Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of the new Locality Working Arrangements

Mr Nigel Slack referred to a briefing he had attended for the Voluntary, Community and Faith (VCF) Sector regarding the new arrangements to replace the Community Assemblies. He commented that at the meeting many comments were made from contributors as diverse as Sheffield for Democracy, TARA groups as well as Mr Slack concerning the lack of public oversight of the Local Area Partnerships. The organisers had tried to reassure the meeting that, since the LAP’s were not constituted bodies and had no decision making power there was to be no formal structure for public attendance at the LAP meetings.

Mr Slack further commented that, after the high number of comments on this matter, the organisers of the meeting promised to report the concerns and see what might be done to improve confidence in the new arrangements. However, one month on there had, as yet, been no further comments regarding these concerns from the Council. Mr Slack therefore asked had this matter been progressed?

In response, Councillor Harry Harpham, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, stated that the administration were very keen to engage people in local politics. All 3 parties held regular surgeries talking to people about their individual concerns. Cabinet in the Community Sessions had been held for the last couple of years and that would continue this municipal year.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Webcasting

Mr Nigel Slack referred to the last meeting of Full Council, held on 6 November 2013, where he had asked for details of the review of the prospects for Webcasting the Council meetings, as promised in an earlier Cabinet meeting. He was surprised to learn that the review had taken place and consisted of what he assumed was a brief chat in a private meeting attended by all the Party Leaders and a few Council Officers. He commented that he believed this was the opposite of open and transparent decision making.

Mr Slack further stated that the outcome appeared to have been that the idea was not a priority and would be difficult to justify in terms of value for money. Previously, however the Council had suggested that encouraging the engagement of the community in local politics was a priority and were prepared to spend over £35,000 per year on the new LAP Chair arrangements, even though they seemed to exclude public involvement. As for value for money, Bristol attracted over 375,000 unique visitors to their webcasts. If Sheffield could do this for what appeared to be a cost of around £20,000 this would be only just over 5p per person. Can any of their other initiatives promise that sort of value? With this in mind, he asked will the Council, either through the Leader or the relevant Cabinet Member, agree to meet with him to discuss alternative ways of funding this project that which all 3 parties say they would like to see happen?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that the administration’s policy on webcasting had not changed. They did not consider it value for money and it wasn’t a priority. If Mr Slack had any ideas of alternative ways of funding such a project he should write to Councillor Harpham or the Leader of the Council and they would assess this and provide a response.

5.3

Public Question in respect of a Voluntary Community Group

Mr Martin Brighton stated that this Council, via responses to Freedom of Information requests, with respect to a voluntary community group, had shown: a) that there was no evidence to support allegations and innuendo made against it, b) the group had not only met but exceeded the Council’s recognition requirements, c) the financial penalties were outside Council procedures and policy and d) the Council has ignored a request for an independent qualified auditor. He therefore asked what the lawful justification was for continuing to impose sanction and prejudice upon that group?

In response Councillor Harry Harpham commented that, as Mr Brighton did not name the group concerned it was difficult to respond to the question. If Mr Brighton would write in with the question and the name of the group concerned Councillor Harpham would ensure a response was provided.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Housing Governing Body

Mr Martin Brighton commented that he believed that the public were informed that the same people who were on several Sheffield Homes’ consultation groups and committees would not be allowed on several committees of the new, however interim, Governing Body. However, under current circumstances this was clearly not happening. He therefore asked if the Cabinet Member could confirm his original statement on the issue and provide some guidance?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that a review of governance in respect of housing and the former Sheffield Homes was currently taking place and consultation was being held very widely with tenant involvement. This would continue into 2014 and would form the basis of a Cabinet report in due course. Those people with experience would be kept on the committees, where appropriate, but Councillor Harpham acknowledged it was also important to get new views and people involved. There had been some success in relation to that but further attempts would be made to achieve that goal.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Written Responses to Public Questions

Mr Martin Brighton referred to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 16 October 2013 which stated ‘Councillor Harry Harpham commented that all written responses provided to questions at Cabinet or Full Council would be published on the Council’s website. Written responses would be provided to the rest of Mr Brighton’s questions.’ He therefore asked if the Council would indicate where on the Council’s website the answers to the questions of 16 October could be found?

Councillor Harry Harpham stated that a procedure was currently being put in place as a priority to ensure that this would happen and a web link would be sent to Mr Brighton when this was available on the Council’s website.

5.6

Public Question in respect of the Disposal of Sites for Affordable Housing

Mr Martin Brighton referred to agenda item 9 on the agenda for this meeting, ‘Disposal of Sites for Affordable Housing’ and commented that it referred to the disposal of 7 sites for ‘nil consideration’. He therefore asked that, given that the land was, in effect, owned by the public, how was the public to receive appropriate remuneration proportional to the value of those sites?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that there was a big shortage of housing in Sheffield. He believed the proposals represented very good value for the people of this City and that getting additional housing was a price worth paying.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Exempt Items

Mr Martin Brighton asked, in terms of governance and the need for openness and transparency, what objections could there be for including currently exempt items in the public record, for example at Cabinet, even if they needed to be redacted?

Councillor Harry Harpham commented that there were some items which on occasion needed to be exempt and this was cleared with Legal Services. Officers did look closely to see if they could be published in a redacted form but the Council did have to abide by the law of commercial sensitivity.