Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[metalman]

As far as I am aware, the Council gave the Star the following information when they were asked to comment on the potential story:

 

The Lib Dems have included all income from pay and display which is not connected to parking permits. The PPZ income is £522,000 the income from enforcement is £669,000, which means the total income is £1.191 million. The cost of providing the service is £1.255 million, the council is still subsidising the permit zones by over £100,000, so there is no ‘profit’.

 

The Star chose not to print this information. They just said:

 

But ruling Labour councillors said income from parking permits alone does not cover the cost of running the zones...

 

So when you say the cost of providing the service is £1.255 million, is that just for the parking permit zones or does that include all the pay and display parking as well? Because that figure seems remarkably similar to the costs figure quoted in the Star, so either the rest of the pay and display parking costs almost nothing, or you're being a bit naughty with your figures.

[Planner1]

So when you say the cost of providing the service is £1.255 million, is that just for the parking permit zones or does that include all the pay and display parking as well? Because that figure seems remarkably similar to the costs figure quoted in the Star, so either the rest of the pay and display parking costs almost nothing, or you're being a bit naughty with your figures.

I didn't put these figures together, it's not what I say.

 

I believe the costs the Council quoted are only those for the permit zones.

[alchemist]

But this does not tally with the information from an FOI request which indicated that the surplus was nearly a million after the cost of providing the service was taken into account.

 

 

Could perhaps... the council have been telling porkies to either myself or the Star?

 

The council tell porkies??? Wash your mouth out!!

[dawny1970]

am i missing somthing here but scc state surplus is spent on transport in line with policy, anyone tell me what transport? as bus's are private companies

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[metalman]

I didn't put these figures together, it's not what I say.

 

I believe the costs the Council quoted are only those for the permit zones.

 

Well surely in that case the thing to do is get rid of them all and save 1.25 million pounds a year. And before you say it's a service and the council is bound to provide it if people ask for it, that's poppycock - so is emptying the bins but they were happy to cut that.

[dawny1970]

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by Planner1

 

I didn't put these figures together, it's not what I say.

 

I believe the costs the Council quoted are only those for the permit zones.

 

Well surely in that case the thing to do is get rid of them all and save 1.25 million pounds a year. And before you say it's a service and the council is bound to provide it if people ask for it, that's poppycock - so is emptying the bins but they were happy to cut that.

 

emptying bins doesn't make cash so that's why collections been cut!

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Planner1]

Well surely in that case the thing to do is get rid of them all and save 1.25 million pounds a year. And before you say it's a service and the council is bound to provide it if people ask for it, that's poppycock - so is emptying the bins but they were happy to cut that.

When have I ever said that permit zones are a service the Council is bound to provide? It's not a statutory service, the zones are there because people want them.

 

You wouldn't save £1.25m if you didn't have them if you read the statement I posted.

 

Don't forget that Parking Services as we see it today is largely here because of the permit zones. They employ a large number of people, many of whom would no longer have a job if the permit zones were got rid of. How would that help the local economy?

[dawny1970]

planner1, what transport is the surplus spent on?

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Cyclone]

As far as I am aware, the Council gave the Star the following information when they were asked to comment on the potential story:

 

The Lib Dems have included all income from pay and display which is not connected to parking permits. The PPZ income is £522,000 the income from enforcement is £669,000, which means the total income is £1.191 million. The cost of providing the service is £1.255 million, the council is still subsidising the permit zones by over £100,000, so there is no ‘profit’.

 

The Star chose not to print this information. They just said:

 

But ruling Labour councillors said income from parking permits alone does not cover the cost of running the zones...

 

How is the pay and display income not connected? If the PPZ didn't exist then nobody would need to pay and display, they'd just park. Disingenuous to say the least.

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2013 at 11:14 ----------

 

When have I ever said that permit zones are a service the Council is bound to provide? It's not a statutory service, the zones are there because people want them.

 

You wouldn't save £1.25m if you didn't have them if you read the statement I posted.

 

Don't forget that Parking Services as we see it today is largely here because of the permit zones. They employ a large number of people, many of whom would no longer have a job if the permit zones were got rid of. How would that help the local economy?

 

Having the state employ people at the expense of residents does not 'help' the economy.

[metalman]

 

You wouldn't save £1.25m if you didn't have them if you read the statement I posted.

 

You would still save somewhere between £100k and £700k.

 

Don't forget that Parking Services as we see it today is largely here because of the permit zones. They employ a large number of people, many of whom would no longer have a job if the permit zones were got rid of. How would that help the local economy?

 

Well, nothing personal against those people but that sounds like an even better argument for getting rid of them to me - employing people for the sake of it leads to the sort of bloated organisation we see today.