RICHMOND VOTES AGAINST SUVSParking charge plan unwanted and illegal?From Pistonheads.co.ukParking one in Richmond gets priceyRichmond Council last night voted in favour of what it called "groundbreaking parking charges that will see residents in controlled parking zones (CPZs) pay for their permits based on the CO2 emissions of their vehicles." This is the infamous "tax your SUV" parking charge proposed by the south-west London borough that we covered when first mooted in October 2006. (see link below).In support of its actions, Richmond said that it consulted residents about the change. The result was, said the council, that: "47 per cent of respondents indicated they were in favour, 39 per cent were opposed with the balance undecided. The consultation also indicated that almost 2/3 (64 per cent) indicated that the new charges would make them consider changing to less polluting vehicles."But a different story emerges when you look at how the so-called consultation was carried out. According to Private Eye, the council didn't carry out face-to-face interviews but instead opted for the cheaper postal survey method. It sent out forms to 3,481 homes of which 1,251 -- under half -- responded. The Eye points out that this style of survey inevitably means that only those with the strongest opinions are likely to respond, automatically skewing the results.It also appears that 83 per cent of the questionnaires were sent to homes outside the parking charge zone. These people would be unaffected by the charge and would clearly either not care less or would be happy for other people to pay, secure in the knowledge that they would not be affected.There's a legal angle to the matter too. The Eye reckons that opponents of the scheme are still waiting for the council to reveal the legal advice which council leader Serge Lourie said justifies breaking the Road Traffic Regulation Act "which specifies that parking schemes may only be used for traffic management rather than revenue-raising purposes". Despite the council using tax-payers' money to pay for legal advice on the matter, the council won't reveal what that advice was.As the Eye points out: "why, if legal advice supports the proposal, must it be kept secret? If it does not, and the council goes ahead anyway, is that not reckless and unlawful?"
Edward Fitzgerald ● 6697d