Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Wednesday, 4th November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Consultation begins into higher parking fees for gas-guzzlers

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 October 2008
A MASSIVE consultation on controversial plans to introduce higher parking charges in the Capital for gas-guzzling cars is set to get under way.
City leaders have sent out more than 60,000 letters to permit holders and residents in the city's controlled parking zones to get their views on the controversial scheme.

The letters highlight the different types of pricing categories in the new i
nitiative, which would see the cost of parking permits double for the most polluting cars.

It would mean some motorists would see the cost of an inner zone permit double from the current £160 a year to £320, but drivers of the least polluting vehicles in the outer zones could see their charge fall from £80 to just £15.

The council insists the proposals would not mean it would make any more money out of the permit scheme. The consultation will last until December, with a decision likely by February next year.

Driving groups today called on the council to abide by the outcome of the consultation and city leaders insisted it was not a "rubber-stamping exercise".

Councillor Steve Burgess, the city's Green Party environment spokesman, said it was a relatively conservative scheme that would benefit the majority of most vehicle owners.

He said: "I've proposed this idea because it will give an incentive for residents with the most polluting vehicles to move to more efficient, less polluting vehicles, and send a clear signal that this council is serious about tackling the city's contribution to climate change.

"At the same time, parking permit charges will be reduced or remain the same for the vast majority of residents.

"It's a win-win idea that is already working in other parts of the UK. I'd encourage anyone who is concerned about climate change to support this idea and respond."

Council chiefs estimate around 66 per cent of current residential permit holders would pay less under the proposed scheme, 14 per cent would see no change and 20 per cent would pay more. Residents would also face higher charges for second vehicles.

Bruce Young, the Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "I hope that the politicians will abide by the results of the consultation.

"The association is firmly against any parking restrictions that are discriminatory. Some people require larger cars for their particular jobs or lifestyles, and should not be discriminated against."

The gas-guzzler proposals will also be discussed at neighbourhood partnership meetings being held over the next few months.

Councillor Phil Wheeler, the city's transport leader, said: "The large scale of this consultation exercise is an indication of how important the council feels it is that we listen to the public's views on these proposals.

"This is certainly not a rubber-stamping exercise, and the results of this process will affect whether or not they are actually introduced.

"The consultation results will be fed back to the transport, infrastructure and environment committee as part of the process at a later date."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

allknowing,

13/10/2008 12:33:15
"It's a win-win idea that "

tell that to the guy who owns a 4x4, which last tiem i checked was allowed in this country. Any car, big or large, does not create pollution when parked!!!!

4x4 owners already pay more tax than anyone else, so you could argue they are already paying for 'damage' caused!!!
2

Liz,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 12:41:39
"Residents would also face higher charges for second vehicles"

Why?
Do they not realise that many people in the City live in shared accomodation and so it is increasingly likely that there is more than one car per property.

This whole idea is idiotic, anyone with their own driveway or living just outside the controlled zone can drive whatever they fancy. I am the first to shout *anker at any moron in an agricultual style vehicle in the middle of town but more often than not these vehicles appear to be coming from the suburbs/out of the City (few have residents permits) so this new idiot plan will make little difference to anything.
3

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 12:43:11
#1:

Agreed. If anything they should be looking at increasing the charges for SMALL cars, not large ones, in order to aim towards everyone paying the same to run a car.

The drivers if piddly little euro-boxes have got away with not paying their share for far too long.
4

Sarcasm,

13/10/2008 12:43:38
Seeing as most 4x4 city drivers see them as a status symbol, this should only add to their kudos surely.
5

Finbarr Saunders,

13/10/2008 12:54:37
Unless the drivers of these vehicles - often Oompla Loompa-sized mothers - can demonstrate that they've been driven off-road regularly, it's only fair that they pay twice or more as much as normal-sized cars.
6

Daft Old Git,

13/10/2008 12:59:20
Suely we should be encouraging them to park so that they don't 'guzzle gas'
7

familymanwith2jobsandawifeworkingfulltime,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 13:02:07
There cant be much on our roads that guzzel more gas than the huge fleet of LRT buses in Edinburgh. High time these were taxed accordingly
8

allknowing,

13/10/2008 13:08:28
#5 they do, next.
9

Douglas,

Bathgate 13/10/2008 13:09:52
Will there be a charge levied on the obese for making the engines in their planet saving small cars work harder?
How can it be seen as fair to charge someone for NOT using their vehicle?
Will Councillor MacLaren have a charge levied for the use of a diesel burning taxi?
Why Edinburgh?
10

WestEnder,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 13:12:34
Ehhh, I park in zone 1 because I don't have a garage and have to while taking the train through to Glasgow every day hence whether or not my car guzzles gas (which it doesn't) why should anyone be expected to pay double for a parked vehicle ? There are a lot of people in the same boat who use residents parking because they are residents you can assume therefore they need to park.. Parked cars do not produce toxins, cars that visit car parks everyday do - why not up the non-residential rates, it would seem more fair - noone pays attention to where they park these days anyway. In fact, re-thinking that it would further discourage people visiting the city centre which is already in a bad enough state. Ditch the whole idea altogether and keep the status quo.
11

BobW,

Embra 13/10/2008 13:17:04
The people sad enough to buy these things will be able to afford any rise in parking fees. They should be taxed heavily for parking outside or near schools, even for a few minutes.
12

TankEngine,

Uphall 13/10/2008 13:18:04
Can we all stop using the term 4x4. There is virtuall no 4x4 left. The cars now are 4 wheel drive with 5 or 6 gears. How many cars these days have only 4 gears. Who authority is it to dictate what and where a person can drive and park. Are we living in a communist state?
13

BobW,

Embra 13/10/2008 13:22:50
12# Unfortuneately no. If we were we wouldn't allow useless numpties to drive their offspring 200 yards to school, with agricultural vehicles.
14

WestEnder,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 13:24:19
4x4 means by definition a vehicle with 4 wheels of which 4 of them are driven by the engine - nothing to do with gears..
15

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 13:34:38
You beat me to it WestEnder.
16

Jenny MacArthur,

13/10/2008 13:34:58
The ****wits who drive these moron-machines should be taxed on the emptiness of their lives. Imagine being so utterly devoid of any meaning in your life that you have to fill the emptiness with pathetically sad "I'm important" statements as if a huge great killing machine actually makes you look anything other than weak and desperate. As for the effects the abusive parents driving these boxes have on their children who they deprive of any personality-forming contact with the real world whilst forcing them to become obese slobs, unable to do anything with the rest of their lives other than consume rubbish at one end and excrete it again at the other end... Their kids should be taken into care! What a bunch of saddos these drivers are. Total losers.
17

Bored,

13/10/2008 13:37:56
I have a guzzler that has only done about 200 miles in the last 6 months. It is only used when absolutely necessary. It is mostly parked and is currently a colony to wide diversity of spiders and other bugs. For the most part I use my 125cc bike getting about 23miles to the litre (about 90mpg). Cheaper than a bus ticket. I would say that I have considerably reduced my carbon footprint. However if I were to live in a controlled parking zone, these new proposals will penalise me for the actions I have taken. Having said that I do expect to see a CPZ comming my way soon.

Parked vehicles don't pollute.
18

Bored,

13/10/2008 13:41:02
#16
Jenny, I'm glad to see you back in full form.
We missed your rants.
19

Mr Chris,

13/10/2008 13:45:27
get on to www.edinburgh.gov.uk/permitconsultation now and tell them exactly how you feel instead of ranting about it on the forum. Tell them to get stuffed with their daft idea. What if it works and permit revenue drops to a really low level? When will the increases come? Bloody stupid idea dressed up in greenwash.
20

Decent,

13/10/2008 13:56:42
Jenny - Why are you so angry and bitter? Perhaps you should go for some counselling. I don't understand why somebody's choice of car could make you hate them so much you want their children taken away!
21

Bored,

13/10/2008 13:57:42
#21 Chris
Done - Thanks for the link.
I'll still have my wee rant here though.
22

Jim W,

13/10/2008 14:00:37
Pay twice as much. Is that all? They are the scourge of the roads and as their name suggests they should pay 16 times as much ... 4x4! :o)
23

Jimmy B'Umlove,

East End (Boys) 13/10/2008 14:01:24
Whit a load a rubbish. Why wid onyone pay mair fur a parkin' space than someone else?

This is an attack oan successful people an faimlies, supportet by losers who cannae afford onythin themselves or who huvnae been able tae git a partnur/wife. Ye cheapos wi rubbish wee hairdressers cars are effectively gettin' a discoont for contributin' less tae the economy.

This ull no be a nae net gain situation fur the cooncil, they'll make cash oot o' this. They're jumpin' oan the gravy train to get mair oot o' motorists wi cash - no the skint yins in loser-mobiles!
24

Brian Ferrari,

13/10/2008 14:02:53
I don't understand this hatred of 4 wheel drive vehicles/drivers.

Do people hate the fact they are driven by all 4 wheels, or do they hate the height of the vehicle, or its length and width?

Would they be happy with a 2 wheel drive Land Cruiser and not with an Audi TT quattro? Or the other way round.

I'd really like to visit these people's brains to find out.
25

Jimmy B'Umlove,

East End (Boys) 13/10/2008 14:03:28
#24 hey luver boy! Not aw large or high emissions cars ar four ba four, ye imbecile!
26

Jimmy B'Umlove,

East End (Boys) 13/10/2008 14:12:49
#26 Well done matey! Someone wi a brain to explain tae the haulfwits that the argument against four ba fours disnae make sense. Not aw high emittin' vehicles ar four ba four, not aw big vehicles ar four ba four, not aw high emittin' vehicles are big. Not aw four ba fours ar big or high emittin'.
27

Liz,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 14:41:54
#26
The reason they are hated is simply they are inappropriate for driving around City Centres. Now in the middle of the Highlands with a couple of sheep in the back I can see they could be useful. But there simply is not enough space on our roads for everyone to be driving around in what are in effect agricultural vehicles.



28

Hmm ...,

13/10/2008 14:43:27
... this daft idea was launched by a Green Councillor?

I thought these had died out - ah well, next election should do it.

I look forward to seeing the results of the "consultation" - the idea belongs in the scrapheap of society. With its proponents!
29

Hmm ...,

13/10/2008 14:47:02
... Liz (29) said "But there simply is not enough space on our roads for everyone to be driving around in what are in effect agricultural vehicles."

Exactly, Liz. No one buys these primarily to drive around Edinburgh. Which is perhaps why they spend the working week parked and are used at weekends to go home to the country, t ocarry sheep, to tow trailers and do the things that 4x4 buyers buy them to do.

That makes the argument against imposing a tax on them while parked unassailable! And attractive only to losers with a chip on their shoulder.
30

Padraig,

13/10/2008 15:02:15
Interesting that politicians are trying to regain their credibility with "consultations" that "will be listened to"!

It must be catching - Glasgow has just dismissed residents' parking proposals after they were kicked out by the public's response - see http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2459673.0.Glasgow_council_drops_its_plans_for_parking_fees.php

31

Padraig,

13/10/2008 15:02:59
Or perhaps it's just that we have an election looming in a couple of years time!
32

James (1),

13/10/2008 15:06:03
This site just shows the bad feeling between the haves and the have nots!
Who really cares if someone has a big car. What's that I hear you cry? "The environment, we must save the environment".
There is a word that rhymes with "wish" but I am not allowed to print it.
These people (of which I am not one)pay for the upkeep of their vehicles so stop blaming them because you are one of the have nots.
33

allknowing,

13/10/2008 15:09:50
#35 exactly.

I am amazed daily just how often the little green monster appears on here, and they start spouting cr4p about the enviroment, as if to justify it. Grow up, work harder, and you too will have a nice big car!
34

Bored,

13/10/2008 15:19:16
#29 Liz

"But there simply is not enough space on our roads for everyone to be driving around in what are in effect agricultural vehicles"

Sorry Liz.
Poor argument.
A Landrover Discovery takes up about the same road space as a Ford Mondeo. OK the landrover is 10mm shorter.

Try again.
35

WKKB,

13/10/2008 15:30:25
So what freedom is the council going to take away next? If a large family drives a large vehicle should they be penalized? Last time I checked my neighbours up the street wouldn't under any circumstances fit their 4 children plus Mom and Dad in a little Chevy Kalos.

I see what the council is trying to do... go green and cut emmissions but #7 has it correct. It's the buses that cause most of the emmissions pollution in the air not the family vehicles. Some do guzzle more than others but I don't see how charging more for them and less for smaller cars is going to keep a peaceful feeling in neighbourhoods. The big vehicle owners will feel like they're paying for the small vehicle.

This notion of charging more for 2nd cars... This is a city of shared flats, How the %&** are they (the council) going to do that? The homeowner won't want to be paying for his roommates car but he needs the roommate to help him with his mortgage or rental payment so he can't kick him out.

This all needs to be thought through more carefully BEFORE they start charging... like they should have done with the tram system before they started digging up the roads.

That's the council for you
36

WKKB,

13/10/2008 15:33:07
#35 James (1)- SPOT ON MAN!
37

JFW,

New Town 13/10/2008 15:47:56
I have a car that falls into a high co2 category but it does remain parked most of the time. I do less than 2500 miles a year. I walk to the shops, walk to work, take the bus the rest of the time. So now these idiots think I should be taxed more that the students around me in their VW Golfs who live in their cars and drive to the corner shop and to Uni god knows how many times a day. Not to mention all the people who drive into town from the burbs when they could cycle or take a bus. Our bloody councillors waste a lot of time on stupid ideas. And, I want someone to explain to me how this plan to reduce city centre pollution (which it will have zero impact on) ties in with the free parking they're going to allow at weekends in the city-centre in the run up to Christmas. I get taxed for not producing pollution by ensuring my car gets used sparingly and they actively encourage every lazy @rse to drive into town. Muppets!!!
38

taxidriver,

13/10/2008 15:49:22
#16 looks like escaped from the royal ed with a rant like that.u really take the mick its all about choice.just because somebody drives a 4x4 doesnt make them any worse a driver or polluter than somebody who eats greens and farts methane.envy is the green eyed monster.just because you cant afford it dont knock those that can.fact lrt buses are bigger polluters in edinburgh than all the 4x4's put together
39

barra,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 15:54:36
Yesterday I saw a council worker walking along with a massive petrol driven blower on his back blowing leaves into the path a road sweeping truck which crawled along emitting diesel fumes. Just what's wrong with a brush and barrow. Very green
40

Incandescent,

13/10/2008 16:01:08
#41 I doubt we'll be getting a follow-up from (Gorgie_Jenny). I expect she/he will have had to go for a wee lie down after that little outburst.
41

Unimpressed one,

13/10/2008 16:20:28
Fuc*king stupidity! And before anyone starts, I don't own a car, 4x4 or otherwise.
42

Goat Boy,

13/10/2008 16:24:32
Well done Andrew - an article on gas guzzlers and no mention of 4x4s. At last, we are making progress.

What pollution is the Council hoping to reduce by hitting the owners of these large cars? Are these large cars really a problem in the city? Has the Council actually sat down and calculated the improvement that it will bring?

I suspect that the final decision will be based on misinformation and not hard facts.


43

Boswall,

13/10/2008 16:40:53
If the council ever start taxing verbal pollution then Jenny MacArthur's going to be the cities main source of income (mind we'll just be getting back what she's already taken in benefits).
44

Western Gael,

13/10/2008 16:42:31
Good observation, Goat Boy. One more thing -- a four-wheel drive vehicle doesn't have to be a gas guzzler. I live 16 miles from the nearest city center, where winter lasts six months. My Imprezza produces 30+ miles per gallon and is full-time 4WD.
45

Brian Ferrari,

13/10/2008 16:54:01
#42

Good point.

When is the Council going to take steps to reduce its own green footprint?
46

miffy the bonfire slater,

13/10/2008 17:14:57
#25 Liz

How stupid are you? VERY!

Have you EVER driven around the Highlands? The roads are generally much narrower and twisty than in Edinburgh.

The whole four wheel drive = 'gas guzzler' label is just wrong. Every Landrover, Toyota and Mitsubishi 'jeep' that I have owned were all much more fuel efficient than any other car I owned.
Also, they last way much longer, so are actually more friendly to the planet and thus use less resources.

BTW, you sound quite foxy though. ;-o
47

miffy the bonfire slater,

13/10/2008 17:16:24
^^^

oh dear, meant to say

#29 Liz
48

Woody47,

13/10/2008 17:35:37
Absolutely agrre they should pay higher for everything. Why someone needs a 4x4 in town is beyond me. Just for these people 'A 4X4 is for off road driving'. There is nothing more stupid looking than some muppet driving one of these in town especially when you see them trying to park.
I would definately charge them double as most times they are they are parked in such a way that you cannot get another car next to them.
49

an interested party,

13/10/2008 17:54:07
parked cars all use the same amount of fuel

none
50

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 13/10/2008 20:45:38
Surely the argument shouldn't be about 4x4's. It should be about any large and flashy car owned by anybody with more money than the rest of us. Too many of the posters today are simply consumed with jealousy and apparently want us all in little boxes, preferably wearing blue denim suits and eating nothing but rice. Many of us from humble origins are inspired to improve our lot in life and if some buy nice cars then good luck to them. Although I don't own a 4x4 I have to run a large estate car to transport wheelchairs etc., although I'd prefer a mini. Please don't bracket every driver of a 4x4 as an inconsiderate idiot. Have a look at how many accidents involve small hatch backs driven by inexperienced jack the lads..
51

Si-co onalist,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 22:41:36
Copy of comments just sent to Council online survey form below:

"In your financial summary you imply that there will be a revenue loss of c.£43k if the scheme were to go ahead. You do not state however how much more income will be gained from the 25% increase on 2nd car ownership. The new system will take longer to administrate and is unfair on those who need a larger car [I am not one of those] for family reasons for instance or to carry large items such as musical instruments to and from school, rehearsal, concerts etc.. Many of these will cycle or take public transport if possible when not requiring to use their vehicle. An MOT measures the emissions and deals with problems in a garage. It is just as unfair to penalise someone for street-parking when they do not own a driveway or garage. The cost of this exercise would be better put toward compensating smaller businesses who have been severely hampered by tram works [which I am incidentally in favour of]."
52

Saoghal Beag,

13/10/2008 22:48:03
but most of the mothers dropping their kids off can't park thier tonka trucks anyway so this is a total non-issue
53

Clen Peapus,

Edinburgh 13/10/2008 23:59:34
Is the issue large vehicles taking up too much space on the road, or heavy vehicles consuming more fuel than necessary or emitting more exhaust gases than smaller vehicles? The anti-4x4 nonsense is very tedious. It seems to give people, who are clearly envious of others and unhappy with their own lives and achievements, an opportunity to rant against some mythical “mother doing the school run”.

As stated by #26, 4-wheel drive simply means that power is delivered to all four wheels of a vehicle. No assumption can be made about the size, fuel consumption or emissions of the vehicle based solely upon this fact. Lots of non-large, non-off road vehicles have 4-wheel drive - the tiny Fiat Panda has a 4x4 version, loads of Audis come with “Quattro” 4-wheel drive, Volkswagen has “4Motion” 4-wheel drive which has appeared in past Golfs, Jettas, etc; the list goes on. “Normal” cars can come with 4-wheel drive!

Similarly lots of large and/or high-emission vehicles are only 2-wheel drive. Is it ok to drive a sports car with very high emissions or a large/heavy vehicle with huge fuel consumption as long as it’s 2-wheel drive?

I’ve no problems with people taking a stance against high-emissions or unnecessary fuel consumption. In fact I would support it. These are worthy issues: damaging the environment and using up resources.

The term 4x4 simply masks the real issue, and is relentlessly pedalled by people who haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
54

geekpie,

forfar 14/10/2008 17:47:08
Lots of farmers say they need Jeeps or Shoguns: it's bollards. If you can't drive along a rutted track in a Vauxhall Astra you're just not a very good driver.
55

Jason L. McKenzie,

Moredun 15/10/2008 21:45:35
no. 16, Jenny:

Firstly, welcome back from holiday. I hope you have returned refreshed and are ready to make your bosses in that PR company proud!

Secondly, and more pertinently, how much does my (and forgive my slipping into your typically ill-informed, bigoted and envirofascist vernacular) "gas guzzler" pollute, consume or otherwise measurably offend you while PARKED? Your hatred of cars would suggest a total lack of knowledge regarding them; allow me to clarify. When a car is parked it is switched off. Immobile. Not moving. Not doing anything, really.

Therefore, unless dogmatic bile has corroded your faculties to an unimaginable degree, I trust that you would answer "zero" to the previous question. I look forward to confirmation that you agree that charging owners of vehicles with large engines more, to leave them switched off, is something close to the dictionary definition of illogical.

Incidentally Jenny, if you're an example of the "real world" to which you so patronisingly describe as that denied to those who drive and are driven in cars, then I will from now on sleep with my car keys 'neath my pillow in order that I will never, ever, have to spend any time whatsoever in your deeply unpleasant company.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.