Agenda item

7.1

Petitions

7.1.1

Petition Requesting the Closure of Nether Edge Road

The Council received an electronic petition containing 6 signatures, requesting the closure of Nether Edge Road to all road users for one day a month.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Councillor Fox stated that a 20 mph Zone had been implemented in an area to the edge of Nether Edge Road and that 20 mph zones were generally designed to be self-enforcing. There might be occasions when delivery vehicles use the road. He stated that the Council would examine this issue.

7.1.2

Petition Objecting to Council Budget Cuts

The Council received a petition containing 928 signatures, objecting to the Council budget cuts.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Chaz Lockett, who referred to previous comments by the Leader of the Council and Council’s Chief Executive concerning the effect of budget reductions on the future of Council services. He stated that he believed that further budget cuts were not an option and that there was an option of resisting further cuts to funding by the government. He requested the Council to draw up a needs budget and use its borrowing powers and then to launch a mass campaign, for which he stated that Council would obtain public support. He stated that he had been told in the past that the Secretary of State would send in commissioners to run the Council’s affairs if it was unable to set a balanced budget. However, he believed that the government would not risk such a constitutional crisis if it was to ignore the will of local people. He stated that in implementing budget reductions arising from government funding cuts, the Council was left to look as if it was a willing executioner. He urged the Council to ‘break the law or break the poor’.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Councillor Curran responded that the issues outlined  by the petitioners had been discussed a number of times. He said that he would stand shoulder to shoulder with people who wished to obtain a better and fair deal for Sheffield. However, he said that the Council would not follow the suggestion that it should set an illegal budget. The Council had a responsibility to set a budget that was within its means and the vast majority of its funding came from central government. Furthermore, borrowing of the kind proposed was likely to cause problems in the future. He believed that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, would deploy commissioners to intervene in circumstances where he considered that the Council had not set a balanced budget. Members of the Council were elected to do what they could with the available resources.

7.1.3

Petition Requesting the Council to Challenge the practice of Downgrading School Support Staff

The Council received a petition containing 1371 signatures and requesting the Council to challenge the practice of downgrading school support staff.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Lisa Smith, who stated that school support staff played a vital role in providing high quality education in schools and ensuring that children were able to reach their potential, something which could only be achieved if resources were effectively deployed.

It was not accepted that standards of education could be raised by employing staff, including teaching assistants, on low grades or phasing posts out completely. A significant number of schools were choosing to downgrade support staff and it was argued that such actions would have the effect of demotivating experienced staff and lowering standards. It was important that support staff supported the most vulnerable children, including those with special educational needs and behavioural difficulties as well as supporting mainstream learning.

The petitioners therefore called upon Members and other influential groups including the City Wide Learning Body and the Schools Forum to challenge the practice of downgrading support staff and to actively encourage the retention of experienced staff and to ensure opportunities for career progression. UNISON and the GMB trades unions supported the School Support Staff Working Party in its aims and parents and the public valued the role of Support Staff. Lisa Smith stated that the Working Party had met with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families and would be meeting with the Chief Executive in the Autumn. The Working Party wished to engage in further dialogue and hoped that the Council would give this matter its full consideration.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton confirmed that she had met with the Working Group and had been impressed with them and she had also been impressed by School Support Staff in Sheffield schools, who helped to raise children’s educational attainment, and achieve their potential. Councillor Drayton said the Support Staff in schools were valued and remarked that many of these were women who had progressed in their roles. The issue would be considered by the Schools Forum and the City Wide Learning Body. She said that initiatives in schools implemented by the Coalition Government had not been supported by new money and schools budgets were not increasing, including in relation to training. This meant that schools had to make difficult spending decisions and often had to train staff in other schools and pay for cover in the classroom. The matters raised by the petitioners would be taken up with schools and the Government as it was not acceptable that due to the funding situation, School Support staff had to be reduced in number or downgraded. Councillor Drayton said that she looked forward to the next meeting with the Working Group.

7.2

Public Questions

7.2.1

Public Question Concerning Yemen

Jonathan Marsden stated that the recent events in Yemen were both a humanitarian crisis in Yemen itself and they affected the large Yemeni community in Sheffield supporting their family and friends. He referred to the steelworkers from Yemen in Sheffield who worked alongside his grandfather. He asked why such historical attachments may have been lost and asked if the Council would support events organised to support the people of Yemen, following the Sheffield Trade Council’s motion on the subject. 

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, replied that she agreed that people, including young people, should be aware of Sheffield’s history, including its people and industry. She said she would be prepared to look at the idea of an event in recognition of the Yemeni community’s contribution to the City’s steel industry in a similar way to the City recognising women’s contribution to the Sheffield during the First and Second World Wars. Councillor Dore requested that Mr Marsden contact her with details of the Trades Council’s activity on the matter. 

7.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Walkley Library

Marcus O’Hagan asked if (1) the Council could assure and demonstrate fully to the people of Sheffield, who were the owners of Walkley Library, that with regards to the proposed sale of the Walkley Library building:

a.    It was in the best interests of the City as a whole

b.    It was a better option than to lease to the community group at a peppercorn rent

c.    A better option was to lease to the intended purchaser

d.    It was by every applicable measure, legal; and

could the Council also demonstrate that all steps to ensure best value had been taken.

(2) Could the Council also give assurance that there are or will be safeguards in place to prevent the building being sold on or otherwise disposed of in the event of the proposed public house business and/or the community library operation failing.

(3) Could the Council confirm or ensure that planning permission for the public house/library is obtained before there is any sale of the building.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that she had signed a Leader’s decision concerning the disposal of Walkley Library. The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Councillor Isobel Bowler was responsible for libraries. She was satisfied by assurances that this was the best option for the building and had held a briefing with officers in relation to this decision and taken appropriate legal advice. The Council would have control of the library space and would also have the first option on buying back the building, if the venture failed. Planning consent was a matter for the purchaser and the sale of the building would take place only once the relevant planning permission had been obtained. This would be subject to the normal process of seeking planning permission. There would be a parallel process in as far as the Council would undertake preparatory work to enable it to proceed with the sale.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that the decision, notified to Members earlier that day concerning Walkley Library had been called in for scrutiny.

7.2.3

Public Questions Concerning Questions asked at Council Meetings

Marcus O’Hagan stated that he had asked a number of valid and reasonable questions in Council meetings since January 2014 and had repeated those questions at both Council meetings and Cabinet meetings and had resubmitted them at the request of the Leader of the Council. He said the Leader had promised on several occasions to answer the questions but that no answer had ever been provided. He asked whether some disciplinary action could be taken. Mr O’Hagan went on to make a comment about whether he could believe what the Leader said. 

Councillor Julie Dore responded that in her view Mr O’Hagan had, in referring to her personally, made offensive comments. She said that she would be very concerned if Mr O’Hagan was suggesting that there was some improper relationship between the Council and the purchaser of the Walkley Library building. Councillor Dore stated that Mr O’Hagan could bring to the attention of the Council’s Monitoring Officer any behaviour of hers about which he had concerns and the matter would be dealt with in the appropriate way.

7.2.4

Public Question Concerning the Police and Crime Commissioner Independent Advisory Panel for Minority Communities

Kalturn Elmi stated that a large number of the Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) community in Sheffield felt that the BAME Police Advisory Panel set up by the Police and Crime Commissioner was not fully representative of the whole community by ethnicity or religion and had no BAME Councillors represented on it. There was a strong feeling in large parts of the community that they were not adequately represented and that there was a danger that they will not be involved or engaged with the Panel. It was requested that the Leader meet with the Police and Crime Commissioner, Alan Billings, to communicate these concerns and to request that the Panel has BAME Councillors and that the whole community was represented equally, rather than just a section of it.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that the Police and Crime Commissioner had in place a Police and Crime Panel as part of the governance framework to ensure scrutiny of the Commissioner’s activities. Councillor Isobel Bowler was the Chair of the Panel, which consisted of Councillors from across South Yorkshire and which included Sheffield City Councillor John Campbell. Sheffield aimed to achieve cross community representation on those bodies on which it was represented. Councillor Dore said that she was aware that the Police and Crime Commissioner had established a range of advisory panels (although she was not aware that any Councillors were included on the membership of the Independent Advisory Panel for Minority Communities). However,   the Commissioner had also appointed an official Black and Minority Ethnic Advisor.

7.2.5

Public Questions Concerning Sheffield Bus Company

Nigel Slack referred to consultation for a new Sheffield Bus Partnership which was awaiting approval from the City Council before it could begin. He said that he believed that Sheffield Transport Users Group had seen the proposed consultation document but could not disseminate it, until the go-ahead had been given by the Council. He said that the consultation of four weeks was short, especially as it was over the summer holidays and included some major proposed changes.

Mr Slack asked if the Council could confirm that they had approved the consultation and, if not, what was the delay and why was consultation being held over the summer and to such a tight timescale?

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, replied that the consultation would begin on Monday 6 July. The timescale was due to the limited period for registration and consequent timeline.

7.2.6

Public Question Concerning Academy Group, Oasis

Nigel Slack stated that the Council was hopefully aware of the poor report from Ofsted concerning the Academy Group, Oasis and he made reference to comments in a letter to the Academy Group’s Chief Executive from Catherine Anwar (HM Inspector) concerning weak challenge and to slow or little improvement in nearly half of the academies. He said that the Group was failing its disadvantaged pupils. The group’s objective, he said, was to create “a church that is a school and a school that is a church”. Mr Slack asked how the Council intended to address this for future decisions of this nature.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, replied that the Council was aware of Ofsted’s findings in this case. There were 44 Oasis Schools in the country and the Council monitored performance of the schools and challenged Oasis Academy leaders and directors to achieve schools and results which were outstanding in terms of their performance. The Government had stipulated that all newly opened schools would become academies and whilst the local authority ran the process of choosing an academy provider, ultimately the decisions concerning academy status were taken by the Secretary of State for Education.

7.2.7

Public Questions Concerning Highways Trees

Nigel Slack referred to enquiries which he had sent to Cabinet members on 17 June, to which he required full responses. One of these was relevant to the upcoming debate on the City’s tree policy and he asked that a response to the relevant questions be provided now or as part of the forthcoming debate.

Councillor Terry Fox replied that Mr Slack’s questions were pertinent to the forthcoming debate concerning highways trees and commented that because the Council had less people to deal with enquiries, there was sometimes a delay in providing responses as quickly as people might like.

Mr Slack had asked a question about ensuring that wood which was removed was sold on behalf of the Council, rather than being sent to biomass. Councillor Fox said that timber which was removed was used in biomass. The wood was often decayed and had a high level of particulate matter. Wood was also used in construction or by artists or crafts people. Councillor Fox confirmed that answers to the other questions which he had submitted to Cabinet would be provided.

7.2.8

Public Questions Concerning Executive Boards

Nigel Slack stated that following an article in the Sheffield Telegraph on 26 June concerning the creation of five new executive boards for the City, could the Council clarify the following:

-        By what decision of Cabinet or Council were these new Executive Boards constituted?

-        What powers will they have, over what aspects of the City’s functions and particularly over spending?

-        What scrutiny arrangements have been set up for them?

-        How often will they meet and where?

-        Will their meetings be public?

-        Will they be minuted?

-        Will the public be able to contribute to these boards. If so, how?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council stated that she had a report on the subject for Mr Slack to take away. The Boards were City Region Boards designed to strengthen the governance of the City Region Combined Authority and the development of strategy and policy. The creation of the Executive Boards did not mean that Sheffield would cede powers them. One area of attention concerned the provision of more housing and social housing in the City Region. Councillor Dore said that she would be chairing the Transport and Business Growth Executive Boards. The Council’s Chief Executive and others would be members of other Boards. The creation of the Executive Boards was agreed by the Combined Authority on 22 June 2015.

7.2.9

Public Questions Concerning Trees

Jenny Hockey stated that the Council had indicted in the local media that it did not believe heave to be an issue on Rustlings Road. Experts had suggested that it is a strong possibility. She asked to see the evidence that it was not. She asked who would be sued if the Council was wrong, Amey or the Council? The campaigners appeared to have received conflicting information as to who would be responsible.

David Garlovsky asked why the City Council’s Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy consultation drafted in 2000/01 had not been adopted and implemented; and was it not now the time to review and implement that document to give consistent coherence in managing street trees in Sheffield.

Freda Brayshaw asked who makes the decision about felling or retaining trees. She said that Councillor Fox had indicated that it was a Sheffield City Council arboriculturist. She asked does this person inspect the trees to be felled or scan a list before giving the go ahead, as the process was not clear.

Colin Carr stated that the City was over half way through the initial five year programme of Amey’s 25 year contract. In any business project, half way through was considered a sensible point at which to do a review, did the Council not agree?

Diane Carr asked if the Council agreed that the matter was too complicated to debate at the meeting today and that a Scrutiny Committee should look at the issue and much longer should be taken to review the situation.

Louise Wilcockson stated that, whilst queries had gone unanswered, it was understood from the local media that there have been three incidents relating to the trees on Rustlings Road. The response of completely removing the trees appeared to be disproportionate. She asked for confirmation that proper risk assessments had been carried out using published industry guidance and explaining how they came to the conclusion (that trees should be felled).

David Kelly asked whether the Council had undertaken a study on the possible increased flood risk if a large number of trees in the City were replaced with saplings.

A question was asked on behalf of Jan Spencer as to why the Council was not listening to experts with no financial interest, such as Professor Ian Rotherham, rather than Amey, which was motivated by profit.

Helen McIlroy asked what was going to happen to the timber from the felled trees and whether it was being sold and that was a motive for felling so many healthy mature trees.

Madelene Johnson indicated that her question concerning homes on Rustlings Road affected by heave or flooded cellars had been asked by Jenny Hockey.

7.3

Petition Requiring Debate Concerning the Retention of Trees on Rustlings Road

The Council received a joint paper and electronic petition containing over 10,000 signatures concerning the retention of 12 Lime trees on Rustlings Road. The Council’s Petitions Scheme required that any petition containing over 5,000 signatures would be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  The wording of the petition was as follows:-

“We, the undersigned, refute the assertion that the felling of Lime (Tilia sp.) trees on Rustlings Road is necessary. Instead, we demand, and believe it imperative, that sensitive engineering solutions be adopted and implemented to enable the long-term retention of these trees.

Evidence indicates that such large trees contribute significantly to local climate regulation, filtration of atmospheric pollutants, sustainable urban drainage, biodiversity, ecology: health and wellbeing and amenity; through their beauty and our pleasure of its enjoyment, which enriches our lives.

Twelve trees are marked for destruction, for 'damage to pavements'. We believe the damage is minor and does not significantly impair accessibility for disabled people, or the use of prams and pushchairs. It is our opinion that sensitive engineering solutions, such as pavement restructuring and localized remediation near trees, with kerb stones sculpted to accommodate root morphology, would represent a sustainable solution to perceived problems.

Loss of these Lime trees would represent a significant loss of a valuable foraging resource for bees (honey from Lime flowers is much prized) and particularly for bats, as the Lime Leaf Aphid (Eucallipterus tiliae) – a favored prey item - only occurs on Lime trees. Lines could be painted on the road to prevent parking under trees, thereby minimizing the risk of damage to vehicles, to a level firmly within the “broadly acceptable region” of tolerability.

Sub-veteran, mature trees, such as these Limes, represent our cultural heritage and are irreplaceable. We demand that alternative, sensitive engineering solutions be implemented as an alternative to felling.”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Louise Wilcockson and Alan Robshaw. The proposal to fell 12 Lime trees on Rustlings Road was part of the work on the City’s highways PFI (Private Finance Initiative). The petitioners believed that the trees could be retained if appropriate highways solutions were implemented. 1000s of trees were to be felled as part of the highways PFI programme and the debate about the retention of trees also concerned the quality of people’s lives and the type of City people wanted to see.

The Council was obliged to conduct risk assessments and also had to have regard to ensure that proportionate decisions were made. The Council’s 25 year contract with Amey would have flexibility to allow for changes in policy.

Members of the Council had been sent a paper, produced by the petitioners in support of the Save Our Rustlings Trees (SORT) campaign. In 2001, the Council had produced a consultation paper or strategy on trees, the content of which had not been adopted or implemented.

The Council was requested to exercise its power to refer the matter to a Scrutiny Committee, produce a strategy for trees and take stock of the highways contract with Amey to prevent the loss of further street trees, which were a valuable asset to the City, which was one of the greenest cities in Britain and Europe.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.1 (b), the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport responded to the petition, following which the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport spoke on the matter.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to the petition. He acknowledged that the issue was a challenging one and applauded the residents and campaigners for all their efforts in bringing the matter to the Council. He understood the need for scrutiny of decisions made by the Council and stated that since 2012, the Streets Ahead programme had been considered three times by the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

For generations, people had demanded that the Council take action about the roads and paths and street lighting in the City and the Streets Ahead programme enabled the City’s highways to be improved to a first class standard for all residents. However, there were challenges in delivering what was a large scale project, including the logistics, keeping the City moving and of the Council taking people along with it. The Council had to work within the applicable legislation including that relating to highways, equalities and health and safety. The Council was working to give people inclusive mobility.

A survey was done in 2006/7 to inform the priorities as part of the formation of the Streets Ahead contract. This found that Sheffield had a 74 percent mature tree stock, with few young trees. There was a rate of decline, evidenced by the number of trees requiring treatment, which would rapidly accelerate. The Council therefore had to pursue a programme of tree replacement and maintenance. Councillor Fox referred to the Forestry Commission’s stance on the capacity of younger and mature trees to absorb carbon dioxide. Young trees absorb carbon dioxide quickly while they are growing. As a tree ages, a steady state was reached and at that point, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed through photosynthesis was equal to that lost through respiration and decay. Over 2000 highways trees had been replaced and, as part of the Streets Ahead programme, details of trees which were to be removed were available at roadshow events. Councillors had challenged the replacement of highways trees at Scrutiny Committees.

The City was approximately half way through the first 5 years of the project, during which time 2000 streets trees which were dangerous, dead, dying, diseased or damaging to pavements or roads or causing obstruction had been removed. 2019 street trees had been planted. Since January 2015, the Council had planted 50,000 trees, creating 17 new woodlands.

In relation to process, Amey made recommendations to the Council concerning which trees should be removed from the highway and by which category. The Council then assessed each tree and make a decision about whether or not a tree should be felled.

He pointed out that the Streets Ahead programme began with cross party support as the need to improve Sheffield’s highways was understood. There was a risk that in increasing access and improving mobility, some highway trees would become vulnerable. An assessment was made as to whether there was wildlife such as birds and bats living in the tree before work began and if necessary, the felling of the tree would be delayed. The felling of a tree was a last resort.

Details were provided in advance to ward councillors of any trees which were to be felled as part of the core works and residents received a work start leaflet to tell them that works were happening in their area. Meetings were held with community groups to inform them of tree felling in the area and to gather their views and comments. If requested, tree walks would be arranged to provide people with more information about why a tree needed to be felled and what it would be replaced with. Notices were also placed on trees which had been identified to be removed.

There were 30 trees on Rustlings Road. 11 had been identified to be felled and 19 were being retained by sensitive engineering solutions. If some of these trees could be retained, then they would be. Any trees that were removed would be replaced. In addition, 9 trees which were removed many years ago and were not replaced would now be replaced.

There had been a pause to the work on Rustlings Road, Wayland Road and Bowood Road until the debate at this Council meeting had taken place.

For the avoidance of doubt, Councillor Fox said that the Council did not pay Amey more, no matter how many trees were felled and any felling of a tree was as a last resort. The Council’s tree experts were trained, although it was also the case that experts were likely to have differing views. The Council had to work within legal constraints.

Councillor Fox suggested that a Highway Tree Forum was established so that people including residents, lobby groups and specialist groups could have discussions and the Council was able to consult people about policy. He concluded by congratulating the residents and campaigners and acknowledged their strong feeling towards the City.

Councillor Joe Otten, the Shadow Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, then spoke on the matter and referred to concerns about the application of criteria to the trees on Rustlings Road. Trees were able to absorb carbon dioxide and contributed to an improvement in air quality, which affected people’s health. It was acknowledged that if a tree was assessed to be unsafe, then it should be removed. However, there would be concern if removal of the trees was for the convenience of the highways PFI programme. He said that the policy should be reviewed and that people should be consulted before action was taken to remove trees.

Members of the City Council then debated the matters raised by the petition, as summarised below:

The City should have had in place a planting and felling regime for decades and the Streets Ahead programme was important in so far as it was upgrading and would maintain the highways, which had been neglected. The ageing population would require accessible footpaths to enable them to be mobile. Tree walks had been arranged in order to provide opportunities for local people to gain an explanation of what would happen to trees on the highways and there was also a role for ward councillors in the programme relating to highways trees. 

Members had been informed that, by default, trees on highways would remain in place, unless they were terminally diseased or presented a danger. Information requested, including a plan of the trees on Rustlings Road and details of any accidents which had been reported relating to the pavement on Rustlings Road had not yet been received.

The City was proud of its reputation as a green city which was pro-tree. The Council was also the custodian of the City’s road network and had a duty of care to people using highways and footpaths and obligations under highways and disabilities legislation. It was most important that people using wheelchairs or those with a visual impairment were able to walk safely.

It was important to make sure the Streets Ahead programme was operating properly and there was an opportunity to examine how highways trees were managed across the City as part of the programme. From observations on Rustlings Road, there appeared to be discrepancies between the identified species of tree and its actual location, therefore there was risk that the incorrect tree would be removed. Mature trees should be retained, where possible. It was proposed that a 2 month moratorium be put in place before further action was taken to fell the trees on Rustlings Road, a Scrutiny Committee was requested to examine the matter and that the previous draft policy circa 2000/01 was examined.

The lack of a comprehensive tree strategy for Sheffield might mean that some services were working in isolation. There was concern that tree planting was not always in accordance with standard guidance; the ecology unit had not seen the detail of trees that Amey was considering for removal; and that replacement saplings were not an equivalent like for like replacement. 

Some species of trees, which were planted on highways and in housing estates earlier in the twentieth century, were inappropriate for the highways of today and pavement surfaces were damaged by tree roots. It was necessary to replace these trees with a species more appropriate to highways.

There was concern that, in some cases, local Councillors were being obstructed in carrying out their role in relation to trees. People also felt they were not being listened to. The Council did have responsibilities in relation to the management of trees and in relation to issues of mobility and access and independent experts should be sought to examine the various issues.

Three new park areas had been opened and new woodlands created, including through the grey to green programme. It was important to maintain the highway so that it was safe for everyone and enabled people to get out and about. It was also crucial to preserve green spaces. Ten percent of highway trees required urgent attention, with a further 70 percent nearing the end of their life. The Streets Ahead contract stated that 50% (or 18,000) of highway trees could be removed as part of the programme. However, two and a half years into the five year programme of core works, only 2,000 had been removed.

The lead petitioners, exercised a right of reply, stating that this was a complex issue and that there was insufficient time to look at all of the matters in detail or to consider the written representations which the petitioners had submitted to the Council, including that a city-wide strategy for trees should also include street trees. It was suggested that referring the matter to a Scrutiny Committee would enable an effective response to the matters raised by the petition and the petitioners would be pleased to work with the Committee and Council officers.

They suggested that systems of evaluation used elsewhere were employed and pointed to the value of trees to the City and to petitioners’ request for an independent external assessment, including of each replacement tree. It was considered that there were still unanswered questions arising from the process and there was also a matter of accountability for the Council, which also had a right to know that the programme was being carried out correctly.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, responded to matters which were raised during the debate and stated that the various issues raised would be looked at in more detail. He proposed that a Tree Forum was established to help discuss and consult with people in relation to highways trees.

The meeting adjourned to consider the courses of action available to the Council based on the nature of the petition.

The meeting then reconvened and the following courses of action were proposed:

It was moved by Councillor Terry Fox, seconded by Councillor Tony Downing that this Council:-

(a)       notes that there are over two million trees across the City, including 36,000 highway trees, and is proud of Sheffield’s status as the greenest city;

(b)       welcomes that a record number of trees are being planted across the City by the Administration;

(c)        confirms that the policy of removing trees that are dead, damaged, dying, diseased, dangerous or discriminatory is a long standing policy, and is in place to maintain a Sheffield standard and ensure the safety of local residents;

(d)       notes that the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport has held numerous meetings with local Councillors and officers, to explore any new engineering solutions, but none were, or have been, raised;

(e)       rejects the idea put forward by one Councillor that speed humps could be introduced to cover the parts of the pavement that are damaged by trees, noting that this could have serious implications for people with disabilities, and that if implemented, would result in unthinkable costs across the City;

(f)        regrets that the main Opposition Group have sought to play politics and talk the City down over decisions that are ultimately technical in nature and based on advice put forward by technical experts;

(g)       welcomes that the Administration has asked officers to set up a “Highways Tree Forum” so we can have strategic conversations with representative bodies, also allowing residents to have a say in their own neighbourhoods;

(h)       welcomes that works were paused to listen to the concerns of the protestors; and

(i)         however, regrets that as a moratorium would have a major impact on the scheme, including risks to zonal works, confidence from the lenders and the major refinancing work going on for the budget, it is not possible to make any further delays to the programme, and therefore, the programme will continue as planned.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

It was moved by Councillor Joe Otten seconded by Councillor Colin Ross that this Council refers the petition to the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee for consideration having regard to the comments made by Members during the course of the debate.

On being put to the vote, the motion was negatived.

The outcome of the debate agreed by the Council was as follows:

RESOLVED: That, as regards the petition now submitted containing over 8,000 signatures requesting that, as an alternative to felling, sensitive engineering solutions be implemented in order to enable the long-term retention of the 12 Lime trees on Rustlings Road, this Council:-

(a)       notes that there are over two million trees across the City, including 36,000 highway trees, and is proud of Sheffield’s status as the greenest city;

(b)       welcomes that a record number of trees are being planted across the City by the Administration;

(c)        confirms that the policy of removing trees that are dead, damaged, dying, diseased, dangerous or discriminatory is a long standing policy, and is in place to maintain a Sheffield standard and ensure the safety of local residents;

(d)       notes that the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport has held numerous meetings with local Councillors and officers, to explore any new engineering solutions, but none were, or have been, raised;

(e)       rejects the idea put forward by one Councillor that speed humps could be introduced to cover the parts of the pavement that are damaged by trees, noting that this could have serious implications for people with disabilities, and that if implemented, would result in unthinkable costs across the City;

(f)        regrets that the main Opposition Group have sought to play politics and talk the City down over decisions that are ultimately technical in nature and based on advice put forward by technical experts;

(g)       welcomes that the Administration has asked officers to set up a “Highways Tree Forum” so we can have strategic conversations with representative bodies, also allowing residents to have a say in their own neighbourhoods;

(h)       welcomes that works were paused to listen to the concerns of the protestors; and

(i)         however, regrets that as a moratorium would have a major impact on the scheme, including risks to zonal works, confidence from the lenders and the major refinancing work going on for the budget, it is not possible to make any further delays to the programme, and therefore, the programme will continue as planned.

7.4

Petitions

7.4.1

Petition Requesting a Safe Play area, with Equipment, in Ellesmere Park

The Council received a petition containing 66 signatures requesting a safe play area, with equipment, in Ellesmere Park.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods.

7.4.2

Petition Requesting Floodlit Football Pitches on Spare Ground at the Side of Wensley Street

The Council received a petition containing 102 signatures, requesting the construction of two floodlit football pitches, on spare ground, at the side of Wensley Street.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods.