how much to park

[Evil Sid]

it seems that the council are considering charging people in resident only parking areas. all residents who have a parking permit are to be charged for parking in front of their own homes. starting at ?20.00 per year for the first year and rising to ?60.00 per year after the third year.

 

if it proves successful will they then roll it out all across the town .

 

as it is just a rumour at present i am not too worried about it.

if they do introduce it i could be in pocket.

having two visitors permits and charging ?2.00 per day for their use i could make ?1,400.00 per year, less the ?60.00 for the council and i will be in pocket by ?1,340.00 this should pay for the tax, insurance and MOT's for the car and the bike with some left over to buy petrol to run them even when the price goes up by TEN pence per litre in the very near future.

 

no doubt that will have been thought of by the council

[Peter T]

You must have inside information. LOL

It was only put before the Exec. last night..

My concerns are the fact that Blue Badge holders who have a marked space outside their home or wish to have one, are going to be penalised for being disabled. And are probably the ones who can least afford this cost.

 

What is the procedure to get this up before the scrutiny committee?

[Dizzy]

Inside Info So how come you know about it too then peter

 

Infact come to think of it how come I also know about it

 

Guess the council will go to any lengths to rake in some more money from the takpayer eh.. ?200k apparently.. but charging people to park outside their own homes is completely OTT

 

Maybe the charge could be balanced by a reduction in their council tax

[TrannyDi]

If you want the facility to park outside your home then it seems reasonable to me that you should pay for it. After all you are preventing some other car/council tax payer from using that bit of road when you're parked on it. You may own the house but you don't own the bit of road outside it do you?

 

You could always buy a house with a drive if you don't want to pay.

 

Why would would you get a council tax rebate when the council are trying to generate revenue to pay for these schemes, think about it, it's not rocket science is it?

[Bill]

I suppose some (especially those in terraced housing) would gladly pay if only to stop others taking their parking spaces.

 

Bill

[Dizzy]

Well that's me put in my place.... feel free to park outside my home if ever you need to Tranny.

 

But if you do it all the time and I may occasionally but inadvertantly block you in

 

PS I have a degree in rocket science (well something quite similar anyway)

[Bazj]

My concerns are the fact that Blue Badge holders who have a marked space outside their home or wish to have one, are going to be penalised for being disabled. And are probably the ones who can least afford this cost.

 

Peter, I would disagree wholeheartedly with your comments here. Disabled drivers get subsidised cars, insurance and they also pay no road tax; why are they the least likely to be able to afford this?

 

I have said before that I am amazed at how many ?60,000 Range Rovers have disabled badges these days. Now forgive me if I am wrong, but they don't give Range Rovers away on disability schemes do they? My own sister is registered disabled and she does OK with her 2 year old Mercedes ML 4X4 and some other car too. Not quite how it used to be for disabled drivers is it?

 

I had a young lad who worked for me who bought a new car (monthly repayments) paid a fortune to insure it and had to pay his own road tax. On top of his board and lodgings and going out money.... there is a case of someone who can least afford it.

[TrannyDi]

Thanks for the offer Dis, but I never go to Stockton Heath because there's nowhere to park.

[Bazj]

Thanks for the offer Dis, but I never go to Stockton Heath because there's nowhere to park.

 

No space because of all the Range Rovers and 7 series BMW's!!

[Dizzy]

Good point

 

The car parks and side roads round the village centre are a bit of a nightmare especiallly during the day and at weekends but that's what you get for having a small village packed to the brim full of bars and restaurants. Ho hum !

 

PS Welcome to the forum by the way

 

PPS I still disagree with the parking permit charge !!!!!!!!

[inky pete]

If you want the facility to park outside your home then it seems reasonable to me that you should pay for it.

 

But I already pay to use the roads, several times over in fact.

 

After all you are preventing some other car/council tax payer from using that bit of road when you're parked on it.

 

Not really. If it's a residents only zone, then only residents can park there anyway. So if my car wasn't there (say during the day when I'm out at work) then the space still wouldn't be available to just anyone (maybe someone who works in the area). So that other person, who's just looking for somewhere to park, is going to have to leave an empty space outside my house and go park somewhere else.

 

Not a very efficient way of managing things!

 

You may own the house but you don't own the bit of road outside it do you?

 

Neither do WBC, so what gives them the right to charge for the use of it?

 

You could always buy a house with a drive if you don't want to pay.

 

It's just a tax on the poor then?

 

Why would would you get a council tax rebate when the council are trying to generate revenue

 

Yep, just another new tax. Nothing to do with making parking easier.

[observer]

It's ironic, yet perfectly understandable of the LibDems; that in a future of austerity, where new and innovative ways of generating revenue are required - that they come up with a scheme that taxes the very folk least able to afford it, at least judging by the fact that they are living in the cheapest (terraced) properties - touch of the "south of the canal" syndrome methinks. IF, they are concerned generally about parking congestion, why not apply "the charge" generally throughout the whole Town, thus the detached house with (maybe) one car in the driveway and two or three on the road, will also contribute to the common good? Or, while they're at it, look at increasing the payment differentials in the Council Tax Bands - after all - it's all shoulders to the wheel - "we're all in it together" - and shouldn't the broadest shoulders bare the biggest burden?!

[Bazj]

shouldn't the broadest shoulders bare the biggest burden?!

 

depends if you look at it your way (socialist) whereby the nasty horrible bosses all drive big cars and have big houses and should be hammered for being successful while the poor downtrodden worker who lives in a small house and drives a trabant should be subsidised

 

or you take the capitalist view that the bosses already pay more tax to drive their bigger cars or more poll tax to live in their bigger houses so why should they subsidise the less wealthy??

[inky pete]

Not sure whether my view would be considered to be sociallist or capitalist - I just object to the prospect of being forced to fork out again for something which I've already paid for.

[Paul Kennedy]

I sense that this proposed scheme is for the introduction of resident only parking where residents have requested it. Such a scheme would have a cost to introduce and then enforce, so as I understand it, the charge would be to cover those costs. There is a debate as to whether the charge should be introduced for existing schemes. There is also talk of increasing the charge for those homes with more than one vehicle. Such a scheme would not guarantee a space outside of ones home. Resident parking schemes tend to push the problem of parking in to other areas rather than solve the underlying problem. I attended a briefing on this matter and many of the very valid points raised by posters were raised at the briefing by both Members and officers.

 

Personally I blame the Victorians / Edwardians for failing to have the foresight in not building terraced houses with large driveways, how could they not have thought that one day the masses would have personal transport.

[Evil Sid]

it is a pity that i could not get a car the same size as the old one (which was written off after a slight bump) as i could get that one in my back yard as well as the bike. still had to have a perking permit for the odd times that i parked outside my house.

 

as for my info it was on the online version of the warrington G******n and will probably be in this weeks paper edition.

 

there are other councils who have this charge. Bury pay ?20 a year, Wigan ?15 a year Chester ?60 a year, and Sefton ?20 a year.

 

the problem with it is that when residential parking was introduced into the various streets the residents were told that there would be no charge for the permits.

[Bazj]

To be honest, I seem to have more trouble with neighbours hogging the parking than visitors. The first house I bought was on Liverpool Road (one of the terraced ones near the chinese on the corner) and I had more problems with my neighbour who had a huge old car, but needed so much room to get in and out of the space; that he used to just park it across the fronts of both houses, mine and his, and left a half a car length in front and behind..... the rows we used to have!!!

 

Even now, living in Westbrook, I have plenty of room on my drive for the cars I own but my neighbour has extended his house to such a degree that he can't get anything bigger than a Fiesta on his drive (and a maximum of two) but they have 4 cars and lots of vistors, so the small and narrow close we live in becomes a carpark at a weekend

[Paul Kennedy]

but my neighbour has extended his house to such a degree that he can't get anything bigger than a Fiesta on his drive (and a maximum of two) but they have 4 cars and lots of vistors, so the small and narrow close we live in becomes a carpark at a weekend

 

With regards to the extensions and reduction in drive space, that should have been a planning consideration I guess.

[TrannyDi]

Inkey P, Stockton Heath is one of the ares where residents parking is likely to work if put in, I didn't see many poor residents living there the last time I drove through the area. (I see you live in the socially deprived area of Lymm).

 

All motorists pay for using the road don't we, but we don't all afford the benefit of being able to reserve a parking space outside our house through those costs.

 

Perhaps if Central Goverment coughed up enough cash for councils to manage their roads in the first place these charges wouldn't be necessary however, the rising cost of MP's expenses and the need to plough cash into fighting over crude oil supplies in the middle east, means that less cash is available for them to provide tax payers with a decent quality of life.

 

It's a sad fact of life these days that we seem to get charged for everything, but that's the cost of progress and economic survival.

 

I do think the ?60 charge is far too steep, to set a charge compariable with the City of Chester is a joke and for that reason I do understand why there would be a lack of public acceptabilty over this issue.

[Paul Kennedy]

the problem with it is that when residential parking was introduced into the various streets the residents were told that there would be no charge for the permits.

 

That has been acknowledged, and one thought was that it wouldn't apply to existing residents, just new ones or those seeking additional permits.

[Paul Kennedy]

Perhaps if Central Goverment coughed up enough cash for councils to manage their roads in the first place these charges wouldn't be necessary however, the rising cost of MP's expenses and the need to plough cash into fighting over crude oil supplies in the middle east, means that less cash is available for them to provide tax payers with a decent quality of life.

 

It's a sad fact of life these days that we seem to get charged for everything, but that's the cost of progress and economic survival.

 

 

A few thoughts, MPs expenses, scandalous as they have been are minute in the scheme of things, as is the Middle East in UK terms, the biggest cash drain is the banking crisis, recession and unfunded pension schemes. Interestingly, of the approximately ?550 million that WBC spends each year about ?75 million is from council tax and ?45 million from business rates (we collect about ?90 million on behalf of central government, they give WBC half of it!) the balance by and large comes by way of central government grants. In terms of central government (taxpayers) money, the kitty is empty, indeed it is heavily indebted and rather than spend more, the next government will be forced to make substantial spending cuts...and increase taxes as well....unless that is we want to lumber future generations with our debts.

 

With regards to charging, alas people don't work for free and in the state sector they are becoming ever more costly, and hence rising costs and charges.

 

There is much talk of the "Easy Jet" concept of public service charging, whereby you get a basic service and everything else is extra and you either pay up or do without....interesting to see if the idea "takes off".....guess to some extent it has already.

 

Returning to the topic, I sense that WBC are quite reluctant to introduce widespread residents' parking schemes given the problems that they foresee, many of which have been highlighted by posters.

[Paul Kennedy]

I do think the ?60 charge is far too steep

 

But it is all relative, people pay over twice that for a TV licence, what does Sky cost each year, a mobile phone etc etc. In the case of the ?60 it's not the money, it's the principle, people believe that their motoring costs are high enough and that those costs comprise mainly taxation...very little of which actually goes towards road costs.

[vic]

You may own the house but you don't own the bit of road outside it do you?

 

Neither do WBC, so what gives them the right to charge for the use of it?

Er, the law? (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984)

 

Actually, you may well own the own the land from your property up to halfway across the highway (or a modern developer may own all the roads in an estate) but if it's adopted the highways authority has the responsibility for maintaining the highway so ownership means nothing unless the area is eventually redeveloped (and chances are that would be under compulsory purchase anyway).

[observer]

We're back to fundementals - too many cars (people) in a finite space, with ever more planning permissions being given out willy nilly to traffic generating developments. We have a Town that, like most, was never designed for the car, the Victorians never envisaged that the Plebs would all get their personal horseless carriage despite the ideas of H.G.Wells! Then along came the New Town, which built developments FOR the car, with venues (shopping etc) that wern't close enough to walk to (corner shops) or sited along public transport corridors. They built a series of linear (T) pattern roads, linking their various developments on the periphery of the Town, rather than integrating their efforts with the needs of the whole Town, including the central core; by means of a series of circulatory systems. So now we've arrived, up the creek without a paddle. As for the original question: in law, we all pay road tax for road space, including the road space outside one's house, that's why there is no such thing (in law) as your own parking space. It's no longer a case of one car per household either; with each family member now owning a set of wheels, up to three or four cars could be generated by ONE terraced house, with consequent fisticuffs resulting from fly parking in "my space" - resulting in demands for "residents only" schemes. Perhaps another approach would be to charge additional tax on the basis of one's home EG: second car per household = double tax, third = treble tax, and so on? (Baz has just fallen off his chair! ). However, little will change, as we all want a car and will put up with the inconvenience of congestion until we finally all grind to a final halt in permanent grid lock.

[Dizzy]

I sense that this proposed scheme is for the introduction of resident only parking where residents have requested it. Such a scheme would have a cost to introduce and then enforce, so as I understand it, the charge would be to cover those costs.

 

Just becasue residents requested it doesn't mean they should pay a charge for it A few signs and lines on the road surely can't cost that much Paul.

 

Apart from which the blue coat traffic wardens probably partol the areas in question anyway so the minute one person parks illegally the ?60 charge to residents for the restriction will have been met.

 

Personally I blame the Victorians / Edwardians for failing to have the foresight in not building terraced houses with large driveways, how could they not have thought that one day the masses would have personal transport.

 

Idiots... They and their predecessors should have also had the forsight to ensure that all their buildings were built with minimum spec materials with an acceptable life expectancy of no more than 25 years.

It would have saved future generations a lot of trouble