Agenda item

5.1

Streets Ahead – Performance Information

5.2

Mr Nigel Slack commented that, in the recent report on the first few weeks of the Streets Ahead contract, he was disappointed to see little actual performance information, and that, although there was a deal of comment about the teething troubles etc. there was no report on key indicators. He added that a comment at the end of the report directed him to the Council’s website which promised more information

5.3

He stated that, in examining the web pages, he had accessed the “Final Business Case” documents. However, he alleged that despite the Council’s assurances that they operate as transparently as possible he had found that 12 out of 28 of the appendices to the documents had been redacted  which, he contended, was a modern use of the word in order to make the act of sanitisation or censorship more palatable.

5.4

Mr Slack suggested that the use of redaction was almost always overdone and the use of the catch all phrase, ‘content omitted for reasons of potential confidentiality or prejudice’ was anodine and misleading.  In submitting a list of the appendices involved, he understood why, at the time, financial information was censored but struggled with the idea that the Communication Strategy, needed censoring or indeed the Project Risk Register and Risk Management Strategy.

5.5

Mr Slack therefore asked, would the Council undertake to look again at the details of this report and, in light of the signing of the contract, consider whether any real reason now remains for this information to be kept secret and, in addition, if they decided to keep the censorship of some appendices, will they at least undertake to provide a more detailed reason for this secrecy?

5.6

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) responded that he would request officers to re-examine the documents referred to and determine whether some could be released into the public domain. He commented that, whilst he understood that some issues were sensitive and complex and might not be suitable for release into the public domain, he was not sure why the Communications Strategy had been redacted and would clarify why this had occurred.

5.7

Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) added that he would also ensure that officers looked again at whether further appendices could be released into the public domain, but indicated that the reason why the Council sometimes withheld information was due to its sensitive nature. On the broader point, he understood the need for performance information to be publicly available and this would evolve as the contract progressed and would be subject to the Council’s usual monitoring procedures along with other contracts. He stated that, having read the appendices, much of the information they included was not available due to the need for the Council to protect its position and that of its employees as well as the commercial interests of the contractor. He added that he would again ascertain why some information had been prevented from circulation in the public domain. 

5.8

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) confirmed that she was happy that officers would now conduct a review into why the documents referred to had been redacted and took the opportunity to advise Mr Slack that he would shortly receive a response to the questions he had asked her at the Council meeting on 7^th November, 2012.

5.9

Jamia Mosque, Firth Park Road

5.10

Mr Raffiq, on behalf of the Jamia Mosque Committee thanked the Cabinet for the opportunity for addressing the meeting and referred to the previous requests by the Jamia mosque in the early 1980s and late 1990’s for land upon which to build a community facility which the Council had supported. He asked, on behalf of the Mosque Committee, that a plot of land now be made available for expanding the services provided by the Mosque for the Fir Vale/Firth Park area as well as the building of a community centre.

5.11

Mr Raffiq added that the Mosque Committee and the community supported the provision of a new primary school adjacent to Earl Marshal school to meet the expanding demand for primary school places in the area, but also re-iterated the need for a plot of land to be made available for the community. 

5.12

Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) thanked Mr Raffiq for his attendance and questions and acknowledged that she was aware of the longstanding request from the Mosque committee for a plot of land for the community and acknowledged the hard work they do in the area and the esteem they are held in. Councillor Drayton reminded the meeting that the Skinnerthorpe Road site had been part of a HMR area and that previous Government funding provided funding to demolish the existing older houses and prepare the site for future development of new houses, and other community facilities.

Councillor Drayton added that the Council had been fortunate to secure capital spending for a new primary school on the site, which was desperately needed and good news for children and families in the area.  Cllr Drayton stated that Officers were in discussion with representatives of the Jamia Mosque on the potential use of this piece of land and meetings would now take place with them and the local community on how the site might be developed. She also added that the Department for Communities and Local Government had informed the City Council that they supported the proposal for the school and waived any potential right to claw back funding on the site.  

5.13

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) added that there was enormous pressure in the Fir Vale area for a new primary school and new housing but that there was also great pressure on available open space in the area. Following a comprehensive consultation programme, the importance of a new school and new housing had been demonstrated as well as the need to expand the Mosque’s community facilities. However, these were competing needs and required evaluation by the Council. He was, however, aware of the needs of the Mosque as well as the admirable contribution the Mosque had made to what was a diverse community. The Council would listen to the case made by the Jamia Mosque but he re-iterated that the major need was for new schools in the area. 

5.14

Unanswered Questions

5.15

Mr Barrie Bellamy, High Green Community Action, asked why the questions he had asked at the meeting of Cabinet on 12^th September had not been answered. He also stated that he was still waiting for answers to questions he had asked at a meeting with Councillors Leigh Bramall and Jack Scott on 5^th November, 2012.

5.16

Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) responded that he had sent the questions that Mr Bellamy had asked which were outstanding to Amey and within the relevant parts of the Council which would cover the streetscene issues and bin collection and grit bin provision referred to and would follow these up to secure a response for Mr Bellamy. He had also met with Amey’s community officer for the north area in order to stress the importance of the issues raised by Mr Bellamy. Councillor Scott apologised for the unavailable delay and indicated that Mr Bellamy would receive a response in the neext10 days or so.

5.17

Sheffield Bus Partnership Agreement

5.18

Mr Barrie Bellamy commented that the Sheffield Bus Partnership Agreement was supposed to improve bus travel in the City but that, in his opinion, it had made it worse with buses becoming less reliable in terms of punctuality and frequency, due to, amongst other things, the extension of bus routes. He asked, for example, why buses were being diverted away from the Interchange and redirected through the City Centre leading to bus congestion and difficulties in accessing buses for some older people, some of whom had missed buses as a result. Mr. Bellamy asked whether Cabinet had the power to do anything about this situation.  

5.19

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded that Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member with responsibility for transport issues) was unavailable as he was currently meeting with the Transport Minister. She would, though, pass on Mr Bellamy’s questions on the Bus Partnership to Councillor Bramall for a response.  However, she commented that time was needed to allow the new system to bed in but that Councillor Bramall would welcome any feedback on the Bus Partnership in its early stages. On a more general note, Councillor Dore would look at the minutes of the meeting of Cabinet that Mr Bellamy referred to and ensure that he received a response.

5.20

Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) Ban on Bocking Lane

The following questions were asked and comments made by the members of the public referred to below relating to the HGV ban on Bocking Lane to which answers were given as shown:-

5.21

(a) a question from Mr. Colin Foster asking what evidence was there to suggest that it was a good idea to reverse the HGV ban on Bocking Lane, which was a narrow road and plagued by commuter traffic at night and in the morning, when there seems to have been no problems with the current arrangements since they were introduced 17 months ago?

5.22

The Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services responded that the South Community Assembly had decided to close Bocking Lane to HGVs but that the decision had been the subject of a close vote. Since then, the previous and current Administrations had concluded that a strategic review of lorry routes needed to be undertaken. The closure of Bocking Lane to HGVs had caused concerns amongst residents of Abbey Lane, as the increased use of that road by HGVs, they contested compromised the safety of children attending school on Abbey Lane. 

5.23

He stated that the issue of appropriate lorry routes in the City had been the subject of consultations with Community Assemblies, residents, freight trades, South Yorkshire Police and with other local authorities on the most appropriate routes for lorry traffic. He indicated that the whole issue was a strategic matter which needed to identify how to link the different parts of Sheffield in the absence of an outer ring road and, therefore, issues such as traffic flows and the amount of lorry traffic were being examined. Research had identified three types of lorry including those that made local deliveries to residents’ homes, lorries travelling to and from Sheffield from other local authority areas and finally, those lorries which were passing through the City and didn’t stop.  

5.24

The residents of Bocking Lane had been concerned, in particular, with gravel lorries travelling on Bocking Lane during the night and, arising from such concerns the South Community Assembly had asked Council officers to investigate the matter. Officers had now examined a number of routes and, after consulting with the Police and Derbyshire County Council and South Community Assembly members, a report would be submitted to the Cabinet Highways Committee on 13^th December, 2012. The Council’s objective was to get lorries off the roads in Sheffield to Derbyshire by agreement with the Derbyshire County Council, but should such an agreement not be forthcoming then a ban would be introduced. However, this would take time.  

5.25

The Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services stated that officers were now recommending that the HGV ban on Bocking Lane should not be applied in the day-time, but would remain for the evening and during the night.

5.26

(b) a question from Heather Parys concerning the heavy usage of Bocking Lane by lorries from Derbyshire and, in particular, how were the discussions with the Derbyshire County Council and the Freight Association progressing and would the outcome of such discussions be concluded before the meeting of the Cabinet Highways Committee on 13^th December, 2012. 

5.27

The Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services responded that it was hoped to conclude discussions with Derbyshire County Council and the Freight Association prior to 13^th December and that a compromise was being sought. He re-iterated that the HGV ban had been implemented in the best of interests of the community but he understood that that it was to the detriment of some residents.

5.28

(c) Mr Stuart Smith stated that officers had clearly analysed HGV traffic data during specific school periods 8.30 a.m. to 8.50 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. to arrive at their informed position. Therefore, he asked could the Head of Transport, Traffic, and Parking Services provide up-to-date figures on this and if not, how had he arrived at the decision?

5.29

The Head of Transport, Traffic, and Parking Services responded that officers now had the figures and these would be presented within a report to the Cabinet Highways Committee on 13^th December, 2012.

5.30

(d) Ms. Pam Hodgson commented that, in view of the current financial climate, surely the spending of more Council funds reversing the ban in addition to those spent on the original decision to implement the ban in the first place just 17 months ago would be frowned upon by Sheffield Council tax payers. She, therefore asked what had changed to make the Council change its policy and reverse the ban?

5.31

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded that over 18 months ago, Community Assemblies were given the power to decide upon highways issues. However, Bocking Lane, Abbey Lane and Abbeydale Road were situated in different wards namely, Graves Park, Beauchief and Greenhill and Central wards. Residents in these areas had expressed their concerns about the consequences of HGV bans in adjacent areas for their own areas. This had led her to the conclusion that the Council could not please everyone. The Council had been placed in a dilemma and, therefore, it had undertook a review, gathering evidence and holding consultations with residents over a number of months and the Cabinet Highways Committee would consider the outcome of the review and take a decision on 13th December. She believed that the Council was not wasting Council taxpayers money in considering such important issues based upon accurate data and reliable evidence.

5.32

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) indicated that he was a member of the Cabinet Highways Committee and invited the questioners to attend the proposed Committee meeting on 13^th December. He added that the issue of HGV traffic had been problematic in many areas of the City for example, in the Darnall Ward, which he represented and where many of these problems still remained unresolved. The Council needed to find a compromise as regards HGV traffic using the City’s roads and which covered all of the City.

5.33

Councillor Harpham added that there were no easy answers to the problems generated by heavy HGV traffic but the Council would try to help people where it could. It was fair to say though that, as regards transport in particular, you could not please all people all of the time. 

5.34

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) felt that the decision of the South Community Assembly to place a HGV ban on one road was ill-thought out as this would pit one community against another and was a prime example as to why the Council needed to take a decision which took account of all of the City and not just one or two areas.

5.35

Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) indicated that he was also a Member of the Cabinet Highways Committee and referred to the problems caused by traffic to  air quality and that 500 premature deaths in the City had been attributable to poor air quality. The increase in HGV lorries was a big issue for many communities and, therefore, there was a need for a strategic approach to be adopted by the Council taking account of all the City. It had been futile for a Community Assembly to look at the issue in isolation and the different views of the South and Central Community Assemblies had proved to be difficult to resolve. He felt that many of the problems caused by the approach which had been adopted to use Community Assemblies, could have been avoided if there had been a more joined-up strategy.  

5.36

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) in responding to a question from Mr Stuart Smith asking what had changed from 17 months ago when Abbey Lane had been identified as the most suitable road to take HGV traffic, stated that the increase in HGV lorries on Abbey Lane had provided evidence of the need to carry out a strategic review. She added that as far as HGV lorry traffic was concerned across the City, the Council and its communities had to recognise that there was a need to encourage economic growth and businesses to come to the City and, therefore, a delicate balance needed to be struck between economic, environmental and social policy in order for the City to secure economic growth whilst protecting the interests of the City’s communities. 

5.37

Councillor Dore indicated that all the questions asked concerning HGV lorries would be passéd to Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) and that an e-mail received by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones enclosing a question from one of his constituents who was unable to attend the meeting would also be responded to.