Agenda item

5.1

The Policy Committee received one petition from members of the public.

The Policy Committee received a petition ‘Save Hillsborough Park’s free-to-use MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area).  Andy Chaplin attended the meeting and presented the petition to the committee.

The petitioner explained that a briefing note had been sent to committee members prior to the meeting.

The Chair thanked the petitioner for bringing the petition.

5.2

The Committee received five questions from members of the public.

Question from: Friends of Hillsborough Park

1. Is the Committee comfortable in approving a scheme which will reduce access to the current free-to-use MUGA which is currently well used by Cycling4All and the casual users who play on it throughout the year
2. Given the issues highlighted in the FoHP briefing does this Committee believe Hillsborough Park would be the optimal location for an Activity Hub
3. Is there evidence that there will be an increase in physical activity or is there the likelihood that a smaller MUGA and more pay-to-use space will lead to less activity
4. Does the Committee have access to and have confidence in the financial viability of the scheme. (Is there more scrutiny of projects after the experience of the Fargate container scheme?)
5. Is the Committee content that a procurement process for a major development is based on the proposal from a current supplier
6. Is the Committee satisfied that The Report to the Cooperative Executive Committee was an accurate description of the situation and that it gave an opportunity for adequate scrutiny
7. Is the Committee satisfied that the consultation with the public in April 2022 and the conclusions drawn from the 20921 Hillsborough Forward plan and the 2018 Better Parks consultation ……….
8. Is the Committee therefore confidant that it can award a contract and any associated disposal of land which may be necessary, and any consents or approvals required.

The Chair thanked the questioner for bringing these questions to the committee and explained that the responses would be covered as part of the officers’ report to committee during item 6. A full written response would also be provided.

Question from Cycling4all

1. Sheffield Cycling 4 All would like to register our concern that the provider has not put forward a workable solution which will enable us to continue to offer our current level of activities and services.

We are one of the UK’s leading inclusive cycling hubs and the only one in the Sheffield region. We have been operating from the park for over 14 years and welcome 100 people every week to our cycling sessions for disabled people and people with long term health conditions.

Is the Committee comfortable with approving a contract which will negatively impact the level and quality of service we are able to offer – as well as put us in conflict with other casual users of the MUGA due to its much-reduced size?

2. The report submitted to the Charity trustee Sub-Committee currently states that the provider must:

“Ensure the activity hub enables the services and operations offered by Cycling for All, which currently provides their main service offer from the existing multi-use games area space.”

Will the Committee seek assurance that it is written into the contract that the provider is required to enable our current level of services and operations?

The Chair thanked the questioner for bringing these questions to the committee and explained that the responses would be covered as part of the officers’ report to committee during item 6. A full written response would also be provided.

Question from Andy Kershaw

David Hartlebury attended the committee meeting and asked the question on Mr Kershaw’s behalf.

I was more than astonished to find no mention of the Rose Garden café in the latest set of accounts http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s58386/Graves%20Park%20Accounts%202022%20-%20Draft%202.pdf

submitted for Graves Park by SCC as sole corporate trustee of the park and to that end I’d like to table the following questions for the meeting next week.

1.      Why is there no mention in either financial activity (income or expenditure) or actual work (maintenance or repairs) to the Rose Garden Cafe building in the latest set of accounts submitted to the Charity Commission by SCC as sole corporate trustee of Graves Park

2.      The Council appears to regard the building as ‘invisible’ in these accounts and it’s duties and responsibilities to and for the building are omitted from any reference in the report

3.      Given 1 & 2 above, does the council accept that the Graves Park accounts and the Report of the Trustee are misleading and erroneous in this regard?

4.      Given that this is a 100 year old building should a reference to the Council’s role as trustee in relation to the Rose Garden Cafe be included in the accounts since the Animal Farm and other buildings is mentioned?

5.      Will the accounts and the annual report of SCC as sole corporate trustee of Graves park now be amended to include it’s duties and responsibilities to and for this building be included in the accounts and it’s annual trustees report?

The Chair thanked the questioner for attending and explained that the Café was run by a third party operator. Only income from rent was included in the accounts shown on p247 of the agenda pack. The cost of running the park was funded by Sheffield City Council. Annual revenue expenditure was generally greater than income and any variance was borne by the Council by way of a grant to the charity.  The period covered by the accounts was 1/04/2021 – 31/03/2022. The building was closed in July 2022 so outside of the accounting period. There was however a post balance sheet event note on p251 of the agenda pack to acknowledge the situation and net book value of the café building. 

Income from the Rose Garden Cafe was shown in the accounts; included in charitable activities. Expenditure on maintenance was not included in the report as to date this had been funded through the Facilities Management budget (as with the majority of buildings managed within Parks). 

Question from Andy Kershaw

1.       What is the sources of the items (p247 public agenda pack) entitled

Rents 153,068 109,377

The Chair explained that income from rents shown in the Graves Park Accounts is from:

-       Ice Cream Partnership

-       Rose Garden Café

-       Sheffield Inclusion Centre

-       Rides

-       Events (Fair ground and race for life)

-       Service Tenancies

-       The Old School House.

The increase in income from 20/21 to 21/22 was largely due to rides and events after activities resumed post Covid.

Question from the Friends of Hillsborough Park

1.  Why is the £420,000 of capital expenditure on paths in Hillsborough Park not included in the accounts?

2.  Is £33,500 the total Tramlines fee and if not why does it not show in the Charitable accounts?

3.  On what basis are some costs and expenses excluded from the charitable accounts and is this acceptable practice for a registered charity?

The Chair answered each question as follows;

1. The capital expenditure on Hillsborough Paths totalled £436,131. Of this, £1,675 was incurred in 21/22 and was included in the restricted balance of £69,807 in the Statement of financial activities – Income and Endowments from Donations and legacies. The remaining £434,456 spend was incurred in 2022/23 and would therefore appear in the next year’s accounts.
2. The amount of £33,500 was the 2021/22 site fee (rent), for the tramlines event. The income remained with the charity site to fund additional improvement work on footpaths and drainage.
3. The accounts had been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Statement of Recommended Practice, ‘Accounting and Reporting by Charities’ which provides that the statement of financial activities should include all income, gains, expenditure and losses recognised for the reporting period (2021/22).