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 Alan Stanton on
-
As you know full well, Clive, HoL guidelines insist on no politicking. Your posting, in a thread about parking charges, is a straightforward repetition of the Coalition Government's 'line' : that public service cuts at (a) the speed and (b) depth and with (c) prescribed list of victims, are all an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of the economic situation.
As you also know very well, neither (a) nor (b) nor (c) are truths universally acknowledged.
Locally, there are real choices. Hard choices, I accept. But highly practical with almost nothing "abstract". If we stick to the topic and to the facts about the Council's budget proposals, we may all be in a better position to influence the outcomes.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
THE "economic situation", as you coyly cast it, just might have something to do with cuts in government spending. I have come to these conclusions not as a result of listening to any party line, but as a result of my own observations, coupled with a period working in the City (not banking). I think we need to distinguish between politics and policies.
Lax regulation of banking has been going on for more than 13 years but the consequences have never before been so stark. If we only focus attention at the level of parking permits, and fail to link to a bigger picture, we will be bound see these these big mistakes repeated. I fear the "north Atlantic" economies may not survive another banking crisis (Ireland is close to a sovereign debt default, as you may know). There is now talk in international circles of going back to a gold standard, such is the loss of confidence in western governments ability to control events.
In the meantime, at the local level I cannot see what are the "real choices" that are capable of making a difference. The council's vanity publication Haringey People is at the top of my list for cuts, and it should be chopped, along with most of the public relations department. But those savings will only go so far.
I am curious what you mean by "real choices", i.e. that might effect large, significant savings?
-
-
Not "coy" Clive. Just trying to follow the HoL rules and stay on topic - which happens to be parking charges - not the Haringey People or your other favourite targets.
What's the "bigger picture" when it comes to Parking charges? That - unless Mr Pickles has changed the law - the last time I looked, Controlled Parking Zones and Penalty Charge notices could not be run as a business just to make profits for a local council.
Another big picture issue is that many local traders and other local businesses rely on customers and suppliers coming by car/van. Some traders like plumbers and electricians rely on their vans. So we should be very well informed, thoughtful and clever about their contribution to the local economy. Or we'll simply drive them out of business. Incidentally, heavily favouring the big stores which offer free parking.
You want more "big picture"? Consider the elderly or disabled or sick resident who relies on friends and family popping-in. Those scratch-cards can start to add up. Consider too, the single parent relying on a car to juggle kids, work, running a household and trying to have a social life.
I could go on. But there's one important place where you won't find very much big picture stuff at all: the report to the Council's "cabinet".
As you have pointed out yourself, Clive, one key issue is the Council's budget. (And of course the budgets of other councils with sizeable income from Parking permits and fines.) Clause 11 in the cabinet report ("Service Financial Comments") is an example of the most magisterial and high-flown Obfuscandian. Though until Google Translate adds this language to its list, I am unable to tell you what it means.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor and resident in The Hale CPZ)
-
-
Alan, I'm not advocating these signficant increases in Parking Charges and I agree they are regrettable for all the reasons you list and more. As others have suggested, even the current level of charges may not even be lawful. Agree that clause 11 of the parking report is pure obfudgication. Carter's ad hoc translation of Clause 11 =
"Ring Fencing? More like shadow boxing!"
My impression was that, with rates capped, the council had few choices in how to balance its books. You imply there is an alternative to the parking charge increases. If, as you say "locally, there are real choices" I for one would be interested to know what those choices are and I suspect all those who are going to be adversely affected by the big parking charge increases would be interested also.
If you have knowledge about how things might be arranged differently and better, I think you should consider sharing it publically because people's lives are going to be affected. So often, politicians who have insight & knowledge chose to keep quiet – and later when things turn out badly, are challenged, why didn't you speak out or say something?
(I accept that the huge government deficit (AKA the economic situation) is probably a subject for another thread).
-
-
It's kind of you to ask, Clive. You're the first person to do so. But as this discussion is petering out, you're probably the only one reading this. So let me just stick with the "Cabinet" Report recommending higher charges.
I expect lots of people will get no further than the 'headline' figures. "Blimey, how much will we be paying !?@?!!" But consider as well what isn't in the report. Some information is incomplete and in places unclear.
I mentioned the opaque financial comments. It’s said that income from PCNs (parking fines) is used to defray the costs of Controlled Parking Zones. With the implication that falling income from PCNs may at some point not cover these costs. Interestingly, no figures are given to show this. We need a detailed breakdown of these costs. In any case why shouldn’t PCNs for parking without a permit in a CPZ not be used to offset the cost of the CPZ?
But let’s assume that a steep decline in PCN revenue does indeed threaten a deficit in the Parking Account. Legally, then, action is needed. Which could be higher charges. But it could also be tackled by reducing the costs of running CPZs and of the Parking Service as a whole.
The report has no information about steps to identify and shrink these costs. One way I’ve mentioned before is to improve systems. (Cutting the waste John Seddon calls “Failure Demand”.) I wonder, would residents in some CPZs be willing to consider shorter hours and less enforcement as a trade-off for keeping charges a bit lower?
The Report gives partial information about charges in 26 of the 32 London boroughs. Leaving out Brent, Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Havering, Hillingdon and Newham. (But without explaining why.) So while it mentions “remaining in line with the London Average” without the full figures we don’t know the average. In any case, should we seek to match Inner London or Outer London averages?
The report mentions "the 2010 Parking Review". But this document was not included. (I’ve now asked for a copy.)
Another omission is in paragraph 9, “Equalities and Community Cohesion Comments”. Reading an earlier draft of the report, I complained that this vital topic was left out completely. There’s now a paragraph which briefly mentions: residents on low income; black and minority ethnic communities; and carers. (Not yet a comprehensive list.) The report recommends that “an equalities impact assessment be carried out”. Yes indeed. But why not beforehand as part of the Parking Charges Review?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
PCN revenue can hardly be falling when the council took £500,000 in fines along Green Lanes in one year ( Grand Parade to be more precise), putting that stretch of road into the UK TOP 10 for fines. The Broadway in Crouch End is also raking in the money for the council according to the Hornsey Journal.
No, this council has a hole in its budget which it believes can be partly filled by wacking up Parking Charges. What Alan are the council's other revenue raising proposals ... if you are aware of any?
-
-
Matt, I didn’t read the Sunday Times article. But I did make a point of checking with Council staff. So I can tell you that the 12, 302 PCNs issued along Green Lanes between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 were not issued south of Turnpike Lane - as one member of HoL speculated. Let alone along “Grand Parade to be more precise”, as you suggest.
Two weeks ago I set out the detailed position here.
The PCNs were issued along the entire section of the A105 between the Hackney and Enfield borough boundaries.
Yes, it’s a lot of fines. And yes it brought in £564,000 over the year. So the questions you and Clive are raising about Parking Account income are valid and relevant. But I assume you place the same high value as I do on getting facts right. So I’m sure you’ll be happy to correct the misunderstanding in your post above.
-
-
Thanks Alan. Useful to have your knowledge, so 1/2 a million shared between 3 boroughs.
-
-
My apologies, Matt, for not being crystal mark clear. The PCNs were issued and the cash collected for the entire section of the A105 within Haringey.
In other words, from our boundary with Hackney where the New River flows under Green Lanes, to our boundary with Enfield just south of Berkshire Gardens N13. You can see the blue skies, fleecy clouds and Welcome to Haringey sign here.
So in the twelve months to March 2010 that £½ million came to Haringey.
Which doesn’t tell us whether or not, at the same time, there was a steep falling-off in the total income from PCNs and/or a rise in the costs of running the Parking Service. Legally it cannot run at a loss, so if it’s fast heading in that direction, action is needed. Though, of course, a sceptical eye needs casting even on ‘hard’ figures. -
-
-
This thread may peter out due to lack of interest (huge increases in Parking Charges aren't to everyone's taste). Just before that happens, I'd like to include a screenshot of Clause 11 which is stunningly vague, but I'm not sure its in Sir Humphrey league:
It would be surprising if the surplus is in decline, especially with the spread of CPZs. The profit ("suplus") over five years on the parking account is:
2004/05 = £2,462,000
2005/06 = £2,298,000
2006/07 = £2,288,000
2007/08 = £1,827,000
2008/09 = £2,559,000
2009/10 = £ ?
Source: LBH Parking Annual Report
The most recent figure available is the highest surplus yet. The average surplus is £2,287,000 with a standard deviation of only 281 (i.e. relatively little fluctuation around the average). This impressive trading performance is against a background of the tailing away of receipts from clamping, which ceased on 1 July 2007.
Penalty Charge Notices are running at a healthy £7,449,000 (latest figure). The five-year average is £7,314,000 and the applicable standard deviation is only 195. The PCN income is even more consistent than the surplus. Have costs really jumped so much and is this what is meant by "the existing base budget issues"?
Alan: like Matt and maybe one or two others, I'd like to know what are the council's other revenue raising proposals ... or other alternatives that the council may not necessarily be considering, but which nonetheless you have thought of. I think its important the public is included in a discussion of all the alternatives, because it affects them.
-
-
Thanks for this info & summary Clive. Clearly there are no obvious 'significant underlying budget pressures in the parking account' when it comes to revenue. Maybe the pressure comes from costs?
But they do give the game away with this proposed revenue raising measure by saying that 'additional income .... will address existing base budget issues' (ie. the council's overall budget for all services). So, hit the few in the CPZs or bite the bullet and bravely go where other 'neighbouring' councils have gone before and expand the Permit borough wide?
-
-
A small correction to my calculations: The figures for standard deviations (above) are in £000s, not units (the original figures in the parking annual report were also in £000s and I forgot to add the digits).
i.e. so that for example the deviation from the mean, over five years of PCN income, is not £195 but rather £195,000.
But as a proportion of the average it is less than 3%. This is amazingly stable and suggests that few motorists have changed their behaviour over parking infringements. The PCN income is remarkably consistent and this is over a base of five years' experience. Has this data been adjusted in the past or are these figures now about to get a good dose of physiotherapy?
I have long suspected these figures of representing more funny business than goes on in a massage parlour.
.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
