TFL must follow Network Rail's lead and rethink their Biodiversity Action Plan for London Underground

Guest post by Emma Wallace of Harrow Green Party and the Green Party candidate for the Brent and Harrow GLA Constituency seat

 

Just over a week since its launch, the petition calling on Sadiq Khan and the TFL to ‘Stop the Removal of Green Habitat’ has garnered over 500 signatures LINK . 

 

This response shows that the wholesale destruction of habitat along our London Underground embankments is strongly opposed by many people from across London and the rest of the country.   We have heard numerous similar stories to the one most recently reported on along the Metropolitan line near Pinner LINK, from Wimbledon Park on the District Line LINK , to Hackney Downs and stations along the Overground Line LINK  and along the West and North of the Central and Piccadilly Lines.  These reports reveal a similar lack of public consultation with local residents and the resulting distress caused by the destruction and removal of sound and visual barriers that had been provided by the lineside foliage.  There has also been an absence of ecological surveys carried out by TFL before work commences, with contractors obliterating everything in their paths and showing little awareness of the biodiversity or wildlife they are displacing, including nesting birds or badger sets.

 

Network Rail has also been accused of devastating much of its lineside embankment greenery over recent years, carrying out a “secretive nationwide felling operation”, as reported in The Guardian 2018 LINK .   

 

This has caused much upset with both residents and train passengers, who have repeatedly decried the raising to the ground of the once verdant banks running along the hundreds of miles of our national train network.  The destruction along Lincolnshire railways in 2019 even led Tory MP, Sir John Hayes to state that the trackside vegetation removal looked like “a scene from Hiroshima” and to call for an urgent meeting with the then Environmental Secretary, Michael Gove LINK.   

 

In response to public pressure, Network Rail published a new environmental sustainability strategy in December 2020, including a ‘Biodiversity Action Plan’ LINK .  This plan contains a bold vision to improve the biodiversity of plants and wildlife lineside, committing “to the key goal of no net loss in biodiversity on our lineside estate by 2024, moving to biodiversity net gain by 2035”.  This culture change within Network Rail, viewing lineside vegetation as an asset, not a liability, must urgently be adopted by TFL and the Mayor of London when managing London Underground lineside vegetation. The last London Underground Biodiversity Action Plan (LU’s BAP) was published in 2010 LINK  and consequently urgently needs to be addressed and updated.  TFL must use the recent Network Rail example to rethink its biodiversity management policies to meet their commitment to protecting and enhancing London’s wildlife and green spaces.  

 

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member 2000 and 2016 and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee, overseeing the 2012 ‘On the Right Lines?’ report  LINK , has backed our campaign, commenting on the petition: “Very happy to support this. Something I worked on when I was a London Assembly Member. Of course, vegetation removal is vital for rail safety, but the scorched earth approach is not the way.”  We have been overwhelmed by the support for the petition and many comments left, revealing how strongly people feel about this issue and their desire for TFL to change their policy on excessive vegetation embankment clearing and the need to replace it with a more nuanced and sustainably managed policy, which recognises and values these precious green corridors.  

 

See below a selection of people’s comment on the petition:

 

·      “The opportunities for ecological enhancement and support of biodiversity along rail lines are huge and cannot be overlooked! Partner with those who know, care and have the energy and resources to support projects.” Lisa Shell       

 

·      “We’re in the midst of a climate and environmental emergency and losing wildlife and biodiversity at an alarming rate. This type of habitat loss in totally unacceptable and must be stopped.”  Jean Gerrard

 

·      “Dreadful situation! I live right next to the train lines. The noise is really bad now and I can see all the passengers on the train from my kitchen window.  Such a sad loss of greenery. The birds have been going crazy too. What is TFL doing about rectifying this? I'm heart broken.” Pauline D’Jemil

 

·      “Please stop this unnecessary assault on what is left of our green spaces.” Ann Wilson

 

·      “Green corridors whether railways, canals or rivers are vital to wildlife and mature trees reduce noise nuisance from railways and air pollution.”  Martin Francis

 

·      “You're trashing animal habitat, increasing pollution and noise nuisance. Stop it.”  Anne Heritage   

 

·      “Stop making the world into a concrete jungle!” Asha Osman

 

·      “So depressing to see. Is there any one in authority who cares about our environment?” Jean Pannell

 

·      “Please try and think more creatively. Safety is a priority but there are surely alternatives that could be adopted. Shrubs and under planting wild grasses and low growing flowers etc.” Julie Curtis

 

·      “This has to stop; the railways are a natural wildlife corridor and should be protected from excessive and unnecessary cutbacks.”  Paula Hermes

 

·      “Vital for so many reasons. We all know what they are. Please stop cutting down the beautiful vegetation. It’s always such a joy to see.” Sarah Holford

 

·      “Stop destroying everything. Everywhere I look I see deforestation, destruction, the silent absence of life. Rail verges are one of nature’s last remaining lifelines. It costs nothing just to let it live. For our children and for the climate, please just stop this mindless destruction.” Anna Scrivenger

 

·      “We need these green corridors to cut pollution, keep noise down and a respite for nature.” Linda Quin

 

·      “These are critically important wildlife corridors.” Paul Allan-Smith

 

·      “Why on earth?? Railway embankments are some of the few untampered wildflower habitats left - leave them alone!!” Kate Hopkins

 

·      “I should like to see evidence of 'problem' trees and certainly do not want ANY vegetation removed in future without a previously approved assessment.” Keith Gissing

 

·      “We are losing trees and green spaces at an ever-increasing rate. Please don’t make things even worse.” Linda McKeller

 

·      “Trees and natural vegetation provide a vital transport corridor for animals and absorb excess rainwater.” Marc Sheimann

 

·      “Yes, stop cutting our trees down HS2 is doing enough damage to our nature.” Erica Locke

 

·      “We are currently seeing an unprecedented number of wildlife habitats decimated. Clearing TfL railway corridors of trees and hedges just adds to that and our climate crisis. Please consider planting more vegetation and maintaining what you have.” Elaine Persell

 

·      “I realise that trackside trees shouldn’t be a safety’ threat, but recently the decimation of lineside vegetation has been completely over the top.” Terry Hooper        

 

·      “This is criminal. I know safety is paramount, but this is more than that. Losing pollution soaking trees, habitats, shade, aesthetic enhancement is wrong.”  Polly Mortimer

 

·      “We need every INCH of green in this supposed green and pleasant land, especially in London which would choke on its own effluent if not for the green spaces as yet untouched by speculators. In a world where homeowners are ripping up their gardens to put down gravel, we need green that produces fresh air more than ever.”  John Mangan

 

·      We desperately need more biodiversity in our cities! Please use your brains and think of what you'll be leaving for future generations.” Julie Barber

 

·      “It's very important that Sadiq Khan shows us that he will stop the degradation of our precious environment, otherwise he'll not be voted for again!” Miranda James

 

·      “Every tree possible is needed for reducing pollution and climate change and for wildlife habitat. Please stop cutting them down.” Lisa Penney

 

Thank you to everyone who has signed the petition so far.  Please sign if you haven’t yet already done so. Thank you, Emma Wallace

Independent Sage address vital issues including global vaccination response on Covid

 

 

Friday's Independent Sage Briefing was even more useful that usual, breathing fresh air into many issues including international comparisons, cases in schools and nurseries,  and the need for a Global Strategy and Finance for equitable vaccine supplies. 

Guaranteed free from boosterism.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, contributes  at 31.32

Housing Trust promises action as inspection finds building issues in block at 115 Chalkhill Road

 

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) has responded to a request by Wembley Matters following a recent building survey of its property at 115 Chalkhill Road, next to the Welford Centre at 113 that houses a Health and Community Centre.

A spokesperson for MTVH said: 

 

The safety and wellbeing of all our residents is our number one priority. Just like buildings owners across the country, MTVH is currently conducting inspections on a number of our properties to understand how their construction meets relevant building regulations and government guidance. 

 

Independent experts conducted inspections at this building in October and identified some issues that require further investigation. Importantly, the independent experts have confirmed that the building remains safe for residents to live in and advised that some further checks be carried out. Our routine programme of fire risk assessments and other compliance checks is continuing at this property, and any actions identified are being addressed within recommended timescales. 

 

Once we have the full details back from the further checks by our independent experts, we will work with the original contractor and other parties responsible for the construction of the building to address any issues that require remediation. We are in close contact with residents through regular written updates and a virtual meeting will be held with residents shortly. We understand and apologise for the concern that this will be causing our residents.

 

In reviewing the findings of these checks, we will of course consider any issues that may affect other properties nearby and we will take appropriate action where we are advised to do so by our independent experts. The findings of the inspection that has taken place do not currently require any additional fire safety measures to be introduced at this building or those adjacent to it.

While investigations go on into potential issues with the external wall system MTVH will not be able to issue compliant EWS1 forms to residents. although independent experts have confirmed that the building is safe for people to live in.

UPDATED WITH HOUSING GROUP RESPONSE: More misery for Prospect House residents as ceiling collapses and foul water contaminates communal corridor

 

Pictures by permission from Thaiarna

 UPDATED WITH HOUSING GROUP RESPONSE

Twitter message to Wembley Matters and Brent Council following publication of this story:

We're in contact with landlord about repairs - in meantime we’ve carried out ‘make safe’ and cleaning. The ceiling taken down by fire brigade will be decorated once new plaster is dry. We’ve today been contacting our residents individually; they can also call 020 8996 4200

 

Residents of Prospect House had a miserable weekend as they coped with a ceiling leaking contaminated water on to a communal corridor and had to send desperate messages to Shepherds Bush Housing Group to send in an urgent repair team. 

The Fire Brigade fortunately got to the block just before the ceiling collapsed. Carpets were soaked with debris and foul  water.

The neglect of the block by the landlord, the housing group and Brent Council has made headlines with the residents facing eviction and little assurance of rehousing. LINK

A resident of the block told Wembley Matters:

They have used a wooden makeshift plank to hold up the ceiling I’m not sure how safe this is or when a proper ceiling will be installed. 

We had to end up calling the London Fire Brigade to assess the ceiling and they where luckily in the building when the ceiling collapsed to ensure no one was hurt. We all have kids in this building the ceiling could have fallen on anyone and even worse a child ! 

They brought round someone to clean with a rug doctor but the water marks and stains still remain and there is a pungent smell of toilet waste that reeks in the building. We also have water marks and peeling wall plastering along where the ceiling has fallen. 

This is unhygienic and unsafe living standards and I’m sure no one from Sheperd’s Bush Housing Group or Brent council would want to live here themselves. 

Brent are also not helping to rehouse individuals as we are approaching being evicted from our homes . This is the sad reality of living in social-housing on a low income we are treated like dirt.

Another residents said on Twitter:

The floor looks worse than it was before. This is what we are paying for service charge absolute joke ! And the toilet waste smell along the corridor I have to put something to cover underneath my door to avoid the smell entering into my house.

Shepherds Bush Housing Group responded to events on Twitter:

We're sorry for inconvenience when soil stack failed. We were there as soon as possible Friday night to do initial ‘make safe’ repair. Cleaners did initial deep clean Sat am, then specialist chemical clean Sat pm. We will be there today to assess action and will update residents.

Prospect House was converted to housing from office accommodation less than five years ago.

 

 

Doubts about vaccination? Join the Brent Council Webinar tonight and put your questions to the panel

 

 

Brent Council will be holding their fourth Webinar  this evening to address residents' concerns over the Covid vaccination programme. This is the Council' announcement.

