Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[BoroB 10]

Have all the shops shut? Doesn't seem so when I visit Hillsborough.

 

Many people look on a permit scheme as a good selling point for their house, so I don' think property prices are negatively affected.

 

Never seen permit scheme in any advertising literature for a house.

 

Numerous customers to my shop have commented on the scheme in Hillsborough and the only one with a positive comment was a parking warden.

 

To most people it is council interference with a money making agenda.

[Planner1 437]

House prices in the Sharrowvale area have been negatively affected by the introduction of the permit zone.

 

I have spoken to a number of Estate Agents about this and they concur.

 

I have asked the council about compensation for this and have had no response...

 

<fingers in ears> lalalalalalalal </fingers in ears>

 

The council sees these as cash-cows and once implemented, will never recind them.

Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for? In any case, as far as I am aware, there is no right of compensation for the imposition of traffic regulation orders.

 

That is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that an estate agent thought that a permit scheme reduced property value. I can't see the logic, permits are quite cheap and it helps the residents to park. Why would it reduce values? Did they say why?

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:22 ----------

 

Never seen permit scheme in any advertising literature for a house.

 

Numerous customers to my shop have commented on the scheme in Hillsborough and the only one with a positive comment was a parking warden.

 

To most people it is council interference with a money making agenda.

As I have said before, people in Hillsborough asked for a scheme. Those areas that didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

I have not heard of any significant groundswell of opinion in any of the schemes indicating that people wanted out, it seems quite the opposite from what I see on here.

[Olive 10]

Can't see that somehow. I'd never ever consider buying a house in a parking permit zone, same as I'd never ever consider buying one on a road with hundreds of speed humps like Carterknowle Road.

 

Couldn't agree more. If there is any mention of a residents' parking scheme in the estate agent details, I'd pass that house over straight away. I suspect estate agents try and use it as a positive spin, but most buyers would see right through it immediately.

[Vincero dOro 10]

Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for?

 

Did every single one of them ask for it?

[Planner1 437]

Couldn't agree more. If there is any mention of a residents' parking scheme in the estate agent details, I'd pass that house over straight away. I suspect estate agents try and use it as a positive spin, but most buyers would see right through it immediately.

Why do you view it as a disadvantage?

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:25 ----------

 

Did every single one of them ask for it?

No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it.

[BoroB 10]

Why would the Council need to compensate the residents for something that the residents themselves asked them for? In any case, as far as I am aware, there is no right of compensation for the imposition of traffic regulation orders.

 

That is the first time I have ever heard anyone say that an estate agent thought that a permit scheme reduced property value. I can't see the logic, permits are quite cheap and it helps the residents to park. Why would it reduce values? Did they say why?

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:22 ----------

 

As I have said before, people in Hillsborough asked for a scheme. Those areas that didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

I have not heard of any significant groundswell of opinion in any of the schemes indicating that people wanted out, it seems quite the opposite from what I see on here.

 

As post 1773 shows the imposition of a scheme on people who didn't want to be part of it is adversely affecting them to the extent that reluctantly they have to consider asking to become part of it.

 

As you said in a post several months ago the problem is not solved, cars are displaced elsewhere.

 

Looking at the posts on this thread over the last couple of days the majority appear to be against the scheme.

[Olive 10]

Why do you view it as a disadvantage?

 

Well, I'll use the reasoning that we used when my partner's old property was under the consultancy programme in HB, we "voted" against because:

- finding a space was only difficult after working hours, which suggested what space there was was being used by residents anyway, so permits wouldn't solve anything

- we didn't want to go through the hassle of applying and keeping up to date with permits

- we could have done without the cost

- we didn't want to have to be bothering with visitors permits every time someone popped round for a cuppa

- we suspected that if implemented it would put buyers off the property, which we were thinking of perhaps selling

 

I'm sure all these points have been raised by numerous people.

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-council, I'm not anti-planners, I don't hold a radical agenda. I'm just a resident trying to make life as easy as possible

[BoroB 10]

Why do you view it as a disadvantage?

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:25 ----------

 

No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

Correct - you can not please all people all the time.

 

However, if you put a scheme in place on one road it is obvious what the effect is going to be on the next road along that did not want to be part of the scheme.

[Litotes 63]

No, you can never please all the people all the time. But, those areas where the majority said they didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

 

What do you mean a majority?

 

Less than 50% of residents in Sharrowvale voted for the scheme and yet it was implemented.

 

Yes, you will try to wriggle out of this - but I would bet that less than 50% of residents in Hillsborough voted for the scheme.

 

Care to prove it with the figures???

 

No, I didn't think you would...

[Planner1 437]

As post 1773 shows the imposition of a scheme on people who didn't want to be part of it is adversely affecting them to the extent that reluctantly they have to consider asking to become part of it.

 

As you said in a post several months ago the problem is not solved, cars are displaced elsewhere.

 

Looking at the posts on this thread over the last couple of days the majority appear to be against the scheme.

My interpretation of post 1773 is that they are actually in the permit zone, but did not to apply for permits when the application forms came round.

 

Yes, there is a displacement effect, but it does not go on for ever, most people will not park a significant distance from their destination.

 

I believe the displacement effect has always been explained in the consultation for new schemes. I always made a particular point of it.

 

Permit schemes do not suit everyone and they are not the solution to all parking ills. People need to understand what they are getting and decide accordingly.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2012 at 19:55 ----------

 

What do you mean a majority?

 

Less than 50% of residents in Sharrowvale voted for the scheme and yet it was implemented.

 

Yes, you will try to wriggle out of this - but I would bet that less than 50% of residents in Hillsborough voted for the scheme.

 

Care to prove it with the figures???

 

No, I didn't think you would...

 

What are you on?

 

Do you think I am sitting here at home hanging on your every word with all the statistics from schemes that happened six or seven years ago here at my fingertips, just waiting for you to ask a question? Think again.

 

We've had this debate before. Your view is that if the majority of people who live there don't positively say they want something, it shouldn't happen.

 

The decision makers can only go on what people tell them. If the majority of responses are positive, that clearly will influence the decision. If people have a view, they need to make it clear to the decision makers.

[Olive 10]

Correct - you can not please all people all the time.

 

However, if you put a scheme in place on one road it is obvious what the effect is going to be on the next road along that did not want to be part of the scheme.

 

I really do wonder if most of the time the authorities would be better off not interfering at all (obviously restrictions are needed to stop people parking in stupid places, causing danger and/or obstruction). My in-laws lived in Broomhill, not far from the Hallamshire. Up until the permit scheme, parking could be tricky sometimes but they could always find a space and we could always find somewhere to park when we visited. I worked in Broomhill for most of the '90s, you could always find somewhere - yes it was busy, the hospitals and Uni saw to that, but now it's just busy further out.

 

I've been trying to find out what has changed in recent years to make parking restrictions such an integral part of our city. I found this in the Economist:

 

"Britain, another nation that measures such things obsessively, has a similar arc. Kilometres travelled per person were stable or falling through most of the 2000s. Total traffic has not increased for a decade, despite a growing population. For the past 15 years Britons have been making fewer journeys; they now go out in cars only slightly more often than in the 1970s".

 

I'd like to know if there's more info available for numbers of cars used in Sheffield though.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Olive

[BoroB 10]

My interpretation of post 1773 is that they are actually in the permit zone, but did not to apply for permits when the application forms came round.

 

Yes, there is a displacement effect, but it does not go on for ever, most people will not park a significant distance from their destination.

 

I believe the displacement effect has always been explained in the consultation for new schemes. I always made a particular point of it.

 

Permit schemes do not suit everyone and they are not the solution to all parking ills. People need to understand what they are getting and decide accordingly.

 

Post 1773 appears to be from someone on a road such as Oakdale where the houses between Holme Lane and Taplin Road are included in the scheme whilst those on the other side of Taplin Road are not in the scheme.

 

As the postee says 'The scheme then went ahead, the residents at the end of the road have permits and the rest of us don't.'

 

This person and several neighbours did not want to be part of the scheme but are now being adversely affected by it.

 

I agree that permit schemes do not suit everyone and they are not the solution to all parking ills.

 

In my opinion the council should have considered what the impact displacement woul have on roads outside the scheme - people will not pay to park on one street when the next road along has free parking.

 

The scheme in Hillsborough has not solved anything - there are winners and losers. The only thing that has changed in 10 months is the level of fees collected by the council.