Agenda item

4.1

Arrangements for the Conduct of this Item of Business

4.1.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) stated that, in the light of increasing interest from Members of the Council, and the receipt of several questions in advance of this meeting from members of the public, regarding Coronavirus, he would invite Greg Fell, the Council’s Director of Public Health, to update Members and the viewing public on this serious issue, and that, as well as his update, the Director would provide answers to the written questions received on the issue from members of the public.

4.1.2

The Lord Mayor proposed that the Director’s update would form part of this Petitions and Public Questions item of business, and would be taken immediately following the presentation of petitions.  Furthermore, that a period of 30 minutes would be allocated for the update.

4.1.3

Finally, the Lord Mayor stated that, in accordance with the Council Procedure Rules, the time limit of one hour for the petitions and public questions item would be adhered to for this meeting.  If there were a large number of public questions to be asked at the meeting, then priority would be given to questions relating to budget proposals.  On this occasion, questions would be taken in the order that they were received, and any questions which were unable to be asked within the one hour time allocation would be answered in writing after the meeting, by the relevant Cabinet Member, if a contact address has been supplied with the question.  The Lord Mayor added that this arrangement aimed to provide an opportunity for public engagement on the budget setting process, whilst also providing sufficient time for elected Members to debate the budget.

4.2

Petitions

4.2.1

Petition Requesting the Sheffield Markets Team to Adhere to the Council’s Zoned Activities Lettings Criteria

The Council received a petition containing 10 signatures, requesting the Sheffield Markets Team to adhere to the Council’s Zoned Activities Lettings Criteria.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Vincent Sivewright-Smith. He explained that he was a building surveyor and real estate property professional and he was consulted when the market was first being established to design and set out some of the stalls. He had recently been contacted by one of the stallholders in relation to a proposal to let a unit in the market that directly duplicated their business. There were also two other similar businesses that were subject to the process of allocation that the Council established for the new market.

He said that it appeared that there was a dilution of the rules around letting and allocation and the petitioners wished to know when and why the Council changed the policy and what the Council's view was on the harm and loss caused to existing stallholders if the proposal was allowed.

The Lead Petitioner had said that they felt there had been a breach of trust and that the Council gave a clear undertaking that it would examine best practice as regards the letting of markets and allocating vacant units. They wished to know what had happened in that regard. If the proposal was allowed to go ahead then they would not be able to continue the training that they did in conjunction with Castle College and they would not be able to employ the same number of people. They also wanted to know the Council's view regarding trade balance in the market should the proposal be approved.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mary Lea, the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Leisure. Councillor Lea thanked Mr Sivewright-Smith for bringing this matter to the Council on behalf of the petitioners. She said that she had made enquiries about this issue. When an application was made for a stall in the Market, the Council did consult with other traders and the Council was cognisant of competition laws in the UK and European Union and each application decision was made on an individual basis.  She understood that the particular application referred to in the petition was turned down. There was also an opportunity for appeal, and whilst she did not know whether an appeal had been requested, the opportunity to appeal was available.

When the Market first opened, zones were set out to separate food stalls from hairdressers etc. Gradually, that practice had changed, although there remained zones for food stalls and for cafes.  Councillor Lea suggested that this issue was discussed further with the petitioner and the Head of City Centre Management and Major Events, Richard Eyre.

4.2.2

Petition Regarding the Proposed City Centre Clean Air Zone

The Council received a petition containing 180 signatures, regarding the proposed City Centre Clean Air Zone.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Lee Ward. Mr Ward stated that the consultation concerning the Clean Air Zone closed on 25 August 2019. 72 responses were made to that survey by the taxi and private hire industry. The clean air zone was due to commence in 51 weeks and he said that would have a detrimental effect on the taxi and private hire trade because Euro 6 vehicles could not be used without charge either on or inside the inner ring road.

He said that every town and city in the UK that had introduced or planned to introduce a clean Air Zone had selected a clean air zone inside a ring road and it was only Sheffield which had chosen to include the ring road. He added that every other place in the UK had made taxi and private hire vehicles exempt, if they have a Euro 6 Engine.

