Darnall Area Panel Minutes 17th July 2003

DARNALL AREA PANEL


Meeting held 17th July, 2003 at Phillimore Park NIJ School


PRESENT:		Councillors Terry Barrow (Chair), Mohammad Altaf, Harry Harpham and Mary Lea.

		Also in attendance:-
		John Mothersole	-	Executive Director, Development, Environment and Leisure (Lead Manager)

		Mark Swancott	-	Area Support Officer

		John Bownes	-	Planning, Transport and Highways

		Sue Greig Geraldine Roberts Baljit Sanghera	) ) )	South East Sheffield Primary Care Trust

		Richard Newton John Bowles	) )	Fuller Peiser

		Eddie Peat	-	UK Coal Mining Limited

		Alan Mitchell	-	Rotherham MBC

		John Turner	-	Committee Secretariat

		There were approximately 12 members of the public and representatives from 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.	PLANS FOR THE WAVERLEY SITE
	The Panel received a presentation from Fuller Peiser, consultants for UK Coal Mining Limited on the proposed development by UK Coal Mining Limited, of the Waverley Site. Prior to the main presentation, Eddie Peat, Director, Harworth Estates, the property division of UK Coal Mining Limited, reported briefly on the history of the Waverley Development Site, and the steps taken with regard to the proposed development of the site prior to the production of the Consultation Masterplan Report.
	Mr. Peat stated that the Waverley Site was owned by UK Coal, together with the Orgreave Reclamation Scheme site, and collectively, this land was known as the Waverley Development Site. UK Coal had been working closely with Rotherham MBC to secure the redevelopment of the land following the completion of the opencast mining and site preparation for development. The Company had acquired the land at the beginning of 1995 and had inherited the plans to reclaim, and consequently redevelop the site at that time. All the contamination on the site had been cleared and the coal extraction was programmed to be completed in 2005. A programme of restoration and compaction works was being carried out at the same time as the extraction works and this would continue until 2007. Mr. Peat stated that in relation to the restored area, UK Coal had a joint venture with Yorkshire Forward for the creation of a 100 acre Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park and the service provision of electricity, gas, sewage and surface drainage would be in place before the end of this year. It had been agreed with Rotherham MBC that a Masterplan would be prepared, showing development proposals for the Orgreave Site and how they fitted in with the Advanced Manufacturing Park, as well as the locality. A Masterplan had now been prepared for the Waverley Development Site, which incorporated comments by officers of Rotherham MBC and it was hoped that the Masterplan would form the basis of future planning applications for the site and of planning policy for the site for the next 15 to 20 years. The presentation by Fuller Peiser was part of a major consultation exercise on the initial proposals for the redevelopment of the site and similar presentations would be made to other local groups/bodies. In addition, the proposals would be publicised at local events, open days, community centres and other local venues as part of the consultation process.
	John Bowles, Fuller Peiser, gave a detailed presentation on the contents of the Waverley Masterplan, covering the purpose and proposed phasing of the Masterplan, the context to the masterplanning exercise and the way ahead.
	Mr. Bowles reported that the masterplanning exercise had a number of purposes. Firstly, compaction of the site for development was at the critical stage and UK Coal needed to establish the full extent of compaction to be undertaken and the masterplanning process had sought to identify the capacity of the site to accommodate development, to inform decisions on the extent of compaction. The masterplanning process had also been undertaken to (a) help inform the current review of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (UDP), with the site falling within the administrative boundary of the borough of Rotherham, (b) identify opportunities for early development of the site and provide a wider context against which to consider proposals for the Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park, (c) identify infrastructure that would be needed to accommodate development, and the associated costs, (d) help to support any application for public funding for the proposals, including Objective 1 funding and (e) provide a vision of how the site might look in the future.
	The site was located approximately three miles south of Rotherham Town Centre and three miles east of Sheffield City Centre. The total size of the site was 295 hectares and was surrounded by the existing settlements of Catcliffe, Treeton, Orgreave, Woodhouse Mill and Handsworth. The site had an extensive and complex history of coal mining and associated industrial activity dating back over 200 years. In April, 1995, the Orgreave Reclamation Scheme had commenced, the aims of which were to clear up areas of contamination and dereliction associated with the former colliery and coking works, and to restore the site for future development and amenity. The Scheme had been informed by a Masterplan prepared by Llewlyn Davis in 1992, that proposed a new "working village", incorporating employment and housing uses, a golf course and an ornamental lake. As part of the reclamation scheme, a phased programme of compaction works was being taken forward, with all of the land on the site to be available by 2007.
	Mr. Bowles referred to the three areas of the site, the Advanced Manufacturing Park at the northern end of the site, which was approximately 57 hectares, the remainder of the proposed development area, which was approximately 118 hectares and the Green Belt land across the southern end of the site, which was approximately 120 hectares.
	It was reported that there were two phases of development in connection with the Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park and that planning consent had been granted by Rotherham MBC for Phase 1 of the development. Phase 2 was currently the subject of a planning application being determined by Rotherham MBC.
	Mr. Bowles then went on to describe the specific site factors that were being taken into account as part of the masterplanning process, which included the site restoration process, requirements to reinstate roads and footpaths that formerly crossed the site, opportunities presented by the passenger and freight railways on the western and eastern boundaries of the site, respectively, the Sheffield Parkway, the River Rother, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive's proposals to extend the Supertram to Rotherham, including the possibility of an extension to the Waverley Development Site, linkages to existing communities and the Green Belt boundary across the site, which the proposals sought to maintain.
	Mr. Bowles stated that the Waverley Development Site was a major development opportunity and represented the largest single source of brownfield development land in South Yorkshire, potentially offering the key focus for future development activity in the area. The Rotherham UDP recognised the potential of the site for development and identified approximately 108 hectares as being available for employment uses and a further area of land up to the Green Belt boundary in which the UDP envisaged a range of other uses after 2006. A review of the Rotherham UDP had started with an Issues Report, which had been published in late 2002, and in which the Waverley Development Site had been identified as one of two possible opportunities to create sustainable communities.
	Mr. Bowles emphasised that thinking on the planning of major development sites had moved on since the adoption of the Rotherham UDP. The masterplanning exercise had incorporated guidance set down in the Government's Urban White Paper - "Our Towns and Cities: The Future Delivering an Urban Renaissance" (November, 2002) and other best practice design guidance with the aim of creating a sustainable community. In this context, the White Paper placed a high degree of emphasis on the use of brownfield land and encouraged mixed use development that gave people the opportunity to easily walk to work, shops, leisure and other facilities.
	The masterplanning team had considered a number of different development scenarios for the site, ranging from employment predominant to residential predominant proposals. The proposals presented in the Masterplan represented a balance between employment and residential development, with the employment proposals having the potential accommodate around 7,500 jobs and the proposals for residential development having the potential to accommodate a population of around 8,000 (approximately 3,700 dwellings). Mr. Bowles emphasised that the Masterplan would need to allow for flexibility to respond to changing market and planning requirements in the future, given a likely 20 year timescale for the proposals to be completed.
	Mr. Bowles reported that the Masterplan was organised to allow for the creation of a new community that would become part of the urban pattern between Sheffield and Rotherham, integrated with, and providing benefits to, existing joining communities.
	Mr. Bowles described the key features of the Masterplan, indicating that proposals for further employment development were included to the south of the Advanced Manufacturing Park site, with an area of predominantly residential development to the south of that employment development and restored Green Belt land to the south of the residential development, incorporating a new lake. Three local centres were proposed to serve the site, which would be the focus for local shops and other services. Highfield Central would serve the employment areas on the northern part of the site, Waverley Village would form the heart of the residential development and would be the location for community facilities such as schools and medical facilities and Waverley Station would be located adjacent to the Sheffield to Lincoln railway line, and would incorporate a rail halt and commercial uses.
	A range of densities of housing was proposed, which was between 40 and 90 units per hectares, with the highest densities at the centres to support essential shops and other amenities. This density range would enable a wide variety of housing types to be built, from one-bedroom apartments to detached houses, to meet peoples differing needs.
	Approximately 50% of the site was proposed for open space and this would include small parks within the areas proposed for residential development, a linear park providing a green corridor through the development to the River Rother, and incorporating a mix of recreation uses, including playing areas and sports pitches, a new 20 hectare lake within the restored Green Belt, providing opportunities for recreation and a high quality setting for housing, and large recreational parkland areas.
	As part of the layout of the site, a well-connected street pattern was proposed, providing convenient and direct routes for pedestrians and cyclists. A network of cycleways and footpaths was also proposed, connecting the local centres with area of housing and commercial activity, and to the wider footpath and cycle networks surrounding the area.
	Good public transport links were a key ingredient of the Transport Strategy, as well as a key aim of reducing the need to travel by providing employment and housing opportunities on the site. The local centres would be the focus for public transport services. The Masterplan builds in Supertram stops at each of the centres, which would also be complemented by bus services. Mr. Bowles identified that the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive planned the provision of Supertram stops on the basis that people would be unlikely to walk further than 800 metres (approximately a 10 minute walk). All of the development proposed on the site would be within 800 metres of a Supertram stop, with most being within 400 metres (approximately a five minute walk) of a Supertram stop. In addition, all of the development would be within 400 metres of a bus stop.
	The main objective of the highways element of the strategy was to provide good links to the strategic highway network via the A630 Parkway, giving access to Rotherham and Sheffield and the M1. The Masterplan included the potential to accommodate a link road from the Parkway to connect with the B6200, providing access to Junction 31 of the M1. The link road was identified in a Government Office study as a proposal to relieve traffic congestion in the M1 area. The need for, and the feasibility of a link road, was currently the subject of a detailed study by Rotherham MBC. If constructed, the link road would extend the existing Highfield Spring, which was proposed as the main access to the site.
	As part of the drainage and services strategy, it was reported that the Waverley Advanced Manufacturing Park was already being serviced through the Joint Venture and that the services and drainage in the remainder of the development would be, where possible, located in proposed service corridors. The location of these corridors would be governed by site-specific factors resulting from the present opencast operations. The design of services and drainage would therefore require careful consideration to fit in with the ongoing site restoration process.
	Mr. Bowles gave an indication of the likely phasing of the proposals, indicating that a development of the scale proposed would be likely to take around 20 years to complete.
	Mr. Bowles described the next steps in the masterplanning process, indicating that responses to the consultation process were to be analysed by officers of Rotherham MBC. The results of the consultation process were to be considered by Rotherham MBC and Members of the Council would be asked whether they supported the principle of the Masterplan, in consultation with Sheffield City Council. The outcome of that decision would then inform future steps. UK Coal's aim was to promote the proposals through the Rotherham UDP review process, leading to planning applications. Mr. Bowles emphasised that the present consultation being undertaken was therefore only one step in the overall process.
	Arising from the presentation, the following questions were asked and responses given:-

	Q. Whilst residents welcomed the construction of a highway link from the B6200 Woodhouse Mill to the Parkway, this would not however relieve the heavy traffic congestion through Handsworth. Were there any plans to relieve this congestion from Darnall to Handsworth and were there any plans to either strengthen or widen Highfield Bridge, which was often the cause of major bottlenecks?

	R. Any proposal for a link road would need to be supported by evidence that it would function properly. The masterplanning team were aware of the traffic problems in the local areas surrounding the site and, as part of the development works, it was expected that measures would be taken both to relieve traffic congestion in these areas and to strengthen Highfield Bridge to complement any link road. He emphasised that Sheffield and Rotherham Councils would also need to take measures to get drivers to use the new link road to relieve congestion in Darnall and Handsworth.
	As part of the masterplanning process, UK Coal was undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment that would include a Traffic Impact Assessment. In addition to this, a separate assessment was being undertaken by Rotherham MBC on the need for, and feasibility of, a new link road. Although it was difficult to provide a detailed response with regard to the potential effects of the relief road in relieving congestion in Darnall and Handsworth at this stage, more detail would be provided after the various assessments had been undertaken.

	Q. What community facilities were being provided on the site and in the surrounding area as there was a lack of such facilities in the area? There would be a need for at least one new secondary school and two new primary schools in the area. At present, there were two secondary schools in the locality, which were both full and there were no vacancies in the surrounding schools.

	R. There may be a need to provide a new secondary school and two new primary schools in the surrounding area and discussions were being held with the Local Education Authorities in both Rotherham and Sheffield on this issue. There was a need to look at existing provision and population trends with regard to school provision.

	Q. Would any new community facilities be funded through a Section 106 Planning Gain Agreement? Was there scope for off-site provision?

	R. It was considered that in any proposals of the scale shown in the Masterplan, it was likely that there would be a large commitment to the provision of community facilities. It was emphasised that the consultation process offered people the opportunity to identify local needs for community facilities, which would inform decisions on the provision of facilities, including whether some would be best provided off-site or through links to existing facilities.

	Q. With regard to transport links to the estate between Darnall and Handsworth, could it be ensured that the public transport infrastructure would be in place before the development was completed?

	R. If plans were approved for the extension of Supertram, the possible route from Sheffield to Hellaby/Maltby would pass through the site, which would potentially provide three stops, including a bus, rail and bus-tram interchange at Waverley. The South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive's aim was to complete the extensions in 2008, which would tie with the completion of Phase 1 of the development. The point was made by the Lead Manager however, that funding in respect of any possible extensions to Supertram had not yet been secured, and on this basis, there was a need to be aware that there could be slippages in the programmes in respect of both projects. Should the timescale in respect of one of the projects change, there needed to be something put in place to ensure that the slippage did not have a major adverse "knock-on" effect.
	In addition to Supertram, bus service provision was a key part of the public transport proposals. Through the Advance Manufacturing Park proposal, Yorkshire Forward was aiming to secure the provision of bus services into the site from an early stage in the occupation of the site.

	Q. What consideration had been given, as part of the development, to the provision of health services for the residents of both Rotherham and Sheffield?

	R. There are references in the Masterplan report relating to the provision of medical facilities. UK Coal has been approached by a health provider, who has indicated that they wished to provide some form of health facility on the site.

	Q. As it was envisaged that there would be a number of high tech industries on the site, there was a potential that there would be a number of workers on high salaries, who would most likely either reside or wish to reside in one of the more wealthy areas of Rotherham or Sheffield, and not wish to live on the site. Had any consideration been given to this?

	R. Work is underway by agencies involved in the Objective 1 programme to seek to provide training opportunities for local people to help ensure that local people can access jobs associated with the Advanced Manufacturing Park. In addition to the highly-skilled jobs, attracting high salaries, there would also be a number of other jobs, attracting a wide range of salaries, including retail and other service sector, and a range of office jobs. A variety of housing types is proposed from one-bedroom apartments to detached properties, set within a high quality landscape. By providing such choice, the aim is to attract people with different needs and salaries to both work and live on the site.

	Q. As the Advanced Manufacturing Park and other commercial development would be constructed prior to the housing, where were the employees going to live?


	R. It had been accepted that this is an issue, but it was hoped that the jobs available would attract local people and that some would eventually move to live on the site when the housing was constructed. It was also highlighted that the timing of the development of employment and housing would overlap, in that some housing would be provided at the same as the commercial development.

	Q. Had any consideration been given to the fact that it was highly unlikely that the bus companies would put on additional services before there was a demand?

	R. This had been accepted as an issue in the Advanced Manufacturing Park proposals, but Yorkshire Forward is liasing with the bus companies in order to see if additional services could be provided to and from the site.

	Q. Has the contamination on the site been adequately dealt with?

	R. There was contamination on the site which was associated with the former colliery and coking works, and which UK Coal had an obligation to clear up. As part of the Orgreave Reclamation Scheme, the contaminated materials have been cleared and placed in a containment cell on the site, which was constructed of compacted mud stone and lined with a butile liner, and the top of the area had been sealed, waterproofed and grassed over. There would be no construction works on top of this particular area. The decontamination process had been monitored by a firm of consultants, and overseen by the Environment Agency as part of formal waste management licensing arrangements. In addition, a bond has been put in place by UK Coal to pay for monitoring should UK Coal cease to exist at any point in the future.

	Q. What were the toxic substances on the site?

	R. The information was not available to hand, but it had been identified that a record on the substances in the containment cell has been created.

	Q. What effects would the development have on the existing communities?

	R. The issues relating to the surrounding communities' needs, such as traffic flow, would be dealt with as part of the masterplanning process and the ongoing consultation exercise. The consultation process offered local people the opportunity to highlight specific needs in the area.

	Q. Had consideration been given to the management of the green open spaces, particularly in the light of the fact that strict monitoring would be needed with regard to the planting and future care of trees in the light of the former use of the site?

	R. In a development of this scale, it is normal practice for a company to be employed specifically to manage open green spaces.

	Q. When will the landscaping of the public areas be undertaken and the lake be created?

	R. The landscaping of public areas and the creation of a lake on the site would need to be undertaken at an early stage in the development of housing to help create an environment in which developers will want to invest and people will want to live.

	RESOLVED: That (a) the information reported as part of the presentation, together with the comments now made, be noted;
	(b) the thanks of the Panel be conveyed to Eddie Peat and Peter Bowles for the presentations now made; and
	(c) arrangements be made for the Panel to be kept informed of the progress of the proposed development on the Waverley Development Site at future meetings of the Panel.

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

4.	MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the Panel's meeting held on 22nd May, 2003, were approved as a correct record.

5.	DATE OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Panel will be held on Thursday, 25th September, 2003, at 6.00 p.m., at a venue to be confirmed.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |