Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[cuttsie]

You clearly haven't done much research if that's what you think.

 

Have a look at Manchester's prices for city centre permits: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/474/parking_at_your_home/596/residents_and_visitors_parking_permits/5

 

Theirs are up to £750 per annum, which makes Sheffield's look more like a bargain than being extortionate.

 

Can you share with us exactly how much money it would remove from the Council's budget if you reduced the Sheffield permit prices to the level you suggest?

How much do councilors and council officers pay for parking in the City centre while they are presumed to be working.

[Douglas J]

It is an interesting point you make.

 

Cllr Rob is happy to charge some of the city 'some amount' but complains about what that 'some amount' should be.

 

So, instead of treating everyone in the city the same, he is just trying to buy some political capital by, in effect, saying "We will still charge you, but we won't be as expensive as the other parties"

 

What we want is for the permit schemes to be free for residents or to be removed...

 

GOT IT?

 

I think the point is that:

-residents in central areas suffer from other people parking outside their homes so they can't,

-residents voted for these schemes and agreed to pay the cost of running them because they accepted no-one else should have to subsidise them,

-but equally they shouldn't have to subsidise other parts of the council.

 

that's the reason for having a break-even charge, not the profit-making charge the Labour council has pushed it up to.

[Litotes]

I think the point is that:

-residents in central areas suffer from other people parking outside their homes so they can't,

-residents voted for these schemes and agreed to pay the cost of running them because they accepted no-one else should have to subsidise them,

-but equally they shouldn't have to subsidise other parts of the council.

 

that's the reason for having a break-even charge, not the profit-making charge the Labour council has pushed it up to.

 

But I think the point is:

 

Yes we suffer from commuters parking outside our homes, but a 2 hour waiting limit would have sorted that, rather than an over 12 hour (in some cases) restriction;

 

Less than 1/5th of residents voted FOR the schemes, and anyway, Planner1 has madeit clear that the council do not consider these as ballots, but purely as an indication of local opinion, and they will still choose what they want to impose;

 

The council are in breach of regulations by using parking permit schemes to generate incomes, rather than just to ease congestion.

 

But then again, in a traditionally labour council, taking from the less-poor off to subsidise the rest would appeal to the voters, hence why the Cllr is trying to make political capital from pretending to reduce the tax burden rather than removing it.

[LeMaquis]

that's the reason for having a break-even charge, not the profit-making charge the Labour council has pushed it up to.

 

I don't understand why the Green Party wouldn't support some council income subsidising environmentally-friendly policies. Would the Greens support for example public transport being subsidised by a parking scheme excess of income over running costs?

[Narden Dee]

How much do councilors and council officers pay for parking in the City centre while they are presumed to be working.

 

Not all council workers have free parking it all depends on what their job role is for example certain roles (social workers, buildings officers maintenance officers etc are given passes as they will be required to travel round various sites and also for emergency situations ) those pass are only valid during weekdays and some are only valid for 5 hours

[Douglas J]

I don't understand why the Green Party wouldn't support some council income subsidising environmentally-friendly policies. Would the Greens support for example public transport being subsidised by a parking scheme excess of income over running costs?

 

I can see the attraction of this but, as far as i know, it isn't lawful, even before you get on to the wider arguments.

 

But i think there is a difference between raising money from general parking in the city (where people have some degree of choice) and from parking charges that are designed to protect the nature of residential streets for the community who live there.

[Cllr Rob]

So, you decry a prices as extortionate when you don't even know what it is. I see.

 

Can you tell us the split between social housing and private housing in the city centre? Do you think people in social housing should get permits cheaper than those in private sector rented or owned accommodation?

 

Also, could you answer the previous question about the actual price of producing and administering a parking permit?

 

£150 WAS extortionate, £200 IS even more extortionate.

 

I'm not interested in the split between social and private housing in the city centre. I was just making the point that not everyone who lives there is in expensive flats.

[SpikeMac]

Maybe the council should cave in to the anti permit lobby.

 

A few weeks of totally unregulated citywide parking would be educational, if a little chaotic.

 

It wouldn't be long before people were demanding restrictions.

[Cllr Rob]

But I think the point is:

 

Yes we suffer from commuters parking outside our homes, but a 2 hour waiting limit would have sorted that, rather than an over 12 hour (in some cases) restriction;

 

Less than 1/5th of residents voted FOR the schemes, and anyway, Planner1 has madeit clear that the council do not consider these as ballots, but purely as an indication of local opinion, and they will still choose what they want to impose;

 

The council are in breach of regulations by using parking permit schemes to generate incomes, rather than just to ease congestion.

 

But then again, in a traditionally labour council, taking from the less-poor off to subsidise the rest would appeal to the voters, hence why the Cllr is trying to make political capital from pretending to reduce the tax burden rather than removing it.

 

When the recent permit parking schemes began 2hr or 4hr waiting was considered too expensive to enforce.

 

In the areas I represent there have been majorities of local residents supporting the zones before they have been installed and boundaries have been drawn accordingly. (Although some of the consultations took place under the lower permit prices.)

 

The parking zones are not generally in the more affluent areas of the ward.

 

I don't see it as making political capital, I see it as representing local residents living in my ward.

[Planner1]

I can see the attraction of this but, as far as i know, it isn't lawful, even before you get on to the wider arguments.

You're wrong.

 

There are quite a few things that surplus income from parking can legally be spent on. Public transport is fine, as is improving green spaces / parks.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2014 at 23:19 ----------

 

 

The council are in breach of regulations by using parking permit schemes to generate incomes, rather than just to ease congestion.

Would you care to quote that regulation and tell us exactly what they are spending surplus parking income on that the law says they can't?