Minutes of the Broomhill, Central and Nether Edge Area Panel Meeting held on 6th July 1006

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 6th July, 2006, at the Salvation Army Citadel, Psalter Lane


PRESENT:		Councillors Ali Qadar (Chair), Jean Cromar, Bernard Little, Janice Sidebottom, Pat White and Alan Whitehouse.

		Also in attendance:-

		Councillor Terry Fox	-	Cabinet Member for Transport

		Councillor Andrew Sangar	-	Fulwood Ward

		Dave Whitfield	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Bakhtiar Rashid	-	Area Action Officer

		Paul Fell	)
		Ben Benest	)	Development Services

		Inspector Craig Patchett	-	South Yorkshire Police

		Gary Collingwood	-	Community Safety Unit

		Jillian Missen	-	Parks and Countryside

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 70 local residents and representatives from local community groups in attendance.

……….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jillian Creasy and Andrew White.

2.	SHARROWVALE PARKING SCHEME – PROGRESS
	Paul Fell reported on the progress of the Sharrowvale Parking Scheme, referring also to other parking schemes which had been implemented in the City.
	Mr. Fell reported that in 2001, following a number of complaints from residents in terms of problems of car parking in their neighbourhoods, the Council leafleted approximately 28,000 properties, asking residents whether they had problems with car parking and whether they would be willing to pay for a parking permit. 25% of people responded to the questionnaire, of which 75% were in favour of paying for a parking permit. Following this response, the Cabinet approved the establishment of a peripheral parking zone around the City Centre, which will be made up of residents’ parking schemes. One such scheme had already been implemented in Broomhall and another was in the process of being implemented in Broomhill.
	The Council was now in the process of consulting with local residents and business and shop owners on the Sharrowvale Parking Scheme and as part of the initial consultation, residents had requested an extension to the original boundary of the scheme and this request had been forwarded to, and subsequently approved by the Cabinet. Every property in the area had received a leaflet, containing information on the proposed scheme and asking for comments, and to date, over 400 responses have been received. Following the consultation exercise, officers would analyse all the comments received and all responses will be reported to the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Area Board for a decision on the way forward. Subject to the decision of the Board, it was hoped that works to implement the scheme could commence in Spring, 2007.
	As part of the consultation, Mr. Fell reported that the majority of objections to the proposed scheme had been received from residents in the Summerfield Street and Hunters Bar areas, specifically those residents in the Hunter House Road and Fulmer Road areas of Hunters Bar, who do not consider that the problems of car parking are severe enough to warrant the implementation of such a scheme in their neighbourhoods. It was therefore proposed to recommend to the Planning and Highways Area Board that residents in these areas should be ballotted, and any decision would be based on a majority vote.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. In the light of the lack of car parking in the area in general, particularly the shopping area on Ecclesall Road, could a request be made for the City’s Universities to consider using some of their land in the area for student and staff parking in order to alleviate the problems caused by excess on-street parking? Business and shop owners and residents already paid business rates and Council tax, therefore should not have to pay, what is in effect, a further tax to park their own cars outside their businesses or homes. This proposal would also generate money for the Universities.

	R. Whilst this would be a practical solution, there would be difficulties in that most of the land owned by the Universities in the area is situated in a Conservation Area, which would result in the Universities having to overcome a number of planning obstacles. The Universities had considered this previously, but had experienced a number of difficulties. The proposed parking scheme would deal with situations where there were large numbers of students in shared housing, all having cars, in that, subject to demand, residents would probably only be able to purchase a maximum of two parking permits per property. The Council would also have the powers to tow away vehicles that had been left in a parking bay for a long period of time. These measures would hopefully discourage students from bringing cars with them or purchasing cars whilst they were in the City to study. The scheme has been operating efficiently in Broomhall, where there are also a number of Houses in Multiple Occupation. The implementation of parking schemes was not a statutory requirement of the Council, and whilst the Council received financial assistance from the Government in terms of the initial set-up costs, the operating and associated administrative costs were high, therefore, there was a need to charge for the permits. Most other local authorities charged for permits under similar schemes, and in some cases, the charges were considerably higher than those proposed for schemes in the City. The income raised from the sale of the permits would be targeted towards enforcement, administration and maintenance costs associated with the scheme.

	Q. What provision would the Council make for people who, for various reasons, have the need for friends and family to visit their homes on a regular basis, such as for babysitting and care purposes, and therefore require a parking space?

	R. People would be able to purchase sufficient visitors’ permits at a minimal charge, and it was likely that the majority of residents would be able to purchase two permits per property if required.

	Q. Some residents considered that the implementation of the parking scheme in this area would result in the value of their properties being reduced. Would the Council award any financial compensation if this was the case?

	R. Officers did not consider that the implementation of the scheme would result in a reduction in house prices and, in any case, the Council is not able to offer financial compensation.

	Q. Had the Council given any consideration to the likely problems caused by displacement, particularly on Endcliffe Glen Road and Endcliffe Vale Avenue? Could the residents of these roads be balloted as to whether or not they wish to be included in the scheme?

	R. Officers agreed to meet residents on site to discuss their concerns and explain what options are available.

	Q. What consideration had been given to the likely problems to be faced by residents living just outside the proposed boundary of the scheme? These residents would suffer in terms of displaced parking, but they had not been included in any consultation.

	R. The Council was well aware of the fact that with all similar parking schemes, there would be issues regarding displaced parking on those roads situated just outside the designated boundaries of the schemes, and as a result of this, did not feel the need to consult such residents. The parking on such roads would be reviewed as part of the monitoring of the scheme, with appropriate measures being considered if problems do occur.

	Q. Had any consideration been given to offering bus passes to students, either free of charge or at a reduced rate, in an attempt to get them to use public transport and not be encouraged to bring or purchase cars with them when they came to the City to study?

	R. The Area Panel had initiated a number of meetings with the Universities, at which, amongst a number of other issues, students’ travel needs had been considered. These discussions would continue with the hope of finding a satisfactory solution.

	Q. When the original consultation was undertaken in 2001, what percentage of the 75% of people who indicated that they welcomed the introduction of a parking scheme had stated that they would be willing to pay for a permit?

	R. 52%. If there were areas within the boundary where residents considered that there were no parking problems, and therefore wished to opt out of the scheme, the Council would give consideration to such requests.

	Q. There were problems regarding the large number of Houses in Multiple Occupation in the area, particularly on the roads off Ecclesall Road, which were mainly occupied by students. Could a request be made to the Universities to instruct students to leave their cars at home, particularly on the basis that there was a regular bus service on Ecclesall Road and that a number of facilities used by the students were situated within walking distance.

	R. The Universities already undertake considerable work in connection with this issue. Only 25% of students have access to a car during term times.

	Q. Will permanent residents get priority over residents in Houses in Multiple Occupation in terms of purchasing parking permits?

	R. No, students or other residents in Houses in Multiple Occupation will have the same rights as permanent residents when applying for parking permits. Everyone applying for a permit will have to provide some form of proof showing that their car was registered at their place of residence.

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

	· If residents having more than one car were only allowed to have one permit, this may encourage them to use their cars more during the day, as opposed to having to pay to keep it outside their properties, which would add to the already existing traffic congestion in the area and therefore, result in an increase in air pollution levels.

	· There had been no consultation at all with Hunters Bar Infant and Junior Schools. The proposals would cause major problems for the schools in that they would have a difficulty recruiting staff if there wasn’t sufficient places for them to park. The majority of staff, due to the distance they lived away from the school, were forced to travel by car and would find it difficult travelling by bus as it would involve up to two or three separate bus journeys. Also, approximately 30% of pupils at the schools lived outside the schools’ catchment areas, and therefore are driven to school by their parents. This would mean that there would be an additional financial burden on those parents in having to purchase visitors’ permits.

	R. Officers were to meet with the Headteachers and Governors of the Infant and Junior Schools to discuss these issues. In addition to this, the Council was working with all schools in the City in connection with the adoption of a School Travel Plan which would look at all aspects of how staff and pupils travelled to school.

	· There were many elderly people who lived in the area, who would struggle to afford the parking permits. A large number of these elderly people were also ill or had disabilities which required daily visits from either friends or family or professional carers. A number of these people were worried that the implementation of the scheme would make it more difficult for people to visit them. It appears that it is yet another form of tax that people will be forced to pay. It also appears that the scheme will be implemented regardless of residents’ comments.

	R. Officers do not consider the charges for the parking permits and visitors’ passes represent another tax. It is considered that the permits, which will cost £35 per year, represents good value for money. Special parking permits will be available to certain types of workers, such as health care workers who need to come into the area regularly to carry out their duties. These cost £10 per year. Visitors’ permits are available to those who do not qualify for the special permit. The decision on the implementation of the scheme will be taken by the Councillors on the City Centre, South and East Planning and Highways Area Board, who will have considered all the responses received.

	· It appears that no consideration has been given to the likely adverse effects that the scheme will have on Kenwood Bank and Kenwood Park Road, which had not been included in the scheme. There were a number of public buildings surrounding these roads, resulting in an increase in on-street parking, and the implementation of this scheme would only make matters worse.

	R. This will be dealt with either by reviewing the scheme after it has commenced operation, or by the continued expansion of the Peripheral Parking Zone, which will be done in a sequential manner.

	· A number of residents on Cemetery Road, who had suffered problems caused by commuter parking on their road during the day f, or the last five years, welcomed the introduction of the scheme.

	· Residents and business and shop owners in the area accepted that there were problems with parking which needed addressing, but considered that the Council should look at other alternatives rather than implementing the proposed parking scheme. There were major problems caused by staff of Norwich Union and the DVLA leaving their cars all day on roads at the bottom end of Ecclesall Road. More consideration needs to be given to the car parking requirements of staff of the various new developments in the area. There were over 1500 people employed in the vicinity of Ecclesall Road and efforts should be made to request that either individual members of staff or their employers, should make more efforts to either encourage them to leave their cars at home and travel to work by public transport or look at alternative sources of car parking.

	R. The amount of car parking spaces in respect of new developments is strictly limited through planning regulations. A number of the schemes referred to had been completed several years ago and car use had increased year on year since then. Officers are working with organisations in the area to bring forward Travel Plans, which will help the companies address their travel needs and minimise single occupant car journeys.

	· , 60; A number of residents on Endcliffe Glen Road welcomed the scheme and were willing to pay for parking permits.

	· A number of residents on Guest Road also welcomed the scheme, particularly as there were a number of student properties on the road whereby up to five students in each property all had cars, and residents often found it very difficult to park outside or near their homes. The residents would also be willing to pay for parking permits.

	· The Council needed to give serious consideration to the effects that all the housing and business developments in the area were having in terms of traffic congestion and on-street parking.

	· Some residents on Denham Road welcomed the introduction of the scheme and were willing to pay for parking permits.

	· A number of people appeared to assume that having a parking permit would guarantee them being able to park outside their own home.

	In terms of timescales, Paul Fell reported that as part of the consultation exercise, residents and business and shop owners had been requested to submit their comments by the end of June, 2006, and after consideration of all the responses, officers would draft a report, which it was hoped would address as many of the individual issues as possible, for submission to the Cabinet in Autumn, 2006. Any comments or objections received up to the date of the meeting would be included in the report to the Planning and Highways Area Board.
	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the questions asked and responses given; and
	(b) thanked Paul Fell for the presentation now made.

3.	SHARROW AND SOUTH WEST SHEFFIELD SAFER NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA
	Inspector Craig Patchett and Gary Collingwood gave a presentation on the Sharrow and South West Sheffield Safer Neighbourhood Area (SNA), referring to the background to the introduction of SNAs, the structure, staffing arrangements, concept and goals of the SNA, together with the role of the Safer Neighbourhood Officer.
	Inspector Patchett reported that South Yorkshire Police had been awarded £50,000 in 2004 to establish a partnership in an attempt to reduce crime in the Sharrow area. The initiative was known as the Sharrow Priority Policing Area and was a forerunner to the Safer Neighbourhood Areas. The partnership comprised representatives from the Police, various Council Services and other key stakeholders, and aimed to reduce incidences of various crime-related matters, including graffiti, arson, car crime and burglaries. The emphasis on the approach was crime prevention through increased community engagement, and early signs had indicated that the initiative had been successful in that it had not only resulted in a reduction in crime, but had also improved engagement and created effective partnerships.
	The Sharrow and South West Sheffield SNA was one of 10 established across the City, and the Safer Neighbourhood Teams were all specifically designed to respond to local concerns which had been identified by the detailed analysis of local problems and issues highlighted by members of the local community. It was emphasised that the SNA initiative was not Police led, but was a shared, holistic vision to problem-solving. There were two Safer Neighbourhood Teams responsible for the operation of the Sharrow and South West Sheffield SNA, and the Teams comprised one Inspector, two Sergeants and 14 Police Constables with geographic responsibility, five Police Community Safety Officers and 10 Special Constables.
	Inspector Patchett reported on how and why the initiative worked, and referred to the SNA Engagement Structure. He reported that the success of the initiative was as a result of the partnership approach and the fact that the intelligence, enforcement and prevention were all tackled at a local level.
	Gary Collingwood reported on the goals in terms of the initiatives, indicating that it aimed to achieve a 10% reduction in crime by April 2007 and a 21% reduction by April, 2008. It also aimed to achieve a number of Home Office reassurance targets and empower neighbourhoods. Mr. Collingwood referred to his role as the Safer Neighbourhood Officer, reporting that his primary objective was to work with the team with the aim of reducing crime and anti-social behaviour and improve the quality of life for residents in the community, and that this would be achieved through coterminus working with all key stakeholders and the local community.
	Inspector Patchett concluded by summarising the aims of the SNA initiative, indicating that community safety was paramount, the initiative was not purely concerned with policing issues, it ensured that there were effective structures in place, it had realistic goals and provided a service for the local community, whilst working with the local community.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. There had been a number of incidents relating to the actions of cyclists in the area, one such incident having very serious implications. When was the last time the Police arrested a cyclist in the City?

	R. There had been no such arrests in the SNA, but Inspector Patchett would speak to the Inspector in charge of the SNA in which the incident referred to had occurred.

	Q. What is this Team’s relationship with the Police Team based at Crewe Flats?

	R. Crewe flats was within the Broomhill Safer Neighbourhood Area, but the Sharrow and South West Sheffield Safer Neighbourhood Team worked closely with the Team in that area.

	Q. Were the Police aware of problems regarding people skateboarding on the road?

	R. The Team had not received any reports as yet.

	Q. Would action be taken under the initiative against those people leaving rubbish outside private properties or businesses?

	R. Yes, this would be dealt with by the Arson Reduction Team.

	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions; and
	(b) thanked Inspector Craig Patchett and Gary Collingwood for the presentation now made.

4.	“YOUR COUNCIL, YOUR SAY”
	Councillor Terry Fox reported on “Your Council, Your Say”, which was the biggest ever consultation and communications exercise to be undertaken by the Council, and would take place between June and August, 2006. The initiative would give every resident in the City the opportunity to directly influence some key Council Services over the next two years. All residents in Sheffield would receive a questionnaire in June and July, which included three specific questions on litter and street cleaning, recycling and anti-social behaviour, and would be required to return the leaflet to the Council before 31st August, 2006. A “Your Council, Your Say” event would also be held in a marquee outside the Town Hall on 14th and 15th July, 2006, where, in addition to providing an opportunity for people to hand in their completed questionnaires, residents would also be able to speak to, and ask questions of Councillors and Council officers. Residents would also have the opportunity to ask questions of Councillors and officers at their local Area Panel meetings.
	This was the first Area Panel meeting at which the initiative had been reported, and was therefore to be classed as the launch of the initiative.
	The following comments were made, and responses given where relevant:-

	· The Council needs to target more resources towards improving the City’s parks and improving and maintaining the condition of the City’s roads, not only for residents, but also to create a favourable impression for people visiting the City.

	· Any initiative such as this which gives residents the opportunity to comment on and influence how the Council’s Services were operated should be welcomed. However, there were only three questions on the questionnaire, and very little opportunity to provide detailed responses.

	R. Whilst there was only room on the leaflet to include the three main questions, these were used as an introduction to encourage a more detailed response. More information and questions in terms of the initiative would be included on the Council’s website and residents would also be able to visit the marquee outside the Town Hall on 14th and 15th July and talk to Councillors and Council Officers.

	· It would have been helpful to inform representatives of the Voluntary Sector that the initiative would be taking place to enable them to work with local residents in providing informed responses to the questions on the questionnaire.

	· Residents in Langdon Street complained that their road was very rarely swept clean and questioned whether there was any possibility of rolling out the City Centre Ambassadors City-wide, so they could visit different neighbourhoods every so often and identify any problems.

	· Would it be possible for the Council to provide bigger bins or more than one bin at Houses in Multiple Occupation. Action also needs to be taken in terms of clearing up rubbish that had fallen off skips.

	R. Whilst the Council works very hard in attempting to keep the City clean, there was a responsibility on residents and landlords to dispose of their rubbish in a responsible manner.

	· The Council needs to put more emphasis on encouraging people to re-use material through recycling.

	· More resources needed to be targeted towards Youth Services. This would not only provide young people with more to do, but would also help reduce anti-social behaviour.

	· Residents in the Cemetery Road area would like to convey their thanks to the Council, particularly to Jillian Missen, for securing the funding for the climbing boulder at the Montague Street open space.

	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the comments now made and responses given; and
	(b) thanked Councillor Terry Fox for the presentation now made.

5.	MINUTES/NOTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS/EVENTS
	The Area Panel (a) approved the minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 11th May, 2006 and (b) noted the notes of the Area Panel Roadshow held at St. Mary’s Community Centre on 4th April, 2006.

6.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR’S REPORT
	&