Trouble on the Green

Trouble on the Green Our local 'village green' seems to be degrading by degrees into a bus depôt. Some correspondence on the subject with Cr John Thane.

From: Stephen Taylor [sjt@5jt.com]
Sent: 09 January 2005 12:45
To: john.thane@camden.gov.uk
Cc: editorial@camdennewjournal.co.uk; editorial@hamhigh.co.uk;
support@saveourgreen.co.uk
Subject: Standing buses at South End Green

Dear Cr Thane

I am writing to you about

• Council's proposals to allow more buses to stand at South End Green
• failure to enforce existing agreements with the bus operators
• apparent neglect of your promise to consider local proposals seriously

More Buses At The Green

I share the concern of the Save Our Green residents' and traders' group that the Green is being turned by degrees from a valued village centre into a bus depôt. Standing buses outside shops and homes is a substantial loss of public and private amenity.

The origin of the problem is clear. Transport for London (TfL) is operating more buses, for which I and many others are profoundly glad. More buses need more fuel, more tyres, more staff and more depôt space. Depôt space is a normal running cost, and one for which the operating companies have alternatives available — by managing schedules more closely, for example. The companies hold they can provide a better service than the public utility they replaced, and also return a profit to their shareholders. It is the public position of the companies that they, and not the public, are responsible for meeting these costs. We have an interest in their success, and should accommodate them where we can; but must remember operating costs are for their private account.

Providing space for buses to stand is a severe loss of public and private amenity at South End Green and not a cost for residents and traders to bear. We look to Council to ensure we do not.

Enforcing Agreements

Any outcome entails some agreement between Council and the bus operators about how many buses may stand, and where. But no agreement on this is worth having unless it is kept. It is Council's job to police, and if it does not, it abdicates responsibility for the outcome.

The omens are discouraging. I understand the present agreement allows operators to stand three buses in South End Close and one in the slip road from Pond St. This limit is routinely breached in an area well policed by our traffic wardens.

Failure to enforce the present agreement makes the prospect of a new one somewhat surreal, and seriously undermines Council's claim to be responsible for the matter.

I ask your assurances as follows:

1. that if no standing space acceptable to residents and traders can be found, the burden of providing it will be met by TfL and not by Camden;
2. that no construction work relating to this matter will start until such a solution has been agreed;
3. that Council will enforce its agreements with TfL; please give the date on which it will start to do so.

Considering Local Proposals

I draw your attention to the following history.

• On 21 Sep, you assured Council you would seriously consider a solution offered by the local community
• You assured the Save Our Green group they had until 18 Jan 2005 to submit this proposal
• On 13 Dec, you announced that work on extending the 168 bus stand would start on 4 Jan
• On 21 Dec, the Save Our Green group delivered their proposal to you
• You have since been quoted saying the local proposal has 'no prospects' and you have no plan to discuss it

I am sure you will be as concerned by this apparent lapse of integrity as I am. Councillors should expect their public assurances to be trusted. A breach of trust by one member hinders the work of the whole Council. Local government is difficult enough without this.

I ask you to correct in Council errors in the above history, or account for the difference between what you promised and what you have done; also to ensure our local papers receive a copy. To this end, I am sending copies of this message to the Ham & High and the Camden New Journal, and writing to your fellow councillors.

My father was a councillor and I know the rôle is difficult and often thankless. If I can be of assistance in resolving this matter, please feel free to call on me. In any case, I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Taylor

From: Thane, John 
Sent: 10 January 2005 15:51
To: 'Stephen Taylor'; Thane, John
Cc: editorial@camdennewjournal.co.uk; editorial@hamhigh.co.uk;
support@saveourgreen.co.uk
Subject: RE: Standing buses at South End Green

There is a lot I could say about your note but it requires some time and thought. However I can reply quickly to your five bullet points on the 'following history' and general question about integrity. One of the more depressing features of the debate, which has now lasted nearly three years is the unnecessary rancour and attribution of dishonourable motives which has been thrown around by many groups and individuals and the number of completely untrue statements which have become 'common knowledge' as a result of a process akin to 'Chinese Whispers.' Several elements of your 'history' are myth.

• The Sept decision has been misunderstood &/or misrepresented. On 21 September the executive sub group declined — on my strong recommendation — to defer a decision on the siting of the additional bus stand but did agree to delay the associated engineering work until its December meeting (14 December) to enable SOG to bring forward a scheme with general support, which they believed was achievable. I was sceptical but thought it churlish to refuse them the right to try. I made clear that given the time we had taken, the number of schemes considered, the divisive nature of the debate, the apparent lack of an ideal solution etc it was time to make a decision (which we did). We were not looking for another variant on which to spend further time consulting. I was made aware of the SOG proposal on 25 November. I discussed it with officers. It was not widely different from previously rejected proposals so clearly did not amount to a scheme which could be speedily implemented. The formal proposal was submitted on 21 December, mistakenly claiming to meet 'the three-month deadline' (redefined unilaterally cf. the Sept decision and clearly needing full consultation before it could be implemented.)
• I absolutely deny that I (or anybody else to my knowledge) ever mentioned a deadline of 18 January. As far as I am concerned it is an outright lie. 18 January was the meeting date which the Sept meeting set for a further information report; and on receipt of the SOG proposal I agreed and said to several people that it should be incorporated into that report and that I expected a deputation/s to appear at that meeting which I anticipated would be heard. (It is for the meeting itself to decide but I have no doubt its members will agree.)
• It is true that I made it known on 13 December that the September decision would be implemented without further delay. The reason for that was that I had expected to announce it orally at the 14 Dec meeting and had also expected a deputation from SOG to be there. Unfortunately, without my knowledge but in good faith, officers had discouraged them because there was no relevant item on the agenda, whilst they knew a report was due in January. I regret this but it happened.
• It is true that SOG delivered their proposal on 21 December.
• I have not said to anyone, or even thought, either that the plan has 'no prospects' or that I have no plan to discuss it. Both assertions are outright lies. I don't believe, as SOG says it does, that 'everyone' or virtually everyone does or will support it nor am I even convinced it will prove generally more acceptable than previous proposals but I have said and written that it will be considered at the 18 January meeting of my exec sub-group (comprising four members of the executive), discussions will continue after the meeting and in due course it may go to full consultation. Because, by chance, while the existing 24 stand is getting essential repairs buses will be displaced for a time to Fleet Road, that element of the schemme will be trialed, in any case. Its effects may well influence future discussion of the scheme.
• I agree with you that local govt is difficult enough without being badmouthed for things I have not said and actions I have not taken. I don't expect to please everyone but I have been entirely consistent and transparent throughout. I see this as an intense but comparatively minor problem and have no prior commitment to any solution (I supported the Cressy Rd option initially) nor any hidden agenda.
• I should add that I have known the area well since I first lived in South Hill Park 40 years ago — before the Royal Free was built and when the cinema still flourished — and the variety of needs which have to be met by the Green (residents, traders, shoppers, visitors to the Heath, patients, staff and visitors to the RFH, other bus passengers travelling to or through the Green etc.) has grown inexorably over that period. If there were an easy solution I'm sure we'd have gone for it by now.

Thank you for your offer to help — the best immediate help would be to circulate this response.

If your father was Bernard, I remember him well and with affection.

Best Wishes
John Thane