Forum Topic

CPZ surcharge imposition. Democratic?

So LBH have pushed through an imposition of revenue raising surcharges using 'pollution' as a justification'Interesting that the results of the rather low key consultation have not been published.How is this fair? What about the thousands of Diesel using residents not in a CPZ?Can a parked vehicle pollute?Can a diesel in a CPZ pollute more than an identical diesel in a non CPZ?Can a diesel driving through a CPZ pollute more than one parked in a CPZ?Where is the extra revenue going? To Sercos extra workload processing all this extra bureaucracy?To quote a Cllr. Steve Curran,  from another current consultation" We look forward to hearing your views on the draft appraisal and will amend this where appropriate following consultation" So does this not apply to all LBH consultations. If so what is the point of consulting?This should be an issue for the government and the DVLA/VOSA to deal with.  Not targeting the pockets of a few at the expense of others .

Raymond Havelock ● 3034d24 Comments

Theo. There are 31.7 million cars on the roads in the UK. Are you seriously asking people to believe that by screwing the residents of Hounslow because we were all mugged off by a moron from your party into buying these diesel cars that by magic and fifty quid of course all will be well in the garden .We cannot generate enough electricity to see ourselves through the winter how are going to provide enough to charge 31.7 million cars ? The M4 is the most polluting road in Europe but instead of lobbying Government to get something done about that you and the dear leader come up with a tax on the locals who are very ones being killed by it

Robert Ayres ● 3021d

Fully agree with you Raymond. The council as after the easy target making populist decisions and at the same time introduce useless and unnecessary 20mph zones that in fact (unlike parked cars) do increase pollution.

Alex Shpinkov ● 3025d

Actually we don't have a diesel car either.  I just feel that it is divisive.  Most of us know that thee are a lot of large vans which are used by sole traders which run on diesel. There are also a lot of lorries.  Can the Council please confirm that all the lorries that its contractors use are not diesel fuelled?Can the Council also confirm that all those electric charge points for electric cars - for which planning permission has to be applied for - HAVE to be maintained in working order?  There are too many stories of the frustrations of them not being usable.

Philippa Bond ● 3025d

This is how much Hounslow cares about the environment.Just a few years ago when the former Alfa Laval site was being demolished, many calls were placed to the huge amount of dust being created and the dusting down compared of just one domestic hose spray.The site was built with Asbestos mix concrete -as is the remaining tower.No action at all , not even an inspection and it was not reported by LBH to the H&S executive.The erratic winds in march of that year deposited a coating of dust on homes right down to the river and as far as Darwin Road.  Several times.No action was taken at all. Even to check if the concrete dust was contaminated or not. But even if clear of asbestos, Concrete dust is not ideal to ingest.Fact is anyone here then of any age will have ingested this.The complete lack of interest by LBH at the time was indicative of the whole attitude. Time consuming and costly and interferes with a part authority housing project.But Theo, this does not answer the question? Why are LBH preying on a captive part of the community when the problem is across the whole community who use a diesel vehicle?  Is that not an abuse of authority?I suggest you take a walk up to Osterley and look at one road in particular as an example.  Thornbury Avenue. This typical LBH street is in a CPZ yet barely one resident vehicle has a permit.  The vast majority of vehicles in this street are large diesels and 4WDs all parked on concreted over gardens and many overhanging the pavement, some by a few feet.Are they not polluters too?  Why is that permitted when other boroughs do not allow any overhanging vehicles, permit or not ?Large diesel vans are in CPZs, contrary to the rules but all on £80 permits.The point is there seems to be two sets of rules here. Double standards.

Raymond Havelock ● 3026d

I suspect the Air Pollution Strategy document is thin and lacking any credible drives because the council tacked environmental issues into a department called, 'Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment'. Environment is last and 'Fox in charge of the chicken coup' comes to mind.  I'd be careful on saying reducing diesel cars will have little if any effect on pollution; a touch counter-intuitive and easily picked up on and disproved.By the way, I know it's uncommon, but Lorne with an e at the end is a boys name. Being called Lorna doesn't bother me though as I've got used to it over the years.

Lorne Gifford ● 3026d

LornaThe impact if any will be minimal. More could be done but LBH is well behind the curveIt's publishing its Air Pollution strategy next week for consultation. It's a thin document lacking in drive and robust  initiatives.Nearly every other borough uses the skilled credible and well respected Kings College Air Watch facilities acknowledged by DEFRA and other NGOs driving change.  LBH doesn't. Our sole officer dealing says they are bit more expensive as he publishes a report citing projected fatalities from pollution of all kinds Ward by Ward.Theo says councillors costs were reduced from 2010. Oops Theo.Who increased the SRA paid to the Chair of the Licensing Committee from £500 to £6000. What percentage rise is that?John

John Todd ● 3026d

" diesel kills, it kills in Brentford...... but it is not the fifty pounds that matters it's the health costs"This from the man who told me that we all know that the Twickenham Road is very polluted so adding a bit more pollution by increasing the traffic didn't really matter.  When I suggested that perhaps a lot of poison was actually worse for you than a bit of poison you told me that I was offering a scientific argument and you were offering a political one Theo.  So have you come over to the dark side of science or is it just more politically expedient for you now?

Sarah Connolly ● 3026d

I also vehemently hate 'divide and rule'.  Remember when Milliband and Balls were pushing the mansion tax idea. 'It's only a little extra on the shoulders of the rich and no labour voters will pay it'. Those who wouldn't be affected supported it without question simply because it was a tax on someone else. But anyone that looked into it and could do maths (and Balls admitted he couldn't) quickly worked out that a 1% per year property tax at the top of the market would collapse the whole lot, and incidentally not actually raise a penny in revenue. Literally, not a penny; no extra nurses, no NHS pay rises, nothing but a collapsed market, capital flight and big trouble for anyone with a mortgage.  (Collapse the top and the rest collapses by proportionally lesser levels all the way down). That was 'divide and rule' politics.Diesel though, despite everything you might say, has an overwhelming body of evidence saying it's monumentally toxic to humans. Far more evidence that global warming and cigarette smoking before measures came in to curb them. And I agree fully about aircraft pollution and the M4. If you're interested, jet fuel has an almost identical CH molecule string to diesel, so emissions are also almost identical. The pollution effects of Heathrow, its expansion and the M4 are brushed aside and played down because of the 'greater good' to the economy - NATIONAL policy. So whilst a local diesel tax doesn't solve the pollution problem, it will reduce it, and it sets the precedent for polluter pays directly to the area polluted.Personally I would call it divide and rule. I might use a phrase like 'polluter pays' though.

Lorne Gifford ● 3026d

Good try Theo!You have materially increased CPZ permit fees. PeriodYou've also reduced the cost of car permits to Avis a multi million company. They own car clubs in the borough.No wonder your books don't balance! Hammersmith Labour Council rightly decided against a further diesel charge. Any levy is already paid via the VELYour administration as ever vacillated over imposing an agreedincreased car parking charges for nearly a year. Result unnecessary debit balance and a needed scoop from the parking reserve.Could go on....    John

John Todd ● 3026d

I absolutely respect the fact that many sensible people think this decision is wrong.  I can also accept that people have a right to be sceptical about the health benefits of us introducing the diesel surcharge particularly given its limited impact.  I am pretty certain that the outcry over the decision suggests more people now know there are costs from owning/driving diesel even if they don't accept the more serious health costs. But could I just try one more time to convince you that we are just totally wrong rather than motivated by generating an income from it...?If we wanted to generate an income from CPZ permits - we would just raise the permit price.  it would raise far more money than the surcharge, would be simpler to do, would not have caused this fuss - raising the permit price would be the sneaky simple money raising option.If we really wanted to save a fortune on CPZ permits we would abolish the whole lot of them.  They cost us money to introduce, we are restricted to making them self-financing so can't make a profit, and every penny they raise has to be spent on traffic and transport schemes e.g. More CPZ, parking signs, lines etc not on anything jolly like councillors allowance or expenses, (both cut since we were elected in 2010 and not raised since) or the big pressure areas like school places, housing or social care.  In fact we would save money by cutting everything we do on parking including all the charges, fines and car parks, meters and CPZ because none of that earns us what it costs - we run a deficit on our parking account, it is subsidised by the General fund not the other way round, so if we abolished it we could save money and cut the council tax.So, I will accept what you say Raymond about us being totally wrong, but the one thing we absolutely aren't doing is sneaking through some smart new way of generating income...

Theo Dennison ● 3026d

As it happens we do not own a diesel. Never been convinced about them apart from fuel economy.  So won't be affected.It's the principal of pure divide and rule discrimination that I object to.Everywhere in urban districts is polluted.Brentford's pollution is not purely down to road vehicles. There's the one of the worlds busiest flight paths, a range of high polluting installations, a motorway and several trunk roads .And who do you want to penalise? The people who live here. And then only those who live in a Controlled parking zone.The inference is that people who live on Council estates and areas that have no CPZs do not pollute.Fact is there is no difference where you live. The pollution you make is the same.Which is why it should be applied nationally and not by local councils who are simply using the current largely unfounded hysteria on pollution as a means to generate income.Try looking at some reports on the BBC website about the claims of deaths in London.The actual collated data actually applies to cities in the USA. Not even comparable cities in the same climate.There is no verified data on the actual effect of N0x. It is known that it is harmful but not how much exposure. The sun is harmful,Tree pollens are harmful, some like plane trees are carcinogenic.Electric motors emit toxins. So do Cows and Humans.We are still discovering new toxins some natural some man made.Until people stop telling porkies and dining out on the trend and actually seriously address the full length and breadth of the pollution of urban areas and not just scoring petty points on a flavour of the month target, nothing serious will be achieved.

Raymond Havelock ● 3026d

Theo,perhaps if the current local administration presented as open to public debate and had a reputation for taking on board the feelings and opinions of local residents( Church St.for one) it might be more worthwhile knocking on my door.As for taking Tony's advice, yes you are correct..I was hoodwinked by him, like millions of others over several issues.Where have I complained about the £50 charge btw? Being called an 'free thinker', however intended,by someone who ultimately represents a party perceived by many as hypocritical, is something of a compliment, so I thank you for that.

Keith Iddon ● 3026d

'Another divisive decision.  It's just another tax on the poor.  The well-off will hardly blink'It's not really 'another tax on the poor' is it.  You can after all just sell your diesel car and buy a petrol one instead.  It's not your fault that diesel is toxic, car companies cheated their emissions, or political parties were just interested in reducing co2.  It all just happened, and now there are too many diesels chugging around and killing the rest of us, so they have to go.I recommend you ditch the diesel as quickly as you can. I suspect the dvla will jack up the car tax on them at the next budget, and then their value will plummet.

Lorne Gifford ● 3026d

I am glad an independently minded free thinker, who won't even talk to his Labour councillors when they knock on his door, still sought advice from Tony Blair, presumably at his car showroom in Downing Street.  And he is clearly on familiar terms with him since he name drops his affectionate pet name in so readily.Lorne's right, diesel kills, it kills in Brentford, and while I would never place the blame on individual car owners who have enough issues to deal with when buying a car, we all need to take responsibility for the decisions we make.  The Labour Government was wrong when it reduced the relative duty on diesel and the Conservative Government is wrong because it has not corrected it.  It ain't popular but Hounslow Council was right to set a surcharge, even if it just reminds everyone that diesel costs us so much more it will serve a purpose - but it is not the fifty pounds that matters it's the health costs and Keith, your fifty pounds will go towards electric charging points, the discount for electric cars, other green traffic measures and cleaner air so even you will be quids in through this policy.

Theo Dennison ● 3026d

Beg pardon that should be phoney Tony.

Keith Iddon ● 3026d

No so Lorna. I bought my diesel car because of the blurb ousted by New Labour about the advances in the filtration of particulants etc. making it just as clean as petrol and also the extra mileage to the gallon. It's only in the last 2 years that the claim they made has been exposed as the BS that it was, just like we now know most of what that 13 years of phony Tmy consisted was BS.

Keith Iddon ● 3027d

Raymond, Everyone claims to be green and environmental, but  will complain bitterly and come up with any excuse or justification they can think of when faced with actually having to do something.  Diesel owners bought diesel cars because they're cheaper to run than petrol.  Turns out they're many times more toxic and, with the backing of overwhelming evidence, too many of them on the road are literally killing thousands of people in London a year.Highest toxicity occurs when they're first started and before the engine and catalizer have warmed up, ie from those parked in cpz's used to go to the supermarket, school run, etc.Discrimination, divisiveness, Hitler, hate and resentment, complete evil. Really? just to avoid paying £50 a year more?

Lorne Gifford ● 3027d

What has democracy got to do with it?

Keith Iddon ● 3027d

Sadly you are right!

Nicholas Beard ● 3027d

Someone has to pay for the high salaries and fees that so called Consultation Experts demand.

Raymond Havelock ● 3027d

Same old story. Anything to do with pollution costs money. In other EU contries its not so blatent. For example on heavy pollution days a temporary speed limit is in place, no cost. Only even number cars allowed one day and odds the next. On these high pollution days trains and buses are free etc etc. Not here though.

Nicholas Beard ● 3027d

Easily said Lorne.But which diesels are causing the problem here?The ones parked?  I don't think so.It's the thousands of slow moving vehicles that are chucking out fumes.Are CPZs more polluted than non CPZs?No.CPZs exist to deter commuter parking. Not to specify what car you should drive.And both Co2 & NOX pollutants are emitted from buildings as well. From large building boilers and pump machinery along with other toxins. All completely ignored in both planning and construction specifications. Not a word from the likes of Frank Kelly or the GLA on that issue.Sorry, It is a national issue. So is pollution. People were advised to but diesels by national policy and dealing with the problem is not for selective and divisive local council policy which is not going to make a single difference.  They will make a fistful of dollars and nothing will change.Unfounded discrimination and divisiveness just causes damage.  Hitler tried this and look what happened. Division and restriction turning into hate and resentment and then turning to complete evil. It has to be a level playing field as it is not the residents living in CPZs that are causing the problem and more or less than those who do not.

Raymond Havelock ● 3027d

'This should be an issue for the government and the DVLA/VOSA to deal with'Raymond, whilst I'm sure the DVLA will soon be applying monster tax hikes to diesels, the problem is very much a localised issue and therefore a local tax is very appropriate.Diesel cars are better for global warming than petrol ones (less CO2 emissions), but far worse for human health (multiple levels of NOX and particulates).  Too many of them in a confined area like Brentford and we all end up breathing air so toxic that its equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, children included.Particulates appear to be the main problem as even the cleanest and newest diesels pump out many times more than petrol cars.  And when that car, bus or truck gets a bit old, the particulate emissions become so high that you can see a cloud of toxic death streaming from their exhausts. Smokey diesels are so lethal that on the spot removal of offending vehicles by the police should be mandatory.Local problem and therefore best approach is a local tax to get rid of as many of them as possible.  Since the government will also tackle the problem nationally through the DVLA might I suggest this local tax is a rather nice way of saying, 'sell your diesel to someone in the countryside now, because it'll be worth diddly-squat as soon as the DVLA jack the tax up'

Lorne Gifford ● 3027d

Another divisive decision.  It's just another tax on the poor.  The well-off will hardly blink.

Philippa Bond ● 3033d