Agenda item

5.1

Public Question in respect of MIPIM Conference

Mr Nigel Slack referred to a recent article in the Guardian newspaper about the MIPM conference. He asked if this was the conference that Councillor Bramall had attended in Cannes and if so would he be attending the one in London? He also asked whether, if he was attending the conference, would Councillor Bramall be under any restrictions about selling off Council housing?

In response Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Environment, commented that the conference referred to in the Guardian article was the UK version of the one he had attended in France. This was the biggest property conference in the world  and it was important that Sheffield was represented there and try to attract investment to the City.

Councillor Bramall confirmed the Council would not sell Council housing off to private companies in the way that the Guardian article suggested. Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, added that even if Sheffield attended the conference with a particular product to promote, such as the New Retail Quarter, there would still be a proper process to go through before development could commence.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Contracts

Nigel Slack referred to item 8 on the agenda for the meeting ‘Grounds Maintenance and Estate Services Review’ which he commented was surprisingly good reading for those concerned about the City’s past history of outsourcing decisions. He was also encouraged by the fact that the ‘customer first’ weighting equalled that of ‘value for money’. He therefore asked whether this weighting would be applied to all future contracting decisions, whether currently outsourced or not? How might this affect contracts that were due for renewal but where the Council no longer had the capacity to bring those services in-house?

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that those kind of considerations were factored into every contract and it would depend on the nature of the contract/ For example if a contract was based on an internally focused service the needs of the Council Tax payer would not necessarily be taken into consideration. Service quality was factored in and contracts were not always necessarily awarded to the cheapest tender.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Treatment of a Citizen

Mr Martin Brighton asked what the Council’s policy was when Councillors denigrated a targeted citizen to that citizen’s peers, whose minds were then manipulated by those Councillors, so as to humiliate, demonise, disempower and isolate?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that the Council had a Code of Conduct and Members need to abide by it. Mr Brighton needed to be specific in reporting any such incidents as if any breaches of the Code were brought to the attention of Members they would be dealt with.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Recognition of Community Groups

Martin Brighton asked who had the ultimate say when deciding whether a community group was recognised by the Council – the Council or the people of the community?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that there were two different types of groups in this instance. Tenants and Residents Groups (TARAs) who would be recognised via the Council’s TARA Recognition Policy. Each TARA would have a constitution. If a particular estate wished to establish a TARA they could approach the Council and the due process would be followed. If recognised they would then have to follow the Council’s policies and procedures and would be derecognised if they didn’t.

The second group was community groups who were groups with a particular interest and with which the Council often had regular dialogue with and were more than happy to engage with where required.

5.5

Public Question in respect of TARA Recognition Policy

Martin Brighton asked why, given that the TARA Recognition Policy had been repeatedly rejected by the TARAs, was it being imposed under threat of derecognition?

Councillor Dore responded that she understood that most TARA’s had accepted the Recognition Policy and had taken steps to adapt to it. However, she would ask Councillor Harry Harpham, Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods to provide a written response.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Sheffield Homes Rent Payment Cards

Martin Brighton asked why tenants were still using Sheffield Homes rent payment cards?

Councillor Dore commented that there were two different types of card and an explanation would be sent to Mr Brighton of their purpose.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Recall for Councillors

Martin Brighton asked that, given that Councillors generally supported the principle of recall for MPs, what objection can there be for recall to be applied to Councillors?

Councillor Dore commented that she believed in general most Councillors would agree that they supported the idea in principle. She would have no objection for it to be applied to Councillors if it became a proposal of Government.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Area Housing Managers

Martin Brighton asked why Area Housing Managers were arbitrarily deemed to be clinical psychologists whose opinion about the alleged state of mind of a targeted citizen was considered as evidence of criminal behaviour requiring sanction and prejudice?

Councillor Dore commented that Area Housing Managers were not clinical psychologists. She would not expect any members of staff to make clinical judgements about members of the public. If Mr Brighton had evidence of that being used as an excuse in the way individuals were treated she would like to be made aware of it.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Policy Documents

Martin Brighton asked whether the Council held any policy documents that the public were not allowed to see? (and if so, what were they?)

Councillor Dore stated that there were no policy documents that the public were not allowed to see. If something was Council policy she wanted as many people as possible to see the documents. It was important for Members to make clear to the public what the Council’s policies were.

5.10

Public Question in respect of ERDF Funding

Martin Brighton asked what decisions had been made with respect to the latest tranche of ERDF millions (LEP and anti-poverty and match funds) to the region, and where were the documents demonstrating prior consultation and consent of those affected by the EU financed projects?

Councillor Dore responded that issues related to ERDF funding was led by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). Initial consultation by the Government had taken place and more was due to take place up to 2015. The programme would probably not start for another 18 months.