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.

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?

Full Council Meeting on 5th November 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

The meeting kicked off as usual but this time the public gallery was full. There was a significant contingent of the GMB Union members currently striking against the Green Company, who run the recycling centres in the city as sub-contractors for Veolia, the outsourcing company. In addition there was a petition to be presented about the outsourcing of the Learning Disability Service and with over 5,000 signatures this triggers a debate in council.

Soon enough public petitions and questions came around and there were lots of petitions this time. Subjects were; Devonshire Street shops demolition, Tesco Express planning application in Stannington, Re-instatement of free city centre shuttle bus service, Misuse of Totley Scout Hut, and School crossing patrol at St Anne's Park School.

---

The meeting then moved on to Public Questions. Again lots of questions from a full public gallery, inevitably meaning I would be towards the end. As a regular there it seems to me that this means the 'new' people get to ask their questions first. This is fine in general terms but sometimes leads to boredom in the cheap seats and those of us at the end of the process are less likely to be able to preface or contextualise our questions, which leads to uncertainty in answers and the liklihood of additional questions being needed at a later date.

Questions were on the subjects of; Protocols of child protection, Employment and economic development, Gritting of Blindside Lane, Questions grouped by the GMB Union members on the strike at Sheffield's waste recycling centres and the management by 'Green Company' on a sub-contract from Veolia, The privatisation of the 'Supported Living Service', Arbourthorne TARA concerns, The Sheffield Federation of TARA's and council recognition, and the roadworks for the new Sainsbury's store in Hillsborough and consequent problems for local traders.

---

Finally it came around to my questions. My first was aimed at Julie Dore (Leader) and concerned the recent News that Greater Manchester Combined Authority had signed a so called devolution deal with the Treasury to give them certain extra spending responsibilities in exchange for accepting an elected City Region Mayor.

"How does the council think of Manchester jumping ship on the other Northern cities?
Do the council agree with the approach that gives business leaders a chance to vote on these devolution proposals but no vote for the public that will pay for them?
Which experts and business leaders from Sheffield will be attending?
Do the two remaining councils involved see the trap that Manchester is being led into?
Does the council agree with the potential imposition of a directly elected Mayor that we rejected in 2012?
Will the council accept administering the hateful welfare to work programme?"

To my surprise the response was from Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills & Economic Development) who outlined the benefits of serious devolution and the fact that the Manchester deal was lacking these benefits. He also commented negatively on the idea of an elected mayor. There was however no comment on the Northern Futures meeting the next day or on who from Sheffield would be attending.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My second question was on some planning matters. Trying to avoid asking for comment on specific proposals in order not to step on legal procedural toes.

"The planning system is currently mired in controversy and poor public relations and two particular proposals are causing the bulk of the problems. I will refrain from mentioning them or asking direct questions about them, for fear of being told they can't be answered without jeopardising the planning process. So, in general; When a planning application on the council's website indicates a determination deadline date, what does that mean?"

And;

"Where a planning guideline indicates a ratio of different usage types within an area, ie between A1 and A3 uses, will the recommendation by officers and the decision of the planning committee on this aspect of the proposal be based on, the current guidelines, guidelines proposed but rejected by the council on some previous occasion or a developers feeling as to the likely future guidelines yet to be tabled or put to a council decision making process?"

Cllr Bramall's response was exactly what I hoped to elicit with this question. To the first part he responded that transparency and open procedure was all important in planning matters. This gives me the confirmation I need to press for greater information in the early stages of applications and a more balanced availability of Officers to 'objectors' as well as 'developers'. Something to pursue at my personal meeting with Cllr Bramall.

---

Full Audio below.

---

My final question was about the appalling turnout of voters at the PCC by-election and an unedifying, almost snide argument witnessed on Twitter between a cabinet councillor and a councillor of the Green Party, about the ethics of voting or not voting as an elected representative.

"The PCC election was neither a particularly legitimate expression of democracy with less than 15% turnout and a winner with less than 8% of the electorate voting for them, nor a value for money exercise costing approximately £11.50 per vote cast. In addition Doncaster reported that of their electorate only 3.5% voted at the ballot box, the remaining 11.5% being postal votes. What was the ratio of postal to ballot box votes in Sheffield?"

And;

"With 86% of the electorate not voting, no party was in a position to take the moral high ground about who did or did not publicly support voting. The supporters of all parties stayed away from the ballot box and it seems unlikely they listened to any of the politicians pro or anti voting in this particular election. Can the council please urge all politicians to act more responsibly over such issues?"

Cllr Julie Dore responded to this question and apologised for not having the election figures to hand that I asked for but she would get them from the Returning Officer. On the second part of the question she was unable to offer direct comment as lack of context meant it was unclear but she did illustrate her own opinion on the responsibilities of elected officials to engage with the ballot box.

For me the question remains whether the act of not voting is still a means of engaging with the process?

---

Full Audio below.

---

At this point I had to leave and poor Martin Brighton was still asking his question the meeting already having been running for two hours and with an important debate on road safety about to start which was triggered by a large petition. This again illustrates the need to look seriously and urgently at webcasting council meetings. Then those unable to attend at all, or those who found it necessary to leave before the end can still see and comment on the democracy, or lack of it, in action in our council meetings.

When is Devolution Not Devolution? by Nigel Slack.

---

Since the Greater Manchester Combined Authority 'came out' as the first of the Northern Cities to be offered and to accept the Clegg/Osbourne version of devolution I have written about my concerns. I have written not only about their sudden acceptance of an imposed elected mayor but also about the weaknesses of the deal and the impact for the other Northern cities of this split in their, until then, united front.

---

Click here for the previous article Divide & Conquer the North? - by Nigel Slack - 3rd Nov 2014.

---

Since then there has been discussion and debate amongst a broad range of people as to whether this type of deal would be offered to Sheffield City Region and whether they would fall for the rhetoric. I use the word rhetoric because for me the Greater Manchester deal is full of holes, both in the freedom it alleges it will give Manchester and in describing it as devolution at all. The deal as outlined by the Daily Telegraph seems to be nothing more than an extended version of the 'City Deals' that have been around for a while now and which enable government to target funds at Local Councils in return for them following agendas and targets agreed between the two.

The freedoms being offered in the 'devolution' deal are similarly ringfenced with specific policy aims;
Housing Investment Fund £300M, to build houses.
Planning Powers, but no detail and presumably still bound by current planning law.
Local Transport, something already in negotiation in the North with Rail North and attempts to reintegrate bus services.
Pooling of Health & Social Care budgets, probably could be negotiated without this deal.
Greater responsibility for business support and economic regeneration, already being targeted at the City Regions through the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
£100M for 'welfare to work' making local councils responsible for administering National Policy on benefit claimants.

Why do I say this is not devolution? If you look at devolution as exhibited in Scotland you have some monies and policies determined by Westminster but, most importantly, a significant amount of money is given by way of a block grant with no strings attached and the Scots powers can decide how this money is spent. They can vary the way they spend that grant to achieve not only their legal obligations but also determined by their local policies rather than those handed down from on high.

That is devolution. In addition it is backed by legislation not some shady back room deal. Without an Act of Parliament the deals being bandied about by Clegg/Osbourne can be withdrawn by any future Government on a whim.

---

So where does that leave us in Sheffield? On the 5th I asked in the Full Council meeting a number of questions about the city's view on the Clegg/Osbourne deal. I knew something was amiss when a question I would normally expect to be answered by the Leader, Julie Dore was instead responded to by Leigh Bramall with his business and economy hat on. Then at the beginning of this week I was being told by a different city council cabinet member that there was no deal on the table.

Fast forward to Wednesday morning when I attended a meeting of the Sheffield Executive Board , that body of leaders from the city's public services, private sector and VCF sectors that influences the direction of policy within the city. The first hour and a half of the meeting was a closed session, public excluded.

Attending the open session it soon became obvious, from a number of dropped comments that the closed session had been discussing something about the 'devolution' deals doing the rounds. At the end of the meeting I enquired why the devolution discussion had been held in closed session and it became crystal clear that they had been discussing an actual offer on the table for the City Region to decide upon. I imagine and to some extent hope they were being asked their view, but possibly it was no more than an information session.

---

I was due to attend the City Council Cabinet meeting that same afternoon so drafted a quick question asking if the public would get an opportunity to consider and offer an opinion on the 'devolution' deal for Sheffield currently on the table, before the City Region decided? The answer, this time from Julie Dore was a straightforward No. She explained that they were under pressure to agree the deal before the Chancellor's Autumn Statement and therefore there would not be time. Just like that the option for any democratic debate on a huge decision for this city and this region is squashed.

The decision will now, presumably be made by the ten council leaders that make up the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. Not by their Council's elected representatives debating the benefits or pitfalls of the idea, not by consultation and consent of the Millions of people over whom they will govern but by ten men and women behind closed doors negotiating and consenting to secret deals. That is why this is not devolution, it is not even democracy.

---

Finally we have to ask, why is the government so keen to have this deal decided before the Autumn Statement? The autumn statement is where the Chancellor reveals the Local Government settlement for the next financial year. In other words he will be telling local councils how much money they have to spend or cut over the following year. Could it be that once the City Regions have signed on the dotted line there will be a nasty clause in the small print that they have all overlooked? I guess only time and George Osbourne will tell but I wouldn't trust him would you?

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 15th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Cabinet meeting had a few interesting nuggets this time round, so this is quite a long report. First I'll deal with my 'part' in the meeting. After the usual preamble and agreeing the minutes of the last meeting we headed in to public questions. This is generally more relaxed than in the Full Council meetings and I took the opportunity to advertise the Sheffield for Democracy PCC Hustings event on Tuesday 21st October at the United Reform Church in the city centre.

Here's the audio of my comments.

This was followed by my first question. The question was inspired by the article in the Guardian on Tuesday about the MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier) conference that is normally held in Cannes, South of France, but has an inaugural UK version in London this week. The Guardian article suggests the conference is THE place to be if you are a council wanting to sell off the family silver, or housing estates, that type of thing.

To quote from the article.

"For the past 25 years, this conference – Mipim for short – has been held in Cannes. It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia’s Lend Lease paid for Southwark’s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knock-down price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for “social rent”."

I therefore asked whether this was the same conference that Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business ,skills and development) had attended last year and whether Sheffield attendees had any restrictions placed on them about selling off the city's family silver? Leigh Bramall and Julie Dore (Leader) both responded, Cllr Bramall indicating that it was the same conference, explaining that he and the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, roughed it in cheap bedsits whilst there and that they only attend these events to attract investment in the city for projects like the retail quarter. Cllr Dore added emphasis to the question of restriction making it very clear that any decisions on anything that came out of such conferences would be made in Sheffield by the council.

Question 1 audio below.

My second question was based on the report on Grounds Maintenance being approved at this meeting. The report itself recommends keeping ground maintenance in house but changing some of the structural management elements. The part of the report that got me interested was comment on the weighting of the decision making process. The key outcome weightings determine what are considered the most important aspects of the decision. In this case it fell out as follows.

Customer First 30%
Value for Money 30%
Council considerations 20%
Employee consideration 20%

I asked whether the same weightings were applied to all council contract decisions whether currently outsourced or not and how this would affect the consideration of contracts for which the council no longer had the 'capacity' to bring in-house.

Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) responded that weightings were used in all decisions of this nature but that they were different depending on the service under review. Services that were mainly internal processes would not have the same level of 'customer first' weighting. Service quality, however, was always factored in and they did not always choose the cheapest option. He passed no comment on the second part of my question. I guess the follow up will be to get some breakdown of the types of contracts and the corresponding weightings, to see if they are reasonable in the eyes of the public.

Question 2 audio below.

After further questions from members of the public the meeting moved on to consider a number of reports brought for approval. Item 9. was the first on the subject of the Grounds Maintenance arrangements for the council. In brief the report recommended the retention in-house of this service with some structural changes to how it was managed. The outcome was straightforward with the recommendations approved. The interesting bit was in comments on the report where Cllr Julie Dore asked whether the 'Sheffield Standard' which they were applying to the quality of the maintenance carried out could be extended to those private landlords (like housing associations) who were supposed to maintain their own grounds. Although the response was not a complete yes, it suggested that discussions on this were already under-way with those landlords.

The report at item 11. on Independent Living Solutions, was essentially about the various aspects of the city's independent living strategy for older and vulnerable people in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group. There was one element of concern for me in this, or more correctly in the language of the presentation to cabinet, where the council officer referred to the Health and Care economy. The problem is this suggests an approach where the considerations are about money first and people second. This may not be the case but that is certainly the perception. In such a context words are important and should be chosen with care to reflect the truth of a statement.

The final part of the meeting went on to look at budget reports and in the first report we, the public, got our first glimpse of the chilling future for the city's budget in 2015/16. The indications are that the Government grant to Sheffield for next year will drop by £45 Million or 29% and the projected shortfall in the city's budget would consequently be some £38M. Another serving of austerity that will be very difficult to swallow.

The audio of the comment is here.

---

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com
To 'like' on Facebook click here
To follow on Twitter click here
To support Nigel's self-funding Indiegogo campaign click here

Sheffield City Council meeting agenda with links to reports.

---

1st October 2014 - Full Council Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

First off, an apology, due to a recording malfunction the quality of the audio I recorded at this meeting is not suitable for inclusion in the blog, so it's back to the written word only for this report. I will however try to keep it succinct and as soon as they are available I will include the official minutes at the end. So after the usual welcomes and housekeeping information, minutes of last meeting were accepted and the meeting moved on to public questions and petitions.

There were two petitions of particular interest. The first was a repeat of a petition on the Council's contracts with G4S and concerns over their human rights record. Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) admitted a mistake had been made the last time this came up and that the Council have 2 contracts with G4S, one for cash collection services and one for keyholder services, though they are both of low value. He informed the petitioners that the contracts were to be retendered by the early part of 2015 and the motion he has put forward later in the meeting should address their concerns about human rights.

The second was with respect to Scooter parking in the city, a mode of transport becoming ever more popular again. The petitioner, Jonathan Marsden, asked for improved levels of scooter parking areas and an exemption for scooters to be allowed to park on pavements. In response Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) commented that parking was the most problematic of issues with as many against as for any parking policy they as council might agree. He offered to continue to review the problems for scooters but that parking on pavement was unlikely to be a solution because of the problems this causes to the visually impaired.

Then came public questions. There were questions about the city pension fund and it's investment in fossil fuel funds and a number of questions about winter gritting in the Bradfield area of the city.

My questions were next and my first was concerning the fate of Smithy Wood ancient woodland to the North of the city. This woodland is subject to two decision processes within the council, a planning application is under consideration which would destroy the majority of the woodland in favour of a motorway service facility and an application to the licensing panel to have the woodland declared a village green thereby protecting it has been referred for a full inquiry to the council. On this second application, the chair of that committee commented that it was in the 'interests of natural justice' to hold an inquiry and in 'everyone's interest it be orgabised as quickly as possible'. I therefore asked if the council would ensure that the village green inquiry was held before the planning decision was made.

Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business,skills and development) responded to the effect that, planning decisions had to be taken in adherence to certain timescales to prevent applicants claiming 'non-determination'. However, even if the application is passed the 'village green' application still has to be processed before the planning permission becomes active.

My remaining questions, essentially two but probably really two and a half were about the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). I asked about the potential for this agreement to seriously curtail the ability of governemnt both national and local to pass legislation or by laws that 'might' affect a corporations profits. I commented on the involvement of the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) in the roadshow event for TTIP that took place that morning and asked whether, as a balance, the council would host an event that looked at the potential threats of the TTIP rather than the emphasis being placed on the positive aspects for business? I then attempted to comment on that mornings roadshow event and to ask whether any local public money had been used to support the event?

I say tried as I was interrupted by the Lord Mayor, Cllr Peter Rippon, telling me I was making a statement and to get to my question. This would seem to be an annual ritual, I was challenged in the same way last year by Cllr Vicky Priestley during her tenure as Lord Mayor. I soldiered on to ask my question though without some important contextual information. I also asked a supplementary question regarding a comment made by David Henig (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) a civil servant "it's not Governments job to protect the people from corporations". I asked whether council had any comment on this?

Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) responded to all my questions in one go, fair enough, Answerring the last first she commented that "it is certainly the job of government to protect people from corporations" particularly she thought where they impact on peoples quality of life. She also supports some of the initiatives put forward by Ed Miliband around corporations that exploit there customers or the people they are supposed to be delivering services to, like the energy companies. Cllr Dore then commented on the global aspect of the economy and how private companie seemed to be taking over everything as seen lately with the NHS, however she also acknowledged that this put the 'left' in a delicate situation since despite their inclination to keep public services public, she has to accept that where we are is where we are. We have to accept that we need businesses to continue to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

She continued to comment on the role of the LEP and how city involvement enabled them to steer the LEP's investment in local business initiatives. On the issue of TTIP, she agrees with the national party's attempts to get an exemption for the NHS and other public services. On the roadshow, she commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence,as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com

17th September 2014 - Cabinet Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

Due to a cock up in room bookings we were attending Cabinet in the reception room at the top of the grand staircase, which allows for better use of microphones and I hope therefore better recording. After the usual housekeeping announcements and apologies for absence and the approval of minutes we moved to public questions.

My first question of the day focussed on the outrageous behaviour of Cllr Jack Clarkson (UKIP) at the last full council meeting. Following the dropping of some leaflets onto the UKIP positions below the public gallery, Cllr Clarkson, in the midst of an emotional debate on the 'no confidence' motion about the PCC, stormed up into the public gallery and, from my position appeared to be trying to assault the member of the public that had dropped the leaflets.

My question raised the need for this type of action to be disciplined as contrary to the council's code of conduct for councillors and whether that would be done by Council or by a member of the public complaining.

The response from Council Leader, Julie Dore was to the effect that normally they would wait for a member of the public to bring it forward in writing. However, since this is essentially what I had done with this question, she would forward the complaint on my behalf.

The audio for this question and answer is below.


My second question was the result of conversations at home around the issues of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation tragedy. I commented that whilst discussing the tragedy of the Rotherham report with friends, I was told that relatives of theirs had a vulnerable child and that Rotherham Council had offered them un-chaperoned taxi travel for their child. They refused and are now thinking they may have had a lucky escape. The question then arises, does Sheffield offer such taxi travel? Is it chaperoned? And are the drivers CRB checked?

The answer from Cllr's Jackie Drayton (Children, Young People and Families) and Isobel Bowler (Culture,Sport and Leisure) was to the effect that the majority of council transport for vulnerable people, young and old, was by in house vehicles and drivers, all appropriately checked. taxi services that were used were also checked and regularly updated and any persons using that service were carefully assessed first. Cllr Bowler (responsible for taxi licensing) commented that Sheffield's licensing procedures were rightly very strict but that there does exist a potential problem more generally because of drivers getting licenses from outside the city, over which she has no control. This needs taking to SCRCA in my opinion.

Full audio below.


Question 3 from me was in respect of a TTIP roadshow being advertised on the city region LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) events calendar. The advertising for the event was unremittingly positive about TTIP and I felt contrary to the comments made on behalf of the council at the last full council meeting. I asked if anyone from council would be attending to offer a more balanced viewpoint. The rsponse from Julie Dore was one of surprise, it seemed this was the first she had heard of the roadshow but commented that she was meeting the CEO of the LEP that afternoon and would make further inquiries.

Full audio is below.


My final question to Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) about planning decision made after the fact at the 'Bluecoats' development on Psalter lane was almost sunk when he replied by e-mail the night before. However I commented that the reponse created further questions and asked to meet with him and planning to discuss it further. He agreed.

Full audio below.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com