Broomhill Central and Nether Edge Area Panel Minutes 7th July 2005

BROOMHILL, CENTRAL AND NETHER EDGE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 7th July, 2005, at St. Mark’s Church


PRESENT:		Councillors Ali Qadar (Chair), Jean Cromar, Shaffaq Mohammed and Andrew Sangar.

		Also in attendance:-

		Dave Whitfield			-	Area Co-ordinator

		Ben Benest			)	Development Services
		Keith Missen			)

		Rachel Wileman			-	Sheffield First Partnership

		Jillian Missen			-	Parks, Woodlands and Countryside

		Carrie Warr			)	University of Sheffield
		Pat McGrath			)

		Marie May			-	Sheffield Hallam University

		Joanne Rutter			-	Sheffield South West Primary Care Trust

		John Turner			-	Committee Secretariat

		There were also approximately 25 local residents and representatives of local community organisations in attendance.

		………….


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

2.	STUDENT RESIDENCES STRATEGY – UPDATE
	Carrie Warr and Pat McGrath gave a presentation on the latest position with regard to the Student Residences Strategy, focusing on the Disposals Project and the Student Village Project.
	Carrie Warr reported on the Disposals Project, referring to the progress of property sales, including details of those properties being released on the market this summer. She also reported on the sale of the larger sites which, in the main, had or would be sold to private property developers, and which included Victoria House, Victoria Street, Riverdale Road Flats, Crookesmoor House and Tapton. It was reported that nine of the street properties had been sold, offers had been received on 23, 17 continued to be marketed and a further 13 would be released on the market this Summer. A restrictive covenant would apply to all properties sold, as well as the new developments, which would prevent them being used as a student residence or as Houses in Multiple Occupation in the future. Ms. Warr reported that the accommodation at Victoria House had now been vacated and that a proposed scheme in respect of the development of this site was to be considered by the West Planning and Highways Area Board later in the month. Developers were liaising with the Council in respect of the future development of the site at Riverdale Road and there were plans to refurbish Crookesmoor House. It was expected that the site at Tapton would be vacated by either Summer 2007 or Summer 2008 and the sale of Taptonville Flats was still being progressed.
	Pat McGrath reported on the progress in respect of the Student Village, indicating that planning approval for the development had been granted by the City Council on 10th May, 2005, subject to approximately 60 planning conditions, which University staff were working through with Planning officers. The construction period was anticipated to last approximately three years and would comprise three phases. Phase 1, which would take place from September 2005 to September 2006, would include development on the Endcliffe site and the central hub, together with parts of the Stephenson site. Phase 2, which would take place from June 2006 to September 2007, would include development on the majority of the southern area of the site and Phase 3, which would take place from June 2007 to September 2008, being concentrated predominantly on the Ranmoor site. University staff were working closely with local residents and there were plans to establish a Construction Group, comprising representatives from various local community groups and stakeholders in the area, and which would be required to provide the University with feedback on all aspects of the construction works.
	Ms. McGrath also referred to other activities being undertaken by the University, which included the drafting of a Management Plan in connection with the development of the student village and various aspects of its future operation. The plan would include details on the construction working hours and the likely effects of the construction works on local residents. University staff would be looking at the best ways of communicating with local residents, including the establishment of a hotline and including details on their website. As part of the wider issues concerning students in the area, the University also aimed to stagger the return of students in September, to reduce the impact of their return on the locality.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Will the restrictive covenants on the properties being sold by the University still apply if the properties are sold on?

	R. The University has been assured by their Solicitors that the restrictive covenants would apply for an indefinite period.

	Q. With regard to the properties owned by the University on Dorset Street and Ruth Square, would the residents be required to move out of the properties by September, 2005?

	R. The position with regard to the properties on these streets was being reviewed by the University. The University had met with the residents and explained the various options available to them. The residents had never been told that they would have to move out in September, 2005.

	Q. Could any more details be provided in respect of the proposed developments at Tapton Hall and the experimental gardens.

	R. The developers of the scheme at Tapton Hall were looking at a residential scheme on the site, including the area of experimental gardens. It was suggested that the proposed scheme be reported back, either to the resident asking the question or to the Area Panel, when the plans had been produced.

	Q. Would adequate provision be made for student car parking as part of the Student Village and other student accommodation developments?

	R. A Transport Assessment had been undertaken and all scheme would have car parking and cycle stands provided. Car parking permits would also be granted to students. The University were also looking at the possibility of operating a link bus from the Village to the University. The University believed there was adequate car parking in the Student village and other student accommodation developments in the City.

	Q. What arrangements would be made for the control of access to the Student Village site during the construction phase?

	R. Plans had not yet been finalised, but the University would be working closely with the schools in the area, as well as with other groups and agencies, in connection with the safety aspects during the construction phase.

	Q. Who would be on the proposed Construction Group, and how often would it meet?

	R. These details have yet to be decided.

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

3.	SHEFFIELD, “A CITY ON THE UP!”
	Rachel Wileman gave a presentation on the Sheffield City Strategy 2005-10, Sheffield, “A City on the Up”, which had been prepared by the Sheffield First Partnership. Ms. Wileman stated that consultation on the Strategy had been linked in with the consultation on the Sheffield Development Framework, and as part of the consultation, leaflets had been distributed to various networks and organisations across the City in order to gather as many views, opinions and aspirations as possible over the Summer. There would also be a number of events and activities that residents could get involved in as part of the consultation. One of the consultation leaflets requested residents to state what they considered was great or unique about Sheffield and what made the City distinctive and what they would want the City to be famous for in 10 years time.
	As part of the preparation of the revised strategy, Ms. Wileman stated that there was a statutory obligation for each local authority to prepare a City Strategy and that it was necessary to prepare a new strategy this year on the basis that the 2002/05 strategy would elapse this year. It was intended that the revised City Strategy would be launched in November, 2005, following the extensive consultation exercise.
	Ms. Wileman reported that the City Strategy would focus on 12 key features, which were considered to be the features required for any major City and which were:-

	· Strong Economy
	· Highly Skilled Workforce
	· Vibrant City Centre
	· Attractive, Successful Neighbourhoods
	· Happy and Healthy Communities
	· Low Crime
	· Well Connected
	· Great Cultural and Sporting Life
	· Cosmopolitan and Inclusive
	· Well Run and Well Regarded
	· Environmental Excellence
	· Great Place to Grow Up

	Ms. Wileman referred to each of the key features, reporting on the positive elements of Sheffield in respect of each of the features, and the key challenges facing the City.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. As part of the feature relating to a Strong Economy, there was no mention of tourism despite the fact that a third of the City was located within a National Park, and therefore, tourism was a major factor for the City – why was this the case?

	R. It was accepted that tourism was a major factor for the City, in that several people were attracted to the Peak District for the various activities, such as rambling, climbing and mountain biking. The Peak District was the second most visited National Park in the world. Reference would be made to this as part of this key feature in the City Strategy.

	Q. Whilst there was reference to activities for young people in the City, why was there little mention of activities for older people?

	R. Whilst there was no direct mention to older people as part of the key features, facilities for older people was linked to the feature relating to Cosmopolitan and Inclusive. Sheffield First Partnership would be talking to representatives of the Better Government for Older People and would welcome, as part of the consultation, any comments with regard to what older people would like to see in the City.

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

4.	AIR RAID SHELTERS AT KING EDWARD VII SCHOOL
	Michael Lewis, Headteacher, King Edward VII School, reported that the school was celebrating its centenary this year, and would be organising a number of projects and activities to celebrate this. He made specific reference to one project the school aimed to undertake, which would include opening up the network of air raid shelters located beneath the playing fields at the front of the Upper School to the public. Access to the shelters was presently sealed up, and it was hoped that with the endorsement of the Area Panel, local residents and other community groups in the area, bids for funding from external sources could be made to pay for the works required. The plans were to open up the shelters and organise educational visits, with controlled access, to show how the pupils at the school, as well as local residents, used the shelters during the Second World War. It was also the aim to collect artefacts and any other information for display in the shelters as part of the project.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be noted; and
	(b) the proposals to open up the air raid shelters underneath the playing fields at King Edward VII Upper School, along the lines now reported, be endorsed.

5.	PARKS, WOODLANDS AND COUNTRYSIDE AREA PLAN – UPDATE
	Jillian Missen gave a presentation on the works and improvements carried out to the green and open spaces in the Panel’s area, which had been prioritised and which appeared in the Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Action Plan. The priority green spaces included Brincliffe Edge Woods, Broadfield Road Open Space, Chelsea Park, Lowfield Park, Asline Road, Montague Street/Pembrook Road Open Spaces, Mount Pleasant Park, Parker’s Lane Open Space, Endcliffe Wood, Porter Valley and Sheffield Botanical Gardens. Ms. Missen also provided an update on the progress in respect of two other green spaces in the area and reported on the proposed works at the Archer Lane allotments, based on the requirement to include a priority allotment for each Area Panel.
	The progress in respect of the green spaces was reported as follows:-

	Priority Green Spaces

	Brincliffe Edge Woods		-	An ecological survey and management plan for the woods had been commissioned using Section 106 funding. Further planned work included carrying out management to the trees adjacent to the highway to lift the canopies and the removal of the chestnut paling fencing and consequent replacement with stronger fencing in keeping with the Conservation Area.

	Broadfield Road Open Space		-	To be improved by the developers of the adjacent site under a Section 106 Agreement. Drawings in respect of a proposed playground had not yet been agreed as discussions were soon to take place over a proposed footbridge across the river from the open space into the land that still has to be developed. The proposed works would include a new playground, a refurbished games court, tree planting and fencing.

	Chelsea Park		-	New playground, including a new teenage area with a basketball goal and teenage shelter, now complete and operational. Other works include the pruning of trees, a limited amount of tree planting, installation of new timber benches, litter bins and new dog waste bins and wild flower seeding and herbaceous planting. A second phase of work, which would include improvements to the top pedestrian entrance off Brincliffe Edge Road, would be carried out as and when additional Section 106 funding had been received.

	Lowfield Park, Asline Road		-	Improvements to the playground, funded out of Section 106 monies and the Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Capital Playground Budget, had commenced 18 months ago, with the installation of a large climbing frame and roundabout, both accessible to disabled children. Future plans to continue to improve the playground and provide facilities for older children in the central grass area were dependent on the receipt of additional Section 106 funding.

	Montague Street/Pembroke Road Open Spaces		-	Despite suggested proposals for improving this open space being displayed with questionnaires 18 months ago, limited funding had resulted in very little activity in this area. The newly formed Cemetery Road Resident’s Association had been looking at other grant applications and Council officers would work with the Association to apply for external funding, such as Landfill Tax and other grants. The works would be phased, with the first phase including making the site safe and secure. Works would include some tree pruning and removal of shrubs and trees to allow for greater visibility into the old play area and subject to further funding being obtained, other works would include the installation of a climbing rock and seating.

	Mount Pleasant Park		-	The playing field had been drained, graded and reseeded, together with the creation of a cricket practice area on the site of the old bowling greens, and as a result of obtaining Surestart and Section 106 funding, a new safe, more visible playground had been constructed. Additional funding had also been obtained to enable further improvements to the park.

	Parker’s Lane Open Space		-	Little funding to enable any improvements on this open space. Reliant on community groups seeking funding.

	Endcliffe Wood, Porter Valley		-	The discovery of the fact that some trees in Endcliffe Woods were at least 300 years old, making them some of the oldest trees in the City, had delayed plans for tree thinning. Works would commence this year on repairing the old Victorian paths.

	Sheffield Botanical Gardens		-	The majority of the works, which had been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and matched funding from external sources obtained from the Sheffield Botanical Gardens Trust, had now been completed. The works had included the restoration of the pavilions, main gatehouse with a shop and gallery, South Lodge, bear pit, Pan statue and the bandstand, the installation of railings, the conversion of the former Curator’s house to a tea room and restaurant, and the removal of the Crimea War memorial and replacement with a fountain. Other works had included resurfacing of paths, improved drainage, installation of irrigation, the installation of electricity and lighting for events and a revamp of the plant collections, including a comprehensive labelling system. Officers were now seeking funding to employ a part-time Education Ranger for the Gardens.

	Other Park Sites

	Staveley Road		-	SHEBEEN, a local community group, had been successful in obtaining a Living Spaces Grant to improve this open space and Parks, Woodlands and Countryside would be working with Heeley Development Trust on this project. It was also hoped that Section 106 funding would be obtained for future improvements, which would include a series of mounds and paved areas, planting and artwork, on the site.

	Upper Hanover Street Playground		-	Limited Section 106 funding and a contribution from the Parks, Woodlands and Countryside’s Capital Play Budget would hopefully enable phased improvements to the playground to be undertaken. Proposals were being drawn up at the moment, which would include the replacement of the timber boundary fencing with an attractive steel fence, the installation of swing barriers and replacement of fencing adjacent to the kickabout area. If additional funding was obtained, there were plans to replace and add to the play equipment, as well as providing more seating.

	Archer Lane Allotments		-	Parks, Woodlands and Countryside would like to include one priority allotment site to the list of priority green spaces in each Area Panel on the basis that allotments receive very little funding, although there was great demand for them in some areas. There was a long waiting list for allotments on Archer Lane and that, by working with the Allotment Society, there were plans to create two additional allotments, suitable for disabled people, surface the car park area and provide a washroom and toilet. Although there was no funding available at the present time, it was hoped that the Area Panel would consider a future contribution from Section 106 monies, which could then be used as matched funding for an external grant.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be noted; and
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Jillian Missen for the presentation now made.

6.	SECTION 106 PLANNING GAIN
	Existing and Planned Allocations of Section 106 Funding
	The Area Co-ordinator submitted a report containing details of the existing and planned allocation of funding stemming from Section 106 Agreements, and which impacted on the Panel’s area.
	The report set out the background in respect of Section 106 Agreements, including details on the criteria to be applied, the type of facilities provided and the catchment in respect of distances from the new housing developments.
	The report indicated that significant amounts of finance could be made available through the process, and its impact within an area could be of considerable benefit to local people. On this basis, it was therefore considered to be of great importance that local people contributed to the process of identifying community needs and opportunities to enhance public open space. A protocol had been developed in order that the views of local people would be integral to the decision-making process around the formation of Section 106 Agreements. Following consultation with local residents, a wish list had been established of suitable sites, and which had informed the destination of funding from the Agreements. The report set out a number of the main issues raised by local residents in connection with open spaces.
	The Area Co-ordinator stated that there were very few green, open spaces in the Panel’s area, but they were, were very special to local residents, and it was planned that any Section 106 funding obtained from developments in the area would be used to carry out improvements to these areas. He stated that the Student Village development alone could result in Section 106 funding up to £200,000, and with this and other developments at Tapton, there could be a large amount of funding to be spent in the area.
	The Area Panel noted the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made.

	Overview of the Section 106 Process
	Keith Missen gave a presentation on the Council’s procedures and protocol in connection with the allocation of Section 106 Planning Gain funding, referring to the planning obligation process, why the Council used planning obligations, what the Council aimed to achieve through planning obligations and the rules which the Council followed. Mr. Missen reported on the Supplementary Planning Guidance contained in the Unitary Development Plan, which referred to the requirement of developers to provide open space provision, and referred to the main provisions of the guidance and how such guidance was adopted in practice. He made specific reference to the involvement of Area Panels in the process, indicating that the Panels should develop their own lists of open space improvements, based on information received from local organisations and residents, which should be forwarded to Planning officers to use when negotiating with developers to target funding. He stated that officers in Development Control and Parks, Woodlands and Countryside were in regular contact with Area Co-ordinators and, when requested, attended Area Panel and briefing meetings to receive Panel priorities and give updates on progress. Any public consultation was usually carried out in consultation with the Area Co-ordinator, through Area Panel meetings.
	Mr. Missen referred to a number of examples of Section 106 Agreements, which set out the total amount of funding allocated, together with a breakdown of how the funding could be allocated. He also made reference to the various different stages of a typical project and displayed a number of photographs of improvements which had been funded by Section 106 funding in the Panel’s area.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. With regard to the boundaries in which the Section 106 funding could be used, could it be possible for the funding to be utilised within the boundary of another Area Panel if there were no suitable sites within the catchment of the Area Panel’s boundary in which the housing development had taken place?

	R. All the open spaces within the City were now plotted on maps which enabled officers to co-ordinate the allocation of Section 106 funding much better. It was possible for two or more Area Panels to pool Section 106 funding and, with the consent of the Panel’s involved, utilise the funding to the best interest of local residents.

	Q. Why does the process, from the point of the developer entering into the agreement with the Council, to the completion of the improvements, take so long, particularly in the case of Chelsea Park?

	R. It was accepted that the process took a long time, but officers were of the view that in many cases, the allocation of Section 106 funding constituted a one-off opportunity for the Council to undertake improvements to open spaces. Part of the process involved consultation with local residents, which often took a long time. With regard to Chelsea Park, it was accepted that due to various problems, including delays following the need to undertake historical work and problems with the drainage during the construction works, the improvements had taken longer than usual to complete. Reference was made however, to the recent improvements to the Broomhill Triangle at the junction of Fulwood Road and Manchester Road, which had been completed in a reasonably short timescale.

	Q. Why was it the case that despite there being large scale housing developments on Harcourt Road, and the fact that Crookes Valley Park was within 50 yards of this area, the Park would not benefit from this Section 106 funding on the basis that the area was not deemed to be in Broomhill?

	R. As long as the park was within the catchment, it would not matter if it crossed over into another Panel area. There was a possibility that both Crookes Valley Park and Weston Park would benefit from Section 106 funding from the development at Tapton. With regard to the development at Harcourt Road, this needed to be considered by this and the Netherthorpe/Walkley/Hillsborough Area Panel.

	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 Keith Missen for the presentation now made.