Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Requesting the Closure of Roads at School Entrances to Motorised Traffic When Children are Going to and Leaving School

The Council received an electronic petition containing 1415 signatures, requesting the closure of roads at school entrances to motorised traffic when children are going to and leaving school.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Graham Turnbull. He stated that the restriction of traffic near to schools at school drop off and pick up times would help to protect children from traffic and traffic related pollution. The Council’s clean air strategy already recognised the need for action in relation to air quality and other places, including Edinburgh, London, Solihull and Southampton had implemented ‘School Streets’ to reduce traffic and increase active travel.

Whilst it was recognised that it might be difficult to close roads which were major routes, it would be a practical measure in relation to roads in residential areas where schools were located. Measures could be included, such as exemptions for residents and people with Blue Badges. In relation to the effect of closing roads on local retailers, it was considered that by reducing traffic and through people using public transport, walking and cycling, the potential spend in local retailers would be increased. It was also acknowledged that Schools Streets were not the most appropriate solution in all cases, but it was one of the options to help solve the problem of traffic congestion and pollution around schools and the Council was asked to commit to trialling the use of School Streets.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Scott said that it was right to highlight the issues included in the petition and air quality and pollution was something that it was vital to deal with and especially for children and those vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. He said that ‘School Streets’ had a part to play as one of the potential solutions in tackling air pollution and the Council had set out a number of actions that would be taken in relation to clean air. The number of signatories to the petition showed the strength of feeling on this matter. It was also the case that there were few actions which could be taken in relation to clean air that were easy or without a degree of controversy but that did not mean that it was not right to take action.

Councillor Scott said that Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills would raise this matter at the next meeting of the Schools Forum to begin a conversation about how this might work as part of an ambitious programme of activity across the City. School Streets alone was not enough and there should be a programme of other activity as well, including the promotion of walking, school buses and active travel to school. The plan would need to work for everyone and involve parents, schools and drivers. He suggested that a meeting was arranged to include himself, Councillor Jayne Dunn and other Councillors to consider the best approach to this problem and with a view to working to get the right solution for the City and he would ask for this to happen.

3.1.2

Petition Requesting the Council not to Place any more Children in the Earl Marshall Guest House

The Council received a petition containing 26 signatures, requesting the Council not to place any more children in the Earl Marshall Guest House.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by John Grayson. He said that the Council was responsible for placing refugee children in the Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast accommodation. This place was also used to house single men, including those with drug problems, mental health problems and having been released from prison. Families with children were placed there, most being refugee children with various forms of Leave to Remain. They shared toilets and queued for the showers with the males placed there. He said that families with children were routinely placed in the Earl Marshall.

He gave examples of families with children having been placed at the Earl Marshall, including a family placed in one room and where they had been given Leave to Remain and required to vacate a G4S properly in one week and then placed in the Earl Marshall. This included a family with children who were disabled. He said that he felt it was disgraceful that this practice had become routine and commented that there were no trained staff or safeguarding at the Earl Marshall. Meetings had been held with the Council and the need for emergency accommodation was something that was understood. However, the Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast was not considered to be an appropriate place. He went on to say that it looked as if this was a discriminatory policy by the Council.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety. Councillor Steinke said that he may wish to dispute the assertion that children were ‘routinely’ placed in the Earl Marshall. There were at this time, nine families in Bed and Breakfast accommodation and all of the families had been matched to properties. Four of the families were to move out of bed and breakfast accommodation within a couple of days and the remaining five were yet to have a move date confirmed.

He said that a commitment had been given to acquire other alternative accommodation and this was in process. There were two properties being purchased and another property was being refurbished, and this would have been reported to the next meeting with interested parties arranged in January. Arrangements pertaining to the Christmas period would include the potential use of other accommodation, including hotels. However, some hotels might be selective in terms of what they might provide and may be full. Councillor Steinke said that he would repeat the commitment that the Council did not wish to continue to use bed and breakfast accommodation for refugees and homeless families.

One of the reasons for this situation for refugee families was that there were a number of families receiving status [Leave to Remain] and then having no recourse to public funds applied to them. He felt that issue was also something that should be a subject to protest about.  He said that he would be pleased to meet again in January with the petitioners and interested parties concerning the matters now raised and the Council would continue to make progress in relation to the situations outlined.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children and Families stated that it was not the case that the Council was acting in a discriminatory manner. When some families gained their Leave to Remain they would have to vacate the G4S property they were living in (which would have been funded) when they had no Leave to Remain.  In those circumstances, the Council have to find another place for them to stay.  Unfortunately, the Council had a limited number of properties available.

She stated that bed and breakfast accommodation, including the Earl Marshall was only used in emergencies when there was no other accommodation available.  All accommodation the Council use was monitored and inspected and assessed to be suitable for people, including families.  The Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast fulfilled the relevant guidance and legislation. The Council did not wish to see any family placed in Bed and Breakfast. However, bed and breakfast accommodation might be used in emergency situations and the Council also had to find other temporary properties for people before they moved to a permanent home. The Council was working to get more places for families.

Councillor Drayton said that Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children did not live in the Earl Marshall. There were no refugee families with no Leave to Remain housed in the Earl Marshall. The families which were there had received Leave to Remain.

3.1.3

Petition Requesting the Council and Police to Consider Installing CCTV Cameras at Lansdowne (by the football pitch), the Abbeydale Corridor (junction of Fieldhead Road and Abbeydale Road) and by the Old Abbeydale Picture House

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing 153 signatures, requesting the Council and police to consider installing CCTV cameras at Lansdowne (by the football pitch), the Abbeydale corridor (junction of Fieldhead Road and Abbeydale Road) and by the old Abbeydale Picture House.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sahira Irshad. She stated that the Council was requested to consider investing in CCTV at Lansdowne (by the football pitch), the Abbeydale Corridor (junction of Fieldhead Road and Abbeydale Road) and by the Old Abbeydale Picture House. The Mums United group represented families and urged the Council to listen to people’s concerns. At Lansdowne, by the football pitch, the CCTV was requested in order to deter illegal activity and anti-social behaviour and provide reassurance. Drugs related items had often been found there and there were other related activities such as a vehicle theft. She said that people wished for children to be safe and it was of concern that young people were sometimes involved in drugs related activity and they were used and targeted by organised crime.

Sahira Irshad said it was considered to be most important that the problems outlined in the petition were taken seriously. She commented that whilst the joint initiative relating to violent crime was appreciated, the local community had not yet been approached in relation to the issue of knife crime. CCTV would record illegal activity and provide reassurance and protection and it was effective. Furthermore, it could be installed so as to protect other people’s privacy.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jim Steinke, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety. Councillor Steinke said that he was a local councillor in that area of the City and he was also aware of the issues which had been outlined by the petitioners in Lansdowne and the Abbeydale Corridor. He said that there was a meeting arranged with Mums United the next day. It was important that there was an appropriate response to the matters of concern for the long term and that measures such as CCTV were included as part of a co-ordinated and whole package of solutions. He said that the Council would look at how work could be done with the police to bring about long term and lasting solutions.

3.1.4

Petition Requesting the Council to Keep Woodbourn Stadium Open on Monday and Friday Evenings

The Council received an electronic petition containing 52 signatures, requesting the Council to keep Woodbourn Stadium open on Monday and Friday evenings.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Iain Smith. He stated that people were promised that the Woodbourn Stadium would be openly available for athletes to train at, following the closure of the Don Valley Stadium. However, the stadium’s track and field facilities would be closed on Monday and Friday evenings in December and January and this affected many people’s access including children, seniors, veterans and clubs. He commented that people had been training in the dark or via car headlights at the side of the track. He asked where the next elite athletes would come from in such circumstances and referred to the success of two schools in the City at the finals of the English Athletics Cross Country. However, he said the school athletes had no facility at which to train during the peak winter training period.

The Council referred to the petition Councillor Mary Lea (Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure). Councillor Lea stated that the Athletics Stadium was run by Sheffield Hallam University.  Next to the stadium was the football stadium, PITZ which had been run by Powerleague. However, that contract was to end and a temporary operator would to take over operations. This was a shared facility, including toilets and a café. Councillor Lea said that she had not been aware of any closure of the Stadium by the University. She would find out what was happening and respond to the lead petitioner. She also referred to the other facilities which were available for athletes in the City, including the English Institute of Sport.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Licensing of Food Establishment

Emily Doyland asked what action the Council’s Licensing Service was taking concerning the naming of the burger menu items at Randy’s Hardcore Hamburgers, which she said promoted coercive, exploitative and non-consensual sexual acts.

A question was asked on behalf of Rosie Apperley, namely how did the Council’s licensing function promote a more equal society where woman were treated equally and not subject to discrimination.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that the naming of food items on menus after coercive, controlling and non-consensual acts was not acceptable or appropriate. The Council had received complaints about the establishment which were being investigated and officers had visited the premises and he was awaiting a report following that visit. He had also written to the establishment, directing them to rename the items on the menu to something more in keeping with the Council’s Licensing Objectives.

He said that whilst the inappropriate name of one burger had been removed, other inappropriately named items remained on the menu, which were not acceptable. This was about respect and activity which promoted sexual coercion or pressure for sex was not acceptable. In relation to equality and fairness, this was a key priority within the Licensing Plan and each application was subject to an Equality Impact Assessment and, in this case, the menu was not disclosed as part of the assessment process. He said that misogyny, patriarchy and discrimination were bad for both women and men and it was better for people to live in a more equal society. Councillor Scott thanked Emily Doyland and Rosie Apperley for their work to highlight this matter. The Council was committed to using the tools at its disposal to make a fairer city.

3.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Yemen

Kaltun Elmi commented on the killing of innocent people in Yemen and the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. She asked whether the Council would condemn the sale of arms to countries such as Saudi Arabia.

She asked whether the Leader of the Council would agree that when relatives of people living in Sheffield were being killed using weapons made in Britain, should not all politicians in Sheffield stand with the people of Yemen.

Carolyn Jordin asked whether the Council would seek ways to put political pressure on companies to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia.

Fouad asked for the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia to cease, a lifting of the blockade on Yemen and what the Government and Council could do in relation to the deaths of children in Yemen.

Abdul Shair said that children were killed each day in Yemen and asked that the Council apply pressure to the Government to work towards a peaceful solution. He asked whether the Council would help with regard to the humanitarian support project for Yemen, including the potential to establish an orphanage and a practical worker to help support the community in Sheffield which was affected by this situation.

Ibtisam Al-foah made reference to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and to weapons sales and asked whether the use of weapons sold to countries might be limited. It was also considered that there should be an assurance that women were involved in peace negotiations supported by the United Nations.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council thanked all those asking questions for bringing what was a most serious matter to Council and said that she recognised that it was difficult and emotional for people to talk about this subject. She said that Members of the Council would support fund raising and support communities and organisations and Members had also previously worked with community groups representing families and friends of people in other countries. Members would also work jointly to support people in the community. The Council would also wish to speak further with people to see what could be done to help people in the city individually or as groups.

In relation to what the Council might do directly with regard to this issue, it was in the hands of the Government and Parliamentarians, as referenced in the notice of motion submitted to this meeting of the Council. The Council had an ethical procurement policy and that would be used by the Council as appropriate and where the Council was able to directly respond to issues and through its policies, it would do so.

Councillor Dore suggested that the amendments to the Notice Motion numbered 7 on the Summons were supported, and that the Notice of Motion on this subject be considered earlier in the agenda, so that people attending the Council meeting for that item could listen to the debate.

She said that these matters would be raised with the Government and with others and that the Council would also meet with individuals and community groups to see how they might work together.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy

Dave Dillner asked if the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure was aware of errors in the foreword to the Trees and Woodlands Strategy document. He said that Sheffield was not Britain’s greenest city and was the sixth greenest and that trees were not replaced on a two for one basis and had never been.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, stated that she believed that Sheffield was the greenest city in the country. She said that the Strategy would be considered at the next Cabinet meeting. A number of actions were proposed, including the development of a new Green Flag site and the bringing of all sites up to the Sheffield Standard. She also said that in addition to the planting of 100,000 new trees, any tree which had to be replaced would be replaced with two trees.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning No Deal Brexit

Andrew Benson asked whether the Council would be producing an impact assessment on the consequences of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit for the city.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council stated that the Council had carried out an assessment of the immediate impact of Brexit on the Council’s services and staff and particularly in relation to the care sector and on supplies. It had been found that there would not be an immediate impact in that regard. However, in the long term, until such time as the detail of the type of exit of the UK from the European Union was known, the precise impact would not be known.

She said in relation to the potential long term economic impact on Sheffield, on the assessment of recent evidence and scenarios, the potential different circumstances would be no better than current circumstances of remaining in the European Union and there were varying degrees of impact. It was considered that it would have the greatest impact on the poorest people and upon the poorest areas. The Government had more evidence in relation to the regional impact. However, that was not being shared with the Council, although the Council, City Region and MPs had requested it. She said that, whatever the outcome, the government at that time would have choices as to how to address the economic impact and there would be different approaches to social and economic policy issues by the various political parties.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning the Lord Mayor and Social Media

Nigel Slack commented on the role of Lord Mayor, which he said had been forever changed by the current incumbent and said that it was an opportune moment to consider and to reflect on the role of the Lord Mayor for the 21^st Century. He said that he would wish to raise some questions before the review moved forward in the hope that these will be fully considered by that review process.

He referred to reference in the report by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to the Lord Mayor remaining non-political during their term of office and to the report of the Director of Legal & Governance to the Scrutiny Committee on 15^th November 2018, which asked the Committee to consider how the Lord Mayor might contribute to the promotion of the Council’s corporate objectives. He asserted that the Council's corporate objectives were a political choice by the administration, and asked whether these two statements were therefore contradictory?

Mr Slack said that the review would no doubt include the issue of social media in the promotion of the Mayoral role etc, and he asked whether this was also a good time to review the Code of Conduct for Councillors with respect to social media issues and thereby potentially address the concerns over the way some councillors behave on social media.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the report to Council recommended that the Director of Legal and Governance be asked to consider the issues and she was confident that would take into account the issues that Mr Slack had raised. There was a further item on the agenda for this meeting regarding the role of the Lord Mayor.

She said the with regard to the Code of Conduct, she did not see a problem with reviewing policy and would clarify the last time when the Code of Conduct was reviewed and as to whether it could be reviewed in the light of emerging issues such as social media.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Accountancy Companies

Nigel Slack stated that two major accountancy companies with close ties to the City Council were currently under investigation by the Financial Reporting Council, KPMG with respect to the collapse of Carillion and Grant Thornton with respect to financial irregularities and the near collapse of Patisserie Valerie.

He asked whether the Council would be reviewing its relationship with these organisations in light of the new Ethical Procurement Policy.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that the Council did not have a contractual relationship with KPMG or Grant Thornton. The external auditor was Ernst and Young which was appointed by a national appointment process, as was the case for all local authorities. The ethical procurement policy would apply to future work which those companies decided to bid for in the future, as was the case with all of the Council’s contracts.

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Bus Fares

Jenny Carpenter referred to the proposals relating to a clean air zone and asked if the Council could give an assurance that bus fares would not increase as a consequence of buses having been upgraded to comply with the requirements of the clean air zone.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that it was imperative that air quality was improved to save lives. He had met with First, the bus company which operated some 75 percent of the city’s bus network and they had given a commitment not to increase fares as a result of the charge relating to the clean air zone. It was not the Council’s intention to charge buses. There was a wish for substantial investment in the bus fleet to upgrade it to Euro 6 diesel standard or Euro 4 petrol standard so no charge was required.

The Council wanted clean air and to create an incentive and to work with bus operators to ensure the required resources and investment were obtained. First had committed to additional investment, including new ultra-emission vehicles and £9 million to address a further 40 percent of the bus fleet in Sheffield. This was in addition to the £7 million invested by the local authority to re-power 120 buses, which was about one quarter of the bus fleet. He said that Stagecoach, the other major bus operator, was to also respond to him on this matter. He pointed out that Government investment was required before proceeding with this work.

There was a wish to move away from polluting vehicles and a suitable public transport system was needed. He acknowledged that there was much work still to do. He referred to statements by the PTE and First committing to the upgrading of buses so they were not liable for a charge and so fares could be kept at a low level and to support people to move away from polluting to cleaner vehicles.

3.2.8

Public Question Concerning Leaf Clearance on Pavements

Graham Wroe said that in order to improve air quality and reduce CO2 emissions it was vital that the Council encouraged people to choose to walk rather than use their cars, especially for short journeys. Many people did not have a car and so had no choice in this matter.

He said that a major deterrent to walking at present was the dangerous state of many pavements that were covered in decaying leaves, which was a slip hazard.

He asked, under the Amey contract, how many times a year residents could expect their pavements to be swept; why this year had there been so little sweeping of leaves on the pavement; and what was the Council doing to hold Amey to account over this and ensure they were providing the residents of Sheffield with a satisfactory service?

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, stated that Streets Ahead promoted active travel, which included smooth highways and pavements meaning it was easier to walk or cycle. He said that he would agree that it was in our interest to promote active travel, to which Streets Ahead made a major contribution.  In relation to leaf clearance, there were a minimum of three annual sweeps and a 14 day response time for reports of wet leaves. Councillor Dagnall suggested that this matter was reported to Streets Ahead so that it could be dealt with. There was also, at this time, additional teams clearing leaf fall particularly due to the wet weather conditions and in the areas of highest footfall or where there were lots of trees. He said that he believed that a satisfactory service was being offered.

3.2.9

Public Question Concerning Accommodation for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Marian Machekanyani asked whether all of the families currently supported by the Council in the Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast were black, people of colour and refugees with different versions of Leave to Remain in the UK.

A question was asked on behalf of Manuchehr Malek-Dizuyi concerning how many families with children the Council was currently supporting in the Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast.

Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, stated that the Council recognised that refugees came from across the world in circumstances where there had been oppression or war and it respected that and tried to do the best for them. There was not a record of a person’s colour and this was not a criteria by which matters would be determined. He said that he would resist and object to any kind of accusation relating to racism.

The key point regarding people in bed and breakfast accommodation, whilst it was celebrated that they had Leave to Remain, was that in the letter informing them of their Leave to Remain, they were also informed that they had No Recourse to Public Funds by the Government. Nonetheless, the Council was responding in as positive and humane way as possible and would move people quickly into a proper or supported tenancy.

There were at this time, nine families in Bed and Breakfast accommodation and all of the families had been matched to properties. Four of the families were to move out of bed and breakfast accommodation within a couple of days and the remaining five were yet to have a move date confirmed.