Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

4.1.1

Petition Requesting the Council to Take Action to Reduce Air Pollution

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 305 signatures, requesting the Council to take action to reduce air pollution.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Graham Jones. Mr Jones stated that he was presenting the petition on behalf of the Burngreave Clean Air Campaign. Air pollution caused by traffic contributed to the premature death of many people annually and especially vulnerable groups included older people, unborn children, taxi drivers and people living in poorer areas such as Burngreave, which had several schools in one of the most polluted areas of Sheffield, with busy A roads running through it.

The petition also sought to support the introduction of anti-idling measures and Mr Jones said that children walking to school, rather than being taken in cars, would be better for people. Local people had been responsive when approached about this issue. Monitoring of pollution in Burngreave had been carried out and which showed high levels of Nitrogen Dioxide. The petitioners sought to increase awareness of the issue of air quality as well as reducing the effects of pollution. One of the measures which could be taken was to introduce walking buses for school children and to move traffic away from residential areas. He said that he was pleased that the Council had developed a Clean Air Strategy with proposals concerning anti-idling measures.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability. Councillor Scott stated that the Council had published a report to Cabinet concerning a Clean Air Strategy. He said that there were many challenges relating to clean air, other than transport, and these included issues of inequality and fairness, exclusion and social justice. Clean air was a fundamental right for people and it was the most vulnerable in society who were affected by polluted air. He commented on the work being done, including with Burngreave Ward Councillors who had championed work with regard to air quality. He agreed that the situation could be described as one of crisis and a public health emergency and expressed concern that the negative health effects of pollution contributed to the deaths of some 500 people in Sheffield annually. This was an issue which needed to see improvement for everyone and a closing of the gap between areas where air quality was best and worst. He commented that the Government did not appear to be taking action on air quality which was sufficient to the challenges it presented.

He said that air pollution was also a major drain on the City’s economy, put at £200 million annually and that there was not necessarily a tension between clean air and economic growth. There was also a Public Transport Vision, which had been submitted to the December meeting of Cabinet. Meanwhile, the Air Quality Strategy set out immediate actions, including in relation to vehicle idling, working with communities towards a Neighbourhood Champion Scheme, improving air quality around schools and in relation to winning hearts and minds to change behaviours.

Councillor Scott said that he was grateful to the petitioners for bringing this issue to Council. He commented that some of the solutions with regard to air quality were not easy, cheap nor always popular, that but they were required and they were the right thing to do. He said that he looked forward to working with the petitioners and the Burngreave Clean Air Campaign and with local councillors.

4.1.2

Petition Objecting to Planning Application 17/01437/FUL (1-11 Rotherham Place, Orgreave Road)

The Council received a petition containing around 600 signatures, objecting to the planning application for the development of a gas standby power generation facility on the site of 1-11 Rotherham Place, Orgreave Road.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Eric Chambers. Mr Chambers stated that the petition concerned objections to a planning application for the development of a gas standby power generation facility. He said that people were shocked that, having been withdrawn previously, this matter had been submitted to the Planning and Highways Committee and that the officer report relating to the application had said that it was recommended for approval. He asked why local people had only found out about the application through the newspapers.

Mr Chambers commented on increased levels of Nitrogen Dioxide which could be emitted from the proposed facility and that the recent Council report concerning Air Quality had stated that the Nitrogen Dioxide should be reduced in the Orgreave area of the City. Two similar facilities in the area had already been given planning approval. In addition, there was a proposal for some 200 additional homes in the area and which would also mean additional traffic.

He said that the report referred to the Local Planning Authority having dealt with the planning application in a positive and proactive manner and having sought solutions to problems in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Mr Chambers quoted the National Planning Policy Framework in as far as it referred to taking into account the views of the community, natural environment, minimising pollution etc. He also made reference to objections which had been submitted and which were published on the planning website, including in relation to toxic gas, noise pollution, proximity to a proposed school and housing. He asked that the Council look at this matter further.

4.1.3

Public Questions Concerning Planning Application 17/01437/FUL (1-11 Rotherham Place, Orgreave Road)

Neal Varns asked if it was true that the first unit was proposed on Council officers’ delegated approval and without local councillors, Members of Parliament or residents being informed.

Ian Crombie referred to Council policies which sought to protect the environment and improve air quality. He asked why the Council envisaged supporting an industrial development near to a residential area, the impact of which might negate the benefits of other previous good work. 

Amanda Gipson asked several questions, as follows:

When a councillor is a member or chair of Planning Committee and is also an elected councillor for an area very close to a development; how do they balance their duties with the duty of care owed to the people who elected them, particularly with regard to local residents’ concerns about air quality?

Why does the air quality impact report in respect of the proposal not seem to take account of the cumulative effect of the similar proposals already granted [permission] within the same neighbourhood?

Has the Council been given or promised money or any other incentive by central government to find sites for these units in the area, which was already a designated air quality improvement zone?

Since the Government’s air quality strategy said that, in air quality improvement zones, planning permission should only be given to developers offering significant local employment opportunities, why was permission given for the developments already granted when so few people will be employed there?

Does the Council read and act upon comments made on the planning website, particularly when they are made by respected bodies such as the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trusts?

Could the Leader of the Council reassure people that no decisions will be made until all the questions raised both on the planning website and in writing by local councillors, residents and Members of Parliament, have been addressed?

Carol Booth asked whether any councillor or member of their family would like one or more of the proposed units in close proximity to their property. She also asked why the area was being let down by the approval of such a development and why only Woodhouse Councillors were supporting residents and not those from Richmond Ward, that had a duty to represent people in Handsworth?

The Council referred the petition and the questions to Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Planning and Development and to Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability.  Councillor Curran thanked the petitioners and those people who had asked questions. He clarified that the Administration of the Council did not have the powers to decide upon planning applications as this was a function of the Planning and Highways Committee. However, he said that he took on board the concerns which had been raised and would be pleased to meet with people to discuss the matter further. He said it should not be the case that elected members and residents were not informed in relation to planning applications in their area. Applications would normally be advertised and a weekly list of applications was also provided to councillors. He said that he would find out what happened in this case.

Councillor Curran said that no decision had yet been taken in respect of the planning application, despite an officer recommendation that the proposal was granted. The Planning and Highways Committee would listen to representations and take on board the information presented to them so they might determine the application. Councillor Curran said that there would be opportunity for people to make representations to the Committee. 

He said that he would speak with the Chair of the Committee and to the Council’s Head of Planning to make sure the application was not considered before there had been sufficient time to look at this issue.

The report relating to the planning application made reference to the cumulative effect of the proposal with other similar schemes and it stated that this was not considered material to the application.  In relation to the question concerning government funding for such schemes, he said that he would look at that issue to make sure it was not the case.

Councillor Curran stated that councillors were able to view material on the planning website and planning reports. In certain cases, site visits were also made to particular locations subject to planning applications. He stated that issues regarding local councillors should be raised with the councillors concerned.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, clarified that he was not a member of the Planning and Highways Committee. However, several local councillors had made him aware of the issues which had been outlined in the petition. He said that he would also be pleased to meet with people about their concerns. He commented on the potentially wide range of Nitrogen Dioxide levels and any increase which may be brought about by the proposal and said that more modelling would be required in relation to the public concerns and which would help to inform the Planning and Highways Committee. Modelling had also been requested on the effect of a higher chimney as part of the proposals. The issue of air quality relating to the application had been taken seriously and a mitigation approach had been used.

4.1.4

Petition Requesting Measures to Control the Inappropriate and Dangerous Parking of Vehicles in the Vicinity of Norton Lane

The Council received a petition containing 16 signatures, requesting the implementation of measures to stop the inappropriate and dangerous parking of vehicles in the vicinity of Norton Lane.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Graham Nevin. Mr Nevin stated that the petition requested the consideration of solutions in respect of the dangerous and inconsiderate parking of vehicles on Norton Lane and Little Norton Lane and at the T-Junction of the highway. Vehicles were parked on or over large speed bumps and on the pavements. There were particular problems at times when school children were taken to or collected from school when vehicles also parked over double yellow lines. Vehicles parking, such as on the corner of Little Norton Lane and Norton Lane resulted in blind spots being created, which were a danger to pedestrians and drivers.

School pupils crossed the road via a pedestrian crossing point on Bochum Parkway to get to Meadowhead School and they were also at risk because of the parking problems. Some vehicles were parked on the road by employees of nearby car dealerships, although there had been assurances that there would be adequate parking for employees on site. The petitioners called upon the Council to explore parking restrictions on the highway to help resolve this issue.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability. Councillor Scott commented that Norton Lane was narrow and it was therefore surprising that there were no parking restrictions on the road and he understood why parking was problematic. He said that he was pleased that the car dealerships had taken some action but it was apparent that more could be done.

Councillor Scott said that he would be pleased to meet with the petitioners. Any changes would require consultation and possibly traffic regulation orders. It would also not be acceptable to take action in one place which only served to move parking problems to somewhere else. This was an issue which needed to be given further consideration and especially if it affected pupils walking to and from Meadowhead School.

4.1.5

Public Question Concerning Norton Lane

Rosemary Markham asked what consideration the Council gave to local roads and residents when planning permissions were granted as experience had shown that there was not always an understanding of the impact and repercussions.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, responded that every planning application was assessed by a highways specialist so as to consider the potential impact and steps which might be taken to mitigate issues. Each development had an impact upon the transport network and there was a need to find a balance between proposed development and the impact on an area.

4.1.6

Petition Requesting Security Measures at High Wincobank Allotment Site

The Council received a petition containing 50 signatures, requesting security measures at High Wincobank Allotment site.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure. Councillor Lea responded that she was already aware of the issues outlined in the petition and was working with local councillors on the matter.

4.2

Public Questions

4.2.1

Public Question Concerning Wheelchair Users on Buses

Craig Williams stated that as a wheelchair user, he frequently used the buses in Sheffield. On the Stagecoach buses, there was a sign saying that the wheelchair space must by law, be kept clear for wheelchair users and buggies and prams must be moved by law to allow a wheelchair user to have the space. On First buses, there was no such sign and on two occasions recently, he said that he had been left on the pavement as the bus driver had informed him that there was a pram in the space allocated for a wheelchair and they could not ask for it to be moved. He asked whether the Council had any power to force First buses to apply the law and, if not, who did have this power.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability said in response that he apologised to Mr Williams that he was put in that position and commented that it was an appalling situation. He said that he would take this matter up with bus operators First and Stagecoach as it was completely unacceptable. Bus companies had to keep a space available for wheelchairs by law and he would do everything that he could to put this situation right.

4.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Tree Replacement

Tony May stated that despite recent reports in the press, television programmes and court injunction, protesters continued to disrupt the lives of residents. He asked how much longer people had to wait for some of the highway trees to be replaced.

Secondly, Mr May asked whether councillors would please accept that claims of intimidation towards Sheffield Tree Action Groups supporters on a street in Wadsley were a complete reversal of the truth. He said that people in the neighbourhood were tired of the situation. They also loved trees but some of the larger ones were damaging pavements, walls and surfaces.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded to the questions. He said that the Council regularly heard questions which implied there was one voice in the City which was against the tree replacement programme. He remarked on the courage shown by someone [with a different view]. He made reference to intimidation by masked protesters and said that many comments had been received from people who felt that they had been intimidated and he quoted some of those comments.

Councillor Lodge referred to the democratic process and to local elections held in 2016 and by-elections since that time. It was acknowledged that there were indeed different points of view and it was right to defend the right of people to speak.

4.2.3

Public Question Concerning a Community Building

Yvonne Wray asked for a meeting with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development with regard to the Council facilitating a community building for people of African descent.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, stated that a question was asked at the November meeting of Council, following which his office had requested further information as to the requirements for a community building. He said that he understood that Yvonne Wray wished for a meeting to be arranged with him in this regard after mid-January 2018.

4.2.4

Public Question Concerning Somaliland

Kaltun Elmi stated that the community was proud that the Council had recognised Somaliland as an independent state with aspirations to work for democracy, the rule of law, respect of human rights, women playing an active part in decision making and continuing the fight against female genital mutilation. She said that free and fair presidential elections had been held in Somaliland. She asked whether the Council would continue to press the Government to lead the way in recognising Somaliland so that it might use its full potential to work with the international community to address issues including poverty, injustice, piracy and terrorism. She asked for a commitment by the Leader of the Council to join the community at a celebratory event, which would take place on Saturday 16 December in Barker’s Pool.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, thanked Kaltun Elmi for the reminder of the events held in 2014 relating to the recognition of Somaliland. With regard to the Council pressing the UK Government to recognise Somaliland, the Council had put pressure on the Government to use its influence to enable the international community to recognise Somaliland. Actions taken in Sheffield were the start of a process of recognition and Councillor Dore said that she would welcome ideas and suggestions as to how this might be progressed.  

Councillor Dore said that with regard to the celebration event on 16 December, she believed it was in her diary and she knew that the invitation was also extended to all Members of the Council.

4.2.5

Public Questions Concerning Walk-In Centre and Minor Injuries Unit

Linda Jones made reference to the Notice of Motion on the agenda for this Council meeting concerning access to Urgent Primary Care. She asked what the Council could do to safeguard local services, including the Walk-In Centre at Broad Street and the Minor Injuries Unit at the Hallamshire Hospital.  She said that she had attended a meeting of the City’s Clinical Commissioning Group and commented that all three of the options included in the consultation would lead to the closure of these facilities.

Councillor Cate McDonald, the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care, responded to the question. She said that there were three things that the Council could do to help safeguard services provided by the NHS.

Firstly, the Council could advocate for the NHS at every opportunity. For example, the Council made representations with regard to the Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP), which it was considered was a top down-down arrangement with a lack of transparency and accountability.

Secondly, Council meetings could be used to bring matters of concern for debate and raise the profile of issues through motions and amendments to motions. At this meeting of Council, there was both a Notice of Motion and amendments in respect of Urgent Primary Care.

Thirdly, the Council’s Scrutiny function had a responsibility to look at proposed major changes to health services and it also had a power to refer matters to the Secretary of State in cases when it considered that a proposal was wrong.

4.2.6

Public Questions Concerning Procurement 

Jenny Carpenter referred to the motion concerning a review of Council procurement procedures which was passed on 1 October 2014 and she asked what progress had been made to take any action on this resolution and where was it published.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Deputy Leader of the Council said that there had been a large amount of consultation regarding procurement and the issue had been considered at a Scrutiny Committee to develop a policy and approach to the issue. As regards ethical procurement, the code of conduct principles were included in tender documentation sent out by the Council. Relevant information would be requested from those who made bids for contracts and bidders could be excluded on the grounds of misconduct.

The final policy had not been approved at this point in time. However, it would be the subject to an individual Cabinet Member decision. The documents relating to this issue would be published on the Council website. Councillor Blake said that she would be pleased to meet with Jenny Carpenter regarding this matter.

4.2.7

Public Question Concerning the Old Town Hall

Diana Stimely stated that the Council had said that funding would be found to enable urgent repairs to the Old Town Hall building. She asked why this had not been done.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development, stated that he had met with the Friends’ group and artists at an event during the summer in relation to the Castlegate area. A partnership had been established which included the Friends’ group and other stakeholders in relation to regenerating the Castlegate area.

There were particular challenges relating to the Old Town Hall. The Council would fund a survey of the building but had not committed to carry out work to it. The building was owned by a private landowner, not the Council. The outcome of the survey would help to determine the work which was required. There was apparently substantial investment required for the Old Town Hall building. The Council was in contact with other stakeholders and the ambition was to find a partner to work with the Council and the stakeholder group. Once the survey was complete, this would be shared with the Friends group. However, financial commitments relating to the Old Town Hall building could not be made at this time. 

4.2.8

Public Question Concerning Notice of Motion Regarding the Budget

Peter Garbutt asked the Council to explain why there was a Motion on the agenda for this meeting concerning the UK budget, when he said there were many more relevant issues to discuss.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that she was astonished that it was not accepted that the national budget had an impact on Sheffield. The Notice of Motion concerned with the Budget included important issues such as homelessness, Universal Credit, housing, etc., which were all critical issues that affected people in the City.

4.2.9

Public Question Concerning Streets Ahead

Annette Taberner stated that roads had been closed, restricting access for people and trees felled above parked vehicles and she asked for the name of the company which had carried out work in this way, stating that Amey had refused to provide this information. She also stated that assurances had been given that work would not commence before 7.00am. However, people were beginning work in the early hours of the morning. She also referred to unidentified security personnel on the street at these times and asked whether the Council was monitoring the situation.

Sheldon Hall made reference to the Core Investment Period for the highway works and asked firstly, why priority had seemingly been given to tree felling over works to the highway.

Secondly, he asked what mechanisms there were to monitor the work done or not done by Amey and, where necessary, to take action in relation to breaches of health and safety regulations, including earlier today the reported injury to a child by flying tree debris.

Thirdly, he asked in relation to value for money, whether the Council had commissioned an independent assessment of the cost of retaining memorial trees as a comparison.

Fourthly, he asked whether the Council would agree that, in the light of recent court actions, it was inappropriate for the memorial plaque to the Kinder Scout trespass to be displayed on the wall of the Town Hall and that it should be removed to be consistent with current policy.

Russell Johnson asked if a progress report could be given on negotiations to extricate the Council from the Amey-PFI (Private Finance Initiative) contract.

Secondly, he asked whether the Council believed that paying a barrister £15,000 a day in an attempt to criminalise an elected member was good value for the City’s taxpayers.

Thirdly, he asked for an assessment of the damage caused to the Council’s reputation by alleged assaults by security staff, believed to have been hired by Amey, in the past week.

David Dilner asked a question concerning safe passage on footways and referred to many images which were available of pavements blocked by Amey barriers. He said that images which he had submitted had been ignored or passed to Amey and asked when the Council would address its statutory responsibilities.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Streetscene, responded to the questions. He said that the unidentified security guards to whom the question had referred, were stewards employed by Amey due to masked protesters stopping work.

In relation to the Core Investment Period of the Streets Ahead contract, condition surveys had been carried out and work was scheduled according to the survey results. Approximately sixty percent of the highway network would be completed by the end of the Core Investment Period and the other streets would be worked upon as part of the life-cycle phase of the contract. Trees were replaced using the 6 Ds criteria meaning that they were either dangerous, dead, dying, diseased, damaging or discriminatory. The Council’s contract monitoring team monitored issues. Amey was in contact with the Health and Safety Executive and Councillor Lodge suggested that issues and concerns relating to health and safety were reported, which could be investigated by the Health and Safety Executive.

As regards the memorial trees, the cost of work by Amey was derived from the tariff for work. The cost was more competitive than had been the case when highways work was performed by Street Force and also when compared to information within other bids for the Streets Ahead contract. The estimated costs relating to the memorial trees would be £500,000.

Councillor Lodge said that he did not agree with the proposal as put by the questioner relating to the Kinder Scout memorial plaque.

He said that the Council was not in negotiations to end the Streets Ahead contract, although there had been an erroneous report relating to this matter in the press.

With respect to the question concerning the costs of a barrister, Councillor Lodge stated that if people were not trying to breach the injunction and breach barriers around safety zones, the Council would not have to take action to enforce the injunction. He commented that he had faith in the legal system and would respect the decisions of the court.

Councillor Lodge said that he would follow up the issues reported by Mr Dilner concerning the obstruction of pavements by barriers and asked that the photographs and details were provided to him in order that he could take the issue to Amey. He also stated that the remaining improvements to the highways would be completed.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that with regard to the Council’s reputation, she was deeply saddened by damage to Sheffield’s reputation caused by misrepresentation by protesters.

4.2.10

Public Question Concerning Central Library Building

Russell Johnson asked if the Council agreed with him that the deal with the Chinese developer to convert the Central Library building was most unwise and had made the Council look even more of a ‘laughing stock’.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the Council had an opportunity to work with a major investor towards the obtaining of much needed investment in Sheffield. Whilst the question referred to a deal, it was a Memorandum of Understanding which had been signed by the Council and the Construction Group. There was a chance that an organisation wished to invest major funding in the City, which she did not consider to be a matter which would make the Council a ‘laughing stock’.

4.2.11

Public Question Concerning the Inner Ring Road

Martin Phipps referred to plans relating to the Inner Ring Road and said that Kelham Island had been in breach of the legal safe limits for Nitrogen Dioxide since the creation of such limits. He commented that studies had shown that widening roads was often not effective in reducing congestion. He asked why it was thought appropriate to suggest the widening of the road to three lanes on each side and how did this help to reduce the amount of Nitrogen Dioxide to within a safe legal limit and help Sheffield to meet pollution reduction targets.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Sustainability, responded to the question. He stated that the proposed schemefor the Inner Ring Road between Corporation Street and Saville Street was subject to consultation. The proposals were concerned with the efficiency of the junction, which was not effective, including for public transport. The intention was to redesign the road junction rather than to implement a road widening scheme as such and to mitigate against increased traffic congestion. The revised scheme included more cycling infrastructure than the original scheme.

Councillor Scott said that he would be pleased to meet with Mr Phipps in relation to why he thought that the area was in breach of the safe level of Nitrogen Dioxide and to see whether he had further information. He said that the nearest monitoring location on Gibraltar Street had exceeded the legal level of Nitrogen Dioxide (which was 40 micrograms per cubic metre) but this had been in 2007. That was not to say that there was not an air quality problem in Sheffield and the Council had set out a vision of what action would be taken to address the issue.

4.2.12

Public Question Concerning Sheffield Newsroom

Richard Davis made reference to an item on the Council’s Newsroom website regarding a letter to Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Environment and with regard to the Department for Transport being party to the Streets Ahead contract.

He also made reference to a notice of contravention and a statement regarding breaches of the law.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded to the question and said that before she gave an answer to the question, she would need to look at the specific information published on the Council Newsroom website to ascertain whether the information was correct or not.