“Not real environmental protection”: Major new cycle lane halted after plan to cut down 50 trees and replace them nearby labelled “greenwashing”

Plans for a cycle lane outside a south-east London hospital have been withdrawn following hundreds of objections to the scheme, which would have seen more than 50 trees cut down.

The London Cycling Campaign’s Greenwich local group also opposed the proposal — arguing it would open the route to rat-running and included an “inadequate” cycle track — Greenwich Council having now removed a scheduled decision on the plans from its agenda for a meeting on Tuesday 18 November, according to local reporters at the Greenwich Wire.

There is a slightly more nuanced context than many cycling infrastructure proposals we have reported on previously, the 0.6-mile road between Woolwich Common and Queen Elizabeth Hospital currently owned and maintained by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust.

The NHS trust wants the route to become public and adopted by the Highway Authority, so plans to upgrade it to necessary highway standards, the proposal for a cycle lane one part of the work.

The cycle lane has attracted most attention due to the fact, reported by the BBC, that 46 trees (and seven others “in extremely poor condition” that need removed regardless) would be cut down to make space for the cycling route next to the widened road and new crossing facilities, all in the hope of being able to “offer enhanced and safer cycling and pedestrian facilities along this route”.

The NHS trust’s proposal suggested the loss of the trees would be addressed by replanting 76 new trees nearby.

However, more than 500 residents and campaigners have objected to the proposal, which has now been removed from a council meeting agenda this week.

The Friends of Woolwich Common have led the opposition to the scheme and accused the plans of confirming “the scale of destruction and trying to dress it up as mitigation”.

“This is greenwashing — not real environmental protection,” the group argued. “We maintain that tree loss cannot be offset by replanting, especially not in the context of a protected and mature green space. Encroaching on Common Land is unnecessary, unjustified, and sets a dangerous precedent. The council must reject this application and insist on a revised design that protects Woolwich Common’s ecological and landscape value.

“Woolwich Common is too important to be carved up in the name of convenience. We urge the council to honour its duties, reject the current proposal, and demand an approach that genuinely protects this valued community and ecological resource.”

The group also argued that while “appearing numerically adequate”, the proposal to replace 53 trees with 76 new ones “fails to account for the ecological, environmental, and landscape value of mature trees”.

“Mature trees, especially those aged 40+ years, are essential carbon sinks, habitats, and urban cooling agents,” the group continued. “Young replacement trees absorb only a fraction of the carbon, provide less habitat, and will take decades to reach the same size and resilience. Replacing a 20-metre-high tree with a two-metre sapling is not an equivalent exchange — it is an environmental deficit.

“Furthermore, the replacement trees are largely of similar species, which may limit biodiversity. Several felled trees are not being replaced at all, especially where underground services are cited. There is no clear assessment of the overall canopy cover loss, nor how long it would take to recover — if ever. The notion that planting trees compensates for the loss of Woolwich Common’s mature tree stock is misleading and dangerous.”

Reacting to the news the decision on the scheme had been removed from this week’s agenda, the London Cycling Campaign’s local group said the proposal had been opposed by themselves, the Friends of Woolwich Common, Greener Greenwich Community Network and hundreds of other concerned residents.

The LCC local group for Greenwich has proposed removing through traffic to reduce traffic volumes and enable safe on-road cycling, and suggested this would “reduce the need to cut down healthy trees, remove the need for a cycle track, and still improve the route for people cycling”.

Disputes regarding trees being cut down to make space for new active travel infrastructure pop up occasionally, the nature of widening roads or adding cycle lanes at the side of routes meaning there is sometimes a conflict.

In Coventry last year, campaigners were criticised for staging the country’s largest tree hug to block “destructive” bike lane plans — while simultaneously suggesting it could be built elsewhere by “lighting up” a nature reserve.

Ultimately the scheme was approved, and 26 trees felled and replaced with 32 saplings during the lane’s construction. However, Coventry City Council also noted that the trees were only brought into the equation because residents (who received public backing from Sir David Attenborough) had opposed reducing the road width in the first place.