Minutes of Darnall Area Panel 8 September 2005

DARNALL AREA PANEL


Notes of Meeting held on 8th September, 2005,at Handsworth Methodist Church, Handsworth

PRESENT:		Councillors Mary Lea (Chair) and Mick Rooney.

		Officers in attendance:-
		David Curtis	-	Lead Manager
		Stella Mekonnen	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Debbie Merrill	-	Development Services
		Kevin Platt	-	Highway Management Service
		Jason Dietsch	-	Committee Secretariat
		Morag Brandon	-	ECUS Consultancy
		Maurice Littlewood	-	Handsworth Community Forum

		Approximately 75 members of the public and representatives from local community groups attended the meeting.

(NOTE: The Chair explained that as the Panel was inquorate at the commencement of the meeting an informal discussion would be held on the following items).
…………………..

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM PANEL MEMBERS
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mohammad Altaf and Harry Harpham.

2.	MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
	The minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on the 26th May, 2005 were noted.

3.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	The following questions were raised by members of the public and responses were provided as follows:-
	A number of local residents referred to the alleged proposal for the siting of a mosque at Handsworth and Mr. Maurice Littlewood stated that he understood that there was no plan for a mosque in Handsworth and that no planning application had been received by the City Council for the construction of a Mosque in Handsworth.
	David Curtis, Head of Development Services, Sheffield City Council stated that the City Council were not involved in selling off the land which had been subject to a bidding process overseen by an estate agent and the Council had no record of the successful bid or at the present time and no record of any application to site a mosque on the land referred to. He added that any planning application submitted would be subject to the normal planning process of the City Council which would include full consultation with interested parties and, in the case of significantly large applications, possible consultation could take place through the Area Panel, but he reinforced the point that the Planning Board could not predetermine any application, explaining the Planning Board was made up of Councillors who made the final decision on any given planning application.
	The following additional questions were asked by members of the public attending the meeting:

	· Whether members of the public would have a say or be consulted on any planning application

	· Whether local people would be disadvantaged if there was not a local Councillor involved in taking the decision on the Planning Board

	· Who owned the land behind site of the former filling station.

	· Concern that local people’s views would not be taken into account

	· Whether adequate notification would be given to local people if an application was submitted to the Council

	· The effects on traffic if a large scale development was to be constructed at Handsworth

	· Whether elected members would be give proper guidance by Council officers at Planning Boards.

	Progress of Kettlebridge School
	The Area Co-ordinator, Stella Mekonnen, stated that she had spoken to the conservation officer of the City Council and informed those attending the meeting that the issue of Kettlebridge School was to be seen as a priority with an urgent work notice to be submitted during the week commencing 12th September, 2005. She drew attention to the protracted process involved in any enforcement to the work at the School.

	Development of Handsworth School Site, Fitzalan Road, Handsworth
	A local resident referred to progress in relation to the development of the Handsworth School site including the replacement of the community hut and development of the boxing club and Councillor Mick Rooney responded that discussions in relation to the development of the site had re-opened at his request with the landowner Ackroyds and Abbott and he was hopeful that a decision would be forthcoming.

	Road works on Handsworth Road
	Road works being undertaken by Yorkshire Water were referred to by a local resident who was concerned at the disruption caused by the road works and the time being taken to complete the works and it was suggested that Yorkshire Water be asked to carry out all necessary work on the highway at the same time so that the road surface did not need to be repeatedly dug up.

4	RETFORD ROAD
	The Panel received a report from Kevin Platt, Highways Management Service, in relation to road safety measures to be designed for Retford Road in the light of accidents and resultant injuries along that highway particularly involving children going to and from school. Plans for the road safety measures were not yet complete but would be brought to a meeting of the Area Panel and he informed the Panel that the scheme was now in the programme for work to be designed in the current financial year with construction to take place in the financial year 2006/07. He stated that there had been 22 accidents at the junction with Asda in a five-year period. South Yorkshire Police had agreed to alter the speed limit on Beaver Hill Road to a 30mph limit and part of the scheme would involve the alteration of the speed limit on Retford Road to 30mph together with the installation of other safety measures including the narrowing of the carriageway width and construction of refuges in the road. One particular problem at the present time was of car users and other vehicle users parking on verges and children attempting to cross the highway would not be visible to road users. In addition, the camera safety partnership had made an application to the Department of Transport for an order to make the entire length of Retford Road an enforcement route.
	A local resident stated that two crossing patrols position had recently been lost from Handsworth Grange School and from Ballifield Primary School and there was a strong belief that crossings on the road should be properly supervised around the schools. In response, Kevin Platt stated that Beaver Hill Road was an authorised location for school crossing points and the Council did have the financial resources to pay for a crossing patrol at that location.
	A resident asked a further question concerning persistent parking on the verge on Retford Road and stated that she had been in correspondence with the local MP who had informed her that parking on the verge was not legal. Particular problems of parking on the verges were identified at school pick up and drop off times. Kevin Platt responded that waiting restrictions were in force on Handsworth Road making it an urban clearway between the hours of 4.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. In response to a further question concerning the extension of the 30mph limit on highways, Kevin Platt explained that there was a legal process involved including the advertising of proposals to make a traffic Order whereby objections to any Order would be submitted to the Council’s Planning and Highways Board. If there were no objections to the extension to the 30mph limits proposed it was hoped that such limits could be enforced in the current financial year.
	A resident sought clarification as to how far from a “T” junction vehicles were permitted to park and Kevin Platt responded that the distance was 11 metres from a junction in the hours of darkness and it was required that vehicles had their lights on. It was reported that vehicles parked continuously on Richmond Avenue, close to the junction which obstructed the view to people wishing to turn out of that junction and Kevin Platt responded that if the questioner passed details to him he would request that a highways officer investigate this matter.
	A local resident asked a question concerning the installation of particular traffic calming measures of the kind installed as part of the Burncross Road traffic calming scheme and Kevin Platt responded that these comments would be passed onto highways officers.
	A local resident asked whether on Rotherham Road there could be lights installed to aid the access into the main road from their driveway and a response was made that finance for related highway improvement was likely to be forthcoming from the housing development on Rotherham Road and in particular the junction at that location.
	A further comment was made that speed humps were not effective in solving speed problems which could be easily overcome by buses, lorries and motorcyclists. In response to a question from a local resident concerning the targeting of motorists using bus lanes David Curtis responded that there was an agreement with South Yorkshire Police to fund extra enforcement of bus lanes and that some contribution was made to this by bus companies but the majority was funded by the City Council. He added that in future, from November, 2005 local authorities would have the power to enforce moving offences.
	Further concern was raised concerning parking on grass verges along Retford Road and the speed of traffic using that highway. The point was also made that a weight restriction could be placed on the highway to limit the number of large vehicles and Kevin Platt responded that a request could be made for a survey to count the number of vehicles greater than 7.5tonnes. Further to this, concern was expressed that with the development of the Waverley Industrial Estate the number of large vehicles would increase.
	In response to a question concerning the parking of cars on grass verges along Ballifield Road, Kevin Platt stated that it was hoped that bollards could be included as part of the safety scheme to limit the occurrence of such parking.
	In response to a comment made concerning the use of clamping on vehicles parking on verges, David Curtis stated that Council could only act where it had enforcement powers and if there were no restrictions or there was no traffic order in place (for example, no yellow lines) then the Council would not be able to enforce such as measure. In response to a number of points made concerning the parking of vehicles on junctions, Kevin Platt stated that parking of vehicles on verges was only illegal at present if it caused damage to the verge and he stated that parking near to a junction in the daytime was not illegal.
	Following further comments concerning the illegal use by motorists of bus lanes, David Curtis stated that technology was now available whereby cameras could be installed to read the number plate of vehicles using bus lanes illegally and to use this as photographic evidence to enforce any restriction of traffic.
	The report and comments made were noted.

5.	HANDSWORTH RECREATION GROUND – MASTERPLAN
	The Chair, Councillor Mary Lea, requested Maurice Littlewood, Chair of the Handsworth Community Forum, to inform the Panel of the background to plans for improvements to Handsworth Recreation Ground for which the Area Panel had provided funding for consultation. It was intended that the Park be regenerated and a professional consultation company had been employed to undertake the further consultation work required with local residents. He introduced Morag Brandon (ECUS Consultancy) who provided support for the Forum and the Area Panel in the development of plans for an improved play area and improved pitches. Consultation was carried out as part of a fund and questionnaires were distributed from which positive feedback had been received whereby local residents were supportive of initiatives to improve the Park. Whilst there had been a good response from the adult community few young people had expressed a view and those persons at the meeting were requested to identify groups of young people and those representing young people who might wish to become involved in the consultation.
	50 responses had been received to the questionnaire supporting improved play areas to include fencing; the laying of a safety surface; installation of a vehicle access barrier to prevent inappropriate use by motorcycles and cars; improvements to footpaths and drainage to sports pitches; lighting, especially at entrances to the Park; the provision of a mini-soccer/basketball area and the installation of dog bins together with an education and enforcement plan to encourage people to use the dog bins and the repair and painting of the changing hut. Concern was expressed that if gangs of youths started to congregate in the park once it had been redeveloped facilities would be adversely affected and in response Morag Brandon stated that development work could be undertaken with such groups of young people.
	A local resident stated that a park keeper was required to ensure that young children could play safely in the park. It was suggested that work be done with schools perhaps by the use of anonymous questionnaires for pupils or through work with the school council if the school had such a body.
	A representative of Sheffield Futures stated that discussions had been held with teenagers and Sheffield Futures had experience of working with teenagers to gain their views. He added that there was difficulty with a particular group of youths using the park who did not access supported or structured activities offered by organisations such as Sheffield Futures.
	The Panel were informed that there were examples of best practice in terms of consultation and outcomes in relation to development of parks including the extension of football clubs at sites such as Mather Road whereby a partnership was developed. The Chair, Councillor Mary Lea suggested that comments be passed to Morag Brandon.
	Following a question from a local resident concerning the role of the consultancy company, Morag Brandon stated that she was employed by an environmental consultancy and had been contacted by the Area Co-ordinator and the Community Forum to provide additional support in developing plans for the recreation ground and the resultant report to which the consultancy would contribute would go towards obtaining funds to implement the Plan.
	A local resident stated that currently access to the recreation ground did not include suitable access for disabled people and in particular wheelchair users and those using electric scooters and Maurice Littlewood reported that an ‘A’ frame had now been installed to accept the width of a wheelchair.
	A local resident stated that the area had no café, community centre or library and an aspiration would be to see a community building developed run by local people which could serve as a meeting place for the community, young and old, at which facilities would be located in one place and Maurice Littlewood reported to this stating that such a scheme would be the long term aim of the Forum.
	A further point was raised concerning the provision of greater security at the recreation ground and Morag Brandon responded that one of the aims of moving the play area to a different location (at the top of the park) were to make this more visible and in addition work was being done with groups of young people through Sheffield Futures with the aim of young people taking some ownership for the park.
	The Panel were informed that the contact for Morag Brandon was: 0114 2669292 and those present at the meeting were informed that they could speak to her with suggestions on how to improve the park especially with regard to gaining the views of young people individually.
	Maurice Littlewood stated that it was hoped that one area of the park could be designated a quiet area and it was envisaged that the community could work on the landscaping and planting for that area.
	The Panel noted the report together with the comments made.

