Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The student games were 30 years ago. The stadium had aged and needed money spending on it and wasn’t attracting major events like it used to do. Simple investment decision.

 

Similarly, other nearby cities have built bigger arenas which are more attractive to big acts, so ours isn’t getting the tours it used to. 
 

The student games facilities gave Sheffield an identity it was previously lacking and were a catalyst for regeneration. They’ve given us 30 years of good use, but times change.

 

The trams that serve Rotherham also run in Sheffield and the project included several new trams for Sheffield. Don’t forget, it’s a South Yorkshire Supertram.
 

My guess is that the central government funding will be used to take out the cycle lane, but I’ve seen no details to confirm this. 

 

 

The Arena has aged and has been surpassed by the others, although Manchester's arena is just about to under go a multi million pound investment that  brings that up to scratch both acoustic wise and as a destination for customers. Sheffield's Arena needs either demolishing  or a private investor bringing in to take it over, or both.

You would like to think that the government funding covered the removal too... and the council will have the barriers to use elsewhere for other developments or distancing measures.... they'll not be cheap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewBiz said:

That's interesting Planner1, but is completely at odds with what you stated in your post of 7th July cut and pasted below. Perhaps you could explain the dichotomy  between your statement above, and the one below please

What dichotomy?

 

One is discussing a temporary scheme, the other is discussing the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

What dichotomy?

 

One is discussing a temporary scheme, the other is discussing the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally.

That's  interesting, why you were discussing 'the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally' on a thread solely about a cycle lanes at Shalesmoor?  What is evident is that you and SCC will call black white in an attempt to save face. What's sad is that not only does it not work, but it stifles any chance of an open culture where people genuinely learn from their mistakes. So there's no accountability, so the money keeps getting wasted, and the taxpayer keeps ponying up, and nothing changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NewBiz said:

That's  interesting, why you were discussing 'the general thrust of transport policy nationally and locally' on a thread solely about a cycle lanes at Shalesmoor?  What is evident is that you and SCC will call black white in an attempt to save face. What's sad is that not only does it not work, but it stifles any chance of an open culture where people genuinely learn from their mistakes. So there's no accountability, so the money keeps getting wasted, and the taxpayer keeps ponying up, and nothing changes.

If you’d bothered to read the thread, you might understand.

 

I find it helps to explain how the measure in question fits within adopted policies at local, regional and national level. It demonstrates that it’s not some random whimsy of a scheme, but rather part of a wider approach which is happening everywhere else in the country too. 
 

The fund which paid for this scheme was set up to deliver exactly this type of scheme and do it very quickly. The schemes being installed are temporary in nature and sometimes experimental, as they might result in permanent change if they work out well.

 

Its pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it that given those circumstances, some schemes will be more successful than others and there will be learning points for the funders  (government) and scheme promoters ( local councils).  What is it you want them to do? Have a massive public debate about the positives, negatives and learning points from every single scheme they deliver? 
 

As we’ve already discussed on here. The accountable person is the Cabinet Member. It was their decision to select this scheme. They are accountable to their Ward electorate at the next election and to their colleagues in the council Labour group, as well as to all councillors when matters are debated in full council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

As we’ve already discussed on here. The accountable person is the Cabinet Member. It was their decision to select this scheme. They are accountable to their Ward electorate at the next election and to their colleagues in the council Labour group, as well as to all councillors when matters are debated in full council.

As we have also discussed, did the cabinet minister make the decision on his own or after a chat with a fulltime officer? If the latter is the case, how can redress be taken by the electorate when the idiot who came up with this hairbrained scheme is still there no matter how they vote?

 

This gets more like "YES MINISTER" with every well spun turn.

Thanks Sir Humphrey for allowing us this insight into council performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

As we have also discussed, did the cabinet minister make the decision on his own or after a chat with a fulltime officer? If the latter is the case, how can redress be taken by the electorate when the idiot who came up with this hairbrained scheme is still there no matter how they vote?

 

This gets more like "YES MINISTER" with every well spun turn.

Thanks Sir Humphrey for allowing us this insight into council performance.

How do you think I know the details of exactly how it played out? I don’t work for them, I’m not directly involved in any of this.
 

The Cabinet Member will certainly have discussed it at some level with officers, who will have advised him accordingly.

 

As I’ve already mentioned, if the Cabinet Member is dissatisfied with the quality of advice received, he has recourse through the council’s processes.


You might not like the scheme and think it a foolish waste of money, but that does not In itself mean that any officer of the council has done anything wrong in terms of disciplinary or competency matters.
 

Putting in segregated cycle lanes is certainly something that fits within the remit of the funding stream. Road space reallocation is certainly something that is within the scope of adopted policy. The likely outcomes of this particular project were forecast and the forecasts were correct as far as I can see. The  decision maker approved it to go ahead. I can see no disciplinary or competency issues at all from the information I have.

 

Your issue is with the decision maker, who is a politician. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

How do you think I know the details of exactly how it played out? I don’t work for them, I’m not directly involved in any of this.
 

The Cabinet Member will certainly have discussed it at some level with officers, who will have advised him accordingly.

 

As I’ve already mentioned, if the Cabinet Member is dissatisfied with the quality of advice received, he has recourse through the council’s processes.


You might not like the scheme and think it a foolish waste of money, but that does not In itself mean that any officer of the council has done anything wrong in terms of disciplinary or competency matters.
 

Putting in segregated cycle lanes is certainly something that fits within the remit of the funding stream. Road space reallocation is certainly something that is within the scope of adopted policy. The likely outcomes of this particular project were forecast and the forecasts were correct as far as I can see. The  decision maker approved it to go ahead. I can see no disciplinary or competency issues at all from the information I have.

 

Your issue is with the decision maker, who is a politician. 

 

I disagree.   I call it institutional failure. The incompetence goes far beyond goes far beyond one person.  

 

You have just perfectly described above the complex layers of bureaucracy machinery that goes into these things and clearly there's been multiple failures across the board.

 

There is no ambiguity on one thing though.....  the scheme was a foolish waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Planner1 said:

The fund which paid for this scheme was set up to deliver exactly this type of scheme and do it very quickly. The schemes being installed are temporary in nature and sometimes experimental, as they might result in permanent change if they work out well.

 

Its pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it that given those circumstances, some schemes will be more successful than others and there will be learning points for the funders  (government) and scheme promoters ( local councils).  What is it you want them to do? Have a massive public debate about the positives, negatives and learning points from every single scheme they deliver? 
 

In a nutshell yes.   That's supposed to be part of their job.   

 

Of course they should be having a wide and detail public consultation on large-scale expenditure schemes such as this. 

 

Even more so when it's implementation would have such obvious impact and disruption to not only people going about their day but also for businesses in the surrounding area .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

In a nutshell yes.   That's supposed to be part of their job.   

 

Of course they should be having a wide and detail public consultation on large-scale expenditure schemes such as this. 

 

Even more so when it's implementation would have such obvious impact and disruption to not only people going about their day but also for businesses in the surrounding area .

It has already been discussed at length on here that the government funding stream required the council to identify what schemes they wanted to do and implement them within a very few weeks, which left no time for the consultation which they would normally have done for a scheme of this nature.

 

No council has the resources for the level of public discussion you suggest at individual scheme level.

 

Theres public consultation on the policies and there is normally appropriate consultation at scheme level. It is not normal practice anywhere that I’m aware of to have a post scheme public debate on every single scheme. It would require an enormous amount of resource and money.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I disagree.   I call it institutional failure. The incompetence goes far beyond goes far beyond one person.  

 

You have just perfectly described above the complex layers of bureaucracy machinery that goes into these things and clearly there's been multiple failures across the board.

 

There is no ambiguity on one thing though.....  the scheme was a foolish waste of money.

I’m at a loss to understand how you can conclude that there has been any incompetence or failures.

 

You clearly don’t like the scheme, but the person who made the decisions disagrees with you. That doesn’t mean they or anyone else are incompetent or that they have failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I’m at a loss to understand how you can conclude that there has been any incompetence or failures.

 

You clearly don’t like the scheme, but the person who made the decisions disagrees with you. That doesn’t mean they or anyone else are incompetent or that they have failed.

I don't normally agree with you Planner1.... but I can understand why the council took the funding available to put the scheme in (not incompetent) and no doubt had to get something in place somewhere within a timescale.
The scheme was in the wrong place and was to an extent underused (the failure) although it was intended to link one area to the "Grey to Green" project.
It was a gamble in some respects that did not work even in the circumstances it was implemented, it also  to me as a motorist look safe for cyclists especially coming from Shalesmoor on to the roundabout in the centre lane.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I walked along the ring road at 8:00 this morning after dropping my car off for a service. I saw one cyclist in the entire time, and he was cycling in the existing red marked cycle lane, not in the widened lane.

 

An utterly misguided and pointless scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.