WATCH THIS VIDEO – Would You Trust These People To Be In Control Of Your Neighbourhood?.. Well, They Are

There have been many controversial planning and redevelopment matters in Conservative controlled Hammersmith and Fulham over the last few years but none more so than this.

Click here to watch the video and witness Hammersmith’s residents question Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh (Con), the Leader of H&F Council about the secret negotiations his Administration has conducted with property speculators to demolish their homes. On 29th April 2009, Cllr. Greenhalgh and the Hammersmith Broadway Conservatives turned up to St Paul’s Church, Hammersmith to take part in a self-styled “Leader Listens” meeting. Understandably, local people are desperately worried about their homes after it emerged that Hammersmith Conservatives had met property speculators in both London and in Cannes, the luxury resort in the South of France, to discuss demolishing residents’ homes. This short video shows Cllr. Greenhalgh being forced to admit that talks have taken place after an intensive round of questioning by members of the public.

The meeting went from bad to worse as residents became increasingly angry. The video doesn’t capture the lady whose voice echoed, like it had come from the heavens, as she shouted from the back of the church that Cllr. Greenhalgh “should not lie in the house of God” (which he denied doing); or the nervous blinking one Conservative candidate became afflicted with as the audience became ever more unconvinced by Cllr. Greenhalgh’s answers. But the video does demonstrate that there have been secret talks taking place over recent years about demolishing people's homes - which H&F Council has tried to cover up. Watch for yourself by clicking here.

In fact, only last week, when asked about talks with developers relating to people's homes on Queen Caroline Street, H&F Council’s press office told the BBC that there had been "Absolutly no talks with any developers about the site". This video evidence shows the Leader of the Council clearly contradicting that; as does the evidence from the property speculator involved - who has also confirmed to the BBC that he had been in talks with H&F Council and its Conservative Administration about knocking down homes on Queen Caroline Street.

H&F Conservatives now say that these talks are taking place only to consider what will happen around the year 2029. Again, this doesn't ring true. I currently have people in my surgery telling me that H&F Council is already making offers for them to leave their homes within the next year. One Hammersmith resident told me that an official actually encouraged him and and his family to consider moving out of the borough on the basis that they could get a much bigger property further out of central London - something he doesn't want to do. It’s also interesting to consider why would the Conservative Administration fly to the French Riviera at public expense for discussions with property speculators about issues they say won’t come to fruition for another 20 years. One leading speculator they've been in talks with will be in his 70s in 2029. Therefore, H&F Council’s line that this entire activity currently taking place has no immediate outcome looks as untrue as what their press office originally told the BBC about not meeting any developers whatsoever.

In fact, the only factor that seems to have stopped all this from progressing immediately is the credit crunch, as the banks have, for the moment, stopped lending such large amounts of cash to property developers. That's why, on 27th February this year, the prospective developer for Queen Caroline Street told the Hammersmith Gazette that he hopes to progress with the scheme “once the economy has recovered from the global downturn” next year.

A big question still not answered is where will they put all the current residents? We now know that H&F Conservatives have met with property speculators and offered up resident’s homes on:

• Queen Caroline Street
• Ashcroft Square
• Gibbs Green
• West Kensington
• White City
• The Lytton Estate
• Batman Close

There are, undoubtedly, still other neighbourhoods being targeted that H&F Conservatives are hoping to keep under wraps. Currently, that’s around 2000 homes that will be affected which will mean around 5000 people needing a new place to live. Given that H&F Council no longer grants permission for any new affordable homes to rent to be built (since Boris Johnson became Mayor and allowed them to change their development priorities); and that the Conservatives are also selling off council homes onto the open market when they become vacant; then there is far less housing stock. Add in the reduction of the above affordable houses and it would be impossible to house all the displaced residents in the borough. It’s therefore easy to appreciate why the woman in the film says she and her family expect to be shipped out to east London where many new homes are being built - despite having lived in Hammersmith and Fulham for 42 years.

My fellow ward councillors, Cllr. Mike Cartwright (Lab), Cllr. Lisa Nandy (Lab) and I, are determined to work with residents and fight these underhand plans. We have asked H&F Council for all papers, agendas and minutes relating to meetings that have taken place on the Conservatives' repatriation scheme. So far they are steadfastly resisting coming clean on the matter. They need to do so. H&F Council's PR department has been caught out misinforming people and is handing out disingenuous propaganda. They have a duty to be honest and let the public see what they are up to. It is all very fishy indeed.

So, in the week when David Cameron told The Times that he couldn't quite remember whether he owned 3 or more houses, his model Conservative Council here in Hammersmith and Fulham is looking to remove the one and only home 5000 H&F residents currently live in. And, it looks like the only option people on average and low incomes will have is to move out of the borough - as is currently being suggested by H&F Council officers. Watch the video by clicking here and make your own mind up about what’s going on.

You can click here for more information on H&F Council's demolition and repatriation scheme, including links to council minutes.

Residents' Champion Featured In Hammersmith Gazette

It was interesting to read this piece in the Gazette (click on the photo to enlarge). There are many active residents groups around the borough. It is often a thankless task and it is my experience that they play a vital role; adding to the sense of local community and by campaigning to improve their neighbourhoods.

However, Shirley Cupit and her neighbours have recently set their residents' group up with a different remit. Hands Off Our Queen Caroline Homes has been formed to literally save their homes and their community after it emerged that H&F's Conservative run Council has been in secret talks with property speculators to demolish their homes.

I will report more on this very soon but, for now, please feel free to read this article here for background info.

Worth A Watch

The White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner is a Washington institution. It’s nearly always fun and this year President Obama gives a very funny address. You can click here to view.

Thames Water Set Out Their Side Of The Story On Super Sewer

Thames Water has written into H&F Council in a bid to correct some of the blatantly dishonest scaremongering the Council has published about the Thames Tideway Tunnel in its PRAVDA style paper. In a bid to get some free speech into the paper I have decided to publish Thames Water’s letter here to force H&F Council’s hand. Click on the attachments to increase the size of the letters so you can read them in full.

Regular readers will recall that H&F Council has frequently misinformed residents saying that Thames Water were going to put giant bore holes taking up all of Furnival Gardens and Ravenscourt Park and lasting eight years. This has since all been proved to be complete nonsense - which the Council itself now admits was based upon nothing other than “speculation”.

The Conservative Administration had initially tried to conceal the scale of their dishonesty by unsuccessfully trying to ban Thames Water from meeting with Opposition Councillors. The reason for this became clear when my fellow ward Councillors and I met with Thames Water last November. It seems that the Conservative Administration believe that whipping up false fear is worth thousands of local votes. It worked for them in the 2005 General Election when they dishonestly claimed Charing Cross Hospital was going to close. They obviously think that they can repeat that electoral success again by falsely telling residents that our local parks will be swallowed up by a giant boring machine for the next eight years.

I hope that residents will get to consider all of the genuine facts about the Thames Tideway Tunnel. People have a right to review for themselves whether they support or oppose it. So far, H&F Council has been keener to satisfy their Conservative masters’ political aims than to objectively report the options before the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham. I hope that will change.

H&F Conservatives' Cack-Handed Approach Undermines Borough’s Small Shops

Adam Heanen of HG Walters, the butcher in Barons Court, contacted me after H&F Council painted new double yellow lines outside their premises in December.

Adam told me that “The first we and the other shops on this strip knew about this was when a council worker turned up unannounced and started painting the extra yellow lines. It’s been five months now and this has had a detrimental effect for many of the local shops as many rely on people being able to pull up and pop in. We’re all very upset about it". He said that H&F Council “clearly don’t care about how this would affect our business, if they did they would have at least spoken to us about what was going on before putting down a measure that is literally driving people away”.

I have written to the senior official responsible for implementing this decision along with the Conservative Cabinet Member who is responsible for it. I have asked them to urgently “consult with the affected small retailers and reconsider this measure as well as developing other ways to support this key local shopping centre”. I will let you know when I get a response.

What Should Be Done To Support Our Local Small Retailers?

Like many small retailers, the shops on Askew Road have had it tough recently. Their troubles started well before the global recession. There’s the ever-present competition from the major players, draconian parking measures drove customers away and high business rates are just a few of the problems they suffered.

During the last three years Askew ward’s (see pic) Councillors Gill Dickenson (Lab), Lisa Homan (Lab) and Rory Vaughan (Lab) have campaigned for a change in H&F Council’s approach. They forced the Council to carry out a consultation on Askew Road’s shopping area. The result of this is that H&F Council has now agreed to reductions in the tariff on the five pay and display bays to 20p for 30 minutes to encourage people to ‘stop and shop’. My colleagues also managed to persuade the Council to introduce a range of streetscape improvements such as raised entry treatments in Cobbold, Gayford and Hadyn Park Roads - with work set be carried out at the end of May. They are continuing to campaign for more.

Regular readers will recall that an all-party Parliamentary group published High Street Britain - alarmingly concluding that small retailers may “vanish from Britain’s high streets by 2015” as featured here. It was therefore a positive step that on the 19th September 2007 all Hammersmith and Fulham’s councillors of both parties voted in favour of the Administration’s motion to the Council that read:

“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.”

At the time, my Labour colleagues and I raised concerns that the Tories’ motion was more than a little short on action points and also voted for H&F Conservatives to follow Kensington and Chelsea Council’s lead in supporting its small retailers. Our Conservatives Councillors argued that was unnecessary and said we should judge their Administration by their subsequent actions. Nineteen months have passed since then and, unlike other London councils of all political colours, H&F Council still does not have a borough wide strategy for supporting our small retailers. There was no mention of how the Administration will “support shops and the local economy” in their last budget – which will be effective until April 2010. Time is running out and things have got worse, with BBC News recently choosing the Fulham Road as the site that best summed up their recent exposé on the failing small retail sector.

I urge greater urgency. There are things that can be done now to make the plight of our small retailers easier. I hope the Administration acts soon and gets on with doing precisely that.

H&F Conservatives’ Harsh Line On Homelessness

It is increasingly difficult for homeless people to get Hammersmith and Fulham Council to accept that it has a duty to house them after H&F Conservatives tightened the processes and criteria around acceptance.

People become homeless for all sorts of reasons. Different types of crisis such as domestic violence, mental illness, or debt can suddenly place a person in need of shelter. Local councils have always been in the front line of providing the necessary safety net. The last Labour Administration was so effective at helping people who found themselves homeless that our Conservative neighbours at Kensington and Chelsea Council joined in with many our schemes.

H&F Conservatives have taken a very different view during the last three years. The first indications of a less than compassionate approach occurred in 2007 when they described the homeless as a “law and order issue” and banned the BBC and Crisis from running a Christmas shelter. They cut funding to local homeless charities, such as Broadway (as you can read here on page 18), and actually sold off twelve homeless hostels raising millions of pounds in revenue for the Council while explaining that they didn’t need the shelters any more. They then also began to sell off many empty Council homes instead of re-letting them to people on the waiting list and did all of this while tightening the homeless acceptance criteria.

The latest figures show that H&F Council now only agrees to provide shelter for around half the numbers of homeless people it had accepted under Labour back in 2006. Some local backbench Tories are bizarrely trying to promote the notion this is an indication of their efficient approach to solving homelessness in the borough. I am not sure if this premise is a result of a failure to understand what their frontbench colleagues are up to; disingenuous propaganda; or it’s just that particular type of heartless ignorance but, as the attached photo above demonstrates, homelessness is still a plight for many of our fellow residents - even if H&F Conservatives are no longer prepared to put a roof over their heads.

The above picture was kindly sent to me by local resident Jane Bain. She took the photo early yesterday morning. It shows a homeless gentleman sleeping on a fly-tipped mattress next to Hammersmith Bridge.

Murky Goings On Over H&F Conservatives' Latest New Charge For Residents

It’s been a long standing principle of our democracy that government needs to set out what it intends to do so it can be held to account. Hard won processes should kick in which should allow the public, the media, administration backbenchers and oppositions to know what is happening and to consider the pros and cons before any major policy is implemented. So, how come H&F Council’s Conservative Administration has just introduced another brand new stealth tax and the Conservative Chair of the scrutiny committee meant to look at such policies was forced to admit that even she “didn't know about the charge”.

H&F Council has decided to now charge, £15 per item, to remove unwanted household furniture. This service used to be covered by the council tax payment and up until the beginning of this month there was no extra charge for using it. The charge is an interesting measure as on initial consideration it may seem to make sense to charge people for removing their old belongings. However, many of the councils that levy such a charge often end up spending more than the money raised because they have to deal with significant increases in unwanted extra fly-tipping – and regular readers will recall the Hammersmith and Fulham Council is currently £1million over its budget precisely because of unforeseen increases in the level of local fly-tipping.

The Cleaner and Greener Scrutiny Committee should have considered all of this and looked at the measure as part of H&F Council’s failing strategy for keeping our streets clean. However, when the committee last met on Wednesday, 8th April, Cllr. Eugenie White (Con), the Chair of the committee admitted that her Cabinet colleagues and council officials had even failed to inform her of what they were doing.

Cllr. Wesley Harcourt (Lab), the Shadow Cabinet Member for the Environment (pictured left) asked where and when details of this latest policy change had been published. A senior environment official responded by telling the committee that details had “not been explicit in the budget papers”. Wesley asked the official if he believed H&F Council’s approach was “conducive to transparent government?” The official didn't respond - his silence providing the answer.

Now, if there’s one department that could do with some scrutiny and advice it’s H&F Council’s beleaguered environment department. Their new garden waste scheme crashed and burned a mere eighteen months after it was triumphantly unveiled (a decision also kept from committee scrutiny); complaints about filthy streets and dog fouling have soared; and few local people have any confidence in the current planning regime.

I suspect that this new residents charge is more to do with the incompetent way this service has been privatised than anything else and that this is the reason the Administration was keen to hide its latest stealth tax from the public’s gaze. I know that when the street scene services were being handed over to SERCO much was missed out. SERCO have been back to H&F Council on a number of occasions successfully seeking many hundreds of thousand of pounds in extra funds.

I am sure the story behind this will all come out in the end. And, when it does, I will ensure that you can read about it here.

First Lady Visits Charing Cross Hospital’s Maggie’s Centre First

Michelle Obama, the First Lady, today visited the Maggie's Centre at Charing Cross Hospital which was the first stop in a busy day of engagements. Mrs Obama was the guest of Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister’s partner, who is a Patron of Maggie’s. The visit will be a great boost for the patients and staff at the centre which, as reported here, was opened by Sarah Brown last year.

The Maggie’s Centre offers information, psychological and emotional support and practical advice to anyone affected by cancer and is not just open to people who have been diagnosed with cancer, but also to their families, friends and carers. All their services are free of charge and they work in partnership with local NHS Trusts.

For more information about Maggie's Centres and the work they do please click here to get to their website.

Residents Tell H&F Council “You Know That We Know You Can Turn The Goldhawk Industrial Estate Scheme Down”

Up until the recent residents’ campaign against proposals for fifty-six houses and eleven business units to be packed onto the current Goldhawk Industrial Estate, it may have appeared to some that local people could be blinded with planning regulations when it comes to new developments. There’s the UDP, the London Plan and the Local Development Framework; moreover the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) is classified as quasi-judicial. Add to this that Council officials have many meetings with property developers of major developments often over a year prior to a planning application being given public notice; then add that on two separate occasions H&F Conservatives actually flew to the French Riviera to offer the borough’s “contentious sites” to property speculators and it would easy for residents to feel that the whole planning process is a closed shop, which they have little influence over.

Over the last few years many residents have turned up to the PAC hoping that common sense would prevail. Instead, they’ve watched in horror as some Wandsworth style super-development is block voted through by Administration councillors. In fact, other than eighteen months ago (when a Conservative Council candidate for Hammersmith Broadway ward actually accused residents of being self-interested “nimbyists” for objecting to the Hammersmith Grove Armadillo - click on attached story to view) the Conservatives have largely feigned commiseration but then also sought to use the dazzlingly complicated planning processes to justify granting some highly “contentious” planning applications. Their line of argument usually goes something like this: “We are, of course, sympathetic to residents’ very real concerns but there’s little we can do because of planning regulations. A combination of the UDP, the London Plan, the London Mayor and a determined developer means that we’ll probably have to reluctantly vote this through in order not to suffer costs during an appeal.”

This line of argument is, nearly always, little more than a self-serving, hoodwinking exercise. It relies on the fact that most residents don’t usually have the expertise or understanding of planning procedure to get past it and persuade their Council to take their objections seriously. That was until now. H&F Conservatives have been forced to reconsider this strategy following a knowledgeable, well thought out and vigorous campaign by residents opposing plans for the Goldhawk Industrial Estate.

At the end of last year, the Brackenbury Residents Association (BRA) and Providence Villas Plus (PV+) began to put together a campaign after becoming increasingly concerned that their Council was going to nod through the Goldhawk Industrial Estate scheme – much as they had done with other applications. Some of the signs coming from H&F Council and the developer were ominous; very few residents had received notification of the consultation or invitations to the exhibition; and the application was set to be pushed through over the Christmas period (when many people were away) with a likely hearing by the PAC early in February.

BRA and PV+ organised a public meeting, which I chaired, and which took place on Wednesday 7th January. We hoped to force the Administration to extend the consultation period and so give residents more time to make their many objections heard. It worked. The consultation period has been increased and a Planning Forum was arranged so those people who had objected could explain their concerns to the Council and the developer.

The Planning Forum took place on Wednesday, 18th March and was one of the most interesting Council meetings I have been to in recent years. It began with a presentation from Londonewcastle - the developer. Richard Winterton (BRA) and Jackie Ashurst (PV+) then spoke for residents with a powerful presentation which was rich in evidence that referenced planning law, H&F Council’s UDP and the London Plan. Visuals by Nigel Winkle strongly reinforced their argument (which you can view in the photo section by clicking here). Going by the pained looks on some Administration faces, I’d say their points hit home.

Richard Winterton raised concerns that there had been “twelve months’ secret consultation between the Council and the developer” and that residents are not able to influence this process at any point until the Council and developer agree that the planning application could go public. He said, “The fresh perspective that our Council should be able to bring to the proposal is lost during this process.”

Richard’s point was good. It’s underlined by recalling that H&F Council had actually taken payment for an advertisement from Londonewcastle in H&F News which was then duly delivered to all homes across the borough. H&F Council’s press office published a positive story about the developer’s scheme in H&F News but then refused to publish any residents’ letters that commended the estate’s value in supporting business. The Council’s explanation was that the advert and their press article had gone out before the application was officially submitted. In short, that would make it almost impossible for any residents’ letters, critical of any scheme, getting published in the Council’s paper and this would always give any developer an unfair benefit over local people – something, which to date, H&F Council seems happy to go along with.

It's also worth noting that, during the presentation, the developer confirmed that Ravenscourt Park Councillors, Eugenie White (Con) and Harry Phibbs (Con) had a private briefing with the developer last year - before the application was submitted. Their fellow ward councillor, Lucy Ivimy (Con) is in fact H&F Council's Cabinet Member for Housing and so it is inconceivable that she had not been aware, from early on, of the Council's year-long negotiations with a developer to pack 56 houses and flats and 11 commercial units into a small site in her ward. Despite all this, there is no record of any of the three elected representatives for Ravescourt Park raising any public concerns on behalf of their constituents until after the application became a cause célèbre. Given this, and remembering the Tories' controversial trips to Cannes, it's easy to conclude that Richard Winterton’s point had got to the heart of the matter.

Jackie Ashurst spoke next saying that “the Goldhawk Industrial Estate has been an incubator for many leading businesses such as Innocent Drinks”. She said that if these businesses have to leave then the Council will have agreed to “Chop two hundred local jobs, at a go, in the middle of a recession”.

Many residents wanted to express their views after Richard, Jackie and Nigel's presentation was over. Patrick O’Brian, a chartered surveyor for some 35 years, told the room that H&F Council has developed a reputation as a “soft touch” amongst property developers. He raised the point that “units of mixed commercial and residential use are rarely successful”. He said that it is a “common trick for a developer to submit a further planning application seeking a change of use to alter the commercial units to more profitable residential homes after an initial planning permission has been granted” and the overall principle of building a particular scheme has been accepted. Mr O’Brian said he “would not be at all surprised if that was what was planned for this site”.

Nigel Winkle was concerned about the increases in traffic noise the development would bring once finished. He said “The Goldhawk Industrial Estate is gated shut at night and there is no traffic or noise at weekends and evenings. This will change if planning permission is granted as the proposed development would increase traffic by 43% for 24 hours a day, seven days a week."

Jerry Beere raised concerns that “some back gardens of the new houses are only a metre and a half long - ending with a four metre-high wall - this is only a quarter of the private amenity space recommended by the Council’s own UDP”.

James Ball picked up the point about the loss of jobs, asking the Administration how they could “in good conscience” agree to the scheme when it is no more than a “mere speculation of a commercial park that only might work and which requires destroying a proven incubator of business success after business success” .

Robert Jaffe-Pearce told the forum that the “so-called exhibition was timed three weeks before the date of submission at the end of November" and questioned how a “slick operation like PPS could” fail to ensure all residents were properly consulted.

Sophie Sainty said that there are “nineteen children living in Brackenbury Gardens” which is opposite the entrance to the scheme. She explained that “the addition of 56 new homes would bring big increases in traffic and increase parking problems in the area”, adding “it is essential that parents with young children can park on the street”.

Rosemary Pettit explained that “the residents association is not against developments in the area but we are against over-developments and this is an over-development that will blight the neighbourhood.”

Peter Wheeler spoke on behalf of the residents of Cressy Court. He said they had met and were astonished to think H&F Council might grant the scheme, telling the Forum that “Windows in the new houses will directly overlook Cressy Court. This is unacceptable and contrary to the Council’s UDP". Peter said “the residents of Cressy Court will fight it all the way”.

David Pearson pointed out that current plans did not take into account a two metre “difference in ground levels between the development and neighbouring gardens”. Joss Pearson added that she thought “this is a bad scheme and should be turned down".

Susan Jaine told Londonewcastle that they “must be getting a clear message from local people”. She looked directly across at the developer and asked, “Will you withdraw your planning application, and reconsider in consultation with local residents?” They didn’t agree but who knows what may happen now that they and the Council Administration have seen the strength of residents arguments?

Cllr. Mike Cartwright (Lab) asked when the scheme was likely to go to PAC? The Chair of the Planning Forum said it woud be unlikely to go before the beginning of May. Cllr Lisa Nandy (Lab) then asked the Administration for "an assurance that residents will get more than seven days notice of the scheme going to the the Planning Committee". It wasn’t forthcoming so she continued to push them. Eventually the developer agreed to attend the next public meeting to tell a wider number of residents of their possibly revised proposal.

H&F Conservatives have told residents that they may have to grant permission to this application otherwise the Council could suffer costs. Richard Winterton said that this is nonsense as costs are only ever awarded if a Council is proved to have acted “recklessly” . Richard summed up for residents, saying that "it would actually be reckless for this scheme to be given planning consent". He said that "it is the duty of all elected representatives to put residents first" and that this scheme is “exactly how to ruin a neighbourhood”.

If you’d like to object to this scheme then please click here. I hope residents’ concerns will be taken seriously. It's clear that, in this instance, any attempt to hoodwink residents into believing that the Administration has to approve this scheme has failed. I told the Planning Forum that, “It is clear that the Administration has the evidence and the reasons within planning law to turn this scheme down. Following the residents’ presentations everyone in the Administration cannot get away from the fact that residents know that H&F Council can turn this application down if it wants to. That is precisely what those elected into positions of trust should do.”

Huge Rise In Illegal Dumping Following H&F Conservatives Service Cuts And Stealth Taxes

Yasmine Estaphanos of Shepherds BushW12.Com has scooped a story from the Environment Agency pointing out that Hammersmith and Fulham Council has seen a “significant increase” in the amount of rubbish fly-tipped on the boroughs streets last year and that this has cost us all an extra and unplanned £1.3million to clear up.

The website points out that “The number of fly-tipping incidents in Hammersmith and Fulham decreased between 2005/06 [after the Labour Administration at the time introduced street wardens to fine the culprits] and 2006/07– from 5941 to 5275 in 2006/07. However, [following the election of the current Conservative Administration] there was a significant increase in the number recorded in 2007/08 – to 9334 incidents. The most common size of fly tipping incident in Hammersmith and Fulham is small van load, which has seen a big increase in 2007/08. The occurrence of large incidents has increased significantly, and the number of significant/multi load incidents is higher than the number of single item incidents.”

Cllr. Wesley Harcourt (Lab), the Shadow Cabinet Member for the Environment says he's also noticed a "big increase in dog-fouling, littering and fly-tipping" since Hammersmith and Fulham’s Conservative Administration introduced new policies that involved:

• cutting the street cleaning and refuse collection budget by £1m
• cutting the number of street wardens who were to meant to seek out and stop the people from dumping litter or allowing their dogs to foul our streets
• cancelling the garden waste removal service
• bringing in brand new stealth taxes for removing unwanted bulky household items

Wesley added “The Conservative Administration have got themselves into a ridiculous situation where they are now having to spend an extra £1.3m reacting to the problems caused by their actions and our streets have become filthy in the process. Residents can try to force H&F Council to act when they find rubbish or dog fouling dumped onto our streets, which they can do by by phoning the Council on 020 8753 1100 and demanding it's removed. Residents can make an official complaint if the situation is not addressed. I am certainly reporting all those instances I see.”

H&F Council Tight Lipped Concerning Another Tax Payer Funded Trip To French Riviera - What Other Neighbourhoods Are Being Offered To Speculators?

This time last year I reported that a senior Conservative Councillor had led a team of H&F Council officers on a trip to Cannes on the French Riviera - all paid for by local tax payers. The official explanation for the trip was that they’d gone to “unlock contentious development sites” in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Well, they’ve been back to the sunny resort again this year – returning to the UK a few days ago. What’s unusual is that there’s been no response to my query about the jaunt despite it being sent on 12th February. We do know that the Conservative run Council have some highly "contentious developments sites" in mind including the Goldhawk Industrial Estate along with many local people's homes. So, this lack of response raises further concerns and leads to the question; what does H&F Council hope to hide from Hammersmith and Fulham's residents?

I think residents have a right to answers to the questions I raise below – after all, it is those same residents who are being asked to put their hands in their pockets to pay for this luxury jaunt.

Here’s the list of my queries about the trip to the property developers conference in the South of France that, so far, H&F Council have failed to answer:

“I would be grateful if you would let me know the following:

• The complete list of councillors and officers attending
• How long they plan to stay
• The full cost of travel including taxis to and from the airport, flights, etc
• The full cost and addresses of all accommodation
• The full cost of all expenses and a list of what the expenses allow (and don't allow). Please list any extra cost they are likely to incur
• The list of people and organisations the H&F Council delegation plan to meet - please attach all agendas
• The list of all sites in the borough the delegation plan to discuss".

I'll let you know when I get a response.