RECORD OF DECISION TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
All requests for action to be taken in accordance with established delegated authority must be accompanied by an appropriate report setting out all relevant considerations, in particular legal and financial considerations, and with a clear recommendation[s] for action, in order for an appropriate decision to be taken in accordance with the provisions of current legislation.
Log No.
Title of Report: Report of Statutory Consultation for the extension of Highgate Station Outer CPZ
Reason for relevant paragraph for authority under scheme of delegation
1.0 Purpose
1.1 To report the feedback of statutory consultation carried out in May / June 2009 for an extension to the Highgate Station Outer CPZ. The report will set out officers’ responses to the representations received during statutory consultation.
1.2 To seek approval to proceed with the recommendations as set out in section 12 of this report.
2.0 Background
2.1 The council’s Cabinet, at its meeting of 15 July 2008, approved a report for a new approach to consultation for extensions to existing CPZs. The new approach involves proceeding directly to statutory consultation rather than first conducting an informal public consultation. This new approach is however subject to resident’s first providing evidence of a high level of support, usually in the form of a petition, for the introduction of parking controls in their road.
2.2 In June 2007 the Council introduced the Highgate Station Outer CPZ to help reduce the amount of non-residents from parking in the area. Since the CPZ introduction, the Council has received representations from residents from Denewood Road and Stormont Road to consider including them in the existing zone.
2.3 In July 2008 it was agreed with Councillors that the Council would adopt the fast track approach for the extension of the Highgate Station Outer CPZ. Although only two roads had expressed support for inclusion in the extension, under the fast track process we identified additional roads neighbouring the area of support for inclusion in statutory consultation, as this would allow residents of the neighbouring roads to deicide whether or not they would also support inclusion, in the knowledge that the existing zone was to be extended and that they may experience a level of displacement parking.
2.4 The CPZ extension is in accordance with the following objectives:
a) Parking Service Business Action Plan
The introduction of CPZs, where required, will help create a cleaner, greener environment.
b) Local Implementation Plan (LIP)
Section 7.0 of the Parking and Enforcement Plan (the ‘PEP’), which forms part of the LIP reiterates the Council’s intentions to improve parking conditions in the Borough. The overall aim of the PEP is to support a better and safer environment for the borough.
A summary of PEP Policies are as follows:
• The Council will assess the need for parking controls at junctions. • The Council will allocate on street kerb space in accordance with the Council’s defined hierarchy of parking need. • The Council will monitor, manage and review on-street pay and display parking to help manage long-stay commuter parking and promote short stay and visitor parking. • The Council is committed to full consultation on new or extended CPZs
c) Nottingham Declaration
Haringey Council has signed the Nottingham Declaration, committing itself to take positive steps to reduce the impact of local green house gas emissions on climate change. The introduction of parking controls will have an impact on CO2 emissions by prioritising parking availability. .
3.0 Statutory Consultation
3.1 Statutory consultation is the legal part of the process required before parking controls can be implemented. In summary, before making an order to implement parking controls, the Council must notify the public of its intentions in the form of a public notice which is published in the London Gazette, local press and on site in visible locations where the measures are proposed.
3.2 A total of 700 statutory notification documents consisting of background information, location plan and a translation sheet were delivered, by hand, to all properties where parking controls were proposed. All documents were distributed on the 28 May 2009. At the same time Street Notices were erected at visible locations within the area of proposals.
3.3 The statutory consultation period commenced on the 28 May 2009 and was originally open until 18 June 2009; however at the request of Ward Councillors the consultation period was extended until 10 July 2009. The extended consultation period was also intended to give sufficient time to LB Barnet and LB Camden to submit any representations they may have had to the proposals. See Appendix I for consultation documents.
3.4 It should be noted that statutory consultation was open to any interested party wishing to make comment on the council’s intentions either in writing or alternatively by email. The address to submit these representations to were supplied in the statutory consultation leaflet, the notices published in the press and the notices erected in visible locations in the street.
4.0 Statutory Consultation Feedback
4.1 This section of the report is divided into two sections, consisting of:
a) A summary of representations received during statutory consultation b) A summary of the key objections received together with the council’s considered response. Each objection with the appropriate response is considered in turn.
4.2 Before making the relevant Traffic Management Orders the council must consider all duly made objections submitted in response to the consultation.
SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
4.3 A total of 310 representations were received during the statutory consultation period consisting of:
• 46 individual representations were received from within the consultation area in support of the scheme from all roads within the proposed parking area. • 30 individual representations were received from within the consultation area objecting to the proposals on various grounds • 68 individual representations were received from outside the consultation area objecting to the proposals on various grounds (66 of these representations object specifically to the inclusion of Hampstead Lane due to parking restrictions preventing access to Hampstead Heath and Kenwood House) • 151 representations were the product of a standard template, predominantly from Highgate Primary School and Kenwood, Gaskell, Storey and Yeatman Roads, objecting to the proposals due to concerns with parking permit charges and that a CPZ is unnecessary. • 10 representations were received that regarded conditions in the response. • 5 representations were sent in referring to the Highgate Station CPZ, which is the neighbouring CPZ.
A full list of all the representations received is contained in Appendix II of this report
VIEWS FROM STATUTORY BODIES
4.4 Statutory Bodies / Organisations: As part of the Statutory Consultation period the views of the following bodies were sought: AA, London Transport, Police (local), Fire Brigade, London Ambulance Service, Freight Transport Association, Road Haulage Association, RAC, Metropolitan Police (traffic), Haringey Cycling Campaign and Haringey Accord. None of the parties listed made any representations during the statutory consultation period.
4.5 London Boroughs Barnet and Camden were consulted for their views. LB Camden requested that we give consideration to parking arrangements to Camden residents or businesses that live on Hampstead Lane who may be affected by the proposals. LB Barnet made no comments to the proposals.
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED WITH COUNCIL RESPONSE
4.6 Objection: The roads within the proposed area experience very little on-street parking there is always space available to park. The CPZ extension is unnecessary as commuters do not park in the roads within the proposed area.
Council’s response: Although the petitions and requests for inclusion into the existing CPZ were received mainly from residents of Denewood Road, Stormont Road and Sheldon Avenue it was decided the other roads within the proposed boundary should also be included in this process, as they will inevitably suffer from displacement parking if omitted from the scheme, we asked residents to consider this in the statutory consultation leaflet. When considering parking controls, particularly CPZ controls, we will design our boundaries to minimise displacement parking and this will often mean including a road that may not currently experience problems or be in support of parking controls.
4.7 Objection: Access to Hampstead Heath and Kenwood House should not be restricted to visitors.
Council’s response: As part of the initial proposal, it was proposed to introduce shared use parking bays along Hampstead Lane allocated for residents and motorists purchasing a ticket from a pay and display machine. However, in respect of the strength of objections received regarding Hampstead Lane it is recommended not to proceed with it’s inclusion into the Highgate Station Outer CPZ. The Council has already consulted in a separate proposal and now scheduled to introduce waiting restrictions in Hampstead Lane and therefore excluding Hampstead Lane from the CPZ extension will not have a detrimental effect on road safety regarding the junctions along Hampstead Lane within the area of proposals.
4.8 Objection: I would strongly disagree with the council’s proposed operational hours of Monday – Friday 10am – 12noon and would be in favour of all-day operational hours or later in the afternoon such as 3pm – 4pm.
Council’s response: The proposed CPZ extension is being incorporated into the existing Highgate Station Outer CPZ under the fast track approach and must therefore be the same operating hours as the existing CPZ. To effectively enforce a CPZ an operational time of at least 2 hours is required. An operational period of 1 hour would not allow sufficient time for civil enforcement officers to effectively carry out enforcement therefore not benefiting the resident’s requirements.
4.9 Objection: The majority of residents in the proposed area have adequate off-street parking and parking on the road is never a problem.
Council’s response: The results of the feedback from the consultation will be analysed on a road by road basis and take into consideration all representations received.
4.10 Objection: I fear the proposed CPZ extension may prove expensive as I have to purchase visitors permits.
Council’s response: The cost of residents and visitor permits in Haringey is quite competitive compared to other London boroughs. For example, in Haringey the cost of a short-stay visitor permit (valid for 1 hour) is £2.40 for a set of 12 permits; the cost of a short-stay visitor permit (valid for 2 hour) is 40p or £4.80 for a set of 12 permits; weekend visitor permits valid from noon on Friday for 72 hours cost £5.00. Residents over 60 or registered disabled pay half the corresponding costs above.
4.11 Objection: The proposed CPZ extension will cause difficulty especially for delivery drivers.
Council’s response: Within a CPZ any vehicle may load and unload for a maximum period of 40 minutes in any part of the zone where, loading restrictions do not apply, as long as they give indication of their loading / unloading activity. We will also be providing pay and display bays at strategic locations within the CPZ to encourage short-stay parking to assist local businesses. Also it has to be noted the proposed scheme will only operate between 10am – 12noon Monday – Friday. Outside of these times parking is uncontrolled. Residents also have the option of providing traders with visitor permits
4.12 Objection: The proposed CPZ extension is a revenue raising exercise. Why should residents pay to park in their roads?
Council’s response: Any CPZ implemented must be self financing. Any surplus funding is spent on highways improvements, highways maintenance and on concessionary travel. The charge is intended to cover the costs of operating and enforcing the scheme.
4.13 Objection: Why should residents be penalised for driving older cars? The Council’s CO2 charging structure for parking permits is a convenient stealth tax and unfair.
Council’s response: The Council has a policy to actively encourage the use of vehicles with reduced CO2 emissions. While the proposed banding structure will translate into an increase for some of the vehicles within the borough, the charges are still one of the lowest amongst other local authorities in London. Measures that discourage people from acquiring and using vehicles with higher CO2 emissions will have a beneficial effect on air quality.
4.14 Objection: If it had not been for Street Notices erected on lamp columns within the area of the proposals or the vigilance of the Hampstead & Highgate Express I would not have been aware of the council’s proposals for the CPZ extension.
Council’s response: The Council’s Statutory Consultation process involved delivering to all residencies and businesses within the boundary of the proposed scheme a consultation leaflet. Further to this the Council published notices in the local press (Hampstead & Highgate Express), London Gazette and placed copies of the Public Notice in visible locations within the area to inform of the Council’s intentions. It is clear from the level of representations received that the proposals have reached not only residents in the area but interested parties outside / stakeholders outside of the area of proposals.
5.0 Chief Financial Officer Comments
5.1 The total capital programme in 2009/10 for the Parking Plan is £600k of which £55k is currently allocated to the extension of the Car Parking Zone in Highgate. Although detailed costings to implement the recommendations in this report are not yet available, the service has indicated that these will be within the available budget.
6.0 Service Finance Comments
6.1 The budget to deliver the proposals identified in this report is £55,000. The cost of the works must not exceed the budget provision within the parking plan budget. The service will need to carry out a financial appraisal on the proposed initiatives to determine the estimated revenue implications including pay back periods as appropriate, based on best information currently available.
7.0 Environmental Implications
7.1 Before reaching a decision to make the necessary Traffic Management Order to implement a CPZ scheme, the Council must follow the statutory consultation procedures pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act (“RTRA”)1984 and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations1996. All objections received must be properly considered in the light of administrative law principles, Human Rights law and the relevant statutory powers.
7.2 The Council’s powers to make Traffic Management Orders arise mainly under sections 6, 45, 46, 122 and 124 and schedules 1 and 9 of the RTRA 1984.
7.3 When determining what paying parking places are to be designated on the highway, section 45(3) requires the Council to consider both the interests of traffic and those of the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties. In particular, the Council must have regard to: (a) the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic, (b) the need for maintaining reasonable access to premises, and (c) the extent to which off-street parking is available in the neighbourhood or if the provision of such parking is likely to be encouraged by designating paying parking places on the highway.
7.4 By virtue of section 122, the Council must exercise its powers under the RTRA 1984 so as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic including pedestrians, and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. These powers must be exercised so far as practicable having regard to the following matters:-
(a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.
(b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected including the regulation and restriction of heavy commercial traffic so as to preserve or improve amenity.
(c) the national air quality strategy.
(d) facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and securing the safety and convenience of their passengers.
(e) any other matters appearing to the Council to be relevant.
8.0 Comment of the Head of Legal Services
8.1 The legal position and statutory requirements are set out in Paragraph 6 of the report. The Statutory Consultation that has taken place as set out in the report complies with The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. It would be good practice for residents to be supplied with reasons when they are informed of the Council's decision.
9.0 Equal Opportunities
9.1 The consultation documents were distributed to all households/ businesses within an agreed area.
9.2 The consultation document included a section offering translation into minority languages.
9.3 During statutory consultation any interested party is permitted to make representation regardless of where they live or work.
10.0 Summary of consultation feedback
10.1 It is clear that support for the CPZ extension mainly comes from residents in Denewood and Stormont Roads; this was expected as these are the roads where the initial requests for inclusion into the existing Highgate Station Outer CPZ originated. Residents in Denewood and Stormont Roads experience difficulties with obstruction from vehicles hindering access and egress of crossovers / driveways to residents’ off-street parking. Denewood and Stormont Roads also suffer from an excessive amount of non-resident parking displaced from roads within the existing CPZ. In line with the council’s fast-track policy, roads proposed for inclusion into a CPZ extension will be considered on a road by road basis from the representation received from the statutory consultation, therefore consideration for inclusion into the Highgate Station Outer CPZ can be given to Denewood and Stormont Roads.
10.2 Sheldon Avenue is divided in the overall response, the Sheldon Avenue Residents Association (SARA) confirmed broadly their collective support for the CPZ extension, however, they would caveat this by saying that none of them favour the proposed extension and are only willing to be included if Denewood Road and Stormont Road are ultimately included within the CPZ extension.
10.3 From the feedback received from the consultation a large majority of representations originate from outside the area of proposals, specifically objecting to the inclusion of Hampstead Lane into the CPZ extension. These objections regard the introduction of parking controls in Hampstead Lane to be unnecessary and strongly object to the restriction of access to Hampstead Heath and Kenwood House for visitors and users of the Heath. It has to be noted that the Council has since introduced parking restriction measures (not related to the proposed extension to the CPZ) on the junctions along Hampstead Lane (with The Bishops Avenue, Sheldon Avenue and Stormont Road) and it is the Council’s view that these measures will protect these junctions from obstructive parking and keep sightlines clear to oncoming traffic. This separate consultation was carried out in July 2009 and received no objections to the proposals. It must be noted that LB Camden’s request to consider parking arrangements for Camden residents south of Hampstead Lane will be addressed with the exclusion of Hampstead Lane from the proposed extension.
10.4 A meeting was held during the consultation period between Council Officers and Highgate School. Highgate School owns the majority of properties in Bishopswood Road, there are only 7 non-Highgate School owned residential properties and these are sited at the entrance and exit of the road. Bishopswood Road itself is predominantly used by staff from the school to park; it does not share a road with local residents and businesses. There is the likelihood that if Bishopswood Road was excluded from the proposed extension some degree of parking displacement would occur with vehicles from previously unrestricted roads attempting to park in Bishopswood Road. Although with Bishopswood Road’s inclusion into the CPZ extension there will be financial implications with regards to Highgate School being treated as a business and requiring permits for staff parking.
10.5 A total of 151 representations were the product of a standard template from residents mainly from Gaskell, Kenwood, Storey and Yeatman Roads and connected with Highgate Primary School, objecting to the inclusion of Gaskell, Kenwood, Storey and Yeatman Roads into the proposed CPZ extension, the majority of residents on these roads do not experience difficulty in parking and believe the CPZ to be unnecessary. The residents from these roads report they have not suffered from displacement parking from when the original Highgate Station Outer CPZ was first introduced. Further to this with these roads are a self contained network of roads with access only from North Hill, there is no access from Sheldon Avenue or Denewood Road. It is unlikely that this network of roads will suffer from displacement parking if excluded from the proposed scheme.
11.0 Options for consideration
11.1 In consideration from the feedback from the consultation and in light of the mixed views received several options are available. In respect of the strength of objections received against the Council’s proposed extension with regards to the inclusion of Hampstead Lane, and a similar amount of objections received from Gaskell, Kenwood, Storey and Yeatman Roads, it is officers’ recommendation that the scheme should proceed to implementation but exclude Hampstead Lane and the roads Gaskell, Kenwood, Storey and Yeatman.
11.2 Option 1: To extend the Highgate Station Outer CPZ into all the roads in the area within the proposed scheme. This would be against the wishes of the overall majority who responded to the statutory consultation, who seem generally satisfied with the current parking situation and feel a CPZ extension to be unnecessary. Implementation cost for this option: £65,000.
11.3 Option 2: To extend the Highgate Station Outer CPZ to include Denewood Road, Stormont Road and Sheldon Avenue only where the majority of respondents feel that they have a parking problem and do support the introduction of a CPZ. This would address the needs of the majority of those residents, but would be against the wishes of the overall majority of those who responded during the consultation period. Introducing parking controls in Denewood Road, Stormont Road and Sheldon Avenue may cause some degree of displaced parking into surrounding uncontrolled roads. Implementation cost for this option: £35,000.
11.4 Option 3: Mark out white parking bays in Denewood Road, Stormont Road and Sheldon Avenue only and introduce ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions at strategic locations such as junctions and narrow sections of roads to maintain suitable visibility and sightlines. This option would encourage considerate parking to not block access to crossovers and address the concerns of residents in these roads who feel they have difficulties accessing their driveways because of vehicles parking across them and hindering access. It must be noted that the parking bay aspect of this option would not be legally enforceable and will depend largely on considerate parking by individuals for the scheme to avoid losing its effectiveness. Implementation cost for this option: £3,000.
APPENDIX I
Statutory Consultation documents
STATUTORY CONSULTATION Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
Bishopswood Road, Denewood Road, Gaskell Road, Hampstead Lane, Kenwood Road, Sheldon Avenue, Storey Road, Stormont Road and Yeatman Road.
Closing date: 18 June 2009
www.haringey.gov.uk Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
Dear Resident or Trader,
In June 2007, following extensive consultation with the community we introduced the Highgate Station Outer CPZ to help reduce the amount of non-residents from parking in the area. Since introducing the CPZ, we have received requests from residents just outside the CPZ to consider including them in the existing zone.
In line with our commitment to listen to the local community’s parking concerns, we are now proposing an extension to include the roads listed below into the existing Highgate Station Outer CPZ.
Our proposals
We are proposing an extension to the existing Highgate Station Outer CPZ to include the following roads. The extents of the proposed extension are shown on the attached plan. • Bishopswood Road • Denewood Road (between Stormont Road and Highgate Golf Club) • Gaskell Road • Hampstead Lane (Between the eastern arm of Bishopswood Road and Compton Avenue) • Kenwood Road • Sheldon Avenue • Storey Road • Stormont Road • Yeatman Road
The proposed operating days and hours of the extension are Monday to Friday, 10am to 12 noon this mirrors the existing scheme operating in your area. The introduction of a CPZ will consist of designated parking bays and waiting restrictions predominantly at junctions, to help aid road safety and motorist and pedestrian visibility.
Have your say
To enable any parking controls to be legally enforceable, we are required to enter into a stage of consultation known as statutory consultation. This is the legal part of the process and takes the form of a Public Notice advertised in the local press and London Gazette. Copies of the Public Notice will also be placed in visible locations within the area to inform of the Council’s intentions.
The legal notice will be advertised on 28 May 2009 and provides a 21-day statutory consultation period for interested parties to make representations regarding our proposal to implement parking controls. The closing date for comments is the 18 June 2009. You should note that statutory consultation differs from public consultation in that any interested party can make their comments on our proposals. Responses are also analysed according to the comments made, rather than based on “Yes/No” responses. If you are a resident of a private road, you are receiving this letter for information, as the council will not be introducing parking controls to your road.
1 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
The purpose of statutory consultation is not a vote on whether the whole area should receive a controlled parking zone. Any representations received will be analysed on a road-by-road basis to help identify roads or areas that are in favour of parking measures.
Please bear in mind the impact of parking displacement on roads just outside a parking zone, particularly the increase in parking pressure that may be experienced in your road if a CPZ is introduced in your neighbouring roads. If your road is excluded from the CPZ after this statutory consultation process, we would not expect to propose parking controls to your road again for at least two years.
If you would like to make comments or submissions, whether agreeing or objecting to the proposals, please make them in writing to:
Haringey Council Transport Policy and Projects Group River Park House, 1st Floor South 225 High Road Wood Green London N22 8HQ
Alternatively, you can email us at [email protected]. If you have any questions on the scheme please contact the consultation officer, Charlene Santos on 020 8489 1326 or the project engineer, Barry Copestake on 020 8489 1723. Please note: comments must be received no later than 18 June 2009.
What Happens Next?
Any representations received during this process will help inform us whether residents and traders in your road would like to be included in a CPZ. We will consider any representations or objections from your area.
If there are no formal objections to the proposals, we will then send you a further notice informing you when works will commence on site and when the scheme will come into effect. We will also provide a permit application form.
Thank you in advance for taking time to read this letter and please take the time to make a representation on our proposal.
Yours faithfully,
Joan Hancox Head of Sustainable Transport
2 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
3 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
4 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
What is a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)?
A Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is an area where all on-street parking is controlled either by yellow lines or designated parking bays.
CPZs give priority to residents and local businesses, and their visitors, who must display permits or vouchers to show their entitlement to park.
Outside the hours of operation parking remains unrestricted, unless otherwise stated by additional time-plates stating the extended restrictions.
Double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time regardless of the CPZ.
CPZs are usually located in town centres and areas surrounding underground and rail stations where parking most affects the local residents.
CPZs ease congestion caused by illegal and obstructive parking.
Some roads further away from the source of the problem are included in the zone to prevent displaced motorists from moving into these roads. A permit for one CPZ does not allow the holder to park in any other CPZ.
How do Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ’s) work?
CPZs work by ensuring that vehicles park in designated bays at certain times of the day. Any vehicles that are parked illegally are liable to receive a Penalty Charge Notice.
CPZs operate at different times of the day depending on the parking demands. Each zone is designed to deal with the type of problem in the area.
Different types of bays are provided for specific groups of motorists. In this instance, there will be two types of bays provided: • Residential - for residents of the roads in the area, and their visitors, displaying a valid parking permit. • Business – for businesses that require a vehicle for business use.
During the hours of operation of the CPZ, all vehicles must be parked in the appropriate bays. At other times the parking bays do not apply and parking is unrestricted except where yellow lines operate for longer periods.
Types of Parking Permits
Parking permits are only needed within the hours of operation of the CPZ.
Application forms for all types of permits may be obtained by phoning the parking helpline on 0208 489 1234 Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm.
5 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
Applications may be sent and received by post.
Permits may also be obtained on the day over the counter at the Parking Shop, 247 High Road, Wood Greed N22 8NZ.
Visitor permits in the form of scratch cards may be purchased in advance from the parking shop.
The Council will send further information to residents about parking permits before any scheme is put in place.
Residential Permits - residents who live in the zone are entitled to apply for a resident permit. Residents who display a valid permit can park in resident’s bays and some shared- use bays.
Short-stay Visitor Permits - people visiting the area (friends, relatives, health visitors or trades people etc.) have a number of options. They can: • Park in a shared-use bay and purchase a pay and display ticket from a machine. • Obtain a visitor's permit from the resident they are visiting and display it in their windscreen. (Visitors’ permits will need to be purchased in advance by residents).
Weekend Visitor Permits (only applicable if the scheme operates on weekends) - people wishing to visit residents within the zone for a weekend may use a weekend permit. (These permits will need to be purchased in advance by residents).
Long-stay visitor Permits - people visiting residents for longer periods (including trades people) may use long term visitor permits, which allow parking for 2 weeks. Residents who hire a car for a short period can also purchase these permits. (These permits will need to be purchased in advance by residents).
Business Permits - a number of parking bays will be provided for businesses within the area to provide regular parking for vehicles used in the course of business.
Further Features of a CPZ Parking for Businesses, Services and Community Users One of the major aims of a Controlled Parking Zones is to give some priority to the parking needs of residents. It is clear that businesses, services and community users also have legitimate parking requirements that need to be catered for. In existing controlled parking zones the Council operates a business Parking Permit scheme that enables businesses to purchase permits which allows them to park in business bays or a shared used permit holder bays. The criteria for Business Permits are strict and may be defined as follows: • Require regular and unavoidable use of a vehicle to run their business • Transport bulky and, or high value goods on a regular and unavoidable basis • Work unsociable hours (when public transport is not readily available)
6 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
Permits are not available just for travelling to work by car (unless these journeys have to be made at unsociable hours). Nevertheless, they are not only available for commercial businesses: other employers - e.g. local schools and health providers - may also apply, though the same criteria must be satisfied.
Loading and Unloading A vehicle may load and unload for a maximum period of 40 minutes in any part of the zone when delivering or collecting goods, unless loading /unloading restrictions are in place. Loading/unloading must be continuous and must involve heavy/ bulky goods (not normally shopping). An exception to this is for moving house, when vehicles may wait longer than 40 minutes, whilst being loaded/ unloaded, provided they are not causing an obstruction.
Suspension of Parking Places In certain circumstances the Police or the Council may suspend parking bays, for example to allow for building operations, domestic removals, weddings, funerals or special events etc.
Vehicle Crossovers (Driveways) & recommended pedestrian road crossing points Parking bays will not be placed in front of a foot-way crossover where vehicle access has been provided for a property, or at recommended pedestrian road crossing points. A yellow line will be provided to enable the Council and the Police to carry out enforcement during the operational hours of the CPZ.
Enforcement of Regulations Any driver who parks a vehicle in contravention of parking restrictions will be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (parking ticket). Haringey Council is responsible for enforcing parking restrictions and uniformed parking attendants would regularly patrol the area to ensure that adequate enforcement takes place.
Signs and Environmental Issues Signs will be placed on existing lamp columns or on boundary walls of properties where possible, subject to Statutory consultation. This is to reduce the amount of street furniture. Only where it is absolutely necessary will sign posts be erected for signs.
Special Parking Groups Disabled Badge Holders (blue / orange badge holders) - Any vehicle displaying a Disabled Badge will be able to park without a permit: • in any residents’ bays within the zone; • on yellow lines without loading restrictions for a maximum of 3 hours provided they are not causing an obstruction; • in any Disabled Bay, for a maximum of three hours.
Doctors - the existing designated doctors parking bays provided for exclusive use by doctors will remain and no additional charges will be made.
Motorcycles - these can park in any of the parking bays, free of charges, apart from designated disabled or doctor parking bays.
7 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
Current Cost of permits
The charging structure proposed is as follows for vehicles registered on or after 23 March 2001
Second and subsequent Band First Permit (annual) permit per household
1 (up to 100 CO2 g/km) £15 £15
2 (101 – 150 CO2 g/km) £30 £60
3 (151 – 185 CO2 g/km) £60 £100
4 (186 CO2 g/km & over) £90 £150
The charging structure proposed is as follows for vehicles registered before 23 March 2001, where CO2 emissions are not documented. The charging structure is based on the vehicles engine size.
Second and subsequent Engine size First Permit (annual) permit per household
1549cc or less £30 £60
1550cc to 3000cc inclusive £60 £100
3001cc and above £90 £150
The new parking charges policy will: • Encourage the use of vehicles with lower CO2 emissions • Increase the use of alternatives modes of transport, such as, walking and cycling; and • Promote the use of public transport
To view more information on proposed changes in Parking Fees and Parking Charges please visit: www.haringey.gov.uk/parking_charge_review.htm
Thank you in advance for taking time to read this leaflet.
8 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
9 Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension
10 Shqip Polski
Français Soomaali
Kurdî Kurmancî Türkçe
Please tell us if you would like a copy of this document in another language that is not listed above or in any of the following formats, and send the form to the Freepost address below.
In large print On audio tape In Braille In another language, please state:
Name: Tel: Address: Email: Please return to: Freepost RLXS-XZGT-UGRJ, Haringey Council, Translation and Interpretation Services, 8th Floor, River Park House, 225 High Road, London N22 8HQ
Haringey Council offers this translating and interpreting service to Haringey residents. We can translate this document into one language per resident ONLY.
Proposed Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) Extension This is printed on recycled paper. Published by Haringey Council’s When you have finished with it please Communications Unit 22310 • 05/2009 recycle and help the environment. APPENDIX II
Summary of Representations
SUPPORT TO PROPOSED EXTENSION TO HIGHGATE STATION OUTER CPZ
Strongly believes CPZ will reduce noice levels, improve our quality of life and overall upgrade our area as at present we have constand non resident visitors parking at Kenwood Road our road continously through out the day. This is much needed as the road is saturated with non-resident parking. Denewood Road
correspondence from him going back to early 2007. In fact, it was Mr Collins who took the attached photo for inclusion in an email the residents sent to the council in Denewood Road July 2007
Very quiet residential streets, such as Denewood Road, were turned into ‘car parks’ when adjacent streets (View Road & Broadlands Road) were included in the existing CPZ nearly 2 years ago. We regularly have to call your parking enforcement people to help remove cars parked across or obstructing our drive. The sooner Denewood Road we are in the CPZ the better
I strongly agree with the proposal to introduce controlled parking in Denewood Road N6.It is long overdue and will improve the quality of life for the residents in the Denewood Road area
Thank you for your efforts to extent CPZ. Parking on Denewood Road needs to be controlled. It is very difficult for me to get out of my driveway because of cars Denewood Road parked opposite or too close to it. There is a blind zone and every time I try to get out of my driveway I take a risk to be hit by other car. This Road is overcrowded with parked cars and a dangerous street. I fully support CPZ extention to this part of Denewood Road. I am attaching my response to your proposal to extend Highgate Station outer CPZ to Denewood Road.A few photos are also attached to show you the need for extending the time to 3 to 5 pm as well. These photos emphasize that the timings have to be changed to include 3- 5 pm You may not be aware that majority of cars Denewood Road presently parked on Denewood Road belong to people working/visiting the Highgate Private Clinic in View Road Hope you will find these comments useful in arriving at a suitable solution Denewood Road Concerned that residents in private section of Denewood Rd would not be able to park within rest of zone. I understand from my neighbour, Margaret Butt, that if the proposed extension is implemented, then, as residents of Denewood Road and therefore within the boundaries of the extension, we would be entitled to buy tickets entitling us or our guests etc to park in any of the designated parking spaces to the same extent and at Denewood Road the same price as other residents within the CPZ even though the part of Denewood Road where we live, as a private road, will not be a road to which CPZ parking restrictions apply. I should be grateful if you would confirm that that will indeed be the case. Sheldon Avenue I am strongly in favor of the plan to bring controlled parking to out road in Highgate We Mr & Mrs R. Nanji of 37 Stormont Road, Highgate N6 4NR are very much in favour of extending the CPZ into Stormont Road as proposed Stormont Road
Poor parking situation in area. Commercial vans left for weeks on end. Cars parking on corners hindering sight. Object to commuter and long term parking in roads. Stormont Road
We fully support and welcome this very good initiative. The parking and traffic situation at present is extremely unsatisfactory and I believe that the extension of the Stormont Road scheme will be very positive step forward for the area Having given this matter further consideration, I am now withdrawing my objection and have decided that I support the implementation of the scheme. Sheldon Avenue
My wife and I strongly support this initiative and hope it will be brought into operation quickly. Sheldon Avenue This is to say THANK YOU for proposing the CPZ in Stormont Road. When we met last year at the home of Jeffrey Lewis No.18, you said this would happen at the end of May, and it has. All my faith in Haringey Council has been restored and for your untiring help, we will be forever grateful to you both. Stormont Road I refer to the CPZ proposals that include Sheldon Avenue. I am writing to say that we are fully supportive of the plans to introduce a CPZ. The parking situation in Sheldon Avenue is totally unacceptable at present as the road is used by daily commuters and even holiday makers as a safe place to park their vehicles for the day, Sheldon Avenue the week and sometimes even a month at a time.This usage combined with daily users of Kenwood users most often clogs up the road making it dangerous to drive in and out of our homes and impossible for our visitors and tradesmen to find places to park. Consider the introduction of double yellow lines on the entrance and exit of gates to High Sheldon, say 20 metres. Also DYL on corners of Sheldon Avenue and Sheldon Avenue, Hampstead Lane.
Very much in favour of extending the controlled parking zone into Stormont road as proposed Stormont Road
This proposal has my full support and is long overdue. Stormont Road
Current road and traffic conditions in this street are very poor, even hazardous, and we whole-heartedly welcome this iniative as a step toward improving the present Stormont Road situation. My wife and I fully support the above proposal. Parking for residents and their guests in the road is very difficult and we believe the proposal will ease the situation Stormont Road considerably. essential that our road is included. Because of the volume of parked cars and the fact that Bishopswood Rd narrows at several points there is scarcely a day when Bishopswood Road some vehicle or another is unable to get through and ends up reversing the length of the road. I think that the very minimum that is required for public safety is a single yellow line along one side of the road.
due to the high number of cars parking in the area (residents that do not live here or are visitors of residents that live here). The parking and traffic situation at present Stormont Road is extremely unsatisfactory and I believe that the extension of the scheme will be a very positive step forward for the area. This has been eagerly awaited, and is long overdue. We pay very heavy council taxes, and contribute to a private security system every night.of the year. All we ask Stormont Road from the Council is to protect us from all inappropriate parking. Yes, please go ahead and introduce the scheme as quickly as possible. It is urgently required.
The parking and traffic situation at present is extremely unsatisfactory and I believe that the extension of the scheme will be a very positive step forward for the area. Stormont Road
We are very much in favour of extending CPZ into Stormont Road. Stormont Road The parking and traffic situation at present is extremely unsatisfactory and we believe that the extension of the scheme will be a very positive step forward for the area. Stormont Road
I am strongly in favour of the introduction fo the extension of the CPZ to my area, and would urge you to introduce it to Sheldon Avenue. Sheldon Avenue
I am very much in favour of the proposed scheme for Sheldon Avenue. Suggest consideration is given to putting double yellow lines for a reasonable distance on either side of the exit gate of the block of flats called High Sheldon. Cars or vans are parked right up to the exit on both sides & coming through the exit gate one takes Sheldon Avenue one's life in one's hands as it is impossible to see any traffic from either direction until one comes right out to the centre of the road. There have been a number of close calls.
We are writing to confirm our support of the proposed extension. We are very much in favour of extending the CPZ into Stormont Road, as proposed. Stormont Road As a resident of Sheldon Avenue, I am writing to strongly support the proposal for extending the CPZ to include Sheldon Avenue. Also, on grounds of the safety of the residents, many of whom are elderly, I request that “double yellow lines” parking restrictions are imposed at the entrance and exit to High Sheldon (apartment block), Seheldon Avenue which are in constant use by a substantial number of vehicles. Likewise, the corners of Hampstead Lane and Sheldon Avenue should also have similar parking restrictions, in the interest of the driving safety of all Sheldon Avenue residents. Vans tend to park close to the exit, left and right of the entrance to flats, High Sheldon. Would like double yellow lines either side of exit. Also double yellow lines at junction of Sheldon Avenue and Hampstead Lane Sheldon Avenue
Consider double yellow lines at junction of Sheldon Avenue and Hampstead Lane. Obstructive parking is causing hazard and is dangerous. Sheldon Avenue
This is to confirm our support for the extension of the CPZ scheme for Sheldon Avenue. Sheldon Avenue In connection to your new ext CPZ to the rest of Highgate just to say, yes please, I'm all in favor. The surrounding roads in the area have become a overnight and weekend parking lot, for smaller gardening, rubbish clearance, builders firms to leave there vans parked along, often dumping them when un taxed, spoiling the aesthetics of Hampstead lane when visitors come to Kenwood.What will happen when Kenwood concerts start and the road is obstructed by these unsightly vans? Only concern is the hours you wish to operate. I feel that is some of the roads I.e. Hampstead Lane, this CPZ ext should perhaps operate 6 or days per week, Sheldon Avenue or different hours as otherwise the vans will descend on the area again on the weekends, and all there rubbish and noise that go with it. Can you also perhaps put double yellows on the corners/junctions with main roads leading of Hampstead Lane , as obstruction is really bad when trying to turn left or right coming out? I have also noticed a big problem, mainly on weekends and hot days when buses cant get through/past the islands if cars have parked to close by causing massive hold up's. The general flow of the traffic from Highgate through Hampstead Lane has been so much better since you brought in the CPZ last year, please, please extend it!
Please could there be double yellow lines for, say 20 feet along on the entrance and exists of high Sheldon block of flats. Also at the corners of Sheldon Avenue and Sheldon Avenue Hampstead Lane. Vans parked can seriously obscure a good view of the road.
Extension to CPZ is welcome. Also consider marking as total non parking our exit and entrance gates, so as to make our visibility and safety of entrance and Sheldon Avenue especially exit better.
Alternative to permits: Those people against the scheme mainly object to the requirement to buy permits. Indeed we feel that the higher charges for high CO2 vehicles mixes policy objectives in an inappropriate way. Sheldon Avenue is a road where all householders have off street parking. Some other boroughs control parking in such roads with yellow lines on both sides of the road. These apply for just one hour in the morning on one side of the road and one hour in the afternoon on the other. This provides virtually the same results as the proposed scheme in preventing commuter parking without the need for visitor permits. (Uphill Road in Mill Hill is an example).Weekends: We are surprised that you are not proposing to control parking at weekends. Sheldon Avenue has had significant “parking pressure” (to use the Sheldon Avenue council’s terminology) at the top of the road near Kenwood particularly at weekends for years. To attempt to control weekday parking and just ignoring weekend parking seems to us illogical and arbitrary. We therefore think that if a scheme is to be introduced it should be 7 days a week and if anything have longer (or two periods of) control at weekends.
We support the proposal to extend the Highgate Station Outer Controlled Parking Zone to include Stormont Road Stormont Road
Have personally on many occasions phoned the council requesting CPZ, as i am never able to find parking in my road, as people come and park their cars and leave Kenwood Road them outside our home to catch the train. I am delighted and in absolute agreement to of CPZ being enforced in our street, Many thanks. Stormont Road Are very much in favour of extending the CPZ into Stormont Road as proposed. I welcome the extension to incorporate Gaskell Road – this will alleviate congestion in the area during the day. Gaskell Road I refer to the proposed extention of the scheme to Stormont Road and write to record my enthusistic support for it. We are seriously inconvenienced by the present Stormont Road situation and feel sure that the fulll implimentation of your plans will alieviate the problem I refer to the above proposal and write to say that my wife and I fully support and welcome this initiative. The parking and traffic situation at present is extremely Stormont Road unsatisfactory and we believe that the extension of the scheme will be a very positive step for the area. Suffer from displacement, heavily congested with cars parked. As a result it is too narrow and sight lines at the junctions with View Road and Stormont Road are obscured The problem is exacerbated by the Highgate Private Hospital located in View Road, It has only a few off street parking places. As a result staff who arrive in Willowdene the morning park in Denewood Road.The current problem with parking in Denewood Road (and indeed Stormont Road), something must be done to restore the character which those roads had before the existing scheme was implemented
OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED EXTENSION TO HIGHGATE STATION OUTER CPZ road comment The road is too far from Highgate Tube station. We do not need it , we don't want it period, I object very strongly with a venom this project sucks its only money making machine for Storey Road Haringey Council we don't need it, personally I am happy as it stands , I don't have problems parking, you should remove the double yellow lines you guys put 2 years ago, I will get a petition to stop this ridiculous project .the answer is NO. I am a resident of 2 Storey Road, Highgate N6 4DR. I object to a CPZ in my road and also adjacent roads. There is no need of a CPZ which will effectively cost me £90 and then £150 a year (total £240) which is a tax on parking on a public road which I already pay £175 a year to drive and park upon (road tax). No problems in this road as plenty of people walk, cycle and use public transport when required, myself included. There is a CPZ all around me and I have no problems with other people parking between 10-12 and certainly Storey Road not because they park close to Highgate tube station which is a very long walk away. The Council wishes to charge residents to park in their own roads and also to obtain parking fine revenues, due to them being so careless to lose £57 million in Icelandic banks. I completely object to a CPZ in Storey Road and all planned CPZ's in adjacent roads. I wish you to log my objection for the reasons specified. No parking problem in Yeatman Road or surrounding roads. Resent having to pay to park in own road. Employees of Highgate School will be inconviened to travel to work. Yeatman Road Gaskell, Kenwood, Storey and Yeatman Roads should be treated as separate from the rest of the roads in the proposal. Introduction of Highgate Station CPZ has not increased commuter parking to Gaskell or surrounding roads, neither will it if Gaskell and surrounding roads are excluded from proposed scheme. There is ample parking space on roads at all Gaskell Road times. Pressure temporarily caused during school drop off/pickup times but this is not a problem. Would be disproportionate to include Gaskell and surrounding roads into the extension and impose costs of the CPZ. We do support encouragement of environment-friendly modes of transport by use of charging structure.
Object to being charged to park outside my own house, which is what this proposed extension will entail. I have a small car, which is not used during the week as I either cycle to work or get the tube. Consequently the car is parked outside my house, within the proposed CPZ extension, during the hours this CPZ would apply. There is no problem with Gaskell Road commuter parking on Gaskell Road. The road is quiet, with the sole exception of just before 9 and just after 3, when parents are dropping off or picking up their children from school. I suggest that a better use of the money that this scheme would cost would be to provide a sensible and useable alternative to the car for these parents.
There is not any current congestion issues caused by non-residents in the area parking for the station. We experience very little on-street parking in Sheldon Avenue, residents not Sheldon Avenue, having any difficulty in finding parking spaces. I find it highly unfeasible that Sheldon Avenue would be used as a convenient road to park in for the station, given that the station is still a 10-15 minute walk from Sheldon Avenue I am e-mailing to object against the proposed Highgate Station CPZ extension. I am a resident within the proposed extension area I can see of no reason to include Sheldon Avenue within this zone, other than to raise further money for the council. The majority of residents have adequate off-street parking, and parking on the road during 10am to 12noon is never a significant problem. In addition to 'taxing' local residents by introducing this CPZ extension you will also be making it harder for the wider community to enjoy the benefits of Sheldon Avenue, visiting Kenwood and Hampstead Heath. Many people frequently park in Sheldon Avenue (and other roads within the proposed extended CPZ) to enjoy these fantastic attractions. Making it harder for people to do so between the hours of 10am ad 12 noon Monday to Friday will be detrimental to the wider community.
Sheldon Avenue, None of the residents want a CPZ Scheme will cause havoc with white lines, signs, the necessity for parking licences - fined to park outside ones home. Difficulty that would result for people such as carers, deliveries Sheldon Avenue and guests Sheldon Avenue Sheldon Avenue does not require a CPZ, proposal is unnecessary. We do not seek protection from visitors who might occassionally use road to visit Kenwood Hse. I am writing to oppose CPZ in Sheldon Avenue. My feeling is that Sheldon Avenue is a relatively quiet road away from any underground or rail station. Always spaces outside each house for residents to park their car. Weekends get busy when the weather is good, but during the week there is no such problem. I have been watching the Denewood and Sheldon Avenue Stormont parking recently too and I don't feel that there are cars parking there for the day either.So basically there is absolutely to need to enforce something that is not needed. Only being enforced to make money for Haringey, so each resident will now have to cough up an additional tax for no reason at all. Sheldon Avenue We have enough traffic attendants around central London and feel we do not want them on our door step also. CPZ will be intrusive and unfair and most iportantly could be a security risk. We are not a town centre, a railway or tube station, cannot understand why scheme is proposed. Simply Sheldon Avenue a money making tactic. Proposes extra worry for our deliveries, gardeners and guests as well as the hassle and expense of obtaining parking permits for ourselves.
Your conclusions no way coincide with the results of my personal reasearch. Sheldon Ave is nowhere near a railway, tube station, or town centre, reason for having CPZ do not Sheldon Avenue apply here. CPZ would present considerable hassle for residents to undertake applications and other complex tasks (permits). Strongly suspect that this is primarily a council attempt at money-making rather than improving the environment. Sheldon Avenue Sheldon Avenue does not suffer from commuter parker. Believe the proposal to be about revenue collection. This extension is unnecessary. As a resident feels there is no need for CPZ. Another money making scheme, bringing unnessary aggravation. Accepts there are non residents parking on street but do not see why Sheldon Avenue residents should be penalised. Residents and visitors should be excempt from charges. I would NOT like a parking Zone on this road. If the Zone is there for the residents, than why is the permit so high and especially for the second and subsequent permit. Most of the Sheldon Avenue cars on this road are between 1550cc to 3001cc and above. Are you putting this zone for the residents or for the Council to make money? Stormont Opposed to CPZ. Commuters do not park in Denewood, majority are staff and visitors to Highgate Hospital. CPZ should be for 1 hour only. Why should people be penalised for older cars, all permits Denewood Road should be same at £15 Objects to the proposed extension to include Bishopswood Road. I live at Flat B2, 16 Bishopswood Road, and feel that neither I nor the other residents of Bishopswood Road would Denewood Road benefit from the proposed extension. I have never known there to be a shortage of spaces here for residents, and most residents have their own driveways anyway. Such an extension would be of little benefit to anybody in the vicinity Bishopswood Road The needs of Highgate School must properly be taken into account as both a major employer and school. This proposal has nothing to do with commuters at all.It is a proposal put forward by the selfish residents of Sheldon avenue Stormont road who are affected by visitors to Kenwood and the Heath We live in an area where we have a school that has activities 7 days a week ,still no parking problems,we have an allotment of yeatman road still no problems with Kenwood Estate parking.I will be taking photografic evidence to prove that our streets have vacant parking spaces between the hours of 10 to 12 noon. This proposed CPZ will in effect control visitors to our homes and restrict their times to visit. The residents have started a petition and so far over 90% have signed to say no Do not believe all roads should be included in the proposal. No sign of increased non-resident car parking at our end of Sheldon Ave, do not believe it will result from displacement Sheldon Avenue parking if a CPZ was introduced in neighbouring roads. Too far from underground station. CPZ would not benefit residents. unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair. I have been living in this street since 1977. I have never had a problem parking in front of my house or for that matter any house in Sheldon Avenue and adjoining roads. Proposition is unwarranted and unwelcome and if anything will affect the many visitors to Kenwood. It may be that some cars do long term park during the day in Denewood road. It is a very short road and in particular the non private section of it. Since cars have not overflowed into adjoining streets now there is very little reason Sheldon Avenue why many would if the CPZ were extended into the public section of Denewood Road. I do not believe that for the very few cars which might park in Sheldon Avenue an extension to the CPZ would be warranted. Why should we pay a tax to park outside our house and even if that was defensible by proximity o Highgate station (which it is not), what right do Haringey have to encourage residents to drive cars with lower CO2 emissions or to use alternative forms of transport. This is a TAX, nothing more, nothing less.
No need to control parking in the street. It is not busy. The only cars parked there during the day are those of the residents. Has been busy over the last 6 months due to the street being used by builders working on the Athlone House project (Kenwood Place). Now finished, street is back to its usual quiet state. We are against having to pay annual parking Bishopswood Road charges and inconveniencing our guests when there is no need for it. There is little to no evidence that the street is used by commuters. It is too far from a tube station to be used for that purpose. We have never seen anyone use our street in this way. We know that there is a school nearby and consider it unfair that parents or staff should be forced to pay for the privilege of picking up their children or parking for short periods. Apart from the blatantly obvious (i.e. greed), I would be interested to know your justification for this extention. With exception of the small private Highgate Hospital in View Road, the outlined area is almost solely residential. No-one parks their vehicles in Sheldon Avenue to visit local, nearby, shops (there aren't any!) or Highgate Tube Station. Never an issue of Aylmer Court being unable to find a parking space on Sheldon Avenue owing to commuters parking.In fact, the only time it may be busy is on a sunny weekend (outside of the proposed CPZ hours interestingly!), toward the junction of Hampstead Lane, when families may pay a visit to Kenwood Thought and planning should be given to making the 150 metres, or so, of Sheldon Avenue (where it meets Aylmer Road/A1) 'one way'. As a resident of Sheldon Avenue, I am not aware of any current congestion issues caused by non-residents in the area parking for the station. We experience very little on-street parking in Sheldon Avenue and I am not aware of any residents having any difficulty in finding parking spaces. Highgate station is 0.5 miles away from the closest point on Sheldon Avenue, I find it highly unfeasible that Sheldon Avenue would be used as a convenient road to park in for the station, given that the station is still a 10-15 minute walk from Sheldon Sheldon Avenue Avenue. will negatively impact the value of the High Sheldon apartment complex. The majority of High Sheldon residents are retired, and therefore have many daytime visitors and tradespeople. This scheme would make on-street parking significantly more difficult for these visitors, and therefore would negatively impact the appeal of High Sheldon to future purchasers. We have frequently been told by local estate agents that one of the strong selling points of Sheldon Avenue and the surrounding roads is the lack of parking restrictions. Clearly, then, creating new restrictions would negatively impact the value of property in this area. I have been in Sheldon Avenue for the last 8 years and there has never been any parking problems during the day. I have spoken to many residents in the road and none support the CPZ idea as mainly only residents and our visitors park in Sheldon Avenue. There is a petition been collected to oppose the CPZ. Would increase the flow of traffic at the north end of Sheldon Road with its junction with A1000, being narrow and with cars parked there during the day, lorries cannot get through so do not use Sheldon Avenue as a short cut. Sheldon Avenue, With the introduction of the CPZ and the possible removal of parked cars during the controlled times, lorries would seek to get through Sheldon Avenue to access the A1000, and spoil the calmness of the road.We are not near Highgate Tube, nor have a parking problem during the day in our road, I vote to reject the stupid idea from the idiots in your department that want to introduce a CPZ in Sheldon Avenue. As the headteacher of Highgate Primary School in Storey Road, I have been advised by a number of members of staff that they would have to consider whether it would be possible to continue to work at Highgate, should the CPZ be implemented. As you are aware, public transport options to Highgate Primary are restricted, especially from the East of the Storey Road borough where a lot of our teachers live. In addition we have a number of teachers with young children who have no option but to drive to school. Currently teachers’ salaries are at a level such that make it unaffordable to live within the locality. CPZ around the school would lead to a high turnover of staff, restrict the field when recruiting and could lead to a period of instability. Petition of 151 signatures received. We will be charged annual fee to park outside our own homes in our streets. We do not have the benefit of off street parking unlike the residents Yeatman Road, in Stormont, Sheldon, Bishopswood, Denewood and Hampstead Lane who will not pay charges and who put forward this CPZ proposal due to visitors to the Heath and Kenwood Hse parking in their roads. We will not pay for the priviledge of these residents. Hampstead Lane Believe the scheme to be a revenue raising exercise. Roads are quiet and most residencies have own off-street parking. CPZ extension is unnecessary. No need for CPZ as most private properties have ample off road parking. Needs of school should be carefully considered. I wish to OBJECT to the proposed controlled parking scheme in Sheldon Avenue, where I live. Below are some of the reasons. 1. There is no justification for a CPZ because people do not park in Sheldon Avenue in order to walk to Highgate tube or another tube. Sheldon Avenue is too far away. 2. There Sheldon Avenue are environmental problems if lines and zones are painted on the street, damaging the rural nature of this road, one of only five to lead to Hampstead Heath. 3. Parking wardens pose a security risk to our road. 4. Imposing a CPZ against the will of a significant number of residents is against our Human Rights of living in the road we want to live in without these restrictions on our liberties. 5. The CPZ will paradoxically increase the amount of traffic and heavy goods vehicles in our road and this is environmentally dangerous. The example is the congested and dangerous parking in Denewood Road. It is very dangerous. 6. Residents will be expected to pay for parking permits for cars parked outside their homes. This was not stated when residents bought their homes. The proposed payments are in effect an extra tax for having a car. Unless all residents in Haringey are confronted with an identical car ownership tax, the residents of Sheldon Avenue would be discriminated against and this too could be perceived Will dramatically impact on the types of services we can provide as there is no staff carpark for either the school or centre. The centre, currently under construction, aims serve a significant population in a service-poor area of the borough. A traffic consultation was undertaken by the borough (you) that judged parking in this area to be sufficient. This CPZ threatens the scope of services available and the number of people who can use it. Dog walkers, how are they to get back in time to avoid heavy fine? Like me an artist (at 74) how am I going to get all my painting equipment into the heath from Crouch end without 27 Coolhurst Road the use of my car. if the scheme does go ahead how about the time of 3-4pm? Kidderpore Ave PLease do not put a CPZ around Kenwood; it is unnecessary! I frequently walk at Kenwood but arrive by car which I park for an hour to two in Hampstead Lane or nearby. I feel you will be directly denying people easy access to Kenwood and Richmond Road Hampstead Heath by implementing this scheme which would appear to be a revenue raising effort rather than one to protect residents most of whom park in the driveway in front of their house. Hampstead and the surrounding streets are not close enough to good public transport for commuters to leave their cars there all day. The effect of introducing it in this area will be to prevent people from gaining the easy access they enjoy and use at present to their rightful glorious Hampstead Heath and Kenwood. proposal would impact on key users of the heath - the elderly, and parents /carers of young children in particular. Who could ill afford parking fees and who cannot access the heath via public transport. Furthermore there is no need for a cpz here - there is ample room for parking and residents are not being compromised in any way by it remaining uncontrolled. I think this is a cynical, money -making scheme completely unfounded in any practical need Penalises users of Hampstead Heath who wish to park their cars in close proximity. Also penalises residents who wish to park their cars in front of their properties; clear evidence of a stealth tax being imposed by Labour run Haringey Council. Streets earmarked for CPZ extension are nowhere near Highgate station As a resident within the Haringey Council area, I read with disbelief in this morning’s Ham & High that there is a proposal to create a CPZ between 10am and noon in the Hampstead Lane/Bishopswood Road/Sheldon Avenue area. Like many of your council tax payers, one of the main reasons I moved to this area of London was because of the heath. I cannot afford to live in close proximity to it, but I regularly walk there in the morning before going to work and often take my children there too. We enjoy using the “Brew House” café in Ridgeway Gardens Kenwood House for morning coffee. This particular area is nowhere near a tube station and my experience is that parking in the area is used primarily by people like myself who wish to use the wonderful facility the heath provides but do not have the financial resources to live nearby. I have been at the heath every morning this week (parking in Hampstead Lane for a short time as usual), but I have not yet seen any signs indicating that there is a CPZ proposal for this area.
Strongly object to your proposal to introduce resident only parking or pay bays. It will prevent me from using the Heath. There is no parking problem there. I can always find a space Sidmouth Road and so I presume can everybody else including locals. There are very few houses and most if not all have drives and private parking spaces. The cars come and go so it is not used by commuters. So what purpose would restrictions serve? LB Brent Cllr Carol Shaw Please note my objection too There is absolutely no necessity for it. The roads are wide and mostly car-free. Not in proximity to Highgate Station and are almost 100% used for locals to go to and from the Heath and Kenwood. This would appear to be a scheme that has at its forefront the motivation for raising yet more revenue from ordinary people going about their enjoyment.
I regularly park on Hampstead Lane when taking my dog and children for a walk. The only time that the road is full is at weekends when, presumably, the CPZ wouldn’t apply.
If you are really trying to improve traffic flow (not just taxing parkers) then I would suggest painting double yellow lines around the junction of Hampstead Lane & Bishops Avenue.
I myself, drive to the bordering streets and park my car while visiting the heath and dropping into Kenwood House for lunch or coffee to meet friends. Have you considered the impact on the elderly and disabled? I have never seen a parking problem in these streets (apart from very sunny weekends or Kenwood concert nights) As the owners of Hampstead Heath the City of London Corporation has a particular interest in any issues which might affect the public's ability to use and enjoy this regional and nationally important open space The City of London has received no formal consultation documentation regarding your proposals even though a substantial length of the Heath backs immediately onto Hampstead Lane. In order for us to be able to make appropriate written representations on this matter I would be grateful to receive the full details of what is being proposed in order that we can Superintendent of Hampstead Heath formally respond. hope that given the lack of formal notification you will extend the formal consultation period in order that we can properly assess the impact on Heath users and consult with our various stakeholder groups That it is unreasonable and disproportionate to the aim of the restriction of parking near Highgate Tube Station on the Archway Road. That it is an unreasonable and disproportionate curtailment of Londoner's ability to visit and use Hampstead Heath. That arguably it is a revenue raising proposal and as such, contrary to the Secretary of State's advice to local authorities at the introduction of Environment and Transport Traffic Act 2004. Namely, that parking restrictions should not be introduced for cash raising purposes as this proposal obviously is. That notice of this proposal has been inadequate and Chairman of the United Swimmers unreasonably restricted given the London wide social and recreational importance of Hampstead Heath to the people of London. That it is shamefully anti-social and barbarically Assoc Hampstead Heath Widecombe destroys the quality of life in the civil society of London. It also further denigrates the name and reputation of Haringey Borough Council; a nasty and greedy plan. No to cpz's around Way, Kenwood!!!! The only free parking left where u can enjoy some fresh air without worrying if uv paid for it!!!!!!!!!! Shame on u Camden.
Objection to the proposal to introduce controlled parking zones on Hampstead Way and Sheldon Avenue. These roads are used for parking only by residents and walkers, not Park Avenue commuters. Cutting off access to Kenwood for a vast number of people. I am sure English Heritage will not take kindly to this. There seems to be no reason for this apart from raising money Access to the Heath should not be restricted. Hampstead Lane is wide and does not require restrictions. Like to visit Kenwood in the mornings. practicallyt no houses along Ham[pstead Lane and most have drives. Stormont Rd and Sheldon Ave mostly consist of large houses with big Claremont Rd drives and ample off-road carspace Has there been proper public consultation ? Highgate Society, English Heritage and the owners of the Heath, not to mention the public locally and from further afield who wish to park near Kenwood in the mornings Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. This is to object the extention of Highgate controlled parking zone to include Hampstead Lane, Sheldon Avenue and surrounding area. We use Hampstead Lane for parking while walking our dog. The lane is quite empty weekdays and we do not understand the need for the parking restriction. This is just a money making exersise. We are Hampstead residents who visit both Kenwood and Hampstead Heath and use the parking facilities presently available. We oppose any further restrictions and/or curtailment.
Will be impossible to get free fresh air on the Heath as CPZ's will have been introduced all around it. This is really appalling as it will curtail use of the Heath as a space for many DARTMOUTH PARK HILL walkers who have to use cars to get there (and there is no good reason to assume this would prevent commuters as the existing 10-12 regulations do that job already.
Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. There is no significant problem with parking along this section of road, except at specific events such as the Kenwood concerts, when you introduce specific controls. There is no commuter parking here, as it is too far from public transport to central London. We therefore assume that this is purely a revenue raising proposal This section of road is extremely wide. Even with vehicles fully parked on both sides, there is ample room for two streams of traffic to pass. Your proposals will severely restrict visitors to these flagship open spaces and heritage sites, will impact on visitor enjoyment, and inhibit healthy exercise in the fresh air. We are appalled that you have apparently not notified your consultation and details to the owners of these two open spaces, namely the City of London Corporation and English Heritage, when your proposals will so significantly impact on their services to the public Croftdown Road, generally, and to residents of Haringey in particular. Neither have you informed the Heath & Hampstead Society which represents users of these facilities, nor the Highgate Society which is the main residents' organisation in this area affected and has around 1,400 members. W
Dissappointed not to receive consultation. Public meeting should be convened for all to voice their views. Concerned about resident only parking, it will have negative effect of business for Kenwood House. Fully support Jeremy Wright's and Simon Dodd's concerns. I hope Haringey can conduct a full consultation on this issue and listen to genuine concern of local business and heath Hampstead Lane users in genral. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. It is not an area used by commuters to park cars and take public transport into town. It appears that the sole purpose of this NW5 resident scheme can only to be raise revenue This may stop commuters parking all day but will have the effect of preventing people from getting fresh air and exercise on the Heath. It is not always possible for peope to walk to Belsize Lane the Heath and it must be accessible to the people of the area and also to the rest of Londoners to visit. Objects to the proposed extension of the CPZ beyond Athlone House. I see no value in it, and it will needlessly deter normal users of Kenwood and the Heath. I write this in a personal capacity and as a Highgate resident no commuters wanting to park in Hampstead Lane or Bishopswood Road. These roads are some distance from a Tube station. However, those who love to walk on the Heath or visit Kenwood House will be sorely inconvenienced. I live between Wood Green and Muswell Hill, and to get there by public transport will have to take several buses, making it hardly a practical proposition. I do urge you to reconsider this unwarranted proposal This is clearly a cynical money making move that has nothing to do with reducing congestion or creating extra parking space. I frequently park in this area when walking my dogs starting from Kenwood and have never - repeat, NEVER had a problem parking. Please reply prompltly, giving me an address to which to send my formal complaint about this in writing.Element of deviousness in the way this has been slipped through the net of public opinion. How much effort was made to publicese this amongst users of the Heath for whom this is a matter of crucial importance to caring dog owners? completely unnecessary as there is never congestion in Hampstead Lane and a surplus of spaces at all time of the day. Commuters do not even use the area to park their cars before jumping onto public transport. Going ahead with the proposed plan would cause a lot of bother to people who like to visit Kenwood and the Heath Did you not see from the recent success of the Say No To The Road campaign that access to Hampstead Heath is an issue which aroses very strong views. The proponent of the road on Hampstead Heath, which was the Corporation of The City of London, garnered 132 supporters. The opponents received the support of over 10,000.
Will limit the number of people who drive up during the day to enjoy the Heath and Kenwood and once these systems are in, there are never enough Pay and Display areas for people who do want to come up between 10 and 12. Kimberley Gardens CPZ will limit access to the Heath, the public should not be restricted to visiting the Heath. Public transport is very poor travelling across the borough to visit the Heath. Belsize Park Gardens Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Please keep the parking free to allow us all to continue to enjoy this incredible resource in our backyards. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. The road is wide, there is no indication that it is used by commuters using Highgate station as it is too far. Rosslyn Hill Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Visiting the Heath using public transport would be impossible timewise. Early morning is a convenient time for all. CPZ from Friern Barnet 10 to 12 would obviously deny a large number of people from having access to Kenwood. Access to the Heath and Kenwood by public transport is very limited and for dog walkers car access is vital. Unlike many other areas this plan cannot be aimed at commuters since the walk to the underground stations is considerable and bus routes run relatively rarely As an unemployed single mother one of the few pleasures I can afford is to drive to the Heath for a walk every morning. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. To Islington reach it by public transport would be impractical and too expensive, as I would have to make four separate bus journeys. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Many of the roads in proposed CPZ have not real problems for residents - most of the houses have private drives and on Hampstead Lane most of the area is bordered by Kenwood Will severly impact access to Kenwood and Hampstead Heath for many people who need to travel there by car for various reasons, including transporting children, babies, dogs, and older peopleJoy of the heath and Kenwood is being unconstrained as far as possible by time. Impossible if the visitor parks before 10:00 and has to run back either to pay at a meter or go home Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. There is no commuter parking it is visitors to the Heath, they should not have to pay. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. No commuter parking along Hampstead Lane. Residents have off road parking in side roads. My concern is that while there will be meters, there will not be enough and the situation will be as it is near Waterlow park (my nearest open space) which I generally find I cannot park near during St John's Villas controlled hours. Another concern is that even where a meter space is available, because CPZs are enforced so mercilessly, the joys of a walk will be severely diminished by having endlessly to look at the time and work out exactly how long it will take to get back. In conclusion, I hope you will take the interests of those who use Kenwood into account, as well as those of residents. No justification for imposing CPZ in Hampstead Lane, there is no commuter parking. Throughout the day there are plenty of parking spaces in the roads of Hampstead Lane.Building Talbot Road site is causing temporary parking problem but does not justify CPZ. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Why stop those who would not otherwise easily be able to access Kenwood and the northernmost parts of the Heath from taking a morning stroll?10:00 - 12:00 isn't going to have Cholmley Gardens much effect on the rush hour, Hampstead Lane, in particular, is huge. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. The proposed CPZ is totally unnecessary as there is never a shortage of parking spaces in the streets in the vicinity of Kenwood. Would be greatly destructive of social and communal life and leisure centred on Kenwood. I am among very many people whose daily routine includes visiting Kenwood via car and then parked alongside the park in the Old Gloucester Street morning hours.CPZ will result in increased road traffic, congestion and pollution as motorists will be compelled to circle seeking parking while great stretches of usable parking spaces will be unusable.Please do not institute a stealth tax on residents and park visitors which will impair people’s daily lives. This is not what local government is mandated to do!
No commuter parking along Hampstead Lane, there is a regular turn-over in parking. The road is wide and there is room for two large vehicles at all points where parking is allowed now. It could become a speed track with fewer parked cars. Road hogs would have every incentive to overtake dangerously – they try now and exceed the speed limitIt is used by many (hundreds) for access to the Heath for exercise, particularly the elderly who do not all have access to the 210 bus route. I live in West Hampstead ,if you introduce residents parking I would not be able to use that part of the heath anymore ,as to get there by public transport is nigh on impossible. I have never found it too hard to find a parking space,so there obviously is not much problem with congestion. It does seem like a money making exercise. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. It is not well served by public transport and there is no tube within realistic walking distance. There is some parking within Kenwood but very limited . Commuters do not park in Hampstead Lane to use the tube as there is no tube. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Cholmeley Lodge
Sidmouth Road Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. There is no parking problem here, Hampstead Lane not used by commuters. Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. There is no parking problem here, Hampstead Lane not used by commuters. Commuters do not leave their cars in Sheldon Ave,Stormont Ave or Hampstead Lane. Mobile film studios constantly park on Hampstead Lane taking up vast parking areas making it impossible for cars to park.Will you still allow this to go on? I am aware that they park in an area that will not come under your proposed scheme but it is unfair that they should be able to do this is your proposed CPZ scheme goes ahead. I think you should consider making sure that adequate alternative parking is available during the restricted time ( e.g. pay and display) or allow people to purchase visitors permits. We walk for health in the morning .I would have to use 3 buses for access.routes 102 ,143, and 210 which is not practical .There is no tube near Kenwood. The intention is to stop everyone except residents from parking between 10am and noon. My friends and I walk regularly on the Heath at Kenwood and use the cafe there. The introduction of a CPZ would mean many people having to give up their enjoyment of Kenwood and the Heath. There has never been a problem with parking in Hampstead Lane. There are more spaces than there are cars needing them. It is not an area used by commuters to abandon their cars to take public transport into town. This can only be a revenue raising scheme and has no merit.
Access to the Heath should not be restricted to visitors. Dartmouth Park I have NEVER been unable to find a parking spot, the idea of introducing restricted parking makes no sense at all (unless it is purely to collect money). My time spent on the heath varies, and i do not always know in advance how long i will spend there so it would be impossible for me to P&D accurately in advance. If restricted to 2 hour period would change the nature of the heath for most users, except those living very near. I was shocked to hear that you are intending to curtail people having the pleasure to use Kenwood between 10-12. The people that use the Heath park for a limited time in a road that is very wide with no traffic problems. This is not a commuter area with a station where people park all day. The Heath is extremely important to the community and does now warrant CPZ parking as there is plenty of places for cars. At present there is a lot of building being carried out so there will be additional spaces when this has finished. I feel this is just a money makingissue and a non caring attitude to all ages that use the Heath. Having enjoyed taking my dog for a walk for many years and thoroughly enjoy the Heath. This plan will affect all ages that love the Heath! Hampstead Lane has an above average width for a London road. It is wide enough for two lanes of traffic to pass with ease even if vehicles are parked on every possible space on both sides of the Lane. Residents have no problems with parking along this part of Hampstead Lane, few houses line this section of the road. Houses are large enough to have garages and have adaquet area for at least two or more cars. Your restrictions will adversely affect access to the Robert Adam Grade 1 listed building. Public transport is very limited and visitors are forced to Friends of the Iveagh Bequest, rely on personal / car transport Restricting numbers who visit restuarants and concerts at Kenwood House will reduce revenue for english Heritage to offset the substantial Kenwood expenditure required to maintain the grounds. Pay and Display proposal is unrealistic. Two hours is simply not enoughtime for average visitor to tour the house, visit the grounds and enjoy the restaurant.
CONDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS TO HIGHGATE STATION OUTER CPZ EXT road Comment Whilst I have no objections in principle. although I do not believe that members of the general public actually park in our road for access to either East Finchley or Highgate Underground Stations my prime concern is the bridge club which takes place three afternoons per week in the scout hut at the foot of Sheldon Avenue Aylmer Road virtually impossible now to find a parking space if one arrives home between 2.30 and 5.00 p.m. on these afternoons bridge club members will therefore park in the permit spaces around our block. Even if the permit places were extended to cover the afternoons, most of the attendees of this bridge club drive with disabled badges and will therefore be able to take up our parking spaces anyway Will encourage others inside the new boundaries to 'commute' and park in our streets closer to the station all day. This would put us back to where we were before the Highgate CPZ was first established as it was apparent that a large number of the 'commuters' choking our streets at the time were in fact coming very short distances For these reasons I would ask that if there is to be a new CPZ it has its own name and zone, thus preventing cross parking. - NOTE: Refernece to Highgate Bloomfield Road Station CPZ / Confusion of Zone
Do not extend Highgate Station CPZ, will encourage parking near to station. - NOTE: Reference to Highgate Station CPZ / Confusion of zone Bloomfield Road
Do not extend Highgate Station CPZ, will encourage parking near to station. - NOTE: Reference to Highgate Station CPZ / Confusion of zone Bloomfield Road
We are in the Highgate Station CPZ and it has transformed our street for the better. I read with disbelief and dread that you propose to widen our cpz. This will have a detrimental effect on all the streets near to Highgate station as people from Hampstead lane will not think twice about using our streets to commute by tube. Will be Bloomfield Road undoing all the good work already done! I hope that if you do bring in a new cpz it will have a different permit, disallowing parking in our small controlled zone. - NOTE: Refernece to Highgate Station CPZ / Confusion of Zone Broadlands Road Parking enforcement is only to be used by the LBH Mon - Fri 10am - 12pm inclusive and not anytime other times. Hampstead Lane Concerns with parking places for Camden residents on the southern side of Hampstead Lane. I am writing to ask a few questions about the proposed CPZ in Kenwood road. I would like to know where the proposed pay and display machines would go? Also I Kenwood Road would like to know why it necessary for residents to pay to obtain a permit, what will this money be used for? Being a car user I could not fail to notice the knock on affect caused by the CPZ parking regulations brought in by the council latterly in the Highgate Station area. Impossible to park in this road or surrounding roads during the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm – Monday to Friday. This is directly due to recent council CPZ actions in the surrounding areas which turned a difficulty situation into an impossible one. The Council proposes an annual fee so resident can park in the street for 10 hours a week - hopefully without parking difficulty during this period. Unfortunately this is all it means – 10 hours a week with extreme difficulty the rest of the time! My research shows that non residents’ vehicles parked in the streets around Kenwood Road do not remain there all day they come and go and are replaced by other non residents’ Kenwood Road, vehicles. The times suggested by the council 10am to noon will not impact significantly in freeing up spaces for residents. Under the current proposals residents would find it difficult to use their cars after 12 noon (Monday – Friday) with an expectancy to find a place to park if they return before 6.00pm.
I would strongly disagree to the councils proposed CPZ Monday to Friday 10.00am to 12.00noon in favour of Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm - residents only scheme. The parking chaos has been caused by recent council actions and therefore they should be properly dealt with by the council to correct the problem they have Kenwood Road, caused. The cost should be born by the council as they have caused the problem on this council estate.
Would like allocated disabled drivers' parking bay to be considered into the CPZ design on Hampstead Lane for access of disabled visitors to the Heath. Kingsdown Road
North Rd / Bishops Rd See letter for many points. If it is the case that you are considering widening the Highgate Station CPZ I strongly object. NOTE: Reference to Highgate Station CPZ / Confusion of zone Priory Gardens
We are an independent school registered by Haringey and Ofsted, with up to 25 pupils with six teachers and 4 extra tutors. We have been in The Scout Hall for almost 20 years. Our opening times are 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. with parents and visitors arriving throughout this period. Children ages are two to five years old Sheldon Avenue
Chairman of the Sheldon Avenue Residents Association ( SARA) and am writing to confirm broadly our collective support FOR the CPZ extension. We have approx 50 member households of the 75 houses in the road and have polled our members and half have responded of which 93% are in favour ( 26 out of 28 houses) which is rather emphatic. However, we would caveat this by saying that none of us are generally in favour and we are only willling to be included if Denewood Road and Stormont Road are ultimately included within the extension as we do not wish to be isolated as the only road remaining in the local vicinity that has free parking as we believe the entire character of the road will be destroyed in that instance. It would be useful to know why Sheldon Avenue, N6 the Borough feels the need to extend this generally when this location is already a 15- 20 minute walk away from the station. Who has put pressure on the council to include all these roads and is it just a fund raising exercise? If it isnt, and it is generally done for congestion and road safety reasons then why can the residents not be given FREE permits and vouchers for guests? For these roads that currently enjoy a quiet existence free from parking restrictions and traffic wardens, with close links to the police anyhow and our own security patrols after so many years we all feel it is a great shame that the Council feels the need to implement this extension at all. Giving us FREE permits would seem to be a sensible compromise if it has to go ahead.
I must ask you to either add Toyne Way into your proposed plans, or leave out the immediately surrounding roads mentioned above. It is simply drastically unfair to Toyne Way leave out an enclave of about 40 houses to deal with the overspill from all the surrounding roads.