Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Ending of Haringey 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.
As part of the review, an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was run. As a part of that assessment, equality as it relates to socio-economic status was considered. In the case of the daily parking permits, the situation roughly divides the east of the borough, with all its indicators of deprivation, from the much wealthier west. In the west, two-hour CPZ predominate: in the east >8 hour zones are the rule. The shift from daily to hourly permits will barely affect the west of the borough, whereas it will have a significant impact on the east. The only outcomes noted under the socio-economic section of the EIA are "Positive", "Positive" and ... er ... "Positive". The unequal nature of the daily parking charge was not even considered. So the EIA as it relates to socio-economic status is badly flawed.
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.
Tags for Forum Posts: daily parking permits, parking, visitor parking, visitor parking permits
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1 on
-
The previous policy used to be only two daily permits could be used at once but no restrictions on hourly.
-
-
Does anyone know where the underlying order is that is being amended? I'm struggling to find it.
I assume it is The Haringey (Charged-For Parking Places) 2021 order but I can only find various amendments.
-
-
I have also been unable to find it; if you are able to request (maybe from Anne Cunningham?) i would be grateful
-
-
I emailed Seema cc'ing Ann Cunningham asking if the 40 permit limit was a mistake and requesting the original TMO as it is difficult to comment on amendments if you don't have the original document.
I received an automatic reply from Seema as follows:
If you are contacting me regarding the current Statutory Consultation on Parking, please participate in the consultation which can be found here: https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your...
I will not be able to respond to any emails regarding the consultation or proposals whilst the consultation is live.
Your comments / views will not be logged unless you have sent in your views / comments in through the right process.
Kind Regards
SeemaI think this again illustrates what a poor route a statutory consultation is to consult on these changes.
-
Permalink Reply by Niall on
-
Lets hope the Dail Mail and the 15 Minute Cities conspiracy theorists don't pick up on this - the Rebel Borough will be a laughing stock. Did anybody read this before putting it out ?
Quite clearly a spectacular 'own goal' - no councillor could defend this to their constituents. The quicker they 'fess up' and withdraw this the better.
deep hole/stop digging springs to mind...
-
-
Hi all - the 40 annual cap has been confirmed as an error (see email below) swiftly dealt with by Seema Chandawni (thank you!).
All the previously highlighted issues remain - specifically the huge inequity across the borough, the fact the council have no documented evidence of permit misuse, have not looked into any alternative ways of dealing with this issue and no evidence that this drastic measure will solve the problem.
please please do review the updated proposal and respond with any objections.*****Dear CaitlinThank you so much for pointing this out.The line should have said “a cap on paper permits will be 40 per a transaction”. And it was misinterpreted when it went through the legal process. This was actually a rule bought in over COVID as it was hard to maintain the stock levels as loads of people wanted visitor permits. It is no longer the case.It’s now been corrected (deleted) on website, with an acknowledgment of the error. The TMO has been corrected (deleted) and printed versions being recalled. As a result, the legal advice is to extend the consultation for another week (now 20th Nov).All responses already received are still valid.Link: https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your... (you might need to refresh)
-
-
Surely the stupid proposal to limit us all to 40 permits per annum was an attempt to deal with perceived unfairness so that those of us who live in areas that wanted a 2 hour CPZ are just as affected as those who allowed Haringey to impose a full day CPZ, ie the east of the borough? Backfired of course...
In the 600 plus page documentation produced for the cabinet to read at their convenience there is a sort of impact assessment which looks at all sorts on interest groups who might be affected but concludes that from a socio-economic perspective "Parking strategy and associated policy proposals concern the borough as a whole, or in the case of parking permit proposals for all controlled parking zone areas. Given this, there is no target population profile distinct from the borough profile. Furthermore, data is not held on parking users / parking permit holders’ socioeconomic status, therefore detailed impact analysis is not possible." Seriously do they not believe that there is no difference between the residents of `Highgate and those of Broadwater Farm?
-
-
The difference between the two sides of the borough (actually really 2/3rd east and 1/3rd west) is rooted in the introduction of CPZs; local residents were given the opportunity in quite extensive consultation to indicate whether they would prefer a 2 hour CPZ or an all day CPZ, although their majority rejection of CPZs was ignored. In the East of the borough there was relatively little opposition to accepting an all day model whereas in the West of the borough where there was a much more active campaign of resistance to CPZs the 2 hour model was considered to be sufficient to stop displacement parking and accepted by Haringey. Little did we think that that this would happen - it is a perfect demonstration of the concept of an untended consequence. Equally for Haringey to exploit this by this blatant discrimination against the two sides of the borough shows why they really have little concern for residents at all and are really only interested in themselves. When the proposal to eliminate daily permits was mooted it was pointed out that hourly permits could be exploited in the same way hence an officer of the council, I assume, invented the 40 permit limit (remember it is nowhere in the nearly 700 page document sent to cabinet members) to prevent this whilst our councillors who are supposed to look after the interests of residents (but can't because those decisions are delegated to cabinet members) are completely unaware of what is being done in their name because this whole process is actually being delegated to non-elected council officials to decide (which is why instead of proper consultation in advance we get a Statutory Consultation which is only supposed, in law, to determine whether the proposals are lawful and achieve what they are supposed to achieve). The excuse about paper permits (not extensively advertised as a facility and I have a lot of paper permits purchased in good faith which are apparently now invalid although when I purchased them there was no mention on the website of a limit on validity such the pot-luck of the date shown on the face of the voucher) is just an attempt to cover up the ineptitude of everyone in Haringey who seem incapable of acting in the genuine interests of local residents...
-
-
Just received this
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your...
-
Permalink Reply by James Hawtin on
-
i was just about post that too, i hope some can pin this or update the tread head... everyone needs to say no... we did defeat wg cpz changes after all.
-
-
Interesting to see that in the summary of changes, they have excluded any mention of the cap on resident visitor permits, while they do include this for the new business visitor permits.
They are also allowing a higher cap on visitor permits for businesses than residents which - as business visitor permits are priced higher than resident permits - I suppose they see as a better revenue generator.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
