Ice cream vans article star

[RosyRat 10]

None of this is is new. Traders may say that the stipulation over vehicles over 5 years old is in "the small print" but I found it easily enough and it's not in small print :

 

"Motorised vehicles should not be of an age of 5 years or over."

 

And no, it doesn't just apply to ice cream vans but all vehicles used by street traders. Link here :

 

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/business-economy/licensing/general-licensing/retail/street-trading/mobile-other.html Click on citywide street trading criteria.

 

You'll notice that the regulations date from 2011.

[linda1 10]

how on earth can this council come up with these stupid ideas do they have any idea how much an ice cream van would cost 5 yrs is not that old the emitions that come out of the gobs of these councilors causes more damage than a f////g ice cream van

[RosyRat 10]

how on earth can this council come up with these stupid ideas do they have any idea how much an ice cream van would cost 5 yrs is not that old the emitions that come out of the gobs of these councilors causes more damage than a f////g ice cream van

 

Linda

At least 3 times on this thread it's been pointed out that this is not a Council decision, but an EU directive which has been made into a national requirement by the government. If Sheffield City Council defied the government and refused to implement the regulations, they would be in deep bother.

Please don't be so quick to leap in and have a go - at least check out the links which give you the actual story.

[sreido 10]

So let's stick to the facts then.

 

The EU require the vehicles to meet an emissions standard.

 

Other Councils have been implementing this requirement.

 

SCC are placing an arbitrary 5-year age limit, regardless of whether they meet the emissions standard or not.

 

Is that fair? or even sensible?

 

 

wot about all the black cabs that are driving about more than 5 rs old,

[Shef_Fitness 10]

Linda

At least 3 times on this thread it's been pointed out that this is not a Council decision, but an EU directive which has been made into a national requirement by the government. If Sheffield City Council defied the government and refused to implement the regulations, they would be in deep bother.

Please don't be so quick to leap in and have a go - at least check out the links which give you the actual story.

 

 

 

Its scary stuff.

 

Unless you have lots of money.

 

Its getting to the point where the only growth industry in Europe, is in stopping businesses grow and develop

Edited April 20, 2013 by Shef_Fitness

[go4it 10]

None of this is is new. Traders may say that the stipulation over vehicles over 5 years old is in "the small print" but I found it easily enough and it's not in small print :

 

"Motorised vehicles should not be of an age of 5 years or over."

 

And no, it doesn't just apply to ice cream vans but all vehicles used by street traders. Link here :

 

http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/business-economy/licensing/general-licensing/retail/street-trading/mobile-other.html Click on citywide street trading criteria.

 

You'll notice that the regulations date from 2011.

 

Yet the green school buses, that are at least 20 years old, are allowed on the road and transport children.

 

Why should it be restricted to just traders?

[Brom Pete 10]

This is a stupid idea. Old buses puff out smoke and still run ok and this carbon foot print is rubbish. Its like just rubbish the council have nothing better to do thans stick there noses into a old ice cream van rubbish.

[RosyRat 10]

This is a stupid idea. Old buses puff out smoke and still run ok and this carbon foot print is rubbish. Its like just rubbish the council have nothing better to do thans stick there noses into a old ice cream van rubbish.

What bit of "not a Council directive" don't you understand? It's as if no-one's ever posted before on this thread. O.K. let's do it again :

 

This is nothing to do with the Labour Council and everything to do with the government choosing to extend the EU ruling on carbon emissions to all Local authorities. I've quoted 2 newspaper sources giving the facts and you choose to ignore them. Let's try again shall we?

 

The vans are among hundreds of thousands that will attract hefty fines if they do not meet strict new particle emission limits from January 3.

 

The law currently applies to London boroughs, but the Environment Department is looking at introducing low emission zones in other cities.

[Brom Pete 10]

What bit of "not a Council directive" don't you understand? It's as if no-one's ever posted before on this thread. O.K. let's do it again :

 

This is nothing to do with the Labour Council and everything to do with the government choosing to extend the EU ruling on carbon emissions to all Local authorities. I've quoted 2 newspaper sources giving the facts and you choose to ignore them. Let's try again shall we?

 

The vans are among hundreds of thousands that will attract hefty fines if they do not meet strict new particle emission limits from January 3.

 

The law currently applies to London boroughs, but the Environment Department is looking at introducing low emission zones in other cities.

 

Carbon footprints when china biuild anoswers smoke faotorys u mus be joking.

[go4it 10]

What bit of "not a Council directive" don't you understand? It's as if no-one's ever posted before on this thread. O.K. let's do it again :

 

This is nothing to do with the Labour Council and everything to do with the government choosing to extend the EU ruling on carbon emissions to all Local authorities. I've quoted 2 newspaper sources giving the facts and you choose to ignore them. Let's try again shall we?

 

The vans are among hundreds of thousands that will attract hefty fines if they do not meet strict new particle emission limits from January 3.

 

The law currently applies to London boroughs, but the Environment Department is looking at introducing low emission zones in other cities.

 

 

It has everything to do with the Labour Council.

 

The EU ruling does not stipulate that the vans have to be less than 5 years old. This is a SCC ruling. In London the vans have the option of adding a filter on, to come under the rules.

 

The Labour Council should be trying to find a way to make this work. They should be trying to find a way to help IKEA build on disused land, and should be writing an apology letter to the CEO of Next to say 'please bring your jobs to our city'.

 

Sheffield - closed to business. Run by Julie Dore, the ice cream snatcher.

[*_ash_* 88]

Actually, no. This regulation has been around for 2 years or so now and not just in Sheffield, but nationwide. For those of you who will jump on any tentative bandwagon to have a go at the Council, a little research might have given you the facts. Here's a quote from The Independent in August 2011

 

Meltdown for the country's estimated 5,000 ice cream vans started with the rise of the domestic freezer in the Fifties but has been compounded more recently by new EU rules introducing lower emission limits. These mean that many older ice cream vans face costly conversions or face being taken off the road.

 

In London, meanwhile, tighter emissions standards will come into force from January next year. Some ice cream vans will be able to fit a filter, but the charge for those that don't will be £100 a day.

 

So why not have a go at the Tory and Lib Dem Councils who have already implemented the regulations? But that wouldn't fit in with your agenda, would it?

 

I've read your links (but couldn't post until 4am (well 5am, as the clock still aint right!)).

 

I'm not trying to be smart or clever, I genuinely don't know, and know to take the Star as it comes - but can you explain the 5 year old thing as part of the EU directive? It's probably right in front of me, but I can't see it. And the best person to ask is someone in the know.

[ricgem2002 11]

maybe this gov should just not implment this ruling accept the fine (where does the money go)and carry on regardless. the eu are telling us we have to do this we have to do that, yet are dealing with countries where this dosent apply giving an unfair advantage to companies here abiding by these so called rules