Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Permit talks put brakes on drive to target 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: 29 July 2008
MOVES to introduce higher parking charges for the most polluting cars are set to be stalled as the controversial plans are put out for public consultation.
The proposals aimed at encouraging people to switch to greener vehicles have divided opinion in the Capital and were set to be discussed at today's council transport committee.

But a final decision now looks to be months away as city leaders today
pledged to carry out a public consultation.

The plans would mean owners of the biggest gas-guzzlers 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.

Residents would also face higher charges for second vehicles. The move for more consultation has today won broard support from some opposition politicians, but the Greens said their rivals' environmental credentials were on the line if they fudged a decision today.

Deputy council leader Steve Cardownie said: "We are concerned that this might end up as some sort of trendy window dressing exercise without actually making much of a difference to the problem they are trying to address.

"We need to take a proper look at this as I don't see where ability to pay has been taken into consideration. It just needs to go out to a wider consultation."

Council officials estimate that more than 11,000 people will pay less under the scheme, with just 3348 residents paying more. The council expects this to result in a drop in income of nearly £44,000.

Tory group leader Iain Whyte said: "The officers claim in the report there had been some consultation but there was not any widespread consultation as far as I'm aware.

"The proposals as they stand are turning parking charges into a tax whereas they were originally meant to cover the cost of the parking operation."

Any changes to parking permits would involve a new traffic regulation order, which could result in a public hearing before the scheme was adopted.

Therefore, any new scheme is not likely to be in place before 2010 at the earliest.

The city's Labour transport spokesman, Councillor Ricky Henderson, said:

"The broad principle is fairly sound but I think we do need to look again at how we incentivise people to look more carefully at their cars and the environment.

Councillor Steve Burgess, the Green's environment spokesman, said: "All political parties should be supporting this move rather than trying to scupper it. Any claim to having green credentials is on the line here.

"

City leader councillor Jenny Dawe, said:

"We fully understand that this is not something that could be implemented straight away and we will use the report from officers as a basis for going out to consultation on the issue."





The full article contains 485 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Daft Old Git,

29/07/2008 12:18:53
Easy to avoid...just keep driving around and don't park
2

Jenny MacArthur,

29/07/2008 12:29:03
Cue... self-serving diatribes by selfish polluters... Give us your best shots!
3

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

29/07/2008 12:33:51
"Council officials estimate that more than 11,000 people will pay less under the scheme, with just 3348 residents paying more."

Some interesting estimates there.
4

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

29/07/2008 12:33:51
"Council officials estimate that more than 11,000 people will pay less under the scheme, with just 3348 residents paying more."

Some interesting estimates there.
5

,

29/07/2008 12:33:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

29/07/2008 12:34:45
sorry
7

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 12:39:41
'proposals . . . . have divided opinion in the Capital' - Politician's weasel-speak for 'wakening up to the fact that 'motorists' are really just 'voters-on-wheels'. And that listening to ranting zealots like MacArthur, Harrington and Spokes can be bad for your political career.
8

alex paterson,

edinburgh 29/07/2008 12:50:59
Never heard any complaints when i used my gas guzzler as a tow truck for one of our well know council members.
9

Leithboy,

29/07/2008 13:03:41
Surley all these demands of the motorist with high co2 emmissions to pay extra car tax, parking permits etc etc should only come into effect when an owner changes his presently owned car.
Very few people were aware of these severe increases of keeping a car on the road when purchasing them a couple of years ago and there were certainly no guidlines.
10

Koffindodger,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 13:15:05
Why would the council OK a policy that results in a drop in income? I suspect they may be fudging the figures on that one.

Perhaps they will lose some money on this one but quietly increase the number of permits per zone to 3 or 4 per parking space using the excuse that as they are encouraging people to use smaller cars they can cram more of them into the existing spaces.

Dodgy!
11

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 13:22:10
'Consultation' = 'We've made up our minds but the people are a bit restless about it - so we'll look like we're listening for a bit then do it anyway '

This is a money grab pure and simple and the best thing the Edinburgh people can do is vote this stinking lot out and make sure you vote in somebody with a manifesto to fully reverse these ludicrous and loathsome traits in the public sector and return it to serving the public as a whole instead of being a private little fiefdom for a bunch of lefty, PC twits ..

I would support civil disobedience over this matter, speeding fines, and parking fines - Just don't pay them - wait until someone knocks on your door then just say 'sorry' I had no idea (return the recorded delivery envelopes - do not sign for them) - then ignore them until they knock on your door again. ALWAYS take the matter to court and ALWAYS plead 'not guilty' - if you portray it as a misunderstanding you will seldom get more points or a bigger fine.

They persecute us because they make money out of us without too much fuss - If just 1 in 50 cases was disputed it would waste so much court time and cost so much they would have to rethink 'milking their cattle'.
12

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 13:30:26
2 - The worst thing I could ever think of for someone as rabid as you is for you to get your wee rules put through and for them to be overturned through public disobedience and for you to screaming and foaming at the mouth at the public prosecutor to 'get them' when they are so overloaded with work they are powerless. As Hitler may have done in his bunker in his last moments - you may like him he is as big a fascist as you are !

Then you might understand you are in a tiny minority and the time when you can inflict your perverse little views on a generally mild mannered populous is over and the 2nd coming of common sense will have begun.
13

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 13:32:28
But not on this one Jenny!

Everyone who owns a car should pay exactly the same for everything---same car tax, same parking charges etc etc. It should be nothing whatsoever to do with engine size or driveline configuration.

That is the only fair way. Owners of large engined cars will pay more in any case because they burn more fuel. That is sufficient. No additional penalties are required.
14

The Hallucinist,

29/07/2008 13:39:53
ooohhhhhhhh Jenny MacArthur ooohhhhhhh
15

Boswall,

29/07/2008 13:40:41
So from the councils own study the number of cars involved is miniscule (3348), this results in a drop in revenues not to mention the public expense in volved in those that will take the council to court and the consultation exercise.

Why is the city council even considering such a totally pointless law?
16

NYC Hibee,

edinburgh 29/07/2008 13:52:38
I live in the central zone and park my car there. I do less than 5k miles a year.
Someone commuting into the city will do at least 4 times that but it's me that has to pay more? Who's causing the pollution? - commuters!
17

Hmm ...,

29/07/2008 14:08:55
Boswall (15) said "Why is the city council even considering such a totally pointless law?"

Because their declared figures are based on a DVLA average, not Edinburgh's mix of vehicle size.

Edinburgh is unusual in having a large population living in the city centre (New and Old Towns) whilst most cities' centres are taken up with commercial and industrial sites. Conversely, most people living in Edinburgh's city centre don't need to use their car during the working week so don't need a small city car - they need bigger ones for journeys out of town at weekends to family, for recreational use etc.

Residents register their reg. no. when applying for a resident's premit so the City Council KNOW the actual mix of vehicles. This "average" is a red herring to give the impression of reducing costs "for most people" - it is doublespeak (Orwell's word for "spin") - they are planning a big hike in parking costs.

They have to - they are already strapped for cash and need lots more to subsidise the trams.
18

Hmm ...,

29/07/2008 14:11:29
... - and if it works for Gordon Brown in Road Tax, it must be a good earner!

It isn't as though he would put his career at risk, would he?
19

tumshie heid,

29/07/2008 14:25:41
What about Steve Burgess? "Any claim to having green credentials is on the line here"
What tripe! Any sane person realises that a stationary vehicle does not damage the enviroment.
Tree hugging muppet.
20

alex patersons English teacher,

29/07/2008 14:51:07
#8
im glad the councillor is well know, what was wrong with them.
and why tow truck,surely one would half done.
21

I love to eat Sellotape,

29/07/2008 14:59:26
I like writing letters, so it's a stationery vehicle for me, then.
22

alex patersons English teacher,

29/07/2008 15:38:19
and its a stationery vehicle for him.
the tow rennies.

my aunt acid told me this.
23

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 16:01:47
23 - Courtesy of Embra Council we are already there mate !

I'm of to get a Hummer, an angle grinder and a dog ....

Hummers are great - they are really inefficient too - you can get them down to 4mpg! But they very safe in the event that you run over a whinging carbon brainwashed lefty ...

Hummers can't be lifted by the little cranes they use

They can't tow a car with a dog in it

And the angle grinder is for any clamps .. hehe ...

bring it on EDC !
24

Vincent-W,

29/07/2008 16:12:39
Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head - When it comes to fuel cost, I agree with you. Low mpg cars will automatically pay more tax than high mpg cars.

However, I cannot agree with you when you say everyone should pay the same on car tax as I do not think it's fair. Heavy vehicles wear out road surfaces more than lighter vehicles and should contribute more to the upkeep of roads, that's fair. Large vehicles take up more road space and need bigger parking areas and they should contribute more, that's fair.

Recently in Rome I noticed traffic was dense but moving much more freely than in British cities. The reason was that there were few enormous 4x4's taking up twice the road space and there were many more scooters and m/bikes taking up half the space.

25

Boswall,

29/07/2008 16:21:23
Why not commute the price of the average Road Tax onto the price of Petrol/Diesel?

Those that use the roads the most and in the most polluting/heavy vehicles will automatically pay the most tax at the pump, there will be no separate Road Tax to collect/enforce.
26

I love to eat Sellotape,

29/07/2008 16:41:00
Stop being nasty, Mario. Have a glass of qwelirh.
27

Bored,

29/07/2008 16:44:00
Of course you all realise that this is just a prelude to a new 2 tier pay and display system in Edinburgh. Owners of vehicles emitting more than 200g per km of CO2 will have to pay double the normal parking charge. These tickets will be clearly marked with a red microdot on the reverse of the ticket so that parking wardens can easily identify them. To assist the parking wardens their hand held machines will be programmed with the CO2 rating of each vehicle. However due to memory restrictions on these machines, all vehicles will have to be put into the higher band, even Smart cars.

Motorcycles will continue to be allowed to park for free in marked motorcycle bays, however due to a shortage of parking spaces all existing motorcycle bays will be reverted to pay and display.

In order that all road users can contribute to this “Green” revolution, cyclist will now also have to display parking tickets when leaving their bikes chained to fences around town. (larger and unfit cyclists will have to buy tickets at the higher rate as they breath out more and emit more carbon into the atmosphere) We wouldn’t want them to think that they are being left out and that their contribution is unwelcome.

Finally we have the population that chooses to travel by bus. These people will have to jump out at each stop and buy a pay and display ticket while their vehicle is stationary at the side of the road.

All this will cause people to consider their choice of vehicle. One big enough to pack their belongings and move elsewhere.

I will be round to the council on Monday to pick up my check for £6,000,000, consultancy fee. They had better have it ready.
28

MacKenzie,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 19:35:16
My 4 X 4 runs on waste vegetable oil and smells like a chip shop but produces hardly any Co2.
Can I have a refund please?
29

Vincent-W,

29/07/2008 22:26:01
MacKenzie - I can assure you that burning any hydrocarbon will result in the production of copious quantities of CO2.

Who told you otherwise?
30

Plantagenet,

29/07/2008 22:33:55
What is this thing that middle-class wannabees have with gas guzzling 4 x 4 vehicles, apart from the obvious flaunting of wealth surely they are an absolute nightmare to get into a smallish parking space and they are not exactly the prettiest design of car. A jag or a Lotus would always catch my attention and perhaps stir a bit of envy in me as it flashes by, but a 4 x 4, never, its only advantage that I can see is it's ability to take a group of spoiled brats with ease, but a status symbol? nah, give me Morse's old Jag anytime.
31

Goat Boy,

30/07/2008 08:12:59
“Council officials estimate that more than 11,000 people will pay less under the scheme, with just 3348 residents paying more.”

So how many permits have been issued in Edinburgh? With such a small number of vehicles affected, what is the point of this exercise? What will it achieve?

This is a ridiculous scheme and probably the reason why no one else has introduced it in Scotland.
32

Cheese burger,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 08:43:24
17. - yes, their strapped for cash. They keep telling us these CPZ's are loss-making and are only there for our own good - I don't want my council to be using my money on loss making exercises.
Open all the car parks (ie. stop building on them!) charge people £3 to park there all day and bang! you'll have commuters coming in, able to park and able to pay to park and spending money in the town. Instead we get commuters parking anywhere they can find a free space because charges are too high and spaces too restricted, and residents being hit by permits to park (maybe) outside their own homes, assuming there's any space left thanks to metered bays and yellow lines!
The transport thinking in this town is ridiculous.
33

Niadh,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 12:29:57
#24 Voldemort,

You would probably be better off getting a small tank.
Nothing extravegant. A light tank like a Scorpion/Scimitar.
You won't need the dog cause they won't be able to tow.
It's not going to be picked up by one of those flat beds they use for cars.
It cannot be clamped.
Additionally, being and armoured vehicle, you don't have to worry too much about collisions, people cutting you up, finding a parking space won't be a problem and it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to break in and nick it.
Even better you do like Donald Sutherlands character in Kellys Heroes and turn the main cannon into a paintball gun. Good for dealing with everyone else who doesn't get the hint
34

geekpie,

forfar 30/07/2008 14:06:20
The most polluting cars often are the same models as the most dangerous.

There is plenty of evidence that 4WD type cars cause greater injury to pedestrians in an accident.

They should be taxed very, very hard for both reasons.
35

Richard Lionheart,

02/08/2008 00:55:21
# 36 if you refer to CO2 emissions you are wrong.

Co2 is not a pollutant. It is required by the environment. Without it we would not be able to exist!

Al Gore really has you conned.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.