Richmond's Liberal Democrats learn to love SUVs ..
.. because of Reform and the Conservatives - story 102
It wasn’t a vote to ban SUVs. It wasn’t even a vote to raise charges. It was a request to investigate.
But last week, Richmond’s Liberal Democrats turned it down.
Councillor Caroline Wren (Green, Fulwell and Hampton Hill) had proposed that the council explore a 'polluter-pays' parking scheme for the 2026/27 budget.
Councillor Wren explained carspreading - or carbloat - was negatively impacting parking, road safety, health and the climate. (You can watch the debate starting with Councillor Wren's explanation: fast forward to 2.00.58 in the recording) She argued Richmond council could use its influence to improve this situation by varying the car parking charges for SUVs.
No, definitely no
The Liberal Democrats flatly rejected the proposal. The reasons included:
the plan was too complex
it wouldn’t work as a deterrent because SUV owners are rich
it didn’t apply to much of Richmond because the borough enjoyed a large number of wide parking bays
it unfairly punished some residents
it ‘slapped a charge on ownership not use’
it wouldn’t work without 100% controlled parking zones
if implemented, the charge would be a floor and councillors would increase the fees adding to the financial burden of residents
it might lead to unintended consequences such as residents paving over their garden
the schedule is too tight to make the 2026 budget proposal
and they had a better plan. They were working towards a new tariff related to the cost of a bus ride. They plan to raise charges ‘over several years’ to make sure car parking charges do not fall below the cost of a bus ride.
Notes & thoughts
Most of the Liberal Democrat arguments were irrelevant or weak:
this was a request for officers to create a plan. It was not a plan
the challenging complexity has been overcome by most other London borough councils who have a version of this scheme in place, now
residents cannot be both rich and poor
the Liberal Democrats used an odd definition of fairness - it only applies to car owners
the disincentive deliberately targeted space use as well as pollution because that is part of the problem
.. and so on.
Councillor Gareth Roberts offered two more telling reasons for rejection - procedural and political.
This is a major policy change. It needs widespread consultation. That would run until the elections next May. Councillor Roberts said such a major policy change at this moment in time means any proposal for change should be in a manifesto.
The most telling comment was his last. Councillor Roberts said, were the Greens’ motion to go forward it would be a threat to ‘progressives’. It would enable Reform and/or the Conservatives in the borough.
It’s a revealing calculus.
In a borough where the Liberal Democrats hold 49 of 54 seats and the Greens the balance, it is hard to decide whether this is the action of a wise politician or a weak leader.
#LibDemsLoveSUVs
This caution might explain Liberal Democrat’s new Climate and Nature Strategy, launched early this week. Some elements such as housing and nature appear to be strong.
Car use? Barely a whisper.
Of 21 listed transport activities, not one discourages driving.
Maybe the new Transport Strategy which is currently in development will offer a sharper change. This vote suggests that might also be car-neutral. At best.
For now, Twickenham & Richmond Tribune summarised the outcome,
The zero-emission parking discount [in Richmond] has already been scrapped.
Now, charges remain flat regardless of emissions or size.
The council has not only removed the green incentive, it has also rejected a chance to introduce a disincentive for more polluting vehicles.
The result is a system that rewards no one and discourages nothing.
There will be more about SUV parking. It will be one of my manifesto proposals.