I just wanted to get something off my chest that happened today. Parking services have been a little over keen around our area recently and today was the final straw.

They have put a ticket on my friend's car because even though he was not parked on double yellow lines in any way, aparantly you can only park outside our house for less than two hours. I have never known this, the signs are halfway down the road and I've had a word with the traffic warden and all she told me is we need to apply for a permit.

Trouble is I've been on the website and they are £35! What do people think about this? I don't understand why we have to pay to park outside our own homes??? It would have been nice of the council to inform of this as well, as like I said, I never even knew about it.

Also the parking services van was parked on the pavement, next to double yellow lines!!! When I confronted the traffic warden about this she just shrugged it off and said "well we have to do our job". What a joke! I don't see the builders down the road being allowed to park on the pavement just because they "have to do their job". It is double standards and it makes me sick. I've written a strong email to the parking services about it (as I took a few photos on my mobile ;) ) but I really doubt they will care. But as far as I knew, the highway code states double yellow lines mean "no parking at any time" not "no parking at any time...oh except for council workers just doing their job"

:rant: :rant: :rant:

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Also the parking services van was parked on the pavement, next to double yellow lines!!! When I confronted the traffic warden about this she just shrugged it off and said "well we have to do our job". ... It is double standards and it makes me sick. I've written a strong email to the parking services about it (as I took a few photos on my mobile ;) ) but I really doubt they will care.

Can I suggest you send copies of the letter to your local Councilor.

Originally posted by Andy
Can I suggest you send copies of the letter to your local Councilor.

Do you think this will help? I figure they are just trying to raise money the best way they know how... :mad:

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Do you think this will help? I figure they are just trying to raise money the best way they know how... :mad:

They might raise more money by issuing a ticket to the parking warden.
:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith


It is double standards and it makes me sick. I've written a strong email to the parking services about it (as I took a few photos on my mobile ;) ) but I really doubt they will care.

:rant: :rant: :rant:

Be interested to hear what they have to say about it. I once queried a similar situation and was told that when it comes to parking restrictions, traffic wardens have 'operational immunity', - but I doubt this covers parking on the pavement, which isn't just a local restriction.

We don't pay for our parking permits.....what area are you in?

I live on Stalker Lees Road (just off Eccy Rd) and the only permit scheme I can see on their website is for Broomhill. Not very useful but we will see what they say tomorrow if/when they get back to me.

I won't really mind so much if we don't have to pay for them but suspect we will living in such a busy area.

What I do care about though is the traffic wardens braking the law. But I imagine they will just give some lame excuse like they seem to have given Greybeard...funny I have never read about "operational immunity" in the highway code... :suspect:

Lucy - I am positive there is no parking permit scheme in operation where you live at present. Sure they are considering it for the future so investigate further if you are required to be paying for an annual permit. Maybe the warden is used to working on another patch or is over zealous.

Originally posted by samc
Lucy - I am positive there is no parking permit scheme in operation where you live at present. Sure they are considering it for the future so investigate further if you are required to be paying for an annual permit. Maybe the warden is used to working on another patch or is over zealous.

Thanks for that SamC. So now I don't know what to do! Guess we will just have to move the car every two hours...great!!!

send a copy of the letter to the Star - and ring in on the phone ins to radio sheffield - lets get this stopped before it takes hold...if people do pay up then the council will think they can do it everywhere....

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
...funny I have never read about "operational immunity" in the highway code... :suspect:

My experience was at a time when the Traffic Wardens were an 'arm' of the police and anyway didn't happen in Sheffield.

I'm not sure at all about parking restriction on minor/suburban/residential roads. They will be imposed entirely at the discretion of the local authority, - perhaps that discretion extends to who can be excused from the restrictions ??

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
I live on Stalker Lees Road (just off Eccy Rd) and the only permit scheme I can see on their website is for Broomhill. <snip>
From the SCC website,
http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/transport-and-highways/highway-services/traffic-regulations/residents-parking

Residents Parking Schemes

The City Council has been aware that residents and businesses in many areas of Sheffield experience difficulty with regard to parking near their properties.

In the past a few small local residents parking schemes have been implemented, however recently the Council has decided to adopt a more holistic approach and establish a Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ) around the City Centre to be based on
· where parking problems were known to exist
· where requests for action had been received
· where existing Residents Parking Schemes were in place

The PPZ will need to be developed in phases, the first phase being the implementation of an area wide Residents Parking Scheme in the Broomhall and The Groves area

Stalker Lees has been in a residents parking scheme for years now, it's just you obviously "got away with it" 'til now.

hi, bruce shark.

i have just moved into stalker lees road and will have a car frm monday onwards. what is the procudure of parking outside my property and not getting tickets can i get a permit? if so how? can u help please.

According to previous threads on this subject,paying for a parking permit does not guarantee you a parking space.Check what you get before paying.

My ex girfrield used to live in Brighton, parking permits were £80 and then you were unlikely to get a space any where near her house if at all. I would drive down from Sheffield on a Friday night in about 3 1/2 hours, then spend another hour trying to bloody park! Also When I lived on Margret Street in Sheffield you needed a permit to park on the street but they would only allow 1 permit per house, regardless of how many people lived there or owned cars. Then on a Match day you would have a million cars parked all over the road, grass, verge, junction, double parking, and the wardens did NOTHING about it!

A few points really Lucy...

Local Authorities up and down the country put these things in at the request of local residents, typically to solve a problem with people who park in residential streets visiting nearby offices, shops, hospitals etc, upsetting the local residents who don't dare to leave their home for fear of not being able to park when they return...

So, firstly the parking scheme is for your benefit...

Next, these schemes are typicaly advertised, usually with a letter to all residents, adverts on streets and in the press. Residents have an opportunity to object if they so please, even mount a group objection... If you don't like the scheme you have, get a petition up with your neighbors and ask for it to be removed...

The public highway outside your home, even if it's shown up in your deeds, isn't yours to use as you see fit, it's for vehicles to drive up and done and it's the highway authority to manage the road outside your home in the most appropriate way. This sometimes means double yellows, sometimes limited waiting, mostly, the road outside your home is unaffected by restrictions... But all restrictions are signed, so that anyone parking on a street, is "informed" about the restriction.

I'd rather my council didn't inform me of everything that went off in my street on a regular basis, I can see where I can or cannot park by looking at the signs by the roadside, it's a little bit of a give away when it says something like "permit holders only" that you might think, "oh, where do I get one of them from".

Direct action is always the best way, posting a rant on here or ranting to your mates in the pub won't get anything done, but writing a letter into the highway authority might put the wheels in motion... their reply might not be what you want to hear, but at least you will know why something is so !

On your last point though... I'd agree, enforcement, should be whiter than white and the parking attendants should find a suitable place to park that doesn't block the footway etc...

Be interested to hear what they have to say about it. I once queried a similar situation and was told that when it comes to parking restrictions, traffic wardens have 'operational immunity', - but I doubt this covers parking on the pavement, which isn't just a local restriction.
I wouldn't imagine that the Road Traffic Act sees it like that Greybeard. :suspect:

Perhaps a letter to the Chief Constable might be in order too Lucy_Smith, especially with those photos?! :)


I support the residents parking schemes, but there is no reason why the council operatives should think that they have any kind of immunity. It destroys confidence in the scheme at the most basic level.

I used to live in Broomhall where they introduced a residents permit scheme.
It was done to try and reduce the number of non-residents parking there and then just walking to work/the city centre.
However, the schemes get quickly abused. within the first month there were cars parking there with resident permits whose owners didn't live in the area.
As a resident you can apply for a parking permit (and pay for it)- you can also apply for one and sell it on to a friendly parker. Obviously you need to know the person prior to this and it needs to be a relatively long term arrangement (I think the minimum permit time is 1-3 months).
So the system itself doesn't actually work.
What I always thought about was rather than resident's being entitled to a set number of permits per household (as this leaves room for abuse) resident's can apply for the permits through the City Council showing them that the car is registered to a property within the permit zone. The resident should not have to pay for anything and the fact that a permit would only be issued to car residing in the area would resolve all abuse problems (I think)
The fact that the Council chose to charge residents for parking permits always ****ed me off because it then changed the objective of providing parking for residents to providing parking according to supply and demand i.e. by introducing a fee you are 'pricing' certain car owners out of the area regardless if they are residents or visitors.
I myself refused to pay for a permit and instead found two spaces a bit further down the road where the permit restricitons aren't in force. My expereience has been that there are always small areas that don't require a permit... something that might be worth looking out for.

I am the Council Officer responsible for the implementation of new Residents Parking Schemes in the city

The Stalker Lees Road Residents Parking Scheme is one of the older ones run by the City Council. It only allows for one residents permit per household, which is free. There is no facility for visitor parking. Permits can be obtained from The Council's Parking Services Section tel: 2736158.

There are plans to replace the current residents parking scheme as it falls within the area of the proposed Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme. If the new scheme is adopted (which will be decided by Councillors), there will be a charge of £35 for the first residents parking permit, but it is probable that up to two permits per household (depending on demand) could be available and visitors permits will also be available at a reasonable cost (20p each).

The fee which is charged for parking permits is to help cover the cost of administering, maintaining and enforcing the schemes. The implementation of the scheme is paid for by capital grants from the Government.

The Council's Parking Attendants do actually have an "operational immunity" to park their vehicles on waiting restrictions like double yellow lines if they are required to as part of their duties. This facility is included in the legal order which is required for any waiting restriction. If there is any complaint about the actions or conduct of the parking attendant in this case, or any other, a complaint should be made to:
Parking Services
PO Box 3830
Sheffield
S1 2AQ

I am the Council Officer responsible for the implementation of new Residents Parking Schemes in the city

The Stalker Lees Road Residents Parking Scheme is one of the older ones run by the City Council. It only allows for one residents permit per household, which is free. There is no facility for visitor parking. Permits can be obtained from The Council's Parking Services Section tel: 2736158.

There are plans to replace the current residents parking scheme as it falls within the area of the proposed Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme. If the new scheme is adopted (which will be decided by Councillors), there will be a charge of £35 for the first residents parking permit, but it is probable that up to two permits per household (depending on demand) could be available and visitors permits will also be available at a reasonable cost (20p each).

The fee which is charged for parking permits is to help cover the cost of administering, maintaining and enforcing the schemes. The implementation of the scheme is paid for by capital grants from the Government.

The Council's Parking Attendants do actually have an "operational immunity" to park their vehicles on waiting restrictions like double yellow lines if they are required to as part of their duties. This facility is included in the legal order which is required for any waiting restriction. If there is any complaint about the actions or conduct of the parking attendant in this case, or any other, a complaint should be made to:
Parking Services
PO Box 3830
Sheffield
S1 2AQ

Planner1, can I ask whats happening with the planned new scheme for Sharrow. A lot of us that work in the area are concerned. Many have no viable public transport option what with shift patterns and where they live. Is there actually any possibility of it being cancelled? We get the impression its a done deal, and the consultation is a formality.

As with all Council schemes, it is Councillors who will decide whether the planned Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme does go ahead. In this case, it will be the City Centre, South and East Area Planning and Highways Board which will decide. You can get details of which Councillors sit on this Board from the Sheffield Council website. Officers will present a report which will include details of all the objections and messages of support we have received, which will include the views which are expressed on this Forum. The report will be published on the Council's website The report will include recommendations made by the officers, but the Councillors on the Board can accept, reject or amend these as they see fit. Therefore, no, it is not a done deal. When the date of the Board meeting has been set (hasn't been decided yet), I will ensure that details are posted on this Forum. The meetings are held in the Town Hall, usually at 2pm.

The "Official" period for objections finished at the end of June. However, we will not be reporting to the Area Board until September at the earliest, so any communications we receive up to then can be included in our report and brought to the attention of the Board. The Board meeting at which the report will be discussed is a public meeting and all are welcome to attend. At Area Board meetings, members of the public are allowed to speak, at the discretion of the chair of the meeting.

Hope this helps.

There are plans to replace the current residents parking scheme as it falls within the area of the proposed Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme. If the new scheme is adopted (which will be decided by Councillors), there will be a charge of £35 for the first residents parking permit, but it is probable that up to two permits per household (depending on demand) could be available and visitors permits will also be available at a reasonable cost (20p each).

The fee which is charged for parking permits is to help cover the cost of administering, maintaining and enforcing the schemes.

Planner1, I understand what the Sharrow Scheme is trying to achieve but why will there be such high charges? I notice that you fail to mention the cost of a second car per household would be £70. If this is not a stealth tax then I don't know what is. I can understand a small charge for admin but £105 per household is outrageous and I suspect that would be the case as most households have 2 cars these days. Plus for the visitor permits we would only be allowed 25 per year.
My own street has never had problems with parking during the day. Even in the evening I've always been able to park in it, and 90% of the time outside my house.
I pay enough tax for driving a car as it is and just feel this is just another tax on motorists.

We don't feel that the charges are particularly high. There are a few Local Authorities which do not charge for residents parking permits, However, nowadays most do charge and it is not uncommon for the permits to be priced on a sliding scale if more than one is allowed. Here are some examples:

Bath & NE Somerset - £75 per permit
Swindon - £75 pp
Reading - First permit free, second £50
Glasgow - £135 pp (only one allowed)
Chester - £60 pp
Newcastle - £20 pp, £10 for visitor permit
Nottingham - Free
Derby - £25 pp
Leicester - £24 pp
Exeter - £12 pp
York - £86, second £127, third £250, fourth £500
Lincoln - £25, second & third £50. Business permit £50
Northampton - £25 pp
Oxford - Free
Bournemouth - £50 pp

Sharrow in particular is mostly made up of terraced housing, the majority having no off street parking. Charging more for multiple permits is one way of encouraging people to think carefully about their transport choices and consider the appropriateness of households having several vehicles, where there is probably only space on the street for one car per household.

Regarding visitors permits, I believe there is some misconception that households will be limited to one book of 25 permits per year. I believe the wording of our letter was somewhat misleading on this point and this will be corrected in future correspondence. Anyone needing more than one book of permits can purchase additional ones from our Parking Services Section. The visitor parking permit allows parking for a full day and costs 20p each (£5 per book of 25).

We charge for permits because setting up residents parking schemes is not one of the activities which a council is legally obliged to carry out. We are putting residents parking schemes in because people have asked us to. Whatever we do must therefore come from existing resources or be paid for externally ie by permit charges. There is perhaps more to running a permit parking scheme than you might think.

We are currently installing a residents parking scheme in Broomhill and expect there to be around 1000 permits issued. Parking services advise me that dealing with permit applications and issuing the permits will probably take 3 people up to a month to carry out. Sharrow Vale potentially could involve up to 2500 permits. We already have a scheme in place in Broomhall, another coming up in Crookesmoor adn more to follow as we create a Peripheral Parking Zone around the city centre.

Permits are renewed on an annual basis and there are always new people coming into an area applying for permits. We will probably need more administration staff at some point and additional office accommodation and equipment for them too.

The infrastructure we install to facillitate the Residents Parking zone must also be maintained. The infrastructure for Broomhill (signs, poles, roadmarkings, pay & display machines) is costing £450,000. Sharrow Vale is expected to cost at least that. It will all need to be maintained.

Each residents parking zone will need to be enforced. I'm advised that there will be two parking attendants patrolling the Broomhill Zone every day, the same goes for Broomhall. Sharrow Vale is much bigger and will probably need more attendants. As the number of attendants increases, we may need larger accommodation for them.

All of these items cost significant amounts of money, particularly when they involve employing more staff, as the overheads must be taken into account.

We know that there are very bad parking problems in some parts of the Sharrow Vale area but understand that some parts aren't as badly affected. There will inevitably be displacement from areas where residents parking is implemented, so people who are expressing a desire for their street to opt out of the scheme should bear this in mind. We have received many objections from the area bordered by Junction Road, Ecclesall Road and Psalter Lane, where residents feel that there aren't the same parking problems as in the rest of the proposed zone. We will propose that a ballot be carried out in that area so that people can decide whether they want to be in the scheme or not. A simple majority would win the day. This is one of the options we will be putting to Councillors on the Area Planning and Highways Board who will make the final decisions on all objections (and indeed whether the scheme should go ahead).

As far as tax is concerned, your road tax , fuel tax etc doesn't come to the Council, it goes to the Government. The Govermnment is giving us capital grant funding to implement the residents parking schemes through our Local Transport Plan. We feel that it is right that the people who benefit from residents parking schemes, the residents and businesses in the area, should make some contribution to the running costs.

Sorry this is a little long winded, but I like to give full answers.

"The Govermnment is giving us capital grant funding to implement the residents parking schemes through our Local Transport Plan. "

Why can't you use this money to provide parking facilities such as multi-storey carparks? Sites such as the former petrol station on Eccy Road, the present carparks for Norwich Union, for example could be used.

Granma.

Planner 1, thanks for the info. It is really helpful to have someone who is actually involved in the process putting this information out here.

I was one of the people who got the impression we would be limited to only 25 visitor passes per year, so it's good that we can get more. Will the number be unlimited?

I have written to my Councillor regarding the matter as well as submitting a formal objection.

I live around the Club Garden Road area, and the only time I have ever seen parking problems around here is on match days at Bramall Lane. I work from home so get to see the parking situation at all times.

Some of my neighbours feel that there are a number of people who park all day whilst at their places of work, Norwich Union being the one mentioned to me, at the bottom of Club Garden Road. I suggested the restricted hours should be limited to 2 hours a day in that case. What do others think about this?

I would ask Planner1 to have a quick drive down Club Garden Road and Sharrow Street a few times during the proposed restricted hours and see how many spaces are available. Even now whilst we have lots of workmen in the area working on the Council Flats there are plenty of spaces.

I accept that traffic can be displaced but feel that people wanting to shop in Hunter's Bar would not want to park a whole 20 minute walk away, especailly with the hill in between.

I do not believe that I should be required to pay to park outside my home, whatever the resason. Use fines and parking meters to earn the money.

I am also suspicious of the process. I assume the councillors are given a report containing a number of options which is produced by some council workers. If those council workers suggest the parking scheme is not required, most people oppose it, and those who support it are doing it in short-sighted self interest I would like to know if by doing that those council officials are also arguing for their redundancy?

I mean, do those council officials have any reason other than hard objective reason to urge councillors to accept the scheme?

cheers

"Why can't you use this money to provide parking facilities such as multi-storey carparks? Sites such as the former petrol station on Eccy Road, the present carparks for Norwich Union, for example could be used."

The short answer is that multi-storey car parks cost millions and we don't have the money. The sites you mention aren't owned by the Council and would be worth considerable sums as development sites, the owners wouldn't sell them cheaply. Sheffield Council recieved about £5.7 million from the Government this year for transport schemes. Out of that, the allocation for Residents Parking Schemes in this fianancial year is £450,000. We are spending £300,000 of that installing the Broomhill Residents Parking Scheme and the rest will pay for part of the Sharrow Vale Scheme, the remaining funding for that one will come from the 2007/8 financial year. (Pay and Display machines are paid for out of the Parking budget which is separate)

To ensure that we continue to receive Government Capital Grants via the Local Transport Plan, we have to demonstrate to the Government that we are making measurable progress against a number of targets and indicators. Central Government and the Local Government Association have agreed four shared transport priorities, reducing casualties, tackling congestion, improving air quality and improving accessibility. We have to be mindful of these when submitting our plans, which are expressed in the Local Transport Plan. The Government can and will reduce our funding if we aren't making the required progress. In the extreme case they can send in their traffic commissioners to take over the running of highways in South Yorkshire if they tink we are making a very bad job of it. Government funding is given on a county-wide basis.

The proposed Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme is part of the Council's plan for a Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ) around the city centre. This is essentially a ring of residents parking schemes around the city centre, which is designed to reduce congestion (by restricting the amount of free all-day commuter parking spaces) and give residents and businesses some relief from the effects of commuter parking. This is one of a number of measures the Council is using to tackle congestion.

A very large consultation exercise was carried out by the Council in 2001, around 28,000 properties surrounding the city centre received a questionnaire which asked whether the resident/businees considered that there were parking problems in the area and whether they would be prepared to pay for a permit parking scheme. In Sharrow Vale, 75% said there was a problem and 52% said they were prepared to pay.

The Council's Cabinet approved the project to install the PPZ, which has now started with residents parking schemes in Broomhall and Broomhill (currently being installed). Sahrrow Vale is next, followed by Crookesmoor. Other adjoining areas will then follow on in sequence until the ring is complete.

So basically, we are doing this scheme because people asked us to. I attended a packed public meeting last year at the Vestry Hall on Cemetery Road where local people were demanding the residents parking scheme as quickly as possible. The also asked for the scheme to be extended to include the are bounded by Cemetery Road, Sharrow Lane and London Road, which we have been able to do.

Building large car parks wouldn't address the congestion problem, probably quite the opposite. People bring their cars in to the area because it's relatively easy and is free to park. If, when a residents parking scheme is put in place, it is less easy to find a free space, more people will be encouraged to examine the available transport choices and perhaps come by a more sustainable mode. We have specialist Travel Plan Advisers working with organisations in your area in order to produce travel plans. These help the organisation examine the need for travel and look at ways in which single occupant car journeys can be minimised. When properly implemented, Travel Plans can have an impact on car usage.

Planner1

Good on you for posting - its nice to see someone at t'council making the effort

I have a couple of comments on the scheme:

1) At last!! Its a fantastic idea, there is too much reliance on car use and commuter parking in residential areas. The rationing of permits too is a masterstroke.

2) It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that there are masses of commuter cars parked on Cemetary Road and around hunters Bar that will just be shifted to the far side of Psalter Lane thus just dumping the problem a few hundred yards away

Do you propose extending the scheme here too?

cheers

d

In answer to Richards' questions:

There will not be a set limit on the number of visitors passes that are issued, we realise that some peope may need quite a few. However, if a resident or business is using a lot of them, we reserve the right to ask why, as we want to avoid the possibility of visitors permits being used by commuters.

We do realise that the amount of commuter parking varies around the area, however, if a permit parking scheme is introduced, commuters will very quickly find any nearby free parking, so conditions might change very quickly if your area wasn't included in the scheme. Residents will have to consider this and let us know their feelings.

Regarding process, the Council Oficers who are involved in the scheme have to take a report to the City Centre, South and East Area Planning and Highways Board. This Board is made up of a cross-party group of Councillors. You can find out who they are on the Council's website. Because implementing a residents parking zone involves making legal orders for the waiting restrictions, we must report any objections to the Board so that Councillors can make a decision on whether to uphold or overrule each objection.

The officers produce a report which lists the objections (and messages of support). The officers will also make comments on the validity of the objections and what can be done about the issues raised. The report will also contain officer's recommendations on the way forward. Councillors may agree the recommendations, amend them or reject them as they see fit. Councillors make the decisions, not officers.

The officers report will be published on the Council's website about a week before the Planning Board meeting, in accordance with Council protocols. The Board meeting is open to the public, who can also speak at the meeting at the discretion of the Chair. There is often a limit on the number of people who are allowed to speak at the meeting, so if people are going to come to the meeting it is best to nominate one or two representatives to speak, in order to avoid duplicating issues. Planning Boards usually have fairly lengthy agendas and it is necessary to limit the amount of debate in order to get the business of the meeting completed in a reasonable amount of time. (Councillors will have read the report before the meeting) Controversial items like residents parking can take a long time to work through and the Councillors will probably ask a lot of questions of the officers involved.

The process is democratic and transparent.

I have explained the reasons why we are proposing the residents parking scheme in my previous response to Granma's question. We're basically doing it because people have asked us to. There is very strong demand for residents parking schemes across the city as parking problems are increasing due to higher levels of car ownership and usage.

"In Sharrow Vale, 75% said there was a problem and 52% said they were prepared to pay."

75% of what? Those questioned? Or those who responded?

If only 20 people repsonded, then that makes it oooo, let me think 15 poeple out of all those who were balloted that said yes... an electorate majority... I think not!!!

You omit to mention that 400 epople have now responded to the latest "consultation" and out of those "a large majority" (the council's words, not mine) are against the scheme in one way or another...

Misleading by omission is still a form of spin...

However, I have calculated that if you use a visitor's pass for every day of the year that a permit is required, then you would need (365(day in the year)-52(sundays)-8(statutory bank holidays)) - i.e. 305 permits. 305 permits @ 20p per permit = £61.

And no - I won't be using them as a commuter - I'll be using them as a resident...

How does this stack up against the quoted proce for the first and second permits?

I know what I'll be doing... or is this another set of the council's lies?

We wait and see...

In addition, now that planner has raised his head - why isn't the council developing an integrated transport policy (a phrase first used by sheffield city council last century) and providing a potential solution in the way of a park and ride scheme on the western outskirts of the city - perhaps beside the midland bank playing fields?

Oh, I forgot, is it because they hope to sell of that land as potential housing development...?

Silly me... Imagine me thinking they would provide somewhere for people to park before banning them from parking anywhere else...

How naive...

In response to ukdavvy's comments:

1. Thanks for your kind words. We look to use all available means to get people's views and have an open debate on our proposals.

2. Q - "It doesnt take a brain surgeon to see that there are masses of commuter cars parked on Cemetary Road and around hunters Bar that will just be shifted to the far side of Psalter Lane thus just dumping the problem a few hundred yards away

Do you propose extending the scheme here too?"

A - We recognise that there will be displacement of parking into adjacent areas. It's difficult to predict just where the displacement will occur. The plan is to implement the segments of the Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ) in a sequential manner, so areas which do suffer displacement problems can be assured that we will be looking to help them in the near future.

Once an individual residents parking scheme is in operation, and things have settled down, we will review how it is working and carry our parking occupancy surveys in the adjacent streets around the boundary. We can then compare these with the before surveys we undertake, to see where displacement problems are actually occurring and consider any need to shift scheme boundaries.

The Sharrow Vale scheme is planned to be followed by one in Crookesmoor, which will complete Phase 1 of the PPZ and take us well into 2007. We will very shortly be making decisions on the order in which we should tackle the remaining segments of the PPZ. My feeling is that the area you mention immediately adjacent to the Sharrow Vale Scheme is a good candidate for the next zone after Crookesmoor, but this decision will need to go through an approval process.

"The short answer is that multi-storey car parks cost millions and we don't have the money. "

But one of the Council departments seems to have!
http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1540853
"A SHEFFIELD secondary school is to be demolished - just eight years after it was opened at a cost of more than £5 million.

Waltheof School on the Manor was rebuilt in 1998 three years after an arson attack razed the main campus building to the ground.
But now the replacement building is to come down too - making way for a new City Academy to be built by the United Learning Trust, its new owners."

Granma.

Litotes

The figures I quoted fo rht e2001 survey were on responses received on an overall 25% return, which is quite good for this type of survey.

Yes there have been over 400 objections to the current proposals (There are over 5000 properties in the area). There are two main areas of objection which on a preliminary assessment, account for around 80% of these objections:
1. The business area around Summerfield Street. The people working in this area are certainly responsible for much of the parking problems in surrounding streets. We would certainly expect a high level of objection from them as they are the most likely to be inconvenienced by the proposals.
2. The small area bounded by Junction Road, Ecclesall Road and Psalter Lane. The residents here feel that they don't have the same level of parking problems as in the rest of the area. We will recommend to Councillors that the residents in this area be balloted to see whether they wish to opt out of the residents parking zone. A simple majority would win the day. I would caution people in this area to seriously consider the parking displacement which will undoubtedly occur. This area may not be sufering major problems now, but it might well do if the rest of the scheme does come into operation.

I note your comments on the relative cost of visitors permits and residents permits. Visitors permits are for visitors. If you keep asking for large numbers of visitors permits we will be asking why you need them. You my have seen my earlier post detailing the cost of permits in other towns and cities and you will see that ours aren't particularly expensive in comparison. £35 is less than the cost of a tank of fuel for most cars. I can appreciate that people may not want to pay, but we cannot afford to provide permit parking schemes without some contribution from residents and buinesses who benefit from them. I have detailed where the money goes in earlier posts.

Regarding Integrated Transport, we are making efforts on that front. The Council, in partnership with SYPTE and bus operators is spending significant amounts of money on three Quality Bus Corridors. However, as the bus industry has been deregulated for some time and the Government is not currently well disposed to tram schemes, true integration is very difficult to deliver. There are some interesting upcoming developments which will help integration. Smart ticketing (as per London's Oystercard) is set to be trialed on bus and train services. A real time passenger information system is about to be installed on many of Sheffield's buses, which will give passengers up to date information on when their bus is due (via displays at stops, sms messages, internet). The forthcoming South Yorkshire Inteligent Transport System (SYITS) will assist in the provision of real time information to drivers and passengers on all modes of transport.

As I explained in an earlier post, funding is allocated to us on a county-wide basis. South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) is the lead body on public transport. They are responsible for delivering park and ride sites. The current ones in Sheffield are linked to Supertram and a new one is being opened on Holme Lane at Hillsborough. More are planned in South Yorkshire,see the Local Transport Plan (LTP2) for details. Park and ride sites can bring their own problems and have been known to give rise to localised congestion problems.

"The short answer is that multi-storey car parks cost millions and we don't have the money. "

But one of the Council departments seems to have!
http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1540853
"A SHEFFIELD secondary school is to be demolished - just eight years after it was opened at a cost of more than £5 million.

Waltheof School on the Manor was rebuilt in 1998 three years after an arson attack razed the main campus building to the ground.
But now the replacement building is to come down too - making way for a new City Academy to be built by the United Learning Trust, its new owners."

Granma.

I can only comment on Transport schemes and I have explained the sums available. The money allocated for projects like schools and academies is specifically for those projects and can't be used for other things.

Regarding Integrated Transport, we are making efforts on that front. The Council, in partnership with SYPTE and bus operators is spending significant amounts of money on three Quality Bus Corridors. However, as the bus industry has been deregulated for some time and the Government is not currently well disposed to tram schemes, true integration is very difficult to deliver. There are some interesting upcoming developments which will help integration. Smart ticketing (as per London's Oystercard) is set to be trialed on bus and train services. A real time passenger information system is about to be installed on many of Sheffield's buses, which will give passengers up to date information on when their bus is due (via displays at stops, sms messages, internet). The forthcoming South Yorkshire Inteligent Transport System (SYITS) will assist in the provision of real time information to drivers and passengers on all modes of transport.

This sounds like a very good move, and I am looking forward to this system getting put in place.

Thanks for your reply



Each residents parking zone will need to be enforced. I'm advised that there will be two parking attendants patrolling the Broomhill Zone every day, the same goes for Broomhall. Sharrow Vale is much bigger and will probably need more attendants. As the number of attendants increases, we may need larger accommodation for them.

All of these items cost significant amounts of money, particularly when they involve employing more staff, as the overheads must be taken into account.


Do we not already have traffic wardens patrolling all these areas?


We know that there are very bad parking problems in some parts of the Sharrow Vale area but understand that some parts aren't as badly affected. There will inevitably be displacement from areas where residents parking is implemented, so people who are expressing a desire for their street to opt out of the scheme should bear this in mind. We have received many objections from the area bordered by Junction Road, Ecclesall Road and Psalter Lane, where residents feel that there aren't the same parking problems as in the rest of the proposed zone. We will propose that a ballot be carried out in that area so that people can decide whether they want to be in the scheme or not. A simple majority would win the day. This is one of the options we will be putting to Councillors on the Area Planning and Highways Board who will make the final decisions on all objections (and indeed whether the scheme should go ahead).

Will this include Osberton Place and surrounding roads?


We feel that it is right that the people who benefit from residents parking schemes, the residents and businesses in the area, should make some contribution to the running costs.

I am one of those residents and I certainly won't be benefiting from the scheme. Both myself and my neighbours will be much worse off for it. How will this scheme benefit me, especially when there are no parking problems in the streets around me? We do not get commuters parking anywhere near us.

Planner1 answered your question clearly here:
2. The small area bounded by Junction Road, Ecclesall Road and Psalter Lane. The residents here feel that they don't have the same level of parking problems as in the rest of the area. We will recommend to Councillors that the residents in this area be balloted to see whether they wish to opt out of the residents parking zone. A simple majority would win the day. I would caution people in this area to seriously consider the parking displacement which will undoubtedly occur. This area may not be sufering major problems now, but it might well do if the rest of the scheme does come into operation.


This isn't directed especially at you britstu, but as a general point to everyone I'm asking that people to show Planner1 a little respect on here. If people start throwing abuse and emotion then you probably won't hear from him again on here.

So please, let's keep the level of conversation up. Thanks.

Thanks for your reply




Do we not already have traffic wardens patrolling all these areas?



Will this include Osberton Place and surrounding roads?



I am one of those residents and I certainly won't be benefiting from the scheme. Both myself and my neighbours will be much worse off for it. How will this scheme benefit me, especially when there are no parking problems in the streets around me? We do not get commuters parking anywhere near us.

Yes we do enforce in the area, but there are only about 40 attendants in total, to cover the whole city, so they will only be able to give these areas occasional attention. When a residents parking scheme is put in place, a number of attendants are dedicated to that area every day, so enforcement is better.

Re Osberton Place and adjacent streets: We have had some objections and comments from Osberton Road and Sandbeck Place. Some say that there isn't any real problem at the moment, but others are saying they think that due to parking displacement, they expect the situation to worsen if the residents parking zone is put in place. At the moment, the level of objection from these streets isn't such that we would feel it appropriate to offer the oportunity to opt-out.

There may not be a major problem at the moment, but things could get a lot worse if residents parking were implemented in the rest of the area, but not on your street. Anyone seeking free parking in the area would be attracted to your street and any surrounding ones in a similar situation. There are a lot of shops and businesses in the Hunters Bar Area, not to mention two schools which have no off street parking. I'm sure you can see that people who work in these establishments will be seeking new free parking opportunities if any exist nearby.

Planner1

Hello again and thanks for being so patient with us all.

Its good to hear the council has a strategy and that there will be a rolling program to sort out displacement as you call it from the top end of the scheme.

It does kind of seem obvious that Osborne Road, as well as most of Kenwood, will become a popular parking spot.

Osborne is a busy road with all of the Nether Edge and Chelsea road flats amogst other things.
Do you have any plans for double yellows here, with a car parked each side it will become v dangerous as well as busy?

cheers

d

i thought it was a disgrace when i lived on brunswick street in my thrid yr of uni and had to pay for a parking permit. was forking out a fortune on rent then that??!!

when i moved in the parasites were on to me within 5mins of moving in and after a waste of an hour arguing with the bint (the one that thinks shes tom cruise with those 80s style sunglasses) she finally caved and let me off with a "warning" to get a ticket first thing the next day.

There are some really strange ideas presented here.... People seem to think they own or have special rights over the road outside where they live. The roads are PUBLIC space - no one "owns" or has any claim whatsoever, on the road outside their house. You have no "right" to park there at all. If you want to have a car, buy a house with offstreet parking room - if you buy a house without space to park off the road, don't assume you have somehow with your deeds, acquired rights over the road space. And don;t whinge when the law is pointed out to you.

Many people near me have room to create offroad parking for their cars, but choose instead to park on the main road through our village, blocking the view for anyone emerging from side streets, and causing several near-accidents a day.

Planner,

Why don't the current parking wardens do their job?

The corner of Ecclesall Road with Nonna's one it is for ever getting snarled up due to the clients of Nonna's ignoring the double yellow lines and parking their sports cars etc there. I have only ever once seen a prking warden ticketing someone there - in fact I have seen wardens walking past blatant illegal parking - is the italian mafia in on the scheme I wonder?

They do and I've seen them issuing plenty of tickets there. To be fair they often try to get people to move their cars, though I must say that the Traffic Wardens (RIP) were much more patient and moved many more cars.

Planner1

Hello again and thanks for being so patient with us all.

Its good to hear the council has a strategy and that there will be a rolling program to sort out displacement as you call it from the top end of the scheme.

It does kind of seem obvious that Osborne Road, as well as most of Kenwood, will become a popular parking spot.

Osborne is a busy road with all of the Nether Edge and Chelsea road flats amogst other things.
Do you have any plans for double yellows here, with a car parked each side it will become v dangerous as well as busy?

cheers

d


Thats where 600 of us in this office on Napier Street will be parking...and Kenbourne Road, Rundle Road and other roads near the Marriott hotel. Many have little choice really. I don't see why a big employer would have offices in Sheffield....that seems to be a discussion topic here.

Planner1,

What is the council's plan to combat the chaos that will ensue around the sharrow vale area every morning when people who commute to their place of work within the parking boundaries are looking for any available space.

The limited 4 hour parking options are not viable either..people work generally for 8hrs per day...all you will get is people running to their cars every 4 hrs and moving to another 4hr parking spot causing more mayhem on the roads.

At the moment the current scheme especially around washington road area works.. i.e residents go to there day job and local workers to the area use the free space during the day meaning good utilisation of parking space in the area.

What exactly do the council suggest that business users who travel from afar do to get to work when local transport is not an option?

The plans so far are short sighted in as far as the problem will be passed onto another area..where does this stop...when the whole of sheffield has to pay the council to park??

The real issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of suitable parking within sheffield for commuters. If suitable parking was available then there would be no need for the residents scheme at all.

An anaylsis of the parking needs of local business should be undertaken and used within the report filed to the councillers in Sheffield. This analysis will indicate the scale of problem from which solutions can then be looked at.

Just charging ahead with a residents scheme is pretty counter productive.

I really hope this is not a done deal and that the wider picture is looked at by the planning team.

This is one of the best threads that i've seen on the forum in ages. Particularly the contributions by Planner1.

A post on page 2 (I'm not going back to quote it) raised a question for me though.

If the £35 charge is purely to cover administrative costs, then how does that tie in with the comment about higher charges being made for a second permit in order to 'encourage' people to consider alternatives to owning two cars.

The latter part of the comment seems duplicous given the stated aim of the charge, and not within the remit of a scheme which is primarily aimed at addressing the problem of commuter parking...

ukdavvy

It is possible that there will be some displacement into the area you mention. However, I feel that this will to a large extent depend upon whether the area at Hunters Bar (Hunter House Rd, Penrhyn Rd, Pinner Rd etc) opts out of the scheme. If they do opt out, I'd guess that area would become the destination of choice for people looking to park, and any problems in Kenwood etc would be lessened.

If the Sharrow Vale scheme is approved, we will carry out before and after surveys on streets arond the boundary, to find out where the displacement effect has taken place. We can then look at the possible need to extend the scheme boundary or deal with the problem as part of another wider residents parking scheme.

My feeling is that it will be best to wait and see what happens. The distance people are prepared to walk to their destination varies enormously from person to person so it is difficult to predict where displacement will occur in a lot of cases.

When we implement a residents parking scheme we take the opportunity to review all waiting restrictions in the area and put in new ones where they are needed.

1. The business area around Summerfield Street. The people working in this area are certainly responsible for much of the parking problems in surrounding streets. We would certainly expect a high level of objection from them as they are the most likely to be inconvenienced by the proposals.

Can you explain the rationale for proposing a scheme that you knew would cause major problems for hundreds to thousands of people?

I have to park in that area unless some joined up transport genius can advise me how to get to Napier Street from Walkey and back Mon-Fri around 9-5 shifts? In 20 mins. Ohh and can also get me to where I play Football straight after work on a Wednesday :rolleyes:

Thats where 600 of us in this office on Napier Street will be parking...and Kenbourne Road, Rundle Road and other roads near the Marriott hotel. Many have little choice really. I don't see why a big employer would have offices in Sheffield....that seems to be a discussion topic here.

That's exactly what I will be doing. Although the council will then impose a scheme on those areas forcing the evil (Tax paying, wealth creating) commuters to their wits end and on to work in Leeds!

EDITED: To say although I'm hacked off and mildy sarcastic above (Those that know me won't notice any change from normal!) I do appreciate the presence of the planner here communicating direct to the public. Cheers.

Litotes

There are around 40 parking attendants for the whole city, which probably means that they can only put around 30 in the field on any one day. Therefore the best you will get is occasional enforcement. A residents parking scheme will have a number of attendants allocated to it each day, so enforcement will be better.

I've passed your comments to our Parking Services Manager and asked that the attendants give the location some attention when they are in the area.

People can contact Parking Services on 2736158 if they want to report any problems.

Can you explain the rationale for proposing a scheme that you knew would cause major problems for hundreds to thousands of people?


At a guess, it's to address the problems that hundreds to thousands of residents have complained about. Residents who are also no doubt tax payers and contribute to our economy.

Napier street you say, from Walkley. That's 3 miles from the bottom of walkley or 2 miles from the top. I'd suggest that you get on your bike and ride (to borrow the words from a famous song).

I have to park in that area unless some joined up transport genius can advise me how to get to Napier Street from Walkey and back Mon-Fri around 9-5 shifts? In 20 mins.

You are exactly the kind of person that the public transport should be working for. I think that the inter-suburb commute is one of the hardest in the city. If you want to get from anywhere to the train station, shoot off to Doncaster (for example) and then get a bus the other side, you can do OK. Want to get from suburb X to Y then your only chance is that X & Y are on opposite sides of the city centre.

I expect there will be a couple of routes that do not go through the city centre, but the decent routes all go through the centre.

And of course the bus operators will not take a gamble on a new route. They are tryng to concentrate on the most profitable routes.

You are exactly the kind of person that the public transport should be working for. I think that the inter-suburb commute is one of the hardest in the city. If you want to get from anywhere to the train station, shoot off to Doncaster (for example) and then get a bus the other side, you can do OK. Want to get from suburb X to Y then your only chance is that X & Y are on opposite sides of the city centre.

I expect there will be a couple of routes that do not go through the city centre, but the decent routes all go through the centre.

And of course the bus operators will not take a gamble on a new route. They are tryng to concentrate on the most profitable routes.

I have a viable route - the 97 stops about 200 yards form hom and about 200 yards from the office, but its so expensive, and to be honest, lots of the time I've other journeys to do after work, so I'll probably still drive a fair bit. For the poor 90% odd that don't have an easy alternative, they will just be driving round Nether Edge looking for somewhere to park.

On a related topic, is parking a lot easier now that the students aren't here? I don't want to have a go at students, but do they all need to have cars? Surely living a few hundred yards away from where you study is close enough? And will the new student accomodation being built ease the parking problems around Hunters Bar?

barny100
Depart: 8:33 Walkley, Howard Road/Duncombe Street, Birkendale Service Number: 123
Provider: Yorkshire Terrier

Arrive: 8:43* Sheffield, Leopold Street C H 1, Sheffield Centre
Walk Depart: 8:43* Sheffield, Leopold Street C H 1, Sheffield Centre

Arrive: 8:45* Sheffield, Leopold Street C H 4, Sheffield Centre
Bus Depart: 8:51 Sheffield, Leopold Street C H 4, Sheffield Centre Service Number: 82
Provider: First South Yorkshire Ltd

Arrive: 8:56* Moore Street, Ecclesall Road, Broomhall

Walk Arrive: 9:03* Walk to: NAPIER STREET,SHEFFIELD

Not ideal, but it takes about 30 mins and 2 buses, or for 2 miles about 5 mins on a bike.

Of all the students I know (and I know quite a few), I only know 2 with cars, and one lives out of town at his parents.

barny100
Of all the students I know (and I know quite a few), I only know 2 with cars, and one lives out of town at his parents.

Totally off the mark here...explain then why on the 30th June on the road I live there was a mass exodus of cars co-inciding with the student leases ending, leaving less than 1 car per house in the evening...the following day when the new student leases started the whole road was chocker again..one particular house had 4 students turn up with cars..3 of the cars have not moved since.

The above pattern was pretty much the same on all the roads throughout the area.

On a related topic, is parking a lot easier now that the students aren't here? I don't want to have a go at students, but do they all need to have cars? Surely living a few hundred yards away from where you study is close enough? And will the new student accomodation being built ease the parking problems around Hunters Bar?

From http://www.shef.ac.uk/environment/transport:

The travel survey took place at the end of 2004 at Halls of Residences and Self-Catering flats. An impressive 24% of students responed and initial results are encouraging. 94% of students walk to their main place of study and only 7% have a car while at University.

One could argue that obviously the 76% who didn't respond all own cars, but I somehow doubt it (for financial reasons as much as anything).

Edit: fixed URL

From http://www.shef.ac.uk/environment/transport:



One could argue that obviously the 76% who didn't respond all own cars, but I somehow doubt it (for financial reasons as much as anything).

Edit: fixed URL

In other words the survey (with a small percentage response) did not include students living in private accomodation where the main problem with resident parking can be an issue.

Napier Street?! For goodness sake that's all of five minutes' walk from either The Moor, Ecclesall Road or London Road, all of which have many different buses streaming down throughout the day.

Totally off the mark here...explain then why on the 30th June on the road I live there was a mass exodus of cars co-inciding with the student leases ending, leaving less than 1 car per house in the evening...the following day when the new student leases started the whole road was chocker again..one particular house had 4 students turn up with cars..3 of the cars have not moved since.

The above pattern was pretty much the same on all the roads throughout the area.

Are you saying that you know exactly the same students that I know and have better knowledge of their car status?

I can assure you that I do know quite a few, probably 20 or 30 students via my martial arts club, and definitely only 2 of them have cars.

Maybe it's because all the students get their parents to turn up and move them out of the house, that's how I always did it, not being capable of carrying a house full stuff on the train!

At a guess, it's to address the problems that hundreds to thousands of residents have complained about. Residents who are also no doubt tax payers and contribute to our economy.

Napier street you say, from Walkley. That's 3 miles from the bottom of walkley or 2 miles from the top. I'd suggest that you get on your bike and ride (to borrow the words from a famous song).

And in the day time these residents are not parking outside their homes as they will have driven elsewhere - by the time they get back people like me have left. At the minute I'd say the street parking spaces are being used in a very efficient manner without any interference from the council.

As for your advice to use a bike... first off your 5 minute journey estimate is a joke! 10 minutes or so there is reasonable but back, up from Eccy Road to Walkley via Crookes for example seems to me to be a contender for a Tour de France stage! After a long day at work and especially in bad weather that is not realistic. Even the downhill stretch would be a pain in the summer with getting sweating, dirty etc. That's ignoring the going eleswhere at dinner/after work issue as well.

As for the buses option all you have done is prove my point - 2 services, 2 companies, going via the city centre with all the possibilities for congestion etc, expensive tickets with prices rises every year etc etc.

No sane person is going to downgrade the quality of transport they use - and for me nothing matches the car or even comes close. Simple as that.

EDIT: After seeing Mathoms posts I would say my final paragragh is the crux of the issue - why should I be forced to use buses/walk further than I have to?

If permits were limited to one per house, or second and third permits made vastly more expensive would this encourage students not to bring their cars to uni? or could permits only be available to 52 week/year residents with some way of refunding non-students who have moved house within a permit year? (proof of private rental/council tax payment could be used in the majority of cases)
Certainly on my street now the 3 lads have moved out of the house next door, and their girlfriends are also no longer parking permanently outside our houses, we are 6 cars down in number for the summer making parking a dream!
This would also free up their tax and insurance money to allow them to afford a better place to live- one of the common complaints on another thread being the expense of purpose built accomodation (2 birds with one stone!)

Of course the big problem with this is that everyone who resides in a street, be they student or not, should have an equal chance and right to get a permit so it wouldnt stop multiple-occupancy houses applying for more than one permit.

In other words the survey (with a small percentage response) did not include students living in private accomodation where the main problem with resident parking can be an issue.

you think that they all find the money for cars going into their 2nd year when they move out. :loopy:

I would have thought people know the areas of Sheffield which have dire parking, and if parking is a top priority to them, they would avoid them.

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic though.

it's two miles for crying out loud. You could walk it in 30 mins.
And on a bike, why would you go via crookes? Obviously I don't know where abouts you live in Walkley, but heading up into crookes isn't at all necessary unless you are already there. You can head through upper walkley, cut across onto crookesmoor road, then free wheel from the hospital.
It does mean you have to negotiate Brook Hill roundabout, but it's not that difficult.
Getting home might be enough to raise a sweat, but take a change of clothes and think of the good it's doing you and the harm it's saving the environment.

And in the day time these residents are not parking outside their homes as they will have driven elsewhere - by the time they get back people like me have left. At the minute I'd say the street parking spaces are being used in a very efficient manner without any interference from the council.

As for your advice to use a bike... first off your 5 minute journey estimate is a joke! 10 minutes or so there is reasonable but back, up from Eccy Road to Walkley via Crookes for example seems to me to be a contender for a Tour de France stage! After a long day at work and especially in bad weather that is not realistic. Even the downhill stretch would be a pain in the summer with getting sweating, dirty etc. That's ignoring the going eleswhere at dinner/after work issue as well.

As for the buses option all you have done is prove my point - 2 services, 2 companies, going via the city centre with all the possibilities for congestion etc, expensive tickets with prices rises every year etc etc.

No sane person is going to downgrade the quality of transport they use - and for me nothing matches the car or even comes close. Simple as that.

I would have thought people know the areas of Sheffield which have dire parking, and if parking is a top priority to them, they would avoid them.

Perhaps I'm being too simplistic though.

When looking for a house you mean? You'd have thought so wouldn't you.

Are you saying that you know exactly the same students that I know and have better knowledge of their car status?

I can assure you that I do know quite a few, probably 20 or 30 students via my martial arts club, and definitely only 2 of them have cars.

Maybe it's because all the students get their parents to turn up and move them out of the house, that's how I always did it, not being capable of carrying a house full stuff on the train!

Not indicating that I knwo the same students but that there may be other factors involved..maybe the 20 students you know live in Halls which is seperate from the argument that students are bringing there cars all year round into residential areas.

As for comments about students turning up with their parents.. before the 30th June the same student cars had been there for roughly a year..(trust me living on the same road as students you get to know them pretty quickly).

On the evening of the 30th June all the student cars had disappeared..again on the 1st July new students cars had arrived and not moved since...I very much doubt that the parents are still with there children 11 days later.

Back to the other topic...the main problem with regards to the whole residential scheme is the lack of thought by the council to address parking needs for all car users in the areas affected by the scheme.

If better transport links were in place then i'm sure more people would use them to commute within Sheffield but for people who live outside of inner Sheffield and commute in then the residential scheme is not addressing there needs.

I live on Stalker Lees Road (just off Eccy Rd) and the only permit scheme I can see on their website is for Broomhill. Not very useful but we will see what they say tomorrow if/when they get back to me.

I won't really mind so much if we don't have to pay for them but suspect we will living in such a busy area.

What I do care about though is the traffic wardens braking the law. But I imagine they will just give some lame excuse like they seem to have given Greybeard...funny I have never read about "operational immunity" in the highway code... :suspect:

Up until a few years ago the armed forces used to quote 'crown immunity' when it came to health & safety and food hygiene regulation obeyance. A test case through that one out the window.

Should everyone have the same right to park in a street? Or should it be those that are reistered to vote there? Or those that pay council tax there?

The council's line is that everyone should have the same right to parking... and yet it is the locals who live there that are HAVING to pay for a permit if they want to live there with their cars...

I am considering asking for the kerb to be lowered so I can use my front garden for an off road parking area - thus ensuring I have a free space outside my house every day... </sarcasm>

As far as the parking wardens go... they ignore the double yellow line parkers... and also the highway code which prohibits parking near a junction...

"217: DO NOT park your vehicle or trailer on the road where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users. For example, do not stop

* opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space"

Do they uphold this - NO!!

Yet another example of the parking wardens (or whatever they are called these days - automotive obstruction officials) setting their own agendas and laws.

Not indicating that I knwo the same students but that there may be other factors involved..maybe the 20 students you know live in Halls which is seperate from the argument that students are bringing there cars all year round into residential areas.

As for comments about students turning up with their parents.. before the 30th June the same student cars had been there for roughly a year..(trust me living on the same road as students you get to know them pretty quickly).

On the evening of the 30th June all the student cars had disappeared..again on the 1st July new students cars had arrived and not moved since...I very much doubt that the parents are still with there children 11 days later.

Back to the other topic...the main problem with regards to the whole residential scheme is the lack of thought by the council to address parking needs for all car users in the areas affected by the scheme.

If better transport links were in place then i'm sure more people would use them to commute within Sheffield but for people who live outside of inner Sheffield and commute in then the residential scheme is not addressing there needs.


The students I know are actually weighted towards the 2nd and final years with a few 1st years amongst them.

Seems rather dubious that loads of new students arrived on the 1st July, given that most students are home for the summer and that most student accomodation sits empty (although paid for) for the next couple of months.

Should everyone have the same right to park in a street? Or should it be those that are reistered to vote there? Or those that pay council tax there?

If that was the case then the only place you would be able to park is outside your house, rendering your car useless.

No nick, the "same right" does not mean that others cannot park there - just that the householders could have preferential treatment.

Householders WILL have preferential treatment and you will have a sticker on your car to prove it.

No nick, the "same right" does not mean that others cannot park there - just that the householders could have preferential treatment.

But if your not there and someone parks in front of your house they should move when you come back or what ?
I don't understand "preferential" treatment.

I think Litotes basically just doesn't want to pay the thirty five quid. Therefore paying a few hundred quid for a dropped kerb would be cutting his nose off to spite his face.

But he will have made a political statement that nobody noticed or cared about.

Preferrential could mean that householders have no restrictions whereas other cars have a time limit or restricted hours when they cannot park there.

EDIT: After seeing Mathoms posts I would say my final paragragh is the crux of the issue - why should I be forced to use buses/walk further than I have to?

You are going to be forced into it though, so its time to think about another way of getting to work. It happened to me too a few years ago, but I soon got used to public transport. There isn't any choice unless you want to look for a job with loads of free parking provided.

Gaz79

The people who commute and park in the Sharrow Vale area already cause congestion. The scheme will restrict the amount of free all-day parking available to them, so less of them will enter the area. Congestion should be reduced.

There may be some confusion in the first few days of operation as people get used to the new arrangements, but it shouldn't last long. It is our usual policy on new permit parking schemes, for the first two weeks of operation, to only issue warning notices to those who transgress on the parking bays.

We already use the 4 hour bays in Broomhall. Most people seem to think they work OK. It is 4 hours so people can visit the area and have long enough to do business or shop. Inevitably some people will move their cars around, our experience is that for most people it is just too much trouble. If it does prove to be a problem, we can change the bays to 2 or 3 hours.

The residents of the Washington Road area clearly do not agree with your contention that things currently work well. Last year when we first publisghed details of the proposed Sharrow Vale scheme there was a big campaign to have the Washington Road area included, as it wasn't iitially. I attended a very lively and packed public meeting where locals were demanding that this area be made residents parking.

One travel option that people coming into Sharrow Vale for work / business might want to consider is the Park & Ride site at Tesco on Abbeydale Road. There's 200 spaces and parking is free. Currently about 50 cars per day use it. You can catch the 85 bus from there which comes into city down Ecclesall Road.

The Council isn't just rushing into this, it has been developing the plans for the Peripheral parking Zone for the last six years or more. The Council's Cabinet has approved the plans, which are now being implemented.

Yes, people who commute into the area are going to be inconvenienced. People park in the area because it is easy and free. The only way to dissuade them is to make things harder. This can be done by charging or by restricting the supply of commuter parking. It should only take a relatively small percentage of people to switch to another mode of transport, to make a difference to congestion levels. Although there may be people who can't come by any other means than car, how many more could use another way but don't because the car is easier?

Regarding analysis of parking needs, there has been some recent research on how people travel to retailers. One of the studys was carried out on London Road in Sheffield. It was an independant study carried out by Westminster University for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charitable trust who commission social research. The Council had no hand in it. The survey was about how people use mixed-use streets. Researchers asked retailers how they thought the majority of their customers reached them, 78% said car. Researchers then did street interviews to find out the actual amount of people who came by car.The answer was 18%. Most people (71%) walked. The results of this survey are broadly similar to the findings of others carried out in the UK and abroad.

2001 Census data shows 52.4% (49% in 1991) travel to work as drivers and 6.5% (7% in 1991) as passengers.

We do look at the wider picture. increasing car ownership and use is now having adverse impacts on many peolpe's lives. They are asking their Council to do something about it. We have listened and are now acting.

Planner1 - how do you reconcile the statement about the £35 being for administrative costs, and then in the same paragraph talking about how the higher cost for a second permit will force people to reconsider owning a second car (social engineering) which is completely outside the remit you've set to reduce congestion and stop commuter parking in the area?

Planner - you are not appearing to listen to the current tide of opinion - the majority of repondents to the proposed scheme (You keep referring to it as a fait accompli - it has not been passed yet...) do not want it in its current form. Locals do not want to have to pay for the 'right' to park in front of their own houses or on the (badly miantained) streets on which they live.

Charge the commuters by all means, but not the locals.

The times which have been proposed 8.00 to 6.30 will mean that unless I get a second permit (which I MAY be able to do - not guaranteed) I will not be able to come home and park in my own road until after 6.30. I do not own 2 cars - my wife owns one and I own another - we both need them for work - to be able to pay my council tax etc.

Let me ask you a question - do you own a car? Do you drive to work? If not, where do you leave your car during the day?

There was a suggestion in the other Permit thread which for some reason I can't find.
This was to make streets oneway & use the freed lane for diagonal parking bays.

The truth is the council has always been anti-car.

Granma.

Try this for size:

Residents parking everywhere in the zone but for two hours only from 1030 to 1230

This will stop commuters
As long as the restriction is longer than their lunch hour they cant just joy ride round to escape it

It will mean if you have a car and you live in the zone you dont actually need a permit as long as you need your car for work, then you wont be around when the restriction is in force, this works if you have 2, 3 or even 4 cars in your house as long as you actually need them for work

If you have 3 cars in your house and none of them are used then tough :)

If you have 3 cars in your house and all 3 are used to commute to antisocialll shifts not 9-5 then bad luck

Blimey - Im almost tempted to make this a new thread Im that chuffed with the idea :)

d

people will come out at 1130, move their car and then go back to work.
The period in which that restriction is in force would need to be longer.

The main complaint here (from residents) seems to be at the £35 admin charge.
Since the fines that will be levied go to the council, why is it not possible for these to fund the scheme???

The complaints from the commuters are to be expected, but ultimately if the residents have complained then I think they have to be given priority, it's not a commercial district and shouldn't be expected to have commuter parking in it.

people will come out at 1130, move their car and then go back to work.
The period in which that restriction is in force would need to be longer.



Yes but if your lunch hour is an hour and the restriction is 2 hours then where could you actually move your car to?

And if you come out at 1130 then your car would have been in a restricted zone for an hour without a permit



cheers

d

So what happens if you happen to be a visitor into the area between 1030 and 1230?

Your idea falls down straight away I'm afraid.

A restriction is applied to a single space. Hence the earlier points made about the currently planned 4 hour restriction.
As soon as you move to a different location (different road presumably) then the time starts again.

So what happens if you happen to be a visitor into the area between 1030 and 1230?

Your idea falls down straight away I'm afraid.

Hmmmm

You have a restriction for 2-3 hours across the whole area at mid-day

During this time you can park anywhere as long as you pay and display

For as long as this pay and display is cheaper than a bus fare then you have trouble

In my experience the buses here are the biggest barrier to a sensible traffic policy

Cheers

d

Hehe, so what about my car parked outside my house? Do I have to pay and display for 2-3 hours?

Cyclone

The residents parking schemes have a number of aims, reducing congestion is the main one, but once we are decided on introducing a scheme we can also look at how we can deal with wider issues. Safety and accessibility are also important issues. When introducing a residents parking scheme we look at the need for waiting restrictions such as double yellow lines to protect junctions and pedestrian dropped kerbs etc. There are many issues we can try to address. We often her the complaint that the council doesn't employ joined up thinking. In most cases we do.

Commuters aren't the only problem. We hear a lot of complaints about households having too many vehicles, which causes problems for others. There have been a number of posts on this thread mentioning difficulties caused by houses in multiple occupancy which have lots of vehicles. Having an escalating level of charges is a way of focusing people's attention on their travel needs. As I've said before, cost is a major factor in people's decisions and increasing the cost of ownership may influence some households not to to own another vehicle. The amount of roadspace available for parking in many parts of this area is very limited, due to the type of housing and the general lack of off street parking, so putting measures in place to manage the incidence of households requesting multiple permits is surely relevant.

The permit fees do contribute to the costs of administering, maintaining and enforcing the scheme. We have to employ people to do this, which costs a great deal of money.

The current charge levels were set a number of years ago, before the Broomhall scheme was introduced back in 2003. We started charging for permits about 10 years ago, so the principle is well established. As I've said in previous posts, we feel that the charges we make aren't excessive, compared to what other places around the UK charge.

Hehe, so what about my car parked outside my house? Do I have to pay and display for 2-3 hours?

Well yes of course you do if you are in the restricted area
How difficult is that to understend?

The point is that if you are lucky enough to have a car then you should use it

If its parked outide your house all day every day then its a nuisance isnt it and whats the point in having it?

Cheers


d

The amount of roadspace available for parking in many parts of this area is very limited, due to the type of housing and the general lack of off street parking, so putting measures in place to manage the incidence of households requesting multiple permits is surely relevant.

Easy introduce double yellow's down the whole lot and introduce a policy of No driveway, No car, simple.

If people get so worked up about parking then why not buy a property that has off street parking or a garage, that was my No. 1 factor when I was house hunting, so why cant others do it? and why the heck do you all want to live up Ecclesall or Sharrow anyway when its all ready congested enough as it is, spread out move elsewhere to some place that has off street parking.

ukdavvy, are you suggesting that if I have a residents permit I should be forced to use it between 10.30 and 1230 or pay for parking, as well as have a residents permit?

Let me get this clear... you are suggesting that we should all drive around in our cars as much as possible, and that we should all use our cars for commuting every day?

Just who or what is that supposed to help? :huh:


Planner1... thanks for your contributions here. It's much appreciated, especially at this time of night.

Litotes

Yes, there have been a number of objections. Many of these can be overcome by making appropriate changes to the scheme. For example allowing the opt-out. On some roads on which we hadn't proposed any restrictions at all, peopel are objecting because they want restrictions to discourage parking displacement, this can be arranged.

Not all the objections can be overcome without compromising the objectives of the scheme. A good many of the objections are from commuters, who cause many of the problems we are trying to address.

The principle of charging for permits is well established in Sheffied and in the majority of other locations which offer similar schemes. Councillors have previously endorsed these charges.

I don't particularly feel that we should be personalising htese issues, but, to demaonstrate that I buy into the sustainable transport agenda, I'll answer your question about my transport usage. For the record I personally own two cars and like driving them as much as anyone. The house I live in has off street parking for both. Council officers do not have access to work parking spaces unless they have an operational need, so I only get to bring my car for work when I'm using it for work purposes (site visits, carrying equipment, evening meetings etc). I therefore use a variety of ways to get to work, I walk quite a lot and have made a lot of use of the tram. Up to 2 years ago I worked from the Council's Carbrook Offices and while I was there I used the car most of the time as the job I did then had an operational need to visit sites quite a lot. I'm in the process of looking for accommodation that is closer to where I work and socialise, in order to keep my car use down to the absolute minimum.

Granma

I can't agree with your contention that the Council is anti-car. We would contend that we are pro choice.

I can see why people think that one way loops and diagonal parking bays are a reasonable idea. However, such arrangements have inherrent disadvantages. Making a road one-way removes conflicts, therefore drivers feel more at ease and are more likely to go faster. Therefore traffic calming is often required to keep speeds down. Diagonal parking bays can have safety issues for reversing vehicles. Many people have criticised the Council for closing roads and making them one way. My experience is that people often think one way is a good idea, until we post the notice for the legal order, at which time they consider carefully what it will mean for them and then often object. You'd be surprised how vehemently people object to driving an extra couple of hundred yards every time they go out. I've seen a number of one way proposals get rejected because of the number of objections (Southbourne Road at Broomhill is a prime example).

Tony
Thanks for your kind words.

In response to some of the questions rasied:

We have considered other ways in which we could discourage commuter parking. I believe that in London, around train and tube stations in suburban areas, they banned parking on particular streets for an hour during the day. Different streets were banned at different times to make it difficult for people to move their cars from one street to another.

This approach does seem a little draconian and why should we ban people completely from parking spaces at certain times when just putting a time limit on how long people can stay for would do the trick just as well and make maximum use of the available spaces? The measures we employ need to be consistent and be easily understood.

People ask why they need to pay for permits, why shouldn't the fines pay for the scheme. Experience in Broomhall suggests that the fines just about finance the parking attendants. We can't be sure what will happen in the other zones. It is a possibility that as people get used to the restrictions, the number of penalty charge notices may reduce over time, so we can't rely on them to finance the scheme. Current experience suggests they don't cover the administration and maintenance anyway. The maintenance costs of these schemes will escalate due to the introduction of pay and display machines. These cost over two thousand pounds each and at 20p per hour, have quite a long pay-back period. They will need to be maintained, as will the hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of signs, sign poles and road markings we will be introducing in each area.

We are trying out pay & display to help with enforcement. Enforcement of time limited waiting is very labour intensive. On a 2 hour, no return within 2 hours restriction, the attendant needs to take down registration numbers, come back in 2 hours to see if anyone is overstaying, then return again within 2 hours to see if anyone has returned early. Very time consuming. A ticket in the windscreen reduces the number of visits needed and allows the attendant to cover more ground during the day. Yes, a few might feed the meter, but a good attendant will spot this.

Easy introduce double yellow's down the whole lot and introduce a policy of No driveway, No car, simple.

If people get so worked up about parking then why not buy a property that has off street parking or a garage, that was my No. 1 factor when I was house hunting, so why cant others do it? and why the heck do you all want to live up Ecclesall or Sharrow anyway when its all ready congested enough as it is, spread out move elsewhere to some place that has off street parking.

most working couples have (and need) two cars. Most driveways in sheffield (if you're lucky enough to find one) don't have space for 2 cars.
I have a driveway, but unless we both had those stupid city cars they won't both fit on it. And since we drive out of town stupid city cars are no good to us.

Also, at the moment my SO is working in London, so her car stays here and mine uses the drive. So ukDavvy would make it impossible to leave it on a street (which happens to be mostly empty during the day).

I'm not sure that I can agree that the council is 'pro choice' whatever that means and not 'anti car'.

As far as I can tell (this is going OT a little) things get more and more difficult for the car driver, with nothing actually being done to improve the alternatives.
Hillsborough corner is a case in point demonstrating just about the worst traffic flow planning I can imagine and causing congestion every single day.

Gaz79

The people who commute and park in the Sharrow Vale area already cause congestion. The scheme will restrict the amount of free all-day parking available to them, so less of them will enter the area. Congestion should be reduced.

There may be some confusion in the first few days of operation as people get used to the new arrangements, but it shouldn't last long. It is our usual policy on new permit parking schemes, for the first two weeks of operation, to only issue warning notices to those who transgress on the parking bays.

We already use the 4 hour bays in Broomhall. Most people seem to think they work OK. It is 4 hours so people can visit the area and have long enough to do business or shop. Inevitably some people will move their cars around, our experience is that for most people it is just too much trouble. If it does prove to be a problem, we can change the bays to 2 or 3 hours.

The residents of the Washington Road area clearly do not agree with your contention that things currently work well. Last year when we first publisghed details of the proposed Sharrow Vale scheme there was a big campaign to have the Washington Road area included, as it wasn't iitially. I attended a very lively and packed public meeting where locals were demanding that this area be made residents parking.

One travel option that people coming into Sharrow Vale for work / business might want to consider is the Park & Ride site at Tesco on Abbeydale Road. There's 200 spaces and parking is free. Currently about 50 cars per day use it. You can catch the 85 bus from there which comes into city down Ecclesall Road.

The Council isn't just rushing into this, it has been developing the plans for the Peripheral parking Zone for the last six years or more. The Council's Cabinet has approved the plans, which are now being implemented.

Yes, people who commute into the area are going to be inconvenienced. People park in the area because it is easy and free. The only way to dissuade them is to make things harder. This can be done by charging or by restricting the supply of commuter parking. It should only take a relatively small percentage of people to switch to another mode of transport, to make a difference to congestion levels. Although there may be people who can't come by any other means than car, how many more could use another way but don't because the car is easier?

Regarding analysis of parking needs, there has been some recent research on how people travel to retailers. One of the studys was carried out on London Road in Sheffield. It was an independant study carried out by Westminster University for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charitable trust who commission social research. The Council had no hand in it. The survey was about how people use mixed-use streets. Researchers asked retailers how they thought the majority of their customers reached them, 78% said car. Researchers then did street interviews to find out the actual amount of people who came by car.The answer was 18%. Most people (71%) walked. The results of this survey are broadly similar to the findings of others carried out in the UK and abroad.

2001 Census data shows 52.4% (49% in 1991) travel to work as drivers and 6.5% (7% in 1991) as passengers.

We do look at the wider picture. increasing car ownership and use is now having adverse impacts on many peolpe's lives. They are asking their Council to do something about it. We have listened and are now acting.


Planner1.

Afraid the council seems to be overlooking the fact that big businesses / employers are located in this area.. and people have a need to commute to this area e.g the local DWP office buildings e.t.c.

Public transport in Sheffield is simply not good enough to serve the business of this area at the moment.. i'm sure moving the congestion from Sharrow to Abbeydale road (already a busy area) will go down well there....

In terms of the survey you talk discussed this is clearly not covering the businesses in the area.. The council needs to talk to the DWP / the EDS'ers, the Norwich Union people and analyse the amount of people who need to commute to this area and use this information as part of any scheme devised... simply creating a residents only scheme is not going to get rid of a commuter congestion issue..

The only way the congestion will be removed is if the large businesses move out of the area which i'm certain would be a detriment to the surrounding area in terms of monies spent by employees of these businesses.

One of the businesses in the area already has plans in response to the proposed residents scheme which i'm sure will not go down well with the council because it will simply shift the problem to another area of Sheffield that is already badly congested.

Is the sheffield council really run by Labour or is it the Lib Dems in disguise??

Cyclone
Pro-choice means that we want people to have realistic choices of travel mode ie walk, cycle, bus, tram, rail, car. We are therefore working to improve the conditions for all of these.

Traffic conditions get worse because the amount of traffic continues to grow. The highway network can only carry so much. That is why it is important to improve things for non-car modes, so that some people can see them as realistic alternatives to the car.

The Council spends millions every year on measures which improve conditions for cars as well as the other modes. The new section of the inner ring road is costing over £56 million alone. We have three bus quality corridor projects in progress which are improving conditions for public transport as well as general traffic and pedestrians. Around £6 million is spent every year in Sheffield on general transport projects.

Most major towns and cities across the UK are experiencing the same traffic issues that we see here. The measures we put in place to deal with those problems are similar to those employed elsewhere.

Regarding Hillsborough Corner. A great deal of traffic going through that junction is using the route illegally. The Bus / Tram gates on Langsett Road and Middlewood Road are currently very badly abused , which leads to delays for buses and trams. The Council will be introducing enforcement of the Bus / Tram gates via CCTV cameras later this year. This should remove most of the offending traffic.

Easy introduce double yellow's down the whole lot and introduce a policy of No driveway, No car, simple.

If people get so worked up about parking then why not buy a property that has off street parking or a garage, that was my No. 1 factor when I was house hunting, so why cant others do it? and why the heck do you all want to live up Ecclesall or Sharrow anyway when its all ready congested enough as it is, spread out move elsewhere to some place that has off street parking.

Hmm so I should buy a house with a driveway because that will help me park near work? :confused:

Also slight flaw in your plan - called supply and demand. there aren't enough houses in Sheffield with off road parking and if everyone tried to buy one the prices would sky rocket (I'm sure there is already a premium built into the price as it is such an issue).

Gaz79

We are well aware of the businesses in the area. We have been in contact with them through via the good offices of the Chamber of Commerce & Industry. My colleagues are working with local businesses to help them produce Travel Plans, these allow the business to assess their travel needs and explore ways in which reliance on single occupant car usage can be reduced.

Businesses can apply for parking permits and make use of visitor permits. The limited waiting bays throughout the commercial and retails areas will improve turnover and availability of spaces for business clients / shopers / visitors to the area. One of the major complaints from shops in the area is that parking on Ecclesall Road is taken up by people parking all day (between the clearway times). The scheme should be very effective in dealing with this problem. Myself and colleagues have met with business groups in the area to discuss their concerns. The content of the scheme (location of bays, length of waiting restrictions etc etc) can be adjusted to suit local needs and we are examining the responses we've received to see what changes are required.

We are doing everything we can to help local businesses. However, the fact remains that it is the people who work in these businesses who are causing a great deal of the problems in the surrounding area. Many of these will be using their cars because it is the easiest mode of transport for them. Most people do have travel choices. The parking restrictions will lead people to consider them more closely. The wider problem will be addressed when the Peripheral Parking Zone is completed as it will restrict free-all day parking opportunities in the whole of the area around the city centre.

I'd be interested to know more about the local businesses plans which you mention, would you care to share your information?

Surely improving the alternatives to car transport should come before making life difficult for car drivers? To do it the other way around just causes chaos and lowers the respect of the public for the council and it's planning department.
The inner relief ring road is a great idea, although isn't the money coming from grants, rather than the councils 'own' money? It is interesting to see how it's being implemented though. Lots of roads dug up/closed off and then apparently abandoned whilst work moves elsewhere, foolish restrictions on other roads which contribute to the congestion... It doesn't appear as if part of the contract for the work is to minimise disruption to existing traffic flow.

I drive a lot, Sheffield is one of the worst cities to try to drive through or around during rush hour. My current commute should take 20 minutes, it's 10 miles. Trying to use public transport will triple even my extended 35 min travel time, so I really have no choice but to put up with the many road closures and bad traffic.

Personally i'm unconvinced as to the effectiveness of bus lanes. You say that the highway network has a finite capacity, which is obviously true. If you then go and turn one lane in two on our trunk roads into bus only, suddenly it has only half the capacity it previously had.

There's an entire thread on hillsborough corner. IMO the congestion isn't caused by the illegal use of the tram gate, it's caused by the many restrictions on which way people can turn at the junction, which results in people having to travel down residential streets, double back on themselves (sometimes more than once) and so on. As so many people clearly need to turn in the direction the tram/bus gates operate, why not just make them part of the main sequencing of the lights rather than sensor operated?

It will be interesting to see if the 'removal of offending traffic' at the corner does anything to alleviate the congestion problem, my prediction is that it will have little effect.

Cyclone
Pro-choice means that we want people to have realistic choices of travel mode ie walk, cycle, bus, tram, rail, car. We are therefore working to improve the conditions for all of these.

Traffic conditions get worse because the amount of traffic continues to grow. The highway network can only carry so much. That is why it is important to improve things for non-car modes, so that some people can see them as realistic alternatives to the car.

The Council spends millions every year on measures which improve conditions for cars as well as the other modes. The new section of the inner ring road is costing over £56 million alone. We have three bus quality corridor projects in progress which are improving conditions for public transport as well as general traffic and pedestrians. Around £6 million is spent every year in Sheffield on general transport projects.

Most major towns and cities across the UK are experiencing the same traffic issues that we see here. The measures we put in place to deal with those problems are similar to those employed elsewhere.

Regarding Hillsborough Corner. A great deal of traffic going through that junction is using the route illegally. The Bus / Tram gates on Langsett Road and Middlewood Road are currently very badly abused , which leads to delays for buses and trams. The Council will be introducing enforcement of the Bus / Tram gates via CCTV cameras later this year. This should remove most of the offending traffic.

Hmm so I should buy a house with a driveway because that will help me park near work? :confused:

Also slight flaw in your plan - called supply and demand. there aren't enough houses in Sheffield with off road parking and if everyone tried to buy one the prices would sky rocket (I'm sure there is already a premium built into the price as it is such an issue).

I think the driveway comment was probably directed at the residents who complain about being unable to park on the street, or complain about the cost of a permit.

3rd post in a row, I appologise.

Planner1
The wider problem will be addressed when the Peripheral Parking Zone is completed as it will restrict free-all day parking opportunities in the whole of the area around the city centre.

Doesn't this create a potential transferance problem for places just outside the zone and on say the tram route.
There are already people who treat the morrisons car park in hillsborough as a park and ride. This could be greatly increased and seen all across the city if people can no longer park anywhere closer to work...

I think the driveway comment was probably directed at the residents who complain about being unable to park on the street, or complain about the cost of a permit.

Apologies if the ^ is true.

Anyway some of the councils thinking revealed in Planner 1's posts (Again although I'm being critical of the council your input itself is appreciated) seem to make a couple of Ronald Reagan quotes seem appropriate:


“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Planner1.

Afraid the council seems to be overlooking the fact that big businesses / employers are located in this area.. and people have a need to commute to this area e.g the local DWP office buildings e.t.c.

Public transport in Sheffield is simply not good enough to serve the business of this area at the moment.. i'm sure moving the congestion from Sharrow to Abbeydale road (already a busy area) will go down well there....

In terms of the survey you talk discussed this is clearly not covering the businesses in the area.. The council needs to talk to the DWP / the EDS'ers, the Norwich Union people and analyse the amount of people who need to commute to this area and use this information as part of any scheme devised... simply creating a residents only scheme is not going to get rid of a commuter congestion issue..

The only way the congestion will be removed is if the large businesses move out of the area which i'm certain would be a detriment to the surrounding area in terms of monies spent by employees of these businesses.

One of the businesses in the area already has plans in response to the proposed residents scheme which i'm sure will not go down well with the council because it will simply shift the problem to another area of Sheffield that is already badly congested.

Is the sheffield council really run by Labour or is it the Lib Dems in disguise??

Firstly, any government departments and agencies are not going to move just because parking is not available, so they could be factored out of the equation.

Secondly, all these businesses are within a 5 minute walk of not only the city centre but many major bus routes. People have the option of public transport or of parking in the city centre and walking all of five minutes to the office.

There already is a residents' scheme to one side of these buildings - in the Stalker Lees area, and has been for about 12 years. That had no effect on the businesses wanting to move out, in fact more moved in to the area!

The other thing to remember is that city centre workers have been parking on those streets for years and are prepared to walk anything up to 20 minutes to get to their offices. They too will have to stop this.

Once this comes in I may stand a chance of occasionally being able to park near my Doctor's surgery and not have to fork out on taxis for every visit.

Firstly, any government departments and agencies are not going to move just because parking is not available, so they could be factored out of the equation.

Secondly, all these businesses are within a 5 minute walk of not only the city centre but many major bus routes. People have the option of public transport or of parking in the city centre and walking all of five minutes to the office.

There already is a residents' scheme to one side of these buildings - in the Stalker Lees area, and has been for about 12 years. That had no effect on the businesses wanting to move out, in fact more moved in to the area!

The other thing to remember is that city centre workers have been parking on those streets for years and are prepared to walk anything up to 20 minutes to get to their offices. They too will have to stop this.

Once this comes in I may stand a chance of occasionally being able to park near my Doctor's surgery and not have to fork out on taxis for every visit.

Suggest you use public transport to get to the Doctors if it is that good :) You have to remember public transport is not an option for many of the commuters who work in this area.. a lot of people travel from the outer skirts of Sheffield as is their right but the inadequate public transport options would mean that for a large number of people they would simply not be able to get to work on time or get home in reasonable time in order to have a work/life balance.

People may say that these commuters should move closer to work.. well this is a problem in itself with the cost of housing rising in Sheffield and the lack of suitable housing.

The residents scheme creates a them and us attitude where the council should be looking at the whole picture and not justconcentrating on group of people.

3rd post in a row, I appologise.

Planner1

Doesn't this create a potential transferance problem for places just outside the zone and on say the tram route.
There are already people who treat the morrisons car park in hillsborough as a park and ride. This could be greatly increased and seen all across the city if people can no longer park anywhere closer to work...

Yes, we're fully aware that whatever we do has knock-on effects. However, we need to treat the existing problem first and then deal with the problems as they arise. We are developing policies for provision of residents parking schemes in other areas of the city and a report will be going to the Council's Cabinet in the Autumn.

Suggest you use public transport to get to the Doctors if it is that good :) You have to remember public transport is not an option for many of the commuters who work in this area.. a lot of people travel from the outer skirts of Sheffield as is their right but the inadequate public transport options would mean that for a large number of people they would simply not be able to get to work on time or get home in reasonable time in order to have a work/life balance.

People may say that these commuters should move closer to work.. well this is a problem in itself with the cost of housing rising in Sheffield and the lack of suitable housing.

The residents scheme creates a them and us attitude where the council should be looking at the whole picture and not justconcentrating on group of people.

People who do really have to drive in to work can still park their cars as there are both NCPs and council car parks in five minutes' walk of the offices at the foot of Ecclesall Road. The issue is at root one of not wanting to pay to park. People who work in town have got used to either paying a lot of money to park or facing long walks from the free areas in order to drive to work; faced with that kind of choice, a lot of people 'suddenly' discover that they actually 'do' have public transport!

I feel sorry for those on low incomes who genuinely do have no choice, but most people find they aren't in that situation when it comes to the crunch. I speak from personal experience on this one! I had to eat my words when I went back on my claims that I'd be 'unable to get to work' and would 'have no spare time'. ;) I suddenly discovered that an extra 30 minutes' spare time each day was not worth £7 a day!

Planner1 - a question you might be able to answer:
What are the proposals for visitor parking to people's homes? I've heard 25 days' parking a year mentioned but I think this is a serious underestimation.

Many years ago I lived in the Stalker Lees Residents' Zone and on many occasions visitors took a risk parking - we'd have repairmen, deliveries, builders, etc on some days, and family would come to stay for a lot more than 25 days every year. This bothers me, as I know a lot of people have relatives who look after their kids during the day and may need visitors' passes 5 days each week.

Can you explain the ideas for this? is it to stop people selling them on or something like that? Personally, if I was under one of these schemes, then I'd rather pay extra cash just to make sure visitors and tradespeople could come to my house.

Surely improving the alternatives to car transport should come before making life difficult for car drivers? To do it the other way around just causes chaos and lowers the respect of the public for the council and it's planning department.
The inner relief ring road is a great idea, although isn't the money coming from grants, rather than the councils 'own' money? It is interesting to see how it's being implemented though. Lots of roads dug up/closed off and then apparently abandoned whilst work moves elsewhere, foolish restrictions on other roads which contribute to the congestion... It doesn't appear as if part of the contract for the work is to minimise disruption to existing traffic flow.

I drive a lot, Sheffield is one of the worst cities to try to drive through or around during rush hour. My current commute should take 20 minutes, it's 10 miles. Trying to use public transport will triple even my extended 35 min travel time, so I really have no choice but to put up with the many road closures and bad traffic.

Personally i'm unconvinced as to the effectiveness of bus lanes. You say that the highway network has a finite capacity, which is obviously true. If you then go and turn one lane in two on our trunk roads into bus only, suddenly it has only half the capacity it previously had.

There's an entire thread on hillsborough corner. IMO the congestion isn't caused by the illegal use of the tram gate, it's caused by the many restrictions on which way people can turn at the junction, which results in people having to travel down residential streets, double back on themselves (sometimes more than once) and so on. As so many people clearly need to turn in the direction the tram/bus gates operate, why not just make them part of the main sequencing of the lights rather than sensor operated?

It will be interesting to see if the 'removal of offending traffic' at the corner does anything to alleviate the congestion problem, my prediction is that it will have little effect.

If you see my previous posts, I've mentioned quite a few improvements which are already in progress or just around the corner. Bus quality Corridors, Smart Ticketing, Real Time Passenger Information, Intelligent Transport Systems etc.

All the money for capital projects comes from Government Grants. We usually get around £6 million per year for general transport schemes via the Local Transport Plan. Things like the Inner Ring Road are the subject of separate bids for major scheme grants.

Progress on Major Civil Engineering Projects like the IRR is erratic by nature and you can't always see why roads are closed off etc. There is always a very good reason for it, often beyond our control (utility plant diversion work etc).

Re capacity. The government use person delay as their measure of congestion. Therefore if 70 people on a bus are allowed to pass a queue of 20 single occupant cars, that is a net gain.

Re Hillsborough corner. Junctions like this are designed in minute detail and are modelled on computer simulations. To maintain the capacity of a junction it is often necessary to ban turns, as conflicts slow traffic down.

People who do really have to drive in to work can still park their cars as there are both NCPs and council car parks in five minutes' walk of the offices at the foot of Ecclesall Road. The issue is at root one of not wanting to pay to park. People who work in town have got used to either paying a lot of money to park or facing long walks from the free areas in order to drive to work; faced with that kind of choice, a lot of people 'suddenly' discover that they actually 'do' have public transport!

I feel sorry for those on low incomes who genuinely do have no choice, but most people find they aren't in that situation when it comes to the crunch. I speak from personal experience on this one! I had to eat my words when I went back on my claims that I'd be 'unable to get to work' and would 'have no spare time'. ;) I suddenly discovered that an extra 30 minutes' spare time each day was not worth £7 a day!

Planner1 - a question you might be able to answer:
What are the proposals for visitor parking to people's homes? I've heard 25 days' parking a year mentioned but I think this is a serious underestimation.

Many years ago I lived in the Stalker Lees Residents' Zone and on many occasions visitors took a risk parking - we'd have repairmen, deliveries, builders, etc on some days, and family would come to stay for a lot more than 25 days every year. This bothers me, as I know a lot of people have relatives who look after their kids during the day and may need visitors' passes 5 days each week.

Can you explain the ideas for this? is it to stop people selling them on or something like that? Personally, if I was under one of these schemes, then I'd rather pay extra cash just to make sure visitors and tradespeople could come to my house.

Residents and businesses can buy books of 25 visitor parking permits which are like scratch cards and allow the visitor to park all day. They work out at 20p each. The wording of our letter to residents / businesses led people to believe they would only get one book per year. That isn't true, they can have more, but we will monitor usage to check that they aren't being used by commuters etc.

Residents and businesses can buy books of 25 visitor parking permits which are like scratch cards and allow the visitor to park all day. They work out at 20p each. The wording of our letter to residents / businesses led people to believe they would only get one book per year. That isn't true, they can have more, but we will monitor usage to check that they aren't being used by commuters etc.

That sounds fair enough! I guess it would be easy enough to tell if commuters were using them by searching the DVLA - local cars would be likely culprits, and by observing who is using them and where they go after parking up.

If you see my previous posts, I've mentioned quite a few improvements which are already in progress or just around the corner. Bus quality Corridors, Smart Ticketing, Real Time Passenger Information, Intelligent Transport Systems etc.
Appologies if i'm wrong, but they sound like gimmics to me, apart from bus quality corridors (are they aka bus lanes?).



All the money for capital projects comes from Government Grants. We usually get around £6 million per year for general transport schemes via the Local Transport Plan. Things like the Inner Ring Road are the subject of separate bids for major scheme grants.

Progress on Major Civil Engineering Projects like the IRR is erratic by nature and you can't always see why roads are closed off etc. There is always a very good reason for it, often beyond our control (utility plant diversion work etc).
Are the contractors overseen then in order to ensure that this is really the case? And is it made clear to the contractors that minimising extra congestion is a high priority?


Re capacity. The government use person delay as their measure of congestion. Therefore if 70 people on a bus are allowed to pass a queue of 20 single occupant cars, that is a net gain.
This is an over simplication though.
A single bus might pass 20 stationary cars, but in the next 5 minutes whilst no bus comes down the road, the potential person delay from having to leave the lane empty may be much higher than 70 people...


Re Hillsborough corner. Junctions like this are designed in minute detail and are modelled on computer simulations. To maintain the capacity of a junction it is often necessary to ban turns, as conflicts slow traffic down.

I'd like to see the simulation of the flow at hillsborough corner, and to question the wisdom of purposfully diverting traffic up unsuitable residential streets because they are unable to legally turn directly onto the trunk road they need to travel on. Some of the current restrictions seem deliberately perverse. One recently imposed was that no cars should proceed from middlewood road actually to the junction. So the only way to go from middlewood road straight across to langsett road (unless you are a bus) is to turn down a residential street, then down another residential street, turn back onto holme lane, wait at the traffic lights (not turn right on langsett road), proceed across and further down holme lane to the roundabout, come right around, queue back up holme lane to the traffic lights at the corner (where you started 5 minutes ago) and finally make a left turn onto langsett road.
There is no way that forcing people to do that actually reduces congestion. It just turned a 20 second 20 metre bit of journey into a 5 minute 500 metre journey. Adding to the queues on holme lane in both direction and blocking up the roundabout just before holme lane reaches penistone road.

Cyclone
Bus quality corridors aren't bus lanes. They involve looking at the whole route and trying to use all means we can to smooth the bus journey and improve the accessibility of bus stops. One example is the S10 corridor which includes the 51, 52 and 60 bus routes.

I see that the real time passenger information system was launched yesterday, it is covered in tonight's Star.

Re Hillsborough. That restriction stopping people going straight through the junction from either Middlewood Rd or Langsett Rd has been in place for the last 10 years, it applies 24/7 (it will be relaxed to 7am-7pm when we introduce camera enforcement). Through traffic should use Penistone Road, the restrictions are well signed.

That sounds fair enough! I guess it would be easy enough to tell if commuters were using them by searching the DVLA - local cars would be likely culprits, and by observing who is using them and where they go after parking up.

Christ, is this some sort of KGB/Gestapo planning forum or something?

I can see the propaganda leaflets stuck to lamposts now:

All commuters who disobey Party Order 525 (Sharrow Parking Scheme) shall be shot!


:loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Cyclone
Bus quality corridors aren't bus lanes. They involve looking at the whole route and trying to use all means we can to smooth the bus journey and improve the accessibility of bus stops. One example is the S10 corridor which includes the 51, 52 and 60 bus routes.

I see that the real time passenger information system was launched yesterday, it is covered in tonight's Star.

Re Hillsborough. That restriction stopping people going straight through the junction from either Middlewood Rd or Langsett Rd has been in place for the last 10 years, it applies 24/7 (it will be relaxed to 7am-7pm when we introduce camera enforcement). Through traffic should use Penistone Road, the restrictions are well signed.

In the direction from Langsett road you are correct, in the opposite direction the tram/bus only sign was put up about 6 months ago, there was a thread about it at the time.

In the direction from Langsett road you are correct, in the opposite direction the tram/bus only sign was put up about 6 months ago, there was a thread about it at the time.

A missing or damaged sign may have been replaced at that time, but I can assure you that the restriction has been in place for 10 years.

Fair enough, i'll take your word on that, i've got no way to prove it either way.
Can you explain how the restriction helps traffic flow, given the route i've just described above which it requires people to take.

Maybe you'd like to have a quick read of these threads (I'd wait until you have 30 mins to kill actually).
Hillsborough Corner one (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=113692&highlight=Hillsborough+Corner)
Thread 2 (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40078&page=2&highlight=Hillsborough+Corner)

Fair enough, i'll take your word on that, i've got no way to prove it either way.
Can you explain how the restriction helps traffic flow, given the route i've just described above which it requires people to take.

Through traffic should go via Penistone Road. I believe the route you describe is Taplin Road and Hillsborough Place? That is for local access.

Those are the roads yes, and in reverse it's Beechwood Road, Portsea Road and Dykes Hall Road.

Basically what you seem to be saying is that the junction has been made as useless as possible in order to force through traffic to use Penistone Road.

Why not examine the reasons that traffic wasn't using penistone road and fix those problems instead of creating other problems elsewhere?

Can we try to keep to the topic? It would be great if Planner1 could hang around on another thread to answer other, more general Highways questions, but let's keep this one to the topic in hand.

Thanks. :)

I don't particularly feel that we should be personalising htese issues...


Unfortunately, the council has personalised the issues. I note that the majority of councillors do not have permit parking outside their houses, whereas I do - I feel very personal about it as my liberty is being infringed. Why should I have to pay for the right to park outside my house, where other do not.

There is no parking problem with legal parkers, only that caused by the council comisssioned parking wardens not doing their jobs correctly.

Tonight when I came home - no problem parking, no wait, 1 problem getting into my road as someone had parked badly on the corner - wait again, isn't that illegal - shouldn't that be being policed by the wardens already??? Oh I forgot... we can't afford to pay for wardens until we pay for the permits...

Comments?

However, we need to treat the existing problem first and then deal with the problems as they arise.

In medicine, you do not treat the symptoms, you treat the cause - in parking in sheffield you obviously treat the symptoms.

When will there be an intergrated transport scheme for this part of the city? Should you be addressing that before you force people off the roads?

Litotes, Planner1 has answered all your questions. It's rare that we get a direct line from the Council on SF, but if you continue to hound Planner1 he will be quite within his rights not to respond here again.

Please show some decorum.

I kind of agree with the comment about lack of wardens

As I have said before I freely park on yellow lines......

but......

But this afternoon I was trying to cross a main road, from one side road to another, and nearly had an accident as the view was blocked by people parked dropping their kids off at school (not in any proposed controlled zone by the way)

Yes Im a hypocrite, but the reason I do it myself is cos Ive never met anyone who has ever had a ticket in Sheffield

Will it be any different when the zone is in place or can we continue to park illegally then too :)

d

Tony, he hasn't.

And by the way,

Your tagline - "That only way you can control people is to lie to them..."

They are trying to control parking aren't they, ergo...

I'll let you work it out!

I saw those answers Litotes, you obviously don't wish to see them. Please don't hound him - it might be the last you see of him.

Sorry - can you point me to the answer about the integrated transport scheme in this part of the city (Tesco's on Abbeydale Road IS NOT this part of the city) and the rationale behind not implementing one before pushing people onto the roads outside this proposed scheme.

Can you point out the answer to the traffic wardens not doing their jobs properly and how giving them more area to be responsible for, this will make them do their jobs properly?

Can you point out how to address the fact that the council is hitting my pocket personally, and yet I shoudln't take it personally?

They are ignoring the opinions of the poeple who voted them in, and as such are disenfranchising us all. If we do not stand against this sort of postcode tax then we will be apying for the services that the council should provide by right.

Our street DOES not want a parking permit scheme - I have already asked everyone I can find.

It has been explained clearly what is going on, how consultations were carried out, how survey returns were broken down, what the processes and limitations are and how it all comes about.

The answers are there, you just don't like them.

No, I am just challeging their interpretation.

the original survey was done 6 years ago - with the transient population that the area has, they did another survey, in which the majority of people expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation ain its present form - no alternative has been given and yet, they still discuss it as a done deal. It isn't!

I urge all those who are against this proposal to write to their concillor and say that if they do not vote the way that the majority of their constituents have asked them to, then they are in breach of their elected role and should be removed from office.

Christ, is this some sort of KGB/Gestapo planning forum or something?

I can see the propaganda leaflets stuck to lamposts now:

All commuters who disobey Party Order 525 (Sharrow Parking Scheme) shall be shot!


:loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

:hihi: Fair enough!

Mind, see it from the other side and it might be like the war all over again with spivs going round in their raincoats approaching commuters: "Pssst, wanna buy a parking permit mate?"

Or more likely a red-faced, white van man about to burst a blood vessel, trying to beat people to the last parking space in England. And if they beat him to it, he will beat them.

Parking wars. Read JG Ballard's Millennium People for a satire on parking permit schemes and what parking wars say about society today.

Litotes, you obviously feel strongly about this scheme. Instead of repeating yourself on here, why not organise a pertition for your street, get it signed by all the people who support you and get it submitted before September. Planner1 said that anything submitted before then would be taken into consideration.
You could also attend the meeting with the petition as it was said it would be open to the public, you could even speak, although i'd advise against ranting.

Tony, appologies for going OT, it's the first time I've ever had the chance to directly speak to someone responsible for the mess our roads are in.

Planner1 - Thanks for being patient and answering questions. I hope you don't feel hounded, and that you continue to hang around and contribute (to threads other than just about roads as well).

No problem at all Cyclone, I was just keen to keep Planner1 here as long as possible. Thanks once again to him for being patient and open. :D

Cyclone, I have done all that.

And what response have I had? Just the same inane responses we have had on here. As one of the electorate, I feel very strongly that the council is not listening to us, and that unless a stand is taken, they will continue to ride rough-shod over the people of Sheffield.

I am waiting for an alternative strategy to be proposed so I can comment on it, but as yet all I have had is the usual crap.

They are listening, and they are doing something about it. :roll: Did you miss the bit about the survey, and the response being in favour?

so you will be going to the meeting with a copy of the petition from your street?

Tony,

You obviously were not at the meeting last Thursday night where about 100 people crammed into the Psalter Lane Sally Army citadel.

Of that 100 poeple, about 80% were against the proposal. The council admitted nearly 400 responses had been received, the majority of which were against the scheme - and yet they continue ignoring us.

The consultation process has been done - with a 30th June deadline - and it came back rejecting the proposal - yet has the council accepted this rejection? NO - why not? Have they provided another scheme for us to consider? NO - why not?

And yet the timetable is that the scheme as it is (which has been rejected by the people of Sheffield) will be put to the cabinet for consideration at the end of September (or so) - why? This has been rejected by the electorate who care enough to lodge an opinion but they ignore us (which I suppose is doing something - just not what they were elected for...)

I was at the Broomhill one, and it was in favour. I'm in favour, and I'm looking forward to it happening to be honest with you.

I'm fed up of not being able to park on our road during the day after 8.45.
I'm fed up of watching people park up at 7.30am and take folding bikes out of the boot to cycle to work.
I'm fed up of the litter chucked over my wall by commuters as they get out and wander off for the day.
I'm fed up of school run mums leaving their cars across my drive, "just for 5 minutes"
I'm fed up with my car begin scratched by careless motorists trying to squeeze into non existent spaces.
I'm fed up of not being able to get on my drive because thoughtless motorists have parked too close.
I'm fed up of having to put cones, wheelie bins, in fact anything I can find into the road if we have a delivery.


The scheme isn't perfect, but it looks like the best that we're going to get.

I got that, Sorry Mate I was only 2 minutes, when I found a car in front of the drive on arriving home yesterday. Lazy good for nothing suit couldn't be bothered to drive the 25 metres to his house and walk back to the corner shop. It makes me see red.

Tony,

Guess you shouldn't live there...

Move to my street, no parking problems, only litter problems is from council flyers hanging off lampposts...

I rather like it here, but it has got worse over time.

The residents parking will certainly be introduced along Ecclesall Road and make no mistake, if you opt out your street will become a nightmare for parking.

IMO, you really should have a long hard think about whether you should swim against the tide. If you convince your neighbours to opt out... well you might be off the Christmas card list ;)

That is just it.. if everyone said, "oh well, I can't make a difference", nothing would change...

I am willing to stand on this one.

I have seen Sheffield go down the pan due to this city council, all the opportunities it has been given, but has rejected cos "they know what they like and they like what they know" and they don't want "any of that new fangled stuff round here".

It is time that the electorate stood up and said "we pay your wages, you listen to us" - something they don't appear to have done up until now.

I live in a nice area - yes it is close to the town centre - but for me that is a benefit - I am willing to pay the small price of having to walk 100, 200, 500m to my car because I feel the benefits outweigh the cost. Maybe you don't?

What I would want, is that the wardens apply the letter of the law to standard parking - if they don't know what it is, they shouldn't be wardens.

That is just it.. if everyone said, "oh well, I can't make a difference", nothing would change...

What I would want, is that the wardens apply the letter of the law to standard parking - if they don't know what it is, they shouldn't be wardens.

Our parking attendants do apply the letter of the law, within the parameters under which they are allowed to operate by the Government. Council parking attendants can only enforce where there is a parking restriction like a double yellow line, a single yellow line, time limited waiting, permit only bays, loading restrictions.

Our attendant cannot do anything about people parking on corners if there is no waiting restriction.

Similarly we cannot do anything about it if someone parks across your driveway, unless there is a waiting restriction across it. That is why we usually provide single yellow lines across driveways within residents parking schemes - so we can enforce it.

Within residents parking schemes we also protect junctions with double yellow lines, again so we can enforce them.

If someone parks across your driveway it constitutes obstruction if it prevents you from coming or going. This is a matter for the Police. Same thing with parking on pavements where there isn't any waiting restriction on the road. (waiting restrictions apply to the whole of the highway, which includes the footway). However, the Police are reluctant to act and often don't have sufficient resources to give highway enforcement issues much priority.

These are the rules that the Government has handed us and we have to work within them.

The Government is handing a growing list of traffic enforcement issues to Local Authorities. We can now use cameras to enforce bus lanes and in a couple of years they will be handing us the enforcement of some moving traffic offences like making banned turns, abusing no entry restrictions and stopping in box junctions. All will be done by camera enforcement.

I hope this clarifies the situation, but please ask if you need to know more.

Tony,

You obviously were not at the meeting last Thursday night where about 100 people crammed into the Psalter Lane Sally Army citadel.

Of that 100 poeple, about 80% were against the proposal. The council admitted nearly 400 responses had been received, the majority of which were against the scheme - and yet they continue ignoring us.

The consultation process has been done - with a 30th June deadline - and it came back rejecting the proposal - yet has the council accepted this rejection? NO - why not? Have they provided another scheme for us to consider? NO - why not?

And yet the timetable is that the scheme as it is (which has been rejected by the people of Sheffield) will be put to the cabinet for consideration at the end of September (or so) - why? This has been rejected by the electorate who care enough to lodge an opinion but they ignore us (which I suppose is doing something - just not what they were elected for...)

I think I need to clarify the procedures we have to adopt in bringing forward this scheme and similar ones.

Firstly, the Council has a Cabinet, just like the Government. It is made up of Councillors from the ruling Labour Party. Cabinet decides on the poicy issues.

The details of highway schemes and objections to them are dealt with by the Area Planning and Highways Boards. There are two of these. (West & North + City Centre, South & East) They are made up of Councillors from all parties, but the number of councillors from each party reflects the overall political complexion of the Council. ie Labour has the majority

In 2001 the Cabinet agreed to implement the Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ). The Sharrow Vale Residents Parking Scheme is one part of the PPZ.

Implementing a residents parking scheme involves us making legal orders for the waiting restrictions. There is a legal process which must be followed, which includes advertising the proposed orders. If any objections to these orders are received, we must report them to the relevant Area Planning and Highways Board.

We have received objections to the Sharrow Vale scheme. Officers therefore have to prepare a report for the Area Board which; sets out the background to the scheme, gives details of all the objections received, makes comments on the validity of the objections, makes recommendations on the way forward.

Once a date is set for the Area Board meeting at which the report will be considered, all the objectors are informed.

At the meeting, the report will usually be presented by my Head of Service. Myself and colleagues will be there to answer detailed questions. Once the Head of Service has made his presentation, the Chair of the Meeting will then usually allow speakers from the public. If large numbers of people wish to speak, the Chair may have to limit the number of speakers and make a time limit for each of them. When the public speakers have finished, the Chair may ask Officers to respond to any questions or points which have been raised by the members of the public. Councillors on the Board can then ask questions of the Officers. once the questions have been answered, the Councillors on the Board may make comments. The Councillors will then take a vote on the recommendations in the report. They may accept, reject or amend them as they see fit.

After the meeting the Officers will contact all the objectors to inform them of the Board's decision.

Regarding Litote's specific points:

We have to observe the procedure I have described. No one is ignoring residents wishes. The Cabinet have approved us to bring forward the proposals for the Sharrow Vale scheme, which we have done. Now objections have been received we must report them to the Area Board. We cannot bring forward alternative plans until the Councillors on the Board have given a decision.

Of the objections we have received, it will take us some time to analyse them all and consider what we can do to overcome them. Very few people just say "I don't want the whole scheme" They usually raise a whole range of issues. Some we will be able to overcome or mitigate, others we will not.

For example, if someone says "I object to the 4 hour parking bay outside my house, I think it should be residents only" we might agree to change the restriction. This overcomes the objection.

In the area bounded by Ecclesall Road, Psalter Lane and Junction Road, lots of people don't want a residents parking scheme. However, some say they do want one. It is likely we will recommend to Councillors that a ballot should be carried out with each householder having a vote on whether they want to opt in or out of the scheme. This will overcome the objections.

Many of the people who work in the offices around Summerfield Street object to the proposals because they will no longer be able to park all day for free. It is doubtful whether these objections could be obvercome unless the contents of the proposed scheme were significantly altered.

All of this takes time. we think we should wait till the Autumn before reporting to the Area Board. Many people go away on holiday over the summer and we don't want to be accused of trying to push things through and not allowing people to have their say.

The consultation exercise is not like a ballot, a simple majority doesn't always win. Your elected representatives, the Councillors take the decisions, that is how the democratic process is served.

Sorry this post is a bit long winded, but you need detailed answers to understand how the processes work. Feel free to ask if you need clarification.

PARK ON THE PAVEMENT !

Im sure they dont have duristiction to get you if you park on the pavement as its not on the highway and is someone elses problem like the police who dont seem to have the resorces or the will do do anything about it.

Just go past pitsmoor, page hall ,parts of firthpark, tinsley , top of barnsley road ,bottom of wincobank and even the lanetop outside the neto

people are ok on a daily basis to park on public footpaths where its apparent its a no go for the likes of traffic wardens and the police when it comes to illigal parking in these areas.
or maybe its just because the likley hood of them getting the revinue from these people isnt as good as those with jobs around the city centre and like the speed cameras are only there in name only and not about doing an actual job but about earning as much as possible into the councils coffers.

Driveways raises a question Planner1.

If you put a single yellow line across them to allow you to enforce not blocking the driveway, that also means the owner cannot park across the driveway.
I often put one car on the drive, and because there is no other space, the 2nd car across the drive. I only get annoyed when someone else puts a car across the drive, afterall I can't block my own access unless I loose a set of car keys.

I was at the meeting last Thursday and it does seem that despite the rejections raised the Scheme will still be implemented one way or the other

I live in the Hunters bar area which is now to be balloted to opt in or out of ther Scheme due to the high number of objections from this area. However, I feel that we are not being given a true choice as if we opt to stay in we face all the issues we have raised against the scheme, and if we opt out we will end up being the car park for the displaced traffic in S11.

Does anyone have any views/ideas re this matter?

I guess the answer is which is the lesser of the 2 evils???

Driveways raises a question Planner1.

If you put a single yellow line across them to allow you to enforce not blocking the driveway, that also means the owner cannot park across the driveway.
I often put one car on the drive, and because there is no other space, the 2nd car across the drive. I only get annoyed when someone else puts a car across the drive, afterall I can't block my own access unless I loose a set of car keys.

We normally offer the single yellow, you can park on it after 18.30 Monday -Saturday or all day Sunday. If this doesn't suit, there are other options:
1. A white "H" marking, these are advisory but people ussually observe them. If you had one of these and parked across it yourself, you would of course be sending a signal to others that it is OK to abuse that type of marking.
2. A "Keep Clear" marking, again advisory and a bit unsightly.
3. Nothing, leave it as it is.

Whichever option you want, you just need to let us know.

I'm not yet in a permit parking zone, so currently I just phone the police and let them contact the owner or issue a ticket if they can't.

Regarding analysis of parking needs, there has been some recent research on how people travel to retailers. One of the studys was carried out on London Road in Sheffield. It was an independant study carried out by Westminster University for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a charitable trust who commission social research. The Council had no hand in it. The survey was about how people use mixed-use streets. Researchers asked retailers how they thought the majority of their customers reached them, 78% said car. Researchers then did street interviews to find out the actual amount of people who came by car.The answer was 18%. Most people (71%) walked.


Were these pedestrians actually spending any money in the shops? Wouldn't it be better to ask customers in shops how they got there? What about correlations between type of shop, amount spent, and mode of travel?

Were these pedestrians actually spending any money in the shops? Wouldn't it be better to ask customers in shops how they got there? What about correlations between type of shop, amount spent, and mode of travel?

The survey was about how people used mixed use streets, so it wasn't just about whether they were shopping. As I said this was an independant piece of research commissioned by a charitable trust. The Council weren't involved in it in any way, I just thought that the results were relevant information.

A similar survey was carried out in Bristol and the results were also pretty much the same. That survey was carried out by Sustrans, but the retailers rejected the findings because they contended that Sustrans have an agenda (sustainable transport).

The survey was about how people used mixed use streets, so it wasn't just about whether they were shopping. As I said this was an independant piece of research commissioned by a charitable trust. The Council weren't involved in it in any way, I just thought that the results were relevant information.

A similar survey was carried out in Bristol and the results were also pretty much the same. That survey was carried out by Sustrans, but the retailers rejected the findings because they contended that Sustrans have an agenda (sustainable transport).

Your quoting of this report was clearly designed to give the impression that retailers over estimate the number of their customers who arrive by car. In fact though it contains no such insight, and seems largely devoid of useful information. I sincerely hope it's not the sort of 'fact' that gets used to justify planning decisions.

Sustrans is an organisation for eating up public money and putting it to no good use whatsoever.

'Sustrans is an organisation for eating up public money and putting it to no good use whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

So what are your thoughts on the National Cycle Network - 10,000 plus kilometres of traffic-free cycle routes for everyone to enjoy?

So what are your thoughts on the National Cycle Network - 10,000 plus kilometres of traffic-free cycle routes for everyone to enjoy?

I'm a mountain biker so I'm horrified at any proposals they may have for "improving" routes.

However that aside, most of these routes aren't really used for transport purposes, but for recreation. Most of them are old railway trackbed well away from where people really want to go, and people will drive there either with bikes in the car or hire them, pootle around for an hour or two, and drive home. Not exactly what I'd call sustainable transport.

Take the old Woodhead rail line for example. Wouldn't it be best used as a railway (or failing that a perfectly practical two lane road)?

Planner1, you said "Officers therefore have to prepare a report for the Area Board which; sets out the background to the scheme, gives details of all the objections received, makes comments on the validity of the objections, makes recommendations on the way forward.

Once a date is set for the Area Board meeting at which the report will be considered, all the objectors are informed."

Will we be able to see a copy of this report as soon as it has been presented to the 'Cabinet'? Will it be on the council website or will we have to apply under the FoI Act?

If we consider that the report does not reflect the views of the electorate is there any appeal or process of complaint or rejection?

If you look at the report for the Broomhill scheme you'd be hard pushed to say that it does not represent the views of the electorate. It contains a large table running to some several hundred cells with objections / comments / support listed and commented upon.

Take a look for yourself.

At the end of the day you still only seem to have a problem with paying the thirty five quid, and that's not grounds for kicking the scheme out.

Planner1, you said "Officers therefore have to prepare a report for the Area Board which; sets out the background to the scheme, gives details of all the objections received, makes comments on the validity of the objections, makes recommendations on the way forward.

Once a date is set for the Area Board meeting at which the report will be considered, all the objectors are informed."

Will we be able to see a copy of this report as soon as it has been presented to the 'Cabinet'? Will it be on the council website or will we have to apply under the FoI Act?

If we consider that the report does not reflect the views of the electorate is there any appeal or process of complaint or rejection?

Litotes

You're confusing the Cabinet and Area Board, they are different bodies. The report on objections will go to Area Board. Once the report is submitted, it will go on the Council's website about a week before the meeting date.

If, after reading the report, you don't feel that it accurately represents the objections and comments we have received, you can either attend the meeting and make your point in person to the Councillors or, you can make your points to us either by letter or email and we will ensure that the Councillors on the Board receive a copy at the meeting, before they discuss the report (we often do this when comments/objections arrive too late to go in the report).

If after a decision has been reached, you still feel there has been some irregularity, you can make a complaint via the Council's complaints procedure.

In the Broomhill scheme, the officer's report states "In some parts of the scheme, there are insufficient on-street parking spaces to allow several permits to be issued to each property...The scheme would not work if more permits are issued than there are spaces available."

And yet in the Sharrow scheme, there is no such statement - in fact it has been said that a permit is not a guarantee of a place to park, whereas if there was 1 permit per parking space this would be the case - why has Sharrow yet again failed in this postcode lottery?

You also say "The proposed permit charges and revenue from penalty charge notices are intended to cover the cost of administering and enforcing the scheme." If there is a deficit to the scheme from the Sharrow area, will this be returned to the users or will it be used to subsidise the parking officers throughout the city - thus again making Sharrow lose out in the postcode lottery?

You also say "The scheme should be implemented in the 2006/7 financial year." So you have built a case for the Broomhill scheme on a proposal which had not even been presented to council at this time and which may well be rejected and not implemented - any business plan with this sort of foundation in it would be rejected, and yet the parking scheme wasn't - says it all,
really!!

Why are there different parking permit charges throughout the city? £25 in some places,and yet £35 in other places - hmmm, Sharrow (and Broomhill) lose out in the postcode lottery again.

Tony, if you also look at the Broomhill reply document, you will see there are only half a dozen answers which are regurgitated time and time again - they do not address individual questions. By the way - do you work for the council?

No I don't work for the Council, far from it. I've studied the Broomhill document because it affects me, and I can't pick the faults in it that you do to be honest Litotes. I really do think that you are stretching the limits of credibility with some of your arguments.

So you can't see the inconsistencies in the arguements and defences that the Council puts forwards? Oh well...

"Interest makes some people blind, and others quick-sighted."
Francis Beaumont

No I can't to be honest. I can see that you're putting your own biased spin on it and seeing inconsistencies that just aren't there. :confused:

In the Broomhill scheme, the officer's report states "In some parts of the scheme, there are insufficient on-street parking spaces to allow several permits to be issued to each property...The scheme would not work if more permits are issued than there are spaces available."

And yet in the Sharrow scheme, there is no such statement - in fact it has been said that a permit is not a guarantee of a place to park, whereas if there was 1 permit per parking space this would be the case - why has Sharrow yet again failed in this postcode lottery?

You also say "The proposed permit charges and revenue from penalty charge notices are intended to cover the cost of administering and enforcing the scheme." If there is a deficit to the scheme from the Sharrow area, will this be returned to the users or will it be used to subsidise the parking officers throughout the city - thus again making Sharrow lose out in the postcode lottery?

You also say "The scheme should be implemented in the 2006/7 financial year." So you have built a case for the Broomhill scheme on a proposal which had not even been presented to council at this time and which may well be rejected and not implemented - any business plan with this sort of foundation in it would be rejected, and yet the parking scheme wasn't - says it all,
really!!

Why are there different parking permit charges throughout the city? £25 in some places,and yet £35 in other places - hmmm, Sharrow (and Broomhill) lose out in the postcode lottery again.

Tony, if you also look at the Broomhill reply document, you will see there are only half a dozen answers which are regurgitated time and time again - they do not address individual questions. By the way - do you work for the council?

The policy on permit allocation hasn't changed between Broomhill and Sharrow Vale. The allocation of permits will depend on available roadspace and the level of demand. Our experience in the other zones suggests that we may be able to allow up to two permits per household. Not everyone has a car or wants a permit.

We haven't yet invited people in Broomhill to apply for permits, so again the allocation will depend on available roadspace and how much demand there is. What the extract from the report means is that requests for large numbers of permits per household are unlikely to be successful.

Re the permit charges, no there won't be any refunds in the event of a surplus. The amount of penalty charge notices could vary so it is quite difficult to estimate levels of income from that source. In Broomhall, at the moment, it seems to pay for the two parking attendants who patrol the area.

The administration of the growing number residents parking schemes will require us to take on more administration staff. Admin assistants typically get paid on average around £15,000 pa. when you add on the overhead cost of employing people (pension, national insurance accommodation, equipment, etc etc) you have to add 20 - 25% to that total. So it takes an awful lot of permits to pay for one admin person. I've also previously mentioned that maintenance costs must also be taken into consideration. There is a lot of on-street equipment in a residents parking scheme (signs, poles, roadmarkings, pay & display machines) and street equipment suffers a high rate of attrition.

I've mentioned in previous posts that the residents parking schemes have developed over time. Over 10 years ago we didn't charge for residents parking permits. The schemes were quite small scale, were residents only, with only one permit per household and no visitor permits were allowed.

About 10 years ago a decision was made that charges were needed to cover our costs. The fee was set at £25 and hasn't changed since. When the Peripheral Parking Zone was approved, the permit fee was set at £35, which is the curent charge. These new schemes are significantly more flexible than the old ones. As the old, smaller schemes are swallowed up by the new larger ones, they will change to the new conditions and fees.

I'm not sure what you mean by - "So you have built a case for the Broomhill scheme on a proposal which had not even been presented to council at this time and which may well be rejected and not implemented - any business plan with this sort of foundation in it would be rejected, and yet the parking scheme wasn't - says it all, really!!" Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

planner1

if the golden triangle of junction, psalter and ecclesall roads opt out - will you still double yellow the junctions and corners here in the interests of road safety?

I hope so :)

cheers

planner1

if the golden triangle of junction, psalter and ecclesall roads opt out - will you still double yellow the junctions and corners here in the interests of road safety?

I hope so :)

cheers

As I see it there are two possible scenarios if an opt out takes place:

1. The scheme boundary is changed so that the opt out area is outside the residents parking scheme boundary. If this is the case there could be some justification for leaving it as it is.

2. Keep the opt out area within the scheme boundary, treat the junctions and driveways etc with waiting restrictions but do not put any other waiting restrictions in place.

In my view, option 2 is better because we should be putting sufficient restrictions in place to stop thoughtless drivers parking too close to junctions, blocking driveways and pedestrian dropped crossings. Restrictions could also be used to help Onyx and emergency services to access the area.

We haven't yet taken a view on this issue, but whatever we recommend, the Councilors on the Area Planning and Highways Board will have the final say.

In any event I would strongly advise people in that area to think very carefully about opting out, as if they do, those streets may well become a magnet for anyone wanting to park all day for free.

planner1

cheers again - please go for option 2
its ridicuolous over there

Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

Part of your justification of the Broomhill scheme was dependant on successful implmentation of the Sharrow scheme. As this implementation is not guaranteed, it follows that the Broomhill scheme could fail due to this.


In your response to ukdavvy, you discuss not putting the other waiting restrictions in place. Would this mean that you would have to go to consultation for the TRO again?

You mentioned that you had issued 8000 letters in the initial consultation to the area. If half of these households have 1 permit each you generate £140,000. If you have 100 business permits you generate £7,000. If you have a weekly turnover of £1000 for parking tickets and pay and display (20p / hour, 200 spaces, 50% usage, 8 hour day, 6 days /week) you generate £50,000. In total, nearly £200,000 per year. 3 wardens and 1 full time admin person should be nowhere near that total, so where does the rest of the money go?

All the above figures are low estimates. So from these figures we would be subsidising the rest of the city - again...

Part of your justification of the Broomhill scheme was dependant on successful implmentation of the Sharrow scheme. As this implementation is not guaranteed, it follows that the Broomhill scheme could fail due to this.


In your response to ukdavvy, you discuss not putting the other waiting restrictions in place. Would this mean that you would have to go to consultation for the TRO again?

You mentioned that you had issued 8000 letters in the initial consultation to the area. If half of these households have 1 permit each you generate £140,000. If you have 100 business permits you generate £7,000. If you have a weekly turnover of £1000 for parking tickets and pay and display (20p / hour, 200 spaces, 50% usage, 8 hour day, 6 days /week) you generate £50,000. In total, nearly £200,000 per year. 3 wardens and 1 full time admin person should be nowhere near that total, so where does the rest of the money go?

All the above figures are low estimates. So from these figures we would be subsidising the rest of the city - again...

The policy of having a peripheral parking zone made up of individual residents parking zones was agreed by the Council's Cabinet, therefore the underlying policy is in place. The Area Planning adn Highways Board is the decision making bodyu for objections to schemes.

Because of the nature of local government funding we cannot be sure from one year to the next how much money we will get for transport schemes. This year's budget allocation is £450,000. We don't know how much there will be in following years. On expensive multi phase projects like this, spread over a number of years, we have to assume that there will be sufficient allocation in future years to do the required work, we just can't say for certain how long it will take because there are a number of uncertainties.

Each of the residents parking zones we are implementing could stand on it's own merits, but there will be displacement of parking into adjacent areas until the circle is complete. I'm sure that you are alluding tothe fact that the Planning Board could reject the proposals, which is true. However, we must place that in the context that the principle has already been agreed by Cabinet and the fact that the Board agreed the Broomhall and Broomhill zones despite many objections.

RE the parking restrictions, if we just protected the junctions / driveways etc as advertised but didn't put in the residents or limited waiting bays, as I understand it, we wouldn't have to re-advertise the Traffic Regulation Orders because what we would be doing would be a relaxation of the original proposal. Only when we are proposing an extra restriction or making a restriction more onerous (eg double yellow instead of single) would we have to re-advertise.

We distributed 5000+ letters and are expecting somewhere in the region of 2000 permit applications. Any projection of income is guesswork. The Broomhall scheme didn't produce too many permit applications because many people have off street parking. Broomhill is a mixture, some is like Broomhall, but there is some terraced housing with no off street parking. Sharrow is different again because it's mainly terraced. As we haven't yet invited permit applications from Broomhill and Sharrow is a way off yet, we just don't know what the figures may be. The prices for the permits were set several years ago and there is no intention to reduce them. If there are any surpluses they will be used in the same way as surpluses from the general parking budget, they can be used to cover the costs of the parking enforcement service, anything left can fund transport / safety improvements.

Residents parking schemes are very much in demand throughout the city as car ownership / use and consequent parking problems increase. We have a long list of places where they have been requested. Most people seem to feel that £35 or indeed £70 per annum is a reasonable price to pay for some measure of priority over people from outside the area.

"Any projection of income is guesswork."

So you are saying you put the proposal to the council with no estimation of the net cost of the proposal to the city and they passed it?

I find this hard to believe - and if true, then the council have been almost criminally negligent in their duty of care to the council tax payer!

"The principle of the scheme has been agreed"
Indeed "the principle" has, but if there are enough objections to the scheme then it should not be implemented as the electorate is rejecting it - or will the council ignore these objectoins like it did the Broomhill ones?

As I understand it - any change to the scheme would have to be readvertised - not just any additional restrictions. There is a test case going through in the south at the moment and it may have implications on not just this scheme, but also the Broomhill one - to the extent that it may be not be a valid implementation and that any tickets or fines raised under that scheme are not legally imposed...

"Most people seem to feel that £35 or indeed £70 per annum is a reasonable price to pay for some measure of priority over people from outside the area."

No they don't... How many objections to the scheme did you get? How many in support?

"If there are any surpluses they will be used in the same way as surpluses from the general parking budget, they can be used to cover the costs of the parking enforcement service, anything left can fund transport / safety improvements." So you ARE saying that a surplus from Sharrow would fund the rest of the city then...

"So you ARE saying that a surplus from Sharrow would fund the rest of the city then..."

:lol:

Granma

... and the rest of the city would fund Sharrow.

Do you expect your Council Tax only to be allocated to your few streets too? Of course not, it's a single pot that is distributed to whatever is required. That's the way everything works in this country and every other and it's nonsense to suggest that it could work any other way.

As for objections then no doubt the Planning board will look at them and take them into consideration. However they would be looked at in context. For example, I believe that a petition with around 600 signatures was received against the Broomhill Residents Parking Scheme, but they carried less weight because they came from very hospital workers who were causing the parking problems.

In my opinion you should be thinking hard about how the scheme is implemented around you, not whether you can stop it. Because, in my opinion the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages for residents, and your objection will simply be put aside for the greater good.

Because, in my opinion

Tony, you have yours and I have mine...

... and the rest of the city would fund Sharrow.


Power corrupts... and admin power corrupts admins...


Forget it Tony

Whatever......

Absolutely! But it's obvious that you're swimming against the tide, so wouldn't you be better finding a floatation device?

Other Tonyisms...

Here's a warning to anyone who might feel the desire to be smart. Please don't. It's a hot day and I haven't banned anyone yet.

You've been warned!!

Tony, you have yours and I have mine...

I know that you're picking the procedure apart, but do you not agree that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages for residents? If not, why not?

Benefits?

Currently my road has no parking problem... plenty of room...

So it is a benefit that I can pay the council £105 to park my cars in my own road on which I already pay road tax and council tax. A road which is in disrepair (which has been reported), with poor street lighting (which has been reported), and with untaxed cars (which have been reported)?

So it is a benefit that I have to pay for friends to visit at the weekend?

And these benefits are given to me by whom?... The people I elected, and objected to, and who have ignored my objections?

Sorry... you were saying?????

OK, they are fair points and there's nothing to disagree over there.

But, do you see that when the scheme is introduced in other areas (Broomhill, Ecclesall Rd, Sharrowvale, Hunters Bar, etc) that the cars that used to park there will be displaced to the nearest free spaces?

.. and that will be your road.

It seems clear to me that the scheme is being generally welcomed in those areas because there is a problem, and when polled the residents requested it.

So, if you don't have anything you will be the ones suffering some time next year. That's why I suggested that you would be better working with the Council to find the best way of implementing it to suit you as best possible.

Ahh, but if the scheme wasn't introduced in this form in other places before the council had provided a park and ride scheme for the Ecclesall Road/Fulwood Road corridors then the displacement would be minimised.

Say for example a P&R scheme out on the old abandoned playing fields by the Midland bank grounds... people wouldn't drive in to find somewhere to park and get a bus...

But no, lets block all the parking spaces and then think about a P&R scheme...

Drawrof thinking from the council (think about it)...

... but it IS being introduced. At some point you have to face that reality.

<slap> You don't get it, do you?</slap>

You introduce the solution BEFORE you introduce the penalties...

(Unless you are in Sheffield)

I get it perfectly, and I'm perfectly aware of the realities. How do you propose changing years of work and scrapping 3 or 4 previously introduced residents parking schemes in favour of building park and ride schemes on other peoples land with money that doesn't exist.? :confused:

Or are you just making a political point? If so, please say so and we can save the bother of all this.

Or do you just object to paying the thrty five quid?

I hold a parking permit for my area and to be honest its been the best thing I did when it comes to parking,I live close to the uni so you can imagine what the parking is like in uni term its a nightmare.
I paid the £25 and if I cant get parked then I simply phone the council and they send a warden round to issue ticketts,it soon gets the message across.:)
Living near the city centre is always going to cause problems but I regard my £25 as money well spent.

It's not often at all I find my thinking in line with RJ's ( :O )

but I have to say, as a resident of the area concerned, who is directly affected by the nose-to-tail fly-parking on my street, and the streets around this area, I say "yeah! parking permits! bring 'em on!" if it prevents the fly-parking, and improves the area it can only be a good thing.

PT

Again, I'm with royjames. It's a small price to pay to live with all the fabulous facilities of the urban area.

...How do you propose changing years of work and scrapping 3 or 4 previously introduced residents parking schemes in favour of building park and ride schemes on other peoples land with money that doesn't exist.?


Woahhhh, just because a faulty scheme was introduced 3 or 4 times previously doesn't mean that you should continue with it... does it?

The council doesn't appear to have a problem using other people's land as it has been seemingly generous with the car park at tesco's on Abbeydale Road.

I am making a political point in that the council appears to be ignoring the electorate in Sharrow - an electorate which gave the council its mandate to represent the people of Sharrow - something it isn't doing!

And yes, I object to paying for something which should be mine by rights - having paid council tax and road tax. Planner1 say that this is an additional council service which I should pay for - what about all the council services I pay for and I don't get the benefit from, I don't appear to get a rebate for those, so why shouldn't the rest of the city pay for something that I DO get a benefit from? In fact it gets worse, I am paying for this scheme and by my calculations I will be subsiding the rest of the city (again)!!!

Also, royjames paid £25 - why should we pay £35? Postcode lottery - or just the fact that no councillors live round here?

Planner has gone quiet...

roy, why should you have to phone the council? - you are paying for dedicated parking wardens who don't appear to be doing their duty...

I'd ask for a rebate!!!

</sarcasm>

And yes, I object to paying for something which should be mine by rights - having paid council tax and road tax. Planner1 say that this is an additional council service which I should pay for - what about all the council services I pay for and I don't get the benefit from, I don't appear to get a rebate for those, so why shouldn't the rest of the city pay for something that I DO get a benefit from? In fact it gets worse, I am paying for this scheme and by my calculations I will be subsiding the rest of the city (again)!!!

it's a privelige, not a right, litotes.



Also, royjames paid £25 - why should we pay £35? Postcode lottery - or just the fact that no councillors live round here?

Planner has gone quiet...

no councillors? huh? do what?????????????

I can name at least four councillors who live in, or on the very periphery of, this area. one lives almost directly opposite me.

Benefits?

Currently my road has no parking problem... plenty of room...

So it is a benefit that I can pay the council £105 to park my cars in my own road on which I already pay road tax and council tax. A road which is in disrepair (which has been reported), with poor street lighting (which has been reported), and with untaxed cars (which have been reported)?

So it is a benefit that I have to pay for friends to visit at the weekend?

And these benefits are given to me by whom?... The people I elected, and objected to, and who have ignored my objections?

Sorry... you were saying?????

I couldn't agree more ;)

But, do you see that when the scheme is introduced in other areas (Broomhill, Ecclesall Rd, Sharrowvale, Hunters Bar, etc) that the cars that used to park there will be displaced to the nearest free spaces?

.. and that will be your road.

Even if cars parked in my street during the day that would not be a problem at all. After all most people should be at work.

Woahhhh, just because a faulty scheme was introduced 3 or 4 times previously doesn't mean that you should continue with it... does it?
..
What's faulty? Can you see people who have it kicking up a stink? :confused:

Can you see people who have it kicking up a stink? :confused:

So the people who objected to it and were ignored weren't kicking up a stink? In Scotland, when Maggie 'tried' out the poll tax on the scots a year before it was imposed on the english, 5% of the nation kicked up a stink and were ignored.

When it was imposed on England, 0.5% kick up a stink and the poll tax was changed to the 'Council Tax'. Just because changes weren't implemented doesn't mean people didn't object and that it wasn't faulty from the first implementation...


it's a privelige, not a right, litotes.

What is? Parking on the road? Nope it isn't... go and read the Highway Code and you will see that unless a TRO (or bye-law) has been instigated then you can park anywhere (as long as you have paid your road tax)...

"Any projection of income is guesswork."

So you are saying you put the proposal to the council with no estimation of the net cost of the proposal to the city and they passed it?

I find this hard to believe - and if true, then the council have been almost criminally negligent in their duty of care to the council tax payer!

"The principle of the scheme has been agreed"
Indeed "the principle" has, but if there are enough objections to the scheme then it should not be implemented as the electorate is rejecting it - or will the council ignore these objectoins like it did the Broomhill ones?

As I understand it - any change to the scheme would have to be readvertised - not just any additional restrictions. There is a test case going through in the south at the moment and it may have implications on not just this scheme, but also the Broomhill one - to the extent that it may be not be a valid implementation and that any tickets or fines raised under that scheme are not legally imposed...

"Most people seem to feel that £35 or indeed £70 per annum is a reasonable price to pay for some measure of priority over people from outside the area."

No they don't... How many objections to the scheme did you get? How many in support?

"If there are any surpluses they will be used in the same way as surpluses from the general parking budget, they can be used to cover the costs of the parking enforcement service, anything left can fund transport / safety improvements." So you ARE saying that a surplus from Sharrow would fund the rest of the city then...

The Councillors were made aware of the capital costs of the scheme and the likely ongoing implications in terms of staffing and accommodation etc.

When the Councillors on the Area Board consider a scheme, they must consider the wider interests of the city as a whole. The number and nature of objections or expressions of support will be a factor in their deliberation, but not the only consideration.

I wasn't aware of the test case you mention. I will check with colleagues to see whether they know anything. Would you care to share your knowledge?

My feeling from discussions I have had with people from across the city is that most would willingly accept the permit charges if it means they can have a residents parking scheme. The demand for these schemes far outstrips the amount of funding we have available to deliver them.

Ahh, but if the scheme wasn't introduced in this form in other places before the council had provided a park and ride scheme for the Ecclesall Road/Fulwood Road corridors then the displacement would be minimised.

Say for example a P&R scheme out on the old abandoned playing fields by the Midland bank grounds... people wouldn't drive in to find somewhere to park and get a bus...

But no, lets block all the parking spaces and then think about a P&R scheme...

Drawrof thinking from the council (think about it)...

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive is responsible for park & ride provision in South Yorkshire, not the Council. Just because a site is currently under utilised doesn't mean it is available for sale or that planning consent could be obtained for park & ride.

Park and ride has it's own problems, it can cause localised congestion and even generate more car journeys.

there will be a charge of £35 for the first residents parking permit,

Ooooh look.

Another stealth tax on drivers.

Would the residents be entitled to a £35 reduction in their "road tax", or maybe a £35 reduction in council tax?

I can guess the answer:rolleyes:.

Ooooh look.

Another stealth tax on drivers.

Would the residents be entitled to a £35 reduction in their "road tax", or maybe a £35 reduction in council tax?

I can guess the answer:rolleyes:.

No to both.

Road Tax is basically a tax on owning a car and goes to Central Government. As I mentioned in earlier posts, providing residents parking schemes is an additional service that the Council don't have a statutory responsibility to provide. Therefore anything provided needs to be self financing in terms of ongoing administration, maintenance and enforcement costs. Local residents and businesses who benefit from residents parking schemes must therefore pay for permits to cover these costs.

Ooooh look.

Another stealth tax on drivers.

Would the residents be entitled to a £35 reduction in their "road tax", or maybe a £35 reduction in council tax?

I can guess the answer:rolleyes:.

Did you actually read the thread, the reason for the charge and how it will be spent have both been covered already.

Did you actually read the thread, the reason for the charge and how it will be spent have both been covered already.

On this occasion, no. I didn't read the entire thread (unusual for me).

Still seems to be another tax on owning a vehicle.

Local residents and businesses who benefit from residents parking schemes must therefore pay for permits to cover these costs.


What about us that don't benefit, and in fact suffer?

Planner1,

Do the council see the users of these roads that work in the area as valid users of these roads? Phrases like "fly parking" and "being allowed to park all day for free" have been bandied around on this discussion, but I see nothing wrong in using these roads for parking. All the roads I use off cemetary road seem to have quite a good routine going. People leave those houses for work in their cars, and workers in the area come in and park. At the end of the day it all swaps around. I don't really see a problem there. Are our concerns really taken into consideration? It seems to be only the local residents concerns that are taken into account - but they aren't the only users of those roads. Local workers are too.

You seem to think that commuting by car is a practice to be eliminated by the council. I don't. I see the councils job as one of providing a range of viable alternatives. Just eliminating one of the options is rather easy, and a rather unimaginative effort frankly.

I do apreciate your presence on this discussion by the way - its refreshing to see someone prepareed to put themsleves in the firing line and really have s discussion. I fear we may not agree on this one however !

Did you actually read the thread, the reason for the charge and how it will be spent have both been covered already.


Just read it all. All it has done is re-enforce my views on the subject.

Seems like I'm not on my own, either, with my views on this money making scheme by SCC.

What happens (for example) if I live in one of these areas and refuse to purchase on of these "permits" (already granted in law by virtue of paying road tax, insurance, MOT test, fuel tax, council tax) and refuse to pay the extortion fee? Would I be ticketed for parking outside my home, on a public street?

If so, then I would be being held to ransom.

sccsux - park on the pavement - you are then in an area under which the council's employed traffic wardens have no jurisdiction - the coppers could do you, but they are rarer than traffic wardens round our way!!

What is already granted, a permit to park certainly isn't.
Do you refuse to pay when you find a parking meter and sign saying pay and display?

Yes, if you didn't have a permit and parked there then you'd get a ticket, fairly obvious isn't it.

Cyclone - Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as long as you have a licensed, insured, and MOTed car, you have a right to park on any area governed by the Act unless otherwise indicated.

that's right. and once the scheme is in effect it will be otherwise indicated.
nothing contradictory there.

Interestingly, the Sheffield City Council Constitution was amended in 2005 to include a phrase;

"...to advertise the intention to make Permanent Traffic Regulation Orders and, subject to no objections being received, to make those Orders."

As there have been objections received, I guess that following the letter of the law, this means that the Orders cannot be implemented!!!!

It doesn't say that if objections are received they won't make them.
It just says that if there aren't objections then the orders will be made.

It makes no statement as to what will happen if objections are received.

It makes no statement as to what will happen if objections are received.

Past experience tells us they (SCC) will ignore the protests and do whatever they wish.


As for do I refuse to pay @ pay-and-display machine?

I refuse to park there. Simple. However, they are not outside my house (and would have no use).

As I said. This is another money making scheme (probably to make up for the £7,000,000 that the council says was stolen by one person (deceased)). Yeah. Right:rolleyes:

"The Council is also committed to develop plans and strategies with partners within the next two years to address the causes and the impacts of climate change. It will also publicly declare in appropriate plans and strategies its commitment to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from Council-controlled operations, such as energy sourcing and use, <b>travel and transport</b>, waste production and disposal, and the purchasing of goods and services."

Good to see that the increase in car usage associated with the proposed scheme is being recognised </sarcasm>

Planner1,

Do the council see the users of these roads that work in the area as valid users of these roads? Phrases like "fly parking" and "being allowed to park all day for free" have been bandied around on this discussion, but I see nothing wrong in using these roads for parking. All the roads I use off cemetary road seem to have quite a good routine going. People leave those houses for work in their cars, and workers in the area come in and park. At the end of the day it all swaps around. I don't really see a problem there. Are our concerns really taken into consideration? It seems to be only the local residents concerns that are taken into account - but they aren't the only users of those roads. Local workers are too.

You seem to think that commuting by car is a practice to be eliminated by the council. I don't. I see the councils job as one of providing a range of viable alternatives. Just eliminating one of the options is rather easy, and a rather unimaginative effort frankly.

I do apreciate your presence on this discussion by the way - its refreshing to see someone prepareed to put themsleves in the firing line and really have s discussion. I fear we may not agree on this one however !

Two of the primary aims of the scheme are to remove / reduce commuter parking and give priority back to residents. You may think that it is fine to park in that residential area, but the residents don't seem to agree with you. The area bounded by Cemetery Road, Sharrow Lane and Washington Road wasn't originally in the Sharrowvale scheme. The residents were incensed and demanded that we include it, which we did. The idea of the peripheral parking zone stems from public demand.

The Council is doing all it can to promote viable alternatives. We are spending large amounts on measures to promote public transport and sustainable modes of travel. If we don't make it more difficult for them, people will still continue to use their cars because it is easy. There are alternatives available for many people. Making commuter parking more difficult may encourage some peope to examine their transport options and use other modes for at least some of their journeys

The Council is doing all it can to promote viable alternatives. We are spending large amounts on measures to promote public transport and sustainable modes of travel. If we don't make it more difficult for them, people will still continue to use their cars because it is easy. There are alternatives available for many people. Making commuter parking more difficult may encourage some peope to examine their transport options and use other modes for at least some of their journeys

Planner1, I hope this doesn't seem like I'm sniping at you, fair play for coming on here and putting your points across (possibly you are sometimes having to toe a party line as well I expect).

However your para above illustrates the current situation nicely. The council have no powers to encourage public transport. You have no control over routes, frequency or cost of busses. You are not in a position to extend the tram without central govt. funding. You can neither expand the local rail network nor encourage more services to Dore, Woodhouse or Chapeltown.

What you can do is spend large amounts of public money on bus lanes and other devices which only contribute to traffic congestion, in the hope that people get fed up and use the buses despite their expense and inconvenience.

An alternative would be accept that most people own cars, and are going to use them, and then go back to facilitating travel from A to B rather than trying to make everyone's lives as difficult as possible in the hope that people will just stay at home and watch day time TV instead of going to work or having any sort of life at all. Who made it Sheffield City Council's job to declare people's transport decisions "wrong" and spend public money making life slightly easier for large profit making companies like First or Stagecoach? When was this decided?

Currently many houses in the area have skips outside them. What does one do about applying for a permit for a skip?

If they are not to be ticketed or removed, and one was to park inside it, would you be ticketed?

technically permission is required from the council to put a skip on a public highway... so that's already covered.

I agree with a lot of Chris@25's sentiment, I still believe that the council is largely anti-car and does very little to offer an incentive to use alternatives or to improve the alternatives.
sccsux - i'd be quite careful in your wording, you've virtually called Planner1 a liar and the council probably does have the funds to take you to court for liable unlike most of the individuals who scream about it.

sccsux - i'd be quite careful in your wording, you've virtually called Planner1 a liar and the council probably does have the funds to take you to court for liable unlike most of the individuals who scream about it.

I'm not aware I'd called anyone a liar in this thread, lest not the council (though they do lie - well, council employees do - I've seen it in open court, with my own eyes).

Oh... Let them take me to court. I care not one iota (I have "contingency plans":D).

We are spending large amounts on measures to promote public transport and sustainable modes of travel.


You can promote public transport as much as you like.

If it's crap, people with cars will drive rather than use it (I'll personally never use public transport again - regardless of my personal circumstances - I'd rather walk).

If we don't make it more difficult for them, people will still continue to use their cars because it is easy. There are alternatives available for many people. Making commuter parking more difficult may encourage some peope to examine their transport options and use other modes for at least some of their journeys

At least you've confirmed my suspicions that SCC don't like car users (unless they're ferrying in some "dignatory or other"):rolleyes:

Guess which party I won't be voting for.....

Anything which helps the residents to be able to park where they live has got to be a good thing,why the hell should I or other people have to sit back and watch selfish drivers take our road space.
I fully back the council in their endevours to help those who actually live in the areas affected,sod the selfish drivers who take our space.

Anything which helps the residents to be able to park where they live has got to be a good thing,why the hell should I or other people have to sit back and watch selfish drivers take our road space.
I fully back the council in their endevours to help those who actually live in the areas affected,sod the selfish drivers who take our space.

Good point Roy, So I'm sure you'll be happy to I hear they are planning a Muslim parking only zone around London Rd / Abbeydale Rd so that local residents can get parked up near there houses and place of worship

But roy - this proposal doesn't guarantee that you iwll be able to park near where you live...

A permit does not guarantee a parking space - so you could be paying for nothing...

Happy with that idea?

I'm not aware I'd called anyone a liar in this thread, lest not the council (though they do lie - well, council employees do - I've seen it in open court, with my own eyes).

Oh... Let them take me to court. I care not one iota (I have "contingency plans":D).

that's why I said virtually.

He's said the money will be spent in one way, you have flat out contradicted him and said that you believe it will be spent in a different way. Virtually calling him a liar, although it could possibly be implying that he is just misinformed.

Good point Roy, So I'm sure you'll be happy to I hear they are planning a Muslim parking only zone around London Rd / Abbeydale Rd so that local residents can get parked up near there houses and place of worship

If Muslims live in the area they are entitled to park where they live,this has nothing to do with any religious or race issues.

But roy - this proposal doesn't guarantee that you iwll be able to park near where you live...

A permit does not guarantee a parking space - so you could be paying for nothing...

Happy with that idea?

Maybe so BUT like I said I get in touch with the council and ask them to come to my street or road and thei invariably do and issue ticketts.
Sooner or later they will all get the message that parking will cost them a decent mount of cash,that sorts the problem.:thumbsup:
I even have the phone number in my mobile so I can contact the wardens anytime,I also dont apologise fo doing it either,why the hell should I pay my money and not be able to park??

If Muslims live in the area they are entitled to park where they live,this has nothing to do with any religious or race issues.

careful Roy, people will be calling you a wooly thinking liberal if you carry on with comments like that.

But roy - anyone with a permit can park in your road...

But roy - anyone with a permit can park in your road...


It has to say Netherthorpe area,and there are only certain streets it can be used on but you do have a point,but at the end of the day I dont want people from outside my area using it for easy access to the uni or town.

planner1

Hi, once again thanks for your bottle in posting here

I live away from the proposed zones but often cycle in to visit people

One thing that annoys me is the current abuse of traffic regs and parking

On a bike its a nightmare and very dangerous

parking on corners is just scary and the circus around the nursery and dance school on Psalter Lane is just nasty - massive yellow lines abuse to put it mildly

So I have 2 questions:

1) Will there be any reasonable chance of fines being handed out, as most folk now seen happy to ignore the current restrictions

2) Do you have a hotline, either now or when the scheme is running, that I can call to get a warden on a Vespa down to issue tickets?

Honestly crossing Psalter Lane on a push bike is a nightmare, please please get more wardens to stop this antisocial madness

cheers

d

planner1


parking on corners is just scary and the circus around the nursery and dance school on Psalter Lane is just nasty - massive yellow lines abuse to put it mildly

So I have 2 questions:

1) Will there be any reasonable chance of fines being handed out, as most folk now seen happy to ignore the current restrictions

2) Do you have a hotline, either now or when the scheme is running, that I can call to get a warden on a Vespa down to issue tickets?

Honestly crossing Psalter Lane on a push bike is a nightmare, please please get more wardens to stop this antisocial madness

cheers

d

1. Yes there will be regular enforcement. A number of parking attendants will patrol the area each day. This already happens in the Broomhall Residents Parking Zone, which is patrolled by 2 attendants daily. It seems to work quite well.

2. Call Parking Services on Sheffield 2736158, if abuse of waiting restrictions is causing a problem (now or when the scheme is implemented).

Until recently I had a parking permit for Netherthorpe. Having a permit doesn't guarantee a parking place though, as a lot of the time I was forced to park illegally as there were no legal spaces left.

One part of the problem was caused by commuters' cars being parked illegally in the permit only spaces. Whenever I rang the wardens they came swiftly and ticketed the offending cars, but the same cars would park there again day after day. My neighbour and I did deter one persistent offender by parking our cars on either side of hers with less than a centimetre gap, so she couldn't drive off until she pleaded and apologised... she never parked on our street again! The permit schemes will never work until the council get powers to tow away persistent offenders' cars.

Another problem is that the warden service appear to sell an unlimited number of permits to residents in the area. If there are twice as many people with permits as there are spaces, then surely it is unfair to charge £25?

Do you think the commuters were just ignoring the tickets, or did they consider £30 or £60 a day a fair price for using their car?

The permit schemes will never work until the council get powers to tow away persistent offenders' cars

I would agree with this point,can I ask Planner if their are any plans to tow away offending cars??

Do you think the commuters were just ignoring the tickets, or did they consider £30 or £60 a day a fair price for using their car?

I once saw a driver get parking tickets in the same spot for three consecutive days before he got the message. People are aware that in most places, enforcement only happens occasionally, so they figure ethat if they get a ticket one day, they won't get another for quite a while.

The residents parking restrictions in the Peripheral Parking Zone will be consistently enforced. The Broomhall scheme has two parking attendants patrolling it daily and the restrictions sem to be quite well observed. The same will happen in all the new zones, Broomhill, Sharrow Vale and Crookesmoor. The Council's Cabinet recently agreed to adopt powers to tow away offending vehicles in certain circumstances and the arrangements are currently being put in place.

The Council's Cabinet recently agreed to adopt powers to tow away offending vehicles in certain circumstances and the arrangements are currently being put in place.

That sounds promising. Do you know in what circumstances they will be able to remove offending vehicles?

Do you think the commuters were just ignoring the tickets, or did they consider £30 or £60 a day a fair price for using their car?

One man kept on parking illegally and got tickets almost every day for weeks. Some ended up on the road, so I presume he had no intention of paying them. I spoke to a traffic warden one day, and she assured me that they do always chase up non-payers though.

One man kept on parking illegally and got tickets almost every day for weeks. Some ended up on the road, so I presume he had no intention of paying them. I spoke to a traffic warden one day, and she assured me that they do always chase up non-payers though.

We will have the ability to tow such people away. Yes, Parking Services do chase up non-payers, but there are an increasing number of vehicles around which aren't registered to anyone.

That sounds promising. Do you know in what circumstances they will be able to remove offending vehicles?

As I recall, it is where people are parked in a dangerous place or are obstructing traffic flow, or where they park in a parking bay for more than 48 hours.

Two of the primary aims of the scheme are to remove / reduce commuter parking and give priority back to residents. You may think that it is fine to park in that residential area, but the residents don't seem to agree with you. The area bounded by Cemetery Road, Sharrow Lane and Washington Road wasn't originally in the Sharrowvale scheme. The residents were incensed and demanded that we include it, which we did. The idea of the peripheral parking zone stems from public demand.

The Council is doing all it can to promote viable alternatives. We are spending large amounts on measures to promote public transport and sustainable modes of travel. If we don't make it more difficult for them, people will still continue to use their cars because it is easy. There are alternatives available for many people. Making commuter parking more difficult may encourage some peope to examine their transport options and use other modes for at least some of their journeys

The ONLY thing I have seen work is a lack of petrol. I guess we'll just move the "misery" to another group of residents.

We will have the ability to tow such people away. Yes, Parking Services do chase up non-payers, but there are an increasing number of vehicles around which aren't registered to anyone.

sounds like the best solution for all of us then...just invest in some false plates.

I just wanted to get something off my chest that happened today. Parking services have been a little over keen around our area recently and today was the final straw.

They have put a ticket on my friend's car because even though he was not parked on double yellow lines in any way, aparantly you can only park outside our house for less than two hours. I have never known this, the signs are halfway down the road and I've had a word with the traffic warden and all she told me is we need to apply for a permit.

Trouble is I've been on the website and they are £35! What do people think about this? I don't understand why we have to pay to park outside our own homes??? It would have been nice of the council to inform of this as well, as like I said, I never even knew about it.

Also the parking services van was parked on the pavement, next to double yellow lines!!! When I confronted the traffic warden about this she just shrugged it off and said "well we have to do our job". What a joke! I don't see the builders down the road being allowed to park on the pavement just because they "have to do their job". It is double standards and it makes me sick. I've written a strong email to the parking services about it (as I took a few photos on my mobile ;) ) but I really doubt they will care. But as far as I knew, the highway code states double yellow lines mean "no parking at any time" not "no parking at any time...oh except for council workers just doing their job"

:rant: :rant: :rant:

Buying a house with a garage / driveway is one thing to consider. Otherwise you are parked on the public highway and should pay a little extra. £35 isn't a lot (roughly 10p a day). Visiting friend should be able to get temporary tickets.

Interesting sideline on the present discussion with some apposite points:

"Meadowhall parking fee"

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1640577

Granma.

Ok then. I live in an area where I have to pay ~£70 a year for a parking permit to park outside my own place. Normally there is a place within 100m, but occasionally I have to park a few streets away (works out around 600m). Most of the Road is ResPark only, but there are spaces for 20 or so Pay and Display at the end of the road (also free for permit holders).

On the whole this doesn't hugely bother it being £70 as it is not a huge amount in relation to other costs for the car, and also if I ever wanted to (which I personally doubt, but some others do) my permit also covers the roads around the local shopping area.

What is included with the scheme though are hoards of parking wardens (when I say hoards, I mean hoards, they either have mopeds, or are often mini-bused in). The wardens seem to have essentially the same power as what is proposed Sheffield, and occasionally they take it to an extreme (ticketing you if you are on the white line) but mostly they only get 'offenders' and normally within 30 mins to an hour of turning up. This in itself acts as a major deter ant, but you still get at least two cars with tickets per day on a 500m road. What really makes the difference are the flat bed trucks that come along and take your car away if you don't move it (clamps are a rare sight in comparison).

You may think this is a horrid system, punishing commuters and making money of locals, but I like it. If parking were a free for all, it would be carnage. The roads are already busy enough (the parallel road has traffic 24/7, often having queues up to midnight and beyond) and there is barely enough space for the residents, but add to that thousands of people desperately trying to park in a morning would grind the whole area to a halt, and slow everybody down.

There are areas further out of the city that aren't ResPark, and the problems are evident there. People park across drives, on corners, anywhere the can, and often just to get themselves a few hundred meters closer to there objective than a reasonable parking spot. The abject Laziness and Self Obsession of your average Driver often astounds me, as has been said previously on this thread, the roads are for everyone not just commuters who feel they have a god given right to park as close as physically possible to their desk.

In response to another point made a few pages back, all car owners shouldn't have to their car if they have one. My partner and myself share a car, but neither of us use it for work, so it remains parked 4-5 days out of 7. Just because you have a car you don't have to use it. (As a point of argument, to Drive to work would take me 2 hours, whereas train + bike takes 50 mins - hour. But even if there were near equal, I still wouldn't drive)

I lived, and worked in Sheffield for many years, and I know if you are not on the tram route chances are you have a crap public transport system. Of all the "major" cities I have ever been, Sheffield has the worst public transport by far. Istanbul has a far faster and more efficient system even with its greater pothole problem. (ha) But a good chunk of delays in Sheffield are caused by non-existent enforcement. Systems like the Hillsborough Tram gate would work exceptionally well if it were enforced (and yes it does make sense, a basic flow analysis will give you that) but instead The Gate has the opposite effect, adding 20+ mins to bus journeys through Hillsborough. This is a council / police problem. The highways people cannot produce a Traffic Plan beginning:

"The most efficient way for traffic to flow through this junction is Plan A, but as South Yorkshire Police and SCC don't enforce traffic regulations, and local drivers are overtly selfish, we have to go with inferior Plan B.


Anyway, enough of a rant from me (too much getting f a bus on infirmary road, walking, and getting on the bus due 20 mins earlier past Hillsborough corner). Basically what I am saying is ResPark is good for residents, and where it is ubiquitous it isn't a problem for commuters as they are used to not parking wherever they want. Without it, the commuters are always going to try and park there as everybody else does, and the are inherently lazy.

why the hell should I or other people have to sit back and watch selfish drivers take our road space.

More to the point... Why the hell sould you have to pay for a permit? The council should give one to each household on any given street. Not profiteer at our expense (yet again)?


Otherwise you are parked on the public highway and should pay a little extra.

Why? We pay enough in taxes as it is, without a bloody parking tax (which is what this sounds like to me).


If (for example) they (the council) introduce this scheme on our road, where I live, I would have to pay extra just to park near my home? What stupidity!

More to the point... Why the hell sould you have to pay for a permit? The council should give one to each household on any given street. Not profiteer at our expense (yet again)?




Why? We pay enough in taxes as it is, without a bloody parking tax (which is what this sounds like to me).


If (for example) they (the council) introduce this scheme on our road, where I live, I would have to pay extra just to park near my home? What stupidity!

it's a new scheme, not funded by central government that is going to costs many thousands to set up and run.
Do you suggest that they just pick some cash of the money tree's I hear that they grow? Or would you like money taken out of some other service that's currently paid for?

it's a new scheme, not funded by central government that is going to costs many thousands to set up and run.?

I'd suggest they do nothing until the funds are readily available.

Or (better still) not charge people for the privilege of being able to park on the public road outside my own home.

It's fine for people who have a drive or garage, but there are a lot of old (ie well built) houses that do not have such facilities (especially in Sheffield). Why should they be penalised for not owning a semi with a drive/garage?


Do you suggest that they just pick some cash of the money tree's I hear that they grow?

Money tree?

Didn't know they had one of those. I always thought they had a cash cow (ie us motorists):(.

the scheme is at the residents request and is intended to make sure that they have space to park, not to penalise them.
So since people want the scheme, the people that it benefits get to pay for it. seems pretty fair to me.

the scheme is at the residents request and is intended to make sure that they have space to park, not to penalise them.
So since people want the scheme, the people that it benefits get to pay for it. seems pretty fair to me.

I'm a resident and I certainly didn't request this scheme. Nor do I know of anyone in my street that has requested it.

I for one don't believe that the price of the permits is justified. I think someone worked out that there would be a lot more revenue from the scheme than the costs involved in running it. In which case it has turned into another tax on the motorist. If it was around £5 to £10 per car then I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But £35 for the fist car and £75 for a second car is frankly just ridiculous.

the scheme is at the residents request and is intended to make sure that they have space to park, not to penalise them.
So since people want the scheme, the people that it benefits get to pay for it. seems pretty fair to me.

I understand the logic of the argument;).

However, if 70% of residents on a particular street ask for such a scheme to be introduced, the other 30% will be held to ransom (ie pay the charge, or loose your car if you oark outside you home).

Please don't tell me that's how it is in a democracy. These are public roads (ie ours already - already paid for):(.

they are not yours, they are shared public property.
I'm afraid that that is how a democracy has to work, for the benefits of the majority, whilst protecting the minorities.
In this case I don't think the desires of the 30% of people who'd rather not pay and are happy taking their chances with parking don't outweigh the desires of the 70% who aren't happy.

Cyclone, the scheme is at some resident's request. Others want the scheme abandoned and are willing to live with the consequences, or even more radically - leave us alone!!!


So far Planner has admitted that they have received more complaints against the scheme than for it. Therefore the democratic way forward would be to revvise the scheme and put the new one to public debate as before - instead what will happen will be that they will say (as they did in the Broomhill Scheme) that they have considered and, in their opinion, answered, the objections and will steamroller the scheme through. - for a case history on how to do this - see the city council website and the papers on the Broomhill scheme.

All those poeple who have asked for amendments to the current scheme will be ignored as any changes will mean that the consultation process will have to be restarted. (Planner - any google will see that the phrasing of the RTRA 1984 and the decriminalisation bill means that any change - positive or negative should result in a readvertisement).

Planner has already admitted that any surplus will be distributed across the rest of the city - not returned to those poeple who will have been overcharged for their parking already (c.f. postcode lottery).

Planner has said that those who benefit from a scheme which is not council policy should be expected to pay for it - I asked what about those who are inconvenienced by it - will the council reimburse us - surprisingly there was no answer.


I do not want to have to get up at 8.00 on a Saturday to move MY car from outside MY house neacuse I am not allowed a permit as my wife has one. The council says it has copied other council in this scheme, and yet in other towns you were given the first permit free of charge, and you could apply for up to 4 in total - once again the council is taking the route of L Ron Hubbard (c.f. Tony's tagline).

planner1


parking on corners is just scary and the circus around the nursery and dance school on Psalter Lane is just nasty - massive yellow lines abuse to put it mildly

So I have 2 questions:

1) Will there be any reasonable chance of fines being handed out, as most folk now seen happy to ignore the current restrictions

2) Do you have a hotline, either now or when the scheme is running, that I can call to get a warden on a Vespa down to issue tickets?


Planner has already mentioned that the council cannot do anything about parking on corners unless there are waiting restrictions in place as many offences against the highway code were not included in the decriminalisation act.

However, where there ARE waiting restrctions in place, Sheffield's traffic wardens are colour blind (e.g. the corner of Hickmott Road where the double yellow lines are, beside Nonna's). The council cannot do anything about untaxed cars (hold on, couldn't the wardens call the police? Oh no, it's not in their job description).

The council seem to be only able to try (and I stress try) to impose draconian measures on people who don't want them and then following what appears to be a sham of a consultation process, to implement them.

Any comments?

More to the point... Why the hell sould you have to pay for a permit? The council should give one to each household on any given street. Not profiteer at our expense (yet again)?

Why? We pay enough in taxes as it is, without a bloody parking tax (which is what this sounds like to me).

If (for example) they (the council) introduce this scheme on our road, where I live, I would have to pay extra just to park near my home? What stupidity!

If you'd have bought a house with a garage / driveway it would have cost you a lot more than £70 - stop moaning!

Two of the primary aims of the scheme are to remove / reduce commuter parking and give priority back to residents.

Hammer to crack a nut in my view. Why not bar non-residents' cars from parking at particular times? Other cities have parking restrictions for a short time during the day to prevent cars being left all day whilst not interfering overly with shopping and social traffic.


You may think that it is fine to park in that residential area, but the residents don't seem to agree with you. The area bounded by Cemetery Road, Sharrow Lane and Washington Road wasn't originally in the Sharrowvale scheme. The residents were incensed and demanded that we include it, which we did. The idea of the peripheral parking zone stems from public demand.

Of course they wanted inclusion, once they realised that you were forcing commuters and shoppers to park in their roads, only an idiot would want to be left out of the scheme. This doesn't mean in ANY way that they are supportive of the scheme, just that if there has to be a scheme, they want to be included.


The Council is doing all it can to promote viable alternatives. We are spending large amounts on measures to promote public transport and sustainable modes of travel. If we don't make it more difficult for them, people will still continue to use their cars because it is easy. There are alternatives available for many people. Making commuter parking more difficult may encourage some peope to examine their transport options and use other modes for at least some of their journeys


This seems to me to be very closely tied in with SCC attack on car use. But as usual there is nothing offered in return. Bus services are being cut and numbers are dwindling to the point at which they are no longer viable. Anyone who thinks the supertram has been a success needs their head examining. The only policy the council has is make it as difficult as possible to use cars and your scheme falls neatly into this policy.

P.S. Is the questionnaire that persuaded you that this scheme has popular support available with the original questions and responses?

they are not yours

Never said they were mine.


they are shared public property.

Exactly. Ours:thumbsup:

why can't they just make the football crowds only park in the park and ride areas? They can get a tram or walk to the football ground!

So just how do you force them to do that? :confused: