Elliott will miss out if Tories win

If the Tories win the general election Putney's Elliott School will miss out on the absolutely vital cash it needs to renovate a rapidly decaying building.

Elliott has been badly treated for years by the Conservative council who waited until the very last tranche of funding from Labour's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme to bid on the school's behalf - and now the man who will be in charge of schools has said that any project without an end date (and Elliott only just about has a start date, let alone an end date) will lose this funding.

This is a crazy decision: even for a Conservative Party hell-bent on making drastic and catastrophic immediate spending cuts. And this from a party that promised us that education funding would be safeguarded if they ever won power.

And instead of a word of objection, or a campaign to save Elliott's essential funding, all residents are getting right now from their Conservative candidates for MP and council is a bizarre letter talking about some airy-fairy notion of establishing a so-called free school on Putney Common - a school that will drain money from existing schools like All Saints, St Mary's and Hotham.

This contast shows, yet again, how out of touch the Conservatives are. I was always taught that you make the best of what you have before starting something new - and that means sorting out Elliott and bringing a 1950s building into the 21st century. Education study after study - as well as common-sense - says that children learn best when they are in a comfortable, safe, clean and modern teaching environment.

Elliott has not been that for decades - and if it doesn't get the BSF money guaranteed by Labour and guaranteed to be cut by the Conservatives it will soon become unfit for purpose. I want to see Elliott thrive, not fail. If you do too, reject the Conservative cuts and renew Labour's mandate to keep investing in our existing schools.

What's going to be left?

Shortly after I sent in the 600+ petitions from the Roehampton area demanding action from the Conservative-run council on street-drinking in the Danebury Avenue area, the Tories responded firstly by denying there was any problem - and if there was one they had fixed it (this was in the middle of the coldest winter in recent years).

They said no other council had ever implemented the sort of alcohol exclusion zone I was calling for - yet a straightforward google of those three words provides a great list of councils who have done exactly that.

And they said that even if there was a problem - the same problem they'd just denied the existence of - the same failed policies they'd been applying would fix it even though they've failed for years.

But then the Conservatives decided to take action. First they removed the benches outside the library - a favoured gathering place for the street drinkers admittedly. So they moved across the road to sit on the stone benches outside the post office. A move that made people accessing post office services - especially the ATM there - very uncomfortable.

So now the Tories have taken those benches out too.

This is an ingenious plan by the Conservatives. Rather than just ban street drinking in the area, they are choosing to strip from Roehampton every facility used by the street drinkers until there's going to be nothing left. What's the next step - evict all the shops from Danebury Avenue and Roehampton until there's nowhere for them (or anyone else) to buy anything?

We already know the Tories want to concrete over the green beside the library because it was in their crazy demolition plans for Danebury Avenue - so perhaps they'll bring that idea forward so there's no grass on which they can gather either?

They should probably demolish the wall by the library the drinkers are now sitting on, even though it keeps the pavement around the library from subsiding into the green - but why worry about that?

No. The Conservatives have completely lost the plot. They're not removing facilities that only street drinkers use: they're punishing the entire community around the town centre by removing these facilities. It's as if they think it's Roehampton's fault the Conservatives can't or won't deal with street drinkers.

Well it isn't - it's the Conservatives' failure, not Roehampton's. It only becomes the responsibility of Roehampton if, despite all the evidence of Conservative neglect, failure and incompetence, on May 7th the people of Roehampton wake up to the same Tory MP and councillors they've just re-elected.

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:

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.

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.

More action: Durford Crescent

There are hundreds of potholes still unattended in Roehampton: my team counted almost 50 in Holybourne Avenue alone yesterday, but one of the most neglected roads in the area was Durford Crescent, which runs between Bessborough Road and Wanborough Drive.

I asked for this area to be given top priority and it has been. And we were there on Sunday to check that the holes had all been filled-in.

--------------------------
From: Jolley, Steve
Sent: 25 February 2010 10:30
Cc: Bhatia, Mena
Subject: DTS559344 - State of Durford Crescent
?
I refer to your e-mail dated 11th of February concerning the above, which has been passed to me for reply.

The reported areas were subsequently inspected, and all of the potholes that met the criteria for urgent repair were programmed accordingly.

Orders were then raised for the potholes to be repaired, and I am advised that the repairs have now been completed.

Yours sincerely

Steve Jolley
Assistant On Street Services Manager
London Borough of Wandsworth

Action on Alton Road...at last

Anyone even slightly familiar with Roehampton will be aware of the boarded up, dilapidated houses at the end of Alton Road by Roehampton Lane. They bear more than a passing resemblance, in this state, to the Bates Mansion in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho.

They've been derelict for years, slowly falling apart as parts and original features have been stripped from them and a collapsed roof has gradually allowed the buildings to rot from within.

The owners of these properties - a company registered in Jersey - has been trying to demolish these houses - two of the last reminders of what Roehampton was like before the Alton estate was built - and build a massive block of private flats in their place.

For once, the Conservative council has been on the right side of this overdevelopment battle and has been rejecting the developers' ideas - if not in principle at least in practice. And this has resulted in a stalemate: the developer refusing to return the homes to habitable use; the council refusing to give them carte blanche to build whatever they like there.

Well now that impasse is hopefully about to be broken. The Council will next week consider plans to compulsorily purchase the land from its current absentee owners and then sell it on to someone who wants to do right by this site.

I support the council's move on this if for no other reason than we need to break this stalemate and do something with this shabby, neglected part of Roehampton. But my strong preference is that the council actually restore these buildings using a tiny fraction of the millions they've recevied from council house sell-offs, convert them into self-contained two-bed flats and rent them out as new affordable homes for Roehampton families.

That's the best way to preserve Roehampton's heritage, return homes to housing people and revitalise this corner of our area.

Once, twice and three times no

The Conservative council has, for at least the third time in recent years rejected my request for them to take the voting rights of students at Roehampton University more seriously.

I asked the council to establish a specific polling district for students based at Roehampton Students Union instead of making them walk more than a mile to their current polling station on the Lennox estate. The Tory council refused.

I asked the council to trial an early voting pilot scheme, which would mean that students could cast their votes over a period of time before polling day. The Tory council refused.

I even asked them to simply make sure they prioritise registering students in broadly the same numbers everyone else is; and to really seriously encourage students to vote by post. The Tory council refused. Barely half the number of students in halls on Roehampton's campus are registered to vote as of today, with huge gaps in the Mount Clare campus in particular.

I start from the very simple proposition that everyone should have equal opportunity to cast a vote in this year's election. Students, whether because they don't feel sufficiently engaged in the local area, or because they have barriers placed between them and voting by the Conservative council, are not getting that equal opportunity.

Yes, students tend to be a more apathetic group than mainstream voters, but it's not the case that they are less interested in politics. Turnout from the university is so much lower than that for other universities of a similar size that there has to be a reason for it. To dismiss this problem so easily is to dismiss students as having as much of a right to a say as any other Putney elector.

That's the local Conservative view of students. It certainly isn't mine.

Action, not words

On Monday I wrote about the issues I'd raised with the council on the Alton estate, which I'd picked up when my team visited the Ibsley Gardens and Diurford Crescent area over the weekend.

Here's the reply I've just received - simply to show that good local elected representatives can get these problems sorted out really easily: it's just that the Conservatives simply can't be bothered to.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tysome, Mike
Sent: 23 February 2010 15:17
Cc: Housing Directorate (Support)
Subject: FW: 40339 Ibsley Gardens, Fontley Way and Dilton Gardens issues


1. The fly tip has now been removed.

2. The pothole in Fontley way has been passed to colleagues in the Department of technical services.

3. I have contacted BT with the location of the damaged phone box.

4. The paving and the broken drain cover have been passed to a contractor and will be repaired shortly.

Regards
Mike Tysome
Chief Estate Services Manager

Weekend casework

These are some of the issues I've been taking up this weekend:



Roehampton Councillor candidate Sean Lawless documents a growing flytip in Ibsley Gardens just behind Fontley Way



One of the thousands of potholes due less to the recent icy weather and more to years of Conservative cuts to road repairs budgets - this one on Fontley Way



Sean Lawless shows how vandalised this phonebox in Ibsley Gardens has been - we've asked the council as managers of the estate to co-operate with BT in getting the window panes reinstalled.



And here uneven paving in Dilton Gardens by Durford Crescent has created pooling despite a drain being right next to the steps: it takes very little effort to fix this. It's relatively minor things like this, repeated hundreds and hundreds of times across the estate that make the Alton look so run down and neglected under the Conservatives.

The bill from The Bill should be spent on the Alton

If you ever watch the ITV show The Bill you may have noticed the striking resemblance between some of the supposedly East-End Sunhill council estates and Roehampton's Alton - and it's not a coincidence.

In the past three years alone, Wandsworth Council has been paid over £5,000 in royalties for granting permission for filming a variety of TV programmes, including The Bill, Newsnight and CrimeWatch. Only a few days ago a major shoot was being filmed in Stoatley House on Bessborough Road, and both Highcliffe Drive and Ringwood Gardens featured in an epsiode of The Bill last week.



I'm all for such enterprise: if TV companies want to make money from filming in our borough they should. But I also think that a share of the proceeds the council earns from such enterprise should be specifically ring-fenced for the area the filming takes place in, and for the inconvenience residents of those areas put up with. That's especially true of somewhere like the Alton, where the council should never be short of ways in which to invest money given the state they keep it in.

But when I asked how much the Alton gets specifically the answer came back: not a penny.

Instead, the money just goes into two massive pots - one for the housing department and one for Leisure & Sports - both to be spent anywhere in Wandsworth. Now some of this money may eventually find its way back to the Alton: the Leisure Department runs Roehampton Library, for example, but I just think that there would be much more good will generated if a share of the money from Alton filming paid for Alton improvements - clearly and directly.

And if the council can't think of anything to spend it on, get in touch: residents and I can give them plenty of ideas.

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.

Three steps to danger

These steps, all of which are loose - and when I say loose, I don't mean they wobble a bit - I mean that they are completely unanchored - lead up to and down from a block of sheltered housing flats for senior citizens in Burke Close on the Lennox estate.

Having such dangerous steps anywhere in the borough is unacceptable, but when they lead to homes for pensioners, and when the danger has been reported to the council several times - including by council employees who visit regularly, it's an even more appalling case of Conservative negligence that they are still in this state.

I've written to the Director of Housing urging him to get the steps repaired by this coming weekend - and if he can't do that to fence off the steps so that there is at least some way of alerting people to their danger.

If you think I'm being unduly harsh on the Conservative Council just consider whether you'd feel that way if it was your gran who had to use these steps on a daily basis.

New rules on student digs will help the Alton

New rules introduced by our Labour Government will mean that landlords who want to let their home to more than three or more unrelated people will need to get planning permission.

This is a really important measure because, in Roehampton at least, it will help rebalance our community.

Here's the problem. After their first year in halls of residence, most Roehampton University students move into private rented homes principally on the Alton Estate but in surrounding areas, too.

If they were dispersed throughout the estate that wouldn't be a problem, but what has happened on the Alton is that student homes are concentrated in very specific parts of it - places like Sherfield Gardens, Laverstoke Gardens, Swanwick Close, Hersham Close and parts of Bessborough Road and Petersfield Rise, to name just a few of those with the highest numbers.

The problem is that these aren't student-only areas: students live side by side with long term residents. And inevitably there are conflicts between students, here for no more than a year (and without a long-term commitment to the estate), and residents for whom this is their permanent home.

Add to that different lifestyles: those of students enjoying their three or four years before the responsibilities of working life kick-in, set against those of families trying to get their kids (or themselves) to sleep while a party is going on next door.

It creates tensions. This new planning law Labour has introduced can help resolve those tensions simply by capping the number of homes in any given block or street that can be turned into HMOs (homes in multiple occupation) rather than being kept for families or individuals.

Now I hear the concerns of the NUS - expressed in the Evening Standard article from Friday - about forcing students into a ghetto - but on the Alton it would have the reverse effect. It would break up student "ghettos" - and in so doing those areas would become cleaner, better maintained and more cohesive - happier.

And that's what the Alton's lost these past two decades since Conservative right-to-buy legislation started going wrong - when those who had bought their council homes moved out and buy-to-let landlords took over, renting house after house on the estate to students (and others).

I think the way to rebuilding a strong community on the Alton is rebuilding balanced communities that have pride in their area. We don't get that if any particular part of the estate is dominated by those who are simply passing through with different, conflicting priorities to others.

We've got to start paying more attention to our planning laws - it's a theme I return to again and again, whether it is this issue, local planning overdevelopment or the need for a Plan for Putney - because the Conservative laissez-faire, do nothing approach to planning is wrecking those areas that need strong communities the most.

Is Minstead being decanted?

At the end of September last year I noticed that several of the bungalows in Minstead Gardens looked empty. When I asked the council whether this was deliberate or just coincidence, they denied that there was any problem with vacant properties in Minstead Gardens at all. Here's what they wrote in a reply of 5th October:

"The Hostels Team are responsible for the management of all the odd numbered properties at Minstead Gardens (a total of 16 units).

"There are currently four void units amongst the odd numbered properties at Minstead Gardens. I would like to confirm that the properties are not being decanted for any reason. These properties became vacant after each of the tenants was made an offer of permanent accommodation.

"Members of the Hostels Team visit the tenants living at Minstead Gardens each week to ensure they are occupying their properties.

"The average length of time a property is vacant before a new tenant moves in, is two to three weeks."

So two to three weeks from 5th October - by the end of that month in fact, you'd have thought the flats would be let, wouldn't you?

Fast forward to Sunday just past, 24th January. At least five properties - the exact same properties I wrote to the council about in September - are vacant. They're self-evidently empty - anyone walking past them will be able to tell which ones have no tenant. And I say "at least" because those are the five we called upon based on the current electoral register - electors who don't exist at these bungalows.

But there are huge gaps in the Minstead Gardens electoral register - something not entirely unsurprising given that hostel accommodation generally has a high turnover of residents - but something which also suggests that the number of vacant - or void - properties here is far higher.

It is widely acknowledged that Wandsworth has a very severe housing shortage. That several council properties have been standing empty for months is completely unacceptable. Either the Conservatives are deliberately keeping them empty, callously denying local people a home - or they're empty because of oversight or carelessness: and that speaks to incompetence.

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.

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.

More casework from the Alton

Sadly, the disgusting state of Harbridge Avenue yesterday wasn't the only problem I'm having to raise with the Conservative council today.

Similar problems of overflowing bin chambers and flytips at Portswood Place:



And a cleaning contractor that thinks just sweeping rubbish into a great heap and leaving it passes as acceptable cleanliness - also at Portswood Place (with the Methodist Church in the background):



A flytip on the corner of Minstead Gardens and Portswood Place:



And here several of the wooden bollards at the bottom end of Minstead Gardens have been damaged but heck, despite Minstead Gardens comprising sheltered housing for the elderly, why on earth fix the dangerous holes and loose paving the damage has caused - just stick a cone nearby and hope no-one injures themselves:



Another flytip in Minstead Gardens - at the top by Richmond Park. The Conservative jobsworths will say this isn't on their land. I guess it's ok to just leave this festering eyesore then?



And I'm not sure how long it's been since the council's out-of-town couldn't-care-less cleaning contractor cleared up the Sherfield Gardens verge along Danebury Avenue but aside from being littered from one end to the other, it also has been flytipped with a sofabed and a pinball machine:



Finally, to add to the Conservatives' collection of potholes, this one in Swanwick Close is about seven inches deep and a real hazard to anyone coming down the slope from Minstead Gardens or Chadwick Close - just one of several potholes in the vicinity, including at the bus stop by the bull sculpture:



The two posts from the Alton I've published today can be summarised in four simple words:

Conservatives: couldn't care less.

Harbridge Groundhog Day

You may recall that late last year I posted some of the photos my campaign team took of Harbridge Avenue: overflowing bins spilling their detritis all over the pavements; flooded pathways, potholes, grass verges torn up by vehicles driving over them to cut corners.

When I highlight issues like these, as you would expect I also take them up directly with the council and they replied on 12 December last year promising to...well, do not very much to improve this environment for residents.

And as a result, look what we found when we were in Harbridge again yesterday.

The grass verge even more damaged and rutted:



The road surface even more damaged and potholed - and take my word for it when I say I have six or seven other photos the entire length of Harbridge Avenue of pothole after pothole:



The completely unacceptable, envrionmental health-risk overflowing rubbish bins and flytips that go uncleared. The Conservatives helpfully tell us: "The Council's waste collection contractor, Biffa, are not contracted to collect overspill waste left on the floor." So either contract them to, or increase refuse collections so residents have no resort other than to flytip:



More examples from the other side of Harbridge:



And why can't the refuse bins be stored in the bin chambers? Because the bin chambers are almost as full of it as the Conservatives are:



Here, Peter Carpenter, one of Labour's Roehampton council candidates, highlights the fact that every single sapling planted in Harbridge Avenue has been vandalised. The answer: plant more mature trees that are far harder to destroy - don't just leave the support stakes forlornly where the saplings once stood:



...And another example of the tree vandalism:


Peter inspects the flytip which I've reported along with all the other problems listed here - and plenty others which I'll write about in a blog post this afternoon.



Elections are about choices. Roehampton can choose to continue with the Conservatives who leave their environment in this state and say it is beyond their ability to do anything to improve it. Conservatives who wouldn't dream of putting up with this where they live - but who think it's fine for council estate residents.

Or you can vote for change - vote for councillors who say: "This is disgusting and unacceptable - but it doesn't have to be like this."

A Labour vote will restore council caretakers to our estates - replacing the out-of-town, couldn't-care-less cleaning contractor the Tories keep rehiring. Labour councillors in Roehampton will work with me to invest in a respectable environment in places like Harbridge Avenue - because one thing's for sure: if the council can't be bothered to take care of an area, they're in no position whatsoever to lecture local people to do so.

Simply put: a Labour vote says: "enough's enough".

Roehampton SureStart has closed the gap

This is one of those really important stories that the media simply won't report - but Roehampton SureStart, the Labour Government initiative to help children and young families in our least affluent areas has succeeded in eradicating the gap between how children in its catchment area develop educationally compared to affluent areas.

This straightforward chart shows the impact SureStart's had in Roehampton:



Let me just explain what the jargon means. There are two key measures for assessing how children are "developing": PSE stands for Personal, Social and Emotional development - in other words how children interact with each other, cope spending time on their own, and their relationships with their parents. CLL is Communications, Language and Literacy - ie how a child is developing educationally.

And this chart, which looks at just personal, social and emotional development shows even more starkly the difference SureStart is making - the columns are almost equal after ten years of Labour government SureStart:



There are two questions that need to be answered now. First, isn't this more Labour-generated propaganda?

The answer to that is no - I took these tables from a report written by the Conservative-run council last week; which is available here. In fact, Councillor Kathy Tracey, the Conservative Cabinet member for Children's Services in Wandsworth attended the Roehampton Partnership on Friday endorsing the successes the report highlights.

Second, the cynics will question whether this has anything to do with SureStart rather than general factors. In response to that, it's really interesting that there are two other "big" SureStart schemes in the borough: one in Battersea and one in Tooting. Both started after Roehampton's - Battersea came next and Tooting was much more recent.

The same charts for each show lags in children's development - more in Tooting than Battersea and both behind Roehampton. The principal difference between them is the length of time Roehampton SureStart's been running - and it certainly isn't comparative deprivation: Roehampton is far more disadvantaged than Tooting, for example (Which is why Roehampton's SureStart got set up first).

Actually, there's a third question - and it's one that Putney's Conservative MP has to answer. It's simply this: SureStart works and here's the proof - so why is your party, the Conservative Party, planning to abolish SureStart if you get into power?

Alcohol Zone: Roehampton says yes, Tories say no

I've just read the response from the Conservative council to the petition of over 600 Roehampton and Putney residents calling for an Alcohol Exclusion Zone for Roehampton.

It's riddled with inaccuracies, jargon and excuses not to act. I'll give you just five:

First, that "no alcohol exclusion zones are known to have been established in the UK." Well, they may not know it, but had they done a quick google search, they could have educated themselves quite easily. How about Rotherham, Winchester, Pontefract, East Lothian, North Tyneside - shall I go on? If the Conservatives are so ignorant as to make such basic mistakes, what confidence can we have in anything else they have to say?

Second:"The practicality of this approach in such a small area where displacement is likely [is] merely likely to displace the problem to the immediate vicinity around the zone".

Well, that depends what the immediate vicinity is, doesn't it? If it's just the shopping parade at Danebury Avenue then of course there could be displacement: to Portswood Place or Petersfield Rise or the village. And no one's arguing for that - I'm certainly not. If, however, the AEZ covers an area bounded by Richmond Park, Priory Lane, Clarence Lane, Roehampton Lane and a perimeter around the village, the only places left for street drinkers to disperse are heaths and parks. And they won't disperse there because there is no ready supply of alcohol for them in the middle of Richmond Park.

But then, just listen to their third argument: that were a zone to be implemented, it would "need to be large and as a result difficult to justify".

Hang on: one minute their case is that an AEZ won't work because it will be too small, but now it's because it will be too large! Which is it? And it's even more baffling given that Winchester's AEZ covers the whole of the city, and Bromley's covers the whole of Beckenham town centre: far bigger areas than Roehampton. And they're working fine, thank you.

Fourth, they conjour up a figure of £10,000 to create the AEZ - a figure they offer no substantiation for and which, incidentally, pales into inconsequence compared to the £350,000 they've just squandered on their aborted Danebury demolition debacle.

The fifth is just about the most bizarre claim you'll ever hear a council make. They claim that an AEZ would demand the confiscation of all alcohol - open or not, from anyone - drinking it or not, without exception. I've got to ask: do you really believe Rotherham, with its city-wide AEZ, is a 1930s prohibition mecca? Or Tyneside? Or the entire city of Winchester? The Conservatives make fools of themselves, and show their contempt for the people of Roehampton, with such absurd claims.

We then get more of the same weak and ineffective excuses for a lack of action so far: that it's a new problem (no it isn't); that their current efforts have changed habits (no they haven't); that the problem's diminished in the cold weather (yes it has but do you really think it won't return the moment it's not freezing cold?); that the drinkers are mainly local (so what?) and that getting them to sign slips of paper promising to be good are far more effective ways of dealing with them (need I comment on this!?).

For some reason the Conservative are afraid to take the action Roehampton needs to deal with this problem. I don't know what the source of that fear is, but it exists and it's failing Roehampton.

Let me put it this way: Roehampton did not just create a 600-signature petition, which could have been double or treble that size with very little extra work, to get such a peremptory, dismissive and weak response. They signed up in droves because they want action - and for us all that action is long overdue. But it's clear we won't get it from this lot.

When we say "campaigning all year round" we mean it!

Yesterday I was out and about in Roehampton with my campaign team, and despite the bitter weather we got a warm reception.

I was concerned about the council's neglect of the paths and roads on the estate, especially as the Alton was built on some pretty steep slopes. And even if you think it's understandable that not every path on the estate has been cleared of ice - as I do - it isn't acceptable that steps haven't, which ought to be a much more achievable aim for the housing department.

Plenty of new year casework to take up including the case of a council tenant whose window was smashed in a burglary last October and which the council still hasn't repaired.

I'm pictured discussing some of those issues with Sean Lawless who grew up on the Alton estate. Sean's been an important part of my campaign team since last spring and is an example of how my campaign is getting the local community involved - not just dumping outsiders on Roehampton as the Conservatives have a track record of doing.

Does this reassure you on the flood threat?

At last month's council meeting a Conservative councillor asked about the risk of flooding to homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, principally from the Wandle and Beverley Brook (rather than the Thames).

I've reproduced the answer below and you can draw your own conclusions, but the thing that strikes me is the complacency of it. It's all about what the Conservative council might do after a flood rather than what can be done to prevent or mitigate flooding in the first place. Hundreds of homes in the constituency are at risk. If you live in one of them, this reply is likely to raise far more questions than it answers.

Here's the council's reply in full (and you can check about your property on the Environment Agency's flooding pages here):

"The principal cause for concern so far as major flooding in the Borough is concerned lies with the River Wandle. Here the risk of flooding is higher and in some areas is assessed by the Environment Agency as significant (more than 1:75 in any one year. There is also a risk of flooding in the Beverley Brook catchment area.

"The River Wandle is a fast flowing river which, when subjected to heavy rain, can rise very quickly. If it were to flood in a significant way a large number of properties both residential and commercial could potentially be affected. It would also have the effect of cutting the Borough in two.

"In terms of the Borough's readiness to deal with such a flood there is a specific section in the Council's Emergency Plan dealing with flooding. In a large scale flooding emergency the response would be co-ordinated within pan-London arrangements. The main role of the Council would initially be to provide shelter for any residents displaced from their homes. In this respect the emergency plan identified a number of buildings able to be used as rest centres - the plan also notes those rest centres located above the flood plain and therefore suitable for use during a flooding incident.

"As flood water recedes the Council would have a major role to play in the recovery phase of any incident. This would include leading on clearing debris, restoring any damaged infrastructure such as keeping thoroughfares open, etc.

"Flooding is one of the risks in the Community Risk Register for South West London and regularly discussed at the Wandsworth Emergency Planning Forum attended by the three blue light emergency services, the health sector and other key responders.

"In summary, the Council is well aware of the risks from flooding and has a well developed emergency plan which has been tested via various emergency planning exercises.?

Conservatives privatise Roehampton Fields for 57p

Conservative Councillors have approved the transfer of Roehampton Playing Fields in Dover House Road over to Roehampton University.

The plans will grant a 99 year lease to the University in return for refurbishment of the sports pavilion and continued community access to the site for 25% of the time.

I've asked a few questions about this deal:

1) What is current usage by the community of the fields - because if it's more than 25% this is going to kick out some groups and individuals;

2) What are the current planning restrictions and other covenants on the land - because it may well be that he university will try to use the fields at times beyond those it is open now; and if so what protections for surrounding residents are there?

3) How confident can we be that the university remains able to honour its funding commitments, which run to £2 million, given the tighter financial settlements higher education will get irrespective of who wins the next general election?

The response We've had is 1) that the University has guaranteed that no current user will be unable to continue their use; 2) that there are no plans for evening use of the grounds other than in the summer months when flood-lighting won't be needed and 3) that the University has assured the council that it can honour its obligations despite the tighter budgeting it will have to undertake from now on.

For the council this is a nice little earner - they dispose of their responsibility to maintain a large community facility. But what this Conservative administration too often forgets is that Roehampton Fields were planned quite purposefully as a facility for the community - not 25% of the time but 100% of the time.

Regardless of the good intentions of the university - and I accept they will use the fields to a greater extent than they have been in recent years - the council has, de facto, just privatised Roehampton Fields. The community was the sole shareholder in this site; it now has just a 25% stake in it. All for the Conservatives to save 57p on council tax.

I just think the community should be far more seriously involved in decisions like this to sell off Putney's family silver rather than just being slipped through as item 16 in a committee report in the first week of the New Year. It's not as if we can do anything about it for a century now.

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.

Improving Roehampton Vale

In the Autumn, following a Sunday afternoon talking to residents of Roehampton Vale and Friar's Avenue, I surveyed the area.

Roehampton Vale - the A3 as it roars past ASDA - in particular is a challenging environment for residents. But as with anywhere at any time, there are little things that can be done by a good local MP, working with residents, that make a disproportionate improvement to quality of life.

I had a great response - not just in numbers of surveys returned, but the quality of the returns: residents really put a lot of time and thought into their replies about how the area could be improved. Here are some of the results.

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.

Changes to Nos.33 and N10 buses coming soon

I've received the following letter from Transport for London regarding the proposed changes to three bus routes that include the N10, which currently runs up Putney High Street and Upper Richmond Road.

The N10 will cease to operate and instead the 33 bus, which runs down Castlenau, Rocks Lane and then into Upper Richmond Road by the Rosslyn Park Rugby Club, which will become a 24-hour service.

The changes will come in on Saturday 30 January.



Click here to read the full letter.