Forum Topic

£5m on Southall Car park

5 million pounds for a car park when jobs are being lost and libraries are threatened with closure makes no sense. Southall is a heavily congested area already and the last thing it needs is more cars. Southall is very well connected through various bus routes which shoppers to the area can use thereby reducing congestion, helping the economy and the environment.If Ealing Council is determined to increase parking spaces surely it makes more sense to use what is available already. Why not increase the number of pay and display parking areas by doubling up on roads where there is residents parking only, as many of these spaces are free during the day while residents are working.But the Council also needs to take into account the rising petrol prices and if they continue to rise, how many people will be able to afford to drive in the future? Thereby making their car park redundant. As a resident of Southall and a tax payer, I strongly disagree with this decision and it is not what I want to see in Southall or how I want my money used.  I would rather see the Rangers who look after our parks and green spaces kept in employment and the businesses in Southall encouraged to keep their areas tidy so that rats are no longer a common sight, people educated about the health hazards of spitting and making the streets of Southall green again.These are the things that would make Southall a much better place in which to live and visit.

Meena Hans ● 5521d37 Comments

Also as a rule for new developments we have had inadequate parking so that the neighbours of all new developments then are forced into CPZ's. In fact when you look at the loss of Car Parking throughout the Borough, this Southall Scheme is particularly odd. It goes against everything Ealing Council has stood for in it's enthusiasm for Ken's anti-car agenda.

Peter Chadburn ● 5172d

Nigel there may be two other aspects to consider. A great deal of parking enforcement "breaks even". The cost of the wardens supposedly equates with the permits and vouchers.However humans being what they are become diverted and delayed, receive fines and profits suddenly become sky high. Officers know this and are reluctant to put in "pay on exit" systems in council car parks. When there were Area Committees we could have fun with these officers when they said such systems were technically impossible. Alas PT's lot scrapped these. The other thing that is not easily measureable is the influence on business. In West Ealing we have strangely lost our multistorey car park and some surface ones. How will that help West Ealing's regeneration? This stupid plan was forged by the Regen team and passed by the regen team. Do they know anything about retailing? Equally stupid plans are afoot in Northfield Ave with 1200 jobs and trader parking being wiped out/endangered in poorly thought out and devised CPZs....hey and with no car park. On this basis you wonder why Tesco Sainsbury Waitrose Morrisons Asda etc bother with car parks. Perhaps they have a tad more idea about shoppers and parking than our well paid and soon off to Cannes regen team.

Arthur Breens ● 5173d

That, of course only equates to just over the capital cost.What about maintenance?Interest?Whichever way you look at it, it's an absolute nonsense.

Nigel Brooks ● 5173d

The business case for the £5m car park was presented to us at Scrutiny review panel last week. It estimated that the car park will make a profit of £25.64pm. See below. It will take 16,666 years to get the £5m back at that ratehttp://wwwcolmcostello.blogspot.com/2012/03/labours-5m-car-park-projected-to-make.html

Colm Costello ● 5173d

Good adage.

Marc Races ● 5445d

They would probably have spent £5m on a car park and another £5m on a tram park!As the old saying goes "The people who got you into the sh*t are not the people to get you out of it!"Roll on 2014.

Nigel Brooks ● 5445d

Pity the tram scheme was scrapped. It would have given southall another reason to abandon travel by car.

keith mason ● 5445d

Thank you.

Marc Races ● 5446d

MarcShould be imminent ...according to Council consultation dochttp://www2.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/council/consultations/current_consultations/libraries_consultation_2011/_docs/Library_Consultation_supporting_info.pdf'We will publish information about the results of this survey on Ealing Council’s website and a report outlining recommendations will be presented to the council’s Cabinet in June 2011.'Annemarie

Editor ● 5446d

Do we have any idea of when the results of the public consultation on the future of Ealing Libraries is going to be published?

Marc Races ● 5447d

Where's the petition to sign to get the consultation?

Charles Campbell ● 5451d

The car park in Southall we are told will most likely be built next door to the Red lion car park. I visited the Red lion car park, the Conservative club car park and the Herbert road car park almost every week for over a month on saturday to see for myself if it is difficult to get a parking space. See here, http://wwwcolmcostello.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-mind-is-now-made-up.htmlIt wasn't unusual to find the Herbert road car park almost full if you visited after 3 on a saturday, but there were always at least 60-80 spaces in the other two car parks. I tried to always visit when the place was busy. I know as a Conservative cllr people will question my objectivity here, but there is nothing to stop people doing this excercise themselves. If I am wrong here, then Bell can publish their findings, that is if they have even looked at whether a car park is needed or not. Bell keeps going on about how he has less money coming in than before so he has to make cuts. Well, if you were put on a three day week, you wouldn't decide now is the best time to build the extension to your house that you could not afford before, would you.

Colm Costello ● 5452d

Now that we have had a consultation on the proposed library closures that garnered 3,000 responses, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a similar consultation in Ealing on how many residents want/don't want the proposed Greenford car park?

Marc Races ● 5470d

also £4000 on olymipc tickets!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5485d

Also did they not promise to protect the poor and needy as a pledge. Libraries are a place of access to information for those not on broadband. Good luck David. I find the maths very poor on justification for the car park.

Peter Chadburn ● 5487d

I have been to Southall many times and have never had a problem parking in any of the half empty car parks, namely the multi-storey at Herbert Road, the huge one by the Dominion Centre, the new pay and display car park by the Conservative Club or either of the two car parks on Havelock Rd, at the bottom of King Street.The Council will pay for the new car park by borrowing the £5M as capital and repaying from revenue funds.  Servicing the debt from revenue would pay to keep all the threatened libraries open.  I'm looking at a Cabinet report to be tabled tomorrow, which says that they will create 100 car park spaces for this figure. I have been to three of the Library consultation meetings and the Labour Leader Julian Bell has made a big thing about choices.  I'd say it was a simple choice really and the Labour Council has chosen an unnecessary car park against libraries, whereas I would choose libraries.Councillor David Millican, Conservative representing Northfields Ward

David Millican ● 5487d

Peter I have to tell you and Mr Gove MP that Phil isn't an educationist. He says he has explained to me in minute detail why I am not always 100% right. This is all that Phil wrote to me by way of explaining capital versus revenue snow/money," Technically most of the  ward money is not revenue(a real distinction) so it is not really available." So this is an explanation in minute detail?That's not important. Like Phil I also want to keep libraries open.  I really don't understand why Phil gets out of his pram so easily. The first rule of warfare is you don't if you can help it shoot people on the same side. Counting parked cars can't be good for people especially in hot weather.

Arthur Breens ● 5489d

Peter,I am a local who cares too.  That is why I became a councillor.  It gets a bit tedious to have Arthur getting all ad hominem with councillors after they have explained to him in minute detail why he is not always 100% right as he thinks he is. If he (or you on his behalf) don't like it, don't start it!Our job I think is to convince the administration that they can take cash out of the libraries, if they feel they have to, without closing the small libraries.  The 27 FTE at Ealing Central who have the same productivity as Northfield's 3.6 FTE without automation looks like a good place to start.

Phil Taylor ● 5493d

Phil,I would say that Arthur is just a local who cares!! You should be glad of people like him. The real argument is with the administration not each other. He makes a point about the wrong type of money as this excuse (as it appears to joe public) has been trotted out a few times by people in both parties. I agree with your reasoning as ward cash to be used to improve a local area. Arthur has trying to show some creativity and initiative which is so lacking from the current leadership and also the officers who at over £100k each a year should have initiative to spare. cheers peter

Peter Chadburn ● 5493d

I have already devoted some time to giving Arthur Breens an explanation of why ward forum cash, which is predominantly capital, couldn't be used to pay for the library even if residents thought that was attractive, which I doubt.  The council is required by law to balance its budget so all revenue (current) spending must be covered by revenue income (eg revenue grants, fees and charges, council tax, etc).  The ward forum budgets are mostly capital.  In order to qualify as capital spending, against which the council is allowed to borrow money if it needs to, the money must purchase an asset or go towards the creation of an asset (eg architects' fees).  Apart from the technical argument there is a more fundamental argument which I also shared with Arthur, although he does not care to recall the conversation.  If the Walpole and Northfield wards were both allowed to convert their capital allowance into a revenue one they would be unable to do anything else in these two wards ever again unless they decided to close the library themselves.  The point about revenue is that it recurs every year.  Labour has made a point of reducing parks capital to only £1 million for the next four years for the whole borough. The previous administration allocated £4.8 million to parks in the last year alone.  Where would funds come from for Walpole, Lammas, Blondin, etc Parks in future if the ward budgets were used up by the library?  Any small improvements we can make to our wards with this money would no longer be possible.  I doubt Northfield and Walpole residents want to see their wards effectively robbed of their ward forum cash.  I have shown that there are other ways of taking money out of the library service without closing libraries or cutting the books budget.  If Labour persist with closing libraries they will be doing it to make a point about the cuts hurting and/or because they don't want to take on the producer interests within the library service itself.  Arthur is an old school Socialist who nominated two out of three Labour candidates for last year's local elections in Walpole ward.  I can’t help thinking that Arthur is trying to shift the blame for closing Northfield library from the Labour council to the six Conservative councillors of Northfield and Walpole wards.  I think that his neighbours will be unimpressed.

Phil Taylor ● 5493d

Fair point but tell me your method for getting an answer out of a politician.

George Knox ● 5493d

This is a device that allows councillors (of all parties) to fob of the why can't you do that enquiries. Is it part of the training?

Peter Chadburn ● 5493d

in short, the "choice" depends whether the money is coming from a central allocation, or locally collected revenues. If it's the former, the funding will be made available on a capital, revenue, or mixed basis. The council has to spend it according to the basis of the funding. For locally collected revenues, there is more leeway - the council can choose to fund capital projects or spend it in year e.g. on services.

Ed Yelland ● 5493d

It would be certainly interesting to to know whether there are actually any legal powers to switch between capital and revenue. But I suspect this is a difficult one.With £50 budget spend in my pocket I can buy a toaster (Capital asset)or I can fix a dripping tap with a fancy washer (Revenue.)But I have choice. Does a local authority?

George Knox ● 5493d

Thank you for this Peter and Ed. Ed where do I find an explanatory reference to the different types of money please? Cllr David Millican tried to explain it to me but really his explanation made no sense so I wonder if he really understood himself. Another councillor fobbed me off as a fool to have the afront to even ask. When the last administration returned £50 to me and every other council tax payer was this capital or revenue money? I never saw a note on my bank statement next to this £50 credit. If it was that important  would one have expected this? And if I return it to the Council to keep Northfield Library open will it be returned because it is the wrong kind of snow oops money? Cllr Johnson when pressed did say there was some flexibility between the two types of money. That was the start of what I wanted to hear so perhaps I should write to her. Maybe she won't treat me like a fool. I'd try to ask her, "How much flexibility and why?" So Peter we are to be enlightened!!!?

Arthur Breens ● 5493d

The rules on accounting for capital and operating expenses are very well defined and applied consistently across Local Government - so in this instance the Councillors are telling the truth.That said, the Councillors from the local Labour Group are still avoiding answering the real question which is why they chose to bring Ealing Homes in house (paid for out of operating expenses) and why they ignored the costed proposals that showed this would increase costs to council tax payers. The result of their unwillingness to fully consider the full financial impact of a largely politically motivated scheme is that front line services that would not have otherwise been cut, are now being shut down entirely to try and claw back an entirely avoidable £3m overspend.As I've said on another thread, although the Labour Group and its councillors have a lot to answer for, the real culprits for this mess are the Ealing voters who voted out an administration that improved services e.g. street cleaning and childrens services, recovered the £100+m debt left by the last local Labour run administration and managed to do so at reduced cost to council tax payers. It's hard to see with this as a backdrop why people voted in the current administration when they didn't even have fully costed plans for their election pledges - which as we can now see were flights of fancy designed to secure votes.

Ed Yelland ● 5494d

Arthur,your point about wrong type of money is one i have heard trotted out by a few councillors when you try to put them on the spot. it is no wonder that we have problems as we have too little of the right kind of money and too much of the wrong kind. It is pounds and not didgy euros we are talking about. This is what turns people off local politics as there is a can't do mentatlity amongst the elected elite!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5494d

On the 6th April I sent an email to Cllrs David Millican and Phil Taylor suggesting that Walpole Ward Forum could spend its £37,500 annual budget on keeping the Library open. If Northfields Ward Forum did the same the running costs would be covered. This suggestion was warmly welcomed? By Hec! No "Thank you" just a poorly argued lecture about different sorts of snow sorry money....capital versus revenue. In his article here in Ealing Today Cllr Millican mentions sums like the Southall car park £5,500,000 ,the Northfield Library makeover £610,000, the children's centre £2,000,000 and the park refurb £200,000. But Cllr Millican, apart from what is already spent, isn't this all capital money and appears by your reckoning to not be the right sort of snow/money the library needs to stay open? So on that basis shouldn't you have stood up at the library meeting and told anyone who mentioned Southall car park that "It is best not to get into a protracted discussion over matters of fact; but there really are different kinds of money." And Southall car park money isn't this the capital type? Now on the topic of car parks the LDF proposals for West Ealing produced when Cllr Millican was Regeneration portfolio holder were to build on all car parks. Yes that is right ALL the car parks. Will that help kickstart the regeneration of this shopping centre?Cllrs Bell, Johnson and Dhindsa bravely fronted the Library debate. I don't agree with what they are cutting and Cllr Bell has my proposals. But they were brave. Apart from launching the LDF documents Cllr Millican kept well away from any debate and all LDF discussions were very actively banned at ward forums. That is why we have such a rotten set of unapproved (by the Planning Inspectorate) proposals flaunted by the Regeneration Team to their developer friends almost as a "given" in the sales glossy "Ealing in London".

Arthur Breens ● 5495d

Was there an Ealing wide consultation on this project?  How many tendered for the job?  And, who got the job and for what reason?

Charles Campbell ● 5495d

Did Cllr L Wall mentioned in the blog that every single Labour councillor voted in favour of the £50 cash back? And did she mentioned the fact that the then Labour group was pressing to have those £50 in tokens or vouchers to be redeemed in shops rather than allowing people to chose where and how to use that money?Finally did she also mentioned that at election time the same Labour group that voted in favour of the cash back then sent out letters to their supporters (the most vulnerable people - as they keep on claiming they represent) asking them to donate the 'Conservatives bribe' to the Labour party? I bet she did not!

Rosa Popham ● 5496d

Meena,Last night at council I asked Cllr Bell how many spaces he would be buying with our £5.5 million. I have asked this before but this time I got a rough answer 100-200. Southall already has 451 under-used council car park spaces so we are talking about a 22%-44% increase in council parking spaces at a price of £5.5 million. During the day my colleague Cllr Scott had asked the chief finance officer how much it would cost to borrow the £5.5 million required for the Southall car park. The answer was £515K. Enough money to save all of the threatened libraries.  Labour's priorities are all wrong.

Phil Taylor ● 5506d

Meena,I drove to a meeting in Southall on Friday afternoon. The journey took 15 minutes from West Ealing. It took 30 seconds to park at the Herbert Road Multi-Storey Car Park.  It was half empty. Easy

Phil Taylor ● 5510d

Isn't one of the key questions why the council is considering using its scarce capital to fund vanity acquisitions (the old YMCA offices in Ealing) and latterly a development that will generate revenue and is apparently required due to the currently unmet need i.e. more people looking to use paid parking in Southall than there are spaces.This seems quite stupid when the council are making cuts to front line services. If the "business case" (I suspect it's anything but) is robust, then presumably a private developer could be given rights to develop and operate the carpark for a revenue share or licensed basis. This would avoid the need for Ealing Council to pay for it and would thus free up the money required to keep libraries open.It's really hard to see why the council have taken the route they are proposing without coming to the conclusion that they are seeking to make political points in wards where support for the labour group is not as strong as Southall.

Ed Yelland ● 5513d

PhilAre you expecting to have access to a Labour Business case document?Thought these things were secret?

George Knox ● 5513d

Meena,I do look forward to reading Labour's business case for the new Southall car park.  It will be a work of pure fiction I suspect.  Any traffic survey will conclude that the car park will increase congestion.  I drove to Southall for a meeting on Monday night.  I left West Ealing at 8:51pm and arrived at the Herbert Road MSCP at 9:04pm, some 13 minutes later.  I parked immediately as there were only 20 cars in the whole car park.  It has a capacity for 229 cars.  After 6pm you can park for free but it is still empty.

Phil Taylor ● 5513d

"Residents will now have to pay the interest for decades on borrowing the £6.5m back again to help pay for the school places that Phil Taylor knew funding would have to be found for at the time."This is about the last administration dishing out £6M for that £50 cash back to Council tax payers which I strongly disagreed with.The above recent quote was made on a blog site by OMG, a Labour Councillor called Lauren Wall who has dared come out into the open. On the Ealing Council website she is shown as Value for Money Specialist Scrutiny Panel (Chair).Is not the education of our children miles more important than dishing out a shoddy car park bribe to a few Southall residents?

George Knox ● 5520d

I could not agree more with you about the Southall car park plans especially in this "green" era when we should be trying to cut down on motoring as the oil crisis deepens. However, I would rather that Ealing Council stopped the closure of thay Albert Dane Day Centre for the Disabled, and the LINKS centre for the mentally ill (for which there is alternative in this Borough) rather then re-instating the park rangers. The park rangers do not clean and tidy and maintain the parks as people seem to believe, this is done by landscape and maintenance contractors. The role of the park rangers is partly driven by green political issues rather than what needs to be done or is of benefit to the most people in Ealing. They provide what I euphemistically call a "Rat Grooming Service" as I view that most of their activities are concerned today with what I regard as a "vanity service". A park ranger is more likely to stop you picking up a fallen tree branch in a park to use as firewood because it is a potential home to insects (this really happened to a friend of mine) then they are to stop people cycling in parks where there are losts of tots and small children.

Maggie Tomlinson ● 5521d