Forum Topic

Referendum - what a joke

Like posters in the other thread, I was unable to find the information to help me make a decision on the Central Ealing Neighbourhood Plan Referendum.Only the 'Yes' side published anything as far as I could find.The thrust of their argument seemed to be, trust us, local agents with vested interests; Do not trust the Ealing Council Planners.I pay the salaries of those planners and I hope they are professional and unbiased, so my inclination was to vote NO.But dear old Jon Ball was listed as a supporter of the CENF so I was conflicted.Eventually decided not to submit a spoiled paper, but not to vote at all, as I suspected there would be a spectacularly low turn-out and wanted to bolster that. It grated because it's the first time I've EVER not voted.Sure enough, 17.2% turnout.Strangely CENF don't mention the turnout, only trumpeting the "overwhelmingly was YES from 92.2% of residents".How cynical and misleading.

Mark Vale ● 3092d10 Comments

I too had as many reservations about Yes. And certainly did not agree with all that was being proposed.Somehow, I had missed all this, even though I've long been active on some issues in Ealing for many decades.  I think it was confusion on various groups and that much of it was away from my end of the locality. So I can only blame myself on that one.But if I, with a toe in the local issues scenario , did not know much, how many others who do not normally take any particular interest, be able to make an informed decision?That said, not one local resident or friend had any idea about this either.The question remains. What does or did a NO vote imply?Am I voting for more towering blocks?  Over dense developments ?Poor design and future proofing versatility ?If I voted NO am I saying YES to more Towers and rubbish architecture or an absolute NO to any of the above?But sitting on the top deck of the 65 bus yesterday morning, drove one thing home.The vista of Edwardian shops and flats is now starkly loomed over. The sky and light gone.The splendid view of Christchurch as the bus turns out of Bond street, is now completely obscured. The damage is now irreversibly done.  The precedent set. And voting Yes to a one sided , one view collective with no alternative, now seems rather pointless.It's too late. By a mile.This should have happened a long time ago.  It's not as though people here have not cared, much of what is good here is from the constant sterling efforts of a few to keep the developers and bad practices at bay. But a coach and horses has been driven through and aided by an administration that people voted for.I think what is most apparent is that LBE or anyone else had not put another range of proposals or visions forward for the electorate to mull over. Or communicated such options.I suspect that the Council would have never allowed this vote 36 plus months ago, when it might have forced a few issues.I think it's only been allowed now so as to get those who waved things through off the hook and it's good for PR. Damage limitation. Save a few careers etc.This ended up as a One Party State type election with only one side of a view.It's not that view that is the issue, it's the lack of any other view or options to compare with.Even if one agrees with Yes ( and a fair bit of which I do ) I would still have liked to have seen what other options there are. What the consequences of voting NO might have been.I think the key theme missing was Informed Choice.

Mark Kehoe ● 3087d

Dear Tony Miller,When you respond to a person’s message, do you normally refer to them in the third person? And phrase your message as if it was a press release?I can tell you have political ambitions because you answered questions that I did not ask, and DIDN’T answer questions that I did ask. Never mind.Everything about your response just makes me even more uncertain about CENF.But too late; you have got your mandate from a tiny minority of the community.Enjoy.

Mark Vale ● 3087d

I certainly hadn't heard about the Central Ealing Neighbourhood Plan until about 2-3 months ago. I've certainly not had any leaflets through the door until very recently and if you don't know about something, how can you attend a meeting, look at a website etc.? I'm a relative newcomer to this part of Ealing, only having moved to the Central Ealing neighbourhood in early 2011. But I do take an active interest in what goes on locally and have been on the electoral roll since moving here. Shortly before the referendum I received a flyer through the door telling me to vote yes, and a missive sent by second class post (an actual stamp on it, which if sent to all potential voters will have cost a fairly hefty amount) with the same instruction. That was it.I was not happy with the proposals which I felt were superficial and not really getting to grips with some of the real problems facing not just Central Ealing but beyond. The carbon neutral construction standards for new buildings, whether commercial or residential are far too low. Why not demand higher standards for new builds to reduce heat emissions and lower running costs? Why not make heat exchange pumps and roof-top solar panels essentials for new builds? And with new developments why not require balconies to enable people to grow plants, and demand trees in walkways to provide sympathetic shade and soak up some of the CO2, etc. Only 2 parking spaces out of 100 to have access to power to recharge. How that is going to work in less than 10 years time when hardly anyone is buying a petrol or diesel vehicle... I'd also like to have seen a viable solution to taxis at the station, where through traffic is seen as more important. I could go on... as doubtless many others could.

Susan Rowe ● 3088d

What was the result?

Dee Cook ● 3088d

As one of the residents who voted yes, I can only say that there was HUGE amount of information available to anyone living in central Ealing who was interested, there were meetings, email updates, leaflets through the door, website, Facebook, the lot..  If there was no counter information, perhaps there was no opposition? Or perhaps it's just easier to snipe from the sidelines after the event. I wasn't involved in the organisation of the referendum and my only 'vested interest' is that I've lived here all my life. And as for trusting the planning department to make the right decisions... stand on Ealing Broadway today and weep.

Christine Gratus ● 3091d

Mark Vale can't have been looking at the right website.  If he looks at www.centralealingforum.com, he can find our constitution, details of the management committee and how it's elected annually, and a full record of all our meetings since the Forum was set up by a public meeting in December 2012. This includes regular open meetings which everyone interested could attend. These have been publicised on Facebook and Twitter as well as on the website. He won't find any control by 'vested interests', commercial or otherwise, but an open partnership between residents, local businesses and community organisations, all with a genuine concern about the future of our town centre.

Tony Miller ● 3092d

I would say the vested interests are the commercial members of CENF.Interestingly, there is no information I could find on the CENF website to say how a resident could join or get onto the ruling committee. No discussion forum.I still have no idea if CENF is a laudble organisation or a clever stich-up controlled and publicised by commercial interests.And compared to the 17,500 residents able to vote, there were just 130 businesses able to vote. 54 businesses voted Yes.

Mark Vale ● 3092d

"local agents with vested interests" Who would these be?I agree the slant taken on the "victory" by the campaign was rather silly but this is only the second Local Plan in the entire country that has been voted on and I'm not surprised the turnout was very low. It is interesting that the turnout for the business voters was 45%.

Terry Freestone ● 3092d

Polling cards were mailed to approx. 16,500 potential voters.2,616 (or 15.8%) voted Yes.The publicty for Yes was extensive.The was no publicity or campaign material at all for No because there was no entity promoting No, as far as I could see.The turnout for the last local election was 40%, so I stick by my claim that a 17% turnout denies any legitimacy.

Mark Vale ● 3092d

Your point is well made but the turnout doesn't seem to me to qualify as spectacularly low given that local elections are often not much higher. Were ballot papers mailed to all residents?

Andy Jones ● 3092d