URL: https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4876

Decision Maker: Environmental Services and Regulation Policy Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: 10.1 Members of the committee considered a report of the Executive Director Neighbourhood Services introducing a revised and comprehensive City Centre Place Management Plan designed to strengthen cleanliness, safety, and vibrancy across Sheffield city centre.     10.2 RESOLVED: That the Environmental Services and Regulation Policy Committee;   a)    Acknowledges the City Centre Place Management Plan 2026–2028. b)    Acknowledges the governance arrangements for delivery and performance monitoring. c)    Notes that progress against KPIs will be monitored quarterly, with an annual update reported to Committee.     10.3 Reasons for Decision     10.3.1 Adopting the City Centre Place Management Plan provides a clear, coordinated framework for addressing long-standing and emerging challenges affecting Sheffield city centre. By bringing together cleansing, enforcement, safety, waste management, volunteering and partnership working under a single place-based approach, the plan moves away from fragmented, reactive service delivery towards consistent standards, clear accountability, and proactive intervention. This will result in visible improvements to cleanliness, environmental quality and public confidence, supporting economic recovery, increased footfall and a city centre that better meets the needs of residents, businesses, visitors, and the night-time economy.     10.3.2 The plan also delivers long-term value by strengthening partnership working, improving public reporting, and embedding community and volunteer engagement within formal governance arrangements. Clear performance monitoring through KPIs, surveys and governance boards ensures transparency and continuous improvement, while pilot initiatives such as the Graffiti Strategy and Commercial bin Policy provide scalable solutions for citywide rollout. Collectively, adopting this plan supports Council Plan outcomes, maximises existing resources, and establishes a resilient, inclusive and sustainable model for managing Sheffield city centre now and into the future.     10.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     10.4.1 Alternative Option 1: Do Nothing – Continue Delivering Services as We Currently Do   Under this option, the Council and partners would maintain the existing approach to city centre management, responding reactively to issues such as Page 104 graffiti, waste, and environmental quality without introducing new strategies or governance structures. Current reporting channels, partnership arrangements, and operational practices would remain unchanged.   Why is this option not favourable?   Reactive, not proactive: Issues like graffiti, waste mismanagement, and anti-social behaviour would continue to be addressed piecemeal, leading to inefficiencies and higher long-term costs.   Lack of visibility and accountability: Without a governance board or structured reporting, stakeholders and the public have limited transparency on decisions and outcomes.   Missed opportunities: Failing to modernize reporting systems, strengthen partnerships, and engage volunteers means losing the chance to improve service standards and community trust.   Risk to reputation: The city centre may appear neglected compared to other UK cities investing in place management, impacting economic vitality and visitor confidence.     10.4.2 Alternative Option 2: Minimal Intervention – Focus Only on Cleansing and Enforcement   This option would prioritize traditional street cleansing and enforcement activities without introducing broader strategies such as volunteering, partnership governance, or digital reporting improvements. Resources would be concentrated on visible issues like litter and graffiti removal, with limited investment in prevention or community engagement.   Why is this option not favourable?   Short-term fixes: Concentrating on cleansing and enforcement alone does not address root causes of environmental issues, such as poor waste management practices or lack of community stewardship.   Limited stakeholder engagement: Excluding volunteers, businesses, and residents from the process reduces shared responsibility and weakens long[1]term sustainability.   No holistic improvement: Issues like night-time safety, public realm quality, and proactive hotspot management would remain unresolved, undermining the city’s attractiveness and economic growth.   Higher costs over time: Without preventative measures and partnership efficiencies, the Council faces escalating operational costs and resource strain.  

Date of Decision: February 6, 2026