Chase Lodge: a future home for Camden football and Kentish Town FC?

Old school football pitches in Barnet, known collectively as Chase Lodge, could modernised to be the new home to Kentish Town Football Club and Hampstead FC, an amateur club for Camden kids, if the Council sets out a bold vision for the future.
Chase Lodge playing fields were transferred to the Council after ILEA was broken up in 1990. The land contains 16 acres of playing fields, tennis courts and a small changing room, plus a three bed semi detached groundsman’s cottage.

It is currently used off-and-on by Hampstead FC, Hampstead School and some schools in Barnet – and costs the Camden ratepayer about £120,000 a year in maintenance.

In the past Camden schools did use the pitch more regularly - fellow ward councillor Nash Ali remembers using it as a kid, for example. However, it is generally accepted that the site is currently under-used and under developed and the facilities – despite a £40k cash injection in 2004 - are not conducive to use.

The Camden New Journal carries a report on this, here.

Next year the council aims not to renew the maintenance funding, posing the question of what to do with the pitches.

Under law, selling off sport pitches requires the permission of the Secretary of State and any funds must accrued be put into sports development.

But is there another option?

Since January I’ve been helping both community organisations in their lobbying of Camden council, to ensure that the future use of the pitch is secured for Camden residents. Finally a report will be coming to my scrutiny committee next week, on 21st July, outlining options for the Chase Lodge.

Camden’s 21 July paper says that council officers are to market the site requesting bids upon a range of options.

(1) The groundsman’s cottage to be disposed of freehold on the open market.

(2) The playing fields and ancillary land to be marketed as a lease option inviting interest from voluntary sports organisations. They will be asked to produce a viable method statement, possibly in partnership with a commercial leisure organisation or a social enterprise umbrella group. The aim being to enable them to lever in external funding for capital costs and generate a revenue stream to cover the future management and maintenance of the site.

(3) Offers will also be invited for the freehold of the playing fields, either with or without the Groundsman’s cottage.

In my view, it would be great if option (2) was a go-er.

As every Camden resident knows: there is a shortage of open space in Camden and a shortage of facilities for football in particular. There is no open full size grass pitch within the Borough and no facilities, and none which meet the requirements for a semi professional club like Kentish Town FC to compete in FA competitions.

A full development is estimated to cost around £3.5 million - a large sum but achievable in stages, and with council and external sponsors.

A key issue will be how Camden approaches it. Under law they will seek, 'best value.'

However, as we are dealing with sports pitches that is not the only consideration - especially if Camden chooses to retain an interest and be part of any future development (i.e. in conjunction with local football clubs).

If they sell off the groundsman's cottage (option 1 or 3), for example, the viability of schemes such as Hampstead Football Club's one could stop being viable.

If, on the other hand, this was seen as a long term commitment (as part of the capital programme) then Camden sports provision and local people could be real winners.

Either way, local councillors of all parties need to keep an eye on the situation to ensure that community benefit is not only maintained, but enhanced on this site.

Worried Camden CAB volunteer warns of cuts impact

Update on a previous posts on local Citizens Advice Bureaux: An anonymous Citizens Advice Bureau volunteer has just written a moving letter to all councillors just now, on the issue of the CAB reorganisation which will see many experienced staff replaced by volunteers.

Local people complained about this in the CNJ in June.

In particular the volunteer writes of their concern for declining provision in Kentish Town and Kilburn, under the plans. The Camden leadership line is that they fund the CAB generously already (compared to other boroughs who cut welfare rights provision in the 1990s): but I question whether they care about such a major change in service and what impact this will have on deprived communities.

Not a peep from local Lib Dem ward councillors on this one, despite using the CAB for their surgeries! The impact could be significant.



I am a volunteer at Camden CAB and I am writing to warn you about the impact on you if the current plans go ahead...

Andrew Marshall says Camden should not micro-manage CCAB. Maybe you shouldn't need to - but Camden is paying and it is heading for a potential disaster which will direct affect you as a councillor.

1. If the plans go ahead Camden's rent and council tax arrears will increase enormously . Not a good time for your income to drop is it?

2. As local councillors you will have desperate clients in your surgeries with nowhere to send them. What are you going to do?

There are a few experienced volunteers in the CCAB who are able to offer almost as good a service as the long serving paid staff but the bulk of us volunteers know that we will not be able to cope if the plans go ahead.

Many of us have made it clear we will leave.

As it is many of us are now looking to move on as soon as Camden has trained us and given us enough experience. We will then get paid jobs with boroughs that know the job needs permanent, experienced staff. It is quite different nationally; in traditional, country CABs there is a pool of local mature, often professional non-working or retired people who volunteer, train and then serve for many years, building up experience. Crucially the demands are far less: many fewer clients, often working people, or people with moderate demands..

In Holborn, that client profile is also true. But in Kilburn and Kentish Town the demands are totally different. There are huge numbers of clients, often in desperate, complex situations. Some are frankly struggling to cope with mental health or learning problems or poor command of English. They have problems with family, housing, immigration, and now massively increasing debt. We can only cope because of the incredible skill of the experienced paid staff at those bureaux who work flat out at full stretch.

I am sadly shocked by the misinformation in the letter from the Area Director saying we are “all trained to the same high standard and the quality of advice is the same” from volunteers as from paid and experienced staff …

The facts are we are dedicated and do work very hard and we cope because we supplement the work of experienced paid staff. They do far more than just supervise us; they shoulder a major part of the work and we manage by having them there. For the Area Director and our trustees it is a false, comforting fantasy to think that we could cope with just one or two supervising paid staff. You should ask who is making the decisions that will wreck the service and leave local people with nobody to help with these problems.

I believe some of the trustees making these decisions have no relevant background in advice work and have never bothered to talk with us. Perhaps you should be asking about this?

A very worried volunteer.

BBC takes cheap shot at local government

Strange BBC research, on the ‘cost of politics’ on today’s website.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Beeb – it’s one of the great advantages of living in this country. In my native U.S.A. it’s poorer relative PBS just about gets by (usually by buying BBC programmes).

The research rather breathlessly reveals the cost of salaries for local councillors and assistants across the UK at £251 million out of nearly £500 million of the total 'cost of politicians.'

Predictably, this has sparked the usual spasms of hyperbole from the Taxpayers Alliance over the absolute sums involved.

But hang on, aren’t there several things wrong with this research?

Annoyingly, the BBC report doesn’t actually say what local government democracy does, it just says how much it spends.

This is kind of like me announcing that the BBC spent £3.4 billion pounds of taxpayers money a year, without mentioning it provides television, digital, radio, 24 hour news, a well-stocked cheese trolley for His Nibs, the Director-General, a website which went £36 million over budget in 2008 or even £110k of executives’ cars.

No, I’d think it would be quite unfair not to mention what it does, or to do so selectively.

Your typical council delivers about 250 services, from social care, through to transport works, schools, voluntary grants and community safety as well as a whole raft of enforcement measures. It sets strategic goals and negotiates with (unelected) quangos to deliver improvements. Camden, when I was Deputy Leader, was responsible for in excess of £900 million a year.

In 2008 local authorities across the UK were responsible for £155 billion in spend.

Most councillors I know spend at least 20 hours a week on their work with constituents, trying to get information from officers or scrutinising the delivery of services.

While local government has highly paid executives, like the BBC, the cost of democracy is very low compared to the overall spend: something like 0.16% of the entire budget of what local government does.

Of course, if you wanted to cut the cost of local politicians you could do so. It's just that the consequence of that would be the spending of public money by unelected quangos - like the BBC!

It should be remembered when taking a pop at councillors that unlike private sector corporate costs, MP expenses (or the BBC’s) all the information on the cost of councillors has been publicly available for some time now – published annually in local papers.

As I say, strange survey...

Know your cod from your catfish in Camden chippies

Quick bring the troops back from Helmand, our national dish is under attack!

According to today's Times, the next time you buy your cod n' chips you might not be getting what you paid for.

Trading Standards officials in one area of the country put out a national alert after it was discovered that Vietnamese River Cobbler (pictured) is being passed off as cod in some chippies. The Cat Hill fish bar in Bromsgrove was fined over £4000 for disguising a battered piece of Pangasius hypophthalmus as a traditional Cod.

Council officers visited the shop after a consumer complaint in May 2008. Analysis apparently proved that the fish purchased was indeed Pangasius catfish meat, which can be bought here for around two thirds of the price of cod.

There's nothing wrong with catfish (or pollock, another substitute), just not when you try and pass them off as something else. People rave about it on catfish Jamie Oliver Forum, for example, although there is a moan about the airmiles involved.

