2010 | CPZ in the news

last updated 17.11.10

CO2-based parking charges

10.9.2010 | Indipendent

Richmond Council scraps controversial CO2-based parking charges

Plans to scrap a controversial CO2-based parking scheme have finally been given the go ahead.

Richmond Council’s Conservative cabinet tried to officially end the scheme in July, but action to scrap the system was delayed when the decision was called in by members of the opposition.

This week Richmond’s Friends of the Earth group made a final desperate plea to stop the council abolishing the scheme, saying to do so would send a message to residents the council was not concerned about reducing CO2 emissions.

In a letter to councillors the environmental action group wrote: “We are concerned the proposals are signalling very clearly to residents the new administration is not concerned about reducing Richmond’s CO2 emissions and regards efforts to do so as contrary to the interests of residents.

“Tackling climate change is the most crucial challenge faced by humanity.”

Under the current scheme motorists pay different amounts to park in controlled parking zones (CPZs) depending on their car’s carbon emissions.

The new administration plans to change the system to encompass a flat fee for CPZ permits and 30-minutes, free parking for residents at a cost of £241,000 a year, as well as a one-off £90,000 fee to change parking meters.

However, despite objections at a scrutiny meeting at York House on Tuesday the scheme was scrapped after more than half of the members on the environment, sustainability and community committee voted to stick by the decision.

Speaking at the meeting, Councillor Katharine Harborne said the decision to abolish the CO2-based parking scheme marked a need to try something new.

She said: “There is evidence this car parking CO2 emissions charge maybe was a good idea at the time it was introduced – it was a good experiment and got a lot of publicity – but made no change to people’s behaviour.

“So I think it’s time we tried something new.”

Plans to change the way on-street parking was charged had been questioned by Liberal Democrat councillors Martin Elengorn and Geoff Acton, who asked for the decision to be looked at again.

Both councillors argued the decision had not been subject to a proper public consultation and papers stating the intention to scrap the scheme had only been released at the last minute.

Councillor Stephen Knight, leader of the opposition, said: “I think it’s very sad the Conservatives have chosen to abandon a policy, which sets Richmond as a national leader in tackling climate change, and shameful that the effect of this decision will be a cut in revenue.”


18.11.2010 | Ham & High


Editorial Comments

Parking revenues: local authorities are having a laugh  THE correspondent who warns on this page about the impact of new parking charges in the Broadway area is right to be concerned. His anxiety is shared by many traders who are experiencing tough times, and by residents who will see their parking charges rocket.

There isn’t a local authority in the land which doesn’t exploit parking, and parking offences, to swell their coffers. The very idea that people must now pay for a permit to par k outside their own homes has become acceptable practice. The penalties for parking infringements are way out of kilter with the severity of the ‘crime’. Many a motorist has faced a bill of hundreds of pounds after being clamped and towed for a relatively minor offence. Of course, many lazy, careless or antisocial parkers deserve what they get, but there have been countless stories of the jaw-dropping exploits of parking wardens and clamping firms operating with impunity under the sanction of a ‘caring’ local authority.

Some local authorities are worse than others and up until now, Haringey has had one of the better reputations as far as London is concerned. Nearby, both Westminster and Camden have regularly topped the charts for parking revenues, bringing in around £40 million a year and earning, in the process, criticism for what many see as ruthless exploitation of the motorist. In these harsh economic times, Westminster has plans to employ 50 more wardens at a cost of some £2million. Obviously it intends to recoup the outlay, and then some.

Just down the road, Islington is abandoning its free parking scheme in the Archway area. Traders and residents liked the refreshingly innovative scheme, so what went wrong? It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that the council just couldn’t bear to see parking revenues dip in that area, even if the scheme greatly benefited businesses who themselves produce considerable revenues, both for the council and the country.

18.11.2010 | Ham & High

Haringey’s green light to parking charges hike

by Rhiannon Evans
Concern as council increases permits by 66 per cent and doctors’ by £200 a year.

PLANS to double the cost of Crouch End and Muswell Hill pay and display tickets and increase the price of doctor’s parking charges by £200 have been given the green light by Haringey councillors.

Labour party members at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday agreed the plans, which will also see residential permits rocket by up to 66 per cent – there will now be a statutory 21 day consultation on the scheme, and they will come into effect unless there are “major objections”.

Introducing the report, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, Cllr Nilgun Canver, said she was confident Haringey would retain its place in the middle of the London-wide parking charges table as she expected other boroughs to also increase their prices. She also welcomed the introduction of a special permit for carers.

The plans would see an hour’s parking in Muswell Hill, Crouch End and Green Lanes rise from £1.40 to £3, a move branded extortionate by traders in the Broadway last week.

Doctors in the borough will no longer pay £45 a year for a parking space, but will instead each have to shell out £240 for a permit to bring them in line with the charges other businesses face.

Cabinet member Dilek Dogus backed the plans, saying: “I think it’s only right the council treat doctors as businesses, because that’s essentially what they are. “I really value the work they do, but to give them a discount where they are still businesses is not right in this financial climate.”

Leader Cllr Claire Kober agreed, saying: “It is under a pound a day and we would argue most GPs have a significantly higher income that many of our small business owners and I think parking for under a pound a day is OK.”

Visitor permits will also increase by 50 per cent, traders’ charges will go up 20 per cent, as will business permits.

Liberal Democrat councillor for Crouch End Lyn Weber questioned the amount of money being raised by the parking department, stating the service had raked in £3million in 2009/10, but Cllr Kober countered: “This was a service that was not covering its costs, but in the new world of the council we are going to have to look at these things because the cuts we are facing are savage.” Speaking after the meeting Cllr Weber called on the authority to state publicly how much the new charges will raise and why the council has targeted business users and customers.

“The Labour council has decided to hike charges that will hit local independent businesses and shopkeepers at the worst possible time.

“Many have struggled through the recession and now the council want to hit traders when they are down,” she said.

“By doubling the charges for shoppers visiting Green Lanes, Crouch End and Muswell Hill, the council has given the green light for an exodus of shoppers out of our town centres, to Brent Cross, Westfield and other boroughs.” “The Council need to make public the evidence that their proposals are fair and sustainable.”

MP for the area Lynne Featherstone also slammed the increases, saying: “It is very concerning that, at a time when some local businesses are struggling to get back on their feet, the council are hitting them with higher charges.”

11.11.2010 | Ham & High

Drivers clobbered in 500% parking fee rise

by Rhiannon Evans

hh11.11.10PLANNED increases of up to 500 per cent in parking charges have been slammed as “extortionate”.

A Haringey Council review of all parking costs recommends charges should increase from £45 to £240 for doctors parking permits, while pay and display tickets in Muswell Hill and Crouch End look set to more than double from £1.40 to £3 an hour.

Residents permits will increase by up to 66 per cent – depending on engine size – and everything from traders’ to business permits could also rocket.

Doctor’s surgeries and traders in Muswell Hill and Crouch End say the increases will be bad for business.

Crouch End trader Chris Freeman said: “While appreciating Haringey has financial problems, to clobber an easy target like this is extortionate.”

The review into parking, which will be voted on by cabinet members on Tuesday, states: “Given the unique range of challenges faced by local government, it is important to continually review service provision to ensure costs and charges are appropriate and will remain so.”

It also says it aims to bring Haringey’s charges in line with the London average. The authority is currently ranked 14 out of 21 authorities for the cost of its residents’ permits. If the changes go ahead, they will jump to ninth.

If the report is agreed, a consultation would take place. But the document states that, if no “major objections” are received, the charges will be implemented by officers without another vote or discussion at council.

At the moment, doctors surgeries pay £45 a year for a parking bay, which can be shared by various vehicles. But under the latest plans, this would rocket to £240 for a single permit – meaning each vehicle would be subject to the new higher charge.

Practice manager Lesley Mayo, of the Dukes Avenue Surgery in Muswell Hill, said that, with nine doctors, they would be severely hit. “It’s a bit of a shock – we are a non-profit organisation, not a business,” she said.

“Increasing the cost of bays from £45 to £240 would be bad enough but to change it to permits as well is an astonishing increase. If this goes through we would seriously have to consider how we would manage our vehicles.”

Crouch End, Muswell Hill and Green Lanes pay and display bays are currently ranked as “medium occupancy areas” meaning tickets are in the middle band of Haringey’s pricing.

But as well as hiking prices in all three categories across the borough, tickets in these areas will now be charged in the “high occupancy” band – leading to an increase from £1.40 to £3 for shoppers.

A document released at full council last month showed Green Lanes, Muswell Hill and Crouch End Broadway were all in the top four roads in the borough for generating revenue in parking fines. Green Lanes was also revealed as the most ticketed road in the country.

Mr Freeman said: “It will be detrimental to the high street. It will drive people away to the one-stop supermarkets where car parking is free and it will have an adverse effect on trade and jobs.”

Muswell Hill traders’ group co-chairwoman Emma Whittlestone added: “Parking is already a problem for us. People already complain about it. So this will make it even harder for us.”

A council spokesman said: “These charges are the first such rises since the reviews of 2007/8. Increased charges in Muswell Hill, Green Lanes and Crouch End will encourage a regular turnover of visitors to town centres. Doctors’ charges have not been increased for 10 years and their rates have been brought in line with business charges.”


21.10.2010 | Hornsey Journal

Parking charges to rise by 60 per cent

By Daisy Jestico

hj11.11.10PARKING charges are expected to soar across Haringey by up to 60 per cent.

Households in controlled parking zones will be expected to pay up to £150 per year to park a single car outside their homes, if the council votes through conrtoversial increases next week.

And busy shopping strips like Crouch End, Green Lanes and Muswell Hill will be regraded as “high usage” areas, meaning the cost of a pay and display ticket would more than double from the current £1.40 per hour to £3 per hour.

Clive Carter, secretary of the Stroud Green Residents’ Association, said: “Many people will throw their hands up in despair at these charges. It is another tiny bit of the fallout from the failure to regulate the banks and motorists have to pay. It is unfair and I just wish the council would come clean about why they’re doing this.”

He added that he hoped they could “admit that Parking Services are a profit centre and are a substitute for taxation”.

The proposed increases to resident’s permits – of between 30 and 60 per cent – will see Haringey become one of the most expensive places to park in London. The borough currently has the 14th highest permit charges, but if the increases are approved Haringey will rise to eighth – with the same costs as upmarket Hammersmith and Fulham.

Residents paying £15 per year will see their permit rise to £20, those paying £30 will pay £50, those paying £60 will pay £95, and those with gas guzzling vehicles paying £90 will pay £150.

Current concessions for elderly and vulnerable residents will remain. Visitors’ permits will go up too – a two-hour scratch card from 40p to 60p, and a daily scratchcard from £2 to £3 – as will business permits, and the cost of placing a skip on the street will rise by 75 per cent to £70.

A report submitted to the council’s cabinet could be approved when it meets on Tuesday. Chief financial officer Gerald Almeroth says in the report: “The proposed charges should bring Haringey more in line with the London average for permit charges.

“The exact level of additional income generated will depend on usage levels but it is expected that the revised charges will address the base issues within the parking account and contribute towards the savings the council will be required to deliver in future years.”

30.10.2010 | Ham & High

Fortis Green CPZ installed despite ‘huge opposition’ from homeowner

By Rhiannon Evans

Residents’ own survey found majority of people were against Haringey Council’s plans.

A controlled parking zone has been introduced in a Fortis Green residential area despite the majority of homeowners being against it.

Hassan Esfandiary and Geoffrey Ferris were so confused by the installation of the permit zone in Lynmouth Road after a fast-track consultation that they decided to carry out their own questionnaire in the road.

They found 29 of their neighbours were against the scheme, while only 10 supported it.

Haringey Council claims it agreed to consult on and then introduce the CPZ in Lymouth Road and nearby Francis and Eastern Roads in response to residents’ concerns about parking pressures.

Mr Esfandiary says local councillor Martin Newton then surveyed the top half of the road to check if they wanted to be included in the scheme. As a result, the whole road was included.

But Mr Esfandiary says their survey shows people in both parts of the road were actually against it.

He said: “Nobody in this road had a problem parking – this is just absolute nonsense.

“For the council to promote this and make out it’s a democratic process and then to do it by misrepresenting the facts really annoys me – we are not stupid.

“Our survey shows 29 against and 10 for it. So how on earth did the council come to their conclusions?”

Fellow Lynmouth Road resident Mr Ferris added: “I think this is undemocratic. I’m not against CPZs but I’m against them being put in when people have said they don’t want them.”

Cllr Newton said he was merely checking the council’s assertion that the top of Lynmouth Road wanted to be included in the CPZ.

He added: “In general, the response was that, if it was going ahead, they preferred to be included in the CPZ. I think, overall, we achieved the right balance.”

A Haringey Council spokeswoman said: “The Fortis Green CPZ was introduced to address parking displacement from the East Finchley CPZ, operated by Barnet Council.

“An extension to the CPZ was proposed following representations from the local community regarding parking issues in the area, including displacement from the East Finchley and Fortis Green CPZs. A petition calling for an extension of the zone included signatures from 25 residents of Lynmouth Road, as well as signatures from residents of Eastern Road and Lauradale Road.

“Our surveys also indicated that the greatest stress on parking was experienced in those three roads.

“The recommendation to extend the CPZ to Lynmouth, Eastern and Lauradale Roads only, was supported by Haringey Council’s consultation and by ward councillors, who discussed the scheme with residents.”

Meanwhile, Barnet Council has revealed they may call a halt on all new CPZs unless they can be funded by private development.

21.10.2010 | Hornsey Journal

Parking pot of gold

By Daisy Jestico

hj21.10.10Tickets earn cash strapped council £580,000 a year

MORE than £580,000 in parking fines in just one year is sapping the “lifeblood” out of the Crouch End shopping district, it is claimed.

Shoppers and traders were outraged to hear that Haringey Council raised the hefty sum last year for tickets issued in The Broadway, Crouch End Hill and Tottenham Lane.

It amounts to more than £10,000 a week, with £322,594 being collected in The Broadway alone – a stretch of just over 500 feet.

Chris Freeman, chairman of the Crouch End Traders’ Association and owner of Dunn’s Bakery, said: “That is a huge sum of money. All these tickets and cameras drive shoppers away from the traditional high streets and straight into supermarket car parks.

“We always have to tell shoppers to be careful and re-read the notices because they can be misleading and confusing, but unfortunately it just means that people stop coming.” Wardens also handed out £148,660 in fines in Tottenham Lane and another £115,218 in fines in Crouch End Hill, during the same period from April 2009 to April 2010.

The average charge paid is £100, suggesting there were about 5,800 tickets issued in the area. Parking bays on these roads are notoriously confusing, with motorists often baffled by conflicting parking notices and bus lane restrictions.

Under the council’s “stop and shop” scheme, drivers can park for up to two hours in Crouch End according to the council’s website, but confusingly signs say parking is allowed for up to three hours in Tottenham Lane and Crouch End Hill.

Traders also claim restrictions make it almost impossible for them to load and unload deliveries outside their shops. And with patrolling wardens and CCTV cameras trained on the shopping strip, it is feared motorists are being turned into a council “cash cow”. Graham Powell, owner of Graham Fine Art, in Crouch End Hill, said: “It seems like an astronomical amount of money that could be better spent in local shops.” He said his customers had often complained about the parking restrictions and had been put off coming back by the fear of being ticketed. Green Lanes, in nearby Harringay, has also named as the most ticketed road in the country with £564,000 levied by the council in parking fines in 2009 on a 1.5 mile stretch. But that pales in comparision to The Broadway, which has racked up fines of more than £322,000 on a stretch just 0.1 miles long. Crouch End ward councillor David Winskill said: “Effectively, Haringey Council is extracting over half a million pounds from the Crouch End shopping centre. Labour said a great deal about supporting small businesses but if you add up all the financial support they have put in over the past three years I would raise serious money that it comes nowhere near what they’ve taken out. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the Haringey economy.”

A council spokesman said the penalty charge notices were issued to drivers for parking outside the designated hours with other contraventions including parking at pedestrian crossings and bus stops, double parking and overstaying the time paid for on a pay and display machine. He added: “We have reviewed parking arrangements in both areas and extended parking provision. We are seeing much higher levels of compliance with restrictions.”

Telegraph | 04 Jun 2010

Car parking wars

Will councils antagonise residents by charging extra for parking permits for the most polluting cars? As long as it’s under the guise of traffic management, it seems that councils can charge what they like.

Driveways, garages – even forecourts, if your car is small enough – could soon have more impact on the value of your home than a Smallbone kitchen or converted attic, following a dramatic swing in the way local councils across Britain are now milking the motorist.

It started three years ago when Richmond Borough Council in affluent south-west London announced plans to charge residents up to three times more for a parking permit if they had a bigger-engined car.

Few believed the scheme would be approved; the very idea that a council would levy a higher fee on a stationary car was preposterous according to motoring organisations.

Other observers believed it unlikely that local politicians would alienate voters by penalising bigger families – often those from ethnic minorities – who are forced to rely on bigger cars.

They were wrong on both counts and reckoned without the steely resolve of Richmond council. By April 2007 the west London authority had introduced the scheme to the outrage of many in the borough.

Overnight, the cost of parking – except for those with driveways – went from a maximum of £100 to £300, or a staggering £450 for a second vehicle.

Motorists who are tempted to shrug it off as the go-it-alone antics of a maverick London borough should think again, however. It was a middle-of-the road, Liberal Democrat-led borough that launched this particular assault on the motorist and now the concept is spreading fast.

Telegraph Motoring has found that a further eight out of London’s 33 borough authorities have introduced their own CO2-based plans, in many cases doubling the cost of a resident’s parking permit. And what happens in London today – road pricing, low emission zones, CCTV traffic enforcement – will appear on a street near you tomorrow.

Kelvin Reynolds, the director of operations and technical services at the British Parking Association, says it is “highly likely” that other councils across England and Wales will jump on the CO2 bandwagon.

“Pressure on councils is rising as car ownership grows. They cannot sit by and do nothing. Local authorities have a statutory duty to reduce emissions and to help the Government meet its CO2 obligations.”

Mr Reynolds, a former City of London transport official, added: “What councils can’t do is use parking control to raise revenue – that would be illegal. It has to be to do with managing traffic.”

The AA is unsure about the way the law is being interpreted however. “Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 councils can do almost what they like in terms of parking control; they must consult but they could, if they wanted, say that motorists must drive blue cars on Mondays and red ones on Tuesdays,” said the AA’s head of transport policy, Paul Watters. “They have considerable scope to write the rules and linking CO2 to parking charges comes under this.”

Watters says there could now be worse to come; councils are also keenly monitoring Richmond’s latest wheeze – an electronic card parking scheme that also hits “gas guzzlers”. It encourages drivers to register their cars online an, after providing their car’s CO2 details, they receive a pre-pay card which can be topped up and swiped at street and car park ticket machines in the borough.

Cars with emissions between 121g/km and 180g/km, including some Ford Focuses, pay 25 per cent less than base rates.

But owners of cars emitting more than 181g/km of CO2, such as some Ford Mondeos and many 4x4s, must pay 25 per cent above standard rates. It is estimated that the move could net the council an extra £800,000 a year.

“It is a brazen and monstrous attempt to boost revenue under the guise of being green,” says Watters. “Officials are giving themselves a pat on the back for being green, but it is ludicrous to penalise a vehicle on its emissions when the car is switched off.”

Critics point out that those forced to pay higher rates may use their car just once a week, perhaps for a family outing, or, even more rarely, if it is an expensive sports car, while their neighbour who pays considerably less for a smaller-engined hatchback creates far more CO2 by using their car on the daily commute.

CO2-based parking schemes are likely to damage more than motorists’ wealth, however; critics warn that if they spread they will lead to wholesale concreting-over of front gardens as residents dig out lawns and shrubs to avoid spiralling fees.

Relentless pressures however are forcing councils to act; spiralling car ownership means roadside parking spaces are filling up fast, forcing neighbour to compete with neighbour in the home-time dash for a space.

In 2009 there were 31 million cars in the UK but this is predicted to jump to 32.4m by 2015 and 36.1m by 2024. Some councils, such as Brighton, have instigated rationing; residents must now wait for spaces to become free before getting a permit.

Three years ago the waiting list for some zones in the seaside city peaked at two years; following a review it has been cut to a slightly less painful 10 months.

Other councils dabbling in CO2 controls either for pay-and-display car parks or at the roadside include Edinburgh (where one third of residents may have to pay more), Sheffield, Salford, Cambridge, Brighton, where owners of low-emissions cars get discounts, and Nottingham City which “can’t rule it out”.

But the prize for unfairly penalising motorists under so-called “environmental” concerns goes to Norwich City council, which gears permit costs to a car’s length: longer cars pay double because, says the council, “smaller cars produce fewer emissions”.

So if your car is under 3.92m long, you pay £16 a year, 3.92m to 4.45m is £22 and more than 4.45m will cost you £30. As our chart below shows, the idea that a car’s length directly equates to its CO2 emissions is a travesty.

We should beware all this, says the AA, which warns that “discounts” for the few are only a very short step from surcharges for the many. There’s even a premium on learning; park on campus at Exeter or Stirling and, their websites explain, your charges could be linked to your emissions.

There is however hope, if, like many, you object to the £55 billion motorists are already estimated to contribute to taxation. In a delicious triumph for drivers in Richmond on May 6, the Lib Dems at council level lost power to the Conservatives, who campaigned heavily against “fanatical hostility to the family car”, promising a reversal if they gained power.

“The unfair tax targets small homes with no drives and damages the environment by promoting paving of front gardens,” stated the Tories’ manifesto. Voters liked what they heard, and kicked the Lib Dems out of power.

The motorist has won the battle, if not the war. Other councils, take note.

Why Norwich City’s parking rules don’t make sense:

Five polluting cars incurring £22 annual permit (3.92m-4.45m)

Lamborghini Gallardo: 4.34m, 327g/km

Porsche 911 Turbo S: 4.45m, 268g/km

Lotus Europa: 3.9m, 229g/km

Audi TT 3.2 V6: 4.17m, 247g/km

Ford Focus RS: 4.34m, 225g/km

Five frugal cars incurring £30 annual permit (over 4.45m)

Mondeo estate 2.0 TDCi: 4.83m, 139g/km

Honda Accord Tourer: 4.74, 155g/km

Mitsubishi Outlander 2.0 DI-D: 4.64m, 174g/km

Toyota Avensis Tourer 2.0 D-4D: 4.76m, 136g/km

Vauxhall Insignia estate 2.0 CDTi: 4.90m, 139g/km

14.10.2010 | Ham & High

Traders join police in parking objection

hh14.10.10OPPOSITION to extending the controlled parking zone in Crouch End has mounted this week as police and traders stepped in to lodge their objections.

Police were forced to meet Haringey Council over plans to extend CPZs on either side of the Broadway with concerns staff would be unable to park near the Safer Neighbourhoods base in Crouch Hall Road, affecting around 30 officers.

And a tradesman this week warned small businesses are being charged “double bubble” as a result of the proposals and could have to charge local customers more for their services.

After extended campaigns by those living on the edge of the current CPZs, Haringey Council agreed to a 21-day “fast-track” consultation on whether to extend the CPZs on either side of the Broadway, bringing much of Crouch End under parking permit controls for at least a few hours a day.

But local shop owners, residents and now police have objected to both the scheme and its hasty consultation.

The consultation ended on Friday, with local police visiting the council asking for allowances for staff parking.

Miles Newby of Dashwood Road is a local builder – if the CPZ extends he will have to pay for permits for his personal vehicle, van and then for guest permits if the area he works in has a CPZ. Currently he is paying £33 a day to work in a nearby road in the Islington CPZ and says further charges end up being paid by the customer.

“We are all going to have to knuckle down and accept it but it’s another running cost I have to pay,” he said.

“I get double bubble because when I work I have to pay for permits and when I get home I have to pay as well.

“It’s just something that is totally unnecessary and is yet another tax on the motorist.” On Friday, Haringey Park resident Lee Levitt submitted a petition of more than 500 people against the CPZ extension – more than the original petition in favour of it. “There’s still a lot of opposition to extending the CPZ from within the zones,” he said.

“People are going to have to pay to park, they think it will be bad for local traders and they feel it’s being imposed on them – it’s not necessarily going to mean you can find a parking space near your house.”

Local shop owners have also rallied against the proposals. Owner of Foto Plus, Mohamed Hussein, said: “We are of the firm belief that the combination of parking restrictions and lack of public transport access will result in us losing most of our regular customers.

“The shoppers who currently use Crouch End Broadway as their local high street will be deterred either by the inconvenience of actually getting there or by the inconvenience and expense of parking there.

“This will force businesses like ours to shut or relocate, which cannot be in the interests of those parties that the proposals are aimed at protecting.”

A council spokesman said: “We can confirm that the police have made representations regarding staff parking, should the Crouch End CPZ be extended as proposed. We will consider these along with all representations received as part of the statutory process.

“Our priority is to address residents’ parking issues, although consideration will also be given to support for essential services where possible.”

The council is now considering the consultation response before making its decision.

7.10.2010 | Hornsey Journal

Parking zone plan must be all or nothing

The current action of haringey Council to introduce further CPZs, without a coherent overall strategy, is irresponsible.

The consequences for the roads which remain outside the scheme are entirely predictable and unacceptable.

If the council can now use “exceptional powers” to introduce CPZs in further roads at short notice, it is unreasonable to leave other roads, which are already badly affected, outside the scheme.

The current consultation has the title “front-line”. We live on a CPZ “front-line” at the eastern end of Mount View Road, close to Haringey station.

We border on a region of Controlled Parking Zones extending into the Congestion Charge area in the south, and are already feeling the effects of the creeping CPZs around Crouch End in the north.

The roads round here are routinely used as a free parking space by the owners of commercial vehicles – vans, trucks, taxis, etc – for overnight and weekend parking. During the day, the roads are clogged with cars belonging to commuters going to Haringey station.

Some vehicles, such as camper vans and broken down cars, belonging to people living miles away, in other boroughs, are parked virtually permanently in these roads. Derelict and abandoned vehicles are allowed to hog spaces until their tax discs expire.

There is nowhere for residents to park. Yet these roads have not been included in the current proposals to extend CPZs.

When local residents have asked Haringey Council to allow us to be included in any CPZ extension, we have been told that the problem is of our own making and so we must suffer.

The council takes the attitude that the problems we are now experiencing are our own fault, because we voted against the introduction of a CPZ, when we were originally offered one, several years ago. This is daft!

When we were last consulted, we obviously did not know how the surrounding roads were responding, until after the close of the consultation when all the results were announced.

At that time we still hoped that everyone would say “No”. The council has insisted that we are not due for a further consultation for several years and continues to do nothing about the problem. A responsible strategy for Controlled Parking Zones would mean that ALL the roads in a rationally defined area would be included, or there should be NO CPZs at all, avoiding the problems created by the borders.

– Sue Carroll, Mount View Road, N4.

7.10.2010 | Ham & High

Parking zone plan splits community

hh7.10.10Mixture of outrage and relief over fast-tracked Broadway CPZ A CHANGE to parking rules in Crouch End has divided the community. Haringey Council has “fasttracked” plans to extend the Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) either side of the Broadway because they claim there has been an overwhelming public desire for it, meaning residents have only had 21 days to have their say.

Under the plans, between 10am and 12pm only permit holders will be able to use the additional roads to the east of the Broadway, and to the west only homeowners can park between 2pm and 4pm. Many residents have long petitioned for the extension after being flooded with displaced cars from the original CPZ and the tight restrictions in Islington.

They say commuters and business owners leave their cars in their roads for days and weeks, meaning they are unable to park near their homes and hope the daily restriction will prevent this.

But while those residents rejoiced when Haringey said they would fast-track the usual lengthy consultation process, others have slammed the move including traders and those both living inside and just outside the new CPZ areas. Danny Freedman’s Ivy Gardens home is set to fall within CPZ extension A and claims more than 400 people living on roads inside the planned extension do not want the permits and have signed a petition making their point to the council.

He said: “I don’t think we should pay for what we get for free now. I think it favours some people against others, it particularly helps people who pop in and out during the day as opposed to people who go to work all day and I don’t think the council has given good reasons for it.

“It also encourages people to pave over their front gardens and I think it’s an underhand way of collecting more money. I think the fact it has been fast-tracked is outrageous.”

Residents living on the fringes of the newly-planned extension fear they will now be placed in the same situation of taking displaced non-permit holders.

And traders say their businesses are set to be hugely affected. Helene Allen, owner of Little Paris, said: “We will have less customers for sure because it’s already really difficult to park.

“I’m really sure this will affect our business. Customers always say they can’t park or stay longer than two hours.”

However, Tec Fawcett, who campaigned with a petition of more than 250 people vigorously for 18 months for the CPZ B to be extended, said: “This is important because we are suffering. We have got quite a lot of people here with young families and older infirm people who have difficulties walking to their cars.

“We are not against the traders and we don’t think they will be affected because with the commuters removed there will be spaces during the day for shoppers. We support them and we would expect them to support us when we can’t park.” Lorraine Griffiths, who also campaigned for CPZ A to be extended said one van had been parked opposite her house for four months as roads on all sides of her Gladwell Road home are in a CPZ.

“We have been squeezed,” she said. “I have neighbours with two or three children who have to park two or three roads away.” People have until tomorrow (October 8) to have their say. Send an email to frontline.consultation@ haringey.gov.uk or go to www.haringey.gov.uk.

06.10.10 | Evening Standard

Drivers baffled by 16 parking rules on road that’s netted Haringey council £564,000 in fines

By Mark Blunden

Drivers baffled by 16 parking rules on road that’s netted Haringey council £564,000 in fines

An “army” of parking attendants, backed up by CCTV, issue the equivalent of 33 tickets a day over the one-and-a-half-mile section of Green Lanes. The single stretch of road made Haringey council £564,000 in penalty charge revenues from illegal parking last year.

Drivers blame conflicting parking restrictions, which are different on each side of the street, and confusing signs giving three sets of instructions.

The Standard also found small pieces of paper wedged inside meters which give even more times when parking is permitted.

Traders say they are now forced to make announcements to their customers about when parking restrictions come into force and warn them when wardens descend.

Drivers trying to find a parking space on the busiest section of Green Lanes are confronted with a sign on each side of the road, dictating a combined 16 sets of parking times.

Those driving south towards Finsbury Park are told they cannot park between 7am and 10am on weekdays, while those heading north cannot park between 4pm and 7pm.

Parking is banned on Saturdays between 5pm and 7pm, traditionally the busiest time of the week for many of the Turkish-run shops. A separate set of pay and display instruction is also given for both sides.

Jo Abbott, of the RAC Foundation said: “Green Lanes is an arcane and complicated set of parking restrictions, and it seems Haringey council is deliberately exploiting the confusion to raise exorbitant revenue from parking fines.

“The council has a fundamental obligation to ensure that the parking arrangements are simple and clearly signed on the street, and they are unambiguously comprehensible. We challenge Haringey to demonstrate that they are meeting their obligations.”

Birsen Tuna, manager of the Yasar Halim bakery, said: “The signs are very confusing. We’ve been to meetings and told the council, who listen but don’t do anything about it.”

Shefik Mehmet, 64, chairman of Harringay traders’ association, said: “All day Saturday there is no parking and an army of traffic wardens wait to catch people. To add to the confusion the residents’ bays and pay-and-display are all mixed up.”

Haringey’s wardens issued 12,302 tickets for the street last year, more than any other road inEngland and Wales.

A Haringey spokeswoman said: “The signs and instructions are standard and can be seen in other London boroughs along main roads. They comply with all regulations and we have few successful appeals in this area.”

16.9.2010 | Ham & High

‘Consultation muddled   by council CPZ blunder’

By Rhiannon Evans
HARINGEY Council has been   forced to reprint 10,000 copies of a   consultation on Crouch End parking   issues after incorrectly labelling   the map.

A consultation on whether the   Crouch End controlled parking   zones A and B should be extended   after considerable local pressure   and petitioning in recent months is   set to be delivered by the council.   CPZs impose several hours a   day in which drivers must pay or   have a permit to park their vehicles   in a bid to tackle motorists   from other areas seeking to leave   their car for long periods of time   free.

They were introduced either   side of the Broadway in February   2009. But since then, surrounding   roads have been forced to take the   burden of vehicles displaced from   the zone. This has led to residents   mounting several campaigns for   the council to fast-track a plan to   extend the scheme – a wish granted   earlier this year.

But the map in the latest consultation   document, showing the   changes planned to the CPZ, has   been incorrectly labelled.   It shows the B zone extending   on either side of the Broadway,   instead of marking its extension   to the west and the A zone to the   east. Had the map gone out, residents   could have become confused   and bought the wrong permits for   their road.

When the mistake was spotted   by ward councillor Lyn Weber,   the council acted immediately to   reprint the 10,000 maps.   The documents will now be delivered   across the area this week.   Cllr Weber said: “CPZs are   contentious at the best of times.   The council’s blunder would have   muddled the consultation.   “Crouch Enders have endured   years of parking misery and this   mistake is yet another chapter to a   long-running saga.”

Jill Eakins lives in Fairfield   Road, which is set to be included   in the extension of zone A.   She said: “I wish they would   just extend the CPZ across the   whole borough – we are desperate   for it in Fairfield Road.   “I find it difficult to understand   how such a simple mistake could   have occurred, costing taxpayers’   money.”

Others were just relieved that a   CPZ could finally be on the way.   Lorraine Griffiths lives on the   edge of zone A in Gladwell Road   and is desperate for the extension   to be approved.

She said: “These things happen.   Providing they have done what   they can to put it right, I don’t   think it matters. What matters to   me is that sooner rather than later   I can park in my road rather than   three roads away.

“If they are allowed, it would   have a huge impact on my life. I   don’t expect to be able to park outside   my house but I would quite   like to park in my own road.”

A Haringey Council spokeswoman   said the authority had   acted swiftly to rectify the problem   and the reprint had only cost £154.  

9.9.2010 | Ham & High

Parking rule U-turn will ‘hit traders and shoppers’ pockets’ 
Hours slashed sparking fears of lost customers and more fines

By Ben Bloom 

hh9.9.10Crouch End shoppers face confusion  after cuts to parking times  on The Broadway – the second time  regulations have been changed in a  year.

Visitors are now limited to a sixhour  window in which to park with  no stopping allowed during morning  and evening peak times.

The move comes after regulations  were relaxed in a trial period  last Christmas and two disabled  parking spaces created – both of  which have now been removed.

Haringey Council says the  change is due to Transport for London  (TfL) claims that buses are being  affected by parked cars.

But Crouch End councillor Dave  Winskill refutes the claim and fears  shoppers will suffer by failing to  notice the new regulations.  he said: “These bays were put in  place last year as a result of long  negotiations to make it easier for  people visiting to park and use the  shops and they proved to be a real  success.

“Cllr Lyn Weber and I have  been aware of haringey’s plans to  reverse the timings of these bays  and are really concerned that council  traffic engineers are accepting  without question what TfL is saying  about bus hold-ups.

“We object to the change because  TfL’s claim that there was  congestion has not been demonstrated  in any way.”

The regulations brought in last  week have seen certain bays on  The Broadway limited to parking  between 10am and 4pm with only  loading allowed between 7am and  10am or 4pm and 7pm.

Last Christmas saw parking allowed  between 8am and 6.30pm.

Cllr Weber said: “Iamconcerned  that it will cause some confusion.  You now have different signage  throughout Crouch End and will  have people who are used to parking  there at different times.”  Hours slashed sparking fears of lost customers and more fines

Traders are also disappointed,  fearing they will lose customers.

Broadway Fruiterers owner  Michael Plastiras has already seen  one customer get a parking ticket.

He said: “It’s not good for trade  because parking is limited as it is.

“We have already lost customers  who would normally pull in  and quickly fill a box with fruit  and veg. It’s taking people away  from us. It’s just another way to  help the supermarkets cream it.”

Dunn’s bakery owner Chris  Freeman said: “I think it’s a shame  that people have been used to parking  at a certain time and, what worries  me, is that people will carry on  parking there and then get parking  tickets. The previous regulations  made it a bit more user-friendly.  I think people were, on the whole,  pleased with it. It seemed to be a  good idea and this just seems a step  back for me.

“I think it will have an adverse  effect on trade in the morning and  late afternoon. It has taken out a  number of bays for six hours a  day.”

In a letter to residents, haringey  Council said: “The measures,  introduced last December, have  generally been well received but  some concerns have been raised by  London Buses at the adverse impact  some of the changes have had  on bus journeys.

“We therefore intend reverting  to the peak waiting and loading  restrictions previously in place in  two parking bays along The Broadway.”  TfL was unable to comment at  the time of The Broadway going to  press. 

2.9.2010 | Hornsey Journal

Parking problems ignored

WHEN the New River Estate was built, local residents were promised by the council that the increase in car ownership would not affect them as those buying homes on the private estate would have private parking.

Recently the residents of the council’s Newland Estate [Miles Road, Moselle Close and part of Newland Road] were the happy recipients of an estate parking scheme.
It was requested due to knock-on parking from the New River Estate where car owners are reluctant to comply with the requirement to purchase/rent parking spaces at £15,000.

As the parking scheme requires permits, and is on a road-by-road basis, and cars not registered to an owner in that road are being clamped and towed and fines issued, vehicles belonging to residents of New River are parking elsewhere in the area. But where?

I wonder who is responsible for parking their cars in Myddleton Road, Hornsey, and blocking the emergency vehicle access?

If I lived on any road served by that emergency vehicle route I would be most concerned that my health safety, and that of my family, was being compromised by inconsiderate drivers. This is a very recent occurrence as this area is normally free of cars.

Are the two issues related I wonder? I am astounded that our over zealous parking wardens have not discovered this potentially dangerous, and financially lucrative, situation. Why is the council ignoring this situation? –

L. Ramm, Campsfield Road, N8.  

26.8.2010 | Hornsey Jouranal

‘Bathtub’ plan for allotments down plughole

hj26.8.10LAST November, at the Hornsey Area Assembly, I was advised that the Neighbourhood Team had plans to provide a bathtub allotment for the Campsbourne Estate. In January we were invited to an initial meeting where 15 people attended. We were informed that the proposed project was to utilise the unused car parking spaces behind in Newland Road (opposite reservoirs) for a community bathtub allotment using old baths from the Decent Homes works.

A steering group of council officers and residents was formed. Then in April residents or Campsfield Road and the Newland Estate were written to informing us of plans for an estate parking scheme.

Shortly after I noticed that the site supposedly set aside for the allotment was now marked out in what looked suspiciously like parking bays, including a disabled bay.
When I queried this no one on the neighbourhood team knew who had sanctioned of carried out this work as it was not for the allotments.

Then, last week, a friend who lives in Miles Road told me that the bays in the car park are for overflow parking from their estate scheme – that is, drivers without permits. Again I queried this with the neighbourhood team but again they know nothing of this. So, just who, within Haringey Council and Homes for Haringey, knows what is going on? Anyone? No one?

My local Liberal Democrat councillors are trying to establish the truth. If the allocated space is for our promised bathtub allotment why has council tax payers’ money, yet again, been wasted by this council, on painting unwanted parking bays? And just when do they plan to deliver the allotment? – L. Ramm, Campsfield Road, N8.    

29.3.2010 | Hornsey Journal

Residents ‘ignored’ over parking zone

ANGRY” residents and traders are demanding parking bosses put the brakes on a restricted parking zone.

Households in the new Belmont controlled parking zone, off Lordship Lane, Tottenham, claim parking bays are too small for cars to fit and double yellow lines have been sprayed over people’s driveways.

Resident Pantalos Pantelli, 22, raised the concerns at a full council meeting, saying: “We are against a CPZ you have introduced when 70 per cent of residents said no. We think it’s appalling that you went through with it anyway. We feel we have been ignored and we are here to make a stand.

“Our votes will go to the party that is prepared to listen and help us.”

The CPZ, which was set up earlier this year, covers streets between Downhills Way and Westbury Avenue, from Lordship Lane to Downhills Park Road and operates from 8am-6.30pm Monday to Friday.

It was hoped restricted parking would help ease problems at an accident blackspot at the junction of Lordship Lane and Downhills Way. But residents and traders said it was now impossible for them to park and shops were losing drive-by custom.

Councillor Alan Dobbie, of neighbouring Noel Park ward, blasted the consultation, saying: “It’s a sham never letting households express a view and, if they say no, they redraw the boundaries or keep asking again until they get the answers they need.”

Councillor John Bevan, Labour cabinet member for housing, environment and conservation, insisted there was a demand by residents for the CPZ but promised to install extra bays on Downhills Way to ease parking pressures.

He added: “The scheme will be looked at after some time to see if any issues need to be addressed further. We have listened and we have made some changes to the CPZ. But we need to consider carefully the number of accidents on that junction.

24.3.2010 | Haringey Indipendent

Riot’ at Haringey Council over Wood Green CPZ

By Elizabeth Pears

Chief-executive-Kevin-Crompton 'Leave quietly, or get thrown out': newly-arrived chief executive Kevin Crompton, offered to show protesters the door
Chief-executive-Kevin-Crompton ‘Leave quietly, or get thrown out’: newly-arrived chief executive Kevin Crompton, offered to show protesters the door

TOTAL chaos erupted at a Haringey Council cabinet meeting amid a row over the extension of parking restrictions in Wood Green culminating in the newly-arrived chief executive threatening to have residents thrown out.

Furious with council leader Claire Kober’s “tactless” approval of the plans, enraged residents brought the meeting to a standstill calling on an end to the extension of the Wood Green Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) at the Civic Centre last night.

Cabinet members and council officers were forced to leave the chamber to help defuse the situation, while chief executive Kevin Crompton, who replaced Dr Ita O’Donovan, told the baying crowd to leave the quietly — or face being forcibly removed.

When protesters argued they would not move until councillors agreed to revise their decision even if police were called, Mr Crompton said: “That can be arranged”.

The cabinet meeting was disrupted up to an hour, while councillors Claire Kober, John Bevan, Nilgun Canver, Lorna Reith, Dhiren Basu and Kaushika Amin, walked out, leaving council officers to try and appease the seething group.

The row broke out when Cllr Kober (Labour/Seven Sisters), after listening to two passionate deputations against the extension of the Wood Green Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to Woodside ward, briskly approved the plans to move on to the next item on the agenda — without asking for a show of hands from her cabinet peers.

It happened so quickly, the packed public gallery did not even realise the plans they are opposed to had been approved. Once the reality of what happened dawned on them, the meeting went into meltdown.

Vivien Rodgers, of Perth Road, said: “I am disgusted. Totally disgusted. They are not even pretending to listen to residents. They have just pushed through another tax on residents by playing the comunity off against one another, street by street, neighbour by neighbour.”

The Woodside CPZ has divided residents. Some have asked for the CPZ to combat commuters parking on their roads, but others in the area, say they simply cannot afford to pay for a resident parking permit or visitor parking.

Ray Grant, campaigning to buy some disused playing fields from Haringey Council, attended the meeting hoping to get a decision over Bull Lane and Pasteur Gardens after a 26-year fight.

Mr Grant, of Aversham Road, said: “Haringey Council are a disgrace. It was Claire Kober’s actions that led to a near-on riot. It was clear that she had made up her mind about the Wood Green CPZ. There was no democracy. The public gallery was full of taxpayers who do not support the CPZ, but they didn’t care.

“It makes me feel that there is nothing to stop them from doing the exact same thing to us. After all the campaiging, all the meetings, all the talking we have done, we are still in limbo. It is very wearying.

“They promised us they would make a decision that night, and they didn’t. I think anyone who attended the meeting last night, now know the council will only do what they want.”

Speaking outside the meeting as protesters chanted “no more CPZ”, Cllr Kober denied underestimating the strength of feeling from residents.

She said: “The people in there represent one view. They do not represent the views of the entire community.”

12.2.2010 | Highgate People

Highgate Station parking restrictions to be extended

Haringey Council has approved the extension of the outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) around Highgate station. The extension follows consultation with local people and is aimed at easing pressures on residential parking around the station.

The CPZ will operate between 10am and noon on Stormont Road,  Denewood Road and Sheldon Avenue, and should be in operation by the end of March. The existing Highgate station outer CPZ covers Claremont Road, Stanhope Gardens, Stanhope Road and a small western section of Hurst Avenue.

A statutory consultation was held with residents last summer. Some local groups were initially opposed to the idea of the CPZ, saying most residents had their own off-street parking. A door-to-door

survey conducted last Autumn, however, showed more local people in favour of being included in a CPZ, in response to pressure on parking spaces and other traffic problems in the Highgate area.

The initial proposals included nine roads in the extension, but by agreement with local people the CPZ will now only extend to three of these – Stormont Road, Denewood Road and Sheldon Avenue.

Residents, businesses and visitors will be able to park in marked parking bays by displaying a valid parking permit or visitor voucher. Highgate Station CPZ also currently has a number of Pay and Display bays, charged at 55p per 15 minutes for a maximum of two hours.

Controlled parking zones (CPZs) were first introduced in Haringey in 1994 in order to reduce traffic congestion, improve road safety and promote other forms of transport.

A spokesperson for Haringey Council added,  “We believe the extension will have a positive impact on tackling the problems caused by commuter parking in the area.”