This is a copy of the recent South Road article in the Chadwell Focus.
An image of the newly repaired South Road!Here is an extract from the Action sheet from an Area Committee back in December last year.
"Mr Chowdhry wanted to know whether this was a private road, as it needed repairs. Members advised that it was an unadopted road. Area 5 had previously sought a quote for repairs but the high costs were not feasible"
If you follow the link provided (here) and scroll to item 12 on page 30 you can verify that it was I that first raised the issue at a Public Forum, that led to the eventual patching repair to South Road (they actually talk about my work taking the matter to scrutiny panels too in later Action sheets). In the most Liberal Focus it is stated that the repairs on the road were via the efforts of the Chadwell Liberals. They forget that I first reported concerns about the road over 4 years ago when I first noticed the miserable surface of the road.
I have taken this concern to Cabinet Meetings, several Area 5 Meetings and a full council meeting -at which with a 7 man deputation -I managed to convince the council, of the need to create a priority list of all unadopted roads in the borough. This means that when a budget is prepared for a long term adoption programme. Roads can be upgraded in sequence commensurate with a long term strategy.
The quote from the Area 5 Minutes is not an accurate account of my request and even this mistaken quote was removed from latter Area 5 Action Sheets. This is probably why our Liberal Focus team forgot the early work I undertook to attain the South Road repairs, alluded to in their recent Newsletter (see top image). Moreover, they have made another faux pas, as it has already been clarified that South Road fits both the definitions of an unadopted Road and a Private Road. As such the residents living there, are well within their rights when utilising the private parking management team currently commissioned.
It is a shame that residents of the road have opted to use a private clamping service for their road as it is in close vicinity to a well used convenience store. However, I live across the road from a school and can tell you, it is very difficult to park in front of my house or simply ingress or egress my drive, during school opening hours. Similar nuisance and the lack of available council led parking schemes (unenforceable on unadopted or private roads) has left residents with no alternative. They have also had to suffer the consequences of a road surface in abysmal condition, that was the product of holistic parking and have had to await long periods for patching works.
I believe that any future funding towards patching should only be agreed on the basis of a more open door policy for parking as their would have to be a community benefit. However, if the Council were to agree to adopt the road, I am fairly sure, those living there would be willing to accept a number of compromises.
So if you first raised the matter of the surface of South Road more than 4 years ago isn't that when you were a member of the Labour Party - or, indeed, if MUCH more than 4 years ago, still a member of the CONSERVATIVE Party???!!!
ReplyDeleteYou'll be accusing the LibDems of copying your grammatical style next!
ReplyDelete"...in order to advice to local residents."
When I started the campaign for South Road, it was while I was a member of the Labour Party.
ReplyDeleteWhile with the Conservatives, I appeared on ITV London - campaigning for the removal of the disused Interphone network telephone boxes attracting crime throughout the borough. This work eventually coerced the then Tory administration into forking out for the removal of seven telephone boxes, that were being used as; public urinals, fly-tipping waste bins and attracting much antisocial behaviour. I Also during my Period with the Conservatives, fought for the implementation of the London Local Authorities and Transport Act 2004 (section 16). I led a 7 man deputation at a full Council meeting (at which you were present Morris) that resulted in unanimous support for my proposal and the introduction of fixed penalty notices to antisocial drivers choosing to park in front of residential drives with drop down kerbs.
Do you want more info on my work with the Tories and Labour....?
Dear annonymous,
ReplyDeleteIf my crime is some grammatical errors, then so be it.
I would rather rely on my deeds and actions, than my words and Chadwell residents will be aware of what I have achieved for them.
I am however, sorry if I have offended you in any way.
No - I prefer to deal with facts. Like the fact that penalising anti-social drivers who obstruct legal access to private property was adopted after a unanimous decision by London Councils that we should adopt the provisions.
ReplyDeleteThe act referred to in my previous comment was formed in 2003 and not 2004. The relevant section was 14 not 16.
ReplyDeleteMorris, I have written a new post about the adoption of the by-law against Antisocial parking. That will bring some clarity to the issue I hope.
ReplyDeleteI am not clear whether you fully understand, or even appreciate, the procedural processes that follow the granting of the Royal Assent to a Bill by which it becomes an Act. At that stage its provisions do not necessarily come into effect until they have been subject of an Introduction Order. Even then only chosen parts of them might come into effect by a series of Orders, and some provisions of Acts might never become effective.
ReplyDeleteI do not recall the timetable for the Act to which you refer, but for the reasons stated it may well have been the situation that some items did not come into effec until 2004 or 2005 (or, indeed, later) and some of them could remain "dormant".
It isn't a by-law. It's full legal provision.
ReplyDeleteHi Morris, Your response was not as swift as usual on this topic.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the further information.
I do not want to get into to long a debate over this matter, however, I feel it pertinent to mention that during the Full Council Meeting many Councillor's seemed unaware of the Act and posed several questions to the Highways Team, initially unconvinced of the benefits of such a scheme. They finally agreed after posing a question to our deputation regarding the extent of the concern and our perception of its benefit.
The fact remains the item only became a discussion point at a full Council meeting due to our deputation. This was the trigger for the adoption of the "Full legal Provision" within this act - here in Redbridge.
It is rather unfair to state that the significant campaigning of the East Ilfrod Business Partnership and the East Ilford Residents Association was not responsible for this local provision. Especially when all the local media covered our campaign and attributed the succes to us - there are at least another 6 articles I could find...?
Mr Chowdhry. The press (God bless 'em) does not have a record of 100% accuracy, any more than has your memory or mine.
ReplyDelete