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 GN8 on
-
To pick up on few points raised in this and the other discussion
1. According to the 2 separate legal advice given to Richmond council before they went ahead with their CO2 emission charges, it is unlawful to set the level of permit's charges to create revenue.
2. According to legal advice given to Haringey within the current report (section 8) any income from Parking PCN etc is still ring fenced and can only be spent on:
"provision and maintenance on and off street parking, provision of public transport services, environmental improvements, maintenance of roads Highways and road improvements or environmental improvements."
sadly or luckily it can not be spent on free bus passes for the elderly, education, housing or anything else but the mentioned above...
A surplus is NET PROFIT and is left over AFTER ALL EXPENSES.
3. Also it seems it is not lawful for a council to force a CPZ where local residents don't want it!
which explains the council incremental approach of deliberately creating displacement to get residents to DEMAND a CPZ on their road.
4. Reading the report to Cabinet it seems the main reasoning behind the latest charge hike is to bring the charges to the level of London average. I don't see why this is needed? Or how Haringey residents are going to benefit from such a move? It must be the only justification which makes it legal somehow...
As I wrote before setting the charges higher will create a larger surplus and that would clearly be SETTING THE CHARGES TO CREATE REVENUE which is still unlawful as far as I am aware!
As we have seen from the example of what went on with Ally Pally, Haringey council has no problem with unlawfulness, if their risk assessment advice is - that there is a little chance someone will take them to court.
I wonder what could be the judgement of a judicial review regarding SETTING THE CHARGES TO CREATE REVENUE?
According to the report there should be a statutory consultation after cabinet votes it in (I don't hold my breath, do you?) Haringey couldn't care less about petitions... And since there is NO OPPOSITION in existence, maybe judicial review is the only real course of action...
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Sorry Matt but there is no:
1. I am happy for the council to raise money in this way but I want everyone in the borough to pay.
I also want a congestion charging zone for Haringey, a local currency and free ice-cream for everyone.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Reason being is it's unrealistic to expect the council to even think of raising the charge 60% AND introducing it to a lot of residents who have never before paid a penny for parking their vehicle in their street. It would be political suicide.
A nominal charge maybe.
-
-
> 'Surely a boro wide CPZ of £20 or £30 would raise more than one of £90 in specific parts?'
You would think so. Depends if the council have the courage to do this, as only a few are paying at the moment but, if the council are serious about raising revenue to lessen the possible breadth & depth of cuts then maybe they should put this option on the table (?).
-
Permalink Reply by Steve McCarthy on
-
Regarding the "Scratchcard Permits" I was told earlier this year by a woman at the desk in the Wood Green Parking Shop that unused Scratchcards Permits that only appear to go up to the end of 2010 can be exchanged for more up to date Scratchcard Permits after January 3rd, 2011. So, don't throw your out of date Scratchcard Permits away, exchange them.
-
-
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 currently;
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%
SUMMARY;
So, 74.5% agree with widening the CPZ out to the whole borough, with marginally more going for a reduced charge on Residents Permits.
PS. The survey is still open as apparently there will be a 'consultation' on the proposed parking charge increases. I'll let you know if the survey results change significantly. Thank you for taking part.
-
-
Ha ha ha, you have some respondents from Crouch End.
-
-
Regarding the following list which is copied from the report instructing Haringey cabinet to vote to increase CPZ charges TO BRING HARINGEY IN LINE WITH LONDON AVERAGE...
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
I found out that:
* Barnet announced they suspend all action on creating new CPZones!
* Enfield which is mentioned in Haringey report as having CPZ permit at £70, is inaccurate and misleading. Enfield has 12 zones out of which 4 (only a 1/3) are charged at £70 the rest 2/3 are @ £30 a year! if this is the case in Enfield I wonder what will I find if I look at all of them?...
I also found the following which may be useful to some:
In a landmark case at the London Parking Adjudicator, Barrie Segal, the founder of AppealNow.com, got the Controlled Parking Zone for the central zone of London’s West End declared illegal.
Barrie represented transport company, Keystone Distribution UK Ltd in a case against Westminster Council where he claimed that the Council’s massive F3 Controlled Parking Zone in the heart of the West End was illegal and that no parking tickets could be issued to motorists on single yellow lines in that zone. Barrie’s argument was that Zone F3 did not have the correct signs at each vehicle entry point and therefore the zone was illegal. After a site inspection the Parking Adjudicator agreed with Barrie.
http://www.lmag.org.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&s...
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
OK. AVERAGE. This new-found desire to bring Haringey's charges more in line with the London "average" is amusing. What virtue is there in being average? Why aim for the average? Why not aim for the best instead of merely average?
Why content ourselves with being average?
Depending on one's point of view, LBH should aim for the highest or sink to the lowest ...
Surely Haringey's well-funded PR department could have spun this even more agreeably?
.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks, GN8 for checking and posting this. Based on this report, "Cabinet" members have made financial decisions involving many hundred thousand pounds of residents' money. So councillors should be entirely confident that the information they are given has been carefully checked and is completely reliable.
It would be helpful if anyone else has time to check the figures in, say, one other London borough; and could post the result on HoL ─ either to confirm the accuracy of Haringey's figure, or to give the correct figures. (Bearing in mind, of course, that some boroughs may have just agreed increases.)
As GN8 raised the issue of averages, I sent the councillor's enquiry below. (I haven't yet had replies to my previous enquiries about parking charges.)
______________________________________
Councillor Enquiry 4:46 pm 19 November 2010
I've just seen the Council's press release dated 17 November 2010, about the increased parking charges. It reads:
"Haringey's parking charges are to rise in line with the London average after two years without any increases. A range of new permits will also be introduced to improve the service for residents.
Haringey's last parking review was in 2007 which resulted in the introduction of emission based charges which were below the London average, and incremental rises for second or subsequent household permits.
In 2008 the council also introduced a charge band for Pay and Display that could be altered according to occupancy levels.
New permits will be introduced for the Car Club cars and for carers looking after people in their own home.
Doctors permit have not been reviewed for 10 years and are in tune with doctors' salaries."
● Could you please arrange for me to be sent copies of the detailed figures obtained for other London boroughs and which - I assume - formed the basis of the report which went to the Council's Cabinet.
● Please explain whether the "averages" figures used were the arithmetical mean, median or mode figures?
● Please send me the figures used to base the statement in the press release that the 2007 parking review "resulted in the introduction of emission based charges which were below the London average". Since the first sentence of the press release refers to averages across London, please confirm that this sentence means that Haringey's charges were also below the London average for boroughs operating emission banded schemes.
I note the statement about the cost of permits for GPs.
● What charges are made to other health professionals (e.g. Health Visitors, midwives, professional carers and others) and have these charges also been "re-tuned"?
-
-
Alan, re this new benchmarking to average – it's possible you may be provided with the facts and figures you seek and I would be interested to see them, if they exist.
But no matter how much research into the data for parking charges across London Boroughs has been performed, surely the question remains: should aiming for the average be an object of public policy? In many walks of life we seek goods and services that are above average, even the best. Does Best Practice in Parking now mean average practice? Is 'Better Haringey' now 'Average Haringey'?
Not so long ago the council was boasting that its charges for CPZ permits were among the lowest in London. Now, this new aiming for average looks like an excuse to increase charges.
There must be other London Boroughs who are confident enough in setting parking charges that they are content to remain, in effect, either below or above average. I'd feel happier if the council stopped the spin, stopped treating the public as idiots and just said, "we need the extra cash".
It will be interesting to see what form is taken by the promise "to improve the service for residents"
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
