Air quality is a political issue. This is because of the public health implications of damage to the most vulnerable in our society.² The monitoring of Havering’s schools reveals that ten are in a less than ideal situation.³ Gidea Park Primary, located on Main Road, Romford breaches the EU Directive Limit for healthy air quality, which means the pupils are in an area of public health danger. Two more schools are also at peril of breaching EU guidelines. They are St. Mary’s RC and Parkland schools.

The agenda item identified the problem without offering strategies beyond exhortation (para 2:2, p22). Asthma is an increasing problem for the young making this a matter of urgency for the three worst schools. They should have separate plans to help mitigate this problem.

Havering’s 2019 Air Quality Action Plan⁴ is a generalised statement full of aspirational objectives. It’s entirely unhelpful for the three schools suffering poor air quality. Incremental improvements aren’t fast enough to deal with air quality challenges which are silent and deadly. There’s no sense of urgency in this item.

This crucially important item merits further robust discussion. The health risks of air quality problems need spelling out so that a context of urgency is established.

*1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=5941&Ver=4

2 For example see https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/air_quality_for_public_health_professionals_-_lb_havering.pdf

As an outer London borough with vast swathes of green belt Havering’s asthma statistics are far lower than inner London’s. However the statistics on p21 show that some schools are impacted by air pollution to a significant degree.

3 The report didn’t say whether every school was monitored and these were the ten worse. St Joseph’s school seems to fit the profile of an ‘at risk’ school. This school wasn’t monitored and has very similar air quality problems as Upminster Junior school, its near neighbour.

4 p27

“They [Brexit Conservatives] should read carefully what that party’s got to offer, because in my view they’re not Conservatives.”¹

Theresa May is a true blue Conservative. She first and foremost wants power and will do anything to keep it. The 2017 General Election led to an alliance with Northern Ireland’s DUP. The price was £100 million per vote which she gladly paid.

Julia Lopez and Andrew Rosindell aren’t Conservatives in Theresa’s book. They’re driven by ideology. These Brexit MPs are extremists, despising pragmatic compromises.

Julia and Andrew are devotees of the European Research Group a self declared party-within-a-party. The ERG inflicted a tenth Brexit defeat on Theresa, 14^th February 2019. Both Julia and Andrew are seemingly intent on splitting the Conservative party.

The quotation is from Richard Harrington, a minister. His rhetorical comment demands an answer. And the answer is: neither Julia or Andrew are Conservatives. They’re not Conservatives because their actions are splitting the party.

Andrew’s a terrific constituency MP, however he has wider responsibilities which he isn’t fulfilling. He once declared, ‘I’m more UKIP than UKIP’. He probably is but that’s a bad look for a Conservative MP. He’s proved Harrington right.

Julia is also interesting. She learned politics at Cambridge. Julia’s has hooked onto the Rees-Mogg coattails as a career move.² She’s made a tragic mistake.

Harrington has hit the nail on the head. The European Research Group are cuckoos in the nest. They aren’t Conservatives and should leave the party forthwith.

1 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tory-minister-richard-harrington-nigel-farage-new-party-erg-a8780151.html

2 This quotation is from her Conservative Association biography

“Since 2015 Julia has worked with the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) to strengthen international trade and party alliances in developing nations and across Europe…” This doesn’t read like a hard core Brexit MP’s political biography.

https://www.hornchurchandupminsterconservatives.com/julia-lopez-mp

Havering is part of the East London Waste Authority (ELWA), along with three other boroughs. Their recycling policy is our policy. Their policy is more-or-less unchanged since the early 1990s. ELWA isn’t innovative. They shift tonnage as effectively as possible, making a good living out of it.¹

They note, in a tone of regret, that their target tonnage was missed by 25,000 tonnes.² ELWA seem oblivious to Climate Change and David Attenborough. Their cutting edge recycling policy is the bottle bank.

Havering isn’t a hapless victim in all of this. Havering Council endorses the moribund policies of ELWA. Osman Dervish is the chair of ELWA and Robert Benham is a prominent member. Havering’s politicians are movers and shakers in the ELWA set-up.

Havering has an Environment Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee. They don’t appear to realise what scrutiny means. None of their agendas have challenged the abysmal performance of ELWA in relation to recycling.^3,4 Indeed the 20^th February, 2019 meeting offers only vague aspirational tweaks to the current set-up. There’s nothing on investment or new, meaningful initiatives.

ELWA had an operating surplus of £7.2M⁵ and so there are funds available for capital investment in recycling and/or PR initiatives. I’d like to propose that Havering’s contract with ELWA is terminated because of poor performance, unless there is a sharp improvement in the next year.

1 http://eastlondonwaste.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/ELWA-Annual-Financial-Statements-2017-18-Audited-Final.pdf

2 ibid p4 para 3:1

3 Committee agendas helpfully tell councillors what they should be doing, see addendum. This sub-committee studiously ignores these prompts.

4 ibid p5 para 3:4

The committee received the ELWA report at their 4^th December 2018 meeting, which was a jog-trot through their activities. See democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/b8374/SUPPLEMENTARY%20AGENDA%2004th-Dec-2018%2019.00%20Environment%20Overview%20Scrutiny%20Sub-Committee.pdf?T=9 pp14-5

5 loc cit para 4:1

Chris

Hornchurch High Street: people friendly and car friendly

Hornchurch high street is a centre for retail, leisure and service industry outlets. It provides opportunities for people. For people to meet each other by accident, or by design. To have a chat, a coffee or just push on with their lives. To be human in other words, which is the antidote of the Amazon experience.

Hornchurch high street has chain stores complemented by a lovely mix of independent businesses. There’s a wide selection of restaurants, takeaways, pubs, coffee bars and betting shops. Service opportunities abound with hairdressers, insurance, banking, a post office, solicitors. The chemistry is incredible. Amazon can’t compete with human vitality. The high street is vibrant, welcoming and successful.

High street footfall is fuelled by being both a retail and leisure destination. Hornchurch has wonderful public transport access but car parking is essential. Havering’s population is one of Britain’s oldest. It also has an unusually high car ownership. The high street needs good, plentiful car parking to maintain its competitive edge.

A prosperous high street means fewer voids, fewer charity shops and momentum. Momentum in terms of competition for space, higher rents but also higher house prices as Hornchurch becomes yet more attractive.

The council car parking policy is short-sighted and destructive. Car parking isn’t a cash cow which can be endlessly milked without damage. Car parking enables Hornchurch high street to be competitive in its ferocious competition with the monster that is Amazon.

Amazon Warehouse: robot friendly

Chris

The vote was a triumph of manipulation based in part on a budget consultation.¹ There were 140 responses, most of which saw through Damian’s loaded questions, with 65% rejecting his question one.

Question one: Is it reasonable to expect working age claimants without a disability to pay at least the minimum amount of 25% towards their Council Tax bill?

A ‘‘Yes” answer is agreeing to a 67% increase for this group of council tax payers.

Benefits are inflexible as they’re subject to the government austerity programme. The GLA commented that…..Council’s proposed scheme would be amongst the schemes that require the highest level of contribution from working age claimants [in London].²

Damian is increasing council tax for the most vulnerable so that everyone else pays a slightly lower increase in 2019-20.

Re-writing question one is helpful.

Question one (re-written): Is it reasonable that the poorest working age claimants without a disability should have their payments towards their Council Tax bill increased by 67%?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Question two shows Damian to be both repugnant and cunning

Question two: Should working age claimants who are disabled and less able to increase their household incomes be protected and pay a minimum of 20% towards their Council Tax bill rather than 25%

Damian here is benchmarking council tax support at 25% when in it’s currently (January 2019) 15%. He was hoping that his ‘largesse’ in apparently reducing disabled council tax from 25% to 20% would gain him kudos. He still lost the ‘vote’ 53%-36% but it was a goodish result for him. Some responses spotted question two is based on a lie. There’s no reduction for the disabled. The disabled are facing an increase of 33%.

Question two (re-written): Should working age claimants who are disabled and less able to increase their household incomes pay an increased 33% towards their Council Tax bill?

Damian’s 2019 budget is shameless. It’s an attack on the most vulnerable people in Havering, because Damian won’t put up council tax by the authorised 6%. Worse: it’s a display of testosterone fuelled posturing at the expense of the weak and helpless.

1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s34258/CTS%20Consultation%20Outcome%20Report%20Appendix%20A.pdf

2 ibid p16

Chris