Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[HeHasRisen]

8 hours ago, mike1961 said:

Well I know Miriam Cates of the local conservative party is firmly against a charging CAZ Zone 

Right, ok then, you do realise that a) only a third of the members are elected in any given year, and b) the Tories currently have barely any representation in the chamber currently. You will be waiting a fair while for Sheffield to be under Tory control. In fact I think hell would likely freeze over first.

[Guest busdriver1]

9 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

 

It's a good excuse used by the SCC apologists on here that it's a Government requirement and if we don't agree then we should complain to our councillors, BUT...
... the technicalities of how such a scheme is implemented is the responsibility of the incompetent FULL TIME employees of SCC!

They're the ones who we're paying our Council Tax to keep in a job, and they're the ones who keep coming up with these farcical ideas!

So it makes no difference who the councillors are...
... they will still be 'advised' by the same SCC 'experts', and so things will NOT change whilever we've got the same bunch of muppets 'advising' whoever the councillors may be!

1) very true but there are issues with the term "full time employees" 

2) many of these "Experts" are now self employed or employed by an agency so are not technically employees of the council. 

 

There are many ways a person can claim to "not work for a council" but still have their wages paid by that council.

Why does a name keep popping into my mind?

[sheffbag]

10 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

That's true!

Changing the councillors will achieve very little.

The main problem is the WAY the ideas are IMPLEMENTED - for example, including the ring-road in the CAZ!

It's a good excuse used by the SCC apologists on here that it's a Government requirement and if we don't agree then we should complain to our councillors, BUT...
... the technicalities of how such a scheme is implemented is the responsibility of the incompetent FULL TIME employees of SCC!

They're the ones who we're paying our Council Tax to keep in a job, and they're the ones who keep coming up with these farcical ideas!

So it makes no difference who the councillors are...
... they will still be 'advised' by the same SCC 'experts', and so things will NOT change whilever we've got the same bunch of muppets 'advising' whoever the councillors may be!

It was a govt requirement based on the evidence when the review was initially made and the mandate placed on sheffield

trouble is, since then the air is now below the legal limit (if taken as an average) or is over in certain places , 1 in which the council admit is due primarily to the diesel trains . The others are around fitzalan and waingate. So there is no basis based in emissions for either

1. the caz to be in place if the emissions are based on average emissions (it’s around 34-35 fo the tubes within the caz)

or

2. the ring road or any other area outside of fitzalan and wain gate to be a chargeable zone as you are driving in air that is legally clean.

 You then have council members trying to scaremonger the public by saying they had to implement it or the govt would come in and implant it This is wrong as Leeds and Nottingham both had their legal requirements removed by the govt. as did Manchester who said they couldn’t meet the target and as such have now submitted a non charging scheme to come into place by 2026.

there is no record anywhere which back up scc’s claim that the govt would implement a scheme if Sheffield refused to. Even planner couldn’t find one but according to scc that is what would happen

 

the council lying to the public in order to push something throug, that would never happen would it? Oh sorry, yes it has done before and that is now officially recorded but hey Terry is still the best guy for the job 

 

leeds withdrew their scheme for fear of a legal challenge of getting charged to drive in clean air, Sheffield is doing the same with the caz based on their own figures  so let’s see what happens if someone does challenge it.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, sheffbag said:

It was a govt requirement based on the evidence when the review was initially made and the mandate placed on sheffield

trouble is, since then the air is now below the legal limit (if taken as an average) or is over in certain places , 1 in which the council admit is due primarily to the diesel trains . The others are around fitzalan and waingate. So there is no basis based in emissions for either

1. the caz to be in place if the emissions are based on average emissions (it’s around 34-35 fo the tubes within the caz)

or

2. the ring road or any other area outside of fitzalan and wain gate to be a chargeable zone as you are driving in air that is legally clean.

 You then have council members trying to scaremonger the public by saying they had to implement it or the govt would come in and implant it This is wrong as Leeds and Nottingham both had their legal requirements removed by the govt. as did Manchester who said they couldn’t meet the target and as such have now submitted a non charging scheme to come into place by 2026.

there is no record anywhere which back up scc’s claim that the govt would implement a scheme if Sheffield refused to. Even planner couldn’t find one but according to scc that is what would happen

 

the council lying to the public in order to push something throug, that would never happen would it? Oh sorry, yes it has done before and that is now officially recorded but hey Terry is still the best guy for the job 

 

leeds withdrew their scheme for fear of a legal challenge of getting charged to drive in clean air, Sheffield is doing the same with the caz based on their own figures  so let’s see what happens if someone does challenge it.

We need to keep pushing really hard on this situation and make the council realise how much fight back there will be unless the public's thoughts are considered.

I agree that our main problem is that the council follows the advice of Individuals, who are not politicians so we cannot vote them out.

That is perfectly true, but we can, should, and must, make our views known and keep up the pressure until they start considering the public view.

After watching the antics of our recent governments, we have learned how ready those in charge are to lie and make misleading statements to excuse their own actions.

Some of the anomalies which have become apparent regarding the ring road CAZ need looking at urgently as these are affecting peoples livelihood's more than they should.

There are anomalies which are utterly stupid and, if we don't demand action, there will be more to follow as our so called representatives demonstrate their powers.

I have been debating for weeks, with  a former council adviser, on this forum and have noticed this tendency to blame Government edicts etc for the stupid things they do.

It's true that changing politicians may not necessarily make the difference we want when council officers or outside advisers are responsible.

What's needed is lots of publicity and pointing to where the fault lies so that the councillors realise they must at least consider our views.

If civil disobedience turns out to be the out come, it will not speak well for democracy and feelings of bad blood can result which can then be hard to dispel.   

If you are not happy, don't be afraid to shout.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Organgrinder

[ads36]

12 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

The main problem is the WAY the ideas are IMPLEMENTED - for example, including the ring-road in the CAZ!

if the ring road was not included, it would be very easy to ignore - it would have minimal affect.

 

we've had 6 years notice, and the required vehicle standard is not onerous.

 

how much easier should it be?

[sheffbag]

28 minutes ago, ads36 said:

if the ring road was not included, it would be very easy to ignore - it would have minimal affect.

 

we've had 6 years notice, and the required vehicle standard is not onerous.

 

how much easier should it be?

How about, the levels in the air on the ring road are below the legal limit so it’s not required. 

 

that easy enough ?

Edited March 7, 2023 by sheffbag

[Mr Bloke]

3 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

1) very true but there are issues with the term "full time employees" 

2) many of these "Experts" are now self employed or employed by an agency so are not technically employees of the council. 

 

There are many ways a person can claim to "not work for a council" but still have their wages paid by that council.

Why does a name keep popping into my mind?

Hmmm...

That's a VERY good point!

And it obviously explains WHY some people on here "who don't work for the council" seem to spend their whole day defending SCC's farcical decisions...

... it's in their own interest to keep 'well in' with SCC for their contracts to be renewed!

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

That's a VERY good point!

And it obviously explains WHY some people on here "who don't work for the council" seem to spend their whole day defending SCC's farcical decisions...

... it's in their own interest to keep 'well in' with SCC for their contracts to be renewed!

We are the 'money.' The customers.

But it seems we are the only customers who can be totally ignored by the company, without losing business.

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

if the ring road was not included, it would be very easy to ignore - it would have minimal affect.

we've had 6 years notice, and the required vehicle standard is not onerous.

how much easier should it be?

That is a counterintuitive post.

If the scheme is not going to be extended (and few people are that nieve.....) then all the salt they put on our roads will ensure most of the older most polluting vehicles are off the roads before too long any way. So, all we'd have needed was a bit of patience, thus it is a giant waste of money. More of the modern disease, banning and restricting more and more stuff "to keep us safe" at any cost.

As an aside, scrapping vehicles which still have useful life in them is VERY environmentally unfriedly anyway.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Chekhov

[mike1961]

9 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

Right, ok then, you do realise that a) only a third of the members are elected in any given year, and b) the Tories currently have barely any representation in the chamber currently. You will be waiting a fair while for Sheffield to be under Tory control. In fact I think hell would likely freeze over first.

Well here's hoping Hell does get frozen over ,we need a complete change of leadership in Sheffield,the present council are not fit for purpose,there are too many liars and crooks and idiots in the current town hall mob.