Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of Proposed Holt House/Carterknowle School Development Plans

5.1.1

Teresa Dodds submitted a petition, containing 900 signatures, opposing the redevelopment proposals in respect of Holt House and Carterknowle schools.

5.1.2

She commented that the City Council had recently proposed knocking down Holt House Infant School and replacing it with both a through primary and a secondary school. Holt House is currently a wonderful school set in beautiful grounds in which the School's 210 children have exclusive access to ample green and open space and in which they felt safe and happy. Carterknowle Junior School, which will also be relocated, was a much-loved community school also with ample private outdoor space.

5.1.3

The Council proposed new buildings that will house up to 1,921 children on the same space as was currently solely occupied by Holt House Infant School. This would impact negatively on the already severe congestion/parking problems and high pollution levels in the Abbeydale/Carterknowle corridor. It would also reduce the area of ground space from approximately 42 square metres per pupil to just 7 square metres.  It would lead to the destruction of the School's beautiful green setting, and would place a secondary school immediately next door to a school with children as young as four.  The petitioners believed their young children would feel intimidated in such an environment and would lack the space to express themselves.

5.1.4

The Council proposed that the schools should use the Bannerdale fields as their outdoor green space and that these should be shared with the community. These fields were 10 minutes’ walk from the proposed schools and were often littered with dog faeces.  The petitioners believed this was not a workable solution for short sports lessons and will consequently not be used by the schools. The petitioners therefore rejected Sheffield City Council’s recent proposals to build both a through-primary and a secondary school on the site of Holt House Infant School. They demanded that genuine, realistic alternatives were developed that placed greater emphasis on the need for pupils to have exclusive access to green and open space, that would not position a secondary school immediately adjacent to a primary school and that would not have a negative impact on the local community and environment.

5.1.5

In response Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, commented that three options had been put forward to address the problems of school places in the area. Following initial consultation a fourth option of a school for children aged 3-18 on the Bannerdale site had been proposed.

5.1.6

She added that the City Council had a duty as an authority to ensure there were enough school places available in the City and the consultation aimed to ensure that every child was able to attend  their local school  This current academic year had seen children in the South West and North East areas of the City not being able to get a place at a local school. As well as a new school, there was a need to ensure affordable housing in the area, to protect existing green spaces as well as to address problems associated with traffic congestion and air quality.

5.1.7

The City Council aimed to achieve best value for its residents within time constraints and existing funding . All new options would be made available on the Council’s website and there would be a questionnaire for people to fill in to say whether they agreed with the options. Councillor Drayton assured Ms Dodds and other concerned residents that they were being listened to. It was a true consultation and it was not a ‘done deal’ as some residents had suggested. The deadline for the consultation had been extended to 27 November and all views would be listened to.

5.2

Public Questions in respect of School Places Proposals

5.2.1

Teresa Dodds then submitted a number of questions, in addition to the above petition, regarding the proposals for school places in the South West area, from parents and residents who had been unable to attend the meeting as follows:-

- What sites away from Holt House, Bannerdale and Carterknowle had been considered?

- Can the catchment areas for primary and secondary places reflect the whole locality as this was crucial?

- Why were catchment areas not discussed as part of this consultation?

- King Ecgbert School had recently rejected applications from 39 children of Year 7 age within its catchment area. Was there not therefore a need for a school in that area?

- Can the merger of Holt House and Carterknowle Schools be discussed as a separate issue after the consultation?

- The proposals would not create more school places, so what was the reason for the merger?

- If the proposed school became an academy how would the Council be able to have any control over it?

5.2.2

In response to the questions, Councillor Jackie Drayton commented that Government legislation required that all new schools had to become academies. Within the City, the Council tried to ensure that all academy sponsors agreed with its ethos and wished to be part of the family of schools in the City and adopt its common admissions process.  The Council always worked hard to ensure a school had the right sponsor.

5.2.3

Before the consultation had begun and any options put forward, discussions were held with all headteachers and governors affected. Councillor Drayton understood those at Holt House and Carterknowle were not unhappy about the two schools merging but she would check again to clarify.

5.2.4

The fact that 39 catchment children had not been allocated a place at King Ecgberts highlighted the need for additional school places in the area. The catchment for schools in that area was different to what many people thought and pupils in the Nether Edge area had the options of two catchment schools.

5.2.5

The catchment areas of the new school were not being discussed as part of this consultation and concerns over catchment areas would be added to the consultation comments. Any proposal for a new school would include  discussions with all interested parties regarding the  catchment area for the school.

5.2.6

Meetings had been held with all Secondary headteachers to obtain their views on getting a new school in the area. The City Council knew a new school was needed in that area and it was important to obtain best value within the financial constraints that it had to work in.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Highway Trees

5.3.1

Dave Dilner asked if discussions had been held with AMEY about the possibility of relaxing regulations in respect of highway trees and kerbs.

5.3.2

Councillor Terry Fox, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, reported that he had met with Alan Robshaw from Save our Rustling Trees (SORT) and David Caulfield, Director of Regeneration and Development Services and the new lead of the tree element of the Streets Ahead project and David Caulfield had given a commitment to examining the proposals put forward by Mr Robshaw. Councillor Fox would liaise with David Caulfield and ensure a response is provided to Mr Robshaw.

5.4

Public Questions in respect of Highway Trees

5.4.1

Louise Wilcockson asked whether the Council would be drafting alternative highways specifications to retain Sheffield’s healthy, mature and safe roadside trees, rather than keep forging ahead with the same ones that did not take into account roadside trees?

5.4.2

Councillor Terry Fox commented that he had attended recent meetings of the Tree Forum which had explored alternative proposals and he would investigate these further. He was totally independent on the matter and once the Director of Regeneration and Development Services had looked into the alternative options Councillor Fox would arrange a meeting with representatives of SORT.

5.4.3

Ms. Wilcockson further asked if some of the savings from the Streets Ahead Refinance (item 8 on the agenda for the meeting) would be used to save roadside trees in the City where possible.

5.4.4

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that the money would be used to offset future government cuts. The Council has reduced spending by £300 million since 2010 and faced another £50 million of cuts this year. Savings had been made in back office functions and millions had been saved in IT costs and staff and senior officer pay. This approach had been endorsed by the public at the budget consultation events which had been held over the last few years.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Devolution

5.5.1

Nigel Slack reported that the ‘Democracy Matters’ pilot citizen’s assembly in Sheffield had recently finished its deliberations. Mr Slack believed that the Council would not be surprised that the “Citizens in South Yorkshire had called for a much stronger devolution deal than the one currently on the table for the Sheffield region.”

5.5.2

The press release also revealed that “If a vote on the current devolution deal had been held this past weekend, a two-thirds majority of Assembly members would have rejected it. Another vote showed strong opposition to an Elected Mayor.” (Professor Matt Flinders, Sheffield University Crick Centre).

5.5.3

Mr Slack further stated that, conscious that this was an informed opinion from a balanced group of citizens from across the South Yorkshire Metro Council areas and following previous comments from Councillor Bramall that the City Council would reject the deal in the face of overwhelming public opposition, is this the sort of levels that might be envisaged as overwhelming? Will the Council push to include simple questions about acceptance of the deal and, separately, the acceptability of an Elected Mayor in the forthcoming consultation?

5.5.4

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that the Democracy Matters pilot was welcomed but he would not class that as a full and proper consultation. If the Council had used the pilot as the only consultation, he believed Mr Slack would have had similar views about the extent of the consultation. The precise nature of the consultation was being discussed. It was a very complex issue but it needed to be a genuine consultation and understandable for those involved.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Smithy Wood

5.6.1

Nigel Slack referred to a question and subsequent answer he received at a previous meeting of Full Council in respect of Smithy Wood. He commented that the response was no doubt accurate but also singularly lacking in any useful information. He was therefore rephrasing the question in the hope of a more expansive comment. The question was that the developers proposing the destruction of the 12^th century ancient woodland to the North of the City, ‘Extra MSA Group’, had shown in their presentation a preparedness to use planning guidelines in a way they were not intended. They had also put forward a dubious claim that this would be a development that will save lives on the motorway.

5.6.2

Mr Slack further commented that since the Council went to extraordinary lengths to remedy its negligence over the Devonshire Street demolition decision (failing in their duty to consult relevant heritage organisations) and knowing a developer’s ability to suggest benefits that are immeasurable (Sheffield University’s claims on employment and income for the City in respect of the demolition of the grade 2 listed Jessop Hospital), Mr Slack was trying to elicit whether the Council planning department would go to the same lengths to check and investigate, rather than just assess, the claims of the developer in this case?

5.6.3

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that the Council planning department’s assessment of this application will include checking and investigating the submissions made by the applicant.  As part of this process the relevant documents will be reviewed by planning officers, with support from experts from within the Council, including, for example, the Council’s Ecology Service and Highways team and also South Yorkshire Archaeology Service. Highways England had also been consulted and were advising on the impact on the highway network.

5.6.4

Standing advice was also provided by bodies such as Natural England and the Forestry Commission. This advice will also be considered alongside the representations from members of the public and amenity groups, such as Sheffield Wildlife Trust and The Woodland Trust, which had been received as part of the application process.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Streets Ahead – Refinance

5.7.1

Nigel Slack referred to item 9 on the agenda, Streets Ahead – Refinance. He commented that it was interesting in the scope of the savings to be made, even if incrementally quite small year on year. However, bearing in mind the potential financial risks commented on in the report at paragraph 8.5, what was the level of confidence that this time the refinancing deal will be accepted by Government?

5.7.2

Mr Slack further commented that classing the global company as an individual meant that the public would not be getting the full picture of the changes to this contract. Will the Council therefore give details of the operational changes to be made to the contract whilst not revealing the finances of these changes?

5.7.3

Councillor Ben Curran commented that the previous refinancing deal had been rejected by the Government as it was seen as taking money off the private sector to balance public finance sheets. The current refinancing did not do that. The appendices were confidential but these contained procedural changes rather than substantial things about the contract.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Sheffield Plan Consultation

5.8.1

Nigel Slack stated that the City Council website had a page for the new Sheffield Plan. This page indicated a consultation on the first stage began today, in respect of the ‘Citywide Options for Growth to 2034’. Following links on the site to try and find more details on the consultation were fruitless, eventually leading back to the same page, nor was the consultation available on the ‘consultation hub’. What was the latest on this consultation.

5.8.2

Councillor Bramall thanked Mr Slack for informing him about the issues. He would look into that and would try and resolve it as soon as possible. He commented that people should always be cautious with what Government policy stated as Government statements  often contradicted policy. The important thing was to look at what the Council could control and do the best it could in respect of that.