Despite all the delegations, the leaders, the media and the hype, there was no meaningful agreement.

Rather than address the issue, governments around the world put vested interests and outdated policies ahead of proteting the planet and its people.

The failure of the 'grey parties' demonstrates why we need Green policitians in power. 

Sarah Edwards is the Green Party candidate for the constituency which contains Ealing Broadway. She said "We are delighted that the planning inspector turned down the application and we congratulate the Save Ealing's Centre group for their tireless work in opposing this scheme. The inspector agreed with local residents that the development was totally out of keeping with the character of the area and would have spoiled a cherished part of Ealing.

The main beneficiaries would have been the developers and landowners. The fact that the Ealing council supported the scheme speaks volumes. The Conservatives clearly put the interests of big developers and landowners ahead of Ealing's residents".

See the dreamy PR image of the scheme ! 

The reality is that it would increase traffic and congestion, increase air pollution and put even more pressure on infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, open space and community facilities. These are grudingly admitted by the planning officer, but who then goes on to say: "On balance, it is considered that the scheme would provide substantial regeneration opportunities for the Southall town centre area." ?!  

Here is letter sent to the press by Ealing Green Party: 

Victory for Southall residents

For the second time in as many months, Southall councillors and campaigners have stood up for their residents and their community.

Only two months ago, Southall councillors and other objectors convinced members of Ealing council's Planning Committee to reject a biofuel power generating plant at the disused gasworks site. The plant would have increased air pollution and would have helped to contribute to global food shortages.

Last week, the Planning Committee rejected an application for a gigantic housing estate on the same gasworks site, with Southall councillors and other objectors once more making a strong case against. Everyone recognises the need for more housing, but this massive scheme is totally unacceptable. It would increase traffic and congestion, increase air pollution and put even more pressure on infrastructure such as roads, public transport, schools, open space and community facilities.

In both cases the planning officers recommended in favour of the applications and in both cases they played down the impacts of schemes that were bad for the area. The officers, with support from the Conservative administration, clearly have agendas quite different from those of Southall's people, who seek a better environment and a better quality of life in Southall.

                      

27 October 2009

Last Saturday a protest meeting was held at Gunnersbury Park, organised by STIG (Save Trees in Gunnersbury). (Note 1). Ealing Green Party members supported the event, including Sarah Edwards, parliamentary candidate for Ealing Central and Acton.

When the idea of selling off part of Gunnersbury Park for housing became known, there was a public outcry. A campaign group, STIG (Save Trees In Gunnersbury) was set up and immediately started to campaign. Ealing Green Party has fully supported the campaign (much to the annoyance of the Conservatives).

The battle is not yet won, but the campaign has been highly successful so far. Already, after just a couple of months, the Conservative's at Ealing council have been forced to come out publicly against building houses on Gunnersbury Park. Here is what they say (from Councillor Phil Taylor):

Gunnersbury Park is not going to be built on (like it ever was)
23rd Oct

"Our Council has consistently said that it would not support residential development in Gunnersbury Park, or any other park in the Borough.

Although it has caused some upset it was essential that the question was raised in the recent consultation questionnaire. The kind of enabling development outlined would be acceptable to funding bodies such as English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund. We can now negotiate with these bodies with the clear understanding that such enabling development is unacceptable to the public as well as this council."

umm ...

 Ealing Green Party has responded to the BAA consultation on its draft Noise Action Plan for Heathrow.  BAA was asked by the Government to produce the plan and the consultation period for comments has just ended. (Note 1).
 
Sarah Edwards, Green Party candidate for the Ealing Central & Acton constituency said “BAA’s document should not even be called an “action plan”, as it failed to address the key issues and contained no firm plans at all to reduce noise.  We knew the consultation was a sham, but took the opportunity to state what the noise action plan should contain, as well as highlighting the failings in BAA’s draft”.
 
Ealing Green Party’s response makes clear that the first essential step is for BAA and the Government to recognise that aircraft noise is a major issue in areas like Ealing and many other areas across Greater London and beyond i.e. not just in the area adjacent to Heathrow. Then they need to establish a plan to actually reduce the noise. An essential element of the plan would be realistic indicators which reflect the way that people hear and are affected by aircraft.  This should be followed by a step-by-step legally binding plan to reduce noise and its impact.
 
There are a number of actions which the party called for in its response. These include:
 
·        A ban on night flights
·        Reducing the number of flights, especially short haul
·        Keeping runway alternation
·        Protecting existing quiet spaces from new aircraft noise
·        Providing more realistic and generous compensation and insulation schemes
 
The party also commented on the extraordinary omission in BAA's plan of any refernce to the 3rd runway. (Note 2)  The party has consistently campaigned against any expansion at Heathrow.
 
Ealing Green Party regarded the Heathrow noise consultation as a sham. Sarah Edwards said: “BAA works on behalf of the airport and the airlines.  BAA is carrying out the consultation, BAA will evaluate comments and BAA will decide what changes to make to the Action Plan.  This means that residents and community groups have no real voice.  The entire process is biased and undemocratic.  A proper process would have a body independent of the aviation industry carry out the consultation. If comments were valid, the body would have the power to change the plan.”
 
END
 
Note 1.  The European Union requires all member states to draw up Noise Action Plans for airports above 50,000 movements a year. In a move condemned by campaigners, DEFRA, the Government department responsible, asked the airports to draw up the plans themselves.
 
Note 2.  Just as the consultation was ending, BAA signalled that it would not seek planning permission for the 3rd runway before the next election, but up until then BAA and the Government were definitely progressing the 3rd runway project.

21 September 2009 

Consultation on the future of Gunnersbury Park:

Comments from Ealing Green Party

On behalf of the Ealing Green Party, I write to formally object to the proposed development at Gunnersbury Park presented by Jura Consultants and LDN Architects in their June 2009 report “Gunnersbury Park Options Appraisal”.

We also strongly object to the consultation process and survey which was grossly misleading, by presenting only two extreme options: either allow the buildings to deteriorate or allow housing to be built on the land along Lionel Road to fund the refurbishment of the park and its buildings. This gave residents no other options and therefore cannot qualify as a proper consultation. The survey document was also seriously flawed and misleading in many other respects; for example, the sports hub was not even shown on the plan and the removal of outdoor tennis courts not mentioned.

As a consequence, the results of this survey cannot be relied upon and should not form the basis of any decisions made by the respective councils.

We are deeply concerned that both Ealing and Hounslow councils have:

1. failed to meet their responsibilities to maintain the park over the years; and

2. allowed the historic buildings and other facilities, such as sports changing rooms, to fall into a serious state of decay

In the light of the above dereliction of duty, it is unacceptable to try to make the park pay for itself by selling part of it, with the consequent loss to the general public.

Grounds for Objection

The principal reasons for objecting to the proposals are:

1. The park is currently protected by the Metropolitan Open Space Act and in the spirit of this we would expect to see all green spaces protected. Our parks and woodlands were protected from the Victorian times and often referred to as the “Lungs of London”. With the population in West London increasing, protecting all parks and green spaces is of paramount importance. They are vital for the health and wellbeing of all residents. If building takes place now this will set a dangerous precedent for all of our parks. Therefore we object to the building of the sports hub and any new houses on the park. This is not just about the 400 trees but all green spaces.

2. The park is also protected by the Rothschild Deed of Covenant which entrusted this estate to us for public purposes only. This deed strictly prohibits building private property in the park. We therefore strongly object to this breach of trust and do not accept the building of housing on the park in the 1920’s as grounds for a second breach of deed. The Deed must be respected.

3. The main reason that the sale of land is proposed is that funding is not available from the councils for refurbishment. We do not accept this argument and would strongly oppose funding being raised by the sale of green spaces and any others such as Carville North Park. We believe the councils have a duty to seek funding elsewhere and/or modify the proposals so that less funding is needed. The current proposals are unnecessarily costly and whatever work is agreed could be spread over longer period to make it more affordable.

4. We also object to the loss of the Pitch and Putt and outdoor tennis courts, and the building of parking space and access roads, which is a further loss of green space. At a time when national and local government are keen to promote sport and healthy outdoor activities, it is counter productive to take away outdoor sporting facilities.

5. Air pollution is a major issue in the area, with both Ealing and Hounslow Councils having needed to establish “air quality management areas”. Parks play an essential role in improving urban air quality. Removing part of the parkland and allowing more cars into it will increase pollution in the park and the neighbourhood.

6. Some of the proposed developments will increase the level of noise, for example from new access roads. This would impair the enjoyment of park users who seek a tranquil place to relax in.

7. For people living along Lionel Road North, this proposal will cause further traffic problems. Currently this road has significant fast traffic coming off the M4 to access Ealing, and residents already park on the pavement as a result of lack of space and to avoid hazards. Additional buildings will add to traffic hazards on the road.

8. Access to the park for those living on the other side of the A4 would be restricted by this proposal as the private housing development would block the current access at the A4 junction.

9. The Councils have a duty to promote biodiversity. This scheme, by destroying trees and all the wildlife that is dependent on it, will destroy wildlife instead of promote it.

Management and Governance

Clearly the management of this park has failed us for years and we believe serious steps should be taken to review and change the governance and management structures of Gunnersbury Park. In addition, something along the lines of a 10 or 15 year Maintenance Programme should be considered that will involve committing both councils to legally binding funding arrangements. Whatever management structures emerge they should provide responsible long term management that will ensure we do not end up in the current predicament again.

Other Options

We believe the Councils should adopt a less ambitious way forward, without sacrificing any of the park. This would be possible by refurbishing the existing property over a longer period of time and reviewing other ways of raising funds from both councils and other sources, both statutory and non-statutory.

The minimum requirement should be to arrest further decay and do essential repairs to the listed buildings and preserve current facilities, especially the museum collections. Funding should be sought as a matter of urgency from the respective councils and external sources to obtain the minimum necessary to undertake this work. This would constitute a short term plan, which, being less ambitious, will require much less funding.

While fully restoring the buildings and facilities is desirable, these are perhaps over-ambitious in the current times of austerity. These aims should be considered as part of a longer term strategy.

We are open to a wide range of potential future uses of the historic buildings – provided they are of benefit to the public.

We recognise that some of the sports changing facilities may need replacing rather than restoring, but this should be on their current site, not on the green parkland. This work and the repair of the outdoor sports facilities should be included in the short and long term plans, as appropriate.

Regarding any proposals for a new indoor sports centre, this should be considered as a separate issue. As explained above, we strongly oppose the erection of such a building on the park. We support the provision of more sports facilities in the area, but this should be the subject of separate plan and separate consultation process. Including it in the current consultation process has conflated different issues and prevented residents commenting properly on the full range of issues.

Sarah Edwards

On behalf of Ealing Green Party

26th August 2009 

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly member  visited Gunnersbury Park on Tuesday 25th August to see at first hand the potential impact of the development plan proposed by the Jura Consultants for Ealing and Hounslow councils.

The proposal is to refurbish the ‘listed’ buildings and add new facilities in the park.  This would be partly financed by building housing on 5.6 acres of the park that runs along Lionel Road North . 

Darren Johnson said: “The proposed site of this new housing development is against everything we stand for in the Green Party. It will destroy over 5 acres of wooded land, which so badly needs protection in urban areas today. As well as giving us places to enjoy and savour, wooded areas provide valuable habitat for all sorts of wildlife and absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

 Darren Johnson and his Ealing and Hounslow colleagues in the Green party urge constituents to write or speak to their councillors to defend the wooded area and to express their views on how this development should be pursued. 

Sarah Edwards, Green Party parliamentary candidate for the Ealing Central and Acton constituency, said: “The consultation survey is grossly misleading. It gives the impression that park has to be built on in order to prevent listed buildings decaying, which is nonsense. In fact, the plans include new building, access roads and car parking on the park, not just restoring the listed buildings. [note 5] There are other options that do not involve sacrificing any of the park.” 

 

 Thepower plant will be run by burning vegetable oil and is one ofseveral plants being proposed by Blue-NG.  If the Southall plantgoes ahead and is profitable, Blue-NG plan to build 43 such plantsacross the UK.

SarahEdwards, parliamentary candidate said “We recognise that somebiofuels can usefully contribute to meeting part of our energy needs– for example it makes sense to use waste cooking oil. But this isonly available in relatively small quantities. So Blue-NG proposeusing crops grown specially to fuel the power plant (note 2)”.

 “Oneof the major problems with biofuels is that they are being grown inplace of food crops, making food shortages worse and pushing up foodprices round the world. In some countries the pressure to growbiofuel crops has lead to human rights abuses and loss of vitalhabitats such as rainforest”.(note 3 & 5)

Blue-NGsays they aim to use fuel grown in the UK, but this is by no meansguaranteed. As consumption of biofuels increases, either largeacreages of the UK will be used for fuel crops or there will be moreimports.

Sarahcontinued: “Itis often assumed that using biofuels is a solution to climate change,because the plants take up carbon dioxide (CO2); but actually in somecases the net result can be even more emissions than from burningfossil fuels”.(note 4).

Theparty is also concerned about the impact on local air quality.Pollution levels are already high in the area which is designated asan “Air Quality Management Area”.

EalingGreen Party is pressing for other forms of renewable energy to beused in the  Southall development – particularly the extensiveuse of solar panels. Just as vital is reducing the demand for energy,by using the highest standards of energy conservation and efficiencyin the buildings and equipment. 

Notes

1.Contact for objections:  London Borough of Ealing PlanningDept., PO Box 14941, London W5 2YP ; or email: planning@ealing.gov.uk  or in person to Ealing Customer Services, Customer Service Centre,Perceval House, 14 - 16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.  Planningreference number:  P/2009/0780

2.Initially this will be oilseed rape - 20,000 tonnes a year for theSouthall plant.

3.A report from the World Bank (July 2008) estimated that 75% of globalfood price increases between 2002 and 2008 were due to biofuelscompeting for food crops such as rapeseed and maize.  Palm oilis mainly grown on lands that were previously tropical rainforest.Indonesia is an example of where indigenous people have been evictedto make way for palm oil plantations.

4.Because of the nitrogen fertilisers used in crop production, thepotent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is emitted. Exact figures aredisputed, but a recent estimate suggested that burning oilseed rapemay result in up to 70% more warming than the equivalent fossilfuels. (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp)

5.The Green Party is calling for a moratorium on the use of ‘agrofuels’ie liquid fuels from biomass, which consist of crops and trees grownspecially for that purpose on a large scale. This would provide timefor scientists and policy makers to study the true impacts on humanrights, climate, biodiversity, etc.

Endof press release

Formore information on the issue see Friends of the Earth briefingand for how to respond see flyer. 

So Peter Mandelson has made his intentions clear. At a time whenunemployment is sky-rocketing, he would like to put tens of thousandsof postal workers jobs at risk with a madcap scheme to part privatise the Royal Mail. This, according to former cabinet minister PeterHain, is part of a long cherished Government agenda to privatise the entire service.

There’s no doubt how local people feel. Boston Manor (Hanwell) postmaster, Kishore Davda, thinks he could be squeezed out of business - picture below (courtesy of Ealing Gazette).

It’shardly surprising the Royal Mail is struggling to make money, and it’s got little to do with the internet as any eBay addict or online shopper will vouch for. No wonder - when The Mail’s chief competitor, the Dutch private monopoly TNT - has already been gifted the most profitable parts of Royal Mail’s business. And no wonder -when for years, successive Tory and Labour governments have beencreaming off profits and starving this still vital public service of investment to modernise its systems, pay decent wages to it’s hardworking staff, or properly restructure.

If the service can really be turned round to make a profit, why does Peter Mandelson not simply bring in good managers from the privatesector but keep the service wholly public?  And if the service cannot make a financial profit (as opposed to a social and economicprofit) why would any private company buy it?

Mandleson’s plan seems clear. He is confident he can get private sector investment because he only intends to sell off the profitable parts of Royal Mail. The loss-making parts will be left with the taxpayer and, a few years down the line, the government will say it cannotafford public expenditure needed to retain a universal postalservice.

To cap this cynical plan he is trying to blackmail postal workers into accepting privatisation. He is telling workers that their pensions will not be under-written by government unless it can privatise otherparts.

We have seen how private sector greed, selfishness and incompetence have driven the UK and world economy into recession and job losses. Handing over important vital public assets to the private sector is the last thing which is needed right now. 

