Agenda item

Report to follow.

• The scale of part pavement parking issues in the borough were discussed. Questions were asked whether enforcement was prioritised according to urgency and the impact on those affected. The Cabinet Member replied that there had been eight statutory consultations with another two planned. She stated that there were 102 roads with problems and some very complex engineering issues. The team was taking a few complicated roads at a time, as these would take a longer time to resolve. She stated that she would resend the Committee the Cabinet paper – where the 102 roads are published and graded according to complexity. She also said that she would look at the criteria for urgency – as she thought it was a good idea to prioritise works by those affected such as school children. ACTION.

• The Co-opted member of the Committee then raised the issue of abolishing daily visitors permits. He stated he had a very well attended meeting with residents in the borough regarding this where several concerns were raised. He cited concerns that the strategy considered only circumstantial evidence as its basis. Moreover, the CPZ zones varied. The proposal would mean some very expensive stays for some of the borough. He cited that it would be £16 per day for a visitor to Northumberland Park. He was very concerned about the failure of the council to follow the prescribed consultation process. Residents were not aware of any consultations. He pointed out that the failure of the council to co-design and produce changes with the public, made the short consultation period an issue, as any feedback given by residents would go unheard. The Cabinet Member responded that legally she could not answer most of these concerns as to do so could be construed as influencing the statutory consultation and the council could not show any predetermination of the decision. She emphasised that the Cabinet had not given the go ahead to abolish daily visitor permits or any of the other proposals made, only agreeing that such matters be consulted upon.  She asked the Co-opted member of the Committee to urge residents to respond to the consultation once it had begun. She stated that the council would consider the objections if they were valid. She clarified that the consultation process being described by the co-opted member applied to consultation for CPZs, which was not prescribed by the law but an approach that Haringey Council had introduced. She also clarified that the statutory consultation would commence on the 16^th of October and will last 21 days and will be advertised as per any other consultation. The Cabinet Member then asked the Committee to note that there is a cap on parking on council estates. Street parking was £3 per hour – and the council part-subsidises this, so the resident pays £1.25 per hour and £4 per day. She said that statutory consultation results would deem whether it was right for the borough or not.
• A concern was then raised about the ANPR vehicles and what these would deliver. There was unease about the timings of parking enforcement – it was felt it was done very early in the day - especially for events. The Assistant Director Direct Services answered that his team were looking at how they delivered parking enforcement and parking capacity for one off events at Ally Pally or Finsbury Park. ANPR vehicles would pick up data to help in the process and eventually synchronise with the enforcement system. The Cabinet Member also added that the parking enforcement team was in house and not third party. The ANPR vehicle would be able to scan for cars for valid permits. This would lead to efficiencies.
• It was then asked whether the team was taking consultations from the communities that held religious and community events. The Cabinet Member clarified that the Parking Strategy had been agreed by Cabinet in July, so they were only just taking this forward. She stated that the strategy would operate as a workplan, however the co-production had not started yet for the Religious and Community Events parking policy. The policy was still to be shaped and scoped.
• It was requested that the evidence that formed the basis of the proposal be detailed in the consultation, as well as any additional costs. Also,whether any other options were being considered. The Cabinet Member highlighted that, as this was a statutory consultation, it had to be noticeably clear – therefore this would be a one item proposal.
• It was stated that the Parking Strategy considered Blue Badge fraud however it was not clear about what was being done about allowing disabled parking in the borough and enforcement for those parking in disabled bays without a Blue Badge. The Cabinet Member stated that legally councils were not able to enforce by camera on yellow lines, however, could enforce by camera on red routes. She suggested that the best way to prevent this issue would be for disabled badge holders to turn their parking bays into dedicated bays, as this comes with extra signage and a dedicated phone number for enforcement. The Cabinet Member then suggested that she circulate to the Committee information on how many of these types of violations had been recorded, and the number of checks that had been conducted. ACTION.