Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Removal of Daily Parking Vouchers | Have your say Now - Deadline November 13th
Hi All,
Following on from all the previous discussion, I just received an email about the removal of Daily Visitor permits etc, giving me the chance to comment.
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your...
I have emailed my objection to:
| traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk |
Citing:
1. It making it more expensive.
2. More onerous in terms of having to keep booking
3. That it obviously won't stop misuse - if a "good" permit holder can book 12 x hourly visitor permits then so can a "bad" permit holder - especially when they're motivated by financial gain.
Let's try an win this one!
(and Hugh please feel free to move this post as you see fit)
Tags for Forum Posts: daily parking permits, parking, visitor parking, visitor parking permits
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Caitlin
-
Hello, please also note that in the supporting documentation the council is also capping the number of permits you can buy in a year at 40.
This is outlines on page 13 of the supporting document: "Proposed TMO – Parking Strategy and Policy/Charges Review (T35) (pdf, 36 page(s), 822.27 KB).
This cap equates to:
- 40 visitor hours/year
- CPZ zones such as Alexandra Palace, Crouch End, Bounds Green can have relatives/trades people visit for 20 days a year
- CPZ zones such as Seven Sisters, Green Lanes A/B can have visitors / trades people visit for 3 days, 7 hours a year
- Wood Green Inner Zone CPZ can have visitors for 2 days and 11 hour per year
What do we do if we have tradespeople working for more than 4 days in year? What about those who need support from friends and relatives?
-
-
Here are a series of other issues with the proposal, teh inequity point is particularly important. please feel free to use in your objections:
Inequity
This policy change has significant financial implications for residents, and will only affect the poorest areas of the borough. The analysis below clearly illustrates the huge discrepancy in daily parking charges that this policy will introduce. The darker blue the ward, the more deprived, according to the Haringey 2024 state of the borough report.
You can see from this graphic that this cabinet-endorsed decision will disproportionately impact the poorer parts of the borough. Full analysis is attached.
It is of great concern that the Equality Impact Assessment did not identify this issue, and this illustrates that the cabinet was not provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.Lack of Evidence
The decision was made based upon ‘circumstantial evidence’ of daily parking permit misuse. This evidence was not presented to the Cabinet. Upon receipt of a Freedom of information request, Haringey Council have admitted that that have no record of this problem:
“The Cabinet report stated circumstantial evidence for the proposal, and this is in the form of anecdotal information which has been brought forward from a range of sources over a number of years. While various sections of the council may hold information, it is not held in a format, nor was it intended to be documented, in manner to be used to supply for such a response’.
You can see the full response here.
Why is a decision with such meaningful, borough wide, impact being taken to consultation to solve a problem that has not been robustly documented or analysed by the Council?
Given that there is no understanding of the scope or nature of permit misuse, how can an assessment of alternative options have been conducted? This is a requirement of a policy change, and no details of alternative options considered were presented in the policy package. Again, this illustrates that the Cabinet was not provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Failure to follow due process
The Parking Schemes – Resident Engagement Policy provides (quote) “ a framework for future residential parking scheme design and review”. The Framework requires the following steps:
Pre-public engagement
Public Engagement (co-design stage)
Statutory Consultation
Decision
This policy process has not been followed as part 2 Public Engagement (co-design) did not occur. An online Parking Policy Review consultation took place. This did not meet the criteria of “Public Engagement” because:
Letters and public engagement packs were not provided to all registered properties within the defined area
No street notices were erected
Ward councillors were not be notified of the outcome and the proposed recommendations
Furthermore, the policy states that “The Council will need a minimum response rate of 10% to the public engagement, before any decision can be considered.” Only 100 individuals responded to the online consultation. This does not represent 10% of the adult population affected by this decision.
-
Permalink Reply by EMC2
-
Thank you for this, appreciated. I'm copying & pasting to my three Labour Councillors (includes the Leader)
-
-
Great! Also please make your you respond directly to the council consultation as well (sure you have!) as this is the only route of objection that they have actually have to review!
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your...
-
-
Just for info...the council have removed the 40 max amount . I happened to bump into Zena ( one of our councillors ) yesterday . She confirmed this
-
-
Yes this was an error -however, elsewhere someone has pointed out that 1) there is still language in the proposal that allows the council to impose a cap at their discretion (despite them saying then wouldn't do this), and 2) the current cap is 1000 a year. That sounds like a lot, but for places with 14 hour cpz that equates to ~4months of parking. I know it sounds a lot, but it's not sufficient for a longer rennovatiom project, or folks that do need visitor parking for care requirements etc
-
Permalink Reply by James Hawtin
-
I thought it was 11 hours 8:00-18:30 ? It does not make it "better" imho I guess I am not in "inner" its not just the extra hours its the additional day for them.
I suggest you also email haringey ward councils to express your disappointed they just rubber stamped this rather than actually representing our interests.
https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=...
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremyb
-
James, in Wood Green inner zone, charges apply 0800 to 2200 seven days a week.
-
-
The email blithely states:
"Remove Daily Visitor Permits
Proposal: to remove the option of daily visitor parking permits.Additional information: residents would still able to access hourly permits for their visitors. This would be intended to prevent the permits being used for other than their intended purpose."
NO reference to limiting the number of hourly permits to 40 a YEAR.
"Subsequent permit charging
Proposal: to introduce a new permit surcharge structure for additional permits.Additional information: the more permits that a household purchases, the higher the surcharge will be. It will also be applied across other types of permits, whereas at the moment a flat-fee surcharging only applies to resident permits."
This is new (to me), and utterly opaque. What types of permits, and so on.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna FT
-
I think that second quote is referring to subsequent annual (or 6 month) vehicle permits, so increasing costs to households with multiple cars at one address. "Permit" is used so widely across the doc it gets confusing. In the full policy doc it lays out on p18: £65 surcharge for the second vehicle permit, up to £260 for a 5th vehicle and beyond.
-
-
Would also add (credit to Caitlin in the other thread) that the initial Cabinet decision to remove daily vistior permits in July did not mention capping numbers.
I find the insertion of this cap into the final wording, and then not mentioning in the summary of changes or adding any detail of why this cap is needed, pretty concerning. Is the Council trying to shoehorn this in with no one noticing?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
