Flawed 'green' parking permit scheme

A recent move to Clapham has led to scrutiny of the local regime for resident parking permits, and the news isn't good.

It turns out that Lambeth Borough Council is one of the absurd London authorities that, purportedly in the name of helping the environment, actually charges you more if you wish to leave higher emissions cars parked at home.

Their bizarre idea towards cutting car emissions is to encourage the daytime use of 'gas guzzlers' while making it cheaper to leave the 'green' ones at home allowing people to travel on public transport instead.

Even when introduced, back in 2007, the idea was far from new.

That's not to say Lambeth Council is doing those who have what they deem to be a 'green' car any favours.

Perhaps, historically, the price for a resident's parking permit in the borough has been much higher. But today the lowest price band for a permit for anything other than only a handful of ultra-low emissions, brand new hybrid or diesel-engined city cars still comes in at £90 a year - compared to the blanket £99 for a resident's permit up in Hammersmith.

That's for the charging band below the one in which basic level superminis like the Ford Fiesta and Renault Clio sit. Up another band, a range of very average family cars like the Ford Mondeo and Peugeot 407 face charges of £135 and the owner of a hardly 'gas guzzling' 2.0 litre Ford C-Max (basically, a slightly enlarged Ford Fiesta) would be hit with a charge of £180 to park outside their own house. That's only £20 cheaper than the £200 that the owner of a V8 Range Rover or Aston Martin would be hit with.

Reasonable? Hardly.

Ill-considered

No doubt the Lambeth councillors responsible for this ill considered 'green' scheme would defend themselves by saying it's designed to encourage people to switch to lower emissions cars, or even to do away with their car altogether.

But who do they think they're kidding? That's clearly so much 'greenwash', because neither justification remotely stacks up as a realistic option for most people.

Firstly, the idea that car users are all self-indulgently choosing their cars as some kind of luxury and will be persuaded to ditch them altogether when faced with a more expensive parking permit is mind-numbingly ignorant.

Cars are already extremely expensive in many, many ways. No-one would choose to flush the vast cost of purchasing, financing, servicing, insuring, fueling, MOTing and taxing a car unless they absolutely needed one.

Beyond the wealthy, for whom a hundred quid here or there matters little, those still using cars in London are very likely far more hard-pressed financially and actually need a car because they simply can't get everywhere they need to be, carrying everything they need to carry, on public transport.

Hitting these people with extra charges is highly oppressive. Or perhaps we should say, using one of today's buzzwords, 'regressive'. Such people are not the ultra wealthy and have no choice but to pay higher charges if they wish to continue to meet all the needs of their work and family.

Secondly, do these councillors have any idea how much it costs to switch cars? In their fantasy world (and I wonder how many councillors who voted to introduce this scheme actually own and run a car) they presumably expect someone moving into Lambeth, seeing an elevated charge for a parking permit, to decide to go car-shopping.

Yet, even at the lower end of the price spectrum, you'd need to throw at least £1,000 into the budget on top of the value of your old car to get something that'll be fit for, typically, three years ahead.

A lot more if you wish to get something modern and sufficiently environmentally friendly to qualify for the lowest permit charges.

Seriously, how many people do these councillors think are going to choose to drop at least a grand on buying a new car rather than just pay up the extra for a permit?

Cash grab

The scheme quite obviously will not meet the objectives councillors use to justify it. But what it clearly does do is raise large wads of extra cash for the council.

According to local newspaper reports, it seems an extra £1m was ripped off from Lambeth residents for permits to park outside their own homes in 2007/8 alone - an outrageous 50% increase in income over the year before the 'green' scheme was introduced.

And the scheme does this by - highly regressively - targetting the less well off. It disproportionately affects the middle and lower-income car users who either can't afford the extra charges or don't have a driveway or front garden they can concrete over to escape the council's oppressive financial demands.

Council choice

With this scheme, Lambeth council is basically offering residents the choice of thinking they're either hopelessly ignorant of people's real-world options - or blatantly money-grabbing because they're aware people have no sensible choice other than to pay whatever extra charges they demand.

Having fired an email off to the council about the scheme, I wonder if we'll shortly find out which one it is.

In the meantime, with the prospect of an unacceptably high charge for a residents parking permit in order to leave my very average 2.0 litre Peugeot parked at home, I'm going to be driving it up to Hammersmith every day instead of using public transport.

Well done Lambeth. How to make your residents very green!

Richmond at it again

Hot on the heels of their bizarre 'emissions-cutting' scheme that encourages people to drive their cars to work rather than leave them parked at home (an allegedly 'green' scheme that pushes people to concrete over their gardens in order to park their cars off ridiculously over-charged streets) Richmond Council in south London have come up with a new wheeze.

This time the plan to separate the borough's car users from yet more of their cash involves charges for 'drop-off' parking permits at local schools.

And once again they seem set on trying to daub this blatant tax hike as 'green'.

Top charge of £75

At the moment, parents can use a free permit provided by schools allowing them to park on double yellow lines or bays for ten minutes while they deliver or collect their children.

So far, so reasonable.

But the council have announced that, from September, a 'sliding scale' will be used to charge parents for these currently free permits, based on the CO2 emissions produced by their vehicles.

The top charge is reportedly going to be an outrageous £75 for dropping your kids off at school in anything from an average-sized family car upwards.

'Green' paint stripped

While the full details of the sliding scale have not yet been revealed (a bit of standard PR that tries to get the headlines out of the way before the gruesome details are exposed), the council's past form makes it likely that the vast majority of parents driving even the smallest cars will have to fork out extra cash where they don't have to currently.

The council's similar emissions-based scheme for residents' parking permits penalises with greatly increased charges those with cars in tax Band D and upwards.

That includes some models of small city cars like the Mini, Ford Fiesta and Nissan Micra. A very different story beyond the oft-used spin about attacking 'gas-guzzling 4x4s', and one that utterly strips away any claim that the scheme is actually about the environment rather than raising cash yet again from soft-target car users.

Sadly, going by the headlines, "4x4s" are the furthest the spin-vulnerable traditional media ever read into such plans.

Scheme condemned as 'unfair'

The council's plan has been roundly condemned by representatives of parent teacher and car user groups.

Margaret Morrissey of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations has called the scheme "unfair and unrealistic", quite rightly pointing out, "Many families have three or four children, and they need the space to fit child seats that the Government insists on."

And the AA's Paul Watters said: "People carriers are very efficient at getting kids to school, considering many are seven-seaters. It might be a better idea to remove the many smaller cars."

Lib Dem warning

As a Liberal Democrat-run council, Richmond's actions give a worrying indication of what sort of faux-green financial repression car users big and small can expect if the Lib Dems achieve any governing power.

Something for us all to bear in mind with local elections looming and even a general election on the horizon.

But spare a thought for the poor car-using residents of Richmond, who clearly face endless demands on their wallets between now and their next local elections in 2010.

Unless they fight back against blatant rip off tax hikes, even when they are labelled 'green'.

London council sets controversial clamping targets

A London borough has set new targets for traffic wardens that will see more vehicles clamped and more drivers facing parking fines.

The borough of Kensington and Chelsea has set a minimum target for 2007 in its contract with National Car Parks (NCP) of 306,000 parking tickets and 15,000 vehicles clamped, according to the Guardian.

Minimum targets? How can a public authority legislate for the minimum number of people who should be punished for breaking a law? What next ... minimum targets for the number of people who should be imprisoned for murder?

Under the terms of the deal, wardens will have to issue at least 840 tickets and clamp as many as 36 vehicles each day - or face paying a fine to the council.

Lobby groups and motorists' organisations are calling for better government regulation of parking enforcement and the companies who carry it out amid concerns that targets will lead to unfair ticketing and clamping. At present, parking firms are only subject to voluntary rather than statutory guidelines.

The British Parking Association has launched an investigation into the Kensington and Chelsea contract to determine whether it breaches the organisation's guidelines.

Richmond's 'green' parking permit con

Richmond upon Thames in south west London has seen the latest outbreak in efforts to ramp up taxes on the already over-burdened car user citing global warming.

Despite the fact that energy use in homes and businesses is by far the biggest reason for Britain's carbon emissions - and encouraging energy conservation therefore likely to make a far more productive contribution to reducing total emissions - Richmond council has joined the ranks of unimaginative politicians and unjustifiably decided to pick on the car user yet again.

That this idea comes from Richmond council is no surprise when we discover it is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. This is the party that signalled its intention to excessively victimise car users in an absurd car tax policy proposed at their recent conference.

Charges hit more than 'wealthy'

There are so many disturbing features about this latest proposal that it's hard to know where to begin.

First let's deal with the idea that this is a plan to 'make the wealthy pay more' for choosing big, polluting cars. In fact, its implications go far wider. Even best-selling small city cars like the Mini, Ford Fiesta and Nissan Micra are in the Band D set to be hit with a 10% increase in permit charges. That's an increase four times the rate of inflation.

Looking at the next band up, with permits due to cost 30% more under the new regime, even very average family cars like the 1.8 litre Ford Mondeo and Vauxhall Vectra appear.

So what exactly do Richmond council expect people to use in order to avoid these excessively increased charges? Or could the intention possibly be just to get their hands on more of people's hard-earned cash and global warming is just a handy excuse?

Because this plan, as it stands, will quite obviously hit not just the wealthy or owners of large cars, but the far larger number trying to get by on average incomes using a wide range of very normal, average cars.

Complicating factors

There are also several complicating factors. For example, the purchase price of all new Land Rovers - the dreaded 'polluting 4x4s' we hear so many complaints about - will from next year include the cost of off-setting three years worth of their carbon emissions.

So, actually, a brand new Land Rover is carbon neutral for its first 45,000 miles and so far better for the environment in that period than any other car. But is Richmond going to inspect the mileages of new Land Rovers and exempt all those showing under 45,000 from their new resident permit charges? They would, if they were really interested in promoting pro-environment action.

What's more, there is some debate about the real fuel economy under everyday conditions of the Toyota Prius, the only car in the council's proposed 50% reduction Band B which isn't too small to be suitable for average family use.

Even if this plan were to be focussed only on larger cars, let's be clear. Owners of 'gas guzzling' cars already pay much more for their choice, by definition. The more fuel a car uses, the more fuel tax is paid. And let's not forget, the government's share of the price of a litre of fuel is more than 70%. Car tax is also now graduated by emissions, meaning they also pay more for that too - far more than is ever spent on maintaining roads.

These are already massive 'green' taxes car users are paying, and have long been paying - the owners of 'gas guzzling' cars more than any. Yet is this massive existing government income already being used to help 'save' the environment? Hardly.

Council hypocrisy

But beyond the transparant real agenda of this plan, it's the blatant hypocrisy of Richmond council that's most galling. They're proposing to hammer thousands of middle income local car users over the cost of parking a car outside their own house (on which they presumably already pay a large slice of Council Tax) spouting solemn lectures about the threat of global warming while, according to the Times report on the proposal, not only maintaining car parking facilities for their own staff but even offering them subsidies.

If the threat of global warming were truly as urgent and action as necessary as they claim, then getting their own house in order is surely a pre-requisite of preaching to others - certainly of being taken seriously and avoiding a backlash come the next election.

It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that this plan is motivated not so much by concern for the environment as, yet again, by a desire to raise revenue from the already over-paying car user, hoping they won't complain if the plan is dressed up in a green banner.

Richmond Council is currently consulting on their plans and wants feedback. You can comment here.