North Area Panel Minutes 16th November 2005

NORTH AREA PANEL

Meeting held on 16th November, 2005 at Chapeltown Library, Nether Ley Avenue

PRESENT:			Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), Arthur Dunworth, Patricia Fox, Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley.

			Also in attendance:-
			Anne Blantern, Area Co-ordinator
			Matthew Rush, Area Support Officer
			Lucia Lorente-Arnau, Development Services
			Paul Gordon, Development Services
			Andy Bennett, Development Services
			Councillor Kath Granger, Ecclesfield Parish Council
			Councillor John Fox, Ecclesfield Parish Council
			Councillor Norman Garrett, Ecclesfield Parish Council
			Councillor Malcolm Glover, Bradfield Parish Council
			Brian Timperley, Renaissance South Yorkshire
			Adrian Barnes-White, Yorkshire Rural County Council
			Bob Howden, British Cycling Director
			Peter Root, British Cycling, Regional Manager, Yorkshire
			Patrick Burns, Committee Secretariat

			and 64 members of the public
…………

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Alison Brelsford, Martin Brelsford, Kathleen Chadwick and Martin Davis.

2.	QUARTERLY HIGHWAYS UPDATE
	Andy Bennett, Urban Traffic Control, reported on highways issues relating to the North Area and stated that:-
	(a) the traffic scheme at High Street, Ecclesfield, had been completed and an after study would be carried out regarding traffic speeds and traffic flow in the area;
	(b) there was a proposal to carry out alterations to the layout of bus stops at Wortley Road, High Green, close to the High Green Infant/Junior School and discussions regarding this scheme would be held with the Chair (Councillor Bagshaw);
	(c) a proposed traffic calming scheme at Greengate Lane had been placed on the deferred list and would not be considered again for three years;
	(d) a road safety scheme at Burncross Road had been completed apart from installing a vehicle activated sign. An after study would be carried out regarding traffic speeds;
	(e) complaints had been received from residents regarding the noise caused by traffic going over the speed humps at Burncross Road, near the junction with Blackburn Drive. The complaints had been investigated and the Officers' recommendation was that the humps should remain in place;
	(f) a traffic scheme at Warren Lane, Chapeltown, had been completed, which involved a one-way traffic flow arrangement. A traffic speed and flow survey in the area would be carried out later this year;
	(g) alterations to the entrance at Stannington Infant School had been carried out during the previous month, at half term and the feedback from residents was that there had been a big improvement to the access to the School and a reduction in congestion in the area;
	(h) a request for a traffic calming scheme adjacent to Loxley Infant/Junior School, Rodney Hill had been deferred as there had been no traffic accidents recently in the area and the scheme had scored low in the assessment process;
	(i) a traffic calming chicane arrangement at Low Road, Oughtibridge would be carried out during this financial year, although a start date for the scheme had not yet been set;
	(j) on the completion of a scheme including a zebra crossing at Low Road, a report would be submitted to the West and North Planning and Highways Area Board assessing its success and whether there was a need for a second zebra crossing at Orchard Street. A further report would be submitted to the Area Board regarding this matter;
	(k) (i) the Oughtibridge School Travel Plan had not yet been considered, (ii) the Grenoside School Travel Plan would be signed off later this year, (iii) the Ecclesfield Primary, Wharncliffe Side Junior/Infant and Deepcar St. John's Schools' Travel Plans would be completed by March, 2006, (iv) the High Green Infant/Junior School Traffic Plan would commence on the 30th of this month and (v) the Bradfield School Traffic Plan was still awaited;
	(l) following a substantial number of traffic accidents on the section of Middlewood-Langsett Road South as far as the Middlewood Tavern, the Road Safety Group had proposed a change in traffic speed limits to 40 mph at Winn Gardens, extended to the Middlewood Tavern, then 50 mph down to 30 mph through Oughtibridge village to Cockshutts Lane, then a reduction from 60 mph to 50 mph. The South Yorkshire Police had expressed their support for the proposals. A Traffic Regulation Order would be required to achieve these changes and the City Council was aiming to have the Order in place by April, 2006;
	(m) a bus access/passage scheme at Beechwood Road, Stocksbridge, had been completed. No feedback regarding the outcome of the scheme had been received from residents and feedback would be welcomed;
	(n) there had been no response by the Council to a report by a consultant regarding the Plan 4 Travel, Chapeltown, had been published which provided a framework for taking further the consultant's study regarding the scheme;
	(o) outline planning permission had been granted on the 10th of November for the Smithywood Development site proposal and the Development Services were working with the developers on the traffic impact of the scheme;
	(p) there was a proposal to construct a traffic signal arrangement for the junction near the Chapeltown Railway Bridge and at Nether Lane together with a roundabout on Nether Lane. Consultations would be held regarding those proposals which would include the Area Panel but the start date for the consultations was not known;
	(q) the North Sheffield Better Buses package included a new Ecclesfield Interchange, bus stop areas treatment from Ecclesfield to Chapeltown and in some cases improved shelters. There had been consultations regarding those measures. There were two phases of work, one of which was under way and the second phase was due to commence during the next few weeks;
	(r) there were special maintenance schemes regarding the refurbishment of the highway at Nether Lane from Ecclesfield Common to Johnson Lane which would be carried out between January and March, 2006. The work would be carried out on Sundays only and would involve road closures and diversions;
	(s) the schemes which were scheduled to be carried out funded by the Area Panel's Small Schemes Budget related to (i) Acacia Avenue, Chapel Road, Holme Oak Way and Smithycarr Avenue, involving the construction of motor cycle obstructions/frames and (ii) Lime Grove, Stocksbridge involving the installation of bollards. Six further schemes which were yet to be issued, would be carried out; and
	(t) no funding was available to carry out footway schemes during the present financial year, within the area of the North Area Panel.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr. Bennett and Members of the Panel responded as follows:-

	Q.	Would the Plan 4 Chapeltown Transport be given priority over developments?

	A.	There had been consultations on the way forward and it was necessary now to carry out traffic modelling and to send a report to the Government with an application for funding. The modelling would not probably be carried out until 2006. The Smithywood Development had received planning permission and could therefore now go ahead.

	Q.	Were the Smithywood and Hesley Wood Tip separate developments?

	A.	They were separate developments.

	Q.	Had nothing been done about the Hesley Wood Tip yet?

	A.	Nothing had yet been done in the way of determining its future.

	Q.	Would the Smithywood Development affect the Hesley Wood Tip Development, for example in terms of a road through the site?

	A.	It would not affect the Hesley Wood Tip Development, although it would be considered if, for example, the City Council indicated a requirement for a through road.
	Q.	Was the proposed one-way system at Chapeltown on hold or had it been scrapped?

	A.	Consultants had suggested installing a one-way system as a possible option and public consultations had been carried out including a meeting at this venue. The Plan 4 Chapeltown was a package of schemes which had been promoted as something which would be followed through and pressure had been brought to carry out consultations. It was disappointing that in spite of the consultations the scheme had not been progressed. Officers had made various recommendations but no decision had yet been taken. The Plan 4 Chapeltown was the first step. The traffic arrangements at Chapeltown had required investigation 10 years previously before planning permission had been given for development including housing development.

	Q.	Had there been a change in traffic and had it built up over that period?

	A.	That was the case and also there had been a decline in the local bus services which had led to more cars being on the roads. The Chair of the Panel (Councillor Bagshaw) would write to the Head of Transport and Highways Services and Councillor Tim Rippon, Cabinet Member with portfolio for Culture, Economy and Sustainability, regarding the concerns of the local residents about this problem. A special meeting of the Panel regarding this matter could be held.

	Q.	There had been a suggestion that there should be a by-pass around Chapeltown including a road through the Smithywood site. What was the present position regarding that suggestion?

	A.	The plan for the Smithywood site still had an indicative route marked on it.

	Q.	Was it not the case that if the by-pass went to Cowley Lane through Station Road it would be would ineffective as most traffic went from Chapeltown to High Green?

	A.	Information regarding a bypass was not available but Mr. Bennett would press for some proposals for a bypass to be brought forward.

	Q.	Would the Plan 4 Chapeltown take place before the developments of land locally?

	A.	A planning permission for the Smithywood site existed and the developers could implement that permission any time within the next five years.

	Q.	The Plan 4 Chapeltown had implications for the Hesley Wood site so why discuss that now?

	A.	It would be better to listen to the report regarding that site now. There would be an opportunity to bring information regarding the Plan 4 Chapeltown to another meeting.

	Q.	Was there going to be joined up thinking on the Plan 4 Chapeltown and the Hesley Wood options?

	A.	There were options for the site and it would be better to discuss them together with the proposals of the Plan 4 Chapeltown. At previous meetings of the Panel, the theme had been that there must be a joined up plan to deal with all the problems of the area. The partner organisations involved in the Hesley Wood Tip Project were aware of the need to consider the bigger picture.

	Q.	Legislation which had been implemented recently compelled Local Authorities to improve the rights of way network but the questioner had found this year that there would be no improvement of Sheffield’s network until 2008 due to the lack of resources and the reduced number of staff. The rights of way and walking were linked to fitness/obesity/diabetes issues, so should there not be more footpaths to make up for the loss of former quiet lanes within the area, which were now dangerous for pedestrians to use due to the level of traffic?

	A.	There was limited funding for rights of way work and requests for this work had gone through the assessment process but had not scored highly.

	Q.	Would the road traffic accident on the 5th of November at Oughtibridge be investigated?

	A.	That incident would be investigated. The Transport Service carried out investigations to determine the number and frequency of accidents and the reasons for them.

	Q.	Would installing the road improvements at Low Road, Oughtibridge, also be considered for the Langsett Road side of the village?

	A.	This was unknown. The suggestion would be reported back to the Road Safety Group for consideration.

	The Panel thanked Mr. Bennett for his presentation and noted the information.

3.	STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
	Paul Gordon, Development Services, reported on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), with regard to (a) the purpose of the SCI, (b) how residents could become involved in the SCI, (i) the process of
	approving the Sheffield Development Framework documents, (ii) planning applications and (iii) major development schemes, (c) how groups and organisations which had previously not become involved in the planning process could become involved and (d) how local people could become involved in shaping the SCI, the key features of which were (i) its transparency, (ii) consultations including events, (iii) removing barriers to involvement in the planning process, (iv) ensuring that the decision makers would be accountable, (v) explaining the process of planning approval, particularly in making the stages of that process clearer to ensure that local residents would become involved, (vi) the availability of planning documentation, (vii) contact with organisations and individuals (viii) the availability of details at Howden House, First Point and Local Point at Chapeltown and Hillsborough, (ix) guidance on planning applications procedure, (x) the availability of documentation and information on the City Council's website and the right to speak at meetings.
	During the next few weeks it would become possible, via the City Council's website, to submit planning applications, to make comment on them subject to the screening of inappropriate comments, and to see what other comments had been made, to examine amendments to schemes, to discover the decisions regarding planning applications together with a search option for other planning applications within the same area.
	There would be additional consultation on major schemes such as the Hesley Wood and Smithywood Schemes and work to help disadvantaged groups to become involved by early notification and publication of applications, by requesting developers to give presentations to local residents and to contact groups which presently made little contact in terms of the planning process such as the BEM Groups and young people, which would include environmental education in schools.
	If individuals registered now with the Development Services they would be guaranteed contact for future consultation on the SCI process.
	Members of the public and the Panel asked questions and Mr. Gordon responded as follows:-

	Q.	The Planning Service considered the Area Panels to be a vehicle for consultations but it was an expensive and under-resourced process. A further avenue of consultation was the Parish Councils in this area which had planning powers themselves. Would their existence be reflected in the SCI document?

	A.	The Development Services had been in contact with the Bradfield and Ecclesfield Parish Councils and the Stocksbridge Town Council as they were statutory consultees.

	Q.	Were they mentioned within the SCI document?

	A.	That would be considered.

	Q.	Would there be consultations regarding road traffic problems before planning permissions were granted?

	A.	When an application was received, the Development Control Section consulted Highways Officers and agencies such as the Highways Agency to obtain their input.