Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[Planner1]

Perhaps they should collect the unpaid council tax as a start, and then they might have some justification to start ripping off the car users of the city by (over)charging them for schemes that aren't wanted by the majority of residents.

Collecting unpaid Council Tax is not an easy thing or it would already have been done. I've seen umpteen threads on this Forum that tell me it is not difficult to avoid paying and stay within the law.

 

Yet again you make unfounded claims about the the permit schemes being "unwanted" by the majority of residents. You have no evidence of this as you well know.

 

Article in today's paper (my own highlights):

 

"Local authorities, who have seen their profit from parking increase 14.9 per cent in a year to £411 million, have admitted they are using the cash to plug gaps in their spending because of budget cuts.

 

The Local Government Association admitted, for the first time, that it has been able to use the cash from parking to make good losses such as the £442 million in their highways budget.

 

These latest figures will rekindle accusations that hard-pressed local authorities are using motorists as a cash cow to plug funding shortages, even though they are only supposed to use their powers to control parking to ration roadspace and ease congestion.

 

Councils who use the cash to subsidise their spending and local taxpayers are acting illegally. "

But of course you sneakily omit the important bit that doesn't support your scaremongering:

 

But a loophole does allow local authorities to use the surplus to pay for other transport profits.

Cllr Peter Box of the Local Government Association said: "Any surpluses from parking revenue helps lessen the effect these cuts have as it must be spent on transport services such as filling potholes, bus passes for the elderly, park and ride schemes, street lights, parking services and road improvement projects, things which benefit all road users at some point.”

But for revenue from parking, these services would have had to have been funded by council tax payers.

 

 

Ohhh, I can see another FoI request coming to see where the £870000 surplus was spent in Sheffield. I can already hear them saying "we can't track it as it goes into a central pot" at which point it will be pointed out that that, in itself, is illegal under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act.

I think you will find that any surpluses earned are ring-fenced to the transport and highways activities outlined in the article.

[Litotes]

Post #1907 confirms that residents asked for the scheme.

 

And post 1904 confirms that residents don't want the scheme...

 

 

Twist it whichever way you want, and it still stays the same...

 

The council sees the parking schemes as a cash cow and will milk it and the residents until it is dry.

[Planner1]

I both live and have a business in Hillsborough - do you?

 

I notice that in an earlier post you state:

 

'I dealt with more requests for a permit scheme in Hillsboro than i care to recall.'

 

Can you state how many requests were made for a scheme were made?

 

I'll wager that the number who did not request a scheme far outweighs the number who reuested a scheme.

No, I don't live or do business in Hillsborough.

 

The period when I was dealing with such requests was 7 to 10 years ago. Not exactly a reasonable request to recall the exact number of a particular type of request, out of hundreds of different ones received quite a few years ago.

 

Yes, of course the number who didn't request something outweighs the number of actual requests. That's the case for just about any request for a sizeable intervention.

 

However, everyone within the proposed scheme area was asked whether they wanted it and those areas where the majority were against, didn't get it. Again, all households / businesses in the scheme area have been consulted in the review. Local people have had plenty of opportunity to state their views.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 11:50 ----------

 

And post 1904 confirms that residents don't want the scheme...

 

 

Twist it whichever way you want, and it still stays the same...

 

The council sees the parking schemes as a cash cow and will milk it and the residents until it is dry.

And you don't twist it?

 

If you read that post properly, it is one resident on one road that is not currently in the scheme saying they don't want to be in the scheme. That does not confirm that "residents don't want the scheme", it confirms one resident does not want a scheme, that is all.

 

That's fair enough, the Council is not in the business of imposing these schemes on roads where the majority don't want them. The consultation on the scheme review will confirm whether that person's neighbours agree with them.

[BoroB]

No, I don't live or do business in Hillsborough.

 

The period when I was dealing with such requests was 7 to 10 years ago. Not exactly a reasonable request to recall the exact number of a particular type of request, out of hundreds of different ones received quite a few years ago.

 

Yes, of course the number who didn't request something outweighs the number of actual requests. That's the case for just about any request for a sizeable intervention.

 

However, everyone within the proposed scheme area was asked whether they wanted it and those areas where the majority were against, didn't get it. Again, all households / businesses in the scheme area have been consulted in the review. Local people have had plenty of opportunity to state their views.

 

I understand that 7 to 10 years ago is along time ago to ask how many people requested a scheme of you but disagree that it is an unreasonable request. The scheme is obviously of interest to you despite you having left the council and not living in the area in question. You frequently have stated that people requested a scheme for Hillsborough so how many was it please? 5? 10? 20? It doesn't have to be an exact number, just your best recollection.

 

So the majority of people wanted the status quo to be maintained but the council knows best and interferes. Interesting.

 

If the majority of resondents to the review want the scheme revoked will this happen? It would be useful if the council would publish how it is to judge the review - the councils website section for parking permits does not even mention the review.

 

Personally I can only see the scheme being extended, after all:

 

- The council decided a scheme was needed and consulted on it.

 

- The council published a consultation document that they compiled, edited and published giving a one sided view of the situation.

 

- The council collate and interpret replies to the consultation and decide that, hey presto, a scheme is a great idea.

 

- The council implement the scheme with a promise to review it in 12 months.

 

Who designs, carries out and judges the review of the scheme? Why the very people who implemented it.

 

Where is the independence?

[Litotes]

If the majority of resondents to the review want the scheme revoked will this happen?

 

No chance - as Planner has already stated - the council don't need to take any notice of what the residents want. This has been proven on many occasions.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 12:40 ----------

 

That's fair enough, the Council is not in the business of imposing these schemes on roads where the majority don't want them.

 

 

Yes it is - as we have discussed on many occasions, in no area of the city have the majority of residents wanted a scheme - you twist your numbers and say that no majority of residents didn't wanta scheme, but I don't keep trotting that argument out...

 

 

The consultation is just that - a CON.

 

Planner, if I ask you "Do you keep picking your nose?" - and the only answer that I would take was yes or no - what would your answer be?

[Penistone999]

But a loophole does allow local authorities to use the surplus to pay for other transport profits.

Cllr Peter Box of the Local Government Association said: "Any surpluses from parking revenue helps lessen the effect these cuts have as it must be spent on transport services such as filling potholes, bus passes for the elderly, park and ride schemes, street lights, parking services and road improvement projects, things which benefit all road users at some point.”

But for revenue from parking, these services would have had to have been funded by council tax payers.

 

 

I think you will find that any surpluses earned are ring-fenced to the transport and highways activities outlined in the article.

 

I take it "other transport service" will include the installing of speed scameras. ?

[Planner1]

I understand that 7 to 10 years ago is along time ago to ask how many people requested a scheme of you but disagree that it is an unreasonable request. The scheme is obviously of interest to you despite you having left the council and not living in the area in question. You frequently have stated that people requested a scheme for Hillsborough so how many was it please? 5? 10? 20? It doesn't have to be an exact number, just your best recollection.

 

Re the number of requests, I'd say I saw more than 20, they came in pretty regularly, but you need to remember I stopped seeing these 7 years ago, there will have been others I haven't seen. They often came in as multiple requests, perhaps commenting on bus gates or traffic management issues as well. People often mention multiple issues when the contact the Council. There were many on file, going back a long time.

 

We would receive many requests for permit schemes, mostly from the areas around the city centre. Hillsborough always stood out to me as the place outside the city centre which generated most requests. Woodseats was also a place where people requested a permit scheme, but more came from Hillsborough.

 

So the majority of people wanted the status quo to be maintained but the council knows best and interferes. Interesting.

 

No one, including you, knows what the majority wanted, because they had stated no opinion. Enough people had raised the issue of a permit scheme for the Council to bring forward a proposal for the local people to discuss and decide on. As you know, the scheme was only implemented where the people wanted it, those areas which said no thanks didn't get it. Seems fair enough.

 

 

If the majority of resondents to the review want the scheme revoked will this happen? It would be useful if the council would publish how it is to judge the review - the councils website section for parking permits does not even mention the review.

The Council will take a view on the results they receive. It would be wrong to make comments or speculate on what the results might be, so I am not sure exactly what you would want them to publish.

 

The normal course of action is that a report is compiled, with recommendations and it is taken to the Cabinet Highways Committee for Councillors to take a view on what they want done.

 

 

Where is the independence?

Can you point out where it says these things have to dealt with independently?

 

The decisions are taken by politicians, who are elected by the people to represent them. They are accountable at the ballot box.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 12:54 ----------

 

Planner, if I ask you "Do you keep picking your nose?" - and the only answer that I would take was yes or no - what would your answer be?

I'm not interested in what answer you would take. The answer would be none of your business.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 12:55 ----------

 

I take it "other transport service" will include the installing of speed scameras. ?

 

There is no such thing as a "scamera"

[Litotes]

<dodge the answer>Planner1</dodge the answer>

[Planner1]

No chance - as Planner has already stated - the council don't need to take any notice of what the residents want. This has been proven on many occasions.

The truth is absolutely the opposite. Where there has been a high level of objection to a scheme, residents have been balloted on whether or not they want to be included. Where the majority of responses said no, they weren't included. I thin most people would feel that is a fair way of doing it.

 

Yes it is - as we have discussed on many occasions, in no area of the city have the majority of residents wanted a scheme - you twist your numbers and say that no majority of residents didn't wanta scheme, but I don't keep trotting that argument out...

As you know and fully understand, there are always going to be people who do not want to respond to any consultation. The Council understand this and the decision makers are told how many households / businesses were consulted, how many responses there were and what they said. The Councillors then can make an informed decision.

[Litotes]

The truth is absolutely the opposite. Where there has been a high level of objection to a scheme, residents have been balloted on whether or not they want to be included. Where the majority of responses said no, they weren't included. I thin most people would feel that is a fair way of doing it.

 

So the fact that in some cases the 'ballot' took place when most of the properties were empty and therefore the residents of those properties had no chance to respond is fair?

 

I know of a street where 100% of responses were against it - okay it was only 1 out of 30 , but no-one else said they responded when asked - but that was ignored by the council.

 

The council also cannot back up any of their statistics with absolute data - I have asked under a FoI request.

 

So all in all, it shows the council will do what they want DESPITE the residents' wishes.