Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment, which outlined the results of the extended review into dockless operator, Lime.

Members were informed that a review had taken place of both dockless operators, Lime and Human Forest following complaints regarding their performance around their operations in the City. In January 2023, it was decided to reapprove Human Forest to continue operating in the City but to extend the review into Lime to assess whether they were able to meet the City’s standards and requirements.

The Officer stated that the report summarised the results of the extended review and recommended that following a satisfactory review and extensive engagement with Lime, that Lime be approved to continue to operate in the City whilst maintaining ongoing performance reviews. This approach would enable further engagement and for work to be undertaken to improve operations in the City, especially whilst awaiting additional powers in the form of primary legislation to help regulate the industry. Members were informed that the report and recommendations did not propose any changes to the current approach to dockless cycles more generally, other than to recommend a limited trial of allowing users to end their journeys in some Sheffield stands and bike racks.

There was concern expressed from a Member that the City was judging the performance of the dockless cycle-hire vendors using statistics provided by the vendors themselves, and whether there was independent verification of their performance from Officers. An Officer responded that Officer verification would be ideal, but there were constraints due to the Officer time required for this.

In response to a Member’s question about the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the Officer stated that Officers had worked with Human Forest and Lime to set agreed KPIs and they had also carried over some KPIs used in the pan-London e-scooter trial. The Member raised concern about their methodology of reporting based on anecdotal observations of Lime bikes being left for extended periods of time but stated that working with Lime should be beneficial. He stated that if additional powers in the form of primary legislation were introduced, there should be a discussion about how these would be used.

A Member stated that he supported the use of Sheffield stands and bike racks as this would provide more opportunities for people to park the bikes correctly. Another Member raised concern that although there were often spaces in the cycle stands, they were not in the places that Lime bikes were likely to be left. She stated that the survey of the usage of existing bike stands was important to ensure that commuters had the opportunity to park near their workplace or meeting place. An Officer stated that an independent auditor would undertake this work and it would be funded by the operators. Strict requirements would be set for what was considered spare capacity in a Sheffield stand as sufficient space should be retained for regular users. There was also a risk that the stands could reach capacity and that dockless bikes would then be parked in adjacent spaces. Therefore, locations would be chosen carefully based on data.

A Member suggested that more car parking spaces could be turned into space for bike stands. An Officer stated that consideration was being given to moving the location of some of some of the existing bays to more desirable locations without the loss of a car parking space, by swapping bays.  The Officer stated that, as outlined in the report, it was proposed to install additional bays in adjacent or underutilised carriageway space. Further discussion would be required to identify additional space and how these bays would be funded. Work was taking place with operators to identify voluntary financial contributions to recover the costs of installing the bays.

A Member stated that there were likely to be some residents undertaking monitoring.

A Member commented on bikes being left along the boundaries with Islington and Tower Hamlets and also around tourist sites such as the Tower of London. She asked how often a user had to repeatedly park inappropriately in order to be banned. An Officer stated that Human Forest and Lime had both outlined their banning process. Both involved a warning in the first instance and then an escalating fine over several instances of inappropriate parking, followed by a ban on the next instance. The ban would be for Lime’s entire network internationally. Human Forest had a similar process but fewer instances of inappropriate parking to be banned. Lime had provided statistics on bans and this was a significant number.

A Member raised concern that once the extension had been approved, performance could decrease. This could present particular difficulties for those with sight disabilities, mobility difficulties or those with pushchairs or wheelchairs. She stated that operators should pay for the parking spaces for their bikes, move the bikes quickly and have a method for people to report bikes left in inappropriate locations. The Officer informed Members that voluntary financial contributions were being sought but there was no formal contractual arrangement with them. The approval status could be rescinded at any time if performance was not considered to be satisfactory under the ongoing performance reviews. However, this would not necessarily prohibit them for operating in the City. Continuing to engage and influence Lime should lead to improvements.

The Chairman stated that he and the Chairman of Planning and Transportation Committee had met with Lime and believed that they were taking effective action to address the issues. He advocated continuing to work with them.

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee

1.         Agree to renew Lime’s operational status in the City, subject to ongoing performance

reviews.

2.         Agree the limited use of Sheffield stands and City bike parking racks as additional

dockless parking on a trial basis.