Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions

(a)  to receive any questions or petitions from members of the public


(b)  to note the attached document setting out the responses to questions raised at the last meeting, which were not provided at the meeting




The Committee received the following questions from a member of the public who had submitted the questions prior to the meeting, and who attended the meeting to raise them:-




(a)  Jenny van Tinteren, OBE, Co-Chair of Stannington Pavilion Renewal Committee (SPARC)



SPARC is a consortium of local groups set up in March 2022 to save Stannington Park Pavilion, with a view to raising funds to replace it with a new purpose-built band rehearsal room and community space.


SPARC submitted an Expression of Interest to the Council on 14 June 2022, copy attached. We received an acknowledgement, followed by 2 emails from Jo Pearce 30 June and 14 September, saying that no response could be provided due to capacity issues and many other higher priority projects across the city.


It is now 4 months later, and we still have no proper reply nor any indication of when someone might be willing to even start talking to us. This is unacceptable, especially when our EOI was specifically directed at relieving the Council a burden of costs through a transfer of the building to the community.


Question 1: Would the Council please agree to meet us soon to discuss the Expression of Interest and agree a way forward?


Question 2: What proposals does the Council have for consulting with the community in Stannington about the future of the pavilion?


Question 3: What proposals does the Council have to meet the need for more community space to house Stannington Brass Band, the after-school club, park sports activities etc?


Question 4 – What are the timescales for the review of community buildings authorised at the meeting of the Finance Sub-Committee on 7 November 2022 agenda item 6?


Question 5: How does the Council propose to involve local communities and consult publicly on that review?


Jenny also asked the following question on behalf of Action for Stannington:-


Question 1: Action for Stannington has offered repeatedly to partner with the council and raise money for a repair project, to safeguard Stannington Park Pavilion in the short term. The last time we did this was in 2012 and it is now needed again. Who is currently responsible for agreeing such projects and when will they talk to Action for Stannington please?



In response, Councillor Williams confirmed that he had met with Ajman Ali, Executive Director of Operational Services. He shared Jenny’s frustrations with the situation and advised that he would share the questions raised with Mr Ali.




Councillor Baker noted her thanks to the members of SPARC for showing an interest and for working to maintain the pavilion.




The Chair advised that the Council was currently carrying out a review of community buildings and the results of this would help to identify those in need of repair or disposal.




The Committee received the following question from Pete Hurrell who was not in attendance at the meeting and had submitted a question prior to the meeting, which the Chair read out:




(b)  Pete Hurrell




Can I ask if it’s possible for our local planning officer to work with mobile phone companies to establish a location in Stannington for a phone mast so that we can have a good quality signal, this needs to be addressed as the move to full fibre broadband in our area will in most cases mean the landline will cease to work should the internet connection fail, it will require some co-operation as at least three phone mast planning applications have been rejected.




The Chair advised that a full, written response would be sent to Mr Hurrell.




Councillor Williams added that it was a difficult balance between protecting the environment whilst also accepting that people like to use their mobile phones. He stated that a conversation between planning and communities would be useful, in order to consider appropriate locations.




(c)  Jim Conibear




Personally I find that the Draft Sheffield Plan is a long document and doesn’t seem to be in a format which can be read and understood by Sheffield residents in the time span they are able to spare to read it.


Question 1: Is it possible to break it down to area commentaries of changes to the current position and other development proposals for the future of eg the Stannington area which can be circulated to residents.


Question 2: Am I right in thinking that the local plan areas do not correspond with the division used for LAC purposes.


The North West Sub area in the Local Plan seems to concentrate on the Don Valley and parts of the central LAC area rather than the likes of Stannington and Loxley (page 36/37).


Question 3: What are the key proposals for Stannington and the Loxley valley particularly development plans and areas and what changes arise from those existing.


Question 4: The plan highlights the congestion in the area but only seems to mention doing something on the A61. What steps are proposed to improve traffic flows particularly around eg Malin Bridge/Holme Lane before any further development takes place.


Question 5: Will the planning gain money already accrued and future developments be spent on schemes to alleviating the transport issues and community infrastructure in eg Stannington and Loxley rather than diverted elsewhere in the city (eg improving or widening Malin Bridge/Holme Lane/Bradfield road and traffic lights reflecting more the effects of Tram/bus gates on vehicle usage flows.


Question 6: Will the plan as formulated allow future developments in park facilities in eg Stannington Park of the Volunteer Library, Action for Stannington block and café without further red tape planning issues to be overcome to achieve them?




Richard Holmes (Principal Planning Officer) explained that although Part 1 of the Draft Sheffield Plan had several ‘sub-areas’ within the north of Sheffield, it had not been possible to align boundaries due to its wide-ranging area and strategic characteristics.




Mr Holmes advised that there was very little change proposed for Stannington because the green belt boundary was so tightly drawn and he confirmed that there were no proposals to alter the green belt boundary.




In terms of traffic flow, Mr Holmes advised that the Transport team would be the appropriate team to answer this question. He added that there was a supporting report about the Transport Strategy that fed into the draft Sheffield Plan.




In response to the question regarding planning gain money, Mr Holmes advised that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies were collected city-wide and decisions on spending was strategic and made separately to planning decisions. This was something that the Strategy and Resources Policy Committee would make decisions on. He noted that 15% of CIL was allocated locally to individual wards and parishes and could be used for local issues such as congestion in a local area.




With reference to developments in Stannington Park, Mr Holmes advised that this was a development management issue, although there was a policy in the Draft Sheffield Plan for green spaces that generally sought to ensure no building on green spaces, with some exceptions.



Supporting documents: