Decisions

12.1

To report details of the consultation response to proposals to introduce 20mph

speed limits in Woodseats, report the receipt of objections and set out the

Council’s response

12.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

1. agrees to make the Woodseats 20mph Speed Limit Orders as advertised, Speed Limit Order as amended in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

2.Inform objectors accordingly;

3. Introduce the proposed 20mph speed limits; and

4. Introduce part time, advisory, 20mph speed limits on part of Chesterfield Road

12.3

Reasons for Decision

12.3.1

The adoption of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit Strategy established the principle of introducing sign-only 20mph speed limits in all suitable residential areas. Reducing the speed of traffic in residential areas should, in the long term, reduce the number and severity of collisions, reduce the fear of accidents, encourage sustainable modes of travel and contribute towards the creation of a more pleasant, cohesive environment

12.3.2

The former Executive Member has made it clear that 20mph speed limits should continue to be introduced in residential areas in accordance with the City’s 20mph Speed Limit Strategy as funds allow.

12.3.3

Having considered the response from the public and other consultees it is recommended that the 20mph speed limit in Woodseats be implemented as, on balance, the benefits of the scheme in terms of safety or sustainability are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.

12.3.4

It is also recommended that a part time, advisory 20mph speed limit be introduced on Chesterfield Road outside Woodseats Primary school for the same reasons.

12.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

12.4.1

In light of the objections received consideration was given to recommending the retention of the existing speed limit in Woodseats. However, such a recommendation would run contrary to the delivery of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit Strategy. This would also mean that pedestrian and cyclist safety would not be improved, and this would be detrimental to the Council’s Active Travel ambition and vision of Safer streets in our city.

13.1

Sheffield City Council is a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and flood Risk Management Authority (RMA) as described in the Flood Risk Regulations 2009.

These regulations require the RMAs to identify nationally significant flood risk areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify. These plans are required to be reviewed on a 5-year cycle.

The latest FRMPs have been prepared by the Environment Agency working in partnership with LLFAs across England. The draft plans were published online in autumn 2021 and a public consultation was held from 22 October 2021 to 21 January 2022. Following broad support for the plans it has been agreed to publish the final plan in line with the draft document without changes.

Ahead of publication of the final plans in autumn 2022 the Environment Agency has requested that all LLFAs acknowledge our responsibility in writing for our part in the FRMPs and confirm we have internal approval for publication of certain information provided to the Environment Agency.

The report outlines how approval of the FRMP as proposed is to the benefit of the City of Sheffield and will fulfil our responsibilities under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 in the preparation of an appropriate plan.

13.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate  Policy Committee:-

1. acknowledges the Council’s responsibility in writing, as requested by the Environment Agency, for our part, as Lead Local Flood Authority, in the Humber River Basin Flood Risk Management Plan; and

2. notes that this will fulfil our responsibilities under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 to identify nationally significant Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify.

13.3

Reasons for Decision

13.3.1

The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 require the Flood Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) to identify nationally significant flood risk areas (FRAs) and to prepare Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) for the FRAs that they identify. These plans are required to be reviewed on a 5-year cycle

13.3.2

The Environment Agency, given its strategic oversight of flood risk across England, has led on the production of the latest FRMPs. Sheffield City Council, in common with our fellow Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs), have worked with the Environment Agency in preparing these plans. Ahead of their publication of the finalised plans the Environment Agency has requested that all LLFAs acknowledge our responsibility in writing for our part in the FRMPs and confirm we internal approval for publication of certain information provided to the Environment Agency.

13.3.3

Sheffield City Council approval of the Humber River Basin FRMP confirms our ongoing commitment to deliver our flood programme and acknowledges our statutory responsibilities but does not place any direct addition duties or burdens on us in itself.

13.3.4

Were we not to endorse this plan, as prepared in partnership with the Environment Agency, we would be required by the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 to prepare our own. Significant revenue and resources would be required to produce our own independent FRMP. This would result in delays and an additional unbudgeted cost.

13.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

13.4.1

No reasonable alternative exists, we are being asked to endorse the plan already prepared in partnership and consulted on. FRMPs are a statutory requirement.

