Council rejects call to scrap Sunday parking charges to cries of 'shame' (From Enfield Independent)

I cannot believe how incredibly short sighted the Labour council are being on this matter.

If the council truly believes that this charge was to stop people leaving their cars in Enfield Town all day while they go to Central London to shop or watch football, why not put a free parking for the first 3/4 hours in the main car parks. People are not going to get into Town and back in less than that.

This is appalling. If this was happening in Edmonton Green the Labour lot would do something now, instead they are just fobbing us all off.

"Chris Theodoulou, owner of Emma Claire hairdressers in Church Street, agreed, saying: “We are the longest running business in Enfield Town, we’ve been here for 36 years."

He exaggerates!!!

What about Pearsons which has been in Enfield Town since the early 20th century? What about Barclays which had the ever first UK cash dispenser installed in the 1960s and has been by the Market Place a lot longer? What about the The George pub?

And then there are others like Boots, Clarks, etc that are long established in Enfield Town - I used to visit them when I attended school there in the 1960s - but moved into new premises in the shopping precinct.

The petition handed in last night was the largest for over 26 years with over 7500 signatures. The message was clear from the public as the affect on shopping centres is obvious to everyone.

A second petition was also handed in from the traders with another 100 signatures. This was quickly taken by a furious Labour Councillor Brett of Bowes Ward for examination.
Another hopeless Labour defense case was offered by Cllr Alan Sitkin, who rambled on and on with some very obscure data he claimed to have found on Google stating for the record that there 'Is no connection between car parking prices and trade!' To shouts from the public galley that he was talking rubbish he sat down again out of touch with reality.

Traders and residents asked for 3 simple proposals and action on something that can be achieved by the local authority.
Instead Councillors whipped as a group to do exactly what they are told, voted down something needed now, then ducked issues questions and moved the agenda around like a shuffle board to discuss anything that the local authority cannot affect directly.

Politics aside, trading is down and if people can drive somewhere that has free parking, they will.

What is being asked:
1) 20 minutes free parking. Sensible and will bring and keep people shopping locally.
Common Sense except to Cllr Sitkin and his Google data from outer space.

2) Asking that where possible car parks are changed to charge on exit. Shoppers stop clock watching and stay longer.
Common sense again except to Cllr Sitkin and barmy out of touch research.

3) Change short-term parking fees (lower them), and increase longer term charges to compensate.
Common sense.

In summary. There are issues and items Councillors and the Local Authority can effect, and others that we cannot. With Sunday parking and parking in general something needs and can be done.
As the Labour Council chose to kick the issue into the long grass to look at the problem in the autumn, maybe Cllr Bond could be sent to collect it and do something this month? (Trade often drops during the holiday period).

People might want to consider that this is not just about parking charges, it's about the revenue that can be generated from over enthusiastic enforcement.

Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) generate far more revenue for the council's shrinking coffers than the parking charges themselves.

So when you presented your petition to the council, it wasn't just the parking charge monies that you were asking them to give up, it was all those lovely £110 fines that they can levy for overstaying for 3 minutes on your pay and display ticket.

What a wonderful welcome that is to the borough of Enfield.

Ask yourself one question. If you were to visit Enfield Town and receive a £110 penalty under such circumstances, what are the odds of you returning?

Then again, what if you could park for free on a Saturday and Sunday? According to the Lancashire Telegraph (http://www.lancashi
retelegraph.co.uk/ne
ws/9794559.Free_Satu
rday_parking_in_Blac
kburn_town_centre/) parking in council-run car parks in Blackburn town centre is to be made free on Saturdays (they never charged on Sundays) in a bid to boost trade. They have taken Mary Portas' advice to heart and have tried to do the right thing for their local traders.

Why is it that Enfield's labour councillors cannot see the same thing as their fellow councillors in Blackburn? Oh yes, I remember.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

DanielP1 - 100% agree with all you say. Unfortunately this Labour council is in it for political gain and not for the benefit of the people and businesses of Enfield. We MUST kick this lot out asap and hope they never come back to Enfield.

Danielp1 wrote:
The petition handed in last night was the largest for over 26 years with over 7500 signatures. The message was clear from the public as the affect on shopping centres is obvious to everyone.

A second petition was also handed in from the traders with another 100 signatures. This was quickly taken by a furious Labour Councillor Brett of Bowes Ward for examination.
Another hopeless Labour defense case was offered by Cllr Alan Sitkin, who rambled on and on with some very obscure data he claimed to have found on Google stating for the record that there 'Is no connection between car parking prices and trade!' To shouts from the public galley that he was talking rubbish he sat down again out of touch with reality.

Traders and residents asked for 3 simple proposals and action on something that can be achieved by the local authority.
Instead Councillors whipped as a group to do exactly what they are told, voted down something needed now, then ducked issues questions and moved the agenda around like a shuffle board to discuss anything that the local authority cannot affect directly.

Politics aside, trading is down and if people can drive somewhere that has free parking, they will.

What is being asked:
1) 20 minutes free parking. Sensible and will bring and keep people shopping locally.
Common Sense except to Cllr Sitkin and his Google data from outer space.

2) Asking that where possible car parks are changed to charge on exit. Shoppers stop clock watching and stay longer.
Common sense again except to Cllr Sitkin and barmy out of touch research.

3) Change short-term parking fees (lower them), and increase longer term charges to compensate.
Common sense.

In summary. There are issues and items Councillors and the Local Authority can effect, and others that we cannot. With Sunday parking and parking in general something needs and can be done.
As the Labour Council chose to kick the issue into the long grass to look at the problem in the autumn, maybe Cllr Bond could be sent to collect it and do something this month? (Trade often drops during the holiday period).

I was really amused by Cllr Pearce's error-laden rant, which brought to mind Mark Twain's famous dictum, "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." One of the studies I explicitly quoted at Council was written by a professor in urban planning from the University of Southern California, a 130 year institution with around 20,000 students. I don't think, to quote excitable Cllr Pearce, that constitutes data from 'outer space' - in case Daniel isn't aware, California is on planet earth, and they have cars there, just as they do in Enfield. Moreover - surprise Daniel! - they also have people studying parking issues in California, just as they do in Enfield. Who would have thought...

Otherwise, I also do not believe that most people would agree with Cllr Pearce that this university source is 'barmy' or 'out of touch' - it has had X number of Nobel laureates over the years and, I dunno, maybe Cllr Pearce might have the humility to at least listen to them and their colleagues?

Lastly, there is a very big difference between what Cllr Pearce claims I said in his funny little piece above and what I actually said, which is that we should "not pretend that a scientific consensus exists on the exact correlation between parking charges and retail spend when empirical studies have not detected a clear relationship". I am sorry if Daniel has problems grasping the huge gap between this simple statement and the very different words he tries to put in my mouth but maybe he can use Google to raise his level of understanding?

That is, if he can get over his fear that information lodged online might be,as he puts it, 'obscure'. There there Daniel, no need to be afraid of Internet research, it won't bite you. Indeed, once you calm down and do the hard analytical work expected of any serious policy maker, you can replace these cute little insults you throw at me with intelligent thinking. I look forward to that day and propose that we meet to talk things over. Hey, we could schedule something at the Civic Centre in Enfield Town. Near the racks where I always park my bicycle.

Alan Sitkin wrote:

Danielp1 wrote:
The petition handed in last night was the largest for over 26 years with over 7500 signatures. The message was clear from the public as the affect on shopping centres is obvious to everyone.

A second petition was also handed in from the traders with another 100 signatures. This was quickly taken by a furious Labour Councillor Brett of Bowes Ward for examination.
Another hopeless Labour defense case was offered by Cllr Alan Sitkin, who rambled on and on with some very obscure data he claimed to have found on Google stating for the record that there 'Is no connection between car parking prices and trade!' To shouts from the public galley that he was talking rubbish he sat down again out of touch with reality.

Traders and residents asked for 3 simple proposals and action on something that can be achieved by the local authority.
Instead Councillors whipped as a group to do exactly what they are told, voted down something needed now, then ducked issues questions and moved the agenda around like a shuffle board to discuss anything that the local authority cannot affect directly.

Politics aside, trading is down and if people can drive somewhere that has free parking, they will.

What is being asked:
1) 20 minutes free parking. Sensible and will bring and keep people shopping locally.
Common Sense except to Cllr Sitkin and his Google data from outer space.

2) Asking that where possible car parks are changed to charge on exit. Shoppers stop clock watching and stay longer.
Common sense again except to Cllr Sitkin and barmy out of touch research.

3) Change short-term parking fees (lower them), and increase longer term charges to compensate.
Common sense.

In summary. There are issues and items Councillors and the Local Authority can effect, and others that we cannot. With Sunday parking and parking in general something needs and can be done.
As the Labour Council chose to kick the issue into the long grass to look at the problem in the autumn, maybe Cllr Bond could be sent to collect it and do something this month? (Trade often drops during the holiday period).

I was really amused by Cllr Pearce's error-laden rant, which brought to mind Mark Twain's famous dictum, "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." One of the studies I explicitly quoted at Council was written by a professor in urban planning from the University of Southern California, a 130 year institution with around 20,000 students. I don't think, to quote excitable Cllr Pearce, that constitutes data from 'outer space' - in case Daniel isn't aware, California is on planet earth, and they have cars there, just as they do in Enfield. Moreover - surprise Daniel! - they also have people studying parking issues in California, just as they do in Enfield. Who would have thought...

Otherwise, I also do not believe that most people would agree with Cllr Pearce that this university source is 'barmy' or 'out of touch' - it has had X number of Nobel laureates over the years and, I dunno, maybe Cllr Pearce might have the humility to at least listen to them and their colleagues?

Lastly, there is a very big difference between what Cllr Pearce claims I said in his funny little piece above and what I actually said, which is that we should "not pretend that a scientific consensus exists on the exact correlation between parking charges and retail spend when empirical studies have not detected a clear relationship". I am sorry if Daniel has problems grasping the huge gap between this simple statement and the very different words he tries to put in my mouth but maybe he can use Google to raise his level of understanding?

That is, if he can get over his fear that information lodged online might be,as he puts it, 'obscure'. There there Daniel, no need to be afraid of Internet research, it won't bite you. Indeed, once you calm down and do the hard analytical work expected of any serious policy maker, you can replace these cute little insults you throw at me with intelligent thinking. I look forward to that day and propose that we meet to talk things over. Hey, we could schedule something at the Civic Centre in Enfield Town. Near the racks where I always park my bicycle.

7,500 signatures. That's a significant proportion of the electorate Alan - maybe even a sizeable proportion from Bowes ward? I really hope the voters of Enfield remember how frequently and spectacularly this council have let them down. I know I won't be voting Labour again, that's for sure. Democracy seems to be a utopian concept when it comes to Enfield council lately. Oh, and you can quote figures and stats until the cows come home but this ain't California pal! Anybody with half a brain can pilfer research from Google and tailor it to their own viewpoint.

Alan Sitkin wrote:

Danielp1 wrote:
The petition handed in last night was the largest for over 26 years with over 7500 signatures. The message was clear from the public as the affect on shopping centres is obvious to everyone.

A second petition was also handed in from the traders with another 100 signatures. This was quickly taken by a furious Labour Councillor Brett of Bowes Ward for examination.
Another hopeless Labour defense case was offered by Cllr Alan Sitkin, who rambled on and on with some very obscure data he claimed to have found on Google stating for the record that there 'Is no connection between car parking prices and trade!' To shouts from the public galley that he was talking rubbish he sat down again out of touch with reality.

Traders and residents asked for 3 simple proposals and action on something that can be achieved by the local authority.
Instead Councillors whipped as a group to do exactly what they are told, voted down something needed now, then ducked issues questions and moved the agenda around like a shuffle board to discuss anything that the local authority cannot affect directly.

Politics aside, trading is down and if people can drive somewhere that has free parking, they will.

What is being asked:
1) 20 minutes free parking. Sensible and will bring and keep people shopping locally.
Common Sense except to Cllr Sitkin and his Google data from outer space.

2) Asking that where possible car parks are changed to charge on exit. Shoppers stop clock watching and stay longer.
Common sense again except to Cllr Sitkin and barmy out of touch research.

3) Change short-term parking fees (lower them), and increase longer term charges to compensate.
Common sense.

In summary. There are issues and items Councillors and the Local Authority can effect, and others that we cannot. With Sunday parking and parking in general something needs and can be done.
As the Labour Council chose to kick the issue into the long grass to look at the problem in the autumn, maybe Cllr Bond could be sent to collect it and do something this month? (Trade often drops during the holiday period).

I was really amused by Cllr Pearce's error-laden rant, which brought to mind Mark Twain's famous dictum, "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." One of the studies I explicitly quoted at Council was written by a professor in urban planning from the University of Southern California, a 130 year institution with around 20,000 students. I don't think, to quote excitable Cllr Pearce, that constitutes data from 'outer space' - in case Daniel isn't aware, California is on planet earth, and they have cars there, just as they do in Enfield. Moreover - surprise Daniel! - they also have people studying parking issues in California, just as they do in Enfield. Who would have thought...

Otherwise, I also do not believe that most people would agree with Cllr Pearce that this university source is 'barmy' or 'out of touch' - it has had X number of Nobel laureates over the years and, I dunno, maybe Cllr Pearce might have the humility to at least listen to them and their colleagues?

Lastly, there is a very big difference between what Cllr Pearce claims I said in his funny little piece above and what I actually said, which is that we should "not pretend that a scientific consensus exists on the exact correlation between parking charges and retail spend when empirical studies have not detected a clear relationship". I am sorry if Daniel has problems grasping the huge gap between this simple statement and the very different words he tries to put in my mouth but maybe he can use Google to raise his level of understanding?

That is, if he can get over his fear that information lodged online might be,as he puts it, 'obscure'. There there Daniel, no need to be afraid of Internet research, it won't bite you. Indeed, once you calm down and do the hard analytical work expected of any serious policy maker, you can replace these cute little insults you throw at me with intelligent thinking. I look forward to that day and propose that we meet to talk things over. Hey, we could schedule something at the Civic Centre in Enfield Town. Near the racks where I always park my bicycle.

Hi Alan.

I was most interested to note that you have quoted Mark Twain, and then completely failed to acknowledge his advice. Well done.

At what point do you think that mocking someone so publicly would endear you to your electorate?

Do you not see that the vigour with which you try to defend the indefensible only serves to fuel the public's perception that you and your council got it wrong, but are too scared to admit it?

In their arrogance, Enfield council obviously thought that they could introduce this stealth tax without anyone noticing. Well guess what? We noticed. And when someone brings it to your attention you choose to mock them?!

So you found some accredited study over parking charges in California on the internet. Well whoop-de-do! The fact that it was done in a different country where the attitudes of its citizens may be entirely different to ours does not seem to have phased you or your fellow councillors at all.

Did Enfield council perform a similar study of Enfield residents before it rolled out its Sunday parking plans? If not, why not?

Why not do one now? In fact, why not write to the 7,500 people who signed the petition calling for an end to the stealth tax?

And before you write your condescending reply I entreat you to reconsider Mr Twain's words. Oops! Sorry, I forgot! Your previous post has already confirmed your status in that regard.

Never mind Alan. Maybe your electorate will have forgotten about this debacle, and your own and the council's arrogant intolerance by the time of the next elections.

Then again...