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.

Pigeons

Don't these photos, sent in by a local resident sick of the state of Putney High Street, just epitomise what's wrong with it?

This is the healthy living shop on the corner of Disraeli Road: but there's nothing healthy about the state these pigeons are leaving the shopfront in.

I've asked the council to locate and contact the landlords of the site to get them to tackle the problem - and if they won't do anything for pest control to be carried out and recharged to them.

This is about taking pride in our town centre. How can we expect to tackle the big things wrong with the High Street when the Conservatives can't be bothered to even fix the little blights, like this?

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.

Conservatives now want to block King's Head plan

I get more and more depressed by the Conservatives' disastrous planning policies with every passing planning committee.

At their meeting next week, the Tories want to approve an increase on what is already a gross overdevelopment on the Riverside Quarter which I have written about already; and at the same time look set to reject one of the most impressive plans they're ever likely to see for the derelict King's Head pub in Roehampton village.

Just look at the two plans above. The one they like is the stack-em-up, pile-em-high towerblock plan for an area already creaking under the weight of development. The one they oppose is the modest, sensitive, in-keeping, high quality plan to regenerate a site derelict for getting on for a decade.

The King's Head plans are backed by the local residents association, the Putney Society, the Roehampton Partnership, Wandsworth NHS, Wandsworth Chamber of Commerce. Even the council's own economic development officer is for it.

But the Tories are overruling all of us on the basis that the plans take away too much of the pub garden. Open space is important. But is haggling over a few square metres, when Putney Heath is less than 50 metres away, really of greater importance than making Roehampton village look presentable again, or providing jobs and services for the most deprived part of our area?

It beggars belief that while the Conservatives were hell-bent on driving through damaging and unpopular plans to demolish Danebury Avenue a few months ago - and were only stopped because of the recession, not because they realised their mistake; they are now hell-bent on blocking a widely-supported effort to genuinely regenerate Roehampton.

My message to all the councillors on the planning committee is this: your term of office ends in twelve weeks. You have very few remaining chances to show some leadership. Please approve the King's Head redevelopment plan. Please reject the Riverside Quarter planning application.
Put Putney before party and do what's right for our area.

You can read the Tory Committee report on the King's Head pub here.

And their report approving the Riverside Quarter plan here.

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.

The most polluted High Street in London

Putney High Street is the most polluted High Street in London, figures exposed in tonight's Evening Standard show.

Since the start of the year alone, Putney High Street has breached pollution levels a shocking 75 times. That's the second worst figure in London, and the worst for a high street.

I've been campaigning for tougher action on pollution in the High Street since 2003 when I was on the council. My Plan for Putney sets out several ways pollution can be tackled not least relocating Putney bus depot away from the town centre. That measure alone would reduce the number of heavily polluting buses turning into and out of Chelverton Road, and put an end to buses being left with engines running up by the station as drivers change over - something that I know from experience drives passengers to distraction as well!

I'm not sure that's enough to get pollution levels low enough given how bad the problem in Putney has been exposed as being. What is clear is that we can't wait for Putney's Conservative council to act: they've been ignoring those of us who have been campaigning to put some pride back into Putney for years and years.

That's why London Mayor Boris Johnson, who is responsible for making sure London's roads don't breach the tough new pollution caps needs to introduce a pollution zone in Putney over the heads of local Conservatives who simply lack the leadership to sort this problem out.

And in May, come the council elections, you need to vote for a cleaner, greener Putney. I've offered the local leadership to begin sorting this problem out - it will take time and effort and will - and I'll need good local councillors working with me to succeed. Janet Grimshaw, Chris Locke and Bibi Qureshi are the councillors Putney town centre needs if you want change.

The King's Head, Roehampton: a plan to support

This is the architect's drawing of how the King's Head pub site in Roehampton High Street could look, if a new planning application for a hotel wins approval by the council.

The plan will not only redevelop the King's Head itself - the oldest non-religious structure in the Putney area - but also the site next door where there's currently a tanning salon, plus the derelict hous adjacent to the Angel Pub.

These plans, which you can see do not extend much above the level of the King's Head pub, provide a hotel of large enough size to be financially viable (if the trade can be obtained); utilise a site that's been an eye-sore for far too long; will provide local employment opportunities for the Roehampton community and maintain the site in keeping with its history and character.

This is what regeneration is all about. So far there have been very few comments on the plans - which in itself suggest they are not provoking a wave of local hostility. I disagree with the one all-out opponent of the plan that Roehampton does not need a new public house - it does; and I don't accept that a venue which serves alcohol means as of certainty that there will be problems with the clientele (but he is right to note there most certainly were in the past).

No, you can more often than not tell what sort of venue a pub or hotel is going to be by the effort the owners invest in the building; and a hotel pub is of a much different nature to an out-and-out pub in any event.

I support this application - and anyone else who is passionate about reviving Roehampton will I hope do likewise. Conservative council please take note: THIS is what genuine regeneration and improvement to an area looks like - not the disastrous botch of a scheme you tried to impose on the top of Danebury Avenue.

Find out more about the application: No. 2009/3483 here.

Council wants to approve ANOTHER Putney tower

The Conservative council is recommending giving another green light for developers to build a 21-storey tower block - this time in the Riverside Quarter development.

Read the report recommending the plan here.

21 storeys is higher than Putney Wharf Tower by Putney Bridge and it's of comparable size to the Putney Place development that we saw off in 2008. It would, however, be dwarfed by the Ram Brewery towers at 42 storeys if the Conservatives get their way from the planning inspectors.

I wrote objecting to this latest tower - the summary of my concerns in the report is below; as did the Riverside Quarter Residents Association and there is not a single letter of support for the application on the council planning site (there is one comment recorded as in support, which is actually an objection as well!).



Even one of the Conservative councillors for the area has written in "with reservations" - he's been ignored, too! So much for electing councillors from the ruling party for their influence - but nonetheless I welcome his intervention because it is thoughtful, detailed and honest.

Remarkably, the report notes that this application is in breach of several of what exist of the Conservative council's weak, weak, weak development rules - but they still say it should go ahead because the regeneration opportunities outweigh the damage this will do.

I disagree. The Conservatives get it backwards. They think a plan - any plan - will supposedly be better than what's there now, and therefore that it deserves support. That's what's led them to support the 42 storey Ram Brewery towers It's why they've backed overdevelopment after overdevelopment. And it's an approach that is blighting our borough.

They've turned the Thames into a canyon with huge developments right along from Wandsworth to Vauxhall Cross. They've created massive problems for the residents of these developments: just look at the parking debacle they caused on Whitelands Park.

And spare a thought for the existing Riverside Quarter residents who bought their homes without realising the overdevelopment nightmare they were buying into. They've created substandard affordable homes, tacked onto the poorest quality parts of each sites; and still they're unaffordable to anyone on much less than twice the national average income.

I've pressed my Labour colleagues on the Planning Committee to argue for the defeat of this application on Thursday.

But come the elections later this year, you'll have to decide: do you choose overdevelopment by voting Conservative; or do you stop it in its tracks by voting for me and electing Labour councillors who'll introduce - as a priority - a proper Plan for Putney?

Building standards for new private blocks

For a while now there have been minimum standards when it comes to the size of public sector homes. But none exist for new private developments.

The Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) has just published a report on the far lower standards too many private developers are now building to.

And of course, in boroughs like Wandsworth where the only so-called "affordable" housing now being built is tacked on to what is usually the fag-end of private developments, this is beginning to have an impact on public housing too.

Although the CABE report deals principally with the size of private housing being built, other corners seem to be being cut. Take the brand new Argento Tower beside King George's Park.

I wrote here about the anti-social behaviour that has been affecting residents here. One of the reasons this is having such an impact is because Argento Tower is so hot that residents are having to leave balcony doors open at night, so the noise disturbance is much worse. And the reason, I am led to believe, that the place is so hot is because under-floor hot-water pipes haven't been properly lagged.

In the age of climate change, energy efficiency should be near the top of developers' priorities.

I've also had a chance to see the refuse storage area for Argento Tower. As you can imagine with a block of over 100 apartments, a large amount of Euro bins are needed to contain the refuse created. These are stored in an enclosed corridor, with no ventilation, about three metres wide and maybe 20 metres long. You can, perhaps also imagine what that smells like; and while the corridor is lined by about 20 euro bins for rubbish, there are just three or four for recycling - again inadequate, but there's no space for more.

Don't get me wrong: I've been inside Argento Tower. It's lovely. It offers residents spectacular views. All I'm saying is that problems like the two I've highlighted would be less likely to have been missed if design standards had been similar to those for public housing.

Until 1980 we had rules called Parker Morris standards that regulated public sector housing and which the private sector generally followed. But in 1980 they were scrapped. For the public sector they were replaced and updated. But not for the private sector.

We need to close that loophole so that in one further way the gap between public and private sector housing is closed.

You can read the CABE summary report here.

Falling into line

Justine Greening has, apparently objected to the revised Tileman House application.

I very much welcome Miss Greening's decision to stand with residents rather than her Conservative Councillors - this is the first time she has taken a different view to her council colleagues on any issue, ever - so it clearly must have been a difficult decision for her to break with her party for the first time in her political career.

I am also delighted that Miss Greening has also decided to support the arguments I have been advancing for over 12 months now, that we need a comprehensive plan for Putney. It's something that is so important to protecting Putney that I'm pleased, albeit belatedly, that she has now joined those of us who've been campaigning on this issue for years - in my case since Autumn 2005.

But for her opposition to Tileman House to mean something, then she must back up her words with some hard lobbying of Putney's councillors, every single one of whom - 18 out of 18 - is Conservative.

The planning applications committee meets to consider this application towards the end of August. How Conservative councillors vote at that meeting will be one measure of how deeply felt her objection to Tileman House is.

My response to the Tories' Tileman letter

Putney Conservatives have made some quite extraordinary claims in a letter to residents encouraging them to support the Tileman House application. Highlighted below are the most contentious and self serving of them:



I agree that the building (there's only one) is in need of substantial refurbishment, but to suggest that redevelopment of a large, prime town centre site could not be "economic" is absurd. The developer is seeking permission at the depth of a global recession. The situation in six months, or a year, or two years, will be unrecognisable to that of today. It does not mean that we should agree to whatever gross overdevelopment anyone tells us Putney needs out of blind panic or hysteria.




"Somewhat higher"? "Somewhat higher" is, in fact, twice the height of the adjoining building: No.125. Four times as high as the beautiful curved Victorian terrace that leads round to Putney Hill. That's not my definition of "somewhat" - it's what I call "significantly higher". In any other planning authority we'd have elected representatives standing up for the wider public interest, not swallowing the developers' spin without question.




Of course there's a risk of it standing empty - indeed it has for stood empty for some time now. No one is suggesting the site is not in need to regeneration and development. But the Putney Conservatives evidently believe that standing empty is worse than a massive overdevelopment that we will be saddled with for years and years to come.




A reduction of 10 flats does not represent major change. And here's the context, which is missing from the Conservatives' letter: there are currently fifteen flats in Tileman House; the developers want to increase that number six-fold. The building remains 15 storeys at its Upper Richmond Road frontage. Twelve storeys at the rear will not consequentially alter the blight residents of St John's Avenue will suffer.





While I'm delighted at the recognition that Upper Richmond Road is in need of substantial improvement, we're again only being presented with a "my way or the highway" argument from the Conservatives. But we don't have to choose between the less disastrous of two dreadful options: we can have regeneration of our town centre; more commercial opportunities and some affordable housing without making Upper Richmond Road into an even darker canyon with massive tower blocks. But only with strong leadership, willing to stand up to developers, enshrined within a crystal clear plan for Putney. We're lacking both in spades from the Conservatives.




These are statements of fact. But the key word in this sentence is "any" - any redevelopment, not exclusively this disaster of an overdevelopment, would provide planning gain for Putney, and could diversify our local economy for long term benefit.




This is the most bizarre claim of the Conservatives' appalling letter. Putney is not in competition with Wandsworth: they are entirely distinct town centres catering to different communities. But hidden in this sentence is the real Conservative agenda for Putney: they want to emulate the same sort of 42-storey skyscrapers they're pushing for on the Ram Brewery site in our area. The Conservative effort to replicate massive out-of-town developments like Croydon as if there is some sort of prestige to subsuming our area beneath tower blocks is really alarming.




Where do I start with this sentence? Well, how about the fact that the building to which they refer is in Brewhouse Lane, not Brewer Street. There is no Brewer Street in Putney.

But more substantively, this building is - at most - five storeys high; it's also, incidentally, a block of entirely affordable housing - another problem with the Tileman House scheme. So if they want to use this site as an example of best practice, I'm with them on that: submit a five storey Tileman House plan, with exactly the same sort of "versatile trading space" and a similar proportion of affordable homes and it could well command my and residents' support. The current plan for Tileman is nothing like the Brewhouse Lane development and it is duplicitous to say otherwise.

I know some residents, at least initially, questioned whether there really was a link between the overdevelopment plans our borough has been bombarded with and the Conservative Party locally. With each passing piece of evidence I present - on this and all the other overdevelopment plans they're pushing, it is clear that the link is not only there - it is significant and inseparable.

Here we have the current Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, Conservative Councillor Leslie McDonnell, and his immediate predecessor, Tory Councillor Ravi Govindia, presenting the developers' case to residents. It shows the utmost contempt for the hundreds of objections sent in by local people and The Putney Society. It demonstrates that their priorities are the developers' interests, not Putney's interest. And as usual, Putney's Conservative MP is nowhere to be seen.

No leadership, no accountability, no representation. That's what you're currently getting from the Conservatives. It's in your power to change things. Please object to this planning application and then decide how best to respond at the elections for your MP and Councillors due next year.

A plan for Putney

Earlier this week the Labour Government set out several ideas to help councils like Wandsworth make life easier for town centres. Here are just a few of the policies:

• Special planning permission waivers called Local Development Orders allow the council to implement more flexible planning policies more quickly


• We want to get empty premises back in use - for however short or long a period as possible, But landlords need to know that there is a proper legal basis for such temporary uses, so the government has created "fast-track" specimen legal documents that landlords can use for temporary occupiers.


• For landlords still not happy about leasing to unknown short-term tenants, we're also giving them the option of leasing to the council - as an intermediary - who in turn can grant their own temporary lease to a local group for community uses.


• And the Government's 'Real Help for Business now' plan offers free business health checks, skills training, and a £20billion working capital scheme. 70% of all properties will now be exempted from empty property rates and businesses can also defer 60% of next year?s rate increase and transitional relief increase to the following two years.


• Town centre planning rules already give council the power to refuse a new development that might harm the high street. Local planning and licensing powers can also limit a particular type of shop in a town to prevent too much of the same business or unwanted nightlife. For me this has been local Conservatives' biggest failing: they've had the power to safeguard our town centre from overdevelopment and clone shops and they've chosen not to. They must now right this wrong.
  
• Finally. local business can agree with councils to establish Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) using ring fenced business rates to improve the business environment of the town centre. 71 BIDs have been established since 2004.

Now I admit that each of these schemes isn't the most exciting-sounding idea: but boring policy is often good policy that works. We just need the local leadership to see that Putney doesn't have to be this grotty, congested, polluted and run-down place but could be a vibrant shopping hub like Kingston, Fulham Broadway or Barnes.

Window dressing?

Yesterday I reported on how the Conservatives were commissioning a year long study into whether there's pollution in Putney High Street (somewhat akin to a study into whether there's water in the Thames, if you ask me) with the stated purpose of funding some "environmental theatre".

Today, they've unveiled their long awaited local economic stimulus. It is - wait for it - to pay landlords of empty shop units to display pretty pictures of the borough! I kid you not - in a news release boldly headlined "Council tackling vacant shops" they say:

"In Wandsworth Town Centre the council will offer grants of up to £1000 for vacant shops to install window dressings displaying attractive images of the local environment."

They go onto highlight another radical, decisive plan:

"The council is also investigating a pilot project in Tooting where a community mural could be painted on a bricked-up shopping parade."

Note: not to get the bricked-up shopping parade unbricked and back into use growing our local economy, but to make it look a little less bricked-up. This isn't action - it's (literally) window dressing.

The third and final intervention the Conservatives are pondering is to use shop front windows as "art exhibition spaces".

At least they'll have somewhere to perform their environmental theatre.

A polluted high street

One of the main reasons Putney High Street is an unpleasant shopping environment is the amount of traffic running through it, and the pollution that is created as a result.

The Council has just been given a government grant to measure the scale of this pollution over a year - and because the High Street is narrow and enclosed by relatively high buildings I expect the findings to be...well, less than healthy.

I support getting the hard facts to substantiate the fairly obvious truth that Putney High Street is congested and polluted - pollution which in turn leads to extra grime in the town centre. But the real question I ask of the council is: "And then what?"

And then what will they do once they have this evidence? All that the Councillor responsible for the environment has said it will do is encourage car drivers to test the fumes their vehicles omit and, bizarrely, fund "environmental theatre", whatever that might be. Neither will improve, let alone transform our town centre.

Yet again, given an opportunity to lead on a plan for Putney, the Conservatives duck it.

They have allowed our town centre to decay; their planning policies have failed to control traffic in Putney; and their failure to invest in the High Street, while our neighbours in Fulham, Kensington and Kingston have sorted out their town centres, is one of the key reasons why Putney is being hit harder by the recession.

So let's have the pollution monitoring. But let's also have a clear path along the lines I've been arguing for since 2005 to a cleaner, smarter, healthier and less congested Putney please.

More on the Town Centre Partnership's Tileman response

For those of you who, like me, struggled to believe that Putney Town Centre Partnership could fail to find anything to say about a planning application of such consequence to our town centre as Tileman House - other than to ask about the future of three trees - here is their submission.

Even confining themselves to the issues of "townscape" alone, does not a 15 storey block affect the townscape? Is the fact it comes right up to the pavement, whereas the current Tileman House is at least set back from the street not worthy of observation? What about the relationship between this building and the adjoining beautiful historic terrace?

If anyone from the Putney Town Centre Partnership would like to explain their incapacity to say something about a major part of Putney Town Centre, I suspect the hundreds of Putney people who have managed to voice an objection to this plan would like to hear from them.

Town Centre Partnership not fit for purpose

Last week the Putney Town Centre Partnership held one of its regular meetings. This body is a collection of representatives of local business leaders, a couple of Conservative councillors, John Horrocks of the Putney Society and Labour representative John Slater, a Putney solicitor and Honorary Alderman of the borough.

At my request, I asked John Slater to raise the Tileman House planning application at the meeting: because the substantial loss of office space these plans entail and the impact that will have on the local economy should be something that concerns the partnership.

I was immensely disappointed with the response of the Partnership, which I would go so far as to characterise as pathetic. Despite support from John Horrocks, the meeting - chaired by Tory Councillor Jim Maddan - decided that the only aspect of the plans it felt worthy of comment was the fate of the three trees that will be removed by these plans.

All well and good, but what about the loss of employment opportunity - and the knock-on impact that will have on the retail and food and drink sections of our local economy? Surely these are matters a town centre partnership should be concerned with.


The Conservatives have a long track record of neglecting our town centre - which is why it's in the state it is today. But what is the point of having a town centre partnership if it can't even find something to say about plans that will have such a significant impact on the town centre and its economy.

New Putney Paper published

The Spring 2009 version of my Putney Paper is now available to read on this website - just click here.

In these economic times it's clear that the dividing line between the two main political parties is between those who have a plan to get us out of the global downturn and those who would do nothing.

I'm very strongly in the first of those camps; while it's evident that Putney's Conservative MP and councillors fall in the latter.

It's not just nationally that we need a plan - not least because, with the billions being invested to mitigate this recession it's only right that Putney gets a share.
In this edition of the Putney Paper, I talk about some of my ideas for recession-proofing Putney. Central to that is my long-running campaign to improve our town centre. I'm delighted that local architect Tom Jestico agreed to do some sketches for me of what a regenerated Putney High Street and town square might look like.

But we need a plan for Putney for far more than just to improve our town centre, critical though that is. Almost everyone I talk to is seriously worried about the skyscraper threat to our area the Conservatives are saddling Putney with for generations to come. The reason the developers think they can get away with all this overdevelopment is because we lack a coherent plan for Putney. One of my top priorities is to provide the local leadership that's been lacking on these issues.

And what is the purpose of building all these sky-high luxury penthouses - other than to create massive white elephants that will either remain empty for years or so gridlock our area's roads and services that Putney will cease to be the area we know and love it to be. Instead of penthouses, we need affordable homes to rent, especially at a time when some will be losing the homes they have.

I talk about all these issues and more in the new edition of The Putney Paper.

Have your say on the Tileman House application

In response to the widespread public concern about not being adequately consulted by the Council over the significant Tileman House planning application I have today launched my own consultation here online.

It contains all the information you need about this application and the opportunity to have your say via my online survey.

The address is www.stuartking.net/tileman - you can also access it from the drop down Campaign HQ menu above - it's the first link.

Every survey you submit I will send on to the council provided that you tick the box giving your consent.

And don't forget that there are two ways to keep up to speed with all the overdevelopment issues facing Putney: by visiting my overdevelopment page in the issues drop-down menu, or by subscribing to my e-news bulletin: as well as the regular fortnightly bulletin I have a special group for anyone especially interested in these overdevelopment threats.

Planning our town centres

The BBC is reporting on plans by Waltham Forest Council, in north east London, to tighten its planning rules to limit the number of fast food outlets near schools or places heavily frequented by children.

The report proves again that tougher planning rules to protect town centres are entirely achievable and desperately needed in Putney High Street. In Waltham Forest the problem appears to be too many fast food "restaurants"; in Putney its coffee shops, mobile phone shops, gambling premises and what the Americans call "Dime Stores".

A cohesive plan for Putney is what the Putney Society has been calling for and it is one of the essentials of my SOS plan to Save Our High Street. It goes hand-in-hand with ideas like shop-front improvements, to introduce a cohesive character to the town centre and longer term suggestions like relocating the Chelverton Road bus garage away from the High Street and replacing the ugly concrete building that currently houses Woolworths, Halfords and Superdrug.

The Council's Local Development Plan is currently being reviewed and this is an ideal opportunity to draw a line under past disagreements and work together to draw up a strong, clear and radical plan that safeguards local shops, improves the environment for shoppers and other pedestrians and makes the High Street the attractive heart of Putney it should be.

You can read more about my ideas for Putney High Street and give me your own views here.

Are we winning the High Street improvement battle?

As someone who has been campaigning to improve the state of Putney High Street for almost three years, I welcome the Council's new announcement of further improvements to the pavements.

Slowly - too slowly, grudgingly and ungraciously, the Council is (without admitting there's any problem at all) starting to take the first tentative steps to improve our town centre.

Of course, this work isn't being funded by them - it's money provided by Transport for London and approved when Ken Livingstone was London Mayor - but new paving will have a big impact. That is, if the Council keeps them cleaner than the current greasy, grimy paving.

Likewise, if the Council is now serious about clearing away the clutter than congests the High Street's pavements for pedestrians, then that could actually be a second item ticked off from my ten point plan to save our high street. But are they just going to tinker, or are they serious about taking out the control boxes, the pedestrian barriers, the signposts, the rubbish bags and the bike racks (that should be relocated around the side street corners) that clog our pavements?

It's a shame it's taken the Conservatives three years to catch up with the Putney Society, the hundreds of Putney residents who've filled in my High Street surveys and my Labour campaign team. I wonder if the Tories are yet willing to admit there's a problem and that there is a role for local government in rectifying it? And will Putney's Conservative MP break her vow of silence on this issue to help us wield more influence with her Tory friends in the Town Hall?

If not then we're not going to make any progress on the remaining problems: high levels of street crime, flyposting, grotty shopfronts, getting a better mix and quality of shops and improving traffic flow. But whether the Tories admit it or not, keep dragging their feet or not, these problems will not disappear and nor will my campaign to Save Putney High Street.
You can have your say on the state of the High Street by taking my online survey here.

Putney is not Manhattan

This post is an extract of my editorial in the new edition of The Putney Paper.

Nor is it Dubai, Hong Kong or Tokyo. That may sound self-evident and in itself it's not a criticism: they are all vibrant, successful cities if you like that sort of thing.

But Putney has no tradition of high rise buildings. Those we have been saddled with have - with one notable exception - been to our area's detriment.

The ugly post-war office buildings along Upper Richmond Road; the neglected, claustrophobic Arndale estate above the Southside shopping centre and the monotonous, unconstrained riverside apartment blocks that I feel blight our riverside; all these can hardly be called local success stories.

Ironically the one recent success which has transformed part of our town centre - the Brewhouse Lane development by Putney Bridge - the Conservatives fought tooth and nail against. It's clear the Tories lack sound judgement when it comes to planning. So I'm glad that our amenity groups, including the Putney and Wandsworth Societies, are rightly campaigning on this issue.

You can read the rest of this editorial by downloading the Summer 2008 edition of the Putney Paper.

Council office-block loophole causing problems

Like other councils, Wandsworth has rules to stop radical changes of use of buildings - so houses can't usually be converted into shops, shops into nightclubs and so on. Such policies are important to preserve the identity of our area, keep residential areas residential and shopping areas vibrant.

Last week I met with a local solicitor, whose firm leases quite a large amount of office space in Upper Richmond Road. He told me that the owners of his building had indicated that they will not be extending the lease when it expires so that they can exploit a loophole in council planning policy that, if not dealt with soon will have major impact on Putney's economy. The same has occurred elsewhere in Putney and we will soon lose local lawyers Capsticks from Upper Richmond Road.

This is because a loophole in Wandsworth's planning rules says that if a property is left derelict for long enough, planning regulations relating to a change of use can be waived. The consequence - and this is another side-effect of the local housing crisis - is that land for housing is at such a premium in Putney that it is now in the interests of landowners who hold purpose-built office blocks to keep them empty and then, once they qualify, change the use to housing, then sell up at a huge profit.

At first glance, no-one - least of all me - is going to weep at the demolition of the ugly post war blocks along Upper Richmond Road between East Putney tube and Putney Hill. But think about the number of people that work in those ugly blocks: the business they bring to local shops, cafes and restaurants - and the impact their loss will have on our economy. It's not just shops and bars that are the measure of a vibrant Putney town centre; it's the less visible office economy too.

I hope that the current council consultation on its new Local Development Framework (its planning Bible) will address this problem and offer better protection to the local office buioding stock.

We agree: shop fronts do matter

I genuinely welcome the Council's decision to force a couple of shops in Lower and Upper Richmond Roads to remove the ugly steel security shutters that seal them off after closing time each night.

As Planning Committee Chairman and Putney Conservative Councillor Leslie McDonnell says:

"Shopping streets should be vibrant and welcoming but these shutters present an intimidating, fortress-like facade. There are better ways in which shop-owners can secure their premises and make them more attractive."

I couldn't agree more. But the council can't have it both ways. It cannot say that the appearance of shops is fundamental to the success of our shopping areas and at the same time credibly maintain its opposition to my campaign to smarten up Putney High Street - a central measure of which is tighter control of the appearance of shop fronts and grants to help introduce higher standards and a common visual identity for the whole town centre. To date the council has said that it's neither something they have the power to enforce, nor is interfering with private businesses a matter it should engage with. And yet in the case of these two shops above, that's exactly what the council's done.

The reality is that this is all about local leadership: it's not that the council can't take action to improve the High Street - it's that your councillors and MP, all of whom are Conservative, simply lack the will and imagination to lead on this issue.

You can read more about my Save Putney High Street campaign, take my survey to feed back your ideas, and add your support by clicking here.

Putney High Street

There's been a lot of coverage and some discussion locally about last Friday's accident when a shop hoarding collapsed, injuring - in one case seriously - two passers by.

I send my condolences, and wishes for a speedy recovery to the two injured and welcome the Health & Safety inquiry launched by the Council.

Some have been questioning the common sense of a shop - any shop - choosing to have a hoarding made of concrete (or at least what was designed to look like concrete, and which was incredibly heavy anyway). I have sympathy with this view.

It was one of the reasons why my Save Putney High Street campaign launched in Autumn 2005 called for both far tighter design standards for the High Street and a shop front improvements scheme.

We proposed such ideas to try to smarten up our High Street - which any impartial observer must agree (still) looks cluttered and grubby almost two years on - but clearly to ensure some consistency in both safety standards and visual quality. This incident, while entirely unforeseen, suggests that the Council was at best unwise and at worst negligent in dismissing out of hand our ideas simply because local Labour supporters rather than Conservatives had proposed them.

Some progress in improving Putney High Street - but nowhere near enough - has been made since the last council elections: mainly thanks to London Mayor Ken Livingstone coming up with investment for aspects of the street scene that the Council is actually responsible for funding.

This isn't just about the Council. We need co-ordinated action from Transport for London, Network Rail and the train companies (to improve Putney Station), the Government's Departments for Transport and Enterprise (to deal with the impact of traffic on the area and to stimulate business growth locally), local businesses and, yes, the Council. What is clear is that the past two years since the Putney Society and my Labour team raised our concerns about the neglect of Putney High Street have been characterised by inaction and lack of imagination. What we need is local leadership. Putney simply isn't getting it from its Conservative MP and councillors.

Links on the hoarding incident:

• Wandsworth Guardian coverage


• putneysw15 website news story


• putneysw15 website discussion forum