On Monday 15th February, between 6pm and 7.30pm, residents of Brent will have the opportunity to attend a fourth webinar about the COVID-19 vaccination.

The webinar will aim to inform and build trust with anyone in the community who may have questions that are making them concerned about having the vaccine. This will be achieved by outlining the facts, addressing all the pertinent issues and explaining the science.

The webinar will include presentations from faith leaders and health experts, with an interactive chat function available to allow you to ask the questions you want answers to.

Register for this event and we will send you a link to the Zoom meeting on the afternoon of Monday 15th February.

 

BOOK HERE 

 

NHS doctors, nurses and other frontline staff have recorded messages in 14 of the most common community languages in London, to explain how the COVID vaccine is safe and effective.

The videos have been designed to be shared among friends, families, faith and community groups via WhatsApp, text message or on social media. You can watch, download and share each using the links below.

• Arabic
• Bengali
• Gujarati
• Igbo
• Nepali
• Polish
• Punjabi
• Romanian
• Somali
• Spanish
• Swahili
• Turkish
• Urdu
• Yoruba

 

A Trojan Horse? Keep Our NHS Public examine the government's Integrated care proposals

The case for Integrated Care seems obvious - who could be against integration it if improves the care of citizens? Keep Our NHS Public look beyond the initial favourable reception of the proposals and examine the prospect of them opening up the potential for more private involvement in the NHS LINK

FROM KEEP OUR NHS PUBLIC

In the middle of the Covid pandemic, when the NHS and its staff are going flat out to cope, NHS England (NHSE) is stealthily transforming the NHS again. What is portrayed as an innocuous move to ‘integrate’ care and reduce bureaucracy will, in effect, move decision-making even further from local communities and increase the presence and influence of the private sector in the NHS.

At the moment, the main tools for this transformation are Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), supported by plans for new legislative powers.  Although ICSs are already in place in some parts of England, a new document from NHSE provides the clearest glimpse so far of what ICSs could mean.

The proposals, recently echoed in a government White Paper, are of huge concern. Although seen by the media as suggesting the role of the private sector will be reduced, the proposed legislation, if passed, will enact the current government’s wish to further fragment, destabilise and privatise our NHS.

Background

Regulations brought in by the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) of 2012 enforced a new competitive ‘market’ within the NHS.  The Act also introduced Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) that were required to put clinical and other services out to competitive tender and so allowed increased private company involvement in the NHS.

Since then, while still retaining the market system, NHSE has declared that competition is to be replaced by the “integration” of NHS, local authority and other service providers. NHSE’s ‘integration’ has involved fragmenting the NHS into 44 areas (originally called ‘Sustainability and Transformation Plans’) destined to eventually morph into 42 Integrated Care Systems. The NHS Long Term Plan requires every NHS organisation and their local ‘partners’ to become part of an ICS by April of this year.

What are ICSs?

According to NHSE, ICSs are bodies in which

“NHS organisations, in partnership with local councils and others, take collective responsibility for managing resources, delivering NHS standards, and improving the health of the population they serve.”

The ‘others’ they refer to include private companies. An ICS will have a ‘single pot’ budget and its partners will collectively decide how to delegate that budget to loosely defined local “places” within the ICS.

Legislative change

The powers of ICSs are currently under review. NHSE argues that existing law, such as the HSCA (2012), does not provide a sufficiently firm foundation for the work of ICSs, so they propose scrapping Section 75 of the Act, which, for example, requires commissioners to put any contract worth over £.615,278 out to tender. They have also sought views on two options for enshrining ICSs in legislation.

Both options provide an ICS Board and a single ICS Accountable Officer. In one option, there would be a single Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), along with a new duty for providers, such as NHS Trusts, to comply with the ICS plan. In the second option, NHSE’s preference, CCGs would be ‘repurposed’, whatever that means, and their commissioning functions transferred to the ICS Board. While the veto of individual organisations within the ICS would be removed, the ICS could delegate responsibility for arranging some services to providers “to create much greater scope for provider collaboration”.

What are the main issues for campaigners?

ICSs raise multiple issues but we focus on three main areas: the increased potential they offer for private companies to profiteer from the NHS; the unequal partnership they create with local authorities and the subsequent threat to social care and public health services; and the loss of accountability.

• Increased scope for private companies

Removing Section 75 of the HSCA (2012), by itself, won’t reverse the marketisation of the NHS. Worse still, it would involve revoking Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations, so turning the NHS into an unregulated market.

The proposals also recommend that NHS services be removed from the scope of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, allowing commissioners more discretion when procuring services. It means that ICSs would be able to choose whether to award a contract directly to a provider or go through a more formal procurement process. Such flexibility massively increases opportunities for cronyism, as shown during the Covid pandemic when emergency measures allowed the usual procurement rules to be bypassed.  For example, the National Audit Office found that during the early stages of the Covid crisis, companies with ‘connections’ (for instance with government officials, MPs, or senior NHS staff), were ten times more likely to be awarded a contract than those without such links – even if they were entirely unsuitable suppliers.

The possibility that ICSs, operating in a market system, can chose to dispense with formal procurement processes is additionally alarming as NHSE wants to give each ICS a free hand in appointing its governing Board. This means that these Boards could include representatives from private providers – a move that’s described as “a blatant undermining of the ICS as an NHS body”.

The way that ICSs are to be internally managed will also increase privatisation. NHSE has accredited 83 companies to provide support for developing and managing ICSs through what’s known as the Health Systems Support Framework (HSSF). In the words of NHSE,

“The Health Systems Support (HSS) Framework provides a quick and easy route to access support services from innovative third party suppliers at the leading edge of health and care system reform”.

These companies, as you might guess, include McKinsey, Deloitte, Optum, IBM, Ernst and Young, Centene, and other global corporations, along with some UK and European companies, and a handful of NHS Commissioning Support Units.

The HSSF is divided into 10 ‘Lots’ covering services such as patient record systems, transformation and change support, capacity planning support, patient empowerment, and digital tools to support system planning. As NHSE points out,

“The Framework focuses particularly on services that can support the move to integrated models of care based on intelligence-led population health management. This includes new digital and technological advances that help clinicians and managers understand a population’s health and how it can best be managed.” (Our emphasis)

Population health management (PHM) is described by NHSE as “an approach aimed at improving the health of an entire population and improves population health by data driven planning and delivery of care to achieve maximum impact for the population.”

Briefly, PHM (“the critical building block for integrated care systems”) relies heavily on the mass collection and analysis of data from across multiple care settings, and a shift from care provided by clinicians face-to-face, to much more digitally provided care via remote consultations and algorithms. This inevitably means more private sector involvement due to the capital investment required for digital infrastructure, not to mention increased access to patient data for tech companies.

In addition, PHM shifts the focus of the NHS from delivering universal comprehensive care to individuals towards achieving data targets for the population covered by the ICS. Depending of course on how, and by whom, and with what aim, those data targets are set, what’s “good” for the population may be at odds with the needs of an individual.

• The threat to social care and public health services

ICSs are an essential part of a shift towards a ‘place-based approach’ to health and social care, with ‘place’ often seen as coterminous with local authority (LA) boundaries. According to the NHS Confederation, this level of working is the right scale for tackling ‘population health challenges’, such as health inequalities. A ‘place based approach’ is also part of a shift towards PHM, as well as shared responsibility for resources and service changes across all public services within the area.

NHSE proposals suggest that ICSs become the means for more ‘integration’ between the NHS and LAs. However, in its response to NHSE’s proposals, the Local Government Association (the national voice for local government) raises concerns that ICSs won’t be a partnership of equals across the broader health, wellbeing, and social care system. Instead, ICSs will be NHS-led, allowing a power grab that brings LA resources such as capital assets and funding for social care and public health under ICS (and thus NHS) control. There is also a risk that power won’t be devolved to local systems. Rather, central control will remain, with missed opportunities for real collaboration between the NHS and LAs to address the wider determinants of health, such as affordable housing and a safe environment.

Further, KONP among others has highlighted the risks posed by NHS management of social care. Social care is not an adjunct of the NHS, but has a very wide remit that overlaps with wider local authority responsibilities including housing, leisure, planning and education. In addition, social care is means tested while NHS care is (largely) free at the point of use and funded by taxation. If ICSs take on social care, they will have to develop complicated charging mechanisms. This could pave the way to charges for NHS services or, long term, for the introduction of a private insurance-based system (facilitated, incidentally, by the extensive data sets created by PHM). NHSE’s proposals also fail to mention any safeguards to prevent services that are currently free from being redefined as social care and so subject to means testing.

• Loss of accountability

 In contrast to local authorities, ICSs are not subject to democratic control. NHSE’s proposals will give them the power to create publicly unaccountable joint committees, potentially including representatives from private business, to make legally binding decisions about major resource allocation and service provision.  (For KONP’s vision for achieving democratic accountability, see here.)

CCGs, with their responsibility to manage local budgets, will be weakened or, as NHSE would prefer, abolished. In the absence of any plans to make ICSs accountable to local residents or patients, it seems that people over large areas of England will be disenfranchised. Although ICS Boards will supplant existing public bodies, there appears to be no requirement for them to meet in public, publish their Board papers and minutes, be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or to have any democratic participation from the communities they cover.

What can we do?

KONP calls for a halt to the development of ICSs until there is a full consultation with the public, local authorities and Parliament. It argues that not just Section 75 but the entire Health and Social Care Act (2012) should be repealed and the NHS Reinstatement Bill laid before Parliament. This proposes restoring the NHS as an accountable public service; ending contracting and the purchaser-provider split; and re-establishing public bodies and public accountability to local communities.

We call on Councillors and MPs to be briefed in detail on the issues before legislation is tabled, and to be ready to challenge it.

We call on activists to make these issues a campaign focus, before legislation is tabled.

Covid cases down in Brent but still above average for England

 

Source BBC LINK

Petitioners urge TfL to treat trackside green corridors as an ecological asset - please sign

 

A petition has been launched asking Transport for London to take a more ecologically sensitive approach to trackside maintenance. Safety must be considered but there is no justification for a scorched earth approach. Clearances like the above have already been seen along our stretches of the Metropolitan, Jubilee and Chiltern lines.

Introduction to the petition

TFL contractors have been repeatedly reported removing miles of trees and vegetation running along London’s Underground tracks, most recently along the Metropolitan and Chiltern Lines. These acts of environmental vandalism mean rich, green corridors are severely reduced, impacting residents’ health and mental well-being, as well as removing biodiverse habitat for local wildlife.  

 

With 55% of the London Underground track network recorded above ground, we recognise a need for trackside vegetation maintenance, but the actions of TFL contractors are often excessive and unnecessary. 

 

They are treating these rich, green corridors as more of a liability than an ecological asset in which to invest. 

 

London Underground’s existing green infrastructure amounts to 10% of all green spaces in the city and is an obvious way for the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan to meet his commitment to improving London’s “biodiversity and ecological resilience” and become the first National Park City. We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency and both the Transport for London and Sadiq Khan must do everything they can to protect the habitat and wildlife we have remaining in London.  

 

To: Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan

We call on TFL and the Mayor of London to commit to the following:

1. Immediately stop the excessive removal of vegetation from trackside TFL embankments. 

2. Ensure that TFL carries out biodiversity surveys before trackside work begins and that these are made easily accessible to the public. 

3. Ensure that local residents are informed in good time before trackside work begins and given time to feedback questions and concerns to TFL.

 
4. Ensure that TFL contractors are trained in effective vegetation management and biodiversity preservation.

Please act now and protect out vital green trackside spaces and wildlife in London.

SIGN THE PETITION USING THIS LINK