Anger at council’s plan for new parking controls close to Stamford Hill
Opposed to the parking controls: Cllr Abraham Jacobson
Opposition politicians are furious at Hackney Council’s plan to install parking controls on roads near Stamford Hill in the new year, saying the measure lacks public support.
A new controlled parking zone, or CPZ, will affect Lampard Grove, Margaret Road, Windus Road and Alkham Road – despite a survey carried out by the council indicating majority support for the scheme in just one of these four roads.
In total 54 per cent of respondents in Alkham Road said they were in favour of introducing controls, while in Margaret Road respondents were undecided, with half for and half against.
In Windus Road and Lampard Grove a clear majority of responses expressed their opposition to the plan.
Sample sizes in these roads were relatively small, but the council also surveyed a larger number of streets in the area. Of these, 91 per cent of responses indicated opposition to any new CPZ in or around Stamford Hill.
Simche Steinberger, a Conservative councillor for Springfield ward, described as “absolutely ridiculous” the council’s decision to include Lampard Grove, where a huge majority – 90 per cent – of respondents were opposed to the CPZ.
“Drop the whole thing because there is not enough support even in these three roads,” he said. “We do think the CPZ is a money-making thing.”
Conservative councillor Simche Steinberger
Abraham Jacobson, a Liberal Democrat councillor for Cazenove ward, accused the council of ignoring the will of the people.
“The vast majority of the local community just doesn’t want a CPZ,” Cllr Jacobson told the Hackney Citizen. “A lot of people have ordinary jobs and they will need a car. There are a lot of reciprocal arrangements for using cars in this area.”
He also accused the Town Hall of adopting a “one size fits all” policy on parking, and he said he feared the CPZ was simply a “money making exercise”.
A council spokesperson said: “All revenue generated from parking zones is ring-fenced and must be invested back into transport related work such as freedom passes,highway and street scene improvements and safer car parks.”
‘Parking stress’
Town Hall parking chiefs insist they received requests from residents in the area who have faced parking difficulties.
Surveys carried out there revealed some roads suffered from “high parking stress”, according to the council.
They also insisted the new CPZ was based around roads where residents have been generally supportive of implementing controlled parking.
“If the CPZ is being implemented in roads that did not support controlled parking, this is usually to create a logical boundary to the controlled parking zone, and to avoid displacement parking from nearby roads,” the council’s spokesperson added.
“Since the decision was made to introduce parking controls in the four roads, the council has already received two further petitions requesting parking controls from nearby roads. This demonstrates that there is a clear need and requests for parking controls from some residents in the area who are finding it difficult to park.”
Those angry about the plan believe the process was flawed from the start, however, and they have accused the council of acting in bad faith.
Town Hall officers in charge of the consultation allegedly ignored over 3,000 completed survey papers, before later changing their minds and including them.
The papers had been collected by the opposition councillors and others and submitted. They were initially counted as a single document by officials. It is understood the position was later reversed following complaints, meaning the 3,000 papers were ultimately included in the consultation.
The department that designs the CPZ is probably the most incompetent in any council anywhere, they’ve managed to make the local papers twice in a week. In Clapton they have brought in controls in 13 out of 19 streets in an area with no where else to go, as the roads are blocked off, so we have the opposite problem.
We had a petition when the stupidity became apparent, back in May, they had their hand slightly forced into having a second consultation, but they couldn’t send it out until after the mayoral election, that was July, mayoral election I think was Sept 26th, they eventually claimed to have, but failed to send them out in around Nov 10th, they then had to have them reprinted and they eventually arrived Nov 26, 2 monthsafter the date before which they said they could not send them out.
Department gone rogue!
Unfortunately parking is a huge problem in many parts of the borough and there will never be a quick fix solution. We are seeing many properties being converted into smaller flats so where there was previously only one vehicle, there are now two or three and there isn’t simply enough road space for all these vehicles. In addition there are many schools and public buildings in these roads with staff or visitors from outside the area leaving their vehicles parked all day. It is understandable that the local residents feel the need for a CPZ however the Council should consider the needs of people from outside the immediate area and make readily available parking permits or perhaps introduce a Hopper Bus service to cover the surrounding areas.
I’ve never experienced such a corrupt and dishonest organisation (Hackney Council) – there is no one to hold these criminals to account. I’ve tried the local government Ombudsman – whom are like blinkered horses, unable to ask any relevant questions that may (if answered) incriminate the council. We are paying one of the highest council taxes in the country. We at least deserve to have the police investigate and get rid of these awful council criminals! Good riddance Pipe you were as dishonest and corrupt as Max Caller before you!
What we need is a proper one way system…Oldhill, Osbaldeston…currently half one way….NIGHTMARE.
“All revenue generated from parking zones is ring-fenced and must be invested back into transport related work such as freedom passes,highway and street scene improvements and safer car parks.”
what proof do we have of this? Do we just accept the words of an inherently corrupt organisation? I guess we have no choice (as usual)
There was a consultation in Clapton E5 recently and only those directly behind the Pond were in favour of controls, due to ‘commuter’ parking.
However, it seems there are ‘anonymous’ activists pushing for controls to be extended to the roads behind, and surrounding Millfields Park. Several ‘activists’ hijacked residents with a well co-ordinated plan between 6pm and 7pm on weekdays when many were tired and just got in from work and dealing with children at bedtime. They used aggressive persuasion tactics to sign there an then a petition to call for controls in those roads too. Any opposition was met with aggressive rhetoric and they were told they were the ‘only’ one to object and bullied into signing the petition.
There is no evidence, that displacement parking in zone N will be a problem. It remains to be seen. If it does. Deal with it then.
How many residents that have signed this petition ‘asking’ for controls to be brought in actually realise the real cost?
The permit charges are ‘per car’. Older cars will incur a significant surcharge as they are not deemed ‘green’ enough. Poor families already struggling (the most likely to have an older car) will now have to find on average an extra £200 + a year PER car. Imagine. £400 for two cars just to park outside your own house! It’s a disgrace!
If this really was about ‘congestion’ any charges would be minimal to cover only the admin costs of issuing a parking permit.
I realise that councils have ‘green’ targets, but bashing residents who have a car [or cars) because they need it, is not the way to do it. For most a car is not a luxury, it is an expensive necessity.
To all the ‘agitators’ scaremongering residents in zone N, and using aggressive bullying tactics to get residents to sign the petition to extend controls to their roads too – at least have the decency to at least put your name and number on the numerous letters!! Why anonymous?! Seems highly suspect to me.
Enforcement for one hour a day serves residents by stopping commuter and local workers parking. However enforcement for the entire day serves nobody apart from lining the local councils’ pockets whilst making life a misery for local residents.
If the council really mean the residence, than controlled parking should be made between 11 AM and 12 PM, as the ppl getting to work by public transport or working in nearby areas( where controlled parking is already implemented ) and they park their cars in our area should not be able to park here like in many areas in Barnet
Good point Leigh’er. Agree with you.
However, we’d still have to pay those extortionate parking permit charges as residents cars would need to be parked there during that controlled time-slot.
I notice a lot of the parking is mini cabs from the offices on Lower Clapton Rd. They line the surrounding streets around the Pond waiting for a fayre, eat in their cars then throw the boxes, old chips and chicken bones from their takeaways onto the street like pigs! Use a bin!!!!! It’s also dangerous for passing dogs (all who’ve got wise to ‘Bone-ville’), Many times I’ve had to wrestle a chicken bone from my dogs mouth picked up at the pond.
There are also a lot of parked cars every Friday from visitors to the mosque. This makes Friday parking during certain hours very hard. however, where will they go? I have sympathy with them as parking charges are likely to be massive (cash cow again).
Why should we have to pay hundreds of pounds to park in our own street when we pay HUGE council tax bills already. Residents should get FREE permits – just like they did during the Olympics.
When I first came to Stoke Newington in 2000 I took a deputation to the Council to oppose parking zone G. They were pretty aggressive in reply. This isn’t an easy subject. The moment you impose a parking zone you get everybody on the edges of the zone, or in other ways not part of the zone screaming because they get all of the problems shifted onto them. More recently the Council has tried to protect themselves from the objections by imposing the zone street by street. The screaming has got worse – obviously – because if your neighbours are protected by the zone and you are not, you get all of the parking in your street.
I think, either you accept the parking zone and pay for it and it is imposed accross a specific area or you don’t accept it at all. You put up with other people parking next to your house.
My own opinion is that it should be made more expensive to run a car. Not to keep a car but to run it. Now, I know people in rural areas will find this objectionable and argue against it but in london , thats the way it has to be.
I hope that’s clear. I expect that there will be arguments against this view. I hope that those that disagree can put their arguments in clearly too.
Yes, Tony, your opinion of trying to make cars unaffordable for most seems to be gaining popularity.
It’s a difficult one isn’t it. We all want to breathe clean air, but many who drive, do so because they NEED to.
I ferry around children to two different schools before driving 35 miles to work. Journey time 40 mins. I certainly couldn’t afford to take the train, and in terms of time with my children my car is priceless, as journey by train is 90 mins door to door each way (3 hours a day) v 40 mins each way by car..
I need to work. I need my car. If I couldn’t afford to run my car I’d not see my children until nearly 7pm each night. (bedtime). Using public transport would deny me a decent work life balance. Its a much bigger picture than just ‘not driving’. Stop parents using a car and for many (especially single parents) you need children in childcare for up to two hours a day longer. If I used public transport, I’d have to leave my children with somebody at 7am every day until 7pm at night. Is that fair? Who will provide the additional childcare needed? Where does the money needed for childcare come from. It’s shockingly expensive!
Public transport may be fine if you don’t have children, and/or work locally, but for most working, commuting parents (particularly one parent families) a car is a necessity, not a luxury.
