Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

11 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

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.

So, in your view, because they didn’t tell the truth about one issue, the whole organisation, which employs thousands of people and carries out a huge number of functions, is just not fit for purpose?

 

Have you heard of proportionality?

 

You are never going to find a council, or any other political organisation, that does absolutely everything the way you would want it to.

[mike1961]

14 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

So, in your view, because they didn’t tell the truth about one issue, the whole organisation, which employs thousands of people and carries out a huge number of functions, is just not fit for purpose?

 

Have you heard of proportionality?

 

You are never going to find a council, or any other political organisation, that does absolutely everything the way you would want it to.

SCC are corruption at its best.

Liars the lot of them from the top down.

[HeHasRisen]

Including the people who cut the grass in the parks? 

 

Crikey. Makes you think. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[mike1961]

4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Including the people who cut the grass in the parks? 

 

Crikey. Makes you think. 

Probably yes ,we all tell lies at some point myself included but those at the top telling lies to the general public doesn't look good at all .

[hackey lad]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

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.

 

 

Eyes and ears closed to the tree felling saga . 

[RollingJ]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t think you can draw parallels.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As has been said by the poster above, you clearly don't see the parallel - in context.

 

The STREET TEES saga, and the report by Sir Mark Lowcock exposes a very laissez-faire attitude at the TOP of SCC. The fact, which I accept, that one was a commercial contract and the other a 'mandated' requirement is not really relevant - they both needed top-level authorisation/signing-off,  by high-level personnel, who are expected to carry out their duties with due diligence and expertise and respect for those they serve - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

The Lowcock report - or the bit I have read so far - shows that in that case, they fell way short of the standards you would expect. and therefore have rightly lost the trust and respect of those they are supposed to perform for - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

Are you therefore surprised that no-one believes they haven't been 'economical with the truth' on other occasions?

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t think you can draw parallels.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As has been said by the poster above, you clearly don't see the parallel - in context.

 

The STREET TEES saga, and the report by Sir Mark Lowcock exposes a very laissez-faire attitude at the TOP of SCC. The fact, which I accept, that one was a commercial contract and the other a 'mandated' requirement is not really relevant - they both needed top-level authorisation/signing-off,  by high-level personnel, who are expected to carry out their duties with due diligence and expertise and respect for those they serve - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

The Lowcock report - or the bit I have read so far - shows that in that case, they fell way short of the standards you would expect. and therefore have rightly lost the trust and respect of those they are supposed to perform for - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

Are you therefore surprised that no-one believes they haven't been 'economical with the truth' on other occasions?

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I don’t think you can draw parallels.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

As has been said by the poster above, you clearly don't see the parallel - in context.

 

The STREET TEES saga, and the report by Sir Mark Lowcock exposes a very laissez-faire attitude at the TOP of SCC. The fact, which I accept, that one was a commercial contract and the other a 'mandated' requirement is not really relevant - they both needed top-level authorisation/signing-off,  by high-level personnel, who are expected to carry out their duties with due diligence and expertise and respect for those they serve - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

The Lowcock report - or the bit I have read so far - shows that in that case, they fell way short of the standards you would expect. and therefore have rightly lost the trust and respect of those they are supposed to perform for - the citizens of Sheffield.

 

Are you therefore surprised that no-one believes they haven't been 'economical with the truth' on other occasions?

 

SORRY this got posted thee times - the forum threw a hissy-fit.

Edited June 27, 2023 by RollingJ

[Hayley1]

I have a question.  I'm struggling to find the answer to among all the chat. Please excuse me if it's been discussed already.

 

Is it working? We're 4 months in and I have to say I naively imagined there would be less traffic.  I gather that the charges are just being passed onto the end user rather than the businesses avoiding the area?

[Meltman]

38 minutes ago, Hayley1 said:

I have a question.  I'm struggling to find the answer to among all the chat. Please excuse me if it's been discussed already.

 

Is it working? We're 4 months in and I have to say I naively imagined there would be less traffic.  I gather that the charges are just being passed onto the end user rather than the businesses avoiding the area?

This is a very good question, a very good answer is required! My experience leaves me with doubts. I followed an old Ford Mondeo diesel private hire type taxi into town which was chucking out more smoke than it should. The car had a Cleckheaton taxi registration plate on the back. So I presume the owner/operator is paying the CAZ charge (or are they?) but if they are I also presume they are passing it on to the customer.  In that case the CAZ charge is not reducing the pollution that it was 'intended for ' but will be be earning revenue for the government and SCC ,as many think it is there for. This is only one example but I'm sure there will be many more. 

[Planner1]

12 hours ago, Meltman said:

This is a very good question, a very good answer is required! My experience leaves me with doubts. I followed an old Ford Mondeo diesel private hire type taxi into town which was chucking out more smoke than it should. The car had a Cleckheaton taxi registration plate on the back. So I presume the owner/operator is paying the CAZ charge (or are they?) but if they are I also presume they are passing it on to the customer.  In that case the CAZ charge is not reducing the pollution that it was 'intended for ' but will be be earning revenue for the government and SCC ,as many think it is there for. This is only one example but I'm sure there will be many more. 

The experience elsewhere is that the CAZ’s drive up compliance.

 

Vehicle owners tend to update their fleets ( and there are grants available to help with costs) so the percentage of compliant vehicles increases over time.

 

Some categories of vehicle ( cabs for example) were given more time to achieve compliance.

 

You would hope that SCC might publish progress reports, perhaps annually.

14 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Eyes and ears closed to the tree felling saga . 

No. The poster I was responding to wasn’t clear about the point they were making.

 

I don’t know much about the tree felling issues. Haven’t read the report.

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The experience elsewhere is that the CAZ’s drive up compliance.

 

Vehicle owners tend to update their fleets ( and there are grants available to help with costs) so the percentage of compliant vehicles increases over time.

 

Some categories of vehicle ( cabs for example) were given more time to achieve compliance.

 

You would hope that SCC might publish progress reports, perhaps annually.

You would, but...