6.	WAVERLEY LINK ROAD
	David Curtis, Lead Manager presented a report to the Panel updating them on the situation in relation to the Waverley Link Road. He stated that a scheme had been submitted to the Department of Transport by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and a decision from the Department was likely in December, 2005 or in the early new year and that the Panel would be informed of the outcome.
	A comment was made that if option “E” was rejected by the Department of Transport on cost grounds then would a less expensive alternative be accepted by the Department of Transport such as option “C” which ran near to the river or option “D” which ran over the railway and David Curtis responded that both options C and A had proved unacceptable to local people according to earlier consultation.
	A local resident stated that he had submitted alternative proposals to alleviate traffic as the majority of traffic through the Handsworth area was in fact through traffic and had undertaken the survey counting the number of cars and measuring the amount of pollution and noise.
	Further discussion was held concerning the development of the former open cast area managed by UK Coal which at one time had been proposed as a country park and David Curtis responded that such a proposal to develop this area for housing as indicated by the questioner would need to be determined by Sheffield City Council and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Councils with the City Council as a consultee whereas Rotherham were the planning authority. Councillor Mick Rooney added that although there were plans for a country park at that site some 10 to 15 years ago this had been part of the agreement to allow open cast mining on the site and he acknowledged that local people were upset at the outcome as they had thought that the site would be restored to nature. He stated that in South Yorkshire there was a process of market renewal to improve housing stock, which had declined in terms of its physical condition and its value. It was hoped that the proposed development of housing on the former open cast site would be part of discussions dealt with by the partnership overseeing market renewal.
	Maurice Littlewood stated that he believed there was nothing as yet on paper regarding an application for housing on the site although there were proposals to create a flood plain and wildlife area and David Curtis added that this recreational area was considerably reduced from that originally envisaged.
	A question was asked concerning the effect on traffic volumes if the ‘Yes’ project at Rother Valley Park went ahead to which David Curtis responded that the City Council had indeed objected to the previous scheme and the project had now been revised but he was awaiting further consultation on the revised project.
	In response to a further question on the likelihood of Sheffield City Council funding a link road for Waverley David Curtis stated that the scheme, if carried out, would be funded by the Department of Transport.
	In response to a further question concerning whether Supertram would be extended to the Handsworth area to include a park and ride provision, David Curtis stated that the Government was no longer enthusiastic regarding further development of the Supertram scheme although there was a bid for an extension from Meadowhall to Rotherham City Centre. In addition, Councillor Mick Rooney stated that he felt that the Government were now no longer so supportive of light rail compared to their initial enthusiasm. Further discussion was held in relation to the status of light rail in other cities and the extent to which Supertram had been successful.
	A question was asked concerning whether UK Coal had entered into an agreement regarding the future use of the open cast site as a nature reserve and David Curtis responded that Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council were the local authority for that area although no planning application for housing had yet been received.
	A further question was asked concerning whether a local Councillor could be co-opted onto one of the relevant City Planning and Highway Boards and David Curtis responded that if there were such co-option, local Councillors would not be able to represent the views of their constituents but if they were not actual members of the Planning and Highways Board they were able to represent constituents views.
	Discussion was held concerning the acceptance of planning permission for a private housing estate on Finchwell Road including the building of 300 homes and how this could be accessed by road and in response it was stated that an answer could be provided to the questioner who was also advised that details of the application could be found at the Council offices at Howden House in the city centre.
	The Panel noted the report and comments received.

7.	DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
	It was noted that the next meeting of the Panel would be held on Thursday, 29th September, 2005 starting at 6.00 p.m. at a venue to be confirmed.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |