Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[Cllr Rob]

A Facebook group registered within the last week, for an apparent 'society group' who are suddenly asking for money to support their 'work' and who haven't registered themselves either as a non-profit with the charity commission or as a business at companies house? This is a legal requirement for any group asking for money. I said this the other day when you first posted about this supposed 'group', which at that time had virtually zero web presence, no official website and hadn't even then registered for Facebook. It's all well and good having a group that wants to campaign to reduce or abolish Sheffield parking charges, but the way that this has been put together appears extremely amateurish. They haven't even begun to try and organise support, put on a meeting, try and hold a rally to get word-of-mouth advertisement for their cause, no petitions etc. There's lots of other channels that they could use to try and get what they want but straight away, they're asking for money to mount a legal case which in any event will cost the council money - and lets be clear, this is the Sheffield public's money that will be used for the council to defend themselves in court if the argument is progressed that way!! The group's ethos screams of nimby-ism aswell. The first posting stating "We are trying to stop the Council making money out of our area to spend in other parts of the city" - this doesn't define what area this group is supposed to represent, as there is now a massive PPZ surrounding Sheffield centre, the fact that they're stating 'care of Sharrow community forum' as their contact details yet calling themselves "Sheffielders for Parking Fairness' is at odds and counter intuitive if the group is actually only representing one area.

 

 

Separately, whilst I agree that the parking permits scheme was pushed through without proper consultation to residents and while it raises far in excess of what it needs to in order to keep the scheme running, the use of 'parking attendants' in the areas served has been somewhat useful in such as a deterrent to crime and vandalism for instance, especially at a time when police numbers have been cut and we're seeing a lot less police patrols of the streets in general. I support the concept of paying a living wage i.e pay above minimum wage, and as such if you decide to reduce the council's current revenue streams for funding the parking schemes then there'll be even more cuts made on top of the £40Million that SCC has to find across the board this year. There'll potentially be a reduction in wardens/patrols. The scheme whilst contentious is now here to stay and we may as well try to see the positives in properly maintaining it if we are indeed forced to have it.

 

ShefStealth the campaigners are local residents not professionals. As can be seen from the facebook site they are campaigning for a fair price for the permits not that the schemes are removed.

 

Sheffield Green Party had been campaigning on this issue for a while. We submitted a petition to Council earlier this year which was rejected, despite myself calling the decision into scrutiny. http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s14722/Call-in%20Parking%20Permit%20Prices%20Cover.pdf

 

The Central Ward councillors called a public meeting last month regarding Permit Parking Zones http://centralsheffield.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/parking-permit-zones-meeting-16th-october/ and residents decided they wished to continue the campaign through the legal route, which is the only option left for them.

 

Personally I think it is unfair that residents of the inner city should be subsidising transport spending in the wealthier suburbs.

The Council does not have to take this case to court it could accept that the charges are unfair and reduce the charges.

There would not be a reduction in the wardens or patrols as they are already paid for out of the schemes.

 

Their next meeting is later today at the Duchess Road Community Centre at 6.30pm and I'm sure residents from the city's other Permit Parking Zones would be welcome to attend and help their campaign.

[Planner1]

Personally I think it is unfair that residents of the inner city should be subsidising transport spending in the wealthier suburbs.

 

That is not true.

 

The income from permits alone covers around a third of the cost of administering and enforcing the permit zones.

 

It's only when you take into account the pay and display income and penalty income that there is any "surplus" income.

 

The people who pay and display and receive penalties are probably mostly visitors to the permit zones, so it is not "residents of the inner city" who are providing the surplus which is spent across the city.

 

What do you regard as a "fair" price for a permit and how do you arrive at that price? Isn't it "fair" that the people who derive the most benefit from the permit schemes make a "fair" contribution towards the costs?

 

A first residents permit is £36 and that's about half a tank of fuel these days, so it is not unaffordable to anyone who runs a car. In the current crop of permit zones, the residents permit price was introduced at £35 about eight years ago and its now a pound more, so it hasn't gone up much overall. If you look around the country, that is in line with what is charged elsewhere. There was a period of a few of years a while back in the worst of the recession when the Council lowered the permit prices and took a hit on the lost income to help residents. That's the only time the prices have been significantly different.

[Cllr Rob]

That is not true.

 

The income from permits alone covers around a third of the cost of administering and enforcing the permit zones.

 

It's only when you take into account the pay and display income and penalty income that there is any "surplus" income.

 

The people who pay and display and receive penalties are probably mostly visitors to the permit zones, so it is not "residents of the inner city" who are providing the surplus which is spent across the city.

 

What do you regard as a "fair" price for a permit and how do you arrive at that price? Isn't it "fair" that the people who derive the most benefit from the permit schemes make a "fair" contribution towards the costs?

 

A first residents permit is £36 and that's about half a tank of fuel these days, so it is not unaffordable to anyone who runs a car. In the current crop of permit zones, the residents permit price was introduced at £35 about eight years ago and its now a pound more, so it hasn't gone up much overall. If you look around the country, that is in line with what is charged elsewhere. There was a period of a few of years a while back in the worst of the recession when the Council lowered the permit prices and took a hit on the lost income to help residents. That's the only time the prices have been significantly different.

 

The parking zones make a surplus and residents contribute to that surplus so they are subsidising other parts of the city.

 

A fair price would I suggest be around £10 for the first permit. When this price was charged the schemes were roughly revenue neutral.

 

Is it a 'benefit' to be able to park somewhere near your house?

Most people in the city can do this and don't have to pay £36 per year + visitors permits + the hassle of applying/renewing/changing permits.

 

It's not about whether it's affordable it's about whether it's fair. If someone robbed a tenner off you, you could probably afford it. Doesn't make it right.

[metalman]

The inner city residents are not subsidising the wealthier suburbs really because a lot of the parking permit zones are out in the suburbs anyway - you can't really call Broomhill, Crookesmoor and Hillsborough the inner city. Frankly I don't have a great deal of sympathy with residents - you voted for it, you got it, it's all your fault in the first place. I've got a lot more sympathy with people who just wanted to park legally on the road so that they could go to work and were stopped doing so by your selfishness.

[Planner1]

The parking zones make a surplus and residents contribute to that surplus so they are subsidising other parts of the city.

 

A fair price would I suggest be around £10 for the first permit. When this price was charged the schemes were roughly revenue neutral.

 

Is it a 'benefit' to be able to park somewhere near your house?

Most people in the city can do this and don't have to pay £36 per year + visitors permits + the hassle of applying/renewing/changing permits.

 

It's not about whether it's affordable it's about whether it's fair. If someone robbed a tenner off you, you could probably afford it. Doesn't make it right.

 

As I have said, the permit parking zones only make a surplus when you add in the pay and display income and the penalties.

 

The permits alone have never come anywhere near covering the costs of administering and enforcing them. therefore it coudl be said that eth rest of the city is subsidising teh permit zones by covering the rest of the costs.

 

If the permit parking schemes were removed, the pay and display and all of the parking restrictions apart from the permit holders only restrictions, would probably remain. It's therefore rather unfair to consider these types of income when considering the cost of a permit.

 

£10 does not even cover the cost of producing the actual permit, sending it out and the associated admin costs.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Planner1

[Cllr Rob]

Planner1 sorry, but your argument is held together with bits of string!

 

The Pay and Display machines and PCN enforcement are integral parts of the zones. If there was no Permit Parking Zones there would be no PCN fines and no Pay and Display.

 

The Council is suffering massive budget cuts and the Labour administration has chosen to avoid difficult decisions by clobbering residents and businesses in these zones instead.

[cardoor]

how would you plug the £300,000 shortfall which would occur if the prices were reduced?

 

I'm also skint and in debt and would like to make up my shortfall due to wage cuts and cost of living, but this does not justify me stealing from other motorists.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 04:52 ----------

 

Planner1 sorry, but your argument is held together with bits of string!

 

The Pay and Display machines and PCN enforcement are integral parts of the zones. If there was no Permit Parking Zones there would be no PCN fines and no Pay and Display.

 

The Council is suffering massive budget cuts and the Labour administration has chosen to avoid difficult decisions by clobbering residents and businesses in these zones instead.

 

The Greens defending motorists!? Next UKIP will be defending immigrants.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 04:52 ----------

 

Planner1 sorry, but your argument is held together with bits of string!

 

The Pay and Display machines and PCN enforcement are integral parts of the zones. If there was no Permit Parking Zones there would be no PCN fines and no Pay and Display.

 

The Council is suffering massive budget cuts and the Labour administration has chosen to avoid difficult decisions by clobbering residents and businesses in these zones instead.

 

The Greens defending motorists!? Next UKIP will be defending immigrants.

 

---------- Post added 06-11-2014 at 04:54 ----------

 

The inner city residents are not subsidising the wealthier suburbs really because a lot of the parking permit zones are out in the suburbs anyway - you can't really call Broomhill, Crookesmoor and Hillsborough the inner city. Frankly I don't have a great deal of sympathy with residents - you voted for it, you got it, it's all your fault in the first place. I've got a lot more sympathy with people who just wanted to park legally on the road so that they could go to work and were stopped doing so by your selfishness.

 

I used to live in permit zone and was never consulted or had the opportunity to vote.

[Litotes]

As I have said, the permit parking zones only make a surplus when you add in the pay and display income and the penalties.

 

The permits alone have never come anywhere near covering the costs of administering and enforcing them. therefore it coudl be said that eth rest of the city is subsidising teh permit zones by covering the rest of the costs.

 

If the permit parking schemes were removed, the pay and display and all of the parking restrictions apart from the permit holders only restrictions, would probably remain. It's therefore rather unfair to consider these types of income when considering the cost of a permit.

 

£10 does not even cover the cost of producing the actual permit, sending it out and the associated admin costs.

 

As usual, Planner1 rolls out the old "if you discount everything exxcept what I want to include, I can make the figures stack up" after all that is what the council did to get these schemes implemented.

 

A tiny percentage of the residents actually wanted these schemes and yet these stealth tax schemes were imposed on us.

[LeMaquis]

....but seeing as the BNP have more chance of being voted into power than the old crusty 's from the greens.....

 

Number of Green councillors in Sheffield - 4

Number of BNP councillors in Sheffield - 0.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2014 at 21:36 ----------

 

Personally I think it is unfair that residents of the inner city should be subsidising transport spending in the wealthier suburbs.

 

This kind of comment reminds me of the kind of dishonest arguments the Lib-Dems use - i.e. uninformed rabble-rousing aimed at making people feel they're being ripped off.

 

If I'm wrong then you could let me know which transport schemes in the wealthy suburbs have been subsidised by poorer areas.

[Penistone999]

As I have said, the permit parking zones only make a surplus when you add in the pay and display income and the penalties.

 

The permits alone have never come anywhere near covering the costs of administering and enforcing them. therefore it coudl be said that eth rest of the city is subsidising teh permit zones by covering the rest of the costs.

 

If the permit parking schemes were removed, the pay and display and all of the parking restrictions apart from the permit holders only restrictions, would probably remain. It's therefore rather unfair to consider these types of income when considering the cost of a permit.

 

£10 does not even cover the cost of producing the actual permit, sending it out and the associated admin costs.

 

Really. ? This evidence begs to differ .

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-s-parking-permit-price-is-third-highest-1-6947782

 

In nine cities, including Leeds, Nottingham and Manchester, the permits are free.

 

So why can other cities issue permits FREE of charge but sheffield council insists £36 is only covering costs. ? In Nottingham you can have THREE permits free of charge . can you please explain this ?

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2014 at 22:39 ----------

 

how would you plug the £300,000 shortfall which would occur if the prices were reduced?

 

No , there is no shortfall as my link above proves . NINE other northern towns and cities offer FREE permits which proves there is no cost apart from printing a permit and posting it out to the householder. SCC are on the take as normal , fleecing motorists to fil the coffers. Its permit scam is blatant profiteering .