Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Walkley Library

Nigel Slack commented that at the last Cabinet meeting a question was put by a member of the public asking whether a report of the negotiations and the decision to sell the Walkley Library building to Forum Café Group was available as the matter was before Scrutiny Committee the same week.

Mr Slack stated that Councillor Bowler had replied to that question by stating ‘A Freedom of Information request could be made by the questioner but would not produce results by tomorrow’s Scrutiny Committee meeting.’ Mr Slack commented that the Scrutiny Committee had met and decided the issue in one meeting, even though they clearly could not have been in receipt of the evidence the questioner had asked for.

This was, in Mr Slack’s opinion, unfair and certainly did not live up to item 6 of the Sheffield Fairness Framework ‘To be seen to act in a fair way as well as acting fairly’. Mr Slack therefore asked wouldn’t the fair approach have been to defer the decision to the next meeting so that the information could have been made available and a decision be made on the full facts?

In response, Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, commented that Mr Slack had only quoted part of her response to the question at the last Cabinet meeting, held on 22 July 2015. The full response Councillor Bowler had given was that ‘She had not been involved in these negotiations, had not seen any report on them and doubted such a report existed. A Freedom of Information request could be made by the questioner but would not produce results by tomorrow’s Scrutiny Committee meeting. Dave Wood, Interim Property Surveying Manager, would be presenting the report at the Scrutiny Committee meeting and she would make him aware of Ms. Simmonds question.’

As stated, Councillor Bowler had made Dave Wood aware of the question prior to the Scrutiny Committee meeting. As she had suspected, no such report of the negotiations had been produced, so any Freedom of Information request would not have given access to a report. At the Scrutiny Committee meeting Councillor Bowler and officers had answered all questions in detail and referred to the request for access to a report on the negotiations and that no such report existed. Therefore, she did not believe the process had not been fair as Mr Slack had suggested and she always tried to be as open and transparent as possible.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Sheffield Moorlands report

Nigel Slack referred to the report in respect of Sheffield Moorlands, on the agenda for the meeting.  He stated that the report made comment concerning the importance of accountability and the following statement about representation: ‘The proposed lessees will be required to make proposals for a Key Partner’s Forum, a Stakeholder Forum and for an Annual Meeting open to all interested parties, for the approval of the Council. The proposals are to cover: frequency of meetings; terms of reference; representation and protocols.’ Mr Slack commented that this was all very positive but he believed inevitably with any private management of public assets there will be a loss of transparency unless the lease agreement also requires the private (albeit charitable) management to submit to the Freedom of Information Act. Will the Council add this provision to the lease?

Councillor Bowler replied that the report referred to transparency of the new management arrangement for the Moors. In terms of Mr Slack’s request, Freedom of Information regulations cannot be imposed on an organisation although it applied to any City Council business. She hoped that there would not be a need to use Freedom of Information legislation as there were a range of measures in the new agreement to ensure transparency, such as a Stakeholder Forum, an Annual General Meeting, the opportunity to ask public questions, the South Yorkshire Management Plan which the Cabinet Member would sign off and an Annual Review of performance against the Management Plan which would be published.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Devolution

Nigel Slack commented that at the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) meeting held on Monday, an update was given about the proposals the SCRCA have put to Government on the so called ‘devolution’ deal. Mr Slack believed the update was a bit shy on detail but from business sources he had learned that the asks from the Region implied control over an extra £750m or more of public and private funding.

If the SCRCA achieved all they were asking for, Mr Slack considered that it will almost certainly result in the imposition of a City Region Elected Mayor. It was also clear that the cost of the Mayor will be borne by the local Council Tax payers, through a precept. Had any work been done to assess the cost of a City Region Mayoral office and staff and the impact this will have on increased Council Taxes or further cuts to local services?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that, in relation to the figure stated of £750m, this was not something that she had heard. The Government had made it clear that until a settlement had been agreed the negotiations had to remain confidential amongst the Combined Authority.

The demands from the Combined Authority were very ambitious and asked for major changes to the current system. Councillor Dore acknowledged that not every demand may be met but everything was currently on the table to be negotiated. The Combined Authority Members were clear that they would resist as far as possible the imposition of an Elected Mayor as this would create difficulties geographically across the region and this had been made clear to the Government.

Councillor Dore believed the current governance model of the Combined Authority was working well as evidenced by the recent City Deal, growth deal etc. The demands on the table from the Combined Authority at the present time related to economic drivers. She believed the Combined Authority could agree a deal without the imposition of an Elected Mayor but that remained to be seen.

Councillor Dore confirmed that any costs would have to be subsumed within the devolution deal and the administrative structure that was agreed. A deal would not be agreed unless it vastly improved services and funding and would not detrimentally impact on Council Tax or services.

5.4

Public Question in respect of New Retail Quarter

Nigel Slack stated that proposals for the New Retail Quarter were grinding ahead and, presumably, under the current proposals the land now owned by the Council in the City Centre will be returned to private ownership. This brought concerns for Mr Slack over the private ownership of perceived public land such as roads, pavements and ‘public’ squares etc. Private ownership of these types of spaces could lead to the public having their traditional rights curtailed, such as the right to protest, assemble and so forth. Will the Council, therefore, be taking steps to retain true public ownership of these spaces in order to protect such rights?

Councillor Dore replied that the Council always tried to retain as much public ownership as possible when it came to public realm and there were very few occasions where they didn’t. In relation to the New Retail Quarter, the Council would try to do that but it may be a decision for the main developer. However, she expected that it would be in the developer’s interest to keep the public realm up to a good standard to be more attractive to visitors. The aim would be to find the best solution for the City.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Council’s Development Partner

Nigel Slack asked will the candidates for the Council’s development partner be assessed on the same standards as potential contractors i.e. Tax Propriety etc?

Councillor Dore confirmed they would be assessed by the same standards. The Council was currently revising its procurement policies and was constantly striving to ensure standards were met.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Transparency and Webcasting

Nigel Slack commented that he congratulated the Council on their plans to return more public services to Council control, under item 13 on the agenda for the meeting, but for him it was about transparency and accountability rather than cost. Could we look forward to other services being returned in due course? And whilst on transparency, what was the status of the plans to webcast meetings of the Council?

Councillor Dore emphasised that the wish of the Council was to insource as much as possible if it met the needs of the particular service. Every individual case was looked at on its merits. In the example referred to by Mr Slack on the agenda for the meeting, insourcing some services was felt to be the best option but the Council were not necessarily in a position to insource everything.

The issue of webcasting was still being investigated and she would speak to Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, to establish what the current position was.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Councillor Status

Nigel Slack commented that, with the self-suspension of Councillor Clarkson, what did this mean for the representation of the public of his Ward? Will he be able to fulfil the role ascribed in Article 2 of the Constitution (Effectively represent the interests of their Ward and of individual constituents) and, if not, what are the consequences?

Councillor Dore responded that once Councillors were elected they were effectively self-employed. One of their main duties was to attend the Full Council meeting. Thereafter it was the individuals responsibility to manage the needs and resources to suit that position.

As stated, the main requirement of a Councillor was to attend Full Council meetings. If a Councillor did not attend a meeting for six months action could be taken, but this would be dependent on the individual circumstances of the Councillor concerned.

The Council could not take any action against the Councillor concerned at the present time. No complaints had been received. If any complaints were received, they would be considered at that time. The Council had retained its Standards Committee and any complaint would be managed through the Standards Committee process.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Mount Pleasant Development

Jonny Douglas commented that his question related to the Mount Pleasant development on Sharrow Lane. For 12 months he and his colleagues had been trying to register interest for their community development project for the site and gain the relevant information to put a proper proposal together. They felt they had been unfairly treated, disadvantaged and actively obstructed, both directly by Kier themselves and indirectly through the misleading and misinforming of Councillors and Council departments at every step of the way, to the extent that they had to use Freedom of Information requests, which revealed, among other things that the ‘Exclusivity Contract’ period which was repeatedly cited had in fact finished months early, and the pre-planning proposal from the currently engaged, seemingly preferred, commercial developer had been deemed inappropriate and unworkable. He therefore asked the following questions:-

1) In light of the report being considered later in the meeting, which recommended that Kier’s contract to handle property disposal (and other services) be terminated, are Cabinet willing to call a halt to these proceedings in order to ensure all interested parties are given a fair hearing and the chance to have their proposals for this important Community Asset property considered?

2) On Monday 7 September Nigel Slack (who has been helping us with our project) was told by Councillor Jayne Dunn that the signing of a contract with the developer was imminent and could happen as soon as Friday 11^th, yet yesterday we were informed by Dave Wood that this was “never the intention of either party”. With the constant movement of goalposts and apparent continually changing status of talks with the current developer, can Cabinet say here today: (a) what stage the current negotiations are at, and (b) the timeline for any further stages?

3) I would like to request a meeting with the appropriate Cabinet Members and the Leader to discuss this matter further please.

Councillor Dore commented that she had seen the email in relation to the development from Mr Douglas the morning of this meeting and was not aware of all the details. She would refer the matter to Councillor Ben Curran and ask him to respond to Mr Douglas’ comments. She would attend any meeting if necessary.

She confirmed that no final decision on the matter had been made and if Mr Douglas wished to provide any additional information she would be happy to receive it.

Dave Wood, Interim Property Surveying Manager, commented that approval had been given to sell the building. However, contracts had not been exchanged and no one had said that contracts would be exchanged that week. The disposal would be put on hold prior to a meeting with Councillor Curran next week.