The problem with the proposal

The planned terminal would have allowed cruise ships to operate their diesel engines continuously while docked, providing onboard power to their facilities. This process, known as "hotelling," would have caused a constant output of harmful emissions, including nitrogen dioxide and fine particulates, into the surrounding area. Given that Enderby’s Wharf sits close to residential neighbourhoods, schools, and green spaces, the health implications for residents, especially children, were dire.

Studies suggested the terminal could exacerbate East Greenwich’s already poor air quality, an area where pollution levels frequently exceeded EU limits. Local schools, playgrounds, and homes were set to be on the front line of this potential environmental disaster.

EGRA’s fight for a cleaner East Greenwich

From the outset, the East Greenwich Residents Association (EGRA) took a leading role in opposing the cruise terminal. EGRA worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the health and environmental risks, organise the community, and demand a more sustainable alternative. The association focused on the following key actions:

• Community mobilisation: EGRA rallied local residents, engaging them in discussions and encouraging them to voice their objections to Greenwich Council and other decision-makers.

• Building alliances: EGRA collaborated with environmental organisations, health experts, and other community groups to strengthen its case. Together, they emphasised the dangers posed by the terminal and highlighted the need for a greener alternative.

• Advocating for shore power: EGRA pushed for the inclusion of shore-side power technology, which would have allowed ships to plug into the local electricity grid while docked, eliminating the need to run their engines.

• Challenging decision-makers: The association held the local council and developers accountable, highlighting gaps in environmental impact assessments and the failure to prioritise public health.