Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

3.1.1

Petition Calling on the Council to Support Hong Kong Democracy

The Council received a petition containing 2625 signatures, calling on the Council to support Hong Kong Democracy.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Angus Fong and Cecilia Cheong.

They stated that, since being handed back to China in 1997, Hong Kong had changed beyond recognition and said that the extradition bill was the latest in a series of attempts to erode the human rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. They said that there had been inaction by the Hong Kong government and which essentially endorsed widespread police brutality.

They made reference to corruption and said there was little confidence in the law enforcement and the relationship of legislation, judiciary and law enforcement. It was said that people did not feel safe or free and that Hong Kong no longer felt like their home.

There was a wish to harness the support of people in Sheffield which, they said was considered to be a second home and people had stood in solidarity with Hong Kong when they signed this petition, which called upon the City Council to make a stand against the regime in Hong Kong and condemning violations of human rights and to uphold the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong.

The Council referred the petition to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore who thanked the petitioners for bringing this matter to the Council and she remarked on the passion with which the petitioners had spoken about their home in Hong Kong and their second home in Sheffield. She said that she was pleased to hear people say that they saw Sheffield as their second home, because of the City’s long tradition and history of welcoming people from across the world and of showing support for human rights and democracy. Political parties in the UK had shown solidarity with the people of Hong Kong and with regards peaceful protests in Hong Kong and the right to retain the two system policy which was agreed at the handover in 1997.

She said that Sheffield would wish to support people in any way possible to help them show support to fellow Hong Kong people and their home.  She also spoke of a visit she had made to Hong Kong in 1987 and the pleasure she had in sharing the culture and in seeing the beautiful place that it had been. She contrasted that to what was happening in Hong Kong at this time. 

Councillor Dore said that the Council would do all that it was able to support the Hong Kong community in Sheffield and she knew there were councillors that would continue to give support through their own personal and individual support. She said that if there was anything more that people believed the Council could do such as with regards to personal safety, she asked people to bring it to the attention of the Council immediately so as to ensure that people were able to go about their lives in Sheffield safely.

3.1.2

Petition Requesting the Council to Create a New Footpath Along Greenhill Parkway

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 404 signatures, requesting the Council to create a new footpath along Greenhill Parkway.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sarah Whiteley-Winter who stated that the petition was for the creation of a new footpath between the first gennel at the back of James Andrew Crescent to the roundabout at the junction of Greenhill Parkway and Reney Road/Gervase Road next to Greenhill Primary school playing field. She outlined the reasons why a footpath was considered to be necessary and would benefit the local community. Firstly, the closure of a medical practice at Lowedges and the transfer of patients to the Avenue Medical Practice, which would mean that the quickest direct route for people was along Greenhill Parkway, which was flat and straight and easier for older people and those with children, prams and mobility scooters.

She explained that secondly, a footpath would enable easier access to Greenhill Library from Lowedges. The linking of a proposed new crossing and the proposed footpath would create a more holistic solution for pedestrians using local facilities.

Thirdly, children and parents attending Greenhill Primary School would find it useful to be able to cross over to the correct side of the road when convenient and avoid walking through the mud. She referred to access to Greenhill School and the difficulty for people in crossing the road and for motorists and said that a path, as proposed in the petition, would make the situation much safer.

Fourthly, there would be improved access to both St Peter's Church and Greenhill Methodist Church and the territorial army building. She said that people to whom she had spoken had been very enthusiastic about the proposals for a new path.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked the petitioners for bringing this matter to Council. He stated that a similar request had been presented to the Council in June 2019 and was assessed at that time and concerns had included access to the medical centre. He said that the assessment criteria took into account access to local facilities and services. He said that since that time, there had been no recorded injury accidents or any involving pedestrians over the last five years. 

The Council received requests for highways schemes from all over the City for similar schemes and, whilst it would like to respond positively to all such requests, unfortunately the financial constraints meant that requests were listed and assessed in accordance with criteria and this request would also be subject to that process.

3.2.3

Petition Requesting Speed Cameras on High Street, Mosborough

The Council received an electronic petition containing 429 signatures, requesting speed cameras on High Street, Mosborough.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Brooke Staves. She asked the Council to consider traffic calming measures on Mosborough High Street and said that her pet dog had been killed on 13 September when a motorist had failed to stop and someone else’s pet was also killed on 9 October. She had formed a community group which had come together and agreed that something needed to be done.

She said that there was an issue with vehicle speed on the A6135 and the High Street, Mosborough and this had been the case for many years.  Attempts had been made to put pedestrian crossings on High Street and there had been temporary speed cameras in place. There were also reports concerning dangerous driving, damage to property and near miss incidents caused by dangerous driving in recent months.

Brooke Staves explained that the request was for increased and improved signage throughout the village to remind drivers that there was a 30 mph speed limit.  There was not much signage in Mosborough and it was difficult to cross the road. She pointed out that there was a school, nurseries and pubs. A smiley face, vehicle activated sign which was in place had been broken for some time. She said that 429 people had signed the petition and that both speed and the ability for people to cross the road were issues. Emergency vehicles used the road and so speed bumps would not be appropriate. However, speed cameras or zebra crossings might be considered.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked the petitioners for bringing this issue to Council. He stated that the issue had been brought to his attention, including by the local MP and local councillors. He had arranged to visit and to look at what measures could be put in place and would be pleased to meet with the petitioners and the MP and local councillors on the matter.

3.1.4

Petition Requesting the Council to Immediately Halt the Planned Sale of the Three Owlthorpe Field Sites and Commit to Preserving Them as a Natural Community Resource

The Council received a petition containing 926 signatures requesting the Council to immediately halt the planned sale of the three Owlthorpe Field sites and commit to preserving them as a natural community resource.

There was no speaker to the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.

3.2

Public Questions

3.2.1

Public Question Concerning the Big City Conversation

Sue Kondallor commented on the petition with regards a change of the Council’s governance arrangements and asked if the Council would acknowledge that the Big City Conversation was not addressing the change of governance issue and was no substitute for it, rather it addressed other issues from drainage to street begging; give an update to the Council on progress made so far in this matter; and commit to more transparency and give regular updates on progress.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance and Deputy Leader of the Council, said that he acknowledged that many people had signed the governance petition and had started off the process for a referendum. He said that within the agenda for this meeting of Council was a discussion concerning the Big City Conversation. He understood that some people wished to look at community engagement and others wished to examine forms of governance. The Council was seeking a conversation on both of those aspects and it wanted to listen to what a wide range of people around Sheffield had to say.  Part of the Big City Conversation would allow the Council opportunity to reach over 80 thousand residents in the city and to get in touch with them on a regular basis and on a range array of subjects.  When an event was held at the Moor Market during Local Democracy Week, drainage and street begging were the major concerns raised by people. A public meeting had also been held on governance which was independently facilitated by a member of the public, Mr Slack and which included invited experts.

Councillor Fox said that the cross party Scrutiny Committee was also examining governance issues and this was open to the public and was webcast. An online survey had also commenced and had over 200 hits just in its first week and there was a Big City Conversation ballot box in the Town Hall and the Council was encouraging people to say what issues were important to them. That conversation was also related to governance and how the Council made decisions and he said that both he and the Leader of the Council had been on the tram talking to residents about issues that affected them and how they would want to get involved in decision making.

Councillor Fox commented in relation to people's expectations, that this was a very time committed process and that Council officers were working on this activity. He said that approximately 90 people attended the public event on governance which was a credit to Mr Slack and Council officers. The Council was trying to make the process as open and transparent as possible and would be publishing all of the major issues that were important to the residents of the city, some of which would be governance but might also include issues like drainage and street begging and what the Council had to do was give people a chance to get their voice heard. There should also be opportunity for people to raise issues with councillors locally. He also said that discussions had been held with other political groups on the Council as to how this might be delivered.

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning the Anglican Chapel in the General Cemetery

Jim Diamond asked, in relation to plans for the General Cemetery, what steps the Council had taken in response to a clear steer given by the National Heritage Lottery Fund earlier this year to explore taking the Anglican Chapel back into public ownership for the benefit of the people of Sheffield.

Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure, stated that the Chapel which was at the Cemetery Road end of the Cemetery was on a long lease which had been agreed many years ago with a local businessman who she believed was involved in the steering group as a stakeholder.

She said that her understanding was that discussions had taken place over a number of years in relation to the Chapel, although she had not been involved in those discussions because she had not been the relevant Cabinet Member at the time. The cost of returning the Chapel to Council ownership had been considered too high.

Councillor Lea said that she understood that the grant from the Heritage Lottery did encourage the Council to look at the option of taking the Chapel back into Council ownership but it was not a condition of the grant funding. However, she said it was something that could be looked at and that she would have further discussions about the options and possibilities. Whilst she could not guarantee anything, it would be appropriate to look at the issue again and to discuss it further.

3.2.3

Public Question Concerning Council’s Planning Department

Mark James referred to reports in the press concerning potential job losses in the Planning Department and he asked whether this reflected that the Council had not broken with austerity or rather than challenging neoliberalism, it actually embraced it.

Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that there was a review and restructure taking place in relation to the Planning Service but that was subject to a collective dispute and he would not therefore make any further comment until that dispute had been resolved.

3.2.4

Public Question Concerning Parking on Pavements

Harry Browse stated that he had spoken with a resident of Norfolk Park who had mobility issues and used a wheelchair and had informed him that they felt increasingly concerned about illegal parking and its effect on their ability to go to work or to the pharmacy. He asked what was being done to ensure people with mobility issues were not disproportionately affected by illegal parking in the Manor and Norfolk Park area.

Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded that the Council was reviewing pavement parking and was one of four Local Authorities which had made representations to the Government about what might be done and that had been a relatively positive discussion and proposals were being worked upon as to how the findings would be addressed.

Councillor Johnson said that, in the meantime, if there was an incident of obstructive parking, it would be a matter for the police. The proposals in representations made to the Government would actually decriminalise pavement parking, which would allow Council enforcement officers to be able to act, which they were not able to do at the present time, unless there were double yellow lines. At present, there was little a local authority could do and it was a matter for the police. However, it was possible that there would be some changes as a result of the submissions made to the Government.

3.2.5

Public Question Concerning Hong Kong Community

Chesna Wu and Cecilia Cheong thanked Members of Sheffield City Council and in particular Councillor Paul Wood, for the support given to the Hong Kong community in Sheffield by working with partners such as South Yorkshire Police to help protect people.

They said that one month ago, people were attacked by a student from mainland China with a bottle and they faced intimidation from others. They said it was a frightening event. Photographs of many of the Hong Kong community in Sheffield were deliberately taken and then distributed on websites hosted in mainland China with their addresses in Sheffield.

They asked the Cabinet Member to help by writing to the University of Sheffield and helping to facilitate a meeting. They also commented that over the past months, they did not feel that they had been provided with enough support and protection. They asked for the Cabinet Member to also pledge to continue to help ensure that they were safe to exercise their democratic rights and freedom in Sheffield and without fear of intimidation.

Ching Ching Lam stated that people in other cities had also been concerned about their safety and commented upon being fortunate in Sheffield to have had help from the Council. A question was asked as to whether it was possible for the Council to lead the way in setting an example for other places to take action to protect local people from Hong Kong and others by requesting local MPs to present the matter to Parliament so that other cities could follow in upholding freedom of speech.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, acknowledged the thanks given to him and the work of Councillors Ben Miskell and Sophie Wilson with regards to this matter.

He said that with regards to the individual to which the questions had referred, he had received a briefing from the police and had been informed that the person was not at the University of Sheffield but at an English language college and that his course had been terminated. He had also been informed that a request had been made to have his right to remain in the UK revoked and that he be returned to China. He undertook to meet with those asking questions with regards to the details of situation and to clarify issues relating to that individual.

He said that the Council would support people with concerns and he would also be pleased to arrange a meeting with both of the universities and those affected by this situation to make sure they were content with the security measures that were in place.

3.2.6

Public Question Concerning the Earl Marshall Bed and Breakfast

John Grayson asked a question concerning the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast. He said that, following discussions with various professional staff with clients in the Earl Marshall and a visit to the premises, he had made further findings. He said that staff locked outside doors from 10.30pm until 7.00am and people were not allowed in or out during that time. He said that there was no evidence of people having been provided with breakfast and asked whether the Council paid for breakfast which was not provided.

He informed the Council that, on arriving at the Earl Marshall, vulnerable single women were asked to pay £5 for a room key or they had to stay in unlocked rooms and one woman who could not pay was asked for her passport instead.

He said that a woman had alleged that she had been raped in the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast and the police were investigating. He said that there was no security between 7.00am and 10.30pm and there was no reception desk or staff office near to the front door.

There were no toiletries available or clothes store for homeless women and recently, when there was an infestation of cockroaches, one woman was told to leave for four nights with no alternative accommodation. He asked whether, in view of this information, the Council would end its contract with the Earl Marshall bed and breakfast.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, said that he would request that the matters now raised by Mr Grayson were fully investigated and that he would be pleased to provide a response to Mr Grayson as soon as possible.

3.2.7

Public Question Concerning Treatment of Homeless People

John Grayson asked a question concerning the treatment of people and in particular, people at Howden House presenting as homeless.  He asked whether the Council would urgently investigate the way people were treated. He said that people waited for long periods of time at Howden House and that there were no hot drinks available and no drinking water with people being told to take drinking water from toilet sinks.

He said that requests for a pen and paper were simply rejected and there were no facilities to charge phones in Howden House, although staff expected that homeless people would contact them by phone. He said that other agencies working with homeless people in Sheffield routinely had such facilities. He asked why homeless people were not allowed to bring their bags into Howden House and forced to wait outside with their bags for hours.

Mr Grayson also asked why homeless women disclosing mental illness were rejected as homeless and told to obtain a medical assessment and placed back on the street and why homeless women were routinely told to return to sleep on the streets for three nights before they could be accepted as homeless.

He said that professional workers had said that people who did not speak English were routinely rejected as homeless and never offered interpreter services. A worker with vulnerable women had informed him that it was normal to see women crying and that people were disrespected and given no dignity. He asked the Council to undertake an independent, immediate and thorough investigation into how homeless people were treated in Howden House.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that he had already instructed a full investigation in relation to Howden House following a complaint which was brought to him by Councillor Kaltum Rivers. That included a number of the issues also raised by Mr Grayson in his questions and another complaint had been made in relation to processes and how the Council was dealing with people at Howden House and as to how a homeless family had been treated. He had requested that the outcomes be reported to him and he would then also report back to Mr Grayson on the matter.

3.2.8

Public Question Concerning Planning and Tall Buildings 

Nigel Slack commented upon a remark made by the previous Cabinet Member that ‘the sky’s the limit’ and in relation to proposals for high storey buildings and said that he believed these were not striking designs and were not designed to enhance the city. He asked whether the City needed another 1200 student beds.

He said that he had looked at some of the 'Micro Climate' reports in current planning applications (19/03779/FUL & 19/02380/EIA) and commented that the reports themselves were so technical as to defy understanding by anyone other than a similar expert. The conclusions were about how to mitigate the impact of the wind flow issues and in one instance, determined that a planned rooftop garden would be unusable in the current design. It also called for large scale planting of street trees around the development to help make the street level more comfortable for pedestrians.

Mr Slack asked the following questions:

-       Whether anybody in Council understood the technical details of these reports.

-       The rationale of developers using Polish universities to create the reports and if there were no Universities with a better understanding of the city to do this work.

-       As the reports suggested that further work was needed to properly assess the wind flow impacts of tall buildings, he asked whether this would be required before this application was submitted to the Planning Committee.

-       He also said that the reports did not evaluate the impact of currently planned or proposed developments in the immediate area and asked whether the Council required a fuller 'Macro Climate' review, as demonstrated in the attached article?

-       Whether remedial works that emerge later would be the developer's responsibility or the Council's responsibility?

-       Did it not make more sense to design buildings that enhanced the streetscape of the city rather than create wind flow issues that would have a detrimental impact on footfall, pedestrian comfort, and therefore business success in the city?

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, stated that the Council remained extremely ambitious to encourage sustainable growth and investment and it recognised the need to increase density in existing built-up areas and in particular the city centre, to take the pressure off greenbelt and green spaces.

It was therefore true to say that ‘the sky is the limit’ for the right scheme in the right location.The final design of such schemes was subject to detailed design development and with specialist officers requiring specialist information such as a microclimate report to which Mr Slack had referred.

He advised that the scheme referred to in the question and Rockingham Street was not solely for students and was within a known model of co-housing and was currently being assessed by officers.

Councillor Johnson said that microclimate assessments were complex and the Council had officers familiar with understanding such technical reports. It did not determine the producer of such reports because that was a matter for the applicant rather than the Council. Further work was being done in relation to impacts of wind flow and that would be available before a decision was made. Future tall buildings would require similar assessments, as appropriate. There would not be a need for remedial works in future for the building in question and the detailed information on the impacts and associated remediation, if needed, would be provided for consideration as part of the application process.

3.2.9

Public Question Concerning Planning Application (site of Old Coroner’s Court)

Nigel Slack referred to a decision by the Planning Committee to refuse the application to build an apartment block on the site of the Old Coroner's Court in Nursery Street (Ref.19/02258/FUL). He asked how likely the Council considered it to be that the developer would appeal; and what steps the Council was taking in advance of such an appeal to work with the developer, the agent and the designers of the scheme to identify an alternative scheme which avoided the complete loss of a heritage asset which all parties seemed to agree it would be desirable to keep.

He also asked the following questions:

-       If it sought an alternative to demolition, could the Council provide reassurance that it would take into account recent precedents close by in Nursery Street.

-       Would the Council contest any appeal and encourage the developer to find a mutually acceptable alternative to total demolition of this historic building.

-       How would the Council use the experience of the Old Coroner's Court to find a better way to protect threatened heritage assets, whether listed or not.

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded that it was in the hands of the developer as to how they intended to progress the scheme.  Council officers were available to discuss options with them. The schemes to date that showed any hint of retention did not fit in with the locality or the existing element and discussions did take account of other precedence in the area. The Council would contest an appeal, if one was submitted.