Agenda item

3.1

Public Questions

3.1.1

Public Questions Concerning Newfield Green Library

Pupils from Bankwood Community Primary School stated that they loved to read and regularly visited Newfield Green Library. They said that they could only go to the library when volunteers were available to read with them and asked whether more people could get jobs there, so they could go to the library more often.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, thanked the School for coming to the Council meeting and she thanked the two pupils from the school for asking the questions.

She said that she wasreally pleased that the pupils from Bankwood School liked to read and visited Newfield Green Library, which she said was a great library at which people could get any book that they required as libraries worked together to make that happen.  Councillor Lea clarified that Newfield Green Library was a volunteer library and the people who worked there were volunteers.

Councillor Lea stated that there was somebody who worked for the Council and who helped to support the library. She said that she would speak with him to see what he could do to help Newfield Green Library and to employ more volunteers to go and help school children to read. She said that she would let the school teachers and pupils know what was going to happen to help to get more volunteers.

3.1.2

Public Question Concerning Cladding

Mark James stated that his question concerned cladding and he referred to the recent fire at a student accommodation block in Bolton. He asked how many buildings in Sheffield had similar cladding to the student block in Bolton.

Secondly, he asked whether it was the appropriate time to be contemplating significant cuts to the Council’s planning department. He referred to the context of the fire in Bolton, significant developments of student accommodation in Sheffield and high rise buildings; and to safety concerns around the fire risk.

Councillor Bob Johnson the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, thanked Mr James for the question. He stated that he did not have the information to hand to answer the question concerning cladding. However, he would find out and respond in writing to him.

With regards to the changes to the Planning Service, Councillor Johnson said that this was an issue which was subject of a dispute and was not something that he was able to comment upon until such time as that process was complete, following which, he would be able to give a full explanation.

3.1.3

Public Question Concerning Definition of Antisemitism

Julie Pearn made reference to the Council's commitment to the fight against antisemitism and to other forms of racism and prejudice and also referred to the decision of the Council to recognise the state of Palestine.

She asked the Leader of the Council to tell her when commitments given in relation to application by the Council of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition and guidelines on antisemitism would be formalised in a publicly available document.

She then made the following points:

-       that under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights the Council was obliged to ensure free speech must be protected even if it was offensive to some people in the community

-       that criticism of Israel or Zionism must not be conflated with antisemitism

-       that the cancellation of an event by Council officers in Tower Hamlets supporting Palestinian children because officers thought it may be antisemitic was a misapplication of the IHRA

-       that antisemitic intent would need to be established before any opinion or event could be challenged

-       that the Council will take cognisance of all legal opinion on this matter

-       that the examples in the IHRA would only be taken in context and if it could be linked to having antisemitic intent as described in the definition

-       that the European Convention on Human Rights would take precedence to ensure free speech over the guidance that was in the IHRA; and the Council cannot interfere with freedom of expression, unless it was in keeping with Article 10 of the European Convention and that the Council would not act unlawfully in this respect

-       that something would only be regarded as antisemitic if a manifests hatred towards Jews and specifically that comparing Israeli policies to apartheid describing them as a settler colonialist or expressing support for boycott, divestment and sanctions were not antisemitic, in fact to do so would be unlawful

-       that adoption of IHRA would be looked at in relation to the Council's suite of policies on racism and inequalities

-       that the concerns raised in the public questions about Tower Hamlets, Bristol and Manchester Universities, where the IHRA had been used to prevent activities in support of Palestine were valid

-       that the policy would be implemented in a manner that was consistent with the Council's positive obligation to protect free speech.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, thanked Julie Pearn for raising the matter. She made reference to the responses which she had previously made at a Council meeting with regards to antisemitism.

Councillor Dore said that she also recognised the need for the definition and guidelines to be made publicly available and said that it may take time to do so. The issues would also be looked at in relation to the Council's suite of policies on racism and equalities and that would take time to do.

She said that the matter would continue to be discussed with interested parties and the Council would need to look through existing policies to see whether any other changes or additions would need to be made to those policies and, potentially, whether an addendum would need to be made to policies. This would take time and interested parties would also be consulted.

In addition to having a policy in place and making it publicly available, the  application and the implementation of that was also critical and in order to apply the guidance and definition in the correct manner.

Councillor Dore said that the Council would also need to determine the degree of training which was necessary across the organisation.  In the context of concerns which had been expressed about the application of the IHRA definition in other organisations (such as Tower Hamlets and Bristol and Manchester Universities), it was critical for the Council to know which officers within the Council (at whatever level) would be making decisions in relation to matters such as those which had occurred in other organisations.

Councillor Dore indicated that a meeting had been arranged with Julie Pearn very recently. However, she also apologised that she had been unable to keep the appointment having been called away to attend to an urgent personal matter. A meeting would therefore be arranged in January instead to discuss the issues which she had raised.

Councillor Dore said that there might be a case for including examples of the application of the definition of antisemitism in training and guidance and possibly in any public document. It would also be important to ensure that people taking decisions were fully trained in how to apply the definition of antisemitism and were aware of the associated legal issues. She said that the Council was committed to the application of the IHRA definition and would implement it as soon as possible.

3.1.4

Public Questions Concerning Amey and Streets Ahead

Justin Buxton stated that in 2017, Amey engaged security operatives to use force to remove protesters from under trees and he stated that a Director for Amey, Streets Ahead, had been on record as advising that the security operatives were not required to display their licence badges. He said this was contrary to the relevant legislation and could result a licence being revoked or the individual being fined. He said that this might affect their employment and their livelihood and asked whether the Leader of the Council would join him in condemning the behaviour of the Director. 

Secondly, Mr Buxton asked whether the Leader of the Council was comfortable that the Head of Highways had requested South Yorkshire Police to arrest pickets at the Olive Grove site using the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, commonly referred to as anti-trade union law. He said that this was despite earlier arrests made by South Yorkshire Police using this law being legally challenged and having resulted in substantial compensation payments being made by South Yorkshire Police.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council thanked Mr Buxton for his question. She explained that with regards to the question regarding a specific named person, whilst it was not a named officer of Sheffield City Council, there was a general rule that individual officers were not named in questions. She said that on that basis and given that that the premise of the question was based on his understanding and information, she was not prepared to answer the question.

Councillor Dore said that in answer to the second question, it was a matter for South Yorkshire Police.

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) suggested that if Mr Buxton was not content with the response to his question, then he should contact Councillor Dore by email instead.

3.1.5

Public Question Concerning Heritage

Brian Holmshaw said that there was concern about the proposals for job losses in the Council’s planning department from individual heritage and access campaigners and by national organisations.  He stated that those cuts did not need to happen and, when compared to other large cities, Sheffield charged by far the lowest fees to large developers. The fees covered the costs of planning officers’ time and resources in working with developers on planning applications.

He said that by increasing fees to the average for major cities, the Council would have generated considerably more income in relation to major schemes and he gave examples of the level of fees charged in Sheffield as compared to other cities, including Birmingham, Liverpool and Newcastle. He asked why Sheffield charged so little to big businesses when compared to other cities and when it would change the fees structure to reflect the real cost of planning.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, thanked Mr Holmshaw for his questions and said that 

the fees that the Council charged were being reviewed and might be brought into line with other Core Cities.

He said that the fee structure did not have a bearing on the restructure which was taking place in the Council’s Planning Service and which was the subject of a collective dispute at this time and therefore it was not something which he wished to comment upon further until it was resolved.

He said that he would provide Mr Holmshaw with further information in writing regarding the fee structure for planning applications. 

3.1.6

Public Questions Concerning Report Regarding Hanover Tower Cladding

Nigel Slack referred to the report concerning the Hanover Tower Cladding investigation and questions which he had asked at the meeting of Cabinet on 9 October 2019. He said that there had been a delay to the release of that report due to examination by the Council’s legal department and a further delay until after the General Election on 12 December, due to purdah considerations. He commented that this was not an acceptable response for a report that was in Council's hands, according to the response from the Cabinet Member, prior to the meeting on 9 October. 

Mr Slack asked why the Council's legal team was examining the report; when was that examination complete; and why this had taken so long. And further, what specific part of pre-election legislation or sensitivity guidelines required this report to be withheld.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, stated that a draft of the report and not the final report, had been received and which he had made reference to at the Cabinet meeting of 9 October. The report had been provided to the Council's appointed external legal team and it was then provided back to the Council. It then had to go back through the Council’s internal legal team and the Council had to notify anyone who was named in the report and give them chance to respond. This meant that the very earliest day on which the report could be issued was 25 November.  The report would be provided to the residents of Hanover and before it was generally put into the public realm.

Councillor Wood said that he was advised by the Council’s legal department that, although technically the report was not covered by purdah, any response which he would want to give in relation to it would be covered by purdah. It was therefore ill advised for the Council to issue something to which it could not actually respond.

To enable the Council to respond, the report should be made available after the General Election on 12 December. The Council had been speaking with residents of Hanover and trying to arrange a meeting with them during the week commencing 16 December and this was to be confirmed. He reiterated that it was felt that the report should be made available to the residents first. At that time, the Council would be able to answer questions, which it was anticipated would be both from members of the public and from councillors. He said that he wanted to be able to have the report published so that people could read it and ask any questions that they would wish to.

Councillor Wood said that, as regards the legal advice relating to the purdah period, he would ask the legal department that question and then he would respond to Mr Slack in writing on that point.

3.1.7

Public Questions Concerning Governance and Decision Making

Russell Johnson asked whether the Leader of the Council was prepared to take any responsibility for what he said were the shortcomings of governance in the City, which he said were highlighted by the Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce in recent evidence given to a Scrutiny Committee. He said that this had described parochial attitudes that had led to missed investment opportunities and a lack of working together. He suggested that an apology was called for in relation to the above and the damage caused to the City's reputation relating to the Streets Ahead PFI.

Mr Johnson asked whether the Leader and the Cabinet had reflected on the need for a Council supported independent inquiry into the mistakes made the by the Council, which he said were caused by insular and tribal decision-making processes. He particularly referred to the felling of street trees. He said that this process might mean that lessons could be learned.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, then referred to comments made by Mr Johnson and concerning him not being permitted to ask certain questions at a recent meeting of Cabinet. She explained the rule concerning people naming Council officers and with regard to the making of allegations against named officers at meetings, which was generally not acceptable.

She said that in reference to comments attributed to the Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce,  he had not been speaking about her in his response. The response had referred to the devolution deal. She said that she had signed that deal and that, since signing the deal in 2015, she would be ready to do so again at any time.

In relation to the second question, Councillor Dore stated that the Forestry Commission had carried out a review of the Streets Ahead contract in its entirety. The Council had received the Forestry Commission review and was considering lessons learned. The Forestry Commission was an independent body and the Council would be reporting back on its response to the independent review and lessons learned very shortly. She said that it was accepted that there were lessons to be learned.

3.1.8

Public Question Concerning Renewal of Injunction

Russell Johnson said that information resulting from a Freedom of Information request had referred to a meeting concerning the possible renewal of the injunction relating to tree protests. He asked whether (as the defendants who would have had to appear should there be a renewal, had not been informed of any decision) it could be assumed that the renewal had been deemed unnecessary.

He also asked whether either Councillor Dore or Councillor Mark Jones were present at a meeting on 5 August in order to give political approval to any decision regarding the injunction renewal.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, said that with regard to the injunction, she had been asked a question at a recent meeting of Council relating to whether the Council intended to renew the injunctions  that had been in place and were due to expire. Those injunctions were due for renewal in January 2020. She had said that, at that point, the Council would inform the public and especially the defendants, of whether it intended to renew the injunctions or not.

Councillor Dore said that as regards a meeting on 5 August 2019, she was not at that meeting and she had not been asked directly by any officers regarding the intention or not of renewing an injunction and that would happen in January.

She said that the approach which the Council had now was very different to the previous approach. The Council had been in talks with many representatives of STAG (Sheffield Tree Action Groups) and others that had represented the movement that had challenged the views and the decisions taken by the Council regarding the Streets Ahead contract.

The Council had then entered into formal talks with STAG and representatives, led by Bishop Pete Wilcox of Sheffield and it was jointly concluded that a different approach was to be taken. Whilst she could not say whether in January an injunction would be renewed, what she could say at this point was that she believed it to be highly unlikely that those injunction renewals would be needed because of the completely different approach that had been achieved through the joint talks.

3.2

Petitions

3.2.1

Petition Requesting Pedestrian Crossings on the Crossroads of Jenkin Road, Wincobank Avenue and Newman Road

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 301 signatures, requesting pedestrian crossings on the crossroads of Jenkin Road, Wincobank Avenue and Newman Road.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.

3.2.2

Petition Requesting the Installation of Speed Bumps on Lydgate Lane

The Council received an electronic petition containing 213 signatures, requesting the installation of speed bumps on Lydgate Lane.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.