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 Shar on
-
Hi all
I've created a Google doc as a ready reference for talking points that everyone can refer to and tweat to taste for including with their own responses to the consultation:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_-A2CMoRj6WVe2XR9V91BQ2Q_0AOzHy...
I've done this in good faith and with no political agenda, and would request others to engage in the same spirit.
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
I have emailed my objection. The proposal seems to target those who are doing building renovations and those who don't own a car but have visitors. It completely contradicts council strategy.
-
-
It's a shocker!
Below is a cut and paste from the petition set up by Tom Leanse (link to the petition below, which most of our neighbourhood has signed) - which for me, highlights how unjust these changes are:
"CPZs in the west of Haringey are typically in operation two hours a day, five days a week. CPZs in the east of the borough, however, are typically in operation 10.5 hours a day, six days a week, and even longer on event days. These changes will therefore have minimal effect on the cost of visitors' parking in the most affluent parts of the borough, but will significantly increase cost in the poorest areas. For example, a day's parking for a visitor in Highgate will still be £2.40, the cost of two hourly permits. However, a day's parking for a visitor in Seven Sisters will rise from £5 to £13.20 (11 hourly permits)."
https://www.change.org/p/stop-planned-discontinuation-of-daily-visi...
-
Permalink Reply by Niall on
-
Am in a WhatsApp Gp for Effingham, where this has been discussed.
Have posted a simple Word doc with all necessary hyperlinks to submit an objection. It's easy to copy & paste, edit and amend how you like - so other roads can use it also.If you think it's of any use please share Blank%20Response%20to%20Abolition%20of%20Visitor.docx
and BTW, if you live on Effingham and want to be in the WhatsApp Gp, DM me your name & mobile and I can add you (don't worry, its not super busy)
-
-
Cllr Seema Chadwani has said that there was a mistake in he original Traffic Management Order which has now been withdrawn and this retores the number of permits that can currently be bought up to 999... Just how inefficient is our council or did they think they could sneak this through?
-
-
Think its cock up rather than conspiracy to be fair.
It did stir up the angst of those in Crouch End for a while though, as that restriction would have affected them, god forbid.
Interstingly, at the Scrutiny Ctte Seema said that she favoured retention of the 999 pass limit as she did not think the council should dictate how many visitors a resident has.
Of course the reality is, with a daily visit cost of up to £16.80 that's exacly what the new decision will do for those on average or modest incomes, though not for the wealthy of course....
-
-
Although the TMO on Haringey's site as of 29 October still contains the 40 permit limit... is it really a mistake?
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel on
-
Paul,
Chadwani has declined to correspond with me on this subject.
Do you know or will she or Cunningham [the Council officer responsible for this matter] rtell us whether there is a revised Paper and TMO with this change , and if so has it been republished to start the statutory consultation again?
-
-
Here's what I wrote in my submission, for those interested:-
You write the following (highlighting added by me):
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.
Presumably the intended purpose of day permits is to allow residents to have occasional visitors who want to stay the whole day (whether workmen or friends/family). And selling on daily permits, or otherwise using them without entitlement, is clearly an abuse of the system and is not their intended purpose. I get that.
But by removing them altogether, you are preventing them being used for both purposes. How can that be right? That's like saying the intended purpose of parks is to provide a place for healthy recreation whereas selling drugs and ASB is not the intended purpose of parks so we will prevent parks from being used for other than their intended purpose by closing them all.
Have you thought how absurd your justification sounds?
I strongly suggest you come up with a better system (perhaps an escalating cost per day visitor permit once a resident exceeds a reasonable set limit) and/or use your enforcement powers properly. If there is evidence of abuse (and you write that it's "circumstantial evidence" – hardly compelling), then spend some time and effort identifying the abuse and prosecute offenders or otherwise impose the harshest punishment possible and publicise it widely as a deterrent. Don't instead penalise the many who don't break the rules.
I hope you'll listen and act on residents' very real concerns about this proposal.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Goldstone
-
Permalink Reply by adamvietnam on
-
Nice!
-
-
Hi all,
Is anyone here a lawyer/barrister/solictor, or know one, who could provide a quote for drafting a legal opinion on issues with the parking proposal & form a view on ways of challenging it?
Or if they would like to work pro-bono for the good of the people/eternal glory, that would also be amazing :)
-
-
As shown in this and related threads, the proposed permit removal/capping unfairly penalises residents, especially in eastern wards with extended CPZ hours. My lay understanding is that this likely breaches obligations under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which requires parking policies to serve a clear and legitimate purpose (which “circumstantial evidence” of misuse fails to establish). I’ll probably add my 2 pence, objecting to the unfairly punitive financial impact (which the Equality Impact Assessment failed to address), lack of evidence, and possible consultation flaws noted elsewhere. If these issues aren’t addressed, judicial review may be the most appropriate option on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural unfairness. Hopefully, there are better routes to achieve the fair, data-driven, and equitable decision-making that residents, including myself, clearly crave to see.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
