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 Nigel on
-
All good points, Guy. If only we had a legal adviser at the top of the Council bureaucracy who would give such advice to the Leader.
-
Permalink Reply by adamvietnam on
-
I came across a receipt for daily permits from 2019 - when they were £3.60
£5.00 in 2024 and potentially jumping to £13.60 in equivalent hourly so a 370% increase in 5 years.
-
-
Everybody here is making good points, notably Guy below. And, interestingly, deafening silence from the bicycle brigade so far.
I wrote my objection to traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk cc Ann Cunningham and councillors tonight. It's long but please feel free to borrow whatever you want for your own objections but in your own words, please.
"The grounds of my objection are as follows:
1. The proposed changes to parking permit policy and charges are not logically connected with the Council’s professed aim, namely to regulate parking so as “to more accurately reflect the real-world impact of vehicle usage” and that “the permit offer better reflects service usage, addresses fairness in road space use” stated in the Explanatory Note.
The “real-world impact of vehicle usage” differs from district to district and indeed within districts within the borough. For changes to parking regulation to serve that aim, they must be tailored to particular needs and the impact of parking in particular places, in particular the character of the locations and roads concerned.
2. While administrative convenience and fund-raising may perhaps be served by blanket increases in pricing, prohibitions and new limits on currently-permitted parking by number and days require closer, careful consideration of the evidence supporting the need for each proposed measure and of its likely impacts.
Proposals k, c and i fail both limbs of this test. In particular, the abolition of daily parking permits on application from registered residents (proposal k) is ill-founded; the annual number limits for residential and for business permits (proposal i) appear unrealistic,are entirely arbitrary and hence unlawful.
In particular, proposal k is said at para.4.3 of Appendix D to be in response to “circumstantial evidence” which suggests that the daily permits system is open to abuse. No particulars of this evidence are given. The Council has nothing more than a suggestion of possible abuse of services. Its non-publication is contrary to the Council’s duty of transparency.
It is illogical, unfair and wrong to impose such restrictions and costs on all residents and their visitors in the Borough’s CPZs when there is no reliable, quantified and location-specific documented evidence of:
i. the abuse or misuse of daily permits which might justify their withdrawal, especially not across the Borough generally;
ii. the unavailability of parking spaces as a result of the issue of daily permits, borough-wide or by any particular locations and times;
iii. that any such unavailability (or the claimed abuse) would be lessened or obviated by the abolition of daily permits.In the absence of such evidence, there is no reasonable basis for the abolition of the daily visitor permits for residents.
In the interests of transparency, please would you provide details and copies of the “circumstantial evidence” on which Councillor Chadwani and Cabinet were invited to accept and propose these amendments.
3. There is no or no sufficient consideration in the Papers of the “fairness” impact of proposal k on residents and their lawful visitors save to say that “hourly permits will remain available” without any reference to the effective tripling of the cost of a day’s parking.
a. Disgracefully, the Paper T-35 omits from the summary of proposals on p1 and Appendix D paragraph 4.3 that paragraph 4 (b) on p.19 of the draft TMO provides for a limit of 100 visitor permits per year for residents – less than 2 visitors per week!
This number is unexplained and apparently arbitrary. Unlike other proposals, it is not benchmarked to any other Borough.
It is patently insufficient for many residents in CPZs who do not have off-street parking : if, for example, one has a twice-weekly visit from a carer then one may not have a permit for any other visitor to park, regardless of available space, be they family, friends or for essential repairs.
It is also illogical by comparison with the proposed 100 permits p.a. for business users. Why should a business facing onto congested Green Lanes be able to have hourly permits for 100 parking spaces p.a. ?
b. There are numerous further, unwonted, undesirable and unfair impacts from proposal k which require to be considered.
Many of these are provided in other Objections. I offer 3 examples:
i. The poorer parts of the Borough accommodate many short-term residents and occupiers who are not ratepayers or electors and cannot obtain residents’ permits. Many of these people need a car parked outside to get to and from work in places and at times not readily amenable to public transport, eg night shifts and callout jobs. There is no off-street parking in most of these parts of the Borough. They need daily permits at a reasonable cost.
ii. Building and renovation works often take up to 3 months; many take a whole day and a few days, requiring short-term all day parking. The cost of this will triple. The measure would be inflationary, discourage improvements in the Borough, encourage evasion and increase enforcement costs.
iii. Because proposal k applies only to daily permits in CPZs, the impact of this proposal will disproportionately affect those who live in the poorest parts of the Borough which have the most stringent parking restrictions and which people can least afford to lose the daily permit – a surprising choice for a Labour council. See Borough graphic attached.4. Proposal a:
The Council’s professed reasons for the new charges also include: “ …. the new charges seek to address the environmental impact of vehicles, considering factors like volume of vehicles, vehicle emissions, and vehicle size.”However, the blanket, higher charges for vehicles produced before 1st March 2001 are not consistent with this aim when applied to Historic Vehicles. There is ample evidence and the DfT accepts that the limited number of historic vehicles [using the wider DfT definition rather than that of FIVA] are on average used on the road only 16 times a year, averaging 1,200 miles only p.a.- see: https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/historic-vehicles-the-facts .
This tiny volume of vehicles contribute a negligible amount to pollution and congestion. Hence the national exemption from VED and emissions regulation.No reason is given as to how Haringey justifies not similarly exempting or allowing a substantial reduction in these proposed charges. It simply does not appear to have been considered.
There should be an exemption, concession or lowest-band provision for Historic Vehicles in the provisions for charging for parking spaces.
5. Overall, this proposal is short-sighted and likely to be counter-productive. It will discourage the improvement of property and the resulting increased RVs that Haringey needs. The only probable revenue increase resulting from the abolition of daily permits is from the unlawful parking it will engender. If ticket revenue is the aim, an honest response would be to add £10 to penalty charges and have done with it.
6. For reasons of fairness and propriety and to ensure full consideration, I copy this email to Cllr Chadwani whose name appears on the Policy Paper, Cllr XX whose ward includes my house and the Leader of the Council. Please would you and the Councillors ensure this email is tabled at any meeting to consider these proposals "
-
Permalink Reply by Katie K on
-
**Sigh**. I ride a bicycle. I don't own a car. I would sometimes like tradespeople to be able to do work on my home without it costing me a fortune in visitor vouchers. Comments like that aren't going to help are they.
-
Permalink Reply by Niall on
-
Agree with this Katie. I have seen 'knee-jerk' reactions from pro and anti-car keyboard warriors, both completely missing the point. From the inane - 'we need to drive more' to the entitled - 'why can't they get a train or an Uber?' (both Crouchenders).
The decision to withdraw Visitor Daily Parking permits was badly researched, evidence free, did not benchmark with similar Councils and, most importantly, did not assess the impact on the poorest and most vulnerable sections of our community. It is punitive against those on modest or low incomes, whilst leaving those in wealthier areas of Haringey untouched. It exacerbates existing inequalities.I would say around half the people I have spoken to, who oppose this decision, are like you, not car owners - they just don’t want to be hammered by the council for having tradespeople or family/friends visiting. Seems reasonable.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth M on
-
I don't have a bicycle before anyone accuses me of being a cyclist but I can't see why if someone wants to spend 9 months renovating the house next to me they shouldn't pay a sensible price for having 2 or 3 builders' vans and a skip parked outside. It's a whole different thing having a tradesperson come to service the gas boiler for a day or have your aged aunt come stay for a couple of days.
-
-
A perfectly legitimate point of view Elizabeth, and indeed some neighbouring boroughs have special permits for what you describe. The problem here is that Haringey didn't consider any alternatives nor consider the impact of this blanket ban on residents.
If they had conducted a proper consultation, people just like almost everyone on this thread, could have come up with more sensible alternatives. So please consider, on that basis alone, adding your voice to those who oppose this draconian decision that will hit so many people who can least afford it.Email:
traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk
-
-
We do already pay a pretty heft price. My house is in a state of disrepeair and unfortunately requires rennovation for ~6 months.
Living in Harringay, this is currently costing an additional ~£800-1000 with the £5 permits, and would increase to £2000-2500 with no visitor permits.
In Alexandra Palace, Crouch End, Muswell Hill, South Tottenham and the other wards with minimal parking restrictions this costs £370-430 and under the proposals will not change. As mentioned before, this is an issue of inequity, with the biggest financial impact hitting the poorest areas of the borough.
Disclosure - I do not own a car, or a bike.
-
-
I'd have no problem with CPZs in the West being longer which would even things up. Cost of permits though is part of the overall cost of building works - if you can afford 6 months of builders costs you can probably afford 6 months of permit costs too.
-
-
A CPZ is aservice to residents to prevent parking by non-residents, dumping by car rental companies, dumping of wrecks etc and as such a 2 hour limit was shown by the campaigns concerning CPZs in the West of the Borough to be sufficient - why have more. Highgate Station Inner has a six day all day restriction to protect residents from commuters
-
-
One assumes longer restrictions in say Wood Green are to prevent shoppers parking on the side roads instead of in the car park and also commuters.
-
-
What may be justified by evidence at an around Highgate Station and at and around Wood Green Shopping City has no relevance in a quiet backwater street elsewhere - including Harringay, Hornsey and S .Tottenham.
They do a DISservice to such residents.
That's the point - blanket restrictions are unlawful because they are unjustifiable and unreasonable.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
