Agenda item

7.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Tony Downing, and formally seconded by Councillor Josie Paszek, that this Council:-

(a)      notes that the previous Administration has consistently, and repeatedly, called for the South Yorkshire Mayor to start the process of bus franchising;

(b)      welcomes the announcement in January 2022 from South Yorkshire Mayor, Dan Jarvis, that the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) would consider whether Franchising should be considered in further detail;

(c)      notes that a franchising model would give South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) the powers to set routes, timetables and fares - which are then managed through tenders to operators - but that all of the costs and risks associated with service delivery would rest with SYMCA under this option;

(d)      believes, therefore, that as part of this process the financial implications must be clarified as to what impact this will have on the Council’s finances and on the city’s taxpayers, and that SYMCA should conduct a Franchising Scheme Assessment (FSA) to consider the legal, financial, and operational case for moving away from a commercial bus network to a Franchised network;

(e)      notes that the MCA have estimated that developing a Franchising Scheme Assessment could cost around £4-5 million and take 3-4 years to complete;

(f)       believes, therefore, that this decision should not be taken lightly due to the cost impacts but that, ultimately, Sheffield’s transport offer is simply not good enough and radical action is required to get the service to where it should be for Sheffield; and

(g)      notes that Franchising is no panacea to the problem of poor ‘public’ transport, with sustained government underfunding and privatisation the root problem, but that franchising may provide a crucial step in the right direction of reform.

7.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, and formally seconded by Councillor Ian Auckland, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.       in paragraph (a), the substitution of the words “previous Administration has” by the words “Liberal Democrats and Labour in Sheffield have”;

2.       the addition of new paragraphs (h) to (k) as follows:-

(h)      notes the long record of previous Labour Administrations of entering into bus partnership agreements and consistently defending the Sheffield Bus Partnership Agreement as a “good deal for Sheffield”;

(i)       further notes how this contrasts with the refusal of Liberal Democrats in Administration to sanction bus service cuts;

(j)       notes that at the December 2021 meeting of this Council a motion on this subject was passed; and

(k)      believes, therefore, that this Council’s Executive needs to ‘get on with it’ and take action now to bring in franchising for Sheffield’s public transport, working with the metro Mayor and his successor to do so, rather than simply talking about it.

7.3

It was then formally moved by Councillor Ruth Mersereau, and formally seconded by Councillor Martin Phipps, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.       the addition of a new paragraph (b) as follows, and the re-lettering of original paragraphs (b) to (g) as new paragraphs (c) to (h):-

(b)      notes with disappointment that, despite the apparent cross-party support for it over many years, the Labour-controlled Combined Authority has not yet taken any real steps towards bus franchising;

2.       the addition of new paragraphs (i) to (w) as follows:-

(i)       notes that in Greater Manchester, 87% of the costs of transitioning to franchising are expected to be met through Combined Authority funding, limiting the additional burden on local councils;

(j)       believes that for buses to offer a fast and reliable alternative to private car usage, greater road priority needs to be given to buses;

(k)      believes that whilst the funding and delivery of Connecting Sheffield schemes are important for this, more needs to be done in addition to this to improve public and active transport infrastructure;

(l)       notes that millions of pounds could be raised per year, ring-fenced for transport improvements, through a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) for medium and large employers, and that in Nottingham this raised £64m for transport improvements in its first seven years;

(m)     notes that a WPL works by charging employers who decide to offer parking to staff with cars a set charge per parking space, with the safeguard of a 100% discount for all employers with 10 or fewer parking spaces;

(n)      notes that the charge per liable car parking space is currently £428 a year in Nottingham, equivalent to a charge of £1.17 per day for a car parking space;

(o)      notes that exemptions to local emergency services, NHS frontline staff and blue badge parking can be set;

(p)      notes that Nottingham was able to extend its tramline, more than doubling its network, due to matched funding thanks to the WPL;

(q)      notes that grants of up to £25,000 to businesses to improve their cycling and walking, public transport and ultra low emission vehicle infrastructure are available in Nottingham, funded by the WPL;

(r)       believes that all groups have shown support for "implementing" the commissioned Arup report on "Pathways to Zero Carbon in Sheffield";

(s)      believes that investing the millions of pounds that could be generated a year through a WPL into active and public transport would be a real boost for the city: for the health and well-being of residents, in reducing our carbon footprint and air pollution and to the city’s economy, with retail and businesses benefiting from the improved links;

(t)       believes that implementing a workplace parking levy and using the funds raised to improve public and active transport infrastructure is precisely the kind of policy called for in the Arup report's prioritised action to "Revolutionise transport patterns";

(u)      notes the Arup report highlights how solely relying on the transition of cars to electric should not be seen as the way forward, as this will not deliver the health, congestion, road safety, air quality or economic benefits that improvements to active and public transport would;

(v)      notes that Nottingham City Council have a blueprint of how a WPL can be delivered due to their work, and are able to assist with the design, delivery and, optionally, the running of the levy; and

(w)      requests the Administration to take steps to implement a Workplace Parking Levy, starting by producing a report to be presented to the Co-operative Executive (or an appropriate Committee under the committee system), to enable greater investment in public and active transport, which is crucial in decarbonising our city and achieving our aims to be net zero by 2030.

7.4

The amendment moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed was put to the vote and was negatived.

7.5

The amendment moved by Councillor Ruth Mersereau was then put to the vote and Part 1 was carried and Part 2 was negatived.

7.5.1

(NOTE: Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Richard Shaw, Bob McCann, Ann Woolhouse, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Vic Bowden, Alan Woodcock, Roger Davison, Barbara Masters, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Kevin Oxley, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley, Richard Williams, Alan Hooper, Mike Levery and Ann Whitaker voted for Part 1 and voted against Part 2 of the amendment moved by Councillor Ruth Mersereau, and asked for this to be recorded.)

7.6

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

RESOLVED:  That this Council:-

(a)      notes that the previous Administration has consistently, and repeatedly, called for the South Yorkshire Mayor to start the process of bus franchising;

(b)      notes with disappointment that, despite the apparent cross-party support for it over many years, the Labour-controlled Combined Authority has not yet taken any real steps towards bus franchising;

(c)      welcomes the announcement in January 2022 from South Yorkshire Mayor, Dan Jarvis, that the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) would consider whether Franchising should be considered in further detail;

(d)      notes that a franchising model would give South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) the powers to set routes, timetables and fares - which are then managed through tenders to operators - but that all of the costs and risks associated with service delivery would rest with SYMCA under this option;

(e)      believes, therefore, that as part of this process the financial implications must be clarified as to what impact this will have on the Council’s finances and on the city’s taxpayers, and that SYMCA should conduct a Franchising Scheme Assessment (FSA) to consider the legal, financial, and operational case for moving away from a commercial bus network to a Franchised network;

(f)       notes that the MCA have estimated that developing a Franchising Scheme Assessment could cost around £4-5 million and take 3-4 years to complete;

(g)      believes, therefore, that this decision should not be taken lightly due to the cost impacts but that, ultimately, Sheffield’s transport offer is simply not good enough and radical action is required to get the service to where it should be for Sheffield; and

(h)      notes that Franchising is no panacea to the problem of poor ‘public’ transport, with sustained government underfunding and privatisation the root problem, but that franchising may provide a crucial step in the right direction of reform.