Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Increase in residents' parking charges
cllrbond
#1 Posted : 25 January 2008 13:01:12(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
People throughout the Borough, but particularly in Area 2 where many of the permit parking streets are, will be interested to see details of the Cabinet's proposed increases in charges for next year. These are:

* a 67% increase in the permit cost for the first car (now £30, proposed £50)
* a 40% increase for the second car (now £50, proposed £70)
* an 80% increase for permits for subsequent cars (now £50, proposed £90)
* a 25% increase in the cost of visitor permits (now £4 for ten, proposed £5)

This compares with the proposed:

* 5% increase in car park charges up to three hours (15% over three hours)
* 5% increase in other on-street parking charges (pay and display)
* 11% increase in car park season tickets
* 10% increase in business permits

Three things seem to me to leap out from the proposals:

1. It is clear that the Council no longer feels bound by the promise it made, when residents' parking was introduced in the mid 1990s, that schemes would be self-funding and not used to raise money for other council services. Figures I have seen show that this year the schemes are already generating considerable surplus income. Parking permits are now seen as a second tax on residents (at national level the Conservatives have described increasing council charges as 'stealth taxes')

2. Residents' in the permit areas are being singled out for staggeringly large increases compared to parking generally - people are being asked to pay 40-80% more for their permits whereas businesses, people parking on the street in non-permit areas or in car parks are only being asked for 5-11%

3. Households with one car are being asked to pay 67% more whereas those with two cars will pay 50% more (£120 v £80) and those with three 61.5% more (£210 v £130). It seems rather unfortunate that the largest percentage increase will fall on those households with only the single vehicle
BryanDicker
#2 Posted : 25 January 2008 14:19:19(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
The issue of the largest payer being worse off, I assume it would benefit their supporters in the long run as they can afford multitude of cars, rather than discouraging it, or even cashing in on the multiple cars. Yet another example of incompitence of this Administration.
Newbie
#3 Posted : 25 January 2008 15:26:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
You might want to have a look at my earlier post in Area 3, Pay and Display in Manford Way.

I quite agree that parking charges to park outside your own house are outrageous.

The rapid increases in Residents Parking Permits will see more residents paving over their front gardens to park their car.

67% increase! ruthless in the extreme.

Edward Oliver
#4 Posted : 25 January 2008 15:43:38(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 31/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 75
That does seem a bit naughty - perhaps it illustrates that the underlying issue is that the revenue from Council Tax may not be enough to cover the council's expenses. Council Tax always seems to have been unsatifactory, having been rushed in quickly after the poll tax fiasco.

However, I'd rather pay more tax for owning a car than see the allotments sold off to make ends meet.

Even better would be to tax the super-rich a bit more!
annesevant
#5 Posted : 25 January 2008 18:38:06(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
I would love to know how much council tax is raised annually as opposed to how much tax is due. If I float this simple question, how likely am I to get an answer?
No percentages please, too difficult to grasp for me.
annesevant
Newbie
#7 Posted : 26 January 2008 01:43:44(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Taxes are always controversial, the old rating system was considered unfair, as it taxed those residents that owned a home, those that rented from the local authority a portion of their rent paid for local services, in 1989 the poll tax was introduced as an alternative, on the premise that every user of services should pay. (i'e anyone over 18 )

In this melee, the powers that be forgot that council rent payers already had a portion of their rent allocated as rates, with the introduction of the poll tax / community charge, council rent payers had an additional burden, as the portion of the rent they paid as rates was ignored.

Rents did not go down to compensate for the proportion of rent paid as rates, and instead, the portion of rent paid as rates was absorbed as just rent, with an additional tax then called the community charge.

This led to widespread unrest, especially amongst young adults who had to pay, regardless of having a 'stake' in society (property ownership) hence the poll tax riots of the early 90's

What Government failed to realise is that people are mobile, and will move from area to area, even country to country, hence the Poll tax / community charge was hard to collect and had a serious impact on local authority income, unfair as it may seem a house is going NOWHERE, so is viewed (at the moment) as a stable source of taxation.

This led to the Council Tax, and those renting accomodation from the local authority, not only had to pay their rent (which a part of in the past was allocated to rates), they now had an additional bill (now called Council Tax)

Some argue that there is a means tested benefits system to make sure the poorest members of society are not penalised for this tax, others argue that because they have saved and own their own property they cannot have access to this benefit, as they own their property, and this is classed as an asset, to be bought and sold as any other asset, to pay the tax.

Somewhere along the line, someone somewhere forgot that a Home is just that, a place to live, not an asset to buy and sell to raise money, it is somewhere to live.

The UK is a property obsessed nation, with high home ownership, some of which is multiple occupancy leasehold property, just to 'own the dream', or 'get on the property ladder' when anyone who knows anything about property will tell you, if you can AFFORD to, BUY FREEHOLD PROPERTY, if not, RENT LEASEHOLD,untill you can AFFORD to buy FREEHOLD, somewhere along the line this message has been lost.

There have been increased cases of elderly property owning pensioners going to jail for failure to pay / afford to pay the Council Tax, the council tax system is currenty under reveiw, with numerous articles appearing in the press.

http://business.timesonl...oney/article3128628.ece

Maybe when we lose our notion that a roof over our heads is a cash cow / bank account, will we have a truly stable economy, (the sub prime recession in the USA has been built on Home ownership on those that cannot afford it) and as a result of this, we might end up with a fairer Tax system. (though knowing politicians I won't hold my breath)

Governments should be more transparent about taxes, with the approach of "This is the rate to pay for this good or service, and this is what is required to deliver this service", stealth taxes, of whatever kind, make people distrust Government, (local and National) and eventually distrust the whole Tax system.

annesevant
#8 Posted : 26 January 2008 15:22:38(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
Thank you to Newbie for that explanation. I was already in the uk when they were poll tax riots and I did not understand the underlying facts.
The council tax system, as it is now, is totally unfair because you can cram as many people as you want in a tiny dwelling and pay less than an aged couple in a bigger house bought many many years ago, these people having retired so long ago that they would be lucky to get a decent pension in addition to thebasic old age pension (plus allowances, I know).(And, no, this is not my personal situation!)
Also, you are at liberty to increase the volume of your house by 70 cubic metres or 50, if you are terraced, and you will not be charged extra council tax.
However, what I would love to know is how much money is being collected by the borough of Redbridge, each year, to give me an idea of the scale of this source of income. Who knows? Who would tell me?
annesevant
BryanDicker
#10 Posted : 26 January 2008 16:33:09(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
This helps a little but is the figures in population the total population, or those eligible to pay Council Tax?

Has Anne's Q got to be posted on the FOI thread?
Newbie
#11 Posted : 26 January 2008 17:04:35(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Council Tax document can be found here..

http://www.redbridge.gov..._about_council_tax.aspx

Click on the link at the bottom Council Tax Leaflet 2007/08

Download the PDF file and a breakdown of the budget can be found on page 9

Hope this is of more help 8)
BryanDicker
#12 Posted : 26 January 2008 19:17:17(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
That document is interesting. According to my trusted hybrid map, most, if not all of Hainault Country Park is outside of Redbridge.
They have not improved school results, the schools and their pupils have.
Newbie
#13 Posted : 26 January 2008 22:18:58(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
In addition to the only two ways to own property, Freehold, or Leasehold, in 2004 recognising that the majority of homes still being rented from the Local Authority were flats and highrise blocks, and in an attempt to encourage home ownership within this type of residence, the government introduced a new way to own property called Commonhold.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3675612.stm

How successful this type of ownership has been only time will tell, personally I feel commonhold was introduced to try and encourage more sales of flats and high rise blocks, to people who could not afford such properties.

I still stand by the old adage that only buy a property if you can AFFORD it, and are buying the FREEHOLD.

Mind you, that said, I knew someone who bought a 63 year lease on a 200 year old farmhouse, I thought this was ill advised, but he knew how to make a profit and saw the potential.

With the housing boom in the 90's he sold it and made a profit, so just goes to show, it pays to know what you are doing, and be able to finance the purchase, regardless of Leasehold, Freehold, or Commonhold.

It is now evident that the USA subprime losses are a direct result of selling home ownership to people who could not afford it.

Newbie
#14 Posted : 29 January 2008 14:28:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
The financial information relating to Redbridge Councils income and expenditure was recently published in the September edition of Redbridge Life.

It is a large 10m file and will take a while to download, but page 14 has a useful image of a £1 coin divided up explaining how the money is spent. 8)
cllrbond
#15 Posted : 29 January 2008 15:53:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
Back on topic - discussion of the proposed increases in parking charges, particularly for the local permit parking schemes.....
Morris Hickey
#16 Posted : 29 January 2008 16:42:37(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
It was Councillor Bond, among others, 2 years ago, who reminded me of the undertaking given to residents at the time when the residents' permit schemes were first introduced. In my final budget proposals, therefore, I pegged the increases back to an inflation only increase.

The proposals in this year's budget consultation are nothing short of an attempt to rip off the motorist.
Newbie
#17 Posted : 29 January 2008 21:29:45(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Apologies for straying off topic, I was trying to help other users, I have made my views known in the Area 3 thread.

Pay and Display in Manford Way! 67% Increase in Residents Parking Permits!

This will have an impact on shops that are just staying afloat, and will put local shoppers off visiting their local shops to get a pint of milk, or loaf of bread, preferring to make sure they have adequate supplies when shopping at the local supermarket.

A death knell for Manford Way and any satellite shops not in a town centre / high road.

Vehicle owners already pay excise duty (Road Tax).

Then there is fuel duty, with VAT on top of this, a tax on tax if you will.

Coupled with Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) and yellow lines with 'No Waiting at Any Time' small signs attached to poles not readily detectable, leading to more £100 penalty charge notices.

More stealth taxes, why not be up front and just say, this is what we need to spend to provide the service, here is the invoice. We are thinking these improvements to the borough are needed, and this is the extra it will cost, do you approve? council tax bills will rise accordingly.

As opposed to, we have been given a smaller settlement from central government than what we needed to complete our spending plans, how do we raise the rest? sell land / allotments, raise as much money through penalty tickets as possible? only when parking restrictions are in place can penalty tickets be issued, implement the restrictions to generate the revenue.



Newbie
#18 Posted : 20 February 2008 21:10:35(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 02/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 259
Newbie wrote:
The Cabinet met on the 19th Feb 08 and the budget proposals have been agreed.

Reference was made to the 67% increase in residents parking permits, with the cabinet member for Highways cllr.goody@redbridge.gov.uk drawing comparisons with other higher charging boroughs, Richmond Upon Thames however some other boroughs administer the scheme for FREE as residents agree to have the scheme installed because of non residents taking up street parking space.

The leader of the council alan.weinberg@redbridge.gov.uk explained that the cost of the charge was equivalent to 15p per day, and that he would like to have guaranteed parking outside his house for 15p per day.

What was not explained is that when a CPZ is installed, residents and visitors to residents are liable for £100 penalty tickets should they not comply exactly with the scheme (park outside marked bays, when all bays are occupied / not display a valid resident permit or visitor scratchcard permit)

More Pay and Display bays were agreed, and cllr.goody@redbridge.gov.uk stated that the lone Area 3 resident speaker was the only person to oppose such a scheme in Manford Way? cllr.goody@redbridge.gov.uk had clearly not read page 3 of The Ilford Recorder dated 14th Feb 08 where traders are photographed with lots of signed petitions AGAINST Pay and Display in Manford Way.

The reccomendations made by the highways scrutiny committee Page 80 on proposal EN302- Increase in Various Parking Charges, were ignored, expect a 67% increase soon!


Residents parking permits have been approved by cabinet to rise by 67% for the first car, and even futher for the missus's runaround, Pay and Display has been approved by cabinet for satelite shops in the borough, including Manford Way.

If these proposals are passed by council this will swing the death knell for those traders struggling to attract business, when shops become empty, it makes the parade look unsightly and run down, the entire parade is council owned, the units will take even longer to let, I remember the Abbey National building society closing, the unit could not be let, and a charity shop took the unit on.

Traders have complained that car owners using the Hainault Health Centre, have been taking up spaces in front of Manford Way shops. proof positive that to allow the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to build a new health centre, without allowing adequate parking provision for service users, was extremely short sighted.

A maximum two hour stay in front of the shops would alleviate the problem.

Like Morris say's, "this is nothing but short term opportunistic greed", coupled with inadequate parking provision by the PCT, which has further exacerbated a local parking problem, and all the Area 3 chairman edward.griffin@redbridge.gov.uk wants to do is introduce Pay and Display and add more yellow lines.

Removing even more parking areas from around the Health Centre, just makes it even more difficult for service users to access the site. :(
Morris Hickey
#21 Posted : 20 February 2008 23:22:35(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
These parking proposals are nothing short of greed by Redbridge Council. Parking restrictions, and any charges, should be used primarily as a means of rationing parking space when the demand clearly exceeds the supply. That is certainly not the case with Manford Way - there is rarely, if any, difficulty in finding a place to park legally. The normal case for parking charges does not exist. This is being promoted simply as a revenue raising exercise with no consideration whatsoever for what it will do for the locally economy, which will be killed as a consequence. Shame on you.
BryanDicker
#22 Posted : 21 February 2008 13:24:05(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
Without straying too much, Newbie mentions the PCT, and their lack of parking provision. This and the uprooting of the service users at Mildmay Centre only emphasises this administration promotion of inequalities in Health Care Provision.
Morris Hickey
#23 Posted : 21 February 2008 15:24:21(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
The Health Centre in Manford Way is provided - together with all its inadequacies - by the NHS and NOT by Redbridge Council.
cllrbond
#27 Posted : 21 February 2008 15:44:34(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
It is hard to see the points made at the Cabinet meeting, as reported by Newbie, as being particularly relevant.

Other Councils may charge more. Some doubtless charge less, as Newbie says. But the point is that - in Redbridge - a specific choice was made for a 'low cost, low enforcement' scheme when residents' parking was first introduced. We don't know what the admin and enforcement regimes in other Boroughs are. Also in Redbridge, a commitment was given that schemes would be "self-funding" but not turned into a tax-raising mechanism to cross-subsidise Council services - a commitment now being broken since this is of course precisely what is proposed.

Besides, the costs of housing and of living in areas of west London such as Richmond are generally considerably higher than in Redbridge.

And, of course, the scheme doesn't "guarantee" a parking space outside the house - far from it, given the growing pressure on parking space even within the residents' zones, which typically contain a large number of terraced and flatted housing with little off-street parking and relatively narrow frontages per household.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

All areas