Agenda and minutes

Members to declare any interests they have in the business to be considered at the meeting.

(a)       To receive any questions or petitions from the public, or communications submitted by the Lord Mayor or the Chief Executive and to pass such resolutions thereon as the Council Procedure Rules permit and as may be deemed expedient.

(b)       Petition Requiring Debate

The Council’s Petitions Scheme requires that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  A qualifying petition has been received as follows:-

            Request For Lease of Former Prince Edward School Building

To debate a joint paper and electronic petition containing over 5000 signatures, requesting the Council to grant to De Hood Community Project a long lease on the building at the former Prince Edward School. The online petition – https://www.change.org/p/secure-a-long-term-lease-from-sheffield-city-council-for-de-hood-s-future - contains 4,658 supporters (as at 20th March) (supplemented by over 400 paper signatures) and includes the following wording:-

De Hood Community Project needs to secure a long term lease on its existing premises "The Old Prince Edward School Buildings" at Manor Top from Sheffield City Council. The Council would like to demolish the building and grant planning permission to build another Retail Park. We are looking for your support so that we can continue to grow the project and make a difference to the local community, however, without a lease on the building, the future for De Hood is up in the air. The project has made a massive impact on the local community, both young and old, and provides a number of much needed community based activities for the local people to engage.

4.1       Questions relating to urgent business – Council Procedure Rule 16.6(ii).

4.2       Supplementary questions on written questions submitted at this meeting   – Council Procedure Rule 16.4.

4.3       Questions on the discharge of the functions of the South Yorkshire Joint Authorities for Fire and Rescue and Pensions – Section 41 of the Local Government Act 1985 – Council Procedure Rule 16.6(i).

            (NB. Minutes of recent meetings of the two South Yorkshire Joint Authorities have been made available to all Members of the Council via the following link -

            http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13165&path=0)

That this Council:

(a)       welcomes the increasing public debate about private rented housing and notes the following regarding the growth of the private rented sector:-

(i)         nationally the sector has grown significantly since the 1980s whilst the social rented sector has shrunk;

(ii)        ‘generation rent’ is all too real: in the UK, 46% of people aged 25-34 and 29% of people aged 35-44 now rent privately, compared to 20% of the population as a whole, and a quarter of families with children now find their homes in the private rented sector;

(iii)       austerity and the cost of living have made life harder for many private renters and have helped create a “rent trap” for many;

(iv)       Sheffield’s private rented sector has doubled in size during the past decade to over 38,000 households, about 16% of all Sheffield’s housing, and is further predicted to grow to reach 25% of all housing in 2025; and

(v)        Sheffield’s private rented housing is diverse – ranging from purpose-built flats to former council housing sold under ‘Right to Buy’; from student Houses of Multiple Occupation to families in terraced housing – with strong concentrations in some neighbourhoods;

(b)       believes these changes in the housing market have produced the following challenges:-

(i)         how to help people afford to enter and maintain a private tenancy;

(ii)        how to change the sector to recognise that people are spending longer periods of their life privately renting than used to be typical;

(iii)       how to help those who wish to move out of the private rented sector to do so;

(iv)       how to help neighbourhoods with high numbers of privately-rented homes maintain a sense of community despite the turnover of neighbours; and

(v)        how to fund council services to help private renters when the Government has imposed austerity, unfairly and unnecessarily slashing local government budgets;

(c)        believes that government policies since 2010 have spectacularly failed to address these growing challenges in the private rented sector, but the new measures finally being implemented - including ‘banning orders’ for landlords convicted of malpractice, an extension of licensing for Houses of Multiple Occupation, and an end to letting agencies’ fees (all previously advocated by the Labour Party) - should be cautiously welcomed; 

(d)       notes that a future Labour Government would introduce standard three-year tenancies; cap rent rises by inflation; introduce new legal minimum standards to ensure properties are “fit for human habitation”; and give renters new consumer rights (including tenants’ rights to keep pets);

(e)       supports the following measures taken by this Administration to help people who are renting privately in Sheffield:-

(i)         building new homes, including the first new council homes in a generation, to create more alternatives for those who wish to move on from renting privately;

(ii)        co-operating with landlords, the universities and students’ unions to run the SNUG accreditation scheme, which is achieving better standards for student renters;

(iii)       assisting tenants to assert their legal rights to the safe  ...  view the full agenda text for item 5.

That this Council:-

(a)       notes that the Government wants voters to present identification (ID) before being given a ballot paper in an attempt to combat “voter personation”, with five local authorities trialling this for the upcoming council elections in May;

(b)       notes with concern this development and highlights that a coalition of charities and academics has warned the Government that plans to enforce voter ID at the upcoming local elections could ‘damage turnout and undermine engagement’;

(c)        contends that Electoral Fraud is a serious crime and should of course be combated, however, it is this Administration’s belief that there is simply not enough evidence of voter fraud in the UK to justify these potentially damaging pilots, which threaten to disenfranchise members of some of the most vulnerable groups of society;

(d)       notes that in 2016 there were 44 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 64 million votes, reflecting just one case for every 1.5 million votes cast, and that last year there were only 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes — one case for every 1.6 million votes cast – with only one of these allegations resulting in a conviction;

(e)       contends that whilst the Government has stated that anyone can apply for a Certificate of Identity, if without an identification document, this is still disadvantageous to many and those less likely to possess approved photo ID for a variety of socio-economic and accessibility reasons, and that international studies confirm this assertion;

(f)        argues, therefore, that voter ID reforms could affect young people, older people, disabled people, transgender and gender non-conforming people, BAME communities and the homeless and there is a great risk that these reforms would exclude far more people than the tiny few attempting to undermine the result;

(g)       notes that the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society has stated that “electoral reform is a serious issue – but mandatory voter ID is a sledgehammer to crack a nut”;

(h)       notes that Slough Borough Council’s Conservative administration originally signed up to take part in the forthcoming pilot but later withdrew amid pressure from opposition Labour councillors, who managed to garner enough cross party support for their motion proposing a U-Turn on the proposals;

(i)         notes that Slough Borough Council’s Labour councillors successfully argued that poorer groups were less likely to have access to appropriate ID, such as driving licences, meaning the pilot could disenfranchise the poor, with one councillor declaring: 'We don’t want to use the residents as guinea pigs, and I don’t want to punish the law-abiding majority or create hurdles for them.'

(j)         supports the sentiments of Slough MP, Tan Dhesi, that 'the Tories are trying to introduce this not to tackle election fraud, but basically just to knock out not hundreds, but millions, of voters and disenfranchise them';

(k)        notes that there are only a handful of cases of voter fraud but, as the Association of Electoral Administrators have pointed out, the new set-up will  ...  view the full agenda text for item 6.

That this Council:-

(a)       believes that trust, truth and transparency are the bedrock of good governance;

(b)       believes that a lack of openness erodes confidence and trust in local government and agrees with the Leader of Rotherham Council that “you can’t be accountable without being transparent”;

(c)        agrees with the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government (Commons Select) Committee and former leader of Sheffield City Council, Clive Betts MP, that a council’s organisational culture is the most significant factor in whether scrutiny is effective, and that commercial confidentiality should not be used as an excuse to inhibit scrutiny;

(d)       notes that, at the present time, Sheffield City Council does not broadcast or record public meetings, unlike other core city councils, for example Leeds and Manchester;

(e)       notes the recommendation of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that all contracts should be available to be reviewed by councillors in overview and scrutiny committees;

(f)        notes that over the last three years, the refusal rate (including partial refusals) for FOI requests to Sheffield City Council has increased from 21% to 32%; 

(g)       notes that it took more than two years for opposition Councillors to be given sight of the agreements made with Sichuan Guodong Construction; 

(h)       notes that more than five years after the PFI contract was signed with Amey, opposition Councillors have still not been given sight of an un-redacted copy of the contract;

(i)         believes this demonstrates a worrying trend towards secrecy and a lack of transparency in Sheffield City Council, which restricts the ability of Councillors and members of the public to scrutinise the activities of the Council; and

(j)         resolves to undertake a wholesale review into the Council’s lack of transparency with recommendations from that review to be bought back to full council within a year, and requests the Chief Executive to commission that review.

That this Council:-

(a)       notes that this Administration has repeatedly refused to disclose specific details of the Highways PFI contract signed in 2012;

(b)       notes that this Administration has repeatedly put out statements that:-

(i)         trees are only felled as a last resort;

(ii)        trees are only felled in accordance with the 6 Ds criteria: i.e. if they are dead, dying, diseased, dangerous, damaging footpaths, private property or roads, or ‘discriminatory’; and

(iii)       there are no targets to fell trees;

(c)        notes that the Council’s refusal to release part of the contract was found to be unlawful by the Information Commissioner, who ordered that these parts of the contract be released;

(d)       notes that the newly-released extracts from the contract show that there was a contractual requirement for Amey to replace highway trees “at a rate of not less than 200 per year”;

(e)       further notes that it is a contractual requirement for Amey to replace 17,500 highway trees by the end of the 25-year contract;

(f)        believes that the Administration’s statements set out above are incompatible with these contractual requirements;

(g)       therefore asks the Administration to admit that those statements were untrue; and

(h)       resolves that this Council has no confidence in the present Administration to tell the truth.

To receive the Audit & Standards Committee’s Standards Report 2015-17, highlighting the activities of the Committee and providing details of the outcome of the Standards complaints received from June 2015 through to December 2017.

The Chair of the Committee (Councillor Josie Paszek) will briefly introduce the report.

To receive the record of the proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 7^th February 2018 and the special meeting of the Council held on 7^th March 2018 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

To consider any changes to the memberships and arrangements for meetings of Committees etc., delegated authority, and the appointment of representatives to serve on other bodies.