Agenda item

4.1

Lord Mayor’s Communications

4.1.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Anne Murphy) commented on the success of the Special Olympics National Games which was held recently in the city, with around 2,600 athletes with intellectual disabilities participating in the Games, and she commended the dedication and work of the athletes, their coaches and the many volunteers who contributed so much to make the event such a resounding success.

4.1.2

The Lord Mayor also reported that she had recently written on behalf of the Council to the First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff requesting that one of the Navy’s next generation T26 Frigates be named after the city of Sheffield. She added that the Royal Navy’s Commodore for Northern England would be visiting the city on 5^th October, and she would update Members of the Council on any developments in relation to the naming request.

4.2

Petitions

4.2.1

Petition Requesting Fencing around Football Pitches, Reignhead Farm Fields, Beighton

The Council received a petition requesting fencing around Football Pitches, Reignhead Farm Fields, Beighton.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were received from Samantha Pickersgill, who informed the Council that there was a problem with dog fouling on the football pitches and this presented a health risk to people including players and volunteers at the MDS Falcons football club. Volunteers had to clean up the pitches before each game. The local community had been asked to clear up after their dogs and there were dog bins provided. However, whilst there were many responsible dog owners, others were not as responsible and also let their dogs roam whilst football matches were being played. The petition requested fencing around the football pitches to address the problem and for key-holders to be assigned.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure. Councillor Lea stated that the local Councillors for the area had also raised the issue with her. Some measures had already been taken in relation to the problems presented by dog fouling, including a greater number of bins and increased number of dog warden patrols. There were some unthinking dog owners and also many highly responsible dog owners.

Councillor Lea requested that the petitioners meet with her, local councillors and the relevant Council Officers to discuss the problems and to see what could be done.

4.2.2

Petition Requesting the Withdrawal of the Freedom of The City from Aung San Suu Kyi

The Council received a petition requesting the withdrawal of the Freedom of The City from Aung San Suu Kyi.

Representations of behalf of the petitioners were made by Shahid Ali, who stated that there was a time when Sheffield people supported Aung San Suu Kyi for promoting democracy and human rights in Myanmar. However, he stated, she had now become complicit in possible crimes against humanity. The Freedom of the City was the highest honour that the City could bestow and it was something which she deserved at the time it was granted. However, her more recent actions were of concern, such as her silence on issues relating to the violation of human rights of the Rohingya people in Myanmar. The petition requested that the City Council withdraw the Freedom of the City from Aung San Suu Kyi and write to the Foreign Office and Myanmar Ambassador to the UK informing them of the action and to encourage them to fight for the rights of the Rohingya. A protest about the events in Myanmar would take place this day outside the City Hall.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council. Councillor Dore thanked the petitioners for bringing the tragic events which were occurring in respect of the Rohingya people in Myanmar to the Council’s attention. She shared the sentiment expressed by the petitioners and by Shahid Ali in presenting the matter to Council. The Council had worked with the Burmese community and had indeed granted the honour of the Freedom of the City to Aung San Suu Kyi. The persecution of the Rohingya and abuses of human rights meant there was a sense of betrayal of the support which the Council had once given to Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Freedom of the City was granted by the full Council and as Leader of the Council it would not be right for her to commit the Council to action with regard to the withdrawal of that honour as it would be a decision of Council. She referred to a question on this issue which had also been submitted and said that she would begin cross party discussions with the other political groups on the Council so that a response could be made to the petition and to the other requests which had been made concerning representations to the Foreign office and Myanmar Ambassador to the UK. She thanked the petitioners for the invitation to attend the event outside of the City Hall and said that, although the Council meeting was taking place at the same time as the event, a representative would be attending from amongst the City Councillors.

4.3

Petition Requiring Debate

4.3.1

Petition Requesting a Night Café for the Homeless and Vulnerable

The Council received an electronic petition containing 7,538 signatures entitled “Night Café for the Homeless and Vulnerable”.  The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures was the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the qualifying petition was as follows:

“Services at night & weekends are none existent. With the help of local businesses and volunteers we would like to run a night cafe for the most vulnerable within our city and to finally bridge the gap between charities & services from closing to opening. The night cafe will also support services getting information out & help guide people to the right places and be a hub at weekends to act as further support for the outreach teams like street pastors and police to bring people instead of tying up emergency services.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Anthony Cunningham. He said that he believed that the situation was worsening for people who slept rough or were homeless.  Something was needed at night time to provide a safe and supported place for people and the establishment of a night café would help to meet the need for 24 hour support and bridge the gap in services, support vulnerable people and lessen the need for so much assistance from the emergency services. He believed that this was something positive which the Council could do for homeless people and which had been promised.

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

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety responded to the petition. She said that, in July 2017, the Council had debated a petition concerning the establishment of a night shelter for homeless people. She referred to a private meeting which had been held with Mr Cunningham concerning support for homeless people at which there was discussion about a number of options to help support people who were vulnerable, on the streets or were homeless. However, there had not been a promise made at that meeting that a café would be established. The Council had consulted with other organisations, including charities and an event had been arranged by the charity Roundabout, and those organisations participating in that event were not supportive of the idea of a night café. 

Councillor Dunn said that September was Recovery Month 2017 and there were honest accounts as part of that event by people who had been affected by addiction. She said that it was right that gaps in services at weekends were addressed. A Rough Sleeper Development Worker would begin in post shortly and it was intended that 24 hour support was made available for people. The Housing First service had housed 39 people to date and accommodation for a further seven people had been purchased in addition. St Wilfrid’s was providing self-contained units for up to 20 people. She also referred to the Help Us Help initiative, which helped people who were rough sleepers or begged in Sheffield.

Councillor Dunn said that there were new services being put in place to support homeless people. Whilst she could understand why some people would think the idea of a night café was a good one, it was not something that would be supported by the Council. She said that the issues relating to rough sleeping would be considered by the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee and suggested that the petition was referred to the Committee for consideration.

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

It was important that the right professionals and experts were involved in providing services for some of the most vulnerable people in society and that the right support was provided to them. The significant amount of work by voluntary and charity organisations was also acknowledged. It was suggested that the matter was taken to the relevant Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

The view was expressed that there was a need to look after vulnerable people at night and a night café may be a way of doing so and providing respite and relief to people who were affected by addiction, abuse or mental health or other health problems, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. An example was given of the All Night Café at Camberley, Surrey.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded to matters which were raised during the debate.  She said that at the recent event hosted by Roundabout, a night café was not something which service users had requested. It was proposed that the matter would be referred to the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, when the issues could be considered in more detail, together with the appropriate evidence. 

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

RESOLVED on the Motion of Councillor Jayne Dunn, seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon: That this Council (a) notes the petition calling for a night café for the homeless and vulnerable, (b) notes that rough sleeping will be the subject of discussion at a meeting of the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee in the near future and (c) accordingly, refers the petition to that Committee for consideration as part of that discussion.

(Note: During the course of the above item, the Lord Mayor requested that Mr Cunningham leave the meeting on the grounds that he was continuing to interrupt the proceedings. He did not return to the Council Chamber during the item and did not exercise a right of reply).

4.4

Other petitions

4.4.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Save the Sheffield Elm

The Council received an electronic petition containing 3,223 signatures, requesting the Council to save the Sheffield Elm.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Council Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene.

4.4.2

Petition requesting the Council to Bring Bus Travel Back Under the Control of the People of Sheffield

The Council received an electronic petition containing 27 signatures, requesting the Council to bring bus travel back under the control of the people of Sheffield.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability.

4.4.3

Petition Requesting the Council to Stop Debating Tree Issues in Front of More Important Issues

The Council received an electronic petition containing 8 signatures, requesting the Council to stop debating tree issues in front of more important issues.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene.

4.5

Public Questions

4.5.1

Public Question Concerning School Buses

Mike Levery stated that school buses were provided by both Notre Dame and Stocksbridge High schools. Buses from Chapeltown and High Green were a combination of service bus and school bus and took 85 minutes to make the journey. The buses were overcrowded owing to bus drivers feeling that they had to pick up all children on the route. He said that he did not believe it was the schools’ responsibility to fund the buses.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that the former commercial provider of the school bus service on this route, the Bright Bus Company, gave notice to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) that it was ceasing to operate all its routes in South Yorkshire, which included many services across Sheffield, including Stockbridge and Chapeltown to Notre Dame. The SYPTE and City Council had worked hard to ensure replacement provision so there was an opportunity to travel from Stocksbridge and Chapeltown to Notre Dame. However, pupils may have to change buses to complete their journey.  She understood that these routes were commercial routes and she believed other bus companies had been contacted to see if they would take them on but none had come forward. It was unfortunate that young people now had to use more than one bus to make the journey. However, they were able to get to school. Councillor Drayton said that she would follow up the questions from Mr Levery and send him a written response.

4.5.2

Public Question Concerning Anti-Social Behaviour

Mrs Harrison expressed concerns about the behaviour of a resident living in a block of flats, including activity in the early hours of the morning such as ringing of the door buzzer, fighting and arguments and drug use. The Police had become involved but she said that residents did not feel safe and wanted something to be done urgently.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety responded that the situation was not acceptable and that she would ask for someone to contact Mrs Harrison about the concerns that she had raised. She would also speak with the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care and could also meet with Mrs Harrison in person.

4.5.3

Public Question Concerning the NHS

Deborah Cobbett said she was concerned about the NHS and the rapid changes in South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw, which she believed amounted to the destruction of the NHS. She referred to the Accountable Care System, which was to be in place by April 2018, in relation to which local councils were being side-lined as partners in the process. She said that process was rushed and there was a lack of democratic control.

She referred to a Council resolution in 2016 on the subject of the NHS and which expressed opposition to budget cuts. She asked what was being done to help improve clarity for the public and what the Council was doing to resist further cuts.

Councillor Cate McDonald, the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care stated that the Council’s position with regards to the NHS and Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP) was clear. She said that STPS were a brand which had been discredited and there had been a change to the Accountable Care System.  She did not support anything which would lead to the imposition of cuts to the NHS. 

The Council would continue to work with the NHS to do the best for the people of Sheffield. A paper would be submitted to Cabinet concerning the Sheffield Accountable Care Partnership and, as part of that process, there would be appropriate arrangements with respect to governance. She agreed that there was too little transparency and accountability in the health system and, in line with the resolution of December 2016, the Council would oppose cuts to the NHS.

4.5.4

Public Question Concerning Proposed Micro Pub, Cross Hill, Ecclesfield

James Kay referred to the proposed Micro Pub, Cross Hill, Ecclesfield  and asked several questions in relation to the planning process, as follows:-

1.    Why were the parking guidelines outlined in the Unitary Development Plan not enforced in the planning decision?

2.    Why did the Council not record Planning Committee meetings as a matter of course?

3.    Was it normal practice for planning officers to act on an anonymous telephone call for a statement made in a report?

4.    Why did the Chair of the Planning Committee meeting stop the vote before abstentions were called for when the counted vote at that point was three in favour and four against.

5.    Was it appropriate for a member of the Committee to participate and vote on an item then they were also on the Licensing Committee?

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, responded to the questions and explained that his role as the Cabinet Member was in relation to strategic planning and development matters, whereas the Planning and Highways Committee had delegated decision making powers in relation to planning matters. He would therefore not address the detail of issues at the Committee as part of his response at this point. Nonetheless, he said that he was aware of the Planning Committee meeting to which Mr Kay had referred and he had been assured that Members of the Committee had followed the correct procedures.

Councillor Curran suggested to Mr Kay that a meeting was arranged to discuss further the matters which he had raised and said that he would contact Mr Kay accordingly. In relation to recording of meetings and webcasting, he said that a cross party Member Working Group was looking at the issue and he hoped that a way could be found to make that work.

4.5.5

Public Question Concerning Myanmar

Kaltun Elmi thanked the Council for its support for the Rohingya Muslims, which she said were being persecuted by the army in Myanmar. She asked whether the Council would consider revoking the Freedom of the City of Sheffield granted to Aung San Suu Kyi, as she had not condemned the treatment of the Rohingya and incidents of rape and murder. She also asked that Councillors join people on the steps of the City Hall to show solidarity with the Rohingya people and to call upon the UK Government to impose sanctions on the Government of Myanmar.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, referred to her earlier response to the petition on this matter, which had been submitted to this meeting. The Council was meeting under new arrangements and there were items to be debated, so she did not feel that the meeting should be paused for Members to attend the event outside the City Hall on this occasion.  However, the issue would be discussed as she had outlined and if there was another occasion on which Members could attend an event concerning the issue of Myanmar, then that would be something which could be done. 

Responding to an earlier comment by the questioner concerning personal safety at meetings, Councillor Dore said that she apologised if anybody felt unsafe due to behaviour in the Council meeting, either as a visitor or as a councillor. She said that she hoped the Member Working Group would consider the issue of safety as part of its programme of work.

4.5.6

Public Question Concerning Engagement

Alan Kewley stated that for some people, meetings held in the Town Hall were potentially daunting. He referred to other opportunities for people to engage informally with the Council, such as ward forums and to a neighbourhood working model. He asked when the Council would fulfil the engagement plan to enable people to discuss issues locally and express their opinions and how people would be consulted about its effectiveness.   

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety stated that she had met with Mr Kewley recently. She said that the ideas which had been considered in 2013 relating to locality management were now considered to be out of date. It was also felt that councillors should be in the community more. She and her Cabinet Adviser had visited Rotherham and the Commissioners at Rotherham had retained the issue of public engagement under their control.

The Council was looking at a neighbourhood model, which was more organic in nature, involved speaking with people and would not necessarily be characterised by the establishment of structures or meetings.    

4.5.7

Public Question Concerning the Living Wage

Peter Davies stated that the trades unions’ understanding of the Council’s policy concerning the living wage was that the Council would do all that it could to make sure that companies delivering public sector contracted work would pay the living wage. He said, with regard to the Household Waste Recycling Contract, that Veolia was refusing to pay the real living wage. He asked whether the will of the Council and its intention to meet expectations with regards the living wage had now disappeared.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance, responded that the Council did encourage contractors to pay the living wage. The Household Waste Recycling Contract was subcontracted and was not a contract directly let by the Council. The Council was open to working with contractors to achieve the living wage as soon as possible, although there were limitations.

4.5.8

Public Question Concerning the Council Pay Strategy

Peter Davies referred to proposals for a pay strategy and a four year pay restraint on increments for Council employees. He said that the number of employees on high grades was increasing and employees had already had a cut in their standard of living. He asked how the Council was able to justify dismissals and reengagement of thousands of its workers in order to get a further pay cut imposed.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance stated that the Council’s pay strategy was subject to consultation at the present time and to negotiations with the Trades Unions, which were seeking the views of their members through a ballot. The negotiations were ongoing and she said that she would not wish to comment further on the detail of those negotiations at this point in time. Councillor Blake said that she would be pleased to meet and discuss the matters further with Mr Davies.

4.5.9

Public Question Concerning Webcasting and Arrangements for Council Meetings

Nigel Slack referred to new arrangements for Council meetings and he asked a question in relation to the progress of webcasting of meetings and as to why it was only being considered, when he said there had been a commitment to introduce webcasting two years ago. He asked for clarification with respect to the wording included on the Council agenda relating to notices of motion submitted to Council, which was a follows:

“The following 4 items of business are Notices of Motion submitted in line with the outcome of the Review of Full Council Meetings Member Working Group.  2 further Notices of Motion are included on the agenda as items of business 13 & 14, as these were submitted at variance to the decision of the Working Group.”

He also asked whether it was possible for the minutes of the Working Group to be published.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, responded that a trial video recording was being produced of this meeting of Council and it was important that such a recording was of a sufficient quality and that it was affordable.  Councillor Blake requested the Chief Executive to outline a response in relation to the constitutional changes.

The Chief Executive explained that the cross party Member Working Group had concluded to limit the number of notices of motion to four at each meeting. The number of motions allocated to each political group was two to the Labour group; one to the Liberal Democrat Group and one to the UKIP and Green groups on alternate months.

For this meeting of Council, four notices of motion were received in line with those arrangements and two others were also received. At that point, within the Council procedure rules, there was not a power to exclude notices of motion from the agenda based on the number received and therefore all six were included. The explanation included on the agenda sought to provide clarity about those motions which had been received in line with the conclusions of the Working Group and those which had not.   

4.5.10

Public Question Concerning Streets Ahead

Nigel Slack stated that Streets Ahead had recently published a Newsletter in August 2017, in which it was stated that Amey had “Resurfaced 693 miles of road”. He asked whether the Council could remind people of the total mileage due to be resurfaced by the contract and how that was planned to be achieved within the 'core investment period' of the contract.

He commented that the newsletter did not have the word 'tree' anywhere in it. He asked if Council knew whether this is because trees were unimportant to Streets Ahead or if this was simply trying to avoid embarrassment.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, stated that there were approximately 100 miles of carriageway still to be completed as part of the core investment period of the Streets Ahead programme. Amey was working to complete to programme and was deploying additional resource at its own cost.

As regards the Amey Newsletter, Councillor Lodge confirmed that the Council did consider street trees to be important and that trees were being replaced for future generations.

4.5.11

Public Question Concerning Mistaken Information

Nigel Slack stated that there appeared to be mistaken information from the 'Environment' portfolio, including what he said was contradictory information in relation to the filming of members of the public engaged in peaceful protest.

He referred to notices displayed by Amey, which he said misrepresented the details of the injunction. Information on the Council's website put it slightly differently; and his question included what the injunction had stated.

He asked, firstly whether both statements were wrong in law, because any charge of contempt would require a hearing in court, and he said that they verged on being attempts to subvert a person’s right to protest through their intimidatory phrasing and plain threats about the consequences of unintended actions. Secondly, he asked the Council to refer this portfolio to the relevant scrutiny or indeed standards committee, to urgently review the seeming lack of openness and honesty as described by the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded and said that he did not agree with Mr Slack’s interpretation of the situation with regard to ‘mistaken information’. In reference to an article in the Yorkshire Post, dated 24 August 2017 to which Mr Slack had provided a link in his written question, Councillor Lodge said that previous information had been used in the article and comment been not been sought from the Council for that article.

He said that the wording in the notices did not misrepresent the Court Order. He added that he did not wish for anyone to get in trouble in relation to protests and that the notices were in place and that individuals would make their own informed decision on such matters.

In relation to the question relating to the Code of Conduct, Councillor Lodge said that a complaint could be made through the Standards procedure and a response would be made following the assessment of allegations by the Council’s Monitoring Officer in consultation with an Independent Person.

4.5.12

Public Question Concerning Direct Action

Nigel Slack referred to campaigns which had involved direct action against wrong but lawful situations, including the Kinder Trespass, Samuel Holberry and the Chartists, the Battle of Cable Street, Charlottesville; and the Suffragettes. He said that the first two of these were commemorated by plaques in Sheffield the last was commemorated by the six female members of the Council's Cabinet and the other female Councillors on the Council.

He said that prominent Cabinet Members were now saying all direct action against 'lawful' situations is unacceptable and the Council was willing to forward that argument in court cases and asked at what point would Council consider direct action in support of a sincerely held and passionate belief that a situation, whilst lawful, was just plain wrong becomes a citizens duty?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that the question which Mr Slack had asked contained some subjective language in referring to direct action against ‘wrong’ and there was a question as to whether a ‘wrong’ was something determined by an individual or the collective. There might be occasions when it was a personal choice to take direct action.

Councillor Dore said that she had participated in protests in relation to several issues, including in relation to Government austerity, on picket lines or in relation to support for the steel industry. Whilst she did support people’s right to take direct action, she personally had not taken action which was illegal or which had led to her arrest. However, that had not prevented her from taking direct action to bring about change.

4.5.13

Public Question Concerning Devolution

Nigel Slack referred to a post on social media from the Business Editor of The Star, which suggested the devolution deal was unlikely to go ahead, with Barnsley and Doncaster refusing to sign. He asked: what was Council's latest understanding of the current position?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that with regard to the suggestion that a devolution deal would not go ahead, she was not aware of Doncaster and Barnsley Councils not signing the deal, as the process was not yet at that point and the final detail was not known. The next stage in the process was for the Sheffield City Region to consult in accordance with the findings of the Judgement following the Judicial Review. The matter would then be put to the Secretary of State and Parliament and elections for the elected mayor for the City Region were scheduled for 2018. Councillor Dore acknowledged that there was a relatively short timescale for a decision on the devolution deal prior to further Parliamentary consideration of the issue.

4.5.14

Public Questions Concerning Street Trees

(Note: A member of the public, Sally Goldsmith referred to the felling of an Alder tree and in relation to which Councillor Bryan Lodge undertook to provide a written response upon receipt of the question in writing.)

Russell Johnson asked why the Council was spending money to hire private detectives to monitor citizens and as to the intention of such activity.

Dave Dillner asked what had happened to the section of the Tree Strategy regarding street trees, which people had been told was imminent two years ago.

Mr Buxton stated that the five year tree management strategy was an integral part of the Streets Ahead contract and he asked which provisions applied to the contract and why a Freedom of Information request had been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Secondly, he asked what would happen if the Council decided to deny Amey permission to fell a tree and thirdly, whether there were 14 funded engineering solutions written into the Streets Ahead contract.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded to the questions. He said that overt filming took place to record people and there was no right to privacy in a public place. In circumstances such as a blockade of a depot, evidence could be gathered and data would be disposed of when it was no longer required.

He said that if the Council was to say that Amey could not fell a tree, it would be the Council’s responsibility. A change to the arrangements would require liaison between the Department for Transport, banks, Amey and the Council.

With regard to the question concerning the Freedom of Information request, Councillor Lodge asked if Mr Buxton would put the matter in writing, so that he was able to respond.

Councillor Lodge said that there was a strategy for Trees and Woodlands which was primarily concerned with parks trees and not highway trees. The highway related Tree Management Strategy would be revised at the end of the core investment period of the Streets Ahead programme and into the life cycle phase of the programme. Work was progressing on the remainder of the programme.  There were some four million trees in Sheffield and approximately 36 thousand highways trees.