Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[Planner1 428]

Dare I ask can a decision on permit parking be overturned if residents were to petition against the permits? Would this be taken seriously? And I agree with the above comment the shops are dissapering fast in hillsborough but the ladies of hillsborough should be looking fab with all hairdressers and nail/beauty places! If people have to pay to park they ll just end up at asda up hill

The Councillors consider all petitions. There have never been any large petitions to remove a permit scheme, but, in areas where schemes were being consulted on, where the majority of people on particular roads asked not to be included in a scheme, the Councillors acted in accordance with those requests. So, there is ample evidence that the Councillors listen and act on local opinions.

[Penistone999 10]

The Councillors consider all petitions. There have never been any large petitions to remove a permit scheme, but, in areas where schemes were being consulted on, where the majority of people on particular roads asked not to be included in a scheme, the Councillors acted in accordance with those requests. So, there is ample evidence that the Councillors listen and act on local opinions.

 

Shame they dont adopt the same policy when it comes to public opinion on the proposed NEXT and IKEA developments. There the council adopt a policy of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting blah, blah ,blah were not listening.

[catpus 10]

Planner says:

>They asked the local people whether they wanted a scheme in the initial consultation before the scheme was introduced.<

 

WHEN AND WHERE WAS THIS INITIAL CONSULTATION, AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ATTENDED?

 

>The consultation we are discussing was a review of the operation of the scheme which was introduced, so why would they ask whether a scheme was wanted or not?<

 

I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT PRUDENT TO ASK AT THIS POINT IF THE SCHEME WAS WANTED OR NOT - TO SAVE MORE TAX PAYER'S MONEY BEING WASTED ON FURTHER CONSULTATIONS TO ENFORCE SCHEMES DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE COUNCIL, AND PAY THE BIG FAT RETIREMENT PACKAGES FOR THE BOYS.. ime the Council never ever listen to the public anyway.... Like over The Tram, Tesco on Beeley Woods, proposed housing in the derelict Loxley Valley and Ikea.

A few people with vested interests and big mouths attend these consultationseen (I have been there) and it is these people who are listened to., and it is presumed that those who can't or don't attend, are in favour of whatever the council chooses to do - which is not the case!!! More likely that people feel so ignored that they can't be bothered to attend the pre rigged meetings. imo. Either that or these consultations are held at times when most people cannot attend like tea time when they have to feed and attend to their children, or are just on their way home from work.

Edited April 25, 2013 by catpus
spelling

[Planner1 428]

Shame they dont adopt the same policy when it comes to public opinion on the proposed NEXT and IKEA developments. There the council adopt a policy of putting their fingers in their ears and shouting blah, blah ,blah were not listening.

If you knew the first thing about planning policy, on which decisions about planning applications are based, you would understand that the policy was extensively consulted on. So, the public, businesses and developers have all had ample chance to input to the development of the policies and comment on them / object to them when they were examined in public by a government planning inspector.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2013 at 00:36 ----------

 

Planner says:

>They asked the local people whether they wanted a scheme in the initial consultation before the scheme was introduced.<

 

WHEN AND WHERE WAS THIS INITIAL CONSULTATION, AND HOW MANY PEOPLE ATTENDED?

 

>The consultation we are discussing was a review of the operation of the scheme which was introduced, so why would they ask whether a scheme was wanted or not?<

 

I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT PRUDENT TO ASK AT THIS POINT IF THE SCHEME WAS WANTED OR NOT - TO SAVE MORE TAX PAYER'S MONEY BEING WASTED ON FURTHER CONSULTATIONS TO ENFORCE SCHEMES DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE COUNCIL, AND PAY THE BIG FAT RETIREMENT PACKAGES FOR THE BOYS.. ime the Council never ever listen to the public anyway.... Like over The Tram, Tesco on Beeley Woods, proposed housing in the derelict Loxley Valley and Ikea.

A few people with vested interests and big mouths attend these consultationseen (I have been there) and it is these people who are listened to., and it is presumed that those who can't or don't attend, are in favour of whatever the council chooses to do - which is not the case!!! More likely that people feel so ignored that they can't be bothered to attend the pre rigged meetings. imo. Either that or these consultations are held at times when most people cannot attend like tea time when they have to feed and attend to their children, or are just on their way home from work.

 

Consultation does not just consist of one public meeting. Every property in the area received a questionnaire. So, all local residents and businesses were directly consulted and had a chance to say whether or not they wanted a scheme.

 

In the initial consultation which was held on the scheme proposals, those areas that said they didn't want a scheme, didn't get one. So how exactly can you contend that the Council don't listen to public opinion?

 

The consultation which has just taken place was a review of the operation of the scheme now it has been in place for a while.

[Penistone999 10]

If you knew the first thing about planning policy, on which decisions about planning applications are based, you would understand that the policy was extensively consulted on. So, the public, businesses and developers have all had ample chance to input to the development of the policies and comment on them / object to them when they were examined in public by a government planning inspector.

 

.

 

But times change ,and the council has to have a flexible approach to planning. By having as policy that is set in stone and being pig headed and refusing to accommodate any planning application that dosnt meet the criteria of their policy 100% , the council are killing the city and starving it of badly needed investment and new jobs.

 

The council has never given ONE genuine reason as to why NEXT were refused planning. They just trot out pathetic excuses like their planning application didnt meet the councils criteria. Thats not a genuine reason to refuse planning, thats an excuse.

[Planner1 428]

But times change ,and the council has to have a flexible approach to planning. By having as policy that is set in stone and being pig headed and refusing to accommodate any planning application that dosnt meet the criteria of their policy 100% , the council are killing the city and starving it of badly needed investment and new jobs.

 

The council has never given ONE genuine reason as to why NEXT were refused planning. They just trot out pathetic excuses like their planning application didnt meet the councils criteria. Thats not a genuine reason to refuse planning, thats an excuse.

You clearly have zero understanding of how the planning system works. How can you reasonably criticise something when you:

• don't understand how it is developed
  
• don't understand the legal framework which applies to it
  
• don't understand why it is there
  
• don't understand how it is applied
  

 

Planning policy does change over time, but it is by it's very nature a plan to shape how things might be a number of years in the future. Developers need certainty on what they can build and where. That is what the policy is designed to give them. There are flexibilities built into the planning process. It is not cast in a tablet of stone.

 

Sheffield's planning policies have been developed in accordance with the government's legal requirements and have been tested for soundness by a planning inspector, in public. Everyone, including you, have had the chance to partake in the development of those policies.

 

The policy makers and the decision makers consider that there should not be substantial expansion of retail in the Meadowhall area. They have good, planning related reasons for this. The planning inspector has found the related policies to be sound, so they are legally in place. The developers know this very well.

 

There have to be very good planning related reasons to go against published planning policy, because the development industry closely scrutinise planning decisions and to seek out precedents.

 

Next clearly feel they have good planning related reasons to appeal against the decision to turn them down, let's see if the planning inspector agrees with them.

 

The Council give their reasons for tuning down an application in the published decision. The reasons are planning related, they have to be. The fact that you or others may not like the decision is not a planning related consideration.

[catpus 10]

You clearly have zero understanding of how the planning system works. How can you reasonably criticise something when you:

• don't understand how it is developed
  
• don't understand the legal framework which applies to it
  
• don't understand why it is there
  
• don't understand how it is applied
  

 

Planning policy does change over time, but it is by it's very nature a plan to shape how things might be a number of years in the future. Developers need certainty on what they can build and where. That is what the policy is designed to give them. There are flexibilities built into the planning process. It is not cast in a tablet of stone.

 

Sheffield's planning policies have been developed in accordance with the government's legal requirements and have been tested for soundness by a planning inspector, in public. Everyone, including you, have had the chance to partake in the development of those policies.

 

****The policy makers and the decision makers consider that there should not be substantial expansion of retail in the Meadowhall area. They have good, planning related reasons for this.***

WHY WOULD THAT BE? BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAV E TO CLOSE THE CITY CENTRE DOWN COMPLETELY? NOT THAT THEIR TRANSPORT POLICY HASN'T ALREADY SOUNDED THE DEATH KNELL.

 

The planning inspector has found the related policies to be sound, so they are legally in place. The developers know this very well.

There have to be very good planning related reasons to go against published planning policy, because the development industry closely scrutinise planning decisions and to seek out precedents.

Next clearly feel they have good planning related reasons to appeal against the decision to turn them down, let's see if the planning inspector agrees with them.

 

***The Council give their reasons for tuRning down an application in the published decision. The reasons are planning related, they have to be. The fact that YOU or others may not like the decision is not a planning related consideration.***

OF COURSE IT ISN'T.... WE ONLY PAY THEIR WAGES!!!! WHAT WE WANT DOESN'T MATTER, AS LONG AS THEIR DECISIONS CAN MAKE MONEY FOR THE COUNCIL TO SQUANDER ON PERKS FOR THE BOYS.

[max 13]

You clearly have zero understanding of how the planning system works. How can you reasonably criticise something when you:

• don't understand how it is developed
  
• don't understand the legal framework which applies to it
  
• don't understand why it is there
  
• don't understand how it is applied
  

 

Planning policy does change over time, but it is by it's very nature a plan to shape how things might be a number of years in the future. Developers need certainty on what they can build and where. That is what the policy is designed to give them. There are flexibilities built into the planning process. It is not cast in a tablet of stone.

 

Sheffield's planning policies have been developed in accordance with the government's legal requirements and have been tested for soundness by a planning inspector, in public. Everyone, including you, have had the chance to partake in the development of those policies.

 

****The policy makers and the decision makers consider that there should not be substantial expansion of retail in the Meadowhall area. They have good, planning related reasons for this.***

WHY WOULD THAT BE? BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAV E TO CLOSE THE CITY CENTRE DOWN COMPLETELY? NOT THAT THEIR TRANSPORT POLICY HASN'T ALREADY SOUNDED THE DEATH KNELL.

 

The planning inspector has found the related policies to be sound, so they are legally in place. The developers know this very well.

There have to be very good planning related reasons to go against published planning policy, because the development industry closely scrutinise planning decisions and to seek out precedents.

Next clearly feel they have good planning related reasons to appeal against the decision to turn them down, let's see if the planning inspector agrees with them.

 

***The Council give their reasons for tuRning down an application in the published decision. The reasons are planning related, they have to be. The fact that YOU or others may not like the decision is not a planning related consideration.***

OF COURSE IT ISN'T.... WE ONLY PAY THEIR WAGES!!!! WHAT WE WANT DOESN'T MATTER, AS LONG AS THEIR DECISIONS CAN MAKE MONEY FOR THE COUNCIL TO SQUANDER ON PERKS FOR THE BOYS.

 

This doesn't make any sense, how about you edit it so that people can see what you're saying and what you're quoting?

[catpus 10]

This doesn't make any sense, how about you edit it so that people can see what you're saying and what you're quoting?

 

 

**** equals - Quote?

 

AMSWER in capitals?

 

Simples?

[lukeowl1979 10]

Well, another blow to Hillsborough residents. Letter through the door yesterday saying permits to be introduced in the Parkside Road area (including Winster Road & Barkers Place) early 2014 due to a "slight majority" in favour. I know for a fact on Winster Road at least 5 houses have been empty throughout the consultation process, and a further two houses don't have cars so would not be as directly affected by any change as those car owners do. Additionally, a further three households have off road parking, and a number of house owners on the road own garages that also run along one side - so, again, would there be the motivation to respond?

 

I want to fight this, but really don't know where to start or if it's worth the time and energy it would take, having a young family to look after.

[Penistone999 10]

So yet more residents to be ripped off by this council to the tune of £36 for a permit ( although chances are it will have been increased by the time it comes into force) as the council look to raise revenue at the expense of the motorists as usual.

[lukeowl1979 10]

The times shown on the proposal are 9am to 8pm all days of the week. I'm not sure how this matches up to the rest of the Hillsborough area, though I imagine that the proximity to the football stadium allows them to catch any non-residents who use the local roads for free parking on matchdays - the times here would include all weekend fixtures & evening matches as well.