URL: https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4799

Decision Maker: Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

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  

Date of Decision: December 17, 2025