Thetownend.com

The country’s first “workplace parking levy” will come into force in Nottingham in 2012 and is likely to be adopted by other councils.

Under the scheme, any firm with 11 or more staff parking spaces will be charged £250 a year for each. That cost could rise to £350 within two years.

Employers would be free to pass the cost on to their staff. An estimated 40,000 commuters in Nottingham drive to work and some businesses have threatened to leave the area if the scheme is introduced.

Business associations oppose the extra cost, which has been put at more than £3 billion if it were rolled out nationwide. About 10 million people in Britain drive to work every day.

Councils in Milton Keynes, Exeter, Cambridge and Oxford have expressed interest in the scheme.

The Core Cities Group, which represents Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield, has also expressed interest, identifying the levy's “congestion-busting” potential.

The scheme will be endorsed by Sadiq Khan, the transport minister, during a visit to Nottingham on Friday.

The Government has explored a number of initiatives to cut urban traffic, pollution and carbon emissions.

It was forced to back away from a national pay-as-you-drive road pricing scheme because of public opposition but hoped to persuade cities to adopt local schemes such as congestion charging.

The AA described the latest scheme as a “tax on jobs”. “It is very unfair — discriminating against those employers who have parking spaces, which gets vehicles off the street,” said a spokesman.

“These tariffs apply around the clock, which is especially unfair on shift workers who rely on their cars because public transport is not available.

“This is more about generating a revenue stream than reducing congestion and will require snooping to enforce it properly.”

Nottingham believed that the levy would raise £100 million over the next decade, just under one fifth of the cost of a new urban tram scheme.

The British Chambers of Commerce gave warning that it could cost companies £3.4 billion a year if every English council followed Nottingham’s example.

Theresa Villiers, the Tory transport spokesman, accused the Government of hitting businesses with new taxes.

“At a time when jobs are under threat and businesses are under huge pressure, it is wrong to hit enterprise in Nottingham with a workplace parking levy,” she said. “These new charges will be a real blow to the city and we oppose them.”

However, the move was welcomed by environmental groups.

Richard Hebditch, of the Campaign for Better Transport, said the levy would raise money to invest in transport improvements.

“It has the added benefit of tackling unnecessary commuter journeys, one of the main causes of congestion,” he said. “Failing to deal with the causes of congestion is simply not an option.

“We put forward the idea of workplace parking levies as a fairer way to raise money to invest in the future of local transport services. We are pleased that the people of Nottingham will be the first to benefit.”

A Department for Transport spokesman said it was “entirely for local authorities to decide what measures are appropriate” for improving transport and tackling congestion in their area.

“Workplace parking levy schemes may be introduced only if they will contribute to the achievement of local transport policies, and all revenues must be reinvested in local transport,” he said.

Although the Department for Transport backed the application, it has imposed a two-year delay. It is understood that ministers felt that it would be wrong, in the current economic climate, to start the project next year as had been originally planned.

what the hell???? In the past week Ive just paid My Insurance, MOT, Service and Road tax - just 2 new Tyres and brakes and discs left!!!

I simply could not afford to pay any more monrey out on my car

sorry Reg!

I NEED a car and make myself afford it

wow I feel like a naughty schoolgirl!  :-[

Yeah definitely, we'll have hydrogen fuelled cars by then.

This is a absolute joke. This is in the end going to cost jobs, end of. And, in a years time, thet are also increasing NI contributions, just as we're in the middle of a recession.

wow I feel like a naughty schoolgirl!  :-[

The green argument is always poor. For instance a lot of the tax rates are based on CO2 emissions which is not a pollutant.

Me too!

Yes it is,the worst kind. My laptop died so i don't have the figures anymore to back my point up,but i've done enough work regarding CO2 to prove the emissions are damaging the environment.

In regards to the taxing of parking spaces, that is a joke.

You need to read that again Nev...

So why is the environmental damage caused by CO2 the worst kind? I would be interested to know as my knowledge of science is far from good. I don't want figures just the reasoning.

As far as I was aware, carbon dioxide is just a greenhouse gas which is attributable to global warming; NB: energy generation through burning fossil fuels is the worst culprit for this. It is not a pollutant. The other chemical emissions cause harm to humans, acid rain and smog as they are pollutants.

My point is by focussing on CO2 emissions, you create ignorance of other harmful pollutants so you are less green in that respect. Diesel engines are a good example, 'greener' than petrol in some ways, but much worse in others.

labour wont be in government to introduce it, so dont fret folks.

The first point you raise of CO2 being attributable (infact its a major amplifier) of global warming & the cause being fossil fuels is true. The way that (i think) your suggesting that CO2 is not a pollutant & the fossil fuels are isn't totally incorrect. As an amplifier of global warming,which affects the worlds eco&biological system,it is a harmful substance = pollutant.

I see where your point lies,in the fact that other harmful gases such as sulphur are not combated against as much as carbon. The problem is that carbon is produced on a totally higher scale than other polutants, and throught the past century and half has exponentially increased in production, is why there is so much action being taken against it,as in the kyoto agreement. But i blame the americans.

excellent news,more needed to get lazy people out of their cars.

the fact is, we're all going to have to make concessions in order to make climate change less severe. when carbon trading becomes commonplace people will find ways to get to work without emitting too much in order to have a yearly holiday in Spain. I'm all for selling my carbon allowance to you rich fuckers who can afford to drive to work every day and fly half the way around the fucking world for a fucking poxy two week holiday at the detriment to thousands of fucking poor living below sea level. 

Yes it is,the worst kind. My laptop died so i don't have the figures anymore to back my point up,but i've done enough work regarding CO2 to prove the emissions are damaging the environment.

What is wrong with the CO2 argument? Well most people have no understanding of climate science overall or the facts about CO2. The IPCC have also effectively made it the sole cause of climate change. AGW advocates and governments talk about reducing greenhouse gases, but they mean CO2. Few know it is less than 4% of all the greenhouse gases and the human portion is just a fraction of the 4%. Indeed, the amount we produce is within the error factor of the estimates of three natural sources.

CO2 EMISSIONS :

1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 - 52 Gt C/ year

2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year

3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 - 2 Gt C/ year

4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 - 60 Gt C/ year

5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 - 2.6 Gt C/year

6. Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 - 7.5 Gt C/year

TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year

The table shows the range of estimates of natural CO2 and human production in 2005 (Gt C/year is Gigatons of Carbon per year). Accuracy has not improved since. Notice the human contribution (6) is within the error range of three (1, 2, & 4) of the natural sources. The total error range is almost 5 times the amount of total human production. If we play the carbon tax game we can reduce that by 50 percent to 3.75 Gt C/year net because we remove half of what we produce through agriculture and reforestation. In other words, if everyone left the planet but one scientist remained to measure the difference in atmospheric CO2 he or she would not be able to measure any difference.

The Tories have already stated they'll make massive cuts in public spending, if elected next year...fair enough, at least voters will know where they stand.

I don't think you have.

If your research consists of reading IPCC reports, listening to the media, the politicians or Al Gore then that's not looking in the right places.

Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science

I don't disagree with any of that, save the fact crbon dioxide doesn't contaminate anything so is not a pollutant :)

Now, I don't normally like to get involved in political discussions on here, but this newest tax is just plain fucking ridiculous.

If your employer provides you with a parking space, you will now be charged £250 a year to park at your place of work. Technically the government will charge your employer, but they are free to pass the cost on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/5942306/Motorists-to-pay-250-tax-for-parking-at-work.html

HAHA. I do apologise to Pauld & everyone else (especially TalkTalk) if my comment has pushed the boundaries abit too much. but that article talk talk quoted just set me off,sorry.

 :D

Blah Blah

You obviously don't have a car, so it doesn't affect you (you won't be left with a nice big hole in your pocket will you)

In an ideal world during a recession, the country will borrow and spend as much as possible.

Most of it has been wasted.
Its like he is trying to fill a collander (The goverments budget) by turning the tap on more (Taxes). He does sod all to address the real problem which is blocking the holes (waste). The waste of tax payers in this country is horrendous.

Erm, I was taking the piss. I'm with you (whereas TalkTalk is off with the pixies)

If public money were invested in a decent transport system at a decent price it would be used.

Simple solution - make all public transport (buses, trams, trains) free and pay for it by increases in income tax.

It would totally shaft the car industry, but we can get the people working on the public transport system instead. It would also totally shaft the oil industry, no need to do anything about that - the fuckers deserve it.

Plus by paying for it through income tax the rich would pay more in proportion.

Simple solution - make all public transport (buses, trams, trains) free and pay for it by increases in income tax.

It would totally shaft the car industry, but we can get the people working on the public transport system instead. It would also totally shaft the oil industry, no need to do anything about that - the fuckers deserve it.

Plus by paying for it through income tax the rich would pay more in proportion.

As for 'global warming'? Earth's temperature has not risen since 1998 and has been falling since 2002, even with massive increases in spewing Chinese factories and coal burning power stations. Oh, let's call it 'climate change' instead - ah, funnily enough the earth's climate always changes. Bonkers old thing the short and long term solar sunspot cycles, eh?

Regardless of the environment, it is just plain stupid that we all use cars as much as we do. Its just common sense that things would be better if we didn't have to travel as much and used more efficient forms of transport.

Just imagine if we were to squash all of Swindon in to an enlarged town centre, with no roads and a new transport system (tram or monorail) which meant you never had more than a 5 or 10 minute walk.

Surely that would be a lot better than what we have at the moment.

I for one would much travel in my own car or on my own motorbike rather than being stuck in a bus, tram or monorail like cattle sat next to smelly people like you. There is also the rage inducing problem of people shouting in their mobile phones, the constant irritating racket of iPod earphones and so on.

crack. legalise crack and tax that. start it off quite cheap, just to get plenty of people started on it, then tax the arse out of it.

If public transport was good value for money people would use it more.

If public transport was good value for money people would use it more.