Decisions

11.1

The Director of Policy, Performance & Communications, submitted a report setting out the issues caused by the local authority boundary alignment between Barnsley MBC and Sheffield City Council at Oughtibridge Mill, and seeking approval for a request to be made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to conduct a formal boundary review. The report also sought approval for the development of interim arrangements for service delivery to the properties in the Oughtibridge Mill development for the period up to completion of that review.

11.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

(a) delegates authority to the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications, in consultation with the Deputy Leader and the Director of Legal and Governance, to request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to conduct a review of the Sheffield and Barnsley boundary where it cuts through the residential development site at the former Oughtibridge Paper Mill; and

(b) delegates authority to the Director of Policy, Performance and Communications, in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance and Deputy Leader, to conduct negotiations towards an appropriate temporary agreement with Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Bradfield Parish Council about the delivery of local government services to properties on the Barnsley side of the development ahead of this review being completed and enacted, the outcome of negotiations to be the subject of a further report.

11.3

Reasons for Decision

 A review of the local authority boundary at Oughtibridge Mill is the only approach that will solve questions around effective service delivery and democratic representation for both the local authorities and the parish council. The intended outcome is that the whole development is brought within the Sheffield boundary.

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

There are two alternative options available:

1.  Agree that Sheffield City Council (SCC) and Barnsley MBC (BMBC) will continue to deliver services to residents within their respective boundaries, accepting this will present logistical challenges to BMBC and that residents may choose to access services in Sheffield. This option would avoid the need for a boundary review process, and responsibility for service delivery would on the face of it be clear. However, it is clear from the discussion outlined in the report that it is likely that a combination of citizens “voting with their feet” and individual services addressing specific issues through ad hoc arrangements would ensue, leading to a complex patchwork of arrangements that could be confusing for residents, especially in comparison to arrangements in the rest of the local community. This in turn would then raise questions of representation and accountability through elected members, and also around the connection between taxation and service delivery.

2.  Reach a long-term contractual agreement for SCC to deliver some or all services to the development on BMBC’s behalf. As above, this would avoid the need for a boundary review, and would also enable a clearer relationship between residency and service delivery arrangements. However, it would also raise questions about representation, with residents on the BMBC side of the boundary unable to elect councillors to the authority that delivers services to them. It would also be an arrangement that required monitoring and review on a regular basis, imposing additional administration costs on services. Beyond this, council tax rates are set at different levels for SCC and BMBC, meaning that it is not necessarily clear that SCC could be appropriately compensated under this arrangement.

Beyond these points, it is critical to note that neither of these options addresses the issues faced by the Parish Council. These can only be addressed through a boundary review.

11.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

11.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

11.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

James Henderson, Director of Policy, Performance & Communications

11.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

10.1

The Executive Director, Resources, submitted a report providing the outturn monitoring statement on the City Council’s Revenue and Capital Budget for 2020/21, as at 30^th September 2020.

10.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

(a) notes the updated information and management actions provided by the report on the 2020/21 Revenue Budget Outturn;

(b) in relation to the Capital Programme, notes the forecast Outturn position described in Appendix 2; and

(c) notes the review of the Treasury Management Strategy and prudential indicators as detailed in Appendix 3.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

To record formally changes to the Revenue Budget and the Capital

Programme.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

A number of alternative courses of action are considered as part of the process undertaken by Officers before decisions are recommended to Members. The recommendations made to Members represent what Officers believe to be the best options available to the Council, in line with Council priorities, given the constraints on funding and the use to which funding is put within the Revenue Budget and the Capital Programme.

10.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

10.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

10.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Eugene Walker, Executive Director, Resources

10.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

9.1

The Executive Director, Resources, submitted a report providing details of proposed changes to the Capital Programme as brought forward in Month 6 2020/21.

9.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet approves the proposed additions and variations to the Capital Programme listed in Appendix 1 of the report, including the procurement strategies and delegates authority to the Director of Finance and Commercial Services or nominated Officer, as appropriate, to award the necessary contracts.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The proposed changes to the Capital Programme will improve the services to the people of Sheffield.

9.3.2

To formally record changes to the Capital Programme and gain Member approval for changes in line with Financial Regulations and to reset the Capital Programme in line with latest information.

9.3.3

To obtain the relevant delegations to allow projects to proceed.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

A number of alternative courses of action are considered as part of the process undertaken by Officers before decisions are recommended to Members. The recommendations made to Members represent what Officers believe to be the best options available to the Council, in line with Council priorities, given the constraints on funding and the use to which funding is put within the Revenue Budget and the Capital Programme.

9.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

9.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

9.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Eugene Walker, Executive Director, Resources

9.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee

12.1

The Executive Director, Place, submitted a report setting out the details of the revised Statement of Licensing Policy to be published under the 2003 Act and detailing the consultation process that has been undertaken.

The report also sought approval to the final draft of the Statement of Licensing Policy and for it to be referred to Full Council.

12.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet approves the Statement of Licensing Policy for referral to Full Council on 2nd December 2020.

12.3

Reasons for Decision

To comply with statutory obligations and in doing so promote the core objectives under the Licensing Act, and positively support the wider Council’s vision to promote a successful, safe and flourishing economy in the City of Sheffield.

12.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

There were no alternative options presented in the report.

12.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

12.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

12.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Laraine Manley, Executive Director, Place

12.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee

(NOTE: This is subject to approval at Full Council at its meeting to be held on 2

December 2020 and is not subject to call-in).