Agenda item

Amendments to the Estate Parking Management Scheme

Report of the Director of Placemaking and Housing. To be introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters, and Planning.


To deliver an improved and co-produced in-house parking enforcement and permit service to circa 150 estates across the borough.


(Cllr Arkell left the room for this item)


The Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning introduced the report which sought approval to amendments to the Estate Parking Management Scheme (EPMS), as approved at Cabinet on 8 December 2020 following the insourcing of the former Homes for Haringey into Haringey Council. This report also sought approval for funding of the scheme as set out in section 11 of the attached report.


(Cllr Gordon entered the meeting at 6.39pm)


The following information was outlined by the Cabinet Member:


-       The proposed scheme would make estate parking fairer by guaranteeing every household have access to one parking permit, providing dedicated disabled parking bays to those who need them, ensuring the swift removal of abandoned cars, and preventing trespassing. 


-       The new scheme would be introduced using traffic management orders and enforced by our Parking Services’ civil enforcement officers.


-       An insourced service would monitor estate parking more frequently and more effectively.


-       A limit of one permit per household was proposed to reduce parking pressure on estates and discourage excessive car use in line with Council climate and air quality commitments.


-       To allow social care staff, NHS health professionals, charity, or not-for-profit employees to provide care to residents, the existing Care at Home parking permit would allow parking both on streets and on estates. The parking process would be more straightforward by bringing estate parking in line with parking across the borough, meaning there would no longer be a need for two separate permits. 


-       Permits would be available for less than 14 pence a day. The permit charge was in place solely to cover to cost of the scheme.


-       There was a commitment to review the parking schemes annually.


In response to questions from Cllr Hakata and Cllr da Costa, the following information was provided.


-       With regards to meeting residents needs for bike parking and making provision for future increased need, this would be picked up in the engagement process. There would need to be consideration that each housing estate would have differing needs, and this will be explored more fully in the planned engagement.


-       Furthermore, in line with the delegation provided to the Cabinet Member to manage consultation and engagement with estate residents, she would ensure that provision of cycling parking was considered as part of the consultation.


-       If there were circumstances where residents wanted an extra permit, they could purchase CPZ permits to park. This would be through the same Council system used for CPZ permits and visitor permits.


-       Haringey housing fleet vehicles would not need a permit to park on the estates, but private contractors would need a visitor permit.





  1. To note that, before a final decision to implement the proposals may be taken, any representations submitted to the Council following consultation under s105 Housing Act 1985 must be considered; and delegates authority to the Director of Placemaking and Housing, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning, to consider any representations which have been submitted as a result of S105 consultation and then to take the decision as to whether to implement the EPMS scheme.


  1. To note that Parking Services will assume the responsibility for the

operational management and maintenance of the scheme under the

provisions of the TMOs, as approved in the 2020 Report, included as

Appendix 6 to this report.


  1. To approve the proposed EPMS permit offer, as shown in Appendix 1,

including new charges for estate resident parking permits, and the required capital expenditure, to be put forward in the 2024 to 2029 HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) budget report for Cabinet in February 2024.


  1. To approve the implementation costs as outlined in Appendix 2.


  1. To note that Parking Services, in partnership with the Housing Engagement Team commissioned by Housing Services, manages consultation and engagement with estate residents (which is consistent with Cabinet’s decision to approve the 2020 Report, included as Appendix 6).


  1. To approve, for all affected housing estates, the amended resident

engagement resource model and process, outlined in Appendix 3, which delivers a resident-led scheme focused on each estate, and which will beutilised to enable the Council to comply with its duty to consult under S105         of the Housing Act 1985.


  1. To delegates approval of consultation materials to the Director of Placemaking and Housing.


  1. To recommend that statutory consultation, for estate parking TMOs, as

outlined in Appendix 3, takes place following the engagement process and that recommendations following statutory consultation are then taken to Cabinet for approval.


  1. To agree development of a new estate parking policy, aligned to the Council’s CPZ policy, subject to consultation and engagement to be submitted for Cabinet approval later in 2024.


  1. To agree that the Estate Controlled Parking Scheme adopts the same

Disabled Parking Place Policy as used by the CPZ Parking Scheme.


  1. In the event that Wing Security Ltd remains operational at the relevant time, to note and approve that the Council shall undertake the prescribed process under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) for the insourcing of parking enforcement staff.


Reasons for decision

The current Estate Controlled Parking Scheme (ECPS) is enforced under

contract law, with terms and conditions for parking displayed on signs on

estates included in the scheme.


The ECPS has become ineffective following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and changes to government guidance with vehicle keeper information no longer being provided by the Driver and Vehicle

Licensing Agency (DVLA) to private contractors on private land owned by local authorities in London. This means there is no mechanism to contact vehicle owners following issue of penalty charge notices (PCNs) for contravention of parking rules on the estates, with the result that we are unable to effectively collect from PCNs issued. This has also had an impact on the ability to remove abandoned vehicles under tenancy and leaseholder agreements.


These limitations on enforcement have resulted in a scheme which is financially unviable for private contractors that rely on revenue from PCNs. Subsequently, there are parking problems on Haringey estates which cannot be addressed under the current arrangements.


This led to the Council’s enforcement agent for estate parking, Wing Parking Ltd., ceasing operation in December 2022. An extension to the enforcement contract has been arranged with the parent company, Wing Security Ltd. to the end of May 2024. Officers are currently reviewing and discussing the possibility for an extension to the start of the new EPMS, pending agreement from the contractor and all parties concerned. Wing Security Ltd currently employs three enforcement staff; any enforcement staff would need to be given the option to transfer to Haringey Council’s Parking Enforcement Team via the TUPE process if Wing Security Ltd is in operational up to the time enforcement operation is assumed by the Haringey Council Parking Enforcement Team.


A traffic management order (TMO) based scheme is the preferred solution because it is the only option which meets the aims of the estate parking review to deliver a financially viable scheme with the powers to effectively control parking and meets residents’ needs as well as assisting in tackling the climate change emergency. In addition, a TMO scheme is the Department for Transport’s recommended solution and is operated successfully by neighbouring boroughs including Enfield and Islington.


Bringing the delivery of estate parking enforcement in-house to Haringey

Council’s own Parking Service meets the objectives of the estate parking review established by Cabinet in the 2020 Report and will not be subject to the limitations which affect the private enforcement of the current EPMS. This will allow Haringey Council to share resources and expertise in a sustainable way to generate efficiencies and savings. In addition, estate parking management will benefit from the improvements delivered by the Parking Transformation Programme including new IT systems, online offers and resource management.


Income generated by permits issued on housing land, and the costs of setting up and managing the scheme must be accounted for within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) charges. Income generated from enforcement activities and the costs of enforcement are accounted for within the Parking and Highways Budget within the General Fund.


The financial assessment presented in Appendix 2 indicates that income

generated by permit sales will be accounted for in the HRA and PCN income

will be accounted for in the Parking and Highways Budget, within the General



Following Cabinet approval of the EPMS in the 2020 Report, presented as

Appendix 5, a number of wider changes have taken place which necessitate a

review of what the EPMS will deliver, and how the EPMS scheme designs will

be determined.


Housing provision previously delivered through Homes for Haringey has now been brought back into the Council. Delivering housing provision through the Council provides an opportunity to better align housing and related services with delivery through one organisation. This includes how parking services and estate parking schemes are designed and delivered.


As part of this transition, the Haringey Deal launched in November 2022

provides an opportunity to reshape how residents are involved in the specifics

of EPMS scheme design on their estate. Engagement with residents feeding

back to a scheme design will result in a more effective and sustainable service – ensuring schemes better meet the needs and priorities of estate residents.


As the proposal includes changes to parking which affect practice or policy regarding housing management and the provision of services or amenities to Council tenants, consultation will seek the views of all affected estate residents including secure tenants, non-secure tenants and leaseholders in compliance with S105 of the Housing Act 1985.


A further wider change is the implementation in 2021 of the new Taranto parking management IT system, upgraded in November 2023. To ensure there is consistency firstly in permit offer, and secondly in the customer journey to apply for and manage permits, there are some amendments required to specific aspects of the original EPMS permit proposal.


In addition, existing measures will be retained to protect vulnerable groups such as the disabled and elderly to ensure that they have access to a free estate parking permit and to align the scheme with the Disabled Parking Place Policy as used by the CPZ Parking Scheme. The proposal includes measures to tackle the climate emergency by financially incentivising households to consider the number of vehicles they own.


 Alternative options considered

Alternative options to the proposed new EPMS have been considered. These follow from changes in circumstance since the 2020 Report, including the insourcing of the Council’s housing stock from Homes for Haringey into Haringey Council.


·Do Nothing: this option was discarded as effective parking management is

needed to control parking arrangement on estates, particularly where there

is high demand for parking space, low availability of parking spaces and/or

issues with non-residents taking up parking space, such as displacement

from nearby CPZs or demand from events.


·Keep existing estate parking arrangements: this option was discarded

as the existing arrangements are difficult to enforce, ineffective, and do not

meet the needs of residents or the political and financial objectives of

Haringey Council.


·Provide traffic management orders for existing scheme arrangements:

This option would have transferred the current arrangements as is to the

Haringey Council Parking Enforcement Team. This was discarded as

permits would remain free of charge with no mechanism to recoup the cost

of implementation including required consultation and provision of new

signage. The current permits also do not align with the existing on-street

CPZ offer resulting in different customer journeys for residents of estates

and other Haringey residents.


·Introduce the scheme as originally set out in the 2020 Cabinet Report:

this was discarded as changes to Council policy, such as the Haringey Deal,

needed to be included in the approach to resident engagement for the new

scheme (see below for the options considered for resident engagement).

Costs of these measures and to introduce the scheme also needed to be


5.2 Alternative options for resident engagement have been considered:


·Continue with the previously approved engagement approach: the

previous approach incorporated a pre-defined structure and content, with

limited scope for residents to shape the process. In revising the proposed

approach for resident engagement, it is recognised that housing insourcing

brings it within scope of the Council’s Haringey Deal approach – meaning a

co-design approach should be taken to fully engage residents throughout

the process.


A range of options have been considered regarding the most appropriate and effective permit proposal for estate parking. These include the following specific considerations:


·Continue previously approved permit proposal: the option to continue

the previous permit proposal as approved in 2020 has been impacted by 2

key changes since approval. Firstly, the insourcing of Homes for Haringey

in 2022 and, secondly, the introduction of a new parking management IT

system in 2021. Each of these factors affects the validity of the previously

approved proposal. Firstly, having a different permit offer (in terms of

permits offered and associated application customer journeys) is not

reflective of a cohesive, unified organisation. Secondly, some specifics of

the original permit proposal would not have been deliverable within the new

parking management IT system without system development. For these

reasons and others noted above, the original proposal is not being pursued.


·Closest alignment to CPZ permits: In aligning the permit proposal to CPZ

provision, a balanced approach has been taken, accounting for estate

parking and residents. An alternative approach would be to fully mirror the

CPZ permit offer and pricing structure (albeit with reduced charges overall):

this would include, for example, applying charges to resident permits to

include a base charge plus surcharges (for second and subsequent vehicles

and diesel surcharges).


·Higher limit for (or unlimited) estate resident permits: the proposal of

the limit of one estate resident permit per household recognises the parking

pressures on estates and allows each household a fairer chance of being

able to park on their estate, while also contributing toward carbon reduction

by encouraging use of alternate modes of transport and/or lower emitting

vehicles. An alternative would be to have a higher limit – or no limit at all –

on estate resident permits per household, thereby introducing potentially

higher pressure on estate parking with reduced fairness.


·Variations of assumed permit demand: it is not possible to definitively

know the behavioural impact of the introduction of a charged permit scheme

– i.e., how many of the current free permits will translate into future charged

permits. In permit income modelling underlying the financial model

(Appendix 2), a conservative approach has been taken – assuming a 30%

reduction in the number of permits issued (applied to all permit types where

there is a known current volume). It may be the case that greater demand

is realised following implementation – with this increased revenue improving

HRA income.


·Adopt CPZ costs for Estate Resident Parking Permits with no

discount: the proposed limit of one permit per household and limitations on

the availability of parking space on the estates mean that residents may also

need to buy CPZ permits to park. The proposal to offer Estate Resident

Parking Permits at a discounted rate mitigates the cost impact of this to



Supporting documents: