Boris Approves Brent Tox Development

According to the Harrow Times, Boris Johnson has approved the Brent Cross Development, and therefore well deserves Darren Johnson's award  for bad planning decisions: "By waving through a development that will create a surge in traffic and air pollution, the Mayor has undermined city-wide efforts to improve air quality, and has done nothing to help severely affected centres in neighbouring boroughs."

Boris Johnson claimed the development would help lead London out of recession: “This is another great example of pushing ahead with major development and infrastructure improvements to create jobs, and boost the capital’s economic growth, while transforming the quality of life of thousands of Londoners.”

So there you have it we will all benefit from increased traffic and pollution, a monstrous shopping centre feeding over-consumption and indebtedness, a shopping centre that will destroy local high streets in neighbouring boroughs, and an incinerator that will impact on the health of our children: nice one Boris!

Let's hope that John Denham, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, will have a little more wisdom and foresight and call in this pernicious scheme.

Hear First Hand Accounts from Gaza Convoy

Click on image to enlarge

Rage Against the Tube Closures

With Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo line closures again this weekend Brentonians can be forgiven for thinking that Transport for London has a vendetta against them. As fleets of buses from all over the South East park along Bridge Road to eventually transport bewildered, frustrated and angry travellers in a meandering journey along already clogged up roads, they should reflect on the reasons for this.

It is of of course the Thatcherite policy, embraced by all three main political parties, of private enterprise intervention in the public sector: Public Private Partnerships. As you sit fuming on the top deck of a 1960s Dorset double decker as it crawls along Blackbird Hill, reflect on the wisdom of Andrew Smith, Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

Partnerships between the public and private sectors are a cornerstone of this Government’s modernisation programme. They are delivering better quality public services by bringing in new investment and improved management, and are helping state-owned businesses achieve their full potential.


Tube Lines, the remaining leg of the PPP deal is responsible for the maintenance and upgrading of our underground lines. Metronet, responsible for the other two contracts, eventually went broke at the cost of an estimated £400,000,000 to the taxpayer - thinking about that should calm you down! Their responsibilities have been taken back 'in house' by TfL. Meanwhile TfL is tied into a 30 year contract with Tube Lines which means I'll be over a 100 years old before they've finished the job.

What PPP actually means is that no one is really accountable and that we as voters, and politicians themselves, can't get at them. Navin Shah AM, Sarah Teather MP, Cllr Daniel Brown lead Brent Council member for Transportation, have all protested about the closures. They have had little success except to get Metroplitan line trains stopping at Willesden Green when only the Jubilee is closed. Large and small businesses have protested about the loss of trade to no avail. Instead the work is dragging on and running a year late.

Written into the PPPcontract is a provision that Tube Lines can order line closures whenever they wish. This 'improved management' of our transport infrastructure is now in even deeper trouble because of a shortfall in the budget of £1bn for the next period. The Public Private Partnership Arbiter has had to be brought in to rule on the dispute between TfL which offered Tube Lines £4bn and Tube Lines which wanted more than £1bn on top of this. The arbiter ruled that TfL should pay £4.46bn, leaving £460,000 to be found - probably from us the fare payers. TfL is looking at possible legal remedies and has revealed that forensic accountants are probing what it described as ' massive and secretive payments to Tube Lines’ shareholders’, who are Ferrovial and Bechtel.

Meanwhile you are still stuck on the bus, smouldering....

So what about Boris, can't he do something? Well he characteristically blusters away without making any impact. At the recent Harrow Question Time he described the Tube Lines structure as 'ludicrous' and 'completely mad' and in a vital response suggested that while you are sitting on the top deck of that 'replacement bus service' nothing much may be happening at all on the closed line:

'We have been asked for closures when actually they are not able to get on with sending their people down the line to put in the new signalling because the program work, the software work, still hasn't been done in Canada.'

He argues for a new system that will stop, 'What is in my view a complete rip-off by the contractors - a licence to steal, to put it no higher than that'.

All three main parties are in favour of public private partnerships despite these difficulties. Perhaps Boris should bend David Cameron's ear.  Similar stories can be told about the lack of accountability of PPPs in education (academies) which the Tories want to expand, and health (Private Finance Initiative schemes).
If you want democratically accountable public services vote Green. Meanwhile should we strike back with a 'No Fare Pay' day during the week to match every weekend closure?

Brent Greens Back Brent Cross Public Inquiry Call

Coalition members, including Tim Storer of Brent Green Party,

 outside the Departmentr before handing in petitions and letters

Yesterday the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Regeneration, supported by Navin Shah AM for Brent and Harrow and Sarah Teather MP handed in petitions and letters to John Denham, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to ask him to call-in the Brent Cross Regeneration Application for a Public Inquiry.

Brent Green Party's letter requested a call-in based on the following grounds:

1. The residents of the London boroughs of Brent and Camden were not consulted on this matter despite the scheme having major impact on residents of the two boroughs. Our own council, Brent, remain opposed to this development despite suggestions to the contrary at the Barnet Planning Committee.

2. This development will have a major impact on North West London in terms of traffic, increased pollution and the destruction of local shopping areas in surrounding localities. These issues were not considered by the Barnet Planning Committee which had a Barnet-centric approach to the application. A wider assessment of the application is vital and would be provided by a Public Inquiry.

3. The application does not conform to the Government’s Climate Change Law to reduce Co2 by 80% by 2050. The scheme will generate thousands more car journeys per day and become a net contributor of greenhouse gases and global warming.

4. The lack of clarity in evidence presented at the Planning Committee on the proposed waste handling plant and incinerator. In the face of expert opinion by a visiting US professor on the potential health hazards of the proposed gasification process we believe that the Secretary of State should institute a Public Inquiry to ensure that the health and safety of the local population, and particularly that of young children who are particularly vulnerable to the impact of toxic substances, is safeguarded.

5. The major thrust of the application is to extend the Brent Cross Shopping Centre and other components of Phase One of the scheme, such as affordable housing, have been cut back. A proposal to increase the size of the Shopping Centre was rejected by a Public Inquiry in 1999 and a Judicial Review and High Court judgement in 2003. The proposal represents the developers’ second bite at the cherry in much changed and less favourable economic circumstances.

6. Although the Planning Committee is supposed to make an independent judgement, the application was compromised by the fact that the Barnet Borough Council are major supporters of the scheme and have helped facilitate the process for the applicants. Importantly they are also major landowners in the development area.

Conservatives select Brent North Candidate - now it's 'Two Tory' Brent

Last night Brent Conservatives selected Cllr Harshadbhai Patel (Preston ward) to fight Brent North. His opponents will include former Conservative councillor colleague Atiq Malik (now a 'Democratic Conservative' councillor) who is standing as an Independent.

Cllr Patel was Mayor of Brent in 2007-8 and is associated with the Federation of Patidar Associations, Brent Indian Association and the Hindu Council. Atiq Malik is actively blogging about the election on UK Polling and Conservative Home to the annoyance of many fellow bloggers. On one blog he claims that at the selection meeting 2 rows of seats were filled with 'up to 30+' new party recruits but doesn't follow with any specific allegation. He claims that Patel has stated that he has 300 'foot soldiers' ready to go out and campaign in the election.

Another contributor asks if the Democratic Conservatives (Malik and Cllr Robert Dunwell) have 'gone into bed with the Greens or the Lib Dems?'As Green Party Candidate for Brent North I can answer that from our perspective with a resounding 'No'!

With a Labour candidate who, in calling for his resignation, demonstrated that he had no faith in Gordon Brown; and two Conservative candidates, Brent North is shaping up to be an interesting (and possibly bewildering) contest.

Coalition: Why John Denham Must Call in Brent Cross Plans

The Coalition opposing the 4.5 billion development for a Brent Cross Cricklewood new town is urging Secretary of State John Denham to call the development in to Public Inquiry, in view of Barnet sending the papers to the Government Office for London and the Mayor of London.
The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan believe the development clearly meets the criteria to merit a call-in as set out in section 77 of the Town and Country planning Act1990[1]. The Secretary of State’s powers to call this in are very general and discretionary. Barnet should have referred this to the Secretary of State prior to the planning meeting on the grounds that Barnet owns some of the land.

 Some other grounds for call-in are :
- significant effects beyond the immediate locality
- giving rise to substantial regional or national controversy or where issues are of more than local importance
- raise significant architectural and urban design issues
- and in 2008 the sustainability of the proposed development was specifically added as a criterion.

Lia Colacicco, Coalition Co-ordinator and Mapesbury resident says, “ This scheme could be called in on several criteria but in particular because its effects go far beyond the immediate area, Brent and Camden councils object to it, local people don’t want it in this form, and because it is completely unsustainable in terms of traffic, housing, and the environment. There was no meaningful public consultation so we are now calling on John Denham to call it in immediately so that these disastrous plans can undergo full public scrutiny….”

Darren Johnson (Green Party London Assembly Member) says “given Boris Johnson’s manifesto commitment to cut London carbon emissions 60% by 2025 and build more environmentally friendly homes the Mayor must refuse this development. From 2016 all new homes are required to be carbon zero whereas this development falls far short of that.”

Shahrar Ali, Green candidate for Brent Central, Steffi Gray of Brent Friends of the Earth, and other activists at the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change Meeting Photo: Jan Nevill

The campaign was strongly backed at Tuesday's meeting on Fighting Climate Change after Copenhagen. People were clear that the regeneration proposals represented a reckless disregard for issues of over-consuption, sustainability and consultation.

The Mayor and Secretary of State John Denham have until just March 12th to call in the plans for Public Inquiry.

Criteria for a Call-in.
Petition Calling for a Public Inquiry
Coalition Website

Malik makes it messy for Tories in Brent North

Click on image to enlarge

I did a double take when I saw this poster in a local shop - at first I thought it was something from the BNP! It turns out to be a campaign poster for Cllr Atiq Malik who was elected to Brent Council as a Conservative but after falling out with Cllr Blackman, leader of the Brent Conservative Group, formed the Brent Democratic Conservative Group with Cllr Robert Dunwell.

Malik has aroused controversy for his comments on Sharia law and women (Cllr James Powney is engaged in a spat with him on this subject at the moment), was accused of using an assumed name to praise himself as a potential parliamentary candidate for the Tories on a Conservative website, and is carrying out a bitter campaign against Barry Gardiner on expenses.

Malik has jumped in as an Independent candidate before the official Tory selection which takes place at the Pattidar Centre on March 4th. The Tories will be choosing from Madhuri Davda, Louise Hall, Tim Lines, Anjana Patel, Blaine Robin and former mayor Harshadbhai Patel. On the Conservative Home website Malik tells the party that no Tory could beat Barry Gardiner in Alperton, Wembley Central, Sudbury, Fryent and Queensbury wards. Look closely at the poster and you can see Malik lists all these wards as places where he is working for 'all communities' and throws in Barnhill, Kenton and Northwick Parek for good measure - the full set!

Elsewhere on Conservative Home he claims Tories will need a 10% swing to unseat Gardiner but doesn't discuss the impact of his own candidature. The Odds Checker website gives a clue: Labour (Barry Gardiner) is quoted at 1/3, Conservatives at 9/4, Lib Dems (James Allie) at 25/1, Malik at 40/1 and I bring up the rear at 100/1. No odds are quoted for the English Democrats (Arvind Taylor).

Wembley Observer salutes Dan Viesnik