Heathrow – Putting politics before the public good?

Heathrow Airport has been firmly back in the spotlight after Sir Howard Davies recently announced his interim report in to airport expansion in the south of England.

Three options have been put on the table –  A new runway to the North West of the existing airport, an extension of the Northern runway to the west (Allowing it to operate as two separate runways) or a second runway at Gatwick. Sir Howard has also committed to reviewing his decision to rule out an airport in the Thames Estuary, the so-called ‘Boris Island’, later this year – This seems unlikely to make the shortlist.

A Political hot potato

The threat of a third runway at Heathrow is not new – The Blair government were committed to the project, but local residents won out through dedicated and active campaign groups such as NOTRAG and HACAN, with support and assistance from local Labour MP John McDonnell. The people of Hillingdon spoke loudly and were heard – Yet the spectre has come back once again.

So, where do the politicians nationally stand on the issue of expansion?

Conservatives

David Cameron promised that there would be no new runways during the duration of this parliament, which comes to an end in May next year. Interestingly enough, Sir Howard Davies was reported  as saying this week that he could have delivered a full report on a shorter timetable but had been asked to delay his findings by the coalition government.(Source – Daily Telegraph)

With Chancellor George Osborne known to be a supporter of Heathrow expansion, could this be a ‘fudge’ so that a policy that could harm Tory re-election prospects is kicked in to the long grass? It would also be massively unpopular with at least two Tory MP’s whose constituencies would suffer in Zac Goldsmith and Adam Afriyie, both of whom have been consistent in their opposition to the third runway.

London mayor Boris Johnson has been very vocal in demanding a completely new airport in the Thames Estuary, and attacked both the Davies Commission and the Commons Transport Committee in very strong terms for ruling it out recently, criticism that resulted in Davies using the term ‘vulgar abuse’. Expect more toys to be thrown out of the pram if Boris doesn’t get his own way with his unaffordable and impractical vanity project going forward.

Labour

The original proponents of the third runway, they have officially dropped the idea and are thought to favour new runways at Gatwick or Stansted according to HACAN. (This would make sense, as neither are traditional Labour areas and in theory it would not be too damaging to them nationally at the ballot box)

However, shadow chancellor Ed Balls is known to favour Heathrow expansion and two key union backers in the GMB and Unite have both publicly backed it. Leader Ed Miliband was vehemently against during the final term of the last Labour government, but his stance appears to have softened with a recent statement that he has ‘yet to be convinced’ of the case for Heathrow expansion. Maybe the threat of the withdrawal of Len McCluskey’s wallet may ‘convince’ him in the coming months, although again he will be painfully aware that an unpopular policy could bite at the General Election.

Local Hayes & Harlington MP John McDonnell (Above) is a vociferous opponent of Heathrow expansion, which could put him once again on a collision course with party command should the union bosses get their way.

Liberal Democrats

Opposed to all airport expansion in their 2010 general election manifesto, leader Nick Clegg recently indicated on his LBC radio phone in show that the position may have changed and he could be in favour of a second runway at Gatwick. Party heavyweight Vince Cable remains firmly opposed to Heathrow expansion, which would directly affect his South London constituency

Clegg backed up his statement by saying that Davies sees more growth in point to point flights rather than long distance ‘hub’ solutions, which puts him at odds with his own coalition partners who have stated on numerous occasions that the lack of a ‘superhub airport’  is damaging to our trade with emerging industrial powerhouses such as India, China and Brazil.

Greens

Totally against all airport expansion (Unsurprisingly) – No ‘plan B’ if it is shown that there is demand for additional flights.

Working together locally to stop the third runway

Shortly after the Interim announcement, local meetings were convened to rally support against the third runway.

UKIP Hillingdon postponed our event and attended a non-aligned meeting with cross organisational support in Harlington on 16th January organised by John McDonnell.

Nearly 100 people turned out on a wind and rain swept evening to hear speeches and swap ideas with John Randall MP, NOTRAG’s Christine Taylor and a very late arriving John McDonnell, who had been caught in traffic and initially relayed information to the meeting via phone through his assistant Helen Lowder (Below – I myself arrived over half an hour late due to a combination of work and a serious accident on the M4)

Noise, pollution and blight were all subjects that were high in the minds of the local residents at the meeting, with questions surrounding the ability of the existing road and rail infrastructure to cope with more people arriving on flights also aired. Our Heathrow Villages spokesman, Bryan, also pointed out to Mr McDonnell the Ed Balls support for Heathrow which elicited a response of “Leave Ed Balls to me” – I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall when that conversation takes place!

I myself made 2 points to the meeting – Firstly, that many residents in London who are not currently affected by noise from Heathrow will be should the expansion go ahead, and those communities and their MP’s need to be made very aware of it. (It would appear that some of the activists at the event are already working on this)

Secondly, in response to a gentleman talking about the roads disruption and the possible closure of the M25 during construction work causing massive delays and extra pollution – If the third runway goes ahead, then a spur will be run from the proposed HS2 high speed rail line to the airport, most likely running through West Drayton and Iver. This makes the two projects symbiotic – An HS2 link is already listed on the third runway plans, so this project going ahead gives extra weight to the campaign to build this monstrous and unnecessary rail project. Likewise, if HS2 goes ahead then part of the economic case for third runway will be that a high speed rail line exists close to the airport already that is relatively easy to hook up and therefore Heathrow has ‘superior transport links’ over it’s competitors in the airport expansion stakes.

John McDonnell replied that he is for high speed rail (Hardly surprising as he is the RMT union’s parliamentary spokesman) but voted against HS2, and was not aware of any current plans as to where a proposed Heathrow HS2 spur would go. I offered to share with him the draft plans that had been seen by some of the Stop HS2 campaigners – These can be seen on the following link at the bottom of the page

http://www.hs2.org.uk/have-your-say/consultations/phase-two/exceptional-hardship-scheme

It was generally agreed that we all need to work together to stop Heathrow expansion irrespective of our political allegiances, which made the report that came in from the council meeting that night almost surreal

Hillingdon Council backs Heathrow Closure

The local Labour opposition group on the council proposed a motion for a ‘better, not bigger, Heathrow’ – Essentially, to oppose the Third runway whilst working to make sure that jobs are not lost by a gradual rundown of the existing airport.

Rather than discussing the proposal, which on the face of it seems reasonable, the ruling Conservative Group unanimously voted to close the airport – Council leader Ray Puddifoot’s (Pictured left)’Third Way’ as reported by Jack Griffith in our local Gazette.

After hearing of the council meeting, my UKIP Hillingdon colleague Jack Duffin received the below tweet from Tory Cllr Dominic Gilham after he enquired as to what was going on

“Heathrow have said without expansion it will close, so it’s a clear choice What do you support as do nothing is not an option?”

https://twitter.com/DominicGilham/status/423963391984926720

A strange tweet, but also quite revealing – Cllr Gilham is essentially saying that unless you expand Heathrow it has to close, a tactic that the airport has been using to try and bully the third runway through.

This also poses the question – Do the council really want expansion and the closure threat is their way of justifying a potential change of heart should a 3rd runway be Tory policy AFTER the general election and in line with the full report from The Davies Commission? If so, this is a very risky strategy – Heathrow Airport Ltd’s Colin Matthews has already stated live on LBC radio to claims that a third runway would be inadequate and a fourth would need to be built immediately after it’s completion that they will do that if required.

Alternatively, with Cllr Puddifoot already having stated in the press previously that he was comfortable with Heathrow closure, are they jockeying to assist Boris Johnson’s Estuary airport and the Mayor’s vision for a high tec based ‘London Borough of Heathrow’? With David Cameron unlikely to survive as Tory leader should they not win the next general election outright, is this an attempt to curry favour with one of his potential replacements?

Either way, the council and indeed their national party should state what their position is and stop playing politics with people’s lives.

We have already seen the council quite rightly opposing the HS2 rail project whilst their national party is recklessly pushing ahead with it – Our two local Tory MP’s, John Randall and Nick Hurd, voted FOR the paving bill that enables money to be allocated to pay for the railway, a clear case of a muddled message that leaves Hillingdon residents unsure of which way their public representatives will react at any given time to their concerns.

As was stated at the public meeting in Harlington, everyone needs to work together to confront and stop Heathrow expansion – We have offered to print leaflets and publicise the upcoming West Drayton third runway meeting that John McDonnell is organising along with our own event in February, which both he and John Randall have been invited to attend (Which they have declined, in John Randalls’ case due to a prior engagement)

It would also be helpful if the major political parties got off of the fence and stated what their intentions are towards airport expansion in the south east and stop hiding behind a delayed report – To start the ball rolling, below is the UKIP policy on aviation in the South of England

 

UKIP’s alternative to the Third Runway

UKIP opposes a third runway at Heathrow – The infrastructure surrounding the airport will not support the additional traffic and the environmental concerns regarding air quality and noise need to be listened to.

The public in the surrounding borough’s have made their voices heard and are against – It is time for the politicians to listen to the people.

Likewise, we are not convinced of the need for a ‘super hub’ airport similar to those in Holland, France and Germany. A comparable city to London is New York, which operates with two hub airports (JFK and Newark), a large domestic flights airport (La Guardia) and smaller business airports such as Teterboro.

We are well placed to operate a similar system in the South of England already, with Heathrow operating as one of the two hub airports with it’s existing runways, whilst a combination of Gatwick, Luton and Stansted can cover short haul ‘point to point’ services in the way LaGuardia covers US domestic flights. The business jet community is also well served by London City, Biggin Hill and Farnborough.

Our solution is to develop the existing airport at Manston in Kent (Kent International) as a second, complimentary hub to assist Heathrow.

Manston has the second largest runway in the UK, and can already accommodate the largest airliners including the Airbus A380 (Pictured above). Indeed, it is a designated divert airfield for both Heathrow and Gatwick in the event of problems and has a high level of available safety equipment – BA already use it as a training facility for their pilots.

No demolition of houses would need to be undertaken as would be the case with Heathrow expansion, plus the pollution and noise aspects would be minimised by flightpaths that come in over the channel. The local council are in favour of the project as it would bring much needed jobs to the area (Whilst leaving Heathrow to operate in West London and preserve those jobs that already exist for the communities in Hillingdon and Hounslow)

Expansion of Manston would be far less expensive than the alternatives – With the runway already in place (Plus wide enough that side by side landings would be possible at a future date with minor modifications if demand increased drastically), the only major infrastructure upgrades required would be a revamp of the terminal buildings and links to existing road and rail infrastructure.

A spur line to the existing HS1 channel tunnel rail line, which operates currently at less than 50% capacity, would enable international travellers to be in the heart of London in 40 minutes and give a much needed boost to a loss making service. It would also open up the possibility of international travellers using Manston as a gateway to the channel ports, re-invigorating communities. Indeed, with the City of London being a main economic driver for our country, it could be argued that an additional airport to the east of London would be a better way to service the city than making people disembark at Heathrow and then have to fight their way through central London to go eastwards from Paddington.

Likewise, links to both the M2 and A2 road network can be achieved relatively quickly  and would enable comparatively easy access to London and the South East.

(It is also worth pointing out that a ‘hub’ airport exists to take passengers from long haul international flights and transfer them to short haul flights for the domestic or European final leg of their journey – To this end, it does not matter where the second hub is placed for this particular part of the airport function, as passengers will only be travelling within the terminals and will not need additional transport infrastructure outside of the confines of the airfield.)

We would also look at the issue of ‘grandfather rights’ at Heathrow – Currently, the runways are operating at 98% capacity but the terminals are operating way below that, in the main caused by airlines with historic slot allocations filling them with empty or almost empty aircraft to deny rivals the ability to land. Making Heathrow more efficient would also have a positive knock on effect for employment in the boroughs surrounding the airport.

You can help to stop the third runway

If you are concerned about the impact of Heathrow expansion, please help spread the word.

There are a number of groups organising against the proposals – I have attached links below if you would like to get in touch, or you can contact us at www.ukiphillingdon.com

HACAN Clearskies                                         http://www.hacan.org.uk/

Office of John McDonnell MP                     http://www.john-mcdonnell.net/

iPetitions                                                          http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-third-runway

Zac Goldsmith MP                                         http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/default.asp?contentID=26

Hillingdon Council and Lake Farm – More short term fixes for long term misery

On Friday 1st March, Hillingdon Council called an emergency planning meeting for just 4 days later to push through their plans for construction of a new school on the green belt at Lake Farm Country Park.

Regular visitors to this site will have seen how the council’s plans have been progressed on this issue in what can only be described as an ‘irregular’ manner, from the initial decision that there was an ‘overwhelming need’ for a new school overriding the green belt status of the site, through test coring being seen by local residents prior to any planning permission being given, through to the decision to slip the planning application through at the end of the last planning meeting before Christmas with an 8th January deadline for objections(Maybe in the hope that we wouldn’t notice over the festive season?)

After the December submission of the plans, UKIP Hillingdon activists went door to door in the area with details of the proposal and where to put your complaint in to, whilst John McDonnell MP took another march through Hayes Town to raise awareness. On top of the petitions already submitted, this must have made the council very aware of the strength of local feeling against use of this land for the new school and may well explain why they convened the March 5th Planning Committee on such short notice to try and force it through.

Central & South Planning Committee Meeting

Arriving at the Civic Centre straight from work for the 7pm start, I could see that a large part of the council chamber was taken up with familiar faces from the meetings and protest marches that I had participated in throughout the year.

Taking my seat, I picked up the public document pack and planning drawings that were provided and listened to the presentation being made by the planning team at the front of the hall.

The statistics presented pointed out that there would need to be an 18% increase in primary school places between 2012 and 2020 and that the three wards surrounding Lake Farm (Botwell,Pinkwell and Townfield) had all shown an above average increase in need for these places of 21% between 2001 and 2011 based on census data – This compared with a 13% increase across Hillingdon as a whole in the same period.

The reasons for these increases were explained to be immigration,increased birthrate and new housing that had been built in the area increasing the local population.

It was pointed out that after the construction of the new school, 87 % of the country park would be left intact and that various ‘landscaping’ features have been built in to the proposal to limit the impact on the surrounding environment.

Also wheeled out at this point on a slide (Which was not in the provided information pack) was a graph of surplus vs shortfall of school places based on ECS SRP 2012 figures that was supposed to back up the council stance on the construction of a 4 form of entry school. This created a stir in the room as John McDonnell forcibly made the point that this information had been withheld in all the previous submissions and seemed to be a ‘smoking gun’ put in to the room for the express purpose of directing towards building of the school without the chance of the figures being checked before a decision was to be made. Chairman of the meeting Cllr John Hensley threatened to remove the MP from the meeting at this point if he did not calm down.

Once order was restored, Mr McDonnell put his case that the proposal was flawed and that the council should be looking at 3 forms of entry in total, not 3 forms of entry in one school.Indeed, it was put to the committee at this point that government education officials were meeting with Guru Nanak school in Hayes within 24 hours to discuss 4 new forms of entry there which would render the need for 3 new forms at any of the sites unnecessary.

It was also pointed out that there are ongoing discussions about an additional form of entry being added at Rosedale school.

Unfortunately, the planning committee decided that these additional places could not be taken in to account as there were no concrete plans in place – A request to delay decision on Lake Farm until a report back on the expansion of Guru Nanak was flatly ruled out, despite the delay needed being just a few weeks.

Representations were then put forward by a number of local people who had petitioned against the development.

First up was Scott Dick who put the case from the local dog walkers perspective, followed by Peter MacDonald who pointed out that if this was allowed to go ahead and over 10% of the park goes then the council would be back at a later date for more as had been seen down the years in other developments.

Linda Chapman then put the case for the walkers,joggers and exercisers whilst the final presentation came in the form of a particularly eloquent speech about traffic and air pollution issues from David Mackie.

Local councillors followed putting their points forward – Janet Duncan asked why there was a need to build a school so big and what the council termed as the ‘special circumstances’ that led to the proposal whilst touching on safety issues (Please see note at the end of this post), Phoday Jarjussey spoke of additional congestion and Mo Khursheed brought up the original use of section 106 money from Stockley Park development that led to the creation of the country park.

This final point I found particularly interesting, namely that in order to build what at the time was called ‘The Trident Site’ at Stockley Park that money paid to the council by the developers under Section 106 rules was used to replace green areas lost in that construction and the money was used to cultivate Lake Farm Country Park. Effectively, the council had ruled previously that the green areas needed to be replaced and had used taxpayers money to do it – Now they were saying that they were prepared to ignore that need and ‘write off’ that investment. The planning officer dismissed this by saying that under ‘special circumstances’ this use of section 106 money was not relevant, but despite pressing from both Cllr Khursheed and Cllr Duncan refused once again to give a definition of ‘special circumstances’.

Alternative sites were also asked about, as the committee kept insisting that 26 sites had been assessed and found to be unsuitable – After much pressing, they gave the list. I didn’t get them all down, but some were quite laughable (The Woolpack public house on Dawley Road, for example) but they had also written off such viable alternatives as the old Hayes Swimming Pool and the Vinyl Factory on the EMI site. (In view of their decision to build on green belt, it was also ominous to hear that they had considered Minet Country Park, showing that the council have their eyes on a number of previously off limits sites.)

They claimed that the swimming pool was unsuitable because there were a small number of parking spaces on the site that they were contractually obliged to offer to the community centre opposite and that the ground was polluted – The latter assertion was challenged by David Mackie who used to maintain the emergency valves under the pool, but his point was ignored.

They didn’t give an answer on many of the others, including the Vinyl Factory, but reading between the lines it is clear that such sites are earmarked for prestige housing developments which will be out of the reach of local people to afford and will merely compound the school shortages issue by bringing yet more people in to the area.

After around two hours of debate, a vote was taken on the planning committee and the plans were approved with all the Conservative councillors in favour. A fire alarm was then triggered, and we filed out of the front of the building to be confronted by a large sheet suspended between two lampposts as can be seen in the picture below

Short term gain for long term misery

This is not the first time I have been present at a planning meeting where the decision already appears to be made before anyone enters the room.

Back in 2011, the planning committee approved house building on covenant land on the Glenister estate off of Minet Drive. The argument then was that they were just giving planning permission and that for the covenant to be enforced would require legal action, which upon checking with a solicitor I was advised would probably cost in the region of £80,000 to pursue via the courts with no guarantee of success.

Ironically, it is sites such as these that have led to the need for more school places in the south of the borough.

During last year’s hearings in to Hillingdon Council’s local plan, (The blueprint laid down for planning in the borough for the next 15 years), 75% of the borough’s total new housing was planned to be in Uxbridge and the Hayes/West Drayton corridor. We were also advised that our open spaces would not be under threat and green belt would remain protected, yet within 12 months the council has ignored this pledge and is attempting to build on Lake Farm under ‘special circumstances’.

So what are these ‘special circumstances’? If we are talking of a population explosion, that can hardly be called unexpected. Indeed, with the Local plan concentrating development in the south of the borough then the need for additional infrastructure in the way of school places has been guaranteed.

So, why the green belt land that was supposedly not at risk? There are adequate brown field sites available to construct a school, but according to Councillor Dominic Gilham ,who voted in favour of Lake Farm destruction, “We will not educate in disused libraries,bingo halls or cinemas.We are Hillingdon Conservatives we look after are (sic) residents” (Sent to me on Twitter) Actually Dominic, I feel that there are other reasons why you don’t build on brown field sites – Firstly, it is more expensive than just hacking up another swathe of green belt and secondly, those ‘brown field’ sites are already earmarked for selling off to your developer friends, thus creating more overpopulation and even more need for additional school places.

With the impending arrival of Crossrail, development companies are becoming increasingly interested in the real estate around Hayes and I feel that this certainly colours the thinking of planning committees who can see advantages to selling off public land for a quick profit.

Whilst regeneration of Hayes and West Drayton is vitally important to the wellbeing of our community, this is turning in to a double edged sword. For example, the aforementioned Vinyl Factory on the old EMI site is being developed in to what looks like an impressive project, but the downside is the additional strain it will put on existing infrastructure such as transport links, the NHS and schools. Section 106 money paid by the development companies to the council is supposed to be used to prop up such infrastructure, but as seen at the planning meeting  with regards to the 106 monies used to build Lake Farm the council have a short term vision for it and are happy to write it off when circumstances require. There is still confusion surrounding where the 106 money for the Glenister Estate has gone!

Moreover, a lot of the developments that are being planned do not fit with the existing needs of the community.

Currently, we have around 9000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing in Hillingdon. Now look at the High Point project in Hayes Town centre that was supposed to be part of the regeneration – Once the social housing aspect was allocated (Most to people from outside of the borough and with no real community links here), half of the buyers for the final ‘Navigation block’ were overseas investors as uncovered by Jack Griffith reporting for the Gazette in March last year.

Such investors subsequently let the properties out privately, which with the shortage of affordable housing in the area then become expensive homes for the low paid in the private sector subsidised by state housing benefit. Meanwhile, those investors see their ‘asset’ appreciate in value as the shortages continue.

This is not just happening in Hillingdon, but across London – The balance between housebuilding to support the community and housebuilding as an ‘investment opportunity’ needs to be balanced far better than we are seeing at the current time, both from a community and a public cost point of view.

Why Lake Farm is the wrong choice

In sitting through the planning committee meeting, there were a number of points put forward that were glossed over or ignored.

Firstly, with a meeting the next day between education officials and Guru Nanak school, plus the proposed Rosedale additional form of entry, why did the committee not grant a small delay of say two weeks to see what other proposals would be put forward? Why the unseemly rush to get this through against the wishes of the local community? With figures brought forward on the night without prior disclosure, what other circumstances behind the application have not been put before the public for scrutiny?

Congestion issues have not been properly addressed, either. My friend Dean used to live in Goulds Green and would sometimes pick me up for work from Cowley High Street when my car was off the road – This trip would take him the best part of an hour in morning rush hour with the congestion around Merrymans Corner. Indeed, Transport for London have already asked questions concerning disruption to bus services on the Dawley Road based around the Lake Farm proposal, with London Mayor Boris Johnson also raising concerns a couple of months back. We were assured on the night that those concerns had been addressed, but no details were put forward.

With the road being so busy, this also poses real safety issues where young children are concerned – Dawley Road already has some safety issues, and the traffic calming measures that are being proposed to cut back on this will just cause further congestion without taking away the very real threat to the health of the children both by vehicle impact and through pollution caused by queing cars,buses and lorries.

Peter MacDonald also made a very valid point about the council coming back for more green belt land if this was approved. Primary school children become secondary school children, and where will they go once they have completed their primary education? Would we then see more green belt land taken on Lake Farm under ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a secondary school? After all, the committee said that 26 sites had been assessed and found unsuitable, so looking a few years ahead where would they suggest that the secondary school could be sited?

Personally, I found the reasons behind turning down the old Hayes swimming pool quite superficial. The parking spaces that the council are ‘contracted’ to supply could easily be renogotiated and relocated to the site in Pump Lane that is shortly to undergo upgrade work and is rarely full. The ‘contaminated ground’ excuse was pretty clearly disputed by David Mackie from personal experience, but even if it was the case then surely the ground could be treated and this sorted out? My gut feeling is that the council have already decided to sell the land for yet more housing development, despite both the central location of the site and the readily available transport links making it more suitable than the green belt land. Again, such short term thinking will merely fuel yet further need for school places.

Combining a small development at the old pool site with additional extensions at Rosedale, Guru Nank and possibly Hewens College would surely make more sense from a point of view of spreading the load across the infrastructure in Hayes and utilising existing public transport links.

I am sure the council know this, but it would be cheaper for them building on green belt rather than brown field sites, plus they can sell the brown field sites to developers for decent money whilst they are unable to sell green belt land.

Call me cynical, but Hillingdon Council built the old Townmead school on green belt land because of outstanding need – When that need was no longer there, rather than returning it to green belt they put a housing estate on it, an estate they would never have got through had it still had protected status.

John McDonnell MP and protesters outside the Civic Centre after the Lake Farm decision

A local Issue – But a National Problem

With the coalition government desperate to kick start the economy, they have passed measures making it easier for councils to justify destroying our green spaces. Whilst the economy must be a national priority to give us all a better future, the thinking behind this move is flawed from the very outset as seen by various points in this post.

Locally, our council have an atrocious record of ignoring the wishes of the residents when it comes to major decisions about construction in the area. Local people should have the final say when it comes to such issues.

Nationally, this crisis of both affordable housing and school places has been created by the policies of open door mass immigration of the Old Labour government and the failure of the current one to bring the numbers down. The last census results showed that population growth locally was three times the estimate put forward by Hillingdon council in the late nineties (Source – Hillingdon Council website).

The pressure will be further ratcheted up next year when the last of the old Eastern bloc EU countries, Romania and Bulgaria, see all transitional immigration controls removed, allowing free movement of all citizens between those countries and other members of the EU. The figures are unclear, with the government refusing to state how many will come and Foreign Secretary William Hague revealing on the BBC Politics show a fortnight ago that he can’t give a number as ‘We (the government)don’t know’.

Independent think tank Migration Watch say fifty thousand per year, whilst a poll conducted by the Bulgarian National TV channel suggested that 54% of their total population of 7.5 million would like to come here.

Whatever the real figure, with Heathrow Airport in the borough then the initial pressure for housing and services will fall once again on Hillingdon. 

Locally, we need to put in place a mechanism via referendum that will allow local residents to have the final say on issues such as Lake Farm, whilst at a national level we need to get a grip on mass immigration to ease the pressure on our creaking infrastructure.

Funnily enough, I know of just one  political party that has the policies in place both locally and nationally to achieve these goals – That party is UKIP.

 

Note re ‘special circumstances’ comment from Cllr Janet Duncan. Cllr Janet Gardiner has contacted me to point out that this objection was raised by her and not Cllr Duncan. Whilst this is not my recollection,I am happy to put this amendment on to my post in case there may be a factual error by myself. It is also gratifying to know that this blog is now regularly followed by local Labour as well as Conservative councillors – First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win! (Gandhi)

 

Cliff Dixon is UKIP Hillingdon chairman and will be standing in the 2014 local elections in Hayes