Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Survey: Do you agree with council plans to raise Resident Permit fees by 60%?
UPDATE 16 Nov: the survey trend has been the same all the way through.
Although the survey is still open I have sent the percentages through this afternoon, before tonights council meeting which is considering raising parking charges, and have asked them to consider the survey's findings.
The person emailed is Niall Bolger, Director of Urban Environment (who authored the Parking Charges Report), copying in Gerald Almeroth, Director of Finance, Ann Cunningham, Head of Parking Services and Nilgun Canver, councillor responsible for Enforcement, which includes parking.
Survey results (survey now CLOSED);
1. I am prepared to accept a considerably higher Resident Permit charge as a resident within a CPZ as the council is proposing. 4.3%
2. I feel that ALL residents within the borough should pay a fee for parking their car outside their house at CURRENT PRICES. 36.2%
3. I feel that ALL residents within the borough should pay a fee for parking their car outside their house at a LOWER PRICE. 38.3%
4. Don't agree with Resident Permit charges at all. 21.3%
So, 74.5% agree with widening the CPZ out to the whole borough, with marginally more going for a reduced charge on Residents Permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The council plans to agree siginificant rises in Parking Charges at a Cabinet meeting next week, Nov 16th. See attached pdf below, provided by HOL member Adrian.
Some fees will rise by as much as 500%.
A Resident Permit for a medium sized car will go up from £60 to £95 (a 58% increase).
The council believes this will bring charges in line with surrounding boroughs but, as Adrian points out in his discussion Parking Charges set to Soar! this is not the case. Haringey will be the most expensive;
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Haringey £95 (proposed)
You may agree with this revenue raising measure to help meet the council overall budget shortfall.
You might however feel that a few residents living in CPZs shouldn't be carrying the can for this revenue raising measure. Should for example all residents pay a fee for parking outside their house? And at what rate; a reduced rate? Islington & Westminster require all resident car owners to contribute via an annual Residents Permit fee.
Please visit the survey here to give your view.
[Note: this survey is designed and run by an HoL member. It is not a Council commissioned survey]
Although the survey is still open I have sent the percentages through this afternoon, before tonights council meeting which is considering raising parking charges, and have asked them to consider the survey's findings.
The person emailed is Niall Bolger, Director of Urban Environment (who authored the Parking Charges Report), copying in Gerald Almeroth, Director of Finance, Ann Cunningham, Head of Parking Services and Nilgun Canver, councillor responsible for Enforcement, which includes parking.
Survey results (survey now CLOSED);
1. I am prepared to accept a considerably higher Resident Permit charge as a resident within a CPZ as the council is proposing. 4.3%
2. I feel that ALL residents within the borough should pay a fee for parking their car outside their house at CURRENT PRICES. 36.2%
3. I feel that ALL residents within the borough should pay a fee for parking their car outside their house at a LOWER PRICE. 38.3%
4. Don't agree with Resident Permit charges at all. 21.3%
So, 74.5% agree with widening the CPZ out to the whole borough, with marginally more going for a reduced charge on Residents Permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The council plans to agree siginificant rises in Parking Charges at a Cabinet meeting next week, Nov 16th. See attached pdf below, provided by HOL member Adrian.
Some fees will rise by as much as 500%.
A Resident Permit for a medium sized car will go up from £60 to £95 (a 58% increase).
The council believes this will bring charges in line with surrounding boroughs but, as Adrian points out in his discussion Parking Charges set to Soar! this is not the case. Haringey will be the most expensive;
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Haringey £95 (proposed)
You may agree with this revenue raising measure to help meet the council overall budget shortfall.
You might however feel that a few residents living in CPZs shouldn't be carrying the can for this revenue raising measure. Should for example all residents pay a fee for parking outside their house? And at what rate; a reduced rate? Islington & Westminster require all resident car owners to contribute via an annual Residents Permit fee.
Please visit the survey here to give your view.
[Note: this survey is designed and run by an HoL member. It is not a Council commissioned survey]
Tags for Forum Posts: crouch end, parking
- Attachments:
-
-
ParkingChargesReport.pdf, 93 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I wonder if "costs" in this respect includes the extra, presumably one-off, costs of the Parking Service IT upgrade which we are led to believe has largely been completed and may be rolled out soon? It might be an idea to keep alternative paying methods going for a while, just in case there are teething problems with the all-new on-line payment system.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
The LibDems have 'Called-in' the Cabinet decision on Parking Charges. It will now be considered by the Scrutiny Committee tomorrow night (8 December). The reasons for Calling-in the decision focus on the impact for local traders - and specifically those in Muswell Hill, Crouch End and Green Lanes. Of course, it's reasonable to worry about risks to local businesses from higher stop-&-shop parking charges. (Although members of HoL - including me - have also raised a wider range of concerns.)
In the meantime, HoL members may want to look at the papers for the Call-in on the Council's website. I especially recommend the Officers' Report in response to the Call-in. (Page 5 onwards)
It's full of non-committal and near to meaningless terms such as "appropriate", "if necessary", and "duly considered". It tells us that: "care has been taken to strike a balance". Also that "the Parking Service is confident about its proposals". Huge increases are described as "a range of adjustments". Issues have been "addressed"etc. Truly a masterpiece of high-Obfuscandian.
Last week I got a reply to all four my outstanding 'Councillor Enquiries' asking for details of the information used to justify the proposals for higher charges. (In other words, the evidence base.) Unfortunately, though helpful, the reply didn't go into the detail I asked for. So I wrote again. And have been promised I'll have this information on Thursday (9 December.)
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
That's a shame you think that way Michelle because this "The parking wardens would only have to visit selected sites at specific times of day to issue tickets, reducing the costs of enforcement." is genius.
-
-
I was told last year that this is what happens in parts of Enfield and that CPZ hours are phased so that parking wardens can move across zones as different hours apply.
(N.B. I have not checked this out for myself.)
-
-
Phased timings would be highly efficient. But the council may have many goals in spreading CPZs. Apart from increasing income, one of the goals may be to promote employment.
I don't know how many wardens are currently employed. But if the council sees CPZs as eventually covering the entire Borough and enduring, presumably the army of wardens needed to enforce this would expect to see layers of management warden/officers, i.e. a real career structure for them.
-
-
"The council may have many goals . . . I don't know . . . but if the council sees . . . . presumably . . the army of wardens . . "
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
What are they building in there?
What the hell are they building
In there?
They’re hiding something from
The rest of us... I think I know
Why...
I heard they were up on the
Roof last night
Signalling with a flashlight
And what's that tune they’re
Always whistling...
What are they building in there?
We have a right to know...
(Adapted from Tom Waits)
-
-
Alan, thanks for the link. Yes, as you say a masterclass. Other notable phrases:
* unique range of challenges
* continually review service provision
* charges should be adjusted
* onerous consultation exercise (one suspects this is how all consultation is viewed)
The earlier phrase identified, "The Parking Service is confident ..." shows pomposity, if not arrogance. Confident it may be, but it offers no argument as to why their proposals will not affect a thriving local economy. It is enough they are "confident" (in three paragraphs is their confidence). They probably are entitled to be confident there'll be more PCNs issued.
If you cut through the smokescreen of bluster, the nearest thing to an argument is that the charges should track the London average. But why that should be a goal of policy is obscure.
Are any other Boroughs aiming for the average in this way? Surely "average" is merely a statistic that is comes after, is a function of, data? Different Borough set different charges to suit their particular parking needs. It suggests that in this particular respect, LBH might lack confidence or that there is no better way to determine the right amount. Why should LBH seek to be average?
Unless ... aiming for the average is just a handy excuse to jack up the charges to raise revenue. The local council might enjoy more respect if they simply admitted that they need to raise more cash, instead of offering ridiculous justification.
-
-
As you know from my posting, Clive, we agree on looseness of the the language used and especially the way they're using "average" as a justification for raising charges - and planning to raise them each year.
I sent in a written submission to this evening's Scrutiny Committee meeting. (I'm not a member of it.) Unfortunately the meeting was not on video so residents won't get a chance to watch the discussion. I was told the proposals have now been referred back to the Council "cabinet" for further consideration.
Tottenham Hale ward councillor
-
-
Mr Hoyle, I wrote "unfortunately", because it was just that ─ unfortunate.
A "call-in" of a cabinet decision is unusual and by its nature unscheduled. Five councillors must call-in the decision within 5 days. A meeting of the Scrutiny Committee must be arranged within the following ten days. And it has to slot into the existing calendar of meetings and people's diary commitments.
The cameras for webcasts are in the Council Chamber. Which was already booked for yesterday early evening when the Scrutiny Committee met.
Scepticism is healthy. But before you make public accusations it's advisable to check the facts.
-
-
No, you are not "teasing" me, Mr Hoyle. You're posting an untrue accusation on a public website with 3,600 members, without even bothering to make the simplest check of the facts. One phonecall would have done it.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
