Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel 25 November 2004

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 25th November, 2004 at Fir Vale Secondary School

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

		Also in attendance:-
		Councillor Robert MacDonald	-	Shadow Cabinet Member for Education and Training

		Kieron Williams	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Marilyn King	-	Area Action Support Officer

		Chris Mallaband	-	Education Directorate

		David Shepherd	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate

		Inspector John Ekwubiri	-	South Yorkshire Police

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 22 local residents and representatives of local community groups in attendance.

…………….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	No apologies for absence were received from Members of the Panel.

2.	KEY STAGE 3 INCLUSION UNIT AT THE RIVERSIDE TRAINING CENTRE
	Chris Mallaband reported on the proposals in connection with the use of the Riverside Training Centre, Earl Marshall Road, as additional accommodation for the Local Education Authority's Key Stage 3 Inclusion Support Service. The proposal had been discussed following the Government's requirement that pupils excluded from school should receive full-time education, and this had necessitated the need to substantially expand this Service. As a result, three new services had been established, and had been operational from September, 2003. These included the Key Stage 4 Inclusion Support Centre at Spring Lane, the Key Stage 3 Inclusion Support Centre on Halifax Road and the Primary Inclusion Support Centre on Clifford Road.
	Mr. Mallaband reported that up to July, 2004, Riverside had been a training centre for young people, but following the provision of custom-built premises at the Sheaf Training Centre on Norwood Road, the premises were now vacant. This provided an opportunity to develop accommodation in addition to that at Clarkehouse Road, following the closure of Halifax Road as a Pupil Referral Unit with effect from November, 2004. The provision at Halifax Road had been taken following an exhaustive search for suitable accommodation over a period of four months, which search had needed to be reviewed in the context of a number of issues, including limited resources for capital to pay for refurbishment, the size of the accommodation required, the need to have a safe outdoor space, limited revenue available for leasing premises and the acute shortage of accommodation in the City for this purpose. A number of alternative premises had been considered, and in the light of the search for accommodation, the opportunity was taken to review the operation of the Key Stage Inclusion Support Service to coincide with its move to Clarkehouse Road.
	Experience gained over the first year of operation on the Halifax Road site indicated that it was educationally desirable to separate the students for whom reintegration was the next step, from those where a lengthy spell in the Centre was likely pending the availability of a place in a specialist Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) School. It was for this reason that a further search was undertaken and Riverside identified as being the only suitable site. The Riverside Building was also deemed suitable from a structural point of view and had sufficient space. A number of minor modifications had been made to the building, including the installation of a new heating system.
	Mr. Mallaband reported that there would be a maximum of 25 pupils at the Centre at any one time, who would be supervised by five teachers, five classroom assistants and one Learning Mentor. The pupils attending Riverside would be expected to make their own way to and from the site, but would be met and welcomed into the building in the morning and supervised away from the site in the afternoon. He made specific reference to the fact that there had been good relationships with the local community during the time that the Centre was at Halifax Road and the Key Stage 4 and Primary Centres had also maintained good relationships with their local communities. The pupils would experience a curriculum that addressed basic and key skills and also placed a high emphasis on the development of social skills. They would also have access to a range of other educational professionals, in addition to teachers.
	With regard to the longer-term use of Riverside, he reported that the provision of education for young people excluded from schools was to be considered under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) Programme, and it was the intention, under this programme, to extensively refurbish two sites for use by the Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 Inclusion Centres. If the provision at Riverside was to be made permanent, there would be full consultation with local residents.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. In the light of the high level of pupils from schools in Burngreave being excluded, what provision was there in the City with regard to Key Stage 1 and 2 Pupil Referral Units?

	R. There were only five permanently excluded pupils at Key Stage 1 and 2 levels, but the officer was unable to confirm how many of these pupils were from Burngreave. There was a small-scale provision for excluded pupils at Key Stage 1 and 2 levels at Clifford Road.

	Q. On the basis that a high level of fixed-term excluded pupils appeared to be of mixed race or from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities, could the Local Education Authority do any more to help such pupils, such as increasing the number of specially trained teachers who would have a higher awareness of their individual and cultural needs?

	R. It was accepted in the LEA that pupils from BME communities were over-represented in statistics relating to excluded pupils. Both the LEA’s Ethnic Minority Advisory and Access and Inclusion Services were looking at why this was the case and were working to reduce the numbers. Also, a special BME Team had been appointed to look at this issue.

	Q. Had the LEA informed those residents living within the immediate vicinity of Riverside of its proposals?

	R. No, but it was envisaged, based on the experiences at other Pupil Referral Units, that there would be little cause for concern for local residents. Also, Riverside had been used as a Vocational Training Centre over the last few years, which had resulted in little, or no problems. The LEA would work with the Area Co-ordinator to look at the possibility of producing an information leaflet, containing details on the proposals, for distribution to those residents living in the immediate vicinity of Riverside.

	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the responses provided to the questions; and
	(b) thanked Chris Mallaband for the presentation now made.

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

	Q. Which business premises were proposed to be demolished as part of the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan?

	R. No decisions had been made with regard to which business premises on Spital Hill would be demolished. A number of buildings had been identified for demolition and the Council was meeting regularly with the owners of such premises to discuss the consequences if a decision was taken to demolish. A meeting had been arranged next week where officers would be discussing with shop and business owners what their ideas were for the future of the area. A large-scale consultation exercise had been undertaken during the last few months with residents and shop and business owners, and due to some of the concerns expressed, the consultation period had been extended. The Council had written to all the business and shops affected. As part of the consultation exercise, officers had also hand delivered flyers to all shop and business premises on Spital Hill, informing of the dates and times of the consultation meetings.

	Q. Why, as part of the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, were there plans to demolish a number of old premises when, due to their character, the Council should be concentrating more on preserving such buildings?

	R. During the consultation exercise, several business and shop owners on Spital Hill had expressed their views as to which premises should be demolished and which should be retained. Officers had then drawn up a plan based on these views, together with the views of local residents, which had then been included as part of the draft Masterplan. A number of shop and business owners had indicated that in order to protect their livelihoods, there was a need for sustainability with regard to the shops in the area. Officers also had to take into consideration the fact that several people had invested in some of the buildings in the area and efforts had to be made to ensure that they were not disadvantaged by the regeneration proposals.

	Q. When will the final decision be taken in connection with the Burngreave and Firvale Masterplan and when will the consultation period end?

	R. The final decision with regard to the Masterplan was due to be made by the Council’s Cabinet in January, 2005, but following a decision to extend the consultation period by a further two months, it was likely that the decision would not now be made until March, 2005 at the earliest.

	Q. Will, as part of the consultation exercise in connection with the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, the Council alter the plans with regard to the proposed demolition of shops and businesses on Spital Hill, particularly on the grounds that nearly all the shop or business owners were opposed to the plans?

	R. A number of shop and business owners accepted that there was a need for change as the area had become run down and in some cases, business was not very good. Also, a number of shop and business owners had expressed the view that there was insufficient car parking, which was also a contributory factor to lack of business. Proposals contained in the Plan had been devised following consultation with local shop and business owners and local residents by the consultants employed to undertake the Masterplanning process.

	Q. What was the mixture of shops and business premises and housing on Spital Hill?

	R. Spital Hill comprised mainly shops and businesses and whilst there were some flats above the shops, only a few were occupied by residents.

	Q. Was it a condition that the Council will only receive the funding if the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan was approved?

	R. The Council had already secured £34m of funding from Housing Market Renewal, but was working to draw down more funding. The Council was also talking to English Partnerships and Yorkshire Forward in connection with bidding for further funding.

	Q. As part of the consultation in connection with the Burngreave and Fir Vale Masterplan, what reasons had local residents put forward for wanting a supermarket on Spital Hill?

	R. Local residents had expressed a clear desire to have a supermarket situated within the new Spital Hill shopping centre as the present shops do not provide this facility. This wish had been expressed throughout the present Masterplanning consultation exercise, and had been a consistent request of other consultation exercises undertaken over a number of years in Burngreave. The Council and officers working on the Masterplan are working to realise the needs of local residents, as well as businesses in the area.

4.	DRAFT BURNGREAVE AREA PLAN 2005-07
	The Area Co-ordinator gave a presentation on the draft Burngreave Area Plan 2005-07, reporting on what the Area Plan was, the need for having one and details of what the plan was based on. He referred to the nature of the Panel’s area in terms of housing, green space, shopping, industry and heritage, and to what local residents thought were the key issues for the area. These views had been sought following various consultation events, including meetings of the Area Panel, and the main issues raised involved the poor quality of the environment, a struggling local economy, poor health, low educational attainment and community safety.
	The Area Co-ordinator reported on the Panel’s priorities for 2005-07, which included creating a successful Burngreave, improving the environment, creating safe communities, promoting health and well-being and supporting children and young people. He then referred, in detail, to how the Area Panel, in working closely with key stakeholders, local shop and business owners and local residents, aimed to achieve the various objectives under each of the priority themes.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. It was understood that Spital Hill had been designated an Action Zone. Could this designation attract additional funding for the area?

	R. The designation involved a number of benefits rather than the receipt of funding, such as prospective purchasers of business premises being exempt from paying stamp duty and reduced business rates for shop and business owners.

	Q. There were many problems with regard to anti-social behaviour in the area. A local resident recently reported an incident of anti-social behaviour to the Police, only to be told that they could not do anything about it. How did the Area Panel intend to improve resident’s perception of community safety?

	R. Whilst the Police Officer present at the meeting could not comment on this particular incident, it was reported that the Police had extensive powers to deal with cases of anti-social behaviour, such as serving Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs). The Council had also established an Anti-Social Behaviour Team to assist the Police in dealing with issues relating to Anti-Social Behaviour. The Police also relied on the assistance of local residents and would always look into issues referred to them.

	Reference was made to all the work being undertaken in the area in connection with the Area Panel’s priorities and if this work continued over the next few years, residents would start seeing improvements in the area. Specific reference was made to improvements in resident’s health, school attainment and their perception of crime. It was also reported that efforts had been made to improve the appearance of the area, such as the hanging baskets and the lights on the trees on Ellesmere Green as part of the Festival of Light.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information reported, together with the responses to the questions and the comments now made, be noted;
	(b) approval be given to the Draft Burngreave Area Plan 2005-07; and
	(c) the thanks of the Area Panel be conveyed to Marilyn King, the Panel’s Area Support Officer, for the valuable work undertaken by her in connection with the organisation of the Festival of Light on Ellesmere Green.

5.	KIERON WILLIAMS
	The Chair reported that Kieron Williams, Area Co-ordinator, had secured a new job with the Sheffield First for Health Partnership, as a Healthy City Co-ordinator, with effect from January, 2005.
	RESOLVED: That the Area Panel places on record its thanks and appreciation to Kieron Williams, for the valuable work undertaken by him during his term as Area Co-ordinator over the last 18 months.

6.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 28th October, 2004, were approved as a correct record.

7.	DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
	It was noted that (a) the special meeting of the Area Panel to be held on Thursday, 9th December, 2004, had been cancelled, (b) the Burngreave New Years Honour event would be held on Thursday, 27th January, 2005, in the Town Hall and (c) the next scheduled meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Thursday, 24th February, 2005, at a venue to be arranged.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |