Agenda item

5.1

Petition relating to Pitsmoor Adventure Playground and Verdon Recreation Centre

5.2

The Cabinet received a petition containing 1,431 signatures (combining a 103 signature e-petition and 1,328 paper petition) requesting the Council to keep staff at the Pitsmoor Adventure Playground and Verdon Recreation Centre, allow more time for local residents and users of the facilities to discuss the future of the facilities with the Council before any changes were made and seriously consider alternatives to current proposals, working with local people and organisations, so that the future of these important facilities could be secured.

5.3

Representations were made on behalf of the petitioners by Chris Taylor who stated that the Pitsmoor Adventure Playground was a huge resource and that almost 1,500 signatures in its support had been gathered in a short space of time. Youth and community workers at the facility provided services that were very much valued by the local community and provided opportunities for the children of new arrivals to establish social links and mix with other children in the area in a positive way that any community cohesion plan could not possibly replicate.

5.4

Mr Taylor added that the Playground made a major contribution towards diverting children and young people from potential anti-social behaviour or other criminal activity through the work of the staff who supervised the Playground. He added that closing the Playground risked adverse consequences in terms of crime and could prove to be an expensive mistake in terms of the potential costly involvement of agencies, including the South Yorkshire Police, in dealing with the consequences of closure.

5.5

Any move to close the facilities would remove the opportunity to provide children with the exercise they needed and help to address concerns about childhood obesity referred to in the City’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Mr Taylor contended that the Council must work with the local community to keep the Playground open and that the community would be furious if this facility was removed.

5.6

Lisa Swift representing the Friends of Verdon Recreation Centre stated that the Playground and Centre provided a vital service and their closure would have an unacceptable impact on families and the neighbourhood.  She stated that there was a need for a service that was flexible to local needs and that local groups and residents should be encouraged to participate in helping to make the facilities sustainable.

5.7

Ms. Swift added that the existence of staff at the Centre helped to create a safe environment in which children and young people could play. She suggested that a system which would involve a nominated key holder for the premises would not work. However, there was a need for staff to be in post to keep the facilities safe and secure and that without these staff, the Centre could not function effectively. 

5.8

She stated that the Council should recognise the efforts made by the Burngreave community over a number of years to raise funds for sporting facilities which provided an effective supplement to the assistance provided by the Council.

5.9

Councillor Isobel Bowler (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) responded that there was no doubting what Mr Taylor and Ms. Swift was absolutely true and that the facilities were ones that were greatly valued by the local community. However, the Council had to consider many different, competing priorities within its service provision across the City. Activity Sheffield delivered three fixed facilities and mobile teams. The Council was now in a position where, to sustain the service, the council had to focus on its Mobile Teams.  Currently, the Burngreave ward received a much higher level of Activity Sheffield resource than other wards in the City and this position was no longer sustainable and if the Council were to make the cut from its Mobile Team, rather than the fixed resource, it would be unfair to other areas which have the same level of need and would receive a significantly reduced service. 

5.10

Councillor Bowler added that the Council was working hard with staff, local communities, partners on a range of options to keep as many facilities open and staffed through other service providers if appropriate. Discussions would continue to be held with the local community in order to secure, if possible, a community solution to maintaining access to the facilities which children and young people could use in a managed, safe way. The budget realities though meant that the Council was reducing resources for Activity Sheffield but, at the same time, trying to maintain as many services as possible across the City in partnership with communities.   

5.11

Arising from the above discussions, Cabinet referred the petition on the Pitsmoor Adventure Playground and the Verdon Recreation Centre to the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee in March, 2013 together with the petition relating to the Highfield Adventure Playground, which had been considered by the Council meeting on 6^th February, 2013. 

5.12

Public Questions

5.13

Friend of Adventures

5.14

Berie Stott asked if there was a proposal for Activity Sheffield to make use of Outreach Workers as a trouble shooting method of tackling issues for young people across the City? She pointed out, however, that the Adventures organisation worked on an early intervention model of preventative working with young people and Ms. Stott asked was this not a more effective way of running this service?

5.15

Paul Samutt asked whether any other staffing models had been considered for management of Adventure Playgrounds and, if so, please could these be explained and the rationale behind them shared?

5.16

Jane Healey asked how could Activity Sheffield outreach workers meet the same number of visits that were achieved by Adventures last year which totalled 25, 000?

5.17

Joe Taylor asked for details of Activity Sheffield’s annual budget and how this had been spent in 2012/13 and how it would be spent 2013/14?

5.18

Councillor Isobel Bowler (Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure) confirmed that Mobile Workers carried out trouble shooting activities across the City, and carried out preventative work in addition to requests for them to respond to issues. 

5.19

In terms of staffing models, Councillor Bowler indicated that Adventure Playgrounds operated with a minimum of three staff in order to take account of the risks associated with adventurous play and reflecting OFSTED guidance on supervision ratios. Therefore, whilst the Playgrounds were open, staffing levels could not and should not be reduced. The Council had considered whether the opening hours of the Playgrounds could be reduced, but that the facilities would still have to operate with three staff at all times and, therefore if opening times were to reduce by 50% this would only achieve 50% of the savings target. 

5.20

Councillor Bowler stated that it was proposed to lose a number of full-time staff posts from Activity Sheffield which, she acknowledged, was undesirable but nevertheless necessary in order that the Council made the required savings and realigned service provision in the most effective way within the resources available. The number of visits per member of staff at Highfields was approximately 8,000 (25,000 divided by the three staff) compared with the target of 10,000 per worker for mobile Activity Sheffield staff.       

5.22

Redaction of Information

5.23

Nigel Slack referred to the questions he asked at the Cabinet meeting on 21st November, 2012 concerning the redaction of information from the final business case for the Highways (Streets Ahead) Contract and the responses of Councillors Bryan Lodge and Jack Scott at the meeting. Mr Slack also referred to the fact that he had raised the issue of redaction at the Council meeting on 23^rd January, 2013 to which Councillors Julie Dore and Bryan Lodge had responded.

5.24

Mr Slack asked why the information referred to at the Cabinet meeting on 21^st November, 2012 had been redacted and registered his concern that the definition of redaction as explained by Councillor Lodge at the Council meeting on 23^rd January was very broad and unhelpful to the public in that it suggested that the driving force behind the redaction was not a legal concept but a contractor driven expectation. 

5.25

He added that he understood what Councillor Dore was saying but it was difficult to judge whether information was inappropriately redacted if the reason for the redaction was so vague.

5.26

Councillor Scott did not comment at the Full Council meeting but at a ‘Meet the Cabinet’ session the next night I again approached him, informally, to push for a more specific set of explanations for the redacted paragraphs, which he agreed to follow up, but he again suggested that the decision about redaction was essentially one for the contractor.

5.27

I therefore now find it necessary not only to ask whether there have been any further developments regarding the reasons for redaction being clarified but also what exactly are the procedures for agreeing the redactions in such cases?

5.28

Councillor Dore referred the question to the Chief Executive who indicated that, rather than give Mr Slack a verbal response, he would provide Mr Slack with a written response, with a copy to the Cabinet Member concerned, following his investigation into the degree to which it was possible to reduce the level of redaction to which Mr. Slack referred. However, the Chief Executive outlined the reasons which might be used for the redaction of information which fell into three categories namely, information which the Council was legally required to withhold, reasons of commercial confidentiality and the maintenance of individual privacy.

5.29

Kier Cleaning Budget

5.30

Stephen Windle asked, given the proposed cutbacks to the Kier Cleaning budget, were the Cabinet aware that the cutbacks included the cleaning of the Winter Gardens which were hugely used and, therefore should be well looked after?

5.31

Councillor Bryan Lodge (Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) responded that the savings within the Kier Asset Partnership (KAPs) contract did not relate to cleaning. The savings were mainly centred upon the mail service and vacant properties management. However, the Council had a Service Level Agreement which required the Winter Gardens to be cleaned to a certain standard which would keep them well maintained.