Agenda and minutes

To consider any announcements by the Mayor in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 3(2)(ii).

The Mayor was pleased to present her activity since the last Council meeting which was attached for information to the Mayor’s Letter.

To receive the apologies of any Member who is unable to attend the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Albiston, Allcock, Brookes, Ellis, Marriott, Napper and Price.

Any communication received by the Mayor or Chief Executive which relates to a recommendation of the Cabinet or a committee which was received after the relevant meeting.

There were no communications.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 22^nd January, 2020 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 22 January 2020, be approved for signature by the Mayor.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                        Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To report on any petitions received by the Council received by the Council and receive statements in support of petitions in accordance with Petitions Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13.

The Mayor introduced the report and confirmed the receipt of three petitions received since the last Council meeting which had not met the threshold for consideration by Council.

·       Containing 122 signatures calling on the Council to stop Kiveton Youth Centre Demolition.

·       Containing 22 signatures calling on the Council to review the process for Public questions at Council meetings.

·       Containing 30 signatures calling on the Council to reinstate back to grass the tarmac driveway cutting across the communal greenspace and play area on Keppel Road.

Mrs Ibbotson, the lead petitioner addressed Council as part of the presentation of the petition.

Resolved: - 

(1)  That the report be received.

(2)  That the relevant Strategic Directors be required to respond to the lead petitioners as set out 11 March 2020.

To invite Councillors to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal interests they may have in any matter which is to be considered at this meeting, to confirm the nature of those interests and whether they intend to leave the meeting for the consideration of the item.

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

1.    “T” asked the Leader of the Council “What training has the Leader of RMBC had in improving his understanding of the impact of CSE on victims and survivors after they have been through a trial, what type of training did he have, when did he have it, how long did it last for, and exactly what did it cover?”.

In response the Leader advised that he had not received any training on this specific aspect of CSE.

As a supplementary question “T” asked what the Leader’s opinion was of the online training provided for Council staff on CSE. The Leader in response advised that the training had been created for the Council by professionals in the field of CSE, but that if “T” had any feedback on the training that she would like to provide, then that feedback would be welcomed.

2.    Mr Peter Thirlwall asked the Chair of the Standards and Ethics Committee “Does the Chair of the Standards and Ethics Committee believe a dangerous precedent has been set by allowing Councillor Cutts not to face any sanctions for the cavalier attitude he has taken towards completing his 'Register of Interests' and ignoring the many reminders he has been given?  What sort of message does the Chair believe that sends to other Councillors?”.

In response the Chair of the Standards and Ethics Committee in advised that she didn’t believe that the way in which this case had been dealt with set any precedent, as each case was dealt with on its own merits. The Chair reiterated what she had said at the previous meeting of Council, that it was not appropriate to discuss individual cases in the Council meeting (Minute No.287), and noted that Mr Thirlwall had been previously assured in writing that the  matter had been fully and properly addressed. The Chair also noted that members were regularly reminded and would continue to be reminded about the requirement for their Register of Interests to be kept up to date.

As a supplementary question Mr Thirlwall stated that he was not satisfied with the response that he had received from the Chair and noted that his complaint had only been verbally reported at, and not discussed fully at a meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee. Mr Thirlwall stated that no sanction had been applied to Councillor Brian Cutts for his conduct on this matter and that in his opinion Councillor Cutts should no longer be a Councillor and asked whether the Chair agreed.

The Chair advised that she did not agree and referred Mr Thirlwall to her original response. The Chair noted that Mr Thirlwall was fully aware that Standards Committees had, due the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 very limited ability to apply sanctions on Councillors. The Chair referred to the Government consultation that had taken place on Standards matters and sanctions in local authorities and encouraged Mr Thirlwall to lobby the area’s MP’s to put pressure on the Government to move the required legislation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 309.

Should it be necessary, in the opinion of the Mayor, to consider excluding the press and public from the meeting in relation to any items of urgent business on the grounds that private information is likely to be divulged.

There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.

The Mayor advised that there were no items requring the exclusion of the press and public.

To receive a statement from the Leader of the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.

The Leader presented his update statement, referring to:

The Council’s response to the recent Incidents of Severe Flooding

The Leader advised that while Storms Ciara and Dennis had not caused as severe flooding as seen in November, 2019, staff from all parts of the Council had been out in the borough helping to ensure that disruption in Rotherham had been kept to a minimum.

The Leader advised that in order to highlight the serious situation that councils across Yorkshire faced responding to the repeated flooding, officers from the Sheffield City Region Combined Authorities and the four South Yorkshire Councils had been working together to produce a programme of investment to ensure that the recent flooding events were not repeated. The Leader advised that the proposed programme of schemes, totalling more than £270m of investment would protect over 2,800 businesses and over 10,300 homes across South Yorkshire and that Mayor Jarvis has written to the new Secretary of State for DEFRA making the case to secure this essential funding to protect local people and communities.

The South Yorkshire Devolution Consultation

The Leader advised that the public consultation on a proposed South Yorkshire deal was now taking place. The Leader noted that the proposed deal would provide £30 million a year in additional funding for economic growth locally as well as giving local control of the £35 million adult education budget as well as additional powers to local leaders covering transport, skills, and governance.

Yorkshire Day 2020

The Leader advised that Rotherham would be hosting the civic celebrations for Yorkshire Day on 1 August 2020 noting that the event would be fantastic opportunity to showcase Rotherham.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meetings held on 20 January and 17 February 2020.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet held on 20 January and 20 February 2020, be received.

Mover: - Councillor Read                        Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider the Cabinet’s recommendations in respect of the Budget and Council for the 2020-21 financial year.

Further to Minute No.120 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 17 February 2020, consideration was given to the report that proposed the Council’s Budget and Council Tax for 2020/21.  This was based on the outcome of the Council’s Final Local Government Finance Settlement, budget consultation process and consideration of Directorate budget proposals through the Council’s formal Budget and Scrutiny processes (Overview and Scrutiny Management Board), alongside a review of the financial planning assumptions within the Medium Term Financial Strategy. It was noted in the report that since the introduction of austerity measures in 2010 the Council had been successful in making savings in excess of £200m in response to significant reductions in Central Government funding. This figure included savings of £16m that had been approved by Council in February 2019 in setting a two-year budget for 2019/20 and 2020/21 (Minute No.156, 2019/20) still to be delivered during 2020/21.

In moving the recommendations, the Leader thanked everyone who had contributed to mammoth process of pulling the budget proposals together, in particular the Strategic Director – Finance and Customer Services and her team, the Cabinet Member - Corporate Services and Finance, and Cabinet colleagues.

The Leader noted that in 2019 a two year budget had been approved in order to meet the challenges of a £30million budget gap following a £170million reduction in the Council’s budget since 2010 created by cuts in Government funding, and that overall these reductions had amounted to £1,700 of cuts for every household in the borough.

The Leader noted that in 2013, the then Local Government Minister, Brandon Lewis had stated that the decentralisation of local government finance would put councils in charge and reward them for supporting local enterprise, building more homes and backing local jobs. The Leader stated that despite this statement the reality for Rotherham was, despite being one of the fastest growing local economies in the region, that in ten years over 1,800 jobs had been lost at the Council.

The Leader outlined several examples of the vital role that Council services played in supporting the elderly, disabled and children in the Council’s care to have the quality of life that they deserved and were entitled to, as well as the cost of providing these essential services, noting that nearly two thirds of the Council’s budget was spent on providing essential social care services. The Leader stated that it was right to say that the that the people who provided these critical, intimate services deserved more than poverty pay, and that while the number of people needing home care had risen 10% per year every year for the last three years, the Council’s 800 home care staff would be paid the Real Living Wage from this April in recognition of how important that work was.

The Leader expressed his frustration that the Government had still not comprehensively reviewed how local authorities were funded, and that yet again a “sticking plaster” solution had been provided with some, but not enough extra funding,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 313.

To note the changes made in the Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Amendment Order 2020

Consideration was given to a report submitted for information to ensure that all Members were aware of the final amendment to the Electoral Changes Order for Rotherham, which was scheduled to take effect in May 2020.

It was noted that the Council received the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) final recommendations for the future warding of Rotherham in October 2017, which confirmed that there should be 59 councillors in the borough elected from 25 wards from May 2020. As part of the review, the LGBCE took into account parish councillor numbers and inadvertently reduced the number of parish councillors to be elected to Bramley Parish Council from 13 to seven in the order laid before Parliament in January 2018. The error by the LGBCE had now been corrected via The Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Amendment Order 2020.

Resolved: -

That the Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Amendment Order 2020, and the specific correction therein of returning the number of members of Bramley Parish Council to 13 parish councillors, be noted.

Mover: - Councillor Read                        Seconder: - Councillor Watson

To approve a calendar of meetings for the Council and its committees for the 2020-21 municipal year.

Consideration was given to the report which detailed how the Council amended the Procedure Rules in the Constitution in September 2017 to require the Calendar of Meetings to be presented for approval at the Budget Council meeting. This report was, therefore, submitted in accordance with that requirement.

Resolved: - That the Calendar of Meetings for the 2020/21 municipal year be approved.

Mover: - Councillor Read                        Seconder: - Councillor Watson

This Council notes that:-

·         Fireworks are only permitted for sale for Chinese New Year and three days prior, Diwali and three days prior, from 15 October to 10 November (for Guy Fawkes Night), and from 26 to 31 December (for New Year)

·         Using or buying fireworks illegally can result in a £5,000 fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months.

·         Fireworks must not be let off between 11pm and 7am, except on Chinese New Year, Diwali and New Year's Eve, when the period is extended until 1am, and on Guy Fawkes Night, when the period is extended until midnight.

·         It is illegal to set off fireworks (including sparklers) in the street or public place

·         Breaking these laws can result in an on-the-spot fine of £90.

This Council resolves that:-

·         the Cabinet liaise with South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority to better control the year-round licensed sales and use of fireworks ensuring that:

o    sales should be restricted to licence holders only; and

o    a leaflet or notice should be issued by all licensed sellers, to include the times of use, to improve awareness and understanding of the law on the usage of fireworks.

Proposer:       Councillor Simpson             Seconder:      Councillor Jepson

Proposed by Councillor Simpson and seconded by Councillor Jepson: -

This Council notes that:

·       Fireworks are only permitted for sale for Chinese New Year and three days prior, Diwali and three days prior, from 15 October to 10 November (for Guy Fawkes Night), and from 26 to 31 December (for New Year)

·       Using or buying fireworks illegally can result in a £5,000 fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months.

·       Fireworks must not be let off between 11pm and 7am, except on Chinese New Year, Diwali and New Year's Eve, when the period is extended until 1am, and on Guy Fawkes Night, when the period is extended until midnight.

·       It is illegal to set off fireworks (including sparklers) in the street or public place

·       Breaking these laws can result in an on-the-spot fine of £90.

This Council resolves that:

·       the Cabinet liaise with South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority to better control the year-round licensed sales and use of fireworks ensuring that:

·       sales should be restricted to licence holders only; and

·       a leaflet or notice should be issued by all licensed sellers, to include the times of use, to improve awareness and understanding of the law on the usage of fireworks.

On being put to the vote the motion was declared as carried.

That this Council notes:

·         Over the years, the Droppingwell site has suffered from poor administration and enforcement action by both the environment agency and RMBC and this has brought about apathy within the local community towards any local authority decision.

This Council believes that:

·         by conducting consultation it would re-instate some of the confidence in the authorities administration over planning. 

·         this is a public amenity and therefore all efforts should be made to garner all relevant views to any alterations which could carry significant risks to the users of this public resource and it should not be a decision that should be taken by a faceless officer without public scrutiny.

This Council resolves that:

·         echoing the call from the residents of Droppingwell, Kimberworth and Blackburn, the Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety and the Chair of the Planning Board should give a cast iron guarantee today that, prior to any further planning permission, variations or amendments in relation to the Grange Park site, including the Grange landfill site, its accesses, access lane and any alteration to entrances or junctions, a full and comprehensive consultation will be conducted. This would include all patrons of the site, the football club and all local residents.

Proposer:       Councillor Hague                 Seconder:      Councillor Cowles

Proposed by Councillor Hague and seconded by Councillor Cowles.

That this Council notes:

·       Over the years, the Droppingwell site has suffered from poor administration and enforcement action by both the environment agency and RMBC and this has brought about apathy within the local community towards any local authority decision.

This Council believes that:

·       by conducting consultation it would re-instate some of the confidence in the authorities administration over planning. 

·       this is a public amenity and therefore all efforts should be made to garner all relevant views to any alterations which could carry significant risks to the users of this public resource and it should not be a decision that should be taken by a faceless officer without public scrutiny.

This Council resolves that:

·       echoing the call from the residents of Droppingwell, Kimberworth and Blackburn, the Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety and the Chair of the Planning Board should give a cast iron guarantee today that, prior to any further planning permission, variations or amendments in relation to the Grange Park site, including the Grange landfill site, its accesses, access lane and any alteration to entrances or junctions, a full and comprehensive consultation will be conducted. This would include all patrons of the site, the football club and all local residents.

It was proposed by Councillor Hoddinott and seconded by Councillor Watson that the motion be amended as follows.

That this Council notes:

Over the years, the Droppingwell site has suffered from poor administration and enforcement action by both the environment agency and RMBC and this has brought about apathy within the local community towards any local authority decision.

INSERT:

The situation with Droppingwell Tip is unique in the country. The planning permission that dates back to the 1950s excludes the kinds of requirements that would be expected from such a planning permission today.

The re-opening of the tip has been consistently opposed by members of this Council.

The Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety wrote to the then Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Therese Coffey MP) on 3rd September 2019, setting out significant concerns about the site reopening and asking for urgent action to be taken.

The Chief Executive of Rotherham Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick MP) in November 2019 and again January 2020, to set out the Council’s concerns about the operation of the site and the Council’s lack of available legislative powers to regulate it. To date, no response has been received.

The Council wrote to Grange Landfill Ltd in January 2020 to express concern about the risks associated with vehicle movements on the access road and the use of Council land as a turning circle, and to ask that appropriate action was taken by Grange Landfill to mitigate any risks. It is the council’s intention to block the turning circle this month.

The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board heard the petition of residents on this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 317.

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board of 22 January 2020 be adopted.

Mover: - Councillor Roche                      Seconder: - Councillor Mallinder

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Standards and Ethics Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee of 30 January 2020 be adopted.

Mover: - Councillor McNeely                   Seconder:-  Councillor Clark

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Audit Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee of 6 February 2020 be adopted.

Mover: - Councillor Wyatt             Seconder: -  Councillor Walsh

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Planning Board.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That subject to a minor amendment, regarding a planning application number contained in the minutes of the 16 January meeting, the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board of 16 January and 6 February 2020 be adopted.

Mover: - Councillor Sheppard                 Seconder: - Councillor Williams

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Licensing Board, Licensing Board Sub-Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee.

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved: - That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Board, Licensing Board Sub-Committee, Licensing Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee of 13, 27 and 30 January and 3 February be adopted.

Mover: - Councillor Beaumont                 Seconder: - Councillor Steele

To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).

Councillor Cowles asked “We elected a PCC, to oversee the role of the police and their budget. In other places the job is combined, e.g. Manchester. He now has a staff of 24 unelected personnel; at least two earn in excess of £50k. We were not told he would need a whole department at taxpayers’ expense, what are they all doing?”.

In response, Councillor Sansome, as the Council’s Designated Spokesperson on South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel noted that as Manchester had an elected Mayor that that role was combined with that of a Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), with the PCC function being delegated to a Deputy PCC for Policing, but that in South Yorkshire the PCC had never appointed a Deputy.  

Councillor Sansome advised that the role of the PCC in South Yorkshire was much wider than that of just overseeing the role of the police and also included responsibility for supporting the Local Criminal Justice Board and commissioning services for victims. Councillor Sansome also noted that additionally the South Yorkshire PCC had responsibility for managing 'legacy issues', including civil claims arising out of the Hillsborough disaster and CSE in Rotherham as well as for the National Crime Agency's investigation into non-recent CSE in Rotherham, an area that no other PCC had been involved in. Also, as a result of legacy issues the South Yorkshire PCC was also required to have robust ‘holding to account’ arrangements and communications in place. Councillor Sansome advised that the two officers who earned in excess of £50,000 were the Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, noting that these posts were a legal requirement and that their pay levels reflected the size of the police force area and their professional skills, as did the pay of the Chief Constable.

As a supplementary question Councillor Cowles asked for further information on how the increase of the Police and Crime Commissioner precept was being spent, noting cuts to police services that had been discussed in the media and advising that the increase in the precept would pay for a greater increase in police officers than that was being proposed. Councillor Cowles stated that it was his belief that the increase in the precept was being used to pay for legacy issues caused by mistakes made by South Yorkshire Police.

In response Councillor Sansome noted the lowest weekly cost to a resident in Rotherham of the increase to the precept would be seven pence, noting that he would hope most people would think that was a price worth paying for more police officers. Councillor Sansome noted that cuts that had been made to police budgets had been required due to budget pressures but had enabled smarter working practices to be used in the force.

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).

1.    Councillor Mallinder asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health “Can the Cabinet Member outline for me where we are in terms of providing respite care for people with disabilities?”.

In response the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care advised that he was pleased to note that Cabinet had agreed on 17 February to approve two brand new adapted detached properties at Conway Crescent, East Herringthorpe to become a residential respite home for up to eight people per day, and that this Council run provision would replace the existing facilities at Treefields and Quarryhill through a phased period from April 2020.

The Cabinet Member advised that the Conway Crescent properties would enable a respite offer to be made to a wider range of people who previously could not always use Council in-house respite facilities due to access issues. The Cabinet Member advised that it was proposed that one of the Conway Crescent properties would specialise in provision for people with Autism and the other would be for people with a Learning Disabilities who also had limited mobility, although all eight beds could be utilised by anyone  with a Learning Disability and/or Autism requiring care and support.

The Cabinet Member also provided details of other respite options that would be available to service users.

There was no supplementary question.

2.    Councillor Sansome asked the Leader of the Council “Do you agree that the comments made by Cllr Hague concerning a Britain First Member “he is an ok kinda guy” are divisive given the history of Britain First, unwanted, against the fabric of community cohesion and dividing our community? Whereas the Labour Group continue to build our communities despite years of austerity and countless visits by far-right groups.”

In response the Leader noted that he had not seen the video of where the alleged comment had been made.  The Leader stated that he completely agreed with Councillor Sansome’s comments on the importance of building of community cohesion and that he hoped all members would concur with this sentiment, especially given the damage that far right groups like the EDL had done in Rotherham. The Leader commented if that was what passed as “OK” in the new Rotherham Democratic Party then he I didn’t think the public of Rotherham would want anything to do with them.

As a supplementary question Councillor Sansome asked whether the Leader agreed with his statement that extremism of any variety was not welcome in the Borough. The Leader noted his full agreement with this sentiment and reaffirmed that far-right groups were not welcome in Rotherham.

3.    Councillor B Cutts asked the Leader of the Council “When in 2012 I asked for details of the number of foreign nationals registered in Rotherham, I was advised they were not kept.  Subsequently, I learnt that Barnsley provided the research - 3744 in total to date.  What is the annual cost to Rotherham for this registration?”.

In response the Leader advised that the Council did not collect statistics on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 324.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items for consideration.