- Grass spaces around Eltham could now be built on due to Labour changing land classification in Greenwich Council’s draft ‘Local Plan’.
- This means if you live in places like Katherine Gardens or Rancliffe Gardens even the basic protections that exist currently appear to have been removed in the ‘Local Plan’ which is now out for consultation.
- Eltham Page ward Conservative candidates for the May 2026 Council elections Spencer Drury and Phil Russell are asking residents to respond to the Local Plan consultation requesting better protection for grass and other green spaces around the area. Only the Conservative Party is actively campaigning on this issue.
If you live in Eltham an important New Year’s Resolution for 2026 is to respond to Greenwich Council’s consultation on the ‘Local Plan’. The ‘Local Plan’ lays out (among a lot of other things) where the Council, developers and others can build in our borough, including which green spaces are protected (or not).
You only have until the start of February to respond and it really is important to do so if we want to add more protection to spaces across Eltham, not least as the Labour Government has introduced a special category of ‘grey belt’ land which might allow building in woodland, parks and other areas across the Royal Borough of Greenwich according to Council documents.
As one of the Conservative candidates for Eltham Page ward I want to highlight how important it is for residents with green spaces outside their homes to respond to the consultation as currently there is a serious danger that Greenwich Council could allow or push for building on the grass or greens across the area. Personally I am lucky to live with a piece of grass just outside my home and I really don’t want to lose it, so I’ll be responding asking for it to have greater protection attached to it.
What has changed in the draft ‘Local Plan’ from the previous version?
While the Local Plan is hard to follow, it seems clear that the new version removes many of the protections included historically.
In 2017 many of Eltham’s green spaces were given limited protection as ‘Amenity Greenspace’ which you can see marked in orange on the map below. This map does suggest some protection for some grass like Katherine Gardens or Rancliffe Gardens through the Amenity Greenspace classification. However, it is hard not to notice that areas marked as Amenity Greenspace along the Rochester Way (eg 201) have now been built on with Council backed schemes ignoring their own suggested protections.
The new, updated version of the open space classifications can be found on the Council’s draft Local Plan page. On this map there is no protection offered for any of the green spaces between houses around Eltham Page ward – none of the greens in places like Katherine Gardens or Rancliffe Gardens or indeed the green spaces between houses have any protection. The screenshot below is a clip from this map making clear that there is no protection for most green spaces in Eltham Page ward.
At the same time Eltham Green (the roundabout and grass spaces near the Yorkshire Grey McDonalds) is mentioned in the Metropolitan Open Land Review 2025 as only moderately meeting the criteria for protection as Metropolitan Open Land (which has good protection) so local residents facing these areas really should respond to the consultation asking for that status to be maintained.
What can you do to help?
- Respond to the consultation
So step one in this process is that it is vital that you respond to the consultation on the Local Plan. I think it is fair to say this is a very complex topic and so the Council has attempted to guide people to the area they think is relevant but this may not fit with your interests so please comment wherever you think it right. There is a section specifically on the south of the borough which is probably the best place to make a comment about protecting the green spaces around Eltham.
In general, I think we should be asking for the green space outside our homes and elsewhere to have proper protection from development by being classified as either Metropolitan Open Land or Borough Open Land (which is a new category to me but mentioned in the Local Plan, page 423. 8.25).
The wording of the question is: “Please write your comments, feedback and suggestions on this policy below.”
My response might be: “I am concerned that the grass green in Katherine Gardens and other areas around Eltham are receiving no protection from development in the draft Local Plan. I would like to see all the grass spaces and greens around the Page Estate and within Eltham Page Ward more generally classified as either Borough Open Land or Metropolitan Open Land to protect it from development.”
2. Don’t vote Labour in the May Council elections
If you want to keep the Royal Borough of Greenwich generally and Eltham specifically green it is vital you do not vote for the Labour candidates in the May 2026 Council elections.
Labour Councillors have a record of building over green space in Eltham for example building over the green spaces between Rochester Way and Ridgebrook Road.
Labour are offering no promises for the future and in October when I asked the Labour Cabinet Member for Development whether they could commit to not building on the green spaces around Eltham like Katherine Gardens he refused to answer the question, simply saying that any proposals to do so “would be subject to the usual thorough and transparent assessment”.
Since then, one of the Labour candidates for Eltham Page ward has suggested building on green spaces around the area at a Safer Neighbourhood Team meeting. So we know voting Labour in Eltham Page ward specifically means electing a supporter of building on our grass and greens.
So if you really want to maintain the green spaces around our bit of Eltham it is vital that you do not vote Labour in the May 2026 Council elections. If you want to keep Eltham green I hope you will vote for Phill Russell and me (Spencer Drury) – the Conservative candidates for May 2026. We are the only candidates consistently campaigning on this and other local issues (although you may see others joining us closer to the elections when they need bandwagons to jump on).
Answer to question I asked the Labour Cabinet Member in October 2025
COUNCIL
29 October 2025
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
11 Question from Spencer Drury, SE9, to Councillor Majid Rahman, Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Renewal & Development
According to the property development firm Land Tech the Labour Government’s proposals to change the planning system means that 9,794 homes could be built on brownfield sites across the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Given the Government defines brownfield land as “as developed land, that is, or was previously, occupied by a permanent structure” can the Cabinet Member give a clear commitment that the Council will not seek to develop sites in or around our woodland (including Oxleas Woods) which have had structures on it many years ago for example the rose gardens below Severndroog Castle or near Crown Woods Lane. Can the Cabinet Member also commit to not building on greens in the middle of roads like Lynsted Gardens or Katherine Gardens?”
Reply – I thank Spencer Drury for their question. There is limited information within the LandTech report to substantiate the claim that 9,794 homes could be built on brownfield sites across the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The study appears to be a theoretical exercise, identifying urban land within 1km of a station that is already built up, not necessarily vacant or available for development, and estimating potential for increased housing density. While it excludes certain constrained land types such as Ancient Woodland, protected open space, Conservation Areas, and designated employment land, it does not account for other important planning considerations, including the need to support mixed and balanced communities. The Council recognises the importance of protecting our valued open spaces, including woodland areas such as Oxleas Woods and the greenspace that contribute to the character of our neighbourhoods and wellbeing of our communities. We remain committed to protecting open spaces, including those not formally designated as Metropolitan Open Land or Community Open Space, from inappropriate development, through planning policies within the Local Plan. If proposals were to come forward in the future, they would be subject to the usual thorough and transparent assessment.