Crookesmoor parking permit zone

[Cyclone 10]

I think what you mean is that as the Council have found that permit parking is effective in ridding areas of certain parking issues, they are looking at where else, outside the PPZ, such solutions might be appropriate.

 

Apparently effective in turning a profit as well.

Despite protestations over the last several years that the schemes would be break even.

[Stormy 10]

So presumably next year, after the initial cost of setting the scheme up (eg ticket machines, painting the roads etc,) the cost of a permit for the year will go down? As the only costs involved will be minimal admin costs and paying the wages of the wardens who are to enforce the scheme?

[Litotes 63]

So presumably next year, after the initial cost of setting the scheme up (eg ticket machines, painting the roads etc,) the cost of a permit for the year will go down? As the only costs involved will be minimal admin costs and paying the wages of the wardens who are to enforce the scheme?

 

How naive you are...

 

I asked the same question of a councillor (mentioned before) about another scheme (which I was berated for mentioning earlier) and the response was slightly obtuse but was...

 

"Whilst the £36 fee for the initial permit does include an amount towards the admin costs, the overall cost of the scheme is not covered solely by the funds raised from permits. Again, revenue and maintenance costs exceed the monies raised by the permits so the costs will not be reduced next year. "

 

An example of dodging the question by a member of the council perhaps...?

 

 

We accept that the permits don't cover the costs of the scheme, but the revenue from all streams does by quite a margin... a fact which was totally ignored!!

[Stormy 10]

How naive you are...

 

I asked the same question of a councillor (mentioned before) about another scheme (which I was berated for mentioning earlier) and the response was slightly obtuse but was...

 

"Whilst the £36 fee for the initial permit does include an amount towards the admin costs, the overall cost of the scheme is not covered solely by the funds raised from permits. Again, revenue and maintenance costs exceed the monies raised by the permits so the costs will not be reduced next year. "

 

An example of dodging the question by a member of the council perhaps...?

 

 

We accept that the permits don't cover the costs of the scheme, but the revenue from all streams does by quite a margin... a fact which was totally ignored!!

 

Naive?! I think cynical or sarcastic would have been a better way to describe it! The naive people are the ones who aren't questioning the councils intentions.

 

Maybe a FOI information request would work? Although I have no idea how this works...

[HotPhil 10]

Planner1, is there any news about a residents parking scheme in Hillsborough yet?

I'm really interested in this too. I'd be quite near the front of the queue to set up some kind of organised opposition to it...

[AtticusFinch 10]

Naive?! I think cynical or sarcastic would have been a better way to describe it! The naive people are the ones who aren't questioning the councils intentions.

 

Maybe a FOI information request would work? Although I have no idea how this works...

 

I've also suggested an FOI request before. When the council were planning this they must have had forecasts for the scheme. This would have involved available resident parking spaces, available pay spaces, forecasted number of permits sold, forecasted revenue from paying commuters and forecasted scheme expenses.

 

These figures must exist. It'd be interesting to know if the council had planned for a revenue surplus. If they have, and therefore sold the residents' permits at a higher price than was necessary, that's totally unacceptable.

[fox20thc 10]

Well hotphil, it would put paid to match day parking in the borough

[Litotes 63]

Not if you knew smoeone with a visitors permit - it would probably make things easier.

 

Especially after the first few weeks when the council's revenue streams would rocket!!

[HotPhil 10]

Match day parking doesn't bother me so much - it doesn't particularly affect me this far away, although I did nearly buy a house on Vine Road where it probably would have done, but even then I'd factored that in - it's hard not to see the stadium and not think about the potential traffic etc when considering buying a house.

I just really object to the cost, reduction in available spaces and introduction of problems where there are none. Wouldn't mind so much if the additional revenue was ringfenced to improve the road surface/public transport in the area the revenue is raised from, but I don't think that's the case. And I don't want my girlfriend (who uses the car for commuting to Leeds) to have to walk several streets in dark, poorly lit roads where street crime and vandalism is raising unabated AND have to pay for the privilege.

[ceegee 10]

Have you not noticed that Councillors on your side of the city are predominantly Lib-Dem?

 

In the consultations, they send you a letter, no-one contacts you personally. This is standard practice throughout the country. There are Area Panel meetings you can go to if you want to raise issues or you can contact your Councillor.

 

They do far more consultation than the statutory minimum, which is just to put a notice in the newspaper.

 

I think in the light of your previous posts there is a certain amount of contradiction in your comments. The "standard practise" of sending letters is not a consultation. And as for an Area Panel should this be initiated at the outset so that advice can be given or views exchanged BEFORE the proposals are made.

 

Of course I have noticed that my local councillors are Liberal Democrats and have contacted them on this matter. But as they have stated this is Sheffield Labour Party policy not theirs.

 

I also notice that you have brought party politics into the process. Interesting mmmm..

[Planner1 428]

Planner1, is there any news about a residents parking scheme in Hillsborough yet?

 

From what I understand, the Council are considering residents parking schemes to address parking problems in Hillsboro:

 

1. In the shopping centre

2. Around Park & Ride sites

3. Around the College

 

I understand there hasn't been any work done on it yet, so it's early days yet.

[Planner1 428]

I think in the light of your previous posts there is a certain amount of contradiction in your comments. The "standard practise" of sending letters is not a consultation. And as for an Area Panel should this be initiated at the outset so that advice can be given or views exchanged BEFORE the proposals are made.

 

Of course I have noticed that my local councillors are Liberal Democrats and have contacted them on this matter. But as they have stated this is Sheffield Labour Party policy not theirs.

 

I also notice that you have brought party politics into the process. Interesting mmmm..

 

Er, sorry, it was you who mentioned the Labour Party in your first post on this subject.

 

The Council is a political entity, so it's to be expected that there is always some politics involved. Many of the Council's schemes and policies are responses to Central Government policy, so politics is usually in the background somewhere.

 

In this case, several years ago, the Council held a major consultation exercise in all the areas around the city centre regarding parking problems and the potential for residents parking schemes. Broomhall, Broomhill Crookesmoor and Sharrow Vale were the areas which had the most parking problems and had most support for residents parking. That's why they've been implemented first, nothing to do with any political considerations.

 

Sending you a letter informing you of proposals and asking for your comments is a form of consultation. You may think that they should do more, but it is consultation.

 

Area Panels are held regualrly throughout the year, you can always go to them and raise questions.