Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the Tree Strategy

5.1.1

David Dilner asked whether the Tree Strategy would be published shortly as he had been told by the previous Cabinet Member, Councillor Terry Fox, that this would be imminent?

5.1.2

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, commented that there had recently been a period of consultation in respect of this. However, this was part of a wider strategy in relation to green space and woodland. Following a further comment from Mr Dilner regarding the qualifications of officers involved, Councillor Lea commented that the Council officers had professional expertise and qualifications.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Amey and Health and Safety Issues

5.2.1

David Dilner commented that he had witnessed this morning a breach of the Road Traffic Act 1991 by Amey near to Abbeydale Road and asked what was being done as a result of continual breach of health and safety issues by Amey?

5.2.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment and Streetscene, responded that the Health and Safety Executive worked closely with Amey. A number of allegations of breaches were referred to the Health and Safety Executive on a daily basis. If there were any issues identified, the Health and Safety Executive would work with Amey. Any allegations of breaches should be referred to the appropriate body.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Picket Lines

5.3.1

David Dilner asked if any of the Members present had stood on a picket line and stopped work? All Members of Cabinet confirmed that they had stood on a picket line.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Devolution

5.4.1

Nigel Slack asked what could the Council share about the current state of play in respect of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority devolution deal and the potential for Barnsley and Doncaster returning to the fold?

5.4.2

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that Barnsley and Doncaster were in the fold, so there was no question of returning to the fold. A decision had been taken at the Combined Authority not to proceed with the consultation on the deal so, as a result, the Government couldn’t take this through Parliament as an Order. There was, however, a South Yorkshire Mayoral Order still in place which Barnsley and Doncaster were still a part of and an election for a Mayor would be held in May 2018. This Mayor would now have very limited powers.

5.4.3

Councillor Dore added that, even if the Combined Authority decided to go out for consultation, the deadline of May 2018 would not be met. She would expect the first task for the Elected Mayor would be to enter into dialogue with the Government about how more powers could be acquired. The public would not necessarily see any progress on a daily or weekly basis.

5.5

Public Question in respect of China Deal

5.5.1

Nigel Slack asked, following the recent article in the Asia Times concerning the £1bn Guodong/Sheffield deal being “on ice” could the Council clarify the following: Which business entity is this business deal with, Sichuan Guodong Construction Group or Sichuan Guodong Construction Co Ltd or some other entity? Was there a signed ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ and, if so, with which entity? Was there a signed exclusivity agreement for the Central Library building as proposed a year ago? And, if so, when was this signed? Were the Council aware of the $20m lawsuit that the business was subject to at the time? Were the Council aware of the $557m fraud investigation connected to the business and the individual involved in the City’s deal? Were the Council aware of Jerry Cheung’s doubts over the deal, as expressed in the article? At the time of the deal in July 2016 the Council promised openness and transparency around this deal, so what was the current situation?

5.5.2

Mr Slack added that, considering the developments around the secrecy of the Streets Ahead contract, was this deal going to go the same way? How will China’s decision to restrict external investment in ‘irrational’ acquisitions, taken in August, affect the deal given that two of the sectors being restricted were property and hotels?

5.5.3

Councillor Julie Dore responded that a number of Freedom of Information requests had been received following the Asia Times article and these, including Mr Slack’s query, would be responded to appropriately.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Council Contracts

5.6.1

Nigel Slack referred to a question he had asked at the Full Council meeting, held on 4 October, in relation to part of a contract awarded to Carillion. Mr Slack commented that there was no response to the substantive questions about this framework agreement. Can the Council therefore answer those parts of the question?

5.6.2

Councillor Julie Dore requested that Eugene Walker, Executive Director, Resources respond to Mr Slack’s question. Mr Walker commented that, in relation to framework contracts, there were various arrangements for joint contracting across South Yorkshire. At this time there was no business contracted with Carillion. If and when any contractors on the framework were used, a financial assessment would be made at that time. Although the question was directed at Councillor Bryan Lodge, the relevant Cabinet Member was Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance. The only Member influence was on individual projects and the Council had a process for declaring interests where there was a conflict of interest.

5.6.3

Councillor Bryan Lodge added that, although he was an employee of Carillion, he had no knowledge of the contract referred to in the question. Councillor Julie Dore further added that when the Council agreed to proceed with the framework there were policies and procedures which needed to be followed.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Legal Action

5.7.1

Nigel Slack referred to a further question he had asked at the Full Council Meeting held on 4 October 2017 concerning an email threatening legal action against two individuals if they refused to condemn the actions of other individuals. Mr Slack commented that he had not received a response to this question.

5.7.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge responded that he wasn’t aware of the email prior to it being sent out. However, he understood the sentiment of it. The Co-Chairs of the Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) had stated that they wanted to engage with the Council and should be telling people not to go inside the barriers if they didn’t want to give the impression that they condoned it.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Meersbrook Park

5.8.1

Nigel Slack asked, in light of protestors being handed committal notices whilst standing in Meersbrook Park recently, with reference to paragraph 95 of the recent High Court Injunction which stated ‘There will in addition be an order in the same terms against persons unknown being persons intending to enter or remain in safety zones erected on public highways in the City of Sheffield’, could the Council show when the park in question became a ‘Public Highway’ and will they now be under a statutory duty to maintain the whole of the park or will they formally rescind the committal notices handed out on those days?

5.8.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge responded that warning letters had been sent out, but there were only two named persons sent committal notices.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Technical Solutions under the Streets Ahead Contract

5.9.1

Nigel Slack commented that he had seen a conversation on Twitter involving a member of the public and a Labour Party Councillor. This conversation implied that for the Council to accept any monies towards alternative technical solutions under the Streets Ahead contract, as proposed at the last Cabinet meeting in respect of Western Road, this would be illegal. Could the Council confirm or deny this suggestion? The Council had also received a proposal for the Vernon Oak highway alterations to be paid for by a charity, will they consider this? Will they suspend actions against that tree until such consideration has been completed?

5.9.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge stated that the Council had written to Trees for Cities saying that if it was prepared to grant funding, the Council would look at that. It would need to be undertaken by competent, trusted contractors. He had liaised with Ward Councillors in respect of this. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding could have been allocated for this, but Ward Councillors decided not to take up that offer. No further funding would be allocated from the Council’s Corporate Budget. Councillor Lodge awaited a response from Trees for Cities.

5.9.3

Councillor Julie Dore added that there were many occasions where organisations or businesses wish to carry out works where it was not the Council’s responsibility or the Council could not afford, such as dropped kerbs or housing improvements. Legislation would insist on the need for quality and to follow guidance. It was not, however, illegal for others to contribute to works undertaken but policies, procedures, legislation and guidelines would have to be followed.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Twitter Conversations with Councillors

5.10.1

Nigel Slack stated that, over the last few days, he had been in conversation on Twitter with two senior Labour Councillors, including a member of the Cabinet, who had chosen this very public medium to, in one case, imply evidence in a Scrutiny report that was not in the report and, in another case, accuse ‘Greens’ of law breaking. Will the Council address these issues within the ruling party or are they happy to ignore such flagrant bad conduct so long as it is outside the Council Chamber?

5.10.2

Councillor Julie Dore acknowledged that Twitter was a very public medium and would expect Councillors to engage, if it was appropriate. If Mr Slack was aware of any comments in a public place that he believed needed to be followed up, he should follow the appropriate process and submit a formal complaint.