West Ealing CPZ - objection deadline today 11 Sep
According to the elusive green notices attached to lamp-posts, the Council intends going ahead with the CPZ in West Ealing. These have been cunningly sited at junctions to achieve minimum visibility. None of my neighbours I have asked had seen or read them. They stipulate objections must be submitted by today, 11 Sep, to highwayservices@ealing.gov.ukThis follows the third consultation in little more than a decade. Both previous rejected a CPZ. It is hard to avoid the conclusion the council is determined to keep asking the same question until it gets the ‘yes’ answer it wants.The consultation was not phrased as a ‘vote’ nor referendum, just an indication of interest. The response rate of 28% cannot sensibly be taken as indicating as anything other than over two-thirds majority lack of concern about parking issues.64% support out of 28% participation (core) and 44% of 28% participation(outer) support for a CPZ, is no mandate for anything. 14% of residents should not be able to command such a fundamental change that applies to pretty much 100% of households.I now know this particular consultation began as a Change.org petition organised by an anonymous and otherwise non-existent group calling itself Walpole West Residents, from 225 residents within the grid of roads bounded by Seaford Rd, Adelaide Road, Leighton Road, and Regina Road. That is, all the roads where the residents who participated in the consultation approved of a CPZ. This petition was not publicised to the wider area, as far I can establish. It appears to have been deliberately Gerrymandered to produce a desired result.Unfortunately for them, I doubt a CPZ will improve matters. Thanks to a proliferation of HMO’s enabled by Council planning policy there is not enough kerb space for the number of residents who have cars. From comments made at that petition, residents find parking almost impossible at any time of day or night. That is a problem no CPZ can address.Support for the CPZ seems to arise from an fanciful belief that residents will be able to park outside their homes.The general experience of CPZ’s is they are a monetisation strategy, that actually reduces kerb space. Invariably fewer residents bays are created than parking spaces were available in the unrestricted road. Residents with permits who are unable to park overnight in residents bays can only park on yellow lines, and must then remove their cars before 8 or 9am to avoid PCN’s. Of course many do not, and find themselves paying penalties as well as resident parking permit and visitor parking fees. The consultation did not indicate this would be an outcome, nor indicate how many resident bays would be created vs how much kerbside parking would be lost to working day prohibition.This gets worse, when the ‘no CPZ’ roads are considered.There is no reasonable requirement for controlled parking in Seward Road and the adjacent roads that indicated rejection of a CPZ during the consultation. During the proposed hours of operation of the CPZ (09:00-10:00 and 15:00-16:00) there is absolutely no shortage of kerbside parking.Seward Road and adjoining roads do have some parking problems, but they are clearly caused by residents themselves and overnight competition for inadequate parking space. I have lived here for 30 years, and parking difficulties have only arisen as so many properties were converted to flats because the Council allowed it. The worst possible time to find a parking space is Sunday night after 10pm when most residents are home. Even so, it is not impossible, and anyone who expects to park without needing to walk 50-100yards is not being realistic.A CPZ offers us nothing at all in return for fees, except fewer parking spaces, the probability of PCN’s and additional costs for visitors.I hope the Council will not go ahead with this opportunist and predatory plan that I believe will contribute nothing constructive to local parking shortage. I would remind LBE that you work for us, not the other way round. It is not the Council’s job to find inventive new ways of making life more difficult in pursuit of income. And it is disingenuous to pretend a casual and poorly-supported consultation is sufficient authority to impose such a scheme especially on streets that have repeatedly and clearly rejected a CPZ.My final point is this. 2870 addresses consulted will mostly own at least one car. This suggests an estimated revenue of in excess of £195,000 in the first year, plus visitor and commercial vehicle charges. £200,000 seems a conservative estimate. It appears that Ealing is in the habit of increasing fees by about 10% per year. At least that is how much commercial vehicle permits rose, from £600 in 2014 to £800 now. I've not yet found the historic information for resident and visitor fees, but this level of increase is almost certainly unlawful, since the recent Barnet judgement established that CPZ fees cannot be used to subsidise general council expenditure nor even wider transport costs.Be careful what you wish for folks.
Tony Sleep ● 3325d12 Comments ● 3259d