Greenwich park ice cream van sparks legal battle with council
Bromley Magistrates' Court ordered the council to re-run the public consultation process and review whether King William Walk should be included in the list of prohibited streets.The Local Democracy Reporting Service previously revealed through a Freedom of Information request that Greenwich Council spent £52,000 of public money on legal costs for the case.The council carried out their court-ordered consultation process earlier this year.At a council cabinet meeting on 9 April, it was revealed that out of the 25 organisations and residents that responded to the consultation, 16 were in favour of the prohibition and nine were against it.Councillor Pat Slattery, a ward councillor for Greenwich Park, which includes King William Walk, supported the prohibition proposal.She told the cabinet 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."
'Not banning ice-creams'
At the cabinet meeting councillor Jackie Smith said the only grounds on which the council can prevent itinerant ice cream trading on any of its streets "is the interest in preventing the obstruction to traffic or undue interference or inconvenience to persons using the street". She added: "We have had lots of complaints from lots of residents of King William Walk in the past."Interim director of legal services Azuka Onuorah told the council that if the ban was challenged again, the prohibition remains in place pending the outcome of the challenge, which entitles the council to take enforcement action.Before the cabinet approved the decision to recommend the King William Walk prohibition to full council, the council leader Anthony Okereke said: "We are not banning ice creams in Greenwich in any way shape or form. "We do love an ice cream, actually."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
2 days ago
- Daily Record
John Swinney accused of joining 'smear campaign' against Kneecap over TRNSMT axing, emails show
The First Minister was accused of supporting an "act of censorship" after the controversial rap group were dropped from Scotland's biggest music festival. John Swinney faced a furious backlash after he publicly supported Kneecap being axed from the TRNSMT line-up earlier this year, newly published emails have revealed. The First Minister claimed in April the controversial Belfast rap group had "crossed a line" after footage emerged of a band member saying: "The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP." Kneecap later apologised to the families of murdered MPs David Amess and Jo Cox - but the group were still dropped from the TRSNMT line-up after Police Scotland raised concerns with event promoters DFC. The decision prompted several members of the public to email Swinney's office to take issue with the First Minister after he told the BBC it would be "unacceptable" for Kneecap to perform at the festival "given the fact their comments are so beyond the pale". One email sent the following week claimed the SNP leader had joined an organised a "smear campaign" against the rap group. The sender, whose name is redacted, said: "I'm writing this to express my disappointment at your decision to join the smear campaign against Kneecap, clearly grounded in efforts to discredit them for their support for the besieged people of Palestine." It added: "Your public denouncement of the band, and call for them to be removed from the TRNSMT line up, is misguided censorship". In a response to the complaint, an unnamed civil servant said: "At the time the First Minister said the reported comments from Kneecap regarding MPs were utterly unacceptable and the group has since apologised. Any decisions by the event organisers have, throughout this issue, remained wholly outwith the locus of the Scottish Government." In another email to Swinney, a complainer wrote: "Kneecap is known for engaging with themes of identity, politics, and language in a provocative but artistically valid way. Their removal from a major Scottish music festival feels like an act of censorship — one that undermines Scotland's commitment to artistic freedom, cultural inclusion, and open discourse." Another complaint to the First Minister said: "I understand you were very vocal in getting this band banned from playing at Scotland's top festival due to actions from before the band became well known. "A lot of people have purchased tickets, flights, hotels etc to come over to see this band but you and Police Scotland have now left a lot of people out of pocket. Since when was free speech not allowed in this country?" The correspondence, revealed in a Freedom of Information request, also details how Tory MSP Rachael Hamilton emailed Kaukab Stewart, Minister for Equalities, in May on behalf of a constituent who was "horrified" at the band's scheduled appearance. In a response to Hamilton, Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture said: "It is the responsibility of the relevant council as the licensing authority for the area to oversee events of this nature, including ensuring compliance by the organisers with the appropriate public safety regulations." Kneecap later played a sold-out at the Glasgow Academy in July days before the TRNSMT festival took place. Liam Ó hAnnaidh, whose stage name is Mo Chara, asked the crowd "What's your first minister's name?" before directing an expletive at Swinney. He added: "They stopped us playing TRNSMT but they can't stop us playing Glasgow." Swinney later played down his beef with Kneecap after the First Minister was called out by the Irish rappers. He said last month: "I think the most important thing at this moment is that we all focus on the issue that Kneecap are concerned about, which is the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. I want to see a ceasefire implemented, I want to see humanitarian aid put into Gaza."
Wales Online
4 days ago
- Wales Online
Council accused of 'throwing money like confetti' to 'gag' staff who leave
Council accused of 'throwing money like confetti' to 'gag' staff who leave Figures show just how much was spent on staff non-disclosure agreements Plaid Cymru's Caerphilly group leader Lindsay Whittle is among the critics of the council's NDA use (Image: Plaid Cymru) A Welsh council has been accused of "gagging" former employees and treating money like 'confetti' after figures showed it spent more than £800,000 last year on staff non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Caerphilly council signed as many NDAs with staff leaving its employment in 2024/25 as the other four councils in Gwent combined. The council has long had a comparatively high use of NDAs, which over the past five years has cost it more than £2.7million. Critics have questioned the motives, suggesting they could be used to "cover up" issues or "stifle" whistleblowers. Caerphilly council challenged those claims and described the use of NDAs as "common practice" between employers and employees. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter . In 2023/24 the council signed 41 NDAs for a total cost of around £784,000. It signed fewer agreements last year, but a total of 32 NDAs added up to more than £832,000. A Freedom of Information request by the Local Democracy Reporting Service showed that over the past five years Caerphilly has signed 150 NDAs with departing employees – while, elsewhere in the Gwent region, Newport signed 62, Blaenau Gwent signed 40, Torfaen signed 18 and Monmouthshire signed 17. Article continues below Councillor Nigel Dix, who leads Caerphilly council's independent group, called the use of NDAs "absolutely wrong" and said they should be "banned in the public sector". "Somebody leaves their employment and they are gagged, basically," he said. "It smacks of a cover-up and that is unacceptable." Mr Dix also said he was concerned about a lack of democratic oversight, and accused the council of "throwing money around like it's confetti". Concerns were also raised by the council's Plaid Cymru group leader, councillor Lindsay Whittle, who said the council should "explain in detail" its use of NDAs. "The widespread use of the so-called gagging orders worries me," he said. "What type of information is so confidential that former staff have to be gagged from speaking about them? "Are these NDAs being used as a way of covering up matters within the workings of the council which may be in the public interest?" A Caerphilly council spokesman said: "These types of settlements are not 'gagging orders', they are agreements that are common practice and are used by many employers to facilitate a mutual termination between an employer and employee." On the comparative figures, the spokesman said: "Caerphilly is one of the largest councils in Wales. Therefore, you would expect these figures to be higher than other smaller local authorities." However, population comparisons show Caerphilly's use of NDAs is higher than other authorities. The most recent Welsh figures show Newport's population is more than 90% of Caerphilly county's, yet Caerphilly council's use of NDAs is more than double that of Newport in the last five years. "As front-line services have been cut back, paying out such sums to ex-staff shows a complete lack of priorities and principle, and stifles any attempts by staff who want to 'whistle-blow,'" said one Caerphilly resident and taxpayer. "There's a widespread belief that people are being gagged not to spill the beans on some of the council's gaffes." The council spokesman, however, said NDAs "are only used when a robust business case has been completed to demonstrate their requirement and are, by their nature, designed to minimise the financial impact on the council". Article continues below He added: 'We will continue to carefully monitor the use of such agreements going forward.'
BBC News
5 days ago
- BBC News
Council postpones decision over new Desford housing estate
A proposed new housing estate in Leicestershire was likened to a "really unpleasant rash" by a councillor as a local authority voted to postpone a decision on the to build 120 homes at Ashfield Farm, off Kirkby Road, Desford, were approved by the government in 2023 after Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council rejected the proposals four Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said Davidsons Development hoped to move forward with the next stage of the scheme, including details like the layout of the estate, and the size and style of the the council raised concerns about the number of private roads in the plans and this week voted to defer a decision. 'Just keeps coming back' Councillors on the authority's planning committee also expressed concerns over proposed management fees to pay for the future upkeep of the development's roads, labelling them as "stealth taxes".They also criticised the site's layout, such as the positioning of green spaces next to open fields rather than between new and existing homes, and called for a traffic management plan to be provided before construction Richard Allen said: "I've been dealing with this one for longer than I care to remember. "It's like one of those really unpleasant rashes which just keeps coming back."Warning that the council was "storing up problems for the future" by approving developments with lots of unadopted roads, council leader Stuart Bray said it was a "real problem"."What happens is that people buy these new houses," Bray said. "They get all excited. And they don't realise in 10 years' time they're going to end up with a huge bill to repair the roads."I want us to take the strongest line that we can possibly take to make sure that as many roads in this borough going forward are adopted."Richard Henderson, a planning manager at Davidsons, said the scheme would be "high quality" and "well designed", adding the 40 affordable homes were a voted unanimously to defer the decision so planning officers could discuss the committee's concerns.
