Agenda item

5.1

Lord Mayor’s Communications

St Luke’s Hospice

The Lord Mayor (Councillor John Campbell) informed Council of the two visits which he had made to St Luke’s Hospice during his term of office and spoke of the work of the Hospice in caring for patients and supporting families. Further information about the charity had been made available for Members at the Lord Mayor’s request.   

Fairtrade Fortnight

The Lord Mayor (Councillor John Campbell) introduced a video presentation, produced by pupils of King Ecgbert’s School, and shown at the launch of Fairtrade fortnight on 22 March 2013.

5.2

Petitions

(a)

Petition Objecting to the Closure of Public Toilets

The Council received an electronic petition, containing 20 signatures, objecting to the proposed closure of public toilets.

Jennifer Allinson addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioners and stated that it was important that the public toilets were retained in places including parks and open spaces such as at Fox House. It would be more difficult for people to access these areas without such facilities in place. She asked whether the Council could examine the potential for local community based groups and volunteers to look after public toilets instead, rather than resorting to closing them. If the facilities were closed, there was concern that the surrounding areas may become degraded and depressed.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and Sport. Councillor Bowler stated that she agreed with the petitioners in many ways and that the closure of public toilets was not something that the Council had sought to do and, in fact, the Council had previously invested in public toilets. The Council wished to protect public toilets in parks and was also speaking with other organisations, including the parish councils in connection with the maintenance of public toilets. However, it was not completely straightforward as there were health and safety considerations and the Council was responsible for the safety of people using the facilities. The annual cost of each facility was between £8K and £10K.

(b)

Petition Requesting the Right of Way to Rother Valley

The Council received a petition containing 394 signatures requesting the Right of Way to Rother Valley.

Eric Staniland made representations on behalf of the petitioners. He stated that the public Right of Way to Rother Valley had existed for 100 years. However, a local business had erected gates across the entrance and had stated that they had closed the entrance for reasons of health and safety. People in Beighton who had signed the petition believed that the right of way should be kept open for present and future generations. The Transpennine Way was at the end point of the Right of Way.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. Councillor Bramall stated that he had spoken with local Councillor Ian Saunders regarding this matter, which had also been discussed at a public meeting. The Council was considering what it could do in relation to the issues raised. He added that it was important that people were encouraged to provide evidence regarding the Right of Way.

(c)

Petition Requesting the Implementation of Cycle Specific Road Safety Audits

The Council received a petition containing nine signatures and requesting the implementation of cycle specific road safety audits for highways schemes.

Matt Turner addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioners. He stated that, in 2007, a Notice of Motion was passed by the Council in connection with the carrying out of cycle audits on highways schemes and the consideration of cycles in the design of schemes. He stated that the Council did not operate this practice and asked that it be introduced.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development.  Councillor Bramall stated that the Council had made a commitment to conduct cycle audits and an officer was to be put in post to undertake them. The Streets Ahead work was being prioritized in the first instance, although the audits would be done.

(d)

Petition Objecting to lack of consultation regarding selective licensing in Page Hall/Fir Vale

The Council received a petition containing 94 signatures, objecting to lack of consultation regarding selective licensing in Page Hall and Fir Vale.

Ahsan Ashraf addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioners. He stated that landlords had not been consulted on the proposal to introduce selective licensing in Page Hall and Firvale and it was felt that information should be provided in order that people be given opportunity to comment. He stated that he had become aware of the scheme by reading an article in the Burngreave Messenger. Landlords considered that the Council needed to engage with them so decisions could be made which were right for the local area.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods. 

Public Questions concerning selective licensing

Questions were asked by Mr Mohammed Rafique, Mr Asad Hanif and Mr Mamood relating to proposals for a selective licensing scheme in Firvale and Page Hall, as follows:

It was believed that the scheme would have a negative impact upon house prices in the area and that banks may refuse to provide competitive mortgages as houses will be deemed high risk. In addition, home and car insurance could increase for those in an area selected for the scheme.

Selective licensing was only allowed where it would address issues such as low housing demand or anti-social behaviour. What new powers did selective licensing give, which are not already available to the Police to tackle anti-social behaviour?

Thirdly, reference was made to rises in food and energy prices and potential reductions in the value of benefits that people might receive. There was concern that additional costs were being passed to tenants and the poorest people in the community would be most affected. It was stated that most landlords were responsible and did a good job.

In response to the petition and the questions above, Councillor Harry Harpham stated that the consultation was due to begin in the next few weeks. Landlords would be consulted about the proposals. He agreed that the vast majority of landlords were very good and provided a much needed service with decent and well-kept housing. However,  a small proportion of landlords do not offer the type of quality housing that the Council wished to see.

Councillor Harpham said that he knew that there were problems with the quality of accommodation and landlords in the Firvale area. Poor housing made the area unattractive and very vulnerable people were exploited and were being put at risk. Several other local authorities had introduced selective licensing, for example Salford had piloted a scheme and were seeking to expand it. There was no evidence that house prices would fall or that landlords would be driven out of business as a result. He confirmed that landlords would be properly informed and asked about the proposals and that the Council would work with landlords, with the aim of tackling bad landlords and dealing with anti-social behaviour.

(e)

Petition Objecting to the Mandatory Requirement for the Installation of CCTV Recording Equipment in Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licenced Vehicles

The Council received a petition containing 906 signatures and objecting to the mandatory requirement for the installation of closed circuit television (CCTV) recording equipment in Hackney Carriage and Private Hire licenced vehicles.

HafeasRehman addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioners and stated that petioners believed the introduction of mandatory CCTV in taxi vehicles was unnecessary as there was an existing voluntary scheme to help safeguard both drivers and the public. In the past 10 years, the taxi trade associations and the Council’s officers had worked together effectively to produce the best quality drivers and it was disappointing to now be told that drivers were not trusted and to have to come direct to the Council in this way and present a petition. Taxi drivers were ambassadors for the City and yet they were being made to feel as if they were degraded.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure.

Public Questions concerning the introduction of CCTV in licensed taxi vehicles

The following questions were asked concerning the introduction of CCTV in Private Hire and Hackney Carriage vehicles:

Why was the introduction of CCTV being made mandatory, when there was not proof that it reduced serious crime? At an earlier meeting of the taxi trade and the Council, it was agreed that CCTV would be introduced voluntarily and at the Licensing Committee meeting on 5^th February 2013, half of the trade representatives were not present and only 3 Councillors had been present. Why was the taxi forum disbanded when it helped members of the taxi trade and made for better working relations with the Council.

Drivers were also being affected by the economic conditions and it was the wrong time to introduce such a scheme. The best way would be to develop good practice which all parties could sign up to.

Arshad Ali stated that there was already a voluntary agreement in place regarding the use of CCTV in taxi vehicles and asked what was wrong with that arrangement and was there evidence to suggest that drivers have used or misused the present system to their own advantage?

Azar Hussain stated that he had voluntarily fitted CCTV in his Hackney Carriage vehicle and asked what were the specification requirements of the new system and would they require him to purchase an alternative system? He asked why there was a need for change if no complaints have been made regarding the abuse of the current system?

Mohammed Khan raised the issue of public and driver safety and asked what the Council was doing to protect drivers from passengers who did not pay their fare. He stated that it was unclear, given enquiries he had made with the police, as to whether failure to pay a fare was a criminal or civil matter and asked for the Council to clarify the position.

A question was asked concerning what consultation had been carried out with the public with regards to them being monitored by CCTV and the potential for their conversations being recorded during a journey

Niaz Saddiq stated that CCTV might violate a person’s privacy, for example, some drivers used their vehicle for their own private use when they were not at work.

Mr Nawaz asked what would happen in circumstances when the CCTV was not functioning and an incident occurred and what would be the repercussions for the driver?

Tariq Sajawal stated that, although it had been said that the introduction of CCTV in vehicles was good for public safety, there were other vehicles operating in the City which were unlicensed, which could potentially have an adverse effect on public safety and that drivers plying for hire was also an issue of great concern. 

Mr Usman stated that all taxi drivers were required have a Criminal Records Bureau check and asked why additional monitoring of drivers was needed.

A driver referred to his experience as a driver of 23 years and to an incident when he had received verbal abuse and had been spat upon by two female passengers who had refused to pay their fares. He was advised by the police not to pursue the perpetrators or take the matter further.  He asked, if a camera had not functioned to record an incident such as this, what could have been done.

In response to the petition and the questions, Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, stated that the Council was listening to taxi drivers. She said that Sheffield has some of the best drivers in the country, although there were some drivers who were not as good and they could cause potential damage to the reputation of others. The Council was responsible for the safety of the public and was determined that mandatory CCTV would be introduced in licensed vehicles. However, there was a significant amount of detail to be worked upon and consultation done with the taxi trade. The Chair of the Licensing Committee, Councillor John Robson, would be making himself available to meet with the taxi trade.

There was not a proposal to introduce voice recording as part of the scheme. Councillor Bowler acknowledged that some drivers were victims of abuse and assault. 

The Council had a responsibility to the traveling public to ensure their safety and the proposed introduction of CCTV in taxis was in support of this obligation. CCTV images would be used as evidence in certain circumstances and she believed that it would be of benefit to taxi drivers and to the public. The details of the scheme would be decided in consultation with the taxi trade.

(f)

Petition Requesting that Newfield Green Library Remains Open

The Council received a petition containing 160 signatures requesting that Newfield Green Library remains open.

There was no speaker to the petition and the Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion.

(g)

Petition Requesting Stannington Library to be Kept Open

The Council received a petition containing 716 signatures requesting that Stannington Library be kept open.

There was no speaker to the petition and the Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion.

5.3

Public Questions

(a)

Public questions concerning open space

Richard Pearson asked whether the added protection given to countryside that was not in the greenbelt by the adopted Core Strategy Policy CS 72 should be honoured.

Vonny Watts referred to the refusal of the Council to withdraw a piece of land at Canterbury Crescent, Fulwood, from the Local Plan to provide affordable housing. She stated that this refusal was despite the fact that the site had protected species, was steeply sloping and poorly drained and there had been 31 objections submitted. She believed that the developer did not meet the criteria of affordable housing in this case and, more generally considered that the Council was listening to developers above the wishes of local people.

The Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, Councillor Leigh Bramall, responded that he was not aware of the specific details of the Canterbury Crescent site. The national planning policy framework required the Council to provide a 5 year supply of viable housing sites, although in the current climate there were few house builders coming forward to develop sites. Sites needed to be identified which were attractive to developers so the Council could demonstrate that it had the requisite 5 year housing supply.

The Council had green site policies to safeguard green sites and ninety per cent of development would take place on redeveloped or Brownfield sites. The proposals before Council at this meeting aimed to control and limit the number of green sites that the Council had to put forward as development land.

(b)

Public question concerning green waste

Sue Johns stated that she had previously volunteered with the Hillsborough Forum, which was a focal point for the collection of green sacks for recycling garden waste, for which there was a high demand. The sacks were discontinued and whilst there were some drawbacks, the previous system worked reasonably well.

She asked if there were plans to reintroduce a similar service and what progress had been made towards implementation.

The Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, Councillor Jack Scott, stated that Sheffield had a good story to tell in relation to recycling and reduced amounts of waste to landfill. He stated that more could be done and that the Council was working with Veolia to this end.

Councillor Scott stated that the Council was to commence a city-wide green bin service for which there would be a £60 charge for the year, including the cost of the bin. This scheme would be at no cost to the Council and the collected waste material would be composted at a local treatment facility. If people wished to receive the service, they would need to sign up for it.

(c)      

Public questions concerning the ‘bedroom tax’

Michelle Turner asked why a disabled person living in two bedroom adapted accommodation should have to downsize, when the property they will move into would cost more in rent and would also have to be adapted at great expense to the Council, when their existing accommodation was suitable. She asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that this was a false economy?

Robert Carslon asked if was true that disabled people will be affected by the ‘bedroom tax’ and, if so, was this situation fair?

Vaquas Rehman asked what the Council could do to help those targeted by the Government through the ‘bedroom tax’ and if the Council would debate this issue at this meeting.

Mohammed Asif asked how many people would be affected by the ‘bedroom tax’ in Sheffield? He asked, if there were not enough smaller properties, did the Council think that this would lead to an increase in homelessness?

Ms S Frost, on behalf of the Benefits Justice Campaign, asked whether the Council would pledge the following:

-        No action to enforce the bedroom tax

-        No action against tenants who get rent arrears solely due to benefit cuts

-        No intimidation or pressure on tenants to move

-        No issue of Notices Seeking Possession on the same basis and no Court hearings

-        Withdraw demand for 23 per cent Council Tax from low paid, unemployed and disabled people

-        No enforcement of same and no Court hearings

-        No action against Council employees who decline to work on enforcing these unjust benefit cuts

-        Follow the examples of other councils who have decided not to evict tenants who cannot pay the ‘bedroom tax’ and who have not passed a cut in Council tax funding onto the poorest people in the City.

Martin Brighton stated that other councils said that they would not evict any tenants who fall into arrears because of the ‘bedroom tax’ and asked if the Council would evict anyone who falls into arrears because of the bedroom tax? He also asked if the Council had received any indication from any source, that if Labour were elected to government, they would scrap the bedroom tax?

In response to the questions, Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, stated that he agreed with the points made by Ms Frost. The policies relating to the ‘bedroom tax’ were made by the Government, which affected hardworking families and people who were disabled. The Council was acting to help to mitigate the effects of the welfare reforms which had been introduced. Councillor Harpham gave examples to illustrate the implications of the bedroom tax, such as for families were it would be detrimental for two siblings to share a bedroom because one had a medical condition, or a case of a wife who was also carer needing to sleep in a separate room due their partner’s condition.  There was evidence that the bedroom tax would not work and the Council had made representations to Government to say that it was not practical. He pledged that the Council would stand with the campaign to oppose the changes to housing benefit or bedroom tax.

(d)

Public questions concerning Early Year’s services from the Community Childcare Group

Chrissy Meleady asked several questions in reference to a statement which she also submitted relating to Early Year’s services:

Given all of the above [statement], the Sheffield City Council is asked why were the specified codes, policies, guidance, laws and requirements not adhered to in regard to each and every concern, complaint and request issued to the Council as threaded through the above and as submitted to the Council previously? How could this be allowed to happen? How can it be addressed and by whom and by when?

How could Sheffield City Council take a stance of dereliction of duty towards those complaining of being ill-treated as per the above, they raised very serious concerns, complaints, requests for formal independent investigation and for Sheffield community not for profit provisions to secure block purchase placements as other local authorities are doing. What tools were deployed in these considerations/deliberations/assessments? What was the outcome and how was this shared with the sector concerned?

It is understood by the families and communities that in previous years the early years department of the Sheffield City Council had sizeable underspends. From 2007, to the present day, what were these annually and what happened to these revenue and capital underspends?

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families responded and referred to allegations which had been part of the questions and accompanying statement. She stated that the appropriate people were not necessarily present in the Chamber to answer the issues raised. 

She confirmed that Chrissy Meleady had written to her and that the matters raised were being investigated and the Council had a legal process that it was required to follow. She requested that the allegations be submitted to the Council, together with evidence.

In reference to the point raised concerning revenue and capital underspends, Councillor Drayton stated that capital work was undertaken over a 3 year period in schools for such projects as replacement toilets, windows and boilers and some funding was used over several academic years to enable the repairs to be done over the summer period. The financial resources necessary were profiled in the budget, although in some schools, the work remained to be done. This was not funding that could be used for another purpose. Some re-profiling could be done, although that would have implications for major repairs in schools, in relation to which, there was a £125 million backlog.

In relation to early years, there was a component of funding for free early learning which could be used for capital improvements in nurseries to ensure that providers could deliver places for free early learning for 2 year olds.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that where there was slippage in relation to capital programmes and as these were rolled out, funding would be carried forward into the next financial year. Some projects were in the capital programme which would bring savings in future years.

A formal written response would be provided to the questions submitted.

(e)

Public questions concerning Streets Ahead and outsourcing contractors

Nigel Slack referred to a matter which he had raised at the Cabinet meeting in November 2012 concerning redaction of information. He stated that he was still awaiting a response, having also raised the matter at Cabinet on 13 February 2013. He asked for a date by which he might expect a response to the question.

Mr Slack also asked the Council to include as part of the end of year figures, a breakdown of the monies spent on outsourcing as a total for the year, broken down into the types of contractor and including, where possible, the percentage profits involved.

In response, Councillor Julie Dore stated that she understood that the Chief Executive had spoken with Mr Slack about the reasons for the redaction of the documents to which he now referred. The Council was looking to see if it could provide a less redacted version of the document within the next 10 working days.

Councillor Bryan Lodge, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that he would discuss the potential for including additional information about contractors in the year end report and would provide a written response to Mr Slack.

(f)

Public question concerning the former Jessops Hospital

Nigel Slack referred to a newspaper article concerning the approval for demolition of the Edwardian wing of the former Jessops Hospital. He asked:

How can the Council now prevent the destruction of other listed buildings after setting this precedent?

How can we have confidence in the work of the Council’s conservation officers if the Council will not listen to them?

Can the Council confirm that meetings were held between the University and senior Council Officers, who they were, the subject of the meetings and whether they were minuted and if the minutes were public? If not, why not?

Why should we believe the forecasts (projected gains) of the University and what can the Council do to monitor these forecasts and, more importantly what will they do if the forecasts are wrong?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, stated that meetings were held between Council officers and the applicant. He said that he would write to Mr Slack with answers to the specific questions that he had asked. It was part of a planning officer’s job to meet with applicants in relation to planning schemes. Whilst there were people with conservation expertise, their views were not always absolute and the Council’s planning department had to make a balanced judgement in relation to each planning application on its own merits.

Councillor Bramall added that the Council had done a lot of work as regards conservation and a local list had been developed and conservation areas were adopted in some places. Some schemes had been noted by English Heritage. The decision relating to the former Jessops Hospital had not been taken on the basis of construction jobs but had taken into account the City’s wider economy.

(g)

Public questions concerning housing consultation groups and stock transfer

Martin Brighton stated that, at a previous Full Council, the question of the release of minutes of the meetings of the eight housing consultation groups was raised and agreed in principle. Since then, one formal request from another tenant was refused, the response being to the effect of “You don’t need them”. Given the public agreement of the Cabinet Member for Housing, will he please see to it that they are made available – preferably on the Council’s website.

Secondly, Mr Brighton referred to a City Wide Housing Consultation meeting, at which it was unanimously agreed, with one abstention, that the Cabinet Member for Housing write to the Minister for Housing, objecting in the strongest possible terms to the housing proposals. He asked, when could tenants see the letter, following the City-Wide meeting, and the reply of the Minister?

Thirdly, Mr Brighton asked: can this Council categorically and unequivocally state that, as far as this Council is concerned, Stock Transfer, in any form, is off the agenda.

In response to the questions, Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration, stated that it was his understanding that it was agreed that the minutes of the housing consultation groups would be made public. In relation to the housing proposals, Councilor Harpham stated that he wrote a letter to the Minister, Eric Pickles MP and believed that both the letter and the response from the Minister had been made public. He said that he would make sure it was in the public domain. Finally, he stated that, while this Adminstration was in power, stock transfer was off the agenda and will not come back on it.

5.4

Petitions Requiring Debate

5.4.1

Petition regarding the former Sheffield Airport site

The Council received a petition containing 5289 signatures, calling on the City Council to “urgently ensure that any redevelopment of the site of the former City Airport (including further destruction of its infrastructure) is proscribed until an independent public inquiry is held to look into the potential for its future use as a facility for commercial aviation.”

The petition contained more than 5000 signatures and, at the request of the lead petitioner, under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, the petition was the subject of a public debate by the Council.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Neville Martin and Gordon Millward. Mr Martin referred to the proposed redevelopment of the former City airport site as a business park.

It was considered that the reasons given for not seeking to re-open the airport were misleading and that there were certain myths as regards the airport. In contrast, air operators would be prepared to fly from a Sheffield airport. A business park, as had been proposed would not by itself create wealth and jobs and, in fact, there was a significant amount to redundant commercial property in the City. An airport would help provide a greater profile for Sheffield and facilitate travel and business relating to trade fares and conferences.   

Mr Martin suggested that the Robin Hood Airport could not provide the services which Sheffield needed, although the two airports could work in tandem, with a City airport offering services including city-hopping and business travel.

The Local Enterprise Partnership was to bid for a proportion of funding to support a Local Enterprise Zone and he called on the Council to undertake a public inquiry to look at issues relating to the City airport. He also asked for the consideration of any planning application for the site to be delayed until the outcome of such an inquiry was known.

Gordon Millward, on behalf of the Federation of Small Businesses, referred to advanced and creative industries and to the ‘green shoots’ of economic recovery as evident in the Advanced Manufacturing Park and which needed to be nurtured. Transport links to the region were important and were needed to make sure that South Yorkshire was in a healthy position in the economic recovery and there was a danger that the City would be left behind without good access links for global markets and trade, access to an international hub airport and fast connections to the Capital. He stated that the necessary finance could be found through the Local Enterprise Partnership. The petitioners were seeking a commitment from the City Council in support of an inquiry into the feasibility of an airport and the retention of the former airport site until such an inquiry has taken place. 

Members of the City Council debated the issues raised by the petition, as summarised below.

·         The Council had a positive working relationship with the Federation of Small Businesses, although it disagreed with the Federation as regard the development of an airport. The Council did not have powers to halt the business park development on the site of the former airport, which was in private ownership.

·         There were constraints at the former airport site which affect its viability.

·         The Council would have to underwrite potential operating losses, which may be for an extended period, for example, London City Airport took some 15 years to cease making a loss.

·         The Robin Hood Airport had the potential to be a good airport, but was hampered by relatively poor access at the present time. However, the Regional Growth funding was to be used to improve the road transport link and reduce the journey time from Sheffield to the Airport to 30 minutes.

·         Any aircraft was able to operate from the Robin Hood Airport and it was capable of fulfilling the requirements of an international airport.

·         Whilst there was agreement that an airport was advantageous, Sheffield’s economy actually grew after the closure of the Sheffield City Airport.

·         Major airports such as Manchester and London were on the outskirts of the metropolitan area and Robin Hood Airport was comparable in journey time from Sheffield. It was necessary to have quick and simple rail and road transport to the Airport.

·         The original Sheffield City Airport was subject to unfortunate timing of 9/11, which affected air travel and operators and witnessed a decline in airport trade.  

·         The use of public money for the development of an airport in Sheffield was not a viable option.

·         The Council could give its positive encouragement to see whether the airport could be successfully run as a commercial enterprise and the development of a business plan.

·         The Council did benefit from discussion with and listening to those in the business community through such groupings as the Business Advisory Panel.

·         People were affected by aircraft as they lived or worked on the flight path.

·         The name and branding of the Robin Hood Airport was an issue which needed to be resolved.

·         The Sheffield City Region was important and a combined authority approach was needed to implement the City Deal, for example.

·         There may be potential for an airport to compliment Robin Hood Airport, providing  business flights

After a right of reply from the lead petitioner, the City Council considered courses of action available in response to the petition. The following two proposals were moved in response to the petition received relating to a Sheffield airport and the subsequent debate. 

It was moved by Councillor Leigh Bramall, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that this Council:

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

It was then moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, seconded by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, that this Council:

(a)           Thanks the petitioners for the incredible effort they have undertaken to raise the profile of this issue.

(b)           Believes that, if the Council is serious about its business-friendly image, it needs to address concerns raised by small business.

(c)           Therefore hopes the Council will work closely with any private consortium to facilitate discussions and support any privately funded bid that aims to re-open Sheffield City Airport as a commercially viable venture.

(d)           Suggests that a cost effective enquiry would be to refer the matter to the Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee

On being put to the vote, the motion was negatived.

(Note: The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Vickie Priestley) took the chair for the above item of business, the Lord Mayor having vacated the Chair.)

5.4.2 

Petition opposing Library closures

The Council received a petition, containing 10,348 signatures, objecting to proposed community library closures. The wording of the petition was as follows:-

“We the undersigned call upon Sheffield City Council to keep our libraries open.”

The petition contained more than 5000 signatures and, at the request of the lead petitioner, under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, the petition was the subject of a public debate by the Council.

On behalf of the petitioners, Diane Leek addressed the Council and stated that she was saddened that the potential closure of libraries was on the agenda. She referred to the depth of feeling people had for the City’s libraries. Concern was expressed that there was not enough detailed information available publicly concerning the future of libraries and a number of questions had not been answered, including which libraries were likely to close. Libraries had evolved and they offered a variety of services to communities and served to bring people in communities together. If such local services ceased, it would be difficult to stop the demise of other services. She asked the Council to look again at the decision and to consult further and provide more detailed information. 

Members of the City Council debated the issues raised by the petition, as summarised below.

·         The Council was doing all that it could to keep libraries open. Expenditure on libraries was to be reduced from £6.4 to £4.8 million. Consultation on the future of libraries in 2012 attracted 6000 responses. In January, individuals and groups from the not for profit and private sectors and were asked for ideas and to identify where and how they could help libraries as part of a call for action. The consultation would close on 8 April.

·         Libraries were an asset at the heart of communities and were a place for old and young people to go to access information. They promoted literacy and a love of ready and were important in bringing about digital inclusion.

·         Different ways of running libraries were being explored and the Arts Council and Local Government Association had published guidance on this subject. If volunteers were used to help run libraries, there would also be costs in terms of management and training.

·         Libraries such as Woodseats had been redeveloped and included retail units.

·         Over 200 libraries in England had closed since 2011 and about 300 more were under threat.

·         Potential providers would need to know more detail as part of the call for action. A variety of options could be explored to sustain library services, including a trust model or expanding libraries to include other services. There were community based models in Sheffield, such as the Zest Healthy Living Centre, which incorporated the library.

·         Members commented on whether more time might be made available to consult and develop proposals. Principles of future library services might include the protection of libraries in the most deprived areas, availability of information technology and a core team of Council staff to run libraries.

·         The petition was an indication of how much people loved their libraries and children and young people benefited from reading, access to information for studies and development of a love of reading.

·         Staff knowledge and skills were integral to a successful library. Library resources were necessary to support reading groups and activities such as parents reading with their children. Libraries were important in helping to improve educational attainment.

·         Libraries were a place of haven for people and they supported other activities such as knitting clubs. Supporters and friends of libraries should also be recognised and thanked.

After a right of reply from the lead petitioner, the City Council considered courses of action available in response to the petition. The following two proposals were moved in response to the petition received relating to Libraries and the subsequent debate. 

It was moved by Councillor Alison Brelsford, seconded by Councillor Shaffaq Mohammed, that this Council:

(a)         Thanks the petitioners

(b)         Regrets the decision of Labour Councillors to support a plan, which could see 14 of Sheffield’s beloved libraries close

(c)          Notes that at the same meeting as the plan was agreed, Labour Councillors voted to allocate 2.2 million for City Centre Civic Accommodation.

(d)         Is disappointed that the administration will not reverse plans to cut £370,000 from the libraries budget next year.

(e)         Deplores the complete lack of detail given in the prospectus that makes it difficult for individuals or groups to put forward proposals.

(f)           Urges the administration to reveal which libraries are safe from closure.

(g)         Insists that more time is given to work with communities to develop proposals.

On being put to the vote, the motion was negatived.

It was then moved by Councillor Mazher Iqbal, seconded by Councillor Julie Dore, that this Council: