You are here: Home » Your City Council » Council Meetings » Scrutiny » Culture Economy & Sustainability » Agenda 18th October 2007 » SFEP Minutes 18th July 2007

Sheffield First Environment Partnership Minutes 18th July 2007

SHEFFIELD FIRST ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP BOARD


Meeting held 18th July, 2007, at the Town Hall, Sheffield

	PRESENT:		Professor Ted Kitchen	-	Chair
			Councillor Mary Lea	-	Sheffield City Council
			Gary McGrogan (Director)	-	Sheffield City Council
			Neil Anderson	-	South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE)
			John Housham	-	Environment Agency
			Graham Ramsden	-	Yorkshire Waterways
			Nigel Doar	-	Sheffield Wildlife Trust
			Neil Parry	-	East End Quality of Life Initiative
			Sue Pearson	-	British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and the Business Environment Centre
			Fergus Beesley	-	Groundwork Sheffield
			Paul Garland	-	Shirtcliffe Conservation Group
			Stephen Daughtrey	-	Bruce Electronics Recycling
			Teresa Hitchcock	-	DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary UK LLP
			Peter Murphy	-	Active Recycling
			Keith Winter	-	Energy Management, Training and Consultancy (EMTAC) Limited

			Also in attendance:-
			Rachel Wileman, Partnership Co-ordinator; Natalie Hunt, Open Forum for Economic Regeneration (OFFER); Jenny Patient, Sheffield Campaign Against Climate Change; Drew Bentley, Groundwork Sheffield; Jan Fitzgerald, Project Director (Parkhill Regeneration); Graham Withers, Planning Service; Robert Thompson, Planning Service, Phil Roberts, Creative Sheffield; and Jason Dietsch, Sheffield City Council.

	………………
	PART A

	1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
		Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Simon Clement-Jones, Les Sturch, Mary Bagley, Prof. Steve Sharples, David Gray, Nick Tovey and Andy Nolan.

	2.	MINUTES
		The minutes of Part A of the meeting of the Board held on 23rd May, 2007, were approved as a correct record.


		Matters Arising
		Rachel Wileman reported that, in relation to links to the City Strategy and Local Area Agreement, comments from Members of this Board had been made available to the Director of Sheffield First, Jane Brown, and that in relation to the Fifth Ambition and Environmental Excellence Theme, feedback had also been received from Members of the Board. The Chair, Professor Ted Kitchen, thanked Members of the Board for their contributions.
		In relation to the Sheffield Campaign Against Climate Change (SCACC), it was considered that a more formal response should be made to SCACC as the questions posed by Jenny Patient at the previous meeting had not all been addressed in full. The Chair proposed that a holding response be sent, to acknowledge the importance of the questions posed and indicating that it was the Board's intention to address these questions directly.
		It was noted that, in relation to the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF), the closing date for comments relating to the preferred options for City Policies, City Sites and the Proposals Map was 20th July, 2007.

	3.	SHEFFIELD IS MY PLANET
		Rachel Wileman presented a report to update Members of the Board on the outcome of the recent Communication Group meeting to discuss Sheffield is My Planet (SIMP). She referred to activity to promote the SIMP brand as having been opportunistic and to the considerable media coverage on World Environment Day through a joint Project with Creative Sheffield. A recent meeting of the Communication Group had discussed the value of SIMP and the need to commission a Business Plan in relation to its future. She asked Members of the Board to consider how the message of action for climate change might be progressed through their respective networks and to identify what needs might arise from the SIMP Campaign.
		Discussion was held concerning a number of issues relating to SIMP including that SIMP should remain a distinct brand, separate from the Partnership Board and that its focus should be upon reducing carbon emissions and that there might be a possibility of trade marking the brand. It was also considered that, in the future, SIMP would become a web-based programme to which businesses might subscribe.
		It was considered that scoping be undertaken to inform the production of a Business Plan, after which the funding implications of such a plan and elements such as transport implications could be detailed.
		The Board agreed that a Business Plan should be commissioned to progress SIMP and that Gary McGrogan and Stephen Daughtrey be requested to undertake a scoping exercise to inform such a Business Plan and that the results of that exercise be reported to the next meeting of the Board.

	4.	PARKHILL REGENERATION
		Jan Fitzgerald, Project Director, Parkhill Regeneration, presented a report relating to revised proposals for Parkhill and, in particular, environmental considerations relating to the design and layout of the Scheme. Members’ attention was drawn to the public exhibition and formal presentation event on 24th July, 2007, and an opportunity for two delegates from the Board to be briefed separately in relation to the proposals.
		Jan Fitzgerald outlined the environmental features of the design and layout of the Parkhill Scheme, including that landscaping proposals had substantially changed to enable easier maintenance and the landscaping theme now reflected the Peak District. The link between the City Centre and Parkhill would be maintained to enable access by way of a bridge link. Energy production would use the District Heating system, following a study into options including biomass. It was intended that there would be community allotments and Fair Trade shops and negotiations were taking place to enable the Health Centre to be located closer to the development.
		Discussion was held in relation to the nature of properties within the redevelopment and whether it was intended that there be a variety of levels of occupancy within Parkhill so as to attract families as well as single occupants. Jan Fitzgerald confirmed that a mixed range of homes would be developed so as to encourage a range of single occupants and families. In Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Scheme, two and three bedroom flats would be available for rent and for sale. The Council was to ensure that there were sufficient affordable units available for purchase through a shared ownership scheme and properties were available to rent. Service charges had not yet been fixed. An agreed set of principles was being developed for the sustainability of the development, which might also apply during construction and redevelopment. The developer had committed to consider working with social enterprise organisations and also to take part in Construction Jobmatch.
		Responding to a question concerning the likelihood of existing tenants still being able to live in Parkhill following the regeneration, the Board were informed that approximately 100 households were still resident in part of Parkhill and this group would be given priority for housing, which became available following the completion of the first phase of the redevelopment. In addition, a list of over 200 former residents had been compiled, indicating who might wish to return to Parkhill and this group would be contacted to clarify their intentions. The importance of maintaining the community in that location was recognised.
		The car park had been redesigned so it was less visually intrusive and developers were considering active management of the car park, possibly selling unused spaces so they were available for use by nearby businesses but also to maintain an adequate number of car parking spaces for residents to use, so that people did not park on nearby streets. Discussions had been held with Whizz-go in relation to residents using the City's Car Club.
		The thermal efficiency of the building had been considered and negotiations had been undertaken with English Heritage in relation to improving the thermal efficiency of the building.
		Green roofs were also being considered for service buildings, although it was not considered feasible to install a green roof on the main building. The use of sustainable drainage methods was also being considered. It was noted that Andy Nolan was attending that event together with Gary McGrogan.
		It was agreed that the report now made be noted and that Nicolas Tovey, Private Sector Partner, be requested to attend the consultation event on 24th July, 2007. The Board requested that the results of the consultation meeting be reported to this Board at its next meeting.


	5.	PLANNING SUSTAINABILITY GUIDANCE
		Graham Withers and Robert Thompson, Planning Service, Sheffield City Council, circulated a report and gave a presentation on recently published guidance relating to sustainable development for planning applicants.
		The Planning Service provided extensive advice to assist developers in making planning applications with particular emphasis in assisting with more complex planning issues. Guidance had been developed to provide a clear focus upon sustainable development. It was considered that in the interim, before sustainable development policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) had weight as planning considerations, such guidance would encourage best practice from developers and assist Planning Officers in negotiations with developers.
		The guidance defined sustainability through five themes, namely economy, neighbourhood and community, environment and resources, movement and inclusion and design and construction. The guidance was published on the Council's website to enable details to be easily updated.
		Discussion was held, particularly in relation to the need to encourage developers to adopt sustainable designs and to use sustainable methods and materials for new developments. There were a number of cases where appeals from developers in relation to applications, which had been refused on the grounds of climate change implications, had been upheld. The Government were seeking to influence house builders in relation to sustainable homes.
		Graham Withers responded to a question relating to the City's District Heating System and referred to the debate as to how strongly planning policies could encourage use of the District Heating System, thereby promoting a monopoly. The City Council could only encourage people to consider connecting to the District Heating System, which was thought to be a sustainable option and it was suggested that the system could be used as an example within the reasons and justifications underlying policies within the SDF. Robert Thompson agreed to promote the system more prominently by amending the guidance.
		The movement aspects of development such as ensuring that people were able to walk and cycle were drawn to the Board's attention and Graham Withers confirmed that an emerging theme within the SDF was the ability to ask for contributions from developers for aspects of movement. The Council could already encourage developers to contribute towards aspects of public transport links, such as bus stops, and the development of travel plans and it was expected that such proposals would be made more ambitious and the Council would have more power to expect developers to contribute to such elements of public transport infrastructure. Transport plans would also require a process of independent monitoring and review, as to what had been achieved as a result of the plan.
		Case studies would be included on the Planning Sustainability web pages to inform and encourage developers as to what might be achieved, for example in relation to green roofs, and it was suggested that Members of this Board could contribute to such case studies.
		Graham Withers informed the Board that developers might get planning permission for a high quality development, in sustainability terms, and, post application, could try to negotiate the use of lesser quality materials or specification. The Council were aware that they needed to resist such "dumbing down". In relation to monitoring and enforcement, seven Officers (one temporary post) in the Council monitored key projects and were able to act upon breaches of condition. Approximately 80% of breaches were resolved with developers, through negotiation.
		It was considered important that information reported in relation to the sustainability of developments included quality as well as other measures.
		Members of the Board were requested to (a) comment upon the guidance which could be found on the Council's web pages and (b) to contribute to case materials, giving best practice of sustainability within the guidance.

	6.	IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT FLOODING
		John Housham, Environment Agency, briefed the Board on the implications of flooding in Sheffield on 15th and 16th June and 25th June, 2007. He acknowledged the tragic loss of life in the City and the trauma suffered by people who were flooded.
		On 15th and 16th June, 2007, 100 mm of rain fell in 48 hours and river levels were particularly high. Then, on 25th June, 2007, 100 mm of rain fell in 24 hours onto already saturated ground, which was the most rain ever witnessed in Sheffield in a one day period. An estimated 20,000 properties in Yorkshire were flooded. Hull and East Riding were considered to be the worst affected areas. Major disruption was caused to the M1 and Rotherham Station remained closed. The estimated cost of damage in the region was initially put at £1.5 billion and the cost of individual locations, such as Forgemasters in Sheffield could be as high as £15 million. Other landmarks affected included Meadowhall, the ground floor of which remained closed. The extraordinary response of emergency services and local people was acknowledged.
		No flood defence failed, although many defences were over topped, where the capacity of the infrastructure was exceeded, resulting in river flooding of areas including parts of Doncaster, as seen on television. It was thought that, in Hull, ‘surface water flooding’ occurred as a result of drainage systems being unable to cope with the extreme rainfall.
		The Environment Agency was undertaking post-flood work and was collecting data to map the extent of the flood. A post-event report was being produced for the Government and it was intended that drop-in centres be used to explain to people what had taken place. An event was to be held on Friday, 20th July, 2007, in Sheffield to thank those involved in operations when the floods occurred.
		The Chair, Professor Ted Kitchen, asked Members of the Board to consider the implications of these recent events for the work of the Board in the long term. Neil Anderson endorsed the credit given to the emergency services and other agencies, including the City Council. He expressed concern in relation to the implications of such events upon insurance, particularly for businesses and the Chair commented that there was evidence of significant under-insurance, primarily for small businesses.
		Fergus Beesley reported upon discussions which had taken place in the Local Economy Board and especially that a lot of businesses had been informed that they would not be able to obtain insurance. This was considered a matter for the Local Economy Board and it was noted that such cases might be passed to the relevant Ombudsman.
		Teresa Hitchcock commented upon the inability of the existing infrastructure to cope with surface water and the extent to which such events might be predicted in future. She also raised the issue of providing further flood defence mechanisms and requested that these matters be included in any further report to the Board.
		Gary McGrogan stated that a debate was required in relation to the City's infrastructure, particularly the drainage and sewers and as to whether rivers in the City were wide enough and deep enough. It was necessary he stated to avoid Sheffield being labelled as a City in which industry would not be able to become insured and also considered that there was a role for the Environment Agency to take a firm stance in relation to restricting development on flood plains.
		Nigel Doar stated that the entire catchment of rivers needed to be taken into account and flood plains should be properly managed in order that they could function as intended. This in turn would have economic implications, for example the potential loss of agricultural land. The replacement of the fabric of damaged buildings could potentially be seen as an opportunity to upgrade such buildings to a higher environmental standard.
		Further information was requested on how the Abbeydale Brook contended with the flooding.
		The Board requested that a further report be brought to the next meeting of the Board by the Environment Agency to enable a more considered response.

	7.	SHEFFIELD ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY
		Rachel Wileman presented elements of the Sheffield Environment Strategy considered by the Working Group on 11th June, 2007, and particularly the development of the fifth ambition in the City Strategy which comprised several elements: to lead by example; influence the Strategic Framework; promote Sheffield's strengths; develop and implement the notion of a low carbon City; adopt an agreed methodology to monitor carbon reductions; develop and implement a City-wide communication strategy; champion strategies for low carbon generation.
		Rachel Wileman stated that the Board would also need to consider the content of the Action Plan which would need to involve all Sheffield First Partnership elements to both commit to the Strategy and targets for carbon reduction and the engagement of stakeholders and decision makers. The role of the Climate Change Task Group would also need to be evaluated.
		The emphasis of the Board would shift, giving the Board responsibility for delivery, measurement and reporting upon progress, hence the requirement for a clear Action Plan.
		The objectives for the Environment Strategy included a realisation of the development aspirations of Sheffield within a reduced carbon footprint, focusing in particular upon energy conservation, the built environment, travel and transport; to ensure that Sheffield adapted effectively to climate change; to achieve a behavioural change towards low carbon lifestyles; and to sustain Sheffield's distinctive character and the quality of the built and green environment.
		The role for Sheffield First Environment would be to monitor and report upon carbon reduction, lead on elements of the fifth ambition as outlined, to deliver an Action Plan and to take on a championing role.
		Members of the Board were requested to discuss the matters now raised in discussion group sessions, following which reports would be made to the Board.

	8.	SHEFFIELD ECONOMIC MASTERPLAN
		Phil Roberts, Creative Sheffield, circulated a report and gave a presentation in relation to the Sheffield Economic Masterplan. The Masterplan was led by a consortium of consultants and aimed to establish a new economic vision for the City, to identify needs in terms of economic intervention, leadership models, physical infrastructure and implementation.
		The Masterplan comprised a number of strategic documents including a City Centre Masterplan, Office Accommodation Strategy, Industrial Accommodation Strategy, the IBM Competitive Sectors Report and a Marketing and Brand Platform Strategy as well as Knowledge Economy/ Innovation Mapping.
		A prosperity gap had been identified in Sheffield, where too few people were in employment (it was considered that 17,000 more residents could be in employment), overall productivity was low and there were too few jobs in high productivity growth sectors and a gap in business and professional services.
		Phil Roberts outlined the scale of change required in terms of employment in various sectors and stated that, overall, 17,000 more people needed to enter employment. The key emerging themes were aspiration and enterprise, employability and learning and neighbourhoods and cohesion. Other themes outlined included sustainability, image and marketing, property for an advanced economy, workforce growth, trade and internationalisation, innovation and knowledge transfer, business climate, spatial strategy, connectivity (particularly with Leeds and Manchester), key sector development, entrepreneurial culture and City Centre animation. For each of the themes, a number of interventions were being worked upon to form the core of the Masterplan. An example was given of sustainability, including the creation of an economic and environmental observatory to plan progress, to grow Sheffield's Environmental Services cluster and to shorten and rationalise the supply chain.
		Members of the Board were requested to discuss the matters now raised within discussion groups and to report back as appropriate.

	9.	DISCUSSION SESSION
		Members split into three groups, each focusing their discussion on one of the following issues, namely (a) how Sheffield First Environment's work related to the Economic Masterplan, (b) in relation to the Environmental Strategy, how the Partnership would take a leading role in relation to the fifth ambition and (c) work to be undertaken to complete elements of the Environment Strategy.
		Rachel Wileman reported on the outcome of group discussion relating to the Environment Strategy and focused upon the fifth ambition, which comprised seven elements. The Group considered that the Strategy should work to demonstrate improvements and consider the carbon footprint of the City in terms of what needed to be done to reduce carbon emissions by 20% in the shorter term and what more would be needed to increase this to a more ambitious target of 60%. Work would need to be undertaken across the Partnership Boards, including those relating to health and neighbourhoods. If this Board were to be expected to undertake delivery, it was possible that Membership of the Board would need to change accordingly. The group also identified an influencing role for the Board, possibly using neighbourhood structures.
		The second group considered what work was needed to complete the current phase of the Environment Strategy and Gary McGrogan reported that the group considered the Environment Strategy to be an evolving document and there was a requirement to set out the Strategy in clear terms. What needed to be done in terms of communication needed to be clearly defined, as well as how this Board was adding value to environmental performance. Such a Strategy would be web based and Sheffield Is My Planet (SIMP) could be utilised as a communication tool. The Strategy needed to be a helpful document and be able to provide advice and, by its very nature, would continue to evolve.
		Nigel Doar identified some potential confusion, for example the use of SIMP as a communication tool for the delivery of the Strategy when the SIMP brand had been classified as applying mainly to reduction in carbon emissions. A decision was required as to the precise role of SIMP as a brand and it was considered that it was just one communication tool, which the Board might use in the implementation of the Strategy.
		Fergus Beesley reported in relation to the discussion in the third group relating to how Sheffield First Environment's work related to the Sheffield Economic Masterplan. The Group praised Creative Sheffield in relation to their consultation on the Masterplan and especially that undertaken with the Climate Change Group. It was considered that particular emphasis should be placed on the local economy and elements such as closing the gap, environmental justice and building upon local skills, connectivity and a greater focus on greener transport/connectivity. The idea of the environmental observatory was supported and it was considered that the environment should be considered at the forefront of marketing strategies for Sheffield. It was also considered that there were a number of ‘flagship’ elements to Sheffield's economic/environmental performance but there were also some negative images, which needed to be overcome.