Deputation in relation
to item 14
Mr Bruno Carr addressed the
Cabinet in relation to agenda item 14. He informed Members that he
was supporting the 2200 residents, 85% of the consultation
respondents, that were against the proposal to increase the charges
for parking permits in the borough and whom he felt were being
ignored. Mr Carr felt that, given the current economic climate, it
was untimely to increase any charges.
He felt that the response to
the objections in the report was weak and questioned the
presentation of these objections and how the evidence had been
added to support these. He continued to contend that there was
greater emphasis in the document on the positive responses to the
consultation rather than those objecting.
Mr Carr continued to question
the principles behind the increased parking permit charges,
highlighting the higher proportionate percentage increase to
parking permits for more environmentally efficient cars against
more polluting cars. The proposed changes were also not fully
aligning to the Ultra Low Emissions
Zone vehicle categories. There had already been careful analysis
and assessment of the vehicles by TFL experts and scientists of low
emission vehicles that were to be encouraged for purchase and use.
The proposals seemed to penalise residents that had bought these
vehicles.
He requested that the Cabinet
Members either defer the decision for six months, and reassess the
economic situation, or reassess the charges to match the
ULEZ.
The Leader thanked Mr Carr for
his deputation.
In response to questions from
Cabinet Members, Mr Carr responded as follows:
- He agreed that
Friends of the Earth would support the aims of the decision to
reduce emissions and improve air quality and he also supported this
aim. However, Mr Carr felt that the percentage increases proposed
had not been looked at clearly and if they had been would have been
challenged as there was a unequal increase when comparing permit
charge increases between electric or
hybrid cars and higher polluting cars. It was felt that if further
work had been completed, at the early stage, with environmental
groups, this would have provided a fairer strategy, leading to
increases in more polluting cars and better connection with TFL
analysis which allowed diesel cars in the euro six category to be
exempt.
- In relation to the
optimal increases sought, Mr Carr spoke about expecting to see the
highest percentages of the most significant increases levied
against the most polluting cars and less against electric cars and
hybrid models. Mr Carr felt that residents would need to understand
the impact of higher polluting cars on air quality to encourage use
of lower emitting vehicles. Also, he felt that there was a need to
consider the whole question of emissions across parking, and road
traffic, instead of solely targeting additional income from
residents.
- Mr Carr questioned
the strategy of tackling parked vehicles under the guise of
emissions. He expressed that improved public transport access, more
cycling routes and improved highways needed to be in place before
taking forward behavioural change activities.
Councillor
Chandwani, Deputy Leader of the Council
and Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, responded to Mr Carr’s deputation as follows:
- Disputed the focus on
percentage increase by the deputation and instead underlined that
increases were at real value cost.
- The increase was
£10 per year for a low emission vehicle, and £20 per
year for a high emission vehicle, therefore it was wrong to imply
that a higher percentage increase for low emission vehicles meant a
higher charge. [Clerks note - The report at paragraph 6.5 advised
that the changes consulted on include a £10
increase across all existing charge bands to help cover the cost of
running the service - later in the meeting at item 14, the
Cabinet members were asked to confirm that they had read the report
and recommendations which included this information]
- There was a tariff
for where electric vehicles of £21 per vehicle
- 54,000 residents had
been directly targeted during the consultation, with only 5%
responding. There had been significant efforts to encourage people
to respond to the survey and the Council knew that 16000 people
checked the website and 2000 had responded to object. This was a
survey of 50,000 people, with 36000 opening the email and 2000
people objecting.
- The Cabinet Member
objected to the view that there was good diesel and bad diesel cars
and referred to Oxford university research and other research that
indicated that euro six vehicles were damaging and polluting. There
was concern that the ULEZ scheme had not been strong enough on
diesel cars and the wrong impression created that you could drive
these cars.
- There were 4
neighbouring boroughs with euro six in their diesel surcharging and
this helped demonstrate that the Council were not out of kilter
with other London boroughs.
- Emphasised 80p to
£1.20 a week increase for parking which was not significant
enough to impact on people’s finances when compared to cost
of increased bus fees.
The Cabinet Member
stated that to change behaviours and improve the response to the
climate crisis, strong decisions must be made by Councils. Vehicle
owners also needed to take responsibility and purchase lower
polluting vehicles. To conclude, the Cabinet Member added that when
residents with parking permits purchased lower emission vehicles,
the Council would lose revenue due to the lower cost of the
permit.