Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[Resident]

The Green Party petition for a reduction in the price of parking permits was rejected by Highway Cabinet Member Cllr Leigh Bramall at a meeting on 12th June. A separate petition for a reduction in prices for those on low incomes was also rejected.

With the support of the other opposition parties on the Council I have called this decision in for closer scrutiny.

 

This will take place at a public meeting and it is at the Town Hall this Thursday, 28th August. Further details can be found here:

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=5841

 

Why is this here? If you're on an income that can support the luxury of a car then you're not on a low income!

[Narden Dee]

The Green Party petition for a reduction in the price of parking permits was rejected by Highway Cabinet Member Cllr Leigh Bramall at a meeting on 12th June. A separate petition for a reduction in prices for those on low incomes was also rejected.

 

With the support of the other opposition parties on the Council I have called this decision in for closer scrutiny.

 

This will take place at a public meeting and it is at the Town Hall this Thursday, 28th August. Further details can be found here:

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=5841

 

how would this low income threshold be monitored ? i.e. who would pay for someone to check whether they are eligible and what is classed as a low income?

 

surely if someone is on benefits why should they have a cheaper permit than someone who works but may have the same disposable income.

 

would this reduction be means tested ?

[Penistone999]

Why is this here? If you're on an income that can support the luxury of a car then you're not on a low income!

 

Its got nowt to do with low income............. parking permits are just a stealth tax on motorists by councils to fill their piggy banks.

[the_bloke]

The Green Party petition for a reduction in the price of parking permits was rejected by Highway Cabinet Member Cllr Leigh Bramall at a meeting on 12th June. A separate petition for a reduction in prices for those on low incomes was also rejected.

 

With the support of the other opposition parties on the Council I have called this decision in for closer scrutiny.

 

This will take place at a public meeting and it is at the Town Hall this Thursday, 28th August. Further details can be found here:

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=5841

 

Lowering the cost of permits means the cost of running the parking scheme has to come from another source; the already sizable percentage of running costs taken from parking tickets will be increased. More wardens and more annoyed road users.

[Cllr Rob]

Lowering the cost of permits means the cost of running the parking scheme has to come from another source; the already sizable percentage of running costs taken from parking tickets will be increased. More wardens and more annoyed road users.

 

The cost of running permit parking schemes are already covered by income from permits, fines and 'pay and display' machines. According to Council figures permit parking zones made a surplus of £700 000 in 2012-13.

[Planner1]

The cost of running permit parking schemes are already covered by income from permits, fines and 'pay and display' machines. According to Council figures permit parking zones made a surplus of £700 000 in 2012-13.

 

And of course, as the law requires, the surplus income is used to fund the activities of the Transport Traffic and Parking Services Division, the Highway Maintenance Division and provides part of the Council's commitment to the Streets Ahead PFI contract. The surplus underpins the costs which aren't met from other sources such as fees and external funding, so any substantial reduction might well mean job losses.

 

If you lower permit prices, income decreases substantially. Which parts of the operation of these services would you cut to provide cheaper motoring for those who live and do business in permit zones and derive a significant benefit from being in such a zone.

[Blackbeard]

The Green Party petition for a reduction in the price of parking permits was rejected by Highway Cabinet Member Cllr Leigh Bramall at a meeting on 12th June. A separate petition for a reduction in prices for those on low incomes was also rejected.

 

With the support of the other opposition parties on the Council I have called this decision in for closer scrutiny.

 

This will take place at a public meeting and it is at the Town Hall this Thursday, 28th August. Further details can be found here:

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=5841

 

An interesting proposal but is this not out of step with the Green Party policy?

"TR035 The Green Party would amend and enforce planning rules to steadily reduce car parking requirements, and make a requirement that the developer must show how their development can be fully accessed by more sustainable modes. Any development that encourages a large number of journeys must be in a location accessible to a wide range of public transport, including links to the rail system. (see TR180 for cycle storage)

 

TR036 The Green Party will seek to create car-free developments wherever feasible, through both planning arrangements and financial incentives.

TR307 As a use of valuable road space, car parking will become subject more generally to charging. The Green Party supports the widespread introduction of neighbourhood parking schemes (controlled parking zones) that entail residents being charged for on-street parking, and would set guidelines to both reduce on-street parking where it endangers pedestrians and cyclists and to ensure that off-street parking does not degrade a street's environment. In non-residential sections of urban areas, on-street parking should be subject to metering."

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

Edited August 27, 2014 by Blackbeard

[Planner1]

An interesting proposal but is this not out of step with the Green Party policy?

"TR035 The Green Party would amend and enforce planning rules to steadily reduce car parking requirements, and make a requirement that the developer must show how their development can be fully accessed by more sustainable modes. Any development that encourages a large number of journeys must be in a location accessible to a wide range of public transport, including links to the rail system. (see TR180 for cycle storage)

 

TR036 The Green Party will seek to create car-free developments wherever feasible, through both planning arrangements and financial incentives.

TR307 As a use of valuable road space, car parking will become subject more generally to charging. The Green Party supports the widespread introduction of neighbourhood parking schemes (controlled parking zones) that entail residents being charged for on-street parking, and would set guidelines to both reduce on-street parking where it endangers pedestrians and cyclists and to ensure that off-street parking does not degrade a street's environment. In non-residential sections of urban areas, on-street parking should be subject to metering."

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html

 

Also interesting to note that according to the RAC Foundation's report on Local Authority parking finances 2013/13, Green Party controlled Brighton & Hove had the highest level of parking income of any English Local Authority outside London at £24.2m in 2012/13 see: http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/councils-make-record-profit-parking-2012

[Narden Dee]

The cost of running permit parking schemes are already covered by income from permits, fines and 'pay and display' machines. According to Council figures permit parking zones made a surplus of £700 000 in 2012-13.

 

any chance of answering my questions CllrRob ?

[Cllr Rob]

And of course, as the law requires, the surplus income is used to fund the activities of the Transport Traffic and Parking Services Division, the Highway Maintenance Division and provides part of the Council's commitment to the Streets Ahead PFI contract. The surplus underpins the costs which aren't met from other sources such as fees and external funding, so any substantial reduction might well mean job losses.

 

If you lower permit prices, income decreases substantially. Which parts of the operation of these services would you cut to provide cheaper motoring for those who live and do business in permit zones and derive a significant benefit from being in such a zone.

 

The Green Party budget proposal for 2014-15 shows how we would fund this and can be found here:

 

http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b15491/Amendments%20Friday%2007-Mar-2014%2014.00%20Council.pdf?T=9 Green amendment is p.24 onwards.

 

The only job losses are of the political assistants used by the other parties on the Council.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2014 at 18:41 ----------

 

any chance of answering my questions CllrRob ?

 

Sorry Narden Dee.

 

The petition regarding lower incomes was not a Green Party petition. It was from another source.

 

It has only been called in as it was dealt with by the Council in the same June 12th report.

 

I agree with your points on the difficulty of introducing a low income reduction.