Car Parking in Newbury and West Berkshire is being subsidised by the taxpayer?


From information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the BBC have discovered that West Berkshire is the only county in Southern England to LOSE money on its car parks. Car parking in West Berkshire is actually being subsidised by the taxpayer.

When interviewed by BBC South Today, Graham Jones, Leader of West Berkshire Council said:

“We do car parks as something which is a service to the community. We are just coming out of  a very tough recession at the moment. It is very important that we support shoppers and traders through that”

Brighton and Hove Council make a huge profit from their car parks, yet with one exception all of their car parks charge lower tariffs than Newbury.

Where is Newbury going wrong?

The item will be broadcast again this evening (Thursday 28th) at 6.30pm on BBC1 South Today.

We have received an update from Graham Jones on this topic:

"The BBC reasearch was in relation to fines for car park offences in relation to head of population.

Brighton gain £25 per adult from Car Park fines.  The highest in the SE.  West Berks get 62p per adult from fines, the lowest in the SE.

Unlike some authorities we do not regard car parking fines as a hidden form of taxation.

An environment where we relied on fines as a form of income would not create a good trading environment for retailers"

I saw the late news on this item yesterday and I am confused.

Is/was Mr Jones saying that the whole parking system in West Berks running at a loss or just the section that collects fines for overstaying their allotted time?

When I go to Basingstoke, it is cheaper for me to park in Festival Place than it is in any of the Newbury car parks. Why is this?

Why have we we got all of these men in green uniforms pounding the streets, if they are not covering their own costs? Why do we need so many of them?

Quoted from Archie

Why have we we got all of these men in green uniforms pounding the streets, if they are not covering their own costs? Why do we need so many of them?

Should law enforcement always cover it's own costs?

Should the Police for example concentrate on crimes that could potentially bring in revenue?

Quoted from user23.3

Should the Police for example concentrate on crimes that could potentially bring in revenue?

Have you not noticed? They do tend to choose the motorist for easy pickings.

For those who missed the broadcast, it is available here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8485492.stm

Quoted from user23.3

Should law enforcement always cover it's own costs?

Should the Police for example concentrate on crimes that could potentially bring in revenue?

In that case they should be counted in the budget as law enforcement costs not parking costs!

So does this mean that WBC made a profit, or at least covered their costs before the introduction of the Green Meanies?


Threep.

Quoted from BrianB

Have you not noticed? They do tend to choose the motorist for easy pickings.

Nope. They only target motorists that break the law.

Quoted from user23.3

Nope. They only target motorists that break the law.

Most often while performing a victimless crime.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Most often while performing a victimless crime.

Which victimless crime might this be?

Quoted from user23.3

Which victimless crime might this be?

There are a number, but rather poignantly, we have that story of the guy blowing his nose whilst stationary in a queue of traffic.  In-truth, I'm referring to any driving activity which broke the law, but caused no-one any harm.

Quoted from Greenham Common

we have that story of the guy blowing his nose whilst stationary in a queue of traffic.

Just out of interest, (and let's name and shame him)  this chap was given a ticket by PC Stuart Grey (from Ayrshire), who is the self-same PC Stuart Grey (from Ayrshire) who also issued a fixed penalty ticket for littering to a chap who accidentally dropped a ten pound note in the street.

However, back on topic, according to this report, Newbury charges more for parking than anyone else in the report and yet they manage to make a loss.

How can this be? Don't the others have parking wardens?


Threep

Quoted from Threepwood

However, back on topic, according to this report, Newbury charges more for parking than anyone else in the report and yet they manage to make a loss.  How can this be? Don't the others have parking wardens?  Threep

Yes, I think this is the issue, not necessarily that the tax payer subsidies parking in town.  This despite broadening the chargeable area (post 6:00 pm charges).

Quoted from Threepwood

Just out of interest, (and let's name and shame him)  this chap was given a ticket by PC Stuart Grey (from Ayrshire), who is the self-same PC Stuart Grey (from Ayrshire) who also issued a fixed penalty ticket for littering to a chap who accidentally dropped a ten pound note in the street.

However, back on topic, according to this report, Newbury charges more for parking than anyone else in the report and yet they manage to make a loss.

How can this be? Don't the others have parking wardens?


Threep

I think they probably created the correct number of wardens for the number of parking offences committed.

Quoted from Greenham Common

There are a number, but rather poignantly, we have that story of the guy blowing his nose whilst stationary in a queue of traffic.  In-truth, I'm referring to any driving activity which broke the law, but caused no-one any harm.

Doing 70 the wrong way up the Motorway is fine as long as I don't injure any one? Sure there's a high chance I will, but if I don't should I be allowed to get away with it?

We could extend this to other crimes. Does shoplifting do anyone any harm if it's from a big supermarket?

Quoted from Threepwood

However, back on topic, according to this report, Newbury charges more for parking than anyone else in the report and yet they manage to make a loss.

How can this be? Don't the others have parking wardens?

It can't be, and it doesn't say anything of the sort in the BBC report.

Why "Newbury" doesn't make as much money as Brighton is because it receives about 2.5 percent of the revenue from Car Parking fines per adult compared to Brighton, that's 4000% less than "Newbury".

Quoted from user23.3

Doing 70 the wrong way up the Motorway is fine as long as I don't injure any one? Sure there's a high chance I will, but if I don't should I be allowed to get away with it?

We could extend this to other crimes. Does shoplifting do anyone any harm if it's from a big supermarket?It can't be, and it doesn't say anything of the sort in the BBC report.

Why "Newbury" doesn't make as much money as Brighton is because it receives about 2.5 percent of the revenue from Car Parking fines per adult compared to Brighton.

Move along the wall everyone! I want to bang my head as well.

Quoted from user23.3

Doing 70 the wrong way up the Motorway is fine as long as I don't injure any one? Sure there's a high chance I will, but if I don't should I be allowed to get away with it?

No, especially as that example is wreckless, far more than say doing 90 the right way up a motorway, or driving around Newbury without a seat-belt...or twating the rising bollards in town.  

Quoted from user23.3

We could extend this to other crimes. Does shoplifting do anyone any harm if it's from a big supermarket?

I didn't say anything about harm, but the supermarkets are a victim.

Quoted from user23.3

Why "Newbury" doesn't make as much money as Brighton is because it receives about 2.5 percent of the revenue from Car Parking fines per adult compared to Brighton.

What do you mean?

Quoted from Greenham Common

I'm referring to any driving activity which broke the law, but caused no-one any harm.

Quoted from Greenham Common

No, especially as that example is wreckless, far more than say doing 90 the right way up a motorway, or driving arounf Newbury without a seat-belt...or twating the rising bollards in town.

My example was a driving activity which broke the law but caused no-one any harm.

It would be allowed under your rules.

Ok, quick heads up..

Brighton on street parking = £1 per hour
Brighton council has four surface pay and display car parks = 50p first hour, then £1.10 for two, then roughly £1.60 for three hours.
Brighton council has three muliti storeys =  one at roughly 80p an hour and one at roughly 50p an hour and one at roughly £1.20 per hour. One is free after 18.00

Brighton make a profit on them.

Brighton Council too over it's own parking enforcement in 2001 and I'd bet they got more wardens than Newbury.


Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

Ok, quick heads up..

Brighton on street parking = £1 per hour
Brighton council has four surface pay and display car parks = 50p first hour, then £1.10 for two, then roughly £1.60 for three hours.
Brighton council has three muliti storeys =  one at roughly 80p an hour and one at roughly 50p an hour and one at roughly £1.20 per hour. One is free after 18.00

Brighton make a profit on them.

Brighton Council too over it's own parking enforcement in 2001 and I'd bet they got more wardens than Newbury.


Threep.

You seem to be saying that West Berkshire should be more like Brighton.

Brighton receive 4000% more revenue per adult from parking fines than West Berkshire; that's where they make their money.

Be careful for what you wish for, you're making a great case for more wardens and a huge increase in fines.

Quoted from user23.3

My example was a driving activity which broke the law but caused no-one any harm.

It would be allowed under your rules.

O.K. can you try it? - on a pushbike would be good as you would be braking another law

Quoted from user23.3

You seem to be saying that West Berkshire should be more like Brighton.

Nah...they already got their pavilion.


Threep.

Quoted from user23.3

My example was a driving activity which broke the law but caused no-one any harm. It would be allowed under your rules.

Rules, what rules?  You're making posts up now.

Quoted from user23.3

Brighton receive 4000% more revenue per adult from parking fines than West Berkshire; that's where they make their money.

2.5%...4000%, are you grabbing facts from thin air or something?

I notice, however, that Brighton gets just over 400 times more money per person from parking fines than West Berkshire Council.

BRIGHTON CITY COUNCIL area

City environment.  Population 256,000 in an area of 87 square km.  Over 3000 people per square km

WEST BERKS COUNCIL area

Rural environment. Population 152,000 in an area of 704 square km.   217 people per square km  

APPLES

PAIRS



Perhaps we should be comparing like with like??

Didn't the report view parking charges on every county in the south? Brighton City is not a County.


Threep.

Quoted from Greenham Common

2.5%...4000%, are you grabbing facts from thin air or something?

I notice, however, that Brighton gets just over 400 times more money per person from parking fines than West Berkshire Council.

I'll leave you to put 2 and 2 together from your 1st and 2nd statements.

Quoted from Threepwood

Didn't the report view parking charges on every county in the south? Brighton City is not a County.

Threep.

Nor is West Berkshire - perhaps it is like with like?

Quoted from user23.3

I'll leave you to put 2 and 2 together from your 1st and 2nd statements.

Hmm...now you've completetly lost me...   It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?  

Mind you, we must not lose sight of what Graham Jones said, he said they make the equivalent of £25 per adult, West Berkshire, £0.62.  What this doesn't reveal, is how many tourists does Brighton get compared to West Berks.  It would possibly be more revealing if we knew how much money was collected per parker.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Hmm...now you've completetly lost me...   It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?  

What's 2.5 times 4000%?

Here's a clue http://www.google.co.uk/search.....%3D&aq=f&oq=

So what does "100" mean?  What is that to do with?

It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?  

http://www.google.co.uk/search.....ta=&aq=f&oq=

Brighton collect 4032.258% more in fines, to be more accurate.

Quoted from user23.3

Why "Newbury" doesn't make as much money as Brighton is because it receives about 2.5 percent of the revenue from Car Parking fines per adult compared to Brighton, that's 4000% less than "Newbury".

Quoted from user23.3

Brighton receive 4000% more revenue per adult from parking fines than West Berkshire; that's where they make their money.

It isn't the maths, it was your posts that were confusing.  Much easier, in my view, to just say Brighton recieves 40 times as much per head than Newbury.

I wonder why there is such a differnce in revenue.  Would it be the amount of offences discovered and penalised, the value of the fines?

Comparing more like with like...

http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/pdf/TECH_parking_andover_reverse08.pdf


Threep.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It isn't the maths, it was your posts that were confusing.  Much easier, in my view, to just say Brighton recieves 40 times as much per head than Newbury.

I wonder why there is such a differnce in revenue.  Would it be the amount of offences discovered and penalised, the value of the fines?

Looks like the charges are the same

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=c1125645
http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=16245

They must issue a lot, lot more tickets in Brighton.

Quoted from Threepwood

Comparing more like with like...

http://www.testvalley.gov.uk/pdf/TECH_parking_andover_reverse08.pdf


Threep.

I can't see anything on there about parking fines per head. How much do they bring in, per adult to subsidise parking. It's obviously going to be more than West Berkshire but how much more?

Quoted from user23.3

They must issue a lot, lot more tickets in Brighton.I can't see anything on there about parking fines per head. How much do they bring in, per adult to subsidise parking. It's obviously going to be more than West Berkshire but how much more?

Presumably, they have more restrictive parking than WB/Newbury.  It seems a massive difference.

Brighton has a much larger tourist trade than Newbury and therefore would expect a higher number of offences and fines.

I should imagine Brighton have the balance more or less correct of officers to offences and therefore it would cost the tax payer less!

Quoted from Nobby

I should imagine Brighton have the balance more or less correct of officers to offences and therefore it would cost the tax payer less!

Are you saying that, (since they lose money) WBC have the balance wrong? In which case, would you say we need more or less officers?


Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

Are you saying that, (since they lose money) WBC have the balance wrong? In which case, would you say we need more or less officers?


Threep.

We need less officers.

Before WBC took over we had, I believe, at best 1 traffic warden. Obviously motorists were often happy to chance their luck and park illegally. The ideal solution would have been to have two or three officers to issue tickets and see if the problem persisted ( the majority of those chancing their arm would soon stop if they thought they would be caught).

Only after a few months if the parking issues remained should the numbers of officers been increased.

Thereby producing maximum results for minimum risk.

Quoted from Nobby

We need less officers.

Before WBC took over we had, I believe, at best 1 traffic warden. Obviously motorists were often happy to chance their luck and park illegally. The ideal solution would have been to have two or three officers to issue tickets and see if the problem persisted ( the majority of those chancing their arm would soon stop if they thought they would be caught).

Only after a few months if the parking issues remained should the numbers of officers been increased.

Thereby producing maximum results for minimum risk.

Have to agree with this.  If irregular parking was an 'issue' - then a blitz now and again would soon sort it.  That could be done simply redeploying a few office or grounds staff for a day.  Most people enjoy the challenge of a change of scene at work.  Before anyone asks who would do the work of the 'redeployed' - simple - just what they did after the snow; a bit of overtime.  Employing a permanent force was madness - total over reaction.

I’m somewhat at a loss to understand this, especially the mathematics of what is involved here.
Firstly, we are not comparing like with like. Brighton is a seaside town and perhaps a majority of the parkers are day trippers who overstay because they are having a good  time on the beach. They certainly have a much larger parking surface than Newbury (West Berks if you like) which obviously means more income.
I’m not sure that Brighton collects £25.00 per head of the population in fines alone as suggested by councillor Jones. That seems rather a lot to me, I don’t know what you think.
Is the Newbury figure the amount left over from fewer spaces patrolled by a much larger force of enforcers whose wages come out of the pot thus reducing the revenue.
Whatever the reasons, as already suggested, we are comparing apples and pairs (pears).
Newbury’s car parks have, mostly, pay on exit equal to time used and therefore do not need enforcers in them.
If these figures are based on fines alone, we have to believe that we do not need the number of enforcers that we have as most of the people who park are obeying the rules.
So, the question is why are WBC making a loss as it is almost impossible to park in Newbury without using a major car park which collects the revenue through machines. We have very few free parking spaces in Newbury. This brings me back to the question, are we paying too much for enforcement or has somebody got the whole thing wrong.

Brighton is just one of the comparisons. The simple fact is that according to the report (above) West Berks is the ONLY one in the South making a loss. So you can compare it individually or jointly, it's still the ONLY one to make a loss.

We worked out, when the Meanies first started that they would need to issue 14 tickets a day each just to cover their costs. Whoever came up with the plan seems to have been pretty lax on the calculations regarding numbers, fines etc. Closing the multi-storey in Pembroke Rd in the evenings also seems like one way of cutting off a revenue stream.

I posed the question, way back in this thread, did WBC make a profit from parking BEFORE they introduced the Meanies? Anyone know?


Threep.

As they were claiming that the Cinema subsidy was going to come from parking fees - presumably the answer is yes.

So someone somewhere calculated that they would not only cover their costs but would actually make an extra 100k profit to give to the cinema peeps. I'd love to know where they got their figures from.


Threep.

Quoted from Nobby

We need less officers.

Back to this old chestnut again..... <sigh>  The officers cover all the off street car parks across the whole of West Berkshire.  They also are now responsible for the on-street parking ... across the whole of West Berkshire.  So parking problems in Hungerford, Theale, Tilehurst and Thatcham are patrolled by them .... as well as Newbury.  They also enforce the zig zags outside every school in the district... (about 70 of them.... some of them in the isolated villages)  A team of 20 (I think there's only about 15 of them now anyway) doesn't spread far.

Quoted from Nobby

Before WBC took over we had, I believe, at best 1 traffic warden. Obviously motorists were often happy to chance their luck and park illegally. The ideal solution would have been to have two or three officers to issue tickets and see if the problem persisted

Before WBC, the POLICE employed 1 traffic warden, but WBC still employed officers to enforce the off-street car parks.  It's just that this team was increased to take on duties of patrolling on-street parking as well.  And if you truly believe we could do away with parking officers I suggest you don't live anywhere near Craven Road or some of the other streets in Westfields.  We'd return to the days when cars were abandoned outside my relatives houses for days on end with the police not interested in getting them moved on.  

