Agenda item

5.1

Ibrar Hussain submitted an electronic petition containing 63+ signatures, requesting a surcharge for taxis in Sheffield due to the rising fuel prices and cost of living.

5.2

A verbal response was provided from Councillor Joe Otten who stated that a proposal was being worked on surrounding the surcharge and recommended for the petitioner/s to provide some calculations on a proposed surcharge to be considered.

5.3

Nigel Slack attended the Committee and asked the following question which was answered by the Chair:

5.4

Q: I have asked many questions of Council over the last 12 years and have always tried to pitch these in a positive and helpful way. This is therefore one of the most difficult questions I have ever laid before you.

Recent events around the actions and the disciplinary disposition of the Chief Executive of this Council have been deeply troubling to colleagues in the community and to many others.

The actions for which the Chief Exec was recently called to account drove a coach and horses through the Nolan Principles of Public Life. The fact that City Councillors and 'so-called' business leaders in the city were prepared to ignore those principles for the sake of expediency is a stain on the reputation of this city and of this Council.

There is an implicit precedent being set that the Nolan Principles are somehow malleable and can be ignored by any member of this Council, elected or employed in the right circumstances.

Adherence to the Principles should not be a matter of expediency, not a matter of what suits either the power brokers of the business world or the political leaders within the administration.

They are a definition of a moral way of working and behaving in public life and an ethical framework for this Council. Sheffield has now lost it's moral compass.

We are all of us human and we all make mistakes but, the deliberate flouting of any one element of the Nolan Principles diminishes them all and, in choosing to be loyal to the diktat of the Cabinet Office rather than being honest and open with her current employer does not reflect well on her judgement or her loyalty to the city.

Questions need to be asked but the cloak of secrecy around the issues and the investigations in this matter make it almost impossible to get the answers needed. Rumours abound and are problematic and trust in the Council is once more being lost.

I do not see a way in which the Chief Exec can reclaim her integrity, her reputation or the city's trust and I believe her position will only become more and more untenable, unless there is greater transparency over the report and the disciplinary decision.

Will this Committee therefore reinforce this Council's commitment to the Nolan Principles as the ethical framework for the Council?

Will this Committee call on the Chief Exec to reconsider her position and take the step she should have taken in the first instance by resigning?

A: Thank you for your question. The CEO has apologised publicly and has faced questions from the media, Members, staff and public. The council formed a Committee which followed a process that would in any other employment rights be followed. The Committee considered many issues, including the Nolan Principles and came to a decision which I respect and that is the decision of which I release my public statement. The Committee was made up of experienced and senior Members of the council and I would like to take the opportunity to thank those Members. We will now move forwards and the CEO has stated to Members across the council that if they wish for a 1 to 1 meeting then she is happy to do this. I stand by my statement, the CEO’s statement and our joint statement. Thank you very much for your question.

5.5

Robin Hughes attended the Committee and asked the following questions which were answered by the Chair:

5.6

Q: This committee will consider a proposal to demolish the former John Lewis car park. This may seem premature, as the Council's application for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing has not yet been decided. It could be misunderstood as second-guessing that decision, even though it may be sensible to secure a budget. The claim that clearing a site attracts development is also questionable. Rushing to demolition has often left unsightly vacant plots for many years, for example Sheaf House, Dyson House and the Castle Market buildings.

The Council benefits from professional and expert officers, but years of savage cuts have depleted the resources available to assess historic and architectural significance. The very limited assessment of the John Lewis building is a recent illustration: the Council does not seem to have realised the significance of what it had. There are experts in the city, including the Council's own Conservation Advisory Group, ready to support officers on a voluntary basis and help to ensure that the city makes the most of its rich and varied historic environment.

Q1: If this committee approves the demolition proposal, will you require that any planning application or other preparation for demolition occurs only after the listing status of the building has been determined, and after there is a firm and financed proposal for whatever will replace it;

Q2: How best can local expert volunteers help the Council to assess the historic and architectural significance of assets in advance of proposals being made.

A: No decision has been taken to demolish the John Lewis car park. At this stage the committee is being asked to consider an outline business case only to allocate funding to enable tendering, survey and feasibility work to be undertaken. A full business plan will be developed should the survey work identify that demolition is possible/feasible/desirable. The full business plan will be brought to committee for decision at this point.

If it is decided to proceed with demolition of the car park, a planning application will be submitted. In assessing the planning application, consideration will be given to the buildings historic character, significance and setting drawing on expertise from the Council’s conservation and urban design teams and consultation with any statutory consultees such as Historic England.

Thank you for the questions and we will note those points.

5.7

Ruth Hubbard submitted the 5 questions in advance of the meeting but was not present at the meeting itself. The Chair stated that a written response would be provided to Ruth and highlighted that a response to Q4 may be out of time. The questions submitted were as follows:

5.8

Q1.  Given the strategic and coordinating role of the Strategy and Resources Committee, what information or suggestions have been fed back so far from either policy committees, outside organisations (or the couple of LAC meetings there have been since the last report) to help flesh out the council's approach to the cost-of-living crisis.  (I know the governance arrangements are new for everyone, so my question is about effective coordination, connections and avoiding silos in developing strategies and action plans)?

Q2.  There is a lot in the report (and the previous one) by way of commentary, organisational arrangements, inputs and activities.  There is less that brings clear strategic focus or ambition in terms of targets or outcomes (that would then help flesh out relevant activities and outputs, and the evidence, monitoring, and data that goes with these). Would it be helpful to identify clear outcomes or targets as a starting point, even if these are amended or shaped by others in an iterative process?  At the moment things seem a little 'muddy' eg the risk analysis (and mitigations) is necessarily limited as it's not clear what it's analysing, and an EIA seems to still be in preparation so can't be integrated into targets or actions as yet.  Or am I somehow reading the report wrong, or expecting too much at this stage?

Q3. Given the clear links with health (and mention of 'prevention'), has anyone suggested an outcome/target to at least maintain community health and wellbeing through the cost-of-living crisis?  Or a potential target/outcome in relation to the council using its influence to support larger businesses in the city to identify and take appropriate cost of living crisis actions under things like corporate social responsibility policies?

Q4.  An early test of council action on the cost-of-living crisis seems to be potentially unfolding in Hillsborough in relation to Tramlines.  There has been an outcry from local (residents and) businesses - some of whom say they are right on the edge of crisis anyway - because Tramlines has decided to allow no-one who attends the festival to leave and re-enter the site.  So whilst on-site (and likely over-priced) festival traders will benefit from a captive audience, local businesses in Hillsborough say their trade will be decimated through the festival period and as people understandably avoid the whole area - Hillsborough businesses will not benefit from Tramlines.  There is not even a guarantee that it will be Sheffield local businesses that are on site at Tramlines - Lidl, for example, is on the festival site, not a Sheffield or Hillsborough local grocer. So it appears that under pressure Hillsborough local businesses will suffer for the benefit of corporate profits (and the benefit and convenience of Tramlines?).  Far from using the leverage that the council has through its interpretation of Licensing, and through the Safety Advisory Group (leverage that the cost of licensing strategy says will be used), the council appears to be backing Tramline's business decision and is doubling down (citing public safety but with no apparent evidence), instead of pursuing a win-win solution that includes supporting struggling local Hillsborough traders.  Other cities, for example Portsmouth, have recognised the importance to local businesses of ensuring re-admissions to its Victorious music festival in the city.  Will the council now make its cost-of-living strategy meaningful by taking immediate action to protect struggling Hillsborough local businesses and the impact of Tramlines?

Q5.  The language of Gold and Silver Command seems to add nothing.  It only sounds, unhelpfully, a little macho and, of course, also resurrects terms that were in use during the worst part of the street tree scandal.  Can these be dropped?

5.9

Bridget Ingle submitted 1 question in advance of the meeting but was not present at the meeting itself. The Chair stated that a written response would be provided to Bridget.

5.10

Q1: 'Would the committee consider a street art project for the Barkers Pool car park prior to demolition?

Phlegm's 2019 Mausoleum of the Giants installation in the Eye Witness Works on Milton Street (prior to redevelopment) was phenomenally successful. It attracted 12,000 visitors who queued for up to 4 hours with people travelling from as far away as New York, Italy and Norway. 

This pilot project could redefine how Sheffield City Council engages with its street artists by reducing graffiti tagging which is expensive to remove.