Agenda item

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Notes the schemes and allocations of funding, as set out in paragraph 2.3, subject to approval of the Council Budget on 4 March 2026.

2.    Approves the schemes and allocations of funding outlined in Section 2 of this report, including the reallocation of savings made on capital projects delivered within budget as described in paragraph 1.6.

3.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the schemes to be delivered in 2026-27 through to 2029-30 with the Minor Works allocation, subject to approval of the Council Budget in March 2026.

4.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the schemes to be delivered in 2026-27 with the School Crossing Patrol Improvements allocation referred to in paragraph 2.2.6.

5.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the use of any underspends across the Transport Capital Programme to fund the delivery of other approved transport programmes, or the progression of designs for potential future projects.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, Councillor Williams presented the 2026–27 Transport Capital Programme ahead of Cabinet consideration. He introduced Lucy Hudson as the new permanent Head of Transportation Infrastructure and thanked Nat Porter for his interim leadership.

The programme set out planned investment in highways and transport, including maintenance, road safety, active travel, structures work and sustainable transport. Key schemes included ward?level road safety funding, Old Flatts Bridge repairs, the annual maintenance programme, design work for Fleet Bridge and new pedestrian crossings, continued minor works and design work for Treeton Lane crossroads. Funding was also allocated to develop improvements at school crossing patrol sites. Any underspend would support other approved projects or future design work.

The Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport, Simon Moss, noted that Members had already discussed the schemes and allocations referenced in recommendation 1, agreed through the recent Council budget. Simon then outlined the funding position relating to recommendation 2, covering the schemes in section 2 of the report. This represented the final year of a five?year block transport funding programme, comprising £344,000 for local transport and £426,000 for highway structures. The £344,000 allocation, shown in table 1, focused on pedestrian crossings, which remained a key community priority. A further £15,000 was allocated for monitoring and evaluation, £4,000 for school crossing patrol improvements, and the remaining structures funding was set out in section 2.2.

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Bacon raised questions regarding the Treeton Lane crossroads. He noted that, in previous years, he had been advised that making changes at the junction would simply relocate the problem elsewhere and was therefore not considered worthwhile by the service or the Cabinet Member at that time. He asked what had changed since that earlier position.

In response it was explained that congestion?relief schemes were challenging to design because satellite navigation systems could redirect additional traffic through improved junctions, which was likely the basis of the earlier advice given. While this remained a consideration, he noted that other factors, such as traffic movements and junction geometry, would now be examined through the planned study to identify potential improvements at the Treeton Lane crossroads.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy added that the decision to invest in design work for the Treeton Lane crossroads was a positive step. He confirmed that the long?standing concerns about the junction were recognised and that funding had now been allocated to develop and assess preferred improvement options, addressing issues that had been raised over many years.

The Vice-Chair sought clarification on why the departmental view on the Treeton Lane crossroads had changed, noting that previous advice suggested improvements would be ineffective. He asked whether this shift resulted from a political decision or a change in officer assessment and requested further detail on what the £150,000 allocation would deliver.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy responded that the investment reflected recognition of long?standing concerns at the junction. He stated that, while all decisions had a political element, the budget process had provided the opportunity to commit funding for a study to identify preferred improvement options. Officers were to provide further detail on the scope of the planned work.

In his response the Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport explained that the £150,000 allocation would fund initial feasibility work, including analysis of junction geometry, traffic flows and potential treatment options. This work would be used to design a preferred option. He noted that the next steps would depend on the scale of the intervention identified: lower?cost solutions could progress further into detailed design within the same funding, whereas larger schemes would require more extensive design work and the development of a business case to secure additional funding.

The Vice-Chair asked whether, following the feasibility work, the Council would be prepared to prioritise and fund any resulting scheme, noting the risk of spending £150,000 on design work without delivering improvements. He sought assurance from Councillor Williams that the project would remain a priority once the preferred option and its costs were known.

Councillor Williams responded that the same challenge applied to ward road safety plans: investment in design work needed to lead to deliverable schemes. He stated that officers were confident that additional funding, through the next five?year South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) settlement, would be available to support future projects once the current five?year programme ended. While he could not make firm commitments at this stage, he was confident that, having chosen to fund the design work for Treeton Lane crossroads, the Council would look to progress the scheme when further funding became available.

Councillor Yasseen sought clarification on the pedestrian crossings programme, noting that the report referenced five schemes. She asked which five locations had been identified, how these priorities had been determined, and whether Broome Lane was included. In response Councillor Williams explained that the Transportation Service had undertaken a borough?wide assessment of approximately 60 pedestrian crossing requests over the past year. The prioritisation report was due to be published shortly and would set out the full ranked list. He confirmed that funding had been allocated to deliver the highest?priority crossing and, separately, to design five additional crossings so they were ready for construction when further funding became available. The Service Manager, Transport Planning & Policy added that the Broome Lane zebra crossing was already being reviewed as part of the funded CRSTS major scheme on Broome Road and Wickersley Road, including the neighbourhood streets element. Design work for this upgrade was already underway. The additional funding referenced in the report related to further pedestrian crossing schemes beyond those already included in the existing programme.

In a further question Councillor Yasseen emphasised the importance of ensuring high?quality design by incorporating local knowledge alongside expert input. She cited recent infrastructure schemes where residents felt changes had reduced safety or usability, highlighting the example of the Masbrough Street/Centenary Way junction and issues reported on Sheffield Road’s cycle lane layout. She stressed the need for closer engagement with communities to understand how public spaces are used in practice and asked whether residents could be more involved in the development of future public realm schemes.

The Chair asked officers to explain how safety was considered in the design of road, roundabout and crossing schemes. Simon Moss responded that all projects were required to meet national technical guidance and safety standards. He acknowledged the importance of community consultation and noted that local input was a key part of scheme development, particularly for programmes such as ward road safety plans and minor works, which were shaped from the ground up.

Councillor Adair echoed concerns raised earlier and noted that he had long campaigned for improvements at the Treeton Lane crossroads. He expressed hope that the issue could now be resolved.

Councillor Allen asked two questions. She first sought clarification on how schemes were prioritised, noting references to prioritisation for school crossing patrol improvements and, separately, within the Transportation Minor Works Programme. She queried whether prioritisation was based solely on technical assessment or whether community pressure played a role, particularly given that minor works often responded to issues important to local residents.

The Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport clarified that pedestrian crossing schemes and minor works were prioritised using technical criteria, though the two programmes operated at different scales and costs. He noted that while public requests were an important source of information, the volume of requests alone did not determine priority. It was confirmed that the minor works process had been reviewed, with data gathered to support consistent prioritisation. Lucy Hudson added that she was assessing all aspects of the service to ensure an appropriate balance between technical assessment and community voice and would continue collaborating with councillors to deliver programmes that met both local needs and evidence?based requirements.

In her follow up question Councillor Allen asked about the role of ward members in scheme development and consultation. She noted that while community engagement was referenced, it was unclear how ward member input was incorporated. She queried whether, once schemes were prioritised, officers would return to ward members or committees such as Improving Places before decisions were finalised, or whether decisions would rest solely with Cabinet. She also expressed concern about the scale of delegations proposed within the preferred option.

The Chair reminded members that decisions were made for the whole authority, not individual wards, and agreed that officers should explain to ward members when requests could not be taken forward.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy added that the ward road safety plans were designed to strengthen the role of ward members by formally setting out each ward’s priorities, concerns and resident feedback. He explained that this process would help identify which issues could be addressed through minor works and which might require larger schemes. He noted that officers, had already been engaging directly with residents and local representatives, and stressed the commitment to ensuring members had a strong voice in shaping road safety priorities.

Councillor McKiernan welcomed the planned Old Flatts Bridge repair, noting it had been a longstanding concern. He then asked whether resurfacing decisions took account of planned nearby developments, for example, whether roads in poor condition were intentionally not resurfaced if upcoming construction traffic was expected to damage a newly laid surface.

Simon explained that the Council co-ordinated highway maintenance with planned development activity to avoid resurfacing roads shortly before they might be disturbed by construction traffic. He confirmed that discussions between services took place to avoid unnecessary rework, though they would not normally delay maintenance for prolonged periods; a delay of up to two years would be considered excessive. Decisions were made on a case?by?case basis, with input from relevant services and ward members.

Councillor McKiernan asked about the future of the five?year transport funding programme (LNTCP), noting it had now ended and seeking information on what would replace it. The Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport explained that the Local Neighbourhood Complementary Transport Programme, previously funded through the CRSTS settlement, had concluded. The new five?year funding stream would be the Transforming Cities Fund (TCF). Colleagues at SYMCA were developing a regional transport vision and a new Local Transport Plan, which would guide future allocations across South Yorkshire. It was confirmed that further detail would come forward in next year’s programme report.

Councillor Tinsley BEM sought reassurance that findings from the ongoing school road safety review at Improving Places would be reflected in ward road safety plans and school crossing improvements. He also asked whether clear guidance would be provided on the types of measures considered effective, noting that previous reviews had found certain visual interventions (such as road markings) to be ineffective compared with physical traffic?calming measures like speed humps or speed cameras. He requested clarity on what interventions were considered effective and deliverable.

It was confirmed that the school crossing patrol review was being aligned with ward road safety plans and that each ward would receive a safety masterplan, including at least one scheme developed to funding?ready stage. It was stressed that measures implemented would be those capable of delivering meaningful improvements. While evidence on the effectiveness of smaller interventions could vary, it was noted that decisions balanced technical data with community perceptions of safety. The aim of working with ward members to reach consensus on appropriate and effective measures was emphasised.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy noted that the service had recently placed greater emphasis on monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of delivered schemes. He acknowledged that this had not been done consistently in the past but confirmed that the interim head had strengthened this focus. He highlighted that £15,000 had been allocated in the Transport Capital Programme specifically for monitoring and evaluation work, including assessment of the new cycle lane and pedestrian crossing at Wath.

The Vice-Chair stated that he remained unsatisfied with the explanations provided regarding how the decision to progress the Treeton Lane crossroads study had been made. He requested that a written response be provided from the department setting out who made the decision, how it was reached, and what had changed since the earlier position. He then asked why the ward road safety plans were being developed over two years rather than one and sought clarification on how many schemes were expected to progress to delivery following completion of the plans.

In response the Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport explained that the ward road safety plans were phased over two years because of the scale of the work and the volume of issues typically raised during ward?level discussions. Spreading the work over two years ensured sufficient time and resources to develop the plans properly. Each ward would have at least one scheme developed to a funding?ready stage, with the intention of delivering as many schemes as future budgets allowed. It was noted that the number and pace of delivery would depend on the scale and cost of the interventions identified through the process.

The Chair noted that the committee did not require a formal recommendation to Cabinet, as the request concerned officers providing the information to the Vice-Chair directly. The Service Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport agreed to provide a written explanation outlining how the decision regarding Treeton Lane crossroads had been made and what, if anything, had changed. The Vice-Chair then asked how long the previous LNRS (Local Neighbourhood Road Safety) schemes had taken to develop and whether the reference to learning from earlier programmes related specifically to the LNRS process. In response Simon confirmed that the learning referenced did relate to the previous LNRS programmes (LNRS1 and LNRS2). He noted that experience from those programmes, particularly from LNRS1, had informed the decision to phase the ward road safety plans over two years, as this was considered a more practical and effective approach.

Councillor Blackham sought clarification on delegated powers and how they would affect spending. It was explained that delegated authority was being requested for the Executive Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, to approve schemes within the minor works programme and school crossing patrol improvements, as these were small projects requiring timely decisions. Delegation was also requested to allow the reallocation of any programme underspends to other approved schemes or to progress future pipeline projects. In response to questions from the Chair, it was confirmed they would inform ward members of any proposals relating to their areas before decisions were taken.

In his supplementary question Councillor Blackham sought further clarity on the scope of the delegated powers, expressing concern that the wording in the report appeared too broad. He asked why the delegations could not be explicitly limited to the specific schemes referenced, such as minor works and school crossing patrol improvements, rather than framed more generally.

Councillor Williams explained that the Cabinet Member’s role came at the final stage of the process. Ward members would identify priorities and work directly with officers on minor works proposals long before schemes reached him for approval. He assured members that ward input would shape decisions early on, with his role providing final oversight and audit. Councillor Blackham maintained that the delegated powers described in the report were too broad and should be more narrowly defined to improve clarity and reassure members.

The Chair noted he disagreed, commenting that Cabinet Members were elected to take responsibility and should retain final decision?making powers.

Going back to an earlier comment the Vice-Chair suggested that it would be useful for this committee, or for Improving Places Select Commission, to receive information on the lessons learned from previous programmes such as LNRS, and for this to be shared publicly so residents could also understand what had been learned. In response it was confirmed that officers were happy to provide information on lessons learned from previous schemes, such as LNRS, to the Improving Places Select Commission.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1. Notes the schemes and allocations of funding, as set out in paragraph 2.3, subject to approval of the Council Budget on 4 March 2026.

2.    Approves the schemes and allocations of funding outlined in Section 2 of this report, including the reallocation of savings made on capital projects delivered within budget as described in paragraph 1.6.

3.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the schemes to be delivered in 2026-27 through to 2029-30 with the Minor Works allocation, subject to approval of the Council Budget in March 2026.

4.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the schemes to be delivered in 2026-27 with the School Crossing Patrol Improvements allocation referred to in paragraph 2.2.6.

5.    Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to determine the use of any underspends across the Transport Capital Programme to fund the delivery of other approved transport programmes, or the progression of designs for potential future projects.

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       Councillor Bacon requested that the service provide, in writing, an explanation of who had made the decision to progress the Treeton Lane Crossroad proposal, detailing what had changed from the previous departmental advice.

·       The Improving Places Select Commission (IPSC) would receive an update on lessons learned from the LNRS (Local Neighbourhood Road Safety) programme.