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.

Weekend casework

Here are some of the issues I've been working on sorting out this week. There are just two points I want to make about this. The first is that some of these are issues I reported last year - and which I got fixed but are now in a poor way again; and the second is that these are all problems in and around just one medium-sized estate: the Orchard estate in West Hill.

My point is this: just consider how many problems there must be throughout Putney, Roehampton and Southfields which your Conservative MP and councillors are just ignoring or can't be bothered to fix.

The Conservatives are right that 2010 needs to be a year of change: in Putney that change is Labour.


The pavements in Linstead Way are dreadful - and they've been dreadful for years under the Tories.





Damaged banisters in Linstead Way which leave these dangerous metal spokes in an area full of young families.


It just wouldn't be Tory Wandsworth without some shocking potholes - these on the slope from Beaumont Road to Linstead Way, past Andrew Reed House





Only last November I finally got the council to fix these railings along the path from Beaumont Road to Royal Orchard Close. They've been vandalised already - mainly because on one side this is a convenient cut-through to Linstead Way. So we either need more substantial railings or a designated, safe path with steps down the slope.


The bollards like those on the other side of this raised crossing by Castlecombe Drive have somehow vanished, leaving two craters in the Beaumont Road pavement.

'Self' defeating

I've written before about this Southfields case I've been very heavily involved with, but this week's story in the Wandsworth Guardian underlines how badly I feel the Conservatives treat those residents who need services above and beyond the majority of us experience.

As with so many of these stories, the council's peremptory, dismissive reply is usually the last word. Just re-read it from the story above: "In order to qualify for a disabled badge the applicant must have a degree of disability and find it difficult to walk. Fortunately Mrs Self does not have any such problems."

For heaven's sake! She has angina, heart disease, is partially blind AND suffers from Meniere's Disease, which is an inbalance within the ears that prevents her from walking! The only reason she (purportedly) failed the council's test at the town hall - a test so stressful she had an angina attack in the town hall foyer - was that the occupational therapist failed to test her walking unsupported by her husband.

The problem the council gets itself into is the second part of their quote above. After all, they're categorical in the sentence I quoted: that Mrs Self is not eligible for a blue badge. That being the case, why would a council certain of its case offer a repeat assessment? It's not common practice: in fact its abnormal.

This is a Conservative council that refuses to back down when it gets things wrong and would rather pick on an elderly lady in her eighties than accept that they made a mistake. They've even written to us telling us they will not enter into any further correspondence with us unless it is to accept the re-assessment offer.

But why should the family put their mum through such an ordeal again? I'm not sure I'd want my mother to endure such a stressful experience a second time, even if it is for something that will make her life immeasurably easier if she ever, eventually, were to get it. That's the call Mrs Self's family have made and I respect them for it.

I can't say the same for the Conservative council.

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.

Tories' final blow to Whitelands parking need

The Conservative council is to press ahead with plans to deny any parking to residents of the Whitelands Park estate off Sutherland Grove, disregarding the views of hundreds of local people who asked them for help.

Imagine if you were told you weren't allowed to park on the public highway anywhere near your home. Imagine you had no off-street parking space. Imagine living about a mile from your nearest tube station. Imagine - you may not need to - that your car isn't just a luxury but a necessity because you work shifts that mean leaving for or returning from work when public transport isn't running. You'd justifiably feel betrayed and angry about a Conservative council that has done just that:

• It was the Conservatives that allowed over 100 apartments on Whitelands Park to be built without any parking, despite not being in an area of high public transport accessibility
• It was the Conservatives that failed to impose a condition on the developer of Whitelands Park to allow these residents to park on the private road (Scott Avenue) through the estate
• It was the Conservatives that then tried to sneak in a parking zone without even consulting the residents
• It was the Conservatives who have been going round blaming everyone else for their mistakes, trying to play an unseemly divide-and-rule, turf war politics that cause anger and bitterness that won't easily be resolved
• And it's now the Conservatives banning them from parking anywhere near their homes on the public highway.

Incompetence and vindictiveness rarely deliver good public policy-making, and while I support the introduction of the Sutherland Grove area controlled parking zone, there is so much more the council could have done to help residents of Whitelands without harming the CPZ.

One of the simplest was the idea to exclude the stretch of Sutherland Grove immediately opposite Whitelands Park, where there are no other homes, from the parking zone so that at least there would be 20 or so unrestricted parking bays for anyone - including Whitelands residents - to use.

That would give the residents of Sutherland Grove the controlled parking zone they want and deserve; it would not mean Whitelands residents getting parking permits within the zone itself (something the Sutherland Grove residents strongly oppose); and it would at least give Whitelands residents some chance of parking somewhere close to their homes in a stretch of road with no other residents around it.

This isn't a perfect solution: Conservative mistake after mistake has made sure we'll never get that now, but it is the fairest and most just outcome for both Sutherland Grove and Whitelands Park. The essence of public service is reaching such compromises and getting the best deal for all our constituents. The Conservatives have shown they're simply not up to it with this litany of wrong decisions and divide-and-rule politics that has - entirely unnecessarily - set residents against residents.

What a pathetic lack of leadership.

My policing priorities for Putney

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

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

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

1. Cutting street crime in Putney town centre

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

2. Cutting violent crime in Roehampton

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

3. Far tougher action on criminal damage

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

4. Protecting our Safer Neighbourhood teams

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

5. Honest crime figures you can have confidence in

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

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

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

New Putney Papers out now

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

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

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.

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.

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

That's the title of a book written by US Senator Al Franken on the way some politicians tend to behave when campaigning.

I mention it because at the weekend I came across a Conservative leaflet that has been put about in West Hill ward. Just consider the key claims it contains:

The Tory MP is campaigning to cut the "rising number of burglaries across, Putney, Roehampton & Southfields"

I thought we'd comprehensively debunked this blatant lie only a few days ago - burglaries are down on every single measure in every single Putney council ward - but no, the Conservatives press ahead with the lie presumably in the hope that they can scaremonger their way to victory.

The Tories then claim that Putney now has "fewer arresting officers in Wandsworth than 1997". Again, official figures show the opposite. Today we have 617 Police officers (that's excluding Community Safety Officers) in Wandsworth according to the Conservative-run Metropolitan Police Authority. In 1997 we had 596. 617 is more than 596. So again, the Conservatives are lying.

And the lies don't stop there. Despite getting their fingers burnt when they falsely claimed that business rates in Roehampton were on the rise - when the fact is that the vast majority of Roehampton businesses are about to get their rates cut, they've done exactly the same thing in West Hill.

I count 33 West Hill businesses that are having their rates cut - and that includes EVERY business in the four main West Hill ward shopping parades: Beaumont Road, Montfort Place, Wimbledon Park Road and Inner Park Road. Only 9 face increases. The source of my figures? Conservative-run Wandsworth Council. 33 down, 9 up. So another Conservative lie.

Here's the thing: a confident, outgoing and self-assured party that believes it has the facts on its side wouldn't have any need to misdirect, mislead, scaremonger or - yes - lie. Political parties only employ these tactics when they're behind, losing, on the wrong side of the facts or simply not smart enough to tell the truth.

The biggest compliment the Conservatives can pay to my campaign - and the loudest message they send to you, the voters, is when they lie. Because it shows they've nothing positive - nothing honest to say to Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

Britain's not broken. The Conservative Party is.

Breathtaking arrogance

I wrote a few days ago about the plight of Putney constituent Christine Walker's mum, who more than qualifies for a disabled blue badge but who is being denied one by the Conservative council.

Yesterday we got this latest reply from them:

"senior council management staff have previously written in response to many contacts received from your constituent's MP, various borough councillors, the Local Government Ombudsman, General Practitioners and Mrs Self's own family members...I have also more recently replied separately to the Director of the 'Transport for All' organisation...

"...I am afraid that we will not acknowledge or respond to further communications in this matter and any such documentation received from [Mrs Walker's mum] or her representatives will be filed for information only"

It takes a special kind of arrogance to claim that MPs, councillors, the Ombudsman, GPs and transport and disability action groups are wrong and that the Conservatives - alone - are right. And it stems from having absolute power without break for over 30 years. Power may corrupt but it also makes those who have it contemptuous of all other opinion.

A democracy thrives because of checks and balances - one party vigorously held to account by its opponents. In Wandsworth those checks and balances are failing. There are currently 51 Tory councillors in Wandsworth and just 9 Labour; no other party has any seats or a chance of winning any.

And before you say it doesn't affect or concern you, then until they needed help from the Conservatives it didn't directly affect Mrs Walker's family either. My point is this: ignore our democratic deficit only if you are 100% certain that you'll never, ever need to turn to these out-of-touch, power-gone-to-their-head Conservatives for help.

The Conservatives have forgotten that they are the servants, not the masters. I can provide the evidence but only you, by voting Labour - the only alternative to the Conservatives locally - can change it.

Orchard railings to be fixed

The railings off the path leading through to Royal Orchard Close in West Hill are finally to be fixed by the Conservative Council.

The Conservatives had been failing to repair the banister - which is the edge of a fairly steep slope down to Linstead Way - because they thought it was the responsibility of the housing association that manages Royal Orchard Close.

They were wrong in this case - it's always been the responsibility of the council - but what's more disturbing is that they were more than happy to sit back and allow dangerous and unsightly vandalism to persist, simply because they (wrongly) believed it was "nothing to do with us, guv".

I've been writing a lot about the state of Putney Bridge - and it's exactly the same attitude: washing their hands unless something can be proved beyond any doubt that they are responsible for it - that has led to the decay and erosion of one of our landmarks.

The Conservatives call this "the Wandsworth Way" - and I don't doubt it plays a part in keeping council tax low. What it doesn't do is get problems elected representatives exist to sort out sorted out. And that's one reason why the Conservatives' Wandsworth Way is the wrong way.

A clean sweep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blue Badge shame of Wandsworth Tories

On Saturday I brought a Southfields constituent, Christine Walker, to meet with Sadiq Khan MP, Minister for Transport and MP for next-door Tooting.

Mrs Walker's mum suffers from some serious disabilities, including Meniere's Disease which affects balance meaning that sufferers often cannot walk without falling over. More than a year ago, after being assessed for Attendance Allowance, the Department of Work & Pensions assessor set the ball rolling to get her a disabled person's blue badge so that she can be driven around more easily by her husband.

As is usual and right, Wandsworth Council invited Mrs Walker's mum in for an assessment, to make sure she wasn't attempting to fraudulently obtain a badge. Having failed to adequately test her - at no time, for example, was she asked to walk unaided (which she can't) to demonstrate the severity of her Meniere's problems - and then subjected her to a rigorous interview, the council denied her claim for a badge on the grounds that she wasn't sufficiently disabled. So badly treated was she that she had an angina attack in the foyer of the town hall.

That's when Mrs Walker asked for my help - and as a result of repeated interventions the council eventually consented to review the decision, but only if her mother was willing to undergo another medical test and interview. Understandably, the family was unwilling to put their mum through this ordeal again - and have made the fair point that either the council believes it was right, and should therefore stick to its guns, or that it thinks it's wrong and is trying to save face by agreeing to a retest when instead they should just accept their mistake and issue the badge.

This nonsense has been grinding on for over a year now. The council still has not backed down, and that's despite representations from her GP and consultants, from the Department of Work & Pensions which recognises the severity of her disability; from the Local Government Ombudsman and from local legal advice organisations.

When people like me talk about the carelessness and callousness of the Tory regime in Wandsworth we do so because we've seen at first hand the sharp end of Wandsworth Conservatism - a far cry from the soft-centred Conservatism David Cameron would like you to believe characterises his party. And it's examples like this that go to the heart of our criticism of how the Tories treat anyone who actually needs help from the council.

I'm in politics because I believe we have a duty to those who need help - we should never walk on by when we see people whose lives could be immeasurably transformed with just a little support and intervention. This outlook isn't shared by Putney Conservatives. They clearly couldn't care less about Mrs Walker's mother.

Tackling Tibbets Traffic

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

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

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

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

You can read the report here.

Weekend casework

I was out and about again this weekend, and here are a few of the issues I've taken up on behalf of local residents.





These three photos are all of the passageway between Royal Orchard Close and Beaumont Road in West Hill - dangerous pavements where paving bricks have been pulled out and the hole is now covered by leaves, and a collapsed railing/fence.



More dangerous paving in Limes Gardens in Southfields; and in Albert Drive - by Mortimer Lodge.



A flytip on the Morris Gardens estate, also in Southfields



Dangerous paving outside John Paull II Secondary School, and a blocked drain creating a pool of rainwater that sprays pedestrians just before you get to the school, in Princes Way

These are all issues good elected representatives should be identifying, reporting and getting sorted. Unfortunately, we don't generally appear to have those in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields - just a Conservative MP and councillors who claim fat allowances but don't do the bread and butter work they should.

That's why it falls to me to get these problems sorted out - and I'm happy to - but just think how much better our area could be if we had an MP and active local councillors on the case for you. You can vote for that in the May council elections and next year's general election.

More Putney businesses pay less from rate revaluation

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

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

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

The majority of Putney businesses will pay less after revaluation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Castlecombe Drive paving

This photo of a cave-in pavement in Castlecombe Drive was taken on Saturday. Castlecombe Drive has a number of sheltered homes for pensioners - there are a set of bungalows just to the left of this picture; and across the road is Ronald Ross primary school. In other words, such poor quality pavements are especially dangerous given the number of pensioners and young children who use this road.

Remarkably, a Conservative Councillor lives less than fifty metres from this potholed pavement: yet it's clearly either beyond or beneath her to bother to get this fixed. I have to wonder what it is that the Conservatives do for their £10,000 a year allowances - because clearly looking after the area - even one they live in - isn't it.

I've reported this and will let you know when it's fixed.

Southmead SureStart coming soon

A brand new SureStart children's centre is opening on Monday 9th November at Southmead School in Princes Way. The Southmead SureStart will be the seventh in Putney opened since Labour came to power. And it exceeds Labour's general election promise at the last general election to make sure that each constituency has at least six SureStart centres.

SureStart childrens centres will, I believe, come to be seen as one of the great Labour achievements in the same way that setting up the Open University was in the 1960s. And one reason we can be fairly sure of that is the fact that, while the Conservatives would dearly love to axe SureStarts because they cost money they've been forced to U-turn on their pledge to close them because they work and they're increasingly cherished by the communities that benefit from them.

SureStart offers real, practical help and support for families after their children have been born: support that often makes a difference between giving those kids the very best start in life or getting off at a disadvantage. Our first SureStart centre in Roehampton Lane opened getting on for eight years ago, and now we have centres right across the constituency, from Buckhold Road and Merton Road in Southfields to Fontley Way in the middle of the Alton estate.

Our seven SureStart Centres in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields are:

Fontley Way 1 O?clock Centre

Granard Primary School and Children's Centre

King George 1'o clock Centre

Southmead Primary School and Centre for Children & Families

Southfields Community College and Children's Centre

Sure Start Roehampton Centre

West Hill Primary School and Children's Centre

Wandsworth: still the flytip capital of London

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

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

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

Well, yes it can.

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

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

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

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

September crime

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

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

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

Labour's councillor teams chosen

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

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

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

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

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

East Putney
Tim Creber, Sean Lawless, Gemma Reay

Roehampton
Peter Carpenter, Donald Roy and Ben Smith

Southfields
Matt Hay, Alex Lisinge and Tom Marsom

Thamesfield
Janet Grimshaw, Chris Locke and Bibi Qureshi

West Hill
Gill Gray, Jim McKinney and Ferdous Rahman

West Putney
Maureen Booker, Andrew Crawford and Patrick Macfarlane

Whitelands to get consulted on parking in November

I've just been informed by the council that the Traffic Order implementing the Sutherland Grove controlled parking zone will be published in November - and that Whitelands residents who were excluded from the original consultation will therefore have a chance to comment formally at long last.

The decision gives the residents of Whitelands three weeks to make their case to the council from November.

While I'm delighted we've won even this small concession from the council, I remain concerned that the QC's view was that the results of the consultation may not be binding upon it. I am worried about how committed the Conservatives are to genuinely listening - and responding practically - to the needs of Whitelands residents.

There are any number of ways the council could assist the residents of Whitelands Park who have no parking spaces on-site, and are now faced with losing their parking spaces off-site too. The question is simply whether they are prepared to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deja vu

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Wandsworth it means losing 15 police officers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the paper for yourself here.

Sutherland Grove parking zone: Legal advice tells Tories to think again

The saga over the Council's plan to introduce a parking zone in Sutherland Grove, Skeena Hill and Combemartin Road, which has been running since the early spring, has taken a new twist.

A more detailed explanation of the issues can be read here, but in brief, residents of the roads mentioned above were consulted on whether they wanted parking controls introduced because they are the closest roads to Southfields Station that do not have controls, and so get a lot of commuters parking there. The council chose to exclude the 400-home Whitelands Park development, off Sutherland Grove from the consultation, despite me asking them to think again.

Whitelands was built a few years ago, but over 100 of the homes were built without access to any local parking provision. Those homes were for key workers like nurses, teachers, firemen and paramedics - many of whom need cars because they work shifts into the early hours when public transport (which isn't great for Whitelands at the best of time) isn't running.

Introducing a parking zone on Sutherland Grove will remove their only option for parking anywhere near their homes. Not even consulting the residents, therefore, was simply outrageous. I put these points to the Council Director responsible for controlled parking and got this reply from him back in March:



Except that the council wasn't quite so sure of its ground and so asked a Queen's Counsel for a ruling on the legality of their decision to exclude Whitelands from the consultation. That ruling is in, and it's uncategorical:

"The residents of the Whitelands Estate probably ought not to have been excluded from the Council?s pre-statutory consultation."

The QC went on to set out five ways the council should proceed to correct its mistake, including giving Whitelands a say on the matter. Long overdue, especially as I stepped in and consulted residents myself when the council refused - and you can read the results here.

However, the council's response to this remains unspectacular. Instead of consulting, the council is forging ahead with the zone this Thursday. Residents of Whitelands will get a letter telling them this, and explaining how to have their say, but this barely meets the first of the QC's requirements, let alone the remaining four.

I've written to councillors on the planning & transport committee setting out Whitelands' case - you can read that letter here. I support the introduction of the zone to help residents of Sutherland Grove and Skeena Hill with their problems, but any zone has to also meet the needs of residents at the Whitelands end of Sutherland Grove as well.

The question for Thursday's council meeting that decides this is simply whether the Conservatives continue to ignore Whitelands residents and make their plight even more difficult than it is already, or come up with a sensible compromise. There's one to be had - they've just got to show some leadership to get there.

Council rents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free swimming success continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't waste your vote

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



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

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

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

Out and about in Southfields

There are plenty of opportunities to gain spectacular views of Putney, Wandsworth and much of the rest of London from around the consituency, but among the best are those the residents of the Wimbledon Park estate off Albert Drive enjoy. Here's an example of what I mean: it covers pretty much all of Southfields council ward - which runs from the edge of Wimbledon Park right the way up to the Arndale estate in central Wandsworth. You can click on it for a larger version.

The three Arndale estate tower blocks in Neville Gill Close - and to their right the new Argento Tower - are in the far left of the picture. The red block in the foreground of the picture is Wimbledon Park Court - behind it is Wimbledon Park Road and just to its left, though not visible, is Southfields tube.

Immediately behind Wimbledon Park Court is the Southfields "grid" the streets in between Replingham Road in the north and Revelstoke Road in the south. You may be able to see St Barnabas's Church on the corner of Lavenham Road and Merton Road with it's short green spire in the middle and about two thirds of the way to the right.

Protecting private tenants in Putney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King George's Park anti-social behaviour and July crime stats

Earlier this month I was contacted by residents of Argento Tower, the new high-rise block on Mapleton Road in Wandsworth which overlooks King George's Park (and most of south London).

They've experienced problems with groups of youths hanging around outside the block by the entrance to the park and in the children's play area, generally being rowdy but also intimidating residents and causing vandalism.

This case has exposed a flaw with current Safer Neighbourhood Policing policy in Wandsworth, because the disruption typically occurs in the early hours: 3-5am when the SNT teams don't work except in exceptional one-offs. Similarly, the council's Parks Constabulary don't patrol that late into the night.

So without SNTs and Parks Police patrolling the area, who is there to keep residents safe? Of course, the answer to an extent is that non-SNT police will be on duty and have been asked to keep an eye on this part of the constituency, but police numbers at night are always, rightly, much lower and so tackling a long-standing problem is not so easy.

I'll keep working with the residents of Argento Tower, the Parks Constabulary and the Southfields Safer Neighbourhood team until this problem is sorted out.

July's crime stats are above: there was a very small uptick in crime in these figures, mainly due to a spike in drugs offences following a police crackdown, and in theft and handling offences in the three big problem wards for these sorts of crimes: Roehampton, Southfields and Thamesfield.

But no sign of the "big increase" in burglaries Putney's Conservative MP complained about last month. Good news.

Campaigning against themselves

This letter appeared in yesterday's Wandsworth Guardian.

Let me just add that Mr Hawkes is not a Labour Party member, I have never met him and we have corresponded once about an entirely separate issue.

Our Safer Neighbourhood Police teams

I haven't published a full list of Putney's Safer Neighbourhood Police teams and their contact details for a while, so here it is.



East Putney and Putney Hill

• Sgt Matt Snowden
• PC Chris Cook
• PC Sandrine Tanghe
• PCSO Sandra Simoni
• PCSO Adam Lucioni
• PCSO Paul Henry

Contact them at:
Jubilee House, 230-232 Putney Bridge Road, SW15 2PD

tel: 020 8721 2433
mob: 07920 233 925
e-mail: eastputney.snt@met.police.uk

Roehampton, Putney Vale and Putney Heath

• Sgt Mark McLeavery
• PC Andrew Voong
• PC John Frame
• PCSO Lisa Burke
• PCSO Noel Perkins
• PCSO Nicky Edwardes
• PCSO Fuad Osman
• PCSO Marco Serrano
• PCSO Richard Ahronson

Contact them at:
37 Holybourne Avenue, SW15 4JE

tel: 020 8649 3551
mob: 07843 065 885
e-mail: roehampton.snt@met.police.uk



Southfields and Wandsworth Southside

• Sgt David Mepham
• PC Alison Edwards
• PC Gerry Wood
• PCSO Liam McLaughlin
• PCSO Alec Lewis
• PCSO David Fry

Contact them at:
146 Wandsworth High Street, SW18 4JJ

tel: 020 8247 8760
mob: 07920 233 931
e-mail: mailto:southfields.snt@met.police.uk



Thamesfield (Putney Riverside and town centre)

• Sgt Roger Chapple
• PC Alastair Adams
• PC Stuart Paton
• Special PC Mukesh Dev
• PCSO Douglas Cameron
• PCSO Sophie Wood

Contact them at:
Jubilee House, 230-232 Putney Bridge Road, SW15 2PD

tel: 020 8721 2434
mob: 07920 233 924
e-mail: thamesfield.snt@met.police.uk



West Hill and Wimbledon Park

• Acting Sgt Thomas Sharville
• PC Glen Cheal
• PC Peter Odelusi
• PCSO Benjamin Christmas
• PCSO Sarah Howard
• PCSO Jonathan Broadhead

Contact them at:
146 Wandsworth High Street, SW18 4JJ

tel: 020 8721 2430
mob: 07920 233 930
email: westhill.snt@met.police.uk



West Putney

• Acting Sgt Daniel Wray
• PC Paul James
• PC Stuart Baggaley
• PCSO Sharon Ellis
• PCSO Scott Thomas
• PCSO Jeff Cox

West Putney Police Office, 325 Tildesley Road, SW15 3BB
tel: 020 8721 2760
mob: 07747 757 590
e-mail: westputney.snt@met.police.uk