Tag Archives: Permit Parking

Croydon Permit Parking Charges – Public Ignored

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Croydon has published the responses to their consultation on changes to parking charges that will result in large increases, particularly for certain vehicles. It will mean the permit parking charge for a vehicle emitting more than 225 g/km of CO2 will rise from £80 to £300. There will also be an additional surcharge of 30% for pre-2015 diesel vehicles and it is also proposed to introduce similar increases for Pay & Display parking spaces.

Councillors have decided to push ahead with the proposals despite the fact that of the 148,000 cars registered in Croydon only 9,000 pay for parking permits. So the impact on air pollution in Croydon will be negligible even if some residents respond by changing their vehicles. As most of the air pollution comes from buses, HGVs and LGVs, charging resident car owners in the name of reducing pollution is pointless.

But the Council will make as much as £162,000 in additional permit charges each year which gives you some idea of the motive for this change.

There were 1,149 responses to the public consultation of which 1,039 submitted objections (i.e. 90%) with only 62 responses in support. Some 19% of respondents suggested this was simply a way for the council to generate income, and they were certainly correct on that point. The council’s response to that was to say the parking charges were insufficient to reduce the number of cars on the roads of Croydon.

You can read all the responses to the public consultation and the Council’s report here: https://tinyurl.com/y3o4oby2 . Here’s a summary of one response: “It is a tax on the poor. It’s not fair on those people who cannot afford to buy a new card…. It is another poverty tax…..”.

Comment: This is a typical example of doing a public consultation and then ignoring the result, apart from ignoring the logic and likely impact of the proposal. Regrettably Labour controlled councils such as Croydon often adopt the stance of ignoring the views of the public because Councillors think they know better what is good for you. I hope that those impacted will bear this in mind at the next borough elections.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

 

Higher Permit Parking Charges in Croydon, Kingston and Lewisham

Posted on by
Reply

We previously covered the increase in permit parking charges in Camden – see https://tinyurl.com/y2tw5kcd . This will particularly affect users of larger vehicles that emit more CO2 and diesel engined vehicles and are described as “Emission Based Parking Charges”.

Now Croydon, Kingston and Lewisham are proposing similar changes. In Croydon it will mean the permit parking charge for a vehicle emitting more than 225 g/km of CO2 will rise from £80 to £300. There will also be an additional surcharge of 30% for pre-2015 diesel vehicles. It is also proposed to introduce similar increases for Pay & Display Parking Spaces. There is more information and a link to the full council report in this Inside Croydon article: https://tinyurl.com/y4pfwj99

The justification is to reduce air pollution and help with climate change when levels of CO2 have no impact on public health whatsoever – if anything higher CO2 levels have benefits for plants and animals. So it’s fundamentally misconceived. There is also no evidence that such charges will have any impact on air pollution as anyone with off-street parking will not be affected, many vehicles that drive on Croydon roads do not park in the borough and most problem emissions such as particulates are from buses, HGVs and LGVs which won’t be affected.

Although the Council has not yet published the impact it will have on money raised by the borough from permit parking charges, it is likely to lead to very substantial increases. Readers are reminded that permit parking charges can not be used as a revenue raising measure. This is well established by previous legal cases (Camden v Cran and in Barnet).

There will be a public consultation on these proposals – Croydon residents are encouraged to respond.

Kingston Council

Very similar proposals are also being put forward by Kingston Council. See https://tinyurl.com/yxdss7do . In Kingston the highest rate will be £350 per annum plus an additional £50 for diesel vehicles (even diesel hybrid ones). Affected residents should submit objections.

These changes are undoubtedly being encouraged by Transport for London (TfL) as part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. But the attempt to improve public health by introducing emission based parking charges is fundamentally misconceived and will not work. It’s all about money as usual with Councils of late.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

East Dulwich Permit Parking Scheme

Posted on by
Reply

Southwark Council are proposing to introduce a permit parking scheme in East Dulwich. They are running a public consultation on it which you can respond to here: https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/eastdulwichparking/, but you need to do so before the 28th February.

East Dulwich is an area of narrow streets, with little off-street parking but with many residents owning cars, sometimes more than one. On-street parking is often difficult, made worse by the introduction of permit parking schemes in adjacent areas. See photo below.

