Agenda item

5.1

The Policy Committee received three petitions from members of the public. Two members of the public did not attend to present their petitions, a written response would be provided.

The Policy Committee received a petition ‘Fulwood 20mph area.  Lyndsey McLellan attended the meeting and presented the petition to the committee.

The petitioner explained that the people that had signed the petition were in support of the 20mph zone but could not understand why Fulwood Road and Crimicar Lane were not included in that scheme. Parents at two local schools felt that these roads should be included and the headteachers were both in support. Serious collisions had occurred on Fulwood Road and as well as the two schools there were nurseries and other community venues in the vicinity. Traffic mixed with vulnerable road users and there were parked cars along the road as well as bus stops.

It was felt that SCC’s 20mph policy was based on outdated Department for Transport policy. The petitioner gave examples of UK cities where 20mph speed limits were implemented just using signs with a proven reduction in injuries as a result. It was asked that Sheffield City Council update its policy of best practice and urgently called for a signed default 20mph speed limit on roads where traffic mixes with other road users.

The Chair thanked the petitioner for bringing the petition and highlighted that a national change in approach to 20mph speed limits was required. It was explained that the Fulwood Scheme was in its consultation stage and Crimicar Lane was being considered for inclusion. The current policy was outlined and it was noted that South Yorkshire Police would object to any sign only scheme on roads that don’t meet the criteria set out in the policy as well average speed criteria.

The Chair advised that the Senior Transport Planner had been investigating whether anything could be taken forward in relation to Fulwood Road and this, together with all the feedback that had been received would be included when the committee considered the scope of the final scheme.

5.2

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

Questions from Roy Morris

"How can we ensure that Connect Sheffield fulfils its purpose and fully serves the people of Sheffield?"

I have noticed significant improvements.

- What final route is planned?

- Do the stops on the route genuinely serve the needs of the public?

- What can be done to increase awareness of the service?

- Would the service benefit from a name change? Freebee?!!

- Long term, would there be any point in planning a route in the opposite direction?

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending to ask their question and welcomed their support of the Connect Sheffield City Centre bus. It was confirmed that the service would be relaunched in the new year with new zero emission e-buses. The details of the routes and frequencies were dependent on tender costs so were not confirmed at this time. More information would become available in the new year via a refreshed communication strategy.

Questions from Patricia Stubbs on behalf of Friends of the Peak District, the Peak District Green Lanes Alliance and the Peak Horsepower Bridleway Group

1 The Peak District National Park Authority has made seven Traffic Regulation Orders excluding all types of motor vehicles from byways open to all traffic and other unsealed routes in the national park. To keep prohibited vehicles out, it uses only signage. It does not use barriers. Its monitoring data shows 90 per cent plus compliance with its TROs. Why does Sheffield need barriers to make a TRO on Moscar Cross road effective when the NPA has demonstrated that barriers are not necessary?

2 The committee paper says that one of the reasons that the proposed TRO does not cover motorbikes is because ‘there are no physical restraint measures that restrict solo motorcyclists but allow other users through’. Why does the committee paper not mention or show the barriers installed at Wyming Brook - a combination of lockable gate, bridle gate and horse hop that excludes motorcycles as well as 4x4s but ensures access for all legal users?

3 The Moscar route is all grass with no underlying stone or rock and it is on a hill. This makes it peculiarly vulnerable to damage by powerful modern motor vehicles in wet weather, including the traction, gouging and wheel spin of motorbikes revving to get uphill on soft ground. Peak Park monitoring data for the route shows that two thirds of motor vehicles using the route are motorbikes. The committee paper says that motor bikes are damaging the route. This being the case, why is Sheffield willing to tolerate continuing use and damage by motorbikes during the wettest periods of the year?

4 In order to respond to surface conditions deteriorating quickly in unusually wet summers, some highway authorities that have made Orders for seasonal TROs have made the effective start date for the restriction variable. We understand that the Peak District Vehicle Users Group is in favour of this approach. Has Sheffield considered it? Will it consider it?

5 Are members of the committee aware that at the February 22 on-site meeting convened by Sheffield, all the user groups attending agreed to a seasonal TRO covering motor vehicles of all types, and that the organisations agreeing this included those representing motorcycle users?

6 The Peak Park Local Access Forum withdrew its original objection to motorbikes not being included in the seasonal TRO, but only on the condition that Sheffield re-consider the matter if there is damage from continuing motorcycle use. Is making a decision today that will almost certainly mean having to do a second or revised TRO next year a cost-effective use of funds and staff time?

7 In making its decision about the proposed TRO on Moscar Cross Road, Sheffield has a legal duty under S62 (2) of the Environment Act 1995 to have regard to the statutory purposes of the Peak District National Park, which are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public). Furthermore, if it appears that there is a conflict between the two duties, under the Act Sheffield must attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. How and where has Sheffield demonstrated that it has had regard to this statutory duty? 

8 On 29th Dec 2023 the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) will change the current duty on the Authority to ‘have regard’ to the purposes of the Peak District National Park into a duty to ‘further’ the purposes of the National Park. Is Sheffield willing to adopt the spirit of the enhanced duty and show in relation to Moscar Cross how its proposal furthers both National Park purposes?

9 At present only one of the eight available legal grounds available for making TROs under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act is being proposed (‘to prevent damage to the road’). Has the applicability of the following grounds been considered and evaluated:

·       ‘For preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the character of the road

·       For preserving the character of the road where it is specially suitable for the use of persons on horseback or on foot

·       For preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs

·       For the purposes of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the area …… This includes conserving its flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features’.

10 Moscar Cross Road is an ancient packhorse route. What assessment has been made of the value and importance of the route as part of cultural heritage? 

11 Have members of the committee made a site visit to see Moscar Cross Road for themselves? How many have done so?

12 Why are there no photographs in the committee paper showing the condition of Moscar cross Road?

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending and for providing statements in advance to the members. Diana Mallinson was invited to read her questions also to allow the Chair to respond to both sets of questions at the same time.

Questions from Diana Mallinson

In paragraph 4.3 SCC have added 3 more of the purposes for a permanent traffic regulation order (TRO) to the prevention of damage purpose given in the proposal, i.e. for the avoidance of danger, facilitating passage of any class of traffic (including pedestrians) and preventing use by vehicular traffic which is unsuitable.  And in paragraph 4.4 SCC say that the TRO will preserve the character of the byway and the area’s natural beauty, and make the route more attractive to users i.e. improve the amenity of the area – again these are three more of the purposes available for a permanent TRO.  Recent guidance from the British Parking Association, endorsed by the Minister of State for Transport, says that the statement of reasons should ideally refer to these legal purposes, because the statement of reasons is what consultees/stakeholders use to work out what the authority is trying to accomplish. 

We think that the seasonal nature of the TRO as proposed and the non-prohibition of motorcycles, especially the latter, mean that it will not achieve these additional purposes, especially preventing use which is unsuitable, preserving the character of the byway and the natural beauty of the area, and improving the amenities of the area.  Motorcyclists cause some of the ruts on the byway and they also drive off the route onto the adjacent pasture.  Wet weather in the summer months, coupled with continued recreational motor vehicle use, will also affect the character of the route and the natural beauty and amenity of the area, as demonstrated by the failure of the levelling and re-seeding you have done annually since 2012.  Will you re-consult on the TRO proposal, so that you can explain to consultees how the TRO will meet these additional purposes in your statement of reasons?

Will you also consider re-consulting on a TRO proposal which would allow you flexibility in extending the duration of the seasonal closure period, if rainfall in summer months increases, as it has done in some years since 2012/3?

If you decide to accept the recommendation in the report and make the TRO as proposed, will you monitor the surface condition (e.g. the type of ruts, their depth and spread across the route) in the four open months and the eight closed months of each year, and see how this correlates with Met Office rainfall data for Sheffield?  Will you make a temporary TRO if there continues to be damage?

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending and explained that it was preferable that traffic restrictions were complemented with engineering measures to ensure that where possible they were self-enforcing and not subject to abuse. All traffic orders should be, as much as practicable, self-regulating to avoid a strain on the limited enforcement resources of the Police. No comments could be made on restrictions implemented by another Highway Authority or enforced by another Police service.

There was insufficient evidence on this route to show that solo motorcycles specifically were damaging the route enough to warrant prohibiting their access. The committee report did not specifically state that solo motorcycles were causing damage to the route. Consultation on such a restriction could take place should it be required it at a later stage.

Officers that attended the site meeting stated that whilst those attending may have agreed to a TRO covering all motorised vehicles, that the site meeting did not include solo motorcycle user groups.

Prohibiting motor vehicles except for solo motorcycle allowed officers to properly understand the direct impact of solo motorcycles. Apart from a small number of motor vehicles requiring access to adjacent land, solo motorcycles would be the only motorised mode of transport with access.

Subject to the decision by Committee on this issue, if it was implemented and in monitoring the scheme Sheffield City Council gained evidence that solo motorcycle use caused enough damage to warrant prohibiting them, then this was the right process to follow and that the funds and staff time were well allocated.

The different statutory requirements had been considered and it was believed that the proposed restrictions did support the aims of conserving and enhancing the national park. However, in considering the removal of access rights it was believed that the significant improvement in condition would be from removing 4x4 vehicles from this route. In dry conditions the route could be used by all modes. This position would not be maintained in perpetuity and consequently it could be reviewed at some point in the future.

Additional potential benefits were described within the committee report. These were benefits that could be achieved by the proposed restrictions reducing damage to Moscar Cross Road.

Sheffield City Council did not feel that there was a need to reconsult on the current TRO proposals at this stage. The statement of reasons was clear and there was no scope to misinterpret the reasons behind why Sheffield City Council were promoting these restrictions.

Officers would continue to visit the route each month and take photographs as they have been doing for the past couple of years. A TTRO would be made if at any point it was necessary to (a) safeguard the public because the route has become dangerous to use or (b)  exclude the public from the route in order to carry out repairs safely.

Questions from Sally Skelton

1. Archer Lane closure was the key to the success of the NE scheme yet the committee decided to reopen Archer Lane based on the number of objections received.  Why were the less successful Crookes and Walkley schemes passed in full when they had greater numbers of objections?

2. Why was child safety not even considered when you decided to reopen Archer Lane to nearly 3000 vehicles a day?

3.The council has said there is a climate emergency yet your committee stopped a scheme that reduced traffic by 5,000 cars journeys a day.  Please could you explain?

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending and asked Alison Teal to read her question so that both questions could be responded to together.

Questions from Alison Teal

1. On the 20th of September, this Committee, except for two Green Party Cllrs, decided to prioritise the voices of drivers living mostly outside of Nether Edge and chose to enable them to drive on narrow residential roads to avoid congestion on arterial routes. However, the officer reports made clear that the closure of Archer Lane had a positive effect, encouraging active travel and making roads safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists. How can members of the committee justify ignoring the officer's technical expertise and vote to reopen Archer Lane, which is the most vital aspect of the Nether Edge Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme's success? Why did you disregard the empirical evidence in favour of drivers who don't even live in Nether Edge?

2. How is the Council going to meet its climate and nature targets when this committee has caved into a small unrepresentative but loud group of motorists and anti-cycling campaigners against the closure of Archer Lane? It sets a very bad precedent that will prevent any future schemes that will be required to be able to meet the targets.

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending and explained that an external contractor conducted a report into the Nether Edge Active Neighbourhood Scheme. That report came before this committee in September and showed that there was greater support for the schemes in Crookes and Walkley. Crucially, in both Crookes and Walkley there was demonstratable positive behaviour change in the area. That was why the committee opted to end the trial closure of Archer Lane and make permanent two popular crossings. The approach that considered those who lived in a wider area and not just in the immediate locality of the trial.

The September committee report included some initial data on collisions. Typically for transport projects, personal injury collision data for at least the most recent three-year period would be considered adequate to be able identify collision patterns. However, the Council still made pre and post implementation comparisons of casualty numbers in an around the Nether Edge area between June and December in 2021 (‘pre’) versus June and December 2022 (‘post’).

The information did not suggest the Nether Edge Active Neighbourhood project had a significant impact on personal injury collisions. During its implementation, the overall number of collisions did not change. In relation to Archer Lane, there were no collisions between June and December 2022. This compared with 4 collisions in an equivalent six-month period in 2020 on Crookes Valley Road (between Harcourt Road and Oxford Street) which led to the location being a high-priority site and a Local safety scheme was being designed which would be implemented in 2024.

When people in Nether Edge and Sharrow (NES) were asked about perceived impact on the safety of walkers and cyclists of the Active Travel measures; more responses said there had been a negative impact on people’s perception of safety of walkers and cyclists due to the trial closure.

Locations were assessed and prioritised for measures according to certain criteria. The most important one of these related to the prevention of collisions, particularly those recorded as serious or fatal. All the incident data received from partners was analysed and used to prioritise budget on schemes in those locations that have a history of previous collisions.  Collisions were more likely to happen at a location having a collision history than one with few or none.

Road safety was of concern everywhere, but it was noted that some of our most pressing road safety concerns were in our most deprived communities. 

The Chair invited the questioners to stay and hear the discussion on item 9, which looked at the progress made towards our climate goals. The trial closure of Archer Lane did not see an overall reduction of car journeys. It simply dispersed them and created problems elsewhere.