 |
||
Local
Guide
Classified
Ads
The
Community
The
Shops
|
News |
|
Residents CPZ Meeting with Council |
9th May 2001 |
The following represents the major thrust of the CPZ objection put forward at this meeting on 9th May.
Following the distribution of your consultation document 3 weeks ago, we sought to personally survey individuals at doorstep level. A number of people claimed not having received the consultation document whilst others received their copy during the last two weeks. We also believe that a number of people who returned the Form in favour of a CPZ scheme did not fully understand its implications. A clear picture nonetheless did emerge despite the limited time frame we had. Our findings seriously question the Council's statistics. Exactly how did the Council conclude that 75% of the residents were in favour of the scheme? We feel the extraction and manipulation of the figures was neither fair or justified. The Council's interpretation of the facts cannot possibly stand up to scrutiny or reflect the true picture and voice of its residents. Its ironic that Haringey Council has produced identical figures when presenting their case in favour for a similar scheme in their Borough. We have it on good authority that Stroud Green and Muswell Hill being the latest areas targeted successfully defeated this scheme.
This proposal was mainly considered because of congestion recognised in two local roads namely OLD PARK ROAD and DEVONSHIRE ROAD.
Apart from restricting commuters (the main reason for the called parking problem) from access during peak hours we believe that a sensible solution would be to encourage better use of our local car parks. Lodge Drive Car Park by way of an example is never full. We should also consider negotiating with Safeway to extend its large underground and over ground Car Park areas to both commuters and shoppers with more favourable tariffs.
It is our understanding that the current proposal will impose a charge of £53 for resident permits - revised upwards from the original assessment of £50 last November - whilst business permits will start at £250, which according to Mr Hastings our Highways engineer is a saving when compared with the Lodge Drive Car Park annual season charge of £276 and the £700 which businesses in Enfield Town are charged at present.
How long will it be before these figures are revised upwards? We asked the Council what the increase might be in the following year and were told "a couple of pounds only". It is interesting to note that in Wood Green where the scheme has in operation during the last three years the rate has gone up from £40 to £50 a 25% increase which is well above the underlying level of inflation.
The same can be said of the visitor parking permits. Not only will it inconvenience everyone in getting hold of the special booklets but also the rate of 65pence per "half" day will certainly be revised upwards. As residents it would be embarrassing to chase after our friends and guests as well as carers, nurses tradesmen and other contractors in order to prevent them from receiving a penalty charge. Clock watching will become an unfortunate pastime. There will also be the burden and inconvenience in applying for the special booklets from either the Council direct or from its parking contractor TFM Services.
The CPZ scheme, under the current proposal, will operate between 8am and 6:30pm from Monday to Saturday. But how long will it be before the hours are extended to 8pm or even 10pm and stretch into Sunday? This has already happened in Haringey. Residents must realise that a parking permit will only give permission to park, not the actual space to park and there will be no guarantee that a space will be available.
Residents who currently have access to off street parking extend a courtesy to their neighbours by not encroaching onto their road space and parking in front of their driveway. The scheme has been designed to convert all lowered pavement areas into absolute no-parking restrictions and be subject to penalty charges. This displacement alone will enhance the problem the CPZ is trying to prevent by forcing residents to impose their vehicles onto other people's territory. This cleverly engineered plan is aimed to yield unfair pressure on roadways which currently do not have a parking problem leaving little or no alternative but to concede to this scheme.
Roads, which for the present accommodate parked vehicles, will be turned into total restriction zones through the use of double yellow lines. These vehicles will also spill over onto areas where parking is not regarded a problem but will undoubtedly become one.
How many permit bays will actually be made available to residents and businesses alike on day one of the scheme and how many vehicles will be displaced into areas not covered at the outset? How many bays will remain available once residents start applying for their pavement area to be lowered so that they too can have off street parking? Is there a hidden agenda whereby most applications will be rejected in preference to these parking zones? How many more traffic attendants will the Council need to employ to maintain this scheme?
Most people surveyed argued that this is mainly a money making venture designed by the Council to lift itself from its current financial problems. It is not seen as a necessary or justified measure and will not help sustain the well being of local and business residents. This plan is inflexible and will only help drive up our cost of living and jeopardise the prosperity of our local community. Our property values will suffer and some residents may seriously consider leaving the area altogether.
As residents we are beginning to lose our faith and confidence in our Council as it strives to undermine our civil liberties and human rights for a peaceful enjoyment and use of our properties.
Enfield Council has seen from Haringey Council's attempts to install this scheme in Seven Sisters, Stroud Green and more recently Muswell Hill and now from its own residents, that such draconian measures do not add up. It should concede to this and publicly declare that it will not attempt to re-introduce such a scheme this year next year or for many more years to come. It should not continue to waste taxpayers' money on foolhardy undemocratic and senseless projects. It should concentrate on ways of encouraging commuters and shoppers who visit our area to make use of our car park areas by making charges more attractive for example. Additional one or two pounds on our annual tax bill should see the maintenance of this prudent measure. If necessary it should convert derelict industrial or other wasteland into additional parking facilities. Perhaps it can encourage schemes such as car sharing, Hopper Busses or even park and ride services as some counties have introduced successfully. These measures can help steer "unwanted" traffic from our streets.
As a nation we are a heavily taxed people.
To mention just a few:
Income Tax
National Insurance
Car Purchase Tax
Car Insurance Tax
Road Tax
Fuel Tax
Car Park Charges
Pay & Display Charges
Local Council Tax
The New G.L.A Tax
Indirect taxes - rising costs of living
As if these were not enough we now are face the prospect
of a Residency Tax for the right to park, not to mention the Penalty charges
for "illegal parking" outside our homes.
It is our view that this Council is not trying to resolve a local parking problem in some roads in our area but to breed a major money making project.
I conclude by reminding the Council that as our elected representatives they must uphold the democratic process. The residents of Palmers Green have clearly demonstrated that there is no place for the CPZ scheme in any shape or form absolutely.
No means No and nothing else.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
27th
March 2004 |
| Shops Joined Recently |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
PalmerGreenShops.com - designed and maintained by Uniq Design
© All images and content remain
the sole property of Uniq
Design
Our Privacy Policy