Agenda item

Councillors Alf Meade and Paul Wood

On behalf of the Council, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Peter Rippon) congratulated Councillor Alf Meade, who had been awarded an MBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List 2014 for services to the community; and Councillor Paul Wood, who had been awarded a British Empire Medal for his work to encourage people from minority ethnic communities to become involved in the political process.

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Requesting the Council Not to Sign Contracts with G4S

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 702 signatures, requesting the Council not to sign any contracts with G4S.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Robert Spooner. Mr Spooner stated that the petition represented a number of groups in the City with concerns about the alleged violation of human rights by the company G4S and requested the Council to adopt a policy to suspend G4S from contracting with the Council and to not commission any goods or services from G4S.

Mr Spooner referred to examples of alleged breaches of international law in which he stated that G4S was complicit and to other issues relating to G4S, including its role as a housing provider for asylum seekers and the findings of the Public Accounts Committee. He also referred to provision by G4S of security systems in Israeli jails in which Palestinian children are allegedly detained and abused and the company’s failure to pay any corporation tax in 2013. He stated that G4S had recently won part of the contract for the Workfare programme in relation to which the company had little experience.

He stated that universities and trades unions had cancelled contracts with G4S due to its recent history and background and under legislation it was possible for public bodies to exclude tenderers which have committed ‘grave misconduct’. He asked the Council not to award contracts to G4S.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Councillor Curran confirmed that the Council did not currently have any contracts with G4S. The Council was bound by UK and EU law and whilst under the 2006 Regulations, the Council could declare a bidder ineligible it would be unlawful for the Council to apply a blanket policy. The Council had an ability to assess each individual bid according to criteria, including a range of factors such as evidence of fraud and corruption and also carried out a range of checks regarding a contractor’s ability to deliver projects.

Councillor Curran stated that he had requested Council Officers to produce a framework and guidance in this regard and it was unlikely that G4S would be successful in meeting the framework regarding contracts with the Council unless it changed its practices considerably.

4.1.2

Petition Objecting to the Removal of the Concession of Free Rail Travel in Yorkshire, and the Freebee Bus Service

The Council received an electronic petition containing 18 signatures objecting to the removal of the concession of free rail travel in Yorkshire for the blind, vulnerable and elderly, and the removal of the FreeBee bus service.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, who stated that he would respond directly to the petitioners.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Questions Concerning the Supported Living Service

Tracy Bennett asked in relation to supported living, where is the service user’s choice to remain with the current service provider considered and who has asked them?

Hilda Sables stated that she was concerned that the Supported Living Service, currently with the NHS, is to be outsourced by the City Council as early as July 2014. She said that that no one had approached the Sheffield Community Health Trust suggesting that the financial savings had to be made. She referred to a report of 21 January 2014 suggesting that the service should be privatised to ‘stimulate the market in Sheffield’. The report confirms that some vulnerable service users would have to move out of their homes if the contract is outsourced as their tenancies would be at risk. She stated that this exercise would cost the NHS £6 million, if the contact was lost from the NHS and asked whether this was a good use of public money?

Sue Lavender referred to the report of 21 January 2014, in which the risk was highlighted of some service users losing their homes, should the contract be awarded to alternative providers. She asked how many service users were potentially at risk and how and where they would be re-housed if this was to happen.

Sue Jarmain stated that the Council had said it would continue to provide a quality and value for money service after tendering. If this proved not to be the case, she asked how do we return the service to a quality provider and who will be held responsible and accountable for breaching the promises that the Council gave?

Julie Gretton stated that for the financial year 2013/14, she understood that the Supportive Living contract as a whole had to save £600,000. She asked whether any discussion or negotiations had taken place with the NHS Trust to look at how the service they currently provide could assist with finding some of the savings and in maintaining the service within the NHS and, if not, why not?

Ann Bates stated that, under self-directed support and the assessment procedure, service users know how much money has been allocated to them and with this budget, they can chose what services they want to spend it on. She asked why under this proposal, will service users be told who has been chosen to provide the service to them and also not told in advance what budget they have been allocated, thus disempowering them.

Susan Highton stated that it had previously been stated that with the possible outsourcing of the NHS provided Supported Living Service, the employment protection afforded to workers under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations) does not apply and latterly stated it is a matter for the contractor who successfully tenders for the service.

She stated that this will result in whole sale redundancies if the contract is lost from the NHS and other run down costs amounting to an estimated £6 million. She asked, how can this be described as value for money to the public purse; and why does the Council believe TUPE can be ignored and workers’ rights discounted in such a cavalier manner?

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, responded to the questions. She stated that nine registered residential homes for people with learning disabilities would become supporting living settings and people would be supported to live independently and they would have their own tenancy.     

The focus was on meeting peoples’ social care needs, individual care and choice. Service users would be engaged regarding the choice of provider. If support is arranged by the Council, this would be limited to providers within the Council’s framework and there were bands for purchasing services for individuals or groups.

Tenders were evaluated and quality would come first. Services would be monitored by outcomes and factors including value for money and client support plans. The Council was responsible for the monitoring of quality standards which service providers were expected to meet and it had robust procedures to monitor contracts. The Care Quality Commission was responsible for overall monitoring.

The £600K referred to within the questions submitted was an estimated part year saving and the full year saving was £1 million. The tender for the Supported Living Service Framework applied to all providers, including the NHS and those in the voluntary and community sector.

The risk that some service users’ tenancies may be jeopardised was one which was recognised in the tender process and would need to be carefully managed. Councillor Lea reassured people that in the future arrangements the tenancies would be secure. None of the housing providers intended to limit the supported living services to their own accommodation.

The Council had renegotiated the contract with the Community Health Trust.

With regard to stimulation of the market, the changes applied equally to all providers. Most residential and Supported Living services were provided by organisations in the independent and voluntary sector.

Councillor Lea stated that she was not clear where the quoted figure of £6 million came from and it was not correct to say that services were being sold to the private sector. The Council had reviewed the costs and was confident that it could save money without impacting the quality of service.

Users would be involved in the process and there would be choice for them, although choice was limited to providers in the Council’s Supported Living Framework and if a service user were to choose another provider outside of the framework, then they may need to ‘top-up’ the amount they paid.

Provision was changing from residential care to a different model of service in the Supported Living Model. The Council’s view was that TUPE did not apply in these circumstances. In relation to Supported Living, this was an agreed approach which was considered to be the way forward for people with learning disabilities, giving independence and choice. Quality was paramount, together with the safety and wellbeing of service users who need the Council’s help and support. The Council wanted to ensure that people receive services which are value for money and that people remained independent, safe and well.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign

Peter Davies stated that Sheffield had a proud tradition of supporting action in relation to injustice. He stated that as a former coal miner, he would ask that the Council does not bend or relent in its duty to Support the Motion given by Councillor Harpham, calling for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and a public inquiry into the events which took place at Orgreave in 1984.

Councillor Harry Harpham, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods responded that the truth will out regarding Orgreave and the other coalfields. He stated that his own coalfield was in a state of lock out in what he described as actions driven by political motivation at the top of the Government at that time. Evidence was increasing and he stated that he believed the Chamber owes it to miners to get justice and he would ask for the support of Members of the Council and ask the Main Opposition Group to withdraw the amendment which they had submitted to the Motion at item of business 13 on the Council Summons.

4.2.3

Public Questions Concerning the Library Service and Half Marathon

Knowledge Kutekwa referred to cuts to the City’s Library Service and particularly to Spital Hill Library and asked how people were expected to learn and develop skills such as in Information Technology. He also asked about the links to increased crime if people had fewer amenities which allowed for such learning opportunities. 

Mr Kutekwa also asked a question concerning the Sheffield Half Marathon, referring to the lack of water at the event in 2014.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health responded to the questions. He made reference to the wider cuts to the Council’s budget of £238 million to date and stated that this would led to some services either disappearing or being delivered differently in future. He said there were 16 organisations working in partnership with the Council, including one in Burngreave, to see how best to run libraries. Business plans were to be submitted by 11 July. He said the Council was not planning to close any library in Sheffield at the present time. 

In relation to the Sheffield half Marathon, the Council was seeking expressions of interest to ask people to work with it to ensure the half Marathon could be held in 2015.

4.2.4

Public Question Concerning Arts Funding

Lisa Banes asked a question concerning the benefits of the recently announced Arts Council funding for Sheffield.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, responded that the City was to receive a new funding package over the next three years. Arts Council England was investing £2 million more in Sheffield than the previous level of funding and had a good relationship with the City. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the Chair of Arts Council England had visited Sheffield and congratulated the City for the leadership it had shown.  The Arts Council was maintaining support to Sheffield Theatres and funding was granted to Museums Sheffield of £600k each year over 3 years and she applauded the work of Kim Streets, the Chief Executive of the Museum. The City’s arts and cultural offer was essential for its vibrancy and to attract people and in making it a great place to live, work and visit.

4.2.5

Public Questions Concerning Exclusion From Tendering for Contracts

Hilary Smith asked a question concerning the exclusion criteria, on the grounds of grave misconduct for companies wishing to tender for contracts and in particular, how people might obtain information about the criteria used by the Council. She asked if the Council would consider the advice of the human rights lawyer, Daniel Machover, in that it might be said to be acting unlawfully if it directed its power wrongly with regards to award of a contract.

Stuart Crosthwaite commented that he was pleased that the Cabinet Member had previously said that the Council did not have any contracts with the company G4S and asked whether any of its contractors had sub-contracts with G4S.

J Grayson asked if the Council was aware of the previous record of G4S, that G4S had proved shambolic in the delivery of the 2012 Olympics contract and that the company had been investigated in relation to tagging and given a fine and it had also been fined for failing in the asylum housing contract. He asked the Council to look at the previous record of G4S.

In response to the questions, Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that he had requested Council officers to refresh the guidance in respect of contacts and said that, if people asking questions left their contact details, he would consult with them on the draft guidance.

In respect of legal advice, the Council’s Legal Services were the first place from which he would seek advice. He did not want the City Council to be complicit in any abuses of human rights. He gave an assurance that the Council would refresh the framework relating to contracts.

Councillor Curran reiterated that the Council did not have any contracts with G4S. However, he did not have an answer as to whether any of its contractors sub-contacted with G4S. He undertook to respond in writing to that question.

In relation to G4S handling of the contract for the 2012 Olympics, Councillor Curran commented that this had been subject to considerable publicity and there had been a failure in their performance. The Council’s Executive Director of Communities had also written to the Home Office to outline concerns with regards asylum housing and the Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health, Councillor Mazher Iqbal had made representations to the Housing Minister on that matter.  

4.2.6

Public Questions Concerning New School on site of the Don Valley Stadium

Nigel Slack referred to the development of a new school on the site of the former Don Valley Stadium. He stated that “in Sheffield we are welcoming the news that a new school, operated by a fundamental Christian sect, is to be built on the site and that we will be handing the most valuable part of this city's future to an organisation that believes the Bible story should be at the forefront of education”. He stated that whilst he “recognised that the ‘bribe’ being offered by central government is huge and that we need the extra school places, we should recognise that all faith schools are Trojan Horses and seek to mould young minds into their beliefs systems”. He said “if we must accept another privatised educational establishment in this City, could we at least ensure that it is a secular option that is given the benefit of our taxes?”

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that she welcomed the development of a new school at Don Valley and that the local community were to have a through-school for children aged from 2 to 16 years. She said that she did not recognise the description of the Oasis Academy given by Mr Slack in his question. The City took a pragmatic view in relation to academies and the Government was determined to make schools academies and impose this model. The Council had worked to ensure that academies were not imposed on the City. The Sheffield “ask” had been formalised, in respect of ethos, membership of the City’s family of schools, supporting training and development, a common admissions policy and recognition of trades union rights etc.

There was a process for the choice of academy, including a desktop investigation into all of the providers of academies which put themselves forward. For the interview process, a selection panel had been formed, comprising local people, Councillors, Council Officers and a Trade Union representative). The Panel unanimously selected Oasis. 

Councillor Drayton read a quote from the Oasis website, which stated that the organisation was a charity inspired by a Christian ethos and was inclusive in providing services, regardless of such factors as faith, age or sexuality. It did not recruit staff or students on the basis of faith. Oasis provided education and services for the entire community and operated a mainstream curriculum; and it did not force a particular belief system.

4.2.7

Public Questions Concerning the Meadowhead Roundabout

Nigel Slack asked if the recent obliteration of at least forty years of green space development in the shape of the Meadowhead Roundabout, carried out by Amey's changes to this road feature were agreed by the Council before it happened; and was any consideration given as to how to achieve the changes without this wholesale destruction? He said that he been told on more than one occasion that the contract specifies like for like replacement of features. He asked when the work will continue to replace the mature growth lost with something other than ‘a few sickly looking saplings’.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene stated that the Council was aware of the design of the scheme at Meadowhead Roundabout and the re-shaping which was intended to reduce congestion and pollution and improve safety. The advice had been sought of an arboriculturalist and ecologist in respect of habitat and wildlife. There were some safety issues relating to the Poplar Trees and some Sycamore Trees had been found to be damaged.  None of the trees were said to been suitable for bat roosting and pigeon nests were retained until they had been vacated. There was no evidence of burrowing animals or anything specific of note.

Fifty trees had been planted and a further ten were to be planted. There were 45 trees before the works took place. Planting had predominantly taken place along the central reservation on Bochum Way and the new trees were robust enough to adapt to the conditions on a busy highway. There was a more demanding requirement in such Transport Programme schemes with regard to tree replacement, over and above the ‘like for like’ requirement of the Streets Ahead programme. The new design at Meadowhead would make the area less polluted and safer.

4.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Bluecoats Development on Psalter Lane

Nigel Slack asked a question concerning the new development on Psalter Lane known as Bluecoats. He stated that under the original planning application for the development, on the site of Psalter Lane Art School, the roof treatments were supposed to be a mix of grey and red tiles to reflect the surrounding area’s character. An amendment to this permission was granted ten months later to allow all the roofs to be in red tiles. This has resulted in a block of buildings that would be better suited to some seaside town rather than a mature suburb of Sheffield. He asked why this change was allowed. Who allowed it? And why was a fundamental change asked for by the developer?

Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development stated that he would respond in writing to Mr Slack.

4.2.9

Public Questions Concerning Local Area Partnerships

Nigel Slack stated that it was now more than 12 months since the demise of the Community Assemblies. He said he was one of many citizens who have yet to see a ward meeting take place or to see details of any meetings of the Local Area Partnerships taking place or any record of the decisions made at either. He stated that it appeared to him that the much vaunted improvements to local democracy have actually lead to less contact and consultation with the public and a greater lack of transparency.

He asked how many wards have had no meetings at all in the last 12 months; which Local Area Partnerships have met; how often; and where can the minutes of those meetings be found?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health responded and stated that he disagreed with the points which Mr Slack had made regarding democracy and transparency. He stated that the Council had received a £238 million cut in its budget so far and there were further cuts to come. Services had to change and the Community Assembly/Locality Working budget had reduced from £2.5 million to £500k. Local Area Partnership meetings were not the same as meetings of the former Community Assemblies and the Council was clear that they would not be the same. Community Assembly meetings did not effectively involve the public and there was considerable bureaucratic process in the way they had operated. The Local Area Partnerships were based on local issues and did not have decision making powers and did not have to hold meetings in public.

In the South area, for example community engagement focussed on wards in that area. Local Councillors decide the best way to engage with their constituents, which might be to tag on to existing meetings of other local bodies such as Tenants and Residents Associations (TARAs) or they might hold ward-based meetings. Social media was also used as a means of communication with local people. Councillor Iqbal said that he would provide further information on meetings which had taken place in writing in response to Mr Slack’s question.

4.2.10

Public Question Concerning Public Questions

Martin Brighton asked: Does this chamber agree that, provided citizens’ questions comply with the constitution, that each should be read out and recorded for the public record, and that no question be attempted to be expunged by dint of deceit?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that, in reference to Mr Brighton’s question, she believed that is what happens i.e. questions are read out and answers to questions are recorded more or less verbatim. The minutes of meetings are approved by its Members.

Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that Mr Brighton’s question was in reference to the Cabinet meeting held on 18 June 2014. At that meeting, only Mr Brighton, Members of Cabinet and officers were present and he had thought it expedient not to read out the questions which Mr Brighton had submitted in writing and had been circulated as appropriate. The questions were recorded in the minutes of that Cabinet meeting.

4.2.11

Public Question Concerning Deprived Areas

Martin Brighton asked:        Where areas have for fifteen or more years been designated as deprived, but have improved little or not at all, despite the continuing pouring of vast resources into those areas, up to the change of government, which elected members have offered to stand down for what an outsider would conclude was years of failure, and if none, why none?

Given that these deprived areas continue to receive funds, perhaps justifiably, amid much publicity, and retaining the same political profile, how would this council respond to any expressed perceptions that, in effect, political patronage is being bought?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she had responded in the past to questions from Mr Brighton relating to this issue. There had been considerable investment in the City, especially during the 13 years of the previous Government. The ‘Closing the Gap’ policy was developed by a previous Council administration. She said she fully supported investment in areas of deprivation and it was absolutely justifiable that deprived areas receive funding.   

Councillor Harry Harpham stated that City Councillors stand for election every 4 years on the record of what they have achieved for their ward and for the City and that was the democratic process.

In relation to the reference to ‘political patronage’, Councillor Harpham stated that he did not believe it was not true [that political patronage was being sought] and if there was any evidence to the contrary, then Mr Brighton should go the Police.

4.2.12

Public Question Concerning Racism Awareness Training

Martin Brighton asked what measures are in place for this Council to have in place, and specifically within housing, racism awareness training for officers, elected members, and volunteers?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that there was a racism training programme for all employees, contractors, partners and Tenants and Residents Associations and the training was being refreshed this month.

4.2.13

Public Question Concerning Recognition Policy for TARAs

Martin Brighton stated that, at a recent meeting of tenants, the meeting indicated by 38 to 2, to reject the Council’s Recognition Policy for TARAs. The officers present said that not only would they not record that part of the meeting, but since that meeting have made it clear that the Recognition Policy shall be imposed regardless. He asked: it what way does this show respect for local democracy?

Mr Brighton asked: has this Council any plans, however tentative, to seek investment funds from any institution in any way associated with supporting any proscribed organisation?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that a draft Recognition Policy had been drawn up by a group of tenants. Both he and Councillor Tony Damms had met with people and their views would be communicated back to the Tenants, who will be responsible for the Recognition Policy. It was, he said, critical that the process operates in a democratic and accountable manner, particularly as regards the use of public money.  

4.2.14

Public Questions Concerning Road Safety on Normanton Hill

Kerry Milnes stated that, prior to the tragic accident on 9 May 2014, it had been stated that there had been two recorded accidents on Normanton Hill in the last 5 years, although people believed the number of accidents was actually three. She asked why safety measures such as a 30 mph sign were never implemented.

Michael Fogg asked why Normanton Hill was not classed as a high collision location.

Michael Barker asked why, after a history of accidents, concerns over excessive speeds and previous petitions have we had to endure a tragedy to bring this to the Council’s attention?

Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, responded that it was important that a further meeting is held with local people to take appropriate action in relation to road safety on Normanton Hill. Decisions concerning road safety schemes were made based on criteria which had been in place since 2003. It was right, he said, to look at the criteria again.

A Speed Indicator Device (SID) had been placed at that location a few weeks before the tragic accident occurred on Normanton Hill in recognition of the fact that there was danger on the road and, he understood that data was available from that device.

More significant plans and investment were to be considered and the Council was working closely with the community and those people who were affected by the recent events. He appreciated that there was a lot more work required to ensure that action was taken to bring about a safer road and ensure that vehicles slowed down. Councillor Scott suggested that a community meeting be held on a regular basis, to include local Councillors and to make sure there was progress.

4.3

Petition Requiring Debate

Petition Requesting Road Safety Measures on Normanton Hill

The Council received a combined paper and electronic petition, containing a total of approximately 12,571 signatures, concerning road safety on Normanton Hill. As the petition contained more than 5000 signatures and, at the request of the lead petitioners, under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, the petition was subject to a public debate by the Council.

The wording of the petition was as follows:-

“We the undersigned, are concerned citizens and demand that Sheffield City Council (Highways Authority) install controlled crossing and speed restrictions, speed limits with immediate effect. We have grave concerns and have had concerns for many years regarding excessive speeds that vehicles achieve on Normanton Hill, which is a very busy stretch of road, compounded by narrow pavements and the concealed entrance to Richmond Park. This entrance is used Monday to Friday by local schoolchildren who attend Outwood Academy (former City School), dog walkers on a daily basis, teenagers use Friday evenings, weekends and holidays. All who wish to access this concealed entrance to Richmond Park have to negotiate Normanton Hill.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sandra Bradley. She stated the petitioners demand that the Council install a controlled crossing and implement speed restrictions with immediate effect. There had been grave concerns for many years about the excessive speeds of vehicles on Normanton Hill, which was a very busy stretch of road. The problems on the road were compounded by narrow pavements and a concealed entrance to Richmond Park. There was particular concern for pedestrians including children, older people and disabled people and those who wished to access the Park. The entrance to Richmond Park was used by school children attending Outwood Academy and dog walkers and young people and all of those who wished to use the concealed entrance to the Park had to negotiate Normanton Hill.

Petitions had been submitted over a number of years in relation to Normanton Hill and it was acknowledged that railings had been installed. The resurfacing works to the highway had been temporarily suspended, which gave the Council an opportunity to put in place safety measures. It was considered that, had appropriate safety measures been in place, the tragic accident which had occurred on 9 May 2014 could have been prevented.

Petitioners believed that there had been 3 recorded accidents on that road in the past 5 years. People wanted to see a controlled crossing in place on Normanton Hill. The newly erected 30mph sign had made little effect on vehicle speeds. The Council was asked to alleviate the problems on that road to help make Normanton Hill as safe as possible.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene made an initial response to the petitions, followed by the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, responded to the petition. He stated that the entire City Council wished to extend condolences to the family and friends of Jasmyn Chan and to thank people for their efforts in bringing the petition concerning road safety on Normanton Hill to Council. The Council wanted make sure it properly did what it could.

The Police were to carry out short term speed enforcement action and additional signs had been erected. The enforcement action had shown that 55 vehicles had exceeded the speed limit tolerance; with one vehicle travelling up to 66 mph. “Slow” signs were to be painted on the road in the next few weeks. The Council was trying to recruit to a school crossing patrol post in time for the start of the school term in September. Over the summer holidays a Vehicle Activated Sign would be installed, which displayed a vehicle’s speed on approach. The Streets Ahead works had been suspended. There was also too much vegetation over-hanging the footpath in some places and the Council had written to tenants and homeowners in that regard.  

The Streets Ahead improvement works included the installation of new LED streetlights which would improve lighting at the entrance to Richmond Park and would also improve lighting for pedestrians walking to and from the bus stop. There was also a need to widen the pavement and it was possible that the hedgerow could be moved to improve safety. It was acknowledged that this was an exposed piece of road, particularly for young people and people with issues around their mobility.

The Council’s Road Safety team will be working with Birley Community College and would be talking to drivers. A controlled pedestrian crossing would be installed near to the site of the accident following appropriate consultation with the community and landowners. It would take a certain amount of time to design, develop and consult upon the crossing in order to make sure it was the right solution. Potentially, other traffic calming solutions would also be considered as there is a wish to reduce traffic speeds.

Councillor Scott reassured people that the Council was determined to take action and would meet regularly with the petitioners and local Councillors as well. He stressed how important it was that people worked together to make sure that the tragedy which had occurred on that stretch of road did not happen again.

Members of the City Council then debated the issues raised by the petition. The points made by Members during the debate are summarised below:

It was right that comprehensive action is taken in relation to the safety of pedestrians and road users on Normanton Hill, which included a controlled crossing and the development of a scheme needed to be carried out carefully.

The role of road safety teams to provide educational advice to young people was supported and it was important for adults to meet their obligations in respect of road safety.

Normanton Hill (B6064) feeds routes to the City centre and Crystal Peaks. Whilst the road had a ‘B’ Road classification, the Council might consider a weight restriction on the road and other measures such as the installation of speed retarders.

It was commendable that the community has come together over this issue to reduce future risk of a road accident at this location. Both short and long term speed enforcement action was required to improve road safety and enforceable measures should be incorporated in to safety improvements.

It was suggested that the slow sign on the road be re-lined as it was already fading and that speed reduction measures are introduced in the approach to any future crossing. The camber of the road was also considered to be an issue which may need to be addressed.  

The issue of road safety at Normanton Hill should not be looked at in isolation. Consideration should be given to the fact that many people were injured or killed on roads in contrast to other forms of transport, which was clearly not acceptable. Drivers that speed should be dealt with appropriately and this required a change in culture. It was also important that such measures as 20mph roads were introduced in areas of the City. Speed cameras also saved people’s lives. 

The measures outlined should be introduced as quickly as possible and, at the same time, properly designed and engineered. Speed limits were in place for a reason and more people survived accidents at impacts of 20mph, compared to higher speeds of 30mph or 40mph.

Members were most supportive of the introduction of measures to prevent such a tragic incident from occurring again.

The combination of factors on the B6064, Normanton Hill including the narrow width of the road and pavement, the topography and access to the Park should be considered and the Council’s criteria for the assessment of such safety schemes did need to take account of the sum of all these elements. The criteria for road safety schemes could be reviewed. A timetable for action would need to be quickly ascertained and it was critical that effective communications with local people were established.

Following a brief Right of Reply by Marie Gratton, Councillor Jack Scott responded to issues raised during the debate. He stated that the budget for the controlled crossing would require capital expenditure and there was not, therefore, a concern about the works having to take place before financial year end. The necessary design, development and consultation would need to take place and the Council would work with the community to put in place a proper project management plan. It was important that work also took place with the Police, particularly with regard to reckless or criminal behaviour and making sure any convictions were appropriately publicised. There was genuine commitment and resolve on this issue. Young people were potential ambassadors on the issue of road safety and it was important to seize their energy and momentum.

RESOLVED: On the Motion of Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that the petition now submitted containing 12,571 signatures requesting the implementation of road safety measures on Normanton Hill be referred to the Cabinet with a request that a report be prepared on a detailed programme of works to be undertaken to improve road safety at that location.

4.4.

Ordinary Petitions

4.4.1

Petition Requesting the Provision of a Zebra Crossing outside Hucklow Primary School

The Council received a petition containing 287 signatures, requesting the provision of a zebra crossing outside Hucklow Primary School.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene.

4.4.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Save the Institute of Lifelong Learning in its Current Format

The Council received an electronic petition containing 202 signatures, requesting the Council to save the Institute of Lifelong Learning in its current format of offering degrees to mature, part-time students.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families.

4.4.3

Petition Regarding Council Tax Arrears

The Council received an electronic petition containing 24 signatures requesting the Council to take a tougher stance with regard to the collection of Council Tax arrears.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources.

4.4.4

Petition Objecting to the Withdrawal of the FreeBee Bus Service

The Council received a petition containing 1024 signatures objecting to the withdrawal of the FreeBee bus service.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development.