Such is the colourful language in todays column in the daily Telegraph of the Mayor of London Boris Johnson, you would be forgiven for thinking he was not told of  restriction on swimming in the Thames by the authority that manages the river for us, Port of London Authority(PLA) was about in the first place.

The new byelaw, only controls swimming in the busiest part of the Thames between Putney Bridge & Crossness ( just before the Thames barrier) by making it necessary to get prior consent from the harbour master. This is so because its the busiest inland waterway in the UK. Added to this its the most dangerous stretch of the river, with strong tides and eddies that can drag a person underwater without warning.

Furthermore the new set of byelaws were confirmed by the Department for Transport after extensive consultation and designed to balance the the interests of all river users in the use of the Thames over five years. The byelaws are part of the work of the PLA to secure high standards of navigational safety on the tidal Thames which are essential to underpinning the continued growth of river use, whether for trade, travel, sport, leisure or tourism. They will be known as the Port of London Thames byelaws 2012 and been operational since sunday night, 1st of July 2012.

A further key change is the introduction of a mandatory speed limit of 12 knots within Central London that will apply to all vessels, other than in emergencies. That limit will also apply down river from below Tower Bridge and upriver from Lambeth Bridge to Wandsworth Bridge, unless certain strict operational criteria are met by operators. The speed limit will help to underpin the safety essential to the long-term growth of passenger travel on the river. 

But isn’t the real reason the Mayors complaining is that he was not handed over the PLA ( and thus control of the Thames & the Estuary) by his friends in government last term?  In early 2010, the Mayor made a bid for more power from his friends in the coalition government in his proposals for devolution. The document clearly states that given the critical importance of the Thames to the London’s prospersity the PLA should be devolved to the GLA group. The Mayor further states that the work of the PLA needs to be integrated with the mayors transport strategy and London plan, which l readily accepted at the time. But at the time he and his supporters like the Policy Exchange got their figures wrong when asking for some sort of funding transfer along with the PLA. The reality was and is that the PLA is self-financing and thus has no recall to public funding which explains to us why most Ministers let them get on with managing the Thames without any interference.

Finally the Department for Transport agreed the final form of the byelaws in late May and these were subsequently confirmed by the Secretary of State. The interesting thing about it all, is that it appears by his column that  Justin Greening, Secretary of State for Transport hasn’t bothered to informed the mayor about these changes or he didn’t notice when informed. One can only wonder why that could be the case.

 

Last night l was at a packed Rivercourt Methodist church meeting with more then 200 people in attendance to hear how they intend to fight plans to shut the accident and emergence departments ( A & E units ) at Charing Cross and Hammersmith in the London borough of Hammersmith & Fulham organised by local MP Andy Slaughter.

During the proceedings, we heard how getting to other hospitals like St Marys in Paddington and Chelsea & Westminster instead would be a nightmare and how many had relied on the services of the hospitals in Hammersmith & Fulham in critical moments of their families lifes.  

While not a resident of Hammersmith & Fulham, l for one was not reassured that people like myself in the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea have been spared as residents from Hammersmith & Fulham are expected to go to St Marys and Chelsea & Westminster instead. At the best of times the A & E units at these hospitals can just about cope with the demands made on them particularly as attendances have soared in recent years. So l not sure both could cope with the additional demands made by residents of Hammersmith, particularly as we know London NHS is facing massive cuts anyway across the board.  This on top of the inaccessibility of these hospitals from Fulham & Hammersmith.

The consultation for the wholesale changes will begin from next monday for a three month period and NHS North West London can expect a very hard time over their recommendations outlined at their board meeting on monday night. Its important other residents in the North-West of London region also fight them along with the residents of Hammersmith & Fulham.  

 

 

 

This evening a statue for the founding father of Bangladesh, Shiekh Mujibur Rahman in Brunswick Square will be discussed by Camden Council’s planning committee.  Whilst in planning terms,  it is pretty straight forward, it is more contentious for the UK’s Bangladeshi community, although arguably, the contention is little more than hot air.

Firstly, I am happy to declare that I have written to Camden in support of the planning application for the statue.  I believe it is right and proper for London through Camden Council which is home to over 15000 Bangladeshis to acknowledge the contribution of Shiekh Mujib Rahman in the formation of the state of Bangladesh in 1971.  This liberation was brought about in a struggle against the Pakistani army and represents the first triumph of linguistic nationalism in the world.  If you think about this achievement within the context of a capital city like ours where more than 300 languages are spoken, it brings home the extent of the achievment.

In London, we have a Bangladeshi community of over 200,000.  The Bangladeshi population is  concentrated in a few boroughs.  In Tower Hamlets , there are 86,300 Bangladeshis which is a third of the borough’s population. We have another 32,100 Bangladeshis living in Newham, thats  1 in 10 Newham residents and in Camden, the figure is 15,60, which is 1 in 14 Camden residents.  Therefore, it is a fitting tribute to the founding father of the ancestry home to be acknowledged in the form of a statue in Brunswick Square, providing even more of a sense of belonging in London.

So why the controversy for some Bangladeshi’s?  The reason is that we have members of the opposition in Bangladesh otherwise known as the BNP, and its allies like the Islamists, are still in denial about the history of the formation of the state of Bangladesh.  Needless to say, this party played no part in the formation as it had not been formed by then and the Islamists were openly against the idea committing some awful crimes of collaboration with the Pakistani army.  This of course does not stop them making claims, which to this day have yet to be backed up with evidence from the time.

So do expect some demonstrating tonight in front of Camden Town Hall along Judd Street. But, I’d like to reassure people, these views do not reflect the mainstream perspective of Bangladesh but is unfortunately, one aspect of party politics of the country.

Mercifully, the application has been reccommended for approval by officers though there have also been other dissenting voices from local amentity groups. To those voices, I would say that the proposals are subtle and tasteful and will greatly contribute to local use of the public space.  It is also in keeping with other similiar tributes in the gardens and squares of Camden like Mahatma Gandhi’s statue in Tavistock Square.

So while a lot of noise will be made tonight by “BNP” supporters, Camden council can be reassured that by permitting this statue,  it rightly acknowledges the critical role played by Sheikh Mujib Rahman in the formation of Bangladesh, supported by most Bangladeshis to which the party political opposition in Dhaka are still in denial.

It would also increase noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people across east and south east London as well as create environmental damage to estuary wildlife, they fear.

“The Mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project,” said Assembly member Murad Qureshi.

“Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the economy as well as a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in Havering, Barking, Bexley and Bromley.”

The Assembly passed a resolution earlier this month saying the Mayor’s plans are “simplistic and ill-considered” and called on him to abandon them.

Heathrow would need to close for a new Estuary airport to succeed, it pointed out, which would cost 100,000 jobs.

Click here to view article

Some East End fare has come to Marylebone along Lisson Grove with the opening of a Pie & Mash eatery.  So along with the Seashell chippie and local Indian restuarants along Lisson Grove, we have a pie and mash available for lunch and evening meals.

l certainly welcome it to the neighbourhood as it offers the best steak and kidney pies in town and l don’t have to travel far now to get myself some salt beef sandwiches.  I trust the rest of the neighbourhood will have noticed it as well and will give it their patronage.

A motion agreed by Assembly Members^[1] urges the Mayor to abandon proposals which they warned would have a devastating effect on the west London economy, with up to 100,000 jobs at risk should Heathrow be forced to close.

They also warned that a major new airport in the estuary would create huge environmental damage to a protected area used by thousands of migrating birds as well as increase noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south east London.

Murad Qureshi AM, who proposed the motion, said:

"With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the Mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames Estuary. Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the west London economy as well as a serious impact on local wildlife in the estuary and a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south-east London.

“The message from industry, the airlines and conservationists is simple ““ the Mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project.”

The full text of the motion agreed at today’s meeting reads as follows: 

“This Assembly believes that the Mayor’s plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary are simplistic and ill-considered and calls upon him to abandon this vanity project.

For a new airport in the Thames Estuary to be a success, Heathrow would need to close, which would have a devastating effect on London’s economy, costing over 100,000 jobs in west London. The proposed airport would cause huge environmental damage to a protected area which is used by many thousands of migrating birds, creating a high risk of bird strike. It would threaten a huge increase in noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in the east and south east of London, especially in Bromley, Bexley, Havering and Barking.”

Notes for editors:

1. The motion was agreed by 15 votes for and 9 against at a meeting of the full Assembly today. Watch the webcast.
2. The motion was seconded by Onkar Sahota AM
3. As well as investigating issues that matter to Londoners, the London Assembly acts as a check and a balance on the Mayor.

For more details, please contact Alastair Cowan in the Assembly Media Office on 020 7983 4504/4283.  For out of hours media enquiries please call 020 7983 4000 and ask for the Assembly duty press officer.  Non-media enquiries should be directed to the Public Liaison Unit, Greater London Authority, on 020 7983 4100.

The assembly voted in favour of issuing a motion to Johnson calling for the proposed airport dubbed “Boris Island” to abandon the idea which would cause the closure of Heathrow.

Labour assembly member Murad Qureshi, who proposed the motion, said: “With up to 100,000 jobs on the line at Heathrow it is incredible that the mayor persists in promoting plans for a rival hub airport in the Thames estuary.

“Such an airport would have a devastating effect on the west London economy as well as a serious impact on local wildlife in the estuary and a legacy of noise, congestion and pollution for millions of people in south-east London.

“The message from industry, the airlines and conservationists is simple ““ the mayor must drop this ridiculous vanity project.”

The assembly voted in favour of Qureshi’s motion by 15 votes to nine during a meeting of all members today.

The idea of an airport in the Thames estuary has been championed by Johnson as the government prepares to release its consultation document on how to increase airport capacity in the south-east.

Johnson earlier this week suggested that one short-term solution to the capacity squeeze would be to build a second runway at Stansted which could be used as a stop-gap while a new hub airport was constructed.

The government’s policy currently is that all options are being considered apart from a third runway at Heathrow.

Click here to read article

Last month l asked the Mayor of London in a written MQT, whether he would be supporting local authorities like Camden and Hillingdon in their application for judicial review of  HS2 and if so, how and on what grounds?

The response l got back from the Mayor was as follows:

“In my response to the Secretary of State’s consultation on the HS2 plans I made it clear my support for HS2 was conditional on a number of changes being made which would make HS2 more acceptable to London. This includes:

• providing for sufficient onward dispersal at London Euston;

• ensuring the new station at Old Oak Common is planned to minimise the impact on Crossrail and is connected to the rest of London;

• Securing a connection between HS2 and HS1 that does not impact negatively on the North London Line; and

• minimising the environmental impact of the route in those affected parts of London.

These issues are currently being considered by the HS2 project team and at this stage it is premature to say whether they are going to be addressed or not. I plan to discuss them again with the Secretary of State at our next meeting. As such, currently I do not intend to support Camden and Hillingdon in their JR applications”

I’m now pinning hopes on a change of heart by the Mayor, because for me, the key sentence here is “currently I do not intend to support Camden and Hillingdon in their JR applications ”

The London Assembly’s Health & Environment Committee on the other hand have agreed to investigate the Environmental impact of HS2 this Autumn.  Once the government’s current consultation on the scope and methodology for developing an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) of the HS2 route is complete, the Committee will be able to add an important London strategic perspective to this almighty scheme proposal from the Department of Transport.

Luckily, the Committee are prepared to undertake the task of  looking at minimising the environmental impact of the route on those affected parts of London.  Unfortunately, our own Mayor isn’t prepared to put his money where his mouth and lend his support to the London boroughs of Camden & Hillingdon in their legal challenges against the HS2.  Not for now anyway.