To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public at the meeting
Minutes:
|
7.1 |
Public Questions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members of the public raised questions and the following responses were provided:- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
The Broomhill Forum and University Student Union were concerned by the implications of the proposed fortnightly bin collections on shared student households (HMOs). Many of these houses only had one wheelie bin serving six or more adults. There was rarely space for more than one bin anyway, but neighbours were regularly confronted by overflowing bins and litter all over the road. Veolia had informed the Student Union that they may provide additional wheelie bins and would review the position, but at present, there was no clarity or certainty. What plans were there to deal with these potential problems? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Community Assembly Manager stated that she would ask, on behalf of the Community Assembly, for a six-month review of the operation regarding fortnightly wheelie bin collections. She added that if there were problems, as suggested by the Broomhill Forum and University Student Union, these would become obvious from the outset of the new arrangement, and Veolia would have to look at some form of alternative arrangements in terms of such households. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Gina McLennan referred to the plans to build houses on the former Crown Sash Works site, Whitehouse Lane, and questioned why, despite the fact assurances had been given to Langsett Tenants and Residents Association (TARA) that it was to be consulted on any new proposals for the site, it had not yet been informed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Jenny Carpenter questioned whether a report on the Walkley Traffic Review could be submitted to a future meeting of the Community Assembly, as had been promised at the Assembly’s meeting in March 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Community Assembly Manager stated that a report on the review had been considered at a Members’ Briefing and that arrangements would be made for an update on this to be circulated to members of the public on the Community Assembly contact list, for information. |
|
|
|
(d) |
Jean Cromar referred to the decision by the First bus operator to cease the operation of the No. 4 bus service from the City Centre to Millhouses, via Cemetery Road and Psalter Lane. She stated that this would mean that there would be no service along Cemetery Road and the whole of Psalter Lane and referred specifically to the service the No. 4 provided to elderly people at South Croft Residential Home, the Salvation Army and the GP practice on Cemetery Road, as well as the increasingly elderly population in that area, and questioned what action would be taken to provide a bus service for residents of this area? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Community Assembly Manager stated that, although the bottom half of Cemetery Road would still be served by the No. 22 service, she would write to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, on behalf of the Community Assembly, requesting the continuation of the No. 4 service. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(e) |
Richard Attwood questioned:- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
whether the Community Assembly could provide an update on the Walkley Active Corridor scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Community Assembly Manager stated that she would meet with Richard Attwood to discuss the scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
whether each Community Assembly had an amount of money to allocate to a 20 mph scheme of its choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Community Assembly Manager stated that this issue would be picked up as part of the consideration of the Community Assembly Highways Budget report. |
|