Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[sheffbag]

On 13/04/2023 at 14:01, Planner1 said:

Interesting. Have you asked them to explain why the CAZ was imposed if the air quality is apparently legally compliant?

Im waiting for them to give me the figures for the average mean officially from SCC before i go further.

On 15/04/2023 at 18:05, Planner1 said:

Consultations give decision makers an indication of opinions. They are not ballots. 
 

Have a look at this report. It’s clear from it that they consulted on a charging CAZ. (1)

 

There are results from the business specific consultation here (2)

 

Theres plenty of information out there.

 

There were three consultations, you admit you never looked at any of them, so it’s a bit late now to start asking questions. You should have been doing that years ago, as the proposals have been well known for a long time. 

(1) the report is just the minutes. If you try to click on the consultation results then you get the message that you the general public are not authorised to view the results of a public consultation, strange that isnt it.

(2) The busniess specific consultation you quote really doesnt help your case.  fro example

 

"Figure 13 shows that three quarters (74%) of survey respondents thought that overall, the CAZ would have a negative or very negative impact on their organisation or business, compared to 12% who thought it would have a positive or very positive impact. The share of businesses anticipating a negative or very negative impact on their business was greater than in 2019 (69%)."  So in both consultations over two thirds of businesses said it would have a negative impact on them rising to three quarters for the latest one. - SCC ignored this

 

"Three quarters (74%) business representatives thought that the Clean Air Zone would have a negative or very negative impact on other businessin Sheffield, compared to one in ten (10%) who thought it would have a positive or very positive impact. The share of businesses anticipating a negative or very negative impact on other business was greater than in 2019 (72%)" - So in both consultations over 70% of businesses thought the CAz woudl have a negative impact on business as a whole in Sheffield - SCC ignored this

 

Over 80% of the comments about the size of the area said the ring road should not be included - SCC ignored this

And from the summary  section

"Respondents to the consultation overall viewed the CAZ as having an overall negative impact on businesses and Sheffield as a city, and there is a lot of concern about these impacts. Many suggestions were made about how these impacts can be mitigated, and alternative suggestions on CAZ delivery put forward. " - SCC ignored these

 

This consultation was supposed form part of the final business case going forward as detailed in the summary of the document. It evidently was ignored

On 15/04/2023 at 20:08, Planner1 said:

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 chair of the committee lied on air about that and other things as has been evidenced and you agreed yourself earlier in this thread. there are enough examples out there of cities that were legally mandated and get it revoked.

On 16/04/2023 at 09:38, Planner1 said:

 

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.

 

SCC set the ring road within the CAZ from the original draft of the business plan. there is no evidence anywhere which says that the government implemented the ring road. SCC  sent the business case for funding including the full ring road, the govt didnt tell them to. Again the chair attempted to mislead/lie to the public

 

Its worth noting as well that SCC never considered, in all the business case or minutes ive seen, a non charging CAZ similar to the one that Manchester and Liverpool have sent to govt and got/awaiting approval on. 

 

[mike1961]

2 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Im waiting for them to give me the figures for the average mean officially from SCC before i go further.

(1) the report is just the minutes. If you try to click on the consultation results then you get the message that you the general public are not authorised to view the results of a public consultation, strange that isnt it.

(2) The busniess specific consultation you quote really doesnt help your case.  fro example

 

"Figure 13 shows that three quarters (74%) of survey respondents thought that overall, the CAZ would have a negative or very negative impact on their organisation or business, compared to 12% who thought it would have a positive or very positive impact. The share of businesses anticipating a negative or very negative impact on their business was greater than in 2019 (69%)."  So in both consultations over two thirds of businesses said it would have a negative impact on them rising to three quarters for the latest one. - SCC ignored this

 

"Three quarters (74%) business representatives thought that the Clean Air Zone would have a negative or very negative impact on other businessin Sheffield, compared to one in ten (10%) who thought it would have a positive or very positive impact. The share of businesses anticipating a negative or very negative impact on other business was greater than in 2019 (72%)" - So in both consultations over 70% of businesses thought the CAz woudl have a negative impact on business as a whole in Sheffield - SCC ignored this

 

Over 80% of the comments about the size of the area said the ring road should not be included - SCC ignored this

And from the summary  section

"Respondents to the consultation overall viewed the CAZ as having an overall negative impact on businesses and Sheffield as a city, and there is a lot of concern about these impacts. Many suggestions were made about how these impacts can be mitigated, and alternative suggestions on CAZ delivery put forward. " - SCC ignored these

 

This consultation was supposed form part of the final business case going forward as detailed in the summary of the document. It evidently was ignored

The chair of the committee lied on air about that and other things as has been evidenced and you agreed yourself earlier in this thread. there are enough examples out there of cities that were legally mandated and get it revoked.

SCC set the ring road within the CAZ from the original draft of the business plan. there is no evidence anywhere which says that the government implemented the ring road. SCC  sent the business case for funding including the full ring road, the govt didnt tell them to. Again the chair attempted to mislead/lie to the public

 

Its worth noting as well that SCC never considered, in all the business case or minutes ive seen, a non charging CAZ similar to the one that Manchester and Liverpool have sent to govt and got/awaiting approval on. 

 

SCC are just lying through their teeth ,just like they did with the tree felling scandal.

[HeHasRisen]

Ignoring people is different to lying, to be fair. Not surprised that you can't tell the difference.

[mike1961]

22 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Ignoring people is different to lying, to be fair. Not surprised that you can't tell the difference.

Ignoring or lying the end result is the same ,total disregard for people's opinion 

[AndrewC]

21 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

Ignoring or lying the end result is the same ,total disregard for people's opinion 

I sometimes think that people forget consultations will almost always get 2 or more conflicting sets of views/opinions etc, and that ultimately a decision has to be made by the decision makers and one or other of the groups is going to end up disappointed.

 

Some people see the decision going against them and see that as being 'ignored', where the truth is that all opinions have been listened too but no decision is going to please everyone.

 

 

There is also a tendency - particularly on echo-chamber forums such as this one - to assume that your view/opinion is the majority opinion held out there in the broader world, when it's often not the case.

 

(and before I'm accused of bias, and I saying this logic can apply to all people, both sides of the politic spectrum etc..)

[hackey lad]

How would a tradesman get from Parkhill to Netherthorpe without using the ring road ? A distance of a couple of miles .

[AndrewC]

24 minutes ago, HumbleNarrator said:

Unless doing work for the council, Ideologically the political class of Sheffield have never liked individual self employed tradesman as it smacks of "self preservation" and personal liberty, things associated with Tory ideology.

 

The long term project is to turn what is now the CAZ zone into one big sprawling, largely pedestrianised university campus devoid of any real native working class Sheffielders..

I know it's bit grey outside, but honestly, turn the laptop off, go for a walk, take a few deep breaths.

 

 

*(no more than 15 minutes, mind 😡)

Edited April 17, 2023 by AndrewC

[sheffbag]

56 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

I sometimes think that people forget consultations will almost always get 2 or more conflicting sets of views/opinions etc, and that ultimately a decision has to be made by the decision makers and one or other of the groups is going to end up disappointed.

 

Some people see the decision going against them and see that as being 'ignored', where the truth is that all opinions have been listened too but no decision is going to please everyone.

 

 

There is also a tendency - particularly on echo-chamber forums such as this one - to assume that your view/opinion is the majority opinion held out there in the broader world, when it's often not the case.

 

(and before I'm accused of bias, and I saying this logic can apply to all people, both sides of the politic spectrum etc..)

i put - "scc ignored this" as the results of the consultation where pretty conclusive. When you have a question that gets over 70% responding that it will affect them and sheffield businesses negatively then that is a majority opinion held by the people canvassed

[hackey lad]

7 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

I know it's bit grey outside, but honestly, turn the laptop off, go for a walk, take a few deep breaths.

 

 

*(no more than 15 minutes, mind 😡)

Could you answer my question?

[AndrewC]

37 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

i put - "scc ignored this" as the results of the consultation where pretty conclusive. When you have a question that gets over 70% responding that it will affect them and sheffield businesses negatively then that is a majority opinion held by the people canvassed

But not every decision is something popular, not every decision has easily tangible benefits. There may be other factors. I don't know personally but Planner1 seems to suggest that there is legal/political pressure on SCC to bring in this CAZ, and of course there is the environmental argument which is always a difficult case to show.

 

So it may well have a large negative response but that still doesn't mean that a difficult decision can be avoided. There's also a question of the size of the sample of course. Who is to say many, many companies felt unaffected or accepting of this, and had little need to respond to consultations?

 

I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with the CAZ by the way, just responding  to the idea that consultations are 'ignored', when it's clearly far more complex than that.

 

Personally I would have a CAZ within the ring road but not including the ring road, but from what Planner 1 and the council say it's not possible to fulfil it's requirements without including it. I've no idea if that's the truth or not.