“...or perhaps this is just what happens when militant residents try to force the councils hand when it tries to being charges in line with the costs. I bet there are a number of quiet residents fuming now that the loud shouters, who have appeared in the telegraph pages over the past couple of months, have spoilt it for everyone else!”

“I don't think there's any change in the decision at all. NELC had already said the move would need a 45% response which has not been achieved. End of story.”

“@ TheWrangler..
Force council's hands... by asking for the price to be fair? Or do you mean something else?
Are you saying that the residents should have just bent over and took the increase to the charges? So to request a proper consultation is militant? I thought they were asking for accountability and some representation of the democratically elected councillors!
I'll try to answer the question. No one has forced the council's hands. The council vote and pass the mandate to increase the charges on MONDAY 5th November. The letter arrived on my door mate this morning, so, by Friday/Saturday 9th/10th November the scheme was cancelled.

@ Bizarre57,
Yes, you are quite right. I do love the "End of story", bit. A smack of real arrogance displayed in that comment. Next time I have an opinion I'll ask you first. Or maybe if I have an idea maybe you can approve it?
Although, to reply to your point. I would say that the questionnaire was sent to properties who don't actually have a car. So the Question was "do you wish to be included in the residents parking scheme" was asked to residents who don't have a need. Pretty sure we all know the answer to that one. In my opinion the question initial question should have been sent only to those who had previously bought a permit asking "based on the increase do you want to continue?". So in summary the previously proved need for Residents Parking was disproved in a quick dash 45 days, by a (my opinion) short sighted NELC.”

“* ** FOUND - Large Chip ** *

Is anyone missing a large chip? Found on the forum pages, believed to have fallen from someones shoulder on Monday evening.”

“ahh-ha-ha-ha......

That's a good one. Seriously! You council guys get me in stitches.”

“@thewrangler so you cannot reply then?”

“Do these people own the stretch of road outside their house? No well any taxed tested and insured vehicle can park there. You had the chance to stop this with the residents scheme but you moaned and groaned so tough luck. I bought a house with a drive I have to pay for the upkeep of the drive. Stop moaning its what got you into this to start with.”

“Don't need to - Casiofx85gt has already put it quite succinctly!”

“casiofx85gt & TheWrangler

Would you kindly state here the moans and groans that the residents had that you two believe were wrong?”

“There have been several stories in the paper and on this site over the last month or so, from militant residents moaning and groaning about the increase to £80 per year from £15.

Whilst I don't agree it should have been done in one go, £80 sounds about right and is a lot less than our friends in Shefield who pay nearly £250 for a similar scheme.

There will be a number of people, old people, young families that now will have lost out and their lives will be infinitely harder due to the moaners and groaners loosing the schemes for them, all over less than 18 pence per day extra.”

“I'm assuming you're a grown man wrongler; please correct me if I'm wrang.

If so, why do you resort to such futile arguments as comparing Sheffield City Council with NE£C?

So, you're basically saying because our council profiteers to a lesser extent than another you should think yourself lucky.”

“@TheWrangler...
thank you for reply.
I understand your point but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It is not a race to the bottom. If residents complain it is genuine! Have respect for their issues. A bit of empathy will help. Lets work together. A greater gain.

1) Grimsby ain't Sheffield. It does not have the services, or the jobs. Grimsby town centre is not desirable place to live. I like it but you only have to look at the house prices.

2) Whilst people did complain about the price, it was passed through the at the Executives meeting. So to say that caused the loss of the scheme is incorrect.
I must say however, people are do have a right to complain/question/call for accountability. Money invested in Iceland? Tax avoidance schemes, News of the World!! etc

Whilst you don't see at as a large amount of money some will. Come on you have to admit that the areas around Cartergate/Earl Str/Alexandra Road are rather poor. So poor the council applies and receives additional money from, i think, Europe. In fact the West Marsh and East Marsh are part of the poorest communities in Europe. (Please don't comment that therefore they shouldn't have car)

3) I personally think £80 is a decent amount to pay for a resident parking scheme, but its slightly not so when you think about the fact that this is a shared scheme and does not guarantee a parking space. It becomes hard to take when the increase is so steep. If the scheme was introduced today people would grab it, but when it has been prices as it has they are upset. Come one look at car parking for Council workers, some would say they are getting it cheap, other would not. The council did not , however, have to increase it at such a rate. The Lib Dems should take their fair share of the blame and do, but please trust me that £15 did previously cover costs as the areas were not being enforced. No one has been subsidising anyone else.
That has been discussed at meetings within the council. They did talk about at gradual increase with a less enforcement presence. They could hardly discuss that with the general public though could they. "Psst.. the parking down so & so street it resident but we don't patrol it"
Its been difficult for the council, but abandoning the scheme seems to punish all. Will it win them votes? Will it decrease the other car parks revenues? I do genuinely believe that commuter will hog these places from 8am to 6pm. There will be no benefit for shoppers in Grimsby from unlimited parking.

The reason for the increase was to pay for enforcement. This enforcement was to cover the cost of managing the commuter parking and shoppers. So is that fair for residents to manage the costs for controlling them?

So in conclusion the scheme has not been lost due to moaners and groaners!
The scheme HAS been lost due to poor response to consultation. That one is a another story!”

“From what I can tell, the council wanted to scrap the scheme and engineered the consultation such that they could justify doing so.

They lured residents into a trap by offering them a "take it or leave it" 400% increase. They knew exactly the response they'd get. Problem solved.”

“@ by albe_rtsquare
totally agree.

They sent a letter saying the price IS going to be x, y & z and piggybacked a letter about a consultation. To a lot of people I suspect the consultation referred to the price increase and people either ignored it or returned the consultation as a NO!

I find it very difficult to understand how a consultation was suddenly allowed. Residents didn't ask for it. It was just sent out on the back of the letter advising of the increase.

I struggle to understand how that would be allowed. I guess the council can act in its interests but i don't know, nor have we heard of many councillors acting in the interest of the residents to fight the consultation or price increase. Considering the petition had approximately 400 signatures. The cabinet appear to have acted in their own interests rather than the people?!”

“"The cabinet appear to have acted in their own interests rather than the people?!"


Scroll down to Lord Gavron 12:59 pm, House of Lords yesterday. Could equally apply to our council officers:

http://tinyurl.com/bgcpn5h


.....The directors of our public companies have not exercised moderation. They have helped themselves beyond all reason, beyond the bounds of fair play. There are about 4,000 people who are executive and non-executive directors of our largest public companies. They sit on each other's remuneration committees and they are responsible for each other's compensation packages. Unsurprisingly, they are not known for recommending decreases in earnings. There are exceptions. There are directors, both executive and non-executive, who try to exercise restraint. They have a difficult time. Most members of remuneration committees are non-executives who owe loyalty to those who appointed them to their well salaried positions and on whose earnings they are adjudicating. This is a structure which can lead to excess and, my goodness, it does.

The earnings packages are often complex and composed of many items. In the interest of transparency, we should require the auditors to give full and complete valuations in the annual report of all directors' reward packages......”

“As a council employee who has to pay for parking I welcome this ,looking forward to using the sidestreets near the muni or those within easy walking distance rather than pay to park in my employeees car parks .Love it as residents leave before I start so I get somewhere to park ,Manor Ave here I come or closer if I can .
Jase ;-)”

“Nail on the head Jase. As any sensible person would do. I can't blame you.”