Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Objecting to the Closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Seven Hills School

The Council received an electronic petition containing 1,249 signatures, objecting to the closure of the hydrotherapy pool at Seven Hills School.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Lisa Siddall. She stated that her son was one of the children that attended swimming lessons at the pool and had done so for the past two years. The staff and standard of teaching at the swim school were outstanding. The proposal to close the hydrotherapy pool was of concern as it would affect children and parents and there was no comparative facility and teaching available for children with physical disabilities at Seven Hills School. Children received substantial benefits from swimming and being in the water.

The reasons given for the proposal to close the pool were cost and the upkeep associated with the pool. However, the Shoals swim school had offered to meet the running costs of the pool and to provide a day each week when they would give free swimming lessons to children at the school. Shoals swim school also offered work experience and former students worked at the pool as lifeguards. Parents were devastated at the prospect of the pool closing and were not satisfied with the explanation given for the closure of the pool. It was considered that the benefits of the pool outweighed those of the alternative gym facilities, which it was proposed was put in place of the pool.

Lisa Siddall referred to the dedication of the Shoals swim school team to enable a girl with cerebral palsy to swim and achieve 200 metres and who was learning to dive. Swimming was endorsed as one of the most beneficial forms of exercise. She said that she had started the petition so that the decision could be looked at in more depth and consideration given as to how the pool might be kept open.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills. Councillor Dunn stated that the existing pool was a cold water pool and a hydrotherapy pool needed to be heated to a higher temperature. A new hydrotherapy pool would be installed as part of the redevelopment of the space at the school and which would be operational for two and a half days each week. While the redevelopment was taking place, children would be given access to alternative provision off site, so that hydrotherapy for children could continue. The redeveloped gym facility would also provide other types of movement activity for children such as rebound therapy.

Councillor Dunn said that she would be examining SEND (Special Education Needs and Disabilities) provision in Sheffield and how there could be more joined up working in this regard and she would also work with Councillor Mary Lea (the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure) to enable really good provision across the City.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Question Concerning Somaliland

Kaltum Elmi informed Members of the Council about the effect of a cyclone which had hit Somaliland and would cause many people there to be affected by hunger and thirst and the country was already in a period of drought. She said that Sheffield had made a big difference to people in Somaliland by generously raising funds for the poorest people there.  

She said that a community fast-breaking event would be held on 8 June to help raise money for people in Somaliland and she asked whether the Lord Mayor or Deputy Lord Mayor and city councillors would be able to attend.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded and stated that the question had highlighted the tragic events that were taking place and which were affecting people in Somaliland. She congratulated people on their efforts in fundraising so far and in organising the forthcoming event on 8 June. She said that, whilst she could not provide an answer with regard to the availability of the Deputy Lord Mayor to attend the event, she was sure that he would consider the invitation and that other councillors would also do the same.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning Arrangements for Council Meetings

Andy Barclay asked why the Council had moved the start time of meetings of full Council from 5pm to 2pm, which would mean that some people wishing to attend the meeting might not be able to attend or had to book time off work to do so.

Councillor Olivia Blake, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, responded that in 2017 the Council began a trial period of changes to meetings of full Council and as part of this, the start time of Council moved from 2pm to 5pm. A Working Group, comprising all of the political parties represented on the Council, considered the changes and it was decided and agreed by all parties, following the trial period, to return to a start time of 2pm. There were plans to look at webcasting meetings in the coming months and this would enable a greater number of people to view and engage with meetings. She said that it was recognised that 2pm was a difficult time for some people to attend meetings. However, the majority of Members had agreed to move the start time of Council meetings back to 2pm from the temporary time of 5pm.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning Gleadless Valley Regeneration

Carrie Hedderwick asked questions concerning the Gleadless Valley regeneration, namely, what were the emerging plans and did this include demolition and new build; and a question with regard to the consultation costs and who was doing the consultation. She referred to the recent screening in Gleadless Valley of a film entitled Dispossession – the great social housing swindle.

Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that both he and Councillor Jack Scott were due to attend a screening of the film but he apologised that in the event they were unable to because of another meeting and he hoped to be able to see the film at another time. The Gleadless Valley regeneration was at the beginning of the process, in terms of setting out the consultation process, the commissioning of a consultant and looking at how to use community grant funding which was available. A panel had been set up involving local councillors, to do that. A consultant would be engaged in the next two weeks.

Councillor Steinke said that with regard to the specific questions asked, whilst he could not be specific at this stage, where accommodation was poor it may be that demolition would take place. He said that he also hoped there would be new build. However, it was early in the process and it was really important to respect the tenants and residents and not to make people anxious. 

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning Special Olympics

Adam Butcher asked what the Council was doing with regard to the legacy of the Special Olympics in 2017. 

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, stated that the Special Olympics was a great success and the athletes were great ambassadors for Sheffield and it had a positive economic and reputational effect. The Council worked closely with the voluntary sector and with parents to help young athletes with learning disabilities. Discussions were also taking place with SIV (Sheffield International Venues) with regard to the enhancement of facilities and services and to address barriers which existed for disabled people.

Councillor Lea said that the Council would work across the City where there was sports provision and look for every opportunity to improve access for people with learning disabilities. She said that she was aware that a group did use the Olive Grove site. Councillor Lea also stated that she would very much like to see the Special Olympics back in Sheffield again in the future.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Accessible Accommodation and Safety

Martha Foulds referred to the recent heart breaking death of Sakineh Afrasiabi, a partially sighted woman who had lived on eighteenth floor of the Grenfell Tower, despite Kensington and Chelsea Council saying that she should not be located more than four floors above ground level. She asked what steps Sheffield City Council had taken to ensure that older and disabled people in Council-owned and Council managed properties were able to safely evacuate in an emergency.

Councillor Jim Steinke, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that the events and fire which had occurred relating to Grenfell Tower were very tragic and there was an ongoing investigation into how the events might have been avoided and the lessons to be learned.

He said that an extensive briefing note had been prepared on this issue and he would be pleased to let the questioner have a copy of it. At present, Sheffield had a stay-put policy in respect of flats and tower blocks and this would not change until the Council was informed to the contrary by the Government or the Fire and Rescue Service. The stay-put policy had been effective in previous incidents of fires in the City and which had been contained.

He said that extensive fire protection work had been done in respect of flats in Sheffield and he was satisfied that tower blocks were as safe as they could be at this point in time. There was a question of how any further additional protection work would be funded. It had already been agreed to implement sprinklers in all tower blocks in Sheffield.

The Hackitt report had recently been produced in relation to the Grenfell Tower and the Council was looking at the implications of that report and following which a further briefing note was to be produced. The issue was also likely to be considered by a Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee to look at the implications and policy.

As regards disabled people or those with special needs, a suitability assessment was undertaken and, if a tower block was safe, it was not for the local authority to prohibit people from living in a certain place if they were able to. He said that in terms of the future of tower blocks, many people liked living in them, and also on the higher floors, including disabled people and it was important that people felt that it was safe to do so.

Councillor Steinke undertook to send a copy of the report to the questioner and Members of the Council.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning Legal Proceedings

Dave Dillner asked at what point the Leader of the Council became involved in discussions concerning legal proceedings relating to Court injunctions for trespass in tree work safety zones.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, said that this was the subject of an ongoing legal case and her response would be made in that context. She pointed out that politicians took policy decisions and Council officers took decisions relating to individual Court action. She said that she had been continuously briefed on the matter and issues relating to the protests concerning trees, which had been ongoing for some time. She had been briefed by officers since this first became an issue and the newly appointed Cabinet Member was also briefed upon taking office, as the previous Cabinet Member had been.

Councillor Dore said that on Tuesday, 5 June she had been contacted following a request for clarification from the Judge to ask whether she agreed to the case being brought forward and her reply was that she did. She said that she respected the process that was followed and which had led to the decision and she believed it was important that the process was respected. The Council was involved in many legal actions relating to a range of issues and it would be a dangerous precedent to set for elected members to make decisions about the bringing forward of cases against individuals. It was right that decisions were made independently and objectively by professional Council officers.

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Blue Badges

Graham Wroe made reference to an article in the Sheffield Star dated 6 June 2018, which reported that a disabled woman was refused a blue badge renewal and would have to wait four months without a badge, until an appeal was heard. He said that, since new regulations had come into force, it seemed that many people previously considered eligible for a blue badge were not now considered disabled enough to get a blue badge. This particularly concerned people with conditions such as ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which might have fluctuating symptoms. He asked the following questions:

Is there a quota of how many blue badges Sheffield City Council could now issue each year; would it not be possible to extend a blue badge to the date of the appeal, if it was being refused; and should not applicants with conditions with fluctuating symptoms be assessed on their capabilities on their worst day, rather than their best day?

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that he found that in the UK, at present, there was a hostile environment with regard to many disabled people. Many Councillors had constituents who were subject to a review of a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and also in relation to benefits and workplace capability and other policy measures.

There was no quota for blue badges and the Council would not support that. The Council had recently responded to Government consultation on the implementation of blue badges and had made it clear that blue badges should be awarded on the basis of need. He agreed that it would be preferable (if indeed, it was in the Council’s gift) to extend the use of a blue badge until an appeal had been heard and had been resolved. However, blue badges were subject to strict national guidelines, which governed the implementation of the blue badge scheme. 

Councillor Scott said that he believed that people should be assessed for their worst condition and the extent to which they needed to use a blue badge for that condition.  In relation to people with long term conditions, the blue badge scheme at present relied upon a physical medical model of disability rather than a social model of disability, which put people at a further disadvantage when they had to effectively proof the extent of their disability, which he believed was wrong. He was planning to meet with disability groups in relation to this issue as, despite national government guidelines, there were potential options about how the scheme was implemented in Sheffield and he was determined that the Council did all that it could to make it as fair as possible for people with disabilities.

3.2.8

Public Question Concerning Subject Matter of Notices of Motion

Nigel Slack referred to Notices of Motion included on the Council Summons and asked whether the Council would undertake to make the effort to ensure that at least one of the majority group's motions tackled issues of national and international concern, rather than being of a party political nature.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated that the Council agenda for this meeting included a Notice of Motion concerning transport, which was a high profile issue nationally and certainly for the north of England; and secondly, a Motion concerning Fracking, which was also of both local and national importance and these were issues that she believed were of public interest.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, added that in relation to the Motion concerning transport, it was right that the Council put forward a range of celebrations and issues about things which were going well in the City.

3.2.9

Public Question Concerning the General Cemetery

Nigel Slack made reference to the General Cemetery and to concerns relating to previous decisions made at the time the original lease was granted and over the ownership of the Anglican Chapel within the grounds. He said there were plans which indicated that the Council retained access rights from Cemetery Road, along the top of the grounds and as far as the Anglican Chapel. He said this indicated an area that could accommodate vehicle access and parking.

Mr Slack asked whether the Council would commit to excluding any further commercial exploitation of this sensitive listed location.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development said that on the question of planning policy and whether the Council would remove its requirement for disabled parking places in particular, he wished to make it clear that he would not support a change to planning policy which excluded people with disabilities. The position regarding the Cemetery was one that was supported by a number of groups, including Sheffield Disabled People Against the Cuts, Disability Sheffield and wheelchair user groups. Seeking the views of such groups as those representing disabled people was important as regards the development of an inclusive planning policy.

He said that, in this case, in respect of both disabled parking spaces and the broader commerciality, the planning policy was right and the Planning and Highways Committee had formed a fair, inclusive and sustainable decision. He said that the City’s natural and built heritage were assets for everyone and the Council would not support a change in policy which excluded disabled people from being able to benefit from them.

3.2.10

Public Question Concerning the Old Town Hall

Nigel Slack said that it was nearly 11 months since the Council allocated monies to carry out vital and urgent repairs to the Old Town Hall roof and since that time, the building had been subject to another winter and rain that would have undoubtedly caused yet more damage to the roof and interior.

He said that, despite the fact that the Friend’s group had undertaken significant structural analysis of the building, the Council had spent money on further surveys to find the same results as provided by the Friend’s group and he said that he suspected it would be spending more money on a Quantity Surveyor and tender process before the work was carried out.

Mr Slack asked the following questions:

1.     How much has been spent on the Council's surveys?

2.     What is expected to be the costs of the Quantity Surveyor and tender process?

3.     How much money will be left in the allocated budget for the actual work?

4.     Will this desperately needed work start before the anniversary of the money being made available?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, responded that he would be pleased to provide to Mr Slack the report relating Castlegate. This concerned the wider regeneration of the area and not only the Old Town Hall building. The Council did not own the Old Town Hall building. It was owned by a private developer. Resources that the Council was making available related to the use of powers to take the landlord to court to gain access to the building. He said that he was in contact with the Friends Group and City Councillors were members of the Castle Regeneration Board.

He said that the Old Town Hall was an historic building and it required people with the necessary technical expertise to look at it as there could potentially be materials present, including asbestos. Therefore, an element of the resource which the Council was making available was to carry out a survey. He said that he did not know what the costs were of remedial works and so was not able to give any commitment at this time.

Councillor Iqbal said that it was important that the use of public funds followed the proper process, one of which was a legal process and, if the landlord did not respond, works could be carried out and if necessary, a charge would be put on the building to recover costs at such a time as it was sold. However, the precise details of the damage to the building were not known. Structural Engineers were to examine the building this month and would provide a report as to the work that was required.  So far, £1,500 had been spent on the work.

Councillor Iqbal stated that he would like for Mr Slack to have the full facts, so he might ask questions in relation to this matter. The Council was doing everything possible. There was a Board, consisting of a number of stakeholders, including the Friends of the Old Town Hall. Further information would be made available following the survey and Mr Slack could be included on the mailing list for this issue to ensure he received the relevant up to date information.

3.2.11

Public Question Concerning Midland Railway Station

Nigel Slack stated that in a response to an enquiry concerning the works being carried out at the Midland Station, the relevant Cabinet Member responded on social media that “I am not in a position to discuss this”. He commented that work to a listed building so prominent to visitors to the city was of public interest and asked what works were being carried out there and why there had been a curious response from the Cabinet Member.

Councillor Jack Scott, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, said that he had answered a question concerning this topic online and he had said that he was not in a position to comment as he wanted people to know that he was not ignoring the question that had been addressed to him.

He said there were several pieces of legislation, including the 1845 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act and 1898 Midland Railways Act, which governed the law in the area in and around the railway station. Network Rail had a statutory duty to ensure that railway infrastructure and stations were safe and which included taking necessary steps to protect them from attacks based on an assessment of the threat.

Councillor Scott said that there were permitted development rights under the legislation and statutory obligations and that Network Rail was not required to refer to the Council as Planning Authority to make changes to the station for that type of reason, although the Council’s planning team had engaged with Network Rail in relation to design and construction. He said that further questions on this matter were probably best directed to Network Rail or to the Government.

3.2.12

Public Question Concerning Social Media

Nigel Slack stated that on social media there had been incidents of Councillors utilising 'fake' identities to 'Troll' other users and he commented on disrespectful comments by councillors on social media. He asked how this potential action would fit with the Council's Code of Conduct and the Nolan principles of public life; and whether it was time that Councillors and officers were required to declare any and all public media profiles that they have.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, said that she believed that it might be very difficult to enforce a position whereby people were required to declare public media profiles if these ‘fake’ identities were anonymous. However, she did take the point that Mr Slack had raised seriously. She was not aware of particular occurrences, but if there were Members who had allegedly made disrespectful comments through fake identities and they were in effect ‘trolling’ others, which was in a sense a form of bullying and intimidation, then this was not acceptable.

Councillor Dore advised that, if Mr Slack could show where this had occurred and had evidence, he could put this through the Council’s procedure for complaints about elected members and consideration would be given as to whether there was a potential breach of the Code of Conduct.