But for the cunning profiteer, it seems easy to serve up a faux cod and chips by using pollock or catfish substitutes: so here are some tips on how you can spot the difference -

- cobbler filets are "noticeably uniform", whereas cod fillets tend to be thicker in the middle and are more irregular

- cobbler has no strong taste, while cod has a mild but 'fishy' aspect

- cod is flakey when cooked, while cobbler is chunky (better for fish pie apparently)

That said: cod has been classified as overfished since about 2000, so you should probably be limiting your intake of it anyway and seeking alternatives.

I'm not sure whether Camden Council's Trading Standards Department has had any complaints on this front recently about Camden eateries, but Trading Standards in Bromsgove notified the Office of Fair Trading with their concerns that the scam was taking place nationwide.

Personally, I'd smother my catfish in tartar sauce, vinegar and salt - who'd know the difference?

But on a more serious note - Trading Standards departments never get the full resources that they need in councils up and down the country and yet they fulfill a key role. From shops selling booze, knives or fireworks to kids through to health and safety inspections they perform a key role locally.

Consumer champion Which? reckons that 'food fraud' could be worth more than £7 bn a year in substitution of cheaper products for advertised ones.

With the recession, food is being doctored more, particularly in restaurants. So you might find lamb or beef mince is bulked out with cheap chicken. Trading Standards are also coming across spirit substitution. Supermarket-bought gin and vodka is being put in the big-brand bottles in pubs and restaurants.

This is an important point, which is why I will be writing to the council to see what steps they are taking, and what cases they have on 'food fraud' locally.

The problem of food fraud is highlighted tomorrow night at 9pm on the BBC 1 programme What's Really in Our Food?, presented by Tom Heap.

Oops I did it again...

Just an average Camden Town moment - I was at the Old Eagle quiz (catch phrase: "loosely based on general knowledge) last night talking to my friend and Britney Spears impersonator Lorna Bliss. Our team, Tastes Kinda Like Chicken..., came 6th - I think.

Anyway, apropros of nothing I uncovered this link to a hilarious YouTube entitled (in Russian) Grannies Singing Britney Spears.

Pop up shop success in Camden

Camden Town Unlimited, the Business Improvement District running from Mornington Crescent to Chalk Farm set up under Labour, has been very successful in their 'pop-up shop' strategy for the recession.

Last night I was at the 'Touch of Class' art launch at 46 Camden Road, which brought a young art crowd to one of the more unglamourous part of Camden Road.

This follows the very successful launch of the C22 at 22 Chalk Farm Road (the two fashion designers from Heriot Watt in the photo are running the shop there).

It works like this: a high street empty property is identified and the landlord contacted (in the case of 46 Camden Road the council, and 22 Chalk Farm Road a private commercial landlord). In exchange for a short rent-free period, CTU promises to pay the business rates (charged on empty properties). CTU then places a start-up business, or series of start-ups in the property.

The shop is brought back into life, start-ups get to sell or show their wares on a street with high footfall - helping young artists and designers in this case build up their CVs in a venue they might never be able to afford.

What's more the landlord gets a property which he can show people round, increasing its marketable value.

The buzz last night was palpable - people walking by came in for the free showing: including many local artists.

There's a policy point here: the vast majority of the work done in creating these 'pop up shops' has come from CTU, including fixing up an old council property. It has put in a lot of 'officer time' as well as resources (levied from local businesses).

The council has put in £10,000 - a good expression of interest but I think it could do much more: it currently has £750,000 unspent in its recession fund.

While Town Hall politicians (and individual council officers) are quite quick to claim credit for initiatives like the pop-up shop, there's a danger that the opportunity will not be fully exploited due to some rather flatfooted work from the Regeneration department.

If senior Camden officers had a bit more drive and imagination then for a small capital investment, we could be seeing the benefits of many more of these places around the borough.

So, don't be shy Camden - be bold once again...

Labour at the Camden Mela

Sunday saw another really successful Bangladesh Mela in Regent's Park.

For years the Mela has been going from strength to strength, providing a focal point for Camden's largest ethnic group.

Mela is the Bengali word for “village fair”, and this event has grown from its inception in 1992 to become one of the most prestigious Bangladeshi cultural events in the London calendar, attracting an audience of thousands from all communities.

Next to our Labour stall (pictured, with Labour Cllr. Heather Johnson) we had an example from the Mela Arts Project, which has involved community groups in Camden in designing and making artwork that will come together to create a Map of Bangladesh for the ‘Sonar Bangla’ project. at the British Library.

It was great to see an event run and 'owned' by the community, in contrast to the Camden Green Fair which got far too corporate and collapsed due to the withdrawal of big company money and Camden council funding this year.

It was great to be there, especially on the back of the trip I made with Frank Dobson to Bangladesh in February.

Tory 'Little Englander' hardcore revealed in Con Home survey

Despite the Conservative Home spin about their PPCs and their now acceptable, metropolitan views ('gay-friendly', barely unionist): on closer inspection you get some interesting findings from the original survey, pointing to the rise of a Conservative right-wing hardcore should they gain power.

On the small issue of social policy:

- Just under a third (31%) do not believe in equal rights for the gay community
- Almost the same percentage (29%) would not use the NHS, if elected


Worryingly for the UK's influence in the wider world at a time of recession, there is strong Euroscepticism:


- 43% hold views on Europe which would put the UK in a position incompatible with future membership
- nearly half wouldn't mind if Scotland left the Union


...in other words, 'Little Englandism' returns with a resurgent Conservative Party.

The views expressed in the survey aren't too far away from those uncovered by Don't Panic Media in this web-u-mentary on Young Conservatives.


David Cameron will need more than a slender majority after the next election if he is to govern without being held hostage by the hard right on social policy issues, Europe and public service reform / privatisation - a re-run of the mess of the 1990s.

When a resident complains...

Camden resident Alistair Campbell got scammed - so what did he do - he phoned his local council to complain: here is a tale of customer standards Camden-style http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog.php

"This story starts in mid May, when in the post was a card from 'Parcel Express UK' advising me they had tried to deliver a package, and there was a redelivery charge of £2.20. Cue AC fulmination about whatever happened to the days when you just had the Post Office, and the delivery business had not become the all-consuming giant it is now? The card, which looked genuine enough, nicely designed, with a mix of pro forma print and postman's scribbles, said I could call and organise redelivery by credit/debit card, or collect the package in person. I was due to go the Heathrow later in the day, and the collection address was just off the North Circular, so I decided to pick it up on the way. The address - Oxgate Lane NW2 - turned out to be an industrial estate, with no sign of a 'Parcel Express UK' depot. I asked around, and eventually found a man who said 'don't tell me - £2.20 redelivery charge - it's a scam.' He said there had been a steady procession of people up there to look for the depot, which didn't exist. And presumably a steady flow who had called the number and given their credit card number, like I might have done had I not been going to Heathrow. Once back from my trip, I googled Camden council trading standards, surprised myself at the ease with which I navigated the site to leave a short report for their attention, and was electronically told someone would be in touch within a few days. I heard nothing for a while, so tried to phone, but got nowhere and eventually gave up. Instead I went to the local police station. The officer at the desk, as soon as he saw the card, sighed and said they had had loads of them, so thanks for popping in, but it was already under investigation. Fine, I thought. Then yesterday up pops an email from the Planning and Public Protection department at Camden Council, thanking me for my message, apologising for the delay in replying, and telling me that they no longer deal with such complaints. Instead, the 'customer support officer' told me, I should contact 'Consumer Direct London, a telephone and online consumer advice service that is supported by local authorities in London, and by the government.' There then followed the usual 0845 numbers (always a turn off) a couple of website addresses, and then this 'To provide you with the best possible service, incoming emails are handled by the team as a whole: please help us maintain standards by sending all responses to this email to ... etc.' Handled by the team as a whole? But in truth it would seem to me it has been handled by nobody, for five or six weeks, until finally I get an email saying I should go somewhere else. 'Handled by the team as a whole' reminded me of that sign at Euston that always makes me smile, urging passengers to use all entrances to the train to ensure a speedy departure. I know what they mean ... but if we all used all entrances, we would be so busy going in and out of entrances, the train would never leave. Anywhere, there we are, grump over. I will assume the police are doing what they have to do. I will also assume that in the time it has taken for the council to tell me I need to take my complaint elsewhere, the scamsters have moved into another area, then another, then another, moving rather more quickly than the pace of trading standards complaints procedures."