Minutes of Burngreave Area Panel 3 May 2005

BURNGREAVE AREA PANEL


Special Meeting held on 3rd May, 2005, at Shiloh Church

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

		Also in attendance:-
		Andy Shallice	-	Area Co-ordinator

		David Shepherd	-	Lead Manager

		Karl Tupling Sam Sykes Amanda James Wendy Foster Rob Slow Hannah York Caroline Stiff Claire Turner Katie Newman	-	Neighbourhoods Directorate

		Maria Duffy Shanza Hussain Anna Hawkins	-	Development Services

		Sharon Dyett	-	Sheffield Homes

		Inspector Jon Ekwubiri PC Jon Simpson	-	South Yorkshire Police

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

There were approximately 80 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.	MASTERPLANNING IN BURNGREAVE
	The Chair reported that this special meeting of the Panel had been arranged in order to inform, and seek further comments from local residents, traders and business owners in connection with the Masterplanning in Burngreave. She stated that following previous consultation meetings as part of the Masterplanning process, a revised model had been produced, incorporating some of the comments made by residents, traders and business owners. She stated that the comments received at this meeting would also be taken into consideration, and following the comments made at the special Panel meeting held in Fir Vale on 17th April 2005, a report on the Burngreave/Fir Vale Masterplan, and containing a summary of all the comments received, would be submitted for approval to the Cabinet on 25th May 2005.
	The Chair concluded by thanking all those residents, traders and business owners who had taken part in the Masterplanning process, by attending the various consultation meetings and putting forward their views.
	David Shepherd gave a presentation on the progress of the Masterplanning process in Burngreave, reporting on the purpose of the meeting and on the proposed changes to the model.
	Mr Shepherd reported that the meeting would give local residents, traders and business owners an opportunity to view the amended plans and ask questions or provide comments on the final proposals. He made reference to the consultation process which had commenced in Spring 2004, indicating that there had been over four months’ intensive consultation following the consultants’ recommendations in October 2004, which had included one to one appointments, a number of Working Group meetings and specific meetings to discuss the options with regard to the supermarket. Mr Shepherd reported that during the consultation, there had been general agreement with the proposals, and that there was a general acceptance by residents and traders to the need for a supermarket, but there was concern over its proposed location and its effect on existing shops and businesses. The extended consultation had also indicated that there was a desire to retain local businesses in the area.
	He reported on the revised proposals in the Spital Hill/Ellesmere area, referring specifically to the decision which had been taken to withdraw the original plans in respect of a supermarket on Spital Hill following the concerns of local residents and traders. He also stated that a number of key issues which had been raised by the Business Forum had been addressed and that generally, the views of residents, traders and business owners had been taken into consideration. He added that the other developments in the area, including proposed improvements funded through New Deal, the refurbishment of Sorby House and Burngreave Vestry Hall and the Spital Hill/Ellesmere Green public realm improvements, would continue regardless of the Masterplan proposals. He also referred briefly to the revised proposals in respect of the Woodside and Catherine Street areas, referring to the changes to the proposals to provide two additional houses at the Catherine Street development, and amendments to the proposed housing layout between Cranworth Road and Cranworth Street.
	Mr Shepherd referred to the Council’s commitments as part of the Masterplanning process, indicating that it would listen and act on the views of the local community, aim to help businesses and residents to remain in the area if they chose to do so, plan individual future solutions with businesses and residents, maintain a diverse commercial centre and generally, create a better Burngreave.
	He concluded by referring to the next stages of the process, which would involve recording the views and opinions on the revised proposals at this meeting, including a summary of the views in the report seeking approval to the Masterplan, and which was to be submitted to the Cabinet at its meeting to be held on 25th May, 2005. Further work would be undertaken in connection with agreeing a location for a supermarket, and in securing the necessary funding to implement the plans, and work would commence on recruiting developers. Following the presentation, the following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. If the consultation process on the Masterplan commenced in Spring 2004, and the demolition of properties at Woodside commenced well before this date, why had there been no consultation with occupants of properties at Woodside? One resident had purchased a property in 2001 and was very unhappy at the proposals to demolish it.

	R. The decision in respect of the demolition of properties on Woodside had been made in September 2002, well before there were any proposals in respect of the Masterplan. There had been no plans to demolish properties at Woodside in 2001.

	Q. Serious consideration needed to be given to whether there was a need for a supermarket in the area, particularly with regard to the potential adverse effect on existing traders on Spital Hill. A number of traders were struggling at present and a supermarket in the area would further affect their trade. Most residents welcomed the diversity of the shops on Spital Hill and considered that they met their shopping needs. Has the Council looked in any detail at the possible effects of a new supermarket in the area on the existing shops?

	R. The proposal with regard to the supermarket had been removed from the Cabinet report as officers had accepted that further work was required in connection with this proposal. A planning application had been received for a supermarket on the Hartwell site on Saville Street, which the Council was obliged to determine. The Council would need to ensure that any supermarket in the area was beneficial for the residents and existing traders on Spital Hill. A survey undertaken as part of the Masterplanning process had indicated that trade in the area had suffered as there was no supermarket on the basis that they helped to bring in passing trade. A number of studies had been undertaken which showed the benefits of having supermarkets in district shopping centres.

	Q. Will the new Inner Ring Road have any effect on the area?

	R. The Inner Ring Road, as shown on one of the plans displayed at this meeting, would run along the bottom of Brunswick Street and Spital Hill, and would have very little physical effect on Burngreave, although it would assist traffic management by taking traffic through, away from the area.

	Q. If it was the Council’s aim to keep people in Burngreave to do their shopping and use the other services in the area, consideration needs to be given to providing adequate car parking. Consideration also needs to be given to assisting the elderly or people with disabilities in terms of suitably sited bus stops and ensuring that there was housing for such people located near to the shops and services. Had consideration been given to this as part of the Masterplan?

	R. It was proposed that there would be housing for older people located near to the shops and services on Spital Hill. The siting of the bus stops would be taken into consideration as part of the Transport Plan for Burngreave. There would have been additional car parking provided as part of the proposed siting of a supermarket, but as that proposal now required further work, it would be necessary to await its outcome before determining if additional car parking could be provided.

	At this stage of the meeting, the residents, traders and business owners split into groups to discuss the revised proposals with Council officers in more detail. After approximately 45 minutes, the meeting was re-convened.

	After the group sessions, the following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Whilst there were plans to demolish a number of shop and business premises on Spital Hill, the shop and business owners had received no assurances or details with regard to how much compensation they would receive or where they would be located. The shop and business owners were not only concerned about what compensation they would receive, but they were also very concerned at the potential loss of their shop premises in their present form, which they believed had community value.

	R. Similar concerns, specifically regarding compensation in those cases where demolition would be taking place, had been raised by householders. There were statutory compensation arrangements which had been discussed with the Business Forum. If the proposed plans were approved, officers would talk to individual traders and business owners in connection with compensation arrangements. With regard to relocation, officers would always look at new sites which were appropriate for the individual business use.

	Q. Residents, traders and business owners were continually being told that none of the proposals contained in the Masterplan were definite and were merely part of a framework for future development. Were there any definite plans contained in the Cabinet report?

	R. The proposals displayed on the plans exhibited at this meeting were those which would form the basis of a Cabinet decision, and if and when the proposals were approved by the Cabinet, further discussions would be held on the detailed implementation of the proposals by the Community Project Groups which, in some cases, would require further approval by the Cabinet.

	The following comments were also made:-

	· Whilst it was important to retain some of the shops and businesses on Spital Hill as they contributed to the character and diversity of the area, some traders were selling inappropriate goods, which did not help the area’s reputation.

	· There was a need to retain the long-standing businesses on Spital Hill, such as the Kashmir.

	· If there were any further changes to the proposals following the approval of the report by the Cabinet, the residents of Woodside and Catherine Street areas needed to know what the process was.

	The Chair referred to the importance of agreeing a framework of development in the area on the basis that if the Council approved a framework for development under the Masterplan, it would allow the Council to bid for the Housing Market Renewal funding necessary to undertake the works. If the opportunity was lost on this occasion, it could be another two or three years until similar funding could be available.
	Councillor Ibrar Hussain stated that the local Members, as well as Council officers, would work with the residents, traders and business owners to look at what they wanted to see in terms of future development for the area under the Masterplan, and that the Community Project Groups would have a major input into developing the proposals.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the information reported as part of the presentation, together with the responses to the questions asked and the comments now made, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to David Shepherd for the presentation now made, to all the Council officers present for their involvement at this meeting, and to the local residents, traders and business owners who had attended the meeting to put forward their comments and play their part in the overall Masterplanning process; and
	(c) approval be given (i) so far as this Panel is concerned, to the revised proposals to be included in the Masterplan, as shown on the exhibited plans and as now reported, subject to further discussions of those elements of the model causing particular concern for a number of local residents, traders and business owners, (ii) to the establishment of a number of Community Project Groups comprising Council officers, residents, traders and business owners, to work on the detailed implementation plans for each neighbourhood and (iii) for the drafting of a Burngreave and Fir Vale Residents’ and Businesses’ Charter, to be appended to the Cabinet report.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |