Items
No. |
Item |
1. |
Welcome and Housekeeping Arrangements
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
|
1.1
|
The Chair, Councillor Simon Clement-Jones
welcomed those in attendance, and advised that it was likely that
public questions would have to be to be grouped together by topic
rather than asked individually, due to time constraints.
|
1.2
|
Two questions had been submitted in advance of
the meeting, requesting the introduction of lower speed limits on
Barkers Road. The Chair advised that these would receive written
answers which would be sent to the questioners and published on the
Council’s website.
|
|
2. |
Apologies for Absence
Additional documents:
Minutes:
2.1
|
Apologies for absence had been received from
Councillors Ibby Ullah, Nighat Basharat and Marianne Elliot.
|
|
3. |
Exclusion of the Press and Public
To identify items where resolutions may be
moved to exclude the press and public.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
3.1
|
No items were identified where resolutions may
be moved to exclude the public and press.
|
|
4. |
Declarations of Interest PDF 86 KB
Members to declare any interests they have in
the business to be considered at the meeting
Additional documents:
Minutes:
4.1
|
Item 6
Councillor Mohammed Mahroof declared that he worked for North East Derbyshire District Council, and part of
the proposed development would be taking place in Dronfield, within
the jurisdiction of that Council.
|
|
5. |
A61 Chesterfield Road Scheme- update and Q&A PDF 697 KB
Update from Mark Gibbons,
Senior Transport Planner, Sheffield City Council
Additional documents:
Minutes:
5.1
|
A presentation
regarding the proposed scheme on the A61 Chesterfield Road, to
improve public transport and road safety by giving buses priority,
was delivered by Mark Gibbons, Senior Transport Planner, Sheffield
City Council and Neal Byers, Consultant. The presentation, which was subsequently published
on the Council’s website, outlined the background to the
project, its current status, the
delivery themes and the next steps.
|
5.2
|
The following
information was provided by Mark Gibbons and Neal Byers in response
to questions from members of the public:-
- Comments
made in previous consultations by shopkeepers along the route,
including views on any potential loss of trade had been taken into
consideration and they would be consulted again later in the
scheme.
- Some
parking provision might change but there were no plans to reduce
overall provision.
-
Provision of accessible parking spaces would be considered in the
detailed design stage.
- Officers
were aware of the previous scheme which had taken place near St
Thomas’s Church.
- The
issue of traffic displacement was being evaluated via traffic
modelling. If it was found that there
was likely to be a negative effect, this would be manged/ mitigated
as the aim of the project was to encourage bus use and enable buses
to run on time.
- No
short term fluctuation in the level of
bus fares was anticipated but the providers set their own rates
(which could be capped by the Council).
- The
governance arrangements for buses were being reviewed and any
resulting changes, would be more likely to have
an effect on fares than any aspect of the A61 scheme, which
should assist operators with regards to affordability.
- Cycling
infrastructure would potentially be improved by the extension of
the Sheaf Valley Cycle Route, which was thought to be preferable to
mixing bicycles with buses.
-
Consideration was being given to whether there were opportunities
to improve cycling infrastructure along the A61.
- The
budget was insufficient to address traffic “necking” at
Heeley Bridge, which was a civil engineering scale matter.
-
Compulsory purchase, e.g. for car parking had been considered and
was part of the options appraisal.
Whether it would be used would be dependent on funding.
- Current
issues regarding traffic at Meadowhead
Roundabout were acknowledged but this project would not provide
sufficient funding to completely resolve them.
|
5.3
|
Members advised that
the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority was considering the
reform of bus franchising and attendees should contact the Combined
Authority if they wished to contribute to this
discussion.
|
5.4
|
The following
information was provided by Mark Gibbons and Neal Byers in response
to questions from Members of the Committee: -
- There
was insufficient data to answer whether decreasing parking was
necessarily bad for local businesses.
- Further
funding from CRSTS (City Region Sustainable Trasport Settlements)
might be available for other projects.
-
Engagement would take place with the landowner regarding what
improvements could be made to traffic around St James Retail
Park.
-
Monitoring the effect of a scheme on air quality was not straight
forward due to the duration of ...
view the full minutes text for item 5.
|
|
6. |
Sheffield Football Club - Proposed New Development at Meadowhead PDF 2 MB
Update from Jim Lomas,
Regional Director, DLP Planning Ltd
Additional documents:
Minutes:
|
|
6.1
|
A presentation, subsequently published on the
Council’s website regarding the proposals for a new
development to accommodate Sheffield Football Club and Sheffield
Eagles, was delivered by Jim Lomas, Regional Director, DLP Planning
Ltd. The presentation outlined the
details of the proposal, the actions taken to date and the public
engagement. Information was also given
regarding timescales for the submission of planning permission for
both the schemes at Meadowhead and at
Dronfield.
|
6.2
|
The following information was given by Jim
Lomas in response to questions from members of the public:-
- Regarding concerns
about the effect on air quality, an air quality assessment would be
carried out and a report was being prepared, however the fact that
use of electric cars was on the increase should also be taken into
consideration.
- The proposals to
improve Meadowhead Roundabout would
decrease emissions.
- Parking Wardens would
be used to tackle any unauthorised on street parking. A permit system would be in place for
residents.
- There would be
sufficient parking on site to serve the number of seats in the
stadium. This was worked out according
to ratios set by the Council and by FIFA.
- Customers would
receive an allocated parking space with their ticket.
- A Traffic Management
Plan would be in place, and this would include a point of contact
for the public to raise any issues.
- Elected Members had
the ability to stop the development from taking place via the
Planning Application process.
|
6.3
|
The Chair read out the following information
that had been provided by the Head of Planning regarding the
planning application process:
“The Council's Online service enables
documents to be viewed online. For those without IT access, there
is the option to view at local libraries (Greenhill and
Woodseats), as well as at Howden House,
Union Street. Staff would be present at these venues to assist
navigating and understanding the website service for those who
would find that to be helpful. The Case Officer and/or Planning
staff members would be available to help answer any questions on
the details of the proposals at any point.
The application will be assessed through the course
of its determination process, and ultimately a recommendation will
be put to the Planning Committee. As part of the Planning Committee
meeting there will be opportunity for individuals to speak and to
raise comments and to input into the decision-making process at
that stage, as well as in the written forms already flagged
up.
Your local councillors can also assist with
publicising the proposals, advising on how to submit comments, and
convening wider discussion if required.”
|
6.4
|
The following information was given by Jim
Lomas in response to further questions from members of the
public:-
- He could arrange for
correctly sized paper copies of plans to be available at libraries
for inspection by the public as it was acknowledged that they could
be difficult to interpret from smaller image on a computer
screen.
- No extensions to the
planned shorter stadium stand were anticipated at present but
...
view the full minutes text for item 6.
|
|
7. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting PDF 104 KB
To approve the minutes of the meeting of the
Committee held on 28 November, 2023
Additional documents:
Minutes:
7.1
|
The minutes of the previous meeting held on
the 28th November 2023 were
agreed as a correct record.
|
|
8. |
Public Questions and Petitions PDF 152 KB
To receive any questions or petitions from
members of the public
Additional documents:
Minutes:
8.1
|
The following questions was asked by Marion
Gerson, who attended the meeting:
“In July 2023 I had a reply to a LAC question from Cllr
Alexi Dimond about work to Sheldon Road pavements. He said that all designs and consultation would be
ready by March 2024. Eight months on
and I discover that the design for Sheldon Road hasn’t even
been sent to the Tree Panel, and Officers estimate that it will be
October at the earliest before even the consultation is carried
out. That will mean YET ANOTHER winter
with dangerous pavements that are not even accessible for
wheelchairs and mobility scooters.
Why
is it considered acceptable by our representatives on the relevant
Council Committee?”
Councillor Alexi Dimond advised that he had
raised this with the relevant Officers recently and would chase up
a response.
|
|
9. |
South Local Area Committee Budget 2023-24 Report PDF 177 KB
Report of Diane Owens, South Local Area
Committee Manager
Additional documents:
Decision:
8.1
|
Local Area Committees (LACs) were
established by Full Council in May 2021. Their Terms of Reference
are set out in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution and
include:
·
To agree a Community Plan setting priorities for the area of the
committee, monitor delivery of that plan and keep it under review;
and
·
To make decisions relating to funding as delegated from time to
time by the Council to fit with the priorities set out in the
Community Plan and following engagement with the community.
|
8.2
|
To enable decisions to be taken
quickly and to respond to emerging issues between Committee
meetings, in September 2021 the South West LAC authorised the
Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure
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 £5,000, and
·
A report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the
Community Services Manager is presented to the Local Area Committee
meeting.
|
8.2
|
RESOLVED:
[That the South Local Area Committee
·
Notes the further expenditure up to the £5,000 delegated
authority limit. Agrees the further project expenditure over
£5,000, as detailed in the report:
a)
£6,300 for work with the Lowedges community.
b)
£10,000 is proposed to support Heeley City Farm with their
plan to revitalise and re-build its dementia garden;
c)
£6,700 is proposed to support the revitalisation of Highfield
Play area.
·
Agrees the reallocation of £14,000 underspend from the
2022-23 budget to £3500 per ward to support local street art
projects as outlined in the report.
|
8.3
|
Reasons for Decision
|
|
The South LAC is asked to note the
use of funding under its delegated powers and agree the further
expenditure outlined in the report, which will help to address
local priorities within the South LAC Community Plan.
|
8.4
|
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
|
|
The LAC could choose not to allocate
budgets at this stage and through its delegated authority, but this
would delay local projects and facilities for local
communities.
|
Minutes:
9.1
|
The report was
presented by Diane Owens, South Local Area Committee
Manager.
|
9.2
|
RESOLVED:
That the South Local Area Committee
·
Notes the further expenditure up to the £5,000 delegated
authority limit. Agrees the further project expenditure over
£5,000, as detailed in the report:
a)
£6,300 for work with the Lowedges
community.
b)
£10,000 is proposed to support Heeley City Farm with their
plan to revitalise and re-build its dementia garden and;
c)
£6,700 is proposed to support the revitalisation of Highfield
Play area.
·
Agrees the reallocation of £14,000 underspend from the
2022-23 budget to £3500 per ward to support local street art
projects as outlined in the report.
|
9.3
|
Reasons for Decision
|
|
The South LAC was asked to note the
use of funding under its delegated powers and agree the further
expenditure outlined in the report, which will help to address
local priorities within the South LAC Community Plan.
|
9.4
|
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
|
|
The LAC could choose not to allocate
budgets at this stage and through its delegated authority, but this
would delay local projects and facilities for local
communities.
|
|
10. |
Date of Next Meeting.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
10.1
|
The Chair thanked all present for attending
and advised that the next meeting of the South Local Area Committee
would take place on a date and time to be confirmed.
|
|