With TfL proposing bus rerouting of the 205,30 and 27 coming so soon after the Central London Bus Review,  l have decided to make the same point l made then for the 205 bus route. As there are proposing to withdraw route 205 between Paddington and Baker Street station and extend it to Marble Arch via Baker Street

The 205 is a very useful service, as it links up the four main north London rail termini of Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, King’s Cross-St Pancras, and Liverpool Street Station. This is a particularly helpful link for those customers with accessibility requirements or who may have heavy luggage that make interchange with the London Underground more challenging. This is also a very useful link during disruption to the Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan, and Circle lines as it largely replicates their route.

The 205 bus service used to stop in Marylebone station forecourt, but in recent years this stop was removed to speed up the service. Chiltern Railways objected to this proposed change to the 205 at the time on the basis that it would negatively impact on the customer experience especially for customers with luggage or those with additional mobility needs, who may find interchange to the London Underground network difficult. The same will apply if there is no connection between Paddington and Marylebone Railway stations.

So in short, l don’t think the proposal does much at all for integrated transport between our bus service and rail terminuses, and l trust TfL will consider them as a result.

Finally the deadline for views and opinions has been extended till the 10th of January, so visit www.tfl.gov.uk/30-205-bus proposals and send your views to haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk

After recently being interviewed by UCL post graduate student Veronica Li about some of the research work undertaken when l was Chair of the Environment at the London Assembly with Plugging the Energy Gap  Report, l wondered about what progress has been made since. . Then we established that London consumed some 16 per cent of all energy in the UK but only supplied 2-3per cent of it. The language has of course changed since then with the emphasis on Net Zero but nonetheless it is a worthwhile exercise. 

When the government was told in July by the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) that it was falling well short of its “net zero by 2050” climate change target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, a similar warning about local targets seemed inevitable.

That came earlier this month, with the CCC telling the London Assembly that Sadiq Khan’s even more ambitious target of achieving net zero in London by 2030 was similarly in doubt. Now Khan himself has accepted that his targets are not just at risk but currently unattainable. “As things stand now, we are not on track to meet them,” he admitted yesterday at his November Mayor’s Question Time session.

It was a stark concession from a Mayor who first declared a “climate emergency” back in 2018, brought his original 2050 net zero target forward by 20 years, and has taken a leading role in the C40 network of cities across the world taking forward climate action. Why is City Hall’s target looking unattainable, and what should happen next?

In truth, Khan’s 2030 target always looked like a stretch, relying substantially on action by central government along with encouraging individual Londoners and London businesses to make changes, particularly with heating and transport – swapping boilers for heat pumps and petrol or diesel cars for electric, as well as driving less.

Take “retrofitting”, now a key focus. This means insulating the city’s homes and fitting heat pumps in order to cut the amount of heating they require by 40 per cent. It is essential work, given that around a third of London’s carbon emissions come from its homes, but it’s also expensive.

Around half of the city’s social housing stock alone – council and housing association properties, including Right to Buy homes within blocks – needs to be retrofitted. That’s about 500,000 homes, representing one in seven of all homes in the capital.

Despite Khan promising a “retrofit revolution” in 2021, progress has been sluggish. According to figures from London Councils, the cross-party boroughs’ grouping, just 3,057 social homes were retrofitted in 2022. Meeting the 2030 target would mean increasing the rate of retrofit 15-fold, with a price tag of some £13 billion.

That sort of bill can’t be met by councils and housing associations on their own, and there’s general consensus that national government hasn’t stepped up to the mark. Funding has fallen short and been “stop-start”, according to the local authorities, with councils forced to spend time bidding for cash.

There’s also a shortage of trained people to do the work and an overall fragmented approach, not helped by Rishi Sunak’s administration rolling back deadlines, particularly in the run-up to the general election.

Homeowners too seeking to make their homes more energy efficient have faced a “maze of complex process, confusing regulation and high upfront costs” according to a report last year from the lobby group BusinessLDN. High electricity charges have eaten into cost-effectiveness as well, and there’s also the “hassle” factor. Retrofit can be a big job, and not necessarily seen as a priority without clear government messaging – and a reasonable financial incentive.

Following the change of government, greater Whitehall support is anticipated, including possible multi-year funding settlements for the Mayor and boroughs allocated by need rather than by bidding. This would support what Khan said on Thursday would be a “genuine retrofit revolution”. Energy secretary Ed Miliband has just announced that planning permission requirements which were deterring heat pump installation will be scrapped.

But could City Hall have done more? A report last September from Green Party Assembly member (AM) and now deputy party leader Zack Polanski suggested that although government investment in retrofit remained inadequate, Khan was also dragging his feet, on training and procurement particularly. Recent research for City Hall and London Councils was relatively damning too. It found there was still “no collective strategy” on retrofit across the city “or indeed a means of communicating and gaining consensus”.

Current arrangements, the research said, were resulting in an “unpredictable” pipeline of work, holding back supply chain development, and a “pepper-pot” of uncoordinated projects, with successful pilots generally “under-exploited” and no system for coordinating efforts.

