Agenda item

5.1

Petition Requesting the Grant of a Lease on Land Currently Held on License by the Hanover Tenants Association

Andrew Woodhead submitted a petition, containing 7 signatures, on behalf of the Hanover Tenants Association requesting the granting of a lease on land currently held on license by the Hanover Tenants Association.

He commented that, with over £20,000 of external funding, the Association had transformed an area of land at the rear of Upper Hanover Street and Broomhall Street in the ownership of Sheffield City Council, into a community allotment with 25 raised beds, a container for safe storage and a greenhouse.

The site had public access 24 hours a day and had no fences or gates. No window in the greenhouse had been broken since the scheme was started in 2010/11. The Association now wished to develop the project further. To do this they needed to change the license to use, into a lease to prove to potential funders that they would be able to occupy the site throughout any grant funded periods required.

This request to change a license to use, into a formal 10 or 15 year lease held by the Hanover Tenants Association had been turned down by officers of the Council. They were thereby petitioning the Council to grant the Association a lease so that, should they choose to do so, the Association could develop the project further for the benefit and good of the community.

Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that the land had development potential and had been marked in the Council’s Development Plan for housing use. The lease had been granted on a temporary basis pending an upswing in the housing market. He knew the area well and could see the social benefits of granting the Associations request. He was hopeful therefore that an agreement of some kind could be reached with the Association. He would arrange a meeting with Mr Woodhead and key officers in the New Year.

Councillor Harry Harpham, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods, reported that he had received a briefing on the issue. There did not seem to him to be any reason why the Associations request could not be granted. He had therefore instructed officers to make it happen and a response would be provided in the very near future.

5.1

Public Question in respect of Public Questions

Marcus O’Hagan reported that he had received a letter from the Information Commissioner regarding questions he had asked at a number of Council meetings in January and February 2014. The letter had stated that these questions did not fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr O’Hagan commented that he felt bullied and tricked by the Council and believed that they had deliberately not answered questions to protect their own position particularly in respect of libraries. He commented that the Council claimed it was committed to openness and transparency but all public questions were now excluded from Scrutiny.

John Mothersole, Chief Executive, reported that the Council had not made the Information Commissioner make any decision. It was an independent body who made its own decision.

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, reported that the reason the Council had sought a decision from the Information Commissioner was that numerous questions had been asked in the Council Chamber as to whether public questions came under the Freedom of Information Act so there was a need to clarify the position. The Information Commissioner had independently stated that public questions did not come under the Freedom of Information Act and the Council therefore needed to take this on board.

Councillor Dore further stated that she always tried to answer every question put to her and never deliberately avoided any question and the same could be said of other Cabinet Members. She asked Mr O’Hagan to send her all the questions which he believed had not been answered by the end of the week and he would receive a response.

5.2

Public Question in respect of Changes to Policy and Procedure

Martin Brighton asked what changes had the Council approved, if any, to its policy, procedure and practice, where, if questions were asked by citizens at meetings such as Full Council or Cabinet, then (i) both questions and answers are included in the minutes of the meeting, (ii) if the questions cannot be answered, an officer is assigned to provide the information (which also becomes part of the public record), (iii) the questions, if they are for information within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act, are treated as requests for information, for which the Freedom of Information Act applies. If there had been any approved changes, could details be provided and it be stated at what public meetings of Elected Members these changes were consulted upon, debated and approved. If there had not been any approved changes, why had Mr Brighton’s questions put to Full Council not been processed in the usual and accepted manner?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that it was extremely difficult to look back through every change to policy and procedure and identify where they came from. All changes were authorised one way or another and the Leaders Scheme of Delegation identified where all decisions were made and this would show who had the authority to make changes. If Mr Brighton could identify any specific examples a response would be provided. If a policy was being reviewed this would remain as was until the review was completed.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Public Questions at Council Meetings

Martin Brighton commented that recently released documents showing agendas for public meetings now omitted the accepted standard item ‘Questions from Members of the Public.’ Had Council policy changed such that the item was now to be excluded from the public meetings where the facility for the public to ask questions had been in practice for years? If there had been change could details please be provided? If there had not been any changes would the Council please ensure that the standard agenda item was restored?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that most public meetings of the Council had items for public questions with the exception of some meetings where it wasn’t appropriate such as planning or licensing. If Mr Brighton had evidence that this wasn’t the case he needed to provide the examples.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Changes to Policies and Procedures

Martin Brighton asked for policy, procedure and practice changes, was it not implicit in the months of management of the Review and Change implementation process that the existing policies, procedures and practices remained in place until such time as their replacements were approved by the appropriate mechanism (i.e. at Full Council). Examples included Terms of Reference for membership of meetings, and Code of Conduct at Council meetings.

Councillor Dore commented that this had been answered under Mr Brighton’s first question.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Public Meetings

Martin Brighton commented that in his local area there had been repeated and ongoing attempts by a Council supported person to have him excluded from public meetings. He therefore asked if Council policy had changed and if so could details be provided? If Council policy had not changed, why was no action taken against any person who constantly called for a member of the public to be removed? Was an imaginary and highly personal excuse for wanting a person to be removed from a sufficient reason to claim ‘conflict of interest’ against a member of the public for justifying removal, even though the stated reason for wanting the member of the public removed had no association whatsoever with any of the agenda items for the meeting? Could the Council also clarify the policy with respect to exclusion of people from meetings on the grounds of a declared ‘conflict of interest’?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she had always stated that members of the public would only be asked to leave a meeting if they were behaving inappropriately or offensively. The Chair of a meeting had a right to remove someone from a meeting but this was only in exceptional circumstances.

Councillor Dore further referred to an additional issue raised by Mr Brighton and requested that he highlight where this was occurring and she would respond accordingly.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Minutes of Meetings

Nigel Slack commented that he would like to draw Members attention to the difference between the idea of a ‘true record’ and ‘complete record’. Minutes were designed to reflect a true record of decisions made in the Council’s meeting. It is also clear that they can never be a complete record of the goings on. In the minutes of the full Council meeting of 5^th November 2014, Councillor Bramall’s answer to Mr Slack’s question omitted the word ‘transparent’. Would the Council undertake to try and help those preparing minutes ensure the record is in the spirit as well as the truth of the participants contributions?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she believed Members did that. They approved the minutes of the meeting and checked them closely and did occasionally request changes to better reflect the spirit of what was said. If Mr Slack noticed any specific examples he should let Members know and there would be the opportunity to amend at the next meeting.

5.7

Public Question in respect of Streets Ahead Contract

Nigel Slack referred to a statement released by Unite on 1^st December 2014 concerning the transferring of workers from Council terms and conditions (under TUPE) to place them on Amey’s own. What was the Council’s view on this move by Amey and the effect on the Streets Ahead contract?

Councillor Ben Curran responded that, if there were any changes to employee’s terms and conditions this was a matter for the employer, staff and the Trade Unions. The Council did have dialogue with Amey and other contractors and had challenged contractors on issues in the past and worked on resolutions. The terms and conditions for Council staff were fit for purpose and adequate. In terms of the impact on the Amey contract, the Council would expect Amey to fulfil their contractual requirements. Mr Slack should email Councillor Jayne Dunn, Cabinet Member for Environment, Recycling and Streetscene if he required any further information.

5.8

Public Question in respect of Derelict Buildings

Nigel Slack referred to a website he had seen which illustrated some of the fascinating derelict buildings in the City. Some of those illustrated were listed buildings like the old Town Hall/Court House. Mr Slack was concerned that with the cuts to Council budgets these listed buildings may be starting to suffer as the old Citadel building suffered from serious neglect by their owners. He therefore asked how often were listed buildings inspected and, in the last year, how many owners had been compelled to undertake remedial work on these buildings?

Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, reported that he would confirm the specific detail in due course. The Council did keep a record of the listed buildings deemed at risk as defined by English Heritage. The Council did keep undertake checks through its conservation officers. However, the Council had limited powers to enforce the upkeep of buildings. The cuts had made a difference as developers were less likely to develop buildings due to lack of funding so old buildings sat there longer.

5.9

Public Question in respect of Devolution

Nigel Slack asked, now that the ‘Heads of Terms’ for the City region deal had been agreed, when and how will the citizens of the City get an opportunity to see and be consulted on about the detail of the deal? Will the Council ask the people for consent before a decision is finally made?

Councillor Julie Dore commented that she didn’t see the recent agreement with the Government as a deal but a stage in a long term process. The agreement was mainly around economic infrastructure and skills. She saw the next stage as devolving powers which affected people’s lives on a day to day basis. Currently the Council had control of only 18% of what was spent in the City. Obtaining control of the economic drivers to help rebuild the economy in the north was the next best step in the journey.

The Government set the timetable so it was not possible to consult with the public. However, if the Council believed parts of the deal were not acceptable or contentious they would argue the case. She believed the Deputy Prime Minister had ‘jumped the gun’ and had lost the opportunity to explain what the deal meant to people on a daily basis. It was a good deal for Sheffield, however, and the administration would continue to negotiate with any future Government on devolution.

5.10

Public Question in respect of Supermarkets

Nigel Slack asked how many planning permissions had been granted in the last five years for the ‘local’ or ‘metro’ brands of the big four supermarkets (Asda, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco)?

Councillor Leigh Bramall responded that the Council did not categorise particular supermarkets there was a general retail classification so it was doubtful that that information could be provided. However, he acknowledged that there were a lot more than there used to be.