If councils want to make cars a luxury item (affordable only by the rich due to associated costs) then the infrastructure must exist to must provide a decent, affordable transport network and childcare for children for the extra hours it takes to get home.
Stamford Hill projected population increase from current 60,000 to 100,000 by 2030. Can anyone honestly not see a situation where private motorised traffic is regulated rather more than at present? We already have dreadful congestion in all directions. Private cars are a licensed privilege not a human right. Anyone stuck on a school run due to a lack of public transport alternatives has my sympathy, but it isn’t the future.
As for these parking zones, well anyone can buy a used hybrid like a Honda Insight for sub-5k and keep that permit right down – that would help reduce our toxic air crisis.
What’s wrong with that?
Last night I had to bring my son home from Hertfordshire. As soon as I left one of many circling cars took my space. When I returned there were literally no spaces anywhere in any of the remaining roads that have been excluded from CPZ. I drove up and down these roads for around an hour before I had no choice but to remove a neighbours bins he had left in the road to park his own car.
We started arguing but managed to calm things down when I pointed out that all of this is caused by the council and it’s them who we need to direct our anger against.
The above situation will only increase over the coming months and all of us who live here and drive will eventually experience it. Eventually we will be ticketed for parking in our own neighbourhood.
If it happens to me I will appeal on the grounds of entrapment.
They have ruined many peoples Christmas as we are now faced with not using our cars for fear of not having anywhere to park when we return.
The council do not listen to peoples concerns as in the original meeting for CPZ over a 1000 people turned up at the old town hall in Church Street. 99% of us said No we do not want CPZ around 5 people (out of the 1000) said they want it. Then corrupted councillor John Hudson and so called Green councillor Chit Chong (responsible for destroying the environment of my home as well as CPZ) said that they would bring it in for the 5 people who wanted it in their roads.
Somebody said “is this what you call democracy?” They both of course had no answer. Somebody also said this CPZ would spread like a cancer – they were right.
In it’s propaganda rag “Hackney today” The council continously boasts about how it is improving the environment and quality of life for us all, Yet in the 18 years I have been here, they have destroyed my previous home in Stoke Newington (with the aid of corrupt planning officer Femi Nwanze now head of planning for here crimes) forcing me to move. Failed to provide my son and 350 other children with a school place. Tried to install a Nursery in my current street (Fletching road) this was to have 40 children and 8 staff in a 3 bedroomed terraced house with a very small garden. Either side were pensioners living in fear of the noise and disruption this would bring. Despite nearly the entire street protesting against the nursery some of the bent councillors still voted to approve it (along with the criminal planning officer Femi Nwanze). And now this they have almost vindictively made this impossible situation for us whereby we have nowhere to park. They will not issue us with permits even if we want them.
When we do finally get CPZ they will need to resurface or paint lines on the roads. Where the hell will we park our cars then?
I’d love to know where Seasmus Adams (the guy responsible for this mess) lives – we should actively mess with his live as he is playing with ours.
Hackney council should be fully investigated for the unchecked corruption that goes on in their org.
Lets hope the new Mayor is more honest than his predecessors.
The Labour run Hackney Council is a total and utter farce.
The whole so called “Consultation” was corrupt to the core.
The reason why the Cabinet Decision to approve was delayed by 3 months was because initially parking services denied knowledge of 3,000 consultation papers?
This would be to fraud anywhere else. The Chief Executive and Head of Governance Services were unaware before I caused a stink.
The reason why we insisted in hand delivering the consultation papers to the Chief Executives office was, unlike on previous occasions, we would not tolerate the falsification of consultations.
Allegations have previously been made where 1,000s of papers went missing. This time they were caught out by doing a dirty cover up.
The parking service in Hackney should be disbanded and run by a trustworthy third party who don’t have their snouts in the dirty trough
.
£5,000 may not be a lot of money to you, but that’s an absolute fortune many.
When the controls come in, there will be no parking on the free roads in the near vicinity.
Residents in those roads will also make a CPZ request and soon the whole area will be covered.
I live on Lynmouth Rd and I will be forced to request controls for my road (parking is already very bad) …
Is there any official means of objecting / blocking these plans – how do we stop this?
Hi Allan
If you object too strongly the council will try to run a smear campaign against you (as they did with me) So make sure you record yourself (as I did) it’s the only way to protect yourself from their outright lies. Even when I could prove 100% that I didn’t threaten their female officer (with tapes and transcripts). They still use the above as a defence for not answering anything.
They are rotten criminals to the core.
Hi all, this website is a treasure trove never seen it before:
OMG
we shall all get our act together and start to demo outside the council ?! disgusting ppl living in mansions with zero feelings for hard working ppl living in Hackney WHY ARE WE VOTING FOR LABOUR AGAIN AND AGAIN ? LETS TRY ANOTHER PARTY AND SEE IF THEY ARE MORE HONEST WHY ALWAYS THE SAME ? enough is enough.