Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

11 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Nice to see you back. As asked in another topic, has this CAZ setup been 'engineered'?

Engineered for what?

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

Engineered for what?

To suit someone's own personal agenda? Maybe I should have said 'badly thought out, designed and implemented', as that other fiasco was?

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

To suit someone's own personal agenda? Maybe I should have said 'badly thought out, designed and implemented', as that other fiasco was?

Whose personal agenda and what “fiasco”?

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

Whose personal agenda and what “fiasco”?

OK, ignore the 'agenda' bit. The fiasco is the tree-felling subject, the report into which calls into question a lot of council behaviour -which I doubt is an isolated incident.

[mike1961]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

Any excuse to knock the council, eh? So do you think all charities and vehicles engaged in charitable / fund raising work should be exempt from CAZ charges?

 

Do you also think the vehicles they use should be exempt from other requirements like having an MOT, paying tax, obeying restrictions? 
 

According to figures I’ve seen, there are 168,000 registered charities and probably another 20,000 with some kind of charitable status. Do you understand how difficult it would be to exempt any vehicle they use or might be used in fund raising for them?

I don't need an excuse to knock this pathetic clowncil.

 

It wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't got this stupid CAZ Zone in place as we have.

 

I recently spent a few days in Manchester and their City Centre was alive and buzzing with little rubbish laying around on the floor and guess what they don't have a CAZ Zone either.

Sometimes the truth hurts !

[Planner1]

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

OK, ignore the 'agenda' bit. The fiasco is the tree-felling subject, the report into which calls into question a lot of council behaviour -which I doubt is an isolated incident.

I don’t think you can draw parallels.

 

The advent of CAZ’s was a response by the government to being compelled by the courts to act on poor air quality ( specifically nitrogen oxides) in certain cities. This was the result of court action by environmental activists.

Sheffield, like most other large cities was mandated by the government to introduce a CAZ. The only choice that the cities got was to pick which type of CAZ they implemented within a limited range which the government specified. That choice had to be backed up by a very detailed business case justifying how it would deliver the required results ( as the government were giving cities the money to implement the CAZ’s).

 

Different cities introduced different types of CAZ. Manchester asked for theirs to be deferred ( after installing the camera system).
 

They all use a common back office system for processing the charges. They all use similar ANPR camera setups.

 

The talking point on Sheffield’s seems to be whether or not the council asked for ours to be cancelled or deferred as it appears that air quality is now largely compliant. Answers given by the responsible committee chair and officers seem contradictory. 
 

The Amey contract was a commercial arrangement entered into voluntarily by the council. It involved private sector investment and government money as well as council money. It took a long time and a lot of effort to procure it. 
 

Both of these were progressed by different teams at the council. One was a legal obligation, the other was a commercial arrangement. I’m therefore not at all sure what you are trying to infer by drawing parallels between them.

 

 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, mike1961 said:

I don't need an excuse to knock this pathetic clowncil.

Yeah, we’ve seen ample evidence. Petty name calling doesn’t exactly improve your ( admittedly low) credibility.

1 hour ago, mike1961 said:

It wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't got this stupid CAZ Zone in place as we have.

Blame the environmental activists and the government for the CAZ if you must.

 

Although it wouldn’t have been a problem if the horse box driver had thought it through and checked whether they had to pay before coming, or even looked at the signs when they got here. Huge numbers of other people seem to be able to do this. 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, mike1961 said:

I recently spent a few days in Manchester and their City Centre was alive and buzzing with little rubbish laying around on the floor and guess what they don't have a CAZ Zone either.

Sometimes the truth hurts !

Manchester is buzzing compared to here. However, it sits at the centre of a city region that has twice the population of ours, so rather unfair to make direct comparisons, but hey, sometimes facts get in the way of your council knocking agenda.

[HeHasRisen]

12 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

 

 

Although it wouldn’t have been a problem if the horse box driver had thought it through and checked whether they had to pay before coming, or even looked at the signs when they got here. 

They did. Going off the comments on the FB post, they asked the Council beforehand for an exemption and were told no. And on this basis, knowing they would have had to pay fifty notes, they still decided to rattle into town in a (presumably) ancient, unexempt horse box, rather than a) not bothering, or b) deciding to go somewhere else to fundraise instead (I dont believe for a second they had the £50 sprung on them the day before).

 

Like I said, they could have gone to Crystal Peaks and got a decent wedge in donations no doubt.

Edited June 27, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[mike1961]

27 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Manchester is buzzing compared to here. However, it sits at the centre of a city region that has twice the population of ours, so rather unfair to make direct comparisons, but hey, sometimes facts get in the way of your council knocking agenda.

You can defend SCC all you want but they are just not fit for purpose and have been found out to be lying on more than one occasion including the intention to deceive.