Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Objecting to Planning Application – Residential Development on Land at the Rear of Pleasant Road

The Council received a petition containing 76 signatures objecting to the planning application regarding residential development at the rear of Pleasant Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by David Walker. Mr Walker informed the Council that parking and access on Pleasant Road was already difficult and that the proposed development would worsen this situation. The proposal would also involve the removal of mature trees, which the petitioners believed should be preserved. He commented that some detail on the drawings submitted as part of the planning application appeared to be incorrect and invited planning officers to visit the site.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Housing. Councillor Dunn stated that the petition would be submitted to the Planning and Highways Committee, which judged each application on its merits.

4.1.2

Petition Requesting Double Yellow Lines on Norton Church Road

The Council received an electronic petition containing 21 signatures requesting double yellow lines on Norton Church Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mike Farbrother. Mr Farbrother stated that Norton Church Road led to a vicarage and 25 other properties. There were parking problems and difficulties for vehicular access, including refuse vehicles and emergency vehicles and the road was also used to access Graves Park. The petition requested double yellow lines at entrance points to alleviate the problems regarding access to people’s homes and that it was done when the road was resurfaced.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Councillor Fox requested that Mr Farbrother provide his contact details and said that he would speak with him further regarding the petition and issues on Norton Church Road.

4.1.3

Petition Requesting Help in Connection with the 83/83A Bus Service Route Diversions

The Council received a petition containing six signatures requesting help in connection with the 83/83A bus service route diversions.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mary Fraser who referred to changes to the 83 and 83A bus service, which resulted in people needing to change buses and walking further, particularly affecting the journeys of older people who wished to go to the doctors, do their shopping or use other services in Burngreave. Many elderly people in Firs Hill did not have cars and she personally had recently waited 25 minutes for a bus to travel home. She asked for the Council’s help on behalf of people in Firs Hill.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. Councillor Fox stated that the Council had received a number of enquiries about changes to the bus network and these matters were being referred to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and local councillors would also raise issues of concern relating to bus services. Councillor Fox stated that he would speak further with the petitioners about the matters they had raised.

4.1.4

Petition Requesting the Repainting of the Markings in the Middle of Sandygate Road

The Council received an electronic petition containing 200 signatures requesting the repainting of the markings in the middle of Sandygate Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Adam Hanrahan. Mr Hanrahan stated that the petitioners wished for the road markings on Sandygate Road to be repainted. People were not consulted regarding the changes to the position of road markings and vehicles now had to straddle the central line markings to pass parked cars. The repositioned markings meant that drivers coming downhill would always be on the wrong side of the road and he queried the potential implications for car insurance.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport.  Councillor Fox said that he did not have information concerning any consultation regarding the road markings but stated that he would reply to the petitioners.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Questions Concerning School Places, Holt House and Carter Knowle Schools

Matthew Genn asked if the Council could guarantee that no 3-18 years through school was proposed at Carter Knowle Road and about related evidence.

Diana Barlos asked what arrangements were in place whilst building work was carried out in and would this cause significant disruption for current pupils and will it affect their education, health and wellbeing?

Liz Cross asked whether there would be minutes available of a recent meeting which had taken place concerning school places.

Jacqueline Howarth asked why the former HSBC site at Dore had not been proposed as a site for a through school and why there had been no proposal on integrated resource units in the proposed new schools.

Emma Holley asked why outstanding infants and junior schools with a brilliant ethos would be destroyed and replaced with a through school.

Teresa Dodds asked a question concerning the Abbeydale site and Amanda Fletcher asked why both the Abbeydale and Bannerdale sites were proposed for housing when it was known that a secondary school was needed.

Nagina asked what would be done regarding congestion on Bannerdale Road and Abbeydale Road and concerns relating to the health and safety.

Ruksana Kosar stated that whilst people were aware that a secondary school was required, there was concern that existing schools were not destroyed in the process. She also expressed concern that the site for a new school should be large enough to properly accommodate children. 

Rala Barlos asked why it was felt acceptable to propose that the space per pupil be reduced to 5 square metres.

Shahid Ali asked whilst parents of Holt House and Carterknowle schools were being consulted, when would the wider community also be consulted?

Sarah Tinsley asked why the capacity of High Storrs School and King Ecbert’s School, which were outstanding schools, could not be increased to provide a greater number of school places.

A comment was made that Holt House school location should be retained and, whilst Carterknowle school might be merged, there should not be a secondary school on the same site.

Reference was made to the closure of Abbeydale Grange School in recent years because few local people were using the school and it being used by children from other areas in Sheffield and the question asked as to why this might not occur again?

A comment was made that children should not be taken from their existing catchment, which included High Storrs and King Ecbert’s Schools and that the Council should consider developing a 16-18 academy on the Bannerdale site to leave extra places for children.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, responded to the questions and thanked people for attending the Council meeting and for becoming involved in the consultation process. She stated that the school places consultation concerned the options for school places and the Council wanted other options to come forward as a result of the consultation. The Council would consider all of the options against the criteria and then make a decision on that basis.

Workshops had taken place and more were going to happen. There was also a website, which included Frequently Asked Questions and the website was also a place where people would be able to put their views as to their preferred options. There had been a (national) birth rate increase of 25% and two areas of Sheffield, the South West and North East, were particularly affected by increases in child population.

Some primary and secondary aged children did not get into their local school and the consultation and related proposals were about increasing the number of available school places in primary and secondary schools. Whilst there were related issues and proposals for several schools, including Holt House Infant, Ecclesall Infant and Clifford school, the context for the consultation on school places was as outlined above. The Council was listening to people’s views. The Council had proposed a fourth option during consultation suggesting the use of the Bannerdale Centre site, which would be considered along with any other options put forward during the consultation.

The ambition for the South West was to develop new housing and a new secondary school, protect existing green space, address traffic congestion and air quality, ensure value for money and create something which was excellent in educational terms. The Council wanted to create outstanding schools. There was considerable research regarding the proposal for 3-18 provision (e.g. paper by the National College for School Leadership outlined the opportunities presented by 3-18 provision) and some people argued it was a better model for children’s education.

The impact of construction works relating to the development of a school would depend upon the extent of building works that took place. The consultation workshops were not formally minuted. However, questions and points raised were noted and captured using ‘Post-it’ notes and were also included on the consultation webpage.

In reference to the question concerning the HSBC site at Dore, whilst that site was not necessarily in the right place, it would be assessed along with the other options in the consultation.

No decision had been made as regards the provision of school places and it was not intended that either the outstanding leadership which was already in place or existing schools themselves should be lost as a result of any proposals being made. The Council wanted to have more, not less, outstanding schools in the City. 

As regards potential traffic congestion and traffic management associated with a new school, a further consultation would need to take place regarding any planning and highways proposals.

Councillor Drayton outlined the demographic changes over time, which had to be understood when considering primary and secondary school places for the future.

In relation to the sustainability of any newly created school and the circumstances in relation to Abbeydale Grange School, Councillor Drayton commented that, at the end, parents did not opt to send their children there. Whatever option was chosen for new school provision, a school would need to have the confidence of parents. Work would be done in partnership with existing schools to create a new school that people wished for their children to go to.

Councillor Drayton stated that there was no reason that an integrated education resource could not be considered in the new school but this would have to be part of the city wide strategy for provision for children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). She encouraged people to take the opportunity of attending workshops on the South West and North East consultation on school places and to put their points of view on the consultation webpage.

4.2.2

Public Question Concerning Smithywood

Nigel Slack referred to the rejection of an application to change the status of Smithywood into a village green. He stated that the ancient woodland was now at risk from the developers of a motorway service station. He commented that a piece of Sheffield heritage may be destroyed for corporate profits and based on shaky economic benefits and an alleged prize of minimum wage employment for the likes of McDonalds, Starbucks and so on.

He referred to a statement by developer concerning the need for a service area on the grounds of road safety, which he stated was inflammatory and was not supported by statistics, including that in 2014 only 48 fatalities were attributed to fatigue on all roads throughout the UK. (RoSPA)

Mr Slack asked if the Council would undertake to ensure that any planning application based on suggested safety benefits was independently verified rather than relying on statements from the applicant; and following the decision on village green status, what is the expected decision date for the planning application?

Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Housing, stated that the planning submission would be assessed by the Council’s planning officers and no date had as yet been set for the Planning and Highways Committee at which this matter would be considered. This information would be made available on the Council website.

4.2.3

Public Questions Concerning Investment in the Sheffield Retail Quarter

Nigel Slack stated that following the Chancellor and his entourage of civic leaders visiting China recently, there had been suggestions that the investment for Sheffield's New Retail Quarter may come from that country.

He commented that China's poor record on human rights was well known and referred to a recent Guardian article, concerning the Chinese President's visit.

Mr Slack asked if the City would temper support for human rights and state oppression for an expedient investment in the New Retail Quarter.

Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business Skills and Development and Deputy Leader of the Council, stated that a number of parties had expressed an interest in investing in the Sheffield Retail Quarter. Sheffield had sister city relationship with two cities in China, which was a place with diverse communities and China as a whole should not be judged only by the actions of its government.   

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the pretext for the visit to China by the Chancellor and others (including herself) was in promoting opportunities for investment in the North of England, including in Sheffield, which was a major contributor to the concept of a ‘Northern Powerhouse’, together with Leeds and Manchester. The Sheffield Retail Quarter (SRQ) was among other potential investment opportunities, and it did not necessarily follow that the SRQ would be chosen by a potential investor following that visit. However, she considered that there was a duty to take such opportunities to promote Sheffield.

4.2.4

Public Questions Concerning Devolution Deal

Nigel Slack stated that, at the last City Region Combined Authority meeting there was a report, to the meeting but not the public, on the proposed Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) consultation in respect of the new 'devolution' deal. He said that he had concerns over this consultation proposal. The consultation was intended to happen during November and December, though details are still sketchy as to exactly when.

He stated that this was a period when most people are completely distracted and absorbed by preparations and celebrations for Christmas, which was not the best time to engage the public in the complex issues around devolution.

Mr Slack said that the consultation itself seemed designed to promote a positive spin on the 'deal' with comments like “good deal”, “supported by the private sector”, “City Region at the forefront of the Northern Powerhouses”, “leading the way”, “new money – new powers”, “protects sovereignty of Councils”, “residents and businesses well served by negotiations”.

He asked: should consultations be neutral or biased; and would Council be conducting its own consultation, in addition to this flawed SCRCA consultation, before they present the 'devolution' proposal to Council for a vote? If so, will Council ensure this is neutral and balanced?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that with reference to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) meeting, she did not recall a part of that meeting that was not held in public and following clarification by Mr Slack, it was made clear that he had referred to the pre-meeting.

The City Region believed it had achieved the best outcomes from the negotiations with Government on a deal for the Region. The proposals would be presented to elected members for consideration and would be the subject of consultation with the public and other stakeholders. What needed to be considered was how the consultation should be undertaken. Councillor Dore stated that she would put the recommendations made by Sheffield to the City Region as to how (as a region) consultation might take place with stakeholders, including business and public sector organisations.

The consultation period was short and the timetable had been set by the Government as being from November to January. The consultation should be informed and factual. Information made available during the consultation should also make it clear what was being signed up to and include anything that was being given away. The matter would be considered by the Council following, and informed by, the consultation process. The issue of devolution was to be considered by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee and Councillor Dore said that she would also attend that Committee meeting.

4.2.5

Public Question Concerning Trees

Nigel Slack asked whether the Council had seen the article from Sheffield Hallam University entitled “6 reasons to stop the ‘Sheffield Chainsaw Massacre’”, which involved the academic, Professor Ian Rotherham, an expert whose views the Council used to take note of and whose analysis had been used in answers to his questions in the past. He asked why the Council was no longer listening to Professor Rotherham and whether it could be that Amey’s profits make it expedient to find an expert that agrees with their decisions on felling. He asked if the independent review panel would take evidence just from Council sources or from outside the Council and the contractor?

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, stated that there were a number of experts in relation to trees. It would be a decision of the Chair and Independent Panel as to the evidence that they wished to consider and the Council would not have input into that issue. He was confident that the Council policy and procedure with regard to highways trees was correct.

4.2.6

Public Questions Concerning Devolution

Martin Brighton stated that last Sunday, Labour’s John Healey said ‘No mayor’, but would ‘swallow’ imposition. Then Tory Julian Sturdy said he was ‘not sure’ that an elected executive mayor was the right way to go, but would ‘swallow’ imposition. Then, a film was shown of Mr Osborne saying that an elected executive mayor would not be enforced, which echoed what had been voted upon during the previous week in Parliament. He asked why the Council was going ahead with an elected executive mayor.

Mr Brighton stated that in answer to a previous question about devolving democracy, the Council wrote to him claiming that the current Northern Powerhouse deal would enhance citizen democracy. He asked given that the people have already said ‘No’ to an elected executive mayor, how can such a statement be sustained?

Mr Brighton stated that the fourth principle of the Northern Powerhouse states that it shall be ‘involving the local people in how the Northern Region is run’. He asked, given this Council’s track record of the past two decades and its intransigence over the elected executive mayor issue, how does this Council propose to genuinely engage in meaningful consultation with local people in the decision-making processes that affect their lives and their neighbourhoods?

Mr Brighton asked: where is the democratic boundary between imposed decisions made by the Council without citizen consultation, or even despite the expressed contrary decision of citizens, and the Council’s respect for and compliance with the will of those citizens?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, referred to answers which she had given in response to questions earlier in the meeting concerning devolution. The Council was not currently going ahead with implementing an elected mayor. The decision regarding an elected mayor for the City Region and proposals for devolution would depend upon the outcome of consultation and was subject to a decision by Council.

The Northern Powerhouse ‘deal’ was about investment in the North of the country and could enhance democracy in so far as powers would be devolved from Westminster to a local level. The consultation process was yet to be determined. Decision making and democracy was not an exact science. The boundary as to whether or not consultation should take place was not precise and in some circumstances consultation was mandatory, whilst in others, it might be said to be expected. Where consultation was mandatory or expected, the Council would make sure that such consultation happened and where the Council believed that consultation was appropriate, it would consult accordingly. Councillor Dore confirmed that there would be consultation regarding the proposals for devolution in the City Region.

4.2.7

Public Question Concerning Accountability

Martin Brighton asked whether this Council’s Cabinet was accountable to this chamber, either through a claimed collective responsibility or individually.  He said that this was asked because Council documents were revealed showing that the FOI (Freedom of Information) department was encouraging the Housing department to break the FOI Act. “The Cabinet’s written response was to follow the policy of Deny and Lie about the existence of its own documents, followed by attacking this citizen, instead of immediately investigating such a serious crime.”

Mr Brighton asked: does this Chamber support such behaviour by the Cabinet?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated in response that she would refute the statements which Mr Brighton had made in his question.