|
|
 |
| |
Just a thinly-veiled tax?
• IN 1992 Camden established a new parking scheme in order to reduce traffic in the borough and to encourage people to use public transport.
Since then, charges have been subject to revisions on several occasions.
The most recent one is a sharp increase in builders’ parking costs (What a drain! Plumbers forced to pass on £33 parking costs to customers, November 6).
Most builders who are now required to pay £33 a day for their permits carry heavy loads which they cannot transport on buses and trains.
Thus, rather than requiring them to pay an exorbitant sum which they will pass on to their customers, their charge should not exceed that of a visitor’s day’s permit. Those residents who have argued all along that the permit charge is but a thinly veiled tax will consider the new charge as evidence for their views.
After all, it is in Camden’s interest that the borough’s buildings be maintained.
People should not feel discouraged from doing so or postponing refurbishments by reason of taking into account significant extra costs for builders’ parking permits.
The new measure is certainly not going to help an already troubled industry in challenging times.
Gabriele vom Bruck
Phil Christou
Florian Beigel
Tanza Road Association, NW3
Look at all these fees and charges
• WELL done to the New Journal for reporting on the unpopular decision made by the council (What a drain! Plumbers forced to pass on £33 parking costs to customers, November 6).
Permits are currently used by householders for parking places outside their homes when builders, plumbers and movers wish to park outside the premises.
The council’s justification? They say it’s in order to bring the charges “in line with Westminster Council” – which everyone knows is the most rapacious parking authority in the country! As a result, the low tariff has increased by a massive 267 per cent (to £33 a day), the medium tariff by 106 per cent and the high tariff by 27 per cent.
Earlier this year I warned about Camden’s plan to use fees and charges as “stealth taxes”. In June Labour councillors on the finance and resource committee asked officers to investigate changes in the ways Camden uses fees and charges. The recent report shows that Camden has over 1,000 separate fees and charges from 142 services.
In total the fees and charges budget of £85million for 2008/09, about 30 per cent of the annual spend.
This year the council is looking at how it can bring fees and charges in line with neighbouring authorities or how competitive they are with the private sector. I fear this could lead to council fees being effectively used as stealth taxes, always looking at price rather than how high prices impact on demand or fairness.
We found:
• Music service take-up falls as prices rise – following the fee increase in 2007, demand fell from 1,635 to 1,449, a reduction of 11.4 per cent.
Demand for this service is clearly price-sensitive, and officers need to look at how the service can be better supported.
• Home improvement hit – building licence admin fees (minor works) were increased by 25 per cent, and for major works there is a new charge, skips (two weeks) increase by 17 per cent, with four weeks increasing by 20 per cent.
• Not so green – the fees for eco-friendly car clubs have increased. The first year charges (2006) increased by 19 per cent, subsequent years by 8 per cent, well above inflation.
• Finally, increased demand for childcare – Early Years and Sure Start Nursery capacity in Camden is anticipated to increase by 10 per cent during 2008/09. This is anticipated to “yield a higher level of income overall”, yet there is little analysis on how social inclusion factors are treated.
These are just a few issues.
Of course, inflation-increases to charges need to be factored in to ensure quality of service remains steady but how can the council justify such large hikes?
Why do we need to be “in line with Westminster?”
Cllr THEO BLACKWELL
Labour, Regent’s Park ward
We are still waiting
• I READ with interest the response of the anonymous “spokesman” from the council about the 267 per cent hike in charges for tradespeople to park to carry on their business.
In May I wrote to the now departed Councillor Mike Greene about these new charges.
At the time I had three separate people working in my house at a cost of £99 per day or £500 per week. His reply, dated June 17 said: “…we are concerned that there are cases where the new level of charges may be making things difficult for residents.
“So we are looking at how we might be able to offer some relief and we will be able to announce proposals over the next few weeks”
Some 21 weeks later no such “relief” has been produced, as your article indicates.
Readers of other local newspapers may have seen the laudable campaign backed by the Tories to help local businesses in these “credit crunch” times. The words of the “spokesman” and the lack of “relief” clearly illustrate just how out of touch and action the present administration is with the needs of its citizens and local businesses are.
MR Farrant
Oak Village, NW5
Thinking of money?
• MARY Hill is correct to complain about the £33 builders’ parking permits (What a drain! Plumbers forced to pass on £33 parking costs to customers, November 6).
Perhaps the council should remember that if she can’t afford to maintain her property, she will end up needing social housing from them in the future.
Surely a more expensive option than making a few pounds now?
And why must the builders’ permits be borough-wide? Surely it is possible to create a permit valid for one parking zone only, and charge the same £8 as a resident’s all-day permit?
That is, if the council really isn’t just thinking about money...
Don Hibbs
Willes Road, NW5 |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
