THE proposed 30p minimum charge for using Warrington Borough Council car parks at Stockton Heath and Lymm is a “stealth tax” to raise extra cash for the authority.
This is the view of Liberal Democrat councillor Brian Axcell, following a study of the council’s own data.
He said: “These car parks were already in profit before the time for free parking was cut from two hours to one and the combined surplus from them is now running at £96,000 a year.
“However, this has not met the annual profit target of £200,000 set by the council’s parking service a year ago.”
Cllr Axcell (pictured) said if car park usage in Stockton Heath and Lymm remains the same, the surplus from them would rocket to £280,000 a year.
Even if 40 per cent of short stay visitors stopped using the car parks, they would still generate more than £210,000 a year for the council.
Cllr Axcell said: “It is obvious from these figures that the ploy of a 30p minimum charge is simply about cash generation.
“The council’s approach for these car parks is in stark contrast with that for their other district car parks, all of which are free to use. The council tactics also compare badly with their policy of free permits for residents’ parking zones, which is responsible for the mess in the council parking service finances.
“The 30p fee clearly is a stealth tax on the residents of south Warrington. For example, a parent using the Forge Car Park in Stockton Heath to drop off a child at school and to collect the child in the afternoon would have to pay an extra £120 per year for the privilege.
“The campaign by local residents and businesses in south Warrington to get free parking for two hours reinstated and for fairness in the parking service budget will continue.”
30p parking fee is stealth tax claim
2525 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
25 Comments
Of course it’s a tax Cllr Axcell. Local authorities have had their funding from central government slashed by the ConDem alliance so have to raise revenue by other means.
The example given of a parent dropping a child off for school is utter rubbish. Why couldn’t they walk to and from the school?
if it’s a tax, it’s illegal.
Why’s it rubbish? A lot of the kids don’t live near the school plus many working parents go straight to work after dropping their kids off. They could always drop them off earlier though as parking charges don’t start until 9am 😉
“These car parks were already in profit before the time for free parking was cut from two hours to one” says Cllr Axcell. Not what council says. Show us your figures Cllr. Without them this article is just political puff
The council’s own figures that were used in the development of the new parking strategy showed a surplus. They were reported on this site.
If they are going to their nearest school and live over 2 miles away (up to 8 years old) they would be eligible for free transport. I guess there may be quite a few who choose to send their children to Stockton Heath School? If they are working thay can afford it? there are only 190 school days a year, so it would be £114 a year. Councillors getting their facts wrong……… surely not ;~)
Alright to keep you happy, as I always aim to do, lets not call it a tax, lets call it a “revenue raising initiative” that is being introduced to help support front line services for people who can’t afford a car?
Still illegal. Still goes against the council’s own strategy. Still harms local businesses.
Cllr Axcell plucks figures from the air like rabbits from a hat. He shows us no substance behind his claims
Like I said, the facts are in council documents which show that this car park and others like it already made a surplus. If they’re using them as ways of generating revenue for other things, they are breaking the law.
30p please really get a life .tough times tough measures if it is about getting more cash in the councils purse then I would prefer this measure than closing valuable facilities .
So STOP this cheap political mud slinging and tackle real issues that really do matter to people .
I guess your a car driver? 30p is a minimal charge which when compared to the cost of petrol, road fund license, insurance etc. is nothing.
Unfortunately if the council are using parking charges to generate extra income to cover shortfalls in other services then this is illegal. The concept has already been challenged in court in London; a judge declared that Barnet Council had acted illegally by using parking charges to raise general revenue. ….. “It is enshrined in law – as underlined by the Barnet case – profits gained from on street charges and penalties must be ploughed back into a very limited number of things including maintaining the roads.” ….if they don’t do this it is illegal. It is like drunk driving or burgling someones house….it ain’t allowed. So regardless of whether you, me, Out of Warrington or Jackie Nelson think its a good or bad idea; they can’t do it and they will get themselves into all sorts of trouble if they continue without proving the extra cash is going into other transportation projects….
If WBC want parking services as a whole to run at a surplus (something which I personally disagree with as I see parking provision as a front line service in itself which directly supports local businesses and creates jobs in the borough), then why not charge those who have a roadside parking space reserved for themselves 24×7 a mere 30p a day for their residents parking permits. As plenty have said here, it’s peanuts as an individual sum of money, but it would raise far more revenue than these car park charges ever could.
Maybe they saw it as a quick fix to make good some of the loss WBC staff parking has run up? The level of that deficit is also shown in the Council’s parking strategy documents.
‘Out of Warrington’… In reply to one of your earlier comments re: the free transport…. I’m not aware that SH school has ever had a FREE bus/travel service if that’s what you mean after all it is a pre-school nursery and primary school but having just looked it seems that some could be eligible for a free bus pass. For goodness sake are you seriously suggesting that parents stick 4+ years olds on the bus to find their own way to primary school and what about all the pre-school nursery tots? You clearly have no idea ‘Out of Warrington’….. maybe your name says it all actually as you really don’t know this school or the area. Haven’t the council just reduced cut a lot of the free school transport anyway for a lot of schools ? SO WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS on everyone attending the very busy SH doctors surgery now having to pay too?… can’t wait to hear that… it’s their own faults for being ill maybe !?!
School transport for pupils of that age is normally by taxi or dedicated minibus transport, not public transport. I know the area and the school very well. the school transport that WBC have taken off was for non entitled pupils. Why shouldn’t people attending the doctor’s surgery pay for parking? You have to pay at the hospital. I go back to the reasoning that if you can afford a car, you can afford 30p to park.
Agreed, but should the cost of parking in one area already paying its way and in surplus be increased to make up for the parking deficits in other areas? Surely, the people in the shortfall areas who can afford cars, should park them without subsidies from other areas?
But it is illegal (and has proven to be so in court) to make a profit from car parking and then to use the surplus to fund other projects….. which part don’t you understand about that?……….. doesn’t affect me personally as I live in Westbrook and we have loads of free parking here but the council should not be subsidising other non-transport projects from car parking surpluses and if it is running at a loss; the car parking lot should be disbanded altogether
It’s not about the sum. Hopefully you might realise that not only is it illegal for the council to use parking as a source of revenue, but the policy runs counter to the council’s own strategic objectives. The policy actively harms local businesses. I know you probably think you need more evidence than facts and Warrington’s own experience of these things but try not to advocate illegal behaviour.
Thank you for trying to patronize me, 7/10 for effort. 2/10 for attainment. Everyone is getting hooked up on what’s legal and what’s not (nothing wrong with that by the way), but you are all missing the point that local authorities have been striped by the fat controller (Eric Pickles). Your council tax is either not going up at all, or by small amounts, but the councils costs are on the increase.
You’re obviously struggling to grasp this so it’s worth repeating. What the council are doing is illegal and, because it’s harming local businesses, goes against their own local strategy. So, apart from being illegal and having a negative impact on the local economy, and being unnecessary because the car park was making a surplus anyway I agree with you. It’s a fantastic idea.
You would make an excellent councillor with your pompous and patronizing attitude. Why don’t you give it a go……………………or would you rather just stay in the background and moan about everything? the latter I would guess. At least the ‘comments’ section on here and the WG web site give you a purpose in life.
Instead of making personal comments you could try arguing that it’s somehow OK to break the law and harm the interests of local people and businesses. Oh. You’ve already tried that and it didn’t work.
If you can’t win the argument resort to insult, pretty much par for the course.