Taxpayers have again been left counting the cost of West Berkshire Council's decision to ramp up parking charges and hire 20 traffic wardens.

New council figures to be discussed tonight show that district coffers are down £240,000 - contributing to a predicted £1m total overspend by the Tory-run administration.

The attempt to extract more cash from shoppers and visitors to Newbury in a recession has seen Newbury at odds with many other towns and cities, where parking charges have been cut to help local businesses.

Each space in the council's control could generate more than £3000 a year, and the figures show the council is 'down' £270 per space.

It costs £1 an hour to park in Newbury - the same as visiting Festival Place in Basingstoke. Nearby towns like Witney have several free car parks, while Winchester has also increased charges to encourage people to take up the city's park and ride.

What was it the Tories said when they took over in 2005.....something about 'restoring WBC finances'?

Wonder what state the other lot would have us in then

Quoted from Meddler

What was it the Tories said when they took over in 2005.....something about 'restoring WBC finances'?  Wonder what state the other lot would have us in then

Makes yer shudder, dunnit?

There hasn't been '20 traffic wardens' for quite some time now. I think there's 15 of them and no more will be employed in the near future to fill the gaps in the team.

Quoted from spartacus

There hasn't been '20 traffic wardens' for quite some time now. I think there's 15 of them and no more will be employed in the near future to fill the gaps in the team.

Newbury does not have any traffic wardens.

It costs £1 an hour to park in Newbury - the same as visiting Festival Place in Basingstoke


is it me or does the tone here suggest that a £1 to park in Newbury is poor value when compared to a £1 to park in Basingstoke?

I believe their correct title is Civil Enforcement Officers. If this is correct it would have made more sense and better value for money to give them more powers such as litter fines, dog fouling, etc. However, as I understand it they cannot even ticket someone for driving through the pedestrian zone.

Even at 15 the number employed is a staggering waste of resources, along with the amount of new parking meters (including 7 for just 52 spaces in Station Road with 3 less than 20 metres apart) to make more areas for them to patrol. 80-90% of the revenue could probably been collected with just 5 or 6 staff rotated around the district.

In theory the number of penalty notices may fall as people as people become more aware of the penalties leading to less revenue and bigger losses if the same staffing levels remain in place.

There were problems with long term parking near the railway station and at Northcroft but these could easily have been resolved by allowing say 3 hours maximum.

A £240,000 deficit with public money should mean someone should lose their job. I am sure that shortfall would not be tolerated in private industry.

It seems to me that the whole parking situation in Newbury did not get the attention it needed when the planners worked out their strategy. I believe they were blinded by the visions of rafts of money coming into the council coffers and failed to think the whole process through from beginning to end. I drove through Bart St and Market St today to get where I wanted to go but mainly to have a look at the cinema. I passed three CEO's all seemingly writing tickets for hapless motorists who had parked incorrectly. Quite right, I hear User saying, but the effect now is that people are afraid to come into town even if they are parking correctly.
This must have a detrimental effect on the town and encourages people to go to the retail parks rather than risk retribution by the very people they pay enormous sums to in rates each year.
The costs of setting up the parking business in West Berks, must have been major just in terms of remarking the spaces, putting up all the signs, buying in ticket machines and buying fancy electronic devices for the Enforcemet officers. I doubt we see that depreciation in the figures, that would have been hived off to some other cost centre including, I suspect, the cost of buying and running the computerised parking management software and hardware (budgetted in the IT dept costs?). On top of that, the running costs are not only the CEOs but there must be an army of administration personnel back at HQ,dealing with the enforcement, answering and deciding on questions of validity of the ticket after a written letter asking for it to be cancelled, and getting names and addresses from DVLA.

"Oh, sod it we're making a loss, how did that happen ? "

Its a difficult one this - because its not straight profit or loss.  Apparently many people wanted the irregular parking they thought rife in Newbury sorted out.  Our democratically elected Councillors decided that they agreed and something would be done; nothing wrong with that - its their shout. Their officers (the WBC Staff) implemented their wishes and the cost of maintaining Newbury's parking policy is what is now said to be 'a loss'. If the electorate have changed their mind, then they should ask their Councillors to change policy.  The only thing wrong with the whole saga was the 'hero' who tried to big up the funding case when the feasibility study was put to the Council.  Even then, it should have been blindingly obvious that after a few months, errant parkers would be scared off and that would reduce the take considerably.  So to those aking for the Council to do things, be careful, you might get what you asked for!

Quoted from bill b

I believe their correct title is Civil Enforcement Officers (snip) However, as I understand it they cannot even ticket someone for driving through the pedestrian zone.

If you're going to get snooty with semantics let's consider the fact that EVEN POLICE Community Support Officers do not have the powers to ticket someone for "driving through the pedestrian zone".  They (the PCSOs) do not have the power to stop any road user for a MOVING traffic offence.

It's craaazee innit, but it's the law....

Quoted from bill b

Even at 15 the number employed is a staggering waste of resources{

Can I just quickly make a small point.  This is West BERKSHIRE Council ......NOT NEWBURY Town Council.  The 'Traffic Wardens' cover Newbury.  Oh hang on.... they also cover Thatcham....

and Hungerford....

and Tilehurst and Theale

and Pangbourne


and Lambourn... let's not forget Lambourn ...and every car park and length of double yellow line in between.  They can also now be called to enforce when someone parks across your driveway and blocks you in!!  It's a law that has been in place in London for years but has been rolled out across country very recently as it has become apparent that the police have this sort of issue even lower on their list of priorities than delivering birthday cards to siblings... Might be poor value for money for Bill, but for some poor sod living next to a school with parents abandoning cars everywhere or lliving near commuter-ville it's a good addition to the arsenal.  

They're also meant to cover the School Keep Clear zig zag markings that are outside every school in the district (nearly 70 of them in total) which parents routinely park on and ignore.....

Quoted from bill b

In theory the number of penalty notices may fall as people as people become more aware of the penalties leading to less revenue and bigger losses if the same staffing levels remain in place.

There should be a factor of diminishing returns here. But just like salmon swimming up rivers to their spawning grounds and ending up in the mouths of bears,,, with parking spaces there's always some other numbnut willing to park in a slot and chance their arm at not getting a ticket......

Quoted from bill b

There were problems with long term parking near the railway station and at Northcroft but these could easily have been resolved by allowing say 3 hours maximum.

Would this 3 hour parking restriction be enforced by those nasty Civil enforcement Officers or would you put it down to goodwill and respect for the law that there would be no need to patrol or ticket offenders?

Quoted from bill b

A £240,000 deficit with public money should mean someone should lose their job. I am sure that shortfall would not be tolerated in private industry.

ermm which district of La-La Land do you live in?  Do you not listen to the national news?  

Parking restrictions are normally brought in to sort out road safety issues where people are parking and causing a hazard (either for other drivers or pedestrians) or to sort issues related to long term parking (commuters parking for days outside residential properties, or shop workers parking all day in town centres and stopping genuine shoppers getting in to park short term) They are generally brought in at the request of those local residents or local businesses affected by this type of parking.  

Trouble is that for decades is been down to the police to enforce ....and in recent years they couldn't give a shoite.... It's led to a 'parking isn't important' attitude.  Now that Council's have taken on the role of enforcement it's all suddenly mayhem and drivers being ticketted unfairly (when in truth they've just got away with it for ages.....)

Quoted from 9

.......putting up all the signs.....(snip) .....there must be an army of administration personnel back at HQ,dealing with the enforcement, answering and deciding on questions of validity of the ticket after a written letter asking for it to be cancelled, and getting names and addresses from DVLA.

In most cases the signs have been there for years.....  and as for have an army of people to deal with the whiners complaining about being caught "IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME!" (or summit like that!

Quoted from bill b

A £240,000 deficit with public money should mean someone should lose their job. I am sure that shortfall would not be tolerated in private industry.

Are you sure, how many bankers actually got the sack after losing a lot more?

How many high street retailers reporting losses have lost their jobs?

Are you so sure now?

Quoted from user23.3

Are you sure, how many bankers actually got the sack after losing a lot more?

How many high street retailers reporting losses have lost their jobs?

Are you so sure now?

BBC reports 165000 job assistants lost at Woolworths. All other staff including decision makers also lost their jobs. Same with MFI and Whittards. There are many other smaller companies that have also collapsed and consequently lost their jobs

BBC also reports 3700 job losses from RBS branches. As I recall, the RBS CEO also lost his job.

The fundamental difference is that if a council loses money, it simply increases income from taxation. Councils don't go bankrupt.

Yes I'm sure

Quoted from spartacus

Parking restrictions are normally brought in to sort out road safety issues where people are parking and causing a hazard (either for other drivers or pedestrians) or to sort issues related to long term parking (commuters parking for days outside residential properties, or shop workers parking all day in town centres and stopping genuine shoppers getting in to park short term) They are generally brought in at the request of those local residents or local businesses affected by this type of parking.  

Trouble is though that this isn't the case in Newbury. All of the recent restrictions are nothing to do with safety. They are all to do with cinema. Force people to use the car parks so that the cinema can be subsidised, The council claim that it's costing tax payers nothing, but already we can see that in addition to the parking revenue, it's now an additional £240,000.

Quoted from spartacus

In most cases the signs have been there for years.....

They probably have, but most have needed to be replaced because the council have re jigged the spaces. (Bart St and the Railway Station for instance), possibly to improve income but which also included remarking the roads to ensure that they all complied with the parking legislation rules. That's for all of West Berks.

Quoted from spartacus

...... and as for have an army of people to deal with the whiners complaining about being caught "IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME!" (or summit like that!)

I fail to see why you are thinking that "IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FINE, DON'T DO THE CRIME!" reduces staff levels at HQ because even if that was on the wall of each parking slot, people would still write in, as is their right, to be let off. Someone has to make the informed decision along with the administration of the system to get the fines notices out to offenders etc.