You may have read about the horrific crash of a coach into two flats at the bottom of Muswell Hill (in August 2008). Thank goodness no-one died, but it could so easily have been a different story if the accident had taken place at a different time or if the mother and baby at home had been in a different room at the time of the crash. Not surprisingly – residents of the flats now want better safety measures on the road.

Ever since I started stomping around Muswell Hill before becoming a councillor for the area in 1998 I have been campaigning with local residents about the problems of speeding and danger on this mega-dangerous hill with its extremely steep gradient. We have had some successes along the way – but not enough to prevent this accident.

Some bollards were installed a few years ago and finally – after about eight years of campaigning – a speed camera was installed on Muswell Hill about fourteen months ago, and anti-skid finish was also applied to the road surface.

This accident was caused by a coach going uphill, running out of petrol and being advised by the police to free wheel back down the hill. The vehicle went out of control, careered over the pavement – sweeping a bollard out of the way – and hit the flats.

So I arranged a meeting with the council and residents of the flats to try and get proper action taken to protect them from further carnage.

So – about six residents of the flats and two council officers (a head of traffic policy and an engineer) met with me on site. First question was – what more could be done to prevent vehicles going out of control?

The anti-skid surface that was applied last year apparently hasn’t taken and is deemed to have ‘failed’ – so the contractor will be obliged to come back and redo that job. The officers will also look at all sorts of records to establish causality – so that they can come back with proposals to improve the engineering to prevent it happening. No doubt the speed camera will have helped a bit – but clearly not enough.

The second thing they will consider is what measures can be taken to improve the safety should something go wrong and a vehicle go out of control? The hill and the camber make it virtually certain that under those conditions it is the bottom of the hill residences that are in line of fire.

So – we now wait for Haringey Council to assess the record and come back with proposals. It was a good meeting – and whilst passions are high – I felt that it was a positive meeting.

It may be that the funding for any improvements will come from Transport for London – in which case I have offered to nag at the highest level. But it may be that it will come out of Haringey budget. We will have to wait and see.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

It can be truly terrible when a CPZ (controlled parking zone) is put in near you, but you are not actually included in it – and then everyone parks in your unrestricted bit and you then can never get anywhere near your own home to park. Never mind if you have young children, babies, buggies shopping or are older and mobility challenged – you will drive round and round and end up quite a distance from your own front door.

This was the case around Claremont Road and thanks to my Liberal Democrat colleague, Cllr Lyn Weber (Crouch End ward, which covers the eastern part of Highgate) and storming local residents, Haringey Council was eventually forced into putting a new CPZ proposal out to consultation – albeit at a snail’s pace.

I went to the publication of the results – and what was crystal clear was that some in some roads, including Claremont Road, life had become a living hell. Other parts of the consultation area had no problem at all. At the public meeting, Brian Haley (Labour Executive Member who makes the decisions) wouldn’t be drawn on saying yes to those in desperate streets – but in the end that is what he will have to do.

This brings me on to a real bit of Haringey Council insanity or incompetence – or both – in terms of CPZ introduction. Having introduced both the Highgate Village and Highgate Station CPZs, and extended the latter to North Road – they left out a relatively short stretch of road from both of those CPZs along part of North Road.

The trio of Highgate ward councillors (my Liberal Democrat colleagues Rachel Allison, Bob Hare and Neil Williams) have already led a long – but successful! – fight to get enough pay and display places outside the Highgate Group Practice on North Hill. And now they are battling to get this small left-out gap in North Road covered by a CPZ too.

The situation is an outrage as the Labour-run council only left this part of North Road without a CPZ by mistake. After pressure from Highgate councillors and residents, a consultation on correcting the blunder took place last year, and it received an overwhelming ‘green light’ from hard-pressed residents.

However, despite promises of action, nothing has been done, and Haringey Council is still refusing to set a date for the works, despite the short stretch of road, and the limited nature of the changes needed.

The latest excuse offered to Neil is that no funding has been agreed for the works, and it might be as late as March next year before residents get the parking control they have voted for and desperately need. Given how long it has taken to get to this point, you’d have thought they would notice before now that funding hadn’t been sorted – and have sorted it out long ago.

Truly dreadful!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008

I think people would be quite shocked if anyone said that we are going to incarcerate 86% more 15-17 years, but that is what has happened over the last seven years.The lock ’em up mentality might create a moment’s comfort to those plagued by antisocial behaviour.But with scant resource to attempt any form rehabilitation, the few months respite communities get from their local ruffians being banged up are overshadowed when they are let loose again, particularly with all the new skills they have learnt on the inside.

Restorative justice isn’t a new idea, but it certainly is effective in bringing an offender face to face with the reality and consequence of his or her actions.Liberal Democrats would like to see a real investment in community sentencing and pilots of community courts in Liverpool have seen real results in preventing re-offending.With the Web 2.0 generation, why not rehabilitation 2.0?Programmes should be tailored to the offender.

Investment is really the key. While the Government seems happy trying to win the biggest prison award, the simple economics of restorative justice just passes them by.The fact is most five star hotels are cheaper than a night in youth custody centre.So imagine what that 86% growth in youth offender population could have bought in terms of rehabilitation.

Liberal Democrat councils across the country have pioneered Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), an alternative to punitive and largely unsuccessful ASBOs that have led to boom in youth offender populations.An ABC used as an early invention tool will act to solve the causes of antisocial behaviour.The biggest difference is that the young people themselves are involved in setting achievable and realistic outcomes that are more likely to be stuck to.

In tandem none of these efforts will succeed if we do not take greater action to catch these criminals.Instead of pointless and expensive ID cards we need more police on our streets using an intelligence led approach to target young people carrying knives.Community policing supported by Liberal Democrats has reconnected police officers with the community they serve and allowed them tap into the wealth local knowledge.The success Operation Trident in dealing guns crime in black communities is down to working with not against the black community.A similar attitude to youth crime is likely to reap rewards.

In spite of government announcements or Conservative press releases, there really is no magic wand that will solve youth criminality in one go.Poverty, drug abuse and alcohol abuse will continue to be the leading causes.As policy makers we can never afford to lose sight of this fact.

This article appeared in the September 2008 edition of the Parliamentary Monitor.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2008