Sheffield Clean Air Zone

[*_ash_*]

On 31/03/2020 at 23:23, *_ash_* said:

Personally, I'd be very surprised if this goes ahead on time.

Well I was right. It was delayed, 3 years. Part pandemic, and part because it's nonsense.

[geared]

I think it's interesting that post-pandemic pollution levels in Leeds dropped off and a CAZ was no longer required.

 

In Sheffield that is obviously not the case.  Perhaps the council's constant meddling with the road network has made dangerous levels of pollution inevitible? 

[HeHasRisen]

Aye, Leeds city centre doesnt have one way systems, bus lanes/gates and pedestrianised areas whatsoever.

Edited November 12, 2022 by HeHasRisen

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Aye, Leeds city centre doesnt have one way systems, bus lanes/gates and pedestrianised areas whatsoever.

Leeds have been doing a lot of cycling and walking schemes in the city centre and have more planned, including closing city square to through traffic.

[Planner1]

12 hours ago, Litotes said:

Yes, and that was how the PPZ started... broad scope and then SSC narrowed it down without consultation. The parking zones were part of the PPZ, which was broad, but once they were in place they were restricted without consultation.

There is one street in the area which is so constricted that there are 6 houses in a parking zone. But only those in the parking zone are allowed to apply for the permits...

Hmmm, I wonder if there is anyone or anyone's relatives who live there?

 

Not suggesting that there is corruption in the SCC, but it could be considered. Why has that street got so privileged parking?

 

And why has the PPZ managed to get so much power without oversight?

Not sure what you mean by narrowing down the PPZ without consultation.

 

The Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ) is a concept for a ring of permit parking schemes around the city centre and some a bit further out where there are particular issues.

 

So far, it's been implemented in areas where there was public support for it, but it ran into problems in places like around the Northern General Hospital, where consultation revealed a lack of support, so the permit zone didn't happen. Permit zone implementation stalled after that.

 

The areas that did get permit zones were those with the biggest problems and largest levels of public support.

 

There are several small streets in various permit zones that are restricted to vehicles from the properties that are on that street. Chandos Street in Broomhill is an example. On these streets, there's only enough space for 1 vehicle from each property and because of the nature of the locations it was felt to be the fairest solution to restrict them to the properties on that street. Most of these streets already had their own small permit scheme before the area-wide schemes came in. This was nothing to do with cronyism it was just a practical approach to a difficult situation. You can always argue for other solutions but at the end of the day someone has to decide. Your councillors approved all these schemes and the details of how they operate.

 

Also, not sure what you mean about: "And why has the PPZ managed to get so much power without oversight?"

 

As I've said, all decisions are taken by your elected councillors. Sheffield has an adopted parking policy which includes completing the PPZ. The decision to approve the policy was taken by the Cabinet Member and it was within their delegated authority to do that. All such decisions are subject to scrutiny by a Scrutiny Committee of cross party councillors. That's how the democratic process worked at that time.

[Litotes]

7 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Not sure what you mean by narrowing down the PPZ without consultation.

 

The Peripheral Parking Zone (PPZ) is a concept for a ring of permit parking schemes around the city centre and some a bit further out where there are particular issues.

 

So far, it's been implemented in areas where there was public support for it, but it ran into problems in places like around the Northern General Hospital, where consultation revealed a lack of support, so the permit zone didn't happen. Permit zone implementation stalled after that.

 

The areas that did get permit zones were those with the biggest problems and largest levels of public support.

 

There are several small streets in various permit zones that are restricted to vehicles from the properties that are on that street. Chandos Street in Broomhill is an example. On these streets, there's only enough space for 1 vehicle from each property and because of the nature of the locations it was felt to be the fairest solution to restrict them to the properties on that street. Most of these streets already had their own small permit scheme before the area-wide schemes came in. This was nothing to do with cronyism it was just a practical approach to a difficult situation. You can always argue for other solutions but at the end of the day someone has to decide. Your councillors approved all these schemes and the details of how they operate.

 

Also, not sure what you mean about: "And why has the PPZ managed to get so much power without oversight?"

 

As I've said, all decisions are taken by your elected councillors. Sheffield has an adopted parking policy which includes completing the PPZ. The decision to approve the policy was taken by the Cabinet Member and it was within their delegated authority to do that. All such decisions are subject to scrutiny by a Scrutiny Committee of cross party councillors. That's how the democratic process worked at that time.

The PPZ was implemented in many areas with minimal support - less than 15% of the residents supported it in Sharrowvale, and yet it was implemented. So much for largest levels of public support! I have on many occasions asked for the evidence of that support through FOI requests etc, and have had nothing back from the SCC suggesting that the implementation is possibly illegal - I am chasing that through the powers that be and if so, then every permit that has been paid for, every fine that has been charged will be illegal and the SCC will be liable to repay.

 

Your suggestion that the 'fairest solution' to restrict them on that street was not offered to any other streets - raising my question - why that street? Who in that street had influence in theSCC? I have a house in another small street and yet it was decided that this would be part of a bigger zone - why? No one was consulted about that decision - it is almost as though there was someone in SCC who had a vested interest in favouring some streets over others.

 

As for the roll out of the PPZ - when the PPZ was brought in piece by piece, it was as part of a wider roll out - if the wider roll out didn't happen than the whole PPZ should have been cancelled.

 

As for the SCUZ, sorry SCAZ, this is illogical unless its whole reason is to raise more money for the SCC to squander on iditiotic schemes across the city.

[Planner1]

4 hours ago, Litotes said:

The PPZ was implemented in many areas with minimal support - less than 15% of the residents supported it in Sharrowvale, and yet it was implemented. So much for largest levels of public support! I have on many occasions asked for the evidence of that support through FOI requests etc, and have had nothing back from the SCC suggesting that the implementation is possibly illegal - I am chasing that through the powers that be and if so, then every permit that has been paid for, every fine that has been charged will be illegal and the SCC will be liable to repay.

 

Your suggestion that the 'fairest solution' to restrict them on that street was not offered to any other streets - raising my question - why that street? Who in that street had influence in theSCC? I have a house in another small street and yet it was decided that this would be part of a bigger zone - why? No one was consulted about that decision - it is almost as though there was someone in SCC who had a vested interest in favouring some streets over others.

 

As for the roll out of the PPZ - when the PPZ was brought in piece by piece, it was as part of a wider roll out - if the wider roll out didn't happen than the whole PPZ should have been cancelled.

 

As for the SCUZ, sorry SCAZ, this is illogical unless its whole reason is to raise more money for the SCC to squander on iditiotic schemes across the city.

So you’re talking about the results of the public consultation?

 

We’ve had this discussion before. Consultation is just that, it gives the decision makers an indication of local opinion. It isn’t a ballot. The result isn’t legally binding. You don’t need any set response levels to proceed with a scheme.

 

The legal requirement is that public consultation is carried out. That requirement can be regarded as being satisfied by the public advertisement of the traffic regulation orders which are needed to underpin the restrictions. The council demonstrably did far more than that.

 

In your area, on streets where significant numbers of residents said they didn’t support a scheme, ballots were held on a majority wins basis and those roads opted out of the scheme. Later another ballot was held when residents asked to opt back in.

 

It isn’t uncommon for response rates to public consultations to be quite low. As I said, they just give an indication of local opinion.

 

I therefore can’t see that you have any basis to challenge the legality of the scheme.

 

I don’t know of anyone on any street having “ influence” with SCC.  As I explained earlier, there were already some very small permit schemes in place which were within the area-wide schemes. It was decided that the roads in those small schemes, permits would continue to be restricted to those residents only. It was just maintaining an existing situation.

 

Theres an argument that they could have just been subsumed into the wider scheme, same as everyone else, but you could also understand that the existing permit holders would be unhappy at having less priority than they previously enjoyed. Someone would be unhappy whatever way the decision went.

 

Theres no legal requirement for the highway authority to have the same terms and conditions for all their permit parking areas. They can have different ones in different places as they see fit. You might not like that or the reasoning behind the differences, but that doesn’t mean that anything has been done improperly or that the scheme is in some way unlawful.

 

The PPZ was always a plan that would be delivered in stages. There was no timescale set for completing it. They paused progressing it when it became clear that the remaining areas under consideration had less public support for a permit scheme. That doesn’t mean that there’s any case for revoking the already installed permit schemes. 

 

The CAZ is being installed because the government have forced the council to do it. It’s nothing to do with raising money for other schemes. It will be decommissioned once compliance with the required air quality standards has been demonstrated over the required timescale. The CAZ schemes across the country include a provision that surplus income is ring fenced in an account to pay for decommissioning when the scheme is no longer needed.

[fools]

I've never been consulted on anything, and wouldn't know any of this was happening if it weren't for this forum. So lets not pretend anyone cares about (or takes any notice of) the public viewpoint

Edited November 13, 2022 by fools

[Planner1]

3 minutes ago, fools said:

I've never been consulted on anything, and wouldn't know any of this is happening if it weren't for this forum.

Might be an idea to pay the odd visit to SCC's consultation hub here

 

Most consultation is done online nowadays

[fools]

I'd rather chew on a cows backside