A Brighton woman has presented a petition protesting about the price of parking permits to a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting.
Christina Moore, a healer from Hanover, presented the petition, with more than 800 signatures, to a meeting of the full council at Hove Town Hall on Thursday (19 October).
It was headed: “Reduce the cost of residents’ parking permits.”
The petition said: “We the undersigned petition Brighton and Hove City Council to reduce the costs of the residents’ parking permits.
“The cost of parking permits year on year has risen way above the rate of inflation – in some cases doubling the cost year on year – making Brighton the most expensive area for residents’ parking anywhere in the country
“We already pay road tax which is based on the emissions of vehicles. A parking permit system that is based on the emissions of vehicles is simply another road tax. A parked car does not pollute.
“In this ‘cost of living crisis’ the council should do the decent thing and reverse the increases that we have endured over the past two years, to help struggling families and businesses.
“Parents, small businesses, disabled people and others who rely on their cars are being crushed by the high price of permits on top of everything else.
“The council say they care about us so please do the decent thing and reduce the cost of these permits as soon as possible. The war on the motorist must end.”
Christina Moore told the meeting: “We pay road tax, car insurance tax, tax to fill up our cars. We’re taxed to park. A parked vehicle is taxed according to the emissions that it does not emit. And the tax in no way relates to the amount each car is driven.
“When the controlled parking zones were introduced the cost of a permit was reasonable. Within a few years this has increased to £412 in some areas simply to park.
“The number of zones, the number of permits and hence income has increased.
“In this ‘cost of living crisis’, 6,000 people use food banks every week. Many of them need to run a car in order to work.
“These constant increases in permits hurt those who are the backbone of this city – carers, nurses, small businesses as well as families and single parents.
“Due to inflation, most workers have experienced a cut in pay yet the council continues to increase the cost of permits, pricing people out of the city, especially those who need their cars for night shifts.
“And many are for the first time having to dip into savings to pay for it.
“The idea that expensive parking permits encourage people to use more environmental travel is unproven.
“People own cars because they are a direct, efficient and fast way to reach their destinations while transporting the goods, tools or the people they need to – journeys which generally cannot be switched to public transport or bicycle.
“I understand that it is policy to encourage people to change their cars to electric or low-emission but it is expensive.
“If people are struggling to keep their cars running, how can they find the money for a new car?
“Those who own cars are not necessarily wealthy – individuals, families and small businesses struggling to keep their car on the road with these increasing costs.
“The motorist is treated as a cash cow because they have the temerity to own a vehicle.
“Traders permits have increased astronomically. As each trader’s costs go up, they are passed on to the consumer which fuels inflation.
“A traders permit costs up to £1,400 and they also have to purchase a residents’ permit to use after 5pm so they must earn nearly £2,000 after tax just to park their vehicle.
“The permits are highly discriminatory due to them being needed only in certain areas. Someone fortunate enough to live in an area where they have a drive has no need for a permit. Generally, these are the wealthier areas of Brighton.
“The areas considered affordable tend to have on-street parking so the council unfairly penalises those who can’t afford to buy a house with a driveway. So I ask, would a flat fee be fairer?
“The cost for a parking permit is currently based on emissions registered with the DVLA. Some of the most polluting diesel vehicles are currently registered as zero emissions because they are imports from outside the EU and were never tested. Hence the DVLA registers them as zero emissions.
“If we had a flat fee such as Surrey County Council – £80 for the first car and £100 for the second – this would ensure that every vehicle, no matter how it’s registered, would contribute fairly to the council.
“The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states that councils should not be using parking permits to generate revenue.
“Can the council assure residents that the £4 million raised through permits is actually what it costs to administer these zones and that profits are not made and hence they are working to the letter of the law?
“After three years of a pandemic in which many small businesses were closed, the economy damaged dramatically, the council expects residents to pay ever-increasing amounts to live in this city. We can’t afford it.”
Christina Moore’s time ran out before she could add two final sentences: “Residents worry about having to pay out ever-increasing sums simply to run a car.
