Minutes of North Area Panel 24 May 2006

NORTH AREA PANEL

Meeting held on Wednesday 24th May, 2006 at the Loxley Primary School, Rodney Hill

PRESENT:		Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), David Baker, Alan Hooper and Vickie Priestley

		Also in Attendance:-
		John Charlton	-	Lead Officer
		Anne Blantern	-	Area Co-ordinator
		Matthew Rush	-	Area Support Officer
		Paul Fell Paul Gordon	) )	Development Services
		Mike Anderson	-	South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
		Kerry Johncock	-	Tasking and Co-ordinating Officer
		Elsie Gilwhite	-	Sheffield West Primary Care Trust
		John Bailey	-	Bradfield Parish Council
		Patrick Burns	-	Committee Secretariat

		And approximately 19 members of the public.

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
	Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kathleen Chadwick and Graham Oxley.

2.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	No petitions and questions were received from members of the public.

3.	TRAMGATE AND BUS LANE ENFORCEMENT AT HILLSBOROUGH CORNER
	Paul Fell, Transport Planning, Development Services, reported on the proposals to enforce the Tramgate and Bus Lane at Hillsborough Corner. He stated that the national picture was that prior to November 2005 only the Local Authorities in London had been permitted to enforce restrictions such as bus lanes and tramgates through the use of cameras. With effect from November 2005 all Local Authorities were able to do so. However, that change in the law by the Government had taken most Authorities by surprise as there was no approved equipment for enforcement purposes other than that in use by the London Authorities, which was now out of date. The City Council would therefore use a CCTV system which, like the CCTV network within the City Centre, would be staffed by operatives who would observe and record offences. The enforcement of bus lanes by the South Yorkshire Police had been done through Police overtime, which had been paid for by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, but the enforcement, as such, was not a priority for the Police. The number of offences in terms of abuse of the bus lanes was increasing. The bus operators were demanding that action be taken. Five thousand vehicles abused the Hillsborough Tramgate on average, per day and Supertram vehicles were delayed, on average, two and half minutes each time they went through the Tramgate and were delayed for more substantial periods at peak times. The reliability and speed of bus and Supertram services were the key issues for public transport. It was vital to make public transport better so that it would become a viable and genuine choice for passengers. The Cabinet, at its meeting held today had approved the Scheme for targeting Hillsborough as the first location for enforcement measures. The next location would be the Tramgate at Glossop Road. The Hillsborough Scheme should commence during October/November of this year.
	There were issues to be considered relating to the links of the Traffic Enforcement Scheme’s CCTV system with the City Centre CCTV system, which was presently subject to a tendering process for new equipment and links must be established with the system of issuing penalty charge notices for illegal parking. A difficulty in terms of implementing the enforcement system was the signage, because a range of vehicles used the Bus Lanes and Tramgates legally, including community transport vehicles and taxis, so there had been a long process in obtaining the Government’s agreement for the relevant signage. The Government’s Guidelines required thorough publicity both through the press and through signage. The new signs would include variable signage and would provide information not only relating to the types of authorised vehicles but also to the times of operation of the Tramgate at Hillsborough, which had been reduced from 24 hours to 12 hours per day. This would be publicised widely in the press and through road signs. Initially offenders would be issued with warning notices for abuse of the Bus Lanes and the Tramgates and then, after the interim period a fine of £60, reduced to £30 for early payment, would be imposed. This was the same level as the charge for unauthorised parking. Such offences would not incur the endorsement of a driving license.
	Officers had fully investigated the possibility of granting exemption from the Hillsborough Tramgate for the residents of Rudyard Road and surrounding streets, but the signage must be consistent across the City, so if those residents were authorised to use the Hillsborough Tramgate they would then be authorised to use any bus lane or Tramgate within the City. This was unacceptable and therefore those residents would not be exempt from the Hillsborough Tramgate. However, the reduction in hours of its operation to 12 hours would alleviate their difficulties to some extent.
	A Road Safety Scheme for the Hillsborough Corner area was being designed. During the past few years there had been 57 accidents in that location involving injury, so a scheme was being designed which would tie in with the Hillsborough Tramgate and it would be implemented after the Tramgate and Bus Lane Enforcement Scheme, during 2007.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr Fell, Members of the Panel and other officers responded as follows:-

	Q. When the Enforcement Scheme was implemented, where would the traffic go? Had the movement of traffic, such as from Taplin Road to Barrack Hill, been taken into account?

	A. Most traffic which used Hillsborough Corner was through traffic and it would therefore use Penistone Road. The effect of the Enforcement Scheme should be similar to that of temporary road works, where frequently there were initial problems but the traffic found other routes. Modelling had been carried out prior to designing the Scheme so the difficulties should be managed and the traffic would go in other directions. Penistone Road could handle the additional traffic and the Urban Traffic Control CCTV system, which was in place, could also cope with the additional demand.

	Q. If the public were “voting” by going through the Tramgate, why would the Council stop them from doing so?

	A. The aim was to improve conditions for public transport.

	Q. Was the plan not an unrealistic expectation of the infrastructure as most roads within the area were gridlocked and more housing estates were going to be built which would create more havoc, the ‘park and ride’ facilities would not be used and the signage was confusing? Was it the case that for those reasons business was not coming to the area?

	A. Drivers frequently broke the rules and got away with it. It was now common for drivers to go through traffic lights when they were at the red status or through the Tramgates knowing that it was illegal to do so. People in every town would say that the traffic in their areas was the worst in the country. The traffic flow within Sheffield was quite good, for the road network that was available. Partly as a result of the development of land over a number of years, the traffic levels had increased greatly. Traffic management methods such as one-way systems and access loops had developed, which effectively formed “stealth motorways”. These were used to maintain the capacity of the highway network and to ease the movement of traffic. There was not complete access for vehicles, as turning movements and conflicting turns restricted highway capacity. Measures of this sort were employed in every major town and city in the country. The measures which the City Council and other authorities were taking, were driven largely by Government policy. The City Council needed to show the Government that it was making progress towards meeting targets and indicators, otherwise its funding would be reduced. All local authorities were doing similar things, including bus lane enforcement, in order to improve public transport. The Government clearly wanted universal road pricing to be introduced and public transport would gradually be needed more and more.

	Q. If a driver went from the Hallamshire Hospital to Hillsborough Corner it would involve travelling along Walkley Lane, which was blocked or from Langsett Road to Ripley Street which was gridlocked and there would be no reason to travel along Penistone Road. Had such problems been considered?

	A. They had been investigated and the movement of traffic would be monitored through CCTV.

	Q. Was the Panel aware that the proposed Scheme would make it difficult for bin lorries to complete their rounds in the area?

	A. The Traffic Plan was going to be put into action and it was unlikely that it would be changed significantly until the outcome was apparent but it would be well reported.

	Q. It had been stated at this meeting that five thousand drivers per day went through Hillsborough Corner. How many drivers did not do so in the area?

	A. This was unknown.

	Q. Was the Panel aware that Supertram was held up because cars were not obeying the bus lanes?

	A. That was well known.

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

4.	MALIN BRIDGE PARK AND RIDE
	Mike Anderson, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, reported on the Malin Bridge Park and Ride Scheme. He stated that the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) promoted the use of passenger transport and managed the Concessionary Fare Scheme, tendered bus services, local rail services, interchanges, traffic information shops, 3,000 bus stops and shelters, rail stations and park and ride sites. There were now three ‘park and ride’ sites within the City for Supertram and 60 rail ‘park and ride’ sites, within South Yorkshire. All of the sites were secure. Accreditation for those sites had been achieved. The possibility of increasing the capacity of the Middlewood ‘park and ride’ site was being investigated in addition to opening the Malin Bridge site. The Malin Bridge facility would be located opposite the Malin Bridge terminus of Supertram, with good road access. Work had begun on this site on 20th February 2006 and good progress had been made. It was anticipated that the site would open within 10 weeks’ time. It would not be staffed and was aimed at the daily users of Supertram. There would be 104 vehicle spaces, seven of which would be allocated to disabled users and access to the site would be controlled by a barrier. A “drop off” area would be provided and there would be two pedestrian entrances on the frontage of the site, within a secure brick wall with railings. The site would be well illuminated and would have CCTV cameras and a telephone link point, with two ticket machines and a sheltered stand for five bicycles and appropriate landscaping. Planning permission had been granted with a condition that the site would include a riverside walk, which had been constructed with seating. Subject to planning consent being granted, a toilet for the crews of Supertram vehicles would be provided on the site. The parking fee would be £3.60 per day and would provide all day use of the Supertram services. There would be no discounts for longer periods. It was anticipated that residents of Stannington and Loxley would use the site most frequently. The scheme had involved the clean up of a derelict area.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr Anderson, the Panel and officers responded as follows:-

	Q. The Scheme was being implemented at a late stage following the development of Supertram. Why had it taken so long to carry out?

	A. The SYPTE was working to the Local Transport Plan and the total cost of the Scheme was £500,000, which had to be prioritised against other Authorities’ projects. There were other proposed ‘park and ride’ sites within the South Yorkshire area and it was a matter of priority of investment. The ‘park and ride’ sites had been constructed originally at Middlewood and Halfway and others had been added to those periodically. The reasons why a ‘park and ride’ site had not been provided at Malin Bridge lay in the past, when the Scheme had first been discussed, 15 years previously. At that time no one had envisaged the level of increase in car ownership and most of the funding for ‘park and ride’ sites came from the Government.

	Q. Was it not the case that a cheap bus fares policy had been implemented within South Yorkshire because there had been a choice between cheap fares or spending a fortune on providing facilities for cars. Should that not be done again now?

	A. If there were cheap fares they would have to be paid for elsewhere.

	Q. Why would the Malin Bridge ‘park and ride’ be unstaffed when it meant that drivers, such as the questioner, would not feel as safe when using it?

	A. Many of the SYPTE’s car parks operated safely when they were unstaffed. The Malin Bridge Site would have CCTV, which would be monitored regularly.

	Q. Was it not the case that if the Site was barrier operated after midnight users could not take their vehicles out because it was not manned as the Middlewood site was?

	A. All users would be able to leave the facility at any time, with a valid ticket.

	Q. If the Site was full how would a driver exit from it?

	A. Once the Site was full entrance to it would not be permitted.

	Q. Was it not the case that if this Site was full drivers would park locally?

	A. That was the case but they would only park where they were parking now. The provision of the ‘park and ride’ site was an attempt to alleviate the parking difficulties of the surrounding area.

	Q. As far as Stannington and Loxley residents were concerned this was only half the solution to their problems. Was it not the case that an integrated bus, Supertram and rail system was required?

	A. The provision of this additional facility available to all bus and tram users went some way nearer to achieving that objective.

	Q. No bus services connected to the Supertram Terminus throughout the day. Was it not the case that it was therefore not accessible?

	A. The frequency of Supertram was generally good throughout the day when the highest number of passengers used it. Later this year a “Your Card” system would be trialled in the S10 Western Bank/Whitham Road/Fulwood area which would give some integration of the Supertram and bus services.

	Q. The inclusive cost of the parking at the Site and travel on Supertram would be £18.00 per week (£3.60 per day). Why was the charge not £1 per day?

	A. That would require a very heavy subsidy.

	Q. Would parking at the site be free for drivers aged over 60?

	A. There would not be discounts to the of the users of the Site. However, a range of discounts were available at the Middlewood Site.

	Q. Was the ratio of disabled parking spaces adequate?

A. The provision was in accordance with the formula specified by the Government, but the position would be monitored to see how well those spaces were used.

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

5.	STANNINGTON AND LOXLEY AND THE SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
	Paul Gordon, Development Services, gave an update report on the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) and, in particular, its implications for the Stannington and Loxley areas. He stated that the SDF was a family of documents, including the Core Strategy, which would set the high level policies for development up to 2021. The Preferred Options relating to the Core Strategy, which were the ideas of officers, had been put out to consultation during the previous February and the comments which had been received, were now being assessed. The detailed policies for the implementation of the SDF were contained in other documents, which were now at the Emerging Options stage, including the City Sites Document. Within that Document there were three sites from this area, which had been considered for allocation during the process, namely at Hanson Road, the Loxley Works/Hepworth’s Site and the Greaves Lane Sports Ground. There had been objections to Hanson Road being allocated to housing development in the Review of the Unitary Development Plan and the consultations had favoured it remaining within the Green Belt. The Hepworth’s Site and the Greaves Lane Site had been considered for housing allocation. None of those sites had been allocated for development within the Emerging City Sites Document, so there were no sites allocated for development within this area. The Emerging City Policies Document set out the more detailed policies governing development across the City. Consultations were held to seek the views of individuals and organisations on those policies. The Proposals Map was also at the Emerging Options stage and in terms of the Loxley and Stannington areas, the key question was what development, if any, would be permitted in the Green Belt. Across the City the only example of a change in the boundary of the Green Belt had involved a strategic exchange of land at Sheffield Airport, within the Core Strategy. On the more detailed Proposals Map various sites such as Hollin Busk had been added to the Green Belt. The Hanson Road Site had been included within the Green Belt so it was no longer available for development. There had been several other small additions to the Green Belt and the aim was to encourage development on brownfield sites within the urban area. There were three sites within the Green Belt, which contained buildings. The Hepworth’s and Loxley College Sites had been up for tender prior to development and the only interest shown by developers had been for residential development. Planning permission had been refused for the development of the Pinegrove Site and the Inquiry into the application had been held on the day prior to this meeting. It was anticipated that the decision would be made known within six weeks. A developer had been selected for the Loxley College Site and an exhibition would be held at the Wood Lane Countryside Centre next month as part of the consultation process. Any planning application regarding the Site would be considered in accordance with existing Green Belt policies. Development Services were aware of the concerns of local residents regarding the development of the Site and the presumption would be against major development. A planning application for residential development would be treated as a departure from the Green Belt as had been the case with the Hepworth’s and Pinegrove Sites.
	Members of the public asked questions and Mr Gordon, the Panel and other officers responded as follows:-

	Q. The policies to preserve the Green Belt were encouraging but local people were worried about the proposed developments. What was the status of the enhanced protection, would there be a delay before its adoption and would it be useful within the short-term?

	A. The Emerging Options were the ideas of officers regarding development of the City and, following the consideration of comments received through consultations, those ideas were revised to form the Preferred Options. Consultation was carried out at each stage in the process and at each stage the SDF gained more weight. It would ultimately be submitted to the Government for approval and the number of comments and whether or not they were adverse would affect the Government’s assessment of the soundness of the SDF which would gain full weight when it received the approval of a Planning Inspector in 2009, following an Examination in Public.

	Q. Was the position therefore weaker now, regarding the protection of the sites?

	A. Planning applications would still be considered under the Green Belt policies of the existing Unitary Development Plan and the policies, in essence, were the same within the SDF, but the SDF would be strengthened by the fact that it would be subject to more scrutiny during consultations. In order to develop Green Belt land for non-Green Belt uses, a developer must show good reason for departing from the Green Belt policies.

	Q. Were the consultations therefore irrelevant?

	A. They were not irrelevant as they would all be taken into account.

	Q. How would residents ensure that the formation of the SDF went in the right direction? Would the best way be for it to be done through a support group such as the Loxley Valley Group?

	A. It made no difference whether the consultations were received from individuals or groups as they would all be taken into account.

	Q. If there were such Green Belt policies, why had Bovis stated that it could put 500 or 700 homes on the Hepworth’s Site?

	A. Developers were fully aware of what they could and could not do. Some developers attempted to use the fact that buildings already existed on a Green Belt site to justify residential development. There was a debate about whether hard standing could be used as the basis for development. A tight boundary would be drawn around buildings on the Hepworth’s, Dyson Refractories and Loxley College Sites and, if a development proposal was to be an exception to the Green Belt policies, it must improve the Green Belt.

	Q. Could the Secretary of State override these issues and grant permission for development of Green Belt sites as developers would wish to be done?

	A. This could be done, but the Secretary of State would be bound by the Government’s policies for the Green Belt which were the basis for the policies of the SDF.

	Q. What really counted, the City Council’s policies or the Government’s policies?

	A. The National Guidance and the SDF would provide the policies for the Green Belt. The Secretary of State would intervene if it was felt that the City Council was acting outside the Regulations. The law determined what could be done and enabled challenges to the Government’s decisions.

	Q. Special consideration would be given for the Hepworth’s, Loxley College and Dyson sites so was it not a waste of time expressing opinions regarding their development?

	A. There were large derelict sites within the Green Belt, which had to be dealt with and the criteria had to be set for them to be brought into use. The City Council had decided to include those sites within the Emerging Options documents, so their future considered by everyone. The Unitary Development Plan had been produced through a process of consultations. Supplementary guidance resulting from contact with local groups such as the Loxley Valley Design Statement and individual comments were very significant in the decision making process.

	Q. When the future of sites was being considered would it simply involve resisting planning applications or could it be done by producing, with developers, a blueprint for those sites?

	A. This had been reviewed at the Emerging Options stage.

	Q. How would the Sites be designated?

	A. They would be designated as Green Belt Sites as that was the Preferred Option, in line with the Core Strategy.

	Q. Was there a time limit for submitting views?

	A. The time limit for submitted views on the Preferred and Emerging Options stages had ended but consultations would be received for the Emerging Options stage.

	Q. None of the sites could be left untouched as they all need some form of clearance work, but developers would keep trying to obtain planning permission as they had invested money which was now tied up in the Sites, so would there be guidance on what the policies would be?

	A. The Preferred Options for those Sites were indicated on the Proposals Map and that indicated the form of development which was acceptable within the Green Belt. A meeting of minds with developers would be ideal but financial issues would have some impact, although it was not possible to buy planning permission. Environmental issues affecting those Sites were the responsibility of the owners. Planning law provided protection for the Green Belt but developers had invested money in the Pinegrove Site and had come close to obtaining planning permission for housing.

	Q. There were real concerns among local residents regarding the Green Belt. Was it protected sufficiently?

	A. The policies would do that.

	Q. Were the City Sites Emerging Options an option to create a blue print for various sites?

	A. If the questioner felt strongly on that point, a comment could be made within the consultation process.

	Q. Would that involve specifying development for a particular site?

	A. It would be similar, in effect, to writing a design brief for a site. It had been made clear earlier in the consultations on the SDF, that if a particular group was interested in a particular aspect of the SDF officers would discuss that with them and officers of Development Services were still willing to do that.

	Q. The acceptable uses for the Pinegrove site included leisure use, for which Pinegrove had been used and therefore the planning application for housing had been turned down. Was it not the case that there could then be attempts to change those uses, such as for housing, so there was no guarantee of the future use of those sites?

	A. That was the case. The eventual use of those sites could not be guaranteed.

	A member of the public stated that he had experienced frustration during contact with developers, following the production of the Loxley Valley Design Statement, as it had not been possible to engage with the owners or developers of various sites and what had been publicised as consultations had turned out to be the developers’ statement of what was the form of development they intended to carry out.
	The Panel thanked Mr Gordon for his presentation and noted the information.

6.	PARISH COUNCIL MATTERS
	In response to questions regarding the possibility of a digital speed activated sign being located at Loxley, it was stated that such signs had been installed at Ringinglow Road, Hathersage Road and Hallwood Road on a trial basis and the cost was a minimum of £5,000 per sign, so if a sign was installed at Loxley it would have to be moved from elsewhere. The outcome of the Hathersage Road trial was expected by the end of this year. The sign at Hallwood Road would be operated for several weeks without the sign being switched on to show the impact of the light when it was switched on. That trial would take approximately nine months to complete and its outcome would be brought to the Panel. The request for the installation of the sign would be put forward for consideration. The pilot scheme was being carried out because although such signs had been installed nationally, there had been no relevant Government Guidance regarding those signs until recently. The City Council was following that Guidance to develop rules for their operation. Nationally, opinion on the effectiveness of the signs varied, hence the trials would be carried out and other options would be assessed.
	The bid by the rural villages for funding for youth services had obtained £90,000. The bid was the successful outcome of the Village Appraisals which had been carried out by each community with support from YRCC. The group was now looking to implement the spending of the funding together with Sheffield Futures as quickly as possible in Loxley, Grenoside, Oughtibridge, Bradfield and Wharncliffe Side. Meetings would be held with local representatives regarding the Project, to establish the Delivery Programme and to recruit volunteers. The funding would extend to 31st December 2007. It would be allocated to work by Sheffield Futures and Connexions, working with volunteers in local villages who would then be able to carry on the work when the funding ended, so sustainability of the Project would be achieved.
	The Panel placed on record its appreciation of the role of the rural villages in their submission of the bid for funding for youth services, now mentioned, which had been successful and the Bradfield Parish Council, which was the accountable body for the funding.
	A further bid had been submitted for Objective 1 funding for a post of Regeneration Officer to carry out regeneration work in the area of the Panel and the outcome of the Bid was awaited.

7.	MINUTES
	The minutes of the meetings held on 30th March and 19th April, 2006 were approved as correct records and, arising therefrom, the Panel noted that (a) the Stocksbridge Tenants' and Residents' Association had extended its remit to include Wharncliffe Side so that the tenants’ levy would be spent across the area. The aim was to spend the tenants’ levy in the area where it was raised; (b) the Area Co-ordinator would investigate the issue regarding the tree at Wharncliffe Side now mentioned; (c) the request for action regarding the lack of a footpath at Wharncliffe Side had been forwarded to the appropriate officer; (d) there was no information available yet regarding the roll out across the City of green waste collections through the Green Bins Scheme, but green sacks were available at the Town Hall and First Point Receptions and, once full of green waste, they would be collected by Street Force; and (e) no new dog bins would be installed within the area of the Panel this year, unless they could be emptied at no additional cost.