Agenda item

5.1

Petition in Objection to Proposals to build a School on Tinsley Park

A petition, containing 328 signatures, was submitted objecting to proposals to build a school on Tinsley Park. Muzafar Rahman, lead signatory to the petition, attended the meeting to make representations in support of the petition. He commented that the proposal to build a school would increase pollution in the area. He believed the consultation process had been unfair and had been undertaken only after the decision had been made. The park was the only green space in the area and this would deny the people of Tinsley a valuable resource. Mr Rahman had also been told that the petition was of no relevance to the decision by Clive Betts M.P.

In referring the petition to the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, the Leader, Councillor Julie Dore, commented that petitions were always relevant and would be taken into consideration. What the ‘politician’ may have said was that the submission of a petition did not automatically mean a decision would not be made or revoked.

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families further commented that consultation in respect of the proposal to build a school on Tinsley Park had been underway since October 2013 and Mr Rahman had attended a number of meetings as part of the consultation. Councillor Drayton had attended a recent public meeting organised by Mr Rahman along with Clive Betts M.P.

Councillor Drayton commented that she had never stated didn’t hear Clive Betts stating that a petition would be of no relevance and reassured Mr Rahman that the petition would, of course, be considered along with all the other responses to the consultation. The proposal was not to build the school on the entire park and it would be similar to the school built on the park in Sharrow, where there was dual use of the park by the school and the community. Following the end of the consultation a report would be submitted to Cabinet and after that a further 6 week consultation would take place.

Councillor Isobel Bowler, Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure, reassured Mr Rahman that, although the need for a new school was accepted, officers from the Parks and Countryside service were challenging officers from the Children, Young People and Families portfolio to ensure that as much green space as possible was left untouched.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Stannington Library

Rosemary Telfer, representing the Stannington and District Library Group, referred to encouragement the Group had received from the Council in their attempts to keep the library open. The Group were now moving towards developing a business plan and therefore asked if the Council could provide any financial assistance to support the Group in developing the plan? Ms. Telfer also referred to comments made by local Ward Councillors that local funding had been removed and that they did not therefore have any funds to support the Group.

In response Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, commented that, as part of the new Locality Working model, the 3 Ward Councillors have been given a ward pot to allocate which had to be allocated by 17 January. He pledged to make £400 available for initial advice to be provided to the Group by Voluntary Action Sheffield (VAS). Following that he would look at what further support could be provided to the Group.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Public Criticisms

Mr Martin Brighton referred to alleged insults made against him, both at a public meeting and on social media, by Labour Councillors. He therefore asked what leadership would be shown in respect of this?

5.4

Public Question in respect of Communications

Mr Martin Brighton referred to a pledge from a senior officer of the Council that he would provide information that Mr Brighton had requested but this has not been done a year later, despite reminders. He therefore asked what objections the Leader could have to publicly naming and shaming that senior officer?

5.5

Public Question in respect of Communications

Mr Martin Brighton asked the Leader to explain why a Council officer and Councillor can dictate to a third party who they can or cannot communicate with?

5.6

Public Question in respect of Freedom of Information

Mr Martin Brighton asked what the Leader proposed should happen in situations where Freedom of Information requests had been denied to due to alleged potential embarrassment for the Council in disclosing the information?

5.7

Public Question in respect of Freedom of Information

Mr Martin Brighton commented that he had recently been refused access to attend a review. He therefore asked what the Council was frightened of?

5.8

Public Question in respect of TARA Audit?

Mr Martin Brighton asked why the Council did not want to allow an independent and qualified authority to carry out an independent audit of the accounts of BNTARA?

In response the Leader of the Council commented that she would circulate Mr Brighton’s questions to Cabinet Members. The questions made allegations against Councillors, Officers and referred to specific issues without giving specific information. She therefore could not provide the answer required when she didn’t know what the specific information was. However, she would provide a written response by 5.00pm today.