Parking Permit Consultation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Cosmetatos on June 4, 2020 at 23:27

Increasing pay to park charges in town centres to discourage short drives also seems wrong to me given that we may remain for an extended period in an environment where shops, restaurants and cafés are gasping to survive and people may not feel safe using public transport (or find walking/cycling possible or suitable).  Pay to park around high streets should be reduced, not increased, to help our high streets survive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Le Milliere on June 4, 2020 at 23:55

These two phrases amuse me "Parking Permit Consultation" and "If the proposed changes are agreed by the council in September 2020".

On the first its a paper exercise so we'll be able to say we consulted but of course its happening whatever you say". On the second, given the Council must have asked for this work to be done as their employee teams don't do these exercises off their own back, there is zero chance of it not being passed.All we can hope to do is point out any flaws in their thinking, improvements, or impracticable proposals.

Personally I'm another affected by the Diesel Surcharge but I'd like to suggest an amendment that I feel is reasonable. The surcharge should only be on "new" vehicle permits new meaning a vehicle that hasn't been on a parking permit before rather than continuing ones.

In my case I drive a mobility vehicle for a blind friend who lives out of the borough so can't use his blue badge here. I therefore pay out for a Haringey CPZ permit. He is one and half years into his three year mobility contract so we will have this car for another 18 months at least before he is able to change it. Doesn't seem very fair to incur a surcharge halfway through. I'll forward this suggestion to the appropriate email.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Le Milliere on June 5, 2020 at 14:39

I submitted my suggestion and got the standard auto-response

Thank you for responding to our consultation. We rely on feedback from residents and businesses to help make informed decisions. We cannot always respond individually to your comments but we will consider them as part of the decision making process. We will refer queries and objections to the relevant team or engineer for a response. Consultation documents and results are published (when complete) on our website.

So unfortunately I will probably never know how the suggestion has been received or whether it will have any impact unless I see a change to the final proposals put to the Council.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on June 9, 2020 at 2:08

An initial auto-response may not be unreasonable. But what would be unreasonable is the subsequent "black box" process you envisage.

For example It should be entirely possible to group responses and suggestions and gather these together in an accessible format. Some sort of online repository perhaps.

I know there is research expertise among Hol members who could advise on this if they can find the time to do so.

But perhaps just as vital is to a ensure that the "thinkwork" behind these proposals is made public.  This does not appear to be a list of tweaks but a very substantial set of changes. The so-called cabinet and senior officers need to make this process as open as possible to carry people with them as far as that too is a possibility.

Can I also suggest that the context we face is a bit wider than the the obvious issues: of climate change, Covid-19; and the likely financial crisis of local councils.

For example, I have in mind the issues explored by Prof Richard Murphy in his blog Tax Research UK. Please don't be put-off by the title!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on June 4, 2020 at 23:56

All the questions raised here can and should be included in the consultation so that residents are properly informed. Are the questions covered so far? If not why not? Will they be?

It's also crucial that the consultation is real.  In other words, that the plans and proposals are genuinely open to change and improvements. My assumption with the Ejiofor regime is that it's another top-down Command-and-Control set-up like the preceding leader-and-appointed cabinet.

I described that lot - for several reasons - as "a 101 Council." One reason: how often it seemed that there were 101 reasons why residents were always wrong and vice versa.

So a key point now may be whether or not the private Labour leadership discussions began with a directive on a detailed closed plan which is then presented /pretended as a set of proposals for genuine consultation.

On local authority Consultation, thanks to the very much missed Reverend Paul Nicolson there was a Haringey Supreme Court case which clarified the general law on Consultation. Unless legislation has amended this case; or it has been distinguished by a subsequent judgement, it still needs following.

I can't remember the names of residents in the Supreme Court case (which was about Council Tax.) But it stood out because Haringey won the original High Court Hearing and also in the Court of Appeal. Paul Nicolson and others went on to win in the Supreme Court, improving the law on Consultation for everyone. 

As that time some rather silly person in the Council claimed that Haringey had won two out of three.  As if it was like a tennis match. I pointed out a little clue they'd missed - the word "Supreme",

I sometimes reflect that if only Haringey's so-called "leaders" had invited Rev Paul Nicolson in when he was alive, and sought his wise counsel they might have begun to learn something.

[As required by HoL rules my political declaration is posted here towards the bottom of the page.]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on June 6, 2020 at 11:03

A further issue - The Parking Account was not supposed to be run as a profit making business.
I write 'was' because that was the law when I took up the issue in 2008. 

The law may have changed and may now allow Councils to screw as much cash as they like from residents. I haven't kept up with recent changes. But there was a court case in Barnet a few years ago when residents successfully challenged a plan to turn parking into a cash cow.
The famous ex-councillor Brian Coleman had reportedly said that he "never knowingly undercharged."

Derek Dishman is probably a good person to ask.
https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/

By the way I realise that many people may think that new parking rules are one part of a general plan to save the planet. I would agree. But there are ways and ways of persuading people and taking residents along with a Council plan. Top Down dodgy consultation with a plan largely decided in advance is not the best way.

• ▶ Reply

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