Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions

To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public

Minutes:

5.1

Public Question in respect of Growing Sustainably report

 

 

5.1.1

Nigel Slack commented that it was good to see the Green Commission report finally making an impact on the City’s forward planning and the general tenor of the report was to be welcomed. However, there was, within the community and with ecology/heritage experts, considerable concern over the potentially destructive aspects of new flood defences strategies outlined in the initial consultation. Will such concerns be addressed in the further development of the flood defence proposals and will any strategy be put to further consultation?

 

 

5.1.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment, responded that consultation on the City’s flood defences had taken place over the summer and there had been a good response from the public and other interested parties.

 

 

5.1.3

He commented that Officers had been working over the winter period to develop a short list of proposals to take forward. As regards the concerns referred to by Mr Slack, Councillor Lodge was not clear proposals these related to, but all developments required a flood risk assessment. Some of the proposals had been withdrawn as a result of public concerns and the proposals were being looked at as a whole rather than individually.

 

 

5.2

Public Question in respect of Neighbourhood Planning

 

 

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that, whilst he recognised that the new neighbourhood planning framework was a direct response to legislation, he would like to draw attention to one particular concern. Within the proposal at paragraph 1.3 (b) ‘Whether to designate an organisation or body as a designated neighbourhood forum’ Mr Slack’s concern was that this power to designate a neighbourhood forum could lead to the potential for a perception of the Council creating pet forums. Could further thought be given to the process by which potential neighbourhood forums arise and the process by which they are ‘designated’, possibly through a community decision alongside Ward or Local Area Partnership Councillors?

 

 

5.2.2

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport, commented that paragraph 1.2 of the report on today’s agenda stated that a report had been submitted previously to Cabinet which set out the principles and legal obligations Cabinet had in respect of this.

 

 

5.2.3

The Council did have the power to designate Neighbourhood Forums but it could not compel them to be formed. Once a proposal had been put forward, the public had 6 weeks to comment during the consultation period.

 

 

5.2.4

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, added that she had concerns over the capacity of some neighbourhoods to deliver plans. Some neighbourhoods may be better equipped to utilise capital to deliver plans. The Council was, therefore, looking at how it could enable and empower neighbourhoods to deliver plans. It was actually the opposite to the idea of pet forums in that the Council was engaging and encouraging neighbourhoods to come forward to deliver plans.

 

 

5.3

Public Question in respect of Devolution

 

 

5.3.1

Nigel Slack asked what was the Council’s view on the decision by Barnsley and Doncaster Council Leaders to attend a ‘Whole Yorkshire’ devolution event? Should the Leader of Barnsley now stand down as Chair of the Sheffield City Region Combined Assembly (SCRCA) due to the potential for a conflict of interest?

 

 

5.3.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that it was a decision for the Leader of Barnsley Council and the Chair of the SCRCA to determine whether there was a conflict of interest. The event had extended an invite to all Leaders across Yorkshire and the Chair of the SCRCA felt, out of courtesy, he should attend to hear what was said. This was not an assertion that he supported a Whole Yorkshire organisation. Mr Slack was welcome to ask the Chair the same question at the next meeting of the SCRCA.

 

 

5.4

Public Question in respect of the Streets Ahead Contract

 

 

5.4.1

Nigel Slack commented that, much had been made of late about the levels of remedial work having to be carried out by AMEY on roads already resurfaced under the Streets Ahead contract. To clarify matters, what were the current failure rates for the resurfacing work and how was this determined? Number of streets? Length of failed surfaces? Or some other measure?

 

 

5.4.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge clarified that there had been no failures in the contract. A small amount of carriageway had been resurfaced, amounting to 1.2 miles of carriageway, which was a small percentage of what would be expected in a contract such as this.

 

 

5.4.3

There had been some issues in respect of underlying layers but AMEY would replace these at no cost to the Council. It was unfortunate that there would be any disruption to residents but this demonstrated that there were checks and balances in the contract and AMEY would be held to account.

 

 

5.5

Public Question in respect of Streets Ahead Contract and Vulnerable People

 

 

5.5.1

Mr Slack commented on a recent situation whereby his elderly and frail mother's telephone had been disconnected during Streets Ahead pavements work. It had taken a great deal of effort on Mr Slack's part to resolve what he believed ought to be a simple situation. This was further complicated with the upset and distress caused to his mother

 

 

5.5.2

The questions that Mr Slack therefore needed answering were:-

 

Does the Streets Ahead contract include any policies and protocols for dealing with vulnerable people? If not, why not?

 

Why are work crews not made aware of where services are located on pavements?

 

What are the procedures for reporting and repairing damage caused by AMEY works?

 

What procedures are in place to ensure the necessary organisations are working in harmony in these repair situations?

 

What urgent action will the Council take to ensure that their contractor is not putting other vulnerable people in danger through lack of care?

 

Why are the staff who tried their best to resolve this dangerous situation being let down by this chaotic contract?

 

 

5.5.3

In response, Councillor Bryan Lodge commented that he was sorry to hear about Mr Slack’s mother and hoped that she was recovering. Streets Ahead and AMEY always did what they could to support vulnerable people and helped with access in and out of properties.

 

 

5.5.4

Utility companies were the third party responsible for repairs where phone lines were damaged and Streets Ahead were responsible for referring incidents to them. Plans given to Streets Ahead were not always accurate and utilities services equipment should not be laid within the upper surfaces of footways.

 

 

5.5.5

Lessons would be learned from the incident reported by Mr Slack and Councillor Lodge would investigate the particular case further. Utility companies worked closely with the Council and AMEY and where utility companies needed to do emergency work, permits were granted by the Council, where appropriate.

 

 

5.5.6

Repairs to utilities were not part of the Streets Ahead contract and the Council was often left in difficult situations. For example, with street lights, if one wasn’t working it was the responsibility of the Council and AMEY. However, if more were not working this was the responsibility of Northern Power.

 

 

5.5.7

On behalf of the Cabinet, Councillor Julie Dore wished Mr Slack’s mother well and hoped she had a speedy recovery.