Forum Topic

SusanYou are right. There are streets close to the town centre that have no parking restrictions, and lots of people use them. Some people need to park closer to the town centre to pick things up or for other reasons, and what they pay to do this will go up by 100%. The council would like to sell this car park in Hanwell for development, as per their property strategy. This needs to be resisted. I hear what F stone says about using public transport, and the council for years tried to make it harder for people to use their cars with over zealous parking enforcement, in the hope they would use public transport. The last Labour councils contract with the parking contractor paid them £9 for every ticket issued once they had issued 177,000 tickets. the result was over zealous parking enforcement. In 2005-06 they issued over 380,000 parking tickets in the borough. In 20009-10, after four years in power, the conservative administration had got this down to under 200,000. We understood that our town centres were dying on their knees and needed support. we made it easier to park in town centres and didn't put up the parking charges either. Town centres started to recover. Now we see that parking charges are going up and I expect enforcement will deliver more parking tickets too. It's anti car and will hurt our town centres. It won't result in people using public transport, it will result in people deciding that they can get all they need in Tesco, where they can park for free. That's what happens when you design policy around what you think people should do, and not around what they are likely to do.

Colm Costello ● 5741d

Susan,I will find out for you if there are any proposed changes to charges at the private multi-story car park in Ealing Broadway for you.Colm,What was anti-car was your administration's policy to make money through the back door with parking:* introducing the first £1million CCTV camera outside Ealing Broadway station with little in so far as warning or education;* issuing parking tickets in the middle of the night whilst people lay innocently in their beds;* being caught red faced after not listening over the concerns raised with issuing tickets in oversized yellow box junctions.On the issue of night-time enforcement the previous cabinet member for parking Phil Taylor, who's always got his two pence to add to any debate said:"When I was portfolio holder I challenged officers to stop this type of enforcement as it does not really help anyone although they are technically in the right.  They argue that they need to be out enforcing other offences and putting up suspension notices so it not an additional expense.  I was always sceptical.  I understand that typically there are about 10 staff on overnight typically.""Challenged" he affirms with pride, but sadly no action. Sadly, as is often the case with Phil: all talk and no trousers.One of the first decisions I took after taking on the portfolio was to refund tickets at an incorrectly drawn yellow box junction Ealing Gazette report: http://bit.ly/cCXNwm and order a full review of them across the borough.Then in November we ended night-time patrols except for special events.Yes, parking charges have gone up, but CPZ charges are still cheaper than those of neighbouring boroughs and we are rolling out direct debit payments. With pay and display you could compare those charges with someone who has travelled to the same shopping location by bus or tube/train.As has also been shown in Pitshanger Lane, we are supporting the roll out of more free stop and shop bays and shown more flexibility in the hours of operation.Colm, you also need to come clean to the people of this borough and EalingToday.co.uk. If you and your party don't agree with these new charges which front line services will you cut to continue providing a subsidy for people like me who live in a CPZ and own cars? Or will you be raising council tax for everyone to maintain parking charges as they are?Colm, I do hope you can give a straight answer to these questions as I am sure people would really like to know.Very best as always,Bassam

Bassam Mahfouz ● 5739d

Hey Bassam,I am sure that the Tories would have raised parking charges modestly after our four year freeze (which you fail to mention strangely).  I don't suppose we would have tried to extract the equivalent of a 1.9% rise in council tax out of drivers alone three months early.  I don't think that we would have wanted to punish Ealing's residents and small businesses quite so harshly.  The Labour budget is rather dumb, simply taking a 25% axe to most parts of the council.  There are no plans to bring the generous terms and conditions enjoyed by the council staff into line with those most Ealing residents have to work under.  There is only one new, tiny shared services proposal in HR (unquantified and to be developed).  The successful shared procurement in adults' bought in by the Tories which saved £1 million pa has not been replicated in childrens'.  There is no large re-organisation of the council away from expensive and inefficient service-based silos.  This is clearly demonstrated by the council's over-large middle management cohort.  They number 77 and cost £6.8 million pa.  That is £88K each.  The current savings proposals have only identified 7 casualties in this group.  That is 9%.  The Labour group have not got the skills to prevent the officer class from protecting themselves.  This kind of re-organisation should have been done within weeks of the election.  Stark evidence that Labour did not think through what they would do if they got into power.  It was clear to everyone in the council 18 months ago that this would be a bloody spending round - that is why the Labour government ducked out of doing a comprehensive spending review before they lost power.  Ealing Labour have no excuse for not having thought through what they would do once in power.  The public look in askance at Ealing Labour:- reducing parks team from 27 to 14 (48%)- reducing envirocrime officers 27 to 15 (42%)- reducing community centre staff from 19 to 10 (47%)Meanwhile Labour protect:- union facility time £50K cut (20%)- communications £369K cut (25%)- service heads only 7 out of 77 (9%)To govern is to choose.  Labour's choices are clear. 

Phil Taylor ● 5738d

BassamWe were criticised for introducing a camera at Ealing broadway at the time because we didn't do enough warning that it was coming on line, not because we didn't do any. If you park your car on a double yellow on the corner of your road and then go to bed, you can hardly be described as laying innocently in bed, especially if you make it harder for the ambulance or fire brigade to attend an night time emergency. We weren't caught red faced enforcing an oversized yellow box, the guidance from the department of transport was not clear and could be interpreted by different judges in different ways. you will learn that soon enough. How much did it cost you to refund the tickets in the yellow box junctions. Will you be refunding every ticket issued after the previous contractor had issued 177,000 tickets. Surely it is not right to incentivise a parking contractor in that way. How much would it cost you to refund over 200,000 tickets for the financial year 2005-06(you isssued over 380,000 that year, so any of the tickets issued after you had issued 177,000 could be entitled to a refund if we use your logic), which is more than we issue din all of 2009-10. On ths issue of night time enforcement, can you explain here please what exactly officers were doing during the night and why that is no longer needed. Why would you spend council taxpayers money promoting this new policy when it might actually endanger lives. You have gone to great lenghts and expense to tell people it is perfectly ok to park on corners of junctions on many of our narrow streets in ealing, possibly endangering peoples lives if there was a fire on their road and the fire brigade was delayed or couldn't get to the fire at all because you told people park wherever you want at night time. Please advise.As far as cpz charges doubling are concerned, it doesn't matter to anyone what neighbouring boroughs pay. Do neighbouring boroughs provide other services at a lower price to Ealing, and will you reduce what we charge in those areas to reflect that. I doubt it. What you have done with parking charges is the same as putting council tax up, but this works better for you, because you are the anti car party bassam. Just ask Ken Livingstone, he is on record as saying he hates cars. As far as stop and shops are concerned, i put 20 in Hanwell and am glad to see you trying to do that in Pitshanger lane. I am a big fan of stop and shop. I also put 10 in West Ealing when I chaired the Hanwell area committee which covered Elthorne ward too. As far as telling the people of ealing what we would have done in power, we have been trying to tell you this. We wouldn't be driven by a property strategy that will cost a small fortune, deliver nice facilities for officers while residents go without. E.G, the users of the Albert Dane centre. it is easy for me to say this because we refuesed officers advice four years to close this, you agreed to close it the minute you walked in the door. So much for your priority to protect the vulnerable. We would have found savings in the managment layer of the council first. You have started with staff further down the line. We would have looked very carefully at what was the best oftion for our housing service, including someone other than the council running it. We have paid Ealing Homes over £13m per annum to run that for the last 5 years +. When a contract that big is up for renewal, you get a few quotes. Anyone with any sense would know that. If you needed new radiators or a painting job done in your house you would get 3 quotes, but not this labour administration because you know best don't you. You decided for ideologial reasons to bring the service back in house. The last thing on your mind was how much is this going to cost and that is why you are having to put up parking charges and the rest, because the council taxpayer has to pay for your decisions and they are more expensive than our decision. Before you point out the lack of a link between parking charges and the housing revenue account, I am already aware of that. I am highlighting here how you make decisions and what you are riven by. It certainly isn't by what the residents need. 

Colm Costello ● 5738d