Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Ending of Daily Visitor Permits to increase daily visitor parking charge by 164%
A parking review consultation run quietly at the start of the year seems to have been so little publicised that it attracted just 42 responses (augmented with another 58 garnered by phone).
The change it included that residents may feel most keenly is the abolition of daily visitor permits.
Currently Haringey's website gives the following prices for visitor permits:
Standard daily visitor permits are £5 and hourly are £1.20.
The "Parking Strategy and Policy/Charges Review, Appendix D: Updated parking permit policy / charges" shares the expectation that residents will henceforth be expected to make up a day's parking permit with hourly permits. For the Ladder where the CPZ runs from 08:00 to 18:30, this will require eleven hourly permits to make up a full day. If the hourly charge remains at £1.20, this will mean a total daily cost of £13.20, an increase of a mere 164%. The cutting below is extracted from that Appendix.
It's not clear to me why hourly permits should be less open to abuse than daily ones, but I'm all ears. If the primary motivation for this change was indeed to counter permit abuse, one would have thought it a fairly easy matter to protect residents from the affects of standing up to the abuse by simply putting a cap on daily charges like London Transport do. As far as I can make out, this hasn't happened.
At section 4.1 of the background papers (attached below), the Council has gone to the trouble of benchmarking the cost of daily business visitor permits. That's helpful. They looked at Camden, Islington, Ealing, Greenwich and Waltham Forest.
For some reason, no benchmarking was done on the cost of daily resident visitor parking costs. I've done my best to fill that gap. I've used the same boroughs and added Hackney since that was a missing neighbouring borough.
The current cost for a visitor to park in CPZ of those six boroughs for a day are as follows.
Camden: £8.79
Islington: £7.20 - £8.00 (on my calculationat £0.90 and £1.00 per hour)) discounted to £2.80 for 60+
Greenwich: Tradesmen £18.50 per week, and £9 per 10 vouchers (no information on time period validity)
Waltham Forest: £8.00 (at £1.00 per hour)
Hackney: £5.30.......................
...................vs Haringey: £13.20
....unless of course I'm misunderstanding Haringey's policy - only too happy to be set straight.
The change was part of a wider Parking strategy review that was passed by the Council last week. The recommendations of the review were adopted without dissent (see minute 48:30 of meeting on YouTube).
This change is unlikely to affect me personally but I fear that it may have an impact on some who are not is a strong position to absorb the increased charges.
(The section on comparative parking costs was added at 18:55 on 24 July)
Tags for Forum Posts: parking, visitor parking, visitor parking permits
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Precisely the sort of point that, if not in the papers before the Council when it decided, should be drawn to the HofH&P's attention and suggested he is bound to remit.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Soper
-
As I pointed out elsewhere when the CPZs were implemented we were asked what hours we wanted and chose two hours to prevent commuters and dump parkers (mainly car hire companies dumping excess stock). If you chose all day parking...
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB
-
We rarely have people visiting with a car, but when we do we almost always use a day ticket.
This is an insane price increase, yet again!
We used to have 2 week permits, daily, 2 hours and 1 hour options - with limits on the number you could buy. This was much fairer, imo.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton
-
JulieB your example prompted a memory.
A decade or so ago, a local resident came to see me asking for help — I was one of their three elected ward councillors. As far as I recall, they exolained how they and other church sisters were taking turns visiting a seriously ill neighbour; cooking and taking food and offering help.
And each getting parking tickets.I contacted the Parking Service who - I think - sorted out a sensible arrangement.
In today's jargon this was local Municipal bureaucracy supporting Prosocial Behaviour.
https://www.explorepsychology.com/prosocial-behavior/As well as these "Moral Sentiments" There are also good practical, financial, and economic reasons why a local council should support voluntary networks which enable someone to remain in their own home among family and friends.
JulieB, I imagine that people might perhaps see the example of the church sisters as one end of a spectrum. But tomorrow we are in a similar position as you. We have family visiting from Hampshire. They're with us for several days so their car is carrying a lot of stuff. They'll see other friends and family members in the London area. I'd suggest this is prosocial behaviour. But it also has economic aspects. They'll be paying to use London trains and buses. They're going to a theatre. They'll use local shops. We'll be taking them to a local restaurant.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
Thanks for this Hugh. I’ve had a look at the report on the consultation and there were 100 responses. For a borough wide consultation, in a borough with around 180,000 adult residents, surely this would have triggered a few alarm bells that knowledge of the review was somewhat slight?
-
-
Following on from the work of the advocates for LTNs and traffic restrictions, shouldn't these visitors be cycling or walking anyway? Surely the increase in cost is insignificant in the context of the imminent erasure of life on this planet. And don't get me started on outsiders using my road with their noisy vehicles.
-
-
James, none of my friends use cars to visit me. However medical staff do, sometimes needing to park outside of my home for several hours.
-
-
Yes, similar arguments were made against other council policies aimed at disincentivising car travel. Let's not rehash them. The lighter point is that there seems to be an element of hypocrisy in the reaction this potential plan has caused. Calls for evidence and proper practice were met with derision in previous cases.
-
-
But you just did
-
-
The justification given by Seema was encouraging more vehicle use. They wanted people to use the space for less time so that more cars could drive there and park.
-
-
You're entirely right, JamesN.
And now you've raised the question, I must plead guilty.With hindsight, of course I should have challenged the entire arrangement for "Church Sisters" cooking food in their own homes and delivering it in individual noisy petrol guzzling cars. Perhaps with car radios disturbing the peace. Was it really so hard for them to deliver healthy freshly-prepared cold food; on foot; carried in back packs; or in shopping carts with quiet pneumatic tyres?
Now to check out electric buses from Hampshire.
-
-
Unfortunately for several here the ludicrous and inane arguments in my comment were not sufficiently hyperbolic to come across as parody. A fair indication of just how far down the rabbit hole we are.
As for Seema's 'justification', the 21 pages of council drivel linked to in Hugh's post contain as many internal inconsistencies and contradictions as the bible. The only underlying argument that stands out as unequivocal is that Parking Services needs to wash its own face. User pays until the books are balanced.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
