Agenda item

4.1

Parish Nurses Project

4.1.1

The Council viewed a video and received a presentation from Michaela Suckling and Marjorie Skidmore (Parish Nurses) on the work of the Parish Nursing Project operated from St. Matthew’s Church, Carver Street, Sheffield, in association with Parish Nursing Ministries UK.

4.1.2

The Project supports some of the most vulnerable people in the city, with its mission being to offer a listening service with crisis support and to create sanctuary, space and time for people; to provide information and health education, and to signpost to appropriate services and offer spiritual care to those of any or no faith.  It delivers this by providing (a) health advice and support in the Moor Market by running a drop-in service, offering health assessments and guidance on how to get help; (b) a drop-in service at St Matthew’s Church to provide sanctuary space for marginalised people in the community; (c) an outreach service in the community offering prayer or a listening ear for those who are marginalised, and where appropriate, offering spiritual support by signposting to services, resources and activities and (d) mental health support, offering time to discuss and assess mental health difficulties such as depression, anxiety, grief and trauma, and signposting to appropriate websites, health services, groups and resources.

4.1.3

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards) thanked Michaela Suckling and Marjorie Skidmore for their presentation and for the valuable work that they undertake in the city.

4.2

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards) reported that three petitions and questions from five members of the public had been received prior to the published deadline for submission of petitions and questions for this meeting.  The Lord Mayor added that questions from another member of the public had been received early this morning and she proposed to use her discretion, as chair of the meeting, and permit the questions to be asked on this occasion.

4.3

Petitions

4.3.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Abandon the Park Hill Parking Scheme

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition, containing 2,145 signatures, requesting the Council to abandon the Park Hill Parking Scheme.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Allison Rossiter and Dave McClelland. Allison Rossiter stated that she had organised the petition as a result of the high level of concern raised on a local social media group.  Residents were concerned that such a scheme would have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area.  She stated that there were no problems with parking on many of the streets proposed to be included in the scheme, with many residents expressing concern at the possibility of themselves and visitors having to pay for parking permits.  Ms Rossiter stated that many residents were not aware of the full implications of the scheme, with the vast majority being against the scheme.

Dave McClelland stated that the number of signatures collected as part of the petition made it very clear that a high proportion of residents were against the scheme.  He added that whilst some residents wanted some form of restrictions to help them to be able to park outside or near their homes, they were against the scheme in its current format.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee).  Councillor Iqbal thanked the petitioners, and stated that he was awaiting a report from officers following consultation on the proposals.  He stated that following the completion of such a report, arrangements would be made for him, or Councillor Julie Grocutt (Co-Chair of the Committee), together with local Ward Councillors, to meet with the petitioners on site, to discuss their concerns. 

4.3.2

Petition Requesting Action Regarding the Pavements on Sheldon Road

The Council received a petition containing 115 signatures, requesting action regarding the pavements on Sheldon Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Marion Gerson and Chris Caulcott. Marion Gerson stated that residents had originally approached the Council for help in this regard, but had been refused on the basis that it was the responsibility of Amey. Amey had visited the area on two occasions to commence the repair works, but had been stopped by tree activists.  Ms Gerson stated that roots on a number of trees were forcing pedestrians, particularly those with pushchairs or prams, in wheelchairs and the elderly and/or disabled, to pass by the trees on residents’ drives or on the road.  Decisions were still required to be made on how each tree would be treated before works could commence on repairing the pavements, which meant there were likely to be further delays. 

Chris Caulcott stated that many residents had expressed concerns at the lack of safety due to the uneven surfaces, with some witnessing people tripping up and/or falling over.  The uneven surfaces and lack of width, in parts, created particular problems for people with pushchairs or prams and the elderly or disabled, with the problems being exacerbated during the winter months. Mr Caulcott stated that the situation would only get worse, and hoped that the Council and Amey could produce a plan to provide more ease of movement and safety for local residents as a matter of urgency.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee). Councillor Iqbal thanked the petitioners, and stated that he had been informed of the issues by local Ward Councillors, and would visit the area to meet the petitioners and discuss their concerns.  Councillor Iqbal added that Councillor Joe Otten (Chair of the Waste and Street Scene Policy Committee) may also wish to respond.

Councillor Joe Otten stated that street scene issues were the responsibility of his Policy Committee, and that he was aware that a number of roads in the Nether Edge area, with Sheldon Road being one, had not yet received the full Streets Ahead treatment following the introduction of a new strategy due to the position regarding street trees. He stated that there was a wider strategy in place in terms of developing plans for each road in the area. Councillor Otten also promised to visit the area, with officers, to discuss the petitioners’ concerns, and that the issue would be referred to the Waste and Street Scene Policy Committee for further consideration.

4.3.3

Petition Requesting Better Speed Controls on Fox Hill Road to Protect Pedestrians

The Council received a petition, containing 22 signatures, requesting better speed controls on Fox Hill Road to protect pedestrians.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Rob Reiss.  Mr Reiss stated that there had been issues of speeding vehicles on Fox Hill Road for a number of years, and whilst there were road humps on parts of the road, drivers tended to speed up when approaching the humps. The situation was particularly bad in evenings and at weekends, and caused problems for families using the shopping centres on Halifax Road and Kilner Way. Children walking to school, and the elderly, felt particularly vulnerable due to speeding drivers, and a pedestrian had actually been killed in 2017.  The proximity of Fox Hill Road to Hillsborough football stadium was an issue, particularly on match days, when the huge increase in the demand for parking in the area resulted in limited visibility for pedestrians when crossing roads.  The petitioners requested that the police used mobile speed cameras in the area, and that Speed Indication Devices (SIDs) be used, to constantly make drivers aware of the speeds they were going, to help make it safer for pedestrians.    

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee). Councillor Iqbal thanked Mr Reiss for bringing the petition and stated that the local Ward Councillors were aware of the issues, and had been in contact with the police, who had produced data regarding speed checks undertaken in the area. Councillor Iqbal stated that the Council would continue to talk to the police, and that he, along with local Ward Councillors, would be happy to visit the area to discuss residents’ concerns.

4.4

Public Questions

4.4.1

Public Questions Regarding The Park Hill/Norfolk Park Permit Parking Scheme

Stephen Burgin asked the following questions. Mr. Burgin said that he had read the initial business case and had several questions which he had submitted as a FOI request but so far had not received a response :-

1.       Where are the backing documents to support this proposal e.g. case of need based on number of complaints per roads included in scheme; risk analysis; cost benefit analysis; opportunity cost analysis; income stream analysis?

2.       Could someone explain the costings he had received from a Senior Transport Officer that says that the Scheme would cost £650,000 to set up, £241,000 to run but only £57,000 would be received annually, showing a loss of £184,000?

3.       How has this proposal been drawn up without all the information available because, he as he understands it, not all the information is readily available but the proposal has been put forward?

4.       Has any consideration been given to reviewing the 2018 parking strategy in light of the changing work patterns within Sheffield and the wider UK?

5.       Are you able to confirm that the cost to income ratio (expenditure/income x 100) means it’s going to cost more than four times to run than it will bring in?

6.       What workforce planning has been done re staffing the proposed scheme? Staffing numbers and type (e.g. wardens, admin etc) infrastructure costs hardware/software costs?

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) apologised to Mr. Burgin for the need for a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. He said he had a written response for Mr. Burgin which he would email to him later that day. There was a business case in 2018 and as he had stated earlier to the petitioners, some residents said they would like something done with regard to the issue of parking, and since then some residents have said it was not needed. Regarding the costs, he was more than happy to provide a very detailed response to this and said he would be happy to arrange a meeting with Mr. Burgin regarding the FOI request.

4.4.2

Public Question Regarding The Travel Buddy Scheme

Eileen Turner stated that she was 70 years of age next year and since becoming a pensioner, had been classed as severely disabled.  Back in 2014, Sheffield Community Transport set up the Travel Buddy Scheme which was funded by the City Council.  The Scheme became a lifeline for many disabled and lonely people, assisting with shopping and other needs. She paid a nominal fee of £15 per week for three hours.  However, in 2017, the City Council took away the funding and the cost of the service increased to £15 per hour which, for many, was totally unaffordable. She had approached her local MP, Louise Hague, in February of last year and after some considerable time she responded to her saying that the door-to-door service and bus pass was available, but despite those services, the Travel Buddy provided a vital lifeline to many, both physically and mentally. She stated that she was one voice speaking out for many in the city and was asking the Council to get our Travel Buddies back.

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) said that these were the tragic consequences of having a Conservative Government and there were to be discussions later on in the meeting regarding the cost-of-living crisis. The cuts started back in 2010 when there was a coalition Government. The reason that Louise Haigh was so long getting back to Mrs. Turner was that she wanted information from the Council. He said that many residents in Sheffield relied on the service but due to the severe cuts, the Council could no longer afford to subsidise the service and had to put the costs back onto the users. Councillor Iqbal said that he was more than happy to take this matter to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Committee to be held on 15^th June and referred to the fact that the South Yorkshire Regional Mayor, Oliver Coppard, had given a commitment that he would like to bring public transport back under public control and Council members were in regular discussions and would take this matter up with him seeking to bring this service back.  Councillor Iqbal stated that, unfortunately, he could not give a commitment to say that the scheme would be reinstated but the Council would scope this out and see if it would be possible.

4.4.3

Public Question Regarding A Carbon Budget for Sheffield

Chris Broome stated that, in July 2019, the Council received a scientific report setting a carbon budget for Sheffield which would be in line with an international agreement to seek to limit average global temperature rise to well below 2C.  We estimate that if Sheffield has followed the national trend, nearly 40% of that all-time carbon budget will have been used up. We therefore ask whether Councillors know how much of the budget has already been used and will they give us that information?

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) said that the Council had been collecting data from 2018 and 2019 and would be happy to share that data with Mr. Broome. He said that the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee had recently met for the first time to look at the Work Programme for the Committee and he would be happy to place this item on the Work Programme for future consideration.  Councillor Iqbal said that he had received an email from the Climate Alliance and would be happy to meet up with Mr. Broome and the Alliance.  Councillor Iqbal added that the Council was committed to addressing the Climate Emergency and had signed up to delivering net zero by 2030, but needed investment from the Government in the city’s infrastructure to be able to meet this target.

4.4.4

Public Questions Regarding The Value Of Heritage And Requests For Information

Robin Hughes asked the following questions:-

Question 1 on behalf of Joined Up Heritage Sheffield

Joined Up Heritage Sheffield is encouraged to see small but increasing signs of a recognition of the role that heritage can play in growing the economy. The new Sheffield City Council Constitution places a responsibility on the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee to champion heritage. There is a motion before Council today about exploring ways of using our heritage to support businesses, especially those in the hospitality sector.

Such moves are welcome; but we are also keen to see recognition of the value of heritage expand beyond the traditional assumption that it primarily serves the leisure economy, and the visitor economy in particular. Historic England research shows that the heritage sector contributes £36.6bn GVA to the English economy, more than Arts and Culture, Aerospace or Defence. Based on the size of its economy, which we hope will grow, Sheffield's fair share of this would be £240m per annum.

Even this does not include the disproportionate impact of historic buildings in attracting the most creative and productive businesses or spending by visitors making heritage-led trips on accommodation, hospitality and other non-heritage activities. Heritage skills will be critical to the re-use and retrofitting of buildings, now an urgent priority to combat climate change, as highlighted only last week by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. About half of the measured economic value of heritage is in the construction industry.

What will this Council's strategic approach be to realising the full value of heritage in all its forms to the economy and skills? And how will this extend to maximise the benefits to climate change, education, health and wellbeing?

Question 2 on behalf of Hallamshire Historic Buildings

At the Co-operative Executive meeting on 16th March 2022, I asked a question about the availability of historical information about the former John Lewis building and was assured that this would all be made available on request. On 24th March, I emailed Property and Regeneration Services to ask for this information. There was a degree of urgency, as the data was needed for evidence relating to the Council's application for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing.

This general enquiry for data that either the Council already had to hand - and had shared with a third party - or were planning to obtain was changed into a Freedom of Information request. I had not asked for this and was not consulted about it. Some information was sent to me late on 28th April, the very last moment to be within the statutory limit, but it was not complete. Emails asking for the missing information were not responded to until 19th May, when I was promised a reply the following week. None had been received by last Friday, 9 weeks after a simple request for data the Council already had.

Does this Council agree with me that it would have been a far more efficient and appropriate route simply to send the information directly to me when requested, rather than create an unnecessary delay through the FoI process? And will Council ensure that all data is delivered to me without further delay?

In response to question one, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) stated that there was a new Heritage Champion, Councillor Janet Ridler, who would be following on work started by Councillor Drabble. Councillor Iqbal said that there would be crossover between various Policy Committee areas and that he was more than happy to arrange a meeting with Mr. Broome to discuss this matter. Regular discussions with Joined Up Heritage have already been held and will continue to do so.

In response to question two, Councillor Iqbal stated that the information should have been provided without the need to go down the FOI route. He said he was happy to receive emails to assist in any way he could.

4.4.5

Public Questions Regarding The Low Traffic Neighbourhood Proposals in Nether Edge

Cate McDonald asked the following questions:-

I am a Nether Edge resident who is directly affected by the introduction of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in Nether Edge. I welcome the recent statements made by Councillors Grocutt and Iqbal about improved local engagement on the plans. However, the way in which the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) was rushed through without local consultation has created considerable anger and distrust. In the interests of transparency and restoring public trust, can you answer the following questions please:-

1.  There is no public record of any decision on the introduction of the ETRO. Who took the formal decision to introduce the ETROs?

2. There may be no requirement to undertake consultation beyond the statutory notice to introduce an ETRO, but I know from personal experience that this is not good practice. Why was there no consultation about the ETRO?

3. I live 50 metres from the LTN boundary. Why was I not even notified about the ETRO? Please note I don’t consider a notice 7ft high on a lamppost to constitute notification.

4. How have the comments received during the earlier consultation on the scheme been taken into account in the implementation of this phase?

5. Can you confirm that traffic surveys have been undertaken on all surrounding roads so that the impact of displacement can be evaluated?

6. Likewise, can you confirm that baseline air quality measures have been taken on individual streets surrounding the LTN so that the impact can be assessed?

7.  What criteria will be used to evaluate the success or otherwise of the so called ‘trial’ on the LTN and also on adjacent streets?

8. How will adverse effects of traffic displacement on surrounding streets be balanced against the benefits to residents within the LTN?

9. There was considerable disruption last week due to the absence of signposting. Why has there been no signposting before closing roads?

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) stated that he and Councillor Julie Grocutt, the Co-Chair of the Committee, were picking up what residents have said about not having been properly informed and engaged in discussions about the scheme. He acknowledged that the Council had failed to display road signs appropriately and said that he would be working with all Councillors in that Ward to make sure the scheme was a success and that a number of events were planned to ensure that residents were kept informed about the scheme. Councillor Iqbal said that a written response would be provided.

4.4.6

Public Questions Regarding The Clean Air Zone And Taxi Licensing

Ibrar Hussain asked the following questions:-

Q1. In light of the very recent reporting in the press of an increase in signage costs for CAZ Scheme signs, from £483,000 to £981,000, almost double the price, what serious consideration has the Council given to increasing the grants to purchase vehicles for hackney carriage and private hire vehicles as their costs have doubled too in line with Council costs?

Q2. I hope this Council takes into consideration our costs urgently and an urgent review be considered immediately?

Q3. Why is the CAZ team not responding to any emails and that includes the Head of Strategic Transport, Sustainability and Infrastructure?

Q4. What steps is the Council taking to stop cross border vehicles licensed by other authorities using our bus gates and bus lanes? In Southampton, the Council has adopted a policy which only allows vehicles licenced by them to use their bus gates and bus lanes.

Q5. What steps is the Council taking to stop cross border working in Sheffield predominantly and publish its actions in light of these concerns?

Q6. Vehicles licenced in Wolverhampton are now able to have their vehicles’ MOT and compliance tests carried out at Sheffield/ Rotherham approved test centres at a lower cost and be able to work in Sheffield whilst Sheffield licensed private hire operators have no choice but to pay higher fees. Why are Sheffield private hire vehicle drivers not given the choice and able to have their vehicles tested at a lower cost?

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) stated that he had arrived at the meeting by taxi and asked the driver how things were, and he replied that it was his first job for two and a half hours, so he was aware of how difficult things were for taxi drivers.  With regard to the Clean Air Zone, he stated that he had received and noted the comments from the Manchester Combined Authority regarding the impact that the Zone would have not only on drivers but also the economic impact it will have on businesses. He said he would take the issue to the Committee regarding the serious concerns raised and hopefully he would be able to provide a written response to the questions as soon as possible.  Councillor Joe Otten said that he was more than happy to work with Councillor Iqbal on these issues and take the matters raised to the Licensing Committee and Waste and Streetscene Policy Committee.