Sharrowvale Parking Scheme - new thread

[Planner1]

Hmm seeing as the previously thread is now convieniently innaccessible, that's hard to prove. But the impression I got from the questionaires we were asked to fill in and your previous posts is that the residents would benefit. Otherwise why would anyone agree. You had to let people believe it was in their interests otherwise you would have got a 100% response of 'get stuffed' from the questionaires.

It was sold as 'residents will benefit'. Saying otherwise is simply perpetuating the deceipt.

 

And some sizes fit none, which unsurprisingly you forget to mention. And as for balanced views, it's obviously not going to happen when decisions are made by those who who aren't smart enough to realise the problems they are causing and aren't interested in oposing views/alternative proposals.

You admitted it was going to happen regardless, as it had been decided some years earlier, 2002 if I remember correctly.

 

Residents will benefit if they find commuter parking to be a problem. The details of the scheme were made plain from the start, people could make their own decision on whether they benefitted and comment / object accordingly.

 

I do wish you'd stop with this "you admitted" stuff, as if there's something to hide.

 

The approval to proceed with the Peripheral Parking Zone was given in 2002, following an extensive consultation. That is public record and not anything which needs to be "admitted".

 

Each section of the PPZ is subject to it's own consultation exercise and is taken to the appropriate Council Planing Board for a decision on whether it proceeds. There are no foregone conclusions, the Board could say that it shouldn't proceed if that's what they felt.

[Planner1]

Well as society has changed, car ownership has changed from a luxury to a necessity.

 

I think that there are quite a few people who would take issue with you on that. Car ownership is far from universal, so can hardly be a "necessity".

[jezzyjj]

To implement the whole of the PPZ in one go, would probably take more than half of a year's funding allocation for Sheffield's highways / transport schemes and there are a lot of competing demands. It's simply too big to do in one go. Sharrow Vale is a big scheme in residents parking terms, I don't think the Council would want to do anything larger in one chunk.

Well you do it in one go but amortize the cost over several years. It's not a difficult concept.

Can you imagine the council building Ladybower Dam the same way? Sadly I can? They'd build the the left half and several years later, build the remaing half and claim it was too hard to do it all in one go. Ignoring the water [or cars in this case] pouring through the breach.

 

Yes lessons are learned from every scheme, but Sharrow Vale is a much different area to the others which have gone before.

And how exactly is that? Did you not realise other cities had introduced parking schemes? Maybe you could have seen how they did it. Sharrowvale is hardly unique or really that different from Broomhill.

 

I must take issue with your insulting tone, it is not necessary to call people names, hjust because they have a different viewpoint. It does your arguments no credit.

Actually I said you treat us as being thick with your patronising tone, which I find insulting. So how does that help your argumnet?

And if some people have made big mistakes as I believe has happened with this scheme and even you admit, then saying they are not smart is being descriptive, not insulting.

[coreyb]

does SCC own shares in mainline,mainline shareholders must be loving this scheme! the council aren't bothered about residents its all about stopping commuter traffic. Seven Stones "the retail Quarter with no visitors"

[jezzyjj]

I think that there are quite a few people who would take issue with you on that. Car ownership is far from universal, so can hardly be a "necessity".

 

Oops there was a typo there, now corrected.

Car ownership has become necessary for many, many people as we live further away from work, school, family and shops than in the past and public transport is simply not up to the change. So too may people need cars. Not want, need. If I never drove again, I wouldn't care, but sadly a car is essential for today's society, so I have one. Not through choice, though.

I would happily use a bike for local travel [which I do] and the train for longer distances, but I used the train last week. Dear me, when it's cheaper for one person and far less awkward/time consuming to just drive, is it any wonder that cars are so popular.

But the railway's awful service is a whole other thread.

[Litotes]

You're forgetting that the Sharrow Vale scheme is part of the phased implementation of the larger Peripheral Parking Zone. Once the phases are all implemented, there will be a ring of permit parking schemes around the city centre, deep enough to deter much of the commuter parking.

 

So there are plans for the eastern side of the city? If so, where?

 

If there are plans, then why have they not been publicly discussed?

[Planner1]

Well you do it in one go but amortize the cost over several years. It's not a difficult concept.

Can you imagine the council building Ladybower Dam the same way? Sadly I can? They'd build the the left half and several years later, build the remaing half and claim it was too hard to do it all in one go. Ignoring the water [or cars in this case] pouring through the breach.

 

And how exactly is that? Did you not realise other cities had introduced parking schemes? Maybe you could have seen how they did it. Sharrowvale is hardly unique or really that different from Broomhill.

 

 

Actually I said you treat us as being thick with your patronising tone, which I find insulting. So how does that help your argumnet?

And if some people have made big mistakes as I believe has happened with this scheme and even you admit, then saying they are not smart is being descriptive, not insulting.

 

It's always nice and simple when you're just sitting there criticising. Dealing witht the reality of working in Local Government and the complex fiancial arrangements (not to mention the politics) which go with it are something entirely different. If there was a simple, easy way to do it, it would have been done.

 

I'm not aware of anyone who has completely encircled a city centre the size of Sheffield with residents parking schemes in one go.

 

Plenty of different places have residents parking schemes, there are also many different approaches.

[Planner1]

So there are plans for the eastern side of the city? If so, where?

 

If there are plans, then why have they not been publicly discussed?

 

Have you not been reading?

 

The Peripheral Parking Zone was consulted on, in the areas right around the city centre during 2001. The Council's Cabinet agreed the plan in 2002. The plan is to encircle the city centre with residents parking schemes on a sequential basis.

 

The plans have only been firmed up as far as Broomhall, Broomhill, Sharrow Vale and Crookesmoor, the rest need to be developed.

[jezzyjj]

Residents will benefit if they find commuter parking to be a problem. The details of the scheme were made plain from the start, people could make their own decision on whether they benefitted and comment / object accordingly.

I was never sent the fine details of the scheme. besides, seeing as the details were changed after I'd been 'consulted', such as Saturday parking, that rings hollow.

If I had, I'd have kicked up a big stink before we were landed with the scheme.

 

I do wish you'd stop with this "you admitted" stuff, as if there's something to hide.

Ah but that's how it comes across with your posts. A few little snippets about the reality of the scheme. Then a few more snippets, which change the sense or menaing of previous posts. As I said before, you'd make a great politician.

 

The approval to proceed with the Peripheral Parking Zone was given in 2002, following an extensive consultation. That is public record and not anything which needs to be "admitted".

Funny as we weren't consulted until after that date. Well after.

And it was the fact that you admitted that a decision had already been made, after your claiming that we had been consulted, so it seemed like you were backtracking. Hence the verb 'admitted' seems quite apposite and very pertinant.

 

Each section of the PPZ is subject to it's own consultation exercise and is taken to the appropriate Council Planing Board for a decision on whether it proceeds. There are no foregone conclusions, the Board could say that it shouldn't proceed if that's what they felt.

Ah, this is where you contradict yourself.

You previously said that the scheme was decided in 2002 and was going ahead regardless.

And again it's the board who decides, not those affected. So were they given as little information as we were?

[Planner1]

Funny as we weren't consulted until after that date. Well after.

And it was the fact that you admitted that a decision had already been made, after your claiming that we had been consulted, so it seemed like you were backtracking. Hence the verb 'admitted' seems quite apposite and very pertinant.

 

 

Ah, this is where you contradict yourself.

You previously said that the scheme was decided in 2002 and was going ahead regardless.

And again it's the board who decides, not those affected. So were they given as little information as we were?

 

The Sharrow Vale Area was consulted about the PPZ and the residents parking scheme, quite separately, five years apart.

 

I have never said that the scheme was going ahead regardless, I didn't make such decisions so would hardly have said that.

 

I have previously pointed out that the Sharrow Vale scheme is part of the wider PPZ, which was approved in 2002. That doesn't mean "going ahead regardless".