Minutes of Sharrow Nether Edge Broomhill Area Panel

SHARROW, NETHER EDGE, BROOMHILL AREA PANEL


Meeting held 2nd October, 2003, at the Broomhill Methodist Church

	PRESENT:	Councillors Andrew White (Chair), Jean Cromar, Basheer Khan, Mohammad Nazir, Paul Scriven and Alan Whitehouse.

		Also in attendance:-
		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Richard Eyre	-	Development, Environment and Leisure Directorate
		Ben Benest	)	Development Services
		Dick Skelton	)
		Patrick Burns	-	Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 29 members of the public and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

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

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Janice Sidebottom and Patricia White.

2.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
	The Area Co-ordinator submitted a report containing (a) responses to outstanding questions which had been asked at previous meetings of the Panel and (b) details of developments in the area, which included (i) proposals with regard to the carrying out of improvements to Weston Park, (ii) the recruitment of a Home Development Worker, using Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) Local Action Plan theme funding, as part of the Homezone Project, (iii) changes with regard to the Panel’s NRF allocation, (iv) the outcome of Phase 1 of the Neighbourhood Commission and (v) the implications of the recent review of public toilets in the area.
	The Panel noted the contents of the report now submitted.

3.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	Members of the public asked questions and Members of the Panel and officers provided the following responses:-

	Q. There was a safety issue at Summerfield Street in that cars travelled very quickly along the road, making it very difficult for pedestrians to cross. There had been a statement at the time of the Wards Brewery Development that there would be public consultation, but this had not been done. Also, Safeway had allegedly agreed to pay £30,000 towards the implementation of road safety measures in the area, but this money had never materialised. Who was responsible for this?

	R. This matter would be investigated.

	Q. Had details of the highway improvements in Conservation Areas, such as the schemes in Broomhill and Broomhall, been referred to the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group or the Heritage Section of Development Services, for comment?

	R. This would be investigated, but it was believed that Conservation Officers were involved in the discussions in connection with proposed highway schemes in Conservation Areas.

	Q. Would details of planning applications in the Panel’s area be included in future reports of the Area Co-ordinator to the Panel?

	R. That would be done. The planning applications were included on the City Council's Website, but the Area Co-ordinator would include information in his report to highlight particular local developments.

	Q. Would a list of outstanding traffic schemes in the area be submitted to a future meeting?

	R. That would be done.

	Q. Why was there no sound or push button facilities on the signals for use by blind people at the pedestrian crossing at the junction of Ecclesall Road and Summerfield Street?

	R. There would be no sound on a traffic signal across a dual carriageway as the user could be confused by hearing the sound of the signal relating to the opposite carriageway. The possibility that money should have been provided to improve the crossing facilities would be investigated.

	Q. What was Operation Triangle?

	R. Operation Triangle was a Crime Prevention Scheme operated by the South Yorkshire Police, which was aimed at reducing the level of crime against students in the City. The initiative had been in operation for three weeks, but had already proved a success in that the number of reported offences had been reduced from 20 to three for a comparable period in 2002. The operation involved placing more officers on the streets, in some cases travelling by bicycle, encouraging students to use safer routes and not to use their mobile telephones whilst walking about. The initiative should run throughout the Winter months, at least up to Christmas 2003. The hub of the operation was the underpass at the junction of Ecclesall Road and Moor Street, and extended to the Devonshire Green, Sharrow, London Road, Abbeydale Road, Broomhall and Broomhill areas.

	Q. What hours were the additional Police Officers on the streets, as part of Operation Triangle?

	R. The operation covered the early evening period and the period between pub closing times and midnight or beyond.

	Q. Were there different routes?

	R. There were no different routes, but the aim was to encourage the students to use the main roads and to walk in groups.

	Q. What would happen if street lights were not working?

	R. The Police Officers, as part of Operation Triangle, would report them to Street Force. This was being done on a daily basis and Street Force were providing a rapid response.

	Q. Had Operation Triangle been discussed with the Universities’ Students’ Unions?

	R. Yes, and Police Officers had given talks to students in Halls of Residence, as well as placing information on the Students’ Unions’ websites. The scheme had also been widely publicised on Radio Hallam.

	Q. Recently, Police Officers had been seen speaking to a beggar outside the Spar Supermarket at Hunters Bar. Was that part of Operation Triangle?

	R. That was the case and as part of the scheme, Police Officers would be encouraging beggars not to loiter outside shops, asking for money.

4.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting held on 4th September, 2003, were approved as a correct record, subject to the amendment of Item 4, by the substistution of the words "land between Broadfield Road and the River Sheaf" for the words "land between Broadfield Road and the River Porter", and, arising therefrom, the Panel noted that the Chair had written to Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Streetscene, to ask whether the additional £40,000 allocated for the removal of fly posting as part of the Cleaner, Greener, Safer City Initiative would be spent in the Panel’s area, and that Councillor Harpham had replied, stating that the City Council was funding measures to deal with fly posting, and that this area would receive a proportion of the funding provided under the Initiative. The Chair stated that he would write further to Councillor Harpham, to clarify how much of that funding would be spent specifically on this area and would report back to the Panel thereon.

5.	A VISION FOR BROOMHILL
	The Panel considered a report by the Broomhill Forum on the Forum's initiative to establish a Vision for Broomhill, in response to the City Council's consultations with local communities on the Unitary Development Plan, which involved two public meetings on 30th January and 7th May, 2003.
	Rev. Alker, Chair of the Broomhill Forum, stated that the main vision for Broomhill, arising from the meeting held in January, 2003, was to create a balanced community with a diverse range of residents and businesses, living and working alongside each other in a spirit of tolerance. Residents were committed to safeguarding the Victorian heritage of the area and conserving the green spaces to create a vibrant and safer environment for the whole community. Through both meetings, the Forum had identified three priority issues, namely houses in multiple occupation (HIMOs), traffic/parking/pedestrian matters and the environment. The Environment Rev. Alker stated that with regard to the environment and HIMOs, the key factor was the pressure arising from the number of students within the area, which was increasing, and expected to continue to increase, together with the trends following from that pressure. Rev. Alker stated that for example, more students nowadays preferred to live in houses rather than halls of residence, and the current plans of the City’s Universities to dispose of some of their halls of residence would add to the pressures on housing in Broomhill and other areas favoured by students. Other factors included the availability of funding to students, the changes in the licensing laws which would create longer drinking hours and the difficulties being caused by students leaving their wheelie bins on the pavement, in substantial numbers, thus making the pavements inaccessible to pedestrians, and frequently resulting in rubbish being strewn on the pavement, which itself had lead to an increase in the rat population within the area. Rev. Alker stated that Broomhill was the first district shopping centre which drivers travelling into the City, on the A57, travelled through, and that ideally, the Forum would wish to see street furniture of a high standard and a clean, vibrant environment for Broomhill. Currently, this was not being fulfilled due to various pressures, particularly those emanating from the student population. The students were in residence for longer periods than in previous years, and formed the bulk of the customers of a substantial number of take-aways in the area. Small, low cost measures could be taken to improve matters, for example, through labelling wheelie bins to indicate on which day the bins would be collected and what items of rubbish could be placed within the bin, all of which would enhance the appearance of Broomhill.
	Councillor Mohammad Nazir stated that Onyx had issued notices in some areas requesting householders to remove their bins from the pavement when they were empty.
	Richard Eyre, Development, Environment and Leisure Directorate, stated that a Steering Group had been established to deal with the problem of illegal fly posting across the City and the Group had developed an Implementation Plan for action to be undertaken. The Steering Group was chaired by Councillor Harry Harpham and comprised representatives from Street Force, Environment and Regulatory Services and the Chief Executive's Directorate. All the night clubs within the City were informed that fly posting was an offence and action would be taken under the relevant legislation, including licensing legislation and all hotspot areas within the City were identified. Officers in Legal and Administrative Services had given training to 18 officers, including the Environmental Wardens and City Centre Ambassadors, to enable them to gather evidence of fly posting for prosecution purposes under the Town and Country Planning Act. It was necessary to obtain photographic evidence through two officers and deliver a notice to the club involved by hand, giving 24 hours notice to remove the poster in question. To enable prosecutions to be implemented, posters within the hotspot areas were not being removed by the Council officers. Four cases were pending in which summonses had been issued and the prosecutions would be dealt with early next month. It was unlikely that the City Council would achieve zero tolerance of fly posting, but it was expected that a high degree of enforcement would be achieved. The highways legislation also permitted a Council officer to remove something causing an obstruction on the highway as was already done by some local authorities such as Manchester City Council. The club responsible for the fly posting was then charged for the costs of the officer doing so. A key factor was that the individuals responsible for fly posting were frequently students and the City Council had written to the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University to state that it was a criminal offence, with a fixed penalty of £50 for littering, that some penalty notices had been issued and that the City Council would be using CCTV and the Ambassadors to enforce this legislation. The night clubs had also been informed that under the Environmental Protection Act, they had a duty of care regarding environmental protection and fly posting was a form of waste for which the clubs would be held responsible. Street Force had carried out a "blitz" on fly posting on Ecclesall Road and had removed 600 posters in one week, but at a cost of £3,500, which would be an unsustainable expense in the long term. Officers in Street Force had also worked late hours in certain areas to remove posters. A database of all the night clubs and the dates, times and locations of the removal of posters was being created, which would be a useful tool for a future prosecutions. The City Council had made it clear that club fly posting and "strap on" posters would not be tolerated and was attempting to encourage local night clubs to inform potential customers by text messages and by publicising their telephone numbers. Consideration was being given to the feasibility of the night clubs forming a non-profit making company to purchase J. C. Decaux advertising columns in appropriate areas on key routes used by students. The columns would be managed by the company which would be funded by the clubs. It was hoped that this would be a viable alternative to fly posting and strap on boards, and that the details of the scheme would be finalised by January/February 2004.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr. Eyre responded as follows:-

	Q. Was it an offence to staple posters to trees?

	A. That was an offence.

	Q. Could the night clubs be requested to place posters in various places of study?

	A. That would be considered.

	Q. Could there be an update report on fly posting at each future meeting of the Panel?

	A. That could be done.

	The Area Co-ordinator stated that the Student Accommodation Task Force, which was Chaired by Karl Tupling, Housing Services, would arrange a meeting with the Broomhill Forum on the action which had been taken already within a pilot scheme, to remove rubbish from areas of housing with a large student population, and that the City Council was giving consideration to extending the pilot scheme.

	Traffic and Parking
	David Shapiro, Broomhill Forum, stated that the Forum approved the proposed decriminalisation of traffic offences which would enable the City Council to enforce the legislation regarding, ce, rtain offences with funding obtained from the fines which would be imposed. The Forum was monitoring the Plan4 Sheffield 10 Scheme, and considered that the Gold Route within the Scheme was geared more towards motorists passing through the area than towards pedestrians. There was a significant problem in the area caused by pupils travelling to school by car, and the Forum had carried out research into initiatives attempted by other schools to reduce the difficulty, such as a Park and Ride site. The Forum was also monitoring the parking schemes for all day parking and residents parking and the University of Sheffield and Hallam University Parking Scheme and was gratified that the Universities now accepted community representation on their Working Groups. The Forum felt concern that Traffic Regulation Orders had been made before parking schemes had been designed and that highway programmes appeared to be delayed for budgetary reasons and were then not developed as co-ordinated schemes. There appeared to be a lack of co-ordination between the action taken by different Council Services. Pedestrian safety was the key objective and the Forum was gratified that the Newbould Lane Scheme had been implemented and that the Residents’ Parking Scheme had also gone ahead.
	Dick Skelton, Development Services, reported on the S10 Corridor Project, stating in particular that highway schemes withi, n the Project had been implemented at Spooner Road and Parkers Lane, Taptonville Road/Lawson Road/Sale Hill, Newbould Lane/Glossop Road, Manchester Road between Sale Hill and Vernon Terrace. These included the siting of traffic control cameras at various locations and the provision of new bus stop design items such as shelters, better lighting, tactile paving and higher curbs. There were plans to implement schemes in the short-term at Fulwood Road (Manchester Road to Endcliffe Vale Road), Fulwood Road (Riverdale Road to Graham Road), Westbourne Road, Crookes Road, Broomhill to just past Lydgate Lane, Weston Bank and Whitham Road and schemes in the longer-term at the Crookes Road/Lydgate Lane junction, Sandygate Road and Benty Lane, through the shopping centre, Sandygate Road/Manchester Road/Lydgate Lane and Manchester Road between Cairns Road and Bentey Lane and the Broomhill shopping centre.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr. Skelton responded as follows:-

	Q. Would the new criteria for traffic reduction schemes affect the pecking order of schemes?

	R. The S10 Corridor Project was fully funded.

	Q. Would schemes mentioned in the presentation which were due to be implemented be carried out next year?

	R. Those schemes would be implemented this year.

	Q. Were the Residential Parking Schemes on track?

	R. The Schemes will have been implemented in part. The Broomhall Scheme had commenced and the Broomhill and Sharrow Schemes would follow.

	Q. Was it the case that the aim of the City Council was to encourage traffic to travel through Broomhill more quickly when the main priority was the pressure on schools and was it the case that there was no priority for residential parking and for shoppers parking?

	R. The residential parking at the Broomhill Centre would be implemented, but there would not be consultation until March/April 2004 and work was scheduled to commence in May, 2004.

	Q. Had there been any consultation on the S10 proposals in advance?

	R. There was a commitment by Councillors and officers to work in partnership with the Broomhill Forum and other organisations on traffic management in the area. There would be consultation on the junctions with Fulwood Road and work on the residential parking scheme would commence at the same time as that scheme.

	Houses in Multiple Occupation
	Dave Shapiro stated that the village feel and diversity of Broomhill was under pressure due to the increase in the numbers of houses in multiple occupation (HIMOs), particularly as a result of the intense development which was favoured by the Government. A HIMO which had less than seven occupants, and therefore did not qualify as a HIMO, still had the same impact on the area. Mr. Shapiro stated that, in his opinion, the experience of residents of the Headingly area of Leeds was a warning to the residents of Broomhill. The Broomhill Forum was gathering information on a street by street basis on the number of HIMOs within the area. The Broomhill Action Neighbourhood Group would hold a meeting on 12th November, 2003, with a view to sharing information and would consider the experience of other cities, particularly regarding the action which the local authorities had taken and would be considering the possibility of creating a company to enable local householders to covenant that they would not dispose of their properties for use as HIMOs. The Broomhill Forum was attempting to influence the Universities' policies regarding HIMOs, and where possible, was objecting to planning applications involving the Universities disposing of their properties. The Forum was carrying out joint working with the Students’ Unions in obtaining the provision of the best accommodation for students and in specifying what would be reasonable to expect of student tenants, particularly in terms of noise. The Sheffield University policy was that there should be no noise outside a dwelling after midnight and the Forum was proposing that the students union should endorse that. The Forum would encourage the distribution of accommodation of students across the City and the establishment of good transport links to their places of study.
	Ben Benest, Development Services, stated that he welcomed the Broomhill Forum's vision and would welcome any further survey work, particularly to differentiate between HIMOs which had seven or more occupants and those which had fewer occupants. The City Plan, which would replace the Unitary Development Plan, would be open to public consultation during 2004, and would contain three clear strands, namely (a) stronger policies on urban design, particularly in Conservation Areas, which should have an impact on conversions and extensions and would indicate the criteria where a lower density of occupation would be acceptable, (b) policies limiting non-residential uses such as a school and (c) stronger policies within the definition of a HIMO. Unfortunately, however, student housing was not a separate use class and therefore, distinction could not be made between the family house and a house occupied by seven or more students, but it would be possible to indicate areas where student accommodation would cause fewer problems such as within the City Centre or within areas of commercial use or little housing. Within the Broomhill area, many houses were occupied by six or less tenants.
	The Area Co-ordinator stated, in response to a question, that the Area Panel would be organising a Roadshow in December, 2003, which was part of the consultation process for developing the Area Action Plan 2004, and the views expressed at this meeting, and within the Broomhill Forum's vision, contained some issues which were already within the Area Action Plan, but they would be considered for the Area Action Plan 2004.

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

7.	DATE AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING
	The Panel noted that the next meeting would be held on Thursday, 6th November, 2003, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |