Minutes 21st January 2004

	NORTH AREA PANEL


	Meeting held 21^st January, 2004 at Chapeltown Library, Chapeltown

			PRESENT:			Councillors Kathleen Chadwick (Chair), David Baker, Arthur Dunworth, Graham Oxley and Pat Fox.

			Representatives of Panel Partners:-
			Alan Hooper				-	Ecclesfield Parish Council
			Kath Granger
			Norman Garrett
			John Fox
			Malcolm Glover				-	Bradfield Parish Council
			PC Peter Booth				-	South Yorkshire Police
			PC Suzanne Bluck
			Robert Bailey				-	Sheffield West Primary Care Trust
			Julie Smith

			City Council Officers:-
			John Charlton				-	North Area Lead Manager
			Graham Broadhurst				-	Street Force
			Andy Bennett				-	Development Services
			Anne Blantern				-	North Area Co-ordinator
			Matthew Rush				-	North Area Support Officer
			Vicki Savage				-	Partnership Development Officer
			Sarah Thomson				-	Committee Secretariat

			16 members of the public attended the meeting.

		……………

1.		APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
		In the absence of the Chair Councillor David Baker at the commencement of the meeting, Councillor Kathleen Chadwick was appointed as Chair of the meeting.

2.		APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
		Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Martin Brelsford, Maureen Brelsford and Vic Bowden.

3.		MINUTES
		The Panel received and approved the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th December, 2003, as a true record with the amendment of the title of the Bus Company from First Route to First Line and arising therefrom:-

		Unitary Development Plan
		A local resident enquired as to when Paul Gordon, Planning Link Officer would be responding to questions raised on the Unitary Development Plan. The Area Co-ordinator reported that Mr Gordon had emailed a response to her in relation to land at Grenoside between Stephen Lane and Top End adding that an error had been logged on approximately eight separate occasions on the database and requested that the questioner send a formal letter of complaint to Mr Gordon who would then investigate the matter further.
		A local resident commented that he had raised a number of issues regarding Section 106 monies at the previous meeting and added that the issues raised had not been noted. The Area Co-ordinator stated that Paul Gordon was working through the issues raised and had noted a number of issues in relation to Section 106 enquiries and further commented that Mr Gordon would report back to a future meeting of the Panel on the matters now raised.

		Police Patrolling
		A local resident raised concerns in relation to the Policing Policy for Stocksbridge due to the withdrawal of the Community Policing programme and commented that he believed it took the Police approximately 20 minutes to respond to an incident in the area.
		Similar issues were raised with regard to Chapeltown and residents commented that they were promised a Police presence in Chapeltown at least two days per week, which had not yet taken place.
		PC Suzanne Bluck reported that Policing Patrols were proposed, although due to other commitments had not yet taken place. She further added that the pilot scheme had been a great success and none of the original proposals had changed. PC Bluck hoped that Senior Officers would recognise the needs of local residents and also added that there may be some minor long term changes made to the proposals which were unavoidable due to alterations to working patterns and the geographical area in which officers were required to cover.
		The Chair stated that a follow-up meeting had been agreed with South Yorkshire Police and she anticipated that Police patrolling would be included as a future item on the February or March Area Panel agenda.
		A local resident expressed her concern to representatives from South Yorkshire Police in relation to Chapeltown and stated that in her opinion Chapeltown had deteriorated and enquired as to what further action the Police would be undertaking. The Area Co-ordinator stated that the Police were in attendance to answer specific questions only and suggested that residents send a formal letter to Chief Superintendent Donnelly in order to establish why no further action had been taken.
		In relation to the promise made by South Yorkshire Police that there would be a Police presence in Chapeltown, a local resident commented that residents were only agreeable to the proposals suggested by the Police on the grounds that they were promised further action would be taken.
		A local resident enquired as to whether the Area Panel could arrange a meeting to discuss the Police patrolling arrangements as the Panel were very concerned with the issues now raised and suggested that Chief Superintendent Donnelly be invited to answer questions from the Panel and an invitation also be forwarded to the Chief Constable.
		The Panel noted the issues now raised.

4.		PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
		The following questions were raised by members of the public and responses were provided as follows: -

		Q.			The questioner enquired as to the outcome of the North and West Planning and Highways Area Board held on 20^th January, 2004, where a petition had been submitted which expressed concern with regard to the volume and speed of traffic and the lack of appropriate parking facilities outside St. Mary’s School on Pack Horse Lane, High Green, especially at busy times which highlighted great concern with regard to road safety measures.

		R.			Councillor Arthur Dunworth provided a summary of the event and stated that he had moved an amendment to defer the report but it had been rejected. He also added that the report had been approved subject to further consultation work being undertaken by City Council officers.

		Q.			Trevor Bagshaw stated that he had been present at the Council meeting when the petition had been presented and added that if the City Council were ignoring the problem on the basis of car parking then this was an issue that the Panel needed to tackle.

		R.			The Chair stated that she would meet with the School Headmaster in order to discuss the outcome of the meeting.
					Councillor Arthur Dunworth felt that in his opinion the Area Panel would not be any more successful in pursuing the issue raised and believed it would be more beneficial for Local Parish and Town Councillors to pursue this in order to establish a practical solution.
					The Chair stated that she would liaise with the officers concerned in order to establish a way forward.

		Q.			Would a pedestrian crossing be placed on Burncross Road?

		R.			Andy Bennett reported that proposals for a zebra crossing and traffic calming for Burncross Road were in place, although on Friday 16^th January, 2004, he was informed that the scheme would not take place this Financial Year.

		Q.			A local resident expressed concern with regard the imminent closure of the Post Office on Burncross Road and added that the Post Office would be transferring it’s services to the Costcutter Supermarket, and further added that it would be necessary to cross the road to access all amenities including, medical services and retail outlets and added that residents would be required to cross the road in order to utilise these services, residents living on the amenities side of the road would be required to cross the road to access the bus stop to Sheffield City centre and requested that the Area Panel considered the concerns expressed.

		R.			In response, Andy Bennett, stated that the scheme was in the assessment process along with three other schemes, which included a pedestrian crossing, traffic signals and traffic bollards. He further added that the scheme proposals for Burncross Road would be delayed due to the changes in the assessment criteria and added that approximately 900 schemes were to go through the new assessment criteria by the end of 2004.

		Q.			The questioner stated that in her opinion she felt that the City Council were duty bound to advertise the fact that there would be a delay in the scheme and suggested that a public notice be placed at the site in order to clarify to members of the public that there would be a delay in progress.

		R.			Andy Bennett noted the comments now raised.

		Q.			A local resident enquired whether the Panel could expect any progress with the scheme requests in the 2004/2005 financial year?

		R.			Andy Bennett commented that he could not promise which schemes would be completed.

		Q.			A local resident commented on the brown field site at Smithy Wood and the possibility of utilising the land for a Service Station. He asked that further consideration be given to the usage of the land as the provision of a service station would not create a large number of jobs and also enquired as to whether a service station was really necessary in the location specified. He invited the Panel to give their opinion on the issue now raised.

		R.			Councillor David Baker expressed his opinion and stated that he did not wish for a service station to be positioned on the Smithy Wood site.

		Q.			A local resident enquired with regard to the progress of Grenoside Grange and community involvement, he further added that his wife had attended Grenoside Grange prior to the PCT giving short notice of the withdrawal of respite care and requested that the Panel consider the issue raised in order to identify why Grenoside Grange had closed, as in his opinion patients had received no support from the Health Care Service.

		R.			It was reported that this matter would be investigated. Robert Bailey reported that he was conscious of the lack of facilities and was fighting to challenge the decision to close Grenoside Grange.

		Q.			In relation to the closure of Grenoside Grange one resident stated that no apology or words of regret had been expressed to patients.

		R.			Robert Bailey stated that he would obtain the questioners name and address at the end of the meeting and forward it to the PCT Chief Executive, requesting him to contact the questioner in relation to the closure of Grenoside Grange.

		Q.			A local resident made enquiries in relation to local Bye Laws and the closure of Thorncliffe Lane for one day per year and questioned whether this would be deemed as public access?

		R.			Andy Bennett noted the issue now raised and stated that he would investigate the matter and report back to, a future meeting of the Panel.

		Q.			A local resident made enquires with regard to the earlier travel discussion with ARUP consultants and enquired as to the outcome of the meeting held.

		R.			It was reported that ARUP had held discussions with local residents upon the impact of traffic calming in Chapeltown and ARUP were gathering ideas from local people over a two day period, which would then be collated. Once the information had been collated ARUP would establish short, medium and long term solutions for the areas of Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and High Green along with the progression of possible funding streams in order to progress the proposals further. It was also reported that ARUP were working with partners in order to develop and establish a number of robust schemes.

		Q.			A local resident commented on the new policies in relation to reducing youth nuisance and requested whether the representatives from South Yorkshire Police could provide further details.

		R.			The Area Co-ordinator believed that youth nuisance would be an item for discussion on the March 2004 agenda.

		Q.			How many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO’s) had been issued since 1998, for Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and High Green?

		R.			PC Bluck reported that the initial process was an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, which was issued to the offender followed by two letters to the offenders parents. In relation to the specific area highlighted PC Bluck believed that no ASBO’s had yet been issued.
					Councillor Arthur Dunworth suggested that a number of representatives be invited to the March meeting to discuss the issues now raised including representatives from Sheffield Housing Office, Anti-Neighbour Nuisance and South Yorkshire Police. Councillor Dunworth also suggested that PC Steven Thomas also be invited to the meeting.

					The Chair note the matters now raised.



5.		HIGHWAYS UPDATE
		Andy Bennett, circulated a detailed list of Local Transport Plan (LTP) Scheme Requests for the North Area and provided a brief outline on the progress of the schemes. He stated that the reports detailed the programme of work in the area, information on how the schemes in the area were progressing and details on traffic schemes.
		Mr Bennett informed the Panel that he had attended the Area Panel meetings on a quarterly basis in order to provide an update on the LTP scheme requests and added that as from 12^th November, 2003, changes to the assessment criteria meant that requests were additionally weighted for child accidents and for areas of deprivation which could delay schemes assessed under the old assessment system as all schemes assessed under the old system would have to be reassessed under the new criteria, this could mean the ranking of priorities could change.
		Andy Bennett reported that under the new criteria a scheme may also score well regardless of the number of child accidents and deprivation in the area.
		Mr Bennett then referred to the LTP Scheme Requests list, which he had previously circulated to the Panel and reported on the progress of a number of schemes contained therein.
		Arising from consideration of Mr Bennett’s report the following questions were asked and responses provided as follows:-

		Q.		Could Mr Bennett go through the LTP Scheme Request list and highlight which schemes were not to be included in this Financial Year

		R.		Andy Bennett referred to the LTP list and stated that where a scheme had not yet been assessed or indicated pending review or on hold, pending review or ‘defer’ it would not be included in the current Financial Year.

		Q.		How many years would the City Council go through the LTP Scheme Requests resulting in reports back to the Panel that no funding would be available to complete the work requested?

		R.		As a result of the change in the assessment criteria, Mr Bennett reported that some of the old scheme requests may not be completed, he added that where scheme design had taken place the scheme would be likely to be carried out although, the remaining schemes awaiting assessment and design would have to go through the new assessment criteria.

		Q.		Is it true that due to political reasons the funding available would be moved elsewhere within the City?

		R.		John Charlton stated that there would be some winners and losers throughout the City and added that all Area Panels were in the same situation due to the change of prioritisation criteria and the consequent new ranking of schemes.

		Q.		Would the new funding stream start in April 2004?

		R.		Yes, the new funding would start in April, 2004 and the LTP Scheme Requests would continue to progress through the system.

		Q.		A local resident enquired as to whether the Panel could place a ‘Resident’s Only Parking’ sign in Smith Street, Chapeltown, as she reported that parking was difficult due to people parking in the private parking bays.

		R.		Andy Bennett noted the request and stated that he would investigate the possibility of additional signage in the area highlighted.

		Q.		Is the completion of the survey of traffic users on Warren Lane imminent?

		R.		Andy Bennett anticipated that the survey to assess speed and volume of traffic on Warren Lane would be completed by end of January, 2004, followed by a letter towards the end of the financial year to residents on Warren Lane to obtain their views on the one-way system to identify which of the three proposals they would prefer. The three proposals included (a) revert to the original road layout i.e., normal two running (b) keep the layout as it is now i.e., one way but install it on a permanent basis and (c) to provide additional measures as was suggested originally.

				In thelight of their consideration of the questions and answers relating to the LTP it was RESOLVED: That the disappointment of the Panel be registered with regard to the City Council’s failure to obtain funding in order to implement LTP Scheme Requests in the North Area as promised.

				The Panel thanked Mr Bennett for his contribution.

6.		NORTH SHEFFIELD PRIMARY CARE TRUST
		Robert Bailey, Chairman, North Primary Care Trust (PCT) provided a progress report on North Sheffield PCT which included the responsibility to improve health and well being of the community throughout North Sheffield which amongst other areas covered Burngreave, Southey, Owlerton, Ecclesfield, Grenoside, Parson Cross, Chapeltown and High Green. He stated that within Sheffield statistical information had highlighted that on average a child living in Burngreave may have a life expectancy 10 years less than that of a child living in Fulwood, which he stated was possibly due to a combination of low birth weight, relatively poor diet and housing. He further added that the PCT had to translate this statistical information in striving to improve the health and well being of the community.
		In relation to what the PCT had achieved over the past two years, Mr Bailey reported that they had increased the number of GPs throughout North Sheffield and secured funding for three GP practices in order to deliver a wider range of services which he envisaged would reduce the number of hospital stays therefore eliminating “bed blocking”.
		With regard to younger people, Mr Bailey, reported that the PCT were in the process of establishing a Surestart programme at Firth Park, which he envisaged would be completed later in the year.
		Mr Bailey reported on a city-wide project hosted by the PCT in order to reduce the number of care home residents experiencing hip fractures. He stated that many elderly and vulnerable residents in care homes had been provided with hip protectors, which were worn as undergarments and provided protection for the hip joint. If the wearer were to fall, the hip protectors would help distribute the pressure of the fall away from the vulnerable areas therefore reducing the chances of a hip fracture occurring.
		Mr Bailey also added that the PCT had set up a Black and Minority Ethnic Forum and added that in Burngreave alone, there were 40 different languages. He further commented that the PCT had allocated funds towards an interpreter service in order for those whose first language was not English to communicate with staff and obtain the information on health services, they required.
		The PCT were also seeking to reduce outpatient waiting times making sure that patients were fast-tracked to hospital admission. Mr Bailey added that the Health Community was looking to enter into a contract with an Independent Treatment Centre located at junction 30 of the M1 motorway which he anticipated that when fully operational would reduce orthopaedic waiting times. He further added that a South African medical team would be operating the Centre giving residents real choice in patient care.
		Mr Bailey also added that the PCT were looking to approach schools in order to improve the quality of school meals and added that in his opinion fast food was too readily available.
		Mr Bailey went on to refer to the cost of prescriptions to the Health Service and added that approximately £2.2 million of unused dispensary items were returned to Pharmacies each year and had to be destroyed and commented that patients should only obtain repeat prescriptions for the medication they required.
		In concluding his report Mr Bailey stated that the PCT had been awarded three stars by the Commission for Health Improvement and had been identified as amongst one of the best in the Country.
		Following the presentation the following questions were asked and responses given:-

		Q.			A local resident congratulated Mr Bailey on the PCT’s achievements and commented that he was a resident of Wharncliffe Side, although he attended Oughtibridge GP Facilities. He informed the Panel of the difficulties he had experienced in obtaining an appointment with the Doctor of his choice and within a 48-hour period. He also added that he was unable to make an appointment more than one week in advance and did not feel that this was acceptable.

		R.			Robert Bailey commented on the PCT’s ability to ensure that people were able to access a primary health care professional within 24 hours and a GP within 48 hours of request. In response to the scheduling of advance appointments, Mr Bailey added that patients had often recovered after a week and he noted that advance booking produced a greater incidence of “No Shows” and therefore a waste of time and resources, he also added that GP Practices retained a number of emergency appointments for urgent cases.

		Q.			A local resident informed the Panel that she was due to have a knee operation and added that in November, 2003, she had been informed that the waiting period would be a maximum of 12 months, she further added that she had heard about arrangements with Claremont and Thornbury Private Hospitals, where patients had been on the NHS waiting list over this 12 month period and enquired as to the provision of this service?

		R.			The PCT had commissioned activity with private hospitals including Claremont and Thornbury where patients may breach the 12 month waiting time but highlighted that the majority of elective activity was performed well w