Sharrow Nether Edge Broomhill Area Panel Minutes

SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL AREA PANEL


Meeting held 6th May, 2004 at St. Mark’s Church, Glossop Road

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

			Also in attendance:-
			Councillor Angela Smith	-	Cabinet Member for Education and Training
			Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator
			Karen Worrall	-	Head of Access and Inclusion, Education Directorate
			Chris Mallaband	-	Access and Inclusion, Education Directorate
			Ben Benest	-	Development Services
			John Charlton	-	Head of Street Force
			Trevor Bichard	-	South Yorkshire Police
			Marie May	-	Sheffield Hallam University
			Joanne Rutter	-	Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust
			John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

			There were approximately 34 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 Patricia White.

2.	PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A KEY STAGE 3 PUPIL REFERRAL UNIT AT CLARKEHOUSE ROAD
	Councillor Angela Smith, Cabinet Member for Education and Training and Karen Worrall, Head of Access and Inclusion, Education Directorate, reported, as part of a consultation exercise, on the proposals for the re-location of a Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit into the premises presently occupied by the Hospital Education Service at Clarkehouse Road
	Councillor Angela Smith reported that a decision had been made approximately 18 months ago to establish a Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit within the City, and due to the strict time limits and guidelines imposed by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), the Local Education Authority (LEA) was obliged to identify suitable premises within a very short timescale. Suitable premises had been found within the grounds of Chaucer Secondary School, and following discussions with local residents at a consultation meeting of the Owlerton/Southey Green Area Panel, at which there were no objections from members of the public, a decision had been taken to locate the Unit at these premises. In line with the proposed regeneration of the area surrounding Chaucer School, a commitment was made to the local community that the Unit would be located there for a period of approximately 15 months only. It was considered that in order to proceed with the long-term regeneration of the area, large-scale demolition was required, and the premises in which the Unit was located had been identified as part of the demolition process. Councillor Smith made reference to the fact that due to the levels of poverty and other problems in this area, the community was very fragile and it was important that the commitment made to local residents was kept. She concluded by stating that it was always the intention of the LEA to relocate the Unit to alternative premises after a period of 15 months.
	Karen Worrall reported on the rationale behind the relocation, stating that the LEA was entitled to ensure that pupils who had been excluded from school were provided with an alternative full-time education. As well as providing the education, staff worked with the pupils to look at the reasons as to why they had been excluded, with the aim of working with them and hopefully reintegrating them back into mainstream schools.
	Ms Worrall reported that prior to changes in the regulations relating to excluded pupils, the LEA was required to provide such pupils with alternative provision on a part-time basis, but since the changes which occurred around three years ago, the requirement was now to provide full-time education. Following this, the LEA was forced to find suitable premises for Key Stage 3 excluded pupils, and a decision was taken to locate the Unit at the premises at Chaucer School for a period of 15 months. As a result of the commitment made to the local community surrounding Chaucer School, the LEA had to find suitable alternative premises for the relocation of the Unit, and due to the lack of suitable premises in the City, and as the premises at Clarkehouse Road had been used as a Pupil Referral Unit in the past, this was the preferred location. Discussions had been held with the staff and pupils of the Hospital Education Service, which was based at the premises at Clarkehouse Road, as well as the staff and pupils at the Pupil Referral Unit at Chaucer School, and no major objections to the relocation had been raised.
	Ms Worrall concluded by stating that there would be no more than 25 pupils present at the Unit at any one time, and there was a very structured timetable in respect of lessons. The pupils would be supervised at all times and there would be a high ratio of staff to pupils at the Unit.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. How will the pupils travel to and from the Unit?

	R. The majority of pupils will travel by public transport.

	Q. Why had the decision been made to relocate the service into the premises on Clarkehouse Road, particularly when the staff and pupils at the Hospital Education Service, which was presently based at Clarkehouse Road, and close to the hospital, would be disrupted?

	R. The LEA had a statutory duty to provide education for excluded pupils and had to find suitable premises for the Unit. The LEA had very little choice as all its other accommodation throughout the City was either being used or was not suitable for this Service. It was accepted that the Hospital Education Service was ideally placed at its present base at Clarkehouse Road due to its proximity to the Children’s Hospital, but officers were satisfied that this Service could be operated at an alternative location with the minimum of disruption.

	Q. What plans did the LEA have with regard to providing recreational facilities for the pupils at Clarkehouse Road as there was no space at the premises?

	R. The pupils will not spend all their time at the Unit. Arrangements would be made for them to be taken on public transport to various sites in the City providing recreational facilities.

	Q. Will the pupils be free to use the small gardens at the front of the premises when having breaks and at dinner times?

	R. No, the pupils will not be allowed to play in the gardens.

	Q. Have the staff of the Unit been adequately consulted on the suitability of the premises at Clarkehouse Road?

	R. The staff who will be transferring with the pupils to Clarkehouse Road will be consulted.

	Q. Why had the decision been taken to locate the Service at Chaucer School for a period of only 15 months? It appeared that such a decision had been taken on the grounds that the local community had objected to the Service being located there in the long-term.

	R. A commitment was given to local residents that the Council would require the vacated site at Chaucer School in connection with the proposals for the long-term regeneration of that area. No objections had been received when local residents were consulted on the proposed location of the Unit in that area. Also, there had been no major problems with regard to the behaviour of the pupils at any other units as they were operated by very highly qualified staff which resulted in minimum disruption to the local community.

	Q. It was understood that there would be more than 25 children in the Unit – was this the case?

	R. This was not the case as the premises at Clarkehouse Road could not accommodate more than 25 pupils at any one time. There was also the possibility that there would be less than 25 pupils as staff were constantly working with them, with the aim of reintegrating them into mainstream schools. There would also be a number of pupils who would transfer to Key Stage 4 units.

	Q. How many members of staff will there be at the Unit and had any car parking arrangements been made for the staff?

	R. There would be a maximum of 30 staff at the Unit at any one time. The car parking arrangements for staff had been arranged. Officers were aware of the congestion with regard to car parking in the area and the car parking spaces provided for the staff would not be on side streets.

	Q. Will the proposed relocation of the Unit be considered by the Council’s Schools Organisation Committee?

	R. No, because it does not involve a change of use of the premises as the building, in its present condition, will be considered suitable for the purpose and had been used as a Pupil Referral Unit in the past. It was also only a temporary move.

	Q. Had the DfES any criteria with regard to the requirement for open space at such unit?

	R. A response could not be provided at the meeting.

	Q. What provision will there be for the pupils at breaks and dinner times?

	R. The pupils will be supervised at all times during breaks and dinner times. Arrangements will be made for the pupils to undertake physical activities, and they will be transported, under supervision, to a number of off-site recreational facilities for this purpose. The pupils will not be taken to the Botanical Gardens or King Edward VII Secondary School to undertake any leisure activities.

	Q. What will the travel patterns of the pupils be for those who are travelling to the Unit from the other end of the City?

	R. Pupils at mainstream schools were travelling to their schools from all areas of the City, in most cases, without any problems. Most schools across the City exclude a similar number of pupils, therefore the pupils attending the Unit will not all be travelling from one area of the City.

	Q. Whilst having sympathy for the pupils who will be attending the Unit, residents were concerned as to the appropriateness of the site at Clarkehouse Road for this use. What consideration, over the last 15 months, had the LEA given to finding a more appropriate site for the service?

	R. Officers had undertaken extensive investigations with regard to finding suitable alternative premises for the service, but had been unsuccessful. The LEA had no vacant premises suitable for this use.

	Q. Why was it the case that despite a promise being made to local residents in the area surrounding Chaucer School, the present Unit would be demolished as soon as the staff and pupils had transferred to Clarkehouse Road, were there plans for Council staff to move into the building on the Chaucer site? How long would the staff be in the building?

	R. A decision had been made to move Council staff into the building once it had been vacated in order to safeguard the building from vandalism. It was the intention that the staff would be asked to vacate the building at short notice, and would remain in there until that time.

	Q. In the light of the potential regeneration of the vacated Chaucer site, why had no application for planning permission in respect of future developments on the site been submitted to the Council?

	R. It was not needed.

	Q. How long would the process be from the initial application for planning permission to permission being granted?

	R. Work in respect of clearing the site in preparation for its sale and future development had been continuing for approximately two years. Officers were not sure as to how long the planning process would take.

	Q. Could the LEA give an assurance that the Hospital Education Service would be relocating to a site on the Manor for a temporary period only?

	R. The Hospital Education Service would remain at the site on the Manor for as long as it was required. The LEA would ensure that the premises on the Manor would be used only for the provision of that Service.

	Q. How many pupils at Key Stage 3 have been excluded from schools in the City over the last three years?

	R. The figures could not be confirmed.

	Q. How many Key Stage 3 aged pupils were presently excluded from schools in the City?

	R. 64.

	Q. How many excluded pupils of a younger age would be at Key Stage 3 age at their next birthdays?

	R. These figures could not be confirmed. The maximum number of 25 pupils at the unit on Clarkehouse Road could not be exceeded.

	Q. Do the pupils presently at the Unit at Chaucer School have to travel off-site to take part in leisure activities?

	R. As the Unit is located on the school site, the pupils use the school’s grounds and facilities for leisure activities. Arrangements have to be made however to ensure that the times of use do not clash with those of pupils at the school.

	Q. Why had the local community of Broomhill not been properly consulted on the proposals prior to this meeting?

	R. The residents of Broomhill had received the same level of consultation as those residents at Parson Cross when a decision was taken to locate the Unit on the Chaucer site. Whilst the Council believed in proper consultation on issues that would effect them, due to the nature of the relocation, it was not deemed necessary to undertake a thorough consultation exercise as would be expected with a school closure. The proposals in this case included the relocation of a similar type of service, as well as one which had been in existence at Clarkehouse Road in the past.

	Q. With regard to the move of the Hospital Education Service to the Manor, what type of accommodation was the Service being relocated to?

	R. The accommodation on the Manor w, as sufficient for the purpose.

	Q. How much will it cost to undertake the necessary adaptations to the premises on Clarkehouse Road to make it fit for the purpose.

	R. There were no details as to how much the adaptations would cost at the present time. Architects had been commissioned to assess the works required and when this assessment had been carried out, the cost estimates would be made available.

	Q. How long was it expected that the Pupil Referral Unit would be located at Clarkehouse Road?

	R. The time period was based on whether or not the Government approved the Council’s bid for funding from its “Schools for the Future” programme, an element of which would include the building of a new Pupil Referral Unit. This would therefore be deemed to be a medium-term arrangement.

	Q. Would there be a maximum of 25 pupils present at the Unit on Clarkehouse Road all day?

	R. There was a requirement to provide full-time education for 25 pupils at the Unit. There could therefore be less than 25 pupils, but never more than 25 on site at any one time.

	Q. On the basis that pupils were not allowed to play in the gardens, were they expected to stay in the building at break and dinner times?

	R. The pupils will be taken out, in small groups, to various places at dinner times. The pupils at the Unit were not kept together in one large group as, due to the nature of the pupils, there was often friction between them.

	Q. Had the LEA given any consideration to the possibility of the Unit being located at one of its sites on which schools had been closed?

	R. Plans had either been made to re-use the empty school site, following closure, or to sell off the land and buildings with the aim of recovering receipts.

	Q. Has the LEA got a long-term strategy in respect of the future use of its buildings, as apposed to a Government-led strategy?

	R. Yes.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· There was already a large demand on the resources in Broomhill, with the Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield and King Edward VII Secondary School all being large employers and having large numbers of users.

	· The local community of Broomhill should have been consulted on the proposals at a much earlier date. The initiative to consult with local residents had come as a result of a request by the local Ward Member and not as an offer from the Council.

	· The local community in Broomhill has and always will welcome all types of people from all over the world to work, study or live in the area, but the site proposed for the relocation of the Pupil Referral Unit on Clarkehouse Road was not suitable.

	· When the Pupil Referral Unit was located on Clarkehouse Road in the past, there had been a number of problems relating to damage to residents’ properties, which had resulted in a number of pupils being prosecuted. There were also reports of retailers in the area having problems with the pupils.

	· The fact that there was no open space for the pupils at the Unit was likely to cause friction, particularly as some of the pupils would have problems containing their anger.

	· The present room layout in the building was totally unsuitable for educational purposes. The fact that extensive repairs and adaptations would have to be made to the premises appeared to be a waste of money.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Councillor Angela Smith and Karen Worrall for the information reported and the responses to the questions;
	(b) this Area Panel (i) does not support the proposed relocation of a Key Stage 3 Pupil Referral Unit into the building being vacated by the Hospital Education Service at Clarkehouse Road and (ii) does not believe that the decision to relocate the Unit from its present base at Chaucer School to Clarkehouse Road had been taken with the pupils’ interest in mind; and (c) a report setting out the comments now made, together with the views of local residents, be submitted to a future meeting of the Cabinet.

	The votes on paragraphs (b) and (c) of the resolution were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

	For: The Chair (Councillor Andrew White) and Councillors Paul Scriven, Janice Sidebottom and Alan Whitehouse.

	Against: Councillors Jean Cromar, Basheer Khan and Mohammad Nazir.

3.	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) proposals in respect of Bring Out Your Rubbish Days for the forthcoming Municipal Year and (ii) details on the latest round of the South Yorkshire Police Authority's ABC Awards, a small grants scheme run by the Police Authority, in partnership with South Yorkshire Police, whereby community and voluntary groups and statutory organisations could apply for up to £2,000 to undertake a project that addressed one of the Police Authority's policing priorities and (c) a summary of planning applications in respect of developments in the area.
	A member of the public questioned whether ONYX would inform local residents of the times and dates of the Bring Out Your Rubbish Days. The Area Co-ordinator stated that the dates and times of the Days were organised in conjunction with ONYX, and that the households in the areas surrounding the proposed locations for the Days would be receiving details in the near future.
	The Panel noted the information contained in the report, together with the comments now made.

4.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	Members of the public asked questions and responses were provided as follows:-

	Q.	In the light of the proposed closure of the public car park on Bedale Road, had any provision been made with regard to alternative car parking for people using Heeley Swimming Baths?

	R.	The Area Co-ordinator was due to meet Dave MacPherson, Assistant Director, Leisure Services, and would raise this issue with him and report back to a future meeting.

	Q.	In connection with the questions raised at a number of previous Area Panel meetings, in connection with the request for removal of the mini-roundabout at the junction of Empire Road/Woodstock Road/Tavistock Road, and the consequent replacement at this junction of improved pedestrian crossing facilities, despite several requests for information from the Council, the local resident requesting the changes had simply received a leaflet informing him of traffic management proposals on Abbeydale Road - why was this the case?

	R.	The Chair would follow this up with officers in Development Services.

	Q.	In connection with fly-posting in the area, was the Council simply spending money on removing the posters or was action being taken to prosecute the owners of the nightclubs responsible?

	R.	Details on this issue would be reported as part of the next item.

	Q.	What were the timescales in respect of the implementation of the Resident's Parking Scheme in Broomhill?

	R.	A response on this issue would hopefully be provided at the meeting of the Broomhill Forum to be held on Tuesday, 11th May, 2004.

5.	STUDENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
	John Charlton reported on the progress of work being undertaken following meetings of the Student Accommodation Task Force, focusing specifically on the action being undertaken by the Council to combat the environmental problems caused as a result of the large numbers of students in the area.
	Mr. Charlton reported on the work being undertaken to combat problems of fly-posting in the area, stating that the Council were continuing to work on the removal of the posters, and following the intelligence received on this issue, had focused its efforts during the mid afternoon to late evening, which appeared to be the times when most of the posters were put up. The Rapid Response Removal Team had proved particularly effective. In connection with proposed legal action, the owners of four clubs responsible for fly-posting had been taken to Court, which had resulted in one prosecution. The Council were taking action against the same owner for continuing to put up posters, and it was hoped that, if he was found guilty, the fine would be increased.
	Two major clean-up events had been undertaken in those areas with a high concentration of students on two weekends at the end of term, which had been a great success. The Council had also introduced a Responsible Landlord Scheme, whereby landlords were being requested to deposit domestic waste from their properties in recycling centres. The scheme, which had proved very successful, gave landlords the opportunity of applying for responsible landlord status. It was the aim to arrange a meeting between Street Force and representatives of ONYX and the University of Sheffield, to discuss the possibility of expanding the area where the litter blitz was held at the end of the student term.
	With regard to the illegal signs advertising student properties to let, specific action had been taken to target properties on Crookesmoor Road, and as a result of the Council’s investigations, letters had been sent to 16 properties, warning of action against the landlords if the signs were not removed within a statutory period of 21 days. This had resulted in action being taken against a number of landlords, which would hopefully result in prosecutions. Mr. Charlton stated however that such actions were very costly, mainly in terms of the officer time involved.
	The Council had given consideration, following a number of requests, to the provision of large wheelie bins for use by the occupants of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), but it had been considered that having larger bins would encourage people to produce more waste, and that such bins should only be provided when absolutely necessary. Work was also being undertaken to try and stop residents leaving additional waste next to their bins. Mr. Charlton stated that although the Council had the power to impose £50 spot fines on the culprits, it was often very difficult to identify who had actually left the waste. Officers were also liaising with the University of Sheffield, in connection with reminding students of their responsibilities in putting their bins out on the correct day and removing them from the pavement once they had been emptied. The Council were able to take legal action against residents who left their wheelie bins obstructing the highway, but again, such cases were very rare on the grounds that it was often very difficult to prove who had left the bin there and it was also very costly in terms of officer time. Discussions were being held with the University of Sheffield in connection with the best methods of informing students of the days their wheelie bins and the blue recycling bins were to be emptied.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q.	Could the Council take action against those residents putting household waste in the blue recycling bins?

	R.	If the Council could prove that residents were not using the blue recycling bins for the purpose they were provided, the bins could be withdrawn.

	Q.	The Broomhill Forum, University of Sheffield, and the Panel's Area Co-ordinator had met around a year ago to discuss various issues with regard to students’ responsibilities in connection with environmental issues, when a number of suggestions were made, such as having a sticker on the household waste bins, the importance of instructing them not to leave black binliners at the side of the wheelie bins and to bring their bins back in once they had been emptied. Why had there been no mention of this meeting?

	R.	Street Force had been advised by the Waste Management Client that residents would prefer calendars with the dates on which both their household waste and blue recycling bins would be collected, as the stickers which were used at present were too easily damaged. John Charlton agreed to raise this issue again with the Waste Management Client to advise that it was the understanding of the Broomhill Forum and the Area Panel that the Universities had advised that stickers on bins would be the most effective means of communication with the students. This matter would also be discussed at the next meeting of the Student Accommodation Task Force.

	Q.	Would it be possible for extra large wheelie bins to be provided in situations where the residents of a number of properties shared a communal area at the front or rear of the properties?

	R.	This has been given consideration, but there could be potential difficulties in that some households may produce more waste than others, and this could result in domestic disputes.

	Q.	On the basis that private landlords do not pay Council tax, had the Council given any consideration to introducing some form of tax, possibly charging the Universities, in order to raise revenue to pay for the additional cleaning works that the large numbers of students in the City generated?