Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel 27 July 2006

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Meeting held 27th July, 2006 at Fir Vale School, Owler Lane

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

		Also in attendance:-
		Councillor Mary Lea	-	Cabinet Member for Sustainable Environment

		Andy Shallice	-	Area Co-ordinator

		David Shepherd	-	Lead Manager

		Marilyn King	-	Area Action Officer

		Rob Slow	)
		Hanna Gibbins	)
		Wendy Foster	)	East Sheffield Regeneration Team
		Amanda James	)
		Roger Wilde	)
		Caroline Stiff	)

		Brigitt Westran	-	Sheffield Homes

		Nick Hetherington	-	Street Force

		Insp Jon Ekwubiri	)	South Yorkshire Police
		Simon Leake	)

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 85 local residents and representatives of local community groups in attendance.

…………….

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

2.	REVIEW OF THE BURNGREAVE/FIR VALE MASTERPLAN IMPLEMENTATION GROUPS
	The Lead Manager reported on the progress of work undertaken by the Burngreave/Fir Vale Masterplan Implementation Groups, which had been established to examine the detail, and take forward the proposals in connection with the Masterplanning exercise.
	He reported that the four groups, which included the Burngreave New Housing Group, Spital Hill Project Group, Page Hall Residents Project Group and Skinnerthorpe/Owler Implementation Group, had been established at the request of Councillors, as part of the consultation process in connection with the Masterplan, and that, to date, the Groups had been very productive.
	The Lead Manager referred to the achievements of each of the Groups and the following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Spital Hill Project Group

	Q. What plans were there in respect of car parking for the proposed supermarket?

	R. The Group had given consideration to this and the plans were to ensure that there was sufficient car parking for the supermarket. Consideration had also been given to the provision of car parking in other areas of Spital Hill, such as on land opposite the Kashmere Indian Restaurant. The proposals for new car parking arrangements had been considered in light of the agreed proposal to redevelop the Gower Street Car Park with new housing.

	Q. Could the owners of the business premises which were planned to be demolished be kept informed of any demolition proposals?

	R. Whilst the Council had maintained dialogue with the business owners, it was not possible at this time to provide precise details in terms of future proposals regarding these business premises. There was a need to work up plans with external funders. The Council's City Development Unit were working on these plans at the present time.

	Burngreave New Housing Group

	Q. In the light of the fact that there were plans for over 400 properties to be constructed, mainly at Woodside, had any consideration been given to the need for the provision of extra capacity in the local schools?

	R. Officers were in close contact with their colleagues in the Children and Young People's Directorate, and officers in that Directorate were considering how to manage pressure for places in the local schools, particularly the primary schools, where the demand for places was currently an issue.

	Q. Details relating to allegations of drug use around the garage on Catherine Street had been included in a report to the Cabinet in connection with the wider redevelopment proposals for the Catherine Street area. A report on a proposal for the acquisition of 34 properties in the Catherine Street area had been presented to the Cabinet on 25th January, 2006, and a copy of the report had been included on the Council's Website. Could action be taken to either remove this information or include some additional information making it clear that there were no longer any problems as such allegations were having a detrimental effect on the owner’s business?

	R. The posting of agreed Cabinet reports is in line with the Council’s policy for documents of public record agreed by the Cabinet. Consideration would be given to including some information on the Website regarding this issue.

	Q. The consultation on the plans for this particular area had comprised two letters sent to residents, and only after the receipt of the second letter were residents properly consulted. Why was this the case?

	R. With the exception of the questioner, the Council had made every practical effort to consult with residents affected by the redevelopment proposals. In relation to the questioner’s proposal, the Council accepts that it had not met its own standards for consultation, and had already made a personal apology to the property owner.

	Q. How many residents had been consulted on the proposals on a one-to-one basis?

	R. Letters containing information on the initial proposals, together with a further update leaflet, had been sent to all properties in the area. During the consultation period for the Masterplan, approximately 2,800 residents had given their views and/or attended specific consultation events. All residents on Catherine Street had been offered a one-to-one interview, of which nearly all residents had taken up the request.

	Skinnerthorpe/Owler Implementation Group

	Q. Had any grant applications been made for improving the South Yorkshire Housing Association properties on Page Hall, for those residents moving out of Skinnerthorpe Road?

	R. No, the Council will not be investing money in the empty properties currently held by the South Yorkshire Housing Association.

	Q. What were the timescales in respect of the proposed demolition of properties in the Skinnerthorpe Road/Bagley Road area?

	R. The first phase of the clearance programme started this month, and involves the Council working with residents in connection with the valuation of their properties, and ultimately seeking to rehouse residents in order that properties can be cleared to deliver the redevelopment site. This work under Phase 1 would be reviewed in six months' time, and if found to be progressing sufficiently, steps would be taken to move to Phase 2 of the clearance programme.

	Q. A number of residents had received valuations in respect of their properties, which were very low compared to property values in other areas. Residents had been led to believe that they would be offered more than the market value for their properties. Why was this not the case?

	R. The Council will pay the market value for any property it acquired as part of the clearance programme in Fir Vale. The process for valuing residents' properties included the Council's Surveyors undertaking the initial valuation. Residents are entitled to appoint an independent Surveyor to act on their behalf. The Council will meet the costs of this appointment. The Surveyor will both value the property and try to agree a price. If there is no agreement on the valuation following the two surveys, a price would be set at an independent tribunal established as part of the Compulsory Purchase Order procedure. Some residents were mistakenly comparing Estate Agent valuations with that of a professionally qualified Surveyor. The Surveyor’s valuation is often lower than the price of properties as determined by Estate Agents. The difference is that a professionally qualified Surveyor must be able to prove why they have arrived at a valuation in the event of a dispute, whereas an Estate Agent requires no qualification or training to estimate the highest price they wish to achieve for a property. Estate Agents’ valuations therefore cannot be relied upon for determining the value of a property within a clearance scheme. Mr. Bell identified himself as an independent Surveyor acting for a number of residents on Skinnerthorpe Road. He stated that there had been delays in the Council contacting him in relation to his independent valuations, leaving residents unsure about their futures. On the basis that it was the residents’ properties that were proposed to be demolished, he considered that there should be a better working relationship between the Council’s Surveyors and the independent Surveyors in order to speed up the process. Following further questions form Mr. Bell, it was agreed that a meeting be arranged between himself and the Council’s Surveyors. It was also indicated that arrangements would be made for a separate meeting to deal with the residents’ concerns over the valuations, at which the Council’s Surveyors would also be requested to attend.

	Q. How did the Council aim to reassure residents on Skinnerthorpe Road in connection with the low valuations of their properties, particularly as they had been promised that they would not be financially worse off?

	R. The process in terms of property valuations as reported earlier in the meeting was seen as a fair process.

	Q. What were the timescales in respect of the proposed demolition of Earl Marshal flats?

	R. The demolition will take place when each of the blocks of flats was empty. At the moment, there are no clear blocks. However, it was expected that demolition would start in the next few months.

	Q. Were the officers undertaking the property valuations on behalf of the Council qualified Chartered Surveyors?

	R. Yes.

	Q. Would people living in those properties earmarked for demolition as part of Phase 2 be able to claim relocation expenses if they left their properties during Phase 1?

	R. No. It was important that the Council concentrated on one phase of the scheme at a time in order to minimise any potential confusion. Residents could only claim relocation expenses during the phase of works their properties were included in. This issue will be considered in detail at a future meeting of the Project Group.

	Page Hall Residents’ Project Group

	Q. There were problems being caused by people wishing to purchase properties in Page Hall, but were unable to as the Council was holding them back for demolition. Also, there were concerns that the Council will make profits from the sale of properties at Page Hall. Could the Council confirm that it will sell such properties at the price they were purchased?

	R. The Council does not own the properties at Page Hall. They are owned by the South Yorkshire Housing Association. However, the Council is working with the Housing Association and will agree disposal arrangements for the 31 properties with them. All properties will be sold at current market value as this is the only fair means of determining the price. The Council is developing a small scheme for five of the properties to be sold to residents from Skinnerthorpe Road and Bagley Road if that is what they want to do. The Council had given a commitment to those residents affected by clearance that they would not be financially worse off, but would also not be better off. Any profits made by the Council following increases in property values would be reinvested in the Housing Market Renewal area.

	Q. What were the priorities in terms of the design of the new properties and the surrounding area in general?

	R. The plan for Page Hall was due to be commissioned shortly. The Project Group had expressed a desire to improve the environment and the streetscene and also implement a number of innovative traffic-calming measures which would compliment the improvements to the environment. The Group also wanted to consider how to improve the gateways to the area.

	Q. Would the profits made by the Council in terms of increases in property values be added to the ring-fenced monies received from South Yorkshire Housing Association?

	R. Yes.

	Q. What was the long-term strategy for sustaining the housing stock in Page Hall?

	R. As indicated earlier, a design brief for the area had been prepared and would be used to commission an urban designer to develop an overall plan to improve the area. The Council accepted that there was a need for long-term regeneration of the Page Hall area, and was working with residents to achieve this.

	Q. Can residents in the Popple Street/Robey Street/Willoughby Street area be reassured that their properties will not be demolished?

	R. There are no plans for wholesale clearance in the Page Hall area. The Masterplan agreed in May 2005 made this very clear.

	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the questions asked and responses given; and
	(b) thanked (i) the Lead Manager for the presentation now made and (ii) those members of the Implementation Groups for their continued involvement in the Masterplanning process.

3.	STREET FORCE, SHEFFIELD HOMES AND SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE
	Representatives of Street Force, Sheffield Homes and South Yorkshire Police reported briefly on the work undertaken in the Burngreave/Fir Vale area, as follows:-

	Sheffield Homes
	Brigitt Westran reported that Sheffield Homes was an Arms Length Management Organisation, responsible for the management of Council housing in the City.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

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

	R. It is not the responsibility of Sheffield Homes to maintain/paint fences or gates. This is the responsibility of the tenant and all tenants of properties managed by Sheffield Homes have a copy of their tenancy conditions, which clearly sets out their responsibilities, as well as those of the landlord. Sheffield Homes would not normally undertake such work, but where, in exceptional circumstances, there has been an agreement to do so, they would make a charge in accordance with its contractor’s rates.

	Q. One of the last few remaining residents of Earl Marshal flats had made a number of bids for other flats in the area, but had only been offered the opportunity of viewing one other property. Could Sheffield Homes make it easier for people of her age to move to alternative accommodation, particularly when it would assist the Council in terms of the demolition process?

	R. In this particular case, it may be that bids have been made on properties for which the applicant was not eligible. However, it had been accepted that there were too many vacant properties for people over the ages of 40 and/or 60, and not enough for general demand. The Cabinet had recently agreed to the redesignation of a number of flats in the area, which would result in more properties being available for younger tenants.

	Q. What was Sheffield Homes’ strategy in connection with the relocation of tenants in the Earl Marshal flats?

	R. Officers had visited all tenants to provide advice on rehousing options, including advice on how to bid for other properties. Priority was given in terms of rehousing tenants from Earl Marshal.

	Q. Did Sheffield Homes have a strategy for dealing with the problems caused by a heavy demand on the Council's housing stock?

	R. It was accepted that there were problems in terms of demand for some types of properties, particularly in the light of the recent demolition of properties. Sheffield Homes has redesignated a number of properties, as previously reported, and it is hoped that this will go some way towards improving availability.

	South Yorkshire Police
	Simon Leake reported on various issues regarding crime prevention in the area, and indicated that burglaries were down and the number of car thefts and cars being broken into were below the national average. The Police were continuing to target drug dealing in the area, which was still considered to be a major problem, and were working closely with Sheffield Homes to deal with anti-social behaviour.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Would the Police investigate problems of noise nuisance in connection with the Aden Social Club on Hinde Street, which was believed to be unlicensed?

	R. The Police would investigate this request.

	Q. Could the Police investigate the allegations of anti-social behaviour caused by a family on Skinnerthorpe Road?

	R. Simon Leake would speak to the complainant and depending on the nature of the problems, would investigate the complaint.

	Q. A resident in the area had reported an incident to the Police when she had nearly become a crime victim, but had not received a call informing her of the progress of their investigations into the incident. Could the Police please make a better effort to keep victims informed of incidents they had reported?

	R. The Police are required to update victims of crime on the progress of their investigations within 28 days. Simon Leake promised to contact the resident in question.

	Q. Had the Police given consideration to looking at the security of those properties which had been vacated as part of the Masterplanning proposals?

	R. The Council was working closely with the Police in connection with the security issues arising from properties being left vacant. In addition to this, the Council had commissioned new demolition contractors, with an enhanced security brief, and who were due to start work on Skinnerthorpe Road in September, 2006.

	Q. Could the Council please ensure that the utilities connected to 180 Skinnerthorpe Road, which had been vacated and boarded up, were switched off?

	R. This would be dealt with.

	Street Force
	Nick Hetherington, Head of Streetscene, Street Force, reported that his Service was responsible for dealing with various aspects regarding the streetscene, including highway maintenance, gully emptying, removal of graffiti and fly tipping and the cutting back of trees, bushes and other shrubbery.
	The following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Could Street Force investigate the poor road surface at the bottom of Hinde House Lane?

	R. This would be investigated.

	Q. Could Street Force look into the problems with the street lighting in the Popple Street/Robey Street/ Willoughby Street area in that during the last few years, a number of the lights had failed to come on during the Winter months?

	R. This was noted and any further necessary action would be taken. If the lights had not worked for a long period, there could be a problem with the electricity supply, which was the responsibility of the Electricity Board.

	Q. Could the works be completed in connection with the installation of the puffin pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Barnsley Road, particularly the pavement as it was dangerous for pedestrians?

	R. This would be reported to the relevant Council service.

	Q. Could action be taken in connection with the condition of the area around the steps leading up from Grimesthorpe Road to Scott Road? There were also trees and bushes over hanging onto the steps. The residents of an adjoining property had an overgrown garden and regularly threw rubbish into their garden.

	R. This was noted and relevant action would be taken. Street Force were looking at a major initiative into dealing with fly tipping.

	Q. Why had £320,000 been spent to alter the roundabout on Rushby Street, at the end of Page Hall Road? Despite the excessive costs of such alterations, it was not considered, by a number of residents, to be any safer. One resident commented that in her opinion, the new layout had made it a lot easier for pedestrians to cross the road.

	R. The funding for the works had been provided by the Government, as part of a package specifically for accident reduction schemes. Arrangements would be made for a presentation at the next Area Panel meeting to be held on 3rd October, 2006, on how the new layout had improved the safety of the junction.

	The Area Panel (a) noted the information now reported, together with the responses given to the questions; and
	(b) thanked Brigitt Westran, Simon Leake and Nick Hetherington for the presentations now made and for responding to the questions.

4.	"YOUR COUNCIL, YOUR SAY"
	Councillor Mary Lea reported on "Your Council, Your Say", which was the biggest ever consultation and communications exercise to be undertaken by the Council, and would take place between June and August, 2006. The initiative would give every resident in the City the opportunity to directly influence some key Council Services over the next two years. All residents in Sheffield would receive a questionnaire during June and July, which included three specific questions relating to litter and street cleaning, recycling and anti-social behaviour, and would be required to return the leaflet to the Council before 31st August, 2006.
	The Area Panel invited comments from residents in respect of each of the three categories and the following was noted:-