Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Staff Costs

5.1.1

Nigel Slack asked how many staff were employed by the Council in Communications under the Policy, Performance and Communications Service and what was the budget for this financial year and the actual cost for the same period? He further asked had any consultants been used by the Service in respect of communications including campaigns, marketing, press and PR during the 2017/18 financial year? Who were they? What was their brief? How much has been spent on their consultants? Was any of that in the original budget?

5.1.2

Mr Slack then asked how many staff were employed by the Council in Democratic Services under the Resources Portfolio and what was the budget for this financial year and the actual cost for the same period?

5.1.3

It was agreed that a written answer to this question would be provided to Mr Slack.

5.2

Public Question in respect of University Technical Colleges

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that Sheffield had two University Technical Colleges. In relation to this, he asked what was the student capacity of each and what were their current enrolled student numbers?

5.2.2

As the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, Councillor Jackie Drayton, was not present at the meeting it was agreed that a written answer would be provided to Mr Slack.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Standards Complaint

5.3.1

Nigel Slack stated that, on 5 April 2017, he first raised, via a question at Full Council, an issue over, what he considered to be unreasonable behaviour by a Sheffield Councillor. Following the response to his question, he met with the whip of the relevant party and was encouraged to take the matter further. Therefore he completed a complaint form on 17 April.

5.3.2

Mr Slack added that there had still not been a determination on the complaint ten months later. The last communication Mr Slack had had from the investigator was on 20 December 2017 indicating that the complaint would be considered by a sub-committee. What was the up to date status of this complaint?

5.3.3

The Chair, Councillor Julie Dore, reported that this question had been referred to the Monitoring Officer who had responsibility for dealing with complaints against Elected Members.

5.4

Public Question on Scrutiny Committee reporting to Full Council

5.4.1

Nigel Slack referred to a recent Communities and Local Government Committee report on Overview and Scrutiny functions. The recommendations of the report highlighted a number of suggestions for protocols that were not currently part of the Council’s policy and procedures.  For example, in relation to Scrutiny Committees reporting to Full Council, it referred to access to financial and performance data held by an authority, and that this access should not be restricted for reasons of commercial sensitivity. Mr Slack therefore asked will the Council be taking note of these recommendations as part of the current review of Council meetings?

5.4.2

Councillor Julie Dore responded that the Council would consider the full report and its recommendations and make decisions on that basis. This would therefore go further than the remit of the Review of Council meetings group. Councillor Dore would expect the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to also take into account the report referred to by Mr Slack.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Mount Pleasant Development

5.5.1

Nigel Slack commented that, one of the Directors of Avenue to Zero (A2Z), a bidder for the Mount Pleasant disposal had been contacted the morning of this meeting to be informed that the bid had been won by Hermes Care Ltd. No information was given as to why the local community bid of A2Z had failed in favour of a ‘for profit’ company from outside the City. It was suggested that the decision was a result of extensive discussions and meetings with all involved. However, A2Z had been given only one meeting in October 2017. Information Mr Slack had heard from others suggested concerns over the A2Z bid around long term viability but only in respect of the pricing of one small part of the projects offer. It had also become clear to Mr Slack that key information may have been missed from the officer’s report.

5.5.2

Mr Slack further commented that, also today, A2Z had been offered a meeting with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources at 9:30 am tomorrow. This was very short notice to get together members of the bid team, including senior staff from Grant Thornton, Arup Bond Bryan Architects etc. Apparently there was to be an offer to support the project in another place, despite the unique aspects of the project and the location in Sharrow.

5.5.3

Without access to the report it was very difficult for Mr Slack to comment further on how this decision was made. A2Z were not invited to a supposed press announcement earlier today and it now appeared that this was a closed briefing for the Star newspaper only.

5.5.4

Mr Slack therefore asked that the Cabinet referred this decision to Scrutiny in the hope that a complete understanding of the decision could be achieved and that it was based on a full understanding of the impact of this decision on another gem of Sheffield’s heritage before it was lost to the local community forever. In the meantime Mr Slack asked how far into the process of agreement are the Council with Hermes? Had there been any pre-planning meetings? Had there been any discussion on Heads of Terms? What consultation had Hermes or the Council done with local residents? Were the Council aware of the financial circumstances of this bidder? Had the Council taken into account the precarious market for Care Homes? Will the development include affordable housing? Will this be based on S7 or S11 postcode?

5.5.5

In response to a query from Councillor Dore, Mr Slack confirmed that he was a Director of A2Z.

5.5.6

Councillor Julie Dore responded that the Council had policies and procedures for awarding contracts. She could not discuss issues Mr Slack had raised regarding a particular contractor due to commercial confidentiality. However, the Council would take on board what Mr Slack had said.

5.5.7

Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance, added that the meeting arranged with A2Z for tomorrow had been arranged as she wanted to meet A2Z as quickly as possible after the announcement but was happy to change the date if this was more suitable for A2Z. She would welcome a meeting to discuss how the Council could work together with A2Z in the future.