2006

For

I am hugely in favour of CPZ’s  – anything that encourages traffic restraint is a good thing. But I am sure the ‘good drivers’ of CE will oppose this scheme!

I actually have a problem every day (Monday to Friday) with parking on my road. I work part-time and usually get home with my toddler at around 3.00 – 3.30pm.

Even more frustrating is the amount of time I then spend driving round in circles trying to find a space!  (The Chettle Court car park is always full).

As an alternative to the suggested CPZ is a scheme that is in operation by Parliament Hill Fields. Camden Council introduced the scheme there last year and the restrictions are that only residents with permits can park but the restrictions only apply between 10.00am and 12.00pm, this means that people cannot park there in the mornings, go off to work on public transport and leave the car there all day as the traffic wardens patrol between these two hours resulting in a parking ticket.

I know this is not a perfect solution but it is better than having the restrictions all day.

The fact that it increasingly hard for residents to park anywhere near their own homes cannot be denied. As the area becomes more populated with shops and restaurants so more people pass through the area and park transiently.

It is human nature to seek the least cost / least inconvenience to themselves in everything they do – in other words use their cars for these visits into the area rather than put up with public transport and to park freely rather than have to pay to park their vehicles.

It seems ludicrous that residents are in convenienced by having to find parking far from their own home because visitors prefer not to pay or because they choose to park as conveniently as possible for their destinations (to shops / restaurants or residents).

When all municipal parking is full to the gunnels with the vehicles of visitors and they have nowhere else to go (remember, they can choose public transport and not use their cars if they don’t wish to pay) would some of the arguments below be valid. With limited space for parking, the use of a car (through controlled parking) is something that needs to be regulated. Whether to use a car is more reasonable to regulate than the right to have one at all. 

Of course residents parking should be free and any costs should be covered by a proportion of this controlled parking being available to visitors on a metered payment basis.

Are these views so unreasonable? we have all experienced parking in CPZ ‘s where residents give parking vouchers to their visitors (including deliveries) thereby relieving the pressure on the limited space and making it more freely available to residents and their visitors. Trade visitors (to shops restaurants etc) can visit if they choose to drive by paying for it or they are free to use public transport. The issue about not being able to park anywhere within ones own CPZ is surely down to the defining the zones properly.

There are certainly no guarantees of being able to park nearer to ones property now. Surely a ‘no cost to residents’ scheme that curtails the flood of non resident parking in ones area improves the chances that at least on some rare occasion one may be able to park near to ones home and not have to park / stop illegally to load / unload.

I am lying low on this issue as I am no friend to the internal combustion engine and don’t mind seeing car owners penalised, including myself! but I don’t like the idea of high density housing, I must say…

the problem for people like me who sit on the fence is how to disentangle the issues. I would like to be in a car pool and would like to see a situation where more people would be willing to join with me on my own street, (instead of joining a scheme I looked into which means walking to f park tube to pick up a car.) but how would I force the council to arrange things in the way I prefer? I surmise I should really vote against the cpz as it seems such a lot of trouble and, worse, another piece of undemocratic tyranny!!

I’m not in favour of a widespread CPZ but I do think it is required for my street, Lynton Road, and particularly at the Park Road end.  This is a small dead-end that is used by all and sundry to park when they go to work in the area, visit the doctor’s surgery, go to the pub, or go shopping in Crouch End.  The result is that we can’t park near our homes and some residents at the end of the street have to drive along the pavement to get their cars out!  So,  CP with free residents permits is required.

I think it is necessary to try and reduce the number of cars parking in the Broadway in order to make the area more pleasant for pedestrians and to enable traffic, including buses, to get through without too much delay. I think it is also necessary to deal with the present unclear rules which result in drivers getting indignant about tickets. I can’t think of a better way of doing it than a pay and display system. I am not sure how the scheme would damage the Broadway. Only a minority of people who shop there come by car. Most will still be able to do that if they feel they have to, but everybody else will have a more pleasant experience.

We urgently need a CPZ in Muswell Hill – like just about every other part of London. Those that have them would never go back to the pre-CPZ days – they enjoy their peaceful roads, where they can actually park  near their own houses again.

Shopkeepers,who mostly don’t live in Muswell Hill,should not necessarily presume to talk for the residents. Your leaflet talks about “quality of life “ being affected – yes, it certainly is at the moment, and we are sick of the congestion, volume of traffic, and impossibility of being able to park in our roads. We hope the Council will introduce a CPZ  before every last front garden is concreted over in this so-called “conservation area.”

From a resident (27 years) of Quernmore Road. – the end furthest from the station, but still very much affected.

In the last year this quiet, residential road has become a dumping ground for tow-trucks, breakdown vans and other commercial vehicles. We suspect that, judging from the materials on view in these vehicles, businesses outside the area are using our street to leave their vehicles whilst their staff travel in and out by train. I would prefer the owners/ managers/drivers to keep their vans and trucks outside their own homes rather than mine.

I welcome a limited CPZ, perhaps two hours morning and evening, to remedy this. However I also believe any CPZ areas should be strictly limited to the streets that need them, rather than simply a money-spinner for a council that is hardly the most financially efficient.  Stretches of road near schools and parks should be exempt.

Against

Crouch End used to have just one Bike/Scooter Bay outside the Scooterden shop on Tottenham Lane but this was removed by the Council. (I have not been able to find out why it was removed). Although bikes and scooters can park anywhere (i.e. in the spaces between parked cars) it is not safe to do so. Unfortunately it is often the case that people who park their car next to a bike end up knocking the bike over. I cannot tell you how many times I have returned to my scooter to find it has been knocked over and damaged. My last repair bill was £874! You can imagine my reaction when a friend recounted to me (what she thought was a very funny story) about parking her car and accidentally knocking over a scooter in the process. When I asked her what she did about it she giggled and said she just drove off. Who paid for the damage to the scooter?

I am ranting!  The point is, a) I oppose the CPZ and, b) the CPZ proposal does not include bike bays. We can learn from the mistakes in Islington where there are a measly number of bays on Upper Street and they are always full. Also if bike riders do use the pay meters there is no place on the bike to display the ticket and often one returns to find the ticket has been stolen.

The other issue is scooters and bikes are very desirable to teenagers. Three weeks ago some boys got into our garage area and tried to steal the scooters, damaging some in the process. The next day I came home from work to find 10 boys scaling the garage gates and attempting to break the locks to get in. Only last night I was in Londis on Western Park and a man was telling me he came out to find some boys siphoning off petrol from his bike (they had been going down the street stealing petrol). My point here is we need bike bays in the shopping areas of crouch end and not tucked away in side streets where they could provide opportunities for theft and vandalism.

I’m live on the short stretch of Middle Lane between its junction with Elder Avenue and Topsfield Mews. This is earmarked for a row of metered, short term parking bays. Aside from any general argument against the idea of CPZs, the thing that infuriates me about this particular part of the scheme is that the stretch of Middle Lane in question is proportionally far more residential than it is commercial.

While one side comprises 18 entirely residential households (numbers 1 – 35 Middle Lane), the other side, on which the council proposes to site the meters, consists of 10, single-unit business premises, each with two floors of residential flats above, plus a charity organisation, which uses its entire building, a purpose built solicitors’ office and the newly vacated Haringey Council Hornsey Area Housing office.

The opening argument in the ‘Stop and Shop’ brochure claims that “residents, shoppers and businesses have suggested to the Council that there is a need for more parking facilities.”

Where can I find evidence of this? Presumably it exists since it referred to as being the very foundation of the proposed scheme. I am a resident and I do indeed have a need for more parking facilities, but my needs are in exact conflict with those of shoppers and visitors, so I would like to know where I can find evidence of your claim that residents have joined the chorus for a scheme which is designed exclusively to serve the needs of shoppers and visitors.

