Thursday 15 January 2009

The Harrow Council seem hell bent in destroying the small businesses on The Pinner Road

Having lived in Harrow for the best part of my life, apart from a brief period away when I went to university, I returned to run various businesses from Harrow. There was time when enterprise was encouraged, and small businesses flourished, which in turn created jobs and gave the working man dignity and the ability to support his/her family.

I'm dismayed at the sheer mindless vandalism, exemplified by the current council, in its attitude, towards small businesses. I have no political 'axe' to grind,  nor any  political affiliations, I'm calling it as I see it!

We have seen the near total destruction of small businesses in Wealdstone over the last 15 years plus, with the various road changes implemented by  Harrow Council. We see now places like Rayners Lane and North Harrow, become virtual deserts, where only 'Takeaway' shops exist and where traffic wardens patrol the area with all  zeal of a merchant banker, who's about to close a deal on selling a dud investment to an unwary investor.

If you listen to  councillor Susan Hall, who's in charge of environment & community safety, at Harrow Council, 'It doesn't matter -Its the way our shopping habits have changed'  ( I've paraphrased her, from my recent meeting with her).                                                                            
I would argue that- It does matter!-  Councils are elected  by the local community to ensure that community flourishes, in return the community pays local taxes to enable the council to provide services to the community. Amongst that local community are the business community, the aim of the business community is NOT to take away from the community BUT to add to that community. It is a symbiotic relationship.

Over the years councils around the country have seen a new way to generate revenue by charging its constituents for something they already pay for twice in some cases and three times if you include central government.

 This is how the wheeze it works.

(1) Its taken as read that a if you pay council tax then you pay for your home, roads and the services the council provides.

(2) The council has worked out how it can squeeze more money from a particularly section of community, the motorists and home owners, seem to be good target, as they will invariably be law abiding citizens and can be tracked down very easily- as apposed to someone who rents and perhaps doesn't tax or insure his/her vehicle.

So now they have identified a target, the only issue that remains outstanding is how do you Monetise this this resource?

(1)  Why not charge the target group  a new tax -How about the space outside their house? Where they have parked their cars for as long as they can remember.

(2) How do you sell it to the community? 
  • How about saying that they will get a better environment, the 'nasty' local shops and their patrons will no longer be able to park their vehicles on those roads (as if these local businesses were a leper colony).
  • Safety for children, no facts and figures, just state it in the consultation document. This is always a good one to use as anyone who dares to question this is immediately regarded with suspicion 
  • -CPZ  is a good wheeze for a new tax - There's  no doubt that,  THIS is a tax on home owners and businesses. And once this is imposed its unlikely to be removed. (Note- Tax in UK was suppose to be temporary measure to fund the French wars, by the then Prime minister Pitt, in 1799).
  • It also appears that the Council officials have 'Gerrymandered' the results from the recent consultation of the local community. Majority of the residents of Bedford and Rutland Road along with Oxford Road, voted against the CPZ-However, Mr Stephen Freeman,the man in charge of this project alleges that as some people were for the CZP on these road (NOTE- Not the majority)- He sees it fit and proper to impose the CZP on part of Rutland and Bedford Road, 
On that basis it can be argued that parts of your street should be governed by the Torys, parts by Labour, parts by Liberals, parts by the British National Party, parts by the Monster Raving loony party and whoever else gets a vote.  I would strongly suggest that Mr Freeman read up on how democracy is suppose to work-and  also consider  reading  up on John Stuart Mill .

Note: It was stated to our representative local councillors, that the CPZ would not proceed unless there was a clear majority. It is patently clear from the consultation returns that this is NOT the case. 

Those of you who want to look at the results of the consultation document click on this link:


Even the Chinese government would be embarrassed to claim the above result shows a CLEAR MAJORITY

Not content with this the council is also going go put double yellow lines on the Pinner Road outside the all the businesses on the Pinner Road Parade and place bollards outside every shop to prevent the respective businesses putting their vehicles outside the premises- Again siting health and safety- As yet there has been no evidence produced that this a real issue or that any accidents have been caused outside any of the premises. 

I challenge the council and its officers to provide any objective evidence which suggests that the Pinner Road is an accident 'blackspot', as they claim in their initial consultation document, and the causal nature is predominately the parking on the Pinner Road. All my requests, to date have been met with a deafening silence. 

The council also claims that some of the parking problems on the county roads is due to commuter parking, and hence, another section of our community who is cast as villians by the council (bear in mind these people contribute into our community through council tax and local expenditure).

People who commute to work may well do it for practical purpose or perhaps they want to try and be  responsible citizens by using public transport. 

The fact is that the council has done very little to help commuters with parking near the local train stations, which  means they may have to park near or on the county roads. Imposing the CPZ only displaces the problem NOT solve it. 

To some degree the council have manufactured the problem, in order to raise revenue by the CPZ Tax.

For the benefit of Susan Hall and the Council employees, here's a newsflash-

We are in a recession!

To wantonly destroy local small businesses at a time when businesses are collapsing everyday, across the country, shows a distinct lack of awareness. 

At a public meeting on 22nd January, Susan Hall was asked a simple question, which was:

'Would anybody  living in a HMO (house of multiple occupation) be able to purchase parking permits when CPZ is implemented? '- 

Her Answer was an unequivocal NO!

Today I have confirmation from that Phil Grant at the car parking department at Harrow Council (whose remit is CPZ), that everyone in a HMO will be eligible to buy a permit if they so wish.

What the above illustrates is the level contempt she holds the local residents of the area in and around the Pinner Road, that she will tell an untruth, just to have her way.


Shai Koria
resident of the Pinner Road
and Representative of the Pinner Road Small Business Group





  

10 comments:

  1. Shai - You make some very valid points. The council need to step back and take a holistic view of the impact of their proposals. Susan Hall, you need to back off and focus your efforts on making more constructive contributions to our society - Perhaps additional free parking in the area to encourage more custom to the businesses?

    ReplyDelete
  2. CPZ’s are always problematic.

    There are generally three classes of problem:
    1. Roads that are desperate for a CPZ because no one can park outside their own house because of parking from commuters and shoppers.
    2. Roads that turned down a CPZ because they didn’t think they had a problem (and in fact didn’t until the adjacent area implemented a CPZ and then the commuters and shoppers moved into their street).
    3. Roads that don’t want and don’t need a CPZ.

    I don’t know whether Pinner Road is in the second or third category, but if the majority of residents don’t want a CPZ then something has clearly gone wrong and I suggest you get together a petition and present it at the next meeting of Council.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can I get in touch with you? I'd like to talk about similar issues, please get in touch as I'm sure we might be able to help each other: simoninharrow@yahoo.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shai - You are spot on what you have said. I feel that it is an attempt to destroy this small business parade of shops. It is simple, you stop the supply route and business will very simply collapse.

    This raises few questions:
    1 Is this a payback time for not agreeing with CPZ option?
    2 Health & Safety has been sited as a reason, so in that respect the department concerned must now share all the information they have on all accidents/near misses that may have happened in the vicinity of this parade. Perhaps this can be made available for last 10 years! so that all objectors and non objectors can see the reasons, if any.

    As I understand that the decision has been made that no applications in front of shops for drop kerbs will be entertained, if this is so then on what grounds?. Still no mention of people who live in flats above. They are only people and am sure they don't count.

    How the other residents, either in close proximity or opposite the business parade will be affected. Would their drives will also be decorated with bollards as the risk to 'Other Road Uers' by them will be the same?.

    I am sure as based on the above, new constructions along the road will not be granted Dropped Kerbs as the risk to other users will not be any different to others.
    4 This plan may also have impact on the 'Disability Discrimination act' as some visitors to the businesses may not be able get there.

    Please support Shai as he fights for all of us and democracy, fairness and a just cause.

    If this is 'your' plan to change the world, then please take a step back and ask yourself a question 'am I correct?'. We are telling you that you are not, please reconsider before it is too late...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just discovered that Traffic & Transport Advisory Panel meets on Weds. 11th Feb (transferred from 24th Feb.) Agenda says that oral report on public meeting on CPZ in Pinner Road in Jan.will be given!

    Why hasn't link been put on 'Transport & Streets' as promised, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi have you noticed the raised curb mentioned in the letter about the disruption due to a new water mains being laid, will they need planning permission for this or is it one rule for one and another for everyone else

    ReplyDelete
  7. I HAVE BUSNISS ON PINNER ROAD, AND DEPEND ON MY CLIENTS TO PARK IN FRONT OF MY SHOP ,IF THE CONCIL DECIDE TO BLOCK THIS EXCESS THAN ITS GOING TO EFFECT NOT ONLY MY BUT ALL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ON PINNER ROAD.IF THE COUNCIL IS SO WORRIED ABOUT DAMAGES DONE TO CURBS THAN ARE COUNCIL GOING TO REBATE US ON RATES FOR EACH CAR PARK SPACE THAT WILL BE WASTED.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I object to your apparent prejudice to all people who RENT their homes "as apposed to someone who rents and perhaps doesn't tax or insure his/her vehicle"(sic) Renting doesn't equate to anti-social.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I fear that this "debate" is absolute nonsense. Having discussed this matter with Susan Hall herself, and seeked opinion from many other councillor's actually involved in the decision making and consulatation processes it seems fact has been drastically overlooked.

    When the consultation was done, the then Conservative council evaluated the seperate areas of the roads involved and agreed that in those areas where the response had been positive a CPZ was installed, where there was not a positive response, the CPZ was not installed. As those of you living and working in this area will be aware it is only parts of the road which actually have CPZ's...to me that sounds more than fair.

    It seems to me this is a Labour influenced piece of propaganda, which duly decides that fact is not a relevant marker before making such claims about a councillor who has, and will continue to, put the needs and requirements of Harrow residents at the forefront of her work.

    Atul - " Susan Hall, you need to back off and focus your efforts on making more constructive contributions to our society " - again, maybe you should look into fact before making such sweeping statements. Susan Hall in her time on the council has worked tirelessly with the local police authorities, resulting in some of the lowest crime statistics Harrow has seen, and also some of the lowest in London. She has also been at the forefront of making Harrow the 2nd best re-cycling borough in London whilst having 0% rate increases. This was backed up by them being voted runners up in the "Council of the year" awards 2009 - and indeed the only one with a high commendation...I refer you to the phrase "be careful what you wish for" - in part thanks to scaremongering like this article, Labour have now been elected to Harrow Council, lets just hope they don't ruin the good work Susan Hall and her colleagues have done to make Harrow a better place to live

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ben, I commend your loyalty to Susan. I agree that we should look at the facts; Susan Hall has done so much good work that the people of Harrow have chosen to vote in a Labour council. Fantastic! Rather than labelling this as propaganda, I would suggest the Conservatives learn a valuable lesson from this - Democracy is alive and kicking ... and living in Harrow!

    ReplyDelete