Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of Affordable Housing

5.1.1

Michael Miller submitted a petition containing 2,569 signatures, requesting that housing developers be made to be more transparent about costs in Sheffield.

5.1.2

Mr Miller commented that current planning law stated that if a developer would make less than a 20% profit on a new development, they could ignore a Council’s regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers had shown that the maths they used to work out their profit margins were purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour.

5.1.3

Mr Miller added that, to combat this, Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol Councils had introduced a policy that forced developers; “viability assessments” to be made public. By bringing this maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals would be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths. Would the Council therefore consider adopting this policy?

5.1.4

In response, Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, acknowledged that the large number of signatures in support of the petition highlighted the strength of feeling across the City in respect of this issue. He did not believe developers were exploiting a legal loophole in this respect but in his opinion the law deliberately assisted developers to get out of their obligations.

5.1.5

Sheffield was one of the best Councils in the country to press developers to fulfil their obligations in respect of viability. However, this did not take away the benefit of making such assessments public and Councillor Scott could see the benefit in requiring that. Developing a baseline that developers could refer to would also benefit developers in the long term.

5.1.6

Councillor Scott was supportive of developing this policy. It did need to be fair to developers but affordability to the public needed to be a priority. Councillor Scott wished to see viability assessments signed off by a named individual with the appropriate qualifications and then countersigned by the applicant. Councillor Scott therefore hoped that an executive decision in this respect could be signed off in the next couple of months. Clarification was needed as to whether a consultation process was required. Councillor Scott believed that undertaking a viability assessment at the end of the application process was the most transparent way of doing things. He concluded by thanking Mr Miller for the petition and suggested it be referred it to the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for consideration.

5.1.7

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, added that the Council did scrutinise viability assessments. The problem for the Council was the lack of the resources available to scrutinise the assessments as much as they would like as a result of Government cuts. She agreed with the views of Councillor Scott and that there should be two stages in the planning process in respect of viability – at the beginning and at the end of the process. Councillor Dore believed that a national policy in respect of this should be introduced and encouraged people to lobby the Government to achieve this.

5.1.8

RESOLVED:  That the petition be referred to the Safer and Stronger Communities Policy and Development Committee for consideration.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Wind Flow

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that, with ambitions in the City Centre for ever taller building blocks, he had expressed concern, to Councillors and developers, about the awareness of developers about wind-flow issues at ground level of such buildings. Mr Slack added that clearly no one would wish to create a Bridgewater House (Leeds) effect within the City Centre.

5.2.2

Mr Slack therefore asked what requirements did planning place on developers in respect of wind-flow modelling for new proposals? In light of the strong winds (40mph) yesterday and with Climate Change making extreme weather events more frequent, what wind speeds were they expected to consider?

5.2.3

Mr Slack further asked had the City created a measure of acceptable levels of pedestrian safety or comfort and how might this be measured or monitored? Did any expectation on developers include the impact of light debris around the City and any associated vortex hazards?

5.2.4

Councillor Jack Scott responded that he was ambitious for the City in respect of development. As part of the planning process, developers were required to submit a micro climate assessment. This would inform detailed design negotiation and evaluations. There were a number of examples across the City where measures had been put in place which were designed to prevent a vortex or wind hazard.

5.2.5

However, Councillor Scott added that the issue required further policy development work and this would be included in the Local Plan in due course. If Mr Slack had any specific concerns related to particular buildings, these should be reported to building control.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Academies

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that, in January, it was highlighted that a number of Academy Schools were either in the red and, in conjunction with already dire levels of Government investment in Sheffield schools funding, we were seeing schools subject to unaccountable profiteering management and with about as much public scrutiny as Starbucks. Mr Slack believed that profit was now being placed ahead of pupil needs, including their safety, and the Education and Skills Funding Agency had had to intervene in some cases. Were the Council satisfied that Sheffield Academies had good levels of transparency and oversight from parents, governors and the Authority? Were the Council able to monitor Academy accounts and was there any awareness of financial risks associated with local Academies? Bearing in mind the recent reports of Sheffield pupil exclusions being above the national average, were the Council aware of the national correlation between these figures and the Academy status of the schools involved? Were the levels of exclusions a reflection of attempts by schools to improve test results and OFSTED scores?

5.3.2

In response, Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, commented that she was not in favour of academisation and the questions Mr Slack had asked were the very questions she had been asking. Unfortunately, the Council could not insist that they saw any financial figures from academies. The Schools Forum and Learn Sheffield within the City did encourage good sharing of best practice. The Education and Skills Funding Agency could see Academies finances but the Council were not able to. She agreed that levels of exclusions were not acceptable and this was an issue of policy development that the Council was working on.

5.3.3

Councillor Julie Dore added that governing bodies had access to their school’s finances and questions could be raised at governing body meetings. However, academies did not have to have Local Government appointees on their governing bodies. She shared the concerns of Mr Slack and added that the Council were working to find a solution to the problems.

5.4

Public Question in respect of the Walk-In Centre at Broad Lane

5.4.1

Nigel Slack referred to the saving of the Walk-In Centre on Broad Lane and asked if there was pressure put on to the Clinical Commissioning Group to bring this back to the NHS rather than as a profit making provider of NHS branded services?

5.4.2

Councillor Chris Peace, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, responded that it was clear that, nationally, Labour saw the NHS as the preferred provider. The CCG were meeting in respect of this tomorrow and no decision had been taken as yet. This was a good example of the democratic process as it had been discussed at Scrutiny, the Health and Wellbeing Board and at Full Council. She was clear that any proposals should not widen health inequalities in the City and negatively impact the most vulnerable in the City.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Powers of the Sheffield City Region Mayor

5.5.1

Nigel Slack asked with responsibility for transport strategy being part of the Sheffield City Region Mayor’s role, what part will the City play in guiding this process?

5.5.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that, prior to the Mayoral Authority being created, there was an integrated South Yorkshire Transport Authority and engagement with the Mayor on transport would not be too dissimilar to the way the Council used to engage with the Transport Authority. Sheffield had its own Transport Strategy and engaged widely with partners across the City Region Authority. A City Region wide deal had not yet been signed to Sheffield’s disappointment and, as a result, no devolved transport funding due to the Devolution Deal had been received from Government.