Agenda item

5.1

Petitions

5.1.1

Petition Requesting Selective Licensing of Housing in the Grimesthorpe Area

The Council received a petition containing 120 signatures, requesting selective licensing of housing in the Grimesthorpe area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Tommy Pyewell. He commented on the behaviour of some people in the area who were causing problems affecting other residents, including increased flytipping of items such as bedding and fridges. To clean up the resultant waste would, he said, be a cost to the Council and local residents. The petitioners were requesting that landlords be held responsible for the tenants living in their properties. If Selective Licensing was introduced, he asked whether the Council would then have the authority to make sure landlords behaved in a proper manner. The petition requested the Council to consider proposals for the introduction of Selective Licensing in the Grimesthorpe area in order to improve the environment and conditions for residents.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Housing. Councillor Dunn invited Mr Pyewell, as lead petitioner to undertake a walk about of the area, together with Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards, who had also approached her regarding the situation in Grimesthorpe, and Council officers. Councillor Dunn stated that the Council did make efforts to ensure that landlords were not mistreating tenants and it would not be complacent with regard to the matters raised.

5.1.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Save Adult and Community Education in the City

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 83 signatures, requesting the Council to save adult and community education in the City.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Grace Parry who stated that on 25 November, the Government announced reductions in spending on adult skills of £360 million. Whilst this was less than had been anticipated, it would still affect adult education and skills provision and the Council was requested to make efforts to lessen the effect of the funding reductions on adult community education. A small proportion of spending on education was devoted to adult further education and skills and the most recent announcement of funding reductions was in addition to the cuts in the adult skills budget and to ESOL (English Speakers of Other Languages) programmes which had already been announced. Adult education improved people’s health and wellbeing, developed confidence and helped to build better communities. It also gave people, who may have been hindered in their learning at school, opportunities to learn. Examples were given of lifelong learning provision by Heeley Development Trust. Adult learning provided opportunities to learn in small, friendly classes which were not intimidating and the loss of provision would affect people. ESOL classes were also very important to people.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton commented on the value of adult education and its capacity to change people’s lives. She said that, unfortunately, it had been announced that £360 million would be cut from the Adult Skills budget over the lifetime of this Parliament, with savings being made through efficiencies and area based powers to rationalise college provision, which were likely to reduce college budgets.

Councillor Drayton said that the potential ring-fencing of budgets for Adult Learning might ensure those services were protected. Adult education comprised not only basic skills but other important provision including ESOL and informal learning which had the potential to attract people into learning who might then cross over and begin to learn formal subjects including English and Maths.

Councillor Drayton referred to a Notice of Motion given at the last Council meeting, which opposed cuts to Adult Education. After 2017, financial resources for Adult Education would be provided to the Sheffield City Region and there must be a commitment to protect adult learning for the most vulnerable and people with least skills. An undertaking was required from the Sheffield City Region in this regard so that the devolvement and deployment of the adult skills budget included protection for that budget as well. The Council would continue to do everything possible to protect the most vulnerable.

5.2

Public Questions

5.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Trees

Calvin Payne asked when the next bi-monthly Tree Advisory Forum would be held, given that the last Forum meeting was three months ago, on 2^nd September?

Helen McIlroy asked whether the Independent Tree Panel was in place and who the members of the panel were, besides the Chair, Mr Andy Buck. She also asked what the cost of the Panel would be.

Dave Dilner asked the relative cost of felling trees versus renegotiation involving the adoption of sensitive engineering solutions (which campaigners believed was less expensive).

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to the questions. He stated that the Tree Advisory Forum had not met again since its September meeting. It had been agreed at the September meeting that a draft Tree Strategy would be submitted to the next Tree Advisory Forum and he was also asking for people’s opinions regarding the format of future meetings of the Forum. The next Forum meeting would be in the new year and the date would be publicised.

Mr Andy Buck had been appointed chair of the Independent Tree Panel and the appointment of other Panel members was to be confirmed. The actual costs of the Panel would depend upon the level of response from residents in Sheffield and the information with regards cost could be obtained once it was known.

As regards the cost of tree felling and sensitive engineering solutions, Councillor Fox stated that he would contact the questioner with this information.

5.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Syria

Kaltun Elmi stated that she was grateful to the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn as regards the position which he had taken against air strikes and military intervention in Syria. She said that in Sheffield, there was a tradition of opposing war and she asked the Councillor Julie Dore what her position was as the Leader of the Council.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council made reference to the debate which would be taking place in the House of Commons regarding military action in Syria and to the Notice of Motion and amendment to that Motion which would be considered at this meeting of the City Council.  Members of the Council were mindful of the horror of the recent attacks by Daesh (ISIL) terrorists worldwide and including in Paris. The decision making body in relation to whether or not the UK would commence airstrikes was the UK Parliament.

Councillor Dore stated that the situation with regard to Syria was complex and she was not in receipt of all of the evidence and information relating to this matter, although she did pay attention to the news items and listen to parliamentary debates pertinent to the situation in Syria. She stated that, if she was an MP walking into parliament today, she would vote against the proposal which was being put forward and that was a personal position based on what she knew. However, she also understood that the Commons debate would include many contributions, which may provide arguments which could change her view, although she was not privy to that information. She said that she believed the commencement of airstrikes in Syria was not appropriate at this time. She hoped that for the sake of the people affected by the situation in Syria and those who might be displaced, that the right decision was made by the House of Commons

5.2.3

Public Question Concerning Anti-Social Behaviour

Adam Butcher asked what the Council was doing to help with the problem of anti-social behaviour caused by university students occurring in the early hours of the morning and which affected people’s sleep.

Councillor Sioned Mair Richards, the Acting Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, responded that there were various things which could be done. Firstly, if someone felt threatened or they were in danger, they should phone 999. If the problem was one of noise nuisance, then they should contact the 101 telephone number and continue to record and report incidents. As the matter was reported in relation to university students, the Council could talk directly to the university and the students’ union regarding the behaviour of the students. Councillor Richards suggested that she and Mr Butcher discuss the issues which he had brought to her attention and she would then take the matter up on his behalf.

5.2.4

Public Question Concerning ESOL provision

Sarah Saxon asked the Council to also show commitment to defending ESOL provision on behalf of people for whom English was not their first language in the same way as it supported the opportunity for people to access lifelong learning.     

Councillor Jackie Drayton responded, firstly by thanking SAVTE (Sheffield Association for the Voluntary Teaching of English) for their work over 40 years. She said that ESOL was included within the broader category of lifelong learning. She recalled an occasion when she had spoken with a lady from Somalia, who had told her about the difficulties she faced in successfully using public transport in Sheffield without having English language skills and the help she had received from a Somali man. It had, she said been a frightening experience, not having the language of the country to which she had come. Councillor Drayton confirmed that the Council was supportive of ESOL provision. 

5.2.5

Public Question Concerning Devolution

Nigel Slack referred to public consultation relating to the Sheffield City Region devolution deal and commented that whilst it was for a six week period, it was unfortunate that it fell across the Christmas period.

Mr Slack stated that on 1 December, this had been on the front page of the consultation hub webpage and ran from 1 December until 16 January. On the evening of 1 December, it had moved to a lower priority page and was shown as running from 2 December to 15 January. He asked why these two days had been lost and commented that the details of the consultation and the links provided on the Sheffield City Council Consultation Hub had disappeared. He requested that the details be added to the home page of the Council's website.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she would not recommend the proposals in the agreement as they stood, unless changes were made and that a press release was to be published in relation to the devolution deal consultation. She said that there were a number of issues within the devolution deal which the Government would need to clarify and that she did not believe that the consultation should commence until there was greater certainty with regard to those issues. Councillor Dore stated that in the eight weeks since the deal was announced, she had personally made representations regarding the issues and which related to the proposed mayoral model.

Councillor Dore read part of the press release concerning consultation on the devolution deal, which stated that further work was needed to clarify issues concerning the Mayor in any majority vote to make sure the right checks and balances were in place and there were potential amendments to achieve a preferred geography of the region. She stated that the system proposed was potentially undemocratic and inequitable. It was felt that the Combined Authority worked comparatively well. She said that having a regional mayor for whom half of the City Region’s population was entitled to vote but the other was not, was not a good model.However, it was understood that the Government was willing to listen and may amend legislation with regard to the veto of county councils to rectify the situation.

5.2.6

Public Question Concerning Public Involvement

Nigel Slack stated that he had been calling for broadcasting of council meetings online (webcasting) for a number of years and that this was mostly for reasons of greater transparency of council decision making and greater public engagement. He said that there was, however, also the thought that having some conduct of councillors exposed to the public gaze may modify the disrespectful behaviour sometimes evident in the chamber.

He said that, as someone who would like to see greater public involvement at all levels of the council, he supported Councillor Marken's motion at item 18 on the agenda. He asked if the Council would accept one suggestion from the public benches, at item 18 (i) and asked whether the Council would make any meeting not only accessible to the public but also involve the public in the discussion.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that the issue of webcasting was something that was being looked at and she would ask Council officers to resolve the issue. Item 18 on the Summons for this meeting related to issues raised by Mr Slack. Public questions could be asked at Council, Cabinet and to other bodies of the Council. Public engagement and discussion happened at the Health and Wellbeing Board where items were to be considered that would benefit from further dialogue and discussion. Cabinet in the Community sessions had taken place for four years at which the public, Cabinet Members, local Councillors and stakeholders were present and there was opportunity for people to engage with Cabinet Members. This year, the Cabinet in the Community sessions included a session asking for people’s views as to how they engaged with the Council and she stated it was for the public to tell the Council how they would like engagement to take place.

5.2.7

Public Question Concerning Trees on Cemetery Avenue

Nigel Slack stated that on 3^rd June 2015, he put a question to Council about the trees on Cemetery Avenue between Ecclesall Road and the General Cemetery gates. Councillor Fox had responded and followed up with a more detailed answer by e-mail, which Mr Slack had included in his written question.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, stated that in June 2015, he had only recently taken up post as Cabinet Member. He said that the tree replanting target for November 2015 to April 2016 was 1500 trees. In that period, 580 trees had been planted. 2,332 trees had been planted in the year to date and the target for the end of the season was 3,625 trees being planted, weather permitting. 

5.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Questions at November Council

Martin Brighton stated that at the last Full Council, part of the answer given to his questions was a referral to answers given to another citizen. He said that the recording of those answers was obtained, which indicated that answers were not given. Mr Brighton asked the following questions:

1.           Will the Leader please provide and publish specific written responses to questions 1 - 4 that were asked in November.

2            Given this Council’s stance for, and the expressed public opinion against, an elected executive mayor, which Messrs Osbourne and Pickles have each said will not be imposed, why is the Council proceeding with an elected executive mayor and what will it take for the Council to back down?

3            For question 5 at the last Full Council it was described how this Council went into Deny and Lie mode when a document encouraging breaking the law was disclosed. The Leader’s reply was to ‘refute’ that such a document existed. Discussions about the damning document have taken place with the department concerned, so how was it possible for the Leader to refute the existence of that document in this Chamber without first having confirmed, or otherwise, its existence?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated with regard to question 1 above, that she genuinely believed that she had provided answers to Mr Brighton. As regards Question 2 above, regarding an elected Mayor, she had already given a clear answer on that subject.

Councillor Dore stated that in reference to question 3, she would refute that the Council encouraged breaking the law. She added that she did not know to which document Mr Brighton was referring. Councillor Dore requested that Mr Brighton show her the document concerned and she would be able to provide a straight answer to him.

5.2.9

Public Questions Concerning Excess Winter Deaths

Martin Brighton stated that last year, at around this time, a citizen asked what this Council had planned to reduce excess deaths due to winter conditions. He said that the reply given at Full Council was uplifting with high aspiration but unfortunately, the rhetoric did not match the reality. Mr Brighton asked the following questions:

1.    What went wrong with last year’s Council plans?

2.    How will this year’s Council plans be different?

3.    Who will be held to account for the failures that lead to even more excess deaths than last year?

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living responded that the information regarding the actual number of winter deaths in Sheffield was not yet available. However, it was known that nationally,  the number of deaths over the winter period had increased in 2014/15. Sheffield had previously been below the average with regards the number of excess deaths during the winter. The number of winter deaths had declined in the previous 10 to 20 years. It would be unfair to say that the plans ‘went wrong’. There were a number of factors to consider. In 2014/15, there was a virulent strain of the flu virus and the effectiveness of the flu vaccine was also a factor, in addition to the extent of take up of the vaccine, which needed to be addressed. It was thought that in other years the vaccine protected 50% to 70% of the people who received it. However, in 2014/15, only 35% of people were effectively protected.

People with circulatory conditions and respiratory diseases were also of concern and would need to be considered. This year, older people and those with respiratory or circulatory conditions, people who were isolated and those with mental health conditions were considered to be most at risk and they would be identified as those most at risk. There had been schemes in Lowedges, for example, which could be replicated elsewhere. Community Support Workers would be asked to help identify the most vulnerable.

Councillor Lea stated that there was a widespread programme of flu vaccination and work was being done with primary care services in this regard. There were initiatives including £6 million from the Big Lottery for South Yorkshire Housing to help address loneliness and isolation and schemes to improve service take up and programmes to improve home insulation and warmth and the Decent Homes programme had also improved homes. The Big Sheffield Switch programme was designed to help people save money on energy bills. Advice was available from advice services, such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, to help mitigate the effects of a reduction in welfare benefits.

There would be, Councillor Lea stated, co-ordination of effort by health and social care services and there was a role for both health champions and health trainers. Services were working on the principle of ‘every contact counts’, so that people at potential risk over the winter period were identified earlier in the year. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) had recommended that public services should work together to help reduce the numbers of winter deaths. As such, it was not one organisation or person that was accountable on this issue and there were a number of factors to consider. She said that the issue was also on the agenda of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

5.2.10

Public Questions Concerning Reports as to Conduct

Martin Brighton stated that this chamber’s consensus on the following would be appreciated:

“Those who fail to respond appropriately to reports of abuse, or condone in any way the behaviour of those determined as abusers, become, by definition, abusers themselves.”

“In the name of the council ruling party, a group of party members bully, insult, undermine a democratically elected community group member, and the target’s organisation, in a protracted campaign to take control of another group, for their own party political purposes?”

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she believed that she did respond to reports concerning abuse. She said that, if Mr Brighton believed that had not been the case, he should take this up through the complaints process or to the Local Government Ombudsman.

With regard to the second part of Mr Brighton’s question, Councillor Dore stated that this was ambiguous and she did not know to what he was referring.

5.2.11

Public Question Concerning Bus Services

Diana Stimely stated that the punctuality of buses was of concern as older people often found it problematic to stand and wait for a bus to arrive. She expressed concern that people’s ability to travel and their ability to have reasonable lives might be affected by the poor punctuality of bus services. This question was referred to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.3

Petitions

5.3.1

Petition Requesting the Reversal of Changes to Bus Service Nos. 66, 1 and 1A, and 85 and 86

The Council received a petition containing 437 signatures, requesting the reversal of changes to bus service nos. 66, 1 and 1A, and 85 and 86.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by John Yale. He stated that the petition was on behalf of the High Green Action Team and said that changes to bus services had affected older people and disabled people and students in High Green, Burncross, Chapeltown and Grenoside. He asked that a meeting be arranged with the Cabinet Member regarding the concerns outlined in the petition. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.3.2

Petition Requesting Urgent Reconsideration of the Proposed Changes to the Route of the No. 10a Bus Service

The Council received a petition containing 148 signatures, requesting urgent reconsideration of the proposed changes to the route of the No. 10a bus service.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mrs Collins, who stated that the 10 and 10A bus service served communities in Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe and was operated by Sheffield Community Transport for the Passenger Transport Executive (STPTE). However, route changes had occurred on 1 November 2015, which altered the route to West Street, meaning the bus became stuck in traffic behind tram services.