East Dulwich Consultation Photos

The Council expects the scheme to reduce kerbside parking by 40%. Where are the vehicles going to go? The Consultation does not say. It also does not indicate the level of charges that will apply. Parking spaces will also be reduced by the introduction of “parklets” – where bays are converted to mini “open spaces” with planting and seating.

What is likely to happen is that residents will simply find that they are paying for a previously free parking space, but that they find it even more difficult to find a parking space. Indeed they may find that they are paying to park outside their home but cannot do so!

The Freedom for Drivers Foundation consistently opposes permit parking schemes because they do not provide any more parking spaces so are generally simply a way for councils to extract taxes from residents, most of which is wasted on administration of such schemes.

This scheme is exactly the kind of proposal to discourage car ownership by Sadiq Khan in his Mayor’s Transport Strategy which we have been opposing. The money to implement this scheme will no doubt come from the Mayor via TfL.

Residents and businesses in the area should make sure they object.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Ealing’s Hypocrisy over its Controlled Parking Zones

Posted on by
Reply

Ealing Council is the latest London local authority to announce plans to charge residents living in Controlled Parking Zones a sliding scale of permit prices based on CO2 emissions, a move that has provoked outrage across the borough.

The Labour administration, which increased its majority in May’s local elections, approved a new Transport Policy in June which will see most residents permit charges rise, some by as much as 60 per cent. Diesel owners will face an automatic £50 surcharge, while homes where more than one vehicle is registered will also see financial punishment. The Council estimates that its new scheme will raise an extra £700,000 a year on top of an already sizeable surplus from parking schemes.

Ealing Council says the aim is to reduce car usage among residents, a so-called ‘modal shift’ to ‘incentivise residents to use other, more sustainable modes of transport’. However, opponents of the scheme claim it is yet another stealth tax, and one that cannot be defended on environmental grounds since the Council is rolling out ‘shared use’ bays in CPZs across the borough to encourage commuters to drive in and park for just £4.50 a day.

Local resident Simon Hayes organised a petition calling for the Transport Strategy to be withdrawn and the proposed extension of shared use bays to be scrapped. More than 2,800 residents across the borough supported the petition but the demands were rejected by the Council at a meeting on July 24.

“This transport strategy is a total nonsense,” said Mr Hayes. “It is clearly a revenue raising exercise and there are two prongs to the fork they are poking in the eyes of every car owner in an Ealing CPZ. What makes it worse is Labour didn’t even campaign on this policy in May because they knew it would be a vote loser, but are simply imposing it without consultation”.

“The Council is punishing residents because they own a particular type of car which they may not be able to afford to change. We are told not to drive, but the council fails to recognise that most journeys residents make are essential, whether for work or family reasons or simply because alternative modes of transport just aren’t available. Many people in this borough are getting by and can ill-afford another financial burden.”

“But then the Council is actively encouraging non-residents to park in CPZs for just £4.50 a day. That’s almost the amount it costs to park for one hour in many of the borough’s car parks, so clearly it’s inadequate.”

“There will be no regulation of the vehicles that drive in, so even the most polluting commuter vehicle will be entitled to add to congestion and pollution without sanction. It will also cut the number of spaces available to residents, in roads where parking is already tight.”

Mr Hayes also challenged the Council’s claim that this transport strategy is pollution fighting measure. He said: “This will do nothing to tackle pollution problems in Ealing. It is targeted at a relatively small area of the borough, mainly central and south Ealing, Acton and Chiswick, which Labour itself has identified as the “affluent” areas.”

“There are no proposals to encourage ‘modal shift’ in the parts of the borough where CPZs are not in force. Those areas contribute equally, if not more, to pollution and congestion since they are often poorly served by public transport. There’s not even a proposal to encourage such a shift among those residents in CPZs who enjoy off-street parking and thus don’t pay for a permit.”

“The real causes of pollution in Ealing are the heavily used arterial routes, including the A40 and North Circular Road, running through it. Poor road layout and eternal roadworks create numerous pinch points that slow down traffic and increase the levels of pollution. Council leader Julian Bell – a notorious car-hater – starred in an online video last year alongside the A40 in Acton highlighting the pollution problems there. But even he can’t stick a toll booth on that road to charge the HGVs, vans and other far more polluting vehicles from passing through.”

