Agenda item

4.1

Communications

4.1.1

Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, announced that, with effect from 5^th November 2013, Councillor Ben Curran was appointed as the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources.

4.2

Petitions

(a)          Petition Objecting to the Possible Closure of Jordanthorpe Library

The Council received a petition, containing 991 signatures and objecting to the possible closure of Jordanthorpe Library.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Donna Furniss. She stated that the Jordanthorpe Library served the community, including school children at Norton Free and Lowedges primary schools. People wished to raise the educational attainment of children and the closure of Jordanthorpe Library would potentially damage this process. She strongly urged the Council to retain Jordanthorpe Library.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Mazher Iqbal, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion. Councillor Iqbal stated that no decisions had been made concerning Libraries. Proposals had been published by the Council and there was currently a period of consultation upon the proposals, which would last until 10 January 2014. It was important that people complete the survey about the future of library services, which was available, together with the Council’s proposals, both online and at libraries.

Councillor Iqbal stated that it was important and a legal requirement that the Council provide a comprehensive Library service. The Council was also asking organisations to help look at alternative ways of running libraries. The context, he said, was the cuts in Government funding to the Council and the Library service was required to make savings of £1.6 million. He referred to the £180 million savings which the Council had to make in the previous three years and to the requirement to make significant further cuts in future years. He stated that the decisions relating to the library service were not easy for him or his colleagues to make.

Councillor Iqbal said that two consultation exercises and a call for action had been carried out. He had visited a number of libraries, including Burngreave, Broomhill, Frecheville, Totley, Newfield, Park, Woodhouse, Southey and Ecclesfield. He stated that it was important that as many libraries as possible were kept open. He stated that the Council’s proposals included working in partnership with communities and that he had spoken with local Councillors Roy Munn and Clive Skelton with regard to issues including the establishment of a friends’ group for Jordanthorpe Library, looking at how Jordanthorpe could be supported and added that workshops were being organised to take place in the Town Hall, to which the petitioners could be invited. He asked that people work together to find a solution for the Library service.

(b)          Petition Regarding Prevention Workers in Children’s Centres

The Council received a joint electronic and paper petition containing 1056 signatures regarding Prevention Workers in Children’s Centres.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Sara Wealthall who stated that the petition concerned the ceasing of Prevention Workers at Children’s Centres. She stated that she had become a Prevention Worker and had been made redundant from her post. The work which she had done had now ceased as a result of the decision made by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young people and Families and an unwillingness of Councillors to scrutinise the decision. The petition asked the Council to look again at the decision.

A public meeting had been organised in Sharrow at which only Green Party Councillors attended. She stated that there was real concern about the decision concerning Prevention Services and the way in which it was made and stated that the decision, which was wrong, needed to be scrutinised. She said that the absence of paid, skilled workers supporting prevention services would have a detrimental effect on children and families and that some parents did not have the ability to solve problems for themselves, without the necessary support.

She stated that some services, such as health services or midwifery could be accessed but, if people sought help through the MAST (Multi-Agency Support Team) there was a four week waiting time, which parents who had expressed a view at consultation meetings had said was too long a time to wait.

Sara Wealthall referred to the Equalities Impact Assessment, which had formed part of the decision concerning Prevention Services and stated that there would be an impact on the inclusion of disabled children, support for fathers and lone parents.

The petitioners disputed that valid consultation had been carried out with parents and carers. The consultation had largely been done in a 1 week period and with a small number of service users. Senior Early Years’ officers had attended groups unannounced and there had not been an attempt to provide translation in different community languages.

She stated that the decision concerning Prevention Services should be looked at again because of the failed tender process. A wide number of organisations wanted to provide the services but those had dropped out due to problems with the tender process. The inability of the Council to find providers of Prevention Services did not logically lead to suspending prevention work, which was budgeted for. She stated that there was a legal requirement for the Council to provide services and it was not necessarily the right approach to expect such services to be run by volunteers or co-ordinators. He stated that this was an opportunistic cut and the petitioners urged the Council to re-visit the decision.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Members of the Public in attendance with questions on the subject of prevention services were invited to ask their questions.