Yet again, this Government seems determined to arrogantly ignore the public mood and even that of its core voters and. With the assistance of that other Tory Party - the Conservatives- it intends to once more help its friends in big business atthe expense of the british people.

When Harriet Harman, Deputy Prime Minister, visited Southall recently she urged Labour Party members to work hard before the European elections to prevent the BNP (British National Party) gaining a seat in London. (Gazette, 8th May).

Do not fall for this cynical ploy to bolster beleaguered Labour by scaremongering about the BNP! 
 
The prospect of the BNP gaining any seats is indeed unattractive, but voters do not need to vote for any of the larger parties to keep them out!  A vote for the Green Party would do that just as effectively.
 
The European elections are based on Proportional Representation so smaller parties can and do win seats. The process is similar to the elections for the London Assembly, in which the Greens have 2 seats.  
 
The Green Party already has one MEP (Member of the European Parliament) for London - Jean Lambert -and she is standing again. If the Green's vote increases sufficiently, there will be more than one Green MEP representing London.
 
So for those who want to retain a Green voice for Londoners in the European Parliament, it is vital to participate on June 4th. 
 

Press Release, 22/4/09

Ealing Green Party opposes Southall biofuel plant

 The power plant will be run by burning vegetable oil and is one of several plants being proposed by Blue-NG.  If the Southall plant goes ahead and is profitable, Blue-NG plan to build 43 such plants across the UK.

Sarah Edwards, parliamentary candidate said “We recognise that some biofuels can usefully contribute to meeting part of our energy needs - for example it makes sense to use waste cooking oil. But this is only available in relatively small quantities. So Blue-NG propose using crops grown specially to fuel the power plant (note 2)”.

 “One of the major problems with biofuels is that they are being grown in place of food crops, making food shortages worse and pushing up food prices round the world. In some countries the pressure to grow biofuel crops has lead to human rights abuses and loss of vital habitats such as rainforest”. (note 3 & 5)

Blue-NG says they aim to use fuel grown in the UK, but this is by no means guaranteed. As consumption of biofuels increases, either large acreages of the UK will be used for fuel crops or there will be more imports.

Sarah continued: “It is often assumed that using biofuels is a solution to climate change, because the plants take up carbon dioxide (CO2); but actually in some cases the net result can be even more emissions than from burning fossil fuels”. (note 4).

The party is also concerned about the impact on local air quality. Pollution levels are already high in the area which is designated as an “Air Quality Management Area”.

Ealing Green Party is pressing for other forms of renewable energy to be used in the  Southall development - particularly the extensive use of solar panels. Just as vital is reducing the demand for energy, by using the highest standards of energy conservation and efficiency in the buildings and equipment. 

Notes

1. Contact for objections:  London Borough of Ealing Planning Dept., PO Box 14941, London W5 2YP ; or email:  planning@ealing.gov.uk   or in person to Ealing Customer Services, Customer Service Centre, Perceval House, 14 - 16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.  Planning reference number:  P/2009/0780

2. Initially this will be oilseed rape - 20,000 tonnes a year for the Southall plant.

3. A report from the World Bank (July 2008) estimated that 75% of global food price increases between 2002 and 2008 were due to biofuels competing for food crops such as rapeseed and maize.  Palm oil is mainly grown on lands that were previously tropical rainforest. Indonesia is an example of where indigenous people have been evicted to make way for palm oil plantations.

4. Because of the nitrogen fertilisers used in crop production, the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is emitted. Exact figures are disputed, but a recent estimate suggested that burning oilseed rape may result in up to 70% more warming than the equivalent fossil fuels.  (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp)

5. The Green Party is calling for a moratorium on the use of 'agrofuels' ie liquid fuels from biomass, which consist of crops and trees grown specially for that purpose on a large scale. This would provide time for scientists and policy makers to study the true impacts on human rights, climate, biodiversity, etc.

End of press release

There's no doubt how local people feel. Boston Manor (Hanwell) postmaster, Kishore Davda, thinks he could be squeezed out of business - picture below (courtesy of Ealing Gazette).
s
It's hardly surprising the Royal Mail is struggling to make money, and it’s got little to do with the internet as any eBay addict or online shopper will vouch for. No wonder - when The Mail's chief competitor, the Dutch private monopoly TNT - has already been gifted the most profitable parts of Royal Mail's business. And no wonder - when for years, successive Tory and Labour governments have been creaming off profits and starving this still vital public service of investment to modernise its systems, pay decent wages to it's hard working staff, or properly restructure.

If the service can really be turned round to make a profit, why does Peter Mandelson not simply bring in good managers from the private sector but keep the service wholly public?  And if the service cannot make a financial profit (as opposed to a social and economic profit) why would any private company buy it?

Mandleson’s plan seems clear. He is confident he can get private sector investment because he only intends to sell off the profitable parts of Royal Mail. The loss-making parts will be left with the taxpayer and, a few years down the line, the government will say it cannot afford public expenditure needed to retain a universal postal service.

To cap this cynical plan he is trying to blackmail postal workers into accepting privatisation. He is telling workers that their pensions will not be under-written by government unless it can privatise other parts.

We have seen how private sector greed, selfishness and incompetence have driven the UK and world economy into recession and job losses.  Handing over important vital public assets to the private sector is the last thing which is needed right now. 

Yet again, this Government seems determined to arrogantly ignore the public mood and even that of its core voters and. With the assistance of that other Tory Party - the Conservatives - it intends to once more help its friends in big business at the expense of the british people.

Unfortunately, the chairman of the committee, Councillor Kang (Labour) and vice-chairman, Councillor Costello (Conservative), both chose to ignore the Green Party submission and concentrate entirely on more lightweight submissions from a few individual residents.  

This demonstrates that, whatever they might say, lives and community safety rank low on the agenda of Labour and Conserative compared with appeasing the car lobby.

See below for text of Ealing Green  Party's submission.

Comments to Ealing Council’s Traffic Calming and 20mph Zones Scrutiny Panel

The Green Party strongly supports the use of 20mph speed limits in urban areas, primarily because of the improvements to road safety. The party also supports other traffic calming measures, but recognises that these must be selected with care to avoid causing problems, particularly for cyclists and emergency vehicles.

The Panel will have access to information from RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) and other sources about the research into the links between speed and road safety, and the detailed findings will not be repeated here. We also note that an investigation into 20mph zones is currently being undertaken across London on behalf of the London Assembly Transport Committee (note 1). Its findings are due to be published early in 2009 and will be very relevant to the work of the Scrutiny Panel.

Research shows that reducing the speed of vehicles from 30mph to 20mph results in far fewer collisions between motor vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists (note 2), and far fewer fatalities in cases where collisions occur (note 3).

In addition to reducing casualties, there is a range of other benefits to lowering traffic speeds. More people, especially children, feel able to walk or cycle safely. This results in health benefits, traffic reduction and further environmental improvements. Streets become quieter, calmer places and there is more scope for children to play outside.

The Green Party supports the use of a variety of traffic calming measures, both within and outside 20mph zones.  However, the type of calming needs to be carefully selected. For example, some types of road hump cause major problems for cyclists and emergency vehicles. If road humps are used, it is therefore essential that the right type is selected. We support the changing of road layouts (ie to reduce the speed of motor vehicles but allow cycles to pass unimpeded) and the creation of ‘Home Zones’. Our preference is to enforce the speed limit using average speed camera systems.

While supporting 20mph zones, the Green Party proposes a more radical approach.
The party proposes the introduction of 20mph as the default speed limit (in place of the current 30mph limit) for all urban roads apart from main roads and through routes. This would greatly reduce the amount of bureaucracy associated with 20mph zones and reduce the need for so many special measures to calm traffic, thereby making the scheme more cost-effective. Enforcement would be by using average speed camera systems.

We urge the Panel to recommend that the Council makes representations to support  the proposal to bring in a new default limit of 20mph in place of 30mph for urban areas, apart from main roads and through routes. We recognise that Ealing Council currently only has the power to introduce 20mph zones within the borough. In the absence of a comprehensive 20mph policy for urban areas, we recommend that Ealing continues to introduce 20mph zones and discusses the issue with adjoining boroughs to develop proposals for a more wide-ranging strategy. 

Note 1. This investigation was agreed at the meeting of the Business Managements and Appointments Committee, 23rd October 2008.  The findings are expected to be published early in 2009.

Note 2. Only 1in 40 pedestrians die if hit by a car at 20mph, but 2 out of 10 die if hit at 30mph and half at 35 mph (more than half of motorists exceed the 30mph limit).  Source:  figures quoted by RoSPA at http://www.rospa.com

Note 3. Cars travelling at 20mph hit fewer people - a 1mph drop in average speed is estimated to reduce accidents by 6% in urban areas. Source RoSPA at http://www.rospa.com
        

Heathrow expansion would have devastating impacts on West London and beyond. See Friends of the Earth's case against Heathrow expansion.

The good news is that the battle is not lost. This 'decision' is only a confirmation of government policy. A third runway can only be built after a planning application has been submitted and agreed. This could well be after the next general election. So we know how to stop it - vote Labour out of office! Every Green vote is a vote against Labour and helps to get them out.  

See more comment from Ealing Green Party:

Heathrow - Final straw for Labour ?

On Thursday 15th Jan the government announced that a third runway and new terminal would be built. This followed a massive and prolonged campaign by local councils, community groups and residents against further expansion.

A third runway will built as soon as possible, bulldozing the community of Sipson, destroying Green Belt and increasing noise, air pollution and climate change.

A spokesperson for Ealing Green Party said “The government’s decision is a disaster for Ealing, London, Britain and the world. Locally it will blight lives and endanger health. Further afield, it will fuel climate change and demonstrate that Gordon Brown’s climate bill and his rhetoric about climate change are just greenwash.”

“The decision is not just a disaster for health, quality of life and the environment. It is also a disaster for democracy. Residents, community groups and local councils were all strongly opposed to expansion. But the government ignored what ordinary people wanted and made the decision that their friend in big business wanted.”

“Although the government’s policy is clear, the final decision cannot be made until a planning application has been made and determined. With a general election this or next year, there is a good opportunity to stop the expansion. The electorate should vote all local Labour MP and councillors out of office and instead vote for a party which cares about them. It could be final straw for the Labour government.”

Crucially, this is not the final decision. It is only a confirmation of government policy. A third runway can only be built after a planning application has been submitted and agreed. This could well be after the next general election. So we know how to stop it - vote Labour out of office! Every Green vote is a vote against Labour.  

For information on the case against Heathrow expansion see Friends of the Earth web site. 

See below for Ealing Green Party comment.

Heathrow – Final straw for Labour ?

On Thursday 15th Jan the government announced that a third runway and new terminal would be built. This followed a massive and prolonged campaign by local councils, community groups and residents against further expansion.

A third runway will built as soon as possible, bulldozing the community of Sipson, destroying Green Belt and increasing noise, air pollution and climate change.

A spokesperson for Ealing Green Party said “The government’s decision is a disaster for Ealing, London, Britain and the world. Locally it will blight lives and endanger health. Further afield, it will fuel climate change and demonstrate that Gordon Brown’s climate bill and his rhetoric about climate change are just greenwash.”

“The decision is not just a disaster for health, quality of life and the environment. It is also a disaster for democracy. Residents, community groups and local councils were all strongly opposed to expansion. But the government ignored what ordinary people wanted and made the decision that their friend in big business wanted.”

“Although the government’s policy is clear, the final decision cannot be made until a planning application has been made and determined. With a general election this or next year, there is a good opportunity to stop the expansion. The electorate should vote all local Labour MP and councillors out of office and instead vote for a party which cares about them. It could be final straw for the Labour government.”

For more detail on Heathrow see HACAN and Stop Heathrow expansion web sites.  

Conservatives against 3rd runway ?!

Now - as at October 2009 - the Conservatives have said they would not allow a 3rd runway. But can we trust them? If they are elected, will they renege? After all, they are still the party of big business and it is big business that has lobbying fiercely for a 3rd runway and has turned over the Labour Party.

Does if care about homes, communities, pollution, health, safety, quality of life, open space and addressing climate change? Or should all these be sacrificed in order to help its friends in big business?

No wonder the cabinet are grappling with the decision. It is a huge challenge to the New Labour project. If the government puts ordinary people, society, the environment and the future of the planet before the profits of big business, where will it all end? They might even get confused with the Green Party!

See West London Friends of the Earth web site for a summary of the case against Heathrow expansion.