South East Area Panel Minutes 24th May 2005

SOUTH EAST AREA PANEL

Meeting held 24th May 2005 at Reignhead School, Beighton


	PRESENT:		Councillors Chris Rosling-Josephs (Chair), David Barker, Marjorie Barker, Bryan Lodge, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Mike Peat, Ian Saunders and Sam Wall

			Also in attendance:
			Pete Marshall and Simon Vincent (Development Services), Kitty Turnell (Sheffield Futures), Nick Fellgett (Street Force), Chris Smith (East Ranger Team), Dianne Hurst (Area Co-ordinator), Hannah Isherwood (South East Area Support Officer) and 6 members of the public.
............

1.		APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
		Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mike Pye and Ken Matthews (Lead Officer).

2.		MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
		The minutes of the meeting of the Area Panel held on 22nd March 2005 were approved as a correct record.

3.		MATTERS ARISING
		Public Toilets on Station Road
		The Area Panel noted that the Area Co-ordinator was continuing to pursue the developers regarding their intentions in relation to the site of the former public toilets on Station Road, Mosborough.

		“Bring Out Your Rubbish” Days
		The Area Panel noted that there would be “Bring Out Your Rubbish” Days on the Severnside and Thornbridge Estates and she requested nominations from other areas in the Woodhouse and Birley districts.

4.		PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
		Fly Tipping
		Chris Smith, East Ranger Team, stated that there had been fly tipping in the area, allegedly by a man wearing an orange boiler suit and driving a yellow/orange transit van with dark windows and an old-type registration. She urged members of the public to report any sighting of the van either to her (mobile number 07974 943549), or Woodhouse Police Station (0114 2963481) or Neill Pates, Environment Warden (07879 651673) so that proceedings could be taken against the offender.
		The Area Panel noted this information.

		Encroachment onto Green Space Buffer Zones
		Celia Jackson, Moss Valley Wildlife Group, expressed concern about encroachment onto green space buffer zones at Marsh Close, Mosborough and stated that she had been informed that a Council Officer had suggested that land in the buffer zone should be offered to residents for incorporation into their gardens.
		The Chair (Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs) stated that this issue had been considered by the Area Panel at its meeting on 30th July 2002, when the Area Co-ordinator and a Member of the Panel had raised the matter with the Head of Planning, Transport and Highways.
		RESOLVED: That the Area Co-ordinator, in consultation with Councillor Sam Wall, be requested to speak to relevant Officers about the concerns now expressed in relation to the information being given to residents about the buffer zone at Marsh Close and to report to the next meeting of the Panel.

		The Active Communities Project
		The Area Panel noted that there would be a number of jobs available throughout the summer to work on the Active Communities Project and anyone who was interested should apply to Stuart Rogers.

		Business in the Community in South Yorkshire
		The Area Panel noted that Business Community in South Yorkshire, could provide a team to work, free of charge, with non-profit making organisations who had public liability insurance (such as schools, community forums, residents’ associations, etc.) and details could be made available, on request, from the Area Co-ordinator.

5.		SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
		Pete Marshall, Development Services, gave a presentation on the new system for development planning which, under new legislation, required local planning authorities like Sheffield to prepare a Local Development Framework to replace the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
		He explained that the Local Development Scheme (approved by the Cabinet on 9th March 2005) identified the “portfolio” of documents that together would make up the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF). It also described the process by which the SDF would be produced over the next four years. The Core Strategy was the first SDF document to be produced. It would identify the overall aims and objectives for the City and other documents must conform to it. Next, three other documents would be produced at the same time. The City Policies document would include regulatory policies similar to those in the Unitary Development Plan, the City Sites document would show proposals for specific sites, e.g. for housing or employment use and a Proposals Map would show areas where the new City Policies would apply.
		At a later stage, Area Action Plans for areas subject to considerable change and a series of Supplementary Planning Documents would also be added to the SDF portfolio. A Statement of Community Involvement to show the Council’s approach to public consultation, an Annual Monitoring Report, a Sustainability Appraisal Report and Policy Background reports would also be produced.
		Pete Marshall outlined the overall aims of the Core Strategy and, in summary, these were to contribute towards economic transformation, to encourage more balanced communities, to protect and improve the environment, to increase accessibility (by improving transport and by locating development so as to reduce the need to travel) and to enhance the quality of life. Those aims would be brought together in a way that would contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development.
		Under the new system, local authorities were expected to begin consultation at an early stage and not wait until a draft plan had been completed. The local authority, therefore, was in the process of identifying the main choices for the Core Strategy and inviting stakeholders and others in the community to comment on what was being called “the Emerging Options”. The options were not Council policy but were normally consistent with national planning policy. They aimed to cover the wide range of sometimes conflicting positions of stakeholders and others. Where options would be incompatible with each other, choices would need to be made to take the Strategy forward. Other options would be more like items in a menu from which it would be possible to choose several, but it would be necessary to decide how much weight to give to each of them.
		Pete Marshall gave examples of the kind of choices that appeared in the Emerging Options document, namely:-
		· What kind of City should Sheffield be? Compact or spacious? With self-contained communities or with greater personal mobility?
		· Where should new jobs be provided, such as in major offices? In the City Centre, at other accessible locations as well (like Meadowhall or Crystal Peaks), or anywhere in the City?
		· How should Sheffield’s shopping centres develop? With more large shops, with a wider range of other services and community activities, or as specialist centres?
		· In which parts of the City should new housing be promoted? On brownfield sites in the City Centre and former industrial areas like the Upper and Lower Don Valley, Sheaf Valley and at Stocksbridge? Or should any large greenfield sites (of which the South East has several) be used for housing?
		The spatial strategy would depend on transport to connect different parts of the City and this would involve a number of different options, including considering development of further transport corridors, with integrated improvements, including park-and-ride schemes.
		He highlighted the important choices that would need to be made about the future of larger greenfield sites in the South East – at Owlthorpe, Mosborough Village, Woodhouse and the former Holbrook Colliery. Should any of them be developed for new housing (particularly Owlthorpe) or for business and industry? Or should their green and open character be protected, either as Open Space or as part of the Green Belt?
		Pete Marshall requested comments about the Core Strategy Emerging Options. They would help to inform decisions about which Preferred Options to include in the Core Strategy. SDF documents, including the Emerging Options, could be seen on the City Council web-site (go to www.sheffield.gov.uk and then type ‘sdf’ into the Search Box on the Home Page and press ‘Enter’). Printed copies of SDF documents would shortly be available in all branch libraries and at Local Housing Offices. He preferred comments to be made direct via the form on the City Council website, but it was also possible to send views by e-mail to sdf@sheffield.gov.uk. The deadline for comments was 22nd July 2005. A form for completion by those members of the public who wished to be kept informed about the proposals was circulated and he urged community organisations to register and become involved in the process. There would be a City Conference about the Sheffield Development Framework Emerging Options on Friday, 8th July 2005 at 1.30 p.m. at The Hubs, Paternoster Row and representatives of any organisation were welcome to attend the event. The Core Strategy Preferred Options would be published for consultation in February 2006.
		Maureen Stoneman raised a number of concerns on behalf of members of the Owlthorpe community in relation to further house building, transport links (including bus services) and the accessibility of the medical centre. She also stated that people in the area were already creating their own informal park-and-rides.
		Other members of the public stated that the open space in the South East should be protected and Celia Jackson (representing the Moss Valley Wildlife Group) expressed concern about the visual impact new housing near Bridle Stile would have on the character of the area.
		RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be noted and members of the public be urged to register their contact details with Development Services so that they are kept informed and can influence the formulation of the Sheffield Development Framework; and
		(b) Pete Marshall be thanked for his presentation.

6.		NOTICE BOARD - GROUNDS MAINTENANCE PROJECT IN THE SOUTH EAST
		Nick Fellgett, Street Force, reported on a pilot project that was taking place in the area and was being conducted by Street Force and Sheffield Homes Area H, whereby Sheffield Homes would take over the management of grounds maintenance housing land in Area H from Street Force.
		Nick Fellgett explained that a number of staff had been transferred to work directly for Sheffield Homes and were based at Crystal Peaks. In the past, Sheffield Homes had paid Street Force to provide a number of grass cuts per year but the frequency would now be determined by Sheffield Homes, who wished to increase this provision. One of the advantages of the pilot would mean that tenants and residents of the housing estates would have an input into how grounds maintenance was delivered in their area and there would be a locally accountable manager at the Crystal Peaks office. He explained the operational arrangements that would apply during the project.
		In response to questions from members of the public, Nick Fellgett commented as follows:-

		· The project had commenced on 1st March 2005 and would last for one year.
		· The project would provide for improved access to the service, by service users.
		· There would be better co-ordination between estate-based workers, who would provide a seamless service.
		· There would be a move away from the “one size fits all” approach and there would be more flexibility to meet the particular needs of local estates.
		· Some risks had been identified and these were that the service to non-housing land could suffer, there could be some duplication of supervision and machinery, the overall service might deteriorate and there could be difficulties in responding to an emergency.
		· It was important to try different ways of working in an endeavour to improve the service.
		· The project would, hopefully, create opportunities for the future integration of estate-based staff working for Sheffield Homes and the grounds maintenance staff employed by Street Force.
		· If the public wished to raise any issues, these should be addressed to Sheffield Homes at their Crystal Peaks office.

		RESOLVED: That the information now reported by noted and Nick Fellgett be thanked for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised.

7.		BUDGET REPORT 2005/06
		The Area Co-ordinator reported on the Panel budget in relation to the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the Local Action Plan 2004/06 and the Panel’s discretionary budget of £10,000.
		She stated that the amount of money available to the Panel from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund was £120,609 and this would be spent on the projects that had been outlined in the Local Action Plan, namely Priority Support, Active Communities, the Voice and Influence of Young People, the Environmental Project at Mosborough, the Area Sports Development Activity, the species survey that was being conducted in Woodhouse East, the Eco-Schools Project and the funding of Development Workers in Woodhouse and Birley.
		The Area Co-ordinator stated that the core budget expenses amounted to £4,000 and this would cover items such as the hire of premises, general office expenses, the upgrading of office equipment, etc. A sum of £6,000 had been set aside for the Community Chest and the allocations, so far, included a grant of £400 to the Handsworth Community Forum towards the festive celebrations and ten new dog faeces bins (5 to be sited in the Mosborough Ward, 3 in the Beighton Ward and 2 in the Birley Ward).
		RESOLVED: That (a) the information now reported be approved and noted; and
		(b) applications for funding from the Community Chest should be sent to the Area Co-ordinator.

8.		DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
		It was noted that the next meeting of the Area Panel would be held on Tuesday, 26th July 2005 at 7.00 p.m. at St. James’ Church Hall, Woodhouse.

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |