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.

Green Man lives again

The Green Man pub on Putney Heath has finally bowed to public pressure and restored to its rightful place a version of the long-standing Robin Hood sign by the bus stop.

Due to what must have been a moment of madness by the pub's owners, Youngs, the Robin Hood sign was replaced by a bizarre green gingerbread man logo a couple of years ago when the inn received a makeover. How many pints it takes to believe gingerbread men are green is beyond me - and quite a few others judging by the outcry this little act of silliness generated.

I'm a big fan of tradition in local pubs: I was pleased when the Northumberland Arms on Upper Richmond Road by Dyers Lane reverted to this name after being Jim Thompson's for several years. Often pubs have names rooted in important local history and it should be harder, I think, for a landlord to tear up that historic name on little more than a whim.

While that's not what happened with the Green Man - which other than the pub sign change had a very successful refit - I'm glad that the long-standing sign now swings above the bus stop opposite the pub. Long may it continue to hang there!

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.

Patching rather than fixing: typical Tories

I've long since given up highlighting the disgusting state of Putney's potholed roads - made that way not because of the winter weather but simply through years of the Tories starving the highways budget of cash.

Their policy is simple: never resurface a road if they think they can get away with patching it - and never patch a road they think they can get away with neglecting entirely.

Well, this is Tildesley Road, which runs from Putney Heath through the Ashburton Estate. It exemplifies the absurdity of the Tory patching policy: just count the patches they've put down here - all to no avail.

Patching, as I've written before, is a false economy - one instance of patching will obviously not cost as much as properly, professionally resurfacing a road; but the problem with patching is that - outside Wandsworth - it's never intended as a permanent fix: it's just a stop-gap before more serious attention can be given to the road.

The consequence is that patches are shortlived - as you can see with Tildesley Road. They rapidly erode, and they erode quickly the more intensively the road is used. So the council has to return again, and again, and again to make right the erosion as well as fill in new potholes that emerge in the same areas. And that costs you - it doesn't cost the council: you're paying through it via your council tax - far more in the long run than the Tories properly funding and managing their road maintenance programme.

This isn't rocket science - it's basic housekeeping. The Conservatives, for all their talk of being value for money, show with their dereliction of duty to the basic services we should all be able to expect from our council, that they simply have no idea how to manage a budget.

Reward this Tory incompetence at the council elections in May. A vote for any party other than Labour helps the Tories win again. And you'll get more of the same if they win again.

New Headteacher for Elliott

I very much welcome the appointment of Mark Phillips as the new head of Elliott, and of the wider plans to provide Elliott with much more support from a range of partners including Roehampton University and Burntwood School.

Elliott has already begun to turn around since the difficult Ofsted report last year and the discontent there was among staff with the school's former leadership. And while it's great that Elliott is now part of the Labour Government's Building Schools for the Future programme, which will provide modernised classrooms and buildings alongside the "modernised" school leadership team, it's still a crying shame that the Conservative council waited for so long to apply for this rennovation funding and then made sure it was in the very last tranche of awards for this set of bids.

One thing is clear from my visit to Elliott's Sixth Form Society last Autumn - Elliott's students are a very impressive bunch and I have no doubt that with the right leadership and, in due course, a modernised school building, once again Elliott will be a beacon school for comprehensive education in Putney.

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.

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.

The potholes of Westleigh Avenue

Westleigh Avenue has featured in my "pothole of the week" competition before and look: it's back again!

This is the junction with Carslake Road, near Elliott School:



A close-up of the state of the Carslake Road junction:



In front of Haverstock House on the corner of Carslake Road:



And now on the steep slope from Carslake Road down to Solna Avenue:



Another:



And a third:



At the junction of Solna Avenue:



And another - this one's about 7 inches deep and will do serious damage to car suspensions, not to mention seriously injure any cyclist thrown off their bike because of it:



I find it absolutely astonishing that the Conservatives can find the money to resurface from end to end Hazlewell Road...



...but allow Westleigh Avenue - about 30 metres away from it - to deteriorate to the shocking and dangerous extent that it is in now. Bad judgement, wrong priorities, no leadership. As usual.

I've just reported dozens of potholes throughout the Alton etstate to the council for urgent repair - the worst being Durford Crescent - which runs between Bessborough Road and Wanborough Drive; Swanwick Close, Ibsley Gardens and Danebury Avenue, which can be added to the Harbridge Avenue potholes I reported a few days ago.

The Conservatives are in meltdown over their neglect of Putney's streets. They simply cannot cope with this most basic of competences that I'd expect any council asking to be re-elected in elections in twelve weeks' time to be able to manage.

But remember, the only way to punish the Tories in Putney is to vote Labour: only the Conservatives and Labour have any councillors in Wandsworth and we're the only ones that can beat them in any of the council races in our area.

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.

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.

Dover House shops do better with Labour

Putney's Conservative MP is at it again!

In a recent report she's written: "I've worked with the Dover House shops on their local business concerns such as business rates..."

I'm glad she has, but do you think she told those businesses that if she gets her way they'll pay more in business rates? You see, she's campaigning against the current revaluation of business rates. But 81% of this parade will see LOWER RATES if the revaluation goes ahead.

The table above - which comes from Wandsworth's Conservative council's database of all borough businesses - shows every business in the Upper Richmond Road shop parade she's talking about. The ones in blue - four shops - will see their rates rise slightly under the revaluation. Seventeen will see their rates fall with savings of up to £3,500.

Isn't it a distinctly strange outlook for an area's MP to be campaigning to make life harder for local people? Yet that's exactly what Putney's Conservative MP is up to. I can guarantee this: I'm standing as MP to do the opposite - stand up for Putney and reduce business rates on the majority of shops in the Dover House parade.


Note: I've hidden the exact numerical amounts of rates each business will pay because that's commercial information they're entitled to keep confidential.

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.

Dover House survey results

In the Autumn I spent a week talking to residents of the Dover House estate in West Putney about their issues and concerns.

As part of that week I sent a survey round - the results of which I've now published, here.

The big concerns, as I've written about before, were the lack of children's play facilities for such a large area with so many families. A thumping 84% of respondents support my campaign to get the council to provide a toddlers play area on Roehampton Fields at the top of Dover House Road.

Even more people - 90% didn't think there were enough activities on the Dover House to occupy teenagers, which isn't really surprising given that there are none at the moment.

A majority of residents - 53% rated traffic problems on the estate in the top two quintiles - that figure becomes 88% if you include the third quintile too. While this is a really difficult issue to tackle, it deserves being taken seriously. I feel that the Conservative council hasn't done that: instead fobbing off the estate with crazy and doomed-to-fail ideas like the unpopular ban on right-turns from Roehampton Lane that a huge majority rejected.

A separate majority share my cocnern about the overdevelopment threat to Putney which the Conservatives are responsible for encouraging. 64% said they were either worried or very worried about it - and that rises to 84% if those "quite worried" about it.

The week spent on the Dover House estate produced a raft of casework which I've spent the Autumn taking up; parking problems, dog fouling problems, problems with broken pavements, cycling problems, refuse problems, planning problems and many more. I'm happy to take these issues up because the Dover House estate is a lovely area and deserves better than it's currently getting.

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.

Weekend casework keeps FLOODING in

My campaign was out in West Putney on Sunday, calling on residents of the Eastwood Estate: Aubyn Square and Toland Square off Roehampton Lane.

One of the blocks on Aubyn Square has been flooded, and again I have to ask whether Putney's Conservative MP or the three Conservative councillors for the estate would put up with living in such conditions? If they would not, why on earth do they expect council tenants and leaseholders to?

There were also the usual flytips and complaints about service charges and rents being too high: they are, especially for the poor service Putney's council estates get in return.

In the meantime, the Conservative-run council has replied about the grim state of the Alton last week - pointing out that the reason there was so much leaf mulch on the ground, making pavements slippery for pensioners and blocking up the drains - was because leaves that are wet are hard to clear up.

Here's a tip for the Conservatives: sweep them up before they get wet.

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.

Council-sponsored vandalism

This rubble is all that's left of the lovely - if neglected - tudor lodges on Upper Richmond Road by Putney Park Lane.

Despite strong opposition from residents and the Putney Society, the Conservative council felt that this part of Putney's heritage wasn't worth saving - and in a few months' time we'll have yet another bland block of flats instead. After all, we don't have enough of those do we - especially when compared with the abundance of tudor lodges throughout the constituency.

Forgive my sarcasm but this is a dreadful decision that is irrevocable. It appals me that the Conservatives keep dancing to the developers' tune, whether it's building huge tower blocks no one wants, or allowing buildings that they should have listed and defended to be smashed to pieces.

If this makes you angry too, please don't just sit on your hands. Vote for change.

More Putney businesses pay less from rate revaluation

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

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

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

The majority of Putney businesses will pay less after revaluation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wandsworth: still the flytip capital of London

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

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

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

Well, yes it can.

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

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

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

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

Putney School of Art progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council to consult on Pleasance playground

It's only been a few weeks since I asked the council to provide a children's playground on Roehampton Fields at the top of Dover House Road. As I reported then, the Conservatives have refused to agree to that - for now - but they are now bringing forward plans for a playground on The Pleasance, the green space near St Margaret's Church.

The council is talking about providing a "natural" playground rather than a "conventional" one, though they don't explain what the difference is. I'm not concerned about this other than for the fact that The Pleasance is also used for dog exercising - and was the site of the horrible dangerous dog attacks a couple of years ago. I share the concern of parents that unless it's secure they may not have the confidence in its safety to make it a success.

As usual with this Conservative Council, they're not actually putting up a single penny of funding in providing this playground: all £138,000 comes from a Labour government initiative called the Playbuilder Programme. Why not look out for the next Conservative leaflet when they claim all the credit for it though?

Click here to read the report on the Pleasance Playground - but the Dover House estate is a huge area: we need more than one play area serving this area, so please help me keep up the pressure on the Tories by signing my online petition for Roehampton Fields.

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

Making more of Roehampton Fields

When I was out and about talking to residents of the Dover House estate recently, one of the things that kept coming up from families with small kids was the lack of play facilities in the area.

They've got a point: there is not a single children's play area anywhere on the Dover House estate. And this despite there being plenty of open space in the local area.

The largest of these open spaces happens to be the huge Roehampton Playing Fields at the top of Dover House Road just before you reach Putney Heath. "Why can't a small section of this space be turned into a children's play area?" I was asked.

And so in turn, I asked the council. This is the response I got:

"The site has not at any time, neither during the Council?s tenure nor during the previous ILEA tenure, been a publicly accessible open space. That being so there are no plans to extend use of the facility by local residents, however we are aware of local concerns at the lack of play facilities for younger children and officers are considering the potential to provide some appropriate form of play facility on the Pleasance open space."

Well, secure play facilities for young children and families on the Pleasance, at the other end of the Dover House estate near St Margaret's Church is something that should be looked at. But that doesn't really explain why they can't look at providing something at Roehampton Fields - in fact the only reason the council has come up with is that they've never been used for this purpose.

I don't think that's good enough. With some imagination, young families' play facilities could be incorporated into the playing fields without impinging one foot onto the games pitches and without compromising the overall security of the fields.

If you agree, please sign my petition. Click here.

Transport for London proposes axing the N10

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

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

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

Local NHS shelves plans to redevelop Putney Hospital site

Last night I attended a meeting at which a senior director from Wandsworth Primary Care Trust announced that the board would be asked to shelve plans to redevelop the Putney Hospital site next Wednesday.

Putney Hospital closed in 1999 and, as a result of complex legal issues relating to the development of common land, it has taken the best part of ten years for a development proposal to come to the table.

However, in June this year NHS London effectively vetoed the proposal - which was to relocate some central Putney GP services and the work of the Eileen Lecky clinic onto the hospital site. NHS London acted out of a concern that the proposal did not reflect value for money, was not environmentally sustainable and - critically in my view - was too difficult to get to for many of the patients who would transfer to it.

The main issue here is the need to find new premises for a number of local GP practices where the lead GP is intending to retire soon. The PCT has decided to recommend that new GP services are relocated to other non-NHS-owned properties in Putney. Five commercial sites in central Putney have been identified, although the locations have not been made public while the PCT negotiates with the owners.

I would like to see the detail of the report that is going to the PCT Board next week before making any detailed pronouncements but I believe that the PCT has a moral obligation to residents to deal once and for all with the derelict site on Putney Common which has already absorbed over a million pounds of taxpayers money in planning and costs thousands every year to secure.

Yesterday's meeting - which was attended by around 60 residents - was organised by the Putney Society, of which I am a member. The Putney Society continues to be a welcome and strong voice on this issue and, given that I was a local council I look forward to working alongside them - and others, including my political opponents - to secure an outcome that meets the needs of local patients and residents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My support for AirTrack - but with conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my letter to the Secretary of State: