Agenda item

Public Questions and Petitions and Other Communications

(a)      To receive any questions or petitions from 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 the above item of business.  In accordance with the arrangements published on the Council’s website in relation to meetings of the Council held whilst social distancing restrictions and other public health safety measures still apply, questions/petitions are required to be submitted in writing, to committee@sheffield.gov.uk, by 9.00 a.m. on Monday 5th July.)

 

 

(b)      Petition Requiring Debate

 

The Council’s Petitions Scheme requires that a petition containing over 5,000 signatures be the subject of debate at the Council meeting.  A qualifying petition has been received as follows:-

 

          Petition

 

To debate an electronic petition containing over 6,400 signatures (of which more than 5,160 are from individuals who live, work or study in Sheffield) asking Sheffield City Council to stop using Glyphosate.  The online petition - Sheffield City Council, stop using Glyphosate | 38 Degrees - includes further information.

 

 

Minutes:

3.1

The Lord Mayor (Councillor Gail Smith) reported that three petitions and questions from three members of the public had been received prior to the published deadline for submission of petitions and questions for this meeting.  On two of the petitions, representations were to be made on behalf of the petitioners, and a third petition would be received in the absence of a speaker.  Prior to the meeting, one of the questioners had withdrawn their questions.

 

 

3.2

Petitions

 

 

3.2.1

Petition Requesting The Installation Of A Fence Around The Green Area And Open Space Between Wensley Close And Wade Street To Stop Anti-Social Behaviour

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 25 signatures requesting that the Council install a fence around the green area and open space, between Wensley Close and Wade Street, to stop anti-social behaviour.

 

 

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Angilla Al-Gulaidi. Mr Al-Gulaidi stated he had lived in the Wensley Close area for over ten years and had seen increasing levels of anti-social behaviour in this area carried out by young people. He stated he had provided evidence of anti-social behaviour along with the petition. He said that the anti-social behaviour had made residents in the area anxious and frightened, and said that the problem had been getting worse. Mr Al-Gulaidi asked that a fence be installed to cordon off the area. He suggested that if this was not possible, a new football field could be added in Wensley Park to provide an alternative space for the young people.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Alison Teal (Executive Member for Sustainable Neighbourhoods, Wellbeing, Parks and Leisure). Councillor Teal thanked Mr Al-Gulaidi and his fellow petitioners for presenting the petition and for suggesting possible solutions. She stated that she felt it was important that officers visit the area, and that as she was unfamiliar with the area she would ask officers to provide her with background information. Councillor Teal said she agreed that the behaviour described was unacceptable and added that she would speak with officers and Mr Al-Gulaidi soon.

 

 

3.2.2

Petition Requesting The Council To Improve Safety For Pedestrians At The Junction Of Little London Road And Chesterfield Road

 

 

 

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 44 signatures requesting that the Council improve safety for pedestrians at the junction of Little London Road and Chesterfield Road.

 

 

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Tony Tigwell. Mr Tigwell stated that Chesterfield Road was widened two years ago, and a drop kerb was added. He said that this created a dangerous crossing point near Lidl and B&M Bargains. He stated that vulnerable residents were particularly at risk. He said he felt it was a surprise that there had not been any fatalities on the road. Mr Tigwell said that this petition had been started over a year ago and was delayed due to the pandemic. Mr Tigwell requested that the Council remove the drop kerb on the corner in order to encourage individuals to move further down the road to cross at a safer point.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Douglas Johnson (Executive Member for Climate Change, Environment and Transport). Councillor Johnson stated that the fact there had not been any fatalities in the area was worth noting, as sadly this was not the case in some other areas of Sheffield. He agreed that there was a great deal of traffic in the area. He stated that any issues with the road widening of Chesterfield Road should have been raised when the work was carried out. Councillor Johnson said removing the drop kerb was not a preferred option, as it would impact disabled people. He said he would ask whether there were any advantages to road safety if this were done. Councillor Johnson stated that it was his understanding that there were reasons for not putting in a crossing at this point when the road was widened and stated that there was a pedestrian crossing nearby on Valley Road. He noted that this might not be ideal for wheelchair users but added that this would be a crossing option for many members of the public. Councillor Johnson said that it was his understanding that the vehicle entrance to B&M Bargains was close to the junction, and therefore there was not room for a crossing in this area. He added that traffic islands could not be added due to a lack of space. Councillor Johnson said he would consider Mr Tigwell’s suggestion regarding a drop kerb.

