Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel 3 October 2006

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 3rd October, 2006 at Pitsmoor Methodist Church, Christ Church Road

PRESENT:		Councillor Ibrar Hussain (Chair) and Steve Jones.

		Also in attendance:-

		Andy Shallice	-	Area Co-ordinator

		David Shepherd	-	Lead Manager

		Marilyn King	-	Area Action Officer

		David Bird	-	Head of Waste Management

		Annabel Johnson	-	Veolia

		Andy Godson Chris Birks	) )	Development Services

		Sarah Bradley Nick Hetherington	) )	Street Force

		Duncan Wray	-	South Yorkshire Police

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat


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

…………….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
	An apology for absence was received from the Lord Mayor (Councillor Jackie Drayton).

2.	ANNUAL SURVEY OF AREA PANELS
	The Area Co-ordinator reported on the Area Action Survey being undertaken by the Area Action Team of the Neighbourhood Renewal and Partnership Service, requesting that all attendees at the meeting complete a questionnaire, seeking their views on all aspects of the operation of Area Panel meetings. He stated that the results from the survey, which was being carried out at all Area Panel meetings held during October 2006, would be used by the Area Action Team to assist them in looking at how the general organisation of the meetings could be improved.
	The Area Panel noted this information.
3.	DOMESTIC WASTE, RECYCLING AND THE FUTURE – THE CHALLENGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
	David Bird gave a presentation on the action being taken by the City Council in connection with the treatment of domestic waste and recycling, together with future initiatives in the light of climate change.
	He stated that there were a number of options for, and challenges facing the City Council regarding the treatment of domestic waste and recycling, and that over the past few years, in accordance with Government guidelines, the Council had moved away from landfill, which, for various reasons, was considered a major contributor to climate change. Whilst the Council was now looking to recover as much value as possible from waste products, it was mindful of the need to stop producing such waste. As part of this initiative, there were plans for all future Council policies, where relevant, to involve waste prevention. It was accepted that whilst the Council could implement policies regarding waste prevention, there was also a huge responsibility on manufacturers, the Government and the actions and attitudes of members of the public.
	Mr. Bird reported that Sheffield produced approximately 240,000 tons of domestic waste a year, of which approximately 21% was recycled. A further 61% was transferred to the Bernard Road Energy from Waste Incinerator.
	He made reference to the present recycling schemes in operation in the City, which included 194,000 residents having a blue bin for paper and card, five large recycling centres and around 150 Bring It sites at supermarkets and elsewhere, and which, depending on the size of the site, enabled residents to take paper, plastic, cans, glass, clothes and shoes. He stated that there needed to be more co-operation from residents in terms of recycling and in connection with this, the Council needed to raise people’s awareness of the benefits of recycling, as well as providing more and better recycling facilities.
	Cassie Limb, a local resident and artist, reported on a proposed scheme she would be undertaking to engage residents in the recycling of household waste. Ms. Limb reported that she had obtained a small amount of funding and aimed to work with around 100 local residents, in producing art work which could be displayed on their bins. The project, entitled “Bin Inspired” also aimed to educate people and make them more aware of the benefits of recycling.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Could the Council take action against the owners of the Parkwood Landfill site in connection with the alleged increase in the dumping of active waste on the site?

	R. The landfill operations on the Parkwood Landfill site were undertaken by Viridor. The licence in terms of the operational requirements of the site was granted by the Environment Agency, and is available for public inspection. It was believed that Viridor was meeting all the requirements of the licence. The Council worked closely with Viridor and the Environment Agency to ensure that operations met all the relevant regulations.

	Q. What action was the Council taking against manufacturers in terms of getting them to reduce the amount of packaging they produce?

	R. In addition to the general lobbying, there was very little the Council could do. However, manufacturers were now starting to become more aware of their responsibilities in terms of reducing the amount of packaging they produce, and in response to concerns regarding climate change, the bigger supermarkets were starting to take more action.

	Q. Could the Council take action, similar to that taken in California, whereby legal action is taken against companies/organisations, such as car manufacturers, which create pollution above certain levels?

	R. Whilst this would be welcomed, local authorities were governed by UK legislation, which did not allow for this. The Government, however, had introduced new limits and targets for local authorities to meet in terms of disposing of domestic waste and recycling. Also, some manufacturers, including those producing cars and electrical equipment, had been given targets in terms of recycling. Manufacturers of some products were being requested to ensure that their produce should contain as much recyclable material as possible. New regulations were to be introduced in the New Year, and which would place more pressure on manufacturers in terms of recycling.

	Q. Whilst it was accepted that the Council should encourage residents to use their blue recycling bins, firmer action should be taken against manufacturers in terms of getting them to reduce the amount of packaging they produce. Could the Council issue a model statement among these lines?

	R. The Council has recently adopted an Environmental Excellence Strategy, which sets out the Council’s views on such issues.

	Q. Has the Council any plans to extend the green waste recycling scheme to other areas of the City, or provide a local composting facility in the area?

	R. There were no plans to extend the scheme in the immediate future. The Council was operating a pilot scheme in the South East of the City, the evaluation of which had not yet been undertaken. The Council was also offering composting bins, at subsidised rates, to residents and were still operating the scheme, in conjunction with Veolia, whereby residents could purchase six green recycling sacks at a cost of £1.50, which included the collection charges. The pilot scheme in the South East of the City had proved very popular, but had its drawbacks in that people were producing more waste than they usually would, and it also had the effect of deterring people from home composting, which was considered to be the best method of recycling green waste.

	Q. Was it the Council’s intention, as part of the Bring Out Your Rubbish Days, to continue compacting the rubbish collected on the wagon? On previous Bring Out Your Rubbish Days, the rubbish was placed on a flat-bed lorry, which gave other residents the opportunity of retrieving certain objects, which was a useful form of recycling.

	R. Work undertaken with various groups to try and separate items had proved unsuccessful. Compacting the rubbish was the most cost-effective method of collection.

	Q. It was accepted that different types of rubbish were thrown away in the black wheelie bins. What safeguards were there at the Bernard Road incinerator, to ensure that potentially dangerous waste was isolated from the general household waste?

	R. There was pollution control equipment at Bernard Road, which was fully compliant with all the various environmental directives, and governed by the Environment Agency. The equipment enabled all potentially hazardous emissions from burning mixed waste to be controlled.

	Q. Whilst additional Bring It sites would be welcomed in the area, the site at Gower Street does not contain a facility for plastics. Could this facility be provided on this site?

	R. As well as continually looking for suitable locations for Bring It sites throughout the City, and as part of future recycling proposals, the Council had looked at the possibility of providing recycling facilities on suitable highway locations in the area. This proposal, however, was not particularly favoured by residents, who were worried about the potential for noise nuisance and untidiness. The Council has looked at models adopted by other European Cities, which includes local recycling sites, but accepted that the culture in those countries is different, with a more positive attitude to recycling. In terms of the Gower Street Bring It site, Reclaim, the company which recycles plastics in the City, had indicated that they aimed to provide more facilities, and consideration would be given to the site at Gower Street.

	Q. Why should some residents be forced to pay for the green garden waste sacks when other residents have the green bins, at no cost?

	R. The green bins had been provided as part of a pilot scheme, and following the trial, decisions would be taken as to whether the scheme will be extended across the City.

	Q. What were the charges for residents to have large items of bulky waste collected from their homes?

	R. There was a charge of £30 for the collection of up to ten large items of bulky waste. This was discounted to £15 for people in receipt of benefits. Fridges and freezers were collected free of charge. These charges would be reviewed as part of the Council’s overall plans in terms of the disposal of domestic waste and recycling.

	Councillor Steve Jones stated that there was a need for radical, but realistic measures in terms of the disposal of domestic waste and recycling, and that there was a need for the Council to continue lobbying manufacturers to ensure they continue looking at both the type of production materials and the nature of packaging. There was also a need for the Council to have realistic plans in terms of recycling and to make every effort to ensure the public participated more in terms of recycling, which should include the provision of better information on its benefits. He also stated that it would be useful if residents in the Burngreave area could have green recycling bins and that there should be more Bring It sites in the area, and that the Area Panel should be more proactive in bringing better recycling facilities to the area.
	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the responses to the questions asked;
	(b) thanked (i) David Bird and Annabel Johnson for attending the meeting and reporting on the Council’s and Veolia’s future plans in terms of waste disposal and recycling and (ii) Cassie Limb for reporting on the project “Bin Inspired”, requesting that residents give consideration to participating in the project, as a means of raising the awareness of the importance of recycling; and
	(c) requested that, as part of the Council’s overall plans in terms of future recycling arrangements, consideration be given to having green recycling bins and more Bring It sites in the Burngreave area.

4.	GULLEY CLEANING
	The Area Co-ordinator reported that Street Force had planned to empty the gullies on Idsworth Road, Horndean Road, Vivian Road, Hamilton Road and Addison Road on Wednesday 4th October 2006 and on Camel Road, Bolsover Road and Vickers Road on Thursday 5th October 2006, and requested residents to refrain from parking on the grates to enable officers from Street Force to be able to clean the gullies. He added that notices to this effect had been placed on all lampposts on these roads. The Area Panel noted this information.

5.	TRAFFIC, HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT ISSUES IN THE BURNGREAVE/ FIR VALE AREA
	Andy Godson reported on a number of traffic, highways and transport schemes which had recently been completed in the Burngreave/Fir Vale area, together with details of a number of schemes in progress and proposed schemes.

	Completed Schemes

	· Improved pedestrian crossing facilities on Barnsley Road and Orphanage Road, outside Firs Hill Primary School.

	· Installation of a Puffin crossing on Barnsley Road, outside the Companion’s Club. Still awaiting the design of the proposed new layout of the surrounding area before the kerb works can be finalised.

	Schemes in Progress

	· The upgrading of pedestrian crossing facilities in the Page Hall area, which included the Page Hall/Rushby Street roundabout.

	· Traffic-calming measures in the Page Hall/Popple Street area, which included the Child Safety Zone measures.

	· North Sheffield Better Buses Scheme, which aimed to improve the reliability of buses and the general traffic flow along Burngreave Road and Spital Hill.

	Proposed Schemes

	· Traffic-calming measures on Grimesthorpe Road and Carwood Road, which it was hoped would commence in November 2006.

	· Ellesmere Road Traffic-Calming Scheme.

	· North Sheffield Better Buses Scheme – Burngreave Library to St. Catherine’s School. Due to be completed January/February 2007. All bus stops to have raised kerbs, tactile paving and a bus stop clearway.

	· The carrying out of an Accessibility Audit, the results of which would be used to identify any problems, such as a lack of a dropped kerb or damaged footpaths, which created difficulties for pedestrians crossing roads.

	· The carrying out of a Walking/Cycling Audit, the results of which would be used to both identify small-scale improvements to footways, including safe walking and cycling routes and to highlight any dangers with existing routes.

	· Additional bollards to the footpath at Page Hall Road to prevent footway parking and vehicle overrun.

	· Spital Hill public realm works which included works to improve the condition of the footpaths and the general appearance of the Spital Hill/ Ellesmere Green area. There were plans to develop a small market on Ellesmere Green. A series of public consultation events would be arranged in order to seek residents’ views on the proposals.

	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. There were problems of speeding traffic and congestion on Idsworth Road. Would it be possible to implement a one-way system on this road, from Firth Park Road to Barnsley Road?

	R. The Council was aware of the traffic problems in this area and would continue to look at all possible solutions to relieve the problems.

	Q. Could action be taken to clear up the rubbish around the Vestry Hall?

	R. The North Sheffield Better Buses Scheme was due to make changes to the highway layout, in front of the Vestry Hall. These will affect both the carriageway and the footway. The area round the Vestry Hall will be tidied up immediately after the highway works have been completed (January/February 2007). The area will still be affected by the continuing refurbishment of the Vestry Hall itself. It was planned that after the refurbishment, the whole area will be tidied and maintained.

	Q. As part of the consultation on the traffic-calming measures in the Page Hall area, residents had been asked for their views on the proposals. Several residents provided comments, but it appears that their views were not listened to. Why was this the case? The road humps were not high enough and were too far apart. Residents had suggested a one-way system for Page Hall Road and there were problems on Hinde House Lane, where due to the width of the road, cars were forced to park on the pavements, creating difficulties for pedestrians. Generally, some residents considered the situation to be worse now, after the implementation of the works.

	R. The Council did consult with residents on the proposed measures and where possible, took their views into consideration. However, with regard to some measures, the specifications had to comply with Government guidelines. An example of this was the road humps, where the distance between the humps and their height had to be a certain size.

	Q. No one from the Council had spoken to the author of the Living Streets Survey, following its completion, therefore, no action in terms of the results of the survey has been taken. Why was this the case?

	R. When funding becomes available, officers will review the results of the survey to see if some elements of the proposed works could be implemented. No action had been taken to date as specific funding for these types of works, such as installing dropped kerbs, has not been available until now.

	Q. What was the progress in terms of implementing measures highlighted as part of the Accessibility Audit?

	R. As stated earlier, the funding for these works only became available last month. It was planned that there would be an article containing an update on the Audit in the November edition of the Burngreave Messenger. There were also plans to organise a Walkabout, where Members and residents could identify specific locations in the area where works could be undertaken to improve accessibility.

	Q. Could the Council take appropriate action in terms of problems of car parking on Spital Hill, off Gower Street?

	R. This issue would be referred to Car Parking Services.

	Councillor Steve Jones stated that the relevant officers in Development Services should write to residents in the Page Hall area, providing them with a detailed account of the basis for the decisions taken in terms of the implementation of traffic-calming measures in the area. He added that every effort possible, particularly in the light of previous lengthy delays, should be made to implement the traffic-calming measures on Grimesthorpe Road and Carwood Road.
	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the responses to the questions asked;
	(b) thanked Andy Godson for the presentation now made; and
	(c) requested the Head of Transport and Highways to (i) produce a detailed account of the reasoning behind the proposed traffic-calming measures in the Page Hall area, in the light of the residents’ concerns, for inspection by residents and (ii) make every effort to ensure that the traffic-calming measures on Grimesthorpe Road and Carwood Road were implemented in November 2006.

	Northern General Hospital, Problems of Car Parking
	The Area Co-ordinator referred to a media statement by the Sheffield Teaching Hospital’s NHS Foundation Trust in response to concerns expressed by local residents in connection with problems they were experiencing as a result of changes to the Northern General Hospital’s staff car parking system. Also circulated was a summary of the problems being experienced by local residents.
	John Campbell, Union representative for Hospital staff, stated that the Trade Unions considered that the decision made by the Trust to implement car parking charges had resulted in staff, as well as patients and visitors being required to pay to use the Hospital car park. He stated that the problems were compounded by the fact that public transport links to the Hospital were inadequate, which resulted in more people having to travel by car. Approximately two thirds of staff were female, resulting in safety concerns for those members of staff who, for financial reasons, or if there were not sufficient car parking spaces, were forced to park further away from the Hospital. Also, there were issues regarding which staff were entitled to car parking passes as some staff who lived outside the City, and relied on their cars to travel to work, had not been granted a pass, whereby some staff living in Sheffield had been granted one.
	Mr Campbell concluded by stating that Trade Union representatives had been involved in constructive dialogue with the Trust Managers on this issue and it was hoped that some agreement would be reached shortly.
	The following comments were made:-

	· There were major problems regarding car parking on Horndean Road and surrounding roads. Residents were often unable to park outside their own homes or even on their road due to staff or people visiting the Hospital parking there. There were also cars parked on the pavement which raised safety concerns. Residents living in this particular area considered that the problems would be alleviated if the car parking charges at the Hospital were abolished.

	· There were problems caused by staff speeding on Barnsley Road, at the top of Idsworth Road, when in a rush to get to work.

	· The dentists working at, and public visiting the Fir Vale Dental Practice on Blythe Road have been unable to get their cars out of the public car park as the drive has been blocked by other vehicles, believed to be contractors’ vehicles.

	· Residents in the area surrounding the Northern General Hospital were of the opinion that the parking charges should never have been implemented and that the Council should put pressure on the Trust to get the charges abolished.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be noted; and
	(b) in the light of the concerns now expressed, a request be made to the Chair of the relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Board for the Chief Executive of Sheffield Teaching Hospital’s NHS Foundation Trust and John Bann, Head of Transport and Highways, to attend a meeting of the Scrutiny Board, as a matter of urgency, in order to discuss this issue.

6.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	Members (a) approved the minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 27th July 2006 as a correct record and (b) noted the contents of the report of the Area Co-ordinator on the responses to the questions raised at the meeting.

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

	Q. Why were residents charged up to £60 per day by Sheffield Homes for having their fences and gates painted?

	R. It was not the responsibility of Sheffield Homes to maintain or paint fences or gates. This was the responsibility of the tenant and there would therefore be a charge for any such works. All tenants of properties managed by Sheffield Homes had a copy of their tenancy conditions, which clearly indicates that the maintenance of fencing, gates and walls was the responsibility of the tenant.

	Q. Could action be taken to tidy up the footpath from Grimesthorpe Road and Scott Road and cut back the overhanging vegetation in the gennel on Torbay Road ? Despite comments made at previous meetings of the Area Panel on this issue, the area was still unsightly and dangerous.

	R. A representative from Street Force would arrange to visit the area with the resident who had raised this issue.

	Q. Will there be a continuation of the Bring Out Your Rubbish Days, and if so, when would the next Days be held in the area?

	R. The Bring Out Your Rubbish Days had proven very popular. The Area Panel has more of these Days than any other part of the City, and would want them to continue. All the Bring Out Your Rubbish Days for the 2006/07 financial year had been held. The next set of days would be held with effect from April 2007.