Green Group comments on City Council Boundary Review Submission

These are comments from the Green Councillors on . Three of us represent the current Central ward, one of us has recently been elected to the current Broomhill ward.

1. The new City ward. We strongly support the proposal to create a City ward, covering the city centre and Kelham Island and bounded, except in the north, by the ring road. Notwithstanding our concerns about effects on areas close to the ring road, we are aware that the city centre and Kelham Island are rapidly developing as a distinct entity and deserve representation as such. We approve of the name which will be acceptable to people in the more residential enclaves away from the true city centre (i.e. Town Hall, Peace Gardens, West Street etc).

2. Contribution by local groups. We feel that the voice of the more vulnerable areas has not been solicited or reported. For instance on p.21, groups from Broomhall (which will be split in half by the proposals) attended the meeting alongside Broomhill Forum, but are not mentioned. Highfield will be moved into , with which it has no geographical or community links, but the views of the main organisations in that area – Shoreham Street Tenants and Residents Associaion and St Mary’s Community Centre – were not sought. The chair of the TARA has made an individual submission.

3. The new Park and Arbourthorne ward. On p.28, the section on ward characteristics does not give sufficient weight to the fact that the Highfield area is very different and unconnected to the rest of the ward. It should point out that Highfield is separated from the current Arbourthorne ward by a main trunk road and railway and has no similarities or links in terms of transport, housing tenure, policing, primary school, shopping of community centres. The proposed ward name has no reference to the Highfield area, which could increase feelings of isolation in a new ward along the proposed boundaries.

4. The new Botanicals ward. On p. 32 in the section on ward characteristics of the proposed Botanicals ward, the conservation area is incorrectly described. The part of Broomhall on the west side of Wharncliffe Rd and Broomhall Place is in the conservation area and includes the Victorian villas and Collegiate Crescent campus. East of this is the “deprived” part including the Hanover Estate, students and BME groups. It also includes houses belonging to the same housing association – Places for People – as on the other side of the ring road. The main ethnic minority is Somali. The mosque serves the Somali community on both sides of the ring road and children attend a primary school on the city centre side of the ring road.

In the section on consultation, the organisations represented by “individuals” from Broomhall are not named, i.e. the Homework Club, the Broomhall Centre and the Group of Groups. We feel this downgrades the input of one of the most affected areas (see 2 above).

5. Valley. We disagree with the analysis that this ward works well as a unit. The length and narrowness of the ward, along with differences in housing tenure and physical barriers mean that the ward has an effective north/south divide, that does not promote a community identity aligned with the current ward boundaries.

Cllr Jillian Creasy, Green Group Leader, Sheffield City Council [email protected]