One of the most contentious areas of Council policy is parking, so I thought I would do a post reminding people why we have parking restrictions. Broadly, there are two reasons: emissions and congestion.
The emissions argument is one that most people think of in these days of Climate Change campaigns. Transport is one of the main emissions producers in London, although it is not just greenhouse gases, but also particulates that can seriously damage air quality. By encouraging people not to use cars so much and by enhancing fuel efficiency when they do, local and central government can reduce emissions.
The second argument is based on congestion. Even if someone solved the pollution issues tomorrow by inventing a zero emission vehicle that we all instantly adopted, we would still need parking restrictions to cope with congestion. Especially in an urban area like London, we simply don't have any more road space. More car journeys translates not into quick and convenient travel, but into sitting in traffic jams. Already, any mishap in Harlesden Town Centre quickly leads to gridlock. I am told that traffic takes at least a couple of hours to clear every time there is a football match at Wembley Stadium, and that is with the vast majority of people going to the Stadium by public transport. Without restrictions, it would be completely impossible to run a business in the Wembley area, and pretty intolerable to live there.
This is why the Planning Service requires limits to car parking spaces in new developments, sometimes imposing "car free" restrictions. Whatever the drawbacks of such restrictions the alternatives would be permanent gridlock.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query emissions parking. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query emissions parking. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, 12 July 2010
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Brent FoE and Emissions Based Parking
An anonymous commenter, who sounds as if they are from Brent Friends of the Earth, claims I was selective in quoting from their response to the Council consultation on emissions based based parking permits, so perhaps I should go through it in greater detail.
The Brent FoE response conceeds the principle of the scheme is good, but proceeds to make various objections that are politically and financially unrealistic and would effectively debar the Council from implementing the scheme at all.
The statement that really stands out is: "It is also the case that the scheme will have no effect whatsoever in the large proportion of the borough not covered by Controlled Parking Zones, as it only applies to CPZ schemes." Obviously, the Council cannot not ask for a CPZ fee in areas that have not asked for a CPZ. CPZs have always only been implemented with the consent of residents in Brent. Areas which have them have opted to pay a fee in return for residents being given privileged parking rights over people from outside. To impose fees on the whole Borough would destroy public consent by charging people who don't regard themselves as getting a commensurate beenfit in exchange.
They also complain that it applies only to on street parking. Indeed so, but the Council has no legal (or many would say moral) rights to charge people a fee for parking on their own properties. Councils can restrict parking rights for private property through the control of crossover permissions, and in fact Brent has tightened its policies in this regard, but Brent Friends of the Earth seem to be demanding that the Council do something outside its legal powers.
Brent FoE also suggest that it is "unfair that only householders who presently have cars will be rewarded, rather than those who already use only public transport or bicycles." I find it hard to work out what is envisaged here. The Council offer is to people who give up their permits for a set period. How would you extend the offer to people without permits to give up? Is it being suggested that a payment be made to everyone? If so, in what way does it incentivise behaviour.
They are also objecting to the speed of implementation, and want a longer consultation period. The proposals were decided by the Executive in August 2010, and, if passed, should come into effect in April 2011. That is the best part of a year. Personally, I am quite frustrated that things take so long to implement. The FoE response also makes the entirely incorrect point that "Bringing the new scheme in very quickly (implementation next April), means that very few people are likely to be influenced by the incentives it puts forward." Surely, the longer you delay the introduction of the policy, the longer it will be before anyone can claim a benefit, and therefore the more you delay any influence it has. As far as I can work out, whoever wrote the FoE response thinks that you can only claim the incentive in the run up to implementation (say 1 April) and not thereafter. In fact, you would be able to claim the incentive on the day of implementation or at any time thereafter.
There is also some stuff about buying and selling cars, suggesting that buying newer, less polluting cars is has a higher lifecycle cost. I don't believe that there is any evidence for that, but in any case the parking permit is a very small component in the cost of motoring. The effect of the policy is likely to be more on people buying a car anyway, especially a highly polluting second hand car.
Finally, Brent FoE have the chutzpah to suggest that the scheme should be part of "an overall plan which makes it much easier to use other forms of transport," as if it were not already. Of course, Brent Council, like every other local authority, has a range of policies and schemes in place to manage traffic issues. These including pro active measures like cycle training, planning policies and fees and charges. The fact that Brent FoE fail to understand this further diminishes their already dwindling credibility as an environmentalist group.
The Brent FoE response conceeds the principle of the scheme is good, but proceeds to make various objections that are politically and financially unrealistic and would effectively debar the Council from implementing the scheme at all.
The statement that really stands out is: "It is also the case that the scheme will have no effect whatsoever in the large proportion of the borough not covered by Controlled Parking Zones, as it only applies to CPZ schemes." Obviously, the Council cannot not ask for a CPZ fee in areas that have not asked for a CPZ. CPZs have always only been implemented with the consent of residents in Brent. Areas which have them have opted to pay a fee in return for residents being given privileged parking rights over people from outside. To impose fees on the whole Borough would destroy public consent by charging people who don't regard themselves as getting a commensurate beenfit in exchange.
They also complain that it applies only to on street parking. Indeed so, but the Council has no legal (or many would say moral) rights to charge people a fee for parking on their own properties. Councils can restrict parking rights for private property through the control of crossover permissions, and in fact Brent has tightened its policies in this regard, but Brent Friends of the Earth seem to be demanding that the Council do something outside its legal powers.
Brent FoE also suggest that it is "unfair that only householders who presently have cars will be rewarded, rather than those who already use only public transport or bicycles." I find it hard to work out what is envisaged here. The Council offer is to people who give up their permits for a set period. How would you extend the offer to people without permits to give up? Is it being suggested that a payment be made to everyone? If so, in what way does it incentivise behaviour.
They are also objecting to the speed of implementation, and want a longer consultation period. The proposals were decided by the Executive in August 2010, and, if passed, should come into effect in April 2011. That is the best part of a year. Personally, I am quite frustrated that things take so long to implement. The FoE response also makes the entirely incorrect point that "Bringing the new scheme in very quickly (implementation next April), means that very few people are likely to be influenced by the incentives it puts forward." Surely, the longer you delay the introduction of the policy, the longer it will be before anyone can claim a benefit, and therefore the more you delay any influence it has. As far as I can work out, whoever wrote the FoE response thinks that you can only claim the incentive in the run up to implementation (say 1 April) and not thereafter. In fact, you would be able to claim the incentive on the day of implementation or at any time thereafter.
There is also some stuff about buying and selling cars, suggesting that buying newer, less polluting cars is has a higher lifecycle cost. I don't believe that there is any evidence for that, but in any case the parking permit is a very small component in the cost of motoring. The effect of the policy is likely to be more on people buying a car anyway, especially a highly polluting second hand car.
Finally, Brent FoE have the chutzpah to suggest that the scheme should be part of "an overall plan which makes it much easier to use other forms of transport," as if it were not already. Of course, Brent Council, like every other local authority, has a range of policies and schemes in place to manage traffic issues. These including pro active measures like cycle training, planning policies and fees and charges. The fact that Brent FoE fail to understand this further diminishes their already dwindling credibility as an environmentalist group.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Financial Incoherence at Brent Council
The recent decision to introduce NNDR for a specific organisation that I blogged on yesterday also raises questions about the coherence of Brent Council's whole approach to its finances.
From 2010 to 2013, the Council under unprecedented pressure from central government cuts pursued a general policy of minimising liabilities, raising income as much as possible and cutting costs. At the same time it was able to pursue a number of policies to improve services, but the general emphasis was on tightening financial control. As lead member for finacne and then Leader during this period, this policy presumably commanded Cllr Butt's acquisance.
From 2012/13, things all seem to have got more wobbly and strange. The Council Tax freeze was rigidly maintained for most households until this year, despite the majority of the Labour Group apparently voting for the opposite. At the same time a Council Tax Support regime was introduced that did raise Council Tax for many thousands of residents, who by definition were among the poorest in Brent.
The picture gets even odder when one thinks about parking charges. In the earlier period, there was a fairly strong environmentalist theme to the Council's parking policies. This included the introduction of emissions based parking charges, which is the only time I ever knew Cllr Butt argue against a policy to my face, and a major piece of work to simplify the numerous parking instruments of the Council. At the same time, there were a number of progressive measures to encourage sustainable transport. In about 2013/14, this changed as a period of free parking was introduced including a pre-Christmas period of free parking for those areas fortunate enough to have Council owned car parks. Quite how this squares with the general thrust of Council policy to discourage car use isn't terribly clear. More recently still, there has been a decision for a massive hike in charges for people who live in controlled parking zones.
The whole impression I get is of a series of independent decisions taken without any underpinning philosophy, as indeed a recent Scrutiny report suggested.
UPDATE
The anonymous commenter below is mistaken in a number of ways. I haven't published any comments on this post because I haven't been sent any. Secondly, the organisation mentioned does not have automatic tax exemption. If it did, it not have to apply for tax exemption and Brent Council would not have to make a decision about whether to give it. My concern is that all groups should be treated equally. If one group gets an exemption because it meets various criteria, those criteria should be made public for other eligible groups to get the same thing.
I note that the Preston group refers to itself as a charity, but it does not give a registered number, which I would expect a normal charity to do.
From 2010 to 2013, the Council under unprecedented pressure from central government cuts pursued a general policy of minimising liabilities, raising income as much as possible and cutting costs. At the same time it was able to pursue a number of policies to improve services, but the general emphasis was on tightening financial control. As lead member for finacne and then Leader during this period, this policy presumably commanded Cllr Butt's acquisance.
From 2012/13, things all seem to have got more wobbly and strange. The Council Tax freeze was rigidly maintained for most households until this year, despite the majority of the Labour Group apparently voting for the opposite. At the same time a Council Tax Support regime was introduced that did raise Council Tax for many thousands of residents, who by definition were among the poorest in Brent.
The picture gets even odder when one thinks about parking charges. In the earlier period, there was a fairly strong environmentalist theme to the Council's parking policies. This included the introduction of emissions based parking charges, which is the only time I ever knew Cllr Butt argue against a policy to my face, and a major piece of work to simplify the numerous parking instruments of the Council. At the same time, there were a number of progressive measures to encourage sustainable transport. In about 2013/14, this changed as a period of free parking was introduced including a pre-Christmas period of free parking for those areas fortunate enough to have Council owned car parks. Quite how this squares with the general thrust of Council policy to discourage car use isn't terribly clear. More recently still, there has been a decision for a massive hike in charges for people who live in controlled parking zones.
The whole impression I get is of a series of independent decisions taken without any underpinning philosophy, as indeed a recent Scrutiny report suggested.
