Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[AndrewC]

42 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Could you answer my question?

Could I answer your question? Why am I treated to that moody response? I never engaged with you, I was replying to HumbleNarrator? Why aren't you asking Planner1, or HumblerNarrator, or Sheffbag why they haven't answered your question (HN didn't answer your question, just went on a weird rant about liberalism or something)?

 

Since you asked though;

 

Quote

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

Tricky. A very circuitous route. The best is probably taking Bernard St to the don valley, cut across to Sutherland Street/Gower Street, up Burngreave Road, then down Rutland Road. You can then get across Penistone Road from there in to Upperthorpe/Netherthorpe without using the ring road.

 

I imagine by and large though, that most tradesmen are using the ring road and either paying the charge, and/or working on getting an exempt vehicle, if they haven't got one already (which many have).

[Planner1]

1 hour 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

I’d hazard a guess that the decision makers knew very well that most respondents would be against a CAZ, but, the council are legally obliged to consult on significant issues like this.

 

It isn’t a ballot, there’s no obligation on the decision makers to go with what the majority of respondees do or don’t want. 

 

However, they are legally obliged to introduce a CAZ because the government have mandated them to.

 

So, in those circumstances, what would you expect them to have done?

[sheffbag]

44 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

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.

The sample of the 2109 consultation was over 9,700 respondants. thats a fair sized sample. If people chose to ignore the consultation or not do the subsequent one then SCC cant say they didnt deliver one (or 3 in this case). 

 

Planner1 is presenting the line based on SCC's committee chair stating that once the council had been mandated then they were compelled to go through with it. This was a lie. Other cities have been mandated (Southampton, Leeds, Derby) and had their mandates revoked as they proved their air was cleaner than the original data from back in 2015 (as sheffields is) Other cities have also proposed non charging schemes (Manchester and Liverpool) as Liverpool said it woudl harm the economy too much and Manchester got found out that it was planning a chargeable scheme and Andy burnham has had to do a U-turn . Both cities have submitted schemes to hit the govt target.

Lets not forget as well that the SCC committee chair said the govt woudl come and run a scheme if Sheffield refused to. there is no evidence anywhere to support that claim or they would ahve gone into other cities

 

I would agree with you about the ring road. The council have slapped the whole of the ring road in at their discretion not govt instruction. The ONLY place on the ring road is at Sheaf St on the side of the station. This measuring tube is directly affected by the train station (as per SCC's clean air policy in 2017) and was still giving readings over 40 during lockdown when the traffic on the road was at about 10% of normal traffic. By putting it in then it skews the whole of the data.

 

however, SCC base it on the average readings not individual tubes and the average for the CAZ taking the results available on SCC's site show that in 2020 and 2021 the air quality overall was below 40. 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by sheffbag

[Planner1]

5 hours ago, sheffbag said:

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. 

 

I’ve seen no actual proof that the committee chair lied.

 

Some people on here said that and explained why they thought that. That isn’t conclusive proof and I would have expected people to be taking the matter further if they seriously thought that a politician was telling outright lies on an important issue.

 

It was said to me by people I know at SCC that the only way the CAZ would have achieved its objectives was to include the inner ring road.

 

Yes other cities have introduced non charging CAZ’s but some have introduced charging CAZ’s. It isn’t a one size fits all. They have introduced what they have calculated and modelled would work in their city and produce the desired results.
 

The committee chair addressed the point on why SCC hadn’t been able to amend their CAZ to a less restrictive one or suspend introduction and said that they had asked the government but they had refused, saying Sheffield was further in the process than the places which amended / suspended their proposals. Some on here say that is incorrect but again I’ve seen no conclusive proof. Again I’d expect people to be taking the politician to task if they genuinely thought lies had been told.

 

 

[sheffbag]

16 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I’d hazard a guess that the decision makers knew very well that most respondents would be against a CAZ, but, the council are legally obliged to consult on significant issues like this.

 

It isn’t a ballot, there’s no obligation on the decision makers to go with what the majority of respondees do or don’t want. 

 

However, they are legally obliged to introduce a CAZ because the government have mandated them to.

 

So, in those circumstances, what would you expect them to have done?

The results of the consultations were supposed to form part of the final business case. it states it in the summary of the consultation

Govt mandated other cities, at least 5 have not implemented a chargeable scheme if at all. 

I would have expected them to

 

a) Present the evidence that the air in 2020 and 2021 was under the legal limit of 40 as per the figures on the SCC website for the average within the proposed CAZ

b) investigated a non - charging CAZ if a scheme was enforced. Dont say it cant be changed. Manchester got it scheme stopped with 3 months to go-live. is keeping all the funding so no claw back which you have suggested might happen. they have now done a non charging scheme.

[AndrewC]

^ An interesting read and fair points sheffbag - whether true or not, it clearly indicates confusion over the necessity of the scheme.

[mike1961]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I’ve seen no actual proof that the committee chair lied.

 

Some people on here said that and explained why they thought that. That isn’t conclusive proof and I would have expected people to be taking the matter further if they seriously thought that a politician was telling outright lies on an important issue.

 

It was said to me by people I know at SCC that the only way the CAZ would have achieved its objectives was to include the inner ring road.

 

Yes other cities have introduced non charging CAZ’s but some have introduced charging CAZ’s. It isn’t a one size fits all. They have introduced what they have calculated and modelled would work in their city and produce the desired results.
 

The committee chair addressed the point on why SCC hadn’t been able to amend their CAZ to a less restrictive one or suspend introduction and said that they had asked the government but they had refused, saying Sheffield was further in the process than the places which amended / suspended their proposals. Some on here say that is incorrect but again I’ve seen no conclusive proof. Again I’d expect people to be taking the politician to task if they genuinely thought lies had been told.

 

 

How do you formally take a politician to task ,what's the procedure?

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, sheffbag said:

The results of the consultations were supposed to form part of the final business case. it states it in the summary of the consultation

Govt mandated other cities, at least 5 have not implemented a chargeable scheme if at all. 

I would have expected them to

 

a) Present the evidence that the air in 2020 and 2021 was under the legal limit of 40 as per the figures on the SCC website for the average within the proposed CAZ

b) investigated a non - charging CAZ if a scheme was enforced. Dont say it cant be changed. Manchester got it scheme stopped with 3 months to go-live. is keeping all the funding so no claw back which you have suggested might happen. they have now done a non charging scheme.

Yeah the results of consultation can form part of a business case. You just include the reports and refer to them as needed. A business case doesn’t depend on how popular the proposal is, especially if it involves a legal requirement.

 

Yes other places did it differently. 
 

The committee chair provided what sounded to me like a plausible explanation, but others disagree.

 

If you or others think they were lying then the issue should be raised with the relevant standards body and if that doesn’t satisfy, perhaps make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

[sheffbag]

19 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I’ve seen no actual proof that the committee chair lied.

 

Some people on here said that and explained why they thought that. That isn’t conclusive proof and I would have expected people to be taking the matter further if they seriously thought that a politician was telling outright lies on an important issue.

 

It was said to me by people I know at SCC that the only way the CAZ would have achieved its objectives was to include the inner ring road.

 

Yes other cities have introduced non charging CAZ’s but some have introduced charging CAZ’s. It isn’t a one size fits all. They have introduced what they have calculated and modelled would work in their city and produce the desired results.
 

The committee chair addressed the point on why SCC hadn’t been able to amend their CAZ to a less restrictive one or suspend introduction and said that they had asked the government but they had refused, saying Sheffield was further in the process than the places which amended / suspended their proposals. Some on here say that is incorrect but again I’ve seen no conclusive proof. Again I’d expect people to be taking the politician to task if they genuinely thought lies had been told.

 

 

Planner- with all due respect

She said once mandated it couldnt be changed. Five cities were mandated to introduce a Clean Air Zone - Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton.

Of those mandated cities,

Leeds - https://news.leeds.gov.uk/news/leeds-clean-air-zone-has-achieved-its-aims-early-and-is-no-longer-required-joint-review-finds. air quality below legal limit. Central govt removed the mandate

Nottingham - https://www.transportnottingham.com/no-clean-air-zone-for-nottingham/ - Air qulaity projected to be under legal limit, Mandate removed

Derby - Doing a local traffic scheme instead of a CAZ - Mandate removed

Southampton - Local govt approved a local NO2 plan instead of a CAZ. Mandate removed.

 

I would also throw in Leicester who were mandated at a different time

Leicester - https://airqualitynews.com/cars-freight-transport/leicesters-clean-air-zone-plans-have-been-scrapped/ -  Air quality below legal limit, Mandate removed

 

So if what she was saying was correct how did those 5 cities get their mandate removed?  Leeds and Manchester have both kept the funding and infrastructure supplied with no claw back by the govt. I really cant be bothered to check on any funding for the others as those 2 alone blow her claim out of the water

 

she said if SCC didnt implement a scheme "the govt would step in and run one for us". there is no evidence anywhere within any government clean air strategy or anywhere (as you verified when raised earlier in the thread) to substantiate her claim. toby even said "let them then, it will save us cash" but she tried to change the subject at that point.

 

She never said on what evidence they "went back and asked for it to be stopped". to be fair Toby should have drilled down on that but all we got were "we asked"

 

There are two verifiable claims within the interview she did with toby foster which were either misinformed, misleading or just a lie. I could listen back and fact check all the other ones.

 

People did want to talk to politicians but if you remember Terry Fox wouldnt be interviewed about the scheme until after it was implemented and Maz Iqbal didnt even know the rules of the scheme such as when the charging times were.

 

Dont get me wrong, Maz was thrown under the bus by SCC and tried to be as positive as he could be but as the customer facing rep of the council on the scheme he was woefully under informed on it

 

you are right, its not a one-sze fits all solution, so why didnt SCC explore the other opportunities such as a non charging one. If its good enough for cities the size of Manchester and Liverpool then why didnt SCC explore this. there is no information anywhere in SCC minutes or business cases ruling out a non charging scheme

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by sheffbag

[Planner1]

10 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

How do you formally take a politician to task ,what's the procedure?

The code of conduct is here

 

Report them to the Monitoring Officer and provide details of the complaint.

 

The procedure is in Appendix A of this document