(a)          Public Questions concerning Prevention Services

Phil Eddyshaw asked the following questions on behalf of Colin Walker:

Save Sheffield Early Years does not feel that the request for scrutiny of the decision to stop prevention services is being taken seriously.

He asked, why there had been no written responses (required within 28 days) to the previous petition and questions submitted at the last Council meeting; and why did no-one, with the exception of Green Party Councillors, attend a public meeting which had been organised in Sharrow on 30 October?

Keith Levy stated that, now that the 27 prevention staff, who were funded by the Council, have been made redundant or redeployed in other jobs, what are the plans to replace what they were doing. He said; please do not tell us about volunteers, who cannot replace paid staff.

Ali Yusuf Bilqasab stated that people have had 3 answers about what has happened to the money which was in the Council’s budget for Children’s Centre prevention work this financial year, namely that:

·         The money has been spent

·         The money is still available pending a review

·         (The money) has been cut (blame the Coalition Government)

He asked the Council to say which of the above is accurate.

The Council referred the petition, and the public questions on the subject of Prevention Services, to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton thanked the petitioners and people who had asked public questions. Firstly, she stated that she was sorry that Prevention Workers had been laid off and she recognised and knew that the work which prevention workers had done was good. She stressed that the Council did not employ the Prevention Workers but they were employed by other organisations, which were contracted to provide services by the Council.

In the Early Years Review last year, the Council said that one thing it had to do was to make savings. She explained the context of changes to funding provided to the Council by the Government and reductions to funding. The Council did have £21 million funding for Surestart, which was ringfenced to early year’s services. The Coalition Government stopped that funding and the Area Based Grant of £17 million. These two grants were brought together in the Early Intervention Grant, which was reduced to £21million. The Early Intervention Grant was since cut further by £6.8 million and is no longer prioritised or ringfenced to Early Years. It also includes other services such as youth services, youth justice and children’s disabilities services.

It was decided to protect as much as possible services to Children and Families and to make savings in management, premises and administrative costs. The number of Children’s Centres areas was reduced from 36 to 17 areas. The three contracts for management, intervention and prevention were also examined. The management element was removed and the tender was re-profiled and divided into two contracts, one for prevention and one for intervention services which were put out to tender.

In relation to the money available for prevention services, it was a combination of the factors referred to by the questioner that were relevant. Councillor Drayton said she had always maintained that although savings of £3.4 million had to be found in early years and the Council  would do as much as possible to protect services to  children and families, it would not able to promise that services would be delivered in the same place, the same time or by the same provider. Councillor Drayton stated that it was not possible to take £3.4 million from the Early Years budget and for it not to make a difference.

A compact was in place with the voluntary, community and faith sector, including a commitment to tell providers from this sector, with six months’ notice, that contracts would cease, which the Council did. These providers included Action for Children, the Manor Castle Development Company and the NHS. Contracts were extended until September. The tender process was carried out and bidders included existing provider organisations and others. The tender process followed normal procedures and was open and above board. Contracts were issued but organisations who had successfully bid then said “no” to the offer of a contract. Contracts for three specialist and 1 intervention service were accepted by the tendering organisations.

The Council made the decision that it needed to continue to provide services to the most vulnerable children and families and so would deliver intervention services in house as these had to continue, with the Council taking on the TUPE obligations. It was not a legal requirement to provide Prevention Services. The Council was to look again at how prevention services could be provided. However, she wanted to make it clear that no-one in the City wanted to provide the work in the contract, even the organisation who delivered the contract at the moment and employed the prevention workers.

Councillor Drayton stated, with reference to the question from Mr Walker, that she apologised if no written response had been provided and said that she would follow up this matter.

Councillor Drayton stated that she was sorry she could not attend the public meeting, which had been organised on 30 October. She had received an invitation to the meeting and had written to explain why she couldn’t attend and had given her apologies. She had explained that it was half term and she had childcare duties, and on that evening she had taken her granddaughter to her dance show dress rehearsal.  She stated that she had hoped that her apologies would have been given to the people at the meeting.

Councillor Drayton stated that Prevention Workers were not employees of the Council but were employees of other organisations and she hoped they were treated fairly by those organisations and that if they felt this was not that case, they should contact their Trades Union. At the moment, the Council was looking at what it had to provide and how it could do that. The City was run by volunteers and a lot of organisations were also run by volunteers. The Council was not able to provide all of the services which it might like to, so the voluntary, community and faith sector was relied upon. In the circumstances, people had to pull together and it was about enabling groups to continue meeting, with the use of a room, if they wanted to.

Councillor Drayton stated that she appreciated people coming to the Council, submitting the petition and asking questions and the fact that they cared about Early Years.

4.3

Public Questions

(a)  Public Questions concerning Taxi Ranks

Abdul Raheem stated that he was a self employed taxi driver and had observed the development of businesses in the City Centre, such as the Genting Club. He stated that such businesses also required services, including parking for taxis for their customers. There was no parking outside of the premises, including for disabled people. If taxis did park, the driver would receive a parking ticket. He asked the Council to look at this issue further.

More widely, he asked the Council to consider facilities which businesses might require.

Mr Raheem also referred to an incident in which a traffic warden took a photograph of his vehicle and then walked away, without issuing a parking fine. The warden stated that they would pass the information to another authority. Me Raheem expressed concern in relation to the incident and the potential sharing of information with another party.

Mr Raheem made reference to Pakistan and to the many civilian casualties, including children who had been killed during drone attacks. He stated that there were 30 thousand Pakistanis in Sheffield and 1 million in the United Kingdom. He said that the images on the television were heart breaking and asked the Council to consider this issue in the same way as it did in relation to circumstances in Iraq.

In response, Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, stated that in relation to taxi ranks, the Council had previously installed a significant number of new taxi ranks in the City Centre. Since then, the Council was also working with the taxi trade in relation to new potential locations on which to site taxi ranks. Two new ranks had been introduced on an experimental basis. He stated that he appreciated the need for taxis to have ranks and comments concerning enforcement. With respect to the particular issue which Mr Raheem had raised concerning the traffic warden, Councillor Bramall stated that he would investigate the matter further.

The Chief Executive informed Mr Raheem that Councillors had heard what Mr Raheem had said in relation to the situation in Pakistan and would note his comments.

(b)  Public Questions concerning employment

Gareth Slater stated that he had expressed concern to the relevant Cabinet Member about underemployment and the number of people employed on zero hours contracts and making sure that people receive fair pay.

Councillor Leigh Bramall responded that despite the beginning of the economic recovery, there were concerns about the form of the recovery and the number of people employed on zero hours contracts, part time or having lower paid jobs. He welcomed the improvement in the employment figures but said that he still had concerns.

Councillor Leigh Bramall stated that long term unemployment in Sheffield was increasing, rising from 185 in 2008 to 2815 in 2013 and he made reference to the number of young people aged 18-24 claiming benefit. He stated that it was important to understand that we should not be complacent about the employment situation. Zero hours contracts were only used by the Council, where it was in the best interests of the Council and the employee. The Council had introduced a Living Wage Policy and it was taking action to stimulate the City’s economy. The 100 Apprenticeship Scheme had been introduced and the RISE Graduate Scheme was also in place. He referred to the Skills Made Easy programme and to the Small and Medium Enterprise Growth Fund. He confirmed that there were 400 net new apprenticeships in the City and cautioned against negative comments, which talked the City down.

(c)  Public Questions concerning Schools Outsourcing Services

Anne Fields asked if the Council was aware that an increasing number of schools were opting to outsource workers in catering and cleaning services, rather than adopting the Living Wage. This applied to bodies other than academies, trusts, PFI and Church aided schools. She asked what the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People was doing to pay the Living Wage, how many Schools have committed to the policy and how is this monitored.

James Stribley asked if the Council was aware that Capita and Council officers are actively encouraging schools to avoid paying the Living Wage by outsourcing catering staff to the Council’s central caterer, Taylor Shaw, which, it was being made clear to the trades unions, will never pay the Living Wage in Schools.

Angela Harrison asked has the Council ever considered re-tendering current Council contracts early where it is clear that the Living Wage will not be paid within the duration or remainder of the contract.

Becky Wolsenholme asked does the Council support the GMB Ocean cleaners and their fight to get the Living Wage at Sheffield Park Academy.

