Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions and Other Communications

To receive any questions or petitions from the public, or communications submitted by the Lord Mayor or the Chief Executive and to pass such resolutions thereon as the Council Procedure Rules permit and as may be deemed expedient.

 

Minutes:

3.1

Amendments to Motions

 

 

 

RESOLVED: In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(a)(ii) – Motions Which May Be Moved Without Notice At Council Meetings – and on the motion of Councillor David Baker, seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon, that only one amendment per Party Group per motion be permitted to be submitted at future meetings of the Council.

 

 

 

 

3.2

Petitions

 

 

3.2.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Develop a Network of New Public Bridleways in the Rivelin Valley Area

 

 

 

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 409 signatures, requesting the Council to develop a network of new public bridleways in the Rivelin Valley area.

 

 

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Louise Huson, of Hallam Riders group. The petition requested the Council to develop an improved network of public bridleways in the Rivelin Valley to help keep people safe from unnecessarily using Rivelin Valley Road. She said that bridleways were a most inclusive right of way as they embraced horse riders, cyclists, walkers and wheelchair users and they were also broader than footpaths.

 

 

 

She said it was possible for a mixture of different users to amicably share routes, which was socially inclusive and children often liked to see horses and ponies. Riding for the disabled also provided a means of accessing the countryside.  Whilst there were multiple public footpaths in the area, there was no legal provision for riders and cyclists to avoid the heavy road traffic. Barriers and signage excluded people other than walkers. Signage in the Rails Road car park also indicated that the nature trail was not suitable for wheelchair users. She said that this might unnecessarily endanger people and was contrary to disabilities and equalities legislation the Council’s Rights of Way Improvement Plan, the purpose of which was to make as many green spaces accessible to as many people as possible. 

 

 

 

Louise Huson said that Rivelin Valley Road had a history of accidents and fatalities and there was great stress for people travelling on the road. She said that there could be changes to Council policy and minimal infrastructure investment. There were 20 stable yards in the Rivelin Valley and these were used by riders from a number of places, and included women and children and disabled people, who needed safe provision. At present, horse riders and cyclists were only able to use parts of the nature trail discreetly and illicitly. The petitioners wished for traditional routes to be made inclusive for everyone. Some routes had originally been cart roads and were thought to be wide enough for multi-use. The paths in question had been identified on a map which had been submitted to the Council with the petition. These reduced the distances which otherwise would be travelled on Rivelin Valley Road.  Sustainable surfacing was already in place on those routes.

 

 

 

She referred to accidents involving horses and cyclists nationally and said that access to off road bridleways in Sheffield was below the national average. The Council was asked to upgrade existing routes, as identified by the petition, to multi-user bridleway status and create a network to prioritise use by vulnerable user groups.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development and to Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure.

 

 

 

Councillor Jack Scott, said that with regard to transport and public rights of way, there were multiple footpaths and a number of bridleways in place. He acknowledged that, in some cases, these were poorly signed and that some entrance signage also prohibited riding and bicycles and that was something the Council should review. He said the Council was sympathetic to the need for a more joined up network of bridleways for reasons of inclusion.

 

 

 

Councillor Scott said that in relation to work on Rivelin Valley Road, the Council did not anticipate any large scale removal of trees to create a public right of way. This was a location where consideration would be given to the installation of a Pegasus crossing to help keep horse riders safer. With reference to the maps provided by the petitioners, a proper assessment was required to understand the issues and see how to improve matters for horse riders and cyclists and everyone. There were considerations, including fairness and inclusivity and Sheffield’s outdoor heritage was integral to the City. He said that he would look forward to meeting with representatives of the petitioners and with Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure.

 

 

3.2.2

Petition Requesting the Revocation of the Licence for Doggy Den, Little London Road

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 566 signatures, requesting the revocation of the licence for Doggy Den, Little London Road.

 

 

 

There was no speaker to the petition.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Scott stated that the premises were currently licensed and he would be referring the matter to the Licensing Committee and he had asked officers to prepare a report for the Committee.

 

 

 

 

3.3

Public Questions

 

 

3.3.1

Public Questions Concerning Governance

 

 

 

Ruth Hubbard asked firstly, for it to be confirmed that Sheffield was about “you, me and all the diverse communities that live here”. It was not owned by any political party or multinational corporation.  She said the Council were temporary stewards for communities and those who lived in the City.

 

 

 

Secondly, she said that communities in Sheffield had launched the Sheffield People’s petition under the Localism Act 2011 and would present a petition of five percent of the electorate and have a referendum and that communities would vote for a change of governance model. She said that referendums cost money and referred to decisions which had been made and which had necessitated financial spending, which was inadvisable.  She asked for reconsideration of the decision of 6 June 2018 not to investigate a change in governance. The Council could itself decide to embrace a change in governance before a petition was presented, and avoid a referendum.

 

 

 

Thirdly, she said once the decision of 6 June had been reconsidered, would the Council join communities in a collaborative process of redesigning a committee system which was fit for the city. She read a quote from a publication for which Councillor Dore had been a co-author and relating to problem solving by interested parties, sharing power and progressive politics.

 

 

 

She asked that the Council join with communities to co-produce a new, better governance system both to improve transparency and accountability and give a more meaningful role for those in the Council Chamber. She said that communities wanted to see greater collaboration in the Council chamber which worked better for communities.

 

 

 

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council stated that she did not agree with the definition of representation in Sheffield and citizenship which had been set out in the question. She did not think that anyone ‘owned’ Sheffield, although many people had an interest in the City, including its residents, people who worked in the City and other stakeholders and individuals that had an interest in Sheffield. Neither would she have claimed ownership of the City on behalf of the Cabinet or the ruling group on the Council.

 

 

 

She asked for people to be careful about statements regarding the possible outcome of a referendum and presumptions about what people might think.

 

 

 

With regards co-production and stakeholder involvement, Councillor Dore stated that she had campaigned for those things both as a councillor and in her professional working career. She said there were nearly 600,000 people in Sheffield and various stakeholder groups and organisations within and outside of the City and she would be pleased to have a wider conversation with citizens about what was right for them.

 

 

3.3.2

Public Questions Concerning Footways in Angram Bank

 

 

 

Terence Bawden said that two years ago, Amey set a date for December 2016, to return to High Green and to repair footways. Since that time, the footways had become in part impassable for many of the elderly and disabled people living on the Angram Bank estate. He asked when it was likely that work would take place to have the footway made to the same standard as other places as it was a concern that someone may become hurt as a result of a trip or fall.

 

 

 

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, stated that he would request Council officers to look with Amey at the matters which had been raised and he would write to Mr Bawden with further details about the situation and when the work would be completed.

 

 

3.3.3

Public Question Concerning a Zebra Crossing in High Green

 

 

 

David Ogle referred to a petition which had been presented to Council concerning the provision of a zebra crossing in High Green. He said that he had also asked at that time for the Council to stop ignoring High Green. He said that whilst he had received a letter acknowledging the petition, he had heard nothing since. He asked for this to be dealt with.

 

 

 

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that he would restate what he had said previously in relation High Green not being an ignored area of the City. A road safety assessment of the area had been undertaken and there had been found to be no parts of that area which were dangerous enough to merit a zebra crossing. He said it was right that the Council invested funds in road safety and crossings wherever it was necessary. High Green had been examined and it had been decided that there was no aspect to High Green which was sufficiently dangerous where a zebra crossing would make a significant difference.

 

 

 

Following the submission of the petition to full Council, he had followed up this matter by speaking with a number of people, including the local councillors, and a similar view had been formed. He said that he would wish to make it clear that the Council did not ignore any area of the City and its residents. If there were areas of High Green where there were significant road safety issues and which would be dealt with by the installation of a crossing, then the Council would examine the issue and, if at all possible, would do so. However, the Council would not undertake work which was not justified by a clear and agreed methodology.

 

 

3.3.4

Public Question Concerning Community Boxing Gym in High Green

 

 

 

David Ogle said that the community in High Green had been trying to set up a community boxing gym and he referred to potential benefits of a gym, including reducing crime and anti-social behaviour and social isolation and improving health. He asked the Lord Mayor for help and to visit High Green and to participate in a boxing match with him. He referred to the publicity and good will which might be generated as a result.

 

 

 

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Magid Magid) responded by asking Mr Ogle to contact him by email to which he would respond.

 

 

3.3.5

Public Question Concerning Birley Spa

 

 

 

Nigel Slack referred to the postponement of the auction sale of Birley Spa to allow for discussions between the Council and the Friends of the Spa on potential solutions that would keep this heritage location in public hands. He commented that there were issues relating to the sale and disagreements about who said what to whom and whether there had been previous consultation with local residents that gave the perception of a Council making decisions behind closed doors and without reasonable consideration of local feelings.

 

 

 

He asked the following questions:

How long would the sale be postponed?

With Lottery funding having been involved in the refurbishment of this site, what do the Council know of the conditions attached to this grant if the property is sold? (repayment/share of sale price etc.)

What do the Council know of any restrictive covenants on this property that may have been attached to its use or disposal by Earl Manvers?

What was the ownership status of the site? Public, private or some quasi charitable ownership with the Council as trustees?

 

 

 

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance responded that the sale of Birley Spa would initially be postponed for two months to allow the group to come up with options. These would be reviewed and, if any required more time then this would be considered at that point. However, there had also been a separate application for an Asset of Community Value and, if that was granted, then it would give a further six months delay to any sale in order to give time for that to be considered.

 

 

 

Councillor Blake said that with regard to Lottery funding, the Council had spoken with the Heritage Lottery Fund which was aware of the plan to sell the site. The terms of the grant had lapsed and it would not be open to any clawback as a result of the site being sold. The Council was not aware of any restrictive covenants on the property and the Council owned the site. The site and land around it was freehold.

 

 

3.3.6

Public Question Concerning South Yorkshire Pensions Fund

 

 

 

Nigel Slack referred to a report in the Financial Times on 3rd September which had stated thatlocal council pension funds in the UK had more than £9bn invested in companies engaged in fracking, despite fierce debate over shale gas exploration.

 

 

 

He asked whether, as a Council which was publicly opposed to fracking, the Council was certain that current South Yorkshire Pensions Authority investments did not include any in companies associated with fracking.

 

 

 

He also asked in the context of the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority moving from direct management of pension funds to setting strategy under a privatised fund management arrangement, how robust were the protocols to ensure fracking companies were not invested in through this intermediary.

 

 

 

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance stated that there had also been reports in the local media concerning part of the Pension Fund being invested in companies involved with fracking. The Pensions Authority was separate to the City Council and comprised councillors from all of the South Yorkshire Authorities. She said that she was working in this regard with Sheffield City Councillors who were Members of the Pensions Authority.

 

 

 

She had also received a statement from the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, which she would be pleased to share with Mr Slack and which set out the rate at which the Pension Fund was disinvesting. There was, for example, a reduction in shares in oil, gas and mining companies of 26 percent last year. The Pension Fund was changing, which would take a number of years and whilst she would be pleased to go through matters with Mr Slack, the questions he had asked might also be put to the South Yorkshire Pensions Authority.

 

 

 

Councillor Blake noted that the Pensions Authority was conducting a review of its strategies. She confirmed that Sheffield City Council had passed motions against fracking on its own land and did not invest directly in fossil fuels.

 

 

3.3.7

Public Questions Concerning Register of Interests and Lobbying

 

 

 

Nigel Slack stated that he was interested to see that the Councillors’ Register of Interests finally appeared to be in electronic form, which was a good step for transparency and accountability if this also meant that the register could be kept up to date on a 'live' basis, reflecting the changes in Councillors’ circumstances as they occurred. He asked whether the Council could confirm that this will be the case and that Councillors will be expected to provide any changes in their interests promptly.

 

 

 

He also asked whether, with this template for contemporary transparency in place, it would be possible for a similar register to be established for a Lobbying Register to record who has privileged access to Councillors, Cabinet Members and Senior Officers.

 

 

 

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she would expect councillors to promptly change registered interests, as necessary. She would be able to check on any associated timescales but there was no reason why this should not be done by councillors as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

As regards lobbying and professional lobbyist organisations, Councillor Dore said that if there was an awareness of an approach by lobbyist companies then she would be happy to disclose the fact. For her part, she had never been lobbied by a lobbyist. In terms of some sort of ‘privileged access’, Mr Slack himself had been offered several meetings to discuss issues. She said that she would hope that she did as much as she was able to engage with the many interested stakeholders in the City.

 

 

3.3.8

Public Questions Concerning Streets Ahead Programme

 

 

 

Justin Buxton asked on what date the Leader of the Council was made aware that the Forestry Commission were investigating the legality of felling healthy trees in Sheffield. He also asked if the Council had informed South Yorkshire Police of the investigation by the Forestry Commission.

 

 

 

Mr Buxton referred to the meeting of Council on 7 February 2018 and the minutes of that meeting concerning Amey and health and safety and a response made by the Cabinet Member, including reference to an investigation by KPMG. He asked when the investigation was instigated, when it reported and as to the scope of the investigation.

 

 

 

He asked the Cabinet Member for an update regarding the investigation into payments made to Amey LG and Amey OV where no contracts existed. He asked whether those substantial payments in error had been rectified.

 

 

 

Mr Buxton asked whether the present Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene had received briefings concerning the tree replacement programme and if he was sure that he had been thoroughly and sufficiently briefed on the programme and the Council’s contract with Amey.

 

 

 

Russell Johnson asked whether, in view of the austerity suffered by the City over recent years, the Leader of the Council was sanguine about expenditure of at least £400K on legal attempts on what he said was to crush opposition and remove legitimate dissent. He asked whether the Leader would reconsider her decision not to resign.

 

 

 

Dave Dillner asked which staff were currently working on the highways tree strategy as described by the former Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport on 5 September 2015 at the second Highways Trees Advisory Forum and what stage had it reached.

 

 

 

Calvin Payne referred to, and invited the Council’s leaders to welcome, the findings of the Independent Office of Police Conduct that arrests made under Trade Union Legislation between November 2016 and February 2017 were neither appropriate or necessary. He asked whether councillors or officers were involved in the decision making that lead to the arrest of people under trade union law in 2016 and 2017.

 

 

 

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, in responding to questions from Mr Buxton, stated that he had also asked the same questions during a Radio Sheffield ‘hot-seat’ programme. Whilst she could not give an exact date, she could remember reference to this issue during a previous Cabinet or Council meeting. She said that the Forestry Commission had not informed her, either personally or formally, that it was investigating the legality [of tree felling]. She had also not informed the police personally or officially, that the Forestry Commission was conducting an investigation. However, she commented that she had said that she would be surprised if the police were not aware of it, because of comments by others.

 

 

 

In response to the question of Mr Johnson, Councillor Dore said that she had no intention of resigning. She said that the Council took informed decisions based on the facts before it and the associated risks, in order to carry out necessary actions. Where the Council got things wrong, it would say so, and there had been examples when that had happened. On this occasion, it was necessary to take action in order to ensure that the highways contract might proceed.

 

 

 

In answer to the question by Mr Payne, Councillor Dore said that there was a clear division between the role of the Police and the City Council. The Police took action based on the information provided to them and the relevant legislation. It was for the Police to determine its actions.

 

 

 

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, stated that he would respond in writing to Mr Buxton in relation to the questions that he had put relating to health and safety, to explain the current situation.

 

 

 

Councillor Dagnall stated that, with regard to payments to Amey LG, he had written to Mr Buxton concerning this matter in July and on two subsequent occasions. He reassured the Council that the administrative error which had been identified was being rectified.  

 

 

 

In relation to the Forestry Commission, Councillor Dagnall stated that he believed that the work being conducted to highways trees was legal and he said that Council officers were co-operating with the Forestry Commission’s enquiries.

 

 

 

He said that he had been fully briefed in relation to all duties relevant to his role as Cabinet Member and was satisfied with the briefings which he had received.

 

 

 

Councillor Dagnall said that in connection with the Highways Tree strategy, preparations were taking place for direct face to face talks with Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) as the main representative campaign group. One of the issues was likely to be the future of the highways strategy and he believed that decisions could be made in relation to that strategy, following the talks with STAG.

 

 

 

 

3.4

Petitions (2)

 

 

3.4.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Stop Spending Money on Demolishing Trees

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 12 signatures, requesting the Council to stop spending money on demolishing trees.

 

 

 

There was no speaker to the petition.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene.

 

 

3.4.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Consult with Residents to Apply for a Public Space Protection Order to the Alley Between Ainsty Road and South View Crescent

 

 

 

The Council received a petition containing 42 signatures requesting the Council to consult with residents to apply for a Public Space Protection Order to the alley between Ainsty Road and South View Crescent.

 

 

 

There was no speaker to the petition.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jim Steinke, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety.