Who says we don't need ticket offices?

This is a photo my Southfields campaign team took on Sunday morning of the queue waiting to buy tickets at Southfields station. Sundays are days the Tories think ticket offices should be closed longest, so if we get queues like this now - before their cuts bite - imagine how things will be when the office is closed 50 hours a week more than today.

Since I launched my campaign to save our ticket offices, the Liberal Democrat and Green parliamentary candidates have kindly given it their backing. The only party that has not is the Conservatives.

Given that the Conservatives were so vocal in opposing ticket office closures on Network Rail stations last year (as was I) - there are only two possible reasons for this deafening silence from the Conservatives.

Either the Tories believe rail stations deserve staffed ticket offices but tube stations don't.

Or they're simply incapable of standing up to their own party when they are in power, as in this case since the Tory Mayor of London runs Transport for London.

It's the easiest thing in the world to oppose another party. It's much tougher to tell your own side when they're wrong. I did on Network Rail ticket office closures, on Heathrow, on the 10p income tax changes and on Richmond Park parking charges. But there's no chance of that in the case of Putney's Tory candidate - she's never once criticised the Conservative council and never once voted against her party in a vote in the Commons - not once in the five years she was MP.

When it comes to election day you need to decide whether you want a local champion or a party-first politician. Vote Conservative if you want the latter - and you'll get ticket offices closed longer into the bargain.

General Election Putney Paper: out now

The new Putney Paper has just been printed and will be being delivered to over 36,000 homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields in the next few days by local volunteers at no cost to the taxpayer.

There are special editions for each of the six areas of Putney:

East Putney

Roehampton and Putney Vale

Southfields and central Wandsworth

Putney Riverside and town centre

Putney West Hill and Wimbledon Park

West Putney and Dover House




East Putney edition:



Roehampton edition:



Southfields edition:



Central Putney edition:


West Hill and Wimbledon Park edition:



West Putney edition:

On on 6th May, remember what the Conservatives did to Wandsworth Museum

Shirely Passmore is no Labour activist - she's a former Conservative council candidate and the wife of one of Wandsworth's longest-serving Conservative councillors and twice borough mayor, Gordon Passmore. She also chaired the campaign to try to save Wandsworth Museum, that was in Garratt Lane, from Tory closure in 2008.

So when she writes a letter like the one published yesterday in the Wandsworth Guardian, I take it as a reasonable reflection of the outrage and anger the borough still feels about the way the Conservative council destroyed the museum and two local libraries, wasted tens of thousands in a game of musical chairs, and ended up with less as a result.

The way the Conservatives rode roughshod over the wishes of thousands of borough residents who petitioned against the Tory plans caused uproar at the time - and it's refreshing to see that the borough has not forgotten how the Tories treat anyone who disagrees with them (but only in years when they're not up for election).

Well, there are elections for the council this year, and if you want the Tories to feel vindicated about their behaviour return them with the same absurd and damaging landslide majority they won four years ago.

But if you want to hold them to account, whoever you normally vote for, the only way to do so is to vote Labour. Labour fought tooth and nail against the Tory closure of the Museum and two libraries, but when the Tories have 51 councillors and Labour just 9, there is very little we could do to stop them. Even those who broadly like the way the Tories run Wandsworth recognise that such a vast gulf is not healthy for our local democracy - and that's why this year we all need to do our part to change things on the council.

Labour is the only other party on Wandsworth Council: Wandsworth has always only been a two-party borough. It's the only party second in the key marginal wards across Putney and Wandsworth that will decide the result. And it's the only party, therefore, that can cut the Conservatives down to size.

A vote for any party other than Labour in the council elections on May 6th is a vote to re-elect the Tories with another massive majority.

What does it all mean?

Every month since the summer of 2007 I've been reporting the Metropolitan Police's ward-by-ward crime figures for the Putney constituency - February 2010's are above and again show decent results, especially in Roehampton where two months of small increases have been turned around.

But what do those numbers actually mean? Well, let's take burglary. In Southfields, the February burglary rate was 7.7 crimes per 1,000 of the population. Now, the population of Southfields is about 13,000 people, give or take - so multiply the 7.7 by 13 and you get 100.1 incidents over the twelve months to February; that's just over eight reported burglaries in Southfields a month.

Eight burglaries a month is eight too many of a particularly unpleasant, invasive crime, but it does put in perspective its relatively low scale locally.

And at the end of the scale, you begin to understand why I'm so appalled by the scale of crime in Putney town centre - Thamesfield ward. Let's repeat the equation above in respect of theft and handling in Thamesfield: 75.5 crimes per thousand, multiplied by 13 (the ward's population) and you get almost 982 crimes a year, 82 every month, 19 a week, week in, week out - happening in our town centre. And these are town centre crimes - and that's before you get to what might be called "residential backstreet crimes" - they relate solely to pickpocketing, stealing, shoplifting.

It's why I've made tackling town centre crime once and for all one of my five policing pledges at the general election.

Putney candidates debate international development at VSO

On Monday I was pleased to take part in a candidates debate organised by the VSO, the international charity that sends volunteers to work abroad in developing countries. The debate took place in their headquarters on Upper Richmond Road.

This was the first time that the four announced candidates in Putney have met in debate and there was certainly an election feel to the occasion. Each candidate was given five minutes to deliver some opening remarks and the remainder of the time was dedicated to answering questions from the audience in the style of BBC's Question Time.

I explained how proud I am of the Labour government's record on international development. One of the first things we did when we came to power in 1997 was to establish the Department for International Development. Since then, we have trebled the aid budget and with Labour the UK will meet our promise of spending 0.7% of our GDP on the developing world.

I also made clear Labour's commitment to protecting the aid budget from any future brake on public sector spending. There will be plenty of voters - and politicians - who will challenge this decision with other pressures on spending. But the poorest or the poor are least responsible for the global recession or from climate change, and least able to withstand their consequences. Thats's why Labour's protection of the aid budget is the only moral course of action.

I know this is an important issue for many in Putney. And I know that you will be aware that the Conservatives have also pledged themselves to protect the aid budget. But promises are easy; honouring them a lot harder.

A recent survey by Conservativehome.com showed that only 4% of Tory candidates agreed with their party's policy that the aid budget should be protected. If these candidates become MPs how confident can you be that they won't force a cut to the aid budget? And I wrote recently about the sadly successful effort of one Tory MP to block curbs on vulture funds that prey on the poorest countries. The Tories say one thing, but their actions betray their true intent.

After the debate VSO organised a secret ballot of their staff, a lot of whom live in the Putney area. The results were:

Labour 46%
Conservative 31%
Green 12%
Liberal Democrat 6%

I hope the rest of Putney votes in a similar pattern come election day!

Putney need cross party consensus to beat tube closures

Yesterday I wrote about the planned closure of ticket offices at the three tube stations used by Putney commuters - Putney Bridge, Southfields and East Putney.

While it is inevitable that this will become the subject of much political discussion and debate in the run up to both the local and general elections, I hope that all the parties in Putney can agree that these proposed closures by Boris Johnson should be opposed as they are not in the interests of Putney's commuters and tube users.

When the national rail companies - including South West Trains - called for similar dramatic cuts in ticket office opening times at Putney, Barnes and Wandsworth Town, I stood up and lobbied the government to reject their plans. And the closures were dramatically reined-in.

At the time, Putney's Conservative MP said: "These plans will seriously inconvenience thousands of Londoners who use these stations every day. Worse still, the serious cuts in weekend and evening services raise real concerns over passenger safety."

We agreed then - and I want her to take a similar stand now it is her own party that is making the cuts - cuts that they promised London they would not make in the 2008 Mayoral elections.

So today I have written to her, and to the Liberal Democrat and Green candidates to invite them to join me in a cross-party effort to defend Putney's ticket offices.

If Putney's Conservative MP still agrees that ticket office closures will seriously inconvenience thousands of Londoners, then - while she won't find it easy - she should put Putney before party and stand with me against these cuts.

Help me keep Putney's ticket offices open

Conservative-run Transport for London is planning massive reductions in ticket office opening hours at Southfields, East Putney and Putney Bridge stations, and a host of other stations the length and breadth of the tube network.

• East Putney ticket office will be open 40 hours a week less
• Putney Bridge ticket office will be open 48 hours a week less
• Southfields ticket office will be open nearly 51 hours a week less

The cuts will mean that no one using Putney Bridge or East Putney tube stations will be able to purchase a ticket from a ticket office before 7am; nor after 7pm. On Saturdays, the Southfields ticket office will shut up shop at 3.30pm (it is currently staffed until 9pm).

Ticket offices are about more than just having another option for buying a ticket or asking for travel advice. Stations that are staffed are safer stations. Like many of you, I'm a commuter myself: we know how foreboding largely deserted platform stations can feel - especially if you know there are no staff around.

In 2008 Tory Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty of London with a promise to set about "halting the proposed Tube ticket office closures and ensuring there is always a manned ticket office at every station." So there's no wriggle-room for the Conservatives here: this is a flat out breaking of their promise to London.

It comes on top of fare rises of up to a third since 2008 under the Tories; the threat of closure of popular bus routes like the 28 and shocking incompetence that has turned a trading surplus at Transport for London with Labour into a gaping £1.7 billion black hole.

I will be doing all I can to stop these reckless closures. I also want to work with anyone else who wants to do the same. I am sure that the Putney Society, Wandsworth Council, the local MP and others - including my opponents in other political parties, will want to do all we can to persuade the Mayor not to break his election promise and to protect Putney's tube stations from these cuts.

Celebrating Putney

As you'll know if you're a regular visitor to my blog, one of my main criticisms of the local Conservatives is that they take little pride in Putney: as the neglect of our town centre and Putney Bridge, the weak and damaging (lack of) planning policies, the never-ending service cuts and closures, the huge amount of fly-tipping and the woeful state of our roads and pavements exemplify.

It's time for local leadership that celebrates this wonderful area. That's why I've produced ten different sets of Oystercard wallets that exhibit the very best of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. We have versions for Putney Bridge, St Mary's Church, the Alton Estate, Queen Mary's House, Dover House Road, Southfields tube, East Putney station, the Royal Hospital, Roehampton village and the London Mosque in Gressenhall Road.

If you'd like to show your pride in Putney by carrying one of these Oystercard wallets get in touch and I'll gladly send you one. For free. No catch. 10,000 to give away! Just tell me which version you'd like.

My plan for Putney

Since December the Conservative-run council has been consulting on what is, effectively, a planning brief for key sites across the borough. Sites include those we've spent a lot of time on these past few years: Tileman House, Putney Place, the Riverside Quarter and Danebury Avenue, for example.

This the closest thing the Conservatives get to putting together a comprehensive plan for Putney - something I've been arguing for since 2003. But it is not a plan in itself. Here are the remaining steps needed to give us that plan.

1. A real plan

First, this document is informative but it is not genuine site-specific planning policy. That's because the planning policy governing these sites isn't new or site-specific: it's the same blanket planning policy that exists now. So pretty much every briefing on each specific site in Putney talks about exactly the same building heights being allowed. That's not site specific - it's general.

2. Cast-iron guarantees

Second, the plan constantly refers to buildings of more than twelve storeys only being given permission in "exceptional circumstances". But what is ?exceptional?? The Tileman House developers are appealing the refusal of their 16-storey block because they believe their building is exceptional. The design for Putney Place, rejected in 2008, could be regarded as exceptional by some. And just one exception could become the rule because of precedent: the planning rule that says that once one building of a particular type or scale has been approved that sets the benchmark for future development.

3. A comprehensive plan

Third, looking at specific sites in isolation isn't a comprehensive plan. Putney High Street, for example, is a poor quality environment that will only be radically improved if we have a planning framework that looks at it in its entirety - not just the three sites that have been identified (which are the Putney Cinema/Jubilee House block; the block on the corner of Putney Bridge Road where the Real Greek is; and the hideous block between Lacy and Felsham Roads where TK-Maxx now is, that I've already published an alternative plan for).

We need consistent design the length of the high street to improve the overall shopping environment; to tackle the pollution that makes Putney's high street the worst in London, to diversify the shops and make sure different use-types are better spread throughout the town centre and to give pedestrians more priority.

4. A clear vision of how Putney should evolve

And finally we need to have the political leadership to debate, not duck the controversial issue of capacity. One of the big problems with the Putney Place development was that East Putney station is already full to capacity. So is Putney Station. Our local schools are expanding because their capacity is being reached. Our major roads are often gridlocked because they are full beyond capacity. The only way Putney can handle an increased population of the scale the Conservatives seem to want will be for massive investment in improved infrastructure: and that's simply not on the cards.

We also cannot duck the fact that while it is Putney's character that makes developers want to build huge amounts of extra homes in the area, were we to succumb to their overdevelopment plans the very character that makes Putney a target for development would be changed significantly - perhaps beyond recognition.

Now that's not an argument for mothballing Putney; for never allowing any development here ever again; to try to freeze our area in time. But there are clearly two entirely incompatible agendas for Putney here: the Conservatives that believe skyscraper development in Putney is not only inevitable but desirable - and my Labour view that Putney's character is not high-rise but human scale and that this is the constraint any future development needs to operate within.

It's a straightforward difference of opinion between the Tory MP and her 18 Tory councillors in Putney, and me. You get to choose which side you stand on at the elections later this year. But be in no doubt: if the Conservatives win, their vision of Putney will be writ large - irreversably -by the time the next elections come around.

You can read my formal submission to the council here.

St John's goes electric

St John's Avenue is going to be one of the first roads in the borough to get some electric car charging points installed.

The power points - funded by the Labour Government, which will be located near the junction with Putney Hill, outside Hill Court, will enable up to two cars to recharge. The electricity will be free to the car user, but as the power points will be based beside two pay-and-display parking bays and it takes 3 hours to fully recharge a vehicle the council will seemingly end up making a substantial profit from each point.

There are already electric power points at Putney Leisure Centre,

My only criticism of the scheme is that, as usual, the Conservative council is trying to overclaim the significance of this scheme. Two electric vehicle charge points are not going to transform the pollution blight in Putney town centre and it's therefore faintly absurd to dress this positive step forward as anything more than a very small step in the right direction.

It's great that our Labour government is funding the set-up costs for power points, because it's quite clear we'd have none if the Conservative council had to fund the installation off its own back.

We need vastly more charge points throughout Putney in order to start making substantial cuts in NOx emissions - something I called for back in the 2009 budget and which I'll work hard on as Putney's MP. At the very least I believe every petrol station should provide power points for electric cars and in due course wouldn't it be nice to see petrol pumps being replaced by power points?

My policing priorities for Putney

The Real Policing Pledge is a campaign by the Police Federation of England & Wales (the grassroots police officers' representative body) to ensure that our MPs after the next election are committed to strengthening the thin blue line.

As you can see above, I'm fully signed-up to the Real Policing Pledge. Putney's Conservative MP is not - odd given she talks up her concern about this critical local issue.

I've been deeply critical of the lies and scaremongering on crime the Conservatives have been guilty on with this issue. It isn't the sort of leadership I'll provide Putney with as your MP. So, as well as signing the Real Policing Pledge, I have five key priorities that I'll spend my first term of office on.

1. Cutting street crime in Putney town centre

Street crime like pickpocketing and shoplifting is the main reason why crime in Thamesfield ward is unacceptably high, and the Conservatives in Putney refuse to get to grips with the problem. I want town centre wardens introduced to Putney High Street - wardens who, when they were introduced in Clapham Junction and Tooting town centres cut street crime by a third. Town centre wardens will free up our Police Safer Neighbourhood team to tackle crime in the rest of Thamesfield ward.

2. Cutting violent crime in Roehampton

Violent crime is to Roehampton what town-centre crime is to Thamesfield, and even though the police have made huge strides to reduce crime in Roehampton, violent crime here remains at unacceptable levels. That means providing more facilities and opportunities for young people in Roehampton: youth clubs and activities that Regenerate do such excellent work on for example - and employment opportunities like the King's head Hotel plan the Conservatives want to prevent.

3. Far tougher action on criminal damage

That means Wandsworth opting in to Labour government schemes like community payback where offenders convicted of less serious offences are forced to give back to the community they've damaged. And far more high-profile use of Labour schemes like Roehampton Community Court. Criminal damage matters because the evidence from right across the developed world shows that vandalised, neglected areas are far more likely to attract other forms of crime and also engender greater fear of crime among residents. There's no excuse for this form of crime, and we can do so much more to tackle it locally.

4. Protecting our Safer Neighbourhood teams

The verdict from the community is in - and it is that our Labour-introduced Safer Neighbourhood police teams have been a big success: putting police back on the beat throughout the week, rebuilding the connection between people and their local bobby on the beat, helping cut crime by having the more visible deterrent presence in our communities, and making the police far more accountable to the public. The Conservatives have already started cutting police numbers in London and we simply cannot go back to the Tory days of more than 100 fewer officers in Wandsworth than we now have. Police are worth paying for. And I will always support the implementation in full of police pay settlements negotiated by the independent pay review body.

5. Honest crime figures you can have confidence in

I've been genuinely shocked at the way Putney's Conservative MP has consistently misreported what's really happening with crime in our area. Claiming police numbers are down when they were up; claiming crime is up when it's down and staying silent when the Mayor of London starts cutting police numbers just because he's a member of her party - all this shows a complete lack of integrity.

I've been reporting the real crime figures here on my website since the summer of 2007 - from figures figures provided by the Metropolitan Police. I will never misrepresent them. I will always source my claims. And you know you can rely on that promise because if I was solely about painting unrealistically optimistic pictures on crime I wouldn't have spent the first three of my pledges above discussing the three big crime problems we still have in Putney.

Here are the January crime stats for the six Putney wards: as usual figures in red show the crime rate has increased since the previous month; green figures show either a fall or no change from the previous figures.

New Putney Papers out now

I've just published the Spring 2010 edition of the Putney Paper. For the first time ever, there are six versions of this Putney Paper: one for each of Putney's six wards: East Putney, Roehampton, Southfields, Thamesfield, West Hill and West Putney.

Local stories relevant to your specific part of our area rather than one version that tries to include stories from across the whole constituency, some of which you might not find of any relevance.

Last night's Putney Society meeting & a Plan for Putney

Wandsworth Council has published draft new plans to guide future planning applications and redevelopments across the borough. The plans are out for consultation, and as part of this, Martin Howell, from the Council?s planning department, delivered a presentation at last night?s meeting of the Putney Society. Given the concern caused over the past few years by a string of inappropriate development applications ? some of which have been agreed by the Council in the face of fierce opposition from local residents ? the meeting was extremely well attended.

Along with the Putney Society I have been urging the council to produce a town centre plan for Putney for some time now, the absence of which has been a key factor in the propensity of developers to ?try their luck? with hugely inappropriate tall buildings proposals like Putney Place and Tileman House on Upper Richmond Road.

The Wandsworth Local Development Document comprises the Development Management Policies Document and the Site-Specific Allocations Document - Preferred Options. They can be viewed on the council's website: www.wandsworth.gov.uk/planning. I encourage you not to be put off by the somewhat impenetrable jargon and lengthy nature of the documents. By all means attempt to respond on the full range of issues being consulted upon; but I urge you to ensure that you definitely send in your comments on specific sites such as Tileman House, Capsticks and Putney Place ? stating the upper height limit you think would be appropriate.

The mood of last night?s meeting seemed clear to me: there was a definite consensus that the proposed upper height limit for tall buildings on certain sites was too high. For example, the council seems to think that a 15 storey tower would be appropriate on the Capsticks site. This for me continues to be too tall for this site and it would have a hugely detrimental impact on neighbouring residential properties. Other proposed heights are also alarming. I urge you to make sure your voice is heard, and take part in this crucial process.

I intend to submit my response to the consultation ahead of next Friday?s deadline. I?ll also post more on the council?s proposed plans once I have had a chance to go through it in more detail.

December's crime figures

The December crime figures show crime across all categories, and in five of Putney's six wards down again - figures in line with the borough and London average.

I've written before about the Conservative MP's dishonesty when she claims that burglaries in Putney are on the rise - and this latest set of figures again shows that she's simply not telling the true story. Burglaries in Southfields, Thamesfield and West Hill are down somewhat; they're up very slightly in East Putney, Roehampton and West Putney - but the trend remains downward in Wandsworth borough and London.

What I'd like the police to focus more on in the coming year is having higher visibility right across Putney, not just in particular parts of wards. I've come across concerns in Southfields, for example, that their Safer Neighbourhood Police - who do an excellent job - aren't seen enough along Merton Road. In part, that's because they're focussing on the shopping areas around Replingham Road and central Wandsworth where crimes like robbery will be highest - and it's of course right that police resources go where the need is greatest. But a regular patrol and an occasional focus on areas like Merton Road and the Earlsfield end of Southfields would be welcomed by residents in this part of the ward.

Plan to redevelop Putney Post Office

Plans have been submitted to build flats and new retail space at 214 Upper Richmond Road - the site of Putney's main post office.

This application, if approved - and it looks doubtful whether there are many grounds for rejection - will obviously force the Post Office to find new premises, either permanently or while the site gets rebuilt. It should be made clear that the Post Office are not the owners of this site - just tenants of the retail space. And this is a fairly dilapidated block as it stands now - as the photo above illustrates: it is in need of some modernisation.

I've contacted Post Office bosses urging them to begin searching for a suitable site immediately: one that is close to the town centre, fully accessible and with sufficient space to meet the needs of Putney customers.

The planning application is ref 2009/2149 - click here to see the very limited information there is about this plan.

I'll post more details about this issue once I have them.

Ashburton playpond is no more

I've just had this reply from the Housing Department about the now-famous "playpond" - the play area that flooded with rainwater last Autumn unbeknownst to the area's Conservative councillors who claim to patrol the area regularly.

"I am pleased to advise that the repairs to both the underground drainage and the play equipment are now complete. All that remains is for the cleaning contractor to jet wash a growth of moss from the safety surface, which cannot be done currently with the likelihood of freezing. The position is being monitored but the playground will remain locked in any event pending an improvement in the weather."

That's great - but of course the housing department also need to fix the dangerous play equipment that closed the play area in the first place. I hope they'll do so before the spring so that local kids on the Ashburton estate can again use the play equipment they deserve.

November crime stats

I can't say that the crime figures for November bring much seasonal cheer: although not by much crime is up more than it's down. I'm somewhat concerned by the rise in theft and handling offences, which are up in every part of the constituency except East Putney.

Theft and handling is a particular problem in town centres, which is why Thamesfield - which covers Putney High Street - in particular has such a high crime rate. Likewise, Southfields includes the Southside shopping centre. That said, this type of offence is significantly less likely to occur in most of the constituency than in the borough as a whole, or indeed London.

In fact compare the London average against the Putney council wards and you'll see that the majority of our area does a lot, lot better than the capital as a whole, so even in a - hopefully - aberrant month like November, we're still one of the safer parts of our city.

Path to nowhere

You may have heard of the Bridge To Nowhere - a highway project in one of the most remote parts of Alaska that connected a road no-one travelled on to an island no-one visited, at vast expense to US taxpayers.

On a somewhat smaller scale, Wandsworth Conservatives have created a path to nowhere on the Lower Ashburton estate.

The picture above shows a pathway pounded out of the estate by weight of numbers who use it - it's the one right at the top of Gwendolen Avenue, across Chartfield Avenue. The path's come about because it is the direct route into and out of the estate, and a bit like water always finding it's level, paths will always appear on routes people find most convenient to travel.

I contacted the council because I thought it was slippery and dangerous with a kerb at the top that could trip people right into the path of oncoming cars. Unfortunately for pedestrians on the estate, the Conservative council has only recently spent thousands of pounds of your money laying a tarmac pathway a few yards further down Chartfield Avenue, away from Gwendolen Avenue - a direction people don't so much want to go.

The result? A posh path to nowhere, and a muddy cut-through which is more of a risk to users. I'd have thought the commonsense solution would be for the council to have looked at the natural routes through the estate and built pathways where they were needed. Instead, they now intend to fence off the path, relandscape it and force pedestrians to travel the long way.

I suspect this is just throwing good money after bad: the fencing will be torn out sooner or later and the cut-through returned to use. But as usual, the Conservatives think they know best and regard the rest of us as impertinent to even voice an alternative, commonsense alternative.

A clean sweep

As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, housing and the environment are my two main political priorities. The two come together when we talk about the quality of our urban environment in Putney and the far poorer state the Conservatives allow our council estates to be kept in compared to the more affluent areas.

In Labour's 2006 manifesto for Wandsworth - which I wrote - we devoted an entire section to talking about how the environment defines us - how, in other words, those who live in well-kept, tidy, litter-free, un-vandalised and free-from-graffiti areas tend to have more opportunities, live healthier lives and in turn grow up with more of a respect for their everyday surroundings. Those who live in blighted areas, where buildings are scruffy and neglected, people get away with drinking in the streets or urinating in stairwells; where grafitti and flytipping are common place face a much more challenging upbringing and are taught that no-one else cares about their environment - so why should they?

Recently, researchers from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have been looking at this problem. Sadly, the report they've come up with is incredibly tortuous to read, littered with as much jargon as some of the Putney, Southfields and Roehampton streets the Tories allow to be littered and flytipped.

But it contains this stark fact: roads in more deprived areas are dirtier - and they're dirtier not through some miraculous fact of life but because local authorities spend far less on keeping them clean than they do middle class areas.

There are of course reasons for this. Deprived areas tend to have far higher densities - more people crammed into them, and more people means more chance of environmental problems. Conversely, residents of affluent neighbourhoods are far more likely to get on the phone and complain until the problem's tidied up - and simply through default councils end up spending more on these areas than others.

