Cross-party appeal to Boris as he makes decision today on the Welsh Harp

Future generations will need the Welsh Harp

Today Boris Johnson will meet with GLA planners to decide what action to take on the Barnet Council-Barratt Homes West Hendon development on the banks of the Welsh Harp nature reserve and SSSI.

The cross-party campaign sent the following joint letter asking him to refuse the development. He can decide to refer it back to Barnet Council to make the decision, reject it or take over the planning application as the planning authority.

                                                                                                          

Dear Mr Mayor,

Ref: Application No. 13/0938. West Hendon Estate, NW9

We, the undersigned, have considered the above application and wish to confirm our objection on the following grounds:

Site Considerations

This is an exceptional and most significant site located in a conservation area enjoyed and cherished by the people of Brent and Barnet and is of a remarkable value to Londoners and visitors as a whole. The site is rich in its heritage and unique given that it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); accommodating a Reservoir; unique ecological heritage and green un-spoilt environment with leisure and recreational facilities. The proposed development will see some four-fold increase in the current population. This proposal amounts to gross overdevelopment on this site and will destroy the heritage and value the site provides locally as well as strategically.

Scale of the Development

The scale of the development with 2,000 residential units, commercial and community facilities including a two form entry primary school is wholly inappropriate for this sensitive site. The built environment with tower blocks and the resultant bulk dominating the skyline will not be in keeping with the character of the area, will have a serious detrimental impact on local views and set a precedent destroying permanently the outstanding character and the natural beauty the area provides as well as jeopardising the maintenance of the Welsh Harp SSSI status into the future.

Conservation and Impact on Environmental Amenities

The applicant’s design and access statement refers to the Brent Reservoir SSSI, primarily notified for its wetland breeding birds, wintering water fowl and botanical interests. According to this document, studies undertaken for 2004 ES identified ‘the existing ecological value of the site to be low’. We challenge this statement as the conclusion in this document is not backed up by clear evidence and is in direct contradiction to the assessment of this site by many professional organisations and individuals. The influx of some 5,000+ residents together with the massive development itself within the 20M ‘No build zone’ would threaten the ecological amenity. The site is of London and National ecological importance and the development in question lacks adequate research and evidence to demonstrate that the scale and design of the development can sustain and enhance the quality of nature conservation aspects. We would like to draw attention to the specific environmental concerns raised by Brent Council Environmental Officers which  ‘remain’ despite assurances from the developer:

It is considered that the edge of the Welsh Harp Reservoir, marshland and tree line will be affected as a result of the development for the following reasons:

·        The new buildings are planned to be considerably closer to the water’s edge than the buildings of the existing development. This reduces further the belt of green-space between the development and the reservoir.

·        The two new footbridges that are proposed across the Reservoir and SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) to link to play-areas and park at West Hendon is likely to affect the reservoir by introducing infrastructure into the reservoir and disturbance by users.

·        Apparent lack of improvements to enhance the natural environment of the reservoir – There is mention of ‘linear woodland’ but it is unclear where this will be provided as there is insufficient space between the development and the water’s edge to create woodland.

·        The proposed felling of trees that contain features conducive for roosting by bats.

·        Lighting: the impact of lighting on bats is likely to be a direct impact. (The Environment Statement: non-technical summary, suggests that lighting is likely to be an ‘indirect’ impact).

·         Insufficient research into existing fauna and flora and underestimating its national and local importance.

·        The applicant's report mentions wildlife but seems to play down its national and London wide importance. A GiGL search of the area has revealed that the reservoir supports the country’s largest breeding group of great crested grebe whilst in winter it supports nationally important numbers of waterfowl as well as over 40 nationally rare species. The applicant is advised to contact GiGL for accurate info.

We believe that whilst the above environmental concerns remain unaddressed by the developer that the proposals cannot legitimately be granted planning permission in their current form.

High Rise Blocks

The site is designated (Barnet’s Core Strategy: Tall Buildings policy CS5) as appropriate in some strategic locations for tall buildings of 8 – 20 storey but the proposed tower blocks of 29, 27 and 21 storey height are contrary to Barnet’s policies and will completely destroy the physical character of this site. Equally, the high-rise blocks fail to comply with the stringent policies set out in the London Plan. The London Plan policy 7.7 (Location and Design of Tall Buildings) requires tall buildings to be located in town centres and major zones of economic development and can be considered only ‘in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall or large building’. Section 7.7E of the London Plan also states “a matter for particular consideration is the setting of tall buildings on the edge of Metropolitan Open Land”. The applicant has not submitted the necessary information to do this, and therefore does not comply with the criteria for assessment set out in London Plan policy 7.7E

Residential Proposal

Provision of ‘Homes’: Barnet’s Core Strategy states (clause 9.2 for homes of

different sizes) that the majority of units are houses which account for 62% of the stock. ‘Design And Access Statement’ of the applicant claims “The mixture of typologies provides opportunities to accommodate people’s preferences for housing” but this is not backed up in the scheme offered in the application. In reality, the proposal is driven by a commercial scheme with no relevance to the preferences of Barnet’s residents. Woefully small provision of 20 ‘houses’ (only 1% of total) fails to provide an acceptable mix of residential accommodation to reflect the character of Barnet’s existing residential stock and preferences of residents to live in traditional homes and not flatted accommodation in towers as tall as 29 storey high.

Inadequate Affordable Housing: Provision of a meagre 25% Affordable Housing is market driven to maximise the return at the cost of much needed affordable socially rented housing. For a scheme of this scale a minimum of 35% stock of housing for socially rented housing is required and the deficiency is serious enough to demand refusal of the scheme.

Dearth of Family Size Housing: Barnet’s Core Strategy says 33% of all Barnet households contain children, the majority of these comprising an adult couple with children. Barnet’s specialist Housing Strategy sets out housing priorities and delivery by 2025 with overarching objective of ‘providing housing choices that meet the needs and aspirations of Barnet residents’. The Core Strategy further states ‘to improve choice we need to increase housing supply including family sized homes.’  ‘Our dwelling size priorities are for family accommodation across all tenures.’ (3 Bedrooms higher and 4 bed rm medium priority). The Mayor of London’s Housing Strategy for affordable housing (Policy 1.1C) specifies the requirement for more family-sized homes, with 42 per cent of social rented and, by 2011,16 per cent of intermediate homes having three bedrooms or more. A meagre provision of 20 houses (8 no. 3 bedroom houses and 12 number 4 bedroom houses) and 290 (14.5%) duplex apartments completely undermines Barnet’s Core Strategy, Specialist Housing Strategy and the Mayor’s Housing Strategy.

Social Infrastructure

We do not believe that Barnet Council has demonstrated a robust assessment of the proposed community amenities such as the 2 form entry primary school, nursery and community centre in order to gauge the adequacy of these facilities to support the scale and size of the scheme. Significantly, the scheme contains no provision for a GP surgery or medical centre facilities for the new occupants. There already exists an acute shortage of medical facilities locally and the absence of this provision in the proposals is a serious omission which must be incorporated to provide adequate social infrastructure. There appears to be an overall lack of long-term vision for the plans, particularly from a health and safety and emergency perspective.

Transport, Parking and Congestion

Bus Priority Lanes & Cool Oak Lane

Serious concerns exist with regards to the acute traffic and congestion problems resulting from this massive development on the already busy A5, local road network and junctions. We disagree with the proposal of deleting sections of priority bus lanes on the A5 as part of the new proposal as this will remove the ‘multi – modal’ aspect agreed with TfL to provide non-car sustainable transport and the objectives agreed for A5. In addition, there are concerns about capacity of junctions, trip generation and increase in flow of traffic on the A5. The objectives for the A5 have been split into two groups, one set for the north, one set for the southern section. These are set down in the North London sub-regional transport plan 2012, and the objectives for the northern section (which this site adjoins) are –

• To encourage longer distance traffic to exit the A5 at appropriate points
• To minimise the impact of developments on the performance of the A5 corridor
• To further improve highway performance by tackling issues at identified delay hotspots
• To protect the status of local and district centres through environmental, public realm and active mode initiatives
• To encourage greater use of public transport from local neighbourhoods to facilities along the A5
• To accommodate longer distance freight and facilitate deliveries and servicing whilst minimising its impact on residents, congestion and air quality.

Assessments to accompany developments should illustrate how these objectives are being worked towards, or at least not acted against.

Furthermore, the adjacent Cool Oak Lane which cuts through the Welsh Harp itself is a narrow, winding and picturesque road which is simply not designed to cope with a four-fold increase in the local population.

Trip Generation Levels

The tables showing the levels of trip generation have been reviewed. Whilst the levels of junction saturation are stated, the developer does not  illustrate the overall level of increase in flow on the A5 (current and future flows) as a result of the development. The junction looks to be very close to capacity already – the assessment states that where development traffic is factored up by 10% to provide a robust assessment, this makes little difference to the operation

of the junction, and that queue lengths only increase by a maximum of 2 pcus. This seems very low and Brent Council has asked that this figure be re-checked.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the application drives a coach and horses through all significant planning policy justifications. The applicant has given inadequate consideration to the local, London-wide and national significance of this unique site and the proposed development would seriously threaten the SSSI status of the Welsh Harp (The only SSSI in Brent or Barnet).

We believe that there are a great number of important factors which remain unaddressed by the developer and if approved, the decision would be tantamount to an act of vandalism.

We, as a cross party alliance in addition to the 800+ Brent Residents who have formally objected to this scheme, urge your good offices to refuse this development in light of the breadth and scale of the concerns outlined above.

Yours sincerely,

Navin Shah AM London Assembly Member for Brent & Harrow	Cllr Muhammed Butt Leader of Brent Council
Cllr Roxanne Mashari Labour Councillor for Welsh Harp Ward Lead Member for Environment & Neighbourhoods	Cllr Alison Hopkins Liberal Democrat Councillor for Dollis Hill Ward Chair, Welsh Harp JCC
Cllr Suresh Kansagra Leader of the Conservative Group Brent Council	Brian Orr Chair, Brent Green Party
Martin Francis Chair, Brent Campaign against Climate Change	Cllr Javaid Ashraf Liberal Democrat Councillor for Dollis Hill Chair, Brent One Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Viv Stein Transition Willesden Brent Friends of the Earth	Maurice Hearn Chair, Dors Close and Doreen Avenue Neighbourhood Watch Former Conservative Councillor
Roland Santos Chair, Wood Close Neighbourhood Watch	Alexander Melia Chair, Comber Close Residents Association

Boris Johnson to decide on Welsh Harp tower blocks on Wednesday

Following Barnet Council's referral of the West Hendon Regeneration Planning Application to the London Mayor last Friday, Boris Johnson will be making his decision on Wednesday 7th July.

He can decide that Barnet Council should make the decision, reject the application or decide to act as the Planning Authority for the application.

Navin Shah AM for Brent and Harrow; Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Brent Council's lead member for environment and Martin Francis, Brent Green Party, met with GLA planners today to put the views of those opposed to the application.

They will be circulating a letter over the weekend to go to Boris Johnson and the planners which will summarise the case against the development and urging him to reject the planning application or failing that, to act as the planning authority. The aim is to get the letter signed by members of all the main political parties in Barnet and Brent as well as all those organisations opposed to the development.

If you do not receive the letter by 9pm on Sunday evening please email Martin Francis at mafran@globalnet.co.uk to request a copy.

The cross-boundary Welsh Harp Joint Consultative Committee today wrote to Boris Johnson calling on him to reject the planning application or act as the planning authority: LINK

Green Party supports 'Space for Bicycles' campaign after latest road deaths

From Natalie Bennett's blog: LINK

There was a mood of sadness, but also determination, at two events in London tonight marking recent road deaths in which vulnerable road users were killed by lorries.

First, outside City Hall, Roadpeace with the Lorry Danger group (also including LCC, CTC, British Cycling and Living Streets) held a vigil acknowledging the death of an elderly pedestrian, who hasn't been named, in Fulham. (Short report here) and the death of cyclist Philippine de Gerin-Ricard on Cycle Superhighway 2 outside Aldgate East station.

It was a brief but moving ceremony at which the names of many recent pedestrian and cycle road victims were read out.

The organisers are vowing that they will return to City Hall on Friday at 5pm in any week in which a cyclist or pedestrian is killed on London's roads - sadly I fear it may not be long before they have to return.
National statistics show a steady trend in increasing cycle deaths and injuries, as do those in London.

The second event was organised by the London Cycling Campaign - around 400 cyclists gathered at Tower Bridge and cycled past the site where Philippine de Gerin-Ricard was killed, chanting "Blue Paint is Not Enough", in reference to the limitations of Boris Johnson's cycle "superhighway" scheme.

Some passing cyclists joined the ride as it took the short route - there was a lot of support also from passers-by.

Earlier in the day, in the West End, I'd had seen an awful brush with potential tragedy. A private small rubbish lorry, driven by a man who seemed to be either in a temper or a huge rush, came at undue speed around the corner of Old Compton Street into Dean Street, over-ran a parking space, then reversed into it at speed, stopping inches before an elderly man who was crossing the street, as I and several other people in the vicinity yelled out. If it hadn't been summer and his window open, I doubt he would have stopped.

It's the kind of incident that's almost commonplace - it as one speaker at the vigil said, we need to be aiming towards zero deaths on the road. We won't get that without serious changes in infrastructure, a lot more driver education,and enforcement.

A political slant on Gladstonbury Festival

The only time these politicians are popular

Cllrs Butt, Mashari and Hirani do the rounds

A run up to pelt Cameron with wet sponges

An unnatural political relationship

Boris Johnson admits new free schools may not be in areas of school places shortage

Boris Johnson confirmed at Mayor's Question Time today that free schools he is backing in London may not be in areas of school places shortage. At present the DfE requires that any new school should be an academy or free school. This means that where sponsors do not come forward such areas will be left without a new school and the money will go instead to build schools areas where there are sufficient places or even a surplus. Instead LAs will be forced to expand existing schools often on unsuitable sites and cutting back on children's play space and creating 'super-size' primaries.

Yet more evidence of government money being spent on Gove and Johnson's ideological projects while depriving local communities of much needed resources.

Question from Darren Johnson (Green AM)

What steps are you taking to ensure that public funding for new schools is directed towards areas of London where there is the largest anticipated shortfall in school places?

Answer by Boris Johnson (Mayor)

The GLA currently runs a pan London school roll projections service for boroughs. I will explore how we can expand this to cover all boroughs, and how we can work more effectively to develop an improved, strategic picture of school places in the capital. I will also support the creation of new free schools where there is strong parental demand though not necessarily a shortage of places.

More Brent schools to expand as Gove restricts new LA school builds

Michael Gove receives a vote of 'No Confidence' from headteachers but at the same time his Tory leadership bid, launched last weekend regarding Europe, seems to be going well. The New Statesman this week carries an article suggesting a Tory leadership combination of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove ('BO-GO'). Enough to give you nightmares.

But the nightmare is already with us because Gove's policies are wreaking havoc. Most obvious at the moment is the ludicrous requirement that any new school must be academy or free school - despite the latter being mainly set up in places with a current surplus of places. Local authorities such as Brent are denied the opportunity to rationally plan new local authority schools in areas where there is a shortage.Instead they have to wait for the market to provide and meanwhile add extra classes to existing schools, or even annexes or 'satellites' to escape government restrictions. Boris adds his tuppenyworth by ear-marking any surplus GLA buildings for possible use as free schools.

Some primary schools are increasing in size to more that 1,000 5-11 year olds, an issue that I have raised several times on Wembley Matters and taken up on Saturday by the Guardian(1,000 pupils and rising - primary schools go supersize LINK )My view is that these are just too big to provide the care and contact that young children need but others think that given the right internal arrangements and ethos these difficulties can be overcome.

Meanwhile the new Brent Executive will tomorrow consider the latest report on primary school expansion which will be presented my Michael Pavey, the new lead member for children and families, and himself Chair of Governors at one of Brent's largest primary schools, the four form entry Wembley Primary.

Some schools have already doubled in size to cope with the shortage and in some cases have lost valuable play space or halls, music rooms or IT suites.  The report LINK includes for 2013-14 the following possibilities:

• 7 primary classes housed in modules at Kingsbury High with the children eventually transferring to Kingsbury Green Primary when it expands. 
• 15 primary classes at the Centre for Staff Development (Gwenneth Rickus Building) in Brentfield Road ) next to the Swaminarayan Independent School. This building will be vacated when the few staff that remain transfer to the Civic Centre. Originally it was ear-marked for secondary places but the required building money is not available.Both Mitchell Brook and Brentfield primary schools are close by but I have heard it may become a satellite of Leopold Primary in Harlesden.
• Use of temporary classrooms previously used by Preston Manor and Brentfield schools and creation of more 'bulge classes' - one off additions to a school rather than a change in the numbers of forms of entry.

There are schemes suggested to provide full new capacity by September 2014 at:

• Wembley High School - a new building providing a 4 form of entry (840 children) primary school making Wembley an 'all-through' school along with Ark and Preston Manor.
• Uxendon Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420  children)
• Harlesden Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420 children)
• Preston Park, Princess Frederica and St Joseph Primary will all add 1 for of entry (210 children)
• Vicar's Green in Ealing but serving many Brent children will add 0.5 forms of entry (105 children)

These schemes would provide new capacity between September 2015:

• Elsley Primary - an additional 2 forms of entry (420 children)
• Stonebridge Primarary - an additional 1 form of entry (210 chilren)
• Malorees Infant and Junior - an additional 1 or 2 forms of entry (210-420 children)
• Oriental City Primary - 2 forms of entry (dependent on Section 106 agreement - not clear re governance)

Other longer term sites in case the need continues have been identified.  These include the Wembley Quintain site for a 2 form entry primary school (420 children), Our Lady of Lourdes (Stonebridge) additional 2 forms of entry (420 children), John Keble and St Francis and St Andrew additional 1 form of entry (210 children) each.

Local authorities must be allowed to plan and build more community primary schools

This was my response to Boris Johnson's call for educationalists to drop their 'ideological'  opposition to free schools in order to solve the shortage of primary places crisis as reported in the Evening Standard this week. Johnson said, “There’s a lot of prejudice against free schools on the part of the education establishment and they need to lose it and need to build more.There’s a huge demographic crisis looming in London and we need to fund the schools. At the moment we’re worried there’s some kind of ideological foot dragging about free schools. They’ve got to blast ahead and make space."

It is truly shocking that 118,000 children will be without a school place by 2016 and Boris Johnson's solution of 'more free schools' will not answer the problem. Free school provision by its very nature is ad hoc, depending on a group coming forward often with unproven back of the envelope plans (just look at their websites)and there is no guarantee that they will be sited in areas of need.

The Coalition's insistence that any new schools should be academies or free schools means that local authorities cannot carefully plan the construction of new community schools across their borough ensuring that there is equal distribution and access.  The fragmentation of the school system under present government policies alongside the undermining, politically and financially, of local authorities means that LAs have the statutory responsibility to provide a school place for every child but not the powers to do so.

This is forcing them to adopt sticking plaster short-term solutions including bulge classes and expansions of present buildings which result in over-large schools, with in some cases more than 1,000 5-11 year olds in one building, loss of play space and cramped conditions. This worsens the quality of provision of all children order to cater for the additional numbers.

If we put children first, and not Michael Gove's ideology, we will restore a local authority's right to build new community schools with all the quality assurance provided by a properly planned and  funded, democratically accountable, local school system.

Boris Johnson fails to answer key questions on his free school policy

Following Boris Johnson's announcement that he wanted to encourage more free schools in London and find GLA surplus property for them, Darren Johnson Green Assembly Member put a number of questions to him in order to delve deeper into his policy which could threaten equality of access for children with disabilities and special educational needs as well as reduce public accountability of schools.

The answers indicate that in fact there is no depth to the policy and that it has not been thought through. Londoners deserve more than 'off the top of the head' thinking when it comes to educating our chidlren. Today's league tables for regions and local authorities show London local authoirty secondary schools are rated higher by Ofsted than the England average.

Here are the questions which Boris Johnson apparently found too hard to answer:

Accountability of Free Schools

Question No: 3469 / 2012

Darren Johnson

How will you ensure that free schools you support, financially, with sites or otherwise, are democratically accountable to the local community as well as to the Secretary of State for Education?

Written response from the Mayor

Policy on free schools is set nationally. Please contact the Department for Education for information about free schools and accountability. More information about free schools is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools.

 

*

Free School policies (1)

Question No: 3470 / 2012

Darren Johnson

How will you ensure that there is fair access to free schools for pupils with special education needs, disabilities or on the free school meals register?

Written response from the Mayor

Policy on free schools is set nationally. Please contact the Department for Education for information about free schools and Special Educational Needs, disabilities, and Free School Meals. More information about free schools is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools.

 

Free School policies (2)

Question No: 3471 / 2012

Darren Johnson

How will you ensure that all free schools you support, financially, with sites or otherwise, commit to a close working relationship with the local authority in order to maintain an appropriate focus on borough-wide priorities, including local authority nomination of a member of the governing body and a commitment to sharing performance information?

Written response from the Mayor

Policy on free schools is set nationally. Please contact the Department for Education for information about free schools and their relationship with local authorities. More information about free schools is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools.

 

Free School policies (3)

Question No: 3472 / 2012

Darren Johnson

How will you ensure that all free schools you support, financially, with sites or otherwise, commit to appropriate staffing arrangements to ensure high quality teaching and learning from qualified staff and good employment practices, including in relation to support and contracted staff?

Written response from the Mayor

Policy on free schools is set nationally. Please contact the Department for Education for information about free schools and staffing. More information about free schools is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools.

 

Free School policies (4)

Question No: 3473 / 2012

Darren Johnson

How will you ensure that all free schools you support, financially, with sites or otherwise, commit to community access and use of facilities through agreed extended opening and lettings policies?

Written response from the Mayor

Policy on free schools is set nationally. Please contact the Department for Education for information about free schools and community access. More information about free schools is available at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools.

 

Free School policies (5)

Question No: 3474 / 2012

Darren Johnson

Will you rule out financial support and the provision of GLA group owned sites for free schools that teach creationism as scientific fact?

Written response from the Mayor

The Department for Education has made very clear that it will not grant approval to any free school application that plans to teach creationism as scientific fact.

 

Building new community schools

Question No: 3467 / 2012

Darren Johnson

Will you press the Government to allow London boroughs to build new community schools in areas where there is a shortage of school places?

Written response from the Mayor

London is facing a severe shortfall of school places and I am grateful that the Government has doubled its funding for basic need addressing the shortage left by the previous Government. I will continue to make the case for London to the Treasury as I have previously successfully done when making joint representations with London Councils. Government funding for new schools, including free schools, presumes that they will be academies. I also want to encourage a new generation of free schools in our capital, to help address the shortage of school places and give parents more genuine choice.

 

Building schools where they are most needed

Question No: 3468 / 2012

Darren Johnson

What steps are you taking to ensure that public funding for new schools is directed towards areas of London where there is the largest anticipated shortfall in school places?

Written response from the Mayor

The GLA currently runs a pan London school roll projections service for boroughs. I will explore how we can expand this to cover all boroughs, and how we can work more effectively to develop an improved, strategic picture of school places in the capital. I will also support the creation of new free schools where there is strong parental demand though not necessarily a shortage of places.

 

'They're out to get you,' Butt warned

'Your main opposition comes from within the Labour Council Executive, the Labour Group on the council and some senior council officers,' opposition leader Paul Lorber told Labour Council leader Muhammed Butt last night. Butt's wry grin seemed to indicate that he recognised a grain of truth in the statement.

Lorber's comment came in response to Butt's speech for the Budget First Reading Debate where he lambasted the vindictiveness of the Government's welfare cuts predicting that their policies would lead to the wiping out of the advances made by 13 years of Labour government:

This is the deliberate effect of an ideological experiment designed by  (the Conservatives) and shamefully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It is a social experiment based on the Conservative belief that the rich should have no responsibility for the poor.

 Butt outlined  a package of 'reforms'  that would provide resilience and protection for the community:

• Support for local business and their growth through working with them for shared objectives
• Paying the London Living Wage to direct council employees and encouraging contractors to do the same
• Create an energy cooperative to bulk purchase energy for residents
• Investment in an innovative employment support package
• A new deal for the voluntary and community sector helping troubled families and tackling health inequality

Butt said that the council would shift council resources from the 'treatment of problems to the prevention of problems'  and would 'squeeze contractors and providers' and get rid of 'inefficiewncy, duplication and waste'. He said that the council couldn't fight the residents' battles for them any more but could provide a 'dented shield'.

Cllr Butt said that the council budget had been reduced by 28% between 2010 and 2014 and that the failure of the government's policies had led to forecasts of a 7% reduction every year until 2020 at least. 

There was a conspicuous lack of detail on what that would mean in terms of cuts to council services except for a passing reference to looking at charges for services.

If there is to be any proper consultation on the budget, and particularly if there is to be any effective campaign  based on a needs budget, the specific cuts to services need to be spelled out as quickly as possible. Residents need to have a realistic view of what they face in the immediate future. Apart from the Living Wage and Energy Cooperative proposals the other 'reforms' are vague. It would be an insult to residents if the consultation just sought endorsement for the reforms and the gloss involved in 'community, fairness and growth'.

There was little evidence in Paul Lorber's speech that he had burned the midnight oil preparing a comprehensive alternative approach. He criticised the lack of substance in Butt's presentation but his own was a knockabout speech piling blame for the economic crisis on the Labour Government and more tellingly  emphasising Ed Balls' statement that Labour are 'going to be ruthless about public spending'. He ridiculed Butt's claim about strengthening communities when the council had cut grants to the voluntary sector, and supporting businesses when they had increased parking charges hitting reducing the trade of local businesses.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra  said little apart from drawing attention to the cost of legal action over the libraries and parking charges.

I thought there might have been more attention given to Sarah Teather's Observer interview about the welfare benefit cap. Cllr Jim Moher, in response to Lorber's quote from Ed Balls said it was not a question of 'whether we would make cuts but whether we would have made this scale of cuts' and went on to say there was no hint in Lorber's speech of the disquiet in Lib Dem ranks and amongst many Lib Dem councillors. The Sarah Teather 'elephant in the room' had been reduced to a hamster.

So what about the rest of the meeting?   I left before the motions but questions to the Executive included some effective ones from Cllr Alison Hopkins in libraries and Cllr Carol Shaw on the Willesden Green Redevelopment and a less effective one from Cllr Daniel Brown on the dangers of the failure to clear fallen leaves after the cuts in street cleaning.  Cllr Shaw criticised the cost of the Civic Centre perhaps forgetting that this was the brain child of the Lib Dem led previous administration - fully supported by Labour of course.

Cllr Hunter extolled the virtues of making 'evidence based' recommendations on health and not 'political ones' thus not opposing the closure of Central Middlesex A&E. She quoted Boris Johnson approvingly on the virtues of cross-party support for the Olympics.

 Labour backbenchers asked questions that enabled Muhammed Butt to make attacks on various government policies including the cutting of the Early Intervention Grant. Cllr Krupesh Hirani drew approval from across the chamber when he spoke about the hard work of carers and even more when he took a swipe at adult care provision in Brighton and Hove where there is a Green led minority administration.(Background HERE)

Entertainment was provided by spotting the councillors and officers who had fallen asleep, those that were tweeting and texting surreptitiously under desks or cardies on their laps, and of course seeing Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala once again achieve a multiple orgasm just by listening to the sound of his own voice.

London Living Wage increased but 1 in 5 Londoners on poverty wages

Thanks to Brent BASIS for this:

New analysis funded by Trust for London shows that there has been a 100,000 increase in the number of London jobs paying below the London Living Wage (LLW) - taking the total to 580,000. This means that 1 in 5 Londoners working in the capital are now paid poverty wages.

This is despite a new piece of research by Queen Mary, University of London (commissioned by Trust for London) showing that paying the Living Wage has big benefits for business, workers and the Treasury.

The research is the first to provide data showing the Living Wage increases the happiness of workers; it shows:

• Over half of employees (54%) felt more positive about their workplace once the LW was introduced and 52% felt more loyal.
• Staff leaving rates fell by 25%.
• Almost a third (32%) of workers felt it benefitted their family life by allowing them to do things like spend more time with family.

·         Almost 4 in 10 (38%) workers reported financial benefits such as being able to buy more goods and save more.

In addition companies interviewed said the reputational benefits of paying the LW helped them attract new business and customers. Employers also reported HR benefits at all levels with high calibre graduates at one employer citing paying the living wage as one of the top 3 reasons for applying as it demonstrates corporate social responsibility.

The Living Wage rate for workers in London is to increase by 25p an hour to £8.55, the capital's mayor has announced. Boris Johnson said the new rate will be worth £4.5 million a year for lower-paid workers. The Living Wage rate outside London will also rise by 25p to £7.45, benefiting thousands of workers.

Boris Johnson ditches driverless trains plans according to reports today

It has been reported that Boris Johnson has withdrawn his plans for driverless underground trains which were due to be tested on the Jubilee Line.  See previous  blog from the RMT HERE

REPORT HERE

Why staff are essential to a safe London Underground

From  the RMT

A London Underground cleaner pulled a child to safety from a railway line just moments after a driver hit their trains emergency brakes and prevented what could have been a fatal incident.

The eight year old boy was pulled to safety from the Jubilee Line tracks at Stanmore just moments after a train was brought to an emergency stop by the driver a few feet away.

This incident comes within days of a young girl being hit by a train on the Victoria Line. Previously a child on the Jubilee Line who had fallen between the train and the platform at Finchley Road could easily have lost his life, had the driver not spotted him on CCTV moments before he was about to depart the station.

All of these incidents come at a time when the London Mayor Boris Johnson and London Underground are planning for driverless trains, and the drastic reduction of station staff.

A leaked document on LU management plans for London Underground gives detail of these plans and ideas. London's Mayor Johnson has spoken openly of his wish for trains to operate on the underground without a drivers cab. These plans would most likely mean having no driver at the front of the train to see any dangers or risks ahead.

All of these incidents could easily have been much worse had it not been for professional train drivers reacting swiftly to stop their trains, and station staff and contractors speedily dealing with these situations.

The cleaner who reacted without thought for their own safety - and in doing so pulled a young child to safety - is a hero. The train driver who reacted swiftly to stop their train having spotted the child on the tracks ahead is a hero too.

The RMT has long called for more staff, not less on the underground. These incidents demonstrate a few of the reasons - in the most real of terms - of why staff are essential to a safe railway

Boris's bus will slowly live and die in London

 

From Left Foot Forward:

The New Bus for London is loved by many and nice to look at, but it is wrong in so many ways that it is hard to know where to start. It is probably bad news for British exports, probably bad on value for money, very bad for fares and awful for the environment.

 The Mayor has created what he describes as a ‘world class piece of technology’, but the problem is that the world doesn’t want it. Despite the Mayor talking up ‘covetous foreigners’ sniffing around the new bus earlier in the year, the reality is that the odd design of the bus makes export sales unlikely.

Rather than being a bonus for British industry, it may well divert one of our main bus companies away from a focus on export sales. In fact, the unique design that the manufacturer is unlikely to find any takers for these Boris buses anywhere else in the UK.

Despite TfL denials, it is the unique design which has led Transport for London (TfL) to take the unprecedented step of buying the buses themselves and to state the buses would spend all their 14-year ‘economic life in London’.

Instead of achieving the economies of scale from a production run of thousands, the Mayor is ordering 600 over a four-year period. Instead of opening up the bidding for building the new bus to a selection of manufacturers in a highly competitive market, we have a monopoly supplier dictating the price of a Mayoral manifesto promise.

Instead of a bus which can be resold in a few years time to operators elsewhere in the country, we have a bus which will live and slowly die in London. Instead of a bus like the old Routmaster - which I’m told you could fix with a spanner and a host of inter-changeable parts - we have a bus full of ‘uniqueness’.
This country has a highly developed bus market in which bus operators compete for contracts and purchase their buses from a large pool of bus manufacturers. Boris has now bucked the market and set up a monopoly in which he tells operators to use the bus he personally favours.

Londoners are shouldering all the costs and risks of this venture. Fares will rise because of the £37 million a year bill for the extra staff who have to be present when the rear door is open. Fares will also rise to cover the cost of a bus that is bought at a premium from a monopoly supplier and which TfL can’t sell on. Any additional insurance costs (due to the open rear door) will also be covered by TfL within the price of the contract.


A big selling point of the new bus has been its environmental credentials. I have raised doubts about the environmental claims made by the Mayor. I have accepted the Mayor’s claim it is more fuel efficient that the average new bus and has lower emissions, but it is only marginally better than other new hybrid buses which are starting to roll off production lines.

The thing is technology is improving all the time and TfL are constantly raising the environmental bar on what they expect from new buses. We are only a short while away from all new buses being cleaner than the Mayor’s New Bus for London and it is even conceivable London will follow the path of other European cities and switch to all electric buses.

London’s bus contracts are on a five-year cycle and this enables TfL to constantly tighten the standards. That is why London bus operators resell their older out of date buses to places like Bournemouth. The problem for the New Bus for London is it is spending the whole of its ‘economic life in London’. I worry that in 14 years time it will be old and outdated compared to every other vehicle in the London bus fleet, but Bournemouth won’t be a retirement option for this bus. Instead it will be heading straight to the scrap yard.
Finally, there is the problem of TfL spending £160m of its capital budget on the new bus, rather than the operators making the purchase as part of the normal contractual arrangement. This figure has appeared in the Standard and on BBC, but it has been my own unofficial estimate based upon the Mayor keeping his promise that the new bus (bought from a monopoly supplier) will cost no more than a standard hybrid bus.

Whatever the price, the real problem is that this money could have been used by the Mayor to stick to his commitment that all new buses would be low-polluting hybrid buses from 2012 onwards. Instead of 600 low-polluting uniquely designed buses by 2016 we could have had thousands of the ordinary low-polluting kind.

The Mayor has wasted another opportunity to improve London’s chronic air pollution problem.

Darren Johnson Green AM

Barclays 'a proud British institution'- Boris Johnson

Met racism review should include stop and search

Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has shown that the Metropolitan Police Service are 11 times more likely to stop and search black people than white people. The research looked at the powers used under section 60 of the 1994 Public Order Act, which does not require suspicion of involvement in crime. 
 
The EHRC found that in 2010-11, the Metropolitan Police stopped 32.8 out of every 1,000 black people in its area. The figures also show section 60 may be ineffective in fighting crime. According to the report in England as a whole 2.3% of section 60 stop and searches resulted in an arrest in 2010-11.
 
Responding to the research Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones  said: 
 
This research shows black youth are being disproportionately targeted with stop and search. It’s no wonder some communities feel over policed and under protected when they are targeted in this way. The Met has to stop the amount of wasteful stop and searches it currently carries out. It’s alienating communities and has a poor arrest rate for the damage it does.
 
The Met need to act on the findings of this research to address the problems of disproportionality in section 60 stop and searches now, or face losing this power. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime should widen its review into racism within the Met to include the ongoing problem of disproportionality with stop and search.