Phil Taylor

Apparently the Labour cabinet were in uproar last night over the final report of the riots scrutiny panel. Usually Labour cabinet meetings are just a rubber stamping session where the administration formally agrees its business by agreeing a succession of detailed papers drawn up by officers. The Labour cabinet members hardly ever say anything at these meetings. Most of the talking is done by Labour leader Julian Bell. There is almost no debate.

Last night was different. Each Labour cabinet member took it in turns to lay into their own Cllr Shital Manro, the riots panel chairman and chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), and tell him how much they hated the report. They gave the impression that they hated him too but that is another matter. Cllr Manro was reduced to pointing out that it might have been useful if they had bothered to read drafts of the report earlier in the process. The cabinet demanded that the report is re-written and, bizarrely, Cllr Manro agreed. Whenever does HM Government ask for a select committee report to be re-written? They can ignore it but they can’t change it. Labour really doesn’t get scrutiny.

They were considering a report by a cross party group of members into the riot; three Labour, three Conservative and one LibDem worked on the report, including me. It was a comprehensive bit of work and the report totally failed to make any political points. Indeed in his forward the panel’s chairman, Cllr Manro, said:

As we set about our work we were deluged with theories on the causes of the disturbances, theories which appeared mainly based on justifying entrenched views on the organisation of Society.

We discovered that although recognising the financial background and the pressures of a consumer society, less than 1% of our young people were on the streets that night and over half of those arrested did not come from Ealing. We, therefore, firmly concluded that it was opportunistic criminality that occurred and not a significant reflection of much else.

The report is well worth a read, see here. It lays out what happened and points out clearly what worked well and what didn’t.

This report, like all scrutiny reports that go to cabinet, was sent for noting (by cabinet). Scrutiny is designed to challenge the executive and to make recommendations for improvement in a non-partisan way. It is hard to see how cabinet can send back a scrutiny report to OSC for revision. They can ignore the report’s recommendations if they like. They can point out any shortcomings that they feel there might be. They cannot rewrite history. The report was a product of scrutiny, not the executive.

Labour’s Cllr Bassam Mahfouz was chirpily tweeting through tonight’s meeting of the cabinet. Four out of five of his tweets endorse policies of the previous Conservative administration.

On 23rd February 2010 Cllr David Millican kicked off the first Shopping Parades Improvement Programme, see here.

By 2004 Ealing was the dirtiest borough in London with 49% of streets significantly dirty. Not only that but Ealing paid amongst the most for its terrible service, see here.

The process for chucking out our previous appalling graffiti contractor and putting in place the graffiti and fly-tipping contract that Cllr Mafouz is extolling was started on 27th June 2006 by Cllrs Will Brooks and Susan Emment, see here.

It wasn’t quite so easy to chuck out the incumbent street cleaning and waste disposal contractor, ECT, in 2006 so the then council leader personally undertook a series of “Reality Checks” to demonstrate to both council officers and the contractor the need for better performance. The combination of this top level focus and additional spending on cleaning saw the Borough visibly transformed.

Cllr Mahfouz knows that street cleaning is now the litmus test for any Ealing administration and that he must keep up the standards set by his predecessors.

On the 6th May 2008 I kicked off the Pitzhanger Manor project, see here.

On 12th May 2009 Cllr David Millican, Cllr Brooks and myself kicked off the Acton Town Hall regeneration programme, see here.

The only Tory policy that Cllr Mahfouz didn’t endorse tonight was the £50 cash back. Mahfouz can’t avoid the fact that when he and his group had to vote on the matter they all voted in favour to man and woman.

At a scrutiny meeting last Thursday we discussed the business case for the new car park proposed in Southall, see papers here and here.

This is a massively expensive venture due to cost £5.45 million of which £127,000 has already been spent on a temporary car park at Hambrough Road and other preparatory work. There was broad agreement that Southall is congested with traffic and needs a solution to its parking pressure.

