Agenda item

5.1

Public Questions in relation to Licensing Standards for Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs)

5.1.1

Stuart Crosswaite commented that we worked closely with a number of asylum tenants and he had witnessed first-hand some of the misery that they had to deal with. One of the biggest causes of this was forced bedroom sharing by G4S who used this as it allowed more tenants to live in houses and more income for them as a result.

5.1.2

Mr Crosswaite expected the Council would have taken action to stop this policy but he had been asking for action for 22 months and nothing had changed. He had been told by 3 Members of the Council that this policy had stopped but he had evidence that this was not the case and he therefore called on the Council to take action to stop this policy.

5.1.3

John Grayson informed Cabinet that, along with colleagues, he had submitted a petition to the Council in 2015 requesting that the Council amended their regulations to prevent forced bedroom sharing. The Cabinet Member at the time, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, committed to ensuring that this practice be stopped.

5.1.4

Mr Grayson added that the current Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Jayne Dunn, had sent the voluntary organisation Mr Grayson worked for a letter in 2015 saying that this was a priority piece of work for her. Mr Grayson had further been told by a Council Officer on 16 January 2017 that a report had been drafted which had been submitted to Councillor Dunn. However, to date no action had been taken to end this practice. Mr Grayson therefore asked would the Cabinet agree that this was a shocking state of affairs and would the Chair ask for an investigation as to why no action had been taken to date? Given that Councillor Dunn had the authority to take action on this, would she commit to taking action as soon as possible?

5.1.5

In response, Councillor Dunn stated that she had made this a priority. However, changing Council policy was not a quick process. In respect of the HMO Licensing regulations, the Council needed to make sure they had everything exactly right so that this practice would be prevented in the future.

5.1.6

There were lots of authorities across the country that weren’t doing anything to prevent this practice, whereas Sheffield was committing to taking action. Councillor Dunn would be signing off the decision in the next two weeks and it would then become Council policy. Any new tenants did have to go into single accommodation rooms. The delay had been increased as a result of the Council carefully considering a number of changes to Government legislation. The Council had to make sure it complied with all the legislation to prevent any possible future legal challenges.

5.1.7

Councillor Julie Dore added that this was a priority for the Council and anything it could do to improve the lives of tenants it would do. It did, however, have to consider the risk of challenge which was always a risk with private contractors. Councillor Dore would also look closely at the report submitted to Councillor Dunn. She expected that the decision would be taken in the next few weeks.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Waste Bins

5.2.1

Adam Butcher asked what the Council was doing to enforce or advise members of the public that they should put back their bins after the bins were emptied?

5.2.2

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment, responded that he was aware of the issue referred to by Mr Butcher. The Council had introduced fixed penalty notices in the past for those who did not put back their bins but the Coalition Government had removed the right for Councils to be able to do this.

5.2.3

Councillor Lodge was aware of areas where there were particular problems and he would talk to the Universities to see if anything could be done. The Council would continue to encourage people to act responsibly in respect of this.

5.3

Public Question in respect of the Streets Ahead Contract

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that, at the last Full Council meeting, Councillor Lodge had commented that money earned by AMEY for the sale of felled street trees “goes back into the contract”. This was used for “delivering a cheaper price on the contract for Sheffield City Council.”

5.3.2

Mr Slack was also aware, from previous answers many months ago, that the Council operated an ‘open book’ management system when it came to the financial controls of major contracts. How much money had ‘gone back into the contract’ since the beginning of the contract, as a result of felled trees being sold? Why had this money not been used to mitigate the cost of engineering solutions on those trees identified as healthy and salvageable through such solutions by the Independent Tree Panel? In Mr Slack’s view, this would go some way to repairing the damaged reputation of the Council locally, nationally and internationally, showing that when the Council say felling is a last resort, they mean it.

5.3.3

Councillor Bryan Lodge apologised for any confusion arising from his answer given at the last Full Council meeting. The cost of removing anything was included within the AMEY tender price. This was also the case with the disposal of those things removed and applied to all aspects of the contract such as waste going to landfill, biomass, repairing road surfaces etc.

5.3.4

Councillor Julie Dore added that another example of this was in respect of demolition contracts and anything that could be salvaged from demolition was offset against costs as stated within the contract.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Contracts

5.4.1

Nigel Slack stated that, given his comment about reputation in the above question, he was interested to see the principle stated in item 9 – Sheffield City Centre Wi-Fi – that: ‘There should be no or minimal legal, financial or reputational risk to the Council throughout the contract life.’ Was this principle in use in any other Council contracts (such as AMEY or Streets Ahead)? Will this principle be a part of all future contracts for the City? (i.e. Item 13 Waste Services?)

5.4.2

In response, Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that quotes from Mr Slack were taken from a report about the City Centre Wi-Fi tender and should be viewed in that light. The Council carries out an assessment of risk on each contract. These are assessed on a case by case basis. For example, the level of risk could be built into a contract to reflect the contract price or potential penalties to a contractor.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Regional Contracts

5.5.1

Nigel Slack referred to Item 12 on the agenda – ‘Waste Management Policies’ and commented that he noted from the background reports for this item a plan to harmonise the collection bins throughout South Yorkshire. There was also an aspiration commented on in paragraph 2.1.2 of the report that ‘The Council had the aspiration to work more closely with neighbouring South Yorkshire authorities’.

5.5.2

Mr Slack therefore asked was this a precursor to a joint South Yorkshire waste services contract? If so, who would be in ultimate control of such a contract? How would this sit alongside the Council’s commitment not to give up any current powers under the City Region agreement?

5.5.3

Councillor Bryan Lodge confirmed there were no plans for a South Yorkshire wide contract. It did, however, make sense for authorities to realign things better and make savings where it could. For example, there were Household Waste Recycling Centres close to the borders of some authorities which may present opportunities for closer working together. Councillor Lodge was also aware of some Barnsley residents travelling to waste sites in Sheffield.

5.5.4

Councillor Lodge did support the idea of greater standardisation in respect of waste across the country to make things less confusing and make it easier for people to recycle.

5.5.5

Councillor Julie Dore added that she had made it clear that where the Council could work more closely with its neighbours, such as with Bassetlaw on health, it would look at shared services. This was very different to devolution. The current devolution deal was purely an economic deal and gave Sheffield the powers, tools and funding needed to grow the economy. This did not mean that in the future the City Region would not negotiate further with the Government in respect of other powers. But, as it stood, the current deal was an economic one and not about public services.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Highway Trees

5.6.1

Nigel Slack referred to an email from Councillor Steve Wilson, Chair of the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee, which had been sent to Labour Party members in East Ecclesfield in respect of highway trees. Mr Slack commented that, apart from the Councillor not knowing to which school this memorial related, part of Councillor Wilson’s statement was, in Mr Slack’s opinion, a gross injustice to the campaigners involved in the street trees movement, whether from the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, no party at all (the majority) and, in particular to those campaigners who were members of the Labour Party. It would appear this Councillor’s mind was already made up and his bias, in Mr Slack’s opinion, made him unfit to Chair the Scrutiny Committee tasked with resolving this issue, failing on the Principle of Public Life that ‘Holders of Public Office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.’ Would the Council strongly urge that the Deputy Chair of the Committee be asked to lead on this issue to ensure that fairness was not only done, but seen to be done?

5.6.2

Councillor Julie Dore responded that it was not for the Cabinet to determine the composition of the Scrutiny Cross-Party Working Group. Full Council had referred the issue to Scrutiny, noting that the working group would be set up and every Councillor had supported that approach.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Tree Felling on Dunkeld Road

5.7.1

Nigel Slack stated that, having failed to make any progress on Dunkeld Road on the Monday, AMEY’s sub-contractors returned to begin felling trees again on the Tuesday. Police were in attendance and, as more protestors arrived, they moved to clear the protest. One of the protestors raised an issue of Health and Safety where, allegedly, the contractors had been seen using a technique known as ‘bombing’. This was cutting branches and simply allowing them to fall to the ground from a great height. She raised this with the Police Inspector on site and asked whether the contractors had a ‘method statement’ that authorised this technique. After some ‘to and fro’, which was recorded by another witness digitally, the Inspector stated; “If they were doing something unlawfully in that respect then you will have the due redress through whatever process. That is not going to stop these people from chopping this tree down today.”

5.7.2

Mr Slack added that the comments of the Police Inspector would appear to be an officer of the law permitting, without knowledge one way or the other, potentially unlawful actions. Mr Slack also found it interesting to note on the video that, after this issue was raised, all further limbs were roped and lowered to the ground in a controlled manner, even the smallest. Was an AMEY representative on site that day? Did that statement allow for ‘bombing’?

5.7.3

Councillor Bryan Lodge informed Mr Slack that he would provide a written response in respect of the details referred to in Mr Slack’s question. However, he did note that of the 65 houses surveyed on Dunkeld Road, 29 responded and only 9 had objected to the tree felling. Some residents in the news reports had actually been asking for the trees to come down and these views needed to be taken into account.

5.7.4

Councillor Lodge emphasised that the Council did see felling as a last resort and did intend to save as many trees as they could. There were a number of things that needed to be balanced when making the decision about felling.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Legislation

5.8.1

Nigel Slack commented that, having twice attempted to get a basic response to whether the Council supported, or not, the use of TULRA sec.241 legislation, despite a very eloquent explanation as to why they use it, he may have found the answer. In the same video from the incident referred to in the previous question, the Police Inspector is heard to say: “Police Legal Services and Council have agreed use of this legislation”. Could the Council confirm or deny this statement? If correct, who in the Council made this agreement? Were any of the Cabinet Members aware of this?

5.8.2

Councillor Julie Dore responded that it was the Government and national politicians who determined laws. The Police’s role was to uphold laws and protect the public. The Police decided when to use legislation and it was not the role of the Council to tell the Police what to do.

5.8.3

Councillor Dore added that, in any operation where the Police were involved and advised the Council, the Council had to take that advice into consideration. In respect of the Rustling Roads operation, the Police advised the Council on how to carry out the operation. The Council had to take the advice seriously. Councillor Dore could not comment on the statement by the Police Inspector, as she did not hear it. It was important to emphasise that it was not the role of the Council to make legislation.