Minutes of Broomhill Central and Nether Edge Area Panel 2 June 2005

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 2nd June, 2005, at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane


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

		Also in attendance:-

		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Ben Benest	)
		Richard Holmes	)	Development Services
		Paul Fell	)
		Julie Watson	)

		John Sturdy	-	South Yorkshire Neighbourhood Watch

		Maryam Mahmud	-	Sheffield Futures

		Joanne Rutter	-	Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust

		Ann Staniland	-	Libraries, Archives and Information

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were also approximately 20 local residents and representatives of local community organisations in attendance.

		………….


1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	An apology for absence was received from Councillor Andrew White.

2.	SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
	Ben Benest gave a presentation on the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF), which would comprise a portfolio of a number of different documents, developed over a period of time, and would replace the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as Sheffield’s statutory development plan, in three years’ time. He focused on the special features of the SDF, the Core Strategy document, the Emerging Options and how local residents, local community groups and other stakeholders could gain access to the documents and become involved in the process.
	Mr. Benest reported that the main documents in the SDF were the Core Strategy, City Polices and City Sites, and that the SDF would also include Supplementary Planning Documents and other accompanying documentation, including a Statement of Community Involvement, monitoring information and a Local Development Scheme. The special features of the new system involved the Framework being spatial, sustainable, having community involvement, being credible, comprehensive and robust, and would involve a more simplified process, quicker adoption and would be easier update and add to in the future.
	Reference was made to the Core Strategy, which was the first document to be produced as part of the SDF, and which all subsequent planning documents produced under the Framework would need to comply with. The Core Strategy would hopefully provide answers, at a strategic level, to what was going to happen in terms of future development in the City, and how it was going to happen. It would contain the SDF’s aims and high level policies and would set out the main changes to Sheffield over the next 15 years.
	The five overall aims for the SDF were to achieve economic transformation and balanced communities, protect and improve the environment, increase accessibility and enhance the quality of life. Mr. Benest reported on the Emerging Options, which were ideas at this stage, referring to what kind of City would be most ideal, jobs and shops, housing, transport, the future of the Porter Valley, Bramall Quarter and Sheaf Valley and student housing. It was proposed that there would be five components as part of the Emerging Options consultation programme, which would include publicising the SDF, presentations to the Area Panels and other selected bodies, such as Sheffield First, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the East End Strategy Group and Parish and Town Councils, a conference to be held on 8th July, 2005, placing material on the Council’s Website and placing documents on deposit at the three City Council First Point locations at Howden House, Chapeltown and Hillsborough and 29 library branches across the City. All responses received as part of the consultation on the Emerging Options will be recorded on the SDF consultation database and consultees’ contact details would be confirmed, revised or added to the database in preparation for future mailshots. The consultation programme would give a good opportunity for community involvement early on in the process of preparing the SDF, as well as meeting the statutory requirement to consult on the initial sustainability report. The programme would promote awareness of the SDF and encourage comments on the Emerging Options for the Core Strategy. All responses would be analysed as part of the work carried out to prepare the Preferred Options which, in turn, would be subject to public consultation in February/March, 2006.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Recently, particularly in this Panel’s area, developers had submitted applications for large-scale housing developments, which had been met by widespread objection from local residents, and which had been refused by Planning and Highways Area Boards, but subsequently approved by the Secretary of State on appeal. Will there be any policies in the SDF to stop this from happening?

	R. There will be policies in the Core Strategy document referring to the location of new housing. The Planning Inspectorate would scrutinise the Core Strategy Document and if it passed the test of soundness, the policy would be binding. Consequently, if any future planning applications, such as the ones referred to, conflict with the SDF, this would be given weight at any planning appeal.

	Q. Would there be policies in the SDF dealing with cases where developers wished to convert properties into flats in areas which were already densely populated?

	R. There were likely to be policies in the SDF dealing with student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation and housing density, and the policies in the final document would have to have been scrutinised by the Planning Inspectorate and passed the test of soundness.

	Q. Although a change had been made to the UDP in that PPG1 had been amended with effect from February, 2005, requiring that local communities must now be involved in the decisions in connection with major planning developments, it appears that this has not been the case in Sheffield. Why should local residents expect any changes with the introduction of the SDF?

	R. The questioner was referring to the requirement for each local planning authority to prepare a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Sheffield’s SCI is now being prepared and a draft will be published for consultation in October/November 2005.

	Q. Will there be policies in the SDF to deal with situations such as if groups of students move into new purpose-built accommodation blocks, there could be large numbers of vacant properties left in certain neighbourhoods?

	R. There will be policies within the SDF dealing with student accommodation. If the Council could provide a strong case for limiting the level of student accommodation in certain areas, it may be possible to have a policy indicating a certain limit as to the level of such housing. Dwellings vacated by students are unlikely to be left vacant as the residential property market is very buoyant in this part of Sheffield.

	Q. What plans were there for publicising the process and where could people receive independent advice?

	R. The Council had written to approximately 2,000 individuals and representatives of community groups and stakeholders across the City, the details of which it had on its database from previous exercises. There had been two mailshots, one in April, 2005, and a further one last week, informing people of the process. Planning officers would also be making presentations, such as this one, at most of the Area Panels as well as to other groups and organisations in the City, as referred to in the presentation. There was also a link on the Council’s website to Yorkshire Planning Aid, who would be able to provide independent advice.

	Q. Do the officers envisage any problems in the process of preparing the SDF?

	R. Officers were aware of the fact that things could go wrong as it was a very complex exercise. As part of the process, a document entitled the Local Development Scheme has been produced, which sets out what documents would be prepared as part of the overall SDF portfolio, as well as setting out realistic targets and timetables, and it was hoped that this would minimise the problems and risks.

	Q. In the light of any major potential conflicts in respect of the SDF, what was the position of local residents and the Council?

	R. It was hoped that by getting people involved early on in the process, this would hopefully avoid any major conflicts. Ultimately, decisions would be made by elected Members.

	Q. What extent could people change the emerging options if they did not agree with them, particularly as the timescales of the process indicate that the deadline for comments on the options was 22nd July, 2005?

	R. All comments on the Emerging Options would be logged. They would be tested for their soundness and sustainability. People would have the chance to comment on the preferred options in February 2006. The Independent Inspector would also be scrutinising the options put forward.

	Q. What was the timescale in respect of the process after February, 2006 when the Preferred Options have been published?

	R. There would be consultation on the Preferred Options in February, 2006, and following this, the final version of the SDF Core Strategy would be submitted to the Government in November, 2006. The document would be reviewed by the Inspector, and subject to any amendments, would be formally adopted by the Council in June, 2007. If there had been no major objections to the document following consultation, a number of the policies within the SDF could be referred to as material planning considerations by the Council when making decisions on applications.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Ben Benest for the presentation now made.

3.	HIGHWAYS ISSUES
	Paul Fell provided an update on a number of highways issues in the Panel’s area, and it was noted that:-

	· The works in connection with the Plan 4 Transport in the Sheaf Valley were progressing well. A report was to be submitted to the City Centre and East Planning and Highways Area Board at its meeting to be held on 11th July, 2005, proposing the implementation of a number of experimental Traffic Regulation Orders relating to road closures in the Lakes area in order to improve bus journey times. Work was being undertaken to upgrade bus stops on London Road and changes had been made to the traffic signals on Boston Street.

	· Proposed traffic improvements in connection with the Plan 4 Transport in S10 had been submitted in respect of the Broomhill Centre proposals, to the City Centre and West Planning and Highways Area Board. A report would also shortly be submitted to the Board in respect of parking issues on Glossop Road. It was expected that the works in connection with the S10 Corridor would be completed this calendar year.

	· The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) had submitted a bid for funding to the Department of Transport in connection with the proposed Supertram extensions, and following the request for further information, the SYPTE was undertaking further work in order to obtain this information.

	· Consultation on the residents parking scheme in Broomhill would commence this month and approval for the implementation of the scheme would be submitted to the Cabinet shortly. Implementation of the scheme was planned to commence in Autumn 2005, in order to tie in with the Southbourne Road/Westbourne Road Scheme.

	· Subject to a number of minor changes which had been forced on the Council due to the high costs of the original scheme, approval had been given for the implementation of the Westbourne Road Traffic Management Scheme, and implementation works were due to commence in July/August, 2005.

	· Following the transfer of responsibility in respect of parking offences from the Police to the City Council, a team of 32 parking attendants had been established, with 20 attendants working at any one time. There were plans to recruit a further 10 attendants in August, 2005. The attendants had been active in the Panel’s area.

	· Funding had been received from the developer of the Wards Brewery site towards the implementation of a pedestrian crossing on Summerfield Street and to draw up a scheme in respect of a right turn from Ecclesall Road onto Summerfield Street. With regard to the right turn, officers were reviewing all possible options as there were a number of potential problems associated with this particular element of the works.

	· Officers had received details of a number of requests for works to be implemented under the Area Panel’s Small Highway Schemes Budget 2005/06, which included the installation of bollards and cycle stands and the construction of dropped kerbs.

