Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Properly Assess the Cumulative Impact of Traffic Levels in Oughtibridge

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition, containing 685 signatures, requesting the Council to properly assess the cumulative impact of traffic levels in Oughtibridge.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Terry Barrow who stated that there were significant developments being planned in the Stocksbridge Valley and there was concern as to their cumulative effect. She referred in particular to a planning application for the development of land at Platts Lane, Oughtibridge for which it was proposed to reduce the railway bridge to a single lane and to install traffic signals. It was thought that this would adversely affect the village. In addition, there were concerns about safety on the A6102 on which there had been near misses, accidents involving cars and other non-reportable incidents. It was considered that this situation would worsen if more developments went ahead.

It was suggested that a number of simple and relatively inexpensive options were considered, to include a review of the traffic system in the village; and appropriate traffic management measures as a condition of any planning application. A site meeting with the Cabinet Member and officers was also requested to review traffic and safety issues.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport. Councillor Iqbal stated that local Councillors had also made him aware of this matter. He said that he would be pleased to arrange a site visit with regard to the traffic issues in Oughtibridge. In relation to planning applications, the Council considered each application on its own merits and the implications of any application would be considered at that time.

4.1.2

Petition Expressing Concern at the Implications of the Housing and Planning Act

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing 412 signatures, expressing concern at the implications of the Housing and Planning Act.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Carrie Hedderwick who stated that the Housing and Planning Act would not solve the housing crisis but it would worsen the situation. It would affect families if tenants were issued with short term, insecure tenancies and would put more people into private rented housing if the local authority housing stock reduced. Some areas might be classed as brownfield sites and redeveloped with minimum of social housing as part of any new housing development. Several Councils had stated opposition to the Act and the campaign had succeeded in the Government dropping a proposal to make tenants pay to stay if their household income reached a certain threshold and the Right to Buy for housing association tenants had also been postponed. What was needed was more genuinely affordable housing to rent; and a comprehensive programme of council house building.

The petition requested the Council to send out information to tenants about the implications of the Act and to hold public meetings concerning the Act and to stand with others in opposition to the Act.

Carrie Hedderwick said that Councillor Dunn had responded to her in relation to questions about this matter. She said that affordable housing was at an all-time low and whilst wages were stagnant, rents were increasing. She commented with regard to Right to Buy, fixed term and secure tenancies; the proportion of housing development set aside for affordable housing and the debt cap and requested that events were held to explain the implications of the Housing and Planning Act.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing. Councillor Dunn stated that she had written a letter for the Star newspaper, although the letter had not been published and for reasons of length, some details had been left out of the letter.

There had been significant discussions in relation to the debt cap and Councillor Dunn said that she was going to visit the Government Office on 7 March in relation to the issue. With regard to public meetings, Councillor Dunn said that she had sent an email to the lead petitioner detailing the events which had taken place relating to the Housing and Planning Act. Councillor Dunn stated that she would be pleased to meet the petitioners with regard to this matter.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Question Concerning Best Value Guidance

June Cattell referred to a petition presented to the Council in February 2016 concerning the ability of local authorities to make ethical decisions on procurement. The Government had recently published a consultation process, particularly aimed at Local Authorities and the Secretary of State for Communities had announced his intention to put last February’s guidance on a legal footing. The proposal was to add a new paragraph to the Best Value Statutory Guidance stating that authorities should not implement or pursue boycotts other than where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions had been put in place by the Government. The questions asked in the consultation were regarding whether the wording was clear and specific.

She asked if the Cabinet Member would agree that this did not constitute consultation in any meaningful form and that the Council should complain about what she said was the sham basis of the consultation and the limited timescale; and strongly reiterate its opposition to what she said was an attack on principles of localism. She asked the Cabinet Member to reiterate his statement of April 2016 that Sheffield City Council did not invest in companies which breached international law.

Councillor Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that he would be pleased to repeat that the Council did not invest in companies that break international law. He said that it should be for a local authority to decide how it made investments, not the Government. He said that he did not think that the consultation to which June Cattell had referred was helpful or meaningful. Council officers were of the opinion that a change to more formal footing would not affect the work which the Council was doing with regards to ethical procurement.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Children’s Centres

Mike Levery asked whether the Children’s Centres that did not become Family Centres would operate the same core hours as Family Centres, with the existing range of early years services and drop-in facility. He also asked whether a second stage of consultation would take place with regard to the detailed plans before implementing these changes, as other local authorities had done.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that the proposals in the consultation included the 7 locality areas comprising one main site, a link site and outreach provision at a variety of venues. Provision would be run at various days and times, including weekends and at other times. There would be both core services and additional services. The detail on what, where and when would be a matter for discussion by the Multi Agency Partnership Board which would assess need and decide accordingly.

Councillor Drayton said that in the Gleadless Valley for example, a Link Centre would be installed whereas previously, there had been no such provision.

With regard to consultation, Councillor Drayton stated that Cabinet had considered a proposal with regard to consultation on the development of a new delivery model for services from pre-birth to 19 years and 25 years for young people with a disability or special educational needs. Section 5A of the Childcare Act 2006 referred to the duty with regards provision of Children’s Centres to meet need and the Multi Agency Partnership Board had a role in this regard.

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning Vulnerable and Disabled People

Adam Butcher asked how in the current budget round we could make sure that the most vulnerable people in the City were looked after. He asked how we could ensure that more disabled people voted in elections and also how Sheffield could make sure that it was a disability friendly City in the run up to the Special Olympics 2017.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that austerity affected people who depended upon public services and those who were most vulnerable. The Council protected people where it could. For example, Council Tax was to be increased so there was a resource for those people most in need and it would include a social care precept and there would also be an increase in the Council Tax Hardship Fund of £200K. An Equalities Impact Assessment had been produced with regard to the budget proposals, so there was awareness of their impact. Appendix G of the budget report set out the Equality Impact Assessments. The budget maintained the level of child social workers and protected Special Educational Needs and Disability services and funding for voluntary groups, in order to mitigate the effects of austerity.

Councillor Cate McDonald, the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, stated that with regard to voting in elections, both she and Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries, were to work on this issue with the Disability Hub to consider issues of access and participation in the electoral process. Councillor McDonald said that any ideas that Mr Butcher had in this regard would be welcome.

Councillor McDonald said that the Learning Disabilities Partnership Group would consider the issues relating to Sheffield as a disability friendly City. It was important to use the Special Olympics to promote positive images of people and to have effective communications. Stagecoach was a sponsor for the Special Olympics and its drivers would be specially trained. The objective was to make sure that activity continued beyond the Olympic event and that there was a legacy with regard to sport so as to increase opportunities for people and ensure that they were not marginalised. In addition, a Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee was examining the issue of hate crime which was also an important issue with regard to building a disability friendly City.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that with regard to children and young people, and the electoral process, citizenship work took place in schools. The Council was also trying to encourage all young people to travel independently. Whilst this process might take time, it helped them in a journey to greater independence and changed their lives.

4.2.4

Public Questions Concerning Street Trees

Paul Brooke asked a question with regard to the assertion that there were financial costs to the Council as a result of campaigners delaying tree felling. He referred to a clause in the Streets Ahead contract which said that the Council would not be responsible for any protester or financial loss caused by them. He asked for an explanation of how the protests were causing additional costs to the Council.

Calvin Payne asked a question about whether it was in the public interest for people to be arrested, detained and charged for something which did not appear to have been a crime; and with regard to the use of police time and personnel in attending peaceful and lawful action.

Justin Buxton asked a question concerning whether the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Environment had read the Streets Ahead Contract. Secondly, he asked about the resources for oversight and monitoring of the contract. Thirdly, Mr Buxton asked about the potential use of Flexi Pave and the effect of protests on its installation.

Annette Taberner asked whether the Leader of the Council had signed the Streets Ahead contract. She also stated that she had been informed that she would be arrested if she peacefully protested in her own garden. She asked whether the Leader of the Council felt this was a disproportionate use of legislation and was the Council concerned to help ensure the rights of peaceful protest and how was it protecting those rights?

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment, responded to the questions. He stated that there was a clause in the Streets Ahead contract which said that Amey was responsible. However, there was also a clause which stated that if the delay was due to factors outside of Amey’s control, for example, injunctions; protests, which prevented them carrying on with work; court cases; or the setting up of the Independent Tree Panel, then there was a cost to such activity and that cost came back to the Council.  The costs did not impact on Amey’s profits.

The contract was specific and complex. Both the current Labour administration and the former Liberal Democrat administration of the Council were involved in putting the contract together. The delays had resulted in costs to the Council because of the months of time lost, which had prevented the resurfacing and repair of 75km of pavements and 6km of road from being repaired and brought back up to standard. He said that it was anticipated that the costs to the Council would run into millions. That included court costs; the use of additional crews to attempt to catch up and rescheduling work. This was a cost to the Council Tax payers in the City and it was hard to accept.

Councillor Lodge said that the Council did support the right to peaceful protest and the right of people to conduct their lawful work in the City. It was appreciated that people have a right to protest but it was also asked that people conduct themselves in a manner which did not put anyone at risk and which did not put the people at work, the public or protesters themselves at risk. Any delays to the tree replacement programme would have an impact on Council Tax payers in the City.

With regards to the use of arrest by the police, that was an issue which would need to be taken up with South Yorkshire Police. The Council was responsible as the highways authority and had duties under the Highways Act and equalities legislation to ensure that the highways were at a good standard for everybody. Issues around policing were a matter for South Yorkshire Police.

Councillor Lodge said that, with regard to a Radio Sheffield ‘Hot Seat’ programme which he had appeared on and with regard to the reading of the Streets Ahead contract, he had commented to the presenter, Toby Foster that he should read contracts in reference to contractual issues which he had faced. Councillor Lodge confirmed that he had had sight of all parts of the contract that he needed to know. A City Councillor could make a request to the Council’s Monitoring Officer with regards to access to the contract and there were legal criteria with regard to the need to see the information.

He referred to email correspondence with Mr Buxton and asked Mr Buxton to send the email in question to him again and he would look at the issues which had he raised including with regard to Flexi Pave and would respond to him in writing.

As regards resources for the oversight of the Streets Ahead programme, at the time, when the Cabinet Member had addressed this issue, it was considered that there were adequate resources. However, since that time there had been delays, court cases and rescheduling of work and there were additional costs.

The Council did support the right to peaceful protest and recognised that right. It had a duty, with other organisations, to ensure that people had that right. In addition, people were asked to allow the Council, Amey and other organisations to carry out their work. The matter had been to the High Court and had been tested in that place.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, said that regard to the Streets Ahead contract, she did not sign the contract. She confirmed that she did have access to the contract.