Minutes of Sharrow Nether Edge Broomhill Area Panel 3 June 2004

SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL AREA PANEL

Meeting held 3rd June, 2004, at Cemetery Road Baptist Church

PRESENT:   

Councillors Andrew White (Chair), Jean Cromar, Basheer Khan, Mohammad Nazir, Ali Qadar, Paul Scriven, Patricia White and Alan Whitehouse.

Also in attendance:-

Dave Whitfield

-

Area Co-ordinator

Penny Thompson

-

Lead Manager

Evelyn Milne

-

Head of Regeneration and Partnership

Marie May

-

Sheffield Hallam University

Ben Benest

-

Development Services

John Turner

-

Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 20 members of the public and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

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

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

            An apology for absence was received from Councillor Janice Sidebottom.

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, (b) details of developments in the area, which included (i) details in respect of the Area Panel’s Small Highways Budget, (ii) the proposed declaration of the third tranche of Local Nature Reserves and (iii) the minutes of the University of Sheffield Community Forum meeting held on 27th February, 2004, together with notice of the Forum’s next meeting to be held on 4th June, 2004.

            Councillor Paul Scriven questioned, in the light of the estimated delivery times with regard to the implementation of the highway schemes funded from the Area Panel’s Small Highways Budget, together with the high estimated costs of some of the proposed schemes, whether the Council could use other contractors, apart from Street Force, to undertake the works.  The Area Co-ordinator stated that the likely delays in respect of the implementation of the works were common with all such schemes, and related more to the need to undertake feasibility studies and design work in respect of the proposed schemes, which would be common whoever was undertaking the works.  He added that if the estimated delivery times in respect of the implementation of the schemes could not be met , he would ask the relevant Panel Link Officer to obtain quotes from other contractors and find out if the works could be implemented more speedily.

            Councillor Jean Cromar reported that the next meeting of the University of Sheffield’s Community Forum, which was due to be held on Friday, 4th June, 2004, had now been cancelled.  In connection with the Local Nature Reserves, a member of the public stated that there was a possibility that funding in respect of the development of such reserves could be available from the Sustainable Development Fund, and indicated that she would forward details of this to the Area Co-ordinator.

            The Panel noted the information contained in the report, together with the comments now made.

3.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

            Members of the public asked questions and responses were provided as follows:-

Q.        Could the Council monitor the action being taken by Camden Council in connection with its efforts, through the Law Courts, to apply for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in respect of people caught fly-posting?

R.        Yes, the Council would look into this.

Q.        Could the Council take action in respect of the poor condition of Osborne Road, Cavendish Road, Parkers Road and the bottom end of Union Road?  Despite residents having contacted Street Force on a number of occasions to report this, no action has been taken to repair the damage.

R.        The Nether Edge Ward Councillors had reported the poor condition of these roads to Street Force on previous occasions, following complaints from local residents, and had been told that officers were dealing with it.  In the light of the apparent lack of action, the Ward Councillors would contact John Charlton, Head of Street Force, direct.

Q.        Could the pavement opposite the Botanical Gardens on Clarkehouse Road, which had been damaged following the installation of the pelican crossing, be repaired?

R.        The Area Co-ordinator would refer this to the relevant Panel Link Officer to investigate.

Q.        Could the Council give consideration to filling in the underpass at the bottom of Cemetery Road, and construct a pedestrian crossing?

R.        It was understood that there may be some funding available for highway improvements in the area surrounding the student accommodation development on the site of the former Dixons site, which may include this.

4.

MINUTES OF LAST MEETING

            The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 6th May, 2004, were approved as a correct record, and arising therefrom, Councillor Paul Scriven questioned (a) when it was intended that the report on the views of Panel Members and local residents in connection with the proposed relocation of a Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit into the building being vacated by the Hospital Education Service at Clarkehouse Road would be submitted to the Cabinet and (b) whether details of the timescales in respect of the implementation of the Resident’s Parking Scheme in Broomhill had been reported at the meeting of the Broomhill Forum held on 11th May, 2004.

            The Area Co-ordinator responded by stating that (i) the report in respect of the proposed relocation of the Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit had been referred to the Committee Secretariat Manager early last week, and it was the intention that the report would be submitted to the Cabinet in due course and (ii) it had been reported at the Broomhill Forum’s meeting held on 11th May, 2004, that a decision on the timescales in respect of the implementation of the Resident’s Parking Scheme in Broomhill would be made shortly after the Municipal Elections.

            Following a further query from Councillor Scriven as to the delays indicated in the report in respect of the Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit being submitted to the Cabinet, and as to why there had to be a review of the timescales in respect of the submission of the report, the Area Co-ordinator indicated that he was unaware of why there had been such delays or why the timescales had been reviewed, but would investigate this matter and report back to Councillor Scriven.

5.

CREATING SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBOURHOODS – “CLOSING THE GAP”

            Evelyn Milne gave a presentation on the Council’s “Closing the Gap” strategy, which had been approved by the Cabinet in August, 2003.  Ms. Milne reported that by targeting its existing resources and by working with other agencies, the Council aimed to close the gap between the most affluent and deprived areas of the City.

            Ms. Milne referred to the 10 features of a successful city, which included having attractive, successful neighbourhoods, a well educated workforce, a vibrant city centre, a healthy population, low crime levels, good transport systems, good cultural and sporting offer, a strong economy, being cosmopolitan and inclusive and being well run, sustainable and well regarded.  Specific reference was made to what the Council wanted to achieve as part of “Closing the Gap”, which included having a prosperous city, having successful neighbourhoods across the whole of the City and improving the more deprived areas faster than the City as a whole.

            Ms. Milne reported on a number of successes that the City had experienced, indicating that unemployment had fallen faster in Sheffield than nationally, and fastest in the areas of the City where it was once highest, the performance of the City’s secondary schools had improved fastest in the inner-City areas and targeted action on housing, crime and the environment had made a significant difference in some areas.  She stated however that there were still a number of major challenges, such as tackling unemployment in Burngreave as the rate of unemployment in the Burngreave Ward was over three times the Sheffield average, and five times the national rate, tackling the lower life expectancy levels in Netherthorpe in that people living in that area could expect, on average, to live five years less than people in the City as a whole, lowering the burglary rates in the Sharrow Ward, which were three times the City average, and almost five times the national average, and improving attainment levels in some areas, such as the Manor Ward, where the number of pupils achieving five or more GCSE A*-C grades was almost three times less than the Sheffield average.

            Ms. Milne referred to the various components of a successful neighbourhood, indicating that it was an area where people chose to live, had low crime levels, had an attractive environment, had clean, well maintained streets, had open spaces which were used and enjoyed and had a decent choice of homes and schools.  The key elements of “Closing the Gap” were to build on national strategies for neighbourhood renewal and successes already achieved in the City, be more systematic and focused, focus on the delivery of mainstream services as much as the additional regeneration funding, harness all of the changes in a neighbourhood together and consistently review progress, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.  It was also the intention, as part of the strategy, to identify the areas of the City that should be the focus of attention, agree the major transformational initiatives in a neighbourhood, review the delivery of mainstream services and establish mechanisms to measure progress.

            The following questions were asked and responses given:-

Q.        How does the Council measure such things as poverty and school attainment, on a year by year basis?

R.        The Council either had, or could easily obtain up to date information on some of the indicators used to assess levels of deprivation such as entitlement to Income Support and GCSE performance, and received annual statistics from the Police in respect of crime figures and Sheffield for Health in respect of health indicators.  The Council started with these indicators on the basis that they were simple to collect, and was working to improve the collection of other data which could be used as additional indicators, such as levels of street cleanliness.

Q.        Would the Ward boundary changes affect the process of collection of data?

R.        The targeted areas which had been identified were not Council Wards, but were clusters of housing where it had been identified, by using Census data, that there were 30% or more households in that particular cluster receiving Income Support.

Q.        With regard to those people who had been identified as having lower  life expectancy, was it due to where they lived or how they lived?

R.        It was difficulty to predict whether it was one or the other, but poverty was widely considered to be one of the biggest determining factors with regard to life expectancy on the basis that people on lower incomes were often unable to afford healthy foods or heating costs.

Q.        Whilst the Council held a number of hard facts and indicators relating to levels of deprivation, was consideration given to people’s attitudes, such as how they felt about living in a particular area?

R.        As part of its research, the Council identified a number of areas in the City  which were perceived as being areas of deprivation, and questioned the residents of those areas on their attitudes to the areas and whether they were committed to living there.  A large number of the responses were very positive in that people felt a sense of pride in living in these areas and it was found that the same people were often involved in various initiatives to improve the areas.

Q.        Why had the areas been chosen using Income Support entitlement as the only indicator, particularly as Government guidance indicates that household income levels should be used as the best indicator of deprivation?  Would the Council consider using household income levels in the future?

R.        The Council had looked at the issue of indicators again, but the data was difficult to gather.

Q.        Had the Council given consideration to the fact that although a number of families were entitled to Income Support, they did not claim it?  Did the Council assist in encouraging people to claim Income Support?

R.        The Council supported a number of Advice Centres, which actively encouraged people to claim benefits.

Q.        What consideration had the Council given to ensuring that any improvements made under the strategy were sustainable?  There did not appear to be any indicators relating to the economy, and without these, it was likely that there would be no sustainability.

R.        Sheffield First Partnership sets targets relating to the economy, but this was at a City level as it was difficult to measure economic progress at a neighbourhood level.

Q.        Was there a possibility that if certain areas improved over time, such as if residents’ health in a certain area improved, funding from the Council would be directed to other areas?

R.        This approach was not so much about directing funding than about using the indicators to make a judgement about the rate of progress.

Q.        Was consideration being given to those areas of deprivation which were not in the top ten, as set out in Appendix B to the report?

R.        Although the areas shown in Appendix B were not in the top ten Wards having the highest deprivation, as determined by the Government, consideration was given to such areas, and these have been included.

Q.        What co-ordination did the Council have with other agencies as part of the strategy, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Health Authority and Registered Social Landlords?

R.        The City-wide partnerships had all endorsed the initiative.  The Primary Care Trusts had all signed up to the initiative, and were taking a specific neighbourhood approach into how the health of residents in the areas could be improved, as part of their own work.  The Police had been adopting a neighbourhood approach to improving crime and community safety for some time and the various employment agencies had held discussions with regard to undertaking a neighbourhood approach to targeting those areas of high unemployment.

Q.        Was there a possibility that Council staff, and staff from the other agencies,  were working to look at how resources could be targeted in areas of deprivation to improve standards of living for the residents, when a number of solutions were very obvious?

R.        There was a possibility that this was the case.  There was a belief that some people on low incomes were offended by the fact that officers from the various agencies, were attempting to work out solutions as to how they could be helped.

Q.        Will consideration be given, following the Ward boundary changes, to the fact that some deprived areas of Sharrow will be moving to the Nether Edge Ward, on the basis that, as a whole, Nether Edge was not classed as a deprived area?

R.        As stated earlier, the areas identified were clusters of households, and not Wards, therefore regardless of which Ward such areas were moving to, they would still be considered and targeted under the strategy.

Q.        Had consideration been given to the fact that whilst residents health was generally very good and income levels were reasonably high in Broomhill, there were very high burglary rates in that area?

R.        The Council was aware of this.  The Police would respond to increases in burglary rates in any area regardless of circumstances, but the Council would focus its resources on those areas in most need.

Q.        What action will actually be taking place in the targeted areas?

R.        The Council would be organising a number of initiatives in the targeted areas, such as street cleaning, and more longer-term projects (Transformational Projects), were being arranged at the present time, with input from the Area Panels.  It was hoped that a report on the Transformational Projects, which were being undertaken for each of the targeted areas, and would focus mainly on lifelong learning and housing, would be submitted to the Cabinet at the end of Summer 2004.

Q.        Under the strategy, will consideration be given to directing resources towards housing investment?

R.        Separate funding had not been identified specifically for works as part of the  strategy, but consideration would be given to allocating the Council’s resources to those areas of greatest need.

Q.        Do the areas identified as part of the strategy correlate to the City’s housing estates?

R.        Not necessarily.  There were some areas with clusters of housing which were not on Council housing estates, such as Fir Vale.

Q.        The Schools Organisation Plan had indicated that there was a high level of educational needs in Netherthorpe and Southey Green – had the Council used special educational needs as an indicator as the Education Directorate have data on this issue?

R.        The officer present could not confirm whether this had been used as an indicator, but would talk to officers in the Education Directorate.

Q.        Was entitlement to Family Tax Credit be used as an indicator?

R.        No.

Q.        What were the expected outcomes of the strategy?  Did the Council believe that changes could be made to areas of deprivation, particularly on the basis that some of the areas had been deprived for a number of years, and were likely to be deprived for a number of years in the future?

R.        Details of the expected outcomes would be included in the report to be submitted to the Cabinet.

RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported and the responses provided to the questions, be noted; and

            (b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Evelyn Milne for the presentation now made.

6.

TRANSFORMING SHARROW – THE SHARROW PROJECT

            The Area Co-ordinator gave a presentation on the aims and objectives of the Sharrow Project, which it was hoped, would be identified as the main transformational project for the Panel’s area.  He emphasised the importance of the Project being seen as having a broad ownership, indicating that there was a need for local residents, local community groups and organisations and key stakeholders in the area being involved in both the establishment and the running of the Project, which, it was believed, had the potential to transform the Sharrow area.

            The Area Co-ordinator reported on the long-term problems being experienced in the Sharrow area, indicating that there were too many buildings in the area that were either empty or only partly used, or did not have suitable facilities for the groups or organisations that used them.  In addition, there were many groups or businesses in the area that were unable to find suitable premises for their work.  Preliminary discussions and consultations on the proposals in connection with the Project had commenced on the basis that there were a number of changes either taking, or due to take place in connection with a number of buildings in the Sharrow area, including the merging of the Sharrow Nursery and Infant School with the Sharrow Junior School, resulting in the newly merged school occupying a single building on the site of the present Nursery and Infant School, which in turn, would mean that the present Junior School would become empty.  Lowfields School was reducing its size to a single-class entry, resulting in the green clad building within its grounds being available for other uses.  In addition, it had been accepted for some time that the Mount Pleasant building was becoming too expensive to maintain, and was not really suitable for adult education work.  However, due to its listed status, the building could not be demolished.  At the same time, the Council’s “Closing the Gap” strategy had identified the need to implement a number of transformational projects which would hopefully raise the standard of some of the more deprived neighbourhoods in the City.  All these changes had led to some creative thinking by a number of local people, agencies and partners, in order to look at how this opportunity could be best maximised for the local communities, and the outcome of this thought process was the Sharrow Project.

            The Area Co-ordinator reported that a Steering Group had been established, comprising local residents and representatives from local community groups and organisations and other agencies within the Sharrow area, which had established a draft Masterplan that would hopefully lead to a range of services being provided from a single site, with more joined up provision than was presently possible.  The proposals in the draft Masterplan included the conversion of the “green clad” building at Lowfields School for use by The Hub, moving The Hub to Lowfields, demolishing the Sharrow Junior School building following its merger with the Sharrow Nursery and Infant School on the basis that the building was ageing and not suitable for conversion, constructing new buildings on the site of the former Sharrow Junior School to house youth and community facilities, library services and adult education, moving the existing library service, adult education and The Stables into new buildings, selling the Mount Pleasant building, for housing development and selling the old library building.  The result of these plans would lead to a new, modern library, which would be the same size as the present library, but with better equipment and access, a new, state of the art adult education space, again, of the same size as the present space, but with better equipment and access, the integration of the library and adult education services, better utilisation of the space available at Lowfields and that all the proposals would be at no overall cost to the community or the City Council.

            The Area Co-ordinator referred to a number of other likely changes in the Sharrow area, which would have an effect on the proposals in respect of the Project, which included the possibility that St. John’s Methodist Church would be sold, and its future use would have an effect on the new community Hub that was being proposed, the proposed redevelopment of the old Tuxedo Blue public house by Sharrow Surestart, as a focal point for their services, which would also have an effect on the new Hub and the redevelopment of Mount Pleasant Park,  following extensive consultation, and subsequent plans to link the Project into the increased use of the Park.

            The Area Co-ordinator reported on the work of the Steering Group, and how the draft Masterplan would be progressed from this stage.  He stated that whilst the Group had a very broad perspective, it had been recognised that there was still the need to broaden the input into the Project, and the views of local residents, local community groups and organisations, agencies and City Councillors would be valued on certain aspects of the draft Masterplan.  Specific reference was made to the need for realistic ideas in respect of the future of the library and what could be built on the site of the old Sharrow Junior School.  He also stated that any ideas on links to other schemes or buildings would be welcomed.

            In conclusion, the Area Co-ordinator reported that to enable the process to commence, the Council needed to identify funding of approximately £3.25m, and it was likely that the Council would receive capital receipts of approximately £3.75m following the sale of the buildings.

            The following questions were asked and responses provided:-

Q.        Were there any figures available in respect of the funding required for the Project?

R.        The figures mentioned were estimated figures, based on sales figures at current market values.

Q.        There had been no mention of the area of green space on the Lowfield site – was this included as part of the Project?

R.        Not specifically, but there would be implications for a number of sites from the outcome of the Project.

Q.        What level of consultation had been held with local residents prior to the draft Masterplan in respect of the Project being produced?

R.        The Steering Group established to manage the Project comprised a number of representatives from different community groups and organisations in the area and the draft Masterplan had evolved following discussions between the various community representatives.

Q.        Whilst a number of representatives from the various community groups and organisations in the area had discussed the proposals, had the wider community been consulted?

R.        It had been the intention for the Steering Group to hold initial discussions on the proposals, then draw up a draft Masterplan, which would be used as a means of a detailed consultation exercise with the wider community.

Q.        Would the draft Masterplan be submitted to a future meeting of the Area Panel as a means of consultation?

R.        Yes.

            The following comments were also made:-

·                    There had already been extensive consultation on the proposals in that a number of established community organisations in the area were represented on the Steering Group.  It was, however, accepted that the Steering Group may not fully represent the wider community.  A number of consultation events had been held as part of the “Sundays in the Park” events which had commenced on Sunday, 23rd May and would be held every Sunday between 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. in Mount Pleasant Park, until 27th June, 2004.

·                    There was concern over the potential loss of Highfield Library, and it was considered that as the library was established at this location, it would be more beneficial to invest in the present building rather than demolish and move the facility.

·                    The Sharrow Project should be welcomed as it will benefit all the Sharrow community.

·                    It was likely that there would be problems with regard to planning issues in connection with the proposed demolitions or change of uses as part of the draft Masterplan.

·                    The initial discussions and consultation on the proposals had been positive in that they had already transformed the way in which the various agencies in the area worked together.

RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, the comments now made and the responses provided to the questions, be noted; and

            (b) subject to the outcome of the consultation process being reported in detail to a future meeting of the Area Panel, approval be given for the Sharrow Project to be nominated as a Transformational Project for this Area Panel.

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, 1st July, 2004, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane.

(NOTE:  Subsequent discussions have been held, which have resulted in the meeting to be held on 1st July being cancelled).