Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Public Questions

Martin Brighton asked when did political pragmatism, damage limitation or any other factor have influence or control over answers to citizen’s questions that require factual answers?

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, replied that it didn’t.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Council Policy

Martin Brighton asked what Council policy condones the suppression of documents, or their distribution once released, on the grounds that they contain Council-created information that would be embarrassing for senior Elected Members and/or senior Council officers? If no such policy exists, what policy ensures that no suppression takes place?

Councillor Julie Dore responded that there was no such policy and the Council’s Code of Conduct policy ensured that no suppression took place.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Whistleblowing Policy

Martin Brighton commented that the Council’s whistleblowing policy provides protection to Council employees who whistleblow. What Council policy exists to protect citizens who might whistleblow to expose inappropriate Council practices?

Councillor Dore commented that the Council held many engagement activities with the public where they could raise whistleblowing and if an issue was raised the Council would direct them to the complaints procedures to follow.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Council Policies

Martin Brighton asked what measures ensure that all Council policies and the internal and external reports demonstrating compliance (or otherwise) with those policies, are freely available, and that citizens know from where they can be obtained?

Councillor Dore responded that the Council website contained all the policies of the Council. If there was a report that Mr Brighton did not believe was available on the website he should let the Council know and this would be provided.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Compliance with Policies

Martin Brighton asked, given recent developments, what systems are in place to ensure that policies are applied and what are the consequences for Elected Members and officers if policies are not complied with?

Councillor Dore replied that for Members there was a Code of Conduct that they had to follow and for officers as well as their own Code of Conduct there were many employment policies and practices which needed to be followed.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Complaints

Martin Brighton asked what procedures ensure that any Elected Members or officers dealing with complaints are not in any way associated with the complaint issue or, if applicable, the person(s) being complained about?

Councillor Dore replied that the Council always aimed to ensure that people subject to a complaint were not the people investigating the complaint. If Mr Brighton was aware of a situation where this was the case he should raise it with the portfolio concerned.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Inspections

Martin Brighton asked do internal or external inspections of Council functions go any deeper than the surface or cosmetic appearance and do internal and external inspectors ensure that any claims of compliance are supported by evidence, rather than trustingly accepting claims at face value?

Councillor Dore responded that any member of the public could read  inspections if they had been posted on the website and often went much deeper into the service itself. If Mr Brighton had evidence that this was not the case he should raise it with the service concerned.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Devonshire Street Planning Application

Nigel Slack commented that the date for the planning meeting to decide the fate of the Devonshire Street parade, the oldest remaining retail parade in the City Centre, was set for next Tuesday and it would appear that officers were recommending demolition. This despite the fact that it was opposed by some 19,500 members of the public that were concerned enough to actually object and probably ten times as many that didn’t.

Without prejudicing that decision, would the Council explain what contingencies will be in place to ensure that if the demolition takes place, the traders, that are such an integral part of the City’s independent shopping offer, will not be lost to the City and that the heritage value of the location is better protected in the future than in the present?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that no one disputed that this was a sensitive issue. National Planning Policy was set by the Government and there was very little local discretion. Councillor Bramall had consistently argued for increased devolution where local Councils could set more of their own priorities.

When officers put forward a recommendation to Members this was based on national policy guidelines. Given that the building was privately owned and the owners have made an application officers had to put a recommendation forward on that basis. Councillors then had to pay attention to National Planning Policy. An applicant could appeal if a decision to refuse was against National Planning Policy. If their appeal was successful they could be awarded costs which were often significant for the Council.

Councillor Bramall recognised that objections and the views of people were important but it was also crucial that these objections were based on planning policy and non-material conditions could not be considered in law. People could attend the meeting at the Town Hall on the 24^th and put their objections to the Committee in person or they could email their objections in.

Officers often spoke to applicants prior to the submission of their application as it was important any applications complied with the law and met the design standards required by the Council. There was no suggestion that officers ‘colluded’ with developers and, in fact, many developers would argue the exact opposite.

Independent shops were a difficult issue for the Council. They could be good or bad shops and the term independent shops covered a whole spectrum of shops. It was more of an issue of market failure rather than a planning failure. The Council had done a lot of good work in respect of independent shops such as the Chapel Walk scheme where 30/40 independent shops were encouraged to become involved. The Council were currently working on a more holistic system and would help businesses as far as they could to seek premises.

The original application for this site at Devonshire Green had been for all bar or restaurant use. This had now been scaled down and the majority use would be shops.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Confidential Information

Nigel Slack referred to items 17 and 18 on the agenda for the meeting which included information excluded from the press and public by virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information. Mr Slack commented that he had asked before that this should be expanded upon to at least identify which ‘person’ the information related to and a more specific comment on the type of information, as ‘business affairs’ can conceivably cover a multitude of omissions.

With regard to item 18, Mr Slack remained unhappy that a publicly funded body was accorded such protection just because it failed to fall into one of the exemption conditions. He also struggled to see what information may be restricted considering the amount of financial information the appendices did contain. Could the Council expand on this decision?

Gillian Duckworth, Director of Legal and Governance, responded that the legislation provided the Council with a limited number of exemption categories. The wording used was the wording in the legislation. Item 17 contained exempt information as it related to business affairs of Kier, the Council’s sub-contractor. The exemption for item 18 was incorrect on the agenda, it should be paragraph 5 related to legal privilege, as stated in the report of the Executive Director, Place and this will be rectified on the website.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Tackling Poverty Strategy

Mick Watts referred to the Tackling Poverty Strategy on the agenda for the meeting. He asked how the proposal for Sheffield Money, a proposal to lend money at an interest rate of 0.4% a day, accorded with the Strategy?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she understood Mr Watts’ concerns. However Sheffield Money was not simply about lending money and had other elements to it.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health, added that the proposal to establish Sheffield Money was one of the recommendations of the Fairness Commission. A feasibility study had been carried out where it had been established that around 50,000 people in the City borrowed money by unconventional means and did not get a loan from the bank.

Sheffield Money were working with Sheffield Credit Union to lend money to individuals at a fair rate. In addition to that the Council was working with a company who provided loans at a much fairer rate than companies such as Wonga. The information about the feasibility study as well as case studies was available on the Council’s website.

Councillor Iqbal further commented that the Council was working with the Citizens Advice Bureau to provide a triage service to try and assist people with all their financial matters.

Councillor Dore commented that if Mr Watts had any ideas of ways to tackle poverty these would be welcomed by the Council.

5.11

Petition in respect of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools

Suzanne Wilde submitted a petition, containing 445 signatures, requesting that the City Council stop squeezing extra classes of pupils into the already overcrowded Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools. She commented that Dobcroft was the wrong choice for expansion and would not solve the primary school places crisis in Sheffield.

In 2015 there was no demand for additional school places at Dobcroft. Ecclesall School was most in need of expansion as this was central to the area of demand. Already at Dobcroft seven temporary classrooms existed which did not meet building standards. The additional places could not be provided without having to knock down nearby houses.

The School Hall at Dobcroft was already too small at the present time and the school playgrounds would have to be shrunk to accommodate the new classrooms. Ms. Wilde and others’ concerns were also shared by the Governors of both the infant and junior schools who had rejected the Council proposals.

5.12

Public Question in respect of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools

Sarah Jones asked why were parents at Dobcroft given pure catchment figures during the consultation period for the Dobcroft expansion, when the School Reorganisation Team stated they were not a way of assessing demand?

5.13

Public Question in respect of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools

Nadine Cain asked, given the likelihood that the extra 30 places will be filled by non-catchment children, what will be the impact on Holt House and Nether Edge School?

5.14

Public Questions in respect of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools

Richard Coldwell submitted a number of questions on behalf of the Governors of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools in relation to proposals in respect of those Schools as follows:-

(1) The initial consultation suffered from people misinterpreting data, people not having access to criteria-based evidence on why Dobcroft was the preferred option, Sheffield City Council only consulting on one option, and no one coming to engage parents with the debate. All of these risks were highlighted before consultation, by Dobcroft Governors at a meeting with the School Organisation Team on 6 January 2015. Would the School Organisation Team therefore commit to a lessons learned meeting with Governors, that will be reported back to Cabinet, prior to any further consultation?

(2) Following National Offer Day on April 16 will Sheffield City Council make available:

(a) The number of first choice applications to primary schools in South West Sheffield by catchment area;

(b) The numbers from each catchment area who were offered to start in Dobcroft Infants in 2015, and how many from each catchment applied as their first, second or third choice; and

(c) The number of within catchment applications to South West Sheffield Primary Schools which, as of the date, of the release were unsuccessful.

(3) Will the School Re-organisation team commit to coming back to Dobcroft Governors well in advance of any future consultation?

(4) The expenditure of £14k on exploring Dobcroft proposals, and £10k on all other options within the paper has been interpreted by some to suggest far more effort is going into looking at Dobcroft than the other options which appear to solve greater amounts of catchment pressure in the area. Please could the basis for those cost estimates be provided to reassure people that that is not the case, along with clarity of what new intelligence it will buy in order to support any future consultation?

(5) Many hours of Head Teacher, senior leadership, governing body and parent time have been invested so far in a consultation that has, in our opinion, not moved South West Sheffield forward in any way. What estimate is made of the cost of Council resources to date in exploring this issue and managing the initial consultation?

(6) Due to the ‘as the crow flies’ rules, any capacity at Dobcroft not filled by catchment children will be open to lots of children from non-oversubscribed areas (notably Holt House) as a higher priority than the most pressured catchments of Ecclesall and Totley. How, therefore, does the Council consider that increasing Dobcroft catchment is a sensible solution for parents in Ecclesall and Totley?

(7) Related to the previous question, how many parents from Ecclesall and Totley changed their 1^st choice preference from either of those two schools to Dobcroft as a result of the 2015 temporary expansion? This should give us an indication about the desirability of a bigger Dobcroft being a satisfactory solution to the anxieties parents in those catchments currently face?

(8) Is the Council considering changes to catchment boundaries as part of a future solution?

(9) Will the Council reassure us that this ‘pause’ is not merely a result of indecision, with a possible result being the further ‘temporary expansion’ (without consultation) for Dobcroft Infant School in 2016?

5.15

Public Question in respect of Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools

Polly Morley asked how are the health and safety issues associated with thirty extra children being imposed on the School at short notice being addressed?

5.16

In response to the questions on Dobcroft Infant and Junior School, Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, thanked all the members of the public for attending the meeting and for theirs and others’ efforts thus far. She reported that there had been two proposals. Firstly to permanently expand Dobcroft to create places for children in the South West of the City. The other proposal was to temporarily expand Dobcroft with one class of thirty pupils beginning in reception and going all the way through.

She further reported that the proposal to permanently expand Dobcroft School had been paused. During the consultation period many parents, governors and others had come forward with different proposals. The statutory consultation process was for four weeks, so in order to fully explore the other proposals put forward, there was a need to pause the process.

The options presented would be looked into and investigated fully involving all relevant stakeholders and a proposal would again be put forward which would go through the statutory consultation process. People would be kept informed throughout the process and would be invited into discussions about what that proposal might be.

To set the context, Councillor Drayton stated that there had been a 25% increase in the birth rate in the City with particular pressures in the North East and South West. Predicting the need for school places was not an exact science. The Council used figures such as birth rates and who lived within an area. If a new housing development was being built the impact on school places could be predicted. There were other factors where the Council couldn’t predict the impact on school places. For example, families who previously sent their children to private school may decide that they want to send their child to a state school in the area in the future. Changes in the demographic of an area can also not be predicted.

Dobcroft had recently seen eight families within the catchment area refused a place and that had not been predicted. The Council knew there was a need for extra places in the South West area. It was not necessarily the case that those places needed to be at Dobcroft. However, the Council had looked closely at the situation and saw that Dobcroft was in the middle of the Dore, Totley and Ecclesall area. It was also often a second preference for parents. The Council had believed that the temporary expansion of one class would allow those who had indicated Dobcroft as their second preference to remain in the South West area.

Discussions had been held with the school as to whether the Infant School could be expanded. In the Primary Stage, the School and Headteacher believed that could be achieved with financial support from the Council. The Council wanted pupils in the City to achieve their full potential and had no wish to impact on the educational experience of pupils at Dobcroft. The temporary expansion was different to a permanent expansion and a legal process had to be followed. Discussions had been held with the School but there was a need to act swiftly to secure the places.

Councillor Drayton hoped that she had answered the questions about the consultation process. The data had not been misinterpreted and it was not an exact science. The Council always learnt from any consultation. This particular consultation will build on the connections made and talk to parents, teachers, governors and others affected.

After the 16^th April, the Council would know what preferences parents had indicated for their child and the data and figures could be provided after that date. All schools involved in the South West area would be included in the future consultation.

In terms of expenditure, an amount had been put aside for future consultation to explore all options. More work would be done on the expenditure required for Dobcroft School.  All the available options would be explored in depth and detailed reasons would be provided as to why each option was chosen or not chosen.

Councillor Drayton believed consultation was very important. Listening to the voice of parents, teachers, children and governors was crucial and Councillor Drayton apologised if people believed they had not been listened to. The pause showed that people’s views had been listened to and was not about indecision.

There was a need for the temporary expansion, as the letters had been sent out asking parents to indicate their preference and there was a concern that some parents would only indicate one preference and they needed to be shown that Dobcroft had available places.

The City-Wide Learning Body had established a Task and Finish Group to look at admissions and catchment areas would be a part of that. Catchment areas always needed to be reviewed and this would be done as part of this process.

Councillor Drayton did not believe that there would be an impact on Holt House and Nether Edge as there were more places available than people who wanted to go to the schools. Health and safety was always a consideration.

Both Dobcroft Infant and Junior Schools had a headteacher and a senior management team and the education of the children was always a priority.

In response to further questions from the public, Councillor Drayton reported that Ecclesall Infants could be expanded, but not the Juniors as there was not enough space to fit in an additional classroom. It would also not be the best way to manage the situation to ask all schools in the area to take on additional places.

It had already been costed what funding would be needed for the expansion of Dobcroft. What wasn’t known at this stage was the cost for the other options so the figure of 10k was an estimate. If more funding was needed the Council would have to provide more.

In conclusion, Councillor Drayton commented that the recommendation to pause was to look again at whether the Council had got the right option for children and families. That wasn’t to say that the permanent expansion wouldn’t ultimately be the recommended option, but the Council would look again at all options before making a decision.

5.17

Public Questions in respect of Cobnar Cottage

Dennis Brewin submitted a number of questions in relation to Cobnar Cottage at Graves Park as follows:-

1) Why is Sheffield City Council, as trustees of the Graves Park Charity, persisting with the sale of the Cobnar Cottage Site, despite the fact that the Charity Commission has now told them that they must have a scheme?

2) Do they have such a scheme, and if so, what are the details?

3) Are the Cabinet, as trustees of the Graves Park Charity, aware of previous rulings regarding land and buildings within Graves Park during the past 17 years, all of which were resolved by confirmation from the Charity Commission that the land and buildings had to remain as part of Graves Park and could not be sold?

4) Could the trustees explain when the cottage was vacated by the last tenant, why was it not immediately let to another tenant, thus generating income for the Graves Park Charity and conserving an asset?

5) Are the trustees aware that the only reason that the cottage is now in such a deplorably dilapidated state is because of a water leak, which has received no remedial work or repair, leaving the ground floor standing in water for years?

6) Why was the cottage not originally repaired using the Council’s insurance contingency fund?

5.18

Public Questions in respect of Cobnar Cottage

Lawrence Wolstenholme submitted a number of questions in relation to Cobnar Cottage as follows:-

1) Are the trustees aware that the Friends of Graves Park’s own commissioned surveys indicate that to repair the cottage would now cost in excess of £160,000 and it would be considerably cheaper to demolish and rebuild?

2) Are the trustees aware that the Friends of Graves Park had confirmed to their representatives that there would be no cost to the Graves Park Trust if the business plan for the Memorial Garden on the site were to be accepted?

3) Why do the trustees of the Graves Park Charity continue to look for ways to break the covenants instead of working to conserve J.G. Graves gift for the future generations of Sheffield?

4) How can the Trustees of Graves Park guarantee that there will be no further attempts to break the covenants on charitable land within Graves Park if they have already broken the covenants to sell Cobnar Cottage to sell its land?

5.19

Public Questions in respect of Cobnar Cottage

Barbara Greatorex submitted the following questions in relation to Cobnar Cottage:-

1) Why in paragraph 4.7 of the report on Cobnar Cottage does it say that, during discussions with Friends of Graves Park, the “only suggestion made was to demolish Cobnar Cottage and create a memorial garden”?

Are the trustees aware that the Friends’ original suggestion was for the Council to rectify its own neglect by restoring the cottage and renting it to a tenant with duties in the park, or to a tenant?

Are they aware that alternative uses included renting to an artisan, with living accommodation and workshop?

Are the trustees aware that the idea of a memorial garden was only presented as a business plan when it was made clear, in discussions and in writing, that the Council had no intention of supporting the restoration of the cottage for rental purposes, thus preventing the Friends from making any viable application for funding?

2) Are the trustees aware of the value of Cobnar Cottage as an amenity of the Park, given its historical significance? Are they are aware that this is the last remaining detached cottage/workshop (originally there were 6) adjacent to the old London turnpike road?

Are they also aware that the report erroneously states that the trustees of Graves Park will be left with “an increasing maintenance and rates liability” if Cobnar Cottage is not sold, and purports that this is a disbenefit of accepting the Friends of Graves Park option? In fact, the Friends of Graves Park proposition has multiple benefits that should be referred to in the report and presented positively. Because it involves demolishing the cottage and creating a heritage/memorial garden, at no cost to the Graves Park Trust, it actually removes the requirement to pay any residential property rates. It will provide an ongoing garden maintenance contribution from the Friends of Graves Park, where the Graves Park Trust has carried out virtually no maintenance for several years.

5.20

In response to the questions regarding Cobnar Cottage, Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure commented that the report on the agenda for the meeting concerning Cobnar Cottage recommended that an application be made to the Charity Commission for disposal and the sale could only proceed with their approval. If this was granted, the Council would proceed with the sale.

In response to Mr Brewin’s third question regarding previous rulings, Councillor Bowler replied that legal advice from Council Officers indicated that previous rulings should not be considered as they were not relevant to the current proposal. The report made clear that Charity Commission approval was required.

Councillor Bowler stated that Cobnar Cottage was a small property on Cobnar Road and was originally used as a Staff Cottage and had never been part of the park or used by the public. When the parks department no longer had a use for it, it was rented out as a Council home with the rent being paid back to the Charitable Trust.

The Council had to provide the funding to maintain the park and the trustees had to take that into consideration. The last tenant at the cottage left in 2005. This was during the period of investment to bring housing up to the Decent Homes Standard. As with all 'sundry' properties an assessment was made as to the cost effectiveness of bringing the property up to standard. The cost outweighed the return to the Housing Revenue Account and Sheffield Homes recommended that the property be removed from Council Housing stock. Other sundry properties in a similar state were disposed of. In this case the property was not disposed of but could not be rented because of poor condition so was left empty and had been empty for 10 years.

The water leak referred to by Mr Brewin had been brought up in many meetings and, whilst Councillor Bowler acknowledged that everyone would have preferred it not to have happened, the charity does not have the capital to restore the cottage.

The Council did not have an insurance contingency fund and even if they did this particular building was not one of the Council’s assets. The Council’s Capital Resource Pool was very tight. The question was always asked what the benefit of any investment would be, as the Council would have to justify this to the public. The cottage had not been prioritised for investment by the Council over a number of years’ regardless of which administration was in power.

In response to Mr Wolstenholme’s question, Councillor Bowler stated that she was not aware of the £160,000 figure quoted, but regardless, the money was not available for the £100,000 figure she had been quoted. She found it difficult to believe that the public would support the demolition of the cottage but even if there was support the cost of this made it prohibitive.

The Council were aware that the Friends of Graves Park had stated that there would be no initial maintenance cost for a memorial garden on the site of a demolished cottage. However, the trustees needed to consider the benefit for the park as a whole and consider the investment that could be made into the park against the creation of more green space which might well have a maintenance cost in future.

Councillor Bowler took her responsibility as a trustee seriously and believed the park should be preserved for future generations. The cottage was on a small plot outside the park wall not currently used as part of the park and was not publically accessible.

Paragraph 4.3 of the report referred to the legal aspects. The Council were not looking to break the covenant and were seeking legal permission to dispose of this unused cottage and reinvest the receipt in the park.

A number of meetings had been held with the Friends of Graves Park to discuss what to do with the cottage. The Council would have been more than happy if the Friends had been able to present an alternative to disposal which had equal benefit to the park, which was why there had been a pause of the original decision for twelve months to see if the Friends were able to develop a funded proposal.

After the twelve month pause the Friends had reported back to the Council that they had been unable to find a funder to fund the rebuilding project. Therefore the decision for the trustees is to balance the benefit to the charity of demolishing the cottage and creating the memorial garden against disposal and receipt of a Capital sum to reinvest in the park. There were many improvements which could be made to the park.

Councillor Bowler and other Members of the Cabinet were aware of the historical significance of the cottage and would not wish to knock it down although they appreciated the Friends wish to keep the footings. The Council’s proposal did not recommend demolition.