Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[Ms Macbeth]

To quote your post 1671 above:

 

The Council did an area wide consultation on the Hillsboro permit scheme and only implemented it on streets where there was support. Streets which didn't want permit parking did't get it.

 

Evidence please.

 

Some of the older links in this thread (which were about the consultation) no longer work. It is unfair to keep asking Planner1 to produce evidence, as he has no more access to council information than we do. Many of us are grateful that he takes the time to explain some of the issues.

 

As a resident of Hillsborough from 2005, I attended many meetings of (the now defunct) Hillsborough Residents' association, at the Sports Arena, and parking issues were regularly brought up by residents. Councillors attended these meetings and we also had a couple of visits from council officers, outlining what a parking scheme meant.

 

The consultation went beyond the area of Hillsborough where I live (around Dixon/Dorothy/Lennox Rd) and the responses from each street were monitored and plotted onto a map. There were open days, well advertised, where interested parties could have a look at the map and a discussion with council officers. I returned my survey, and went to one of the open events to look at the maps - because I was sufficiently interested to make the effort. I would imagine all the relevant information is still held by the council if you really want to see it.

 

In the roads near me hardly anyone replied in favour so we aren't in the parking scheme. However, IIRC some of the more central streets got a large proportion of residents who were in favour and those streets are in the permit area.

[BoroB]

Some of the older links in this thread (which were about the consultation) no longer work. It is unfair to keep asking Planner1 to produce evidence, as he has no more access to council information than we do. Many of us are grateful that he takes the time to explain some of the issues.

 

As a resident of Hillsborough from 2005, I attended many meetings of (the now defunct) Hillsborough Residents' association, at the Sports Arena, and parking issues were regularly brought up by residents. Councillors attended these meetings and we also had a couple of visits from council officers, outlining what a parking scheme meant.

 

The consultation went beyond the area of Hillsborough where I live (around Dixon/Dorothy/Lennox Rd) and the responses from each street were monitored and plotted onto a map. There were open days, well advertised, where interested parties could have a look at the map and a discussion with council officers. I returned my survey, and went to one of the open events to look at the maps - because I was sufficiently interested to make the effort. I would imagine all the relevant information is still held by the council if you really want to see it.

 

In the roads near me hardly anyone replied in favour so we aren't in the parking scheme. However, IIRC some of the more central streets got a large proportion of residents who were in favour and those streets are in the permit area.

 

I disagree that it is wrong to ask Planner 1, or anyone else for that matter, to produce evidence to support his or her arguments.

 

If someone is using the results of the consultation to support his arguments so he has obviously had access to these?

 

I'm not asking him to be my lackey, just to support his arguments with facts.

 

Is that too much to ask for?

[andyofborg]

I disagree that it is wrong to ask Planner 1, or anyone else for that matter, to produce evidence to support his or her arguments.

 

If someone is using the results of the consultation to support his arguments so he has obviously had access to these?

 

I'm not asking him to be my lackey, just to support his arguments with facts.

 

Is that too much to ask for?

 

I'm sure that amongst the reams of paper I received about this there was quite a detailed breakdown of all the responses including the "other comments" bit.

 

In most areas there seemed to be quite a majority in favour of the scheme.

 

Anyway, I'm still not clear why you refuse to use the car parks provided for shoppers and insist on making elderly people with limited mobility walk further than they need to by parking in front of their houses.

 

Whenever I visit an area then I always look for and use a car park as I think it rather impolite not too.

[BoroB]

I'm sure that amongst the reams of paper I received about this there was quite a detailed breakdown of all the responses including the "other comments" bit.

 

In most areas there seemed to be quite a majority in favour of the scheme.

 

Anyway, I'm still not clear why you refuse to use the car parks provided for shoppers and insist on making elderly people with limited mobility walk further than they need to by parking in front of their houses.

 

Whenever I visit an area then I always look for and use a car park as I think it rather impolite not too.

 

Perhaps I've missed something but where have I said that I refuse to use car parks?

 

I'm against parking permits for a number of reasons, amongst them:

 

- No one has a given right to park outside their houses if they are on public roads. (exception to this being match days!)

 

- If people (tax payers) pay to maintain public roads they should be entitled to use them. This includes parking.

 

- The introduction of parking permits does not solve the problem. As Planner1 states the problem is displaced. This is happening in Hillsborough with the current scheme. Cars displaced from Taplin Road, Haden Street etc are now parking on Beechwood, Oakland etc. Why should the elderly people with limited mobility on these roads walk further than they need to because people are now parking in front of their houses?

 

- If parking permit schemes do have to be in place, issue them free of charge to those affected. Not double the charges as is happening in Sheffield.

[Ms Macbeth]

I disagree that it is wrong to ask Planner 1, or anyone else for that matter, to produce evidence to support his or her arguments.

 

If someone is using the results of the consultation to support his arguments so he has obviously had access to these?

 

I'm not asking him to be my lackey, just to support his arguments with facts.

 

Is that too much to ask for?

 

Evidence has been produced on the thread over the years it has been running. However, as I pointed out in my previous post the links no longer work. The 'evidence' I posted was my own experience of the process as an interested resident.

 

Planner1 has made it clear he does not work for SCC. However, that does not mean he has no knowledge of what happened through the process. 'Hard evidence' of the consultation outcomes is likely to only be now accessible via the council.

[Planner1]

To quote your post 1671 above:

 

The Council did an area wide consultation on the Hillsboro permit scheme and only implemented it on streets where there was support. Streets which didn't want permit parking did't get it.

 

Evidence please.

This subject and the consultation on the scheme have been discussed to death on SF. The thread you are posting on is 85 pages long and started about 4 years ago. Read it if you want details.

 

I believe people who live in the area will confirm that those areas which said they didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

If you go to the SCC website and search for Hillsborough Permit Parking, you will find the original questionnaire result on page 2 of the search results.

[BoroB]

Evidence has been produced on the thread over the years it has been running. However, as I pointed out in my previous post the links no longer work. The 'evidence' I posted was my own experience of the process as an interested resident.

 

Planner1 has made it clear he does not work for SCC. However, that does not mean he has no knowledge of what happened through the process. 'Hard evidence' of the consultation outcomes is likely to only be now accessible via the council.

 

Evidence may have been produced on earlier threads over the years.

 

Said evidence is being used to support arguments on this current thread.

 

If people are making arguments based on evidence, whether they work for SCC or not, they should be willing to back it up.

 

Like you, my 'evidence' is based on traverses of Hillsborough on a daily basis.

 

Yes it has transport, congestion and commuting issues llike most parts of the city.

 

Will these problems be solved by the imposition, at a cost for the 'service', of parking permits? No.

 

Will pay to park places on certain roads solve the problem? It may free up spaces on said roads but people will park on other roads where it is free.

[Planner1]

No I don't, but even in the case where I actually asked the manager whether the parking scheme was a contributory factor to their closing down and he said yes, you still refused to believe it.

 

At last, I see a glimmer of recognition in your post that you actually see that permit parking is not solely responsible for shops shutting.

 

People say lots of things to you, but are they actually true? Are there similar shops nearby (Charity Shop wasn't it?) in the permit areas which are still trading? So, why was that one particularly affected by it?

 

I've never seen any hard evidence which shows conclusively that permit parking has adversely affected a business in Sheffield. From my own personal observations, I don't see any alarming increases in the numbers of empty shops in permit areas. Shops come and go all the time, everywhere, not just in permit areas. Trading conditions change and some don't / can't adapt.

 

It's difficult for the Council to know precisely, because businesses won't show them their accounts.

[BoroB]

This subject and the consultation on the scheme have been discussed to death on SF. The thread you are posting on is 85 pages long and started about 4 years ago. Read it if you want details.

 

I believe people who live in the area will confirm that those areas which said they didn't want it, didn't get it.

 

If you go to the SCC website and search for Hillsborough Permit Parking, you will find the original questionnaire result on page 2 of the search results.

 

Thank you Planner1.

 

As the scheme has been in place in Hillsborough for two weeks now (and is therfore in its infancy), what are you're views on how the scheme is working?

[Planner1]

Evidence may have been produced on earlier threads over the years.

 

Said evidence is being used to support arguments on this current thread.

 

If people are making arguments based on evidence, whether they work for SCC or not, they should be willing to back it up.

 

Like you, my 'evidence' is based on traverses of Hillsborough on a daily basis.

 

Yes it has transport, congestion and commuting issues llike most parts of the city.

 

Will these problems be solved by the imposition, at a cost for the 'service', of parking permits? No.

 

Will pay to park places on certain roads solve the problem? It may free up spaces on said roads but people will park on other roads where it is free.

I'm all for an evidence based approach to discussions, because all too often people make contentions without any factual basis.

 

Have you read this full thread? It's been running for four years and as others have said, the consultation was done some time ago now and the documents

have been removed from the Council website.

 

People who live in the area have confirmed what I said is true. The consultation did take place, results were published and changes were made based on the results. I don't really see how you can dispute that.

 

The reports and consultation results will only be available if you ask the Council for them. I can give you contact details for people at the Council who can help you with that, you only need to pm me if you want them.