Blog

Public health messages tailored to different communities could have lessened London Covid rates

A public health professor told London Assembly Members he is 'flabbergasted' government's action plan didn't include such measures
Dave Hill

A leading UK public health academic has told London Assembly Members he has been “flabbergasted” by the failure of national government’s original action plan for dealing with Covid-19 to ensure provision of “tailored messaging” for the country’s diverse population, which would have been particularly valuable for Londoners.

Gurch Randhawa, who is Professor of Diversity in Public Health and Director of the Institute for Health Research at University of Bedfordshire, told the Assembly’s cross-party health committee that despite having a body of law and other “fantastic instruments”, such as equality impact assessments, designed to lessen inequalities in many fields, “for whatever reason, to date the government has not used those tools”.

Although the committee was specifically exploring “the experience of black and minority ethnic (BAME) Londoners during Covid-19”, Randhawa stressed that the disproportionate susceptibility of some groups of people should be thought about as “bigger than BAME communities,” due to health inequalities arising from “a complex interaction between age, gender, ethnicity and social class”.

He said London needs to “take the lead” in deploying equalities criteria as it makes ready for implementing local initiatives against localised flare-ups “in terms of test, trace and isolate, opening schools and supporting employees to go to work” in order to ensure that “nobody is unfairly disadvantaged. If we do that, we will find that not just BAME communities but all communities will get the benefit”.

Randhawa said that higher levels of infection among minority ethnic groups had been predictable, because evidence from around the world about previous pandemics shows that they “tend to mirror the structural inequalities in any society. In a sense, what’s happened in the UK should not be a surprise. Poorer communities, those at highest risk of exposure, need maximum protection”.

He continued: “We knew back in January and February from the data coming out of China and Italy that the elderly, those in frontline-facing jobs and those with underlying [health] conditions had the biggest risk factors.” However: “Back in March, when the coronavirus action plan was published by the government, it really made no reference to any of those three core issues.”

Randhawa said that had the government taken a localised “public health approach” to containing the virus, as was effective in South Korea and Taiwan, rather than a “medical” one which saw energy mostly focussed on protecting the NHS, the UK’s outcomes might have been better, in line with the adage that prevention is better than cure.

The committee also heard from Dr Somen Banerjee, Director of Public Health for Tower Hamlets, who stressed that communicating clear public health messages is more effective if they are delivered by trusted members of individual communities. He said he had concerns about the ability of some in his borough to go about their jobs and lives without incurring greater risks of infection than others: “If you are an Uber driver or a cab driver on a zero hours contract, how do you manage that?”

Banerjee was asked by Susan Hall, who leads the Assembly Conservative Group, if it is the case that BAME Londoners have been more badly effected than others due to inherent biological vulnerabilities to the virus. He replied that the evidence so far is “very inconclusive” but explained that “certain conditions that make being infected more severe” can be more prevalent among some ethnic groups.

Citing the relatively high prevalence of diabetes in South Asian communities, he said, “If you have diabetes and you have coronavirus infection there is a likelihood that you will be affected more significantly,” but added that no genetic causal factor has yet been demonstrated.

Watch a webcast of the health committee meeting via here. Different panelists discussed the mental health impacts of Covid-19 in second section of the proceedings.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair and thorough news, information and comment about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and insights from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories: News
Tags: Andrew Boff, coronavirus, COVID-19 London, Dr Somen Banerjee, health, London Assembly, NHS, Professor Gurch Randhawa, Tower Hamlets

London business groups seek more government support for small enterprises

Both the London Chamber and the Federation of Small Businesses have spoken out
Dave Hill

Two of the capital’s leading business groups have urged the government to do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises to survive the Covid-19 crisis, with measures introduced during the spring due to end at the end of this month.

London Chamber of Commerce & Industry chief executive Richard Burge has written to business secretary Alok Sharma, asking him him to postpone the closing date for applications to the discretionary grant fund (DGF), which is government money allocated local authorities.

At the same time, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has called on the government to provide a second DGF nationally, for the same overall figure of £617 million as the original one, which was announced at the end of May and came into effect in June.

The two business bodies are responding to confirmation by the government that three separate national funds set up to help businesses during the Covid-19 lockdown period will close on 28 August, leading to concerns across the country that money unclaimed will have to be returned to the Treasury.

