CHARGING for parking appears to be the flavour of the month across UK local authorities. Many who already charge are extending it to evenings, and weekends, those who don't are catching up on lost time. Calls for referenda abound across many authorities.

 The justification for charges based on recovering maintenance costs is ludicrous. Most of the revenue will go towards administration, staff, and enforcement. Visitor numbers will fall, and local businesses will suffer. Many town centres including Gloucester are losing major outlets, replaced by pound shops, and charity outlets.

That the three Forest towns have mustered over 7,000 signatures against this most unpopular council move speaks for itself. What is baffling however is the responsible cabinet member's glib comment that the 7,000 plus signature petition against the charge does not constitute a referendum. On the same count, the 800 or 900 responses to the council's consultation for change to a cabinet and four year term strong leader made little sense, as did the 3,000 odd unintelligible responses to the survey on waste collection. The council however went ahead based on such small numbers.

Significant savings can easily be made from some of the discretionary services the council provides and which cost considerably more. Services such as garden and food waste collections are not mandatory and, where charged, subscriptions will only meet a fraction of the cost; all residents will subsidise the deficit irrespective of whether they participate or not.

Car journeys are an essential part of living in the Forest, not only for the better-off and visitors. Starting to charge is just the beginning of a slippery slope which will soon graduate to resident parking permits and weekend and evening charges, all of which can be increased at the touch of a button in the not too distant future.

Conservatives are expected to run effective and efficient councils. Effectiveness and efficiencies arise from curbing spend, not finding new revenue streams to support unwise expenditure. The question that readily comes to mind is why the council has not looked at simplifying and reducing costs in their high cost/low efficiency before looking to add another stealth-tax.

Whilst the 7,000 plus petition may not constitute a referendum within legal definitions, it is the loud and clear voice of the people who will be most affected by this unwanted imposition. In places such as Mitchel­dean it will hit every person visiting the GP surgery or the Post Office.

The fundamental point is that people only rise up around issues they understand and which hits them directly. As with stopping the weekly waste collection, council administration is rowing against the spirit of national government policies – not to increase financial burden on taxpayers at this time of all round belt-tightening.

– Venk Shenoi, Blaisdon.