The report’s recommendation that a new “London Office of Retrofit” should be set up, to coordinate and plan retrofit work city-wide, identifying funding, improving the supply chain and speeding up delivery, is now being taken forward by Khan and the boroughs. “All is not lost,” he told AMs yesterday.

Does a missed target matter? Dr James Richardson from Climate Change Committee told the Assembly’s environment committee that getting things done was more important, and there’s certainly a range of action underway. But a target too easily set aside risks undermining the credibility of the policy itself, particularly in an area like climate change which is increasingly contested.

Has the climate change agenda become over-technocratic too, even while the need to win support for action is widely acknowledged? There is a big issue about the language we use all the time as well, as terms such as “net zero” were a phrase that a lot of people would not ever dream of using in their ordinary speech. 

On climate action, it maybe time for a new battle for hearts and minds perhaps?

With the new housing targets announced yesterday by the government most of the focus has been on the impact of rural areas with the new grey field concept but let us not forget the impact on more urban settings like London. 

The overall target for the whole Greater London has been reduced by 10,000 annually from the target set by the previous Tory government. That is a total of 88,000 across the whole of London. This is then broken down to figures for each London borough where most of the increased targets are in Inner Central London towards West London boroughs like WCC, RBKC, H&F and very little emphasis in outer Londoner boroughs except for Bexley. Actually almost all the boroughs in Outer London had their figures reduced, so it can not be said to be impacting much on the green fields of Outer London at all really!

In the the City of Westminster, the Council will be expected to more than double their target outputs of housing to 4,341 and from 1,862. 

In this respect, the council will have to look at increasing densities on proposed developments; conversions to residential and also some change of use on some major sites. I have can think of all three variants on sites and developments near me like the possible conversion of Tresco House along Lisson Grove, NW1; higher densities already on the second phase of West End Gate; and possible change of use to residential on site which have been lying empty for office developments like the Cucumber in Merchant Square in Paddington Basin. 

In the meantime, the council under the Labour administration have successfully opened a new development of 100 council homes for social rent, on the Ebury Bridge redevelopment site, just West of Victoria Railway Station tracks entering into the station which falls into Knightsbridge & Belgravia Ward incredibly. 

So let us watch and see how the Council proposes to meet this new annual target for Central London boroughs like for the City of Westminster, when everybody assumed that Outer London would face to accommodate the additional housing in London overall on these newly designated Grey fields.  

As Trump says he will hit China, Canada and Mexico with new tariffs, it is clear it will lead to an unholy economic and political mess. Is it also not time we acknowledge China has become the free trader advocate of the world?

As in China, Tesla is free to manufacture and sell American cars while the USA tariff’s Chinese EVs at 100% to keep companies like BYD out.

It is suggested that new manufacturing nations tend to protect their new factory owners with high tariffs (import tax). While efficient manufacturing nations are for free trade to boost their exports, helping consumers with no tariffs. And finally high-priced manufacturing nations are pressed to save ageing factories with new tariffs.

China is also the leading manufacturing country for a very large range of products and continues to seek markets abroad. They don’t like paying export taxes(tariffs) so they are pro free trade. So China as an efficient manufacturing nation is unsurprisingly for free trade.

On top of this in manufacturing goods, the Chinese are offering the Global South countries like those in Africa and Asia, free trade access to their markets. China will grant duty-free treatment to 100% of the tariff lines of products from the least developed countries (LDC) with diplomatic ties with China signed framework agreements on economic partnership for shared development with interested African countries. Thats not something you hear much often International Development circles but trade often beats aid for sure. Ask any Finance Minister in the Global South.  

Free trade is usually one of the corners stone of liberal international order yet it appears to have been vanquished and now taken up by the Chinese. 

I rest my case.

FIVE Crown Post Offices were named this week on a death list of branches facing closure, including branches in Westminster – Baker Street, Paddington Quay, Vauxhall Bridge Road Victoria, Lupus Street Pimlico, and at the Aldwych.

While some franchises are already run by individual postmasters, the five are a part of the portfolio owned by the Post Office.

The company, under new leadership, is now looking for operators who could take them over before deciding if they should shut.

It follows the closure of the Eccleston Street Crown Post Office in Belgravia in August.

Murad Qureshi, a former Labour London Assembly Member who was involved in the campaign to save Eccleston Street branch, called on the new Labour government to “step in”.

He said: “If you cut the ones in Westminster, you lose something which not only local residents appreciate, but also local, small and medium-sized businesses across central London.

“The post office is a front-line service that a lot of people depend on. I think people feel reassured to have a post office on the high street. You can rely on the post office to sort out your applications for passport and driving licences.

“The post office has qualified people to deal with issues and they have so much expertise.

“If we lose them all in one fell swoop I’m not sure that’s going to be very helpful to either residents or businesses.”

He added: “People still use cash for basic transactions, post offices are that last port of call for cash.

“Yesterday I went to Paddington Quay to exchange some currency.

“Why did I go there? Because I feel confident in the rates they give me. I just don’t feel confident about the rates they’ll give me around Paddington station, because they’re clearly going to have a mark-up. I think that’s the thing people have always had with a post office, reassurance.”

Mr Qureshi called for the government to take action, and said: “I think the government needs to step in more.

“It’s early days but this is an opportunity for them to show their colours, and that there is a better way of doing this and I think it would resonate very well.’

Up to 32 Post Office branches across London could close as part of a national shake-up aimed at restructuring the taxpayer-owned business.

Across the capital more than 1,000 workers could find their roles at risk as the company looks to streamline office operations.

It is facing a host of challenges, such as stiff competition from rival parcel operators like Evri and fewer people sending letters, with revenues for its branches being hit as a result.

The shake-up comes as the long-running inquiry into the Horizon IT scandal heads into its final stages.

A Post Office spokesperson said: “We are considering a range of options to reduce our central costs.

“This includes considering the future of our remaining Directly Managed Branches, which are loss-making.

“We have long held a publicly-stated ambition to move to a fully franchised network and we are in dialogue with the unions about future options for the DMBs.”

Chinese embassy on Great Portland St, in busting at the seams

In the televised exchange between Kier Starmer and Xi JinPing at the Rio G20 conference, we hear our PM bring up himself the issue of the Chinese Embassy move East in London. It has been a sore point for the Chinese as the premises along Great Portland Street, is  busting at the seams, having been there since the Qing Dynasty first sent an envoy to the UK and adapted many times.

Furthermore, not since the US embassy moved to South London from Grosvenor Square have we had a similar proposed move of a major embassy in London like the Chinese Embassy move to Royal Mint Court, on the verge of the East End and gateway of the Docklands in East London. Its significance can not be understated as London”s diplomatic enclaves expanding into the historical quarters of the East End with this proposed move, is unprecedented.  

Yet it faces much local opposition in the first attempt to get planning permission having been thrown out and has again been resubmitted by the consultants hired by the Chinese to the local council Tower Hamlets. 

Looking at the application, the usual concerns of diplomats premises in the City of Westminster where we have the vast majority of them along with Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, seem to be all addressed. For example the refurbishment of the buildings on the site with the residential quarters for their staff and a brand new community facility, all combined actually to reduce the massing of the site overall. That is, it’s not an overdevelopment of the Royal Mint Court and very much in keeping with what we have there already. While other issues like the diplomatic parking is all accommodated within the site and not outside the premises, a source of much contention in central London neighbourhoods like Marylebone. 

As for issues of security and demonstrations going over to the East as many have suggested who oppose the Chinese government, l am not sure its quite the issue made out by some. As the problems of policing could not have been as severe as those outside the US embassy over the years when it was on Grosvenor Square with the major demos it has attracted from the Vietnam war onwards? Since its move to the Nine Elms, it seems to have quieten down a lot in front of the US embassy at the new location. It maybe moving out of Central London does that and may well do so when the Chinese embassy moves East. 

So while the move of the Chinese embassy from Great Portland St will open up a big gap in the neighbourhood, a move East to the Royal Mint Court, would not just useful for them but for us as a country and our place in the world. 

Having been on the London Assembly when the two previous Mayoral Development Corporations (MDCs) were set up – London Olympics and Old Oak Common – l am not sure it’s actually needed, if you were going to pedestrianise Oxford St as the Mayor has declared.

The simple truth is that if you are serious, you would have to sort out the buses that bring Londoners to Oxford St in the first place. With as many as 16 bus routes plying their trade along Oxford St, you really do need to both alter their routes and offer alternatives for Londoners to get there. As it’s a major thoroughfare for buses going across London, on the Northside of the river. So l was surprised when this was all muted a few weeks ago, no mention of this huge task had been made for this push to pedestrianise Oxford St and something TfL need to be getting on with asap.

Also we have to acknowledge some of the progress made by Westminster City Council, with getting rid of the US sweet shops, getting “Ramadan lights” along the street during the month of fasting and also getting major new venues like the Moco Museum at the Marble Arch end of Oxford Street. After the Mound fiasco a few years ago, major progress has been made which should be acknowledged at least.

Funnily enough, for such an important thoroughfare of public transport in London, it’s actually not even a red route and is a major oversight since the formation of the GLA in 2000. So let’s make it a red route and thus make Oxford St become the responsibility of Transport for London. That way, the Mayor would be a better position to make a contribution to Oxford St success. So in short no need for MDCs but simply transfer Oxford St to TfL as a red route, as first stage of pedestrianisation of Oxford St. 

After noting the dismal record of Thames Water leakages and capital spending in London during the summer l asked my local Council, WCC, for information of the annual number of road works required due to leaks in Thames Water’s pipework. Their response was that some 3,000 holes are dug each year to repair water leaks annual at present. Please see letter below. Additionally there have been £250,000 in fines to Thames Water for over-running road works.

It appears to me, that Thames Water have record highs of road works, and don’t appear to be on top of these water leak problems we have on the streets of London. This after being in charge of these works for over 30 years and replacing the old pipes with plastic ones. Clearly costing a lot of money to their customers – us – as well.

It is clearly another reason, that illustrate that privatisation of the water industry in 1990s has not worked for the benefit of its customers and also not worked for road users caught up in these maddening works all across Central London.