Netherthorpe Walkley Hillsborough Area Panel Minutes 20th May 2004

NETHERTHORPE/WALKLEY/HILLSBOROUGH AREA PANEL

Meeting held 20th May, 2004 at Hillsborough Library

PRESENT:

Councillors Jonathan Harston (Chair), Janet Bragg, Veronica Hardstaff and Robert MacDonald.

Also in attendance:-

Ms Rebecca Maddox (Joint Area Co-ordinator)

Ms Lisa Lyon (Joint Area Co-ordinator)

Ms Jane Bullimore (Area Support Officer)

Kathy Parsons (Development Services)

Denise Bell (Social Services Social Inclusion Team)

Peter Bull (Development Services)

Martin Dutch (Leisure Services)

Steve Handley (Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Service)

Peter Ward (Yorkshire Water)

Ms Pam Horner (South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive)

Barbara Frost (South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive)

Mike Nuttall (First South Yorkshire)

Paula Macintosh (West Primary Care Trust)

Patrick Burns (Legal and Administrative Services)

And 28 members of the public.

............

1.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

            Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sylvia Anginotti, Steve Ayris and Diane Leek

2.

NORTH SHEFFIELD TRANSPORT PLAN

            Ms Pam Horner South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and Mike Nuttall, First South Yorkshire gave a presentation regarding the North Sheffield Transport Plan, a joint project involving the City Council, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and First South Yorkshire, to provide improved public transport services in the north Sheffield area.       

            They stated that during the next few weeks considerable publicity would be given to the Project, which was a Quality Bus Corridor Initiative along the lines of the S10 and Sheaf Valley Bus Corridor Initiatives, although in this case the scheme had moved forward more quickly and involved major improvement of the network.  A study by consultants had identified problems and potential solutions, in connection with the bus network in the north of the City and the report by the consultants had been assessed and costed by First South Yorkshire, which had then carried out its own revision of the network and had suggested a further proposal.  This had been considered by the SYPTE and a compromise solution had been found.          
            The core services would be given the highest priority.  This proposal would be registered within two weeks’ time with the Department of Transport and it would then be in the public domain for comment.  The target was to achieve an increase of 10-30% in bus usage and it was recognised that the more frequent the service, the more passengers would use the buses.  The tendered element of the service had also been reviewed and the new network would reflect this.        The intended implementation date for the new services was 25th July, 2004 and the key objectives were to reduce the times of journeys, to enhance access to key facilities and to improve the quality of the bus network.  The aim was to satisfy the traffic flow in and out of the City and to achieve better links to various facilities while keeping to a minimum the need for passengers to change vehicles.  Priorities for the Project were to give access to health facilities, namely GP’s, the Hospitals and health centres, food centres, education centres and the new Hillsborough College campus and leisure facilities, including green spaces and leisure centres.  A further key feature of the Project was to link the Northern General Hospital with the Royal Hallamshire Hospital and North Sheffield with the University of Sheffield.  Access to post offices would be reviewed following the Post Office’s own review of its services.  It was stressed that the basis for the changes was commercial, as the services would not be subsidised and within the partnership the City Council would carry out a substantial level of highway works. 

            The Overground bus services in the area would be improved to a ten minute frequency, with various routes being improved and in some cases extended.  Almost all the bus services in the north of the City would be affected by the Project and some of them would be subject to tender.  The Project should commence with the introduction of a network of low floor, easy access buses, with an age limit being imposed on the bus fleet.  Information would be published some days before service changes were made.  Seats would be provided in all bus shelters. 
            There would be better facilities at Firth Park and a new interchange at Ecclesfield, together with considerable junction improvements especially at Fir Vale, Sheffield Lane Top, Spital Hill and Firth Park.  Work would also be carried out at Hillsborough Corner in connection with the Tramgate and traffic cameras and there was a plan for work at Penistone Road, involving the removal of the Leppings Lane Roundabout and work on the exit from the Morrisons Supermarket.   

            The next stage of the Project was to carry out public consultations, which would include issuing a brochure detailing the proposed services and containing information on the highways works, the new stops, and the new types of vehicles to be used.  Approximately 20,000 copies of the brochure would be distributed at strategic points such as post offices, GPs’ surgeries, libraries and Housing Offices.  During the period of the highways works, update leaflets would be produced quarterly.

            Members of the public asked questions and Ms Horner, Mr Nuttall and Council Officers responded as follows:-

Q.        Would this scheme make things worse for the traffic at Hillsborough Corner?

A.        The City Council was trying to restore the position at Hillsborough Corner to the time when the Tramgates had been obeyed, by most users and it was trying to manage Penistone Road better.  A traffic consultant had suggested establishing a link between Bradfield Road and Morrisons.

Q.        What was the Tramgate?

A.        The Tramgate was the prohibition to all traffic except buses, trams, taxis and cycles going out of town, from Ripley Street to Hillsborough Corner and to Hillsborough Corner along Middlewood Road from Taplin Road.

Q.        How could residents of Rudyard Road access their homes from Walkley?

A.        They could access Rudyard Road via Langsett Road, Bamforth Street, Penistone Road and Bradfield Road.

Q.        What was the purpose of the Tramgate?

A.        The Tramgate sought to ensure that public transport went through Hillsborough Corner in a reasonable time.

Q.        How did this benefit the residents of Rudyard Road?

A.        It was a matter of balancing the needs of all the people using Hillsborough Corner.

Q.        Was it the case that First South Yorkshire was not allowed to provide services that were integrated with those of other companies?

A.        Under the terms of current legislation the bus operators could not collaborate with each other.

Q.        How could there be an integrated service if there was not an integrated policy for transport?

A.        The Office for Fair Trading would severely penalise the operators if they worked together.  The North Sheffield Transport Plan was a partnership between the Passenger Transport Executive, the City Council and First South Yorkshire, the company which provided 85% of the bus services within the City.  At the same time other companies would be brought on board as they wished to be part of the network improvements.  The deregulated regime ensured that operators worked on a commercial basis and were not controlled or regulated by the City Council or the SYPTE.

Q.        Did not the traffic problems arising, for example, from three buses of different companies arriving at Hillsborough Corner together, have as much impact on Hillsborough Corner as the traffic cameras would have?

A.        It was not possible to comment on the possible effect of the traffic cameras.

Q.        Was it not the case that the tram services were not in harmony with the bus services as that arrangement would be illegal?

A.        Legally that was the case, but there were also technical difficulties of synchronising services if only due to the fact that the tram ran on a track.

Q.        Would the new bus services meet the needs of the students at the new Hillsborough College?

A.        That would ultimately be the case, particularly through enhancing the High Green bus service, with the introduction of the concept vehicle, as part of improving the Penistone Road services as a whole.

Q.        How large would the Ecclesfield Interchange be?

A.        The new Interchange would be sited outside the Ball Public House.  The aim was to link two services and run them through Ecclesfield.  The bus changes would be implemented before the construction of the Interchange, which was a long term project.

Q.        Would all traffic be moved from Langsett Road on to Penistone Road?

A.        The present arrangement would not be changed.

Q.        Was it the case that the level of traffic was increasing at the rate of 7% per annum?

A.        Nationally the rate of increase was 1.8%.

Q.        Would there be an increase in the number of bus services running to the Hillsborough Interchange?

A.        At least one more service would run to the Interchange.  The Holme Lane junction was creating difficulties as a large amount of traffic was going there which should not be there.

Q.        How would the changes benefit local people or car drivers?

A.        The long term aim was to encourage people to leave their cars and to travel by bus on non-essential journeys, hence the scheme to improve the bus services.

Q.        Within the Project was there a contingency for off-street parking at Hillsborough Corner?

A.        This would be examined but there was presently no information on plans to provide off-street parking.

Q.        Why could not the residents of Rudyard Road travel 50 yards down Langsett Road to Rudyard Road?  Did that not make sense? Could the Tramgate not be moved?

A.        The Cabinet had approved a proposal, following the assessment of a traffic consultant’s report, to increase obedience of the Tramgate through improving it outbound, by moving the Tramgate to the Ripley Street Junction, with the Tramgate remaining, inbound, at Taplin Road.  The Tramgate would operate between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. and automatic signing and camera enforcement would be introduced.

Q.        Would it make any difference if there was more signage at Taplin Road?  Could the residents of Rudyard Road be exempted from the restrictions?

A.        Traffic should not turn right from Rudyard Road.  Consideration would be given to the signage and the practicalities of changing it.  The enforcement of the Tramgate would be by using equipment similar to that  already in use in London.  The current Traffic Management Bill, once law, should enable the City Council to use, either this year or next year, equipment which would have the ability to recognise vehicle number plates.  It might therefore be possible for a scheme involving residents’ permits which would enable residents to go through the Tramgate to reach Rudyard Road.  It would be investigated whether this was legally or practically possible.

Q.        Why was the Supertram permitted to hold up traffic at Holme Lane?

A.        This type of hold up resulted from traffic coming from Middlewood Road to Hillsborough Corner and not from traffic turning left from Bradfield Road.

Q.        Was a taxi rank to be sited at Hillsborough Corner?

A.        A suitable site was being sought for a taxi rank.

            The Panel thanked Ms. Horner and Mr. Nuttall for their presentations and noted the information reported.

3.

HILLSBOROUGH PARK MASTERPLAN

            Steve Handley, Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Service gave a presentation on the Hillsborough Park Masterplan.  He stated that the Masterplan, which included the results of a feasibility study of what users of the Park wished to be given priority, was now out for public consultation.  There had been a range of suggestions such as the provision of public toilets and increased security.  During the previous summer there had been security patrols and lighting had been enhanced in the Park.  Users of the Park had also requested the provision of a café at the Coach House.  There would be a Consultation Event at the Hillsborough Shopping Centre on 21st May, 2004 and then a further Event at the Mayfest next month.

            Funding would be obtained for the Project to carry out (a) service led initiatives such as restoring the historic design of the Library by demolishing modern extensions and improving the Junior Library, (b) night lighting of the Library, (c) internally reducing its internal capacity by demolishing the brick extension and constructing an extension elsewhere on the Library and (d) internally re-ordering the Library and possibly installing a lift for disabled access, which would involve bidding to the Heritage Lottery Fund.

            The Coach House was presently derelict and its restoration was the main issue, which had been raised in the consultations.  Comparable schemes involving similar buildings had been examined and, although the Coach House itself was too small for the construction of a café/bistro, if it was extended into the Walled Garden that form of scheme would be a possibility.

            A bid for £500,000 funding to provide enhanced facilities at the Bowls Pavilion had been submitted and the outcome of the bid was expected to be announced on 21st May, 2004.  Examples of the provision of a new Pavilion building in a contemporary style had also been examined and if the funding was received, this objective could be accomplished by December, 2005.

            The Penistone Road Lodge was central to a civil engineering project being carried by Yorkshire Water nearby and the possibility was being investigated of a scheme involving Yorkshire Water refurbishing the Lodge, in return for the use of part of the accommodation for installing monitoring equipment.

            Peter Ward, Yorkshire Water stated that Yorkshire Water was implementing a £30m investment programme within the City.  Work was being carried out at Hillsborough Park to improve the environment, particularly the quality of the River Don, as most of the rainwater in the City was diverted into the River Don, which had been downgraded as a result.  The aim was to direct the polluting water from the River into a tank, which would then be pumped out into the sewage system.  The scheme required a central kiosk to control the pumping operations and such a kiosk could be housed within the Lodge.

            Steve Handley added that if negotiations were concluded satisfactorily, improvements could be carried out to the car park and to the surface of the running track at the Park.  One room at the Lodge would be used by Yorkshire Water and the remainder of the accommodation would be available for the use of the Friends of Hillsborough Park.

            Members of the public asked questions and Mr. Handley and Mr. Ward responded as follows:-

Q.        If the Bistro was built, would the Walled Garden be open at night to allow  access to it?

A.        That was the intention as that form of access would provide greater security for customers than coming through the Park.   It was also a question of finding constructive work for young people to do within the Park to increase security for other users.

Q.        Did the Park have a BMX scheme?

A.        The Parks, Woodlands and Countryside Service had worked with Sheffield Futures on design work for BMX/skating facilities.  The Park was a Heritage Listed Park so any facilities would have to be capable of being dismantled and stored, but this would enable the rearrangement of its design, which would make it more attractive to potential users. 

Q.        Would stiles be installed within the Park to prevent illegal motorbike riding?

A.        The control of access to the Park was being considered and within the Hillsborough Park Masterplan there was a strategy relating to all the entrances.

Q.        Would various events such as the Fair be moved from the Park?

A.        The aim was to retain events on the Events Field.

Q.        What would happen to the car park?

A.        The car park would be returned to grass.

Q.        Would there be smells from the drain in the Park as a result of the engineering works?

A.        That would not be the case, as the water would be 99% rainwater.

Q.        Would anything be done to prevent joyriders who were presently entering the Park and making it unsafe for local people?

A.        This would be possible when Yorkshire Water completed the engineering works, which should be within two months’ time.  Last year a security van had patrolled the Park at the expense of the Libraries Service and that patrol had made a big difference to the security within the Park.

Q.        Would the Park Gates be closed when the hours of car parking had ended?

A.        The entrance had been extended but when the engineering works had been completed the pillars at the Entrance would be restored and things should return to normal.

            The Panel thanked Mr. Handley and Mr. Ward for their presentations and noted the information reported.

4.

JOINT AREA CO-ORDINATORS’ REPORT – ANNUAL REVIEW

            Ms. Rebecca Maddox, Joint Area Co-ordinator gave a presentation on the Area Panel’s Annual Review referring in particular to (a) the area of the Panel, (b) the staffing of the Panel’s Area Team, (c) the membership of the Panel, (d) the public meetings of the Panel, (e) the Panel’s priorities namely (i) health, (ii) the environment, (iii) services to young people, children and families, (iv) traffic issues, (v) services to older people, (vi) post-16 education (vii) communications and (viii) the Langsett, Stannington, Walkley and Hillsborough areas, (f) the funding of the Panel and how it had been spent, (g) the partnership working carried out by the Panel and (h) the future direction of the Panel, particularly regarding the forthcoming new Area Plan.

            Members of the public asked questions and Ms. Maddox responded as follows:-

Q.        Would funding be allocated to the Walkley Festival?

A.        That would be done.

Q.        How were decisions taken regarding the funding of schemes?

A.        There was insufficient funding for open bidding for funding, so the allocations were based on the priorities set out in the Area Plan and ongoing work with groups.  Funding was targeted where it could make a difference

Q.        How did the Panel decide which Partnerships to support?

A.        The Panel would participate in any partnership, particularly those involving voluntary groups, the Health Service and the South Yorkshire Police.  This depended on the priorities for an area and the relevant agencies for that area.

5.

DATE AND VENUE OF NEXT MEETING

            The Panel agreed that the next public meeting be held on the 15th July, 2004 at a venue to be determined.

6.

MINUTES

            The minutes of the meeting held on 25th March, 2004 were approved as a correct record.

7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

            The Chair (Councillor Jonathan Harston) reported that Councillor Peter MacLoughlin would not be seeking re-election at the forthcoming Municipal Election and that all the other members of the Panel would be seeking re-election,

            The Panel extended its thanks to Councillor MacLoughlin and all other members of the Panel for their contribution to the work of the Panel and extended its best wishes for the future to Councillor MacLoughlin and to any existing members who were not returned at the forthcoming Municipal Election.