	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Was there any possibility of extending the Sharrow Vale Residents’ Parking Scheme to include Grange Crescent Road as residents were already experiencing problems with regard to car parking, and if it was just outside the boundary of the scheme, the displacement effect would make the problems even worse?

	R. Arrangements would be made for the appropriate Planning officer to contact the local residents direct.

	Q. When the Council introduced residents’ parking schemes, the resulting displacement of car parking had serious effects on those residents living on the periphery of such schemes. Residents were often unable to park outside their own properties and the roads rarely were able to be cleaned as they were rarely free of cars. Could the Council give consideration to this when designing further such schemes?

	R. The Council were working within limited budgets and therefore, could only include a limited number of roads within the Residents Parking Schemes.

	Q. Due to the number of accidents involving pedestrians on Summerfield Street, the Council had promised to involve local residents in looking at proposals for the implementation of additional road safety measures in 2001. There had been 47 reported accidents, to which emergency vehicles had attended, on Summerfield Street since 2001, and now, in 2005, Planning officers could still not confirm that a pedestrian crossing would be implemented this year. Why was this the case?

	R. Whilst a proposed scheme had been drawn up in respect of the pedestrian crossing on Summerfield Street, together with works in connection with creating a right turn from Ecclesall Road into Summerfield Street, as referred to earlier in the meeting, further issues may arise, which could require further investigation or work by officers. Officers did therefore not wish to give a definite date on when the works would be completed. One such issue involved problems with the kerb radius on Summerfield Street, and there could be potential problems with regard to the provision of a right turn from Ecclesall Road into Summerfield Street as there would be a need to provide an extra lane on the highway.

	Q. What plans were there in respect of the next residents’ parking scheme and would the next scheme include the Bramall Lane area?

	R. There were no plans with regard to the implementation of any further residents’ parking schemes at the present time.

	Q. How do residents influence which areas are chosen to be included in residents’ parking schemes and were they part of the proposals set out in the Local Transport Plan which was out for consultation at the present time? There needs to be an improvement on how the areas are devised as the present design of the schemes simply displaces the problem on those residents living on the periphery of the boundary.

	R. It was believed that all community groups and stakeholders in the areas concerned had been consulted.

	Q. It was believed that funding would be provided by Sheffield United Football Club towards road safety improvements on Charlotte Road/ Shoreham Street – was this the case?

	R. This was the case, but there were issues with regard to the club providing necessary funding in respect of the design work required in connection with the proposed improvements.

	Q. Was there a contact telephone number for the public to ring to report car parking offences?

	R. Residents can contact Parking Services on 273 6158 to report any matters.

	Q. With regard to the problems of car parking on Grange Crescent Road, the businesses in the surrounding area should have a responsibility for providing car parking for employees, particularly when some employees of the businesses were parking on Grange Crescent Road and surrounding roads from 8.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Could the Council give consideration to this?

	R. This would be difficult as there were limitations as to the number of car parking spaces that businesses could have.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· There are serious problems with regard to car parking on Langdon Street whereas local residents were often unable to park outside their own properties due to employees of businesses in the surrounding area parking on the road. This is causing particular problems for people with disabilities, particularly if they have a lot of shopping or other goods to transport from their car to their homes.

	· Planning officers stated that the works in connection with the provision of a pedestrian crossing on Summerfield Street would be completed in March, 2004. Local residents deserved an explanation as to why there had been delays with this particular project.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and the responses given to the questions, be noted;
	(b) the Area Co-ordinator be requested to write to the Head of Highways Management Services, requesting an explanation into the delays in respect of the implementation of a pedestrian crossing and other road safety measures on Summerfield Street, near its junction with Ecclesall Road; and
	(c) the Area Panel is of the opinion that consideration should be given to the inclusion of Grange Crescent Road, Langdon Street and other surrounding roads in the Sharrow Vale Residents’ Parking Scheme on the grounds that there are particular problems with regard to car parking on these roads.

4.	RIVER SHEAF WALK
	Julie Watson gave a presentation on the establishment of the River Sheaf Walk, which would stretch from Granville Square to Millhouses Park.
	Ms. Watson reported that the works under the project, which had been funded from Section 106 monies provided by the developer of the student flats on Charlotte Road, would include footpath improvements from Granville Square to Duchess Road, and the provision of information boards and route signage. A map and a number of photographs were exhibited, showing the proposed route and a number of locations and buildings on the route. It was hoped that some form of feature would be provided at the start of the route at Granville Square, and that works would be undertaken to cut back any overgrown shrubbery or overhanging tree branches to make the route more attractive and safer. It was hoped that the majority of the route would be on paths either on or near the riverbank, but, at present, there were parts of the route away from the river, diverted along public highways.
	Ms. Watson reported on the partners who had been involved in the project, and which included the City Council, Heeley Development Trust, which had been involved in public consultation and making bids for additional funding, and Groundwork Sheffield, who had been responsible for forging links with businesses on and around the route of the walk. With regard to the future of the project, Council officers would continue to negotiate with developers along the route of the walk to provide riverside paths where possible, and the partners would continue to seek funding for further improvements along the route. A Supplementary Planning Document in connection with the route will be prepared in due course.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Where there any plans to establish a walk long the River Porter?

	R. The officer was not aware of any plans for the River Porter, though it was Council policy to encourage the development of riverside walks.

	Q. With regard to the application for planning permission for development on the Gordon Lamb site off Ecclesall Road, will the path by the River Porter be continuous?

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

	Q. Would it be possible for the Heeley Development Trust to bid for funding towards the River Sheaf Walk as part of the latest lottery bidding round in respect of environmental projects?

	R. This would be referred to the Trust.

	Q. Would it be possible to open up some of the old buildings along the route of the walk for members of the public?

	R. There may be issues with regard to this in that many of the buildings along the route were either derelict or only had foundations remaining. It was the intention, however, to provide information boards on the route, which could provide information on the buildings.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Julie Watson for the presentation now made.

5.	SOUTH YORKSHIRE NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH ASSOCIATION
	John Sturdy gave a presentation on an initiative being undertaken by the South Yorkshire Neighbourhood Watch Association (SYNWA) in the Sharrow Vale area, the main aims of which were to raise residents' awareness of crime in the area, which would hopefully reduce crime levels and make the area safer.
	Mr. Sturdy referred to a questionnaire which had been circulated to residents in the Sharrow Vale area, which had highlighted a number of quality of life issues. Following the questionnaire, the SYNWA were invited to walk round the area to look how residents were being affected by crime. A number of photographs were displayed as part of the presentation, which highlighted the problems being experienced in the area. Such problems included graffiti, lack of street lighting, illegal car parking and overhanging branches and over-grown shrubbery on a number of paths in the area, including Frog Walk, which often made people feel unsafe.
	Following the walkabout, the SYNWA aimed to improve the physical appearance and safety of the area by cutting back tree branches and shrubs to improve visibility, remove graffiti, ensure all street lighting was working, increase Neighbourhood Watch in the area and provide street signage. Mr. Sturdy concluded by referring to the Local Policing Team responsible for the Sharrow Vale area, providing contact details.
	Members of the public questioned whether residents of those roads which were part of Neighbourhood Watch Schemes could have signs indicating that it was a Neighbourhood Watch area at the top and bottom of the roads. Mr. Sturdy stated that it had been agreed that if residents were willing to start up Neighbourhood Watch Schemes, the SYNWA would install signs free of charge.
	A resident questioned whether it would be possible to have signs at the beginning and end of Frog Walk, warning people to take extra care whilst using this particular path, particularly in the light of a recent incident which had occurred in that area. Mr. Sturdy stated that whilst residents' safety was paramount, it was important that people were not put off from using such paths.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions asked, be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to John Sturdy for the presentation now made.

6.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
	The Panel received a report of the Area Co-ordinator containing (a) responses to questions that had not been answered at previous meetings of the Panel and (b) details of developments in the area, which included (i) information on the proposed works by Yorkshire Water on Brocco Bank, which was part of their project to improve river water quality in the Porter Brook, (ii) information relating to the work of the Lengthsman, who had been funded through the Area Panel’s Local Action Plan theme of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, containing details on the locations at which, and the frequency of when he would be working in the different neighbourhoods within the area; (iii) the commissioning of work by the Area Panel to improve the small patch of land at the junction Manchester Road and Fulwood Road with planting and new features, including two new benches designed by a local artist, and two planters on the island outside Broomhill shops and (iv) information on a number of follow-up issues arising from a walkabout in the Broomhall Park area by the Area Co-ordinator, Councillor Shaffaq Mohammad, Street Force and representatives of the Botanical Gates Residents’ Group and Broomhall Park Association, on 27th April, 2005.
	The Area Panel noted the contents of the report now submitted.

7.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 7th April, 2005, were approved as a correct record.

8.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	A member of the public questioned whether, in the light of the accident on Cemetery Road on 2nd February, 2004, could Highways Management Services report on how a proposed new vehicular access to the bend below Pearl Street could fail to make an already dangerous section of that road even more hazardous, especially to pedestrians who will share the access.
	This matter would be referred to officers in Highways Management Services for a response.

9.	DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Thursday, 7th July, 2005, from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., at St. Mark’s Church, Glossop Road, Broomhill.

How useful is this page?