Agenda item

4.1

In response to questions submitted by Mr. Martin Brighton on the use of Council – supported community buildings for commercial meetings, the openness and transparency of community group accounts, the South Yorkshire Digital region and alleged proxy voting at Tenants’ and Residents Association meetings, Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) stated that she would respond to Mr Brighton in writing.   

4.2

Council Response to Public Enquiries

4.2.1

Mr. Nigel Slack referred to the failure of the Council to respond to various e-mails he had sent to the Council’s Commercial Director, on issues he had raised at previous meetings of Cabinet concerning Public Services – Private Profits.  Such a failure to respond might not only be construed as a either a lack of interest or a failure in openness and transparency, but also as a breach of the City Council’s target of 10 days set for answering correspondence. He, therefore, asked when he would receive a response to the issues he had raised.

4.2.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) responded that he did not know why Mr Slack had not received a response given that the Council had a target of responding to public queries within 10 days. He indicated that he would follow up Mr Slack’s concerns and ensure that he received a response as soon as possible.

4.2.3

Mr Slack also asked why he had not yet received a response from Councillor Dore on matters he had raised at the Cabinet meeting on 1^st August, 2012 concerning the public questions procedure.

4.2.4

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) apologised to Mr Slack, indicating that she had interpreted Mr Slack’s e-mail as a statement not a question. She offered to meet with Mr Slack to discuss the issues he raised and she stressed that she, and the Council, were keen to promote the involvement of local people in local democracy, adding that she would respond to Mr Slack as soon as possible on the options the Council was considering on this particular matter. 

4.3

Action taken by City Council, South Yorkshire Police and other Agencies

4.3.1

Mr. Saleh Mohamed Ali asked why the Cabinet had not responded to the issues he had raised at the Cabinet meeting on 23^rd May,  in relation to action taken against him by the South Yorkshire Police and other agencies?

4.3.2

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded that these were personal issues and were not appropriate for consideration in a public meeting. She had, however, held several meetings with Mr. Ali as had a number of agencies over the last few months. Cabinet had responded to Mr Ali’s concerns as much as it could but, in the main, the issues he raised were police matters.

4.3.3

The Executive Director, Communities, responded further to Mr Ali, indicating that representatives of the City Council, the South Yorkshire Police and other agencies had met with him on the issues he had raised, some of which had been resolved, whilst others remained to be substantiated and about which there had been a difference of opinion with Mr. Ali. Further work was being carried out between the agencies to resolve the matters outstanding and the Executive Director stated that he would be happy to hold further discussions with Mr Ali to try and address his concerns.

4.4

Sheffield Bus Agreement

The following questions were asked in relation to item 9 on the agenda – Sheffield Bus Agreement and answers were given as indicated, as part of the presentation of the report of the Executive Director, Place on the Agreement:-

4.4.1

Removal of Bus Service No. 43

4.4.2

Mavis Sheahy drew the Cabinet’s attention to the fact that the No. 43 bus service had been withdrawn in the Arbourthorne area leaving local people with access  to the No. 79  bus service travelling along East Bank Road, which was particularly difficult for older people due to the hilly nature of East Bank Road.

4.4.3

Roy Mitchell, SYPTE, responded that the No. 43 service had been withdrawn sometime ago by TM Travel and Stagecoach had replaced it with No. 79 bus service. He added that the number of passengers who had used the No. 43 service had been low and, therefore, it had not been possible to continue the service. However, the problems that some older people might face in accessing the No.79 service were acknowledged and the SYPTE had arranged for the pre-booking of transport from the Community Transport Service for those older residents who were finding it difficult to access the service. However, it would not be possible to restore the conventional bus service Ms. Sheahy referred to.   

4.4.4

It was suggested that Councillor Julie Dore and Councillor Jack Scott as Councillor representatives for the Arbourthorne area would pursue the matter further.

4.5

Re-routing of Bus Service No. 123

4.5.1

Ms. Nancy Grayson, Chair of the Westminster Tenants’ and Residents’ Association, referred to the re-routing of the No. 123 bus service removing the service from by-passing the Hallamshire Hospital, causing a reduction in accessibility to the Hospital for older people. She added that 95% of residents on the Westminster estate were 75 years of age and over and felt that the re-routing of the bus service could have a disproportionately negative impact on local residents in terms of access to hospital services.

4.5.2

Roy Mitchell, SYPTE, responded that it was proposed to reduce the number of buses run by First and Stagecoach on main routes where there was an oversupply as was the case on Ecclesall Road. The replacement for the No. 123 bus service (Service 83A) would run at 20 minute intervals instead of 30 minute intervals but would not serve the hospital but operate via Ecclesall Road instead. However, it was possible to catch the replacement Service 83A and change once oat the same stop to a service 120 to or from the Hallamshire hospital. The alternative would be to catch a No. 51 bus to the back of the hospital from Redmires Road.

4.6

Public Consultation

4.6.1

Mr Neil Fitzmaurice expressed concern that that the SYPTE were not keeping the public fully informed about the different stages in the development of the buses strategy and that the implications of adopting Voluntary Contracts and Voluntary Partnerships had not been mentioned at various public meetings. He asked whether the SYPTE could ensure that consultation with the public is undertaken prior to any Agreement being finalised and that the monitoring of the Agreement had considerable passenger input, possibly through the Community Assemblies, to which representatives of bus operators could be invited, from time to time. He also suggested that the comments of Passenger Focus should be taken up as regards the qualitative aspects of the Agreement.

4.6.2

Dick Proctor, City Council Transport Vision and Strategy Manager, responded that the qualitative aspects raised by Passenger Focus would be considered through a jointly shared performance network and that information on the Agreement would continually be updated on the Sheffield Bus Agreement web-site. Roy Mitchell, SYPTE, responded that the SYPTE would respond positively to requests for consultation and, indeed, the SYPTE was proposing to hold further meetings with residents on why certain routes had changed, which showed that it was going out of its way to explain changes. 

4.7

Bus Service No. 66

4.7.1

Ms. Jean – Marie Bellamy expressed concerns about the proposed discontinuation of the No. 66 bus service, referring to the fact that, although residents had been told that the No. 13 bus service was a replacement for the No. 66 service, High Green – Sheffield, the new bus took a very different route and would involve an extra 15 minutes on the journey time to Sheffield.  She stated that High Green had very strong links with Halfiax/Penistone Road due, in part, to bus links enabling High Green residents to work in the area, and use the facilities and the college at Hillsborough. The new number 13 would miss most of this route, instead going through Grenoside village, Fox Hill and now on the busy Middlewood Road.

4.7.2

Ms. Bellamy added that the no. 66 route should be put out to tender as Service No. 13 was not considered to be a replacement service. The proposed routes had been designed for purely commercial reasons as confirmed by First and the SYPTE without any regard for the High Green community which was within the top 10% of the most deprived areas in the UK. The consultation and petition response to changes to the 66/13 & 77 High Green/Chapeltown to Sheffield routes totalled around 2,000 against the changes, with only 8 people in favour of them. This was in contrast No. 4 service which travelled through an affluent area of Sheffield and was immediately put up for tender but much fewer objections.

4.7.3

Ms Bellamy believed that the consultation was flawed and feltthat, if the Sheffield Bus Partnership was so important the above issues should be addressed in full and not be rushed.

4.7.4

In response, Roy Mitchell, SYPTE, indicated that, in terms of reliability and financial performance, First had indicated their concerns but had now agreed to re-instate the High Green–Chapeltown service, but the bus companies saw no merit in extending the service to Sheffield when it was proposed to run the No. 13 service at a frequency of 20 minutes compared to the existing 30 minute frequency offer. Taking the package overall, a service (No. 13) would be available for High Green to Hillsborough including the Hillsborough Transport Interchange and the SYPTE understood why First wished pursue this. The service could not be put out to tender as it was run on a commercial basis and, therefore, would be a waste of pubic money. No commercial bus service had been proposed for Psalter Lane and, therefore, it was felt that tenders could be invited for a service including this route as there was no alternative provision. 

4.8.

Sheffield on the Move

4.8.1

Mr Alan Kewley, Sheffield On the Move Focus Group, commented that he believed that there had been inadequate consultation on and opportunity to scrutinise the Partnership proposals which, he believed was vital. He stated that the Focus Group accepted the principle of agreeing the Voluntary Partnership but he suggested that the process seemed rushed, and that there had been difficulties in obtaining information, including the terms of the Agreement and that this should be released in the public domain in order to promote openness and transparency. He therefore asked that the Focus Group see a draft of the Bus Agreement and its implications prior to the signing of the Agreement.

4.8.2

Dick Proctor, Transport Vision and Strategy Manager, responded that it was necessary to re-register buses by 31^st August, 2012 in order to launch the Partnership by 31^st October, 2012 and, therefore, there was a need to progress matters as a matter of urgency. However, this should not be viewed as the end point for any changes. He added that one of the reasons why the Council supported the Integrated Transport Authority view to favour a Voluntary Partnership Agreement was the proposed reduction in bus fares. The proposals set out in the Partnership Agreement could also commence at the end of October, 2012, whereas Quality Contracts involved a statutory process lasting three years before implementation with the financial/commercial risks sitting with the Integrated Transport Authority, SYPTE and City Council.

4.8.3

He added that as much information as possible had and would be provided to the public, but some of this information was quite confidential and could not always be released. In terms of the detail of any Agreement, this was still to be prepared. The SYPTE had now paused work on Quality Contracts, but there was a clear sense of the remaining work which would be required to be undertaken if ever it was felt that Quality Contracts needed to be re-considered.