Brian Paddick visits London Riot Victims

On Thursday we have a decision to make about how London is run over the next four years.

We elect a Mayor and Police and Crime Commissioner, but also a London Assembly.

They are both important and I would encourage you to use all your votes.

I urge you to vote for Brian Paddick for the Mayoral election.   He has great policies to help keep fares down, including a 1-hour bus ticket, and he will also help ensure
London is a safer place.   There is no more qualified to be the next Police Commission for London than Brian Paddick.

Please also vote for me as your next London Assembly Member representing Greenwich and Lewisham.

I am committed to this area.  I have strong links with both boroughs and I am determined that the two boroughs are not neglected at City Hall.

One issue I am most committed to is tackling London’s appalling air pollution.  It leads to
over 4,000 Londoners dying early – it affects both the young and the old.   It is one of London’s most significant public health issues.  The Campaign for Clean Air in London have recognised the excellent recordand policies of Liberal Democrats on this issue.  Voting Liberal Democrat on Thursday is a vote for cleaner air!

For more information about our policies, including making our roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists, building more homes and helping more young people get back into work see our manifesto.

Finally, do also remember that you voting for Londonwide Assembly Members.   Liberal
Democrat London Assembly Members such as Caroline Pidgeon have taken up dozens on issues in Greenwich and Lewisham, from unsafe  pedestrian crossings to the shameful record of Transport for London’s empty properties on the South Circular.  She also played a key role in challenging Greenwich Council over its incompetence relating to
upgrading the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels.

It is vital that Caroline is re-elected, with a strong Liberal Democrat London Assembly team.  Please do vote London Liberal Democrat on the orange ballot paper.

Thank you.

You can listen here

You can read our full Manifesto here

Some of the key highlights for me are:

From cutting crime to keeping fares low, tackling youth unemployment and building thousands of new homes, the Liberal Democrats have serious solutions to the capital’s biggest challenges.

Policing:

1 Guarantee 33,500 police in the Met by protecting local neighbourhood teams from the current Mayor’s cuts

We will give each neighbourhood its own plan for policing and how officers are deployed

We will stop police targeting innocent people and accurately target the power on criminals.

2 A One Hour Bus Ticket

Early Bird discounts before 7.30am

A Part-timers’ Travel card

We will end the scandal of Oyster overcharging

We will freeze the GLA’s share of Council Tax

* A London Youth Contract. We will ensure all jobless young Londoners who apply after leaving school and aged up to 25 are productively engaged, in work or in learning linked to a genuine job opportunity, working with employers
to create an Apprenticeship Alliance and ensure graduates get six months real
work experience leading to a job

3 Five-Star Fund. We will set up a fund worth at least £10m,
supported by a voluntary £1 a night luxury hotel bedroom levy, to cofund youth opportunities in needy areas

Youth Hubs. We will work with banks on funding the development across London of ‘Youth Hubs’, open seven days a week

4 Big Switch. We will make a ‘Big Switch’ so all London’s buses and taxis,
and most commercial vans run on electricity by 2020

Cycling and safety. We will learn from the Dutch about how to achieve a step-change in cycling and safety in London

We will crack down on rogue landlords

5 We plan to build 360,000 homes over a decade

6 An extra 2m trees before 2025

I would like to make the following comments on the River Crossings Consultation.

While there could be a case for more river crossings east of Tower Bridge I am not convinced by the merits of the proposals that have been put forward.

I would question the appropriateness of calling this a consultation at all due to the limited information and detail that has been provided for making informed responses and the limited time given to respond.

Any new crossings will need to provide additional public transport, cycling and walking options.

If any crossings were to be built:

• Public transport, cyclists and pedestrians must be given priority over vehicle traffic
• Existing communities on both sides of the river must benefit.
• They should not encourage growth in vehicle traffic. If any new crossing does provide an option for private and commercial vehicle use it must only be as a method of reducing existing congestion.

While new crossings can be a spearhead for further development of housing and local business, on the information that is provided as part of this consultation process it is very hard to see how this will be the case at all with these plans. I remain unconvinced that to concentrate on providing additional crossings that provide for a major increase in private and commercial vehicles travel through local communities is the way forward. The location of the tunnel and road infrastructure on the Greenwich side of the river is in the middle of an area set for redevelopment. Taking this land and using it to build
additional roads for increased non local stopping traffic is unlikely to have any real additional local benefit.

Any proposed crossings should be linked to a wide range of public transport options. Encouraging public transport, cycling and walking will help to ensure that existing communities achieve maximum benefit from any new crossings. These modes will improve connectivity without significantly increasing congestion or reducing air quality. Crossings that prioritise these modes above private motorists, especially those who choose to commute by car, will bring more benefit to local communities. The challenge is to make sure that any new crossings benefit local areas around the crossings themselves by
providing easier access to riverside east London, rather than provide alternative routes for long-distance and orbital traffic.

There should be a proper traffic and environmental impact assessment undertaken given the fear that new roads attract rather than reduce traffic, and that potential traffic would be drawn in from Dartford adding more pressure on the East-West routes currently in use and the severe effect this would have on Greenwich town centre. Information about predicted traffic flows as a result of these proposals and environmental impacts on the surrounding areas need to be made public and included in the information provided in any consultation process. I note that it has not been provided here.

Should any new river crossings be developed, the issue of whether these new crossings will be tolled, and whether existing river crossings remain or become tolled, should also be a matter for public consultation. The predicted impacts of differing levels of tolls on traffic
flows and their impact on congestion in surrounding areas and predicted environmental impacts need to be made public.

I strongly believe that the information provided as part of this consultation process and the very limited time made available for people to respond is not satisfactory.

Firstly a four week consultation window is far too short for a project of this magnitude. Secondly these proposals offer only limited details about the proposals. There is no detail on the costs, the benefits or the business case for each of the projects listed, or any others that have been considered.

This current consultation does not reflect the significant amount of research and analysis that has been conducted into potential crossing options to date. A wide range of public authorities, groups and organisations have weighed the relative merits of previous proposals. I feel that these details need to be released to enable interested parties to make an informed decision.

In general; I find it hard to see how a river crossing and the increased traffic will bring any local benefit to Greenwich. Increased traffic flows are likely to have a detrimental impact on already congested roads in the local area.

I note that at this stage no funding is on the table for any river crossings. I think it is misleading of TfL to consult on specific proposals before any hope of funding has been secured. I would question why this consultation is being conducted at all in this form and at this particular time.

TfL needs to go back to the drawing board and come back with a more comprehensive plan and open consultation exercise to ensure the widest possible engagement with all stakeholders and access to a wide range of options. These options need to examine a number of different locations and types of crossings and should not be limited to a road only crossing in one location.

We do not get charged for changing trains so why do we get charged every time we change buses?

Tim and Brian were joined by local Liberal Democrats collecting signatures as part
of Tim Farron’s Leap to Victory Campaign to make the best use of the extra leap day, today to reach for the best possible result in the London elections in May.

Further information on our ideas for Fairer Fares can be found here.

The discovery came after Lib Dem campaigner, John Russell, challenged Greenwich
Council with a Freedom of Information request asking about costs.

John commented, “I am pleased that Greenwich is a royal borough. It is a well deserved honour. However to rebrand the borough now, at a time of cutbacks and without any idea of how much it’s going to cost, shows that Labour are still not behaving responsibly with the public’s money.”

The Labour-run Council has already spent thousands of pounds on new street signs around the borough, with more to come. It is possible the Council will be spending
thousands on rebranding Council vehicles and other signage, not to mention countless
forms and printed stationery.

Labour councillors voted through the move at a meeting in July last year, with no public discussion on how much it was going to cost.

The Council initially claimed that they would only replace street signs where the sign needed replacing. However, it’s now becoming clear that many signs being replaced were actually in good condition.

The Freedom of Information Request can be found here:

1. What the estimated costs are to the council and local taxpayers to change the council’s web site, logos, signage, street signs and all other associated official insignia to convey the fact thatGreenwich is now a Royal Borough?

The Council has not made an estimate of these costs. The approach will be to replace signage as part of the normal maintenance programme. The Council will acquire a new Royal Borough Crest which will be drawn by the Royal College of Arms. The final cost of this is not yet known.

2. What is the time line for making the necessary changes and what are the cost implications and planned actions by year?

It is expected that Greenwich will receive Royal Borough Status on 3rd January 2012, subject to the Lord Chancellor being present in the country as is the customary requirement. A plan for future events is not yet finalised or costed.

3. What information was give to councillors in their official capacity as decision makers as to the associated likely cost implications of their decision prior to the full council meeting and other associated meetings that took place and were involved in the decision making process?

The decision made by full Council on 27th July 2011 is available on the Council’s website. The decision related only to the change of name, which has no direct cost.

4. What consideration was given to trying to limit the effects that this additional revenue will have on already limited council budgets?

The Council’s approach will be based on changing names and branding as part of the renewal programme for stocks or planned maintenance so that additional costs are not incurred.

There will be a small cost associated with acquiring the new Royal Crest and for a prudent level of celebration to mark the event. Estimates are not yet available.

Doubts have been raised about the future of Sydenham Police station on Dartmouth Road as local Police stations are reviewed as part of a pan London review of Police station provision. The station is only open part time but is home to the Forest Hill, Sydenham and Perry Vale Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT) and the Rapid Response Team.

It has been suggested that the Metropolitan Police want to sell off the building to raise much needed cash and the 3 Safer Neighbourhood Policing Teams may be based far away at Catford Police station. Presently the Metropolitan Police will neither confirm nor deny the rumours and will only say that there is a review of Police stations happening across London that will look at counter provision across Lewisham.

Brian Paddick said “I fully support the Sydenham Society and local residentss in their campaign to keep this local Police station open. It’s common sense that Local Police teams should be based locally to be effective. Basing local police teams miles away, on the other side of Lewisham, will undermine local policing and the trust that has been built up with the local community over the years. Closing this police station would also be a gift to local criminals.”

John Russell commented “it is essential that our locla Police teams have a lcoal base.  If this Police station is sold off a new local base must be provided. The Police need to be more open and honest with local residents and less secretive about the property review.

“With crime rates rising across Lewisham and an average of two knife crimes a day in Lewisham and a shocking total of 578 knife crime incidents in the last 10 months now is not the time to undermine the important local Policing work that is being done.

“I will do all that I can as a candidate to support local residents in their campaign against this closure.”

Annabel McLaren, Chari of the Sydenham Society, which is running a petition against the closure commented: “We welcome Brian Paddick’s visit and his support for our campaign against the closure of Sydenham Police Station.

“Sydenham Police station is an essential asset in the fight against crime as it is the base for all 3 local Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT). Our local SNT teams have already had their cars taken away. We now face the ludicrous prospect of our local Police spending most of their working day travelling to and from work on local buses. We urge all residents to support our petition which is available both on line and at local cafes and shops.”

]]> http://www.johnrussell4london.org/?feed=rss2&p=259 0 http://www.johnrussell4london.org/?p=252 http://www.johnrussell4london.org/?p=252#comments Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:28:06 +0000 admin http://www.johnrussell4london.org/?p=252 Continue reading →]]> Leader of London’s Liberal Democrats, Caroline Pidgeon AM, joined local campaigners in
Lewisham on Friday (27th Jan) to campaign for a pedestrian crossing.

 
Lib Dem campaigners and local residents have been calling for a ‘green man’ pedestrian
crossing facility at the Courthill Road / Ladywell Road junction for six years. There have been a number of accidents at the junction in recent years.

 
Caroline Pidgeon joined Cllr. Chris Maines (Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Lewisham Council) and John Russell (candidate for the Greenwich & Lewisham London Assembly seat) to collect signatures for a petition to Transport for London (TfL). Over 200 signatures were collected in just two hours. Hundreds more have already signed our online petition.

John Russell commented, “Transport for London have rejected calls for a pedestrian
crossing on the grounds that it will adversely affect traffic flow. Traffic flow is important, but not more important than the lives of pedestrians who need to cross the road.”
Caroline Pidgeon commented, “I have campaigned for safer crossings at a number of junctions around London and this is definitely one of the most dangerous junctions I’ve
seen.”

Cllr. Chris Maines added, “The Lib Dems will continue our until TfL give local
pedestrians what they need – a safer crossing.”

Please sign the online petition which can be found here: http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/courthillroad

The display is one of the very few truly great free public events to be held in South East London and attracts audiences of up to 80,000 people. It is not only good for the wellbeing of local residents but brings economic benefits to local businesses in both Lewisham and Greenwich boroughs.

Traditionally both councils have been able to cooperate together to organise, host and pay for this great event.

This year was different. Last year Greenwich decided to withdrawal its 37k contribution to “protect frontline services”.

Hats off to Lewisham, who have resisted the pressure to cut the funding and have worked to attract sponsorship from Glendale Grounds Management, L&Q, the Clarendon Hotel, Offices.org.uk and Wish.co.uk and public contributions to keep the event alive.

Greenwich’s decision to point blank to refuse to pay for this event or to work with Lewisham council in any shape or form is short sighted and regrettable.

I appeal to Greenwich to change its attitude and work with Lewisham in a constructive and collaborative manor between now and 2012 on finding alternative sources of funding and to stop freeloading on the back of Lewisham council’s hard work.

Long awaited Junction safety improvements welcomed

Campaigners are celebrating after Transport for London (TfL) finally agreed to make improvements to a dangerous road junction in Catford.

The proposed improvements which being are consulted on until the 8^th of November will involve adding pedestrian phasings to the lights across the Whitefoot Lane and the northern side of Bromley Road, with central refuges to allow for safer crossing.  In order to do this, the road junction will need to be widened, the guard rails will be removed and
new cycle stop lines will improve safety for cyclists.

For years the local Residents’ Association, Lib Dem councillors and Lib Dem London
Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon have been calling for better pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Bromley Road and Whitefoot Lane, the former site of the
Tiger’s Head.  There have been numerous accidents and ‘near misses’ at the junction.
Now TfL have produced a proposal for pedestrian phasings on the traffic lights, road widening to allow for central refuges and improved safety for cyclists.

Caroline Pidgeon the chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee said, “After six years of false promises from both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson it is wonderful that much needed pedestrian improvements will finally be made to this dangerous junction.”

“I have been delighted to work with local councillors and residents on this issue. At long last the Mayor and Transport for London have listened to the needs of local people.”

John Grosvenor the Secretary of the Catford Southend Residents’ Association said. “It
is really good news that TfL have finally produced a proposal that will make this junction safer for pedestrians, particularly as it is so near a school.  Let’s hope that the work will
take place as soon as possible after the consultation period has ended”.

Lewisham GLA candidate John Russell said, “Local residents and the Liberal Democrats
both locally and at City Hall have campaigned, lobbied and fought to get these improvements for years, it is great news to know that all this hard work has finally got a
great result.”