Minutes of Broomhill Central and Nether Edge Area Panel 3 March 2005

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 3rd March, 2005, at Mother of God Church, Abbeydale Road


PRESENT:		Councillors Jillian Creasy, Jean Cromar, Shaffaq Mohammed, Andrew White and Pat White.

		Also in attendance:-
		Bakhtiar Rashid	-	Area Support Officer

		Kevin Foster	-	Lead Manager

		Gary Collingwood	-	Community Safety Team

		Inspector Ged McManus	-	South Yorkshire Police

		Christine Dickinson	-	Development Worker for the Sheffield Patient and Public Involvement Forums

		Frances Cunning	-	Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust

		Marie May	-	Sheffield Hallam University

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

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

1.	APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
	RESOLVED: That, in the absence of the Chair of the Panel (Councillor Ali Qadar), Councillor Pat White be appointed Chair of the meeting.

2.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from the Chair (Councillor Ali Qadar) and Councillor Andy Sangar.

3.	SHARROW PARTNERSHIP PRIORITY AREA
	Gary Collingwood and Inspector Ged McManus reported on the establishment and operation of the Sharrow Partnership Priority Area, which was an initiative funded by the Home Office Police Standards Unit and which involved the Police working in partnership with Sheffield First for Safety and a range of key stakeholders in an attempt to reduce crime and disorder in a defined geographical area of Sharrow and Nether Edge.
	Inspector McManus reported on the concept of the project, indicating that it was hoped that by positive engagement with the local community, tangible sustainable solutions could be found to local issues as opposed to the reliance solely on Police activity, and the main identified areas of focus were reductions in domestic burglary, street crime and anti-social behaviour. The key stakeholders who had engaged in the Partnership included a wide range of groups and organisations, including, amongst others, the Sharrow Community Forum, Activity Sheffield, Street Force, Sheffield Futures and this Area Panel. The representatives of the stakeholders involved included local elected Members, local cricket professionals and members of the local community. Under the project, the South Yorkshire Police resources deployed to the area included a uniformed Inspector and two Sergeants, 10 uniformed Constables, one Community Support Officer Supervisor and six Community Support Officers.
	Gary Collingwood, Project Co-ordinator, reported on the management of the project, indicating that a Management Group had been established, comprising himself, senior Police Officers, the Unit Manager of Sheffield First for Safety, the Area Co-ordinator of this Area Panel and the Chair of the Steering Group. A Steering Group had also been established, which met on a monthly basis, and comprised the Project Co-ordinator, the local Police Team Inspector and representatives from the key stakeholders.
	Inspector McManus reported on a number of specific initiatives undertaken as part of the project, which included a visual audit carried out in early November, 2004 by a group of professionals from a diverse range of backgrounds. The audit identified several issues, such as broken windows, derelict buildings, street drinkers, groups of youths hanging around, evidence of substance misuse, graffiti, overgrown bushes and litter. Specific reference was made to the amount of graffiti in the area, particularly on the London Road corridor, and this particular initiative resulted in a total of 16 business premises becoming signatories to the City Council Street Force Graffiti Charter. A further initiative included the distribution of a postcard during December, 2004, to all households in a particular area of Sharrow Vale which had been subject to a spate of burglaries, in an attempt to raise residents’ awareness of crime, and which contained contact telephone numbers of the local Police Station.
	As part of the project, a questionnaire had been mailed to approximately 4,000 residential addresses and 1,000 business addresses in the area in order to canvas the opinions of individuals relating to crime, quality of life and anti-social behaviour. Whilst an analysis of the information received would not be available until next Monday, it was reported that the response rate had been approximately 25%. The outcomes of the responses would be used as a main driver in order to influence force to shape future activity in the Priority Area.
	A number of activities had also been arranged for young people in order to give them something to focus on, which included a musical workshop "Blazin' Beats" and cricket coaching sessions organised by Activity Sheffield. The Partnership was also working closely with Activity Sheffield in connection with the organisation of a Summer Programme of activities, focusing on cricket coaching, and discussions were being held with a group of local residents in connection with the possible establishment of a Youth Club at the Everyone Centre.
	It was reported that monthly reports were submitted to the Home Office Police Standards Unit to outline the activity and the progress that had been achieved to date, and that the comments received from the funding body were very encouraging as the progress reports had identified the positive engagement of a number of key stakeholders, together with a clear exit strategy which would hopefully ensure that all the positive work facilitated during the initial 12 months of the Partnership Priority Area would continue for the foreseeable future.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. What was the possibility of the project continuing?

	R. The views from the Home Office Police Standards Unit with regard to future funding of the project were very positive, and indications had been received that the funding would continue to enable the project to run indefinitely. The Police were also looking to establish other similar projects across South Yorkshire.

	Q. Would the Police, as part of a monitoring exercise, be recording the changes in the crime statistics, and could such figures be reported at Area Panel meetings?

	R. The statistics regarding crime rates are shared with the Partnership Priority Area Steering Group. Since the project commenced in the Summer of 2004, there has been a 12% reduction in crime overall in the area, robberies are down by 15% and burglaries down by 18%.

	Q. Why were there no black and minority ethnic (BME) organisations included as part of the key stakeholders in the Partnership?

	R. In the run up to the formulation of the Partnership Priority Area, there had been extensive consultation involving various local community groups in the area. It had been decided that the Sharrow Community Forum, which represented a number of various communities within the area, would represent all the community groups.

	Q. What support has been given to Asian youths in the area and why were the youths not encouraged to participate in other sports, such as football and tennis, instead of just cricket?

	R. As well as the initiatives already referred to, the Partnership was working closely with a number of different providers in the area to ensure that young people were kept occupied as much as possible. The Partnership would always listen to the views of young people in the area and if they wished to participate in sports other than cricket, efforts would be made to look at how this could happen. The project had only been in operation for a relatively short time, so based on the comments of local residents, improvements could be made and action taken where possible. There were very positive signs in connection with the proposals to establish a permanent Youth Club at the Everyone Centre.

	Q. Were there any plans to either extend the Priority Area to, or establish a further Priority Area in Broomhill?

	R. The Police had intelligence systems which enabled them to link into neighbouring districts. The project, however, could only operate within the specified boundary.

	Q. The Police recently forced their way into two properties, causing damage to the doors. Were the occupants, who were found to be not guilty of any offence, available to seek compensation with regard the damage caused to their properties?

	R. Search warrants were issued to the Police by the Magistrates' Court, and were only issued if there were adequate grounds to do so. On occasions where search warrants were issued, the Police often had to gain entry to a property as soon as possible in order to retain any potential suspects. There were processes for occupants to go through in order to having any part of their property repaired that had been damaged during a forced entry.

	Q. How many Police Community Support Officers were there in the City?

	R. There were 42 Community Support Officers in the City, seven in this area, four teams of seven in the North of the City and one team of seven in the City Centre. If and when Partnership Priority Areas were established in other areas of the City, further Community Support Officers will be recruited.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) Gary Collingwood and Inspector Ged McManus be thanked for the presentation now made.

4.	PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FORUMS
	Christine Dickinson reported on the establishment and work of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Forums, following the decision to abolish the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, and the consequent transfer of its work to another Government body.
	Ms. Dickinson reported that PPI Forums were made up of groups of volunteers in local communities, who came from various different backgrounds, and had a range of experiences and skills, and who were enthusiastic about helping patients and members of the public influence the way that local health care was organised and delivered. Members of the Forums, which were now established throughout England, were keen to work with all sectors of the community to find out what people really think about health and health care in the local area, and take action wherever necessary. There were now over 570 PPI Forums across the whole of England and each Forum was fully independent and worked with a local NHS Trust. These Trusts included Primary Care Trusts, Acute Trusts, Mental Health Trusts and Ambulance Trusts. Ms. Dickinson stated that as the Forums had been officially established by the Government, and were supported by a National Public Organisation, the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, they had the power to make a difference within communities. All members on the Forums were volunteers and only received expenses in respect of travel and subsistence.
	A member of the public referred to the importance of residents becoming members of PPI Forums, and encouraged people to attend the next public meeting of the Sheffield South West Patients' Forum which was to be held at the Mother of God Church, Abbeydale Road, on Wednesday, 20th April, 2005. Specific reference was made to the lack of provision with regard to health services in the area and it was stated that if more people became involved, they would have a better influence on how local health care was organised and delivered in the area.
	Ms. Dickinson concluded by referring to a questionnaire which had been produced by the Sheffield South West PPI Forum, which they were encouraging local residents to complete in order to find out whether people communicated their needs effectively, and had access to health care, treatment and prevention.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. The former Community Health Councils had similar representative roles whereby if members of the public had a complaint about any element of the NHS, the Community Health Council would log the complaints and refer them to the relevant service within the NHS. Would the PPI Forums have similar powers?

	R. Each Primary Care Trust had a Patient Advisory Liaison Service, which logged complaints about health services from members of the public. The PPI Forums could make requests for statistics or records from the Service with regard to complaints.

	Q. One of the main difficulties facing the NHS is how the individual health services interacted with each other. How do the PPI Forums aim to deal with this issue?

	R. The PPI Forums had been established to work at a grass roots level. Each Forum had regular contact with its local Primary Care Trust and Acute, Mental Health and Ambulance Trusts.

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

	C. The PPI Forums appeared to focus on the negative aspects of the NHS, whereas, at times, it may prove more positive if they focussed on encouraging good practice within the NHS.

	R. The PPI Forums tended to be bodies which would look at the negative aspects of the NHS, with the aim of improving the services. With regard to this area, the Sheffield South West PPI Forum was working very hard to influence the South West Primary Care Trust and other Trusts to make improvements to what many residents considered to be a very poor service in this area. Due to the poor services, it was very difficult for members of the Forum to speak positively. There was a high number of vulnerable people in the area, who required efficient health services, many of which did not speak English as their first language, or were unable to get out and about. Of the few GPs in the area, some were either elderly or ill themselves, and therefore may not be in employment much longer.

	C. The GPs had already sent out a questionnaire which contained a number of similar questions to the one the Sheffield South West PPI Forum had distributed. People may find this confusing and consider it a duplication of work.

	R. The Forum had compiled the questionnaires independently. The Forum would not have access to the information compiled by the GPs.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses provided to the questions, be noted;
	(b) Christine Dickinson be thanked for the presentation now made; and
	(c) in the light of the information now reported, the Chair be requested to write to the Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust, expressing the concerns of local residents with regard to the lack of adequate health services in the area.

5.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 3rd February, 2005, were approved as a correct record, with the exception of (a) the list of apologies for absence, which was amended by the addition of Councillor Andrew White to the list and (b) Item 7 - Public Questions and Petitions, which was amended by (i) the substitution of the words, (A) in the question relating to highway safety in the Cemetery Road/Summerfield Street/Napier Street area, "had handed over a sum of money to the Council" for the words "had promised a sum of money" and (B) in the response to that question, “There h, ad been a financial contribution expected from Safeways” for the words “There had been a financial contribution from the developers” and (ii) the substitution of the words "Did Highways Management Services consider that creating a further entrance to the General Cemetery on Cemetery Road would be safe" for the wording in the fourth question of that item.
	A response to a request for information on the number of accidents on Summerfield Street was still awaited. The local resident who asked the question in connection with the proposed development over a stretch of the River Porter indicated that there were two parts to the question, but a response had only been provided to one part, and requested that a response to the second part of the question be provided as soon as possible.

6.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR'S REPORT
	The Panel received a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing responses to questions which had not been answered at previous meetings of the Panel.
	The Chair reported that in connection with the questions asked with regard to car parking problems on Cowlishaw Road and the surrounding area, it would be useful for the Area Panel to be provided with child accident statistics for the Panel’s area.
	A local resident queried the response to the question regarding the construction of a new bridge across the River Porter, questioning how planning permission could have been granted when there was no agreed design for a bridge. He also queried why this matter had not been referred for consideration by the Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group.
	The same resident referred to the proposed development on the site of the former Wards Brewery, Ecclesall Road, which would be constructed over a stretch of the River Porter, and requested the views of Members on the proposed development. He was of the opinion that planning permission for the development should not be granted for the following reasons:-

	· There were strong concerns from local residents with regard to the culverting of the River Porter on the basis that once it was built over, that stretch of the river would not be seen again.

	· Local residents would like to see the River deculverted. Other cities have rivers running through them and they often provided an attractive open space for residents.

	· Water corridors such as this are very important for wildlife.

	· The Environment Agency's policy indicates that watercourses should be brought to the surface.

	· It was an overdevelopment of the area and the proposed buildings were too high in comparison with surrounding buildings.

	· The development would result in adding to the already-congested streets in the area, and would result in road safety issues for pedestrians.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made, be noted; and
	(b) in the light of the views expressed by local residents, this Panel objects to the proposed development for the reasons outlined above and requests the Secretary of the Panel to forward its views to the Planning officer who would be reporting on the proposal at the meeting of the City Centre and East Planning and Highways Area Board to be held on 7th March, 2005.
	(c) in the light of the car parking problems in the Cowlishaw Road area, the Chair be requested to write to Kevin Platt, Highways Management Services, requesting child accident statistics for the Panel’s area.

	(Note: Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed did not discuss or express any views on the application and Councillor Andrew White stated that he had not been able to view the application, therefore did not comment).