Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[BoroB]

Other changes are planned for Burnaby Street, Clarence Road, Hammerton Road, Morley Street and Victor Road, while the council is considering reducing the length of yellow lines on Minto Road to create extra parking spaces.

 

Would like to know what these changes are going to be, i live on one of these Roads and we have not had any questionnaires or information.

 

I think its a case of the council thinking 'Blimey we've just spent £45,000 to review the scheme and we've got to tinker somewhere else to make it look like money well spent'.

[autumn]

It was working on our road before . I use to be able to park quite easily during the day now I cannot . Evening will always be difficult because most people are home . Commuters are desperate so they are parking in any way they can ,hence too close to junctions . Yes this affects me but I understand totally . They are just hard working people wanting to get to work without having to pay huge parking costs .More and more people are having to work further away from their homes ,so using more petrol add to this parking costs and it's a financial struggle .Why don't they make park and ride much cheaper ,everything is a money making scheme . There has to be a different approach before local shopping areas fold totally . I am totally frustrated by this subject ,having been affected at the shop and home .I have been hit by a double whammy .

[Ms Macbeth]

Does this "extra yellow lines" on Warner, Garry and Upwood roads just mean the corners or the whole length?

 

I can only presume so. I have no more information than the link in the Star. As people can't be relied on to park sensibly near junctions, then double yellows round the corners should at least enforce safe parking. I can't imagine why they would be needed on those roads anywhere else.

[metalman]

Probably means they're going to put in a few chicanes and loads of speed humps - they'll all need double yellows to keep them clear.

[Dan_Ashcroft]

Probably means they're going to put in a few chicanes and loads of speed humps - they'll all need double yellows to keep them clear.

 

The hundreds of pot holes already make plenty of obstacles to swerve around. A new speed hump would probably be the flatest piece of road for miles.

[Planner1]

No - the council raise more from PCNs than they do from pay and display.

You get PCN's from pay and display bays.

[Dan_Ashcroft]

We need to do something but what ? .....

 

Underground carparks.

 

On a small scale I've actually been thinking about digging out my cellar and turning it into a garage. That would be a good way to two-finger the planning Nazis - covertly turning their taxable bit of road into a driveway.

[BoroB]

The hundreds of pot holes already make plenty of obstacles to swerve around. A new speed hump would probably be the flatest piece of road for miles.

 

Surely the £45,000 spent on the review would have been better spent filling in the pot holes?

 

I know its the council but how do you manage to waste £45,000 on sending out 2,950 leaflets?

 

429 replies, £105 for each respondent. It's a good job the council is awash with money.

[Planner1]

The full report is available on this page: http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet-highways-committee/agendas-2013/agenda-14th-february-2013

go to the bottom of the page, it's the last attachment.

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 23:10 ----------

 

Sorry Lucy but they are !! without consulting with residents about it .

The report that's being discussed here is the result of a consultation exercise in which the Council asked residents what they thought of the permit scheme.

 

The report is making recommendations about investigating some additional restrictions which have been requested. Anything which arises from these investigations of course would be advertised in the normal way ie on-street notices and letters to affected residents.

 

So, care to explain how any of this constitutes doing something without consulting the residents?

 

---------- Post added 12-02-2013 at 23:15 ----------

 

Surely the £45,000 spent on the review would have been better spent filling in the pot holes?

 

I know its the council but how do you manage to waste £45,000 on sending out 2,950 leaflets?

 

429 replies, £105 for each respondent. It's a good job the council is awash with money.

When they implemented the scheme, the Council told local people they would review it after a year in operation and ask them how they were finding it.

 

Do you think it's a waste of money asking people what they think?

 

Do you think keeping your promises is a waste of money?

 

PS haven't you heard the are already spending £2bn on fixing the roads?

[BoroB]

People had the opportunity to ask for whatever they wanted on the review consultation. The truth is that they didn't want the scheme revoked.

 

I find this statement difficult to believe.

 

179 replies from properties within the scheme, of which only 71 (39.7%) thought that parking had improved within the area. 108 disagreed that it had improved. Clear majority for no improvement there.

 

250 replies from properties outside of the scheme, of which 165 (66%) thought that there was still a problem.

 

So 273 said no improvement/still a problem, 156 said improvement/parking not a problem.

 

The truth is the council have not improved the parking situation in the area, the majority of respondents stated this, and the council had no intention of revoking the scheme.