Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Objections to Emission-Based Parking Permit Charges and Diesel Surcharges for Permits

This report considers the objections to emission-based parking permit charges and diesel surcharges for permits.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report stating that the policy to introduce emission-based parking charges was linked to the Air Quality Action Plan, the Clean Air Strategy and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

 

A consultation on the scheme was undertaken, and officers stated that all 14,000 permit holders in the borough were contacted by email, or by post if email was not possible. From the consultation around 1,000 responses were received and had been responded to.

 

Ms Batt addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals as it was stated that residents had not been informed of the proposed increase in parking permit charges. Furthermore, it was stated that the proposal was disproportionate and unfair as only impacted those who lived in Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), as such it remained free to park outside the CPZs. Whilst Ms Batt noted that the aim was to encourage people to replace their cars to lower emitting vehicles; it was stated that it was not possible for many as they were on low incomes or pensions and their current cars had no resale value. Ms Batt suggested that rather than charge for parking the council should consider charging on the miles travelled; and thus the emissions produced by the vehicles.

 

Ms Thomas also spoke in objection to the proposals stating that residents felt that it was an additional tax and that they had had no warning. It was stated that the charging was an unfair increase as it only impacted those who had parking permits and who wanted to park by their homes. Concerns were raised about those who drove in Croydon, but parked on roads which were not in a CPZ; that whilst they emitted emissions they were not being charged.

 

Ms McSherry addressed the Committee in objection, also, stating that she only became aware of the proposal when she was renewing her parking permit; and as such it was felt that the council had failed in its statutory requirement to consult residents on the proposals. The Equality Analysis was referenced as stating there was a risk that the proposal would disproportionally affect those with disabilities or long term health concerns and, it was suggested, the mitigations would not be sufficient. Ms McSherry noted that different authorities had different bandings for similar policies and it was felt that this was not creating a level playing field for London residents. Furthermore, it was stated that there was insufficient infrastructure to encourage residents to buy electric cars and that many residents could not afford to replace their current cars. The council was requested to look at alternative solutions which were more reasonable and proportionate.

 

Dr Nicodemi noted that emissions were an issue across the whole borough and that it was the responsibility of all to contribute to supporting the environment; however it was felt that the proposal was grossly unfair as it only impacted those in CPZs. Concerns were further raised that a number of permit holders had not received communication regarding the proposals and had only heard of the consultation via Inside Croydon.

 

Mr Hameed stated that the proposed charging bands would lead to all residents paying more than currently charged, and queried how the banding had been calculated. It was noted that hybrid and fully electric vehicles are very expensive; and that there was not sufficient infrastructure in the borough to support all residents having plug-in hybrid or electric cars. Mr Hameed further expressed concerns in relation to the consultation undertaken by the council as it was stated that many affected residents were unaware of the proposals.

 

A statement from Mr Samuel was read to the Committee which stated that he objected to the scheme on four points; that a parked car does not emit any emissions, that outside the operating times of a CPZ it is currently free to park in a CPZ, the proposal would cause displacement to areas outside CPZs, and that residents had not been consulted on the proposals.

 

Cllr Pelling addressed the Committee as the ward councillor for Waddon ward and sharing the views of Waddon residents. It was noted that a 10% response rate to the consultation showed a high level of concern by residents, and that it was important to fully consider those concerns. Councillor Pelling stated that serious consideration should be given to the bandings as over 700 residents would be impacted by an increase in the permit fee from £80 to £300. It was suggested that a reasonable amount of time should be given to enable residents to save up to change their vehicle, as the proposed increase would have a significant impact on residents. Additionally, it was stated that it was important that the infrastructure for electric cars needed to be in place before the increase took place to support residents. Councillor Pelling concluded by stating that residents felt it was important that the scheme was cost neutral and was not a means to increase revenue.

 

In response to the concerns and objections raised the officer stated that emails were sent to all permit holders using the email addresses provided when residents had applied for permits. The council had tested to ensure the email would not go into people’s spam or junk folder. For those residents without email addresses, the council had written to them separately. Officers were confident that the email had been correctly sent as a large number of responses had been received within 48 hours of the email being sent. Furthermore, officers stated that receiving 1,000 responses from 14,000 notifications was a relatively high response rate to a parking consultation.

 

In relation to the concerns raised regarding the bandings the council was proposing; officers noted that the DVLA had 16 bands. Whilst it was agreed that Croydon was proposing a different system to other London authorities; those schemes were looked at and the proposal in the report was to ensure there was a simplified system of five bands.

 

Officers stated that they had sought to have the scheme neutral; however this was not entirely possible. However, any surplus was required to be spent on areas outlined within Traffic Management legislation and, at present, it was spent on supporting the Freedom Pass scheme. It was noted by officers that the cost of permits had not increased in the past seven years, and the proposal to increase the lowest permit charge to £104 was in line with inflation over that period.

 

In response to concerns relating to the scheme is adversely affecting those with disabilities, the officer confirmed that blue badge holders did not require a permit and so there was no disadvantage. Additionally, it was stated that companion permits were also available to support those with disabilities.

 

Officers confirmed that the council was working to improve the infrastructure for electric and plug-in hybrids, and as such it was planned that new charging points would be implemented in the next six to 12 months, with 400 to be installed by the council in total. This figure, it was stated, was in addition to those being installed by Transport for London (TfL) and fuel garages.

 

In response to concerns raised that parked cars do not pollute, officers stated that they are taking parking spaces which makes it difficult for residents who regularly use their cars to park. There was a need to manage supply and demand as there was finite space for parking in the borough.

 

Councillors stated that they all agreed that it was important that everyone worked to tackle emissions as there was a climate emergency.

 

Some councillors, however, raised concerns that while it was positive that 400 charging points were being installed it was fairly impractical for thousands of residents to use them. It was suggested that all new developments with parking spaces be required to have charging point installed. In response, officers confirmed that policy was in place to require charging points be installed in new developments. Additionally it was noted that each charging point could charge up to four vehicles at one time.

 

Concerns were raised by some Members that those vehicles which were rarely used would incur a high charge, and that cars which did not qualify for a ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) charge would be charged by Croydon. It was felt that the policy should be an emission based policy which was based on emissions, and not on where people lived.

 

Further concerns were also raised in relation to the proposed charge for band 5 vehicles which was felt to be too high, particularly for those on low incomes or pensioners who would find it difficult to change to a lower emitting vehicle.

 

The Cabinet Member stated the council had looked at the schemes set by other local authorities and TfL, and while the proposed Croydon scheme did not exactly match these they had influenced the design of the Croydon scheme.

 

Some councillors noted that the roads were highly polluted which was having a serious, and negative, impact on the health of residents and was contributing to early deaths. With other 10,000 more cars in Croydon between 2013 and 2016, and likely more in coming years it was felt that it was important that something was done to tackle the air quality issue. Councillors stated that the public health emergency was clear and that it was the duty of the council to respond.

 

Councillors welcomed the decision that blue badge holders and companion permit holders would not affected. Additionally, the phased introduction of charging and implementation of charging points was welcomed, however it was suggested that the majority were needed in the CPZs to support residents to move to cleaner vehicles.

 

In response to the suggestion that councillors should lead by example, and that they should be charged in relation to proposed charging schedule for the councillor parking permit, the Cabinet Member confirmed he supported the idea and that he would raise the suggestion with the Group Whips.

 

Officers confirmed that Croydon had the highest rate of admissions to hospital for childhood asthma in London, and as such it was felt that it was important that there was a policy which sought to tackle emissions. It was further noted that, 76% of people were in favour of the council tackling emissions when the council consulted on the Air Quality Action Plan.

 

The Chair stated that it had been difficult to create a scheme which sought to tackle the emissions problem without the potential to adversely affect those on lower incomes. While it might be desirable to means test parking permits it was not permissible under Traffic Management regulations. It was recognised that there was a public health emergency, and that improving air quality was the focus of the policy and not parking charges and raising income.

 

The council, it was stated, had sought to get the right balance between proposals which would encourage people to move to cleaner vehicles or public transport and avoiding prohibitively high charges.

 

In relation to the concerns raised regarding the consultation, the Chair stated that the consultation emails had been sent and so it was considered that the council had consulted permit holders.

 

The Chair concluded by noting that the Government was requiring councils to act on emissions, and that a number of other authorities were also introducing emission based parking policies. It was considered to be a tool for tackling air quality and was part a wider over-arching aim to improve the environment including; School Streets, fining of idling vehicles, and the introduction of diesel surcharges and pay & display charging.

 

Some councillors stated that while it was Government policy to tackle emissions, it was felt that the proposal did not address emissions and only penalised parking.

 

Following a vote the Committee voted four in support of the recommendations, and two against.

 

RESOLVED: To

 

1.     Consider the responses received to the formal consultation on the proposed introduction of emission-based parking permit charges and the contents of the report and make such comments to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (Job Share) as they consider necessary; and

 

2.     Note that in accordance with the delegation from Cabinet dated 25 March 2019, the Executive Director Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration (Job Share) is authorised to consider the outcome of the consultation regarding Emission-Based Parking Charges; and subject to there being no significant changes which would necessitate further consultation, finalise, agree and implement the Emission-Based Parking Charges proposals (see Appendix 1 of the report). Note that any proposals requiring significant changes or further consultation will be brought back to Cabinet for consideration.

Supporting documents: