Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Can Anyone Explain this Council Logic?
In a round-robin about new parking charges that hit my inbox today, Haringey Council wrote the following:
Visitors parking permits will be simplified and no longer be subject to a limited allocation
This is to ensure we are taking a fair approach when it comes to everyone who wants to park in our borough and to encourage people to use other forms of transport if possible.
As I read it they're saying that they're going to make visitor parking permits easier to get "to encourage people to use other forms of transport". So, making it easier to use a car will encourage people not to use a car.
Is there some good logic there that is eluding me or is it the nonsense I think it is?
ADDENDUM:
The discussion that follows from this post has revealed that visitor parking charges will more than double and residents will no longer be able to exchange unused permits.
Read about the proposals on Haringey's website here.
You can make an objection by email to traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk
You can see a Freedom of Information request submitted on this issue here
Tags for Forum Posts: parking, parking permits, visitor parking permits
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
I live right by Seven Sisters tube station. Does this mean that I can buy hundreds of visitors' permits and flog them off on ebay at twice the price, thus supplementing my pension? Would I have to declare this on a tax form?
And, will my neighbours all be doing the same thing?
I hear tales of the time before this was a CPZ. Much more theft from cars and all-round annoyances and commuter parkers lurching about.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Yes Pam, you buy all the permits you can. Sell them subtly in the pub though. You'll incur tax at 20% over your tax free allowance.
-
Permalink Reply by Guy on
-
Does this £11.80 "administration charge" apply to visitor permits ?
"The Council shall levy an administration charge for the undertaking of any of the necessary services for the processing of permits or refunds for permits as set out in this Order. The charge for each individual service shall be £11.80."
I'm probably overlooking something obvious, but hopefully it does not...
-
Permalink Reply by Cat A on
-
I think I can sort of see the logic in making visitors parking permits unlimited. I don't have a car, so sometimes hire one for the weekend when I do need one, and whilst I've never run out of permits, I can see that you could. If you instead buy a car to have just for those trips you're probably more likely to use it outside of them once you've got it. So for a really small set of people it kind of makes sense.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
The logic that confounds is not the lifting the cap on the number of permits that can be bought, it's the Council's linking that move to people using their car less. That's where the nonsense is in all this.
-
-
The Statement of Reasons document within the draft Traffic Management Order [find it here -- http://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/roads-and-stree... ] goes a little further than the public notice.
It is however expected, that those permits would be used within the year purchased and not stock piled for future years, where further car restraints measures may be required.
So they may want to reduce visitor numbers??? A palmface moment, here.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Parking policy makes a significant contribution to the delivery of the Council’s Transport policies and Corporate Plan objectives.
The policies and programmes have been carefully considered to take account of environmental issues and tailored to include related measures that improve air quality by reducing harmful emissions from transport. These also involve encouraging residents to move to more sustainable modes of transport, including walking and cycling.
Whilst many of the Borough’s residents may still chose to own a car, it is hoped that the proposed measures would encourage a change to less polluting vehicles.
It is therefore proposed that the parking charges of on-street parking permits structure should incorporate the CO2 emission bands used by the DVLA as this has been established as an effective method of control.
At present applicants may only purchase an annual parking permit. There is a need to introduce a 6 monthly option for residential permits, to deal primarily with the increasing number of applicants on shorthold tenancies, and to suit applicants who may prefer not to purchase an annual permit.
The visitor parking permits scheme offers a range of permits at very low cost, which does not help manage demand for parking spaces or encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. In addition the concessionary scheme offers a 50% reduction in charge and doubles the allocation of permits to residents who are registered disabled, and to those aged 60 years and over, which was the default retirement age when this concession was first introduced. Many residents are now in full time employment when accessing the concessionary scheme.
There is a need to rationalise the offer, ensuring that residents can receive visitors, but within the spirit of our overarching transport policies and strategies.
It is therefore proposed that the offer be limited to an hourly and daily visitor parking permit. This would remove the need for an upper limit on numbers that can be purchased. It is however expected, that those permits would be used within the year purchased and not stock piled for future years, where further car restraints measures may be required. Unused permits would therefore not be exchanged or refunded. It is also proposed that the charge for hourly permits be increased to 80p per hour, bringing it more in line with charges applied in other London boroughs.
The age at which residents may access the concessionary scheme would be increased to 65 years and over. There are no changes proposed to the concessionary scheme that applies to those registered disabled.
It is proposed to raise the administration charge for the processing of permits, refunds etc. from £11.70 to £11.80 as an inflationary increase.
-
-
"as this has been established as an effective method of control" - this is correct but doesn't take into account the corporate capture of these limits by lobbyists for German motor vehicle manufacturers. The lobbying of Boris Johnson before he became mayor meant that he allowed diesel VW Golfs into the congestion zone for free.
Burning diesel fuel is producing harmful pollution and these measures do nothing to address that. It's as if the emissions scandal never happened.
-
-
So they want to lift the limit on numbers to encourage use of non-car transport and they want to restrict their validity period to achieve the same end. Who on earth in the Council is writing this nonsense?
-
-
The thinking there isn't very joined up.
I have just come from Holloway Road and when you look at how it has been repaved, new shop fronts, bus shelters and street furniture.....and then you look at Tottenham High road which is a sucession of several conservationa reas, you wonder how come tIslington extracted the qulaity from TFL and we ended up with sh*t!
So much energy and resources have gome into 'wooing private evlopers that none or very little has gone into joined up thinking to achieve 'permanent little incremental victories' for those of us that liev her now.
The introducction of monster refuse bins (4 of them in front of each house or flat for that matter), the giftinig of council land to private concerns, allowing destrcuction of heritage assets that set a postive tone for the High roads and neighbourhood and their replacement by hapzardly planned extra tall builidngs...the PLACE IS A MESS MADE BY THE INEPTITUDE OF TOSE IN CHARGE!
-
-
The remade one-way system never got its snagging done. So there are still huge puddles at the crossings when it rains, puddles 3m across too wide to get across. Many of the (cheapest possible ugly) paving stones are already lifting, eg there are 1cm trip hazards in a dozen places in the stretch in front of tescos. I wasn't expecting York stone slabs at £50 each just because there are plenty of older pavements that have them, but as this was a job to last another 100 years it's an ongoing irritation that they didn't think Tottenham-ites deserved anything better. Yes I have reported it all....
-
Permalink Reply by tigha on
-
I think it’s outrageous they won’t let you replace out of date visitor passes anymore. I had just bought a big stack including day passes, assuming if I didn’t use them all over the next couple of years, it wouldn’t be an issue.
It’s aways been more practical to get plenty as you never know when you will need them especially for sudden building work. What a con by the council
between that and then the flier this week that we need to fork out for garden waste bags. Maybe I won’t bother with them and then when the council come round next time to complain about the size of my “Bush” I will tell them I can’t afford the £55 for bags to remove the rubbish.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
