Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Requesting a Safe House for Males Suffering Domestic Abuse

The Council received an electronic petition containing 123 signatures, requesting a safe house for males suffering domestic abuse.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Alex Szumski and Cameron Barber. They informed the Council that the rate of suicides among males in the United Kingdom was three times that of females, although there were more programmes in place to support females. Young males aged 11 to 16 were subject to physical and verbal abuse and represented 13 percent of such reported cases. There are only 18 safe houses for males in the country and a much higher number for women and it was considered that the resources available to support males were significantly less.

This work had been carried out by young people as part of a National Citizenship Service Programme. The petition requested a safe house for males suffering domestic abuse, where they can feel safe and able to openly share their experiences without being judged.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Cate McDonald, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care. Councillor McDonald thanked the petitioners and concurred that many people were affected by domestic abuse, sexual abuse and rape, which was clearly not acceptable. What was known was that the majority of people affected were women as shown by needs assessments. The Council did work with other agencies to provide services which supported people who had experienced abuse. There were options for men seeking accommodation to escape abuse. However, there was not a specific refuge for men in Sheffield. Arrangements were made for young men suffering abuse. There was also a domestic violence helpline and services provided at Howden House, an independent domestic violence advocacy service, outreach services and homelessness support.

There was not a lot of demand for specific support for men and therefore in cases where it was thought men would benefit from all male support groups, people should contact the appropriate organisations, such as the helpline.

She welcomed the work which the young people leading the petition had done. She said that if it was felt that people would benefit from the provision of an all-male support group then she urged people to make contact so that discussion could be held with the relevant service.

4.1.2

Petition Requesting a Change to the Policy on Black Bins

The Council received an electronic petition containing eight signatures, requesting a change to the policy on black bins, to allow for one large, and one standard size bin for students in households with six or more residents.

There was no speaker to the petition.

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

4.1.3

Petition Requesting Road Safety Improvements in Woodseats

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing 245 signatures, requesting road safety improvements in Woodseats.

There was no speaker to the petition.

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

4.1.4

Petition Requesting Action in Connection with Slippery Pavements, and the lack of grit bins, in the Tinsley area

The Council received a petition containing 300 signatures, requesting action in connection with slippery pavements, and the lack of grit bins, in the Tinsley area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Zaffarullah Khan who stated that recently, due to the winter temperatures people, including older and young people had slipped and fallen on pavements. He said that grit bins had been removed and there was no salt treatment of footpaths. There was concern that local school children would fall. The local community would he said be willing to help assist, if this was activity which the Council was not able to resource as they had done for litter-picks, for example. He asked the Council to consider installing a grit bin and taking action before a more serious injury occurred.  

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Councillor Lodge said that reports of people slipping and tripping on pavements were taken seriously by the Council. A review of winter maintenance was undertaken at the end of each winter season and the issues raised by the petition would be included as part of the review. Councillor Lodge said that there had been a relatively high number of contacts to the Council regarding winter conditions so far this year. The Council had never gritted pavements other than those in the City centre or in District Shopping Centres. He said that he would write to the petitioners following the winter review. He asked people to report empty grit bins to the Council, so that these could be replenished. The Council was also looking at the feasibility of using self-monitoring grit bins in the future.

4.1.5

Petition Regarding the Placement of Homeless Families in Bed and Breakfast Accommodation

The Council received a petition containing 58 signatures regarding the placement of homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Violet Dickenson who stated that there had been reports of concerns relating to the conditions for mothers and children in bed and breakfast accommodation. There were various concerns about the living conditions for mothers with children, including at the Earl Marshall Guest House where a lone mother and child had spent more than six weeks in such accommodation; there was overcrowding such that they had to share a single room, showers and toilets; and there was one cooker available for some 20 people.

On 21 November 2017, the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group wrote to senior councillors, although the letter had not been acknowledged. A Freedom of Information request had found that there were 43 families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation in Sheffield and some on more than one occasion or for many weeks. The Council had an obligation not to place women who were pregnant or who had children in bed and breakfast accommodation but it could do so where no other emergency accommodation was available and only as a last resort and for up to six weeks. The women in question were homeless and some were the survivors of human trafficking.

There was concern that children were being placed in accommodation which was potentially unsafe and the petition called on the Council to stop placement of mothers and children in potentially unsafe temporary accommodation and accommodation where single men were also placed.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton thanked the petitioners for bringing this issue to the Council’s attention and she said that she had not seen the correspondence which had been referred to. However, she apologised that a reply had not been given.

Councillor Drayton said that the petition and letter had raised important issues. The Housing Solutions service worked with people at risk of homelessness. Bed and Breakfast accommodation was only used in absolute emergencies and for short periods. Establishments providing accommodation had to hold a licence and were subject to checks detailed in a schedule of requirements. The Earl Marshall Guest House held such a licence and was also subject to checks.

31 of the 43 families in bed and breakfast accommodation had been placed there for more than one night and two families longer still. These families were asylum seekers who had been refused with no recourse to public funds. However, the Council did have obligations to the children despite the families having no recourse to stay in the UK. Councillor Drayton said that she would write to the lead petitioner concerning this matter and said that the Council did work with anyone who was homeless to try to support them.

4.1.6

Petition Objecting to Council Cuts

The Council received a petition containing 20 signatures, objecting to Council cuts and requesting that services be brought back under Council control.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Alistair Tice, who stated that he had submitted a similar petition in 2017 and which included the bringing in house of major contracts, including the Streets Ahead contract. He commented that events of the past 12 months vindicated what was proposed by the previous petition and said that the contract with Amey was unpopular and not one which protected the jobs and conditions of Amey employees. Mr Tice referred to the Labour Party conference which had also indicated that PFI contracts should be taken back by public services. He said the Council had a legal means to free itself from the contract with Amey. The petition also proposed that the Council should refuse to implement the government cuts and instead set a lawful no cuts budget, using reserves and bringing services back in-house.  

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Olivia Blake, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance. Councillor Blake said that no councillor wished to see cuts of the kind made by the Government in recent years. However, the Council had a legal duty to set a legal and balanced budget and if it did not do so, the Government would send in commissioners to run the organisation.

The Council’s budget gap for 2018/19 was £44 million and since 2010, the Council had had savings of £430 million. The Council had said to the Government that enough is enough and had done its best to protect vulnerable people. Nor did the Council have a policy of privatisation and it was in fact bringing services in-house, including housing and out of hours’ services. If the Government deployed commissioners, it was felt they could treat people with contempt.

4.1.7

Petition Requesting the Council to Limit Work on the Chelsea Road Elm Tree to Essential Maintenance Required for Public Safety

The Council received a petition containing 67 signatures, requesting the Council to limit work on the Chelsea Road Elm tree to essential maintenance required for public safety.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by David Glass who stated that the Chelsea Elm tree was especially important because it was resistant to disease and had a White Letter Hairstreak Butterfly population. The Council wished to cut the tree down and had said that engineering works to retain it would cost around £50K, whilst an alternative quotation for the engineering works had been attained by residents, which put the cost at significantly less, if Amey was not employed to do the work.

Mr Glass said that the independent Arborist engaged by the Council had said that one branch should be removed, rather than the tree canopy but the Council had said that the tree was dangerously decayed, which he said misrepresented that facts and that there was a zero cost option.

He referred to a breakdown in trust in relation to highways trees and to the use of force and litigation with associated ongoing costs and damage to communities, which was something which he said had to change and the Chelsea Elm tree was a good place to start. He believed that mediation would assist in this process. Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust represented the butterfly population and those organisations did not necessarily accept the use of Amey to provide opinions on the future of the tree which would be trusted by people. If the Council was to push ahead with the plans to fell the tree, it would only create more mistrust and he urged the Council to allow mediation to take place and for meaningful discussion to attempt to resolve the issue. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene. Councillor Lodge thanked the petitioners for bringing the matter to Council. He said that an independent assessment of the tree had been conducted in October 2016 by ACS Consulting and an aerial survey of the tree had taken place. The survey had identified a significant cavity in the south eastern canopy and which extended 600 mm into the limb. Other decay to the tree was found and work was identified in relation to safety. A mitigation plan had been produced in relation to the White Letter Hairstreak butterfly with the Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation UK (BCUK). The outcome of the activity relating to the butterfly would not be known until the summer. Indeed, there was also a risk to the butterfly colony if work was not done. Genetic material would be taken of the Huntingdon Elm tree by cloning, by making cuttings and growing them for the future.

A number of organisations and individuals were involved in the proposals regarding the Elm tree or were being consulted. Councillor Lodge confirmed that the next stage in the work during week commencing 12 February related to safety and did not include the felling of the tree.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Question Concerning Sickle Cell

Leonie Williams said that she had suffered with Sickle Cell since birth and it had a huge effect on her life, caused by the resultant pain, which meant that she would be hospitalised for significant periods of time. She said that the SCAT organisation had provided her with understanding and advice on living with the condition. She said that whilst resources relating to Sickle Cell were limited, a positive difference could be made to people who suffered with Sickle Cell by building partnerships with health organisations and schools and she asked if councillors understood how the condition affected peoples’ lives.

A question was also submitted on this subject by Gerald Edwards.

Councillor Cate McDonald, the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, said that she had previously discussed the matters raised by Leonie Williams with the Director of Public Health and that she would make sure a response was provided to her as soon as possible. She thanked her for the question and for sharing her personal experiences. 

4.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Temporary Accommodation for Homeless Women

Manuchehr Maleki Dizayi asked a question which also related to the petition submitted by Violet Dickenson concerning the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for lone mothers and children.

Naziona Mphande said that she had been accommodated in the Earl Marshall Guest House for a year and she was asking for help for both herself and her child.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, responded that she would meet with the questioners so that the particular details of the case could be discussed.

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning High Green Youth Club

David Ogle informed the Council that a volunteer run youth club in High Green, which had approximately 200 members, had closed because of the actions of the Parks department since November 2017. He said that a request for a meeting was refused and he asked why this had happened. He said that he was, as a Parish Councillor, asking for the City Council’s help with this matter.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, said that the Pavilion building and youth club was not closed but the use of deep fat fryers in the building had been stopped on the grounds of health and safety. She said that a communication had sent to a Mr Bawden regarding this matter but that the Council was awaiting a reply from him. Councillor Lea said that she would be pleased to arrange a meeting with the relevant interested parties.

4.2.4

Public Questions Concerning the Streets Ahead Programme and Contracts

Maggie Young said that it was understood that there was a plan to fell a further 250 street trees during the core investment period and whilst she would like that plan to be rescinded, would the Council provide full information and undertake consultation prior to any further action on this matter.

Celia Pinnington asked whether the Council accepted that parking restrictions on more than 20 streets for several continuous weeks to allow work to street trees caused a major inconvenience to residents and whether the duration of restrictions could be reduced.

Isabel O’Leary said that one of the principles of good governance to which the Council was committed was to take informed and transparent decisions, which were subject to effective scrutiny and management of risk. In view of this, she asked what independent audits had been undertaken to check that the contractor Amey was reporting work accurately, including details of by whom these had been done, dates undertaken and where the results had been published.

Julie Stribley asked the Council to make available the independent report regarding the Chelsea Elm tree and to explain the nature of the safety work to be undertaken in relation to the tree. She commented that heavy pollarding would present a risk to the future of the tree in the form of disease and that cuttings taken of the tree were likely to fail due the climate. She also commented that the transportation of the butterfly was something which had not been done before.

Shelly Cockayne asked whether the Council acknowledge that it had created the circumstances that led to recent protest events and conflict on Meersbrook Park Road and commented that there were solutions available including genuine negotiation and mediation.

Justin Buxton asked whether the Council would rescind the Streets Ahead contract on the grounds of information not having been disclosed by Amey during the bidding process. He asked why the Council had made payments to Amey LG when there was no contract with that firm visible on the contract register. He commented that he had asked this question at the January meeting of Council but had not yet received a reply.

Nigel Slack made reference to a response to his question at Cabinet in January provided by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene and said he awaited responses to the following part of the question:

“Irrespective of whether they will be met, will Council give full details of all the milestones for this initial 'Core Investment' period of the contract, detailing the original milestone, and any changes to milestones that were made during the course of the contract to date? Please provide supporting documentary evidence for the answers to these questions.”

Secondly, Mr Slack referred to the collapse of Carillion, and to people questioning whether some major contracts remained financially prudent. He said that many of these major contracts had been won with undervalued bids that had little hope of creating any added value for the contractors. He said that Amey Hallam Highways appeared to have made no profit in the first five years of the contract and now Capita was issuing profit warnings and its share value had more than halved.

He asked what steps Council was taking to ensure it had contingency plans in place should any of the City's major contractors collapse.

Thirdly, Mr Slack asked whether the Council had undertaken any formal analysis of the reputational impact on the City of the widespread media coverage, locally, nationally and internationally surrounding the protests regarding the City's street trees; if so, when will the results of this analysis be published; and if not, why such an analysis had not been undertaken.

Fourthly, Mr Slack referred to Sheffield MP Louise Haigh recently having called (via an early day motion) for private contractors delivering public services to be included in Freedom of Information Act (FOI) regulations. He said that in an exchange on social media, a Cabinet Member praised this idea and commented “SCC already requires contractors to comply with FOI law. Quite rightly”.

He said that he had been told that private contractors were not themselves covered by FOI and can only be scrutinised for information they hold on behalf of Council. This, he said, was irrespective of the apparent blanket use of Commercial Confidentiality as an escape clause which Council seemed too eager to accept.

He asked the following:

Are members of the public able to place FOI requests on individual contractors? If so, which contracts are included, all or just selected contracts? If not, could the Council please clarify, for each of the major contracts, the information the contractor's hold on behalf of the Council?

Fifth, Mr Slack said that at the last Cabinet meeting he made the following comment: “The silence from this Council over the violence and unlawful behaviour of security staff employed by its Streets Ahead contractor is shameful and for women Councillors to remain silent in the face of violence to women is unbelievably so.”

He said that he had included evidence of the casual abuse handed out to a female Councillor at just one protest and had then asked for any comment. He said that the response he received was clearly a carefully pre-prepared legal statement that boiled down to 'take it up with the police'.

He asked, in the centenary year of the first victory for Women's Suffrage, is this how the Council wish to be remembered?

Richard Davis referred to the termination of a contract by the Council with another organisation and said that the same action had not been taken with regard to Amey. He asked whether there was a disparity in the application of contract management.  Secondly, he referred to an injury (a broken wrist) to a member the Amey workforce which had been reported by Amey, whilst a Freedom of Information request to the Health and Safety Executive had found that no such injury was reported. He asked whether there was disparity in the accounts and incidents reported by Amey.

Russell Johnson asked whether the Cabinet Member would be listening to residents of Nether Edge who wanted healthy trees retained. Secondly, he asked whether the Leader of the Council would consider her position with a view to resigning.

Paul Turpin asked a question about the use of unacceptable language on social media to refer to people involved in tree related protests.

Dave Dillner referred to the anniversary of women winning the right to vote and the opening of an exhibition celebrating 200 years of people and protest in Sheffield. He asked whether the Leader of the Council would join him in paying tribute to the women of the tree campaign.

Sheldon Hall asked whether the Leader of the Council was satisfied that the Streets Ahead PFI Project Board exercised all due diligence during the procurement of the Streets Ahead contract?

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, responded as regards parking restrictions, which he said were imposed by the Council and not Amey. He agreed that parking restrictions might potentially be annoying and disruptive for some people, but they were only temporary and there was a wish that these were in place for as short a time as possible. He said when work to the highways was completed, people were satisfied with the results.

Councillor Olivia Blake, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, responded with regard to the question concerning major contracts. She said that all Council services had to develop business continuity plans and where necessary other providers would be engaged or the Council would step-in to provide services.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded as regards peaceful protest and stated that she had said on many occasions that she would welcome people who had chosen to protest in relation to a worthy cause. As regards the use of inappropriate language concerning the abuse of women, she would suggest that the matter was brought to the attention of the provider of the social media platform concerned. She said such comments as those which insight hatred and violence were not acceptable and should not be tolerated. With regard to the allegations of violent or unlawful behaviour of security personnel, Councillor Dore responded that if someone had evidence of such behaviour, they should report this to the Police.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded in relation to the pause in work as part of the Streets Ahead programme. This was the result of a review taking place and given concerns regarding safety. He referred to the protest on Meersbrook Park Road and said it was wise that the Amey workers had decided to cease work given the situation. Councillor Lodge said that he supported the right to peaceful protest.

As regards the reports of injuries, the Police were investigating a number of allegations of assault and if there was evidence of criminal activity, this should be handed to the Police. He said that the reasons for the work to street trees had not changed and this was according to the Six D’s criteria: dangerous, dead, diseased, dying, damaging or discriminatory. Amey was assessing the risk as regards the safety of members of the public, protesters, workers, stewards and the Police.

In relation to governance, Councillor Lodge said that he would provide a more detailed response to Isabel O’Leary. In summary, the relevant standard was ISO 14001 2015 and the Streets Ahead contract was self-monitoring. Independent assessment had been undertaken of work to street lighting and two audits had also been carried out in the past 5 years with another due later this year.

Councillor Lodge said that the report relating to the Chelsea Elm and previous reports were available to view on the Council website.

With regards the issue of use or reasonable force during the situation on Meersbrook Park Road, Councillor Lodge said that if people had evidence of any alleged criminality, this should be reported to the Police.

The Council policy with regards to the tree replacement programme included addressing issues with trees where they fell into the category of discriminatory or were damaging and work was to continue and formed part of the Streets Ahead programme which was over a longer period of time.

Councillor Lodge referred to the question from Mr Slack, which concerned milestones for the core investment period of the contract, the original milestone and any changes to milestones, and said that he would provide a full response in writing to Mr Slack. Information concerning the milestones was published on the Council’s website and in fact the milestones had not changed. The proportion of work to which he had previously referred concerned the amount of improvement work completed in relation to condition surveys.

Councillor Lodge said that in respect of reputational impact on the Council and the City, the reports in the media were partly due to the effectiveness of campaign activity relating to highway trees in Sheffield. He did not believe that this was an issue which was being discussed widely in other places in the UK.

In relation to Mr Slack’s question concerning violence and unlawful behaviour, Councillor Lodge said that he had seen footage from body cameras of the incident to which Mr Slack referred. There was evidence of abuse which both he and other colleagues had received which was not acceptable and he hoped that everybody would decry such behaviour. He said that whilst councillors may have their political differences, he believed that no councillor deserved to be subjected to abuse.

Councillor Lodge undertook to provide a written response to Mr Davis in relation to the questions which he had asked concerning contract management; and reports relating to health and safety and injury.

In response to Russell Johnson’s question concerning listening to residents who asked for healthy trees to be retained, Councillor Lodge said that the Council did listen to all of the comments made from all over the City. However, he said that some people did not accept that there were different opinions amongst the public and between Councillors.

With reference to the question of Justin Buxton regarding rescinding the Streets Ahead contract with Amey, Councillor Lodge said that he had nothing further to add regarding the issue of Amey and health and safety and that there had been an investigation regarding that matter. With regard to Mr Buxton’s second point regarding payments to Amey LG to which he had not yet had a reply, Councillor Lodge said that a response would be sent to Mr Buxton.

Councillor Olivia Blake stated that as regards Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, public bodies were subject to FOI legislation and the public could submit FOI requests to the Council regarding information that it held.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated in response to the question from Mr Johnson that she was not going to resign and that the electorate would effectively make a decision on her behalf.

4.2.5

Public Questions Concerning Temporary Accommodation for Homeless Women

Carrie Hedderwick made reference to a report which had been submitted to Cabinet on 13 December 2017 and in which it had been stated that existing temporary accommodation provided for homeless people by the Council was ‘not fit for purpose’ and urgent action was recommended as a result. She asked when action would be taken and by when did the Council aim to have decent suitable accommodation available?

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, said that she would send Carrie Hedderwick information concerning general homeless accommodation which was out of scope of the Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Families’ portfolio. The Council was examining the issues of housing for people who were homeless, supported housing and housing commissioning and it was thought that £700K of funding would be required. The Government had offered £140K for the Council to fulfil statutory obligations. There were challenges relating to homelessness and rough sleeping and the Council was working to maximise and improve available resources and a submission had been sent to the Government. It was important that suitable accommodation was found for people and especially for those who were vulnerable and the Council was committed to act on this issue.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children Young People and Families, referred to the questions which had previously been asked on the issue of use of bed and breakfast accommodation.  The individual concerned had been successful in her claim to remain in the UK and Councillor Drayton stated that she would follow up the issues which had been raised concerning the quality of the temporary accommodation where the woman and her child were staying.