Broomhill Central and Nether Edge Area Panel Minutes 6th January 2005

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 6^th January, 2005, at the Kingfield Centre, Psalter Lane


PRESENT:		Councillors Ali Qadar (Chair), Jillian Creasy, Jean Cromar, Shaffaq Mohammed, Andrew White and Pat White.

		Also in attendance:-

		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator

		John Charlton	-	Head of Street Force

		Henk Littlewood	-	Parks, Woodlands and Countryside

		Pam Horner	-	South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

		Brandon Jones	-	First South Yorkshire

		Ben Benest	)
		David James	)	Development Services

		Peter Downey	-	Sheffield Chamber of Commerce

		Marie May	-	Sheffield Hallam University

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 30 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 Mohammad Azim, Andrew Sangar and Paul Scriven.

2.	“YORKSHIRE IN BLOOM 2005”
	John Charlton reported on the details of “Yorkshire in Bloom 2005”, together with the procedure for entering the competition at a local level, the various categories involved in the competition and the judging criteria.
	Mr. Charlton reported that “Yorkshire in Bloom” was a regional competition, and one of a number of competitions in the “In Bloom” movement. The other competitions involved “Sheffield in Bloom” at a local level, “Britain in Bloom” at a national level and “Entente Florale” at a European level. Sheffield had been chosen as the UK representative in “Entente Florale 2005”, which had been considered as a great honour and would provide an opportunity to showcase the City on an international stage. Sheffield was also hosting the Yorkshire in Bloom award ceremony in September, 2005, and it was considered that if residents were to enter the competition and do well in the various categories, this would enhance the City’s Entente Florale bid.
	Mr. Charlton referred briefly to the various entry categories and judging criteria to be used to determine the winning entries, and circulated these details to interested people at the meeting. He stated that the overall aim of the “In Bloom” movement was to improve the quality of life for urban and village communities, and to promote the greening of towns, villages and urban areas in Cities and promote development which was environmentally and ecologically sensitive. It also aimed to promote inclusivity and was educational as schools were encouraged to get involved. Entry into the Yorkshire in Bloom competition would bring a number of benefits to local urban/village communities in that it would improve the appearance and fabric of the area, foster community spirit, enable citizens to assume ownership of their local environments, give citizens a feeling of pride and sense of achievement and enhance an area’s reputation.
	Mr. Charlton concluded by stating that Council staff would be willing to assist potential entrants by providing assistance in completing the application forms and advice on what they needed to do.
	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported; and
	(b) thanked John Charlton for the presentation now made.

3.	THE GREENWATCH PROJECT
	Henk Littlewood reported on the progress of work undertaken in connection with the Greenwatch Project in the Panel’s area over the last 18 months.
	Mr. Littlewood stated that his role involved working with and assisting young offenders in undertaking a wide range of environmental improvements in parks and open spaces in Burngreave and this Panel’s area. His work was split equally between the two areas, and he had formed a number of links with local friends and community groups in the area.
	Mr. Littlewood reported that as part of the Project, with the assistance of the young offenders, he had undertaken various environmental improvements in Mount Pleasant Park, on Langdon Street, Washington Road, Montague Street, Hanover Street playground, Lynwood Gardens and Staveley Road open space. Other events under the Greenwatch Project had included being involved in the organisation of classes on woodcraft, natural history and holly wreath making, as well as the planting of a number of trees, shrubs and plants on various green spaces within the Panel’s area.
	A member of the public referred to the issue of the funding of Mr. Littlewood’s post, which was to end with effect from 31^st March, 2005, and questioned whether there was a possibility of either part or all the funding being provided through Section 106 monies, on the basis that he was responsible for arranging valuable refurbishment works to green open spaces. It was reported that Section 106 monies could only be used to fund capital works, and not be provided as revenue funding. The Area Co-ordinator added that there were certain restrictions with regard to the spending of Section 106 monies, but it would be useful for officers to look into this issue.
	Another member of the public suggested looking at the possibility of funding the post using Housing Market Renewal funding. The Area Co-ordinator stated that whilst Housing Market Renewal funding was available, it was targeted for use in certain areas of the City, which, at the present time, did not include this Panel’s area.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Henk Littlewood for (i) the presentation now made and (ii) the valuable work undertaken by him as part of the Greenwatch Project; and
	(c) relevant Council officers be requested to investigate the possibility of identifying the funding to enable the continuation of Mr. Littlewood’s post after 31^st March, 2005.

4.	BUS SERVICES IN NETHER EDGE
	Pam Horner, External Relations Manager, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) and Brandon Jones, Commercial Director, First South Yorkshire, gave brief presentations on the provision of bus services in the Nether Edge area, and responded to questions on the services from members of the public.
	Ms. Horner reported that whilst the SYPTE did not support commercial bus services on a day-to-day basis, it had a small amount of funding which it used to support those services, which, for whatever reason, the commercial bus operators were unable to run, and which it considered there were good reasons for doing so. The services presently supported by the SYPTE in the Nether Edge area included the Nos. 3 and 22 in the evenings. The SYPTE was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure, such as bus stops and interchanges, and the main part of its budget involved supporting the Concessionary Fare Scheme, which equated to approximately £10.4m a year.
	Brandon Jones reported that First South Yorkshire was the main commercial bus operator in the area and was responsible for providing the vehicles and recruiting and paying the drivers. First South Yorkshire were responsible for operating the Nos. 3, 4 and 22 which served the Nether Edge area. Mr. Jones reported that as the operation of the buses was a commercial business, consideration had to be given to scaling down or withdrawing services that were not seen as being financially viable, and this usually related to services running on Sundays or in the evenings.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Why can’t First South Yorkshire operate disabled-friendly buses, with low floors, on the Nos. 3, 4 and 22? Even if all the buses were not disabled-friendly, could First South Yorkshire operate one bus into town and one out of town a day to cater for the elderly and disabled?

	R. All the buses on the Nos. 3 and 4 were disabled-friendly, but the network changes which had come into effect following last year’s strike had resulted in low-floor buses which had previously been used on the No. 22 route being allocated onto alternative routes. First South Yorkshire attempted to ensure that when low-floor buses were used, every bus used on that route had the low-floor facility. This was to ensure that there was consistency and did not cause any confusion for bus users. First South Yorkshire were hoping to obtain five new low-floor buses shortly, followed by two more in the near future, which would be allocated to the No. 22 route. These buses would also be equipped with ramps for wheelchair users and people with prams.

	Q. Why had there had been a reduction in the No. 8 service - if this service was operated on a more frequent basis, it would prove a useful link between residential areas and the University and Hallamshire Hospital?

	R. First South Yorkshire had been working with the SYPTE in assessing the loading figures in respect of the No. 8 service and it was hoped that such an assessment would result in changes and an improvement to this service. It was accepted that there had been problems with regard to the reliability of this service, which had mainly been caused by traffic congestion, and as it was a very long route, even minor instances of congestion caused problems. One possibility was to break the route into smaller routes, which could improve reliability.

	Q. Did First South Yorkshire intend to take any action in connection with improving the quality of its buses on the basis that a number of its buses frequently broke down?

	R. It was the intention to replace a number of older buses with new, low-floor buses as these tended to be newer and therefore, more reliable. This, however, was a long-term plan due to the cost implications.

	Q. Was there any truth in the rumour that the Nos. 3 and 4 services were to be withdrawn?

	R. First South Yorkshire had discussed the future of a number of services in the City, following the strike action in 2004, of which the Nos. 3 and 4 had been included in such discussions. Whilst no plans had been made to withdraw the services at the present time, First South Yorkshire would continue to monitor the loading figures in respect of these and a number of other services. If a commercial operator approaches the SYPTE to discuss the withdrawal of a service, the Executive would always give consideration to supporting the continuation of the service. The matter would also be raised with other bus operators, to see if they would be willing to operate the service. Prior to a service being withdrawn, the bus operator, working closely with the SYPTE, would look into all aspects of the service.

	Q. One way of encouraging people to use the buses was to make it clear when a bus would be arriving - had the bus operators and the SYPTE given consideration to providing real-time information at bus stops?

	R. The SYPTE was presently working on a real-time information project. Providing such a system, however, was very expensive, particularly installing the necessary infrastructure. Trials had been undertaken in connection with the provision of a real-time information system in Doncaster, following which there had been problems of vandalism and problems with regard to the system not operating properly, therefore causing more frustration for travellers. Following advances in technology over the years, the SYPTE was looking at various new real-time information systems coming onto the market.

	Q. Why, when young people should be encouraged to use buses during the school holidays, can’t they use their concessionary fare passes during such times?

	R. If any young person has an 11-16 year old concession fare pass, they should only be required to pay 40p during school holiday periods. There is also a reduced fare for 16 to 19 year olds during the holidays. These passes are advertised at a number of bus stops and on the buses themselves and SYPTE staff regularly visit schools informing pupils of these concessions.

	The following comments were also made and responses provided where applicable:-

	C. The No. 8 service has been unreliable for some time. Bus operators under-estimate the effects of such unreliability on bus users.

	C. The SYPTE should look at the real-time information systems presently used by some European countries, which work very well.

	R. The SYPTE has looked at real time information systems all over Europe. Most of the systems in operation however, were heavily subsidised.

	C. Following the withdrawal of the No. 22 service’s link to the Northern General Hospital, it is very difficult to get to the Hospital by bus for people living in the Nether Edge area.

	C. Some users, particularly those who were partially sighted, were experiencing problems catching the bus they wanted as they were not waiting to pull in at the bus stop, or were double-parking due to there being one or more buses already at the stop.

	R. Bus drivers should not be double-parking at bus stops. If any members of the public notice this happening regularly, they should contact the SYPTE and inform them, providing details of either the bus registration number or the number printed on the side of the bus, together with details of the time of day and day of the week, so it can investigate.

	C. There was a very effective real-time information system in operation in the Leicester South area.

	C. The Council has put a considerable amount of time and money into improving the City’s road network, including the introduction of bus lanes and gold routes, whereas a number of bus services, including some in this area, have been withdrawn. There are many elderly and disabled people who live in this area who rely on buses as their only method of travel. A number of complaints from local residents have been referred to the SYPTE through the local Ward Councillors.

	R. The SYPTE has been working closely with local Councillors and First South Yorkshire in looking at ways of improving the overall bus network in South Yorkshire, which has included attempting to encourage bus operators to look at the possibility of investing in new vehicles. First South Yorkshire has already invested large sums of money in low-floor buses in the region. The SYPTE will continue to work closely with the City Council in connection with the provision of reliable bus services and the need to monitor the road network to allow for such reliable services and to minimise traffic congestion to enable this to happen.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and the responses given to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Pam Horner and Brandon Jones for attending the meeting and responding to questions from members of the public.

5.	NETHER EDGE - ISSUES FOR THE SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
	Ben Benest reported on the proposed planning policies being drawn up by the City Council which, following consultation, would be included in Sheffield’s Local Development Framework, which was to replace the Unitary Development Plan in a few years time. Mr. Benest stated that he had been invited to attend the Area Panel to make a presentation following concerns expressed at a recent Panel meeting, by the Nether Edge Neighbourhood Group, regarding development pressures and traffic threatening the character of the Nether Edge Conservation Area.
	The City Council was at an early stage in preparing the Local Development Framework, but Mr. Benest provided a broad outline of the way that officers in Development Services were thinking, and provided an opportunity for the Nether Edge Neighbourhood Group and other residents of Nether Edge to provide some feedback.
	The Local Development Framework was to comprise three planning documents, a core strategy containing general strategic objectives and policies, city policies containing detailed development control policies and city sites containing information on land uses and phasing for specific developments, together with a City-wide proposals map illustrating the policies and proposals. Each of the planning documents to be contained in the framework would be required to go through a number of stages of consultation, which would include informal consultation on a number of emerging options, a formal opportunity to make representations within a six-week period on the preferred options, submission and a further formal opportunity to make representations within a six-week period, examination of the document in public and finally, the formal adoption of the document. The examination in public would be conducted by an independent inspector, who would scrutinise the document using a number of tests for assessing its soundness.
	Mr. Benest referred specifically to the Panel’s area, reporting on a basic outlook for the area over the next 20 years. He stated that the Council’s vision was that much of the Panel’s area would comprise a number of popular, lively and densely-developed urban neighbourhoods, with their communities benefiting from being close to sources of employment and a wide range of services and facilities. It was envisaged that there would be a number of changes throughout the area, driven by the buoyant housing market, the growth of the University sector and the transformation of the City’s economy, but these would be carefully managed in order to both protect the environment and achieve balanced communities. There would be several opportunities for new business and new uses for under-used land, existing shopping centres would have been supported by new developments and would be protected from detrimental changes of use so that they were successful in the face of competition. The area would also benefit from co-ordinated planning and transport policies, and proposals that have the combined effect of containing the traffic and parking pressures generated by commuters and others.
	Mr. Benest then went on to report how the draft policies in the Local Development Framework would aim to protect the area’s residential character and achieve balanced communities and protect and improve the residential environment.
	Richard Ward, Chair of the Nether Edge Neighbourhood Group, gave a presentation on the Group’s strategic priorities in Nether Edge for 2005. He referred briefly to the history and objects of the Nether Edge Neighbourhood Group and reported on recent activities the Group had been involved in, which included the Nether Edge Clean-Up Day, sponsoring local Walking Bus activity and contributing significantly to the redevelopment proposals in respect of Chelsea Park.
	Mr. Ward referred to the Group’s main organisational aims for 2005, which included looking at ways of improving road traffic problems which affected the quality of life for residents in Nether Edge, planning and development matters and civic pride. With regard to improving the flow of road traffic and the quality of life, the Group aimed to improve the safety and comfort for all residents by campaigning for measures to stabilise and subsequently reduce the volume of vehicular traffic, both passing through and originating from Nether Edge. In order to achieve these aims, the Group would undertake more effective lobbying, enhance the capacity for monitoring new developments in the built environment and their likely impacts, continue to lobby the SYPTE and bus operators with the aim of improving public transport and continuing to undertake evidence-based campaigns through monitoring and surveying. With regard to planning and development matters, the Group aimed to maintain a site specific and overview watching brief on developments which affected the general environment of the area and the integrity of the Conservation Area status, monitor developments in adjoining areas that may have a bearing on Nether Edge, provide detailed comments to the statutory authorities on significant developments in and around Nether Edge and continue to actively lobby against incongruous development. In connection with civic pride, the Group aimed to engender a sense of responsibility for the general environment of the area by raising awareness, organising and publicising local initiatives, involving local businesses, improving channels of communication with the City Council and encouraging responsible dog ownership.
	Mr. Ward referred to the Group’s approach in achieving its aims, which would include gathering evidence to support its arguments, placing possible solutions in their wider context and lobbying for achievable and realistic developments/controls, pursuing accountability and joined up thinking through focused lobbying constructively opposing detrimental and/or intrusive development of the built environment and publicising both success and failure.
	Mr. Ward concluded by referring to the data collected by the Group as part of a traffic survey undertaken in 2004, which highlighted the increase in the volume of vehicular traffic both passing through and originating from Nether Edge, and showed a number of photographs of the various activities which had been organised by the Group, as well as a number of issues the Group aimed to tackle, in partnership with the City Council and local residents.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. One major issue in the area was the large numbers of students. The City Council needed to ensure that the University worked more closely with the major housing developers in connection with the location of future developments for student accommodation. There should be more student accommodation in the City Centre in order to relieve the pressure on the suburbs. What did the Council intend to do about this?

	R. The Council accepted that there was a need to give serious consideration to planning applications for the development of student accommodation in suburban areas, particularly in the Panel’s area, and accepted that more should be done to look at sites in the City Centre.

	Q. Why don’t the Universities construct halls of residence anymore?

	R. The needs of students have changed over the years in that they now prefer to reside in rented properties or flats and not within halls of residence.

	Q. What was the Council’s message with regard to planning policies in the interim period prior to the adoption of the Local Development Framework in two year’s time? How could the Conservation Area planning policies be made more robust?

	R. Once the draft Local Development Framework has been produced, it will have status as a material planning consideration, especially so if no objections are received. With regard to planning policies relating to Conservation Areas, the guidance for various parts of the City, including the Panel’s area, indicates that there are clear controls with regard to design, which will hopefully achieve better quality development in the area. One such control will include the Article 4 Direction, which, subject to being approved by Members, will require developers to seek planning permission for more elements of the building works than they would have to previously. There will also be strict guidance with regard to proposed changes or alterations to Victorian properties.

	Q. Consideration needs to be given to the somewhat arrogant attitude of some property developers, who, despite cases where the Council have refused their applications for planning permission based on its planning policies and a high level of objections from local residents, they have appealed to the Secretary of State. Will the Council strengthen its policies to deter this happening on a regular basis?

	R. There will be full public consultation and external scrutiny through an examination in public on the contents of the draft Local Development Framework, and any policies set out in the draft which are agreed by the independent inspector, will be adopted as part of the Framework. If, therefore, a planning decision was made on the basis of a policy which was included in the Framework, then a developer’s appeal was unlikely to be successful.

	Q. Will there be any changes to the Council’s policy in the Local Development Framework relating to HIMO?

	R. This was a very difficult area in that the Council had no control over a change of use of a dwelling into one shared by fewer than seven people. Planning consent, however, was required where seven or more unrelated persons share a dwelling.

	Q. Had the Council any idea of how much car ownership would increase in the near future?

	R. It was very difficult to predict how car ownership would increase over the next few years, but present statistics indicate that 65% of households had one or more cars and over 20% had two cars. The Council obviously had no influence over car ownership, but would continue to attempt to limit car usage, particularly for commuting, and encourage other modes, such as walking, cycling and public transport.

	Q. There were serious problems with regard to public transport in that there appeared to be no political will to support or fund improvements to the transport network. Was it envisaged that there would be any change in national policies with regard to the introduction of an improved integrated transport network?

	R. The Council was not aware of any changes in national policies, but it was commented that the only increase in bus usage was in London, which was the only place where the deregulation of buses had not taken place.

	Reference was also made to an application for planning permission for the construction of 14 apartments on Psalter Lane, and it was requested that the Council monitors this application very closely.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and responses provided to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Ben Benest and Richard Ward for the presentations now made.

6.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	Members of the public asked the following questions and responses were provided where possible:-

	Q. Were there any plans to provide additional car parking spaces following the sale of part of the land which had been used as a car park behind Champion Hire on Abbeydale Road.

	R. This would be referred to officers in Highways Management Services.

	Q. Could the Council give consideration to the installation of a pedestrian crossing at the junction of Osbourne Road and Sheldon Road?

	R. This would be referred to officers in Highways Management Services.

	Q. Could the Council give consideration to problems being experienced by residents living on Cowlishaw Road, who, due to the lack of on-street parking, were often unable to park near their homes?

	R. This matter would be referred to officers in Highways Management Services responsible for the design of the proposed Sharrow/Nether Edge Residents’ Parking Scheme, who would be requested to provide the Area Co-ordinator with details as to exactly where the Parking Scheme extended to. It was accepted that with all Residents Car Parking Schemes, those residents living on the periphery of such schemes would experience problems with regard to car parking due to displacement.

	Q. When would the responsibility for dealing with car parking offences be transferred from the Police to the City Council?

	R. It was proposed that such responsibilities would be transferred with effect from 1^st April, 2005.

	Q. There was an absence of a coherent policy for promoting and implementing designated safe local walking routes within Sheffield localities. Had the Council any plans for producing such a policy?

	R. This matter would be referred to relevant Council officers for a response.

	Q. There were inadequate and insufficient infrastructure measures for safe crossing points and routes for schools, residential homes, parks and footpaths. Had the Council got any plans for introducing such measures?

	R. This matter would be referred to the relevant Council officers for a response.

	Q. Could the Council produce a clearly stated, published criteria for prioritising cost effective safe routes for vulnerable road users, traffic- calming and road safety schemes, in the context of highway expenditure budgets?

	R. This matter would be referred to the relevant Council officers for a response.

	Q. How many “uncontrolled and controlled” pedestrian crossing were there adjacent to schools or on school routes in the City as a whole, and within Nether Edge and surrounding school catchments, such as Sharrow, Ecclesall, Carterknowle and Millhouses, and where were they sited?

	R. This matter would be referred to the relevant Council officers for a response.

7.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 2^nd December, 2004, were approved as a correct record, with the exception of Item 5 - Public Questions and Petitions, which was amended by the substitution of the words “purchase for demolition” for the words “sell a number of “ in the first paragraph.

8.