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.

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.

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.

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?

Devonshire Street demolition. How to stop it!

(image from Bruno Postle Flicker Page -https://www.flickr.com/photos/brunopostle/15491474361/in/photostream/)

The decision on the demolition of a row of shops considered by many as the jewel in the crown of the Devonshire Quarter's shopping experience and probably the oldest remaining shopping street in Sheffield will be made on Tuesday 24th March 2015, at the Planning Meeting, taking place in the Town Hall, Pinstone Street, S1 1HH at 2pm.

This may well be the last chance to prevent the demolition from going ahead, though with Planning Officers recommending demolition to the Planning Committee this may be a slim chance. I believe it is important that we make our case and try to force a rethink on the Officers and the Committee.

If you feel strongly enough about this and like me think this is unacceptable, get involved, here is what to do.

---

First, turn up to the Planning Meeting on Tuesday to voice your objection. You need to arrive fifteen minutes before the meeting starts, so at 1.45pm and register your wish to comment with the clerk of the meeting. Anyone affected by an application, whether as a neighbour or other Interested parties, may ask to put views personally.

Have your comments prepared. The more people that speak the longer the meeting will take and the potential that we can stop or change the decision that day. The Chair of the meeting will probably try to prevent too many people from contributing so we will have to be firm that we each have different points to make and we all deserve a chance to speak.

Make sure as much of your comment as possible concentrates on the planning issues rather than just personal preference for the shops that are currently there or concern over chain retailers taking over, they won't consider these comments as relevant. Make it personal however, commenting why you have problems with what they are doing, based on the planning issues.

---

Here are some comments that might be useful to you;

The Coal Authority report suggests a significant mining legacy risk. This could lead to redevelopment not being an option after demolition and this heritage being permanently lost.

The developer's own archaeological report states. “...overall, the proposed development will have a minor negative impact” and “A proposed sympathetic scheme that would retain the existing building, whilst also developing the land to the rear would be considered as providing a moderate/minor positive impact.”

The Planning Officer's report highlights “ Policy BE15 of the UDP...(says)...Development which would harm the character or appearance of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas or Areas of Special Character will not be permitted.” (The Grade II listed former Wharncliffe Fireclay Works would be affected.)

and “... policy BE18...expects the retention of buildings, walls, trees, open spaces and other features that contribute to the character of the Area,”

and “Policy BE20 of the UDP (Other Historic Buildings) states that the retention of historic buildings which are of local interest but not listed will be encouraged wherever practicable”

The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) advises. “advises that local planning authorities should set out ... a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and, ... recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The Archaeological report also states. “Numbers 162-170 Devonshire Street have a strong social value, not only for those who continue to work within the buildings, but also within the wider local community. The social value of the application site has been demonstrated by public interest into the development proposal and formal comments registered to the application.”

and “The Appraisal concludes that the proposed development will result in the complete loss of the undesignated heritage asset of local importance...”

---

These are just a few comments I've picked out from all the reports as relevant to planning policy and therefore a good hook on which to hang your objections. There are others and all the reports can be seen on the Council website's Planning pages.

Start Here
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/0E3B859EE4C653ADD25BA09F6635DB17/14_03473_FUL--872262.rtf

The full set of reports are here.
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NC1WIKNYFY000

If you have the time add some thoughts of your own.

Around 19,500 people have objected to this proposal, in one form or another, if we can get just 1% to turn up at the planning meeting that would be huge. Please try to be there and please try to comment.

Devonshire Street Demolition is Going Ahead

(image from Star article - http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/arctic-monkeys-drummer-backs-fight-to-save-sheffield-shops-1-6892207)


Time for bad news folks. Please share far and wide.

The planning meeting to decide the fate of the Devonshire Street parade of shops that include Rare & Racy is to happen at the Planning and Highways Committee Meeting, Tuesday 24 March 2015, 2.00 pm, at the Town Hall. Pinstone Street, Sheffield, S1 2HH

The agenda for the meeting is here
http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=5604

The bad news is that planning officers are recommending demolition, despite objections from some 19,500 people, including the local MP Paul Blomfield, and local Green Councillor Jillian Creasy. Objections from Hallamshire Historic Buildings, Sheffield Civic Trust and even the developers own Archaeological report.

If you, like me, think this is unacceptable, you can still have your say. You have to turn up at the meeting and register beforehand to comment to the committee direct. If enough people can do this it is possible we could essentially filibuster the meeting. Prepare a comment make it relevant to planning issues and you should be able to speak.

Register to comment by sending your details to  martyn.riley@sheffield.gov.uk

It may not work but it has to be worth a try. It is time to do our bit. I will try to give you a foretaste of my comments in case you need some help but the main thing is to turn up and have your say.

The report draft is available here (will open as a document).
http://publicaccess.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/files/0E3B859EE4C653ADD25BA09F6635DB17/14_03473_FUL--872262.rtf

Not My Sunday Sermon 4 – Winning & Losing, by Nigel Slack

---

This is a bit of a late night piece and a reflection on the fruits of three months of intensive campaigning. Campaigning both for change, through my work on transparency in Sheffield's public affairs, and for the support of that work through my crowdfunding project.

---

It's not a long piece because, in the scheme of things, three months is not a lot of time to make an impact on the political stage, but when trying to live on next to no income and extending credit to the limit, three months seems like forever. I guess that's why I've titled it 'Winning & Losing' the impact I've achieved in political terms has definitely been a win, my ability to make this my full time employ however, has failed.

In this aspect I am undoubtedly disappointed, deeply so. I have received support from some amazing people and, perhaps not surprisingly, those who have contributed could be considered those least able, financially, to do so. Those people have my undying and immense gratitude. They are people who understand what I have been trying to achieve, understand why it is important to do it and believed in my ability to deliver the goods. At least, in that, I feel vindicated in attempting the difficult sell, asking people to contribute to a project that gave no profitable return and no new gadget to display as evidence of ones tech savvy or fashion forward knowledge.

I admit to having failed to translate that into a mass appeal. Quite simply not enough people saw or understood what I was trying to do. Those that I did connect with and who took the time to look at what I was doing and listened to the things I managed to do, be they public or press, were able to relate to my concerns over the way decisions in our city are made and the lack of real public engagement in that process. A great deal of support was expressed and appreciation offered but the ability to fund it was often not there. It is there that the root of my disappointment lies.

---

Then there are the winning aspects of my last three months. The top of this list may surprise some people but it is the connections I have made with people, both inside local politics and more importantly outside, that share my belief that we can do better. Whether it's been professors from Universities or a 'Doley from Richmond' as he likes to call himself, Council Officers or 'some' Councillors, there are people throughout this city that realise we need to take a long hard look at how we arrange our politics for the future. That the involvement of the public and their support is the only way to legitimise a system that can get fewer and fewer people to the actual ballot box.

Then there are the little victories that come from constant conversations with the cities decision makers. Commitments to transparency in the planning process, the regreening of the Meadowhead roundabout and to opposing TTIP whilst it allows for the privatisation of the NHS.

---

The one achievement that will probably have the biggest impact on the transparency of decision making in the city is the latest. Live on Radio Sheffield, Leader of the Council, Julie Dore agreed to support the introduction of Webcasting for council meetings, if it can be done without impacting the city's budget. Why is this such good news? I've already put such a plan to the city's Commercial Director, who sees it as entirely feasible. The political will now matches the public appetite and there should be no more obstacles. Now that is a win worth talking about.