Forum Topic

Shared Bays in 'Ealing Broadway' CPZ

I was hoping to tap your collective knowledge on the shared bays that exist in the Ealing Broadway area. Julian Bell in his justification for the imposition of shared use bays in residential areas has said that they won't be a problem because they have already been operating around Ealing Broadway without any problem. I presumed he meant CPZ Zone A but couldn't find any shared bays here by looking on Google Streetview.Could someone tell me where these shared bays actually are and whether or not it is accurate to say they haven't caused any issues for residents?

Paul Corcoran ● 2788d8 Comments

Dennis, your post was extremely well reasoned and balanced.The Kit Kat argument is one that I have mentioned to councillors - as is the proliferation of fast food outlets in the borough. Strangely, the Council seems reluctant to tax these establishments out of existence, despite the direct link to obesity they provide.My point has been, and remains, that the Council cannot introduce the changes to CPZ parking in the proposed form. It raises a surplus in excess of £10million per annum already from parking charges. It now seeks to raise a further £500,000 per annum. It is unlawful for it to propose to do that. Sadly, Helen Harris, Head of Legal at the Council seems not to know the relevant law and is refusing to move from her position that the Council is allowed to do this. I have taken legal advice on this and the law is very clear, despite what she - and Cllr Sabiers - says.There has also been zero information from the Council that it was intending to make these changes. It will doubtless claim that there is no statutory requirement to consult with residents, but since the appalling Mr Bell and his cronies have been parading themselves at various public events in the borough this summer to solicit the views of residents, it seems strange that they should choose to ignore the strong opposition to their plans from more than 2,800 voters who signed my petition.Congratulations to anyone who voted for these clowns, you've got four years of lunacy to enjoy - library closures, service depletion, etc!

Simon Hayes ● 2737d

Very Well put.Anyone over 50 will remember how filthy London was.Anyone over 60 will remember just how polluted it was in so many ways that simply do not even exist now.Ironically we are living far longer.And yet this very borough is one of the vast majority that have not planned for longer lives and cannot cope.It cannot mange to police businesses that operate blatantly in rather dubious means.It cannot control poor planning and over powerful developers.It cannot achieve very much with the NHS debacle locally.So it is reduced to picking on captive residents in a contemptuous way.I find it rather ironic that care for the elderly and those suffering from illnesses related to longer living are managed in a far better way in a neighbouring borough and a far fairer and joined up way than this borough, Hounslow, Brent and H&F seem to be able to manage.  The fact that that borough is consistently Conservative run is the most damning indictment of all. A completely inverted perspective of what ordinary people would expect.Something is really quite, quite wrong in this boroughs administration.

Mark Kehoe ● 2740d

You ain't seen nuthin' yet!This lot have just had their mandate increased & renewed for another four years, so they're full of it. I'll let readers decide of what.It's only the start of their renewed shenanigans, there's FAR more and FAR worse to come, we don't quite know just yet what. Oh, lots more ugly Towers in North Acton, that's for sure.

Rosco White ● 2740d

I don't think there is anything particularly unusual about Cllr Sabiers statement. A misuse of research and a very partial interpretation of the available data to reach conclusions that are not justified is not something that is unusual from politicians in the current day. He knows that we know that this is a money raising exercise but he has to put the case for the defence and it is not necessarily his fault that it is a very weak one. He also is not alone in making claims about premature fatalities caused by pollution. These figures are widely bandied about and accepted as fact by many in government. They serve their purpose because they enable revenue raising measures but they don't really stand up to any scrutiny. No significant study has been done of premature deaths from pollution in London. When you hear figures being quoted these are extrapolations from other studies in other cities which have given a range of estimates for premature deaths. In reality it is impossible to determine how much an average person's life might be reduced by living with relatively poor air. There are all sorts of other things factors that determine how long we live and whilst pollution isn't likely to extend lifespan it is spurious to put an precise figure on its impact.  Most things we do have an impact on lifespan and using the same reasoning as is being used to justify anti-pollution measures could be adopted for a host of other harmful things. As someone pointed out in another thread, we know sugar is bad for us and Kit Kats contain sugar therefore 100,000 people in London have had their life expectancy reduced by Kit Kats making them more deadly than pollution. One thing we definitely do know that reduces life expectancy and which is the most important factor in determining how long you live is whether you are poor or not. Despite being a Labour Council, Ealing are introduce what are, in their effect, a highly regressive set of tax changes. The increased charges for parking will hit low income working people the hardest. They could not have been more effectively targeted at the less well off with discounts given to people with newer cars. The extra cost may seem small to someone with a guaranteed monthly income and a defined benefit pension working at the Council but for a minicab driver working long hours or a tradesperson trying to keep an elderly van on the road to keep his business operating these increases will hit hard. Nobody will be driven out of business by higher parking permit charges alone but in difficult economic conditions it will probably be a contributory factor tipping people over the edge. We shouldn't be complacent about air pollution but the policies that are being implemented at the moment will do nothing to improve it but will cause significant harm to many residents of the borough.The Council may have no choice because of their financial position but they shouldn't be allowed to claim the moral high ground.

Dennis O'Shea ● 2740d

Thanks for getting back to me on this and giving such a helpful reply.Looking at Manor Road on Google, although it is hard to judge what time the pictures were taken there does seem to be plenty of spare parking space. I would guess that residents will park on the opposite side of the road, closer to the railway line if commuter parking was causing problems because they know that commuters can't park on the side where the houses are. This isn't really an option for residents in the zones in Chiswick where the shared bays are generally away from their properties and tend to be in groups of one or two parking spaces. As you say this will result in lots of people circling around the area looking for space.

Paul Corcoran ● 2741d

The response published by Cllr. Sabier is one of the most revealing and crass statements I have read in a long time.If there were ever an example of how fake news is used as a justification of policy this is it.He quotes facts that are being used similarly by TfL and the GLA that are unsubstantiated.The fact is there is no accurate data on premature deaths in any part of Greater London attributed to any form of pollution. The data produced is modelled from data compiled in several US cities of different climates and weather patterns.The BBC exposed this over a year ago and still it is being used for political policy.There is a veiled accusation that residents who live in a CPZ are perpetrators of Road accidents and more responsible for pollution than those who do not.Where is the substantiation of this?It is pure supposition, created to order. With no substantiation from any independent or credible source.All of his justification of facts are not actually facts at all but policy driven guidelines issued to council officers.What is revealed is a rather odious form of discrimination between those who live in a CPZ and those who do not.On grounds of prejudice alone this is an appalling abuse of council power and equally distasteful is the rhetoric from several Labour councillors. It is pure divide and rule in a way that one would never expect from a Labour administration in this, a democratic country.  CPZs were introduced in this borough to alleviate parking issues caused en masse by non residents, mainly commuters.  Residents do ( or did) still have the right to request a zone to be discontinued via a consultation.To change that mandate would mean every permit holder and resident in a zone being consulted. I sat and spoke in a meeting many years ago when the then Labour Council Leader and a council officer, Daniel Metzger reiterated this condition time and time again during that meeting. Presumably minutes of this in full still exist.I would rather than have to put up with wafer thin unsubstantiated lies from politicians, who clearly do not remember just how polluted this city was less than 50 years ago and the genuine range of illnesses and deaths it caused, to how it is now.Some illness attributed to pollution have the same rate per 1000 as is rural areas. It is over densification of humans that is the real problem and no effort is being made to deal with that other than increasing overdensification. Clearly nothing has been learned from the last 90 years on that front.Rather than address the real problems facing public health they choose to use flaky rhetoric to justify revenue raising and playing politics with people.I would rather they just be straight and say " It's all about money, Your money and we want it."  The justify how they will actually use it.

Mark Kehoe ● 2742d

You are absolutely correct in your assessment Dennis.The Council are forcing this through under a spurious claim that it's already in existence. As you note there are some shared use bays already being operated - there are two or three in my zone in South Ealing (£2 a day - a bargain!)Needless to say these were snuck in without telling anyone, as indeed are all the other ones. The Chiswick residents are fuming because they will be the first to experience the joys of this particular policy in a zone where parking really is difficult around Acton Green.As you say the Council is pushing this because it is a revenue raiser. It is ignoring the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which sets out that parking permit areas are established for the benefit of residents. Quite how enticing more drivers into these zones benefits anyone is beyond me - other than the fact that it brings in extra cash for the Council.It also goes against the claim the Council makes for taxing CPZ permit holders. We are told that we need to make a 'modal shift' to reduce car use - for our own benefit. That's all well and good, but for many of us a car is an essential tool, not a luxury.At last week's Council meeting - which was reminiscent of those Soviet era Communist rallies where everyone applauds regardless of the nonsense being spouted - Cllr Mahfouz and Cllr Sabiers both claimed the CPZ changes were being made to put Ealing at the forefront of the change in car use in London. 400 deaths a year in the Borough due to pollution - although where they plucked this figure from is unclear. Nothing to do with all the HGVs, trucks and other vehicles thundering along the Borough's arterial routes of course, about which they propose to do nothing!There was no debate - just Labour councillors shouting about how Ealing, Acton and Chiswick were the affluent areas and therefore ought to pay more (Cllr Conlan of Walpole ward, FYI). Of course, there was no right of reply to their dubious contentions on environmental issues.The biggest mischief is the Council is seeking to raise revenue by manipulating the parking systems currently in operation.I'm looking at ways to take this matter forward because I think the Council is acting outside its powers over this and  - as we've seen with Southall Town Hall - pushing back against their nonsense can sometimes bring a positive result.

Simon Hayes ● 2742d

I didn't reply to your post originally because I had no idea where these bays might be. However, their location was clarified by Mik Sabiers dismissive response that was distributed to people who signed Simon Hayes' petition today. Cllr Sabiers claims that the shared bay policy is not an experiment because it has been operating successfully in CPZ Zone NN (Drayton Green) already. The bays here are situated to the north of the railway line along Manor Road — there are about 800 yards worth of parking along this stretch which is shared use from 7am-7pm as opposed to the more limited hours of the purely residential bays across the road. It is probably true to say that this arrangement doesn't cause any major extra problems for residents with parking. There appears to be an ample number of spaces for commuter demand although if you live at the end of the road nearest West Ealing station you will probably have issues parking on the opposite side of the street. It will attract a significant amount of commuter traffic to the area. Undoubtedly this has provided a substantial amount of revenue to the council with relatively little inconvenience to residents. However, I think Cllr Sabiers is being misleading when claiming this shows shared bays will operate successfully in other locations. The newly introduced shared bays are spread around residential areas not confined to one long road. A commuter looking to park on Manor Road will drive along it until they find a space. A commuter looking to park in the new zones directed there by an app will probably require quite a bit of circling around until a space is found. The current relatively benign situation in Manor Road is also unlikely to persist. When Crossrail comes to West Ealing demand for the spaces for commuters will rise significantly which will mean residents and their visitors will find it much more difficult to get spaces.  Perhaps the shared use base policy has been introduced to take pressure off Manor Road when the time comes to give alternatives for commuters but I would bet demand rises more than they have increased the available parking space.

Dennis O'Shea ● 2742d