EXCLUSIVE: What Haringey Council really wants to do with Parkland Walk

Well, well, well! So when the hundred and fifty or so residents who came to the recent Area Assembly asked Haringey Council whether the fact that the funding for Parkland Walk came from Transport for London’s cycling department meant that they wanted increased cyclists and increased speeds and the Council said no – they were comprehensively mislead (and that is a polite term) – and the Labour councillors present just sat their silent.

How do I know we were misled? Well – I’ve bunged in a freedom of information request to see what (Labour-run!) Haringey Council really said in its bid submission to Transport for London and the results have just come back.

And the bid from the Council actually says that Haringey Council wants to increase cycling speeds on the Parkland Walk through “decreasing journey times for cyclists” and to “increase in the number of people cycling”.

From the details of the bid, Haringey Council clearly have been given this money to turn the Parkland Walk into a cycle speedway – but they haven’t admitted this to residents. Now – I could point to a hundred roads in the borough where the cycling provision is poor to dangerous and yet Haringey went for £400,000 for a cycling speedway that’s clearly quite inappropriate for Parkland Walk. The Council should have consulted residents before (yes – before you make the decision, that’s what really consultation means) they entered into this pact with Transport for London.

This issue just runs and runs!

Note: You can still take part in my online survey on the future of Parkland Walk.

Parkland Walk

Yes – stuff is happening outside of the elections across the nations but not London – and tonight it was off to the Crouch End, Hornsey & Stroud Green Neighbourhood Assembly. The big issue of the night is the proposals for improving Parkland Walk. Now – you have to realise that this linear park / nature reserve is loved and there is an army of people who fight to protect it against all harm (even when well-meaning). There are clearly areas which could do with a bit of improvement – as David Warren, Chair of the Friends of Parkland walk made clear: the drainage, signing and repairing broken steps and improving access for people with disabilities and mothers with babies.

The deep suspicion that was voiced by many in the packed meeting was that the funding for the improvements comes from Transport for London’s cycling improvement budget. And what was crystal clear from the meeting, was that whilst recreational / occasional cyclists are just about welcomed (who don’t speed, are polite and aren’t commuters), a significant increase in cycling would be absolutely terrible. Spend the money on cycle lanes on roads – that’s where it’s needed to improve cycling shouted the crowd.

Whilst officers tried to reassure the public that the improvements would not ‘widen’ the path, the meanders would be left in and that there would be no attempt to create a ‘smooth cycle way’ but only patching the path where necessary – the public did not seem reassured.

And I wasn’t convinced either. So I will be writing to Transport for London to ask what they believe from Haringey’s bid will be provided for improvements for cycling on Parkland Walk – and to Haringey for sight of the bid itself.

To turn it into a cycle path or encourage more or faster cyclists would be completely wrong. Yes – we want more cycling in London – but we want proper cycle lanes on roads for commuters – not bunging them off road to spoil the idyll of this woodland nature reserve and the rights of pedestrians to enjoy it without fear of being hit!

UPDATE: You can take part in my online survey now at http://www.libertyresearch.org.uk/take/103

Improving safety on public transport

Off Safer Transport Team launch at Turnpike Lane bus station: Lynne Feathestone MP with some of the officers plus Tottenham MP, David Lammyto the launch this morning of a new bus safety initiative which will see eighteen Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on duty in and around transport hubs – kicked off this morning at Turnpike Lane Bus Station.

It is an extension of the partnership between Transport for London (TfL) and the Met Police brokered by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The reason for it? Well, if you map crime – you would quickly find that the hot spots are transport corridors and transport hubs – particularly around the time schools come out and at night (especially Friday and Saturday nights I believe). So this scheme puts more people in uniform on site to deter and tackle crime.

Very welcome, especially as when I have been knocking on doors in Wood Green, the absolute most common issue raised with me is that of crime and fear of crime. We should all be able to go out and onto transport without fear. This move is a real step forward – hurrah!

W3 bus: what are your views?

You Bus lane photomight know that changes are planned to the timetable of the W3 bus, which goes from Finsbury Park past Alexandra Palace through Wood Green to Northumberland Park.

Transport for London would like to make it a 24 hour service, with buses running in both directions, every half hour, throughout the night.

Obviously this will benefit many people, as it will help night-shift workers to get home without having to drive, which should bring down the amount of night-time car noise and pollution. It will also help party-goers get home safely and should discourage people from drink driving.

However, the buses themselves could also cause more night-time noise and vibrations and some people on the route might be worried that their sleep could be disturbed.

Transport for London are currently consulting on the plans and I really think that local people’s concerns should be part of that. I believe that decisions are always best made at a local level, by the people who will be most closely affected.

So if you have any opinions on the scheme, positive or negative, please let me and I will pass them on to TfL. Their consultation finishes on 27 April 2007, so please get back to me before then – either by commenting below or by contacting me direct.

Transport for London briefing

Briefing for the London MPs by Transport for London (TfL). Felt like my old stomping ground as five years on the GLA’s Transport Committee stands you in good stead for knowing just what they are talking about.

What glared at me was the lack of planning for capacity increases to cope with the increased transport demands coming from Mayor Ken’s housing program for London.

We get the houses (much needed) but not the infrastructure to go with it – in this case the extra public transport.

The other glaring issue is the set of glitches (polite term) for the PPP tube contracts. I’ve asked for the performance statistics – as it might very well appear that the failure rate is once more increasing. One wonders whether we are even getting the bangs for bucks that were contracted for – let alone what we might have been aspiring to.We’ll see when the stats come through.

Other than that it was really TfL’s projections and planning up to 2025. Yes – it’s all the right words – but in the end it’s the dosh that will make the real difference.

102 bus: good news

A London busHurrah! Transport for London is finally proposing to extend the 102 bus route by giving it a half-hourly service at night.

My Lib Dem colleague Cllr Gail Engert (Muswell Hill, my old ward!) has been campaigning for this – so congrats to Gail.

You can read more in the story on my website – including crucially how you can have your say on these plans.

Hornsey Central Hospital

Main event of the day was a public meeting organised by Save Hornsey Hospital Campaign titled ‘Save Local Health Services under Threat’ – which they most certainly are.

I was chairing the meeting and there were a number of speakers, including a really impressive doctor Jacky Davis who told it how it is. She laid out quite clearly the scenarios which are leading to the privatisation of the NHS and demonstrated the harmful effect that so called ‘patient choice’ has had in letting the private sector cherry pick – whilst the NHS (our NHS) is left with less funds and all the difficult cases.

We also had Maria Duggan – a local health expert and local resident – who spoke passionately about the death of services for older people in the west of Haringey. We have very high numbers of older people in the wards in the west of the borough – more than in the east – and yet no council facilities grace the west.

The long-promised all singing all dancing replacement facility for older people that was meant to be delivered in exchange for stopping the campaign to save Hornsey Central Hospital has never materialised.

In fact, the only bit of the proposals to supply beds for older people on the site has collapsed – a mix between Haringey Council withdrawing their sponsorship of that bit and the Primary Care Trust (PCT) taking so long and changing tack so many times that the Council gave up trying to work with them.

The Lib Dems have been campaigning for ‘Action Now’ on Hornsey Central Hospital after the six years of broken promises. Our fight is to make sure that health services are finally delivered – and that the development is about what is needed and wanted locally.

Shirley Murgraff – a long-standing community campaigner – tried to get across the urgency and extent of what was happening in the NHS and to get people signed up to the National Campaign to Keep the NHS. Richard Stein laid out the legal possibilities of challenging what is happening.

Sue Secher, Sue Hessel and Janet Shapiro all gave rousing speeches and more people are needed to sign up to the campaign. There are a number of fronts to be fought on – from pressurising Haringey Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee to making sure everyone local to Fortis Green clinic is aware that they can now put in their two pennies worth on its proposed closure.

There was a representative from the PCT there who tried to say that they were consulting. But as the ‘discussion’ (she was careful to make this distinction) will only be advertised through the newspaper or on lampposts – so there will be another job to do to make sure that people really know what is going on.

The bid to the Government for £7million towards the cost of the new proposed health facility on the Hornsey Central Hospital site will soon be decided. Together with £3.5 million from a LIFT project and the sale of two clinics and some land – this delivers the £14 million funding for the new facility. Of course – the problems are around how much will be private and what will be additional rather than shuffling deckchairs.

The Liberal Democrats have a 5-point plan for Hornsey Central if the bid comes in – which is why I have supported the bid. My pragmatic stance is: let’s get the £7 million and then fight to get what local people want out of it. To get the money we have to jump through some of the Government’s hoops – however much we might disagree with them.

The five points are:

1. More GPs and clinic sessions provided – not just the existing GPs and clinics we already have reshuffled and centralised. There needs to be a real dialogue between the PCT and local GPs to ensure what is provided is wanted by the practices. It is essential that coverage of GPs and GP practices across the area remains and that there is a net gain.

2. Real engagement and consultation with patients, residents, voluntary organisations and health workers over the development and relocation of services. As the promise was originally to replace the services for older people – their needs must be addressed and therefore full engagement with older residents is a priority.

3. Improved public transport to Hornsey Hospital, to ensure it is accessible – particularly for older people and parents with young children. The PCT needs to work with Transport for London to get existing bus routes extended to reach the site and the W2 route reinstated as a minimum.

4. Protect our community pharmacies by working with existing pharmacists and carrying out an impact assessment before opening a new pharmacy at the Hospital.

5. Ensure that the proceeds of any land or property sale go back into site.

This is not an exhaustive list and there are lots of pitfalls and dangers – but at least if we can fight for net gain and proper, and I mean proper, engagement – then just perhaps we can squeeze something out of the current disaster.

Anyway – top marks to the Save Hornsey Central Hospital campaigners who had worked so hard to get this meeting together. It can be very hard work to get people informed and out of their houses – but the hall was packed and the passions ran really high.

Where should the buses park in Highgate?

Yesterday I met the Leader of Camden Council, Keith Moffat, in Highgate Village to make him see for himself how destructive Camden’s proposals to stand buses outside the restaurants on South Grove would be. If Transport for London will consider the Highgate Society’s plan to move the whole caboodle – this might turn into a golden opportunity to sort the village out. Fortunately, Keith saw immediately the problem and promised to look into the issue further.

It’s the subject of my latest column:

The plan to start parking buses alongside the restaurants in Highgate Village is insane. The bus stands should never have been sited 30 years ago in the middle of the Village on the opposite side of the road from the restaurants anyway – but to propose parking them on the same (south) side as the restaurants … !

You can read the full piece on my website.