| Topic: | CPZ - a final thought on this shameful episode | |
| Posted by: | Dan Murphy | |
| Date/Time: | 07/10/14 10:29:00 |
| Well, it now seems certain that LBH will be extending the CPZ across the whole of Grove Park, and there is nothing more anyone can do to stop this. Whilst they have made a slight pretense at considering views and objections it is now clear that nothing was ever going to get in their way of getting their area-wide CPZ into Grove Park. However I feel that this travesty cannot be allowed without at least shining some light on the behaviour of one councillor who was primarily responsible for all this. I would ask you to consider the following chronology and make up your own minds. July 2011. Cllr. Mayne presented the area wide doorstep petition to the Chiswick Area Forum, which showed that 93.6% of residents were strongly against any CPZ in Grove Park / Strand on the Green. As a result of that petition, our councillors voted unanimously against any CPZ. Cllr. Mayne proudly announced that “This matter has now been fully resolved”. All that can be seen on the minutes of that meeting, on the LBH website. That should have been the end of the matter. In late 2011, the Chiswick House Trustees were putting pressure on Cllr. Mayne to sign off the charging in the car park (they were committed to introducing car park charging as part of the deal with the grant for refurbishing the grounds). As Lead Member for traffic and parking, Cllr Mayne had to sign off the decision to implement car park charging in Chiswick House. In October 2011, Cllr Mayne sent several emails to Chiswick House Trustees explaining his reluctance to sign off the Car Park charging decision, because he was worried about “potential displacement of commuter cars into neighbouring roads”, specifically Park Road, where his family and close friends live. The Trustees increased the pressure, and on Nov 2nd, Cllr Mayne sent an email to the Chairman of the Trustees explaining that the CAF had already said NO to any CPZ, and he felt that a Car Park with meters would effectively become a “CPZ” (no it wouldn’t). Plus, he was still worried about displacement. Cllr Mayne then decided that the potential issue of displacement would be a good reason to open up yet another CPZ consultation (but just in two roads), and told the Chiswick House Trustees that he would only sign off the car parking charges if Park & Staveley Road residents were given the opportunity to vote for a CPZ. (Just pause there for a minute and remember that it was less than four months since the CAF had voted unanimously against any CPZ in Grove Park, and that Cllr Mayne had been central to that decision). The Trustees were horrified at the prospect of any charging in the car park being linked to yet another CPZ consultation, as they knew the level of uproar and opposition it would create, and that this might well backfire and end up with their car park charging scheme being thrown out. But the Trustees realised that Cllr Mayne was not going to agree to the charging scheme without it being a trigger for a new CPZ consultation in Park Road. So the Trustees commissioned their own traffic survey into car parking numbers and possible displacement into neighbouring roads, to see if the “displacement theory” held any water. Towards the end of 2011, they sent the detailed results of their traffic survey to Cllr Mayne, which showed conclusively that there could be NO DISPLACEMENT of any cars from the car park into Park Road as a result of any charging. This survey and the conclusions were sent by the Chairman of the Trustees to Cllr Mayne on November 28th 2011 and included such clear statements as: “Charging in the car park will not affect neighbouring streets”. “There is no space for any displacement from the Car Park into neighbouring roads”. “The two issues of charging in the car park and CPZ are quite separate”. “The Trustees would be concerned if the issue of charging in the Car Park was being offered as a reason for introducing any CPZ”. (Just pause again there and read that last sentence. This was a traffic survey carried out by the Chiswick House Trustees and sent to Cllr Mayne. It was the ONLY real research ever carried out into the car park affair, and it was the ONLY research that Cllr Mayne had in his possession). Then there was a period of several months whilst the new consultation for the 2-road CPZ was being prepared. By June 2012, Cllr Mayne was aware of the unprecedented level of opposition to yet another consultation on CPZ in Grove Park. Most residents reasonably believed that the matter had been laid to rest in July 2011 and were outraged that it was being brought up yet again. Cllr Mayne was now coming under increasing pressure relating to an apparent conflict of interest, i.e. one of the two roads he had selected for a new CPZ consultation was where he grew up and where his old family friends still lived – some of whom were the most aggressive campaigners for a CPZ in Park Road. This all seemed too much of a coincidence to many and the situation was becoming uncomfortable. Local councillors were also being put under pressure and were asking awkward questions. It seemed likely that there would be an official “call in meeting” where Cllr Mayne would have to explain his decision. On June 12th 2012, Cllr Mayne wrote again to the Chairman of the Trustees, asking if it would be OK to use their survey data, and make it public as part of the growing debate, and present it to the council to support his decision. At this point, we must bear in mind that Cllr Mayne had never submitted the Trust’s survey data to the council, or made it available for public scrutiny in any way. When he was asked (on at least 30 occasions between 2011 and 2012) to carry out some (any!) detailed research into car numbers to back up his “displacement” theory, he point blank refused every time. At no time did he ever say “Actually, the Trust has already carried out detailed research, and concluded that there can be no possible displacement from the Car Park into Park Road, and I have been in possession of that data since November 28th 2011”. He never said that. Hmmm. The Trustees were understandably very nervous as to how Cllr Mayne was going to use their data and on June 14th 2012 the Chairman emailed Cllr Mayne asking exactly how he was planning to use the survey. They told him it was “already in the public domain” (it most certainly was not), and strongly reiterated their position that charging in the car park could NOT affect neighbouring streets, and that charging and CPZ were two completely separate issues. Perhaps the Trustees knew what was coming. On June 18th, Cllr Mayne replied to the Chairman confirming that he was planning to use their data in his responses to the Area Committee (regarding the increasingly awkward questions being asked about his decision to have a new consultation on CPZ in Park & Staveley Roads). On the same day, he sent a personal email to the Chairman of the Trustees, confirming to her that “I can assure you that there is no reference to the Trust in any of the documents that form part of the [CPZ] consultation. Your organisation will not be dragged into this”. She immediately responded, thanking Cllr Mayne for not involving the Chiswick House Trust in the affair. (She would soon learn her mistake). On the 16th July 2012, the decision was taken to implement charging in the car park, and on the 3rd August 2012 Cllr Mayne signed off unilateral Single Member Decision to have a new CPZ consultation in Park and Staveley Roads. That is when the balloon really went up. Following that, the local outrage and opposition to the proposed CPZ escalated beyond anything LBH had seen before, and it was decided to “call in” Cllr Mayne’s unilateral decision, at a public meeting on January 13th 2013 (this was following a number of other council meetings on the subject where Cllr Mayne had simply not showed up). Remember that the Chiswick House traffic survey had still never been made public at this point. And Cllr Mayne was still maintaining that charging in the car park would cause “massive displacement” into Park and Staveley Roads. He knew that the only survey carried out directly contradicted his assertion, and he had absolutely no other evidence to go on, but he continued to insist that “massive displacement” was the valid reason for the new CPZ consultation in those two roads. The residents in Park and Staveley Roads were being told that they were about to face “massive displacement” resulting from the introduction of charging in Chiswick House car park, and that they would soon be consulted on a CPZ in their roads to avoid the effects of this. Some may say that this was a pretty misleading introduction to the consultation process. At the public Call In meeting on January 13th 2013, Cllr Mayne was directly asked what evidence he had for the supposed “massive displacement” from the car park, and why he had refused to carry out any independent research in the car park numbers and surrounding streets (before or after charging) to prove his displacement theory. His reply is recorded in the minutes of that public meeting: “The surveys undertaken by Chiswick House Trust have shown the potential for displacement” (His words can still be read in the minutes on the LBH website, but you should probably be quick. We know that LBH are prone to removing awkward statements on their website when it suits them). So I would just ask you to consider. The Chiswick House Trustees carried out a traffic survey in good faith and sent their conclusions to Cllr Mayne in November 2011. Whilst you may agree or disagree with their conclusions, it was nevertheless the only evidence available to Cllr Mayne and he refused all requests for any further research. That survey was never made public. Despite being told clearly that there could be no possible displacement from the car park into neighbouring streets, and that the charging must not be used as a reason for introducing any CPZ, Cllr Mayne told the public meeting that the survey showed the potential for displacement and supported his decision to consult for a CPZ in Park & Staveley Roads. Remember that at that meeting, none of the correspondence between Cllr Mayne and the Trustees (or the Survey) had been seen by anyone else, so he could be confident that nobody would stand up and contradict him. It was only when an FOI request later revealed the true nature of that long email correspondence that it became clear what had been going on. So I invite you to pause and consider what this says about Cllr Ed Mayne. I know what I think, you can make your own mind up. And as for promising the Chairman of the Trustees that “her organisation would not be dragged into this”, we can only imagine what she thought when she heard about what he said at the call-in meeting. So that was the entire case for the consultation on CPZ going into those two roads. And don’t forget: Cllr Mayne’s “Displacement” theory was the ONLY possible reason for the new consultation in those two roads. All other arguments for a CPZ in Park Road (or anywhere else in Grove Park) had been considered and debated exhaustively for over seven years, and had all been dismissed, once and for all, at the meeting in July 2011 when our elected councillors decided that the wishes of 94% of Grove Park residents should prevail. So now do you think that the 2-road consultation was based on objective, independent, and accurate data? I do not. But from that shameful decision, we are now faced with the inevitable expansion of a CPZ across the whole of Grove Park, in direct opposition to the 94% of residents who said they do not want it, and the unanimous vote of our local councillors against it. Cllr Mayne continues to maintain that he was totally transparent and honest in everything he did. The LBH Traffic and Legal departments continue to insist that nobody did anything wrong. And now the Ombudsman has judged that the entire process was 100% transparent and honest and that LBH and Cllr Mayne have behaved properly at all times. Well now you can make your own mind up about that. |