The Mayor’s bridging legacy begins with him stopping the works order on the Thames Tideway bridge as one of the first acts he did when becoming Mayor in May 2008. And ends with him now pushing through the controversial Garden Bridge before his departure, fast racked when we have 12 other River crossing proposals which TfL are working on. Eight of which are for pedestrian & cyclists and the remaining 4 for road traffic crossings. 

The irony with the Thames bridge from Thamesmead to Beckton ( Gallions Reach ), – something that he has come round too see that London needs – would have been built and finished by now, but for him chopping it at the outset of his term.  Of course planning Inspectorate decision would have needed to be overturned but that would not have been insurmountable for the Mayor keen on the proposal.

Now Boris Johnson, ends his time as Mayor of London with the folly of the Garden Bridge. Given that TfL are working on as many as 12 river crossing proposals as illustrated with diagram above, he must explain why and how he fast tracked it ahead of the other proposals? Particularly ahead of those that open up new homes in opportunity areas near the new crossings like those proposed by Terry Farrell in East London like the Lower Thames Crossing & at Belvedere. If there is not an adequate explanation then Joanna Lumley really has pulled the wool over the Mayor’s and TfL eyes! 

WITH up to 260 proposals for towers in London it’s important more than ever to highlight the impact on the skyline to Londoners from proposals like that at Paddington.

Not since the Westway went crashing through the heart of Paddington in the 1960s has a proposal like the Paddington Tower, a 72-storey residential tower designed by Renzo Piano, otherwise know to local people as the Pole, cast such a shadow over the area.

With the disparaging remarks about Paddington itself made by the developers, as a place people only pass through or go to the hospital, we all knew the soul of Paddington was at stake and that’s why it been fought, tooth and nail since.

So immediately in the new year, I set down and wrote my letter of objection to the planners at the council and set about finding out the involvement of the Mayor of London with the developers of the Paddington Pole.

The initial programming lent itself to a mayoral call-in – before his departure – even if the council had thrown it out at its planning meeting in early March.

Indeed this is precisely what the mayor is going to do with another major development proposal in Bishopgate’s Goodyard, E2 where it has been turned down by the local councils but called in.

And, so far, most of those schemes that he has called in have been passed by him. So you can see the danger here quite clearly of the powers vested in an executive Mayor of London, particular one like Boris Johnson willing to curry favour with global property developers.

In my objection letter, I stated the proposal represented poor urban design, will have a negative impact on light and shadow in neighbourhoods near it, and fails to take advantage of potential transport connectivity and public spaces. I was particularly exercised by how the skyline in Paddington had already been dealt with poorly if you look at the towers around the Marylebone flyover and critically needed oversight for such an important location. It is, after all, the western gateway into central London.

In the first set of responses to my written questions I wrote to the mayor, the responses told me that his office had meetings with the developers of the Pole but not the council, while being very cagey about whether it had met with government officials about the Pole. Given the intrigue of the involvement of Downing Street in Uber’s expansion into London’s taxi business, it certainly gave us food for thought about how London government actual works.

Of the many hundreds of letters of objection, I thought that our local visionary architect for London, Sir Terry Farrell’s was particularly devastating for the developers. Tall buildings often provide lower densities than alternative forms of design. This is because the high prices fetched for these units dictate that they are extraordinarily spacious, meaning the number of actual homes in a given tower is surprisingly low. The Paddington Pole proposal offered 330 flats in 72 storeys, that is around 4.5 flats per floor. Whereas the alternative and previous scheme for the site by Farrell Associates offered a low-rise development of 10 to 18 storeys, high-density development delivering 600-700 flats. So, in short, you do not need to build up to achieve higher densities.

The skyline of London has become a major issue for this year’s GLA election in May and the Paddington Pole shows other Londoners that you don’t need to “build-up”.

It illustrates well how tall buildings often provide lower densities than alternative forms of design. It also shows how the community, through residents’ associations and organisations such as the South East Bayswater Residents’ Association can work towards making sure local views are heard loud and clear by the planners.

I am sure that when the council heard that 26,000 leaflets objecting to the proposal were about to hit the streets of west London, they realised well the storm that was brewing. Not surprisingly soon after hearing of it, the proposal had been withdrawn by the developers.

We, of course, cannot drop our guard with the counter proposals for a shorter Paddington Pole by the developers and other tower proposals along the Edgware Road yet to get planning approval. Such monuments to speculative super luxury residential developments just won’t do. As we all know Paddington deserves much better.

This blog was published in the West End Extra recently.

Soon after the Mayor of London came out for leaving the Europe Union (EU) on Sunday, l had an opportunity to ask him about it all in environmental context – his toxic air legacy to Londoners.

As you can see above his indifference to the thought that you need the EU for transnational environmental problems like toxic air and carbon emissions. Something his father Stanley Johnson was keen to argue on Radio 4 Today programme on Monday morning. Its a pity his son isn’t listening to him but l certainly did and soon after joined the Environmentalists for Europe Group.

Fruit & veg pitch in Liverpool St Station immediate outside the tube barriers

Have you ever wondered why we don’t have more fruit & veg stalls in the London Tube system?  Well l do every time l go through Liverpool Street tube station and see one of the few around (as the above photo shows) and l’m grateful for it. As l eat a bit of fruit instead of the sweets and crisps offered in the convenient shops!!! This must be healthier for users of our tube systems? 

As a result l’ve asked the Mayor a few questions on this front, keen to see more pitches available for the sale of fruit & veg at our tube stations. In the first response l am told that we have 36 vending pitches with only 3 selling fruit and vegetables ( East Finchley, Finchley Road & Liverpool St ).  In my second response l am told that TfL wants to double them over the nest year or so, but its dealt with by a case by case basis subject to the operation needs of each station. 

Well lets hope these extra pitches do materialise from TfL in the near future. For example, it would be good to see one at Edgware Rd (Circle) tube station. Finally l hope barrow boys & girls get a look in when these new pitches become available and the big boys don’t get them for other uses.  Please find the links to registering with TfL for these new pitches at the final response l got from the Mayor. 

PLA Consultation on Goals and Priority Actions

The Thames  is a long forgotten water highway cutting through the heart of London, and its time has come again as this year will be a critical one for it.

Firstly we have the start of the Thames Tideway tunnel  by Thames Water to improve London’s sewage which haven’t been touched for over 150 years going underneath the Thames and then numerous bridge proposals going across the Thames who’s fate will no doubt be sealed probably this year. This on top of its increasing contribution to transportation of commuters via clippers and building materials and waste by water freight, helping take lorries off the road, cut congestion and using less carbon than the HGV equivalent. So the Port of London’s public consultation on their vision for the Thames up to 2035, is very appropriately timed at the beginning of 2016 and will no doubt attract a lot of attention.

This is a long way from when London turned its back to the River Thames, typified by buildings like Southwark Crown Court, built in the 1980’s with its back to the Thames. Today such a proposal along the Thames riverside would be totally unacceptable and rightly so.  

At the Transport plenary this week, l was not sure who TfL were kidding with the implications of a fares freeze?

Firstly the inflation figures used by TfL are out of date and far too high, being based on RPI plus 1 per cent even though fare rises of the last 3 years have been at just RPI. In the meantime is deson’t seem to have taken on board the impact of energy costs going down particularly for petrol, gas & diesel. Its is not uncommon to see petrol at just over £ 1 a litre while diesel being below £1 a litre and surely with TfL purchasing power it should be able to get better deals with which to run our buses & trains. Drivers of cars will recollect when it was £ 1.50 a litre for petrol on the forecourt and with the lifting of sanctions on Iran who is to say we are not entering a period of petrol, gas & diesel at around £ 1 per a litre for the next Mayoral term?

Incredible TfL are using figures of 3.5 per cent inflation for 2018, 2019 and 2020 when even the target figures for the Bank of England is to keep inflation to below 2 per cent by government.  

We also hear that if we don’t have these hikes, it will cost investment in our transport infrastructure. Well can l suggest that TfL senior managers go along and meet their counterparts in Thames Water who have recently raised the finances for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. I was told at a recent event l was hosting at City Hall that it was originally estimated that it would cost £ 80 per household after the works to finance the Tideway Tunnel under the Thames, it is now less than £20 per household, reflecting well that its never been cheaper to raise public finances on the markets. With these kind of figures, it should mean that it should substantially cost less to finance the investment we all want to see in the transport infrastructure of London.

So who are TfL kidding about the impact of a fare freeze when their annual revenue costs and capital costs are getting cheaper? It appears TfL are trying to have it both ways, maintaining hikes in the fare box whilst having the advantage of reduced out goings when this should be passed on to Londoners through a fare freeze.

If the real concern is about the impact of the cuts in government grants on the fare box than this should be made much more clearer to us by TfL as l suspect is the case.   

People will rather stand then seat on the Bakerloo line!!

After bringing up at the last Transport Committee of the year in 2015, the poor state of the seating on Bakerloo line, TfL boss admits its not good enough in writing and will get them changed within 18 months. Please see attached letter response.

But should it really take 18 months? I”m sure there are upholstery firms who could change the covers for the seating in the carriages sooner than this!

An alternative vision for Paddington from Farrells Associates

Please find below the contents of my letter of objection to the planners, which l sent in today.

I write to object to the “Paddington Tower” proposal (15/11219/FULL) for 31 London Street, W2. The proposed development represents poor urban design, will have a negative impact on light and shadow in nearby neighbourhoods, and fails to take advantage of potential transport connectivity and public spaces.

Urban design

The City of Westminster has not done a very good job managing the skyline in the past so it needs to get this one right. The designs of towers allowed previously have a negative impact on both the character of their local communities and of the skyline of London. You just have to look at the towers around the Marylebone flyover, a gateway into Central London, to appreciate the impact of getting it wrong. The four towers represent the worst architecture from the 1970’s and 1980’s with their cladding and grey finishes; each tower has been clearly dealt with separately, without oversight for the location.

Unfortunately the glass and steel formation of the Paddington Tower repeats these mistakes.  The 72 storey tower utterly fails to meet Westminster’s standards on design. It looks like a light torch. It has been christened the “Paddington Pole”, and that is not a compliment.

The failure to meet good design standards is grounds for refusal (Policy S28 Design).

The proposal fails to take into account the character and context of the surrounding area. The existing context is a neighbourhood of predominantly four- to- five-storey buildings. Instead of complementing this context, the design of the Pole is too piecemeal and opportunistic, concerned only with land which the developer owns rather than a holistic approach over the whole area. The area around Paddington station is sensitive and deserves better. For example its proximity to the Royal Parks and the canal network has been poorly worked out. This, along with its close proximity to a protected residential area with listed buildings, seems to have been completely ignored.

Any development needs to be part of an overall vision for Paddington which clearly this proposal is not, and subsequently sticks out like a sore thumb. Indeed over the years much master-planning work has been undertaken for Paddington station and its immediate surroundings but the application appears to make a point of not complying with this at all. Council planning policy is clear that development should primarily consist of “medium height large floorplate buildings in keeping with the larger buildings in the surrounding townscape” (Policy S3 Paddington Opportunity Area). It does not that there is scope for a “landmark” tall building, which is seen as an exception; this exception is the permitted Merchant Square scheme takes this place, and therefore the Paddington Pole should be refused.

Light pollution and shadow

Local residents have raised concern that the proposal would cause light pollution and a shadow across the whole of West London and in particular neighbourhoods like Bayswater and Maida Vale. An environmental impact study must address the impact of both the light and shadow caused to local neighbourhoods. If the developer’s other tower in London, the Shard in London Bridge, is anything to go by its lighting will be on all night even when it’s largely empty – overall it consumes the same amount of energy as the whole of Colchester. These are very real impacts, ones of which require serious consideration and the application does not address these concerns.

Transport connectivity and open spaces

Since the Westway was pushed through Paddington in the 1960’s, it has not had a centre to speak off. Furthermore today it has not sufficient space for the huge demands made on it as a location, particularly with the mass of tourists passing through the railway station increasing exponentially. So transport connectivity and public space concerns are critical. The development fails to integrate with the transport interchange. The convergence of commuter rail lines, several tube lines, Crossrail and links to Heathrow offer an opportunity which is not grasped by this proposal. The development should exploit this transport connectivity by extending the concourse of Paddington station, but the Paddington Pole does not.  In this respect it does not compare well against previous proposals which have include a public square that increases the existing stations concourse by some 40 per cent.

This is London’s western gateway and we need to put the heart back into Paddington, so a comprehensive vision is required.  This empty monument to luxury market speculation in the middle of Paddington just won’t do.  I urge the Council to refuse this proposal and go back to the previous understanding of a medium rise development, therefore acquiring more residential and commercial space, transport connectivity and public realm than the 72 storey pole could ever get.

Paddington and the rest of West London deserves much better.

Has anyone noticed these new gates appearing on the tube system?

Has anyone noticed the additional gates being installed into the Underground network between tube lines at major intersections like Baker Street?

Its clearly a measure being put in place before the introduction of the Night Tube, when ever that happens!  Please see the attached response l got from the Mayors office when l asked about it via written MQT’s. The cost of these gates along with the staff training, new fire alarm systems and control & security systems is a princely sum of £ 1.9 million already for TfL to adapt the Tube system for the new operations !

I would put good money on the 24 hour Tube service not now happening before the end of March.