Minutes of a Meeting of the Council held on Wednesday 4 th May 2005

Meeting of the Council of the City of held in the Council Chamber within the Town Hall, Sheffield, on Wednesday, 4 th May 2005 pursuant to notice duly given and Summonses duly served.

PRESET

THE LORD MAYOR (Councillor Mike Pye) THE DEPUTY LORD MAYOR (Councillor Roger Davison)

1 Arbourthorne Ward 10 Dore & Totley Ward 19 Mosborough Ward Julie Dore Anne Smith Mike Peat John Robson Mike Waters David Barker Tim Rippon Keith Hill Sam Wall

2 Beauchief /Greenhill Ward 11 East Ecclesfield Ward 20 ether Edge Ward Anthony Holmes Pat Fox Ali Qadar Simon Clement-Jones Vic Bowden Clive Skelton Graham Oxley

3 Beighton Ward 12 Ecclesall Ward 21 Richmond Ward Ian Saunders Sylvia Dunkley Martin Lawton Chris Rosling-Josephs John Campbell Helen Mirfin-Boukouris Terry Barrow

4 Birley Ward 13 Firth Park Ward 22 Shiregreen & Brightside Ward Brian Lodge Joan Barton Jane Bird Chris Weldon Peter Price Alan Law Peter Rippon

5 Broomhill Ward 14 Fulwood Ward 23 Southey Ward Paul Scriven John Knight Tony Damms Alan Whitehouse Andrew Sangar Gill Furniss Shaffaq Mohammed Janice Sidebottom

6 Burngreave Ward 15 Gleadless Valley Ward 24 Stannington Ward Jackie Drayton Terry Fox Vickie Priestley Ibrar Hussain Rosemary Telfer Steve Jones Garry Weatherall

7 Central Ward 16 Graves Park Ward 25 Stocksbridge & Upper Don Ward Jean Cromar Peter Moore Martin Davis Jillian Creasy Ian Auckland Martin Brelsford Mohammad Azim Barrie Jervis

8 Crookes Ward 17 Hillsborough Ward 26 Walkley Ward John Hesketh Robert MacDonald Diane Leek Sylvia Anginotti Janet Bragg Veronica Hardstaff Alf Meade Jonathan Harston

9 Darnall Ward 18 Manor Castle Ward 27 West Ecclesfield Ward Mary Lea Pat Midgley Kathleen Chadwick Mohammad Altaf Jan Fiore Alan Hooper Jan Wilson Trevor Bagshaw

28 Woodhouse Ward Marjorie Barker Mick Rooney Ray Satur

COUNCIL

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Baker, Kate Dawson, Harry Harpham, Brian Holmes, Andrew White and Pat White.

2. DEATHS OF FORMER COUNCILLORS DOROTHY WALTO N AND DAVID MORGAN The Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye) referred in sympathetic terms to the recent deaths of former Councillors Dorothy Walton and David Morgan and, after a number of Members of the City Council paid tribute to them, Members observed a minute’s silence in their memory.

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Pat Midgley, seconded by Councillor Joan Barton, that the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on 6 th April 2005 be approved as a correct record, with the addition of the name of Councillor Jillian Creasy to the list of those Members submitting apologies for the meeting.

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS

4.1 Petitions The Council received petitions containing (a) 295 signatures raising concerns with regard to the ending of the Netherthorpe/Upperthorpe Community Alliance Streetsafe Warden Scheme and, after hearing representations made on behalf of the petitioners by Ms. Rita Faulding and comments made by Councillor Chris Weldon (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods) in which he explained to the petitioners that funding for that scheme came from the Single Regeneration Budget and this had now ended and that Sheffield Homes was responsible for the City-wide Street Warden Service, which included Wardens in Netherthorpe and Upperthorpe, referred the petition to Councillor Weldon for consideration; and (b) 1,341 signatures asking that the Council took urgent action to slow down traffic before there were any further deaths on Hathersage Road and, after hearing representations made on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Tony Meggett and comments made by Councillor Jan Wilson (Leader of the Council) in which she requested details of the issues raised by Mr. Meggett and referred to the decision of the West Planning and Highways Area Board at its meeting held on 12 th April 2005 requesting officers to report in three months’ time on the reconfiguration of the Limb Lane/Cross Lane junction and Dore Moor Inn junction, provision of signage and display information for drivers and an enforcement and monitoring of speed levels undertaken at that location, the gulley cleaning that would be taking place in the next three months and that Limb Lane/Brickhouse Lane had been included in the summer Resurfacing Programme, referred the petition for consideration by the West Planning and Highways Area Board.

4.2 Public Questions Relating to the Netherthorpe/Upperthorpe Community Alliance Street Safe Warden Scheme Mr George Stanton and Ms Laura Moynahan referred to the lack of consultation by the City Council with regard to the ending of the Netherthorpe COUNCIL

and Upperthorpe Community Alliance (NUCA) Streetsafe Warden Scheme and asked why officers from Sheffield Homes had not attended a recent public meeting in respect of the Scheme and why two of the Street Wardens had not been offered posts as part of the Council’s City-wide Street Warden Scheme. The questioners also commented that the Scheme had been a social enterprise delivered by the community for the benefit of the community. In response, Councillor Chris Weldon (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods) explained that the Scheme had been funded by the Single Regeneration Budget but this funding source had now ceased. City Council officers had attended the meeting now mentioned and he would request that Sheffield Homes arrange a subsequent meeting with representatives from the NUCA. In respect of the issues relating to social enterprise, he indicated that he would want the Council to work with local enterprise wherever possible and this could be an issue to consider as part of the Sheffield First Agreement.

4.3 Public Questions Relating to Sheffield City Greg Fletcher, Alan Kirbyshaw, Richard Lightening, Anthony Hall and Mike Moss asked questions relating to the outcome of the Economic Viability Assessment of Sheffield City Airport undertaken by York Aviation, in particular, (a) why had there not been wider consultation as part of the Assessment, (b) what would happen to the police helicopter and the medivac aircraft if the “Blue Skies” Business Park was developed, (c) had the report presented to the owners of the Airport by York Aviation in 2001 made any mention of Sheffield having sufficient airport capacity in the region and recommended “starter strips” and was there any evidence that that report had been implemented in full, (d) why was the report based on the views of the five people that had supported the “Blue Skies” development when there was a 900 signature petition submitted in December 2004 objecting to the planning application for the Sheffield Airport and (e) whether any of the airlines that had been approached by the airport operator to start services had ruled out operating to the airport in the longer term. In response, Councillor Jan Wilson (Leader of the Council) indicated that the issue relating to whether airlines would operate from the airport in the longer term was covered in the consultant’s report. The issue relating to the police helicopter and medivac aircraft would be given consideration and had been raised by the Chief Constable. She understood that the report presented to the owners of the Airport in 2001 had been implemented. As a number of the issues raised would be addressed as part of the item to consider the Economic and Viability Assessment of the Airport later in the meeting, the Leader asked that Louise Congdon (York Aviation) respond to those issues as part of that item.

5. SHEFFIELD CITY AIRPORT The Council received a presentation from Louise Congdon, Managing Partner, York Aviation on the outcome of that company’s Economic Viability Assessment of Sheffield City Airport. Members of the Council had received an Executive Summary of the final report, which indicated that York Aviation was appointed in January 2005 to carry out an assessment of the Airport. The study was in response to the submission by Sheffield City Airport Limited and Sheffield Airport Property Limited of two planning applications in January 2004 COUNCIL for a conversion of part of the airport site to the “Blue Skies” Business Park and associated modifications to the airport. In response to a number of the questions asked by members of the public earlier in the meeting, Ms Congdon indicated that the consultees had been recommended to them by key economic partners in the city. A public open day had been publicised locally and the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s website offered the opportunity for people to make comments. She considered that there was sufficient notice for people to comment. In respect of the report prepared in 2001, she was unaware if the report had been implemented. Ms. Congdon gave a presentation summarising the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Viability Assessment. In respect of potential market demand, she referred to the City’s economy generating further demand for and being more dependent on international air links in the future but that the market would remain smaller than for other regional cities. Theoretically there was a market for a small number of scheduled services but attracting airlines would be difficult due to the physical constraints of the Airport limiting payload/range, even for operators of the new turbo-prop aircraft. As scheduled service operations would be perceived by airlines to be higher risk commercially due to past failures, they would expect substantial incentives from the Airport and/or public subsidies to recommence scheduled services. Even if services could be attracted, they would add relatively little to the connectivity of the City, given the services offered from other and would be less likely to provide good hub connections. Competition from low fare services at Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield Airport would put pressure on airline yields and impact on the viability of scheduled services. With the proposed “Blue Skies” development, the Airport would be limited to a few general aviation aircraft and helicopter operations. The scope for scheduled helicopter operations had been raised but this was considered unlikely to be viable. In respect of the economic development issues, she indicated that given the relatively limited range of services the Airport would offer and the range of services from neighbouring airports, its importance to economic development would, at best, be marginal and would need to be weighed against the costs of retaining the Airport. Taking a wider view, Sheffield was not disadvantaged in terms of air service connectivity compared to other United Kingdom and European cities but only in terms of very local (30 minutes) access to air services. Whilst air service connectivity was important, there was no clear pattern that better connectivity translated itself directly to higher economic growth provided there was good access to a wider range of air services from other airports. This would require improved surface access links to other airports. Ms. Congdon then referred to a number of financial and viability issues. She stated that the Airport was losing around £400,000 per annum, with peak losses in access of over £1.1m and accumulated loses since the Airport opened of between £4.6m and £5.8m. The operator had made substantial efforts to attract new general aviation operators to the Airport, although the on- site aircraft operators had some concerns about the extent of support they had received. No evidence had been found that the operator had turned airlines away from the airport, although the current operational constraint added to the COUNCIL deterrent. There was little likelihood of the Airport being financially viable in the foreseeable future with estimated operational loses being in the range of £250,000 to £1m per annum. Given the costs of developing the airport and the continuing losses, it could cost in excess of £20m to bu y out the developer. In addition, initiating new air services would require substantial levels of public sector financial support. She referred to a number of constraints that had been imposed by the Lease and Development Agreement. If, as expected, the operator could demonstrate in 2007 that the Airport was loss making, the Council was obliged under the Lease to allow the transfer of the freehold of land for £1 and the alternative use of the site, subject to planning approval. If it could be demonstrated that the operator had not used reasonable endeavours to attract business, then a closure could be challenged. However, the evidence was that the overall intent of the operator had been to achieve a viable business operating profitably, although some criticisms could be levelled at certain actions. It would be difficult to refuse the planned re-development of the site given that the existing Unitary Development Plan Policies, the Regional Spatial Strategy and other policy documents did not suggest a priority to retain the Airport and this would make it difficult to argue a special case in the new Local Development Framework. No overage payments would be due to the Council arising from the redevelopment of the site under the terms of the Lease but the developer was likely to see additional returns from early development if the Council approved the ‘Blue Skies’ development ahead of 2007 and the Council should seek compensatory benefits. There would not be a realistic way to secure retention of the Airport by operational subsidy alone and the developer would have to be bought out, otherwise the developer could simply wait until 2007 then exercise the right under the Lease. The costs of buying and operating the Airport were likely to exceed the likely benefits to be gained to the economic development of Sheffield. In summary, the conclusions were:-

• It was always accepted that development of the Airport was high risk and might not succeed.

• Original Agreements to facilitate the development of the Airport by the private sector required covenants allowing re-development of the land if the Airport demonstrably could not operate profitably. Without these Agreements, the development could not have been funded.

• The market for the Sheffield City Airport now and in the future, was not strong given competition from other neighbouring airports and restrictions imposed by the runway length.

• Sheffield was not fundamentally disadvantaged in terms of air service connectivity given the other regional airports.

• The only option for retention of the Airport would be to buy out the developer and support the Airport’s operation at a potential cost in excess of £25m.

COUNCIL

• If the Council allowed the Airport to close two years earlier than the 2007 date, it should seek compensating advantages in terms of the development of the site or in relation to the role of Robin Hood Airport in serving Sheffield.

Following the presentations, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye) invited Members of the City Council to ask questions of Ms Congdon. Councillor Ray Satur asked for further information with regard to the point that the consultants could find no evidence that airlines had been turned away from the Airport by the operator. In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that she had spoken to all the airlines concerned and they had indicated that the fact that the other airlines had not made the airport viable was their main deterrent to starting new services. There had been an issue previously for British Airways in having to leave passengers’ luggage behind to enable the plane to take off due to the short runway. The route operated by KLM had not proved sufficiently profitable. Eastern Airways had indicated that it would only be interested in routes that other airlines had proved were potentially viable with smaller aircraft types. Flybe were standardising its fleet and its current planes could not use the runway at Sheffield with a full commercial payload. Another airline indicated that it would require £250,000 per month to start a new service from the airport. She concluded this point by stating that no airline had indicated it wished to operate from the Airport nor was there evidence that airlines had been turned away by the operator. Councillor Diane Leek referred to the reduction in core services at the airport and that she understood that this had restricted some airlines using the airport. She asked who had decided to reduce the core services and the reasons for this decision. She also asked if was possible to fly a shuttle service to the Robin Hood Airport, as there were poor road links to that airport. In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that at one point there was only one weekly flight to Jersey from the Airport and it was expensive to maintain the support services. The fire and security cover had been reduced when the airlines had ceased operating from the airport but it was unlikely that this had any direct effect on attracting airlines as those facilities could be reinstated. The journey time was too short to run a shuttle service to the Robin Hood Airport but improved road links to that airport were needed. Councillor Alf Meade considered that little had changed since the airport was established and questioned why it had been unsuccessful. In response, Louise Congdon referred to the change in the market and the impact of low cost carriers that had affected all airlines. Councillor Jillian Creasy supported the conclusions reached by the Study but considered that issues relating to the connectivity with the rail network should be taken into account, for example the high speed rail link could take passengers to Paris in five hours. She also highlighted a number of issues in relation to pollution and noise, the affect on house prices and businesses, and the possible steep rise in oil prices in the next five to ten years and the affect this could have on the airline industry. She asked if the consultants had taken into account the affect if the Government withdrew £9bn of tax breaks to the aviation industry and the impact this would have on the viability of airports. In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that the study had not taken rail COUNCIL travel into account in terms of connectivity. If there had been an expectation of growth at the airport there would have been greater environmental analysis in the Study. The Government’s White Paper on ‘The Future of Air Transport’ set out a framework within which future proposals for air development within the United Kingdom would need to be considered but there had been no estimate of the effect of tax breaks being withdrawn or possible increases in the cost of fuel. In response to a question from Councillor Garry Weatherall on whether there were any organisations willing to purchase the airport, Ms. Congdon indicated that she had spoken to one group but it had no interest in Sheffield City Airport due to its proximity to Robin Hood Airport. A number of local business people had expressed an interest but it was clear they had no concept of the financial implications or that they may have to buy out the developer. Councillor Terry Fox asked if the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was legally binding and also made the point that he could not understand how the airport site could be sold for £1. He asked whether there was mention in the Airport’s Business Plan of encouraging airlines to start services at the airport or if the issue for the airlines related to the length of the runway. He also asked for evidence of the need for £25m to buy out the developer and support the Airport’s operation. In response, Ms Congdon indicated that the Council’s Chief Executive should answer the issue relating to the MOU but, in preparing the report, York Aviation had taken the Development Agreement as being legally binding. The sale of land to Tinsley Park Limited, including a clause allowing the company to purchase the freehold of the airport land for £1, were expressly approved by the Department of the Environment and the District Valuer, having regard to the development value of the Business Park on the Airport Ancillary land and the potentially negative value of the Airport land developed as an Airport expected to generate losses for several years. In terms of its Business Plans, she had seen evidence that the operator had tried to attract other airlines to the airport. In respect of the potential costs of £25m, if the airport was brought back into public ownership, the developer would seek reimbursement of its costs and losses or equivalent to the development value of the site plus operational costs and incentives, otherwise the developer had no obligation to sell. The £1 provision to purchase the freehold in 2007 would remain in force. Councillor Pat Fox raised an issue that as the local economy grew the need for a local airport would become more important. Ms. Congdon indicated that that the Airport would add value but the issue was by how much and at what cost. Councillor Michael Waters referred to the comments from the Chairman of Peel Holdings in “The Star” Newspaper in which he had stated that there was room for both the Robin Hood Airport and Sheffield City Airport, although the consultant’s report did not appear to support this view. He asked if legal advice had been sought on there whether there had been a breach of the Lease in respect of the operator’s endeavours to attract new business? He also considered that the new turboprop aircraft could use the Sheffield airport and asked if this had been considered in terms of its viability. In response, Ms. Congdon stated that she was not in a position to comment on the quote from the Chairman of Peel Holdings. She indicated COUNCIL that the market for business travel from Sheffield Airport was not strong, in contrast to City Airport that was able to sustain high fares due to the number of business customers. She had not sought legal advice in terms of whether there was any breach of the Lease. However, it was noted in the Report that although “the airport has been down graded to a general and business aviation only aerodrome”, the “Code “2C” runway was still in place as required by the Lease. Some of the support services and facilities had been removed from the airport but these could be reinstated if commercial air services could be attracted to the airport. Although there would be some commercial aircraft that could use the airport, the Dash 8-Q400, which was one of the more popular turboprops, could not use the airport at full payload. The British Aerospace 146 could use the airport but this aircraft was being phased out. Councillor Ian Auckland asked questions relating to the trading account of Airport Properties, the sale of the airport for £1 and whether the consultants were happy with the level of consultation that had been undertaken, whether the cost of relocation of the police helicopter had been taken into account and if there was a model for the airport operating now or in the future. In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that the accounts of Airport Properties were not relevant to the Agreements relating to the Airport. In terms of the Airport continuing, a number of airports operated at a loss with some airports receiving financial support. In respect of the consultation, she was surprised that there had not been a greater public response. There would be a cost to relocate the police helicopter if the “Blue Skies” development went ahead and this was an issue to be resolved. Councillor Jackie Drayton asked questions relating to the land value, whether overage payments were being received from both the airport and ancillary land, could there be a legal challenge on whether the operator had used reasonable endeavours to attract business and could there be discussions with Peel Holdings on the City Airport being complementary to Robin Hood Airport and the possibility of a helicopter link between both airports. She also asked whether it would be possible to buy the land back for business development. In response, Ms. Congdon explained that the land for construction of the Airport was acquired from British Steel for £1. AF Budge (Mining) Limited had been granted planning permission to develop the Airport with the development being funded from the returns on stripping the site for coal. However, having extracted the coal and preparing the site for subsequent development as an airport, the Company and its subsidiary, Sheffield Airport Limited, had ceased trading. A Development Agreement was signed in 1995 (with Tinsley Park Limited and its parent company Glenlivet Property Company Limited) to develop both a Business Park, on the airport ancillary land, and the airport itself on the former strip mine site. Both parts of the land generated overage payments and this related to revenues from the disposal of the site compared to the full development costs incurred on the land and subsequent redevelopment costs. This was calculated on the basis that the disposal proceeds should cover any shortfall in the development costs, any shortfall of investors’ return and meeting the developer’s profit, with the remainder split between the tenant, Sheffield Business Park Limited and the landlord (Sheffield City Council). In terms of any possible legal challenge it COUNCIL would be necessary to prove that Peel Holdings had not used its reasonable endeavours to attract business to the airport. In respect of the suggestion for a helicopter link to the Robin Hood Airport, domestic flights were very expensive and it was likely to save little time compared to road travel. There was also an issue on who would use such a link. In respect of the study, Councillor Anne Smith raised concern at the lack of connection with the business community believing that, in particular, there was little mention of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In relation to the public meeting organised by the consultants, she indicated that people had only been given four days’ notice. In respect of other airports, she asked for information on the amount of public funding and how long it had been before those airports became profitable. If it could be proved that the operator had not used reasonable endeavours to attract business to the airport, could there be a legal challenge? In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that the Chamber of Commerce’s Transport Committee had been consulted and individual business views had been sought via the Chamber’s website. If the operator could demonstrate in 2007 that the airport was loss making and not financially viable, then the use of the land as an airport may cease and the tenant (Tinsley Park Limited) may ask for the transfer of the freehold of the site for £1 by serving notice on the City Council. If an airport was to close, it was important that there was another nearby airport. She added that the majority of airports in the United Kingdom were developed on military airfields and few were newly built. Local authorities operated a large number of airports. In terms of any possible legal challenge, the advice that she had received indicated that it would be extremely difficult to prove that the operator had not used reasonable endeavours to attract business. In response to an issue raised by Councillor Vic Bowden that the other airports in the region were at least one hour’s drive and Robin Hood Airport was not a convenient replacement for Sheffield City Airport, Louise Congdon considered that Manchester, Robin Hood, East Midlands and Leeds airports all had the ability to generate further air services and businesses and Sheffield would still be reliant on other airports even if the Sheffield City Airport was still providing air services. There was a need to address road and public transport links to the other regional airports in any event. Councillor Martin Lawton asked whether there was a possibility of air services operating from the Airport in the next 15 years with a runway of only 530 metres. He also raised a number of issues with regard to the profit and loss account of the City Airport. In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that there was no commercial fixed wing aircraft in manufacture that would be able to operate on a runway of 530 metres and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would not licence the runway on that basis for commercial scheduled services but only helicopters and small private aircraft. The gross profit figures were misleading and the airport was loss making taking legitimate overheads into account. There was a note on the company’s accounts that it was only able to continue trading through the substantial loans received from its owners (Sheffield Business Park Limited and Peel Airports Limited). Councillor Tony Holmes asked whether it was accepted that the Robin Hood Airport would provide primarily holiday rather than business flights an, if COUNCIL this was the case, could it be of benefit to Sheffield City Airport? In response, Ms. Congdon indicated that aircraft for scheduled services could not use the runway at a viable payload and even those aircraft that could operate would only have a limited range. The Robin Hood Airport was initially focusing on leisure and low cost flights but it was developing its business use with flights to places such as Paris. That airport was able to offer larger and more frequent services at a cheaper cost in comparison to Sheffield City Airport that had only operated a small number of flights at a higher cost. Councillor Paul Scriven referred to the planning permission granted in 1991 for development of the Airport which had a condition stating that it should not operate other than as a Code 2C airport. He referred to the fact that the consultants had not taken legal advice with regard to whether the operator was in breach of the planning permission or Lease. He asked for confirmation of the amount of public funding towards the building of the airport and he considered that the land value for the Airport should be greater than projected. He also raised issues relating to the revenue streams, the two companies involved in making an overall loss and the sale of the land for £1 and asked for details of the amount of collateral from the two prospective buyers and whether this had been confirmed. He referred to the cost of £250,000 a month to support the Airport’s operation and asked how this had been derived at as there were no calculations in the report. Councillor Scriven considered that the infrastructure for Robin Hood and Manchester Airports was poor and that public investment was required to make them economically viable. He asked whether a cost benefit analysis had been undertaken on the least amount of public investment required for the public of Sheffield to benefit from those airports. Councillor Scriven referred to a possible conflict of interest with regard to Peel Holdings and the shareholders of the Robin Hood airport. He also asked whether the consultants had obtained professional advice in respect of legal and property issues in undertaking the Study. In response, Ms. Congdon stated that it was not within their brief or budget to seek legal advice. She referred to the 25 years’ experience that the company had in understanding CAA rules and regulations and she considered that the CAA regulations (CAP16) gave a clear description of a “Code 2C” airport and that Peel Holdings were not in breach of that description. Their brief was to examine the economic viability of the airport in terms its operation as a Code 2C airport. It would be for the City Council to examine the implications if the freehold of the land was transferred for £1 and there would be a calculation of any overage payment to the City Council. She explained that in the appendices to the report it was indicated that Sheffield Business Park Limited owned the ancillary land and that Peel Holdings had no stake in that land. In respect of other potential buyers, she indicated that there had been no detailed discussions. Ms. Congdon also indicated that there had been no detailed calculations on the level of public sector support required to sustain a new air service, rather the support figure was taken from the expectation of a potential airline for opening up new, high risk, services to small airports such as Sheffield. A cost benefit analysis of the surface access infrastructure had not been undertaken, nor was separate legal or property advice obtained. The Council’s ability to act overall was set out in the original Development Agreement. COUNCIL

Following the question and answer session, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye) invited Members of the City Council to make any further comments. Councillor Paul Scriven considered that the £250,000 funding for the report was insufficient to answer all the necessary questions. He was also concerned that there had been insufficient engagement with the business community and the public. He considered that the City Council would be negligent if it did not seek full legal advice and that this was made publicly available. The sale of the airport site for £1 was based on the original lease and the planning permission requiring the airport to be run as a “Code 2C”. He considered that this was questioned in the report but a definitive legal answer had not been sought. He also suggested that the Cabinet should not approve the transfer of the freehold of the land for £1 without seeking Counsel’s opinion and for the outcome to be publicly available to Members of the City Council, consultees and available on the Council’s website. He also considered that there was a conflict of interest for the owners of Robin Hood and Sheffield City Airports. Councillor Anne Smith raised concern that no legal advice had been sought on the possible transfer of the freehold of the land for £1 and she considered that this should be undertaken before any closure of the Airport. Councillor Tim Rippon (Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Planning Policy) referred to the need to ensure that the links to Manchester and Robin Hood Airports were improved as soon as possible to serve the wider sub-region. Councillor Terry Fox indicated that it was for the operator to prove that it had not used reasonable endeavours to attract business to the airport. In conclusion, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye), thanked Louise Congdon of York Aviation for her presentation and for answering questions from Members of the City Council.

(NOTE: Contributions made by Members of the City Centre and East Planning and Highways Area Board which may deal with any future planning applications in relation to the Sheffield Airport site were on the basis that (a) their comments represented a preliminary view and any such application would be dealt with at the appropriate time on the basis of all relevant information and (b) no view on the merit or otherwise of any potential proposal had been taken at this stage).

6. CHILDREN’S SERVICE Jonathan Crossley-Holland (Executive Director, Children and Young People) gave a presentation on the setting up of the new Children’s Service in Sheffield and referred to the scale of the re-organisation of the services which would affect 120,000 children and young people in the City and 15,000 staff across the agencies, of which 2,000 were in the City Council. He emphasised that it was a major change process and revolved around the five ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes of Being Healthy, Staying Safe, Enjoying and Achieving, Making a Positive Contribution and Achieving Economic Well-being. The emphasis would be on prevention. It was important that each Early Years’ Centre was integrated in terms of delivery of those outcomes. The City and the City Council would be inspected in 2007 on whether the new Service was delivering those outcomes and the five outcomes would translate in terms of COUNCIL an offer to children and families in the City. As part of the national challenge, the Council’s obligation was to establish a Children’s Service Authority by 2006 or 2008, nominate a Lead Member and appoint an Executive Director. The Council’s role was around accountability of effectiveness and value for money of all local authority Children’s Services. There would be leadership to engage and encourage partners and communities to work together to improve Children’s Services and a particular focus on attainment and safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children across the agencies. The Executive Director explained that part of the Council’s role would also be in promoting the five Every Child Matters outcomes through improvements in ways of working, namely a closer focus on children and young people, integrated working through frontline staff, shared processes across agencies, joint audits, plans and commissioning arrangements and pooled budgets and inter-agency partnership arrangements at a city and local level. He referred to the draft Mission for Sheffield which was “to ensure Sheffield’s children and young people achieve and are safe to enable them to learn, enjoy and be healthy and to make Sheffield a leading European city in which to raise a family”. The tiered model of need covered universal services (tier 1), additional support (tier 2), specialist support (tier 3) and care away from the home (tier 4) and the aim would be to ensure fewer children required tier 3 and 4 support. In terms of the City’s organisational approach, there would be a 0 to 19+ Partnership Board (comprising representatives of the City Council, health sector, police, probation service, schools, learning and skills council, further education and the voluntary sector). There would be a lead Member appointed in May 2005 and a Children and Young People’s Directorate would have its top structure in place by July 2005 and be fully implemented by the end of December 2005. The overall structure would take three to four years to fully implement. The Directorate would be based around five service groupings of Local Delivery, City-wide Services, Quality, Improvement and Support, Resources and Planning, Partnership and Performance and its ethos would be about transformation not amalgamation and social care would be part of all service groupings. The Executive Director explained that a key feature of the new structure would be the local dimension and this would involve strengthening local working, Service Districts (involving health, early years and schools, young people, 14-19 year olds and city-wide services) and Extended Schools. In conclusion, he indicated that the new Service and way of working offered a tremendous opportunity but also an enormous challenge to make it work. There were no additional resources but growing expectations and there was a great deal of good will and talent and it was about making the best use of this in a more effective way. Isabel Hemmings (Sheffield Children’s NHS Trust) informed Members that the Health Service was fully committed to partnership working on the new Children’s Service. She emphasised that it would make a huge difference to children in Sheffield. There were issues around preventing illness and reducing health inequality that would be addressed. The Health Service was COUNCIL taking a multi-agency approach to support the most vulnerable children and address their needs more widely and reduce the number needing help. There would be more local delivery of health care and the aim was to be able to access services more easily. Mo Laycock (Headteacher at Firth Park Community Arts College) referred to the partnership working and the success of her Community College that had pioneered the facilities now being promoted through Extended Schools. She referred to the breakfast club and after school activities, adult learning and leisure activities which meant that the school was open until 9.00 p.m. and on Saturdays. She considered that by working in partnership it would be easier to address the needs of vulnerable children and issues of learning and attainment and poor diet. Brian Taylor (Headteacher, Wybourn Primary School) stated that it was about ‘Every Child Matters’, joined up working and local services making a difference. It was a new start and transformation not amalgamation. There would be new relationships in organisations and between organisations. The aim was for every child to reach its potential. Following the presentations, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye) invited Members of the City Council to ask questions of the Executive Director and accompanying officers. Councillor Anne Smith was fully supportive of the changes but recognised that it would be a major challenge. She asked how it was planned to communicate the proposed changes across the City? In response, the Executive Director indicated that there was a major communication task and this would involve a range of media opportunities, including letters, conferences and meetings. Detailed consultation was being planned in communities for June and July 2005, particularly on how the local model may work in those areas and how the agencies and communities might work locally to achieve the five outcomes. Councillor Peter Price referred to the implementation of the new Service and that it appeared to have a greater emphasis on the educational aspect. He also considered that there was an issue in relation to the training of staff. Councillor Price referred to specific problems with the children of a family on the Flower Estate that had not been shared between the various agencies. In response, the Executive Director emphasised that social care was threaded through the new Service. In Service Districts there would be an agency response to a child’s needs. He emphasised that at a local level, inter- agency work would be focused on children and this was a key priority. He welcomed further information from Councillor Price on the issues relating to the family on the Flower Estate Penny Peysner (Head of Children and Families) explained that social and education services would be aligned and this would enable Tier 1 services to be robust, understand the needs of the children and ensure that there was a holistic assessment in schools. She welcomed the opportunity to work closer with partners and considered that, if it were not possible to reach all the children and improve their lives, the new Service would have failed. In response to a question from Councillor Diane Leek on improving parenting skills, Penny Peysner indicated that there would be funding for targeted parenting activity across the City. This would involve a proper dialogue with parents in each district on how they could be supported. COUNCIL

Councillor Janet Bragg asked if there would be a mechanism to fully engage children and young people? In response, the Executive Director indicated that there would be targeted interventions. There would be a need for a consistency of approach in how all agencies involved parents and children. Some schools surveyed their pupils and changed their practices in response to the issues raised. Two key areas would be around engaging parents and listening to the voices of young people but also making best use of that information. Councillor Ian Auckland understood that schools were excluded from their duty to co-operate with the new service and asked whether the organisational span of the new service was too large and that an outcome could be that some children were not dealt with. In response, the Executive Director stated that there was no duty on schools to take part but schools were inspected against delivery of the five ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes. He recognised that it was a very large service but there was a need to develop a strong local dimension. In response to questions from Councillor Jean Cromar, the Executive Director indicated that physical activities were part of the Extended Schools approach, Connexions was one of the agencies that were engaged and the Service Districts would be co-terminus, have a range of services and activities and relate to natural communities. In response to a question from Councillor Michael Waters on steps that would be taken to ensure there was no departmentalism and that the new Service encompassed all departmental cultures, the Executive Director indicated that he was aware of these issues. Councillor Jackie Drayton raised concerns that Social Services and Education had not linked in to the work of a number of Area Panels and also that the Full Service Districts appeared to have no relation to Area Action boundaries or ways of working. She asked how the new system would ensure that these links were made and there was also a need to ensure that dental health was not omitted. In response, the Executive Director indicated that the link between the Service Districts and Area Panels was to be discussed. In response to further questions from Members of the Council, the Executive Director indicated that there was no European city that could be used as a best example but the Service would learn from and share good practice and experience with other cities. In relation to the issue of confidentiality and secrecy, the Executive Director explained that there was a system to inform other agencies that the Council was involved. The key was information sharing with the consent of the people involved for the benefit of the children and families. Housing was an important element and homeless young people were a key part of the 0 to 19 agenda. He hoped that there would be no conflict in terms of children achieving and being economically successful. The Executive Director responded to a number of further questions from Members of the Council and emphasised that the new Service did not just relate to schools. It was expected that there would be a core offer to children and families with further differential offers as required. Information on the services that were available would be on the Council’s website. Issues relating to black and minority ethnic communities would be reflected in the new Service. COUNCIL

Councillor Steve Jones (Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance and Education and Training) stressed that the new Service was the most important change in recent years with schools placed at the heart of local communities, everyone working jointly and savings reinvested for care and support. Care would be at the heart of the Children’s Service. He made a number of points including that the new Service would be viewed as primarily community based and preventative and there was a need to ensure that it contributed to the Closing the Gap policy. He considered the new Service as a positive development and a real challenge. In conclusion, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Mike Pye) thanked the Executive Director, Children and Young People, Isabel Hemmings, Mo Laycock, Brian Taylor and Penny Peysner for attending the meeting and answering questions from Members of the Council.

7. REPR ESENTATION RESOLVED: On the motion of Councillor Pat Midgley, seconded by Councillor Joan Barton, that approval be given to the following changes to the Memberships of Boards etc.:-

Corporate Planning Scrutiny - Councillor Joan Barton to replace Board Councillor Julie Dore.

Education Scrutiny Board - Councillors Bryan Lodge and Pat Midgley to replace Councillors Chris Rosling-Josephs and Helen Mirfin- Boukouris

Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Board - Councillors Jane Bird and Marjorie Barker to replace Councillors Terry Barrow and Julie Dore

8. QUESTIONS RELATING TO URGENT BUSINESS There were no questions relating to urgent business under the provisions of Standing Order A18(2).

(NOTE: Pursuant to Standing Order A7(3) relating to the time limit on the meetings of the City Council, item 7 relating to Observations on the Minutes of the meetings of the various Council bodies for the period 12th March to 15 th April, 2005, was not considered by the City Council).