Agenda item

5.1

Petitions

5.1.1

Petition Requesting Additional Road Safety Measures on Church Street, Ecclesfield

The Council received a petition containing 93 signatures requesting additional road safety measures on Church Street, Ecclesfield.

On behalf of the petitioners, David Banham addressed the Council. He stated that there was concern at the heavy traffic on Church Street, Ecclesfield and adjoining thoroughfares. Pedestrians had to cross Church Street to gain access to Priory Road and facilities such as the village hall and the church, in which a range of activities took place for young people and older people. Traffic volumes were particularly high between 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm and vehicle speeds were also of concern. Pedestrians and school children found it difficult to cross the road. There were a high number of heavy goods vehicles using the road and which travelled to and from the motorway. A site visit to the area would confirm the risk to safety. Whilst the restrictions on funding were recognised, it was requested that road markings and signs be used to help manage the problems outlined by the petition.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, the Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene. Councillor Dunn stated that the issues outlined would be examined further, although this would be within the Council’s budgetary limitations.

5.1.2

Petition Objecting to the Plans to Remove Grit Bins and Requesting the Full Restoration of the Volunteer Snow Warden Project

The Council received a petition containing 128 signatures objecting to the plans to remove grit bins and requesting the full restoration of the volunteer Snow Warden Project.

On behalf of the petitioners, Harry Matthews addressed the Council. He stated that the Council had reversed its decision to reduce gritting routes prior to Christmas. He said that grit bins were to be removed and residents had not been informed. He asked how seriously the Council was taking the issue and the concerns of residents and asked that it now listened to them.

The Council referred the petition to Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene.

5.1.3

Public Question Concerning the Snow Warden Scheme

Alison Zwaard stated that she believed that the snow warden scheme was a very good City initiative. She had nominated herself to be a snow warden and in previous periods of winter weather, residents on her street had joined together to grit the road. People were prepared to do their bit to contribute and make the roads passable. Amey took over the operation of the Streets Ahead and winter services and she had been told that the Snow Warden Scheme had been disbanded following consultation. She said that she had not been consulted. When she contacted the Streets Ahead service, she had been informed that a grit bin would be located on her road, although it had not materialised.  She asked when the Council would re-instate the Snow Warden Scheme.

Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene responded to the petition and the question. She stated that the Council had not stopped the Snow Warden Scheme. There were now she said, 600 Snow Wardens across the City and she personally thanked them for what they did. A review of winter services had started and the provision of grit bins formed part of that review. The Council had responded to the winter conditions and had reinstated the gritting routes, which had been removed by a previous decision.

5.2

Public Questions

5.2.1

Public Question Concerning Questions to Full Council

Martin Brighton stated that “questions put to Full Council have been parried with unnecessary requests to provide information, with promises to respond at some later time. Information has been duly provided, yet is ignored, and there is still no response. This chamber is given the impression that citizens’ questions are being dealt with, when in fact they are not.” Mr Brighton asked: why is this happening?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that she would answer this question and Mr Brighton’s later question in writing. She stated that she remembered that Mr Brighton had previously alleged that a Council officer had made a clinical diagnosis about his mental state and that she had said that this was not acceptable. She said to Mr Brighton that, in the same way, he should not do that to her.

5.2.2

Public Questions Concerning Area Housing Forum Meetings and Housing and Neighbourhoods Advisory Panel (HANAP) Meetings

Mr Brighton asked the following questions concerning Openness and Accountability:

1.    Why has the facility for citizens’ questions been removed from Area Housing Forum Meetings?

2.    At what meeting was this change to Council policy debated and approved by elected members?

3.    At what meeting was the proposal to change the Council policy given prior consultation and consent from tenants?

4.    Who authorised the change?

5.    Why are citizens not allowed to attend HANAP meetings as observers, or ask Citizen’s questions?

6.    At what meeting was this change to Council policy debated and approved by elected members?

7.    At what meeting was the proposal to change the Council policy given prior consultation and consent from tenants?

8.    Who authorised the change?

Councillor Harry Harpham, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods responded that the Area Housing Forum Meetings were not public meetings and there were therefore no public questions. Other meetings and fora did exist where people were encouraged to participate and ask questions. There had been no change in policy regarding the Area Housing Forum meetings. With regard to meetings of HANAP, there were no public questions at that particular body. This was to help manage time at those meetings. In relation to Mr Brighton’s other questions, Councillor Harpham stated that there had not been any change in policy.

5.2.3

Public Question Concerning ‘Coercive Control’

Martin Brighton asked the Council to please note that:

1.    Coercive Control applied by Council officers upon community volunteers does not constitute consultation or consent.

2.    Where there is collective near unanimous rejection of a council proposal, Council-claimed consent by isolating and intimidating individual community volunteers is not consent

3.    Where the Council continues with the proposals, having decided before consultation took place, and despite the rejection, the methods for falsely claiming consent are in fact forms of Corporate abuse and deceit.

Mr Brighton asked: why are Council officers continuing to deride this citizen?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, responded that she would answer the questions in writing.

5.2.4

Public Questions Concerning Public Questions

Marcus O’Hagan asked the following questions:

What form of question does the Council require and in what forum should they be put to for those questions to fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

When is the Council going to debate the issue or clarify in public that questions asked in this chamber and also put in writing and followed up by requests for clarification do not fall under the FIOA?

When will this Council provide citizens with clear written guidance as to what recourse they have when questions (made in writing in this and other Council meetings) are not answered even when followed up with a request (in writing) for a review of any unsatisfactory answer?

The Council has made claims to the Information Commissioner that the purpose of public questions is to “engage” the public by allowing them access to the Council and their business. If this was genuine wouldn’t the Council answer the questions asked?

Has this Council forgotten that its members are representatives of the people and its officers are servants of the people and have duties of openness, honesty and integrity in that regard?

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council, thanked Mr O’Hagan for submitting questions in writing in advance of the Council meeting. She said that she understood that Mr O’Hagan had been written to, in order to explain the situation with regard to public questions put in the Chamber and the decision of the Information Commissioner’s Office that such questions do not constitute a request for information. If he wished to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act, then he should write to the Council, stating what information he wanted. Such a request would constitute a Freedom of Information request.

Councillor Dore stated that the Council was not going to debate the issue of public questions and Freedom of Information. Questions asked in meetings including Council and Cabinet did not constitute requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Council had written to Mr O’Hagan to explain how to ask a public question and with regard to requests under Freedom of Information. The avenues of recourse which were open to someone included contacting the Information Commissioner, making a complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Council’s complaints procedure, with potential recourse to the Local Government Ombudsman. The information was also available on the Council’s website.

The purpose of public questions was to engage with the public. Many local authorities did not run a public question time in the same format as was done in Sheffield. For example, in some councils, written questions had to be submitted a week in advance of a council meeting. In Sheffield, other opportunities for public questions and engagement included Cabinet, Scrutiny Committees, Local Area meetings and Cabinet in the Community. The opportunity for public questions was not something that the Council had to do.

Councillor Dore stated that Members had not forgotten that they were representatives of the people.

5.2.5

Public Question Concerning Alcohol Licenses

Nigel Slack referred to a question which had asked at the meeting of Cabinet 17 December 2014 concerning the number of planning permissions granted in the past 5 years for the 'local' or 'metro' brands of the big four supermarkets (Asda, Morrison’s, Sainsbury's, Tesco).

He stated that he was grateful to Councillor Bramall for his admission that the planning process cannot identify new permissions granted according to specific use or user and stated that perhaps this is something for future consideration, but that he would like to try and gather the information another way.

He said that each of the stores involved (Asda, Morrison’s, Sainsbury's, and Tesco) will undoubtedly have applied for Alcohol Licenses and asked how many new licenses had been granted to these stores over the last five years?

Councillor Leigh Bramall, the Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, responded that Council officers had tried to provide a response to Mr Slack and in so doing, he believed that they had provided some incorrect information. He said that he would write to Mr Slack.

5.2.6

Public Question Concerning Sheffield City Region Growth Deal

Nigel Slack stated that under item 8 on the agenda for this meeting of the Council, he noted that that the City is getting a little more detail on what has been referred to as the 'devolution' deal for the City Region. He thanked Councillor Dore or the Chief Executive for titling this as the 'Sheffield City Region Growth Deal' and therefore putting it in the right perspective in terms of this economic deal's difference from real devolution.

He commented that there were some good aspects to this deal, at least for the private enterprise part of our economy, if not so much for public services and stated that two areas of concern stood out at this time.

Mr Slack asked how much is the 'Housing' deal worth to the City region and will any of that be available to provide 'Social Housing' run either by Councils or Housing Associations?

He stated that the 'Employment' deal commits the City Region to discuss the potential for being joint commissioners for the 'work programme' supported by the harmful sanctions regime. He asked will the Council confirm that it will not enter into any agreement concerning this part of the 'Growth Deal' without extensive consultation with the public.

Councillor Julie Dore, the Leader of the Council responded and stated that the City Region Growth Deal was an item on the agenda for this meeting of the Council and she hoped that Mr Slack was able to stay for that item of business. The Chair and Chief Executive of the Combined Authority would be in attendance for that item.

She commented that it was important to note what was not in the deal. Housing and employment were mentioned in the deal. There was not a financial sum as such attached to the deal. Unlike in Manchester, the concept of a Metro Mayor and governance model was not included. The Government had agreed to work with the City Region towards growth in respect of housing and employment. The housing deal would be delivered in partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency and the strategic plan for housing in the region would be co-developed. At the present time, individual providers of social housing (including the Council) made bids to develop housing to the Homes and Communities Agency. However, the City Region was saying that it wanted to determine such matters in partnership with the Homes and Communities Agency. There was a need for more social housing. 

Councillor Dore stated that in relation to employment, the work programme was a term used for programmes to get people into work. However, it was accepted that the Government’s Work Programme was unsuccessful and there was a wish to redevelop the programme in a way that suited the Sheffield City Region. Such a programme would not include the harmful sanctions regime to which Mr Slack referred. In summary the Growth Deal was just that, ‘a deal’ and not a settlement.