Agenda item

7.1

It was moved by Councillor Adam Hanrahan, and seconded by Councillor Simon Clement-Jones, that this Council:-

(a)       notes (i) the use of civil injunctions by the Council against those campaigning against the felling of Sheffield's street trees;

            (ii) the very clear acknowledgement of the Leader of the Council that she “positively agreed” to the use of such injunctions and was supportive of the recent High Court proceedings; and

            (iii) that elected politicians have the right to set policy that decide if the Council does or does not use civil injunctions as a way of dealing with the street tree felling situation;

(b)       therefore, is both surprised and dismayed that the Administration is seeking to extend the time period of the injunctions for another three years and also extend the remit of the injunctions,

(c)        believes that this is all contrary to the spirit of compromise and working with campaigners to find solutions to the tree felling issue which the new Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene has publically stated; and

(d)       calls upon the Administration to use the current pause in tree felling to live up to the Cabinet Member’s promises of compromise and change to the way street trees are dealt with in our city.

7.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Lewis Dagnall, seconded by Councillor George Lindars-Hammond, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that since tree replacement work was paused in March, the present Administration has been meeting with, and listening to, residents and stakeholder groups about how the current situation regarding tree replacement works can be resolved;

(b)       believes that the vast majority of interested parties are committed to engaging in constructive dialogue to work together to find a solution, and that the priority should now be to find a form of compromise from the Council, the contractor and campaigners which will enable us to move forward;

(c)        regarding the injunction:-

(i)         notes that with the conclusion of the recent court cases, there are no further historical cases of breach of injunction that the Council intends to bring forward;

(ii)        notes that it is hoped that, as a result of compromise from all sides, further cases will not arise and ultimately the Council will not have to rely upon the court injunction;

(iii)       notes that it is extremely important that front-line workers should be able to go about their work without any risk to their health and safety;

(iv)       notes that the current injunction, which supports the Council in discharging its highways maintenance duty and protects these workers by enforcing the safety zones around their work, is due to expire shortly; and

(v)        believes that, given a compromise has not yet been found, and based on the evidence, it is right for the Council to apply to renew the injunction at this stage; and

(d)       sincerely hopes that efforts to reach a compromise will be successful, the terms of the injunction will be adhered to, and that, in the future, a further court injunction will no longer be necessary.

7.3

It was then moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson, seconded by Councillor Alison Teal, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of new paragraphs (e) to (i) as follows:-

(e)       furthermore, notes the recent rejection by the High Court of one of the Council’s applications to commit further tree campaigners for contempt, including to prison;

(f)        notes that clause 19 of the Streets Ahead contract places the responsibility (and therefore cost) of managing trespass and protest firmly on Amey Hallam Highways Ltd;

(g)       notes that this Administration has already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on legal proceedings against campaigners and believes it is not a good use of public money in a time of austerity;

(h)       believes this Administration should not spend further public money on legal battles with campaigners and should instead spend the money on vital services like social care; and

(i)         therefore, asks the Leader of the Council to withdraw the application to extend the injunction against residents of this city and elsewhere.

7.3.1

(NOTE: With the agreement of the Council and at the request of the mover of the amendment (Councillor Douglas Johnson), the amendment as circulated at the meeting was altered by (1) the substitution, in paragraph (g), of the word “hundreds” for the word “tens”; and (2) the addition of the words “and elsewhere” at the end of paragraph (i).)

7.4

It was then moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, and formally seconded by Councillor Penny Baker, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.         the re-lettering of paragraph (d) as a new paragraph (i), and the addition of new paragraphs (d) to (h) as follows:-

(d)       notes the recent publication of the Police and Crime Commissioner report into policing of tree felling operations;

(e)       notes that the report found that Sheffield City Council and Amey were reliant on the police to enable them to fell trees and accused them of ‘washing its hands of the issue’;

(f)        notes that, in response to the report, the Cabinet Member responsible for trees welcomed the report “as an opportunity to reflect and learn lessons from previous experience,” and confirmed his hope for “achieving a compromise”;

(g)       notes the recent call for a change from strong leader model to a more open and transparent committee system by “It’s Our City” campaign group, due to the current leadership’s controversial handling of the tree felling issue;

(h)       notes this change was called for by Liberal Democrats in a motion that was proposed at the last Full Council meeting, however, regrets that Labour councillors opposed the motion;

2.         the addition of new paragraphs (j) and (k) as follows:-

(j)         seeks that the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Members reconsider the use of these type of civil injunctions and reports back thereon to the next Full Council meeting; and

(k)        calls upon the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene to cease the use of these types of civil injunctions against tree campaigners and instead work with tree campaigners to reach the much touted compromise.

7.5

Following a right of reply from Councillor Adam Hanrahan, the amendment moved by Councillor Lewis Dagnall was put to the vote and was carried.

7.6

The amendment moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson was then put to the vote and was negatived.

7.7

The amendment moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed was then put to the vote and was also negatived.

7.8

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       notes that since tree replacement work was paused in March, the present Administration has been meeting with, and listening to, residents and stakeholder groups about how the current situation regarding tree replacement works can be resolved;

(b)       believes that the vast majority of interested parties are committed to engaging in constructive dialogue to work together to find a solution, and that the priority should now be to find a form of compromise from the Council, the contractor and campaigners which will enable us to move forward;

(c)        regarding the injunction:-

(i)         notes that with the conclusion of the recent court cases, there are no further historical cases of breach of injunction that the Council intends to bring forward;

(ii)        notes that it is hoped that, as a result of compromise from all sides, further cases will not arise and ultimately the Council will not have to rely upon the court injunction;

(iii)       notes that it is extremely important that front-line workers should be able to go about their work without any risk to their health and safety;

(iv)       notes that the current injunction, which supports the Council in discharging its highways maintenance duty and protects these workers by enforcing the safety zones around their work, is due to expire shortly; and

(v)        believes that, given a compromise has not yet been found, and based on the evidence, it is right for the Council to apply to renew the injunction at this stage; and

(d)       sincerely hopes that efforts to reach a compromise will be successful, the terms of the injunction will be adhered to, and that, in the future, a further court injunction will no longer be necessary.

7.8.1

(NOTE: 1. Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Bob Pullin, Richard Shaw, Adam Hanrahan, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Shaffaq Mohammed, Paul Scriven, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gail Smith, David Baker, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley and Mike Levery voted for paragraphs (b), (c)(i) to (iv) and (d) and against paragraphs (a) and (c)(v) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded; and

2. Councillors Kaltum Rivers, Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy, Martin Phipps and Alison Teal voted for paragraph (a) and against paragraphs (b) to (d) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)