Brighton parking charged

[Common as Mook]

Just been looking through the e-petitions on the Council website and have come across this:

Brighton Hove City Council - ePetition - No to parking charge hikes for local businesses

Why the hell would the Green Party look to increase parking charges for businesses in such bad economic conditions? Doesn't make sense does it?

EDIT: Title should say "charges" obviously

 

[The Large One]

After consultation, the council has already agreed to reduce those price hikes.

 

[Common as Mook]

So they are still increasing them, just not as much?

 

[The Large One]

So they are still increasing them, just not as much?

Correct.

I also believe (I think this was posted on here a while ago) that it was still cheaper than - though will now be more in line with - the rest of Sussex.

 

[drew]

I find that hard to believe. Parking in Mid Sussex is considerably cheaper than Brighton.

 

[Common as Mook]

Odd decision to raise it in the first place. We should be encouraging commerce in the city, regardless whether or not we are already cheaper than the rest of Sussex or not (which as [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] says I find hard to believe)

 

[Grendel]

I find that hard to believe. Parking in Mid Sussex is considerably cheaper than Brighton.

Pay and display parking for the public might be cheaper, but this refers to business parking permits.

 

[The Large One]

Odd decision to raise it in the first place. We should be encouraging commerce in the city, regardless whether or not we are already cheaper than the rest of Sussex or not (which as [MENTION=5208]drew[/MENTION] says I find hard to believe)

This is business parking rates, not private or 'normal' parking.

Fact is, everyone - irrespective of whether any given council takes the government's 'tax rise freeze' thing or not - has to chip in more. Be it be taxpayers, businesses, car park users (though I haven't read about any car park charge rises in B&H), allotment holders, council tenants; anyone who uses any council service, we all have to pay. Some prices are modest, some look on the surface horrendous.

Any given price rise in any given area of the city isn't just down to 'the f***ing Greens'. All parties of all councils have to do the same up and down the country.

In response to your point there, why should business be exempt from having to suffer price increases?

Even the council tax reduction in Hammersmith & Fulham was met with some dismay as many residents said that they'd rather pay the same rate and keep certain council services rather than pay less if it meant losing services.

 

[Brovion]

Isn't it true though that the money raised in parking can only be spent on transport projects? In other words it's not part of the general pot, and so increasing parking charges doesn't actually benefit residents as the money can't be spent on all council services.

I await correction on that, but I'm sure Lord B has referred to it in the past.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Isn't it true though that the money raised in parking can only be spent on transport projects? .

If that's true it's wonderful news. It means that local businesses are paying for parking meters, speed limit changes and that wonderful new cycle lane on the Old Shoreham Road.

Money well spent....

 

[Brovion]

If that's true it's wonderful news. It means that local businesses are paying for parking meters, speed limit changes and that wonderful new cycle lane on the Old Shoreham Road.

Money well spent....

No, in the current economic climate it's a shocking and profligate waste of valuable resources, but that's just a difference of opinion. And aren't Sustrans paying for some of it?

Also we could well end up with the situation where there is SO much surplus in the transport budget that it will either be an embarrassment or they'll spend it carpeting the pavements or whatever just to get rid of it.

 

[The Large One]

If that's true it's wonderful news. It means that local businesses are paying for parking meters, speed limit changes and that wonderful new cycle lane on the Old Shoreham Road.

Money well spent....

Sorry, that makes no sense. Brovion asked if car parking charges only pay for transport projects. Why do you suggest only businesses are paying car park charges?

As for the cycle lane, it was over-whelmingly voted for by local residents, and is part of an obligation the council must fulfill.

 

[Manx Shearwater]

Also we could well end up with the situation where there is SO much surplus in the transport budget that it will either be an embarrassment or they'll spend it carpeting the pavements or whatever just to get rid of it.

Using carpet made from sustainable recyclable materials, naturally.

 

[The Large One]

No, in the current economic climate it's a shocking and profligate waste of valuable resources, but that's just a difference of opinion. And aren't Sustrans paying for some of it?

Also we could well end up with the situation where there is SO much surplus in the transport budget that it will either be an embarrassment or they'll spend it carpeting the pavements or whatever just to get rid of it.

Looking at the Council accounts for 2010/11 (the latest available I presume), it read thus...

41 ON STREET PARKING SURPLUS
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) of on street parking was introduced in July 2001 as part of the Local Transport Plan, with the aim of reducing congestion and improving traffic management. The costs relating to parking services are included in the cultural, environmental, regulatory and planning cost of service within the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. The surplus arising from on street parking is used to defray qualifying expenditure. The use of DPE surpluses is governed by section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended from October 2004 by section 95 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This specifies the use to which DPE surpluses may be put.

The surplus, and expenditure against which it was defrayed, is shown in the following table:

2009/10 2010/11
£'000 £'000
On Street Parking Operation Surplus (7,641) (7,566)

Utilised to Fund:
Public Transport 8,395 8,287
Borrowing Costs for Transport Capital Expenditure 3,264 3,327

Total Qualifying Expenditure 11,659 11,614

Sod it, I can't get these things to line up...

 

[Common as Mook]

Fact is, everyone - irrespective of whether any given council takes the government's 'tax rise freeze' thing or not - has to chip in more. .

Wow - straight out of the Tory handbook.

I'm not sure targeting local businesses is the way to go about it. Unless of course they are doing it purely for ideological reasons.

 

[zego]

Looking at the Council accounts for 2010/11 (the latest available I presume), it read thus...

41 ON STREET PARKING SURPLUS
Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) of on street parking was introduced in July 2001 as part of the Local Transport Plan, with the aim of reducing congestion and improving traffic management. The costs relating to parking services are included in the cultural, environmental, regulatory and planning cost of service within the Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement. The surplus arising from on street parking is used to defray qualifying expenditure. The use of DPE surpluses is governed by section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended from October 2004 by section 95 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This specifies the use to which DPE surpluses may be put.

The surplus, and expenditure against which it was defrayed, is shown in the following table:

[FONT=Courier New]                                      2009/10  2010/11
                                       £'000    £'000

On Street Parking Operation Surplus   (7,641)  (7,566)

Utilised to Fund:[/FONT] [FONT=Courier New]
Public Transport                       8,395    8,287
Borrowing Costs
 for Transport Capital Expenditure     3,264    3,327

Total Qualifying Expenditure          11,659   11,614[/FONT]

Sod it, I can't get these things to line up...

Use Advanced Edit - or pre-prepare in Word, then copy/paste - and choose a fixed pitch font such as Courier New, and spaces (NOT tabs!!) to arrange.

Current version - or set-up - of vBulletin doesn't seem to handle 'Code' '/code' quite as Bozza's previous incarnation of NSC. May have to re-choose font after cut/paste.

 

[The Large One]

Wow - straight out of the Tory handbook.

I'm not sure targeting local businesses is the way to go about it. Unless of course they are doing it purely for ideological reasons.

You're right - private individuals only should pay. Leave business alone - why should they pay a penny more...?

Which ideological reasons? That they don't like money or commerce coming into the city?

Actually, I don't see that they're 'targetting' business. If I read the reports correctly, there will be no increase, for instance, in Council Business Rates in 2012/13.