Agenda item

5.1

Petitions

A petition, containing 322 signatures, was submitted which stated the following:-

‘We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge Sheffield City Council Parks and Countryside to keep the Low Bradfield public toilet facilities open and not include their closure in current plans, due to take effect on 31^st March 2013.

‘We the undersigned believe Bradfield Parish Council should take responsibility for the toilet facilities within their preserved 2013/14 budget.’

It was also reported that an electronic petition was currently online with a closing date of 19 April 2013.

In response, Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure reported that discussions were already taking place with Bradfield Parish Council as to taking on responsibility within their budget and she would respond to the lead petitioner directly.

RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure.

5.2

Public Questions

Public Question on Sheffield Homes and ‘Going Local’ Money

Martin Brighton asked the following questions:-

There is a difference of opinion on whose money is the ‘Going Local’ money as applied to council housing money. Is this money the Council’s or the tenants?

The second question concerns the Newton Report and the Sheffield Homes/Council finance report both of which were disclosed after engagement of the Information Commissioner. How much did it cost to defend against disclosure of these reports? Were the futile attempts at preventing disclosure because of what was in the reports or because of because of what is not in the reports? If the answer to the question was because of what is not in the reports please state what was omitted and please provide the requisite information? Who instructed the Legal Department to withhold disclosure of the reports and why?

Sheffield Homes has repeatedly claimed that the expenditure of ‘Going Local’ money on revamping drying areas in Batemoor complied with a robust procedure. Despite exchanges of correspondence, Sheffield Homes has consistently failed to produce the evidence supporting its claim that the need for revamping the drying areas came from the citizens of Batemoor. Will this Council now please arrange for the provision of that evidence?

In response, Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, commented that the ‘Going Local’ Money, which came from the Housing Revenue Account was the Landlords which in this case was the Council. The administration was committed to making sure decisions were devolved to tenants wherever possible. He would provide a written response to the second and third questions but commented that Local Housing Forums chose the priorities for their areas and make recommendations to the local Area Board.

Public Question on Environmental Issues and Corporate Responsibilty Programmes

Bridget Ingle asked with the abolition of the Community Assemblies we now have no support or help with clean up days to tackle grot spots in our local communities. This was on the back of closure last year of the Council department that promoted Sheffield In Bloom, helped with litter prevention and education, clean up support, the spring bulb programme and environment weeks support. The alternate week bin collection means that residents who litter pick on a regular basis now have too much rubbish for their household bin and have no way of disposing of it. Environmental issues such as fly tipping, littering and graffiti removal all seem to be directed to Parks and Countryside, whose department has been decimated anyway.

She further commented that there was nowhere for volunteers to go for help and support if they wanted to deal with clean-up issues in their own local communities. Both Veolia and Amey had extensive Corporate Responsibility Programmes along with stated core values that reflect their commitment to local communities and the environment. While Veolia are helpful and involved, Amey were still drawing up plans to become involved locally. I would now ask the Council to take responsibility in helping two of their largest contractors to meet the challenges of keeping our neighbourhoods clean, by placing resources and money at the disposal of the local communities who want to make a difference to their neighbourhood.

In response, Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, commented that he valued the work which local people did in their communities and wanted to support this through the resources being put into the Streets Ahead Programme. He commented that he accepted it was not right if clean streets and roads were maintained as part of the Programme but were next to an untidy park. AMEY were required to employ Community Stewards within communities and they were building up a strong liaison between the contractor and other parts of the Council. He acknowledged that with the disbanding of Community Assemblies all services within the Council needed to update their structures. He proposed that he meet with Bridget Ingle and the Community Steward to try and resolve the issue.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, said that, depending on the area to be litter picked, either Streets Ahead or the Parks and Countryside Service would support local groups. She had recently taken part in a litter pick in Mosborough ward and it had been supported by the Streets Ahead Community Steward with equipment and an arrangment for leaving bags of litter to be collected.

In relation to the point around Community Assemblies, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, reported that details for the replacement of Community Assemblies would be released shortly and these would focus on a more ward- based approach. Other services would align their staff to this approach and it was expected that partnership working would continue.

Public Question on Future of Highways Committee and City Region

Mr Alan Kewley commented that there were two items on the agenda of interest to him as a representative of Sheffield on the Move Forum – the Sheffield City Region Authority and the Modernisation of Planning and Highways and Cabinet Highways Committees. He stated that both reports were difficult to understand and asked whether it would have been better to discuss the issues with groups before they were presented to Cabinet so groups such as Sheffield on the Move could properly understand what was being proposed. He was aware that the Council had Scrutiny Committees and had been contacted by a Member of the relevant Scrutiny Committee who had stated that they were not aware of the proposals prior to them being submitted to Cabinet.

In response the Chair, Councillor Julie Dore, commented that any Member of a Scrutiny Committee had a right to call-in a Cabinet decision for Scrutiny.

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (including Transport), added that the report on the Sheffield City Region Authority would need to be submitted to Full Council on 3 April for final approval and was driven by requirements to meet Government deadlines. The Cabinet Highways Committee would still operate for major issues which were subject to a high level of public interest and other more routine issues would be approved through Individual Cabinet Member decisions with the public still able to make representations.

Public Question on Modernisation of Planning and Highways Committees

Nigel Slack asked, in relation to paragraph 2.1 of the Modernisation of Planning and Highways Committees report, whether he could have some brief details as to the impact of the localism act on these changes?

Mr Slack further asked, in relation to paragraph 2.2, does the City have, and if not should it have, a Heritage Champion - an officer or Councillor not part of the ruling party that can take the devil’s advocate role for proposals that may affect the character or heritage of the City? Covering proposals that may affect trees, listed buildings, areas of natural interest, green belt spaces etc. Someone who could be involved in the decision process at an earlier stage than when public scrutiny becomes available. This would also help mitigate the potential to create a tendency towards pre-meeting decisions outside of proper scrutiny as highlighted in paragraph 4.6: “With more major schemes, it can be anticipated there will be greater use of pre-application briefings of the Planning Committee, addressing some Member concerns earlier in the process, and this will help contain the length of time spent on those application reports.”

Mr Slack’s final question was in relation to paragraph 4.7 of the report. He stated in the light of the detrimental impact this could have for public scrutiny, comment and transparency, could he have an indication of how this would be prevented? For instance, at what stage would digital applications be available for the public to see? How would they be advertised? Under what circumstances would pre-registration be waived? Overall he would rather inconvenience the Committee Members and officers than risk the transparency of the process. Wouldn’t you?

In conclusion Mr Slack commented that he recognised that some of the points may be covered by the officer’s report later or could be addressed at this stage but expressed his concern that the report pointed out, once again, some of the weaknesses of the current ‘questions’ process.

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (including Transport), responded that the implications of the Localism Act, as highlighted in paragraph 2.1, referred to Neighbourhood Planning Powers and the provision for individual communities to work with the Council to draw up Neighbourhood Plans. This allowed communities to influence the process at the beginning. It was a pro-development measure with the intention of communities helping to shape the way their community developed.

In relation to the request for a Heritage Champion, Councillor Bramall commented that Councillor Tim Rippon was the Design and Heritage Champion for the Council. He sat on the Sustainable Development and Design Panel. Representatives of Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group and English Heritage also attended that meeting.

In respect of the changes to Planning Committees, Councillor Bramall commented that the move towards a single Committee and digital presentations would increase transparency. It was seen as best practice nationally to have one overarching Committee and enabled Members to gain more expertise and a knowledge of the City as a whole. Regarding digital presentations, they were used by all Core Cities apart from Manchester. Reports would still be available in hard copy as they were now. The digital presentations would replace the current process where plans were placed on a display board which were often difficult for Members and members of the public to see. There would be no requirement to pre-register as was feared.

Councillor Julie Dore added that the changes meant it was more important than ever for local Councillors to take the role of community champions and raise issues on behalf of their constituents.