Content

9.1.1

Members of the committee
considered a report of the Executive Director, City Futures seeking
approval of the City Centre Access and Movement Plan (the Plan) as
a non-statutory policy document. It forms one of six Delivery Plans
that will provide the framework for future investment in transport
improvements across the city

 

 

9.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the
Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee –
 
(a) Approves the City Centre Access and
Movement Plan (CCAMP) as a non-statutory policy document, under the
Sheffield Transport Vision.
(b) Approves the use of the Plan to:

     
i.       
Guide the prioritisation, design and programming of transport
schemes within Sheffield City Centre.

   
ii.       
Aid interpretation of statutory policy (without superseding or
modifying it) where relevant to proposals affecting movement and
access in the City Centre and inform consideration of development
proposals accordingly.

  
iii.       
Support the development of funding bids and business cases to
Government, the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and
other funding bodies.

 

 

9.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

9.3.1

The City Centre Access and Movement Plan
provides a clear, integrated and evidence-based framework for
investing in the transport network over the next 15 years.

 

 

9.3.2

It will support the delivery of the emerging
Local Plan, the Sheffield Transport Vision and the Council Plan,
help address the climate emergency, and addresses the inequalities
experienced on the transport network in the City Centre today.

 

 

9.3.3

The Plan responds to public and stakeholder
feedback and builds on investments that are already underway. It
will strengthen the city’s position when seeking external
funding and working with partners by demonstrating a coherent and
long-term approach to how the City Centre is proposed to
function.

 

 

9.4

Alternatives
Considered and Rejected

 

 

9.4.1

Alternative Option 1: Do Nothing
 
A “do nothing” option would have
meant continuing with business as usual and relying solely on
existing high-level strategies which do not specifically articulate
the need for intervention in the City Centre, or the specific
issues which need addressing.
 
This was rejected because it would not provide
a clear or integrated framework for managing competing demands on
the City Centre network.
 
Without a coherent plan, increases in private
car traffic associated with future growth could not be managed
effectively, and public transport, walking, wheeling and cycling
would remain under-utilised.
 
This would increase congestion, worsen air
quality and carbon emissions, and limit the city centre’s
ability to support long-term economic growth. A scheme-by-scheme
approach would also risk fragmented, inconsistent and less
effective investment that fails to respond to the scale of planned
change.

 

 

9.4.2

Alternative Option 2: Do minimum
 
The second alternative option would have seen
the production of a low-cost, small-scale version of the proposed
Plan. This would involve preparing a shorter, more general
statement of intent for the City Centre, setting out broad
principles but with limited detail on network priorities, mode
hierarchy or specific interventions.
 
This option was rejected because it would not
give sufficient clarity to residents, businesses, developers,
transport operators or funding bodies about how the network is
expected to function in future, and it would provide a weak basis
for business cases and funding bids. Beyond that, it would provide
limited assistance in contextualising transport considerations
relevant to development management decisions.

 

 

9.4.3

Alternative Option 3: Single-Mode Plans
 
A “single mode” option was
considered, which would involve producing a series of mode-specific
plans for the City Centre rather than an integrated multi-modal
framework.
 
This option was rejected because street space
in the City Centre is limited and multiple demands must be
balanced, meaning decisions about one mode should not be made in
isolation from the needs of others. A single[1]mode approach would risk
displacing problems elsewhere on the network and would not
adequately address trade-offs between movement, access, servicing
and place