Parking Permits in Hillsborough.

[Olive]

And then there's 4.18:

"A number of respondents living close to Hillsborough park indicated that the

balance of parking had changed since charges were introduced on car

parks in Hillsborough Park. It is therefore proposed to investigate these

issues at the same time the list of requests are looked at in appendix ‘E’. It

is also proposed to undertake further consultation on both Parkside Road

and Winster Road as detailed in the review brief, reporting the results and

recommendations to a future meeting of Cabinet Highways Committee."

 

It didn't take a genius to work out that introducing parking charges in the park's carpark would have a knock on effect on nearby residents. So now they're finding it more difficult to park on the street, and the council's response? Ask them if they want a permit zone (one which they felt they'd rather not have before, one which they'll have to cough up for the privilege). Forced between a rock and a hard place I'd say.

[lukeowl1979]

And then there's 4.18:

"A number of respondents living close to Hillsborough park indicated that the

balance of parking had changed since charges were introduced on car

parks in Hillsborough Park. It is therefore proposed to investigate these

issues at the same time the list of requests are looked at in appendix ‘E’. It

is also proposed to undertake further consultation on both Parkside Road

and Winster Road as detailed in the review brief, reporting the results and

recommendations to a future meeting of Cabinet Highways Committee."

 

It didn't take a genius to work out that introducing parking charges in the park's carpark would have a knock on effect on nearby residents. So now they're finding it more difficult to park on the street, and the council's response? Ask them if they want a permit zone (one which they felt they'd rather not have before, one which they'll have to cough up for the privilege). Forced between a rock and a hard place I'd say.

 

This is just it though, we live on Winster and haven't seen the suggested detrimental effects suggested.

 

I had read the report, and nowhere does it say when the results of Parkside Road area review will be published. That's what I was interested in - that report only mentions that a review of the area will be conducted. It was and we submitted by 3rd April. So when should we find out if the council lies are going to screw us?

 

I'm serious about setting up a video camera on the road for a week so the council can see all the empty space on our road during working hours should they need to. It's ludicrous to suggest that our road has daytime parking issues - it clearly does not.

[Litotes]

I love it - when the council want to disregard something the phrase "a small number" is used - if they want to introduce more charges, then no indication of the nuber is given e.g. "a number of respondents"

 

Q: Why can't they give the raw data?

 

A: Because then their decisions could be challenged more easily!

[Olive]

This is just it though, we live on Winster and haven't seen the suggested detrimental effects suggested.

 

I had read the report, and nowhere does it say when the results of Parkside Road area review will be published. That's what I was interested in - that report only mentions that a review of the area will be conducted. It was and we submitted by 3rd April. So when should we find out if the council lies are going to screw us?

 

I'm serious about setting up a video camera on the road for a week so the council can see all the empty space on our road during working hours should they need to. It's ludicrous to suggest that our road has daytime parking issues - it clearly does not.

 

I'm glad the loss of free parking opposite hasn't had a detrimental effect for you There's not a lot of evening parking where you are, I wondered if people used to use the Park car park if they couldn't get a space on the road at night. I really hope they don't enforce the scheme on you. The report does seem to take account that evenings are the main problem times in a lot of areas, so hopefully they'll see that a scheme won't help.

 

All in all, the equation seems to go something like:

Localised problems = complaints = restrictions = knock-on problems = further restrictions = more problems = ever-increasing swaithes of consultations and restictions.

 

All at huge cost. Wonder how many man hours has gone into all of this over the last few years?

[Penistone999]

Hmm. It does make interesting reading. How about this bit:

 

4.17 A small number of respondents did make suggestions to ‘scrap the scheme

completely’ and a consistent number also expressed their anger at the

decision to increase the price of permits. The scheme brief / scope did

indicate that these issues would not be part of the review, however due to

the number of specific comments received relating to these issues it was

considered worthwhile documenting these views within the report.

 

So in other words, contrary to what Planner1 has claimed in the past, even if everybody had responded by saying they wanted the scheme scrapped altogether, this was never an option.

 

The council choose to ignore public opinion if it dosnt fit with their policy ,also there is no financial gain for the council by listening to the public and scrapping the scheme.

[Planner1]

Hmm. It does make interesting reading. How about this bit:

 

4.17 A small number of respondents did make suggestions to ‘scrap the scheme

completely’ and a consistent number also expressed their anger at the

decision to increase the price of permits. The scheme brief / scope did

indicate that these issues would not be part of the review, however due to

the number of specific comments received relating to these issues it was

considered worthwhile documenting these views within the report.

 

So in other words, contrary to what Planner1 has claimed in the past, even if everybody had responded by saying they wanted the scheme scrapped altogether, this was never an option.

 

I think what you need to consider is that the author of the report was clearly given a narrow brief to review the operation of the current scheme and ascertain whether any changes were needed to it, including expanding it. This is perfectly understandable, as the scheme had only recently been put in after extensive consultation and modification of the original proposal after feedback from local people on exactly where they wanted a scheme provided. When a scheme has been put into the areas where people wanted it, would you really expect them to be consulting a short time later and asking them whether they wanted it removing?

 

Irrespective of what questions were or were not asked, there was space on the response form for people to make any comments they wanted, including requests for the scheme to be removed if that is what they wanted.

 

The author says that issues were raised regarding permit costs and correctly says this was not within the scope of the review. Also, a small number of people said they wanted the scheme scrapped. The author explicitly included both of these types of comments in the report because they clearly felt that it was important for the decision makers (ie Councillors) to understand all local opinions before taking a decision on next steps.

 

That is entirely consistent with the position I have always maintained, that if a large number of people asked for a scheme to be scrapped, officers would report it and the decision makers would give this due consideration.

 

The facts are there. There was no large number of people asking for the scheme to be removed, but even the small number who asked for this had their views represented to the decision makers.

 

The officers only make recommendations and advise on the feedback they have received, it's the Councilors who make the decisions on these things.

 

---------- Post added 22-04-2013 at 00:33 ----------

 

The council choose to ignore public opinion if it dosnt fit with their policy ,also there is no financial gain for the council by listening to the public and scrapping the scheme.

Only a small number wanted it scrapped.

 

The vast majority who responded did not ask for this.

 

So, the decision makers most certainly did take into account public opinion and went along with what most people who gave feedback wanted.

 

Exactly what more could you want?

[Penistone999]

Only a small number wanted it scrapped.

 

The vast majority who responded did not ask for this.

 

So, the decision makers most certainly did take into account public opinion and went along with what most people who gave feedback wanted.

 

Exactly what more could you want?

 

Did they clearly tell the council they WANTED the permit scheme or did they say they wernt bothered either way and the council chose to take that as the residents wanted the scheme and ploughed on regardless. ?

[Parvo]

I know this leaves me in danger of being strung up by the neck on a tree in Hillsborough park....but I wanted the permit system......and I'm happy with it....its cheaper than getting parking tickets and I actually stand a cat in hells chance of parking within 200 yards of my home....................

 

note to self...having lit blue touch paper - stand well back.....................

[Planner1]

Did they clearly tell the council they WANTED the permit scheme or did they say they wernt bothered either way and the council chose to take that as the residents wanted the scheme and ploughed on regardless. ?

Remember that the respondents were answering specific questions on the review of an operating scheme.

 

There was space on the form for them to make any other comments they wanted to make, including whether they wanted the scheme to continue or not.

 

Those few people who chose to say they wanted the scheme removed had their views passed on to the decision makers. The Council did not draw any inference from anything that was not said.

[Onlywayis S6]

Where do people get the idea that the public road in front of their house belongs to them and only they should be allowed to park there?