Burngreave Area Panel Minutes 28th October 2004

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 28th October, 2004 at Shiloh Church Hall, Gower Street

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

		Officers in attendance:-
		Maria Duffy	-	Development Services
		Sam Sykes	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate
		Amanda James	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate
		Wendy Foster	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate
		Rob Stow	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate
		Sarah Nickson	-	Activity Sheffield
		Marilyn King	-	Area Action Support Officer
		Emma Thackray	-	Social Services Directorate
		Andy Cain	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 48 local residents and representatives of local community groups in attendance.

…………….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
	An apology for absence was received from Councillor Steve Jones.

2.	DRAFT BURNGREAVE AND FIR VALE MASTERPLAN
	Maria Duffy gave a presentation regarding the draft Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, which had been prepared as part of the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder Programme aimed at bringing improvements to the housing market in selected areas. The aim for Burngreave and Fir Vale was to achieve a different balance of tenure and house type and to develop a quality environment so that the area could become a location of choice for both existing and incoming residents. Whilst the Masterplan could not deal with every individual site in detail it focused on strategic sites which could bring about significant changes in the character and perception of the area, which, combined with the essential environmental improvement works, would ensure that the whole neighbourhood was transformed.
	She indicated that consultation had been taking place since May, 2004, with this being the third round of consultation. The draft Masterplan, drawn up by independent consultants, had been informed by the previous consultation. However, she emphasised that the suggested developments in the draft Masterplan would not necessarily be the final development as this would depend on the vision of the developer and the condition of the site they had purchased. This meeting was one of a series of consultation events arranged over a period of one month. The draft Masterplan could be inspected at the NDC office, situated at 118 Spital Hill, by accessing the City Council's Website or by attendance at the consultation events arranged at various venues across the area.
	She then exhibited plans and highlighted the main draft proposals for each area:-

	Spital Hill

	There would be two phases to the Spital Hill improvements. Phase 1 projects were either already committed or could start within the next 2 to 3 years. Phase 2 projects would follow on after a review of the impact of the Phase 1 projects, with implementation over 5 to 10 years.

	Proposed Employment Zone in the block between Brunswick Road, Spital Street and the Inner Relief Road, including a new office and mixed-use development with the refurbishment of the listed Lion Works being a priority. Discussions were continuing with the owner of the Lion Works. This block would also contain the Surestart offices and a number of mixed-use buildings, with employment on the ground floor and flats above.

	The area of land on Spital Hill between Sorby House and Spital Street to be utilised for new or refurbished buildings, with restaurants and shops on the ground floor and flats above.

	Proposed refurbishment of Sorby House, in conjunction with New Deal, to provide offices and community facilities for New Deal and Community Groups.

	A new indoor market with multi-cultural foods, goods and services, on the site of the former Murco Garage, which would need to be purchased from the existing owner.

	A new supermarket, with parking to the rear, on land at the corner of Hall Carr Street. Discussions would need to take place with existing business traders to resolve re-location issues.

	Public realm improvements to Spital Hill, including landscaping and streetscape improvements, better pedestrian facilities, improved parking and bus priority measures.

	Refurbishment of Ellesmere Green with large scale public art.

	Refurbishment of the Vestry Hall, through New Deal, as a Community Learning Resource Centre, during the Summer of 2005, with improved parking.

	Redevelopment of the Ellesmere Elderly Persons’ Home for family housing.

	Woodside

	Woodside had potential for a new landmark development as it enjoyed panoramic views, was within walking distance of the City Centre and fronted onto the Stanley Fields Park.

	Proposed new housing developments in the area around Stanley Fields Park, particularly on the Stanley Tools car park and to the north of Rugby Street, which would also incorporate some existing parkland. It was acknowledged that the use of open space could be contentious but the aim was to raise the quality and increase the usage of the parkland by ensuring that the housing faced on to it.

	Proposed development of small scale employment units alongside Woodside Lane, to the south of Rugby Street.

	New terraced housing along Pyebank Road and Pitsmoor Road.

	A new square in front of Pyebank School which would be refurbished to create apartments.

	Housing improvement, via the Council's Block Improvement Works Programme, for properties in Fox Street and Rock Street.

	The proposals aimed to deliver approximately 325 residential units, with a housing mix of 80% private for sale and 20% social rented or shared ownership, to replace the 371 units which had already been demolished at Woodside.

	Catherine Street

	Brotherton Street to its junction with Catherine Street to be made pedestrian only.

	New terraced housing on Catherine Street, Cranworth Road and Richmond Street, and semi detached housing along Kilton Hill.

	Demolition of 19 terraced units and 24 flats and the relocation of the existing garage on Kilton Hill.

	Park improvements to include cutting back the overgrowth to increase visibility and opening up site lines from properties to retain surveillance. Work to be undertaken in conjunction with Sheffield Wildlife Trust.

	New terraced housing on the upper plateau of the Park to improve surveillance.

	A total of 52 new homes, including 40 terraced and 12 semi detached houses with a housing mix of 60% private housing for sale and 40% social rented and shared ownership.

	Maria Duffy and Sam Sykes responded to questions or noted comments from members of the public as follows:-

Q	Had consideration been given to the fact the proposed two storey buildings opposite the four storey Sorby House would be disproportionate in scale?

A	Maria Duffy indicated that issues relating to the scale and character of proposed buildings would be properly considered through the formal planning process.

Q	Would local businesses affected by the proposals be assisted in re-locating to new accommodation at existing rent levels?

A	Maria Duffy indicated that re-location issues would be part of future discussions and there was more work to do in this respect. She indicated that a more focused meeting with local businesses, to discuss this, would be arranged at the conclusion of Ramadan and Eid. The Chair acknowledged the importance of the issue raised and welcomed the efforts made by local businesses in the area which she wished to retain. Sam Sykes commented that it was the same scenario for private housing in that there needed to be packages put together to help people fund any financial shortfall.

Q	A representative of the One World Centre, which was in the building formerly occupied by the Margaret Arden School of Dance and which was now earmarked to be demolished to allow for the development of the proposed supermarket, expressed concern that he had been informed of this proposal only very recently, the building had been extensively renovated and local businesses were being ignored.

A	The Chair emphasised that the City Council did value the traders and community groups operating in the area and that these were draft proposals which were subject to consultation. However, the latest proposals had been drawn up from the previous rounds of consultation and it was the community who had expressed a desire to establish a supermarket on this site as opposed to the Planning Officers previous proposal that it be located on the site of the former Ellesmere Elderly Persons’ Home, situated further up Spital Hill.

Q	What were the implications for the owners of the buildings within the area marked by a blue line on the plans exhibited? The questioner was one of a number of people who had invested in renovating these buildings, which had been in a derelict state, and he personally did not wish to relocate his business.

A	Maria Duffy indicated that discussions were taking place with the owner of the Lion Works and that it had been established that there were five different owners of the various buildings located in the area of the blue line as exhibited on the Plan. There were packages of compensation available and they would differ according to whether the owner of the business also owned the property or whether the business operated out of the building. She again re-emphasised the City Council's commitment to meet with all local businesses at a future meeting to work through the financial packages that may be available.

Q	A local resident believed that the City Council should not try to move those traders who, in good faith, had purchased the freehold of a property. Why did the City Council wish to demolish existing buildings that had been renovated and were occupied when there were plenty of alternative derelict buildings in the Pitsmoor area?

A	Maria Duffy re-emphasised the City Council’s commitment to meet with traders and owners to discuss the issues being raised.

Q	How would the proposals affect traffic and parking in the area, particularly on Burngreave Road?

A	Maria Duffy indicated that Officers from the City Council's Transport Division were on the Masterplan Steering Group and would have input into the Burngreave Local Transport Strategy.

	A local trader highlighted the fact that he was trading from a building earmarked for demolition to allow for the car park adjacent to the proposed supermarket. During the previous round of consultation the supermarket had been shown on the Elderly Persons Home Site, so it was now a major surprise and concern for traders in this area who were now concerned about the future of their businesses.

A	Councillor Jackie Drayton indicated that this event was part of a long series of consultation events. The Masterplan had been advertised in the Burngreave Messenger on two occasions and at the Abbeyfield Park Festival, previous Area Panel Meetings and special consultation events. Maria Duffy indicated that letters regarding the Masterplan had been hand delivered to shops and businesses in the area during July 2004.

	A local trader believed that businesses were being priced out of the area and doubted whether the compensation that would be offered would adequately cover the cost of relocation.

Q	Why had the proposals for the supermarket changed? During a previous round of consultation the supermarket had been shown on the former car showroom site.

A	Maria Duffy explained that outline planning permission had been granted on the site of the former car showroom site in 1999, for a number of different uses, but there had not been a full planning application received since. Two sites had been identified by the independent consultants and it was their opinion that large supermarket retailers would not wish to pursue the former Elderly Persons’ Home site and would prefer the site exhibited on the plans. The existing outline planning permission for the car showroom site would cease at the end of November, 2004, and it was still possible that this could be resubmitted and an operator develop the site. Depending on the type of development this could obviously affect the Masterplan. It was doubtful if there was a need for two supermarkets in the area.

Q	A resident of Skinnerthorpe Road expressed concern regarding the stigma of formally designating the area for demolition and the negative effect this would have on the value of housing. He believed that the City Council would create this situation by formally registering the area as a demolition area with the Land Registry in February, 2005, and properties such as his, which were valued at around £70,000, would, he believed, immediately lose value to around £30,000.

A	Sam Sykes acknowledged the issue being raised but highlighted the need to take some action to regenerate the area. He acknowledged that the City Council would need to make a formal declaration to the Land Registry at some point but he did not agree that this would necessarily depress house value prices. Compensation packages would be discussed at the time of development.

Q	In view of the family housing plans for Woodside and Catherine Street what plans were in place for the expansion or rebuilding of Pye Bank School to cater for the additional children requiring a place?

A	Maria Duffy indicated that the officers from the Planning and Premises Division of the Education Service were involved in the Masterplan Strategy Group and, if they considered that the School would require additional places, they would recommend that a condition be included in any land sale contract requiring a contribution from the developer to fund an expansion to the School. She was aware that there was a methodology for calculating the number of children who could be generated from a new housing development and this information could be provided, if required.

Q	A local resident indicated that he was in the process of selling his property at Page Hall and had accepted an offer, which had subsequently been withdrawn due to the prospective purchaser becoming aware of the demolition proposals for the area.

	A local trader believed that it was vital that people who had invested in Burngreave should benefit from the outcomes of the Masterplan and not be priced out of the area. It was important to recognise the value of people who had invested in the area. A more suitable site for the supermarket would be the former Murco Garage.

Q	A private resident from the Woodside area referred to his personal situation of owning a four bedroomed property which had been valued by the Housing Officer at £21,000. Where would he be able to buy an alternative four bedroomed property for his family for £21,000? He considered the situation to be unacceptable and feared that a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be placed upon his property. He believed that the City Council were using bullying tactics.

A	Sam Sykes indicated that he was available to deal with individual queries from residents and the City Council wished to offer the market value of properties. If a resident disagreed with this offer they could obtain an independent valuation and if there was still no agreement a third party would make a decision. In the event of a Masterplan being approved, which would be dependent on the outcome of the consultation, it would be possible that the City Council could implement a CPO but this would be seen very much to be a last resort.

Q	Had any property developers expressed an interest in the clearance areas?

A	Sam Sykes indicated that the sites had not yet been marketed but he believed that property developers would be interested. It was envisaged that in the region of 80% of the housing would be for private sale whilst 20% would be for rent, under social housing arrangements.

Q	With regard to the plans for Catherine Road what action would need to be taken with regard to the derelict properties which had been empty for a number of years?

A	Sam Sykes indicated that the consultants had not made any recommendations with regard to these properties. Maria Duffy acknowledged this issue and highlighted the fact that there were many pockets of properties in the area similar to this but at the present time the Masterplan was concentrating on what the consultants considered to be the key critical areas.

	Owler Lane/Skinnerthorpe Road

	The main strategic issues identified by the consultants were traffic, the shopping environment, improved links to the Northern General Hospital and the condition of housing, particularly on Skinnerthorpe Road.

	Two options had been put forward for consideration during the previous rounds of consultation. One option had been supported by the vast majority of consultees which included extensive demolition and redevelopment of properties on Skinnerthorpe Road, in the Earl Marshall area and from the Cannon Hall Public House to the Church.

	The area coloured blue on the plan exhibited indicated that the local road network would need redesigning to overcome current traffic problems and this may include changes to the layout site.

	New shops with flats above were planned for Barnsley Road and Owler Lane with sufficient off-street parking and servicing at the rear.

	A cluster of new community facilities and old peoples’ housing near the GP and Youth Centre, adjacent to Fir Vale School.

	A hotel, gym and transport interchange on the corner of the Northern General Hospital site.

	A new development on the site of the former garage and public house with shops or offices on the ground floor and flats above.

	Fir Vale East and the Wensley Estate

	A recent housing condition survey had shown that 34% of property in Fir Vale East was unfit, or in poor repair, whilst by contrast, housing conditions on the Wensley Estate were generally good, but properties were built very close together with narrow pathways which gave little privacy to residents and provided escape routes for criminals, making it difficult to control crime.

	Proposals to demolish all narrow terraces along Popple Street, Robey Street, Lloyd Street, Wade Street, Willoughby Street and Hinde Street and replace with approximately 250 houses with off-street parking.

	Two new green squares to provide childrens play spaces and sitting areas.

	Develop link roads to connect Fir Vale to the Wensley Estate between Wade Street and Wensley Court and to the north of Owler Brook School.

	Remove unnecessary alleyways and install improved lighting on the Wensley Estate.

	Page Hall and Upwell Street

	Environmental improvements along Page Hall Shopping Centre to provide better car parking, pedestrian crossing facilities, traffic calming and streetscape improvements, relocation of businesses on Upwell Street into the industrial area of Carlisle Street East or another similar area.

	New housing development with a frontage onto Owler Lane, Upwell Lane and Chambers Lane to deliver approximately 50 new residential units

	A new linear park along the watercourse lined by new housing that would face on to the open space.

	Housing Improvement Areas

	A plan was exhibited showing housing already benefiting from the Facelift Programme in Burngreave and Fir Vale. This plan also identified areas earmarked for environmental improvements and further areas for proposed housing improvement areas. The areas selected were those that would have an immediate impact on the perception of Burngreave and Fir Vale and were situated along main routes, at the gateways into the area, directly adjoining areas of change, between areas of change, shopping centres, in Fir Vale West and in other parts of Burngreave.

	Maria Duffy and Sam Sykes responded to questions or noted comments from members of the public as follows:-

Q	Why couldn’t the Facelift Programme be extended to Skinnerthorpe Road instead of those properties being demolished? There was a great deal of fear regarding CPO’s as residents did not want to move and would not receive what they perceived to be the proper value of the property. Why had a resident of Skinnerthorpe Road been given a house in an alternative area as part of a special scheme and why had this not been offered to more residents who had expressed an interest? Had account been taken of the fact that residents who had purchased their properties did not wish to borrow money to have to move to another and that under the Islamic religion it was forbidden to obtain a mortgage?

A	The Chair acknowledged the problems associated with borrowing money. She highlighted the fact that the outcome of the previous consultation was that the demolition proposals would be supported whereas the feeling of this meeting was that residents wished to remain in their homes and have them renovated.

	A local resident indicated that it would be beneficial if the houses were improved along the lines of the Burngreave Scheme but the City Council’s Housing Division had indicated that this was not possible. Reference was also made to alleged promises made by Housing Officers that individuals would be given free houses in order for them to move.

A	Sam Sykes indicated that he had spoken previously with the resident making the allegations and the actual version of events was not as stated. He commented that negotiations regarding Skinnerthorpe Road had been taking place for over two years but that all the professional advice had indicated that the cost of renovating these properties to an acceptable standard was too great. The consultants view was that any grant payments could be more effectively utilised elsewhere and that it would be more beneficial to demolish the properties on Skinnerthorpe Road and build new.

Q	How could local residents be expected to be in a position to afford the new housing being referred to?

A	Sam Sykes indicated that if a final decision was taken to approve the Masterplan , in view of there being an accepted need to improve the standard of residential accommodation in the area, then every funding stream would be explored to assist residents to relocate. There was a commitment to find a solution to this issue to allow people to be able to afford to continue to live in the area. He referred to the individual issues raised, which he had been made aware of at the consultation events held on 13th and 14th October, 2004, but indicated that he would not be able to respond to this query until the period of consultation ended on 10th November, 2004.

Q	Why had Housing Services brokered a deal with only one resident of Skinnerthorpe Road?

A	Sam Sykes indicated that Housing Services had developed a pilot scheme for the private sector called ‘Changing Homes’ which was similar to the ‘Homesteading’ scheme developed for council housing, in which the City Council sold Council Housing at a discounted price to ensure they were occupied. The aim of the scheme was to identify a resident who would wish to purchase a run down property on the proviso that they were in a position to invest in the property to bring it up to a decent standard. Therefore, it was a case of brokering a deal between a vendor, who would probably have had difficulty in selling the property in its existing condition, and a suitable purchaser who would be occupying a property subject to demolition. He acknowledged that this had only been achieved in one case at present and there were limited opportunities as only two other properties had been identified to date.

	A local resident referred to the fact that he was in the process of selling his property at Page Hall and had accepted an offer, which had subsequently been withdrawn due to the prospective purchaser becoming aware of the demolition proposals for the area.

A	Sam Sykes indicated that the area had not been formally designated as a clearance area and whilst there was a possibility of the housing market being depressed if the City Council did take that decision he believed that the evidence from across the Country was not conclusive.

	The level of demolition would surely result in a shortfall of housing and as a result people would have to leave the area.

A	Maria Duffy indicated that overall, it was proposed to demolish 800 dwellings and replace with 1,000 dwellings, but that these would be of different types with an emphasis on larger family houses. She acknowledged that there could be difficulties in respect of timescales to ensure that the new properties were available before demolition took place but emphasised the City Council’s commitment to work round these problems.

Q	A local resident indicated that he owned a property on Lloyd Street. Why had he only just been made aware of the demolition proposals?

A	There had been widespread consultation regarding the proposals and it would be expected that the majority of residents would have been aware of this.

Q	A resident of Woodside asked why he had been given misinformation regarding the future of his property. Firstly he had been told that the property would be demolished, then told it wouldn’t, and finally told again that it would. Why had he been told to drive around the City to find himself alternative Council accommodation?

A