The scrapping of the controversial CO2 based parking scheme is to be delayed.
Richmond Council’s new Conservative cabinet officially ended the scheme, in which motorists pay different amounts to park in controlled parking zones (CPZs) based on their car’s carbon emissions, earlier this month.
But councillors Martin Elengorn and Geoff Acton, from Richmond Liberal Democrats, have asked for the decision to be looked at again by the council’s environment, sustainability and communities overview and scrutiny committee before it is ratified.
The committee next meets on September 15 and the discussion is set to be held then, pushing the cancellation of the scheme back.
Councillor Elengorn, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: “The papers were published at the last minute, there was little opportunity for the public to get involved.
“They can say the plan was in their manifesto but there are more than 100 things in their manifesto, I don’t believe the public is aware of all of them and they certainly were not aware they would cost £410,000 a year to implement.”
The plans include a flat fee for CPZ permits and 30 minutes free parking for borough residents wherever there are currently charges as part of a scheme to alter the Richmond Card, the Oyster-style card run by the authority.
The plan will cost about £241,000 a year, as well as a one-off £90,000 fee to change parking meters.
As part of the changes, Richmond Card users will get 10 per cent discounts on all parking while any drivers over 75 will get a 20 per cent discount. But charges are set to rise, with a 5 per cent increase in the cost of parking for less than two hours, a 10 per cent increase in two to six hour stays and a 15 per cent increase for anyone parking for more than six hours.
Councillor Nick True, Richmond Council leader, said the CO2 based parking scheme was “unfair and ineffective”.
He added: “There is no evidence it has saved any significant amount of CO2.
“Good environmental policies should help not hurt and apply equally to all.
“We promised this discredited scheme would go and we have a clear mandate to remove it from an election in which 75 per cent of local people voted.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel