Article

|
One of the applicant's drawings of the proposed hotel on Falcon Road
One of the applicant's drawings of the proposed hotel on Falcon Road

Although the application for the hotel was rejected last night the developers are now appealing to the Mayor.

Any applicant has the right to appeal a decision, which will normally go to the planning inspectorate.  This is unusual in that it’s not, technically, an appeal, but instead a request that the Mayor takes responsibility for the decision (and presumably, having taken responsibility, approves it).

I’ll also confess I don’t really understand the motives.  The usual justification for asking the Mayor to rule on an application is because it impacts on his wider London strategies.  It’s hard to argue that London is in desperate need for more hotel capacity.

You can argue that Wandsworth needs more capacity – but that’s a Wandsworth, not a London, matter.

Another reason might be that the application has implications for more than one borough.  Again, it’s hard to see how, the site is some miles from the nearest border with Lambeth, and the size means it’s unlikely to have any effect on any of our neighbours.

I would hope this doesn’t get anywhere with the Mayor.  The developers best way forward is to work with the council to come up with an acceptable scheme, rather than touting the application around in the hope someone will eventually say yes.

Article

|

Last night saw an incredibly successful event organised by Wandsworth Town Centre Partnership (with support from St George). I made some fairly feeble attempts at recording elements – an AudioBoo:

Listen!

And a video, although distance and the light mean phone cameras are not going to produce great results it does give a good impression of the set-up and the size of the audience.

Although the event was a real success what struck me the most was the potential Battersea’s riverside has. I never really think about Battersea having a destination riverside, Wandsworth has a huge length of accessible river, which is very picturesque – but something I’ve always walked or run, rather than actually gone to as a destination in itself.

Hopefully the success of the event last night will mean that more will be made of the river and more people who shared my misconception, will re-think the Thames at Battersea.

Article

|

Another good discussion from last night’s committee was on crime in Tooting (which, for the police, includes Balham, Earlsfield and Furzedown). It was the first time the committee has had a geographically based crime paper, in the past it has concentrated on crime by type.

Let me start by setting the context that Wandsworth is the safest place in inner London, and is significantly safer than many outer London boroughs. Crime in Wandsworth is low and has been falling (although there is some evidence that fall may have bottomed out, and the recession is having an affect on patterns and volumes of crime).

Rather than try and precis the report, I’d suggest if you live in Tooting or are even interested in crime you take the time to have a read of Paper 09-472 Crime in Tooting. Yes, it’s a council report, and yes, that means it’s quite dry. But it is full interesting information.

For example, I think there has always been a perceived wisdom that Tooting suffers higher crime than the rest of the borough, when in fact the rate of crime is consistently lower than Wandsworth’s already low rate.

There are also a few maps illustrating how the occurrence of different crime types is spread (or not spread, in some cases) across Tooting. Unfortunately, Ordnance Survey’s restrictive copyright means I can’t reproduce them here.

And, importantly, it highlights some of the work the council, police and other partners are doing to reduce crime. Like I said, it’s well worth a read and I’d be interested in your reaction, thoughts and comments.

Article

|

It was a lengthy Regeneration and Community Safety OSC last night – the focus of most of the evening was on crime and disorder, but one paper towards the end of the evening generated a lengthy and interesting debate.

The paper was proposing that Wandsworth renews its ‘no casino’ policy. If you want to read it, the paper and appendices can be found on the council’s website – scroll down to item 18, it’s paper 09-485.

To give a potted summary since the Gambling Act 2005 a council has been able to adopt a no casino policy for up to three years in 2006 the council passed a resolution to that effect and it is now time to review that decision.

There were two key points to the discussion.

First, are casinos so ‘evil’ that we would oppose any in Wandsworth?

Second, isn’t it better to adopt a more flexible policy, since in 2012 circumstances might have changed and we might actually want a casino.

I found it a really interesting discussion. As a Conservative there’s a real conflict between the libertarian ideal – that we should impose as little regulation as possible – and any vision we might have that would be incompatible with casinos. Additionally, it’s not as if we don’t have gambling on every high street. Bookmakers are common, every pub has fruit-machines and every newsagent sells Lotto temptation that comes with even longer odds than any casino offers.

But they operate differently. Gambling is not the main trade of a pub or newsagent, and while it is for a bookmaker, they don’t offer ancillary facilities like a bar, food or entertainment that casinos often offer.

The flexibility argument is more compelling; the opposite of a no casino policy is not a will-open-casino policy. We would still have to consider applications and could reject them. But we wouldn’t have total control, a casino operator could appeal, and might win, a rejection, meaning we ended up with a casino we considered inappropriate. And even though we could add conditions to any licence, we’re still fairly limited, we couldn’t for example set ‘quality’ standards. In the eyes of the law a casino is a casino is a casino (likewise, in planning terms, there’s no difference between Poundstretcher and Fortnum and Mason, they are just retail outlets).

But for me the decision boils down to the type of Wandsworth we want. Wandsworth is a residential borough. Increasingly it’s a family borough. Proudly, it’s a business borough. And I just don’t see a casino fitting into that.

A casino would profoundly change an area. It would drive the night-time economy and would undoubtedly mean that shops, bars and restaurants in the area would change to reflect that. And I don’t think that’s what we want.

An anecdote I didn’t share with the committee goes back to 2006. I was at the Battersea Police Ball with my wife and friends (a huge event that raises funds for the Battersea Crime Prevention Panel) and as it came to an end one suggested we all go to the casino where he’s a member.

So we piled into a couple of cabs and headed up to St James. While I didn’t lose my house at roulette I did get a little more gregarious after a few shandies…

It took me weeks to pluck up the courage to look at the photos I insisted on having taken with every member of staff I spoke to. Even now I cringe thinking about it and couldn’t bring myself to use one to illustrate this post. And while no harm was done (all the staff posed for photos with great humour, as did a couple of other customers) I ask you this – do you really want people like me rolling into the borough late at night for a few hours of drinking and cards then getting a cab back to their quiet, residential borough?

I certainly don’t.

In London there are plenty of places with established night-time economies into which a casino would fit nicely. Wandsworth isn’t one of them.

The policy now has to go to the council’s Executive and full council (legally only the full council can make the decision) before going to a public consultation. Of course, you can have your say right here!

Article

|

The Audit Commission‘s place survey was published the other day and makes good reading for Wandsworth, especially as they reflect public opinion rather than the results of an external assessors checklist. Basically, it’s what you think of Wandsworth.

Of course, the temptation is just to highlight what you might think are the ‘top two’: value for money and quality services. In both Wandsworth came top in the country – more people in Wandsworth think the “council provides value for money” and were “very or fairly satisfied with how [the] council runs things” than in any other authority.

But there were a number of other good results. For example, by my reckoning we came fifth on parks and open spaces – impressive when you consider we are an inner London borough. And overall 85% of people think Wandsworth is a good place to live.

There were the odd results. 37.9% of people feel they can influence decisions in the area, but only 13.8% of people have been involved in decision making recently. It would be interesting to see if we can tease out more information to explain why the first figure is so low and why there’s such a difference between it and the second figure.

And there are, of course, results that show there is work that needs to be done. Wearing my community safety hat I was astounded that only 11% feel they would know what to do if there were a major incident. When you consider the government’s nationwide resilience campaign and the strong emergency planning we have locally along with the disproportionate fear of a major incident in Wandsworth (the latest survey showed around half the Wandsworth population feared a major terrorist attack within the borough) it’s very surprising that number is so low.

But these shouldn’t detract from those top two. The primary function of a council is to provide quality services to its residents, so it’s great to be told by residents that they think we are number one for service and value.

Article

|

It’s time to come out. Despite my regular use of Twitter, and my frequent advocacy of it, I’m a sceptic. I think it is over-hyped and while fun and useful for some, for most it’s an irrelevance.

Now to a degree that title and first paragraph was a bit of fly-catching. This blog post is advertised and Twitter and I’m sure I’ll have attracted a few people who came to read just so they can disagree, shake their heads and mutter to themselves that I just don’t ‘get it’ – the most damning statement you can make about a Twitter critic.

I am actually a fan of Twitter, I think it is incredibly useful, I have benefited enormously from it and have been able to help a number of residents through it. But I think people sometimes lack a little perspective.

But what prompted me to write this post was the response on Twitter to Plymouth Council’s decision to block access to Twitter through their network. This, of course, was a travesty and compared to the actions of the Iranian Government. Presumably a news blackout and riots on the streets of Plymouth are next.

A search on Twitter reveals widespread condemnation. Many quote the Labour candidate’s response or the similar story that appeared on the MJ’s website. Fewer point to articles like those on The People’s Republic of South Devon or The Plymouth Herald where the comments suggest that, actually, local people are not lining up to condemn the council and many support the move.

Now there are arguments on both sides. You might think that transparency is a good thing in government at any level, and I totally agree. But is Twitter the way? There, I’m not so sure – the Twittering classes are still a fairly insignificant minority numerically, many of those with Twitter accounts barely use them and there’s still a significant proportion of people who do not even have internet access.

Plymouth City Council aren’t trying to ban communication. They are banning access to a social networking site from council computers. I’ve twice seen internal emails advising of a blanket ban on access to specific sites, once for eBay and then for facebook – neither occasion were Wandsworth council, but instead my employers at the time. Indeed, I once had to present a business case to get any internet and email access.

And it’s entirely within any employers right to provide or limit internet access as they see fit. I happen to think it should be a management issue, rather than an IT issue, but if they feel their staff have no valid work reason to use Twitter in work time, then they have the right to make that decision and use IT to enforce it.

Comparisons with Tehran are wide of the mark. I don’t think Labour are accusing the council of rigging an election, just complaining about the use of council resources on another social networking site. People are free to Twitter, facebook, eBay, YouTube or even FriendsReunite in their own time, but I’m guessing the council – and most residents – feel this isn’t really what, say, a housing benefits officer or social worker should be doing at their desk.

So am I supporting Plymouth? Yes, I think I am. Each council has the right to make their own decisions. I might not have made that decision, but fully support them in their right to make it. Should they have different access policies for councillors and employees? Perhaps. But is it really a blow for communication, or transparency? No, absolutely not. Twitter is just a medium, one among many. If Plymouth seek to stop communication, or make their workings opaque, that is a problem, but when we attach more value to a medium then we do the messages it carries it is already too late anyway.

Article

|

At last week’s Northcote Road Carnival I was having a chat with Essential Local magazine about the event. One of the things they asked for was a quote about the day. And it was virtually impossible to give, because pretty much anything you could say was put on the bottom of a list of other (far more important) people saying much the same thing: fantastic day, congratulations to organisers, excellent atmosphere, etc.

So I tried to take a broader view and pointed to how it illustrated the unique offer and character of Northcote Road, which in turn illustrates the unique offers and characters of Battersea.

If you consider Clapham Junction as a hub, whatever direction you walk you are in Battersea, but each is a very different bit of Battersea. To the north, you go up Falcon Road, Battersea High Street and Battersea Square. To the east, my own favourite bit (obviously) Lavender Hill. To the south is St John’s Road and Northcote Road. And finally to the west St John’s Hill. While each share similarities, accidents of history, architecture and even traffic management means each has it’s own character and style. They attract different types of resident, different types of shop and different types of shopper – even though they are just minutes walk from each other.

While I’ve found it fascinating watching each of these evolve over the 12 years I’ve lived in the area, what has been most exciting is the past few when, it seems, there’s been a much stronger sense of community developing – and the resurgence in street-party style events has been one of the most visible aspects of this.

Last year saw just Lavender Hill hosting an event. This year they were joined by Northcote Road and St John’s Hill are planning an event in September. This isn’t limited to Battersea, only slightly further afield Old York Road will be having their third street party later this year and Southfields are looking at their first event this year.

I’m not quite sure what has prompted these events. Clearly there will be an element of seeing the success of one event and wishing to emulate it – but that is slightly simplistic, since a huge amount of work is required to organise one of these days, along with a significant investment in time and money.

But whatever the reason I’m glad that it is happening. One of the real shames of London (and I know I’m as guilty of this as anyone) is that we’ve lost our neighbourhoods – and anything that helps restore that community spirit can only be a good thing.

Article

|

Tooting Mela 2009I popped down to the annual Tooting Mela yesterday.  I really should have advertised the event last Friday.  The afternoon, organised by London Fire Brigade was a fantastic session of entertainment, demonstrations and free food.

The London Fire Brigade have been done a fantastic job in recent years of getting out of their fire stations and promoting fire safety and prevention – with the aim of reducing the number of times they are leaving their stations to put out fires. As the tragic fire in Lessingham Avenue the previous night showed the Fire Brigade are an essential emergency service, but we should all do our bit to make sure they are used as little as possible.

One great service they provide is a free fire safety check and smoke alarm.  If you want one you can book one via the London Fire Brigade website.  Smoke alarms will give enough warning for a householder to escape without serious injury, and when you can get one installed for free there really is no reason not to have one.

They also demonstrated the potential dangers of tackling fire yourself – the video below shows them demonstrating the effect of using water on a deep fat fryer.

Unfortunately the video stops before the fire blanket they used failed to put the fire out! Instead the fat from the pan overwhelmed the blanket and continued burning. Not how they wanted the demonstration to go, perhaps, but a good lesson that it’s best to let professionals deal with this sort of thing.

Article

|

The map below details crimes reported in Wandsworth between 11 and 18 June.

If you have any information on any of these crimes you can get in touch with the local police on 020 7350 1122 or via Crimestoppers (anonymously, if you wish) on 0800 555 111.

The map is hosted by Google, and occasionally will have problems loading. If the map does not load, or will not load the flags, try refreshing the page or following the link directly under the map; I always check the map after publishing, so if it does not load for you it is likely to be a temporary problem with Google. As usual there are some health warnings following the map.

You can click on the individual markers for more information.


View Larger Map

  1. Yellow flags represent burglaries and red flags represent street crime reported in the period.
  2. The briefing only contains details of burglaries and robberies. Other crimes are not included.
  3. You can see more detail by following the link to the Google website.
  4. The flags are not placed precisely (it would be irresponsible to advertise victims of burglary) but instead are spaced roughly equally on the roads they took place. The idea is to give a visual representation of the spread and range of crime in Wandsworth, rather than pinpointing crime locations.
  5. While I try to ensure the data is accurate it is reliant on the information I receive, and I’m only human, so it may be mistakes have crept in. Please let me know if you think you’ve spotted one.