Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions and Other Communications

(a)       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.

 

(b)       Petition Requiring Debate

 

The Council’s Petitions Scheme requires that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  A qualifying petition has been received as follows:-

 

            Petition Opposing Fire Service Cuts

 

To debate a joint paper and electronic petition containing over 5,000 signatures, requesting the Council to oppose the proposed plans for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to cut the number of firefighters crewing a fire appliance from 5 to 4. The paper petition contains 6,321 signatures and the online petition includes the following wording:-

 

We the undersigned petition the Council to oppose the proposed plans for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to cut the number of firefighters crewing a fire appliance from 5 to 4. We call on Sheffield City Council and its representatives on SYFRA to: 1. Reject the proposed plan to cut fire engine crews. 2. Reject the plans to remove a night time engine from Sheffield and Doncaster fire stations. 3. Support the FBU's campaign for fairer funding for South Yorkshire fire service.

 

 

Minutes:

 

4.1

Petitions

 

 

4.1.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Rename a Road within the Wicker Area as Windrush Road in Recognition of Windrush Day on 22nd June

 

The Council received a petition containing 12 signatures, requesting the Council to rename a road within the Wicker area as Windrush Road, in recognition of Windrush Day on 22nd June.

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Nadia Jama and Robert Cotterell. They stated that MPs and Trade Unionists had recognised Windrush Day on 22 June and that in 1948 people from the Caribbean and the Commonwealth had come to help rebuild Britain and that many aspects of British society today would be unrecognisable without the contribution of immigration and the integration in society over the generations. Everyone had a responsibility to uphold a positive vision of a multi ethnic and multi faith country, which was fair and welcoming. Many cities recognised the contribution made by diverse communities, including by renaming streets and buildings.

 

The Council was requested to find a suitable road in the Wicker area and to rename it ‘Windrush Road’. There was a wish for this to be near to the SADACCA (Sheffield and District African and Caribbean Community Association) Building. This would be a tribute to the Windrush generation which worked in many sectors, including in particular the Steel Industry, the health service and transport. The Council was also asked to give recognition to the communities which had established businesses in the area of the Wicker over many decades by recognising that part of the City as Sheffield’s international cultural quarter.

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.   Councillor Johnson thanked the petitioners and he said that the Council would like to rename a street in Wicker. However, this would be subject to consultation with residents and businesses. He said that a suitable street would need to be found near to the Wicker and SADACCA which might be actioned as soon as possible and he would be pleased to begin that process.

 

4.1.2

Petition Requesting Action to Address Speeding Traffic in the 30 mph Section of Yew Lane, Ecclesfield

 

The Council received a petition containing 320 signatures, requesting action to address speeding traffic in the 30 mph section of Yew Lane, Ecclesfield.

 

Representations of behalf of the petitioners were made by John Drajling. Mr Drajling stated that there was no traffic calming or speed control devices at this section, whilst the estate roads were restricted to 20 mph and also had speed bumps. The A61 also had multiple speed controls. Whilst there was a Speed Indicator Device on Yew Lane, it had not been equipped for two years or more. There would be increased traffic on the road due to weight restrictions on Town End Road and Wheel Lane. The number of accidents was greater than those recorded and there had been several recent accidents not recorded on the accident database. Local residents had requested a one way system, and whilst this might alleviate some dangerous give way junctions, it was not felt that it would deal with the problem of speeding.  Mr Drajling advocated the use of a Speed Indicator Device at the Yew Lane/Greaves Road junction at the point where speed restrictions changed from 40 to 30 mph together with an occasional safety camera partnership vehicle to be located there.

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson stated that he would wish to arrange a site visit to include the Ward Councillor in order to ascertain what might be done including the possible relocation of Speed Indicator Devices.

 

 

 

 

4.1.3

Petition Concerning the Council to Prevent the Extension of the Licence for the Scaffolding Currently in Place at the Top of Chapel Walk, on Fargate

 

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 848 signatures, requesting the Council to prevent the extension of the licence for the scaffolding currently in place at the top of Chapel Walk on Fargate.

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Carl Dunne. Mr Dunne explained that in September 2017, scaffolding was erected on Chapel Walk in relation to the conversion of space above the Paperchase shop into student accommodation and apartments. However, no works had been carried out at the site. This situation was affecting retailers on Chapel Walk, many of which were independent retailers. Trade was being seriously affected and was down by 35 percent. He said that no help had been given by the Council, in relation to business rates, for example. He said that the petition requested that the Council prevent the extension of the license for the scaffolding and, if it was to be extended, asked for Business Rates to be lowered accordingly. He said that the Council was contributing to the issue by granting the license for the scaffolding and yet the developer was not working to the itinerary it had submitted to the Council.

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment. Councillor Iqbal thanked Mr Dunne for bringing the petition and he said that he had met with Mr Dunne on several occasions and shared his concerns and frustration in relation to this matter.  He said it was unacceptable that the developer had not adhered to commitments made to the Council and businesses on Chapel Walk. The building was not a Council building and the Council had agreed a timetable in relation to the works in a similar way to other developments. He explained that the developer had run out of cash and the works had stalled. The Council had then requested a further timetable for the work and had informed the developer of the various concerns. The developer had given an assurance that the work would be completed by June. Whilst there might be a desire to remove the scaffolding, to do so would make the project unsafe and it would not be reasonable to put other businesses at risk.

 

He said that discussions had also been held with Sheffield Business Improvement District (BID) with regards improving the situation on Chapel Walk. Lights had been installed and there were regular patrols to deal with anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Iqbal said that he had also asked Sheffield BID to look at how work could be done with the businesses and to look at putting together a case for a compensation claim against the developer for their losses and because it was unacceptable that businesses had been put in such a difficult position.

 

He said that Business Rates were set nationally and not by the Council, which worked with businesses as regards the valuation office. He understood that Mr Dunne had received an unsatisfactory response and said he would be pleased to re-visit that and look at what might be done in that regard. The potential for hardship discretionary relief had been raised and Councillor Iqbal said that he would speak to Council officers about that.  He said that the Council did not wish to be in this position and that the Council wanted the area to flourish and also bring this matter to a close. The Council was working with the developer to make sure agreed timescales were met. He said that further contact would be made with Mr Dunne in relation to this matter.

 

 

 

4.1.4

Petition Requesting the Council to Collect Food Waste, in a Separate Receptacle, as part of the City’s Waste Collection

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 13 signatures, requesting the Council to collect food waste, in a separate receptacle, as part of the City’s waste collection.

 

There was no speaker to the petition and the Council referred the petition to Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change.

 

4.2

Public Questions

 

 

4.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Castlegate Conservation Area

 

 

 

Nigel Slack referred to responsibility for Heritage and Conservation Areas within the city, which prior to the latest changes to Cabinet, briefly became the responsibility of the Business and Investment Portfolio Cabinet Member. He said that during that period, the consultation into the Castlegate Conservation Area was halted at short notice and the intention to review all the City's 38 Conservation Areas was announced. This review it was suggested would ensure that Conservation Areas are "not acting as a brake on development". He asked the following questions:

 

 

 

1.       With the Portfolio of Transport and Development now being reinstated under a new Cabinet Member, can Council confirm that the responsibility for Heritage and Conservation Areas has been similarly restored to this portfolio?

 

2.       Can Council also confirm if this proposed review is still going ahead? If so what is the timescale for the review of all 38 areas and where will Castlegate's proposed Conservation Area fit into this?

 

3.       What plans had been made about the way the review will be conducted and how it is proposed to involve local heritage groups, neighbourhood groups, national groups like Historic England and indeed the wider public?

 

He commented firstly in relation to the preservation of heritage assets and a wish to see them repurposed in a sustainable and appropriate way and secondly, on the approach taken by some developers within the city that see heritage as an obstacle rather than an opportunity and the previous approach of the portfolio.

 

4.       Can Council also confirm that within its stated aim of ensuring that Conservation Areas are "not acting as a brake on development", this will not be used to dilute the protections afforded by the Planning Act 1990 but will make proposals for the preservation and enhancement of all existing and new Conservation Areas?

 

 

 

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, stated that he had met with Joined Up Heritage and spoke with them about Castlegate Conservation Area. He had then made it clear that he was unhappy with the work undertaken. The Council had committed £2M to kick start work at Castlegate. The City and the Council had not and would not say that there should be growth at any cost. It was important that conservation area status acted as a catalyst for development and not a barrier.

 

He said that as regards the review at Castlegate, because of work with the city centre masterplan and local plan, it made sense to have a refresh and not to approach the matter ad hoc and to look again at the various issues.

 

He reiterated that Sheffield and the Council was clear that it did not want growth at any cost. Conservation areas acted as an enabler and catalyst for development. He made reference to work done regarding the bringing forward of a developer for the Old Town Hall and with regards the old Post Office site and the Heart of the City 2 project which demonstrated a good track record as regards heritage and its assets. Because of the work on the local plan, the Council was looking at again Conservation Areas.

 

As regards consultation, a Castlegate Partnership had been established, which included Friends Groups and there was regular dialogue with those stakeholders. Once a draft plan was put forward, all of the various stakeholders would be consulted.

 

 

 

 

4.2.2

Public Questions Concerning the Fire Service

 

 

 

Mark Wild asked whether the impact of losing 84 firefighters had been subject to an impact assessment. It was thought that the loss would have a negative effect on response times which would delay the weight of attack to successfully deal with incidents in the early stages of development and critical stages of a rescue. He asked if the Council was happy to back response plans which would see firefighters and the public put at greater risk as a result of cutting front line firefighters.

 

 

 

Matt Nicholls referred to the level of Fire and Rescue Authority budget reserves of £24M and asked whether the level of reserves was seen as a barrier to obtaining more funding and might the reserves be used differently to ensure the public did not lose 84 front line fire fighters, and if so, what funding options were available to the Fire Authority.

 

 

 

Graham Wilkinson stated that new fire stations had been built in Birley Moor, Maltby and Parkway and there were plans to build a station in Barnsley, using reserves. He asked why the cost of the station was £4M, to be funded from reserves, when a station had been built in Humberside, at Brough, for £2M, including purchase of the land. He said that South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue had a history of poor builds and overspends on buildings and appliances. He asked what the Council could do to ensure how the funding, build and design of fire stations provided better value to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

Patrick Renshaw asked how many times the Fire Authority had lobbied the government since the pensions deficit became apparent and what response had been given, if any.

 

 

 

(Note: A response to the questions concerning the Fire and Rescue Service was made by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety as part of the response to the debated petition on the subject of the Fire and Rescue Service).

 

 

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning Court Fees

 

 

 

Benoit Compin referred to having being incriminated as part of the campaign relating to street trees and to the recovery of related court fees and asked whether the Council would consider waiving those fees and if this might be discussed further with him.

 

 

 

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance, responded that a similar question had been asked at the meeting of Cabinet in May. She said that the Council would not be able to stop seeking the recovery of court fees from Mr Compin.

 

 

 

 

4.3

Petition Debate

 

 

4.3.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Oppose Plans for the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to Cut the Number of Firefighters Crewing a Fire Appliance from Five to Four

 

 

4.3.2

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 10,429 signatures, requesting the Council to oppose plans for the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to cut the number of firefighters crewing a fire appliance from five to four.

 

 

4.3.3

The Council‘s Petitions Scheme required any petition containing over 5,000 signatures to be the subject of debate at the Council meeting. The wording of the qualifying petition was as follows:-

 

 

 

We the undersigned petition the Council to oppose the proposed plans for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service to cut the number of firefighters crewing a fire appliance from 5 to 4. We call on Sheffield City Council and its representatives on SYFRA to: 1. Reject the proposed plan to cut fire engine crews. 2. Reject the plans to remove a night time engine from Sheffield and Doncaster fire stations. 3. Support the FBU's campaign for fairer funding for South Yorkshire fire service.

 

 

4.3.4

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Neil Carbutt. He stated that the number of signatures collected in a short length of time made clear the strength of public feeling on this issue. He said that it was clear the government was responsible for the financial cuts. The proposals to remove up to 84 firefighter posts would mean a loss of one firefighter on each fire engine across the four shifts. He said that the proposals were devastating. There was also a draft proposal to consider the removal of night time cover from the second night time fire engine at Sheffield and Doncaster. There were currently 594 firefighters in South Yorkshire.  There was a £3.8M of potential funding shortfall. South Yorkshire had a lack of funding because of the relative density and a lack of coastline and was disproportionately affected in terms of funding.

 

He explained that whilst there was a funding shortfall, there were also risks to consider. The Fire Authority had general and earmarked reserves of nearly £25M and an operating budget of approximately £50M. The level of reserves was considered to be a barrier to fairer funding for South Yorkshire and a review of the reserves strategy was needed. The petitioners asked for time to lobby the government and stop the cuts. Borrowing might be considered over the long term together with a review of expenditure and efficiencies whilst protecting front end services to communities.

 

 

4.3.5

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1(b), the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety spoke on the matter.

 

 

4.3.6

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, thanked the petitioners for presenting the petition at the Council meeting. He paid tribute to firefighters who put themselves at risk for others and said that it was important to make sure the dangers and risks to them were limited as far as possible. He said that such dangers should not be increased by actions such as a reduction to staffing or in the monitoring of equipment used by firefighters. Politicians had a duty to protect the public and those working in emergency response services.

 

 

4.3.7

Councillor Wood said that, whilst the City Council was not the authority which would make a decision on this matter, it could send a clear message about its wishes, particularly with regard to not increasing the risks posed to firefighters. He said that Members of Parliament in South Yorkshire had also lobbied the government on this matter and there was unanimous support amongst those MPs against the proposals. Cuts to the front line would reduce the number of firefighters in South Yorkshire to 504, which was a considerably reduced number as compared to previous years.

 

 

4.3.8

He said that he believed the consultation had been unsatisfactory and he had requested Council officers to look at what communications had been received by the Council on this matter. The Council’s Housing and Neighbourhoods Service had expressed serious concerns about the proposed changes. The Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods, with responsibility for residential regulation, had also been instructed to carry out an impact assessment which could be reported to the Council.

 

 

4.3.9

Reserves were available to the Fire Authority to enable it to deal with the next 12 months and in order for the Fire Authority to negotiate with the management and the Fire Brigade Union, so that a way forward might be found.

 

 

4.3.10

Councillor Wood then addressed the public questions which had been asked on this issue. Firstly, he said that he had not had sight of an impact assessment on this issue and the Housing service in the Council had not had communication with regard to such an assessment.

 

 

4.3.11

With regard to the financial reserves held by the Fire Authority, the government had remarked upon it as a significant proportion of the operating budget and it was a problem. One of the options which might be considered was to consider the use of reserves in the short term. He referred to concern at the amount of money which the Fire Authority may have wasted and he referred to £4M spent on fire engines which were unusable; a £3M overspend on the two Sheffield fire stations; and to land sold at far less than the original values predicted. These were serious issues which it was hoped that the new Fire Authority would take on board and review. He said that he supported the petitioners and the Council would do all that it could.

 

 

4.3.12

The Shadow Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety then spoke on the matter, following which Members of the City Council debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:-

 

 

 

There was a need for politicians to respond to the issues raised and dangers faced by firefighters were acknowledged.  The proposals as a whole required further scrutiny before the Fire Authority made a decision. It was also difficult to understand why the use of reserves had not been included in the proposals presented. It was also questioned as to whether there had been a review of senior management structure in recent years. As this was a government imposed problem, it was also therefore necessary to lobby the government. Scrutiny of this matter was also important at a Council and City Region level.

 

Cuts to front line Fire and Rescue Services were not supported and reference was made to the tragic events at Grenfell and to what could happen if a similar event occurred in Sheffield. The proposals would mean that a crew member would be missing on each fire engine and it was clear that the Fire Authority reserves needed to be addressed and people should be encouraged to contribute to the consultation.   

 

The Fire and Rescue Service did excellent work, including prevention work with communities and with vulnerable young people. Austerity had affected fire and rescue services in England, with one in five or 9,000 firefighter jobs having been cut. This had served to downgrade the service and the level of risk to communities that these further cuts presented was not acceptable.

 

Reference was made to a previous ruling by the High Court against the South Yorkshire Fire Authority and to high costs and issues relating to pensions which would be addressed in the next comprehensive spending review. There was still a significant level of reserves, even if those earmarked were discounted. There were various issues which might be raised in responding to the consultation, including in relation to  the resilience of four person fire crews; the response which might be expected following the arrival of a first fire engine; review of senior and middle management; and looking at in-house for savings, rather than savings to front line services.

 

Whilst Firefighters were kept safe, they would keep the public safe and keeping people safe from harm was a top priority. There were 235,000 houses in the City, which needed to be kept safe and secure and it was important that firefighters were able to respond as quickly as possible in order to do so.

 

Once it was completed, the consultation on this matter would be considered by the Fire Authority. The views presented by the petitioners and in the debate had been heard and could be taken into consideration by the Fire Authority. This included looking at the level of reserves and the possibility of the use of reserves over time. Matters had been brought to a head partly due to the government revisions to the pension and national insurance contributions.

 

 

4.3.13

The lead petitioner, Neil Carbutt, exercised a right of reply and stated that he had listened to the views expressed by Members of the Council, and he hoped that the views of the petitioners and residents had been heard. He thanked the Council for its warm words on this matter.

 

 

4.3.14

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded to issues raised during the debate. Firstly, he thanked Members for their contributions to the debate. He stated that this was a most important issue and one which the Council took very seriously and he said the Council would give its support in arguing against the proposals.  He then proposed a course of action as detailed below. In proposing to refer the matter to a Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, the Chair of the Committee would also be asked to consider the inclusion of issues relating to an impact assessment and concerns raised by the Council’s Housing Service.

 

 

4.3.15

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

 

 

 

Proposal 1

 

It was moved by Councillor Paul Wood and seconded by Councillor Peter Rippon, that:

 

This Council notes the petition now submitted opposing Fire Service cuts and refers the matters raised by the petition to the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, for consideration by the Committee.

 

 

 

Proposal 2

 

It was moved by Councillor Andrew Sangar and seconded by Councillor David Baker, that:

 

 

This Council notes the petition now submitted opposing Fire Service cuts and refers the matters raised by the petition to the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, for consideration by the Committee and in addition requests that the matter also be considered by Sheffield City Region scrutiny.

 

 

 

On being put to the vote, proposal 2 was not carried.

 

 

 

Proposal 3

 

It was moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson and seconded by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, that Proposal 1 is amended by the addition of the following words after the words “for consideration by the Committee”, as follows:

 

 

 

“and requests that the Leader of the Council writes to the Mayor of Sheffield City Region and to the Leaders of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Councils, notifying them of the consideration of the petition by this Council and requesting that the issues raised by the petition are considered by other scrutiny bodies in the region, as appropriate.”

 

 

On being put to the vote, the proposals 1 and 3 were both carried, as follows:

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That this Council:-

 

 

 

(a)      notes the petition now submitted opposing Fire Service cuts;

 

 

 

(b)      refers the matters raised by the petition to the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, for consideration by the Committee; and

 

 

 

(c)       requests the Leader of the Council to write to the Mayor of Sheffield City Region and to the Leaders of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham Councils, notifying them of the consideration of the petition by this Council and requesting that the issues raised by the petition are considered by other scrutiny bodies in the region, as appropriate.

 

 

 

(NOTE: 1. Councillors Sioned-Mair Richards abstained from voting on the motion, and asked for this to be recorded; and

2. Councillor Sophie Wilson, having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the petition, did not speak or vote on the item.)