Labour say that they are appalled that none of the candidates – Philippa Roe, Ed Argar, Jonathan Glanz and Glenys Roberts – have bothered to issue a public manifesto or subject themselves to ‘hustings’ meetings where residents can quiz them about the direction in which they want to take the Council.

Labour Councillors say that the Conservatives’ failure to let residents have a say in the election of the next Council Leader will fatally undermine the ability of the new Leader to command wide support and to take tough decisions. With an expected close fight between Philippa Roe and Ed Argar, Labour say that just 25 Conservative Councillors could decide the election of the Leader of a city of 250,000 people.

The 12 Questions for the next Leader of Westminster City Council are;

1. What are your proposals for improving adult social care so that the Council is no longer the joint worst in London?

2. How will you change the Council’s priorities so that the problems found in a recent Demos survey that Westminster Council is one of the three worst performing in the country, ranking 150 out of 152 care funding councils in England for the very bad way it is coping with the cuts, can be addressed?

3. Do you endorse The Times’ manifesto on “Cities fit for Cycling” which include a 20mph speed limit in residential areas?

4. What are your plans for reducing the 800 Westminster families in temporary accommodation (often in B & B hotels) and 1,000 families living in overcrowded accommodation, many who have children sharing a room with adults and with no place to study?

5. What are your proposals to reduce the 400 empty Council properties in Westminster waiting for renovation?

6. Will you reinstate the popular Family Quota Scheme which gave the children of Council tenants and leaseholders some priority for Council housing, and gave low-income families the opportunity to stay in their local area, live close to their family and friends and contribute to the community at a price they could afford?

7. What action do you propose to take to reverse the one-third reduction in the attendance at play-centres, which provide much needed out-of-school care and activity for both working and non-working parents, following the cut of £415,000 from the £1.7 million play budget?

8. Will you find savings from back-office expenditure in order to find the £4,100 a year required to give 50 partially sighted people free access to the RNIB Talking Book?

9. Will you reduce expenditure on the Communications and Policy Department, which costs Council Tax payers £2.8 million a year, at a time when essential frontline services continue to be cut?

10. What plans do you have to reduce Westminster Council’s reliance on the £50 million profit made from parking in order to balance the Council’s finances?

11. Do you believe that a sustainable way forward for Westminster’s finances is for residents to continue to pay a declining percentage of the Council’s expenditure?

12. Will you institute changes to the Council’s constitution so that the next Leader of the Council is a directly elected Mayor and therefore commands the support of the majority of Westminster residents?

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said; “Westminster Conservatives continue to treat residents with utter contempt by failing to give everyone a say in the election of a new Council Leader. Forty seven of the 48 Conservatives toed the party line on West End parking charges rather than speaking up on the side of local residents and local businesses. And now the same out-of-touch Conservatives have the gall to elect a new Leader and completely ignore local residents.”

“These 12 questions are just the first that we will be putting to candidates over the coming few weeks. If residents and local businesses have further questions they would like us to put to the candidates please let us know. Email pdimoldenberg@hotmail.co.uk with your questions.”

“The 2010/11 Adult Social Care Survey (ASCS) benchmarking report shows Westminster’s score (of 17.4) amongst the lowest in London. Results from the survey are aggregated together for each council and a composite score calculated. The questions covered the individual’s perceptions of their quality of life, independence, cleanliness and comfort, contact with others and extent to which the way services are delivered makes them feel positive about themselves. Data from the Research and Consultation Team suggests that opinion of the council’s services in this area have been affected by the changes in eligibility criteria which resulted in some service users receiving a smaller care package or had some elements of care withdrawn.”

Councillor Adam Hug, Labour’s Adult Social Care spokesperson said; “This latest survey is further evidence that Westminster’s cuts to vulnerable adults are too fast and too deep. Residents’ perceptions of the damaging impact that these cuts are having are real and demonstrate that the cuts are making life worse for the most vulnerable members of the community.”

Councillor Barrie Taylor, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, said; “The cuts in those eligible to receive the Taxicard service has caused real hardship to many elderly and disabled people who now face difficulties in getting to hospital and doctors appointments. These are heartless cuts which hit those least able to cope.”

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said; “Confining the election of the next Leader of Westminster City Council to 48 out-of-touch Conservative Councillors is damaging for both democracy and for the credibility of the Council.

“Everything is shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Nobody knows who is standing for election. None of the likely candidates have issued a ‘manifesto’ setting out their values and priorities. And nobody knows whether any of the ’seven dwarfs’ who have been mentioned as possible candidates would do things any differently than Colin Barrow.

“The only people who get a say on who will be Leader of one of the most important Councils in the country are 48 Conservatives – 47 of whom, like sheep, supported the failed West End parking plans without a word of dissent. Is this really the way to inspire confidence in the future of Westminster after the appalling West End parking fiasco?

“Westminster Council is like the Titanic, with the 48 Conservative Councillors acting as the deckchairs, waiting to be re-arranged as the Council’s reputation sinks further below the waves.

“All over the world, people are demanding a say in who their Leaders are. But in Westminster the Conservatives are keeping all the power and decisions to themselves. What we need is an outbreak of democracy with a full-blown election for a new Leader involving all Westminster residents and a full slate of candidates from all shades of political opinion.”

Dear Mike

West End Parking and ‘West End Commission’

I understand that you will be preparing a report recommending the establishment of a ‘West End Commission’ following the Council’s decision to scrap the universally unpopular proposal to introduce evening and Sunday parking charges in the West End and to ban parking on 8,400 single yellow line parking spaces.

As you know, the past six months has seen the Council lose the trust, respect and confidence of West End residents, businesses, churches and people working in the West End. The Council has taken the first small step in winning back that trust by admitting that the parking proposals were wrong, but much more has to be done. I would like to make a few suggestions as to the next steps.

First, the Council has to say sorry. It may be hard for the Conservative Group to say that word, but it is essential for someone to say it and I suggest that, in the absence of anyone else, you should step forward and apologise on behalf of the Council for the misery, concern and expense that so many people have been put to in fighting these proposals. Given that the Council wants people to participate willingly and positively in the West End Commission, then a display of humility is essential.

Second, given that the opposition to these proposals has come from an unprecedented coalition of interests – churches and casinos, trade unions and company chief executives, politicians of all political persuasions – there must be an inquiry into how the Council’s systems and processes were unable to respond in a sensible and common-sense way. How could the Council have been so deaf to the obvious chorus of anger? Are changes necessary to the Council’s policy-making and consultation procedures? How can the Council ensure that there is never a repeat of this damaging and wasteful episode?

I still cannot believe that you allowed the proposals to go forward without giving Councillors and the public the basic fact that 8,400 parking spaces would be lost in the West End if the parking plans were approved. We also need an itemised breakdown of the cost to Council Tax payers of this failed policy. My estimate is £1 million and includes the costs of your time and that of your many senior highly-paid colleagues involved in trying to defend the policy from the relentless tide of opposition.

Third, the decision to paint double yellow lines on 5 miles of West End roads in defiance of the High Court order has been a deeply provocative act by the Council. As I have said on many occasions, everyone supports double yellow lines at dropped kerbs. However, the decision to extend the double yellow lines a further 10 metres for ’safety reasons’ has provoked real anger. Your own figures show that 254 (37%) of the 674 West End junctions where double yellow lines have been installed have authorised paid-for parking within 10 metres of the kerb.

West End residents have already pointed out to me the following issues since the new double yellow lines were painted;

“Having driven round Mayfair in particular, it appears to me that Westminster, in putting down all these double yellow lines, are going to cause as much chaos, particularly to anyone being dropped off outside their house or flat, and I expect if it is being enforced it will bring in a huge income for stopping on double yellow lines or illegal parking!!”

“How much is the anticipated income from the double yellow lines – someone must have a figure?”

“All the cabbies are furious based on the boost it will give to unlicensed cabs. The profit from licensed cabs for one day is lost by one parking ticket!”

“If the single yellow lines were being removed solely for the purpose of making it easier to cross at junctions etc why is it that when you go round all the pay spaces and resident spaces at junctions still remain?”

“The new game is going to be driving round Mayfair in the evenings looking for the single yellow line or the pay and display that is available, and there is obviously going to be a great deal less. This will cause more congestion. This is either going to involve more walking and insecurity for those who are elderly, infirm or work late at night and I cannot see that those miserable car parks are going to do the trick.”

“Another issue is insufficient spaces for delivery vehicles in the morning which I find very irritating – I don’t see why my neighbouring restaurants & hotel should have to pay endless penalty charges which in the end we all pay for through increased costs.”

There needs to be a full review of the decision to install the 5 miles of double yellow lines (other than those directly next to dropped kerbs) if the Council is to convince people that the pre-Christmas decision to replace 1,200 parking spaces with double yellow lines was not a back-door way of implementing the parking policies despite the High Court order. Indeed, the review must look at where double yellow lines can be safely removed.

Fourth, the West End Commission needs to be open, transparent and inclusive and with no ‘hidden agendas’. I and others would welcome an opportunity to see a draft of the terms of reference and the membership of the Commission. If you intend to ‘bounce’ everyone in to accepting a Commission where the Council draws up the terms of reference and decides on the membership you will be simply wasting more Council Tax payers’ money and storing up more trouble for the Council.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg
Leader of the Labour Group

Labour Councillors say that the Council has run up a £1 million bill, including £300,000 for the cost of hundreds of new street signs which were ordered in August 2011 following the Council’s original decision to introduce the new £4.80p an hour parking charges and scrap 8,400 free single yellow line parking spaces. In addition, the Council has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on its botched consultation exercise, including the employment of traffic and research consultants, and on the legal costs of defending the Judicial Review brought by Peter Wetherell. On top of this, the Council has spent tens of thousands of pounds on laying down double yellow lines on 5 miles of West End roads.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said; “This parking charge U-turn is great news for West End residents, businesses, churches and people working in the West End’s night time economy. It is unbelievable that the Council took so long to listen to the overwhelming opposition to the charges and admit that they got it so very badly wrong. The Council’s arrogance and belief that it could do just as it pleases has finally been exposed and defeated. There needs to be a full enquiry in to why the Council ignored everybody until today and why it acted in such a high-handed and irresponsible way. This whole fiasco has cost Westminster Council Tax payers at least £1 million at a time when huge cuts are being made to front line services to children, the elderly. Colin Barrow has already resigned as Leader and now Parking chief Councillor Lee Rowley must admit his part in this sorry affair and resign, too.

“The new West End Commission will need to be open, inclusive and free from any hidden agendas if the Council is to win back the trust, respect and confidence of West End residents, business, churches and all those who work here. Labour Councillors will certainly continue to play our part in bringing some sanity back to the West End.”

Having been left in the lurch by former Council Leader Colin Barrow, Labour say that the four candidates to succeed him – Philippa Roe, Ed Argar, Jonathan Glanz and Brian Connell – should support the motion which would scrap the proposed charges and loss of over 8,400 parking spaces on single yellow lines.

The motion reads;

“This Council agrees to recommend that the Cabinet withdraws its plans to introduce Evening and Sunday parking charges in the West End in September 2012 because of the huge damage that this will do to the West End economy, including the potential loss of over 5,000 jobs. The Council notes that the High Court has already ordered the Council not to introduce evening and Sunday parking charges in the West End on 9th January and to wait until the Judicial Review has been heard in March. The Council acknowledges that, while the Leader has since said that the charges will not be brought in until after the 2012 Olympics are over, this misses the point as introducing the charges in September 2012 simply delays the damage to the West End economy and the threat to over 5,000 jobs. This Council supports the protection of dropped kerbs through double yellow lines but is concerned at the high handed and arrogant pre-Christmas decision to introduce 5 miles of double yellow lines without proper consultation and scrutiny in a wilful attempt to undermine the legal process currently underway.”

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group; said; “Councillor Barrow’s successor will now have to clear up the mess and bring some common sense and sanity back into the Council’s parking policies. Councillor Barrow has made his successor’s job that much more difficult by refusing to call an immediate halt to the plans that have united an unprecedented coalition of interests against the Council.”

“Councillor Barrow should have combined his resignation with a firm decision to scrap the plan to ban parking from 8,400 free West End evening and Sunday parking single yellow line spaces. And his failure to do so means that the first question that his successor has to answer is “Do you support Councillor Barrow’s parking plans for the West End?.

“At the Council meeting on 25th January the Council has the opportunity to draw a line under this damaging episode in the Council’s affairs. We have tabled a motion calling on the Council to scrap the West End parking plans immediately so that the damage and uncertainty to West End residents, churches, business and workers can be lifted for good.

“This is an opportunity that the Council should take with both hands so that we can put the parking arguments behind us and move on.”

Commenting on Councillor Colin Barrow’s resignation as Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Labour Group Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg said;

“This is a real victory for West End jobs, businesses and residents. For the past six months Westminster Conservatives have refused to listen to common sense and now Colin Barrow has paid the ultimate price for his poor judgement and failure to recognise the damage that his ‘nightlife tax’ parking charges would do to West End jobs and businesses. This was Westminster’s version of the ‘poll tax’ and it has suffered a similar fate.

“Councillor Barrow has says he is going in March but the ‘night life tax’ parking charge plans must be scrapped immediately if Westminster Council is to win back the trust, respect and confidence of West End residents, business and their staff. We cannot wait for a new Leader to be elected in March, the damage must be put right straight away.

“Whoever is elected as new Leader of the Council must bring back some sanity to Westminster. Everyone knows that the parking proposals were all about filling a massive hole in the Council’s finances because of years of financial mismanagement. The new Leader needs to get a grip of Westminster’s finances so that Westminster residents, businesses and their staff are never again subjected to the arbitary imposition of massive new parking charges to make good the damage done by reckless Conservative Councillors.”

