Agenda item

6.1

The Policy Committee received a petition “Alteration to the junction of Rivelin Valley Road and Rivelin Road”.  There was no speaker to this petition. The petition was noted, and the petitioner be provided with a written response in respect of the issue. 

6.2

The Policy Committee received an electronic petition “Request for a pedestrian crossing on Cross Hill Street”.  There was no speaker to this petition. The petition was noted, and the petitioner be provided with a written response in respect of the issue. 

6.3

Question from Lindy Stone:

The following question is asked on behalf of the South Yorkshire Climate Alliance:

Addressing the urgent demands of the current energy crisis must not drain attention away from the critical need to improve our renewable energy generation.

We know that solar and onshore wind generation is the cheapest, most secure and most swiftly developed electric energy we can have, a fact noted and acted on by many of our European neighbours in their response to the current crisis. Many Local Authorities in the UK have already taken steps to boost renewable energy generation such as Cambridgeshire, who are developing solar farms, Stroud which isusing the vehicle of its local plan to identify appropriate sites for renewable generation and Warrington Council which is investing in renewable energy through the use of Community Municipal Bonds. All these examples and more can be found here https://takeclimateaction.uk/resources/councils-tackling-climate-chaos

In the light of the above, what steps are Sheffield City Council taking to secure future renewable energy generation for the needs of residents and to play our part in reducing carbon emissions?

The Chair stated the forthcoming Draft Sheffield Plan will include policies relating to renewable energy generation, carbon reduction and other requirements relating to sustainable design.  The Draft Plan is due to be considered by the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee on 3^rd November.

It is also worthy of note that the Sheffield Labour councillor budget amendment last year provided an extra £3.5m for local renewable energy and as part of our review of ethical procurement we are also looking at how we can make it much easier for renewable firms to be part of our procurement.

6.4

Question from Michael Helliwell:

I wish to ask the committee a question on behalf of Sheffield residents that do not have off street parking and own an electric vehicle.  What are the councils plans for them to have the ability to charge their vehicles at home?  This being the easiest and most cost-effective way to charge.  Have any types of charging solutions been approved or near approval?  Trojan energy have had trials with others city’s in the uk as I’m assured you are already aware.  Barnet Council have recently signed a contract with Trojan to install their chargers as their preferred solution.  This solution seems to be the best in my view as when not charging there’s no equipment left in the street or pavement leaving no trip hazard and no obstruction on the pavement which have been the councils main concerns throughout my own enquiries into installing a charging facility. As the council want to be net zero by 2030 I see this problem as one that needs addressing as a matter of urgency.  I am more than willing to be trial participant in our own city and looking forward to seeing your solutions to this problem.

The Chair stated that Charging electric vehicles at home is convenient and offers potential benefits around the cost of electricity and impact on the grid. However on street solutions for residents without off street parking have a number of issues which must be considered, including for example the potential to limit future uses of the public highway and more challenging business cases. They may also not be available to all residents who for example may not be able to park outside their house or are limited by other infrastructure above or under the ground.

Within the report it is proposed that the roll out of residential charging infrastructure will be based around a local charging hub model (public EV charging units located to serve nearby residents, on highway, in a local car park or other local site). Whilst Sheffield's lamp columns are mainly at the rear of the footway and we understand that there may be technical issues we are looking at a trial to understand the potential for street lamp column charging to be included within this model. Priority however must be given to ensuring that access to, and use of, pavements is not impeded and safety of pedestrians is not jeopardised.

Innovative on street home charging solutions will continue to be investigated and may be used in addition to the local hub model once further developed. Cable channels / gulley’s / lance type solutions such as that referred to will be kept under review as the outcomes of those trials are further understood, technology developed and practical issues explored. For example issues around ownership, maintenance, licensing and planning need to be resolved before any of these solutions could be approved.

6.5

Questions from John Wright:

1)    I live next to Westways School, on a road that doesn’t have parking restrictions, unlike Spring Hill, School Road and others, and hasn’t been included in the school streets scheme. With the Active Neighbourhood this has exacerbated the parking problems on my road particularly during school drop-off times. I support the aims of the active neighbourhood but I worry that this scheme didn’t have enough community engagement in its design phase. If there had been more I would have asked for my road and others like it, that have been missed out by both sets of restrictions, to have been included in the school streets scheme. I’m disappointed that I didn’t get the chance to share my views when the scheme was being planned. Would the Chair give a view on the need for more community engagement and co-design with active neighbourhood schemes to increase the chances of them being successful?

The Chair stated that the streets included in the school streets as part of the Crookes and Walkley Active Neighbourhood were selected following consideration with our school street officers and Westways school. These were deemed to be the most appropriate to restrict vehicle movement and have a positive effect to aid children heading to and from school without restricting vehicle movement in the larger area. This was likely to see some changes in driving and parking behaviour associated with dropping off and picking up children by those not able to walk/ cycle to school. These changes would then, unfortunately, also have negative impacts on some areas where these vehicles would now be parked. We will be monitoring the impact of this as part of the trial.

The Crookes and Walkley Active Neighbourhood is a trial scheme, which means the consultation is ongoing for around six months, during this time anyone can let us know what they think, and alert us to any concerns they may have. This means that the measures in place are subject to ongoing review. We have been actively making changes based on feedback through this consultation to improve the changes and make sure the scheme is effective. As part of the trial the public is also invited to contribute comments regarding to the scheme and its effects in order for us to assess the impact it has on people’s day to day lives, alongside what the traffic data tells us. This will influence the recommendations that will be put to the committee at the end of the trial period to decide whether some, all, or none of the measures in are made permanent.

The community were involved in the Summer of 2021 where we discussed and consulted on the types of measures we could use. As the scheme has been implemented on a trial basis through an Experimental traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) the community engagement happens alongside the measures being in place. Having more time to engage the public with the design ideas and consultation would certainly add some benefits but also significant time to the scheme delivery. In the case of this scheme, the trial option through the use of ETRO was the only option given the criteria for using the government funding available.   

We welcome your feedback and would be happy to discuss this further, this would then be included in the consultation and monitoring of the scheme.

2)     Some parts of the Crookes and Walkley scheme haven't yet been implemented and we are nearly 3 months on from when the revised ETRO went live on June 23rd. What is happening with the outstanding implementation work, and are there any plans to extend the ETRO or the 6-month consultation?

The Chair advised that the difficulty has been painting the double yellow lines at the locations where we need to install the some the road changes.  The double yellow lines are needed to allow larger vehicles to turn when the road changes are in place. Amey have tried on a number of occasions to paint the double yellow lines but there are always parked cars blocking the area where the lines need to be painted. They have tried leaving notes and door knocking with limited success. We are now taking steps to be in a position to enforce on parking in these locations,  this should free up the space to paint the lines and then install the interventions. The delay has also provided time to review and consider the feedback received on the scheme to date and talk through with local Councillors options for the next steps.  It is currently anticipated that the remainder of the scheme will be implemented towards the end of October.

6.6

The committee discussed at length the Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETRO) and interventions that had not yet been implemented in the current schemes.  Members supported the questioner’s comments around a pause on any new ETRO’s proposed to ensure the appropriate engagement had been sought.

6.7

Members also discussed officer delegations and wished for this to be considered with the six-month review of the Committee System.  The Chair advised that she would raise this as part of the six month review with the Governance Committee.

6.8

Members of the Committee requested that officers consider a pause on any new proposed ETRO’s coming forward.

7 members voted in favour, 1 member voted against and 1 member abstained.