Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of Street Trees

5.1.1

Russell Johnson asked, in view of the climate of co-operation between Sheffield Tree Action Groups (STAG) and SCC-Amey following the talks, and the successful application of simple engineering solutions to reprieve healthy street trees, will the Council: (i) Return to the High Court to rescind the injunction against tree defenders?; (ii) Cease to attempt Court awarded cost recovery from defenders?; and (iii) Commit to no further injunction applications relevant to this matter?

5.1.2

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, stated that the Council would not return to the High Court to rescind the injunction against tree campaigners and would not cease to attempt Court awarded cost recovery from defendants. The Council could also not commit to no further injunctions as this depended on individual circumstances.

5.1.3

Councillor Lewis Dagnall, Cabinet Member for Environment, Streetscene and Climate Change, added that he was glad Mr Johnson recognised the progress that had been made in bringing together the Council and STAG. He believed in upholding the rule of law and Court proceedings must follow the rule of law. However, the Council would work closely with all campaigners to try and achieve a shared outcome.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Street Trees

5.2.1

Russell Johnson asked would the Council commit to learning the lessons for improvement of our City’s governance from the Street Tree debate by co-operating with an independent debate? If not, would the Leader consider resigning to make way for more enlightened leadership?

5.2.3

Councillor Julie Dore confirmed that she would not be resigning and there was no inquiry taking place that the Council were required to co-operate with.

5.3

Public Question in respect of a Climate Emergency

5.3.1

Russell Johnson asked would the Cabinet agree that the Council’s declaration of a ‘Climate Emergency’ and the frequently illegal levels of air pollution in Sheffield suggested that the remaining healthy urban trees should be retained and additional trees planted?

5.3.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall confirmed that the Council was considering the next steps towards zero carbon value within the City. He valued the importance of urban and rural street trees which was why the Council was working closely with STAG and other interested parties. In order to tackle the issue, the Council needed to look at the wider landscape and not just the issue of street trees. He believed there was stronger action needed at Government level and it could not simply be left to Local Councils to tackle the issue.

5.3.3

Councillor Dore added that the Council intended to retain as many healthy trees as possible, which was why they were working closely with STAG to discuss the issue.

5.4

Public Question in respect of PFI Contracts

5.4.1

Russell Johnson asked, in the light of Birmingham’s successful agreement with Amey to end their PFI roads contract, and taking into account Labour Party national policy, will the City Council now seek a similar disentanglement from Sheffield’s Streets Ahead contract?

5.4.2

Councillor Lewis Dagnall stated that it was Labour Party policy that they favoured public companies running public services. However, the Party did not wish to have a detrimental impact on the Council’s finances by cancelling contracts without considering the wider impact.

5.4.3

It was a priority for the Council to deliver the highway infrastructure the City needed. Satisfaction rates in highway infrastructure in the City had shown an increase since the commencement of the Streets Ahead contract.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Green Party

5.5.1

Isabel O’Leary asked, in view of the strong vote for the Green Party in the local and the European elections, how did the Cabinet plan to work with the Green Party Councillors to best use their knowledge and expertise?

5.5.2

Councillor Dore responded that the Administration was always happy to work with other parties and the Council had mechanisms to do this, such as Scrutiny Committees and Policy Development Boards. There was a Scrutiny Committee which had responsibility for the environment and this was multi-party. As a result of the Administration’s strong message in its declaration of a climate change emergency, discussions were taking place as to how to work collectively to achieve this, including with members of the public.

5.5.3

Councillor Paul Wood, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, commented that the Council was moving forward with the Gleadless Valley Masterplan and the Green Party Councillor for Gleadless Valley would be part of the Steering Group.

5.5.4

Councillor Lewis Dagnall further commented that the Council believed in the Green New Deal. However, there was a commitment to ensure that no one in the City became poorer as a result of any new measures introduced. The Council needed to reflect that the far right parties won most seats in Sheffield in the recent European elections. There was a need to ensure people were brought together. He congratulated the Green Party and Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party at the Council, on their recent successes in the European Elections, but the success of the far right should not be forgotten.

5.6

Public Question in respect of the General Cemetery

5.6.1

Nigel Slack commented that, at the last Cabinet meeting, held on 17 April 2019, Mr Dimond asked a question about the plans for the General Cemetery and car parking. He also invited the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure to an event there on Saturday 27^th April. Mr Slack understood the Cabinet Member attended and on the day of the event he received the following information from another attendee:-

“Went to the rally today and a bombshell dropped. The community liaison officer had to admit the car park spaces “for the disabled” were not asked for, or discussed with any disabled group, nor any advisory body. This was some over-zealous person who thought it would be a good idea to increase use of the Samuel Worth Chapel. When backed into a corner they played the disabled card. I called their bluff today. Left Parks Councillor with nothing to say but bluster.

On a positive point I showed them a compromise which would be to put down matting at the side of Samuel Worth Chapel so disabled visitors to an event at the chapel could on request park there. It does not have an impact on the site and is unlikely to be used very often and it also helps re: deliveries to the Chapel if they have somewhere to park when necessary. It costs virtually nothing. It could be a way to also keep Heritage Lottery Funding as they will have improved parking.”

5.6.2

As a result of this, Mr Slack asked will the Council withdraw the current plans, undertake a duly diligent consultation and propose new plans that will safeguard the unique heritage and qualities of the Cemetery, protect the Heritage Lottery Fund funding already agreed and respect the needs of the disabled visitors over the potential for commercially exploiting this site? Will the Council, as part of this, work with local green space, heritage and wildlife campaigners to truly reflect a listening and learning approach to public engagement?

5.6.3

Councillor Dore commented that, whoever the attendee was, as the parent of a child with disabilities she found the term ‘the disabled card’ offensive and Mr Slack should pass this back to the person who used that term. If someone was commenting on the rights of disabled people then this should be respected.

5.6.4

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure commented that an access audit at the site had been carried out by an independent consultant and this included a working with focus group made up of disabled people and individuals who had experienced in this field and, following this, the consultant had made recommendations for access for people with a wide range of disabled issues.

5.6.5

As a result of the recommendations, the proposal was to introduce three disabled parking spaces at the site. Officers had met with a representative of the Heritage Lottery Fund last week and they were aware of the opposition to the scheme. However, the representative was clear that improving inclusivity was a key part of the Lottery Fund’s priorities and there would need to be a compelling reason to change the recommendations for the scheme.

5.6.6

The Lottery Fund would closely monitor the implementation of the scheme and there was a whole-site management group established which included a number of local residents.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Webcasting

5.7.1

Nigel Slack asked what was the “anything untoward” that seemed to have prevented the webcasting of the Council’s Annual General Meeting?

5.7.2

Councillor Dore responded that her comments at the last Cabinet meeting referred to the next business Council meeting being webcast. She hoped that the next meeting on 12 June would be webcast unless anything untoward happened between now and then.

5.7.3

Councillor Olivia Blake, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance, commented that the system had been installed and tested. Staff would need to be trained but it was hoped that webcasting would go live at the Council meeting on 12 June.

5.8

Public Question in respect of new Cabinet Members

5.8.1

Nigel Slack welcomed the new Cabinet Members. However, he had a concern that one of the consequences of election of Councillors by thirds was the impact on continuity and consistency when dealing with Cabinet Members. He hoped that the new Members and changes to portfolio responsibilities would not prove too disruptive to ongoing conversations and would therefore ask whether a handover process was in place to ensure previous progress and understandings were respected and followed through?

5.8.2

Councillor Dore thanked Mr Slack for his welcome to new Cabinet Members. A full briefing session would be held for them. Any current policy decisions would be taken into account and, as normal, these would be continually reviewed.

5.8.3

Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, added that briefings would be held with officers and previous Cabinet Members. However, as a new Cabinet Member he would take his own view and share this with Cabinet colleagues.