H&F Council Targets Small Businesses In Money Making Scam

There seems to be an attempt by H&F Council to ramp up the cash it generates from small and medium sized businesses. The Trojan Horse for this is commercial waste legislation that was introduced in the early 1990s.

Over the last year I have been contacted by many small businesses who all tell a similar tale. First, they get a letter from H&F Council demanding to see their Waste Transfer Papers for the last six months. Then, when the small business owner contacts the Council to ask what this is all about, they are handed a £180 fine. I've been a councillor for eleven years and I've never come across this before.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of people disposing of their waste responsibly and acting within the law. But, even those businesses that are getting rid of their waste properly are still fined because the Council says they must have their papers. Given the fact that most small businesses usually don’t have access to advice on these matters then I would have thought the onus was on the Council to let people know of their requirements.

H&F Council has failed to sufficiently alert business owners of the need for these papers. I suspect the reason for this is that some Council official decided that it is easier to follow this path to extra cash than to deliver genuine efficiencies in their department. The Conservative Administration isn’t known for their attention to detail but as they have been copied in my emails on this and refrained from action, I can only conclude that they are just pleased to see the incoming revenue.

Considering the current global economic uncertainty then this is all highly irresponsible but add in that last year both the Council’s political parties voted to agree what is written below, then it makes the Conservative Administration look like incompetent hypocrites at best:

"This Council notes the publication of an independent Commission on Retail Conservation set up by Kensington & Chelsea Council and the recent submission to the Council by the Fulham Society of "Renaissance in Fulham". As a result of increasing concern at the disappearance of independent retailers, this Council resolves to study these two reports and further consider ways in which to support shops and the local economy in Hammersmith & Fulham.”

Westfield Seemingly Unconcerned After Years Of Blighting Neighbours' Lives

Westfield plans to open its Shepherds Bush shopping mall at the end of this month. But, what has it done to protect and make amends to residents who have had to live next to the hellish building works throughout the years of construction? On Monday, I met with three Westfield executives to discuss the wide array of problems residents of Wood Lane had suffered - much of it going on through the night.

Theresa Boyd, who is a local resident, also attended. She told me she wanted a chance to tell Westfield what they had put her through. Theresa told them how the dust that was pumped into her home covered everything and caused electrical equipment to fail. We showed Westfield photos of clouds of dust blowing from their site to where Theresa lives and they admitted that the dust could and should have been dampened down and stopped. Theresa explained how huge spotlights glare through her windows into the small hours, how heavy plant is delivered at all hours and how very loud machines and works run late on into the night. Listening to Theresa I was concerned to learn many of these examples had occurred as recently as last Saturday and Sunday nights. Oddly, the Westfield execs hardly brimmed with empathy and it was my impression that they actually found listening to Theresa’s complaints to be really quite tiresome.

I asked Westfield if H&F Council had sanctioned the late night works – which would be highly irregular. Westfield told me the Council's position was that they "hadn't said they couldn't do this" and went on to tell me that the Council was aware that Westfield planned to open the new shopping centre in two week’s time and so were "supportive of the need for these late night works".

I wrote to a senior council officer to find out whether H&F Council is indeed turning a blind eye to these problems experienced by residents. I received a response saying there will be an “urgent officer inspection” to stop late night works and “to correct Westfield's apparent comment, the position is that we have told them that they must not allow any work outside normal hours which gives rise to noise disturbing residential neighbours. We have indicated that we will tolerate quiet out-of-hours work but will react swiftly to any complaints about noise which is harmful to residents, as we always would.”

Westfield is a multi-billion pound business. It’s owned by the second wealthiest person in Australia. It will spend vast sums on opening parties, public relations, advertising and promoting its image. Given all this, I think they should make amends to those who have been immediately affected by the building works – which has been the biggest in London. It would be the act of a good neighbour but, as yet, it doesn’t seem to be one of their priorities.

