Items
No. |
Item |
2. |
Apologies for Absence
Additional documents:
|
3. |
Exclusion of Press and Public
To identify items where resolutions may be
moved to exclude the press and public
Additional documents:
|
4. |
Declarations of Interest PDF 129 KB
Members to declare any interests they have in
the business to be considered at the meeting
Additional documents:
|
5. |
Public Questions and Petitions
To receive any questions or petitions from
members of the public
Additional documents:
|
6. |
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee Overview PDF 19 MB
Executive Director, City Futures Portfolio to
report
Additional documents:
|
7. |
Work Programme PDF 712 KB
Report of the Director of Legal and
Governance
Additional documents:
|
8. |
Budget Monitoring Report Month 01, 2022/23 PDF 466 KB
Report of the Director of Finance and
Commercial Services
Additional documents:
Decision:
8.1
|
This report brings the Committee up to date
with the Council’s financial position as
at Month 1 2022/23. The report also reports
the proposed budget timetable for the
development of the 2023/24 budget.
|
|
|
8.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
1. notes the Council’s challenging
financial position and the Month 1 position;
2. notes the budget timetable set out in the
report including the requirement for the
Committee to plan to develop budget proposals
over the course of the summer;
3. notes that the Strategy and Resources
Committee agreed at its 31 May 2022 meeting to “require any
Policy Committee that is forecasting an overspend on their budget
to develop an action plan to address the overspend in-year and ask
the Finance Sub-Committee to monitor both the development of any
required action plans and delivery against them”; and
4. agrees to commission work from Officers to
develop and implement plans to mitigate overspends and deliver
stalled savings plans to bring forecast outturn back in line with
budget,
|
|
|
8.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
8.3.1
|
Under section 25 of the Local Government Act
2003, the Chief Finance Officer of an authority is required to
report on the following matters:
• the robustness of the estimates made
for the purposes of determining its budget requirement for the
forthcoming year; and
• the adequacy of the proposed financial
reserves.
|
|
|
8.3.2
|
There is also a requirement for the authority
to have regard to the report of the Chief Finance Officer when
making decisions on its budget requirement and level of financial
reserves.
|
|
|
8.3.3
|
By the law the Council must set and deliver a
balanced budget, which is a financial plan based on sound
assumptions which shows how income will equal spend over the short-
and medium-term. This can take into account deliverable cost
savings and/or local income growth strategies as well as useable
reserves. However, a budget will not be balanced where it reduces
reserves to unacceptably low levels and regard must be had to any
report of the Chief Finance Officer on the required level of
reserves under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, which
sets obligations of adequacy on controlled reserves.
|
|
|
8.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
8.4.1
|
The Council is required to both
set a balance budget and to ensure that in-year income and
expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were
considered.
|
|
9. |
Sheffield Local Transport Programme 2022/23 PDF 218 KB
Report of the Executive Director, City Futures
Portfolio
Additional documents:
Decision:
9.1
|
This report outlines the proposed Local
Transport Plan capital programme covering the current financial
year and seeks approval to proceed with development and
implementation of the proposals subject to the necessary capital
programme and traffic/route management approvals being
obtained.
|
|
|
9.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
1. approves the proposed 2022/23 Local
Transport Plan capital programme
and the indicative allocation as attached in
Appendix A to the report, noting
that the 2022/23 programme includes items
already approved as part of the
2021/22 Local Transport Plan capital programme
that will continue to be
delivered this financial year; and
2. To the extent that reserved commissioning
decisions are required in order to
progress these schemes to completion,
delegates authority to make those
decisions to the Head of Strategic Transport,
Sustainability and
Infrastructure.
|
|
|
9.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
9.3.1
|
The investment in local transport schemes will
ultimately help to address the ambitions of Members and deliver
against the requests of the Sheffield public, without reliance on
external funding opportunities or incorporating these improvements
into wider major investment projects. The primary objectives of the
fund are detailed below:
|
|
|
9.3.2
|
The expected benefits from this fund are
centred primarily on the community, with improved transport
connectivity increasing mobility and accessibility, creating a
greater sense of safety, enhancing the environmental amenity and
improving health by supporting more active travel movements. In
addition, there would be fewer road traffic collisions through
design and modest associated mode shift.
|
|
|
9.3.3
|
The proposed transport capital programme
balances the availability of funding sources with local and
national policy to give a clear focus for the 2022/23 financial
year. The proposed programme is extensive and ambitious which comes
with its own challenges. The programme takes advantage of utilising
external funding sources where possible to deliver impactful change
to the transport system, considering environmental, economic and
societal needs.
|
|
|
9.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
|
|
9.4.1
|
‘Do nothing’ has
been considered, but is not considered appropriate as
this will result in projects
not being delivered. Both the LaNTP and
the
Road Safety Fund programmes
would be not introduced, the opportunity for
economic, environmental and
societal benefits would be missed.
|
9.4.2
|
It would also be possible to
consider different schemes as part of the
programme. However, it is felt
that the proposed programme achieves the
greatest balance of economic,
environmental and societal benefits to the
communities and businesses in
Sheffield.
|
|
10. |
Double Yellow Lines – Wolseley Road/Staveley Road and Glover Road/London Road PDF 1 MB
Report of the Executive Director, City Futures
Portfolio
Additional documents:
Decision:
10.1
|
The report seeks approval for the Wolseley
Road / Staveley Road and Glover Road /London Road cycle improvement
schemes as shown in Appendix ‘A’ and ‘B’ of
the report and seeks approval to make the associated Traffic
Regulation Orders (TRO’s), with recommended amendments as
detailed, subject to authorisation of the project through the
capital gateway process.
|
10.1.1
|
The schemes form part of the Sheaf Valley
Active travel route. The report sets out
the background to the scheme, consultation
comments and officer
recommendations.
|
|
|
10.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
1. approves the Wolseley Road / Staveley Road
and Glover Road /London Road cycle improvement schemes, as shown in
Appendix ‘A’ and Appendix ‘B’ of the
report;
2. that the associated Traffic Regulation
Orders as shown are made, subject
to authorisation of the project through the
capital gateway process; and
3. that arrangements be made for the Members
of this Committee to visit the Sheaf Valley Active travel
route.
|
|
|
10.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
10.3.1
|
To ensure the two schemes, which contribute to
the overall improvements on the ‘Sheaf Valley Cycle
Corridor’ can be constructed when the contract is
awarded.
|
|
|
10.3.2
|
Officers have considered alternative options
involving representatives from ‘Cycle Sheffield’ and
the previous Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment and
Transport and on balance consider the proposals to be the best
solutions to achieve the predicted benefits, maximising the
benefits to the overall improvements to a key cycling route to and
from the City Centre.
|
|
|
10.3.3
|
Officers have carried out a consultation with
statutory consultees and frontages, making changes to parking and
loading restrictions where possible.
|
|
|
10.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
|
|
10.4.1
|
Glover Road / London
Road
The existing Glover Road
bollard closure is regularly blocked by parked vehicles, to the
extent where it is difficult to find a way through for cyclists
approaching from either direction without dismounting. Access to
and from the crossing area on London Road is also regularly blocked
by vehicles parking on the corner of Glover Road and London Road.
The solution promoted provides further waiting restrictions in and
around these key locations but also provides a planter arrangement
for the closure to motor vehicles which should allow the passage of
cyclists even if the promoted additional waiting restrictions are
blocked by vehicles.
An alternative option could be
to provide a much larger closure, for example from the junction
with London Road, to tackle some of the current issues, however
officers have tried to balance the preferred option described above
with the retention of some space for loading and parking. The
revised scheme following discussions with local residents also
provides some alternative parking to offset spaces lost around the
new closure.
Promoting a different route
away from Glover Road is not feasible given that this provides the
most direct and relatively traffic free corridor to and from the
City Centre, away from the busy London Road / Chesterfield Road
corridor which is, and will continue to be promoted as a key
...
view the full decision text for item 10.
|
|
11. |
20mph Speed Limit Scheme in Crosspool PDF 804 KB
Report of the Executive Director, City Futures
Portfolio
Additional documents:
Decision:
11.1
|
To report details of the consultation response
to proposals to introduce 20mph speed limits in Crosspool, report the receipt of objections to the
Traffic Regulation
Order and set out the Council’s
response.
|
|
|
11.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
1. agrees to make
the Crosspool 20mph Speed Limit Orders
as advertised, Speed Limit Order as amended in accordance with the
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
2. Inform objectors accordingly;
3. Introduce the proposed 20mph speed limits
as advertised; and
4. Introduce part time, advisory, 20mph speed
limits on part of Lydgate Lane.
|
|
|
11.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
11.3.1
|
The adoption of the Sheffield 20mph Speed
Limit Strategy established the
principle of introducing sign-only 20mph speed
limits in all suitable residential areas. Reducing the speed of
traffic in residential areas should, in the long term, reduce the
number and severity of collisions, reduce the fear of accidents,
encourage sustainable modes of travel and contribute towards the
creation of a more pleasant, cohesive environment.
|
|
|
11.3.2
|
the former Executive Member made it clear that
20mph speed limits should continue to be introduced in residential
areas in accordance with the City’s 20mph Speed Limit
Strategy as funds allow.
|
|
|
11.3.3
|
Having considered the response from the public
and other consultees it is recommended that the 20mph speed limit
in Crosspool be implemented as, on
balance, the benefits of the scheme in terms of safety or
sustainability are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.
|
11.3.4
|
It is also recommended that a part time,
advisory 20mph speed limit be introduced on Lydgate Lane outside
Lydgate Primary school for the same reasons.
|
11.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
|
|
11.4.1
|
In light of the
objection’s received consideration was given to recommending
the retention of the existing speed limit in Crosspool. However, such a recommendation would run
contrary to the delivery of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit
Strategy. This would also mean that pedestrian and cyclist safety
would not be improved, and this would be detrimental to the
Council’s Active Travel ambition and vision of Safer streets
in our city.
|
|
12. |
20mph Speed Limit Scheme in Woodseats PDF 414 KB
Report of the Executive Director, City Futures
Portfolio
Additional documents:
Decision:
12.1
|
To report details of the consultation response
to proposals to introduce 20mph
speed limits in Woodseats, report the receipt of objections and set
out the
Council’s response
|
|
|
12.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-
1. agrees to make the Woodseats 20mph Speed Limit Orders as advertised,
Speed Limit Order as amended in accordance with the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984;
2.Inform objectors accordingly;
3. Introduce the proposed 20mph speed limits;
and
4. Introduce part time, advisory, 20mph speed
limits on part of Chesterfield Road
|
|
|
12.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
12.3.1
|
The adoption of the Sheffield 20mph Speed
Limit Strategy established the principle of introducing sign-only
20mph speed limits in all suitable residential areas. Reducing the
speed of traffic in residential areas should, in the long term,
reduce the number and severity of collisions, reduce the fear of
accidents, encourage sustainable modes of travel and contribute
towards the creation of a more pleasant, cohesive environment
|
|
|
12.3.2
|
The former Executive Member has made it clear
that 20mph speed limits should continue to be introduced in
residential areas in accordance with the City’s 20mph Speed
Limit Strategy as funds allow.
|
|
|
12.3.3
|
Having considered the response from the public
and other consultees it is recommended that the 20mph speed limit
in Woodseats be implemented as, on
balance, the benefits of the scheme in terms of safety or
sustainability are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.
|
|
|
12.3.4
|
It is also recommended that a part time,
advisory 20mph speed limit be introduced on Chesterfield Road
outside Woodseats Primary school for
the same reasons.
|
|
|
12.4
|
Alternatives
Considered and Rejected
|
|
|
12.4.1
|
In light of the objections
received consideration was given to recommending the retention of
the existing speed limit in Woodseats.
However, such a recommendation would run contrary to the delivery
of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit Strategy. This would also mean
that pedestrian and cyclist safety would not be improved, and this
would be detrimental to the Council’s Active Travel ambition
and vision of Safer streets in our city.
|
|
13. |
Approval of the Humber River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan PDF 223 KB
Report of the Executive Director, City Futures
Portfolio
Additional documents:
Decision:
13.1
|
Sheffield City Council is a Lead Local Flood
Authority (LLFA) and flood Risk Management Authority (RMA) as
described in the Flood Risk Regulations 2009.
These regulations require the RMAs to identify
nationally significant flood risk areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood
Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify.
These plans are required to be reviewed on a 5-year cycle.
The latest FRMPs have been prepared by the
Environment Agency working in partnership with LLFAs across
England. The draft plans were published online in autumn 2021 and a
public consultation was held from 22 October 2021 to 21 January
2022. Following broad support for the plans it has been agreed to
publish the final plan in line with the draft document without
changes.
Ahead of publication of the final plans in
autumn 2022 the Environment Agency has requested that all LLFAs
acknowledge our responsibility in writing for our part in the FRMPs
and confirm we have internal approval for publication of certain
information provided to the Environment Agency.
The report outlines how approval of the FRMP
as proposed is to the benefit of the City of Sheffield and will
fulfil our responsibilities under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009
in the preparation of an appropriate plan.
|
|
|
13.2
|
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate
Policy Committee:-
1. acknowledges the Council’s
responsibility in writing, as requested by the Environment Agency,
for our part, as Lead Local Flood Authority, in the Humber River
Basin Flood Risk Management Plan; and
2. notes that this will fulfil our
responsibilities under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 to identify
nationally significant Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood
Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify.
|
|
|
13.3
|
Reasons for
Decision
|
|
|
13.3.1
|
The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 require the
Flood Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) to identify nationally
significant flood risk areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood Risk
Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify. These
plans are required to be reviewed on a 5-year cycle
|
|
|
13.3.2
|
The Environment Agency, given its strategic
oversight of flood risk across England, has led on the production
of the latest FRMPs. Sheffield City Council, in common with our
fellow Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), have worked with the
Environment Agency in preparing these plans. Ahead of their
publication of the finalised plans the Environment Agency has
requested that all LLFAs acknowledge our responsibility in writing
for our part in the FRMPs and confirm we internal approval for
publication of certain information provided to the Environment
Agency.
|
|
|
13.3.3
|
Sheffield City Council approval of the Humber
River Basin FRMP confirms our ongoing commitment to deliver our
flood programme and acknowledges our statutory responsibilities but
does not place any direct addition duties or burdens on us in
itself.
|
|
|
13.3.4
|
Were we not to endorse this plan, as prepared
in partnership with the Environment Agency, we would be required by
the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 to prepare our own. Significant
revenue and resources would be required to ...
view the full decision text for item 13.
|
|