Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Objecting to Government Funding Cuts

The Council received a petition containing 931 signatures objecting to Government funding cuts.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Alistair Tice. Mr Tice stated that he would urge the Council to adopt a Sheffield People’s budget, with no cuts in 2016. He commented that it had been reported that 400 Council job losses were likely and given this background, it was important that the Council took the petition seriously. The petition, he said, had trade union support and had attracted a high number of signatures.

The petitioners were not calling on the Council to set an illegal budget, although he stated that the Council would be acting illegally if it was not able to carry out its statutory duties. The Chair of the Local Government Association had also referred to the plight of local authorities. He asked the Council to explore the use of reserves and borrowing powers. The reserves earmarked to pay contractors, including AMEY and Veolia could be used now to plug the gap and campaign to regain the funding which had been lost. He said that he understood that the Council could potentially take the waste contract from Veolia and save money by running services itself.

Mr Tice suggested that the City Council took a stand and said that the Council would win the support of trades unions and local communities for such action and the launch of a mass campaign by like-minded local authorities. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Councillor Curran stated that this matter had been discussed on previous occasions. He acknowledged that the Government austerity programme did hurt people. He assured the petitioners that, if the Council was able to set a budget which did not affect people it would do. However, the amount of funding which the Council received from the Government was decreasing. In  1992, the Government introduced legislation which required local authorities to set a balanced budget. It was very difficult to see how it was possible for the Council to set a no cuts budget, without it being illegal. Moreover, use of reserves and borrowing may also serve to store up problems for the future. No political party or local authority administration in the country had proposed a no cuts budget as it would be illegal and it was not proposed to do so in Sheffield.  

4.1.2

Petition Requesting a Loading Bay near Watan Curry House, Page Hall Road

The Council received a petition containing nine signatures, requesting a loading bay near the Watan Curry House, Page Hall Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mehboob Hussain, who stated that there was particular difficulty in loading to premises on Page Hall Road where there were double yellow lines in place and there was also a bus stop, with people susceptible to receiving parking fines when they were attempting to unload vehicles. It was requested that an loading bay was put in place at the site.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Councillor Fox said that he would make sure a meeting was arranged on site including with local councillors to look at the details of the situation as described by the petition.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public  Question Concerning Installation of Fire Doors

Richard Perks stated that he was a leaseholder and had been informed by the Council that he would have to have fire doors installed at his property. However, he said that no one had visited the property in relation to the matter. He stated that the cost to him of installing the door would be £1,500. In comparison, he had obtained an alternative quote to purchase the door himself and have it fitted, which would cost only £500. He asserted that Kier would be making a profit of £1000 on this job. He also raised concerns about the overall profit which Kier made, and instances of overcharging by them. 

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Housing, responded and stated that she would look into the amount that Mr Perks was being charged for the installation of a fire door and respond to him. She said that the Council was bringing services provided by Kier back in house.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning the Housing and Planning Bill and Welfare to Work Reform Bill

Mr A P Page asked whether the Cabinet Member for Housing or other Member of the Council would propose the following resolution:

“

a.     Condemns the housing policies of the Tory Government in the Housing and Planning Bill and the Welfare to Work Reform Bill which will destroy council housing as we know it.

b.    Resolves to:

Oppose and resist these policies and support the national campaign to get these stopped alongside tenants, trade unions, councillors and MPs.

c.    Oppose the imposition of a 1% reduction in council rents which will drain the housing service of £27 million per year needed for proper maintenance of the housing stock UNLESS this sum is reimbursed into the Housing Revenue Account.

d.    Oppose the demolition of viable estates which are communities not just bricks and mortar.

e.    Issue a public statement clearly expressing their opposition to the Tory government/s housing plans which undermine council housing.

f.     Resists the implementation of these plans alongside the tenants national campaign to defend their right to a decent, secure, affordable home to rent.”

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the Council had condemned the housing policies of the Government, such as the Bedroom Tax and had also supported campaigns opposing such policies which were unfair and had an adverse social and economic impact on people and communities. The Council was also opposed to the 1% reduction in rents. However, it was legislation which the Council had to implement and was included in the Housing Revenue Account item referred to Council from Cabinet, which would be considered at this meeting of the Council. 

The Fairness Commission Annual Review commented on issues regarding housing and supported housing. As regards the potential demolition of estates, Councillor Dore stated that the Administration would not be proposing a scheme to abolish ‘sink’ estates. It had implemented programmes to regenerate housing through Housing Market Renewal and the Decent Homes programme. The Council wished to pursue regeneration rather than demolition of housing. She also noted that there was a motion on the Council Summons regarding the Housing and Planning Bill. Councillor Dore affirmed that she would be glad to support a campaign which opposed the Bill, which she said was pernicious and draconian.

(Note: The Council noted a question received from Jules Alexandra which referred to a Council officer by name and would not be considered under the public questions item.)

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning Closure of Government Offices

KaltunElmi asked if the opposition party would oppose the closure of government offices that are in Sheffield, to stop it moving to London.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council responded that by ‘opposition’ party she took that to mean the national opposition party in Westminster. She said that it was proposed that Department of Business, Innovation and Skills jobs would be moved to London. The Government would need to address the loss of employment in Sheffield and reconcile this with its stated commitment to the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ and associated investment, future economic growth, skills and relocation of businesses, which were needed in order to rebalance the economy. The first announcement of the closure of the Business, Innovation and Skills offices in Sheffield was made when the 90 day notice was served. She had written to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and had demanded a meeting with them and others including local MPs and unions, in order to understand the rationale behind the decision and to also make the case for the relocation of jobs from London to Sheffield.

Councillor Dore stated that she had not yet received a reply to her letter and if she did not hear from him, she would write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was also an online petition which she would encourage people to sign. Louise Haigh MP had asked an urgent question in Parliament on this subject.  A meeting with the PCS (Public and Commercial Services) Union had also been scheduled. The previous Coalition Government had also relocated Department for Work and Pensions jobs to Scotland and others had been relocated abroad. This latest decision was, she said, one which the Council would not accept.

4.2.4

Public Questions Concerning the Stubbin Estate

Sylvana Mansell asked the following questions:

Would the Council be willing to allow the community of the Stubbin Estate to create its own future by shaping its own policies on a bottom-up basis?

Will the Council support the community if it is revealed that the agencies or individuals behave inappropriately and is there any objection to the publication of  details as to the unacceptable behaviour?

Will the Council respect the wishes of the local people and give them prime importance above any imposed agencies?

Councillor Sioned Mair Richards, the Acting Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods responded that the questions applied to her work on Neighbourhood issues relating to the Stubbin Estate. She suggested that she meet with the questioner regarding the issues she had raised.

4.2.5

Public Questions Concerning Trees

Robert McBride asked why the Council had not adhered to the Aarhus Convention, which he said was a legally binding agreement, and carried out a proper and correct consultation process in relation to the proposed felling of trees?

Alan Robshaw asked why questions asked since the July Council meeting had not been answered. With regard to the Streets Ahead contract with AMEY, he asked why the Council said the contract cannot be changed, when Clauses 5.2 to 5.5 allow for change in service; the law; in highway standards; and in Council policy.

Colette Cameon stated that research showed that mental and physical health was improved by the presence of trees. She asked how this could be monitored and the effect on health and wellbeing could be measured of reducing this natural resource.

Michele Lazenby asked whether consideration had been given to the effect on property values where trees had been removed and potential for financial compensation.

Jon Johnson asked who was collating the evidence for the Independent Tree Panel and how the public could view it and make comments.

James Mountain stated that people had been told that there was no budget to retain the Elm tree on Chelsea Road. He asked as there had been no cost/benefit analysis undertaken on the street trees, how were costs being accurately assessed and did the Council acknowledge that large mature trees offer most in ecosystem services and had monetary value?  

Helen McIlroy stated that AMEY claimed that all staff were NJUG (National Joint Utilities Group) trained and the 5 year tree management plan also claimed that there was compliance with NJUG guidance. She asked why on 15 January, machinery was used right up to trees at Winn Gardens within the NJUG protection zone and said there were photographs of this taking place. She also asked for the location of over 140 trees that it was claimed were retained using flexible paving.

Dr Deepra Shetty stated that the AMEY Operations Manager said that AMEY had an alternative specification that had not been made public and asked, if these solutions had been used on Snaithing Lane and in other places, why could they not be used city-wide?

Louise Wilcockson asked how people could submit evidence to the Independent Tree Panel as there were no contact details available. She stated that she had contacted the Director of Development Services in relation to this matter on 20 January. Louise Wilcockson also asked how people would know what would be put before the Panel and how many trees and streets will be considered at each Independent Tree Panel sitting. She said that more information was needed to allow this to be an open and democratic process.

The questions were referred to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Councillor Terry Fox and responses would be given by Councillor Fox as part of his response to the petition concerning trees in Nether Edge which was presented later in the meeting.

4.2.6

Public Questions Concerning Complaints Process

Marc Ewan stated that he had recently tried to make a complaint to the Council and found the process very difficult. He asked if the Council would be prepared to form a working group to examine and to scrutinise the complaints process.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, responded and stated that she was aware of the complaint that Mr Ewan had made regarding a recent meeting. Complaints, questions and queries were usually acknowledged and referred to a Council officer for a response. Members were advised that the matter to which Mr Ewan referred had been received by email and was being considered through the complaints process and Mr Ewan would receive a response to the matters he had raised.   

4.2.7

Public Questions Concerning Council Reserves and Budget

Roan James asked how much of the Council’s reserves were to pay for Public Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts in Sheffield?

Carrie Hedderick stated that the scale of financial cuts to the Council was enormous and that the language which the Council used which termed these cuts as ‘savings’ was not the correct way of describing cuts which had been imposed by the Government. She asked whether Sheffield City Council had made moves to join with other local authorities to take the issue of financial cuts to local authority budgets up with the Government.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, responded that with regard to the Council’s financial reserves, it was known that there was £28 million which the Council would have to pay for PFI contracts and the bulk of this was in Government PFI Credits which the Council was given.

Councillor Curran said that in terms of the scale of financial cuts, the Council had been clear about the level of financial cuts to its budget and that it was the Government’s austerity agenda which was driving the cuts. It was not the Council’s desire to make cuts, but it was the outcome of Government enforced austerity. No political group on the Council had proposed a no cuts budget and the instruction from the national Leader of his political party was to set a balanced budget.

4.2.8

Public Question Concerning Elected Members

Martin Brighton stated that an elected member had shown that the needs of the citizens come first and said that when a crisis occurred, at a weekend, and out of hours, that Cabinet Member selflessly put all to one side, pulled out the stops, and by the Monday remedial action had been put in place. He said that the Cabinet Member was Councillor Jayne Dunn. Mr Brighton asked: “could this Full Council please take this exemplar of good practice and use it as a template for how all elected members should serve their citizens?”

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded by thanking Mr Brighton for his compliment to Councillor Jayne Dunn. She said there were many occasions when City councillors went the extra mile and it was nice to show appreciation to them.

4.2.9

Public Question Concerning Questions at Council

Martin Brighton asked the following questions:

What is the point, if: -

1.    “When questions are asked in this chamber they are not properly answered, even when later asked to review the answers given?”

2.    “When asked in this chamber to clarify the questions, the following emails are ignored?”

3.    “Not one of the issues raised by the questions has ever been resolved?”

4.    “Even when agreeing to meet with abused people, and making promises in a digitally recorded meeting, nothing followed?”

5.    “Questions that should be answered by politicians, that do not come under [Freedom of Information Act] FoIA, are sent to the FoI department, who are unable to answer?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she believed that Members answered questions put to them as best they could. She said that if Mr Brighton was not satisfied, she believed that he would follow up the matter with Members or ask the question again.

With regards to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, a person bringing forward a question may distinguish whether or not the request was under the FOI Act and the recipient of the request may also determine that and pass the request to the appropriate department as a request under the Freedom of Information Act. In some cases, it was possible to gain more information by using the FOI process. Councillor Dore said that if a person felt that something should be treated as a FOI request but it had been answered as if it was a question instead, then they would need to say so.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that in relation to Mr Brighton’s reference to abuse, it was clear that if he had any allegations of abuse, then he should contact her and provide details and she would request that officers investigate the matter.

4.2.10

Public Question Concerning Rutting

Martin Brighton stated that it was the annual rutting season and that it was city-wide, pernicious, showed disrespect for the community, was unsightly, and a safety issue. He asked that after all these years, could the Council adopt a policy and enforce a procedure to prevent rutting in public spaces?

Councillor Sioned Mair Richards stated that upon researching what was meant by the term “Rutting”, she found that it was in fact a local reference to verges being driven over by vehicles, which resulted in the formation of ruts and cars getting bogged down on the verge surface. She stated that she, together with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Councillor Terry Fox, would look at the problem of rutting and how it might be stopped, through for example the use of wooden bollards and she would respond to Mr Brighton on this matter.

4.2.11

Public Question Concerning Declarations of Interest

Martin Brighton asked if the Council would consider reviewing its Constitution and expanding the rules for Declarations of Interest.

He said that that: “The reason for this is because, upon investigation, it was found that there were many indirect associations or arm’s-length involvement of elected members or elite but influential cadres that were not declared. What is being revealed is an entire community of inextricably entangled politicians and their self-serving puppets that are to all extents and purposes invisible to the electorate. It is asked that this review be urgent.”

Councillor Julie Dore responded that, if Mr Brighton could identify where somebody has an interest which had not been declared, then he should bring this to the attention of the Council.

4.3

Petitions Requiring Debate

4.3.1

Petition Requiring Debate Calling on the Council to Install a Crossing at the Junction where Castle Street/Waingate and Haymarket Join

The Council received an electronic petition containing 7,833 signatures calling on the Council to install a crossing at the junction where Castle Street/Waingate and Haymarket joined.  The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures would be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the e-petition was as follows:-

“I am writing this petition to ask Sheffield Council to install traffic lights at the junctions in the Sheffield city centre. The same spot where Summer Lee Seymour lost her life in a collision with a bus along with her boyfriend, who is currently fighting for his life.

As a bus driver myself, this has been an accident waiting to happen for a long time. It really saddened me to hear of Summer’s passing and I think that in respect of Summer, and for her boyfriend, Sheffield needs to do this to prevent any other lives at risk.

15 year old Summer Seymour had her whole life ahead of her. I didn't know her personally and neither do I know the family or her partner, but this beautiful girl lost her life and I think it could have been prevented had there been traffic lights and a pedestrian crossing installed. It is really bad driving round the city centre, especially in this area. I've come across lots of near misses myself and it won't be the last time if something isn't done about this soon.

So please do this in respect of Summer Seymour and her boyfriend. Please sign and share. We don't want anymore tragic accidents, please act now.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Melissa Hewitt who stated that the petition was requesting a crossing in honour and respect of Summer Seymour and to prevent the occurance of another tragic accident. She was aware of the dangers of the junction and a crossing at that location was badly needed.

The petition had the support of Summer’s family and it could make things safer in the area for everyone’s benefit to try and prevent a similar tragedy happening again. She acknowledged there was a safe crossing by the KFC restaurant nearby but the area concerned was on a blind corner and was close to a taxi rank and also used frequently by buses. The installation of a crossing would slow down traffic in the area especially on the corner. She therefore hoped that the Council would agree to the installation of the crossing in memory of Summer and for the safety of the public.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport spoke on the matter.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, thanked Ms. Hewitt and the petitioners for bringing the matter to Council and for raising the issue of the need for a crossing at the junction.

Councillor Fox commented that it was one of the hardest jobs for a Member and a Cabinet Member to be faced with such a horrific incident. He also wished Jake Ford well, who had also been seriously hurt in the incident. As a parent himself, Councillor Fox commented that he could not imagine what the family of Summer and Jake had been through.

As soon as was possible following the incident, Councillor Fox said he had been to inspect the scene. Following the relocation of the market he would have expected footfall in the area to have decreased but that did not seem to be the case and there was still a high level of risk to people in the area.

Police investigations into the incident were still ongoing to which the Council was closely involved, noting that the speed limit in the area was 30mph and the condition and width of the carriageway had been inspected. Visibility had also been looked at and Councillor Tony Downing, Cabinet Adviser for Environment and Transport, had provided advice as a former bus driver.

The Council had a long list of traffic calming schemes which had been requested and affordability did have to be considered in the assessment of such schemes. Historical accident rates at that location were available and had shown that there had been 6 accidents in recent years.

Councillor Fox further commented that the Council had to take into consideration the police forensic investigation. The Coroner may put forward some recommendations which the Council would have to consider.

The Council was awaiting recommendations from different sources. When these had been received, they would be considered carefully and decisions would be made. There were some short term options available but the overall masterplan for the City needed to be kept in mind.

In conclusion, Councillor Fox thanked Ms. Hewitt and the petitioners for bringing the petition and sent his thoughts to the families of those involved.

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Housing then spoke on the matter and Members of the City Council then debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:-

The Council could look at changing the layout of the road and the safety issues in the area. Councillor Fox’s comments that the evidence would be taken on board when reaching a decision were welcomed.

The junction concerned was a blind bend which was a blind bend by design. However, this style of junction created unnecessary danger and this should be looked at. The administration were supported in taking action that they thought was appropriate and it was hoped that progress could be made.

The death of a child or young person was especially sad and this incident could easily have resulted in two deaths and it was hoped that Jake Ford would make a speedy recovery. It was right that the petitioners were calling for something to be done. There had been many near misses in the area. Even when the market was there and there was a footbridge, this was often not used.

A change of priorities may improve safety in the area where vehicles could be made to give way at the end of Castle Street at the junction with Haymarket.

There was a need to do something both in the short term and the long term and this area should not be forgotten and neglected. The problems were obvious but the solutions might not necessarily be so and it was accepted that officers needed to look at the area closely before a decision was made.

It was disappointing that a Police response had not been received prior to the Council meeting. The policy of prioritising road safety improvements based on accident statistics was supported and it was wrong to prioritise around schools and across the City, accident statistics should be the basis of such decisions.

Accident statistics showed that the issue was much improved compared to 20 years ago. The Council had limited resources and needed to ensure that it put money into areas where it would have the maximum impact.

It was important to see the Police report and it was agreed that the Police should be pressed to release that to establish what had caused the accident. The junction layout should be examined and it needed to be kept in mind that a lot of buses and taxis used the area.

The area concerned was a point at which buses gathered and was well used by pedestrians, including mothers with prams. If there was a proposal for a 20mph zone this needed to be supported by additional traffic calming measures and consideration should be given to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) also looking into the matter.

The reduction in accidents in recent years was heartening but one tragedy was one tragedy too many and the whole area needed examining by highway engineers.

Everyone was aware of the junction concerned and the safety issues associated with it. Despite the market moving location, the area still had places and shops to visit. The family could never recover from the loss of their daughter but if the conclusion was that the accident could have been avoided they would want to ensure that it never happened again.

The debate had highlighted the possible options available and it was important for the Cabinet Member to look at the short term options and also long term to consider who would continue to use the junction and think about what the best options were for all users.

The lead petitioner, Ms Hewitt, exercised a right of reply. She thanked all Members for listening and looked forward to seeing the outcome and the options presented for improving safety at the junction.

Councillor Terry Fox the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to matters which were raised during the debate. He further requested that Ms. Hewitt pass the thoughts of all Members of the Council onto the family of Summer Seymour at this difficult time. During the debate a response had been received from the Police who were in the last stages of drafting the report which would be sent to the Coroner. It was important that the Council did not pre-judge the outcome and they would keep the challenge up to ensure a scheme was developed to improve safety in the area.

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

4.3.2

Petition Requiring Debate Requesting the Council (acting as Trustees of Graves Park) to Protect the Park and Not Sell Cobnar Cottage

The Council received an electronic petition containing 12,942 supporters calling on the Council (acting as Trustees of Graves Park) to protect the Park and not sell Cobnar Cottage. The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures would be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the e-petition was as follows:-

“Cobnar Cottage in Graves Park is up for auction at the end of this month. If the Council (acting as trustees of the park) succeed in selling the cottage, it will break the covenants on Graves Park. This will put any of the rest of the park at risk of sale. It also puts at risk all the other covenants on property given to the people of Sheffield by J G Graves.

Graves Park does not belong to the Council, it belongs to the citizens of Sheffield.

In 2009 Sheffield City Council put all of the Graves Park covenants into one scheme, to protect all of the park and to stop any future disputes. By selling the cottage they are breaking their own agreements of just 6 years ago.

The latest proposed solution is that a stonemason has volunteered to live in the cottage and restore it to its former glory, using his skills. The Friends of Graves Park have agreed to fund his work (he would give his labour for free and would only need funding for raw materials). The stonemason would also like to run training for young people and workshops for the public. The cottage would remain within the Graves Park trust and in public ownership. This is the perfect solution to the fate of the cottage. The Council, however, see no value in a stonemason working in Graves Park and have rejected this proposal. They are determined to sell the cottage.

The Council says the people of Sheffield do not care about Cobnar Cottage and support its sale.

Act now! Sign this petition! Write to your local Councillors! Write to the leader of the Council! Write to your MP! Help us to protect the covenants before it is too late!

Support us in protecting Graves Park!”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Caroline Dewar who stated that 12,942 signatures to the petition had been received strongly objecting to the sale of Cobnar Cottage. It was protected by a Covenant and if the sale went ahead the Covenant would be broken and the Council would be held legally responsible.

Ms. Dewar further commented that the Charity Commission had stated that the decision to sell the Cottage was the responsibility of the Trustees. The debate presented the final opportunity for the Trustees to reverse the decision to sell the Cottage. There was, she said, a clear conflict of interest for the Trustees and the decision to sell the cottage was not acting in the best interests of the Graves Park Charity or the people of Sheffield. Trustees could not and should not pass on the responsibility for the decision to Council Officers and should not follow their misguided advice.

Ms. Dewar said that the Covenant stated that land in Part 1 of the Scheme must be maintained and this included Cobnar Cottage. The Cottage was very important to local people and the decision to sell was a clear message from the Trustees to the people of Sheffield. The sale must be reversed and should this not be the case, it was a clear example of democracy not working in Sheffield as the Trustees were not acting in the best interests of the people of Sheffield.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Acting Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods spoke on the matter.

Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards, the Acting Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, thanked Ms. Dewar and the petitioners for bringing the matter to Council and for raising the issue of the sale of Cobnar Cottage.

Councillor Richards further commented that she felt equally as passionately as the petitioners about Graves Park and she believed the sale of Cobnar Cottage at Auction in the previous week for a price of £152k was in the best interests of the people of Sheffield.

The funds received from the sale would be invested entirely in Graves Park for the benefit of users of the Park. There were plans to improve toilet provision, play facilities, paths and running trails, which were all things that were needed.

There was no funding available to the Council at present to maintain the Park and maintenance works were funded through the taxpayer. As funding was reduced due to Government cuts, the resources available for maintenance were reduced.

Discussions on the proposals concerning Cobnar Cottage had taken place with the Friends of Graves Park for around 2 years and the Covenant allowed the Trustees to demolish the Cottage. The Friends had said they would agree to that. However, demolition was not felt to be in the best interests of the Park.

As previously stated, the sale allowed for improvements to the Park for the benefit of all users. The Trustees intended to continue to proceed with the sale of the Cottage. The matter had been to Scrutiny 3 times and Cabinet 3 times. Trustees had listened to the views of petitioners and the Friends of Graves Park and had explained the reason for the decision a number of times which was that the funds from the sale could be spent on much needed Capital projects for the benefit of the people of Sheffield.

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods then spoke on the matter and Members of the City Council then debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:-

The land concerned had been gifted in 1925 to be retained as parkland. The City Council purchased another 1/3 of the land in the 1960’s and in the 1990’s sold off part of the park. It had been confirmed that the area referred to in the petition was Charitable Land.

The Council had brought everything together under one scheme to protect the park for ever so it was difficult to understand why the Cottage was now being sold off. It was proposed that local Councillors should be involved as Trustees as they had the local knowledge to ensure that the original intention of J.G Graves to protect the park was retained forever.

Graves Park had been gifted to the people of Sheffield and it was important that the Trustees acted in the people’s best interests. The Cottage was run down and in need of repair. The issue of the sale had been scrutinised many times and the Charity Commission had not raised an objection.

There were no plans to dispose of parkland across the City. There would now be money available to spend on Graves Park with which the upgrading of the tennis courts should also be explored.

Local people were of the opinion that this was a first step and further sales were planned and other areas of the park were now at risk.  The Council may realise £152k from the sale but a proper relationship with the Friends of Graves Park would have presented an opportunity to transform Graves Park and would far outweigh the money gained from the sale.

The Cottage had been part of the park for centuries and should be maintained. The issue of how the park was governed as a Charity should be examined as it should be a local trusteeship with a role for backbench councillors and Cabinet acting as Trustees should then be freed from day to day responsibility for the park.

The wording of the petition suggested that all parks in the City were under threat which misrepresented the issue and may have caused people to sign when they were not aware of the true facts. An independent survey undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University had shown that people across the City thought that the sale of the Cottage and investment in the Park was a good idea.

The Friends of Graves Park had put forward a proposal to demolish the Cottage whereas the sale would preserve the overall setting. It was hoped that the Council and the Friends of Graves Park would work together for the future of Graves Park.

There was a perception that the Trustees had refused to listen to the people of Sheffield and had not looked at alternative options other than the sale of the Cottage. The Cottage had not been gifted to the Council but to the people of Sheffield and it did not lie outside of the park.

The disregard shown to petitioners by the administration was reprehensible and a matter of regret. The sale of the Cottage should have been postponed until the petition had been heard.

The issue of Cobnar Cottage was discussed at Cabinet in July 2013 following the submission of a report outlining potential options. Since that time the Council had continually maintained that if the Friends of Graves Park wished to present an affordable option this would be given consideration. The only option presented was demolition of the Cottage and this was not one that the Trustees felt was appropriate. The sale of the Cottage was therefore the only viable option and this allowed someone to live in the Cottage and money could be spent on improvements to the Park. Friends groups in the City were thanked and the City depended on their contribution to its parks.

The money raised from the sale was welcome, although it was also suggested that the Trustees were not entitled to sell the land. It was proposed that the issue be referred to scrutiny.

The City valued its parks and green spaces and it was recognised that people were passionate about them. With the Government cuts, the Council needed to find additional funding to invest in parks and money was needed to protect parks across the City and for the benefit of people in the City.

The lead petitioner, Ms. Dewar, exercised a right of reply. She stated that it was not true to say Graves Park was short of money. It was not a political issue and the Friends of Graves Park had met with Louise Haigh M.P. who had been sympathetic to their arguments. The Friends had spoken to a Stonemason who was prepared to work for free in return for being able to live in the Cottage. This option was presented to the Council in October and November 2015.

Ms. Dewar further commented that the Cottage was protected by a Covenant. The Charity Commission and Covenants were also clear that money earned from any sale could not be spent on maintenance of the park and needed to be spent on Capital projects.

There needed to be a change in the Trustees of the Park to better represent local people. The Council did not own Graves Park, it belonged to the people of Sheffield. Selling Cobnar Cottage had broken a Covenant and should not have taken place.

Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards the Acting Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, responded to matters which were raised during the debate. She commented that it had been raised during the debate that Graves Park should be kept the same. She did not want the Park to be kept the same but instead she wished to see it improve which was why the decision had been taken.

The Cottage had never been a public amenity. It was private and would remain as such. Being sold and undergoing maintenance improvement work would allow residential ownership including the possibility of a family living there. The sale would not present a fundamental change to the Park for Park users.

Councillor Richards had received requests from local Ward Councillors to improve the tennis courts at the Park. This could now be a possibility with money received from the sale whereas previously there was no funding for this. Councillor Richards had listened carefully to what the Friends of Graves Park had proposed and believed that their proposals would not benefit the people of Sheffield.

The views expressed by the Friends of Graves Park had not persuaded the Trustees that they were taking the wrong course of action by selling the Cottage and the Charity Commission had confirmed that the Trustees had the right to sell.

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

It was moved by Councillor Sioned-Mair Richards, seconded by Councillor Neale Gibson, that this Council notes the petition calling on the Council not to sell Cobnar Cottage, but resolves not to depart from the current course of action to complete the sale of the Cottage and reinvest the proceeds in Graves Park

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Penny Baker, seconded by Councillor David Baker, as an amendment, that the issue be referred to the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee as it was considered that the decision to sell the Cottage was taken based on flawed information.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion was then put to the vote and carried as follows:-

4.3.3

Petition Objecting to the Felling of Trees in Nether Edge

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 6,500 signatures, objecting to the felling of trees in Nether Edge and requesting that, as an alternative to felling, sensitive engineering solutions be implemented in order to enable the long-term retention of trees in the Nether Edge area. The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures would be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the petition was as follows:-

“We, the undersigned, refute the assertion that the felling of trees in Netheredge, Sheffield, is necessary. Instead, we demand, and believe it imperative, that sensitive engineering solutions be adopted and implemented to enable the long-term retention of these trees.

Evidence indicates that such large trees contribute significantly to local climate regulation, filtration of atmospheric pollutants, sustainable urban drainage, biodiversity, ecology: health and wellbeing and amenity; through their beauty and our pleasure of its enjoyment, which enriches our lives.

So far between August 2012 and July 2015 2,019 trees have been felled across the city. The SCC argue that the trees are damaging the pavements and roads and are therefore are "dangerous and/or discriminatory to disabled people and those using pushchairs". We believe the damage is minor and does not significantly impair accessibility for disabled people, or the use of prams and pushchairs. It is our opinion that sensitive engineering solutions, such as pavement restructuring and localized remediation near trees, with kerb stones sculpted to accommodate root morphology, would represent a sustainable solution to perceived problems.

Loss of these trees would represent a significant loss of a valuable foraging resource for bees, bats, owls and many other insects and birds. Not to mention the emotional wellbeing of Sheffields residents. Lines could be painted on the road to prevent parking under trees, thereby minimizing the risk of damage to vehicles, to a level firmly within the “broadly acceptable region” of tolerability.

SCC and Amey have pledged to plant small ornamental trees to "replace" the mature trees. These are not a replacement. Sapling trees cannot provide the same that mature trees can its impossible. Some of these trees are over 100 years old. It is ignorant to suggest that it is possible to just "replace" them.

Sub-veteran, mature trees represent our cultural heritage and are irreplaceable. We demand that alternative, sensitive engineering solutions be implemented as an alternative to felling.

Much of Netheredge is deemed a conservation area, these trees are an invaluable part of Sheffield heritage and cannot be allowed to be destroyed.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Carly Mountain who stated that the petitioners wished for the mater to be considered by a Council Scrutiny Committee. Nether Edge was an area which was rich in trees and it was also a Conservation Area. The Council’s website made reference to the importance of trees in policy making. Mature large canopy trees had the most significant impact on air quality and trees had an effect on ecosystem services. Reference was also made to the call for investment in flood defences for Sheffield and to the contribution that trees might make to reducing flood risk. She said that a cost benefit analysis of highways trees was required and which should form part of the strategy regarding trees, which was awaited. 

The contract with AMEY should have incorporated the issue of engineering solutions and trees might be maintained where alternative solutions and kerb specifications were used. She referred to the availability of financial resources, which she stated could be made available if the Council wished. The loss of up to fifty percent of street trees would she said change the face of the City and she asked whether the Streets Ahead project was sustainable. Saplings could still be planted, without felling existing trees.  It was felt that the Aarhus Convention had not been applied with regard to the preparation of plans for the environment, and errors had been made with regard to tree surveys.  

It was not known how the Independent Tree Panel could be contacted and there were concerns with regard to consultation relating to the potential felling of trees. The petitioners requested an Environmental Impact Assessment of the cumulative effect of felling high trees under the Streets Ahead project.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport responded to the petition.