13.4.2

If we were not to sign up to the Regional Plan as prepared in partnership with the Environment Agency, then we would be required to prepare our own Sheffield specific FRMP from scratch. This would have significant resource implications and a significant unbudgeted revenue cost.

11.1

To report details of the consultation response to proposals to introduce 20mph speed limits in Crosspool, report the receipt of objections to the Traffic Regulation

Order and set out the Council’s response.

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

1.  agrees to make the Crosspool 20mph Speed Limit Orders as advertised, Speed Limit Order as amended in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;

2. Inform objectors accordingly;

3. Introduce the proposed 20mph speed limits as advertised; and

4. Introduce part time, advisory, 20mph speed limits on part of Lydgate Lane.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

11.3.1

The adoption of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit Strategy established the

principle of introducing sign-only 20mph speed limits in all suitable residential areas. Reducing the speed of traffic in residential areas should, in the long term, reduce the number and severity of collisions, reduce the fear of accidents, encourage sustainable modes of travel and contribute towards the creation of a more pleasant, cohesive environment.

11.3.2

the former Executive Member made it clear that 20mph speed limits should continue to be introduced in residential areas in accordance with the City’s 20mph Speed Limit Strategy as funds allow.

11.3.3

Having considered the response from the public and other consultees it is recommended that the 20mph speed limit in Crosspool be implemented as, on balance, the benefits of the scheme in terms of safety or sustainability are considered to outweigh the concerns raised.

11.3.4

It is also recommended that a part time, advisory 20mph speed limit be introduced on Lydgate Lane outside Lydgate Primary school for the same reasons.

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

11.4.1

In light of the objection’s received consideration was given to recommending the retention of the existing speed limit in Crosspool. However, such a recommendation would run contrary to the delivery of the Sheffield 20mph Speed Limit Strategy. This would also mean that pedestrian and cyclist safety would not be improved, and this would be detrimental to the Council’s Active Travel ambition and vision of Safer streets in our city.

10.1

The report seeks approval for the Wolseley Road / Staveley Road and Glover Road /London Road cycle improvement schemes as shown in Appendix ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the report and seeks approval to make the associated Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s), with recommended amendments as detailed, subject to authorisation of the project through the capital gateway process.

10.1.1

The schemes form part of the Sheaf Valley Active travel route. The report sets out

the background to the scheme, consultation comments and officer

recommendations.

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

1. approves the Wolseley Road / Staveley Road and Glover Road /London Road cycle improvement schemes, as shown in Appendix ‘A’ and Appendix ‘B’ of the report;

2. that the associated Traffic Regulation Orders as shown are made, subject

to authorisation of the project through the capital gateway process; and

3. that arrangements be made for the Members of this Committee to visit the Sheaf Valley Active travel route.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

To ensure the two schemes, which contribute to the overall improvements on the ‘Sheaf Valley Cycle Corridor’ can be constructed when the contract is awarded.

10.3.2

Officers have considered alternative options involving representatives from ‘Cycle Sheffield’ and the previous Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Environment and Transport and on balance consider the proposals to be the best solutions to achieve the predicted benefits, maximising the benefits to the overall improvements to a key cycling route to and from the City Centre.

10.3.3

Officers have carried out a consultation with statutory consultees and frontages, making changes to parking and loading restrictions where possible.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

Glover Road / London Road

The existing Glover Road bollard closure is regularly blocked by parked vehicles, to the extent where it is difficult to find a way through for cyclists approaching from either direction without dismounting. Access to and from the crossing area on London Road is also regularly blocked by vehicles parking on the corner of Glover Road and London Road. The solution promoted provides further waiting restrictions in and around these key locations but also provides a planter arrangement for the closure to motor vehicles which should allow the passage of cyclists even if the promoted additional waiting restrictions are blocked by vehicles.

An alternative option could be to provide a much larger closure, for example from the junction with London Road, to tackle some of the current issues, however officers have tried to balance the preferred option described above with the retention of some space for loading and parking. The revised scheme following discussions with local residents also provides some alternative parking to offset spaces lost around the new closure.

Promoting a different route away from Glover Road is not feasible given that this provides the most direct and relatively traffic free corridor to and from the City Centre, away from the busy London Road / Chesterfield Road corridor which is, and will continue to be promoted as a key bus route. The route to and from London Road / Staveley Road along Glover Road is already popular with cyclists. These improvements (as part of a wider corridor scheme) aim to attract further cyclists in future.

10.4.2

Staveley Road / Wolseley Road

Two further options were considered to improve the junction of Staveley Road and Wolseley Road for cyclists and discussed with the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, Council Officers and Cycle Sheffield representatives, held in early 2020.

Alternative Option 1

This option provided an off-line segregated crossing for both cyclists and pedestrians. Although this proposal provided a high-quality crossing facility, there was difficulty in providing a facility on the desire line without completely closing both the north side and south side of Staveley Road, which when considering existing closures and one-way systems in the area would be very difficult. The layout did propose to change access so that vehicles could only enter the South side from Wolseley Road and come out on to Wolseley Road from the northern side, however it was thought to be likely that this system would be abused by drivers and there were also questions in the meeting whether the crossing facility which was still off the desire line would be used.

Alternative Option 2

This option provided a kerb build out on the south side to narrow the crossing distance for pedestrians and cyclists. While this would be an improvement over the existing crossroads layout, at peak times and in queuing conditions it would still provide significant delay for cyclists at this location.

10.4.3

Preferred Option

Following an evaluation of the three options, all attendees of the meeting agreed that a solution which maintained a direct route through the junction using the low traffic ‘on carriageway’ roads on approach would be preferred. To give cyclists greater priority over the existing give way junction, the crossroads would be signalised, incorporating detection on both approaches to give priority over vehicles on Wolseley Road. A buildout would be incorporated into the layout to further narrow the crossing distance, improve visibility for crossing pedestrians and reduce speeds on Wolseley Road.

9.1

This report outlines the proposed Local Transport Plan capital programme covering the current financial year and seeks approval to proceed with development and implementation of the proposals subject to the necessary capital programme and traffic/route management approvals being obtained.

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

1. approves the proposed 2022/23 Local Transport Plan capital programme

and the indicative allocation as attached in Appendix A to the report, noting

that the 2022/23 programme includes items already approved as part of the

2021/22 Local Transport Plan capital programme that will continue to be

delivered this financial year; and

2. To the extent that reserved commissioning decisions are required in order to

progress these schemes to completion, delegates authority to make those

decisions to the Head of Strategic Transport, Sustainability and

Infrastructure.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The investment in local transport schemes will ultimately help to address the ambitions of Members and deliver against the requests of the Sheffield public, without reliance on external funding opportunities or incorporating these improvements into wider major investment projects. The primary objectives of the fund are detailed below:

9.3.2

The expected benefits from this fund are centred primarily on the community, with improved transport connectivity increasing mobility and accessibility, creating a greater sense of safety, enhancing the environmental amenity and improving health by supporting more active travel movements. In addition, there would be fewer road traffic collisions through design and modest associated mode shift.

9.3.3

The proposed transport capital programme balances the availability of funding sources with local and national policy to give a clear focus for the 2022/23 financial year. The proposed programme is extensive and ambitious which comes with its own challenges. The programme takes advantage of utilising external funding sources where possible to deliver impactful change to the transport system, considering environmental, economic and societal needs.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

‘Do nothing’ has been considered, but is not considered appropriate as

this will result in projects not being delivered. Both the LaNTP and the

Road Safety Fund programmes would be not introduced, the opportunity for

economic, environmental and societal benefits would be missed.

9.4.2

It would also be possible to consider different schemes as part of the

programme. However, it is felt that the proposed programme achieves the

greatest balance of economic, environmental and societal benefits to the

communities and businesses in Sheffield.

8.1

This report brings the Committee up to date with the Council’s financial position as

at Month 1 2022/23. The report also reports the proposed budget timetable for the

development of the 2023/24 budget.

8.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

1. notes the Council’s challenging financial position and the Month 1 position;

2. notes the budget timetable set out in the report including the requirement for the

Committee to plan to develop budget proposals over the course of the summer;

3. notes that the Strategy and Resources Committee agreed at its 31 May 2022 meeting to “require any Policy Committee that is forecasting an overspend on their budget to develop an action plan to address the overspend in-year and ask the Finance Sub-Committee to monitor both the development of any required action plans and delivery against them”; and

4. agrees to commission work from Officers to develop and implement plans to mitigate overspends and deliver stalled savings plans to bring forecast outturn back in line with budget,

8.3

Reasons for Decision

8.3.1

Under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Chief Finance Officer of an authority is required to report on the following matters:

• the robustness of the estimates made for the purposes of determining its budget requirement for the forthcoming year; and

• the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves.

8.3.2

There is also a requirement for the authority to have regard to the report of the Chief Finance Officer when making decisions on its budget requirement and level of financial reserves.

8.3.3

By the law the Council must set and deliver a balanced budget, which is a financial plan based on sound assumptions which shows how income will equal spend over the short- and medium-term. This can take into account deliverable cost savings and/or local income growth strategies as well as useable reserves. However, a budget will not be balanced where it reduces reserves to unacceptably low levels and regard must be had to any report of the Chief Finance Officer on the required level of reserves under section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, which sets obligations of adequacy on controlled reserves.

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

8.4.1

The Council is required to both set a balance budget and to ensure that in-year income and expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were considered.

8.1

The Director of Finance and Commercial Services presented the report which brought the Committee up to date with the Council’s financial position as at Month 1, 2022/23. The report also sought  the Committee’s agreement to a proposed budget timetable for the development of the 2023/24 budget.

8.2

RESOLVED: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee:-

1.    Note the Council’s challenging financial position;

2.    Confirm that “It is the responsibility of each Committee to work within the budget framework agreed by Council. This includes taking timely action to address any overspend within the services for which the Committee is responsible.”  As agreed by Full Council on 23 March 2022;

3.    Note that the Finance Sub-Committee on 7 June will receive more detailed budget monitoring;

4.    Note that each Policy Committee will receive more detailed budget monitoring for their areas of responsibility at their meetings in June 2022;

5.    Requires any Policy Committee that is forecasting an overspend on their budget to develop an action plan to address the overspend in-year and ask the Finance Sub-Committee to monitor both the development of any required action plans and delivery against them;

6.    Approve the budget timetable set out in 1.5.1 of the report; and

7.    Note that each Policy Committee will be advised of the budget timetable at their June 2022 meetings including the requirement for each Policy Committee to plan to develop budget proposals over the course of the summer

8.3

Reasons for Decision

8.3.1

The recommendations in the report will ensure that the Council has a robust budget process for 2023/24 and will ensure that each Policy Committee undertakes any work required to both balance their 2022/23 budget and prepare for the 2023/24 budget.

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

8.4.1

The Council is required to both set a balance budget and to ensure that in-year income and expenditure are balanced. No other alternatives were considered.

10.1

The Service Manager Strategic Planning presented the report which sought agreement on the governance arrangements for overseeing work on Sheffield’s emerging Local Plan (the ‘Sheffield Plan’).

10.2

RESOLVED: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee:-

1.    Owing to its cross-cutting nature, the Strategy & Resources Committee should have overall responsibility for the Sheffield Plan;

2. Due to the level of work involved in producing the Sheffield Plan, responsibility for overseeing development of it should be delegated to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee; and

3. The Sheffield Plan Member Working Group should be re-established under the committee system of governance to enable it to continue to play a key advisory role on the content of the Plan and provide regular progress reports to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

The cross-cutting nature and significance of the Sheffield Plan for the future development of the city means that it is appropriate for the Strategy & Resources Policy Committee to take overall responsibility for the Plan.  However, delegation to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee reflects the level of work required from Members to progress the Plan and the relative capacities of the two Policy Committees.

10.3.2

Continuing the Sheffield Plan Member Working Group will allow officers to obtain a regular political steer on various matters relating to the content of the Sheffield Plan.  The Group will have no decision-making powers.  The Strategy and Resources Policy Committee can be kept up to date on progress and will have ultimate responsibility for deciding whether to support the Publication Draft Plan and refer it to full Council for final approval.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

An alternative option would be for officers to seek a political steer on specific matters relating to the Sheffield Plan directly from either the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee or the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee.  However, the Strategy and Resources Committee only meets monthly and the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee every 2 months.  It would cause considerable delay to the Sheffield Plan timetable if each issue under consideration had to be reported to one of the formal Policy Committees. 

10.4.2

A further option would be to formally establish a Task and Finish Group for either the Strategy & Resources Policy Committee or the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Change Policy Committee.  However, under Council Procedure Rules at 25.2, a Policy Committee is only able to have one Task and Finish Group operating at any one time.  Having a Task and Finish Group for the Local Plan would effectively limit the scope to have a Group working on other matters for a considerable period.

9.1

The Director of Policy, Performance and Communications presented the report which set out how the cost-of-living crisis is having profound implications for people across Sheffield and the steps that Sheffield City Council and partners in the public and voluntary, community and faith (VCF) sector have taken to provide support and advice to those who are being most impacted.

The report proposed that the Council urgently establish a cross-partner incident management approach to the cost-of-living crisis, learning from the strength of our whole city response to Covid-19. This would include the establishment of a strategic response group (‘Gold’), chaired by the Leader of the Council, that will bring together relevant Committee Chairs, SCC officers and representatives from across Sheffield’s public, private and VCF sector. This group would set out and direct Sheffield’s overall response to supporting communities through the cost of living crisis.

This ‘Gold’ command group will be supported by a ‘Silver’ (tactical) group who would have responsibility for coordinating planning and activity in support of the overall strategy developed by the Gold group. This group would meet frequently and set out an operational plan to respond to the cost-of-living challenges facing the city.

9.2

RESOLVED: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee:-

1.    Note the work that has been done on a cross-partner basis to date to help the people of Sheffield respond to the cost-of-living crisis, as described at paragraph 7 of the report, including supporting the work of South Yorkshire Community Foundation to establish a new fund to support people with the cost-of-living crisis;

2.    Agree to establish an incident response arrangement to help the city respond to the current situation and prepare for the forthcoming autumn and winter period, including the establishment of a strategic-level ‘Gold’ group to be chaired by the Leader of the Council and a ‘Silver’ partner group led by a senior SCC officer;

3.    Ask all policy committees at their first meetings to consider nomination of an Elected Member to sit on a cross-party Gold group;

4.    Agree that partner organisations should be invited to join the Gold group, recognising that the cost-of-living crisis demands a whole-city response across the public, private and VCF sectors; and

5.    Agree to receive a report at its July meeting setting out a proposed strategy and action plan for addressing the cost-of-living crisis in Sheffield, which should include proposals around the utilisation of the Food Action Plan fund established as part of the 2022/23 budget, along with updates on the social isolation and volunteering funds.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

To establish a cross-partner incident management approach to the cost-of-living crisis, learning from the strength of our whole city response to Covid-19.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

To not do anything, this was rejected as through the services and support Sheffield City Council delivers directly and with our partners in the public and VCF sector, we are working alongside the people and communities across the city who are most exposed and suffering the consequences of the cost-of-living crisis.

7.1

The Director of Policy, Performance and Communications presented the report which provided the Committee with an overview of the Council’s financial, policy and operating context.  The report set out the key issues and opportunities facing the authority over the coming year.

The report also set out a proposed approach for the development of a Corporate Plan, with an intention of bringing forward a draft of the plan to the Strategy and Resources Committee in September 2022.

7.2

RESOLVED: That Strategy and Resources Policy Committee:-

1. Note the financial, policy and operating context set out in this report, and the risks and opportunities identified therein;

2. Agree to receive further reports on these issues as required, whilst noting that the primary responsibility for responding to these issues will lie with the relevant policy committee;

3. Agree the proposal to develop a statement of policy priorities for the year ahead and to hold a meeting of the Strategy and Resources Urgency Committee to consider and agree this;

4. Note the importance of developing a Corporate Plan for the organisation and to note the work already done to engage with staff across the council on this;

5. Agree to holding a series of Member workshops as set out in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report to help develop the content of the Corporate Plan;

6. Agree to receive and consider a draft of the Corporate Plan at its meeting on 30 August in advance of a final report being considered by Full Council.

7.3

Reasons for Decision

7.3.1

The proposals set out in the report will help contribute to set a clear direction for the organisation for the forthcoming year, and through the development of the Corporate Plan, beyond.  They will help to ensure that the organisation stays focused on key objectives whilst responding to the changing context within which it is working.  In turn this will ensure that the council continues to place the wellbeing of the people of Sheffield and the communities in which they live at the heart of its decision-making.

7.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

7.4.1

Two alternative options were considered:

·       Producing a Corporate Plan for discussion at the Strategy and Resources Committee in July.  This was discounted on the basis that it would leave insufficient time for engagement with Members, staff or other stakeholders.

·       Not producing a Corporate Plan at all.  This was discounted on the basis that the policy, financial and operating context for the organisation was such that not having a clear statement of direction, objective and priorities would have a significant detrimental impact on the organisation’s ability to operate effectively.

9.1

Full Council resolved during its budget setting process (on 16 February 2022) to allocate £2m to the city’s district and local centres to support their economic recovery. The budget amendment committed to building on the work of the Economic Recovery Fund (launched in March 2021).

This report proposes to continue the work of the Economic Recovery Fund, re-

establish its governance arrangements, and develop options for the future operation of the Fund.

The objectives of the Economic Recovery Fund are:

·       To support local economic recovery; helping our businesses and our retail and hospitality centres to rebuild and grow.

·       To help businesses open safely and remain viable – building resilience to future economic changes.

·       To protect jobs and businesses, particularly in hardest hit sectors.

·       To generate demand, to bring back customers and promote consumer confidence.

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee Policy Committee:-

1. notes the allocation of £2m to the Economic Recovery Fund resolved during its budget-setting process by Full Council on 16 February 2022; and

2. supports re-establishing the Economic Recovery Fund Steering Group with updated membership and term of reference, with a first task of supporting the development of options for the future operation of the Economic Recovery Fund.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The report makes these recommendations to support delivery against the Council’s priorities, as set out in the Business Response Plan and One Year Plan (see section 2). It will enable the Economic Recovery Fund to deliver a new phase of the scheme, continue supporting district and local centres and building relationships with our communities.

9.3.2

The expected outcomes of this work include:

·       The establishment of a refreshed Economic Recovery Fund that improves on the first iteration and touches additional areas of the city that were not successful in the first round.

·       The delivery of a new set of projects in district centres that will achieve positive economic and other impacts for their local high streets and businesses.

·       The bringing together of new local collaborations and strengthening of existing networks.

·       Embedding this collaborative, enabling approach across different council teams and sharing the organisational learning generated by the first year of delivery.

·       Increasing the council’s knowledge and understanding of the health of district centres and the development of a set of longer-term interventions to work towards.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

In the development of this report several alternative options were considered:

9.4.2

Option 1: Sheffield City Council allocating funding directly to local areas without running a competitive process

This option does not fit with the ambition and ethos of engaging, enabling and empowering of residents and communities. This would not deliver the benefits that collaboration and competition has brought to the first iteration of the scheme.

It risks losing the local insight, enthusiasm, confidence and collaboration that the first scheme engendered and harnessed.

9.4.3

Option 2: Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee take on the

decision-making role

Overseeing and steering the Economic Recovery Fund is a detailed job and the Steering Group committed many hours in undertaking tasks relating to the Fund.

In this model it is unlikely the Committee would have the time to undertake the necessary work and the Committee does not meet frequently enough to meet the needs of the scheme, which has been able when required to take decisions at pace. In this option the project would also lose the participation of private sector partners who have provided such valuable perspectives to date.