Agenda item

5.1

Public Petitions, Questions and Statements

The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Safiya Saeed) reported that one petition was to be received at the meeting.  No questions had been received from members of the public on matters relating to items of business on the agenda for the meeting, and no statements had been received from the public.     She added that written responses to questions received from two members of the public on matters relating to the remit of full Council had been provided to the questioners and published on the Council’s website in advance of the meeting, and one supplementary question arising from those responses had been received.

5.2

Petition Calling on the Council to Implement a Residents’ Parking Scheme in Crookes

The Council received an e-petition containing 6 signatures calling on the Council to implement a residents’ parking scheme on Forres Road, Nairn Street and Lydgate Lane, Crookes.

The lead petitioner, Karen Littlewood, was present at the meeting but had indicated that she did not wish to speak to make representations upon the petition.

The petition was referred to Councillor Ben Miskell (Chair of the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee) to respond.  Councillor Miskell thanked the petitioner for bringing the petition. He advised that he understood the frustration people had in the city, regarding parking, and that it was certainly a problem in Crookes, where he was aware of the pressures, especially during peak working hours.  He added that this was largely due to workers at the hospitals and university, parking in the area. This was an issue which had been brought to his attention by the ward councillors, Councillor Minesh Parekh and Councillor Ruth Milsom who had been gathering evidence informally for some time. They had also met with transport officers to discuss the feasibility of addressing the problem.

Councillor Miskell explained that implementing schemes like permit parking was incredibly costly, for example a larger, area-wide scheme with permit parking and pay-and-display bays could cost over £500,000 to introduce.  Proposals that covered just a few streets, as the petition proposed, often was not viable due to the high costs and the risk of shifting the parking problem to nearby streets. Therefore, the Council needed to think about solutions across a larger area, as well as tackling the root cause of the problem.

Councillor Miskell outlined that parking schemes were just one way to tackle the issue of problem parking.  He stated that Transport officers regularly engaged with large employers to encourage more active and sustainable commuting options. This was part of the broader approach needed to address parking challenges in the area. The Council also recognised the need for long-term solutions, particularly when it came to commuter parking, and improving public transport was a key part of that.

Councillor Miskell stated that he was pleased that South Yorkshire’s Mayor, Oliver Coppard, had brought the trams back into public ownership and was working hard to bring buses under local control. In Councillor Miskell’s view, once that happened, the Council would have more control over routes, timetables, and fares, making it easier for people to choose public transport for their commute. He advised that the Council needed to take a strategic approach, including improving public transport options, in order to tackle the issue of car-based commuting effectively.

Cllr Miskell advised that he was required by the constitution to propose a way forward for the petition.  He confirmed that the petition would be referred to the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee for any further action which might be necessary.

5.3

Supplementary Public Questions

5.3.1

Supplementary Questions, from Moira Gibbons, Regarding her Purchase of a Property From the Council

Moira Gibbons asked “I purchased 80 Hall Park Hill under a year ago for my retirement after 40 years working in the NHS. I planned carefully for my future, mindful of my physical limitations.  However, because of multiple, previously undisclosed, serious problems, the property is not somewhere I can make a home.  Furthermore, it is unmarketable.

Appendix C of the 2015 Asbestos Survey identifies ACMs that are presumed to be present in the structure of the property unless proven otherwise.  As this information also covers parts of the managed building, why did the Council not share this report when completing the LPE1 form as it was legally obliged to do?

In a letter dated 4 September, a Senior Council Officer stated that at the time of sale, it was understood and accepted that works were required.  Legally defined, to anticipate is to expect something to happen or to know about something before it occurs.  This being so, how can the Council contend that it did not have a duty to highlight that Section 20 works were anticipated on the LPE1 form given that the scheduling of such works within a programme would mean that they could no longer be construed as anticipated.”

In response, Councillor Douglas Johnson (the Chair of the Housing Policy Committee) apologised to Ms Gibbons that her question had been passed between himself and the Chair of the Finance and Performance Policy Committee (Councillor Zahira Naz) to answer.  He confirmed that he would give a brief answer and then she would receive a more detailed written answer.

Councillor Johnson explained that Ms Gibbons had bought the property from another private purchaser, and that it had originally been a Council property.  Her solicitor had been making enquiries to the Council as the Council was the freeholder, and enquiries had been made through the local searches system.  He added that neither himself nor Councillor Naz had seen the LPE1 form which was mentioned in the question.  Therefore, so that the matter could be looked into properly, he requested Ms Gibbons send in a copy of the form, following which a detailed answer would be given and published on the Council’s website.  He also requested that she advise whether there was anything in the information that she would be submitting that she required to be redacted for reasons of privacy, prior to it being published.

5.3.2

Supplementary Questions, from Representatives of the Royal British Legion, Regarding the Holding of the Sheffield United v Sheffield Wednesday Football Match on Remembrance Sunday

In attendance at the meeting were several representatives from the Royal British Legion, who were seeking to ask supplementary questions on the response provided by the Leader of the Council to the question from Pat Davey (who was unable to attend the meeting).  Notice of this request had been received shortly before the start of the meeting, and the Deputy Lord Mayor agreed to use her discretion and permit the supplementary questions to be asked.  She invited the representatives to introduce themselves and ask their questions.

Alan White asked – “Whilst we are aware that the time of the match has been changed slightly, it doesn't address the concerns of the veterans, cadets, serving members and their families.

The time is irrelevant really, it is the fact that this day was chosen knowing that a large proportion of the population of Sheffield will be coming into the city centre to get to the game or watch the game in public venues.

After the Remembrance Service at 11am, many people stay to pay their own respects by laying a cross or a wreath for the people they have lost in the great wars.

Also, the HMS Sheffield Association join their comrades in Sheffield for Remembrance Parade and stay for the weekend.

So, it is commemorated wider than the Football Clubs, the police and the English Football Association realise.

We feel that this will put the visitors off coming because of this major game taking place.

We believe that the Football Association is showing disrespect to all who have fallen in the past and is placing football first, and we believe the Council needs to give its full support in order for the arrangements to be changed.

Will the Leader of Sheffield City Council support us in asking for this game to be changed to another day completely?”

These questions were supported by Mark Wilkinson and Roy Glease, who also spoke at the meeting.

In response, Councillor Tom Hunt (the Leader of the Council), thanked the veterans for their service, and for the work that veterans’ organisations do to honour the memory of those who served, and to ensure that their families are supported.  He also mentioned the professionalism of the cadets who had been part of an event which he had attended recently, to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Britain.

Councillor Hunt advised that the scheduling of football matches was not determined by the local authority, it was done by the Football Association.  Therefore, Sheffield City Council had played no part in decisions made about the date or timing of the Sheffield United versus Sheffield Wednesday fixture on Sunday 10^th November.  He explained that the Council did not have the ability to formally object on anything other than safety grounds.  However, the Council was keen to ensure veterans could share their concerns with the Police and would ensure that those conversations took place.  Councillor Hunt added that he would be at the War Memorial alongside many other councillors for the Remembrance Day service and parade.