Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH

Contact: Debbie Pons, Principal Democratic Services Officer 

Items
No. Item

73.

Minute's Silence

Minutes:

The Mayor referred to the recent death of former Councillor and Mayor of Rotherham, Jack Carr.  A minute’s silence was held as a mark of respect.

74.

Council Minutes pdf icon PDF 113 KB

Minutes:

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 22nd October, 2014, be approved for signature by the Mayor.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Lakin                           Seconder:-  Councillor Hoddinott

75.

Communications

Minutes:

(1)  The Interim Chief Executive submitted the following petitions which had been referred to the appropriate Directorates for consideration:-

 

·           Containing 40 signatures relating to the volume and speed of traffic on the A631 through Maltby.

·           Containing 700 signatures from the Rotherham Deaf Trust requesting that the Council give consideration to employing a person on a part time basis to assist with British Sign Language in Riverside House.

·           Containing 600 signatures against the closure of Abbey School.

 

(2)  The Interim Chief Executive submitted apologies for absence from Councillors Ahmed, J. Hamilton, N. Hamilton, Johnston, Sansome and Smith.

76.

Questions from the Public

Minutes:

(1)          Mr. D. Smith asked were party politics more important than the rights and opinions of the Councillors’ constituents?

 

The Leader reported that all Members of the Council should ensure that the interests of their constituents were at the forefront of their considerations.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Smith referred to discussions in Parish Council meetings about the Core Strategy and comments by some Members of the Council about doing a deal with the Leader to vote against a decision when really they should have abstained. It would appear that the political party was more important than the lives of people that elected them.

 

The Leader did not pass comment.

 

(2)   Mr. B. Cutts referred to the eleventh day of the eleventh month at 11.00 a.m. when the principal flag was not lowered for the two minutes’ silence.  The dignitaries were placed at low level on the pavement, not at the Minster level as in the past and asked why did the Council illustrate such a lack of “National Pride”?

 

The Leader explained this Council did display a great deal of national pride, and was extremely supportive of current and past servicemen and women, as evidenced by the signing of the Armed Forces Covenant and the Remembrance Day event itself.

 

In terms of the flag, it was not national practice to lower the flag for Armistice Day as half-mast was an act of mourning not of remembrance.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Cutts found the response bewildering as he had observed some of the flags being lowed on Armistice Day, but not the principal flag.

 

The Mayor confirmed the Council had a flag policy which was adhered to and protocol followed.

 

(3)  Ms. L. Day was not in attendance so her question was not asked.

 

(4)  Ms. C. Carrol asked why did the Council allow poor management at Abbey School for such a prolonged period of time?

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services confirmed that after the Local Authority became aware of poor Leadership and management following a review in January 2013 it sought to supplement the leadership and management of the school through an Executive Head Teacher, a new Head of School, and a review of governance. Current management arrangements were strong (partnership with Winterhill seen as a strength in the Ofsted Report) but have not had sufficient time to move things forward.

 

In a supplementary question Ms. Carrol referred to the Ofsted report and the position with the new management now being in place, which had led to the school losing all its structure totally.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services referred to the Ofsted report which talked about the collaboration with Winterhill, which was seen as a strength in terms of management and leadership, but which led to a disconnect with staffing levels in the school.

 

(5)  Mr. V.  Housley asked were all the Teachers/Management SEN trained and if not why were they allowed to teach children when they did not know how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

Cabinet Minutes pdf icon PDF 105 KB

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – Delegation of Powers (Minute No. C77) (Pages 84C-86C)

 

Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham (BDR) Waste Private Finance Initiative (PFI) – Delegations in Respect of Operational Matters (Minute No. C81) (Page 88C)

 

Rent Collection and Arrears Recovery Policy (Minute No. C88) (Pages 94C-95C)

 

Revision to Standing Orders – Quorum for Cabinet (Minute No. C90) (Page 96C)

 

Scrutiny Review of Standing Orders and Cabinet Response (Minute No. C95) (Pages 104C-107C)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A number of questions were raised in relation to the minutes of the meetings of Cabinet as follows:-

 

Minute C100 (Improvements to ICT Use Within Social Care) – Councillor Cowles referred to his own email to the Leader last week about ICT systems in Riverside House and asked why significant sums of money were being spent on improvements to ICT when the systems were fundamentally flawed.  He asked if the Leader agreed with him that there was no point in spending further money until the problems were put right.

