Minutres of Sharrow Nether Edge Broomhill Area Panel

SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL AREA PANEL


Meeting held 1st April, 2004 at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane

	PRESENT:	Councillors Andrew White (Chair), Jean Cromar, Mohammed Nazir, Ali Qadar, Paul Scriven, Janice Sidebottom and Alan Whitehouse.

		Also in attendance:-
		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Penny Thompson	-	Lead Manager

		Craig Broadwith Ben Benest	-	Development Services

		Ken Moth Kieron McGlasson	-	Building Design Partnership

		Peter Downey	-	Sheffield Chamber of Trade

		Marie May	-	Sheffield Hallam University

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

	There were approximately 25 members of the public and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

............

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Basheer Khan and Patricia White.

2.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
	The Panel received a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing (a) responses to questions which had not been answered at previous meetings of the Panel and (b) details of developments in the area, which included (i) the next phase of the Plan 4 Transport in S10, which was to include the areas around Nethergreen and Manchester Road, both of which were on the borders of the Area Panel’s boundary, (ii) an announcement by the Home Secretary, of the allocation of £50,000 to South Yorkshire Police to support the creation of a new Policing Priority Area in part of Sharrow, (iii) an update on the consultation with regard to the future of the St Peter’s Church site, (iv) the consultation in connection with the Local Education Authority’s Extended School’s Strategy and (v) details of grants awarded from the Council’s Small Grant Fund to organisations in the Panel’s area.
	The Area Co-ordinator stated that he had been unable to provide an updated planning list with regard to applications for development in the Panel’s area, but reported that (i) he was aware of a proposed planning application to carry out alterations to the Charnwood Hotel, Sharrow Lane, to convert to apartments and (ii) the application for planning permission in respect of alterations to the Anglican Chapel, General Cemetery, to form four luxury flats with car parking, had been withdrawn.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. What were the timescales with regard to the implementation of the proposed Resident’s Parking Scheme in Sharrow?

	R. As part of the original proposals, Sharrow was to be included in the third phase of implementation, but as work had not yet commenced on the second phase, there were likely to be delays. This matter would be referred to officers in Development Services for a response.

	Q. Could a detailed report on the proposals in connection with the Resident’s Parking Scheme in the Panel’s area be submitted to a future meeting of the Area Panel, setting out details on exactly what work was to be undertaken in the area, and when?

	R. This would be given consideration.

	Q. In connection with the plans under the Plan 4 Transport in S10, had there been any public consultation on the proposal to remove the bus stop at the junction of Fulwood Road and Storth Lane? Could the proposed deadline of 9th April, 2004, in respect of the consultation exercise, be extended to enable more detailed consultation on the proposed removal of the bus stop?

	R. Officers involved in the Plan 4 Transport in S10 would be requested to provide a response.

	Q. Under the Plan 4 Transport in S10, would the pedestrian crossing on Fulwood Road give priority for pedestrians or motorists?

	R. This would be referred to officers in Development Services for a response.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· In respect of the proposals under the Plan 4 Transport in S10 relating to the Manchester Road/Vernon Terrace bus stop, the proposed closure of Vernon Terrace would be welcomed, but the closure would displace traffic to other roads in the area. There may be a possibility that the bus stop could be moved along the road.

	· It was noted that the bus stop on Manchester Road, on the route into the City Centre, was being removed, but not on the outward route.

	· Motorists were now being charged to park in the car park on Spooner Road, Broomhill, which would have an adverse effect on the area in that people will look to park on surrounding roads, which are already congested, and people would look for alternative places to shop where they do not have to pay to park.

	RESOLVED: That (A) the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made and the responses provided to the questions, be noted: and
	(B) the Head of Development Services be informed that the Panel objects to the proposed closure of the bus stop at the junction of Fulwood Road and Storth Lane, requests that wider consultation be held on the proposed closure, and that the deadline for the end of the consultation period in respect of the proposed closure, be extended.

3.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	There were no questions asked or petitions submitted by members of the public.
	Councillor Paul Scriven referred to the proposals to relocate the Local Education Authority’s Hospital Education Service from its present base at Clarkehouse Road, and relocate a Key Stage 3 Referral Unit into that building. He stated that as far as he was aware, there had been no consultation on the proposed relocation with the Broomhill Action Neighbourhood Group, the Broomhill Forum or this Area Panel, and expressed his dissatisfaction at this on the basis that it was a serious strategic issue, which would have a major effect on both its users and local residents. In the light of his concerns, Councillor Scriven questioned whether the Cabinet Member for Education and Training (Councillor Angela Smith) and the Executive Director, Education, could attend a future meeting of the Area Panel, to discuss the proposals.
	The Area Co-ordinator stated that he would look at the possibility of arranging such attendance.

4.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 4th March 2004, were approved as a correct record, and arising therefrom, the following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. The report submitted to the South Planning and Highways Area Board at its meeting held on 23rd February 2004, seeking authority to take legal action to pursue the removal of unauthorised student accommodation signs referred to the intention to take immediate action in respect of such a sign on the gable of 298 Ecclesall Road. It appeared that no such action has been taken to date, as the sign was still there. Will any action be taken in the near future?

	R. The Council was focusing its attention and resources in respect of the removal of such signs in Crookesmoor. The issue of the sign now mentioned will be referred to relevant Council officers.

	Q. Had any action been taken to ensure that the Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust would be looking into the difficulties being faced by residents in the Abbeydale/London Road area in having to travel long distances to alternative GP surgeries following the closure of Dr. Alam’s surgery? Would it be possible to arrange a meeting between the PCT and local residents to enable them to express their concerns?

	R. Joanne Rutter, the recently appointed Health Promotion Co-ordinator, at the PCT, would refer the matter to the PCT. The Area Co-ordinator would be writing to the PCT, on behalf of the Area Panel, expressing the Panel’s concerns and a response from the PCT would be reported to a future meeting of the Area Panel

	Q. Had any consideration been given to the request made at the last meeting for the Council to give serious consideration to improving the pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Abbeydale Road and Bannerdale Road?

	R. The matter would be referred to officers in Development Services and a response would be provided at the next meeting.

5.	JOHN STREET AREA – PROPOSED DESIGNATION AS A CONSERVATION AREA
	Craig Broadwith, Development Services, submitted a report upon the proposals for the designation of an area within the John Street area as a Conservation Area.
	Mr Broadwith reported that the City Council, in conjunction with English Heritage, had funded an initiative in 2001, aimed at preserving the best of buildings in the Sheffield Metal Trades. English Heritage had reviewed over 100 hundred metal trades complexes and had identified a number of sites which would be put forward for listing. In parallel to this, the Council had identified several areas around the City Centre, where intact groupings of metal trades buildings had survived, with a view to proposing their designation as Conservation Areas. The John Street area had a significant concentration of metal trades buildings, and as such, had been identified as the first of the new metal trades Conservation Areas to be proposed for designation. It was reported that designation would act as an important motor for the regeneration of the area, and in this case, Portland Works on Randall Street had been identified as a possible recipient of approximately £80,000 direct grant aid from English Heritage for repairs and the reinstatement of architectural features.
	Kieron McGlasson and Ken Moth, Building Design Partnership (BDP), gave a presentation on the Conservation Area Appraisal Study which they had undertaken in respect of the proposed designation.
	Mr. McGlasson reported that the BDP, which was a multi-disciplinary design practice involved in the regeneration of the historic environment for over 30 years, had undertaken the appraisal, working in partnership with ARCUS, specialists in the field of industrial archaeology, as well as in close liaison with the City Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Section and English Heritage. BDP had been appointed in November 2003, to undertake appraisal studies in respect of three areas, which included Furnace Hill, Well Meadow and John Street. The process had involved undertaking a site survey, consultations and background research, which had led to the production of a draft Conservation Area Appraisal. Following the production of the draft Appraisal, there was ongoing exploration of development pressures, the undertaking of a revised appraisal following client comment, complemented with a Management Plan, which all concluded with the production of a draft Final Appraisal, subject to a formal designation process.
	As part of the Conservation Area Appraisal, BDP had to identify a specific boundary for the proposed Conservation Area, assess the resident and business population within that boundary, and adjacent to it, undertake research into the role and function of the area, both then and now, assess the area’s relationship to surrounding areas, identify the routes both to and from and through the area and identify any landmarks within the area.
	Mr McGlasson summarised the history of the area and reported on the development pressures, referring specifically to recent applications for the development of student flats and the possibility of the Supertram being extended along Bramall Lane, together with the potential impact on the setting, character and function of the proposed Conservation Area.
	As part of the Conservation Area Management Plan, it was reported that general policies used in the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan would not be applied rigorously where they would conflict with the general nature and character of the John Street area, the character of the historic streets and pavements will be maintained, proposals to demolish historically significant buildings will be deterred, as will proposals that damage or significantly affect key features, such as windows and doors, and any development proposals must be of a high quality design. Facadism will be discouraged within the Conservation Area, any proposals that seek to repair and re-use buildings will be strongly supported, especially where this is done sympathetically to the needs of the building, open sites or unused sites will have proposals for new developments supported, again, where these are sympathetic to the nature of the John Street area and any new development that was proposed to be located adjacent to the proposed Conservation Area would be required to respect the character of the area. A proposal to change the use of a building will be supported if it helps make the area function better and more vibrantly, any development that would generate significantly increased traffic volume would be discouraged, advertisement hoardings or signs must relate to the nature of the building on which they were displayed, planning applications generally should be submitted in full, rather than outline, and any proposals to change or develop a listed building in the area must be accompanied by a Conservation Plan.
	Mr McGlasson concluded by referring to the requirement, as part of the Conservation Area Management Plan, to remove Macadam surfaces, and repair, re-bed and replace if missing, any historic surfaces, and developers should be encouraged to undertake a detailed archaeological assessment prior to any works being undertaken.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. What was the duration of the consultation exercise and how wide was the area in which people were to be consulted?

