LIB DEMS' SWIFT ACTION SAVE FORTIS GREEN TREES

Lib Dem councillors Matt Davies’ and Lynne Featherstone’s swift action hasprevented the felling of a number of unusual trees at Strathlene House,Creighton Avenue, N10 after residents contacted them, concerned withactivities going on in Strathlene.

The Lib Dems contacted Haringey Council last week (29th September) asking forurgent action to be taken to stop the felling immediately. There wasparticular concern for the protection of two large oak trees that stand over75 feet high and over 150 years old and are situated in gardens of specialinterest.

The Council enforced the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on Friday and anotice was attached at the entrance of the site at 6pm that night. Residentsand the site owners were also contacted and made aware of the order.

The two site owners, believed to be Daisycroft Care Home Ltd and FestivalCare Homes have an opportunity to object to the order which would then bedealt with by the Council’s planning department.

The Lib Dem councillors are pleased that their quick action has averted alocal environmental catastrophe.

Cllr Featherstone comments:

“I am pleased that we have succeeded in stoppingthe destruction of a valuable piece of greenery in the Fortis Green area.”

Cllr Davies adds:

“I’m grateful for the Council’s swift issuing of the orderand I hope that the site owners will acknowledge the importance of thesetrees and gardens to the area and not challenge these orders.”

FEATHERSTONE CALLS ON COUNCIL TO EXPLAIN TARMAC PAVEMENT PATCHES

Lib Dem councillor Lynne Featherstone is asking Haringey Council to explainwhy they have replaced broken paving slabs with tarmac in both CranleyGardens and Church Crescent, N10.

The request comes after she was contacted by local residents expressingtheir concern at the ‘ugly patches’ that have appeared in the last fewmonths following the removal of broken pavements in the roads.

Some of the concrete patches appear to have been put in for paving slabs incertain areas because they were less susceptible to upheaval from treeroots. However not only has the tarmac already begun to crack under thepressure of roots, but Haringey Council’s tarmacing has spread to other parts ofthe roads.

Cllr Featherstone is concerned that Haringey Council may be going down a similarroute to road repairs with crude tarmac patching work rather then doing athorough repair. She has written asking them for anexplanation and assurances that paving slabs will be replace the tarmacsoon.

Cllr Featherstone (Muswell Hill) comments: “I am concerned that this crudepatching has started appearing on our pavements and I am seeking an urgentexplanation for it.

“I will be pressing Haringey Council to ensure that in the future they replacethe cracked paving slabs with new slabs and not tarmac.”

PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON JUNCTIONS NEEDED FOR SAFETY

Cllr Lynne Featherstone has secured an assurance from Haringey Council thatparking restrictions will be imposed at junctions on two busy roads inHornsey – the High Street and Priory Road, N8.

The calls come following complaints from local residents that visibilityfrom junctions onto the main road is often hindered by tall deliveryvehicles parked closed to the junction, making it hazardous for drivers andpedestrians alike.

Cllr Featherstone says that the current parking restrictions are inadequate.She has contacted Haringey Council and requested that further parkingrestrictions be placed on the junctions of these busy roads.

Haringey Council has responded to the request confirming that they will belooking to increase parking restriction on the junctions to ‘no parking atany time’.

Cllr Featherstone comments:

“I am pleased that Haringey is going to take action to improve safety atthese junctions. This needs to be implemented quickly before there is aserious accident on one of these busy junctions and we will be pressing theCouncil to ensure the work is done.”

COUNCIL TAX – INFLATION-BUSTING RISE WILL HIT VULNERABLE RESIDENTS

Planned rises in Haringey’s Council Tax for the coming year will result inrenewed hardship for local residents, says Cllr Neil Williams.

The Lib Demleader was commenting on a planned 6% rise in the Haringey element ofCouncil Tax for the coming year – well above the rate of inflation, andexcluding any increase that Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone might levy onHaringey’s hard pressed council tax payers.

Lib Dems say the planned increases will hit the less well off in the boroughparticularly hard, especially local pensioners.Cllr Williams also says theborough should put pressure on the Government to introduce a fair system oflocal taxation.

Cllr Neil Williams comments:

“A six percent increase next year means that on top of the previous twoyears’ increases, Haringey residents will be paying a massive 33% more forcouncil services since the last local elections in 2002 – and that is notincluding increases levied by London Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone, whichhave taken the charges even higher.

“The planned increase will hit local pensioners particularly hard. Haringey Council is also not doing enough to ensure that pensioners take fulladvantage of relief from Council Tax. What is needed is fair system of localtaxation, through a local income tax.”

ANSWERS NEEDED NOW ON CONCRETE PLANT

Lib Dem councillors in the London Borough of Haringey have written formally to Haringey Council toexpress their growing concerns over proposals for a concrete batching plantin the Cranford Way Industrial Estate in Hornsey. In a letter to Haringey Council’s head of planning, Councillor Laura Edge (Stroud Green) andCouncillor David Winskill (Crouch End) are concerned that the number oflorry movements in and out of the site has not been made apparent – andcould grow over time.

A question put to the applicant for planning permission by Cllr Winskill at the Development ControlForum on Thursday 17 September revealed that current estimates of the impactof the development, most notably in terms of the number of lorry movementsgenerated, are based on the plant operating at only half its capacity.

London Concrete asserted in its application that the number of lorrymovements in the area each day would be 56. However, pressed by CllrWinskill to reveal how many lorry movements would be generated if the plantwere operating at full capacity, Mr Casey (Managing Director of LondonConcrete) admitted that the number could be twice that.

In a letter to Haringey Council, the two councillors have written:

“It is unacceptable that crucial information regarding the full operatingcapacity of this facility had to be extracted from the applicant at a publicmeeting.

“We submit that the Planning Department must require London Concrete toprovide exact technical details of the full operating capacity of the plantand the number of additional lorry movements which this could generate – notjust the operator’s own lorries, but also any possible additional pick upsmade by other contractors.

“The experience in the London Borough of Wandsworth demonstrates that, evenif the Council were to impose conditions as to the number of lorry movementspermitted, London Concrete would almost certainly apply for an increaselater down the line.”

Councillor Edge added, “It is impossible for the community to make informedcomment on this application without access to all the facts. At the momentit seems we are only being told half the story”.

By-election campaign trail

Sadly, Cllr Barbara Fabian, one of our LibDem councillors from Fortis Green ward (Haringey Council) has just resigned due to ill health. She has had a real struggle with her health for some time and I am so sorry to see her go. She brought such experience and wisdom in her field of children and education and psychology. Whenever she spoke in council it was with substance. I am really sorry that she has had such difficulties.

So – off I go to deliver leaflets. The plus of a by-election (apart from hopefully winning) is losing half a stone in weigh and toning muscles. There is always a silver lining.

Parking in London

Henny Penny the world is falling on my head!

I was pretty sure that an investigation by the London Assembly’s Transport Committee into parking enforcement in London would be of interest to residents.

However I had no concept of quite the extent of the hoo-ha that would follow the public announcement of it. ‘Can’ and ‘worms’ are the words that spring to mind – particularly judging by the veiled and not so veiled threats I hear whispered from corners of our capital about the temerity of the London Assembly in deciding to examine this issue.

All I can say is the more authorities object to us looking at something, the more I might believe they may have something to hide. It will be interesting to see!

Working as a local councillor for the last six or so years – and now in my fourth year as Chair of Transport at the Assembly (and one as vice-chair), parking disputes have registered heavily in my post bag.

There are two main types of complaint. First – where the process of ticketing, charging or clamping appears to have gone wrong or been unfair. Second – where local residents, whilst wanting schemes to resolve traffic flow issues, are concerned that councils’ parking charges and penalties may have more to do with raising revenue than solving problems.

For someone like myself who believes that traffic shouldn’t be left to a “free for all” on the roads, but that it needs managing, it’s important for such measures to have public support. I want people to comply and pay their charges and their penalty notices – and I want councils to use the revenue on improving local schemes, not for subsidising their other activities. (Although in theory there are legal restrictions on this, that doesn’t necessarily stop it happening in practice).

But that’s all at risk if schemes aren’t fair or are being misused to raise money. It brings the system into disrepute, risks non-compliance and makes life miserable for the well-behaved.

If it is all fair and above board then local councils don’t have anything to fear from this investigation. And if motorists are cheering believing somehow that parking restrictions are under attack – they are wrong too. The Assembly is neither friend nor foe – this is a quest for effectiveness and fairness. My hope is that we will be able to make recommendations that will help Londoners, not necessarily by naming and shaming – but perhaps by applauding and rewarding those that do it well. I am, after all, an optimist.

One surprise already. When we originally decided on this investigation, I asked the staff at the GLA to check out what work had been done previously on parking in London – so we didn’t just duplicate it. The answer came – virtually none.

We will not only be looking at local councils – we are also looking at Transport for London’s enforcement of red routes. We will be also examining whether there is any room for harmonisation between boroughs. Boroughs argue that they need to vary the details of schemes to suit their own areas. But we have a plethora of different times, different signs, different charges and different penalties. These often cause confusion for people driving around London. Is all this variation really necessary? We shall see…

And we will be looking at the money. Are boroughs using parking schemes to raise revenue? And if they are – is that their fault, or the fault of the financial rules and restrictions they operate under?

Since the announcement of the plans, calls and emails are flooding in both from individuals and organisations. I am keen to get the maximum amount of evidence from across London. So if there are views you have, please email me at parkingreview@london.gov.uk or write to – Parking Review (Paul Watling), City Hall, Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA.

Memorial service for firefighters

Memorial Service at Westminster Cathedral for the two firefighters who died saving lives in a house fire earlier this year. Sitting in the Cathedral and listening to the family readings and memories was heartbreaking. Looking around at the hundreds of firefighters there to pay their respects to their colleagues and brothers who died really brought home, not just the sense of family loss and tragedy, but the true bravery and the reality of that loss.

I know, as we all know, that this is a risk of the job – but with 10 years without loss and with all of the safety measures the modern fire service now employ – we have forgotten the harsh reality and the dangers that still exist when brave firefighters put saving our lives before theirs.

It was a very beautiful, very sad and moving service.

Later in the afternoon, I had a briefing by senior Met officers on C3i. This is the new call system which will begin its proper roll-out in the Met in November. It’s been worked on for years and cost a fortune – but – if it delivers what it is meant to deliver – it should all have been worth it.

The new system will integrate the thirty-two borough police control rooms into one system, along with other services such as the police’s incident support centres. There are lots of other changes involved too – including an interpretation service for people making 999 calls who have poor English.

The integration should make deploying police resources easier and more effective. There is a bit of concern from borough commanders about their staff being deployed in other boroughs as the system uses the nearest cars to attend. I am sure that will be worked out.

On a personal level, as lead member for response in the MPA – and having been banging on about the Met’s failure to answer local, non-urgent calls – I was particularly glad to see that lots of this ‘customer service’ aspect appears to have been taken on board.

There will be a pathway for local calls to end up with local police – and if there is no answer, that call will go back to the operator until an answer is found for the caller. It’s not what I would call a Rolls Royce customer service – but at least it is in there. So phoning those 132 police stations across London and plonking the results showing that around 40% never answered the phone does seem to have a possibly positive outcome. Hurrah!

Murders in Highgate

Briefing by a senior Met officer on the double murder in Highgate and the other murders committed in London allegedly by the same person. Shocking events.

Holly Lodge estate – where the double murder of an middle-aged couple took place – is the ‘nicest’ type of street you can imagine. Impossible for neighbours and local residents to conceive of this tragedy.

Without going into details, it looks as if it all raises a whole raft of issues about mental health care. The Metropolitan Policy Authority (MPA) is to conduct a study in this area this year – not a moment too soon.

Parking in London – what are the Tories up to?

First, an introductory meeting with the new chair we (the GLA) have appointed to the London Transport Users’ Committee. Then I receive official news (having had whispers for a few days) that the Tories will withdraw from the GLA’s planned investigation into parking across London unless it is made into a joint exercise with the Association of London Government.

The Parking Enforcement scrutiny has been welcomed by individuals, organisations and the media alike. Hailed as ‘brave’ for the Assembly to investigate boldly where no one appears to have gone thoroughly before – it is set to be of interest across the capital.

However, I noticed during the coverage last week that a couple of boroughs, notably Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster appeared very angry that the Assembly was daring to look into this. As these are Tory boroughs, I wonder whether they have been exerting pressure over the GLA Tory group to withdraw.

The idea of a joint exercise with the ALG isn’t a good one. The ALG is the body which represents London boroughs, so it would in effect be taking part in an investigation of itself. Also, the ALG are an obvious body to give evidence. So it would be investigating itself based on its own evidence … I think not!

But I have asked for a meeting with them to see what concerns they have. It’s worth seeing if they can make a case to my GLA colleagues and myself that we should amend our terms of reference for the investigation.

I very much hope that the Tories do not throw their toys out of the pram on this one. Firstly, it’s ridiculous. The Tories amended the terms of reference at the Transport Committee that approved the scrutiny and then voted in favour of the scrutiny.

Secondly, what an earth would it look like to London if the Tories refused to examine parking enforcement? Lord knows they are always complaining about all restrictions and charges on motorists. A sudden desire to avoid the subject might look very suspicious.

Anyway – hopefully it will all be sorted. Judging from the amount of emails and correspondence flooding in – this issue has touched a nerve in London. And that is one of our functions at the London Assembly – to raise issues of concern to Londoners.