Normally at this time of the year, we like to go to our local post box to send our Christmas cards but alas this has been denied to folk in W9 as we have a number of post boxes blocked or lying derelict. 

Along Bristol Gardens, Sutherland Avenue & Warwick Avenue we have as many as four post boxes closed up and lying derelict. The first three appear to have been blocked up still after recent roads works which have long since been finished. While the one on top end of Warwick Avenue has been closed since the 19th of May, on health and safety grounds. And it really should not take over six months to replace it with a new one! 

So what kind of explanation do the Royal Mail offer to this closing up of post boxes in W9. While l await their explanation with eagerness, l just know W9ers in the meantime, have been denied their right and ability to send their Christmas cards in the normal traditional manner via their local post boxes. 

We certainly know since its privatisation of Royal Mail under Vincent Cable, it has got a lot more expensive to send mail, but l did not know it was cutting its service levels as well in urban areas like Central London. So what has W9 done to deserve this Royal Mail in the lead up to Christmas?

Merry Christmas W9ers.  

I have the following objections to the revised Travis Perkins/Unite Students proposals, as follows:

Gross Overdevelopment of the site

The defining feature of the Paddington Basin area is the Canal and the development of new buildings along the Canal should respect this clear and defining context.

The only justification put forward by the Applicants for a building of 20 storeys is that there are already buildings of that size in the close vicinity. The Applicants cite buildings of around 20 storeys in evidence in their favour, rather than the more important and much lower Sheldon Square residential buildings immediately opposite the Baltic Wharf site.

In addition, the Applicants make much of the need for additional student accommodation, but they make no compelling justification for 768 student rooms.

The proposed ‘stepped’ 6–20 storey proposal is a contrived design which inherently admits that it is inappropriate for such an important and sensitive site. The sheer wall at the 20-storey end looks particularly out of scale.

In short, the proposed building is far too massive and far too tall. It is the wrong building in the wrong place.

Out of scale with the low-rise residential Little Venice section of the Canal

The proposed 20 storey building would ruin the current pleasant Little Venice section of the Canal environment which is characterised by a collection of modern low and mid-rise developments.

This lower-rise section of the Canal is clearly apparent from the Bishops Bridge Road bridge which creates a strong divide between the low-rise part of the canal at Little Venice and the taller office buildings (such as the Brunel building) associated with the Paddington Station area. In this respect, the high-rise Brunel Building should be the last 20+ storey building at the west end of the Canal.

Creating an overbearing ‘Canyon’ effect

Because of the proposed gross overdevelopment of the Travis Perkins site, the resulting development would create an overbearing and depressing ‘Canyon’ along this part of the Canal. The canal side walkways, cafes and bars would become less enjoyable to visit. The moored barges would be dwarfed and totally overwhelmed by the towering 20 storey building.

The Applicants have already admitted that the lower residential floors of the Sheldon Square buildings would be detrimentally impacted by their proposals. The Applicants claim that these detrimental impacts on residents should be accepted because of the wider ‘regeneration benefits’.

Why should Sheldon Square residents have to bear the brunt of the damaging impacts when they get none of the ‘benefits’? Moreover, these detrimental impacts go beyond the loss of residential amenity and will affect existing Canal side Sheldon Square businesses, as well as Canal walkway visitors.

The wrong use for the site

While there is support for the retention of Travis Perkins, no justification is made for the proposed major student accommodation development, beyond the general need for London. Moreover, there is no certainty that the predicted need for more student accommodation will materialise. There are serious questions about whether overseas students will still want to travel to the UK for their degrees, whether the government will reduce funding higher education, and whether online learning will encourage more students to save money and stay at home.

There may well turn out to be a need for additional student accommodation in London, but the overwhelming residential need in Westminster is for more homes for those who need to rent of buy a home locally. The site could provide the opportunity for more homes and it is of real surprise that this opportunity is not being taken.

So in summary l have four objections to the revised Travis Perkins/Unite Students proposals, as follows: 

1. It is a gross overdevelopment of the site 
2. It is out of scale with the low-rise residential Little Venice section of the Canal 
3. The proposals will create an overbearing ‘Canyon’ effect 
4. It is the wrong use for the site 

I urge Westminster City Council’s Planning Committee to refuse planning permission for the revised proposals. 

Please write in your objections to the above revised planning application at  www.westminster.gov.uk/planning on the application reference 21/04536/FULL

We’re urging the Mayor of London to use his powers to refuse permission for Berkeley Homes to build three mega blocks, including one of 32 stories, on the site of the former Paddington Green police station. These plans have already been turned down by Westminster Council but, due to the scale of the proposed development, the Mayor has the final say.

We are asking the Mayor to refuse permission on a number of grounds:

• Not enough on-site affordable housing – as this is site is former public land, 50% of the flats should be for affordable rent but Berkley is only providing 38% with the balance to be provided in Hendon.
• Wrong mix of intermediate housing – 60% of the affordable flats are for shared ownership. Property prices are too high for shared ownership to be in any sense “affordable” in Westminster so these flats should be for low-cost rental instead, with more social housing in the scheme
• Quality of the accommodation – many flats are single aspect and face North
• Reduction of daylight and sunlight into many flats in Berkeley’s neighbouring development of West End Gate
• Damage to views of and from the Paddington Green conservation area and Cosway Street, with views from St Mary’s Churchyard, Lisson Grove and the Royal Parks impacted – the 32-storey new building will overly dominate its surroundings
• Height of the main new building Tower – tall buildings are only acceptable as one-off “landmarks” but Berkeley has already built a 30 storey building (the Westmark Tower) right next door to this one.

Now we have many blue plaques in Paddington in both W9 & W2 parts but this morning we had our first red plaque in W9 put up along Clifton Gardens this morning. 

Here on the 13th of December in 1974, a horrific fire took hold in the Wosley Hotel for catering staff and cost the life of firemen, Hamish Petit along with six others. In honour of his life London Fire Brigade Union has put up this plaque. Acknowledging the ultimate sacrifice made by firemen in W9 and all around the world. So let us not forget the sacrifices public servants like firemen and women make particularly over the Christmas break. 

As the Evening Standard reported last week and this week again that the TfL financial crisis could mean the closing of entire tube line and whilst a tube line was not mentioned at the TfL Finance Committee, its considered that the line most likely to be closed is either the Bakerloo or Jubilee lines. 

Now having grown up on the Bakerloo line and campaigned successfully for the seating of the Bakerloo line to be brought up to standard whilst an AM at City Hall, l find the suggestion that the Bakerloo line could be closed alarming as a result of the financial arguments between TfL and Department of Transport.

This will be castastrophic for Little Venice & Maida Vale and their respective tube stations Warwick Avenue and Maida Vale, as it will not only hamper travel to W9, but also put at risk greener and sustainable travel. This would come on top of the losing the Bus No 414 going through W9 since TfL stop it going down the Edgware Rd from Marble Arch onwards. 

So let us make sure it does not happen, beginning with signing the petition with the link below; 

https://www.westminsterlabour.org.uk/uncategorised/2021/12/01/dont-close-the-bakerloo-line/

Scrutiny Meeting @CityWestminster Council where Thames Water promised Independent Review of the flash floods in London but no details

After watching two council scrutinies on the flash floods in London, a letter from the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) informs me what is happening with the Independent Review offered by Thames Water in both sessions.

Thames Water had reiterated in both scrutiny meetings that they will be commissioning an independent review which will look at the network’s performance in far more detail, to see what lessons can be learned and to identify what the most appropriate solution would be for the long term protection of local residents though the details where lacking. 

It appears the broad structure of the review is now in place and Mike Woolgar will be the chairman, the Director of WSP UK Ltd’s Water group, responsible for water strategy and technical advisory services. He will head a panel of three experts, with international experience of flood risk management, that will lead the review alongside separate consultants carrying out the work on the ground. These experts will be assisted by a group of representatives from organisations which have a stake in preventing flooding in London, including the Environment Agency, the Consumer Council for Water, London Councils, the London Drainage Engineers Group and the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. OFWAT will also be joining this group.

The review itself currently has five core objectives but these are being reviewed by the expert group which will have the final say:

• Establish what happened during the storms of 12 and 25 July
• Determine how well Thames Water’s network performed during those storms
• Identify other factors, such as the time of day, which potentially contributed to the flooding
• Recommend how Thames Water can achieve its responsibilities as a flood risk management authority and increase resilience to future extreme events
• Identify wider implications for London’s drainage infrastructure and make recommendations to all authorities with surface water management responsibilities to increase resilience across the capital.

As part of the review, residents, local authorities and MPs will be contacted to provide information throughout the process to get their essential input. Here it would be using to have the GLA involved as well. While they don’t have any responsibilities for water in London the way councils may do, its strategic perspective across London would certainly be useful. 

Thames Water has still not commit entirely to a strict deadline for the Review as some keenly wanted to know at the Kensington Scrutiny but it is believed that it will take approximately six months to complete. It is  of course reassuring that OFWAT is also going to be closely involved in this group and is clearly wanting to see it conducted in a rigorous and timely way.

What is surprising is that Thames Water have not informed their customers yet, particularly those affected by the flash floods in July, nor those of us who complained to them about their services in response to those event. This all the more surprising given the criticism is has received about its communications which it has readily accepted could have been a lot better!  

With flash floods in London partially caused by intense rains not seen before and likely to
increase in the future on the basis of the latest IPCCC Research Reports, some will be
asking how can all the discussion on climate change at the COP26 in Glasgow help?

Now you will be forgiven for thinking everybody is going to Glasgow, well almost everyone,
but it must feel like Manhattan during a UN General Assembly when all the world leaders
head for New York annually. But it is first worth remembering that there will be two COPs,
the official one and the fringe. The official one will have delegates from all the Conference of
the Parties (COP) with almost 200 countries registered with the UN Convention on Climate
Change, while the fringe will have a host of companies, cities and regions and NGO’s from
both here and from all over the world all working towards net zero by 2050. So in short, there
will be 10,000 thousands of people going to Glasgow for both the COPs.

At the outset, it is worth asking what needs to happen for a successful COP26 in Glasgow?
In this respect, we will not only need to raise the ambitions of the National Climate Plans but
support the climate vulnerable developing countries and also advance the Paris Rulebook.

That means all the countries updating or submitting their new National Climate Plans (NCP)
that collectively keep limited warming down to around 1.5C within reach, but it is very clearly
not the case right now.

At present all the total of all the announced NCP’s submitted do not equal 45 per cent
reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. It is more like a 16 per cent increase in gas
emissions and thus an actual temperature rise of more like 2.6C rather than the maximum of
2C aiming for 1.5C in the Paris Accord.

So we need to see a very real improvement in the NCP’s submitted particularly from the big
polluters and the historically big one’s in the developed world. No country escape’s the climate crisis but those emitted the least and the most affected. That is why we will need to deliver the $100 bn annually to the developing world as promised in Paris even before the COP begins as it has become an issue of trust.

So it is disappointing to hear that this will not now be satisfied before the COP26 but will take
another 3 years from all the last minute negotiations. This issue will run and run and there is
no doubt even more climate finance will be required for the developing world to adapt by the
end of the present decade and beyond.

And finally the rule book has to have a common time frameworks for reporting and action
required to help enhance pledges, and to hold every country to account. For example, China
has stated it will hit net zero by 2060, with their carbon emissions peaking in 2030. Clearly
this falls a decade behind the timeframe established. But after verification from the
International Energy Agency (IEA) it suggests it is likely that China will meet their targets
earlier than suggested by even them, highlighting the need for common time frameworks. So
with such common time frameworks, we can better investigate India’s declared aim this
week of net zero by 2070.

So while there will be many other issues and themes raised like those during the first week –
deforestation measures signed up again, methane measures from the US & EU, green
finance – to name a few over the past few days, l make my trip during the second week of
the COP26 in Glasgow with these above questions primarily in mind. Only when these are
satisfactorily answered can we say we have had a successful COP26 at Glasgow.

An updated version of this blog was published in the Westminster Extra on the 5th of November

Simon Jenkins is right to say “Big Cities can show us the way to a more climate-friendly …” world on the 22nd of Oct particularly with the level of urbanisation happening around the world now, with more people in the world living in urban than in rural settings since 2010, and many Asian Mega-cities with 20 million plus populations.

Unfortunately, they are not party to the official COP26 and maybe they should be in future, particularly when their nation states let us down with their National Climate Plans (NCP) . They could then come up with their own City Climate Plans for submission as City Conference of the Parties and be measured against their own targets and others as well.

So l trust the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat are listening.

Protesters at the Shaheed Minar, Altab Ali Park, Whitechapel, E1

The recent killings of Hindu worshippers during their Durga Puja celebration and the lead up to Diwali, is deeply shocking. These attacks on homes and temples of the Hindu community must stop immediately and the Bangladesh government needs to act swiftly and give justice to those attacked and their families. 

It is completely unacceptable that any violence should be levelled at any faith group. Not surprising the killing of Hindu worshippers has shocked many around the world and is the lived reality of the Hindu community across Bangladesh. 

Let us not forget Hindu Bengalis were the main victims of the Pakistani army atrocities during the liberation war of Bangladesh, 50 years ago. Where uncircumcised Bengali men in lungi’s and women with Bindis were their main targets. So the bloody war was fought and won to establish an independent Bangladesh based on secularism, pluralism and democracy. 

If nothing else Hindu lives should matter very much in Bangladesh as the land of the Bengalis should be protecting all as the secular and plural constitution emphasises, particularly in its fifty year of formation. We can not have the land of Bengalis persecuting Hindu’s in its 50th year of independence, undermining its secular tradition.  So quite simply the Bangladesh government needs to act in the strongest terms possible, otherwise we rise losing “Amar Sonar Bangla”  

It is not often l return to a blog with additions but the circumstances merit it in this instance. So can l say, that l welcome the attempt to return to the secular constitution of Bangladesh of 1972. This is long over due from the days when former military dictator HM Ershd and Ziaur Rahman incorporated Islam as state religion in the constitution. So l look forward to seeing progress at the Jatiya Shamsad on this front. 

But l also trust specific actions are taken by the government to prevent repeats of such atrocities against the Hindu community, including the following: 

• Investigate and trial of the perpetrators, by special tribunal if needed
• Put In place a minority protection act, making Hinduism a protected religion.
• and finally a minority Commission to look into ways to ensure opportunities for minority religious and ethnic groups in a overwhelming Muslim country.

Only then can we begin to deal with the huge damage done by these appalling attacks. 

As expectations of the Chinese not being there at COP26, we have to be careful it doesn’t lead to sinophobia

We should be mindful of the growing tide of sinophobia (anti-Chinese racism) in the world also creeping into the COP26 as the finger gets pointed at the Chinese being the biggest CO2 emission polluters in the world. 

Unfortunately, sinophobia has a long history as Chinese people have faced perceptions of being “unhygienic” and “dirty” long before coronavirus came along. As early as the 19th century Opium Wars, the Chinese nation was referred to as the “sickman of Asia” This slur took a literal turn as Chinese migrants around the world came to be associated with poor hygiene and proneness to disease. Are we about to see the same happen now with CO2 emissions as China gets painted as the “biggest polluter of the world” during COP26?  

The Chinese commitment towards net carbon zero in 2060 with carbon emissions peaking in 2030 has not only be verified by reputable third party like the International Energy Association (IEA) but its suggested by them that they will reach that net carbon figure much earlier than 2060. The IEA Director General Dr Birol states very clearly “This accelerated transition would put China’s CO2 emissions into marked decline after 2025, opening up the possibility of China reaching carbon neutrality well before 2060. This would be both good for China and good for the world.”

Furthermore alarm has been compounded by Chinese power cuts suggestions that will mean pushing them off their path. In fact some like Carbon Brief suggest the power shortages might accelerate China’s climate action as the State Council – China’s highest organ of state administration – issued six specific orders to deal with the power shortages in a meeting chaired by Premier Li Keqiang. 

This of course does not take on board, the historical levels of CO2 emissions already used per capita by countries. On this metric, using figures of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels per capita since 1850, we and he US have used more than our fair fossil fuel share, as the following diagram shows quite clearly. 

In this respect both China & India, the two largest countries in Asia, have not consumed more than 38 – 148 historical tonnes per capita so far. In comparison both the UK and US the figure ranges from 1,164-1,239 historical tonnes per capita. So both us and the Americans have already consume more than 8 times more than the Chinese have so far. Yet the there will a lot of pressure on the Chinese and India certainly on the coal front. 

So in light of these figures and being mindful of growing sinophobia, they should help stop the Chinese being seen as the “dirtiest polluter of the world”