Forum Topic

Hounslow Council to put up council tax next year...

To hear that Hounslow council want to put up council tax has annoyed me, I have seen nothing but major development in Brentford for the last few years and even more development planned for the next few years.  For every additional property the council gain some additional revenue through the council tax they can collect.This is new revenue so why the increase?  Is Hounslow getting greedy?  Is there something I do not know.  Please enlighten me if you know?

Debbie Richmond ● 3175d63 Comments

For many years, should one of us venture into our Boroughs main shopping centre, they would be asked, any change?  the answer was always no.  We don't bother asking any more and don't go there unless there is a very good reason..We normally shop in Kingston, which is redeveloping big areas of the centre of town, Staines which is doing the same, Richmond and sometimes Guildford.Several long standing neighbours have all moved recently and bought in the Staines area. One said how their long standing sinus condition had gone after a few weeks.We went to Staines for Christmas shopping today.  Clean, tidy, friendly and a good range of shops. They now have a Wilko and a huge Next home and clothing store.  Lovely place to shop.

Sarah Felstead ● 3157d

Guy.  Thank you, and the other Councillors for replying.Regarding this pot of money, there have been several times on this forum where somebody has suggested a mobile camera could have been used to check out behaviour or dumping.We joined a group who went out with residents association, community police and Cllr Tony Louki who organised the walk.  Cllr Tony Louki is very active, like yourself, in engaging with the community, whatever that might bring ;),  and the new style lighting came up several times.There were some particular areas which are frequented by drug dealing, probably chosen by them because of escape routes and dim night lighting.There used to be lots of fly tipping in one of these areas and a couple of bollards stopped this.  The fly tipping has just moved to other areas and a mobile camera or 2 might help catch the critters.To most people adding up the cost of clearing the fly tipping v the cost of the use of a mobile camera would be a sensible use of public funds, you might even make a profit.Should you indeed catch the critters it would be nice to know you have thrown the whole bag of tomatoes at them.

Sarah Felstead ● 3161d

It's good to know that the Friends seem to be doing well and do feel a little guilty that we have not really done much more than read the updates.However, from what I hear from fellow residents is much of what the Friends want to do, gets thwarted or bogged down with cost or bureaucracy issues.Maybe someone more active than us who fully support it but don't really participate could be a little more enlightening on it.But I should imagine a wish list of things could be quite long. But how can an individual or small group of residents get anywhere? Petitions? Requests? Meetings?Even I'm not sure and maybe I ought to be.Personally I would like to see Avenue Road swept of the months old leaves that have turned to sticky slime and the chap simply cannot cope with trying to clear it up.  It's gotten quite treacherous, walking down there last night.

Raymond Havelock ● 3161d

It was always a minefield and it was no wonder the Council could never retain a full time Officer dedicated to S106Perhaps it might be worth the Area Forum highlighting how much is money is availble for local projects via perhaps this website or social media and inviting residents to suggest some ideas that are in reason of course?I use to sometimes take monies from up to 3 or 4 schemes to make up the total for larger projects and as I said before its amazing how loose the conditions usually are

Paul Fisher ● 3161d

Thanks Paul, and yes we try and do something similar, but some of the S106 goes back many years, as I understand it. The main thing is to get proposals, then we can try and fit them to funds!

Guy Lambert ● 3161d

GuyI am sure you will be aware that S106 spend conditions is not always as rigid as first appears as most Developers could not care less what there contributions are spent on and can always be amended using a Deed of VariationWhen I was on the old Area Forum we use to have a pre S106 meeting where an Officer supplied an updated list of all outstanding money not spent or allocated and then the sub committee either then presented a wish list to the full committee later in the evening for approval or requested advice on what basically what we could loosely get away with spending it on

Paul Fisher ● 3161d

Raymond"There is loads of S106 money and it's not been used very well. Not that it's made very open to local input, and apparently overseen by the cabinet portfolio holder for public engagement."It is entirely open to local input, though what you can use S106 for is circumscribed by rules. When CIL starts to flow the use of that will be more flexible, I understand, but we do indeed have unspent S106 going back many years and Cllr Dennison is eager to get proposals to spend it within the rules.If you or anybody else has ideas for the use of S106 funds, let me or another local councillor know. I'm surprised you don't know this as I believe you're a member of the Friends of St Paul's Rec where S 106 is in active discussion.

Guy Lambert ● 3161d

People pay hugely for parking permits. It is not about parking outside ones house.It is about being able to park within reasonable distance of one's home.I work nights a lot and often cannot park within a 20 min walk when coming home.Since the CPZ which fundamentally, I'm not a fan of, this has occurred less but am still often parking 2 or 3 streets away.There are very few homes with off street parking in the Eastern end of the borough, very different from Osterley going west as the housing post dates the car.  Off road parking and even garages are incorporated. Even council houses came with garages. Unfortunately most are too small for modern cars which are getting massive and utterly ridiculous for tiny streets. Quite why anyone needs a giant Volvo, Audi, Mercedes, Range Rover or BMW to simply do the school run in this sort of urban area is beyond me.  These huge vehicles ought to be discouraged unless genuine work vehicles in which case you already pay more for commercial use insurance.What is a fact is the car is the single means of liberation for ordinary working people. It has given opportunity and freedom to people far more than any policy or legislation has ever managed.We don't all work down at factory at bottom of road any more. We have a choice and mobility and prosperity and not being in the hands of Rackmann type landlords and having to Cowtow to the gentry.  The private car brought big changes where previously it was only benefitting those living by the railways. Nor was this something that could be achieved with a bicycle. Its fine for local use but only the very fit and with youth on your side is it s serious contender for daily commutes of more than a few miles and only if you do not carry goods or tools or fragile equipment.  Time is to short and increasingly in urban commercial conurbations and economies.Public transport in not just London but most of the UK cannot cope and can never be as versatile. It is also massively expensive in this country.I used public transport almost entirely this year, partly by choice but also because I've not needed to take equipment to sites. But the cost is some 5 times higher than last years travel costs and I've only just noticed the huge dent that has put in the family income.  A recent trip to Birmingham was over 200 quid - one way! By car 50 in fuel there and back plus other costs still under 90. And with a passenger we split the costs.These costs get passed on to clients and so the cycle goes. And inevitable people commute and park their cars at a point where it is cost effective. The Zone system is part of the problem here.  Notable that in East London Zone 3 has been extended further out based on the increase in development and population surge.Exactly the same has occurred in the west notably Hounslow but it is still in Zone 4. Crossrail is only going to increase capacity by 10%. But already that 10% is going to be absorbed by users living beyond Slough in the West. In reality the capacity will be reduced for users inside the GLA as other services on the lines used will be reduced to allow the timetable to incorporate the new line.It will be standing room only and restrictive to anyone with bikes or baggage.We have a problem not just because of space limits but the complete lack of joined up thinking, idealistic policies, vested interests and myopic planning.Some could be easily solved but where are Ealing and Hounslow when it comes to getting the Zone 3 extended as far as Feltham, Hounslow Central and Northolt and Rayners Lane?

Raymond Havelock ● 3162d

I still find it amazing that people can request council tax money to allow them to help park their cars.Surely it is up to people to decide if they can park, how and where they can park, and if they really insist on parking outside their property, then do this at their own expense by buying property with its own off street parking.I personally would ask that any tax payer money is spent for the greater good.  Blocking dangerous parking and managing speeds to protect pedestrians, cyclists and children on the walk to school routes, is the limit to Council commitment surely.The Syon Lane maisonettes are blocks of 4 with two beds and attic space.  Some use the dining area upstairs to make a third bed.  The downstairs have a front garden and the upstairs a back garden, and often the side garden too.They were built with a run of garages away from the maisonettes and over the years the garages down by the station have looked like they have been bought for investment as there is very little activity in the garages and all the private parking spaces in front of them are not used.  Maybe as empty housing can be forced into use, garages should also have the same rules applied to them.

Sarah Felstead ● 3162d

You have answered your own question.If not enough Permits are sold then the problem is solved in that the problem was being caused by non residents, commuters or people from developments built with out parking.They are imperfect but do make life easier especially in cramped areas.But using the cost as a took fro prising money out of ordinary residents on ordinary incomes and inferring that they may be wealthier than others is obscene.All residents over 75 in a CPZ ought to have free permits and certainly free a free visitors permit.It actually costs nothing. Because it is artificial.In fact some CPZs have more permit holders than spaces.  In BRS after the ban it is still difficult to find a space late at might. But a closer look walking a few streets home and pretty much every vehicle has a permit.In other areas where there is an abundance of off street parking then it is a different story. But the problem may well be commuters or long term parkers who use the airport of commute into London and leave the car where they can and stay in flats nearer town. I have several colleagues who do this and leave cars in Northolt and live in flats around Paddington and Shepherds Bush for the week.As for values on property. Estate Agents are masters at turning negatives into positives and laying it on thick.  If you read my remarks, I mentioned that the insatiable demand negated and negativity. But in Bromsgrove, Chester, parts of Bristol and some outer suburbs this has been and is a problem knocking back values of properties in similar streets and demographicsI was in Wolverton today and this is a big issue with a parking restrictions in two roads having put a big dent in house values and a premium in others. All because the station is nearby. But residents had a free permit system for nearly 30 years.There is loads of S106 money and it's not been used very well. Not that it's made very open to local input, and apparently overseen by the cabinet portfolio holder for public engagement.The same as street cleaning. What ever happened to residents sweeping their own path and pavement and gutter outside their homes?When I was younger it was a mix of grandparents, or one of our chores to do every week. Most ( but not all ) neighbours did the same.  The street cleaners than just trundled along and cleared up the neat little piles and anything untoward.Why is this not at least encouraged and those who do bother helping keep their street clean commended in some way?I think the wheelie bin and recycling thing has now dragged things down a few notches and too many are giving up bothering to keep things neat and tidy when every week it all gets flung around and all the paraphernalia is just left laying about with nowhere to be placed tidily in too many small frontages.A big step backwards in my opinion.

Raymond Havelock ● 3162d

Sarah - the cost of implementing CPZs has traditionally come from s106 money contributed by developers. A new scheme therefore should not have a direct impact on Council finances other than "you cannot spend the same money twice". Until very recently LBH was sitting on a £20m pot of unspent s106 money some of it going back years.CPZ's are not implemented on commercial grounds. They are implemented because there is an obvious need and residents request them. However we all acknowledge that they are an imperfect solution.It is frustrating however when only a small proportion of residents buy parking permits for a new CPZ scheme. The streets may be free of cars but they cannot be generating enough revenue to justify the cost of implementing and maintaining the CPZ. The cost of implementing a CPZ is of course a "sunk" costs and removing a CPZ will also cost money.Perhaps the consultation questionnaire should include a question such as "do you intend to buy an annual parking permit if a CPZ is introduced?"I think that I am probably alone as a councillor in thinking that if only a quarter of the households in a CPZ buy a parking permit then the council should seriously consider removing it. Why should the majority be inconvenienced by the minority?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3163d

So the cost for the CPZ goes to the tax payer, and there is no business case to give any idea of when each might break even.  The vote was taken and work carried out in a rush, with some of the information, comments and votes being ditched into the LBH spam folder (I understand my neighbour has this in writing that this is where his comments went).I can see how Council costs are mounting.We have just had a road 'deep clean'.  Don't know how much it cost but the build up to it was very exciting.  We all had letters through the door saying that this deep clean was about to happen and that all vehicles would need to be off the road or they would be towed and the Police would be involved.  Then the official notices appeared on lampposts, the type of ones which appear in the local paper, so I suppose that may have happened too.  Those big yellow signs were wrapped around the lampposts all along the road and neighbours kindly offered spaces on driveways to make sure we all followed and fitted in with the plan to do this important job.On the day there were several cars left on the road probably nothing to do with people who live here, and one looks like it is stuffed full of junk. Sorry for any owners who might be towed but we were all clear the job had to be done.Must have cost a few hundred tax payers £'s to get to this stage just for this one small road.Anyhow, the splendid big street sweeper lorry appeared and drove around the corners missing the gutter, leaving the gutter full of leaves and muck, and better still, drove around the parked cars too.Would have saved a lot of money just to have put a note through the doors to say street sweeping was going to be done and then just taken pot luck as to how much could have been reached.The notices have all gone now so I guess somebody did a full check of the work and are happy the deep clean was a tax payers success.:(

Sarah Felstead ● 3163d

Did the people who voted for the scheme understand that when the yellow lines went down that the unofficial pavement parking was gone?I have no Idea Sarah, Maybe some think after the CPZ times are finished they can park back on the yellow lines.When you went passed, the roads were probably full of vehicles from other developments adjacent to the estate.Also the workers from the developments being built at the moment.There is no visitor parking for GWQ and he last time I checked there was no parking spaces allocated for the social housing within GWQ, so they park elsewhere. If the Proposed CPZ goes ahead, I can see a massive problem mounting up with this part of Brentford, which has been created by the way that car parking is factored in when a complex is design.The planing rules should amended to cater for one vehicle per dwelling.But saying that the Haverfield was built with enough Parking under the maisonettes, which have been closed for years. One is used for storage, would be nice to have at least one of them opened up again, but no doubt it would cost to much.   

Bernard Allen ● 3163d

I don't see how taking away half the parking spaces increases desirability.  These are two bed and sometimes three bed maisonettes with young families and often elderly folk in the ground floor maisonettes who will need short term parking spaces for carers, nurses and family visitors etc. I can't see any paying parking meters in the few lined out spaces.Going past this evening the yellow lined side has cars parked on the pavement, blocking the pavement completely whereas it was mainly partial pavement parking before with at least pedestrian walking space.Did the people who voted for the scheme understand that when the yellow lines went down that the unofficial pavement parking was gone?

Sarah Felstead ● 3163d

"CPZs tend to have a negative effect in house prices as it indicates a parking problem. But in areas like this, proper homes are in very short supply so it is negated."Raymond I do not know where your evidence is for this statement is coming from. I talk to estate agents and they say that the introduction of a CPZ can add as much as 10% to house prices.This because it is obvious where there are parking problems and this depresses house prices. No one wants to move there if they can avoid it. When a CPZ is implemented an area immediately becomes more attractive to house buyers. It is one of the reasons that people pay a significant premium for a home in a so called gated community.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3164d

Funny you should mention car sharing and car clubs, Philippa.  Neighbour went to hear a talk about a new proposed school on the green land near Sky and they have allocated something like 80 car spaces for the teachers and support staff.  That is a whole green field under tarmac.

Sarah Felstead ● 3164d

There is no guarantee you will get a parking space and when the lines go in they reduce the amount of parking space being used there by making sure that road junctions are kept clear.There is also a problem with large CPZs because people will park nearer anything like a station within their own CPZ because they suddenly feel empowered to do so.New developments like blocks of flats don't have enough parking in their plans for everybody to have a car.  This should be made clear to potential buyers and the communities where they are being built. We just don't have enough space for all the cars people want to have especially when people nowadays want more than one car per family and the children have come back to home to live.We need to make sure that we have good public transport and taking advantage of it when we can and making sure that our children know how to use it. When we can no longer drive how are we going to get around?We should also try and embrace new ideas like car-sharing and car clubs.

Philippa Bond ● 3164d

CPZs tend to have a negative effect in house prices as it indicates a parking problem. But in areas like this, proper homes are in very short supply so it is negated.There are areas where one wonders quite why there are CPZs. Behind Haven Green on Hangar Hill, in several streets, every house has space for 4 or more cars.Yet there is a CPZ and these streets are deserted. But there's plenty of spaces that could allow parking without causing problems to residents.In others it's caused by new developments without any adequate parking. or nearby commuter connections.That's hardly the fault of residents and certainly not an ideal solution. But Guy raises a point.  Why do TfL charge for Freedom pass journeys?TfL is a not for profit organisation. It carries millions of fare paying passengers every day.  It costs a lot to run ( more than it should from 40 years of minimal maintenance) But in real terms seniors travelling in the network does not really cost anything. They are such a small percentage using the system daily.We all pay TfL a levy in Council tax whether we use it or not.This is a cost created by accountants. Only the special services to those who have needs really cost and even that makes a tidy sum for tender holders.Likewise with a CPZ. It need not cost what it does but true to form, Local authorities somehow either fall into a trap of hugely increased costs when compared with the real world and usually coupled with poor quality.When we had the token system for match days around Griffin Park this cost nothing. and the police enforced it with discretion.  It worked for a while.I think this goes right back to Dr Brandt's suggestion a few years back that these 'Super Boroughs' are too big, too diverse and too unwieldy to be effective of good quality and to manage.

Raymond Havelock ● 3164d

This is such a funny business.The CPZ around the maisonettes at Syon Lane.  The consultation was directly to the people living within the CPZ marked out zone, yet the affects of the zone go beyond these roads into neighbouring roads who do not have a CPZ.Does the council add up the actual spaces now available, say, 20, and only sell 20 permits?  Or are the, say 35, people who live in the street 'allowed' to buy their 35 permits and guest permits, with no chance of having a space?With one side of the street being allocated parking outside their properties and the other yellow lined, will that mean an increase in price/desirability for those properties?  The yellow lined side will now have cars travelling at a greater speed past them.The now yellow lined side may have voted against a CPZ the parking allocated side may have voted for.The yellow lined side now find they cannot sell as easily, do they have a legal challenge for compensation?  Especially if, as has been indicated in postings above, there might be only a couple of votes more in favour of a zone and the Council has run off with this.Do the yellow lined side have a case for reduction in Council Tax?What is really incredible as mentioned in one of the Councillors posts above, is that the costs involved are set against the tax payer with never a date to recoup them let alone a profit to be made so another fancy pants scheme?Setting up zones in small areas just plays everyone off against each other, what are these schemes really meant to achieve?

Sarah Felstead ● 3164d

Hold on sunshine, the residents of Haverfield have asked for a CPZ. So if they have asked for one they will have to pay like anyone else.

Bernard Allen ● 3164d

How Bizarre! Those that need and can barely afford to run a car - the JAM-Jars - are clearly regarded as cash cows for this over-bloated, incompetent, and greedy council as clearly emphasised by this arrogant, naive and thoughtless statement.

Paul Brownlee ● 3165d

OK Bernard - there is no question of treating any parking permit holders in a different way simply because they live in social housing. If you can afford to run, tax and insure a car you can probably afford to pay for a parking permit.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3165d

Sam My response was to this questionPosted by: Anne England Date/Time: 11/12/16 23:26:00Will the residents of Haverfield have to pay for the CPZ like the rest of us or will this come as some sort of benefit i.e. be included in the rent?So will the The social housing status be a problem on the Haverfield Estate?There hasn't been a problem so far and social housing hasn't been mentioned regarding the Haverfield Estate in Brentford, so I take it the residents are paying for there CPZ like anyone else.Although I doesn't really matter to me, as long as you stop the parking of over night vans and the football fans cars, plus the work force of the buildings go up at the moment.

Bernard Allen ● 3165d

Guy what Sam Christie actually wrote was "My observation is the richer areas have more cpz than the poorer areas..... and as for people in the poorer areas having an abundance of parking - that's what happens when people can't afford a car" There may be poorer areas that do not have CPZs and wealthy areas that do but as I said earlier I do not believe that is the main determining factor. But the main point here is whether or not those who buy a CPZ permit are paying an enforced subsidy to those who have freedom passes, or who do not live a CPZ (or simply do not buy a permit)?Personally I have not seen the evidence to prove this one way or the other. However no one is literally forced to buy a parking permit and there is always an element of personal choice.  I strongly support what you say about the freedom pass.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3165d

Guy what Sam Christie actually wrote was "My observation is the richer areas have more cpz than the poorer areas..... and as for people in the poorer areas having an abundance of parking - that's what happens when people can't afford a car" There may be poorer areas that do not have CPZs and wealthy areas that do but as I said earlier I do not believe that is the main determining factor. But the main point here is whether or not those who buy a CPZ permit are paying an enforced subsidy to those who have freedom passes, or who do not live a CPZ (or simply do not buy a permit)?Personally I have not seen the evidence to prove this one way or the other. However no one is literally forced to buy a parking permit and there is always an element of personal choice.  I strongly support what you say about the freedom pass.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3165d

First off, Sam Christie did not make a 'contention that CPZ's are only for rich people'. She merely observed that she thinks poorer areas are less likely to have a CPZ, an opinion she later backed up with some evidence.Raymond has clearly misinterpreted Sam's comment about the costs of transport subsidies - the vast majority (£8.6M) of the £9.3M mentioned was actually paying the fares incurred by Freedom Pass holders with some other costs related to Dial-a-ride and taxi cards administered by TfL. So scandal averted.

Guy Lambert ● 3165d

Bernard - you extract a quote from a longer posting of mine. Residents of The St Thomas Road estate will only get a CPZ if and when they are consulted and sufficient residents want one. An existing CPZ scheme in the Grove Park Area has recently been extended and the anecdotal evidence is that some commuter parking has been displaced into St Thomas Road. Some residents are concerned about this and as their Councillor I take an active interest in what they are saying.I would agree that the evidence does not support Cllr Christie's contention that CPZ's are only for rich people. In my opinion CPZ's are simply a weapon in the armoury of traffic planners that can be deployed when residents persistently find it difficult to park in their local streets e.g. in areas close to stations or shopping centres.The parking services contract is periodically subject to competitive tendering and at other times the standards and costs of the service are benchmarked. This encourages innovation and cost control by the competing service providers. If those posting on this site have evidence of excessive profit making or corruption by contractors then it would be helpful if they would provide specific examples.The parking revenue account has fallen into deficit because of poor management and we can all point fingers at those that we believe are responsible. However the important point is that Councils are not allowed to cross subsidise services in this way and the charges will have to go up. As a Councillor and as a resident I would simply ask that the proposals on increased charges be made available to all of us in sufficient time for them to be properly discussed and debated. Last week's Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting was a bit of a shambles - lets hope that by the February Borough Council meeting we have a properly costed budget with all the proposed increases in charges nailed down.    Forum Home

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 3165d

Thank you, Far better to quote or paste the rationale and far more accurate that your assumption which is, I'm afraid way off the scale of reality.Quite frankly id the cost of adminstering Blue Badges and Freedom Passes is that costly then that ought to be questioned and the Fraud Squad called in.All of the donkey work for these is done by the applicant ( or by a family member helping them as it's far from easy.The other problem is how these are accounted. They do not really cost anything. The actual permits and passes as well as CPZs are artificial creations. They are not manufactured products.True that CPZs need a degree of infrastructure but it is small and only one off.The maintenance is minimal.Serco make a tidy profit from CPZs from Ealing Brent and Hounslow.  They are not interested in tiny profit margins.Blue Badges ought to be administered by the NHS or through GPs as this might reduce the amount of fiddling that goes on or even the DVLA.As it is there are admin charges so quite how it costs 9 million is not far short of scandalous.Was it even questioned by anyone?Surely there is a more efficient way to do these? I can think one city that does this far more effectively.

Raymond Havelock ● 3165d

It took three votes over about ten years to bring in a CPZ for the majority of the roads in BRS. I voted against it each time although I must admit that I was about 'iffy' about it the third time. As it happens, the final vote in my road was 11 for and 10 against so not a big differential. I am, overall, happy with the end result as with all the new development in Brentford plus the football ground, it was getting very difficult to park at times.

Anne England ● 3165d

Ann, Either way they are going to pay for the CPZ if or when it goes ahead.You cannot get much information from the Hounslow website, but in the words of Clr Hearne on St Thomas Estate in Chiswick on the chiswick w4.com"St Thomas Rd will have to have its own CPZ. The regulatory changes are being made so that residents in St Thomas Rd can request a CPZ. The social housing status of many of the properties has complicated matters. Have a look at proposed plans of Haverfield http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/haverfields_area_cps_letter_201016.pdfhttp://www.hounslow.gov.uk/haverfields_area_proposed_cpz_design_201016.pdfhttp://www.hounslow.gov.uk/brentford_towers_area_cpz_design_consult_201016.pdf

Bernard Allen ● 3165d

The matter of income from CPZs was discussed at the Housing & Environment Scrutiny Panel.  Here is the report that went.  http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/documents/s124246/CPZ%20briefing%20final%20100316.pdf To consider the issue in more detail, this report (http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/parking_and_traffic_enforcement_report_2015.pdf) for 2014/15 shows that parking, which includes income from permits and also PCNs, accrued a net income to the council of around £7.5m, permits of all types equating to around £2m of that figure.  The outgoing costs on paying for the administration of blue badge applications and concessionary fares (freedom passes) for this same period was £9.3m.  So in total the council made a net loss in the service area.  The income accrued to us through the sale of permits is therefore very small in terms of the council's overall finances.Looking at the issue in more detail, and to take the example of a recent scheme we have implemented for around 650 properties (namely Brentford North CPZ extension) we calculated that the one-off cost of the scheme - capital expenditure on lines, signs etc; officer time; traffic regulation orders etc - it was in the vicinity of £50k.  The income from permits from that first year was around £18k.  It therefore can take a fair amount of time for a scheme to be paid back and of course there is no guarantee of that as we can't make people buy a permit.  What we haven't included is any ongoing costs associated with the potential maintenance and review/alteration of a scheme, administration of permits, enforcement etc.I would therefore state categorically to anyone that asks that we do not implement CPZs for profit.  Our motivation stems entirely from the desire of residents for us to control access to parking spaces on their roads in their favour, although as discussed in the report that went to scrutiny there are also some other positive policy implications of their provision.  We only commence the process of consulting on them when we have a petition from residents to do so.  They then go through at least two and usually three rounds of consultation taking between 12 and 18 months.  We only then go on to implement them when there is majority support for a scheme.I would also say that looking at neighbouring boroughs prices (Ealing, Richmond, Hammersmith) we are still a fair bit cheaper than them.Finally in my ward- Bedfont- we dont have any council CPZ- and yes we are one of the most deprived (unfortunately) and when I talk to people on the Waterloo estate- the next road from me where parking is tough as a result of people parking there to save money using the train station car park- residents on thw waterloo estate are worried about the cost of the scheme so despite taking a long time to find parking for financial reasons they will vote against it- so in the poorer parts of the borough we do not have as many CPZ

Samantha Christie ● 3165d

Will the residents of Haverfield have to pay for the CPZ like the rest of us or will this come as some sort of benefit i.e. be included in the rent?

Anne England ● 3165d

Samantha Christie Must think that the Haverfield Estate must be a posh gated development, as the work to install a CPZ has started in the estate.

Bernard Allen ● 3165d

Lived and worked in places where there is real hardship and even a push bike is a luxury.Places where there really is no hope.Places where corruption deals a bad hand to the poor.Places where decadence seeps out of every door.It's not nice at either end of the scale and it's not what we have here. We are all rich here by comparison but in fact it does not compare.Our poverty is very different but there is still hopelessness and deprivation.But to assume people are rich because they live in a CPZ is naive to say the least.The reality is there are people in council houses and flats, some of whom I went to school with, who earn 3 times what I do. They have regular holidays, do plenty of things and are quite content with their lot.It is impossible to tar everyone with the same brush.  I have neighbours who can send their kids to private schools and others who are in need of food and help.They all live in a CPZ.What this ruling administration and probably any other administration are doing is creating divisions. Divide and rule.  A cheap way to play political games and get away with it.We have it with stealth charges and far too much supposition like this claim of CPZ = Rich people.

Raymond Havelock ● 3165d

'Do not patronise when you clearly have not been there.'Been where?

Anne England ● 3165d

I've read some nonsense and unfounded nonsense at that, in my time but Ms Christies CPZ stuff, takes not just the biscuit but the whole of United Biscuits!Exactly where is there an abundance of parking in a poor area?  Can you be specific.The key lifeline to some sort of existence in this country is to have a car. For most on the bottom rung it's the way into the economy. That's why we have so many doing everything from mini cabbing to small deliveries. It's the Gig economy that create this.Every 'poor' area I know is log jammed with cars.How do you define rich?  Living in a 2 bed terrace with not even a space to keep a wheely bin? Is that rich? or in a Mansion in the Butts.Come on surely you can do better than that or what the heck are you doing making decisions on our behalf with that degree of sense?Do not patronise when you clearly have not been there.  This is not a very confidence instilling example of stewardship of our taxes or stealth taxes.

Raymond Havelock ● 3165d

Strikes me that if money is available for CCTV sighting cameras at fly tipping hot spots would be a better use.

Vanessa Smith ● 3166d

CPZ permits went up 18% last year. Miss Christie is aware of what's proposed in the new budget but declines to answer. It's not been mentioned so that the council tax sum is not readily linked. We still don't know what the GLA Mayor will ask us to pay.The naive suggestion that there's a link between income and CPZ scheme location is breathtaking. No doubt Cllr Sampson will want to contribute to rebut.The parking revenue account went into debit because the Govt stopped CCTV enforcement. Chiswick High Road by way of example got blitzed raising millions. The account was topped up in the last budget  and we expected some consolidation of CCTV coverage with LBH having two CCTV control rooms.No such luck. The then Lead  Member rushed out and spent thousands in cameras to cover  some yellow boxes. No business case was ever seen.Ignoring this minutiae the current LBH budget is overspent by £10 million plus. Ineffective oversight, squandering and a jumbo project not even passing thru a procurement process is part of this crumbling mess.

John Todd ● 3166d

The CPZ costs a lot of money to implement - officer time, consultations, painting lines, putting up signs - no the money collected on permits doesn't cover the cost of setting it up.  My observation is the richer areas have more cpz than the poorer areas..... and as for people in the poorer areas having an abundance of parking - that's what happens when people can't afford a car As for freedom passes council tax covers some but not all the cost- bottom line the council still has to have money for them

Samantha Christie ● 3166d

That's exposed a huge disparity.So if CPZ money is going to these schemes then why is it that a large percentage of residents in parts of the borough with abundant off street parking are getting a benefit plus a huge discount on their council tax?The CPZ money may well be spent in such a way - except the GLA also claim that the Freedom pass is included in the TfL levy for all Services within the GLA /TFL Boundaries.So who is kidding who?

Raymond Havelock ● 3166d

John Todd - we get on well- but please be candid- it is unfair to mislead people1 9/10 councils of all colours are going to raise their council tax the same about as Hounslow 2 CPZs - this isn't an earner for the council in the normal council tax sense - it is ring fenced for transport eg freedom pass for pensioners (as you get from us!), homes to school transport for children with disabilities and other special needs, traffic management improvements etc3 as for millions of pounds being paid my developers in lieu of affordable housing - as you know this is ring fenced - it can't be spent on things such as adult social care, social worker etc

Samantha Christie ● 3166d

We await publication of the remaining review of LBH charges which will include CPZ permit chargesWhy this has been withheld is not clear. Scrutiny committee were denied the chance to review and comment this matter.There are millions of pounds paid by developers in lieu of providing affordable housing languishing in the LBH coffers.

John Todd ● 3167d

http://www.brentfordtw8.com/default.asp?section=info&link=http://neighbournet.com/server/common/hounscoun437counciltaxincrease.htmOn the front page

Philippa Bond ● 3167d

What about the state of the pavements?  How many people end up in hospital or debilitated because not enough money has been spent on them?  What about the knock-on effect of this on the NHS and people's lives?Or because Councils are being squeezed by cuts of Government grants and are in turn having to make cuts (as they have in staff and services) despite the political strapline of not having done so?  Some Governments believe that everything is cheaper for the tax payer when it is contracted out but then both Government and Council seem to forget that if you contract a service out there has to be a very good contract negotiated and that there still has to be monitoring of that service. So it may not be such a big saving after all.

Philippa Bond ● 3168d

Social Care - not social housing - which should not be confused with affordable housing.http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/social-care-how-much-do-you-really-know/http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2015/08/what-is-affordable-housing/

Philippa Bond ● 3168d

"I hear that for every council tax bill collected once all of the borough services have been allocated there is £127 left which the borough intend on spending on Social housing.  The increase in council tax will also go towards social housing and not to improving the current services."Please do tell where you heard this - social housing is what councils all over the country should be building but as far as I know Hounslow haven't announced any plans to do this. All they seem to do is bang on about the mythical 'affordable housing' which no-one can define. I think you may find that although councils are being allowed to raise the council tax -  the money from this towards social care is ring-fenced.

Vanessa Smith ● 3168d

I had to laugh when reading 'are Hounslow Council getting greedy' when it is so obvious that they are, especially regarding parking. I don't drive but my neighbours do and the cost of street parking has increased and doesn't even guarantee you a space!The streets are covered with rubbish even broken glass.So the Council tax is increasing and next they will probably make more cuts in essential services, 2017 doesn't look good.

Barbara Dudley ● 3168d

I hear that for every council tax bill collected once all of the borough services have been allocated there is £127 left which the borough intend on spending on Social housing.  The increase in council tax will also go towards social housing and not to improving the current services.

Debbie Richmond ● 3168d

Yes we've had all those - some in hospital and some in care home.  They all cause distress.Re: Would the staff work differently if they had extra time?  It is difficult to fix - or fix quickly as a lot of damage is done by short-staffing.  If you have been run off your feet fire-fighting for years you eventually can't remember what little niceties you might do for your residents - like helping them to make a phone call or finding someone to alter a favourite skirt or helping them to keep in touch with friends.  Or just thinking about a better solution to dealing with something...  rather than opting for the morphine (as happened unfortunately in that film).

Philippa Bond ● 3172d

I like what you are saying Philippa.  Can I add to "I haven't had a shower for weeks"?"I can't reach the call button" ... (placed out of reach)."The call button doesn't work/ I have been calling for ages" ... (the cord really does not work). "They won't help me to the toilet/ the man told me to pee in my pad".I wonder, even if the staff had extra time, whether they would work differently?  I think the whole set up needs a shake up.

Sarah Felstead ● 3172d

What worried me about this is that where care workers are paid very low wages there is a bigger turnover of staff or often a reduced number of staff because they can't attract good experienced staff.  Care homes are one of the places that you really don't want this to happen.The more experienced are often training/supervising the less experienced so you don't want to lose them.  You don't want them overworked so that they are frazzled and make less good or poorer decisions than they would otherwise. If there are fewer staff then despite there being lovely ensuite showers in each room (I don't know about LBE's care homes) they may never be used because there aren't enough staff to supervise a resident.  The complaint of "I haven't had a shower for weeks" may well be true.  Residents who would normally be able to walk to the dining room with aid/supervision may be pushed in a wheelchair because it is quicker and it takes a lot of staff to get everyone there for meals at the same time.  They then lose their mobility faster which causes further uncomfortable and distressing problems.  You always have to think further of the consequences of what may at face value seem a simple solution.The staff won't have time for a casual chat with residents.  Please visit your friends and relations in care homes!  Please also consider being a visitor.  The CQC likes to see a programme of activities and although it can be difficult to involve residents sometimes (and difficult for pressed for time staff to remind and persuade them) this gives them something else to talk and think about and is a change from sitting in front of a TV (often in their own room by themselves).

Philippa Bond ● 3172d

I agree - there's not a lot I'd defend Hounslow for, but in the face of massive cuts over years to their grant from central government all councils have had  to become more creative in raising revenue. It's a straight choice really, pay for services out of taxes or pay individually. It's the same for the NHS and education, we have to accept we can't have it both ways.

Vanessa Smith ● 3173d

Whether it was a Conservative or a Labour Council I think you will find that they will have done the same.  They have been told that they don't HAVE to provide a garden waste service as part of the Council Tax.  It was seen as a way as making money to offset against other expenses eg the cost of disposal of other waste.  It doesn't always work as simply as that though.

Philippa Bond ● 3173d

Hounslow Council did implicitly hugely increase council tax last year as they'd taken the garden waste removal out of the council tax and applied an extra charge for it. Typical Labour move. :(

Alex Shpinkov ● 3173d

http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&page=conviridian001.htm

Philippa Bond ● 3173d

If you look at the LBE website you will find that the Council is complaining about the actions of the company running its care homes.  It would appear that the company  that is reducing the pay of the workers there whilst the owner gets a pay rise.  Who knows what is going on!  Health care and social care needs a cross party solution.

Philippa Bond ● 3174d

One of the things that is not so easy for those who avoid taxes to wriggle out of is National Insurance. This is quite low compared to other countries.No British politician of any party will dare to suggest increasing it. Yet this could help massively towards social care, pensions and some aspects of the NHS.As for no Council Tax increases. There have been a raft of them by stealth. CPZs will end up being very costly when they are not supposed to be revenue raising in the first instance. Not that the Tories remind anyone of that or that it was a UK labour Govet that deemed them as a "local service not a revenue service" Ed Balls 1998 and 2006, I believe.

Raymond Havelock ● 3174d

If we want decent local services then we cannot go on getting more whilst paying less. No-one likes paying more out, but realistically this is the most cost-effective way of paying and I agree social care has to be high on the agenda, we simply cannot go on as we are. The payments for green waste collection and permit increases are as a result of the constant insistence of thinking keeping council tax down is good and something to be proud of, pretty disgraceful for a supposedly Labour council.

Vanessa Smith ● 3174d

The council tax increase is only one of the increases proposed.Remember the green waste charge of £50 plus CPZ permit increases?The LBH fee income is currently circa 40m yet they want another increase of  £ 500k. Small businesses particularly badly hit with these punitive increases.John

John Todd ● 3174d

How is the Council getting on reclaiming the outstanding council tax due to the residents of the Borough?

Sarah Felstead ● 3174d

Central Government funding to local authorities have been reduced for the last six years. Meanwhile Hounslow Council have not increased it's Council Tax throughout that time and regard it as a badge of honour - but have significantly cut their services regardless - yet proclaiming annually how wonderful they are to keep their Council Tax down through adversity. They could have made very small annual incremental increases to the council tax in order to manage their responsibilities better, but chose not to. The buffoonery of this council is self-evident, and now they hike up the Council Tax blaming Government cuts. They have had six years to plan, six years to ease the pain, six years to exercise sound fiscal management, but due to their failure and incompetence, they now smack a substantial increase on their residents and blame it all, as usual, on somebody else. They must think we are all fools. They want you to blame the Tory Government to deflect from their own gross mismanagement, incompetence or political machinations.

Paul Brownlee ● 3175d

I take it you're not elderly and in receipt of social care.Care companies now have to pay a higher minimum wage - not a living wage - but a new minimum wage.  Recently (though I haven't seen it in Hounslow) carers have had to take the companies that they work for to court in order to try and get the minimum wage because they were being short-changed by not being paid for the travelling time between service users when they travel from home to home as part of their work. They are often not paid enough for travel expenses either.  I have seen rotas where several service users are listed at the same time in the morning in different parts of town - say for an hour each - to get an elderly person up out of bed, washed, dressed, given some breakfast and medication - something that it is physically impossible to achieve before lunchtime when lunches have to be served on a lunchtime round.  Companies tender to Councils for this work and guess what - that keeps the price down and a very poor service continues.  Quite a few companies have handed back their contracts to Councils as they are losing too much money.It is shameful that we treat our elderly in this way. We have a growing elderly population and not enough accessible buildings.  The Council has closed and sold the Chiswick Day Centre for example. There is a game of out of sight out of mind going on.For political reasons no Government or Council likes to raise taxes because they like to curry favour with their electorate/residents.  It would be better if it did.If you read the info regarding the raise you will see that the Government stipulated last year that they would allow Councils to raise Council Tax a certain amount but it would have to be ring-fenced for social care.  They can only raise it a certain small percentage anyway without being penalised by Government.

Philippa Bond ● 3175d

Major development in Brentford?  Not from where I'm sitting where precisely nothing has happened in the last two and a half years.  Have a walk down Catherine Wheel Road and turn right at the end.  Total dereliction.  Shameful neglect by Hounslow for what was the county town.

Jane Dickinson ● 3175d