Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Regarding the Preservation of Beauchief Abbey Conservation Area

The Council received an electronic petition containing 665 signatures requesting the Council to preserve the Beauchief Abbey Conservation Area.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Pamela Hodgson, who stated that the land at the end of Beauchief Abbey Lane was intended to remain undeveloped in order to preserve the view of the Abbey from Abbey Lane. In 1992, the Council refused planning permission for residential development on the grounds that the proposed development would result in the loss of valuable open space in the Conservation Area and the effect on the approach to the Abbey and amenity of the area. The land was put up for auction by the Council, but this was withdrawn following protests.

She referred to a recent report in 2015 placing the land at threat of being sold and to the subsequent question at Council following which the Council confirmed that it would review processes which led to the conclusions in the report. She thanked the Council for listening.

Despite these outcomes, the land may again be threatened with development and she stated that it would be in the best interests of the Council and the public to protect the land in perpetuity.

The petition contained more than 700 signatures from those who valued the Abbey and surrounding area and required assurances that the area would never again be threatened with development.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that he was sympathetic to the petitioners and he would examine the issues raised by the petition in more detail to see what could be done.

4.1.2

Petition Requesting an End to the Compulsory Sharing of Rooms in G4S Asylum Housing

The Council received a petition containing 126 signatures requesting an end to the compulsory sharing of rooms in G4S asylum housing.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by John Grayson who stated that there were cases of single asylum seekers being allocated shared rooms and this was known to be a factor affecting people with mental health conditions. G4S was not able to share information concerning the actual number of people sharing a room. He informed the meeting of a particular case involving a man who G4S refused to move from a shared room, despite his health condition. There were also other cases of people with health conditions in similar circumstances.

He stated that the motive for people sharing a room was one of profit. The Council licensed Houses in Multiple Occupation and could use its discretion to apply a single person bedroom standard. Some other local authorities, including Leeds City Council had a policy of requiring separate bedrooms. The Council did have the contract to provide accommodation until 2012 when G4S become the provider of accommodation for asylum seekers. The Council was, he stated, in a strong position to make G4S accountable and it was possible that consideration could be given to whether G4S should continue to have the contract to provide these services.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods.

4.1.3

Public Questions Concerning Asylum Housing

Robert Spooner asked whether the Council was aware that three other councils had revised procurement policies to include ‘gross misconduct’ to preclude certain companies from contracting with them. He asked why Sheffield was not doing so.

Flis Callow referred to information previously given by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources concerning a number of small contracts held with G4S and asked what the current situation was regarding contracts between the Council and G4S.

Jasvinder Khosa referred to other local authorities which did not allow room-sharing by single people in Asylum accommodation and asked whether the City Council would also not permit room-sharing.

Stuart Crosthwaite referred to a house in Sheffield with nine men accommodated within 5 rooms and asked what the Council would do about this situation.

Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods responded to the petition and the questions. He stated that legislation existed concerning Houses in Multiple Occupation and that G4S were exploiting a loophole within what the law allows but which most people might think is morally unacceptable. Councillor Harpham stated that when the law was drawn up, it did not envisage people sharing a space except through choice.

Councillor Harpham stated that the Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health was to make representations about getting the law changed to deal with those cases where it was not somebody’s choice to share a room. He said that he was wholly sympathetic to the cases of asylum seekers in circumstances where they were waiting for their case to be heard. Sheffield was a City of Sanctuary, a fact of which the Council was proud. The practices outlined in the treatment of accommodation for asylum seekers did not fit in with the City’s status as a City of Sanctuary. Councillor Harpham said that he would support representations to change the law in this regard.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Health stated that Sheffield was one of ten local authorities which formed a consortium for housing for asylum seekers for Yorkshire and the Humber. In 2012, the Government decided that it would be less expensive to contract the services out to G4S, which was inexperienced and would be dealing with people who were most vulnerable.

A number of issues had been raised at the consortium concerning G4S and Councillor Iqbal stated that he had written to the relevant Government Minister on this subject. Officers had been instructed that the practice was not acceptable and the Council was in the process of changing policy. Rotherham and Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Councils had decided not to take more asylum seekers due to the practices of G4S and that had affected Sheffield in terms of increasing demand for accommodation. Originally, the 10 consortium members had agreed numbers of asylum seekers that would be accommodated. Sheffield had decided therefore, to implement a pause in taking more asylum seekers until there was change.

The contract for asylum housing also caused providers to seek housing in areas with lower housing values. The Council had decided that, until the Government and G4S resolve these issues, which were having an adverse impact on people, the Council would not take in more asylum seekers. 

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that there were three contracts that were the subject of retendering. Whilst the process was underway, Councillor Curran stated that he did not have the details at this point in time. He undertook to follow up this issue and inform people accordingly.

He stated that he did not know of other local authorities policies on gross misconduct in relation to procurement. A Motion had been passed at the Council meeting in October 2014 concerning the fair tax mark and gross misconduct. The Motion requested that a report was submitted to the Overview and Management Scrutiny Committee as a basis for a draft policy to deal with issues including procurement and companies which commit grave misconduct.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Question Concerning the Cost of Living

Lisa Banes stated that the cost of living had disproportionately affected people in Sheffield and referred to Notice of Motion numbered 10 on the Summons concerning the Liberal Democrats record in government.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, Councillor Ben Curran, stated that he agreed with the questioner and he went on to comment on the Government policies which he said had adversely affected people in Sheffield.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Sheffield Airport

Heather Parys asked why Sheffield does not have an airport.

Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development stated that Doncaster-Sheffield Airport was the airport which it was important to support in the City Region. A link road was to be developed from Sheffield to the Airport which would mean that the journey time to the Airport from Sheffield city centre would be approximately 30 minutes.

Sheffield airport was a subject which had been debated several times by the Council. The former Sheffield airport had not been viable. The development of an airport would be undertaken by the private sector and would be required to go through the planning process.

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning Household Waste Recycling Centres

Dave Berry stated that on 5 February, the Council had made a statement regarding the Green Company, which ran the City’s Household Waste Recycling Centres. He asserted that the company had an ‘awful’ track record and were embroiled in a dispute concerning pay, alleged bullying, welfare facilities and management of the Centres. He stated that the Council had said that it would be taking immediate action and did not have confidence in the company.

However, he said, since that statement, zero hours contracts had increased, disabled workers had been affected, wages had reduced and recycling rates had fallen. He referred to a further prospect of strikes and asked when could people expect to ‘see the back of’ the company and have a local partner delivering the service for the good of the City.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, stated that a lot of attention had been given to the matters raised by the petition, including by herself and the Leader of the Council. She said that there were problems with the Green Company and that she shared the concerns raised regarding the practices outlined.

Councillor Dunn read a statement to say that the strike action had now been suspended for over 4 months, whilst the Council continued to encourage the GMB trades union and the Green Company to find resolutions to their current differences.  In the meantime, the Council continued to work with Veolia to ensure contingency plans were in place to reduce any disruption to the public from any further action.    

She said that, whatever people’s opinions regarding this matter, the Council had to work within the law.

4.2.4

Public Question Concerning Bins

Joshua Wright asked if the Council intended to take away wheeled bins, he also made reference to a recent planning decision concerning Devonshire Street and asked whether the Council was listening to people.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene stated that the Council was not taking away peoples bins. There was a particular problem in some areas with student houses in multi occupation where space was limited and  there were steep steps to properties for example and the Council was considering the use of shared bins in these areas, for example in Sharrow. She noted that the Star newspaper had corrected a story which had it published on this issue. The Council had no intention of generally making people share a bin.

4.2.5

Public Question Concerning Litter and Fly-Tipping

Debbie Roberts asked for the number of individuals or companies which had been prosecuted in relation to littering or fly-tipping in the past 12 months. She referred to an example on Pitsmore Road, where yellow tape had been put on rubbish but the rubbish itself had not been removed.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene stated that the number of fines issued for littering was 1000. With regard to the use of enviro-tape, this was used to show people that littering or flytipping had occurred and was proven to reduce the incidence of fly-tipping. Councilor Dunn stated that she would contact the questioner to give more information about the prosecutions of offenders.

4.2.6

Public Question Concerning Ethical Procurement

Hilary Smith stated that in June 2014, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources expressed views concerning the morality of the company G4S and had indicated that a review would take place of ethical procurement, to which the groups which she represented had been consulted and had given the Council information on issues of concern. She said that no further information had been received as to what was happening with regards to an ethical procurement policy for the Council.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources responded that he was sorry if the questioner felt as though her group had not been treated like a partner in the process. He confirmed that the Council did value their input. It was his view he said, that the Council might co-opt one of the group onto the Council’s Overview and Management Scrutiny Committee for the purposes of this issue. A report would be submitted to the Scrutiny Committee and recommendations may then be made as a result.

4.2.7

Public Questions Concerning Devonshire Street

Nigel Slack stated that the decision by the Planning Committee on 24 March 2015 in favour of the demolition of Devonshire Street, in the face of strong opposition from thousands of Sheffield citizens was justified as unavoidable because of planning law. However, those at the meeting will have heard the development officers say that this was a judgement call based on their views of the situation. It was also pointed out, after a question from a Member that it would be feasible to reject the application and still “get away with it” if it went unchallenged. Mr Slack stated that he disagreed with Councillor Bramall's press statement that laid all the blame at the door of the planning laws.

Mr Slack said that he agreed that this would best be solved by the devolution of planning powers to local authorities but that the Committee must exercise their decisions regardless of the fear of litigation or all their credibility would be lost.

He stated that it was concerning that this decision had effectively left Sheffield with no planning protection at all. Officers, he said had declared that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was out of date and could not be relied upon to guide the planning process. This he said was firmly at the door of the Councils, of both colours, for failing to adopt a new overall planning policy for the City.

Mr Slack asked when a new planning policy will be available for the City or was the Council happy to declare what he termed “open season” for developers in the City.

Secondly, Mr Slack referred to a significant backlash on social networks following the Architects’ publication of some photos and comments appearing to show what he called “an inappropriate level of gloating over the decision on Devonshire Street.”

He said that a comment was also made that the head of that same company has been appointed to the Council's 'Sustainable Development & Design Panel'. Mr Slack asked whether Council could confirm or deny this and, if it was the case, when did this happen; and if there was not a conflict of interest in this appointment?

Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development stated that he took issue with the premise of Mr Slack’s questions that the Council should not act in accordance with planning laws. The planning laws were set nationally and the Committee should not act against planning law on the basis that they might (in reference to an appeal of the decision) “get away with it”. There was little local discretion in current planning law, for example in relation to applications for change of use to betting shops, where the Council considered there would be need for a change of use. There was a need for proper devolution in relation to planning decisions. The Council had, in the past, made planning decisions which had resulted in costs being awarded against it. The decision concerning Devonshire Street was made based on planning law, rather than a fear of litigation.

The issue which was raised when considering Devonshire Street concerning the Unitary Development Plan being out of date related to one policy in the Plan. The City did have a UDP in place. Consultation was being carried out in relation to the Local Plan and the UDP would be updated to ensure it was robust.

There were some conditions which were attached to the planning approval for the Devonshire Street application, for example that construction would not commence until a contract for construction was issued. There was a local policy for the Devonshire Quarter, which was in the UDP. The accommodation element of the application was positive, in that footfall helped to drive the economy and it was important to build the business and residential base in the City Centre. Councillor Bramall said that, speaking personally, he would have preferred the retention of the building frontages on Devonshire Street with the new building behind. However, he fully understood the reasons for which the Committee had made its decision on the application. He said that he supported the concept of further devolution of planning issues to a local level.

David Cross had applied to become a member of the Sheffield Sustainable Development and Urban Design Panel in 2009 as part of an open recruitment process. There were 29 Panel Members in total. Councillor Bramall said that he would examine the issue further.

With reference to comments made on social media, Councillor Bramall stated that the comments to which Mr Slack had referred were extremely ill-judged, but there had been some examples of ill-judged comments made from people on both sides of the debate.

