Why A&E closures would be a dangerous folly
Once again the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham are facing a huge threat to local hospital services. We are faced with losing not just one accident and emergency unit, but both our A&Es at Hammersmith and Charing Cross.
The NHS bureaucrats who are about to launch a consultation on these proposals have failed to realise the devastating impact this would have on journey times in what is the second most congested borough in London.
They have also failed to take into account the thousands of new homes that are being built in west London. We need more access to hospitals, not less.
If the proposals are implemented we will lose decades of clinical expertise and skills built up at Charing Cross. Hammersmith and Fulham Council will not stand idly by and allow this to happen.
Yet, if we are to be successful, we need to be united. Therefore I am calling on the Chronicle, residents, MPs, councillors, health workers – everybody and anybody who has an interest in retaining frontline hospital services – to join the council in a single campaign to protect local hospital services at Charing Cross and Hammersmith.The bigger our voice the more likely we are to be heard. The community has fought off similar proposals before and we will do so again.
Please sign our petition at www.lbhf.gov.uk/savecharingcross and www.lbhf.gov.uk/savehammersmith.
The fight starts today.
CLLR MARCUS GINN Community services leader, Hammersmith and Fulham Council
Beware the loophole in banks’ savings pledge
From September, British registered banks must display posters and stickers telling customers they are insured if their bank goes bust and giving details of the financial services compensation scheme.
However, due to EU?law, the scheme does not cover European banks that operate as branches in the UK rather than as registered subsidiaries.
If you are unsure, ask your bank manager if your savings are covered by this scheme or write to me at syed@syedkamall.com and I can provide more information about the scheme and your bank’s participation in it.
SYED KAMALL
Conservative MEP for London
Bridle Close, Kingston
‘Historic’ deal has nothing to do with more choice
I READ Rupert Basham’s article about the council doing an ‘historic’ deal with the Post Office to enable residents to make payments to the council more easily and give them ‘more choice’.
About the same time, my partner was attempting to renew our resident’s parking permit.
The council’s letter says we can do it online but it charges a handling fee on card payments.
Another option appeared at the foot of the letter saying we could phone to renew the permit. Except the number quoted was an 0845 number, for which we get charged. Why is an 0845 number necessary when, in all probability, local residents are making a local call?
So we decided to post a cheque, but it was returned with a message that the council does not accept cheques and if we wanted to pay via this method, we must register our car ownership etcs again. This would mean ‘traipsing’ (Cllr Botterill’s term) to the Town Hall to re-register our details if we were not to run out of time.
Far from making it easier for residents to make payments, the council is making it more difficult and creaming off card-handling fees and phone call costs.
We eventually renewed the permit online but spare a thought for residents who do not have access to the internet or cannot use it, who cannot afford to pay the £119 in one go and put the costs on a credit card, or use their mobile phone to renew the permit only to find 0845 numbers cost a fortune.
This isn’t about extending choice to residents, it’s about laying off council staff, closing customer service buildings and increasing queues at post offices.
MARTIN PEACH
Becklow Road, Shepherd’s Bush
We want your views on sports centres’ revamp
As the consultation continues for Westminster City Council’s plans for the new Moberly Sports Centre, I wish to provide some clarity for the Queen’s Park community on our proposals.
Under the plans, the centres will be merged into a new state-of-the-art centre on the Moberly site. The two existing centres are only 0.6 miles apart with relatively low levels of usage, so a single, larger centre would still offer access to all Queen’s Park residents. The two current sites are also in a state of disrepair, so taxpayers would need to make a significant investment to keep them both open.
The new centre will be larger than both Moberly and Jubilee centres combined, and will offer a 25m swimming pool and state-of-the-art facilities including an eight-court sports hall, dedicated learner pool, large health and fitness suite, two exercise and dance studios, gymnastics and martial arts hall, boxing hall and spa and health suite.
If the plans proceed, Jubilee Sports Centre will remain open while the new Moberly is redeveloped to ensure continuous provision in the area. We hope to reopen the new Moberly in 2015.
We understand this is an important issue for Queen’s Park residents, and we are actively listening to their views and suggestions and will respond in a cabinet paper. The consultation has attracted more than 120 responses so far, and we are already taking action on the feedback we have received, including working with architects to improve the layout of the proposed centre and removing plans for an eight-storey apartment block on the Jubilee site.
I would really encourage those residents who have not yet shared their views to do so before consultation closes on July 8, or to attend a drop-in session at Moberly on July 4 or Jubilee on July 5. We are keen to incorporate your views into sports and leisure plans in Queen’s Park.
CLLR STEVE SUMMERS
Sports and leisure leader, Westminster City Council
Small price to pay for better services
Residents of Queen’s Park have voted to set up the first parish council in London for more than 50 years. They live in one of the poorest parts of Westminster yet have voted in favour of improved local services and agreed to pay an extra £40 a year for them.
Is it fanciful to believe that residents in more prosperous parts of Westminster would not pay a little more if given the same opportunity, or is the future one of more cuts, more jobs lost and further declining services?
CLLR PAUL DIMOLDENBERG
Labour Group Leader Westminster City Council
