Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel 24 November 2005

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 24th November, 2005 at Firshill Community Primary School, Orphanage Road

PRESENT:		Councillors Jackie Drayton (Chair), Ibrar Hussain and Steve Jones.

		Also in attendance:-

		Andy Shallice	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Marilyn King	-	Area Support Officer

		Shanza Hussain Maria Duffy	) )	Development Services

		Linda Eshelby Rob Slow Mustafa Ahmed Lisa Nortcliffe	) ) ) )	Neighbourhoods and Community Care Directorate

		Chris Taylor Ophelia Clarke Ali Abdi	) ) )	Burngreave New Deal for Communities

		Tim Shortland	-	Parks, Woodlands and Countryside

		Vernon Colleymore Clinton McKoy Leroy Wenham	) ) )	Sheffield Futures

		Jon Ekwubiri	-	South Yorkshire Police

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 10 local residents and representatives of local communities groups in attendance.

…………….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	No apologies for absence were received.

2.	PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN BURNGREAVE
	Linda Eshelby reported on the proposals with regard to future private sector investment in Burngreave, indicating that the Burngreave Renewal Area had been designated for the period 1991 to 2001, during which a number of schemes, predominately facelift works to private properties, had been undertaken. Despite various problems, which included issues relating to funding, the block works were carried out generally to the agreed programme. After 2001, Sheffield had been designated as a Pathfinder area and Burngreave, together with other areas of the City, were given an opportunity to bid for Housing Market Renewal funding and other sources of funding which enabled the Council to continue the block works to properties in the area. It was, however, accepted that there was a need for a new updated programme, and consultation on a proposed programme was undertaken through this Area Panel, the Burngreave Community Action Trust, the Burngreave Community Action Forum and through a mail shot in the Burngreave Messenger.
	Ms Eshelby reported on a proposed scheme for prioritising which properties would benefit in terms of private sector investment, which had included officers looking at how the works would impact visually, whether the works were included as part of, or impacted on other key regeneration projects in the area, whether properties had benefited from investment in the past and whether the works would complete a previous scheme. Resident demand and house condition and price had not been taken into consideration. Each property in a given area would then be assessed and given a score of between 2 and 10 in terms of visual impact, 0 to 5 if it was part of a key project, 0 to 2 if the property had not benefited from previous investment and 0 to 1 if the investment completed any previous work.
	It was reported that following comments on the proposals, together with confirmation of the necessary funding, officers would assess properties in the area using the afore-mentioned criteria.
	In response to a query by a local resident as to who would be responsible for deciding what impact any works would have on an area, Ms Eshelby stated that this particular element of the assessment was very subjective and further discussions were required to determine who should have the responsibility for making such decisions.
	The Chair stated that generally, people accepted why properties on main routes were treated, but were not so clear as to the other criteria. She stated that it would be beneficial to undertake block work to properties near to new housing developments so that such works would compliment the new schemes and that there was also a need to consider the issue of continuity in those cases where part of a street had been completed. Based on funding, it was hoped that block work would be completed to as many properties in the area as possible.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Linda Eshelby for the presentation now made; and
	(c) the assessment criteria in respect of future block schemes in the area, as reported, be endorsed in principle.

3.	SPITAL HILL REGENERATION PROJECT GROUP – SUPERMARKET FEASIBILITY STUDY
	Maria Duffy reported on the progress of the work of the Spital Hill Regeneration Project, focusing specifically on the feasibility study in respect of a proposed food store.
	Ms Duffy referred to the background, indicating that the Cabinet had endorsed various elements of the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, one element being the inclusion of a supermarket on Spital Hill. The Cabinet had also recommended that further work be undertaken in connection with the location of a suitable site for the supermarket and reference was made to the two alternative scenarios contained in the study undertaken by the consultants, LDA Design, which included a new small/medium-sized food store on Spital Hill, in addition to the permitted food store on the Hartwell’s site on Savile Street or a larger food store on the Hartwell’s site, which would serve Spital Hill and a larger area. The study had concluded that there was sufficient demand to satisfy both scenarios, but recommended that the Council should progress the option of the larger food store on the Hartwell’s site, subject to it being built as integral to the existing Spital Hill Centre and subject to securing the benefits associated with such a store.
	Ms Duffy referred to the other three sites which had been proposed, and which included Ellesmere, Ashram and East House, and which were indicated on a map circulated at the meeting, and reported on the detailed criteria used by the consultants which had enabled them to come to their conclusions. This had included looking at the suitability and capacity of the three sites. The consultants had also undertaken a retail capacity assessment in respect of the Spital Hill Centre, which had indicated that it was the least convenient food shopping area in the North East of the City, compared to other centres, only 3% of people used it more than once a week for food shopping and 88% of people never used the Centre for food shopping.
	The consultants had recommended the Hartwell’s option on the basis that it would provide the area with better regeneration benefits, it would increase the level and range of goods, act as a catalyst for further investment in the area, be delivered without the threat of any demolition and bring in Section 106 funding, which could be used for enhancing green open spaces in the area.
	Reference was made to the work of the Spittal Hill Project Group which, at its first meeting, had endorsed the consultant’s recommendations in principle, whilst stressing the importance of pursuing the recommended design requirements, in addition with a number of other issues. These included:-

	· Direct access to the store from Carlisle Street.

	· The construction of a prominent entrance, encompassing improvements to Caborns’ Corner.

	· High quality design.

	· The incorporation of a local training and employment scheme.

	· The development of a parking scheme for the Spital Hill Centre, with this being brought to the Project Group for discussion.

	· The commencement of work to attract funding to improve the Spital Hill Centre.

	· The allocation of any Section 106 planning gain towards improving the environment of the area.

	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. On what basis was there a belief that the existing shops at the Spital Hill Centre did not meet the demand of local residents?

	R. Following research by the consultants, which included local residents being questioned on their shopping habits, one of the findings indicated that a majority of residents were travelling to branded supermarkets, out of the Spital Hill area to do their shopping.

	Q. As part of the research, had consideration been given to the likely adverse impact of having a supermarket in the area on the existing small businesses?

	R. The study indicated that if there was a supermarket in the area, it would attract more people to the area, and it was likely that they would do their main shop in a supermarket and then use the other, smaller shops to purchase other items of a more specialist nature.

	Q. Were there still plans for an indoor market on the site of the former garage on Spital Hill?

	R. The indoor market was still part of the overall plan of regeneration in the area.

	Q. Will the ramp from the stockyard up to floor level be constructed as a matter of convenience in respect of access to the Spital Hill Centre?

	R. The current proposals regarding the Hartwell’s site included the construction of a vehicular access from Savile Street. It was expected that people visiting the supermarket from Savile Street might use the ramp.

	Q. Had consideration been given to the fact that if there was a supermarket in the area, all profits would be retained by the supermarket, whereas, if people were encouraged to shop at the existing shops on Spital Hill, the business owners would be encouraged to re-invest any profits as part of the overall regeneration of the area?

	R. The existing shops could not provide the goods, and at the prices local people were seeking. As part of the strategy, however, it had been suggested to the Business Forum that work be done with local businesses to ensure they make the most of the potential for more people visiting Spital Hill, and that a marketing study be carried out to maximise people using the supermarket being channelled to other shops.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· The Project Group had expressed a wish for additional car parking to be provided on Spital Hill in order to encourage people to shop at the Centre.

	· Due to the threat of possible demolition, a number of shop and business owners on Spital Hill had not invested in their businesses over the last few years. Following the new proposals, there was renewed optimism and it was hoped that they would now start investing in their businesses. There was evidence of one business owner investing already.

	· There was a possibility that the recent, further increase in bus fares introduced by First South Yorkshire would have an impact on the footfall in the Spital Hill Centre on the basis that a number of people would not be able to afford to travel to the Centre.

	· It would be helpful if, as part of the consultation on the proposals, residents and shop and business owners could look at artists’ drawings rather than architects’ plans, as they would make it easier for people to get a full understanding of the proposals.

	· It was important that there was a free to use cash point, together with a cash back facility in the supermarket, to encourage more money to be spent locally.

	· Funding had been obtained to assist with the undertaking of a community-led survey in connection with what people would like to see in terms of the regeneration proposals in the area.

	· All the other shop and business owners who were not represented on the Spital Hill Project Group would be kept informed of the developments as part of the consultation.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and the responses given to the questions, be noted;
	(b) based on the study undertaken by the consultants, the proposal to construct a large supermarket on the Hartwell’s site, as part of the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, be endorsed, subject to continued consultation on the detailed proposals; and
	(c) the Spital Hill Project Group be kept informed of any future developments and me, etings of the Project Group be held in order to monitor any further progress.

4.	MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 30th May 2005 and the special meetings of the Panel held on 26th and 28th July 2005, were approved as a correct record.

5.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Could any action be taken to divert the increasing numbers of heavy goods vehicles travelling through residential streets in the area on the grounds that it was not only dangerous, but it was also damaging the roads?

	R. This would be referred to officers in the Transport Planning Section of Development Services, to enable them to find out where the lorries were going and then advise them to use alternative routes.

	Q. Could the Area Panel take any action in connection with the decision of New Deal to withdraw funding in respect of community childcare projects, which provided day care provision, play care projects, after school playgroups and holiday play schemes?

	R. The City Council’s representative on the New Deal Board would raise the Area Panel’s concerns as to the proposed decision to withdraw such funding at the next meeting of the New Deal Board. In the light of other projects, including a scheme working with excluded secondary school pupils, also having their funding withdrawn by New Deal, the Area Co-ordinator would be requested to write to the Chair of the New Deal Partnership Board, expressing the concerns of the Area Panel and requesting New Deal to look at addressing the problems regarding the lack of childcare in the area.

	Q. Could the Council take urgent action to remedy the problem of rat and mouse infestation in the Brunswick Road area?

	R. This would be referred to Environment and Regulatory Services.

	Q. Could the Council take action against the developers who, as part of an application for outline planning permission, had removed a number of trees from an area of land on Grimesthorpe Road, opposite the allotments, and had dumped various building materials, leaving the area of land looking very unsightly?

	R. This would be referred to Development Services.

	(NOTE: The Chair (Councillor Jackie Drayton) declared an interest as a Member of the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board in relation to the outline application for planning permission for residential development on the land on Grimesthorpe Road, but indicated that she would participate in a determination of the full application for planning permission as she had not predetermined her views on the application during this meeting).

6.	COMMUNITY FORESTER FOR BURNGREAVE
	Tim Shortland, the newly appointed Community Forester for the Burngreave area, introduced himself to the Area Panel, and asked for Members and local residents to contact him if they had any views/ideas with regard to the treatment or planting of trees, or any other environmental issues in the area.
	He stated that there were plans to plant a number of large, standard trees in the Fir Vale area and that an event was to be held on 26th November 2005, in Abbeyfield Park, which would include a number of activities, including the launch of the Burngreave Tree Trail and the making of bird boxes.
	The Panel noted this information.

7.	DATES OF FUTURE EVENTS/ MEETINGS
	It was noted that (a) the Area Panel’s New Year’s Honours presentation event would be held on Thursday, 26th January 2006, from 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., in the Reception Rooms at the Town Hall and (b) the next Area Panel meeting would be held on Thursday, 23rd March, 2006, from 6.00 p.m to 8.00 p.m., at a venue to be confirmed.

	(NOTE: Item 3 on the agenda – “How Do Young People Get Heard, and Who’s Actually Listening?”, was withdrawn from consideration by the Area Panel on the grounds that the main speaker for the item was unable to attend the meeting).

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |