Agenda item

3.1

Petitions

(a) Petition Objecting to Council Spending Cuts

The Council received a petition, containing 27 signatures, objecting to Council spending cuts.

On behalf of the petitioners Mr K Filleul addressed the Council. He stated that the petition was not directed at any particular service, although the petitioners were interested in protecting the library service as far as was possible. Totley Library was well supported and it was difficult for people with no car to travel distance to alternative locations.

The petitioners recommended an ethical approach to the issue of Council spending reductions, protecting services and spreading the effects brought about changes or reductions in services across a wide number of people, to mitigate the effect on the people directly affected. It was proposed that the Council raise the level of Council Tax to off-set the reductions in funding from the Government. Mr Filleul stated that people realised that this would not completely compensate or bridge the gap in loss of Government funding to the Council, but hoped that the Council could reflect on a willingness by many people to pay more to help preserve services which enhanced the quality of life for people in Sheffield.

In response to the petition, the Cabinet member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) stated that in relation to the level of Council Tax it was important to realise that some people were able to afford and pay more. The Government had restricted the amount by which Councils could raise Council Tax and authorities were required to conduct a referendum if they sought to increase the level of Council Tax by 2 percent or more. The cost of such a referendum in Sheffield would be £500K and it was not thought that people would support a proposal to raise Council Tax in any referendum. Therefore, the Council had reluctantly looked to freeze the level of Council tax for 2013/14. Councillor Lodge thanked the petitioners for their comments, which suggested that some people felt they could support services across the City.

3.2

Public Questions

(a) Public Question Concerning the Castle Market and other Development Sites

Peter Hartley asked what plans the Council had for the site of the Castle Market when the market relocated to the Moor. He commented on other sites including the site of the former Fire Station and Skinnerthorpe Road which, he stated has been left derelict for some time.

In response to the question, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall), stated that the Castle Market site would be occupied to November 2013, following which the traders would move to the new site at the Moor. The City Centre Master plan would include plans for the Castle area and as part of the demolition of the current buildings, the ruins of the Castle site would be subject to archaeological investigation, meaning that the demolition work would have to be done in a sensitive manner. Depending on what ruins remained, it was envisaged that a new visitor’s centre could potentially be created in relation to the Castle.

In relation to the site of the former Fire Station, Councillor Bramall disagreed that the site was a scene of devastation and stated that a popular car park was located on that site. Work was being undertaken in relation to the new retail quarter for the City centre. On Skinnerthorpe Road, there were plans for a school and housing to be developed on the site to which Mr Hartley had referred.

Councillor Bramall stated that, as Mr Hartley had requested, a written response to his questions would also be sent to him.

(b) Public Question Concerning Access to Information Services for People with Learning Disabilities

Adam Butcher asked a question concerning consultation on the Council’s budget proposals and specifically in relation to people with a learning disability or disability that could not access the information. He asked how the Council could make sure that people were able to participate in the budget process.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) stated that the Council did endeavour to make information available in many forms and much of this information was also available on the Council’s internet site, although he acknowledged that the internet was not always the best solution for some people. A simplified version of the budget was available for people to use. However, Councillor Lodge stated that from the question posed by Mr Butcher, it was clear that information did not always get to those that wanted it. He undertook to speak with officers about the points Mr Butcher had raised in relation to information for people with learning disabilities and disabilities. He added that City Councillors were also available for people to speak to and there were opportunities for people to ask questions of them.

The Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living (Councillor Mary Lea) added that an easy to read version of the budget as it affected people with learning disabilities was produced and the Learning Disabilities Partnership Board had held a special meeting to consider the budget. In relation to the other areas of the budget, Councillor Lea stated that she would discuss with her colleagues how information could be presented in a form which was easier to read and there was also a role for the Partnership Board in such improvement, and that the issues would be addressed to them for consideration.

(c) Public Question Concerning the Petition to Re-open Sheffield City Airport

Alex Drury asked why the Council was not debating the petition to re-open the City Airport, which was submitted on 14 February and had 5,250 signatures, which was above the threshold for a Council debate.

In response to the question, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) stated that his meeting of Council was to consider the Council’s budget and the petition concerning the City Airport was to be debated by Council at its next meeting in April, in order to do justice to the issues raised by the petition.

(d) Public Question Concerning Stocksbridge Leisure Centre

John Wadsworth asked whether the Council would give the Stocksbridge Leisure Centre (4SLC) Committee more time to formulate a business plan and assist them in this.

In response to the question, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) stated that the Council was in discussion with the Stocksbridge Town Council and the 4SLC Committee and funding a piece of work with Sport England regarding funding options for the Leisure Centre. When the report from Sport England was completed, it would be discussed with the Committee, together with all available and relevant information. As regards the budget reduction affecting the Leisure Centre, Councillor Bowler stated that the Council had to make the decision at this meeting. Stockbridge Leisure Centre would be considered at a meeting of Cabinet in April.

(e) Public Question Concerning Showroom Cinema

Leah Fleetwood asked, in the context of the Council ceasing to be financially responsible for Don Valley Stadium, and a piece on BBC Radio 4 that very morning: how much did the Council contribute the funding of the Showroom Cinema and what percentage was that funding of the total funding for the Showroom Cinema?

In response to the question, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) stated that in the interview on Radio 4, she had referred to choices which the Council had to make in relation to facilities such as Don Valley Stadium or the Showroom in Sheffield. The subsidy of £700K received by Don Valley Stadium was compared to the £500K subsidy provided to Theatres and about £40k to the Showroom Workstation. The subsidy, which had been reduced by 20 percent, represented a small proportion of the Showroom Cinema’s total annual budget.

Councillor Bowler stated that she would provide more detailed written information to the questioner concerning the Showroom Cinema budget

(f) Public Questions Concerning Adventure Playgrounds

(i) Jane Healey asked in relation to adventure playgrounds, was there an option to have some mobile Activity Sheffield staff based at the adventure playground sites and why were the communities for each playground only told in January about the proposal to withdraw staff from each site and why was no detailed consultation carried out?

(ii) Paul Sammut stated that when Activity Sheffield and representatives from the Council visited to inform people about the proposed withdrawal of staffing, they encouraged people in the Friends group to look at alternative funding options and had indicated that they had experience and would be able to help the Friends. If this was the case, he asked why the Council was looking to the community to raise funding, when it had the expertise to do so.

(iii) Lisa Swift referred to Pitsmoor and Verdon Street recreation centres and stated that she was disappointed with the outcome of the Scrutiny Committee meeting which examined the adventure playgrounds. She asked for a broad discussion about how the remaining resources and budget might be used. She stated that one mobile worker has 12 hours direct delivery time, whereas staff based in the playgrounds spend much more time on delivery. She asked why a member of staff could not be based at Verdon Street Recreation centre.

(iv) Maughan Pearce stated that the Council and Activity Sheffield had not agreed on the staffing level for each playground, which in turn affected data used as part of the rationale for withdrawing staff, such as the cost of each visit and total staffing costs. Could the Council reassure people that such matters would be properly investigated before any decision was finalised as to how Activity Sheffield would achieve a funding reduction of £400K.

(v) Berie Stott asked what scoping had been done by the Council concerning the viability of the community management proposal prior to the decision to reduce staffing at the adventure playgrounds.

(vi) Lucinda Wakefield asked why the Council was diluting resources, when keeping them focussed on the playgrounds would have a greater impact, given the high number of visits to playgrounds compared with the numbers seen by mobile workers, which had less beneficial impact than core staff based on site. She asked for an opportunity for people to be properly consulted.

In response to the question, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) stated that in relation to timing, the Government settlement arrived on 19 December 2012 and the budget was being finalised in the period between then and January. Although this was unfortunate and time was therefore short, it was quite normal for budget proposals to be announced in January.

In relation to the possibility of core staffing based exclusively at one of the playground sites, it was likely that funding would further reduce in future years and, with this in mind, consideration had to be given to arrangements which allowed for the delivery of services for all of the vulnerable communities in the City. Councillor Bowler stated that she recognised all of the things that people had said in public meetings concerning the adventure playgrounds. Mobile workers could provide a very good service, albeit with no permanent base. She stated that the adventure playgrounds were highly valued and activities would continue to be provided for young people from the playground sites but there were other areas of need too.

With regards funding, when facilities were run by groups or organisations other than the Council, for example a leisure trust, then they were able to access funding, which the Council could not attract or bid for, such as Lottery funding. Groups outside of the Council were therefore encouraged to submit bids for such sources of funding.

Councillor Bowler stated that, whilst she realised that some people were not happy that they could no longer have permanent staff in adventure playgrounds, if the permanent presence were to be maintained then the Council would not be able to fund the delivery of services for people in other areas of Sheffield.

With regard to the information concerning the budget and the required staffing levels for the playgrounds, Councillor Bowler stated that the Council needed to work through that information with the Friends group and stakeholders. The required saving for Activity Sheffield was £400K. She hoped that proposals for community management were a viable option. The Council was seeking to sustain services that local people valued and needed, although it had to be recognised that the Council would not provide all of them in the future. The Council was continuing to speak with the Friends of Adventures and other community groups towards providing facilities that people valued.

3.3

Petition Requiring Debate

Petition Requesting a Fair Deal for Sheffield on Government Funding

The Council received a petition containing 7,063 signatures and calling on the Government to review its policies concerning the funding allocated to Sheffield and South Yorkshire. The wording of the petition is as follows:-

“To the Prime Minister,

Sheffield is being hit hard by your Government’s cuts, threatening vital services that we value. Our Council is being forced to cut £1 in every £3 from its budget, yet more affluent parts of the Country are being let off more lightly, with much lower cuts. This is unfair and the level of cuts we are experiencing cannot go on.

We call on you to review your Government’s policies, and to give Sheffield and South Yorkshire the fair funding that we deserve.

We also ask that Sheffield City Council endorse this petition and promote it within the City”

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Reverend Noel Irwin. He stated that Sheffield deserves to be treated fairly as regard the funding which the City received from the Government. The petition, which asked for parity of treatment and justice for Sheffield, had received widespread support. He stated that cuts to funding were disproportionately hurting the poor. The City’s churches were undertaking a lot of work to feed and shelter people most in need and food banks were appearing in Sheffield. It was thought that approximately a quarter of a million people in the United Kingdom relied on food aid.

Reverend Irwin made reference to the tradition in Sheffield of standing up for the principles of equality and fairness and to a recent report, published by the Churches concerning fairness. He asked Members of the Council to stand up for justice and to support the petition which had been submitted, asking for a fair deal for the City.

Members of the City Council debated the issues raised by the petition, as summarised below.

­  The austerity measures were affecting other areas in the south of the country as well as the north, although their affect on the northern cities was felt to be disproportionate.

­  An independent body should be established to look at local government finance.

­  There was broad support of the aims of the petition and the work of the church to relieve poverty.

­  Consideration should be given to the fair distribution of funding reductions and to the continued need to support small and medium size enterprises

­  Some families had to choose between purchasing food and fuel for warmth during the winter.

After a right of reply from Reverend Irwin on behalf of the petitioners, the City Council considered courses of action available in response to the petition. The following proposals were moved in response to the petition and the subsequent debate. 

It was moved by Councillor Julie Dore, seconded by Councillor Harry Harpham, that this Council:-

(a) thanks Reverend Noel Irwin for presenting the petition;

(b)  believes that the Government’s cuts are extremely unfair to Sheffield;

(c)  will endorse the petition and promote it within the City, and will continue to work with the faith community, voluntary sector and businesses, to protect the City from the deeply damaging cuts that the Government is making;

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, seconded by Councillor Joe Otten, as an amendment, that the motion be amended by:

The deletion of all of the words after the words “that this Council” and the substitution of the following words therefor:-

Notes the petition, thanks those who have signed the petition and directs that if this petition is forwarded on, that a copy is also sent to the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition so he guarantee to restore all funding cuts to Sheffield City Council if elected Prime Minister in 2015.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

It was then moved by Councillor Jillian Creasy, seconded by Councillor Robert Murphy, as an amendment that the motion be amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:

·         calls on the Government to establish an independent body to set local government finance

·         requests that details regarding the petition be forwarded to the party leaders of all political parties represented in Parliament.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

The original motion, as amended, was put as a substantive motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED:  That the Council (a) thanks Reverend Noel Irwin for presenting the petition;

(b)  believes that the Government’s cuts are extremely unfair to Sheffield;

(c)  will endorse the petition and promote it within the City, and will continue to work with the faith community, voluntary sector and businesses, to protect the City from the deeply damaging cuts that the Government is making;

(d)  calls on the Government to establish an Independent Body to review Local Government finance; and

(e)  requests that details regarding the petition be forwarded to the Party Leaders of all political parties in Parliament.