One rule for Roger Stone, quite another for the rest of us! What do you think?

Dear Mr Battersby,

Thank for your comprehensive and prompt reply to my query.

I must confess to my sadness and disappointment, but not to surprise, at an RMBC Council Leader being so thoroughly lazy and inconsiderate as to insist on parking a corporate vehicle used almost exclusively by them on the paved pedestrian area outside the Town Hall, rather than occupying a defined and designated parking space on the public highway and walking to their place of business like ordinary Rotherham citizens have to do every day of the week.

In my opinion this sets a very poor public image of responsible car parking and use of a civic motor vehicle and really does indicate to me an attitude of complete and utter contempt and indifference on the part of RMBC Elected Members and Officers towards the long-suffering motorists and citizens of Rotherham who have to endure the expensive and limited parking options available in Rotherham town centre.

However over the years I have become somewhat used to the “do as I say and not as I do” behaviours exhibited by RMBC Elected Members and Officers, and the Rotherham Labour Group in particular.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

.

On Fri, 9/3/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: PRIVATE CAR PARKED ON FOOTPATH OUTSIDE TOWN HALL 2012.03.07
To: Don Buxton
Cc: “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Friday, 9 March, 2012, 14:24

Mr Buxton, thank you for your email. The Chief executive has asked me to respond on his behalf.

1. By what particular specific legal act, instrument or statute is that particular personal vehicle, or any other, permitted to park in that location?

The vehicle in question is not a personal vehicle. It is a fleet vehicle leased by Rotherham MBC and is therefore a statutory vehicle. The Traffic Management Act 2004 allows for statutory vehicles to be exempt from parking restrictions when being used for official duties.This is one of the official cars used by the Mayor and Leader.

2. Who within RMBC, and in what official capacity, has authorised and permitted this, or any other personal vehicle, to park on the paved pedestrian area outside Rotherham Town Hall?

The Parking Services Manager or a delegated person within the Parking Services Team has the authority to grant permission to vehicles to be parked in this location. A recent example was when three demonstration electric vehicles were granted permission to be parked in front of the Town Hall.

3. Is this particular vehicle issued to, or allocated to, or used almost exclusively by any particular RMBC Elected Member or Officer? And if so, who and in what capacity?

This vehicle is, in the main, used by the Leader of the Council.

4. Do the owners of private vehicles such as this which park on the paved area outside Rotherham Town Hall have to declare “a financial benefit in kind” to the Inland Revenue as a consequence of avoiding the high cost of payment of borough car parking charges?

This is not a privately owned vehicle.

5. Please supply me with copies of any reports, documents, memos, letters or notes in which the issue of RMBC Elected Members and Officers being granted permission to park their private cars on the paved pedestrian area has been discussed.

There are no such document(s). No such permission exists.

6. Please supply me with a copy/copies of any written instructions issued to RMBC staff to ignore or overlook the parking of RMBC Elected Members and Officers private vehicles on the paved pedestrian area outside Rotherham Town Hall.

There are no such written instructions because no “private vehicles” are allowed to be parked in this location except in extenuating circumstances, the merits of which would be taken into consideration on a case by case basis.

7. Have any verbal instructions been issued to RMBC staff to ignore or overlook the parking of RMBC Elected Members and Officers private vehicles on the paved pedestrian area outside Rotherham Town Hall.

No.

8. Will you as Chief Executive be issuing any instructions to Elected Members, Officers and Staff of RMBC about the importance of them projecting a positive public image of responsible parking of their private vehicles and adhering to civic parking regulations within Rotherham town centre, and of not parking on the paved pedestrian area outlined above?

No.

9. Has RMBC conducted any Formal Risk Assessments in relation to the parking of private motor cars on the paved pedestrian area outside Rotherham Town Hall and the hazards they make for blind or partially sighted pedestrians? If so, please supply such copies.

No. However, requests for vehicles to be allowed to be parked in any restricted area are treated on their individual merits. Safety of the public is always paramount in the decision making process. The area outside the town hall has been deemed to be wide enough for safe usage for statutory vehicles. However, it may be that the Council’s Health and Safety Team be asked to look at this particular location in order to undertake a risk assessment.

Regards

Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

My emphasis. Rothpol

Check for yourself: Department for Transport, or Traffic Management Act 2004.

First part of this tale of the Leaders attitudes: PRIVATE CAR PARKED ON FOOTPATH OUTSIDE TOWN HALL 2012.03.07

17 thoughts on “One rule for Roger Stone, quite another for the rest of us! What do you think?

  1. I’m pleased Karl has fully answered the question.

    I’ve broken my ankle in the past and it used to really annoy me that I was forced to struggle round unimportant objects such as cars parked on paved areas, possibly just because someone didn’t want to park in a designated parking space which wouldn’t really incur much more of a walk for someone without a stick.

    I came across the situation in Doncaster and made the same complaint.

    I will be raising this with Streetpride to hopefully send it up the chain of command – out of the concern I have for disabled people and not for any other reason.

    Like

    • Mr Battersby, I would have thought a more appropriate way for you to put it! Could be that recent success in the publication department is going to your head?

      Sorry chum, but your opinions count little to your mates in the Town Hall and certainly not to a Government Minister. Roger Stone will be quaking in his boots!

      Like

  2. It is not that long ago that I had a letter published in The Advertiser saying that I fully expected in the near future to find a traffic lane down the centre of Moorgate designated exclusively for Stone, Smith and the rest of the Politbureau to drive in, just as in Moscow. This appeaers to be a step towards that.
    These self important, self serving, money grubbing cheating individuals believe they deserve, and earn it. Also, when the politbureau awarded themselves BMW’s, when a fleet of Ford cars at half the price would have served the same purpose, they again expressed the view that they deserved it. If this lot got what they deserve, they would walk everywhere, or at the very most be issued with bicycles to carry out their non-existant duties.
    Battersby states that these official cars (Statutory vehicles) are exempt from parking restrictions. However, he fails to tell us what section, subsection of the Traffic Management Act 2004 allows this. Having trawled the basics of the act, I will believe it when I see it in writing because I cannot believe such vehicles are exempt as there is no justification for it.

    Like

    • Thanks for your insights Jim. I am beginning to suspect that Battersby’s response is just an attempt to bamboozle the uninformed reader.

      Answers yes, but not the full story?

      Community Champion’s statement, “I’m pleased Karl has fully answered the question,” is beginning to sound rather hollow! We should be told?

      Like

    • You are taking sides!
      Rogers behaviour is totally unacceptable, yet you refuse to condemn it!
      As the title of this post was, One rule for Roger Stone, quite another for the rest of us! it now seems that you are prepared to tolerate this kind of arrogant abuse! This is the problem with Labour, they think the own the place. They don’t, we do!!!!
      I would advise Roger Stone against a repeat parking performance as mobile phones are very good at taking pictures!

      Like

  3. Ooooooh! they’ll be quivering in their boots down at Town Hall Towers, cos the Conisbrough Canary is going be “raising this with Streetpride”.

    Ooooooooh, I’d hate to be their boots, cos they might get into twrrrrooble with the street monitor!!

    Like

  4. The main problem this highlights is that the town hall doesn’t have sufficient allocated parking for officials delivering their duties.

    I am of the opinion that the leader of any council should recieve a chauffeur at the tax payers expense and be allowed to travel between meetings as conveniently to them as possible.

    By doing this their productivity improves and the public benefits. Whilst I work in the private sector I often employ a driver for long trips so that I can focus on my workload.

    What you view as ‘one rule for one’ I view as good time management by our elected leader.

    There are a few molehills on the fields close to my house, shall we all go play making mountains out of them as you’re doing a grand job with this one 🙂

    Like

    • You are very much welcome to share your views with readers. However, I must tell you that I am confident that your views are not in the majority amongst Rotherham Citizens. The age of deference and privilege, is well and truly over.

      Like

      • My opinion isn’t mainstream? Ouch, can you please educate me so that I feel part of the clan?

        Due to the level of sarcasm shown elsewhere on this website I expect you could taste it in my opening and I also apologise for starting with such a childish remark but that seems to be about the only way to fit in with this thread.

        Based on the fact that you simply pointed out that my point isn’t one of popularity am I right to presume that factually you have no argument against it? I am not supporting the person who has been appointed neither am a chastising them. The ‘person in power’ (whoever that may be) should be allowed to go about their civic duties as efficiently as possible in order to improve their productivity. We are the ones that benefit from that.

        Sending photos in of a car parked outside the Town Hall with such a detailed FOI request is wasting the tax payers money, fact. If it had been parked in a parking bay chances are the minimal fee would have been claimed through expenses, a process which again would have cost the tax payer, fact.

        Sorry if I don’t go along with the popular opinion of slating those in power but I would much prefer an efficient system which is at the same time accountable. Now if Cllr Stone had broken the law and used his position to avoid retribution then that’s something that needs to be addressed. Parking in a area which he is allowed to (that is my opinion until someone on here is able to prove otherwise, so far it’s just a bunch of opinions without any factual evidence) is far less a concern than the hot air which has been produced as a result of it.

        Please don’t take this personally, you have a great opportunity to educate many through this channel and I applaud the efforts you make but some of the articles on here appear to be less than worthy of our councils focus but yet still take up their time to address (costing us money).

        Like

  5. I fail to see how I am “taking sides” when I have clearly said that I will be raising this with the right person.

    If Rotherham Politics had any ounce of kick for Rotherham in it’s ambition it would be involved in this process, as it is, you just appear to be focused on damaging the town as much as possible, leaving it down to people like me (and others to even it out) or the vast majority to sit silently and read rantings in the letters page of the Rotherham Advertiser.

    Like

  6. By all means feel free to post it communitynumpty if you feel compelled to comment on a what was a message of support to RothPol.

    Incase you no longer have access, from what I recall the jist of it was “well done with what you’re doing here, I like to post in a way which will invoke emotion and thought rather than tow the popular line, this is better for readers rather than everyone in agreement, don’t feel the need to hold any punches when you respond as I view forums like this as a touch of panto and your followers will love it.”. I may have missed a point or two so feel free to interject if you recall anything.

    Now that we’re all friends again we can discuss openly 🙂 can you please elaborate on what interests you about that?

    Like

  7. Nothing, other then you wanting to keep it secret which Rothpol Mod has clearly not done so has he;

    A) Edited it to remove a comment he didn’t want us to see?
    B) Purposely left the section in I am making reference to with the “secret comment” to provoke a reaction?
    C) Some other explanation?

    Very little bothers me, other then the price of ale and time of last orders.

    In relation to the thread topic, does anyone have anything other then would like to share with everyone?

    Like

Leave your comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.