New figures have revealed the increasing strain London’s Accident and Emergency departments are facing. The increased pressure on A&Es follows the closure of wards across the capital. In the past year 199,693 people were forced to wait more than four hours at A&E in London, this is an increase of 18% on the previous year when 168,604 people waited more than four hours. In the City of Westminster and Hammersmith & Fulham the local A&E units at Charing Cross, Hammersmith and St Mary’s hospital has seen 10,246 people wait more than four hours over the past year.  

So far in London two A&E units have been closed, two are to be “downgraded”, three are set to be closed and a further three are under threat of closure. In the past year all but one of London’s Hospital Trusts with A&Es failed to meet the key waiting time target of 95% of patients seen with 4 hours. In 15 out of 22 trusts this target was missed for over half of the last year. Murad Qureshi, Labour London wide Assembly Member, is calling on the Health Secretary to urgently review the situation, and for the Mayor to lobby government for the resources that London’s NHS needs.

Murad Qureshi, Labour London wide Assembly member, said:

“We were told that closing A&Es wouldn’t lead to longer waiting times, but the evidence shows that Londoners are waiting longer to be seen. In the past 12 months nearly 200,000 people across London and 10,246 people in the hospitals run by Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust have been forced to wait for more than four hours at A&E. These figures are a damning indictment of the failure to properly plan our NHS services. 15 out of 22 Hospital Trusts have failed to meet this key target.

“Last year we all celebrated the NHS’ 65^th Birthday; one year on the government’s botched top down reorganisation is putting severe pressure on our local services. Continuing to either close or downgrade London’s A&Es will make the situation even worse. NHS staff work hard to look after us all when we are at our most vulnerable, but they need the resources to be able to deliver the service we all expect. I am deeply worried that following these A&E closures, waiting times will continue to be high and Londoners will continue to suffer as a result.”

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.
2. Figures are from the last 52 weeks, are attached. Figures for 2013/14 taken from here: http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/weekly-ae-sitreps-2013-14/ and for 2012/13 from here: http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/weekly-ae-sitreps-2012-13/
3. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust runs the following hospitals: Charing Cross in Hammersmith, Hammersmith in White city and St Mary’s in Paddington

Hidden rivers of London

I return to a hobby-horse  that l have had for a while – Londoners rediscovering their hidden rivers – but in a particular context, reducing the risk of floods after this winters heavy rainfall.

This week the Environment Committee at the London Assembly released its slide report of Flood risk in London with the suggestion of reviving the rivers to reduce flood risk particular when its been fluvial (river) rather then tidal. As while the Thames Barrier has been used for the record number of times, it has been closed predominately to stop river flooding in South-West London.

We had a Environment Committee in the middle of the flood crisis on the 30th of January and made  this particular recommendation with a focus  on the 14,000 Londoner homes which are at high risk of flooding according to figures obtained from the Environment Agency.

Interestingly we already have a river restoration programme which the London Assembly wants to see completed as soon as possible in light of the recent floods in London and wanted it incorporated within the Mayors budget priorities for 2014/2015.

Little did l expect to see something that l had backed for many years – Londoners rediscovering their hidden rivers – through a river restoration programme would also help to reduce the flood risks covering the whole of Greater London.

Boris Johnson today confirmed he will not accelerate the introduction of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in London or take any further steps to improve London’s air quality. In his weekly Telegraph column the Mayor accepted that the capital’s air quality is bad and kills 4,300 people each year, but failed to speed up the delivery of the ULEZ which will improve air quality. London Assembly Labour Group Environment spokesperson, Murad Qureshi AM, has again urged the Mayor to bring forward both the Ultra-Low Emission Zone and the retrofitting of London’s 8,000 buses to make them less polluting.

Last week the Mayor indicated the smog episode wasn’t as bad as people had claimed, telling ITV London “I’m urging people just to have a little balance here, I cycled this morning and it seemed perfectly fine to me”. Under current plans the Mayor’s Ultra Low Emission Zone will not be introduced until after he has left City Hall. The Mayor also prioritised purchasing a few hundred of his new ‘RouteMaster’ buses, rather than retrofitting the entire fleet. 

Murad Qureshi AM, London Assembly Labour Group Environment spokesperson, said:

“Today the Mayor admitted that London’s air quality is bad and kills over 4,000 people each year, however he is unwilling to bring forward measures which will help stop this killer. His Ultra Low Emission Zone will be introduced four years after he has left office, and his pledge to make taxi’s zero-emission ‘capable’ won’t happen until two years after he has left us.

“His unwillingness to tackle this problem is short-sighted and condemns Londoners to another six years of dangerous air. London’s poor air quality kills 4,300 people each year, but it also stunts the development of children’s lungs – a condition that each child affected will be forced to live with the rest of their life. Boris’ complacency is disgraceful, he must bring forward the measures to fight this silent killer.”

Background

The Mayor’s own Air Quality Strategy states that buses contribute significantly to pollution in London. During this year’s City Hall budget setting process, the Mayor was presented with a fully costed plan to establish a £25m fund to make London’s entire bus fleet less polluting and meet the Euro VI standard. This programme would have seen the fleet retrofitted by December 2015, however, the Mayor rejected this plan. By the time his Ultra Low Emission Zone is introduced in 2020, approximately 51,000 Londoners would have died as a result of air pollution since he was elected in 2008.

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly.
2. The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy says: “Across Greater London, buses are estimated to contribute 21 per cent of road transport emissions in 2008, and just under 30 per cent in 2015. However, when looking at road transport emissions within central London, buses become the most significant source of NOx emissions at around 40 per cent in 2008, growing to just below 50 per cent in 2015.” (The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy p.44)
3. In November 2013, the Department for Health published the Public Health Indicator for the fraction of mortality attributable to human-made dangerous airborne particles PM2.5 in 2011. The research which was publicised by the Clean Air in London Campaign noted that PM2.5 killed more people in 15 London boroughs in 2011 than 2010 and far more than 10 times the number dying from road traffic accidents Latest National and Local Death Rates for Air Pollution.

Boris Johnson said yesterday during the smog over London  “I’m urging people just to have a little balance here, I cycled this morning and it seemed perfectly fine to me”. Not surprisingly he is being criticised for failing to take the current smog episode seriously at all, this when the Prime Minster of the day David Cameroon himself complained he could not jog early in the morning because of the smog.  

It has been confirmed by Defra that London is experiencing ‘Level 10’ air pollution – which is the worst possible, and as a result the Mayor’s comments are “dangerously complacent”.

Each year poor air quality kills over 4,000 Londoners, yet the Mayor’s Ultra Low Emission Zone will not be introduced until after he has left City Hall in 2020. The Mayor also prioritised purchasing a few hundred of his new ‘RouteMaster’ buses, rather than retrofitting the entire fleet of over 8,000 London buses to make them less polluting.

Only today the London Ambulance Service has seen a 14% increase in people calling them with breathing problems. In 2008 Boris promised to make London the greenest city in the world. Instead, we’ve seen wasted opportunities and wasted money. Instead of retro-fitting the entire fleet of over 8,000 London buses to make them less polluting, he has bought just a few hundred new ‘RouteMasters’. Boris might be alright, but London’s’ asthmatics are suffering.

This latest smog episode should act as a wake up call to our Mayor, whilst sand blown in from the Sahara is a contributing factor, Boris has not taken decisive action to tackle local air pollution. Boris needs to take action and show real leadership on this issue. He needs to play his part in tackling our city’s silent killer which causes over 4,000 deaths a year. He should bring forward his Ultra Low Emission Zone and retro-fit the entire London bus fleet to make them less polluting.

The Mayor’s own Air Quality Strategy states that buses contribute significantly to pollution in London. During this year’s City Hall budget setting process, the Mayor was presented with a fully costed plan to establish a £25m fund to make London’s entire bus fleet less polluting and meet the Euro VI standard. This programme would have seen the fleet retrofitted by December 2015, however, the Mayor rejected this plan. By the time his Ultra Low Emission Zone is introduced in 2020, approximately 51,000 Londoners would have died as a result of air pollution since he was elected in 2008.

In the midst of London’s latest smog episode, the Mayor of London has been criticised for failing to act on the city’s silent killer. Each year poor air quality kills over 4,000 Londoners, yet the Mayor’s Ultra Low Emission Zone will not be introduced until after he has left City Hall. The Mayor also prioritised purchasing a few hundred of his new ‘RouteMaster’ buses, rather than retrofitting the entire fleet of over 8,000 London buses to make them less polluting. 

The Mayor’s own Air Quality Strategy states that buses contribute significantly to pollution in London. During this year’s City Hall budget setting process, the Mayor was presented with a fully costed plan to establish a £25m fund to make London’s entire bus fleet less polluting and meet the Euro VI standard. This programme would have seen the fleet retrofitted by December 2015, however, the Mayor rejected this plan. By the time his Ultra Low Emission Zone is introduced in 2020, approximately 51,000 Londoners would have died as a result of air pollution since he was elected in 2008. 

Murad Qureshi AM, London Assembly Labour Group Environment spokesperson, said:

“This latest smog episode should act as a wake up call to our Mayor, whilst sand blown in from the Sahara is a contributing factor, the fact is Boris has not taken decisive action to tackle local air pollution. In the last six years he has prioritised cars over public transport, and where he has invested he has wasted money on his new RouteMaster instead of cleaning up the entire bus fleet.

“A major factor contributing to London’s air pollution is particulate matter from diesel engines. Boris needs to take action and show real leadership on this issue, that is what Mayors are there for. He needs to play his part in tackling our city’s silent killer which causes over 4,000 deaths a year. He should bring forward his Ultra Low Emission Zone and retro-fit the entire London bus fleet to make them less polluting.”

Ends

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly.
2. Calculated estimated deaths from 2008-2020 based on 4,267 figure here.
3. The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy says: “Across Greater London, buses are estimated to contribute 21 per cent of road transport emissions in 2008, and just under 30 per cent in 2015. However, when looking at road transport emissions within central London, buses become the most significant source of NOx emissions at around 40 per cent in 2008, growing to just below 50 per cent in 2015.” (The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy p.44)
4. In November 2013, the Department for Health published the Public Health Indicator for the fraction of mortality attributable to human-made dangerous airborne particles PM2.5 in 2011. The research which was publicised by the Clean Air in London Campaign noted that PM2.5 killed more people in 15 London boroughs in 2011 than 2010 and far more than 10 times the number dying from road traffic accidents Latest National and Local Death Rates for Air Pollution.

Local community comming out along Linhope St to save theri local pub

After my recent column in the West End Extra Forum slot under the header of  ” The pub’s a hub and worth cherishing”  l am glad to see its been of immediate use to campaigners trying to stop another pub closing in NW1, the Swan & Edgar Public House, formerly known as the Feathers Public House.

Indeed if l had not been away l would have attended their public meeting on the 17th of March where over 30 people locally decided to form a group to nominate the Linhope Street Public House for listing as an Asset of Community Value. Please find the link to the Asset of Community Value Nomination Form made to the City of Westminster. It clearly shows how to get one’s local public house listed as an asset of community value under the Localism Act, which then gives the pub extra protection if its put up for sale.

The council has already considered the application for change of use and alterations on the 11th of Feb 2014, and refused it on the grounds that the loss of the public house would result in the loss of a valued social and community resource to the detriment of the local community & the character of the Conservation Area.

I just hope now that the Mayor has seen a motion passed by the London Assembly and is mindful of campaigns like the Save the Linhope Street Local, can see fit to use his present exercise of Further Alterations to the London Plan to include new guidance to give greater protection to pubs in London. The campaign to get it listed as as Asset of Community Value shows as all how to go about saving your local public house and other campaigns can certainly learn from it. Just remember a pub is a hub worth cherishing and that it is worth preserving.

Latest figures released by the Mayor of London show that 463 police officers have been cut in Westminster, a drop of 28% since May 2010. The latest figures show that despite the Mayor’s pledge to increase police numbers, the opposite is happening on his watch.  The cut in police officers comes after criticism of the Mayor’s new Local Policing Model which Murad Qureshi AM argues is eroding neighbourhood policing in the borough.

The number of borough-based police officers in Westminster has dropped from 1628 in May 2010 to 1165 in January 2014.  Across London, the number of police officers has declined by 3,111 (9%). 

Murad Qureshi AM, London wide Assembly, said:

“Despite promising us there would be one thousand more police officers in London, the truth is the Mayor has failed to deliver. We have lost over 3,000 police officers in London.  In Westminster we have lost 463 police officers and 292 PCSOs.  The Mayor has already admitted that there may be flaws in his new community policing plan; the HMIC has reported that the Met now has the third lowest visibility of officers in the country. The Mayor needs to act on his promise and get officers into our neighbourhoods.”

Ends 

Notes

1. Murad Qureshi AM is a Labour London wide Assembly Member.
2. The statistics for policewere taken from the Mayor’s datastore, see http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/metropolitan-police-service-recorded-crime-figures-and-associated-data
3. At a policing plenary on 5^th March, the Mayor admitted that ‘there may be unintended consequences of the Local Policing Model that are leading to problems on borough boundaries’.  At the same meeting, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe confirmed that he would be reviewing the model in the coming months.  The transcript can be found on page 12 here.

Closed: the former Marquis of Anglesey

A DRINK at your local pub is probably one of the defining pastimes of British life.

It sets us apart from, say, the Americans who are more accustomed to hanging out in local bars and from the “mainstream” Europeans who have long enjoyed the surroundings of coffee shops before they swamped our high streets.

In the UK the local pub has long been the hub of the community, not only as a place to relax, socialise and participate in community social events like the “quiz night” but they are increasingly a popular eatery as well as a place to host public meetings, say, in a back room as well as providing a convenient home for local football and cricket teams to meet.

Unfortunately the demise of the local is an increasing phenomenon.

In my own postcode of NW1, numerous pubs have closed down.

The smoking ban, economic downturn and the prevalence of chain pubs have undoubtedly had a profound effect on the business viability of the local pub and therefore, their economic vulnerability in the last few years have made them an obvious target for developers with luxury housing in mind.

Not only are they sited in local residential neighbourhoods, they also tend to be buildings of character and charm with space to develop into luxury residences and even hotels.

My fear is that these community hubs will disappear before our eyes and what we have taken for granted as the bastion of our local neighbourhood will be lost for ever and with it one of the defining customs of Britishness.

This is why at the last meeting of the London Assembly on March 5, I proposed a motion urging the Mayor of London to use his planning strategy to give greater protection to pubs in London.

The motion was agreed unanimously by the assembly which called on the mayor to revise his London Plan to include new guidance for local authorities to promote pubs and protect them from unnecessary changes of use.

Here’s what the motion said: “Public houses are the hubs of communities where locals gather with friends and families to socialise and they are currently under threat across London.

“A great number of pubs in the capital have closed down and this is detrimental to the communities they once served.

“The mayor should strengthen the London Plan so that local authorities have the ability to protect these community pillars.”

Assembly members were in agreement and following some debate the full text of the amended motion agreed read as follows:

“This assembly recognises that public houses are important community assets that cater to a broad clientele with a diverse range of needs.

“They are hubs of communities where people gather with friends, enjoy a family lunch at the weekend, and run into neighbours for a chat. Pubs also often provide affordable community space where community groups meet and otherwise act as anchors of the local community.

“Yet these stalwarts of the high street are under threat. Across the country, pubs are closing at a rate of 26 a week, with London’s public houses being among the hardest hit.

“This assembly therefore welcomes the guidance in the draft London Plan alterations which recognises for the first time ‘the important role that London’s public houses can play in the social fabric of communities’ and encourages local authorities to adopt policies to maintain, manage, and enhance public houses, as well as the new policy wording which encourages boroughs to develop polices to prevent their loss.

“However, the London Plan must be strengthened further if local authorities are to be given the additional tools to protect threatened pubs through their own local planning policies.

“The plan must include additional policies which set out a clear inclination to retain 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.

“This assembly therefore calls on the Mayor of London to revise his Further Alterations to the London Plan to include further guidance for local authorities to promote and protect pubs.”

Need I say more?

I applaud the assembly for supporting my motion; it demonstrates recognition of the role pubs play in promoting community cohesion particularly in London where it is not unheard of for neighbours to be strangers.

If you happen not to know your neighbour, you may still bump into them down your local pub and even be part of the same quiz team!

They are one of the few establishments on the British high street where you don’t need to pay to enter and you don’t need to fit a certain profile to visit and yet people from all walks of life can relax and participate in social events together.

Now that’s worth preserving.

So let us see what the mayor is going to do about it.

Read article in the West End Extra

This is what HS2 sent out as the Environment Statement!

Now that the HS2 Environmental Statement submission deadline for responses has passed, the wait begins for any further news about additional environmental compensation.  At the very least, an attempt should be made to quantify the environmental and health impacts – as so many questions still remain unanswered.

According to the Collins English Dictionary, cost:benefit analysis is an accounting noun that describes the analysis that takes into account the costs of a project and its benefits to society, as well as the revenue it generates.

However, when it comes to the mammoth construction job that is HS2, there is no mention of a cost:benefit analysis for London, as we asked for a regional breakdown at the outset.  Ok, so we would get to Birmingham 30 minutes faster but from what we’ve seen so far, the government’s cost:benefit analysis does not cover, or does not cover adequately, a number of environmental issues – most of which will add up to considerably more than currently predicted and may well overturn the low cost-benefit ratio of 1:1.5 for the project anyway.

Some impacts can be costed – some cannot, as they fall into the indirect cost box – difficult to place a monetary value on. But to inform the decisions of HS2, they must be costed in order to guarantee a realistic and accountable summary of the impacts of this sprawling construction.

Central London locations like Euston already has some of the worst air pollution in Europe – it appears the extra deaths and health effects of this added pollution have been ignored. DEFRA well know this already, but does not appear to be talking to their colleagues in DfT, instead promoting HS2 despite the threat of legal action against the UK government by the EU.  As for noise, in the draft Environmental Statement, it assesses average noise levels over a period of time, yet several consultees have said this is misleading because of the impact of peak noise levels; when a high speed train goes past, peak noise levels will be considerably higher.

What about the destruction of homes, city parks, ancient woodland and wildlife habitat? You only have to look at the impact of outer London surface track of HS2 going through Hillingdon, where the viaduct in the Colne River Valley would pass through a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), including sites of national importance for bird conservation.  This stretch of track alone would destroy parts of the borough with valuable stocks of wildlife, including bats, breeding birds, terrestrial invertebrates and great crested newts. During the construction process, 0.2 hectares of ancient woodland in the SSSI including power lines and 12 hectares of vegetation from a site of metropolitan importance for Nature Conservation will be destroyed.

As for compensation for the destruction of homes, it is both unjust and obscene that far higher levels of compensation are being offered to households where HS2 will run down the bottom of long gardens in the Chilterns then the hundreds of residential homes in the Regents Park Estate, immediately West of the Euston terminus where the project will tear through the front rooms.

It may be relatively simple to calculate the value of land and homes purchased for the project, but London has a severe housing shortage!  What comparative value has been applied to reducing London’s housing stock in exchange for cutting 30 minutes off the time it takes to get to or from Birmingham?  And just as importantly, where will people whose homes have been demolished, find new homes? Private renters look set to lose their homes without help or compensation.

The loss of green and open space in central London will also be keenly felt as the area is already heavily urbanised. HS2 Ltd values the loss of urban open space at a standard £54,000 per hectare but, with the lack of other local green space and the high land values in the area, Camden Council estimates that it would cost up to £82 million to re-provide a site like St James’s Gardens and Euston Square. HS2 Ltd acknowledges that its valuation lacks robustness – it is therefore excluded from the main business case, and covered only in separate value-for-money advice provided by the Department for Transport (DfT). Parliament should be aware of this unquantified cost.

Think of the cost to local small businesses like the renowned row of restaurants to the west side of Euston, on Drummond Street, who will suffer the disruption of a construction site on their doorstep for years.  Will they be able to rebuild their clientele once the dust has settled, or will they shut up shop and walk away?

The government has not adequately added up these sums, or accounted for these costs in the final bill for HS2 and it certainly hasn’t shown enough of its working out to us. Who judges if they’ve added them up correctly?  The complexities of getting this cost:benefit analysis right are worse than a quadratic equation.

They must do the sums properly and prove that the cost:benefit analysis justifies going against the widespread public disapproval of this divisive project.

If you consider the environment cost to London alone, l suspect it would at least tip HS2 away from Euston and terminate it at Old Oak Common. Perhaps that would explain why it is that HS2 have not been forthcoming with the environmental cost figures in the first place, as the environmental sums just don’t add-up.