Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Waste Collection

5.1.1

Athan referred to a complaint he had made two years ago regarding the collection of his black bin where his bin had not been collected but he had been told to leave his bin on Emily Road. Former Councillor Mohammad Maroof had spoken to the Council about the matter and Veolia had inspected the site. Veolia had agreed that the bin should be left outside the property but still had not collected it.

5.1.2

Athan had phoned to complain about the matter and the bin had been collected two days later. He now had an issue of collection of all of his bins. He had been informed that Emily Road was too narrow to collect the bin but a smaller vehicle would come and collect but this didn’t happen. What can the Council do to enable his bin to be collected?

5.1.3

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, apologised for the poor quality of service Athan had received. Councillor Mark Jones, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, would pursue the matter with Veolia and ensure the bins would be collected in future.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Tree Protests

5.2.1

Benoit Compin referred to a criminal judgement against him brought by the Council which he believed was on unfair grounds. What did the Council have to say in respect of this?

5.2.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that Mr Compin had raised the matter at the last Cabinet meeting on 17 July. She considered it strange that he believed that she made all the decisions in respect of this and that it was based on Legal advice through the Leader’s Scheme of Delegation. The Chief Executive, John Mothersole, would provide a written response as a matter of urgency.

5.3.

Public Question in respect of Tree Protests

5.3.1

Justin Buxton commented that, on 3 September 2019, the BBC had reported that the Council had spent £413,000 on legal costs regarding tree protesters and the Council had stated that they would receive £70,000 back in legal costs. How much had the Council received back from this? The Forestry Commission had launched an investigation and as a result would the Council receive any further costs back?

5.3.2

Councillor Dore responded that she supported the Council processes in respect of this. The Council would respond to any recommendations in the Forestry Commission investigation. She would confirm, by e-mail, how much costs the Council had recovered.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Tree Protests

5.4.1

Russell Johnson asked whether the Leader was aware of a decision which was imminent in respect of tree protesters being referred back to the High Court? What was the Council’s policy in respect of this?

5.4.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the Council would take a decision on this at the time it was required.

5.4.3

Russell Johnson replied that, given the Forestry Commission investigation, the protests by the Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) and the Its our City petition, would the Council consider its position in respect of future decision making?

5.4.4

Councillor Mark Jones replied that reflecting on all decisions was important and he was open to discussions on all issues. He was meeting with STAG this week to agree a way forward. He was learning processes already in his new role and the Council’s position would evolve as a result.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Its Our City Petition

5.5.1

Russell Johnson asked did the Its our City Petition submitted to the Council cause the Leader to reflect on her position?

5.5.2

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she was not going to reflect on her position. She welcomed the petition which had received the support of 5% of the electorate. However, she wanted to hear what the view of the other 95% of citizens of the City was. The Council would be embarking on a consultation programme in respect of this. This would involve consultation with all stakeholders and individual citizens across the City.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Heritage Sites

5.6.1

Nigel Slack commented that Sheffield appeared to have lost out on money to help heritage building on its high streets adapt to the changing face of retail in the twenty-first century. The £95 million available from competition monies from Government to the way centres respond to the changes on the high street had been allocated to 69 cities and towns throughout the country.

5.6.2

Mr Slack believed that the Coroners Court, Salvation Army Citadel, Leah’s Yard and Devonshire Street all could have had a more positive story with a more positive approach to heritage assets.

5.6.3

The approach of the Heart of the City 2 scheme had changed lately to look at ways of making more from our City Centre heritage but in most cases only if there is no commercial alternative available. The Council could choose to work in partnership with the local enterprises and entrepreneurs to bring these assets back into use and at the same time promote and support the new businesses that were so vital to a new high street for the twenty-first century.

5.6.4

Mr Slack added that general powers of competence, social value considerations and others could be used to make a unique contribution to a truly Sheffield solution to its redevelopment plans. Why do we not make more of these options?

5.6.5

In Mr Slack’s view, the Council seemed unable to understand what what was needed to win on the national competition stage. Leeds, Hull and Wakefield benefited again whilst Sheffield lost out. Why was that?

5.6.6

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, replied that Sheffield had been successful with one of the bids to the High Street Fund and had received £25 million and had worked with a number of stakeholders to achieve that. Two other bids had proved unsuccessful. £150,000 had been received from the High Street Fund for Fargate. Stocksbridge Town Centre had been successful in its bid to the Fund but the amount of funding it would receive had yet to be confirmed.

5.6.7

Councillor Iqbal shared Mr Slack’s frustration as, even if they had been awarded £95 million, this would not have been enough to bring the buildings referred to by Mr Slack back into use. The Council was working with the Heritage Lottery Fund to see if any further money was available. Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, was leading on the development of the Local Plan but this did not hinder or prevent developments coming forward.

5.6.8

Councillor Iqbal added that the Council would work with partnerships in any forms who shared their vision. Sheffield was not in competition with other cities and was unique in itself. It had been shortlisted for European Urban City of the Year and had demonstrated that it had stayed true to its values and authenticity.

5.6.9

Councillor Paul Wood, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, added that the Council looked at every property to establish whether it could be used for housing. It was looking at Birley Spa to establish whether the two flats upstairs could be used for social housing. He could not give assurances due to financial considerations but he would welcome Mr Slack sending through any more information on buildings he believed the Council should look at for social housing.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Council Property

5.7.1

Nigel Slack commented that, in April 2019, he had raised at the Cabinet meeting his concerns over the way the decisions about the sale of Mount Pleasant House had been made and, in particular, the responses he had received at the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, held on 14 March 2018. Mr Slack had raised this again at the Cabinet meeting held on 17 July 2019. He had now raised this matter again to request answers to the questions he posed. Will Mr Slack receive an answer from Property Services?

5.7.2

Councillor Julie Dore acknowledged that the issue of Mount Pleasant was an urgent issue and Mr Slack would get a response to his questions in due course.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Standards Complaints

5.8.1

Nigel Slack commented that he was pleased, after 9 months, that a Standards investigation into a previous Cabinet Member had finally been resolved. He believed that the process and the resolution had been a very unsatisfactory procedure and believed that this had not been fair to himself as the complainant or the subject of the complaint. He also referred to another complaint which had been resolved in a much quicker timescale. When and where will the decisions on these two complaints be made public?

5.8.2

Councillor Julie Dore accepted that there may be a difficulty in understanding the discrepancies in the timescales for the complaints. Each case had different individual circumstances but she would look at how the Council could respond in a more efficient way. Individual cases were not made public. Complaints made through the Standards procedures were reported to the Audit and Standards Committee. If Mr Slack was unsatisfied with Council procedures regarding complaints he could refer this to the Local Government Ombudsman and Councillor Dore stated that, if people felt unsatisfied with a complaint against the Council, they should ensure that they exhaust all Council procedures in respect of complaints.