Shrewsbury traffic wardens sink to a new low :angry: They now book "meals-on-wheels" :(

If Meals-on-Wheels did not get permission from a relative authority to break the law then why not?

It's a tricky one but I have to agree with Proud Salopian. If they had permission to park on double yellows while they deliver (which you can argue they should, and I might agree) then it was wrong of the traffic warden. However, they do not have permission, so the traffic warden was doing his job properly. It is unfair to blame him for that! Otherwise where do you draw the line? Can I park on double yellows while I nip to the shops to buy medicine for a relative? Same thing isn't it?

Exactly.

It would seem the fault of 'Meals on Wheels' here an it surprises me. Charity workers and delivers can apply for a special permit to park within reason on double-yellow lines. Clearly they did not have one !

They/we have been refused parking rights it is up to the discretion of the wardens and we all know how understanding they are !!!!!!!!!!. :angry:

But they're only doing their job! Their job after all is to issue parking tickets to those who they catch breaking traffic regulations.

Yes, but they are paid, the folk that VOLUNTEER to deliver meals on wheels are performing a public service for FREE, not for their own self interest.

hear hear!

So volunteers can break the law?

Lets charge the pensioners then it is not the volunteers who should pay.

PS , sometimes the law is an ASS as you are going into the world of planning I'd have thought you would realise that!

Yes but you can't start breaking the law because you disagree with it. We live in a society where the idea is to amend or repeal a law, through due process, which is either not working or is deemed to be unfair.

Lemon Squeezer dont have a go at Proud Salopian he's right! Like I've said its up to meals on wheels to get a permit, then they can park on double yellows. The law is the law mate! and we have to pay the 'ass' fines. Also two of my mates dare i say it are traffic wardens so i'm a bit bias here :P

For the benefit of those living well away from Shrewsbury...

"Parkright" took over the enforcement of parking regulations from the police late last year. It is a partnership between Shropshire County Council, Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council and the other district councils in the county. The income from fines is used to fund the enforcement. The standard fine for a parking offence is £60 but "only" £30 for prompt payment. It can exceed £95 plus fees if you fight it. In contrast, a recent court case involved repeated thefts from a till and fraud. The person was ordered to repay the money taken and given 100 hours of community service. No fine. Some difference in justice there.

It has been said that the volunteers who deliver "Meals on Wheels" (warm, cooked meals delivered to elderly and disabled folk who can't cook for themselves) should have applied for permits but I can't see that there is any provision for this. Even doctors and nurses on call have to comply with parking regulations and can only have a fine set aside if they can provide proof that they parked illegally due to an emergency. It seems that the volunteer couldn't find a place to park and had to park illegally so as to deliver meals.

If someone is parked illegally whilst unloading the parking attendent (traffic warden) has to observe the vehicle for five minutes to see if it is being used for unloading before issuing a ticket. The volunteers delivering the meals won't just leave them outside the door but will check that the the people are ok and for some the volunteer may well be the only person that they will see all day. You can see that a delivery may take much longer than 5 minutes.

I hope that the fine will be scrapped once the background is explained. This must have happened before when the police looked after parking but perhaps then they exercised more common sense and understanding.

Hear Hear, there are situations where common sense has to prevail where badly thought out policy has not taken into account the needs of provision of services in society.

I was not having a'go' at PS though lets hope that he will make a valuable, intelligent and forward looking contribution to planning where real life is not 'black & white' but full of grey areas.

All planning for our communities to work more successfully should be 'professionally led' as opposed to our present moronic local councillor driven planning system, which is highly influenced by their self/political interest and I'm sorry to say, knowing the right people.

Development control officers, which is what I will be one day soon, have to follow oodles of planning law and local/regional/national planning policies. We are not allowed to stray away from this law & policy almost to the point where we cannot use our common sense. Also on many occasions our recommendations for approval/refusal of a planning application are overturned by councillors who have other, non-planning reasons (hint hint). If you want this changed then it's the law/policy that needs changing. Just like with the parking attendants, planners are only doing their job - don't blame them!

Exactly what I said PS so changing policies which council officers are supposed to and in general do follow isn't what needs to be done, it is leaving the final word to unprofessional and often nimby led local councillors that needs addressing.

They call it "local democracy".... ;)

There's an inconsistency here, though, with SABC's views on recycling rubbish bins inside the loop (see t'other thread) and the parking regime within the loop. After all, if they can't institute a recycling regime "due to the unique geography of the river loop" (says my letter), then they're also quite capable of declaring "parking on double yellow lines for charity & emergency services shall be free due to the unique geography of the river loop". There are lots of places herein where MoW might otherwise have to park some considerable distance away to reach their target pensioner's flat.

No there is quite a clear consistency here. The geography of the town within the river loop is that of narrow streets, no off street parking (or very limited), many dwellings and businesses packed into a small area, etc etc. Therefore with regard to recycling there are difficulties in collecting boxes due to restricted space or whatever and with regard to parking there are difficulties in allowing people/whoever to park due to restricted space, etc!

No, that's exactly the inconsistency to which I refer; SABC's use of its powers to make or not make exemptions to declared policies/regimes/guidelines/services.

If SABC can make an exemption for the recycling scheme on the basis of the river loop's labyrinthine geography, it could issue an exemption for MoW vehicles parking within the loop on almost the exact same grounds (i.e., that it would be impractical to force them to behave like other vehicles due to their need to deliver meals to pensioners within a reasonable time of their being cooked (the meals, not the pensioners)).

In the one instance (recycling), the river loop's geography is cited as a reason for exemption from a standardised practice due to local conditions; in the other (parking) it's cited as a reason for being especially assiduous for enforcement of a standardised practice due to local conditions. This is where the inconsistency lies; if the loop is so unique, and MoW - or other charity services that need "parking tolerance" - are to be supported, SABC is quite capable of doing so.

But the recycling policy's exemption gains the Council something (more recycling cred, less expense on waste collection service), whereas allowing too generous an exemption would lose the Council something (not so much money in fines), so it's tempting to attribute a financial motive to this.

You're just overly cynical in my opinion..

It is just poor planning Rhassaris, just like putting the Theatre where it is and allowing the football stadium to be built without the infrstructure in place to support it first.
The SABC planning officers have no bottle to take on the councillors and the councillors have their own vested interests whether they be political or personal.


The proposed unitary authority has got to be an improvement on the present shambles.

"planning officers have no bottle to take on the councillors"

Planning officers are not allowed to "take on" the Councillors!! :rolleyes:

If the councillors are making decisions before debate and manipulating what gets allowed and what doesnt then lthose at the top should make waves and complain. Planners should interpret and apply policy consistently and fairly so it begs the question what is the point of councillors? In Shrewsbury councillors apply pressure to planning officers to get the decisions they want which is unfair and undemocratic.
When the Princpal Planning Officer takes the rabble out on site visits in their special bus (be interesting if Parkright copped them!!) he should try to maintain some sort of order they often look like a primary school group! :D

Trust me - the planning officer who goes out with them does try to maintain order but they do regard themselves as not having to follow the planner's guidance and instructions.

Funny how discussions on this board seem to go off topic. This one started with a post about parking restrictions and now we are into the murky field of development control.

Councillors have to abide by a code of conduct and should not try to influence officers. Any attempt to do so could lead to the Council's Monitoring Officer referring it to the Standards Board. That said, councillors are quite capable of ignoring sound advice from officers and making strange decisions themselves.

In my opinion, based on personal experience and observation, those officer's dealing with planning and development control locally have been most helpful and have always shown professional integrity. They undergo years of training only to be over-ruled at times by some with no qualifications or experience. Must be a frustrating job. :(

If the councillors applying pressure to get the decisions they want are elected, how's that undemocratic? We elected them to do what they said they wanted to do, and endorsed them obtaining their office.

Come on, I know you voted enthusiastically at the last local elections, just like we all did :)

Trouble is most Councillors on the development control and planning committees, and this is across England, don't really have a clue when it comes to town and country planning. They may be good politicians and good community leaders (some of them anyway) but generally they are not town planners. Yet because of "local democracy" they have the final word.

I didn't say that Councillors influence the planning officers - they don't in our borough, I know - but they do often over-rule recommendations or sometimes ignore advice. And quite often this is down to purely political grounds.

I only wish that you were right there PS.

or personal interest <_<

Having worked in the planning office over summer I am sure that officers retain their professional independence when dealing with Councillors. No officer showed any favour to any Councillor or political party either. Frankly, the idea that Councillors and planning officers somehow collude with each other is simply wrong - in Shrewsbury & Atcham anyway.

All I can say PS is that knowing a now working privately SABC PNO, working with another ex SABC planning office employee and experiencing the system first hand I know that you are wrong. :(

Right, okay. I'm not convinced at all.

Care to give examples of wrong practise?

No good fishing PS, I'm not bothered whether you are convinced or not.

BTW Wrong practise should be spelt, wrong practice!

"I'm not bothered whether you are convinced or not."

I think that sums up everything nicely. Frankly the planning officers at SABC do a good job and are neutral when it comes to dealing with politicians and parties.

From my experiences working on contracts for NSDC, County, SABC and several other councils around the country, the general view of officers is that the less a councillor gets involved the better, since they only cause confusion with demands / decisions based on political spats rather than the logic & good practice of a particular trade.

That goes for all departments besides Development Control - Environmental Health (rubbish bins seemed a very popular bugbear everywhere), CTax, Benefits, you name it. So I personally am not convinced about any conspiracy theory regarding councillors influencing officers, since I've seen things on the inside too and in my experience officers tend to avoid councillors if they can help it since they'll only have to clear up the mess & take the flak afterwards.

Not to put PS off that choice of career :)

(and, just to stir the pot, lemon_squeezer, the sentence needs to read "BTW, wrong practise should be spelt 'wrong practice'"; there's no comma after "spelt", so if you're going to correct others' spellings you really should do so in a grammatically correct fashion :) :))

Not at all. You've just backed up what I've been saying all along.

If you're going to work for SABC, can you revoke planning permission for the existence of the Market Hall and that wretched orange clock? Pretty please?

:)

Ha ha - yes, if only. Planning permission, once granted, cannot be revoked - not by the local planning authority anyway (it may be possible for the Secretary of State to do so).

Saying that, SABC do own the Market Hall and so they may one day (probably in 30-40 years time, once the building is "old") redevelop the site. Would cost rather a lot...

I think that they nurture hopes on demolishing this building sooner than that PS otherwise why would the building be left so half redundant?

We had a great contemporary art exhibition held on the the top floor a couple of years ago which revealed the fantastic space with its almost 360 degree views.

If you speak to members of the Shrewsbury Civic Society you would find that there are quite a number of fans of this building who would like to see it used to its full potential.