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 on
-
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
-
-
Just clicked on the Statutory Consultation again (having already objected) and the TMO attached still contains the limit of 40 to be determined at the discretion of a council official per annum despite all of the assurances from Brabazon and Chadwani that this was a mistake - surely a new TMO has to be issued???
-
-
Hi Paul, what link are you using please? When i access the TMO document via this link there 40 pass limit is no longer there (see page 18):
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/consultations-parking/have-your...
This mistake has caused widespread confusion across the whole borough; I am concerned that this error will skew the consultation results with the council being able to disregard a large amount of the feedback due to 'miunderstanding' as a result of the error
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
The latest version of the draft TMO in fact limits residents' visitor permits to 100 pa, and max 40 in any one application in any one year: see pp.18, 19 para 4(b) of the Paper
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-10/proposed-tm...
It's a complicated document and they haven't been completely transparent about its full effect.
Caitlin's point remains good. 100 permits pa looks a lot but it's less than 2 per week.
The measure is dishonest - it's designed to raise revenue while driving vehicles out of Haringey. Even then, it's a badly thought through, clumsily-wielded blunt instrument.
Do please write in stating your formal OBJECTION to traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk, copying ann.cunningham@haringey.gov.uk and your councillors.
NK
-
Permalink Reply by Niall
-
Clarification is needed here - will contact councillors direct. However the section you refer to with 100 pass limit is in the section Business Passes.
Here is the original section (with the Council 'mistake'). As you can see, the Business section is unchanged, the resident section has the 40 limit removed, in the new version - and nothing replacing it, relating to an annual limit.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
I hereby declare myself a Minister of Religion
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
