As I knew would happen the Labour administration threw out the petition, even though 2,800 voters signed it! You can't change minds when the people in possession of them lack any kind of intellectual capacity.Worryingly Councillor Paul Conlan of Walpole Ward, effectively declared war on car owners in CPZs - maintaining that it was all these affluent areas with their big cars that were the cause of pollution - not the thundering through traffic that clogs the arterial routes each and every day.This is the text of my speech - decide for yourself if it's good or bad.....Let me start by saying that I hold no political allegiance here.I present this petition to the Council on the grounds that the proposed Transport Strategy is deeply flawed and should be withdrawn.More than 2,800 people signed the petition , agreeing that the Strategy as it stands is contradictory, discriminatory and unlawful.Let’s consider the law, which has been sadly fudged by the Strategy’s authors. The Council clearly states (at section 5.6) that changes to resident Controlled Parking Zone charges will generate an extra £500,000 of revenue a year. That makes it a tax, regardless of how you claim that money will be spent.I refer you to section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, under which this Strategy falls. That Act clearly states that the maximisation of revenue from parking charges is not a relevant consideration when it comes to setting charges. The principle is ‘safe, expeditious and convenient movement of traffic’.Case law confirms the statutory position, notably Attfield v Barnet, whose ruling expressly states that the 1984 Act does no authorise a local authority to use its powers to charge for parking to raise surplus funds for other transport purposes, defray other road transport expenditure or reduce the need to raise income from sources such as Council Tax.The Council cannot ignore the law, and for that reason alone the Strategy should be withdrawn.But, I hear you say, we want to improve the environment by encouraging people to use their cars less of get rid them altogether.However, you produce no evidence that CPZ residents contribute the significant proportion of pollution and congestion on our roads. Most cars remain parked for most of the week – and a parked car produces zero emissions, no matter what you might claim.I would suggest that the bulk of pollution and congestion in the Borough comes from through traffic on arterial routes, exacerbated by poor road layouts and all too frequent roadworks slowing down flows.Your Strategy targets CPZ permit holders, but ignores car owners who enjoy off-street parking in those zones, whose cars may be equally polluting, and the huge number of vehicles owned by Ealing residents outside the CPZ areas. Do they not equally contribute to pollution and congestion? Is it fair to target just one set of people?Where your environmental argument really fails is on the proposed introduction of more shared use parking bays.You tell CPZ residents, all tax payers in the Borough, that they should not drive a car, or indeed own one, and should instead ‘change their habits’.Yet, in the same breath, you say: ‘Come on in, commuters. Drive your cars through our leafy streets. Park in our residential roads, all for just £4.50 a day.’Do you not grasp the paradox here? Trying to attract more drivers in will simply add to congestion and pollution.CPZs were introduced to alleviate the scourge of commuter parking on streets where space was already squeezed.Your duty as a Council is to ‘preserve or improve the amenities of the area’, not destroy them by creating free-for-all parking. Like Boris Johnson you want to have your cake and eat it too.We know that cash is your motivation. As Councillor Driscoll admitted to me: ‘They have to drive somewhere so we might as well make money out of them’.Are your principles really so easily sold?People of all political persuasions are angry that these changes are being forced on them without warning or consultation.During May’s election campaign there was no mention of CPZ changes as an issue.I have here a Labour election leaflet – there’s plenty about Brexit and the NHS, but not a word about parking. Kept quiet as you knew it would be a vote loser. You have no mandate to simply roll out this strategy.Other boroughs, such as Brent, consulted widely with residents before even mooting such a transport policy, Ealing, however, seems happy to insult the intelligence of voters by just ignoring us. That is not democracy.It is not illegal to own or to drive a car. We pay road tax and insurance. Our cars must pass an MOT every year.For most of us a car is an essential tool, not a status symbol. There are not Rolls Royces or Ferraris where I live.Families with young children rely on a car because facilities like schools are not always within walking distance; working people often rely on a car for their employment; the elderly need a vehicle for mobility when public transport services are inadequate or inaccessible. The list goes on.Encouraging people to change their cars by taxing them more for those they already own is not the Council’s role. Change will happen naturally over time, but for many of us a £20,000 electric vehicle is simply unaffordable.Look to yourselves Labour Councillors. How many of you own a car? How many of you drive regularly? How many of you drove here this evening?Those of you who represent wards where CPZs operate – how do you now justify this Strategy to voters when you told them nothing about it just a couple of months ago?Look to your consciences and stand up for those people whom you represent. Don’t just toe the party line.The people of Ealing are not mugs, so don’t mug us with this ill-conceived, unlawful and misguided Transport Strategy. Support this petition and agree to withdraw the proposals and listen to the voices of 2,800 voters.ENDS
Simon Hayes ● 2660d