The Public Interest

Saturday, 12 December 2015

Devolution Scrutiny – Challenging? No! - by Nigel Slack

As I trailed in my last article here, there was a short notice meeting of the city's Overview & Management Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 10th December. The sole item on the agenda being the proposed devolution deal that is currently in it's public consultation phase.

The agenda reports, giving the committee the background to the deal they were scrutinising, were entirely positive about the intention and content of the proposal. Before the meeting I commented on this to all the members of the committee and was assured, in an e-mail from the Chair that they would “be able to play a role in providing a constructive challenge.“ I was to be sadly disappointed.

The agenda did not include the fact that the meeting would be taking 'evidence' from a range of speakers, all of which were supportive of the deal. Not a single dissenting voice was heard by the committee. They heard from John Mothersole (Sheffield City Council Chief Executive), Julie Dore (Leader of the City Council), Steve Houghton (Chair of the City Region Combined Authority & Leader of Barnsley Council), Martin McKirby (Representing the Local Enterprise Partnership) and a representative from the Centre for Cities, whose name I missed as the chair kept forgetting to use the microphone.

At the first hurdle therefore, I feel the exercise failed. The evidence put before the committee was unbalanced in a most outrageous way. In a public question before the main part of the meeting I did put forward a short comment on the evidence of the Assembly North conlusions on the deal. They wanted the deal substantially renegotiated and including fiscal autonomies. They would reject the deal as it stands and they were against the imposition of the Mayor for the City region.

The Assembly was delivered by the Electoral Reform Society together with academics from the University of Sheffield, the University of Southampton, the University of London and the University of Westminster. They were Supported by a team of experts from previous Canadian, Irish and Scottish assemblies supported by a team of experts from previous Canadian, Irish and Scottish assemblies. The participants for Assembly North were selected on a semi-random basis by an independent polling company and drawn from throughout the Sheffield City Region.

Despite this rigorous academic and fair approach, John Mothersole characterised the Assembly as “an invitation only event”. This is a level of dissembling that I consider beneath him and demeaning to the efforts of the Assembly staff, the academics and the participants. Steve Houghton commented later, that the only negative things he heard about the proposed deal were in respect of the Mayor. Having been at the Assembly, when he was being questioned by the participants, I would have to disagree with that statement as well. So the 'spin' doctors were in full effect.

Next we must ask whether the committee members challenged the proposed deal effectively? It is true that each member of the committee asked at least one question but their was an element of repetition, with two main concerns being to the fore. Sue Alston (LibDem), Steve Ayris (LibDem) and Jack Scott (Lab) questioned the role of the non-constituent councils and the awkward geography involving County Councils. The response was that these councils were certainly supportive of the new amendment that would allow them to become constituent members of the CA without their County's assent and that some may choose to exercise this option.

Steve Ayris, Jack Scott and Chris Rosling-Josephs (Lab) asked about different aspects of the Mayoral model and the Mayor's Veto. The response to these questions has essentially been in the public arena since Cllr Dore's press release last week stating her opposition to the mayoral veto and her willingness to stop supporting the deal if no resolution was forthcoming. Somewhat wasted questions really.

Beyond those two obvious aspects of the deal the remaining questions were on disparate issues. From Aoden Marken (Green) asking about the 'best argument against accepting the deal?', none apparently. Geoff Smith, Jack Scott and Aoden Marken, were concerned over the lack of detail in the proposal (Jack Scott implied 37 areas of clarification needed) and how the continued negotiations would be communicated to the public. The response was along the lines of 'trust us to sort it out', though not in so many words. John Mothersole did admit that all the detail would not be resolved in time for the Council's decision deadline in February.

Geoff Smith and Jack Scott questioned some of the economic basics, are we being set up to fail? And concern that business rates as a measure of economic success is potentially troublesome. (successful areas can end up with lower rates returns as the types of business change) There was some agreement with this but, oddly, not an area that is highlighted for inclusion in the committee's response to the deal.

Generally therefore some interesting questions but challenging? hardly. Questions on the Mayoral model are playing to the supporter's strong suit and are already in the public mind. Questions on the Regional geography were there but were not followed through, in other words no-one asked, what are the financial impacts of Districts that choose to opt in to the CA, will they add money to the pot or be a drain on resources? On business rates there was some comment but no-one questioned the impact of the region only receiving 100% of the business rates for new rateable businesses 'beyond those already forecast'. What is the current forecast? what is needed to exceed that?

In addition there was no comment on a number of areas that I find particularly troubling. The City Region will be responsible for implementing the 'workfare' scheme on behalf of the DWP, who will still have strong influence on the design of the scheme and who are well placed to reduce their “funding envelope” leaving the CA to top up the funding deficit. The protocol for borrowing against the £900M is not detailed, could this be a new PFI disaster? Most worrying though is paragraph 61. which, despite assurances that the individual council's powers will be safeguarded, states “The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to set out their proposals to HM Government for how local resources and funding will be pooled across the city region.” suggesting to me formal amalgamation of some services under the CA and away from local council's.

Overall, therefore, the scrutiny did not fulfil the Chair's hope of it being challenging and with over an hour of the meeting devoted solely to statements by the five supportive witnesses, the committee were unable to deal with the matter in any detail or depth. I can only urge people to engage with the public consultation (click here), and you will hopefully provide the challenge that the OMSC did not.

Monday, 7 December 2015

Sheffield Devolution – The Merry Go Round.

The resemblance between the proposed devolution deal for the Sheffield City Region and a fairground roundabout has become more evident as time goes by.

The public consultation on the 'deal' is finally underway and it is being presented to the public covered in bright lights, gaudy new paint and upbeat loud music. Like a merry go round, however, the deal seems to be constantly shifting, of uncertain safety and already some people are thinking about jumping off.

The devolution proposal was signed by the Chancellor and various local leaders in October. At this stage Osborne made it look like a done deal but local Council leaders have always maintained the 'proposed' deal status in their meetings. Following the signing of the proposal I read the document quite carefully and published, on this blog, my initial concerns and comments about the potential pitfalls of the devolution deal here.

Although this article contained many comments, my biggest concerns were over the imposition of an 'elected Mayor' for the Region and the apparent power of veto that the Mayor would wield within the Combined Authority. I raised these concerns at the next meeting of the City Region Combined Authority. Before the meeting officials suggested that the way the agreement was written might be interpreted as a Mayoral veto but that this was not the intention and would be clarified in the further negotiations.

In fact I asked three questions and the minuted answers can be found here. The second of my questions asked about the consultation process and the timescale. This was proposed to start on the 16th November and finish after five weeks. Fortunately, prior to that there was a unique opportunity for the public to get an early say on the deal and the alternatives.

Over two weekends, 17th &18th October and 7th &8th November the Assembly North, a pilot 'citizens assembly was being conducted by Democracy Matters , a partnership of four universities and the Electoral Reform Society. The lead researcher was Professor Matt Flinders of the Crick Centre of the University of Sheffield.

Over those two weekends the participants, chosen by an independent polling organisation and representative of the four South Yorkshire council areas, were treated to a hothouse atmosphere, listening to various experts and advocates, myself included, about different forms of devolution. They debated amongst themselves, facilitated by Democracy Matters volunteers, and finally took a series of votes on the potential devolution prospects for the region.

The Assembly's initial conclusions are detailed in the press release here and the results may have knocked a little of the shine off the merry go rounds message. Apart from asking for more extensive devolution than the deal allows, the Assembly also voted two to one against accepting the current deal. A vote also came out strongly against the Mayoral model. This despite receiving strong positive pitches from John Mothersole (Chief Exec Sheffield City Council), Sir Steve Houghton (Chair of the City Region Combined Authority & Leader of Barnsley Borough Council) and Mike Emmerich (Founding Director at Metro Dynamics Limited) who currently advises other combined authorities about their devolution deals.

Since then the formal public consultation has been an on again off again affair. It certainly didn't arrive on the 16th November as promised. By the 29th November there were conflicting suggestions that it might start on the 1st December. On that date the consultation made a brief appearance on websites for the City Region and on the City Council's 'consultation hub' but, by the evening, had disappeared again.

The consultation formally went live on the 2nd December, yet on the same date in answer to a question at Full Council from me and supported by a press release the same day, Sheffield's support for the deal came under doubt. It seems the concerns I had raised early on were also being felt within the leadership. The leader of the Council, Julie Dore has always maintained her opposition to the Mayoral model for the Region but was willing to accept the imposition from Government if the deal was good enough.

Now, however, the potential for a Mayoral veto on Regional decisions is sharply in focus and they are reportedly in renewed negotiations with the Government to amend this part of the deal. Cllr Dore has gone so far as to state that she cannot support the deal if the Mayoral veto stays. The report on this new stance from the BBC here.

The latest spin on the devolution merry go round is a single issue meeting of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on Thursday 10 December 2015 4.00 pm in the Town Hall. This committee's role includes “Lead the scrutiny of high level cross-cutting and city-wide issues.” They will therefore use this meeting to discuss and come to some conclusion about the devolution deal. The agenda for the meeting is here. I would urge anyone who is about on Thursday, that can, to attend the meeting and see the Council's scrutiny function in action.

They will look to answer two broad questions;
What are the potential benefits of the proposed devolution agreement for Sheffield and the City Region?
What additional powers are required from Government to generate the economic impact we are seeking?
These questions and the background papers attached to the agenda are unremittingly positive about the deal and none of the concerns or pitfalls, apparent to many of us, are provided for balance.

More curious for me is, how is it possible address and scrutinise this deal when the detail is so vague and with large parts of it subject to further negotiation? The committee could end up supporting or opposing a 'deal' which bears no resemblance to the final outcome. It will be interesting to see.

I continue to have huge reservations about any devolution deal that has been negotiated in secret, imposes any model of governance that we, the public, have not been able to have a say on via the ballot box and that is being pushed through at breakneck speed for Government and the Chancellor's own reasons.

The deal however is here and we have just this one chance to have our say as members of the public. So get involved and fill out the consultation survey here. If you want to do more than that, get in touch with your councillors, tell them directly your views and ask them to represent your opinion in the vote that comes to Full Council in February or March.

Wednesday, 28 October 2015

Biased Consultation Proposed at Sheffield City Region Meeting?

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 26th October 2015

This meeting turned out to be more informative than I expected. Not, however, because of the information volunteered by the chair of the meeting but because I could see, through the door of the meeting room, the presentation they received about the proposed consultation on the new 'Devolution Deal'.

There is nearly always a pre-meeting on these occasions, an opportunity for the members to discuss matters they don't wish the public to hear. This means that when the public portion of the meeting arrives they are able to race through the agenda in practised style, with little potential for controversy or need for debate.

It leaves something of a gap in the idea of transparency and open decision making. We do not get to see our representatives in action on issues that may cause disagreement, giving a false idea of an authority in complete consensus.

So, what did I learn from this pre-meeting slideshow? I learned that the proposed consultation is in danger of being flawed and biased. The comments on the presentation indicate a bias towards a positive message on the 'deal' and emphasising why the 'deal' is right for the City Region. Potential therefore that the documents in the consultation will be positive on acceptance of the 'deal', rather than neutral and equitable.

Phrases like “good deal”, “supported by the private sector”, “City Region at the forefront of the Northern Powerhouses”, leading the way”, “new money – new powers”, “protects sovereignty of Councils”, “residents & businesses well served by negotiations”, "Mayor & Combined Authority as partners”, “appropriate checks and balances”, all lead to the conclusion that the consultation is being seen as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a process to enable our representatives to assess our point of view before making up their own minds.

At the end of the full meeting Vicky Seddon (Sheffield for Democracy) and myself took the new officer employed for this role to task. We emphasised the need for the consultation information received by the public to be unbiased and that if members of the Combined Authority wished to voice support for the 'deal' that should be a matter for them rather than for the supposedly neutral public servants carrying out the consultation.

It is unfortunate that the City Region put an officer in this position in the first place and that their desire to emphasise the positive aspects of the deal should be considered as something appropriate for official papers about the consultation. The officer appeared to take this on board and agreed to feed our comments back to the Combined Authority but I suspect we will have to keep a very close eye on this consultation.

In the main meeting I asked three questions related to the 'Devolution Deal'.

1 Will the Combined Authority clarify the exact voting arrangements for each Council, constituent & non-constituent? The Chair's response was (in short) that only constituent members need to consent to the 'Mayor' aspect of the 'deal' but that the 4 constituent members, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham, and the non-constituent members form N Derbys & N Notts would need to consent to the 'deal' in the Combined Authority decision.

2 Can the Combined Authority comment on the detail of the timescale from this point onwards? Response was that the Combined Authority would be asked to endorse the 'proposed deal' today. The City Region would then carry out consultation during November and December (but dates were not given) before individual Councils were expected to make their decision between January and March of 2016 and the final City Region decision would have to be made before 16th March. The 'deal' would them be implemented from 1st April (interesting choice April Fools Day).

3 Can the Combined Authority assure the public that the next draft of the 'deal' will be written with less openness to interpretation? (Para 4 seems to offer a Mayor's veto) Response was that the final document will be a 'Ministerial Order' which will be very detailed and technical and that all the relationships in the proposal were still subject to further negotiation. There is no intention at this time to give the Mayor a veto.

The final two sentences are a bit concerning, we are to be consulted on a draft rather than a final agreement (what changes may be made in secret, again) and a half hearted assurance on Mayoral veto powers (at this time?).

The meeting later progressed to endorse the proposal, subject to the consultation etc. James Newman, Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership, (private sector businesses) commented that the LEP would undertake a similar consultation with local businesses over a similar timescale.

The meeting did nothing to assuage my concerns about aspects of this 'deal' and raised even more concerns over the neutrality of the consultation process. Keep an eye out for more in the next few weeks.

Thursday, 22 October 2015

Sheffield City Region 'Devolution' Deal, with comments by Nigel Slack

This post details the devolution deal as currently written and signed by the leaders of the four Councils of South Yorkshire and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have added my own comments to the post, highlighted, expressing areas of concern and areas where clarification is needed or questions should be asked.

I hope you can each get something from this, despite the sometimes opaque or vague wording and that it will prompt further reading, and questioning of your elected representatives as a result.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Devolution Deal

This document sets out the terms of a proposed agreement between Government and the leaders of the Sheffield City Region to devolve a range of powers and responsibilities to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and a new directly elected mayor. Building on the City Deal, agreed in 2012, the Growth Deals, agreed in July 2014 and January 2015 and initial Devolution Agreement, agreed in December 2014, this Devolution Deal marks the next step in the transfer of resources and powers from central Government to the Sheffield City Region. All of these deals negotiated in secret and without public consultation or approval

The devolution proposal and all levels of funding are subject to the Spending Review and Sheffield City Region consulting on the proposals and ratification from the local authorities. But only the 4 Metros, Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham This agreement is subject to the enactment of the necessary legislation (The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill and the Buses Bill), and to parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation implementing the provisions of this agreement. None of this is guaranteed. If one council disagrees it can be forced to accept, two refusing will sink the deal.

This agreement will enable Sheffield City Region to accelerate the delivery of its Strategic Economic Plan, strengthening its position as a world class centre for advanced manufacturing and engineering.

Summary of the proposed Devolution Deal agreed by the Government and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority with the support of the Local Enterprise Partnership

A new, directly elected Sheffield City Region Mayor will act as Chair to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and will exercise the following powers and functions devolved from central Government:

Responsibility for a consolidated, devolved transport budget, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the Spending Review. £ Unknown

Responsibility for franchised bus services, which will support the Combined Authority’s delivery of smart and integrated ticketing across the Combined Authority’s constituent councils. Metros only

Responsibility for an identified Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be collaboratively managed and maintained at the city region level by the Combined Authority on behalf of the Mayor. Metros only?

Powers over strategic planning, including the responsibility to create a spatial framework for the city region and to chair the Sheffield City Region Joint Assets Board. Less control for Sheffield City Council?

The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCR CA), working with the Mayor, will receive the following powers:

Control of a new additional £30 million a year funding allocation over 30 years, to be invested to boost growth. Cuts to Sheffield Council alone in 2016 £50M

Responsibility for chairing an area-based review of 16+ skills provision, the outcomes of which will be taken forward in line with the principles of the devolved arrangements, and devolved 19+ adult skills funding from 2018/19.

Joint responsibility with Government to co-design employment support for the harder-to-help claimants, many of whom are currently referred to the Work Programme and Work Choice. SCR will also bring forward a proposal to pilot more intensive support for those furthest from the labour market. City Region workfare system?

More effective joint working with UKTI to boost trade and investment, and responsibility to work with Government to develop and implement a devolved approach to the delivery of national business support programmes from 2017.

In addition: None of which demand a Mayor

To support the development of the SCR Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, the Government will offer the Sheffield City Region expert advice and support to ensure they are able to put forward a City Region led proposal to undertake a Science and Innovation audit.

The Sheffield City Region will work with HM Government to achieve their ambitions for a national Institute for Infrastructure within Doncaster.

HM Government will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to agree specific funding flexibilities to a Spending Review timetable. The joint ambition will be to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority a single pot to invest in its economic growth.

Further powers may be agreed over time and included in future legislation. Carrot to ensure good behaviour?

Governance

1 Sheffield City Region (SCR) has taken bold steps in securing effective and accountable governance arrangements. The SCR Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was part of the first wave of LEPs established in 2010 and has been one of the strongest performers since then. The SCR was the first to submit plans for its Combined Authority under the Coalition Government, which was established in April 2014. The Combined Authority enables decisions on economic growth and development to be taken in an open and transparent way in one place for the whole of the SCR. Scrutiny and transparency still not established 1 year on

2 As part of this proposed agreement, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will adopt a model of a directly elected city region Mayor over the Combined Authority’s area with the first elections in May 2017. Interim arrangements? The existing Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will also be strengthened with additional powers. This takes the next step in transferring resources and powers from central Government to the Sheffield City Region. There is no intention to take existing powers from local authorities without agreement. Intention?/But if they agree? The agreement will protect the integrity of local authorities in the Sheffield City Region.

3 The directly elected Mayor for Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will autonomously exercise new powers. The Mayor will chair the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, the members of which will serve as the Mayor’s Cabinet. Leaders of the 4 metros? The Mayor and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be scrutinised and held to account by the SCR Overview and Scrutiny committee(s). Still in establishment phase The SCR Mayor will also be required to consult the SCR CA Cabinet on his/her strategies, which it may reject if two-thirds of the members agree to do so. 3 0f 4 Metros The SCR Cabinet will also examine the Mayor’s spending plans and will be able to amend his/her plans, if two-thirds of the members who have been appointed by constituent councils agree to do so. 3 of 4 metros

4 Proposals for decision by the Combined Authority may be put forward by the Mayor or any Cabinet Member. The Mayor will have one vote as will other voting members. Any questions that are to be decided by the Combined Authority are to be decided by a majority of the members present and voting, subject to that majority including the vote of the Mayor, Suggests Mayors Veto unless otherwise set out in legislation, or specifically delegated through the Authority's Constitution.

5 The Sheffield City Region Mayor and the other members of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be required to work closely together. Specifically:

a the Mayor will provide overall leadership and chair Combined Authority meetings; and

b the SCR Cabinet Model, where the leaders have a clear portfolio of responsibilities, will act as a supporting and advisory function to the Mayor and Combined Authority in respective policy areas. (1 This will be based on the constituent members of the Combined Authority but can be extended to include any other members of the Combined Authority that change their member status from non-constituent to constituent. )

c The Mayor will also be a member of the LEP, alongside the other members of the Combined Authority, recognising the importance of the private sector in any growth strategies or delivery. Main power lies with Mayor and Local Enterprise Partnership?

6 The recent changes to strengthen the governance arrangements in the Sheffield City Region by formally establishing five Executive Boards that have delegated decision making powers from the Combined Authority, are expected to continue as part of this agreement.

7 Economic growth is a shared endeavour and is vital in delivering the Northern Powerhouse ambitions. The Mayoral Combined Authority will continue to work very closely with HM Government for the benefit of the public. Whose definition of benefit?

8 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority and Local Enterprise Partnership commits to work with partners across the North of England to promote opportunities for pan-Northern collaboration, including Transport for the North, to drive northern productivity and build the Northern Powerhouse.

Skills (19+)

9 The Government will enable local commissioning of outcomes to be achieved from the 19+ adult skills budget starting in academic year 2016/17; and will fully devolve budgets to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority from academic year 2018/19 (subject to readiness conditions). These arrangements do not cover apprenticeships.

10 Devolution will proceed in three stages, across the next three academic years:

a Starting now, the SCR Combined Authority will begin to prepare for local commissioning. It will develop a series of outcome agreements with providers about what should be delivered in return for allocations in the 2016/17 academic year. This will replace the current system of funding by qualifications as providers will receive their total 19+ skills funding as a single block allocation. This new arrangement will allow the SCR Combined Authority to agree with providers the mix and balance of provision that will be delivered in return for the block funding, and to define how success will be assessed. Assumes privatised providers?

b For the 2017/18 academic year, and following the area review, Government will work with the SCR Combined Authority to vary the block grant allocations made to providers, within an agreed framework HMG Strings

c From 2018/19, there will be full devolution of funding. The SCR Combined Authority will be responsible for allocations to providers and the outcomes to be achieved, consistent with statutory entitlements. Government will not seek to second guess these decisions, but it will set proportionate requirements about outcome information to be collected in order to allow students to make informed choices. A funding formula for calculating the size of the grant to local / combined authorities will need to take into account a range of demographic, educational and labour market factors. Reward for good behaviour?

11 The readiness conditions for full devolution are that:

a Parliament has legislated to enable transfer to local authorities of the current statutory duties on the Secretary of State to secure appropriate facilities for further education for adults from this budget and for provision to be free in certain circumstances

b Completion of the Area Review process leading to a sustainable provider base

c After the area-reviews are complete, agreed arrangements are in place between central government and the Combined Authority to ensure that devolved funding decisions take account of the need to maintain a sustainable and financially viable 16+ provider base

d Clear principles and arrangements have been agreed between central government and the Combined Authority for sharing financial risk and managing failure of 16+ providers, reflecting the balance of devolved and national interest and protecting the taxpayer from unnecessary expenditure and liabilities Most risk to City Region?

e Learner protection and minimum standards arrangements are agreed

f Funding and provider management arrangements, including securing financial assurance, are agreed in a way that minimises costs and maximises consistency and transparency.

Skills (16-18)

12 HM Government commits to an Area Based Review of post-16 education and training leading to agreed recommendations by February 2016. The outcomes of the Area Based Review will be taken forward in line with the principles of the devolved arrangements. The review will be chaired by the Combined Authority and will include all post-16 education and training provision in the initial analysis phase. Recommendations will be focused on General FE and Sixth Form Colleges, however the Regional Schools Commissioner and the relevant local authorities will consider any specific issues arising from the reviews for school sixth form provision.

13 To ensure continued local collaboration following the Area Based Review, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work in partnership with local colleges and providers to publish a local skills strategy. This will aim to help ensure that post-16 providers are delivering the skills that local employers require. It is expected that the Combined Authority will then collaborate with colleges and providers, with appropriate support from EFA, to work towards that plan.

14 Following the Area Based Review, HM Government would expect the Regional Schools Commissioner to continue to engage with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to ensure local links and working are maintained.

15 HM Government will work with Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to ensure that local priorities are fed into the provision of careers advice, such that it is employer-led, integrated and meets local needs. In particular, the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will ensure that local priorities are fed into provision through direct involvement and collaboration with HMG in the design of careers and enterprise provision for all ages, including collaboration on the work of the Careers and Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service. Vagueness about private/public provision

Employment

16 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work with DWP to co-design the future employment support, from April 2017, for harder-to-help claimants, many of whom are currently referred to the Work Programme and Work Choice.

17 The respective roles of DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority in the co-design will include:

a DWP sets the funding envelope, Sheffield City Region Combined Authority can top up if they wish to, but are not required to. Enables HMG to cut their share

b Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will set out how they will join up local public services in order to improve outcomes for this group, particularly how they will work with the Clinical Commissioning Groups/third sector to enable timely health-based support.

c DWP set the high-level performance framework and will ensure the support appropriately reflects labour market issues. The primary outcomes will be to reduce unemployment and move people into sustained employment. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will have some flexibility to determine specific local outcomes that reflect local labour market priorities, these outcomes should be complementary to the ultimate employment outcome (for example in-work wage progression). In determining the local outcome(s) Sheffield City Region Combined Authority should work with DWP to take account of the labour market evidence base and articulate how the additional outcome(s) will fit within the wider strategic and economic context and deliver value for money. Minimal autonomy in implementing workfare

d Before delivery commences, DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will set out an agreement covering the respective roles of each party in the delivery and monitoring of the support, including a mechanism by which each party can raise and resolve any concern that arise. Therefore not part of deal yet

18 In addition, in the event employment support for this group is delivered through a contracted-out programme, Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will co-commission the programme with DWP. the respective roles of DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will include: Pressure to privatise?

a DWP sets the contracting arrangements, including contract package areas, but should consider any proposals from Sheffield City Region Combined Authority on contract package area geography. DWP set the rules

b Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be involved in tender evaluation.

c Providers will be solely accountable to DWP, but DWP and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority’s above-mentioned agreement will include a mechanism by which Sheffield City Region Combined Authority can escalate to DWP any concerns about provider performance/breaching local agreements and require DWP to take formal contract action where appropriate. DWP in charge

19 In the event that alternative delivery mechanisms are put in place, comparable arrangements will be put in place.

20 Sheffield City Region will develop a business case for an innovative pilot to support those who are hardest to help. The business case should set out the evidence to support the proposed pilot, cost and benefits and robust evaluation plans, to enable the proposal to be taken forward as part of the delivery of this agreement, subject to Ministerial approval. City Region solution to workfare unlikely

Housing and planning

21 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Mayor will also exercise strategic planning powers to support and accelerate these ambitions. This will include the power to: Huge influence over local planning

a Create a spatial framework, which will act as the framework for managing planning across the Sheffield City Region, and with which all Local Development Plans will be in strategic alignment. The spatial framework will need to be approved by unanimous vote of the members appointed by constituent councils of the Mayoral Combined Authority. This approach must not delay any Local Development Plans, and will build upon the local plans being developed.

b Create supplementary planning documents, subject to approval processes in paragraph 21a.

c Create Mayoral Development Corporations, which will support delivery on strategic sites in the Sheffield City Region. This power will be exercised with the consent of the Cabinet member in which the Development Corporation is to be used. Interference in local planning

d Be consulted on and/or call-in planning applications of strategic importance to the City Region. Interference

22 Sheffield City Region and HMG will continue to discuss the devolution of housing loan funds to a Spending Review timetable. Sheffield City Region intends to develop further a proposition on a Housing Investment Fund, for discussion and development with HM Government. Carrot for good behaviour?

23 HMG will work with Sheffield City Region to support the operation of the Joint Assets Board, and support better coordination on asset sales. This will include ensuring the representation of senior HMG officials on the Joint Assets Board, using that Board to develop as far as possible and consistent with the government’s overall public sector land target, a joint programme of asset disposal using a portfolio approach, and to explore whether a right of first refusal for 28 days on all central government land and assets due for disposal can be developed that accelerates the pace of disposal. Through the Joint Assets Board, SCR and HMG will explore increased opportunities for using the public estate to generate low carbon energy. HMG sponsored Assett stripping?

Transport

24 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will be responsible for a devolved and consolidated local transport budget for the area of the Combined Authority (i.e. the areas of the constituent councils), including all relevant devolved highways funding, with a multi-year settlement to be agreed at the Spending Review. Functions will be devolved to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority accordingly, to be exercised by the Mayor. Why the Mayor?

25 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will by 2017 exercise functions, devolved to the Combined Authority, for the franchising of bus services in the area of the Combined Authority, subject to local consultation. This will be enabled through a specific Buses Bill, to be introduced during the first Parliamentary session, which will provide for the necessary functions to be devolved.

26 This will help to facilitate the delivery of integrated smart ticketing across all local modes of transport in the city region, working as part of Transport for the North on their plans for smart ticketing across the North. This includes the production of a regional implementation plan for smart ticketing which Transport for the North will put forward to government by Budget 2016. Stalled in Greater Manchester

27 Government remains committed to the development of Phase Two of the HS2 network and will announce the way forward on Phase Two later this year.

28 Government is committed to building a Northern Powerhouse and remains strongly committed to the work by Transport for the North to identify and present to government a prioritised list of scheme options for the TransNorth rail enhancement programme and options for strategic road investment, including options for a new TransPennine Road Tunnel, by Budget 2016. Rail electrification on hold

29 Government, in consultation with Sheffield City Region, will continue to explore options to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority more control over the planning and delivery of local transport schemes, particularly in preparation for HS2. This could include changes to the way that Transport and Works Act Orders are granted, if practical proposals for improving and speeding up the process are identified.

30 The directly elected Mayor of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will take responsibility for an identified Key Route Network of local authority roads that will be collaboratively managed and maintained at a city region level by the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority across the areas of the constituent councils. Metros only

Trade and investment

31 HM Government commits to strengthening support available for both trade and investment in the Sheffield City Region. None of which needs a mayor

32 On co-location, HM Government will review the Inward Investment resource location of regional (IST) staff across the three levels of: Partnership Managers; Business development and Key Account Management teams, currently in 8 locations nationally. HM Government will also look at options for co-location, under UKTI/IST management, without harming the overall efficiency of the working of the investment model.

33 On governance, HM Government will set up a joint governance structure (or join an existing one), with quarterly meetings attended by a Director level representative from both UKTI investment and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. These will provide a forum to discuss progress on co-location, and on account management activity by both parties in the region. HM Government will wherever possible also use this structure to review key decisions and initiatives planned and/or implemented by both parties, including building a better shared understanding of the inward investment opportunities available in the region.

34 On international links, HM Government will provide a strengthened partnership between locally delivered services and embassy/consulate contacts through project Matchmaker.

35 On the Great campaign, HM Government will explore what options exist for using a portion of GREAT campaign budget for overseas based activity aligned to Sheffield City Region sector strengths with delivery managed by UKTI Marketing teams with input and influence from Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. This activity should be supported by sector based resource in overseas posts who have been specially briefed to have a strong understanding of Northern Powerhouse and Posts who are Matchmaker partners for Sheffield City Region sector strengths.

36 HM Government will also work with Sheffield City Region to build attractive regeneration/ investment propositions.

37 On trade: HM Government will ring-fence trade services resource within Sheffield City Region, develop an agreed export plan with a dual key approach to activities and reporting on outputs and outcomes to Sheffield City Region. Ring fenced resource remains subject to departmental budget changes. Subject to austerity cuts

38 An export plan will be agreed between SCR and UKTI HQ which will allow SCR flexibility, such as a specific local sectoral focus for Passport to Export and mid-sized business schemes or a different mix of products.

39 HMRC will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to provide relevant trade statistics data, within existing data protection assurance frameworks and policies, to assist with understanding the City Region’s export market.

Innovation

40 The Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, centred around the Advanced Manufacturing Park is a nationally important asset and already delivers growth through innovation, productivity and high value employment. The City Region has an ambition to make the District world-leading – attracting investment and major industry to the area.

41 To support this HM Government will offer the Sheffield City Region expert advice and support to ensure they are able to put forward a City Region led proposal to undertake a Science and Innovation audit. This work will enable an evidence based approach to deepen the understanding of the City Region’s Science and Innovation strengths and provide a new and powerful way to understand how to maximise the economic impact from the UK’s research and innovation investment nationally. They will, for example, provide government with part of the evidence base on which to make decisions on catapults and could be used to explore how to further the Sheffield City Region’s advantage in advanced manufacturing.

42 HM Government will also offer Sheffield City Region Combined Authority dedicated workshops with the Smart Specialisation Advisory Hub to help areas identify their innovation strengths.

43 Through utilisation of the additional resources in the single pot it is expected that Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will bring forward a set of ambitious proposals to enhance the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District.

44 The Sheffield City Region will work with HM Government to achieve their ambitions for a National Institute for Infrastructure within Doncaster. The Sheffield City Region will take forward discussions with HM Government to explore the potential for alignment of the new National College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR) based in Doncaster with the new Institutes of Technology to help meet a wider set of national infrastructure challenges. LEP lead not mayor

Business growth and support

45 HM Government agrees to continue to work with the Sheffield City Region to develop and implement proposals for a devolved approach to the delivery of national business support programmes from April 2017 onwards, subject to the outcomes of the Spending Review, and in line with the Devolution Deal agreed in December 2014.

46 Government and the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree a joint programme to create the right environment to drive the commercial rollout of ultrafast broadband. Government will also support the SCR Combined Authority to reinvest funds into creative solutions to supplying superfast broadband to the last 5%.

47 Building on the currently agreed Enterprise Zone geography, Sheffield City Region will receive additional Enterprise Zones and/or extension of existing zones, subject to the current bidding round for further Enterprise Zones.

48 The Sheffield City Region LEP has requested additional flexibility on the use of Enhanced Capital Allowances within its Enterprise Zones. The government is open to further discussion on this providing proposals are compliant with State Aid rules and are fiscally neutral. Vague and not yet agreed

Fiscal

49 HM Government is committed to working with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to achieve Intermediate Body status for ERDF and ESF for the Combined Authority. HM Government will work with Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to test whether it will be possible to implement and if so, HMG and SCR will work together to agree a timetable to put this in place.

50 HM Government agrees to allocate an additional £30m per annum of capital and revenue funding for 30 years, which will form part of and capitalise the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority single pot. This will fund key City Region priorities and will be composed of 60% capital and 40% revenue. The fund will be subject to 5-yearly gateway assessments to confirm the spend has contributed to national growth. £30M becomes £12M revenue targetted at growth/economy and may disappear in 2020 if economy not improving nationally?

51 HM Government will work with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to agree specific funding flexibilities to a Spending Review timetable. The joint ambition will be to give Sheffield City Region Combined Authority a single pot to invest in its economic growth. This pot will comprise a flexible, multi-year settlement providing the freedom to deliver its growth priorities, including the ability to re-direct funding to reflect changing priorities, whilst upholding their statutory duties. This local freedom will be over a range of budgets to be determined by SCR and HMG in the run-up to and beyond the Spending Review, including as requested the Regional Growth Fund or its equivalent successor. HM Government expects to disburse this agreed settlement to the Sheffield City Region annually in advance. Vague and uncertain

52 The Cities and Local Government Devolution bill currently in parliament will establish the principles which will govern further prudential borrowing for combined authorities. Following Royal Assent, central government will consider how these powers could apply whilst ensuring no fiscal impact. Another PFI ?

53 HM Government will pilot a scheme in Sheffield City Region Combined Authority which will enable the area to retain 100% of any additional business rate growth beyond expected forecasts. What forecasts by whom? These pilots will begin in April 2016, subject to further detailed discussions between the Combined Authority and HM Government. HM Government will also discuss wider localisation of business rates with the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. Commitment to current business rates to be returned to City Region? Forced competition between rates areas? Losing redistributive effect of tax.

Under this geography:

54 The Mayor for the Sheffield City Region will be elected by the local government electors for the areas of the constituent councils of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The Mayor and Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will exercise the powers and responsibilities described in this document in relation to its area, i.e. the area of the constituent councils of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. 4 Metro councils only

55 Funding that is allocated to the SCR LEP, now and in the future, will continue to be allocated on the basis of the existing overlap formula.

56 Additional funding or budgets that are devolved as a result of this agreement will go to the SCR Combined Authority.

57 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority must exercise functions in relation to its geographical area. Accordingly, if any of the Combined Authority spend is on activities of projects outside of its area, those activities or projects must in some way relate to the area – for example, be for the benefit of the area; they may also relate to some other area. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, subject to parliamentary approval, can enable combined authorities such as the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to take on a broader set of functions than economic development, regeneration and transport, dependent on secondary legislation.

58 Under the Mayor model, it is not expected that the role of the LEP or private sector be lessened.

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority commitments

59 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority is accountable to local people for the successful implementation of the Devolution Deal; consequently, HM Government expects Sheffield City Region to monitor and evaluate their Deal in order to demonstrate and report on progress. The Cities and Local Growth Unit will work with the Sheffield City Region to agree a monitoring and evaluation framework that meets local needs and helps to support future learning.

60 Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will work with HM Government to develop a full implementation plan, covering each policy agreed in this Deal, to be completed ahead of implementation. This plan will include the timing and proposed approach for monitoring and evaluation of each policy and should be approved by the DCLG Accounting Officer. Agree to proposal then work out details?

61 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to set out their proposals to HM Government for how local resources and funding will be pooled across the city region. Taking away from City Council?

62 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree overall borrowing limits with HM Government and have formal agreement to engage on forecasting. Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will also provide information, explanation and assistance to the Office for Budget Responsibility where such information would assist in meeting their duty to produce economic and fiscal forecasts for the UK economy. Borrow from whom against what security?

63 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will agree a process to manage local financial risk relevant to these proposals and will jointly develop written agreements with HM Government on every devolved power or fund to agree accountability between local and national bodies on the basis of the principles set out in this document.

64 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to progress programmes of transformation amongst authorities to streamline back office functions and share more services and data, including on assets and property. Joined up thinking or formal combination

65 The Sheffield City Region Combined Authority will continue to adhere to their public sector equality duties, for both existing and newly devolved responsibilities.

Overall lots of wriggle room for HMG to change the goalposts along the way and for various areas of funding to become subject to austerity cuts in the future. Moreover there appears to be no mechanism to reverse out of this commitment if it proves detrimental to the City Region or to the City Council. The agreement will require City Region Councils to implement a version of Workfare and to continue the transformation of 16+ education into a employer biased training programme rather than an education system. Continuing negotiations are still secret and not subject to public approval.

Monday, 12 October 2015

Sheffield City Region signs 'Devolution' deal, by Nigel Slack

The Sheffield City Region 'devolution' deal has been signed.

Actually, not so much. The signing ceremony, conducted in the full glare of publicity the other day, was really more for the Chancellor's benefit than a done deal. There is an agreement in principle but it is more of an 'if, then' agreement. In other words, if the members of the City Region Combined Authority agree to all the options within the offer (including the directly elected Mayor), then they will receive the extra powers and responsibilities. If not, the deal will be off or at least renegotiated.

I'm not going to go into great detail here, because we don't have all the detail yet, just some outline proposals, but I've included some press coverage for you to look at and when you do I'd like you to bear in mind one or two points.

Firstly, almost all the money on offer for the City Region is dependent on the delivery by them of Central Government policies. Whether that is in terms of new housing targets, Economic development or the implementation of the 'Welfare to Work' programmes.

Secondly, many of the budgets being made the responsibility of the City Region are those likely to suffer significant cuts going forward. The new powers over business rates will phase out any redistributive element, potentially hitting the poorest towns and districts hardest.

Thirdly, we the public have had no say in this so called 'devolution' plan yet. Whether we want a Mayor or not, it will not be our choice. The change is being done to us rather than by us. It is also a deal that can be taken away at the next change of government, or the next change of party political whim by the current one.

Needless to say I and my colleagues in Sheffield for Democracy will be trying to keep a close eye on this one and hope to ensure a comprehensive consultation with the public takes place before it comes to the City Council for their decision.

Sheffield Star 'Devolution' Article 2nd October 2015

The Guardian 'Sheffield second Northern Powerhouse' Article 1st October 2015

Citymetric Business rate Reform Post 9th October 2015

Monday, 5 October 2015

Article in Now Then magazine, October 2015, by Nigel Slack.

Just a quick post to record that I have an article in this months Now Then magazine (Issue no.91 October 2015). The article's entitled 'Retail Quarter: Shopping Heaven or Hell?' and is a consideration of the future of the City Centre at this pivotal moment for it's development.

Click here for Now Then Article

click here to go to Now Then Magazine Article "Retail Quarter: Shopping Heaven or Hell? " by Nigel Slack"

Monday, 14 September 2015

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Meeting 14th September 2015, by Nigel Slack.

I attended the meeting today to see what progress was to be reported on the Chancellor's so called devolution deals. The SCRCA (Sheffield City Region Combined Authority) delivered their proposals to the Government last week and I was hoping to find out something of what that contained.

Item 19 on the agenda was the relevant report and the update was delivered by the chair of the Combined Authority, Sir Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley MBC (Metropolitan Borough Council).
He reported that the SCRCA proposals had been delivered and that they contained six themes and thirty asks, though there was no detail. The receipt of the proposals has been acknowledged by the Government and they have instructed their officials to now negotiate the detail with the SCRCA officials. This, the chair commented would take weeks and potentially months and will begin next week.
He followed this by stating that, if the offer from Government did not satisfy they would be prepared to turn it down, particularly as they understand the requirement for a SCRCA Mayor still stands. He also made it clear that the Mayoral model was not their preference but reiterated that, if the offered 'devolution' was significant enough then they would consider it. He also confirmed for the second time that the offered deal would be consulted on, both with individual Councils of the SCRCA and also with the public.
Finally he confirmed that the basis of the proposals they put together was very much an economic stimulus deal and not about some of the ancillary powers that have been offered to Greater Manchester.

After the meeting I managed to have a quick word with Ben Still, leading the negotiating team for the SCRCA and he confirmed that the proposals they put forward have not included the PCC powers coming to the SCRCA nor the Fire Service budget or Health & Social Care budget. They have very much concentrated on the economic issues that are most appropriate to a cross boundary Authority like ours. I asked whether he felt there would be a deal in time for the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and his thought was that something might be agreed in principle by then.
We also chatted about the potential absurdity that could arise from Governmental intransigence on the Mayoral model, where the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire members of the SCRCA could end up with two Mayors. One from their own County and one from the SCRCA.

We now have to see where this theatre of the absurd takes us next.

Friday, 4 September 2015

Article in Now Then magazine, September 2015, by Nigel Slack.

Just a quick post to record that I have an article in this months Now Then magazine (Issue no.90 September 2015). The article's entitled 'Devolution: Lost Cause?'and is a continuation of previous investigations into what is being described under the banner of 'Devolution' for George Osbourne's "Northen Powerhouses"

Click here for Now Then Article

http://nowthenmagazine.com/sheffield/issue-90/devolution/

Monday, 3 August 2015

Sheffield City Region Combined Authority meeting 3rd August 2015, by Nigel Slack

The City Region meetings are always curious affairs. The bulk of their business is conducted out of the public gaze followed by a brief (½ hour) formal meeting to receive reports, public questions and make formal decisions.

This was where I was able to get the responses to my questions about their approach to the potential imposition of an elected City Region mayor.

Below is my question, annotated with the responses delivered by Sir Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Borough Council and the Chair of the SCRCA.

"It seems that the new 'Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill' may take some time to progress through the legislative process. The Chancellor however is saying he is already in negotiation with the 'Northern Powerhouse' cities about the new so called devolution powers and the imposition of an elected Mayor."

"His agenda is, yet again, deliberately tight no doubt to try and prevent the Combined Authority from consulting the public on the conditions and restrictions that the deal includes. (Some nods of agreement from other members to this) Last time the Authority resisted the pressure to agree to an elected mayor and as a result were granted fewer powers than Manchester City Region. The same blackmail approach seems to be in the offing again."

"What will be the SCRCA approach this time?"

Who is leading the negotiation?

Ben Still (Executive Director Local Enterprise Partnership) and his team will lead the negotiations, supported by the Council Chief Executives and reporting to the SCRCA

Will they accept a directly elected Mayor?

The preference of the Combined Authority would be to retain the current governance arrangements but, if Ministers insist on some form (and there are several) of Mayoral model, it will depend on whether the devolution deal and its benefits will be worth it.

Will the public be consulted and their opinion sought?

If the deal negotiated includes any form of Mayoral arrangement then there will be consultation with the public across the City Region but there will be no referendum.

Will the individual Councils and most importantly their councillors be consulted and their opinion sought?

That would be a matter for each Council but judging from the nods around the table most probably.

Will the SCRCA resist a deal that is inappropriate for the make up of the City Region with it's cross county ties or will it compromise it's principals through fear of falling behind an imagined brighter future gifted to Manchester through their wholesale capitulation? (This caused some amusement from around the table and a comment from Steve Houghton that Manchester might disagree with that comment)

The SCRCA preferred approach is for all the Councils to be involved but they are aware of the problematic nature of the Regions cross border arrangements.

This was about as full an answer as I might hope for at this time but clearly not giving away any of the SCRCA red lines when it comes to the negotiations. Only time will tell whether the SCRCA version of a good deal will match that of the public in this city and the region.

Coincidentally the next item on the agenda was an update from Ben Still on the Devolution Deal. He reported that government were asking for proposals from the City Regions by the beginning of September. The SCRCA would put forward a deal if their own discussions on what they should be asking for were concluded in the next few weeks. He also commented that they would be looking to try and ensure a common approach from both Sheffield and Leeds City Regions. The key issues would include the concerns over the geographic anomalies of the Sheffield region.

At the conclusion of the meeting Vicky Seddon and myself had a brief chat with the Vice Chair, Cllr John Burrows (Leader, Chesterfield Borough Council) who commented on the general antipathy within the SCRCA for any Mayoral model but also hinted at the need for the region to be pragmatic about the offer from the government. In fact they had spent a couple of hours already that afternoon trying to agree what the SCRCA should be asking for from government as their initial proposal.

Now that is the meeting I wish I'd been observing.

Thursday, 23 July 2015

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting - 22nd July 2015, by Nigel Slack

The meeting was chaired today by Cllr Leigh Bramall, deputy leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development, as the leader, Cllr Julie Dore was away on Council business. We weren't told what. The usual introductions and housekeeping arrangements were concluded and we moved on to what, for me is generally the most interesting part of the meeting, Public Questions.

Today Council received questions on;
Normanton Hill pedestrian crossing and the delay in it's implementation. Cllr Terry Fox Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport replied that council are committed to the crossing and the delay is due to resource issues but it will happen.

The sale of Walkley Library to the Forum Cafe Group and a request for information on the negotiations between the council and the cafe group. Cllr Isobel Bowler Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods replied there had been no formal report to cabinet on the issue and she would treat the request as a Freedom of Information request to find out what letters or e-mails etc were available on the negotiations. This would not however be available in time for the Scrutiny Committee meeting next week. (seems to me a reason for delaying both the scrutiny decision and the formal sale until the information is available to the public and councillors on the committee)

The setting up of the new 'Schools Company' as a formal body to try and ensure equal treatment across all schools in regard to early intervention and other similar services. Cllr Jackie Drayton Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families commented that as any school became an academy and as new academies were built the council lose some of the budget for these services to the individual schools. The new company is an attempt to ensure the schools continue to have a co-ordinated approach and that with non council schools contributing the budget may be preserved.

Tinsley Green Youth Club and the impact of the new school extension planned for the location. Cllr Jackie Drayton replied that the council supported the youth club as budgets allowed and that other organisations also provided additional hours for the club to be open. She pointed out that the new school will have community space inside for local use also and that she would be happy to assist any 'Friends of the Park' group that came into being but that council could not promote this, it had to come from the community themselves.

I was then able to weigh in with a mighty six questions (council will be lacking meetings in August) which went as follows;

First, with concern being expressed about the weakness of council planning policies, particularly in respect of heritage sites, where are council on the new Sheffield Local Plan to bring policies up to date? And will they adopt the same proposals as Islington plan to create for greater transparency in developers 'viability' claims used to reduce commitments to building affordable housing?

Cllr Leigh Bramall responded, commenting that the details of the process were very dry and rather than go into detail he would send the information in writing. He added that there was an ongoing problem with capacity, meaning too few council employees to do the job, and that a final 'Local Plan' might be 2 to 3 years away. He also commented that the city had a good record with heritage assets and were considered a 'best practice' council in this area. On the Islington initiative he commented that he would keep an eye on it and see how it developed.

Question two was about the 'Save Devonshire Street' campaign and whether in light of the campaign achieving it's funding for an appeal against the council's demolition decision they would look again at the advice received by the group from their legal team and reconsider defending the decision.

This was responded to by Cllr Jayne Dunn Cabinet Member for Housing who commented that one judge had already agreed with the Councils decision being correct but that of course they were in dialogue with the campaign group.

Question three asked about the Councils stance on the new 'Devolution Deal' being promoted by George Osbourne and whether they would continue to resist the imposition of a City Region Mayor? I also asked whether they would consult on this with the people of the city?

Cllr Leigh Bramall replied, as Julie Dore was missing, that 'in principle' the council was opposed to imposed elected mayors, it was not being ruled out. It would depend on how good the deal was and whether they felt they could deal with the consequences. He also commented that Nationally government could now, with a majority, force this through. On the matter of public consultation, he made no comment at all.

My question four asked whether the review of council meeting procedures would be go ahead, as requested by the leader of the Sheffield Lib Dems and would the public be involved in the review?

Cllr Bramall reported that the Leader, Julie Dore, would be looking at this he was sure that in any review the public would be involved.

Question five, was in respect of the Grade 2 listed building known as Mount Pleasant. I wanted to know if the council had signed any agreement with a commercial developer in respect of the building and the empty school behind? I also asked for a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Member to discuss evidence of misleading information being used in regard to this building.

The response was from Cllr Jayne Dunn who confirmed that a lease agreement has been signed on the building and also that she would be happy to meet with me to discuss the matter further.

Lastly I asked about the Skyride event in Sheffield. I commented that I found it distasteful it was sponsored by a Rupert Murdoch media company. However this year I also found out the stewards for the event were from G4S, a company that the city council have agreed not to use in council contracts because of their poor human rights record. I asked whether the council would work to ensure this was not the case at the event next year?

Cllr Bramall responded that the event was a nationally sponsored event so they could have no influence over the direct sponsor ie. Sky but that he would bring the matter of the stewarding to the attention of Cllr Ben Curran Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources who would respond to me in writing, he not being at the meeting today.

So, a mixed bag of answers, some positive some less so and areas of further work identified. I will now follow up on the devolution matters with the City Region and the Mount Pleasant issues whilst awaiting the further information I have been promised.

Monday, 6 April 2015

Town Hall -v- Whitehall, The Devolution Debate.

Bank Holiday Monday and I was invited in to the Sheffield Live studios to promote this Wednesday's Festival of Debate event. Devolution is one of the hot topics for the General Election and the Devolution Debate has been organised by Now Then Magazine and myself as an opportunity for people to learn more about what devolution might mean for our city. It will also give members of the public the chance to question some knowledgable panellists about the options and consequences we may be faced with after the election in May.
The interview was on the 'Communities Live' programme, broadcast at 12 noon and it starts at 8 minutes 45 seconds in.

(Audio link via Sheffield Live's programme 'Communities Live!' website - http://www.sheffieldlive.org/podcasts/)

The full details of all the Festival of Debate events for April are here

FESTIVAL OF DEBATE

and there is still time to book your place for Wednesday's Devolution Debate. It takes place at the United Reformed Church on Norfolk Street, in the city centre, at 7.30pm and it's Free entry.

Two politicians, two community activists and two academics on the panel with a broad range of experience and opinion. I'll be hosting the event and trying to keep them all on topic and under control. I hope to see you there.

Sunday, 5 April 2015

The Festival of Debate.

Few people can have failed to notice the huge range of events that have been going on in the city during the 'Festival of Debate' . This series of events, organised by Now Then Magazine and Opus Independents, is a huge shot in the arm for political thought and activity in the city.

The reason I say this is quite simple, the majority of the events are organised not by politicians, political parties, or media companies but by those outside the 'bubble'. This may sound trite, but I mean it as a compliment to the power of the individuals and to the small groups of committed souls that think they can make a difference. The Festival of Debate is an outlet enabling them to make that difference.

Some of you will be aware that I am involved in a number of the events. My enthusiasm is about more than my own involvement, I've never needed to crow about my local activism, I do what I do to generate positive change, as I see it. I'm behind the festival because it's giving all those involved the confidence, contacts and experience to continue to be activists after the events are over and done.

With each event that I'm involved in I am trying to give people not just an interesting experience but a glimpse of how they can get involved in local activism. With the PechaKucha event, I wanted people to take away a sense that it's for each of us to decide where we draw that line in the sand beyond which we will not stand for 'it' any more. I tried to show that it's not about being like someone else but about finding your own passion, knowing what you want to change and understanding what you personally can do to effect that change.

The 'Devolution Debate' will, I hope, show how we can take debate to the powerful, particularly around election time, and that it is important to be aware and involved as early as possible to ensure that we get a result that works for the majority and not the usual lobby groups and influential shadows that politicians listen to. I want to make people aware that the knowledge and experience is out there and that we can all tap into it to learn more of the information behind the deliberations of 'decision makers'. Whether it's academics or local community activists, access to their knowledge and experience means we can all have a say, if we find the way that works for us.

My last event is more personal. I will be 'in conversation' with a friend, the writer, Laurence Peacock, in front of a public audience. This time I will be talking about me but mostly about what I do, why I do it and how I do it. I hope that, with this event, I can help others to find their own 'voice and influence'. It's an important part of what I do but that voice is something that we each have, in different ways, we just need to work out how it works for us.

That's why this series of events is so important, it is showing that one person, alone or in a group of like minded individuals, can make a difference. It could be argued that this sort of stuff is easier these days, with modern social media any one person can create their own soap box. That is true, organising and connecting anonymously is easier, but there is still the danger of being one voice shouting into the void. Connections other than clicking 'like' or 'retweet' are more essential than ever.

To hear someone speak passionately about their cause is always more powerful than reading the comparable words in print or on screen and that is why events on the scale of the Festival of Debate are needed, to connect us to each other in a human way. To listen, to talk, to debate. This is what democracy should be about.

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Devonshire Street Demolition – Approved.

Many people will now be aware that the proposed demolition of numbers 62 – 70 Devonshire Street was approved by the City Council's Planning Committee today. Some will be worried that this is the end of an era for independent shops on Devonshire Street. I hope to show you that this is not necessarily the case.

Round one of the fight is over, round two is about to begin. The heritage groups involved in objecting to this proposal have made it clear that, if they can raise the funds, they will challenge this decision through the full extent of the planning process. This is hugely important because if today has proved one thing it is that there is a hole in the planning provisions of this city that you could drive a coach and horses through.

The way that planning officers today interpreted the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the National laws that govern planning processes) means that developers are now free to do almost anything they want, to any building in Sheffield, heritage asset or not, and the City Council is unlikely to oppose them through fear of litigation. The decision made today about the demolition of Devonshire Street sets a precedent that means almost any protection offered by the NPPF guidelines can be watered down so to prevent developers from threatening to challenge negative decisions.

Today's decision was a matter of balance. The planning officer admitted as much, the Councillors on the committee were made aware of that fact and we, as objectors tried to make it clear to them that this meant they did have a real choice. This was not a matter of the committee being unable to legitimately deny the application, it was a case of whether the committee was prepared to accept the potential of a challenge as the price of doing the right thing. They were not, at least not enough of them were.

The reason that this has arisen lays directly at the door of the City Council. Sheffield last legitimised it's planning guidelines in 1998 when it developed what is termed the Unitary Development Plan. This gave planners and developers details of what was and was not allowed within the city when it came to new development, demolition and other planning issues. This UDP has been amended by various other plans since. Specific plans for different quarters of the city, the city centre living strategy, guidance on the night time economy and others. The main provisions however have never been reviewed. Other overall development plans for the city have been developed and discussed but none have been adopted.

The UDP is now so old that the city's own planning department will no longer rely on it to protect the city or it's heritage from the ravages of profit hungry developers.

It's restrictions and guidelines are considered out of date and therefore almost irrelevant to the planning process. How can we expect planning officers to make the reasonable and robust decisions we need when their guidelines are almost non existent. This needs addressing and addressing soon before even more of the city's heritage is, as one Committee member commented this afternoon, “...slowly nibbled away piece by piece...”. With one notable exception the Labour ranks in the Planning Committee seem ill prepared to stand up for the city and the people that elected them.

Round one is over, round two is just beginning and a whole new battle is looming on the horizon. Is Sheffield up to the challenge?

The Public Interest	Blog \| Campaign & Issues \| About Me
	Questioning Politics At A Local Level Here In Sheffield And Beyond

About This Blog

Pages