Alcohol Zone: Roehampton says yes, Tories say no
It's riddled with inaccuracies, jargon and excuses not to act. I'll give you just five:
First, that "no alcohol exclusion zones are known to have been established in the UK." Well, they may not know it, but had they done a quick google search, they could have educated themselves quite easily. How about Rotherham, Winchester, Pontefract, East Lothian, North Tyneside - shall I go on? If the Conservatives are so ignorant as to make such basic mistakes, what confidence can we have in anything else they have to say?
Second:"The practicality of this approach in such a small area where displacement is likely [is] merely likely to displace the problem to the immediate vicinity around the zone".
Well, that depends what the immediate vicinity is, doesn't it? If it's just the shopping parade at Danebury Avenue then of course there could be displacement: to Portswood Place or Petersfield Rise or the village. And no one's arguing for that - I'm certainly not. If, however, the AEZ covers an area bounded by Richmond Park, Priory Lane, Clarence Lane, Roehampton Lane and a perimeter around the village, the only places left for street drinkers to disperse are heaths and parks. And they won't disperse there because there is no ready supply of alcohol for them in the middle of Richmond Park.
But then, just listen to their third argument: that were a zone to be implemented, it would "need to be large and as a result difficult to justify".
Hang on: one minute their case is that an AEZ won't work because it will be too small, but now it's because it will be too large! Which is it? And it's even more baffling given that Winchester's AEZ covers the whole of the city, and Bromley's covers the whole of Beckenham town centre: far bigger areas than Roehampton. And they're working fine, thank you.
Fourth, they conjour up a figure of £10,000 to create the AEZ - a figure they offer no substantiation for and which, incidentally, pales into inconsequence compared to the £350,000 they've just squandered on their aborted Danebury demolition debacle.
The fifth is just about the most bizarre claim you'll ever hear a council make. They claim that an AEZ would demand the confiscation of all alcohol - open or not, from anyone - drinking it or not, without exception. I've got to ask: do you really believe Rotherham, with its city-wide AEZ, is a 1930s prohibition mecca? Or Tyneside? Or the entire city of Winchester? The Conservatives make fools of themselves, and show their contempt for the people of Roehampton, with such absurd claims.
We then get more of the same weak and ineffective excuses for a lack of action so far: that it's a new problem (no it isn't); that their current efforts have changed habits (no they haven't); that the problem's diminished in the cold weather (yes it has but do you really think it won't return the moment it's not freezing cold?); that the drinkers are mainly local (so what?) and that getting them to sign slips of paper promising to be good are far more effective ways of dealing with them (need I comment on this!?).
For some reason the Conservative are afraid to take the action Roehampton needs to deal with this problem. I don't know what the source of that fear is, but it exists and it's failing Roehampton.
Let me put it this way: Roehampton did not just create a 600-signature petition, which could have been double or treble that size with very little extra work, to get such a peremptory, dismissive and weak response. They signed up in droves because they want action - and for us all that action is long overdue. But it's clear we won't get it from this lot.
Labels: Alton estate, Danebury Avenue, local environment, Roehampton
Regenerate, the 









Since I started campaigning for an Alcohol Exclusion Zone for the Alton Estate, the Conservatives have suddenly discovered a concern about the issue of street drinkers.






I've just taken receipt of 35,000 copies of summer 2009 edition of The Putney Paper. The headline is a message I think needs saying because too many Labour MPs have let the public (and yes, my party too) down really badly.


The closing date for comments on the council's planning application for Danebury Avenue has just passed and I submitted a detailed objection on five grounds: design, transport and access, housing and community facilities.
English Heritage are one of the bodies always consulted on major planning applications because of their potential impact on existing buildings, the overall setting of a community and the architectural opportunities a demolition provides.



As the illustration above shows, there's been a fantastic response to my consultation on the Council's plans to redevelop the top end of Danebury Avenue. Nearly five times as many people completed my survey than bothered to return the council's "heads they win, tails you lose" survey in the library at the end of July.
I'd like to thank the 230 Roehampton residents who have taken the trouble of responding to my survey on the council's redevelopment plans. And there are still another 11 days before the deadline for replies, so I'm confident that we'll have many more before my consultation closes.

Yesterday, as I mentioned earlier, I visited the Roehampton Festival organised by local charity Regenerate.
Tomorrow, Saturday, I'll be attending the Roehampton Festival. The festival, organised each year by local grassroots charity Regenerate takes place on the green at the bottom end of Danebury Avenue, where the 170 and 430 buses terminate (not the green the Tory Council wants to concrete over...yet). It runs from 12 noon to 8pm.
The first phase (of four) of the Queen Mary's Place development off Roehampton Lane has been completed and residents are beginning to move in.






