Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[Cllr Rob]

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

 

Maybe you could explain why this is out of step with Green Party policy?

 

It is true that the Green Party seek to reduce the use of cars and reap the benefits of safer roads, less congestion and better air quality.

 

Permit parking zones bring some of these benefits to local residents.

 

It is a shame that the Council is more interested in using these schemes to subsidise spending in other, more wealthy, areas of the city.

[Penistone999]

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.

 

Is that finally an admission the council use motorists as cash cows. ?

 

Sounds like it to me.

[Litotes]

Is that finally an admission the council use motorists as cash cows. ?

 

Sounds like it to me.

 

Doh!!!

 

You forget.. "Planner1's views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, past or present."

 

He doesn't know any more than the rest of us - he has no insight into how the council works now.

 

He doesn't know if the council are fleecing the people who elect them.

 

He is just the man on the (parking permit controlled) street

[alchemist]

 

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.

 

Can you post a complete list of all these activities so we can see what we have to decide on?

[Blackbeard]

Maybe you could explain why this is out of step with Green Party policy?

 

It is true that the Green Party seek to reduce the use of cars and reap the benefits of safer roads, less congestion and better air quality.

K

Permit parking zones bring some of these benefits to local residents.

 

It is a shame that the Council is more interested in using these schemes to subsidise spending in other, more wealthy, areas of the city.

 

Sorry Clr Rob, I am not a Green Party politician, it is up to you to convince me that it is a "Green" policy that you are pursuing bringing in cheaper parking for low income families. Could you also tell me which wealthy areas of the city our "Labour" council are subsidising?

You must be doing something right if you have the support of Penistone999.

 

Remember, no matter who you vote for, the council always get in.

[Penistone999]

Sorry Clr Rob, I am not a Green Party politician, it is up to you to convince me that it is a "Green" policy that you are pursuing bringing in cheaper parking for low income families. Could you also tell me which wealthy areas of the city our "Labour" council are subsidising?

You must be doing something right if you have the support of Penistone999.

 

Remember, no matter who you vote for, the council always get in.

 

 

He dosnt have my support........ he`s a Greenie. I want permit zones abolished altogether , they are a stealth tax on motorists by greedy councils . Motorists living in these zones are forced to buy a permit which does NOT guarantee them somewhere to park. Its a scam . NO ONE should be forced to pay to park on the roadside .

[the fonz]

NO ONE should be forced to pay to park on the roadside .

 

Why not, do they own the roadside?

 

Motorists are a cash cow to the council and the government and they will get screwed much the same as drinkers and smokers do, and why not?

 

As an aside i have noticed a lot less enforcement in my area and have a ticket machine which has been faulty for months, it seems as if there have already been some cutbacks in parking enforcement?

[Planner1]

and have a ticket machine which has been faulty for months,

Have you reported it?

Call 2736255 7am-7pm and they will get it sorted.

 

Or PM me and I will pass it on to the right people

[the_bloke]

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.

 

From Planner1's post on the very first page of this thread:

 

'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’.'

 

Permit zones on their own do not even cover their own costs, with a combined income of permits and fines. It looks like you are including revenue from pay and display machines across the city as well, and expecting revenue from pay and display to go into the same pot as permit schemes.

 

Even if you can claim the money from pay and display to subsidise permit schemes, by offering to lower the cost of permits by varying (and unknown, as you have no idea who might be on income support in the next financial year) degrees you run the risk of lowering the PPZ income to a point where pay and display doesn't provide enough profit to keep subsidising PPZ.

 

Unless of course, you plan on making more pay and display areas or increasing the cost of those already in place to ensure you earn enough to keep the whole mess going?

 

---------- Post added 28-08-2014 at 22:57 ----------

 

Ah wait; reading page 26 of http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/b15491/Amendments%20Friday%2007-Mar-2014%2014.00%20Council.pdf?T=9

 

You plan on making some poor sods redundant (where is the redundancy money coming from?) and asking any council employee on more than £35k to take a pay cut.

 

Good luck with that.

[Cllr Rob]

From Planner1's post on the very first page of this thread:

 

'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’.'

 

Permit zones on their own do not even cover their own costs, with a combined income of permits and fines. It looks like you are including revenue from pay and display machines across the city as well, and expecting revenue from pay and display to go into the same pot as permit schemes.

 

Even if you can claim the money from pay and display to subsidise permit schemes, by offering to lower the cost of permits by varying (and unknown, as you have no idea who might be on income support in the next financial year) degrees you run the risk of lowering the PPZ income to a point where pay and display doesn't provide enough profit to keep subsidising PPZ.

 

Unless of course, you plan on making more pay and display areas or increasing the cost of those already in place to ensure you earn enough to keep the whole mess going?

 

 

 

The £0.7m surplus in 2012-13 included income from Pay and Display machines from inside Parking Permit Zones only. Pay and Display machines are an integral part of PPZs, if the zones weren't there the machines wouldn't be either.