Proposed changes to waiting restrictions ie permit to park at home £52

[Whatnot]

Hi all,

 

Our LA is proposing to change waiting restrictions in our neighbourhood, supposedly on the prefix folk use our area to collect kids from school, which is not the case at all, however we do get a lot of white van man up the next road and some local business parking from 7am to 3pm ish.. maybe a few station parkers but nothing too extreme.

 

But my main concern is A) the cost to me and B) the state of the footpaths and lighting locally, and C) this will push the parking to the next available road that has a width restriction to its already narrow entrance that goes out of the estate which will undoubtedly cause chaos. esp for the poor folk that live on that particular corner, apx 100 meters away from us.

 

Any advice please consultations end 26th June.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

What form are the consultations taking? And are there a lot of people who think the way that you do? There's always strength in numbers.

 

HB

[Whatnot]

Hi HB,

 

At the moment it's on the LA website, i printed it off and advised my neighbor who first of all said good, but when i told her it was £52 she said no i dont think so.

 

People can fill in an online survey or write in, but to be honest although there is a resident addressed letter on the website it hasn't gone out to the local community, which is should be i would have thought?

 

I would be prepared to put letter in all the blocks here and advise the local community, i may even write to the local paper, but would i just be stirring up bother for myself..

[honeybee13]

I agree, you'd hope they would have written to everyone. How many households are affected, do you know?

 

In our case, people power got rid of the proposals. You need to get together and make your voice heard and I would have thought that the local paper could be a good ally. What about your MP?

 

HB

[Whatnot]

Thanks HB that's a good idea,

 

I forgot about MP, i will write to the papers too, i would say in my road 40 properties in 5 other roads possibly 500 most likely.. my main objection to the proposal is the state of the parts and lighting, why should we have to pay to park when they haven't fulfilled their obligation to maintain the byways, i expect they want the money from residents to pay for the repairs, when we already pay CT to LA - that's my guess..

[Conniff]

You are entitled to a breakdown of that charge. £52 per resident is a lot of money or should I say 'profit'.

[Jamberson]

Which waiting restrictions are proposed for change? Sounds like the introduction of resident-only parking?

 

Find out what form the consultation takes. If it hinges on a vote of residents - and they often do - then local campaigning is the best. But at the end of the day, some people will end up with the outcome they don't want, depending on their views.

[Whatnot]

Hi Jamberson,

 

Yes It is a Proposed Resident Permit Parking Scheme, to stop supposedly non locals from parking here, but in truth the problem is just going to moved on one street... and then one with a norrow single file entrance at that, so not much sense really, unless of course the LA can cream off the motorist £26,000 not inc visitor's pass at 50 per year at £1 a pop!

[Whatnot]

Interestingly, the LA has just lost & dismissed a consultation where they wanted to 'swap' common land for paid for parking. in the high street... in a borough with a national ave household income of £75,000, ..needless to say that's not us lot here in the social housing area, the main objection was the charges, so they are now trying it on here

[Jamberson]

I think you're wrong about the council's motives. Resident parking schemes tend to make no money, or run at a loss. The council does get lots of revenue from issuing PCNs, but not from running permit schemes, and as you are aware, they ask residents whether they want them first - they don't just impose them. I don't see consultation as 'trying it on' - just asking you guys what you want.

[green_and_mean]

Hi Jamberson,

 

Yes It is a Proposed Resident Permit Parking Scheme, to stop supposedly non locals from parking here, but in truth the problem is just going to moved on one street... and then one with a norrow single file entrance at that, so not much sense really, unless of course the LA can cream off the motorist £26,000 not inc visitor's pass at 50 per year at £1 a pop!

 

 

If you seriously think £26,000 profit could be made from selling 500 permits, I suggest you never start up a business! 500 permits @ £52 might equal £26,000 but you seem to forget the cost of marking out and signing the streets likely to be thousands with bays required, poles fixed in the footway and signs erected, salary of at least one person to administer the scheme and send out permits, office costs such as phone, IT and office space, printing of permits, cost of consultation, cost of creating traffic order and then once up and running cost of paying staff to enforce it.

[Conniff]

... marking out and signing the streets likely to be thousands with bays required, poles fixed in the footway and signs erected, salary of at least one person to administer the scheme and send out permits, office costs such as phone, IT and office space, printing of permits, cost of consultation, cost of creating traffic order and then once up and running cost of paying staff to enforce it.

 

 

Well there's 9 pence, where is the rest. If there wasn't a big fat profit, they wouldn't bother to do it. They aren't thinking of poor joe public.

[Jamberson]

Well there's 9 pence, where is the rest. If there wasn't a big fat profit, they wouldn't bother to do it. They aren't thinking of poor joe public.

 

That's a misconception about permit schemes. They are there for the benefit of residents, if the residents want them. There's no money in it for the Council, as mentioned above - £26,000 in this case is takings, not profit. When you consider everyone in the zone needs permits posted out, queries answered, application forms on demand, front-line staff to speak to etc - that income just goes towards the cost of running the scheme. And if residents don't want it - they vote against.

[Whatnot]

If you seriously think £26,000 profit could be made from selling 500 permits, I suggest you never start up a business! 500 permits @ £52 might equal £26,000 but you seem to forget the cost of marking out and signing the streets likely to be thousands with bays required, poles fixed in the footway and signs erected, salary of at least one person to administer the scheme and send out permits, office costs such as phone, IT and office space, printing of permits, cost of consultation, cost of creating traffic order and then once up and running cost of paying staff to enforce it.

 

 

Indeed, not forgetting the gold plated pensions these folk will receive once they've done their service to the 'community'

 

Meanwhile back at the ranch..

 

Before they go investing on our behalf on schemes that are not required, needed or in fact beneficial, lets see if they replace the broken wall that fell down due to the piled up rubbish that was left unattended for three months, i wonder if they are ever going to tarmac our road because we still have the 1950's concrete that was initially laid down on it, surely it would be more then helpful if the council would put up additional lighting so i can actually see where i'm going at 6.30am mid winter instead of taking a torch to light my way, although my personal preference would be a nice bin store cover to hide the hideous sight of 9 wheelie bins sitting outside my 4 household flat, but most of all if they could just fill the pot holes at the entrance to our properties that would undoubtedly earn them a triple lock gold star:lol:

[Whatnot]

If you seriously think £26,000 profit could be made from selling 500 permits, ..

 

 

Green and Mean,

 

It is not mealy 500 permits it is 500 + visitors permits at 50 per household per year thus another £50, so on ave 1 visitors pass per week, so additional will have to be bought.. apx then £52.00++ and the start up costs (hardwear) for the council would only be applicable for first year, yes admin, but they are going to earning also from the PCNs, which if the from Council are enforceable, what's the potential income there, do you estimate?

[green_and_mean]

Indeed, not forgetting the gold plated pensions these folk will receive once they've done their service to the 'community'

 

Meanwhile back at the ranch..

 

Before they go investing on our behalf on schemes that are not required, needed or in fact beneficial, lets see if they replace the broken wall that fell down due to the piled up rubbish that was left unattended for three months, i wonder if they are ever going to tarmac our road because we still have the 1950's concrete that was initially laid down on it, surely it would be more then helpful if the council would put up additional lighting so i can actually see where i'm going at 6.30am mid winter instead of taking a torch to light my way, although my personal preference would be a nice bin store cover to hide the hideous sight of 9 wheelie bins sitting outside my 4 household flat, but most of all if they could just fill the pot holes at the entrance to our properties that would undoubtedly earn them a triple lock gold star:lol:

 

 

Maybe you should be moaning about the millions that the government has taken from local council budgets then rather than about a parking scheme that is self funding? I agree about the pensions its shocking to give 6% of your salary for 40 years and then expect to get enough to retire on all people of pensionable age should use food banks and live off state handouts!!

[Jamberson]

You can't logically complain that services aren't being provided while simultaneously attacking the council for allegedly trying to raise money. Have it one way or the other - services cost money. 'Gold plated pensions'? It's a bit of a myth, designed by government to undermine decent pay and conditions. Don't begrudge them their pensions - demand it for everyone!

[Whatnot]

You can't logically complain that services aren't being provided while simultaneously attacking the council for allegedly trying to raise money. Have it one way or the other - services cost money. 'Gold plated pensions'? It's a bit of a myth, designed by government to undermine decent pay and conditions. Don't begrudge them their pensions - demand it for everyone!

 

Ironically speaking, yes I can indeed logically complain or "moan".. that services aren't being provided whilst simultaneously attack the council for trying to raise yet more funds from me/us for the work that they currently have an pecuniary interest in and are yet to disperse on my/our behalf, funnily enough..

[Whatnot]

It's called Council Tax

[Jamberson]

Ironically speaking, yes I can indeed logically complain or "moan".. that services aren't being provided whilst simultaneously attack the council for trying to raise yet more funds from me/us for the work that they currently have an pecuniary interest in and are yet to disperse on my/our behalf, funnily enough..

 

If you want services you gotta pay for them. If you want them then the council has to raise money. If you object to them raising money, then accept that you won't get services. Or, if you demand services, accept that they need to raise money.

 

Council Tax is a poor system in my view (poll tax-lite) but is, in any case, frozen or capped by central government for political brownie points - so that's why we're in this fix of councils using CCTV and so on to raise revenue. The alternative is the services you want not being provided at all.

[green_and_mean]

It's called Council Tax

 

 

 

Maybe you should campaign for a rise in your local tax so Councils can actually have enough to carry out their statutory responsibilities, with most being frozen and an average cut of 1.8% in funding from central govt. its likely your Council hasn't got the money to employ people to check the roads let alone fix them.

[Whatnot]

Jamberson wrote.. "Council Tax is a poor system in my view (poll tax-lite) but is, in any case, frozen or capped by central government for political brownie points - so that's why we're in this fix of councils using CCTV and so on to raise revenue. The alternative is the services you want not being provided at all."

 

The reason government have consistently reduced funding is because they no longer have the weighty cost of social housing to upkeep, thanks to M Thatcher MP, this job has now gone to increasingly large HAs ( i note my current housing associationis in fiscal profit of 36m, ) why i wonder couldn't the/our LA have run it more efficiently? .. maybe because it's employees will still get their bonuses and pension rights estimated to be in the region of £3.058m liability for 2014/15 and this is a very small but rather wealthy council/LA. ..Very soon they won't have any schools or hospitals to run if the mismanagement of local council funding is not put right. just maybe David Cameron is correct as he asserts we need to decentralise Government, less jobs for the boys, and more tendering for hire.

 

Jamberson wrote " Council tax could well be a poor system"

 

-Yes all need to pay in terms of relation to size of property/asset in a rational sliding scale, but what we have now is the social funded/ small 1 bed/studio flats and minor properties being disportionately penalised, in favour of large /iceberg properties we see on the news paying relatively small amounts, of Council Tax hence all that redevelopment costs as spare funds.

[green_and_mean]

Jamberson wrote.. "Council Tax is a poor system in my view (poll tax-lite) but is, in any case, frozen or capped by central government for political brownie points - so that's why we're in this fix of councils using CCTV and so on to raise revenue. The alternative is the services you want not being provided at all."

 

The reason government have consistently reduced funding is because they no longer have the weighty cost of social housing to upkeep, thanks to M Thatcher MP, this job has now gone to increasingly large HAs ( i note my current housing associationis in fiscal profit of 36m, ) why i wonder couldn't the/our LA have run it more efficiently? .. maybe because it's employees will still get their bonuses and pension rights estimated to be in the region of £3.058m liability for 2014/15 and this is a very small but rather wealthy council/LA. ..Very soon they won't have any schools or hospitals to run if the mismanagement of local council funding is not put right. just maybe David Cameron is correct as he asserts we need to decentralise Government, less jobs for the boys, and more tendering for hire.

 

 

 

 

Most social housing is run at a surplus the stock was built donkeys of years ago in most cases for a few thousand £'s and they have been charging rent ever since. Council housing rents were based a formula which meant they cost about 50% of local market rates which meant they could be rented without relying on housing benefit. The new 'affordable' housing assoc rates are based on 80% of market value which means that the majority of tenants get housing benefit ironically paid by the local council. Most HAs are actually subsidised by central government anyway so in reality cost more out of the public purse in benefits and subsidies than Council housing did. Personally I'd rather see any surplus paid in bonuses and pensions to those that work in local govt than public money being handed to share holders of large multi nationals all being handed public services by their chums in Parliament.

[Jamberson]

Selling council houses was a disastrous policy. Council houses were a free source of revenue - rental payments getting pumped into the public purse all year round. (Why else do you think private landlords do the same?) They were a great national asset and notwithstanding the fact that all that income is now lost, and has been for thirty years (add that lot up) Thatcher barred councils from building any more, and so now we have a housing crisis and tyrannical landlords moving in and seriously exploiting their tenants like we had in Rachmann's day. I'm not exaggerating - read about it, and I actually know some people in desperate situations as a result, especially in London.

[green_and_mean]

In Wandsworth there are 15,874 dwellings in council blocks where tenants acquired the leasehold under “right to buy” legislation, some 6,180 dwellings are now owned by private landlords who rent them to private tenants. That is nearly 40% of the total sold by the council. There are 977 private landlords who own more than one of these 6,180 dwellings. One private landlord owns 93, another owns 32, another 15 landlords each own 10 or more and a further 83 landlords each own between 5 and 9 of these dwellings.

In Great Britain there are approximately 4.2 million households living in private rented accommodation. The rent to landlords in 1.59 million or 38% of them is paid in part or in full by taxpayers. Private landlords were paid an annual total of £9,296 million in housing benefit in 2013/14.