Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition asking for support for Peace for Kashmir

The Council received a petition containing 398 signatures, asking for support for peace in Kashmir.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sarah Irshad, Professor Nazir Shawl and Barrister Majeed Tarabo. The petitioners outlined the situation faced by people in Kashmir, who were fighting for the right to self-determination for people in the disputed state of Jummu. They stated that women, children and vulnerable adults were subjected to abuse and violence and there was increasing concern about human rights and violence.

The petitioners commented that draconian laws were being put in place and tools of oppression and torture were employed, with many lives lost over the past 30 years of the dispute, including many civilian deaths. The petition requested that the UK Government take action to help to bring about a just peace in Kashmir and ahead of the Commonwealth Summit, which was to take place in London on 16 April, the Leader of the Council was requested to raise this matter with the Heads of Commonwealth countries and for intergovernmental organisations to become engaged with the issue. There was also a wish that negotiations between Pakistan and India be resumed, for the ceasefire to be respected and that people of Kashmir be included in dialogue.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council. Councillor Dore thanked the petitioners for bringing the matter to Council and she referred to the situation in Kashmir which also affected people, families, friends and colleagues in Sheffield. She said that the atrocities which had occurred had been subject of discussion by the Council and whilst there was a sense of frustration about the extent to which the situation could be made to stop, the Council would do what it could. She said that some members of the Council had spoken at the event held this day concerning this issue. She explained that previously, it had been agreed by Council that a working party be established, led by Councillor Mohammad Maroof, to consider the situation in Kashmir and that a letter had been sent to the Foreign Office at that time and that she would arrange for the letter and any response to be circulated as appropriate.

Councillor Dore undertook to write to the Foreign Office again in relation to the concerns which had been raised by the petition. She said that she would enquire as to whether Sheffield could make representations to the forthcoming Commonwealth Summit formally or whether this might be done informally.

Councillor Dore said that collectively, the Government needed to be put under pressure to act in relation to the issues in Kashmir and to stop acts of atrocity against people in Kashmir and respect the wishes of the people there.

3.1.2

Petition regarding parking problems on Charles Ashmore Road

The Council received a petition containing 30 signatures, calling upon Council to implement measures to control inappropriate parking in the turning circle at the head of Charles Ashmore Road in front of entrance gates to Graves Park.

Representations of behalf of the petitioners were made by Paul Dial who stated that the petition was requesting the Council to implement measures to control parking. He said that the area was busy given that it included the Graves Park leisure facilities. Whilst there was a small pay and display car park available vehicles were parked and left in the turning circle, particularly during weekends and during the summer. Vehicles which were parallel parked caused difficulties for refuse, emergency services and delivery vehicles requiring access. Mr Dial said that he accepted the positive and negative aspects of living near to the Park and that the petition had been signed by all of the local residents.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability. Councillor Scott stated that a petition had been received by the Council concerning parking on little Norton Lane, which had outlined similar problems to those outlined by Mr Dial in respect Charles Ashmore Road.  He commented that the petitioners had been fair in saying that the situation with regard to parking was difficult.

Councillor Scott said that the Council would need to work with people, including those who did and did not want parking restrictions. He also said that the situation might be affected by any new development and at school times. He assured the petitioners that the Council was committed to considering this matter and said that he looked forward to working with people, including residents and the local Member of Parliament in this regard.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Question Concerning Request For Lease of Former Prince Edward School Building / De Hood

Mark Caterer informed the Council that he had lost a significant amount of weight since being at De Hood and he spoke of the health benefits of being a member of the De Hood gym. He asked why it was proposed to take this facility away from people.

Pete Walker asked what the effect on air pollution would be if the former school was demolished and a retail park was constructed in its place.

Anthony Chan stated that at least 1000 houses were to be constructed and he asked a question concerning community facilities for the residents of those new homes for recreational and community activities.

Gina Crowder spoke about her son who had been attending activities at De Hood and which had helped him greatly and she asked what the cost would be to keep a child in an inclusion centre, with involvement of the MAST (Multi-agency) team and child and adolescent mental health services to prevent them from following the wrong path in life.

Kyle Timms stated that he had complex mental health and physical health needs and De Hood had helped him greatly in learning to walk again. He said that there was nothing else like it in the City and asked where he would get support if De Hood was to close or moved location.

Reagan Denton said that he was the founder of De Hood and he informed Members of the Council that it had helped to reduce crimes involving knives and fires in the local community. He asked what the cost would have been to other statutory services such as the Council, Police, Fire Service and NHS, had De Hood not been there and could a value be placed on the benefits of the activities at De Hood. He commented that De Hood demonstrated successful teamwork and said that people really wanted their voices to be heard on this issue.