The loss of a stop on Charter Row affected people’s access to the Moor Market and shops as they would need to walk from the pick-up point on Furnival Gate, which some older and disabled people would not be able to do. A letter to SYPTE had not been answered but passed to Sheffield Community Transport. People would like the bus to return to the original route and timetable, which had been punctual and had allowed people better access to the hospital connections from the Hallamshire Hospital.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.3.3

Petition Requesting a Public Meeting with Councillor Terry Fox and the Sheffield Bus Partnership to Discuss the Changes to the Bus Services

The Council received an electronic petition containing 16 signatures, requesting a public meeting with Councillor Terry Fox and the Sheffield Bus Partnership, to discuss the changes to the bus services.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.3.4

Petition Opposing Cuts to Sheffield Bus Services

The Council received a petition containing 512 signatures, opposing the cuts to Sheffield bus services.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sharon Milsom, who stated that since changes to bus services had been implemented, people had been late for work and journey times had increased. These were cuts to services, representing some 8 to 10 percent of the network, which was not mentioned in the literature relating to the service changes.

There had been some concessions made and the solution proposed by the Bus Partnership was the addition of 25 double decker buses. However, this would not help people who now had no bus service. People affected had to use alternatives, including taxi services or asking somebody to drive them to their destination. She said that there would be a future consultation regarding concessionary fares. The petitioners asked for a quality contract and for bus services to be brought back into public ownership.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.3.5

Petition Requesting that the Cuts to Bus Services are Reversed

The Council received a petition containing approximately 900 signatures, requesting the reversal of changes to bus services.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Andy Nash. He stated that the changes which had been made to bus services were not felt to be sensible and the removal of some routes amounted to cuts. Concerns had been raised through the local media, through petitions and local councillors.

Mr Nash stated that, to his credit, the Cabinet Member had admitted to flaws with the consultation. He asked why the consultation period had not been extended or repeated. Small changes had been made to proposals but the implementation of changes had been poorly communicated. Leaflets were not necessarily relevant to services for the areas from which people were travelling. Bus drivers were also not always properly trained on new routes and buses had been very full, although it was understood that double decker buses were being introduced on some routes. In some cases, buses did not arrive at all and the ‘Change.org’ website contained examples of how changes had affected people. For example, people were late to work and pupils were late to school. These were not considered only to be teething troubles but would require substantial change and it would need the City Council to speak with members of the Bus Partnership to reverse changes.

5.4

Petition Requiring Debate Requesting the Reversal of the Changes to Buses in Sheffield from November 2015

The Council received an electronic petition containing 12,384 signatures, requesting the reversal of the changes to buses in Sheffield from November 2015. The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures would be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the petition was as follows:-

“The buses in Sheffield changed on 1st of November. It has been horrendous the first week of implementation. Full buses and less services are affecting all walks of life. It appears that the congestion is worse in the first week - although this is yet to be established. Please return the services that worked and allowed everyone to get to where they are going.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Joanne Lumley, who stated that she appreciated people taking the time to sign the petition and to comment upon the subject of bus services. She stated that people were passionate about this issue and concerned as to the effect of changes to bus services. People were unhappy with a lack of services and with regard to punctuality and capacity. The deployment of double decker buses had helped on some routes. She also remarked on the queues of people waiting for buses which formed on Pinstone Street.

Joanne Lumley said that she personally loved using the bus as it meant that she did not have to drive. However, the recent changes to services would mean that she would use the car more, which was not something that she had intended.

Traffic conditions had not been taken into account as part of the implementation of change, including traffic at peak times. The reduction in bus frequency and lateness were also problems. For example, the 86 Bus left at 5.02pm and the next one was at 5.40pm and this affected her ability to collect her children. The online information service was also not functioning correctly. Similar comments on bus services had been received from other people.

In relation to ticket prices, not everyone was benefitting from reductions to the cost of fares as some people now needed to catch more buses to complete their journey. The 28 day ticket was not valid on tram services. She raised concerns about capacity and said that she did not feel safe and would not take her children on the bus because of the number of passengers. There was not sufficient space for pushchairs and prams nor was there space for disabled people to use wheelchairs. This restricted people’s capacity to access employment and affected the start and finish times of people at work.

Some services did not commence until 7.45 am on Saturdays and Sundays. For her own family, this required her to take her husband to work by car and collect him and take two small children on both journeys. There were no direct bus services to the Northern General Hospital on Herries Road (where most of the out-patient services were situated) from the Greenhill area.    

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport spoke on the matter.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to the petition. He thanked people for bringing their petitions and questions to Council. Councillor Fox agreed that the present situation with regards bus services was unacceptable. This was not what was promised, which was a sustainable, reliable and punctual bus network. He said that he had had the bus companies in to speak with him twice, so far. He clarified that the Council was not responsible for timetables, network or programmes for the buses. However, that did not mean that the Council would not take action and hold people to account.

The 10A bus service was previously the circular service and people had striven to ensure there was a service, which included Upperthorpe, Netherthorpe, Manor Top and Hallamshire Hospital. He said that firm discussions would take place with bus operators. In relation to services to and from High Green, he had spoken with local people and local councillors. He had been assured that there would be a service every 5 minutes.

The Council was faced with funding cuts of £300 million to date and there were repercussions from a loss of such an amount of funding. Social isolation was of concern and the Council wanted to make sure that services were provided for communities. Buses were vital to transport people to places of work, leisure and to use other facilities. There was an option to include tram travel within multi-operator weekly and monthly tickets, through an additional payment.

Additional double decker buses had been deployed to help increase capacity. Councillor Fox stated that reliability and punctuality were all matters of concern to the Council, together with making sure there was increased patronage. It would be expected that there was improvement before the meeting of the Combined Authority Transport Committee, which would be held on 29 February 2016. That meeting would be one which was an open meeting for the public to attend. There would be scrutiny of the changes to the City’s bus network. 

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Councillor Joe Otten), then spoke on the matter and Members of the City Council then debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:

The 25 day consultation period had been inadequate and the bus network had been subject to change and which had caused confusion. Some bus drivers had also been confused in relation to the changes.

A well run bus service would help to make a well run city. Deregulation had meant that private companies would run a public service for profit and the benefit of shareholders. A question was whether the best had been done for people in Sheffield.

In 1986, the Transport Act had led to the privatisation of bus services outside of London. Until that point in time, Sheffield had the best buses and the cheapest fares. The Council sold the bus network and fares increased and had increased every year since. In 2012, the Sheffield Bus Partnership had helped to stabilise the network. In order for the partnership to work, it required all partners to work together. People were told that things would be better, including fares and services. Further meetings were planned to consider the issues.

The number of signatories to the petitions was impressive. The Council was an equal partner in the Bus Partnership and the agreement of the Partnership specified resources and routes and set out the network. Changes to the agreement could not take place without agreement of the Partners. Whilst changes included a more simple fare structure, they also meant changes to bus numbers and frequencies. There were not always enough buses at peak times and people were affected by lateness due to journey times.

The changes also affected children’s journeys to school. The Council’s priorities relating to strengthening the economy, reducing inequalities, and improving health and ensuring access for people would not be helped by a declining bus service. Public transport was a vital part of the City’s infrastructure and required real investment and a regulated model. The Buses Bill had been included in the Queen’s Speech and there was an opportunity to lobby the Government in relation to regulation of bus services.

Members had received comments from constituents regarding the number 3 and number 22 services and the change of location of the bus stop for those services from Pinstone Street to Arundel Gate, which some older people found difficult as it was more problematic if they found it difficult to walk and a letter had been sent to the bus operator in that regard. Members of the public were urged to contact their local councillor with regards to concerns about changes to bus services.

Changes to bus services had affected people and their families. It was considered that the Partnership was not working and the forthcoming Transport Committee meeting in February would be too long for people to wait.

The petitioners had made comments about the effect of changes to bus services on individuals, communities and households. The access to the Moor Market was a serious issue for the Council. It had been acknowledged that there were problems with the consultation and it was important to now deal with the issues which had arisen and hold the bus operators to account.

People felt let down in as far as they were told there would be more frequent services and at no time during the consultation were people told that there would be a significant reduction in services. Concern was raised as to whether the Council had been informed of the proposed reductions and as to the legality of operators’ actions and possibility of taking this matter to the transport regulator.

There were human consequences to the changes which had been introduced. Some people had given up their voluntary work because of problems which stemmed from changes to bus services and their ability to make journeys.  However, there was an effort to make public transport work effectively in a restrictive funding environment.

Changes had been introduced under the Partnership of which the Council was a part. Consultation had been limited and although some changes were incorporated following the consultation, it would have better to have had a longer period of consultation. Members had all received representation from their constituents. Concern was expressed that the direct route of the 70 Service to the hospital was now broken at rush hours and people would be required to use a car to access the Hallamshire hospital via the Park and Ride at Millhouses. There was currently more congestion as people resorted to using their cars. Services should be restored so people could rely on them.

The bus companies’ role in the Bus Partnership was in improving the reliability etc of bus services; the Passenger Transport Executive had a coordination role and the Council’s role was one relating to infrastructure such as road layouts, bus stops and enforcement, including of bus lanes. The bus companies instigated change in respect of services. Fares were significantly less expensive and both reliability and patronage had been increasing.  The Partnership had been successful prior to the introduction of these changes, which, it was recognised, fundamentally had not worked. The Council could use its bargaining position to bring about change. Funding cuts had contributed to de-stabilising the bus network, which was why the changes had to be made.

People were using alternative forms of transport to make journeys and had been subject to changes such as catching more than one bus to complete a journey or walking further to or from a bus stop to their destination. People had also experienced significant increases to journey times. The Council would need to be robust in the dealing with the Bus Partnership.

Government funding cuts had reduced spending, including that of the Passenger Transport Executive and the proportion of funding cuts to the Department of Transport had been larger than those to local government or welfare. There had been reductions to grants for operators and rural subsidy grants, which affected many services.

The problems with bus services affected people, business, journeys for school and work and the City’s reputation and there was potential social isolation for some people. The number 19 Service had been cut and there was no direct link to Woodseats. People were resorting to using their cars, which was not necessarily the intended result of change.  

There had been improvements in relation to bus fares and some changes had led to improvements. In those cases where there were difficulties, the operators should be held to account and concerns dealt with properly so that solutions were found.

Andy Nash on behalf of the lead petitioner, exercised a right of reply and referred to problems with the consultation prior to the changes to bus services  and to the need for communications and for the relevant organisations to listen to people’s concerns.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to matters which were raised during the debate. He stated that there was a plan of action to address the problems arising as a result of the changes to bus services. Some changes had been made as a direct response to passengers’ concerns. There were also issues to tackle, including punctuality and reliability. The Operators in the Bus Partnership had been told that they would be given time and opportunity to rectify the problems. The matter would be referred to the relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for consideration and to the Combined Authority Transport Committee in February 2016 to provide opportunity to hold people to account. The Council had pressed for improvements to 25 bus routes and timetables by January 2016 and the operators had said that these would be delivered. The Council would meet with bus users and listen to concerns and hold operators to account.

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

It was moved by Councillor Terry Fox, seconded by Councillor Tony Downing that:

“The 6 petitions reported to this meeting relating to the changes to bus services in the city from 1st November 2015, be noted, and the issue be referred to the appropriate Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive for consideration”

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Robert Murphy, seconded by Councillor Brian Webster, as an amendment, that the motion be amended by the addition of the following words:

“and be brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport for consideration as part of the forthcoming Buses Bill announced in this year’s Queen’s Speech.”

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That the 6 petitions reported to this meeting relating to the changes to bus services in the city from 1st November 2015, be noted, and the issue be referred to the appropriate Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive for consideration, and be brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport for consideration as part of the forthcoming Buses Bill announced in this year’s Queen’s Speech.

5.5

Petitions

5.5.1

Petition Requesting Speed Reduction Measures on Brooklands Avenue

The Council received an electronic petition containing 16 signatures, requesting speed reduction measures on Brooklands Avenue.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.5.2

Petition Requesting Action in Connection with Parking Issues on Norwood Close and Norwood Drive

The Council received a petition containing six signatures, requesting action in connection with parking issues on Norwood Drive and Norwood Close.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.

5.5.3

Petition Opposing Development on Land at Burncross Road and Chapel Road

The Council received a petition containing 81 signatures, opposing development on land at Burncross Road and Chapel Road.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing.

5.5.4

Petition Requesting the Council to Provide Accommodation and Support for at Least 50 Syrian Refugees

The Council received an electronic petition containing 11 signatures, requesting the Council to provide accommodation and support for at least 50 Syrian refugees.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore.