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Firstly the inflation figures used by TfL are out of date and far too high, being based on RPI plus 1 per cent even though fare rises of the last 3 years have been at just RPI.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.

At the last Transport Committee for the calendar year, we heard how the contract blunder by TfL when hiring Bombardier with the new signals contract for the Hammersmith & Circle, Circle, District lines ( known as the sub-surface lines ) in Central London will cost £ 1.15 billion more and passengers will face a five year delay for these planned upgrades on the oldest parts of the Tube system.

Also in November, the government announced its grant to TfL for their annual spend is being cut entirely, and the government also reduced the capital funding by 20 per cent in London to redistribute in the rest of the country.

This double whammy, will be borne by the travelling public in delays to the works of some 5 years from 2018 to 2023 and TfL having to find another £4 billion to cope with under estimates for the sub-surface rail upgrades and reduced central government funding.

So clearly some hard decisions will have to be made by the New Mayor after the Mayoral contest.

Donald Trump’s islamophobic comments proposing a ban to Muslims entering the US and his peddling of lies about security in London should make sure he’s proscribed from entering the UK for incitement of religious hatred.

If he ever did get into power, the 4th of Sept 2015 will be marked for me as the day l was last able to enter the US to see relatives and friends. So if he’s going to ban me, lets make sure he can’t come to our shores with his lies and bigotry.

So God save the US from Trump.

A version of this letter is printed in the ES tonight.

Speaking for all those Londoners who had concerns about all the recent interventions since the beginning of the century – Afghanistan in 2002, Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and now Syria – our national politician don’t appear to have learnt the lessons of these interventions at all. 

For example, such Western interventions have helped the recruitment drive for both Al-Queda and now Daesh, as both exploit the political vacuum left after the original action and no post-military action is thought about. More scarily Daesh are trying to provoke an apocalyptic confrontation as they belief that we are in the last days and that this war is the war of all wars. With such rhetoric, it would be a gift to their propaganda if the rest of the world now steams into the part of the world their momentarily control at present, as the battle becomes a David Vs Goliath battle in their mindset and makes their prophecy more life like.  

Now l’m no military expert but the experts l hear say bombing without ground forces is militarily senseless. Thats why the quoted 70,000 anti-Daesh ground force troops claim by the PM has such potency. Quite honestly the only peoples who are likely to help are the Kurds but without an understanding of what territorial gain they can get after being denied a nation by the imperial powers after World War One would have to be sorted out. I am now the wiser on this front. 

This along with the comparison to a similar claim made by Blair about Saddam Hussain having WMD’s, tells us a lot about the military debate. Moreover the first time the PM pushed for military action in Syria it was against Assad and now he’s arguing for action against Daesh. Such are the shifting sands of the Middle East, next time he’ll be arguing for action against the Kurds, no doubt! 

And finally we should not forget the political opportunism of the PM which is so obscene. It is no coincidence that the debate on Syrian action took place the day before a critical by-election in Oldham and he did not permit a second day of deliberations in the Commons. Along with the insults he has traded without any apologises in sight, it tells us something about his political and personal ruthlessness in pursuing his goals and his animosity to Jeremy. 

The least our parliamentarians could have done is wait for Chilcott Report (whenever that gets released) to tell us the lessons we must learn before any further military action is proposed or undertaken again by the UK government. Its particularly important given its not clear that the PM has learnt the lessons from his joint intervention with French against Gaddafi in Libyan. I can’t recollect if anyone made this point at all on the floor of the Commons. 

Another pub bits the dust in my neighbourhood as its converted into residential

Pubs in Westminster have had a tough time of it for a while now and it seems that almost every edition of the West End Extra comes with a story about a pub being closed or sold to developers. Recently two pubs in the area, The Perseverance and Raven’s Head, rang the bell for last orders for the final time. It’s of great concern that many of these bastions of the local area are disappearing from our high streets.

It is a similar picture across the country – according to the Campaign for Real Ale 29 pubs close across the country every week – but in a Borough where property prices are so high the threat to the local is ever-present. It was no great surprise when The Black Lion pub in Bayswater sold for £20 million, as a pub it made £700,000 last year, which shows the extraordinary disparity between the value of the business and the value of the property.

Of course, there are planning regulations in place to protect pubs from development and the Mayor’s London Plan encourages boroughs to “adopt policies to maintain, manage, and enhance public houses”. However, when the financial gains for developers are so high they can often choose to ignore the planning process altogether. This was the case with the The Carlton Tavern, a historic pub in Maida Vale being considered for listed status that was destroyed overnight by property developers. There is an on going battle to get the pub rebuilt brick by brick but stronger policies could have prevented such an act of vandalism happening in the first place.

Whilst the London Plan recognises the significance of pubs as site local communities to meet and relax in, it doesn’t appear to have had much effect. Just from walking around the city it is clear that more pubs are closing every week, leading to a huge loss in our community infrastructure. I passed a motion at the London Assembly last year that called on the Mayor to do more to set out a clear set of policies to protect pubs, such as a presumption against change of use where a developer is unable to meet strict criteria for the marketing and viability of the site.

One of the strategies available to people fighting to keep a pub open is to get it registered as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). It was good to see this approach put to use in Westminster when the Swan and Edgar pub closed in 2013 after being sold to developers wanting to convert it a residential property. The Save the Linhope Street campaign put up a good fight to but now the pub has been sold again and there are fears that the new owner may make another attempt at conversion.

Seeking protection from the planning system can only go so far and such protection is limited if pubs are not a successful business. In a crowded night time economy pubs are in competition with cinemas, restaurants, theatres; this precarious situation has been exasperated by factors such as the smoking ban and the rising price of a pint.

One possible solution could be for pubs to develop their offer as a community hub. There are a number of pubs Westminster that have diversified from just food and drink; The Richmond Arms in St John’s Wood has begun to put on jazz nights and the Phoenix in Marylebone is well known for hosting comedy.

This offer to the community could be expanded, in other parts of the city pubs are being used as venues for community meetings, workshops, even yoga classes. This won’t be the right approach for all but for some pubs rethinking what they can offer the community may be the key to unlocking there potential as a business.

The Mayor and local authorities would do well to remember that the existence of one of the most valued features of our city depends not only on protection from developers looking to make a quick buck but on offering support to publicans trying to make a living.

This blog has been published in the West End Extra this week.  

Reading Simon Jenkin’s agreable polemic piece in the ES suggests we are dancing to the terrorism tune, but l still felt we are using the wrong language for them, as it reinforces their propaganda by referring to them as jihadists of the Islamic state. This while the BBC attempts to deal with them by calling the so-called Islamic State. l much prefer calling them Daesh. 

Interestingly they call themselves El Dawla which in Arabic means the state with no reference to Islam. Furthermore Arabs refer to them with the acronym Daesh rather than IS or ISIL, which l also understand annoys the hell out of them. For that reason alone we should refer to them as Daesh. 

Lets also not forget the sectarian nature of Daesh, who are sunni’s hell belt on war against the shias of the Muslim faith which is essentially a succession issue from the days of the prophet Mohammed death. Daesh is also partly a response to shias domination in both the regimes of Iraq and Syria. More scarily they are trying to provoke an apocalyptic confrontation as they belief that we are in the last days and that this war is the war of all wars. With such rhetoric, it would be a gift to their propaganda if the rest of the world now steams into the part of the world their momentarily control at present.