The two ends of the housing world can be illustrated well over this Christmas break at Paddington Green. While Crisis at Christmas are putting up 250 rough sleepers at City of Westminster College site over the Christmas break, we have a new launch of properties on an adjoining site of Westmark Tower on “West End Gate”  at prices the vast majority of local residents will certainly not be able to afford. 

Crisis at Christmas will be accommodating up to 250 rough sleepers till the 30th of December in Paddington Green giving them health services like dental and foot care; benefits assistance on top of a bed and food and of course social support. Plenty of the street homeless along the Edgware Rd have made their way to Crisis point of help and assistance. 

All this whilst the “West End Gate” developers undertake a new launch of properties in Westmark Tower at prices the vast majority of local residents will certainly not be able to afford where property prices begin at £935,000 for a one bed flat! And do not forget the hefty annual service charges as well 

Westmark Tower in WEG development

WEG development along the Edgware Road

It’s all a bit like a posh restaurant where the locals can look in but are priced out of eating as the hefty prices keep them well and truly out in the cold!.  So it is with this contrast in developments in Paddington Green. It is two different housing worlds which is not helped as the social housing is cut by nearly half to boost developers’ profits in “West End Gate”. The 200 flat addition to the development should have had 70 ‘affordable’ flats according to Westminster Council’s own rules but the development was waved through with a design with only 32 affordable flats, so depriving local people of 38 new homes. Westminster Council should at least adopt the Mayor of London’s guidance for developments to have at least 35 per cent of genuinely affordable housing. 

What is strange is how both different housing ends of the housing spectrum and rubbing shoulder to shoulder during this festive break at Paddington Green.  At least one is in the christian tradition of the festive break and l will not have to tell you which one! 

Where is the Gate referred to in the name of the new development going up called West End Gate? Can the Marylebone flyover have been mistaken as a Gate by the developers, given its only a stone throw away from the posh development. Indeed when was a bit of Little Venice on the Edgware Road part of the West End? The developer even claims its in Marylebone when its clearly on the wrong side of the Edgware Rd – its in Paddington. No doubt the unsuspecting international buyer for whom the development is aimed at as an investment, will take the name as red and think it is actually in the West End! 

This instance illustrates well that they is plenty in a name when you are talking about a major development and the market it wants to attract. In light of its implications, the renaming of neighbourhoods should really have a process of approval ideally via the local authority similar to planning consents required for developments. Maybe even making it part of the planning system? Maybe even grounds for the Mayor of London to call in an application, as developers redraw the boundaries of our urban villages and neighbourhoods. 

Indeed this is also happening with the renaming of schools which l attended like Quintin Kynaston Comp and Paddington Green Primary by powerful academies in their attempts to rebrand them. You would have thought that at a time when a lot of attention is being drawn on Paddington from the movie Paddington Bear, the Academy chain would refrain from such a move. Particularly when only a year ago it welcomed the creator of Paddington Bear, Michael Bond to the school! 

So in short, there is plenty in a name. Just ask a developer! 

Is this development “West End Gate” in Marylebone or Paddington? – certainly not in the West End.

If nothing else the recent speech of Nikki Haley, US Ambassador at the UN, revealed the reality of aid giving by the developed world to the developing world. Its a tool of their foreign policy. It was made quite clear by her how she expected those who received aid from the US were expected to vote at UNGA deliberation on Jerusalem, just before Christmas.  It was not dissimilar to when George Bush told the world you are either with us or against us after the appalling events of 9/11. In many ways she was a lot more stark by suggesting that the US would note how countries voted on this matter.

The excellent map by HOWMUCH.net tells where US AID monies in 2014 went around the world.

The map above should change the way you think about foreign aid, as it mostly goes to countries that are not poor. Israel for example is the biggest recipient of US Aid, with three times as much as the second highest recipient Egypt in the Middle East. This out of a total US aid budget of $35 billion. It is a very important part of the soft power that superpowers can exert, yet it was exerted      in a very hard and blunt manner by the US Ambassador to the UN. 

How countries actually voted on the draft resolution

Nikki Haley  has gone further by announcing that the United States are negotiating a $285 million cut in the United Nations’ “bloated” budget for next year, from the 22 per cent of UN funding that it contributes across all its activities, including peace keeping activities. It will be interesting to see who makes up the gap. But it certainly leaves an opportunity for other players around the world to take up this opportunity to exert more soft power through the UN system, in the geo-politics of the world. So l suspect that others will not miss this opportunity. 

Last Saturday afternoon l saw the impact of the huge works into the West End Gate development to local residents around Paddington Green.  As concert mixer after mixer lined up to enter the site by Church St causing noise and dirty roads with the addition of suspended parking for local residents on the main market day for Church St market. 

This is sent to continue into the new year as the developers ask the Council to have more concert mixers going into the site on Saturday afternoon’s in particular. This of course would not be tolerated anyway else in the City of Westminster, as the developer asks for restrictions to be dropped for their works over huge additional inconvienence to local residents over weekends. 

One has to ask why this huge development was given site entrance through Church St in the first place? Annoying many residents in the process when another way into the site existed along Newcastle Place which could have been used for the site works.  Indeed as the Paddington Green Police station is no longer used by the MET,  Newcastle Place could easily of been closed as the sole means of entrance into the building site. Officers need to explain why the present works arrangements on Church St were acceptable over above going alternative routes like via Newcastle Place. 

Exposed cabling along Warwick Avenue – is this acceptable?

Recently l got a response from the Health & Safety Executive on the number of exploding pavements in London to my Freedom of Interest (FOI) 

When l asked about the matter over two years ago when l was an Assembly Member (AM) at the London Assembly, it was revealed that we had 80 incidents “putting lives at risk” since 2010. Now we hear we have had over 50 similar incidents since 2015 in London along. l did originally asked the private utility that manage the cables under our feet – UK Power Network – for the figures after the  explosion along Oxford St ( which many mistook as a bomb ) in the summer.  But they were not forthcoming and it appears little has been done to make our streets safe for Londoners, literally under our feet since then by them.   

It shows a disregard for health and safety by a private utility company making a lot money out of these contracts. 

The Bangladesh, India, China & Myanmar corridor is foremost on the minds of the Chinese on this border of South & South-East Asia.

While the world has been rallied to the moral and humanitarian case to support the Rohingya’s in their flight from ethnic cleansing by the Myanmar state and their plight in Bangladesh, let us not forget the geo-politics of their situation. Not withstanding the grandstanding of the Security Council at the UN, its the Chinese Belt & Road initiative and in particular the pivotal place of Bangladesh within the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor that has determined the recent initiative by Chinese. This is one part of the Chinese efforts to rebuild the Old Silk Roads across the whole of Euro Asia land mass, enhancing trade and interactions across the whole of the continent, shifting the central of world economic activity into the heart of Asia, through a process of Easternisation. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi  in a meeting with Foreign Minister AH Mahmood Ali

This is best illustrated by the rush of the Bangladesh Foreign Secretary to undertake a bilateral agreement with Myanmar for the safe return of the Rohingya’s to Rakhine state, after Bangladesh had been pursuing a multilateral solution through the UN. This happened almost immediately after the Chinese Foreign Secretary Yang Yi came to Dhaka to meet AH Mahmood Ali, the Bangladesh Foreign Secretary.  So you could say the Chinese brokered or at least kick started the bilateral deal. 

According to the bilateral agreement we have three-phases  to address the crisis and promote stability. Firstly China has asked Myanmar’s army to restore order by declaring a ceasefire to stem the flood of refugees. In the second stage, China has suggested that both Myanmar and Bangladesh should be encouraged to talk so as to find a feasible approach to settle the issue while the international community should play an active role as well. In the third stage, Wang called upon the international community to help rebuild Rakhine state.

The Chinese Foreign Secretary  can be credited for getting the support for the proposal from Myanmar’s civilian and military leaders as well as the government of Bangladesh, before unveiling the plan. The proposal, if implemented, would pave the way to restoring peace in the region and rehabilitate all the refugees who had fled to Bangladesh and other countries. And while some will maybe cynical about the Chinese involvement given it has not condemn the ethnic cleansing, China at least does have a firm handle over Myanmar because of its economic support. So it can put pressure on the army to stop the further atrocities.  Furthermore, the Chinese $25 billion offer of infrastructural investment based on the corridor to the Bangladesh government already before the Rohingya tragedy would have played very heavily on the minds of officials in Dhaka. 

So as the Rohingya refugees situation plays itself out, do not forget that in the background other issues and concerns are foremost in the minds of officials involved in this bilateral deal other than the immediate humanitarian concerns. 

The Cricketer’s Estate built by the London Borough of St Marylebone in St John’s Wood must be the first old council estate now wholly owned privately by one individual including the freehold of the land. A sign of this very unusual case of public housing disappearing altogether on the Estate is all the additional security around the boundaries. 

When the great and the good built this Estate through the local council, they could never have imagined this could happen to the housing being provided for its residents in Marylebone in desperate housing need. This is obviously long before Right to Buy came into existence for tenants but what makes this quite incredible is that almost all the leasehold interests are privately now in the hands of one individual. On many Council Estates in Central London, you often find over 50 per cent of the flats and houses are owned by leaseholders but almost completely by one individual via his companies, is very unusual indeed. Furthermore he has managed to obtain the freehold of the land from the Council as well. 

I understand the landlord of the Estate works in the City and has now brought himself another adjacent property to look over his private Estate. Clearly he feels its his manor now! 

This is a unfortunate reflection of our times in housing, particularly in London. 

London Borough of St Marlybone logo on side of Verity House can be seen

Bradman House, St Johns Wood.

14 constituencies proposed for London Labour Party members reps on Board

Out of all the motions submitted to the Labour London Regional Conference the one that is likely to draw least attention is the one increasing the representation of members on the Regional Board after the huge increase in the London membership of the Labour Party over the past two years by Rule Change 1: A more representative Regional Board but be in no doubt its a critical one.

It is an understatement to say we have major anolomies in the boundaries of the members seats in the Regional Board for historical reasons. For example the Central London board member is elected from 17 CLP’s including all the following:

• Bethnal Green & Bow
• Bermondsey & Old Southwark
• Camberwell & Peckham
• Cities of London & Westminster
• Dulwich & West Norwood
• Hampstead & Kilburn
• Holborn & St Prancas
• Islington North
• Islington South
• Kensington
• Lewisham Deptford
• Lewisham East
• Lewisham West & Penge
• Poplar & Limehouse
• Streatham
• Vauxhall
• Westminster North

Only in the London Labour Party Regional Board could you have such a definition of Central London. Its time to change it, so members in Central London, Lewisham and Streatham are better represented.

One must ask when were the three seats in Lewisham and Streatham ever in Central London? l certainly don’t know anyone who lives in those seats who considers themselves in Central London let alone in TfL travel zone one! Furthermore having such huge geographical areas to cover in these Regional seats does not help those seats being represented well on the Board. 

The suggestion to make the Regional Board seats for the members represent the 14 GLA constituencies instead makes a lot of sense certainly for GLA election campaigns. After all there has been a lot of working across our local authority boundaries in GLA elections already since 2000, so having the Regional Board members constituencies coterminus with them makes a lot of sense. It respect local authority boundaries and thus most parliamentary seat boundaries at this moment in time.

So lets have the members of Lewisham and Streatham better represented in their respective Regional Board seats for Greenwich & Lewisham and Lambeth & Southwark. While those in Central London are better represented in a West Central Board constituency incorporating the boroughs of the City Westminster, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and Hammersmith & Fulham.

Only in the London Labour Party Regional Board could you have such a definition of Central London. Its time to change it, so members in Central London, Lewisham and Streatham are better represented.