Notices like those above have been put up in Tube stations telling Londoners about the Mayoral and London Assembly elections on the 5th of May. What they won’t realise is that the whole of strategic London government has shut down to observe purdah as well.  

Now purdah is the borrowed British political term ( from the Indian sub-continent ) used for the period before elections to make sure the political systems do not influence the outcome of the elections themselves. But the problem l have with it is that it comes so early with these GLA elections, in this instance well before the Easter break, that it appears just an excuse for officers to put their feet up with a cuppa for over six weeks before an elections.

Its stops us doing our work representing Londoners, while Monitoring Officers tell us we can’t use resources to political ends as public meetings at City Hall come to a complete stand still. Major demonstrations in London are constrained as these may unduly influence the election result and we can’t even twitter photos of site visits! 

Now why should this happen much earlier than for local or general elections?  Lords knows but the legislation is plainly wrong here, as l’m not sure City Hall has as much influence as say local councils in the lead-up to General Elections. Indeed City Hall shut up shop much sooner than local councils like City of Westminster before last years General Elections!!! So while l carefully go about doing my job, l do wonder if purdah has not gone mad at the GLA. 

With extensive courage of LOBO’s in the last week ( ES, Independent & FT ) or so, particularly the exposure that UK Councils have up and down the country, lets not forget its another scandal the financial sector has inflicted on its customers.

Like Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) miss-selling by the B5, the LOBO’s (Lender Option Borrower Option’s) is really the miss-selling of derivatives to clients like Councils for whom trading in derivatives is illegal.

The miss-selling of LOBOs (Lender Option Borrower Option) to local authorities is not dissimilar to the Big 5 miss-selling of PPI to their customers as clearly derivatives use are buried in them which are “ultra vires” or illegal for local government to invest in on behalf of their residents. This is illustrated well in the case against Hammersmith & Fulham in 1989. So just like PPI miss-selling, LA’s caught up in it should be compensated fully by those who sold them these financial products without  highlighting what it involved.

Unfortunately the LOBOs scandal can be added to the many other scandals we have had in the financial sector recently like the bail-out of RBS, Libor fixing, PPI compensation by big 5 for miss-selling to customers, to name but a few. It just adds to further calls for structural reform of the financial sector in the UK immediately. 

Over 90% of residents recently surveyed in the Marylebone area say they are disturbed by noise and vibrations from the Tube, with some experiencing both. The results also found that 87% of local residents surveyed are either “very concerned” or “a little bit concerned” that introduction of the Night Tube would make noise disturbance worse.

I launched the survey after being contacted by a number of residents in the Baker Street area whose lives are being disrupted by increasing noise and vibration from tube trains running under their homes.  Local residents responding to my survey reported pictures shifting on walls, rattling windows and even shaking beds caused by vibrations from the underground, with one respondent saying:

“Even though being on the top fifth floor, over the past year the noise has become more noticeable. Due to the late running of the service I have to wear ear plugs to get to sleep. It is going to be an absolute nightmare when night service is introduced.”

The survey results come after an internal TfL risk assessment for Night Tube, obtained by the Times newspaper via a Freedom of Information request, revealed residents living near to tube tracks or stations are likely to face significant increases in noise disturbance when the Night Tube is introduced. The risk assessment stated that the nuisance noise could result in a “reduction in quality of life of residents through disturbed sleep” and even “threats of suicide.”

TfL should use the delayed introduction of the Night Tube to repair all the identified sections of track and should set up a ‘noise-busters’ team to ensure noisy sections of track are quickly identified in future and prioritised for replacement or maintenance.

The survey results clearly show the extent of the problem. This isn’t just a bit of noise effecting residents on the ground floor every now and then. This is a constant and significant disruption even for people living five storeys above the tracks. Many residents said that the noise and vibration has increased in the past couple of years and it’s a real worry that TfL can’t get this sorted.

Marylebone residents desperately need some respite from these continuous disturbances. Setting up a noise-busters team to respond to complaints and quickly identify and fix noisy sections of Night Tube tracks would go a long way to making life better for Londoners living near tube lines.”

You can read the full survey results here:  Tube noise survey results

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.