The Sheriff Strikes
 

It has been reported on the wireless this morning that the Nottingham Council have come up with yet another scheme to milk the motorist cash cow.

All businesses in the borough that have their own parking area on their premises could be charged £185 per parking space after the first ten.

If they are allowed to get away with it then you can bet your bottom Euro that other Councils will follow suit.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Clearly Nottingham council are trying to drive up ( pardon the pun ) the numbers of unemployed in Nottingham. What do they think most businesses will do if their costs escalate, stay in Nottingham or relocate to other places that make them more welcome ?

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Do they still think Robin Hood exists then ... robbing the rich, however, wonder if any costs will be passed on to the employees to cover this ridiculous levy ?

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

I am all for actively discouraging unnecessary cars, but can a company really be charge for cars parked on their own land? Surely they are already paying business rates for this land?

Does this charge apply just to town centre businesses or to out of town businesses as well?

Most councils have actively promoted out of town sheds and offics, now they are going to put a surcharge on peopole using them? For many employees the only way to get to their workplace is by private transport as public transport is not available

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Answers here:

BBC NEWS | England | Nottinghamshire | Firms may challenge parking levy

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

If they do this, one of two things is likely to happen, businesses will tear up the car park tarmac leaving a scruffy mess and deny it is a carpark, or will tell thier staff they are no longer allowed to park on the premises and make the roadside even worse than it is, hence another hazard for emergency vehicles, or more revenue for traffic wardens.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

I think they call this lateral thinking Derek, if we can't get the B*****d one way we'll get um the other:eek:

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Well, looks like they are going to do it Polly. Worrying thing is, this idea will start to spread throughout the U.K.

Agree with Derekgas, people will just park on the street if employers insist on passing this stealth tax onto their employees.

One caller into the Jeremy Vine show, who worked for a company with 300 employees, expressed concern due to the fact that he began work at 3 a.m., so although there seems to be some promise of improving public transport, would not be provided at this time in the morning.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Yes they can charge parking fees on their own land. Hospitals already do so. Even the local authorities do the same with their own land (cark parks).

What I am not sure about is can the Council legitimately charge a land owner if that land owner allows free parking for employees and visitors? Surely the business would have had planning permission when the business was first built and that planning permission would have included any car park. So I don’t think that the Council can charge a land owner for allowing parking on his land without passing at least a bye law first.

If this crackpot idea goes through in Nottingham and spreads to the rest of the country I wonder what supermarkets will have to say about it?

At £185 pa per parking space that is 51p per day. Not a lot for an employee to pay. Guess who will get the ten free spaces.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Asked my son, who is a Transport Planning Consultant ... came back with this, which helped me see another side to this scheme:-

"Feelings towards Workplace Parking Levies (WPL) are mixed. On the plus
side, they do target the core group of trips that contribute most heavily
to congestion - work based commuters on typical work patterns. The
charges also encourage employers to take a pro-active approach to
promoting changes in travel behaviour ie. revised working patterns,
promoting cycling/walking, subsidised public transport etc. Residual
benefits also exist to business, for instance, the volume of high value
land that is wasted through the supply of free employee car parking is
huge. By instituting an additional cost to the employer for the supply
of car parking, it encourages removal of car parking and opens up the
potential for development of that land. This has revenue implications
for the City Council (tax, rise in land value etc) and business
(expansion, sale etc). Importantly for businesses, this has no impact
on a key group for them - goods and HGV deliveries. A zone or cordon
based congestion charge (which is often sold as the alternative to WPL)
does not discriminate against the type of traffic entering the zone, a
WPL does.

However, there is the risk that the employer may just transfer the cost
of the parking levy onto employees. Although not necessarily fair, it
might get commuters to reconsider their travel choices - I cycle to work
and my commuting costs are zero (besides extra toast in the morning!).
There may be cases where employees need to drive (disability etc) so
provision should be made for these employees. There is a large initial
capital cost to the Local Authorities to ensure that the local Traffic
Regulation Orders and on-street lining and signing is correct and
appropriate - to discourage the displacement of parking onto on-street
locations. This is accompanied by an additional operations cost through
the enforcement of these parking restrictions.

These are not the only issues with WPL but I'm broadly in favour of the
scheme. Whilst I agree that the Chamber of Commerce and other business
interests have the right to Judicial Review - this is ultimately very
costly for the Government. What is more annoying is that it is highly
probable that the Chamber has been involved in developing this scheme
from its inception. Congestion is borne from economic success and the
clustered location of inter-linked business/social activities, which
attract demand at specific times of day, causing acute breakdown in the
flow of traffic. Congestion is therefore a key indicator of a thriving
economy. However, without a pro-active stance on congestion reduction
the cost to businesses (time lost, delivery delays, wasted time etc)
will only rise.

Whilst charging people for the use of the car may seem unequitable and
unfair, attitudes towards the 'right to drive' need to change over the
next twenty years. Even if you exclude the environmental arguments
(damage caused to the environment by industry is far greater, it
accounts for 58% of all CO2 emissions in the UK; transport 24%) the
time/cost to business will grow and that will have an impact on all
persons."

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

So it’s all our fault for having the temerity to get above our perceived station, own a car and have the gall to actually use it for our own convenience.

It seems to me that this excuse for a government and local authorities are in cahoots to turn the clock back some 70 years, where only business managers, doctors and the wealthy had cars and the rest of us had to use public transport or bike or walk.

It also seems to me that if this scheme gets widespread use it will free up land for other purposes.

If a large business suddenly announced that the company car park will be closed down and then sells the very expensive land, the workers would not be happy.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

Have reverted back to my 'source' for further thoughts Jambutty, reply herewith :-

"Well, he's sort of right but it's all about the spin. There is an
incentive to business through the sale of car parking for profit and
subsequent development. However, in a crowded city, short on space, car
parking is not the most efficient or appropriate use of land. Of course
there will always be a minority of persons who refuse to consider
alternatives to the private car; have no other realistic option or value
time/perceived convenience over money and can pay the charge. This is
not about taxing the poor and middle class 'off the road' but it is
about incentivising people to consider alternatives. The argument that
the charge is linked to discrimination against income groups and/or
class is nonsense. Unfortunately people only consider the impact of
their decisions in monetary terms and quite sensible arguments will fail
against less sensible arguments if there is no financial dis/incentive.
The days of government spending billions to provide new road capacity
for car users are gone - it is quite simply too expensive."

I'm not for/against at the moment, just trying to understand it all.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

they can call it spin, i call it bull****.;)

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

I don't understand how you can be so forthrightly dismissive Cashy. We have to start somewhere of solving the traffic problems which will only increase if we don't.

Re: The Sheriff Strikes
 

oh its quite easy, i don't see the need fer unnecessary waffle about things that are a blatant rip-off, its called calling a spade a spade.:p