Mr Ward said that the lack of information coming forward from Sheffield City Council had already forced 132 of the 857 wheelchair accessible vehicles to not renew a licence.  There were hundreds of private hire drivers with vehicles waiting to upgrade to an affordable and cleaner vehicle but which could not do so without the knowledge of that investment being suitable.  He said the proposals would decimate the trade and it was predicted that approximately 1500 drivers would be forced to leave what was an integral part of Sheffield's public transport system.

He stated that the Council was charged with cleaning the air as soon as possible and that was something that people wanted. However, it was felt that targeting the taxi trade, which represented just 4 percent of Sheffield's traffic and 2 percent of Sheffield's air pollution, would not result in providing cleaner air in the shortest possible time.

He said that evidence had not been provided in relation to the decision and it was requested by the taxi trade that the consultation responses were published immediately and that individual sole traders were given as much time as possible to enable them to make a financial business plan which was viable and sustainable or to seek employment in another industry. It was also requested that Members of the Council act according to the seven principles of public life and that there was scrutiny of the proposed exclusion of the trade to the use of Euro 6 engines and that clear and transparent direction was given to the three thousand licensed drivers.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked the petitioners for presenting this matter to the Council.

He said that he was pleased to confirm that the report and the responses that were received to the consultation would be published within the next week. He explained that the Council had awaited a response from the Government's Joint Air Quality Unit prior to publishing the consultation results.

Councillor Johnson stated that the Council had received nearly twelve thousand responses to the plans concerning air pollution. Of the responses, four out of five agreed with the proposals regarding a Clean Air Zone for buses, taxis, coaches, vans and lorries.  The public had also responded that better public transport and more walking and cycling routes was the best way to clean the air. However, it was important to be clear that small businesses and taxi drivers were concerned about the impact of a Clean Air Zone, for the reasons that the petitioner had highlighted. The Council was trying to work with the government in relation to a number of support packages so as to alleviate the potential impact.

He said that to be successful in reducing pollution, there was a need to help taxi drivers and small businesses move to cleaner vehicles and it was vital that the Council obtained investment from the government. At present, the Council was seeking to make sure that there were the necessary support packages.

Councillor Johnson explained that Officers were preparing a full business case, which would shortly be ready to go back to the government and, it was at that point that there would be further discussions with the taxi trade as there had been previously.  There would also then be a further opportunity to bring this matter back to a Scrutiny Committee.

4.2.3

Petition Requesting Action to Deal with Parking Problems Around Ranulf Court, Abbeydale Road South

The Council received a petition containing 36 signatures, requesting action to deal with parking problems around Ranulf Court, Abbeydale Road South.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Janet Hempson who explained that Ranulf Court was a development of flats for people over the age of 60. The petitioners requested help to improve the often dangerous parking situation on the roads surrounding Ranulf Court. It was essential that access to the development was available at all times for emergency vehicles, taxis and refuse collection vehicles as well as residents and visitors’ vehicles.

She said that there had recently been situations, where the people coming to empty the bins could not get their vehicle into the property and which resulted in the bins not being emptied that week and, more recently, the fire engine (attending in response to what was a false alarm call) could not proceed down Terminus Road due to parking on either side of the road and footpath. It was felt therefore that this situation should not continue because of the potential consequences including loss of life or other dangerous situation.

Vehicles were often parked so that vision of adjoining roads to the car park entrance was obscured which created the danger of a potential accident and it was felt that this could be addressed with some help from the Council as regards traffic management. In addition, the footpath was not accessible for pedestrians due to cars parking there for long periods of time.

Janet Hempson said that the petitioners would be grateful if an assessment could be done at the site to help the community to solve the problems and to listen to residents’ ideas as to possible solutions. 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development. Councillor Johnson thanked the petitioners for bringing this matter to Council. He said that he would be pleased to visit Ranulf Court with Council officers to see the problems that people faced both around the building and on the roads and particularly parking on the pavements and to see how the problems might be addressed. He understood that there were some double yellow lines in place near a car park and he had spoken with the Parking Services team which would be undertaking some enforcement in the meantime.

4.3

Director of Public Health’s Update on Coronavirus

4.3.1

Greg Fell, The Director of Public Health provided an update to Council on the Coronavirus Covid-19. This included the NHS and City Council’s response to what was a developing situation.  He also provided responses to questions received from members of the public on this subject. An opportunity was also given for Members of the Council to ask questions. 

4.3.2

He explained that there was much that was not known at this stage and things were changing rapidly, and including the advice and guidance. He encouraged people to read information on the Public Health England website. He briefly explained that Covid19 was a particular type of virus and that it was thought to have flu like symptoms and as such it was difficult to distinguish from other illnesses such as flu or a heavy cold and there was therefore an emphasis on testing people. Many people had a mild illness, although others and particularly the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, may have a more severe illness and that was of concern. There was also mixed evidence as to whether or not some people could carry the virus but not have symptoms.

4.3.3

There was a national strategy, set by government and which was predicated on minimising the impact of this illness to NHS and social care and minimising the impact on the economy. The Local Resilience Forum was the coordinating mechanism for a local response.  There were four elements/phases of the strategy, namely: contain; delay (to diminish the impact on health and social care); mitigate (prioritising essential NHS and social care); and science.

4.3.4

In Sheffield, there were at this time no Sheffield cases There were two people being cared for by the Hallamshire infectious diseases unit, although they were not thought to be residents of Sheffield. However, that would be subject to change. It was expected that the World Health Organisation (WHO) would declare a pandemic.

4.3.5

Sheffield had a pandemic flu plan, which was mostly fit for purpose, but there are some important distinctions between this coronavirus and pandemic flu, one of which was the focus upon self-isolation and the other being the availability of an antiviral treatment for flu and a vaccine, which was not the case in respect of this illness.

4.3.6

There were some core principles, which would be used. These included to keep within the national strategy; to use national guidance and to refer people to nationally available communications material, including Public Health England (PHE); minimising risk to employees and the public; and ensuring business continuity in the event of significant numbers of people being absent from work.

4.3.7

At present, in the contain strategy phase, people who believed they were unwell were advised not to go to their GP in person but to telephone 111, whereby risk assessment would be carried out, a test would be undertaken; and then Public Health England would contact trace and the individuals affected would self-isolate.

4.3.8

PHE had a national and regional coordination role and an expert advice role. There was significant preparatory work being done in the NHS and NHS England had declared a major incident. The planning being done was for a significant increase in numbers of people with this illness. The strategy that the NHS was adopting was predicated on protecting frontline capacity.

4.3.9

There were many emerging issues which would be worked through systematically using the principles above. Such issues included business continuity, particularly in small organisations. There would also be risk based trade-offs between the Council’s various responsibilities. Capacity would be stretched. Communications would also need to be focused. There was also a role for the media in relation to acting responsibly. Other issues included sick pay for people who were self-isolating and social cohesion. The Council was operating in a leadership role, and there was a need to be proportionate and fulfil a community leadership role.

4.3.10

The most important intervention was handwashing to delay and mitigate the impact of the virus, together with respiratory hygiene, i.e. ‘catch it, bin it, kill it’. People could also find out information and guidance from the government and public health England in relation to handwashing and international travel. 

4.3.11

Mr Fell then went on to answer questions submitted by members of the public, as follows:

4.3.12

Nigel Slack had asked a question concerning trigger points and when a pandemic would be declared and in relation to upcoming public events in the festival season; how keeping the city running would be balanced with the protection of public health; and the impact on businesses, including those which might need rent or rate relief.

4.3.13

Mr Fell said that the trigger points in relation to a pandemic, would be either when the Local resilience Forum began its ‘gold’ arrangements or when the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a pandemic which was expected to been relatively soon. In relation to a social distancing strategy and a trade-off between keeping the city running and particularly the big public events, and the protection of public, he said it was probably too early to make decisions in that regard.

4.3.14

The Chief Medical Officer and the national plan had explained that there was consideration being given to issues of social distancing and mass gatherings and he expected that there would be national advice to address those matters before anything was done locally and which would look at the benefits of reducing the spread of infection versus the costs.

4.3.15

He said that as Director of Public Health, with statutory responsibilities for public health, the health of the public was the most important consideration and it was worth focusing on measures that would be effective, including handwashing and respiratory hygiene. It was not yet known as to whether closing mass gatherings would be an effective strategy because the modelling had, to his knowledge, not been done, although it had generated a lot of media attention. He said that his priority was in line with the national strategy to keep the pressure off the NHS and social care to enable those services to continue to work well.

4.3.16

In relation to support for businesses, including business rate relief, those were issues which were being monitored and it was expected that there would be advice from the government and Public Health England. As regards adverse trading conditions, where businesses were currently supported by business rates relief, they would continue to be supported.

4.3.17

Chris Parkinson asked a question concerning the importance of the Council acting in an open and transparent way and how it would ensure that happened in relation to the Coronavirus outbreak. Greg Fell stated that all of the national guidance relating to Coronavirus was on public facing websites and publically available and that was the guidance that was being used by the Council. As Director of Public Health, he was spending time on various forms of media. There could be issues about capacity, in relation to the public health team and that may limit some activity but the intention was one of transparency.

4.3.18

Mark James asked a question concerning whether the Council had the right capacity to mitigate the effects relating to Coronavirus. Mr Fell said that business continuity arrangements were in place and would be considered at a corporate level and would focus on the critical services, especially protecting the most vulnerable. It was expected that there would be reimbursement from the government

4.3.19

Russell Johnson asked a question about having confidence in the Council discharging its local role in relation to the Coronavirus.

4.3.20

Greg Fell said that the Local Resilience Forum had a role in coordinating the totality of the City's response. He was the statutory officer and he represented Sheffield City Council on that body. He said that he personally did not have any particular concerns about the ability of the administration to co-ordinate and do the right thing.

4.3.21

Declan Walsh asked a question concerning support that would be given to the licensed trade to protect customers and workers from the potential effects of a pandemic and whether there was budget reserved for public health emergencies such as this.

4.3.22

Greg Fell said that he did not know what form of support there would be for the licensed trade. However, there was a variety of national guidance on various public websites, which was sector specific including social care, transport, schools and education and other sectors. Business continuity would have to be done by each organisation and the expectation was that the government would make available national funding.

4.3.23

Members of the Council asked questions and the responses were provided by Greg Fell, which are summarised, as follows.

4.3.24

A question was asked about international intelligence in relation to Coronavirus and specifically the European Early Warning Network and what might replace that following the UK withdrawal from the European Union. Mr Fell responded that he did know the answer. However, he expected that the Network would continue to exist and that most of its considerations and advice would be publically available and as an example, all of the WHO advice was publicly available and these were sources that he also looked at and were helpful. He said that it was not possible to say what the national arrangements will be with regard to the EU Early Warning Network, although he could check as to whether Public Health England were dealing with that issue.

4.3.25

A question was asked concerning support to homeless people during this time and Greg Fell responded that he believed that there were good mechanisms in place to get access to those people that were known to be homeless and were in touch with services and the staff concerned were well-informed about what the infection prevention control advice was. Further consideration would need to be given in relation to those people who were homeless but were not in touch with services and as to how the Council might discharge its responsibilities.

4.3.26

A question was asked concerning people that provided services to vulnerable people on behalf of the Council and were outsourced to a care company and as to what measures the Council could take to make sure people operating on its behalf were not dis-incentivised to self-isolate by policies related to sick pay. Greg Fell said that this was one of many issues in relation to which an answer was yet to be worked out. He suggested that this issue would be worked into the Council’s contracting and commissioning arrangements, so that it became an expectation that the Council did not inadvertently incentivise people that were sick or those who were well but infectious to come to work when they should not. However, that had not yet been enacted.

4.3.27

A question was asked concerning the potential of creating a register of volunteers in order to deploy people in any capacity to specific areas of need and particularly in relation to services in the Council or partner organisations in the public, third sector or private sector which may be smaller in scale and affected by their employees being absent. Greg Fell responded that he would work out how to do that.

4.3.28

A question was asked about whether a Coronavirus pod had been considered for the walk-in centre on Broad Lane, which served international students and homeless individuals. Greg Fell said that this was a matter that he would pick up with the NHS.

4.3.29

A question was asked as regards the treatment of waste from households which were self-isolating, as clinical waste and whether there was capacity to deal with it as such and whether it was government policy and as to how those people collecting the waste would be protected and the potential of clinical waste bags identifying such households such as to create a stigma. Greg Fell responded that the current advice was that, for those people who tested positive for Covid 19, tissues etc. should be treated as clinical waste, although he thought that the guidance in that regard might change. If there were a large number of cases, then capacity to deal with such waste would become a problem and would be expensive and it was expected that the government might change the guidance. However, the Council was implementing the current government guidance.

4.3.30

A question was asked about people with respiratory conditions and making sure that people did not falsely believe that they were safe, simply because they had received pneumonia and flu jabs. Greg Fell said that he was not aware of that issue and he would pick that matter up locally and also nationally.

4.3.31

The Council noted the information and thanked the Director of Public health for his report.

4.4

Public Questions

4.4.1

Public Question Concerning Trade Union Convenors

Lee Parkinson made reference to austerity and to proposals in relation to removing Trade Union Convenors in the amendments submitted for the Budget Council meeting this day. He asked for assurance that an attack on workers’ rights would be opposed and the labour movement would be supported.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded to the question. Councillor Dore made reference to the amendments submitted to this Budget Council meeting by the political groups and also to the financial cuts experienced by the Council during austerity. She said that she believed that cutting Trade Union Convenors would actually increase the Council's overall expenditure and that without proper trade union representation, workers might be exposed to costly employment tribunal and personal injury claims which would otherwise have been prevented through the guidance and involvement of seconded representatives and statutory formal procedures would take longer to complete. Collective agreements formed by employers and trade unions on behalf of the employees, benefited both the Council and employees. Such agreements may not be reached if trade union representatives were unlikely to be released by their manager to work on them or get their substantive work covered.

She said that it was not right to further erode workers' rights and that trade unions provided protection, reassurance and independent advice to employees.  Trade unions were important to public services and people working in those services and austerity meant that they were more important now than ever.

4.4.2

Public Question Concerning PACES School, High Green

Ann Whitaker stated that PACES school in High Green had indicated that it intended to move to a purpose-built school in the future and had begun the fundraising process as well as preparing outline requirements with the University of Sheffield. PACES had been synonymous with High Green for 21 years at the High Green campus. She referred to the need for significant repair works at the campus and asked what the Council's plans were for the long term future of the High Green site. Ann Whitaker also asked for a written response to the question.

Councillor Terry Fox, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Governance, responded to the question. Councillor Fox stated that the site was subject to a 125 year lease from the City Council to the High Green Development Trust, which was responsible for the site.  There were a number of repair issues on the site and the City Council was working closely with the Trust to review options. This work was ongoing and a decision had not yet been made in relation to the site. He said that, when a decision was made, the Council would be able to inform the questioner.

4.4.3

Public Question Concerning Housing Standards and Council Buildings

Kaltun Elmi asked when a meeting would be arranged with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety in relation to housing standards and Council buildings.

Councillor Paul Wood, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, responded that he had been advised by Legal Services that he should not respond at this time in relation to this matter, which was the subject of a complaint relating to the Members’ Code of Conduct.  He said that, when the complaint process was concluded, a full statement would be made to Council.

4.5

At this point in the proceedings, the one hour time allocation for this item of business was reached.  The Lord Mayor asked that arrangements be made for written answers to be provided to the questions which had been submitted by members of the public prior to the start of the meeting, but which had not been able to be asked within the time limit, and that those answers be published on the Council’s website with the agenda for this meeting.