Agenda item

9.1

The Committee received the following questions from members of the public who had submitted questions prior to the meeting, and who were in attendance to raise them:-

9.1.1

Question 1

A questioner who was in attendance at the meeting asked the following question:

At the last LAC meeting, and as other Councillors have said, we were told the Park Hill Parking Scheme would not go ahead if the majority of residents did not want it.

Out of the 1066 responses only 46 were in favour of the scheme (4.3%). So 95.7% were against it.

Will this parking scheme now be abandoned as this clearly shows the scheme does not have community support and the majority of residents do not want it? Plus a councillor has said the Parking Hill scheme has overwhelmingly been rejected.

In response, the Chair explained that there was a due process to follow. Where circumstances had changed since the proposal was first made, an updated report would be presented to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee who would make appropriate recommendations. Ward Councillors were unable to make such decisions.

9.1.2

Question 2 – Stephen Burgin

Stephen Burgin, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following question:

Given the initial business case is written predominantly to give equal support to businesses and residents and that the population of Norfolk Park/Park Hill is >90% residential and the research that underpins the vast majority of the rationale is from 2005-2015 and is from overseas research is there really any point in continuing with this costly scheme?

In response, the Chair advised that individual Councillors were unable to make decisions on such schemes, and the decision would be made in due course by the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee.

9.1.3

Question 3 – Rosalie Hill, Chair, Park Community Action

Rosalie Hill, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following questions:

1. Regarding the proposed Park Hill parking scheme, were there any alternatives to parking permits and meters considered as a means of addressing extraneous parking in the area: for example, no parking before 9.30am as currently prevails on parts of Duke Street/City Road? Were such alternatives costed and compared in terms of ease of enforcement?

2. Were the parking needs for access to community buildings such as the Park Centre/library considered before drawing up the scheme? Was the Council aware of the importance of activities in Park Centre to community cohesion, the improvement of health and the reduction of social isolation?

The Chair noted that the work carried out at the Park Centre was appreciated, and advised that a full response to the questions raised would be provided.

9.1.4

Question 4 – Graham Wroe

Graham Wroe, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following question:

Could the parking scheme consider:

(a)  provision of secure parking for bicycles; and

(b)  provision of electric vehicle charging points.

The Chair noted Mr Wroe’s suggestions.

9.1.5

Question 5 – Steve Cooper

Steve Cooper, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following question:

Crossing points for pedestrians at Parkway/Handsworth Road junction for Athelstan School pupils as the bus is invariably late and parking provision at school is difficult especially when the recreation department car park is not allowed to be used?

In response, the Chair advised that this issue cut across various services within the Council, and that a full response would be provided to the questioner.

Councillor Miskell echoed concerns around the quality of bus services and noted that one-third of bus services were expected to be cut in October 2022. He believed that public investment was needed and explained that the newly elected South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, had taken the decision to start a formal assessment into bus franchising with a view to planning and determining bus routes.

9.1.6

Question 6 – David Cobley

David Cobley, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following questions:

We have been trying for three years to get traffic calming measures on Donnington Road, Essex Road and Holdings Road. We were advised that a draft scheme was in force and that the Council had indicated it would use CIL money to fund such a scheme and that the money was available.

Following on from a meeting of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee, written confirmation had been received that officers had developed options which had then been submitted to the Local Area Committee for their consideration.

Can you confirm that you have had these options and are positively considering them?

A Freedom of Information request put to South Yorkshire Police regarding the number of fixed penalty notices issued for non-compliance with no left/right turns has not yet been answered. We have been advised that the Council has devolved powers to apply for enforcement powers to use enforcement cameras for such driving offences. Has the Council applied for those powers and, if so, when do they plan to commence?

Nether Edge and other wards have set out a programme of signage on roads. Is there a similar programme for the East Local Area Committee area?

In response, the Chair confirmed that there was a scheme to install vehicle activated signs, and that each LAC had been asked to identify 6 hotspots which the VAS would be rotated around throughout the year. A schedule would be provided to the questioner. She also advised that CIL money was owned by the ward and that

The Chair noted that Active Neighbourhood schemes were being trialled in Nether Edge and Crookes, and that there was limited funding available.

NG Hill noted that a question regarding speed restrictions on Donnington Road had been raised at the March meeting of the East Local Area Committee and that a full response was yet to be provided.

The Chair advised that a full written response would be provided to all of the questions raised.

9.1.7

Question 7 – Irene Day

Irene Day, who was in attendance at the meeting, asked the following question:

Park Hill parking discussions have dominated the meeting and there are other people in this area that have other questions.

At the East LAC online event in February, I asked a question about an empty house in Richmond park that had been vandalised and other houses in the area which are known to be empty, and if anything was being done to repair these properties. I would like to know what is happening to those properties under the estates review.

Councillor Hurst confirmed that there had been an undertaking to keep the house in a decent state of repair until a review could be carried out. She agreed, along with Councillor Drabble, to make renewed efforts to seek clarification on this issue.