contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.​


Herne Bay, England, CT6
United Kingdom

Community website for all things Herne Bay (Kent, UK). Covers: The Downs, Herne Bay Museum, Herne Bay Historical Records Society, Herne Bay Pier Trust, Herne Bay in Bloom, East Cliff Neighbourhood Panel, No Night Flights, Manston Airport, Save Hillborough, Kitewood, WEA, Local Plan and much, much more...

HBM

Filtering by Tag: Terry Hudson

Parking Consultation - another brilliant response

HBM

Mr Hudson spells out what the Department of Transport says "controlled parking" is for, and compares it with CCC's approach.


Parking Charges.png

7th December 2012

Ref:- Canterbury City Council (Off-Street Parking Places) 0rder 20l3

Dear Mr. Carmichael,

I wish to OBJECT to the above Order concerning proposed raising of car parking charges. I believe that Canterbury City Council (CCC) made a profit of around £2.5 million in the last financial year from an overall turnover of approximately £7 million in car parking charges.

I would like to quote you a few passages from the Department of Transport Operational Guidance manual on parking and have enclosed a copy of the front page for identification.

From page 14:

"But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE (Controlled Parking Enforcement) nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue."

Also:

"The judgement in R v LB Camden (ex parte Cran) made clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is not a revenue raising Act".

Also:

"The objective of CPE should be for 100 per cent compliance, with no penalty charges"

As you are aware CCC issued 25,275 PCNs in 2009/10 and this obviously accounts for considerable income.

From page 24, when talking about parking objectives it states:

"keep traffic moving, rather than raising revenue".

Page 112, once again it repeats:

"Authorities should never use parking charges just to raise revenue or as a local tax"

and goes on to state what should happen with any surplus income:

"In such cases local authorities must ensure that any on-street revenue not used for enforcement is used for legitimate purposes only and its main use is to improve, by whatever means, transport provision in the area so that road users benefit".

Page 135, it repeats again when talking about surpluses

"They can use any surplus to improve off-street, or, where this is unnecessary or undesirable, for certain other transport-related purpose and environmental schemes".

To sum up, Canterbury City Council is already making a hefty profit from its parking regime and any further increases seem to more of about general revenue raising, which this manual seems to clearly indicate is not the stated aim of parking regulations.

What benefits have drivers gained from previous years' profits?

I would like a written response to my objection letter concerning the issues raised.

Thanking you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Terry Hudson


Herne Bay Matters home page


All original material copyright © 2010-2014 HerneBayMatters.com All rights reserved. All external links disclaimed.