Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 11th March, 2004 at Pitsmoor Methodist Church, Christ Church Road

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

		Also in attendance:-
		Kieron Williams	-	Area Co-ordinator

		Philip Horton	)
		Nick Silvani	)	Development Services
		Shanza Hussain	)

		Pam Horner	-	South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive

		Brendan Pakenham	)
		Jon Ekwubiri	)	South Yorkshire Police

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 10 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.	SOUTH YORKSHIRE PASSENGER TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE - TRANSPORT ISSUES IN BURNGREAVE
	Pam Horner, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) gave a presentation on "Making The Connection", which was a guide to the work of the Transport Executive and local bus operators throughout the City.
	Ms. Horner referred to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority (SYPTA), which was a body comprising 12 Councillors nominated by the four South Yorkshire District Councils, which had the responsibility of agreeing policy in respect of a wide range of transport issues, as well as setting goals and objectives. The main roles of the SYPTA were to improve and protect the environment, improve safety and security, improve transport to areas of poor accessibility and to employment, provide genuine choice of travel and to reduce the need to travel, whilst improving transport efficiency.
	The role of the SYPTE was to carry out the policy of the SYPTA within current national legislation and to develop partnerships with other agencies and providers to secure services and influence delivery.
	Ms. Horner referred briefly to the infrastructure which was owned and managed by the SYPTE, and which included interchanges in each of the four South Yorkshire Districts, as well as over 7,000 bus stops and 3,000 bus shelters. The Executive was also responsible for the various Travel Information Centres, departure lounges, including refreshments and toilets at the Interchanges, telephones and help points, and undertook a 24-hour a day cleaning operation of its infrastructure.
	With regard to bus services, Ms. Horner referred to the different services provided by the SYPTE, which included rural/urban services, the tendered service network, including school services, taxi buses and special services, such as community transport and dial-a-bus. She also referred briefly to the Executive's involvement in rail services, indicating that it was responsible for building new stations, upgrading existing sites, providing new train services in partnership with operators, administering a multi-modal ticket system and park and ride services.
	Ms. Horner referred to the various tickets that were available for travellers, including the Travelmaster, a weekly, monthly or annual ticket which could be used to travel on buses, trams or trains, the Senior Master, a weekly or monthly ticket for senior citizens, the Megatravel, a pass for students, Railmaster, a pass enabling rail travel in South Yorkshire and Mobility tickets, which were issued subject to the approval of Social Services.
	With regard to future plans, Ms. Horner reported that the SYPTE was looking at the issue of quality bus corridors and improving its partnerships with other organisations, looking to improve park and ride facilities, undertaking improvements to the rail service, improving its flexible ticketing system, improving the information provided to customers and working on possible extensions to Supertram.
	Ms. Horner concluded by referring to the bus operators, stating that they were commercial organisations, looking to run a profitable business. They were required to work within the conditions of the Transport Act 1985 and were required to give the Traffic Commissioner and the Transport Executive 56 days notice of any changes to their services. Specific reference was made to the “First” bus company, which was the biggest bus company in the United Kingdom, and which employed 2,133 staff in South Yorkshire, operated 136 different bus routes, undertook 90.7 million passenger journeys in 2001/02, had four main depots in South Yorkshire and owned 640 vehicles.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Were there any free telephone numbers which people could ring to find out information with regard to bus services?

	R. No, but all the numbers were charged at local rates.

	Q. Was there any chance of extending the M22 bus service, which finished daily at 3.40 p.m. and did not run at all at weekends?

	R. This request would be forwarded to the relevant officers for consideration.

	Q. Who do residents contact if they wish to report vandalism to bus shelters?

	R. Residents should ring the Traveline number on 01709 515151.

	Q. What was the present position with regard to the Central Interchange in Sheffield?

	R. The lower part of the Interchange was to be removed and the land would be included as part of the new development in that area. The upper part would be extended and improved. Discussions were still taking place on the possibility of having a mini-change on Arundel Gate.

	Q. When buses were full and passengers were standing, it was very difficult to get off, particularly for those passengers sat at the back. Was there a maximum number of passengers allowed on single decker buses?

	R. The weight limits with regard to the number of passengers were clearly displayed on all buses, and it was a requirement that drivers did not exceed such limits. The newer single decker vehicles had a more continental design, in that there was less seating and allowed more standing passengers.

	Q. What was the SYPTE's policy with regard to the provision of travel information at bus shelters?

	R. The SYPTE attempted to update information on bus services and other issues every three months, although this sometimes proved difficult in that they could only print information based on what they had received from operators. Whilst the changes with regard to routes were issued every three months, it was accepted that there would be situations where information was received late, and, as such, there could be a delay in issuing information. If travellers required up to date information with regard to bus services, they should ring the Traveline on 01709 515151.

	Q. How do people advertise at bus stops, shelters and on buses?

	R. Any advertisements on buses were arranged between the person wishing to advertise and the bus operators. On carousels at bus stops, there were different arrangements in that the SYPTE had to comply with certain planning regulations, and, as such, any advertisements on stops, had to refer in some way to public transport. The SYPTE would look at the possibility of publicising the Burngreave Transport Strategy on buses, at bus shelters and any other suitable information points.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made and responses to the questions, be noted; and
	(b) Pam Horner be thanked for the presentation now made.

3.	BURNGREAVE TRANSPORT STRATEGY
	Nick Silvani, Development Services, gave a presentation on the Burngreave Transport Strategy, which had been developed jointly by Burngreave New Deal for Communities, the Area Panel and the City Council, and funded by Burngreave New Deal and the Area Panel.
	Mr. Silvani referred to the "Advancing Together" partnership between Burngreave New Deal and the City Council, which had identified a number of transformational projects, including a transport strategy for Burngreave. The Council would be leading on the work and a Steering Group, comprising Council officers, the Area Panel's Chair and Area Co-ordinator, representatives from Burngreave New Deal, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and Sheffield Community Transport, a representative from the Fir Vale Forum and other people with particular knowledge of transport issues in the area. The Strategy would be drafted in line with corporate priorities, which included job creation, improving access to jobs, improving the environment and reducing road accidents.
	Mr. Silvani referred to the various phases of work involved in drafting the Strategy, and reported that in conjunction with this work, it was also the aim to draft an Action Plan relating to various proposed improvements with regard to transport in the area, which would contain a number of "quick win" projects in Year 1, and details of longer-term projects within the first five and 10 years. He stated that there were approximately 80 schemes which had been identified as part of the Strategy, which would be delivered over the next six years. The cost of implementing the Strategy would be approximately £20m, of which £18m had already been identified.
	Mr. Silvani concluded by stating that it was hoped that the Strategy would be endorsed by the Area Panel at this meeting, and following this, it was proposed that the final report on the Strategy would be submitted to the Cabinet on 28th April, 2004, for approval.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Whilst the additional tree planting was welcomed as part of the Strategy, it would be more appropriate for the Council to spend money on clearing up the litter which gathered in shrubbery and on grassed areas. Had this been given consideration?

	R. This had been given consideration and would hopefully be undertaken as part of a "quick win" project.

	Q. There were already a number of additional cleaners in the area. Will the staff employed under the Strategy be a duplication of resources?

	R. One of the aims of the Strategy was to bring together a number of existing strategies, which would include providing funding for the provision of additional cleaning machinery in the area.

	Q. Would Shirecliffe benefit from the Strategy?

	R. Yes, to the extent that the community bus, which was to be funded as part of the Strategy, would, as part of its route, travel through Shirecliffe and back through Firshill, into Burngreave.

	Q. Were the CCTV cameras to be linked to the Police Headquarters in the City Centre?

	R. It was also the aim, as part of the Strategy, to connect the new cameras to the CCTV network at bus shelters. It was the aim to consult with the Police before any action was taken on this issue.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· There was a need to ensure that not all traffic is diverted away from the centre of Burngreave as this will have an adverse effect on local businesses.

	· The plans to create more car parking spaces were welcomed.

	· If more effort was made to attract trade for local businesses, and such businesses benefited commercially, further businesses would be attracted to the area.

	· Further consideration needs to be given to the siting of the speed camera on Burngreave Road, which at present, was situated on what appeared to be the widest and safest part of the road. The camera should be sited nearer the traffic lights.

	· Consideration should be given to having a filter light for cars turning off Gower Street onto Burngreave Road as this would assist in reducing the potential for accidents at this junction.

	· It was important to ensure that traffic flowed through the area as much as possible in order to minimise the level of vehicle emissions when traffic was standing.

	· It was important that the projects under the Strategy were linked into the Wicker/Nursery Street Regeneration Scheme.

	· The Strategy needs to be linked to the wider development of Spital Hill.

	· The Strategy will only be effective if it formed part of a wider, overall plan. If Burngreave is to become the thriving community that residents want, there is a need for businesses, such as a bank and petrol station, to locate to the area.

	· There was a need, as part of the Strategy, to look at introducing a number of car parking schemes in the area, like in other areas of the City.

	· There was a need, as part of the Strategy, to consider the possibility of carrying out alterations to the pelican crossing at the Scott Road/ Barnsley Road junction, particularly in the light of the fact that it was used by large numbers of pupils walking to and from Fir Vale School.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments made and the responses to the questions, be noted;
	(b) Nick Silvani be thanked for the presentation now made; and
	(c) subject to the comments now made in respect of the Burngreave Transport Strategy being taken into consideration, the Strategy be endorsed.

4.	UPDATE ON HIGHWAY SCHEMES
	Philip Horton, Development Services, provided an update on Local Transport Plan schemes which were in the process of being assessed under the Council's Priority Assessment Process. Location plans in respect of a number of the schemes were exhibited at the meeting.
	Mr. Horton made specific reference to the proposed highway improvements on Grimesthorpe Road, following concerns of local residents with regard to traffic speeds, and which had included the submission of a petition to the Council, requesting road-calming measures. A consultation meeting had been held on 2nd March, 2004, to discuss the proposals, at which local residents confirmed their request for the implementation of traffic-calming measures, and not the closure of the road. At the consultation meeting, local residents raised a number of other issues relating to the Grimesthorpe Road area, which included the need to repair the wall, the need for a footpath outside a number of properties on Grimesthorpe Road, a request for the narrowing of the road at the bend on Grimesthorpe Road, opposite the Cornerstone building, the need to repair the damaged handrail at the bottom of the gennel at the bottom of Osgathorpe Road, a request for a pedestrian crossing outside the shop, a request to change priority in respect of traffic flow at the junction of Botham Street and Grimesthorpe Road and the difficulty being faced by the residents of Nos.374 and 376 Grimesthorpe Road in using their drives.
	A local resident queried how the Council's Priority Assessment Process worked. Philip Horton stated that highway schemes put forward to be funded under the Local Transport Plan were assessed by officers, using a set of criteria, relating to what effect the proposed works would have on reducing vehicle speeds, reducing accident rates, how the scheme would encourage the use of public transport, cycling or walking and whether the area in which the proposed works were to be undertaken was an area of deprivation. Each of the criteria was assessed by officers and given a score, which ranged from minus 2 to 2 The scores were then added up and those scoring the highest, were more likely to be progressed.
	Councillor Steve Jones questioned the position with regard to the proposed highway improvements to the Barnsley Road/Scott Road junction. He stated that following a public meeting held to discuss the proposals, it had been agreed that officers would investigate the possibility of carrying out improvements to the pelican crossing at the junction, and that the proposals would be forwarded to the North and West Planning and Highways Area Board. It appeared that the Planning and Highways Area Board had deferred consideration of the proposals on two occasions and Councillor Jones questioned why this had been the case. Philip Horton stated that as far as he was aware, this particular scheme was not a committed scheme and would therefore have to be re-assessed in accordance with the terms of the Priority Assessment Process. He also stated that there was a possibility that this particular scheme could be included as one of the projects in the Burngreave Transport Strategy.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with the comments now made, be noted; and
	(b) Philip Horton be thanked for the presentation now made.

5.	NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL FUND - LOCAL ACTION PLAN 2004-06
	The Area Co-ordinator gave a presentation on proposals for the allocation of funding under the Local Action Plan theme of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund 2004-06.
	He referred to the total amount of funding allocated to Sheffield, the City-wide themes on which the funding would be allocated and the amount of funding allocated for the Area Panel, which amounted to £199,658 per year. The Local Action Plan was based on the priorities in the Burngreave Area Action Plan and the aim of the funding would be to bring about a significant change in the effects of deprivation on the area, improve the quality of life for local people and promote the area's culture and diversity as part of its contribution to the City. In order to achieve these aims, the Area Co-ordinator stated that the funding would be used to promote community cohesion, support the community, tackle burglary, improve the local environment, promote an active and healthy lifestyle and support families and young people. In connection with the promotion of community cohesion, it was proposed that the post of a Community Cohesion Officer would be funded to build links between all parts of the community by organising events aimed at celebrating the area of diversity and cultural heritage. With regard to supporting the community, it was planned that continued support would be given to the Fir Vale Forum by funding their Development Worker for a further period of six months, funding in respect of the Advocacy Worker for the Fir Vale community, based at the Pakistani Advice Centre, would be provided and support would be offered to local groups through a small grants fund. Funding would be allocated to provide a property-marking scheme for residents, which scheme had been accredited by the Association of Chief Police Officers as one of the means of tackling burglary in the area. As part of improving the local environment, funding would be provided to organise further Bring Out Your Rubbish Days across the whole area, including recycling and assisted days in key areas, improvements would be made to the streetscape, local shopping centres and community spaces, including floral displays and festive lighting and a machine would be purchased to clean up dog fouling in the parks and playing fields in the area. Support would be given to the Active Burngreave Strategy to help people adopt more healthier active lifestyles. As a means of supporting families, funding would be provided for a dedicated Family Support Worker for the area and support would be given to the development of the Burngreave Childcare Strategy, and funding would also be provided towards arranging positive activities for young people and work undertaken to increase their voice and influence.
	A member of the public referred to problems being caused by children playing football on her road, and stated that she had spoken to the children and asked them to write a letter to the Council, asking for some form of play facilities as an alternative to playing in a street. The Area Co-ordinator stated that the Panel was looking at other ways of engaging young people, rather than attempting to get them to attend Panel meetings, which has proved difficult in the past.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported, together with comments now made, be noted; and
	(b) approval be given to the allocation of the funding under the Local Action Plan theme of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, along the lines now reported.

6.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 5th February, 2004, were approved as a correct record.

7.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	There were no public questions or petitions received from members of the public.

8.	DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Thursday, 29th April, 2004, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., at a venue to be arranged.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |