Agenda item

6.1

Public Question Concerning Hate Crime

Nigel Slack stated that the answer to a question from a member of the public at the last Full Council meeting may have been based on a somewhat disingenuous response from the Police. He referred to the following comment, which was attributed to them in the Star newspaper:

“The force said there had not been an increase in hate crimes since the referendum on June 23, but there has been a ‘slight increase’ in hate incidents.

In Sheffield, there were 35 hate crimes and 23 hate incidents last month, compared to 28 hate crimes and 15 hate incidents in June 2015. Last month also saw 22 hate crimes in Rotherham, 20 in Doncaster and 17 in Barnsley.

Detective Chief Inspector Sarah Poolman, force lead for hate crime, said: “South Yorkshire Police did not see an increase in the number of hate crimes reported to us following the EU Referendum vote on 23 June with a racial/religious aggravating factor.

“We did however see a slight increase in the number of hate incidents reported following the vote.” ”

Mr Slack said that comment indicated a 25% rise in hate crimes and an 87% rise in hate incidents. He said that whilst this may be starting from a low base, it was still a significant change. He asked whether the Council had any further comment on this situation.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Jayne Dunn, stated that she would not be able to comment on what the Police had said. The issue of hate crime was something that was subject to scrutiny. Increasingly, people were encouraged to report incidents of hate crime and it was partly expected that, as a result, there would be an increase in the number of incidents reported. The level of incidents would be monitored by the Safer and Sustainable Communities Partnership Board and the Cohesion and Migration Board and the Police had brought the issue to the agenda. Council officers on the ground, including those working in Housing, City Ambassadors and Community Safety, were not reporting additional incidents at the present time.

6.2

Public Question Concerning University Places

Nigel Slack stated that Aberystwyth University had reported over 100 European Union student cancellations for next year. He asked whether the Council had any indication from the Sheffield Universities as to their current intake and the impact this may have on Sheffield's knowledge economy.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, stated that a written response would be provided to the question.

6.3

Public Question Concerning Investment

Nigel Slack referred to the new Chancellor allegedly touting for Sheffield in China this week. He asked whether the Council found it ironic that, having voted narrowly to leave one supposedly undemocratic institution in the form of the European Union, the City was expected to accept investment from what he said was an actual undemocratic nation like the People's Republic of China.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources stated that the European Union and China were both very different and personally, he would like to see investment from both of them. Sheffield was a City which was open for business and investment and it needed investors to come here.

6.4

Public Question Concerning Sheffield Retail Quarter

Nigel Slack said that he was happy to see an initial proposal for the start of the first phase of the Sheffield Retail Quarter, based on an agreed tenant and therefore a secure investment (as much as anything can be) for the City's money. He stated that he was a little more concerned by the proposal to dish out nearly £27 million to 'advisors',  since this would create no return on the investment (in a tangible sense). He asked if the Council would at least make every effort to ensure these advisors are local, in order to retain at least some of that money within the City.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, responded that technical advice and expertise was required in relation to the Sheffield Retail Quarter and Queensbury Real Estate, the Council’s Strategic Development Partner was working with the Council.

6.5

Public Question Concerning Smithy Wood

Nigel Slack stated that the potential destruction of the ancient Smithy Wood continued to rumble on. He said that a recent post on social media by 'Sheffield environmental' had suggested that, despite the developer’s claims of wanting to save lives on the motorway, this would not be a 'full service' site and therefore the entire range of supposedly vital comforts for the weary driver would not be there 24/7. He asked if the Council could confirm that this is the case.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, stated that he would provide a written response to the question.

6.6

Public Questions Concerning Devolution

Nigel Slack referred to the appointment of Sajid Javid MP to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). He asked how confident the Council was that the devolution process would continue to have any impetus behind it.

Mr Slack said that he had been to two different devolution consultation events in the past week, namely the Centre for Cities, attended by Lord David Blunkett and Insider Magazine on 19 July 2016 with the business community. He said that it seemed clear that those two events foresaw a very different role for the upcoming Mayor. He asked, with this disparity between business and political/academic spheres, who will win?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, stated that Sajid Javid MP had only very recently been appointed to the post of Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and there was nothing up to now to suggest that devolution would not happen.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that at a recent meeting of the LGA (Local Government Association) there was confidence that initiatives such as the localisation of Business Rates and the growth agenda would continue, although the Ministers now responsible for Business, Innovation and Skills and Communities and Local Government had changed, effectively swapping roles.

6.7

Public Questions Concerning School Places in Ecclesall

Alex Miller asked the following questions concerning primary school places in Ecclesall:

1.     During the consultation process, there had been frequent clams of support of governing bodies. However, support was conditional on significant investment in the Junior School. Has the Council agreed with this investment? If not, he stated, was it not grossly misleading to claim support of governing bodies?

2.     Removing premises used at the infants school for wrap around care seemed contrary to the duty of the Local Authority to promote wrap-around care. Why get rid of this building? Will you replace it?

3.     The consultation claims ‘through’ primary schools are better. He asked for the evidence to support this claim but had not seen it. Can you share this evidence?

4.     If he did not get answers to his questions who should he take this up with?

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, responded to the questions put by Mr Miller. She said that she had met with the Governing Bodies of the schools. One was a Voluntary Aided School and the other a Community school. She said that the Council wanted all three schools to be great, successful schools and would work with both the Diocese and respective Governing Bodies. There were limited play facilities on the Junior School site and mobile buildings could be removed to create more space for such facilities. The Diocese owned the land and the buildings.

The Council wished to talk with the Governing Bodies and work together to decide what was best for the Junior School. The Council had also said it would look at ways to provide support. However, the context in relation to school maintenance was a £100 million backlog in maintenance of school buildings, mostly relating to primary schools, with secondary schools having benefited from an investment programme prior to 2010. The Council had £3.4 million annually for the maintenance of all schools (for work such as new boilers, roofing and windows) and whilst schools had certain budgets, the Council needed to support that through its own prioritisation programme, but it was not able to offer a blank cheque.

The school that was created had to be a good school which people wanted their children to go to and it was important that discussions and dialogue continued so that ideas could be put forward and it was also necessary to ensure that parents and carers were kept informed and were involved in the process.

In relation to whether ‘through’ primary schools were better and the evidence relating to this issue, Councillor Drayton said that there was likely to be evidence pointing either way overall as was often the case with such change. Councillor Drayton stated that she would respond to Mr Miller with details of the evidence relating to ‘through’ primary schools and how this related to the situation in Ecclesall.

A lot of schools did find it difficult to pay for senior staff and were considering ways of working with other schools to strengthen their financial viability.

On the issue of wrap around care, Councillor Drayton said that she knew that the school and parents were keen to have wrap around care, which (although it was not the Council’s job to provide such support) the Council would wish to support. She believed there was no doubt that there would be wrap around care in the school.

Councillor Drayton stated that as regards the detailed design of school, the statutory planning process would be followed and parents and carers would be able to become involved in that process and she expressed the hope that people would become involved and would feel that their views were heard during the process. The plan would need to fully consider traffic and highways issues and options.

In relation to Mr Miller’s fourth question, the Chief Executive stated that the questions which Mr Miller had submitted to Cabinet had been responded to verbally and a written response could also be provided. The Council had a complaints procedure and ultimately matters could be taken to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Councillor Drayton confirmed that she would be pleased to speak to Mr Miller further regarding the questions and matters which he had raised.