Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions

To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public.

Minutes:

8.1

Question 1 – Emma Collins

 

Lound Side school Academy PTA, recently approached the Road Safety team at Sheffield City Council, to ask them if they could put out no waiting cones.

 

This would be at school opening and closing times, in the hope that it would make a safer environment around the school, trying to alleviate antisocial parking at school times.

 

The answer received was negative in that this would not be allowed.

 

1.       Does the officer and department who made this decision have any alternative proposal to make?

 

2.       How many complaints have been made that relate to the placing of cones outside of schools?

 

3.       Which school have these complaints been made against

 

In response, the Chair noted that safer roads were an objective within the Community Plan and was an issue throughout Sheffield. Many parents were still using cars for transporting their children to school, despite activity and education from schools. He advised that Parking Services had limited resources to enforce parking restrictions outside schools and that Councillor Woodcock had met with officers to discuss these concerns.

 

Councillor Woodcock advised that the use of cones would be to emphasise no parking and had no legal standing. The cost of providing these for both the infant and junior buildings would be around £900. Loundside Infant and Junior School informed parents about safe parking. He had met with senior technicians in Highways earlier that day to look at options. A factor to consider when looking at options was maintaining access at all times to a nearby bus stop. Costings had been given to install 14 bollards at approximately £650 per bollard. Other strategies had been tried, including police officer attendance, but there were issues in finding a safe position to park as the site was on the brow of a hill. The possibility of further educating parents on safer parking was mentioned.

 

Councillor Grocutt, as Co-Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Committee, was aware that there were currently vacancies for school crossing wardens that were struggling to be filled.

 

Councillor Gamble Pugh agreed that the provision of bollards was an expensive option and believed that the limited hours on offer to school crossing wardens was a barrier to recruitment, and that ways of attracting interest in these posts should be pursued.

 

The Chair advised that a full answer would be provided to the question raised, and the issue would be escalated to the relevant Policy Committee if necessary.

 

8.2

Question 2 – Adam Hurst

 

The Chair read out a question from Adam Hurst, who was in attendance to participate in the discussion:

 

  1. Could the Committee inform me of when and how the decision for the Staindrop Lodge Hotel to be allocated for use for Asylum Seekers was made
    1. The extent to which the council was informed and whether the change of use was subject to Planning Regulations
    2. Any consultation with local residents
    3. What support is being offered to people currently resident at Staindrop Lodge.

Councillor Levery gave some background and confirmed that Staindrop Lodge was privately owned and at the height of the Covid19 pandemic in 2020 had been put forward to house rough sleepers on a short-term basis. By mid-May the Council was informed by the Home Office that the building was to be used to home asylum seekers. The Council objected on the basis that the needs of the people concerned would be better met in the city centre, but the plans went ahead. The Home Office had responsibility for the site and the Council’s remit was limited to statutory functions only. Mears Group were the housing management service operating the site.

 

It was hoped that further meetings could take place with the Home Office to discuss concerns such as the site location, providing school places for children, conditions within the building and site accessibility for safeguarding purposes.

 

As ward councillor, Councillor Whitaker had been made aware of difficulties at the site. She was concerned about reports that security staff had denied officials access to residents and to the site, and reports of overcrowded rooms.

 

The Chair noted that Sheffield was a City of Sanctuary and advised that Councillor Whitaker would continue to meet with Council officers on a regular basis.

 

8.3

Question 3 – Adam Hurst

 

The Chair read out further questions submitted by Adam Hurst:

 

  1. Following a number of comments made by residents of Mortomley Close Matt Wilson who bought the subject up at Full Council in March the following comment was received from the Council;
  2. While Mortomley Lane is and will remain an unadopted public highway, we do accept that our construction traffic will increase its wear and tear more than usual so we will resurface the carriageway once the construction work is completed.”
    1. At the Corporate Executive meeting on April 20th  the following question was raised; “In the light of this new information, could the council give me an update on how they propose to progress this matter”. Cllr Paul Wood responded by saying that the relevant Paperwork had now been located and a meeting would be arranged with the relevant Officers and “yourselves” in due course. Can anyone inform me of what progress has been made on this issue since April 20th.

Adam Hurst advised that an additional question had been raised by residents who believed that a promise had been made that the road would be surfaced.

 

The Chair noted that there had been some confusion over this issue and confirmed the Mortomley Close was not used by construction traffic. The case was still under investigation and once this was concluded a full response would be provided.

 

8.4

Question 4 – Jim Wynne

 

The Chair read out a question from Jim Wynne, who was not in attendance at the meeting:

 

Last September, I attended a meeting at Stocksbridge, and I pointed out that one of the entrances from Mortomley Park goes straight onto Jeffcock Road.

 

Because there is no footpath people step from the park and straight onto the road. It was agreed that this is a serious safety issue.

 

A safety gate was commissioned but as yet nothing is in place. This seems to be an over long process. Could you look into this please and let me know of any progress.

 

The Chair advised that this land belonged to Sheffield Homes and that he had met with them earlier in the year. This was an ongoing issue, and he would seek a full response and escalate as necessary.

 

8.5

Question 5 – Maureen Barnett

 

The Chair read out a question from Maureen Barnett, who was not in attendance at the meeting:

 

Unfortunately I cannot make the meeting as I do not drive but please could a suggestion be put on my behalf. I live at Grenoside where the bus service is deteriorating at a rapid rate to the point where many older people are not going out and becoming semi-housebound. The 135 is so infrequent and unreliable so people avoid it. The 86 is more reliable and regular but has a long tortuous route and does not connect with the tram or other bus services. The M92 is reliable and goes directly to the interchange, making connections possible. However, there are only 4 a day with timing gaps of 2hrs 10 minutes and only in the middle of the day. Yet in spite of its lack of frequency it is the busiest bus.

 

What is needed is a shuttle service directly to Hillsborough Interchange, possibly hourly. A smaller bus like the M92 would be adequate.

 

I feel very strongly that should be seriously considered. Thank you.

 

In response, the Chair advised that the latest information suggested that the 135 bus service was to be drastically reduced in two weeks’ time, by ceasing early morning and evening buses from Monday to Friday. The 32 bus service was to cease, and further cuts were expected to be announced in October 2022. As a large geographical area, he noted that the north of Sheffield would suffer connectivity issues as a result of the bus service cuts.

 

Councillor Grocutt added that South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority had put together a bid for Government funding for their Bus Service Improvement plan which was turned down. Public transport was a Local Area Committee priority particularly in order to help people attend medical appointments. She confirmed that meetings had taken place with the South Yorkshire Mayor and further funding would be applied for, which although would not help with immediate issues, might assist in the longer term.

 

Councillor Gamble Pugh was welcoming of the potential for improvements to the north of Sheffield via the Stocksbridge Towns Fund process but noted the need for significant and longer-term funding for bus services in the area.

 

Councillor Chinchen felt that the bid put forward by the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority was not as ambitious as some neighbouring authorities who had been successful in their bids and hoped that the new South Yorkshire Mayor would bring forward some positive changes.

 

The Chair advised that the Local Area Committee would seek a full response to the concerns raised.

 

8.6

RESOLVED: that the issue around funding for bus services in the north of Sheffield, as mentioned above, be referred to the South Yorkshire Mayor and the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee.