Haringey executive will decide tonight
on re-branding CPZ permit charges to
a Carbon Tax, tripling the charges for most residents

First car - £25 >>£90
Second car -£25 >>£150
 
89% of people OBJECT to the scheme

Will Haringey listen?
Or will they do what they always do – ignore it!!!
It is up to you

Attend the meeting tonight
Wood Green civic centre 7:00pm
 

The full officer report to the meeting is on line:
http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/ieIssueDetails.asp?IId=8959&PlanId=0&Opt=3#AI7077&J=16

Here are parts of it regarding the consultation results and analysis.


Appendix A – Outcomes of Statutory Consultation on the review of parking
charges and charging policy.

Analysis by Communications & Consultation Section

Methodology of Analysis

A majority of submissions to the Consultation have been received as emails; with the
balance taking the form of letters and other paper-based submissions. Each
submission has been assigned a unique sequence number. This facilitates tracking
of responses and helps avoid duplication of responses. Duplication can occur where
respondents have, for instance, copied their submissions to several councillors;
which have then been forwarded to officers.

Once the process of collating forms, allocating sequence numbers and assigning a
ward identifying number (where possible) is completed, the analysis is undertaken.
Written comments and remarks are assigned to categories through a process of
editing and coding familiar in market research. Numeric codes are applied to these
categories. The same edit coding process is applied to the specific objections set out
by respondents.

While every effort is made to represent views as accurately as possible; it is
inevitable that the grouping and categorisation of views, comments and objections
will lose some of the emotion and ‘immediacy’ of the comments made by
respondents. To offset this, a wide selection of free text comments made by
respondents is also included in this report. Furthermore, the original submissions are
of course available for inspection.

Once the codes have been defined and checked for their accuracy in representing
the views of respondents; the data are entered on to a computer file and analysed
using SPSS. This enables the range and pattern of responses to be clearly
represented and quantified.

Classification of Submissions

Many respondents, who have chosen to send their submissions by email, have not
provided addresses. Those who have provided details are grouped into wards and
the results are set out in Table 1, below.


The ward data, while incomplete, does indicate a reasonable representation of views
across the wards and this information is complemented by information about the
origin of submissions (Table 2). 76% of submissions are from private addresses or
personal email addresses. 13% of submissions are from respondents who have
written either from their place of business or using business letterheads.

A small proportion (5%) of submissions originates from respondents employed by
public bodies, community organisations and residents’ groups. A similar proportion
originates from lobby groups who have issued ‘pro forma’ submissions for residents
to complete and send in to the designated freepost address set up by Haringey
Council.

A total of 540 submissions have been received.

Objections fall into several categories. The largest of these is the complaint that the
Proposals represent a sharp and excessive increase in costs which penalise
residents who happen to live in Controlled Parking Zones. A majority of
respondents make multiple objections – this is why the number of objections (Table
3) exceeds the number of submissions. Thus many respondents who object to
what they regard as excessive and punitive costs also object on the grounds that
parked cars make no emissions; and that the proposals cannot be justified on
environmental grounds or the ‘green agenda’.

A similar connection exists between those who object on the grounds that the
proposals for charging are not based on car usage or mileage. Many see the
proposed charges as a tax on parking and a money-making scheme whose only
purpose is to raise revenue for the Council. If a clearer link between the proposals
and environmental objectives could be set out, then many residents might well be
persuaded to be less hostile to the proposed charges.

Those who object to the proposals for Visitor Permits typically comment that families
and elders will be affected as a result of the proposed reduction in time and that this
is compounded by the charges remaining at current levels. Many respondents
comment that they can see no environmental benefits by reducing the time period for
Visitor Permits.

Many respondents have specifically objected to the proposed charging bands. There
is considerable resentment at bands which are seen as classifying average family
saloons with high performance ‘gas guzzlers’. A small number of objectors have
decided to investigate what cars fall into the lowest bands and have concluded that
the Council has set the bands in such a way that only the most experimental or
hybrid vehicles will attract lower charges.

There is a widespread view that the Proposals are unfair; not only because of the
perceived substantial increase in charges coming ‘so soon’ after the establishment of
CPZs, which a majority of residents supported; but also because many see the proposals as encroaching upon an area of policy more appropriate to Central
Government rather than local councils.

This is linked to an undercurrent of resentment that of all the people who have
occasion to drive cars in or through Haringey; it is only a proportion of residents who
have to pay. A significant minority of respondents comment that they would feel less
aggrieved if all motorists had to pay to drive and park in Haringey.

There is some resentment that wealthier residents will not only have no difficulty in
paying the charges but they are also likely to benefit by owning properties with drive
ways or gardens where they can park their cars with impunity. Table 4 (next Section)
illustrates some of these views.

Additional Views and Comments

Table 4 summarises additional views and comments expressed by respondents
which help place objections into their wider context. Thus 29% say that the proposed
charges are little more than a means of raising extra revenue for the Council. 24%
say that they understand the need for fuel and road tax but have difficulty
understanding what they see as a ‘parking tax’. Those who comment that the
Proposals are unfair and inequitable generally do so because they perceive the
measures as penalising residents.
12% do welcome the Council’s Proposals, while many others accept the principle but
resent the Council’s approach. Much of the support for the Council comes from
those who would like to see ‘gas guzzlers’ and 4 by 4s ‘taxed off the road’.


Best Wishes
Ofer

                                                                                                                               
GreenN8   C o m m u n i t y    G r o u p   |    http://www.GreenN8.org