Planner1

So how would you propose that the “truly useful” people and their organisation are managed? A workers co-operative?

We get this debate every year when the taxpayers alliance / similar do their annual foi requests and publish the salaries of senior council staff around the country. Last time I looked, SCC had a budget circa £1.5 billion. Find a private sector company with a similar budget and I think you will find the senior manager salaries are an order of magnitude higher. I’ve worked in local government for many years and have worked closely with Directors and Chief Execs at several different organisations including SCC. I have always found Chief Execs to be very smart, very dedicated people, who dedicate their lives to public service. They put in huge amounts of hours, I was always getting mails from senior managers late at night as they invariably go home when the office closes and log on remotely for several hours each night. The job essentially “owns” them. I have never met a Chief Exec I thought wasn’t smarter than me. They are very bright people. ( Bob Kerslake was especially good) I think they earn and deserve every penny they get and deserve a lot more. The comparisons with the Prime Minister are ridiculous. The PM’s salary is dwarfed by the millions they earn after they step down by writing their memoirs, becoming directors of various companies and going on the speaking “circuit”.

The contract is set out as a partnership, where the partners are transparent and open with each other. The problem with it is that from a few months after signing the contract, the councillors were wanting to make huge multi million pound “savings” ( ie budget cuts) in that area of work. This meant that they only actually filled a small fraction of the originally envisaged number of posts in the highways “client” team. Councillors sometimes have to make extremely difficult decisions on what to cut to stay within available budgets. Whatever they decide, some people will be unhappy.

The specification for the Amey contract is huge. It sets out the standards required and includes some pretty severe penalties for non performance against the criteria.

Read the OP Says it is a build to rent development.

I don’t recall saying that. There are standards for reinstatements and the utilities have to warranty the repairs they do. This document explains it.

Really? Got some evidence to back that up?

There are many reasons that a tarmac surface might fail. That is just one of them.

I do not believe you are correct in saying there’s no oversight. There is. There is a council team that operates the contract. It’s just that it is smaller in scale than was envisaged when the contract was put in place.

Erm, there is plenty of parking available in Sheffield city centre, the car parks are never full, even at the busiest times. How many department stores does Meadowhall have? Very classy walkways? Which ones are/were these?

All of the permit parking zones are regularly enforced.

Why don’t you have a look at the transport assessment and see for yourself. The highway plans start at around page 245. It says that the problems at St James are largely due to the internal layout, which is being changed, so they are expecting that will sort it out. Like I said before, the assessment says that the Greenhill Avenue / Greenhill Main Road ( which is the place where collisions are happening) has a “committed” council scheme to fully signalise it, which should be sufficient to handle any traffic arising from the stadium development. Like I said, this is the transport assessment the applicant has submitted. The council will be checking what they have said and may, or may not accept what they are proposing. Interestingly, it says that on match days they will put on a “frequent” ( whatever that is) shuttle bus that runs to / from Dronfield station, Dore station and Sheffield station. That should help some people leave their car at home.

If you have a look at the transport assessment in the application ( which is linked in previous posts) it tells you what they are proposing ( which the council may, or may not accept) The assessment says that the council are already planning to fully signalise the Greenhill Main Rd / Greenhill Avenue junction and this will cope ok. They’re proposing some minor tweaks to Meadowhead roundabout, widening the carriageway on the roundabout opposite the end of Greenhill Ave ( shaving some off the main island and some off the splitter island on Greenhill Main Road) and extending the 3 lane approach from Greenhill Main Road back a bit longer and a few minor geometry tweaks on the other arms. No changes at St James retail park or other junctions.

Can’t say I’ve ever heard of police enforcing no entry restrictions by automatic camera. Decriminalised enforcement of some moving traffic offences is now being rolled out to councils outside London ( after many years of lobbying for it) but the councils have to apply for the powers. I believe SCC are applying and have already identified the sites they will enforce.

Highway projects are often delivered in phases, usually because of the availability of funding, or the timescales within which the funding has to be spent. ( central government often impose very tight timescales for funding pots).