Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[sheff71]

In other words all he has is hearsay and his own recollection of events which, given his extremely heavy bias, is 'untrustworthy' at best.

 

Basically he's ******* in the wind with his accusations and insinuations.

 

None of us who weren't there (which is probably almost everyone on this site) have no idea what was said, so it's unfair to say his version is any more untrustworthy than the version Planner 1 puts forward from the council's POV - it's a shame the council didn't take note of his comments at the time officially, and that part at least could be put to bed.

 

If what Litotes said is accurate, then it's understandable they'd be aggrieved about it.

[Planner1]

If that is so, why, despite many requests, have the council never been able to find any notes from the meeting?

 

And here again, you admit that you heard it and noted it...

I thought the accusation you usually trot out was that they missed your question out of the notes. I seem to recall that notes were produced.

 

The results of the consultation and the approved way forward were based on actual individual or collective formal responses made to the Council in writing (ie letter or email).

 

You and many others provided written responses, the content of which were included in the information pack given to Councillors. I noted your comments at the meeting and discussed them with colleagues when we were reviewing the consultation responses.

 

You said at the meeting you an your neighbours wanted to opt out of the scheme. However, not enough people on your street registered a formal individual or collective response with the Council which said that. Only the roads with significant levels of objection to the scheme were balloted.

 

You may well have spoken to your neighbours and they may well have said then that they agreed with you. However, I have seen it many times that people say one thing to your face and then put something entirely different on paper.

[Penistone999]

You said at the meeting you an your neighbours wanted to opt out of the scheme. However, not enough people on your street registered a formal individual or collective response with the Council which said that. Only the roads with significant levels of objection to the scheme were balloted.

 

 

Does the council always assume that if someone dosnt object they must be in favour of a scheme. ? If the council wants to try and enforce its parking tax on residents then EVERY resident must be visited and asked if they are in favour or against the scheme. You cannot just make the assumption that if someone dosnt object they therefore must approve.

[deaf andy]

You said at the meeting you an your neighbours wanted to opt out of the scheme.

 

why wasn't it an opt-IN scheme? that way, residents who really wanted it had to ask for it?

[Planner1]

Does the council always assume that if someone dosnt object they must be in favour of a scheme. ? If the council wants to try and enforce its parking tax on residents then EVERY resident must be visited and asked if they are in favour or against the scheme. You cannot just make the assumption that if someone dosnt object they therefore must approve.

No assumptions are made at all about the views of non-responders.

 

Every resident and business is letter dropped when a scheme is proposed. There are public meetings they can attend. Everyone in the area has the oportunity to have their say and the views expressed are reported to the Councillors who make the decisions.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 12:43 ----------

 

why wasn't it an opt-IN scheme? that way, residents who really wanted it had to ask for it?

 

The schmes are proposed in areas where people have asked for them. It would be very difficult to implement a scheme on an opt-in basis. You need to be able to define a sensible area. If it's a hotch-potch of some streets being in and some not, people will get confused.

[Resident]

 

If what Litotes said is accurate, then it's understandable they'd be aggrieved about it.

 

The post after this just proved that what Litotes said isn't accurate at all. The council followed the rules and Litotes and these supposed army of neighbourly objectors failed to respond in the proper manner.

 

It's atypical of people today. People complaining because they don't like something an elected body is doing and when asked why they voted for them the reply is "I didn't bother voting".

 

If you don't vote then tbqh you've no right to moan about it.

 

The same goes here, they were given the opportunity to object and not enough did so formally to outweigh those in favour.

[Litotes]

The post after this just proved that what Litotes said isn't accurate at all. The council followed the rules and Litotes and these supposed army of neighbourly objectors failed to respond in the proper manner.

 

It's atypical of people today. People complaining because they don't like something an elected body is doing and when asked why they voted for them the reply is "I didn't bother voting".

 

If you don't vote then tbqh you've no right to moan about it.

 

The same goes here, they were given the opportunity to object and not enough did so formally to outweigh those in favour.

 

And you know the post proved this how?

 

The street submitted a single consolidated written request for a ballot, which was followed up by a specific verbal request at a forum meeting.

 

Both were ignored and neither appeared in any record according to a FOI request to the council.

 

We acted in accordance to the process and were duly disenfranchised.

 

Planner has a different take on things, but then he would as he was part of the team doing the disenfranchisement.

 

To quote some other poster on here, it isn't surprising that his recollections would be different as "given his extremely heavy bias, is 'untrustworthy' at best."

[sheff71]

No assumptions are made at all about the views of non-responders.

 

Every resident and business is letter dropped when a scheme is proposed. There are public meetings they can attend. Everyone in the area has the oportunity to have their say and the views expressed are reported to the Councillors who make the decisions.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 12:43 ----------

 

 

The schmes are proposed in areas where people have asked for them. It would be very difficult to implement a scheme on an opt-in basis. You need to be able to define a sensible area. If it's a hotch-potch of some streets being in and some not, people will get confused.

 

Isn't there the possibility of a compromise to the scheme though - as you say, there are some people who do want a permit zone, and clearly plenty of others who don't.

 

As those who want it are clearly happy to pay extra for this service, is it not possible that the council could provide specifically marked out spaces just for those who have a permit (so Mr Smith at no.5 would pay his £30 or whatever a year, and get a space marked outside his home with the permit to park in that space only valid for his car)...

 

so if 25 out of a hundred houses on the street choose to have the permits, this guarantees those people a space as near as possible to their home, and then the remaining spaces on the road are free for whoever else?

 

I've no doubt there will be flaws with this (especially if every single house wanted a permit, or there are flats), but at least it would be fairer, and those that are willing to pay for the privilege of a guaranteed space, would get that?

[deaf andy]

The schmes are proposed in areas where people have asked for them. It would be very difficult to implement a scheme on an opt-in basis. You need to be able to define a sensible area. If it's a hotch-potch of some streets being in and some not, people will get confused.

 

why not make all streets permit zones, to eradicate any confusion?

 

or is that the masterplan?

[Cyclone]

Isn't there the possibility of a compromise to the scheme though - as you say, there are some people who do want a permit zone, and clearly plenty of others who don't.

 

As those who want it are clearly happy to pay extra for this service, is it not possible that the council could provide specifically marked out spaces just for those who have a permit (so Mr Smith at no.5 would pay his £30 or whatever a year, and get a space marked outside his home with the permit to park in that space only valid for his car)...

 

so if 25 out of a hundred houses on the street choose to have the permits, this guarantees those people a space as near as possible to their home, and then the remaining spaces on the road are free for whoever else?

 

I've no doubt there will be flaws with this (especially if every single house wanted a permit, or there are flats), but at least it would be fairer, and those that are willing to pay for the privilege of a guaranteed space, would get that?

 

The permit zones don't guarantee parking for individuals (even if they have permits) nor that they will be able to park outside their house.

What you are proposing is effectively selling off (or leasing) the parking rights for specific bits of tarmac.

In most of the areas where the zones have been implemented there are more houses than possible parking spaces though, so there is no way it could equitably be done.