Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

4.1

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Nighat Basharat, Maroof Raouf, Richard Shaw and Sophie Thornton.

5.1

No items were identified where resolutions may be moved to exclude the public and press.

6.1

There were no declarations of interest.

7.1

The minutes of the previous meetings held on the 7^th March and the 15^th May 2024, were agreed as a correct record.

8.1

An update and presentation (published on the Council’s website) on the A61 improvement scheme was given by Mark Gibbons (Senior Transport Planner, Sheffield City Council) and Neil Byers (Consultant, Nota Bene Consulting) who advised that the consultation was open until Friday 4^th October and further comments were welcomed.

8.2

Mark Gibbons explained that following the closure of the consultation, feedback would be reviewed, then an outline business case put together and detailed designs developed.  Due to funding constraints, the project had to be delivered by March 2027.

8.3

The Chair, Councillor Simon Clement Jones, read out the following public question which had been provided in advance of the meeting by Joseph Shroeter:

“Please explain how the impact of proposal 8 from the A61 Chesterfield Road consultation on local residents, will be mitigated/residents will be compensated. Proposed plans include removing existing parking and replacing to a location where parking is already very difficult with cars parked bumper to bumper on Ulverston Road.  Local residents will also face a toucan crossing located directly in front of houses with the impact of increased standstill traffic and the increase in noise/fumes that comes with this in front of properties, as well as the impact of increased light pollution (from the traffic lights) in homes.

How can the clear and large negative impacts on local residents be justified for a few metres of cycle lane that will prove to be unusable

1. The entrance to the proposed cycle lane on Ulverston Road will inevitably be blocked by the car garage - N. Grayson - during working hours.

2. The end of the proposed cycle lane on Woodseats Road will inevitably be blocked by parked cars - with cars competing for less parking the remaining parking on Woodseats Road will inevitably be in constant use. 3. The end of the proposed cycle lane on Smithy Wood Road will also be blocked by parked cars from local residents/the Jupiter car garage. Thus all proposed cycle lanes will be unusable the vast majority of the time?

Have traffic calming measures that slow traffic on Woodseats Road rather than bring it to a complete stop been considered (speed bumps/20 mph zone/speed camera at the junction of Athol Road to name a few possible examples?

Have the impacts of Proposal 8 on local businesses such as Cob and Crumb/ N. Grayson/Jupiter been considered?

Have planners visited the site of proposal 8 prior to planning? The non-viability of the proposed relocation of parking to Ulverston Road would/should have become immediately clear if so.

Will the council commit to local residents working directly with the planners of this scheme, as well as future schemes, to bring changes that actually benefit the local area for the local population? Only local residents/local businesses can truly know what the local area needs.”

8.4

In response to the question from Mr Shroeter, Mark Gibbons stated that this was useful feedback and confirmed that several site visits had been carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1

A presentation (published on the Council’s website), on the future of Local Area Committee meetings, was given by Carl Mullooly (Head of Community Services - Local Area Committees, Sheffield City Council) who advised that the team was aiming to find out regarding the establishment of the Local Area Committees, what had worked well, what could be improved, and whether the aims to “engage, empower and enable” were being met.  This would be fed into the Council’s “Future Sheffield” discussion.

9.2

Carl Mullooly invited comments from members of the public present as to whether they considered the Local Area Committee meetings to be successful and the following points were made:

• The meeting was held in Nether Edge, but the main agenda item i.e. the A61 scheme, was not local, and this limited the attendees’ ability to input.  The topics discussed should be relevant to the ward they were being discussed in.
• It felt like watching a committee meeting just involving the Councillors, there had not been enough audience involvement.
• More effort should be taken to publicise the webcast and encourage the public to watch it.
• More engaging content would encourage more people to come.
• Social media should be used to promote the meetings.
• There were too many Councillors in attendance which meant that they dominated the discussion.
• A suggestion that there be double the number of meetings, each attended by half the number of Councillors, to increase the geographical spread.
• More thought should be given as to how to engage with all residents- not everybody uses social media.
• Not enough use is made of all forms of media to promote the meetings.
• It can feel intimidating to ask questions.  The meeting at Meadowhead School where everyone sat around tables had been easier to contribute to.
• There were no young people present.
• Councillors campaigned on local issues to get elected and knocked on people’s doors.  Why couldn’t they do this to get residents to attend these meetings? Councillors were only seen before elections.
• The meeting was taking place in Black History Month, and not having any activities relating to this was a lost opportunity to make people feel more represented.
• The meeting should be speeded up, it was too slow.

9.3

In response to points raised by the public, the Chair advised that the Local Area Committee’s budget for communications / social media had been cut and as well as publicity for the meetings, this also affected publicity for the rest of the work of the LAC Teams.  For this to change, Councillors would have to argue for more resources.  He added that the number of meetings and the quorum of Councillors (six) was in the constitution of the LACs but this could potentially be changed. 

9.4

Carl Mullooly thanked the public in attendance for their useful comments which he said would be captured for the project.

7.1

Funding delegated by the Council to LACs in 2024/25 amounts to £100,000 per LAC to address issues identified in the South Community Plan. Following consultation with the South LAC Members it is proposed that, as in 2023/24, this budget should be allocated so that £25,000 is spent per ward. Of this £625 per ward will be used to create a £2500 operations budget, leaving £24,375 per ward to spend on Community Plan priority issues.

In order to enable financial decisions to be made more quickly, given the delays caused by the two pre-election periods (local election and general election) it is recommended that the level of expenditure that can be approved by the Community Services Manager in consultation with the LAC Chair under the authority delegated by the LAC is raised to sums up to £10,000. All other conditions would remain the same so decisions may be taken provided that:

• The decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair
• Spending is in line with any specific purposes of the allocated budget
• The decision may not approve expenditure of more than £10,000
• A report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

7.2

RESOLVED:

That the South Local Area Committee:

1. Agrees the approach set out for use of the 2024/25 budget, using the £100,000 allocation to provide £25,000 per ward to develop projects in line with the South LAC Community Plan 
2. Authorises the Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure from any budgets allocated to the Local Area Committee provided that:

• The decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair Spending is in line with any specific purposes of the allocated budget
• The decision may not approve expenditure of more than £10,000
• A report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

7.3

Reasons for Decision

The South LAC is asked to approach to its 2024/25 budget outlined in the report to address the identified local priorities within the South LAC Community Plan.

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The LAC could choose not to allocate budgets at this stage, but this would delay local projects and facilities for local communities.

Decisions on grant awards could be reserved to the LAC but this would inevitably delay delivery of priority actions to address specific issues identified in the Community Plan.

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers. However, this would restrict and undermine the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.

10.1

The Budget report which outlined the South LACs approach to its 2024/24 budget, was introduced by David Luck, Community Services Manager, South Local Area Committee, Sheffield City Council), he also showed a presentation which was published on the Council’s website.

10.2

RESOLVED:

That the South Local Area Committee:

1. Agrees the approach set out for use of the 2024/25 budget, using the £100,000 allocation to provide £25,000 per ward to develop projects in line with the South LAC Community Plan 
2. Authorises the Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure from any budgets allocated to the Local Area Committee provided that:

• The decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair Spending is in line with any specific purposes of the allocated budget
• The decision may not approve expenditure of more than £10,000
• A report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

The South LAC is asked to approach to its 2024/25 budget outlined in the report to address the identified local priorities within the South LAC Community Plan.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The LAC could choose not to allocate budgets at this stage, but this would delay local projects and facilities for local communities.

Decisions on grant awards could be reserved to the LAC but this would inevitably delay delivery of priority actions to address specific issues identified in the Community Plan.

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers. However, this would restrict and undermine the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.

11.1

This item was withdrawn from the agenda due to speaker availability.

12.1

The Committee received the following questions from members of the public who had submitted questions prior to the meeting:

(a)  David Bower

“I do not know if I will be able to attend the 1st of October meeting but would like you to investigate the following.

A controversial traffic scheme was implemented nearly two years ago and one of the good things that came out of this was the traffic lights at Psalter Lane (and Osborne Road).

This work has still not been completed and the costly temporary traffic lights are still in operation.

I believe these are expensive to rent from SRL, so my question is “When will the scheme to finish the curbs and traffic lights be completed?”

Would you please investigate and/or pass on the question if necessary to the LAC South panel.”

The Chair read the following response:

“Regarding Osbourne Rd, the work has started on the permanent crossing. There was an issue with the type of surfacing which has caused some delay, that was sorted out last week so things will now progress.

Regarding Psalter Lane, work on the crossing on Psalter Lane is due to start on site on 7th October.”

(b)  Lucy Ruck

“Hello, I would be grateful to have the following question raised at the meeting next week. It is in relation to the large Crossing at the top of Barkers Rd, going up to Lyndhurst and intersecting with union road.

Apologies for raising this again, and I do appreciate as a Sheffield city council staff member myself, the ongoing difficulties faced balancing resources against public expectations. 

However, as this is an issue which concerns myself and several local residents, I feel that I wouldn’t be doing my dut

y as a member of the community, unless I raised it again.

At the top of Barkers Rd there is no signage to slow cars down, and as you will be acutely aware, speeding continues to be an issue, particularly at this intersection where many cars don’t stop as they speed up to Lyndhurst Road.

I have raised this issue before, and I’m aware that there often need to be collision statistics before action can be taken. I’m also aware that the issue of speeding is being addressed generally across nether edge. Also, that there are factors out of our control, such as not being able to directly influence the moral imperative of drivers desperately wanting them to slow down!

Having said all of this, we are not necessarily looking for speed bumps, or a zebra crossing - whilst these would be ideal to be placed at the bottom of Lyndhurst, (which is not a bus route). We are initially just asking is there a possibility of even some small signage such as a "slow children crossing" sign at the top of Barkers Rd. There is space for it. And to us, it does seem that it could contribute towards preventing a serious accident.

This is the junction at which many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.1

It was noted that the next meeting of the South Local Area Committee would take place on Thursday 3^rd December.