24 hours to have your say on parking

Cllr Richard Wilson · December 2010

Hi. I wanted to post a final reminder to everyone who lives in the Finsbury Park Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) that the deadline for responding to the consultation on possible changes to the hours and rules of the Zone is tomorrow.

Residents have been pushing for a review for years - with many people wanting changes, such as shorter CPZ hours in roads further away from tube station. The CPZ hasn't been reviewed since it was implemented many years ago. During that time Arsenal have moved to the Emirates Stadium and some residents have questioned whether match day parking controls are still needed in their road.

The online consultation survey for people who live in the existing CPZ can be found here: http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/environment_and_transport/parking/consultations/current_parking_consultations.htm

There is also a separate questionnaire for people living in the streets to the north of the CPZ to see if they want the Zone extended.

Please make sure you have your say.

Richard

Papa · December 2010

Islington desperately needs one of these too. A reevaulation of the IS-J parking zone and its ludicrous six day a week 8.30am to 6.30pm restrictions would be more than welcome. However, considering the borough's trigger happy, money grabbing attitude to parking tickets etc. I won't hold my breath

Four Eyes · December 2010

Haringey have extended the consultation to 7th January.

Fill in the survey <a href="http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/haringey-snap-survey.htm?k=129007989359">here</a>

ADGS · December 2010

And even if Islington did have a consultation, they'd probably just ignore/misrepresent the results like they did with traffic calming. So long as they've made a nugatory attempt to feign interest in the views of the proles, that's their duty to democracy done.

andy · December 2010

What Papa L and ADGS said.

Papa · December 2010

What ADGS and Andy said, but with an added - and they'd also spend some more money putting out bullshit about how they're adopting a common sense approach, helping residents, being green and other codswallop

ADGS · December 2010

"We're doing this for your own good. You want it really. Now why don't you stop struggling?"

becky · December 2010

There is a new regime in power in Islington since the speed bump consultation debacle. Perhaps this lot will listen to residents round here. (If any Islington councillors are reading this: I want wheely bins to make the street look nice. They have them in the wealthy parts of Islington so why not here?)

Papa · December 2010

The new regime doesn't seem to be an improvement, wrote to them with them on a complaint on a parking ticket and my response to an appeal and was passed straight over to some automaton officer who blithely ignored common sense and kept saying computer says no. In the end I gave up (which really hurt). This story hints that like all politicians they are just as bad and no different to the last lot. <http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/islington_drivers_to_be_hit_with_triple_whammy_of_extra_charges_1_743707>; Love the way the Lib Dems are trying to take the moral high ground on parking though in the article, the toe rags. Problem with wheelie bins is they don't fit in existing dustbin sized bin stores - thus more bins on show.

Ian · December 2010

Just got a letter from Islington council outlining three changes: 1) Residents with a permit will be able to park anywhere in the borough between 10am and 2pm in a controlled space 2) Unlimited visitor parking vouchers 3) Reduced costs of parking bay suspensions I think this is absolutely brilliant. I've always thought the zoning should have some flexibility for residents given how much we pay - although I can imagine residents next to Upper Street might disagree! Looks like a good compromise to give us a few hours and will be great for us now we have a kid as it makes it much more attractive to shop in Islington rather than go to an out of town site. Limited visitor parking has been a massive bugbear, particularly given number 3 - that the cost of bay suspensions is so stupidly high. Now there is a kicker to all of this - they have put prices up quite a bit. On this, the argument that they are trying to support smaller cars is pretty stupid if they apply it historically - i.e. cars that were registered are a sunk cost and I can hardly go out tomorrow and swap it for a smaller more efficient car (and if I did the environment would suffer much more because of whole life environmental cost of a car, a matter often lost on the officials of councils ...). So this historic application has always been a smokescreen for revenue raising. People should only have been charged the higher rates for registering a new car in the borough. That massive grumble on the lack of sense of the price banding aside, given the changes I'd say all in all a pretty good package.

sincers · December 2010

I back any incentive that helps reduce traffic volume, pollution etc. Although this seems to coincided with the incentives on buying low carbon cars, it just doesn't appear to be all that joined up.

Brodiej · December 2010

I got the letter too. At first glance, there are some nice ideas which will benefit all permit holders...although anyone living near a tube station (like within 200 yards) may well have other opinions.

The thing i cannot get my head around, is the requirement for us to pay more? The accounts from 2009/10 show a surplus of £5m. I've seen the admin required to renew/supply permits and it takes 5 mins.....why are there additional costs? AND, GIVEN THEY CAN ITEMISE THEIR INCOME WHY CAN'T THEY ITEMISE THEIR EXPENDITURE. If the council have a genuine green agenda, perhaps they should realise that charging more for more polluting cars will not pull in their CO2 numbers...people will just pay more and not change their car. Which then makes me see the whole thing as a revenue generator. God it makes me mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Section
Total (£s)
PCN 10,878,664
Clamping/removal 30,769
Suspensions 504,123
Permits/vouchers 5,360,359
Pay and display 6,519,662
Miscellaneous 14,142
Total 23,307,719

Expenditure -18,695,877
Surplus 4,611,842

Happy xmas all SG.org'rs!

woolly · December 2010

I got that letter too Ian. All welcome changes, though as I live opposite a school, I'll now have to accept that if I drive home with a car full of stuff to unload any time near 3pm, I won't be able to get near my house. I wish more people would walk their kids to school.

Papa · December 2010

Those changes are welcome, but they are partially a smokescreen for whacking up prices. Running a CPZ is not a rising cost, it should be a decreasing one. After initially putting in signs, bays, machines etc, you've done all the big work, only cost is the wardens and there is no reason for that to rise. In fact, over time as people realise they cannot park certain places ie commuters you should need less wardens as there should be less infringements. But, of course, as we all know but the council won't admit, parking is a money making ruse. For example, that's why business bays are so badly marked, it's to encourage residents to park there thinking they can and then fine them. If they wanted to keep them free for business permit holders they'd put in red signs or mark the bays to make it obvious. Ian. I totally agree on the point that they should not raise costs for existing registered cars. Also my final point and biggest bugbear is this. Why does IS-J have six day a week 8.30am to 6.30pm parking restrictions, this is totally unneccessary and commuters could be stopped with a simple 10 to 12 or 12 to 2pm restriction as operates in many other Islington areas. And the Arsenal games are not a reason as separate matchday controls apply anyway. If people outside of such a window would really drive into the area and park to use the tube then let them, the numbers would be absolutely minimal and they might spend some money in local businesses. But I won't hold my breath for this simple bit of common sense to come in.

twinspark · December 2010

Sadly 'Green' became a brand a while back and all these 'initiatives' are about generating money under a spurious claim to improve air quality. Individual motorists are an easy target for small governement [councils] as they are not organised to oppose any measure whilst big government continually chokes when it comes to tackling the real target of car makers and petrol companies. It's their job to produce greener goods rather than their customers paying for their failure to do so. A good number of solutions have been invented and smothered at prototype stage. [e.g early 1970's Honda had an enging that ran on water] Big govt. should stop patting itself on the back for tackling tobacco and get on with the job

Ian · December 2010

I agree completely on the business bays. They have caught me three times and I consider myself to be cautious! I still don't understand why they are not called ISB-J or something to mark them out as different to resident's permits or, as you say, marked differently. That would be the honourable thing to do. Perhaps they can spend some of the extra cash on that (and taking away the pointless speed bumps in my road). Cost issue slightly depends on how they have amatorized the fixed costs, which with revenue budgeting might be over several years - i.e. they do not score the cost of putting in the zone all in one year but spread it over the lifetime of the investment. So revenue does not drop, it should remain reasonably constant if they have got their sums right. If you are right on the better compliance, it may also be the case that revenues have dropped from fines. Of course the problem with green taxes is that if they are successful they erode the revenue base. That is why they should be used for behaviour change and not base services.

dion · December 2010

<http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/haringey-snap-survey.htm?k=129007989359>; survey still in consultation so clearly went on for more than 24 hours

ADGS · December 2010

Another council lie, then. What a surprise.

woolly · January 2011

Just read the letter again and the cross-borough parking is only for 10am - 2pm, so no joy for parents wanting to lurk in parking bays for the school run. Well, they'll do it anyhow but not with permission. So should also be less of a problem for bays near tube stations etc.

I agree that the current restrictions are over long, but I'm glad they cover 8.30 - 9.30 and 2.30 - 3.30 weekdays.

Got nobbled by the business bays one time myself. Saw IS-J and read no more, it's really easy to be confused with them. Most annoying bit was that I'd moved the car there in a hurry from the suddenly suspended bays on my street when there was emergency roadworks. I didn't use my car for a week and came back to it to find a week's worth of parking tickets. They reduced it to one day on appeal, but it still really annoyed me.

Btw, I don't know if anyone else has had their car mysteriously teleport to another bay when bays get suspended at short notice. One time I was convinced my car had been stolen after roaming the streets looking for it. Then I found out about <a href="http://www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk/vehicle_clamping_where.htm" target="_blank">TRACE</a>, a central number you can call that logs all cars moved by London councils.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

24 hours to have your say on parking

Comments