 

The Leader explained that the ICT system used for children’s social care had been highlighted as a serious problem by Ofsted and the Children’s Commissioner in his letter to the Secretary of State and also by the Acting Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services who described the system as the worst she had ever worked with.  The problem was not an asset to the Service and simply did not allow for the depth of data that was required, which was why consideration was being given to an alternative system.

 

Minute No. C71 (Post-Abuse Support Arrangements) – Councillor Parker referred to the second paragraph which detailed how £120,000 had been made available for the period until 31st March, 2015 whilst a future service model was being commissioned and asked if a new model had acquired additional funding for the support to operate properly and where this funding came from.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed £120,000 of funding for victims up to 31st March, 2015 and a further £180,000 a year for the next three years.  Work was taking place with partner agencies, the Police and Crime Commissioner and Health about a package of support for survivors in the short term and which would feed into proposals for support for the next three years.

 

Minute No. C71(1) (Post-Abuse Support Arrangements) – Councillor Parker referred to the current number of referrals for support and whether there had been a marked increase following the publication of the Jay Report and asked if this included the Roma Community in terms of the numbers of underage marriages in Rotherham.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed there had been an increase in the number of referrals for support and dealing with the increased demand would form part of the ongoing discussions.

 

In terms of the Roma Community an answer to the queries would be provided in writing (see addendum attached to the minutes).

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker referred to the seriousness of concerns about underage marriages taking place within the Roma Community and suggested that a report on this matter be submitted to the Council for consideration.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed that it was unacceptable for children who were underage to be married and explained that appropriate action would be taken if this was found to be the case.

 

Minute No. C90 (Revision to Standing Orders – Quorum for Cabinet) – Councillor Parker referred to the numbers of Cabinet Members reducing from ten to nine  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Children and Education Services – Pages 4F – 20F (Section F)

 

Environment – Pages 21G- 23G (Section G)

 

Adult Social Care and Health – Pages 9H- 30H (Section H)

 

Business Growth and Regeneration – Pages 10I-12I (Section I)

 

Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods – Pages 30J-40J (Section J)

 

Adult Social Care and Health and Children and Education Services – Pages 1L-5L (Section L)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

A number of questions were raised in relation to the minutes of the meetings of Cabinet Members as follows:-

 

Minute No. F21 (Youth Offending Services – Performance Management) – Councillor Cowles referred to the information which indicated an increase in the second paragraph on Page 15F, yet in the fourth paragraph of the same page there was reference to a decline in numbers and asked if there was a rise or a fall in performance.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services confirmed that the rise referred to in the second paragraph was a one off situation, yet in fourth paragraph this referred to the trend in decline numbers within the Youth Justice System.

 

Minute No. F24 (Children and Young People’s Service Revenue Budget Monitoring Report to 30th September, 2014) – Councillor Cowles referred to the fifth paragraph after the bullet points where it was suggested that some overspends were off set against underspends in other areas and asked where these came from and how much they were.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed that all the figures relating to the outturn of the budget were set out in full as part of the revenue budget monitoring report which was to be presented to the Cabinet on 17th December, 2014, which was now published.

 

Minute No. G35 (Parking Services – Financial and Statistical Report for the Financial Year 2013/14) – Councillor Middleton made reference to the income and expenditure for Parking Services and asked how much this was, issuing of few penalty notices and asked what was the previous year’s figures and the year reported, what was the effect of the vehicle-mounted circuit television system and whether the opening of the new Tesco store had had an effect on parking with statistics as to if the car park was used for town centre shopping.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed that all the questions asked could be answered via the detail in the report and assured Councillor Middleton he would provide a full copy for information.

 

In terms of the vehicle-mounted circuit television system, this was used outside schools and had had a large impact on the safety for pupils.  In addition, it had been used as part of providing photographic evidence for fixed penalty notices and in evenings to ensure the free flow of vehicles.

 

With regards to the opening of the new Tesco store on Walker Place as predicted this had had an impact in terms of free parking. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed he was working closely with the Cabinet Member for Environment and, to mitigate the effect on the town centre, had arranged for the former Tesco store on Forge Island to be used as parking with sixty bays being allocated for free parking on a short term basis.  There had been some problems with the pedestrianisation, but this was being addressed.

 

Minute No. I19 (Rotherham Town Centre Business Grants) – Councillor Parker referred to the awarding of a grant and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

Audit Committee pdf icon PDF 60 KB

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee (Section N) (Pages 16N to 21N) be adopted.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Sangster                    Seconder:-  Councillor Kaye

80.

