Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Objecting to the Sale of Council-Owned Land on Westminster Avenue

The Council received a petition containing 67 signatures, objecting to the sale of Council-owned land on Westminster Avenue.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Stuart Wilson. Mr Wilson stated that land which was outlined in a planning application for 109 Hallam Grange Rise was Council land. The planning application was granted but there was not access to the land in question other than over Council owned land. He said that if the land was to be sold, it should be sold so as to obtain the best price and that any proposed development should not proceed without the land first being purchased by the applicant.

He referred to land being used as hard standing and the kerb dropped, although it had not been purchased from the Council. He asked why the Council had allowed this to happen. He had been informed that the Council was not able to find the original title documents. He asked how much land had effectively been taken due to an oversight and a lack of care and attention.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member Transport and Development.  Councillor Scott said that whilst he was not familiar with this matter, he would wish to obtain further information and would arrange a meeting with the petitioners, which would include the Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Olivia Blake. He said that there was a potential difference between what planning policy guidelines say and the process by which the Council disposed of land.

Councillor Scott said that the Council needed to make sure that things had been done properly. He also referred to a matter of English law which was that a person did not have to own land to put forward a planning development upon it. He said that he hoped that a satisfactory solution for everyone could be found.

3.1.2

Petition Requesting the Blocking off of a Stairwell at Flats on Oxford Street Due to Anti-Social Behaviour

The Council received a petition containing 19 signatures requesting the blocking off of a stairwell at flats on Oxford Street due to anti-social behaviour. 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Gina Ahmed who stated that the anti-social behaviour referred to in the petition included drugs related activity, prostitution, urination and depositing of used needles. This had an adverse effect on young people and made people feel unsafe. The community had funded a hose to regularly clean the stairs. Some people who were not necessarily residents also used the stairs as a means of escape to the road from the police or to hide. There was also noise at night emanating from the stairwell. However, it was also a fire exit and the Council had previously said that it would not be possible to block the stairs off. This was an issue which adversely affected the lives of residents, including children and it was not considered to be fair that they should continue to live with such circumstances and the related health risks.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety. Councillor Steinke said that he was aware of the matters which made been raised by the petitioners, both in relation to the flats on Oxford Street and in other similar circumstances. The issues were being considered by the police and Council officers, including in relation to drug related matters. He said that he had met earlier with the Neighbourhood Manager and with regard to the specific issue of the smell of urine in stairwells, there would be additional cleaning.

Councillor Steinke said that the request to block off access to the stairwell was a matter which would need further consideration both in this case and elsewhere. He would arrange for a written response to be made to the concerns raised in the petition. 

3.1.3

Petition Requesting a Safe Pedestrian Crossing on Carter Knowle Road

The Council received a petition containing 401 signatures and requesting a safe pedestrian crossing on Carter Knowle Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Robin Storey. Mr Storey stated that the petition concerned the junction of Carter Knowle Road and Ecclesall Road South. This was the only traffic light controlled junction between the city boundary and the city centre without provision for pedestrians. City bound vehicles were at a blind bend. It was common for drivers to go through the traffic lights on red. Both vehicle volume and speeds had increased over time and the Council was asked to help with a solution to the problems outlined in the petition.

The Chair of Ecclesall Forum then contributed by outlining the evidence relating to the petition, including drawings of the junction. These concerns had previously, been outlined to the Council in letters of 2002 and 2009. There was concern about the safety of pedestrians crossing Carter Knowle Road next to the Prince of Wales public house. The pavement had been lowered, so there was an expectation that pedestrians would cross at that point. Some vehicles continued through the traffic lights at amber and red.  Due to traffic movements, there was only little or no time for pedestrians to safely cross the road, which was especially difficult for older people. The petition requested facilities with additional help for pedestrians to enable them to cross the road more safely. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Scott said that local councillors had made him aware of the issues relating to the junction and crossing. There were speed hump restrictions on Carter Knowle Road. No accidents had been recorded by the Council or the police at the junction.

Councillor Scott stated that a new zebra crossing was to be installed further down Carter Knowle Road, which would assist in slowing some of the traffic. He said that he would not commit to funding or finding resources at this stage. However, a full road safety audit would be carried out and which would include information supplied by the petitioners. He said that he looked forward to working with the petitioners and local councillors in this regard.

3.1.4

Petition Requesting a Ban on Animal Circuses in Sheffield

The Council received an electronic petition containing 201 signatures, requesting a ban on animal circuses in Sheffield.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Alex Hinchcliffe, who stated that the petition requested the Council to ban circuses which used animals, including domestic animals as it was considered to be unethical and necessary. He said it was not possible for travelling circuses to meet animals’ welfare needs and there were concerns relating to the coercion of animals to perform certain actions and the relationship between an animal and commercial enterprise. He said that some actions may constitute abuse under the Animal Welfare Act. There was also no reason why such a ban could not be extended so as to apply to domestic animals. He referred to a statement by the RSPCA concerning the use of animals in circuses.

The Council was urged to deny Circuses access to parks and to extend the Council’s existing policy to domestic animals. He said that he had little faith that circuses were able to properly look after the animals in their care.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure. Councillor Lea stated that the Council’s existing policy regarding circuses applied to those using wild animals on Council land. The Council did not have the right to ban circuses from using private land. The government Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) had the right to remove a licence for a circus.

Councillor Lea said that the Government had indicated that it would ban the use of wild animals in circuses. However, that had not yet happened. Horses and domestic animals were not covered by the existing Council policy relating to circuses. Councillor Lea said that she would like to meet with the petitioners and others such as the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), to look again at the policy and see what could be done.

3.1.5

Petition Requesting the Council to be More Open with Information on Contracts and Other Services it Purchases

The Council received an electronic petition containing six signatures, requesting the Council to be more open with information on contracts and other services it purchases. There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Olivia Blake, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance.  

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Question Concerning Hyperloop technology

Nigel Slack stated that Leeds City Council had expressed an ambition to see Hyperloop technology as part of a future transport strategy. He had asked at Cabinet in June 2017 about Sheffield becoming a part of this push for new technology solutions and the potential for its advanced manufacturing and research strengths to be part of that.

He asked whether the Council had yet had the promised conversations with those in the country working on this technology (Edinburgh University in particular) or pursued any positive steps in that regard.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that the Council had written to universities regarding this issue and the correspondence had also been shared with Mr Slack. The Council had received a reply which had indicated that, whilst there was an awareness of Sheffield’s strength in advanced manufacturing, because it was not near any design or building stage, Sheffield was not a priority for them to pursue or a priority for the Council to pursue at the moment.  He said that at this time, efforts needed to be directed to securing the right deal for HS2 and the upgrade of the railway line from Sheffield to Manchester.  He was not persuaded at this time that Hyperloop technology was something to focus upon. He said that the position on that had not changed substantially since the meeting on this subject that had taken place in the previous year. Councillor Scott said that he would be pleased to send the documents to Mr Slack again.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning Investment

Nigel Slack referred to the arrival of the British Games Institute and said that this had come about through investment in local business and with local funding. He also commented in relation to international investment in the city and asked the following questions:

What is the current status of the £1Bn investment from Mr Wang and his Chengdhu businesses; how much of that promised £220M has materialised as actual investment; and what are the realistic prospects for the future of this deal when direct foreign investment is reported to be down by 10%?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, stated that he disagreed with the assertion by Mr Slack relating to international investment. He said that whilst there was the challenge of Brexit, Creative Sheffield and the City Council had done great work and there was a list of developments taking place in the city, which he could provide to Mr Slack.  The Council continued to have dialogue with Mr Wang and his representatives regarding the viability of potential projects.  There was also continuing discussion and issues were not necessarily straightforward.  There were issues relating to confidence of potential investors to the UK relating to Brexit and there was also a challenge in relation to China of policy change. International delegations did come to speak with the Council. He said that he would be pleased to talk further with Mr Slack in relation to this subject.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning Castle Gate

Nigel Slack stated that people had heard the good news of the appointing of archaeologists for the Castle Gate excavations yet, at the same time another heritage asset in the form of Birley Spa was being disposed of as, it seems, the first option is always the commercial solution above the community solution.

He asked if the Cabinet Member had rescheduled his meeting with the Friends of the Old Town Hall.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, stated in relation to Birley Spa, that there had been a lot of effort to try to make the building work and he would be pleased to brief Mr Slack further in this regard.

With regards the Old Town Hall building, Councillor Iqbal said that a meeting with the Friends of the Old Town Hall was arranged on 12 July 2018.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning Seven Hills Pool Closure

Lisa Siddall stated that a group of people were to consider the establishment of a charitable trust to run a hydrotherapy pool at Seven Hills School. She asked if the decision to close the pool could be deferred to give an opportunity to produce a management and business plan. She said the pool had only been built five years ago and asked whether the information regarding cost of the pool, which was believed to be £500K, was correct and whether the Cabinet Member had visited the pool.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, stated that Councillor Jayne Dunn had answered the questions which had been asked at the June Council meeting and concerning the hydrotherapy pool. Councillor Lea said that her understanding was that the existing pool was not suitable for pupils at Sevenhills with conditions which required a warm water hydrotherapy pool. Other pupils in Sheffield used the pool. However, there was alternative capacity in the city.

She said that in relation to the establishment of a charitable trust, the ownership was in the hands of the Academy and it might be advisable to speak with the Academy in the first instance. She said that whilst she knew All Saints School well, she had not visited the pool at Seven Hills. She said that she would be pleased to assist if she was able and would be willing to discuss this matter further.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, said that she had understood that further information would be provided by Lisa Siddall, prior to the Council sending a written response to her. A response had now been sent.  Because the school was an Academy, the Council was limited in what it was able to do. However, it might be possible to help with regard to activity so that which was currently done might continue when there was a warm water pool. The new facility would address the needs of the children at the School. She suggested that a meeting was arranged to discuss this matter further.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Sex Establishment Policy

Charlotte Mead and Lisa Markham referred to a recent Judicial Review of the Council’s Sex Establishment Policy and asked in the light of the outcome that the Council had conceded that it had failed to properly consider its public sector equality duty, what action would the responsible Cabinet Member now take.

They asked if the Cabinet Member could confirm that there would be an investigation into the matters conceded at the Judicial Review, and particularly; the legal and professional advice given to the Licensing Committee; failure to apply information gained during the consultation process in the formulation of the final policy; and the decision making process of the Licensing Committee, including the recent re-licensing of Spearmint Rhino, the only licensed strip and lap dancing club in the City.

They stated that the very recent license in respect of the Spearmint Rhino was granted according to a policy which had effectively been quashed by the outcome of the Judicial Review and asked what did the Cabinet Member intend to do.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded to the questions. He said that the grounds and the outcome of the Judicial Review were being looked at closely. It was vital that there was an assessment and lessons were learned from this happening a second time. He said that there was work being done with the Chairs of the Licensing Committee to convene a range of partners and stakeholders and separately in relation to a further piece of consultation which the Council had committed to doing. However, it was important to assess what happened, before further consultation commenced. The Judicial Review outcome did not automatically affect the decision concerning the Spearmint Rhino. However, it gave the Council an opportunity to consider what it wished to achieve in its Sex Establishment Policy. He said that he looked forward to meeting a range of stakeholders in relation to the matter to make sure that the right policy was in place for the City.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Accommodation for Refugees

ManuchehrMaleki-Dizayi asked how many homeless refugee families with children had been forced to stay in the Burngreave bed and breakfast over the past 12 months, how many children were in those families and how long did they stay there? He asked why the Council treated homeless refugee children differently to other homeless children in Sheffield.

Questions were asked on behalf of Rev Dr Leonora Charles Loughrey (Gogo) as to whether Sheffield City Council followed Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council’s policy of providing weekly financial support to refugee parents as well as children with no recourse to public funds.

John Grayson said that Council policy concerning families with no recourse to public funds stated that until appropriate accommodation was provided it may be necessary to provide hostel type accommodation and made reference to the role of social workers in identifying appropriate properties according to the needs of families and location. He asked why the Council had breached its own policies by placing refugee families in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for up to two years.

Robert Spooner stated that the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group had identified that lone mothers and homeless refugee children had been made to live in the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast accommodation alongside recovering and mentally ill single men for six months to a year. He said the Council had admitted that two further refugee families with children had spent two years in the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast. He asked whether the Council would now publically undertake not to place homeless children in the Earl Marshall.

Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that there was a discrepancy between information in the questions that had been put and the information which he had before him. He said that he did not have information as to the number of homeless refugee families and children in the accommodation in Burngreave at this meeting. However, at this time, there were no families in bed breakfast accommodation placed by housing and no families placed in excess of six weeks; and this was clearly contrary to the evidence presented by the questions above. He suggested therefore that a meeting was arranged with the questioners, to include himself and the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, and Council officers to establish the facts.

Councillor Steinke said that with regard to the treatment of homeless refugee children, he would state that they should not be treated differently to other children and the Council should look at ways in which it might respond to what was happening. A key issue was the question of whether the Council could provide weekly financial support to parents as well as children with no recourse to public funds. A significant number of families had status to remain given by the Home Office and then had no recourse to public funds imposed and were therefore placed in a situation of destitution. He said that the Council did provide support to families, and it was important for families to challenge Home of Office decisions relating to no recourse to public funds. However, there was a challenge with regard to those with no recourse to public funds decisions by the Home Office.

He said that with regard to the alleged breach of Council policy (with regard the use of bed and breakfast accommodation), there was a discrepancy between the facts presented by the questioner and those with which he had been provided. He suggested that a meeting be arranged and that the particular cases in question were identified.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, stated that she did not have exact numbers of families placed in Burngreave bed and breakfast accommodation but she would say that one child placed in bed and breakfast accommodation was one too many. Placing children and families in bed and breakfast accommodation was a last resort. She referred to a social media comment, which claimed that she had refused to stop using Earl Marshall bed and breakfast for families. She responded that she had never said that. However, bed and breakfast was one of the options for families and others. This option was only used as a last resort. The City Council did not and should not treat homeless refugee children differently to other children. In circumstances where a family had no recourse to public funds, if they had children, the Council was able to give support to the children and it tried to give support and keep families together. The Council did give support to parents but Councillor Drayton said that she was not certain if Barnsley’s approach was the same and this was something which might be looked at in greater detail.

Councillor Drayton said that both her and Councillor Steinke’s Cabinet portfolios (Housing and Children and Families respectively) monitored the situation with regard to children and families and a panel had been established to monitor families in certain circumstances and there was a scheme whereby families were visited to monitor how they were getting on. A no recourse to public funds panel had also been established to include representatives from both housing and children and families.

Families were only housed in bed and breakfast accommodation in an emergency. Properties were inspected and deemed suitable for use in emergency situations. She said that the process would perhaps need to be checked, although she had already requested officers to do so. She said there were currently no families with children from Sheffield in the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast. However, there were children from Barnsley that had been placed there and the children’s service in Sheffield was helping to monitor the wellbeing of those children and the family.

She agreed that it would be helpful to meet with the questioners to look in more detail at the matters which had been raised.

3.2.7

Public Questions Concerning Streets Ahead

Justin Buxton asked a question concerning payments to Amey LG and Amey OV. He said that no contracts were recorded in the contracts register. He said that he had previously raised the issue and received an email to say the matter had been investigated and he was now asking for an update.

Justin Buxton asked if the Leader of the Council was aware of an ongoing investigation by the Forestry Commission as to the legality of the work relating to tree felling in Sheffield and whether it was prudent to pursue legal action relating to the felling of trees.

Dave Dillner asked how many Council officers who were involved in the sign off on felling recommendations from Amey had the training, education and experience demanded by British Standards, including BS3998.

Sheldon Hall referred to the listening walkabouts by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene and asked when the Council would announce more formal talks with representatives of campaign groups in relation to trees.

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene responded to the questions. In relation to the question concerning an investigation into payments to Amey LG and Amey OV, he said that he would respond in writing.

As regards the question concerning the Forestry Commission, he said that the Council believed that highways work and tree replacement work was legal.

Councillor Dagnall said that with regard to formal talks, he was not in a position to confirm the timescales at this time. He said this would begin during the summer and hoped to confirm this in the coming weeks as regards a formal dialogue with campaigners and also with residents and stakeholders.

In relation to the question concerning the British Standard, Councillor Dagnall said that he would provide a response in writing.

3.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Injunction

Nigel Slack asked how applying for a new three year injunction against tree felling protesters and adding ever more draconian restrictions demonstrates a spirit of trust and compromise; how much will this new injunction cost to take to court; and does Council recognise that pursuing the same failed strategy time and again and expecting a different outcome is one definition of insanity?

Justin Buxton asked whether an executive decision was taken by the Leader to extend and vary the court injunction or whether it had been delegated to the Director of Legal and Governance.

Sheldon Hall asked if the Leader of the Council would confirm that she supports and endorses the renewed injunctions in relation to protesters. 

Councillor Lewis Dagnall responded to the questions. He stated that the final decision in relation to the establishment of an injunction was with the Director of Legal Services. As Cabinet Member, both he and the Leader of the Council were consulted and briefed and asked to express a view, and they expressed the view that, based on the evidence before them, it was felt necessary to extend the injunction at that point in time. At the same time, the Council was working hard to achieve a sustainable compromise and engage residents and stakeholders.

Councillor Dagnall said that he did not think it was appropriate or useful for the question of Mr Slack to refer to ‘insanity’ both in terms of the work to seek parity of esteem for mental and physical health and as regards matters of reasonable argument or disagreement.  He said that he was optimistic that a sustainable compromise could be achieved with regard to moving on as a city with the Streets Ahead programme. With regard to legal proceedings, a cost would not be confirmed until the proceedings were concluded.

The injunction was not against campaigners or protest. It was a limited intervention in order that work might be conducted safely for the benefit of workers, individuals who may wish to cross safety barriers and for the public.  It was important to establish clearly that it was outside the realms of peaceful protest to take part in activity which was dangerous. The Council was also in dialogue with residents and campaigners to try to reach a compromise and a political solution on policy. However, there could not be compromise on health and safety at work.