Council Agenda 25th July 2007
CITY OF SHEFFIELD
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
_____________
COUNCIL SUMMONS
______________
Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Council of the City of Sheffield
will be held in the Council Chamber within the Town Hall, Sheffield, on
Wednesday, 25th July, 2007, at 2.00 p.m.
PUBLIC INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ACCESS TO MEETINGS Council Meetings are open to the public. Admittance to the public gallery can be gained via the First Point Reception, Old Town Hall, Pinstone Street. Details of the business to be transacted can be viewed in advance at the First Point Reception which is open between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. Monday – Thursday and between 9.00 a.m. and 4.45 p.m. on Friday, or you can ring on telephone no. 2734552. A copy of the Council Summons and any reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.sheffield.gov.uk. |
THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS IS PROPOSED TO BE TRANSACTED-
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING
2. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
To receive any questions or communications from the public, or communications submitted by the Lord Mayor or the Chief Executive and to pass such resolutions thereon as the Standing Orders permit and as may be deemed expedient.
3. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS
(a) Questions relating to urgent business - Standing Order No. A18(6).
(b) Supplementary questions on written questions submitted at this meeting - Standing Order No. A18(4).
(c) Questions on the discharge of the functions of the South Yorkshire Joint Authorities for Fire and Rescue, Passenger Transport, Pensions and Police - Section 41 of the Local Government Act, 1985 - Standing Order No. A18(6).
(d) Questions on the discharge of the functions of the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly – Standing Order No. A18(6).
4. REPRESENTATION, DELEGATED AUTHORITY AND RELATED ISSUES
To consider any changes to the memberships and arrangements for meetings of Boards etc., delegated authority, and the appointment of representatives to serve on other bodies.
5. ITEMS REFERRED TO COUNCIL
To consider a report and a recommendation arising therefrom which was referred by the Cabinet at its meeting held on 11th July, 2007.
OPTIONS FOR SECURING A LONG-TERM FUTURE FOR MYERS GROVE AND WISEWOOD SECONDARY SCHOOLS
To consider a report and any recommendation arising therefrom which may be referred by the Cabinet at its special meeting to be held on 19th July, 2007.
6. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR HARRY HARPHAM
That this Council:
(a) notes with regret that the administration’s proposal to merge Myers Grove Secondary School and Wisewood School and Community Sport College, and replace the existing school buildings with a brand new £20 million school was recently rejected by the Council’s Liberal Democrat and Green Councillors;
(b) notes that, following this decision, John Wilkinson, Headteacher of Myers Grove Secondary School, and Diane McKinlay, Headteacher of Wisewood School and Community Sports College, were quoted in the local press as saying:
“We both feel strongly that the needs of future generations of young people have become lost in the political process. Throughout the consultation process we have worked closely together to find a long term and viable solution to the problems of falling rolls in this area of the City and inadequate buildings at the two schools.
“While we understand that the proposal put forward for a new replacement school on the Myers site was always going to be very difficult for the Wisewood community we have not heard during the consultation period a viable or sustainable alternative.
“The proposal offered a £20 million 11 to 19 specialist sports college with brand new facilities, utilising the considerable skills of the existing staff. We were confident that by working together we could bring the best of both schools to create an exciting, vibrant new community school.”
(c) shares the disappointment expressed by John Wilkinson and Diane McKinley that young people in the North West of the City may have lost a once-in-a-generation opportunity to access £20 million Government funding for a brand new state of the art school;
(d) believes that some of the misinformation that has been circulating recently regarding the Myers Grove and Wisewood proposals have led to some confusion around the key issues, and therefore wishes to clarify some basic facts:
(i) the Government expects authorities to achieve best value in the provision of school places;
(ii) the current national legal framework for schools funding dictates that schools are funded annually on the number of pupils on their roll which means that as pupil numbers fall, so does Government funding;
(iii) a fall in funding acts as a force on Councils to ensure that the cost of school places provides value for money and does not bear disproportionately on all schools;
(iv) it is a condition of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme that authorities demonstrate that they have plans to manage the pattern of school places efficiently and make plans to remove excess school capacity; and
(v) a number of Councils have had their BSF plans referred back where they do not have convincing plans for taking out surplus places;
(e) believes that, while campaigners for small schools may draw attention to the perceived benefits that small schools might bring, these perceived benefits cannot be seen in isolation from the issue of funding;
(f) notes that under the current funding regime, the revenue funding for small schools can only be supported by reducing revenue funding for all schools, unless the Council chooses to provide extra revenue resources from outside the Dedicated Schools Grant, the burden of which would fall to Council Tax payers;
(g) feels that headteachers and governing bodies across the City would be reluctant to accept a lower level of revenue funding for their own schools in order to support two exceptionally small schools in one part of the City, given that a viable alternative is available;
(h) believes that Council Tax payers expect the Council to achieve value for money in all services that it provides and therefore anticipates that they too may be reluctant to shoulder the financial burden of two small schools, given that a viable alternative is available;
(i) confirms that the Council’s officers have made clear throughout the discussions on the future of Myers Grove and Wisewood Schools that the Government would not allow two small schools to receive funding for rebuilding through the BSF programme;
(j) notes that Partnership for Schools (PfS), the Government’s agent for BSF, indicated to Sheffield many months ago that a plan to retain two small schools, within one mile of each other, would be challenged;
(k) notes that this position has since been confirmed on at least four further separate occasions, including:
(i) in a letter from Russell Andrews, PfS Director of Education and Planning, to the Executive Director Children and Young People, on 31st May 2007 which stated:
‘… we would not expect local authorities to bring forward proposals for rebuilding/refurbishing two small schools close to each other in the manner that you have enquired about’;
(ii) in a letter from PfS, to the Executive Director Children and Young People, on 22nd June 2007, which stated that the £250 million BSF programme for Sheffield cannot proceed unless the Council has a convincing plan to tackle the fall in pupil numbers, and also stated:
‘As was previously explained in a letter from Russell Andrews, Director of Education and Planning, we do not expect local authorities to submit plans to retain and rebuild separate small schools in such close proximity as it is not a good use of BSF resources’;
(iii) in a meeting that the Council had with PfS on 3rd July 2007, at which PfS confirmed the view that a plan to maintain Myers Grove and Wisewood schools as two separate schools would not receive funding from the BSF programme;
(iv) in a letter from PfS, to the Executive Director Children and Young People, on 5th July 2007 which confirmed, once again, that PfS would not fund the rebuilding of Myers Grove and Wisewood schools through the BSF programme because they do not believe that this would be a good use of BSF funds;
(l) notes that the Council’s officers have confirmed that PfS and the Department for Children Schools and Families have proposed that schemes to rebuild or refurbish Myers Grove and Wisewood Schools would have to come from the Council’s corporate resources or other sources and further notes that in this event the £20 million funding which would have been available through the BSF programme would be ‘lost’ to Sheffield;
(m) notes that the Leader of the Opposition stated at the Council meeting of 4th July, in response to questions from members of the public, “I absolutely guarantee we are committed to working with you to provide a new school and if the Government turns us down financially we will use the resources that the Council has”;
(n) notes that now that the PfS has ruled out funding the investment at Myers Grove and Wisewood Schools from the BSF programme, Council officers have confirmed that if the Council wishes to continue with the option of retaining two separate schools, the capital funding to rebuild the schools would need to be found from the Council’s resources;
(o) notes that the rebuilding of Myers Grove and Wisewood schools as two separate schools is estimated to cost £25,946,250;
(p) believes that the major opposition group of this Council must now acknowledge that the Government will not fund the rebuilding of two separate schools, given that the Government has been clear on this issue throughout the discussions and has confirmed to the Council that this is their view on at least 5 separate occasions, as outlined in (j) and (k) above;
(q) notes that in the press release issued by the major opposition group on 10th July 2007, the opposition failed to reconfirm their previously stated position that if the Government ‘turns down’ the request for two schools, they would ‘use the resources that the Council has’;
(r) believes that the major opposition group should now be clear with the local communities involved what they now propose to do, given that they have made a promise to those communities that they will fund two newly built local schools;
(s) further believes that it is disingenuous for the major opposition group to hide behind the façadethat ‘all political parties and campaign groups’ should ‘come together and challenge Government in order to secure two new schools for both Wisewood and Myers Grove’, given that the Government has been clear from the start that they will not fund small schools through the BSF programme because this would not represent good value for money;
(t) suspects that the true position is that the major opposition group have made a promise to the local communities in the North West of the City that they cannot keep;
(u) notes that, despite the Leader of the Opposition’s recent statement at Council, as outlined in ‘m’ above, at the time of writing no proposal has been made from the major opposition group as to how they would identify the resources required to meet this commitment;
(v) believes that one could only conclude that since no proposals have been made to identify the funds from within existing resources, the major opposition group would seek to borrow the £26 million required to rebuild two schools;
(w) further believes that the people of Sheffield would consider this to be perverse, considering that the Government is offering £20 million to the City to meet the educational requirement of the children in the North West of the City and feels that it would be extremely reckless to lose out on the £20 million BSF funding that is available for a single replacement school;
(x) is also concerned about the significant revenue implications of retaining two small schools in the City, the burden of which would either have to be shared by all schools across the City, or fall to local Council Tax payers;
(y) notes that the funding requirements to rebuild and maintain two small schools, would equate to a Council Tax increase of approximately 1.5% on every household in the City;
(z) furthermore, is extremely concerned that Sheffield’s entire £250 million BSF programme is now in jeopardy and will remain at risk until the Council is able to submit to PfS a convincing plan to tackle the falling pupil numbers in the City;
(aa) believes that, although the Council is advised that there is a possibility of establishing a single school on two sites, this option would be more costly than the option of a single school on one site, and would also be inefficient, meaning that teachers would have to travel between the sites, and that certain facilities would have to be replicated on both sites;
(bb) notes that a split site option would require a revenue subsidy of approximately £259,000 a year, and a capital subsidy of approximately £5 million from the Council;
(cc) further notes that it has been the Council’s policy, wherever possible, to use capital rebuilding programmes to rebuild split site schools on a single site, rather than retain them as split site schools, because of the inefficient nature of split site schools as highlighted in ‘aa’;
(dd) recognises that at times all members of this Council have to make tough decisions, which, while they may not be universally popular, are believed to be in the long-term interests of the City; and
(ee) urges all Members of this Council to put politics aside and support the original proposal to take advantage of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a brand new £20 million school to bring a first-class education to the young people of the North West of the City.
7. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR SYLVIA DUNKLEY
That this Council:
(a) welcomes the continuing increase in the number of local and national rail users;
(b) regrets the ongoing failure to address barriers to increased local rail services such as the need to upgrade Dore Station;
(c) notes the recent awarding by the Government of the East Midlands franchise to Stagecoach and of the Cross Country franchise to Arriva and hopes that the Government has made these awards not on the basis of Treasury revenue income but rather on quality of service for passengers;
(d) believes that the promised relentless increase in fares at above inflation rates is being used as a blunt tool to address overcrowding and will do nothing to promote sustainable travel;
(e) is concerned at the continuing imbalance of rail funding between the South and the North of England as witnessed by Network Rail's latest investment proposals;
(f) is concerned also that an equitable allocation of the 1000 new railway carriages promised by the Government be made to the North of England;
(g) notes the proposal in Network Rail's recently published Business Plan for journey time savings between Sheffield and London of only up to eight minutes by 2014;
(h) believes however that in the economic and environmental interests of Sheffield rail journey times between the City and London should be at least on a par with those between Doncaster and London;
(i) resolves therefore, to bring these issues to the attention of national Government and Network Rail; and
(j) directs that copies of this Motion be sent to the Secretary of State for Transport, the Chairman of Network Rail, the Director General of the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and Sheffield’s Members of Parliament.
8. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR JAN WILSON
That this Council:
(a) puts on record its unreserved thanks to all the people across Sheffield who have pulled together with remarkable strength and endeavour to help during the emergency situation that arose following the recent floods;
(b) offers its thanks in particular to Council staff, the local hospitals and the Emergency Services, as well as other agencies whose staff worked around the clock to keep local people safe;
(c) also remembers the ordinary people of this City who made extraordinary efforts to help others during this unprecedented crisis;
(d) notes with sorrow the tragic loss of two Sheffield people, Ryan Joe Parry and Peter Harding, who lost their lives during the floods, and offers heartfelt condolences to their families;
(e) welcomes the establishment of the All-Party Working Group which has been set up to deal with the aftermath of the floods and make sure that all possible measures are put in place to safeguard Sheffield against floods in the future;
(f) urges all Council members to report any problems they encounter while undertaking their Ward duties so that the Council can be as aware as possible of all problems being experienced by Sheffield people;
(g) notes that there will be a ‘hot’ debrief on the conduct of the emergency operation, to be undertaken by the Chief Constable to ascertain what lessons can be learned;
(h) notes also that the Environment Agency is conducting an investigation into the management of water courses in order to make recommendations regarding flood control and amelioration;
(i) confirms that the Council will take on board the long term lessons to be learnt from the recent floods, and will work to be at the forefront of work to minimise our impact on the environment, as well as tackle the negative effects and address the causes of climate change; and
(j) further confirms that the Council will continue its discussions with Government to ensure that as much help and financial assistance as possible is provided to help Sheffield get back on its feet, and ensure that appropriate action is taken to strengthen flood defences.
9. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR IAN AUCKLAND
That this Council:
(a) notes that, despite a vigorous campaign against cuts within our local NHS, the Sheffield Children’s Hospital Trust have announced that the specialist S2 ward is set to close in September this year;
(b) condemns the closure of the S2 ward as it will dilute the expertise and specialist care offered to our young people with ear, nose and throat conditions;
(c) condemns the cuts made to the Children and Adolescents Mental Health Service within the Sheffield Children’s Hospital Trust;
(d) believes that these cuts are not clinically lead and are an example of the effects of the current financial crisis within the NHS which is having an impact on local health services within Sheffield and the wider region, this is exemplified by the £133,000 worth of cuts being made at the Children’s Hospital Trust;
(e) believes that the NHS should be protected against the constant unnecessary and unhelpful reform and the front-line service cuts brought about by the present Government’s policy;
(f) therefore calls on the present Government to adopt a new health policy which embraces the principles of decentralisation, democratic accountability and closer working between primary care and social services whilst putting doctors and nurses at the heart of healthcare decision making rather than accountants ordered in by Whitehall; and
(g) directs that a copy of this Motion is sent to Secretry of State for Health, all Sheffield’s Members of Parliament, local Health Trade Union representatives and the Chief Executives of all Sheffield’s NHS bodies.
10. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR CHRIS WELDON
That this Council:
(a) notes that while the level of new-build housing is at its highest since 1990 at 168,000 homes a year, because of growing demand, the shortfall in new homes is estimated at 40,000 a year;
(b) welcomes the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a 20% increase in the Country’s house-building programme, which should see three million homes built by 2020;
(c) further welcomes Gordon Brown’s announcement that councils will play a role in meeting this ambitious target;
(d) looks forward to the publication of the housing green paper, the aim of which is to increase market housing, social housing and shared ownership housing in order to meet an urgent need to help young people and young families with children to get onto the housing ladder;
(e) confirms its commitment to the building of diverse, good quality housing that is well insulated and energy efficient;
(f) recognises the demand for larger sized family homes in the social rented sector, and aims to increase the provision of this type of housing; and
(g) looks forward to further announcements of the role of local councils in meeting housing demand.
11. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR JILLIAN CREASY
That this Council:
(a) notes that there are no proven benefits of introducing a National Identity Scheme;
(b) notes the cost implications to the public and individual purse, which, in the Sheffield context could pay for around 500 beat police officers;
(c) notes the technology to run the extensive database is seriously open to question;
(d) believes that such a scheme would be detrimental to civil liberties, with particular concern from the black and minority ethnic community, LGBT and youth communities as to the impact on them and on their relationship with the police;
(e) believes that this local authority would be placed in an invidious and costly position with regard to monitoring and enforcement of such a scheme;
(f) notes that the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Greater London Authority, 12 English city authorities and numerous county and borough authorities have already affiliated to the ‘No2ID’ campaign; and
(g) therefore resolves to:
(i) affiliate to the ‘NO2ID’ campaign;
(ii) take no part in any pilot or feasibility scheme in relation to the introduction of ID cards;
(iii) make it a policy of the Council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required to access Council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by an Act of Parliament; and
(iv) send copies of this resolution to the Home Secretary and the local Members of Parliament.
12. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR BERNARD LITTLE
That this Council:
(a) notes the current planned alterations to the junction of St Mary's Road and Shoreham Street including widening of the inner ring road into 3 lanes for over 200 metres;
(b) notes that this junction already has good quality signal pedestrian and cycle access;
(c) notes the recent loss of Central Government funding caused by failures to meet Local Transport Plan targets;
(d) notes the total cost of the scheme exceeds £400k; including £250k from the Local Transport Plan Bus Hotspots Block;
(e) believes that the increase of capacity in this scheme will attract further traffic onto this road, causing an increase in noise and pollution affecting local residents;
(f) further believes that the easing of congestion at this point could be relieved by traffic priority measures;
(g) is of the view that the increase in traffic will bring further problems of congestion on other parts of the road network;
(h) believes that this scheme is an inefficient use of Council resources; and
(i) resolves to reconsider this proposal.
13. NOTICE OF MOTION GIVEN BY COUNCILLOR ROGER DAVISON
That this Council:
(a) welcomes the opening of the new facilities for the Archer project;
(b) recognises the important job that the Anglican Cathedral does in helping the homeless;
(c) notes that it acts as an important catalyst with other religious denominations as well as non religious agencies in providing opportunities to turn lives around for those who have fallen on hard and difficult times; and
(d) congratulates the Cathedral on the building extension that it has provided for the purpose of the project work.
14. OBSERVATIONS
To receive observations on the minutes of the meetings of the various Council bodies for the period 16th June to 6th July, 2007.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2007
How useful is this page?