Quoted from spartacus

Back to this old chestnut again..... <sigh>  The officers cover all the off street car parks across the whole of West Berkshire.  They also are now responsible for the on-street parking ... across the whole of West Berkshire.  So parking problems in Hungerford, Theale, Tilehurst and Thatcham are patrolled by them .... as well as Newbury.  They also enforce the zig zags outside every school in the district... (about 70 of them.... some of them in the isolated villages)  A team of 20 (I think there's only about 15 of them now anyway) doesn't spread far.

Before WBC, the POLICE employed 1 traffic warden, but WBC still employed officers to enforce the off-street car parks.  It's just that this team was increased to take on duties of patrolling on-street parking as well.  And if you truly believe we could do away with parking officers I suggest you don't live anywhere near Craven Road or some of the other streets in Westfields.  We'd return to the days when cars were abandoned outside my relatives houses for days on end with the police not interested in getting them moved on.  

Typical lack of vision and inability to understand. I didn't say do away with wardens but gradually increase the level to resolve the parking problems. You do not need to have officers on duty every day in every town to significantly reduce the number of offences.

Of course if you wish to create the third Reich and ensure every offender is caught even if they overstay there car park by 30 seconds or a minute you take the Cartergrad approach!

Quoted from Nobby

Typical lack of vision and inability to understand.

Save me!  Someone else with a bleedin'  "Vision".....  

Quoted from Nobby

You do not need to have officers on duty every day in every town to significantly reduce the number of offences.

So you employ them as contractors?  Like clampers maybe?  Piecework and commission.... Like your thinking....

Quoted from Nobby

Of course if you wish to create the third Reich and ensure every offender is caught even if they overstay there car park by 30 seconds or a minute you take the Cartergrad approach!

Also known as 'The Brighton Approach'............ Seems to work for them and gets them all the GOOD headlines dunnit?

Quoted from spartacus

Save me!  Someone else with a bleedin'  "Vision".....  

So you employ them as contractors?  Like clampers maybe?  Piecework and commission.... Like your thinking....

Also known as 'The Brighton Approach'............ Seems to work for them and gets them all the GOOD headlines dunnit?

Oh god why does it seem like being a primary school teacher to explain.

Not like clampers, WBC wardens would randomly patrol the various towns with a small but visible presence almost daily with targeted campaigns ad-hoc focusing all or most of the resource in one town.

Rather than start with the huge cost of 20 wardens you would start the above program with 8 - 10. If after a few months the message hadn't got through and offences were still at a high level you would increase the numbers.

Simple lesson to run an efficient service - opposite of WBC of course - but what do thet care it is only our money!

Quite so!  That happens so much round here.  Huge sums of money have to be wasted to solve my little problem.

Quoted from Nobby

..the Cartergrad approach!

I think you might have given away who else you log in to this forum as by using that phrase.

Quoted from user23.3

I think you might have given away who else you log in to this forum as by using that phrase.

Wrong - I just agree with the phrase!

Quoted from Nobby

Wrong - I just agree with the phrase!

Of course you do, you invented the term Meddler!

Quoted from user23.3

I think you might have given away who else you log in to this forum as by using that phrase.

Regardless of whose phrase it is/was as usual you are ignoring the posters valid comments and trying to drag the topic off course.

It is clear from the financials that WBC jumped in with too many wardens and taxpayers are now paying the cost.  PP was correct to say that WBC should have started off with a lower number and then reviewed and if there was a need to increase then do so.  To go in all guns blazing and then say afterwards we need to drop a few wardens is poor management.  The parking problems in the town never warranted that many people being employed to tackle it, the decision to employ so many to begin with was either made by somebody who lives outside of the area or a person with a personal grudge about ilegal parking!

Of course this is not a new story.

Back when the Lib Dems were in charge, parking in Hungerford and Pangbourne was 20p an hour. It cost more for the council to send someone to empty the machine than the cash they were collecting. Anyone in WBC will tell you the Tories run around trying to make sure every service pays its way, so there is a recent appetite for income generation personified in the Green Meanies.

Since then, the chaotic Tories have sold car parks, closed them in the evenings, installed barriers that don't work, and doubled the price. If this wasn't Cartergrad, visitors would be agog at the incompetence. But it is, and the Secretary-General for Car Parks, who lives in Eastleigh, can zoom home where he only has to pay 80p an hour!  

If you look logically, WBC wants to make £200k a year from car parks. They could charge a one-off levy borne by business and recouped from customers, so that car parks are 'free' all the time. Then they don't need pay on exit systems at £100k a pop, and don't need 17 meanies at £200k a year.

Quoted from user23.3

Of course you do, you invented the term Meddler!

Of course this is your WBC brainwashed view that only one person in Newbury is dissatisfied with the way WBC does its business. Everyone else is really happy but this bloke keeps posting under loads of different names.

Quoted from Gumpo

Regardless of whose phrase it is/was as usual you are ignoring the posters valid comments and trying to drag the topic off course.

It is clear from the financials that WBC jumped in with too many wardens and taxpayers are now paying the cost.  PP was correct to say that WBC should have started off with a lower number and then reviewed and if there was a need to increase then do so.  To go in all guns blazing and then say afterwards we need to drop a few wardens is poor management.  The parking problems in the town never warranted that many people being employed to tackle it, the decision to employ so many to begin with was either made by somebody who lives outside of the area or a person with a personal grudge about ilegal parking!

Actually it's only clear that the wardens aren't issuing nearly as many tickets as Brighton, hence the difference in income from them to subsidise parking costs. There's basically two models here, the Brighton model which generates huge revenue from fines to subsidise parking or the West Berkshire one, which doesn't and therefore taxpayers have to subsidise parking.

By the way the figures don't support anything you've said, do you know if they even include the cost of wardens?

Quoted from user23.3

Actually it's only clear that the wardens aren't issuing nearly as many tickets as Brighton, hence the difference in income from them to subsidise parking costs. There's basically two models here, the Brighton model which generates huge revenue from fines to subsidise parking or the West Berkshire one, which doesn't and therefore taxpayers have to subsidise parking.

By the way the figures don't support anything you've said, do you know if they even include the cost of wardens?

I don't but am guessing from what has previously been said on this thread that it does.  You can waffle on all you like about Brighton's model and WBC's but the plain simple fact is that WBC have employed too many wardens who are spending most of their day looking to issue tickets and finding nowhere to stick them.  If they are included in the stats and by reducing their numbers will balance the books I will give WBC a little tip that might help them balance the books next year........reduce their numbers..........simples.

Out of curiousity does anybody know if the numbers have been increased or reduced since they were first introduced, wouldn't surprise me if they had been dropped but not advertised.

Quoted from Gumpo

I don't but am guessing from what has previously been said on this thread that it does.  You can waffle on all you like about Brighton's model and WBC's but the plain simple fact is that WBC have employed too many wardens who are spending most of their day looking to issue tickets and finding nowhere to stick them.  If they are included in the stats and by reducing their numbers will balance the books I will give WBC a little tip that might help them balance the books next year........reduce their numbers..........simples.

Who says they've got too many enforcement officers, are you guessing again?

Perhaps they should get them to issue more tickets like Brighton do and make a profit so taxpayers don't have to subsidise car parking in West Berkshire. Then there'd be the right number of enforcement officers as they'd be bringing money and everyone would be happy; bar those who park illegally of course.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps they should get them to issue more tickets like Brighton do and make a profit so taxpayers don't have to subsidise car parking in West Berkshire. Then there'd be the right number of enforcement officers as they'd be bringing money and everyone would be happy; bar those who park illegally of course.

Are the 'enforcement officers' in West Berks not always issueing tickets, where they could?  Are they letting people off?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Are the 'enforcement officers' in West Berks not always issueing tickets, where they could?  Are they letting people off?

From the figures one might assume they they're not enforcing the law to the letter, as they might be in Brighton where there could be a zero tolerance policy.

Quoted from user23.3

From the figures one might assume they they're not enforcing the law to the letter, as they might be in Brighton where there could be a zero tolerance policy.

I'd have thought that it's the tourists that get caught in Brighton. There was never a problem with parking here other than the extortionate cost of car parks.

Quoted from user23.3

From the figures one might assume they they're not enforcing the law to the letter, as they might be in Brighton where there could be a zero tolerance policy.

From the figures one would assume that parking infringements are much fewer in Newbury and therefore require fewer officers.

Alternatively those appointed are not good at their jobs.

Why do they often go around in pairs? Is it because one can only read and the other only write??

Quoted from user23.3

From the figures one might assume they they're not enforcing the law to the letter, as they might be in Brighton where there could be a zero tolerance policy.

OK, so, "...are you guessing again?".  I find it disappointing when you make points that seem based on fact, yet are no more credible than any other opinion here.  To that end, I don't think you can justifiably critisise people for guessing, when you are no different.  I do also reaslie that a number of people on here are making points based on assursions, so you are not the only one.

Quoted from Greenham Common

OK, so, "...are you guessing again?".  I find it disappointing when you make points that seem based on fact, yet are no more credible than any other opinion here.  To that end, I don't think you can justifiably critisise people for guessing, when you are no different.  I do also reaslie that a number of people on here are making points based on assursions, so you are not the only one.

I'd say it's a pretty credible opinion based on fact to say that if Brighton are bringing in 4000% more revenue from fines they're fining more people, given the charges are the same as West Berkshire.

Opinions based on guessing are largely how forums like these work. I'm not sure why you're getting personal singling me out for special criticism.

Quoted from Nobby

From the figures one would assume that parking infringements are much fewer in Newbury (than Brighton )and therefore require fewer officers.

Alternatively those appointed are not good at their jobs.

So User which is it? One of the above is far more credible than your guess!

Quoted from Nobby

So User which is it? One of the above is far more credible than your guess!

I would agree, my 'guess' is that Newbury does not have many regular offenders and therefore does not need as many wardens as we have got....not as the other poster is 'guessing' in that Newbury's wardens are just not being as harsh.  

Quoted from user23.3

I'd say it's a pretty credible opinion based on fact to say that if Brighton are bringing in 4000% more revenue from fines they're fining more people, given the charges are the same as West Berkshire.

A guess is a guess.

Quoted from user23.3

Opinions based on guessing are largely how forums like these work. I'm not sure why you're getting personal singling me out for special criticism.

Two things, you are the one who moans about people 'guessing', not I.  I made that clear in my last post, that you are not unique.

I don't mind guessing, but I get annoyed when people dress opinion up as fact, as you have done.  But you are not the only one.

Quoted from Greenham Common

A guess is a guess.

Yes, this is informed opinion based on facts and figures however.

But then again, it seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, this is informed opinion based on facts and figures however.

No it is not. It is a wild assumption!

What is your answer are their too many wardens (for the parking problems) or are they not doing their job??? One of these has to be true!

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, this is informed opinion based on facts and figures however.

Please show me facts and figures that show that our parking wardens are letting people off for offences that they needn't.

I have seen NO figures that show our parking wardens or West Berkshire Council are letting people off of fines, or that we don't have enough officers to collect all the revenue from unpunished parkling offences.

Quoted from user23.3

But then again, it seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?

Hmm...perhapse you can explain the maffs behind this post...

Quoted from user23.3

...Why "Newbury" doesn't make as much money as Brighton is because it receives about 2.5 percent of the revenue from Car Parking fines per adult compared to Brighton, that's 4000% less than "Newbury".

Quoted from Greenham Common

Please show me facts and figures that show that our parking wardens are letting people off for offences that they needn't.

I have seen NO figures that show our parking wardens or West Berkshire Council are letting people off of fines, or that we don't have enough officers to collect all the revenue from unpunished parkling offences.


Hmm...perhapse you can explain the maffs behind this post...

I already have and then I had to explain how they were worked out, step by step.

I suspect you're on the wind up yet again.

Quoted from user23.3

I already have and then I had to explain how they were worked out, step by step.

I suspect you're on the wind up yet again.

So you are saying that the wardens aren't doing their jobs properly then. That explains it. I wonder if their bosses at the council know this.

Quoted from user23.3

I already have and then I had to explain how they were worked out, step by step.  I suspect you're on the wind up yet again.

I asked for figures confirming that our parking wardens are failing to book drivers for parking offences - no answer.

I asked you to explain this peice of erronious maths about Newbury receiving 2.5 percent of the revenue from fines as Brighton, which you claim equates to 4000% less than Newbury - no answer.

There's only one WUM on this board, and I have just replied to him.  

Fair enough people posting assurtions and opnions, but I don't think it is right to criticise someone for doing so, to only follow it up and do the same thing one's self.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I asked for figures confirming that our parking wardens are failing to book drivers for parking offences - no answer.

I asked you to explain this peice of erronious maths about Newbury receiving 2.5 percent of the revenue from fines as Brighton, which you claim equates to 4000% less than Newbury - no answer.

I've already explained how this works to you earlier in the thread, I can't make it any simpler.

http://www.google.co.uk/search.....ta=&aq=f&oq=

Brighton collect 4032.258% more in fines, to be more accurate.

This is classic wind up merchant material, claiming not to understand basic mathematics after posting "It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?".

Once again,I've rumbled you and won't be feeding this particular troll in this thread any more.

Quoted from user23.3

I've already explained how this works to you earlier in the thread, I can't make it any simpler.

http://www.google.co.uk/search.....ta=&aq=f&oq=

Brighton collect 4032.258% more in fines, to be more accurate.

This is classic wind up merchant material, claiming not to understand basic mathematics after posting "It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?".

But the link you posted doesn't mathematically explain the quote I asked you to explain.  You have clearly made an error that you will not admit to.  That's fine, no one like making mistakes.

I note also, that you have not answered my question about facts and figures to support your assertion (guess) that West Berkshire Council's CEOs are not as rigorous as Brighton's counter parts.

Posting opinions as fact, whilst criticising other people that do the same, doesn't do your arguments any favours.

Quoted from user23.3

Once again,I've rumbled you and won't be feeding this particular troll in this thread any more.

Quoted from user23.3

I've already explained how this works to you earlier in the thread, I can't make it any simpler.

http://www.google.co.uk/search.....ta=&aq=f&oq=

Brighton collect 4032.258% more in fines, to be more accurate.

This is classic wind up merchant material, claiming not to understand basic mathematics after posting "It seems maffs ain't your strong point is it?".

Once again,I've rumbled you and won't be feeding this particular troll in this thread any more.

The only reason you won't feed this thread is your unwillingness to admit that either WBC have too many wardens or that those they have are not doing there job,

This is as you say classic wind up material from yourself.

Surely if you feel that the wardens are not issuing enough tickets it is your duty to report it!! what was the response???

Quoted from Nobby

The only reason you won't feed this thread is your unwillingness to admit that either WBC have too many wardens or that those they have are not doing there job, This is as you say classic wind up material from yourself.  Surely if you feel that the wardens are not issuing enough tickets it is your duty to report it!! what was the response???

It is because he is making his opinions up from thin air.  Born out of the fact he is unable to suitably substantiate his claims.  He would rather squabble over a semantic mathematical ambiguity, than clarify his point-of-view over the the integrity of West Berkshire Council's Civil Enforcement Officers.

This whole thread is rather pointless, especially when huge percentage figures are quoted to prove that parking in Newbury is cheaper or that the council are being generous towards our parking by running at a loss.

Brighton is stuffed full of parking meters, it is a very big town with a large day population and bears no resemblence to Newbury.

The council leader, when interviewed had no idea that the BBC had based some of its rather pointless reporting on the inclusion of parking fines.

What Brighton earns in parking is £13 million per annum which works out at £60.00 per person in their area and given the number of day trippers, seems reasonable.

Each authority s required by the Road Traffic Act to issue a publication detailing car parking income etc in its operational area.

Some facts, as that is what everybody seems to want

Brighton has....
25,000 parking spaces of which 22,000 are on street (meters)
20,000 resident parking permits issued
130,00 penalty notices issued of which 128,000 were for on street offences.
83 CEO's patrol the streets outsourced to NCL
The income from parking was £15m of which enforcement cost £3m and other costs came tp £5m

The average cost of parking is about £1.00 an hour £5.00 for 4 hours bu this varies with the parking area.

Each CEO has an average 300 parking spaces to patrol.


Now how does that fit up with Newbury

Quoted from brian

Now how does that fit up with Newbury

While I sit here getting fat on my lazyness, do you know the figures for West Berkshire, or Newbury?    There's no point in trying to discuss with user23.3, his only aim is to quarrel with people that post negative posts about the WBC, while being factually vague.

Newbury on street parking is not charged as there are no meters fitted (Except at the Railway Station ?) so it is difficult to determine how many parking spaces are managed by the CEOs.

There are 1,452 off street parking spaces in the Newbury area and 562 out of town, Thatcham/Hungerford etc. A large proportion of the Newbury spaces are pay on exit so do not need patrolling by CEOs.

Until WBC produce the 'Parking Annual Report' as  required by the Road Traffic act it will be difficult to determine what is going on in terms of income and expenditure for parking and from offences. If it has been released then I was unable to find it.

Quoted from brian

130,00 penalty notices issued of which 128,000 were for on street offences.
83 CEO's patrol the streets outsourced to NCL

We really are talking apples and pears here...
Curious figures though. With 'only' 2,000 tickets being issued for OFF street offences as opposed to the 128,000 for on street.  Could that imply that the on street stuff (which is outsourced to NCL) is enforced with meticulous zeal?  There are enough complaints on here about the small number of wardens on our patch... Imagine 83 of them!!  Annually they're averaging around 1,500 tickets EACH!!

Newbury is Sleepy Hollow in comparison........    

Quoted from spartacus

We really are talking apples and pears here...
Curious figures though. With 'only' 2,000 tickets being issued for OFF street offences as opposed to the 128,000 for on street.  Could that imply that the on street stuff (which is outsourced to NCL) is enforced with meticulous zeal?  There are enough complaints on here about the small number of wardens on our patch... Imagine 83 of them!!  Annually they're averaging around 1,500 tickets EACH!!

Newbury is Sleepy Hollow in comparison........    

The question here is how many parking spots do our guys look out for and of course if we, upright and honest citizens, always act within the rules they are on a hiding to nothing to improve the income to WBC. Either that, or they are not needed and as there is no income from the parking spaces and they have no chance of reaching anything like the income that WBC need, get rid of the overhead.

Quoted from brian

The question here is how many parking spots do our guys look out for and of course if we, upright and honest citizens, always act within the rules they are on a hiding to nothing to improve the income to WBC. Either that, or they are not needed and as there is no income from the parking spaces and they have no chance of reaching anything like the income that WBC need, get rid of the overhead.

Should laws only be enforced if there's money to be made from it?

Quoted from user23.3

Should laws only be enforced if there's money to be made from it?

So how many tickets have they issued without a financial penalty??

Quoted from user23.3

Should laws only be enforced if there's money to be made from it?

No - but a lack of fines indicates one of two things: a) people are getting away with parking illegally or b) few people are parking illegally.  I suspect it is the latter.  This situation is, no doubt, partly due to the large increase in parking enforcement since numerous CEOs took over from a couple of Traffic Wardens.

The question is whether the expense of a large force of CEOs is justifiable?  One could argue that few fines = minimal illegal parking and hence a good job done by the CEOs.  But Cllr Betts (the WBC portfolio holder responsible) is on record as saying that the CEOs were not generating as much income as planned - indeed I seem to recall him suggesting they needed to perform better (ie catch more villainous parkers).  

http://www.blacketturnerandco.com/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10984

If there aren't enough parking villains perhaps we don't need so many CEOs?

Quoted from blackdog

indeed I seem to recall him suggesting they needed to perform better (ie catch more villainous parkers).

IIRC - It was felt revenue for parking fines would go up and that CEOs would get 'tougher' on illegal parking, but I don't remember language as you describe.

Quoted from Greenham Common

IIRC - It was felt revenue for parking fines would go up and that CEOs would get 'tougher' on illegal parking, but I don't remember language as you describe.

The language was mine - your version may well be a far more accurate quote. Still means that CEOs were expected to buck their ideas up and catch more illegal parkers.

Quoted from blackdog

No - but a lack of fines indicates one of two things: a) people are getting away with parking illegally or b) few people are parking illegally.  I suspect it is the latter.  This situation is, no doubt, partly due to the large increase in parking enforcement since numerous CEOs took over from a couple of Traffic Wardens.

If there aren't enough parking villains perhaps we don't need so many CEOs?

I'd agree, it's probably the latter due to the presence of more CEOs.

Quoted from user23.3

I'd agree, it's probably the latter due to the presence of more CEOs.

This is true.  Years ago, I would sometimes park in the public car park behind Gardener Leader without paying (if I knew I was only going to the bank) knowing that I was unlikely to get caught.  I can't and wouldn't now though.

Quoted from user23.3

I'd agree, it's probably the latter due to the presence of more CEOs.

It may well be so but can we afford the luxury of such a large overhead just to scare the shopping populace and Greenham sh*tless.

Quoted from brian

Either that, or they are not needed and as there is no income from the parking spaces and they have no chance of reaching anything like the income that WBC need, get rid of the overhead.

Careful what you wish for...........
Problem is, once you get rid of them (or even drastically cut back their numbers) there WILL be chaos.....  Not death on the streets and rabid frothing at mouth type chaos, but word will get around (via the local rag and sites like this) that West Berks is a free for all and cars will be pretty much abandoned outside shops, on pavements, in loading bays, in disabled bays, in bus stops , on double yellow lines, outside school gates, and it wouldn't be too long before some would be demanding they come back .... (I'm not joking!!     )

There are a fair number of shop owners who currently say that the wardens are 'scaring away trade'.  Well that may or may not be true but I'd say that's more just an easy excuse to point at when the main factor determining low numbers of customers through the door is the harsh economy and lack of pennies in the pocket....

Imagine you're a shop owner in this 'park for free town', needing daily delivery but your supplier constantly has problems because the nearest loading areas are always full of cars.  How long would suppliers put up with it if it's constantly impacting on their deliveries elsewhere... Shop owner would want something done...  The police certainly wouldn't be interested and won't ever have parking put back under their wing... Who would they turn to?? Who they gonna call? (Ghostbusters don't do parking enforcement either....)

If I remember rightly (and I do... ...) Maidenhead went for several months without any form of parking enforcement in 2006.  The council took over the powers from the police (who dropped it like a hot potato) but the council decided not to go to the bother of employing wardens and had a few months of 'Live & Let Live'.  Chaos ensued...

This archived Maidenhead forum rant gives an idea  (feel the anger of Mr Shopkeeper...   )

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1712

Still...... it's an idea.... Hell, let's give it a shot!! Return to the Wild West of Newbury!  yeee-haw!

Quoted from spartacus

Careful what you wish for...........
Problem is, once you get rid of them (or even drastically cut back their numbers) there WILL be chaos.....  Not death on the streets and rabid frothing at mouth type chaos, but word will get around (via the local rag and sites like this) that West Berks is a free for all and cars will be pretty much abandoned outside shops, on pavements, in loading bays, in disabled bays, in bus stops , on double yellow lines, outside school gates, and it wouldn't be too long before some would be demanding they come back .... (I'm not joking!!     )

There are a fair number of shop owners who currently say that the wardens are 'scaring away trade'.  Well that may or may not be true but I'd say that's more just an easy excuse to point at when the main factor determining low numbers of customers through the door is the harsh economy and lack of pennies in the pocket....

Imagine you're a shop owner in this 'park for free town', needing daily delivery but your supplier constantly has problems because the nearest loading areas are always full of cars.  How long would suppliers put up with it if it's constantly impacting on their deliveries elsewhere... Shop owner would want something done...  The police certainly wouldn't be interested and won't ever have parking put back under their wing... Who would they turn to?? Who they gonna call? (Ghostbusters don't do parking enforcement either....)

If I remember rightly (and I do... ...) Maidenhead went for several months without any form of parking enforcement in 2006.  The council took over the powers from the police (who dropped it like a hot potato) but the council decided not to go to the bother of employing wardens and had a few months of 'Live & Let Live'.  Chaos ensued...

This archived Maidenhead forum rant gives an idea  (feel the anger of Mr Shopkeeper...   )

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1712

Still...... it's an idea.... Hell, let's give it a shot!! Return to the Wild West of Newbury!  yeee-haw!

Are you User 23's other login. Why does a reduction in the number of wardens have to turn into abolition og them all. It is the threat of a ticket that will discourage those or the majority of those that flout the law.

Unfortunately you / User have to turn every argument against the council into pure stupidity (is it a requirement to work there?). All we have said is WBC made a hash of estimating the problem - probably because it appears to be staffed only by those with a hatred of cars and the combustion engine.

Surely the issue is not about removing all CEOs and announcing to the world that there is no parking enforcement in Newbury.  It is about finding out how few CEOs are enough to deter illegal parking.  This, surely, is their purpose.

Before the CEOs we had a few Traffic Wardens (how many?) I suspect far fewer than there are CEOs.  Was illegal parking too much of a problem then? I guess some resident of places like Russell Road might not have been happy with the enforcement of residents' parking schemes. Perhaps a couple of extra CEOs to enforce these and a few more to directly replace the Traffic Wardens would have been adequate.

Instead WBC hire an army of CEOs on the basis of a wildly optimistic assessment of the income they will raise from fines. About the same time they convert three Wharf car parks to pay on exit (further reducing fine income). Most people would start with a low number and increase them until the illegal parking was down to an acceptable level. Not WBC.

Quoted from blackdog

Surely the issue is not about removing all CEOs and announcing to the world that there is no parking enforcement in Newbury.  It is about finding out how few CEOs are enough to deter illegal parking.  This, surely, is their purpose.

Before the CEOs we had a few Traffic Wardens (how many?) I suspect far fewer than there are CEOs.  Was illegal parking too much of a problem then? I guess some resident of places like Russell Road might not have been happy with the enforcement of residents' parking schemes. Perhaps a couple of extra CEOs to enforce these and a few more to directly replace the Traffic Wardens would have been adequate.

Instead WBC hire an army of CEOs on the basis of a wildly optimistic assessment of the income they will raise from fines. About the same time they convert three Wharf car parks to pay on exit (further reducing fine income). Most people would start with a low number and increase them until the illegal parking was down to an acceptable level. Not WBC.

Aren't there around four or five that cover Newbury? Seems like a sensible number to me.

In the past, I have wondered if it is necessary to have as many CEOs as I have seen patrolling in the past, on a Sunday.  Mind you, in the paper, the Council refute claims that the cost of parking provision and enforcement is supplemented by tax.  Perhaps the original news item is flawed?

Quoted from user23.3

Aren't there around four or five that cover Newbury? Seems like a sensible number to me.

I don't know how the CEOs are distributed - its the budget figures that make the numbers seem excessive.

Quoted from user23.3

Aren't there around four or five that cover Newbury? Seems like a sensible number to me.

You ask the question but make it appear as if you had stated a fact. So, how many CEO's will be working in Newbury on a weekday including Saturday, and how many on a Sunday.

The post by Spartacus with a link to Maidenhead, suggests that it was a disaster zone when all parking was uncontrolled was perhaps an experiment worth making but the major problem there was that people were driving into the pedestrian zones to park which in theory can't happen in Newbury. We have the opposite end of the spectrum with WBC going in full bore to make Newbury an uncomfortable place to visit due to their over enthusiasm. It's not the one hour park that's a problem, it's the ability to do a pop in that is a pain. A quick visit to our favourite emporium (Barry Forkin) this morning meant a trip round and round the area and also stopping to decipher the signs before I found somewhere to park up near Rockingham Road to pop back just to pick up a key.

Quoted from brian

You ask the question but make it appear as if you had stated a fact. So, how many CEO's will be working in Newbury on a weekday including Saturday, and how many on a Sunday.

No idea, hence the question which you've answered with another question.

Quoted from user23.3

Seems like a sensible number to me.

If it seems like a sensible number then one must assume that your question is an assertion rather than a question. If you don't know how many, how could you believe and want us to believe that WBC have been sensible in their allocation of CEOs to Newbury.
Your turn.