Agenda item
Introduction of a Vehicle Emission-Based Charging Regime for Residents' Parking Permits
The reasons for the call-in are:-
· Controlled Parking Zones were originally introduced to protect residents, not produce revenue for the Council. Call-in should explore further the possibility of a cost neutral scheme and the implications for residents of the proposed scheme.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.
Minutes:
The reasons for the call-in were:-
· Controlled Parking Zones were originally introduced to protect residents, not produce revenue for the Council. Call-in should explore further the possibility of a cost neutral scheme and the implications for residents of the proposed scheme.
Councillor J Moher introduced this item, stating the scheme was a complex one designed to address emission reductions. The Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) schemes would still continue to provide protection for residents and facilitate parking provision in their area and remained particularly important in areas where there was considerable pressure on parking spaces such as in the south and east of the Borough. An emissions-based scheme had been introduced in 2008, whilst this scheme sought to relate CPZ charges to the level of CO2 emissions from any given vehicle with the intention to encourage residents to use lower emission vehicles. With regard to concerns about excessive charging, Councillor J Moher advised that CPZ permit fees had not risen in 1999 and were lower compared to neighbouring London boroughs. He drew Members’ attention to the proposed charges as set out in the report and stated that the lowest emitting vehicles would be eligible for CPZ permits at no cost or the present £50 fee. It was estimated that approximately one-third of vehicle owners in the Borough would pay either £50 of £75 for their first annual permit. Only higher emitting vehicles would be subject to the higher CPZ charges, however as such vehicles were usually more expensive it was likely that the owners would have more ability to pay the higher fee. The fee charges would place the Borough more in line with other London boroughs. Residents could chose to return their permits on a buy-back scheme if they were to change their mode of transport or decided to join a car club. Councillor J Moher added that both The Daily Telegraph newspaper and the Automobile Association had praised a vehicle emissions based scheme for parking permits.
Councillor Beck, a member who had called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Beck enquired what revenue would the Council receive from the scheme and had there been consideration of any other proposals to reduce vehicle emissions without raising revenue. He sought views with regard to balancing the need to reduce vehicle emissions and increase revenue.
Councillor Ashraf, who had also called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Ashraf sought clarification with regard to the engine capacity limit for band two in the charging scheme and whether consideration had been given as to the impact this may have on motorists who may consider increasing their driveways or concreting over their front gardens. He also asked how the buy-back permit scheme would be funded.
During Members’ discussion, Councillor Brown suggested that the scheme could be cost neutral by not raising more revenue from residents through reducing the permit costs of lower emission vehicles by an even larger amount. Councillor Hirani felt that the scheme would contribute to the wider issue of reducing emissions which would be beneficial both in environmental and medical terms and he felt the scheme was based on sound objectives.
In reply, Councillor J Moher advised that approximately £1.1 million revenue would be raised each year from the scheme and this income would only be used for transportation measures and the administrative costs of the scheme. In addition, the scheme may encourage residents to change their behaviour and use lower emission vehicles or use public transport. Councillor J Moher asserted that raising revenue was not the main objective of the scheme, however income was needed to introduce transport initiatives and motorists would be made fully aware of the costs. Councillor J Moher suggested that residents would not be tempted to consider concreting their front gardens or extending their driveways as the costs involved would far exceed that of the CPZ permits, irrespective of the charging band. In addition, there were strict planning regulations in place in respect of concreting front gardens. Councillor J Moher advised that the permit buy-back initiative would be funded through the extra revenue created by the scheme and that such a measure had been a success in the London Boroughs of Islington and Lambeth.
Councillor Powney expressed doubt that the scheme could be cost neutral because of the administrative costs involved and suggested that such a move could raise the possibility of having to use funds from the General Budget.
Adrian Pigott (Acting Policy Manager, Transportation Unit, Environment and Culture) added the CPZ permits would still be cheaper in real terms than when they were initially introduced, whilst a number of other London boroughs had made more significant CPZ permit charge increases. He confirmed that band two charges for vehicles registered before 1 March 2001 was for vehicles with engine size 1101 to 1200cc. Members noted that car manufacturers were looking at introducing cleaner engines in the future.
Irfan Malik confirmed that any income from the scheme would be accrued to the parking account and he advised Members that Capital funding and funding from Section 106 agreements for transport initiatives did not look promising in the foreseeable future, whilst Transport for London funding was also being reduced.
RESOLVED:-
that upon considering the report from the Director of Environment and Culture, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.
Supporting documents: