On 30/4/10 17:03, "Kerry .."wrote:
Hi Ruth,
I have a question regarding the labour leaflet that was was distributed recently where you stat that the Conservatives have done nothing to regenerate the High Street.
I have been searching on the internet to see who controlled Hounslow Council, and found out that it was controlled by Labour from 1971 to 2006, when labour lost control.
My question to you is what did Labour do in those 35 years to regenerate Brentford High Street?
Kind Regards
Kerry
From Ruth:
Kerry
Thank you for contacting me.
In the last 10 years of our administration: we worked regularly with the then owners of the various plots of land to bring them around the table. We drew up, consulted on, and adopted outline plans for the area, declared the canal-side a conservation area, ensured that the developments now built – Brentford Lock, Holland Gardens, Ferry Quays - went ahead with the best possible benefit for the town, ensured that the council-owned premises were let at rates that were viable to small businesses, supported the farmers market, brought several millions of SRB funds to finance improvements on the High Street – street furniture, lighting, signage, planting etc, and allowed High Streeet premises to be used for social enterprise and/or youth facilities such as TAHSA. Initiated the Brentford Heritage signage and information paths.
35 years includes the development of Brentford Dock, but not I grant you, the main part of the High Street which happened in the 60’s. However, we did initiate and fund Watermans Arts Centre, supported the founding of the Steam Museum, the moving of the Musical museum, the development of Victoria Steps and the Ham residential boat moorings, developed (then later improved) Watermans Park, enabled affordable housing to be developed on the Ham and also include it as part of all the other housing developments. I initiated the development of the Brentford Community Resource Centre and worked with Age Concern too, which together meant the old Health Centre came back into use.
I may have left one or two items out for which I apologise. I also regret we couldn’t keep the Red Lion open – if you remember that.
Ruth
Cllr Ruth Cadbury
Friday, 30 April 2010
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
No you don't live in LB Hounslow, because the computer says so!
I have just submitted a on-line report of a road defect in the middle of Popes Lane, W5. The person reporting lives on the south side of Popes Lane, is an LBH resident in Brentford Ward, despite having a W5 postcode.
She tried to report by phone a month ago, and then again 2 weeks ago, and was met with rudeness and denial about the whereabouts of her house. She was told she didn’t live in Hounslow and needed to phone Ealing. Ealing’s initial response was far more helpful, they confirmed the defect was in LB Hounslow. One borough said they would report it to the other, but today both boroughs are denying all knowledge of her call, and there appears to be no record that this is a defect that needs addressing.
This raises 2 Issues:
1) Refusal of LBH staff to acknowledge that there are people with W5 postcodes who are LB Hounslow residents. (Perhaps also an issue for people with UB/W3 codes but I bet it never happens for those with a W4 code!). Anyone with any knowledge of urban history/geography knows that post-codes and ward/borough boundaries are seldom coterminous, and council systems should acknowledge this. Residents in my ward with W5 postcodes are continually dealing with this ignorance from both call-centre and operational staff - in all departments.
Surely if Ealing’s web-site reporting page can acknowledge this, then any staff can, as they must be using the same technology when they input information from calls?
2) Lack of publicly available information about responsibilities on roads where the borough boundary goes down the middle. I have been told that there is a management agreement on such roads between the neighbouring boroughs, so that one or other borough maintains, services, (and enforces?) across the full width of the road – and it is agreed where along these roads the management responsibilities change. If this information was available, then ward councillors and residents living on such roads would save a lot of time in getting complaints to the right borough.
She tried to report by phone a month ago, and then again 2 weeks ago, and was met with rudeness and denial about the whereabouts of her house. She was told she didn’t live in Hounslow and needed to phone Ealing. Ealing’s initial response was far more helpful, they confirmed the defect was in LB Hounslow. One borough said they would report it to the other, but today both boroughs are denying all knowledge of her call, and there appears to be no record that this is a defect that needs addressing.
This raises 2 Issues:
1) Refusal of LBH staff to acknowledge that there are people with W5 postcodes who are LB Hounslow residents. (Perhaps also an issue for people with UB/W3 codes but I bet it never happens for those with a W4 code!). Anyone with any knowledge of urban history/geography knows that post-codes and ward/borough boundaries are seldom coterminous, and council systems should acknowledge this. Residents in my ward with W5 postcodes are continually dealing with this ignorance from both call-centre and operational staff - in all departments.
Surely if Ealing’s web-site reporting page can acknowledge this, then any staff can, as they must be using the same technology when they input information from calls?
2) Lack of publicly available information about responsibilities on roads where the borough boundary goes down the middle. I have been told that there is a management agreement on such roads between the neighbouring boroughs, so that one or other borough maintains, services, (and enforces?) across the full width of the road – and it is agreed where along these roads the management responsibilities change. If this information was available, then ward councillors and residents living on such roads would save a lot of time in getting complaints to the right borough.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
MOGDEN OPEN DAY
Took a break from campaigning yesterday afternoon to give a lift to Murad Qureshi (GLA Labour lead on Environment issues) to Mogden's open day. Never have I seen so many PR people in one place - well certainly not at Modgen which seems to have about 3 people working there on a normal day. Full info marquee and bus trip round the site.
Although I thought I had a good grasp of how our sewage is treated, I now understand a lot better. Those who live with the stench from the works will ask - did we do the right thing to grant planning permission to the extension? Well yesterday didn't change my view. Tens of millions have been spent on smell reduction, the expenditure came about after Ann Keen and I brought then Environment Minister Larry Whitty to the site around 2003, when the smell and mosquitoes were unbearable.
There is still the issue of the remaining uncovered storm tanks - used for storage of raw sewage when surges of run-off mean the works cannot handle the volume. With the extension to the works agreed, residents will have to wait until 2013 for the old storm tanks to be used less than 6 times a year. And if they are needed more often - the planning condition means they will have to be covered. If we had refused permission to TW they would not have been able to expand the capacity of the site, and residents would have suffered indefinitely, or TW would have got their permission on appeal with much weaker conditions imposed.
Although I thought I had a good grasp of how our sewage is treated, I now understand a lot better. Those who live with the stench from the works will ask - did we do the right thing to grant planning permission to the extension? Well yesterday didn't change my view. Tens of millions have been spent on smell reduction, the expenditure came about after Ann Keen and I brought then Environment Minister Larry Whitty to the site around 2003, when the smell and mosquitoes were unbearable.
There is still the issue of the remaining uncovered storm tanks - used for storage of raw sewage when surges of run-off mean the works cannot handle the volume. With the extension to the works agreed, residents will have to wait until 2013 for the old storm tanks to be used less than 6 times a year. And if they are needed more often - the planning condition means they will have to be covered. If we had refused permission to TW they would not have been able to expand the capacity of the site, and residents would have suffered indefinitely, or TW would have got their permission on appeal with much weaker conditions imposed.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Spring is here, and so is the election campaign
Well the nomination papers are signed and getting handed in for the Council election on May 6th, and it looks as though Gordon Brown will announce on Tuesday that the General Election will take place on the same day (I really hope he does!). Canvassing has shown relatively little anti-Labour feeling for a while round here. And in the last 3 weeks it has felt even more positive - reflecting the national shift as people wake up to the prospect of another Tory Government led, this time, by a shower of inexperienced public-school boys. I'm really looking forward to the next 5 weeks, although my family may not be quite so enthusiastic as they can't expect the same level of domestice service they have become used to . . . . .
Friday, 26 March 2010
Heathrow: Councils Succesfully Challenge Runway 3 Proposals
From Hounslow Pess Release:
Following a challenge to the Government's third runway proposal, brought by the London Borough of Hounslow and others - the government's Heathrow policy has been left in tatters this morning.
The High Court ruled that ministers' decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight with the judge dismissing the government's claims to the contrary as 'untenable in law and common sense'.
If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper - the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Cllr Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the council’s Labour group, said:
“Today’s ruling is a fantastic result, and one that could finally signal the end of the threat of a third runway, which has been hanging over our heads for years.
“We have long said that the economic arguments didn’t add up, and that the noise and pollution arising from the associated transport infrastructure – which hasn’t even been properly planned – would have a direct negative impact on Hounslow residents and businesses, and it’s great that this has been acknowledged.”
The judge expressed real concern over the "hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.
The judge ruled that:
If the government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.
The government's entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants' submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement."
On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be 'surprised' if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have 'a significant effect' on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003."
On the issue of surface access he said the claimants' case - that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow - was 'justified'. Significantly, he noted that the government was "unable to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.
The judge is now inviting the government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the government.
Hounslow’s leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, added: "This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.
“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the prime minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
David Nussbaum, chief executive of World Wildlife Fund UK added: "We are delighted with today's judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the government's whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act."
The challenge was brought by Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness. Some representatives from these groups are pictured above.
The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
For further information on the challenge visit www.2MGroup.org.uk.
Following a challenge to the Government's third runway proposal, brought by the London Borough of Hounslow and others - the government's Heathrow policy has been left in tatters this morning.
The High Court ruled that ministers' decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight with the judge dismissing the government's claims to the contrary as 'untenable in law and common sense'.
If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
The implications of today's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper - the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Cllr Ruth Cadbury, Deputy Leader of the council’s Labour group, said:
“Today’s ruling is a fantastic result, and one that could finally signal the end of the threat of a third runway, which has been hanging over our heads for years.
“We have long said that the economic arguments didn’t add up, and that the noise and pollution arising from the associated transport infrastructure – which hasn’t even been properly planned – would have a direct negative impact on Hounslow residents and businesses, and it’s great that this has been acknowledged.”
The judge expressed real concern over the "hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.
The judge ruled that:
If the government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.
The government's entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants' submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement."
On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be 'surprised' if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have 'a significant effect' on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003."
On the issue of surface access he said the claimants' case - that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow - was 'justified'. Significantly, he noted that the government was "unable to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.
The judge is now inviting the government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the government.
Hounslow’s leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, added: "This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.
“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the prime minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”
David Nussbaum, chief executive of World Wildlife Fund UK added: "We are delighted with today's judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the government's whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act."
The challenge was brought by Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness. Some representatives from these groups are pictured above.
The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
For further information on the challenge visit www.2MGroup.org.uk.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
Figures showing the Demand for a Mixed School for Brentford
Our post-bag is full from Brentford parents who have been disapointed that their first child going to secondary school has not been allocated a place at their first or second choice. Over a year ago I pointed out to the Director of Children's services the imbalance of secondary school provision in Brentford, as population increases meant our nearest mixed schools were no longer able to allocate places to Brentford children. Allocations for school places are done strictly by distance from school (and ignore Borough boundaries). As effective catchment areas shrink inwards, Brentford families aren't being offered places in any of our nearest mixed schools. Our nearest is Elthorne Park (up Boston Manor Road), then Chiswick, then Lampton and Hounslow Manor. Our kids can get into Isleworth & Syon, and Brentford School for Girls, but for many single-sex is not the choice they want.
I now have the figures for TW8 applicants for next year's Year 7 entry, and what schools they were offered places at and it shows the stark imbalance between preference and availability. (As we have an integrated pan-London system, every child gets one offer.)
Of 185 TW8 children, 119 were allocated their first choice school, 22 their second choice, 22 their 3rd, 4th ,5th or 6 choice), and 21 were allocated a school that they didn’t choose at all - all Hounslow Manor.
However this masks the picture as most of those who got their first choice school will have got in on the sibling rule (an older sibling already at the school gets priority over other applicants.) – I have asked for the figures with the siblings taken off, and hope I don’t need to wait as long as I did for the figures this is based on which arrived on Friday evening.
How did allocations match people’s choices?
For mixed schools, 46 put Chiswick their first or second choice, only 18 got it.
37 put Lampton 1st or 2nd, but 3 got in.
33 put Elthorne Park, 8 got in,
7 Twyford but 3 got in.
Only 8 actively chose Hounslow Manor, yet 28 have been allocated to that school.
For single-sex: 43 put Green their 1st or 2nd choice, and 13 got in,
34 Isleworth & Syon 1st or 2nd,with 35 being allocated,
30 put Brentford 1st or 2nd choice and 35 got in.
The demand from this is clearly for a mixed school. The Director of Children's Services says there is not (yet) a shortage of school places in the borough. But this mismatch of preference/available places from Brentford parents does point to making Brentford School for Girls a mixed school very soon, while we work towards the longer-term of getting a new secondary school.
I now have the figures for TW8 applicants for next year's Year 7 entry, and what schools they were offered places at and it shows the stark imbalance between preference and availability. (As we have an integrated pan-London system, every child gets one offer.)
Of 185 TW8 children, 119 were allocated their first choice school, 22 their second choice, 22 their 3rd, 4th ,5th or 6 choice), and 21 were allocated a school that they didn’t choose at all - all Hounslow Manor.
However this masks the picture as most of those who got their first choice school will have got in on the sibling rule (an older sibling already at the school gets priority over other applicants.) – I have asked for the figures with the siblings taken off, and hope I don’t need to wait as long as I did for the figures this is based on which arrived on Friday evening.
How did allocations match people’s choices?
For mixed schools, 46 put Chiswick their first or second choice, only 18 got it.
37 put Lampton 1st or 2nd, but 3 got in.
33 put Elthorne Park, 8 got in,
7 Twyford but 3 got in.
Only 8 actively chose Hounslow Manor, yet 28 have been allocated to that school.
For single-sex: 43 put Green their 1st or 2nd choice, and 13 got in,
34 Isleworth & Syon 1st or 2nd,with 35 being allocated,
30 put Brentford 1st or 2nd choice and 35 got in.
The demand from this is clearly for a mixed school. The Director of Children's Services says there is not (yet) a shortage of school places in the borough. But this mismatch of preference/available places from Brentford parents does point to making Brentford School for Girls a mixed school very soon, while we work towards the longer-term of getting a new secondary school.
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Mercedes Re-opening
With my petrol-head son and Matt, I went to the re-launch of the Merc garage/showroom on the A4/Clayponds junction this week. I'm not generally a fan of fossil-fuel consuming tin cans made ever more luxurious for some reason beyond the basic function of getting from A-B when there is no other relieable alternative.
Nevertheless the palce is impressive, with it's vertical tower storing 16 cars, and high-tech service bay. It also employs more people than ever, proving that the Golden Mile is heading back to it's original role of employing many people in skilled roles in iconic buildings. The old Gillette building will open as a hotel in the next few months, behind which there will be a number of high-tech business units. Hopefully we'll see the rest of the vacant sites along the Golden Mile developed before long.
Nevertheless the palce is impressive, with it's vertical tower storing 16 cars, and high-tech service bay. It also employs more people than ever, proving that the Golden Mile is heading back to it's original role of employing many people in skilled roles in iconic buildings. The old Gillette building will open as a hotel in the next few months, behind which there will be a number of high-tech business units. Hopefully we'll see the rest of the vacant sites along the Golden Mile developed before long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)