Agenda item

5.1

Petition supporting the Proposed Don Valley Railway Line from Sheffield to Stocksbridge

Cabinet received a petition, containing 2000 signatures, supporting proposals for a railway line between Sheffield and Stocksbridge. In submitting the petition Chris Bell, the lead petitioner, commented that the proposals would shorten journey times and were supported by many in the local community.

Cabinet referred the petition to Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development. He commented that he supported, in principle, better services. All projects needed to be assessed for cost benefit and whether they would deliver the best value for money. Councillor Bramall stated that he would provide a formal written response to Mr Bell.

5.2

Petition Requesting the Council Review a Number of Taxi Issues

Councillor Ibrar Hussain submitted an additional 118 signatures in support of the petition submitted to the Council on 8 January 2014 requesting the Council review a number of taxi issues. It was agreed that these signatures would be added to those previously submitted.

5.3

Petition Opposing the Proposed Expansion of Acres Hill Primary School

Cabinet received a petition, containing 146 signatures, opposing the proposed expansion of Acres Hill Primary School. Terry Navin spoke in support of the petition. He stated that he was concerned about the profound impact the proposals would have on school children. The intention was to prevent local people having to travel far to school but the outcome would actually be the opposite and it would encourage people from outside the local area to attend Acres Hill.

The potential addition of 100 children would drive performance down at the school and would have a devastating impact on children already there. The proposals stated that the expansion would be a temporary measure until 2015 but literature released by the school had said 2020. The proposals would also create a traffic hazard and a traffic count had not been undertaken despite being promised.

Cabinet referred the petition to Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families. Councillor Drayton responded that she would provide a written response to the petition. Across the country in recent years there had been a major increase in birth rates. Sheffield had also seen a number of new arrivals from other countries. There was therefore a need to build new schools and ask schools across the City to find temporary places.

The reason that the proposed expansion was temporary was that officers needed to assess the impact of the proposed new school in Darnall and whether parents would decide to send their child there rather than Acres Hill. Acres Hill had had a pre-christmas visit from Ofsted. Ofsted had reported that the school had taken rapid action to implement improvements requested through an action plan. Councillor Drayton commented that what counted in raising attainment was quality of teaching, learning and leadership and not numbers of pupils. The traffic issues would be looked at and highways officers would be involved in the development of the proposals.

5.4

Petition in respect of Selective Licensing

Cabinet received a petition, containing 8 signatures, opposing selective licensing in the Fir Vale/Page Hall area. Ashran Ashraf addressed Cabinet in support of the petition. He stated that he did not have any rental properties in the target area but wanted to object to the proposals. The first reason for objecting was the financial cost of the scheme. Similar schemes in other local authorities had been loss making and the costs for the proposals were new and would not be met by existing budgets.

Additional staff would be required to administer the scheme and would not be funded by licensing fees. The scheme stated that no more than 4 people would be able to live in a 2 bed house so Mr Ashraf questioned if that meant when the scheme was introduced people would be evicted from their homes if they lived in a house with more than 4 people?

Proposals for the scheme also stated that 2 references would be required to obtain a license and that, if a landlord was unable to provide them a meeting would need to be arranged with Council officers. This could lead to over 300 meetings needing to take place and Mr Ashraf questioned whether this was a good use of officer time. The conditions for the Fit and Proper persons test were also not specified. A number of poor families could be made homeless as a result of the scheme through no fault of their own. In conclusion, Mr Ashraf stated that he believed the money identified for the scheme would be better spent on employing a Housing Enforcement Officer to specifically target rogue landlords.

Cabinet referred the petition to Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods. He commented that the Council needed to be mindful of budgets whilst at the same time providing the best possible services. Residents and businesses within Page Hall were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals. Some landlords did not support the scheme and where this was the case the Council had spoken extensively to them.

Councillor Harpham acknowledged that the scheme would not solve all the problems in the area and other services were working hard to try and address the problems. He would not support a scheme which would mean people being evicted onto the streets and people would be supported to find an alternative solution. The Council would ensure that discussions would be held with landlords and prospective tenants to explain their rights and how to act and behave appropriately. The scheme would not necessarily clear the litter on the streets but it would highlight to landlords that they had a wider responsibility to other people living in the area.

5.5

Public Question in respect of the Proposed Expansion of Acres Hill Primary School

Terry Navin referred to £485k which had been allocated for the expansion of Acres Hill Primary School. He commented that, if it was to be a temporary measure as had been stated, this seemed as disproportionate amount of money to spend. He therefore asked what the benefits were of expanding the school?

In response Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families commented that the money spent on the expansion of the school would depend on the time period of the temporary measure. It would create additional school places in the area which were badly needed.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Proposals to Build a New School in the Tinsley Area

Sabi Akram referred to a recent public meeting held in the Tinsley area to discuss proposals for the building of a new school on part of Tinsley Park. She asked if, following this meeting, the Council still wished to proceed with the proposal and, if so, how could the Council go against its own policy in the Green and Open Spaces Strategy?

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton reported that the Council was required to enter into statutory consultation on the proposals. With the proposals for the new school the Council had been into the community to talk to parents, schools, governors and the local community before the statutory consultation had begun to assess whether to proceed. If the report on the agenda for this meeting was agreed the statutory consultation period would now commence and for new schools this would be 6 weeeks. The planning process also had a statutory consultation requirement.

During the pre-consultation period the local community had put forward alternative proposals and these were being examined by Council officers. However, it was important to note that the Council would not be proposing to build on the playing field site if it was felt that there were more suitable alternatives available within budget restrictions. A Project Group would be established comprising all interested parties and stakeholders to look at all issues during the consultation period.

Councillor Drayton commented that she was proud of Sheffield being the greenest City in the country and wanted to protect that. If part of Tinsley playing field was used for the new school she would look to see if that green space could be replaced elsewhere in the area and would work to create a school design that preserved as much of the recreation site as possible and included multiuse facilities. Further work would be done to assess the concerns raised in the next phase of consultation prior to a final decision being taken and Councillor Drayton was keen to work with the local community to find the most appropriate solution. 

5.7

Public Question in respect of Proposals to Build a New School in the Tinsley Area

Muzajar Rahman referred to his attendance at the last meeting of Cabinet, held on 18 December 2013, to submit a petition opposing plans to build a new school on Tinsley playing field and commented that he had not yet received any feedback to that petition. Mr Rahman also asked why community cohesion had not been considered and why proper consultation had not taken place? He also asked when the request for funding to the Government had been submitted and why no consultation had taken place with the local community at that stage?

In response, Councillor Jackie Drayton commented that it had been a long held wish to build a new school in Tinsley but this had not been possible due to a lack of funding. When funding was made available by the Government for new schools the City Council applied for funding and it was believed that this had been granted. However, when the Government heard that it would be merging the infant and junior schools the granting of funding was withdrawn. Council officers continued to make representations to the Government and it was agreed that money would be made available but only for new places. This still meant a gap in funding which the Council had to find.

Councillor Drayton stated that she would provide a written response confirming the dates and times of the submission to Government. The 6 week consultation period would now commence and she would welcome people’s help in getting access to the whole community.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Office Accomodation

Julie Gledhill asked if the Cabinet were aware that a Sheffield based property consultancy had reported to Insider Media Limited that confidence was returning to Sheffield City Centre’s office market with the amount of Grade A take-up in the last quarter of 2013 more than double the equivalent period in 2012?

Councillor Leigh Bramall and Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council both commented that they were aware and it was extremely welcome and a positive sign for the City.

5.9

Public Question in respect of the Libraries Review

Dave Jefferies referred to the review of libraries which was currently being undertaken in the City. He commented that a consultation that could not result in changes to the original proposals had little value. He therefore asked when the library review consultation was first set up what possibilities of change to the proposals were envisaged?

Councillor Mazher Iqbal, Cabinet Member for Communities and Inclusion, responded that consultation had started in the summer of 2012 and a second round of consultation had commenced in September 2013. It was always envisaged that the consultation results would influence recommendations. All options would be considered. Robust evidence had been provided to support the proposals and the process had been open and transparent throughout.

5.10

Public Question in respect of the Libraries Review

Ruth Woodhouse referred to the meeting of Full Council, held on 8 January 2014, in which she believed she had not received a clear answer to her question on libraries, literacy and the effect the closures would have on children across the City. She therefore asked the following questions:-

·         What does the Council have to say about the effect that closing more than half of our libraries will have on literacy levels and therefore educational results, individual job prospects and quality of life for thousands of children and young people across the City, now and into the future?

·         Have you consulted and done your research on the role of libraries in promoting fluent reading and its benefits, and discussed this in full with the attention and gravity it deserves? If so, what were your conclusions and how is this course of action still being justified? And if you have not, when is this going to happen?

·         Can Council thoughts and conclusions on this topic please be made public for concerned teachers, heads, families, librarians and indeed children who would be affected by the proposed disappearance of their local library?

In responding, Councillor Mazher Iqbal apologised if Ms. Woodhouse believed that he did not answer her question fully at the meeting of Full Council held on 8 January 2014. He informed her that the Council was facing huge cuts to its budget and as a result the library service couldn’t continue as it was. Therefore, a root and branch review of the service was commissioned which had to bear in mind the requirement for the Council to provide a comprehensive and efficient service.

Dialogue with key stakeholders took place in 2012 and the Council was taking on board the views of local people. A number of groups had requested that the Council extend the deadlines so that they could put together a business case and the Council was committed to fighting to keep as many libraries open as it could. Proposals would be discussed at Council meetings including Cabinet and a Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Jackie Drayton added that she believed being literate and articulate was the key to attainment. A lot of work was being undertaken to assist volunteers to go into schools to assist children with their reading. She could see how passionate people were about libraries from the views of those who attended the Council meeting on 8 January 2014. She referred to the Government’s policy of the Big Society and how local communities would be encouraged to run local services which was a clear ideological shift and could be seen in youth services and libraries amongst others.

5.11

Public Question in respect of the Libraries Review

William Hiorns asked a number of technical questions in relation to the review of libraries. In response, Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that he would provide written responses to the questions. The Libraries Act defined what an efficient and comprehensive service should look like. A number of organisations had come forward with business plans which would be considered. Councillor Iqbal did not believe at the end of the process 14 libraries would be shut.

5.12

Public Questions in relation to the World Student Games and the Libraries Review

Peter Hartley submitted a number of questions in relation to the World Student Games and the Libraries Review. Councillor Julie Dore stated that written responses would be provided to Mr Hartley’s questions.

5.13

Public Question in relation to the Drug and Alcohol Co-Ordination Team Commissioning and Procurement Plan

Ayesha Heaton referred to the third recommendation of the report on the Sheffield Drug and Alcohol Co-ordination Team Commissioning and Procurement Plan on the agenda for the meeting which was for Cabinet to approve the parties who will award the contract. She therefore asked how do Cabinet Members or Commissioners intend to secure clinical input into the decision making process for the award of the contract?

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living commented that the report referred to was a very complex report which outlined a number of interventions. Where the Council didn’t have the expertise they would go out to find the experts and would seek advice from the Clinical Commissioning Group amongst others so clinical expertise would be sought.

5.14

Public Question in relation to Selective Licensing

Chris Bryan, owner of a property in the area designated for the Selective Licensing scheme, asked if any social housing providers were able to provide references for tenants that wanted to move to private housing? He also asked if the Council were planning any educational programmes in the area regarding litter?

Councillor Harry Harpham responded that he would need to clarify in terms of data protection whether social housing providers were able to provide references on tenants and would provide a written response to Mr Bryan. Educating people on litter did take place but the Council was always keen to learn best practice from other authorities.

5.15

Public Question in relation to Selective Licensing

Lisa Swift referred to the report on Selective Licensing and the Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA). She commented that it stated that the impact on race of the proposals was high but offered no further explanation. She also believed that the scheme would impact on the Roma community but they were not referred to. She stated that the scheme would increase homelessness and the report did provide information on resources to deal with that problem. Finally, she referred to the statement in the report that it would reduce the number of children under 14 and asked what the impact of this would be for the proposed new school in Fir Vale?

In response, Councillor Harry Harpham commented that the EIA did not reference the Roma community as the scheme was targeted at landlords and he hoped it would prove effective in landlords providing decent, safe, effective housing. The scheme was the result of a response to a request for the Council to do something about the problems in Page Hall. The scheme would not solve all the problems but would help to improve the situation in the area.

Councillor Jackie Drayton added that there would still be enough children in the area to need a new school.

5.16

Public Question in relation to Shale Oil

Nigel Slack asked the following questions in relation to Shale Oil:-

·         Given the Government’s renewed push for shale oil exploitation in the UK and the increased level of ‘bribes’ they are now offering, does the Council know which companies, if any, have been granted licenses to explore for Shale oil deposits beneath Sheffield?

·         Has the Council received any representation from or had any meetings with, formal or otherwise, any exploration companies?

·         Will the Council confirm the commitment, reported on BBC Look North at the beginning of the week, to prevent Fracking within the Sheffield City boundaries?

·         What can the Council then do to prevent the fracking operations in neighbouring Councils, which appear less opposed to the process, from either exploiting reserves beneath Sheffield or impacting on our environment?

In response, Councillor Jack Scott, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene reported that he did not believe any companies had been seeking funding from the Government for any work in Sheffield and he had not had any meetings with exploration companies or planning officers on the issue. He would ensure that he would respond on anything which impacted on Sheffield.

In addition, Councillor Scott commented that he believed the Government should remember that climate change was the biggest threat to society and that gas was a dirty fossil fuel which created carbon dioxide and other options needed to be explored. The only positive from the proposals was the desire to move away from the use of coal but he did not have any confidence in the Government’s proposals. He would ensure that the Council would not act recklessly and endanger people’s lives.

5.17

Public Question in relation to the disclosure of decisions

Nigel Slack referred to a recent decision by the Leader in respect of an amendment to the Streets Ahead contract and asked if the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene could provide any additional information as to the nature of the decision which, if it had been available wouldn’t have required a public question at this meeting. He asked if future decisions could be fully disclosed in the interests of openness and transparency?

In response, Councillor Jack Scott commented that he did not have anything to add to what had already been said on the amendment to the Streets Ahead contract. The administration had a commitment to full disclosure of decisions unless there were legal reasons which were checked with Legal Services and the Chair of the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Julie Dore added that where information may not able to be released this may be down to legal reasons and the Council had to weigh up the cost to the public of not disclosing the information against commercial confidentiality. The Council had been subject to 29 judicial reviews in the last 2 years mostly based on process. Every single one concluded that the Council had disclosed as much as possible and consulted properly so Sheffield had a good reputation in this respect.

5.18

Public Question in respect of Housing

Martin Brighton asked a number of questions in respect of housing. In response, Councillor Harry Harpham stated that a written response would be provided to the questions.