Battersby provides more answers. Have we the full picture yet?

Dear Rotherham Active and Empowered Citizens,

Now we have further strategic clarification from almost-the-very-top of RMBC that Da Dodger was engaged in verge edge grass cutting, refuse collection, street cleansing or highways maintenance, to justify parking their executive Beemer on the paved pedestrian area outside Town Hall Towers.

So those of you who thought that it was just insolent, self-centred, idle and indolent laziness now have it From On High that the dedicated public servant was engaged on statutory local duty of a most important kind.

Jackanory … Jackanory … Jackanory … Jackanory … Jackanory … Jackanory …

Explanations from Town Hall Towers now have all the inventiveness and reality of the childlike postal freebies that Dodger’z Booiks-4-Babiz Scheme has …

It’s a cracker 


Readers may wish to have a look at the Department for Transport’s own Advice and Guidance.

— On Mon, 12/3/12, Battersby, Karl <> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <>
Subject: Re: Private Car Parked On Footpath Outside Town Hall,.
To: Donald Bird, Don Buxton, “Hatton, Lesley” <>, “Kemp, Liz” <>
Cc: “Beard, Martin” <>
Date: Monday, 12 March, 2012, 9:11

Mr Bird, I can provide the following response to your two emails.

The following is an extract from the Traffic Management Act Guidance for Local Authorities:

There are some circumstances where vehicles need to be parked in such a
way that they cannot comply with the regulations, “for example removal vehicles or scaffolding lorries.”* Authorities should issue special waivers (also called dispensations) to allow these vehicles to park without attracting penalties. It
is important that authorities establish their own policies and procedures for
granting waivers and provide for them in their TROs. Policies need to balance the importance to businesses of accessible parking in special circumstances with the need to keep roads clear, and ensure that the use of waivers is not excessive.

Accordingly, Rotherham MBC’s Parking Enforcement Policy states the following exemptions are appropriate:

Local Authority Vehicles (or those of contractual agents) whilst being used to carry out statutory duties (i.e. refuse collection, street cleansing, highway maintenance) or whilst carrying out duties that require the vehicle to be in close proximity (i.e. verge grass cutting) including parking attendant vehicles.

I hope this is now satisfactory.


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

*Text in bold added for completeness. Rothpol.

—–Original Message—–
From: Donald Bird
To: Battersby, Karl
Sent: Sat Mar 10 22:18:03 2012
Subject: Private Car Parked On Footpath Outside Town Hall,.

Dear Mr Battersby,

Further to your prompt explanation to Mr.Buxton re the above – would you please kindly quote to me the Section of The Traffic Management Act 2004 that applies in this instance.

Thank you.



Posted previously:


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

9 thoughts on “Battersby provides more answers. Have we the full picture yet?

  1. This is a classic lickspittle response to the issue!

    Battersby has quoted almost word for word from the DfT Guidance, except the bit where it gives examples of those vehicles which should be granted waiver from enforcement and this is the bit he selectively omitted :- “for example removal vehicles or scaffolding lorries.” These words need to be inserted before the full stop at the end of the first sentence of his quote.

    Now why should he selectively omit those very few words? There is no way that a ‘copy and paste’ action would accidentally miss words out in the middle of a paragraph, so I think we can take it that his omission was indeed deliberate. As I say, a classic lickspittle response.

    Quite simply, none of what the lickspittle has quoted applies to Stone, because nowhere can I see in the Act or DfT guidance is the need for an obese lazy arsed politician, to be granted a waiver from the The Traffic Management Act 2004.


  2. Incompetent lickspittle more like! Did he imagine that amongst Rotherham Politics readership there would not be at least someone, capable of reading and understanding the English language?

    Why else would he deliberately omit, the rather important words from his reply, “for example removal vehicles or scaffolding lorries.” This changes things more that a little, unless of course Roger is claiming to be equivalent to either of these examples given in the guidance, a top BMW hardly fits the bill does it!

    I am really quite annoyed at this deception! What else do they deliberately misinterpret in the rules to suit them? Blue Badge regulations, perhaps?


  3. It has been noted that Battersby, once again, fails to quote the specific section of this legislation. He must think that we are all as thick as the rest in Town Hall Towers. RMBC are stretching this piece of legislation far beyond what it was intended and there is no doubt in my mind that the BMW in question was parked illegally. Unless, of course, it has an extra large grass box attached to the rear and they have suddenly grassed the whole frontage of the Town Hall.
    This, once again, shows the arrogance, self importance, self serving, greed and the down right lying by this set of ??? there are no words other than expletives to describe them.
    It is time the police were given back their powers over parking regulations, with proper Traffic Wardens, then we would see them being applied in a fair and judicious manner, not just to suit this set of scum labour who are a law unto themselves.


  4. Karl Battersby has made a complete fool of himself with this example of naked deception, trying to bend the rules, to provide cover for his political masters.

    Has Karl Battersby, or Martin Kimber for that matter, ever taken the trouble to read their code of conduct? For they would see at once, that this kind of craven behaviour would immediately put them in breach of it.

    Time for Martin Kimber to step up to the plate and do the job he is actually paid to do.

    Firstly, he should inform the Leader that he must no longer park there at any time, in writing. The letter should be made public, so that we may see that this has been done.

    Secondly, Martin Kimber needs to get a grip of his officers, clearly under performing and failing to practise their professional duties according to their code of conduct or even their job descriptions.

    Martin Kimber has clear legal and contractual duties to perform here, he must exercise them, with all the impartiality required.


  5. I have been informed of this on very good authority although I am not able to disclose how.

    Only vehicles involved in ‘statutory undertaking’ such as Doctors, BT, emergency services, council services such as maintenance etc are permitted to park in such a pedestrian area. The mayors vehicle is allowed to enter the area to alight but should not remain parked and if perceived to do so is at risk of receiving a statutory fixed penalty notice. Cllr Stones vehicle should not enter the area whether to alight or not, either way as Cllr Stone does not have a driver so the vehicle would have to remain parked for the duration of his visit.

    Vehicles parked on double yellow lines have to be allowed three minutes for the driver to return and remove their vehicle before a fixed penalty can be issued but Rotherham council have a policy to extend this to five minutes throughout the borough. However tickets are issued immediately to vehicles (other than those stated above) parked in pedestrian areas of this nature and Cllr Stones vehicle is not exempt whether personal or a statutory vehicle.

    My contact went on to state that town planning should have designated parking bays for the Town Hall but for some bizarre reason this didn’t happen.

    I stand by my views posted on the previous thread addressing this and hoped I would be reporting the opposite. It seems that you are right to believe the councils feedback is inaccurate, based on an unwritten rule rather than UK or local laws.

    If the council decide to address this I hope they take the cost effective options of claiming two of the nearby bays rather than spending a fortune on redesigning the area outside the Town Hall.

    The statement regarding the demonstration electric vehicles is correct although risk assessments and written authorisation will have been required.


  6. Chris’s observations amount to nothing more than “hoping” Rotherham Council would do things properly, professionally, legally and with integrity, and is an utterly pointless position to adopt – they won’t.

    The likes of Stone will carry on exploiting and misusing the opportunities presented to them by the lickspittles – let’s revisit this issue in twelve month’s time. Bet I’m right


  7. Sorry Chris, it’s not inaccurate feedback based on an unwritten rule, it is RMBC Councillors sticking 2 fingers up at the law and applying the communist rule of one law for the people and another for the politbureau members. Even Sheffield’s labour council do not allow the parking of official cars on the frontage of their Town Hall. Their Lord Mayor and council leader use a side door in Surrey Street. But we couldn’t have dodgey Roger using a side door, he’s far too important, or is it self-important?
    Don’t forget, this is not the first time we’ve had problems with the dodger parking his car at the Town hall. Last time, some poor sod nearly lost his job because he dared to give him a ticket!


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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