Agenda item

5.1

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

(a)  Paul May

(1)    Under the Traffic and Parking section of the LAC Delivery Plan, priority 1.3b focuses on inappropriate parking. Has the action plan for this issue taken place and what are the outcomes? ie identifying areas with parking problems and agree a number of patrols that will be needed by Parking Services officers? Specifically, has the number of fixed penalty notices increased and has the evaluation of Operation Park Safe been undertaken? If so, what are the results?

In response, the Chair stated that under the theme of inappropriate parking, the LAC had looked at the issues for the south west area with the Parking Enforcement Team. When the LAC looked at reports in general made in the area, it didn’t identify any particular hot spots that were not in the already scheduled rotation areas for Parking Services.  The LAC has received individual reports/complaints through the LAC in relation to inappropriate parking and, on these occasions have co-ordinated with Parking Services, who have responded.  To tackle the theme of idling engines – particularly around schools, Parking Services has responded to resident and Councillor requests, and have installed an additional six idling signs in the area. 

Councillor Sangar added that Operation Park Safe had been established as a pilot in the north west policing area. Inspector Kevin Smith, South Yorkshire Police, reports that they have had around 600 referrals to date.  He has written an update on the status of the project:

“We take action in about 83% of cases, so around 450 prosecutions in the last nine months.  I have completed on the costs and benefits of the Operation and submitted it to senior leadership for their consideration.  Before it can be rolled out on a wider basis, there needs to be a plan about how the IT infrastructure that would be necessary for wider adoption, would work, and the best method for providing the resources that would be required to process offences.  There would also be a requirement for initial and ongoing training to ensure that the service was consistent and decision making was consistent with legislation, policy and case law.”

Councillor Sangar concluded by stating that some progress had been made to deal with the problems caused by inappropriate parking, and that the issue still remained a priority for the LAC.  The LAC’s concerns had been referred to senior police officers and the LAC would be working closely with Inspector Smith and his colleagues in terms of progressing Operation Park Safe, and would also take forward the wider issue of inappropriate parking in the area.

(2)    The previous LAC meeting highlighted the fact that some residents are struggling financially due to the Cost of living crisis. There are some funds available from a charity called the Ecclesall Bierlow Poors' Land Charity. These were designed for the poor of pensionable age in Ecclesall. At present, any Ecclesall pensioner can receive money. Can the LAC help to promote a system that will ensure these funds get to those who it is aimed at? NB One of our Councillors is a Trustee.

In response, Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed referred to the statement produced by the Solicitors who administer the Charity, and which has been endorsed by the Charity Trustees, as follows:-

It is understood that the South West Local Area Committee has received an enquiry about the Ecclesall Bierlow Poor’s’ Land Charity, and it is hoped that this statement is of assistance as members of the Committee consider matters.

The Charity, sometimes known as the Ecclesall Bierlow Charity, was established in 1747 by bequest in the will of a Mr John Bagshawe. He willed an annual 20 shillings from the rents and profits of some of his land to be distributed annually to the poor of Ecclesall Bierlow (Bierlow is an old name for a township within a church parish), usually in the weeks before Christmas.

Over time, two further will bequests were added to the charity, the Lee and Crawshaw’s Dole and the Unknown Donor (someone who wanted their bequest to remain anonymous). By 1852, the distribution was 60 shillings in total and took the form of loaves for the needy of the area.

Over time, the land has been sold and there is now a fund invested that generates income that enables the Charity to make an annual distribution in the run up to Christmas.

The Charity has four Trustees who are appointed annually by Sheffield City Council.

For decades, the distribution has been made to pensioners living within the Ecclesall Bierlow area (which correlates approximately to the Ecclesall parish) and any person of pensionable age within the area may be a recipient. In recent times, the distribution has varied, with an amount of £15-£25 distributed to roughly 200-350 pensioners each year, with the total sum granted being in the region of £5,000.  In addition, the Charity makes an annual grant to the Vicar of Ecclesall (in recent years £200- £300) to be used to assist any parishioners in need, in keeping with the original intentions of the Charity.

Given the amount distributed, and the number of potential recipients, the Trustees consider that it would place a disproportionate amount of bureaucratic administration (and costs) upon the Charity to require recipients to provide details of their personal finances so that entitlement may be “means tested”. Doing so would require the Charity to develop a criteria for entitlement, a process for receiving and assessing applications (for which staff would need to be employed) and adequate policies and procedures with regard to the handling of personal data.

At present, Sheffield City Council maintains a list of pensioners, where the only requirement is that they live in the area, and show a letter proving their pension entitlement when they collect the annual distribution. Each year the Trustees carefully consider the way in which the Charity operates and continue to believe that the current methodology is correct and appropriate in the circumstances.”

Councillor Mohammed also referred to the amount of £400k, which had been identified by the Council, as part of its annual budget-setting process, and which would be ring-fenced for use to assist people suffering from the cost of living crisis, and allocated based on the Multiple Indices of Deprivation.

(b)  Viv Lockwood

Why is it that with increasing dangers being witnessed daily regarding traffic at Banner Cross, with accidents and near-accidents nowadays common, residents are being ignored when they bring these dangers to the attention of the Highways Department?

Mr Lockwood showed a photograph of the latest collision which had occurred at the junction of Ecclesall Road South and Brincliffe Edge Road just a few days ago, and referenced social media, which was awash with remarks about this particular junction, which was a major hazard, especially since Archer Lane was closed. He also referred to the criteria sent to him by which the Highways Department assessed risk. In short, residents are wholly fed up with being dismissed when we raise concerns.

In response, Councillor Barbara Masters stated that she had been raising this issue with Transport and Highways officers on a regular basis, particularly following the displacement of traffic as a result of the Nether Edge Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).  She had been assured by officers that they now acknowledged that there were issues at a number of junctions on Ecclesall Road South and, as a result, would now monitor displacement of traffic onto Ecclesall Road South and its feeder roads. Councillor Masters strongly urged residents to raise their concerns as part of the feedback on the evaluation of the Nether Edge LTN.

Councillor Masters referred to the response from the Transport and Highways Service, as follows:-

I am sure you will appreciate, the Council receives numerous requests for road safety measures from residents and, ideally, we would like to be able to respond to most of them. However, the limitations on our resources and funding mean that we have to assess and prioritise locations for measures according. The location you have highlighted does not score high enough for us to act. We use a worst-first approach, and unfortunately, there are far higher rates of serious collisions on other roads around Sheffield, and we must treat those as a priority, targeting the limited funding that is available to us. Although we cannot know where the next accident may occur, it is more likely to happen at a location having a history of previous accidents than one with few or none. In this way, we focus our attention effectively on locations where measures are most urgently needed.

The Chair added that there would be more opportunity, as part of their budgets for 2023/24, for LACs to look at the implementation of small-scale traffic and highway schemes in their respective areas.  In addition, there would be closer links between the LACs and Traffic and Highways officers.  Councillor Sangar, as a Member of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee, stated that the Policy Committee had agreed to allocate further funding to the LACs towards the implementation of local traffic and highway schemes.  He also stated that both the Department for Transport and the South Yorkshire Combined Mayoral Authority had identified the A625 (Ecclesall Road) as an area of interest, and consideration had commenced on what steps could be taken in terms of traffic and highway improvements on this Road.  

(c)  Tim Lewis

(i)     When will a public meeting be held to discuss the outcomes of the experimental Crookes Low Traffic Neighbourhood?

(ii)     When, where and how will any data collected by Sheffield City Council in relation to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood be published (so that residents can scrutinise it)?

(iii)    Why has a 'new rat run been created on a road which was previously quiet' (namely Melbourn Road) as predicted by former Councillor Mahroof on 1st May 2022?

(iv)    Why have double yellow lines been painted along virtually the entire length of Crookes, when your own traffic officers claim that these encourage people to drive more rapidly?

In response, Councillor Ruth Milsom stated that she had met with senior Transport and Highways officers to discuss the scheme, and had raised particular concerns regarding the one-way restriction on Springvale Road.  She stated that a request had been made for the removal of this restriction, with the removal having been scheduled.  Councillor Milsom added that, although the formal public consultation had ended, there would be some kind of further public engagement between now and the date the final decision on the scheme was to be undertaken, which would give residents a further opportunity to have their say on the consultation findings.  She stated that she did not know whether this would take the form of a public meeting.  Councillor Milsom also encouraged residents to continue sending in their observations of the scheme in the meantime.

Councillor Milsom referred to the response from Transport and Highways, as follows:-

Following the permanent removal of the diagonal closures on Springvale Road, we have been reviewing the measures which had been implemented to work in conjunction with the diagonal closures. These measures are:

·        A one-way restriction between Mona Road and Melbourn Road;

·        The extension of double yellow lines around side roads at the junctions of Springvale Road/ Western Road and Springvale Road/Cobden View Road.

Traffic monitoring data we have collected so far has shown a large reduction in traffic using Springvale Road as a result of the one-way restriction. However, there are also around 100 vehicles per day which are abusing the one-way restriction which creates a safety risk. In addition, observation and feedback from local residents indicates that there has been a significant increase in traffic on Melbourn Road as a result of the one-way restriction on Springvale Road.

As a result of the review, we have concluded that the extended double yellow lines and one-way restriction should be removed from the scheme.

We will be conducting more traffic monitoring later in March which will allow us to assess the effects of removing the one-way restriction on the road on local traffic flows. This information will allow us to make an informed recommendation on these measures as part of our report to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee to inform the decision-making process. A decision on the Crookes and Walkley Active Neighbourhood is expected to be made in summer 2023 by that Committee.

The extended double yellow lines will be returned to the extents described in the original permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which will return spaces for on-street parking and provide adequate road space for large vehicles navigating around the junctions.

A couple of the double yellow lines were not marked to the correct extent outlined in the permanent TRO before we introduced the scheme, and were a few metres short. The image below shows the extents of the double yellow lines outlined in the permanent TRO. These are the lengths they will be returned to. This should not significantly affect the amount of on-street parking provision.

We have also reviewed the double yellow lines which were implemented around the junction of Sackville Road/Romsdal Road following the removal of the planters on Sackville Road.

Following this review, we have concluded that some of the double yellow lines around this junction should remain during the decision-making process as they aid access and visibility in this area, particularly for larger vehicles like bin lorries. However, the double yellow lines on the eastern side opposite the junction on Romsdal Road/Sackville Road can be removed which will return spaces for on-street parking, but still provide adequate road space for those larger vehicles.  A long-term decision on all of the double yellow lines around this junction will be made by the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Committee, alongside the other measures which form part of the Crookes and Walkley Active Neighbourhood.

We will remove the double yellow lines on Springvale Road/Western Road/Codben View Road, the double yellow lines opposite the junction of Romsdal Road/Sackville Road and the one-way restriction in the coming weeks along with the associated signage. Once we have a removal date confirmed, we will post a further update on this website.

Councillor Minesh Parekh stated that he agreed that there was a need for the data collected by the City Council to be published to enable for it to be scrutinised by Councillors and residents.

Councillor Tim Huggan stated that, in his opinion, the one-way restriction on Springvale Road was always going to result in an increase in traffic on Melbourne Road.  He added that the public engagement needed to be robust.

5.2

The Committee received the following questions from members of the public, who had submitted the questions prior to the meeting, but were not present at the meeting:-

(a)  Amanda Baxter

1.     I would like to raise the issue of inappropriate parking in the Crookes area and ask if more double yellow lines can be used to prevent parking on street corners and narrow roads.  I live on Tasker Rd, off Mulehouse Road, and parking is increasingly difficult around this area, which means that people are now squashing their cars onto the corners of Tasker Road, Salisbury Road, Chichester Road etc. I would suggest that double yellow lines are put on the corners of all of these, both ends, as turning in and out has become very difficult and potentially dangerous. 

The Chair referred to the response provided by the Transport and Highways Service, as follows, and requested that the response be sent to Ms Baxter:-

The City Council has, for many years, suffered major reductions in the funding that it receives from Central Government.  These reductions have, in turn, equated to serious cuts in the Transport Planning budget.  Due to these cuts, it is not possible for us to immediately satisfy all of the requests for schemes that we receive from the city as a whole.  All requests for the introduction of parking restrictions are, therefore, recorded on a city-wide master list of requests where they are assessed and prioritised. Your request, for parking restrictions at this location, has now been placed on this list and will be assessed.

There are over 1700 outstanding requests, for parking restrictions, that Transport Planning currently has on its city-wide list, and our funding is completely unequal to the task that we face.  Due to the large number of competing requests and our very limited budget for carrying out schemes of this type, I regret that it is not possible to say at this time when this request may be approved for implementation as the schemes for 23/24 have already been agreed.

Any parking restriction needs to have a legal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in place to enable the restriction to be enforced by the Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers.  The TRO process is governed by various acts of Parliament that instruct local authorities how to undertake the process, what consultation is required and how the outcome decision is to be made.  Because of the legal processes involved, the cost of making a TRO can vary between £6,000 and £10,000.  The final cost is usually at the upper end of this price range.

In the absence of yellow line parking restrictions, any parking or speeding that is causing a danger or an obstruction can be reported to South Yorkshire Police on their non-emergency 101 number, or online at https://smartcontact.southyorkshire.police.uk/advice/driving-complaint/ . You can also contact your local policing team, who should take some action via https://www.southyorks.police.uk/find-out/your-neighbourhood-policing-team/ .

I am sorry that Transport Planning is unable to offer any immediate help with the parking issue that you have raised, but trust that you will understand the reasons for this.

2.     I would also like to ask if the existing bins at the top of Mulehouse Rd next to the open space, and on the open space by the lower cemetery gates, could be added to or replaced by a double bin, for general waste and also for recyclables (glass, cans and plastics), to allow people who use the space to have more rubbish disposal space and be able to separate their rubbish. The area is very popular and getting more so. I pick up left rubbish like cans and bottles on the field and it would be handy to have somewhere to dispose of it properly without having to carry it home.

The Chair referred to the joint response provided by the Parks Service and Highways Service, and requested that the response be sent to Ms Baxter:-

The bins in this area are a mixture of responsibilities, with the one opposite 18 Mulehouse Road being the responsibility of Highways/Amey, and those within the public open space being under the management of the Council’s Parks team.

Highways do not currently have any budget provision for supply of upgraded litter bins.  Of note is that for both Parks and Highways Litter Bins, irrespective of whether the bin has a designated recycling side or not, the contents deposited within every single bins are still thoroughly checked for recyclables via a series of picking lines prior to disposal with all possible items which can be recycled being extracted and processed accordingly.

(b)  Amanda Davey

Can you tell us what the LAC budget is for next year (23/24). Will LACs be given any additional powers or responsibilities, and will there be additional funding to cover these?

In response, the Chair stated that at the Full Council meeting earlier this month, the decision was made that the Council:

(1)    reaffirmed commitment to further devolving power away from the Town Hall into neighbourhoods;

(2)    believes that rooting service delivery at a local level and giving a greater voice to communities will benefit all of Sheffield and support the workload of the new Committee system;

(3)    resolved that alongside service redesign, additional spending amounting to £25,000 per ward, overseen by ward councillors and delivered through the Local Area Committees process, is provided as an additional spend for 2023/24;

(4)    resolved to put an extra £400k into the LACs, which will be additional ringfenced spending to address the cost of living crisis, and allocated by Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD);

In summary, the LAC has been allocated a further £100k for the year 2023/24. However, this would be split £25k per ward as opposed to LAC wide projects which was the case for 2022/23. There would be a further £400k that was approved at Full Council, which all LACs could utilise to address the cost of living crisis, and this would be based on Indices of Multiple Deprivation. The next steps are for LACs to work closely with key services in operational planning, to ensure on a local level that a greater voice was given to communities in how decision making could be shaped.

5.3

The Committee received the following question from members of the public who were present at the meeting:-

(a)  Russell Johnson

In the context of the excoriating and utterly damning Lowcock Inquiry Report, please would each of the Councillors here, on the record, briefly express confidence or otherwise in the Leader of the Council and the Finance Co-Chair continuing as Councillors or in their current positions of responsibility?

In response, all Members present at the meeting, with the exception of Councillors Ruth Milsom and Minesh Parekh, stated that they agreed that the Leader of the Council and the Finance Co-Chair should no longer continue as Councillors and each stated their reasons why.  Councillor Roger Davison refrained from commenting.

(b)  Mike Hodson

Is there any reason why the minutes of the last meeting and the agenda for this meeting were so late in arriving, and so difficult to find on the Council website?  Why can’t the agenda and the minutes be emailed to attendees of the last meeting or, more broadly, to all those on the LAC email list?

In response, John Turner, Democratic Services, stated that the agenda for the meeting had been published within the required statutory period of five clear working days.  He stated that he accepted the comments about the difficulties faced by some members of the public in terms of finding agendas and minutes on the Council website, indicating that Mr Hodson’s comments would be referred to colleagues responsible for the website.  Mr Turner also stated that he would be happy to send a link to the minutes of the last meeting to the LAC Area Manager, so that she could send it to all people on the LAC email list.

The Chair added that he would also contact officers responsible for the design of the Council website to see if anything could be done to make it easier for the public to find agendas and minutes of meetings.

5.4

The Committee received and noted a report of the South West Local Area Committee Team setting out responses to questions raised at its last meeting, which were not provided at the meeting.