UPDATE
The anonymous commenter below is mistaken in a number of ways. I haven't published any comments on this post because I haven't been sent any. Secondly, the organisation mentioned does not have automatic tax exemption. If it did, it not have to apply for tax exemption and Brent Council would not have to make a decision about whether to give it. My concern is that all groups should be treated equally. If one group gets an exemption because it meets various criteria, those criteria should be made public for other eligible groups to get the same thing.
I note that the Preston group refers to itself as a charity, but it does not give a registered number, which I would expect a normal charity to do.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
BFOE and Emissions Based Parking
Brent Friends of the Earth continue their decidly peculiar brand of environmental campaigning with a submission on our Emissions Based Parking Permit proposals. For a supposedly environmental group, it is staggerly lukewarm and grudging. It states that "we are not opposed to the principle of emissions based parking permits."
Not exactly leading the charge on Climate Change, are they?
I think I will do a further post on their ill considered and unrealistic objections at a later date.
Not exactly leading the charge on Climate Change, are they?
I think I will do a further post on their ill considered and unrealistic objections at a later date.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Paradox of Parking
Thinking back to my tour of Brent Council's Area Consultative Forums (ACFs), it was striking that there was more opposition to our emissions based parking permit proposals in the Wembley and Kingsbury Forums than in the south of the Borough. While I was presenting on the waste management strategy, someone else was doing a presentation on the parking stuff so I listened to it in each case. I guess people in the South are just more used to the whole idea of Controlled Parking Zones, and can see the benefits, whereas people in the North are still used to "free" parking.
What was also striking about it was the level of resentment towards any policy designed to curb car usage, combined with even more resentment of the high traffic levels in Brent. People were extremely critical of the likely traffic generation of the proposed new primary school at Preston Manor, or the existing parking problems caused by parents dropping off kids at the new ARK Academy, but just didn't seem to connect that with the idea of a need to find a way to discourage car use.
What was also striking about it was the level of resentment towards any policy designed to curb car usage, combined with even more resentment of the high traffic levels in Brent. People were extremely critical of the likely traffic generation of the proposed new primary school at Preston Manor, or the existing parking problems caused by parents dropping off kids at the new ARK Academy, but just didn't seem to connect that with the idea of a need to find a way to discourage car use.
Monday, 20 June 2016
Underground Car Park on Deerhurst Road
Bumping into some one outside the Willesden Sainsburys on Saturday, she reminded me that there is a renewal of the proposal for housing and a new car park at the Deerhurst Road Temple. This is a reworking of a controversial scheme that failed to get through before.
I recall at that Planning meeting, one of the Committee suggested to the applicant that he could build the care home without the proposed basement car park. He din't welcome the idea. This is not surprising as the main purpose of the development is to provide more car parking for the Temple. The effect of this would simply be to increase the number of cars coming into the Willesden area, and hence traffic congestion. For this reason the proposal runs completely counter to Brent's sustainable transport policies. For e3xample, the next Cabinet meeting, in reviewing the Borough's parking policies is being told that:
In light of that it strikes me as very strange that officers are apparently recommending approval.
As with the previous occasion, this proposal has attracted numerous objections. I recall previously, local residents were so exercised that one even threatened judicial review if the proposal went through.
In discussing the transport implications, officers suggest that numbers will be limited by a planning condition. I doubt very much whether such a condition could be successfully enforced. More remarkable still is the officers' statement (under 1.1.9) that the new car park will reduce congestion. It is widely accepted that providing more car parking spaces simply encourages car use, and therefore increases traffic congestion.
I recall at that Planning meeting, one of the Committee suggested to the applicant that he could build the care home without the proposed basement car park. He din't welcome the idea. This is not surprising as the main purpose of the development is to provide more car parking for the Temple. The effect of this would simply be to increase the number of cars coming into the Willesden area, and hence traffic congestion. For this reason the proposal runs completely counter to Brent's sustainable transport policies. For e3xample, the next Cabinet meeting, in reviewing the Borough's parking policies is being told that:
"Car usage makes a significant contribution to the borough’s carbon
emissions and air pollution. The council
is seeking, through its Transport and Parking Strategies, to Encourage a greater
uptake of more sustainable modes of transport for those journeys. For example, a
5% reduction in visitors travelling by car
would equate to over 20,000 fewer return car journeys, and would therefore make
a significant contribution to reducing both air
pollution and carbon emissions in Brent. Concerns about air quality were
expressed by residents in the consultation and many understand the direct relationship
with the need for behaviour change regarding car usage."
In light of that it strikes me as very strange that officers are apparently recommending approval.
As with the previous occasion, this proposal has attracted numerous objections. I recall previously, local residents were so exercised that one even threatened judicial review if the proposal went through.
In discussing the transport implications, officers suggest that numbers will be limited by a planning condition. I doubt very much whether such a condition could be successfully enforced. More remarkable still is the officers' statement (under 1.1.9) that the new car park will reduce congestion. It is widely accepted that providing more car parking spaces simply encourages car use, and therefore increases traffic congestion.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Carbon Emissions and Brent's Civic Centre
A further note on Brent Council's retreat on carbon emissions concerns recent changes to the plans for the Civic Centre. This 80 million pound project was supposed to be a leader in @gree@ technology. Indeed officers (who have to defend the Council's record as the Liberal Democrat / Tory Executive seem incapable of doing so) have argued that one of its key advantages is in cutting carbon emissions.
It may still reduce heating costs, but the Executive have slipped in conditions designed to increase the number of parking spaces at the new site. Discouraging people from driving cars to work was supposed to be one of the main ways in which the Council could cut its emissions. The changes to the Civic Centre brief are effectively a confession that the Council is no longer interesting in cutting carbon emissions beyond a bare mimimum imposed by central government.
Lots of people driving to a Civic Centre next to Wembley Stadium probably won't be wonderful for traffic congestion either, especially on event days.
It may still reduce heating costs, but the Executive have slipped in conditions designed to increase the number of parking spaces at the new site. Discouraging people from driving cars to work was supposed to be one of the main ways in which the Council could cut its emissions. The changes to the Civic Centre brief are effectively a confession that the Council is no longer interesting in cutting carbon emissions beyond a bare mimimum imposed by central government.
Lots of people driving to a Civic Centre next to Wembley Stadium probably won't be wonderful for traffic congestion either, especially on event days.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Environment Retrospective
As it is now six months since the local elections, I thought I would look back on what has been achieved in the Environment portfolio. I would divide things into stuff that has happened as a result of Labour winning the election, stuff that would have happened anyway, and problems that needed to be sorted that the Lib Dems and Tories were ignoring.
The two big projects that are now underway are the waste management strategy and the emissions based parking permits. The Tories have shown complete hostility to the alternate weekly collections that are at the heart of the policy. The Liberal Democrats adopted the legal minimum target of 40% and made no effort during their time in office to raise the recycling rate beyond the current 28%. We are aiming at 60%, so I think that is a pretty big gap between the parties. This is a much bigger deal than our support for free bulky waste collections, and the Liberal Democrats' extraordinary support for keeping the £25 charge, although that got far more attention in the campaign. The emissions based parking permits are something the Liberal Democrats spoke about, but did not have the courage to deliver. Had they been re-elected, I suspect that would have continued being in favour in theory but not in practice. Now, of course, they are simply throwing rocks at a policy that most of them probably believe in. I also believe that the new administration has a much greater committment to becoming a FairTrade Borough, as 17 other London Boroughs already are. I hope shortly, that we will have another big project in further reducing carbon emissions.
On the stuff that would have happened anyway, the Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been passed. That unexciting sentence conceals the importance of getting it passed. The strategy significantly improves things like the environmental performance of new housing so it is very important in influencing the environmental performance of the Borough as a whole. I would also highlight the forthcoming Placemaking guide (formerly called the Urban Design Guide). I also suspect that, had they formed a majority, the Liberal Democrats would probably have voted through the Moving Traffic Offences that they supported in principle in 2009, but again did not have the courage to implement.
What I think of problems that need to be dealt with includes several planning matters that are coming up. The imminent demise of Dollis Hill House may be sad, but it will cease a drain on the Council in terms of both officer times and money. It will also end the blight on the "pleasure grounds" part of Gladstone Park. Forthcoming changes to the Planning Committee procedures should cut costs slightly, but also improve the amount of time given to genuinely strategic issues rather than lots of domestic extensions. Finally, I am hoping to agree some changes in planning enforcement to prevent overload which was a potential threat even before the new Con Dem government imposed its cuts, but which the previous administration ducked.
Of course, we have been doing all this at the same time as dealing with the Tory / Lib Dem government's in-year cuts and preparing for the worse local government settlement anyone can remember.
All in all, I think it is fair to say that there has been more progress over the past six months than during the whole of the previous Tory / Lib Dem administration.
The two big projects that are now underway are the waste management strategy and the emissions based parking permits. The Tories have shown complete hostility to the alternate weekly collections that are at the heart of the policy. The Liberal Democrats adopted the legal minimum target of 40% and made no effort during their time in office to raise the recycling rate beyond the current 28%. We are aiming at 60%, so I think that is a pretty big gap between the parties. This is a much bigger deal than our support for free bulky waste collections, and the Liberal Democrats' extraordinary support for keeping the £25 charge, although that got far more attention in the campaign. The emissions based parking permits are something the Liberal Democrats spoke about, but did not have the courage to deliver. Had they been re-elected, I suspect that would have continued being in favour in theory but not in practice. Now, of course, they are simply throwing rocks at a policy that most of them probably believe in. I also believe that the new administration has a much greater committment to becoming a FairTrade Borough, as 17 other London Boroughs already are. I hope shortly, that we will have another big project in further reducing carbon emissions.
On the stuff that would have happened anyway, the Local Development Framework Core Strategy has been passed. That unexciting sentence conceals the importance of getting it passed. The strategy significantly improves things like the environmental performance of new housing so it is very important in influencing the environmental performance of the Borough as a whole. I would also highlight the forthcoming Placemaking guide (formerly called the Urban Design Guide). I also suspect that, had they formed a majority, the Liberal Democrats would probably have voted through the Moving Traffic Offences that they supported in principle in 2009, but again did not have the courage to implement.
What I think of problems that need to be dealt with includes several planning matters that are coming up. The imminent demise of Dollis Hill House may be sad, but it will cease a drain on the Council in terms of both officer times and money. It will also end the blight on the "pleasure grounds" part of Gladstone Park. Forthcoming changes to the Planning Committee procedures should cut costs slightly, but also improve the amount of time given to genuinely strategic issues rather than lots of domestic extensions. Finally, I am hoping to agree some changes in planning enforcement to prevent overload which was a potential threat even before the new Con Dem government imposed its cuts, but which the previous administration ducked.
Of course, we have been doing all this at the same time as dealing with the Tory / Lib Dem government's in-year cuts and preparing for the worse local government settlement anyone can remember.
All in all, I think it is fair to say that there has been more progress over the past six months than during the whole of the previous Tory / Lib Dem administration.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Six Month Update
Six months ago, I wrote a post reviewing the previous six months, and so I thought I would do something similar again. The two biggest things I identified were the emissions based parking permits and the changes to the waste management system.
Emissions based parking permits are now in place. Unfortunately there was a glitch in terms of sending reminder letters, but I hope this has now been sorted. The waste management system, essential to increased recycling, is now being planned for rollout later in the year. This is likely to be one of the biggest challenges the administration faces over the rest of its term.
The two biggest issues of these six months have been setting the budget and passing the Libraries Strategy. The Budget has been passed in the worst financial context that Brent Council has ever faced. We have managed to contain some of the savings to areas of waste we inherited from the previous administration. In particular, Brent Council had too many managers and a number of areas of genuine waste which could be cut. Other cuts were much more problematic. However, in short order we put together a package that makes unprecedented savings but still protects the vast range of services that the Council provides.
In terms of controversy, the Libraries Transformation Project has dominated the headlines despite accounting for a relatively small part of the Council budget. At the time of writing, this has been largely passed, although the Call In Committee made one recommendation about keeping up the number of study places during the 2011 exam season. I thought this recommendation superfluous, as it is covered in the existing report, but there you go.
On the less controversial issues, we have made some progress on Fairtrade, some progress on developing our Arts policy (especially in relation to libraries), a fairly routine set of changes to gambling licensing has been agreed by the Executive and will go to full Council shortly, and the Placemaking Guide has finally been passed. The Executive have also agreed the Site Specific Allocations of the Local Development Framework (LDF), which is much more interesting than it sounds, and is a crucial part of the Planning Framework of the Borough. The next Full Council meeting will also make changes to Brent's procedures for planning applications, streamlining the process.
In terms of disappointments, I had wanted to make further progress on a carbon emissions target, but hopefully we will be able to publish one later in the year. I had also been hoping that we would finally get to an end of the long running Dollis Hill House saga. However, Eric Pickles delay in signing permission for demolition has pushed that date back as well (Although we now have permission).
Emissions based parking permits are now in place. Unfortunately there was a glitch in terms of sending reminder letters, but I hope this has now been sorted. The waste management system, essential to increased recycling, is now being planned for rollout later in the year. This is likely to be one of the biggest challenges the administration faces over the rest of its term.
The two biggest issues of these six months have been setting the budget and passing the Libraries Strategy. The Budget has been passed in the worst financial context that Brent Council has ever faced. We have managed to contain some of the savings to areas of waste we inherited from the previous administration. In particular, Brent Council had too many managers and a number of areas of genuine waste which could be cut. Other cuts were much more problematic. However, in short order we put together a package that makes unprecedented savings but still protects the vast range of services that the Council provides.
In terms of controversy, the Libraries Transformation Project has dominated the headlines despite accounting for a relatively small part of the Council budget. At the time of writing, this has been largely passed, although the Call In Committee made one recommendation about keeping up the number of study places during the 2011 exam season. I thought this recommendation superfluous, as it is covered in the existing report, but there you go.
On the less controversial issues, we have made some progress on Fairtrade, some progress on developing our Arts policy (especially in relation to libraries), a fairly routine set of changes to gambling licensing has been agreed by the Executive and will go to full Council shortly, and the Placemaking Guide has finally been passed. The Executive have also agreed the Site Specific Allocations of the Local Development Framework (LDF), which is much more interesting than it sounds, and is a crucial part of the Planning Framework of the Borough. The next Full Council meeting will also make changes to Brent's procedures for planning applications, streamlining the process.
In terms of disappointments, I had wanted to make further progress on a carbon emissions target, but hopefully we will be able to publish one later in the year. I had also been hoping that we would finally get to an end of the long running Dollis Hill House saga. However, Eric Pickles delay in signing permission for demolition has pushed that date back as well (Although we now have permission).
Sunday, 21 June 2015
The Political Importance of Air Quality
John Vidal has a long piece on air quality in the Guardian. This seems to be getting more of a profile after years in which it was seen as a fairly minor issue. I recall raising it with some London Councils colleagues only for it to be seen as a fringe concern.
Brent actually has quite a reasonable record on improving air quality. There is, of course, the ongoing blight of poor air quality in Neasden Goods Yard. The trouble here is that the Environment Agency is extremely reluctant to take action. Boris Johnson until recently had no interest in air quality at all, and only seems to have woken up to the seriousness of the situation in the last few months.
Aside from that specific area, London Boroughs main contribution to better air quality is by reducing traffic pollution.
This was one aim behind the introduction of emissions based parking charges in Brent. Although most of the publicity behind this concentrated on carbon emissions, those are also a good proxy for other pollutants, such as PM2.5 and NOx.
Councils can also use planning policy to limit car use and encourage other forms of transport as Brent generally does. This is also the justification behind most of the Council's policies on parking charges.
However, I suspect progress on these issues is likely to be stymied by a reluctance of decision makers to accept that political decisions can have a good outcome in one direction but not in another. I get that sense from some of the comments in the Vidal piece. It also seems to happen locally here in Brent, where the Council has tinkered with parking charges in a way that seems to encourage car use at the same time as having other policies to discourage car use. That really doesn't make much sense.
Brent actually has quite a reasonable record on improving air quality. There is, of course, the ongoing blight of poor air quality in Neasden Goods Yard. The trouble here is that the Environment Agency is extremely reluctant to take action. Boris Johnson until recently had no interest in air quality at all, and only seems to have woken up to the seriousness of the situation in the last few months.
Aside from that specific area, London Boroughs main contribution to better air quality is by reducing traffic pollution.
This was one aim behind the introduction of emissions based parking charges in Brent. Although most of the publicity behind this concentrated on carbon emissions, those are also a good proxy for other pollutants, such as PM2.5 and NOx.
Councils can also use planning policy to limit car use and encourage other forms of transport as Brent generally does. This is also the justification behind most of the Council's policies on parking charges.
However, I suspect progress on these issues is likely to be stymied by a reluctance of decision makers to accept that political decisions can have a good outcome in one direction but not in another. I get that sense from some of the comments in the Vidal piece. It also seems to happen locally here in Brent, where the Council has tinkered with parking charges in a way that seems to encourage car use at the same time as having other policies to discourage car use. That really doesn't make much sense.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Brent Labour's Green Pledges
The Brent Labour Party manifesto has a series of specific pledges on environmental issues, which I think sets us apart from all the other parties in Brent which appear to have no manifesto at all for what they would like to do if they controlled Brent Council. Bizarrely, that includes the Green Party!
Anyway, here are the Labour pleadges for Brent:
Once elected a Labour Council will: -
· Immediately abolish the Liberal Democrat /Tory £25 charge bulky refuse, as it has led to more fly tipping and less recycling.
· Make Brent a Fairtrade Borough.
· Seek to ensure that Brent recycles 60% of its waste by 2014, as part of a move to a minimum waste strategy.
· Consider a voucher scheme to provide discounts at local shops for those who reduce their waste levels, as part of a fundamental review of waste management.
· Investigate cutting Brent Council’s carbon emissions by at least 25% by 2014, thus reversing the growth in carbon emissions seen since 2006/7.
· Extend and improve the park warden service that we re-introduced after the Tory cuts of the 1990s.
· Review the Council’s own transport fleet (more than 140 vehicles) to see if more can be switched to alternative fuel use.
· Consider a Brent based scheme for Low Emissions zones.
· Convert existing, and new, Controlled Parking Zones to a permit system based on the “polluter pays” principle. This means that vehicles that produce less greenhouse gases and other emissions pay less.
· Put pressure on public transport providers, such as Transport for London and Train Operating Companies, to improve the environment in and around areas under their control.
· Meet regularly with water utilities to enable better liaison for the public during pipe renewal work and to seek long term solutions to flooding and other water-related problems.
· Continue our long standing policy of protecting public parks and open spaces.
Anyway, here are the Labour pleadges for Brent:
Once elected a Labour Council will: -
· Immediately abolish the Liberal Democrat /Tory £25 charge bulky refuse, as it has led to more fly tipping and less recycling.
· Make Brent a Fairtrade Borough.
· Seek to ensure that Brent recycles 60% of its waste by 2014, as part of a move to a minimum waste strategy.
· Consider a voucher scheme to provide discounts at local shops for those who reduce their waste levels, as part of a fundamental review of waste management.
· Investigate cutting Brent Council’s carbon emissions by at least 25% by 2014, thus reversing the growth in carbon emissions seen since 2006/7.
· Extend and improve the park warden service that we re-introduced after the Tory cuts of the 1990s.
· Review the Council’s own transport fleet (more than 140 vehicles) to see if more can be switched to alternative fuel use.
· Consider a Brent based scheme for Low Emissions zones.
· Convert existing, and new, Controlled Parking Zones to a permit system based on the “polluter pays” principle. This means that vehicles that produce less greenhouse gases and other emissions pay less.
· Put pressure on public transport providers, such as Transport for London and Train Operating Companies, to improve the environment in and around areas under their control.
· Meet regularly with water utilities to enable better liaison for the public during pipe renewal work and to seek long term solutions to flooding and other water-related problems.
· Continue our long standing policy of protecting public parks and open spaces.
Monday, 25 October 2010
Emissions Based Parking Permits Online
Brent Council has finally got its stuff together on putting the emissions based parking permit proposals online. Take a look and give your views.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Lib Dem Parking Hypocrisy
I see that Brent Liberal Democrats have issued a press release attacking both our new emissions based parking permits and the Moving Traffic Offences decision. They called both into committee, but in neither case did they have an alternative to suggest. In the case of Moving Traffic offences this is not a surpise since it is merely the detail of a scheme decided on in early 2009 (with the concurrence of the then Lib Dem majority Executive). On emissions based permits, they have tossed away their green credentials with nothing to show in their place.
Saturday, 13 November 2010
Emissions and Cardiac Arrest
Another link here about transport emissions and health problems. In this case particulates causing heart attacks. Local authorities have only very limited powers on this kind of thing, but I don't think that makes it a bad idea to pursue the emissions based parking permit policy that we have proposed
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Green Disappointment at Brent Executive
Disappointed that the Greens turning up to the Brent Executive last night sounded so negative about our Green Charter and our climate change approach in general. As I pointed out, we have had a number of strong policies on climate change since coming to power. These include:
- Our new recycling system, that will massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from waste management
- Changes to our planning guidance to improve the environmental performance of new buildings
- Improvements in the fuel efficiency of our transport fleet
- The introduction of emissions based parking permits
- Changes to public realm guidance for better adaptation to climate change
- The promotion of district heating schemes
Monday, 8 December 2014
Parking Charges in Brent
Aside from Council Tax, Brent's second biggest controllable income stream is parking charges. These days, the Council also collects business rates for itself but it cannot decide the level.
For an authority in financial trouble, Brent has a decidedly lackadaisical approach to charges in this area. Brent's general policy on charges, set in 2011, was to raise them significantly and have an inbuild lift of at least inflation. This also mostly applied to parking charges, but in the past couple of years there has been a certain amount of apparently random tinkering without any strategy visible.
I suspect the main reasons for this are a prejudice in favour of car dependency, a low value on the benefits of reduced car use (improved air quality, lower GHG emissions, reduced congestion), a failure to recognise the inevitability of reducing car use in urban areas and simple ignorance of the basics of urban transport and planning.
There also appears to be a failure to recognise the extent to which car drivers are simply making a partial contribution to their preferred transport mode (Those roads cost a lot to maintain and repair), and a failure to make a rational comparison with the rising costs of other forms of transport compared to cars.
This is an area where some modest rises and rationalisation of charges could help protect the quality of life in the Borough.
For an authority in financial trouble, Brent has a decidedly lackadaisical approach to charges in this area. Brent's general policy on charges, set in 2011, was to raise them significantly and have an inbuild lift of at least inflation. This also mostly applied to parking charges, but in the past couple of years there has been a certain amount of apparently random tinkering without any strategy visible.
I suspect the main reasons for this are a prejudice in favour of car dependency, a low value on the benefits of reduced car use (improved air quality, lower GHG emissions, reduced congestion), a failure to recognise the inevitability of reducing car use in urban areas and simple ignorance of the basics of urban transport and planning.
There also appears to be a failure to recognise the extent to which car drivers are simply making a partial contribution to their preferred transport mode (Those roads cost a lot to maintain and repair), and a failure to make a rational comparison with the rising costs of other forms of transport compared to cars.
This is an area where some modest rises and rationalisation of charges could help protect the quality of life in the Borough.
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Highways Committee Last Night
I went to an unusually lively Highways Committee last night. The most controversal item was a proposal to install some parking meters on Preston Road and Bridge Road. Remarkably we took far longer on that item than on Brent's Local Implementation Plan (LIP), which is the main vehicle to determine our transport investment over the next four years.
We also had a number of threats from members of the public that we would be taken to court over the parking meter decision. Making threats of this nature seems to be becoming increasingly fashionable.
Cllr Paul Lorber added his own peculiar twist to the meeting by threatening to report us to the Local Government Ombudsman for maladministration. This is on the somewhat obscure ground that the decision to go ahead with emissions based parking permits was taken by the Director of Environment under delegated powers rather than a meeting of the Executive.
I find such a concentration on process hard to understand.
We also had a number of threats from members of the public that we would be taken to court over the parking meter decision. Making threats of this nature seems to be becoming increasingly fashionable.
Cllr Paul Lorber added his own peculiar twist to the meeting by threatening to report us to the Local Government Ombudsman for maladministration. This is on the somewhat obscure ground that the decision to go ahead with emissions based parking permits was taken by the Director of Environment under delegated powers rather than a meeting of the Executive.
I find such a concentration on process hard to understand.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Environment and Transport Promises
Here are the Brent Labour Party manifesto promises regarding Environment and Transport policies:
The Lib Dem / Tory charge for collecting dumped items (special collections) has never yielded the revenue hoped from it, and has led to more fly tipping and less recycling across the Borough. We will therefore abolish the Lib Dem /Tory £25 charge immediately.
We will also: -
· Increase kerbside recycling, originally introduced by Labour.
· Increase the ways in which the scope of recycling services can be extended in both materials and users.
· Introduce a voucher scheme to provide discounts at local shops for those who recycle a lot.
· Make Brent a Fairtrade Borough. We will maintain and extend the support we give to the Brent Fairtrade Network that we set up in 2001. This will include broadening the range of products that the Council buys, and being more pro-active in supporting other Fairtrade providers.
· Improve the Park Warden service that we re-introduced after the Tory cuts of the 1990s.
· Work with other local authorities and central government to change legislation to allow the Council to restrict the growth of betting shops in town centres and fast food outlets near schools.
· Conduct a systematic review of environmental issues relating to public transport areas, owned by Transport for London and railway companies and work with other stakeholders to secure improvements.
· Promote the use of re-useable bags, as a replacement for plastic ones. We will also look to take up other opportunities for waste minimisation as they arise.
· Convert the existing, and new, Controlled Parking Zones to a permit system based on the “polluter pays” principle. This means that vehicles that produce less greenhouse gases and other emissions pay less. The principle was introduced by Labour in its 1996-2006 administration but has since been neglected by the Lib Dem / Tory administration.
· Improve current parking arrangements in consultation with local residents.
· Institute a programme of pavements being reinforced to an adequate standard in order to minimise maintenance costs, where the Council allows vehicles to park on pavements. This will entail an audit of the relevant streets
· Review the Council’s own transport fleet of more than 100 vehicles, to see if they can be switched to alternative fuel use. Since much of the fleet needs to be replaced anyway, it should be possible to make such a transition relatively quickly.
· Provide new car clubs at Council sites, public sector partners and small businesses and use the Council’s publicity resources to promote them, including producing a Brent atlas showing car club sites.
· Use the planning system to encourage sustainable transport and traffic reduction.
· Seek to protect and enhance the Borough’s wildlife corridors and vacant land (such as trackside railway) for the benefit of greenery and wildlife.
· Work with neighbouring boroughs and Transport for London to provide new orbital transport links such as a tram link, light railway or extra bus links
· Address the public transport deficit in areas like Alperton, Stonebridge, Sudbury and Northwick Park.
· Work with water utilities and British Waterways to seek long term solutions to flooding and other water problems
The Lib Dem / Tory charge for collecting dumped items (special collections) has never yielded the revenue hoped from it, and has led to more fly tipping and less recycling across the Borough. We will therefore abolish the Lib Dem /Tory £25 charge immediately.
We will also: -
· Increase kerbside recycling, originally introduced by Labour.
· Increase the ways in which the scope of recycling services can be extended in both materials and users.
· Introduce a voucher scheme to provide discounts at local shops for those who recycle a lot.
· Make Brent a Fairtrade Borough. We will maintain and extend the support we give to the Brent Fairtrade Network that we set up in 2001. This will include broadening the range of products that the Council buys, and being more pro-active in supporting other Fairtrade providers.
· Improve the Park Warden service that we re-introduced after the Tory cuts of the 1990s.
· Work with other local authorities and central government to change legislation to allow the Council to restrict the growth of betting shops in town centres and fast food outlets near schools.
· Conduct a systematic review of environmental issues relating to public transport areas, owned by Transport for London and railway companies and work with other stakeholders to secure improvements.
· Promote the use of re-useable bags, as a replacement for plastic ones. We will also look to take up other opportunities for waste minimisation as they arise.
· Convert the existing, and new, Controlled Parking Zones to a permit system based on the “polluter pays” principle. This means that vehicles that produce less greenhouse gases and other emissions pay less. The principle was introduced by Labour in its 1996-2006 administration but has since been neglected by the Lib Dem / Tory administration.
· Improve current parking arrangements in consultation with local residents.
· Institute a programme of pavements being reinforced to an adequate standard in order to minimise maintenance costs, where the Council allows vehicles to park on pavements. This will entail an audit of the relevant streets
· Review the Council’s own transport fleet of more than 100 vehicles, to see if they can be switched to alternative fuel use. Since much of the fleet needs to be replaced anyway, it should be possible to make such a transition relatively quickly.
· Provide new car clubs at Council sites, public sector partners and small businesses and use the Council’s publicity resources to promote them, including producing a Brent atlas showing car club sites.
· Use the planning system to encourage sustainable transport and traffic reduction.
· Seek to protect and enhance the Borough’s wildlife corridors and vacant land (such as trackside railway) for the benefit of greenery and wildlife.
· Work with neighbouring boroughs and Transport for London to provide new orbital transport links such as a tram link, light railway or extra bus links
· Address the public transport deficit in areas like Alperton, Stonebridge, Sudbury and Northwick Park.
· Work with water utilities and British Waterways to seek long term solutions to flooding and other water problems
Friday, 5 November 2010
Emissions Based Parking Permits
Brent Liberal Democrats continue their opposition to our proposals for emission based parking permits here. Personally, I think that Daniel Brown is leading Brent Liberal Democrat councillors out on a limb here and they will come to regret it. Not only are the Liberal Democrat councillors going back on their previous policy, they are also out of line with their colleagues elsewhere (like Richmond).
However, it is interesting that Sarah Teather herself is maintaining silence on the issue. Normally quick to jump on any populist bandwagon, she seems to be leaving this one well alone. Perhaps she has a better grasp of public opinion that Brent Lib Dems' Transport spokesman?
However, it is interesting that Sarah Teather herself is maintaining silence on the issue. Normally quick to jump on any populist bandwagon, she seems to be leaving this one well alone. Perhaps she has a better grasp of public opinion that Brent Lib Dems' Transport spokesman?
Sunday, 2 September 2012
Permit Free Developments
Conversations I have had before and following the Park House planning permission suggest that the point of the Council's "permit free" policy is not widely understood.
When the Council gives planning permission to a new block of flats in an area with good transport links (such as Harlesden Town Centre) it usually does so with a permit free condition. This means that if the residents of the new block find themselves in a controlled parking zone, they will not be allowed to apply for a permit for themselves or a temporary permit for visiters.
The purose of this draconian restriction is to reduce the number of car users in a given area to make parking and traffic congestion more managable. It also has the effect of reducing air pollution. Officers believe it is linked to the measureable improvement in air quality in Brent in the past few years which should help improve life expectency. Of course, it is also linked to the reduction of carbon emissions and therefore retarding climate change.
When the Council gives planning permission to a new block of flats in an area with good transport links (such as Harlesden Town Centre) it usually does so with a permit free condition. This means that if the residents of the new block find themselves in a controlled parking zone, they will not be allowed to apply for a permit for themselves or a temporary permit for visiters.
The purose of this draconian restriction is to reduce the number of car users in a given area to make parking and traffic congestion more managable. It also has the effect of reducing air pollution. Officers believe it is linked to the measureable improvement in air quality in Brent in the past few years which should help improve life expectency. Of course, it is also linked to the reduction of carbon emissions and therefore retarding climate change.