Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of Ward Pots

5.1.1

Andrew Woodhead presented a petition, containing 14 signatures, regarding the process for allocation of Ward Pots. As a representative of the Hanover Tenants Association the Group had applied for funding on 5 September. An acknowledgement email had been sent on 17 October confirming that the funding would be sent within 12 weeks. The email also stated that the funding needed to be spent by March 2019. Since then the Association had heard nothing. Mr Woodhead had also spoken to members of the Broomhill Tenants and Residents Association who had applied for funding in August 2018 but had not received a response from the Authority.

5.1.2

In Mr Woodhead’s opinion the process was not good enough as the Association needed to plan ahead and they couldn’t do that without the guarantee of funding. He requested that the Cabinet look into how the Ward Pot was administered. The Association had received an email the day after Mr Woodhead had submitted the petition to the Authority, which stated that the funding would be granted. Mr Woodhead also had concerns about this email as it also mentioned another Group who had been allocated funding which he was not aware of and this may raise issues in respect of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

5.1.3

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, commented that she was pleased to hear that the funding application had now been resolved but was concerned about the issues raised.

5.1.4

Councillor Jim Steinke, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, thanked Mr Woodhead for the petition. He appreciated the patience of the Association but acknowledged that this situation was not good enough. He commented that there had been pressure on officers in the grants team due to sick leave but accepted that there needed to be a way of accommodating sick leave for officers which did not have an impact on grant applications.

5.1.5

A process needed to be established for funding in due course as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would allocate more funding to communities than Ward Pots had. Councillor Steinke acknowledged that the Ward Pot system had been an unsatisfactory system in the past and meetings had been arranged with Ward Councillors to try and resolve that.

5.1.6

Councillor Dore added that she was sure that Mr Woodhead would be consulted on any review of community group funding. However, it was important to bear in mind Government budget cuts, particularly as the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles M.P., often viewed staff in community services within Local Government as dispensable ‘back office staff’ but this impacted on the administration of community grants.

5.2

Public Question in respect of the Sheffield Retail Quarter

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that in the Capital Approvals report, on the agenda for this meeting, reference was made on page 117 of the summary Appendix 1 to slippage on the budget for the Sheffield Retail Quarter of £2m. Mr Slack could understand how the welcome change to Heart of the City 2 developments on a block by block basis might cause slippage on individual block budgets, but could the Council give more detail on the what and why there was slippage on the cost of office facilities?

5.2.2

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, responded that the slippage Mr Slack referred to was needed as there was a need for a budget to appoint agents for the market and other essentials. The Council was still marketing the properties at the moment and the budget was a resource for tenants who took on any properties.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Community Organisations

5.3.1

Nigel Slack asked when was the last occasion that a proposal from a community organisation to acquire either ownership or use of a Council property was successful? How many such proposals have been successful since 2010? Have the Council perceived any pattern to those proposals that were unsuccessful and whether this would suggest a need to review the process?

5.3.2

Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance, stated that the Council worked in partnership with a number of community organisations. The Council took a flexible approach as no one model would work for all. The Council had a number of short and long term lease arrangements in respect of community buildings. The Council needed to be certain that it was not placing groups in positions where they were not able to continue in the long term if their business plan was not viable. This was an easy process for the Council to determine. The Council was supporting groups to ensure that their business plans were viable.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Community Groups

5.4.1

Nigel Slack asked was it normal practice for community organisations that received funding from the Council to be required or expected to provide advance copy of any publications they may produce?

5.4.2

Councillor Jim Steinke commented that he would provide a written answer to Mr Slack but it was not normal practice in the way Mr Slack had stated. If something sensitive was being produced it was common sense for the Council to ask to look at that. If there was a specific case that Mr Slack was aware of he should let Councillor Steinke know.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Greenest City

5.5.1

David Dilner circulated a survey in respect of green space within cities which ranked Sheffield as sixth in respect of green space. He therefore asked if the Cabinet could agree that Sheffield was not the UK’s greenest city?

5.5.2

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, commented that a satellite image taken a few years ago had shown that Sheffield was the UK’s greenest city. There was a national park within the City and a number of other green features. Efforts had been made to reduce the carbon footprint in the City. High environmental standards were demanded from developers. There were high recycling rates in the City. However, the Council will never be complacent on this issue.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Legal Advice

5.6.1

David Dilner asked was the Council entirely satisfied with the advice of the Legal and Governance department to date in the matter of the ongoing S.T.A.G campaign?

5.6.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, commented that he was satisfied with the advice he had received from the Legal and Governance department. The Council had not taken advice against S.T.A.G as a corporate entity. S.T.A.G had distanced itself from the action that the Council had taken legal action on. The Council supported peaceful protest but lawful work must be allowed to take place.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Streets Ahead Core Investment Period

5.7.1

Justin Buxton referred to a response given by Councillor Lewis Dagnall at the Full Council meeting on 10 January in respect of the Streets Ahead Core Investment Period and asked for clarification on the circumstances and whether the Core Investment Period had been subject to any variation and therefore hadn’t been completed on time?

5.7.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall confirmed that the Core Investment Period had been completed on time and he would send a written response to Mr Buxton with more detail.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Tree Replacement

5.8.1

Justin Buxton referred to the tree that had been replaced at Chatsworth by the replacement of kerbs which had been previously marked for felling and therefore asked had the City Council been less than truthful in stating that the felling of trees was a last resort?

5.8.2

Councillor Dagnall commented that the City Council was always truthful and had consulted in respect of the retention of trees. He had asked for a halt on tree felling to try and agree a compromise on all sides. Amey had provided additional funding to try and prevent more trees from being felled.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Tree Felling

5.9.1

Justin Buxton commented that the Council often quoted the figure of 10,000 trees which needed to be replaced under the Streets Ahead contract. If the Tree Management Programme was not signed off by the Council would they be fining Amey as a result?

5.9.2

Councillor Dagnall responded that he would reply to the question in writing and the question had been answered in discussions with S.T.A.G representatives.