“We ask that you reduce the cost of permits in Brighton and Hove so it is a fair amount that residents can afford.”
The mayor, Councillor Jackie O’Quinn, who chaired the meeting, said that the petition would be referred to the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee for consideration.
This wasn’t a particularly well structured argument, in my opinion, although 800 signatures certainly like the core concept.
It didn’t really offer compelling reasons why BHCC should reduce parking permit costs, or how it would be afforded – an salient point when you consider all the permit costs are completely put back into Brighton, this making the point about RTR moot.
Plus it lacks consideration that permits in many areas are on waiting lists. You would just shift the reason for the problem she illustrates. She then takes a dissimilar area to compare to and uses this as justification, again, it’s not compelling.
As much as I’d like to see a reduction in permit costs, purely from a personal perspective, I don’t think the council will action this, especially considering the financial situation at the moment meaning they are legally obligated to not do anything to risk worsening this situation. Poor timing.
I’d like to see this idea developed with a stronger rationale and brought back to the council.
At least she took the trouble to raise it. Nothing to stop you presenting your own case if you have better arguments.
I don’t believe it’s a feasible request, so I wouldn’t in this instance, and respectfully I believe an idea argued poorly does more to damage a cause than help it with this as an example of it being so easily criticised.
However, at least she took the time to raise it, that is commendable.
A freeze in the Permit Charges might be a fair compromise….
That is certainly more reasonable. Has the same issues as dropping the price, but to a lesser extent.
Live in Hannover, walk.
I do wish they would start spending the parking money on some decent rapid public transport however not £13.6mil on stupid e bikes that anyone can buy if they so wishes. I can buy an ebike for like £800, on finance probably £100 a month. I can’t buy a tram for that price, the city is ideal for rapid transport as it only really has 4 across city routes to choose from
I always liked the idea of extending Volks across the extent of the seafront, and upgrading it to a full tram service.
I suggested that to a certain young Kitcat many years ago instead of spending the money on the bankrupt vanity tower. Did he listen? Look at your council tax bill 🤬
This is something I’ve always been keen on. Extend Volks from the Marina to Hove Lagoon, free to use and a jump-on-jump-off service. Visitors park at the Marina and get the tram all the way down the seafront.
Next up, reducing King’s Road / A259 to a single lane and converting the frontage into cafe and al fresco restaurant space like they do in beach-side towns on the continent.
Where did you get the £13.6m figure from? It’s nothing like that.
People keep arguing about this figure, probably becaues it’s so hard to believe. Yes, it was £13.3 million for a four year contract. If you don’t believe me look at the UK Government Contract finder, it’s there in black and white. I’d post a link but don’t think I’m allowed to here. I’ve even put in a Freedom of Information request about it, as I think it needs to be justified. I’m now past the FOI 20 day limit allowed for my answers and haven’t had a response yet, except to tell me I’ll have to wait.
BHCC don’t do FOI requests if the response is going to be embarrassing or incriminating. Try getting the truth from the Transport department!
The prime example of this is the OSR cycle lane usage figures when the Council said they made an ‘unintentional oversight’ (euphemism for ‘we lied’).
You can always appeal to the arbitrator/ombudsman if you feel BHCC is not carrying out its legal duty
I doubt that Tom, it most likely would be under the commercially sensitive aspect, which is a perfectly legal refusal. But make disingenuous comments, it’s more dramatic, right?
Captain Disingenuous strikes again!
Are you sure you’re not a Council social media apologist, Benny Boy?
No need to use any other word for you Tom, when that’s your MO. Attacking me as a person, rather than my comment is fallicous. Just indicates you don’t really have anything of logical substance as a rebuttal. Again.
Well done and thank you Christina Moore.
I think that those who pay council tax in Brighton and Hove shouldn’t have to pay extra to park anywhere in the city, though I appreciate that is an unpopular opinion.
Charging people to park and causing drivers great anxiety around parking is clearly acceptable to most.
Everyone wants council services and a better city, nobody wants to pay for it.
Motorists aren’t getting fleeced, this is a minimal charge that is fed back in to helping the poorer of the city have cheaper bus fares. I’d prefer to pay double for a resident’s parking permit and have free public transport for all, but that’s probably not a popular opinion.
That cost was more than covered by the previous level of parking charges, which generated a surplus of over £20 million in the last financial year. These are not ‘minimal’ charges, they are really expensive and unjustified. Worth taking into account that poorer people need to drive too, this will affect them disproportionately.
Poorer people ride buses as well, and for someone that rides the bus every working day (200 days per year) a reduction in fares from £2 to zero would save them £400 per year, far less than any increase in parking permit charges.
Council tax and parking profits do not pay for the £2 bus fees. This price reduction comes from central government (and so general taxation)
Parking fees profits (around £20m locally) pay for bus passes and transport projects (eg. junction improvements, cycle lanes etc). Most is used on bus passes – which the council has to fund by law. If the council didn’t get this revenue from parking then they’d have to find another way. Your view that this is giving money from rich to poor is wrong though. Statistically retired people have more disposable income than working people. So bus passes (mainly retired people) are being paid for by, on average, less well-off working people. That doesn’t seem fair
My view – we should call parking charges what they are – a tax. When they are generating over £20m locally in profit they are a tax. When viewed this way we should look at who pays. And that to me means that poorer households pay less. Perhaps look at council tax bands, benefits etc – but don’t charge all motorists the same for parking. Look at income levels. How to pay for this? Well, look at transport spending. Make bus passes financially tested. Why should well paid pensioners travel free when poorer working people have to pay?
Parking charges in B&H are much higher than other similar cities (eg. Bristol) and are more than much of London. You can easily pay over £300 a year as a resident and then add visitor etc permits on top. This is why such a profit is made. On top of this traders permits – which can be £1400 a year. It costs us all – to park, to buy in local businesses or to have any services from any trade. The cost hurts the poorest the most (even those without a car as rely on local businesses) so it is a regressive tax
Free public transport would ultimately benefit everyone, better economically, environmentally, socially
Well done I wrote to the council last year in exactly the same vein and was given the usual excuses. I think their parking system using residents as a cash cow is outrageous. I did not realise about RTR but it is a very good point were sold the idea of parking permist on the basis of administrative costs only. This is clearly not the case. My parking permit went up last year by 27%. We should be given a full accounting explanation and if they are breaking the law they should be held accountablr.
We must keep on as the council do not seam to realise they represent all of their residents not just a select few.
I am retired use public transport in town but still pay this emission charge based on ownership and not use.
Keep up the good work and by the way you put some excellent arguments forward and dont let anyone who is not affected tell you otherwise
Shoehorning the RTR to fit the justification is creative interpretation, personally.
Congratulations!
You’ve won tonight’s non-sentence competition
If you didn’t understand, you could have just asked Silas, no need to be coy. Personally, I believe bringing up RTR in this way is not accurate, omitting certain aspects of it so it fits the argument. Being creative with how the legislation should be interpreted, so to speak.
It’s like forcing a square piece through a circle hole, does that make more sense for you Silas?
I’m one of the many self-employed traders who are struggling at the moment.
I need my van for work but that work is not coming in so easily as home owners with mortgages find they have less money to spend on their houses.
Instead of having too much work on, which used to be the case, I’m having several quiet weeks and last month I banked less than £1,000. That small amount still has to cover my running costs and of course my food and heating bills and council tax etc.
The council emailed that my parking permit runs out next month, and the renewal cost for 12 months is a staggering £335.80 – which is an amount I simply cannot find right now.
If instead I go for the 3-monthly option that’s £91.80, and over the course of the year my parking charge goes up to 4 X 91.80 = £367.20.
If I work outside my parking zone then further daily parking charges apply.
People tell me the solution is to put up my the daily amount I charge for my services, but there’s no way you can pass on these additional costs to the customer without losing further work.
This is so depressing.
It’s rough you can’t roll with that expense. To play devil’s advocate, that’s also an indication you’d do well with financial planning. It’s far easier to swallow when it’s £30 put away monthly. And let’s not forget you can claim that off your tax bill at the end of the year as well.
Well it’s always great to be patronised. This is typical of all those who have no empathy with any issue where cars are mentioned.
When we drivers complain, it’s always assumed we could be walking instead, or can take the bus, and people think if we are rich enough to run a car or van then we must be earning loads.
In fact for a tradesperson a van to carry tools and materials is indispensable, but that van does not guarantee you earning more than the minimum wage by the time you’ve covered running costs.
I did work out that I’d currently be earning more if I took a job flipping burgers in MacDonalds – and what a career change that would be, in later life.
Living in Brighton has become impossibly expensive for many people, and every bill has gone up way more than the rate of inflation, while opportunities to earn have shrunk. Many self employed people like me are also still carrying debt from the Covid lockdowns, when we got no financial help from the government.
So the idea I might be able to put away £30 a month in anticipation of an annual £360 bill assumes I have the income to do that, when in fact I’m struggling with every daily and monthly outgoing. I’m already defaulting on some direct debits coming out of my bank account, and any savings have long gone. I don’t put my heating on, and have already cancelled what outgoings that I can.
Of all the annual bills I get, this parking permit charge is now the largest one, and it comes on top of all the other vehicle taxes I’m already paying – road tax, fuel duty, and then VAT on all garage/repair expenses.
The other thing that happened only last year was my van was mysteriously re-rated as a ‘high emissions’ one, and that sneaky change alone doubled the parking permit charge I had to pay.
Like most people I do have environmental concerns, and I cycle and walk when I can, but to change my vehicle to an electric van would cost about three times what I earn in a year! Plus it’s not actually very green to scrap a modest ten year old van with a relatively small engine, and which is still running like new.
In a few year’s time those with electric vehicles will all be scrapping them, because the batteries will no longer work and are too costly to replace.
We have been so conned with fake-green policies, and now we are being fleeced, with the poorest being taxed the most.
I wouldn’t worry about what Benjamin says.
He clearly is a major league t0sser
Seconded
Your too kind !!
While I sympathise with your general position, it’s a commercial vehicle parked in a residential area. For the small sum of less than a pound a day you get parking for your commercial vehicle.
Road tax / VED, fuel duty, and VAT are not mysteriously only applied to traders, we all pay them.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a pound a day or ten pounds a day – it’s a charge for something that used to be free, and I simply can’t afford it, along with all the other increasing costs.
Using the word ‘commercial’ doesn’t make things any fairer and in my case the small van is my only vehicle.
It’s a new and unfair local tax which affects the poorest the most, and my permit has gone up way beyond the rate of inflation.
Plus it’s not like that money goes to create new or better local transport for working people in any way. The privatised bus services in my area have also been cut in recent years.
Then, in the most respectful way possible, because I’m not actually trying to be a dick right now, is your business viable at your current prices? Like you said, it’s not a happy place to be, and I honestly do feel for someone struggling right now. Insurances are due to jump by 50-90% as well, and that’s going to be rough.
Let me be clear that I too require a vehicle for my self-employed job, and have to budget it’s maintenance and associated costs.
It puts you between a rock and a hard place because you don’t want to raise your prices, but you feel you have to. Shit time for all, really.
It’s all in this High Court Judgement – councils are not allowed to profit from resident parking permits.
https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/barnet_parking_case_judgment_220713.pdf
Add this to the lawfulness of charging for emissions-based permits when parked cars do not emit and BHCC have some major worries ahead in pushing this through before their promised ‘Parking Review’.
Though Cllr Muten has already said no one will be getting a refund if the parking review decides we have overpaid, so it looks like it is already a foregone conclusion. Another sham consultation ahead.
You may have misread the judgement, or perhaps only read what you wanted to read. Councils may lawfully make a surplus, provided it is held in a ringfenced fund and used for specified transport initiatives, including meeting costs included in the provision of public passenger transport services and highway or road improvements.
The only problem with the surplus argument is how do you define the ‘surplus’ as opposed to ‘revenue’. The profit last year was over £4 million. The ‘surplus’ is getting higher and higher, and where is the evidence that it is ringfenced? Also, if there is so much surplus, which is to be spent on car related things, why not fix the roads and pavements? They are also increasing the charges which includes the emmisions bands. Parked cars don’t produce emmisions.
The surplus is not “to be spent on car related things”, it on specified transport initiatives which include public transport.
The evidence that it is ringfenced is in the published Council accounts where they detail the revenue and expenditure.
Try looking stuff up before commenting.
You are cherry picking and creating confirmation bias, I am afraid. It’s the same story with mentioning the RTR in the article, it’s not applicable here.
It’s official you are a tosser !!!
One who is correct, Steve. Feel free to throw more and hominems my way. Stock and stones aren’t going to do much to me, so you can imagine the effect words are going to have.
Even the Council admit that POarked vehicles DO NOT emit any CO2 and yet, for 7 years they have been charging Residents and Traders alike for CO2 emissions when they park their cars using the Parking permit scheme.
It has to be unlawful and Residents and Traders should be taking legal action against tghe Council, if the Council are not prepared to change the existing scheme.
It’s a rather unintelligent reason. How’d the car get there? It wasn’t via teleportation now, was it?
For once you have drawn attention to a very important point. If there is NO ulez for cars in Brighton and Hove and no emissions from parked cars, wtf is the parking permit charging an emissions tax for?
I think it a very intelligent reason. So the council are charging ULEZ then? We are being charged a 75% surcharge for driving to a parking space. The council have had emmisions charging for parking permits for years. Where is the evaluation of all this apparent toxic air, and what has this emmisions charging done to alleviate the apparent ‘climate emergency’ which the council are yet to provide evidence of??
This was aimed at Benjamin
There are annual reports since 2018 that might interest you.
Clever dick….or maybe just dick.
I’m pretty sure you don’t have many friends
You’re going down the “you have no friends route”? Oh man, I haven’t seen baseline insults like that since…primary school? Keep ’em coming Steve. If that’s the level of articulation you can manage, we might have trouble having decent discussion on this topic, or any topic really…
This is absolutely outrageous!
Does the lady not understand that it’s the Transport & Parking department ‘s mission to screw as much money as possible from the the motorist so that it can continue to employ a huge number of ‘sustainable travel’ officers, who divide increasingly mindless woke schemes.
Sack the lot of the lying, cheating cretins!
*devise* !
The main point I take from this is that parking permit charges should cover the cost of the parking scheme, not used to raise revenue for other things. The council is permitted to generate a modest profit to cover unexpected costs, capital charges, previous shortfalls etc, but not to make a huge profit (over £20 million in B&H last year). Even if extra money is raised, parking revenue is ringfenced and is only allowed to be used for very specific purposes.
I think the council would find it very difficult to justify these year on year increases if they were examined properly. They keep records and we should be allowed to see them but, as usual, they use the ‘Commercial confidentiality’ card to avoid scrutiny.
Unreasonably increased parking charges have recently been sucessfully challenged in Barnet, perhaps we should do the same here. This is just profiteering.
The parking scheme in Elm Grove was rejected 3 times. On the fourth, after pushing the scheme every 18 months, voter apathy & annoyance got the better of everyone( as they knew it would) and it passed with more than 50% of returnees voting YES. 50% = 5% of eligible voters, with less than 10% responding at all. Democracy in action!
A certain former chair of Heglat ellegedly sold Hanover and Elm Grove down the river in secret meetings with former Green Councillor Dave Gibson.
Nowhere in the legislation does it say “modest”.
The council is allowed to make as much profit as it chooses, provided it is ringfenced and only spent on specified purposes.
The revenue and expenditure is published on the Council’s website, anyone with a web browser is allowed to see them.
The Barnet ruling mentioned ‘modest’ amongst other things. This part of the ruling is worth a read: ‘As a matter of general principle, a public body must exercise a statutory power for the purpose for which the power was conferred by Parliament and not for any unauthorised purpose. The RTRA 1984 is not a revenue-raising or taxing statute and did not authorise the Council to use its powers to charge local residents increased parking charges with the purpose of raising surplus revenue for other transport purposes funded by the General Fund. The Council’s purpose in increasing the charges for resident parking permits and visitor vouchers was to create a surplus and was not therefore authorised under the 1984 Act and therefore its decision to do so was unlawful.’ The rest is here: https://emlawshare.co.uk/resource/revenue-generated-car-parking-charges/
“For other transport purposes funded by the General Fund”.
As much as you like to repeat the Barnet ruling, there are clear differences between the circumstances of that ruling and the ringfenced SPA used by BHCC, in particular that the ruling allowed a surplus provided that surplus was ringfenced for specified purposes, and that the surplus was not transferred to the General Fund for other non-specified purposes.
“For other transport purposes funded by the General Fund”. Yes, that’s why I’d like to see exactly what the revenues from parking and parking enforcement are used for (and the plans for their future use). As far as I can see the figures on the BHCC website are not that specific. From time spent at a London Borough some years ago I know that these rules can be easily abused. It’s clear that a huge amount of money is being raised from parking and traffic enforcement, much more than is needed for the primary purposes. I don’t believe that this is a proper use of council revenue raising powers.
Well said. Yes I think a legal challenge is inevitable. TheCouncil are deliberately blocking access to proper info and scrutiny. Maybe we need to start gathering for a legal challenge ??
When are you going to get it. The council will simply come up with more and more ways to screw as much money as they possibly can out of motorists. They fool you into believing that it’s in your best interest and they are trying to save the planet, and feed the poor. While the truth is they are there serving their own best interest, taking your hard earned cash and simply piss it up the wall.
Beep beep Happy Motoring!!!
If public transport was free, there wouldn’t be so many cars cluttering up the streets
You would like to think so but I don’t believe people would give up their cars so easily. People will simply go elsewhere to spend their cash. Seaford’s a great place to go with easy parking at no cost. It’s got shopping, cafés, restaurants and great walk along the seafront. Brighton on the other hand has been ruined by past councils. Bus lanes, bike lanes, high parking charges……and more adverse schemes to bring Brighton to it’s knees. R.I.P Brighton.
Have you read the data on online shopping figures?
If you look at the data showing where people work compared to where they live, you might find that would be far less significant an impact then you believe. Might have some, sure. But people drive for many reasons, and many of those reasons are incompatible with public transport unfortunately.
If public transport was free, someone else would be paying for it. No such thing as free.
The corollary being, parking charges pay for things; if the charges are reduced or removed, things that are currently being paid for out of the ringfenced fund such as concessionary bus fares for poorer people would need to be cancelled.
I’d be happy for the permit fees to be increased, to cover free bus services for all.
Had I known about it I would have signed. As I have an older car I get crucified by the council fee of £335. I only use the car once a month for out of town shopping so I am not killing babies etc. (oh and it petrol so not a real concern locally)
In all honesty it is a smash and grab against the poor – most of whom did not want resident’s parking – but now is a major part of the council income stream. (Please do not tell me the cash is ring fenced for transport use as the council would be paying for that anyway)
This is a legacy of the useless green administration and should be done away with.
For once a month use, surely you’d be better off using a Zipcar or taxi?
I would also like to hear the answer to this question. Anon makes a very potent point.
I was thinking the same thing. Owning a car to go shopping 12 times a year is the same backwards logic people use to justify a pick-up-truck instead of using a small car/bicycle “because I might need to move a sofa/fridge once every 3 years”
I like to have the option of independence. I have been forced to use it more recently due to train strikes. If there was a bus company strike I would have no other options.
I also have an emotional connection to my car – but as others have said I take up no more space than an electric one. I am already penalized on VED for having an older car. Upping the fee based on emissions where we do not have an issue is nothing more than profiteering. I also live in an area where I cannot install a charger, and the two nearby commercial ones, even when working are very expensive. I would like a nice shiny electric car but it remains out of my reach.
Would that still be an electric car that is only used 12 times a year. Sounds like you’d be better with a club car hire scheme, my friend!
Might save you a few pennies in the long run, and give you that freedom as an when you want it.
The cash is ringfenced for transport use, including subsidising fares.
No, the council would not be paying for that anyway. Out of what magical fund do you think they would be paying it, and which other services would need to be cut to pay for it?
You are bang on. It is a smash and grab and illegal. It’s a war on cars. And now they have magically found money to put 20 mile an hour metal circles everywhere just after announcements of £70 million deficit. Extraordinary that there is always money for impeding our movements but never any for the basics.
Don’t like what’s going on re parking at BHCC?
Write to head of transport
Mark.prior@brighton-hove.gov.uk
His email is in the public domain
Done. A beautiful email sent to him 😊
BHCC often use the excuse it is ‘commercially sensitive information’ to withold the answer to an FOI, but it is OUR money they are spending – whether from local or national pots – and they work for us. They are not entitled to privacy from us. They are supposed to be completely transparent.
Incorrect Barry, and that misunderstanding is why you are angry.
A small surplus. But the real point of the cost is supposed for the administration of the scheme.
BHCC are ramping costs up several fold all over the city, adding charges for ‘high demand’ areas and penalising lawfully owned vehicles for parked non-emissions, which is profiteering.
Introduce a modest flat fee citywide and that would be fair.
Incorrect definitions I’m afraid Barry.
Incorrect in your opinion.
Surplus is not what profiteering is, it’s been explained pretty well why it’s not the case above.
Are you the local troll?
I tend to call out things when they don’t make sense or just being emotive, if that’s what you mean, Yogi!
I’d prefer it when people offer a reasonable rebuttal, but more times than not, we get a lot of logical fallacies which unfortunately doesn’t provide anything of substance.
There’s a few chronic commenters that fall into disingenuous fallaciousness, so if you might see I skip a few pleasantries wih those individuals, because this ain’t our first dance.
Benjamin….You’re missing the point. Residents are paying for parking NOT driving their vehicles. There is no ULEZ in B & H , so the Council cannot charge people fro driving their vehicles.
I see what point you’re making. Permits are ULEZ charges by another name in your opinion? Yeah, I can see the logic behind that.
Council was advised they need to make money to fill the Black Hole using every means available to them at a recent meeting, so it certainly makes sense.
I wonder if it was proposed to have no parking restrictions in B&H, but you lose all subsidiaries it covered, how would people vote on it?
The Barnet Ruling states “In conclusion, I accept the Claimant’s submission tthat he 1984 Act is not a fiscal
measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local
residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes
funded by the General Fund.”
BHCC specifically say that they use this money for the general fund.
Exactly so. Well said.
RogueYogi……..”Maybe we need to start gathering for a legal challenge ??”
I agree, we do .
That’s interesting, whereabouts do they say that they use parking revenue for the General Fund please?
David……..
It is in the Annual Report https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/parking/parking-annual-report-2022/16-where-our-income-goes.
You will note it says ” Use of surplus income from parking charges and penalty charges is governed by section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Once the need for provision of off-street parking facilities and to make good deficits to central funding ”
“To make good deficits to Central Funding ” !
MJA
Thanks for that. Not sure if there’s a difference between central funding and the general fund, there are so many names for these things! It does sound like another name for the same thing though. Will definitely have a closer look.
“Making good deficits to central funding” is likely to be political-speak for “covering specified transport initiatives that are legally allowed by the ringfenced fund but should morally be covered by central government funding instead”.
But maybe an FOI to the council will get your answer.
I have asked Councillors to explain what ‘Central Funding’ means but they have not provided any explanation.
The surplus made through parking fees and charges (after direct costs) in 2022 was £20,567,296
Almost all of which funded free bus passes for pensioners. How would you propose this is funded instead?
About half of the surplus went to pay for subsidised bus fares in the last financial year, still leaving nearly £10 million spare. I don’t think many people are suggesting that parking fees should be slashed, but there is no justification for further large increases. Funding for bus passes is already covered.
Bhcc should stop giving other councils and business loans from the public purse. And then crying out they haven’t enough to fund public service get the mony back and compulsory perchance the i360 and sell it.
The Report states “After costs, the surplus for 2021/2022 was £20,567,296, this is an increase of 35.72% from 2020/2021”.
Given that the ‘direct costs ‘ were £11,097,394 in 2022, it can be argued that a surplus of £20,567,296 is excessive.
I’d say that was excessive, and it certainly makes the further large increases that we are seeing this year look excessive and probably illegal.
And the rest. What else does it fund?
Tina…….Funding Pensioners Free Bus Passes from the Ill Gotten gains of potentially unlawful Parking Permit Charges is unjustifiable.
The Council needs to act in the interests of all B & H Citizens not just one group.
In addition, the Council needs to ensure that it calculates and applies all Fees, charges, Taxes etc fairly and equitably.
This pernicious Charge for Residents and Traders being permitted to park their vehicles using CO2 emissions as the reason for unjustifiable increases is potentially unlawful, as the Council itself agrees that Parked vehicles to not make CO2 emissions.
Tina…….. by the way, the Concessionary Bus Travel Act was introduced in 2007.
The BHCC CO2 emissions charge was introduced by the Council in 2018 ( I am informed) .
So, the Council managed to fund Free Bus Passes for Pensioners some 11 years before they started charging Residents for CO2 emissions their vehicles do not make when parked.
The concessionary fares are not just for pensioners. I suspect that you do not use the buses at all, otherwise you would know this.
I wasn’t aware of any such petition. I suspect had it been better publicised it would have received considerably greater support, including my own.
The parking permit tax has become extortionate in recent years, and the parking zones have inevitably spread across the city as spillover from newly enforced zones eventually lead to capitulation in adjacent areas after repeated council surveys (torment) asking if residents would like a ‘helpful’ parking scheme (as it is framed) – and a 51% response (IIRC) is all that is required for the scheme to go ahead – this should be considerably higher (75%?) to be fairer.
As others have mentioned, parked cars do not emit CO2, and so those with older/larger cars are disproportionately affected, especially as annual mileage (or usage within the city) is not factored in, thus making a mockery of the extra emissions charge as a principle.
In addition to the financial aspect, there is also another, perhaps less obvious, impact to all these parking zones/fees and that is the social aspect. I have spoken with many people who say that they are discouraged from visiting others across the city when they know they will have to pay high parking fees, as well as having the background stress of patrolling wardens catching overrun tickets, leading to potential £60 penalty notices. Popping around to see an acquaintance for a few hours for a cuppa and having to pay several pounds to park, when folk are suffering with basic cost of living, is likely leaving many older and more vulnerable people with less social contact. In my own area, parking fees recently rose from £1 to £1.40 per hour – a 40% rise in one go – and the justification is??? (a f’ing disgrace!)
Small thing about visiting others, Guest Permits are much cheaper than street parking and allows access to residential areas.
John…..I was answering Tina’s question where she specifically referred to ‘free bus passes for pensioners’
Benjamin………maybe that is why the Council only allow you to have 50 guest Permits per year .
Yeah, I don’t agree with that personally. I am actively challenging the council right now on rehauling it, and sit on the I&E Panel.
At the very least, we should have enough permits to cover someone visiting over the weekend for the entire year, we shouldn’t price people out of friendship.
I don’t disagree but the Council no doubt think that the fewer visitors permits they issue, the more they will collect in revenue from the parking machines.
Where did the figure of 50 come from in the first place ?
It should obviously be increased substantially.
52 weeks in a year, rounded to the nearest 10. It’s that straightforward!
I believe you might be giving the council too much credit. It’s simply a result of a system that hasn’t been updated in a while and is overdue for an overhaul. As the saying goes, ‘Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance, or incompetence.’ – Hanlon’s Razor.
i feel like they should just get rid of how having a high-medium emission vehicle makes the cost higher.