Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions and Other Communications

To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public, or communications submitted by the Lord Mayor or the Chief Executive and to pass such resolutions thereon as the Council Procedure Rules permit and as may be deemed expedient.

 

 

(NOTE: There is a time limit of one hour for this item of business.  In accordance with the arrangements published on the Council’s website in relation to meetings of the Council held remotely, questions/petitions are required to be submitted in writing, to committee@sheffield.gov.uk, by 9.00 a.m. on Monday 7th September.)

 

Minutes:

3.1

Petitions

 

 

3.1.1

Petition Requesting a “Walk With Pride” Crossing in Sheffield

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 511 signatures, requesting a “Walk with Pride” crossing in Sheffield.

 

 

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Eleanor Coppard, who stated that the petition requested a permanent installation of the Pride crossing. The petition was launched in June. She stated that there had not been Pride celebrations in Sheffield this year and commented that it was a much under-represented part of the community.

 

 

 

The temporary crossing had been put into place outside the Town Hall and it had been very warmly received. There had been interest in the campaign and in supporting it from Radio Sheffield, Exposed magazine and Now Then magazine. The Council was asked to implement a permanent installation of the crossing.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Councillor Johnson thanked Eleanor for bringing the petition to Council. He said that on 24 June, the Council installed a rainbow crossing on Pinstone Street as part the Covid 19 temporary relocation of highway. The road markings had been implemented on a semi pedestrianised and prominent area. He also believed that the crossing had been well received. Proposals to further enhance the public realm on Pinstone Street were being developed and, although the crossing was implemented as part of temporary measures on Pinstone Street, the Council would look at trying to retain a rainbow crossing at a location in the City Centre. The Council would need to make sure it was compliant with the relevant regulations and that appropriate traffic signals and signs were located beside it. However, these were not major concerns and the principle that a rainbow crossing was retained in the City Centre was something that he would support.

 

 

3.2

Public Questions

 

 

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Tony Downing) invited two members of the public to ask questions which they had submitted prior to the published deadline for submission of questions. There had been an additional question received after the submission deadline from a member of the public, and the Lord Mayor stated that the questioner had been advised to submit his question directly to the relevant Cabinet Member, or alternatively to submit it to the next meeting of the Council or next meeting of the Cabinet.

 

 

3.2.1

Public Questions Concerning John Lewis Partnership

 

 

 

Nigel Slack made reference to the good news that the deal with John Lewis Partnership had been concluded and that the retail store would retain its presence in Sheffield. He asked the Council to now address the questions put at the last Cabinet meeting, namely:-

 

-      What was the value of the capital contribution, for refurbishment, within this deal?

 

-      Will this deal be an overall positive contribution to the Council’s coffers or a cost?

 

-      How many jobs were 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”?

 

 

 

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Business and Investment, responded to the question and said that he agreed with Mr Slack that the deal with John Lewis was fantastic news for the City. He said that John Lewis was part of the original retail quarter plans and it was wonderful news that 7 years on, they had committed to Sheffield.  He commented that retail stores up and down the country had unfortunately closed. However, John Lewis was a major retail anchor and it was great to have them in the City.  He thanked colleagues for persevering while this deal was concluded.

 

 

 

Councillor Iqbal said that, in relation to the first question regarding capital contribution for refurbishment, unfortunately he could not disclose information because the value of that contribution was subject to a procurement process, which would be led by John Lewis and Partners, so, at this stage, such a disclosure of information would prejudice their commercial interests and he hoped that Mr Slack could appreciate the circumstances.

 

 

 

As regards to the second question and as to whether the deal would be an overall positive contribution to the Council coffers, he said that it was great news for the City in retaining major anchor institutions such as John Lewis which did not only benefit John Lewis or the city centre but was positive news for the City. Very recently, Radisson Blu, the new hotel operator in the Heart of the City scheme, had signed the agreement and the New World Trading Company had also recently signed an agreement. This showed the huge benefits that John Lewis would bring to the City Centre and to the City.

 

 

 

Councillor Iqbal said that, in relation to the third question concerning the safeguarding of jobs, he had recently spoken with the John Lewis Store Manager. In Sheffield, John Lewis employed approximately 300 staff and there were also additional staff who came in to do the beauty treatments etc, which represented a further 400 people. Keeping John Lewis in the City Centre and the additional benefits and the confidence it had given others was difficult to put a price on. Ultimately, decisions relating to jobs were for John Lewis to decide. It was known that retailers up and down the country had shed jobs.

 

 

 

Other places, such as Bolton were in lockdown because of the cases of Coronavirus and it was not known what support was being provided beyond the furlough scheme and therefore, he could not really comment on how many jobs could be safeguarded.

 

 

 

In relation to the final question concerning the rent and turnover of John Lewis, Councillor Iqbal stated that this was confidential information held by John Lewis.  

 

 

3.2.2

Public Question Concerning Coronavirus and Return to School

 

 

 

Nigel Slack said that the pressure from the government to get children and staff back into schools and to get people back into their offices seemed premature considering the continuing and increasing levels of new infections each week. He said that a number of schools had been impacted by new outbreaks and the same was likely to be inevitable in large office scenarios.

 

 

 

Mr Slack said that even in Sheffield, the situation was volatile with new cases down one week and up the next. Overall, the country’s new cases per day were no better than when the lockdown was initially implemented and local lockdowns were riddled with inconsistencies. He said that, if the Council did not feel safe resuming face to face meetings in the Council Chamber, why should this city be falling in line with the decision makers in central government and condemning the families of schoolchildren to put themselves at risk?

 

 

 

He stated that there may be a ‘vanishingly small’ death rate but each death was a person who’s life had been cut short in what he said was a cruel and economically driven policy set by the government and not opposed by this Council.

 

 

 

Councillor Abtisam Mohamed, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills, responded to the questions. She stated that the Council had been working with schools during the summer term and the summer holidays to ensure schools complied with the national guidance on social distancing. Whilst she acknowledged the points that Mr Slack had made in relation to safety, she said that ultimately children needed to be in school and there was a need to ensure that children were accessing full time education.

 

 

 

Schools had done really well in their preparation for compliance with social distancing measures and ensuring they had comprehensive risk assessments. They had also been supported with guidance from the Department for Health and Sheffield's Director of Public Health.

 

 

 

Whilst it was recognised that there could be ‘bubbles’ of children sent home, this was part of the risk assessment process and making sure that children and families were protected and kept as safe as possible.

 

 

 

It was also recognised that it would only ever be completely safe when there was a vaccine for Covid-19 and, until then, there was a need to make sure safe processes were in operation and to ensure that schools were complying with the risk assessments to ensure that the school environment was as safe as possible. There had been a number of schools that had sent small pupil ‘bubbles’ home and there had been a couple of incidents where year groups had been sent home.

 

 

 

However, the overwhelming majority of schools had said they were working hard to meeting the Covid-safe requirements. The feedback had been positive and over the next couple of weeks, the Council would work closely with schools to make sure that they offered support to students, including health and wellbeing support as well as additional educational support as was needed to reduce the disadvantage gap.

 

 

3.2.3

Public Questions Concerning Planning and Leases

 

 

 

Nigel Slack asked the following questions concerning planning and leases:

 

-      In order of precedence in current decision making protocols, does Planning approval trump the decision making of Cabinet Members when it comes to decisions on leasing Council land?

 

-      Could a developer, who is in negotiation with the Council over a lease, force the hand of Council to approve a lease arrangement by that developer gaining planning approval before the lease decision is made?

 

-      Should any planning decision be delayed until the lease negotiations and decision, including any necessary public consultation, was concluded?

 

 

 

Councillor Bob Johnson, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Development, responded to the questions.

 

 

 

He said that, decisions made by the Council as a Local Planning Authority were carried out as a quasi-judicial body and were entirely separate from any decisions the Council may make as a landowner. The circumstances of Covid-19 had not affected decision making in that regard and changes had not been made in relation to it. A developer that had obtained planning approval could not force the granting of a lease from the Council as these were two separate issues. However, it would not be appropriate to delay a planning decision whilst a lease negotiation took place and again, that was because the two things were totally separate.

 

 

3.2.4

Public Questions Concerning Youth Services

 

 

 

Ruth Hubbard commented that given the cuts nationally to youth services in the past ten years, she welcomed the Council’s plans to invest more money in youth services. She said that what was happening for young people was of importance to communities and community groups across Sheffield. 

 

 

 

She made reference to the intention to bring youth services ‘in-house’, so that they will no longer be run by Sheffield Futures. She commented that many people supported a direction of travel to bring services in-house, especially where run by the private sector for profit.

 

 

 

Ruth Hubbard raised the following issues and questions:

 

 

 

1.               The charity Sheffield Futures was run by a Board that consisted of a range of significant stakeholders with expertise from across different sectors and settings. The Council was proposing a Project Board chaired by its own Director of Communities and with its own officers from Legal, Finance, Human Resources and Commercial Services. She said that it might appear that bringing youth services in-house was, in part, a cover for accruing yet more power to the few under ‘strong leader’ governance model. She asked whether the Council would commit to ensuring that other key stakeholders were involved as full partners in youth service governance on the Board; will it ensure this includes significant professional youth and community work expertise; and will the Council also commit to ensuring that there were resources and mechanisms that significantly involve young people themselves in decision-making about youth services and how they are run.

 

 

 

2.               At the heart of excellent youth services was a commitment to young people’s voice and them playing a full role in their communities and as active citizens in democracy. Young people in Sheffield had themselves consistently called for more say and for better local, community-based democracy, notably at the Council governance review and in the Council task and finish group on the voice and influence of young people and which was warmly received by the relevant Scrutiny Committee. Given that no power was devolved to local communities in the city governance, what prospect was there for young people to have more power in shaping our city’s future?

 

 

 

3.               Youth work and what was happening in communities was integrally linked. Yet, the Council reports she had seen did not seem to have the input of youth work expertise that would recognise this and the word ‘community’ was barely mentioned, if at all. What youth work expertise was being drawn on in Council planning; and what information sharing, consultation and direct planning work was going on with local communities across the city about in-house youth service plans so that community activities and added value was maximised, and so that locally based and voluntary youth work services could better link up with Council youth service plans and provision.

 

 

 

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children and Families responded to the questions. She thanked Ruth Hubbard for asking the questions and for recognising that there had been very little funding for youth services in the context of austerity over the past ten years and that despite that, the Council had identified some funding for youth services. She said that the Council and the city recognised that young people were our future and the more that could be done to help and enable them to lead successful and productive lives, the better it was both for them and also for the City.

 

 

 

Councillor Drayton stated in relation to the first question, that the Council recognised the great work that Sheffield Futures and its staff had done for the City. It was a priority for the Council, in the immediate term, to ensure a safe transfer of services back to the Council, having sought to bring the services in-house.  The creation of services for the future would include appropriate models of working in partnership, including with the Voluntary, Community and Faith sector and youth providers across the city and the police and health services and so the Council would be working with partners. The report to the Cabinet on this matter also talked about the importance of engaging and working with young people in relation to their services and there was a clear expectation from all Members that the new model would be built upon that.

 

 

 

In relation to the second question and in talking about the heart of excellent youth services being the commitment to young people's voice and them playing a role and not only in the services that were provided for them but in general, Councillor Drayton said that she believed that young people also had a lot to say about services for older people. That was why young people had been part of service commissioning projects as young commissioners and training had taken place for young people to become young commissioners. Young people had also been involved in interviews for senior members of staff in the Council and young people had been involved in policy development. 

 

 

 

Councillor Drayton said that specifically, there were young people on the Children in Care Council and the Care Leavers Union who had shaped the services and the policies that were in place for them and for other young people and for other services in the City. Therefore, the Council felt this was important and would continue to do that and expand it, whenever it could and to make sure, in relation to the new service, that young people's voice was intrinsic to the new model and they were part of it. And so, rather than the Council saying what it was going to be like and young people agreeing, the approach would be one of co-production and that was something which there was a reputation for doing in relation to children and families in other areas of the local authority and other services. 

 

 

 

In reference to the third set of questions, Councillor Drayton stated that a lot of Councillors and staff had been or were involved in youth and community work, and so there were Councillors with expertise in youth work and also many officers had youth training and the Executive Director for People Services, who would have oversight of the youth services project, started in youth work and that was his background. So, the Council did have the skills and knowledge but it did not have it all and therefore it would be looking and sharing and learning not only from other youth providers in the city, but also from other places and from other organisations.

 

 

 

Councillor Drayton said that the Executive Director was keeping an overview of all the changes, which she believed was invaluable. The Council would be recruiting for a new head of service for young people and she said there was no doubt that young people would be involved in that process and the Council would make sure it had somebody who had experience in that area of work.

 

 

 

This area of work was covered by three Cabinet Members’ portfolios, namely the Leader of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Education and Skills and her own portfolio, Children and Families. Many other Cabinet Members and local Councillors across the City also had a very strong voice about what should be done for our young people.

 

 

 

Councillor Drayton said that she would also send a written answer to the questions that Ruth Hubbard had asked.