The council’s paper was hilariously patronising in places: “The characteristics of the majority Asian population, mostly relies upon the usage of the car.” Most people in west London rely on their cars if not for commuting then for much of their leisure activity at the weekend.

The scrutiny committee asked to see a business case. What they were shown in the papers was some history, a political argument and some facts that allude to demand. The main plank for the demand argument seems to be that Ealing and West Ealing combined has a higher ratio of car parking spaces compared with retail floor space than Southall. For comparison (see bottom of page 6 of main report) the Ealing/West Ealing number is 2.34 compared to 0.92 for Southall. The council’s case is that Ealing has 2.5 times as much parking as Southall. They omit the figures for office space as they would substantially redress the balance and undermine the case the council is trying to make. The second main plank of the demand argument is that the council’s Herbert Road multi-storey car park is at capacity. It is, but only on weekend afternoons, like most town centre car parks, just the same as the massive Ealing Broadway Shopping Centre car park and the whole of Kingston town centre. Overall the Herbert Road car park is only 35% occupied through the length of its charged for opening times.

Cllr Kamiljit Dhindsa, Southall Green ward, was particularly vociferous on the car park subject and spoke in favour of adding 500 spaces to Southall. The Council’s ambition is to provide 90 spaces, maybe a few more if possible, for the £5.323 million left in the pot. We are talking £60K per parking space here so let’s hope that Cllr Dhindsa doesn’t get his way! Dhindsa also felt that the price for parking in Southall was too high and that the current charges of £1.50 an hour weekdays and £2 an hour on weekends was unfair compared to charges around the £1 mark elsewhere in the Borough.

We all want parking to be easier and cheaper so Cllr Dhindsa’s aspirations are perfectly reasonable. The reality is though that we will mostly be disappointed. It is not clear why Southall should be different. The council’s demand evidence is weak.

I will write further on:

• The finances of the new temporary car Southall car park at Hambrough Road
• The business case for the proposed new car park at the cattle market site
• The trade off between businesses and residents that sits behind all of this.

At the scrutiny meeting last Thursday we finally found out how well the new car park in Hambrough Road, Southall is doing. In short it is a whopping disaster. The photo above was taken by me on Friday 20th January at 4:04pm. It shows two vehicles parked in the 45 spaces provided at a cost of £70,000.

This is a valuable site, owned by the council and very large, it could easily accommodate 8 good sized family homes of the style of those already in the neighbourhood. It is worth some millions of Pounds on the open market since it is near corporate office headquarters of many businesses – I am not a property expert to give you a valuation. It is temporarily being used as a car park and will probably end up being a small residential development eventually. This car park would have cost a lot more if the land had to be purchased to provide it. All the council has done is demolish the old Disraeli Nursery that was on the site, level it, cover it in tarmac, put in some signs and lines and a height restriction hence the relatively small bill of £70K. Learn more from BaltimorePavingPros.com on high quality parking lots.

I have asked twice for information on the takings for this car park and have been refused twice. At the meeting we were told the takings at this car park for January (£329) and February (£633). The car park is so far south down Hambrough Road it is not attracting customers who want to access the shops. There are plenty of empty spaces much nearer to the Broadway.

If you were doing this as a commercial venture you might want a minimum return on capital of 5% on your investment of £2 million say (anyone care to speculate on what 1,563 sqm of Southall residential is worth?). You would need to make a net profit after all of your expenses and corporation tax at 21% tax of £100K per annum to make it worthwhile. Right now the gross income of this site is well shy of £12K per annum.

One reason that the Hambrough Road car park is so unsuccessful is that the parking service and the portfolio holder are overly enamoured of pay by phone. Many drivers still don’t trust this style of technology. Putting in pay and display machines is expensive. They cost £8K each to install and £27 per month to maintain and give you all sorts of headaches around collecting cash and dealing with thefts.

If the council does go ahead with the full-sized, permanent car park they will have good evidence from this temporary car park that it is not viable before they even start.