Minutes of Darnall Area Panel 7 December 2006

DARNALL AREA PANEL

Meeting held on 7th December, 2006,
at the Methodist Church, Ingfield Avenue, Tinsley

PRESENT:		Councillors Mazher Iqbal (Chair), Harry Harpham, Mary Lea and Mick Rooney.

		Representatives of Panel Partners:-
		Nicki Warburton	-	Sheffield Homes
		Phil Stokoe	-	P. S. Consultants
		Ruth Mycock	-	P. S. Consultants
		Shaffaq Mohammed	-	Sheffield Futures

		Also in attendance:-
		David Curtis	-	Lead Manager
		Stella Mekonnen	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Martyn Wragg	-	Neighbourhoods Regeneration and Partnership
		Amy Wynne	-	Neighbourhoods Regeneration and Partnership
		David Shepherd	-	Programme Director, Housing Market Renewal
		John Keyworth	-	Development Services
		Jason Dietsch	-	Committee Secretariat

		Approximately 19 members of the public and representatives from local community groups attended the meeting.
…………………..

					Action
1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	There were no apologies for absence from Panel Members.

2.	MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 2nd November, 2006, were approved as a correct record.

3.	HOUSING MARKET RENEWAL (HMR) UPDATE
	David Shepherd, Programme Director, Housing Market Renewal, gave a presentation concerning Housing Market Renewal (HMR) and the Neighbourhood Development Framework. He described how Housing Market Renewal areas had been established to work towards sustainable communities and to strengthen the demand for housing, whilst fulfilling community need and encouraging private investment. Regeneration would take place as part of a 10 to 15 year plan, within the Neighbourhood Development Framework, which would take account of the views of the community and link with the Sheffield Development Framework).
	Housing Market Renewal Projects included the Elmham Road Block Improvements, Darnall Children’s Centre, Staniforth Road Depot relocation, Tinsley Centre/Gateway and Darnall Centre.
	Investment in Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley would be achieved through the Decent Homes programme; Education funding, including the aspiration for a new school in Tinsley; British Waterways funding to improve the Canal at Attercliffe and Tinsley; traffic management measures on Bawtry Road, the re-routing of which had been subject to a cost- benefit analysis which had demonstrated that there were not sufficient benefits to justify the cost of re-routing and therefore a range of calming measures and signage was proposed; English Partnership's were interested in the remediation of brownfield land in the Tinsley area to increase potential for development of derelict sites; and potential to attract significant private sector investment. Consultation was under way and plans relating to proposals were available for the public to inspect and comment upon at the meeting. David Shepherd outlined the next steps in the process, including discussions with developers and key funding bodies. It was intended to seek approval from the Council's Cabinet for the plans by March, 2007.
	A number of questions were raised and comments made:-

	· It was clarified that the proposed resiting of Tinsley Schools was an aspiration of both the community and local Elected Members and although two sites had been identified, funding for a new school was not certain although attempts were being made to identify such funding.

	· How would one of the proposed sites for the newly located school be accessed and what proportion of the site would be available for a school? The questioner was informed that the school would require the whole of the site referred to and existing access would be used. The questioner referred to the potential for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) to authorise development to one side of that proposed site for industrial use which might adversely affect the environment of any school located there and was informed that Rotherham MBC was obliged to consult Sheffield City Council, which would be able to make representations regarding any such development. · The questioner also referred to the status of the War Memorial on the site of the existing school and asked for clarification as to whether the Memorial would be moved and the time capsule, sited underneath the Memorial, preserved. The questioner was informed that there would be a commitment to respect the War Memorial and the preference would be for it to remain at its current location but consultation would take place if it were deemed necessary to move the Memorial. Officers undertook to respond to the questioner in relation to the points raised.				Development Services

	· Was it now proposed to knock down homes near to the Tinsley Centre? - The housing referred to would not be knocked down but instead would be improved through the Decent Homes programme to modernise and increase safety and warmth and a scheme was to start in 2007 to be completed in 2010.

	· Could European funding, such as Objective 1, be used to fund the relocated school? - It was explained that there were particular criteria for Objective 1 funding and such funding could not be used for school redevelopment specifically. However, some could be used for projects such as information technology in schools. In the context of plans to widen the M1 Motorway, negotiations were to be held with the Highways Authority for some contribution towards the new school and, in addition, the Department for Education and Skills could provide capital funding.

	· What was the original HMR allocation for the Tinsley area; had any HMR allocation been moved to other locations in Sheffield; had value for money been obtained from consultants; and what were the costs of using consultants to date? - In 2005, a bid for £120m had been made for HMR funding for South Yorkshire over the next two years. A Government assessment had concluded that £91m be given to South Yorkshire and £45m would be received by Sheffield in the two year period. This allocation would be spread throughout a large area of the City and £4m was allocated for Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley. The Government was not committing to long term funding plans beyond the next four years, which signalled a change in the funding climate. The Council was planning to encourage investment from a wide variety of funding sources.

	It was emphasised that funding had not been used for other areas of the City when it had already been allocated to Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley and it might be that funding had been allocated in other areas as part of a different funding block from that allocated to Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley.

	The questioner would be informed of the funding required and originally estimated for Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley as part of the original bid put to Government in 2005.				David Shepherd

	It was considered that value for money had been obtained from the Consultants. The value of the original contract was £175,000 and, to date, the Consultants had been paid just under £150,000 and the consultants had delivered in accordance with what the Council had asked them to do. The City Council did not have the capacity within existing staffing levels to undertake the extra jobs brought about by HMR and it would not be considered best value to employ people only for the duration of the project. In addition, the Government expected the Local Authority to gain an external view in relation to HMR and associated regeneration and the consultants had appropriate experience. There was a fixed price basis for the contract.

	· Concern that a newly built school should provide enough space, as, at the existing school, two additional temporary classrooms had been installed and there was pressure for a new school building that was larger, safer and further from the motorway. - Councillor Harry Harpham stated that he was aware of the concerns in Tinsley in relation to the school and of the increased intake of pupils from black and minority ethnic communities and it was the aspiration of Local Councillors and the community to move the school to a different location.

	· A question relating to the location of the school on a green field site. - Both proposed sites for the school were in open space and although consideration would not normally be given to develop such space the school was an exception. It was felt that any proposals for housing on this site would not receive a positive recommendation from Council Planning Officers.

	· Concerns expressed relating to the environmental and air quality consequences of traffic calming being introduced on Bawtry Road - The speed of vehicles and use of the road by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) was the particular issue which proposals sought to improve. Improved signing would seek to remove heavy goods vehicles on to the major road network.

	The Chair thanked contributors to this item.

4.	UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TINSLEY AREA
	John Keyworth reported upon developments in the Tinsley Area:-

	Sheffield Road Site - Development on Vantage Riverside Site for five small office units as part of the first development phase, funded by Objective 1. Site reclamation now underway. Construction of buildings to begin February 2007 and further proposals included the development of industrial and warehousing facilities.

	Outo Kumpu - Closure of the Coil Products production plant at Shepcote Lane and the sale of associated land. Planning guidance was being prepared by the City Council in consultation with Outo Kumpu. Preference was for general industry when the site was developed. The Guidance proposed the re-routing of industrial traffic from the industrial estate on Greasbro Road through the Outo Kumpu site. The total redevelopment area for the site was approximately 50 acres and it would take five years to achieve redevelopment, which would give significant employment, potential.

	Tinsley Marshalling Yard - Permission had been gained for development at the site and a road and rail interchange and warehousing was proposed. It was likely that works would begin in Spring 2007. Access to the site would be gained through the Wood Lane end of Europa Link.

	Runway at Tinsley Park - An outstanding application by Sheffield Business Parks for offices and industrial uses was reported. There were also outstanding traffic issues to be resolved.

	A number of questions were asked in relation to developments in the area:-

	· The Chair, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, requested that the Panel be informed of the hours during which works would take place on Sheffield Road.				John Keyworth

	· A number of questions and points of view were put forward in relation to the towers at Tinsley, including the implications of demolishing the towers on the Tinsley Viaduct; that it would be sad if the towers were pulled down and that there might be alternative use for the towers as a leisure facility; the results of correspondence with the owners, E.ON; and that Tinsley Forum were awaiting a response from a letter sent to E.ON in relation to the towers.

	It was confirmed that the owners and the Highways Agency were satisfied that the towers could be removed without detriment to the Tinsley Viaduct, although there was a question of timing in that the motorway would need to be closed whilst the towers were demolished. The City Council did not have to give planning permission for the towers to be demolished. The Chair reported that the Local MP had written to relevant authorities in relation to the towers.

	Members of the public expressed a view that there would be some potential leisure or landmark use for the structures. The Director of Development Services, David Curtis, confirmed that English Heritage had advised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the structures were not suitable for listing.

	It was agreed that the owners of the site, E.ON be invited to a meeting of the Panel to discuss the future of the towers.				The Area Panel

	· Clarity was sought as to the reason for works on Grange Mill Lane – and it was reported that industrial units were being developed on site of Extech.

	· What was the progress on the plan to build a link road from the M1 to Sheffield Road? - The "half-penny link" was still in existence as a scheme and although a bid had been made to the Department of Transport for funding this was not granted, although it was still felt necessary to build the link road and an approach would be made for other funding to Yorkshire Forward and to private investors to try to obtain funding.

	· Progress on the bid for a casino site in Sheffield, including what would be the City Council’s preferred site for location of the casino and would there be proper community consultation in relation to the siting of any casino? - The Chair, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, stated that, at the present time, no preferred provider had been chosen and the City Council had not made a decision on the location of the casino or who would be the preferred operator. David Curtis added that upon the granting a licence for a casino in the City, by the Government, there would be an open competition on various sites and these would be evaluated and there would be consultation on any proposals.

5.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	· Whether the bus service linking the Morrisons site at Catcliffe to Darnall and Meadowhall could be increased in frequency? - A meeting had been arranged with the Commercial Director of First Buses on 20th December, 2006, relating to bus services in the Darnall, Attercliffe and Tinsley area and this matter would be raised at that meeting.

	· Question concerning the P1/P2 bus service - this was funded through the Passenger Transport Executive and development funding.

	It was noted that an announcement from Central Government was awaited in relation to lobbying undertaken concerning bus services.

	· An expansion of bus services was expected in connection with the development of employment sites at the Magna Business Development Site and Sheffield Road (Rotherham side).

	Discussions were being held with Rotherham MBC in relation to the establishment of a bus based alternative on the traffic corridor referred to by the questioner.

6.	AREA CO-ORDINATOR
	Councillor Mary Lea, on behalf of the Panel, expressed appreciation to Stella Mekonnen, the Area Co-ordinator who was leave the Darnall area to work in another part of the City.

7.	DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on Thursday, 25th January, 2007, at 6.00 p.m. at a venue to be confirmed in Handsworth.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |