You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Area Panels » Broomhill, Central & Nether Edge » Agenda 5 February 2004 » Minutes 5 February 2004
Minutes of the Sharrow Nether Edge Broomhill Area Panel
SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL AREA PANEL
Meeting held 5th February, 2004, at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew White (Chair), Jean Cromar, Basheer Khan, Mohammad Nazir, Paul Scriven and Janice Sidebottom.
Also in attendance:-
Dave Whitfield - Area Co-ordinator
Henk Littlewood - Parks, Woodlands and Countryside
Joanne Rutter - Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust
Patrick Burns - Committee Secretariat
There were approximately 40 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, Patricia White and Alan Whitehouse.
2. AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
The Area Co-ordinator submitted a report containing (a) responses to questions which had not been answered at previous meetings of the Panel, (b) details of developments in the area, (c) a summary of planning applications received in respect of development in the area, (d) a schedule of grants awarded to organisations in the Panel’s area to 31st December, 2003, and (e) correspondence from (i) the Marketing Communications Co-ordinator of B and Q plc, regarding the B and Q "You Can Do It" Awards 2004 and (ii) Pam Horner, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, regarding the focus on proposals to extend the upertram network.
The Area Co-ordinator reported that Pam Horner would inform the Panel of the outcome of the consultations on the Supertram network and the B and Q Awards Scheme was available to any small group within the area. The Panel also considered a report by Henk Littlewood, North Ranger Team, Parks, Woodlands and Countryside, on the work that his Service had carried out with the assistance of the Youth Offending Team, Community Service Order personnel and students from Tapton Secondary School who were engaged in the Duke of Edinburgh Community Service, within the Panel’s area.
The Area Panel noted this information.
3. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Members of the public asked questions and the following responses were given:-
Q. Did the Panel have a view on the traffic management arrangements, especially with regard to parking on Cemetery Road in view of the recent accident on Cemetery Road?
R. A petition had been submitted to the Council several years ago, requesting the implementation of parking restrictions on Cemetery Road, but no action had been taken. In December, 2003, however, it had been agreed that there should be parking restrictions on the General Cemetery side of Cemetery Road from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. An application had been made for a Traffic Regulation Order in respect of this work, but the Statutory Notices had not yet been displayed.
Q. Traffic was often gridlocked in the Sharrow area so parking restrictions on Cemetery Road would not be sufficient and a vehicular access on Pear Street, near to the scene of the recent traffic accident, had been permitted. Was it not the case that vehicular access would create even more danger and increase the possibility of further accidents occurring?
R. This question would be forwarded to Highways Services for a response.
Q. What was the view of the Panel regarding the application to convert the General Cemetery Chapel into four luxury flats? Was it not an inappropriate development in an area of deprivation like Sharrow and would not the creation of car parking in what was previously green space, also be inappropriate? Would it not be a better scheme if the use was more sensitive to the building and provided no parking?
R. Those Panel members present at this meeting were members of the South Planning and Highways Area Board, which was the body which would consider this particular application, and therefore, could not comment thereon, but the question could be referred to other members of the Panel at a forthcoming briefing meeting. Members of the public could make representations at the meeting of the South Planning and Highways Area Board or to officers in advance of that meeting, and if there was a clear opinion regarding the development in the area, that would influence the Area Board, so it was essential that individuals should forward their views. The Chapel was a significant building on a significant site and the application would be considered as an item of business at the next Area Panel meeting when the plans would be available.
Q. Had the roundabout at Empire Road been assessed?
R. This matter and the fact that there was no pedestrian crossing near the traffic lights at Sheldon Road/Abbeydale Road would be raised at the next meeting, together with the fact that there was no pedestrian crossing near the traffic lights at the junction of Bannerdale Road/Abbeydale Road which had been taken from the scheme at Carterknowle Road.
Q. Was there anything the Panel could do to prevent the use of land at Montague Street as a car park?
R. The Area Co-ordinator had already spoken to the owner of Chapel Motors who often parked cars in that area and the stone barriers around the site would be extended when resources became available. A temporary wooden barrier would be installed within the next two months.
Q. What was happening with the planning application for an extension to the GP surgery and car park at Summerfield Street?
R. This would also be considered at the next meeting.
Q. Was there any progress on dealing with the advertising boards for student housing at Stalker Lees Road?
R. A great deal of information regarding this matter had been included in a report to the Council’s Executive Management Team and there had been a positive response. A number of measures regarding wheelie bins, blue bins, student management and signage had been approved and the Head of Street Force had been commissioned to implement most of the recommendations in the report.
Q. How long would it be for the above-mentioned recommendations to be implemented?
R. It was not possible to answer the question at this meeting, but the Area Co-ordinator would investigate and send a response to the questioner. As in the case of fly-posting, the objectives should be achieved eventually.
Q. What specific action was to be taken with regard to Cemetery Avenue?
R. This would be considered as an item of business at the Area Panel meeting to be held in April, 2004.
Q. There was frequent heavy traffic at the bottom of Carterknowle Road. Had an application been made for a box junction at that location?
R. All issues of this type would be considered at the next Area Panel meeting.
Q. Could the grants under the B and Q "You Can Do It” Awards be obtained to rectify the position of the first floor window and the standard of the electric lighting at Mount Pleasant?
R. The Education Directorate, who managed the building, was not eligible to apply for those grants, but one of the user groups would be eligible to do so.
Q. According to the Sheffield Telegraph, a decision had been taken that no applications for planning permission for A3 use would be granted for Ecclesall Road. Where had that decision been taken?
R. The South Planning and Highways Area Board had not been asked to consider whether Ecclesall Road or London Road had reached saturation point as far as A3 use were concerned, and a decision such as that referred to in the question would possibly be subject to legal challenge.
Q. At a recent meeting, an application for a health food take-away at London Road had been refused because it had been considered that London Road had been a saturation point for that type of use. Was this true?
R. The concerns of local residents had been recognised, but it appeared that Development Services was taking a position regarding A3 uses other than take-aways, at least at advisory level.
Q. What steps would be taken to examine the total impact of traffic within the Panel’s area and what evidence was there that there was a cumulative effect from developments such as the former Nether Edge Hospital and Nether Edge Grammar School sites, and particularly, how they would affect rat running in the area?
R. If that issue was considered at the next Area Panel meeting, a more comprehensive response would be provided.
Q. It appeared that anyone with a current liquor licence could obtain a new licence on transfer, but the Queen's speech had stated that the public would be given a strong voice in the granting of such licences. The proliferation of drinking establishments on Ecclesall Road could mean that there would be 24 hour establishments, so could be situation the clarified at a public meeting?
R. The Head of Licensing could be invited to attend a meeting, or alternatively, a written response to the question could be obtained.
Q. Would the capital receipts from the sale of the toilets at Nether Edge be used to fund some form of amenity in the Panel’s area?
R. The capital receipts of such sales were usually absorbed within the Council's budget, but there was a commitment to replace the toilets when a suitable, alternative site was identified within the area.
Q. Could consideration be given to the proposed Supertram extensions and the mini-interchanges at the next Area Panel meeting?
R. It was unknown whether officers in Development Service could report on those matters by the time of that meeting, but officers in Highways Services, such as Cate Jockel, would be present.
Q. Could more traffic wardens be appointed to deal with parking on the pavement and wheelie bins/blue bins on the pavement which were causing accessibility difficulties to wheelchair users in the area?
R. This type of offence was not yet a responsibility of local authorities, but the decriminalisation of those matters was pending and the City Council could then take action. A representative of ONYX would be invited to attend a future Panel meeting and provide a response to the question regarding the wheelie bins/blue bins.
Q. The pedestrian crossings on Sharrow Lane were almost inaudible. Could this be dealt with?
R. The Area Co-ordinator would write to the responsible agency regarding this matter.
4. MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 8th January, 2004, were approved as a correct record, subject to the amendment of Item 3, by the substitution of the words "Montague Street and Sunderland Street" for the words "Montague Street and Pembroke Street", and arising therefrom, Councillor Paul Scriven, whilst declaring that he was a member of the South Yorkshire and Fire and Civil Defence Authority, stated that no recommendation from the Panel was recorded in the minutes, regarding the proposed closure of Ringinglow Fire Station.
The Area Co-ordinator stated there had been no sense of a groundswell of opinion either way in relation to the proposed relocation of the Fire Station, but a member of the public stated that it had felt that the meeting had been against the proposal. Councillor Janice Sidebottom added that she had asked for the view of the meeting, but it had not been obtained. The Chair also stated that he considered there had been no feeling either way regarding the proposal at that meeting and Councillor Jean Cromar believed that the Fire Officer had made a good presentation at that meeting and there had been no feeling regarding the proposal either way. A further member of the public added that the meeting had been well recorded in the minutes.
The Fire Officer had explained that the Ringinglow Fire Station did not meet the new criteria for the location of the fire tenders and it had been made clear that no decision had yet been taken regarding the proposal. Further comments on this matter were made by members of the public and in conclusion, Councillor Mohammad Nazir stated that no decision had been taken regarding the proposal which was now subject to a consultation process.
5. SHARROW PROJECT UPDATE
The Panel considered a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing an update on the Sharrow Project and referring, in particular, to the "Vision for Sharrow", which had lead to the introduction of the Project. The Area Co-ordinator believed that Sharrow had the potential to achieve deprived area status both in terms of its geographical area and the concept of the Project.
The following questions were asked and responses given:-
Q. Would agreement be obtained from the Asset Management Group that if Mount Pleasant was sold, the money would be recycled into the Sharrow Project, and what covenants could be imposed on its future use?
R. There could be tacit support from officers regarding the allocation of capital receipts from the sale of Mount Pleasant, but there could be no guarantee from any disposals of Council assets, so the more support the Panel gave to the allocation of funding to the Sharrow Project, the more likely it was to be achieved. The Panel should come to a view regarding the future use of the building to influence the planning briefs, for example, regarding how much land should be sold with the building and the public access to that land, particularly rights of way which would affect the Lansdowne Estate. It had been made clear at a meeting of the Mount Pleasant Steering Group that a substantial amount of money would be needed to refurbish the property, but if it was sold, a complex of purpose built premises could be erected near the Tuxedo Blue Public House, which would provide community facilities.
Q. Would it be possible to impose a covenant that Mount Pleasant should be converted not into expensive housing, but rather into affordable residential accommodation?
R. That matter could be investigated.
Q. Would the site include a Healthy Living Centre for Sharrow?
R. Several years ago there had been a proposal for a Healthy Living Centre at Sharrow, but it had been considered by the Health Authority that such a facility would not be necessary due to the diversity of the local community, so a link had been established with the Healthy Living Network Scheme, but it had not been successful. However, it was considered that some form of health provision could be provided on the site, but this had not yet been identified.
Q. Should the Panel support the proposal in principle subject to investigation of the proposed allocation of the capital receipts from the sale of Mount Pleasant and what covenants would be suitable to ensure access and/or affordable housing and the improvement of pedestrian safety in the area?
R. It would perhaps be better not to concentrate on the Mount Pleasant building as a capital receipt would be available from the disposal of the Sharrow Lane School. The Panel should therefore consider the future use of receipts from all disposals, not just the sale of the Mount Pleasant building.
Q. Could a provisional map be provided regarding the proposed building to replace Mount Pleasant?
R. The information would be shared with the Panel when available, but there were complex issues involved which were being discussed with a variety of partner agencies.
6. ST. MARY'S YOUTH PROJECT
Graham Duncan and Phil Batchford, St. Mary's Church, gave a presentation on the St. Mary's Youth Project.
The Project involved working with young people within the area, and at present, there were 60 users and over the past year, there have been a variety of activities. A youth club had been provided for the previous 18 months and there had been a five week Summer Play Scheme. At half-term, it had been decided to provide activities to enhance the personal development of those young people involved in the Project, including sports sessions, dance classes, team building work and other non-sport activities such as cooking, craft work and an outing to a climbing centre which had been followed by a consultation process to plan each half term's events. At present, approximately 20 young people from Sharrow were involved and the aim was to move forward in terms of the number of users and the quality of provision. An evaluation had been carried out by a professional Youth Worker, who had found scope for development, but a lack of resources to achieve this. There were issues of drug taking within St. Mary’s Church Yard, and there were few local youth activities. The local community appreciated St. Marys and the local young people responded to the Project's initiatives. Outreach work could be a possibility and the Project would welcome the financial support of the City Council and further input from the community.
Responding to questions, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Batchford stated that the Panel could help provide assistance through a small Neighbourhood Renewal Fund allocation which had funded the research by the Youth Worker and the Project Managers would be grateful for further financial assistance from the Panel. Bids for external funding had not yet been made, but the outcome of the research would be used as a basis for such bids.
RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be noted; and
(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Mr. Duncan and Mr. Batchford for the presentation now made.
7. SHARROW/NETHER EDGE/BROOMHILL LOCAL ACTION PLAN
The Panel considered a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing recommendations for the Area Panel's Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) allocation in accordance with the Local Action Plan 2004/2006.
He stated that the Panel had been allocated £77,000 a year for the financial years 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, which would be allocated in accordance with the Closing the Gap Initiative, and therefore, targeted in the Sharrow area. The Porter Project would be granted a further allocation as it could provide activities for young people in the area. The funding for the Sharrow Project was intended to be particularly "levering in" money, and the Broomhall Forum and the Older Peoples Working for Broomhall Project would be supported, the latter in partnership with local churches. The cost of providing the Lengthsman Service at Lowfield and Ecclesall Road maybe taken over by Street Force during the second year. The Panel could bring forward funding from Year 2 to support the St. Mary's Youth Project if this proved to be the case.
The following questions were asked and responses given:-
Q. How much of the £77,000 would be spent on salaries?
R. The allocation of funding to the Lengthsman Service would be to cover staff costs. The Sharrow Project Officer post was funded by the Education Directorate.
Q. Could some of the money be allocated to inspecting and clearing the street gutters?
R. The lengthsman could inspect the gutters and report any areas where there was pooling or flooding.
Q. How could a building be erected, and a football pitch provided, on the Porter Project site? Would it be possible to convert the Anglican Chapel instead?
R. There was sufficient land for the provision of a building and two mini pitches, which was the best use of the land. The type of surface of the football pitches would give a greater use and the provision of a building would mean access for Sheffield Futures and changing facilities would be available. Work was being carried out on developing the Business Plan of the Porter Project, for the Futures Board which would manage the Project, with the aim of submitting the Business Plan to the Football Fund and National Lottery at the end of next month.
Q. Would it be possible to build an extension to the Porter Croft Primary School rather than build on the Porter Project site?
R. That proposal was not a realistic possibility and a planning consent existed for the Porter Project Scheme which would enhance the open space.
Q. Were there any projects for Nether Edge within the Local Action Plan?
R. The next Area Panel meeting would be concerned with traffic projects, specifically those relating to Nether Edge, and funding would be allocated to enhancement works at Chelsea Park and the Heeley Swimming Baths.
RESOLVED: That (a) the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made, be noted;
(b) approval be given to (i) the basic financial profile set out in the report now submitted, (ii) the allocation of funding to projects as reported on the basis of the satisfactory completion of an NRF proposal form in line with Local Action Plan Guidance, for the year 2004/2005, subject to £10,000 within the Panel's Discretionary Budget being allocated to Projects within the Broomhill and Nether Edge areas; and
(c) it be noted that the Travis Place aspect of the Broomhall Traffic System would be delayed to enable the report and recommendations regarding the Home Zone Development Project being made available.
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, 4th March, 2004, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at the Mother of God Catholic Church, Abbeydale Road.
How useful is this page?