4.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Election Candidates

Martin Brighton stated that recent election news reports had included:

fixing or otherwise engineering the selection of preferred election candidates; creating the illusion of a problem and claiming kudos for solving it; and advising on ways of avoiding declaration of funds. He asked whether it could be expected that such behaviour would never happen locally, and that the Monitoring Officer would act swiftly and decisively if such did happen.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that in relation to the examples that Mr Brighton had given in his questions, which concerned the Parliamentary election, it was for the parliamentary parties to deal with individual issues. She said that locally, it would be expected that swift and decisive action would be taken if such issues occurred.

4.2.9

Public Question Concerning ‘Whistle-Blowers’

Martin Brighton stated that agenda item 12 paragraph (a) referred to “allegations of “whistle-blowers” being targeted and gagged”.

He asked whether the Leader abhorred “whistle-blowers” being targeted and gagged.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that, where the “whistle-blower” was one within the definition of a “whistle-blower” in law, then, she would answer “yes” to Mr Brighton’s question. She added that anyone who complains should not be ‘targeted and gagged’.

4.2.10

Public Question Concerning Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Martin Brighton asked what can the Council do to prevent the further privatisation of the NHS and further resist the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, stated that there had been a top down reorganisation of the NHS by the Government. She referred to difficulties relating to accident and emergency waiting lists and problems in cancer care and declining morale amongst NHS employees. She stated that there was a two tier health care system of people who could and those that could not afford to pay for care. The Council had debated notices of motion concerning the NHS and had lobbied the Government. There was also notice of motion on the agenda for this Council meeting. It was a policy of the Labour Party that the NHS was exempt from the TTIP.

4.2.11

Public Question Concerning Complaints About Elected Members

Martin Brighton referred to agenda item 7, which concerned a revised complaints procedure. He asked the following questions:

1.    Why is otherwise unacceptable behaviour tolerated if part of political debate?

2.    Why is the effect upon reputation to the council a consideration of not processing a complaint?

3.    Can it be assured that the Independent Person will not be a member of the same political party as the elected member?

4.    Who decides which clause of the Code of Conduct is breached when a complaint is raised against an elected member?

5.    If it is determined that an elected member breaches the code, is the defence of 'he goaded me' an acceptable reason for dismissing the complaint?

6.    Is it wise to have a complaints process that has no right of appeal?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she would request the Monitoring Officer to respond in writing to the questions which Mr Brighton had submitted above.

(Note: Marcus O’Hagan commented as to whether the Council would be adopting a process for allowing members of the public to speak at meetings in circumstances when they were not content with the answer that they had received to a question which they had put. No response was made to his comment.)

4.3

Petition Requesting that John Burkhill  (“Man With a Pram”) be Honoured with a star on the City’s Walk of Fame

The Council received a petition containing 9,256 signatures requesting that John Burkhill (“Man With a Pram”) be honoured with a star on the City’s Walk of Fame.

There was no speaker to the petition. The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure.

Councillor Bowler agreed that John Burkhill was definitely a local legend in Sheffield and his fundraising activities could be seen around the City.

The Sheffield Legends plaques, set into the pavement outside the Town Hall, were to honour people with a strong link to the City with a national or, more usually an international profile. They were part of the City’s offer to visitors and tourists. Therefore, anyone with a legend star needed to be someone well known to people outside Sheffield and usually outside the UK. People such as Jessica Ennis-Hill.

However, the Council recognised that Sheffielders have a strong positive feeling about John Burkhill, and that he is something of an institution in the City. Councillor Bowler said that she had spoken with the Leader of the Council and the Lord Mayor and it had been agreed to invite Mr Burkhill to the lunch reception on 2 April, which would be attended by Her Majesty the Queen.

In considering what other honour might be appropriate, it was acknowledged that there was not a suitable form of recognition for people or groups who were not always well known but had done exceptional things. It was proposed therefore that the civic awards scheme, which had fallen into abeyance, is re-launched in conjunction with the Lord Mayor. Options would be brought forward for ways in which people could be nominated for the award. The reintroduction of the award would mean that Sheffield had a way of honouring the exceptional work done by people in Sheffield.

Councillor Bowler thanked Mr Burkhill, and all the exceptional volunteers and fundraisers in the City, for everything they had done.