 

 

3.2.3

Petition Requesting The Council To Make The Garden Waste Collection Service Cheaper

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing 18 signatures requesting that the Council make the garden waste collection service cheaper. There was no speaker for this petition.

 

 

 

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Paul Wood (Executive Member for Housing, Roads and Waste Management). Councillor Wood stated that he needed to speak to Service Directors and said that all service charges were to be reviewed over the coming months.

 

 

3.3

Public Questions

 

 

3.3.1

Public Questions Regarding the Tree Felling Inquiry in Sheffield

 

 

 

Russell Johnson asked the following questions of the Council:-

 

1. Transparency, Openness and ‘The Street Tree Debacle Inquiry

 

I welcome the Council’s decision to hold an independent Inquiry in public and await details with interest.

 

However, SCC’s continuing appalling non-compliance with legal requirements associated with Freedom of Information and Subject Access Requests might lead a reasonable person to doubt the sincerity of the Council in its stated desire for more honesty and therefore question the veracity of the exercise. I might add that the Council even demonstrates a cavalier approach to compliance with Decision Notices issued by the Information Commissioner.

 

(a)            Does the Leader understand that such wilful obfuscation inevitably results in cynicism about SCC’s true motivation in initiating an Inquiry? This is compounded by the disgraceful history of some Members and Officers being less than honest with the public.

 

(b)           Will the Leader explain what action is being taken to properly respond to FOIRs, SARs and Formal Complaints in a legal and timely manner?

 

2. The new climate of cooperation – ‘working together in the City’s interests’

 

In view of the very welcome change in the political complexion of the Executive, please would the relevant Cabinet Member(s):

 

(a)           Commit to the removal of the Streets Ahead Contract clause requiring the felling of 17,500 street trees?

 

(b)           Commit to the removal of the clause requiring straight continuous kerbs, allowing skilled Amey Highway engineers to make sensible and pragmatic decisions without reference to an Officer for each and every case?

 

Members should note that these changes would have no cost implications for SCC and would, I believe, be welcomed by the contractors.

 

(c)      Formally announce the cessation of the felling programme: it is currently technically ‘paused’.’

 

 

 

In response, Councillor Julie Grocutt (Executive Member for Community Engagement and Governance [and Deputy Leader of the Council]) thanked Mr Johnson for his questions. Councillor Grocutt responded to parts (a) and (b) of question 1, and stated that the Council’s ability to respond to FOI requests within legal timeframes had been impacted by the pandemic. She added that the pandemic had resulted in a backlog of FOI requests; however, she said that the Council was committed to addressing this and returning to an optimal position. She stated that a number of things had been done by the Council in order to address this backlog, including the recruitment of new staff to assist with responses and investment in a case management system. Councillor Grocutt added that the Council would also be setting up performance clinics. She stated that she understood the frustration and concern experienced by Mr Johnson and other members of the public and apologised for the delay.

 

 

 

Councillor Paul Wood (Executive Member for Housing, Roads and Waste Management) responded to question 2. On part (a), Councillor Wood stated he would remove the clause referenced. On part (b), Councillor Wood said that he felt there always needed to be oversight from the Council alongside Amey. He added he would commit to the removal of this clause. On part (c), Councillor Wood stated that regarding the cessation of the felling programme, he could not find anything in the paperwork which suggested that this was a formal decision. He said any tree felling would be individually assessed and consulted on in line with the Street Tree Strategy, approved by Cabinet in March 2021. Councillor Wood said in many cases that approval team would include himself and Councillor Johnson.

 

 

3.3.2

Public Questions Regarding Local Area Committees

 

 

 

Nigel Slack asked the following questions:-

 

1.    It is good to see the co-operation agreement detailed, at least to some extent, in the motion at item 6. There are however some concerns to be raised on this agreement.

 

In Para (D)(i) there is the commitment to the LACs but precious little detail on how they will actually be “putting our communities at the heart of decision making”. Indeed the decisions and policies applied so far embed and solidify the control of the LACs in the hands of Councillors.

 

To satisfy the expectations of residents, as expressed through the curtailed 'Big City Conversation' this must surely be a grass roots partnership design and reflect the demand for real decision making within communities, both with respect to service delivery and to fiscal spending decisions.

 

Will Council commit again to this being a skeleton framework at this point and to fully exploring the potential of the LACs and including not just physical communities but communities of interest in these new arrangements?

 

In Para (D)(ii) there is a commitment to delivering new investment in District Centres, a suggestion given by me to the relevant Cabinet Member for development some 2 years ago whilst discussing the fate of Cambridge Street and the potential for a community hub in that area.

 

Unfortunately, the HOC2 developments have largely placed profit before people, with an emphasis on retail and office space. One thing Covid has taught us is that retail and the world of work will never be the same again. Sheffield has suffered badly from the collapse of the Philip Green empire, the closing of John Lewis and the uncertainty around the survival of Marks & Spencer, and the plans for District Centres need to address that.

 

Will Council commit to ensuring that development plans for the District Centres will be based on the needs of those centres as expressed by the residents that live, work and play there, for once putting people before profit?

 

2.    On a related issue, the significant changes being undertaken in the City with the result of the referendum and the implications of the LACs will have a long term impact on the way the city is governed. I think we need to look at that Governance root and branch, noting that the current constitution is not up to the job.

 

The constitution is not resident friendly, even if a resident can find the thing. I would therefore propose that it is well past time for the hard questions be asked of this Council and it's constitution. There are currently embedded conflicts of interest, protocols and policies that make no sense in the digital era & failings in the expectations of the residents in respect to accountability and transparency.

 

Will Council therefore agree to a review in 2022/23 of the City's constitution to bring it into the 21st Century, beginning from first principles by defining in clear language the underlying purpose and principles of a modern city and it's governing documentation?

 

 

 

In response, Councillor Julie Grocutt (Executive Member for Community Engagement and Governance [and Deputy Leader of the Council]) stated she had a meeting scheduled with Mr Slack later in the month, and said she looked forward to carrying on this conversation within that meeting. Councillor Grocutt stated there were 52 fantastic district centres within Sheffield and said that these were at the heart of many of Sheffield’s communities. She said the growth of these communities was very important to Members of the Council. Councillor Grocutt stated she was part of the Economic Recovery Fund group, alongside Councillor Paul Turpin. She said that this group provided support to local district centres. She stated this was a very exciting piece of work, and she invited Liberal Democrat members to assist with this work. She said that LACs would work in partnership with their own communities in order to put together local plans which work for those areas. Councillor Grocutt stated that she urged all local people to engage with their Local Area Committees.

 

 

 

In relation to question 2, Councillor Grocutt stated that the Council was required to work under a committee model of governance from May 2022. She said that in order for this to go ahead all current rules and procedures needed to be reviewed. Councillor Grocutt said that one of the workstreams required a review of the Constitution ahead of May 2022. She stated that the Council was committed to working with citizens and communities within Sheffield to inform governance and decision making. Councillor Grocutt said that the change required over the year would provide an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate a commitment to engagement in both governance and decision making. She said she would be bringing forth a report to July’s Co-operative Executive meeting which would set out the programme for change and highlight the engagement required to involve citizens and communities. Councillor Grocutt stated that the LAC framework would be reviewed over the year, and that engagement would include all communities.

 

 

3.4

Petition Requiring Debate: Petition Asking Sheffield City Council To Stop Using Glyphosate

 

 

 

The Council received an electronic petition containing over 6,350 signatures, of which more than 5,160 signatures were from individuals who live, work or study in Sheffield, asking the Council to stop using Glyphosate.

 

 

 

The Council‘s Petitions Scheme required any petition containing over 5,000 signatures to be the subject of debate at the Council meeting. The wording of the qualifying petition was as follows:-

 

 

 

End the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in Sheffield's publicly owned spaces maintained by the Council or their contractors and use a safe alternative such as Foamstream.”

 

 

 

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Graham Wroe, who referred to the presentation circulated to all Members prior to this meeting, and to the information on the Pesticides Action Network UK website, requesting that Members should read this information, if they hadn’t already done so.  He reported that the petition had received 6,563 signatures, requesting the Council to stop using glyphosate in all the city’s streets, parks and playgrounds, and reported on the five main reasons for such a request.

 

 

 

He stated that glyphosate had contributed to the massive decline in the insect population, and that it harmed worms, the soil, trees, birds and other animals and, due to the fact that it was water-soluble, had significant effects on animals which underpinned the aquatic food chain.  Glyphosate was sprayed at the base of trees, which affected the fungi on their roots, which helped them to absorb nutrients and water.  Glyphosates were thought to be carcinogenic, and found in many food products, including water, wine and beer.  It had also been found in breast milk in the USA.  The GMB union stated that evidence from the World Health Organisation should be heeded, in that glyphosate must be treated as a severe health risk to the public.  Mr Wroe stated that glyphosate could be replaced by many safe alternatives, and whilst not all weeds needed removing, he accepted that some did, and he referred to a number of possible alternatives, including weed brushing, heat treatments, manual weeding and spraying with vinegar or foamstream.  Mr Wroe stressed that spraying verges and pavement borders resulted in such areas being very unsightly, and urged the Council to stop using this pesticide on the city’s streets, playgrounds and parks, in order to give nature in the city a real boost, and requested that safer alternatives be investigated, which have to be controlled.

 

 

 

Councillor Alison Teal (Executive Member for Sustainable Neighbourhoods, Wellbeing, Parks and Leisure) thanked Mr Wroe for presenting the petition, and referred to a number of local authorities who had either stopped using, or were in the process of stopping the use of, glyphosate.  She stated that she fully supported ending the use of the pesticide, as well as all other chemicals that were harmful to nature, and had an adverse effect on biodiversity.  Councillor Teal stated that the Parks and Countryside Service was already trialling alternatives, and stated that the concerns regarding the use of glyphosate had been included in the Government's Environment Bill.  She had spoken to officers, requesting them to look at using less harmful alternativesas urgently as possible.  Councillor Teal made reference to the motion regarding ‘Action on the Nature Emergency’, passed at the last Council meeting, and which had received full, cross-party support.  She stated that the Council was looking to adopt new landscapes, which comprised more areas of wildflower, and which, potentially, would require less maintenance, thereby resulting in cost savings for the Council.

 

 

 

Councillor Joe Otten (Shadow Executive Member for Sustainable Neighbourhoods, Wellbeing, Parks and Leisure) believed it was now time to stop the use of glyphosate, and to look at, and test, safe alternatives.  He referred to the clear cross-party agreement on this issue, and stated that a decision was required prior to the decision by the European Union to ban its use at the end of 2022.

 

 

 

Councillor Christine Gilligan referred to the Motion on the Nature Emergency at the Council meeting held on 16th June 2021, during which the Council recognised that the natural world was struggling from the impact of habitat degradation due to increased urbanisation and wasteful consumption patterns.  She stated that Sheffield prided itself on being a green, outdoor city, therefore should not be spraying a toxic substance on the city's streets, parks and playgrounds.  Councillor Gilligan stated that glyphosate not only destroyed weeds, but also most living things within the treated area, and left the landscape looking very unsightly.  There had been a 30% reduction in the hedgehog population in urban areas, due mainly to the loss of worms and insects which they feed on.  Consideration should be given to the designation by the World Health Organisation of glyphosate being carcinogenic.  Councillor Gilligan referred to the adverse effects of the use of glyphosate on cats and dogs, as well as the health of those members of staff applying the pesticide.  It was accepted that there was a need to look at how the Council managed its fauna and flora.  She concluded by stating that she welcomed the petition, and expected there to be widespread support from the public, and that we should all wish to live in an environment which included bees, insects and other wildlife in the future.

 

 

 

Councillor Richard Shaw also welcomed the petition and the number of signatures.  He stated that he had been contacted by a number of his constituents expressing concerns with regard to the spraying of glyphosate, and to the adverse effects of its use.  Councillor Shaw made reference to the adverse effects of its use on the city’s wildlife, specifically hedgehogs, and stressed that there was an urgent need to find a suitable alternative.

 

 

 

Councillor Mary Lea expressed her thanks to the lead petitioner and welcomed the debate on this important issue.  She stated that glyphosate had been the topic of discussion for some time, and considerable work had already been undertaken in terms of looking at alternatives, some of which, unfortunately, had proved not to be effective.  Councillor Lea highlighted the fact that the risks of the use of glyphosate to humans and wildlife need to be taken very seriously, and stated that the impact of any proposed changes on the Council’s partners, including Amey and those businesses who maintained their own green spaces, needed to be given serious consideration.  She also highlighted the importance of involving the public in terms of looking at suitable alternatives, as many individuals and groups currently take ownership of green spaces within the city.  She suggested that the issue be considered by the relevant Council Scrutiny Committee.

 

 

 

Councillor Mark Jones welcomed the petition and referred to the work already undertaken in terms of looking at suitable alternatives.  He referred to the Motion on Biodiversity, passed by the Council on 31st March 2021, and which promised to include the public in any future decisions taken on this issue.  Councillor Jones stressed that the Council must both allow for science to lead the process and recognise and acknowledge the facts surrounding the use of this pesticide.

 

 

 

Councillor Tim Huggan stated that whilst he accepted and welcomed the European Union’s decision to ban the use of glyphosate by the end of 2022, he stressed that the Council must look to end its use, through an Executive Decision, earlier than this deadline.  He stated that there was a need for the relevant Council transitional committee to look at an alternative strategy for the use of the city’s open spaces, and emphasised the importance of ensuring that staff currently applying the pesticide were adequately protected.

 

 

 

Councillor Barbara Masters stated that she had been asking for a policy for residents to manage their own suburban verges for sometime, and that several friends’ groups had expressed an interest in being able to do this.  However, there had been issues with regard to public liability insurance, and she requested that the Council looked into this, and find a resolution as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Councillor Paul Turpin raised concerns with regard to the use of glyphosate, indicating that its use needed banning at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

 

 

Councillor Roger Davison stated that the public needed to be informed as to how they could get rid of glyphosate safely as a number of residents would be in ownership of the pesticide.

 

 

 

Graham Wroe, in his right of reply, stated that he welcomed the positive comments made as part of the debate, and particularly welcomed the cross-party consensus.  He highlighted the need to involve the public in any steps being taken, as well as the need to ensure that all Sheffield residents understood the importance and severity of the current climate position.

 

 

 

Councillor Alison Teal responded to issues raised during the debate. She welcomed the fact that there was broad agreement that the use of glyphosate had to cease and suitable alternatives had to be introduced as a matter of urgency, particularly as the planet was facing a nature emergency, and she confirmed she would press for progress to be made on this matter without delay.

 

 

 

The outcome of the debate on the petition was as follows:-

 

 

 

Proposal 1

 

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Alison Teal and seconded by Councillor Douglas Johnson, that:-

 

 

 

The petition be referred to the appropriate executive decision maker for consideration.

 

 

 

Proposal 2

 

 

 

It was moved by Councillor Terry Fox and seconded by Councillor Tony Damms, that:-

 

 

 

The petition be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee to propose the course of action to be taken.

 

 

 

The two motions were then put to the vote.  Proposal 1 was carried and Proposal 2 was not carried.  Accordingly, the resolution passed by the Council was as follows:-

 

 

 

RESOLVED:  That this Council refers the petition to the appropriate executive decision maker for consideration.