You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Area Panels » Darnall » Agenda 25th March 2004 » SYTCP Minutes 29th January 2004
South Yorkshire Technology Corridor Partnership minutes 29th January 2004
SOUTH YORKSHIRE TECHNOLOGY CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP
Meeting held on 29th January, 2004 in the Town Hall, Rotherham
PRESENT:
Sheffield City Council: Councillor Terry Barrow (Chair), John Bownes, David Curtis and Philip Walshaw.
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council: Ruth Middleton.
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council: Greg Lindley, Helen Sleigh and Ken Wheat.
Objective 1 Programme Directorate: Nigel Tipple.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive: Graham Read.
Highways Agency: Peter Rawsthorne.
Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber: Gordon Glaister.
Voluntary and Community Sector: Neil Parry (Sheffield).
............
1. | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
1.1 | Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Terry Sharman, Richard Poundford and Carl Battersby (Rotherham MBC), Councillor Bill Denton (Barnsley MBC), David Owen (Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber), Ian Bramley (Renaissance South Yorkshire), Barry Stones (Chambers of Commerce) and Jackie Gill (Voluntary and Community Sector Rotherham). |
2. | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
2.1 | No declarations of interest were made. |
3. | MINUTES OF LAST MEETING |
3.1 | The minutes of the meeting of the Partnership held on 27th November, 2003, were approved as a correct record. |
4. | MATTERS ARISING |
4.1 | Regeneration in the Sheffield Upper Don Valley (Minute 7.3) |
John Bownes reported that the Registration of Interest Form was still being prepared by the promoter and was now expected to be received in February and possibly reported to the next meeting of the Partnership. | |
5. | WAVERLEY LINK ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY |
5.1 | Ken Wheat reminded the Partnership that the Sheffield/Rotherham Motorway Corridor Study (Babtie Report) had made a number of recommendations regarding transportation infrastructure improvements that would be necessary to permit the development proposals in the South Yorkshire Technology Corridor Strategic Employment Zone to go ahead. A new link road into the Waverley/Orgreave Development Site was one of these proposals, not only to accommodate developments, but also because of its possible implications for the surrounding strategic road network. He stated that, in Summer 2003, consultants were appointed by Rotherham MBC to undertake a study of options to improve accessibility and cater for the additional traffic associated with developments in the area of Waverley/Orgreave. After initial evaluation, seven options had been reduced to three for further consideration. In December, 2003, Rotherham MBC received a report on the study's findings and option 6 was recognised as the preferred option to provide a new link road between the B6200 at Woodhouse Mill and the B6066 at Highfield Spring. Authority had, therefore, been given to prepare an Annexe E application to the Department for Transport for funding approval and to embark on public consultation, with Sheffield City Council, about the preferred option and the other options. The formal comments of Sheffield City Council had also been sought. |
5.2 | David Curtis confirmed that the Consultants’ report had been received and that Sheffield would be responding to it. He asked about the absence in the study recommendations of any reference to planning applications and environmental improvements and how it was proposed to process the scheme bearing in mind it was not included in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Ken Wheat indicated that, until a view was received from the Government, Rotherham MBC did not propose to embark on a planning application, although the proposals would need to gel with the Waverley Masterplanning process and would be dealt with as part of the Local Development Framework/UDP Review. |
5.3 | A lengthy discussion took place during which the following issues were raised:- |
· The need for improvements to the B6066 Highfield Spring and its possible reclassification, having regard to the current HGV restrictions and its sub-standard nature, especially for public transport | |
· The need to look at how a new road would link into the Catcliffe Interchange with the A630 Parkway and the B6200/A57 junctions | |
· The need to mitigate the impact on Woodhouse Mill/Orgreave residents and how acceptable the loss of a local park facility might be, notwithstanding the proposed creation of a large new area of open public space as part of the development | |
· The possible disbenefits of consulting on all seven options | |
· Importance of not under-estimating the environmental impact of the new link road | |
· The implications of the Waverley Masterplan going ahead and the road proposals not being accepted. | |
· Residents of Brinsworth, Catcliffe and Treeton are already suffering from traffic congestion | |
· Need to make clear that option 6 is the favoured option and that consultations are full, honest and open and the need for this to be carefully represented in the Annexe E submission | |
5.4 | Ken Wheat confirmed that public consultation was planned to commence in March with a view to ensuring that everything was completed and collated in time for the Annexe E application, which would include an Environmental Impact Assessment, to be submitted to the Government by 31st July, 2004. |
6. | WAVERLEY MASTERPLAN - PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESPONSE |
6.1 | Helen Sleigh presented a report that had been agreed by Rotherham MBC in December, 2000 on the outcome of public consultations into plans by UK Coal to develop the Waverley (Orgreave Open Cast) into a new community which would include 3,700 new homes, other community facilities, parkland and more industrial and business development. She commented on the extensive consultation process undertaken jointly with UK Coal, Fuller Peiser, Rotherham and Sheffield Councils and Voluntary Action Rotherham and the innovative approach to community consultation brought about by the use of community consultation volunteers. She added that comments made through public meetings and from organisations and individuals had been summarised in a report that included replies from Rotherham MBC and she circulated a draft leaflet entitled "Waverley Masterplan - Public Consultation Response" that was proposed to be circulated in Rotherham and Sheffield. She emphasised that the opportunity to provide a mixed use community on the Waverley site would be taken forward and considered within the Unitary Development Plan review in the context of the Borough's overall housing needs, the phasing of any proposed new residential development, the requirements of the South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder and the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3. |
6.2 | The Partnership commended Rotherham on its good consultation exercise and suggested a rewording of the last sentence on the "What Happens Next" section in the Public Consultation Response leaflet. |
7. | SUPERTRAM EXTENSIONS: ANNEXE E SUBMISSION |
Further to minute 4.1.3 of the Partnership meeting held on 23rd October, 2003, Graham Read reported that the process had taken longer than expected, consultations had now been completed and a response was now expected from the Government by April, 2004. He added that a draft report was being finalised for submission to the March Passenger Transport Authority meeting, with further technical work being carried out so that options could be submitted to the April meeting of the Passenger Transport Authority. The report would also be submitted to the Sheffield and Rotherham Councils. | |
8. | M1 JUNCTIONS 33 AND 34 TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT STUDY |
8.1 | David Curtis submitted a copy of a study brief for the carrying out of a review of strategic transport initiatives in South Yorkshire, updating work undertaken as part of the Babtie Report, which sought to identify a package of multi-modal transport interventions over a 10 year period and determine what it would provide for and what it would enable. He stated that a draft final report on Stage 3A of the work, which was a review of those elements of the Babtie Study in the vicinity of junctions 33 and 34 of the M1 was expected by the end of February. A Steering Group had been set up to manage the study and Gordon Glaister asked if the Government Office could be represented on it. David Curtis stated that a meeting was to be held the following week and that a Government Office representative was welcome to attend. He added that Air Quality was missing from the study brief and the Group would make sure that the outcome of that work was included in the study. The Steering Group would report into the Memorandum of Understanding Partnership. |
8.2 | In relation to Stage 2 of the Study (Development Scenarios) he stated that all schemes in the pipeline could be accommodated, subject to appropriate phasing, although some reserve schemes might have to be brought forward. It was recognised that the Sheffield Business Park application, which had transport implications, would need to be added to the work of the Group. It was noted that the South Yorkshire Transport Group, which was chaired by Roy Wicks and looked at P6 interventions would be meeting in early March and would be looking at those schemes that had a reasonable chance of development. |
8.3 | Peter Rawthorne reported on work being done by the Highways Agency in relation to the SWYMMBUS study and would be recommending to the Minister by the end of March that three motorway sections, namely the provision of four lanes between junctions 31 to 33 and 39 to 42 of the M1 and junctions 25 to 27 of the M62 be included in a targeted programme of work to be agreed in August and then to look at what needed to be done at the junctions. It was anticipated that it would take three to four years before work on site actually started. In answer to a query about speed limits, he stated that if the four lanes were achieved by using the existing hard shoulder, narrower lanes could mean that a speed limit of 56 mph on these sections might be considered. |
8.4 | A question of whether a slip road might be constructed from the Waverley development into the M1 was raised and David Curtis stated that he was seeking a meeting with the Regional Director, along with Rotherham MBC, to find a solution to this and that he would report on the outcome of this to the next meeting of the Partnership. |
9. | M1 JUNCTIONS 33 AND 34 COMMUNITY FORUM |
9.1 | The Partnership received and noted the Action Notes of a meeting of the Community Forum held on 25th November, 2003 which centred around a review of how the Forum was performing. John Bownes orally reported on the proceedings of the meeting held on 28th January, 2004 which included discussions on the need for an improved dialogue between Councils and Community Organisations (including Area Panels/Assemblies), Environmental issues and Sustainability, Social Inclusion Targets and the Monitoring of Grants through Objective 1 and Yorkshire Forward. He added that Transport and Air Quality was to be discussed at the next meeting of the Forum on 2nd March, 2004. |
9.2 | Greg Lindley pointed out that funding for servicing the Forum meetings would run out at the end of March. Nigel Tipple advised that Objective 1 had made available £1.8m to the South Yorkshire Open Forum to enable them to support the Voluntary and Community Sector in engaging in the programme. He felt that the Junction 33/34 Community Forum should be able to seek the Open Forum’s support as he felt this was the type of positive engagement the Forum seeks to encourage within the sector and it was agreed that Greg Lindley be asked to ascertain annual costs for servicing the Forum and who could influence the allocation of funding to allow the Forum to continue. |
10. | REGISTRATION OF INTEREST FORM – WEEDON STREET, SHEFFIELD |
10.1 | John Bownes reported on a Registration of Interest Form that had been received for the development of sites around Weedon Street and Brightside Lane. He stated that the applicants had been advised that Objective 1 funds were unlikely to be forthcoming unless additional resources had been identified and/or the project was considered to have greater priority than those already identified for Objective 1. |
10.2 | He expressed concerns at the high traffic generation anticipated from this development and the negative impact that it was likely to have on new economic activity in this area and at the proposed level of office development in this location. For this reason, it was considered that the inclusion of Lower Don Valley sites at junction 34, which included this site at Weedon Street, was appropriately identified as a reserved scheme. It was, therefore, recommended that the application be not invited to proceed to a full ERDF application. |
10.3 | It was agreed that the views now expressed be endorsed by the Partnership and the paper be referred to the Project Review Task Team which is currently assessing progress of Priority 5 activity within the remaining programme period. |
11. | REGISTRATION OF INTEREST FORM - VANTAGE PARK, SHEFFIELD |
11.1 | John Bownes reported on a Registration of Interest Form that had been received for a development at Vantage Park situated east of the M1 motorway and north of Sheffield Road, Tinsley. He stated that the applicants had been advised that Objective 1 funds were unlikely to be forthcoming unless additional resources had been identified and/or the project was considered to have greater priority than those already identified for Objective 1. |
11.2 | He stated that the site had major highways capacity issues, notwithstanding the current planning permission and it was considered that the inclusion of Lower Don Valley sites at junction 34, which included this site at Vantage Park, was appropriately identified as a reserve scheme. Whilst it was recognised that development as proposed would make an important contribution to regeneration in the Strategic Employment Zone, it did not at this stage justify dislocation of other sites in the Integrated Development Plan which are at an early or advanced stage of development. It was recommended, therefore, that the applicant be not invited to proceed to a full ERDF application at this point in time. |
11.3 | John Bownes also reported and concurred with the views of Ian Bramley, who felt that this was a particularly important gateway site in a prominent location visible from the M1 and one of the main roads into Rotherham. He agreed that the office element was high and more industrial space would be preferable but suspected that this might affect the financial viability of the scheme. He felt that the Task Team should be made aware of the importance of this site to both Sheffield and Rotherham Gateways when considering the reserve list, particularly if the applicant could review the office element. Greg Lindley concurred with these views on behalf of Rotherham. |
11.4 | It was agreed that the views now expressed be endorsed by the Partnership and the paper be referred to the Project Review Task Team which is currently assessing progress of Priority 5 activity within the remaining programme period. |
12. | SEZ 2003 SITE CATEGORISATION AND OUTPUT REVIEW |
12.1 | Nigel Tipple reported that the Performance Management Board would be reviewing all prioritised projects to gauge whether they could still go ahead and within timescale. Local Authorities were to be given a month to review schemes and letters would be going out to lead bodies by the end of the week seeking responses by 8th March, 2004 in order that a report could be given to the next meeting of the Task Group on 15th March, 2004. A decision would then be made on which schemes would go ahead, which schemes would be taken out and which schemes would be included on a reserve list. He added that a report would then be submitted to the Performance Management Board in April and would subsequently be submitted to this Partnership. |
13. | AIR QUALITY ACTION PLAN |
13.1 | It was agreed that arrangements be made for an update to be submitted to the next meeting of the Partnership on the Air Quality Action Plan. |
14. | DATE OF NEXT MEETING |
14.1 | The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 26th February, 2004 at 2.00 p.m. in the Town Hall, Rotherham. |
How useful is this page?