Architects appointed for Sheffield Town Hall restoration
In 2022, urgent work had to be carried out after a council report found serious risks including fire safety, Legionella from water supplies, no ventilation in the council chamber and leaks from an old large diesel tank.According to the council, the restoration plan would address key issues such as accessibility, fire safety, structural repairs and the preservation of historical features.
The firm chosen to lead the project is known for schemes such as the transformation of the Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings and Brighton Dome Corn Exchange and Studio Theatre.Council leader Tom Hunt said he was delighted the project was moving forward so that the town hall could "continue to serve everyone" and be a "modern, accessible workplace".He said: "Our iconic and historic town hall is at the heart of Sheffield's democracy and public life."From weddings to citizenship ceremonies, council meetings and elections, this special building has a unique place in the lives of Sheffield residents."
Geoff Rich, partner and director of heritage and creative reuse at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, said the firm felt "hugely honoured" to have been appointed.He said: "The project represents an exciting opportunity to complement the building's unique heritage with inclusive and sustainable design, and to ensure the town hall meets the future needs of Sheffield's communities."An initial feasibility study in 2022 outlined potential restoration costs and safety works could range from £20m to £50m.The council said it aimed to secure funding through "innovative strategies", balancing the needs of heritage preservation with financial sustainability.
Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
19 hours ago
- The Guardian
Workers like Jason question ‘broad brush' return to office mandates as WFH tussle heads to Fair Work showdown
Jason Sennitt loves his job, but can't imagine going back to the office up to four days a week. The 53-year-old lives in an outer suburb of Geelong with his wife and two school-age children as well as his elderly mother who has dementia and needs someone to be home. An employee of one of Australia's largest energy providers, Sennitt has been told to return to the office at least three days a week, and four days a week from next year. 'Even though I have to travel five hours to do an eight-hour shift, I'm happy to do that a couple of times a week,' says Sennitt, who works in customer service. 'But being in the office … it's not necessary for me to do my job well and it feels like the business hasn't really considered this.' Sennitt has applied for an exemption to the office mandate, but he believes the company's 'broad brushstroke' policy doesn't take proper consideration of its workers. His comments come ahead of the 1 August submission deadline for a Fair Work Commission process designed to modernise the award for clerical and administrative workers by taking into account work-from-home arrangements. The clerks award, which informs the working conditions of millions of Australians, is seen as a test case for the broader workforce amid a growing tussle over flexible work. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads While employees can request flexible arrangements, there is no assumed right to work from home in Australia. Sennitt's employer, Origin Energy, says it supports its office-based employees to work from home up to two days a week, with the ability to request additional flexibility. 'We believe a balance between work and home locations enables connection, collaboration, productivity, and health and wellbeing benefits,' an Origin spokesperson says. Once seen as a rare perk, remote work exploded during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. After pandemic conditions eased, the significant time and financial saving from reduced commuting, and flexibility to care for family members, has made many workers resistant to return to the office. Many employees also report being more productive working from home. Some employers, however, are worried about being compelled to offer flexible arrangements when it is not practical for their business. There is also the enduring suspicion that some workers slack off at home. The issue has pitted employer association Australian Industry Group against the Australian Services Union (ASU), which has a large base of administrative and clerical members, including Sennitt. AI Group has reportedly proposed to give employers the right to trade off overtime, penalty rates and breaks in exchange for allowing employees to work from home. The confidential proposal was first reported in The Australian. The ASU's national secretary, Emeline Gaske, told Guardian Australia that AI Group wanted to use working from home as an excuse to strip away basic entitlements. 'This is a lurch back in time by the [AI Group] that wants to drag workplace standards back decades if a worker seeks to work from home,' Gaske says. An ASU members' survey found that the ability to work from home was 'not a perk, but an essential condition that makes work possible', allowing many workers to manage health conditions, disabilities and caring responsibilities. Employers and their representative bodies are expected to use the Fair Work process to test whether current provisions are suited to flexible work. For example, the clerks award ensures employees have at least 10 consecutive hours off after working overtime. If an employer doesn't comply, the worker earns double their hourly rate. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Employer groups question if that 10-hour rule should apply if a worker is at home, and therefore does not need to commute. They are also raising questions about what constitutes normal working hours in an at-home setting, given penalty rates often apply outside those hours. The Fair Work process may also bring clarity to how flexible work interacts with right to disconnect laws. The AI Group chief executive, Innes Willox, says there is an obvious need to free up restrictive provisions that either prohibit working from home or discourage employers from implementing them. He says the union is engaging in a 'misleading scare campaign'. 'We aren't arguing that overtime and penalty rates should not apply simply because someone is working from home,' Willox says. He says the clerks award contains archaic rules that require all ordinary hours are worked continuously and within strict timeframes. 'If employees want to take breaks during their ordinary hours of work to attend to personal matters, like picking their kids up from schools, and instead work those hours in the evening or early in the morning, they should be able to do that, if their employer agrees,' Willox says. 'Obviously, an employer shouldn't have to pay a penalty for agreeing to an employee request to work this way, but that seems to be what the unions want.' During the federal election, the Coalition spectacularly reversed its policy to restrict work from home arrangements for the public service. Polling found during the campaign that the public service proposal was unpopular, especially among women and working families who have come to rely on flexible work arrangements. As the submission deadline for the Fair Work process nears, there are growing expectations Labor could legislate a work-from-home right for workers. Another Melbourne corporate worker, who asked not to be identified, told Guardian Australia that greater flexibility would lead to increased productivity and improved morale. For them, the only public transport option from their outer-Melbourne home requires a 40-minute bus ride followed by a 55-minute train commute. The bus schedule also doesn't line up with work hours. 'I leave home at 4.30am to get a ride with my husband,' the worker said. 'I'm not allowed to leave [work] early. I still have to stay until 4pm.' 'We find the days [in the office] to be the most unproductive days there are.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Lobbyist breaches go unsanctioned as critics call for Australia's rules to be strengthened
Not a single lobbyist has been sanctioned under the federal government's code of conduct and transparency rules for almost three years despite more than a dozen breaches, with critics arguing the scheme is 'as weak as a cup of cold milky tea'. And in Victoria, no lobbyist has been sanctioned since the establishment of the current regulator more than a decade ago, with the state government acknowledging there is a need for reform after warnings from the anti-corruption commission. Professional third-party lobbyists must comply with a federal code of conduct and disclose details to a transparency register, which is designed to strengthen public confidence in how politicians and their staff interact with vested interest groups. Lobbyists who work without being listed on a register or who fail to act honestly and fairly can be investigated for breaches of conduct. This includes lobbyists who do not disclose links to foreign companies and governments. But Guardian Australia can reveal no one involved in the 14 breaches substantiated by the federal attorney general's department since January 2023 has been formally sanctioned. Sign up: AU Breaking News email A departmental spokesperson said each breach was administrative in nature and 'resolved through engagement between the department and relevant lobbyists'. 'In most cases where breaches are substantiated, they are administrative in nature and remediated through communication with the responsible officers within lobbying organisations,' the spokesperson said. 'There were no reported breaches referred to the secretary for consideration during the relevant period.' Transparency International Australia's chief executive, Clancy Moore, said federal lobbyists breaking the rules 'do so with impunity'. 'Put simply, the federal lobbying code of conduct is as weak as a cup of cold milky tea,' Moore said. 'The commonwealth needs a big stick to sanction lobbyists who break the rules.' Crossbench MPs and the Greens have flagged pushing Labor to toughen the rules in the new term of parliament. One element of the rules persistently identified as a shortcoming is that the code of conduct only covers paid third-party lobbyists and their clients. Lobbyists employed internally by corporations and interest groups are not required to sign up. Currently about 360 lobbying organisations and more than 700 individual lobbyists are included on the transparency register. They represent a combined 2,400 clients. More than 40% of registered lobbyists are identified former government representatives, including former staffers, former government ministers and other ex-office holders. In Victoria, no lobbyist has been sanctioned by the state authority since the latest code of conduct was introduced by the Napthine government in 2013. Under current rules, the only sanction available in Victoria is the removal of a lobbyist from the register. The state's public sector commissioner, Brigid Monagle, said six potential breaches of the lobbying code had been investigated in the past five years. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'None of these potential breaches met the full requirements for removal under the terms of the code,' Monagle said. 'There may of course be other breaches that the commission has not been made aware of, and we encourage anyone with knowledge of a breach to make a report.' The Centre for Public Integrity's executive director, Catherine Williams, said Victorian regulation was not fit for purpose and regulators should have a broad range of sanctions to ensure smaller but significant breaches of the code do not go unpunished. 'Clearly, a uniform law would be optimal as it would simplify compliance for lobbying firms and individuals operating across multiple jurisdictions,' Williams said. 'Unfortunately, however, with the current regulatory patchwork across the country – and federally, a government yet to acknowledge that lobbying reform must be on the agenda – a uniform law is a very long way off.' In October 2022, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (Ibac) raised concerns about potential corruption risks posed by lobbying. The Victorian government has accepted Ibac's recommendations, in principle, and is now consulting on possible changes. In New South Wales, six lobbyists were suspended from operating last month after failing to provide a regular update on which government officials they had met and on whose behalf. The NSW Electoral Commission, which regulates the lobbying industry, required this information to be updated every three months. Lobbyists must update the list even if they have been inactive during this period. There is no such requirement for lobbyists meeting with federal government officials.
BBC News
2 days ago
- BBC News
Lindsey Oil Refinery workers 'devastated' over closure
More than a hundred people have gathered at a protest demanding the government take more action to save the Lindsey Oil Refinery from demonstration outside Grimsby Town Hall comes after Energy Minister Michael Shanks announced the plant near Immingham, in North East Lincolnshire, was to shut because a buyer could not be Official Receiver took over the site last month after its owner, Prax, went into administration, putting 420 jobs at Tomlinson, 45, has worked the refinery for 20 years and said: "It's devastating for everyone". "Where is the work in Grimsby and Cleethorpes for people like this," he said."There isn't any."His views were echoed by his colleague Greg Codling."All the young lads have got mortgages, they've all got young children," he said. "There's going to be a lot of people all at once looking for the jobs that are not there." Simone Barker, whose dad works at the refinery, attended the demonstration with her son. She said: "It's his future, it's his brother's future, it's all the children [who are] leaving school, it's not right." Employee Pete Spencer, 52, said: "It's going to have a massive effect on the area."I've been there 22 years. I've been a good servant, loyal servant to the place and it's going to hit everybody in this town hard all across the board. So it's a massive loss to the town, a massive loss to the area." Harriet Eisner, from Unite union, said: "They [employees at Lindsey Oil Refinery] shouldn't be made redundant, that place is viable."It's not just the people directly employed by Lindsey Oil Refinery it's the contractors, all the people in the supply chain the local businesses who rely on their patronage. It's going to be devastating.""The government need to work a lot harder in getting a business to take over Lindsey Oil Refinery so there is a future for the people in this community".Energy Minister Michael Shanks said: "The government will immediately fund a comprehensive Training Guarantee for these refinery workers to ensure they have the skills they need and are supported to find jobs in the growing clean energy workforce."Lindsey is the smallest of the UK's oil refineries, according to the is located next to the larger Phillips 66 Humber refinery, which continues to operate. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here. Download the BBC News app from the App Store for iPhone and iPad or Google Play for Android devices
