Forum Topic

The Council are now saying that these shared bays are going to be introduced across the borough. The figure I recall for the number in the zones proposed so far is 400 so a rough guess would be that there will ultimately be about 2,000 once the scheme goes borough wide. If you assume a 50% occupancy for these spaces that would mean annual revenue from the plan based on an average charge of about £4 of over a million pounds a year. The obvious objections about the extra traffic and pollution that the scheme will cause are doomed to be ignored because of the massive financial bonus it brings to the council. Some people might claim that a 50% occupancy is too high but my view is that it is conservative. There are lots of apps including RingGo that direct you to where cheaper parking might be and they are likely to become increasingly integrated with sat navs. Once Crossrail begins there will be a huge number of commuters from the Berkshire area who will be able to make massive savings by not having to pay for a rail commute into London because they can now drive and park. There will be some leakages from the scheme financially. Revenue will be lost because there is likely to be a huge increase in the demand for vehicle crossovers in front of homes as people pave their gardens. This will be more to do with the rise in permit charges rather than the shared bays but, by making it much more difficult to park locally, the latter will have an impact. Also, some people currently with residents permits particularly those with vehicles attracting higher charges will find it economic to not buy a permit but used the shared bays to park. This would only work for someone who generally doesn't park their vehicle at home during the day. They would still be taking up space at the evenings and weekends though.


Stuart Green ● 2686d

I had an hour in the company of Northfields new labour councillor Paul Driscoll this morning. Bad luck anyone who voted for him because he is clueless as well as spineless.Not only does he ardently endorse the proposal on CPZs and shared use bays, he seems to believe wholeheartedly in the skewed logic behind the whole scheme.He couldn't answer me when I asked him how many people he personally told about the proposed increase during canvassing for the elections - he simply hid behind the 'it's in the manifesto' line. Yes, on page 31 of a 35 page document that no-one will have read. The truth is he, like the other Labour candidates simply hid this plan until after the election.His argument for penalising diesel and older vehicle owners or multiple car owners fell flat on its face when challenged about the idea of shared use bays, which will simply increase traffic and pollution and deny residents access to bays that might otherwise use.His answer: 'Well they are probably going to drive somewhere anyway, so we will make money out of them.' Trebles all round at the Town Hall for that wheeze!He had to admit that there would be some pollution but it seems when there's the chance of making a quick buck principles disappear out of the window PDQ.This is clearly a tax on a relatively small number of residents in the borough and it is patently unfair. I have spoken to dozens of people about this, including ones who have off-street parking, and not one has supported the idea. This is echoed across the borough.This council should be ashamed of themselves!

Simon Hayes ● 2699d

I've been communicating with newly elected Labour councillor Paul Driscoll about this issue. Sadly I've yet to have any satisfactory response from him though I remain hopeful!Not one of the many people I've spoken to about the proposed increase in permit charges was aware of it either before or after the recent election, and many of them were directly canvassed by Labour supporters/candidates.According to Mr Driscoll the information appears on PAGE 31 of the Labour manifesto. yes that's right Page 31! I bet nobody has ever read that far in a manifesto unless they were paid to do so!It seems that Mr Driscoll buys the party line that it's for the good of the environment - well, paying more for parking won't make me stop using my car. What's worse, it's penalising those people who have to park on the street, but many of the huge gas guzzlers - presumably our administration's main target - are safely tucked away on private drives.Clearly there is a need for CPZs but the Council are insulting the intelligence of voters by sneaking this in the back door. Whatever happened to debate?And if the Council are so strapped for cash, what's happened with all the money they must have trousered from the hideous redevelopment in Ealing Broadway? How much have they squandered on the cinema project (which is a private development, let's not forget)? Nor should we ignore the freebie they have tossed to QPR - owned by a billionaire - in the form of public land at Warren Farm granted to the football club for 200 years for nothing!Thanks Mr Bell.

Simon Hayes ● 2703d

I see no problem with the changes to the CPZ per se.  I do however have a serious issue with parking within ten to fifteen minutes walk of stations, especially Elizabeth Line stations, this is known as rail heading. In the Friars Green CPZ area there are two schools on the roads selected and a further three schools nearby.  The number of spaces being introduced is on each road is small so cars will be driving, especially during the morning peak, up and down these roads looking for parking.  This will increase air pollution and the potential for RTAs.  People will also park up for weeks at a time when going on holiday from Heathrow.  Before we had a CPZ cars were parked outside our house sometimes for three weeks.  We had an elderly parent with mobility problems and ended up buying a wheelchair just to get her from the car parked some way up the road to the house.I have no issue with the increase of charges nor releasing some of the CPZ bays, but not for use by commuters and holiday makers to Heahtrow.But my real complaint is 1) The council have for years pushed a pedestrian and public transport policy, it is included in the new strategy.  This is pure hypocrisy when in one part of the strategy says car usage should be discouraged and another is encouraging cars into the borough.  Perhaps the strategy was written by two different people?  Surely the whole point of the Elizabeth Line is to get commuters from outside London into and across without using cars? 2) This strategy was written in 2016 and only slid into the public realm after the election in 2018

Libby Kemp ● 2707d

The decision to introduce shared parking, was apparently made two years ago, a one liner in a large document and as the council hoped, it was overlooked by all. If the council had any respect for their constituents they would have explained what they intended to do and why, asking for comments before it was included in the document.  Even some of the elected members were not aware of the sentence.They are asking the residents to respond by the 11th June, however, at Cabinet this evening 5th June the Cabinet will be waving it through.  I want a Labour Council, but I want one which builds not destroys communities. A council which considers all the electorate and communicates and consults in an honest way. The council publishes a puff paper "around Ealing" surely this should be one of the vehicles used to disseminate this type of information, after all it is paid for by our Council Tax, so perhaps we should have a say in the contents? And what about Ward Forums, there must have been at least four since this scheme was added to the Transport Strategy document, never mentioned at mine.So Mik Sabiers before you ask us again to volunteer with litter picking and help with the public gardens "Tidy up your green spaces and earn rewards" perhaps you should start treating the electorate with respect and consult on matters such as encouraging more cars into the borough, rather than bribing volunteers with a “points for prizes” scheme. Try telling us what you would like to do in the borough and allow us to respond.  You may be nicely surprised what we suggest and how much litter is picked without asking

Libby Kemp ● 2709d