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
-
You seem to be missing GN8's main point Clive. Just say "We need the extra cash"? Can't do that
At least, not simply to make money. That would probably be illegal. Though it would be legal to raise extra cash to balance the Parking Account if, say, income from fines has fallen steeply. (Figures awaited) And/or if costs have risen steeply. (No figures given.)
Perhaps saying we're charging a London 'average' might seem a bit more reasonable. Therefore my curiosity about these "averages". If you have time, Clive, (or anyone else) please help 'crowd-research' this information.
Although I agree that it's hard to see any logic in simply following the average. And imagine we discovered that the average for outer London boroughs was £55 p.a. Would the cabinet propose dropping our own average charge to match this?
I've pointed out information which was lacking in the Cabinet report. People might want to look at Part 5 Section B of Haringey Council’s Constitution ─ a document called the “Protocol for Member Officer Relations”.
It sets out the respective roles and responsibilities and councillors and council staff. And includes (paragraph 5.01) the expectation that councillors can reasonably expect officers to provide:
(j) timely response to enquiries and complaints
(k) to deal with Members’ enquiries fairly, efficiently, truthfully and without omission of relevant information,
(l) to work with all Members equally and fairly,
(m) to act lawfully,
(n) to give advice or recommendations based on reasoned options - ensure that Members have all the information necessary to make informed judgements.
Under the subhead “Cabinet functions” paragraph 14:06 says that when senior officers "write reports or give advice they have a duty to do so in their technical or professional expertise and to make Members aware of all the options available.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I was having a chat last night with some American, let's call them "economics graduates" I used to work with. They were quite perplexed as to why the extremely successful congestion charging scheme in London has not made it out to the rest of the UK. It makes complete economic sense to make a charge like this. Christian Woolmar has a good explanation and of course, a plan for a way forward.
Essentially councils need to impose the new scheme without consultation for a fixed period (6 months in Stockholm) then they stop it and have a referendum. This takes the wind out of the sails of any local newspaper men who spy a way to sell newspapers, apparently.
-
-
Impose which new scheme, John? This thread is about raising existing parking charges. Are you saying the Council should raise them for six months without consultation? Or impose borough-wide CPZs without consultation; erect the signs; paint the lines; issue the permits. And then have a referendum?
Hmm. I prefer Plan B. Selling Daisy the cow for a bag of magic beans.
-
-
Oops, wrong article, I meant "a scheme".
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Could it be that other cities in the UK are not so congested as London?
Are councils going to invest large sums in the infrasctucture (cameras etc ) only to write it off when the referendum says no ? Of course they could follow Livingston's lead by having a referendum (on the Western extension of the Congestion Charge Area ) and then ignoring the result: on the grounds that " only those who were opposed to the extension bothered to vote ".
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Councils lobby government to raise parking fines.
And you will know by now that Haringey Council has wacked up parking charges this week without consultation. Policy of desperation, no consultation.
-
-
Neil Herron was interviewed about this on Radio 4 today. He made what I think is a reasonable point. Traffic and parking penalties ─ sometimes for quite minor infringements ─ can exceed the fines imposed by Magistrates Courts, e.g. for crimes like shoplifting.
The BBC reports that some councils outside London are envious of London's higher penalties. Haringey's bid to 'level-up' to the London average, shows that our council at least, is envious of the "income streams" central boroughs have had over the years. And so the whole system is increasingly out of kilter. Because it wasn't intended to provide an "income stream". With unachievable income "targets" built into base budgets.
But my deepest sympathy is for Transport Minister Norman Baker."I think motorists will worry that this is perhaps a covert attempt to raise money from them unfairly. That's not the Department for Transport's objective in any shape or form."
I wonder why motorists across the country would jump to such an outrageous conclusion?
Surely it has nothing to do with the cuts?
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
P.S. For Labour Party whips. The last paragraph is a spoof. I am not really sympathetic to a Coalition Government minister. I'm attempting a light-hearted and humorous final flourish to my otherwise serious posting. If necessary OAE will explain.)
-
-
Yes I heard the same comments you refer to on Radio 4. Wonder if this means these rises in parking charges are open to legal challenge re their obvious purpose for income generation for general budget use.
-
Permalink Reply by Emma S on
-
does anyone know if this will apply to blue badge holders as well? thank you. Emma
-
-
Emma, in the Council "cabinet" report on 16 November the paragraph on Concessions doesn't propose any change for Blue Badge holders. However, as you probably know, a Blue Badge doesn't give someone permission to park anywhere. (I've found this leaflet from the Department for Transport is helpful.)
If you, a family member, or a friend are blue badge holders and are uncertain about parking in specific Haringey streets or times, then do please ask the Parking Service. Keep their email reply just in case there's any problem afterwards.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by james walsh on
-
Alan, could not open the link regarding blue badge.
FYI just spoke to Haringey transport department to notify of my change of address. I asked if there were any changes due for Haringey blue badge scheme and was told there were no changes due.
-
-
Ham & High Broadway reports on the "cabinet" meeting which made this decision. (Unfortunately it was not webcast.)
From this, it seems the "average" used to justify the latest increases was not the Mean, nor the Median, nor even the Mode. It was Haringey's "place in the middle of the London-wide parking charges table". Although the table provided to the council cabinet left out several councils and got at least one figure wrong. Will Haringey remain middling? It will if the other boroughs raise their charges too.
It's also interesting to learn that "this was a service which was not covering its costs". Which is probably true if we're taking CPZs as a separate component of the Parking Service.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
