SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Shops & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors Adult Learning Lewisham


Post Reply  Post Topic 
CPZ Stealth Tax
Author Message
drobnik


Posts: 2
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #1
02-07-2008 11:21 AM

Very infuriatingly the Manor Mount / David road CPZ has had the charge to residents increased by 100% in the first year, from ?30 to ?60 pa, on the day that all the original permits became due! Very sharp practice - the issue being voted on by residents, like myself but i voted against, obviously thinking that ?30 p.a. going up with inflation was a reasonable amount, what chance that the permits are over ?100 in a couple of years. It's enough to make me vote tory in my old age. Let this be a warning to any other areas where a CPZ is being proposed.................

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #2
02-07-2008 01:05 PM

I can honestly say that the CPZ on Waldenshaw Road has been a great great help to our lives and am happy to pay for it.

Find all posts by this user Reply
foxe


Posts: 53
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #3
02-07-2008 01:23 PM

Can someone tell me why residents have to pay for the privilege of parking on their own road? I still don't understand why it costs everyone ?100 for something that was previously free. The DVLA know who the registered keeper for the car is and where they live - surely any wardens should be able to check that - so why the extra tax/inconvenience? Motoring is far too expensive anyway. Any more costs and I might not take my daily leisure drive around forest hill environs anymore.....

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #4
02-07-2008 01:28 PM

when we didnt pay to park on our own road we couldnt park on our own roads as commuters (and lazy Sainsbury's shoppers) parked on it.

Find all posts by this user Reply
borderpaul


Posts: 87
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #5
02-07-2008 01:29 PM

?60 is less than the cost of a full tank and you would probably use that amount over a year if you lived in an area without a CPZ driving round looking for a parking space on daily basis, not to mention the personal gain in time.

Find all posts by this user Reply
foxe


Posts: 53
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #6
02-07-2008 01:32 PM

I live happily without a CPZ. Park outside my house pretty much all day every day (and not fined for the privilege). Not against residents parking per se (especially near shops etc) but question the value for money and where it all goes.

I think Londernerz is still bitter about that chap in the mitsubishi evo.....

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #7
02-07-2008 01:34 PM

Grrrr, dont get me going about the Evo guyAngry

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #8
02-07-2008 02:41 PM

Isn't there to be consultation to extend the CPZ up Taymount Rise?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #9
02-07-2008 02:45 PM

Yes, ongoing at the moment I believe.

Find all posts by this user Reply
NewForester


Posts: 377
Joined: Feb 2008
Post: #10
02-07-2008 05:32 PM

I suspect that they are planning to increase it significantly again next year too...
(from http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...ch2008.PDF

Lewisham Wrote:
The increased income of ?192k is to be achieved by increasing the resident permit charge
(currently ?35) to ?60. The increased income was calculated on the current number of resident
permits holders.
In comparison to resident permit charges across London, Lewisham?s current permit charge is
relatively low. In July 2007 a conservative uplift of ?5.00 was applied, the first increase in four
years. A benchmarking exercise was undertaken to compare Lewisham permit prices with
other local authorities across London. (Detailed in Appendix A). A number of local
authorities charge different pricing structures across their controlled parking zones and for
boroughs that implement this type of pricing structure an average permit charge has been
calculated. The all London average (excluding the city) is ?131.07. The inner London average
excluding the city is ?158.96 and the outer London average excluding the city is ?109.74. Our
neighbouring boroughs apply different pricing structures across their CPZs, the maximum in
Greenwich and Bromley is ?50 and ?55 respectively and in Lambeth the maximum charge is
?200.
It is likely that this increase may be unpopular with residents and may result in a negative
impact to our CPZ implementation and review programme. If this impact does materialise, it
may impact on the Borough?s ability to meet existing prudential borrowing commitments and on
any future prudential borrowing requirements. A clear communication strategy will be required
to ensure officers are able to deal with any reaction to these increases effectively.

Find all posts by this user Reply
foxe


Posts: 53
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #11
02-07-2008 10:32 PM

that 'council speak' really does my head in. what a wheeze! charge residents for parking on a street which was previously FREE. Then increase the charges to raise money and so long as there are other greedy councils that are charging more then they tell people they've got a good deal. Nothing more than a council job creation scheme

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #12
02-07-2008 11:31 PM

It works at an equivalent rise of about 20% per year.

The council/Mayor regularly point out the money from CPZ is put make into to improving roads, so why does document refer to meeting 'prudential borrowing' commtments?

Quote:
It is likely that this increase may be unpopular with residents and may result in a negative impact to our CPZ implementation and review programme.

If this impact does materialise, it may impact on the Borough?s ability to meet existing prudential borrowing commitments and on any future prudential borrowing requirements.

Find all posts by this user Reply
NewForester


Posts: 377
Joined: Feb 2008
Post: #13
03-07-2008 09:07 AM

ForestGump
Follow the link I gave and read the rest of the document...

Quote:
The additional income was proposed as part of the Revenue Budget Savings Proposal Report
08/09 that was considered by Mayor & Cabinet in December 2007. The proposed increases
put forward will generate ?500k total income, ?273k to be used as part of the budget savings
exercise and ?250k to fund highways prudential borrowing as set out in the Highways Best
Value Review.

foxe
They don't want you to have a car

Quote:
The Mayor of London?s Transport Strategy provides a framework for traffic management and
parking controls throughout Greater London. This guidance gives a high priority to parking
control initiatives that encourage a shift from the use of the car for personal travel to public
transport, walking and cycling.

Find all posts by this user Reply
foxe


Posts: 53
Joined: Apr 2008
Post: #14
03-07-2008 10:00 AM

The claim that tax is hypothocated is clearly a bogus one. Lewisham council raises more money from charging people to park on a previosuly FREE road. They claim this is some sort of local service and - they'll plough the money back by building speed humps (which no one wants, scrapes the bottom of VW golfs, slows down ambulances, kills people etc). In the mean time the money they would have spent on speed humps they can spend on not opening the swimming pool, mangy hanging baskets, and the brilliant street cleaner on Dartmouth Road who is worth ever penny......

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #15
03-07-2008 11:47 PM

Has anyone in the Taymount Rise area had a CPZ consultation letter recently then? I live on one of the roads off Taymount Rise and have had nothing for a couple of years. At the time I was pretty anti-CPZs thanks to my old borough taking the proverbial with theirs but since the Davids Road CPZ was put in place Taymount Rise and the road I'm in get absolutely rammed during the day.

Main culprits are people parking up and walking to the station, local Estate Agent cars and Sainsbury's staff. Don't get me wrong, I understand why they do it, it's the nearest free parking to their various destinations - if I was them I'd be heading here too.

I'm lucky in that I have a drive and a garage (one not full of junk, that we can actually get the car in) so a CPZ wouldn't affect me financially...and if it persuades some of my neighbours to use their drives rather than park on the road I'd be happy.

As for the cost, I know the increases sound large but even with the incresed prices Lewisham doesn't seem to rip you off half as much as most other local authorities who run these schemes. And you never know, they might even stump up some cash from the proceeds to resurface Taymount Rise, years after this was promised...

Find all posts by this user Reply
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #16
04-07-2008 07:36 AM

The recommendation to consult on 8 new or extended CPZ's only went before the Mayor last week. In priority of consultation Taymount Rise is listed as number 6.

Quote:
Taymount Rise is a single road isolated by the A205 and Davids Road CPZ. Also the southern part of Devonshire Road suffers intrusive parking from Forest Hill Station.


The report explains the consultation will be funded by prudential borrowing.

Quote:
The new list of areas for consultation will be funded by prudential borrowing and is part of a programme of CPZ consultations following a Best Value Review. The average costs of consulting on and implementing a CPZ is around ?80 ? 90K.

These costs will be met from prudential borrowing. Income from the permits at ?60 each and other income from the zone will fund the running and maintenance costs of the CPZ?s and the prudential borrowing charges. Any surplus income will be used to fund highway improvements etc.


At least residents are not being asked to pay ?600 for parking at Forest Hill station, unlike some out of borough commuters.

Quote:
The proposal is for Long Term parking permits, the number of which would be limited to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the needs of local residents, businesses etc. It is proposed that these permits would be offered at ?600/year (in line with the commuter permits at Blackheath Station Car Park). The surplusfrom these permits could be ring-fenced and used for local highway improvements.

Find all posts by this user Reply
borderpaul


Posts: 87
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #17
04-07-2008 01:15 PM

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if commuters are no longer able to park on David's road, Devonshire road, or Taymount Rise, the problem will be moved elsewhere.

In 2 or 3 years time, all streets within a 10 minute walking radius of the station are likely to be turned into a CPZ as every area gets the overspill from the streets that had controlled parking introduced.

Perhaps our council should bite the bullet and do a job lot of CPZs in the area rather than spending our money every year doing one small CPZ joining on to the last one.

The alternative is to revoke the existing CPZs and let all streets share the commuting problem.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Simod_the_bod


Posts: 10
Joined: Nov 2006
Post: #18
04-07-2008 06:56 PM

I think thats exactly what LBL should do.
Before councils all over London cottoned onto this new stealth tax and began introducing CPZs, did we all have such a widespread problem that we do now? I don't think so.

As was mentioned earlier, all roads took a share of commuter parking. All CPZs have done is displaced the problem onto surrounding areas thus making the problem much more dense.

Admittledly, I am very anti-CPZ.
I used to live in Greenwich and saw the negative impact that CPZ brought there. They sold it to the residents as purely to stop commuters from parking up and using the DLR. The charge was only to cover the costs of implementing and running the scheme. So how can they then justify increases of sometimes upto 50%? Wages? If thats the case, I'm becoming a warden. Sure beats my nil wage increase.

As you will find in a lot of cases, when it is introduced, the council in their wisdom double yellow half the road concerned. This greatly reduces what parking space their was originally. This automatically displaces parking onto other roads, even for residents. On my current road, TFL has implemented a pointless double Red line across 20% of the road and parking bays on the other side. This has forced us to park in other roads on occasions as we have now lost half the road to park.

On the flip side, in some cases they actually introduce Pay & Display spaces in areas where before it was deemed inappropriate to park. Why all of a sudden can you park somewhere that was previousley considered dangerous before? Extra Revenue is my guess!

Another factor people should consider is friends and family visiting. You have to either pay for usually expensive day permits for them (which have a limit that you can buy in a year) or they have to use the pay & display machines. These in a lot of cases have only a maximum 2 hour stay! Very handy if its the mother in law visiting but for everyone else its outrageous. Obviously there is now a friends and family tax!

Its similar schemes like this that have contributed to the detrimental decline of local shops, that we can no longer park outside for a quick shop. But don't get me started on that.

Your local council does not give a damn about your parking. Only how it can profit from it. You have been warned...

Find all posts by this user Reply
baggydave


Posts: 384
Joined: May 2004
Post: #19
04-07-2008 08:08 PM

Good timing. BD lives in a rose tinted cyclists world and has only just noticed the CPZ. He often debates the relative inadequaces of the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark. But LBS have scored a major result in his eyes. Within about half a mile of Herne Hill station they have introduced CPZ - the normal mix of residents and pay. But, my word, they have acutally thought about it properly. And only have it for two hours a day over lunchtime, hence stopping those who drive to the station and leave their cars all day. Whilst some of those who drive in the day who may actually have a good reason to drive, are able to use the now generally empty parking spaces. Now BD strongly believes in controls around our schools but elsewhere in SE23 thinks the two hour rule would be a good thing. Bringing in a modest amount of revenue without getting our collective Daily Mail tendancies going.

Happy to receive your pats on the back.

Find all posts by this user Reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields