Tag Archives: Bromley Council

Profiting from Parking

Posted on by
1

The London Borough of Bromley have published proposals to raise parking charges and scrap all “pay and display” parking machines. It will be discussed at a Committee Meeting on the 22nd November. These are some of the key points:

  • Significant rises in both off and on street parking charges are proposed. For example for on-street parking charges might rise from 60p per hour to 80p per hour, a 33% increase. Charges do vary between locations and can be considerably more than that. The increase is to offset the reduction in the usage of parking no doubt because of the pandemic and increase in internet shopping. Parking charges were last reviewed four years ago so some increase may be justified to cope with inflation.
  • The increase in permit parking charges is very substantial – up from £50 to £80 for a resident’s permit – a 60% increase
  • Note that on-street parking and permit charges should not be used as a revenue raising measure as firmly established in legal precedents which the Council seems to be ignoring. These increases will result in substantial and unjustified surplus income over administration and enforcement costs. This paragraph from the report makes the motive clear: “In summary the various changes on this paper can potentially bring about savings/income of approx. £967k by 2024/25 to the Council which currently has significant budget pressures and a budget gap to fund in 2023/24 onwards”.
  • It is also proposed to remove all pay and display machines. The only way to pay for parking will be using the RingGo service via a smartphone. The justification for this is that the cash machines are subject to vandalism and also use a 3G sim card which will cease working in 2023 and replacement is costly. Also the machines are unreliable and reaching the end of their useful lives so need replacing which would be very expensive. A number of other London councils  already have “digital only” parking and 90% of people have a smartphone. You can see therefore there is some justification for this change but it will also raise parking costs. The minimum fee for one hour parking via RingGo is £1 while a cash payment is 60p – a 66% higher fee at present. I suggest some pay and display machines be retained and replaced by new models. Most of them have already been removed much to the inconvenience of residents.

In summary the Council should not be trying to fill its budget shortfall by raising parking charges and making payment less convenient. If car park usage is falling then raising charges will reduce usage even more so that is not a sensible answer to the problem of reduced income.

The Council is even proposing to introduce charges for the Sundridge Park car park which is currently free. The last time this was done the commuters who parked there promptly moved to the surrounding roads to the great annoyance of local residents and resulting in a financially unviable car park. Council employees seem to have short memories.

You can read the complete policy in Agenda Item 13h of the meeting (see link below). Parking provision should be a service for residents, not be used as a cash cow. This is unfortunately a spreading problem in all London Councils which should be condemned.

Environment and Community Services Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee: https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7373&x=1

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Bromley Council Opposes ULEZ Expansion

Posted on by
7

Bromley Council Opposes ULEZ Expansion

The London Borough of Bromley has opposed the expansion of the ULEZ to cover the borough and have condemned it as a “cynical tax raid against the borough’s residents”.

Councillor Colin Smith, Leader of Bromley Council, said, “Quite simply, this proposal is wrong on just about every level and is really about paving the way for the introduction of road charging taxes across the whole of London by stealth.

Our borough already has amongst, if not actually the best air quality levels in London, and if this were truly about improving air quality even further, which we obviously support, those responsible would be thinking far harder in terms of broadening the scrappage scheme for non-compliant vehicles and accelerating the roll out of green vehicle charging points and buses”.

You can read his full response to the consultation on ULEZ expansion here: https://www.bromley.gov.uk/news/article/366/no-to-mayor-of-london-s-ulez-expansion-proposals

Comment: The Council’s response is well argued and basically says that the Council is already doing a good job of minimising and reducing air pollution while the expansion of the ULEZ to cover outer London will not significantly help and will be very costly for many residents.

Expansion of the ULEZ to outer London will hit those with older vehicles hard which are generally the poorer segment of the population. A good article on this subject was published by the Daily Telegraph here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/10/sadiq-khans-hatred-motorists-control/ . It’s a symptom of Mayor Sadiq Khan’s hatred of cars despite the fact that public transport in outer London cannot be relied on and many people drive into the outer boroughs from surrounding counties for employment and shopping.

Expansion of the ULEZ makes no economic sense – the money involved would be better spent on other measures to reduce air pollution which is already very low in boroughs such as Bromley.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Attempts to Undermine Democratic Processes in Bromley over School Streets

Posted on by
Reply

School Streets are liked by some people but heartily disliked by others. There is little evidence of real benefits while they cause problems for some residents within the area, block delivery or service vehicles and can simply cause school-run vehicles to move to nearby roads.

On the 15th July there was another attempt by a concerted political campaign of Labour and LibDem sympathisers, and supported by newly -elected Chislehurst councillors, to attack the Conservative administrations policy on School Streets in Bromley. A special “call-in” meeting of the Environment and Community Services PDS Committee was held to review the adopted policy with many questions being submitted by the public to it.

This is what Committee Chairman Councillor Will Rowlands had to say in response to one question: “The committee discussed, at some length, the matter at its meeting on June 21st. Two opposition parties have abused, in my view, the ‘call in’ procedure to have a second meeting on the subject by either misunderstanding or wilfully misrepresenting the amended recommendations by the PDS Committee, which I accepted in full. It has been further exacerbated by a politically motivated campaign to flood the agenda with 41 very similar questions again based on a false premise. These questions have taken up the valuable time of senior staff when they could be engaged in more productive work. I have referred the matter to the Constitution Working Party with a view to tightening the rules on ‘call ins’ and on questions to meetings called to do with ‘call ins”.

Comment: Clearly there is a difference of opinion on the merits of School Streets among the public and councillors. But a decision was taken and a policy adopted in the normal manner. I suggest such Streets can only be appropriate in limited circumstances, and where both immediate local residents and the wider community supports them, and there is good and specific justification on cost/benefit grounds.

Public highways need to be kept open at all times for vehicles if only to ensure that disabled people who rely on them can use the roads. The use of cameras to enforce School Streets is also to be opposed as we already have too many cameras infringing privacy and they should not be used to raise income for councils as has been happening in other London boroughs such as Lewisham, Hackney, Islington and Croydon (typically those one might classify as being “anti-car”).

It is most unfortunate that those members of the public in Bromley who support School Streets are ignoring the rules on Council meetings and hence attempting to undermine the democratic process. They are also misrepresenting the Council’s policy in that Bromley has not ruled out the use of School Streets altogether.

When an issue is contentious, it should not be decided by who shouts loudest but on rational analysis of the issues. The Council’s policy decision was not unreasonable.

To see a report on the questions posed at the Council meeting and the responses, go here: https://cds.bromley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7485&x=1

From the questions posed it would seem some people believe School Streets will solve the problem of child obesity, tackle air pollution issues (if any) and reduce road casualties. There is little evidence to support any of these statements. If parents want to have healthier children they should stop feeding them junk foods, stop driving them to school and give them some education about how to stay safe.

Note: See our previous comments about School Streets in Bromley here: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2022/06/22/school-streets-in-bromley/

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Crystal Palace Campaign Against Road Closures

Posted on by
4

Above is the logo of a campaign against road closures in the Crystal Palace and Norwood areas of the London Borough of Croydon. Below is a note published by the campaign:

Who are we?

Open Our Roads is a grassroots campaign of concerned citizens working to ensure the residents, traders and visitors of Crystal Palace, Upper Norwood and South Norwood have fair and equal access to all public highways in the area. We stand for inclusive design, community cohesion and accountable governance.

What do we want?

Open roads: Fair and equal access for all road users to all of the local area’s public highways. The first step is removing all road barriers, re-opening our roads and eliminating unnecessary congestion from our main roads.

Clean air: Sustained and continuous improvement to the local air quality, especially on main roads where levels have been measured to be above the legal limits allowed.

Thriving town centres: The best possible conditions for our local businesses and traders to flourish during and after the pandemic while maintaining the unique character of our neighbourhoods.

Meaningful engagement: Proper consultation with all residents, businesses, road users, stakeholders and any person or organisation who will be impacted by significant changes to our local road network.

Evidenced-based policy: Data and evidence that leads to the most effective solutions and best practice policy addressing the community’s most pressing challenges.

Inclusive design: Ensuring our most vulnerable neighbours have access to the services and activities necessary for active participation in our community.

How can you help?

Donate: Help us fight Croydon Council’s badly-planned and ineffective Low Traffic Neighbourhood. With your funds we will continue to apply pressure both publically and legally on the decision makers of this scheme. 

www.crowdfunder.co.uk/open-our-roads   

<END>

Note that the adjoining Borough of Bromley has objected to the Croydon closures because of the impact of the closures on their residents. They have been threatening legal action because of the lack of consultation. See this article for more explanation: https://newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/bromley-council-threaten-legal-action-against-croydon-over-roadblocks-leader-says-they-will-have-the-barriers-removed-by-order-if-common-sense-isnt-deployed-and-their-street-paraphernalia-removed/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page (see under the About tab) to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Bromley Air Quality

Posted on by
Reply

Scadbury Park

There is a lot of public concern over air quality in London despite the fact that there is very little evidence that it actually shortens lifespans or has significant other medical effects. I have covered that evidence in previous articles.

However it was interesting to read Bromley Council’s Air Quality Action Plan 2020-2025 which has recently been published (see Reference below). It gives some very useful data on air emissions and the sources in an outer London borough.

Bromley is the largest London borough by land area, with the sixth largest population. It also has very high levels of car ownership but they claim to be the “greenest” borough with large levels of open space including many parks, Chislehurst Commons, National Trust land and green belt land in the outer areas. A photo of Scadbury Park is above.

Bromley does meet all the national air quality objectives for particulate matter but there are still concerns about particulate matter and NO2 emissions, particularly in local areas such as near main roads and the borough wards closer to central London. The report indicates a large proportion of such emissions come from road transport – for example 60% for NOX. Within that 60%, petrol and diesel cars account for 29%, buses for 9.6%, and LGVs and HGVs for 19.8%.

Discouraging diesel cars might help as they produce three times more NOx than petrol vehicles in total, but NOX levels “are predicted to decrease rapidly between 2020 and 2025” the report says. This is mainly due to technological improvements and the vehicle fleet being updated with newer vehicles, even a few zero emission ones.

The recommendations for action in the report cover a number of points. That includes more monitoring, reducing emissions from new buildings and construction plant/vehicles, raising public awareness of the issues, reducing emissions from transport and local initiatives such as more trees/greening. But the council points out that it has little control over major roads (those managed by TfL) and of course over London buses which are major sources of pollution.

In summary, this is a reasonably balanced and sensible report, unlike some of the hysteria over the subject displayed in some London boroughs. It’s a report well worth reading. In conclusion for those residents of London who are really concerned over air pollution, they might wish to consider moving to Bromley, or elsewhere in the country.

Incidentally with the very low traffic levels from the epidemic crisis one would expect the air pollution to fall dramatically. But a recent report from Germany suggests this is not happening. It will be interesting to see more data in due course. But perhaps it is because HGVs, LGVs and trains are still running.

Reference 1: Bromley Council’s Air Quality Action Plan: https://tinyurl.com/sel57ro

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.