Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Demolition of the William Bros Building, Green Lane

5.1.1

Nigel Slack asked who made the decision to allow the demolition of the Williams Bros building on Green Lane, Planning Committee or Officers?

5.1.2

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, responded that the original application at the site was considered by the Planning and Highways Committee. The subsequent decision to allow demolition was delegated to officers. Councillor Curran was happy to discuss this further with Mr Slack.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Student Housing

5.2.1

Nigel Slack asked, with developments in the offing at Hoyle Street and Moore Street/Fitzwilliam Street again aimed largely at the student market and adding some 1500 new beds, how did this fit in with the Council’s previously expressed concerns about the oversupply of this type of accommodation?

5.2.2

Councillor Ben Curran commented that both sites referred to by Mr Slack had a lot of history. Moore Street/Fitzwilliam Street was not wholly Council land but the Council did own a small freehold. The Council was working with developers to ensure the student accommodation could be converted to more mainstream use should it be required in the future. Councillor Curran was pleased that the development would result in a landmark at an important location for the City at Hoyle Street. There had been market testing prior to approval of the development and this had shown an element of student accommodation was required to make it viable. The Council would see if the money arising from this development could be spent on developing family style accommodation elsewhere in the City.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Advertising at Park Square Roundabout

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that the arrival of Digital Advertising screens on Park Square roundabout seemed a contrary decision. Studies had confirmed that such billboards were guaranteed to increase driver distraction which was a major cause of traffic accidents and fatalities.

5.3.2

Mr Slack added that, at a time when policy was to reduce driver distraction, banning mobile phone use and other in-car activities, it seemed a failure of common sense to add such distractions to one of the busiest roundabouts in the City. Mr Slack believed that the socially responsible thing to do was to reduce the number of distractions proven to create a risk to drivers. Mr Slack had to assume, therefore, that there was a commercial impact of this addition to the City landscape.

5.3.3

Mr Slack therefore asked was this a decision made by the Council or did it fall under the Streets Ahead contract for ‘street furniture’? What was the income expected from this advertising and who benefited from that? How would the Council monitor the impact of the billboards on road safety?

5.3.4

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, commented that the decision referred to by Mr Slack was a Council decision and not part of the Streets Ahead contract. The previous contract in respect of outdoor advertising had recently expired and a new contract, which included Park Square, had been identified. When such decisions were taken, a road safety audit was always undertaken and the Council were confident that there was no detrimental impact on road safety. This would be kept under review. The advertising had been installed in the summer when it was less distracting. The signs were visible on the approach to the roundabout but not on the roundabout itself. There was significant income for the Council from the contract but details of this were commercially confidential. The Council was the sole beneficiary and the income would assist Council finances at times of significant pressures.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Question asked at Full Council Meeting Regarding Fracking

5.4.1

Nigel Slack asked when would he receive a response to his question submitted to the Full Council meeting held on 4^th October 2017 in respect of fracking?

5.4.2

Councillor Jack Scott stated that he had written to the Environment Agency in respect of this and could discuss this further with Mr Slack. The company referred to by Mr Slack, FCC, had been granted a licence to undertake the work which was separate from the decision making process of the Council. FCC were not required to consult with the Council and did not do so. The Environment Agency would have consulted with the Council in respect of any potential flood risks. The Council did not own Atlas Business Park and the owners could be found through the Land Registry. The Council contract with FCC predated any fracking work. However, Councillor Scott commented that even if fracking did not cause any seismic events or flooding, it still produced a dirty fossil fuel and created far more carbon than could be safely burned. He believed the best way to not pollute the atmosphere was to leave it in the ground.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Tenants affected by Universal Credit

5.5.1

Rosie, representing ACORN, a local union representing private tenants, commented that, at a recent branch meeting, members and supporters had voted for their next campaign to be around evictions and Universal Credit.

5.5.2

Whilst the Universal Credit system had an in-built delay of six weeks, ACORN had had members who had had to wait four months for any payment due to administrative errors, others who had been repeatedly and mistakenly removed from the system, and others deeply worried about where they would find the money to pay the rent.

