Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[metalman]

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.

[Dick]

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.

[gumshoe]

Thank you to Sheffield Forum for allowing this thread to be re-instated, and thank you to all the members who have summarised the main points from the previous thread. Hopefully the old thread will reappear as a resource for people facing these schemes in future.

 

Onward and upward...or rather backwards. For the last 3 days Kirkstall Road has been jammed solid all day and all night. People park on the double yellow lines, on the school zigzags, and in the middle of the road ("loading" school children), and the only way to get the Parking Attendants to do anything about this is to telephone them (apart from last Saturday when tickets were issued to those on the lines - for which I extend my thanks to Parking Services).

 

The problem really is that we are currently in some kind of parking limbo. Most residents still haven't received permits, so who's to say who can park and who can't. The scheme start date has been put back, again, to October 22, and the commuters know this. Although the school agreed to restrict teachers parking in this road to 2 cars this hasn't happened, many teachers are parking here and NONE carry "heavy loads": How can restricting teachers be policed anyway, or even be fair, now that they've been issued permits (before the residents)?

 

The residents here were in favour of the scheme because we were told it would make life better but it has made it worse, for all concerned. Instead of the stress free, cleaner environment promised we are spending half our time trying to park, and the other half either complaining to the council or reporting parking infringements. The number of people pulling in to our road to see if there is a space free has incresaed noticeably. And the council, instead of taking time to consult and consider our views properly and informing us of the experiences in the previous schemes, are now spending time and money fending off complaints.

 

Surely it's easier to do a good job in the first place? To expand on jezzyjj's comments above. Two other schemes were implemented before ours. Did the planners learn nothing from them? Of course not. Instead of using that knowledge they start from scratch again, presumably to see how much they can get away with.

 

We don't need a review in 6 months, we need it now!

[The Chavs]

The problem really is that we are currently in some kind of parking limbo. Most residents still haven't received permits, so who's to say who can park and who can't. The scheme start date has been put back, again, to October 22, and the commuters know this.

 

Yes, the commuters do know this. On the first day it was "supposed" to come in then all the bays were empty outside work. Since then an email has been sent around the office letting everyone know that you will only get a warning if you dont pay and hey presto, the next day all the cars were back.

 

These people havent stopped driving to work - they are just going to find alternatives when it comes in again.

 

Gumshoe, if you are finding a problem now I would say this is only going to get worse when it is enforced. Office staff can currently get near their place of work - - very soon all these cars will be coming to the back streets blocking up residents roads.

[Planner1]

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.

 

Would you like to explain to me how hand delivering a consultation letter to every single address in the area, PLUS notices on street PLUS notices in the newspaper, doesn't constitute "proper" consultation.

 

This is a standard method of consultation followed by most councils in the country as far as I'm aware.

 

Proper consultation gives people the facts about the proposals, allows them sufficient time to consider them and the opportunity to ask questions and make their comments and objections. The Councils method does all of this, fronting people up on their doorstep does not.

 

All comments received are reported to Councillors on the Area Planning and Highways Board, who make the final decision.

 

People also have the opportunity to attend the Area Planning Board which is receiving the report on the consultation outcomes. Members of hte public can speak at these Board meetings.

 

How is any of this casual, or superficial?

 

What Fletvictus is forgetting is that his property ends at the back of the footway. The roads and footways are the responsibility of the Highway Authority (Sheffield Council in this case), and are dedicated as public highways. The Highway Authority can introduce changes as long as they observe the legal process. The legal process usually involves placing one notice in a local paper and having the details available for inspection. There is no requirement to write letters to affected people or place on-street notices.

 

The Council take consultation seriously, they do far more than the legal minimum requirement and they do act on people's views.

 

The Sharrow Vale scheme has been under discussion with local people for a couple of years, there have been many articles in the local press and other media and Council officers have attended a good number of meetings with local groups and fora. If the people on Everton Road choose not to either read or respond to notices from the Council which are posted through their letterboxes, is it the Council's fault?

[garrence]

The Kirkstall Road problem is exasperated by some new double-yellow lines on top of the existing school lines that wrap around the corner with Cowlishaw Road. There is space for 2 and a half family saloon cars on each side, meaning that two cars can park on each side and still leave room to safely cross the road at the end.

 

The old situation with yellow zig zags only was working well. The zig zags are actually advisory only but were respected with people not parking on them during school in/out times. The few that did forget and leave their cars there during those times on occasion (this is not a regular problem) were often given tickets by police.

 

Some school parents did use them to wait for their kiddies - the numbers varying according to how stroppy the school had been with them, and the numbers have been low for the last couple of years as the school has instigated a "park and stride" up to Psalter Lane.

 

The double yellow lines prevent people parking on the zig zags (which was barely a problem) but there is no loading restriction so it is still fine to sit in the car and wait for kids.

 

On saturday morning there was one car parked each side, leaving 1.5 car lengths before the junction at the end of this quiet cul-de-sac and causing no obstruction. Both had been slapped with Penalty Charge Notices.

 

So rather than the previous situation of having 4 parking spaces that generally worked safely and well, we now have one where these spaces are reserved for loading only. Park there, cause nobody any problem, and receive a fine from some odious little Hitler.

 

I expect the police like it because they needn't bother coming round once in a blue moon to ticket people parked there. I expect the planners like it because it all looks orderly with lots of yellow paint and people can't park there to avoid paying their 20p per hour.

 

It seems to me that the on-the-ground situation has been made worse for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.

[richard]

I wrote a letter against the scheme pointing out that on Salmon street and the surrounding streets of Sharrow Street and Club Garden Road there wasn't a problem Monday - Friday so there was no need for the scheme on these roads.

 

I also pointed out that the only time there was a problem was on Saturdays when the Blades are playing at home. I later found out that the scheme was changed to run from Monday-Saturday as opposed to the original Monday-Friday. So apologies if my letter was responsible for this.

 

It was not the intended consequence.

 

I got a "We will consider your letter" response from the Council.

[Planner1]

The Kirkstall Road problem is exasperated by some new double-yellow lines on top of the existing school lines that wrap around the corner with Cowlishaw Road. There is space for 2 and a half family saloon cars on each side, meaning that two cars can park on each side and still leave room to safely cross the road at the end.

 

The old situation with yellow zig zags only was working well. The zig zags are actually advisory only but were respected with people not parking on them during school in/out times. The few that did forget and leave their cars there during those times on occasion (this is not a regular problem) were often given tickets by police.

 

Some school parents did use them to wait for their kiddies - the numbers varying according to how stroppy the school had been with them, and the numbers have been low for the last couple of years as the school has instigated a "park and stride" up to Psalter Lane.

 

The double yellow lines prevent people parking on the zig zags (which was barely a problem) but there is no loading restriction so it is still fine to sit in the car and wait for kids.

 

On saturday morning there was one car parked each side, leaving 1.5 car lengths before the junction at the end of this quiet cul-de-sac and causing no obstruction. Both had been slapped with Penalty Charge Notices.

 

So rather than the previous situation of having 4 parking spaces that generally worked safely and well, we now have one where these spaces are reserved for loading only. Park there, cause nobody any problem, and receive a fine from some odious little Hitler.

 

I expect the police like it because they needn't bother coming round once in a blue moon to ticket people parked there. I expect the planners like it because it all looks orderly with lots of yellow paint and people can't park there to avoid paying their 20p per hour.

 

It seems to me that the on-the-ground situation has been made worse for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.

 

The Police are less and less interested in enforcing parking restrictions of any kind. They expect the Council to deal with it. The waiting restrictions are necessary so that the Council's parking attendants can enforce. They can't enforce on zig-zag lines alone.

 

No, it isn't alright for people to sit on double yellows waiting for their kids to arrive. These restrictions allow the picking up and setting down of passengers, not waiting for them.

[garrence]

The waiting restrictions are necessary so that the Council's parking attendants can enforce. They can't enforce on zig-zag lines alone.

 

No, it isn't alright for people to sit on double yellows waiting for their kids to arrive. These restrictions allow the picking up and setting down of passengers, not waiting for them.

 

I thought this was the case, thanks for the confirmation.

 

In reality, parents can wait for their kids. They will simply ask the parents to move rather than stand there and write tickets. Council wardens cannot give a vehicle a ticket if it has driven off before they have written it (unlike real traffic wardens).

 

Maybe the council wardens will regularly patrol the area at school in/out time and find the lines useful in doing so.

 

My gripe is at the ticketing of two harmlessly parked cars early on a saturday morning. I can see no sensible reason for doing so. I think the wardens just acted like unthinking robotic revenue generation machines in this case, and that is offensive.

 

The counter argument is that with all the shiny new bays that local workers would use those spaces as their own. This would easily be solved by the wardens engaging their brains and only ticketing vehicles that are parked there for many days, not some poor sods who couldn't get parked legally on Kirstall Road (now with 8 fewer spaces than last month) so parked harmlessly but illegally under the new doctrine.

[Fougasse]

Forgive me, but I'm new to this thread and this may have been said before.

 

But why don't you all place the blame where it really lies?

 

At the government/councils door.

 

Cars are used - more and more - because public transport is so dire/unsafe/expensive. That's not the fault of car drivers (and I'm not a car driver) but the fault of the authorities.

 

I could change my use of a car, but I can't change my use of public transport if it doesn't meet my needs.

 

This argument will constantly go round in a circle until the blame is placed where it should be.