Council abolition of daily parking based on information so vague it is not held in council records

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Caitlin on Saturday

Hi All,

I have just sent the email below to the Haringay Scruity Comittee requesting that they call-in the decision on daily permits. I urge you to do the same, you can reach them on scrutiny@haringey.gov.uk.

I have also emailed my councillors requesting that they ask the Cabinet to call-in the decision. 

There is also a scrunity survey running until September 8th LINK HERE - I suggest we all also use this mechanism to raise the points outlined in this thread, plus any other concerns.  Question 11 has an open- end box where these issue can be raised.

***email***

Dear Haringey Scrutiny Committee,

I am writing to request that the Scrutiny Committee call in the decision to ‘Discontinue the option for daily visitor permits’ made by the Haringey Cabinet on July 16th as part of a broader Parking Strategy Review. A Statutory Consultation on the matter is planned for Autumn.

This request is made for the following reasons:

1. Inequity

This policy change has significant financial implications for residents, and will only affect the poorest areas of the borough. The analysis below clearly illustrates the huge discrepancy in daily parking charges that this policy will introduce. The darker blue the ward, the more deprived, according to the Haringey 2024 state of the borough report. 

You can see from this graphic that this cabinet-endorsed decision will disproportionately impact the poorer parts of the borough. Full analysis is attached.

It is of great concern that the Equality Impact Assessment did not identify this issue, and this illustrates that the cabinet was not provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. 

 

2. Lack of Evidence

The decision was made based upon ‘circumstantial evidence’ of daily parking permit misuse. This evidence was not presented to the Cabinet. Upon receipt of a Freedom of information request, Haringey Council have admitted that that have no record of this problem: 

“The Cabinet report stated circumstantial evidence for the proposal, and this is in the form of anecdotal information which has been brought forward from a range of sources over a number of years.  While various sections of the council may hold information, it is not held in a format, nor was it intended to be documented, in manner to be used to supply for such a response’.

You can see the full response here. 

Why is a decision with such meaningful, borough wide, impact being taken to consultation to solve a problem that has not been robustly documented or analysed by the Council? 

Given that there is no understanding of the scope or nature of permit misuse, how can an assessment of alternative options have been conducted? This is a requirement of a policy change, and no details of alternative options considered were presented in the policy package. Again, this illustrates that the Cabinet was not provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. 

3. Failure to follow due process

The Parking Schemes – Resident Engagement Policy provides (quote) “ a framework for future residential parking scheme design and review”. The Framework requires the following steps:

1. Pre-public engagement

2. Public Engagement (co-design stage)

3. Statutory Consultation

4. Decision

This policy process has not been followed as part B Public Engagement (co-design) did not occur. An online Parking Policy Review consultation took place. This did not meet the criteria of “Public Engagement” because:  

• Letters and public engagement packs were not provided to all registered properties within the defined area 

• No street notices were erected

• Ward councillors were not be notified of the outcome and the proposed recommendations

Furthermore, the policy states that “The Council will need a minimum response rate of 10% to the public engagement, before any decision can be considered.”  Only 100 individuals responded to the online consultation. This does not represent 10% of the adult population affected by this decision.

Given that due process has not been followed, and the Cabinet have been badly advised on this particular issue, it is the duty of the scrutiny committee to call back this decision.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. I urge the Scrutiny Committee to exercise its authority to call in the decision for further review, to ensure that any changes to the parking policy are equitable, evidence-based, and follow due process.

Best Regards,

Caitlin

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on Sunday

Thank you Caitlin - such a well argued case,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Stillman on Tuesday

as i said on the other thgread, well done for the email caitlin and for the excellent graphic and well done to hugh for the excellent work in rasing the issue in the first place and pinpointing the issues of inequity and due process and to journalist gabriella jozwiak for sending in the foi.

thank you all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Niall on Tuesday

Have just heard back from one of our Harringay Councillors, Anna Alba. It seems they will be meeting with the Assistant Director for Director Services and the Cabinet Member for Resident Services at the beginning of September to put the concerns residents raised - and alternative ideas to abolishing the Day Parking pass.

I asked if our councillors can request the Scrutiny Ctte to call in the decision? If so, will they do so? I said that this seems preferable to the Statutory Consultation process - which, as I understand, can only ask for a binary YES/NO response to the original proposal. If that is rejected, we are back to considering alternatives in any event.

Will update when I hear further - but it is good our councillors are taking these concerns seriously

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Stillman on Tuesday

thank you

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page