Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, *_ash_* said:

I said this from the beginning, and in here too. Easy first target as everyone hates taxis. 

And my thread proved it, because the early posts were 'good!! make them pay, they do u-turns and break the law'

 

totally expected comments, from people who can't see beyond their nose.

The taxis are one of the biggest polluters though, so it is logical that they would be one of the main targets for any measures to improve air quality.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, mike1961 said:

Okay but even if I had given my opinion at the time of the consultation SCC wouldn't have been interested.

 

It's obvious from the  manner in which you reply to people's posts on here that you like SCC treat us the electorate with contempt.

A predictable snipe to distract from the fact that you weren’t interested enough to give your views in any of the multiple consultations that took place.

 

The council’s scope for changing things in response to the consultation was obviously limited if the research carried out showed a charging CAZ was needed. That wasn’t about ignoring people’s views or treating them with contempt, it was being pragmatic in the face of a legal direction from the government.

 

Is providing insight on the council’s viewpoint and facilitating an informed debate, treating people with contempt? 

[Litotes]

10 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t think you read the same report I did, ie this one

 

It says that they re consulted in November 21 because there had been a change to the proposed CAZ as a result of previous consultation.

 

It also mentions that there was a telephone helpline for anyone who didn’t want to use online.

 

I don’t for one minute think that the Council wanted this CAZ any more than anyone else. They have received a legal direction from the government to implement it. The committee chair was on the radio and said they had asked the government not to impose it but they refused. 

Anyone who opposes a proposal that’s implemented claims their opinion was “ignored”. 
 

The decision makers can’t please everyone.

So, they consulted in 2019, 2021 and then changed their proposal... and made recommendations for implementations without further consultation... it seem we are agreed on that...

The telephone line was only promoted through the website.

 

There was no discussion about what was in scope and out of scope - anyone with any sense would not have made the ring road in the boundary, they would have said the ring road was the boundary... but no - money rules... this was all about the SCC raking in more money through fallacious decisions based on almost fraudulent consultations - similar to consulting across student areas  out of term time.

 

They are a bunch of charlatans, and they know it - Kate Joseph appears to lead by example!

 

 

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

A predictable snipe to distract from the fact that you weren’t interested enough to give your views in any of the multiple consultations that took place.

Perhaps just based on historical knowledge - as you know, Planner1, I went to a public consultation session. I stood up and asked that my comment be minuted and actioned.

No minutes of the meeting were ever produced or published, and hence no actions were ever taken or rejected... thus proving the sham nature of the SCC public consultation process.

 

If you are going to stand up for process, then make sure the process actually exists rather than just being a mockery of the electorate.

[hackey lad]

3 minutes ago, Litotes said:

So, they consulted in 2019, 2021 and then changed their proposal... and made recommendations for implementations without further consultation... it seem we are agreed on that...

The telephone line was only promoted through the website.

 

There was no discussion about what was in scope and out of scope - anyone with any sense would not have made the ring road in the boundary, they would have said the ring road was the boundary... but no - money rules... this was all about the SCC raking in more money through fallacious decisions based on almost fraudulent consultations - similar to consulting across student areas  out of term time.

 

They are a bunch of charlatans, and they know it - Kate Joseph appears to lead by example!

 

 

Who ?  😀

[Planner1]

12 hours ago, Litotes said:

So, they consulted in 2019, 2021 and then changed their proposal... and made recommendations for implementations without further consultation... it seem we are agreed on that...

The telephone line was only promoted through the website.

 

There was no discussion about what was in scope and out of scope - anyone with any sense would not have made the ring road in the boundary, they would have said the ring road was the boundary... but no - money rules... this was all about the SCC raking in more money through fallacious decisions based on almost fraudulent consultations - similar to consulting across student areas  out of term time.

As far as I can read it, the initial proposal consulted in in 2019 was a category C+ zone, which was later changed to a category C. The only difference  is the lowering of the emissions standard for compliant taxis. Not something I’d think would need a further round of consultation on.

 

If I recall correctly the committee chair in the radio interview said the area covered by the CAZ ( ie including the inner ring road) was set by the government. So, the extent of the scheme wasn’t up for discussion.

 

Do you seriously think that the government have imposed the CAZ’s in various cities so that the councils can make money on it?

[Planner1]

13 hours ago, Litotes said:

Perhaps just based on historical knowledge - as you know, Planner1, I went to a public consultation session. I stood up and asked that my comment be minuted and actioned.

No minutes of the meeting were ever produced or published, and hence no actions were ever taken or rejected... thus proving the sham nature of the SCC public consultation process.

Still going on about a minor point after all these years. Bitter and twisted? You didn’t want a parking scheme but many of your neighbours did, so it got implemented.

 

As you well know, the type of meeting you attended ( local area panel) didn’t produce detailed minutes. 
 

I was there, I noted what you said and it was considered.

[Litotes]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Still going on about a minor point after all these years. Bitter and twisted? You didn’t want a parking scheme but many of your neighbours did, so it got implemented.

 

As you well know, the type of meeting you attended ( local area panel) didn’t produce detailed minutes. 
 

I was there, I noted what you said and it was considered.

Just saying a leopard doesn't change its spots... the historical evidence is that SCC pays no attention to the wished of the electorate.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

Just saying a leopard doesn't change its spots... the historical evidence is that SCC pays no attention to the wished of the electorate.

They can't possibly please everyone.

 

That does not mean they pay no attention to people's wishes. It  just means they can't accommodate everyone's.

[mike1961]

49 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

They can't possibly please everyone.

 

That does not mean they pay no attention to people's wishes. It  just means they can't accommodate everyone's.

Basically anything to line their own pockets ,that's how it works 

[Planner1]

35 minutes ago, HumbleNarrator said:

So just to be clear, you're saying that Sheffield City Council did NOT want CAZ and in fact actively tried to resist it, but were forced by the government to implement it?

Why the great show of surprise?

 

All the cities which have introduced CAZ’s have been forced to do so by the government.

 

 This has all been debated at length on this thread.
 

The SCC committee chair was on radio Sheffield and said what I mentioned. This has also been debated on this thread.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Planner1