Sheffield Council's 1.2 Million Profits from Parking Permits!

[Cyclone]

The Traffic Management Act (2004) explains what uses parking income can be put to under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act.

 

Extract as follows:

 

(4) The purposes referred to in subsection (2) above are the following, that is to say—

 

(d) If it appears to the local authority that the provision in their area of further off-street parking accommodation is unnecessary or undesirable, the following purposes–

 

(i) Meeting costs incurred, whether by the local authority or by some other person, in the provision or operation of, or of facilities for, public passenger transport services,

 

(ii) The purposes of a highway or road improvement project in the local authority's area,

 

(iii) In the case of a London authority, meeting costs incurred by the authority in respect of the maintenance of roads maintained at the public expense by them,

 

(iv) The purposes of environmental improvement in the local authority's area,

 

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4)(d)(iv) “environmental improvement” includes–

 

(a) The reduction of environmental pollution (as defined in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (c. 24); see section 1(2) and (3) of that Act);

 

(b) Improving or maintaining the appearance or amenity of–

 

(i) A road or land in the vicinity of a road, or

 

(ii) Open land or water to which the general public has access; and

 

© The provision of outdoor recreational facilities available to the general public without charge.

 

And which of these is the surplus actually being used for?

 

---------- Post added 29-08-2013 at 17:21 ----------

 

Do any of the people on this thread calling for the scrapping of the permit zones actually live in one of those zones?

 

I lived at the boundary of one, and not too far from another...

[Resident]

You lot realise that no-one has a right to park on the street right, that these permits give you that right (space permitting)?

 

Parking on the street just became a 'social norm' due to increases in car ownership where the owners lived in an area where off-street parking wasn't available due to space constraints

 

A 'social norm' is not a right

 

Oh and for any halfwit that is thinking about coming at me with the "I pay my road tax/VED etc" line. Think again.

[the_bloke]

Why did the council create a system that costs £1.255 million pounds but only gets an income from of £522,000?

 

Sorry, I'd rather a system that costs £1.255 million pounds to run that generates an income of £1.255 million pounds, with the extra income from enforcement (fines) being out back into the coffers to do something more useful.

 

If permits were charged at a non subsidized rate, then these zones wouldn't even exist in the first place as no one would have wanted them, and the city would have an extra million pound each year to fritter on another scheme.

 

Ah. A dig found this: http://meetings.sheffield.gov.uk/council-meetings/cabinet/agendas-2005/agenda-14th-december-2005/residents-parking-zones

 

It's old (2005) but you can see what the council was planning at the time:

 

It is estimated that the enforcement of the Broomhall zone is self financing from parking permits, charges and fines. Income from penalties in the zone is continuing at a steady level at present but this may decrease over time as the permit scheme becomes well established.

 

It is anticipated that each additional residents parking zone will need the attention of two Parking Attendants and that these will continue to be self financing. As the number of zones expands, consequently the number of attendants required will increase, additionally, some areas will require enforcement at evenings and weekends. The operational needs for staffing the permit parking scheme will need closely balancing against fee and charge levels over time.

 

So was the plans for PPZ to break even by the combined income of fees and fines? I bolded the section above, as I read that as the council being prepared to put on more parking attendants, to generate more fines, to generate more money from the motorist if the scheme was found to be running at a loss.

 

Considering last year the council had to put an extra £100k into the scheme to balance the books, they didn't earn as much money from fines as they thought they were going to. So get ready for more parking attendants this year to help balance the books.

[Resident]

 

Considering last year the council had to put an extra £100k into the scheme to balance the books, they didn't earn as much money from fines as they thought they were going to. So get ready for more parking attendants this year to help balance the books.

 

If people didn't break the rules there would be no fine income. It's that simple.

[the_bloke]

If people didn't break the rules there would be no fine income. It's that simple.

 

So you have no problem with the design and implementation of a system that requires people to break the rules in order to break even?

[Micky ET]

not surprised when the trade ones have doubled in cost in 6 months !!

[dawny1970]

planner1, i asked you a question about what ots spent on, i didnt ask for what the law said, i asked a direct question, please give a direct answer

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Micky ET]

If people didn't break the rules there would be no fine income. It's that simple.

 

They also make this money from permits it is now costing me £8 extra per day for my business to run, I cannot pass this on as prices are already competitive !.

[Penistone999]

not surprised when the trade ones have doubled in cost in 6 months !!

 

That is a perfect example of council ripping people off and using motorists as cash cows. Why should the trade ones cost more than private ones. complete scam ,but sadly its a perfectly legal con the council know they can get away with.

[Litotes]

If people didn't break the rules there would be no fine income. It's that simple.

 

And if the council didn't invent rules where none were needed, they wouldn't get broken - it's that simple.