Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Requesting More Recycling Bins in the Fir Vale Area

The Council received a petition containing 52 signatures, requesting more recycling bins in the Fir Vale area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by students at Fir Vale School.  They talked about climate change and the issues of litter and recycling. They had concluded that a small change can trigger a larger change in their community and hopefully into the future in relation to how people care for the environment.

The petition requested more recycling bins in the area to make sure that there was a place for people to place items.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mark Jones, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change.

Councillor Jones explained that he was responsible for keeping the streets clean and tackling the environmental issues that people faced. He said that he was quite proud that the students were at Council to ask it to do more for the area and that the pupils at Fir Vale School are deeply committed to making the world a better place. He said that he would look forward to doing more work with the school and he agreed that more needed be done to tackle environmental issues.

He referred to the need to look at local impacts of climate change, including the environmental impact of actions such as discarding litter, people using cars and the impact of industry. There would also need to be an understanding of the human impact on environmental events at a larger scale, such as fires in Brazil and Australia. 

Councillor Jones said that it was important that young people helped to make sure decision makers took the right decisions for the future. It was also recognised that environmental issues were local as much as they were global and they needed to be tackled in that context. The Council was to invest to make sure that the environment that people wanted could be delivered.

3.1.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Recommend and Actively Champion the Reinstatement of Funding by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to SHIFT Media

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 705 signatures, requesting the Council to recommend and actively champion the reinstatement of funding by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to SHIFT Media.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Jill Fearn.

She stated that the petition was about the reinstatement of funding to SHIFT Media and was asking the Council for its support and to actively champion the petition.

She said that her daughter had started at SHIFT to help her to progress and she had gained more confidence and achieved more than she had at school and had made contacts and friends who were still actively supporting her along with other individuals and organisations.

She explained that the petition concerned 16 to 24 year old learners with a disability, educational need or mental health condition.  SHIFT offered a specialist and unique provision which engaged students. 69 per cent of students at SHIFT had a mental health condition, which was above the national average.

Jill Fearn said that in January 2019, SHIFT Media, which was a charitable non-profit organisation, was notified by the Education and Skills Funding Agency that funding would cease. Students and parents were notified that this was the case for training providers with inadequate results following an inspection. Previous Ofsted reports in 2013 and 2016 were both rated as good. In 2018 and 2019, SHIFT Media students attained above the regional and national average for both maths and English GCSE and there was no comparable post 16 education provider in Sheffield or the Sheffield region which offered such specialist provision.

She referred to an example of the Education and Skills Funding Agency not applying a policy of terminating funding where similar weaknesses had been found at another education provider and said that this highlighted that young people in Sheffield were comparatively disadvantaged compared to their peers elsewhere in the country.

The petition asked that Sheffield City Council actively champion and take positive actions to influence the Education and Skills Funding Agency to reverse a decision and reinstate funding to SHIFT Media.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Abtisam Mohamed, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills. Councillor Mohamed thanked the petitioners for bringing this matter to the Council.

She said that she had spoken with a number of people when funding was withdrawn from SHIFT Media, including parents whose children accessed the provision. She had also seen the most recent and previous Ofsted reports.   She said that there were sometimes discrepancies in the way in which post 16 providers were inspected as compared to schools, which received an inadequate rating. Schools might be given more support in comparison to a post 16 provider, which might have its funding withdrawn.

Councillor Mohamed explained that she would be pleased to support SHIFT and to work with them. She would be prepared to write a letter of support and positively and actively support the provision because she knew the difference it made to parents and families. She said that her concern was that the Council might not be in a position to change the government policy in this regard and whilst political pressure might be applied, she was not certain that would overturn the decision in this case.

She was aware of the processes in place regarding an appeal with Ofsted and which was still ongoing and in relation to which she would also be pleased to provide support. She said that she would also be open to a discussion about other alternatives which might be considered to support the organisation. She recognised the valuable work that was done with young people and it would be possible to look at whether alternative provision could be considered in relation to post-16 support.

Councillor Mohamed said that the Education and Skills Funding Agency was was an autonomous organisation and made its own decisions. She suggested that a meeting be arranged to look at this matter and other alternatives to see what could be done about it.

3.1.3

Petition Requesting the Council to Tell the Truth About Climate Chaos

The Council received an electronic petition containing 196 signatures, requesting the Council to tell the truth about climate chaos.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Dr Bing Jones.

He said that it was believed that the City Council had failed the people of Sheffield and failed to tell the truth about the climate and the ecological emergency.

He stated that the petition demanded that the Council started to tell the truth and use imaginative campaigns and use the 2020 Council Tax letter to facilitate that. He said the Council had a duty to address the issue and communication campaigns were needed to explain clearly how urgent the emergency was and what the Council and citizens needed to do. The Council also need to explain the risks and the costs of further delay along with explaining a vision of how change could be made towards a better, unpolluted and sustainable city.

Dr Jones said that the Council had declared a climate emergency a year ago and had committed to be carbon zero by 2030. It had also commissioned the Tyndall report, which he said required 14 percent year on year emissions reductions to 2038. However, he said that it was more likely that a 25 percent year on year emissions reduction was now required to reach a target of zero carbon by 2030.

He said that, given the scale of task to reduce carbon emissions, people needed to be informed and popular support was required. People needed to realise what needed to be done and informed by the Council as to the costs and consequences of delay, including worsening pollution, extreme weather, floods and potential mass migration following societal collapse abroad.

Dr Jones said that Council needed to talk about how much better a place the city would be if action was taken to have fantastic public transport, children playing in the streets, warm houses and sustainable jobs in the forefront of a growing economy.

The Council was asked to make the right choice, to stop delaying and use the 2020 Council Tax letter to start to tell Sheffield the truth with regards to the climate and move towards a better city.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mark Jones, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change.   Councillor Jones said that it was right that action should be taken to ensure that children inherited a world which was worth having. He said it was true that the Council had committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and this was something which the Council had said repeatedly. The Council understood the scale of challenge and people had benefited and contributed to the exploitation of resources and the crisis that we now faced and everybody was responsible for the planet we had today.

He said that whilst there may be differences of opinion about how Extinction Rebellion might chose to protest about climate change, it was right to say that people had a voice in this debate and that more should be done. He said that more was being done and it might be that the Council had not effectively communicated to people in relation to what direction it was taking, for example in relation to the transition to cleaner fuel, and it needed to do more to communicate such activity.

A request had been made by the Sheffield Climate Alliance to the Council for communication to go out during the week that the Council Tax letters were sent to households and that was something the Council was working on. He said that he would like to continue meeting with campaigners in relation to such matters. 

Councillor Jones referred to the Council’s commitment to having a citizens' assembly in 2020. The Council would provide to the citizens’ assembly as much information as possible. It had gone out to market to obtain an independent analysis of the carbon impacts, sources and what the mitigations could mean to the city. The Council was seeking that evidence base to take to the citizens’ assembly and it would be seeking to recruit citizens to the assembly from across the city. It would put to the assembly the measures that it considered would be needed to achieve the required goals.

He said that as regards the Tyndall report, it had been clear that the city would have used its carbon budget by 2026. That was known and it was not refuted.

The questions put and answers from citizens as to the measures and actions they might want and were acceptable to them would come from the citizens’ assembly and that was what the Council would deliver. It was something that would need to be done together and there was the need for people to reconcile themselves to their past and continuing impact on the planet and to consider the future.

The Council was sincere and wanted to make a difference so that the future was one which could sustain and support the population – which was not the situation at this time. He said that he would be pleased to talk with the petitioners about other concerns which they might have in the future.

3.1.4

Petition Demanding a Citizens’ Assembly on the Climate Change Emergency in Sheffield

The Council received an electronic petition containing 204 signatures, demanding a citizens’ assembly on the climate change emergency in Sheffield.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by David Baillie.

He said that in July 2019, the Council committed to publishing plans for a citizens’ assembly by December 2019. He asked for an explanation of the delay in forming an assembly and commented that no plans or information had been published on the matter and that this was considered to be a climate emergency requiring urgent action.

He referred to the declaration by the UK Parliament of a national climate emergency and to the holding of a national citizens’ assembly and assemblies in Oxford and Leeds. He asked the Council to agree two measures in this regard. Firstly, to make an operational plan for the citizens' assembly public by the end of April 2020 and secondly that the citizens' assembly would meet before the end of June 2020.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mark Jones, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change. Councillor Jones stated that he was fully prepared to meet all of the requests which had been put forward by the petition.  He referred to the issues in putting in place a citizens’ assembly and explained that due to austerity, he did not have the officer core one would have liked to have had to deliver the work that he would like to have seen and this was being addressed. This was to make sure that the Council was able to monitor its progress and that of the city and including other organisations and households as to what they could do to help achieve the goals and the totality of what had to be addressed.

He said the Council was looking to deliver a citizens’ assembly as quickly as possible and that he would like to have a roadmap established earlier than April.

Councillor Jones said that he hoped that at the time that the Council Tax letter was sent to people, the Council would be able to say that an assembly would be established and he also hoped that the Council would write to citizens to recruit people to the assembly. He said that, as in other places, such as in Oxford and Leeds, it was proposed that participation in the assembly would be on a lottery based system, so citizens would be represented. Other groups may be invited to give evidence to the assembly.

He said that he had recently spoken with a colleague at Oxford City Council and he felt assured that there had been activity to ensure awareness, understanding and communication within Sheffield City Council in relation to carbon literacy.

He said that he was confident in relation to the actions that had been taken by the Council and by campaigners with regard climate change so that together it was possible to deliver what the city needed to be viable, safe, clean and prosperous for the future. It would be dealt with in the right way and would include the city’s citizens.

3.1.5

Petition Objecting to the Proposed Demolition of Shiregreen Working Men’s Club

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 856 signatures, objecting to the proposed demolition of Shiregreen Working Men’s Club.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Ann Bentley, who stated that the petition asked the City Council to refuse permission for the demolition of the 100 year old Shiregreen Working men’s Club. She said that her husband and herself were steward and stewardess at the club until retirement and were privileged to work alongside the cast and crew of the film The Full Monty. The club closed about one year ago and had a healthy bank balance.  

She said that she believed that if the club was saved and run by professional qualified people, this would be of benefit to the community. The club was part of the city's heritage and the petition requested that the Council consider saving it from being demolished.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson commented that the Working Men’s Club was a very recognisable building in the city.

He said that no planning application had been submitted to the Council relating to the Club and that for any form of demolition to take place, planning permission would need to be granted and an application would have to come forward.

He said that in the meantime, he would work with local ward councillors and community groups to see whether there was any possibility of bringing the building back into an alternative use and before any planning application was made.

Councillor Johnson stated that, if a planning application was received, Members on the cross party Planning and Highways Committee would determine the application based on its merits. He said that he would like to see what could be done before that point was reached and he looked forward to working with people and local community groups to see what could be done to save the building.

3.1.6

Petition Requesting a Pedestrian Crossing on Station Road, Near Halfway Nursery Infant School

The Council received a petition containing 538 signatures, requesting a pedestrian crossing on Station Road, near Halfway Nursery Infant School.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Kurtis Crossland who explained that the petition called for a crossing on Station Road, Halfway, which was a main arterial road.

He said that many of those who had signed the petition were parents of children who attended the nursery and infant school and who had to cross the road at peak times. He asked the Council to act and to treat road safety as a priority for people in the area. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson said that he looked forward to working with the elected members for that area and that the site had been looked at already. There was already a request for a pedestrian crossing at that location. Unfortunately, there was insufficient funding and there were a high number of requests for schemes and only a limited budget to use for priorities across the city.

He said that unfortunately, the location in question did not fall within the highest scoring requests and this was partly because there were other locations in the city with a higher accident record and the Council should address safety, regardless of the specific location. He said that an assessment for a school crossing patrol warden was also previously undertaken in this location and the site did not meet the criteria relating to traffic volume and speed, following national guidelines.

He said that unfortunately all he could do was to add the request to the list of small schemes, so that the Council could address it when it was able to. However, he said he would continue to work with local elected Members to see what could be done to address the problem outside of schools city-wide.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Questions Concerning Climate Change

Lavinia Jones, Graham Wroe and Stefan Libby spoke in relation to issues relating to climate change, including global heating, carbon emissions and establishing a citizens’ assembly and asked when the Council was going start to act as if this was an emergency.

Stephen Ball asked what the City Council had done in terms of divestment from fossil fuels which was now part of a national and global a movement to mitigate against the climate emergency.

Jenny Carpenter, Sheffield Climate Alliance, asked in view of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, what steps the Council was taking to reduce the number of car journeys made in the city.

Dr Karine Nohr asked what the Council had done to reduce carbon emissions since the Tyndallreport was made available and how effective had this been.

Councillor Mark Jones, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change responded to the questions. He explained that the Council was taking action with regards climate change and said it could try harder to communicate what it was doing, so as to better assure people that actions had taken place.

He said that, with regards to divestment, the Council did not directly invest in fossil fuels, it only had cash reserves, he understood. This was also an issue for the pensions scheme. Members of the Council were Members on the Pensions Authority and they had also raised the issue of divestment from fossil fuels.

The South Yorkshire Pensions Authority had reduced its investment in fossil fuels and, whilst that was not as much as the City Council might like, the Council would continue to make sure that it was undertaken.  The City Council ceased to have any investments in fossil fuels some years ago and it was something of which all Members of the Council could be proud.

Councillor Jones said that the issue of reducing car journeys was a difficult question to address. More needed to be done to encourage active transport and more was being done in this regard. For example, in relation to new and expanded cycle routes and a significant transforming cities bid to ensure that the infrastructure could be developed to help to move people around the city.

The Council was also looking to see how to reduce the need for people to make journeys for certain activities, so as to help make the city's roads congestion free. A better integrated transport system was needed that would better help the city to thrive and improve people’s lives.

The Council was constantly reviewing every action and every decision to see what it could do in relation to carbon emissions. Its petrol and diesel fleet was being replaced with electric vehicles. It had also looked at what it could do to reduce use of plastic and had invested in green energy for the city.

He said that he acknowledged that the Council could we do more and pointed out that everyone could do more.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning Housing and Room Lettings

Kaltun Elmi said that she had been trying to make an appointment to see the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety concerning housing conditions in Burngreave and the room lettings policy in Council buildings and she asked if she could meet with him this day.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, apologised and said that although he could not find a request for a meeting on this issue, he would ask for this to be checked.

He said that the Lettings Policy for Community Buildings was part of the portfolio of the Deputy Leader of the Council. However, he said that he had had meetings with Tenants and Residents Associations about that issue and the charge which was being applied to organisations that wished to use some community buildings. He said that the issue was to be reviewed and it was a matter for the Cabinet under the portfolio of the Deputy Leader. 

As regards housing conditions in Burngreave, Councillor Wood said that he would be pleased to meet to discuss this issue and that the Councillors for Burngreave should also be included in that discussion, together with the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods. The issue of community lettings might also be discussed further at that meeting and include the Deputy Leader of the Council, although that was quite complex and might benefit from discussion at a separate meeting.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning Pavement Surface

Kaltun Elmi said that pavement had been dug up by contractors during the construction at Ellesmere Green. The pavements had not been put back correctly and were uneven. The work to the pavement was said by Amey Streets Ahead to be the responsibility of the shop owners. She asked how this was the case when the pavement had been dug up by contractors?

Councillor Mark Jones, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, responded that he would take this matter up with officers as to the assertion that the pavement in that location was not in the public realm and was the responsibility of the shop owners. He said that this would be investigated and he would then respond to the question.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning Decision Making

Dave Dillner referred to a social media comment by a Councillor concerning governance and indicating that committees would consider decisions which would have already been made by Council officers. He asked what assurances could be given to Sheffield citizens to confirm that the Councillor’s comment about who made decisions was wrong.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council responded that she had not had sight of the social media message concerned and asked Mr Dillner to please submit the context and the social media conversation and she would then be able to provide a written response to the question. She confirmed following a question from Mr Dillner that she would be pleased to meet with him.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Smithy Wood

Alan Woodcock asked a question concerning the withdrawal of a planning application for the building of a service station at junction 35 of the M1 motorway. He asked what work the Council proposed to carry out with the landowner to secure the perimeter of the ancient woodland to stop the use of the woodland by off road motorcycles, quad bikes and for fly-tipping.He said that parts of the fencing had been missing for approximately six years and that, if the perimeter was secured, it would allow the woodland to regenerate.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, said that the landowner had opened a gap to the site and work was ongoing on the site to remove some overhanging trees from the pylons. There had recently beenincidents of fly tipping, which were reported to the landowner and which was removed within 48 hours. He understood that, when the work was completed, the fencing would be restored so as to try and prevent any further fly-tipping.

South Yorkshire Police led on criminality associated with off road motorbikes and when they required access via Council land, the Council would accommodate that. There was also support for community litter picking and the Council collected large bags after community groups had done good work in collecting the rubbish from the woods.

Recently, the Council had dropped large boulders, logs and other items to try and prevent that type of access and anti-social behaviour in the woods but these were sometimes removed. It had also worked closely with Highways England to carry out overnight works in November to open up the areas around the periphery of junction 35, to improve lighting and remove undergrowth and make everything more exposed and to deter such criminality. The Council looked forward to working with community groups and to securing the site.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Student Development

Nigel Slack referred to the approval of the new development of student accommodation at Wellington St, Trafalgar St etc and to conditions attached to the planning permission.

He said that only 10% of the development's energy requirements were expected to be met by renewable sources and asked if that was the best that the city could do to meet carbon reduction targets. He also asked how carbon neutral expectations could be met if we continue to build massive developments that will derive 90% of their energy needs from carbon solutions.

Mr Slack stated that the wind impacts of this development were recognised as “not ideal” and that further investigations appeared to be required to ensure safety and comfort in the proposed roof terrace. He stated that this did not appear as one of the planning conditions and there did not appear to be any evidence of studies of the wider Macro wind impacts in the city centre. He asked whether any such wider studies had been required of the developer; and whether any indemnity would be required of the developer to mitigate the fact that the previous studies had shown the wind impact to be less than ideal.

Finally, he asked how many of these conditions might be susceptible to viability amendments as the development progressed and how the Council would handle any such claims for viability amendments.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development responded to the questions and stated that the development referred to was not only for students but was for other people as well and was not formally approved until the legal agreement had been completed. The development met the planning policy requirement in respect of renewable energy and it would also be required to meet the latest Building Regulations requirements on insulation standards. Policies within the forthcoming local plan would also have to respond to the climate emergency.

He said that the detailed design for the roof terrace would need to be approved under a separate proposed landscape condition, which required full detailed hard and soft landscaping and which would require separate approval and this would include the design of structures on the terrace to be implemented to deal with any wind conditions.  The wind tunnel analysis for the site included all the consented schemes in the immediate vicinity. None of the 85 points pinpointed in that analysis indicated the conditions would be classed as uncomfortable or unacceptable for any activities.

Councillor Johnson explained that none of the conditions were such that would allow viability appraisal to be part of those conditions and any such request would need to be dealt with by an application to vary the wording of the condition.

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Private Data

Nigel Slack asked whether the Council’s political leadership was aware that the Council allowed data about citizens accessing its webpages to be sold to private data trading companies. He asked if it was appropriate that data from very sensitive engagements with the Council were being touted to companies linked to the likes of Cambridge Analytica?

He asked firstly whether the Council understood that citizens using such pages may not have the understanding of the process and ultimate end point of 'Cookies' and were therefore making ill-advised choices, if any choice was there. Secondly, if it was not the Council's responsibility to ensure users safety and privacy was paramount and certainly came before money making gambits like this. And, thirdly whether the Council was happy in being one of the leaders in this particular race to exploit citizens.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, assured Mr Slack that the Council would be looking at the recent comments which had been made in the media in relation to this matter. She said that a response had been provided to the Deputy Leader as it was within his portfolio and which she would now convey in response to Mr Slack’s questions.

Whilst it was true that the Council used cookies to track information about users to its site, largely what every website did, including the Guardian (the source of an article provided by Mr Slack in his question),  the implication of the Guardian article that the Council would sell a vulnerable user’s data simply was not true.

On the pages cited by the Guardian, the Council collected no personal data whatsoever from users and any tracking that was done was both anonymous and done with informed consent using an industry-leading consent management tool.

Where anonymised data was shared, this was for two reasons - one for statistical purposes, so that the Council could understand how the site was used and how that might be improved and secondly, to personalize advertising on the site, based on a user's preferences so it made it easier for users. There were strict guidelines on what could be advertised and users could choose to turn these off altogether.

Councillor Dore said that she hoped that would help to provide some reassurance and that the issue would be followed up further.  If people had raised concerns then the Council would need to put something on the website to make sure users felt safe when using it. 

She said that on a personal level and as a citizen of Sheffield, she used the Council website and certainly would not want to think that she had been exploited, which was the reason why she certainly would not want the Council to exploit any citizens in Sheffield.

3.2.8

Public Question Concerning Planning and Highways Committee

Brian Holmshaw stated that the meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee on Tuesday 28^th January started at 2pm and continued until 7.15 pm. He said that he and others were unable to stay until the end and he commented that such a long meeting would affect committee members, officers and members of the public who had other commitments or appointments. It also restricted the scrutiny of important Planning and Highways issues. He asked if the Council would, in future, split such long planning sessions in two so that people could all have a democratic voice.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development responded that he would accept that the meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee referred to, did probably last a longer than was normal. However, sometimes time limits were set which meant that the Council had to consider planning applications within a set period of time and it was unfortunate that large developments were brought to Committee at the same time. He said that he would do what was possible with officers to try and make sure that such larger and more contentious applications were not considered by Committee at the same point in time, where possible.

He said that it was precisely because of the consideration that was given to those applications by the Committee that the meeting in January took as long as it did and that wasn’t something that he would wish to curtail.

3.2.9

Public Question Concerning Moorland

Brian Holmshaw stated that the peat moorland around Sheffield formed 26 percent of Sheffield's total ground area and he referred to its effectiveness in carbon capture. He said that Sheffield should take action, as Bradford Council had done in respect of the restoration of peat bogs, wetting the moors, keeping the water on the open moorland and slowing the flow of water into valleys and by planting vegetation to hold water and to form peat.

He asked when Sheffield planned to match Bradford's commitment and secondly, could it be confirmed whether Sheffield Council had a peat free compost policy.

Councillor Mark Jones, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, responded to the question and stated that the peat moorland was a very significant issue and when a question was brought to the Council as to whether it could double tree cover, part of the reason for not wanting to commit to that was in relation to the amount of peat bog which the Sheffield had and that trees and peat were not necessarily compatible.

He said that, as part of the natural flood measures, which the Council had and would continue to pursue, the restoration and an expansion of the peat moorland was something that it would look to address, including the wilding of other elements of the Council’s estate.  He had committed to look at this issue and he had also spoken with other members of the Cabinet in this regard.

Councillor Jones said that he would provide a response to Mr Holmshaw as regards a policy on peat free compost.

3.2.10

Public Question Concerning Bus Service to High Green

Anne Whitaker asked what the Council could do about the poor bus service to High Green, in particular services travelling from Hillsborough to High Green which stopped in the early evening and went as far as Grenoside and was not available on Sundays.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development explained that whilst the Council had responsibility for the highways, bus services were a matter for the bus companies and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive. He hoped to work closely with the Mayor of the City Region Combined Authority with regards to franchising routes to give greater surety about bus services. The City Region Transport Board might also consider the questions relating to bus services and he said that he would be pleased to support the questioner to ask those questions.

3.2.11

Public Question Concerning Toxic Waste on Brownfield Sites

Christine Rippon asked whether the Council would lobby the government for funding to remove toxic waste on brownfield sites to encourage building on such sites and improve the environment and biodiversity. She also asked what measures the Council was taking to encourage building on brownfield sites and what changes to planning policy were being put in place in relation to the climate emergency.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development responded that the Council would put in bids to government to clean up land and part of the upcoming local plan would be to concentrate on brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites. The Council would look for whatever funding was available from the government in relation to any decontamination that was required to allow the market to come forward to deliver housing on such sites.

3.2.12

Public Question Concerning Streets Ahead

Russell Johnson made reference to a press article and survey concerning potholes on roads in Sheffield and he also referred to the funding provided to Amey in relation to highways. He asked how it could be that potholes were considered by motorists to be a problem on the City’s roads.  

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that she was not aware of the survey that Mr Johnson referred to. She said that, in her opinion, travelling on the highways in Sheffield was far smoother and more comfortable than elsewhere in the country.

3.2.13

Public Question Concerning Chief Executive

Russell Johnson asked the Leader of the Council to justify the appointment of an interim Chief Executive, reportedly costing £18K per month plus expenses and whether one of the Executive Management Team was not of sufficient calibre to ‘act up’ to the post of Chief Executive.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that the Council had a cross party appointment panel (the Senior Officer Employment Sub-Committee)  and that panel decided that the arrangements put in place were the best way to fill the post of Chief Executive.

3.2.14

Public Question Concerning Injunction

Russell Johnson made reference to the ending of the High Court injunction relating to protests concerning street trees which he said was punitive and vindictive and sought to intimidate, imprison and financially sanction citizens. He asked the Leader of the Council to reflect on whether with hindsight, obtaining the injunction had been constructive and as to the financial cost. He asked whether the Leader of the Council believed that her actions in that matter were morally supportable and might be seen by future commentators as acts of enlightened leadership.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she did not believe that when an injunction was put in place, it could be determined that it was punitive and vindictive. Injunctions were used by the Council for a number of reasons, including protecting people from serious harm. They were taken out for a reason. If an individual acted to breach that injunction then that was the decision of the person that breached the injunction.

3.2.15

Public Question Concerning Garden Scheme

Winnie Smith said that a garden scheme had previously been available to pensioners and disabled people. A grant had been made available for the scheme and it was also partly funded by the TARA (Tenants and Residents Association) and the individual customer. The gardeners did a range of tasks and took away garden rubbish. However, she said that the scheme had ceased. She asked whether the grant could be reintroduced. She also asked a question concerning an employment matter. 

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, stated that currently, the position was that if someone was vulnerable or disabled and who could not do the gardening, there was a basic service provision for gardening, for which there was no charge at all. There was also another scheme, for which there was a charge at present and which could be requested through the Housing Service.

He said that the garden schemes were currently being reviewed. Where people were aware of someone who was vulnerable and required help with their garden, they could contact the Council through the TARA and this could be followed up. He acknowledged that there was work to be done with regards to the garden scheme and that there were people who did not know what services were available and that was why it was being reviewed. The review was part of the wider review of activity under the Housing Revenue Account.

Councillor Wood asked Winnie Smith to let him know when the next TARA meeting would be taking place and he would try to attend himself or make sure his Cabinet Adviser could attend together with the local councillors, so these issues could be addressed.

3.2.16

Public Question Concerning Electric Vehicles

Ian McHugh asked what plans there were for the introduction of more electric vehicle charging points either by the City Council or its partners in the city over the next 12 months.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development stated that there had been a procurement process and agreement for the installation of 22 rapid charging points throughout the city. The Council was also working with a number of commercial partners in relation to solutions that would work across the city. He said that he was mindful of the potential for charging points to affect pavement and highways and the Council was working with commercial partners to overcome such problems. He also recognised that neighbourhoods were different and he hoped that work could be done by the Council, together with its partners to be able to offer a solution that was suitable for every area.

3.2.17

Pubic Questions Concerning Shift Media

A number of questions were asked concerning SHIFT media.

They referred to the report by Ofsted in relation to SHIFT Media and to the concerns within that report. There was also precedent that other providers in similar circumstances were supported or given time to reform before funding was withdrawn and especially since the previous SHIFT Ofsted report for SHIFT was good.

It was also considered that the Council had a duty of care for children with special needs and vulnerable children. Certain actions were requested, including, firstly, a robust challenge to the Department of Education and for the Council, and local MPs to push for the reopening and support for SHIFT media. Secondly, a strategic way of supporting SHIFT media, if it was considered to be inadequate although it was not thought that SHIFT media had been measured fairly. Thirdly, to ensure that a provision like SHIFT was supported because many of the children concerned were not able to manage their environment and had mental health concerns and such issues that SHIFT had coped with very successfully.

Reference was made to public comments made by the Head of Ofsted concerning media courses and the questioner set out the benefits of arts and the media on the economy and an increase in employment in related fields, together with the range of transferable skills which were a major part of the arts and media curriculum. It was observed that, where other small and specialist colleges had received similar adverse inspections, they had managed to maintain their funding.

Whilst grateful for the response that Sheffield City Council would support SHIFT, it was thought that the Council needed to also champion the reinstatement of funding so that very vulnerable young people could actually gain confidence and achieve. It was asked whether Sheffield City Council would actively champion a change to this decision.

The Chief Executive of SHIFT media thanked the Cabinet Member for the support given. She said it was felt to be within the Council’s gift to say that this was needed provision and to go to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) and to put that to them.

She asked the Council to consider that SHIFT had improved educational outcomes by 11 percent on the previous year and outperformed both regionally and nationally, outcomes for GCSE English and maths by age group 17 to 19 by 30 percent. She said that to judge such provision to be failing indicated a flawed Ofsted process and to challenge that required political will and a strong sense of social justice.

She also commented on concerns as to the understanding and ability of Ofsted to inspect provision such as that provided by SHIFT. There were a large proportion of students there with mental health issues and additional learning needs. It was requested that the Council champion SHIFT Media with the ESFA by saying that the provision was unique and needed within Sheffield.

Councillor Abtisam Mohamed, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, stated that she would be pleased to champion SHIFT Media and the work that it did and recognised that it worked with the city's most vulnerable children. She also recognised the fact that SHIFT had a number ofgood Ofsted inspections and that this one Ofsted inspection should not determine the outcome of what's going to happen tothe organisation.

She suggested that a meeting be arranged to talk about what the next steps should be in terms of her political support to the organisation  and what next steps the Council might take to support SHIFT working with children and young people.

3.2.18

Public Question Concerning Big City Conversation and Governance Arrangements

Ruth Hubbard referred to the Big City Conversation and commented that it had not collected views about the Council’s governance model. She asked whether the Council would summarise the results of another survey which had not been advertised and directly concerned governance.

In relation to alternative governance arrangements and to the report before this meeting of the Council concerning that issue, she asked what could be done to achieve greater clarity for voters in the time available prior to the referendum concerning governance, how could people and stakeholders influence the proposals and what information did the Council intend to provide for voters in order for them to make an informed choice.

She commented that she was pleased there was a commitment to a change in the way the Council operated asked how could the public trust this commitment to change and where was the commitment to more democratic governance and renewal in Sheffield voiced?  

Further, Ruth Hubbard asked if the Council recognised the democratic deficit in the city and whether it was committed to power sharing and collaboration; and what the proposals did to address the democratic deficit and meet the aspirations of Sheffielders for more democratic local governance and power sharing.

She asked as part of clarifying the proposal before the referendum, and in the rewrite of the constitution, would the Council clarify the limits to the powers of a Policy and Strategy Committee so that it did not act as an overarching executive.

She asked whether the Cabinet Member would state clearly a commitment to devolving power and resources to communities and to implementing ways of addressing inequalities through its governance model, including attention to voices of those who were marginalised: and in any devolvement of decision making power and resources to communities, that there would be fair arrangements in place, and no favouritism to particular groups.

She asked for clarity in relation to distinctions relating to power and decision making within the strong leader model and the committee system.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded and commented on the differences in the proportion of people who contributed to the governance petition submitted to the Council according to electoral ward. In relation to inequalities and engagement she said it was important to make sure that, through engagement, the Council was able to reach all voices across the city and that was why the Council had entered into a big conversation to find out what people across the city thought.

3.2.19

Public Question Concerning Street Trees

Mr Parkinson referred to an email which he said was from a Council director to the Leader of the Council relating to the starting of work to remove branches from trees before 7am. He referred to his experience of events which had subsequently taken place which he said had included intimidation and violence and had affected local residents which he said involved people sustaining injuries and traumatised by what had happened. He asked whether approval of the works facilitated the Council’s negotiating position with Amey as regards compensation in the core investment period of the contract; what were the negotiations and were they ongoing and how they were proceeding and was the position of the Council helped by the Leader of the Council giving approval.

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) requested that Mr Parkinson put the question in writing to the Leader of the Council.

3.3

NOTES

Note 1. Mr Graham Wroe informed the meeting that other questions submitted relating to climate change would not be asked at this meeting, in view of the high number of questions submitted to the Council meeting.

Note 2. At approximately 4.15 p.m., due to a general disturbance in the Public Gallery and Council Chamber, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) adjourned the meeting and ordered that the Public Gallery be cleared.  The meeting re-convened at approximately 4.45 p.m., with the meeting closed to the public for the remainder of the proceedings.