You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Area Panels » Broomhill, Central & Nether Edge » Agenda 2nd October 2003 » Minutes 4th September 2003
Sharrow/Nether Edge/Broomhill Area Panel
SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL AREA PANEL
Meeting held 4th September, 2003, at the Salvation Army Citadel
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew White (Chair), Jean Cromar, Basheer Khan, Mohammad Nazir, Janice Sidebottom, Patricia White and Alan Whitehouse.
Also in attendance:-
Dave Whitfield - Area Co-ordinator
Dave MacPherson - Leisure Service
Donald McLean - Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust
Ben Benest - Development Services
John Turner - Committee Secretariat
There were approximately 45 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 Ali Qadar and Paul Scriven.
2. HEELEY SWIMMING POOL
The Area Panel considered a report of the Head of Leisure Services containing an update on the position with regard to the Heeley Swimming Pool, Broadfield Road.
The report indicated that a number of public meetings had been organised to discuss the future of the Pool as local residents and representatives of local community groups believed that there was a potential threat to the income earning capacity of the Pool from the opening of the Virgin Active Leisure Club which was situated opposite the Pool. Public meetings had been initiated and facilitated by Steve Barnard, a Community Development Worker from the Heeley Development Trust, and whilst officers in Leisure Services had co-operated in the publicising of these meetings, and had also attended them to respond to questions from local residents, they had not arranged the meetings.
At the first of the public meetings, held on 29th April, 2003, it was made clear by officers from Leisure Services that, whilst there could be a potential threat to the earning income capacity of the Pool, following the opening of the new Leisure Club, the Council was committed to maintaining a publicly available swimming facility in the area. Officers at the meeting, however, stated that whilst the Council viewed itself as being the core funder of the Pool in the future, it did not necessarily see itself, in the longer-term, as being the operator, and that it aimed to seek, where possible, community-based management taking over such facilities. It was stated that before any alternative community-based management could come into operation, there would be a long gestation period to allow for capacity building to take place, strategies to be developed and the submission of business plans and funding bids.
The report indicated that one of the driving forces behind the Council's wish to seek community-based management in respect of leisure facilities was the current shortage of capital funding available, and from past experience, it had been found that it was easier for a community-based organisation to access alternative sources of funding, such as lottery funding. At the meeting held on 29th April, discussions were held with regard to possible links with other development opportunities in the area revolving around St. Peter's Church, the former Abbeydale Cinema and other properties on Broadfield Road.
With regard to the way forward, the report indicated that, whilst the Council officers had not initiated the public meetings and the proposed action suggested at the meetings, they would be willing to co-operate with any community organisations in connection with the future management of the Pool. It was the opinion of Council officers that the first step in the process was the need to formally establish a "Friends of Heeley Pool" group, that could be utilised to ensure that programming and service standards were what the users expected, and to influence future developments. It was made clear in the report that this should not rule out the future development of any body that could assume the role required in any community management proposals for the Pool, but there was a need for significant community capacity building before any such development could be contemplated.
A second public meeting had been held on 26th June, 2003, which again had been initiated and facilitated by the Heeley Development Trust. There were several new participants from the local community present at the meeting and, once again, the Council officer present gave an assurance that there was no threat to Heeley Swimming Pool.
Dave MacPherson, Assistant Head of Leisure Services, attended the Area Panel meeting to report on the position with regard to the future of Heeley Swimming Pool and to respond to any further queries from local residents. Mr. MacPherson stressed that, whilst there was no threat of closure of the Pool, no firm decisions had been taken with regard to its future on the basis that details of the membership arrangements of the Virgin Active Leisure Club were still not known. He stated that the Council was open to any suggestions with regard to future ownership of the facility by local community trusts. He concluded by stating that the Friends of Heeley Pool group which had been established were looking at the possible co-operation between the Pool and the facility next door in order to maximise provision to the best effect.
The following questions were asked and responses given:-
Q. How much funding does the Council allocate in respect of maintaining the Heeley Swimming Pool?
R. This information could not be provided as the maintenance budget in respect of the Pool was controlled and organised by a different section within Leisure Services and there was no officer from that section present at this meeting. Details of the allocation of Council funding in respect of the maintenance of the pool during the 2002/03 and 2003/04 financial years would be forwarded to the Area Co-ordinator.
Q. Were there any plans, either in the short or long-term, to reduce the number of swimming sessions or range of lessons at the Pool?
R. It was hoped that the number of sessions and range of lessons would actually increase following the introduction of the new management arrangements.
Q. Will the South West Primary Care Trust be involved in any future arrangements?
R. Yes, the Primary Care Trust was one of the partners that Council officers were aiming to talk to.
Q. Would the operation of the Pool be successful if it was run as a partnership between the City Council, a community organisation and other key stakeholders in the area?
R. It was hoped that such a partnership arrangement would result in the future successful operation of the Pool. There was no group at present who would be able to take on the running of the Pool, but after a long gestation period, relevant capacity building could be undertaken, strategies developed and business plans and funding bids submitted, which would hopefully result in a community trust taking over the management of the Pool.
Q. Who was the Council officer in charge of the future operation of the Pool?
R. The responsible officer was Dave McPherson, Assistant Head of Leisure Services.
Q. What implications would there be for the City if Leisure Services were planning on handing the control of its leisure facilities over to community organisations?
R. In the past, the Council's leisure facilities had been handed over to other organisations for the purpose of achieving budget savings. Now, however, whilst it was accepted that there would be budget savings, the main reason for handing over the management of Council leisure facilities was to ensure that the management and operation of the facilities was improved. Following any transfer, the Council would continue to subsidise the operation of the facilities, and there would be a management agreement tied into any future arrangement, whereby the group taking on the operation of the facilities would be required to maintain the operation to a required standard.
RESOLVED: That (a) the contents of the report now submitted relating to the future operation of the Heeley Swimming Pool, and the questions asked and responses provided, be noted; and
(b) Dave MacPherson be (i) thanked for the presentation now made and (ii) requested to attend a future meeting of the Area Panel to provide a further update on the situation regarding the future operation of the Pool.
3. 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, including, as appendices, (i) details of proposed Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) allocations to the Council for the financial years 2004/05 and 2005/06, (ii) details of grants awarded under the Council's Small Grants Fund to community organisations in the Panel's area up to 31st July, 2003, together with details of how to apply for grants from the Fund and (iii) a summary of planning applications received in respect of development in the Panel's area.
Members of the public asked questions on the contents of the report and the following responses were given:-
Q. With regard to the Rapid Response Team which was to be established as part of the Council's strategy to combat illegal fly posting, how many members of staff would there be in the Team, what days and hours would they be working, what areas would they be required to cover and how could they be contacted?
R. Whilst the need to resource the problems of dealing with illegal fly posting had been recognised, in that a sum of £40,000 had been allocated for the establishment of a Rapid Response Team, no firm decisions had been taken as regards the number of officers involved in the Team, the hours and days of working and which areas they would cover. The amount of £40,000 however, gave an indication that there would be two officers in the Team, who would be responsible for responding to requests to remove posters across the whole City. It was hoped that they would work flexible hours, so that they would be able to respond as and when required. Whilst the Team would be responsible for responding to requests all over the City, a request had been made to the Head of Street Force for the majority of the resources to be focussed in the Panel's area as the problems of illegal fly posting tended to be concentrated in this particular area.
Q. Was there any indication of when a decision would be made on the request to replace the mini-roundabout at Empire Road/Woodstock Road/Tavistock Road, with some form of pedestrian crossing, as some residents believed the roundabout was very dangerous, particularly as children tended to play in that area? Reference was made to the likelihood of more children being attracted to the area to play on an area of land, which had been created following the demolition of a church in the area.
R. The request for a pedestrian crossing to replace the mini-roundabout has been placed on the Assessment Register by Development Services and will be assessed, along with many other similar requests, once the Assessment Mechanism has been revised as requested by Councillors.
Q. There were problems being caused by the parking of motorbikes at the Motorbike Shop at the junction of Abbeydale Road and Belper Road. Some of the bikes were blocking the public highway and causing an obstruction, particularly for people with mobility problems. Could the Council take action against the owner of the shop?
R. The Area Co-ordinator would follow up the issues regarding problems being caused by motorbikes parking outside the shop at the bottom of Belper Road.
Q. In connection with the relocation of the bus stop outside Chippinghouse Road Post Office to a position outside the nearby church, which had made access difficult or dangerous for pedestrians, due to the narrow width of the pavement, there were similar problems with regard to the bus stop further up Abbeydale Road, near the former Abbeydale Cinema. Could consideration be given to relocating both these bus stops?
R. It would prove very difficult to request a second relocation of the bus stop formally located outside Chippinghouse Road Post Office, on the basis that a bus stop had already been relocated following a request from local residents and businesses. The Area Co-ordinator would pursue the issue with regard to the bus stop near to the former Abbeydale Cinema and respond thereon to a future meeting of the Panel.
Q. A shopkeeper on Abbeydale Road was still experiencing difficulties with regard to taking stock deliveries to his shop due to the location of the nearby pedestrian crossing and the double yellow lines outside the premises - when will this problem be solved?
R. The Chair of the Panel (Councillor Andrew White) would be writing to the Head of Development Services to find out when this matter can be resolved.
Q. Was it true that an application had been made to the Council for the licensing of a sex shop on Abbeydale Road?
R. Yes, an application has been made to the Council for the licensing of a sex shop at the location now mentioned. The applicants have been informed that they did not require planning permission for the siting of the shop, but the applicants would need to apply for the relevant license from the Council.
Q. Was there any truth in the stories that the Council were going to give permission for the owners of nightclubs to allow fly posting at certain times of the day on condition that they remove the posters after the specified time limits have elapsed? This would surely contradict the information provided at meetings of the Area Panel, in the residents had been informed on a number of occasions that the Council considered this issue very seriously and was taking all possible action to eradicate the problems.
R. Whilst no one could provide any firm details on this issue, it was confirmed that the Council was examining the possibility of allowing nightclub owners to fly post at certain times, and this proposal clearly conflicted with the wishes of the Area Panel.
Q. With regard to the allocation of Section 106 Planning Gain monies for the redevelopment of Chelsea Park, what percentage of the total allocation would be spent on Planning officers' fees and was there a maximum percentage amount that was allocated on such fees?
R. The percentage of the total sum to be used for paying Planning officers' fees could not be confirmed at this stage. There was a maximum percentage amount allocated in respect of such fees, which was believed to be around 10% of the total sum.
RESOLVED: That (A) the contents of the Area Co-ordinator's report, together with the questions and responses provided, be noted; and
(B) the Area Panel's strong objections be recorded with regard to the proposed location of a sex shop on Abbeydale Road and the Chair of the Area Panel (Councillor Andrew White) be requested to write to the Chair of the Licensing Board, expressing the strong concerns of local residents and businesses in the area, who had indicated that this was a totally inappropriate location for such a shop.
4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Land between Broadfield Road and the River Porter
A member of the public queried what plans there were for the future development of an area of land between Broadfield Road and the River Porter. The member of the public indicated that he believed that a car park was being constructed and questioned whether this was the case.
Ben Benest, Development Services, stated that restoration works were being undertaken to the path and the cycleway and, as far as he believed, there was no intention to create a car park on this stretch of land.
Fly Posting
A member of the public questioned what action the Council intended to take to stop nightclub owners putting posters up. The member of the public stressed that, whilst the Council was considering action to remove the posters, more emphasis needed to be placed on stopping the posters being displayed in the first place.
The Area Co-ordinator reported that the Steering Group established to consider all issues relating to illegal fly posting would be examining this issue.
5. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
The Area Panel approved the minutes of its meeting held on 3rd July, 2003, with the exception of Item 3 - Public Questions and Petitions, which was amended by the substitution of the words "Summerfield Street" for each reference to the words "Somerfield Street", in that item.
6. BROOMHALL COSMOPOLITAN
The Area Panel considered the feasibility study in respect of the Broomhall Cosmopolitan Centre, which was a £12m scheme with the potential to bring about the comprehensive regeneration of a derelict area of land in Broomhall, and which combined community interests and commercial realities to bring forward a range of training, employment and small business development opportunities, together with a critical mass of community facilities, residential and retail development. Geoff Green and Muna Deria, Broomhall Cosmopolitan, attended the meeting to report on the proposals and to respond to any queries from local residents.
The campaign to regenerate a derelict area of Broomhall had began in 2000, when the failed Genesis Centre was put up for sale. Local residents responded by establishing the Broomhall Cosmopolitan to develop this area, which comprised the triangle of land bordered by Broomhall Street, Upper Hanover Street and the Inner Ring Road, as the commercial heart of Broomhall's community. The scheme was intended to be capable of being funded commercially, with the role of support from the South Sheffield Partnership, as well as significant levels of expertise in community-led regeneration, through the Manor and Castle Development Trust. The proposed scheme links the local communities with the two Universities and other key players in the voluntary sector, including Sheffield YMCA and the Black and Ethnic Minorities Initiative within the South Sheffield Partnership. The scheme aimed to build on the strength in the cultural diversity in Broomhall.
It was reported that Broomhall Cosmopolitan was a small group of local residents and professionals whose impetus was the collapse of the Genesis Project in Upper Hanover Street, and their dissatisfaction at their exclusion from the "Art for All" project had led them to focus their attention on how they could take some initiatives themselves to bring about the much needed regeneration in the area. A successful application to the Community Initiatives Fund had enabled them to undertake some preliminary work, and, in particular, a scoping exercise where members of the local community visited Manchester to view the Zion Centre, a community arts project in a converted church, and the organisation of the Planning for Real day, which was held at the Broomspring Centre. It was reported that comments on the proposed scheme had been very positive, in that local residents, members of local community groups, representatives from other key stakeholders in the area and Richard Caborn, MP, had indicated that the proposed scheme would bring huge benefits to the area.
The following questions were asked and responses given:-
Q. As part of the proposed scheme, there has been a lot of reference to the encouragement of adults from different communities mixing - had similar consideration been given to children?
R. Broomhall Sure Start had made a clear commitment to have a satellite base in Broomhall, as well as a strong presence at St. Silas Church.
Q. What plans were there for the open space and playground on the north side of the proposed site, as part of the scheme?
R. The redesign of the green space and playground was included in the overall development plans. At present, the playground was in a potentially dangerous position as it was near to the road and there had also been problems of anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the playground.
Q. Could a development brief be provided in respect of the site, as this would be helpful for the relevant Planning and Highways Area Board when considering planning applications in the surrounding area?
R. Officers in Development Services could provide a Masterplan that conformed to guidance contained in the Unitary Development Plan. However, this could be very time consuming and it may be necessary to employ a firm of consultants to undertake this work.
Q. With regard to the funding of the scheme, was it necessary to secure the £12m required up front for the scheme to be a success?
R. There was a need for commercial involvement in the scheme, for the purposes of its short and long-term viability of the scheme. It was important to involve local businesses in order to make the scheme a success and to enable local residents to become engaged in the labour market.
Q. Was it necessary to purchase the Budget Car Hire site as part of the proposed scheme?
R. It had been decided to purchase the Budget Car Hire site as it was considered important that the Project had the ownership of a building in the area, initially to use as community facilities, and then to make a decision as regards its long-term usage.
Q. Whilst the Council's commitment to the proposed scheme was welcomed, would it be possible for the Council, as major land owners in the City, to give careful consideration to future planning applications in respect of development in the area in order to ensure that there was an equal balance of commercial, residential and community development?
R. Whilst this would be the preferred option in some areas, the Council has to look at each planning application on its individual merits and determine applications only on planning grounds. The Council cannot give favourable consideration to planning applications.
In addition to the questions asked, the following comments were made with regard to the proposed scheme:-
· The Sheffield Chamber of Trade also endorsed the proposals in respect of the scheme and had expressed a wish for a mix of commercial and residential development in the area.
· Representatives of St. Andrew's Church had expressed a wish for the church to be involved in the scheme.
· It was important to ensure that there was not one element in the project that favours any one of the many cultural groups in the community.
RESOLVED: That (a) the contents of the feasibility study undertaken in respect of the Broomhall Cosmopolitan Centre, the questions and responses and the additional information now reported, be noted; and
(b) Geoff Green and Muna Deria be thanked for the presentation now made.
7. SHARROW PROJECT - QUESTIONNAIRE AND PRIZE DRAW
The Chair of the Area Panel (Councillor Andrew White) was asked to draw out a name from the 515 local residents who had completed the questionnaire as part of the consultation exercise involved in the Sharrow Project, and who had been entered into a prize draw.
The winner of the prize draw was Peter O'Reilly, and he would be awarded £25.
The Area Co-ordinator circulated a summary of some of the responses received as part of the Sharrow Project Survey.
8. OUTSTANDING REPORTS
The Panel noted that there were no outstanding reports required for submission to future meetings.
9. DATE AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING
The Panel noted that its next meeting would be held on Thursday, 2nd October, 2003, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., at Broomhill Methodist Church, Fulwood Road.
How useful is this page?