Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Parking Charges set to Soar!
Hi All,
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Just noticed this on an unrelated discussion about parking charges. Haringey Council is set to increase our parking charges by up to 2/3 in this report. This will put our parking charges on a par with Camden which pay an average of just under £100 for a permit. We'll be paying £95. That'll make us more expensive than all our neighbouring boroughs except Camden:
Waltham Forest £22.50
Barnet £40.00
Islington £85.00
Enfield £70.00
Hackney £92.00
Tags for Forum Posts: CPZ, Parking Charges, Permits, public spending cuts
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Nope, they can spend this money on anything travel related. It pays for the over 60s Freedom passes for Haringey residents. If they didn't have this money then the Freedom passes would have to be paid for from general Council Tax. I believe that this is against the spirit of the Road Traffic Act of 1991 that says local bodies can use parking enforcement and CPZ surpluses for transport related expenditure.
I am extremely disappointed to see our Labour run council so prepared to leach money from the already poor part of the borough while the wealthier (and predominantly non Labour voting) part pays nothing. It's wrong, whichever way you look at it.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Nope, they can spend this money on anything ... in practice. I wonder what the "surplus" will be in 12 months and if they will try to massage it down for the sake of decency.
The charade of ring-fencing-for-transport has finally being dropped. There is not a word about ring fencing in the Parking Charges Report, but there is vague commentary:
"revised charges will address the base issues in the parking account [?!] and contribute towards the savings the Council will be required to deliver in future years."
Why can't the council just come clean and admit that Parking Services are a profit centre and are a substitute for taxation. A taxation substitute that, as others have remarked, has aspects of unfairness.
-
-
I dont think it's unfair Clive. People who park cars in Haringey need to be encouraged not to. It certainly factors in my mind when I think about using the car. Nothing like a bit of randomness to put the fear into people.
The things that are unfair are that the people who can afford to pay more (and also have their council tax capped) don't pay anything and people from Enfield driving through us into the City don't pay anything either.
-
-
I think the unfairness is that, on the one hand, these charges and the ensuing 'surplus' are for general revenue purposes (if we are being frank) and on the other hand, not every motorist either pays them or yet lives in a CPZ. Although one is about to descend on Stroud Green/Hornsey etc. after we go through the motions – and farce – of another insincere consultation.
It might have been fairer, at the price of a large-but-one-off controversy, if the whole Borough had been CPZ-carpeted several years ago. We have the pretence that the CPZs are only ever put in as a result of resident demand – and yet the whole scheme was engineered years ago.
It's what the council wants: why don't they just admit it and get on with it instead of the torture were subjected to.
Instead, every 18 months or so, we have 'consultations', incremental extensions and parking displacement. The council could not have come up with a more divisive arrangement if they tried.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
So the charge that most of us pay (£60) is going up to £95, a 58% increase! These and other rises are to be approved by cabinet on the 16th November. This is wrong.
***************** Hugh .... can HOL do a petition please ... fast! ************************
-
-
Adrian, Haringey will actually be more expensive than Camden, taking into account the £10 discount for renewing on-line. See pdf attached.
The council talks about 'improving the service level for residents'> Well they can start by providing permit renewals on-line. The council might like to look at the Camden example of this service. The only evidence of so-called improvement of service level is with the £20 charge proposed for a tempoary 1 month permit for new residents whilst they sort their details for an annual permit (equivalent per annum charge of £240).
We see that the council proposes charging an annual fee to the car club company of £120 per parking bay, surely a small fee vs profit earnt.
As the council says in section 6.1 resident permits make an important contribution to overall financial contribution to the parking service. In other words, they've decided to hit the very people who have no choice but to pay these charges because of the CPZs imposed upon a minority of residents. - Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Why the flipping hell should we pay anything when richer folks to the west pay nothing at all. You can live in Muswell Hill and have all the ruddy cars you like, and pay nothing for the privilege while we fork out. Not fair! Either we should all pay something or none of us, is insane that the poorer half of the borough pays substantially more than the richer one.
Grrrrrr.
-
-
... 'we should all pay something' ...
Absolutely. Every household in the borough should pay for a parking permit, say £20 pa per car. That's fairer and would raise the revenue this council obviously desperately needs. A permit is a local tax after all.
Where's this HOL PETITION? Set one up very fast years back when the council proposed pedestrianizing Wood Green High Rd.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Matt, of course anyone can start a petition, which we'll be happy to support. However, the issue here for me is a lot broader. Cuts have to be made somewhere and additional revenues found from somewhere else. It's kinda tough to see this issue in isolation. If the revenue's not raised here it will be raised somewhere else or saved by another cut. The bigger debate is possibly the one to be having.
We tried this some months ago and there have been a number of related conversation since. It's a tough one.
I take Alison's point about the unevenness of the charges. They are currently levied on some areas only. Perhaps it would be fairer to raise any additional revenue by having a flat resident car owner charge across the borough.
In the meantime, if you want to express your opinion about where the cuts should fall, Haringey Council have set up an online survey.
-
-
Perhaps it would be fairer to raise any additional revenue by having a flat resident car owner charge across the borough.
Yes, if the council sees few other options for raising revenue other than to hit car owners then they should definitely be widening this local 'environment' tax to include all car owners. That would be fair, honest, raise considerably more revenue and be true to the spirit of calling it an environment tax. And as said before the charge could be reduced.
-
-
But they're only allowed to do this because of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. There would need to be more legislation to allow the to raise money differently and don't think they'll give up this source.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
