Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the Disposal of Assets

Nigel Slack commented that he had been approached by a number of concerned individuals with regard to the vague and lacking communication from one company in particular, Kier.

The concerns centred around the way Kier were disposing of Council property and the unhelpful attitude that they appeared to be adopting to community groups and members of the public in respect to the plans for various community assets the Council owned.

Mr Slack therefore asked what exactly was Kier’s role in the disposal of Council assets? What instructions have been given about when and how to dispose of assets in community use? And what instructions have they been given about co-operating with the concerns and questions expressed by community groups and the public?

Was any of this available in writing, either as minutes of meetings or as documentary record of decisions and meetings between Kier and the Council?

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, responded that the Kier contract covered a number of areas. They carried out all lettings and disposals for the Council with the Council, carrying out the decision making. Councillor Curran was aware of some instances where the letting or disposal had not gone as desired. On some occasions there had been some responsibility for this from Kier. However, there were other things that were not necessarily Kier’s fault which would not be immediately apparent.

The Property team at the Council were always involved throughout the process. If Mr Slack provided specific examples where he was concerned, Councillor Curran would investigate these. As the Kier contract was due to expire next Summer, the Council was looking into all available options and specific examples of practice would assist this process

5.2

Public Question in respect of Devonshire Street Shops

Nigel Slack stated that the Council would be aware that a legal challenge to the decision about the Devonshire Street parade of shops was in the offing. Therefore, what would happen if the Council chose not to defend the challenge?

In response, Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing, commented that if the Council did not defend their position the matter would likely end up in Court. The matter had been considered at a meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee and proper process had been followed, so she would be confident that the Council would be able to defend its decision.

5.3

Public Question on Devolution

Nigel Slack commented that with the return of a majority Conservative Government to Westminster, what were the prospects that there will be central pressure to amend the City Region deal struck at the beginning of the year? Will we see a directly elected Mayor on the horizon again?

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, responded that a number of deals had been agreed with the Government in terms of devolution. The Council would expect the City Deal to be amended if it meant the Council acquiring new powers or strengthening existing ones. The City Deal did have some good elements but the Council believed that it did not go far enough, so would like to see this extended.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, was clearly in favour of Elected Mayors. The Council would be willing to talk to any Government on the matter if it meant the offer of new powers or funding. However, any agreement would need to be in the interests of the people of Sheffield and the Council would need to approach this in the right way.

5.4

Public Question on Dobcroft School

Suzanne Wilde asked in the light of the spend required to make Dobcroft Infant School fit for purpose to receive the 2015 bulge class of non-catchment children, as outlined in appendix 8.1 of today’s budget monitoring report, what reassurance can you give us that the Council will follow an impartial strategy for any future school place plans using your published selection criteria, rather than seeking to maximise your return on the Dobcroft bulge investment to the detriment of South West Children?

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, stated that the second to last sentence in the second paragraph in Appendix 8.1 in the section on Dobcroft Infant School was factually incorrect and that she had requested that this be removed. The temporary expansion would involve one class progressing all the way through the school and would be a positive addition for the school going forward.

The proposal to permanently expand Dobcroft had been paused and was currently out to consultation and there was a variety of ways in which people could be involved such as an online survey or workshops. The final proposal would be submitted to a future Cabinet meeting for consideration.

(Note. Adam Butcher submitted two questions prior to the meeting. As he had been unable to attend the meeting it was agreed that a written response would be provided to his questions).