Forum Topic

{press release} new protest group over draconioan Ealing Policy

Press Release distributed to various media outlets this week:- Local man refuses to have his kerb dropped until Ealing Council reviews their draconian policy on dropped kerbsMany people feel restrictions set by the Ealing Council on Driveway Crossover / Dropped Kerb is completely ridiculous.  Now they have set up a pressure group and are lobbying for change.Sometimes laws and regulations are hardly well thought out at all and seem to be created by politicians who are completely divorced from the real world.  According to a new pressure group recently launched in Ealing, that's exactly the case with the Ealing driveway crossover / dropped kerb restriction.  They've decided to take it to social media and the press and demand the restrictions are modified to something more sensible.1 man in particular Mohamed Alwakeel (the spokesperson for the new group) refuses to implement a dropped curb on his property for his driveway until such time as this draconian policy is reviewed through Public Consultation, rather than the closed committees that usually decide on this policy. Mohamed has good ground to believe that his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights under article article 8 have been infringed by the pointless Council Policy. Beurocrats will tell you the policy is related to pedestrian safety as well as the look of the street, yet ask any member of the public and they will tell you they have never heard of anyone being hurt due to the pavement being dropped.  Mohamed strongly believes this policy should be dictated by public consulatation not meetings behind closed doors. Mohamed's next door neighbour has a dropped curb over 5 metres, yet no one has ever complained about it, or been hurt by it. Currently the maximum allocation for a single dropped kerb is 2.4m and 1 per household, irrespective of other factors.  The pressure group would like to see this changed to the 4.8 metres which is what the council would seize on the public road in order for allocation of 1 parking bay, be it for parking permit or disability etc.  Anything less is quite ridiculous. There should not be 1 rule for the council paying public and 1 rule for council beurocrats who wish to seize land on the public road.  Brent, a neighboring council for example has a maximum allocation of 4.8 for dropped curb and will even consider granting 2 dropped curbs if your home is wide enough, this is a much more reasonable policy. The group plans on continuing to voice their opinion until a change comes in effect.For more information or to join visit https://www.facebook.com/ealingcrossover.

mohamed alwakeel ● 4223d50 Comments

I'm afraid Mohamed A., most opinion is not in favour of your claims for dropped kerbs and driveway crossovers.  Tough but true.

Gerry Tan ● 4218d

I agree with you, I've never learned to drive. I can't believe how much Greenford has changed since we moved here, it has begun to look sterile and ugly because lawns have been swapped for concrete and hedges for walls. The walls are often too high to be safe, lots of concealed entrances.

Albertina McNeill ● 4219d

Absolutely agree, we are having to pay for all the people who have ruined the appearance and safety of the borough by concreting over their front gardens. We're trying to get rid of the tarmac at the front of ours and reinstate the lawn. At the moment it's full of self seeded achillea which we hope will help to break it up. I deliver leaflets for the local allotment society and sometimes I can't even reach front doors because so many cars are crammed into small spaces. Very few of them have drainage and almost all of them break the rules about paving over five square metres which is supposed to be the limit. A couple of years ago I raised awareness, along with one of my neighbours, of the impact of vibrations and noise caused by vehicles in Greenford Rd hitting pot holes. It was impossible to get it through to many of those who complained about the problem that it would be less bad if they had left some shrubs and lawn between their homes and the road. A lot of people say they've done it because of the cost of parking a car in CPZs and the green waste charge. I think it has more to do with a lack of interest in gardening. It's time Ealing Council took steps to enforce the five square metre rule - sheet flooding is a real risk here. Take a look at the Environment Agency's map of the area if you doubt me. Of course, gardens are a nuisance to HMO landlords and there far too many of them in the borough now.

Albertina McNeill ● 4219d

Couldnt resist it Nigel.... ;O)

Tom Clifford ● 4219d

Well the only comment on his page apart from his own is yours Tom :-)As to 'likes' on Facebook it's had two in a week -wow!

Nigel Brooks ● 4220d

"You're effectively asking for a large chunk of road space to be reserved for your own personal use. No. "Well said Sam!So is this guy deliberately damaging his car by driving up a kerb every night just to make a point that he`s not allowed to drop the kerp the full width of his propoerty? Also cant understand his comparison between the kerb drop length allowed (which you drive straight on to) and the length of a parking bay (which you drive into lengthways)??? Can he not see the difference..?I wonder how many people have joined his silly little "protest" group...?

Tom Clifford ● 4220d

... cars are simply NOT the status symbol that they used to be.Good to hear.I wonder how long it will take for this to affect the numbers on the roads in our built up areas?  I shan't be holding my breath.

Phil Kay ● 4220d

Good luck with that one Phillipa!

Tony Colliver ● 4220d

This is related but different to the original topic. I do not know when the council introduced this regulation but new dropped kerbs are not allowed on B roads. If you road is designated a B road the council will not approve a dropped kerb which seems very silly to me.

Graham Weeks ● 4220d

No worries, crossed wires :-)As a family, we are now down from three to one car. I can't give it up as my impaired mobility means that public transport is off-limits to me (which is a sod as I love travelling by train).

Nigel Brooks ● 4220d

NigelI'm sorry but I phrased my comment very badly.  What I meant is that I don't believe that the Council has to agree to any crossover being allowed at all.  There are also rules about the amount of garden that you can concrete over.  We are going to suffer from increased flooding caused by the decrease in porous surfaces. Every able bodied person should learn to travel by public transport.  It is time that no-one aspired to own a car and in many cases they don't any more.  There are universities now where you have to sign a contract to say that you will NOT be bringing a car to university.In some boroughs each extra car over and above the first at an address in a property has to pay an increased amount for the permit.  We need to discourage cars and promote the use of alternative modes of transport.  It is very useful to be able to drive but cars are simply NOT the status symbol that they used to be. I don't believe that anybody has the right to park on the public highway anyway.

Philippa Bond ● 4220d

PhilippaIt is an offence to drive over the pavement to park on a private property without a legally constructed vehicle crossover. In many cases Planning Permission is required hence the fees and Council 'approval' involvement.

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

I don't believe that the Council actually has to approve crossovers at all.  We are losing far too many gardens and green spaces to cars.  Councils have not been strict enough ensuring that illegal crossovers and the kind of surface (porous) is maintained.  We have a good public transport system and more people need to make use of it as best they can.  We also have car share schemes.  There are too many cars and the situation and air pollution is likely to get even worse if we actively encourage car ownership.  We should aspire to being able to get around WITHOUT owning a car.

Philippa Bond ● 4221d

Yes...it's hard to tell sometimes when not face to face how something is intended to scan.

Keith Iddon ● 4221d

Don't let that stop you.  :-)

Tony Colliver ● 4221d

I know it's a joke - as was my response (or at least it was meant to be).Phew.  everybody's so worried about looking "off message" these days.'tis not good for open communication.As a member of the Essex University Alumni (that's in *NORTH* Essex BTW :-) ) I am used to the banter about the residents of the county.

Tony Colliver ● 4221d

Found some!Q. How do you make a Essex girl's eyes sparkle? A. Shine a torch into her ear.Q. Did you hear about the big power cut at the Bluewater centre? A. Forty Essex girls were stuck on the escalator for three hoursQ. What is the difference between a supermarket trolley and a Essex girl? A. A supermarket trolley has a mind of its own.Q. How many Essex girls does it take to make a chocolate chip cookie? A. Five. One to stir the mixture and four to peel the smarties.Q. Why are Essex girls only allowed 30 minute lunch breaks? A. It takes too long to retrain them if they take an hour.Q. Why was the Essex girl so pleased to complete a jigsaw puzzle in 18 months? A. Because the box said "From 2 to 5 years"Q. What does a Essex girl say after her doctor tells her that she's pregnant. A. Is it mine?Q. How do you make a Essex girl laugh on a Saturday? A. Tell her a joke on a WednesdayQ. What is the difference between Bigfoot and an intelligent Essex girl? A. There have actually been sightings of Bigfoot.

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

To Nigel, Keith and Tony, thanks for your homorous quips and wit - I enjoyed them more than the original subject of this thread - love a good laugh!

Gerry Tan ● 4221d

You're effectively asking for a large chunk of road space to be reserved for your own personal use. No.

Sam Salisbury ● 4221d

Oh lord, I wish I could post my Essex Girl jokes here, if only there were some clean ones!

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

No, it's a joke Tony. And they are the same 'race' as I btw ;-)

Keith Iddon ● 4221d

Ah, an encrypted message.  Well, at least it is for those of us (like me) who are almost completely unschooled in the language of Johnny Foreigner.And talking of foreigners, the reason for the encryption is presumably to avoid charges of racism re our friends from the east (um, Essex, that is...)

Tony Colliver ● 4221d

Q) What's the difference between a jog through a wood and Jamie Oliver?A) One's a pant in the country...

Keith Iddon ● 4221d

En Francais"épais comme de la merde de cochon"Im Deutsch"so dick wie Scheiße Schwein"

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

"...but the people from Estuary Essex are....this is a family forum."Oh, go on Nigel, you're amongst friends on this forum...publish and be damned! We all like a good laugh.

Gerry Tan ● 4221d

Keith, that's the best laugh I've had in ages - thanks.

Gerry Tan ● 4221d

Jamie Oliver.If you didn't dislike Essex before he's a good reason.Beautiful county (in the north part) but the people from Estuary Essex are....this is a family forum.

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

Gerry, you can hardly judge an area by who was born there in the same way you can't judge Willesden by the fact that Denis Nielsen lived there, on Melrose Avenue, and committed several of his awful murders there.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

Harlesden, Neasden, Dollis Hill,Cricklewood...if the world had piles somewhere in between those places God would apply the ointment imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

Most folk have a 'down' on Brent, like they seem to have on Essex. Didn't Jamie Oliver and David Beckham come from that county?

Gerry Tan ● 4222d

What's so bad about Willesden - after all, that man of exquisite taste and impeccable manners Michael Winner was a boy from Willesden wasn't he?

Gerry Tan ● 4222d

From the wide open spaces of (part of) the Park Royal Trading Estate to the sun-drenched oasis that is Willesden junction it doesn't have a lot going for it Gerry

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

I think it's as much the politicians in Brent as the actual place that caused the scepticism Gerry. although it does have some lousy areas too imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

Why have many people such a low opinion of sunny Brent?

Gerry Tan ● 4222d

Death or Brent - you are not giving the poor guy a choice really :-0

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Paul James asked:" If the council allow a dropped kerb to exceed the current maximum width, won't that mean people just drop the kerb in front of their entire property, which means nobody else can ark there?"What Mr Alwakeel is suggesting elsewhere in his blog is that if the dropped kerb is widened this will allow up to four cars to park in front of his property instead of one on the dropped kerb and half a car parked conventionally.What he seems pathologically incapable of understanding is that in terms of road space and parking space, London both city and suburbs simply doesn't have the capacity to support more than a certain number of cars per household. Possibly two.*Without knocking down buildings and tarmacing them over at least. This is unfortunate but those are the facts. To "enforce" this limit its therefore necessary to either tax cars and petrol, or if that proves politically unpopular , restrict them by stealth by restricting parking space and road space - allowing congestion to develop - to dissuade further people from buying or driving cars and thus adding to the congestion.michael adams* Basing car ownership expectations on US teen movies based in sprawling US suburbia, where in large swathesof which public transport simply doesn't exist, issimply unrealistic in London and most mature urban and suburban areas of the UK.The fact that they may be parked for some of thetime is immaterial. All things being equal each car will still be occupying road space for the same proportion of its lifetime

Michael Adams ● 4223d

Got it in one Paul.Whole streets with, effectively, no street parking because some selfish people believe it their 'human right' to drop the kerb for the whole width of the property.The current policy works as well as it can.

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

So I don't get this.If the council allow a dropped kerb to exceed the current maximum width, won't that mean people just drop the kerb in front of their entire property, which means nobody else can ark there?Entire streets would have dropped kerbs, it's be chaos. People would end up parking in front of them anyway, a worse situation surely?

Paul James ● 4223d

@JamesNow that proposal really is draconian, nay extremely draconian. A step too far I would wager.

George Knox ● 4223d

Move to L B Brent.James.

James Beach ● 4223d

I'm afraid you won't get much sympathy from me, Mohamed.Far too many of Ealing's once attractive streets have been spoiled by the concreting over of front gardens. The lack of anything green increases the risk of flash flooding and takes away any habitat for wildlife.The half length dropped kerb is a fair compromise as you'll still be able to park one car off-street. So instead of bleating laughably about human rights, roll your sleeves up and create an attractive front garden that can accommodate a car and a few shrubs. You might even increase the value of your property by boosting its kerb appeal ;-)

John Walker ● 4223d

GeorgeI doubt if consideration of the 'wider good' ever crosses the mind of those who 'cry foul' when their 'rights' are denied them.The OP would do well to look at the origins of 'Draconian' when under his legislature the death penalty was the punishment for even minor offences, such as stealing a cabbage. Who knows what he would have proposed for an excessively wide dropped kerb.

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

The wider interest of all who park in the street.

George Knox ● 4223d

NigelIf it's not in the public interest to have a wider dropped kerb  (yes, MA,  that how the word is spelt) then it's probably very much a matter of human rights. In this case the ones that serve the public interest. MA has not responded to this point. A balanced view from him is what is required.He should also be aware that for new developments planning permission allows for up to one car per dwelling. That is if you are lucky. So on this rare occasion I am happy to support the planning department.

George Knox ● 4223d

Ditto to that Nigel.

Keith Iddon ● 4223d

mohamed alwakeelasked:"What car are you gonna be able to park in front of a 2.4 dropped kurb ? A motorcycle ?"Nobody is suggesting that it's possible to park a car within the length of a 2.4 dropped kerb. What's being suggested is that such a car in addition to occupying the 2.4 metres which would otherwise be taken up by the extra width of a widened dropped kerb could also occupy additional space in the road in front of the adjacent property.michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 4223d

Oh please not more 'Human Rights' bollocks!It's a dropped kerb for pity's sake. 2.4 meters is perfectly adequate for a competent driver to navigate.Totally, absolutely and thoroughly fed up with everyone bleating on about their "human rights" when they simply don't get their way.Get a life!!!!

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

Even a smart car, has a length exceeding 2.4m . What car are you gonna be able to park in front of a 2.4 dropped kurb ? A motorcycle ?

mohamed alwakeel ● 4223d

What's 'draconian' about this rule? It seems to suit just about everyone else.

Keith Iddon ● 4223d

Don't quite understand this without more detail.If two members of the public can park in front of your house and you then ask for a wide larger dropped kerb, then no members of the public apparently can park in front of your house. If that is correct then it is in the public interest to stick with a narrower dropped kerb if enough room is still left to park up one member of the public.

George Knox ● 4223d