|
16.1
|
Members considered a report of
the Executive Director of City Futures summarising the
proposed approach to delivering initial public engagement this
summer to feed into preparation of the Sheffield Active Travel
Infrastructure Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
16.1.1
|
Discussion took place on the
necessity for early, extensive engagement encompassing a broad
cross section of people including those that don’t currently
walk or cycle, children and ethnic minorities.
|
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
·
Notes the contents of the report and approve the approaches
outlined to delivering initial public engagement in support of the
development of a Sheffield Active Travel Implementation Plan
·
Approves the commissioning of a community engagement specialist to
assist in finalising the engagement plan, to work alongside Council
officers in delivering engagement this summer and to produce a
report summarising the findings for TRC in September
|
|
|
|
|
16.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
|
|
16.3.1
|
The proposed SATIP engagement work aims
to:
·
Ensure that all communities, especially those that are
“seldom heard” are reached through engagement.
·
Identify appropriate channels for reaching a demographically
diverse city in general and seldom heard people in particular.
·
Pay close attention to postcodes where response rates tend to be
low, help facilitate community level discussions about local
destinations, how people travel to these, what would help them to
travel actively and what is preventing them from doing so
currently.
·
Capture these views for inclusion in our SATIP evidence and
summarise in an engagement evaluation report.
|
|
|
|
|
16.3.2
|
It is therefore recommended that Committee
approves the recommendations set out in this report and the
expenditure required to appoint a community engagement specialist
to work with us in reaching seldom heard groups and individuals
across the city. This will inform the development of the SATIP and
help the Council to better understand active travel considerations
as a step towards more sensitive and responsive way of undertaking
public engagement.
|
|
|
|
|
16.3.3
|
Note that a further report will be presented
in September when Members will be furnished with the results of
engagement as part of the scheme prioritisation process.
|
|
|
|
|
16.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
|
|
|
|
16.4.1
|
The Council has been charged
with preparing an Active Travel Infrastructure Plan, together with
the other SY districts, to prioritise areas and develop proposals
for future infrastructure funding, especially CRSTS2. Given the
above, prior public engagement is deemed necessary and funding is
available to undertake it. Officers have set out the preferred
approach above. Alternative options therefore centre on the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
16.4.2
|
Doing more engagement –
officers are reasonably confident that the level of engagement
which has been put forward here can be delivered within budget and
timescales, and that it is sufficient for purpose. Doing anything
more would require more specification, and time and resource to
deliver and process, thus jeopardising its’ usefulness in
terms of effectively feeding into the necessary programmes of
work.
|
|
|
|
|
16.4.3
|
Doing less engagement – Members have a
clear priority for early and responsive engagement around active
travel proposals. Doing less engagement would compromise that
requirement. Officers believe the task should be to ensure best
value from the resource which the Council has. However, some
“scaling back” of work may become necessary given
changes to funding and deadlines or difficulties in procurement and
delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
16.4.4
|
Doing “the minimum” engagement
– this option only becomes appropriate if funding and
timescales change more drastically. In any other scenario officers
believe this to be an unacceptable way to proceed, given Member
priorities and it not being expected to deliver all of the desired
outcomes.
|
PDF 180 KB