Traffic smoothing or traffic calming?

Following local residents' concerns about the perception of the junction of  Basire Street with New North Road as being a dangerous junction, council officers commissioned a traffic report on the junction.  I was not the only person to be surprised that the report was mainly concerned with "easing traffic flows" through the junction.

We all thought we had expressed the concern that the junction was dangerous, and needed moderating.  - Most people would agree that traffic tends to build up some speed on this section of the road.  Yet the mind-set of traffic engineers still seems to be to make traffic flow more smoothly (ie speed it up).

It is a well know fact that Islington has relatively low levels of car ownership, and is plagued by traffic from elsewhere trying to get through our borough, which is actually nothing to do with us.  What we need is traffic calming, and if it takes traffic longer to get through Islington, so be it.  The above sign outside Whitmore Primary School (just over the border in Hackney) sums it up nicely.

Q: When is Public Open Space not public?

A:  When the private owner has 'forgotten' to open it.

Islington is the most densely populated London Borough with the smallest amount of open space.  So when private developments come along, and there is proposed an element of recreational space as part of the development, we do our best to ensure that public access to the space is enshrined in a legal agreement with the developer.  Sometimes it happens that the open space did originally belong to the public, but that it was given or sold to a developer to 'manage' as part of a wider development.  The trouble is, the private owners of these developments sometimes 'forget' to make sure the gates are opened, or sometimes even try and keep the space locked, in the hopes that people will forget that public access is supposed to be allowed.

Two examples of this have come to my attention recently:  Firstly, Graham Street Park:  I have written before about the disastrous scheme the Liberals were promoting for this area when they were running the Council, which involved building on most of Graham street park, and "re-providing" the park as a narrow strip of green behind the new flats. Whilst we managed to stop this scheme, it was not until the first block had been built, with the strip of green, that is meant to be publicly accessible space gated off, and frequently inaccessible.  The owners are very slap-dash about opening it up, a number of residents who have bought privately in the development are under the misapprehension that this is their private space - it certainly feels like it - and you can see from the signage how much of a 'park' it is expected to be.

The other example is New River Head Gardens on Rosebery Avenue, which dates back further, but which only came to light recently when developers tried to sneakily turn the old Pumping Station into private housing, which would have prevented the building becoming a Heritage Center.  The New River Head Site, originally constructed by Sir Hugh Myddleton in 1604, used to belong to Thames Water, and was their Head Office - and arguably, as a public utility, belonged to the general public.  The site was sold off for housing in the 1990s, but with the understanding that public access to the gardens would be allowed, and that the Pump House would become a Heritage Centre once the housing conversions were complete.

The gardens have remained locked until recently, when the issue of public access came to light as a result of the attempt to convert the Pump House.  Since then, the Council has managed to get the owners to open the gate to the rear of the development, in Myddelton Passage, although you would never know, unless you go down there, gingerly push the gate open, and let yourself in to what looks and feels like a private garden.  There is also nowhere in the garden to sit down.  And more to the point, the Rose Garden on Rosebery Avenue remains resolutely padlocked shut:

And if you try and access it from the back, you come across this sign:

Which even excludes residents from the rest of New River Head.

The denial of public access to these spaces is a disgrace. The Council needs to work as hard as it can to enforce legal agreements for access where they exist.  It would also be a damn good idea to put some signs up saying 'Open to the Public'.

Cally Festival Fun

A fine fun day out at the fab Cally Festival for the St Peters Labour Councillors, or 'SP3' as we are known.  Pictured are myself, Cllr Gary Doolan and Cllr Alice Perry, the human dynamo.  The festival is particularly poignant for Alice as she lives in the area, and grew up round there. 

Whilst we were at the festival we spent some time collecting more signatures for our particularly popular petition on Canal towpath safety for all, which we started at the Canal Festival earlier in the month.  The petition calls on the Council to work with TFL, Hackney, and the CRT to deliver cycle calming measures on the towpath and safer alternative routes for cyclists in a hurry.  The aim is to try and re-balance towpath use in favour of leisure and recreational users, rather than commuters and speed trainers. 

Packington Shops Planning Application refused

Signs up outside Prebend Express today after the decision.

Hyde Homes have completely underestimated the strength of public feeling against putting a supermarket in their estate. It will undermine all the existing convenience stores in the area, and they intend to kick out The Precinct Community Theatre without offering them a new home.  At a packed planning meeting last night I convinced the committee to refuse the application.  Here is the text of my speech:

"Members of the committee I am standing down on this item in order to represent the views of my constituents against this application.


Hyde Housing, who are the Social Landlord redeveloping the Packington Estate, took on the Estate with an undertaking to replace "like with like". The old Estate has a Precinct of small shops, including a convenience store, a dentist, a chiropractor, and a community theatre. This parade of shops is designated a "protected shopping centre". The redevelopment reprovides this retail space, but in a more visible location on the edge of the estate. The original officer’s report describes the relocated shops as a “parade of shops”.

Planning permission states that Hyde should continue to provide small shop units in order to "protect the role of the protected shopping centre to provide a variety of and range of local services". Islington’s positive support for small independent retail is clearly documented in our emerging Development Management policies and does not require further justification. All of the current tenants of the Precinct have expressed a wish to relocate to the new units, and most are represented here this evening. The Precinct Theatre’s bid for space in the new development is also strongly supported by Mhora Samuel, Director of the Theatre’s Trust, also here this evening.

Hyde However, have decided to ignore local feelings, and the needs of existing tenants, not to mention a raft of planning policy protection, and propose to amalgamate six of the units, in order to let to a supermarket franchise, which they have more or less admitted to me is a ‘commercial decision’.

Hyde either don’t realise the extent to which they have mis-judged the strength of local feeling about both the loss of the Community Theatre, and the threat to the existing small Convenience Stores in the area, or, as seems more likely, they just don’t care. In less than a week we have collected over 1500 signatures against this application (wave petition). Perhaps this petition will make Hyde sit up and listen. It shows just how passionate local people are about their local community facilities and their local shops.
The Precinct provides a range of small shops and houses the Precinct Theatre. In planning terms, there has been no material change of circumstances that would suggest that the loss of these protected small units would now be acceptable. It is also incorrect of Hyde to argue that a Supermarket in this location would provide retail amenity otherwise unavailable in the area, since there is Nisa, Londis and Co-Op available on the New North Road, and Tesco at Islington Green, all within 300m of the location, an accessible walking distance as defined in our retail policies.

What members of the committee should ask themselves is: If a large supermarket in this location puts all the existing small convenience stores in the area out of business, and puts an end to the Precinct Theatre, is that fair competition, or significant harm to local amenity? I would suggest the latter. And such a legacy of harm cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called sustainable development.

I urge the committee to refuse this application."

Maybe this time Hyde will realise you can't just pay lip service to being a good neighbour, and working inthe community.  They need to pay attention to what local people think, and respond to it.

The joyful British Summer

St Peters Ward councillors joined forces with Cannonbury today to man a stall outside Essex Road post office.  In spite of the very wet weather we had some good conversations with local people, especially about trees.  


We also spoke with one young man, who by his own admission used to deal drugs, and has now turned his life around to the point where he is working for a charity that takes gang members to Africa, where they help build schools for the local children, and get to see what real poverty (and mob rule) is like. He says the experience seriously changes the kids attitude to life, and they generally don't get involved in gangs afterwards.  I told him I thought it was really positive that he was putting so much back into society.  He said "well I took enough out, I thought I'd better put something back".


Pictured are Cllr Wally Burgess (Cannonbury Ward) and myself.  Alice Perry also joined us, too late for the photo.

Campaigning for the Mayoral Election on track

The St Peters Election machine is swinging into action again, with canvassing sessions taking place throughout the weekends, and most weekday evenings.  Support for Labour is strong in the ward, and as usual at election time, we seem to get additional help from lots of directions.  Last Saturday morning the 'A' team consisted of (l-r) Luke, Cllr Alice Perry the human dynamo, myself, Ben, Nick, Felix and Daniel.  Pic by Cllr Klute jnr.

Cluse Court Roof

The activity captured in this photograph gives me a considerable glow of satisfaction.  What is going on?  It is a picture of workmen carrying slabs of insulation into Cluse Court in readiness to insulate the roof.  So why the glow of satisfaction?

I was approached in February 2010 by a group of residents on Cluse Court, all of whom live in maisonettes on the top two floors of the 118-136 block.  They all said that they were getting quantities of water dripping down off their upstairs ceilings, that they were having to mop the ceilings 2-3 times a week,  and that their attempts get anything done about it had resulted in various fob-offs and excuses, odd bits of sticking-plaster repairs, but no real resolution to the problem. 

Because I work in architectural practice I decided the best thing to do was to get up on the roof and have a look for myself.  I was told I was not allowed. I was convinced that the problem was condensation due to a lack of insulation on the roof.  Repairs were saying it was leaks, and people running their heating too hot.  ‘Lifestyle issues’, as they liked to say, which of course completely absolves them from having to do anything about it.

I asked again to be allowed up onto the roof and was told “no” again.  I asked why, and was told it was due to Health and Safety at Work legislation.  My fellow Councillor Gary Doolan kindly pointed out that I do not work for the Council, I am an elected member.  The legislation does not apply.  It was agreed that I could go up on the roof.  This was in May, after my request was originally made in February.  So it took me three months just to get up on the roof to have a look.

On the day I was due to get up on the roof, a council worker (Theresa Penfold, who was very helpful) arrived to let me up on the roof, but there was no ladder.  She had to make a phone call to a contractor working for the council on another estate, and borrow a ladder. The whole procedure suggested that maintenance access to the roof must be virtually non-existent.  When we got up there, there was huge pile of rubbish on the roof (yes, on the roof) including old crash helmets, empty cable drums, bits of wire, bits of wood, buckets, and builders rubble.  One of the officers said “Oh, we’ll have to get a quote to get that taken away”.  I couldn’t believe the bureaucracy needed to get rid of something that shouldn’t be there in the first place if the roof was being properly maintained.

I stood on the roof, gave the surface a sharp downward kick with my heel, and knew immediately that I was hitting concrete, and that there was no insulation at all on the roof.  The only thing separating residents on the top floor from the frozen outside world was 150mm of concrete.  No wonder their ceilings were dripping.  I was satisfied my instinct about the lack of insulation had been proved correct, and I then set about trying to convince HFI that I was right. 

Suffice to say that between May 2010 and now, it has taken nearly another two years to get to a point where I had not only convinced HFI the work needed doing, but to get it done.

Sometime you need a bit of tenacity to be a Councillor.

Towpath consultation: Does anyone understand it?

Cllr Klute Jnr demonstrating the effectiveness of the chicane from Packington to
Baldwin Terrace in slowing down cycles and mopeds on the towpath.

As the local councillor who has been largely responsible for badgering British Waterways out of their bunker mentality, and persuading them to try and do public consultation properly, I would like to offer my views on their current ‘consultation’ on options for the towpath, which I suspect are, unfortunately, somewhat baffling for  most people that have seen them.

The springboard for the current consultation was the fairly constant noise in the local press, and at Friends of Regents Canal meetings, about the unsustainable conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the towpath.  This is since the towpath has become a popular commuting route for a type of cyclist that likes to ride as though involved in some kind of competition speed trial.  This behaviour is, as I have said many times before, completely at odds with the towpath environment, which, like the rest of the canal, has historically operated at speeds of around 4 miles per hour, whether you are a pedestrian, boat, recreational cyclist, horse or duck. 

It is the popular view that the canal should remain a place of calm and relief from busy London life, and high speed cyclists are very much at odds with this point of view.

Credit where credit is due, Dick  Vincent and Tav Kazmi of British Waterways have done a very thorough job of engaging local stakeholders regarding this issue, they have held numerous meetings with Islington Cyclists Action group, Living Streets, Local Councillors, Hanover School,  and other interested  local residents.  They have taken on board the conflict issue, and have publicly said that the increase in use of the towpath by cyclists in a hurry is “unsustainable”.  So far so good.

Unfortunately, they have now engaged a landscape architect to deliver their vision,  who seems to think, rightly or wrongly, that the brief is to beautify the canal towpath, using modern finishes, changes in texture, and public art, perhaps in the hopes that these surprising new innovations will distract speeding cyclists into slowing down and admiring their environment.  I think this is unlikely.  Cyclists in a hurry will simply plough on.

Having established the crux of the problem, I think British Waterways need to focus all their efforts, and whatever limited funding is available in the current climate, on physical measures to encourage speeding cyclists off the towpath, using whatever means are necessary.  This needs to happen, as I have also said many times before,  in conjunction with improvements to the ‘parallel route’ of roads that follow the route of the towpath – in particular dramatic improvements are needed to the crossing on New North Road next to Gainsborough Studios, which is an issue for Islington and Hackney Councils. And we as Local Councillors need to take this forward.

I am fully in agreement with British Waterways that speeding cyclists need to be persuaded off the canal towpath. But where we differ is that I think boring, old-fashioned physical barriers, such as chicanes (see the photo at the top of this article), are the answer, not the fancy finishes being put forward by British Waterways’ landscape architect, which we can’t afford, and which frankly, won't do the job.

Graham Street Park and kick-about area saved!

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

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”.