Andrew Dismore

Barnet Council food waste collections

Question No: 2018/2781

Andrew Dismore

Barnet Council has now voted to suspend separate food waste collections, despite your comments at last Mayor’s Question Time. What action have you, or do you, propose to take as a result?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Whistle-blowers

Question No: 2018/2782

Andrew Dismore

Reports suggest that Whistle-blowers are being sacked, threatened with violence, or blacklisted for trying to shed light on life-threatening malpractice in the construction trade: what will you do to support such workers in London?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Cycling Grand Tours

Question No: 2018/2783

Andrew Dismore

In view of the continuing success of British riders in the three cycling Grand Tours of 2018, and the willingness of the Grand Tour organisers to hold stages out of their home countries (for example the Giro holding stages in Israel this year) what steps are you taking to attract one of the tours, preferably the Tour de France, to hold a stage or stages of their race in London?

Written response from the Mayor

I want to ensure we continue to attract world class sporting events to London. Over the last five years London has hosted Ride London, which now holds UCI World Tour status.   My officials have also met with relevant organisers to explore the possibility of bringing more world class cycling sporting events to the capital. A meeting was held with the Amaury Sports Organisation (ASO), the owners of the Tour de France in February 2017. At that meeting it became clear that there was significant damage caused to London’s relationship with the ASO by the withdrawal of the bid to host the 2017 Grand Depart.  This decision to withdraw was taken on Friday 18 September 2015 and communicated formally in writing to the ASO on Saturday 19 September 2015.

Despite this, we continue to engage with the ASO.

 

Impact of Brexit

Question No: 2018/2784

Andrew Dismore

What is your present assessment of the impact of Brexit on London?

Written response from the Mayor

It will depend on the nature of the final Brexit deal, but the independent economic analysis conducted by Cambridge Econometrics found that leaving the EU Single Market and/or Customs Union will have a detrimental effect on London’s growth, jobs and investment. The worst-case ‘no deal’ scenario is predicted to result in 87,000 fewer jobs and the capital’s economic output could be two per cent lower by 2030 than if we had remained in the EU.

I have asked the London Resilience Forum –  the partnership responsible for ensuring London’s preparedness in the event of emergencies – to establish the impact of a no-deal Brexit on critical areas like food supply and transport. A high-level report of their analysis will be published soon.

Brexit and workers’ rights

Question No: 2018/2785

Andrew Dismore

Does Brexit pose a threat to workers’ rights in London and how will you ensure that businesses in London continue to put in place good working practices?

Written response from the Mayor

It will depend on the nature of the final Brexit deal and how the Government responds to the challenges Brexit creates. I will oppose any race to the bottom in terms of taxation, regulation or workers’ rights.

I will soon launch my Good Work Standard; which will set a benchmark of employment practices and encourage and support London’s employers to meet it.

A London.gov.uk webpage is also in development that will signpost Londoners to the most up-to-date and accurate information about their employment rights; and the steps they can take to enforce them.

Pay (1)

Question No: 2018/2786

Andrew Dismore

Please provide the most recent figures for real terms median and average pay in London. If possible, please provide this data by borough for 2016 and 2017.

Written response from the Mayor

The data is available from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). The table below provides this information.  ASHE covers employee jobs in the United Kingdom. It does not cover the self-employed, nor does it cover employees not paid during the reference period.

Table: Annual pay – Gross (£) – For full-time employee jobs: London and broken down by Local Authority – Real values (2016 = 100)

Notes:

1. Annual estimates are provided for the tax year that ended on 5th April in the reference year. They relate to employees on adult rates of pay who have been in the same job for more than a year.

2.Caution needs to be exercised when interpreting data in real values as the data has been deflated by the CPI at the national level rather than the regional level

3.. Please note that some of the data for some authorities are more accurate than others. In order to check the accuracy please refer to coefficients of variation: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/placeofworkbylocalauthorityashetable7

 

Pay (2)

Question No: 2018/2787

Andrew Dismore

How does London’s real terms pay compare to other regions of the UK?

Written response from the Mayor

The data is available from the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). The table below provides this information. ASHE covers employee jobs in the United Kingdom. It does not cover the self-employed, nor does it cover employees not paid during the reference period.

Table: Annual pay – Gross (£) – For full-time employee jobs: United Kingdom and broken down by region – Real values (2016=100)

Notes:

1. Annual estimates are provided for the tax year that ended on 5th April in the reference year. They relate to employees on adult rates of pay who have been in the same job for more than a year.

2.Caution needs to be exercised when interpreting data on Annual pay in real values as the data has been deflated by the CPI at the national level rather than the regional level.

 

Childcare

Question No: 2018/2788

Andrew Dismore

What assessment has been made so far of the impact of the roll out of 30 hours of free childcare in London?

Written response from the Mayor

Earlier this year I commissioned a report that looked at the challenges of early years funding in London www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/childcare-and-early-education-funding-london

In September 2018, the Department for Education published their evaluation of the first year of the rollout of 30-hours free early education.  www.gov.uk/government/publications/30-hours-free-childcare-final-evaluation-of-the-national-rollout   This report collected evidence from 12 Local Authorities (LAs), including two in London.

We will continue to request London data on the 30 hours free early education roll-out from the Department for Education.

 

Childcare costs

Question No: 2018/2789

Andrew Dismore

Please can you provide the data on the average cost of childcare in London, each year since 2010? Can this be broken down by London borough if possible?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The data is available from the Childcare Survey by Coram Family and Childcare for various types of childcare.

The table below provides this information for weekly childcare costs, for 25 hours of nursery or childminder services, and 15 hours at an after-school club.  The survey does not provide an average cost of childcare in London.

Table: Weekly cost of childcare, by type of childcare, London, 2010-2018

Notes: for some years figures are a simple average of reported figures for inner and outer London

From the 2017 survey all children have been entitled to some free early years education

The published report is available at Childcare Survey and Holiday Childcare Survey.  The data is not publicly available by borough.

 

Brexit and airports

Question No: 2018/2790

Andrew Dismore

What conversations have you had with London airports about the threat to airplanes not being able to fly in the event of a no-deal Brexit? What impact will this have on London’s economy?

Written response from the Mayor

Aviation plays a vital role in ensuring that London is open for business. The unparalleled connectivity that the London airports system offers underpins the city’s economic growth and prosperity. Disruption of international travel would cause great harm to our city and the wider UK economy, potentially affect thousands of jobs and damage London’s thriving tourism industry

 

It is imperative that every effort is made to ensure that aviation connectivity is ‎not undermined in a post-Brexit scenario. I have previously raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, both in person and in writing.  My officers have discussed the issue with London’s airports, who have also been active in raising this issue in both at the national and international level.

 

No-one wants to see disruption to flights. It is incumbent on Government to ensure that, working with our international partners, sufficient contingency measures are in place to safeguard our air links in the event of us leaving the European Union.

 

Business rates

Question No: 2018/2791

Andrew Dismore

What analysis has been undertaken to assess the impact of the rise of business rates on London’s businesses?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

‘People’s Vote’ on Brexit

Question No: 2018/2792

Andrew Dismore

Your support for a ‘People’s Vote’ on Brexit is welcome; what have you been doing to campaign for this to take place?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Migration Advisory Committee [1]

Question No: 2018/2793

Andrew Dismore

What would the effect of the Migration Advisory Committee recommendations on EU migration be on London’s economy, if implemented?

Written response from the Mayor

Some Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) recommendations could severely damage London’s economy. Particularly the end of freedom of movement, and the restriction of businesses’ access to lower skilled workers. The MAC has not fully considered the strong contribution of European workers in certain industries, particularly the construction, accommodation and food sectors; where they are more likely to earn less than the £30,000 salary threshold recommended by the MAC.

The MAC’s lack of proposals in some areas are also a cause for concern. For example, how to ensure the post-Brexit immigration system is suitable for self-employed European workers, who play a vital role in some of London’s fastest growing sectors.

Migration Advisory Committee [2]

Question No: 2018/2794

Andrew Dismore

Research by the IPPR suggest that the recent proposals from the Migration Advisory Committee would have a dramatic impact on the UK’s labour force and on employers in that 70% of potential EU migrants would be excluded. What would the effect of this be on London’s economy?

Written response from the Mayor

While no specific analysis in relation to this piece of work by IPPR has been carried out, as noted in my response to Mayor’s Question 2018/2793, some Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) recommendations could severely damage London’s economy. Particularly the end of freedom of movement, and the restriction of businesses’ access to lower skilled workers. The MAC has not fully considered the strong contribution of European workers in certain industries, particularly the construction, accommodation and food sectors; where they are more likely to earn less than the £30,000 salary threshold recommended by the MAC.

 

The MAC’s lack of proposals in some areas are also a cause for concern. For example, how to ensure the post-Brexit immigration system is suitable for self-employed European workers, who play a vital role in some of London’s fastest growing sectors.

TfL responses

Question No: 2018/2795

Andrew Dismore

Are you satisfied with the time it takes TfL to respond to members’ questions and to case work enquiries?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) receives around 1,700 pieces of correspondence from London Assembly Members per year, and anywhere between 140 and 200 Mayor’s Questions per round. This is given a very high level of priority within the organisation.

TfL has a service level agreement with the London Assembly to respond to correspondence within 20 working days. However, in recent months, TfL has not always met deadlines, which is not acceptable.

I have asked TfL to take urgent action to address the issue of overdue correspondence and Mayor’s Questions. Improvements have now been implemented to improve response times and a significant proportion of the overdue cases has now been dealt with. I will continue to monitor this closely.

 

Taxicard choices for disabled passengers

Question No: 2018/2796

Andrew Dismore

As some disabled passengers are not always able to afford taxi fares, is it possible to provide Taxicard users with a choice between a taxi and a minicab?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Although Transport for London (TfL) provides most funding for the Taxicard scheme, the scheme itself is managed by London Councils on behalf of the London boroughs and the City of London.

Currently, over 90 per cent of journeys provided by the Taxicard scheme are by taxi and around 10 per cent by private hire vehicles (PHVs), commonly referred to as minicabs.  It is possible for a Taxicard user to have a choice between the two types of vehicle, but unlike taxis, only a small proportion of PHVs are wheelchair-accessible, and availability depends on the fleet mix of the scheme supplier.

TfL and London Councils recognise that fares are a barrier for some members and a maximum capped fare is being proposed for the Taxicard scheme, equivalent to the price of that same journey undertaken by a PHV within the scheme.

 

Disability access to buses

Question No: 2018/2797

Andrew Dismore

Some bus passengers in non-motorised wheelchairs find bus services difficult to use. Are there any design changes that can be accommodated in new London buses that would make access easier?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

East Finchley main junction

Question No: 2018/2798

Andrew Dismore

How many fines have been issued for cars crossing at the junction of East Finchley High Road, Fortis Green and East End Road after the lights have turned red in the last 5 years?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Tube noise complaints [1]

Question No: 2018/2799

Andrew Dismore

How many outstanding complaints in terms of a) number of sites and b) number of individual complaints are there concerning tube noise, broken down by line?

Written response from the Mayor

 

There are currently 236 ongoing complaints, across 64 sites.

Bakerloo line: 2 (ongoing complaints)

Central line: 27

District: 19

Hammersmith & City: 9

Jubilee: 15

Metropolitan: 4

Northern: 114

Piccadilly: 3

Victoria: 43

Transport for London (TfL) aims to resolve all Tube noise complaints as soon as possible. TfL has a specialist team of noise experts within its customer contact centre that logs residents’ complaints, keeps regular contact and updates them on how, and when, the issue is expected to be resolved.

TfL will continue to do all it possibly can to minimise noise and limit disruption to residents living above or close to the Tube

 

Tube noise complaints [2]

Question No: 2018/2800

Andrew Dismore

Please list the sites of outstanding tube noise complaints?

Written response from the Mayor

 

There are ongoing complaints at the following sites:

West Finchley to Finchley Central

Warren Street to Oxford Circus

Kennington Loop

Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street

Victoria to Pimlico

South Wimbledon to Morden

Walthamstow Central to Blackhorse Road

Baker Street to Bond Street

Wanstead to Leytonstone

Bond Street to Green Park

Camden Town to Euston

Golders Green to Hampstead

Kennington to Oval

Southfields to Wimbledon Park

Barbican to Moorgate

Vauxhall to Stockwell

Earl’s Court to High Street Kensington

Colliers Wood to South Wimbledon

Blackfriars to Temple

Highbury & Islington to King’s Cross

Oval to Stockwell

Finchley Central to East Finchley

Newbury Park to Gants Hill

Highgate to Archway

Finsbury Park to Highbury & Islington

Leyton to Stratford

Notting Hill Gate to Bayswater

Stockwell to Brixton

Woodside Park to West Finchley

Woodford to South Woodford

Turnpike Lane to Manor House

Mill Hill East to Finchley Central

Seven Sisters to Finsbury Park

Fulham Broadway to Parsons Green

Sloane Square to South Kensington

Marble Arch station

West Kensington to Baron’s Court

Harrow on the Hill to Northwick Park

Mile End to Bethnal Green

Clapham South to Balham

King’s Cross to Russel Square

Tottenham Court Road to Oxford Circus

Warren Street station

King’s Cross to Angel

Regent’s Park to Oxford Circus

Maida Vale to Warwick Avenue

Wimbledon Park to Wimbledon

King’s Cross to Farringdon

Archway to Tufnell Park

Camden Town to Mornington Crescent

Hillingdon to Uxbridge

Southgate to Arnos Grove

Finchley Road to Swiss Cottage

Mile End to Stepney Green

Victoria to Sloane Square

Tottenham Hale to Seven Sisters

White City to East Acton

Tooting Broadway to Colliers Wood

Northwood to Northwood Hills

North Harrow to Harrow on the Hill

Paddington to Edgware Road district

Kingsbury to Wembley Park

Gloucester Road to High Street Kensington

High Street Kensington to Notting Hill Gate

 

Tube noise complaints [3]

Question No: 2018/2801

Andrew Dismore

How long do you consider it reasonable for residents to wait for a valid tube noise complaint to be resolved?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) aims to resolve all Tube noise complaints as soon as possible. TfL has a specialist team of noise experts within its customer contact centre that logs residents’ complaints, keeps regular contact and updates them on how, and when, the issue is expected to be resolved.

There are many sites across the London Underground network where, due to the age of the track infrastructure and current technology, it is not always possible to reduce the noise levels to the standards that residents would like.

TfL will continue to do all it possibly can to minimise noise and limit disruption to residents living above or close to the Tube.

 

Tube noise complaints [4]

Question No: 2018/2802

Andrew Dismore

For how long has the resident(s) with the longest outstanding valid tube noise complaint waited for it to be resolved?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London’s (TfL’s) longest ongoing complaint was received in November 2015 and relates to the Kennington Loop on the Northern Line. Track improvement works including joint removals were carried out in December 2016. TfL advises that it has further worked to resolve the issue but that at this site, the age of the track infrastructure and the limits of existing technology mean it has not been possible to reduce the noise levels to standards residents would like.

 

The issue has been raised at the Kennington Green Community Liaison Group, as part of TfL’s engagement on the Northern Line Extension project. TfL is in the process of setting up a further meeting with local residents to discuss the issue further.

 

Tube noise complaints [5]

Question No: 2018/2803

Andrew Dismore

What action, and when, is being taken to address the noise complaints of residents between Kentish Town and Tufnell Park living near the Northern Line, who have suffered from noise for well over a year?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) installed vibration resilient track fastenings in this area in July 2017, which reduced noise at nearby properties (in some cases by over 10 decibels).

Any residents in this area – or elsewhere on the London Underground network – who suffer from an increase in Tube noise should contact the TfL Customer Service Centre, so their complaint can be fully investigated. This can be done by sending an email to customerservice@tfl.gov.uk

 

Tube noise complaints [6]

Question No: 2018/2804

Andrew Dismore

How much has Transport for London spent so far on tube noise remediation?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) spends approximately £150 million on general rail track improvements every year, and much of this work results in reductions in rail noise.

Additionally, since 2016/17, TfL has had an annual £1 million budget for the development of bespoke rail noise reducing technology, such as resilient track fastenings.

 

Tube noise complaints [7]

Question No: 2018/2805

Andrew Dismore

It seems that the so called resilient track fixings to reduce noise, for which Transport for London say the lifespan is 10 years, may not last as long. It is known in Germany that they only last two years and some residents now have increasing noise levels again after only 9 months of the fixings. Will you look into whether these fixings are the best and most cost-effective way to reduce tube noise?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) constantly reviews modern technology and works with suppliers and academia to ensure it is working with the best possible noise reducing equipment.

TfL has been installing resilient track fastenings for over two years and has not observed any increasing noise levels.

 

Tube noise complaints [8]

Question No: 2018/2806

Andrew Dismore

Bearing in mind the number of complaints about tube noise, from areas that have never before had a problem, are linked to Transport for London’s move from timber sleepers to concrete slabs, which are not proving maintenance free and are also one of the major causes of the increased noise levels, will you look again at this policy?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London’s (TfL’s) Deep Tube track renewals, which started in the mid 2000s and involved installing concrete sleepers, did lead to an increase in groundborne noise in some areas. TfL has since developed a much greater understanding of the causes of and solutions to noise and vibration.

Detailed consideration of noise and vibration now takes place prior to carrying out development of new rails. TfL has not installed concrete sleepers in Deep Tube tunnels for over three years.

 

Tube noise complaints [9]

Question No: 2018/2807

Andrew Dismore

In a previous answer on tube noise, you said ‘TfL continues to work alongside industry and academia to further understand noise and vibration and to trial new products and solutions.’ Please give further details of work being done in industry and academia on this; and bearing in mind that the noise has been caused in the main due to the shift to ‘new products’, i.e. concrete sleepers and flat profile rail, will you have a moratorium on the installation of concrete sleepers, until a proper solution to the noise generated is found?

Written response from the Mayor

 

As set out in my answer to Mayor’s Question 2018/2806, Transport for London (TfL) has not installed concrete sleepers in Deep Tube tunnels for over three years.

 

Currently, TfL is working with universities and suppliers to develop vibration reducing products and improve our knowledge of noise propagation. Outputs from these workstreams include rail dampening technology, which will be trialled next year. Other work in this field includes the use of resilient track fastenings for rails, and an improved understanding of groundborne vibration and the effect of basement excavations.

 

Tube noise complaints [10]

Question No: 2018/2808

Andrew Dismore

Do you think it is right that Transport for London (TfL) base their decisions on noise mitigation on their view that their drivers and fare-paying passengers, who may suffer a minimum additional period of inconvenience, should be prioritised over those residents that have a constant disbenefit, for example in Fitzrovia. Whilst TfL consider they have a solution to the problem (the Pandrol system), they are refusing to implement it due to tunnel noise affecting passengers?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London (TfL) is required to balance the interests of all groups affected by Tube noise, including local residents, customers and members of staff, and it is not the case that other groups are prioritised over local residents.

TfL continues to do all it possibly can to minimise Tube noise for residents. TfL recently carried out noise reduction work around Fitzrovia, and this work was completed in August 2018. This included replacing several rail fixings and, carrying out grouting to fill gaps between  sleepers. Rail grinding was also carried out on the northbound track to address a short patch of rail corrugation.

TfL is now investigating whether it is possible to extend the use of rail track fastenings in this area, and I have asked that TfL’s officers keep you updated on this work.

 

Tube noise complaints [11]

Question No: 2018/2809

Andrew Dismore

A constituent has reported to me that they tried to log a tube noise complaint with Transport for London (TfL). By phone, they eventually got through to the complaint number. They were kept waiting for 10 minutes and as soon as they were no 1 in the queue an officer spoke to them and immediately they were disconnected. They tried again and after hearing for most of 20 minutes that they were 3rd in the queue they gave up. Online, they found it very difficult to find the appropriate section to register the noise complaint. It keeps assuming the complaint refers to a journey. However, eventually they went along with this and registered the complaint but are not confident it was actually logged. Do you agree that TfL’s complaint system is clearly not a smooth one and needs to be made more user friendly?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Transport for London’s (TfL’s) website was amended in 2016 to make it easier for customers and residents to get in touch, with a link to a dedicated “Help & contacts” page displayed on TfL’s homepage.

Residents are able to choose a separate “Noise and Vibration” category when contacting TfL about a Tube related enquiry or complaint or get in touch with Customer Service Centre by telephone.

Since the start of 2018/19, the TfL Customer Service Centre has handled just under 150,000 calls, with an average wait time of under three minutes. Waiting times do vary depending on the time of day and will be longer during incidents such as service disruptions.

I have asked that TfL officers contact you to get further details about the constituent and ensure that their details have been logged correctly.

 

Tube noise site visits

Question No: 2018/2810

Andrew Dismore

I have been trying to organise several site visits with Transport for London (TfL) for several months now to look at serious tube noise problems which have not been remediated despite lasting for a considerable time, in one case for over 2 years. All I get is a TfL run around. Will you instruct TfL to stop prevaricating on tube noise issues and set up such site visits as soon as possible?

Written response from the Mayor

 

I understand that you met with officers from Transport for London (TfL) and residents of Kentish Town in July 2018 to discuss Tube noise. I am also told that TfL has been in touch with your office and you are meeting next month near Finchley Central to discuss Tube noise.

 

Swiss Cottage gyratory

Question No: 2018/2811

Andrew Dismore

How many a) fatal b) serious injury and c) minor injury road collisions have there been in each of the last 5 years at Swiss Cottage gyratory on the A41; and in each case, how many were sustained by i) cyclists and ii) pedestrians?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

303 and 305 bus routes (1)

Question No: 2018/2812

Andrew Dismore

Do you agree with Transport for London’s decision to merge the 302 and 305 bus routes, with the outcome that the most deprived ward in Barnet, Burnt Oak, loses most of its bus service, whilst better off wards benefit from an improved service?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

303 and 305 bus routes (2)

Question No: 2018/2813

Andrew Dismore

Do you consider TfL’s consultation to merge the 302 and 305 bus routes, which was not widely publicised in any event, was conducted fairly, bearing in mind that the most deprived ward in Barnet, Burnt Oak, with a high proportion of elderly and BAME residents, and with a lower than average access to private cars and to IT to enable a response to the consultation, has lost out as a result?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The consultation for these changes received 514 responses, including 493 from members of the public and 21 from affected stakeholders. Transport for London’s (TfL’s) analysis of the responses does not show a lack of responses from the Burnt Oak area.  The feedback received raised lots of different issues, which TfL carefully considered before making its decision.

While TfL is confident that this change benefits a large number of passengers in the area while delivering services more efficiently, changes to the bus network can clearly cause inconvenience for some passengers. TfL keeps the bus network under constant review, and the effects of any service changes are regularly assessed to understand if further adjustments are needed.

 

303 and 305 bus routes (3)

Question No: 2018/2814

Andrew Dismore

Are you aware that there is now a one-mile gap between bus stops on the 303 route from Bunns Lane to the RAF Museum and that this change was not part of the TfL consultations with regards to bus routes. There are many people that need the Field Mead bus stop, including less mobile pensioners, mothers with small children, and schoolchildren coming back from school. Will you arrange a new bus stop near Field Mead, Grahame Park?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Bus route 303 is currently on a temporary diversion which means it is not able to serve Field Mead or Corner Mead. This is because the Council are making changes to the road layout. These changes are planned for November 2018 and, once completed, the diversion will be removed.

 

Unfortunately, as there is no footway on the diversion route along Grahame Park Way, temporary bus stops cannot be installed.

 

I hope that this situation will be resolved very shortly.

 

West Hampstead underground station

Question No: 2018/2815

Andrew Dismore

I understand that 3 feasibility studies have been done by 3 mayors into a lift at West Hampstead underground station and they all indicate that a lift could be put on the left side of the ticket area where the male washroom is situated. Will you publish the most recent feasibility study; and if not why not?

Written response from the Mayor

 

A study is currently underway at West Hampstead station to investigate the feasibility of installing a lift. This feasibility study will complete in early 2019.

 

This will be used to progress and support discussions between Transport for London (TfL), London Borough of Camden and local stakeholders on step free access opportunities at the station.

 

I have asked TfL to share the findings with you. The output from the study will also be used to support discussions with resident groups and the local community to ensure they understand how plans at the station will develop.

 

Golders Green transport hub

Question No: 2018/2816

Andrew Dismore

Coaches and buses passing through Golders Green transport hub have increased air pollution by concentrating large numbers of petrol and diesel buses and coaches in the area. As there is no longer enough room in the bus station some coaches bound for central London stop at the southbound bus stop in Golders Green Road, and belch out fumes, sometimes directly into the bus shelter, while the driver unloads luggage.  On the gyratory system at the junction of the North End Road, Golders Green Road and the Finchley Road the system grinds to a halt when too many coaches and buses leave or arrive in the area and buses and coaches have to queue to leave the bus station while waiting for traffic lights to change and the gyratory system to clear. What can you do to reduce this air pollution?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Pedestrian casualty hot spots

Question No: 2018/2817

Andrew Dismore

With reference to MQ 2018/2223 can you break down the figures for pedestrian casualties (2014-16) into killed, seriously injured and slightly injured?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The information provided in MQ2018/2817 – Appendix A is a simple rank of the number of pedestrian casualties by injury severity, junction and London Assembly constituency, for the 10 junctions with the highest number of pedestrian casualties per constituency for the three-year period 2014 to 2016.  A number of the locations identified in Appendix A will be addressed by the Safer Junctions programme and are either complete, in development or planned.

