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 Devolution

 

 

5.1.1

Nigel Slack asked what the Council’s future plans were in respect of the Devolution Deal? Would the Council work to stop the potentially costly election in May 2018? If the election of the Mayor went ahead, will that Mayor have a vote that could force Barnsley and Doncaster to accept the deal or is a unanimous vote by Constituent Councils required?

 

 

5.1.2

In response, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, commented that at the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting on Monday 18 September she had asked for a letter from the Secretary of State to be read out which confirmed the current position. Following this two South Yorkshire authorities stated that they would not be proceeding with consultation on the Devolution Deal. The Government had made it clear that there would be a South Yorkshire Mayor. So, if the City Region did not agree the Deal on offer, there would be a Mayor in place who would not have the powers that had previously been agreed. There was a need, therefore, to work closely with the Government to establish what powers the Elected Mayor would have. Councillor Dore would be working closely with the Government, the City Region and local businesses in Sheffield to progress the economic plans for Sheffield and the City Region.

 

 

5.2

Public Question in respect of the Old Town Hall

 

 

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that, following a conversation with a member of the ‘Friends of the Old Town Hall’, he understood that the money for the urgent repairs to the roof of the building had been received by the Council. What was the timescale for the repairs, with the onset of Autumn and the potentially damaging weather to come over the winter?

 

 

5.2.2

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, responded that the Council had moved forward with the regeneration of Castlegate and the Old Town Hall was a part of that. The Council was looking to see how the money designated for this could be best used. The Council would be carrying out repairs on the Old Town Hall to ensure it was secure and vandal proof and the cost of this would be put on the property. It was hoped that this would be progressed as quickly as possible.

 

 

5.3

Public Question in respect of Hyperloop One Challenge

 

 

5.3.1

Nigel Slack stated that, along with local entrepreneur, Jonny Douglas, he had met with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability to discuss the lack of any Sheffield involvement in the Hyperloop One Challenge, despite 3 UK proposals reaching the semi-final stage. At that meeting it was agreed that we should at least be part of the conversation and the Cabinet Member tasked Creative Sheffield with contacting one of the bidding teams (London to Edinburgh) to begin that conversation with an invitation to the City and a visit to the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC).

 

 

5.3.2

Mr Slack added that today, 8 weeks later, he had finally seen an email that was proposed to be sent as an initial approach. The bid team involved was now already in the final with their proposal and would no doubt be inundated by such approaches. What can the Cabinet do to make sure we do not miss out on the chance to be in on this conversation and the potential good news for some supply chain investment in the City?

 

 

5.3.3

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, commented that, when he had met with Mr Slack, it had been agreed to wait until the outcome of the current stage which had only finished two weeks ago. The scheme was not the top priority for the Council. Councillor Scott was sceptical of the technology. This was not, however, a lack of ambition. It was about a clarity of focus and it was important to prioritise getting projects such as HS2 and HS3 right.

 

 

5.4

Public Question in respect of Review of Council Meetings

 

 

5.4.1

Nigel Slack commented that, in his view, the results of the Council Meetings Review had been mixed. In his opinion, the guillotining of public questions at the Full Council meeting was poorly handled and left many people with the impression of an intentional curtailing of public questions. The purpose of the review was commented on as aiming to make meetings more accessible for the public, this display seemed to contradict that aim. What were the next stages for the review and how could the public express their thoughts on the issue?

 

 

5.4.2

In response, Councillor Olivia Blake commented that, in reference to public questions, all public questions were allowed, the questioner concerned was making a statement rather than asking a question and had not come to the question despite being asked a number of times by the Lord Mayor. The Council was continually reviewing any changes made and were welcoming feedback. The Review Group had met once to review how successful the changes at the first meeting had been and would meet again shortly. There would be a survey on Citizenspace for the public to express their views.

 

 

5.5

Public Question in respect of Questions asked at a Scrutiny Meeting

 

 

5.5.1

Nigel Slack commented that, at the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee meeting on the 13th of this month, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene was in attendance to give an initial response to the Committee’s report on the Western Road War Memorial and to take questions from the Committee Members.

 

 

5.5.2

Mr Slack submitted a number of questions to the Committee and specifically phrased them in a way that emphasised they were questions for the Committee. Mr Slack believed that the Chair could have asked those questions on his behalf. Instead the Chair chose to indicate that the questions would be replied to in writing which, considering the decision on the report was to be made today and answers in writing were taking weeks to be sent out, did not seem to make sense. Would the Cabinet Member therefore respond to Mr Slack’s questions 1 and 4 from that meeting?

 

 

5.5.3

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded that the questions Mr Slack had asked at the Scrutiny meeting had been of a technical nature and a technical report had been published in April on the Council’s website. Members of the community could see the facts and the response of the Independent Tree Panel. Mr Slack’s second question asked at the Scrutiny meeting would form part of today’s meeting and the recommendations in the report.

 

 

5.6

Public Question in respect of Legal Injunction

 

 

5.6.1

Nigel Slack submitted a screenshot from Social Media which he said showed a person encouraging another member of the Sheffield Tree Action Group (STAG) to break the legal injunction which was in place which prevented protesters stopping lawful highway work. Would the Council be proceeding against this individual for contempt of court?

 

 

5.6.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge commented that the Council will continue to monitor activities for any potential breaches of the Court Order. If people were in breach of this the Council would not hesitate to take action. Councillor Lodge would ask Legal Services to respond on the specific example submitted by Mr Slack.

 

 

5.7

Petition in respect of Sheffield Eagles and the Olympic Legacy Park

 

 

5.7.1

Graham Allan and Liz Efleet submitted a petition, containing 1033   signatures requesting that the Council grant permission for the Sheffield Eagles RLFC to play their matches at the Olympic Legacy Park. Mr Allan commented that, since the closure of the Don Valley stadium in 2013, the Eagles had had to play in four different venues, two of which were not in Sheffield. As a result, crowds had dropped from 1200 to 300.

 

 

5.7.2

Mr Allan added that this, along with a loss of sponsorship and other revenue streams, had put the Club in serious financial jeopardy and had had to raise £20,000 to stop the Club going out of business. Mr Allan had heard that the Park had been given to the Scarborough Group and questioned why this was, when Sheffield United FC already had two venues. He therefore sought assurances that the Eagles would be allowed to play at the Park.

 

 

5.7.3

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the Sheffield Eagles were very important to Sheffield, as all clubs were, and it was the wish of the Council to have a first class rugby club in Sheffield. The reasons for closing Don Valley Stadium were made clear at the time and, following the closure the Council needed to ensure that the land was put to good use for sporting activity as well as health and wellbeing use.

 

 

5.7.4

The land had not been handed over to the Scarborough Group. Discussions had been held with the Group, as they had been with the Sheffield Eagles. There was an Olympic Legacy Board who made decisions on the Council’s behalf.

 

 

5.7.5

Councillor Mazher Iqbal added that he was involved in the discussions with the Sheffield Eagles when they had come forward with a developer and architect. However, due to the wish to purchase the recycling site, these did not move forward at that stage. The Olympic Legacy Board had made it clear that there would be a home for the Sheffield Eagles and also there would be women’s football played, so there would be a lot of sporting activity at the Park.

 

 

5.7.6

Councillor Julie Dore commented that a wider discussion with the Eagles was needed which should involve Councillor Mazher Iqbal and Councillor Mary Lea. Councillor Iqbal would contact the petitioner in due course.