Leroy Young spoke of his own circumstances relating to alcohol and drug addiction and of having lost his family and his job. He said that rehabilitation had not been successful in his case, despite considerable investment. However, in 2016, he started to attend De Hood and had not drunk alcohol since that time. He was now a volunteer at De Hood.

Mick Hartley described the kick back recovery group which he had set up at De Hood. 45 people attended the weekly meetings of the group at the De Hood centre, which assisted in their recovery in the community from drug and alcohol problems. He had successfully carried out fund raising for the sessions which occurred five times each week. Work was also being done with the Archer Project to enable people who were being supported by the Archer Project to attend sessions at De Hood. He asked where people using the recovery group would go if De Hood was shut down?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded to the questions and said that it may not have been easy for people to share their personal experiences relating to this issue but that the sharing of experiences helped the Council to make decisions. She referred to the petition which had been submitted in relation to the former Prince Edward School site and which would be subject to a debate at this meeting.

Councillor Dore said that no decision had yet been made in relation to the former Prince Edward School. The license for organisations to occupy the premises, which had been deemed surplus to requirements at that time, was temporary. She said that De Hood had achieved wonderful and amazing things and that those services and successful activities should not be lost, neither for the local area nor for the City. The Council should be working with De Hood with regard to the services which it provided for people now and for those that needed them in the future, whether this was in the existing premises or elsewhere. The alternative options would be given serious consideration and people’s experiences were important in order to understand the services which they needed.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, stated that this was important for the City and for the local area. He said he was blown-away and very proud of the achievements of De Hood, including the activities and classes which were available and the large number of members. It had a long term effect on people living more healthily, their own discipline and their aspirations. People’s journeys to better health and recovery were very powerful and compelling.

Councillor Scott said that air quality measurements taken at Manor Top were an example of the air pollution experienced especially in deprived areas. Whilst the air quality there had improved since 2013 (the level of Nitrogen Dioxide having fallen), this was not a particular comfort for people. He said that planning conditions with regard to air quality would be part of the consideration of any proposed building development. 

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, said in relation to members of De Hood, that they had been on an inspiring journey. She said that she was very pleased that Gina Crowder’s son was back in school, thanks to the support of De Hood and the volunteers there. She clarified that a school would have the funding for a pupil, even if that pupil was in alternative provision. 

Councillor Drayton said that the Council wished for children to be education and to achieve their potential and that Gina Crowder’s son had found something which had helped to bring him back to school.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning the Leader of the Council

Russell Johnson asked whether Councillor Dore agreed that her political career was coming to an end and that this would enable the rebuilding of the City’s reputation through improved governance.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, explained that she could choose to put herself forward for selection as a candidate for her Party and would, if selected, subsequently be put forward as a candidate for a particular ward. The outcome of the election was the decision of the electorate of the Park and Arbourthorne Ward. The Council would decide its leader.

3.2.3

Public Questions Concerning Chief Executive’s Salary

Russell Johnson asked why the salary of the Council’s Chief Executive had not been adjusted to reflect the reduction in the turnover of the Council during the recent period of austerity imposed by the government.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that the salary of the Chief Executive had been adjusted, as had the pay of all Council employees. Employees had taken a real term pay cut as a result of austerity. She said that this was not acceptable. This year, a 2 percent pay increase was proposed, although this did not match the inflation rate.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning Student Accommodation in City Centre

Nigel Slack referred to recent announcements regarding proposals for student flats in the city centre. He asked how many student flats/beds were in the development pipeline for the City Centre; how many students flats/beds there were at present; and, with a predicted downturn in student numbers and most Universities having money issues, was this sustainable?

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning the Heart of the City

Nigel Slack referred to a question put to council officers at the Cabinet meeting in March and concerning the Heart of the City. A Cabinet Member had asked whether any grade 2 or other listed buildings were to be demolished as part of the redevelopment. The answer was that no star grade buildings would be demolished. He asked for clarity on this matter and whether, under the Heart of the City proposals, any listed buildings would be liable for demolition.

(Note: A third question asked by Mr Slack was not accepted because it was considered to be of an offensive nature and a general misuse of the opportunity. Furthermore, the Lord Mayor determined that the questions asked at paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 above would not be answered at this time as this was not considered to be appropriate given the context of the third question).

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Streets Ahead Programme

Ann Anderson made reference to cabling workings carried out to Abbeydale Park Rise by telecoms engineers, which she said had resulted in successful flattening of pavements considered to have significant surface issues. She asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene would acknowledge his previous commitment made in June 2016, which was to carry out root excavations to 12 healthy trees to identify whether these could be retained. She asked if he would also assure residents of the street that no further trees would be felled, unless it could be proved beyond doubt that felling was truly a last resort.