5.5.3

ACORN would like to understand the Council’s policy as it related to evictions from properties managed by Sheffield City Council. The landlord should make every effort to establish effective ongoing liaison with housing benefit departments and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and, with the tenant’s consent, make direct contact with the relevant housing benefit department or DWP office before taking enforcement action. The landlord and tenant should work together to resolve any housing benefit or universal credit (housing element) problems. Was this the policy followed by the Council with regards to Universal Credit, i.e. that no-one will be evicted from a Council managed home whilst experiencing delays caused by the Universal Credit system?

5.5.4

If this was the policy, had this been clearly communicated to tenants? If it hadn’t been communicated to them, could this please be communicated to them as soon as possible? Would the Council be able to provide a list of the landlords they know of who currently accepted housing benefit or universal credit?

5.5.5

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that she had met with Jonny Butcher, a representative of ACORN, a couple of times and the Cabinet Adviser, Councillor Lewis Dagnall, would contact the organisation shortly to discuss the issue. A Motion approved at the last Full Council meeting on 1^st November had stated the Council’s position in respect of the issue.

5.5.6

Councillor Dunn added that she believed Universal Credit should be paused. Sheffield had been a trial area for Universal Credit and the evidence gained from this had been communicated to the Government. No Council tenant in the City had been evicted solely as a result of the bedroom tax and no tenant would be evicted for rent arrears caused solely by welfare reform as long as they worked with the Council Housing Service on looking at ways to sustain the tenancy in that situation. That message was being communicated to tenants across the City in a number of ways.

5.5.7

Councillor Dunn further commented that anything ACORN could do to assist the Council would be welcomed. The Council were unable to provide a list of landlords as this would require the permission of the tenants. The Council was, however, working closely with the Tenants and Landlords Association and the Universities in respect of this. If ACORN knew of any landlord who was seeking to evict a tenant who had been impacted from welfare reform, they should let the Council know.

5.5.8

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, added that she was pleased to see an organisation that represented private rented tenants. With social housing, there was a statutory obligation to engage with tenants. The issue was nothing new in that tenants who engaged with housing associations were often those in the greatest need.

5.5.9

Councillor Dore could not recall any situation where the Council had evicted anyone with rent arrears of 6 weeks. However, she acknowledged that there was an issue in the private rented sector and anything the Council could do to help, it was happy to do that.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Sheffield Housing Company

5.6.1

Ralueke Parkin commented that she lived on the Brearley Forge Estate. Sheffield Housing Company was the original landlord but they had now sold most of the land to an investment company. She asked was Sheffield City Council made aware of this sale? If yes, did it approve the sale of the land to an investment company without informing leaseholders? If no, what was Sheffield City Council doing to right the wrong done?

5.6.2

Ms. Parkin added that Keepmoat had recently stopped selling leasehold properties in favour of freehold. The reasons they gave for this was applicable to residents of the Brearley Forge Estate. Ms. Parkin believed that they should not have sold houses to residents as leasehold in the first instance, but they did. Now that the Government was looking into it and banks were not approving mortgages for such leasehold properties, they had stopped it. Should residents be made to suffer for their actions?

5.6.3

Ms. Parkin further asked how could residents get their freehold back? Some other developers in the Midlands were buying back the freehold from the investment companies and offering it back to the leaseholders. Was it possible that residents could get theirs back in the same manner?

5.6.4

Councillor Julie Dore responded that she had recently been made aware of the issue. It was right that Sheffield City Council had a representative on the Sheffield Housing Company Board. This was currently the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods Service, but she had only recently joined. A review of the Housing Company was being undertaken and Councillor Ben Curran was considering becoming a member of the Board.

5.6.5

The Council was trying to establish when the decision referred to by Ms. Parkin was made. This did not need the Council’s permission. The Council was a freeholder and the Housing Company managed leases on the Council’s behalf. As part of that agreement, decisions did not need to be referred to the Council.

5.6.6

Councillor Dore added that the Council was trying to establish all the facts and she had recently met with Keepmoat. The Council would be engaging with owner occupiers and if there was any disbenefit to them, the Council would be looking to rectify it. However, at the moment, it didn’t appear that there was any disbenefit. After the facts had been established, owner occupiers would be provided with a response from the Council. Councillor Dore could not say what that would be until the facts had been established.