Latest council cuts proposed - YOUR ESSENTIAL SERVICES AFFECTED

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by matt on January 27, 2011 at 14:22

Yes I'd rather this thread wasn't about blame. I think it's about;

 

1. highlighting the choices for cuts being suggested by the council

2. highlighting the impact of the cuts

3. asking if there are other ways of making cuts or better priorities for making cuts

4. discussing other possible streams of income

 

Another thread on HOL suggested, on the subject of resident parking permits, why not look at a lower rate charged to all resident car owners in the borough. Fairer & more revenue raised. This option was chosen by HOL members who took part in the survey and results emailed to Nilgun Canver. No reply.

 

That implies a lack of will to listen and I think that is worrying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 28, 2011 at 21:57

Apparently they're quite stuck with regard to the CPZs in Haringey. Legally they cannot impose one on residents, they have to be asked for. I'm sure they see the benefit of a universal 'tax to park' in Haringey but it's a matter of being patient.

This evening I took my little boy to some after school thing (cough! Football.) at the Harringay YMCA on the Crouch End side of Hornsey station, I noticed at least two of the commuters coming off the train from Moorgate climb into cars on Ribblesdale Rd and zoom off. They'll be wanting a CPZ soon enough.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on January 28, 2011 at 22:16

Controlled parking is borough wide in inner city boroughs so Haringey could do this if they wanted I believe.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 28, 2011 at 22:55

Matt why would they not want to? They don't need those votes but they could sure do with the money.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 28, 2011 at 23:55

Correct me if I am wrong, but the questions both of you appear to pose are along these lines:*

1. What are the legal requirements for a local council to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone?

2. Having introduced zones for several parts of a council's area can a council introduce a zone or zones for the whole of the remaining areas and if so what legal grounds have to exist?

3. How is a local council obliged to consult on such proposals and what weight must it give to the results of consultation?

Though the crucial question you pose appears to be:

4. Can a local council introduce a CPZ primarily in order to raise income to make up a shortfall in its grant-funding from central government?

 

A Google search will give the answers. To save time, the answer to number 4 is almost certainly an emphatic 'No'. However, I'm not a practising lawyer and may be completely mistaken. If anyone knows about some statutory amendment or recent case which allows this to happen, I'd be very grateful for the reference.

______________________________________

(* The answers to 1-3 are slightly complicated by the fact that the position is not only governed by statute; but also by both the Mayor's Transport Strategy and each boroughs'  Parking Enforcement Plan. PEP and its overall planning & development framework (UDP/LDF )

Permalink Reply by matt on January 29, 2011 at 14:32

Alan

 

This from Camden;

 

Controlled parking zones are areas where all kerbside space is subject to parking regulation during the times of control. Camden has a number of controlled parking zones (CPZs) which now cover the whole borough.

 

-----------------------

 

The precedent is there and I doubt the regulations governing implementation are any different from one London borough to the next. It's a matter of will.

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 29, 2011 at 16:20

Dear Resident,

We’re sending this consultation letter to ask you to agree to a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in your area and every other part of Haringey not yet benefiting from one. This is mainly due to the fact that central government has slashed the cash it gives local councils – and to us in particular. So we're looking for ways to raise alternative funds.

Some of you have been consulted on CPZs before and told us overwhelmingly: "Thanks, but no thanks." So you're probably wondering why we're coming back again. 

In other areas we've never suggested CPZs before now. Candidly, this was because we didn't think you actually needed one for reasons like parking stress, traffic flow, safety, pollution or other environmental grounds. And even if we did, we guessed you'd probably say: "Thanks, but no thanks".

But hey, guys, let's be reasonable. We really need the money.

As you may have read, this April we're planning whopping rises in the charges for CPZs. With another rise every year for inflation. Harringay Online thinks it's fair that you guys pay too. We agree.

Have you got off-street parking - like a garage, or a crossover to your front garden? Or do you live on a privately-owned estate? Or have parking spaces provided by a housing association or Homes for Haringey? We’re sure you’d like to chip-in too.

So we’ll be in touch soon.

_______________________

What do you think, Matt?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 29, 2011 at 16:35

Alan, this is naughty of you. Residents without a CPZ are not contributing as much to the upkeep of roads in the borough, traffic calming schemes (of which the west has plenty) and Freedom passes for elderly residents. What would residents in the west be saying if all the CPZs were over there instead?

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 29, 2011 at 16:53

That's true, John. Provided that the Parking Account is treated as a profit-making enterprise with the planned surplus used to subsidise expenditure on legally prescribed purposes.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on January 29, 2011 at 17:27

I meant that you're putting "the law" before reality and fairness.

Permalink Reply by MrsBaldwin on January 28, 2011 at 7:14

The essence of the nursery cuts seems to be: 

Professional Development Centre closes, I think (some redundancies?)

Other 'head office' staff redundancies

Some staff 'sharing' between Children's Centre (possibly meaning some redundancies in the managerial and admin roles?)

Don't know about any nursery nurse redundancies - although there is a council VR round in progress as readers may know and NNs are eligible to apply

Possible reduction in services at some Children's Centres although it seems Directors will have a degree of autonomy about what services - could mean that CC's 'deregister' which would given them more autonomy to decide about the package of services they offered as a whole (eg could keep midwife but lose 'stop smoking' sessions)

The idea seems to be at the moment that all CCs stay open in some guise (including those in Muswell Hill, Crouch End) - but we won't know what the the guise looks like until 'sharing arrangements', de-registering process etc completed. 

 

In addition CC managers have been asked for their ideas on income generation.  These might be any or all of a package of:

*fee rises (so that better-off parents pay more, although no sense yet of how means testing of any sort might be done)

*expansion of nursery services where this is possible (eg take more children if you have the room and the staff)

*ancillary - eg rent out nursery for children's parties at the weekend 

 

All those income generation ideas sound quite sensible in principle - as long as CCs are allowed by the council to actually do them, but there is some kind of built-in check on quality also.  There is an issue over raised fees re accessibility of course - if you put the fees up you potentially exclude some children whose parents can't afford the new rates, which in turn has a knock on effect for numbers in the nursery overall.  

 

Differential pricing is fine by me - I think it's kind of nuts that prices are currently voted on in a council committee - although I would rather the nursery managers themselves didn't have to administer the system of making the judgments about who has to pay more.  How will nursery managers choose the 'profile' of their parents eg how many on the higher rate, how many on the lower - don't know. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Emma S on January 28, 2011 at 16:41

Regarding the query re Surestart, the money has been made available as promised by the Tories but it's not ringfenced anymore. The same as the money for respite care for disabled children has not been ringfenced. I don't understand why they pledge money for specific things and then don't ringfence them!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page