But there's an underlying political reason too: and simply put it comes down to how much commitment and interest MPs and councillors take in their own patch. That problem is magnified when you have a Conservative MP, a Conservative council and Conservative councillors responsible for areas that, by and large, don't vote for them and where they have a party-political interest in making people believe that the state of their environment cannot be improved by them getting involved and voting.

Well, that may be the Conservative motivation for the state they keep parts of our area in - but it's not mine. Our estates should be as well kept as the leafiest, most expensive street in Putney - and if that means the council has to spend more keeping it clean and tidy, so be it.

Playpond to be drained

The council has got back to me to explain that the reason the play area-come-swimming pool on the Lower Ashburton estate off Westleigh Avenue has flooded is because tree roots have broken into and clogged the underground drainage pipes.

Work to unblock them, which should take a week, started yesterday - Wednesday. So even though the colder weather, and an item of unsafe play equipment, will still mean this play area won't be as well used as it should be, at least it won't be rotting under a foot of water any more.

Good news for the residents - and even for the Conservative councillors for the area who I understand discovered the problem by reading about it here on my website. They're more than welcome visitors to find out what's going on - but residents might actually prefer them doing the job I'm doing for them instead of sitting with their feet up reading about it.

Those of us who can, do. Those who can't become Conservative councillors.

Q. What do you get if you cross a pond with a playground?

A. Something like this: the one and only young kids' play area on the Lower Ashburton estate, off Westleigh Avenue.







This was originally a pond, which the Conservative council turned into a nice, secure play area. But in their latest Homer Simpson "Doh" moment, the Tories appear to have forgotten to pull the plug out.

It's such a shame that a really nice play area is currently unusable because it's flooded. One thing's clear: with winter approaching, I suspect the Ashburton's "playpond" is going to fill with more water, not less. Still, if we get some really cold weather, Putney might get its first kids' ice-rink.

I've asked the council to drain this play area and fix the defective equipment.

Tackling Tibbets Traffic

In no small part because of the number of road traffic accidents on the Tibbets Corner roundabout, the council is going to make some improvements to the area, of particular benefit to cyclists.

A new access to the cycle network through the roundabout - which is sandwiched beneath the roundabout but above the A3 - will be provided for southbound cyclists approaching Tibbets Corner from Tibbets Ride at the top of Putney Hill. At present, cyclists have no choice but to use the roundabout because the only entrance and exit at Tibbets Ride is on the other side of the dual carriageway. There will also be some improvements to the cycle paths through the roundabout.

The council also found that traffic travels faster around Tibbets Corner than it should, in part because it apparently is so designed that it feels safer for motorists to speed. So some works are going to be done to try to design out this problem.

Along with the promised north-bound cycle lane over Putney Bridge, I think we're finally on the verge of making some major (literally) joined-up improvements for cyclists through Putney. Coming so long after it became the norm for most councils to provide decent cycle lanes, that's very much long overdue.

You can read the report here.

More Putney businesses pay less from rate revaluation

My team and I have been sifting through all the Business Rates data following our discovery that Putney's Conservative MP misled people about the changes in her Roehampton newsletter.

The reality is even more disturbing - suggesting that she's presenting the wrong figures across the entire constituency.

Excluding phone masts, advertising hoardings and car parking spaces* which are liable for business rates but not businesses themselves 1,021 Putney, Roehampton and Southfields businesses are going to have their business rates cut; 899 are going to see them increased as a result of the revaluation.

The majority of Putney businesses will pay less after revaluation.

Doesn't sit easily with the Conservative scare-stories does it?

It's also the case that the vast majority of both falls and rises are small. 208 of the increases, and 287 of the decreases are of 5% or less.

There are some big winners and losers here in Putney - as anywhere else - and I'm not going to repeat Miss Greening's mistake of over-claiming or mispresenting the facts. Some businesses are facing large increases in business rates through revaluation, and no doubt for them, this will make life much more difficult. But more are facing business rate reductions - of up to 67% here in Putney, and for them, that's clearly welcome. The issue is simply whether it's fairer to use old, out of date information as the basis for business rates or new, up-to-date records that take account of where things have got better and worse.

Business rates need to be reviewed because that is the fairest way of levying taxes. It's never going to be popular - not because it's unfair but simply because none of us enjoying paying tax, especially if we end up paying more as a result of a revaluation.

Piling taxes on the most struggling parts of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields isn't fair and it isn't right. That's what Miss Greening is campaigning for - that's what the Conservatives stand for.

*For those of you who want to know the complete data set including phone masts, parking spaces and hoardings, it's 1,035 increases, 1,152 decreases - still more winners than losers.

Wandsworth: still the flytip capital of London

One of the big blights on Putney - alongside the never-ending potholes - is the amount of flytipping the Conservatives allow to take place here.

This was one of the very first issues I raised after being selected: when I was a councillor it was a massive issue in the area I represented for eight years; and I was also responsible as the Labour opposition speaker on environmental issues for trying to persuade the Conservatives to take more pride in our borough.

I wrote about the council's extraordinary failure on flytipping two years ago. Then, there were an astonishing 158,000 incidents of flytipping in our borough: 1 in every 4 London flytips occurred in London. Could hardly get any worse, could it?

Well, yes it can.

In 2008/9, there were 176,450 incidents - from which Conservative Wandsworth managed just EIGHT successful prosecutions. And this despite Wandsworth having the most CCTV cameras in London - supposedly to help deter criminal activity like this. Now, Wandsworth accounts for 1 in 3 London flytips, instead of 1 in 4 two years ago.

This Conservative neglect is unacceptable. The next worst borough - Lewisham - had just 47,000 incidents: that's almost four times fewer flytips.

Why is Wandsworth so much dirtier than anywhere else in London? I suggest you ask Putney's Conservative MP, or any of Putney's eighteen Conservative councillors. They're responsible for this shameful state of affairs. If you're fed up with flytipping, vote for change: vote Labour.

Here are the flytip figures for every council in England, compiled by the Department for Environment (DEFRA).

Putney School of Art progress

I wrote yesterday about the Labour Government funds being used to provide a playground at The Pleasance in the Dover House estate.

I predicted in that report that the Conservatives would seek to claim credit where none was due them - and one of the reasons I'm confident about that prediction is that it's exactly what they've tried to do over Putney School of Art.

Putney School of Art in Oxford Road is currently undergoing a major expansion costing £818,000. 73% of that cost is being met by the Labour Government, and a further 7% from fundraising carried out by the excellent, courageous and persistent Friends of Putney School of Art. This work will increase capacity at the school by almost a quarter - or, in the way the Conservatives view things, increase potential income for them of £78,000.

Yet the Conservatives make out that the prospect of a thriving Putney School of Art is down to them. I'd tolerate that outrageous spin were it not for the fact that it was this Conservative council that tried to close the school down only a few years ago because their "cost of everything, value of nothing" attitude only sees benefit to the community when it comes with financial benefits too. That's why I pay tribute to the hard work of the Friends of Putney School of Art, whose campaign was almost single-handedly responsible for keeping the school open.

Now we have the prospect of Putney School of Art going from strength to strength with Labour, on a stronger financial footing and offering a wider variety of courses. That's something the whole community will welcome. But let's just give credit where credit is due, and certainly not to Putney's shameless Conservative opportunists, whose commitment to the arts runs about as deep as their pockets - shallow, in other words.

Click here to read more about the progress being made on improving Putney School of Art.

September crime

Not that much to say about the crime figures for September: most of the statistics for each ward moved only very slightly up or down.

The main exception was in Southfields, which saw another fall in crime outside what in polling terms would be called a margin of error. Drugs offences also declined.

Here's the table - as usual, red numbers indicate an increase on the previous month's figure; green indicates the number stayed the same or fell.

Labour's councillor teams chosen

I spent most of today with Putney Labour Party members choosing our councillor candidates for the six council wards in Putney.

There is a real chance that the councillor elections next year could coincide with the general election - in which case you'll have four votes: one for your MP and three to choose your councillors.

I can't guarantee this because I don't know the details of every candidate the opposition parties are fielding but we're likely to have the youngest ever councillor candidate in Sean Lawless, who's standing in East Putney.

Sean is just 18 - and last time councillors were elected in Wandsworth the law was that you had to be 21, so there's a good chance he'll be a record-breaker next May - hopefully as our youngest councillor as well as our youngest candidate!

So, I hope you'll use those votes to elect me as your Labour Member of Parliament and these excellent local people as your three Labour councillors:

East Putney
Tim Creber, Sean Lawless, Gemma Reay

Roehampton
Peter Carpenter, Donald Roy and Ben Smith

Southfields
Matt Hay, Alex Lisinge and Tom Marsom

Thamesfield
Janet Grimshaw, Chris Locke and Bibi Qureshi

West Hill
Gill Gray, Jim McKinney and Ferdous Rahman

West Putney
Maureen Booker, Andrew Crawford and Patrick Macfarlane

Eight weeks of disruption on Upper Richmond Road from tomorrow

Work to replace a major Victorian gas main that runs along Upper Richmond Road begin on Monday. This stage of the work affects that part of Upper Richmond Road between Putney Hill/Putney High Street and Keswick Road, just past East Putney tube station.

The work will mean major disruption to Putney's road network: in the area concerned a temporary one-way system will be introduced running west to east (ie from the High Street to East Putney tube).

The works was due to start last week but Transport for London delayed it because the road-bridge over the railway track at Rocks Lane partially collapsed. Two major infrastructure work projects affecting Upper Richmond Road traffic were judged to be too disruptive for such an important road and so work was delayed while the Rocks Lane problems were addressed.

The work on this section of Upper Richmond Road will be completed some time in December. Other sections of the project yet to begin include Putney Bridge Road and the section of Upper Richmond Road from East Putney station to West Hill which will happen next year.

Transport for London proposes axing the N10

Transport for London intends to make some changes to night bus provision that will affect Putney. They want to make the route 33, which runs from Hammersmith down Castlenau and Rocks Lane and then goes on to Richmond and Twickenham via Upper Richmond Road a 24-hour service. But as a consequence, they're proposing to abolish the N10 nightbus, which currently travels up Putney High Street, and then down Upper Richmond Road to Richmond.

This clearly means a worse service for Putney residents: the route 33 only touches the very edge of our area whereas the N10 runs right through it. Reducing night-time services - which despite the introduction under Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone of 24-hour routes still aren't very frequent - isn't something I support.

If you want to make your views known on the axing of the N10 service you have until 30 October: email STengagement@tfl.gov.uk.

Summer violent crimes underline why it's folly to cut police numbers

If you've been at all aware of the spate of violent crimes that have afflicted Wandsworth borough - but with one exception not our part of it - in the past three or four weeks, I'm sure you'll have been as shocked as I have.

The arson attack on the Masud family that cost the lives of two sisters in Lessingham Avenue in Tooting, and seriously injured other members of that family was appalling. But it seemed to unleash a wave of craziness including two attacks, one fatal, on muslims on their way from mosque in Tooting. that included five shootings - including one (fortunately not fatal) in Whitlock Drive in West Hill, and culminated in a seemingly unprovoked attack in Lambeth Cemetery, off Garratt Lane, when a 19-year old was stabbed in the face and beaten up by two thugs this week.

These events are so shocking because they are so unusual for our part of London and because they have happened with such concentrated intensity in a short space of time.

My point in talking about them is not to scare you; to make you think that Putney, Roehampton and Southfields are less safe than they are - and ours remain among the safest parts of our capital city.

But they do show, yet again, that even though crime has fallen dramatically in the last ten years - here, across London and nationally, the need for our police is undiminished. In fact, when times are tough and unemployment rising, the need for police to prevent crime from following suit is even greater.

The crimes I mentioned above had nothing to do with the economy - they were carried out, in the main it seems, by mindless thugs who think violence makes them look impressive or intimidating to others and gives them a daunting reputation. But whatever the reasons, they happened, and while police are making arrests and those convicted will hopefully go to prison we need more police not fewer.

There is, I'm afraid, a political bottom line here because police numbers are a political issue. The Conservatives are already systematically setting about cutting police numbers. They started as soon as Boris Johnson won the London Mayoralty: £472 million of cuts announced last year and, as I covered a few days ago a further 400 police officers "deleted" in coming months. And this just as we've finally restored Police and Community Support Officer numbers above 700 for the first time since 1990.

Those aren't backroom jobs that are going - they're frontline police officers not being replaced when they retire. And it will have an impact on crime locally. That's the reality of a political choice by politicians that cut blindly and recklessly simply because they want to show they can take "tough" decisions.

It doesn't. It has consequences: the wrecked lives of the families of the victims. Is that a price worth paying? Certainly not.

My support for AirTrack - but with conditions

I've just sent the letter below to the Department of Transport, which has been consulting on BAA's application to begin work to create the Heathrow AirTrack shuttle rail service.

AirTrack is planned to run from Waterloo to Heathrow, creating a south of the river direct link to our main airport for the first time. AirTrack is not connected in any way with the deeply unpopular and misguided plans for a third runway at Heathrow: it should proceed when, as I am working towards, these plans finally bite the dust.

But my support for AirTrack is provisional on two crucial factors. First, the service must serve Putney - at present the nearest stations it will stop at are Clapham Junction and Richmond. Putney Station serves a much larger area, and is far easier to reach for a larger number of people, than Richmond. So AirTrack must stop here.

And second, BAA must contribute towards the costs of station expansion that are currently stalling somewhat because South West Trains, who manage the station as part of their contract to run rail services, are struggling to find the investment needed.

The beauty of AirTrack is that 90% of the track needed to operate the system is already laid: the only new track needed is a spur between Staines and Heathrow. In times of financial restraint, projects like this that need relatively little investment but which dramatically improve public transport are exactly what the government should be looking to invest in.

If you agree with my ideas, you can help by signing my Putney4AirTrack petition online here.

Here's my letter to the Secretary of State:

Deja vu

When people like me make the case that the Conservatives have learnt absolutely nothing and have changed absolutely nothing about themselves, it's news like this that informs that case.

It has taken a decade - and then some - of Labour government to bring our police numbers locally back to the levels they were before the last Conservative government slashed them. Yes, those cuts took place over ten years ago - but that doesn't mean they didn't happen, that it wasn't intentional and that it didn't do damage.

And we've repaired that damage in the face of Tory claims that crime is rising when it is falling, and that Britain is somehow comparable to the most crime-scarred cities in the US. We've even achieved it despite the Conservatives claiming for years in opposition that somehow Labour has cut police - a blatant falsehood evident to all in the graphic below.

Putney's Conservative MP is party to this deception. She has claimed to be outraged at supposed Labour cuts in police numbers in Putney. If that outrage was sincere, albeit misguided, where is her condemnation of this actual, real cut in Wandsworth police numbers by the Conservative Mayor of London?

So just as Labour has finally repaired the damage done by Michael Howard the Tories have started reducing police numbers all over again. Deja vu.

And the Tories say it's just the start. They talk about wanting to "cut to the bone" - not my words, but those of the Conservative Deputy Mayor for Policing, Kit Malthouse.

In Wandsworth it means losing 15 police officers.

I know some are turned off when those of us in politics criticise our opponents rather than simply talking about the things we're for. But politics is about making choices: and that means giving you the context of those choices so you are best able to make them.

Here is a clear demonstration that politicians aren't all the same. Labour has returned police to Putney's streets - and Putney is one of the safest parts of London as a result. Fact.

The Conservatives reduced police numbers in our borough, and are now embarking on doing so again. Labour has brought police numbers back up again. Fact

Labour introduced Safer Neighbourhood Police teams - the Conservatives voted against paying for them. Fact

The Conservatives control the purse strings in London now. They run the London mayoralty and control the majority of London councils. It their choice to cut the police or cut elsewhere, or cut the Mayoral tax precept rather than keeping a strong police presence on our streets. The Evening Standard story shows the choice they've made.

Soon it will be your choice: to back these Conservative cuts or to vote for those of us who've invested in the police. It's not a simple, easy choice, but it is a straightforward one.

Why won't the Tories promise to freeze parking permit costs?

Wandsworth Conservatives like to talk a lot about the toll the global recession is taking in Wandsworth and I don't seek for one minute to diminish the seriousness of the economic problems the Labour government is tackling.

But there's a rhetoric-reality gap between how concerned the Conservatives say they are about Wandsworth residents struggling to make ends meet, and what they actually do to help.

Last November, for example, just as the world was sinking into recession the Conservatives increased parking permit charges not by inflation; not by a few points above inflation but by an eye-watering 27%.

Local residents were, understandably, pretty cross about this inflation-busting Tory stealth tax and some of them petitioned the Conservatives to freeze parking permit costs for the next two years to go some way to making up for this massive increase. That's hardly unreasonable given that even across a three year period, inflation isn't going to come close to the 30% increase the Tories imposed last year. In other words the council will still be massively in profit from such a modest agreement.

But if you're a Conservative elected representative in Wandsworth you evidently feel differently, because on Thursday the Tories are going to say "no way" to this perfectly reasonable suggestion.

The only thing they're willing to promise is that there won't be any further rises later on this year! I should think not, given that the charges only came into effect at the very end of 2008. But what about come the end of 2009? I leave that to the Conservative Council's Director of Finance. In his report on the petition he says:

"It is not possible to give assurances about permit charges beyond then."

In other words: expect more stealth tax increases from the Tories to add to our financial challenges during this difficult time come December.

You can read the paper for yourself here.

Council rents

The table above pretty much speaks for itself. It shows the average weekly rent level for every London borough that maintains council housing (ie excluding Bexley, Bromley and Richmond) last year. It doesn't take into account the Labour government's funding to halve this year's 6% Tory rent rise.

Wandsworth not only charges the most, it charges the most by far: the only council in London that charges on average more than £100 a week. Compared with our neighbours, Wandsworth Council tenants pay £19 a week more than Kingston and Kensington tenants; £23 a week more than Hammersmith & Fulham tenants, and a whopping £32 a week more than Lambeth and Merton tenants - that's £1,664 a year that Wandsworth tenants have to pay more than Lambeth or Merton.

Are council properties in Wandsworth grander than those of our neighbours? They are not. Are our estates maintained to a higher standard? They are not. So much for low tax Wandsworth - not if you need council housing.

This affects you regardless of whether or not you are a council tenant. If you are a tenant but can't or don't claim Local Housing Allowance (what used to be called Housing Benefit), you're being squeezed by the highest council rents in London.

You may, like me, find it ethically distasteful that the Conservatives are piling the tax burden on those who are far less affluent, generally speaking, than the average Wandsworth resident.

But if you happen to not be a council tenant and you're thinking how good council tenants have it even on these figures, bear this in mind: the main reason Wandsworth keeps raising its rents by inflation-busting amounts is because it has made the calculation that a majority of council tenants are on LHA so don't pay these huge rent bills.

What that means is that you're paying - through your taxes that fund LHA - Wandsworth's Tory rent bill. Remember that the next time you hear the Conservatives droning on about value for money; and then decide whether you agree with me that these Tory stealth taxes: the highest rents by far in London; huge parking permit fees and countless other devious charges aren't progressive, honest, fair or right.

Free swimming success continues

I highlighted at the end of July the remarkable fact that 40,000 sessions had taken place in the first three months since the Labour Government introduced free swimming for under 16s and over 60s.

Well, make that number over 50,000 now because the July figures are in and a total of 53,217 free sessions have now taken place in Wandsworth pools!

This is quite evidently a spectacularly successful Labour scheme: in fact the problem I can see emerging is whether we have sufficient capacity to ensure that all swimmers have can actually swim in comfortable, uncrowded conditions. In a way, that's a good problem to have, though.

In last month's post I also noted the big drop in numbers participating in the free swimming after the April launch, and I've now had the following response from the Council providing more information:

"I can advise that there are two clear reasons for the particularly excellent start to this initiative that occurred in Wandsworth, the first is that the Easter school holidays occurred during the month of April which enabled a significant amount of young people a lot more time to visit the Borough's swimming pools.

"The second reason is that with additional funding from the Wandsworth Primary Care Trust the leisure centres ran a promotion through the month of April to get as many people as possible who are eligible for the scheme to sign up to the programme by offering all young people 16 and under and adults 60 years and over free entrance during the month of April whilst they signed up for the scheme and the centres also offered free adult swimming for those who were bringing children and young people with them, again to encourage increase take up in the programme.

"Wandsworth?s combined total attendances for the first 3 months was the highest of any London Borough with a total of 40,146 visits compared with the likes of Islington 33,466, Barking & Dagenham 32,299 and Enfield 27,968 with the next highest totals.

"We obviously have the advantage of knowing another month?s data now and I have added July's data which shows that generally we are on an upward trend if the first month?s data is removed. May?s slightly higher under-16 figure can be again partially explained by the half term holiday falling within this month but without any additional free promotions."

Please don't waste your vote

The Liberal Democrats in Putney have not updated their own website since November 2008. Below is a screen grab of the Putney page on the Liberal Democrats' national website, which talks about all the things they're up to in our area...



The Liberal Democrats have nothing to say to Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. They are a very distant third place, almost 10,000 votes behind. They have no councillors anywhere in Wandsworth: and aren't even a close second either. Labour is the only alternative to the Conservatives - who hold every single elected position in Putney. If you think that's wrong the only way to change it is to vote for me and Labour's council candidates.

While evidence that a candidate is active and well grounded in the constituency is important, I accept that many will vote on national rather than local issues. But the day after the election you will wake up with either the same Conservative as your Member of Parliament or me. The question of who you think would do the best job fighting Putney's corner on the national stage therefore becomes relevant.

I want your vote: and I'll work to give you positive reasons to cast it for me. While I wouldn't expect them to concede this, the Liberal Democrats - as evidenced by their lack of any sort of campaign here - clearly don't expect to win and aren't even trying to.

Tileman terminated

Councillors tonight voted unanimously to reject the Tileman House overdevelopment on Upper Richmond Road. Along with everyone else in the public gallery I was delighted that not a single member of the committee spoke in favour of the application.



Councillors Jeremy Larsson for the Conservatives and Tony Belton for Labour spoke firmly against the plan, while Conservative Council Leader Edward Lister supported the height and design of the building - but opposed the application because it was in "the wrong place".

This is another really significant victory for people power. Just consider that in a few short weeks we have gone from the East Putney Conservative councillors circulating a letter clearly advocating for this dreadful application, to a 9-0 unanimous vote against it. And it's because of the weight of representations, the strength of feeling among local people and the united, co-ordinated efforts we have all made to turn back yet another overdevelopment nightmare.

Another good night for Putney.

Protecting private tenants in Putney

St John's Avenue off Putney Hill, a part of the constituency with lots of private tenants and leaseholders

I write a lot about public, or council homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, partly because it houses a large number of people and partly because it isn't looked after to the standards it should be by the council. But Putney also has a huge amount of private tenants, especially in and around Putney Hill but right across the constituency.

Earlier this summer the Government announced plans to strengthen consumer protection for tenants in private-rented accommodation.

The Government wants to improve the quality of the private rented sector, by increasing professionalism, driving out bad landlords, and strengthening protections for tenants affected by repossessions.

The proposals, which may well form a bill in the Autumn's Queen Speech include:

• Introducing a light-touch national register of every private landlord in England to increase protection for both vulnerable tenants and good landlords. Landlords will need to include their registration number on all tenancy agreements and could be removed from the register for persistent poor performance like failing to carry out essential repairs, or not protecting tenants' deposits.
• Full regulation for private sector letting agents. Letting and managing agents do not currently need to have professional credentials. This means that both tenants and landlords have no realistic redress when things go wrong. To tackle these problems, the government proposes creating an independent regulator for all letting and managing agents.
• An improved complaints procedure for tenants. For the first time, the Government will look to set up a mechanism whereby tenants are able to register official complaints about sub-standard landlords, and if these complaints are substantial and proven then landlords may be removed from the national register.
• Better council support for good landlords. Councils will be encouraged to create local lettings agencies to widen the availability of homes for those in housing need instead of just relying on council or housing association properties to become vacant.
• The law will also change to ensure that tenants have a minimum two months' notice if they have to leave their home because their landlord has been repossessed. At present, a gap in legal protections means that some tenants could be evicted at short notice if their landlord is repossessed - sometimes with less than two weeks to move their belongings and find somewhere new to live.

For tenants in danger of possible eviction due to their landlords facing repossession, the Council of Mortgage Lenders have agreed to work with their members to alleviate where possible any pressure on the tenant. They will continue to work with government to promote and share best practice between their members, ensuring tenants get the support they need at this time.

Changes to the rules for informing tenants if their landlord is due to attend a court repossession hearing have already come into effect. Since April, tenants will now get up to seven weeks notice of a hearing, up from the previous two week period.

You can download a copy of the Government's consultation paper on protections for private tenants here, and one on slightly different plans for those living in Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) here.

And you can read the independent Rugg Report, which made the proposals the Government is acting upon, here.

AirTrack comes a step closer to reality

AirTrack - the plan to create a south of the river shuttle service to Heathrow airport - came a step closer to reality earlier this month when BAA asked the government to proceed with the scheme.

I'm a big supporter of AirTrack: its a major hassle for south Londoners to get to Heathrow and this scheme will make it much easier and take pressure off the Paddington shuttle service. What's more it's value for money: it'll run along existing track for 95% of its length - the only new line needing to be laid will be a spur between the airport and Staines.

In fact the only downside of the existing AirTrack plan is that it won't stop at Putney - but that's something I'm campaigning for and, as MP, will push hard for. In that I hope we can count on the support of the Council, who have been supportive of the plans as well.

And let's be clear: South London deserves AirTrack irrespective of the expansion of Heathrow. It's right that as many journeys to the airport as possible take place on public transport but without such a link doing so is a nightmare too far - on top of an already stressful experience.

You can find out more about AirTrack here (the BAA site) or here (the AirTrack Forum) - I also first wrote about the idea way back at the beginning of 2008 here.