Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the former Jessop Hospital Edwardian Wing

Nigel Slack asked two questions in respect of the Jessop Hospital Edwardian Wing and the proposed demolition. His first question referred to a recent letter in the Sheffield Star newspaper from the Vice Chairman of the Hallamshire Historic Buildings Society concerning the reclamation of valuable and important architectural features of the building. Mr Slack asked whether the Council had any information about whether the University had salvaged any of the heritage material and whether such salvage was part of the planning permission? And if such salvage was not part of the permission, why not?

Mr Slack’s second question referred to the demolition site itself and he commented how, on passing the site last week, he had noted that the demolition company was from Rotherham and the fences around the site were erected by a Preston company. He therefore requested if the Council could comment on how companies from Rotherham and Preston were contributing to the £23.9m boost to the Sheffield economy as quoted by the University?

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, commented that there was no requirement in the planning permission to salvage any historical materials as they were felt to not be of sufficient historical value. The significance of the scheme outweighed the need for historical protection. It was the Universities own land and could do with it as they wish.

In respect of the second question, Councillor Bramall commented that the company from Rotherham referred to were based at an S postcode so they were closely linked to the local economy. Many contracts had not yet been let and many would be awarded to local companies. 70% of business works in the City were awarded to local businesses and this was recognised by the recent Government award which acknowledged that Sheffield was one of the best Council’s in the country to do business with. Councillor Bramall further commented that he had no doubt that Sheffield University were developing one of the most elite engineering faculties in the country which would provide a significant boost to the economy.

5.2

Public Question in respect of the Amey final business case.

Nigel Slack referred to a question he had asked at the last Cabinet meeting, held on 17^th July, where he had asked for a timescale for the release of the uncensored version of the Amey final business case. Mr Slack commented that the response he received suggested that despite the fact that the Council had been working on this since last November there was still no timescale as to when it might be completed. He therefore asked if the Council could indicate what the hold up was, who was causing the hold up and what steps they were taking to speed matters up, or whether they were hoping Mr Slack would simply lose interest?

Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that there had been no further progress since the last meeting. Given the current budgetary situation this was not seen as a priority at the present time. Once this had been completed it would be available to view on the Council’s website.

5.3

Public Question in respect of the Streets Ahead Project

Nigel Slack informed Members that the Streets Ahead project had been to his street. He reported that they had replaced some, but not all of the gully grates, they had installed some, but not all of the street lamp standards and they had simply not turned up for two days of road resurfacing work that were scheduled. He therefore requested that the Council comment on how far the project was behind target?

Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene, responded that he was pleased that the project had visited Mr Slack’s area and the project as a whole was good for the City. He reported that there had been a slight delay to works in the Highfield area and these would be restarted as soon as possible. The project was not behind the end date schedule and was on budget. It had improved the environment and created 700 jobs for people. He would provide Mr Slack with a full written response clarifying when the works would be completed on his road.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Zero Hours Contracts

Nigel Slack referred to a question he had asked at the last Cabinet meeting regarding ‘zero hours’ contracts. The response had stated that the Council was not aware of anyone being employed by the Council on such contracts. However, since then Mr Slack reported that he had been in conversation with one direct employee of the library service who was certainly employed on a ‘zero hours’ contract. He therefore asked if the Council wished to revise their comments or at the very least undertake to improve their awareness?

Mr Slack further stated that, in addition, he was told he would receive information about the numbers of those employed by contractors on ‘zero hours’ contracts. He stated that this was 25 working days ago, when he understood that such information should be supplied within 10 days according to Council protocol. He asked, therefore, when he would receive the promised information?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, confirmed that at the last meeting she was not aware of any employee being employed on a zero hours contract. Since the last meeting the issue of zero hours contracts had become a topical issue along with issues around private and public sector employment. Councillor Dore commented that she had investigated the use of such contracts around the Council. She stated that such contracts could be beneficial for the employee in terms of flexibility, such as carers who could not commit to a full contract. The Council wanted to ensure that they had contracts which worked for both the employer and the employee but which didn’t exploit the employee. All those employed on zero hour contracts at the Council had employee rights such as sick pay and were jointly agreed between the employer and the employee. Nevertheless, the contracts were being reviewed across the Council to ensure that they were fair to all.

Councillor Bryan Lodge added that those on Zero hour contracts were supported by the Trade Unions and had rights such as holiday and sick pay. Those on zero hour contracts employed by the Council were not those in the private sector recently highlighted in the media and the Trade Unions recognised their value and the flexibility they could provide to some employees.

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, commented that those employed on zero hours contracts within her portfolio were not substantive posts and were used to fill in for employees on holiday or sick leave. Those employed on zero hours contracts had the required training and supervision. She would investigate exact numbers of those employed and report back to Mr Slack.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Local Area Working

Vicky Seddon asked whether the Council was going to inform people who have been active in Community Assemblies and other community forums about the next steps, following the demise of Community Assemblies and the proposed establishment of local area partnerships, and how they can be involved as she believed the webpage did not make this clear.

In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, reported that it may be useful for Ms. Seddon and others to look at the recent Cabinet report which outlined proposals for future local area working. Along with officers, he was working with the Communications team at the Council to establish the most appropriate method of communicating future plans with stakeholders and it was hoped that this would start in September 2013.

The extensive mailing list from the previous model of working had been examined for communication purposes and local ward members would be requested to organise community meetings to discuss future plans. There would also be communication through blogs and the Council website. The would be face to face meetings with the Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector (VCF). Councillor Iqbal believed that it was important to work with local people and this would be done through Elected Members and the message would be simple and plain.

A City Partnership approach would be developed and officers would be working through Sharon Squires and the Sheffield Executive Board.

Councillor Julie Dore added that the difference with the new proposals and way of working would be that they would be built around partnerships which was key to address issues in and around communities. The Local Area Partnership Chairs had been appointed and it was key to involve partners in what the Local Area Partnerships looked like and how they operated.