Agenda item

6.1

The Policy Committee received two petitions from members of the public.

The Policy Committee received a petition ‘Tesco Extra – Re-open main entrance’.  Mousa attended the meeting and presented the petition to the committee.

The petitioner explained that the closure of the store entrance was causing inconvenience to disabled shoppers and the elderly and that the justification was anti-social behaviour outside the entrance.

The Chair thanked the petitioner for bringing the petition and advised that he was aware of the various issues being created by the closure of the Carlisle Street pedestrian access to the Tesco Store at Saville Street. The closure had created unacceptable impacts on local communities with respect to access and health and safety. It also created concerns with respect to equalities and fairness.

Councillors Hussain, Jones and Saeed, had been working to find a solution for the residents that they represented.

This Committee had already asked the relevant regulatory services in the Council to ensure the closure of this entrance was not in breach of any existing consents. If this did not resolve the situation, the Chair proposed to seek a meeting with Tesco’s directly alongside local ward councillors and feedback the outcome of this to the lead petitioner and the committee.

6.2

The Policy Committee received a petition ‘A One-way Idsworth Road’.  The petitioner was not able to attend the meeting and a written response would be provided.

6.3

The Policy Committee received seven questions from members of the public. One member of the public did not attend to ask their question, a written response would be provided.

The Chair proposed to respond to all the questions relating to the Park Hill Parking Scheme as one.

Question from: Dorothy Dimberline

I'd like to start by saying that up to now I have been in favour of a parking scheme because of the problems of commuter and college parking in our area, and the increasing traffic and resulting air pollution. I could see that the original scheme area was perhaps too big and very unpopular with areas further out who don't have problems with commuter parking, but I think that the new area is now too small.

This amended scheme massively fails the areas that needed help in the first place, as it will move college and commuter parking to the smaller terraced streets nearby where the residents don't have off street parking. If you look at the scheme map you will see that the vast majority of the properties within it have their own drives - for example: Norfolk Road is included and, although it has a lot of commuter parking, all of the houses have drives so residents are still able to park at their house.

If the smaller scheme area is implemented then it’s pretty obvious that the cars from Norfolk Road will just drive round the corner to the terraced streets without drives such as Fitzwalter, Stafford, Glencoe and Talbot, which are the very areas the scheme was meant to benefit. I just don’t understand why the scheme covers an area where households don’t need it but excludes the area that does - surely anyone can see how unfair that is!

 I thought that parking schemes were meant to reduce congestion and enable residents to park near their homes but, as it stands, this scheme will do the opposite for those households that needed it most.

I believe that the council is committed to improving air quality in deprived areas in particular and that S2 has been identified as such an area. It would seem however that this does not apply to our terraced streets. If you approve the scheme as it stands you are in effect agreeing to increasing traffic and pollution and reducing air quality in the terraced streets.

We are also just outside the Clean Air Zone boundary so it’s also likely that non-compliant vehicles will cut through our area in order to avoid the charges, by turning off Parkway before town and cutting through our streets, then down Granville Road.

I appreciate that parking charges will bring welcome revenue to the council, particularly from the large number of vehicles on Norfolk Road, but I don’t think this should be the driving force behind a scheme. If this scheme isn't going to benefit the areas with the biggest problems, I think it should be amended or abandoned as this proposal is only going to make matters much worse for many residents.

If the scheme isn't abandoned then consideration should be given to extending the scheme area to include the terraced streets mentioned, to prevent the inevitable displacement and to improve rather than reduce air quality in those areas.

I appreciate that schemes are reviewed but I think we all know how long the process of review and any resulting action would take and I think it's pretty obvious that the detrimental effect I have talked about will be immediate, so residents will be left with long term problems.

Would the committee please amend or abandon the proposed scheme in line with my suggestion, to prevent even more problems than we have already.

Thanks for your consideration,

Dorothy Dimberline

I have marked out on a map of the scheme the properties with and without off street parking which I think highlights how unfair this scheme implementation would be.

Questions from: Graham Wroe

1. Why there has been no consultation on the revised parking scheme for Park Hill/Norfolk Park?

2. If they will please delay making a decision on this until a proper consultation has been undertaken.

3. If they realise that the revised scheme will undoubtedly cause severe problems to the streets just outside the scheme such as Stafford Street, Glencoe Road and Stafford Road due to displaced parking. These streets do not have facilities for off-street parking and it is already often difficult for residents to park near their homes. With the new scheme, it may become impossible to park anywhere near our homes. As my wife is disabled this will have a significant negative impact on us. To be equitable the scheme should cover the whole area, or not go ahead at all.

Questions from: Steve Burgin

I would also like the following question to be lodged in respect of the Park Hill Parking Zone

1)       Based on the data provided in the report, 88% of respondents to the consultation were against the scheme in any form. If this committee approves the revised scheme today, ignoring the initial consultation and without further consulting the affected residents, is this the point where democracy in Sheffield died?

Questions from: Sandra France

Park Hill Parking Scheme

I am part of the Protect our Parking Group and these are some of the concerns they have asked me to submit and my own

1. Why does the report give the impression that there has been a consultation on this scheme when there hasn't ?

There was a consultation on the original scheme with over 1100 responses and nearly 90% were against it Apparently, they have just filtered the original consultation data to only show the comments from residents in the new scheme separate to the data for the original larger scheme. This is flawed as some of the comments just say Norfolk Park and no Road and some say yes but only if permits are free, so really a no. Officers state this Committee can decide to implement a smaller scheme without reconsulting should they choose to do so. How can this be right ?

2. This smaller scheme is only a third smaller and affects 17 Roads. We had a meeting in the Town Hall last summer where it was stated that it was the council’s intention to reduce the parking scheme to a few roads only. Specifically, Castle Croft Drive opposite the school/college, Park Grange Croft and maybe one other. The councillors and council staff were very clear on this. Our Councillors have all said if residents don't want the scheme it won't be implemented. What has changed?

3. This Proposal has been going on since February 22. We have asked many times for a public meeting, workshops, meetings with councillors and this has never happened. The former chair suggested a session with a small group of us on the 7th February and this actually only took place on the 7th June, a week before this meeting. Looking at the Crookes and Walkley scheme, residents have had 4 drop in sessions and online and face to face surveys. Why have we not been allowed this ?

4. This scheme encourages people to park on these roads by charging or they would be just permits only. The scheme will cost over £600000 and a significant amount will need to be borrowed at a time of cut backs. The expectations are revenue of £15000 a month, most of it parking charges so how does this equate to stopping non-residents to park ?

5. Granville Road, a main road in to the city where most residents do not have a drive, and Norfolk Road are included. This will displace a lot of traffic on to adjoining Roads who do not have any problems. Where will it all end? Also Norfolk Road is in a Conservation area, how will this look with signs and parking bays etc

6. This council keeps saying you want to listen and collaborate more with local people and learn lessons from the Lowcock report. The LAC's have been created to 'empower Sheffield communities and give local people a real say over decisions that affect them' We have attended these with our concerns and weren't listened to.???

Lastly one of the points in the report is :

'The introduction of the Controlled Parking Zone goes against the consultation outcome and there is potential for public opposition to the Scheme'

So why bother consulting?

We ask this Committee to vote against this proposed scheme and abandon it. It is not what residents have asked for.

Questions from: Allison Rossiter

The committee have said that their 2 main reasons for implementing this parking scheme are:

(1) to deter commuters from using our area as a free parking lot, &

(2) to thereby ensure there is parking for local residents.

One of the main objections to - not to mention biggest expenses of - this scheme is the pay-and-display meters. If the goals are as above, why not instead make the area a "permit only" zone as they've done successfully in other Sheffield areas?

This would have the following advantages:

(1) significantly reducing costs of installation & maintenance, which would mean permit costs could be lower;

(2) a clear "park-elsewhere" message to commuters instead of an implied invitation with city-centre meters (which are still less costly than city-centre-parking); &

(3) preserving the residential nature of our Heritage streets.

Follow-up question:

If the only answer to this is "to offer a way for visitors, tradespeople, etc. to park here," don't the visitors' permits given to residents already provide this and if not, why can't the procedure for these visitors' permits be adjusted so it could adequately provide this?

The Chair thanked all the questioners for their questions and the officers for their work on this project. It was explained that the committee was a cross party committee, and that the views of all members on this committee would be heard before a collective decision was reached.

The Chair invited everyone to stay for the discussion and vote to be taken by councillors and gave assurance that a written outcome of the meeting would be sent to anyone who had contacted him on this issue.

Questions from: Nigel Slack

On the 24th May 2023, Sheffield Star published an 'article' / advertisement for Robert Hill, the owner of the Salvation Army Citadel on Cross Burgess Street, a few metres from this Town Hall.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/exciting-new-spa-cafe-bar-and-restaurant-plans-unveiled-for-old-salvation-army-citadel-in-sheffield-4154234

After purposefully neglecting the building since 2007, possibly in the hope that it would fall down of it's own accord, Mr Hill is now lobbying this committee and public opinion in the hopes of undertaking a radical demolition of significant sections, causing damage to the heart of this grade 2 listed building. The building is only standing today due to the efforts of squatters in 2011 who discovered a water leak in the cellar, damaging the fabric, and holes in the roof, allowing pigeons to foul the auditorium space extensively. The squatters repaired both problems and removed sacks and sacks of guano from the very auditorium in which Mr Hill has the cheek to be photographed.

The fact that Mr Hill has engaged architects suggests he is in pre-application discussions with SCC Planning but feels entitled to breach the confidentiality expectations of these discussions. Mr Hill's historic stewardship of this heritage asset is doubtful and he is playing fast and loose with the planning process, something members of the public and heritage organisations are regularly reminded is not allowed due to the quasi-legal nature of the process.

This council has only recently agreed the importance of heritage to the economic and public health & wellbeing of the city and it's citizens, with the adoption of a Heritage Strategy. Mr Hill seems to think he is able to ride roughshod over that strategy by lobbying this committee directly (“The proposal has been sent to the head of regeneration and development at Sheffield City Council ...” Sheffield Star 24/03/2023)

Can SCC confirm whether Mr Hill or his agents are in pre-application discussions with Planning and if so, what sanctions can be applied for his breach of the confidentiality expectations?

Will this committee reiterate a commitment to the Heritage Strategy and to ensuring the principle of 'demolition only as a last resort' is rigorously applied?

Finally, any planning application for this listed heritage building must be referred to National Amenity Society's, for their comments prior to decisions being taken, so will this council encourage Mr Hill to engage early with heritage organisations in the city in order to prevent this turning into a confrontation that would be potentially damaging to the city's heritage reputation and to his own?

The Chair thanked the questioner and confirmed that there was no live pre-application submission being considered by the Local Planning Authority at that time with respect to this building. It was explained that, whilst each planning submission must be considered on its merits, the committee would agree with the sentiment that it would not want to see the demolition – partial or otherwise – of Sheffield’s listed buildings, and this should be an option of last resort. That Chair also sought to reassure the questioner of his commitment, and the commitment of the council, to preserving Heritage and the development of a robust Heritage strategy to help safeguard the city’s assets, of which the Salvation Army Citadel building was a part. The Chair would continue to work with Cllr Janet Ridler, Heritage Champion, to ensure that all Sheffield buildings and heritage assets were given the protection that they needed.

Questions from: Holly Cutts

I am the owner of an independent business that is located within the ETRO / pedestrian and cycle area. I wish for the ETRO to be removed for the following reasons:

1.The signage at the entrance to the pedestrian and cycle area and also the ETRO states that-

“Permit Holder” means a vehicle with a permit provided for accessing the private parking facility off Canning Street for Division House, 87 Division Street, or which is permitted to access the service areas at Aberdeen Court, 95 - 97 Division Street or at Division House, 87

Division Street Save as provided in Article 5, no person shall cause or permit any Motor Vehicle to proceed in those parts of roads specified in Column 1 of Schedule 1 within the length of road described in Column 2 of Schedule 1 to this Order.

Save as provided in Articles 5 and 6, no person shall cause or permit any Motor Vehicle to proceed in those parts of roads specified in Column 1 of Schedule 2 within the length of road described in Column 2 of Schedule 2 to this Order.

We have had confirmation from SCC and the police that there is no or ever has been any permit scheme for this area. Hundreds of vehicles have been using this area weekly over the last 3+ years, how can they have done this legally when there is no permit scheme in place? I question the legality of the ETRO.

2. parking services have stated via email that "officers have to give a 10 minute observation period for vehicles that are collecting food orders and display a sign, this is a local agreement with management "

If no vehicles are allowed in this area between 10am and midnight , how can this arrangement with management be lawful?

My delivery drivers have to park legally and walk in which is very annoying as most if my deliveries are very heavy.

3. Even first thing in the morning when I arrive at work and the road is empty and there is no traffic, cyclists insist on using the pavements unlawfully, this gets more persistent as the day goes on. This has been witnessed first hand by at least 3 of SCC members whilst attending meetings with us. These actions have caused injury to myself and a number of my clients on various occasions over the last 3 years. The incidents that I have been involved in have been reported to the police.

What is the point in having the ETRO if cyclists insist on riding unlawfully on pavements when areas have been created for them?

Also how do cyclists safely exit the ETRO at the Rockingham St end when they head out onto oncoming traffic?

3. Over the last 3+ years the pedestrian and cycle area has been in place I have lost a number of clients that are disabled or elderly because the vehicular access to my business has been removed. These clients have apologised for no longer using my services but feel discriminated against as they have had their access taken away. This has had a negative affect on my business as I've lost custom and earnings.

4. Also the ETRO is not a safe area for genuine cyclists or pedestrians as the police have pointed out to us a large number of cyclists are using adapted electric bikes needing a licence and insurance. These unlawful cyclists are riding through the ETRO at very high speeds on the road and pavements, the majority of which are take away delivery cyclists. That also congregate in the ETRO blocking the pavements and access to businesses.

For the reasons mentioned above I question the legality of the ETRO and enforcement of the area. The whole area seems to have been ignored by police and parking enforcement and have both been witnessed of turning a blind eye to unlawful vehicles using this area. My husband on a number of occasions has questioned both parties, the response from parking services was " we can't enforce against moving vehicles"

The response from the police was " not our job and not what we're here for "

This is totally unacceptable.

Over the last 3 + years there have been quite a lot of dangerous incidents 3 of which spring to mind. -- In the early stages of the ETRO we had a white van mount and drive along the pavement smashing the roller shutter door off my business, everyone's first thoughts were that it was a terrorist attack, which as there are no barriers could have been quite possible. My landlord had to pay for the damage.

- A Moped came down Westfield terrace in the wrong direction came head on with a vehicle travelling in the correct direction swerved to miss the oncoming vehicle mounting the pavement forcing myself and my husband who had come to help me with the laundry had to jump out of the way to avoid getting hit. They then continued to ride on the pavement entered and rode through the ETRO exiting at the far end. Breaking at least 3 laws.

-and then more recently on the 24th May at 6.11pm a black car came along Division Street did a U turn outside the pedestrian area mounting 2 pavements forcing me once again out of the way with the laundry who had a police car directly behind him who witnessed the incident turned up Westfield Terrace look straight at my husband who waved trying to stop him turned a blind eye and drove off at speed luckily as he always does my husband had his phone in hand and we have a photo of the policeman's face and registration plate.

All these incidents and more have been reported to the police.

My business has been around for approximately 25 years of which I've worked there for 21 years and owned it for the last 4 years. In this time we have never experienced the amount of problems that have arisen since the pedestrian and cycle area was originally put in place for social distancing during the pandemic to the present day.

Because of the ETRO we have lost all the parking on Division Street and Devonshire Street and has now been replaced with double yellow lines where every evening when I'm picked up from work there are vehicles parked end to end on the double yellows facing oncoming traffic, making the road a single lane creating chaos. We are constantly reporting the unlawfully parked vehicles to parking services and are told " they don't have the resources " when we do actually see enforcement officers they just tell people to move on, no Fixed penalties are given so they just drive around the block until parking services have moved on and park back in the same place. So to resolve this problem the parking spaces need to be reinstated. Also because of the ETRO the direction of Westfield Terrace was altered but not correctly, the one way arrows have been turned around and the no entry signs have been moved from one end to the other. So now you have to exit Westfield Terrace onto a tram stop. There is also a major problem with vehicles and cyclists using Westfield Terrace in the wrong direction. Which has also been witnessed by SCC members. As large vehicles e.g. Lorries can no longer exit Division Street onto Rockingham Street which is a wide road ,they now have to go up Westfield Terrace which Is not so wide therefore the cab wheels end up driving across the pavement outside the Frog & Parrot the trailer wheels end up going across the opposite pavement, which if vehicles are parked unlawfully makes it even harder if not impossible for large vehicles to get around the corner. Only the other day 8th June there was a collision with an articulated lorry and a black van on this very junction.

As I've said previously for the last 21 years I haven't witnessed as many problems as what I have since the Etro was put in place.

Now I have no vehicular access to my business I have to drag bags of laundry across the pavements avoiding cyclists, then across the so called pedestrian and cycle area avoiding the vehicles illegally using it up Westfield Terrace to the nearest place my husband can legally park to pick me up. This is absolutely ridiculous after doing a 9 hour shift. We have had to do this and put up with it for the last 3 + years so that we are not breaking any laws unlike the vehicles already mentioned. This is a huge inconvenience to us and clients.

As the ETRO was put in place for the prohibition of driving, this obviously hasn't worked as can be proven with the many thousand of photos that we have and has been witnessed by police and SCC members and also most of my clients , many of which have recently signed the attached petition which I have only had time to do over 13 days, which is when we had a meeting with a SCC representative who informed us of the date of the committee meeting and suggested we do so. The 13 days I have been in work I have already got 66 signatures opposing of the ETRO, if I continued with this petition I have over 1200 clients on my books of which the majority would sign as this has been the topic of conversation over the last 3 years.

For my business to hopefully survive another 20+ years and hopefully get back my elderly and disabled clients and once again have vehicular access to my business morning and evening for loading and uploading and again make the area safe and flowing the ETRO needs to be removed , the parking spaces reinstated and Westfield Terrace put back to the direction it was before so that all the original infrastructure can work and be used how it was originally designed for.

I do apologise for the length of this email but I'm a normal everyday person trying to run and continue to make a success of an independent business with no chain or backing from anyone but myself and my clients. My business was the last business to open after the pandemic which I fought to keep open and I will continue to fight for independent businesses.

The questioner was not able to attend the meeting and a written response would be provided.