Agenda item

6.1

Petitions

Petition requesting pedestrian crossing facilities at Fitzwilliam Street

The Council received a petition containing 55 signatures, requesting pedestrian crossing facilities at Fitzwilliam Street, near the exit from the Headford and Egerton Estates.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Gareth Slater, who stated that, whilst there had been few accidents so far, there was concern about pedestrian safety and the addition of crossing facilities would improve both access and public safety.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) who stated that the Council received a large number of requests for pedestrian crossings. These were assessed according to several factors, including the danger to pedestrian safety at the particular location. The petition would be forwarded to the Council’s Highways officers so that work could be undertaken and a judgement made concerning the proposal. He commented that the amount of money available for safety improvement schemes under the Local Transport Plan had been reduced by the Government by 50 percent.

6.2

Public Questions

(a) Public Question in relation to Abbeyfield Park House

Mr Tim Neal, Chair of the Friends of Abbeyfield Park, referred to the threat of closure of the Abbeyfield Park House, a Grade 2 listed building, in view of its extreme state of disrepair. He felt that the building had, in the past, been a valuable community asset and was an integral part of the Park and its closure would be an unacceptable loss of facility to the local community. He referred to the need to prevent the boarding up of the House as this would be detrimental to the appearance of the Park as was evidenced by the derelict appearance of other buildings nearby such as Osborne House and the former Burngreave Working Mens’ Club.

He stated that the Burngreave Messenger local newspaper and other voluntary and community groups used the House. Mr Neal asked, in light of the Localism Bill and its requirement to consult with residents on the use of community assets, (a) would the Council assure the local community in Burngreave that it would maintain Abbeyfield Park House in order to keep it open for community use until such time that a sustainable plan for the House is developed (b) what consultation would the Council enter into on the use of the House and, in particular, who would be involved in the consultation (c) was their a timetable for a decision on the future of the House and (d) could the Council provide further information on the potential for the work required to the House being undertaken by a company other than Kier, the outcome of the recent audit of Council community assets and the extent to which their would be community input into future plans for the House?

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) responded that there was great concern about the condition of some of the Council’s community assets and Council officers were examining the condition and use of these assets and the cost of bringing them up to a satisfactory state of repair on a value for money basis. In terms of identifying where investment in assets could be best utilised in Burngreave, Abbeyfield House had been identified as being under used and that there was capacity elsewhere in the area to accommodate the requirements of local groups for meeting space.

He added that there was a need to identify users of these facilities and for Friend’s Groups to help lead the restoration of these facilities. As far as the Audit of Assets was concerned, it was early in the process and he was reluctant to specify a timescale for the repair of any facility as this could raise hopes and expectations which might not be realised. However, Councillor Lodge assured Mr Neal that the Council were required to undertake the necessary repairs through Kier Property Services and, therefore, were unable to ask others to do the work.

He knew that Councillors from the Burngreave ward had had been involved in discussions with Properties and Facilities officers, who would, in the near future, be exploring options for the future of the House.  However, he cautioned that the roof of the building was in a poor state of repair and would cost approximately £150,000 and, in the current climate it would be difficult to identify funding in the Council’s Capital Programme, although officers would continue to investigate sources of funding. Currently, there were no proposals to board up the House but a sustainable plan would be sought with tenants’, residents and Ward Councillors with whom he would raise the issues included in Mr Neal’s question. 

(b) Accreditation, procurement and mismanagement

Karen Greenhalgh asked how the Council intended to respond to the following points relating to the insulation scheme on the Hanover/Lansdowne estate.

1.  There is a plethora of information about British Board of Agreement (BBA) and ETA accredited systems with regard to insulated solid wall installation. The scheme on Hanover/Lansdowne is a hybrid of BBA accredited products allegedly installed by Inca accredited sub-contractors. Can the Council provide the certificate of accreditation for the project?

2.  All systems are accredited to be put on a masonry wall, not class 3-high fire risk Smartply, as the wall. Is it acceptable to increase the fire risk?

3.  Smartply is now being called a 'bracing' product when in fact it is being used as the wall. Would you please ensure the technical specification is sent to me?

4.  It appears that building control played a large role to engineer the scheme being delivered in this manner. Why was I never told who to ask when I began questioning about this overpriced scheme?

5.  In light of Sir Richard Branson successfully challenging a £15 million per bidder procurement process successfully, what remedial action is this Council going to take with their outdated procurement process which has delivered:

(i)     inefficient management i.e. a scheme begun on an estate eligible for only 50% CESP (Community Energy Saving Programme) funding in preference to the 100% funded estate. (We have it in writing 2 contractors could work on the estate simultaneously.)

(ii)    The Cabinet Minister for housing appears to think being in the 5% for the entire country is Not poor enough and redistributed CESP funding to the 'more needy.'

(iii)  The 'Green Deal' officially began October 1st 2012. Many leaseholders qualify for ECO i.e. funding from the energy companies for expensive solid wall insulation, gratis to low income households. What is the Council going to do to ensure this is accessed for this Hanover/Lansdowne project?

Does the Council still think it is still acceptable to do nothing to assist 78 'working poor' to access vital funding?

In response, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) stated that the questions which had been asked were quite technical ones and he did not have the information to answer all of them at the Council meeting. He requested that Karen Greenhalgh leave details of her questions with an officer. If an answer to a question had not been previously provided to her, he would answer it in writing.

Councillor Harpham stated that, for clarity, there had been considerable investment of £5 million in the Hanover and Landsdowne estates which did not present a fire risk. The questioners’ comparison with the difficulties concerning the West Coast Mainline was not a useful one. The Council had consulted with residents, tenants and leaseholders before starting the programme of work on Lansdowne/Hanover. Additionally, there had been discussions with those leaseholders who had not been satisfied with the scope of the work.

In relation to help for people who were finding it difficult to pay their bills, the Council sent information to help people to understand the help that was available from the Council and other organisations. The Council was also helping as many people as possible to avoid fuel poverty and as the Cabinet Member, it was his responsibility to help keep as many people out of fuel poverty as possible, given the current economic circumstances.

He would answer the remaining questions in writing, as stated previously.

(c) Public questions concerning outsourcing of public services

Nigel Slack referred to the extent of profits made by private companies which ran public services on behalf of public sector organisations; the proportion of public funds which represented private company profit and dividends paid to shareholders; and the level of public oversight in how public money was spent. 

Mr Slack asked the Council to undertake a root and branch re-evaluation of its attitude to outsourcing and put firm policies in place to limit its scope and to extend its transparency and accountability. He referred to suggestions which he could contribute.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) stated that he was aware that Mr Slack had discussed matters with Council Officers and had received details of how the Council outsourced services to companies in the private sector and the ways in which it holds such companies to account.

There was analysis concerning average level of profit represented in contacts, which in some cases was 7 percent, but only 2 to 3 percent in others. The City Council benchmarked to make sure that it achieved best value in relation to contacts which were outsourced. The benefits of outsourced services included modernising and improvements to services and the involvement of third sector partners.

In house or partnering service models were used where they provided the best value for money. It was also not assumed that services, once outsourced, would remain so. The Council had in place robust procedures in terms of objectives, performance measures, quality standards, contract management processes and governance and was viewed as a role model for other local authorities.

Accountability was provided for by the Chief Executive and Executive Directors and elected Members who held services and the Directors to account through the Council’s Scrutiny Committees.

Some information was commercially confidential and could only be made public with the consent of the companies concerned.

The City Council was interested in improving efficiency and Councillor Lodge asked Mr Slack to share the suggestions, which he had referred to in his question.

(d) Public Question concerning prostitution in the Kelham Island area

Gareth Slater asked what was being done about the increasing incidence of prostitution in the Kelham Island area. He referred to the partnership approach which had been taken in relation to the issue previously and to comments by a local business which was concerned about opening beyond normal daytime hours.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) stated that he thought that prostitution was under control in the Kelham Island area. He would ask the police to investigate Mr Slater’s concerns and particularly to look at the fear and anti social behaviour caused by men who cruised around the area.

(e) Public question concerning flood defences at Kelham Island

Gareth Slater asked what was being done in relation to flood defences in the Kelham Island area and he referred to dredging which had been undertaken previously and improvements to the flood wall.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) thanked those who worked as flood wardens in the City. He stated that he would respond to Mr Slater separately, in writing, in relation to dredging in the Kelham Island area.

Councillor Scott referred to the Nursery Street Pocket Park development, which included design elements that would contribute to the mitigatation of flooding in the Lower Don. He also referred to the role of the Riverside Stewardship Company.

The Council would complete its River Strategy later this year, which would look at de-culverting some of the City’s rivers, thereby not forcing water through narrow channels.

The Lower Don Valley Action Plan, which Councillor Scott said he could make available to Mr Slater, outlined some options which might be pursued jointly with other organisations such as the Chamber of Commerce, including the creation of a business improvement district. Businesses were an important part of a future solution to mitigate against flooding.

The South Yorkshire Forest Partnership was examining improvement to the catchment of water in the Peak District moorland around Sheffield, including the contribution of woodland. Discussions were also being held with Yorkshire Water and the City’s Streets Ahead programme included the maintenance of gullies to ensure these were regularly emptied and that debris did not build up, to improve water drainage. However, in the case of a 1 in 200 year flood event, there was still a risk of flooding. 

(f) Public Questions concerning documents sent to the Information Commissioner

Martin Brighton referred to statements made to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) by the Council. He asked if elected Members of the Council thought it acceptable that documents created by the Council’s Legal department and released to the Commissioner contained lies? He also referred to statements saying that he had a history of multiple questions on a subject and prevented other people from asking public questions. He asked what the Council would do to right the wrongs he now outlined and ensure that the ICO was told the truth and that such behaviour is not repeated.

In response, the Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) stated that Mr Brighton’s questions referred to specific instances of where information was sent to the Information Commissioner, the accuracy of which she could not comment upon. Councillor Dore stated that if Mr Brighton pointed out to her what information he believed to be false or incorrect, then she would look into the matter. Some of the matters raised might be down to interpretation.

Councillor Dore referred to the time limits for public questions at the Council’s public meetings, and Members of the public who asked questions were asked to be mindful that other people should also have their opportunity to ask a question. She stated that she recognised that Mr Brighton was indeed mindful of other people’s right to speak on most occasions.