Tracy Bailey asked will the Council consider adopting a motion to require all prospective delivery partners to include evidence of a commitment to the Living Wage in all outsourced contracts.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families responded that the Council had committed to the Living Wage and had passed a motion concerning the Living Wage and had written to contractors to set out the position regarding the Living Wage. An increasing number of schools were signing up to the Living Wage and the Council had held meetings with the trades union in this regard. Human Resources had written to schools to inform them about the Living Wage and its implementation.

However, the City Council was not able to impose an agreement regarding the Living Wage where a school or academy governing body is the employer. 28 of the City’s Voluntary Aided Foundation Schools were asked about their approach to the Living Wage and only 2 indicated that they did not intend to implement it. 25 out of 33 academies confirmed that they have implemented the Living Wage.

In relation to concerns that schools were being encouraged not to pay the Living Wage, an advisory note was sent to all contractors and to schools. With regard to the 2 Voluntary Aided Schools who were not paying the Living Wage, the Governors had said that this was due to a budget deficit which had influenced the decision as to whether to pay the Living Wage. 

Councillor Drayton said that she had had informal discussions with Taylor Shaw and she did not get the impression that they were saying that they would never implement the Living Wage. The Council had a responsibility to ensure that schools can access appropriate advice and support regarding the decisions they made and the options and implications for school governing bodies. She stated that she assumed that Capita were also doing this. Councillor Drayton stated that she appreciated disappointment that some schools were not implementing the Living Wage. The Council would continue to do what it could and to press schools to implement the Living Wage.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, stated that he had been a long standing supporter of the Living Wage and was proud that the Council had implemented a policy to pay its employees the Living Wage and that its partners Amey and Veolia were also doing so. He expressed concern with regard to the allegation that Capita and Council staff were encouraging schools not to pay the Living Wage and asked to be provided with evidence that this had happened, which he could investigate.

There were legal issues in relation to the re-tendering of contracts. If examples were found, Councillor Curran stated that he would meet with the Directors of Commercial and Legal Services. He stated that, in his position as Cabinet Member, he would encourage the take-up of the Living Wage in the City, including for organisations with which the Council contracted services directly and he also realised that was the issue of organisations which were sub-contractors for Council services.

(d)  Public Questions concerning Sheffield Children’s Centre

Chrissy Meleady stated that, at the meeting of Council on 2 October 2013, Councillor Drayton denied that she or anyone else in the Council or Kier had been made aware of any concerns or complaints in regard to Sheffield Children’s Centre at any time prior to 2 October and that if she and the Council and Kier were made aware then she and the Council would have instigated an investigation and redress.

Concerns and complaints have been issued and reissued over a period of six months to the Council and made known to Kier. She stated that she had written to all Councillors and to MPs to draw attention to the concerns and complaints and to ask for their intervention to redress the wrongs being done to Sheffield Children’s Centres, children, families and staff. She raised this in writing and verbally in Council and Cabinet meetings and in other public arenas.

In previous Council meetings, Councillor Drayton’s response to the concerns and complaints was to deny the reality of them and to assert they were allegations and each time, no investigation ensued and no redress has occurred. One month on, the heating is still turned off by Kier at Sheffield Children’s Centre. Despite reissuing to every councillor in the full Council the previous 6 months of correspondence in regard to concerns about the heating and other concerns, there had been no investigation and the heating had not been reinstated. She asked why this was the case. She also asked how the Council and its partner Kier could leave vulnerable people using the Children’s Centres in such conditions and when action would be taken.

(e)  Questions concerning appointment of a consultant

Chrissy Meleady asked on behalf of another questioner, what best value analysis took place with regard to the appointment/commissioning of the consultant, Julie Dale, for 48 weeks work at a cost of £132,745 for her salary and the agency fee of £26,586 between 8^th February 2012 and 8^th March 2013, at a time when the Council were claiming poverty and enforcing through a 100 percent grant aid cut on community not for profit early years charities. As the Freedom of information release shows Julie Dale was taken on to carry through the axing of the funding to these organisations. She asked what other funding was expended in support of Julie Dale’s role e.g. PA and administrative expenses etc.

Chrissy Meleady asked why the Council did not release the information requested with regard to Julie Dale in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act deadlines and why the Council was withholding the full information now.

(f)   Questions concerning Grace Owen Nursery 

Chrissy Meleady asked why was it that Grace Owen Nursery was not included in the Early Years review and that £700,00 was allocated to the nursery though the Local Growth Fund, which was never identified in the Early Years review which went on to cut funding for other provision. She asked what other funding has been given or is earmarked to Grace Owen Nursery – one of the Council’s own nurseries.

In response to questions (f) and (g) above, Councillor Jackie Drayton, the Cabinet Member for Children, young People and Families, stated that she apologised if there had been a misunderstanding in respect of the concerns which Ms Meleady had raised. Councillor Drayton explained that in the past she meant that she, or the Council had not received anything regarding specific allegations so a response could be sent. She stated that Kier also had a complaints process.  She also stated that she thought that Ms Meleady had received responses but if Ms Meleady sends her a letter clearly setting out the specific allegations and questions she thought she had not had answers to, then  the Council would investigate the matter and make a response to her.

Councillor Drayton stated that she would respond in writing to the questions which had been asked in respect of Grace Owen Nursery and the consultancy fees.

(g)  Public Question concerning Freedom of Information

Nigel Slack referred to an article in the Sunday Times concerning the idea that private companies providing public services should be covered by the Freedom of Information regulations and lose their right to commercial confidentiality, which was an idea that he had proposed to the Council or more than one occasion.

He asked will the Council undertake to add to its ground breaking decision that all new contracts will be let on a basis of “presumed full disclosure”, the presumption that all contracts will require the winning bidder to abide by Freedom of Information regulations.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, responded that he acknowledged Mr Slack’s championing of openness and transparency. He stated that the Council did co-operate with Freedom of Information requests. Freedom of Information applied to public bodies and not to private sector organisations. He would expect that private sector organisations would comply with the law and relevant regulations. He stated that it could not be taken for granted that there would be regulations also requiring private sector compliance.

(h)  Public Question concerning Webcasting of Council Meetings

Nigel Slack stated that, having read some portions of the minutes of the previous Council meeting and noting that they bear only a passing resemblance to the actuality of the meeting that he witnessed and recognising that it is impossible for the official minutes to accurately reflect every word of the exchanges that take place in a robust meeting, he would like to ask for some clarity on the Council’s promise to review the potential for official webcasting of Council meetings. He asked who will conduct the review; what will the review’s remit be; when will the review take place and when will it report; and will the review be open to public consultation.

Councillor Julie Dore stated that a similar question had been asked previously in relation to webcasting of Council meetings by Mr Slack. The subject of webcasting had been discussed by the Council’s Corporate Governance Group and it had been decided that webcasting was not a priority for the Council at this time, with particular regard to costs in the present financial climate.

Councillor Dore stated that she had looked at examples of other local authorities’ webcasts and it had been found that the viewing figures of such material was quite low. It was therefore not thought to be good value for money. There were other better methods of engagement for the Council to use with the public, including Local Area Partnerships, Meet the Cabinet and a variety of consultative events, which were sometimes general and at other times specific in nature. The Council was always looking at other ways it could engage with people and she did not believe the Council could afford to introduce webcasting.

(i)    Public Question concerning Sanctions

Martin Brighton stated that the Council Leader has said that sanctions should not be imposed in the absence of evidence. However, he stated, her own senior personnel, supported by a few elected Members, are treating what has been said with contempt. He asked what does the Leader propose to do about this.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, stated in response that with regard to sanctions, she would request Mr Brighton to tell her on what particular instance a sanction was used and why.

She stated that there may be different interpretation of what constitutes a sanction. When there is an allegation then action must be taken pending the investigation, for example suspension; and some people assume that is a ‘sanction’.

(j)    Public Question concerning Promises

Martin Brighton stated that the Council Leader has said that she expects senior personnel and elected members to be trusted to keep their promises. Again, the Council Leader’s words are being treated with contempt. He asked what does the Council Leader propose to do about this.

In response, Councillor Julie stated that the question which Mr Brighton had put was ambiguous and asked him to tell her the precise circumstances of his concerns.

(k)  Public Question concerning Contracts

Martin Brighton referred to comments made by Barnet’s chief operating officer that “Publishing all Barnet's contracts with Capita will regain public trust and placate the sceptics” He stated that this was duly done and asked why can’t the same happen here with this Council’s contracts.

Councillor Ben Curran, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, responded that the London Borough of Barnet had transferred a number of services to Capita and without consultation. A Judicial Review found that in Barnet, they should have consulted. Sheffield was different. The Council was required to gain permission of a contractor in order to publish the relevant contract and there were some issues relating to commercial sensitivity. The Council had over 600 contracts and the publication of all such documents would involve a considerable amount of time and cost in proportion to the public demand to view contracts. Only three requests for the details of contracts had been made over the last 5 years.

(l)     Public Question concerning Freedom of Information Requests

Martin Brighton asked the Council to explain why Freedom of Information requests are habitually not answered until the last of the 20-working days allowed, if at all, and even when the answer is to refuse the information, or provide inadequate or inaccurate information, requiring reviews at the ratepayers’ expense?

He also asked, in the absence of any positive action on the above points, what objections could the Council Leader have to publicly naming and shaming those who are, as the documents would suggest, treating the Council Leader with contempt?

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, asked Mr Brighton to provide to her information as to which particular Freedom of Information request he was referring and where he had not received a response in the given time.

Councillor Dore stated that she understood that Mr Brighton had publicly ‘named and shamed’ individuals in a You Tube clip and she asked him to please give specific information in relation to the questions he had raised.

4.3

Petitions (2)

(a)          Petition Requesting Permission to Construct a Cul-de-Sac on Land Fronting 245 to 275 Barnsley Road

The Council received a petition containing 13 signatures requesting permission to construct a cul-de-sac on land fronting 245 to 273 Barnsley Road.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development who stated that he would look at the detail of the petition and respond in writing to the petitioners.

(b)          Petition Requesting the Change of the Pedestrian Crossing on Greenhill Avenue from a Zebra to a Traffic Light Crossing

The Council received a petition containing 45 signatures and requesting the change of the pedestrian crossing at Chancet Wood Drive/Greenhill Avenue from a zebra to a traffic light crossing.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development who stated that he would look at the detail of the petition and respond to the petitioners in writing.

(c)          (Note: A petition was received objecting to the Lack of Consultation in connection with the Felling of Trees on Dalewood Road. There was no speaker present at the meeting and the petition was forwarded to Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene.)

(d)          Petition to Save Don Valley Stadium

The Council received an electronic petition containing seven signatures requesting that the process of demolishing Don Valley Stadium be stopped and that the land be not sold for profit.

There was no speaker to the petition. The Council referred the petition to Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure.

4.4

Petition Requiring Debate:

Petition to Save Don Valley Stadium

The Council received an electronic petition containing 5,487 signatures, requesting that Don Valley Stadium be saved.

The petition contained more than 5,000 signatures and, at the request of the lead petitioner, under the Council’s Petitions Scheme, the petition was subject to a public debate by the Council.

Representations on behalf of the petitioners were made by Rob Creasy. Mr Creasy stated that the number of signatures had been achieved in one week and, with other petitions which had also been created on this subject, signatures numbered over 10,000. Two photographs of Don Valley Stadium and Woodbourn Road Stadium featuring Mukhtar Mohammed (Team GB Olympian) were provided and displayed as part of Mr Creasy’s presentation. He contrasted the facilities available at Don Valley Stadium, which were world class, with those at Woodbourn Road and asked if an athlete such as Jessica Ennis would have been inspired by the Woodbourn Road Stadium. There were 140 seats at Woodbourn Road and the Stadium was not secure, on a recent visit, there were no toilets other facilities available for young people.

Mr Creasy stated that Dr Steve Peters had made reference to Don Valley Stadium being more expensive than other comparative venues. The Stocksbridge Leisure Centre had shown the way in providing a solution to this type of issue.

He referred to ‘soundbites’ which were heard in relation to the Don Valley Stadium, including the reported 700K annual saving which would be made and the effects of austerity and Government cuts on the City. He stated that these were smoke and mirrors and questioned whether they made sense. He asked when the demolition of the Don Valley Stadium was due to take place and what had to be done to save the Stadium.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13 (b), the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, Councillor Isobel Bowler made an initial response to the petition, followed by the Shadow Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Leisure, Councillor Alison Brelsford. Members of the City Council then debated the issues raised by the petition. The points made by Members during the debate are summarised below:

·         The Council had lost significant amount of funding.

·         There is no budget to mothball for 6 months and if the Council was to do so it would have to make in year cuts to other services.

·         The Council chose an option with relatively minimal impact and needed to develop an affordable city wide model that it can sustain, working with key partners.

·         Don Valley was an ageing facility, requiring a large subsidy. The impact of the closure on the community was the least negative when considered alongside other alternatives.

·         Woodbourn Road is a suitable athletics facility and approved by athletics bodies and the English Institute of Sport (EIS) provides indoor facilities of an international standard. The Don Valley Stadium had played an important role in the regeneration of the east side of the City but the type of events which it once attracted now go to venues elsewhere instead.

·         Prior to consultation on the closure of the Stadium, the alternative options to closure were explored and a six month period was given in order that alternative proposals might emerge. However, no affordable and sustainable alternatives have been found during that time. Whilst a suggestion had been made that the Stadium is mothballed to allow additional time for the development of alternatives and a business plan, it was not apparent how this would be funded.

·         Reference was made to the facilities, which included the Stadium and were developed for the World Student Games and the payments which the Council was making for the cost of those facilities.

·         There was a vision for the future that the Stadium could become something more.

·         The Stadium did not meet the criteria of an asset of community value.

·         Decommissioning and demolition of the facility would also carry significant costs.

·         The community would need more time to work up proposals as was the case at Stocksbridge Leisure Centre, which was open and full of people and being run at reduced cost.

·         The decision to close Don Valley Stadium was not taken lightly. The alternative was to take money from other budgets.

·         Track and field was not a popular spectator sport outside of major sporting competitions.

·         The context of the decision to close the Stadium was the required savings of £80 million to be made by the Council. The stadium had not been filled to capacity since 2006 and cost £700K to run. Significant capital expenditure was also required.

·         Other cities had learned from Sheffield’s experience and had converted venues built for major events such as the Commonwealth and Olympic Games to other uses, such as football grounds.

·         There should have been better consultation and co-operation with communities that wished to come forward with proposals, which may take time. The threat of closure of the Stadium was not published until January, although the budget savings process started much earlier. The Council had said it was willing to work with people to sustain services and there were examples of successful outcomes.

·         The benefits of investing in high value quality sporting facilities included participation, attracting visitors and increasing footfall and lifting the profile of the City. Major events were held at the Don Valley Stadium in the first 10 years, but now places had to pay to host athletics events.

·         Could more time be given for campaigners to work on plans for the Don Valley Stadium as was in the case of Stocksbridge Leisure Centre. The cost of demolition would be greater than those to mothball the Stadium.

·         Sheffield Hallam University was running the Woodbourn Road Stadium, which would have economic benefit for the local area of Attercliffe and would bring about interaction between University students and others in the local community. The costs of mothballing the Don Valley Stadium for a further 6 months were high.

·         It would take the community and organisations time to produce proposals.

Rob Creasy exercised his right of reply in relation to matters raised in the debate. He stated that the community had a vision for Don Valley Stadium and did their best to put together a plan for its future and would have been 3 months into the process had the Council looked at this in July, with the Community. The costs of the debt in building the Stadium would still be in place until 2024. He questioned the decision to resource other commitments such as the hosting of the Tour de France at a cost of £900K. Although the Council presented the issue as a dilemma, it was able to find funding for other purposes and he pointed out that the community were proposing a scheme at no cost, which would also include facilities for health, sport and the arts and the potential of building a school and health facilities into the structure of the existing Stadium.

Sporting and other events were now moving to other venues in Leeds and Nottingham, for example and this affected Sheffield’s status as the City of Sport. He referred to other venues including the Sheffield Arena and Scarborough, with which Sheffield International Venues were involved. He also referred to the effect on business which had invested in Sheffield on the basis of the its sporting personalities and credentials. He asked for more time for the community to bring forward proposals for the Stadium.