Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Parking Charges set to Soar!
Hi All,
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Tags for Forum Posts: CPZ, Parking Charges, Permits, public spending cuts
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
If climate change is man-made then it follows that significant attenuation might be brought about by big reductions in global human population and/or major reductions in our levels of consumption, especially energy consumption, i.e. lower standards of living than we've been accustomed to, but only if implemented on a global scale.
Sorry if this is obvious. A few tax increases dressed up as green taxes won't cut it.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Survey;
Council Parking Charge Increases
Please give your response here.
A full Haringey Council council cabinet meeting, set for Nov 16th, is looking to vote through Parking Charge increases of up to 500%. Please take part in the brief survey above re Resident Permit increases proposed.
[Note to Hugh @ HOL; please support this petition and feel free to promote this survey to members so they have an opportunity to take part] Thank you.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
Another point of view. I live close to the tube station at Seven Sisters. I currently pay £30 a year for a resident's badge. This means I can always park in my road, because it is not full of cars left by people getting the tube. That £30 will rise to £50. That's one pound a week to reserve parking outside my house. What is the problem here?
NB Thirty not sixty, because I drive a normal 1300 cc car. Why does anyone need bigger for urban use?
My neighbours tell me that before the CPZ arrived, this was a parking nightmare, and there were at least weekly car crime breakins, as the parking brought more through traffic. My one gripe is that it used to be 24/7 here, with a handful of free four-hour bays for visitors. I did not spot whatever 'consultation' happened a couple of years ago when they reduced it to daytime/ six days and the free bays went. Now on Sundays we have huge 4x4s all over the place that seem to be obligatory transport for coming to the church at the end of the road, despite this being public transport heaven, with tube, two rail lines and a dozen bus routes; their god has big carbon feet. None of the behemoths seem to have permits from any part of this borough.
Islington is now a total CPZ borough. This has stopped me driving to work. Sometimes essential behaviour change needs more than gentle persuasion.
-
Permalink Reply by Takaokagiejin on
-
Yes I agree, I'm happy to pay to be able to park outside my house. I previously lived in Dartmouth Park and would generally have to park two streets away from my front door, the residents requested a CPZ and now are able to park in their own road.
-
-
.... the residents requested a CPZ and now are able to park in their own road.
As Pamish says above Islington is now a total CPZ borough. This is democratic as it allows everyone to park outside their home. The charge for this should be reasonable (not near £100 for a standard sized family car).
-
-
We are not subsidising them, we are paying for the council to administer a residents parking scheme in our area which is a service those residents without a CPZ do not receive. If you believe the council are overcharging us for this service that is a different matter but it is not the fault of those without a CPZ
-
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on
-
Charges are based on your cars engine size and emissions when used, not emissions you actually emit. A person owning a 1.3 may very well use their car every day therefore contributing a lot towards pollution. A person owning a 1.9 camper van may use it once every three or four weeks, now that's fair : )
-
-
Let me try again - if Muswell Hill doesnt have a CPZ, it's because nobody else wants to park there, so they don't need to control parking by non-residents. As I live where people want to park (but not to reside), I need someone to control on-street parking. I'm happy to pay one pound a week for that to happen.
CPZ's are a bit like private schools - you are paying for what doesnt happen. Poor people don't send their kids to private schools, so then little Gideon doesnt have to mix with them. Irrelevant, what happens in the school. I pay £1 a week (60p for now), not to play Sardines with commuters.
The MH-ites are already paying to drive along our roads, in their taxes (main roads are run by central govt).
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Nearly 70% of revenue is from PCNs... they absolutely must increase the permit charges if they don't want to rely on the PCNs so much. On the other hand... where is that nearly £9 million being spent under expenditure?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks, Adrian for the link to the Annual Parking Report 2009/10. I slipped-up not spotting this before. I expect all councillors were notified of its publication as a matter of basic courtesy and good practice. Especially since Parking charges are under discussion.
As you point out, this annual report shows a substantial rise last year in the overall Parking Account surplus (at £3,096,000 compared with £2,559,000 in 2008/9). However the table does also show a fall in the income from PCNs at £7,301,000 in 2009/10. (£139,000 down on 2008/9. Though still £55,000 higher than in 2007/8.)
So, month on month, have there been further steep falls since last April? If so, these figures should certainly have been in the report to cabinet and in the information available to councillors and to residents. They were not. (I've have asked for them.)
John McMullan highlights the fact that a single figure - £9,001,000 - is shown as expenditure. He rightly asks how the £9 million was spent. A detailed breakdown is needed, otherwise this becomes a “black box” we’re asked to take on trust.
John, have you asked the Council to supply full details of (a) the costs and (b) what surpluses are spent on? If so it would be helpful to post the full text of the enquiry you sent in. And later, the answer you get.
You make the further point that since: “ . . . nearly 70% of revenue is from PCNs they absolutely must increase the permit charges if they don't want to rely on the PCNs so much.”
I don’t fully accept this. One alternative is to reduce costs. Yet there is no discussion of possible options to do this. Nor is there any information on how costs and income are allocated to CPZs. How many Controlled Parking Zones are or could be made self-financing? Are PCNs (fines) for parking in a CPZ without a permit set against the cost of CPZs? If not why not? Presumably the opposite is true: that a proportion of the cost of enforcement is counted towards the cost of CPZs?
Nor, John, do I follow your “absolutely must” argument. There was no problem relying on non-permit income since 2002. What changed to make this a problem? How many other London boroughs have followed the same practice? Do they all now see it as a problem? Or perhaps as an opportunity?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