Further, the brochure refers to one of the principal aims of the proposed scheme as “removing the present long term uncontrolled and obstructive parking.” As a resident I consider my need for long term, uncontrolled parking to be entirely legitimate. Why do visitors’ needs take priority over those of residents? And why is my legally parked car an “obstruction”? Who or what am I obstructing?

These are not meant to be rhetorical questions. I intend to oppose the scheme in every way I can and since I am unclear about the council’s thinking on these matters, I really would appreciate answers so that I can continue to develop my objections on a sound basis.

I spoke to an official at the streetscene office. I asked him whether there was any evidence to support the claim that residents, businesses and shoppers had effectively asked for this scheme. He replied that many of the requests had been verbal (and presumably unrecorded).

How supremely convenient.

In the course of our conversation he also assured me that it was not the council’s intention to introduce the scheme against the opposition of those being consulted. But reading the information on your website it seems that is exactly what they intend to do.

The officer promised that I would receive a reply to my questions via email. That was on July 11th. To date I have had no reply.

In contrast to the streets whose photographs you feature on your website, this little stretch of Middle Lane does have severe parking problems, but while outlying streets are being considered for an unnecessary residents’ parking scheme, our end of Middle Lane, where residents already lose out to the daily influx of visitors’ vehicles is being considered for a scheme which will give priority to visitors and make the parking of residents’ cars even more difficult.

Middle Lane is the only main unrestricted parking street, coming into Crouch End from the north and naturally enough, this little southernmost stretch is first choice for all visitors. It is in continual over-demand, seven days and nights a week (up to bar and restaurant closing time).

I am no fan of CPZs in general, but it seems to me that if intervention to regulate parking is being considered at all, it should be on behalf of residents (the majority) and not visitors.

It is galling that the council are proposing exactly the opposite, while basing their scheme on a deliberate attempt to con local residents. And of course there is an elephant sized absence of any reference as to where residents will be able to park once the scarce, precious space outside our homes has been turned over to paying visitors.

To those who are in favour if the CPZ because they do not have enough residents’ parking space, how will a CPZ solve this? If there are not enough spaces for all the householders in a particular street or stretch of street to park their cars, what difference will a CPZ make?

I am not in the least bit pro-car (I’m a committed/certified cyclist, but I won’t bore you with a load of halo polishing. I also have shared ownership of a banger but it don’t go anywhere much at all).

The fact is that this city of ours was never designed or built with the private motorist in mind, and it has been utterly screwed by private motorists – but I honestly  believe that CPZ is the wrong solution to the wrong bit of the problem. We need to be encouraging people to leave their cars at home. I don’t see how this is going to assist that one bit.

It is also likely to be a PR disaster for Haringey council in that a large number of otherwise law-abiding people are going to find themselves on the wrong end of legal action. Personally, I would welcome traffic wardens in our neighbourhood to deal with those motorists who believe the pavement and cycle lanes are places to park their cars, and to deal with those motorists who decline to pay their car tax (after all, they’re already heavily subsidised by the general taxpayer, aren’t they?). But that’s a separate issue too.

I honestly believe that there is no solution at all to the wider problem, i.e. far too many private motorists on the road, because any politician who attempts to address this issue would be signing their own electoral death warrant (OK, Ken’s a brave exception). The only possible solution in the longer term is to wait until we have a state of permanent gridlock. And then, and only then, will people realise that there is absolutely no point at all in taking the car out – because it will not do the basic job that it was designed to do, i.e. get you from A to B in anything less than eight hours. Then, maybe, we will have the political will to do something about this. In the meantime, let’s not bother with a load of disingenuous tinkering around the edges, which at best, is what CPZ is.

The CPZ’s policy is exclusive. It excludes people who can not afford to pay for it! The massage it gives is – it is ok to use a car if you belong to a certain earning bracket, as It forces only people who can’t afford it to give up their cars, so those who have no problem paying, can enjoy a less congested roads. It does not give the massage that car use is undesirable, it gives the message that it is ok if you can afford it. How about a bun on advertising cars?

I live on Harvey Road, which is very near Hornsey Station and am very much opposed to the CPZ.  Whilst some commuters do park on my road, most of the time its not a big deal.  Whilst I appreciate that you need to take account of everyone’s views, I think we need to be a bit careful about suggesting that some streets with specific problems could have a CPZ.  I’ve seen the effects of the Finsbury Park scheme, and once some roads are included in the CPZ, it just shifts traffic to those roads outside of it, then Haringey consults on those affected and of course they’ll say ‘yes’ – it’s like a virus that just spreads – and the best solution is not the have one in the first place.

This picture was taken on Tottenham Lane, right next to Hornsey station. it was taken in mid day during the week. It clearly shows plenty of parking is available.

Control Parking Zone (CPZ) is yet another ploy by the Status Quo to erode our freedoms.
CPZ is yet another ploy by Status Quo to control our movements.
CPZ is yet another ploy by the Status Quo to control our social communications.
CPZ is yet another ploy by the Status Quo to steal our money by stealth.
 
The assumption that CPZ guarantees a parking is a lie.
The assumption that CPZ is solving parking problems is a lie.
The assumption that consultations with residence have been communicated is a lie.

I live in Stapleton Hall Road and although I have felt the Tsunami effect of the CPZ in Oakfield Road I say quite emphatically and categorically NO NO NO to Control Parking Zones.

Just to add my angry, frustrated voice…  I do NOT want to see traffic wardens in my road. I feel beleaguered enough living in London, and do not want the added hassle of running up and down the street every couple of hours to put parking permits into visiting friends’, relatives’, or tradesmen’s’ cars whilst vindictive, bonus-crazed wardens patrol the area. It is appropriate in Regent Street, even appropriate in the close environs of Finsbury Park tube, it is NOT appropriate in small residential back roads of North London.
The parking problem here is not caused by commuters, but by the fact that we are heavily populated by car owners. The CPZ will not solve this, only add to the council’s coffers and life’s aggravations.

Paying parking in shopping areas could force cars into nearby residential streets, providing the Council with an excuse to declare a CPZ in various areas.  This is already happening. A CPZ does not guarantee that you can park in your own street.  It just guarantees that you cannot park in another street. You not only have to pay, you have to pay for your visitors. Visitors’ permits are limited to prevent fraudulent sale, so parents with small children, or families with many family members would have to think twice before inviting friends round.

I do not believe that any previous proposals or the current proposals from Haringey would give you what you want; our problem is that we have too many cars for too few parking spaces; all of the proposals will actually reduce the current number of spaces and whereas it may be true that a few less ‘well off’ people will be forced to give up their cars, in the main the problems we face are most acute at night, when as residents we are all trying to park outside or at least near our homes.

Haringey has a duty to consult with us all and provide solutions that solve problems, a CPZ will not give you any right to park on the street, in fact it is common practice for the number of parking permits sold by councils to exceed the number of spaces by up to 250% and the trend is for a low start up cost for permits but to increase the costs year on year by up to 50%. We all currently do not have to pay more than the road tax license to park on our streets, uncluttered by parking meters, signs and road markings and despite the council targeting this area with attendants this will increase by 100% if these plans go ahead. Haringey has the lowest record for parking fine collection in London, but I am sure in more affluent middle class areas the payment record is much higher, easy to see why Muswell Hill is a target because we ‘pay up!’

If your experience, as you suggest is that a CPZ will return to ‘peaceful’ days when you will be able to park outside our homes, then they are very lucky and the exception. Like you I abhor the use of gardens for parking and the way the council encouraged this, has reduced spaces, motivated divisive traffic and parking policy causing division and failed to consider any scheme that will not net them Millions of pounds in revenue. It’s big business with net revenues for 2005 at over 3 million pounds.

I am more against the way the council does not consult, is dishonest in its propaganda to implement its ideas and the undemocratic way it behaves. I would welcome some sensitive, creative, reasonable debates with all the community stakeholders motivated by the council coming up with solutions that we could all own and could live with.

The current proposals do not have any creditable research to back them up, the council has already decided to go ahead hence the planning notice being posted at the same time as the so called consultation and their refusal to even talk or respond to communications. I am for solutions but all of the proposals as laid out will just become additional to the already existing problems.

I respect that you have a different point of view but we do live in a democracy and my motivation is to give people information so they can make informed decisions. We are just ordinary local residents, unlike the council who have an entire full time department of staff running their campaign maybe it’s the quality of the arguments that is the more telling factor. I dislike the way the councils actions divide the community when they should be working to give us sensible solutions.

 A few years ago Haringey Council tried to bring in CPZ in Muswell Hill, Bounds Green , Crouch End and some parts of Tottenham. All the schemes were rejected because of the opposition form MAJORITY of the residents and businesses.

In Bounds Green, which is where I was involved in dealing with Haringey  Council, they tried to push through a scheme without any consultation. All the statistics they gave were wrong. We set up a group to fight the scheme, and a firm of lawyers helped us. We went to the council’s offices and asked them to show us the replies from the residents, which according to the Council, had showed 52 % in favour of CPZ.  They were very reluctant and when the lawyer in our group pointed out some Acts which entitle anyone in the public to view these documents, they relented.  We found that a lot of the replies which had indicated as “ NOT sure “ were counted as YES.  My own reply which had written NO all across it had been counted as YES. Even then Haringey did not listen to us. We were then told by someone within the Council, that Haringey had been advised by their own legal department that the way CPZ had been handled the scheme was not legal. Knowing this Haringey had continued with the scheme, painting road marks, erecting signs and printing all the booklets etc. Only when we threatened them with JUDICIAL REVIEW they relented and withdrew the scheme. All in all they wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money and we as a group spent thousands of pounds of our own money.

The low start up costs are very true. Near St Michael’s terrace where they started the business permits at about £ 220 a few years ago, it is now nearly £ 500 per car. Businesses are generally allowed one parking permit, and even that not in front of or near  their business places. Businesses will move out of these areas and then the local residents will suffer as well.

In Wood Green, where no one opposed the scheme , they now have draconian  parking restrictions
7 days a week making it impossible to have any visitors. It has affected the property prices in Wood Green. Resident’s parking permit does NOT guarantee a parking place in front of your house or anywhere else.

Yes parking is difficult but CPZ is not to help the people…it is just money earner for the councils. We had suggested that if they want to solve commuter parking problem, just impose parking restrictions during certain hours in the middle of the day. They refused that saying that would be difficult to administer!!

You will have an even bigger fight on your hands this time, I’m afraid.

The Council will use the tactics successfully deployed in Highgate. They will survey, cherry-pick the few roads where there is a majority of residents in favour and then let displacement wreak its worst, producing domino demands for CPZs from adjacent roads.

The Council will not let an holistic argument win this time, as it did in Muswell Hill in 2000. It will brush objections aside, saying that it is following the wishes of the residents most directly affected.

Sorry to be a ‘party pooper’.

Writing from Bounds Green…  We have just been given a consultation document for introducing CPZ here. They tried this about 4 years ago and we managed to defeat them at that time.. It has started again and the news one of the residents has got from inside the Borough of Haringey is that they are determined to impose the CPZ, by whatever means.

• I believe that the majority of vehicles parked in Muswell Hill belong to residents and their visitors.
• The council claim that we the local residents want this scheme and that we have complained about shoppers and commuters parking in Muswell Hill. This is just not a fact.
• I feel that the scheme would not reduce the number of cars parked in our roads. In fact it would make it even more difficult with residents fighting for fewer spaces. Permits will be limited to the spaces available. Residents are not guaranteed a permit or a space.
• The scheme would bring with it more signs, street furniture and road markings, which would ruin the look of our road.
• The scheme is to be self-financing at a cost of £50 per car per year.(£450 for a business permit) We will have to pay for our friends or workmen to visit, with vouchers being obtained in advance.
• Keen parking officials will be patrolling the area and will have to maintain their quota of tickets at £60 each to keep their jobs safe.
• School times will become even more problematic. Cars will be double or illegally parked in bays causing even more congestion.
• Muswell Hill is in a conservation area and its ambience and charm is protected by law. The value of our property WILL be adversely affected by this scheme.
• The shopping and eating choices of Muswell Hill have developed nicely over recent years.  If clients cannot park it will have an adverse effect and could lead to closures, empty shops and a reduction in the choices we currently have.
• I object to paying for something that I feel would do nothing to improve the parking situation in our road. I think the scheme is a local tax and is devised to keep council employees in jobs.

I live on South View Road and most local residents I bump into on the street are very much against CPZ.  Posters are already up on telgraph poles advising we say NO.

I am writing to you on this bright and sunny Saturday morning in what can only be described as a state of anger and frustration. My family and I have lived on Uplands Road for the past 15 years and enjoy what can only be described as an oasis in what can sometimes be a manic city. We have today received a Consultation document from Haringey
Councils Highways department with regards to a Haringey Station proposed controlled parking zone. What an absolute joke!!!!!!!! where do they get the idea that we need moreparking restrictions? where do they get the idea that people are using our road and the surrounding roads to cause congestion whilst using the station? not from the residents I’m sure because in all my 15 year here that has not, in my opinion been the case.

When I look at parking restrictions for Arsenal stadium coming as far as Oakfield Road, I can only assume that some where along the line there is money generation involved and it is certainly not going to me. Instead of ensure that those ridiculous so called speed bumps were the correct size to prevent speeding on our road and one day someone getting hurt, we will now have to contend with paying money just to park on our road , what on earth is going on?.

I am at the point where I feel that I am being penalised for owing and using a car with all of the enforcements in place namely cameras in Crouch End and Muswell Hill on lamp posts  being used to give parking fines in the absence of an attendant, and now I’m going to have to pay when I’m not even using the car as it sits outside of my house, which belive me costs enough already.

Needless to say Haringey Council are having what can only be described as a laugh and I would prefer that it was not at my expense. It feels like one battle after another in this area. If the infrastructure is so stressed why do the council continue to grant permission for private contractors to build and build flat after flat?

I will fill out the relevant form and would be interested in your views on the matter and maybe some clarification as to where all this is coming from and where it will end.

Well summer’s here so the Haringey “consultation” season is consequentially upon us – while we are all on holiday they will do their utmost to push their agenda through, with a Crouch End CPZ at the top of their list. Looks like a summer of discontent for everyone!

What I really object to is their pretence that residents and traders have asked for this Shop and Stop scheme. How could it possibly be in the interests of the traders to ask customers to pay an extra  parking tax to come to our shops – with a parking ticket if they happen to shop for longer than they intended.

This is simply a CPZ for central Crouch End with no extra parking spaces being provided. It will  encourage drivers to park on the surrounding residential streets. We will end up with a CPZ everywhere and an even bigger parking ticket culture.

If we end up with a CPZ the traders will find that their customers have even less parking spaces because roads will become “residents only”.

The only way to help bring in customers for our shops is to increase parking using the Town Hall car parks. There are around 100 spaces in there, many of which now lie vacant.

Every other town shopping centre is supported by a car park. Superstores have free ones. Haringey Council have unwittingly forced our local traders to suffer unfair competition for too long.

It appears that only one leaflet (and, consequently, one consultation form) per house was delivered by the council. But many of the homes within the proposed CPZs have been split up into flats, such as my own; if my downstairs neighbour hadn’t left them outside my door for me to read, I would have remained blissfully unaware that the CPZs were even proposed. Another friend, one of three flat owners in a house in Nelson Road, had no idea the CPZs were proposed until I mentioned it to him as one of his neighbours chose to retain the leaflet for himself. Isn’t it typical that the council can happily provide numerous copies of its glossy promo mag for each house, but only one CPZ leaflet, no doubt in the hopes that this would limit the number of objections?!

I have recently moved to Rathcoole Gardens and was dismayed to receive the Council’s CPZ questionnaire and documents. I moved in January with my young family from Pemberton Rd N4 where a CPZ was introduced a few years ago. It was an unmitigated disaster in terms of quality of life and was one of the main reasons I moved house. As well as the cost in terms of permits, parking vouchers and fines  -yes me and my partner received approximately 5 tickets in our own road there is the equally important aspect of the additional stress of living within a CPZ . For example you have a kids party or some other family celebration and you will have to make sure that all your guests have sufficient tickets for the duration of their stay. Nobody is able to relax as the tickets are for 2 hours only and therefore must be topped up within time to avoid being issued with a ticket. On a number of occasion family members of friends have been issued with tickets and quite simply it puts people off visiting and for the resident it is embarrassing.

Other problems- you can’t park where you want to in your own street. The Council will designate some areas of the street for 2 hour visits only which means you can’t leave your car there overnight even if there is no other parking available in the street. The CPZ reduced the amount of parking available in our old street which meant that it was common to have to drive around the neighbouring streets to find a space. Very inconvenient if you have shopping or kids to unload. The CPZ was vigorously enforced. Even minor infringements such as a wheel just over a line resulted in a ticket.

I live at Rathcoole gardens and wish to make it absolutely clear that I and my household do NOT want this area to have a CPZ. I work with my brother who lives in Camden and the CPZ makes it impossible for us to operate from his place. If there was one here as well we would probably have to move.

I understand from my neighbours that there is great worry and anger at the possibility of a CPZ coming here – we have no problems with parking and do not need it.

I had hoped that something along the lines of what we have seen would emerge from the consultation drop.  I too will be lending my vigorous support to stopping this move by Haringey.

My first point would be is that all of the local (Crouch & Muswell) proposed CPZ/Stop & Shop schemes need to be looked at in the round and not in isolation.  Perhaps there may also be some mileage in linking with Bowes Park and Bounds Green campaigners?  I am sure that the depth of feeling here will be mirrored there.  

Typical move also to divide and rule.  The consultation asks if you want/or don’t want a CPZ in “your road” and also states “… that those roads not indicating support for parking controls may experience increased parking pressures if a scheme is to be implemented in adjacent roads.”   We need to be clear that it is all or nothing.  If they have indicated a CPZ area is required based on their surveys, as they have done, then the consultation should be on the whole area, not piecemeal.  That way, they may just take what they can on roads where support is there and hike up the costs to cover the missed revenue from those roads that are opposed.

Clearly Haringey are intent on implementing a series of schemes which will attract maximum revenue earning potential.  As if it is not bad enough with the attentions that motorists get from over-zealous parking attendants.  [as an aside, but relevant to Haringey’s cavalier attitude to motorists, I am currently engaged with the council on a dispute regarding parking on double yellow lines on Ferme Park Road (outside Londis).  I have heard nothing for months and low and behold, Haringey have now removed the markings.  Would that make one suspect that they were not legally placed in the first place, I think so. And how much has the man on the scooter received in bonus payments for that little strip of lucrative parking beat, I wonder!]

I myself will be unavailable to attend the exhibition on the 13th July as I am abroad.  But, I would want to see all the evidence that is being used to justify the schemes.  Haringey must (at least should have) have conducted detailed surveys.  You may have seen the traffic monitoring systems installed on many roads around the area (small black rubber wires across the road). Let’s ensure that all of this evidence is made publicly available.  If they refuse, the Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain it. And the minutes and correspondence resulting from council meetings that have discussed this issue, including correspondence relating to how the CPZ will be enforced, including private parking services contracts and parking staff incentivisation schemes.

I would also wish to see a full cost benefit analysis for the scheme, showing costs and projected revenues.

Let us be clear, the Harringay Station CPZ is absolutely nothing to do with commuters and everything to do with resident taxation.  I live in Ridge Road and my partner and I frequently use Harringay station and have seen no evidence of widespread commuter parking to support the claim that “Parking beat surveys have also indicated parking pressures due to non-resident commuter parking.”  Neither have I been aware that we need “…better traffic management by reducing illegal and obstructive parking.”   Both of these claims are central to Haringey’s proposals and need to be refuted and exposed for what they are, pure lies.

Note that the introduction to both Hornsey and Harringay Station consultations are the same, which casts doubts on their veracity!

I would also question the dubious statement “Following representations from residents in the Harringay Station area…”.   Let us have access to these representations to gauge the scale of the local feeling in favour, if they do exist.

We should also reflect on the recent 20 MPH speed restriction measures that were implemented around the Hornsey Vale area.  I did not see the evidence they presented to justify that, but I do wonder just what the justification was?  Were we suffering from an unexpectedly high mortality and injury rate?  I do not think so!  From my understanding of recent moves around the country, I am now awaiting traffic speed camera enforcement to appear around the zone.  And then it will be CCTV to keep an eye on everything else that we do outside our homes.  This CPZ is a means of paying for all of these measures, whose justification were and are dubious.  And boy we will pay.  And those with more than one vehicle will pay more!

I also think that to consider pay and display options as an alternative to a CPZ is also a distraction, and possibly a Haringey subterfuge.  We do not need any restrictions as there is not a problem, end of story.  

And Martyn makes an excellent pint about the UDP and high density housing.  Well done for spotting that.

Incidentally, what is the position with the area to the East, i.e. the Harringay ladder? Do they have an existing CPZ? If not, will that be next?

And, what does Lynne Featherstone say about it?

Before all this started, suspicious-looking people were repeatedly seen hanging around our street, looking at cars and writing things on clipboards.  When challenged, they admitted that they were working in connection with a proposed CPZ.  So the Council have presumably got some data already – I wonder whether, if pressed, they would like to share it with us?

Whilst I am no fan of Haringey Council, I feel it is only right that I mention a possible mitigating factor re CPZ. For the last couple of years, we had a nascent Harvey Road Street Association. This has now been discontinued in light of the larger Moorsh group. We had several well attended meetings, and the subject of parking came up at most of them. Up until about 9 months ago, when the garage in Harvey Mews shut down, the residents of Harvey Road had terrible parking problems. We actually asked our councillor (Quincy Prescott at the time) to initiate a CPZ investigation. Although this may be some mega-plot by an evil council, please don’t assume that is definitely the case.  Another thing to consider is what happens is CPZs are installed in other parts of Crouch End, thus pushing non-resident parkers further into our streets. If this is inevitable, maybe our Residents’ Association can think of innovative ways of getting round the problem of car parking, like FEWER cars! How about a car-sharing initiative for the area?  Good for the environment and cheaper too!

Good Afternoon Mr Haley
I write to show my extreme objection to the proposed CPZ in Inderwick Road. At first I thought it was some sort of bizarre behaviour from the council, but my neighbour told me by email:
‘Haringey is attempting to impose CPZ’s against resident and business wishes. A major reason for this is due to the UDP whereby new high-density housing can be built without the requirement to provide parking spaces if the development is within a CPZ (See attached document). There are several such proposals currently in the pipeline for high-density housing with the proposed CPZ. There exists one for Cranford Way and one for the old Shell garage on Tottenham Lane. There are certain to be others and this needs investigating as a matter of urgency. This is reflected in the areas shown on the maps where the CPZ is proposed to include industrial sites and spaces that are as-yet not built up .’

To quote an old song, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’. As we residents pay the council through taxes, we should pay the tune- that is instruct the council forget further CPZs and think of another way to solve its UDP problems. Maybe by telling CPZ dwellers they can’t park. To do otherwise is Taxation without representation and that is a mistake (ref M Thatcher & Poll tax, American War of Independence).