Ealing Council has defended its policy and claims the law is on its side. Head of Legal Services, Helen Harris said: “I remain happy that Ealing Council’s Transport Strategy is lawful and in compliance with the legal principles set out in the Barnet case.  Revenue generation formed no part of the justification for the Strategy.”

Ms Harris has yet to respond to requests about the failure to consult residents on the proposed changes to the permit charges or the failure to consult on the expansion of the shared use bay schemes or the legal grounds on which it can impose a charge on certain residents but not others.

Mr Hayes has vowed to continue to fight the proposed plans.

He said: “There is a great deal of anger about this right across the borough. Even Labour voters are aghast at the arrogance of the Council. It may take a judicial review, but there is something seriously wrong if Council’s are allowed to set arbitrary taxes such as this without challenge. For too long now local authorities, particularly in London, have been allowed to get away with these stealth taxes. We’re all for improving air quality, but targeting only certain road users is the wrong way to go about this.”

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right.

Additional Permit Parking Charges for Diesel Cars in Lambeth

Posted on by
Reply

The London Borough of Lambeth are proposing to implement additional permit parking changes for diesel cars that do not meet the Euro 6 standard – that means all of them that are more than a few years old. The additional charge will be £40 per year.

We have sent in objections simply on the grounds that this is a political gesture that will have minimal impact on air pollution in the borough, or is motivated by a desire to raise revenue for the Council. A similar calculation recently for Merton showed that the impact might be a reduction of 0.4% in overall NOX emissions which is too small to be measurable in practice. In addition, as clearly there will be additional revenue raised for council budgets, without any offsetting reduction in charges for other vehicles, this change is effectively a revenue raising measure and hence illegal. It has been established by more than one legal precedent that permit parking charges cannot be used to raise revenue but can only cover administration and enforcement costs.

Roger Lawson

London Boroughs to Target Diesel Cars and Political Awareness

Posted on by
1

Not only will diesel car drivers be targeted by the planned Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in central London, they will also find they are paying more to park on their local streets. The boroughs of Islington and Hackney are proposing higher permit parking charges for diesel vehicles – an extra £50 in Hackney and an extra £96 in Islington where they already have an emission based scale of charges. Islington is of course notoriously anti-car in all of its policies and this will impact 9,000 users of diesel vehicles in the borough.

Those who are unhappy should perhaps bear in mind that the Labour Party is currently in control of the Council but that has not always been so, with a long period of no overall control or other parties being dominant. Indeed Islington Council have a very useful web page that tells you how you can stand for election which is usually a good way to get the attention of existing councillors – it is here: http://www.islington.gov.uk/involved/involvedvoting/electionhow/Pages/default.aspx

Those who live in other boroughs should perhaps start to examine the stance of their local councillors on such matters so you know how to vote at election time. Democracy does have an impact if you take the time to use it.

Roger Lawson

Barnet Emissions Based Permit Parking

Posted on by
Reply

Barnet Council have finally agreed to pay the £155,000 costs of the legal action brought by David Attfield and his supporters against proposed new parking charges. The council lost the Judicial Review action in the High Court after it was ruled that increases to charges across controlled parking zones (CPZs) in Barnet in order to pay for other transport projects were unlawful. Let us hope other London councils take note of this case. It reinforces the previous legal precedent that all councillors should be aware of – namely that you cannot use on-street parking schemes to generate revenue, i.e. there should not be an intended surplus.

But Barnet has not given up on increasing charges. They are bringing in one of those hated “emissions based permit parking schemes”, i.e. the more emissions your car makes the higher the charge even though no cars emit emissions when they are parked, and the probability of such a charge having any impact on emissions in the borough is very low because it only affects cars parked in CPZs and not those parked off road or elsewhere. This was clearly demonstrated in the London Borough of Richmond but councillors pushed ahead regardless. The ruling LibDem council and its leader were subsequently ejected by the electorate as the measure proved very unpopular (see http://www.freedomfordrivers.org/Richmond.htm for the ABD’s past campaign in that borough).

Roger Lawson