Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Objecting to the Proposed Road Changes in Oughtibridge and to the Lack of Consultation with Residents

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition, containing 676 signatures, objecting to the proposed road changes in Oughtibridge and to the lack of consultation with residents.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Gary Chamberlain. Mr Chamberlain explained that he was the chair of the Oughtibridge Road Safety Group. He said that consultation had taken place and that residents had made objections to the proposals. He said that he had handed in 12 such objections from people unable to attend a consultation meeting and had asked for responses, but no such responses had been forthcoming. The Road Safety Group had also consulted people using a leaflet drop and which showed that the majority of people who responded were against the proposal.

He said that he had spoken with the Council in April 2019 and it had been indicated that the Council was keen to make sure that there would be communication between the residents and the Council throughout the process. However, that had not happened and he felt there had been a lack of engagement, apart from a meeting having been arranged and help having been received from a Bradfield Parish Councillor, with parts of the proposal having been changed as a result. 

There were concerns with regards to the proposal. There was a large amount of traffic going through Oughtibridge and this was continuing to increase and there was also new housing being built. The proposal now had an exit and entrance to Bridge Hill. Therefore, traffic would come in and out of Bridge Hill.

Mr Chamberlain said that there were concerns as to the amount of traffic coming from Station Lane straight on to Bridge Hill. There was also a public house on Bridge Hill which had regular deliveries and it had been suggested that in order to get in and out of Bridge Hill, vehicles would have to reverse from Station Lane up onto Bridge Hill. It was understood that the legal team for the public house was involved in the process.

It was felt that the Council should communicate with residents and the Road Safety Group in order to try and come up with a sensible solution and before any other action was considered.

He referred to a newspaper article in the Star in which the Cabinet Member, Councillor Bob Johnson, was quoted as saying that he would not sign off a Traffic Regulation Order against the wishes of residents. Mr Chamberlain said that he believed that the number of signatories on the petition made it clear that people in Oughtibridge were not in favour of the proposals or at least they would like a say in the process.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked Mr Chamberlain for bringing the petition to Council. He said that he had responded to Mr Chamberlain’s e-mail correspondence when he came into post as Cabinet Member in May 2019 and had provided his personal mobile number to him, although this offer had not been taken up.

He said that the aim of the safety scheme was to reduce road traffic collisions and, in particular, those involving bicycles and motorcycles at the junction of Bridge Hill, Lower Road and Orchard Street. Consultation letters, a plan and a list of frequently asked questions were delivered to 1,500 households in Oughtibridge on 7 March 2019, informing residents of the proposed scheme and inviting them to a public information session held in Oughtibridge. A public drop in session was held on 14 March and which was well attended.  All of the comments received, together with the Traffic Regulation Order which had been advertised from the 14 November to 12 December 2019 and which gave a formal opportunity to object as residents and as a group, would then be considered before a decision was made.

4.1.2

Petition Requesting a Pedestrian Crossing Facility or a School Crossing Patrol at Angram Bank School

The Council received an electronic petition containing 19 signatures, requesting a pedestrian crossing facility or a school crossing patrol at Angram Bank School.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Footpath Surface and Protocols in the Streets Ahead Contract

Nigel Slack said that walking along Sharrow Lane and Washington Road to get to the General Cemetery, it was noticeable that some form of mechanical street sweeper had been used to clean the pavements. However, whatever had been used had effectively stripped the surface from the footpath and exposed not only a softer layer of tarmac but had, in some places, scraped all of the new resurfacing back to the original surface. He provided photographs of the pavement.

He commented in relation to this calling into question the quality of the resurfacing and the ability of the contractor to carry out what he said should be simple operations. Mr Slack asked the following questions: When was this area of pavements cleaned? What was used? Was this within the expectations of the contract? When will the damage be repaired? Who will pay for the repairs, the Council or Amey?

Nigel Slack said that in March 2017, he had asked a question at Cabinet about protocols in place under the Streets Ahead contract to protect vulnerable people in the case of issues caused by the contractors. The response from the Cabinet Member at that time was that lessons would be learned from the incident and that the particular case would be investigated further. He said that, despite further questions at Cabinet in April and July, he had not received a response, either in writing or verbally.

Mr Slack outlined the incident which had taken place relating to the resurfacing of Bocking Lane and the cutting of the phone line to his Mother's property. He said that Amey had failed to report this to the service provider and, after the phone line had been out of action for a number of days, he had taken the matter in hand himself. He spoke of his mother’s health during that time and said that she became virtually housebound and that her health never recovered. Mr Slack informed Members of the Council that his mother had died in December 2019.

Mr Slack said that throughout all this, there was never a response from the Cabinet Member, as promised, and no information about what, if any, protocols were in place to prevent this happening to other vulnerable people. He asked what, if any, protocols to protect the vulnerable were in place with the Streets Ahead contract?

Councillor Mark Jones, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change began by thanking Mr Slack for his questions and he extended the sympathies of Members of the Council to Mr Slack for the loss in December, of his mother.  He said that he would provide detailed written answers in relation to the question concerning the Sharrow Lane and Washington Road footpath.

Councillor Jones apologised for the incident relating to Mr Slack’s mother’s telephone line and said that he had been assured that protocols had been put into place in that regard. However, he said that he would also look at those protocols himself to make sure that they were as rigid and robust as they could be and to ensure that nothing of this nature happened again. He said that, once he was satisfied with the answers that he had received, he would contact Mr Slack and discuss them with him. He said that he was very sorry to hear about Mr Slack’s loss and said that his thoughts were with him.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Access Officers

James Martin, Chair of the Access Liaison Group, made reference to the restructure of the Council’s Planning department and asked whether the dispute had yet reached a conclusion. He said that disabled groups were concerned at the risk of losing disability access officers and the implications that might have. He commented that the sooner such discussions could be had with the Cabinet Member, the better that would be and so it was clear that the concerns of the disabled community were understood and so as to ensure that there could be confidence that the good things that had been done over the years in the city could continue and with dedicated officers.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, thanked Mr Martin for the question and stated that matters relating to the dispute were progressing and he would hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. He said that he would then immediately write to Mr Martin and offer to meet with him so that the matter could be discussed at the earliest opportunity.  

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning Litter and Fly-tipping

Brian Holmshaw said that there were volunteer litter pickers in Sheffield who helped to clean neighbourhoods and pick up litter in the city and they also reported incidents of fly-tipping, which he said was increasing. He said that Sheffield had been reported in the press as being in the top five worst local authorities in England in relation to fly-tipping. He also said there had been a reduction in standards relating to litter and that fly-tipping would be picked up less often and he referred to a Scrutiny Committee meeting in July 2017 which had considered this issue. He commented that no one from the Sheffield Litter Group had been invited to attend that meeting.  He said that rubbish was now being removed from streets due to the efforts of volunteer litter pickers. He asked whether the Council would realise the error in reducing previous service standards in 2017 relating to litter and fly-tipping and whether these standards could be reinstated.

Councillor Mark Jones, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change responded that the Council had had to make considerable savings since 2010.

He acknowledged that, having also participated in litter-picks himself, it could be frustrating for people that having cleaned the streets, someone else then dropped litter. He said that more did need to be done in relation to education and raising awareness and for people to simply stop dropping rubbish. He said that if people were more considerate towards the environment and to others, they would not drop litter on the street.

He said that in the city centre, the streets were cleaned several times of the day and litter still occurred and this was probably regardless of whether cleaning took place at increased cycles or with more regular frequency. 

Councillor Jones said that it was not acceptable to drop litter and that people should take responsibility for their own rubbish and for their actions. The Council had issued many fines to people for dropping litter and he believed that fines would not be necessary if people did not drop litter.

He said that, in the past, the Council did provide for more regular collections of litter, such as in the area in his Ward around the Northern General Hospital, but whilst this might be something he would like to have, it was also something that the Council could not afford to do at this time, which was regrettable.  The Council needed to focus on enforcement and education as regards litter and it was also an issue which the Council was looking to bring forward over the coming months.

He said that with regards to working with the litter pickers, it was regrettable that they were not included in the previous discussions and he said that the Council would try to work with them as much as possible in future. He said that he had regular contact with Sheffield litter pickers and had sought to listen to their views. He would provide a written answer on this matter and said that if Mr Holmshaw wished to have a meeting regarding this issue, he would be pleased to do so.

4.2.4

Public Question Concerning Hanover Tower

Brian Holmshaw referred to the report concerning the Hanover Tower, which he said had been further delayed and that residents were increasingly concerned. He asked why the report was subject to further delay and commented as to whether the further delay was due to the contractor, Lovell. He asked why the Council was seemingly so risk averse in publishing the report.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, thanked Mr Holmshaw for his question and he expressed sympathy with the points made in relation to delay to the publication of the report relating to Hanover Tower. He said that he had been attempting to get the report into the public realm since becoming Cabinet Member. He had received legal advice that the report would have to be provided to anyone named in the report in order to give them opportunity to respond.

He explained that the contractor, Lovell had questioned the report and had requested that they be given until 31 January to make any representations in response to the report. That was why the report could not yet be issued, as legal clearance had not yet been given to do so. He said that he had met with the Council’s solicitor and had said that he personally believed that the Council should issue the report once the date of 31 January had been met and he had asked for the report to be issued as soon as that date had passed. This would be the case unless it was legally not possible to do so for reasons which prevented publication of the report. He apologised for the delay in being able to issue the report.