Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[Planner1]

Yes it was the right thing to do but the council only did half a job.

The politicians in power at the time made that decision, if you have an issue, perhaps you should take it up with them.

The penalties were based on unfair signs, making any action that these led to unfair.

 

It seems that what the council consider as fair differs from what ordinary people consider as fair.

It's blindingly obvious that you have never read the actual adjudication in question.

 

How then can you make pronouncements about what an independent Adjudicator did or didn't say?

 

Firstly, the issue centred on a roadmarking, not a sign.

 

Secondly, the adjudicator did not say that the signing was unfair. He could not, he acknowledged that the signing and lining in place was fully legally compliant.

 

He wanted an additional road marking, which he felt would make it clearer.

 

Many people I have spoken to in the industry feel that the adjudicator stepped outside his remit, which is to check whether a penalty has been properly applied, ie the signing and lining is legally compliant (it was) and the penalty has been properly processed and issued (it was). That is why the Council asked him to reconsider and then considered going to judicial review. This case also led to questions being asked of the Chief Adjudicator by the Government.

 

That roadmarking is not specified as being associated with the signs which were in use in the traffic signs regulations. There we also reasons of clarity why the Council did not include roadmarkings ie a roadmarking could not list all the categories of vehicles which were exempt, so putting all the categories on signs and less of them on a roadmarking might confuse.

 

Mo one could have foreseen that an adjudicator would require an additional roadmarking that is not specified in the signing regulations, so you can't reasonably accuse the Council of any wrongdoing on that count.

 

260% permit price increase? Perfectly fair per the council.

They are taking the price back up to exactly the same as it was a couple of years ago after reducing it for as long as they could. Does 0% increase over a number of years sound better? That's what has happened.

[mumkin]

 

They are taking the price back up to exactly the same as it was a couple of years ago after reducing it for as long as they could. Does 0% increase over a number of years sound better? That's what has happened.

 

:D Thats like marketing a bar of chocolate at 60p then increasing it to £1 then taking it back down to 60p then increasing it to £1 under the pretext of saving you money:roll:

[BoroB]

The politicians in power at the time made that decision, if you have an issue, perhaps you should take it up with them.

 

It's blindingly obvious that you have never read the actual adjudication in question.

 

How then can you make pronouncements about what an independent Adjudicator did or didn't say?

 

Firstly, the issue centred on a roadmarking, not a sign.

 

Secondly, the adjudicator did not say that the signing was unfair. He could not, he acknowledged that the signing and lining in place was fully legally compliant.

 

He wanted an additional road marking, which he felt would make it clearer.

 

Many people I have spoken to in the industry feel that the adjudicator stepped outside his remit, which is to check whether a penalty has been properly applied, ie the signing and lining is legally compliant (it was) and the penalty has been properly processed and issued (it was). That is why the Council asked him to reconsider and then considered going to judicial review. This case also led to questions being asked of the Chief Adjudicator by the Government.

 

That roadmarking is not specified as being associated with the signs which were in use in the traffic signs regulations. There we also reasons of clarity why the Council did not include roadmarkings ie a roadmarking could not list all the categories of vehicles which were exempt, so putting all the categories on signs and less of them on a roadmarking might confuse.

 

Mo one could have foreseen that an adjudicator would require an additional roadmarking that is not specified in the signing regulations, so you can't reasonably accuse the Council of any wrongdoing on that count.

 

 

They are taking the price back up to exactly the same as it was a couple of years ago after reducing it for as long as they could. Does 0% increase over a number of years sound better? That's what has happened.

 

I would refer you to the council report on the issue:

 

2.3 The Council requested a review of the Adjudicator’s decision. The same Adjudicator was appointed to carry out the review, and he confirmed his decision following a hearing on 24 April 2008. The decision of the adjudicator was received on 16 May 2008. The Adjudicator advised the Council to cease enforcement until the signs had been improved and recommended that carriageway markings should be included.

 

Are you saying that the council report to cabinet, referring to 'signs', is in correct?

 

Having accepted the adjudicators decision to amend unclear and unfair signage that lacked clarity and decided to repay fines, the council should have taken the step of contacting all parites penalised over this. They didn't.

 

The council are not taking Hillborough permits back to the price they were a couple of years ago. There were no permits a couple of years ago. The price was nil a couple of years ago.

 

They were introduced with a £10 fee, soon to become £36. A 260% increase. That is what is really happening.

[autumn]

So just found a article in the star about parking permits in hillsborough .Area for permits is not being extended but .

 

Extra double yellow lines are planned for Beechwood Road, East View Terrace, Garry Road, Hawthorn Road, Kirkstone Road, Upwood Road, Warner Road and Proctor Place.

 

Why will this help with parking ,it will make matters worse for the residents on these roads . Can anyone fill me in ,anyone know anymore ?

[Raiders42]

to protect the junctions / improve visibility?

[Dan_Ashcroft]

Ricky's Fashion and Truly Scrumptious - two more local independent shops closing down this month because of parking charges forcing customers away from the area.

 

This is a quote from the TS owner: "sorry no way of changing the situation due to lack of trade and changes to parking things are only going to get worse"

[autumn]

Yes I can see the advantage of this on match days but not the rest of the time . Our roads are already full if you reduce the parking area even more where will the residents park . It seems to me the council will make it harder for the residents so they will have to accept permit parking in the future . I think next time there is a form to fill in regarding permits I will have to get off my bottom and go talk to people in the area .Out of nearly 3000 forms only 400 were returned .

[4 Greens]

I think this is a good idea but only 1 car per house!!

[Raiders42]

Ricky's Fashion and Truly Scrumptious - two more local independent shops closing down this month because of parking charges forcing customers away from the area.

 

This is a quote from the TS owner: "sorry no way of changing the situation due to lack of trade and changes to parking things are only going to get worse"

 

I suspect with regard to TS it's more about their irregular opening times plus competition from cafedotnet, which appears to be thriving

[Dan_Ashcroft]

I think this is a good idea but only 1 car per house!!

 

So all the upwardly mobile people join the white flight to Worrall and beyond and leave Hillsborough to decay like the areas to the east of it (Parson Cross, Southey, Shirecliffe etc)?

 

Cars signify prosperity - the last thing you should be doing is persecuting those bringing wealth to an area.