Agenda item

4.1

Petitions

(a) Petition Objecting to the Planning Application – Coal Recovery and Restoration Scheme at the Former Hesley Wood Tip

The Council received a petition, containing 4600 signatures and objecting to the planning application relating to a Coal Recovery and Restoration Scheme at the former Hesley Wood Tip.

On behalf of the petitioners, Jean Howe and Mick Harrison addressed the Council.

Mick Harrison stated that the area of the former Hesley Wood Tip was woodland and the trees helped to reduce noise and pollution and lessened the risk of flooding. However, the plan to clear the trees would only serve to increase carbon and flood risk. The adverse health impact would also be significant due to the pollutants, poisons and dust from spoil storage and traffic pollution from plant vehicles on the site. He asked the Council to reject the planning application for the coal recovery restoration scheme.

Jean Howe stated that there was great concern about the risks to the health of people living in the areas neighbouring the site, which from 1972 had been left to nature and supported a diverse range of wildlife, woodland, flora and fauna. She referred to process of extraction which would release damaging small particulates that could travel up to 3 miles and may increase incidence of health related conditions, including asthma or respiratory disease, cancers, diabetes and had a damaging effect on the immune system. There are schools within a relatively short distance of the site as well as many residential areas.

RecyCoal had said that the processes used are clean and would remove the harmful particulates. However, campaigners were not satisfied that this would be the case.  Bore holes in the spoil heap at the site showed traces of pollutants. In addition, the scheme would have a poor affect on air quality, despite the fact that Chapeltown was an air quality management area. There was concern that any action to address the health effects from the extraction process at the Hesley Wood site would be reactive, rather than preventative. Information packs had been produced by the petitioners for Members of the Council’s Planning Committee.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall), who stated that the Council had a duty to consider the planning application relating to the Hesley Wood tip. The planning application had been received by the Council’s Development Control service and would then be submitted to the Planning Committee, which would make a decision. He added that the information to which Mrs Howe now referred would be brought to the attention of Development Control Officers and Members of the Planning Committee for their consideration when coming to a decision on the scheme.

(b) Petition regarding funding for Sheffield Somali Community Centre

The Council received a petition containing 560 signatures regarding funding for the Sheffield Somali Community Centre.

On behalf of the petitioners, Mr Abdillhi Boss addressed the Council. Mr Boss stated that the petition was in support of the Somali Community Centre against a decision of the Council not to grant funding of £16,000 used to pay the rent on premises at 30 Burngreave Road, which was the building used by the Somali community to access services and activities. He stated that there were many activities for which the building was used.

People who used the Community Centre believed that the decision had been based on false information and also felt as if they had been singled out. He asked Members to look at the matters he raised and invited them to observe activities at the Community Centre, so they might see how vital a resource it was for the people in the Somali community.

Public Questions

4.2

(a) Public Questions concerning grant funding for the Somali Community Centre

The following questions were asked concerning the funding of the Somali Community Centre at 30 Burngreave Road:-

(i) a question from Mr Ali Abdi Mohamed asking why the Somali Community Centre was being closed down.

(ii) a question from Mr. Anab Ali Jama asking the Council to continue to support the Somali Community Centre in view of the importance of the centre for the local community and which was well used by the Somalian women and families and provided a social facility and educational opportunities for mothers who might otherwise be quite isolated and, therefore, asked the Council to re-consider its decision.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion) responded that he had met with representatives of the Somali community on three occasions and indicated that the process for the submission of applications for grant funding and the allocation of grant funding monies was the same for all voluntary, community and faith organisations. He was unable to circumvent this process as this would be unfair and ultimately challengeable. He had explained in the aforementioned meetings that the Council’s grant-aid process for 2012-13 had now been concluded and that some organisations had been notified that they had been successful while others had been notified that they had not. Where organisations had not been successful, then the Council was able to provide feedback as to why they had not been successful. 

Councillor Iqbal added that the Council would, if possible, work with any community in Sheffield regardless of their background or ethnicity

and re-emphasised that, he had explained the process to those concerned with the Somali Community Centre and that there would be a new grant-aid process in 2013-14 and encouraged the Centre to apply for grant-aid within this new round.

He added that the Council did not possess the £16,000 applied for by the Somali Community in this instance, in light of the £50 million of budget cuts which would need to be found in 2013-14. However, a number of community buildings in Burngreave had been identified which are available to any organisation which needed a community space and which the Somali community might wish to consider. Councillor Iqbal stated that previously, and on numerous occasions, he had contacted representatives of the Community Centre to discuss this matter but had received no response. Councillor Iqbal said that would gladly meet with representatives of the community to discuss the premises which might be available for their use, with the help of Ward Councillors.

(b) Public Questions relating to the preservation of the remains of Sheffield Castle

The following questions were asked concerning the work to preserve the remains of Sheffield Castle:-

(i) a question from Mr. M. Graves asking whether the City Council had a professional Archaeologist in place to oversee the remains of Sheffield Castle while the demolition of the Castle market was in progress

(ii) a question from Annie Grassick asking whether the site of Sheffield Castle was going to be preserved as a heritage site after the demolition of the Markets. She commented that it would be a great tourist attraction due to its long history and compared favourably with sites in York and Nottingham.

(iii) Kath Taylor asked why Sheffield could not be a little like other cities, for example, York, who celebrate their history instead of knocking it down and building another monstrosity?

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) responded that he wanted to be absolutely clear that the Council was totally committed to preserving the remains of Sheffield Castle. However, the demolition of buildings would not commence until 2014 and was, therefore, some way off, providing an opportunity for further public consultation and involvement on future plans for the site during the next year or so.

Councillor Bramall indicated that, at the current time, arrangements were being made for the decommissioning of the buildings in the markets area and discussions were being held with heritage bodies regarding funding for the excavations and the archaeological investigations. Additionally, planning guidance was being adapted to take account of the wider environment around the site and talks were being held with the Environment Agency in relation to deculverting of the River Sheaf. The Council wished to pursue a project which would have local community support. In the long-term there was an ambition to establish a relationship between the Castle site and Manor Lodge and Hardwick Hall.

Councillor Bramall believed that the Castle would play a key role in the wider regeneration of that area of the City and he suggested that a recent letter published in the local press expressing concerns about the site’s future plans were unfounded. He assured the questioners that the redevelopment of the site (which, he suggested, was some distance away) would involve with the public.

(c) Public Question relating to the Living Wage and the Council’s Partners

Peter Davies referred to the fact that the GMB Union had been campaigning for a living wage for a number of years and welcomed the Leader of the Council’s commitment to encourage partners to follow this example. He asked what the Council was intending to do, if their partners who ran outsourced services such as Veolia, Kier, Amey and others refused to pay a living wage as they had in response to previous Council requests to match City Council pay settlements?

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) responded that in the letting of contracts for Council services with contractors, the Council would give consideration to how appropriate clauses might be included in such contracts relating to the requirement to pay a living wage, subject to such clauses being permitted by UK and European Union legislation. However, she recognised that some small businesses may find it difficult to pay the Living Wage but said that she hoped that the Council’s campaign would encourage them to raise the living standards of their employees.

(d) Public Question relating to the Living Wage for Sheffield University staff

Mr. Richard Alderman commended the inclusion of a Notice of Motion in the Council agenda, to work with major employers in the City on the Living Wage and he asked what work the Council did intend to do to support established campaigns, such as the campaign of Sheffield University students, which called for a living wage for all University staff?

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader of the Council) responded that she absolutely supported the campaign, referring to the motion that would be considered later in the Council meeting and, which would seek to initiate a campaign comprising the Council’s partners and other organisations in the public and private sectors across the City. Initial work on this campaign had been instigated by the Sheffield Fairness Commission, which was to recommend a number of measures to address inequality, including commencing a campaign to encourage organisations to introduce a Living Wage. She added that the Council would gladly work with University students on their campaign.

(e) Public Question relating to International Students

Mr Richard Alderman welcomed the motion to be discussed later in the Council meeting which, in part, related to changes of immigration rules concerning international students. He referred to the misinformation in the media concerning this issue and referred to the impending joint campaign to be launched by Sheffield University and the Students’ Union to demonstrate the value of international students, in terms of economic benefit to and culture of the City. Mr Alderman, therefore, asked would the Council support the campaign?

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader of the Council) confirmed absolute support for the campaign and referred to the motion to be considered later in the meeting as testament to such support. She added that Sheffield’s Labour Members of Parliament also supported this and that the Council would be pleased to work with the University and Students Union on this particular issue. 

(f) Public Question relating to Recycling Dispute

Peter Davies referred to the recent conclusion of the industrial dispute between the GMB and SOLVA, the potential penalties facing Veolia and SOLVA if they failed to fulfil their obligations under the Council’s Recycling contact and the complex management arrangements for the contract following SOVA’s action in pulling out of the contract. Mr Davies referred to the fact that there was still no accepted method statement in place for the new bulky waste work so that the contract was unlikely to commence until mid December. He said Veolia had concerns that the new delivery partner would not have the capacity to deliver the contract. Mr Davies stated that the workers involved were disappointed and dismayed and were trying to survive on reduced hours this winter with a consequent effect on pay.  

Mr Davies stated that the GMB was worried about the latest debacle,as should the public be, and he asked was the Council worried about the situation and, if so, what did it intend to do about it? 

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) responded that that no decisions had been taken yet, by SOVA, CRI, Veolia or the City Council about a merger of responsibilities and that any proposal would come to Council for approval.

In relation to pay, Councillor Scott indicated that the hours had been reduced, but the hourly rate of pay for July, August and September had been £8.14 an hour, which largely made up for the reduction in hours. He added that, on bulky waste, the key issue was that there was a lot of health and safety work that needed to be undertaken to the Longley site. He knew how important health and safety issues were for the GMB and that nobody would want cut corners on such matters. The Council was moving as quickly as it could but had to adhere to statutory requirements. The Council knew how important it  was to get this right and, therefore, it would keep working with Veolia, SOVA and others to achieve a successful outcome.

(g) Public Question relating to Penalties on Recycling Contract

Robert Carlson referred to concerns expressed by one of the trustees of Salvaire Recycling Limited, the new Recycling Charity in Sheffield. There was concern that, should the Council and/or Veolia seek penalties for under-performance on the Household Waste and Recycling contract, Salvaire could not afford them. He asked, in light of the current budgetary problems and threats to jobs, could the Council confirm how much was owed in outstanding penalties in terms of performance on the Council’s Household Waste and Recycling contract and when and by whom would this money be paid?

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) agreed that every penny was important at the moment, given the Council’s financial circumstances. Like many local authorities in the north, the Council was feeling the effects of reduced Government support in a disproportionate way. He confirmed that there were penalties in the Veolia contract and that this was a key mechanism that was used to hold sub-contractors to account for performance. The Council and Veolia were currently in dispute regarding contract penalties and a process to resolve the dispute was being worked through which would be completed over the next few months. However, he was unable to report anything specific as this could prejudice the negotiations. The Council do apply all fines that are due very assertively.

(h) Public Question relating to Construction Industry “Blacklists”

Hannah Gibbons asked whether the Council was aware that the company at the centre of a national “blacklisting”, collective racism and bullying scandal, Carillion, was now one of the largest providers of cleaning services in Sheffield’s schools and, therefore, a key delivery partner for our public services?

The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families (Councillor Jackie Drayton) responded that she was shocked that, when records were seized the Information Commissioner in 2009, they showed that the names of 3,200 victims who had been deemed to be “troublesome” or “left wing” had been included in a construction industry “blacklist” collated by the Consulting Association, subscribed to by major names in the construction industry. She stated that it was felt that the names in the “blacklist” could only have been gained from MI5 or the Police. She understood that 44 companies had signed up to receive a copy of the “blacklist”. She commented that she deplored the existence of the “blacklist” and was very concerned about the matter on moral grounds.

Councillor Drayton explained that when contracts are let to outside contractors, as part of the evaluation and scrutiny process, there was an opportunity for trade unions to examine the track record of those companies, including as regards workforce and human resources was included. Trade Union representatives were included on the selection panel where there had been an opportunity to examine information.   

However, with respect to Carillion, the company had stated that they, at present, do not use the list and had not done so for a number of years. She would, nevertheless, ask Council officers to seek assurances from Carillion and other contractors that they do not use the list. Should the membership of a company on the list come to light then this would be included within the human resources information as part of the evaluation of contractors within any future tendering procedure.  

(i) Public Question relating to the Council’s support for the Arts in Sheffield.

Ms. Hannah Gibbons asked how will the Leadership continue to strategically support the Arts and Culture sector in the City following the recent resignation of the Head of Arts and the replacement of the post with a Head of Business Development and Strategic Projects given that there is no arts service or team to undertake this work in her absence? 

The Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) responded that the newly created post retained a significant focus on the arts and work had been done with Council officers to maintain this emphasis and to continue to support the arts in the City. She had been assured by officers that changing the post would not disadvantage the quality and delivery of the arts in Sheffield.

(j) Public Question relating to gender balance in the Place Portfolio

Ms. Hannah Gibbons asked the Leadership to comment on the Equality Impact Assessment for the proposed changes to delete the Head of Arts role and replace it with a Head of Business Development, given that the resignation of the Head of Arts had resulted in the loss of a further senior female employee within the Council and reducing, even further, the gender balance in favour of male senior employees and raising questions about the culture of the organisation to retain and promote women in the Place Portfolio.

The Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) responded that the Equality Impact Assessment had been completed and signed off by the Equalities Officer. She suggested that Ms. Gibbons should raise the issue of organisational culture at the Joint Consultative Committee (comprising representatives of the Council and Trade Unions) where gender balance and the recruitment of women to posts could be explored.  

(k) Public Questions regarding Fire Risk Assessment for 405 to 443

Leighton Road

Stuart Lapp referred to the fact that he had, under the Freedom of Information Act, asked the Council to supply him with Fire Risk Assessments (FRA) for 405–443 Leighton Road for the period 2006 -12 and the penalties for not having such an Assessment. He asked (i) who was the person responsible for not issuing a FRA, (ii) why had it taken six years to address this matter and (iii) if the work was necessary to comply with the law, why was this not done in 2007 at the same time as the Decent Homes work was undertaken?

The Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) responded that it would have been helpful if Mr Lapp had let him have greater notice of the questions so that he could raise the matters with officers. He noted that Mr Lapp had submitted a number of questions under the Freedom of Information Act and these should be dealt with under a specific process which is managed by the Council’s Freedom of information Officer. He, as a Cabinet Member, would pass on any Freedom of Information requests to the Officer as the Council were bound by a legal process to deal with such requests within prescribed timescales. He would, therefore, ask officers if they had supplied Mr Lapp with the information he had requested and, if they had, he would view the matter as being dealt with. However, he would ensure that officers would respond to any new questions that Mr Lapp had posed.

(l) Public Questions on Digital Aerial contract on Hanover/Lansdowne estate

Mr Stuart Lapp referred to the Digital Aerial contract on the Hanover/Lansdowne estate and alleged that the contractors installing the Aerials had been paid a considerable sum, which was over and above the true value the work. Mr Lapp asked who was responsible for this and what was the Council going to do to address what, he considered to be, a waste of money.

The Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) stated that he had responded to the issues raised by Mr Lapp in March, 2012 so he would not be asking officers to investigate these matters any further, as he believed that they had been answered adequately.

(m) Public Questions on Hanover/Lansdowne Refurbishment

Kirsty Irwin asked the following questions:-

(i) why had no schedules of work been delivered to tenants or leaseholders who were having their homes clad on the Hanover and Lansdowne estates;

(ii) could she be given a schedule with a statement of how much of each product was to be applied to her property and for what reason it was being used;

(iii) why had everything been scheduled so quickly for the Hanover estate;

(iv) why has work been undertaken so slowly on the Lansdowne estate yet work on the Hanover estate was quicker;

(v) how many Insulated Render and Cladding Association (INCA) registered sub-contractors were engaged on the contract and which piece of the contract were they undertaking;

(vi) why were pensioners being told that their gas fires were being removed for eight weeks during the winter and why is central heating not installed first?

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) responded that he had received little notice of the questions, but that he would ensure that Ms. Irwin would receive a response in the near future.  He added that, as far as the Decent Homes work programme was concerned, he was pleased that discussions held between Councillor Steve Jones and tenants and residents had revealed their satisfaction with the work undertaken under the programme.

(n) Public Question regarding Social Housing Entitlement

Ms. Mandy Scott asked why she was not allowed to stay in her two bedroom home subsequent to her daughter leaving the property? She referred to the need for her to remain in the property due to her close proximity to relatives and the support which they could offer her as she suffered from epilepsy.

The Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods (Councillor Harry Harpham) responded that the assertion that Ms Scott’s property was now under occupied following her daughter leaving was as a result of the “bedroom tax” which was part of the Government’s welfare reforms and which provides for a reduction of housing benefit where a tenant is assessed as under-occupying a property. The Council had a duty to explain the implications of the new proposals to people and did not wish to see people being required to move from their homes, as it recognised the value of people living in settled communities. However, the welfare reforms threatened vulnerable people and, as the Cabinet Member with responsibility for housing, he would try to speak to as many people as possible who were affected by the bedroom tax. 

Under the changes, those people deemed by the Government to be under-occupying their homes to the degree that they had one bedroom more than was considered necessary, would lose 14% of housing benefit, whilst a person under-occupying by two bedrooms or more would lose 25% of housing benefit. Councillor Harpham repeated that the Council had a duty to explain the impact of the tax and help, with its partners, mitigate its effect on Council tenants in order to help them help themselves.

Councillor Harpham stated that the situation had been made worse by severe reductions in the social housing building programme, which presented difficulties in terms of re-housing people affected by the bedroom tax. The reductions in social housing building and the effects of the bedroom tax were being played out across the City’s housing estates. The Council would continue to press the Government to change its policy on the bedroom tax, but the Council had extremely limited options for helping people in these circumstances. 

(o) Public Questions on provision of grit bins, removal of litter, the collection and treatment of household waste, Council policy on non-mixed swimming sessions for schoolchildren, the response of the Council to an Ofsted inspection at Sharrow Junior School, Halal meat provision in Sheffield schools and the legal process for renaming roads. 

Mr Zeesham Nagri asked whether the Council was going to provide any  grit bins and remove accumulated litter from the parts of the Sharrow area; what action was the Council taking to reduce waste; what was Council policy on the provision of non-mixed swimming sessions for Sheffield schoolchildren; in light of the outcome of a recent Ofsted inspection of Sharrow Junior School (which showed the school to be performing below standard), how did the Council intend to respond to the inspection; what was available in terms of Halal meat provision at schools; and what was the legal process for the renaming of roads.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott) responded that he would supply Mr Nagri with details of the number of grit bins to be issued in the Sharrow area but he emphasised, that in terms of supplies of grit, the Council was better prepared than ever. He added that the litter problems to which Mr Nagri referred had been the subject of a site investigation by a member of the Council only today and that, the legal process for the renaming of roads was extremely complicated and that he would provide a written response to Mr Nagri.

As far as the reduction of waste was concerned, Councillor Scott stated that landfill rates in Sheffield had plummeted and that, over the last year, the City had seen the biggest reduction in landfill ever. Sheffield’s Landfill rate now stood at 3% which was the lowest rate in the country and expenditure on the disposal of waste by landfill had reduced from £1.2 million in 2011/12 to £175k so far in 2012/13. These substantial savings could now be re-invested in other vital Council services and Councillor Scott thanked all those involved in reducing waste to landfill for securing such an achievement.

Councillor Isobel Bowler (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) responded in relation to non-mixed swimming sessions that this facility was, in her experience, not only required by some groups on religious grounds. Sometimes, women simply wished to take part in non-mixed swimming sessions. She added that she would discuss with Council officers, the Council’s partners and Sheffield International Venues, the extent to which non–mixed swimming sessions could be provided and stated that she would write to Mr. Nagri to let him know the outcome.

Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) responded that she would forward the latest policy on the provision of Halal meat in schools.

With regard to the Ofsted inspection of Sharrow School, Councillor Drayton responded that the Council’s big ambition was to help every child, young person and family to achieve their full potential and to create a situation where every school in the City was an excellent school and the Council would work with schools, governors and parents to ensure schools provided the best quality education to young people, wherever they lived. The Council’s officers would also work with schools and Ofsted to secure this aim, in circumstances where any school was failing to meet the required standards.  She added that she would send Mr Nagri the proposed course of action the Council was proposing to take in respect of Sharrow School. On the question of the provision of Halal meat in schools, Councillor Drayton added that the City Council did have a policy on the subject and that she would ask officers to send the policy to Mr. Nagri.

(p) Public Question concerning the payment of Full -Time Trade Union Officials

Colin Taylor referred to the urgent need for funding towards traffic speed reduction measures in various parts of the City. He particularly referred to the need for such measures outside Ecclesfield School and, in light of this need, he asked the Council whether it would be better to spend the funding of the pay of full-time trade union officials amounting to nearly £500,000, on important issues like road safety, such as that required at Ecclesfield School.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources (Councillor Bryan Lodge) responded that the former Liberal Democrat Administration had recognised the value of trade union representation and that they felt that full-time trade union officials provided value for money in that they were involved in many employment issues across the Council in their broadest sense and not just the protection of employees. He added that, over a period of three years, the previous Liberal Democrat Administration had opportunities to reduce the funding of full-time trade union officials but chose to take no action. He added that, currently, a review was being undertaken of the funding of full-time trade union officials and it was hoped that this would be finalised in the near future following approval by the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service.

(q) Public Question relating to a complaint to the Leader

Mubarak Ismail read out a question on behalf of Mr. Abas Oday. He referred to a complaint he had made to the Leader of the Council regarding a Member of the City Council, to which he had, as yet, received no reply. Mr Oday asked whether a further meeting could be arranged with the Leader to discuss the substance of the complaint.

Councillor Julie Dore (Leader of the Council) responded that there was a process for complaints being taken forward. She added that investigations regarding the complaint were on-going and that Mr Oday would receive a response in due course. She would also be pleased to meet with Mr Oday, once the investigation had been concluded. 

(r) Public Questions relating to access and circulation of information

Mr Martin Brighton asked the following questions :-

(i)  Questions from this citizen to this Chamber have been deferred with a request to provide more information. What is the point of such a deferral when the email providing that information is ignored, and then, later, emails are being blocked?

(ii) When asked, this Council wrote to confirm that not one Elected Member had complained to the Council about this citizen’s emails. What right therefore do officers of this Council have to decide what Elected Members can and cannot read?

(iii) In one of many cases, the Information Commissioner recently found against the Council and ordered disclosure of information. The information should never have been kept secret in the first place. Now the Council is allegedly appealing the decision of the Information Commissioner. Therefore:-

(a) to what extent is the Council prepared to go to continue with this unnecessary secrecy ?

(b) what is this Council hiding about its plans for Sheffield Homes and for when Council Housing goes back in-house?

(iv) Under what circumstances, and in accordance with which policy of the Council, does reputation management have primacy over truth? Council answers to two previous public questions have declined to say that truth is more important.

(v) Does this Council uphold the principles of Free Speech?

The Chief Executive advised the Council that he had received a complaint from a Member of the Council regarding the content of an e-mail from the questioner.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Julie Dore) responded that the Council had a policy which specified that emails would not be accepted in circumstances where they contained information or statements that are inappropriate, offensive or defamatory. Council officers are instructed not to circulate these and that is why some

e-mails are not distributed. She added that the Council always provide truthful information but, sometimes the recipients of information, do not believe this is true. The Council absolutely believed in Free Speech.   

4.3

Petitions

(c) Petition Requesting the Reinstatement of Weekly Bin Collections and the Free Garden Waste Bin Service

The Council received an electronic petition containing 40 signatures and requesting the reinstatement of weekly bin collections and the free garden waste bin service.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene (Councillor Jack Scott), who formally acknowledged the petition and stated that he would respond to the lead petitioner in writing.

(d) Petition Requesting the Council to Stop Plans for Grazing Cattle on Wadsley and Loxley Commons

The Council received an electronic petition containing 23 signatures and requesting the Council to stop plans for grazing cattle on Wadsley and Loxley Commons.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure (Councillor Isobel Bowler) who acknowledged receipt of the petition and stated that she would respond in writing to the petition.

(e) Petition Requesting the re-siting of a dropped curb on Grimesthorpe Road

The Council received a petition containing 24 signatures and requesting the re-siting of a dropped curb on Grimesthorpe Road.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall), who stated that a response would be made to the petitioners in writing.