Agenda item

10.1

The Senior Development Officer submitted a report that provided a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bid for the Attercliffe Area since 15^th  November 2023.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee notes the progress made on the Attercliffe Levelling Up Fund project.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

This report provides a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bid for Attercliffe Area on progress since 15th November 2023.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

Do nothing:

Not changing the delivery and development route for the CCHT would mean that the project couldn’t be delivered.

10.4.2

Do More:

To do more would require an increase in funding. This is not currently required to deliver the required LUF outputs

10.4.3

Chosen Options:

The options in the report represent the best way of delivering the contracted LUF outputs.

29.1

The Senior Development Officer and the Head of Regeneration presented a report that provided a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bid for the Attercliffe Area since 15 November 2023.

29.2

In response to Members questions, officers agreed to raise the introduction of cycle storage at tram stops with South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority colleagues. Officers also agreed to provide information on why Network Rail were not funding the removal of the redundant railway bridge on Brightside Lane.        

29.3

Members requested a knowledge briefing to seek officer advice on how to approach the Government for support with delivering different projects and schemes across the city.

29.4

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee notes the progress made on the Attercliffe Levelling Up Fund project.

29.5

Reasons for Decision

29.5.1

This report provides a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bid for Attercliffe Area on progress since 15th November 2023.

29.6

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

29.6.1

Do nothing:

Not changing the delivery and development route for the CCHT would mean that the project couldn’t be delivered.

29.6.2

Do More:

To do more would require an increase in funding. This is not currently required to deliver the required LUF outputs

29.6.3

Chosen Options:

The options in the report represent the best way of delivering the contracted LUF outputs.