Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

17 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

How come other Cities aren’t doing it ?  What happens to the money raised ? 

Some are doing it, same as here,  some have shown they don’t need to charge.

 

The money raised firstly goes to pay for the operating costs of the scheme and any surplus is going to be spent on sustainable travel initiatives. 

[The_DADDY]

Just now, Planner1 said:

Some are doing it, same as here,  some have shown they don’t need to charge.

 

The money raised firstly goes to pay for the operating costs of the scheme and any surplus is going to be spent on sustainable travel initiatives. 

Such as?

[Baron99]

Heard Radio Sheffield news at teatime tonight & they had the owner of SMC Bikes motorcycle store on.  His business, down by Derek Dooley Way has been affected by the CAZ, so much so, he said he's now looking to relocate to Rotherham. 

[top4718]

8 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Some are doing it, same as here,  some have shown they don’t need to charge.

 

The money raised firstly goes to pay for the operating costs of the scheme and any surplus is going to be spent on sustainable travel initiatives. 

Yeah such as, I'd like an explanation of this.

 

A little off topic but it does refer to the council and money so........

 

A friend of mine has been tasked with selling his fathers house as he's too ill now to live there alone, he put it on the market last week and had a call today from the Council saying the house "fits their criteria for a house to put a family in" and could they have a viewing on Friday, the house is on the market for £600k!!!! I'd be interested to know why the Council feel the need to buy such a luxury property to house someone that I guess won't be paying a penny, no wonder Council tax is the amount it is. 🤬

[hackey lad]

19 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Such as?

Free push bikes for councillors 

[Irene Swaine]

The council work for us. They need to listen. We don't want a "CAZ" scheme. If they are in need of extra revenue, they should clamp down on the selfish morons who park on the pavements, they could make a fortune with some of the streets in Sheffield. 

[sheffbag]

12 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Some are doing it, same as here,  some have shown they don’t need to charge.

 

The money raised firstly goes to pay for the operating costs of the scheme and any surplus is going to be spent on sustainable travel initiatives. 

No it doesn’t and you know that, stop trying to spin it.

the money doesn’t firstly go to the operating costs of the scheme. That’s insinuating that all revenue goes to operational costs and then any over comes back. That’s a lie.

 

£2 from every charge goes to the govt for the operation of the system. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1444/regulation/3/made

 

The remainder , either £8 or £48 dependant on the charge you get comes back to Sheffield council to be used for anything directly or indirectly to support projects to help Sheffield achieve its clean air initiatives. This is not limited to sustainable travel initiatives 

 

to quote you planner. Show me the evidence that what you are saying is true. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by sheffbag

[Resident]

3 hours ago, sheffbag said:

No it doesn’t and you know that, stop trying to spin it.

the money doesn’t firstly go to the operating costs of the scheme. That’s insinuating that all revenue goes to operational costs and then any over comes back. That’s a lie.

 

£2 from every charge goes to the govt for the operation of the system. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1444/regulation/3/made

 

The remainder , either £8 or £48 dependant on the charge you get comes back to Sheffield council to be used for anything directly or indirectly to support projects to help Sheffield achieve its clean air initiatives. This is not limited to sustainable travel initiatives 

 

to quote you planner. Show me the evidence that what you are saying is true. 

And we all are fully aware that they'll spend it on projects that have nothing to do with STI  but someone will "find" a tenuous link

[Planner1]

4 hours ago, sheffbag said:

No it doesn’t and you know that, stop trying to spin it.

the money doesn’t firstly go to the operating costs of the scheme. That’s insinuating that all revenue goes to operational costs and then any over comes back. That’s a lie.

 

£2 from every charge goes to the govt for the operation of the system. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1444/regulation/3/made

 

The remainder , either £8 or £48 dependant on the charge you get comes back to Sheffield council to be used for anything directly or indirectly to support projects to help Sheffield achieve its clean air initiatives. This is not limited to sustainable travel initiatives 

 

to quote you planner. Show me the evidence that what you are saying is true. 

The sustainable travel bit comes from this Star article, in which a council spokeswoman says:

“Income from the CAZ will be used to run and maintain the zone. Any surplus income has to be put towards other sustainable transport schemes in the city, in line with our Sheffield Clean Air Zone Charging Order.”

 

That’s what they said. My understanding, like yours is that they can spend it on anything that progresses their clean air policy aims. Sustainable travel schemes would fit with that description of course.

 

The processing of charges and penalties are different things.

 

The government has had a common system set up for processing charges from all the CAZ schemes and as you point out, there’s a levy on each transaction to cover the processing costs.

 

The council also has quite a large expenditure on processing penalties and appeals. There are also a proportion of the penalties that are not recoverable for various reasons ( like the vehicle keeper details aren’t current, or the registration plate is cloned etc). If the CAZ fines are anything like parking ones, a good percentage will be appealed and quite a lot will be successful.

 

All the costs will be taken into account before anything is identified as being surplus income.

1 hour ago, Resident said:

And we all are fully aware that they'll spend it on projects that have nothing to do with STI  but someone will "find" a tenuous link

You’d expect that the government have left it fairly loose in the legislation to give the councils plenty of leeway.

 

Some of the legislation for other types of surplus penalty income ( like parking fines and bus lanes) is more prescriptive on its use.

[sheffbag]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The sustainable travel bit comes from this Star article, in which a council spokeswoman says:

“Income from the CAZ will be used to run and maintain the zone. Any surplus income has to be put towards other sustainable transport schemes in the city, in line with our Sheffield Clean Air Zone Charging Order.”

 

That’s what they said. My understanding, like yours is that they can spend it on anything that progresses their clean air policy aims. Sustainable travel schemes would fit with that description of course.

 

The processing of charges and penalties are different things.

 

The government has had a common system set up for processing charges from all the CAZ schemes and as you point out, there’s a levy on each transaction to cover the processing costs.

 

The council also has quite a large expenditure on processing penalties and appeals. There are also a proportion of the penalties that are not recoverable for various reasons ( like the vehicle keeper details aren’t current, or the registration plate is cloned etc). If the CAZ fines are anything like parking ones, a good percentage will be appealed and quite a lot will be successful.

 

All the costs will be taken into account before anything is identified as being surplus income.

You’d expect that the government have left it fairly loose in the legislation to give the councils plenty of leeway.

 

Some of the legislation for other types of surplus penalty income ( like parking fines and bus lanes) is more prescriptive on its use.

Since you dismiss govt literature are inconclusive when it doesn't suit you then Instead of quoting a newspaper report of a "council spokeswoman" Why not quote the actual Clean air charging scheme - https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-02/sheffield-clean-air-zone-charging-order-2023.pdf

"In the event that net proceeds are generated from the Scheme over the opening ten year period, these proceeds would be applied, in such proportions as may be decided by the Council, to directly or indirectly facilitate the achievement of relevant local transport policies in Sheffield's Transport Strategy and the Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy in accordance with the following high level spending objectives:

• supporting the delivery of the ambitions of the Scheme and promoting cleaner air;

• supporting active travel and public transport use;

• supporting zero emission and sustainable infrastructure and actions in and around the city to improve air quality 

so not just Sustainable transport schemes after all, but hey ho, its a council spokeswoman so probably wasnt briefed correctly or just forgot (using your examples of reasoning for council misinformation)

 

I'll be honest, if i received a notice and i hadnt been in the areas over 40 i would appeal requesting SCC prove I was travelling in air deemed illegal by the courts.

 

there is nothing in the Charging order that say funds will be spent on processing appeals. - what is your published evidence for that, since you demand it of others. Even if there were some associated costs i would argue that 7000 fines equals £14000 to the govt for operational costs leaving over £195,000 to go back to Sheffield in the first month. that should cover any appeals costs for the next year so what they going to do with the next 11 months worth of income

Edited May 11, 2023 by sheffbag