Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Review of Governance Structure

5.1.1

Sue Kondakor stated that the National Lead of the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) stated that Sheffield City Council had not been in touch but, at Full Council, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, had stated that they had. Who was right? If Sheffield City Council was right then when will the CfPS be arriving in Sheffield to bring their expertise to lead stakeholder exercises and follow their established methodology in supporting governance change?

5.1.2

Councillor Julie Dore questioned who Ms. Kondakor was referring to when she talked about the National Lead but Ms. Kondakor couldn’t confirm who this was. Councillor Dore said she had spoken to the Chair of the CfPS, Sir Bob Kerslake, and he had put Councillor Dore in touch with Jacqui McKinlay, Chief Executive of the CfPS.

5.1.3

Councillor Terry Fox, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance, added that the Governance Review would be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee who would issue a call for evidence. The Local Government Association, the Its Our City Group, Sheffield 4 Democracy and the Universities would all be asked to give evidence.

5.1.4

The gathering of evidence would take approximately two days and the Committee would be cross-party and the hearings will be webcast. The findings would be reported back to the Full Council meeting to be held on 8 January 2020 and this meeting would also be webcast.

5.1.5

There would also be a separate process of community engagement where local Councillors would be talking to their constituents about their views and this would be fed back. The exact process had not yet been finalised. The referendum would be a 56 day process but the community engagement would take a longer period than that.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Legal Processes

5.2.1

Justin Buxton stated that, at the Cabinet meeting held on 18 September, Councillor Dore had confirmed that she had spoken to Justice Mayells on 5 June 2018. Could she please categorically confirm that she did?

5.2.2

Councillor Dore responded that she had answered this question previously.

(NOTE: At this point in the proceedings, following interruptions by a member of the public, the meeting was adjourned for several minutes whilst the questioner was removed from the meeting).

5.3

Public Question in respect of Right to Buy Properties

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that the news of thousands of new Council homes for the City was clearly good news since, with the promise not to simply create massive Council estates on green land, it was hoped that we would be looking at mixed housing throughout the City and the consequent improved neighbourhood vitality that this would bring. Mr Slack did, however, want to raise again the spectre of ‘Right to Buy’ and what could be done to prevent these new homes from falling prey to speculators?

5.3.2

Mr Slack added that, at the last Cabinet meeting held on 18 September 2019, comment was made, with respect to a compulsory purchase issue, about potentially using different definitions to remove some of this vulnerability. Could the Council expand on that suggestion?

5.3.3

In response, Councillor Paul Wood, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, commented that Right to Buy could in theory be taken off a property but there would need to be a clear definition and social reason why this was being done such as to provide Extra Care Housing or for Special Needs. New properties could get a 15 year exemption on Right to Buy. Government legislation stated that, if the Council bought a property, it could be liable to Right to Buy legislation within one month of that purchase. Councillor Wood would provide further detail to Mr Slack in a written answer.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Tower Block Safety

5.4.1

Nigel Slack stated that it was now nearly two and a half years since the tragedy at Grenfell Towers in London. Shortly after those events, Mr Slack asked a question of the Council about Sheffield’s response and any issues within the City. Only the Hanover Estate was identified as an issue and steps were taken to deal with the potential danger there. It was also commented, at the time, that an investigation would be carried out to discover how the wrong type of cladding had been used in the first place. What was the result of this internal investigation and had there been any consequences for either the contractors involved or any referral to external authorities (e.g.South Yorkshire Police) for action to be taken?

5.4.2

Councillor Paul Wood stated that he had not yet seen the Hanover investigation report and had only received a short briefing on this last week. Solicitors wanted to examine this before it was released. Councillor Wood could provide more information when he had it. A fire inspection of tower blocks had been undertaken three weeks ago and the response from the authorities was that every block in Sheffield conformed with the required standard.