley Council (Dominic Lipinski/PA) But he said a broader package of initiatives aimed at supporting low income working families is now necessary and would represent an 'important political statement'. In a statement released by the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (Sigoma) in response to the announcement on winter fuel payments, Sir Stephen said: 'I am confident that the Chancellor will continue in this spirit and use the upcoming spending review to provide further financial support to councils who are working hard to deliver for residents in challenging times.' When asked to explain why he is confident at a time when revenue spending will be limited by factors such as slow growth and high borrowing costs, he said: 'Speaking to ministers (in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government) and speaking to advisers in the department. 'I have spent 14 years lobbying for this unsuccessfully with the previous government. 'I am confident because (local government minister) Jim McMahon is a former council leader, and he gets it. 'We have got to make sure that he doesn't get overruled by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who are getting pressure from other parts of the country. 'I think he will hold his nerve.' Sir Stephen identified reducing transport and social rent costs as measures which would benefit the community in Barnsley and elsewhere, adding they should be part of a 'comprehensive' support package. 'That will do the Government good, both politically and by helping the people that need it the most,' he added. On capital investment, Sir Stephen warned of a 'real danger' that the Treasury will prioritise infrastructure spending on big cities to secure a 'maximum return'. 'Civil servants are telling ministers that the problem with that is it provides the least political return because these cities are already voting Labour,' he said. Advocating an alternative approach, Sir Stephen added: 'Left behind communities deserve to have economies that function effectively, and you can get growth there as well if you invest. 'These are the places that have been leaving Labour. 'Why can't you have a decent quality of life if you live in Bolton, Bury, Blyth or Grimsby? 'Those communities are the ones that, for 30-odd years, have seen the big cities be the be-all and end-all. 'That leaves you with Brexit. 'It leaves you with, from a Labour perspective, Boris Johnson majorities in red wall seats. It leaves you with riots last year. 'It leaves you with Reform (gains in the local elections) just a month ago.' 'We need a short-term package of measures to say 'we are bothered' – life is hard,' he added.
The National
37 minutes ago
- The National
Glasgow's skyscraper vision sparks split over city's skyline future
Last week, Glasgow City Council revealed its Tall Buildings Design Guide, which outlined areas in the city like Charing Cross, Anderston Quay, Trongate, and Cowcaddens as potential sites for taller buildings. The guide, which marked a departure from decades of previous rules where building heights were restricted, also provided expectations for building quality, design, and aesthetics. Norry Wilson, who is behind the popular social media account Lost Glasgow, which aims to document, discuss, and appreciate the city's architecture and its community from the last few centuries, is skeptical of the new guidelines. READ MORE: Former SNP MP's critique of UK defence review was a missed opportunity He claimed that there is 'no clamor from developers to build skyscrapers in Glasgow' and that he doubts any plans to build any will ever come to fruition. However, Labour MSP for the Glasgow region, Paul Sweeney, who has a keen interest in the city's architecture, welcomed the guidelines as he hopes the change in policy will help address the growing need for housing. 'Glasgow has not built as many tall buildings as comparable British cities in recent years, and there is a pressing need to repopulate its urban core – which is the least populated of all major British cities,' he said. 'At present, Glasgow has no buildings taller than 100 metres, while Manchester has 26 with eight more under construction.' Sweeney added that whilst the principles outlined in the tall buildings design guide are of a 'high level,' he would like to see more of a 'house style' developed for Glasgow. (Image: Newsquest) He said that the guideline does try to address some 'fundamental deficiencies' that have 'plagued previous generations of tall buildings' in the city, such as slab form, lack of ground floor activation, isolated locations, and a lack of elegance on the skyline. Sweeney added: 'I hope these principles will now be robustly implemented and provide greater certainty for architects, developers, and local communities on what Glasgow expects in the design of such buildings. 'We certainly must never repeat that atrocious design of the Clayton Hotel and Virgin Hotels on Clyde Street, which saw their designs diluted to cut costs, resulting in cheap, clunky-looking cladding, a removal of a feature crown structure from the roof design, a blank facade facing Union Street and poor-quality landscaping at the base. 'Perhaps the design guide could also benefit from a rogues gallery of what hasn't worked well in Glasgow as well as examples that we are rightly proud of.' However, Wilson has said that he has 'absolutely no idea' where the demand for skyscrapers is coming from, as most people would rather live in family homes instead of massive buildings. The freelance journalist pointed out that back in March, three tower blocks dating back to the 60s at Wyndford Road were destroyed using controlled explosions to make way for nearly 400 new homes. (Image: Robert Perry) The four 26-storey blocks and several smaller high-rise buildings at one point provided homes for around 6000 people but were deemed by the owners, Wheatley Homes housing association, as not fit for purpose. 'It's a very strange one because, as far as I'm aware, there is no clamor from developers to build skyscrapers in Glasgow,' Wilson said. 'I mean, even in just the last few weeks, Glasgow's just demolished pretty much the last of our own skyscrapers at Winford and Maryhill because there's no demand for skyscrapers in Glasgow.' He added: 'I've got a sneaking suspicion this is really just a sort of paper exercise.' Wilson, whose father and grandfather were architects who contributed to Glasgow and the greater area's skyline, explained that the city's historic height restrictions were implemented by the fire department. He said that because the water pressure from their hoses could only reach about six or seven stories, they implemented a building height restriction so that fire crews could reach any possible blazes. Wilson said that he hasn't noticed many people discussing the need or want for skyscrapers in the city on any of his Lost Glasgow pages. He said: 'Most folks that looked at it think it's the council talking shop again, and unless it gets rubber stamped, it's not going to change anything.' He added: 'Everyone piles into Lost Glasgow and says, 'why don't they build more social housing' and you've got to point out, well, Glasgow doesn't build social housing anymore. 'That's the job of housing associations and all the rest of it. 'Where the demand is for skyscrapers, where that demand's coming from, I have absolutely no idea.'
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Winter fuel payment U-turn in numbers
The government's decision to largely reverse its cuts to winter fuel payments has raised questions about its spending and savings plans - and its fiscal Verify has been looking at the the key numbers. What has changed on winter fuel? At the time Labour won the 2024 general election, the Department for Work and Pensions was projecting that 10.8 million pensioners in England and Wales would be eligible for winter fuel payments in payments are worth either £200 or £300 per household. The new government, in order to save money, decided that only pensioners in receipt of pension credit (a separate benefit aimed at low-income pensioners) would receive winter fuel payments that winter - and said that would reduce the number of individual recipients to 1.5 the government has changed course - after widespread criticism - and said that, from 2025-26, all pensioners will get it, although it will be clawed back in the following tax year from individuals earning £35,000 and claims this means about 9 million pensioners will now be eligible.. The effect of this is largely to undo the impact of its initial policy in terms of the numbers affected. How much will this cost? The government estimated that the cost of the winter fuel payment system it inherited in 2024-25 would have been £ estimated that its initial reform last year would cut this bill by £1.4bn in 2024-25 (rising to £1.5bn in 2025-26) taking the cost of the system down to £0.5bnNow the government says the cost of the system after its latest change will be £1.25bn - a saving of £450m relative to a system in which all pensioners were eligible to receive the government added that this £450m saving has not yet been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the government's official if it transpired, this saving would be only a third of the original £1.5bn savings target. And some analysts think the overall net saving for the government could actually be lower Labour's initial 2024 reform, winter fuel payments were only available to those in receipt of a separate benefit aimed at low-income pensioners, called pension year, the government initiated a campaign to encourage the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit, but who do not claim it, to start doing latest data shows almost 60,000 more pension credit claims were awarded than otherwise might have been, likely because of the government's awareness campaign. With each annual pension credit claim costing the government £3,900 a year on average, the former Lib Dem pensions minister Steve Webb has calculated that the total annual cost of these new claims could be about £ additional cost would offset around half of the £450m savings claimed by the government for its latest changes to winter fuel eligibility. How can the government afford this U-turn? When Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the tightening of winter fuel payments in 2024, she said the £1.5bn per year savings were needed to stabilise the public those savings were entered into the OBR's budget calculations. Now the savings will only be £450m per year - or even lower - a gap of at least £1bn will open up in the government's Treasury said it will address this gap in the next Budget in the Autumn of 2025 and said "it will not lead to permanent additional borrowing".Assuming the OBR does not raise its GDP growth and tax revenue forecasts in the Budget, giving the government more money to fill the gap, this will imply ministers would either have to raise additional taxes or cut spending elsewhere to close this roughly £1bn gap .However, it should be noted that £1bn is a relatively low sum in the context of the public 2025-26 the government is projected by the OBR to spend £1,347bn and to borrow £ is also worth noting that the projected savings from the government's working age welfare reforms, announced earlier this year, are considerably higher than the savings from changing eligibility for winter fuel changes in eligibility for personal independence payments and the cuts to universal credit incapacity payments are projected by the OBR to save the government £4.8bn a year by 2029-30. If the government were to reverse or water down those reforms, as some Labour MPs are urging, it would create a considerably larger financial headache for the chancellor in terms of meeting her fiscal rules specify that she has to be projected to be on course to balance the government's day-to-day spending budget (which excludes spending on infrastructure) by March 2025, the OBR projected that she had just £9.9bn of "headroom" against this rule, a very small amount of leeway given the size of overall government spending and the welfare cuts would wipe out around half of many economists expect the chancellor's projected headroom to be further eroded by the OBR in any case in the Autumn Budget as a result of downgraded growth forecasts and an increase in government market borrowing costs in recent months. What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