Licensing Board pdf icon PDF 55 KB

Minutes:

Councillor Gilding referred to Minute No. P17 (Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy), specifically Section C(iv), where it strengthened the wording so that applicants were directly informed that they must not make a false statement or a false declaration during any part of the application process and asked how basic could this be if applicants could not understand this they should not be issued with a licence.

 

In addition, he asked for an explanation on Section D(i) where reference was made to the distinction between sexual offences against another person and other offences involving indecency and asked on Section D(iii) for clarification of how the service would know if a licensed driver had been absent from the United Kingdom for a continuous period exceeding one month

 

Referring to Section D(v) Councillor Gilding believed that this was originally a condition of being issued with a licence that when carrying passengers who were vulnerable or who had a disability that they be asked if they required assistance.

 

Referring to Section E(v) and the consultation to take place on a Cabsafe Scheme incorporating Gold, Silver and Bronze rating standards, Councillor Gilding suggested that given the experiences over the last few months that every taxi in Rotherham should be looking to become Gold standard, but noted there was still to be no age limit on vehicles transporting the people of Rotherham and asked why this was the case.

 

The Chairman of the Licensing Board explained the distinction between sexual offences and indecency and provided an example of the two.

 

There was a requirement for licensed drivers to hand in their licences should they be wishing to leave the country for a period longer than four weeks and to receive them back on their return.  This was part of the consultation process and was not yet adopted.

 

It was pointed out that the intention of the Cabsafe Scheme was to drive up standards.  There were some aspects to be included that would seek to improve standards for the comfort of the travelling public of Rotherham and it would induce the operators to improve standards by aspiring in the higher categories.  The Licensing Board discussed the option of C.C.T.V. and it was the view that this should be mandatory and standard in each vehicle.

 

Basic requirements of the policy such as providing assistance were included to ensure that the public of Rotherham could expect this level of service.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Gilding asked if he could be told who would be operating the Cabsafe Scheme, how much this would cost, how this would be monitored and how would the general public know how a particular vehicle was rated.  Would this result in a member of the public choosing to take a particular rated vehicle over and above another rated lower?

 

The Chairman of the Licensing Board advised that the costs of the scheme would be borne by the operators and the Council would operate and direct the scheme.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

Licensing Board Sub-Committee pdf icon PDF 24 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Licensing Board Sub-Committee (Section Q) (Pages 12Q to 15Q) be adopted, subject to noting that the minutes of the meeting held on 8th October, 2014 had been presented to the previous Council meeting on the 22nd October, 2014.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Dalton                        Seconder:-  The Mayor

                                                                       (Councillor John Foden)

82.

Health and Wellbeing Board pdf icon PDF 67 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board (Section S) (Pages 29S to 47S) be adopted.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Doyle                          Seconder:-  Councillor Beaumont

83.

Planning Board pdf icon PDF 33 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board (Section T) (Pages 24T to 32T) be adopted.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Atkin                           Seconder:-  Councillor Tweed

84.

Staffing Committee pdf icon PDF 21 KB

Market Supplement Arrangements in relation to the Appointment of the Interim Director of Children’s Services (Minute No. U8) (Page 4U)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meetings of the Staffing Committee (Section U) (Pages 3U to 4U) be adopted.

 

Mover:-  Councillor Lakin                          Seconder:-  Councillor Hussain

85.

Membership Arrangements 2014/15

 

To confirm revisions to:-

 

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority:-

 

·                For Councillor N. Hamilton to replace Councillor Foden on the Transport Committee.

 

·                For Councillor Sangster to be included on the Audit Committee.

 

Improving Places Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor C. Vines to replace Councillor Finne.

 

Planning Board

 

·           For Councillor Whelbourn to be the named substitute for Wentworth South.

 

Health Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor Watson to be included on the membership and for him to replace Councillor Wyatt as Chairman.

 

Self Regulation Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor Wyatt to be included on the membership and for him to replace Councillor Watson as Vice-Chairman.

 

Standards Committee:-

 

·                For Councillor Roddison to be added to the membership of the Standards Committee.

 

Police and Crime Panel:-

 

·                For Councillor Sangster to replace Councillor Sharman on the membership of the Police and Crime Panel.

Minutes:

The Director of Legal and Democratic Services submitted details of the revised membership arrangements for the current municipal year.

 

Resolved:-  That the following revised arrangements be approved:-

 

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority:-

 

·                For Councillor N. Hamilton to replace Councillor Foden on the Transport Committee.

 

·                For Councillor Sangster to be included on the Audit Committee.

 

Improving Places Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor C. Vines to replace Councillor Finne.

 

Planning Board

 

·           For Councillor Whelbourn to be the named substitute for Wentworth South.

 

Health Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor Watson to be included on the membership and for him to replace Councillor Wyatt as Chairman.

 

Self Regulation Select Commission:-

 

·                For Councillor Wyatt to be included on the membership and for him to replace Councillor Watson as Vice-Chairman.

 

Standards Committee:-

 

·                For Councillor Roddison to be added to the membership of the Standards Committee.

 

Police and Crime Panel:-

 

·                For Councillor Sangster to replace Councillor Sharman.

86.

Motion - Committee Form of Governance

 

UKIP Councillors recognises that the Cabinet System of Governance creates a democratic deficit in local government, with key decisions made by very few elected members.

 

And especially with the reduction in numbers of Cabinet posts recently announced.

 

We believe that this will allow less democracy in decision making and with the portfolio members taking on further responsibilities without the appropriate skills this will lead to detrimental decisions being made.

 

An in light of the events and revelations of the past months which is now know that Cabinet Members were part of the problem with recognising child sexual exploitation in Rotherham Council.

 

We put forward our motion to change the Council’s form of governance in accordance with Section 9K and 9KC of the Local Government Act 2000 to a committee form of governance as provided in Section 9B (1) (b).  This new form of governance will come into force from the Council’s 2015 AGM.

 

 

Proposer:-  Councillor C. Vines                Seconder:-  Councillor M. Vines

Minutes:

Moved by Councillor C. Vines and seconded by Councillor M. Vines.

 

UKIP Councillors recognises that the Cabinet System of Governance creates a democratic deficit in local government, with key decisions made by very few elected members.

 

And especially with the reduction in numbers of Cabinet posts recently announced.

 

We believe that this will allow less democracy in decision making and with the portfolio members taking on further responsibilities without the appropriate skills this will lead to detrimental decisions being made.

 

And in light of the events and revelations of the past months which is now know that Cabinet Members were part of the problem with recognising child sexual exploitation in Rotherham Council.

 

We put forward our motion to change the Council’s form of governance in accordance with Section 9K and 9KC of the Local Government Act 2000 to a committee form of governance as provided in Section 9B (1) (b).  This new form of governance will come into force from the Council’s 2015 AGM.”

 

The motion was put and LOST.

 

(Councillors Cowles, Cutts, Finnie, Gilding, Hunter, Jepson, Middleton, Parker, Reeder, Reynolds, Turner, C. Vines and M. Vines requested that their vote in favour of the motion be recorded).

87.

Motion - Standards Committee

UKIP believes in openness and transparency and above all fairness and full accountability.

 

We believe that the present arrangement of the Standards Committee is fundamentally flawed and puts the Monitoring Officer and the Legal Department of the Council in an unattainable position.

 

It is like putting a fox in charge of the chickens and telling it which one be killed with the farmer holding a gun to its head.

 

With the fox being the Monitoring Officer, the chicken being the accused and the farmer the ruling party.

 

Over the years the Standards Committee has and still is a toothless waste of time in its present situation and should be disbanded.

 

We put forward our motion to change the Councils un-transparent Standards Committee from its present form where the Monitoring Officer is responsible for making the decision of who goes before it or who does not, this is unfair and unacceptable for the Council’s own Legal Department to be judge and jury.

 

We believe this Committee should be made up of five Independent Members and four Elected Members; one from each Party and Independent.

 

All cases go to the Committee to be decided on whether a full hearing is required or not.

 

The Council’s Monitoring Officer or Legal Representative should only be involved in giving legal advice and guidance.

 

This new method of governance of the Committee should come into force at the Council’s 2015 Annual Meeting to give time to set it up.

 

Proposer:-  Councillor C. Vines                Seconder:-  Councillor Reynolds

Minutes:

Moved by Councillor C. Vines and seconded by Councillor Reynolds.

 

UKIP believes in openness and transparency and above all fairness and full accountability.

 

We believe that the present arrangement of the Standards Committee is fundamentally flawed and puts the Monitoring Officer and the Legal Department of the Council in an unattainable position.

 

It is like putting a fox in charge of the chickens and telling it which one be killed with the farmer holding a gun to its head.

 

With the fox being the Monitoring Officer, the chicken being the accused and the farmer the ruling party.

 

Over the years the Standards Committee has and still is a toothless waste of time in its present situation and should be disbanded.

 

We put forward our motion to change the Council’s un-transparent Standards Committee from its present form where the Monitoring Officer is responsible for making the decision of who goes before it or who does not, this is unfair and unacceptable for the Council’s own Legal Department to be judge and jury.

 

We believe this Committee should be made up of five Independent Members and four Elected Members; one from each Party and Independent.

 

All cases go to the Committee to be decided on whether a full hearing is required or not.

 

The Council’s Monitoring Officer or Legal Representative should only be involved in giving legal advice and guidance.

 

This new method of governance of the Committee should come into force at the Council’s 2015 Annual Meeting to give time to set it up.”

 

The motion was put and LOST.

 

(Councillors Cowles, Cutts, Finnie, Hunter, Parker, Reeder, Reynolds, Turner, C. Vines and M. Vines requested that their vote in favour of the motion be recorded).

 

(Councillors Gilding, Jepson and Middleton abstained from taking a vote)

88.

Motion - SHOUT (Social Housing Under Threat)

That this Council:-

 

(a)     Supports the launch of the SHOUT (Social Housing Under Threat) campaign on 18 June 2014.

 

(b)     Agrees with SHOUT that building social housing - social rented homes - is at the core of tackling the housing crisis nationally and locally in Rotherham and that social rented housing meets needs that other tenures cannot address.

 

(c)     Notes under the Coalition Government the funding of social housing has become increasingly marginalised with the latest prospectus for bidders from the Homes and Communities Agency stating that 'social rent provision will only be supported in very limited circumstances.'

 

(d)     Welcomes the proposal to build 125 new affordable homes by the Council and Housing Associations over the next 3 years and to acquire a further 63 new homes.  However, this provision only makes a small contribution towards meeting the identified housing need and is significantly less than the amount of social housing lost each year through the Right to Buy scheme.

 

(e)     Regrets that social housing faces great challenges in meeting the needs of those affected by welfare cuts and rule changes over the last three years, including the damaging “bedroom tax”, and increased pressure from the escalating number of Council homes lost through the Right to Buy scheme.

 

(f)      Resolves to support the work of the SHOUT campaign and take a lead in affirming the positive value and purpose of social rented housing.

 

Proposer:-  Councillor Godfrey                  Seconder:-  Councillor Ellis

Minutes:

Moved by Councillor Godfrey and seconded by Councillor Ellis.

 

“That this Council:-

 

(a)     Supports the launch of the SHOUT (Social Housing Under Threat) campaign on 18 June 2014.

 

(b)     Agrees with SHOUT that building social housing - social rented homes - is at the core of tackling the housing crisis nationally and locally in Rotherham and that social rented housing meets needs that other tenures cannot address.

 

(c)     Notes under the Coalition Government the funding of social housing has become increasingly marginalised with the latest prospectus for bidders from the Homes and Communities Agency stating that 'social rent provision will only be supported in very limited circumstances.'

 

(d)     Welcomes the proposal to build 125 new affordable homes by the Council and Housing Associations over the next 3 years and to acquire a further 63 new homes.  However, this provision only makes a small contribution towards meeting the identified housing need and is significantly less than the amount of social housing lost each year through the Right to Buy scheme.

 

(e)     Regrets that social housing faces great challenges in meeting the needs of those affected by welfare cuts and rule changes over the last three years, including the damaging “bedroom tax”, and increased pressure from the escalating number of Council homes lost through the Right to Buy scheme.

 

(f)      Resolves to support the work of the SHOUT campaign and take a lead in affirming the positive value and purpose of social rented housing.”

 

The motion was put and carried and was adopted by the Council.

 

(Councillors Cowles, Cutts, Finnie, Gilding, Middleton, Parker, Reynolds, Turner, C. Vines and M. Vines abstained from taking a vote)

89.

Questions to Cabinet Members and Chairmen

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor M. Vines asked why were the children at Abbey School being removed to other schools when this school was still open and there was no mandate as yet to close it?

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services explained that after considering the findings of the recent inadequate Ofsted Report, coupled with the well known long standing historic issues at Abbey School, the Local Authority decided that the best option for the pupils, to ensure their educational needs were being met and they receive a good quality education in a safe and secure environment, was to propose closure and to offer parents the opportunity to transfer pupils to other good special schools across the borough.

 

Discussions were being held with individual parents/carers to ensure that any new school would be able to meet their child’s needs.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor M. Vines asked if this was still only a proposal why were staffing ringing parents to ask if they wished their children to move places, why had staff left Abbey School and the Ofsted inspection where it would appear it was the management that was a problem not the children or the staff.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services pointed out that the proposal was still out for consultation, but SEN staff were telephoning parents asking if their children did wish to transfer schools in the best interests of their children in order to move their education forward.

 

In terms of the relationship with management and staff at the school, Ofsted had regarded the leadership as a strength, but this was disconnected from the school, which was a problem and needed to be resolved.

 

(2) Councillor C. Vines asked should RMBC publish on its website the names and photos of all Rotherham licensed taxi drivers to give customers more confidence and would aid identification if any offences was committed especially in light of CSE linked to taxi companies mentioned in the Jay report?

 

The Chairman of the Licensing Board confirmed that the Council were currently working with a software provider that would allow the online publication of all of the Council’s licensing registers.  This facility would allow members of the public to view information in relation to licensed drivers, and would include details of licence number, date that the licence was granted, date of licence expiry, details of operator, conditions attached to the licence and details of any Licensing Board meetings relevant to the licence holder.

 

It may be possible to include photographs of individual licence holders, however this was something that would need to be discussed further with the software provider.  This was because the online register drew information from the Council’s database as a text field and it was not clear whether this could be tailored to include images.  If this is possible then this is something that could be brought before the Licensing Board for consideration.

 

However, as the questioner was aware, the Council was in the midst of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

90.

Questions to Spokespersons

Minutes:

Councillor Vines asked could the Transport Spokesperson please inform him what was the total cost of building this bus route from Sheffield to Rotherham, why had this project risen by reported a staggering £8 million,  who was expected to pick up the bill for this and who was responsible for this gross incompetence?

 

The Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods, as the Transport Representative, agreed to provide a fuller answer to Councillor C. Vines, but confirmed that the Bus Rapid Transport North project was being delivered in Partnership with SYPTE, Sheffield City Council and Rotheham Council and was part financed by the European Union's European Regional Development Fund through the Yorkshire and Humber ERDF Programme 2007-13, Department for Transport, the Growing Places Fund from the Sheffield City Region Local Enterprise Partnership and the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan.

 

The current estimated final cost of the scheme, which included highways infrastructure in Rotherham and Sheffield including a new link road under the M1 at Junction 34 south was £37,665,479 which had raised from £29,762,744 at Full Approval a total change of £7,902,735.

 

Each partner led on the delivery of infrastructure for which they were responsible, and carried the risks associated with any cost overrun on this. In summary the infrastructure to be delivered included:-

 

·                RMBC: new bus lanes on A6178 Sheffield Road and improvements to Ickles Roundabout (all complete).

·                SCC: new link road under the M1 Tinsley Viaduct and bus priority measures along the Lower Don corridor.

·                SYPTE: new bus stop and shelter infrastructure.

 

The cost change has been brought about by a combination of on-site issues relating to the new link road under the M1 including:-

 

·                Unexpected notification of the need to divert a Yorkshire Water Sewer.  The Statutory Undertaker surveys and enquiries undertaken during the design process failed to identify the service which was located in a critical area for the construction of one of the main bridge structures in a timescale which would have allowed the works to be included in the works schedule and programme.

·                The discovery of asbestos fibres on site has necessitated a comprehensive testing and land remediation work phase.

·                The discovery of asbestos on site was unforeseen as the pre start asbestos surveys that were undertaken did not indicate or identify the presence of asbestos.  The introduction of CIRIA guidance in February 2014 has required that a specific and thorough approach be followed in dealing with the asbestos.

·                The discovery of unexploded ordnance on site.  Since the commencement of the asbestos remediation there have been six incidents which have required the site team to invoke the unexploded bomb (UXB) protocol. Four of these incidents were confirmed bombs which were safely removed from site. All of these incidents have required evacuation of the site until the items have been made safe and have delayed the works.

 

In terms of the funding, Sheffield City Council were leading on the project and they would be responsible for the cost not other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Written Answers - 10th December, 2014 pdf icon PDF 30 KB