Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Objecting to the Poor Bus Service Between Totley and the City Centre

The Council received a petition containing 53 signatures, objecting to the poor bus service between Totley and the City Centre.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sudir Narraidoo who said that the matter had also been raised with the operator First Bus. He explained that Totley had a population which included a large number of older people who relied upon buses and it was frustrating that buses were late or did not arrive and people were left stranded or buses were too full to take more passengers. The Council was urged to confront First Bus about these concerns and it was also pointed out that people should be encouraged to use buses rather than cars due to concerns regarding climate change and a comment was made on the state of the public transport system.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development and Councillor Johnson responded to the petition, together with two other petitions relating to bus services (see below).

3.1.2

Petition Requesting the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive to Save the No. 56 Bus Service, Linking Gleadless Valley and Heeley to the City Centre

The Council received a petition containing 449 signatures, requesting the SYPTE to save the No. 56 bus service, linking Gleadless Valley and Heeley to the City Centre.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Nadia Jama (see below).

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development and Councillor Johnson responded to the petition, together with two other petitions relating to bus services (see below).

3.1.3

Petition Requesting the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority to Save the No. 31 Bus Service

The Council received a petition containing 138 signatures, requesting the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority to save the No. 31 bus service.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners and in respect of the No.31 and No.56 Bus Services were made by Nadia Jama. The No. 31 service connected Walkley with Hillsborough but was cancelled as at 31 August, particularly affecting people living between Langsett Road and South Road and including older people that may find it difficult to get up and down hill to go to the doctors, friends or local shops. The Council was urged to lobby the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority regarding this matter and to help reinstate the bus services.

Similar problems had been experienced in relation to other bus services with most places having been affected by alterations to routes or the cancellation of bus services. The petitioners called upon the Cabinet Member to work with Louise Haig MP with regard to the introduction of bus franchising by the City Region Mayor. She commented that change was needed if there was to be a bus service which was led by peoples’ needs, rather than profit.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson stated that he shared peoples’ frustrations concerning bus services and those concerns expressed by the petitioners. The cuts to bus services were made without interaction with elected Members. He said that he had made the concerns known to the managing directors of First and Stagecoach and to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

Councillor Johnson also made reference to the Bus Partnership established in 2012, which he said was, at that time, the only way to improve the interconnectivity between places. However, service delivery was not acceptable and government cuts had also affected bus services. There was also disparity between spending between north and south of the country.

He said that he would wish to see bus services of which people could be proud and he proposed a new bus charter to supplement the arrangements which were already in place with bus operating companies and would welcome support regarding that idea and possibly working through a Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee.

Councillor Johnson referred to a bus review led by Clive Betts MP, which could lead to change to a franchise model. However, he said that such decisions were that of the Mayor of the South Yorkshire City Region. The petitions would also be passed to the appropriate committee.  He said that it was clear that something needed to be put in place and he believed that public services should be in public ownership.

3.1.4

Petition Requesting the Council to Introduce Speed Reduction Measures on Greenhow Street

The Council received an electronic petition, containing 47 signatures, requesting the Council to introduce speed reduction measures on Greenhow Street.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Claire Walker who stated that Greenhow Street in Walkley was a steep and straight road and there was a doctors, a church and a chemist. There had been an incident in July involving a car joy-riding and in which the vehicle was speeding and then crashed, damaging vehicles and abandoning the car. There had also been other serious incidents in the past year. Vehicles were damaged and there were financial implications as a result of such incidents, including for people who owned the vehicles. There was concern relating to traffic speed and it was suggested that measures be taken to reduce vehicle speeds, such as the introduction of speed bumps and it was noted that consultation might also be required regarding proposals. Concern was expressed regarding people’s safety and that measures should be taken to improve safety and to save lives in the future.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.  Councillor Johnson stated that the issues of concern had been set out by the petition and that he would work with the petitioners and local councillors regarding this issue.

3.1.5

Petition Requesting Further Assistance for Taxi Drivers Accessing the Proposed City Centre Clean Air Zone

The Council received an electronic petition containing 178 signatures, requesting more assistance for taxi drivers accessing the proposed City Centre Clean Air Zone.

Representations on behalf of the petitions were made by Ibrar Hussain. He stated that a large proportion of the taxi trade had responded to the consultation regarding a Clean Air Zone. He said that many drivers would not be able to afford to continue, especially if Euro 6 diesel vehicles were not permitted and he also commented on the cost of electric vehicles. He requested that the matter be considered by a Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee to consider the responses to consultation and views of the taxi trade prior to submission to government in December. He said that this issue affected some three thousand taxi drivers and their families.

He thanked the Cabinet Member and indicated that there was a wish to work together on this issue and said that lessons might also be learned from other places where such schemes had been introduced and which allowed Euro 6 vehicles. He also asked that a review be undertaken of delegated powers in the licensing service and that more generally work be conducted with the taxi trade prior to policies being introduced.  

3.1.6

Public Questions Concerning Taxi Drivers and the Proposed City Centre Clean Air Zone

Javid Ahmed stated if the Council did not allow Euro 6 standard vehicles, he would not be able to afford a new vehicle.

Tariq Nasir referred to the cost to purchase a new vehicle and he asked, if it was the case that Euro 6 vehicles would not be accepted in the future, whether he would be compensated for the cost of a recently purchased vehicle.

NasarRaoof referred to concerns regarding clarity with regard to the potential effects of a clean air zones on taxi drivers in Rotherham and as to whether Rotherham would get assistance as part of the funding; the status of the bid to government for £50 million; and whether there would any exemptions or discount available for Rotherham drivers in relation to Euro 4 and 6 vehicles. He also asked whether the Council understood how much custom and business Rotherham drivers brought to Sheffield and asked whether an impact assessment had been undertaken in that regard. Further, he asked whether the Council would acknowledge the effect on Rotherham taxi drivers and families of other changes by Rotherham Council in relation to vehicles and the installation of CCTV and asked whether those factors would be considered as part of the City Council’s decision making.

The Council referred the petition and public questions on this matter to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked the taxi trade for the excellent response to the consultation regarding a clean air zone. He referred to recent meetings held with the trade since the consultation had closed and said that he had committed to continue to meet with the taxi trade and small businesses.

He said that the submission had asked for £50 million from government for a CAZ C option, which would target support to people most affected. The intention was to reduce pollution and not simply to collect fines and to address the problem of vehicles that produced the most pollution from exhaust fumes. Rotherham had requested a proportion of funding as part of the bid and for a small number of roads in Rotherham and he suggested that further questions regarding Rotherham be directed to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

As regards Euro 6 vehicles, there was a wish to help drivers to change to electric or hybrid vehicles and that was one of the reasons why the Council had wished to pursue a CAZ C option. He said that the remarks concerning a review of licensing were something that he would speak about with officers.

3.1.7

Petition requesting the Council to Change the Give Way Sign at the Top of Hagg Hill to a Stop Sign

The Council received an electronic petition containing 54 signatures, requesting the Council to change the Give Way sign at the top of Hagg Hill to a Stop Sign. There was no speaker to the petition.

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

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Access Officers

James Martin asked a question concerning the importance of the role of Access Officers in the Council’s Planning service.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development stated that there was a restructure of the Planning service taking place and he did not believe that it would be appropriate for him to comment on the matter at this time. However, he would be pleased to arrange a meeting regarding the concerns raised in the question.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning Transition from Child to Adult Social Care

Peter Handford-Styring made reference to the transition process from children’s to adult social care and to issues relating to some services not being made available, which was something that caused great stress to families.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families, referred to young people moving from children’s to adult services and to the different thresholds which sometimes existed. She said there was a wish to create an all-age disability service to look at points of transition and where barriers existed and what might be changed. Councillor Drayton said that she would be pleased to meet to listen to Mr Handford-Stying’s views on the issue.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning 31 and 31b Bus Service

Bernard Little informed the Council of a petition to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive Combined Authority Board for the immediate reinstatement of the 31 and 31b bus service. He asked whether Members of the Council would support the petition and oppose cuts to the 31b bus service in Walkley.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that he would refer to the previous answers that he had given to issues concerning bus services and said that he would support a petition opposing cuts to the 31b bus service.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning the Situation in Kashmir

NasarRaoof made reference to the situation in Kashmir and to people grieving the loss of loved ones there. He stated that the Council had supported Kashmir in the past and he asked for reassurance that it would renew its commitment to the Kashmiri community and to reassure them. He asked what lobbying and activity had taken place. He also gave congratulations to Councillor Zahira Naz in relation to a recent demonstration that was organised concerning the situation in Kashmir. He asked what more could be done to lobby and create awareness of the issue.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the Council had committed to addressing to the serious situation in Kashmir. However, the situation there had worsened and she referred to a recent letter describing the situation in Kashmir at the present time, which she urged people to read. The Council had debated the matter and had also established a working group, led by former Councillor Mohammed Maroof. She said that she believed that Councillor Zahira Naz was the right person to now lead a cross party working group to look at how the Council might work to help address serious concerns relating to Kashmir and for those people who were hurting and grieving. She would ask that Councillor Zahira Naz make contact as appropriate regarding this matter.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Page Hall

NasarRaoof thanked the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety for his intervention in relation to issues in Page Hall. He commented that the circumstances in Page Hall had deteriorated. People were not able to sleep because of noise and nuisance and there had been incidents relating to a care home, including theft and people having been attacked. He asked what action would be taken in terms of urgent intervention and commented that the community was concerned about the situation and attacks on vulnerable people. He asked whether the Council would consider the use of a Public Space Protection Order in relation to Page Hall.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety responded to the question.  Councillor Wood paid tribute to the work which Nasar Raoof had done in Page Hall and in relation to helping to avert some difficult problems there.

He said that he had been to Page Hall on a regular basis in recent months and had made a promise to residents with regards to the situation there and to put in place a plan to help deal with the problems in Page Hall.

As regards progress with that plan, he explained that it involved a number of different agencies and included the commitment of Executive Directors of the Council. Measures included increases in the number of Environmental Enforcement Officers, Housing Officers, Housing Inspection Officers and additional Wardens.

He had held discussions with the Police with regards to potential powers that might be available to Environmental Health Officers and liaison with the Police to obtain a quick response, if necessary.

Councillor Wood said that a clear message would also be given to all the landlords in the area and a letter would be sent to landlords.  The approach to be taken was not to introduce selective licensing. However, the policy was very clear in that, if landlords had tenants that caused problems and they approached the Council, the Council would help them to resolve the problems. However, if it was found that landlords were causing problems, they would be prosecuted.

Landlords would not be given further chances and they would need to come to the Council if they needed help to solve problems. If it was found that landlords caused problems through overcrowding, for example, the Council would prosecute and that would be made very clear to them.

He had also had discussions with the new Executive Director of People and both he and the Executive Director would be visiting Page Hall and community groups would be invited and a further meeting would also be set up with the community groups. He said that he expected to deal with the community as a whole, working together in order to solve the problems in Page Hall.

Councillor Wood explained that this activity would be financed through some of the controlling migration fund. He explained that the Council policy was only to apply for money which helped to put resources and facilities into the community. It did not apply for money for the enforcement fund which led to reporting people to the UK Border Agency.

He said that he also needed to give a detailed briefing to the Burngreave ward councillors on this issue and would go through the draft plan with them.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Change to Council Governance Arrangements

Ruth Hubbard made reference to the petition for a change in the Council’s governance arrangements. She asked whether the Council would now be willing to commit to changes and to embrace an agenda of embedding more democratic arrangements and planning for a committee based governance model as it would have to do prior to a referendum. She also asked whether the Council would commit to a process, which would also involve other people, including experts, stakeholders, opposition parties and communities.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded to the question and said that she appreciated it when people told her about the situation in local communities.  She said that she did not agree with the premise of the question regarding the Council making decisions behind closed doors.  As part of the Council’s constitution and Leader’s Scheme of Delegation, decisions were taken by officers and by individual Cabinet Members.  She believed that under the previous committee system, officers actually made more decisions than was the case with the Cabinet system.

Councillor Dore said that Cabinet meetings were held in public and there had been initiatives, including Cabinet in the Community, Cabinet in the Star and Cabinet on the radio. However, she fully accepted that the Council should always be looking for continuous improvement and engagement. She referred to the importance of consultation including, for example, in respect of areas such as tenant engagement and housing. She said that she believed the Council was in a strong position on this matter and made reference to the meeting of Council on 3 July, at which there was a commitment to undertaking a review regarding governance. 

She said that she did not personally object to a Committee system and would wish to look at what the issues were and what it was thought the barriers were to be addressed under the current governance model.

Councillor Dore stated that the Council also made joint decisions, such as at Sheffield City Region, the statutory Safety Partnership and Accountable Care Partnership. People in the city and including the private sector, which delivered many jobs within economy, were also dependent on how the Council took decisions.  There was a wide-range of stakeholders, individual groups and communities affected by decisions and Councillor Dore said that she wanted to open up a wider conversation with all of them.

She applauded the petitioners for collecting all of the signatures that they had and referred to the amendment numbered 2 to item number 5 on the Council agenda, which also welcomed the petition concerning a change to the Council’s governance model.

Councillor Dore also said that she applauded anyone that went out and had conversations with the population and found out what they think. She said it was important for her to hear people’s views from across the city and she wanted to have proper engagement with them and the wider population and to get the right system of governance for the city. She had also had conversations with the opposition parties on the Council regarding how engagement might be improved.

She also hoped that the engagement would include the It’s Our City group, on behalf of those that had signed the petition and Sheffield for Democracy, the third sector and other community groups and that there could be a big conversation about how decisions were made that improved people's lives. A new Cabinet Member was in post and these issues were within his remit and he was scoping out how the Council could engage and embark on a serious conversation across the City.

3.2.7

Public Questions Concerning Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast

John Grayson said that the Council’s priority housing team had tried to place a family with children in the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast and he asked whether the Council had changed its policy, which he understood was to not put children in that bed and breakfast accommodation which, he said was totally unsuitable.

He said that since 2016 there had been a campaign to stop the Council putting homeless children in dangerous or unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Questions had been asked of the Council and petitions submitted. Meetings had taken place with senior officers and Cabinet Members and it was understood that the Council were not going to put children into the Earl Marshall. This was monitored and it looked as though that was the case until recently when a family with leave to remain (as referred to above) was told that they had to go to the Earl Marshall. In the event, the family did not go there and went instead to stay with friends.

It had been reported that Council officers were now putting forward a policy that the Council will not put families with no recourse to public funds in the Earl Marshall for long periods and that other homeless children, including refugees might be put in there on a temporary basis. He stated that the Earl Marshall was an unsuitable and at times dangerous place for children and campaigners were trying to get the Council to pledge that it would not put children into the Earl Marshall.

Violet Dickenson stated that campaigners had investigated the poor safeguarding and security provided at the Earl Marshall and had a guarantee from the Council that they were going to look into the matter. She asked what the Council investigation had found.

ManuchehrMaleki Dizaji asked how many families with children the Council had placed at the Earl Marshall from 1 May to 1 September 2019.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety thanked the questioners. He said that with regard to the second and third questions, he would provide the information to them.

He said that the Council had not changed the policy, which was to avoid, wherever possible, putting in any children and families into the Earl Marshall.  However, there were times when accommodation had to be found at very short notice and only for a very short period.

One of the ways that the Council was trying to deal with this was the commissioning of three temporary supported housing accommodation units, the first of which would start to be built in the next three weeks and it was hoped that the other two would be signed off before the end of the year.

Councillor Wood said that it was felt that the three units would give enough facility so as not to use the Earl Marshall at all. He said the policy had not changed and the Earl Marshall was a last resort for families with children, used in emergency situations and until alternatives could be found.

3.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Bus Services in High Green

Sue Thorne stated that there were two bus services in High Green and a lot of people relied on public transport. She said that the bus services were not meeting the needs of the community. Revisions to First Bus 135 service  times meant that the last bus to High Green from Rotherham and Sheffield was at 1815 and this adversely affected people working in the city centre and people wishing to visit cinemas or theatres in the city centre were also not served by the Stagecoach number 1 bus service. Later buses had been cancelled so that the last bus was between 2145 and 2230. She asked what improvements the Council would be recommending urgently to the bus operators.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded that services in many areas had been affected by these cuts. He said that he had tried to take the bus companies to task and whilst he had asked them about particular bus services, there was no movement from them.

He said that he believed that a transport charter as he had suggested earlier at this meeting, working cross party with other Councillors and with communities and passengers, was the way forward. He said that powers relating to buses and franchising was not currently within the Council’s control. However, if it was within the Council’s power and the Council was able franchise and bring buses back into public ownership, he said would have announced that this day.

3.2.9

Public Question Concerning Cemeteries

Ibrar Hussain asked a question concerning Shiregreen Cemetery and in relation to the Muslim section, which he said was full and it had been confirmed to him that Q plot would be dedicated from November for burials. He said that a review was needed of other sites in the city and to plan ahead. He asked that Bereavement Services and other Council departments work together to resolve the issue and for a Scrutiny Committee to look at the matter for the future.

Further, he asked a question concerning the burial of Quranic papers and as to the recovery of costs requested by the Council’s Bereavement Services and for the Cabinet Member to explore this matter.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, stated that she had been assured, at a briefing with regards to capacity at cemeteries, that capacity was satisfactory. She said that she would ask again for assurance regarding capacity both now and in the future.  This was reviewed constantly as it was across all cemeteries and in relation to all religions and for non-religious provision.

In relation to the Quranic Papers, she said that she was not certain about what the arrangements may have been and as to any charges which may be made. However, she would discuss this matter with the Federation of Mosques and local councillors and provide a response to Ibrar Hussain concerning the issues he had raised. She stated that Local Area Partnerships had small budgets and that she could not commit funding from the Partnerships, which would also have other demands on them. 

3.2.10

Public Question Concerning UK Exit from the European Union

Nigel Slack referred to the situation in Parliament and with regard to the UK withdrawal from the European Union, plans for a withdrawal bill and the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.

He referred to the Government already having drawn up plans for troops on the streets in case of unrest and provision of body bags, and asked if civil unrest occurred in the City, what would be the Council's stance and what would the Council do?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, referred to an urgent item of business regarding this particular issue to be considered at this meeting of the Council. She commented that, with regard to the events in Westminster, she felt quite depressed at the situation and noted that some MPs had attempted to do what they could to win back parliamentary sovereignty. She also believed that the issue directly affected Sheffield.

She said that she would be pleased to write to Mr Slack regarding what the Council was doing and she referred to a Member’s question earlier in the year on the subject of preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Over the past six months, work had been done at a South Yorkshire level to prepare and a range of things were in place. She said that she also hoped that the best efforts could be made to stop a no-deal Brexit.

3.2.11

Public Question Concerning Bus Services

Diane Leek asked whether, with the regards recent bus changes, the Council accepted that this has caused great difficulties for a great number of vulnerable people who relied upon public transport. She raised the following issues:

ð   Removal of the 31 and 31b bus, replaced by the Number 135, which did not serve many areas of the community and made it very difficult for people. The Sunday service had also been affected.

ð   Implications of changes made to the 135 service for Grenoside, High Green and to Rotherham and that bus drivers were not able to keep to the timetable and found the topography of Walkley to be difficult.

ð   Changes to the bus numbers 10 and 95, whereby the 95 outbound from the City to Walkley missed out the city centre.

ð   Only a few bus carousels had the new information displayed, which should have been replaced before the changes and the printed information also contained an error because it incorrectly showed ‘Whitehouse Lane’ instead of ‘Whitehouse Road’.

ð   It was important that people were able to get out and about for their health and wellbeing and to encourage people to use public transport.

She asked what the Council intended to do to help people affected by this situation and with regards to bus services.

Councillor Bob Johnson explained that he was also most frustrated and concerned about this matter and he shared the frustrations of all bus users throughout the City. He was also aware of the effect this had on communities. He made reference to the same bus service which ran through his own Ward and onto Loxley and said that the changes had not been addressed satisfactorily. No-one had asked him as Cabinet Member what he thought about the proposed changes. He believed that a transport charter had become increasingly urgent and he would welcome any input which Diane Leek would like to make on these matters.