Agenda item

Petitions

4.1

Proposed Changes to the No.66 bus service

4.1.1

The Cabinet received a petition containing 1,154 signatures from residents of the High Green and Chapeltown areas (a) complaining that they had not had the chance to be effectively consulted with on the proposed changes to the No. 66 bus route which ran through High Green (b) indicating that they had no library, forum or other avenue through which they could have collected consultation questionnaires to have their say, had they been distributed (c) commenting that local residents of High Green relied on the direct route from High Green to Rotherham, including elderly residents and students going to the Thomas Rotherham College, as well as relying on the service as a swift, direct route to Sheffield’s City Centre (d) suggesting that the proposed No. 13 bus route via Fox Hill would take longer and (e) calling upon elected members to campaign against the proposals set out in the Sheffield Partnership consultation 2012, which provided for the No. 66 service to run as far as Chapeltown only, as they wished to keep a reliable No. 66 bus service running through High Green to serve their community.  

4.1.2

Jane-Marie Bellamy, on behalf of the High Green Action Team, addressed Cabinet and stated that the No. 66 service provided the most direct and reliable service for High Green residents passengers wishing to visit the Sheffield City Centre. The removal of the No 66 Service would also make visits to Rotherham

Hospital out of hours very difficult, requiring the use of three buses.

4.1.3

She added that the frequency of other services such as the No. 75 and No. 87 services only ran to and from High Green every hour and that the infrequency of the No 75 and 87 bus services and the low numbers of passengers using the services was a total waste of resources. Efficiencies in the use of resources and fuel economies could be more effectively secured by maintaining and, improving the current No 66 Service, where possible, by readjusting the balance between the frequency of that service and that of the No 75 and 87 services, some of which could terminate at Chapeltown. In addition, the condition of the buses used on the No. 66 Service was generally poor, the buses being generally old.

4.1.4

Residents in the High Green area were, with the loss of various community facilities and bus services to Meadowhall and Barnsley, feeling increasingly isolated.

4.1.5

Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) responded that the City Council did not have the power to make decisions on bus routes but that this role was fulfilled by the Sheffield Bus Partnership, of which the Council, the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport  Executive (SYPTE) and bus operators were participants. He stated that he would refer the comments now made by Ms Bellamy and the detail of the petition to the SYPTE for discussion with the bus operators within the Partnership.  He added that the during the latest consultation on bus services and, as part of the development of a Bus Partnership Agreement, representations from organisations and members of the public had been listened to and adjustments made to the proposed Agreement, where possible, in order to take account of public concerns on bus services. However, the configuration of bus services across the City was a complex issue, for example, the route of the No. 13 Service had implications for other areas. 

4.1.6

Councillor Bramall informed Ms. Bellamy that he would ask the SYPTE to respond to the concerns outlined in the petition.

4.2

Proposed changes to timetable for the No. 44 bus service

4.2.1

The Cabinet received a petition containing 762 signatures from residents of the Basegreen and Birley areas (a) bitterly disagreeing with the changes to the 44 bus service times, (b) expressing concern that to have no buses would cut off residents of Basegreen and Birley completely as not everyone could walk to tram stops (c) suggesting that hospital or family visiting in the evening would come to an end as a result and (d) stating that those who needed the bus, the elderly and families without cars, would suffer again from these cuts to their service. 

4.2.2

Terry Andrews of the Basegreen Tenants and Residents Association, addressed Cabinet indicating that the Basegreen estate was served only by one bus service, namely the No. 44 service, and that he understood that proposals to remove the bus link between the Basegreen area and the Crystal Peaks shopping centre as well as the removal of the evening bus service had now been rejected and that the bus service would remain as it was. Mr Andrews sought confirmation of his understanding of the position.

4.2.3

Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) and responded that he understood that the retention of the No. 44 bus service was an issue to be considered for final approval as part of the Bus Partnership Agreement.

4.2.4

Councillor Bramall added that, in general terms, the proposed Bus Partnership Agreement sought to increase the reliability and sustainability of bus services across the City and that the majority of respondents in the Partnership’s consultation had indicated that they were relatively satisfied with the changes proposed as they offered, amongst other things, lower fares and more frequent buses, although he recognised that 5% - 10% of the responses were negative. He added that the proposed Agreement would provide for the holding of quarterly Partnership meetings with no changes being made to bus services without prior consultations being held between Partners.

4.3

Proposed changes to the No. 4 bus service

4.3.1

The Cabinet received a petition containing 625 signatures (a) objecting to the proposed withdrawal of the No. 4 bus service from Millhouses to the City Centre via Psalter Lane and Cemetery Road and replacing it with the No.83 service running along Ecclesall Road (b) suggesting that if the proposal was accepted, there would be 24 buses per hour on Ecclesall Road and none along Psalter Lane and (c) requesting that the No. 83 service ran along Psalter Lane from Banner Cross to link up with its route in the City Centre.

4.3.2

Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) reported that the petition had been referred to the SYPTE and that action was being taken to re-tender a new No. 4 bus service including a route along Psalter Lane to Ecclesall Road South which would be included in the new Bus Partnership Agreement. He drew attention to and welcomed the work carried out by local Councillors Nikki Bond and Qurban Hussain in support of the petition.

Public Questions

Mr Nigel Slack made the following statement in relation to the Council’s public questions procedure:-

4.3

“Recent election turnouts indicate that the public's connection to politics and their trust in politicians both nationally and locally is at an all time low. If this trend continues politicians, particularly at a local level may become redundant in the public's eyes, as they perceive that local elections are just a temperature check on national issues and that you can't trust any of them anyway. With this in mind I believe it is time for this Cabinet to consider it's and the Full Council's role in reconnecting with the public and revitalising public involvement. I believe that the Community Assemblies are a good step forward along this road, particularly because they give an opportunity for regular input from local interest groups and individual members of the public.

4.4

The 'Questions' process however is another matter. Having asked a number of questions at Council lately, it appears to me that there is a lacklustre approach from most members to public questions. In fact, at times the responses seem to be automatically defensive or even dismissive. Indeed the last Cabinet meeting became quite testy, both myself and a member of the Somali community, were unable to comment on inaccuracies in the responses from Cabinet Members and I was almost prevented from asking my second question by the chair of the meeting. On finally being allowed to ask the question I got the definite feeling from the Chair that this was nothing more than a chore. This may not have been intentional but that was how it felt. As a result I suspect the thrust of my question was obscured by my annoyance.

4.4.1

Those of us that ask questions are not always here to 'Bash' the council, some of us actually hope to help, and to improve the lot of the Sheffield public. I have no party political axe to grind but I am a great advocate of open government and transparent honesty in public life. Where I have concerns I want to feel that I will be listened to openly, not defensively, and that members will address the question I ask, not try to make it look good for the minutes, or for party political advantage.

4.4.2

Despite what was said at Cabinet last time, there is no injunction in the Council's Constitution against comments or requests for clarification from questioners, it appears to be entirely at the Chair's discretion.”

4.4.3.

Mr Slack asked would the Cabinet therefore undertake to review the 'Public Questions' process to specifically enable one follow up comment or request for clarification to be available to members of the public or, at the very least look at improving the guidelines to Councillors on how to answer these questions?”

4.4.4.

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded that she was sure she could speak on behalf of the whole Cabinet, including Councillor Harry Harpham, who chaired the last meeting, that it was definitely not a “chore” to respond to public questions and that all Cabinet Members took all public questions seriously. She stated that, sometimes, there was some confusion in the understanding of the role of Council and Cabinet and she pointed out that Council took few decisions except where its statutory functions needed to be exercised such as the appointment of a Leader or the setting of the Council’s budget and Council Tax level, but that Council did provide a forum for the submission to public questions and petitions which would be the subject of a response by a Cabinet member and might initiate a debate at a future meeting. 

4.4.5

Councillor Dore stated that, where a public question was asked, Cabinet and Council were unable to make a decision on the matter as there was a due process to follow in taking decisions. However, there were many opportunities for members of the public to raise issues with Councillors through ward surgeries, attendance at public forums, Tenants’ and Residents’ associations etc. Additionally, last year, the Council provided a further opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of Cabinet members through the Cabinet in the Community meetings which had been held in each Community Assembly area to ensure that those areas without Cabinet representation were able to ask the Cabinet questions on policies and services in an open forum. This Programme had received positive public feedback and the Programme would be repeated in the Autumn of this year in a somewhat different form which would accommodate a more open debate for part of the meeting.  However, Cabinet meetings were not an appropriate forum for public debates and its primary responsibility was to take executive decisions on behalf of the Authority.

4.4.6

The Council also hoped to review the role of Community Assemblies, as it was felt that they were not particularly well attended and were and were also looking to encourage public participation and engagement in the shaping of decisions through a “Voice and Influence “ Programme.  

4.4.7

Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) referred to the holding of the Local Democracy Week event between 15 and 21^st October, 2012 organised by the Council in partnership with Sheffield for Democracy, Workers Educational association, South Yorkshire Police, Age UK and other organisations and he, like other members of the Cabinet, recognised the importance of working closely with communities to engage with them in discussion on policies and services. He added the funding referred to came directly from Government through the Community First Programme and had been passported directly by Office of Civil Society  to community organisations.  £1,102,075 had been allocated to run over a 4 year period, from 2011-2015 and he acknowledged that it was important that small groups were able to access this funding

Mr. Martin Brighton asked the following questions and made the following observations:-

4.5.1

Outstanding Information

4.5.1

From May 2011 this citizen has asked this Cabinet many questions.

Many of the answers have not included the information needed to answer them, rather the questions were batted away with excuses for not answering, counter-questions, or expressions of opinion as to why they were not answered, etc.

Would this Council please note this formal request that a review of those answers is to be made, and, where the information was not provided, it is provided in writing, or formally refused, in statements suitable for presentation to the Information Commissioner.

4.5.2

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) referred to her previous answer to Mr Slack in terms of the different means of engaging with Councillors and the role of Council and Cabinet meetings. In particular, she referred to the opportunity to engage with Councillors through correspondence, ward surgeries, Community assemblies and Scrutiny Committees. Should members of the public require further information than that given in Cabinet Member responses to public questions at Cabinet, then that opportunity was provided outside of Cabinet meetings through, for example correspondence.  Public questions could not be treated as Freedom of Information requests, which were required to be submitted to the Authority under a separate process, whereupon a response would be given.

4.5.3

Councillor Harry Harpham (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) added that if Mr Brighton wished to submit any documentation to him he would provide a response, where this was appropriate. Referring back to the comments made by Mr Slack, Councillor Harpham apologised to Mr Slack if he had thought that answering questions at the last Cabinet meeting looked like it was a “chore” for Cabinet Members as he was well aware of the huge priviledge conferred upon him to take decisions on behalf of citizens in this City.

4.5.4

Imposition of Council-favoured groups.

4.5.5

This citizen has raised this issue several times. Each time it is declared that no such imposition takes place, only for the impositions to be repeated. The Council cannot be believed in this regard any more.

Please explain why this Council approves of the imposition of the Council’s local forum over community groups in the Lowedges, Batemoor, Jordanthorpe area with respect to access to funding.

4.5.6

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) responded that if Mr Brighton let him have a copy of the documents he referred to, he would respond to him.  Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) added that the funding referred to came directly from Government through the Community First Programme and had been passported directly by the Council to community organisations. It was intended that a mini-evaluation of how the £1 million Community First funding was spent over the next few years and he acknowledged that it was important that small groups were able to access this funding.

4.5.7

Accuracy of the public record.

4.5.8

It has been proposed by Sheffield Homes that the amendment of inaccurate records is dependent upon their assigned status of the person reporting those inaccuracies.

What is the Council’s view of this policy, and what is the Council’s policy on this issue ?

4.5.9

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader) responded that she was unable to comment on the response of Sheffield Homes as she had no access to their documents. The accuracy of Cabinet minutes were agreed by Cabinet and they would be amended, if Cabinet, as the body who had taken the decisions reflected in the minutes, felt that this was appropriate.  

4.5.10

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) suggested that if Mr Brighton let him have a copy of the Sheffield Homes letter referred to, he would respond to him.