Enfield rent now 54% of average pay

Green mayoral candidate Sian Berry has published data on rents at http://www.sianberry.london/rents-map-london/

The data shows that rents in Enfield average £1,248 per month - that's 54% of average household take-home pay. In short, rents are unaffordable - 18,525 local households get housing benefit and 2,934 families are homeless.

So, no news there. Everyone knows that London housing is increasingly unaffordable and beyond the reach of ordinary working people.

There can be no quick solution to a housing problem in which we have been investing for over thirty. For let's be clear - this is a problem that's been created by decades of government policies aimed at creating good feelings amongst the Baby Boom generation. A combination of more money for housing, more people needing housing and historically low build rates has driven up prices making my generation feel rich. And thus likely to vote for the government in power.

But there are things that the Mayor could do. Sian has proposed rent controls and a London Renters Union that would represent renters' interests. These policies would help shifty the balance of power from landlords to tenants. She would also close City Airport and use the land for  housing and businesses. A future Green government would go further, of course, with extended rights for tenants.


Sign up to support Sian Berry's plan for a London Renters Union

Air pollution in Enfield

New measurements by Enfield Green Party show that air pollution is a threat to everyone in the borough - and particularly to children.

We measured the average levels of toxic pollutant Nitrogen Dioxide during January and found them to exceed the legal level at half the sites measured. In Bowes ward, for instance, four out of six measurements exceeded the level whilst the other two were only 5% below it.

“This has shocked even me” said Ronald Stewart, the Green Party candidate for the London Assembly (Enfield and Haringey), “though I expected the results to be bad.” Previous research has shown that air pollution kills over 9,000 Londoners each year (1, 2). The new data shows that some of these must be Enfield residents despite Enfield’s being a leafy outer London borough.

Children are particularly at risk from air pollution as their developing lungs are especially vulnerable. “We measured levels outside three Enfield schools” Ronald explained. “and found illegal levels outside Bowes and Tottenhall Schools. The Bowes level exceeded the legal limit by 66%! The level outside Eversley Primary was legal but still worryingly high.”

“I am really worried about these figures.” said Anna Wilkinson, a Bowes school mum. “I knew the air was bad along the North Circular but the problem is clearly much more widespread”.

Air pollution causes more premature deaths than alcoholism or obesity. Only smoking causes more early deaths than air pollution in Britain (3). It has been strongly linked to asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular illness. It also causes substantial economic losses (4).

Most of London’s air pollution is due to emissions from road vehicles. It is a London-wide problem and requires decisive action from TfL which should extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the North Circular.

Green Party mayoral candidate Sian Berry is also determined to reduce air pollution. As mayor she would speed up the switch-over to cleaner buses and taxis, exclude of the most polluting vehicles from our roads, improve public transport and support local authorities in reducing speed limits to 20 mph.

“The 20 mph limit has just been introduced in Haringey’, says Ronald Stewart. “It’s time to extend it to Enfield.”

Green Party activists distributed information about air pollution and Green Party commitments for action at various locations around Enfield on Monday March 14^th.

Notes

1) Walton, et al, 2014:  Understanding the Health Impacts of Air Pollution in London. Report for Transport for London and the Greater London Authority.

2) From ref 1:

“The total mortality burden in 2010 from PM2.5 and NO2 [was] …  equivalent to 9,416 deaths at typical ages.”  Of this:

• 3,537 deaths were due to fine particles (PM2.5) and
• Up to 5,879 deaths were due to long-term exposure to NO2.

 Also “in 2010 PM2.5 and NO2 were associated with approximately 1990 and 420 respiratory hospital admissions respectively with an additional 740 cardiovascular hospital admissions associated with PM2.5.”

3) Clean Air in London, Guide to health impacts. By Simon Birkett, 2012. http://cleanair.london/health/guide-to-health-impacts-invisible-air-pollution-is-the-biggest-public-health-failing-or-cover-up-for-decades/

4) Also from ref 1: “The estimated economic costs of the above health impacts ranged from £1.4 billion … to £3.7 billion …. Inclusion of other less well established health outcomes would increase the economic costs.”  Thus the per person cost is somewhere between £160 and £430 per year.

Ritz Parade: The 'community hub' we need

The Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) plans to build 1,400 homes along the North Circular Road in Enfield. These will probably house about 3,500 people of which a significant proportion are bound to be children. All these people will need the obvious services: shops, nurseries, schools and medical care. And, because the new homes will have relatively few parking spaces, the facilities need to be on the doorstep.

So far so obvious - but all the relevant public services are full or overloaded. A local GP practice has to cope with twice the planned number of patients but can't get funding for additional space. The local schools are full, as is Bowes School nursery.

All of this is well-known to the local community, the Council and the NHHT. Yet nothing has been done.

But now we have an opportunity. The Council has just finished a consultation on the future of the Ritz Parade. It even said that the Parade should be developed as a community hub - but was vague on the details. 

What we need
Enfield Green Party is pleased to help out.  In our submission we said that the initial facilities should include:

• A range of shops sufficient to the meet the daily and weekly shopping needs of local residents
• A medical centre serving as a base for community health professionals as well as a GP surgery.
• A nursery
• Meeting rooms for community events – at least matching those now available in the Jehovah's Witness's Hall.

As Greens we believe that community is important and that it’s very desirable that there should be a community hub – one place where facilities are concentrated and people can meet. And the Ritz Parade already provides such a place. We'd therefore like to see these facilities on or near the Parade. And, since the North Circular blocks north-south movement in this area there should be a new crossing.

The proximity of the North Circular Road is a problem of course in terms of road safety and air pollution. Air pollution causes an estimated 9,000 deaths per year in London alone.  Therefore any development should ensure that air pollution within buildings is kept to a safe level.

But it won't be enough to just produce the cheapest buildings that meet the initial needs. Good design is essential and there must be flexibility. Therefore there should be sufficient non-residential space to allow for expansion of the community facilities in the future. Facilities should be provided in ways that allow for changes in the use of space.

There are some technical needs too since buildings are so long-lived. So all development should be to the highest environmental standards. In particular, energy-efficiency should reach the passivhaus standard. 

Who should pay?
Schools are obviously the Council's responsibility. We recognise that all local authorities face appalling financial pressures due to the government's ridiculous and inhumane austerity policies (but that's a topic for another occasion). We also recognise that the new residents will pay millions of pounds in Council Tax whilst NHHT will, by law, contribute to infrastructure costs. In nay case, school places are essential both socially and legally.

The other facilities and the road crossing pose different questions. We start from the fact that the NHHT is a charity that will, when it's finished, have made a great deal of money from property development. It would therefore be wholly appropriate, in terms of both corporate social responsibility and fulfilment of the Trust's charitable objectives, that NHHT should provide or pay for these facilities.

Meeting these needs should be seen, by the Trust, the Council and the local community as one way in which it discharges its fundamental charitable purpose – not as a distraction from house-building.

Ritz Parade: What is a 'community hub'?

Who wouldn't want a community hub? That was the question at last Wednesday's Ward Forum at Bowes School. And that's what the Council said it wants as the future of the Ritz Parade on the North Circular Road. Sounds good doesn't it?

But there's a problem, well actually two problems.

Firstly no-one knows what a 'community hub' is. Is it a GP surgery, meeting rooms, a school, a row of shops or a cinema?  All these suggestions were made at the Ward Forum but the six councillors present were notably silent. And they were careful NOT to ask the local residents present what they specifically wanted. Asking them – rather than the waltz around the houses that we got – would have provided clarity to the Council's negotiations with the developer. 

Which brings us to the second problem. Whatever the local people want, the Council probably can't provide it. The Council doesn't own the land and it couldn't afford to develop it if it did. And it can't instruct the developer, the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT), which despite its charitable status seems determined to maximise its profits.

Councillors should have used the meeting to get clarity about local needs. They could then call on NHHT to deliver what's needed both on and adjacent to the site. For instance, a new road crossing would be very useful. With the money it’s made from its other sites on the North Circular it can well afford to!

Why Sir Philip should break his silence

There's been a lot of criticism this week of Sir Philip Dilley, chairman of the Environment Agency, for basking in the Barbados sun whilst his staff fight the floods. Nor has public regard been enhanced by EA claims that he was at his London home.

But does it matter?  We don't expect the EA chairman to be filling sandbags, driving a rescue boat or even allocating staff to jobs. The EA doubtless employs skilled people to do all that. Sir Philip is only at fault if he's neglecting his duty. So what is his duty during this crisis?

I think it's two-fold. Firstly, he should act as a sounding board for the chief executive - the man who actually makes the key decisions. But second, and more importantly, he should seize the moment to explain to government, press and people why we keep facing "unprecedented" floods which are nothing of the kind and what needs to be done about it.

Of course there's no great secret about either matter. The causes are climate change, El Nino, foolish agricultural policies, building on flood plains and neglect of flood defences. The required actions follow directly - more rigorous support for climate change mitigation, changes in planning rules and the agricultural subsidy regime, more flood defences and a rethink about the real carrying capacity of our land.

It's not difficult to understand but it is hard to get a government committed to austerity and shrinking the state to listen. That's why we need a strong message from the chairman of the EA. And that's why he needs to be here - making the case and communicating the message.

His silence is a neglect of his duty to the public; and merits criticism

Syria: No rush to war

Joan Ryan has asked for her constituents views on today's Commons vote on military action against Islamic State in Syria. Here is the substance of my response to her:

1.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq again, Syria. The recent Western track-record does not encourage confidence in the judgement, or even truthfulness, of our MoD-intellgence-military complex. The situation is visibly worse than pre-911 and much (not all) of the worsening is due to Western military action.

2.  No military action is defensible except in pursuit of a clear and defensible STRATEGY. I see no sign of such a strategy and it may be that no such strategy is possible. Intervention without a strategy is no more than revenge or macho posturing and is more likely to cost lives than save them.

3.  There is one partial exception to this analysis. The Kurdish forces are disciplined and effective and the Kurds are trying to build communities based on mutual tolerance and democracy. Their attempts may fail but they seem to be the only communities even trying to go in the right direction. I think we should support their efforts and this may require limited military action in Syria as it has in Northern Iraq.

It would be good to have a solution to the region's problems which are both serious and contagious. But I have yet to hear one. To kill civilians without a reasonable hope of a good outcome is simply outrageous.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Since I wrote this Joan Ryan has announced her support for airstrikes against ISIL in Syria.

Green Pioneer: Who Was Chico Mendes?

Chico Mendes (1944-1988) was a Brazilian rubber-tapper who became a campaigner for his people and for sustainable use of the rainforest. He built links between politics, trade unions and environmentalists and won international awards for his work. He was murdered by a local rancher who wanted to clear-cut an area of rainforest that was designated as a nature preserve.

Francisco Alves Mendes Filho (Chico Mendes) was the son of rubber tappers and became one himself at age 9. Life was hard and the arrival in the 1970s of ranchers who wanted to clear the forest for grazing was set to make it harder. Mendes became a leader of the non-violent resistance to the ranchers and called, successfully, for the government to set up forest reserves in which only sustainable harvesting would be permitted.

He became a highly effective organiser helping to establish the local and national rubber-tappers unions and the (left-wing) Partido dos Trabalhadores. He worked for better education, stronger communities and the development of new sources of income, including nuts, fruit, oil and fibre. He also built links with the environmental movement both in Brazil and internationally.

Mendes won the United Nations Environmental Program Global 500 Roll of Honor Award in 1987, and the National Wildlife Federation's National Conservation Achievement Award in 1988.

He summed up his philosophy as follows: “At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees, then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realise I am fighting for humanity.” He saw defence of the people and of the forest on which they depended as a single struggle.

For more information see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Mendes 

• Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment by Joy Palmer, David Cooper and Peter Blaze Corcoran.