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 Alan Stanton on
-
Hang on a minute, Clive!
If the previous figures support your viewpoint, you're quite happy to quote them.
But should new figures contradict you, then you'll suspect some "funny business".
A long time ago I learned an important truth: that people I dislike or even hate are sometimes right. And people I like and respect can be wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan, you know that some already do not set much store by the "ring fencing" that is supposed to have surrounded the parking surpluses.
We also know that budgets can be shuffled around, such as happened with the very expensive digital TV systems and the Decent Homes budget.
You may or may not be aware that sometimes in accounting, techniques can be used to even out company income over time and its called profit smoothing. It depends when income is recognised and how depreciation is calculated. Etcetera.
Why was significant clamping income still being recorded at least 12 months after clamping & removal ceased on 1 July 2007? There may be a good reason for this. Sorry if this sounds rude.
In the past, the figures for PCNs and the surplus are surprisingly consistent - too consistent? (though there is a roughly rising trend in costs).
Now in the Parking Report, we are led to believe that there has been some dramatic change in the last 12 months, some reversal of fortunes that needs to corrected. This might be the case, or it might not. But the intimated dramatic change may have nothing to do with Parking Services.
I'm sure we all await the new figures (for 2009/10) with interest.
-
-
So it comes to this, Clive, that whatever the Parking Account figures for 2009/10 you've already made it plain that you won't believe them.
Don't like the score? Blame the ref or challenge the position of the goalposts. Can't you see that every time you do this you weaken your own argument?
-
-
Alan, as with arithmetic, one should always have a rough idea of what an accounting answer should be, in order to test the actual answer. I have been dubious of the parking figures in the past and you will know that the destination of the "surplus" has long been controversial. Up until a short while ago, my view was either that:
(1) the figures seemed too consistent (did they not strike you as remarkably consistent?), as if the size of the surplus was being massaged for other reasons; or
(2) the consistency was an accurate reflection for five years and yet now we are expected to believe that there is suddenly a major blow-out. These vague claims looked suspicious, now, more so.
We now have the figures for 2009/10.
The latest figure for surplus shows a surplus of £3,096,000: an all-time record high. This 21% increase on the previous year is roughly what I would expect given the expansion of CPZs.
Remarkably, if the figures are to be believed, at the same time the matching expenditure has fallen by 4% (!?). If this was a company listed on the Stock Exchange and I had any money, I'd be filling my boots with its shares!
Costs appear to have been managed so tightly that they increased by a tiny 1.2%. But this bearing down on costs may account for the standard of service at the parking shop that others have reported (one might have expected costs to go up nearer to 20% than 0%)
The car park income & expenditure is tabulated separately and discloses a modest (and reducing) deficit of £122,000 but this appears not to be part of the Parking Account.
Where does this leave the claims that the additional income [from parking charge increases] are need to "address the existing base budget issues" ?
-
-
It would be surprising if the surplus is in decline, especially with the spread of CPZs.
Yes, it would. So I wrote and asked about it.
----- Original Message -----
From : Cllr Alan Stanton
To : Haringey Urban Environment
Cc : Cllr Nilgun Canver; Mr Niall Bolger, Director of Urban Environment
Sent : Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:10 PM
I note that the report to the cabinet on Parking Charges suggests a problem with the Parking Service income which "needs to be addressed". Specifically, paragraph 6.1 of the report says that:
Since 2002 (when permit charges in Haringey were reduced by 50%) permit charges in the borough have remained below the London average and have remained lower than most neighbouring boroughs.
"Resident permit holders occupy the largest single fixed allocation of parking space across the Borough and there is an important requirement to ensure that the financial contribution that resident permit holders make to the overall running of the parking service strikes an appropriate balance.
"Since 2002 they received a financial subsidy from PCN income and the 2010 review has concluded that this is a balance which cannot be maintained because PCN issues are declining and the consequent financial pressure that this decline creates in Haringey's parking account needs to be addressed.
"The proposed price increases are in response to this issue."
As you may appreciate, the statement that PCN issues are declining seems surprising because there were substantial and relatively stable surpluses on the parking account for the five years 2004/5 - 2008/9; with the highest surplus shown for 2008/9 at £2,559,000.
Are the figures for 2009/10 available? If so can you please arrange to send them to me.
Do the 2009/10 figures and monthly totals since April 2010 show a pattern of steep decline in net surplus generated? If so, how far is this due to falling revenue; and how far to increasing costs? At the present monthly rate for the municipal year 2010/11, what is the expected end-of-year outturn figure?
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I fully support the council in their attempts to make us pay more to leave our cars in the communal areas outside our houses (AKA the street).
I would encourage them to make sure that the costs fall evenly and that "Lynn's Lot" over the railway don't get away with contributing (as usual) next to nothing. Tweet from Joe Goldberg today when I was hassling him about this: "but they (CPZ's) are based on resident demand, need and consultation". Joe beats Clive and Alan to the coyness award.
So...
1. This (Paring charges) looks like a tax, smells like a tax, tastes like a tax. It's a tax. Perhaps it didn't used to be but it is now.
2. Only some of the car owners in the borough are paying it and they're the ones from the predominantly poorer, eastern part.
3. I am happy to pay it. I consider parking my car outside my house an imposition on other residents who may want to do other things in the street.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
> 3. I am happy to pay it. I consider parking my car outside my house an imposition on other residents who may want to do other things in the street.
This is a very good point. And as all car owning residents in Islington, Westminster and Chelsea have got used to paying for a Residents Permit, why not here in Haringey? This would help the council with its 'existing base budget issues' .
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Most of the area between the railway and Crouch End is (or will be soon ) subject to CPZ
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
No. I always oppose CPZs as a matter of principle. They are just another means of double taxation. Once a CPZ has been implemented, councils can and almost certainly will abandon any previous fair pricing policy. It's easy money for them.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
