| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Another fancy pants scheme? | |
| Posted by: | Cllr Sam Hearn | |
| Date/Time: | 14/12/16 16:31:00 |
| 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? |