Agenda and minutes

1.1

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Bainbridge, Jack Clarkson, Adam Hanrahan and Paul Scriven.

2.1

Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed declared a personal interest in Item 8 – Notice of Motion regarding “Transport Funding”, due to him having worked with the Doncaster/Sheffield Airport in the past to engage with local travel agents to help them prepare a business case to attract airlines serving South Asia, and he stated that he would not speak or vote on that item of business.

3.1

Amendments to Motions

RESOLVED: In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(a)(ii) – Motions Which May Be Moved Without Notice At Council Meetings – and on the motion of Councillor David Baker, seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon, that only one amendment per Party Group per motion be permitted to be submitted at future meetings of the Council.

3.2

Petitions

3.2.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Develop a Network of New Public Bridleways in the Rivelin Valley Area

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 409 signatures, requesting the Council to develop a network of new public bridleways in the Rivelin Valley area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Louise Huson, of Hallam Riders group. The petition requested the Council to develop an improved network of public bridleways in the Rivelin Valley to help keep people safe from unnecessarily using Rivelin Valley Road. She said that bridleways were a most inclusive right of way as they embraced horse riders, cyclists, walkers and wheelchair users and they were also broader than footpaths.

She said it was possible for a mixture of different users to amicably share routes, which was socially inclusive and children often liked to see horses and ponies. Riding for the disabled also provided a means of accessing the countryside.  Whilst there were multiple public footpaths in the area, there was no legal provision for riders and cyclists to avoid the heavy road traffic. Barriers and signage excluded people other than walkers. Signage in the Rails Road car park also indicated that the nature trail was not suitable for wheelchair users. She said that this might unnecessarily endanger people and was contrary to disabilities and equalities legislation the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan, the purpose of which was to make as many green spaces accessible to as many people as possible. 

Louise Huson said that Rivelin Valley Road had a history of accidents and fatalities and there was great stress for people travelling on the road. She said that there could be changes to Council policy and minimal infrastructure investment. There were 20 stable yards in the Rivelin Valley and these were used by riders from a number of places, and included women and children and disabled people, who needed safe provision. At present, horse riders and cyclists were only able to use parts of the nature trail discreetly and illicitly. The petitioners wished for traditional routes to be made inclusive for everyone. Some routes had originally been cart roads and were thought to be wide enough for multi-use. The paths in question had been identified on a map which had been submitted to the Council with the petition. These reduced the distances which otherwise would be travelled on Rivelin Valley Road.  Sustainable surfacing was already in place on those routes.

She referred to accidents involving horses and cyclists nationally and said that access to off road bridleways in Sheffield was below the national average. The Council was asked to upgrade  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.1

Urgent Business

4.1.1

There were no questions relating to urgent business under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.6(ii).

4.2

Written Questions

4.2.1

A schedule of questions to Cabinet Members, submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16, and which contained written answers, was circulated.  Supplementary questions, under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.4, were asked and were answered by the appropriate Cabinet Members until the expiry of the 30 minute time limit for Members’ Questions (in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.7).

4.3

South Yorkshire Joint Authorities

4.3.1

Questions relating to the discharge of the functions of the South Yorkshire Joint Authorities for Fire and Rescue and Pensions (under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.6(i) were not able to be asked before the expiry of the 30 minute time limit for Members’ Questions (in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.7).

5.1

It was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, and seconded by Councillor Gail Smith, that this Council:-

(a)       notes the publication of the draft document outlining how the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be allocated across the city, however condemns the current Administration for the unacceptable delays in bringing forward these proposals;

(b)       notes the consultation on CIL is currently live and ends on the 14th September, and is disappointed that the Administration chose to launch this important consultation during the peak school holiday period;

(c)        notes the following national guiding principles of how to spend the CIL:

(i)         be allocated in line with Councillors’ annual ward priorities, which have been informed by local community engagement, data and feedback from service providers / partner agencies; and

(ii)        be allocated to electoral wards and provide local Councillors the opportunity to work closely with the community to decide how best to allocate the fund;

(d)       notes that the purposed allocation of the neighbourhood portion does not fully adhere to these guiding principles and is dismayed that this Administration in their initial draft has ignored these guiding principles;

(e)       believes that, in ignoring the guiding principles, the Administration is favouring selected parts of the city, and disadvantaging others;

(f)        notes that the Administration intends to use 85% of CIL for city-wide projects;

(g)       notes that in the draft document, in the neighbourhood portion, only 1.5% of CIL is guaranteed to be retained in communities where the development takes place and the rest is distributed based on Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD);

(h)       believes distributing the neighbourhood portion of CIL using IMD does not fairly compensate local communities for developments that take place directly in their areas unless in a Labour favoured area;

(i)         believes this goes directly against the guiding principles on how CIL is spent in local communities and this Administration is letting down the communities it should be serving; and

(j)         resolves to:

(i)         encourage local residents to take part in the consultation process and share their views with the Administration; and

(ii)        encourage local residents to set up their own parish council or develop their own Neighbourhood Plans to allow them to allow their communities to receive a larger portion of CIL.

5.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Lisa Banes, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is currently live and after it concludes the Administration will consider responses before making any decisions about this issue, which considers a full range of issues around the Community Infrastructure Levy;

(b)       notes that, despite setting out objections, the main opposition group have not brought forward any alternative proposals, and therefore looks forward to their response to the consultation;

(c)        regrets that in their motion the main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1

It was moved by Councillor Julie Dore, and seconded by Councillor Ben Miskell, that this Council:-

(a)       notes that:

(i)         insecure work includes people working on zero-hours contracts, temporary and agency work, and low-paid self-employment;

(ii)        3.5 million people could be in insecure work by the start of 2022 if current trends continue - a rise of 290,000; that’s the equivalent of the entire working population of Sheffield;

(iii)       workers on zero-hours and short-hours contracts earn a third less per hour than the average worker;

(iv)       1 in 13 Black, Asian and minority ethnic employees are in insecure jobs, compared to 1 in 20 white employees; and

(v)        insecure work costs the HM Treasury £4 billion a year in lost income tax and national insurance contributions, along with extra benefits and tax credits;

(b)       further notes that:

(i)         UK workers are, on average, £38 a week worse off than before the crash in 2008 (figures to April 2017); this is the longest squeeze on pay since Victorian times;

(ii)        public sector workers’ real wages are down thousands of pounds a year compared to 2010; for example, prison officers and paramedics are all down over £3,800 a year, firefighters are down nearly £2,900, while teachers are down approximately £2,500;

(iii)       just one in three people (33%) say their employer offers regular training opportunities - and one in four workers (24%) say that no training is offered at their workplace at all apart from a new starters’ induction;

(iv)       more than a million workers suffer from ill-health related to their employment, and around 23 million working days are lost each year due to injury or illness in the workplace;

(v)        almost one in three workers have been bullied in the workplace;

(vi)       more than a third (37%) of Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers have been bullied, abused or singled out at work; and

(vii)      more than half (52%) of women and nearly two-thirds (63%) of women aged 18-24 years old have experienced sexual harassment at work;

(c)        believes that:

(i)         every job should be a great job: that means every worker must be paid fairly; work in a safe and healthy workplace; be treated decently and with respect; have guaranteed hours; have the chance to be represented by unions and be consulted on what matters at work; and have the chance to get on in life;

(ii)        currently, too many jobs in the UK aren’t great jobs – and too many people feel that great jobs aren’t available where they live;

(iii)       it is positive that there is now a public debate about how we improve jobs in the UK – much of it driven by union campaigning and legal action against employers like Sports Direct, Uber and Hermes; and

(iv)       however, the proposals put forward by Mathew Taylor’s review of employment standards for the Government are inadequate; and

(d)       resolves to:

(i)         support the TUC’s Great Jobs Agenda, which sets out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.1

It was moved by Councillor Karen McGowan, and seconded by Councillor Michelle Cook, that this Council:-

(a)       welcomes Sheffield’s success in Reducing, Reusing, Recycling and Recovering household waste, with our achievement of one of the lowest levels of waste to landfill in the country at a rate of just 0.28% last year;

(b)       welcomes the new recycling service, noting that:

(i)         the removal of the blue box will be welcomed, as it has proven to be unpopular with local people;

(ii)        there is greater capacity in the new monthly 140 litre blue bin for paper and card than the old fortnightly blue box collection;

(iii)       the new 240-litre brown bin gives much greater capacity for glass bottles, cans and plastic bottles to residents who had used the blue box, and a broadly similar monthly capacity to residents who used the blue bin;

(iv)       that the greater efficiency for collection vehicles will reduce emissions, and notes further the innovative trial of electric bin lorries that have been engineered locally; and

(v)        the Council is maintaining a fortnightly black bin collection and has no plans to change this;

(c)        welcomes the value for money achieved in the new service, which provides a £750,000 saving to the waste service, and further notes:

(i)         that the Government’s austerity programme has made an unprecedented attack on public services since 2010 with local government facing the heaviest level of cuts;

(ii)        the continued impact of Government cuts and increasing demand for services such as social care means that the Council has had to make cuts of around £430 million since 2010; and

(iii)       that efficiency and improvements to services must be welcomed in this context, and no political group on the Council proposed alternative savings to the new recycling service in the 2018/19 budget; and

(d)       endorses recent calls by the Local Government Association for manufacturers to take responsibility for their production of unrecyclable plastics and work with councils to improve recycling, noting:

(i)         that only a third of plastic supplied to households is currently recyclable;

(ii)        that manufacturers could change to recyclable plastics or pay for complex recycling of other materials; and

(iii)       that Sheffield’s Energy Recovery Facility is an excellent resource in this context, allowing the recovery of energy from unrecyclable plastics.

7.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, seconded by Councillor Andrew Sangar, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that in Sheffield, only 29.6% of household waste was recycled last year, the worst recycling performance in Yorkshire and ranked 314th out of 350 in the national recycling league table;

(b)       notes that the current recycling scheme only covers plastic bottles, cans, glass and paper and excludes all other plastic waste such as food trays and bottle tops, whereas these items can be recycled in neighbouring Chesterfield;

(c)        notes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.1

It was moved by Councillor Robert Murphy, and seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, that this Council:-

(a)       notes that the Mayor of Sheffield City Region has submitted proposals to build a £250 million East Coast Main Line railway station at Doncaster/Sheffield Airport;

(b)       notes that the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority has recently part funded the £66.5 million new road between the M18 and Doncaster/Sheffield Airport;

(c)        notes that the second phase of the road, which in effect is an access road for a private business, cost £10.55 million and included £9.1 million from Sheffield City Region with the balance paid by Doncaster Council;

(d)       notes The Peel Group obtained the freehold of the Sheffield City Airport site for the price of £1, and then closed the airport and built a business park;

(e)       notes that the Doncaster/Sheffield Airport site also benefits from Government tax incentives through its Enterprise Zone and has already benefitted from millions of pounds in grants;

(f)        notes the criticism made by the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the Rt. Hon. Dame Margaret Hodge MP, who said "The most profitable parts of the Peel Group are managing to pay no UK corporation tax” and that “They do not pay their fair share of tax.”;

(g)       believes the main beneficiaries of these investments are property developers in the area, including Harworth Group and the owners of Doncaster/Sheffield Airport (Peel Airports Ltd., part of The Peel Group);

(h)       believes that the priority for rail passengers in Sheffield, the surrounding area, and travellers on our congested transport networks, is improvements to current services and investment in local routes;

(i)         believes numerous local improvements offer more direct benefits to regional travellers than a new link to the airport, for example, the reopening of stations such as Heeley, Millhouses and lines such as Sheffield Victoria to Stocksbridge; a direct connection between Doncaster and Barnsley; and improvements to cross-Pennine routes;

(j)         believes any further investment in links to Doncaster/Sheffield Airport should be made by the private sector; and

(k)        requests that a copy of this motion be forwarded to the Sheffield City Region Mayor and the Minister of State for Transport.

8.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Mohammad Maroof, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       welcomes the recent news that Doncaster Sheffield Airport has been named the best in the UK following a survey of passengers;

(b)       believes the development and future growth of the Airport represents an economic opportunity for the region and could lead to the development of significant job and business growth and improved local and national transport connectivity;

(c)        notes that phase two of the Finningley and Rossington Regeneration Route Scheme will play a significant role in supporting the development of the Airport as well as supporting other economic opportunities in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.1

RESOLVED: On the Motion of Councillor Peter Rippon, seconded by Councillor David Baker, that this Council appoints Mr. David Waxman and Ms. Jo Cairns as Independent Persons, as created under the Localism Act 2011, for a term of four years, in accordance with the details outlined in the report of the Director of Legal and Governance now submitted.

10.1

RESOLVED: On the Motion of Councillor Peter Rippon, seconded by Councillor Dianne Hurst, that the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4^th July 2018, be approved as a true and accurate record.

11.1

RESOLVED: On the Motion of Councillor Peter Rippon, seconded by Councillor Dianne Hurst, that:-

(a) approval be given to the following changes to the memberships of Committees, Boards, etc.:-

(b) representatives be appointed to serve on other bodies as follows:-