North Area Panel Minutes 23rd September 2004
| NORTH AREA PANEL | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Special meeting held 23rd September 2004 | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| PRESENT: | Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), Kathleen Chadwick, Martin Davis, Alan Hooper and Graham Oxley. | |||||
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Representatives of Panel Partners:- | ||||||
| Teresa Bisatt | - | Clerk to Stocksbridge Town Council | ||||
| Councillor Marion Davis | - | Stocksbridge Town Council | ||||
| Councillor Malcolm Glover | - | Bradfield Parish Council | ||||
| Councillor Martin Brelsford | - | Stocksbridge Town Council | ||||
| Councillor Sandra White | - | Stocksbridge Town Council | ||||
| Brian Daniels | - | Corus Engineering Steels | ||||
| Robert Peters | - | GVA Grimley | ||||
| Paul Voyce | - | Sheffield Homes | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| ||||||
| City Council Officers:- | ||||||
| Anne Blantern | - | Area Panel Co-ordinator | ||||
| Paul Gordon | - | Development Services | ||||
| Alena Steele | - | Education | ||||
| David Macpherson | - | Leisure | ||||
| Jim Watkin | - | Education | ||||
| David Mason | - | Strategic Initiatives, Neighbourhoods | ||||
| John Challenger | - | Committee Secretariat | ||||
| Jason Dietsch | - | Committee Secretariat | ||||
| Jim Watkin | - | Education
| ||||
| 40 members of the public attended the meeting including representatives of local organisations. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Declaration of interest – Councillors Martin Davis and Alan Hooper stated that they were members of the City Council's North and West Highways Board and would not participate in discussion on the proposals. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
1. | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL | ||||||
| Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker and Arthur Dunworth and from David Curtis. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
2. | MINUTES | ||||||
| The Panel received and approved the minutes of the meeting held on 21st July, 2004, as a true and correct record, subject to an amendment at page 6 so as to read that the Council’s Neighbourhoods Directorate were to investigate the matter of extra care housing and at page 7 to delete reference to Hillsborough Shopping Centre ascribed to Stocksbridge Town Councillor Marion Davis. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
3. | PROGRESS ON THE DRAFT RATIONALISATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THE STOCKSBRIDGE WORKS | ||||||
| The Chair introduced the item and invited Paul Gordon, Development Services and Robert Peters, GVA Grimley, to outline proposals and progress in relation to the draft rationalisation and redevelopment proposals for the Stocksbridge works. | ||||||
| Consultation had been undertaken with the Futures Partnership, the Primary Care Trust, the Town Council, STEP, the Community Forum and the Highways Agency. A public exhibition had been held on 9th-11th September 2004. Initial feedback had been received from each of the consultees as to how they envisaged the site be used in any future development. Discussions had been ongoing with Outokumpu with regards to the possible relocation which would have an impact on the brief under consideration. | ||||||
| Robert Peters outlined responses to the proposals from members of the public which included:- | ||||||
| · Affordable housing | ||||||
| · Education provision | ||||||
| · Traffic volumes and safety | ||||||
| · Land ownership/boundary issues | ||||||
| The Community Forum raised a range of issues to be considered including:- | ||||||
| · The impact on rateable values | ||||||
| · The potential for arts for example steel sculptures | ||||||
| · Expanded shopping facilities | ||||||
| · A policy which directed retail back into the centre of Stocksbridge | ||||||
| · Car parking | ||||||
| · Leisure provision for example parks and a museum | ||||||
| · To ensure that maximum planning gain was achieved and proper infrastructure was in place | ||||||
| The Stocksbridge Training Enterprise Partnership (STEP) raised no significant issues regarding the proposed usage. Responses were awaited from the Health Authority and Highways Agency. In relation to housing, upto 20% of any new housing development would be earmarked for affordable housing. In relation to the education provision there was likely to be a contribution for extra classrooms at the High School. It was noted that brief details had been sent to all schools in the area and visits to schools were planned. A report on consultation was to be taken to Sheffield City Council in October/November 2004 and a further report would be put to the North Area Panel prior to its submission to the North and West Planning and Highways Board | ||||||
| Paul Gordon, Planning Link Officer, stated that responses made to the City Council would be formally recorded. He added that the period end for consultation was 27th September 2004. Discussions would continue regarding the transport assessment to ascertain what would be required for works to existing highways and access requirements for the development. In addition, the Highways Agency would examine the Stocksbridge Bypass. He did not see any conflict with the development plan regarding proposals for land use and the utilisation of mill buildings in the existing development brief. | ||||||
| With regard to education provision, Paul Gordon stated that discussions were underway with the Education Authority regarding the need for additional school places, should the development progress. In relation to affordable housing the Council’s Neighbourhoods Directorate has reinforced the need for affordable housing provision of approximately 20% which would be applied to the brief. Additional issues for consultation included linkages to the countryside from housing developments and the opportunity to improve links to the Trans Pennine Trail. | ||||||
| The Chair invited representatives of Partner organisations to briefly comment on the draft proposals. | ||||||
| Councillor Martin Breslford, Stockbridge Town Council, stated that the Town Council supported some development on the site. He questioned whether, Outo kumpu were to relocate, the brief could be finalised by January 2005. The Town Council had particular concerns regarding infrastructure such as drainage, which would be under further pressure should a large scale development occur. Highways and leisure facilities were also a concern. He believed that the process of consultation had to be open and transparent and people needed to be told process each step of the way. He stated that the Town Council would facilitate this wherever possible. Further, he expressed the view that 20% affordable housing should be a minimum figure and that with regards to economic regeneration, jobs should be created locally in partnership with STEP and the Stocksbridge Futures Partnership. He also stated that any development would have an impact on school provision and health facilities and that monies from Section 106 agreements should be used for improved green spaces and other areas for the benefit of young people. | ||||||
| Tony Crellin and Graham Sliverwood outlined Stocksbridge Futures Partnership response to the proposals. The Partnership believed that proposals represented a good opportunity to increase business and commercial activity and therefore generate revenue for the area. In addition there were civic and youth facilities which could be improved. Tony Crellin explained that external support would need to be sought to attract funding. In summary the Partnership’s aim was for sustained regeneration and local ownership. It was noted that copies of the responses to the draft response to the brief made by the Futures Partnership were available if requested. | ||||||
| Barbara Horsman, Stocksbridge Community Forum, considered that the draft proposals were an opportunity to redevelop Stocksbridge centre. She expressed the view that consultation had been poor in the past and hoped that this would be a different case. She stated that highways were a particular concern particularly in relation to traffic volumes and junctions to the bypass and that, in addition, a rail link be built into the brief together with a park and ride scheme. Part of the land for housing could be set aside for homes for the elderly and sufficient spaces for play should be incorporated into housing developments. She observed that the area was naturally beautiful and stated that what ever was built should enhance the valley in terms of building and materials. She added that drainage was a continuing problem in the area and this would need to be considered by developers. | ||||||
| Andrew Clarke, Stocksbridge Training and Enterprise Partnership (STEP) stated that the proposals might be seen as an opportunity for improved employment opportunities, education and training including those in Deepcar. Developments could be made in the areas of outreach, IT training, community education, a children’s centre and business centre and partnership with the local schools and colleges. He stated that Stocksbridge could look to examples of regeneration in Lincolnshire and Liverpool. He outlined the following elements which STEP would wish to see included in the Development Brief. | ||||||
| · Improved infrastructure | ||||||
| · Retirement village/nursing care facilities | ||||||
| · Affordable housing | ||||||
| · A town centre renaissance | ||||||
| · A managed workshop space for new businesses | ||||||
| · A construction skills training centre | ||||||
| · Social housing owned by Stocksbridge | ||||||
| · Creation of a 'Stocksbridge rebuild' using a locally employed and trained workforce | ||||||
| · Community education and enterprise centre/library, learning and resource centre combined with a college centre. | ||||||
| Ruth Granger, Sheffield West PCT outlined the impact on the health of the population and impact on health services of the proposals. She considered that increased transport would affect air quality and safety of local people but that there were opportunities for greater physical activity in the form of walking and cycling. Increased employment opportunities were likely to result in a healthier population. Additional concern was the health of young people and ensuring that enough activities were available for them to participate in, in order that they did not choose to pursue 'unhealthy' activities. In terms of NHS services there will be an impact in terms of staff and space. It was noted that a new practice was in development in Deepcar to create additional space for practice staff, GPs and offices. Further accommodation would need to be found for district nursing services. In general, she welcomed the proposed developments and stated that work would be undertaken to ensure that health services could meet the needs of local people. | ||||||
| Sylvia Parry on behalf of the Tenants’ and Residents’ Association underlined the requirements for additional homes for older people including care homes. She added that at least 20% of new properties should be in the affordable homes category. | ||||||
| Jan Featherstone, Head Teacher, Stocksbridge High School, stated that the proposals represented an opportunity for young people in the area to engage with learning for a longer period. She welcomed the opportunity to feed into the educational developments. Alena Steele, Education Service outlined the position with regard to provision of school places. In primary schools there were currently surplus places available and, based on the addition of 700 additional homes, it was thought that existing primary provision could meet the needs of a large population. In the case of secondary schools, these were already close to capacity and Stocksbridge High School did not at present only take children from the Stocksbridge area. It was possible that a greater priority could be given to children from Stocksbridge in terms of admission priority. If the site were to expand then projected requirements for school places would need to be revisited. | ||||||
| David Macpherson outlined the position with regard to leisure provision. He noted that there was no plan at present to resite the Leisure Centre. However he said that leisure provision did need to be considered as part of the scheme. He noted that over the last two years an effort had been made to move to community management of leisure centres and though this had not been achieved due to the costs of maintaining buildings which were not in a good condition. | ||||||
| Matthew North, Steel Valley Project (The Environment Project) commented that the Project had been involved with Corus and a suggestion had been made that they participate in the management of non-operational land on site. The Project had already been working for two years using ERDF and SRB funding promoting community involvement, training, working with schools and other local organisations. The Environment Project will continue to have an input into a number of areas including the maintenance of footpaths. He commended Corus for its approach so far. | ||||||
| The Chair invited comments and questions to representatives of organisations present at the meeting. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Q. How much efforts have been made to attract the industry into the area in terms of investment in the long-term? | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| A. Robert Peters responded that, at present, a 50-50 balance between residential and commercial use was envisaged which had been discussed with the City Council. The present unemployment rate in Stocksbridge was 3.2% compared to the average rate in Sheffield of 4%. The proposals would create approximately 2,000 extra residents whereas it was envisaged that between 500 and 800 additional jobs would be created across the lifetime of the Project. The Chair added that the City Council had an important role to play in seeking to encourage new investment in the area and assured the questioner that local members were pursing this element vigorously. For the Town Council, Councillor Martin Brelsford stated that the Town Council had only limited opportunities to influence Corus’ decision as it was private land which was being developed. Robert Peters added that the loss of 350 jobs from the plant would be countered by the provision of additional jobs in the future and added that some Corus employees would be transferred to other plants for example at Rotherham. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Q. A local resident asked how the process would work. He commented that the level of rent might determine the type of business which could locate to any new development and felt that encouragement should be given to local businesses to start up. In addition, comment was made regarding the 20% figure in relation to affordable housing. He also asked what materials were to be used for houses and commented that there should be a low cost in terms of maintenance for future tenants or occupiers and energy efficient. With regard to projections relating to in-school provision he stated that the model used was based on large numbers of pupils in classrooms and commented that smaller class sizes, according to certain research would result in a better quality of education. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| A. Paul Voyce stated that the 20% figure for affordable housing was in the unitary development plan. However he said that work would be undertaken to look at the effects of house prices in the area and its relationship to the proportion of affordable housing which would be provided. | ||||||
| David Mason, Strategic Initiatives, Neighbourhoods stated that 20% was at the upper limit of the current recommended level of affordable housing which ranged from 5 to 20%. Due to current trends in the housing market the higher figure was currently used. A housing needs survey had been undertaken and concluded there was a robust case to have the maximum level of affordable housing. He concluded that there were various models of how such housing could be provided and managed and welcomed input from local people. It was clarified that the total number of houses to be built on proposed sites at Deepcar and Stocksbridge was 700. | ||||||
| With regard to the rental value of industrial/commercial units, Robert Peters stated that at the present time only broad usage patterns were being considered and the detailed picture had not yet been drawn up. Therefore, the market rent of particular sites had not been considered. It was envisaged that there would be a mixture of types and values of commercial units. | ||||||
| The number of houses planned was based on the Government’s prescribed densities for housing and it was not until the formal brief stage that exact floor space and rental values would be considered. | ||||||
| The Chair responded that in terms of educational provision, there was a need for greater understanding into the admissions policy and the process for predicting the number of places that would be required in the future. He proposed that the High School host an event to inform the local people of the processes involved. This was agreed by Jan Featherstone, Head Teacher, Stocksbridge High School. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| C. A member of the public, Michelle Tomlinson, proposed that a community fund be established by Corus for Stocksbridge with a view to providing funding to 'kick-start' local businesses. She added that it would be beneficial for large retailers to be encouraged to locate in the area as local people wish to have facilities on their doorstep in order to create jobs and stem the area's decline. She added that sustainability of the project was a key factor and monies would need to be set aside. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| C. Local resident, Jack Shepard expressed concern in relation to security and community safety once Corus had vacated the site. He hoped that in the design of residential areas the principles of 'designing out crime' would be applied and adequate street lighting, traffic calming and safe routes provided for residents. He also reinforced the need to utilise monies resulting from Section 106 agreement for youth provision. He added that the City Council and Highways Agency should be working to carefully consider traffic management issues before any development commenced. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| C. Chris Ward, Business Forum, suggested that a community fund established with contributions from Corus and developers might be made conditional as part of any future planning application. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Q. A question was asked as to whether affordable housing could be ring-fenced for local people. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| A. Dave Mason responded that allocation priorities could be set for housing which could be used to assure that local people were given priority. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| C. A local resident stated in relation to potential drainage problems for any development that there might be impact on insurance premiums for both residential and commercial properties which would need to be taken into account and might affect future investment. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| A. The Chair stated that a survey had been undertaken in relation to drainage and there were no reported issues of concern regarding the nearby dams which were regularly inspected in terms of their condition and safety. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| C. A member of the public, Sheila Tyler suggested that a starter business rate be established to encourage new businesses into Stocksbridge. She added that any development should take into account the natural beauty of the surrounding countryside. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| The Chair thanked everyone for attending the meeting stating that the City Council would respond in an appropriate way to the consultation exercise, a response to which would be given in November. It was intended that the draft masterplan would be taken to a future meeting of the North Area Panel at Stocksbridge and then to the Council’s North West Planning and Highways Board. | ||||||
|
| ||||||
4. | NEXT MEETING The next full meeting of the North Area Panel would be held on 19th October 2004 at Dungworth Village Hall, starting at 7.00pm. | ||||||
|
| ||||||