This Islington Life

Graham Street Park and kick-about area saved!

2011-12-18T13:09:00.000Z

The destruction of Graham Street Park and the ‘redevelopment’ of City Road Basin is one of the Lib Dems most outrageous and anti-democratic schemes of their entire administration.

Back in October 2003 the then Lib Dem leader of the Council cooked up an idea to ‘regenerate’ the area by building apartments all around the basin, and also by introducing two absolutely massive private residential towers at the City Road end of the basin. The Towers are offensive enough, and not something that any local resident would want, but the scheme didn’t stop there, it proposed building on most of Graham Street Park, including the kick-about area, and also kicking the Boat Club out of their clubhouse to a much smaller site across the other side of the Basin. The replacement for the park was going to be a long thin ribbon of grass stretching in front of all the flats, which might make a nice garden for the newly gentrified apartments, but was not what you would call a park.

The park is a very valuable local amenity, much used, particularly during the summer, and the kick-about area is an integral part of the park. The suggestion that the kick-about area could simply be relocated across the other side of the basin, about 15 mins walk away, and separated from the rest of the park by the water was madness, because it would no longer be part of the park, and would act as a magnet for crime and ASB, isolated on its own, half way down Wharf Road.

The proposals were put to the Lib Dem dominated South Area Committee, and ‘consulted’ on. However, although views were sought at South Area Committee, the Masterplan, which would form part of the Council’s planning policy, was never actually put to the vote. It was simply ‘adopted’ by the executive, at which point it became a material consideration in planning terms. So when a planning application for two towers, one 28 stories, and one 36 stories, came before the South Area planning committee, they couldn’t really be refused, because they were already ‘approved’ in outline by the Masterplan. This was Lib Dem anti-democracy at its worst.

The Towers are, unfortunately, approved, and will probably get built. However, when we won back the Council in 2010, I was determined to try and keep Graham Street Park intact, including the kick-about area. I got hold of papers relating to the deal to relocate the Boat Club (to get it out of the way of the luxury flats), and discovered that the deal required the Council to pay to relocate the Boat Club, not the developer. Never mind that we couldn’t afford to pay for this now, it was an extraordinarily poor deal for the Council, and would have resulted in the loss of the Park, relocation of the kick-about area, and significant expense to the Council – overall, a significant loss of public amenity, with no payback at all for the local community.

I’m pleased to say that common sense has prevailed, and the Labour Administration has now decided that the Boat Club and the kick-about area stay where they are, and the Council will use the sites that it owns on the other side of the basin for much-needed housing. And local residents get to keep their park.

I’m looking forward to seeing significant improvements to the Park. The disused building needs bringing back into use, hopefully with a cafe of some sort, all the planting needs some severe pruning and thinning to make the currently overgrown parts of the park feel safe, and the kick-about area needs to be completely refurbished to provide proper fencing, and clear visibility from the street, so that it no longer attracts ASB after dark. All improvements that local residents actually want.

Towpath use: Co-operation, not confrontation

2011-11-27T17:09:00.001Z

I’m more than slightly disappointed in the Tribune this week, attempting to stir up enmity between Islington Cyclists and Islington Pedestrians.

We have reached a very useful point with British Waterways where they are now actively seeking to engage with stakeholders to mitigate the increase in use of the towpath, particularly in relation to commuting cyclists, which British Waterways themselves are now describing as “unsustainable”.

It was British Waterways that called the stakeholders meetings, and it was British Waterways that proposed publishing a joint letter of intent co-signed by representatives of all stakeholders: Living Streets, ICAG, Hanover School, Friends of Regents canal and Local Councillors. It is a significant and very encouraging achievement that we managed to reach a consensus on the text of the letter, which sets out a joint intent for a way forward. The letter was published in this weeks Gazette and Tribune, although in both instances the text was, very disappointingly, cut down from the carefully rehearsed and agreed original: http://www.islingtontribune.com/letters/2011/nov/tips-cyclists-hurry

ICAG have always stated that they only support cycle calming measures on the towpath if they are accompanied by matching improvements in the safety and usability of the ‘parallel route’. I fully support this position. And my understanding is that there is a major problem with the route at the moment where it crosses the New North Road from Poole Street into Eagle Wharf Road. This junction is lethal, and needs drastic improvement if we are to be able to ask cyclists in a hurry to divert to this route, and it is in Hackney. I plan to research the route myself over the next couple of weeks to see how easy it is to use. What this does mean is that some cross-borough working is needed to provide the carrot of a safe parallel route, and we need British Waterways to get stuck in with the stick of erecting effective cycle chicanes, and signs such as the one shown above, which makes it absolutely clear, both visually and in words, that the towpath is a pedestrian priority area at all times, and that ‘two tings’ means “excuse me please” not “get out of my way”.

Come rain or come shine

2011-09-11T14:46:00.003+01:00

This year’s canal festival was a particularly satisfying event, in spite of the very patchy weather (it was the first time in 13 years that it has rained on the day of the festival). As usual we met and talked to many friends and supporters, and we collected 120 signatures in support of our petition to reverse cuts to Safer Neighbourhoods Police teams – St Peters ward being one of the eight wards in Islington that now has to share it’s sergeant with another ward, thanks to the Conservative Mayor’s cuts to frontline Police budgets.

Most importantly though, we were joined by our new ward councillor, Alice Perry, who was elected on 11^th August 2011 with a 53% share of the vote. An outright victory, and a 15% swing to Labour. We are absolutely delighted with the scale of the victory, and we are doubly lucky to have such an energetic and talented Councillor to work with us in St Peters. She can only make us even stronger. Pictured in the photo are, from left to right, Cllr Gary Doolan, Cllr Alice Perry, Cllr Paul Smith, Executive member for the environment, our hugely energetic and compulsively forensic ward secretary and organizer, Felix, and myself. Thanks also go to all our members and supporters who helped out on the day. Here’s to the next 13 years of unbroken sunshine.

Turnmills - Why did we approve demolition?

2011-09-02T18:27:00.000+01:00

Turnmills is a very interesting building. It was originally built as stables for horses that pulled the then horse-drawn underground railway. It had a ramp in the middle of the building to walk horses up to the upper floors. It was subsequently owned by a gin distribution company, and more recently achieved fame, or notoriety, depending on your view, as a one of the first 24hr licensed nightclubs in the capital.

Turnmills also sits right across the road from the 'Former Middlesex Sessions House' which is a very fine grade 2* listed building. It is in the Clerkenwell conservation area, although the building is not listed, and English Heritage not only declined to list it, but gave it a ‘certificate of immunity from listing’. So it is very clear that English heritage consider it’s architectural merit as fairly limited.

By 2007 the nightclub was starting to flag a bit, and the building was bought by one of the better known property developers in the Islington area. The possible demise of the building was first signalled when, under Lib Dem George Alan's dubious chairing, planning permission was granted for a bizarre two-storey wavy glass extension on the roof of the existing building. This effectively 'booked the space' above the building, in planning terms, for either an extension or a replacement building. I opposed the extension in committee, as it was ugly and completely inappropriate for the building. Nothing much was heard of this permission, but I did discover buried in the documentation, that the application also permitted the change of use of the nightclub to office space. This didn't mean it had to happen, but meant that the owners could if they wished, convert to office space.

In 2008 Turnmills the night club closed down, I think of their own choosing. Then in 2010, the Council received an application from the property developer to demolish the building and replace it with a building that was monstrously too large, too dark, and a completely inappropriate design for the area. I sat on the committee that refused the application, during which we spent much time discussing the fact that the developer had not made any real efforts to market the existing building, in order to demonstrate whether or not is was genuinely beyond use.

The developer appealed against our refusal, but the planning inspector turned down the appeal. However, he made a number of comments about the building and the possibility of replacing it in his report. He stated he thought that the building was of more historic than architectural merit, that the loss of the building would cause appreciable harm to the conservation area, but not “significant harm” – this is an important statement, as the term “significant harm” would require a much greater level of scrutiny of the building’s merits, if demolition were to be proposed. He also said that he could “envisage” the replacement of the Turnmills building if a building of sufficient quality of design were to be proposed as it’s replacement. Although he did not think the building that was the subject of the appeal the right building for the site.

All of these comments are included in the inspector’s report, and they effectively constrain the planning committee’s judgement of any subsequent application in the areas that he has commented on, since any further appeal would consider the previous judgment as part of the evidence.

Islington’s chief Design and Conservation Officer did a lot of work with the architects to redesign the building, and the scheme that was put in front of the committee on Thursday 1st September reflected this. Everyone who saw the scheme, including our own Design Officer and English heritage acknowledged, even though they did not support it, that it was a huge improvement on the previous design, and I share that view.

It is just possible, if the will had been there, that the existing building could have been retained, or at least the external shell – as nothing remains of the interior. It was also suggested, and I agree, that a better building could have been designed for the site, again, if the will had been there from the developer. As it is they stuck to redesigning the scheme they had previously submitted. A bit of professional pride on the part of the Architects perhaps?

Faced with the combination of a much improved design, and the background of the inspectors comments about the existing building, and the circumstances under which he considered it would be acceptable to lose it, I felt myself marginally persuaded in favour of approving the scheme, which we did. It was a difficult decision, and we spent a long time prior to the meeting researching and debating the various issues. Difficult as it was, I stand by our decision to approve, even though I know a lot of people will I know be very critical of us. I hope this helps to explain how we came to that decision.

Bye-election called in St Peters

2011-07-19T00:17:00.000+01:00

Due to one of my colleagues having to stand down, a bye-election has been called in my ward, St Peters. However, what might at first seem like a relatively minor adjustment in the Council in Islington, where Labour won a 22 seat majority in the elections last year, has actually attracted a significant amount of attention, mainly because the Tories, who haven't held a seat on Islington Council for more years than anyone can remember, think they might have a chance.

Fortunately, we have a superb candidate in Alice Perry (centre of picture above, to the right of Emily Thornberry our MP). Alice was born and brought up in Islington, went to school in Islington, and is now a governor of St Andrews School in Islington. She works at the University of London, is an Arsenal season ticket holder, and vice-chair of our constituency party. Alice has energy and commitment in abundance. If you want to read more about her go to:

http://www.islington-labour.org.uk/support-alice/

In terms of opposition, we have seen some noticeable campaigning effort from the Tories in St Peters since the election was called, as compared to the Lib-Dems, who seem to be going for a repeat of their 2010 performance, which consisted entirely of a deluge of extremely negative leaflets, and no sign whatsoever of any supporters out canvassing. We have seen groups of two or three Tories out most days, one of which is their candidate, whilst Labour has had teams of 12 - 15 people out every night and all weekend for the last three weeks. Saturday afternoon we had four separate teams out canvassing the ward, and support is looking pretty solid.

I have to say I am overwhelmed by the humongous amount of help we are receiving from our regular supporters in St Peters, fellow Councillors and supporters from all over the borough, and supporters and activists from neighbouring boroughs. It really feels good to be out canvassing with such a great bunch of people.

Agitators disrupt the Council's Budget meeting

2011-02-20T16:55:00.003Z

The Council's meeting to set this year's budget was an ignominious affair. No-one was happy about having to set a budget that was based on an enforced 16% reduction in our overall budget, thanks to the Tory-led, Lib-Dem-backed government. A lot of people don't realise that 75% of the Council's annual income is made up of grants from Central Government, and if the Government decides not to give us the money, there is not a lot we can do about it except work out what we are going to have to cut. If you wanted to recover the money that the government has cut from Islington's budget this year, on the back of an envelope, we would have had to double the rate of Council tax to make it up. And the Tory's have made a rule that we can't do that either, even if we wanted to.

What we have managed to do is to achieve around 50% of the cuts through efficiency savings, and we have protected as many frontline services as we can manage, including saving lollipop patrols outside schools, adventure playgrounds, as many voluntary groups as we possibly could, and we are not closing any libraries as a result of the cuts. The Labour Group, and in particular the executive sweated long and hard on this to try and get the best (ie least worst) outcome for the most vulnerable and needy in the Borough.

As reported in the press, the Council was prevented from holding its meeting to set the budget by an organised protest from the gallery; - a group of people who shouted down all attempts to hold the meeting, hurling abuse, and chanting, effectively stifling any possibility of holding the meeting or of there being any proper debate. Personally I cannot see what this achieved.

I am not entirely happy that we ended up moving to another meeting room in order to agree the budget. I would have preferred to wait until the more disruptive elements had been removed, and then resumed in the chamber, although I accept it is easy to be wise after the event. Ultimately, however, the decision on how to deal with that level of disruption of a meeting rests with the Chief Executive, John Foster, and the change of venue decision was his. Several perfectly reasonable members of the public asked me, as we removed to a committee room, why they couldn't be allowed in, and I couldn't really answer them. I did however question the decision under a point of order, and was told by the Chief Executive that he took the decision on the advice of the Police. Which doesn't exactly explain why some members of the public managed to gain entry to the re-convened meeting, and some didn't, although the press were there.
Once ensconced in the committee room, members had no appetite for debate, and the budget was dealt with simply by vote. Given that I was intending to speak, and was also deprived of the opportunity, I reproduce here the text of my intended speech, for anyone who cares to read it. You have to try and imagine me raising my voice firmly against heckling from the opposite benches to get the intent of the speech:

Madam Mayor. Last month, the Liberal Democrats’ strategy on how they hope to regain the trust of people in Islington was leaked to the local papers.

I would like to thank whichever Lib Dem leaked the document, because they have done the borough a service by exposing the naked cynicism of the Liberal Democrats. And I have to say, the document shows the Lib Dems have a pretty odd idea of how you win people’s trust: By their account you achieve trust by being irresponsible, misleading people, confusing them, and deceiving them into thinking you’re their friend.

The cynical attitude betrayed in that document can be seen again in the Lib Dem amendment to the budget which is in front of us now. ‘Don’t be a constructive opposition’, the document said. Don’t be ‘responsible’, and where possible, ‘flirt with populism’.

And Madam Mayor, this is a direct quote from their own document: “Use the budget process, especially the cuts”. On the cuts, their advice is just to repeat, that it’s not their fault. Finally, madam mayor, and this is perhaps most galling as we debate this budget, they have come up with the maxim, “it’s not our problem, it’s theirs.”

The job losses and cuts to community services are a problem for hard working, low-income families in my ward and across the borough. But those families will most certainly be interested in how the local Liberal Democrat Party has chosen to shrug its shoulders at their own Government’s deliberate, cynical and brutal attack on communities like ours.

So their strategy document says exploit the cuts for political advantage, and that is what they are trying to do. The whole point of the so called ‘people’s fund’ in their amendment is to give them material for focus leaflets for whichever cut they are, in the words of their memo, ‘championing’. They suggest taking the food out of children’s mouths to pay for a focus leaflet slush fund, which can be, and will be, double and treble counted as they cherry-pick particular cuts to oppose, conveniently ignoring the fact that any change to the Council’s budget will take away from one service to pay for another. This could hardly be more cynical.

They suggest comms cuts so unrealistic that they would leave the council unable to effectively promote things like summer activities to keep kids off the streets, direct people to the new Citizens Advice Bureau, or inform people of the benefits available to them.

Now I’m not opposed to cutting the communications budget: We said we would do this as part of our manifesto pledge. However, I do know that under the Liberal Democrats, the council spent quarter of a million pounds on its ‘Islington Now’ magazine. Next year, we expect to have cut this to around £80,000 – and we have improved the content, to provide help for local people, rather than just trumpeting how marvellous their administration was.

So we are on track to save more than half a million pounds on comms in one year since the Lib Dems were in power. But the amendment in front of us has nothing to do with the real business of saving money in the wake of the huge Lib-Dem/Tory Government attack on our community. It is all about trying to save their bacon after they have abandoned our community. It is about, as their document puts it, “not getting caught defending the Tories” about “using the cuts” and about “flirting with populism”.

Madam Mayor, the Lib Dem document shows that the Lib Dems have no plan to defend Islington from the cuts. They are too busy lapping up what they see as an opportunity for political attack. The people of our borough need representatives who are on their side, not this kind of cynical, insupportable, two-faced politics.

Staying in touch with our voters

2011-01-16T12:24:00.002Z

I happen to strongly agree with the Islington Labour policy that it is important to stay in touch with our constituents at all times, and not just at election times. After all, it is a Councillor's most important role to look after their constituents, and I am acutely concious that it is my constituent's who elected me, and who will decide if I get re-elected.

Yesterday we did some door-knocking on Bentham Court Estate, and got a very warm reception from everyone we spoke to. I picked up the usual sort of case-work from this session, cleaning, housing re-allocations, shoddy building works, broken entrance gates, etc,. Also very noticeable was the difference in standards between the blocks managed by Cirle Anglia and those managed by HFI.

Everyone is also deeply worried about the cuts that the Tory-led Government are going to inflict on Islington, but I don't think people realise just how bad, and destructive, it will be until the cuts really start to bite.

At the same time, residents on Bentham Court are particularly pleased with the new adventure play area being constructed for children on the estate. It looks great, and will provide an excellent, overlooked playspace for kids to play in. The picture shows our canvassing team next to the new playground, from left to right, Andy, Nick, Marina, Felix, our ward organiser and myself. We had a good morning.

Canal Festival Success

2010-09-05T18:39:00.000+01:00

We had a great day at the Canal Festival today. Our picture shows, from left to right, Cllr James Murray, Executive member for Housing, Emily Thornberry MP, Eleanor Riley, our canvassing organiser, myself, and Cllr Raphael Andrews (Clerkenwell). Lots of friends, supporters and members dropped by to say hello, including Ian Shacklock, Del Brenner, Chris Kenyon, Ben Bolgar, Avis saltsman, Joy Bailey, and many more.

We collected several hundred signatures for our petition to introduce cycle calming measures on the canal towpath. Nearly everyone who spoke to us wanted to sign, and felt very strongly about the issue. We will be presenting the petition to the next full Council meeting, and look forward to the Council working with British Waterways to help deal with the minority of aggressive, high-speed cyclists who are increasingly spoiling enjoyment of the towpath for everyone else, particularly along the Islington stretch of the towpath.

Interestingly, there was no sign of the Lib Dems at the Festival.

Decisive election results in Islington

2010-05-26T19:57:00.004+01:00

The picture says it all. A 3.3% swing to Labour in both the North and South Constituencies in Islington, and a decisive Labour majority on the Council of 22 seats. Labour now holds 35 seats and the Lib Dems 13.

We no longer have any green Councillors, and the Tories failed to win any seats at all. Even in my ward, St Peters, which the Tories said they were targeting, they did not get anywhere close. The picture shows Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn and Islington South and Finsbury MP Emily Thornberry flanking Cllr Catherine West, the new Labour leader of Islington Council, shortly after the election results were announced.

As you can see from previous blogs we had massive amounts of support throughout what was an enjoyable, comradely and fun campaign. We had a solid team of regular helpers, who came out several times a week in the run-up to the election, and on election day we had about 30 people out in St Peters alone.

After the results were announced the Lib Dems claimed we had "shipped in" help from other places which had helped us to win. This is simply not true. Nearly all the people who helped were members, supporters or friends who live in St Peters who wanted to see us get re-elected. Together we contacted a huge number of people, and we had some very interesting and useful conversations on the doorstep. We convinced our constituents to vote for us. In contrast, the Lib Dems were no-where to be seen, preferring instead to bombard people through their letterboxes with a huge quantities of dull, repetitive leaflets. The result speaks for itself.

Cycling, the towpath, and what's happening at Danbury Street Bridge?

2010-04-12T14:29:00.002+01:00

Since I became a Councillor four years ago there has been a significant number of people starting to talk to me about the dramatic increase in the number of cyclists using the towpath. Their concern is not just numbers of cyclists, but also the way a minority of antisocial cyclists are intimidating people away from using the towpath, in particular parents taking young children to school. Many of these people find it ironic that TFL and British Waterways have actively promoted this use, to the point where it is now making them uncomfortable when they try and use the towpath. I make these comments in the light of British Waterways’ recognition that conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are becoming an issue on the towpath, and which has lead to them commissioning the rather odd works now taking place at Danbury Street Ramp, of which more in a minute. I also speak as a regular commuting cyclist myself, and a parent.

I have a keen interest in achieving the right balance between pedestrian and cyclists’ interests in shared spaces, and during my time as a Councillor I have put a very large amount of time and effort into getting TFL to improve the junction at Goswell Road and City Road. This has now been done, more-or-less as I suggested, and has resulted in better and safer crossing conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, both of which groups were previously getting tangled with each other as they tried to cross two busy roads in close succession. I consider this scheme has achieved an acceptable balance between pedestrian and cyclist interests, making it fair for all.
Turning to the towpath, it is in many people’s view too narrow and too dangerous to take the weight of cycle traffic currently using it, particularly at peak times. More specifically, it seems to be cyclists in a hurry, presumably commuters, and people using their cycles for intensive exercise, that are making the towpath intimidating and unsafe for everyone else – peaceable cyclists and pedestrians alike.

An increasing number of people are of the view that it is time to try and restore the balance between pedestrians and cyclists on the towpath, and I support this view. A 'parallel route' for cyclists has now been identified heading East, running along roads close to the canal, many of which are closed to car traffic. This route would be more appropriate for cyclists in a hurry or commuting, and I think the existence of this route should be more widely promoted. In combination with this, British Waterways could then take further measures to encourage cyclists to slow down on the towpath: the most practical approach in my view being the introduction of 'kissing gates' either side of dangerous bridges, at the top and bottom of ramps, or at other dangerous points. This would mean cyclists would almost certainly have to dismount at these points, slowing them down, and thereby encouraging the ones in a hurry to prefer the parallel route – a ‘stick and carrot' approach. Ideas I have heard suggested to ‘build out’ the towpath at bridges and other narrow spots would make it easier for cyclists to maintain their speed, and is to my mind the wrong approach.

Which brings me to the construction activity at the Danbury Street ramp:

I was first made aware that British Waterways had ideas to ‘improve’ the ramp after a meeting last summer of the ‘Friends of Regents Canal’. British Waterways were aware of pedestrian/cyclist conflicts on the ramp, and had attempted to solve this by putting a ‘kissing gate’ arrangement half way down the ramp. They soon decided that this arrangement was unsafe and removed it again, partly because cyclists continued to travel down the ramp at speed and then had to brake suddenly when they reached the obstruction halfway down. They had therefore come up with a scheme to extend the ramp, which addressed their stated concern, which was that the ramp was not ‘DDA compliant’, which is a rather daft argument for a 200 year old structure in a conservation area. These proposals looked cumbersome and expensive to me, and didn’t really address the issue of conflicts.

I heard nothing more about this scheme, until I received a forwarded email from Gillian Comins, the very energetic and conscientious former secretary of Islington Living Streets. The email was advising her that British Waterways would be starting improvement works to the ramp in less than two weeks. No-one else locally knew anything about it.
I contacted British Waterways, to ask why local Councillors had not been consulted about this, and the project manager admitted to me that “consultation with the local council was not done in this instance”. But he said the contract was placed and that they were going ahead anyway. I also found out that Islington Planners had not been consulted about the scheme, and that it involved felling two large trees to make way for the changes. The tree service advised me they had consented to the removal of the trees on the basis that British Waterways had assured them they had consulted locally on the proposal, which they hadn’t. The trees have already gone.

The scheme they are now going to build has been significantly watered down from the original proposal, to the point where it now provides separate shallow steps for pedestrians, with the ramp rebuilt at the existing gradient. And whilst this resolves the conflict between able-bodied pedestrians and cyclists, wheelchair users and parents with buggies will still have to use the ramp, which is as steep as it was, and which will now be mainly a cycleway. So in short, the scheme is a huge expense, which fails to properly solve any of the problems originally identified.
This is another example of a large public agency which is meant to serve the public (as are TFL) doing pretty much what they like, and just not bothering to consult local people. What I don’t think they realise is that by consulting locally; residents, cyclists and pedestrians, they could probably have got a much better scheme.
I am passionate about proper local consultation and involvement, and If I am successfully re-elected on May 6th (which is quite soon) one of my main priorities will be trying to restore some level of accountability and transparency with organisations such as, TFL and British Waterways, the PCT, HFI, Enterprise, etc. I have begun this process with the PCT in the last year as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, but this is not much more than scratching the surface of the issue. I should also add that the Labour Group has made a specific manifesto commitment to tackle anti-social cycling, which gives all other cyclists a bad name.

A footnote to the Danbury Street issue is the total road closure on Danbury Street Bridge, which has been given to the contractors whilst the work goes on. Local residents, motorists and cyclists are incensed that this seems to be almost entirely to provide free car parking for contractors visiting the site. So whilst the contractors get free car parking, local people have to drive all round the auction. Except that cyclists are now hopping onto the narrow pavement that is left, and risking accidents with pedestrians. I have spoken to Highways about the cycling issue, and suggested that they reduce the width of the compound sufficiently to allow cyclists to use part of the road – which would eliminate conflict and make it safe for both. They have said they will consider this. Lets see if it actually happens.

Save the Whittington Hospital!

2010-03-07T15:01:00.002Z

Residents of Islington, Haringey and Camden are enraged and alarmed at the prospect of losing the Whittington Hospital. Everyone, but everyone has a story to tell about how the Whittington helped them, whether it was a heart attack, diabetes getting out of control, a child splitting it’s head open, or where you were born, the Whittington was there. The Hospital is a source of an immense sense of security to everyone who thinks of it as ‘their’ hospital, and those same people feel deeply threatened and upset at the possibility they might lose it.

Local feeling about the hospital was in no doubt on Saturday 27th February when around 5,000 people turned out to march up the Holloway Road and demonstrate against the closure. The feeling as we walked up the Holloway Road from Highbury was uplifting, with many of the cars passing the demonstration beeping their horns in support. Interestingly, the nearer we got to the hospital, the more beeps we got from cars coming the other way. David Lammy, Emily Thornberry, Jeremy Corbyn, Union representatives, campaign organisers and many more all spoke eloquently and passionately about the vital importance of the Hospital to the area.

The question is, with all local political parties appearing to oppose closure, how come it is still being suggested? Well the answer is, that NHS Bureaucrats have decided, behind closed doors, that according to the theory that we have too many hospitals, they need to close some of them.

But why doesn’t anyone have any control over these Bureaucrats? The answer to this, is that under the Liberal Democrats laissez-faire attitude, for the last eight years, all of the ‘arms length’ organisations overseen by the Council (eg HFI, the PCT, CEA, all the myriad subcontractors, etc tc) have been lulled into an attitude that they don’t need to worry about consultation or accountability. For example, when the Lib Dems first got into power they put the bullying leader of the Council onto the PCT Board, as vice-chair, leaving the PCT with the impression that they are in direct communication with the Council and its views.

Unfortunately, in 2006, when the Lib Dem Leader of the Council lost his seat (to us), he didn’t lose his seat on the PCT Board, and he has remained there until very recently, which may help to explain why the increasing power of Labour in the Council has failed to bring about any kind of culture-change at the PCT.

The Lib Dems love this cosy little arrangement whereby they can sit in the Town Hall and preside over wonderful statistics about how well the Borough is performing, without actually having to be accountable for the delivery of services. Since Labour increased the number of seats we hold on the Council by over 100% in 2006, we have been struggling to force the Lib Dems to give us control of the Scrutiny Committees, which we should by rights be given, since we have as many seats as they do. Last year we were able to place Independent Lib Dem and whistle-blower Andrew Cornwell in the Chair of Overview, and I was asked to Chair the Health Scrutiny Committee.

During this year, I have been endeavouring to use the powers of the committee to call to account the PCT regarding their fudged plans for selling off Finsbury Health centre, and I have also required that all the Trusts providing healthcare services to residents in Islington appear at the committee to report on their progress during the last year. When the Trusts have appeared, it has given us the chance to put some awkward questions to them, providing the first step in restoring accountability, which will lead to service improvements that residents, not the bureaucrats, want.

It may seem like all parties oppose the closure of the Whittington. But if you want to vote for a party that has the strength and the determination to see accountability, fairness and quality of services restored, the only party to vote for is Labour.

Labour leading as campaign steps up

2010-01-17T19:13:00.005Z

Labour activists throughout Islington are upbeat as campaigning efforts step up ahead of the local elections. Canvassing teams are busy all round the Borough, and contact on the doorstep is showing strong support for Labour, for our approach to making Islington a fairer place for everyone to live, and in particular for our policy on free school meals for all primary school children.

Voters are pleased to see Labour out in force, and are fed up with the ineffectual and indecisive Lib Dems', who run the borough as if the only thing that matters is statistics. The "fastest improving borough" means nothing to people who are still living on overcrowded estates, who can't get their bins emptied, and can't even get the Council to put a new lightbulb in the streetlamp outside their home.

This picture shows one of our St Peters teams, who were out on the Popham Estate this weekend. From left to right, activists Henry, Jack, Felix and Kate, with myself and Cllr Catherine West, Leader of the Labour Group. Lots of fresh air, and the scent of a wind of change.

Finsbury Health Centre

2009-12-06T16:27:00.004Z

I am very pleased to have been elected Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee this year, which is one of the committees charged with counterbalancing the role of the Executive in the Council. One of my main tasks has been to scrutinise Islington Primary Care Trust’s somewhat undemocratic attempts to force the closure of Finsbury Health Centre.

For those of you not familiar with Finsbury Health Centre, it was designed and constructed as a Health Centre in the 1930s by the architect Lubetkin, intended to be a high quality and dignified building where all the people of Finsbury could go to receive a variety of different health treatments. The building pre-dates both the founding of the NHS, and the more recent coining of the term ‘Polyclinic’, which is what it is.

The building is still much loved by local people, both as a convenient, local venue for receiving health treatments, and also as an uplifting and inspiring building in which to receive those services. Many (although not all) of the health professionals that work there are also very fond of the building, and patients report a good level of stability amongst staff, who know most of their patients.

The building was, and still is, an exceptional piece of design as a Health Centre, and it still works. It is also listed by English Heritage as Grade I, partly because of the design of the building, and partly because the building is an important landmark in social history, and still a functioning health centre.

The problem arises because the PCT (The Primary Care Trust, who run Islington’s health services), seem to have decided for some obscure reason that they don’t like the building, and are determined, as it would appear, to get rid of it. They also haven’t carried out any maintenance to the building for the last 15 years, so it looks in a far more sorry state than it might.

The PCT’s strategy to date has been to take a decision behind closed doors to close Finsbury Health Centre, and then consult the public on where they want their services moved to. The option for patients to state that they want their services to continue to be delivered from Finsbury Health Centre was noticeably absent from the consultation.

At the same time as consulting patients on where they want their services moved to, the PCT have also published a series of rapidly escalating cost estimates to refurbish the Health Centre, along with a similarly improbable cost to leaseback the building once it is refurbished. The suggested cost to refurbish (£(9.1m) is almost twice the going industry rate for restoring listed buildings of this type, and the suggested leaseback charge of £1m per year for 25 years, means that a £9.1m project (if that figure were true) would actually cost the PCT £25m. Informed industry experts all suggest the restoration cost would be nearer £5m, and that there are a number of creative ways of sourcing grants and funding, based on allowing a building restoration charity to take over and restore the building – which would be very little trouble for the PCT. Patients, staff, conservation experts, planners and English heritage would all like to see the building restored and retained in its present use.

The re-location of services proposed by the PCT would involve many patients in an hour-long journey up to Holloway Road, which I’m sure the more frail patients would not make. The remainder of the services would be divided up between various smaller venues nearby, several of which are described as offering a ‘satellite’ service. In all, the proposals would redistribute all the current services in the building to seven different venues.

Up until recently, Labour and the Liberal democrats in Islington have been running parallel, if not entirely synchronised campaigns to save the Health Centre, and I thought that there was quite a strong level of agreement between the two parties that the PCT were not playing fair or listening to local people. That was, until Labour discovered that there might be some EC1 New Deal funds available to put towards the costs of refurbishment. This money is not essential to save the building, but could arguably be an appropriate use of the funds, given that the Health Centre is an important community facility in the New Deal area, which many residents would like to see saved. Labour tabled a motion to last Thursday’s Council meeting, calling on the Council and PCT to work with EC1 New Deal to try and secure these funds to assist in saving and restoring the Centre.

I thought this motion would be pretty uncontentious, and was very surprised to see a late amendment to the motion, tabled by the Lib Dem’s master of weasel words and obfuscation, Cllr Allan. His amendment called for health services to be “kept local”, and for the building to be kept in public ownership for the people of Finsbury to “enjoy”, but was clearly trying to undermine the continued use of the building as a Health Centre, which is exactly what the PCT are trying to do. The Lib Dems voted for this amendment and lost, and the Labour motion was carried, also enjoying the support of Cllr Andrew Cornwell (ind. LD) and Cllr Katie Dawson (Grn).

I feel sorry for those grass-roots Lib Dems who share Labour’s feelings about the injustice of the situation, and I hope they will still find themselves able to support whatever decision the Scrutiny Committee comes to when it has finished considering all the evidence. I expect the scrutiny decision to be a rational and reasoned assessment of the facts, with the passion and emotion about the issue restricted to patients and local residents who have already made it clear they want the Centre retained.

My passion in this instance is not so much for the building, but to expose what appears to be a concerted attempt to deprive the people of Finsbury of a unique, much-loved and well-used facility for no obvious or justifiable reason. My passion is to see honesty and the truth prevail.

What does a Councillor actually do?

2009-07-29T22:09:00.003+01:00

I often get asked this question.

The answer is, I do case-work. Lots of people in St Peters Ward have day-to-day problems that need solving, and they go to their Local Councillor for help. I will give you a few examples of the sort of issues I get involved in:

A couple living in a residential street backing on to a playground had been repeatedly burgled, because there was a hole in the wall at the end of next door’s garden, opening onto the playground, with a fence across the garden about four metres from the hole, which provided cover for the burglars and the goods they were stealing. The next-door house was managed by the Council. I visited the victims of the burglaries and saw the hole. I took photos of the hole, sent them to the repairs department, and chased the Council until the hole was bricked up, which eventually it was.

A constituent contacted me because her neighbours had built a staircase from their first floor terrace down to their garden, which meant that anyone using the staircase looked straight into her garden as they went up and down, which was upsetting her a lot. I visited the lady, and established that the staircase was not built in accordance with the planning drawings. Planning enforcement visited the neighbour, and got them to change the staircase.

A constituent on an estate in the ward contacted me because she had some water leaking into her wardrobe. A repairs person came round from the Council to ‘fix’ the problem, and next time it rained, water gushed into the lady’s wardrobe ten times worse than before. I went round to visit the lady, and discovered that whoever had visited the property to ‘repair’ the leak had actually punched a hole in the roof drainage straight into the lady’s flat, causing all the rainwater from the walkway upstairs to empty into the lady’s wardrobe. Eight weeks later and the Council still haven’t actually fixed the problem. They keep sending people round, who seem to be trying to guess how to fix the problem. I am going to meet the Service Director for Housing and read him the riot act if this doesn’t get fixed in the next week.

Residents on the Popham Estate are extremely upset, that the Council has sent in contractors to ‘rewire’ their homes when they don’t need rewiring. This ‘rewiring’ is to the worst possible standards, as it results in perfectly safe wiring being disconnected, and new plastic trunking being fixed all over the walls of flats that tenants have spent a lot of money decorating over the years. Many of them are in tears at the damage done to their homes by these pointless works. I have visited a number of homes on the Popham and agree entirely that the rewiring is pointless and unnecessary. And we have got the IEE (Institute of Electrical Engineers) to confirm this. We are in the process of getting the Council to admit that tenants can refuse to have the work done if they don’t want. In the mean time, caring local residents like Martin Rutherford tell us on a daily basis of more tenants distraught at the vandalism done to their homes. Sometimes, in the face of such lunacy, you just try and console people.

Tree officers emailed me to say that someone had driven their van into a tree on St Peters Street that leans out into the road quite a bit. Its a lovely, and in the words of tree officers “majestic” tree, but because someone had driven their van into it, and made an insurance claim, the Council had decided to chop the tree down. This didn’t sound right to me, and I called an 8am meeting with Council Officers in St Peters Street to discuss the options. They admitted that actually, if they built the pavement out round the tree to prevent further accidents, then they didn’t need to chop it down. Whilst we discussing this, a local resident came out and thanked me for saving the tree.

Residents in Arlington Square were getting very fed up with young people gathering in the square gardens after it was closed, drinking alcopops, and making lots of noise. I contacted the Safer Neighbourhood Police Team, who mounted an operation to identify the young people, which has resulted in much more peaceful Saturday nights for local residents. Following on from this I called an 8am meeting with tree officers and local residents, and agreed a programme of pruning to the trees, which have been somewhat neglected over the last few years, which will make the gardens more visible from outside the square, making it more difficult for miscreants to hide in the square. We have also allocated a small budget to the square for planting, which we will use to plant prickly plants next to the fence, making it more difficult for people to jump the fence when the park is closed.

A constituent contacted me in desperation, because they had got behind with their Council tax payments, and although they were offering to make arrangements to pay off the debt, the Council sent round the bailiffs, who threatened my constituent that they would break down the door. I contacted the Council, got the bailiffs called off, an apology for the threats made by the bailiffs, which were illegal, and agreement to my constituent’s proposals to pay off the debt. I’m still waiting to hear what action the Council will take against the illegal behaviour of the bailiffs. I haven’t forgotten, and I will not give up until I get an answer.

When the planning application for the new school buildings at what used to be Islington Green School, and is now City of London Academy, was made, it was clear to me that children attending the school whilst the construction works were in progress would be severely disadvantaged, since the plans required the new school to be built on the old playground before the old buildings could be knocked down, which means no playground during the building works, and no-where to go at lunchtime. I asked for some of the extra money given to the Council by the developers as part of the planning permission, (section 106 payments, as they are called), to be put towards some additional temporary youth work to help support the pupils at lunchtime, when they are wandering round the streets of St Peters because the school hasn’t got playspace for them. The school wants the extra youth work, we have a plan from the Youth Service to provide the work. Its just that the Council is trying to argue that the wording of the permission doesn’t exactly describe this kind of support. This is bureaucratic obstruction. I will see that the youth work is provided, and I will go to the press if the Council carry on being awkward about it.

Along with my St Peters colleagues Cllr Shelley Coupland and Cllr Gary Doolan we have become aware of a reluctance on the part of Registered Social Landlords to take proper action against their tenants (and their offspring) when they are causing trouble either on, or near their estates. We have now had a meeting with Hyde Housing, at which we persuaded them to accept that they need to serve notices on trouble-making families, and we are still trying to have a similar meeting with Peabody, who have allowed at least one tenant to commit GBH on another tenant, on the premises, without taking any action at all against the perpetrator, preferring instead to offer extremely mediocre support to the victims to move elsewhere. This doesn’t sound right to me, and I want some answers from Peabody.

I go to as many local meetings as I can to make sure I know what’s going on in my Ward: I attend the Safer Neighbourhoods Ward Panel to help set police priorities for the ward, I go to several different residents associations meetings, I am a member of the Angel Town Centre Management Board, I am a governor of Camden and Islington Mental Health Trust, attending all their meetings, I attend the Angel Association meetings and Islington Living Streets. I attend and support Islington Boat Club and The Canal Boat Trust. I am happy to meet residents separately or together at any time when there is a problem.

Tomorrow morning I am meeting a concerned local resident and highways officers at the junction of Baring Street and New North Road at 8am, to discuss how this junction can be made safer for pedestrians, without making it impossible for a refuse truck to turn the corner.

I’m looking forward to it.

Lib Dems sabotage Free School Meals

2009-06-28T17:00:00.006+01:00

I can confidently say that I have never known such a universally popular policy as Islington Labour's proposal to give all under-11s free school meals. People from all walks of life, and from many different political backgrounds, all think it's a very good idea, and are quite happy to sign petitions calling for it to be introduced at once.

It was a dramatic and powerful victory for Islington Labour when we succeeded in overturning the Lib Dem administration's budget and passing our policy for Free School Meals. And the Lib Dems show their magnanimity in defeat by cooking up an amendment to the proposal to reduce the scheme to a 'trial' in six schools only, claiming difficulties with 'administration'. They managed to push this through at an overview committee by digging out a couple of non-elected voting members of the committee who hadn't voted on anything for years.

Talk about sour grapes. The LibDems hate our free school Meals policy and they will stop at nothing to try and sabotage it. They hate it because its so popular, it's true socialism, and it shows them that it's Islington Labour that has real, imaginative and progressive ideas about how Islington should be run.

We will be doing everything we can to re-instate our winning policy of free school meals for all children under 11. We will not be using dirty tricks to achieve it.

Labour victory for under-11s free school meals

2009-03-25T00:02:00.002Z

At a Full Council meeting in the Town Hall on February 26th Labour scored a massive victory. The occasion was the annual debate on the budget.

Labour put forward a budget that included free school meals for all children under 11, a pensioners’ rebate of £100 on the Council Tax, and free leisure and sports facilities for young people, paid for in part by reducing the over-inflated Lib Dem’s executive salaries. The Lib-Dems on the other hand, wanted to freeze the Council tax, and their high salaries. They then switched horses, and said they would put up the Council Taxto pay for some Green ideas, in an attempt to buy off the one Green vote on the Council.

Then, after agreeing to vote with the Lib Dems, the Green abstained on all the votes, leaving the Lib Dem administration doubly embarrassed, having changed their budget to suit the Green, and then losing when she didn’t vote with them.

The debate was a shambles in other ways as well, which you can see for yourself if you can bear to watch the ‘web-cast’ of the meeting. It lasted 4 hours, and for the last 40 minutes, no Lib-Dems were present, after they walked out, claiming they wanted a ‘recess’ to consider their loss of the vote. They didn’t return to the chamber to finish the meeting.

Providing free school meals for all primary and nursery school children is a fantastic thing for many reasons. In a place like Islington many families are living right on the poverty line, and whilst they just miss out on being eligible for free school meals, making ends meet is a constant struggle. For the average family with 2 kids, this measure will save them over £600 a year – all the while knowing that their children are guaranteed a warm and hearty school lunch every day. In families where parents are attempting to find work, or are considering taking up temporary work, the prospect of losing their kids’ entitlement to free school meals can sometimes lead them to question whether they’ll actually end up any better off financially. Thanks to this measure, this will no longer have to be a consideration, meaning free school means can help our local economy by making returning to work easier for parents.

If free school meals are good for parents and families, then they are great for Islington children. Various free school meal trial initiatives have taken place – from the Scottish Highlands to Hull- all of which have demonstrating the significant impact free school meals have on children’s futures. Implementing free, healthy school meals improves take up of school meals over packed lunches and it’s no exaggeration to say it can lead to a culture change. In islington, we have one of London’s highest rates of childhood obesity, with 24% of our ten year olds being classed as obese – that means that 1 in 4 of weighs 20% or more above what they should. But it’s been proven that free school meals can lead to children eating proper breakfasts, less sugary snacks, and whole family eating habits becoming more healthy.

And it’s not just about the future of our children’s health. In the three year trial that took place in Hull, classroom behaviour improved significantly with the introduction of free school meals, with children concentrating for longer and being less disruptive. Only a few months ago, the London wide exam results league table was published, and had Islington in last place, yet again. If we are serious about improving the education our kids get, it’s about time the lib Dem administration stopped merely tlking the talk, and realised that bold but proven effective methods, such as free school meals-can help us achieve this.

Labour still aren’t in power in islington, but even from the opposition benches we’re setting the agenda, with a budget that delivers for Islington families. Achieving that alongside my Islington Labour colleagues made sitting through a 4 hour council meeting full of cynical and irresponsible behaviour, and unsuccessful and immature tactics from the ruling Lib Dems, worthwhile.

Dog Control Orders - Latest!

2009-03-15T13:01:00.002Z

The Council's new toothless, meaningless and inadequate Dog Control Orders have resulted only in an increase in little signs everwhere. The signs mislead the public into thinking that dogs have to be kept on a lead. Until you read the small writing, which says "if asked by an authorised person". I don't think anyone has seen one of these authorised persons. And there is an increasing number of complaints about dog mess everywhere, as bad as, or worse than before, and of parks being over-run by dogs, where previously dog-owners and non-dog-owners used to inhabit the Borough's parks peacefully side-by-side.

I received a copy of an email from a constituent recently, sent to Cllr Ruth Polling, the Executive Member responsible for the introduction of these orders, asking her for an update on the success of these orders. I can do no better than quote you the email:

"Dear Cllr Polling,

I would be interested to find out from you the following:

(i) The number of fines (under the Dog Control Orders) that have been issued and for what offences.

(ii) How many dog wardens there are and what is the remit.

(iii) Do they also have the remit for 'stray dogs?'

(iv) What hours the wardens work."

Now come on Cllr Polling, lets hear some answers to these questions.

Lib Dem Housing Hypocrisy

2008-10-05T19:16:00.005+01:00

At South Area Planning Commitee on Thursday 2nd October, we were asked to approve an application for 17 residential units at 110-116 Elmore Street.

Islington Council's stated policy is that they will seek 50% affordable housing for all developments over 10 units. This development should have had at least 8 affordable units, yet the developer claimed he couldn't afford to provide any affordable housing.

The developer had an 'independent assessor's' report, which said the development was 'unviable', principally because he'd paid too much at auction for the site. And who did he buy the site off? - Islington Council. And there were the Lib Dems, supporting the developer's argument all the way, twisting the words of Council Policy, and saying that providing affordable housing was more-or-less an option for the developer if he felt like it.

The whole point of an affordable housing policy is to make sure we get affordable housing.

Along with Councillor Gary Doolan we bitterly opposed this application, and I said in the meeting that the argument put forward by the developer was clearly spurious, since the claimed unviability was entirely down to his own folly in paying too much for the site. Why should the less well-off people in Islington get pushed out yet again, just because this developer can't get his sums right? But the Lib Dems on the committee couldn't do enough to explain how policy had to be applied 'flexibly', and that a requirement for affordable housing had to be 'reasonable'. They all voted for the 100% private scheme in spite of the paper-thin arguments.

It is quite clear to me that the Lib Dems DO NOT WANT affordable housing if they can possibly avoid it, and are prepared to be sold almost any kind of a line by developers trying to wriggle out of it. In Westminster under Shirley Porter, this was called Gerrymandering. I'm not sure I can see the difference, except the Lib Dems haven't yet twigged that they are Gerrymandering themselves out of their own seats.

The Mall Antiques Market Trashed

2008-10-05T19:03:00.004+01:00

The new owners of 'The Mall' in Camden passage have demonstrated that they not only don't care about the character of the area, they are actually trying to destroy it, just so they can make a bit more money.

London and Associated Properties, who bought the building earlier in the year, thinking they could just kick out the antiques traders, gut the building, and put some fancy national Multiple retailer in there instead got a nasty surprise when over 300 people turned up to the Planning Committee and objected to the idea, and permission was refused. The Developers, vowed to appeal against the decision, but gave an undertaking to the Council to keep the Mall open until the result of the appeal was known. They have gone back on this promise and all the traders were evicted at the end of September. They are determined to try and kill the antiques market.

Readers may also be interested to know that LAP tried the same move at 'Antiquarius' in the Kings Road, where they evicted traders and commenced building work without Planning permission, but were stopped when Kensington and Chelsea statutorily listed the building.

LAP still have to convince a Planning Inspector that they are justified in destroying the most important part of Camden Passage, and if they fail, will have to re-open the Mall as a Market again.

The appeal is being heard at Islington Town Hall on 9th and 10th of December. Please come and object again.

Labour Success at the Angel Canal Festival

2008-09-07T19:20:00.004+01:00

St Peters Labour Councillors received tremendous support at the Islington Canal festival this year. (Pictured right are local resident Chris Kenyon, Labour Leader Catherine West, myself, and Emily Thornberry MP). Hundreds of people stopped by to sign our petition to save the tree on Rheidol Green, which the Lib-Dem-run Council has agreed to chop down because they say it is in the way of rebuilding the Packington Estate. (See my separate blog on the Packington and the tree).

Many supporters expressed their thanks to Cllr Shelley Coupland for the fantastic work she is doing helping people with housing problems, and to Cllr Gary Doolan for his work in securing Estate Improvements throughout the Ward. A lot of people also took the trouble to tell us that our Local Labour MP Emily Thornberry is doing a superb job, following in the footsteps of her predecessor, Chris Smith.

The event was an excellent fun day out, with everything from a display of live birds of prey, through a portable kids climbing wall, to traditional hot dogs, a 'ring the bell' strength test, and a hilarious 'angel' on wheels, who was zooming about the festival, accompanied by loud heavenly music, blessing everyone. More's the pity that our friends in the Lib Dems had such a dismal stall, littered with negative slogans about their opponents (us and Boris), and nothing good to say about themselves.

Its good to see the Canal Festival going from strength-to-strength, and also Islington Boat Club and the Canal Boat Trust standing smiling in the middle of it all. Roll on next year, and perhaps we will have our good weather back.

The famous Islington Council 'Dog Consultation'

2008-08-26T11:03:00.002+01:00

The Council's recent 'Dog Consultation' is a classic example of how this Lib Dem Council completely failed to engage with local people on an important local issue.

The 'consultation' was entitled "How to deal with irresponsible dog owners" - which sounds fine, and something everyone would want. Yet hidden in the small print and the colour-coded diagrams that went with the consultation was the proposal to allow dogs into a number of previously dog-free areas, which included Arlington Square in St Peters ward. The completely barmy idea being that as long as dog-owners 'pick up' after their dogs, and accept to put their dogs on a lead if asked by an 'authorised person', it is OK to allow dogs anywhere in public parks.

Now I am not against dogs, or people owning dogs, but there is a very practical problem with mixing dogs and toddlers in the same bit of grass. Dog-owners cannot be counted on to 'pick up' 100% of the time, and the chances of one of Islington's 2 dog wardens being in every park in the Borough at the moment when a dog needs to be put on a lead are laughable. And if there is any chance at all of a crawling toddler encountering doggy poop, or being frightened by a boisterous bonzo, parents will not take the risk, and the children will be driven out of the park.

There were other cock-ups, like when the Council tried to email everone who had objected to the misleading wording of the consultation, they managed to 'cc' the list of objectors to everyone. And the final insult was that lead member Lib Dem Ruth Polling, who should have taken responsibility for the decision on the consultation, instead decided to 'delegate' the decision to a senior officer, presumably in an attempt to duck criticism for the shambles.

Quite apart from the unnecessary and unworkable rules that this sham consultation has introduced, it has also succeed in setting dog-owners and non-dog owners against each other, and covered the borough in a new crop of signs advertising fines for any infringements of the new "dog control orders", which must be really intimidating and hostile to dog owners, most of whom have done nothing wrong.

Not only have the Lib Dems cocked up the consultation, they have set residents against each other, and covered the borough in prohibition notices. They have been in power for 8 years now, and should have learned how to deal with issues like this with sensitivity. Obviously they haven't.

Camden Passage Market and 'The Mall'

2008-08-26T10:21:00.003+01:00

Camden Passage is a World-famous, highly popular, and very unique Antiques Market. Local Council policies recognise this, yet the market has been under constant threat for several years. Since I was elected I have been campaigning hard to save the market, publicising and challenging every attempt to kick out antiques traders to make way for bland high-street retailers.

In 2005 the Council allowed a national fashion retailer to close the building known as the 'Georgian Village' next to Tesco, kick out all 38 businesses, and gut the building to make a single clothing store. The Council also allowed the new owner to demolish the canopy that used to cover the pavement in front of the building, and where there was once a thriving antiques market on Wednedays and Saturdays, and a farmers market on Sundays, there is now a sterile open space where the only interest is Tesco trolleys full of waste packing waiting to be loaded onto lorries. This was all allowed to go through without the Council even demanding a planning application for the changes to the building. I challenged this, but was told there was "nothing could be done". This was feeble, and there is plenty under Council Policy that could have been done if the determination was there, which obviously it wasn't.

Next to go was the 'Angel Arcade'. This time the Council did look into the loss of the small units, taking legal advice on whether they could be defended. Advice was that the units could be defended, although not with certainty. I attempted to get the Council to pursue this, but instead, chair of South Area Planning Committee, Lib Dem George Alan, used a confidential meeting to change the wording of the report to state that the Council would not defend the small units, and the arcade has gone. It is now a single shop selling furniture.

Most recently, a very aggressive developer called London and Associated Properties (LAP) has bought 'The Mall', which is the listed tramshed building housing two floors of tiny shops near the Duke of York pub, at the South end of Camden Passage. The market in this building is much loved by everyone from local residents buying jewelry, to international designers buying props for window displays in New York and Tokyo. LAP applied for permission to gut the building, presumably to lease it to a single National retailer, and was refused. The Committee meeting attracted over 300 people, all against losing 'The Mall'.

LAP have appealed against the refusal, with the appeal to be heard at the Town Hall on 9th and 10th December, and I hope as many people as possible will attend. LAP have no interest in the local character or community, and are simply interested in making money at any price. This is not in the local interest.

I have spent much time pondering why this Lib Dem Council is so weak in the face of developers, and in particular, so reluctant to stop the bland commercialisation of our once very distinctive and unique shopping streets round the Angel. Maybe they think it is "cleaner and safer". If you ask them, they say there is "nothing they can do". This is not true. There are local policies which defend small units, and defend the character of the area. And I am left with the feeling that had the Council been more robust when the Georgian Village was under threat, developers like LAP would never have thought they could get away with it. The message needs to go out to developers that we will not allow the character and uniqueness of our area to be destroyed in the name of commercialisation.

Maybe its time to elect a Council that will put local interests first.

Baring Street junction with New North Road

2008-08-26T09:46:00.000+01:00

The junction of Baring Street and New North Road is a source of great concern for local residents. Baring Street is a very busy road, with buses and heavy traffic, and there is at present no pedestrian crossings or traffic lights at the junction with New North Road. It is a very dangerous junction for pedestrians to cross, and also dangerous for motorists, who become agitated and irritated at the length of time it takes to get out of the junction. The situation is also complicated by the street being on the border between Hackney and Islington.

St Peters Councillors have met with local residents to discuss the issue, and now have agreement from Islington Council Highways department to carry out a full traffic survey of the area, and to consult on improvements to the junction.

Sex Shop on Islington Green

2008-08-26T09:30:00.001+01:00

The sex shop on Islington Green is a typical case of the Council failing to stand up to a commercial operator deliberately bending the rules.

Many residents were unhappy when a store called 'Clone Zone' first applied for a sex shop licence for this shop. They felt that Islington green is a family area, with Tesco next door attracting families and children to the immediate area throughout the day. The result of objections was that the shop was only allowed to trade as a sex shop in the basement. If you looked at the shop from outside and didn't understand the coded meaning of the name of the shop you wouldn't know it was there, which was fine. Obviously the licensing committee felt that a sex shop was only acceptable if it's presence was very discreet.

Clone zone then closed, and the current operator applied to renew the license. I enquired many times during the application period to find out what the operator intended to do with the ground floor, which is not licensed as a sex shop, and couldn't get an answer. Then, surpise surprise, now the shop has opened it is now obviously a sex shop on the ground floor and the basement, all the signs outside make it obvious what it is, and the door is left open all the time so anyone can see in.

I have objected to the sex shop being on the ground floor and have been told by the Council that the shop is "only selling underwear" on the ground floor. This is nonsense. The shop is obviously and overtly a sex shop, where previously it was hidden away, and none of the reasons for wanting it hidden away have changed.

The Council should be standing up to traders of this sort who flout the rules.

And now the shop has applied to extend their opening hours to 10pm every night, and to open on Sundays as well. I have once again sent my objections, restating all the points I have made above. Lets see if the Council has the courage to say 'no' this time.