Cities of London and Westminster Labour Party

Leaking windows and no insulation are a constant feature of life in Great Arthur House at the heart of Golden Lane Estate. Although a revolutionary building when first constructed, the tower is now showing its age with residents complaining of rainwater seepage, poor insulation and condensation leading to DIY measures to keep warm and dry.

Like all council estates, Golden Lane is subject to the Government’s Decent Homes Standard designed to ensure that all public housing is ‘warm, weatherproof and …with reasonably modern facilities’. 
Find out more at http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/decenthomes/whatis

By 2010 the Government is insisting that all public housing is brought up to the Decent Homes Standard. Neighbouring estates in Islington and the Peabody Estate in Whitecross Street have all completed major refurbishment - but not Great Arthur House. Landlords City of London Corporation are so behind in taking action that they have asked for special dispensation from the Government to delay making any changes until 2012 with completion now not expected until 2013.

This state of affairs mean that residents will continue to suffer from poor insulation and high heating bills. Will they be compensated and is there a realistic programme for completing these vital works?

 

The City of London Corporation has published plans for a feasibility study for the Golden Lane Leisure Centre. One of the most loved parts of the Estate, the Centre is now, at more than forty years old, showing its age.

 Investment has been poor over the years resulting in frequent pool closures due to poor chlorine levels or machinery failure. The feasibility study could be good news for the Estate – it suggests major investment with a partner – it could also be very bad news at is also asks if the Leisure Centre should be closed down completely.

Residents will have been pleased to see the news that J.P. Morgan have agreed with them and recognized that the proposed St. Alphage development wasn't suitable for the site; and also that the Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has turned down the plans to replace Smithfield market buildings with new offices.

That leaves some big questions of the City's approach to planning. The heavy-handed approach to these big schemes has not only raised controversy - it also hasn't proved to be very effective.

When lobbying the Comon Councillors who sit on the planning committe we are told that they can only judge the proposal against the planning criteria, and while that's true, the point is that those criteria are set by the City itself. Many local authorities will produce a plannng brief for a site to guide developers in what would be acceptable.
Also the planning framework is being reviewed at the moment as the old Unitary Development Plan has expired and only some of the polices from it in are in effect. If residents want to make sure that schemes are evaluated against suitable criteria, such as the co-existence of business and residents and the integrity of the highwalk access then we will have to make sure that our views are represented as those policies are being set.

As we look forward to electing a new Common Council next year we have the opportunity to put the quality of the governance of the City at the forefront of our selection of a new Common Council

The City of London Labour party has demanded that the City sign up to the London living wage, guaranteeing that all of the Corporation's employees and contractors will earn a minimum of £7.45 per hour – the London living wage. A number of major corporations including Barclays, KPMG, and Credit Suisse have adopted the London Living Wage.

But in a shocking reply to the City Labour party, Town Clerk Chris Duffield , while claiming that the City would “probably” meet the criteria for a London living wage employer, refuses to sign up, arguing that the City's “traditional position of independence” means it would be unlikely to participate in the scheme.

What on earth has political independence got to do with a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay? The London living wage was introduced by Ken Livingstone, but even Boris Johnson supports it, and announced an increase to £7.45 in July. But it’s not good enough for the City, which thinks its own “independent” status is more important than protecting the lowest paid.

When some in the City earn eye-wateringly large salaries,  surely it's not much to ask that the people who clean the offices, tend the gardens and take away the refuse should have their basic minimum rights? The City can easily afford to be a living wage employer, and its heartlessness is shocking. City Labour party will continue to press for every worker in the Square Mile to be guaranteed a decent rate of pay.