Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[andygardener]

Vastly more efficient in your view. Where's the evidence?

 

As i said "So you have procurement rules that would stop you spending between £30 and £80 on something vastly more effective than what you currently spend hundreds on to get 1% response rates? Really, what are they then? Show me the rules, because as you say you are required to open and transparent so I'm sure they must be online."

 

Let's take efficiency out of it, though any fool can see my idea is vastly better than your practice. Answer the open and transparent question - "So you have procurement rules that would stop you spending between £30 and £80 on something?" - Show me the rules, because as you say you are required to open and transparent so I'm sure they must be online.

 

Lets see these rules from central government forcing you to be wasteful and inefficient when dealing with small sums of money planner1. Show the forum, we're waiting.

[Kevo]

[quote=Planner1

Ballots have been held on streets which were consulted on permit schemes and returned high levels of objections. Those were on a majority wins basis and that was clearly spelled out.

 

You will never please all of the people all of the time, so if you didn't implement something because 1 person objected, nothing and I mean nothing, would ever be done. There are very few measures which can be implemented which meet with universal approval.

 

 

There are quite a few people on here who say they like the permit schemes. However, much as I like hearing people's views on here, it's difficult to take an internet forum as being representative of a particular area, because you do not know who is posting.

 

 

What right does it give my next door neighbour or anyone else on my street to say I have got to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT your arguments don't stand up mate so if I put it to the vote on here that you must pay me £50 and the majority voted in my favour does that mean you HAVE GOT to pay me the money and would you???? .......NO you wouldn't cos its not morally right is it.

[BoroB]

Or is it the voice of naivety against experience. There are a number of issues with the method you propose:

 

• I offer the work to the guy who lives at No25 Smith St. Someone who lives at no50 wants to know why I didn't offer them the opportunity in a fair and open procurement process (and my procurement team and the auditors will want to know too)
  
• The person distributing the leaflets is attacked. My lawyers will be asking me what checks and safeguards I put in place to ensure that they were working safely
  

There are many more. Nothing is as simple as you might like it to be.

 

To do good public engagement needs substantial time and money. Luxuries which the Council staff involved don't often have.

 

---------- Post added 13-01-2013 at 17:46 ----------

 

The Council's officers do not dictate the way in which the results are decided on.

 

The Councillors decide. They ask the officers to present the results ot them in a particular format and to make recommendations. If you don't like that way of dealing with it, you need to take it up with them, they are your elected representatives and by electing them, you allow them to take some decisions on your behalf.

 

 

Nothing like that has ever happened. As the decisions are taken by Councillors it's difficult for an officer to second guess what they would decide. If that happened, the recommendation I would want to put forward would be a ballot, majority wins.

 

 

 

I think the Councillors would take the view that they are elected to take such decisions and they don't need independent reviews. The Council already do a great deal more than the minimum "consultation" required by the law. I can't see that bringing in expensive "independent" reviewers would add anything.

 

The price rise was only agreed last week and the consultation on the review will have been drawn up a long time before there was any discussion of the price rise. You can only mention what you are aware of at that time.

 

They are putting the price back to where it was before the last administration change it. That's all.

 

The officers have no view either way. They are tasked to carry out a review, and report findings and recommendations, that's it. If the scheme was scrapped or changed, it makes no difference to them. There is no reason for them to tamper with the results.

 

People already get frustrated with how long things take to implement. Adding further expensive layers of oversight and consequent delay is an unnecessary step in my view.

 

To be frank Planner 1 some of the replies you've posted today have flabergasted me but on second thoughts perhaps I shouldn't be suprised.

 

I find it difficult to comprehend how the council can consult and then review said consultation without having a prescribed method of judging the replies. Its like setting exams but the examination board having no marking system in place for when exam papers have been collected.

 

You state the the officers have no view either way on subjects but I would beg to differ. My understanding is that when consultations are carried out the council adopt a stance and then council officers prepare a consultation document based on this stance, rather than a balanced argument/discussion being presented.

 

Given that the council officers have adopted a stance in my experience they tend to defend the position taken to the hilt, ignoring all valid arguments and evidence presented. Perfectly understandable as nobody likes criticism or to be proved wrong, however it should not happen.

 

I have seen two seperate council officers, on seperate consutations, use the same argument put forward by respondents in different ways. The respondents reply were both along the lines of ' My family and I moved to this area to be nearer XYZ facilities'.

 

One officer, where the council decided to keep the facilities, said that 'the council had to take into account peoples reasons for moving to this area', the other officer, where the council wanted to close the facilities, said that 'whilst accepting the vacinity of XYZ being a reason for the respondent living in the area, the council can not see that as a reason to support keeping xyz open'.

 

Whilst accepting that there were alot of other circumstances in both cases it is the way officers can, and in my experience do, manipulate consultation replies to meet pre-determined goals, that makes people view both the council and council officers in a cynical way. Independent reviews would help alleviate this.

 

The way the council (and it's officers) adopt a policy of 'we're the council and we know best' is not always right; they don't always know best and are not always right. Woodseats traffic 'improvements' and signage issues at Hillsborough Corner prove this.

 

I'm surpised at the comment that: I]The price rise was only agreed last week and the consultation on the review will have been drawn up a long time before there was any discussion of the price rise. You can only mention what you are aware of at that time[/i]

 

The price rise was confirmed last Fiday after being leaked on Monday/Tuesday earlier in the week. Do you expect people to believe that the council have only just commenced discussing these rises? These will have been going on for months, concurrent with the review of the Hillsborough scheme. The review should have been delayed as details affecting

the review were being finalised.

 

I accept that by increasing the charges to £36 the council are only putting them back to what they were before. That does not make it right or justifiable, justs shows the council was ripping people off before.

 

The scheme was promoted with a £10 charge to administer it.

 

Now that the scheme is in place the council are profiteering, pure and simple.

[Litotes]

Those were on a majority wins basis and that was clearly spelled out.

 

NO IT WASN'T!!!

 

It was never spelled out like that, and in no case did the majority of residents vote for a parking scheme.

 

Get over it - and stop lying!

[retep]

Seems like the money from government is drying up and they need to screw the public directly.

 

 

"In translating our Transport Strategy into action, we

will follow four cross-cutting principles:-

 

• We will squeeze more from existing assets–

 

in the current funding climate this principle

will ensure our assets are well managed and

maintained and used to their fullest potential,

minimising the need for major infrastructure

work. It is key to this first Implementation

Plan. Our efforts will be targeted on the routes,

locations, customer groups and issues we have

identified from our evidence base as being

particularly important.

 

• We will make our growth sustainable - we

will look to achieve economic growth while

minimising the impact on the environment,

reducing emissions wherever possible;

 

• We will give people choice – we will enable

people to make informed choices about whether

and how they travel, through providing a range

of transport links and services to match varying

lifestyles;

 

• We will encourage a change in travel culture -

facilitating a shift from car-dependency to more

active and sustainable travel modes."

 

http://www.syltp.org.uk/documents/LTP3ImplementationPlan.pdf

[Planner1]

NO IT WASN'T!!!

 

It was never spelled out like that, and in no case did the majority of residents vote for a parking scheme.

 

Get over it - and stop lying!

Fine advice from someone who hasn't got over his neighbours disagreeing with him seven years ago.

 

When ballots were held the majority of respondents won the day, that was made clear and that was what happened.

 

Do not confuse a consultation with a ballot. Ballots have only been held in areas where there were high levels of objections to proposed schemes. This was done on several streets at Hunters Bar, as you well know.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 00:09 ----------

 

I find it difficult to comprehend how the council can consult and then review said consultation without having a prescribed method of judging the replies.

Do you not understand what is being reviewed?

 

It is the scheme which is being reviewed, not the consultation.

 

Its like setting exams but the examination board having no marking system in place for when exam papers have been collected.

That's because decisions are made by politicians and politics is a game of opinions.

 

The politicians will take on board the results of consultation, consider officers recommendations then take their own decision based on their views of what they have seen and heard and their thoughts on the best way forward.

 

If you don't like that way of doing things, tell your Councillors, they are the only ones who can change it.

 

 

You state the the officers have no view either way on subjects but I would beg to differ. My understanding is that when consultations are carried out the council adopt a stance and then council officers prepare a consultation document based on this stance, rather than a balanced argument/discussion being presented.

 

Exactly what kind of stance do you think has been represented in the Hillsborough review?Isn't it just asking people's views on how it is going and whether they want any changes now it's been in place for a while?

The way the council (and it's officers) adopt a policy of 'we're the council and we know best' is not always right; they don't always know best and are not always right. Woodseats traffic 'improvements' and signage issues at Hillsborough Corner prove this.

 

The Highways and Transport Service were criticised by the Lib-Dems for having that attitude and have done a lot of work in the meantime to be more customer focussed and take on board people's views.

 

What exactly about the signage at Hillsborough do you think exhibits a "we know best" attitude?

I'm surpised at the comment that: I]The price rise was only agreed last week and the consultation on the review will have been drawn up a long time before there was any discussion of the price rise. You can only mention what you are aware of at that time[/i]

 

The price rise was confirmed last Fiday after being leaked on Monday/Tuesday earlier in the week. Do you expect people to believe that the council have only just commenced discussing these rises? These will have been going on for months, concurrent with the review of the Hillsborough scheme. The review should have been delayed as details affecting the review were being finalised.

Officers have been developing options for a few weeks. Politicians take the final decisions and, as I said, nothing was confirmed until the recent Labour Group meeting. So, when the Hillsborough consultation went out, no one was in a position to say whether there would be any change in permit prices.

 

Budget discussions happen every year, lots of options are discussed, not all of them are progressed and you can't just stop your projects for months while these discussions take place on the off chance that something might or might not change.

 

Permit prices can change, people are well aware of this and no one has ever said they wouldn't change again.

 

---------- Post added 14-01-2013 at 00:27 ----------

 

What right does it give my next door neighbour or anyone else on my street to say I have got to pay for something that I DO NOT WANT your arguments don't stand up mate so if I put it to the vote on here that you must pay me £50 and the majority voted in my favour does that mean you HAVE GOT to pay me the money and would you???? .......NO you wouldn't cos its not morally right is it.

Your neighbours do not make the final decision, the Council is the Highway Authority and it makes the decisions. The Council is made up of your elected representatives and when you elect them, you delegate to them powers to make decisions on your behalf. Those decisions can include imposing waiting restrictions, which include permit zones.

 

The Council has a legal duty to consult, but the law does not say what that consultation should consist of, so actually, the minimum they need to do is post one legal notice in the Star when they want to introduce a parking restriction and another notice after they have considered any objections and decided what to implement. There is also no prescription on the forum in which objections are considered. Here it's done by Councillors at Cabinet Highways Committee, a meeting at which the public can attend and speak. Other places do it differently, in Manchester, objections are considered by one Councillor and one officer behind closed doors with no public debate. Sheffield do far more than they have to in terms of consultation.

 

In any case, no one is forcing you to pay for anything, if you don't want a permit, don't have one, it's not compulsory.

[BoroB]

I understand perfectly well what is being reviewed - the scheme rather than the original consultation.

 

What i do not understand is the ability to carry out consultations and reviews without having a pre-dertermined policy for how the consultations/reviews will be judged.

 

Lets not kid ourselves - the permit scheme was going to be implemented whatever the comments of respondents said.

 

I'm glad to see the whole process as a 'game' - this is a game that affects peoples lives on a daily basis.

 

In most games there is usually a rule book and a referee to ensure that rules are followed. I notice that in this game you are totally against any refereeing by way of independent involvement. I wonder why?

 

What alot of people are saying is that the 'game' was started on the whim of a few councillors/council officers who had received a few requests for a parking scheme.

 

I'm sure that the council receive a few requests a year for parking charges to be abolished. Do these lead to consultations?

 

What are the criteria for councils implementing consultations? In parking permit schemes it appears to be on the ability to generate cash for the council.

 

Whilst accepting that the result of the Hillsborough scheme review is awaited - not sure when as there are no dates on the councils website - I'll wager that there will be no reduction/removal of the scheme, if anything it will be expanded.

 

Regarding the Hillsborough signage, the inability of people in power to accept criticism that was levied by the Local Government Ombudsman enforces the 'we know best' attitude that is adopted by the council.

 

With regard to your statement 'Permit prices can change, people are well aware of this and no one has ever said they wouldn't change again.', the scheme was advertised by the council as having a £10 fee to administer it.

 

Do you not understand why an increase of 260% in little over 12 months is considered an utter and total rip off?

 

With regrad to your statement re the review of the schemeOfficers have been developing options for a few weeks. Politicians take the final decisions and, as I said, nothing was confirmed until the recent Labour Group meeting. So, when the Hillsborough consultation went out, no one was in a position to say whether there would be any change in permit prices.

 

If no one was in a position to say whether there would be any change in permit prices but this option was being considered by officers, why press ahead with a review?

 

What the point of a review if a vital element of the scheme is under discussion still by the council?

 

Can it be coincidence that the deadline for review comments was less than 10working days before the price increases were announced?

 

Or is this all part of the'game' that you refer to?

[Planner1]

Regarding the Hillsborough signage, the inability of people in power to accept criticism that was levied by the Local Government Ombudsman enforces the 'we know best' attitude that is adopted by the council.

I believe you have got your facts wrong here.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman does not concern themselves with detailed issues of signing.

 

I believe you may be referring to a decision by a Traffic Penalty Tribunal Adjudicator. The one I'm thinking of at Hillsborough involved the Adjudicator upholding an appeal, but also saying that he fully recognised that the signing and lining setup was legal (it was after all approved in writing by the Department for Transport) but, he considered that it would be "fairer" if an additional road marking was provided. That road marking was not prescribed in the government guidance as being associated with the sign in question.

 

The Council asked the adjudicator to review his decision and unsurprisingly he didn't change it. The only other appeal route was a judicial review. That is a lengthy and expensive process, so the Council took the view that it was easier and cheaper to change the signing to comply with the Adjudicator's request. Because of the limitations on the size of roadmarkings, not all categories of vehicles which were previously exempt could be included in the new arrangement. That resulted in motorcycles no longer being able to use the bus / tram gate.

 

The Council cannot ask the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to review a particular signing setup to see whether they have any issue with it, they refuse to comment. So, all the Council can do is implement a setup which complies with legal requirements, which is what they did.

 

All of that does not show any inability to accept criticism, far frm it. It actually demonsrates a pragmatic approach to an unexpecteed issue.

 

Camera enforcemet of Bus Lanes / Gates and parking enforcement is prone to throwing up anomolies like this, many other authorities have had unexpected issues arising from adjudications, it's just the way the legal system operates and we have to work with it.

[BoroB]

I believe you have got your facts wrong here.

 

The Local Government Ombudsman does not concern themselves with detailed issues of signing.

 

I believe you may be referring to a decision by a Traffic Penalty Tribunal Adjudicator. The one I'm thinking of at Hillsborough involved the Adjudicator upholding an appeal, but also saying that he fully recognised that the signing and lining setup was legal (it was after all approved in writing by the Department for Transport) but, he considered that it would be "fairer" if an additional road marking was provided. That road marking was not prescribed in the government guidance as being associated with the sign in question.

 

The Council asked the adjudicator to review his decision and unsurprisingly he didn't change it. The only other appeal route was a judicial review. That is a lengthy and expensive process, so the Council took the view that it was easier and cheaper to change the signing to comply with the Adjudicator's request. Because of the limitations on the size of roadmarkings, not all categories of vehicles which were previously exempt could be included in the new arrangement. That resulted in motorcycles no longer being able to use the bus / tram gate.

 

The Council cannot ask the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to review a particular signing setup to see whether they have any issue with it, they refuse to comment. So, all the Council can do is implement a setup which complies with legal requirements, which is what they did.

 

All of that does not show any inability to accept criticism, far frm it. It actually demonsrates a pragmatic approach to an unexpecteed issue.

 

Camera enforcemet of Bus Lanes / Gates and parking enforcement is prone to throwing up anomolies like this, many other authorities have had unexpected issues arising from adjudications, it's just the way the legal system operates and we have to work with it.

 

So a traffic adjudicator, independent of the council, told the council they were wrong and had not acted fair.

 

Did the council accept the input from an independent expert who knows what he is doing?

 

No they did not like it.

 

No wonder you are against independent reviews of schemes.

[sid63]

I live at Hillsborough and the main cause of the parking congestion around the shop's is the Tram user's who won't pay to park and ride. People who live outside the area and ironically, who did'nt want the Tram to run past their homes are parking their car's from 8am -5pm

 

All that will happen with the permit's is people will just park on the edge of the permit zone until eventually all the surrounding area's will need permit's