More Tax Payers' Cash Spent On Tories' Inflation-Busting Salary Hikes

Many H&F residents will not know that the bloke in the photo is Mr. Kit Malthouse AM (Con), our recently elected representative in the London Assembly. More will be surprised to find out that he is taking a lead from our very own Conservative Council Leader here in Hammersmith and Fulham and has received an inflation-busting salary hike from the public purse.

The Tory Troll is reporting that Mr. Malthouse will now take a £55,000 allowance from the Metropolitan Police Authority. This is a political position that was given to him by Mayor Boris Johnson, who seems happy for him to also be rewarded with a jaw-dropping 44% increase in the renumeration that goes with the role. Mr. Malthouse's MPA pay is on top of his £53,543 joint Deputy Mayor and Assembly Member salary - all of the money coming from our pockets as both roles are completely funded out of our taxes. You can read the full story by clicking here.

Readers will recall that H&F's Tory councillors gave themselves an 18% salary rise in their very first budget after winning the 2006 local elections. They then made the pages of Private Eye's Rotten Borough's section for giving one of their Conservative councillors the equivalent of a 75% salary rise. Then, the Tory Leader of H&F Council secretly gave himself a 14% salary hike in a rather peculiar and underhand way.

I think it's all very odd how the Conservative's plans to use tax payers' money to give themselves salary rises, increased by percentages that most people can only dream about, aren't openly published for all to see in their pre-election literature. It leaves me to wonder if they thought this was all something they had to hide?

Channel 4 Looks At Cameron's Money Men

David Cameron won't have been pleased by the latest broadcast of Channel 4's Dispatches. It examines where he's getting his money from with some worrying conclusions. If you missed it, you can view the episode by clicking here.

Letter To The Daily Telegraph

Here's my letter to the Daily Telegraph after a rather misleading article appeared in it written by Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of H&F Council:

"Dear Editor

What would the press say about a national politician who tried to persuade the public that their tax had been cut by £350 when the annual bill had only really only been cut by £20.74 in the last year? I suspect their reputation for honesty or knowing what they are talking about would take a bashing. So why is local government different?

On 28th September, Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council made exactly that claim about Council tax in your newspaper. But, any study of H&F Council’s budget papers will show that it is blatantly not true - as you can see here on page 37. In fact, in 2006 Cllr. Greenhalgh inherited a budget from the last Labour Administration that would have seen some of the biggest Council tax reductions in the country - with real terms cuts in council tax each and every year up until 2009.

Greenhalgh’s boast about the Tory’s record on crime fighting barely stands up to scrutiny. In 2006 the Conservative’s took over from an Administration that had delivered the biggest fall in crime in London. But, Metropolitan Police figures for the last municipal year now show that H&F languishes behind Lambeth, Waltham Forest, Islington, Richmond and others after cutting Council funding to the ward with the highest rates of crime.

Residents don’t agree that services have improved either. Complaints are up about street cleaning and dog fouling. The Tories introduced a new £7.25 charge for removing garden waste – a service they themselves admitted was “chaotic” after a public outcry. In fact, the Conservatives have introduced over 570 inflation-busting charges on a range of Council services, with parking charges up 12.5%; meals on wheels charges are up 40%, there is a completely new £12.40 per hour fee for home care for local elderly, sick and disabled residents and children’s out-of-hours play services charges increase by a staggering 121%.

Youth centres, schools and homeless hostels have all been sold off as part of a new asset reduction strategy. Affordable housing is cut back on each new development and front line services such as highways maintenance, libraries, youth services and educational grants have all been slashed.

Greenhalgh’s self-proclaimed mission to create the "Borough of Opportunity" rings hollow when you consider all of the above. In fact, after awarding himself a 14% salary rise at the last budget meeting and admitting that his senior colleague had flown to the south of France to meet property developers so they could release “contentious development sites”, then it’s fair to ask who exactly is his “borough of opportunity” for?

I urge the national press to take a long hard look at local government. With Mr. Cameron making Stephen Greenhalgh head of his local government Innovation Unit it seems that Cameron may well take Greenhalgh’s advice and see Hammersmith and Fulham as a model for a possible future Tory Government. If this is the case, then it is hard to see how Cameron’s claims that the Tories have changed really stacks up.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Stephen Cowan
Leader of the Opposition
The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham"

Across The Pond And, Once More, "It's The Economy, Stupid"

On the 28th October 1980, Ronald Reagan struck a nerve when, during the only presidential debate of that election, he asked Americans: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The US had gone through a recession and so the answer for many was a heartfelt “no”. It helped propel Reagan to victory.

Now, after nearly eight years of the Republican's woefully incompetent handling of the US economy, Barack Obama is essentially asking America that same question. The facts speak for themselves: the average, typical American family is actually $2000 worse off than they were eight years earlier; petrol prices have trebled; healthcare charges are up; the banking system is in crisis; homes are being repossessed across the country; the national debt has spiralled; over 5.5million Americans have been driven into poverty; unemployment is at its highest rate in five years and America has experienced the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s.

The voting public are concerned. Polls show that the economy is, by far, the number one issue for voters in this election with national security coming a distant second. In particular the economy is a worry for target 'blue collar', 'middle class' voters – key in so many swing states.

McCain’s economic policies mirror Bush and barely stand up to scrutiny. His proposed measures to alleviate the current burdens on American households fall well short of public hopes. For example, McCain promises to double existing child exemption to $7,000 but only a small proportion of Americans would qualify for that scheme. McCain says he will provide a credit to buy health insurance but those workers who already have employer provided health insurance will find the benefits of that scheme offset by a proposed new tax on their employer funded health programme.

Barack Obama has gone much further than his Republican rival. The Democrats would prioritise the provision of new jobs – many in the green energy sector and pledge to get the economy back on track. They promise to improve life for “ordinary Americans” committing to a $500 tax cut for the average worker; senior citizens earning less than $50,000 will cease to pay income tax and there will be lower health insurance cost for all Americans - with a subsidy for those who don’t currently have coverage. An Obama Administration will introduce a $4,000 collage tuition subsidy for students who agree to undertake community service; it will provide mortgage interest credit (valued at $500 for home owners who don’t itemise their tax deduction) and introduce a child tax credit (that could save $1,100 for a single parent of two dependant children who earns $40,000 or less).

So, can McCain prevail without offering more to those being hurt by America’s current economic woes? For the moment, his campaign thinks it can. McCain’s record as a war hero is being used to make a direct pitch to blue collar swing voters on national security issues and the Republicans are urging the US public to believe that both McCain and Palin are "mavericks" that will “change" Washington. Meanwhile, by claiming Barack Obama is an inexperienced "tax and spend liberal" they hope to scare voters into thinking that he’s not in tune with America’s traditional cultural values – a customary claim Republicans make about Democrats. In fact, this week, in fourteen key states (five of them states that voted Democrat in the 2004 presidential election) the Republicans launched an ad with the slogan “ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.”.

Following the two conventions, polls show that the race for the White House is currently tied. Yesterday’s Rasmussen daily Presidential Tracking Poll puts Barack Obama and John McCain each on 46% of the vote. When 'leaners' are included, it’s Barack Obama 48% and John McCain 48%.

But, the fact remains that McCain cannot shy away from voters’ concerns on the economy; or that his economic platform broadly shadows that of the deeply unpopular Bush Administration; or that he seems out of touch with voters concerns (commenting recently that he thinks the US economy is “fundamentally strong”); or, indeed, that 84% of Americans think their country is "going in the wrong direction" and that, during the last eight years, McCain has voted for Bush to take the US in its current direction over 90% of the time.

So, as the sign said in Bill Clinton’s War Room during the 1992 election, “It’s the Economy Stupid”. In this election, it’s the solutions Barack Obama proposes that are set to dominate that issue.

Proposed New Development For Glenthorne Road, Hammersmith

Linden London have submitted a planning application for 63-75 Glenthorne Road, W6. They hope to build 67 one, two and three beds apartments on the central Hammersmith site. The proposals also include provision for fifteen new car parking spaces. You can click onto the attached revised plans and the Architect's mocked up photos to enlarge them.

The Cambridge Grove and Leamore Street Residents Association have raised a number of concerns about the proposals and are keen that Linden London develops the site in such a way as to not cause extra traffic or noise nuisance to the already congested area. They’ve been supported by the Brackenbury Residents Association, the Hammersmith Society, and the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group. My fellow ward councillors and I have been working with them on this matter and met with the developer earlier this year to hear of their plans.

I will write more when I know what date this application will to go to the Planning Committee. Meanwhile, please let me know your views on this development and email me by clicking here if you would like me to send you a PDF copy of Linden London’s brochure for the site.

Boris Johnson Unvails Above Inflation Travel Fare Hikes

The Tory Troll is reporting that Boris Johnson will today announce above inflation hikes on bus and tube fares. You can read the full story here.

Figures released to the GLA’s Budget and Performance Committee show that the cancellation of the Venezuelan 'oil deal' and the scrapping the higher Congestion Charge has left over a £100million hole in the budget. Boris is hoping to make up the difference by passing the charge onto Londoners.

News of these increases are contrary to Boris' pre-election pledge not to raise fares which will come as a blow to commuters across the capital.

Hammersmith Grove Armadillo Halted – For Now?

Work on the notorious Hammersmith Grove “Armadillo” has ground to a halt because the developer has allegedly been unable to obtain bank financing for the scheme.

Building magazine told how Development Securities had unsuccessfully been attempting to refinance the project at a time when they reported a £14.4m loss for the past six months. Development Securities released a statement saying that while it had assembled long-term equity partners willing to finance the transaction, the “lack of any currently available bank finance for the development stage left our original equity co-investors unable to proceed with the project as originally planned”.

The Armadillo became a highly controversial local issue when residents raised concerns that their needs were being put behind those of the developer. H&F’s ruling Conservative Administration then put out a statement denying that they had met Development Securities to negotiate around its plans only to then have this proved untrue by evidence provided following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. On the 18th September 2007, Cllr. Mark Loveday (Con) wrote on a local website that “Like anyone else, they [Development Securities] don't have to consult with the Council or the public before submitting a planning application, and they didn't. The Council was presented with their proposals without any real advance notice. Perhaps had they spoken to us first, we would have told them what would and would not work.” However, the FOI evidence actually showed that Conservative councillors and council officials had met secretly with Development Securities on over 17 separate occasions, which is almost twice a month, to discuss their proposals for the Hammersmith Grove Armadillo. The first meeting took place on 15th November 2006 some ten months prior to Cllr. Loveday’s written statement. This led many local people to believe that the development was a "done deal" and over one hundred and seventy residents raised a wide variety of their concerns with H&F council officials and the developer at a public meeting on 25th October 2007. Unconvinced by what they heard, a further two hundred an fifty residents then turned out on 30th October 2007 to protest against the scheme when it was being considered by the Planning Applications Committee . Following that meeting, many residents told me that they were bitterly disappointed when H&F’s Conservative Councillors used their majority to grant planning permission. The planning committee was chaired by Ravenscourt Park Councillor Lucy Ivimy (Con).

It now seems that the construction of the Armadillo has been slowed down rather than stopped. Development Securities said in their statement that “Constructive discussions are now taking place in order that the development can proceed without the need for banking finance”. You can read Building magazine’s full story by clicking here.

H&F Conservatives Make Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs Section AGAIN

The Rotten Boroughs section in the current issue of Private Eye (no 1217) has set aside seven paragraphs to expose how H&F’s Conservative Councillors have cut back the affordable housing element of another property scheme.

This is not the first time that our local Tory Councillors have appeared in Rotten Boroughs. This time last year Private Eye told how H&F Tories voted themselves an 18% pay hike and gave a fellow Conservative Councillor, on the adoptions panel, the equivalent of a 75% pay rise and all at the same time that they also voted over £30million of "savage cuts" to crime fighting, local schools, the elderly, the disabled, youth facilities, street cleaning, refuse collection, the garden waste scheme and the borough's environmental services.

The sad thing about the details uncovered in the current Private Eye story is that there are 9200 local families on the housing waiting list in Hammersmith and Fulham and many more residents looking to get an affordable home to rent or buy. All will be bitterly disappointed at this cut back in available affordable homes. However, with H&F Conservatives halting the affordable housing aspect of all major developments; looking to demolish affordable homes across the borough and flying to the south of France to meet major firms to try and sell off “contentious property developments”; then the Private Eye story is just the thin end of the wedge.

What Are H&F Conservatives Plans To Demolish 800 West Ken Homes?

Lisa Nandy (Lab), H&F Council's Shadow Cabinet Member for Housing and Regeneration, is calling on local Conservatives to come clean and tell the public what they're up to after Saffron Pineger of the Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle scooped a story exposing that the they are in secret negotiations to demolish over 800 homes in West Kensington. The Administration wants to replace them with “hotels, offices and luxury housing”.

The story has also been picked up in the property magazine Estates Gazette which reported that H&F Council had approached the owners of the Earl’s Court exhibition centre and offered up large areas of West Kensington, including Dieppe Close and Gibbs Green School as part of plans for a massive commercial development of the neighbouring Earls Court area.

This move provides an insight to the Conservative Administration’s strategy after a senior Tory Councillor flew to Cannes in the South of France to meet international property developers. The official explanation for his trip to the luxury resort was that he had gone to try to “unlock contentious development sites”.

Cllr. Lisa Nandy told me “This is a highly 'contentious development site'. With these plans H&F Conservatives would force over 800 families out of their homes and with no guarantee of getting an affordable, decent place to live at the end of it. They clearly do not care about the disruption, insecurity or anxiety they are causing to residents of West Kensington. I have put a Freedom of Information request to get all the documents relating to the Council’s secret negotiations but given the scope of this scheme I would hope that H&F Council would do the decent thing and tell local families exactly what plans it has for their homes. These proposals would be catastrophic for the area.”

Meanwhile, an official in H&F Council’s Environment Department told me that this is only one of many “contentious development sites” which the H&F Conservatives have identified across the borough. I will report on those as we glean more details.

H&F Council Raises Suspicions With Secret Thames Water “Super Sewer” Meeting

I had a long conversation with a senior executive at Thames Water yesterday and plan to meet with them in September to discuss their proposal to put a gateway to the "super sewer" in Furnival Gardens, Hammersmith. It is now clear TW have identified Furnival Gardens as a possible site but told me that they are very keen to work with H&F Council to look at other possible sites in the area and is meeting with Council representatives today.

Oddly, the Conservative Administration is refusing to have a cross-party approach to this issue and does not want Labour representatives to be at that meeting. This is highly suspicious and given their history with Furnival Gardens and their dealings with property developers (in particular the Hammersmith Grove Armadillo) I am concerned to find out why the Conservatives don’t want a public spot light into their dealings with Thames Water. I wrote to the Administration to say:

“You will recall that when Labour was in Administration we arranged a meeting with TW and invited Conservative representatives to attend - which they did. Why therefore, is H&F Council now taking a party political approach to this issue, when it is obvious that local people will be better served if H&F Council puts up a united political front in opposing the use of Furnival Gardens as an entry point to the "super sewer"? Having witnessed the Council's dealings around the Hammersmith Grove Armadillo building, this approach leaves me extremely concerned about what deals H&F Council may be doing behind closed doors”.

Please email me here if you want to be kept in touch with this matter. My fellow ward councillors and I will raise you concerns or suggestions when we meet with TW in September. Meanwhile, I have used the Freedom of Information Act to request all documents relating to the H&F Conservative Administration's dealings with Thames Water on this matter. I have also asked for the total amount of Section 106 payment that could be given by Thames Water to H&F Council if it grants planning permission for Furnival Gardens to be used as a gateway to the "Super Sewer".