OpinioN8

Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

Haringey announce 129% increase in cost of two-hour CPZ permit

Haringey plan a 129% increase in the cost of two-hour CPZ parking permits you have only 7 days to object..
 
Haringey are proposing ludicrous and expensive changes to the system for temporary parking permits which will affect residents in two-hour zones particularly heavily .
 
At present it is possible to purchase a two hour permit for a two hour zone so that a visitor, whether private or trade, can park legally without fear of being issued with a PCN. This costs 70p at present. Under the proposal this two hour permit is being discontinued and it will become necessary to purchase two one hour permits. At the moment they cost 35p each but under the new proposal they will cost a staggering 80p each so that a two hour permit will effectively become £1.60 – a 129% increase in cost.
 
There is a little bit of good news – the will be no limit on the number of permits you can purchase (hooray!) but you will have to use them ‘within the year of purchase’. How many people can forecast how many of these wretched permits they will need? What happens if there is an increased need for permits towards the end of the year, for example a care crisis that requires relatives to visit more often than they need?
 
If you live in a full-day parking zone the current cost of a permit is £3.50 and this will go up to - £3.50. So residents in all day zones suffer no increase whatsoever whilst those in a two-hour zone face a 129% increase.
 
You haven’t got long to protest either – Anne Cunningham, head of parking at Haringey, apparently published the order on February 2nd and you have 21 days from that date to object – however emails were only sent out to residents who have parking permits on 15 February – allowing a mere 7 days for protest. Thank you Haringey.
 
Details of how to protest – “Any person desiring to object to the proposed Order or make other representation should send a statement in writing of either their objection and the grounds thereof or of their representation to the Traffic Management Group, River Park House, 1st floor, 225, High Road, Wood Green, N22 8HQ or to traffic.orders@haringey.gov.uk within 21 days from the date of this Notice”

Tags: CPZ, Residents, permits

Views: 578

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Another stupid and ill-thought-through change by Haringey Council. When will they ever consult people properly?!

Removing the limit on the number of permits could now turn areas near key transport hubs into giant park and ride zones for out-of-towners. Anyone fancy supplementing their income by buying hundreds of visitor passes, flogging them online for a tidy profit and letting those in the commuter belt drive in, park up, and get zone 2/3 travel into central London?

With these changes they really ought to have changed the name from Visitor permits to just parking permits, as I expect the percentage use from visitors is now going to drop.

And what precisely would be the point of objecting? This, remember is a Haringey 'consultation'. And our Neighbourhood is shortly to become 'Liveable'. Broadly speaking this means we will no longer travel by car. So the cost of parking becomes an irrelevance. 

From the Mayor's Transport Strategy:

Private cars are a relatively inefficient means of moving people. Cars take up 19 per cent of street space in central London, but account for only 11 per cent of journey kilometres. By comparison, buses take up only 11 per cent of street space, but account for 57 per cent of journey kilometres.

 Any more fares, please. Ting, ting.

The trouble with stats is that they don't always obey. Should cycle lanes go through central Crouch End - taking maybe 25-30% of road space, what percentage of journey kilometres will the cyclists account for?

Best not ask.

Stats are often useful for historical purposes but care needs to be taken when extrapolating trends.

120 years ago, one might have argued against making accommodation or special provision for the noisy, polluting, dangerous motor car. After all, what percentage of journey miles would so-called “drivers” of the upstart Horseless Carriage account for?

Best to ask!

Amsterdam vs Copenhagen (part 1)

I appreciate there's often very little point in engaging with the cycling debate, as any nuance tends to get buried in an avalanche of partial invective. Ah well. I'm not a cyclist myself. But then again I'm not a motorist either, so am used to being the lowest life form in the transport hierarchy.

The point I was making is summed up in this observation from those arguing about Enfield's mini Holland -

"Enfield Council’s Mini- Holland Bid document [includes] key assumptions that the 0.9% of work trips currently undertaken by cycles will be 6.3% in 2025. Transport for London itself recognises that “cycling is a minority mode [and hence is] prone to high forecasting error and low levels of confidence”.

Or in other words 6.3% may be an over enthusiastic estimate. I hope not, I hope it's more - but care needs to be taken when extrapolating trends, and 6.3% is still quite a long way from 30%. As, most certainly, is 0.9%.

The images from the Amsterdam v Copenhagen blog are very interesting, given the possibilities of cycle lanes identified in the Liveable Neighbourhoods project. The blog suggests that there are two possibilities for the key narrow stretch of Tottenham Lane in central Crouch End, either (a) the removal of all parking space (Denmark), or (b) one way traffic only (Holland).

Mark, about these numbers.

I think it's less about how things are currently, than about how things could be.

Better, that is.

Can I invite you to consider this tweet that I've just come across?

(it's not a trick, its a tweet from Jennifer Keesmaat, who is former Chief Planner, City of Toronto. Distinguished Visitor in Residence, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto).

As I understand it the tweet refers simply to the number of people who may consider cycling in future. Not on a regular basis, or as a replacement for the vast majority of their driving or commuting. We need to rid ourselves of the confirmation bias blinkers.

I had a look at the data for cycling in central Crouch End (2016 figures). Generally it accounts for 3-6% of vehicle movements, rising to 10% southbound on  Park Road in the AM rush hour.

However, that's per vehicle - and cycles generally carry one person, whereas cars, vans and certainly buses carry many more apiece. When that's taken into consideration the current movement of people by bike is actually a meagre 1-2%.

We have a long way to go.

(PS. For every cyclist there are 15 pedestrians on the Broadway)

Adrian says 'And what precisely would be the point of objecting?" - dismal defeatism - however I did get a speedy reply from one of Stroud Green's labour councillors when I raised it with them...

"Actually Paul, I am standing in the May election. Thnak you for your email  about this issue.

I knew that voucher costs would be  increased; I didn’t know that the two hour permit would be abolished or that vouchers a year old or more would become invalid.

I have written to Cllr Peter Mitchell  who is the cabinet member for Environment, under which the parking voucher scheme comes. I have raised concerns and have forwarded your email  on.

I’m a user of said parking permits, I  am blind).  I use them to permit my support workers and access PAs to park.

demand that parking permits have to be used within the year of purchase is unfair, given just how difficult it is to get hold of them, many older and  disabled people bulk order. It’s not easy for many disabled and older people to go and get them, ordering on line is  inaccessibleand I am not sure anymore it is possible to do it by phone.

I have asked Cllr Mitchel to  consider at the very least not imposing an annual out of date rule on the purchase of vouchers and to look at making getting repeat “prescriptions” of the vouchers, easier to do, especially for older and disabled people.

 

Thanks for circulating via social media.

Kirsten

 

 

Councillor Kirsten Hearn

Labour Councillor for Stroud Green Ward

07583 119 123

kirsten.hearn@haringey.gov.uk"

Don't ask - don't get...

On predicting how many permits to buy, I have 23 unused 1 hour Crouch End A permits, which I will not be able to use beyond the end of this year. I've had them for about 4 years and really thought I would use more. In a spirit of eternal optimism I have written to Haringey:

Please can you tell me? I have 23 1 hour parking permits for Crouch End A, which do not permit the entry of a date beyond the end of 2018. Will I be able to extend the life of these permits, or to get a refund?

Many Thanks
When I bought the permits the issuing department asked me for proof of age and address. I sent them my Freedom Pass and a council tax bill.

The question is: how do you protest most effectively?

I have no idea who looks at this website. Nor if any of the local councillors reads it or takes it seriously. Maybe they do and will shortly post their views. But in the meantime I suggest it's worth assuming that a more direct approach may be needed to stop them voting for this nonsense.

The reply from current (and I hope future) Stroud Green councillor Cllr Kirsten Hearn is welcome. Perhaps the other two are drafting an email. Since they decided to withdraw from the Labour Party's candidate selection meeting and now have nothing to lose, they may bravely defy the party whips and speak out.

In the meantime can I please suggest that members of this forum may like to read the discussion thread on the sister forum Harringay Online.

It includes my own advice to people to email their local councillors directly. I also suggested that prospective candidates in May are asked for their view. Will they seek to reverse this anti-social and inequitable proposal if it is pushed though by the Kobots?
____________________________________

By the way it appears to be one of a series of damaging, stupid, and misguided orders from the twilight hours  of the failed regime. Köberdämmerung

The grapevine appears to suggest a restructuring of the senior managers; contracts for selling off land; and resuscitation of the completely off-the-wall "Youth Zone" on Metropolitan Open Land. No longer grabbing a chunk of Chestnuts Park but now moved further north.

It's like the current lot - sitting in the departure lounge - want to do as much damage as possible in their remaining few weeks.  Anyone remember the last few minutes of the original version of the film Carrie? The graveyard scene?

It's a good thread on HoL which says I can get a refund on my unused vouchers.

The advice to Crouch Enders to contact current councillors leads us to two high-ups on CK's pay grades, and one who jumped ship from Lib Dem to Labour, only to feel it necessary to jump ship again when faced with a re-selection fight. I fear they may be demotivated.

Perhaps our best target would be Peter Mitchell recently appointed Cabinet Member for Environment.

As for writing to prospective candidates, I feel sure Luke Cawley-Harrison would have a view.

 

Hugh's letter of objection , also from HoL, makes several pertinent points.

am writing to object to some of the proposals contained in "Proposed Amendments to on Street Parking Permits and Charges. The Haringey (Controlled Parking Zones) (Amendment No. *) Order 201”.
 

These proposals include the removal of the right offered to residents by the current traffic management orders to a refund for any unused visitors parking permits. Specifically the proposed new orders state "It is anticipated that those permits would be used within the year purchased.....Unused permits would....not be exchanged or refunded".

Most residents are not able to plan exactly how many permits they will need. The new proposals will make it more difficult to manage visitor parking without buying a surfeit of permits that will will now expire more quickly and be non-refundable. 
 
Also included in these proposals is a change which increases the cost of visitor parking by more than double.
 

As a  policy, these changes are tantamount to a move towards more regressive local taxation and will unduly impact on the poorest in the borough.

I would urge the Council to review the cost increases and to consider an online system for the issue of visitor parking such as is used on other London Boroughs.

Another interesting point from the HoL thread is that just around the corner from me someone is asking £200 a month for a car parking space, and is getting good reviews.

Tonight walking home I saw three "Drive Now" cars parked between main road and my house, something I have not noticed before. Drive Now cars don't need visitor permits.

Hugh's recent shunt has not persuaded him that Drive Now is a good option.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service