 

Affordable care homes

Question No: 2018/2818

Andrew Dismore

With reference to Question 2017/1795, your answer said: “Work is underway looking into the subject of specialist older people’s housing for the London Plan review, and the indicative annualised strategic benchmarks targets for Boroughs will be updated.”

Has this review been concluded, and if so what is the outcome and what are the borough targets?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The work has been concluded and forms part of the draft London Plan’s evidence base. Draft London Plan policy H15 – ‘Specialist older persons housing’ contains policy requirements for boroughs to work positively and collaboratively with providers to identify sites that may be suitable for specialist older persons housing, taking account of local and strategic housing needs information and the indicative benchmarks set out in Table 4.4 of the draft plan.

 

Table 4.4 contains annual borough benchmarks for specialist older persons housing (C3) 2017-2029.

 

Policing in Burnt Oak

Question No: 2018/2819

Andrew Dismore

Anti Social Behaviour and street drinking in Burnt Oak around the station is getting worse. What additional resources can be dedicated to ensure the area enjoys safer and quieter evenings?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Operational activity to address antisocial behaviour and street drinking began on 8 October. From 15 October, a deep clean will be undertaken and the North Side of Watling Ave will be gated. There will be a delay for the South side due to ownership of the wall.

The PSPO will become active in October 2018 for a period of 2 years and will be coupled with Licensing inspections, HMO licensing inspections, Police SNT patrols to enforce the PSPO and waster enforcement.  There has also been a community protection warning served on COCO garage and STUCCO and extra parking enforcement on Market Lane.

 

Brexit and policing

Question No: 2018/2820

Andrew Dismore

How much is being spent by the Met Police on preparing for potential disorder, conducting threat assessments and preparing for all “possible outcomes from Brexit, especially a no-deal Brexit?

Written response from the Mayor

 

In relation contingency planning and preparation for public order scenarios around Brexit, there are a number of officers conducting work in this area as part of their existing responsibilities. None of these officers are dedicated to Brexit work full-time, therefore the Met are unable to quantify the time spent on this issue.

 

No overtime or other costs have been incurred at this moment.

 

101 calls

Question No: 2018/2821

Andrew Dismore

What is the average time taken by the Met Police to answer a 101 call for each of the last 3 months?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The average time taken by the Met Police to answer a 101 call for each of the last 3 months (in seconds) is:

 

July 2018 – 469.00

August 2018 – 162.00

September 2018 – 106.59

 

Screening out investigations

Question No: 2018/2822

Andrew Dismore

How many a) burglaries and b) robberies have been screened out for investigation by the Met in each of the last 6 months; and what are the comparator figures for the same 6-month period last year and the year before?

Written response from the Mayor

 

Please see attached Mayor’s Question 2018/2822 – Appendix A. The requested data regarding the volume of crimes that have been screened out, by month and by major and minor crime type. It should be noted that this is the current screening decision and that this can change several times during an investigation. Each crime recorded by police undergoes a primary investigation as per the MPS standard operating procedures.

 

Police ward panels [1]

Question No: 2018/2823

Andrew Dismore

Is membership of police ward panels confidential; and if so why?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Police ward panels [2]

Question No: 2018/2824

Andrew Dismore

What criteria apply to people wishing to join a police ward panel; what is the selection or election process; are there limits on numbers; and if so what are they?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

transgender hate offences

Question No: 2018/2825

Andrew Dismore

A report by the think-tank Demos and researchers at Sussex University has found that victims of transgender hate offences in London are being silenced because the Met’s system for recording hate crime data only has the categories man and woman for gender thus failing to capture the offences properly because officers are not able to input whether either the victim or the perpetrator was from a transgender or “non-binary” background. Do you agree that recording system should be updated and if so what will you do about it?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

‘Falcon’ police team

Question No: 2018/2826

Andrew Dismore

Reports suggest that the Met’s specialist ‘Falcon’ police team dedicated to fighting fraud and online bank scams has been disbanded. Is this correct and if so, why, bearing in mind the extent of on line and other frauds?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The MPS is re-designing its Specialist Crime teams in order to respond flexibly to meet the highest threat, harm and risk. The new design includes Organised Crime and Trident commands becoming four geographically based Specialist Crime Hubs and a Central Specialist Crime Team encompassing Vulnerability, Economic Crime, and Cyber. Within Economic Crime, there will be two strands: Central Economic Crime Functions and Economic Crime Hubs.  The Economic Crime Hubs will perform the function of the Falcon Complex, Volume Fraud and the Criminal Finance Teams. Within the new Specialist Crime model; Cyber Prevent, Protect Prepare now sits under a newly created Centre of Excellence, which will link across both Cyber and Economic crime and ensure a joined-up approach to national, local and industry partnership agreements.

 

Wembley Stadium

Question No: 2018/2827

Andrew Dismore

Bearing in mind that the Greater London Authority contributed £21 million towards the costs of building Wembley stadium, what are your views of the FA’s scheme to sell the stadium; and will you seek to reclaim the GLA’s outlays from any sale proceeds?

Written response from the Mayor

Since you tabled your question, Mr Shahid Khan has withdrawn his offer to buy Wembley stadium.

Grenfell public inquiry

Question No: 2018/2828

Andrew Dismore

Counsel to the Grenfell public inquiry, Richard Millett QC, has called on the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to lay out their actions since the Grenfell Tower fire to help the inquiry chairman decide whether to recommend urgent fire safety measures: will you urge the LFB to do so?

Written response from the Mayor

As a Core Participant in the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry, London Fire Brigade (LFB) has been actively assisting the Inquiry since it began in May. The Chair has directed LFB to serve a position paper setting out the actions that they have already taken to address matters of public safety raised by the fire, the rationale behind them, and what if any further steps they intend to take.  This paper will be served on the inquiry by 26 October and will assist the Chair in formulating interim recommendations which are anticipated to be made following a hearing in January or February 2019.

 

Stay put advice after Grenfell (1)

Question No: 2018/2829

Andrew Dismore

Research from the British Woodworking Federation indicated that 72% of people who live in flats would flee their block in the event of a fire, even if the official advice from London Fire Brigade was to stay put. What work are you and the LFB doing to reassure people that this policy is still fit for purpose if that is the case?

Written response from the Mayor

It is understandable following the tragic Grenfell Tower Fire that residents’ confidence in building safety has been shaken. London Fire Brigade (LFB) are working with local authorities and housing providers to reassure residents and check the general fire precautions in buildings. Where LFB has concerns about a building’s ability to support a Stay Put strategy, alternative arrangements are in place and residents advised.  For the majority of buildings, Stay Put remains the advice.  I have urged government to do more to ensure all high rise residential properties with suspected ACM cladding engage with the testing process so that those residents get the same reassurance.

Stay put advice after Grenfell (2)

Question No: 2018/2830

Andrew Dismore

The London Fire Brigade has witnessed mass non-compliance with stay-put before, for example in the aftermath of the Lakanal House fire. What work is the LFB doing to protect the public and firefighters in the event of unplanned simultaneous evacuations of tall buildings?

Written response from the Mayor

Residents’ confidence in building safety has been shaken by the Grenfell Tower Fire and there have been instances of self-evacuation by residents when fires have occurred in high rise premises.  London Fire Brigade (LFB) has responded to that by increasing the number of fire engines that attend these incidents to ensure sufficient resources are immediately available to manage issues such as this. In addition, LFB are continuing to check the general fire precautions in buildings and provide advice and assurance to building owners and residents.  The advice on Stay Put has not changed.

Long-term monitoring of Grenfell firefighters’ health

Question No: 2018/2831

Andrew Dismore

Firefighters who served in the 9/11 response in New York have developed lung diseases and cancers that may have been made more likely by their exposure to toxic chemicals from the fire. What discussions have you had with the London Fire Brigade, National Health Service, Health and Safety Executive and any other relevant bodies, regarding the establishment of a long-term health monitoring programme for firefighters exposed to toxic chemicals in fires like Grenfell?

Written response from the Mayor

The welfare of our firefighters is of paramount importance. The respiratory health of firefighters is examined throughout a firefighter’s career during their routine periodic medicals, which also involves a specific asbestos health surveillance component. In addition, the London Fire Brigade has initiated discussions with researchers at Imperial College to undertake independently funded research into the effects of the Grenfell Tower fire on the respiratory health of those firefighters that attended the incident.

London Brexit resilience summit

Question No: 2018/2832

Andrew Dismore

Will you provide a list of attendees at the London Brexit resilience summit on 16 September, and publish minutes and any other records of topics discussed and decisions made?

Written response from the Mayor

Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.

 

Emergency services staff travel into London

Question No: 2018/2833

Andrew Dismore

Are you satisfied with the adequacy of plans to enable emergency services staff who live outside London to be able to return to duty in the capital to respond to events of the types covered by the London Resilience Forum?

Written response from the Mayor

The London Resilience Forum conducted a survey of the Emergency Services and other responders in 2017. The feedback showed that responders did not consider the question of where staff live to be an issue affecting their response to a major incident.  They reported that their business continuity and other plans ensure that they have the staff in place to meet their needs in an emergency.  These plans are kept under review.

LFB staff outside London

Question No: 2018/2834

Andrew Dismore

How many London Fire Brigade a) operational b) control and c) Fire and Rescue staff live outside Greater London? Please provide this figure by rank as absolute numbers and as a percentage.

Written response from the Mayor

The information requested for London Fire Brigade staff is as follows:

 

54. a) 2568 operational staff live outside of Greater London which equates to 54.97 per cent of the total operational workforce.
55. b) 51 control staff live outside of Greater London which equates to 43.97 per cent of the total control workforce.
56. c) 234 Fire and Rescue staff live outside of Greater London which equates to 29.25 per cent of the total FRS workforce.

Affordable rents for London Fire Brigade employees

Question No: 2018/2835

Andrew Dismore

Please indicate what percentage of a London Fire Brigade qualified firefighter’s pay the average private rent in each London borough would cost.

Written response from the Mayor

The salary for a competent firefighter is £35,271, inclusive of London weighting. The average rent in London until March 2018 was £16,800. The average rent as a percentage of the competent firefighter’s pay would therefore be 48 per cent, though this would also vary between each borough.

Learning from Kensington and Chelsea’s response to the Grenfell Tower Fire

Question No: 2018/2836

Andrew Dismore

What changes have been made to procedures for responding to an event that overwhelms the capacity of one borough to respond, since the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017?

Written response from the Mayor

Following the Grenfell Tower Fire, London Councils commissioned and independent peer challenge – ‘London Local Government’s Collective Resilience Arrangements – Independent Peer Challenge’.  The review was conducted by Tom Riordan (Chief Exec Leeds Council) and Mary Ney (Ex Chief Exec Royal Borough of Greenwich).  The peer challenge, and a subsequent legal review of the arrangements, concluded that the arrangements were fit for purpose in their intention.  Local Authorities have developed an extensive work programme to further develop procedures in light of learning from 2017 with a specific emphasis on capacity, capability and standardisation.  In addition Local Authorities are establishing a long term assurance regime to provide a rigorous review of resilience arrangements.

London borough resilience plans

Question No: 2018/2837

Andrew Dismore

What assessment have you made through the London Resilience Forum of each borough’s own resilience plan?

Written response from the Mayor

The LRF has taken part and continues to take part in the national assurance mechanisms (Resilient Capabilities Survey and more recently a pilot of the new Resilience Standards) that review the collective assurance of the partnership.  The Local Authorities’ Panel is represented at the Local Resilience Forum.  It has carried out its own assurance process to satisfy itself of the arrangements for some years of the borough’s individual resilience plans.  The Panel commissioned an independent peer challenge of its arrangements following the Grenfell Tower Fire and other incidents of 2017and is implementing a revised long term assurance system to provide a rigorous review of resilience arrangements.

Review group for London’s drought strategy

Question No: 2018/2838

Andrew Dismore

In your response to my question “Drought preparedness (2)” in September 2018, you referred to a project group overseen by the London Resilience Forum reviewing the drought strategy. Which organisations are participating in this project group and what are their terms of reference?

Written response from the Mayor

 

The London Resilience Partnership project group convened to oversee the review of the London Resilience Drought Framework includes as core members: Thames Water, Affinity Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, SES Water, the Environment Agency, London local authorities, the Greater London Authority, London Fire Brigade, MHCLG Resilience and Emergencies Division, NHS England (London), Public Health England and the London Resilience Group. The full range of Partnership organisations were consulted on the recommendations arising from the Strategic Coordination Summit on severe drought (27 April 2018) and will be consulted as part of the capability review process.

The terms of reference include the aim: To review the London Drought Response Framework to ensure that London has in place the necessary strategic framework to respond effectively to the risk of drought. The review will take into consideration the recommendations contained in the report of the London Strategic Coordination Summit on Severe Drought (27th April 2018).

 

RE:FIT and RE:NEW for cooling

Question No: 2018/2839

Andrew Dismore

You informed me in September 2018 that RE:FIT and RE:NEW funding can be used for cooling systems in buildings, and that overheating risk advice has been integrated. Can you provide figures for how many applications were made for changes with the purpose and / or effect of increasing the efficiency of building cooling, and how many of these applications were successful. Please provide figures for 2016, 2017 and 2018 to date.

Written response from the Mayor

 

RE:NEW and RE:FIT provide technical assistance on energy efficiency to housing providers and public-sector organisations respectively, rather than funding the improvements directly. This technical assistance includes stock assessment, project development, business case development and procurement guidance. The primary focus of both programmes, as stipulated by the Key Performance Indicators mandated by their original funding agreements (European Investment Bank for RE:NEW and European Regional Development Fund for RE:FIT) and GLA targets, is to reduce energy use and save carbon.

However, as overheating in both homes and workplaces is a growing concern, these programmes have developed advice to help mitigate against this risk.

Three RE:NEW-supported organisations requested that their projects undergo a full retrofit Technical Risk analysis from 2016 to 2018. One organisation subsequently utilised advanced ventilation in their project, primarily to improve indoor air quality but also to mitigate against overheating risk (cooling systems, rather than ventilation, are uncommon in the retrofit of homes).

Of the RE:FIT projects supported from 2016 to 2018, none have involved efficiency improvements to building cooling.

These reflect projects specific to cooling. General advice on reducing overheating risk is included as part of the broader programmes, including through advice provided in toolkits. In addition to these programmes, updated guidance on overheating is being developed to be issued alongside the new London Plan.

 

Police outside London

Question No: 2018/2840

Andrew Dismore

How many Metropolitan Police a) officers b) control and c) other staff live outside Greater London? Please provide this figure by rank as absolute numbers and as a percentage.

Written response from the Mayor

 

Please see the table below. In total, 47% of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) workforce (55% of our officers) live outside the Greater London area.

 

Total Strength  Living outside Greater London % Living outside Greater London

Police Officer   29,685 16,327 55.00%

Police Staff      8,691   2,651   30.50%

PCSO   1,236   320      25.86%

MSC     2,046   440      21.51%

Total    41,658 19,737 47.38%