David Dillner asked whether those responsible for the 17,500 target in the PFI contract would be investigated for failure to exercise due diligence.

Justin Buxton asked whether it was legitimate to fell a tree as part of highways maintenance to facilitate television reception.

Justin Buxton asked a question concerning who in the Council and Amey was party to the South Yorkshire Police Silver Command responsible for Operation Quito.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, stated that he was aware that Darren Butt, Amey, had received a question relating to Abbeydale Park Rise and that a response had been made on 22 March. Councillor Lodge stated that the response was that this matter was being reviewed and that was the position at this time.

Councillor Lodge said that there was no target in relation to the number of trees being replaced.

With regards to whether it was legitimate to fell a tree to facilitate television reception, Councillor Lodge stated that the criteria for tree replacement were the six D’s (i.e. dead, dying, discriminatory, diseased, damaging or dangerous). Further information in regard to the categories was available on the Council’s website and which explained work which could and could not be done regarding trees. 

In relation to the South Yorkshire Police Silver Command, Councillor Lodge stated that this matter was also the subject of a Members’ question to which he had provided a written answer, as follows:   

“One officer attends on a rota basis shared between Director of Culture and Environment, Head of Highways and Highways Officers. A communications officer attended the first couple of sessions, but no longer attends. The Council attends in our role as Highways Authority and any associated decisions or communications. For example to answer questions on land ownership, Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders etc. Operational planning and delivery is led by Amey. SYP role is to ensure safety and prevent crime. The Council has no role in operational planning or delivery.”

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Access to the Council Meeting

Justin Buxton asked which rule was invoked to prohibit members of the public from the public gallery at the Council meeting.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that this matter was also the subject of the Members’ questions for this meeting of Council to which written answers had been provided. She said that she had made it clear in the answer to the written question that she did not take any part in the decision regarding the exclusion of members of the public from the public gallery. She said that Mr Buxton may wish to ask this question of the Chief Executive by sending an email for his response.

3.3

Petition Requiring Debate

Petition Requesting the Council to Grant to De Hood Community Project a Long Lease on the Building at the Former Prince Edward School

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing 6,430 signatures, requesting the Council to grant to De Hood Community Project a long lease on the building at the former Prince Edward School. The Council’s Petitions Scheme required any petition containing over 5,000 signatures to be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the qualifying petition was as follows:-

“De Hood Community Project needs to secure a long term lease on its existing premises "The Old Prince Edward School Buildings" at Manor Top from Sheffield City Council. The Council would like to demolish the building and grant planning permission to build another Retail Park. We are looking for your support so that we can continue to grow the project and make a difference to the local community, however, without a lease on the building, the future for De Hood is up in the air. The project has made a massive impact on the local community, both young and old, and provides a number of much needed community based activities for the local people to engage.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mr Mark Wilkinson. He stated that the petition aimed to secure a long term lease for De Hood on Manor Top. He commented that the Council had been very supportive with a short term lease of the former Prince Edward School. A meeting was held on 26 March chaired by the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Olivia Blake, to begin discussions concerning the role of De Hood in the community and he thanked Councillor Blake for her contribution to the discussions.

De Hood understood the financial constraints on the Council due to austerity and was seeking to secure funds to help run activities and services for the community. Mr Wilkinson said that De Hood had become an essential asset in the community and a long term lease would be of considerable worth and not necessarily in terms of monetary value. There had been a drop in crime and the incidence of fires in the area, with a reduction in fires of 75 percent in five years. This allowed the police and fire service to utilise resources in other areas.

Mr Wilkinson stated that other benefits brought about by De Hood related to the health and wellbeing of its members and it supported the community by bringing people through its doors, some of whom had particularly sad stories to tell. De Hood was inclusive of disabled people, whether the disability was seen or unseen.  It provided services, including work placements, and 20 people were now in work following support from the organisation, some of whom had been long-term unemployed. De Hood gave direction, mentoring and discipline to support people. To support young people, De Hood made sure that it had facilities to help provide nutritional food and food banks and was supported by local supermarkets and businesses. It provided for all types of physical activity including exercise, dance and boxing.

Mr Wilkson said that a local GP had remarked on the improvement in the community’s health and wellbeing. For example, in one year members of a morning fitness group had, in total, lost over 180 stone in weight and Mr Wilkson commented on the substantial cost to the community and to other services if such issues were not addressed by De Hood. He said that part of the magic of De Hood was the extent to which members of the community were interacting and the evident improvement in people’s wellbeing.

The organisation had continued to grow from having four members at the beginning to 1,500 members ranging from age 6 to 84 years old. The membership was diverse and reflected communities in Sheffield. He acknowledged the support of the Council and asked for continued support and partnership with the City Council to secure a base for De Hood.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1(b), the Cabinet Member for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance spoke on the matter.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council, responded to the issues raised in the petition. She said that it was good to hear about the positive effect which De Hood had on individuals and the community in relation to exercise and the structure which its activities provided to people’s lives. She said there were two main issues, namely the building in which De Hood was located and the services which it delivered for the community. These were matters which had been discussed at the meeting with De Hood which she had attended on 26 March.

She said there was a range of options which the Council would like to look at with De Hood and continue to work with them on. This was to make sure that, even if the sale of the former school site did go ahead, a range of options could be found in trying to find what was best for De Hood and within a 1 mile radius of the current site. The Council wanted De Hood to continue to work to provide excellent services to the community as described earlier in this meeting.

Councillor Blake said that the site of the former King Edward School had been declared surplus to requirements some time ago. De Hood had an agreement with the Council to use the site on a temporary basis and now wished to formalise its relationship with the Council and to secure a lease.  The Council had gone out to market and received an offer in relation to the site of the former school, which could potentially bring a substantial capital receipt. Substantial Business Rates would also be generated as well as significant investment in the area and job opportunities. At the same time, it was recognised that people wanted to see that there was provision of services for the community. The community’s support for De Hood was evident in the fact that petition had received much support with over 6,000 signatures.

She suggested that the Council and the De Hood board, together with local elected members, discussed this matter further so as to make sure that appropriate support was available. If a decision was taken to sell the site of the former school, then the Council would make sure that it worked with De Hood to ensure the organisation was located in the best place possible.

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance then spoke on the matter, following which Members of the City Council debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:-

The work of De Hood was important to the local community and the wider community in the City as demonstrated by the petition and the Council needed to do what it could to enable the organisation to continue its work. It was important to make sure that De Hood was able either to stay in its current location or to identify another location and it should be up to De Hood to decide whether that was appropriate and the Council should listen to them.

De Hood had begun as a small concern located in the back of a public house and had grown into a much larger facility for the community with involvement and contributions from many people. Councillors had been privileged to hear people’s stories of how De Hood and people in the community had helped to change their lives and how its services and facilities were available to people who might not be able to afford membership of a private gym.

There was a balance to be found between urban regeneration and the needs of communities. Other organisations delivered services for the community on the Manor and these should be thanked. However, whilst services in that area might be delivered by many outsourced organisations, people approached the Council when they wanted support. Commercial assets and jobs had to be considered but also in balance with the community itself. The South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service had provided funding from its community fund to support the development of De Hood, which had in turn delivered for the community. It was very important to continue the dialogue on this matter so that a place could be found from which De Hood was able to deliver activities and services for the local community and the wider City community.

There was much support for De Hood. It was located in a place with little economic wealth but one which was rich in human resources and this was something which needed to be harnessed. De Hood gave opportunities to people who might not otherwise have them and there was a need to balance the potential for jobs and economic development with these factors. Whilst the building was important, the teamwork was the most important thing which people involved with De Hood had established, which was something that needed to be retained and supported. De Hood had found a way to help people who were suffering the effects of loneliness and social isolation and those who were frightened.

There were personal testimonies from people about the positive affect of De Hood’s activities on young people including from their parents in respect of boxing exercise, health and wellbeing and the other less tangible benefits which De Hood gave to people. The Council should strive to come to the right resolution and to find a place which allowed De Hood to flourish and grow further.

De Hood was run by and for the community and provided a variety of activities and allowed young people to grow as individuals and help to prevent people following a negative path, teaching new skills, discipline confidence and the value of a community, creating hope and opportunity and the Council was urged to support De Hood to help it thrive and grow.

There were retail and employment problems in Manor Top and Manor Castle and it was important to address those issues. However, what was said in the petition was also accepted and the Council had given a commitment that De Hood would not close and it was the Council’s responsibility to make sure it fulfilled the needs of the organisation. It was important that dialogue happened between the organisation and the Council to make sure it succeeded but was not necessarily limited to staying at its present location, in relation to which there were other economic impacts. It was hoped that everyone could work towards achieving both a suitable place for De Hood and a development in one of the most deprived wards in the City.

Sometimes statutory health and Council services for people with mental health needs presented barriers which prevented people from getting the treatment and interventions they might need. Whereas, De Hood did not have those barriers and provided help to lots of people who might have faced those barriers previously. It had enabled them to make changes and provided a catalyst which made the changes possible for them to lose weight or address drug and alcohol problems or for young people who had problems staying in mainstream schools. There was a ‘magic ingredient’ which De Hood delivered to people and which helped them to make such changes. It was also important that the team of people were able to retain a bond and stay together. A dialogue had opened with a view to working together and finding a solution to the problem as outlined by the petition and to deliver services which were critical to that community.

De Hood had demonstrated that it did fantastic work for the community. The difficulties in getting people on board for community projects was acknowledged and De Hood had clearly been effective in doing so and in getting the support of so many signatories to the petition now being considered. It was not where De Hood was located that was important, it was what it was doing and it appeared as though the Council was going to help find somewhere just as good.

De Hood was a tremendous asset to the community and those involved had done a wonderful job. The boxing training provided by De Hood promoted facets such as self-control, discipline, exercise, fitness and diet, which led to self-belief and confidence. It was possible that other such projects and boxing gyms could be promoted and established in Sheffield. There was support for De Hood and the wish to secure a lease.

The experiences of those who had spoken at this meeting were very moving. The services and provision at De Hood made a tremendous difference to people’s lives giving them significance and meaning, to which it was difficult to put a value. It was suggested that whatever happened to the former school building, the organisation and the things that it provided to the community should be allowed to continue, by alternative accommodation or space being found in the new development.

Organisations such as De Hood might be accessed by people who did not use other commercial gyms. The Cabinet Member for Finance was urged to ring-fence the capital receipt from the proposed sale of the former school site for redevelopment to be invested in the project and, if the project was not to stay in the current building, either another building was found or a purpose built facility developed.

The regeneration of the area was important and in the current building in which De Hood was located, the heating was not working and there were some other safety concerns. However, it was important to get a deal which worked for everyone, including those who needed job opportunities which could be brought into the area and the Council would do all it could to help De Hood and was supportive of the team there and all of the work which it did.

The Council should consider the comparative benefits of potential investment and those of projects like De Hood to the area in such issues as reducing crime and fires in the locality.

Reference was made to the Brendan Ingle gym at Wincobank, which had also developed over time and which had produced champion boxers but most importantly had helped many young people and they learned self-discipline, looking after themselves and their own fitness and health and about community; all of which had been built on an ethos of looking after self, pride in an area and a community. De Hood had demonstrated qualities of pride and commitment and there was a determination to continue their work so that De Hood could continue to have such a positive effect on the Manor in a similar way to the experience in Wincobank.

The lead petitioner, Mr Wilkinson, exercised a right of reply and he said there had been much positive support to keep De Hood going and that to lose it would be an incredible shame. The people that worked at De Hood did so for free as volunteers. De Hood was a model which might be replicated elsewhere in Sheffield, provided there was support from enough people. He invited people to visit De Hood. He said that he looked forward to a further meeting so that matters could progress including the issue of where the organisation was to be located and funding. De Hood was attempting to attract funding and a lease was very important in that respect.

Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance and Deputy Leader, responded to matters which were raised during the debate. She said that there was clearly support for the excellent work which De Hood carried out both in the Manor in other areas and it was important that everyone was kept up to date and informed through the process. The Council would continue to work with De Hood and meet with its board to discuss all the options with a two-way dialogue to understand what was needed and how to ensure that its services could continue.

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

Proposal 1

It was moved by Councillor Olivia Blake and seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that:

This Council notes the petition requesting the Council to grant a long lease of the former Prince Edward School building to De Hood Community Project, and refers the petition to the Cabinet Member for Finance to continue to work with the Project to identify an appropriate solution for ensuring its activities continue to be delivered in the area.

Proposal 2

It was moved by Councillor Adam Hanrahan and seconded by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, that:

This Council notes the petition requesting the Council to grant a long lease of the former Prince Edward School building to De Hood Community Project, and refers the petition to the Cabinet to determine the action to be taken to ensure the activities of the Project continue to be delivered in the area, with specific reference to De Hood being active participants in the decision making process, they being the arbiter on the suitability of any alternative accommodation provision suggested by the Council.

On being put to the vote, alternative proposal 2 was not carried.

Proposal 1 was then put to the vote and carried as follows:-

RESOLVED: That this Council notes the petition requesting the Council to grant a long lease of the former Prince Edward School building to De Hood Community Project, and refers the petition to the Cabinet Member for Finance to continue to work with the Project to identify an appropriate solution for ensuring its activities continue to be delivered in the area.

3.4

Petition requesting the resurfacing of  footpaths and roads on College Close and College Court

The Council received a petition containing 13 signatures, requesting the resurfacing of footpaths and roads on College Close and College Court.

There was no speaker to this petition.

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