Agenda item

Petitions

5.1

Petition requesting 10mph Speed Limit on Forge Lane

5.1.1

The Council received a petition, containing 67 signatures, requesting a 10mph speed limit on Forge Lane.

5.1.2

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Graham Waddicor. He commented that he had been a long standing resident in the area. Forge Lane was a one track lane which led on to a housing development. There had been a rise in levels of speed and traffic for people going into the estate. Introducing a 10mph speed limit in the first instance would reduce speed and the possibility of accidents.  Mr Waddicor also commented that at the nearby junction people frequently turned right against the flow of traffic and he therefore requested a no right turn at this location.

5.1.3

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business and Economy, responded to the petitioner in the absence of the portfolio holder, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport.  He stated that the Council were clear in their commitment to road safety. A 20mph programme was being rolled out across the City and Councillor Bramall understood that Forge Lane would be included in this in due course. Councillor Bramall could not confirm if a 10mph limit would be possible but the petition would be passed on to Councillor Iqbal for his consideration.

5.2

Petition in respect of the Number 55 Bus Service

5.2.1

The Council received a petition, containing 23 signatures, requesting action in connection with the number 55 bus service.

5.2.2

There was no speaker to the petition.

5.2.3

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport.

5.3

Petition in respect of Ecclesall Infant School

5.3.1

The Council received a petition, containing 250 signatures, objecting to the proposed extension of Ecclesall Infant School.

5.3.2

There was no speaker to the petition.

5.3.3

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families.

Public Questions

5.4

Public Question in respect of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

5.4.1

Adam Butcher asked what the Council and partners were doing to make sure that there were 136 suites for children in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services?

5.4.2

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, acknowledged that this was an important issue, and one which had been raised at a recent meeting of the Children’s Health and Wellbeing Partnership Board during a presentation by Stamp (Support, Think, Act, Motivate, Participate) - a group of young people aged 14-25 working to improve the mental health and emotional wellbeing of young people across the City.  Councillor Drayton indicated that the Council was working with partners with a view to securing additional funding for mental health services within schools, and a particular initiative was work involving the Sheffield Safeguarding Children Board, CAHMS and the Police to address concerns regarding detainment in police cells of young people with mental health problems.

5.4.3

She concluded by indicating that she would investigate the specific matter raised by Mr. Butcher and provide him with a more detailed response.

5.5

Public Question in respect of High End University Scientific and Medical Research

5.5.1

Mary Williams asked what steps can the Council take to protect high end university scientific and medical research previously generously funded by the European Union?

5.5.2

In response, Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, commented that, in view of its own budgetary pressures, the Council would be unable to replace any funding lost from the European Union.  She referred to the topicality of the issue raised by Ms. Fahey, which had been the subject of discussion on a recent BBC Newsnight broadcast, where the Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University had stated that the University had already lost funding for 4 research projects since the outcome of the referendum on EU membership on 23rd June.  The Leader reported that the Council would be working with relevant partners to do all that was within their powers to ensure, as far as possible, the continuation of the funding provided for the benefit of the City.  In terms of efforts to secure new funding for research and development in the City, the Leader stated that the Council would continue to explore ways to attract inward investment into the City, and, by way of an example, referred to her recent visit to China, along with the Deputy Leader, to strengthen the City’s connections in that country with a view to securing business investment and research and development funding.

5.6

Public Question in respect of the SEND Reforms

5.6.1

Tracey Fahey asked how is the Council implementing the SEND reforms with the impending Ofsted/CQC inspection, and if the inspection was to start on Monday, would the Council be ready for the inspection?

5.6.2

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) acknowledged that the move from statements of special educational need to health and care plans did represent a major reform in the country, and that local authorities across the country were finding the change to be a challenging one to manage.  The Council did have concerns about the extent of the work involved, and had allocated more staff to undertake the work.  She added that, as with all major change initiatives, lessons were being learnt and adaptations introduced as the work progressed, and this would continue during this period of transition.  

5.7

Public Question in respect of Council Housing

5.7.1

Mick Daniels asked what was happening in relation to the Council Housing section of the Council? Staff were stressed and did not know whether they had a job. The Council had previously stated that Housing Plus would be implemented in August/September and it had now been moved back to October.

5.7.2

Mr Daniels added that staff and tenants did not know what was happening. Tenants could no longer speak to the staff that they had in the past. He therefore asked if the Council could inform tenants exactly what was happening?

5.7.3

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that Housing Plus would be rolled out in September and tenants’ representatives would be fully involved in the process. Staff were being fully supported and the Council was attempting to identify new roles where possible. A full update would be provided at the next City-Wide Forum. If Mr Daniels had any specific questions he was welcome to email them to Councillor Dunn.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Care and Support

5.8.1

Diane Box commented that The Care Act 2014 promoted a single legal framework for charging for care and support. She therefore asked a number of questions:-

- Has the disability related expenditure criteria changed since April 2016?

- What is the criteria for the use of baby wipes, plastic gloves and cream to be included in disability related expenditure when evidenced with receipts?

- What is the criteria for a soft diet to be included as disability related expenditure when evidenced with receipts and a report from a professional or medical body?

- The local authority has the discretion whether to charge when deciding on a formal assessment. Why has the local authority chosen to apply further charges?

- Why are the statistics for energy lost for type and area of housing not available to be shown in a financial assessment to the person being assessed as their representative? Why is benefits advice not offered by an assessor?

- Does the local authority pride itself on a fair treatment for all?

- Is there an independent body on the decision making panel that is not employed or acting on behalf of the local authority?

5.8.2

Councillor Cate McDonald, Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, commented that Ms. Box had submitted a number of detailed questions and therefore written responses would be provided to these. There had been no changes to policy. The Council had a Fairer Contributions policy which was available for inspection on the Council’s website.

5.8.3

Councillor McDonald added that all service users should be offered advice and support in relation to welfare benefits. All assessments needed to be undertaken on an individual basis. The Council also had a Fairer Charging Commission which involved users and user groups.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Impact of ‘Brexit’

5.9.1

Nigel Slack asked a number of questions in relation to the impact of the recent national referendum on EU membership as follows:-

- How much EU investment/funding was received by the City in 2015-16?

- How much EU funding is slated for 2016-17?

- The Government had already refused to guarantee £180m of EU funding after Brexit. What will be the impact if this funding fails to arrive?

- What impact is Brexit likely to have on potential investors outside the EU if Brexit happens?

- Did the Council discuss the potential impact and make any contingency plans for this ‘Leave’ result before the referendum?

- Where does this result leave the City’s ‘devolution’ deal?

5.9.2

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, responded that there were a number of groups and organisations who were asking where they could access funding that had previously come to them from the EU and the Government had no answers for that. This showed the disgraceful situation the Government had created whilst having made no preparations for a leave vote. Councillor Dore recalled many leave campaigners saying during the campaign that the funding would still be available and they should now answer how the European funding would be replaced.

5.9.3

Councillor Dore added that there was a motion on the agenda for the meeting today tasking officers with producing a report to be submitted to Cabinet and Full Council as to what the impact of the leave vote would be on Sheffield. The City Region had been asking the same questions as regards the impact.

5.9.4

Councillor Dore did not believe there would be any impact on the current devolution deal. It may impact on the £30m of funding for infrastructure and skills. With the loss of European funding it would make things more difficult. Councillor Dore saw the difficulty with the previous Coalition Government in respect of the distribution of European funding and she believed South Yorkshire was dealt a very bad deal.

5.10

Public Question in relation to Sheffield Executive Board

5.10.1

Nigel Slack asked what is happening to Sheffield First and the Sheffield Executive Board? The Sheffield Executive Board had not had a public meeting since July 2015. If the website was to be believed, there hadn’t been a meeting since January. What was once an open public meeting that welcomed the public presence had now become what appeared to be a secret cabal of City leaders discussing City policies with no public scrutiny. Was this acceptable to the Council?

5.10.2

Councillor Julie Dore responded that the Sheffield Executive Board had been replaced by the Partnership Board who had an independent Chair which was Lord Blunkett. Comments Mr Slack had made in respect of public access would be forwarded on to him. The Partnership Board brought together many partners across the City. However, they did not make any decisions, the aim was to collectively decide how the City could move forward.

5.11

Public Question in respect of Taxi Licensing

5.11.1

Nigel Slack commented that he was interested to see item 15 on the agenda was a call from Councillor Barker to take steps on the out of town taxis that were an ever increasing presence on the streets of the City. We had also seen that one of Rotherham’s Commissioners had admitted that despite improving their own taxi licensing protocols, in the wake of the Rotherham scandal, they were unable to prevent taxis registered elsewhere from plying their trade in the town.

5.11.2

Mr Slack added in the wake of Rotherham CSE concerns, he asked a question at Cabinet on 17 September 2014 about the issue, where the answer he received confirmed the same problem for the City.

5.11.3

Mr Slack added to this line of questioning at the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting on 6 October 2014, in the hope that a consistent approach might be developed. Mr Slack believed the response was unhelpful and despite the Chair asking member Councils to provide individual responses, via the SCRCA Monitoring Officer, he never received any response from any Council. Will the Council therefore include the City Region in the circulation of the outcome of this motion and perhaps an amendment to encourage them to take this more seriously and act, as a Combined Authority, even if it is, strictly speaking, outside their remit?

5.11.4

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Environment, acknowledged that there was an ever increasing number of Hackney Carriages following a High Court judgement a few years ago to confirm that Hackney Carriages could trade as Private Hire cabs across the country. This had been further extended by the Deregulation Act which meant that private hire companies could subcontract to operators outside of the City.

5.11.5

Councillor Lodge added that the problem arising from this was that powers were not extended to local authorities to regulate these private hire cabs. Sheffield had increasingly seen private hire cabs from outside areas and officers were speaking to those authorities concerned in relation to regulation powers.

5.11.6

Consultation was being undertaken on the code of conduct for taxi licenses. The Council was working with the trade and acknowledged that there was an impact on those working in Sheffield and the safety of the public. Officers regularly shared information and good practice with other authorities.

5.12

Public Question in respect of EU Funding

5.12.1

Martin Brighton stated that, following the Brexit vote, the published £140m allocated but not yet dispensed to Sheffield was likely to be lost, and he asked how will the money be made up?

5.12.2

Councillor Julie Dore stated that the Council could not make up the money. Prior to the start of the previous Coalition Government the Council received around £600m of revenue funding. Since then the budget had been reduced to around £300m which represented a 50% cut and as a result it was impossible for the Council to make up the funding. The Council would do everything it could to access the so-called extra funding and pursue every other possible opportunity for funding. The Council recognised the impact on the recipients of European funding and would see what it could do to continue to deliver services in the way that it had been envisioned previously.

5.13

Public Question in respect of Amey Contract

5.13.1

Martin Brighton commented that, previously, the Council was asked to consider an effective Quality Assurance Management (QAM) system in place for the Amey contract, so as to ensure that the contract was delivered to the right quality, within budget, and on time. The answer was along the lines that there was not enough money for such a system. Given the recent Freedom of Information disclosure about the Amey failures, would this Council please consider, as a Council policy, having an effective QAM system for all contracts?

5.13.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge questioned the need for a Freedom of Information request as if people requested information direct from the Council regarding the Amey contract this would be provided. Contrary to comments made from the M.P. for Sheffield Hallam, the Council was holding Amey to account, and ensuring that they did the work agreed.

5.13.3

The failure rate so far was 1 mile needing to be resurfaced which was around 0.23% of the work done whereas generally the accepted figure nationwide in regards to road resurfacing was 50%. The Council undertook a number of checks of the work through the Client Management Team.

5.13.4

Councillor Lodge acknowledged the disruption the work caused which was why the Council wished to see the work undertaken correctly first time. If people were finding problems with the work this might be for a number of reasons but this should be reported to the Council. If anyone wanted any further information they should contact Councillor Lodge.

5.13.5

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, added that the Council employed contract managers. It had a range of tools and systems to ensure contractors did their job. Where things were not done right the Council had tools at its disposal to put things right.

5.14

Public Question in respect of Anti-Racism Leaflets

5.14.1

Bob Smith commented that, following an increase in racially motivated assaults, he believed it was the Council’s responsibility to take affirmative action to show this behaviour was unacceptable. His suggestion would be to produce a leaflet giving clear steps on how to request help on board public transport in Sheffield. This should be distributed in areas of the City with large migrant communities such as Burngreave or Broomhall as well as distributed through local community groups and religious organisations such as local mosques, SADACCA, etc.

5.14.2

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that across the country there seemed to have been an increase in hate crime and this matter would be debated later on in the meeting. The Council’s Cohesion and Migration Board had discussed the impact of the EU Referendum and there didn’t seem to have been a spike in incidents in Sheffield.

5.14.3

Despite this, Councillor Dunn would encourage people to report any incidents. The City had zero tolerance to hate crime and this would continue to be the case. There was an information pack available for people arriving in the country which had recently been changed to be made available in all relevant languages so people knew where they needed to go to access different information and report hate crime.

5.14.4

Councillor Dunn was aware that people did not always know what a hate crime was and in the view of the Council hate crime covered all types of incidents. She would take the idea of the leaflet to the Cohesion and Migration Board but was cautious about the idea of targeting groups and wished to have a consistent policy across the City and any form of bullying would not be tolerated.