Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Commuter Parking | |
Posted by: | Dan Murphy | |
Date/Time: | 02/02/15 12:08:00 |
David, I am not missing any point. The previous council policy of not putting CPZ into one or two roads is a distraction if you are now talking about Councillor Mayne's behaviour. Let's be clear about what he did: 1. In 2011, he received several emails from Chiswick House Trustees in regard to the proposed car park charges. Those emails (sent by the CHGT Chair, Sarah Finch-Crisp) contained research into cars parked in the car park and surrounding roads, and stated explicitly and clearly: "There can be no possible displacement of cars from the car park into Park or Staveley Road. You must not conflate these two issues, they are completely separate. You must not use the charging in the car park as an excuse for introducing CPZ into those two roads". Those emails were sent to Councillor Mayne in late 2011 and we have copies of them from an FOI. In January 2013 when Councillor Mayne was asked at the public meeting how on earth he had concluded that there would be "massive displacement of commuter cars" from the Car Park into Park Road, he stated (you can still read it on the LBH website from the minutes of the January 13th 2013 meeting) "Chiswick House have carried out research into the cars in the car park and that research shows quite clearly the potential for displacement into neighbouring roads". Notice the difference between that, and what they actually said? There are words to describe Councillor Mayne's behaviour in making that statement in a public meeting. Honesty, integrity, democracy, transparency, ethical - none of these words are on that list. So please don't blow smoke at me and everyone else, trying to make out that Councillor Mayne was "only following others". No he most certainly wasn't. His unprecedented single member decision to overrule our unanimous CAF decision on CPZ had never been done before. It was a decision taken by him alone, and based on an unproven theory which we now know to have been a total lie. Everyone knows what happened here now. You can't get away with wheeling out the old "poor Councillor Mayne was just following established process". It was a shocking breach of all established process and you jolly well know it. Why don't you just accept the fact that you and your small group of neighbours have got what you always wanted, and can now sit back whilst everyone else spends the next two years trying to deal with the consequences. Why are you still trying to convince everyone that it was all above board? |