Decision details

17.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report seeking approval in principle for the proposed University of Sheffield Campus Phase 1 project.

17.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

(a)

confirms its in principle support for the University of Sheffield Campus Phase 1 Scheme as described in this report, subject to:-

(i)

the completion of a further detailed public consultation exercise about the Traffic Regulation Order proposals, and overall University Campus Master Plan proposals which may affect the highways the proper consideration of the results and where appropriate resolution of objections of such consultation in the course of making the final decision whether or not to proceed with the scheme; and

(ii)

all necessary planning permissions, Traffic Regulation Orders and any other required regulatory approvals or consents being obtained by the University of Sheffield;

(b)

notes that the public consultation exercise referred to in (1) (a) above has already commenced;

(c)

delegates authority to the Executive Director, Place, in consultation with the Director of Regeneration and Development , the Director of Finance, the Director of Legal and Governance, the Director of Commercial Services and the Assistant Director - Capital & Major Projects to conclude on such terms as he considers appropriate and authorise the completion of a funding agreement between the Council and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority in relation to the SCRIF funding for the Scheme provided that any such funding agreement shall be conditional on a final decision to proceed with the Scheme being made on the part of the Council;

(d)

delegates authority to the Cabinet Highways Committee to consider the results of the public consultation exercise referred to above, and having done so, if they are of the view that the Scheme will be of benefit to the public and it has been possible to overcome any valid objections decide to confirm the Council’s final approval for the Scheme to be implemented;

(e)

if the Cabinet Highways Committee does confirm the Council’s final approval for the Scheme , the Executive Director, Place shall be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development, the Director of Regeneration and Development , the Director of Finance, the Director of Legal and Governance, the Director of Commercial Services and the Assistant Director - Capital & Major Projects:-

(i)

to  authorise on such terms as he considers appropriate  the completion of an agreement pursuant to section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with the University of Sheffield, together with such additional agreement(s) with the University that he may consider appropriate; and

(ii)

generally to take such further steps, including (without limitation) entering into such further agreements and or arrangements with such parties and on such terms as he may consider appropriate, and approving detailed designs and materials to secure the successful delivery of the works at no net cost to the Council and in line with the provisions of this report and to protect the Council’s interests in this matter.

17.3

Reasons for Decision

17.3.1

To enable work on the project to continue, pending the Council being in a position to give final approval for the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders.

17.3.2

To enable the Council to secure funding for the project from SCRIF.

17.3.3

To enable matters to be progressed as appropriate in an efficient way following the conclusion of the planned public consultation exercise on the highway implications of the University Campus Master Plan.

17.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

17.4.1

Do nothing – The UoS could be left to carry out public realm and road safety improvements as and when development occurs on the campus. This would not require additional public funding or Council involvement. However, serious concerns have been raised regarding safety at the current pedestrian crossings close to Brook Hill junction which require immediate action. The campus environment also seriously lags behind some of its major competitors and requires urgent and comprehensive intervention.

17.4.2

UoS applies directly to the combined authority for SCRIF funding – SCC would avoid direct involvement in submitting the business case and delivering the outputs and outcomes. However, the UoS may not be eligible to apply directly as the UoS cluster is only a sub project of the Councils overall SCRIF City Centre Programme. The UoS has no experience of submitting bids for Department for Transport or City Region funding or of creating high quality public realm to the standard achieved elsewhere in the City Centre. This approach would see the Councils influence on consistency of the overall programme weakened.

17.4.3

SCC acts as facilitator, regulator and accountable body – but all design, procurement, delivery and liability for cost overruns is the responsibility of the UoS. The Council would retain control of the overall SCRIF City Centre Programme and of the UoS element and would be in a strong position to drive the programme and quality, ensuring integration with other programmes e.g. Streets Ahead.  However, due to the risks associated with co-ordinating these works on the strategic transport network a Council lead is deemed to be a better option.

17.4.4

The preferred option is SCC acts as lead body on delivery of Highways works, facilitator, regulator and accountable body – but initial design up to tender, liability for cost overruns and delivery of non-highway works (Arts Tower & Red Hill) are the responsibility of the UoS. It is intended the appointment of the Design Team will be assigned or novated as appropriate to the Council who will procure a contractor for the Highways works and manage/supervise the programme ensuring quality and integration with other programmes e.g. Streets Ahead.

17.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

17.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

17.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

17.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing