Agenda item

5.1

Question from Nigel Slack

This is my first visit to an actual meeting of the LAC and I want to offer some budget suggestions. The Committee will be well aware of the multi-million-pound deficit in the mismanaged Property Services Departments maintenance budget. £32M in emergency repairs alone.

The Community Plan, to be voted on later in the meeting, prioritises three key areas and, in two of these there is an overlap with the assets and infrastructure at risk within Property Services. I would like to suggest that the Committee task the Committee Management to review these suggestions and, in concert with Property Services aim to clear some of these deficit repairs.

This will not only improve matters immediately but will, in a period of extreme stress on City budgets, prevent matters becoming worse and therefore more expensive to mitigate.

I am not suggesting the Committee use all its budget in this way but, where its priorities overlap, seriously consider the synergy of this approach. I list some potential locations below and hope the Committee management can look at the feasibility of this approach as development and spending choices moves forward.

Emergency Compliance Maintenance 2022

Greenhill Bradway Youth Club     £ 1124 'activities for young people'

Greenhill Park                               £ 618 'activities for young people'

Batemoor and Jordanthorpe

Community Centre                        £ 2125 'community capacity building'

Beauchief Abbey                           £ 4104

Total                                              £ 7971

Emergency Compliance Maintenance 2023?

Jordanthorpe Library                     £ 5143 'community capacity building'

Abbey lane Cemetery                    £ 5313

Total                                              £10456

I have also had a phone conversation with Nathan Rogers of Facilities Management, who has advised that they are currently drawing up their Years 3 and 4 programme of repairs and maintenance four-year programme. We discussed my thoughts over how LACs might find some overlap and synergy in their priorities that could make working together to solve some of these essential repairs’ issues viable. Nathan has suggested being in touch with LACs to provide an up-to-date schedule of their plans and commented on his willingness to discuss where LAC funds may be useful.

In response, Councillor Simon Clement-Jones, Chair, thanked Mr. Slack for his questions and said that he had raised some important issues.  He said that, as it was well documented, the Council was currently facing financial difficulties and the gap in the budget was growing.  He said that although the locations mentioned by Mr. Slack were in the Beauchief and Greenhill area, it raised the issue of how to get the community infrastructure back up and running and this showed where under investment by the Council had been over the past few years.

Councillor Clement-Jones said that the LAC Councillors where aware of the issues raised by Mr. Slack but said that the Local Area Committee did not want to spend its money on improvements that should be undertaken by the Council.   He said that there was a lot that the Local Area Committee (LAC) could try to influence, once it had got on board with the new Governance system but were still waiting to see how that system was working at the Town Hall.  He said he would contact the relevant Committee and report back to a future meeting of the LAC Chairs Group, in terms of the issue that has been raised. Councillor Clement-Jones also added that although there was £100,000 budget for each LAC guaranteed for this financial year, there were no guarantees that the same would be available for subsequent years.

5.2

Question from Carl Whittam

Mr. Whittam stated that he was a resident of Sharrow and also a former resident of Beauchief and Greenhill, giving him an interest in both areas.  He said that he had read the Community Plan and with regard to budgeting and had noted that funding was linked to deprivation levels.  He said that he had looked at funding levels for individual Wards and noted that in the Beauchief and Greenhill Ward received  £6.50 per person, whilst in the Nether Edge/Sharrow Ward, the level was £1.73.  He said he didn’t think that people in Beauchief and Greenhill were more deprived than those in the Sharrow Ward and asked for an explanation of this.

In response, Councillor Simon Clement-Jones stated that funding was allocated via Local Government Finance pots or legislation and work was carried out closely with officers to determine allocations.  The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a contribution SCC can charge developers towards essential infrastructure to support new development.  A proportion of CIL receipts collected can be used as a “Neighbourhood Portion – this is the allocation managed through the South LAC.

In terms of the CIL figures in the Community Plan, he said that both areas were allocated similar amounts of money and the Nether Edge/Sharrow Ward had already managed to spend their allocation, whilst Beauchief and Greenhill still had money in their allocation which was due to spent once certain projects were up and running, which was why the figures looked skewed.  Councillor Clement-Jones said that if Mr. Whittam would leave his details, the team would send hima more detailed response in terms of how the budgets are calculated.  Councillor Sophie Thornton stated that Beauchief and Greenhill covered a vast area, which included Batemoor, Lowedges and Jordanthorpe which all had high levels of poverty.  Councillor Paul Turpin added that the Gleadless Valley estate was the eighth most deprived area in the city.

5.3

Question from Caroline Irving

Caroline Irving said that Government funding had been given to support improvements to cycle and travel within the Sharrow area and she firmly supported more cycle paths within the area.  She said that there were plans to close the underpass at the bottom of Cemetery Road and put a crossing over the road.  She said that, at the moment the underpass was badly constructed, with sharp corners and uneven paths but was much used and considered a necessity by local residents.  Ms. Irving asked how much influence the LAC would have in keeping the underpass open and would it be possible to consult with local residents and seek their views on this. She said as the money was coming from central Government so the Council has control over that funding.

In response, Councillor Simon Clement-Jones stated that he would ask the question of the relevant Council Department involved in the project and get back to the residents in due course.  Diane Owens LAC Manager said that there was to be  consultations event held in the Sharrow area on 13^th and 14^th July and residents would have the opportunity to voice their opinions at such event on the scheme. Details of the events would be shared via the South LAC mailing list.

Question from Ione Henry

Ione Henry referred to the Connecting Sheffield Plan and particularly with regard to the proposed closure of Archer Lane.  She said that details of the Plan had not been very well communicated to residents in the area and with regard to the proposed one-way system within Nether Edge she felt would have a negative impact on residents’ safety i.e. fire engine access in the area.

In response, Councillor Simon Clement-Jones acknowledged that the City Council needed to do better in communicating and consulting on this scheme to members of the public.  Part of the LAC Community Plan was to encourage Active Travel. Councillor Nighat Basharat referred to the Active Travel scheme and acknowledged the concerns of residents.  She said that from the early stages of the Plan, involvement of residents could have been better.  Councillor Basharat said that since she had been elected to serve on the City Council in May, she had been involved with local issues and was listening and taking on board the concerns of residents and agreed that it was very important that the voice of the community was heard. She encouraged people to attend the community consultation events to air their views.