The leader of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council has attacked plans to charge “gas-guzzling” vehicles higher charges for parking in the town centre.
Councillor Peter Nutting claims it is the wrong time to be considering an air quality action plan for Shrewsbury with the unitary authority due to come into operation in 2009.
Officers at Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council say the potential change in parking charges should be investigated as it could provide an incentive for motorists to use car parks outside the town’s river loop and for them to use “greener” vehicles.
But Mr Nutting said he did not known why borough council officers had issued a report now and that the ideas should be put off until they could be considered for the whole of Shropshire.
Recommendations in the report by environmental health manager David Wraith also include closing High Street to all traffic for a pilot period of up to one year with a one-way system in Wyle Cop.
Mr Nutting said: “I think officers need to be more cautious before issuing such reports and I would be surprised if the council accepted it as a way forward.
“This is just an officer recommendation. As leader of the council, I do not agree with it and do not want Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council to be making serious policy decisions in advance of a unitary authority.”This is a decision which should be held in abeyance and passed to the unitary authority to decide.
“If it is applied to Shrewsbury, it should be the same for the whole of Shropshire. What’s good for Shrewsbury should be good for the whole of the county. If thinking of wide-spread pedestrianisation in Shrewsbury, why not in other towns?
“Do we really want to stop farmers driving in in their 4×4s? It’s unrealistic in a rural county like Shropshire.
“Now is the wrong time to be making any policy decisions. It is wrong to do anything with the High Street right now. We have enough problems to sort out with ParkRight without causing any more issues,” Mr Nutting added.
SABC’s development control committee will discuss the issue on January 8.
By Rebecca Lawrence
31 Comments
they shouldnt be driven in towns, the drivers usually think they own the roads and they are just too uneconmical…crush them all!
would someone like to give a definition of a gas guzzler?
are we talking 4×4? if so what about those who live in the country for whom a 4×4 is a necessity, and a day to day working tool?
perhaps we mean the sports cars? people carriers? estate cars?
What exactly is a “Gas Guzzler”?
The car in the photo appears to be a Land Rover Freelander and is probably a diesel averaging about 40mpg,using this as a criteria it is reasonable to assume that most cars using petrol qualify as gas guzzlers.
I agree with the previous two comments.
This is taking things too far - Some people need to get their facts right.
One way of sneaking in road pricing, it’ll start off with a vehicle they cannot catergorise properly and spread out wider, despite having just knocked the idea on the head.
Good idea. How can it be the `wrong time’ to try to do something about poor air quality?
Yet another “stealth” tax.
Perhaps we should all drive combine harvesters in town?
A “Hot Air” Tax on councillors?
We should provide our Councillors with canoes to keep down unneccessary road useage?
The opportunites are endless.
BJH
Price them off the road, apart from concessions for legitimate essential business use (eg farming). The owners don’t care about the environment, why should we care about them?
Rupert Barrington-Black why is a 4 x 4 necessary in the country? My daughter lives in the country and is menaced by 4 x 4s (and she doesn’t have one herself), the same way that I was run off the road by one because they think they own the countryside roads.
However, I am not sure that charging them more to park in town is particularly clever.
Maybe charging them more to use the country roads would be better .. then again they would think they own even more of the roads
“Gas Guzzler”.
Yet more emotive, unsubstantiated dribble to squeeze more hard-earned out of the motorist. I can picture it now.
“Gas Guzzler” wardens pacing around the streets of Shrewsbury, and they happen upon a Nissan Qashqai. “Hmmm, looks like a 4×4, and the driver has paid the base rate for parking! Ticket it!”. The Nissan averages 40-odd mpg *rolls eyes”. Next, they walk past a Subaru Legacy 3.0Rn. “Nice estate car that. Very nice. Walk on.” 3.0Rn Legacy has permanent four wheel drive and a 3 litre flat six engine that struggles to do 25mpg.
You see the problem?
I used to regularly see the Mayor of Shrewsbury being chauffuered around in a Scorpio 2.9 Ghia V6 and a Saab 9-5 Aero. Both will struggle to achieve 20 mpg in an urban environment. Maybe the Mayor could start the ball rolling by being driven around in a G-Wiz or a Toyota Pious….sorry….Prius?
I write as a non-posh person not driving a gas guzzling 4×4, not hunting.
Is this not the same hypocrisy related to the jealousy of anybody who seems to be doing better than them.
We say we are protecting the fox when actually we mean are jealous of the posh people who hunt. When we are jealous of posh people in Range Rovers we use the pollution argument to “get our own back because they have worked to become successful and we have not”.
I suspect we will be putting stickers of people drinking champagne next because the CO2 in the bubbles contributes to
carbon emissions! All who engage in these arguments should look at the source of their jealousy and hypocrisy. Sorry its anonymous but I do enjoy champagne and dont want sticker sticking types around.
lmao!! that is soooo funny anon!!!! you are actually stating that people who oppose hunting are jealous???? Oh dear. I have money but am not posh/upper class or well to do, I am happy the way I am and dont wish to chase animals around the countryside to “appear” of better breeding…you idiot.
This is stupid, Shropshire is a rural area and a lot of people own 4×4s. I can just about understand things like this in London where to be fair 4×4s are unnecassary but not in Shrewsbury!!!
Gas guzzlers should be put into mpg groups along with jags and ford focuses-some new 4*4 put older hatchbacks to shame as far as pollution goes.People who hunt are not posh–there sick if they get pleasure from what they do–very sick indeed and they have my sympathy.
What’s to be jealous of?
It’s an intriguing theory, Anon; unfortunately, it doesn’t stand up to the mildest scrutiny.
“Recommendations in the report by environmental health manager David Wraith also include closing High Street to all traffic for a pilot period of up to one year with a one-way system in Wyle Cop.”
What a dumb idea! A more sensible oprtion would be to sack people who are paid vast salaries to come up with daft ideas.
4×4’s are largely unneccessary in this country. Yes ~ farmers should be able to utilise them for legitimate working purposes, but the majority are in use in our towns and cities, clogging up roads and car parks and polluting the atmosphere. I cringe everytime I pass a primary school at the beginning and end of the school day and see these vehicles jostling for space at all costs. Your average British family does not need a large 4 x 4 to get about in ~ unless of course it is required to negotiate the treacherous icy north slopes of Tesco’s car park. For Heaven’s sake ~ why doesn’t the government slap £5,000.00 tax a year on these vehicles, price them off the road and lets all get back to normal. Good luck with this pricing initiative.
Whose right is it to decide whether or not 4×4s are largely unnecessary? At the end of the day, if somone wishes to purchase such a vehicle then that’s their choice. Personally, I don’t see the sense but I’m not about to run around with hands in the hair shouting about how 4X4s are the root of all evil.
What the often misinformed anti 4×4 brigade fails to appreciate is that most newer models (as previously stated by other commentators) are equal to their saloon/estate/MPV equivalents in terms of MPG, and in some cases (e.g. hybrid Lexus, LPG conversions etc) actually better them.
Having seen this morning an Arriva bus filling Shifnal’s Broadway with thick blue smoke, surely it’s time to take a sensible informed look into the issues instead of always pointing an ill-educated finger at 4×4s. Unfortunately though, I don’t suppose that will ever happen whilst the private motorist continues to be used as a cash cow to shore up other creaking areas of financial shortfall.
they take up more room in car parks and there drivers try to bully other road users .
The French government has just introduced a new ‘Malus/Bonus’ system to peanlize drivers who buy cars with high carbon emissions when they register their new vehicle at the Préfecture.
Motorists who choose small, fuel-efficient cars will -as an incentive- receive bonuses of up to Euro 1,000 - with an extra Euro 300 if they also scrap a car more than 15 years old.
This is a positive development in my view because it is a good example of TRUE-COST economics.
The cars which pollute most should be made to reflect that in their price.
The quicker these new ideas are investigated, the quicker we will get our carbon emissions down.
When can I park my electric car for free, with charging points, anywhere in Shropshire, and not pay congestion charges?
If the County Bosses wish to wield the power of Ken Livingston they must emulate all his actions first.
This applies as much to Planning, Recycling & Green Energy as to Transportation.
The skill of success is to first learn from others and not your own mistakes.
hammer them i say - they cost me enough in inhaler prescriptions by generating all that pollution o its only fair that they pay more to the NHS for their dirty deisel trucks
polluter pays principle
Tax them off the road
i think its easy to tax cars in this way - based on the co2 banding a the DVLA already does for annual road tax - it would be harder to apply to on street parking as above comments suggest but could be phased in beginning easily with staff and season ticket permit holders, it could apply to the residents parking zones (if they get established) as the Liberal Democrats have done in Richmond, London. Its about gradually phasing in additional costs for higher emission engines, so that the market failure of climate change cn be corrected, if low carbon living becomes more economical too then we can let the market lead us down the low carbon path. I would support the officers proposals and think that Mr.Nutting appears very uneducated on this issue.
I think a balanced approach is needed - in the countryside 4×4 is useful to assist with many jobs, but in town they are a menace.
Perhaps high parking charges in the river loop could be offset by lower park and ride to allow people with these vehicles to use them on rural roads (and of course off - road) but then leave them when they enter urban areas??
Would seem the best outcome for all that way??
Just another tax on cars with environment as the excuse.If air pollution is such a problem why are we going to build a rubbish burning plant in the north of the town pumping out thousands of tons of carbon dioxide in to the local atmosphere.If cars are such a problem ban their use altogether and take us back to the middleages.
Technology can replace oil burning.
Hear hear phil - air pollution is another of those green myths, like global warming, nonesense, get back into your big comfy cars and drive on fellow salopians, dont let the do gooders try to modify our lifestyles, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of smog, look at Japan and LA, these countries have some of the healthiest people in the world. In Tokyo, the greenies claim we shouldnt even be able to breathe, yet millions live out in to their nineties?? How do you answer that then Environmental Health Manager?? Air pollution never hurt no one, taxes on cars however penalise the poor the most
It is time that enviromentalists and do gooders wake up and realise the effects all this banning and increased costs is doing to those people in rural area’s (farmer’s etc). I use my 4×4 in our muddy fields to collect logs and repair fence rails. The next day I have to go to town in the 4×4 because I cannot afford to own two cars. We all live differant lives! Urban 4×4 owners are silly because they just use thier’s to get the shopping and NOT to go in muddy fields which is what these things are designed for.
To Huw Peach
Surely the environmentally friendly thing to do is to keep a 15year plus old car on the road, rather than scrap it - certainly not to encourage this by a bribe, as the biggest energy costs in a car are production and disposal. Or are green economics different?
There is, of course, a simple answer to all of this - go and shop in Telford, or Wolverhampton, or elsewhere.
Maybe there is a hidden agenda on the part of the council to return Shrewsbury to the middle ages.
ParkRight will get you if you park in the town, so don’t come in your car.
Don’t come on a bicycle or motorbike, either, since the Council has sited all of the speed humps opposite street furniture such as road signs and lamp posts, so that when the speed hump unseats you, you are likely to be seriously injured by collision with one of these objects.
So far, though, there don’t appear to be any barriers to the horse and trap coming to town.
When the good people of Shrewsbury desert the town for places which don’t persecute the motorist, and trade stagnates, maybe then, and only then, our wise and august councillors will see that they have presided over the decline of the County Town in favour of more economically “savvy” places like Telford. Perhaps Telford should be the County Town, after all; there are more shops and it’s much easier to park within easy walking distance of them, and at modest cost, too.
Shrewsbury needs to be able to offer easy parking at reasonable rates, not persecute the motorist - and to encourage cyclists and motorcyclists, not try to kill them, if trade in the town is to thrive.
Many people simply do not come to town by bus, and probably never will. We need to accommodate all types of transport.
Legitimate ownership of a 4×4 is easy to spot, all four wheels and the bottom half of the bodywork are caked in a 1″ thick layer of mud. (that’s 25.4mm for those born since 1972)