Jump to content

Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

Recommended Posts

Due to a request to remove details from the previous Sharrowvale Parking thread, the entire topic was removed from the forum. We apologise for the inconvience and would like to invite previous participants to use this thread for further discussion.

 

We do NOT monitor the content of every post on the forum (we receive several thousand per day) so if you spot something that you feel may break the site's terms of use, then please contact us immediately to prevent the actions of a few impacting on the many.

 

Please stick to the topic, avoid bringing in names or making accusations and if you find yourself thinking 'I hope this won't cause too much trouble' then it's probably best not to post it!

 

* Post made via forum software as some users seem intent on abusing the volunteer staff who have helped make SF one of the largest, if not the largest, local communities forums in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news

 

I was worroed about why it was pulled

 

OK my grouses are still the same:

 

1) The scheme has just dumped heaps of commuter cars onto my street so now no-one who lives here can park remotely near their houses

 

2) The scheme was instituted to cut commuter parking in town. This has just not happened as they have moved a few yards to where the scheme stops and dumped their cars here - I admit this is my road so I have an interest.

 

The annoying thing is there are no plans for a Nether Edge scheme so as far as I can see this plan has just made a lot of aggro for those in Sharrow who dont want it, has dumped lots of cars onto S7 and S11 and still the commuters clog up are roads in rush hour and park them where the council dont want them to

 

Deepak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped reading the last thread a few days before it was deleted. I did learn several things from it. The planner responsible (Planner1 on here) was good enough to contribute many replies to it and they gave an enlightening insight into the workings of the council process - although perhaps not always in the way intended.

 

Here's what I learnt:

 

  • The primary aim of the scheme was to reduce commuter parking. My opinion is that it will be successful. Yes it will move commuters to the streets outside the zone, but out beyond the Hunters Bar roundabout bottleneck.
  • When people complained on here that a majority of people on their street don't want the scheme, Planner1 replied that they should have said so during the consultation exercises and that under 3% of people objected. He argued that the remainder (97%) could be deemed to approve.
  • The 3% figure is not all it seems. None of the signatures on the 9 petitions are counted in that figure and they appear to have been entirely ignored other than a brief "9 petitions against the scheme were received" in the report. Planner1 explained that he had no idea how many signatures were on the petitions and indicated that he considers petitions to be fairly worthless.
  • The latest consultation was conducted in July at a time when many student houses are empty, comprising perhaps half of the houses on some streets. These empty houses are deemed to be in approval.
  • The latest consultation was actually an exercise in planning the details, not for deciding whether the scheme should go ahead (there was an earlier consultation in 2001 for that). Many adjustments were made to the proposed bays and lines in light of feedback received; the Hunters Bar and Sandbeck Place were removed from the scheme (both are at the periphery of the zone).
  • Residents around Kirkstall Rd are annoyed that the schools have received some 48 "free" parking permits to allow staff to park in residents bays. They point out that they would have argued against the scheme had they been informed that the "residents bays" would be used by more non residents than there are residents, and they therefore feel aggrieved.
  • A large majority residents of Everton Road do not want the scheme. It was argued that they should have said so and that some had requested to be in the scheme. It is possible that one of the disregarded petitions related to them. Hopefully they'll get satisfaction from the review in 6 months time.

 

For me, the burning question is: What was the wording of the 9 petitions and how many signatures did they contain?

 

The fact that this question isn't answered by the "consultation" document and the planner has no idea speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Due to a request to remove details from the previous Sharrowvale Parking thread, the entire topic was removed from the forum.

 

Such a shame - 1,400 posts on the topic going back over 2 years. All deleted to remove some details. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stopped reading the last thread a few days before it was deleted. I did learn several things from it. The planner responsible (Planner1 on here) was good enough to contribute many replies to it and they gave an enlightening insight into the workings of a council official's mind - although perhaps not always in the way intended.

 

Here's what I learnt:

 

  • The primary aim of the scheme was to reduce commuter parking. My opinion is that it will be successful. Yes it will move commuters to the streets outside the zone, but they are a little further out and the other side of the Hunters Bar roundabout bottleneck.
  • When people complained on here that a majority of people on their street don't want the scheme, Planner1 replied that they should have said so during the consultation exercises and that under 3% of people objected. He explained that the remainder (97%) were deemed to approve.
  • The 3% figure is not all it seems. None of the signatures on the 9 petitions are counted in that figure and they appear to have been entirely ignored other than a brief "9 petitions against the scheme were received" in the report. Planner1 explained that he had no idea how many signatures were on the petitions and indicated that he considers petitions to be fairly worthless.
  • The latest consultation was conducted in July at a time when many student houses are empty, comprising perhaps half of the houses on some streets. These empty houses have been deemed to be in approval of the scheme.
  • The latest consultation was actually an exercise in planning the details of the scheme, not deciding whether the scheme should go ahead (there was an earlier consultation in 2001 for that). The council did make many adjustments to the propsed bays and lines in light of feedback received.
  • Residents around Kirkstall Rd / Cowlishaw Rd are annoyed that the schools have received some 48 "free" parking permits to allow staff to park in residents bays. They point out that they would have argued against the scheme had they been informed that the "residents bays" would be used by more non residents than there are residents, and they therefore feel aggrieved.
  • A large majority residents of Everton Road do not want the scheme. It was argued that they should have said so. It is possible that one of the disregarded petitions related to them.

 

For me, the burning question is: What was the wording of the 9 petitions and how many signatures did they contain?

 

The fact that this question isn't answered by the "consultation" document and the planner has no idea speaks volumes.

 

A very well constructed post, you make some interesting points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the burning question is: What was the wording of the 9 petitions and how many signatures did they contain?

 

The fact that this question isn't answered by the "consultation" document and the planner has no idea speaks volumes.

 

One thing you seem not to be aware of is that I WAS the planner responsible for residents parking schemes, BUT, I left the Council in September 06. That's why I don't have detail on what was in the petitions. The report on the outcome of consultation in Sharrow Vale was discussed by Councillors in December 06, well after I'd left.

 

I will try to find out the details you request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A large majority residents of Everton Road do not want the scheme. It was argued that they should have said so. It is possible that one of the disregarded petitions related to them.

 

It was suggested by the planner on behalf of the council that people on Everton Rd could be deemed to have been in favour of the plan because (allegedly) some of them had asked for their area to be included in the scheme, and very few had responded negatively to the council's "consultation" on the issue. Planner's argument is that if people don't notice odd bits of paper pinned up on side streets, notices in rarely read local papers or discussions on rarely listened to local radio stations, then they count as in favour of whatever scheme is about to be foisted on them. Most residents of Everton Road who signed the petition indicated to me that they had not heard of the scheme until the notice announcing its implementation dropped through their door during the summer holidays.

 

The wording of our petition was:

 

"We, the undersigned, being residents of Everton Rd, Sheffield, require that all concerned take note of our strong opposition to the inclusion of our road in the proposed “Sharrow Vale Permit Parking Scheme” (hereafter, “the Scheme”).

 

We know that there is not a problem with parking on Everton Rd during daylight hours (when the Scheme will apply). We recognise that it is possible there may be some spillover from newly restricted areas once the Scheme is introduced elsewhere, and we prefer to take our chances with this.

 

We request that Sheffield City Council remove Everton Rd from the Scheme, as we are aware they have already done for Hunter House Rd and the adjacent streets."

 

Out of 51 houses on the road, we have responses from occupiers of 28. 26 of those have signed the petition (or, in one case, promised to sign). One indicated that he didn't support the scheme itself in particular, but he hates cars and won't oppose anything that makes them harder to own (though his wife's car is parked outside the house). Another has indicated that he doesn't think this particular scheme is ideal, but he couldn't support the petition because he thought if Everton Rd were to be outside the scheme while other nearby roads were in it, then we would get buried in student cars from the surrounding streets.

 

That is the response now from a road the council's "consultation" showed (by their interpretations) as overwhelmingly supporting the scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planner claims that it wasn't worth spending more of his budget on consulting people properly, because the lackadaisical methods used in this case "meet national standards".

 

In my personal opinion, that merely shows that government generally likes a situation where opposition can be minimised in order to make it easier to get things done.

 

It is one thing to use such casual and superficial methods of canvassing views on a proposed change when it relates to issues that are largely communal, such as speed limits on the Parkway, or changes to regulations in commercial areas.

 

However, when you interfere with people's quality of life in their own homes, as you do when you introduce parking regulations on residential side streets where the properties don't have off road parking, higher standards - both of consultation and of support - should be required. How much would it have cost to send a team of students door to door? A small fraction of the streetworks budget required to implement this misbegotten scheme.

 

The real cost, as far as the planners are concerned, is that properly informed people would have realised that the scheme offers them nothing except more bureaucracy and tax in order to further the council's goal of acquiring greater control over people's lives, and they would not have supported the scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm disappointed with the implementation of Pay and Display parking on my road.

 

When I agreed to the scheme, I 'assumed' it was to increase the number of spaces available to residents (very high proportion of residential properties, no shops!).

 

I now find it impossible to park after 6.30pm (when most residents are at home) due to people parking up for restaurants/church/pubs etc.

 

It's a shame, I really thought this would be a good idea but it's turned into a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stopped reading the last thread a few days before it was deleted. I did learn several things from it. The planner responsible (Planner1 on here) was good enough to contribute many replies to it and they gave an enlightening insight into the workings of the council process - although perhaps not always in the way intended.

 

Here's what I learnt:

 

The primary aim of the scheme was to reduce commuter parking.

And the residents were led to believe we would be better off as a result and it was in our interest to OK the scheme.

Not the case. At all.

Planner1 is good in that he takes part on here but is very disingenuous in what he posts at times.

 

If when we were asked in the consultation, that did we want no commuter parking, parking restricted to one car per household, and no parking by anyone without a permit until 6.30pm [thus meaning those whose car is away during day, say 7am-6pm as my girlfriend's car is, now cannot park outside house when she gets home] and less parking in the street overall? Which is what we got. I reckon they would have had a near 100% response of No Thank You and a lot of other much ruder responses.

 

We didn't have a parking problem until this ill thought out scheme was introduced. And all along Planner1 insisted these parking schemes [sharrowvale/Broomhill] were for the resident's benefit.

Planner1 would make a great politician. And that's not a compliment.

 

If you actually want to reduce commuter parking/commuter traffic, make it more attractive to commuters to not drive. Implement a good public transport system, have school buses....

You are using the hitting people with sticks method of encouragement. It doesn't work, it simply annoys people. Use a carrot to change behaviour and you'll get a much better response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such a shame - 1,400 posts on the topic going back over 2 years. All deleted to remove some details. :(

 

It is indeed - why couldn't we have the original one back with the offending bits pruned out? Hardly seems worth writing it all out again on the grounds that a) it will make no difference whatsoever because the council will just do whatever they want anyway and b) it might vanish again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd read most of the previous thread as it went along and it's hard to think of any offensive posts. Plenty were critical of the council, but , hey, we're supposed to be in a democracy.

And I really valued Planner 1's contributions.

He's the only one from the council prepared to spend time trying to explain the thinking behind and implementation of the scheme.

It also highlights a problem with local democracy.

We are told that ultimate decisions are made by the councillors and they can always be voted out at the next election.

But of course there are only 3 councillors representing this area out of a total council of about 86 and voters in other parts of the city aren't much bothered about parking in Sharrowvale.

Democracy in this case would only be effective if councillors for Sharrowvale and Hunters Bar were the only ones to decide on it.

If I remember right there has also been a thread before the one that's just been deleted, and that also mysteriously vanished.

I would advise interested parties to keep saving pages of this one on their computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.