London launches National Park City Week July 21st-29th 2018

A child's view of Fryent Country Park

The London Assembly are to hold a London National Park City Week  from July 21st to 29th July to 'explore London's amazing outdoors and help make the city greener this summer.'

Details from the website below. It would be great if Brent could play their part in organising events (it might even help to tackle the child obesity problem by demonstrating that open air physical activity is fun).

What is London National Park City Week?

From 21-29 July, the city will host the first ever London National Park City Week. There’ll be loads of fantastic events and activities all week long as we celebrate London’s unique green spaces, waterways and natural environment.

We’re working with the National Park City Foundation and our partners across London on the events programme. We want to give Londoners the chance to discover the city with walks, talks, explorations, and family activities, and to help make the city greener.

National Park City Week is part of the Mayor’s plan to help make London the world's first National Park City in 2019. Our ambition is to make more than half of London's area green and blue by 2050. To make this happen, we need your help.

We’ll publish details of the full London National Park City Week programme later this spring. In the meantime, why not get planting or explore some of our wonderful green spaces. Share your experiences using #NationalParkCity.

Host an event for London National Park City Week

Do you want to help us celebrate  London’s unique green spaces and outdoor opportunities, and showcase your contribution? We want to work with partners across London – community groups, environmental organisations, boroughs, businesses – to host events that:

• help Londoners to explore London’s great outdoors, especially less well known green spaces, footpaths and waterways
• offer new and creative ways of exploring London’s green spaces and landscapes
• support Londoners who have limited access to green space, or visit the natural environment less often, to discover green spaces, trees and wildlife
• create new green space, or help people to green their local neighbourhoods or improve habitats for wildlife

Whether your events are free, paid, big or small, they should be as accessible to all Londoners. We’re particularly keen to host family-friendly events. We will include your event or activity in the online programme. You’ll also benefit from a high-profile marketing campaign.

If you’d like to submit an event, please complete the form by 20 April 2018. To talk to us about your idea, please email NPCweek@london.gov.uk.

Throw out '80% of market rent' definition of affordable, Sian Berry urges Sadiq Khan

Problems with the term 'affordable' regarding both rents and house purchase, have featured regularly on Wembley Matters. Here Sian Berry, Green London Assembly Member, tackles Sadiq Khan's failure to issue clear guidelines. First published on Sian's City Hall website.

Is the Mayor going to break his promise to redefine what ‘affordable’ rent means for the average Londoner?

The importance of setting a new definition of ‘affordable’ rent in London cannot be overstated. In my response to the Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy, just published, I’ve voiced my concerns that the Mayor’s efforts to define a London Living Rent include loopholes that break his promise to sort this out.

These loopholes mean Boris Johnson’s ‘80 per cent of market rent’ definition will still be the norm in most new developments, leaving Londoners out in the cold.

In recent years, under Government policies and those of the previous Mayor, the ‘affordable’ component of many developments has been entirely made up of shared ownership and ‘affordable’ intermediate rented units.

The rents in these homes are able to go up to “no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent,” as defined by the Government in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

We have uniquely high private market rents in London. Rents here are nearly twice as high as the median for other regions of England (see the chart below, taken from evidence in the draft strategy).

The impact of this runs right through the housing crisis, preventing Londoners saving for deposits and pushing many people into homelessness.

With rent inflation also outstripping wages, the the case for defining affordability in terms of incomes not market rates is overwhelming.

‘No more than 80 per cent of the local market rent’

This year, I have spoken in committees and the Assembly with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor James Murray about strengthening the definition of ‘affordable’ in London.

I have asked them to make the case to Government more strongly that London should be able to set a definition of affordable that is below this maximum and, ideally, defined in terms of wages not market rates.

The Mayor says strongly in his draft strategy that he doesn’t believe the Government’s definition is right for London. He has also defined, as part of his funding programme, a new London Affordable Rent at social rent levels (though these would be higher than the current average paid by social tenants in London) and a new London Living Rent, set at a third of average local household incomes.

However, this strategy and the London Plan will apply not only to homes funded by the Mayor but also to the private developments that are expected to meet most of London’s affordable housing needs, through the contributions they make to gain planning permission.

I am therefore very concerned to see that section 4.22 of the draft Housing Strategy includes the comment: “All intermediate rented homes should provide at least a 20 per cent discount on market rents.” and to see the 80 per cent of market rates definition appear in the glossary. This is the old definition plainly stated when it was supposed to be abolished by the new Mayor.

The actual policy sections for affordable housing then say the Mayor will be: “supporting a range of other types of intermediate rented homes as long as they are genuinely affordable to Londoners, generally meaning that they should be accessible by those whose household incomes fall under £60,000.”

With the Government’s 80 per cent definition also included in policies in the draft London Plan, I think we’re looking at a broken promise from the Mayor – maintaining a loophole that developers will exploit, and failing properly to move away from the old definition of ‘affordable’.

Redefining ‘affordable’ for London

There are two ways London could seek to set a more realistic upper limit of ‘affordable’ rent that would apply across the board:

1. In the Mayor’s discussions with Government for devolved housing powers, he should seek to allow London to set its own definition of affordable within both our funding programmes and planning policies, based on the very high cost of market rent in London. This would be the most effective way to achieve our goal as any new definition should be set in relation to wages, rather than market rates, and this requires a clear deviation from the NPPF.

2. Through the London Plan, we should define intermediate ‘affordable’ rent at a lower maximum proportion of the local market rate. This would still be compliant with the NPPF, as it would not be above 80 per cent, but there is enough evidence to convince an examiner of the validity of a policy that required a lower limit in London.

Councils are already messing with the definition of Living Rent too

I’m a borough councillor in Camden and there the council has set up its own housing company to rent out some of the new flats it is building on estates. These were promised at a Living Rent but, now the first flats have gone out for renting, it’s clear that these aren’t following the Mayor’s definition of a London Living Rent, especially not for families.

Read more about this on my local website: Camden Council pushes out families with high rents in its new ‘Living Rent’ scheme.

I’ve asked the Mayor in a written question this month what he thinks about councils undermining the term Living Rent in this way. He’s been very vocal about the previous Mayor’s definition of ‘affordable’ being nothing of the kind, and I think he should be standing up against people creating confusion about his new definition so soon after it was established.

London Mayor torpedoes Barnet's Grahame Park regeneration citing loss of affordable homes

From Construction News LINK

Sadiq Khan has rejected plans for a housing estate regeneration project in north London on the basis that affordable homes will be lost.

The mayor of London said the scheme in Barnet is “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

The project at the 1970s Grahame Park estate in Colindale includes plans to demolish 692 homes available at social rent and replace them with 1,083 units.

But only 435 of the new homes will be available for social tenants within what is Barnet’s largest housing estate.

Barnet Council approved the scheme, which is being developed by Genesis Housing Association, last month.

However, Mr Khan said after considering the evidence, the council must now work with City Hall planners to redesign the project.

It is the second time this year the mayor has intervened in Barnet, having called in the council’s decision to refuse Barratt permission for 462 homes in May.

The mayor said: “I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.”

Mr Khan pointed to his London Plan, published last month, which said estate regeneration projects must replace homes for social rent on a like-for-like basis.

He added: “Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.”

Housing estate regeneration is a major issue in the capital, with Haringey Council facing fierce opposition to its £2bn plans to regenerate part of Wood Green in north London.

A Barnet Council spokesperson said: “We are clearly disappointed by this decision. We will now be reviewing this with our development partner to agree the next steps.”

A Genesis spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed to hear this decision and are in close dialogue with Barnet Council and the mayor’s office to review next steps.”

NOTE

Genesis Housing Association is associated with the Brent House development where only 30% of units are 'affordable' (ie unaffordable to most local families at up to 80% market rent) and the controversial Minavil House development where  'affordable' is 60% of market rent but only 13% of the units.  It is also facing a campaign by tenants over the merger with Notting Hill Housing Trust and its move away from its original remit of providing housing at social rent.

It will be interesting to see how Mr Khan treats applications from Brent which don't offer Londoners more high quality homes at social rent.

Brent Planners' rulings in Wembley: Curiouser and Curiouser

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).  [Alice in Wonderland]

 

A modern day Alice in Wembleyland may have a similar reaction to some of the content of reports coming up before the Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday for developments around Wembley Stadium which are in Council leader Muhammed Butt's Tokyngton ward.

Despite recent publicity about planners ignoring the stipulations of Brent's own planning policies, as well as the London plan, convoluted arguments are used to justify ignoring them once again.

Brent had a 20%  cap for the proportion of student accommodation in the Wembley area in terms of the total population. It had ruled that the cap had now been reached. However two applications are on the agenda  for Parkwood House Albion Way and Unit 1-5 Cannon Trading Estate, in First Avenue for 283 and 678 beds respectively. The latter as part of a new campus for the University College of Football Business (UCFB) which includes educational facilities.

Planners use projected population growth to rule that the number of units in a 20% cap is actually higher than they had previously said:

 The research carried out by officers took into consideration the actual consents (rather than an average 12% increase as argued by the applicants) and concluded that the projected population growth of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) area would have been 27,377 if considered solely on the site allocations, however when taking into consideration the site allocations, and deliverable planning permissions granted to date (both implemented and extant) the current WAAP area population increase as of October 2017 stands at 32,842. Based on this, it is considered that when considered against the 5444 student bedrooms granted to date, this would mean that the current percentage of student accommodation against residential population stands at 16.6%, which would allow for an additional 1,123 rooms before the 20% cap is reached. 


The researched carried out by applicants and officers in relation to the Parkwood House application (17/2782) has significant bearing on this application. Given that Parkwood House (283 beds) and UCFB (678 beds) together propose an additional 961 student beds within the WAAP area, both schemes can be accommodated within the revised 20% student cap of 1,123 beds.

 The UCFB application has received 46 supporting comments and none against. Look a little further and you find that 39 of the 46 come from existing student accommodation in Victoria Halls, Felda House and Unite Students.

The Parkway development has not yet got a student accommodation provider to run the site. It consists of a part 13 and part 17 storey development.  The height restrictions of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) are casually circumvented:

• The approach to the height, massing and material palette is supported as it will provide a high architectural quality that is appropriate for a building of this height. The site is designated within the Wembley Area Action Plan as "Inappropriate for tall buildings". However, the proposed building relates well to the other tall buildings within the immediate vicinity, forming a logical cluster of tall buildings that also achieves an appropriate relationship with the nearby lower mansion blocks to the north.

 As I have remarked before, once tall buildings are allowed, they are used as a precedent for more in the same vicinity. The Football University building is 9-11 storeys in height.

Further to the proportion of student accommodation and the height of buildings another long-running sore is Brent's attitude towards affordable housing. Too often planners do not state exactly what is meant by 'affordable' skating over the details  but the report on the Quintain application for 'Land East of Wembley Stadium' has to respond to representations from the London Mayor's Office.

Affordable housing: 23% offered as DMR (Discounted Market Rent) at up to 80% of market rate is wholly unacceptable and must be significantly increased, noting the introduction of high density residential on this Opportunity Area and Housing Zone site. The affordability of the affordable housing must also be addressed. GLA officers will robustly scrutinise the viability assessment to maximise affordable housing provision. Once secured, any on-site affordable housing must remain affordable in perpetuity, and appropriate covenants and clawbacks secured in accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 

An initial offer of 23% affordable housing by the developer was reduced to 7% when Brent tried to make it truly affordable for Brent residents, but they find this proportion 'acceptable'.

In order to deliver affordable units at London Living Rent levels, more planning gain subsidy is required, and this change has a consequential negative impact on the quantum of affordable housing the scheme can provide when compared to the applicants’ original offer. The Council's consultants have advised the Council that at London Living Rent levels the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing provision that the scheme can currently viably provide is 28 units, representing 6.6% by unit (7% by habitable room). The applicants have offered 32 units, representing a minimum 7% by unit (8% by habitable room). It is accepted that the reduction in the affordable housing quantum from 23% to a minimum of 7% is a notable change, however after considering local housing needs and affordability and the wider Wembley Park affordable housing provision discussed above, officers take the view that this is outweighed by the important benefits associated with London Living Rent, including the significant increase in affordability that this tenure provides for Brent residents.

For reference the London Living Rent is set by the London Mayor's Office based on median household income per ward. These are the Brent figures: 

Click on image to enlarge

The full details and basis for calculation can be found HERE

It should be noted that viability reviews usually reduce the amount of affordable housing rather than increase it.

This buildings will be 10-21 storeys high affecting views of the stadium so a curious feature of this application is the statement by Wembley National Stadium Limited which quotes its arrangement with Quintain as a reason for not opposing this scheme, although they appear to be really against it:

The scale, size and occupancy of the development is different to that previously approved for this plot, and the introduction of residential use has led to a significantly different form, massing and height for E05. This effects (sic) the view of the Stadium from Great Central Way, which is a key route into the Stadium for spectators, teams, officials and dignitaries. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and change in view may give cause for The FA to wish to object. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and impact may give cause for The FA to wish to object. (sic) In this instance however, we have a close working relationship and contractual arrangements in place with the applicant (which include provision of facilities, tenant management arrangements, anti-ambush protection and other measures to protect Stadium operations on both event days and non-event days). We do wish to put on record that any future developments of similar scale and size where we do not enjoy the same arrangements with the applicant will lead to an objection.

The last sentence looks like a demand that any further applications by Quintain will need similar 'arrangements' if WNSL are not to oppose them. Presumably if such arrangements are made they will be happy for the 'iconic stadium views' to disappear behind a curtain of tower blocks.

Old Oak/Park Royal Development community event on Tuesday Jan 31st

The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) is holding an event to talk to the community about the plans for the area, hear the outcome of the Mayor’s review and to meet Victoria Hills (Chief Executive Officer of the OPDC). 

Details are:
Date: Tuesday, 31st January 2017, 6.30 - 8.30
Venue:  Cumberland House, 80 Scrubs Lane NW10 6RF London, London, England, GB, NW10 6RF

Please sign up for the event online so that they can keep a track of numbers HERE

Greens expose unviability of London Mayor's 'viability team' on affordable housing

Sian Berry London Green Party Assembly Member has revealed that the London Mayor’s new ‘team of viability experts’ will consist of only two people, which is not enough to challenge the huge resources of developers.

The new team will be based in City Hall and will examine figures submitted by developers when they fail to meet the Mayor’s targets for affordable homes.

However, in response to a written question from Sian Berry, the Mayor has said the ‘team’ will be made up of just two people.

He also failed to give reassurances that they would be permanent staff and not on short term contracts that allow them to move back and forth between public and commercial work that could bring conflicts of interest.

Sian Berry said:

The Mayor promised a team of experts and Londoners need more than two people in these posts if the Mayor’s goal of challenging developers is to be viable. I am very concerned that two people, however talented, will be stretched beyond capacity and unable to make a real difference.

There’s already too much of a ‘revolving door’ for consultants between big developers and Council regeneration schemes, and it’s vital that these experts do not also have commercial interests while working on behalf of Londoners.

The new team needs to be expanded quickly and this should not be done by hiring in consultants on short term contracts, but by building up a dedicated and permanent expert team that works only in the public interest.

Sadiq Khan is currently consulting on draft Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Guidance (consultation ends 28th February 2017) LINK

It is clear from the draft extracts below that more than two experts will be required to give close attention to schemes when developers argue that they will only be 'viable' if less than 50% of housing is 'affordable'.  In truth two people would hardly be adequate for developments taking place just within Brent in Wembley Park, South Kilburn and Alperton. The problem that 'affordable' is not really affordable and Brent  regular backs down in the face of viability assessments has been covered on this blog LINK and reported on Get West London website LINK

VIABILITY ASSESSMENTS

14 The third part of the SPG (Supplementary Planning Guidance) provides detailed guidance on viability assessments, aiming to establish a standardised approach to viability. The SPG clearly sets out what information and assumptions should be included in a viability appraisal. It builds on the London Borough Development Viability Protocol and aims to provide a clear approach that can be consistently applied across London.

15 It sets out the Mayor’s expectations when it comes to the publication of viability information, requiring all information to be made public, including council and third party assessments. Applicants will have the opportunity to argue that limited elements should be kept undisclosed, but the onus is on the applicant to make this case.

16 The SPG is explicit about the Mayor’s preference for using Existing Use Value Plus as the comparable Benchmark Land Value when assessing the viability of a proposal. The premium above Existing Use Value will be based on site by site justification reflecting the circumstances of the site and landowner.

THE MAYOR AND REFERABLE APPLICATIONS

1.16 Given the strategic importance of affordable housing delivery and the significant impact of reduced levels of affordable housing on the delivery of the London Plan, the Mayor will consider directing that he is to be the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining an application (often referred to as a ‘call in’) or directing refusal when:

•       he is not satisfied with the viability information submitted by the applicant, the assumptions that underpin the information, or the level of scrutiny given by the LPA; 


•       he considers the viability information submitted may suggest a higher level of affordable housing could reasonably be provided; 


•       the chance of significant contribution to affordable housing could be forgone due to other grounds and the Mayor wants to review the weight the LPA has given to competing planning objectives. 


London Mayor urged to intervene in risky Hammerson 'fairy tale' at Brent Cross

Guest blog by John Cox (click on image to enlarge)

London Mayor's Deputy approved 'Twin Towers' two days before election

It has emerged that Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff of the then London Mayor, Boris Johnson, decided not to intervene in the 'Twin Towers' development on the site of Chesterfield House, Park Lane, Wembley. just two days before the GLA election.

The borough's decision was subject to a Stage 2 referral to the Mayor's Office.

This was one of several decisions made in the last few weeks of the previous administration.

FoE's assesment of London Mayoral candidates' environmental policies

From Friends of the Earth (as this come from a politically neutral group it is unedited):

 

Friends of the Earth's assessment of the environmental policies of the candidates for London mayor

This mayoral election has been a race to the top on environmental issues, with candidates vying with each other to show that they have the greenest policies to improve Londoners’ lives.

Overall, our assessment shows that whoever is the next mayor, Londoners will benefit from greener policies than those of central government, which has torn up initiatives, from insulating cold homes to supporting solar energy.

All of the main candidates have signed up to policies including protecting the Green Belt, opposing Heathrow, and building high-quality, zero-carbon homes.

But on the critical issue of air pollution, the 2 frontrunners still need to toughen their plans if Londoners are to be protected from one of the biggest threats to our health.

The final scores

 

We’ve also published a full breakdown of how we scored each candidate on each issue [pdf].

Our 10 policy tests

Friends of the Earth asked the main mayoral candidates to tell us where they stood on 10 key policies  which our supporters ranked as the important tests of whether the next mayor will protect London’s environment.
Our aim has been for the candidates to make clear pledges to implement these policies.

Our analysis

Sian Berry (Green Party) and Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat Party) are the joint greenest candidates, with each committing to deliver all of our 10 key policies.

Sadiq Khan (Labour Party) and Zac Goldsmith (Conservative Party) are almost neck-and-neck on scores with Sadiq inching ahead by half a point.

Sadiq has committed fully to deliver more of the key green policies needed to protect the environment and Londoners’ health and economy, while Zac falls short in more areas.
All of the main candidates have signed up to strong policy on key issues which matter to our supporters, including powering London with clean energy, ensuring new homes are built to good standards; and protecting our green spaces.

However, Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith still need to tighten their policies in some areas, including, crucially, cleaning up London’s dirty air.

How did the candidates fare?

Sian Berry has scored a well-earned 10/10, with great policy on every single one of our top issues.
In particular, her air pollution policies are excellent, including a pledge to convert the entire bus fleet to electric or hybrid vehicles by 2020, and to bring London’s air pollution down to legal levels by 2020 - 5 years earlier than current government plans.

Caroline Pidgeon also scores 10/10, having committed to delivering all of our key policies.
Her cycling policies are particularly good, and she was the first candidate to support the London Cycling Campaign’s Sign for Cycling policies.

However, on some issues, a little more detail on how she plans to deliver would be welcome.
Sadiq Khan, scoring a respectable 8/10, has some very good policies on issues such as renewables, divestment, stopping fracking, and reviewing the London Plan in the light of the Paris climate agreement.

However, Sadiq’s strong support for a new runway at Gatwick is a significant weak point in his environmental policies.

In addition, his unwillingness so far to tackle cold homes by introducing minimum energy efficiency standards in private rented housing, and his lack of sufficient commitment to dealing with the air pollution which blights Londoners’ lives, have let him down. 

Zac Goldsmith, with 7.4/10, also has some very good policies on protecting nature, renewables, and keeping strong energy efficiency standards for new-build homes.

We particularly welcomed his recent promise to follow the other main candidates in supporting the divestment of the London Pension Fund Authority from fossil fuels, although he has not committed - as others have - actively to call for its divestment (a difference we think is important).

Zac’s promise only to back the purchase of clean buses is potentially very strong, but without clarification of the start date for this - which we did ask for - we can’t give him extra points for it.
In addition, his unwillingness to come out strongly against any new airport capacity in London, and his lack of commitment to strengthening the London Plan to ensure the city is a leader in tackling climate change, let him down.

Who does Friends of the Earth want to win?

Friends of the Earth is party politically impartial - we do not support any candidate. Our aim for the mayoral elections has been to ensure that all candidates have strong policies on the environment.
Our scoring reflects our assessment of each candidate’s policies on environmental criteria, and does not represent an endorsement of any candidate.

Brent Labour jitters ahead of AGM

Things seem to be getting a little jittery in the Brent Labour Group of councillors ahead of their Annual General Meeting which will be held after the May 5th GLA and Kilburn elections.

One councillor had apparently threatened resignation and was then suspended by the Labour whip with London Region Labour Party getting involved. His current status is unclear.

This is a little embarrassing during a by-election in Kilburn.

Muhammed Butt is disclaiming any knowledge of what is going on and referred any concerned colleagues to London region.

Meanwhile speculation over Butt's position as leader centres on whether he will get a job with Sadiq Khan if the Labour candidate wins the London Mayoral election.

Should a challenger from within the Labour Group wait for a peaceful succession when Butt moves on, or start campaigning for a leadership challenge at the AGM  now in case Butt's job with Khan does not come off?

Cllr Pavey, deputy leader,  was open about his disgruntlement over his Human Resources inquiry LINK while Cllr Sam Stopp hinted at political pressure on planning decisions when he spoke to the Kilburn Times about the 'Twin Towers' LINK:

“There are questions to be made about who is making decisions about which planning application goes ahead. What causes the decision made at planning to be made? Is it just on the merits of the scheme or are there political angles there as well?

Although there are some fairly open critics of Cllr Butt's leadership in the Labour group, especially over his 'controlling' behaviour, I am doubtful about how much support they can gather amongst their colleagues.

There are 56 members of the group but only half a dozen or so, aside from  Cabinet members,  make much impact on Council business. They may be united as critics of Butt but do not seem to be united by any particular political ideology or programme.

Against them are the silent majority, 'Mo's people', sometimes disparagingly known as the 'puddings', who  keep a low or non-existent public profile.  They turn up at Council meetings, stumblingly read out planted questions to allow Cabinet members to preen themselves, and then vote like robots for the official line.

NUT London Mayoral Hustings on Monday - what are the issues?

From the NUT

NUT call on the next Mayor of London to defend education and help teachers create a just society for all.

 The NUT will be holding a London Mayoral Hustings on Monday March 7th 6pm at the union's headquarters at Hamilton House, Mabledon Place, WC1H 9BD, near Kings Cross, off the south side of Euston Road. 

The meeting will be introduced by Christine Blower, NUT General Secretary. The flyer advertsing the event lists the issues that matter to London teachers: London's schools are under threat London is a city full of creativity, talent and potential. Our schools and teachers are amongst the best in the world. Yet this sucess is under real threat. Spending cuts School budgets across London face 12% cuts under Government spending plans. In some boroughs, the losses could be over 20%. That would mean understaffed schools, bigger class sizes, more children's needs unmet and a narrower curriculum. 

 Teacher shortages

 Talented, hardworking teachers are being driven out of London's schools by excessive workload, the lack of affordable housing and an exam factory culture which demoralises both staff ansd children. Poverty and unaffordable housing Almost 4 in 10 children in the capital grow up in poverty. Unaffordable rents force too many families into unsuitable housing. These conditions impact heavily on children's education and their schools. Lack of school places London needs 113,000 more school places to meet demand. Yet our Councils have neither the funds nor the legal powers to open new schools. Stand Up for London's Education 

The NUT believes that every child deserves the best. We have produced a Manifesto for London's schools calling on the next Mayor of London to defend education and help teachers create a just society for all. Help stand up for education Come along to our hustings and other local campaign activities across London.

Issues to be addressed:

• A good local school for every child
• Affordable housing for children and teachers
• Education – invest, don’t cut
• All children deserve qualified teachers
• An equal chance for every child in London
• An end to child poverty in London
• An end to exam factories

Proposals to put forward:

• A good local school for every child
• Affordable housing for children and teachers
• Education – invest, don’t cut
• All children deserve qualified teachers
• An equal chance for every child in London
• An end to child poverty in London
• An end to exam factories

- See more at: http://www.teachers.org.uk/campaigns/london-manifesto#sthash.MZheSnug.dpuf

Greens launch Fair Fares revolution for London's tranport system

“We’ll level the playing field to make everyone’s journey to work  cost the same, removing the hidden penalties if you live in outer London, work part time, need to take two buses, or change between tube, bus and train on your way.”

On the day transport fares go up throughout the country, the Green Party today announces radical plans to flatten fares across the capital and make transport fairer for all Londoners.

The party’s three key measures are: the phased introduction of a flat fare structure, making zones a thing of the past; a daily cap for part-time workers that matches the rates paid by monthly season ticket holders; and a one-hour ‘ONE Ticket’ across all modes which will close the gaps for people who currently pay twice when changing from bus or train to the Tube as well as ensuring that people changing buses pay only once for their journey.

Sian Berry, Green Mayoral candidate said: 

It’s not fair that people in outer London pay so much more to get to work in the centre of the city - especially as it’s also easier for people in the centre of town to use even cheaper or free alternatives such as hire bikes, cycling or walking.

Sian, along with fellow City Hall candidates Caroline Russell and Shahrar Ali and veteran transport planner Dave Wetzel, the architect of Ken Livingstone’s Fares Fair policy at the GLC, will join local Green parties handing out #FairFares postcards at 50 rail and Tube stations all over London.

She said:

The focus of my fares policy is on closing the gaps where the current system is unfair. Flattening the zone structure is the most revolutionary idea for London’s fares since the introduction of the Travelcard in 1983, and I’m delighted that Dave Wetzel, who was in charge of transport in London then, is helping me launch it today.

A Green Mayor and Assembly Members will help level the playing field and make transport fairer and more equal for Londoners. It’s not fair that you have to pay more to change onto the tube from the national rail services that people in south London rely upon, or that if you need to take two buses to work you have to pay twice for your journey.

And it’s not fair that people who work part time pay more per day to get to work than people with full-time jobs – because the daily cap is much higher than what you will pay if you or your employer can afford an annual season ticket. People who work part time are often women, and more than half are paid less than the London Living Wage.

Mayor's inaction on air pollution is killing people

Today’s research from King's College, London, has estimated London's air pollution caused the early deaths of almost 9,500 people in 2010 LINK and is proof that the Mayor's inaction is killing people, Green MEP Jean Lambert says.  In contrast, MEPs on the European Parliament's Environment Committee voted in favour of a fresh round of air quality standards today, with the committee voting this morning to back a new package of measures requiring member states to meet limits on six pollutants by 2030.

Current estimates already list air pollution as responsible for more premature deaths in the UK than obesity, alcoholism and road traffic accidents combined. 

Jean Lambert responded:

'More proof, if indeed it were needed, that we face a clear crisis. When will London's Mayor realise that his inaction is killing people?'

Green Party candidates for London Mayor speak out on the housing crisis

With council and social housing tenants fighting back against developer led regeneration schemes that will deprive them of their homes, families being shipped out of London and private landlords ripping off tenants, housing is likely to be a big issue in the forthcoming London Mayor and GLA elections.

Candidates were asked for their views at the London Green Party Mayoral Hustings at Birkbeck College today:

Greens start process to choose London Mayoral candidate with hustings on Saturday

Six candidates will compete to be the Green Party’s London Mayoral candidate 

In what the Green Party is describing as its “most competitive and high profile contest to date”, London Councillors Sian Berry and Caroline Russell, Party Spokespeople Tom Chance, Benali Hamdache, and Jonathan Bartley, and mentor and activist Rashid Nix, will now compete in a series of internal hustings before voting closes on 30^th August.

The party is expected to announce the winner of the contest in the first week of September.
Caroline Allen, Co-Chair of the London Green Party, said:

“The breadth of experience, skills, and knowledge amongst our six candidates is a testament to just how far the Green Party has come in London and shows that we are going to be a force to be reckoned with come next May, no matter who is our candidate. It’s my pleasure to wish each of our candidates good luck in what I know will be high quality and close-fought contest.

“Our priority is that we use the coming weeks to throw open our doors to the public and debate and discuss the issues affecting London and what it is we are going to do about them. With the right Mayor and Assembly in place, London doesn’t have to continue being the play-thing of rich investors and housing speculators. We invite everyone to get involved with our campaigns. Together, we can take back London for Londoners.”

Baroness Jenny Jones AM and Darren Johnson AM, the Green Party’s two current members of the London Assembly, have both already declared their intention not to stand either for Mayor or for re-nomination as Assembly Members. 

Next week, On Thursday 16th July at 7.30pm, Brent Central Constituency Labour Party will be meeting 'on the nomination/s' for  Labour Party Leader and Deputy Leader. Registration starts at 7.15pm at Neasden Methodist Church and people who arrive after the debate 'on the merits of each candidate will NOT be entitled to vote.' Attendees are asked to bring their Labour Party membership card, Photo ID card and proof of address.

Hampstead & Kilburn CLP nominate Tessa Jowell and David Lammy for London Mayor

Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency Labour Party  tonight nominated Tessa Jowell and David Lammy as their Labour candidates for London Mayor.

This completes the nominations for the three Brent constituencies:

Tessa Jowell - Brent North and Hampstead & Kilburn
Sadiq Khan - Brent Central and Brent North
Diane Abbot - Brent Central
David Lammy - Hampstead & Kilburn

Interestingly, and perhaps marking the increasing distance of Brent's H&K wards from the rest of Brent Labour, of 100 or so individual members present at the H&K meeting, none spoke in favour of Sadiq Khan, the candidate of choice for many of the Brent Council Cabinet.

Labour's Mayoral candidate selection a level playing field?

Muhammed Butt, Sadiq Khan & Dawn Butler at the 'non political' Harlesden Transformation ceremony in February

Further to my post on the Brent Central nomination of Sadiq Khan and Diane Abbot for London Mayor, I have belatedly seen Ratbiter's article in the current Private Eye.

Supporters of candidate David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, had talked about the impact of 'machine politics' on the nomination process.

Private Eye, after discussing the changes made the the 'supporters' registration process to make it more open after pressure from Lammy and Abbot, continues LINK:

But the attempted stitch up didn't stop there. Miliband had not only made Khan his shadow justice secretary buthis shadfow miister for London, too. This job gave him access to the email addresses of ondon Labour members, which the party denied to Lammy and Khan's other rivals until last week. As early as December, Khan was using his advantage to direct potential supporters to his personal website - Sadiq Khan: Let Londoners Run London - and urging them to 'sign up to my campaign'.

Ratbiter goes on to say that 'Khan is rumoured to have promised [Ken] Livingstone control of London transport in return for his endorsement'.

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt has left little doubt on where he stands. He has been avidly retweeting Khan's tweets and those of his supporters.