Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Can Anyone Explain this Council Logic?
In a round-robin about new parking charges that hit my inbox today, Haringey Council wrote the following:
Visitors parking permits will be simplified and no longer be subject to a limited allocation
This is to ensure we are taking a fair approach when it comes to everyone who wants to park in our borough and to encourage people to use other forms of transport if possible.
As I read it they're saying that they're going to make visitor parking permits easier to get "to encourage people to use other forms of transport". So, making it easier to use a car will encourage people not to use a car.
Is there some good logic there that is eluding me or is it the nonsense I think it is?
ADDENDUM:
The discussion that follows from this post has revealed that visitor parking charges will more than double and residents will no longer be able to exchange unused permits.
Read about the proposals on Haringey's website here.
You can make an objection by email to traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk
You can see a Freedom of Information request submitted on this issue here
Tags for Forum Posts: parking, parking permits, visitor parking permits
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
We've had no leaflet.
From what Hugh has discovered the proposals for Visitors' Parking appear to be a rip-off. Also possibly illegal as a tax designed to raise revenue. Certainly anti-social, and will hit those parts of the borough with CPZs longer than 2 hours which will - entirely by coincidence of course - not on the whole apply to where the leaders of the Muswell Hill Colonial Administration live.
Many of the assertions made in the material quoted as Council justification in this thread are simply lies. For example about the impact on CO2 emissions. This was a based on false data when introduced and when I requested and published the annual figures continued the lie. It was a tax.
Many thanks for your FOI Hugh. It will be interesting to see the replies.
In their reply we may learn that they have given some thought to the most vulnerable people who may be harmed by this. I'm thinking in particular of a case I took up (when I was a councillor) of a very seriously ill resident who was being supported at home by their visiting family members and by people from their church, some of whom were driving. I was able to get a special arrangement made.
But human relations - please note John McMullan - should override Market economics - and the practice of human values in our Haringey Council should not need someone speaking to a councillor who happens to know a bit of the system.
The key question is whether people who raise this issue on HOL are willing to take it further. I suggest emails to ward councillors. Not all of them are greedy free-lunchers or loyal Kobots. Nor are they all impervious to critical opinions. If they don't amend or propose to amend this proposal if elected then I for one will not be giving them my vote.
Things need to change in May. This is a small-ish issue but emblematic. Either the new Council will try its best to practice socialist human values. Or it will continue the current right-wing managerialism.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I've written an objection and sent to to the email I've given at the bottom of my original post. I copied in two of the Harringay ward councillors and I very much hope to hear back from them and to see that they too have raised an objection. I haven't heard anything back from either yet, Alan.
-
-
I know that Zena is angry about this. Maybe Hugh, you might want to give her a ring.
-
Permalink Reply by Harringay on
-
I've just received an email today from Haringey on these proposed changes - Ann Cunningham's letter is dated 2nd February so why has it taken this long to send out this information? - And then say we have only 21 days from the date of the notice to object. I do not necessarily disagree with aligning the charging policy with the DVLA bandings but this should be done in stages and not in one foul swoop - thereby increasing charges by almost 100% in some cases. This appears to be a clandestine increase in local taxation by another name - and just before local elections!
The visitor permit changes appear to be all over the place. I also noticed the contradictory statement of 'encouraging more sustainable forms of transport'.
The paragraph
"It is therefore proposed that the offer be limited to an hourly and daily visitor parking permit. This would remove the need for an upper limit on numbers that can be purchased. It is however expected, that those permits would be used within the year purchased and not stock piled for future years, where further car restraints measures may be required. Unused permits would therefore not be exchanged or refunded. "
.. is nonsensical. Sounds more like 'we need to reduce administration/contract costs and increase income..'
My husband and I were just recalling a 'area assembly' meeting we attended over 10 years ago - when the reason given for extending CPZs and charging was because of requests from residents and charges were to be in line with the cost of administration! - wonder if residents' views will be take into account this time....
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I’ve written asking about the current visitor permits to find out if these become invalid when the new charges are introduced, and if they are invalid do Haringey mean to charge the administration fee for refunding them.
-
Permalink Reply by Katie K on
-
Thanks for flagging this up. I hadn't received an email or letter and wouldn't have known. I have posted it on the Wood Green Nextdoor forum and somebody asked if there was a stock email reply they could use to raise an objection. If anybody has time to put one togeher that could be cut and pasted, that would be really helpful and I think would mean a lot of additional people might do it.
I have loads of unused daily, hourly and 2-hourly permits with dates up to 2020 that I have bought previously and exchanged. If these suddently expire because of new rules I will be absolutely furious.
-
Permalink Reply by Zena Brabazon on
-
I have written to Peter Mitchell who is the now the Cabinet Member for Environment. I have raised the issue about when people were notified of the proposed changes since I agree entirely that a consultation cannot be fair of comprehensive if people weren't notified until a few days ago. I have also pointed out the impact of the increases on the wards with very long CPZ hours which are overwhelmingly Tottenham wards. Notwithstanding that these are part of the budget, I have asked for them to be reviewed as the impact of these increases is not fairly distributed. I've also raised the issue of the shift to annual permits since I can see this might cause some problems if they can't be carried over as now.
Zena
Zena Brabazon
Cllr, Harringay ward
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
One further thing to note, I only received a notification re: the consultation as I had an account for buying parking permits. I assume that those who do not currently have this will not be notified of the consultation.
-
-
I received no notices.
I have an account but haven't got a parking permit as I haven't got a car. I haven't needed to buy Visitor permits.
My wife, Zena Brabazon, has an account and a car and has regularly bought Visitor Permits. She is also chair of our local residents' association. And she is a councillor.
Zena hasn't had formal notification of the consultation either.
Assume nothing whatsoever. This is dismally Failing Koberville.
-
-
The email said
We are writing to you because our records show that you hold an active permit account with Haringey Council.
Obviously they didn't even manage that properly.
-
-
As others have mentioned. If Haringey were efficient in providing permits, this would be no issue. As it stands, the 2wk wait for replacements incentivises buying more than required in anticipation of unplanned visits. Thus each year, I will be buying a few that I am unlikely to use. In order to guarantee they are available when required. Islington's system was remarkably efficient in comparison and although prices were higher, I would happily pay it for the quality of service.
-
-
Can I please suggest that nobody on HoL assumes that their own ward councillors - especially the key decision makers - will read this website or this thread.
Please don't assume either that they will actually read any report about objections received.
If the leadership so decides all current councillors will be subject to Party whipping. In fact whipping is the default position under Kober. And that applies however enormous the Labour majority (currently 49 to 8) or how trivial the issue.
Labour councillors who vote against the whip may be threatened with disciplinary action. Which could potentially lead to them being found "uncomradely" and losing the Party endorsement to their candidacy in May.
Yep! That's how it works in transparent, open democratic Koberville. Something to remember next time the Dear Supreme Leader is on TV or radio being fawned over as she complains of dissent as "bullying". And that any opposition to her wonderful, joyous and patently obvious and necessary policies is entirely based on "sexism".
So.... to halt even this tiny little piece of parking permit stupidity people will probably need to communicate their views directly to the decision-makers. The same applies to any other daft policies being sneaked or rushed through in the last few weeks of Köberdämmerung.
I'm told for example that a proposed restructure of senior management at the Council is underway. Possibly in preparation for some upgrades and maybe some pay-outs, before the new Council gets a chance to clean the stables and fit some new doors.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
