Heat is no substitute for light

One issue arising from the Richmond Park consultation I wrote about yesterday is the incredibly loud, but remarkably irrelevant campaigns the Council and MP waged against the plans.

The response cards the council sent out, at considerable cost, to every single household in the borough elicited a reply of less than 1% - and were excluded from the consultation findings because they didn't provide a usable response to the consultation questions. They were simply noted towards the end of the consultation analysis - not in the actual consultation figures.

Should the council really be spending money - your tax money - on campaigning on issues that are nothing to do with council services and outside its remit?

Especially when they so mishandle their campaign that the responses aren't even counted? Instead, shouldn't they be spending more on keeping council housing clean or building more affordable homes, repairing our potholed roads or making sure our secondary schools aren't failing? These are, after all, the things councils actually exist to do and which this council isn't doing well at all.

Almost 2,000 people took the time and effort to set out their objections in a way that was counted - and was overwhelming in its clarity of opposition. All the political parties were united on this issue - Susan Kramer, the Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park, Putney's Conservative MP and me were all clear in opposing these plans. It's right that public representatives make their views known and campaign on them.

But there's a big difference between politicians and parties campaigning to win support and be seen to back a position we believe to be popular, and the use of taxpayers money by one public body to campaign against another, driven solely by the party political motives of the Conservatives who run the council.

Heat is no substitute for light if you want to be taken seriously over an issue like this. And a reputation for financial prudence cannot be squared with the scandalous and party-political abuse of taxpayers money like this by the Conservatives.

84% say no to Richmond Park parking charges

A massive vote against introducing parking charges to Richmond Park has been announced by the Royal Parks Agency - the body responsible for looking after the park. The main reasons you and I opposed the charges are set out in the pie chart above. You can read the report here.

1,986 people took the time to respond to the RPA on the issue of charging, of which 84% were opposed to the idea and 16% in favour. That reflects the local feeling on this issue that I wrote about here back in March.

This is a great result for those of us who took the time to set out why the RPA's proposal was wrong. I hope that the Agency now goes away and takes up the suggestion I and others made of working with Transport for London to improve bus services around the outside of the park.

That includes a bus that serves Roehampton Gate and Priory Lane.

Enabling those who can't drive to Richmond Park to benefit from the wonderful resources it offers is the right way to address the issues that underlie the whole consultation in the first place - and the biggest single reason why people said no to the parking charges.

No to parking charges in Richmond Park

Yesterday I sent in my objection to the Royal Parks Agency over their proposal to introduce parking charges in Richmond Park.

You can read my response here.

Richmond Park - especially the Putney and Roehampton side of it, is incredibly isolated. There are no nearby bus links. Unless you live in Roedean Crescent, Roehampton Gate or Priory Lane; or down the bottom of Roehampton Vale it is unlikely that you live close enough to the park to walk to it.

The people who park in Richmond Park are not "park and ride" commuters, abusing free parking while they hop on a bus into central London, because there isn't a bus to hop onto. They are users of Richmond Park, who can only get to the park by car: people who treasure this vital natural resource for London.

So the Royal Parks Agency needs to think again. I've asked them to work with Transport for London to set up a bus link that connects the park with the world beyond it: possibly even a dedicated service that shuttles between the roads around the park to give people an alternative. Even then parking charges will be a very difficult case to make.

There's still time to have your say on the Royal Parks Agency plans. Click here to download the consultation document.

What's happened to Alton Gate?

When Tony Colman was Labour MP for Putney huge strides were made to get a pedestrian gate from the Alton estate into Richmond Park.

After she was elected Justine Greening, somewhat to her discredit, tried to pretend that the idea had been hers all alone and that she was the champion who would finally deliver a gate.

That was over three years ago. Since then she has stopped talking about the Alton Gate. So have her council colleagues. And the Alton remains along its entire length without access to the park it has such magnificent panoramic views of.

I have today written to the Royal Parks Agency to find out the status of the plans for an Alton Gate to Richmond Park and, unlike my Conservative opponent, intend to keep going until we get the gate we deserve.