Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Haringey Council's cabinet rubber stamped plans to raise pay and display parking charges by 114 per cent which would see some shoppers pay £3 an hour to park - an increase from the previous £1.40. Parking permits in controlled parking zones will also increase by up to 60 per cent.

Parking bays in Crouch End, Green Lanes and Muswell Hill - all dubbed 'high usage' areas by the council - will see motorists paying the highest costs to park of £3 an hour.

Residents paying £15 a year for parking permits will see the cost rise to £20, those paying £30 will pay £50, those paying £60 will pay £95 and those with gas guzzling vehicles paying £90 will now pay £150.

Visitors' and business permits will also increase, while the cost of placing a skip on the street will rise by 75 per cent to £70.

Tags for Forum Posts: high street parking, high streets, parking, parking charges, public spending cuts

Views: 220

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

More bad news for the shop owners.

And not such joyous tidings for residents paying for CPZ permits.

As discussed on a previous HoL thread, the increase is not to balance the Parking Account, but substantially to raise extra revenue to help make-up for cuts in the Council's budget.

People may want to keep an eye on the progress of the Barnet CPZ Action Group - residents trying to take Barnet Council to Judicial Review on this issue.

So where should extra revenues come from? What is the alternative?
Why on earth would anyone need to drive to the shops on Green Lanes?
The new two-hour CPZs in Crouch End must be causing traders a problem too - I don't at all mind paying to park, but twice this week I have given up looking for a space and driven off. The few pay and display spaces were all full, while the adjacent residents only spaces were nearly empty. They need more dual use bays: I don't know whether the council monitors this regularly and can change the use of bays to create more meter parking.
Because people shop here who don't live here - I think there are a lot of people who drive to GL from further out in north London, I guess because they want the ranges that are on offer here (either that or the sparkling GL ambience).

Or from further east.

And because without this "outside" custom it's likely that some of the shops, restaurants and pubs would not survive.

Plus, not everyone has a handy frequent bus service to Green Lanes.

Anyway let's be completely honest: cars are comfortable, relatively safe and convenient. People own them and will use them. However many times transport planners utter spells and incantations about "Modal Shifts". As round about their cauldron go; in the parking meters throw.

I don't see what's so comfortable or convenient about sitting in a slow moving traffic and then paying three quid to park - assuming you can find a space.

Relatively safe - Safer than walking? Public transport?

I reckon nearly everyone in London could get public transport to Green Lanes with only two interchanges.

Of course I realise that people will continue to drive to Green Lanes, no matter how bad the traffic and how expensive the parking. It would be a nicer place if they didn't. But given that they will come anyway the council might as well make as much money as they can out of them.

I agree. People should pay for the inconvenience, traffic, noise and pollution they cause. If they can't afford it, they can do what everybody else does i.e. get the bus or the underground to get here.

If they can afford it, then good for the council coffers which are badly in need of cash. 

@Alan, the transport planners' spell is working, it's just slow... Even with the tax dodgers on my street there's still plenty of spare parking in the evening. That's quite different from ten years ago.

@ Alison, what, they can't get their kebab, betting and baklava needs met anywhere else? :D

I hope that they are successful as well, but any surplus from CPZ schemes can legally be used for travel expenditure and environmental improvements. That's quite a wide remit, and there is no legal obligation for general funding to be diverted to travel or environmental improvemnt.

RSS

Advertising

© 2022   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service