Against this is the backdrop of 800 families in temporary accommodation (often in B & B hotels, with some being placed in Hackney) and 1,000 families living in overcrowded accommodation, many have children sharing a room with adults and with no place to study. Then there are the 400 empty Council properties in Westminster waiting for renovation.

Councillor Guthrie McKie, Labour Spokesperson for Housing, said; “It is quite astonishing that the Council can come up with a scheme like this when they have nearly 2,000 families in serious need of being housed. What is even more astonishing is that a Government Minister should give such wholehearted backing to it. We know what Westminster Conservatives think about housing the poor and vulnerable, and now we know what the Coalition Government thinks.

“The money used for this scheme should be used to build or convert more housing for families who live in Westminster. This initiative is a slap in the face of those families living in appalling housing conditions.”

The GMB is complaining that Westminster City Council’s increased parking restrictions are deterring licensed private hire drivers from accepting jobs in the West End as they risk losing their living if fined while waiting for customers.

Terry Flanagan of the the GMB Professional Drivers Branch said; “Westminster Council’s parking restrictions are deterring licensed cab drivers from operating in the West End. This in turn is exacerbating an already dangerous problem as even more unlicensed touts operate picking up unsuspecting passengers from clubs, pubs, theatres and music venues that are the lifeblood of the West End’s economy.

“Legitimate cab drivers are licensed. They have had criminal record checks, medical and topographical tests. Their cars have been properly checked and they are properly insured for passenger transport.

“These drivers struggle to make £120 a day. Half of that will go on rent to the proprietor, petrol, passenger carrying insurance, maintenance and other overhead costs. That leaves the driver earning £60 net for the day. So if a parking fine is incurred while waiting to pick up a customer the day’s pay is gone. As the drivers have to pull up to pick up customers, there is no alternative but to abandon the West End to the touts.

“Many drivers will simply not risk a Westminster pick up. This means more and more unsuspecting, and at times very vulnerable passengers accepting lifts from touts posing as legitimate drivers.”

What this means is that unlicensed drivers in uninsured and in many instances unroadworthy cars, who have not been criminal record checked, could have other motives other than ripping the travelling public off. The GMB believes that the attacks on lone women passengers that have taken place over the years could increase as a result of the outrageous decision of Westminster council to extend it’s night time and weekend parking restrictions.

GMB members have the support of Westminster Councillor Dimoldenberg and the GMB backs the Labour opposition’s calls for the Leader of the Council to resign.

Ken Livingstone, London Mayor candidate said; “I believe Westminster council’s plan to massively increase the number of double yellow lines and introduce huge parking charge increases will make it harder for licensed mini-cabs to operate in the West End. Where the legitimate cab trade cannot work we know that illegal touts will prosper, putting Londoners at risk.

“Westminster council’s parking policy seems designed to fill council’s coffers rather than catering for the needs of businesses and residents. It’s time for the council to drop it’s plans which are are going to make it harder for people to get home safely and threaten real damage to the private hire and black cab trades.”

Labour Councillors have called on Westminster Council to scrap its West End evening and Sunday parking charges after the Council’s City Commissioner for Transport, Martin Low, admitted to Councillors that he gave Councillors the wrong figures about the number of parking spaces that would be lost by the Council’s plans.

Labour say that Mr Low’s admission means that the Council had no idea how many parking spaces would be lost when it took the decision in August 2011 to ban parking on single yellow lines in the evening and on Sundays or when it consulted residents and businesses before and after the decision.

In a letter to the Council’s Head of Legal Services, Peter Large, Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said;

“Following Martin Low’s admission that, in September 2011, I was supplied with the wrong figures about the number of single yellow parking spaces that would be lost as a result of the Council’s plans to ban single yellow line parking in the evening and on Sundays in the West End, a number of points arise:

* At the time the Cabinet agreed the proposals in August 2011 Members were not provided with any information on the number of single yellow line parking spaces that would be lost. Cabinet members were therefore unable to give proper consideration to all the material facts.

* In the period leading up to the Cabinet decision, the information provided to the public as part of the consultation did not include any figures on the number of lost parking spaces that would result from the proposals. Residents, businesses and people working in the West End were therefore not provided with all the facts about the proposals and their impact.

* Members were not informed of a figure for lost parking spaces until nearly 2 months later, at the end of September 2011, and the figure of 1,700 that was provided was incorrect.

* The Council’s further public consultation that ran up until early December 2011 did not provide any figures on the number of single yellow line parking places to be lost and the only figure in the public domain during the consultation period was the incorrect figure of 1,700 provided by the Council (not the correct figure of 8,400), which many of those who were making representations would have relied on as being the correct figure.

In these circumstances, can I suggest that the above facts render the Council’s consultation totally worthless and I would urge you to advise the Cabinet to withdraw the proposals without further delay.”