Agenda item

It was moved by Councillor Penny Baker, seconded by Councillor Joe Otten, that this Council:-

(a)       recalls the pledge of previous Labour Administrations that the cost to Council-tax payers of the Park Hill refurbishment would not extend beyond paying the wages of Council staff working on the project;

(b)       notes with dismay the decisions of the current Administration to agree more than £2.8 million of Council spend at Park Hill;

(c)        notes with concern statements from the developer that they are “discussing funding” with the Council on future development of the site;

(d)       furthermore, highlights comments in a Cabinet paper agreed in August 2013 that stated: “There is a risk to delivering the full scope of major schemes such as Park Hill … This could result in schemes ‘stalling’, leading to increased costs”;

(e)       believes these comments are of particular concern given the current Administration’s decision to allow wide-reaching agreements to be signed-off behind closed doors; and

(f)        recommends that no further funding is agreed for this political vanity project at a time when every penny counts and funds need to be directed to vital front-line services.

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Harry Harpham, seconded by Councillor Pat Midgley, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words ‘That this Council’ and the substitution of the following words therefor:-

(a)       regrets that for the past eight years the main opposition group have consistently denigrated the Park Hill Development, even though in over eight years of criticising Park Hill, they have never proposed a workable alternative to the redevelopment project;

(b)       furthermore regrets that the main opposition group are continuing to imply that the Council has allocated £2.4m of Council resources for the Park Hill redevelopment when in fact this is not the case;

(c)        notes that not a penny of the £2.4m is to be spent on the refurbishment of the Park Hill flats;

(d)       for the avoidance of doubt, re-iterates that:

(i)         there are additional costs relating to the Park Hill site which until this Government came to power were paid for by a Government grant;

(ii)        these costs include looking after the empty flat blocks, providing security where the blocks are still lived in, funding Police Community Support Officer patrols and rehousing local residents; and

(iii)       the Coalition Government has now completely ended the Housing Market Renewal Grant that previously paid for these costs and the Council has been left to pick up the £2.4m bill;

(e)       further believes that there is no question about whether or not these costs should be funded and firmly believes that it is the right thing to do to ensure that the local residents are safe;

(f)        also notes that it is the Council’s statutory duty to provide home loss payments to residents who are moving home;

(g)       believes that the main opposition group know that it would not be reasonable to ask Urban Splash to foot the bill for this, as ultimately this is the Council’s responsibility, and at no point during the life of the project has it ever been expected that Urban Splash should pay for these costs;

(h)       regrets that the Coalition Government has ended the Housing Market Renewal Grant, leaving local taxpayers to pick up the bill for costs that were previously funded by the Government; and

(i)         believes that instead of ‘playing politics’, the main opposition group should be standing up for Sheffield and condemning the Government for ending Housing Market Renewal funding.

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

The original Motion, as amended, was put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       regrets that for the past eight years the main opposition group have consistently denigrated the Park Hill Development, even though in over eight years of criticising Park Hill, they have never proposed a workable alternative to the redevelopment project;

(b)       furthermore regrets that the main opposition group are continuing to imply that the Council has allocated £2.4m of Council resources for the Park Hill redevelopment when in fact this is not the case;

(c)        notes that not a penny of the £2.4m is to be spent on the refurbishment of the Park Hill flats;

(d)       for the avoidance of doubt, re-iterates that:

(i)         there are additional costs relating to the Park Hill site which until this Government came to power were paid for by a Government grant;

(ii)        these costs include looking after the empty flat blocks, providing security where the blocks are still lived in, funding Police Community Support Officer patrols and rehousing local residents; and

(iii)       the Coalition Government has now completely ended the Housing Market Renewal Grant that previously paid for these costs and the Council has been left to pick up the £2.4m bill;

(e)       further believes that there is no question about whether or not these costs should be funded and firmly believes that it is the right thing to do to ensure that the local residents are safe;

(f)        also notes that it is the Council’s statutory duty to provide home loss payments to residents who are moving home;

(g)       believes that the main opposition group know that it would not be reasonable to ask Urban Splash to foot the bill for this, as ultimately this is the Council’s responsibility, and at no point during the life of the project has it ever been expected that Urban Splash should pay for these costs;

(h)       regrets that the Coalition Government has ended the Housing Market Renewal Grant, leaving local taxpayers to pick up the bill for costs that were previously funded by the Government; and

(i)         believes that instead of ‘playing politics’, the main opposition group should be standing up for Sheffield and condemning the Government for ending Housing Market Renewal funding.