Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions

To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public.

 

(NOTE: In accordance with the arrangements published on the Council’s website in relation to meetings of the Cabinet held remotely, questions/petitions are required to be submitted in writing, to committee@sheffield.gov.uk, by 9.00 a.m. on Monday 13th July.)

 

Minutes:

4.1

Petition Concerning Save Cobden View Community Gardens

 

 

4.1.1

Marion Taylor commented on the petition containing 682 signatures concerning the future of the green space on the corner of Cobden View Road and Northfield Road in Crookes which is threatened with development.  She stated that the site had been enjoyed as a community garden and open space for a number of years.  The site now had new owners who had erected an eight foot fence around the entire plot, denying community access to the space.  A planning application to develop the site had now been submitted by the new owner and the local community would be making representations on the potential loss of the green space.  She stated that the petitioners would like to request full public consultation on the future of the site.

 

4.1.2

Councillor Fox confirmed that this petition and any written representations would be taken in to account as part of the consideration of the planning application in respect of the site and that a written response to the petition would be given by Councillor Bob Johnson, Cabinet Member for Transport and Development.

 

4.2

Public Questions Concerning Ongoing Efforts to Regenerate the Heart of the City 2 Area of the City

 

 

4.2.1

Nigel Slack commented on the ongoing efforts to regenerate the Heart of the City 2 Area of the City.  He stated that overall this is a good project and, if delivered in line with the best interests of the people and businesses of the city rather than pure commercial greed, will be even better. However the matter of transparency again arises. Yet again we see the wholesale redaction of the appendices to the report. This again smacks of convenient censoring rather than excluding those specific items concerned with 'commercial confidentiality' and that term is being applied too widely.  Is it really the case that every paragraph, sentence & word of the appendices are commercially sensitive?  Will the Council look, as they have been asked to before and agreed to do so, at whether the reports and the 'commercial confidentiality' usage can be applied more strictly to enable the public to have greater confidence in the Council's commitment to transparency and to the probity of these developments?

 

4.2.2

Mr. Slack commented specifically in respect of Block I – John Lewis & Partners Shop and the deal outlined in the report at Item 11:   Para 3.18 – What is the value of the fair price/premium for the proposed surrender of their existing lease?  Is this a fair price or a premium price?  What is the value of the capital contribution within this deal?  Will this deal be an overall positive contribution to the Council's coffers or a cost in order to save jobs and a prestige retail location?  How many jobs are being safeguarded by this deal, compared to current levels?  Will the online turnover of John Lewis, reported by them as being 60 to 70%, be included in the “rent based on turnover”?

 

4.2.3

Councillor Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment commented on the commercial success of the Heart of the City project.  He stated that the scheme was not about commercial greed and that the Council’s approach had addressed issues like the Living Wage, local supply chains, apprenticeships and ethical procurement.  He outlined details of the success of the project led by the Council, including details of the exciting new businesses involved in the Scheme.  He stated that John Lewis and Partners continued to be a key tenant for the Council and confirmed that it is not possible to discuss the details of the potential deal with them as such commercially sensitive details were still being negotiated and the information was personal to John Lewis and Partners.   The Council tries to publish as much information as possible and referred to the recent open discussions on the Scheme at a Scrutiny Committee.

 

4.2.4

Councillor Iqbal commented that the proposed new lease had been independently valued.  He emphasised the importance of safeguarding any jobs in the City and welcomed the announcement of John Lewis and Partners that they were to continue trading in Sheffield and to refurbish their store.  Other cities were not so fortunate in these challenging times.

 

4.3

Public Questions Concerning the Wearing of Face Masks

 

 

4.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that he had great sympathy for the Director of Public Health in trying to keep the city safe from Covid19, despite the continuing fast & loose approach of this Government, and that he looked forward to his update. On Sunday's Andrew Marr show, Michael Gove said he will not make face masks for shops mandatory despite clear evidence that they are beneficial in slowing the spread of the virus. He prefers to rely on the 'common sense' of the British public, currently in very short supply. The Prime Minister has since changed that advice but will not introduce mandatory wearing of face masks until 24th July and then went on to advertise a dangerous version of masks with valves. What is the Council's view and recommendation on this issue and are there any options for the Council to make mask wearing mandatory within the city at an earlier date?

 

4.3.2

Councillor Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families commented that Greg Fell, Director of Public Health would cover the issue of face masks in more detail in his presentation at  Item 6.  With regards to a local approach she referred to the Sheffield Outbreak Control Board and the Outbreak Control Plan which includes local action to be taken and how we can enhance local support to keep people safe in Sheffield.  She confirmed that Government guidelines were being followed and that the Council does not have the power to make the wearing of face masks mandatory.  Public Health England guidance on the wearing of such masks for everyday use has been changing, but it is now proposed that they be worn in enclosed environments where social distancing is difficult and where there are more people around.  This should not detract from the essential actions of washing hands regularly, keeping a safe distance, getting a test if you feel unwell and, if you test positive, self-isolating. It was important to note that incorrect use of face masks can be negative and that some people, for health reasons, cannot wear a face mask and we must be careful not to discriminate against those people. The Director of Public Health will be issuing a an update on the Council’s YouTube channel and I would recommend that people watch this to keep up to date.