The DGF was brought in later than the other two funds, the Small Business Grants Fund and the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grants Fund, to help “small and micro businesses with fixed property costs” that were not eligible for the other two.

Grants of £25,000, £10,000 or any amount under £10,000 were made available for companies in England that were trading on 11 March operating from properties or parts of properties with relatively low rateable values that could show they had suffered significant falls in income due to the virus.

The government asked local authorities to prioritise small businesses in shared offices or flexible workplaces, “regular market traders” and some bed and breakfast premises when deciding which applications for their share of the fund should benefit.

In his letter to Sharma, Burge writes that the two original funds “have been processed by local councils at a steady pace” but that the DGF is more complicated because “each application requires a significant amount of due diligence” and the companies making them have, in most cases, never had to make one of this kind before. “Not every firm gets the right documentation, which adds work to the approval process,” Burge points out.

He has asked for the DGF closing date to be put back to 30 September, giving more time for councils to process applications and “run additional application windows”.

The FSB has urged small business yet to make a DGF claim to do so before the current deadline and urged to councils to ensure that they are dealt with as quickly as possible.

The website London Loves Business has reported findings by business rates experts Colliers International that some local authorities outside the capital were given more money by the government than they have been able to distribute, while Westminster Council and the City of London, were very quickly oversubscribed.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair and thorough news, information and comment about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and insights from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

 

 

Categories: News
Tags: Alok Sharma, Federation of Small Businesses, London Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Richard Burge

Simon Ricketts: What might the government’s planning reform proposals mean for London?

There are many areas where the role of the capital's planning authorities is unclear and recognition of its particular characteristics is lacking
Simon Ricketts

I looked long and hard in the government’s Planning For The Future White Paper for recognition that London is, well, different – in its opportunities, challenges, complexity, scale and administration. The following brief descriptions of the proposals are no substitute for reading the document itself, but they try to understand how the proposals might work in the capital.

 

Plan-making

There will be cut-down local plans, focused on designating land into three categories: growth (sites suitable for substantial development, which will have the equivalent of outline planning permission); renewal (sites suitable for development with an enhanced presumption in favour of it for the purposes identified in the plan); and protection (areas with environmental or heritage constraints where the existing planning system will continue to apply).

Authorities will be told by government how many homes they need to plan for, applying a new standard methodology to divide up a national annual target of 300,000 homes, but with the government tweaking the arithmetic outputs to take into account such factors as its assessment of the extent of local constraints and the need for land for non-residential development.

There is no indication of a process for push back on those figures. What of the role of the London Mayor? The document says: “It may be appropriate for Mayors of combined authorities (such as Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester) to oversee the strategic distribution of the requirement in a way that alters the distribution of numbers, and this would be allowed for.” Presumably, by extension, the London Mayor would also have this role. But how, in what will be a stream-lined plan preparation process, designed to take no longer than 30 months? Indeed the document envisages new plans being in place, following the necessary legislation to kick off the process, by the May 2024 general election.

Development management policies will be stripped out of local plans and dealt with in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). How does that sit with the London Plan and, indeed, the specific characteristics of London’s neighbourhoods? To what extent would, say, Westminster City Council or the Corporation of London be able to add locally to those policies?

Perhaps part of the answer is the enhanced role for design codes, with a national design code expected this autumn and then local design codes and guides to be prepared locally with community involvement and all these documents to have decision making weight. Neighbourhood planning will also be retained. But how is this to be choreographed with potentially significant requirements for development? How will expectations be managed?

The soundness test, sustainability appraisal and the duty to co-operate will be replaced by a “sustainable development” test.

The document emphasises that better consultation will take place, with plans being visual and map-based and greater use of digital technology. But:

  • Who will set the minimum housing numbers (and other development requirements) for London, and for its individual boroughs?
  • What role will there be for the Mayor?
  • How rigorous will the “sustainable development” test be?
  • How are the London boroughs going to be able to accelerate decision making on sites within their areas identified for substantial development, such that their plan can amount to outline planning permission? And how can they specify acceptable parameters and requirements for development within the light-touch process envisaged?

 

Development management

Outline planning permission via the plan in growth areas can be made to work. After all, it is just an expansion of the current “permission in principle” process. But in London in particular:

  • The nature of constraints is such that outline, as opposed to full, planning permission is often impractical.
  • Will the “outline” be so “outline” as to make reserved matters approval the key “bankable” event, meaning no real change occurs?
  • What of those complex Section 106 agreements with their commitments in relation to mitigation measures?
  • Can it be done within the 30 months’ deadline?
  • How will environmental assessment requirements be accommodated, whilst noting that they will be simplified?
  • Developers will still need to be able to bring forward schemes that are outside the parameters set by the plan. How will such proposals be assessed?

An enhanced Section 38(6) presumption within renewal areas also can be made to work. However:

  • What role will the Mayor have?
  • How will local design codes and guides be balanced against plans and national guidance?
  • Surely, parameters for acceptable development – in other words, local development management policies – will be required for that presumption to work, in which case how will these plans be kept simple and fast?

The onwards march of permitted development rights will continue, with potential use of “pattern books” for different building types.

Restricted area status will surely be the objective for most communities. How will boroughs seeking to bring most of their areas within this category be avoided, if that is what the local electorate is pressing for?

 

Paying for infrastructure

The white paper says the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the current Section 106 planning obligations system are to be replaced by a nationally set charge, which will be a fixed proportion of the scheme’s development value. The levy would fund affordable housing, but with an on-site delivery requirement where appropriate. Mayoral CIL “could” be retained. 

This is one of the less clear parts of the paper, with a “have cake and eat it” flavour. The process for CIL rate-setting will be critical, given existing tensions over scheme viability in London. The mechanisms for paying for and providing affordable housing and ensuring that we have the necessary tenures, delivered to the right quality and in the right places, will be critical too. What is the way to regulate much of this between borough and developer without a Section 106 agreement?

 

In conclusion

The white paper proposals could potentially work, with refinement, although the end result is undoubtedly not going to be as streamlined and fast as the prototype. The consultation period runs until 29 October 2020. To make the best of the government’s firm commitment to change, we really need to make sure that the eventual process and its checks and balances work for London (and nationally). This means that some consensus in London about how the proposals can be sensibly be refined would be helpful. The Prime Minister’s foreword talks of giving “the people of this country the homes we need at prices we can afford, so that all of us are free to live where we can connect our talents with opportunity”. Let’s hold him to that. 

Simon Ricketts is a partner of Town Legal LLP. These are his personal views. For more from Simon on the government’s proposals, visit his blog Simonicity. You can also follow him on Twitter.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair and thorough news, information and comment about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and insights from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

Categories: Analysis
Tags: Community Infrastructure Levy, housing, London Mayor, planning, Section 106, The London Plan

Roger Evans: Twenty years on, how should London’s devolved government evolve?

The Mayor's responsibilities should be increased and clarified and the Assembly's scrutiny powers augmented
Roger Evans

This year, the Greater London Authority (GLA) quietly celebrated its 20th birthday. Next year, London’s latest governing body will come of age. But will it survive to celebrate its 40th anniversary?

With the government moving to take more control of Transport for London (TfL) and commentators, including London Assembly Member Tony Devenish, urging them to repatriate even more powers, the signs may not be good. However, there have been calls to abolish the GLA – which comprises the London Mayor and London Assembly and their staff – throughout its history, and their pleas have come to nothing so far. A better solution may be to actually devolve more, so that the Mayor’s responsibilities are clearer and the role is more accountable.

Mayoral elections can too often seem like personality contests, with the importance of actual policies coming a distant second. One way to change that is to make the job a serious one that reaches beyond virtue signalling and vanity projects. This seems counter-intuitive but, having worked on decentralisation in other countries, I have seen voters become more engaged when the candidates are seeking real power and the result of the election can be seen as having tangible consequences for their communities. Of course, there would need to be accountability too, to balance this increased power, which is why the London Assembly should be enhanced at the same time as the mayoralty.

 

NEW POWERS

Transport

The creation of London Overground, with control over some suburban rail services transferred to TfL, has been hailed as a great success, with more investment leading to ticket barriers, permanent staffing and safety features at stations which had become run down and unwelcoming. TfL Rail from Liverpool Street got off to a less promising start and has been overshadowed by the delays to Crossrail. But once this major project has been delivered and TfL has recovered from the Covid-19 financial hit, plans to transfer more suburban rail services to TfL control should be dusted off.

London Travelwatch, the capital’s transport watchdog, currently sits awkwardly between the Department for Transport and the London Assembly. Its role could be taken on by an enhanced Assembly transport committee.

 

Emergency Services : Ambulance & City of London Police

With the Metropolitan Police and London fire services already reporting to the Mayor, it makes sense for the GLA to take on responsibility for the ambulance service too and create a fully integrated emergency response under the same umbrella. The fight against knife crime could be boosted, as these NHS front line staff often see victims before the police receive a crime report. There would also be opportunities to rationalise property, call centres and the provision of crime prevention and fire prevention advice.

It could also be time to reconsider merging the separate City of London Police with the Met. The Square Mile’s force has developed considerable expertise in handling fraud, but this crime is increasingly widespread because online crime doesn’t respect historic geographical administrative boundaries.

 

Waste disposal

Waste collection is properly the responsibility of individual London boroughs, but its final disposal is achieved through a confused hotchpotch of waste authorities, partnerships and boroughs acting on their own. The Mayor’s environment strategy contains ambitious targets for reducing, reusing and recycling London’s waste, but the powers needed to achieve them are largely not in his hands.

 

Mobra

Sadiq Khan has complained – with some justification – of being shut out of the government’s COBR meetings – more often termed COBRA – that coordinate the response to emergencies, including the current Covid crisis. London has a resilience board, but it is low profile and we haven’t heard much from it. Perhaps it is time for London to have its own version of COBRA – a Mayor’s Office Briefing Room A committee. We could call it MOBRA.

A public Risk Register for the city would also be valuable. At the moment, this information is held on different registers by the organisations that report to the Mayor, but having it all in one place would ensure that important risks are not overlooked and that duplication of effort is avoided.

 

ACCOUNTABILITY

Mid-terms

The London Assembly is almost always politically allied to the Mayor, compromising effective scrutiny. To some extent the problem can be solved by separating the elections, so that the Assembly contest takes place in the middle of the Mayor’s term of office, coinciding with London’s local government elections to minimise additional cost and disruption. These mayoral “mid terms” could become important ways of registering voters’ verdicts on the Mayor’s performances, much as they are for the US President.

 

Boundary Review

Since 2000 London has grown considerably, yet the Assembly has not changed to reflect this growth. Furthermore, the population growth has not been evenly spread across the capital. Residential developments in the Lea Valley and along London Riverside have swollen two Assembly constituencies – City & East and North East – well beyond their original numbers or those of the other seats, registering turnouts of 214,000 and 231,000 respectively in the 2016 election. Constituents in those boroughs could reasonably claim they are currently under-represented. The South West seat too registered a high turnout – of over 213,000 – whereas the lowest turnout was in West Central at 153,000. There is considerable variation across the constituencies.

Unfortunately, the original GLA legislation was very prescriptive. It actually specifies in statute the number of Assembly seats and a requirement for them to respect borough boundaries (a stipulation that isn’t applied to much smaller parliamentary constituencies). So boundaries urgently need to be reviewed and the legislation amended to enable this.

 

Greater Greater London

Recent reports have suggested that renewed London Covid-19 restrictions, if needed, should be to the area bounded by the M25. This highlights the need for political and administrative boundaries to reflect the growth of the capital city. It makes a lot of sense for Greater London to expand out to the motorway, particularly as the GLA has strategic transport and economic development responsibilities relating to that additional territory. Such a move would make it easier to take on suburban rail networks and could herald more measures to enable home working or motorway-based park and ride schemes.

 

Peoples’ Question Time

The legislation is overly prescriptive on other matters too. The requirements for two Peoples Question Time public meetings every year, as well as an annual State of London debate are unnecessarily set out in statute. The Assembly chair and the leaders of the political groups at City Hall should be given the final say, in consultation with the Mayor, on the form and frequency of these events.

 

Office for Budget Responsibility

The Assembly’s budget and performance committee has acquired a well-deserved reputation for rigorous scrutiny but, faced with an overall budget heading for £20 billion and the opacity of TfL and the Met, it struggles to cover the ground. New York City has a well-resourced body of this kind, with finance experts scrutinising the Mayor. A similar organisation backing up the Assembly committee would have highlighted the current Crossrail and TfL finance problems at an earlier stage. It would be a sound investment in London’s future.

Roger Evans is a former statutory Deputy Mayor of London and London Assembly Member and is now a professional speechwriting adviser and political candidate coach. Follow Roger on Twitter.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair and thorough news, information and comment about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and insights from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

 

 

Categories: Comment
Tags: coronavirus, COVID-19 London, Crossrail, Department for Transport, Greater London Authority, Liverpool Street, London Assembly, London Overground, London TravelWatch, TfL Rail, Tony Devenish, Transport for London

Vic Keegan’s Lost London 155: Palaces of the Strand

A string of ostentatious buildings for bishops and aristocrats once lined the north side of the Thames
Victor Keegan

In medieval times, if you looked across the Thames from near where the London Eye now stands, you would have seen an extraordinary sight: an unbroken battalion of overpowering buildings, palaces in all but name, stretching over three quarters of a mile from what is now Trafalgar Square to the site of today’s Temple Station. They were occupied first by bishops, then by aristocrats.

Each one would need a book to do it justice. On the west, where Whitehall began, was Cardinal Wolsey’s York House. Next to it was Suffolk House – later known as Northumberland House –  followed by Durham House (home to Sir Walter Raleigh among others) Salisbury House, Worcester House,  Savoy Palace, Somerset House and Arundel House.

Their gardens occupied the whole of the southern section of the Strand down to the river (which was nearer in those days, before the Embankment was built). Today, only Somerset House still stands, and that is a later re-construction, not the original. It does, though, give you an idea of the scale of these mansions. They were brazen displays of ostentatious wealth, often only yards away from some of the most deprived slums in the city.

There are few other remains, but they are impressive. The most fascinating is Cardinal Wolsey’s wine cellar at York House, later appropriated by Henry VIII, which is buried in almost pristine condition in the bowels of the Ministry of Defence and is not open to the public (though I did once blag a visit). The only visible remnant of York House today is the Watergate, from which the Earl of Essex departed to be executed after his abortive attempt to foment a rebellion against Elizabeth I’s government. It can be seen in all its glory in Embankment Gardens, by Embankment station.

Northumberland House was the last of the grand houses to be demolished, a necessary sacrifice to Joseph Bazalgette’s sewer improvements. There’s nothing left of it on site, but the famous lion that stood on top of the edifice still graces Syon House in Brentford, another family property. William Kent’s gates can be seen at Bromley Health Centre, and part of one of the magnificent rooms is now in the Victoria and Albert museum.

Further along the Strand was the vast Savoy Palace, named after Peter, Count of Savoy, who was given it in 1246. It achieved notoriety when occupied by John of Gaunt, the younger son of Edward III, the richest man in England. His Palace lasted until the Peasants Revolt of 1381, when it was destroyed. A hospital was later built on the site, taking its name from the Savoy. This was demolished in the 19th century, and all that is left of it is its chapel – now called the Queen’s Chapel – whose medieval walls are still intact. They form the largest remains of the Strand palaces above ground. Some of the stones rescued from the hospital’s demolition were recycled into the Royal Coburg Theatre (today’s Old Vic), where they can still be seen. 

Next along is Somerset House, where remnants of a late 17th century wall can be found at a side entrance to King’s College, which occupies part of the site. That is the only free standing survival from the old palace, but even older ones lie under a glass floor in the archaeological department. They include a Tudor wall on the left and a rubbish tip dating from when Saxons established the trading port of Lundenwic along the Strand.

Finally, Arundel House, which was granted in 1232 to the bishops of Bath and Wells, covered almost five acres, the largest site of all the Strand palaces, with a river frontage of an astonishing 150 metres. A modern day Arundel House reminds us of the extensive ruins excavated nearby.

The original was purchased in 1549 by the Earl of Arundel after the execution of its previous owner Thomas Seymour, brother of Lord Protector Seymour, who built Somerset House before he too was executed, prior its completion. There can be a downside to being very rich. Archaeologists uncovered extensive remains. A wall with stairs was found very close to Somerset House next door.

All of these houses have been lost, but numerous street names – from York Buildings to Arundel Street – preserve their memory.

All previous instalments of Vic Keegan’s Lost London can be found here.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair, thorough, and resolutely anti-populist news, comment and analysis about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and information from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

Categories: Culture, Lost London
Tags: London Eye, Somerset House, Temple station, The Strand, Trafalgar Square, Victoria Embankment

Westminster property group says Jenrick planning reforms ignore need for London ‘good growth’

The influential membership organisation lists a number of disappointments and concerns with the government White Paper published yesterday
Dave Hill

An influential Central London property sector group is concerned that the government’s proposed reforms to the planning system will fail to foster economic growth in London and other cities, neglect to take local needs and circumstances into account, and lessen the provision of homes at affordable prices.

In a statement, Olivia Harris, chair of the Westminster Property Association (WPA), which represents 260 Westminster property owners, developers, occupiers and advisers, has welcomed the “ambition to simplify the planning process” but observes that “the reforms seem to be focused on delivering homes in areas outside of major cities” and that “it is unclear how these proposals will sit with regional plans or promote growth in metropolitan areas”.

The statement adds: “Disappointingly, there appears to be no reference to the role of economic growth, which development in the City of Westminster – and other strategically important areas – underpins….in our submissions to government the WPA will insist that any changes to the planning process include controls to ensure that development follows the principles of Good Growth: it should drive economic growth and prosperity, respond to local needs and deliver meaningful community benefits.”

The WPA’s response to the plans, which were unveiled by communities secretary Robert Jenrick in a White Paper yesterday, follow similar misgivings expressed by other London organisations and politicians. about the future form of local accountability and housing standards and affordability.

Issues picked out in three key areas its members will be looking at more closely, the WPA include:

  • The White Paper’s “interesting” proposal to designate local land uses as being for either growth, renewal or protection, saying it is “imperative that the views of business and need for jobs growth are also considered”.
  • It asks “who will produce the design codes for the capital” and where this will leave Westminster Council’s draft local planning document and “regional planning and the London Plan”. (Sadiq Khan’s draft new London Plan was strongly attacked by Jenrick, whose approval it requires, in a letter sent during the build-up to the subsequently postponed 2020 mayoral election).
  • The WPA also seeks more detail about the proposed replacement of existing mechanisms for agreeing developer financial contributions (Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy) to “meaningful benefits to the local area”, crucially in the form of housing for sale or rent below market rates tailored for residents on low or middle incomes.
  • Measures relating specifically to housing which “could lead  to a decline in the number of affordable homes in areas like Westminster”. It describes as “well-intentioned” Jenrick’s envisaged First Homes model, which would offer housing for sale at discounts, but notes that in very expensive areas like Westminster it would “not provide housing at affordable prices for key workers”.

The government proposals also say that new housing deemed in advance to be “beautiful” will be fast-tracked through the new system, but the WPA asks who the arbiter of what is “beautiful” will be. Harris says WPA members will “continue to digest” the details of the reforms is it prepares its response to the government’s consultation.

Photo from WPA website.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair, thorough, and resolutely anti-populist news, comment and analysis about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and information from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

Categories: News
Tags: affordable housing, Community Infrastructure Levy, housing, planning, The London Plan, Westminster Council, Westminster Property Association

Government sets October half term date for suspension of under-18 Londoners’ free travel

The Department for Transport appears to have accepted the need for a delay in implementing the bailout condition, which Sadiq Khan wants withdrawn
Dave Hill

The government has told Transport for London it wants free travel for the capital’s 11-17 year-olds temporarily suspended from “immediately after October half term”.

In letter, Department for Transport (DfT) minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton says, “I can confirm that we would like” the measure to be implemented from that time, with exemptions for children who live more than two miles from their school or college or have particular difficulties or needs.

The temporary suspension of the public transport concession was one a string of conditions attached to the government’s financial bailout of TfL in May, which also included making proposals for increasing the level and operating hours of the congestion charge and a programme of “active travel” schemes.

Screenshot 2020 08 07 at 12.09.54

The letter, written to TfL’s managing director, customers, Vernon Everitt, appears to acknowledge TfL’s concern that there were practical difficulties with bringing forward the suspension sooner, as it thanks two senior officers for their attempts to find a way to introduce it for 16 and 17-year-olds by 6 September, which it describes as the start of the new school year. The Baroness writes: “However, this work should now be stopped and reversed in order to ensure that free travel is still available in its current format until the end of October half term”.

Sadiq Khan has been campaigning for the condition to be removed, arguing that it will penalise less well-off students. Reacting to the delay, Liberal Democrat AM Caroline Pidgeon, who chairs the London Assembly’s transport committee said: “Instead of pushing ahead with this foolish policy at a later date it is now time to drop this entirely. The government’s admission that the suspension of free travel for 11-17 year olds can only be implemented after the October half term simply shows that their initial proposals were misguided, complex and simply wrong”.

Transport secretary Grant Shapps said in June that the Mayor will be able to restore the concession “in the long term, once the [TfL] finances are resolved”, though it is unclear when that position will be reached.

In response to Everitt seeking clarification about which 11-17 year olds will continue to be eligible for free travel, Baroness Norbiton listed in addition to those who live two miles or more from their school:

  • children and have a social worker or an education health and care plan
  • children in “alternative provision”, such as a pupil referral unit or “an alternative provision academy/free school”.
  • children who do not have a safe walking route or “cannot walk due to a medical condition of lack of mobility”.

The minister’s letter adds that for the October suspension deadline to be met it is “vital that DfT and TfL continue to work closely and collaboratively together, and with other key stakeholders, including the Department for Education, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and London Councils”. It continues: “I would be grateful if TfL could confirm what needs to be true in order to meet this deadline and what my officials can do to facilitate this”. The minister expresses a “very strong preference” for “an Oyster smartcard solution”.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair, thorough, and resolutely anti-populist news, comment and analysis about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and information from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

 

Categories: News
Tags: buses, Caroline Pidgeon, Department for Transport, Sadiq Khan, Transport for London

TfL begins installing enforcement cameras for enlarged Ultra Low Emission Zone

The work starts a new phase in the delivery of a flagship Sadiq Khan policy
Dave Hill

Transport for London has begun the next stage of radically enlarging the capital’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) by installing the first of the 750 cameras that will be required to monitor vehicles entering and leaving it.

The expansion of the ULEZ, whose purpose is to deter drivers of vehicles that fall short of the required environmental standard, will see it grow beyond the Central London Congestion Charge Zone it currently covers to new boundaries formed by the North and South Circular roads.

This much larger ULEZ, scheduled to come into effect in October 2021, will be 18 times bigger the current one and TfL says it will “help all Londoners breathe cleaner air” by reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from road transport vehicles by “around 30 per cent across the whole city”.

The original ULEZ results from a policy originally devised by Boris Johnson but implemented by his successor 18 months sooner than Johnson had planned, preceded by an initial Toxicity Charge (“T-charge”). TfL says it “expects four out of five vehicles to be complaint” with the emission standard it has set by the time the enlarged zone comes into effect, but that “this relatively small number of older, more polluting, vehicles contributes disproportionately to London’s pollution”.

A campaign against the larger ULEZ, run by Waltham Forest Conservative councillor John Moss, contends that air quality would improve substantially anyway, that there are better measures for assisting this, and that Mayor Khan’s policy could impose a significant financial penalty on important workers, such as nurses and carers, who cannot afford to buy a new car.

However, the Mayor and Alex Williams, TfL’s director of city planning, point to assistance for drivers might be adversely affected in the form of a scrappage scheme “for those on low incomes, disabled Londoners, small businesses and charities to switch to cleaner vehicles and greener forms of transport”.

The scrappage scheme, which was stepped up in January, includes payments of £7,000 to incentivise van owners to buy cleaner vehicles or £9,500 if the new vans run on electricity. Eligibility for this support has also been widened to embrace companies with up to 50 employees. Previously, only those with 10 employees or fewer qualified.

TfL says that the current ULEZ has contributed to “a reduction of 44 per cent in roadside nitrogen dioxide” in the area it covers  and that, as of January, “more than 80 per cent”  of vehicles driven within the zone met emissions standards – an increase from 39 per cent in February 2017. There were further improvements in air quality during the coronavirus lockdown period when traffic levels plummeted, though motor vehicle use has been rising again more recently.

OnLondon.co.uk exists to provide fair, thorough, and resolutely anti-populist news, comment and analysis about the UK’s capital city. It now depends more than ever on donations from readers. Give £5 a month or £50 a year and you will receive the On London Extra Thursday email, which rounds up London news, views and information from a wide range of sources. Click here to donate via Donorbox or contact davehillonlondon@gmail.com. Thanks.

Categories: News
Tags: Boris Johnson, congestion charge, John Moss, pollution, Sadiq Khan, Transport for London, ultra low emission zone