Broomhill Central and Nether Edge Area Panel Minutes 7th October 2004

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL

Meeting held 7^th October, 2004,

at Broomhill Methodist Church

PRESENT:

Councillors Ali Qadar (Chair), Jillian Creasy, Jean Cromar, Shaffaq Mohammed, Paul Scriven and Andrew White.

Also in attendance:

Dave Whitfield

-

Area Co-ordinator

Ben Benest

Paul Fell

Les Sturch

)

)

)

Development Services

Euan McGregor

Carrie Warr

Clare Vincent

)

)

)

University of Sheffield

Jim Lomas

-

Development, Land and Planning, Consultants

Andrew Kane

-

FaulknerBrowns, Consultants

Paul Pitts

-

Street Force

Chris Galley

-

Neighbourhoods Directorate

Marie May

-

Sheffield Hallam University

John Turner

-

Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 25 members of the public and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

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

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

             Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mohammad Azim and Pat White.

2.

AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT

            The Panel received a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing (a) responses to questions which had not been answered at previous meetings of the Panel, (b) details of developments in the area, which included (i) information on the progress of, and work planned for tree surgery and felling work in Chelsea Park as part of the overall package of works and (ii) information in connection with the programme of works to be undertaken by Yorkshire Water in the area to improve the sewer overflows that discharge into the Porter Brook and (c) details of grants from the Council Small Grants Fund which had been awarded to organisations in the Panel’s area to 31^st August 2004.

            Arising therefrom, Councillor Jean Cromar reported that the City Council would  be establishing a Transport Commission, in conjunction with the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE), which would be in operation between 22^nd and 30^th October 2004, and would enable local residents to put forward their views on bus services in the City. 

A local resident referred to the Council Small Grants Fund, indicating that whilst an award of £1,195 had been granted to the Sharrow Festival Committee towards the running costs of the Sharrow Festival, and the purchase of office equipment, the Broomhill Festival Committee had never sought or been awarded any such grants from the Council.  He stated that in addition to this, as part of this year’s Broomhill Festival, the Committee had been charged £650 by the Council for putting up bunting.  He requested that the Committee be awarded a grant from the Council Small Grants Fund as a contribution towards the cost of organising next year’s Broomhill Festival.

The Chair reported that the Area Panel had, in principal, approved the allocation of approximately £200 from its Discretionary Budget 2004/05, to the Broomhill Festival Committee, and in addition to this, the Festival was still free to apply for funding from the Council Small Grants Fund.

3.

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

            There were no questions asked or petitions received from members of the public.

4.

MINUTES OF LAST MEETING

            The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 2^nd September 2004  were approved as a correct record, subject to (a) the substitution of the name “Bamford” for the name “Banford” in Item 2 – Development at Sheffield United Football Ground and (b) the addition of Councillor Andrew White to the list of apologies for the meeting.

5.

A VISION FOR BROOMHILL

            The Area Panel received the following presentations by Council officers and the University of Sheffield as part of the Council’s and University’s response to the Vision for Broomhill:-

Housing

Houses In Multiple Occupation

             Les Sturch reported on the progress of work being undertaken by the City Council in connection with the formulation of a new policy in respect of Houses In Multiple Occupation (HIMO) and shared accommodation.  Mr. Sturch reported that work on reviewing the policy commenced two years ago when officers started to update the Council’s planning policies relating to the balance of use with regard to the different types of accommodation, and when it had been identified that the policies in respect of HIMO in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) appeared weak.  Also, as part of the consultation exercise on the UDP, the Council had received a number of comments from members of the public relating to HIMO.  Such comments related to the problems of the properties not being well-maintained, noise nuisance and litter, as well as concerns with regard to communities becoming unbalanced in areas where there was a high concentration of HIMO.

             The Council adopted a partnership approach and worked with the Universities, private sector developers and private landlords to discuss ways as to how such problems could be tackled, and one outcome of this approach was a huge increase in the construction of purpose-built student accommodation in the City Centre.  The Council also looked at what measures could be taken to prevent certain areas of the City becoming saturated with student accommodation.  The work had not progressed as quickly as planned due to delays by the Government in issuing guidance to local authorities, but in the meantime, Council officers had contacted a number of other local authorities, in order to find out if the measures they had implemented in order to tackle the problems had been successful.

             With regard to the timetable for the implementation of the policy, Mr. Sturch reported that it was the aim to bring forward a list of policies for public consultation in Spring/Summer 2005.  The Government had advised that implementation should be in place by March 2007, which had resulted in a need to bring forward a set of core strategic policies relating to wider issues, such as the general distribution of new housing development.  Among the ideas being considered for the new policies were a cap on non-housing uses in all residential areas, which would limit the proportion of properties used as HIMO, a defined area of housing restraint and the promotion of selected areas, such as parts of the City Centre, for new student housing.  These would then be followed up by a set of more detailed policies, including those relating to HIMO.  The public consultation exercise commencing in Spring/Summer 2005 had been planned to last six weeks and following this period, the policies would be revised and published for a further period of consultation in preparation for a formal hearing in 2006.

             The following questions were asked and responses given:-

Q.         What was the difference between HIMO and shared housing and how will the changes in legislation affect the way in which the Council could manage both types of accommodation?

R.         From a planning point of view, shared housing relates to any property with up to six unrelated residents, and such use does not require planning permission, whereas HIMO constituted properties which were sub-divided or had more than six unrelated residents living in the property.  The Bill would not alter what needs planning permission.  The area of student housing restraint being considered by Planning would be defined, taking account of the numbers of shared houses, even though these will remain largely outside planning control.  It was hoped that following the introduction of the Housing Bill, there would be more controls, including the need for registration in respect of HIMO for purposes of registration.  The Housing Bill will hopefully provide clarification on the two types of accommodation.  It was hoped that under the new Bill, student housing would be classed as HIMO.  It was important to ensure that HIMO were managed to the extent that there was the least amount of disruption to the community as possible.

Q.         Could the Council provide information on the numbers of HIMO and shared houses in a given area of the City?  If the Council had this information, it would assist in the regulation and control of the properties.

R.         The Council accepted that work in connection with the collection of data on HIMO and shared housing had not progressed as much as it would have liked. This was due to the fact that it was difficult to assemble this data, as well as it being very time-consuming.  Efforts were being made however to improve data collection with regard to this issue.

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

             (b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Les Sturch for the presentation now made.

Sheffield University Residences Strategy

             Euan McGregor gave a presentation on the University of Sheffield’s Student Residences Strategy. 

             Mr. McGregor reported that the University had drawn up a Strategic Plan in the light of the growth of student numbers, the changing profile of the University, increased diversity, the competition to attract students and top-up fees.  He stated that the Student Residences Strategy would enable the University to plan ahead in order to ensure that there was adequate provision with regard to accommodation for its students in the light of the above-mentioned factors.  As part of the Strategy, the University needed to be aware of all aspects of the housing market, such as where the students prefer to be located in the City, the quality of accommodation required and the price of such accommodation.  Another important factor which the University had to take into consideration was the preferences of the students themselves, in that an increasing number of students were now requiring property with en-suite facilities, they wished to be near their friends and wanted to feel safe within the area they were living.  At the present time, the University provided approximately 25% of its students with accommodation, equating to 5,400 beds, with its target provision over the next few years being 50 to 60 %.  With regard to the University’s asset profile, it was reported that it presently owned 470 properties, of which several were in poor condition, and which were considered as inefficient by today’s standards.

             Mr. McGregor reported on the University’s vision for the future, which included a new Student Village, accommodating approximately 5,200 students and plans to accommodate up to 7,500 students in the City Centre through contracts for capacity.  He then went on to report how the vision could be achieved, indicating that there was a requirement for a clear strategic framework, that there needed to be an acceptance of civic responsibilities, that there were plans to sell its peripheral properties and sites, with the proceeds from disposals being released to fund new developments, and that existing core sites would be re-developed and capacity would be increased by large-scale developments, such as the Student Village and City Centre developments.

             The following questions were asked and responses given:-

Q          On the approximate figures provided, it was likely that there would still be between 40 and 50 % of students seeking private rented accommodation – does the strategy include liaison with private landlords as an attempt to ensure that through agreements with the landlords, there was adequate accommodation available?

R.         Not every student who attends University requires accommodation.  Approximately 15% of students travel from their home addresses or live at home whilst at University.  The University operates a Private Sector Bureau, which markets private sector properties to students.  All properties are registered on an annual basis, and comply with University standards and the conditions of the Council’s Responsible Landlords Scheme.  The University also acts as an intermediary between students and their landlords should difficulties arise.

Q.         Does the University expect a reduction in the rents charged by private landlords in the light of the proposals reported as part of its Student Residences Strategy?

R.         It was expected that the average cost of accommodation will rise in the long-term on the basis that there will be a lot of new-build, quality accommodation.  The short-term response from private landlords would most probably result in them lowering their rental charges.  The University will need to work closely with the Council in order to ensure that there were sufficient large sites for private development of student accommodation.

Q.         Would the University be disposing its sites to release proceeds for private development and not student accommodation?

R.         It was the plan that any future developments on sites disposed of by the University would not be used for student accommodation.  If it was the case that private developers had purchased the sites, the University would take every possible measure to ensure that relevant covenants were included in the sale documents which clearly stipulated this requirement.

Q.         What was the planned timetable in respect of the disposal of some of the properties?

R.         The first round of properties to be disposed of would be advertised for sale very shortly.  It was hoped that the new Student Village on the existing Endcliffe site would be completed within the next four years.  The Riverdale and Tapton sites would be released in 2005 and 2007, respectively.

Q.         In the light of the recent Ward Boundary changes, were the 1,100 beds as part of the student development on the former Dixons site on London Road included in the figure of 7,500 beds the University hoped to create within the City Centre?

R.         The area the University classed as the City Centre was not the City Centre boundary as such, but the area between the main University Campus on Western Bank, and the City Centre. 

Q.         Would there be adequate security controls as part of the planned student accommodation on Charlotte Street, and would there be, as part of the security system, a concierge system?

R.         There would be some form of concierge system at the development on Charlotte Street.  Having a number of students on one site made it easier for the University to monitor any complaints of noise nuisance.  Students also felt safer when they were all on one site.

Q.         Did the University have an idea of the projected numbers with regard to students in the City over the next ten years?

R.         The University had some projected figures, but they were not available at the meeting.  The Government had set a target of ensuring that approximately 50% of secondary school pupils went on to Univerity and the University had to prepare for a likely increase in students.

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

             (b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Euan McGregor for the presentation now made.

Environment

             In the absence of John Charlton, Head of Street Force, the Area Co-ordinator reported on the progress of work of the Student Accommodation Task Force in connection with environmental matters in the Panel’s area.

             He reported on the present position with regard to the Waste Management Permit Scheme for Responsible Landlords, indicating that the scheme allowed landlords who were registered with the Council’s Responsible Landlord Scheme, to use the Recycling Centres to dispose of household waste generated from their lettings.  The scheme had commenced in April 2004, and operated on a system whereby each landlord was issued with a book of 12 permits which could be renewed once used, and this enabled the Waste Management Service to track usage of the scheme and prevent any abuse.  To date, seven landlords had registered to use the scheme, but discussions were being held with the Universities, through the Student Accommodation Task Force, to promote the scheme and expand its membership.

             In addition to the Waste Management Permit Scheme, and following a successful trial in 2003, a special clearance was carried out in June 2004 to deal with excess waste generated by students leaving at the end of term.  This had proved to be a very popular event and would be repeated in future years.  The Area Co-ordinator stated that following discussions with the Task Force, a leaflet advising students about waste management, bin collection, recycling and other environmental matters had been drafted and issued to the Universities.  It was intended that the information would be made available to students through the University network in readiness for Freshers’ Week.

             In connection with fly-posting, the Area Co-ordinator reported that in recognition of the likely upsurge in fly-posting linked to the beginning of the University term, a series of measures had been put in place under the banner of “Operation Fly Catcher”, which were intended to continue during October 2004.  The measures included writing to all clubs, warning them of the action plan and the zero tolerance approach, authorising the City Centre Ambassadors to compile case files for prosecution, arranging for the Ambassadors to work alongside Planning Enforcement Officers to compile case files in the City Centre, requesting officers in Legal and Administrative Services to prioritise fly-posting case files and bring prosecutions for a one-month period and requesting Street Force to re-establish a specialist team to remove posters from the area directly outside the City Centre out of normal hours.  Other measures would involve the City Centre Ambassadors and Amenity Caretakers cleaning the City Centre area, Environmental Wardens carrying out purges on key areas and issuing Fixed Penalty Notices and arranging for the City Centre Ambassadors to work out of hours to issue Fixed Penalty Notices.  In addition to these measures, officers in Legal and Administrative Services were observing the situation in Camden, whereby the Local Authority had been successful in establishing Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in connection with illegal fly-posting.  Officers were however aware of the fact that the circumstances in Camden may differ to those in Sheffield.

             The Area Co-ordinator reported that in order to maintain the momentum for an improved street scene, the Head of Street Force had agreed that officers in his Service would have a regular walkabout, approximately every three months, in Broomhill, in order to identify any pressing issues that needed to be addressed.

             The Area Co-ordinator concluded by referring to proposals to enhance  green, open spaces within Broomhill, indicating that the lack of such space in the area had been identified as an issue as part of the Broomhill Visioning Exercise.  It had been decided that every opportunity should be taken to enhance what little green, open space there was in Broomhill, and develop new provision.  The open space on Parkers Lane had been identified as one of the few public open spaces.  It was reported that funding had become available through Section 106 planning gain monies and it was suggested that the Council could work with local residents in determining how this funding could be used to improve that area of land.

             The following questions were asked and responses given:-

Q.         A number of students had had their blue wheelie bins removed from outside their properties some time ago and they had not been returned, without being given any reasons – why had this happened?

R.         The bins had most probably been removed due to misuse.  If the bins were defaced, damaged or filled with the wrong type of waste on a regular basis, they would be removed.  It was accepted that the occupants of the premises should have been informed of why the bins had been removed and given advice on how they could get the bins back. 

Q.         Could Street Force reconsider its decision to refuse to provide funding for the design, production and distribution of labels for University of Sheffield students to stick on their black and blue wheelie bins, reminding them of the days they are collected throughout the year? 

R.         A decision had been made on the grounds that there was inadequate funding to enable this to be undertaken.  The University of Sheffield’s Director of Finance and Resources indicated that the University would make a contribution to the costs involved in the design, production and distribution of stick-on labels for the 2004/05 financial year.

             The following comments were also made:-

·        There were certain streets in Broomhall where there were similar problems of students leaving their wheelie bins out for several days after being collected.  As it was likely that the majority of students in this area attended Sheffield Hallam University, the issue of providing students with stick-on labels needed referring to that University also.

·        Details of collection dates of wheelie bins and what waste should be put in the bins could be e-mailed to students, through the Universities.

·        If it was agreed that all residents in Sheffield should receive a green wheelie bin for garden waste, this would cause trouble for many residents in that they simply would not have enough room in their gardens or drives for storing the bins.

·        The efforts to remove fly-posting appeared to be focused on the City Centre.  Similar work needs to be undertaken in suburban areas and the Council need to introduce more flexibility in connection with the times officers were requested to go out and remove the posters.

·        In the absence of the Head of Street Force, there should be a senior officer from Street Force present at these meetings when environmental matters were being discussed.

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

             (b) the commitment given by the University of Sheffield’s Director of Finance and Resources to make a contribution to the costs involved in the design, production and distribution of labels for the University’s students to stick on their black and blue wheelie bins, informing them of what type of waste to put in the bin, together with the dates of collection, for this financial year, be welcomed;  

             (c) in the light of the concerns raised by the Area Panel and local residents, the Head of Street Force be requested to give further consideration to funding the design, production and distribution of labels in future years, for students to stick on to their black and blue wheelie bins, indicating the type of waste to be placed in each bin and setting out the dates on which the bins are to be collected; and

             (d) a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration.

Transport and Traffic Management

Broomhill Residents’ Parking Scheme

             Paul Fell reported that following the approval of the Broomhill Residents’ Parking Scheme by the Cabinet, a scheme had been designed and would be submitted to the South Planning and Highways Area Board for approval in October 2004.  Subject to the approval, arrangements would be made for further consultation on the details of the scheme, and this would commence in February 2005, and last for approximately two to three months.

             With regard to the Westbourne Road/Southbourne Road Safety Scheme, Mr. Fell reported that following a detailed consultation exercise, a scheme had been drafted, but had proved to be too costly.  Officers had therefore reviewed the scheme and drafted a revised scheme, which, due to the need to reduce the costs, did not contain the same detail as the original scheme.  The scheme did however retain the main elements.  The proposed scheme was to be referred to the South Planning and Highways Area Board in November 2004, and subject to approval, works were expected to commence on site in February/March 2005.

Broomhill Traffic Management

             Paul Fell reported on the progress of the Plan 4 Transport in S10, indicating that works on the scheme had already commenced on Clarkehouse Road, and over the next few months, would be roled out on to the Nos. 51,52 and 60 bus routes.  Mr. Fell reported that due to funding difficulties, there may only be sufficient funding to undertake minimal changes in the Broomhill Centre.  New CCTV cameras had been installed on Whitham Road and Crookes Road, and early indications had shown that the proposed waiting restrictions on Whitham Road had resulted in improved traffic flow.  

             The following questions were asked and responses given:-

Q.         Why had Sharrow been granted priority over Crookesmoor with regard to the introduction of Residents’ Parking Schemes in those areas, when the displacement of traffic in Crookesmoor would create more of a problem in the surrounding areas.

R.         This would be referred to the relevant officers to respond.

Q.         The proposed road safety schemes in the Broomhill Centre had never been part of the Plan 4 Transport in S10, so why had there been delays with regard to the implementation of such works?

R.         The works in the Broomhill Centre had originally been part of the Broomhill Traffic Management Project, but following the introduction of the Plan 4 Transport in S10 scheme, the works in the Broomhill Centre had been subsumed into that project.  However, the necessary works to the traffic signal junctions in the Centre had been costed at £1.8M and could not be accommodated in the Plan for S10 scheme.  The Broomhill Centre works would therefore have to compete with all other scheme requests for funding from the Local Transport Plan budget.  The scheme would be added to the Council’s list of scheme requests to be assessed in the normal way, and scored against the Council’s criteria.

Q.         Why were there no charges for car parking in the peripheral parking zone?  If the Council was trying to encourage people to use public transport, there was a need to increase car parking charges and reduce bus fares.

R.         This would be referred to the relevant officers to respond.

             Local residents expressed concerns at the proposed Supertram extensions, particularly the route to Broomhill.  One resident made a particular request that the plans in respect of the loop via Western Bank, Whitham Road, Newbold Lane, the Royal Hallamshire Hospital and Glossop Road were submitted to the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group, to enable Members of the Group to give particular consideration to the proposals in the light of the setting of listed buildings in that area.  Residents were concerned at the potential damage to the environment, including the potential loss of a number of mature trees. The residents of Broomhill were of the opinion that the area already had an adequate bus service and in their opinion, they believed that residents of Fulwood and other surrounding areas would not walk to Broomhill to catch the trams into the City Centre, but continue to use their cars. 

             Mr. Fell stated that it was envisaged that any part of the proposed extensions that were likely to affect the setting of listed buildings, or were being undertaken in a Conservation Area, would be considered by the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group.  He added that during the consultation open day held at Broomhill Methodist Church, a representative from the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) stated that their consultants had examined the proposed route and had found that it would not be necessary to remove any trees.

6.

OUTSTANDING REPORTS

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

7.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

            The Panel noted that its next meeting would be held on Thursday 4^th November 2004, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at the Broomhall Centre, Broom- spring Lane.