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 D on
-
Wouldn't that be the same as increasing the Council tax by the same amount ?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
John McMullen,
Attached is a map showing the CPZ areas for Westminster. CPZs cover the whole of that borough. Every single resident car owner must have a permit. - Attachments:
-
-
WCC CPZ Areas.pdf, 682 KB
-
-
-
The council put up charges for applications to pave front 'gardens' a few years back and have given Planning more powers to turn down applications. But yes it would result in more residents looking at ways to park their cars off the street.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks for raising the off-street parking issues Matt and Adrian. Yes, it seems likely that higher parking charges could increase the pressure for people to pave over their front gardens.
As you'll see from the Supplementary Planning Guidance which Adrian linked to, a major issue here is the increased possibility of localised urban flash flooding. It's a couple of years since this was big news in London. But the risks haven't gone away, especially with the steady increase of infill, building extensions, hard surfacing, and building on land within flood plains.
A further problem with front garden parking is that it usually means a 'crossover' - in effect a semi-private driveway across the pavement. This probably means the loss of a parking space in the adjacent roadway. It can also lead to more broken pavements. So footways become potentially more hazardous, especially for children, and people with a disability.
Sustainable transport it ain't!
These issues are not properly discussed nor even mentioned in the woefully inadequate report going to the "cabinet".
-
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
They do it like this....
-
-
Permalink Reply by BBU on
-
I'd like to know what Haringey Council are doing about the traffic flow along Green Lanes especially in front of the Arena Shopping park area.
It makes me angry that we never actually get a proper answer from our councillors as to why the CPZ only exists in the poorer areas and there seems to be NO effort to come up ideas to make money without having to hit drivers or poor people.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
I'm sure the whole Borough will be carpeted with CPZ in due course, wealthy and less-wealthy areas alike. But the other aspect of the unfairness of Parking Permits is that they are in effect, a flat rate tax. Like any flat-rate tax, it is unrelated to one's income.
You could argue that anyone who can afford to own a car is not poor, but there are those close to the margins, for whom car ownership is only just about affordable. The better-off will take these increases in their stride.
Already, the parking permit charges are significantly more than the administrative costs of the scheme.
(The 'surplus' is normally greater than the amount that permits raise. I am at a loss to understand what is meant by the claim in the Parking Charges Report that the "additional income generated from this review will be used to address the existing base budget issues ..." What are those issues?)
The permit charges mean that the poorer, wherever they might live, pay more as a proportion of their income. i.e. it is a regressive tax.
-
-
The Cabinet councillor at the time argued for "Environmentally friendly parking charges" on the basis that: "grading parking charges according to carbon emissions is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal in the fight against climate change".
I obtained actual figures for Haringey CPZ parking permits issued between July 2007 and June 2010. I do not see any significant switch to lower emission vehicles. And this picture is probably worse because - in line with European regulations - car manufacturers are now making vehicles with lower emissions.
In spring 2007 when the consultation on these charges was underway, they were also justified as penalising "gas guzzlers" and "chelsea tractors". As it turned out, drivers of quite modest cars (rated just over 151 g/km ) found their charge increased from £25 to £60.
Personally, I don't have a problem with higher taxes on bigger more polluting cars. But as an elected councillor and as a Haringey resident I prefer the facts unspun.
-
-
parking charges ... one of the most powerful tools at our disposal in the fight against climate change
With due respect to all concerned, the idea that anything the London Borough of Haringey does or does not do, might have the tiniest, slightest, most miniscule effect on climate change is, and always has been, preposterous!
Some in the council are too big-headed! Climate change might be affected by bi- and multi-lateral govt. to govt. agreements but not by actions in the Council Chamber or River Park House!
I often wish the council would be more forthright with residents. That they stop coming out with ridiculous excuses for their actions, which only serve to prove they treat the public like children, if not with contempt.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
