Agenda item

5.1

Public Questions Concerning NHS ‘My Choice’ Programme

5.1.1

Nigel Slack asked for the Council’s view of the NHS 'My Choice' programme, where patients were charged for operations in NHS hospitals to avoid waiting lists. He referred to charges in one of the Warrington hospitals as having been quoted to be as much as £8,500.

5.1.2

He commented that the list of procedures now covered by that programme was expanding in a disturbing way and asked whether the Council had raised this in their discussions with local NHS services or through the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) joint working.

5.1.3

Councillor George Lindars-Hammond, the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, stated that this was an important question and the situation was an indictment of what was happening to the NHS. As part of all discussions concerning joint commissioning, the Council was clear about any expansion of the private sector. The Council was also doing what it was able to ensure that the NHS was the main provider of services. With regards the charges for operations, this was a matter that he would raise as appropriate and to make sure the Council’s opposition to it was made clear.

5.2

Public Questions Concerning Conservation Areas

5.2.1

Nigel Slack thanked the Cabinet Member for the response to a question at the recent Council meeting with respect to the review of 'Conservation Areas' in the City. He commented that he was particularly pleased by the commitment to a policy stance against “growth at any cost”.

5.2.2

He said that there were some points that went unanswered, and asked the following questions:

1.     Which Portfolio will have the responsibility for the review?

2.     What is the timescale of the review?

3.     Where will the new Castlegate Conservation Area consultation fit into this?

4.     Can Council outline the way the review will be carried out and who the stakeholders are that will be part of this review?

5.2.3

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, stated that, with regards to the portfolio with responsibility for the review, there was crossover on this issue between his own portfolio (Business and Investment) and the portfolio of Councillor Bob Johnson (Transport and Development). As regards timescales, nothing had been agreed at this time. However, when information was available, he would be pleased to provide a timetable to Mr Slack.

5.2.4

Councillor Iqbal stated that Castlegate and Conservation Areas were matters which were fast changing. In the previous week, there had been a Castlegate regeneration group meeting at which some twenty organisations were represented. Additionally, a meeting of a confidential nature had also been held with Joined Up Heritage.  He said that they had subsequently spoken to the press.

5.2.5

He said that Conservation Areas acted as a catalyst and were beneficial to the City. The review of those areas was being carried out as part of activity relating to the local plan. The Council would work to see to what extent the City centre could contribute to the delivery of new housing in the City. He said there was also a desire to avoid development on the Green Belt at all costs. The Council would be consulting with a range of stakeholders in relation to the local plan and whilst there was no precise timetable at this time, people would be kept informed.

5.3

Public Question Concerning the General Cemetery

5.3.1

Jim Dimond (Save our Green Open Spaces group) asked a question concerning the General Cemetery and the plans regarding a car park. He said that whilst he had asked questions about this matter before, he believed he had received answers which were contradictory. He set out some of the reasons that had been given in relation to the development of a car park.

5.3.2

Mr Dimond asked why the Council wanted a car park at the General Cemetery and said that a petition on the matter had received 1000 signatures. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could confirm that the offer to review the plan was genuine. He also asked if a process and timescale for the review could also be set out without further delay.

5.3.3

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, responded that the access report produced by Phil Chambers Consultancy had recommended that a ‘Blue Badge’ parking bay was provided. She said that she could send a copy of the report By Phil Chambers to Mr Dimond.

5.3.4

Councillor Lea said that the Council wanted to make sure that disabled people had access to parks and Historic England had also said that inclusivity was part of its considerations. She said that the Masterplan would subject to a review as the plans develop and noted that Mr Dimond was also a member of the masterplan group for the General Cemetery site. She said that the location of parking spaces for disabled people had not been decided.

5.4

Public Questions Concerning Street Trees

5.4.1

A question was asked on behalf of Justin Buxton by Russell Johnson, as follows:

Has the Council undertaken a risk assessment to evaluate the cost and the likely outcome of a private prosecution for breaching statutory obligations to obtain a licence for the mass felling of healthy urban trees in the City?

5.4.2

Russell Johnson referred to a response to a councillor question concerning tree felling which stated that the priority was, rather than an inquiry, to focus on positive steps for the future. Mr Johnson commented that, if that was a sincere intention, one way to demonstrate that would be to declare that the Council had no intention of seeking an extension of the court injunction relating to safety zones around works to trees.

5.4.3

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change responded that he believed that the work which had been done relating to street trees was lawful.

5.4.4

Councillor Dagnall further stated that the Council wished create conditions where it was not deemed necessary to take such action as injunctions in order to facilitate works. He said that he hoped those positive steps would mean that any injunction would not be required in future. He said that it was also reasonable for the Council to seek to protect workers.

5.4.5

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that the Council did undertake risk assessments in relation to its decisions.

5.5

Public Question Concerning Non-Disclosure Agreement

5.5.1

Russell Johnson asked whether a Non-Disclosure Agreement was sought or offered as part of the arrangements relating to the retirement of the Director of Culture and Environment and, if so, what additional costs (if any) had been or would be incurred from the public purse.

5.5.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change stated that he would not comment on the circumstances of an individual Council Officer.

5.5.3

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that there was not a Non-Disclosure agreement relating to the former Director of Culture and Environment.

5.6

Public Questions Concerning Street Trees

5.6.1

Russell Johnson asked for comment on the recent remedy of the footway adjacent to a tree on Abbeydale Park Rise, which had been a ‘last resort’ felling and which he said had been the cause of a citizen being taken to court and given a suspended prison sentence. 

5.6.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change responded that he was glad the Council had achieved compromise in relation to street trees and had been able to secure options which previously had not been feasible.

5.7

Public Question Concerning Leadership

5.7.1

Russell Johnson asked for the Council to reflect on its failures and successes during the tenure of the Leader of the Council and to consider whether Sheffield might have secured a vibrant economy and a more positive reputation with more inspired leadership.

5.7.2

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that she would disagree with the suggestion that Sheffield did not have a vibrant economy. She said that Sheffield had been shortlisted for Urbanism Awards European City of the Year.

5.7.3

Councillor Blake said that the Council had also adopted an Ethical Procurement Policy and £80M had been brought into the City through the Council’s procurement chain. She also said that she believed that Sheffield had a positive national and international reputation.

5.8

Public Questions Concerning the Peoples Petition

5.8.1

Ruth Hubbard commented that the peoples petition for a change in Council governance had reached 18,000 signatures and that the Council would potentially incur significant expenditure in relation to the costs of a referendum regarding a change in governance. She said that she had written to the Council and had also raised issues relating to a change in governance arrangements at Council meetings. A meeting had also taken place with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.

5.8.2

She asked why this situation had occurred and said that there were potentially six weeks remaining for the Council to announce a change in governance arrangements prior to the submission of a statutory petition. Information in some documents in the public domain had been noted, such as that written in responses to opposition motions and in amendments. She asked about the quality of information available and as to how informed the Cabinet was in relation to this issue and commented that she was concerned at the quality of information in some documentation, including the assertion, using information from the Centre for Public Scrutiny, that a greater number of councils had changed to adopt a strong leader model of governance, rather than the other way around.

5.8.3

Ruth Hubbard also commented that it was not necessary valid to make comparisons with other Core Cities on this matter.  She remarked that some places may be comparable to a greater extent, for example Leeds City Council, although it had a Cabinet that included the Leader of the main opposition group. She asked whether the Council already had people working in the background on this issue. She said that a petition with 7,000 signatures had been submitted in order to trigger a debate at full Council and an update was requested on the issue.

5.8.4

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance and Deputy Leader of the Council responded to the questions. She said that she would check in relation to the information used in the Council amendment and to which Ruth Hubbard had referred concerning information from the Centre for Public Scrutiny. Comparison with other core cities was due to Sheffield being a metropolitan council and also a Core City and having different structures to other local authorities such as district or county councils.

5.8.5

Councillor Blake said that she would clarify the position with regards to the submission of a petition with 7,000 signatures to trigger a debate at Council. She also confirmed that she would be meeting with Ruth Hubbard this day and would be pleased to talk further about the matters raised and to also have discussions at political group meetings.  

5.8.6

She stated that the Leader of the Council was elected annually by Council. She also said that she supported the idea of a governance review and said that there were things that were in train but on different timescales.

5.8.7

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, stated that Members did feel well informed on this issue, with some having worked in the context of both the Strong Leader and Committee model and Members were very interested in such matters relating to democracy.