	R. All businesses and residents within the boundary had been either hand- delivered or posted a questionnaire as part of the consultation process, as well as those residents on surrounding streets. All stakeholders and businesses in the surrounding area were to be written to shortly. There would also be coverage in respect of the proposals on Radio Sheffield and The Star, as well as on the City Council’s Website.

	Q. What would happen if a Listed Building in the area became dangerous?

	R. The Council can take one of two courses of action – the first being the issue of an Urgent Works Notice, requiring the owner of the building to make the property secure and safe, and if the owner refused or did not comply with this request, the Council can undertake the work and recover and necessary costs if the building remains in the same ownership. The second course of action is to issue a Building Repairs Notice, requiring the owner to bring back the building to the condition it was in when it was listed, and again, if the owner refused or did not comply with the request, the Council can undertake any necessary works and recover the costs and if necessary, compulsory purchase the building.

	Q. What were the costs of the proposed designation to the Council?

	R. The costs involved in the proposed designation were relatively small, and involved only officer time in determining any future planning applications in the area and the general management of the Conservation Area. Indirect costs would involve increased costs if the Council wished to develop in the area, in that the designation would require certain standards of development.

	Q. Whilst being supportive of the principle of the designation, what authority will the designation give to the Council in dealing with inappropriate businesses within the area?

	R. As part of the Conservation Area Appraisal, there was no prejudice against any form of employment within the area.

	Q. What impact would developments such as the proposed casino at Bramall Lane have on the proposed Conservation Area?

	R. If the Council received any applications for planning permission for development adjacent to the proposed Conservation Area, which were likely to have an effect on the character and appearance of the area, this would be a material consideration in the determination of the application.

	Q. Would the Council allow any applications for residential development within the proposed boundary, particularly on the basis that such development would require car parking and could potentially result in Section 106 agreements in respect of open space? , Would it be likely that there would be applications for residential development on the sites of those buildings which had no special character or historical or architectural interest?

	R. The physical appearance and architecture of the buildings within the area would not change overnight. The redevelopment of similar areas in other areas of the Country, such as Castlefield in Manchester and Holbeck in Leeds, which were once unattractive areas, including scrap yards and other similar businesses, had been redeveloped over a number of years. These areas were now attractive and vibrant, with a number of successful businesses, but had also maintained the character of some of the more interesting buildings. If applications for new development, such as residential, were approved, consideration would need to be given to the existing businesses in the area. As there was predominantly business use in the area, it was likely that the area was not conducive for housing.

	Q. Was it the intention to save the shells of the buildings or safeguard the livelihood of the employees working within the building?

	R. It was the aspiration to maintain as much of the existing business activity as possible. Access to various funding streams would assist with the costs of refurbishing some of the properties to the standards required. If it was the intention of the Council to safeguard the livelihood of the employees working in the area, there would be a requirement to introduce new planning policy, but at present, such policies did not exist.

	Q. What would happen if approval was not given for the proposed area to be designated as a Conservation Area? Will the area fall into decline?

	R. It was possible that approval for the designation was not received, the area could fall into decline on the basis that it would not be possible to maintain all the buildings in the area, although every effort would be made to encourage the property owners to continue the existing businesses.

	Q. What efforts would be made to preserve any archaeological findings on the site?

	R. Every effort would be made to expose and record any archaeological findings discovered in the area. It was not always necessary or possible to retain archaeological features, but efforts would be made to record such features where possible.

	Q. On the basis that there were several residents from black and minority ethnic communities living in areas surrounding the proposed Conservation Area, several of whom were unable or had trouble reading English, what steps had been taken to ensure they had been consulted on the proposals?

	R. The questionnaires to be sent to residents living within the vicinity of the proposed area would be drafted in a number of community languages, as would any future publications containing general information on the history of the Sheffield Metal Trades.

	Q. Will the designation bring in additional resources which could be used to further enhance the area?

	R. Funding could be obtained through the Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme which could be used to restore paving, and street furniture within the proposed area.

	Q. Following the end of the consultation period on 31st April 2004, when will the City Council make a decision on the proposal?

	R. Dependent on whether the timescales were met in respect of the consultation exercise, it was proposed that a report seeking approval for the designation would be submitted to the South Planning and Highways Area Board at its meeting to be held on the 17th May 2004.

	Q. Would the proposed Supertram extensions on Bramall Lane have an effect on the proposed Conservation Area?

	R. If the area was designated as a Conservation Area, then the Supertram route would need to have even more careful consideration than previously.

	Q. Had the Council given consideration to the fact that due to the various restrictions with regard to development in Conservation Areas, this may have an adverse effect on inward investment in the area?

	R. It was the Council’s view that the proposed designation would encourage inward investment in the area. This however would depend on current market trends and could result in development over a long term. Designation was seen as a positive step towards assisting regeneration in the area. The area was seen as being very similar to the Cultural Industries Quarter Conservation Area, which had seen major investment and had assisted with the regeneration of this area.

	A resident who lived within the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area stated that she welcomed the interest being taken in the area and that it would highlight the historic importance of the area to people who were unaware of its history. She also suggested that efforts should be made to look at the possibility of developing part of one of the buildings as a museum designated to exhibiting the history of the area.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and the responses to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) Craig Broadwith, Development Services and Ken Moth and Kieron McGlasson, BDP, be thanked for the presentation now made.

6.	NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMISSION PHASE 2
	David Shepherd, Housing Services, submitted a paper containing the final report in respect of Phase 2 of the Neighbourhood Commission for Area G, which included a number of recommendations, and set out as appendices, details of the membership of the Neighbourhood Commission, the Area Commission Business Plan and a number of issues which had been raised at the open day held on 19th January 2004, at the St Mary’s Community Centre.
	Mr Shepherd reported that as Phase 1 of Neighbourhood Commission had looked at the public sector housing stock, Phase 2 would focus on issues for private housing in the area, in particular, issues for vulnerable people living in non-decent housing. The Commission comprised a number of people who had been involved in Phase 1, and who wished to continue the process through, which included representatives from Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield and District Landlord Association, Housing Associations and other stakeholders such as the Asian Welfare Association.
	It was reported that the Commission had met eight times over a period of four months, and had worked to an agreed business plan, the objectives of which included raising awareness of the support currently available for those living in the private sector, promoting the City Council’s Private Sector Housing Policy and enabling residents living in private housing in the area to raise issues which affected them. The Commission process had included holding an open day, which had been widely advertised through the media and community groups operating in the area, and those who had attended had completed a feedback sheet, which had been used to develop a number of recommendations. The outcomes from the Commission included the production of a Final Report with recommendations, an Action Plan to respond to those recommendations and a Newsletter to be distributed through a number of community outlets in the area, giving a summary of the Commission’s work and recommendations.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Has there been a change in the policy in that the Commission was focusing on vulnerable people, or has this always been the case?

	R. The original aim of the Commission was to look at achieving decent homes for all residents over a 10 year period, but due to funding restrictions, it had been decided to focus on vulnerable people.

	Q. Was there any Housing Market Renewal funding for this area?

	R. The only areas to benefit from Housing Market Renewal funding in Area G were Arbourthorne and Norfolk Park, which areas had been identified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There is however limited amount of funding from the Private Sector Housing budget, which is available to cover all areas of the City.

	Q. Could details with regard to the number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) be made available to the public?

	R. These figures could be provided.

	Q. Could the Council take any action against those private landlords who are not seen to be acting responsible?

	R. This issue was raised as part of the Commission process, and it was one of the Commission’s aims to education private landlords on their responsibilities. The Council had the powers to undertake any necessary legal action against those private landlords who were not seen to be acting responsible.

	Q. Can residents who live in sub-standard accommodation apply to the Council for funding to refurbish their properties?

	R. Residents are entitled to contact the City Council’s Housing Aid Section to seek advice on whether the Council could assist in refurbishing their homes if they are of a poor standard. A decent home, as determined by the Government, was one which was modern, safe and warm, and this criteria would be used in any assessments. The Council has moved away from a grants system to a loan system, and was encouraging residents to use the equity on their properties, under the Equity Release Scheme, to free up capital to enable them to undertake any necessary works to their properties.

	Q. Were the Council able to obtain figures with regard to the number of HMOs in the City?

	R. The requirement to register a HMO with the Council was voluntary at the present time, therefore it was very difficult for the Council to be aware of the number of HMOs in the City at any given time.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to David Shepherd for the presentation now made.

7.	OUTSTANDING REPORTS
	The Panel noted that there were no outstanding reports required for submission to future meetings.

8.	DATE AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING
	The Panel noted that its next meeting would be held on Thursday 6th May, 2004, from 7pm to 9pm, in the upper room at St. Mark’s Church, Glossop Road.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |