The Royal Borough of Greenwich has been forced to spend almost £60,000 correcting signage errors tied to the West and East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management scheme despite severe financial hardship, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed.
The costly mistakes - at a time when the council is facing extreme financial pressures - stem from incorrectly erected signs that blocked residents from accessing their homes and misleading signage about Blue Badge exemptions, resulting in widespread confusion.
Signs mistakenly erected at the start of the Greenwich LTN scheme on 27 November 2024 unlawfully restricted vehicular access for residents on Blissett Street in West Greenwich, as well as Earlswood Street, Columb Street (pictured below), and Annandale Road in East Greenwich, between 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm.
The roads concerned were not covered by the scheme’s Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO), making it unlawful to claim they were restricted while contradicting the council’s previous assurances that residents would continue to have access to their homes.
Essential deliveries - including pharmacies delivering medication to chronically ill residents - were also blocked during restricted hours, until the council took action weeks later to rectify its mistakes.
Additionally, incorrect signage across the scheme featured the universal Blue Badge symbol (below), blurring the lines between eligibility and council regulations. While the council requires Blue Badge holders to both reside in the borough and apply for an exemption permit, the signage misleadingly suggested that all Blue Badge holders were automatically exempt, regardless of residency or application status, further adding to the confusion.
It is also believed that the use of the Blue Badge symbol breached both the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) and the Traffic Signs Manual, which require signage to be clear and unambiguous. To address the issue, the council covered the symbols on all signs with a makeshift sticker weeks later, in January 2025 (pictured below), adding to the overall cost of amending the signage.
However, the existing text - ‘except/and authorised vehicles’ - has been criticised for its ambiguity, as it remains unclear which vehicles are actually authorised. The (semi-transparent) sticker remains in place, further raising concerns over compliance and clarity.
It is believed that council officers responsible for the scheme only became aware of mistakes made after receiving numerous complaints about the signage. This triggered a costly removal and amendment process, with some officers reportedly unaware that certain signs had been installed outside the scheme’s scope and were not part of the approved plan, as well as widespread confusion surrounding the Blue Badge symbol.
A response to an FOI request (below) has since revealed that the removal and amendment of signage for the LTN scheme, which was rejected by up to 79 per cent of residents and businesses, cost £59,532.50. This includes £57,185.07 for the installation and removal of erroneous signage and £2,347.43 for placing stickers over the incorrect Blue Badge symbols.
Since the LTN scheme’s inception, signage issues have been an ongoing problem. When the scheme launched on November 27, 2024, not all required signage was in place due to supply chain delays. As a result, the council extended the grace period, postponing full enforcement until January 2, 2025 - significantly later than originally planned.
Motorists have also raised concerns about the lack of adequate warning signs before reaching restricted LTN zones. Without clear advance signage, drivers unaware of the scheme are often forced to make sudden and dangerous turns upon realising they are about to enter a restricted zone.
This issue is particularly worrying near schools, including James Wolfe Primary School on Royal Hill, below, where unexpected halts and three-point turns made by motorists pose a serious risk to pedestrians and children. These dangers are heightened as the restrictions coincide with school opening and closing hours.
The lack of proper signage and the use of misleading signage may also have legal consequences for the council. Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016, all traffic signs must conform to prescribed designs and placements to be legally enforceable. Failure to comply can render traffic regulations invalid, meaning that any fines or penalties issued based on incorrect signage could be challenged or overturned.
Greenwich Council previously reported that between 2 and 30 January, 7,000 penalty notices were issued, potentially generating up to £455,000 in fines. However, motorists affected by signage errors may have legal grounds to contest these penalties. Previous legal rulings have established that incorrect or inadequate signage can serve as a valid defence, increasing the likelihood of further financial losses for the council if fines are successfully challenged.
Furthermore, local authorities are legally obligated to ensure that all traffic signs are designed, placed, and maintained correctly. The Traffic Signs Manual provides additional guidance on clarity and positioning, which the council may have failed to follow. In addition to public criticism, this could expose the council to legal claims from residents and businesses adversely affected by the misleading signage.
Beyond the immediate cost of rectifying these errors, the council may face additional financial liabilities if motorists seek compensation or legal action is taken over fines issued due to non-compliant signage. The mismanagement of the scheme’s rollout has resulted in financial and logistical challenges and potential legal consequences that could further burden the council’s already strained finances.
Further complicating matters, the council's policy allows Blue Badge holders to nominate only one vehicle for exemption permits within the scheme. This limitation poses challenges for individuals who rely on multiple caregivers or use different vehicles for transportation. The Blue Badge scheme is designed to provide flexibility, allowing holders to use their badge with any vehicle in which they are travelling. Restricting exemptions to a single vehicle may conflict with the scheme's intent, potentially leading to legal challenges on the grounds of discrimination or unreasonable restriction of mobility rights.
The costly blunders come at a time when the Royal Borough of Greenwich is facing severe financial pressures, having lost 53 per cent of its funding since 2010. In response, the council has implemented service cuts, including the removal of lollipop personel outside primary schools, reductions to street cleaning, libraries, and children's support, and has introduced a 4.99 per cent council tax increase to raise additional revenue.
Despite these measures, the council still faces a £27.3 million budget shortfall for 2025/26 and is considering selling off council-owned properties to raise funds.