Agenda item

5.1

Nigel Slack asked the following questions on behalf of Robin Hughes:

‘These questions concern the former John Lewis building and public consultation regarding options for the site. On 16th February 2022, this Executive approved £3m for asbestos removal, which the supporting report confirmed "will be required for whichever option is decided for the future of the building". In the public consultation, asbestos was identified as a major challenge only for re-using the building, and not mentioned in relation to either demolition option, even though it is an identical challenge for those.

The consultation also claimed that demolition and the creation of a park would give “huge boost to the city’s long-term low carbon ambitions”. The supporting report by Arup says that a park would sequester only 230 tonnes of carbon dioxide over 25 years, which is the equivalent the carbon footprint of one average person in the UK - hardly "huge". This would require an estimated 900 trees, unachievable on the site, and much more than the 30 or so depicted in the consultation.

If the building is not replaced, an additional 4100 tonnes of carbon emissions caused by rebuilding will be displaced to other sites. This is obvious, since we expect and want jobs growth and more homes; and these and other uses the existing building might be put to would still require buildings. The Arup report acknowledges this, but omits the emissions from its conclusion. The consultation maintains that demolition options have the lowest carbon emissions, when in fact re-use has the lowest.

The Council has applied for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing, although this has not been publicised. My questions are these:

What steps will this Executive take to reconsult those who may have been influenced by the misleading information provided during the consultation;

How will the Council ensure that misleading information of this kind is not used in future consultations;

Will the Council make publicly available all the historical information or any heritage assessment to ensure that interested parties have it when commenting on the Certificate of Immunity application.’

Councillor Mazher Iqbal responded to Mr Hughes’ questions. Councillor Iqbal stated he had been working with Mr Hughes on a video on the Heritage List. He said that Mr Hughes and his colleagues were part of a roundtable discussion organised by The Sheffield Telegraph. He stated he would also provide a written response to Mr Hughes.

In response to question one, Councillor Iqbal said both he and officers did not feel the consultation information was incorrect. He stated that the material accurately reported direct carbon waiting for each option. He said that the Council commissioned a study of the carbon implications relating to three potential high-level options for the site, as this was a complex and technical area. He said that the wider carbon balance argument was complex and difficult to quantify, and he stated that as the city changed new patterns of working and technology emerged, and it was not possible to correlate removal of one building with the need to provide a corresponding building elsewhere to accommodate the economic activity. Councillor Iqbal said that this complexity meant that assessments were impossible to account for easily and were beyond the scope of a public exercise which covered a range of issues. He added that carbon emissions were just one factor in determining the outcome for the site and the city. He stated that all options were being considered, including retaining the building. Councillor Iqbal stated that before determining the future of the site a range of factors would need to be considered, including carbon emissions, feedback from the consultation, viability, deliverability, funding, and planning. Councillor Iqbal stated that a brief was being put together to consider all three options.

In response to question two, Councillor Iqbal referred to his response to question one.

In response to question three, Councillor Iqbal stated the building had been granted a Certificate of Immunity in 2002 and a request to renew this certificate had been submitted and would be made available on request.

5.2

Nigel Slack asked the following question: ‘At item 18 in the meeting, the Executive are asked to approve the proposal of a new approach to local Heritage through the creation of the South Yorkshire Local Heritage List.

This is a laudable aim and one that could be an exemplar of the new way the city is to approach the participation of residents in decision making. However at Para 1.5 iv) the only members of the proposed 'assessment panel' mentioned for Sheffield are an SCC related group, a society of professionals in the field and industrial heritage specialists. They are all worthy members but the opportunity missed is that the panel omits any community focussed members, such as Joined Up Heritage Sheffield that represents at least 40 local community groups and supporters around heritage.

This is entirely at odds with the new approach being developed by the Governance Committee for May 2022 and again seems to relegate public participation to nominating potential sites and basic consultation. The same paragraph at 1.5 v) puts the decision making power in the hands of the head of Planning, a potential conflict of interest due to what many people see as an overly close relationship between planning and developers.

Will Council therefore make JUH Sheffield a member of the assessment board, in line with the spirit of the report's Paras 1.1, 2.2 & 2.3?

Will Council place the decision making of approved sites in the remit of a relevant Policy Committee in the new Governance arrangement, rather than the Head of Planning?’

Councillor Iqbal responded to Mr Slack’s question. He stated that Joined Up Heritage had worked with the Council for decades, and he said he felt it was important that the work they had done be acknowledged. He said that the Local Heritage List had been launched in 2021 and he encouraged groups such as Joined Up Heritage, alongside residents, to put forward sites for the list. He said he believed 80 sites had been added.

Regarding the Head of Planning, Councillor Iqbal stated he did not feel there was a conflict of interest. He said that the work carried out was in conjunction with the appropriate legislation. He stated that he met with the Head of Planning on a weekly basis, and he expressed his hope that the Head of Planning would attend the relevant committee in future.