Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Secret Meetings

5.1.1

Martin Brighton asked the following in relation to what he termed ‘Secret’ Meetings:-

Subjects: Hate Crime and Hate Crime Scrutiny Panel, Community Safety, Housing Plus, Community Cohesion, Prevent Program and Prevent Working Group, Liaison with Equality Hubs, etc.

- Does this Council condone the use of secret meetings with respect to any of the above?

- Will the Council freely publish the remits, membership and minutes of all meetings, as indicated above?

5.1.2

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) commented that the difficulty she had with Mr Brighton’s question was what his definition of a secret meeting was. There were meetings in confidential situations which needed to be held in private which could be to do with matters of this nature such as the meetings held with other agencies regarding the Prevent Strategy. Councillor Dore did not condone secret meetings being held which aimed to withhold information which was in the public interest.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Equality Hubs

5.2.1

Martin Brighton asked the following in relation to Equality Hubs:-

- What are the Council’s criteria for defining success or failure of any Equality Hub?

- To what extent of intervention is the Council prepared to go to ensure that its definition of success of any hub is achieved?

5.2.2

In response, Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Community Services and Libraries) commented that an away day had been arranged for the Equality Hobs on 14 October. The issue raised by Mr Brighton of what constituted a success or failure of an Equality Hub would be one of the key issues to be discussed on the day and Councillors and officers would work closely with the hubs to develop that answer.

5.2.3

Councillor Scott added that he was clear that the Council would take whatever steps necessary to ensure the success of hubs as they were far too important to be allowed to stall.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Funding

5.3.1

Martin Brighton asked from which budgets were the activities referred to in his previous question funded?

5.3.2

Councillor Jack Scott responded that activities were funded from the Policy, Performance and Communications budget. The Council was reviewing how they linked together so everyone was clear and a diagram was being developed which would set out the role of the groups, their expected impact and the governance structures.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Tenant Involvement

5.4.1

Martin Brighton asked the following in relation to tenant involvement:-

- From which budget is the money to pay for tenant involvement with the Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH) activities taken?

- Were tenants afforded prior consultation and gave their consent before engagement with ARCH?

- Was any tenant attendee ascribed representative status been transparently elected by tenants?

- What is the purpose of engagement with ARCH?

5.4.2

In relation to the final question, Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Housing, commented that it was important to have tenant scrutiny as the Association was acting on behalf of the tenants not the Council. She would provide Mr Brighton with written answers to the rest of his questions.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Grant Funding

5.5.1

Martin Brighton asked, to aid transparency and accountability, will the Council publish the detail of all bids for grant funding, both successful and otherwise, accompanied by the reason for acceptance, or otherwise.

5.5.2

Councillor Jack Scott responded that this wouldn’t be possible as it was against Council policy and would not be fair to the groups seeking council investment or who had suggested proprietary solutions.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Chinese Investment

5.6.1

Nigel Slack commented that there had been concerns expressed over the huge investment deal agreed with a prominent and politically well connected Chinese property company. He was pleased that the Council had agreed to be as open and transparent as possible over this deal, though that will probably not be transparent enough for Mr Slack as ‘commercial confidentiality’ was still well to the fore.

5.6.2

Mr Slack was, however, concerned over the spirit of the deal as well. When it was announced, the Council indicated that the investment would be used according to their plans for the City. In an article on BBC News- China Blog, however, the developer involved seemed to suggest that the initial plans ‘he’ had decided on were a 5 star hotel, luxury apartment blocks and a pastiche of a Greco-Roman classical fountain. He also appeared to have plans for the infrastructure of the City. Mr Slack therefore asked how can the public be certain that the sheer scale of this investment will not bias the planning process? In addition, with the Chinese Government being keen on overseas acquisitions, who will own the land and properties that this investment creates?

5.6.3

Councillor Julie Dore stated that she had not read the blog referred to by Mr Slack. The agreement with the Chinese investor was simple. The investor wished to invest in Sheffield on a number of projects. The investor would have his own ideas. However, the Council was in control of the plans for the City and any investor would have to comply with the particular outcomes of what the Council wanted to see in the City.

5.6.4

Any City would welcome a 5 star hotel being developed but it would need to be on the Council’s terms and this was the same with apartment blocks. The investor had initially invested £220m in the City for a number of projects. The infrastructure was what would go along with these projects.

5.6.5

There were many opportunities in the City for investment and the City had the right kind of inclusive growth available. Ownership would depend on the individual project. Whatever was ultimately developed will be in the interests of the City. At the same time, the investor would want a return, so it would need to work for both parties.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Planning Design

5.7.1

Nigel Slack asked, with the University’s ‘Diamond’ building coming in the top six contenders for “Carbuncle of the year”, will the Council consider sending Planning Committee Members on a design aesthetics course or perhaps finish the Local Plan, before we become subject to similar unwanted accolades?

5.7.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that beauty was in the eye of the beholder and what was good for one was not always good for another.

5.7.3

Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport) added that applicants chose their own architect. The City had its own Design Panel and the Council had its own in house design team. It was hoped that consultation on the Local Plan would take place early in the New Year.

5.8

Public Question in respect of City Region Growth Targets

5.8.1

Nigel Slack asked, with the Pound continuing to languish ever lower in the currency markets and most economic indicators dropping like stones, relatively speaking, will the Council be pushing the City Region to review the growth targets they will be committing themselves to before the devolution deal is finalised?

5.8.2

Councillor Julie Dore stated that the devolution deal was not dependent on growth targets. The City Region had infrastructure and transport plans and all were publically available or would be made available upon completion. The £30m a year the City Region would receive was not conditional on delivering growth targets and was focused on growing the economy.

5.8.3

Councillor Dore added that growth targets should always be reviewed in the light of the influence of external factors. In respect of economic indicators, the City Region was consulting with stakeholders over the vision for the Sheffield City Region.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Parking Permits

5.9.1

Nigel Slack stated that he had recently changed his car and this meant he had to replace his local parking permit to reflect the new vehicle. For Mr Slack this was a relatively painless task in the most part but, not only did the replacement cost £20 (almost 2/3rds of a full permit) but during the changeover and, whilst awaiting his new V5 from Swansea, he had to expend some 16 of his daily permits to remain legal. On the other end, his new permit did not reflect the time lost on his permit between advising the Council of the change of vehicle and the new permit being available. Mr Slack’s new permit expired on the same day as the old one. Surely, Mr Slack therefore asked, it was not beyond the whit of man, having charged the £20 replacement fee, to reflect the lost time on the new permit?

5.9.2

Councillor Mazher Iqbal commented that he would look into Mr Slack’s issue and lessons would be learned. He also apologised to Mr Slack for the delay. A review of the cost of replacing permits had been undertaken in 2013 and it was concluded that the £5 charge was not sufficient to cover costs and that £20 would be more appropriate. There were plans to look at moving to a digital system in the future.