Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Planner1

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Occupation
    Transport Planner

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. SCR wouldn't be able to build tram extensions without government funding, even in the devolved funding scenario that comes with having a mayor. The control they have in London is about franchising of routes and having a unified fares structure and one brand. That is now possible outside London in regions with a mayor, but no-one has done it so far. There are good reasons for that, as have been debated in other threads.
  2. The planning system is heavily weighted in favour of the developer. That's the way the government want it and they've set up a planning system which reflects that. Developers know very well how to manipulate the system and what they can and can't get away with. Councils have limited resources and have to pick their fights carefully. They also have to think whether, if they want to impose too onerous conditions, the developer will just walk away and build somewhere else. That's a real problem for areas which struggle to attract development. Developers are of course well aware of this and use it to their advantage.
  3. How are they going to raise revenue from that section of bus lane? It isn't enforced. You can see which ones are enforced on this map. The enforced locations are red. Even at camera enforced locations, they never issue penalties for cutting the last few metres of a bus lane. That's because they know that if any such penalty was appealed to the independent adjudicator, the penalty would be overturned, so they don't issue them in the first place. All of the Council's bus lane / gate cameras are at locations where bus operators have raised concerns about delays to their services due to abuse of the bus lanes / gates and the Council have carried out surveys and confirmed that abuse is taking place. The uses to which surplus income from bus lane enforcement can be put are very restricted by law, so it isn't something they could do just to increase their overall budget.
  4. You're talking a load of twaddle. I told you earlier in the thread that the your contravention was a banned turn, which SCC can't enforce and there are no bus lane cameras at that location. I provided a link to the Council website showing where the enforced areas actually are. SCC do not have any operated / "manned" cameras. The few operated ones that were left were replaced with automatic ones a couple of years ago. All their enforcement cameras for bus lanes and gates are automatic.
  5. If you pay using the online / app system, your number plate essentially becomes a Ticket or Permit as that’s what they scan to check whether you have a valid, paid for session. Its probably worth putting in a challenge to the penalty explaining your error. It costs nothing ( and you can still pay the reduced amount if unsuccessful) and they may let you off. They sometimes do that on the first occasion when someone claims they made an error. Worth a try ( do it even if you have paid the PCN, they sometimes refund if there’s a genuine case)
  6. The point was that you don’t need to “wonder” whether it’s enforced, you can easily check. As Annie correctly points out, what you are referring to is in fact a fairly long bus lane, which, as per normal bus lane design, has gaps in it at junctions, so drivers turning in or out of the junction aren’t contravening the restriction.
  7. Why would you need to wonder? The locations of all the bus lane / gate cameras are published and have been for years. See this page: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/travel-transport/bus-lanes-gates Enforced ones are in red.
  8. So why did you feel it necessary to give the cyclist more space? Were they on your side of the road, or uncomfortably close for some reason? Did the recorded video clip show this? The way the legal orders work for bus lanes is the contravention is being in it. So unless you can prove you went into it for a reason they would accept, like to avoid a collision, or the road was blocked and you had to go in the bus lane, you’ve contravened the restriction and can expect a penalty. This way, motorists should know the parameters and there are very few “grey areas”. A video clip of the contravention is recorded, so the motorist can see what the council is basing their decision on. The technology isn’t perfect and sometimes doesn’t show the incident fully, so all the council officer sees, is the motorist in the bus lane and only has the motorists word to say why they were in there. Quite rightly, that isn’t enough for them to cancel the penalty. The adjudicators tend to want to err on the side of “fairness“, despite the fact that all they should be deciding is whether or not there was a contravention and has due process been followed. It’s on occasions like that, when they can see that strictly a contravention occurred, but they feel some sympathy for the motorist, they offer the council the “opportunity” to cancel the penalty or reduce it back to the original amount. Councils tend to try to have a consistent approach on this ( there can be different people who attend the tribunal for the council, so it is best to have a corporate line on it) so they normally decline. Although there are odd occasions when someone’s ticket is upheld in circumstances the driver might feel are unjust, you have to balance that against the fact that many people will do absolutely anything to get off with a penalty, so having a convincing sounding story can’t be enough to get you off. There has to be hard evidence. Bus lanes are also legitimately used by cyclists and motorcyclists, so having motorists suddenly move into the bus lane for no good reason can be unsafe for them. It isn’t just about not impeding a bus or seeking advantage.
  9. You’d clearly contravened the restriction, or the tribunal would have found in your favour. In such circumstances why should the Council reduce the amount payable. You know very well that when you go to tribunal, if you lose, you pay the full amount. You had the chance to pay at the lower level, but decided to appeal. The council have to put in quite a bit of additional officer time into tribunal cases. Preparing the evidence pack and attending the meeting. So, their costs are higher because you appealed to tribunal, so, again why would they accept the lower fee.
  10. Installing camera enforcement just to raise money is not lawful. All SCC’s Bus lane enforcement cameras are at sites with demonstrable contravention issues. There are surveys carried out to establish contravention levels before a camera is installed.
  11. A bus lane or bus gate contravention is different to the other ones I mentioned and the council can and does enforce them with cameras. The camera enforced ones are shown on this map. The enforced ones are in red. Church St is not camera enforced. Councils across the country have been asking for the powers to camera enforce banned turns/no entries and box junctions, like they have had in London for many years. The government has always refused until very recently, in the announcements on measures to improve active travel, they said they would be rolling those powers out to the rest of the country.
  12. I do hope you haven't paid for these "opinions" Anyone who knew something about the subject would have told you that moving traffic offences like disobeying a banned turn or a no entry are only enforceable by camera in London at the moment. So, if you weren't actually stopped by the police and given a ticket, you got away with it.
  13. I’m at a loss to understand how you can conclude that there has been any incompetence or failures. You clearly don’t like the scheme, but the person who made the decisions disagrees with you. That doesn’t mean they or anyone else are incompetent or that they have failed.
  14. It has already been discussed at length on here that the government funding stream required the council to identify what schemes they wanted to do and implement them within a very few weeks, which left no time for the consultation which they would normally have done for a scheme of this nature. No council has the resources for the level of public discussion you suggest at individual scheme level. Theres public consultation on the policies and there is normally appropriate consultation at scheme level. It is not normal practice anywhere that I’m aware of to have a post scheme public debate on every single scheme. It would require an enormous amount of resource and money.
  15. How do you think I know the details of exactly how it played out? I don’t work for them, I’m not directly involved in any of this. The Cabinet Member will certainly have discussed it at some level with officers, who will have advised him accordingly. As I’ve already mentioned, if the Cabinet Member is dissatisfied with the quality of advice received, he has recourse through the council’s processes. You might not like the scheme and think it a foolish waste of money, but that does not In itself mean that any officer of the council has done anything wrong in terms of disciplinary or competency matters. Putting in segregated cycle lanes is certainly something that fits within the remit of the funding stream. Road space reallocation is certainly something that is within the scope of adopted policy. The likely outcomes of this particular project were forecast and the forecasts were correct as far as I can see. The decision maker approved it to go ahead. I can see no disciplinary or competency issues at all from the information I have. Your issue is with the decision maker, who is a politician.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.