Agenda item

Petitions

(a)       Petition Requesting for Free Skate Parks in the City

The Council received a petition containing six signatures and requesting the Council to provide free skate parks in the City.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Terry Allingham. Mr Allingham stated that there were 2 or 3 large skate parks in Sheffield. Devonshire Green was one such site, although it was relatively small. In some cases, litter accumulated at the Skate Park in the morning. The petition requested more free facilities for people who wanted to skate or use scooters, which would help people to develop their skills, attract new skaters, would help to provide activity or hobby which might reduce incidents of anti social behaviour among young people and helped people to develop qualities such as courage and dedication. It also provided a potential public tourist attraction for the City.

Mr Allingham made reference to his own personal experience in suffering from depression and to the beneficial effects of learning to skate on his wellbeing, a skill which he had taught himself by watching a video on You Tube after he had purchased a pair of rollerblades. He stated that skating was a ‘healthy addiction’ in that it provided focus, promoted perseverance and it had helped him to recover from his depression.

He added that skating was a great activity for young people, including those in their early 20s and it was an activity which gave people something to focus upon and a distraction from other less healthy activities or addictions, which might cause young people to get into trouble.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and Sport (Councillor Isobel Bowler). Councillor Bowler thanked Mr Allingham for sharing his personal story about how skating had changed his life. In addition to Devonshire Green, there were 4 other parks in the City which provided facilities for skaters and there was a funded plan to provide another skate park in Hackenthorpe. Further consideration could also be given to the promotion of skating and other opportunities such as training.

Councillor Bowler indicted that she would be pleased to meet with Mr Allingham to discuss matters further and she commented that he had put forward a strong case which was inspirational.

(b)       Petition Requesting a Bus Shelter on Wincobank Avenue

The Council received a petition containing 40 signatures requesting a bus shelter on Wincobank Avenue.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) and to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

(c)        Petition Requesting the Removal of the Bus Stop on Longley Avenue West

The Council received a petition containing 14 signatures requesting the removal of the bus stop on Longley Avenue West.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills, and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall) and to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive.

(d)       Petition Requesting Improved Parking Facilities for Customers using Millhouses Shopping Centre

The Council received a petition containing 228 signatures requesting improved parking facilities for customers using Millhouses Shopping Centre.

The Council referred the petition to the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development (Councillor Leigh Bramall).

(a)

Public Question on Redesign of Early Years’ Service

(i) Emma Chadwick asked whether the Council understood that the  position in relation to the redesign of the Early Years’ Service was still unclear to parents and that it was felt that the Council was making the situation sound better than it really was. She compared the number of people who might have participated in the Council’s consultation with the 1,554 people who had signed the petition, presented to Cabinet on 12 December 2012 concerning early years’ services. She asked how many parents had indicated that they agreed to these cuts in the early years’ service.

(iii) Linda Edwards stated that she understood that £3.8 million needed to be saved from the Early Years’ budget and asked why Multi-Agency Support Teams (MAST) were not included in the planned savings as all Early Years’ Providers had been. She suggested that some of the savings could have been found from the budget for MASTs. She stated that she had found difficulty in ascertaining the size of the budget allocation for MASTs and, following the submission of two Freedom of Information requests, different budget figures had been obtained and, therefore, it was difficult to accurately evaluate the current position.

(iv) Sally Pearse asked how the Council would ensure that meaningful consultation would take place in view of the short timescales involved. She questioned the quality of the consultation in that the Advisory Board had been given only 24 hours notice of a consultation event, which had excluded many part-time providers from taking part in the consultation. She also suggested that the consultation document included leading questions and that accessing the on-line consultation was too complicated, making it difficult for people to make their views known.

(v) Elaine Bennett stated that the nurseries affected by the Council’s proposals provided for a high percentage of children with special needs and asked where would these children be placed given that specialist nurseries were full.

(vi) Leanne McMain stated that the questions asked in the consultation were misleading and loaded and the consultation did not refer to budget cuts and suggested, therefore, that the consultation was not real or meaningful. She asked that Members consult with Council officers with a view to proper consultation being carried out.  

Councillor Jackie Drayton (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families) thanked the questioners for their comments. She agreed that it was vital that any consultation needed to be meaningful, but suggested that the responses to the consultation received so far did not provide a true or balanced view of the Early Years’ Service in the City. Councillor Drayton referred to some questions which were included in the consultation concerning: (i) the proposed audit of Early Years’ settings in order to achieve high quality services, (ii) whether the Council should focus resources on encouraging those families who have not previously used early years’ services and who need support, to use such services and (iii) did people agree that resources should be focussed on the most vulnerable children and families. Negative responses had been received regarding all three questions, which were difficult to comprehend and, she considered, did not contribute to the consultation in a meaningful way. However, the Council would continue to strive to do all it could to ensure that every single parent took part in the consultation, including the voices of those who had contributed to the Council’s review of early years, in order to secure an accurate assessment of opinion on the Council’s proposals.

As regards the comments made concerning the consultation being too quick, Councillor Drayton responded that the Council had been preparing for the Early Years’ Review for a number of years and had held numerous meetings in many formal and informal settings, both with parents and service providers on a City-wide and area basis, as well as providing to parents and carers a large number of communications about the Service, including letters, pamphlets etc. She added that the Council had carried out a detailed and exhaustive programme of consultation and this consultation had continued when Cabinet, at it's meeting on 12 December had given approval in principle to the proposals that were out for consultation now and until the end of January. 

In relation to MASTs, Councillor Drayton reminded the questioners that these teams comprised officers from agencies other than the Council, including the South Yorkshire Police, Midwives, the Youth Offending Team, Schools and Early Years’ services, with the aim of working jointly with children and families across the City to improve their health and well being, school attendance, behaviour and early years’ provision. The teams were crucial in identifying children and families with additional needs through high quality early intervention support services to avoid potential crisis situations and to provide families with one point of contact rather than their continual referral between agencies. She added that some of the services provided by the voluntary and community and charitable sectors were also important in supporting early years’ intervention and prevention.

If early intervention and prevention services were not in place, then the risks would increase of families moving into crisis situations with associated additional long term costs of support and a reduced positive outlook for the families concerned. The Council would continue, with its partners, to work within the MAST system and its whole household approach to address the problems faced by vulnerable families in view of MASTs importance to long-term family outcomes.      

Councillor Drayton added that whilst she knew that Early Years’ services could make a positive difference to the lives of children and families, the cuts were being imposed on the Council by the Government. Early Intervention Grant of £6.8m had been cut by 28% at the same time as a change in the way Early Years services were provided had been required by the Government. The previous Labour Government had implemented a SureStart Programme of early childcare, but the present Government had now changed the emphasis from supplying funding for childcare to funding free early learning for 2, 3 and 4 year olds. The Council had no further money to fund childcare and it was important that the public understood this. She wished to say that although the proposals made savings in management, premises and administration, it was impossible to cut £3.5m out of a budget without it making a difference, but we would do all we can to protect services to children and families.  

Councillor Drayton apologised for some of the scaremongering rumours about the future of the Early Years’ service, which must have caused great worry for vulnerable families and children. She stated that we should all be working together to support children and families across the City, particularly those children with a disability and vulnerable families and we needed to strive to provide support in the face of Government cuts instead of listening to the scaremongering on these issues. The Council would continue to seek the views of as many parents, carers and providers as possible under the current consultation and ideally, would not wish to see any nurseries close.

(b)

Public Questions on the future of Stocksbridge Leisure Centre

(i) Mr Colin Poppleton referred to the consideration being given by the Council to the closure of the Stocksbridge Leisure Centre and to his families’ use of the Leisure Centre over the past 10 years or so. He asked whether it was true that the Council had a legal obligation to keep the Centre open for swimming as swimming was included within the school curriculum.  He commented that the Council had a moral obligation to keep the Centre open as Stocksbridge was a remote area and as such would provide difficulties to families and children in using other Leisure Centres in view of the travelling involved.  

(ii) Mr Steven Woodcock referred to the proposed savings which had been identified in respect of the Stocksbridge Leisure Centre and which amounted to £400,000 per annum which equated to approximately £8,000 per week – requiring an estimated £1 per week contribution from each household in Stockbridge and Deepcar. Therefore, could it not be argued that it would be a small price to pay for residents of this area to keep the Leisure Centre open. He also commented that given that residents in Stocksbridge and Deepcar were unlikely to use any other sporting facilities in the City (which received a subsidy), was it right that residents of the area contributed to such a subsidy through the Stocksbridge Town Council (STC).  

Councillor Isobel Bowler (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) responded that the legal position was that schools had a responsibility for national curriculum targets relating to children’s swimming. Should a pool not be available at Stocksbridge, then the Council would work with those schools which used Stocksbridge Leisure Centre for swimming to help them discharge their duty. If necessary, the Council would work with schools on travel arrangements to access other pools.

As respects the cost of the Leisure Centre, Councillor Bowler indicated the facility would require a future subsidy of £400,000 in order to keep it open. However, in order to create further time to explore a solution to the problem, she had been in discussion with the STC and Sport England and a further £40,000 had been identified in order to keep the Leisure Centre operational for a further month (three months’ from 1st February to 30 April)

Councillor Bowler hoped this period would provide an opportunity for the City Council to work with the STC to identify potential future options for the benefit of the community and a letter had been sent to the members of STC to this effect. She, and the Council’s Director of Culture, had met with Sport England representatives and had advised the latter of the special circumstances of the Stocksbridge and Deepcar communities which were generally isolated. Sport England had offered to work with the Council and the STC to develop business plans for the Leisure Centre and the identification of alternative sources of funding which, she hoped, the STC would take up.  She added that Sport England had confirmed that they believed a business case could be made for sustainable facilities in Stocksbridge.

However, Councillor Bowler indicated that the Council were unable to find any sustainable funding for next year and the following years as the Council had, unfortunately, less and less funding available.  She offered to meet with the local community again, if required and stated that the Council would again meet with STC and others on 1st February, 2013 in an attempt to identify a solution for Stocksbridge.   

(c)

Public Question on Citizen’ Charities

Jonathan Marsden asked rather than cut expenditure, would it be possible to organise Citizen’s into Charities so that every citizen could offset income tax into such Charities, as they did at Eton?

Councillor Julie Dore (The Leader of the Council) indicated that she could not possibly comment on the individual scheme mentioned. However, she did not approve of tax avoidance schemes, believing in a progressive tax system. She stated that she was more than willing, through taxation, to subscribe to services and the welfare system which was there to protect the sick, vulnerable and those in work. She, therefore, believed wholeheartedly that people should pay their taxes. 

(d)

Public Question on Housing Waiting List

Ms. Margaret Tew expressed concern that she had been told by Sheffield Homes that she had been at the top of the housing waiting list but nevertheless she had been overlooked, with priority being given to others who had not been on the list as long as she had, namely 12 years. She asked why she was moving down the waiting list and were Council homes only being given to those older people who wished to downsize? She also suggested that some homes were not occupied by their tenants for long periods and some homes had been allocated to some who were not entitled to them according to the Council’s policy.

Councillor Harry Harpham (Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods) responded that he did not know the details of Ms. Tew’s case but suggested if she wished to let him have the details he would get back to her. However, Councillor Harpham stressed that the overriding problem in housing was insufficiency. The Council needed to encourage those people who were living in homes that they acknowledged were too big for them to live in smaller, more economically manageable homes with smaller rents. This would free up, in some cases, a family home which were in short supply in the City where, in general, there was insufficient housing.         

Councillor Harpham added that the Government had reduced the social housing budget by 60% and now there was a need for Government action to stimulate the building of new housing which was desperately needed. He added that he had sympathy with Ms. Tew’s predicament and re-iterated that he would contact her on the matter. The Council was continually looking at its Allocations Policy as people had to wait long periods before they were allocated a Council tenancy and the range of priority criteria was considered to be too broad. He stated that a report would be submitted to Cabinet in the next few months to address the issues that Ms. Tew raised. However, he was concerned at the comments she had made regarding the under-utilisation of properties on the estate where she lived and the occupation of properties by tenants that they were not entitled to.

(e)

Public Question on new Housing Development on Green Belt site at Long lane, Loxley

Mr. Ken Fletcher asked whether the Council would investigate an alleged breach of planning conditions in respect of an application for planning permission approved by a meeting of the West and North Planning and Highways Committee on 23rd October, 2012 regarding a housing development being built on a green belt site between Long Lane and Hanson Road, Loxley. 

Mr Fletcher indicated that the Loxley Valley Preservation Society had discovered that the site facilities and compound to the development had been built on green belt land adjacent to the site and that no permission had been sought from the Council on this matter. He stated that this was fundamentally wrong and that this caused problems with respect to access to and from the site facilities, the storage of inflammable equipment, as well as the use of the green belt site by heavy traffic and potential drainage problems that local residents were concerned about. He suggested that the Council should, amongst other things, seek a response from the developer as to how it was going to deal with the access and egress of traffic from the site to Long Lane which cut across green belt land.

Mr Fletcher added that he and other residents had accepted the decision of the Planning Committee to grant conditional planning permission in respect of the development. However, he and other residents could not accept any use of the site or adjoining land that was over and above the permission granted. He, therefore, asked that the Council investigate how the planning permission granted was being implemented and open the matter up to further public scrutiny.

In response, Councillor Julie Dore (the Leader of the Council) stated that she would refer the request made by Mr Fletcher for the Council to investigate the circumstances of the planning application and the adherence to planning conditions to Councillor Leigh Bramall (Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development) in order that he could contact Mr Fletcher.

(f)

Public Question on Availability of Information

Mr Nigel Slack commented that on the 21st November 2012 he had asked a question in Cabinet about the censorship of the ‘Final Business Case’ documents of the Amey Highways Contract”. He had received a promising response in that Councillor Lodge offered to look at it again, Councillor Scott said he would provide information about the reason for the redaction and Councillor Dore said she would look at the issue of redaction in general.

Since then (2 months) he had received no further information, comment or contact regarding this subject and, at the time of writing this question, the website remains unchanged and the report still heavily censored.

In raising this subject again he drew the Council’s attention to the recent comments by the highly respected Labour MP, Michael Meacher, during a speech in the House of Commons on 17th January.

“…specious claims of commercial confidentiality when ATOS (a private company) is the sole provider of what is clearly a public service…”

Mr Slack asked whether the Council had any further response at this time or an indication when a response may be expected?

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) responded that he replied to Mr Slack at the Cabinet meeting on 21st November, 2012 that the information Mr Slack had referred to was information to be considered by an imminent meeting of the Audit Committee and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for Councillor Lodge to comment . Since the Audit Committee meeting on 13th December, 2013, officers had been fully engaged in working out the implications of the Government’s grant settlement for Sheffield which had been received shortly after the Audit Committee. However, he had now discussed with officers, the information within the report submitted to the Audit Committee and to which Mr Slack originally referred and he was still of the opinion that the information should remain confidential due to its commercial nature and the fact that it could only be released on the permission of the company concerned. He added that he fully expected that where information on commerciality was included in reports, then these would not be available publicly. 

However, the Council tried to remain as open and transparent as it could and placed details of every transaction amounting to more than £250 on the Council website.

Councillor Julie Dore (the Leader of the Council) added that appropriate procedures had to be followed prior to the redaction of any information and each case was dealt with on an individual basis. She suggested that, if Mr Slack felt that any information had been inappropriately redacted, then he should bring it to the Council’s attention. 

(g)

Public Question on Sheffield Environmental Services Limited

Mr. Nigel Slack referred to the fact that recently he had occasion to look at the Council’s contract register and stated that he noticed at that time that the contract for the City’s waste management is detailed as being placed with a company called ‘Sheffield Environmental Services Limited’. He suggested that one may be of a mind to think that this is a bit of strategic camouflaging by a huge multinational with a dubious reputation to give the impression of being a local company.

Mr Slack asked could the Council tell him if this was a recent change of name for Veolia or was it simply an unfortunate misleading piece of information that had found its way onto the register.

Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene) responded that Sheffield Environmental Services (SES) Limited was the company with whom the Council had originally signed a contract in 2001 for the running of the Council’s Energy Recycling facility. At the time, it was wholly owned by Onyx and was now owned by Veolia. SES was a special purpose vehicle designed solely for the contract it holds. This is a common approach in Private Finance Initiatives for recycling and waste facilities and had been adopted by local authorities nationally. Cllr Scott stated he did not feel there was anything untoward in this structure.