Agenda and minutes

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

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

The Mayor drew attention to various events she and the Mayoress had attended both in Rotherham and Sheffield, including Yorkshire Day and the Cadets Association for Yorkshire and Humber.

The Mayor also highlighted forthcoming events with:-

·             Rotherham Show this coming weekend on 7^th and 8^th September.

·             Ladies’s Day at Hellaby Hall in aid of the Mayor’s charity on 12^th September.

·             RMBC Garden Competition awards ceremony at Clifton Park on 18^th September.

·             Pride of Rotherham Awards on 27^th September.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Buckley, Price, Russell, Senior, Simpson, Whysall and Yasseen.

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 received.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 24 July 2019 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 24^th July, 2019, 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 reported receipt of two petitions, which had not met the threshold for consideration by Council, and would be referred to the relevant directorate for a response to be prepared:-

·             Containing 100 signatures calling on the Council to include the Grange Estate in the 2021 Resurfacing Programme due to the number of complaints about potholes, blocked gullies, broken road surfaces and loose gravel.

Councillor Short addressed the Council as part of the presentation of the petition.

·             Containing 26 signatures calling on the Council to suspend the recent changes to the petition scheme and fully consult with members of the public, specifically those who have used the petition scheme over the past two years, and carry out an equality impact assessment on any proposed changes before implementing any further changes.

Mr. Harron addressed the Council as part of the presentation of the petition.

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 report.

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

(1) Mr. Harron asked since the Jay Report in August 2014, how many gold group investigations into services had RMBC either initiated, or participated in, because of complaints about either commissioned services, non-commissioned services or any RMBC services?

The Leader confirmed “Gold” was a term and a command hierarchy used for major operations or issues within and across public services. A Gold Group was used a formulate the strategy for dealing with the operation and responding to issues in a strategic fashion in relation to those instigated with complaints against services either the Council commissioned or provided directly and since the Jay Report there been one such organised investigation.

In a supplementary question Mr. Harron asked the Leader if he could explain broadly the nature of the threat or why such that a Gold Group investigation was set up.

The Leader explained that in broader terms there were a number of complaints overlapping and inter-related complaints of a serious nature which would fall within the remit of different organisations to investigate.  In this case it related to one supplier of services and at that point in time it was decided that the best way to co-ordinate an investigation was to run that through a Gold structure.

(2)  Elizabeth was unable to attend the meeting so would be provided with a written response to her question.

(3)  Mr. Cawkwell was unable to attend the meeting so would be provided with a written response to his question.

(4)  Mr. Thirlwall asked could the Leader please tell him who was the Leader of the official Opposition Party in the Council, which political party he/she represented, how many Opposition members there were in that group and how much the Leader of the Opposition received in Special Responsibility Allowance.

The Leader confirmed Councillor Allen Cowles was leader of the main Opposition group – the Brexit Party Group and he himself was a member, as per the notification provided to the Proper Officer on the formation of that group in July, 2019.  The Brexit Party Group consisted of eleven Members.

In addition, the Members’ Allowances Scheme had set the Special Responsibility Allowance for the Leader of the Main Opposition Party at £8,617 and Councillor Cowles had, therefore, been in receipt of the allowance since May, 2016.

As part of a supplementary question Mr. Thirlwall having looked at the Register of Interests late last week all eleven of those Members were still listed as being in the UKIP Party.

Miraculously when he looked yesterday the majority had changed to the Brexit Party.  This question had been raised on three separate occasions since October, 2018 and as Leader it was made clear that the responsibility for completing the Register of Interest was the individual Councillor and no one could do it on their behalf. 

On this basis who gave the instruction to alter the Register of interests in the last couple of days, when was it completed, was it altered without the proper authorisation of the individual Councillor,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 236.

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.

Resolved:-  That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, that should the Mayor deem if necessary the public be excluded from the meeting on the grounds that any items involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of schedule 12(A) of such Act indicated, as now amended by the Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

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

The Leader wanted to share the early reports that pupils from across the Borough’s sixteen secondary schools had achieved exceptional GCSE results.  This was excellent news and of particular note was the achievements of some of Rotherham’s students especially with Billie Moss (Aston Comp) who achieved ten Grade 9 (old A*) (one of the highest achievers across the country), Stephen Cheshire (Oakwood Comp) achieved seven Grade 9 (old A) and also sat his A Level Maths two years early gaining A*, Goda Zabitaite (Swinton Academy) achieved five Grade 9, two Grade 8 and one Grade 6 GCSE passes and Alijah Mustafa (Clifton Community School) achieved four Grade 9 and five Grade 8 GCSE passes.

Success had also been achieved by students across Rotherham who received their A-Level results seeing a 99% pass rate for the borough.  Wath and Swinton scored the highest pass rates in the borough, with 100% of pupils passing their exams.  Wath also had 86.5% of pupils achieving an A* – Grade C, and an impressive 36% of pupils graded A*– A.

It was impressive that the Looked After Children’s results had also improved across all stages on last year.

In terms of Operation Stovewood there had been a further conviction of six men last week bringing the total number of convictions for historic CSE crimes in Rotherham to nearly forty.  In partnership with the NCA the Council would continue to seek justice for all victims and survivors of CSE in Rotherham.

With regards to the HS2, the Prime Minister had requested a review of HS2 which would be carried out by Douglas Oakervee a retired engineer who previously chaired HS2 Ltd. and worked with the Prime Minister when he was London Mayor.   The Leader along with Ros Jones, The Mayor of Doncaster, met with Doug Oakervee last night and points were made at a constructive meeting.  Assurances were given that the voices of residents in Rotherham and Doncaster have been heard as part of that review.

Finally this week sees the return of the annual Rotherham Show which was set to be bigger and better than previous years marking the Show’s 40th Anniversary and still the biggest free show in the North. 

In the period where Members could ask questions of the Leader’s statement, Councillor Carter echoed the comments about the Key Stage 4 and 5 results throughout the borough, but referred to the recent convictions arising from Operation Stovewood. It was Councillor Carter’s understanding that in his judgement the Judge spoke harshly about the leadership of this Council and asked whereabouts on the spectrum would the Leader say that this Council was.

The Leader confirmed the Judge did comment harshly about the failures in the past in Rotherham which were severe and systematic over a long period of time.  Rotherham would continue to live with the consequences of those actions.  It was entirely understandable that those criticisms were made, but the Council was now a long way away from that situation today  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 8th July, 2019.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8^th July, 2019, be received.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider the annual report of the Audit Committee in respect of its activities during the 2018/19 municipal year.

Consideration was given to the report which set out in detail the Annual Report 2018/19 which brought together in one document a summary of the work undertaken by the Audit Committee. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) had issued guidance to local authorities to help ensure that Audit Committees operated effectively and the guidance recommended that Audit Committees should report annually on how they have discharged their responsibilities.

Copies of the Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference for 2018/19 and 2019/20 were also included in the Appendix for information.

Resolved:-  That the Audit Committee Annual Report 2018/19 be approved.

Mover:-  Councillor Wyatt                      Seconder:-  Councillor Walsh

To receive updates from ward councillors from Rotherham East, Rotherham West and Silverwood on the activities supporting Thriving Neighbourhoods across the Borough.

Further to Minute No. 55 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19^th November, 2018, consideration was given to the annual Ward Updates for Rotherham East, Rotherham West and Silverwood as part of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy.

The Strategy signalled a new way of working for the Council both for Members and for staff and covered every Ward in the borough delivered through Ward Plans developed with residents to address local issues and opportunities. Ward Members would be supported by the neighbourhood team and would work with officers and residents from a range of organisations to respond to residents.

Councillors Cooksey, Khan and Fenwick-Green, on behalf of the Rotherham East Ward, gave an update on their ward priorities.

Councillor Khan welcomed the change to the Thriving Neighbourhood initiative and the style of working.  This had previously been echoed around the Chamber by other Ward Members.  The Deputy Leader was, therefore, thanked for the neighbourhood initiative.

Ward Members had worked within the community to set up sessions with different groups and provide advice and support where required.  This had worked really well and had been achieved across the whole Ward.

Ward Members specifically wanted to thank Council staff and the local PCSOs and the Police who worked tirelessly to forge working relationships and to ensure the communities were at the heart thus achieving a more collaborative approach.

This reaching out approach secured improvements and had made a difference to vulnerable groups that may not have been achieved previously.  The Ward also had a Community Newsletter which was delivered to every household and community drop-in sessions where it was important to listen and advise.

Recognised achievements included the Eastwood Plan and working alongside a number of partners and partnerships, including various community centres, Mowbray Gardens Library, the Unity Centre, REMA and the Canal and River Trust where fantastic changes were made to open up fields thus making it more attractive for local wildlife.

Councillor Cooksey emphasised the need to listen to residents and consider their views when looking at any potential schemes for the devolved budget.  It was only after listening to the concerns of local people about the poor state of St. Ann’s underpass that the work of a local artist and illustrator was commissioned which improved the area.  The completed murals celebrated famous Rotherham landmarks and residents from the past.  This has also led to other commissions in other Wards.

This project also brought different groups together with help from the local youth club at My Place and the Red Cross as well as a Candidate Day in collaboration with Rotherham love where you live.

There had been some brilliant partnership working with partners and groups in Rotherham East Ward who have been so instrumental in providing assistance for other projects such as the mobile library and community hubs in East Dene and Herringthorpe which facilitated a number of diverse groups such as knit and natter, Rotherham Anglers, Polish/Anglo Polish; who consequently had written a book with fascinating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

This Council:

1.    Abhors racism in all forms.

2.    Notes the decision of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to join with the government and other local authorities across the UK in signing up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism on 3rd June 2019.

The IHRA working definition states;

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish Community institutions and religious facilities.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

·         Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

·         Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

·         Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

·         Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)

·         Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

·         Accusing Jewish citizens as being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations

·         Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

·         Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

·         Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

·         Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

·         Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel."

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.    Restate its condemnation of all forms of racism in all its manifestations

2.    Adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as the working model for challenging and confronting incidents of this form of racism.

Mover:-  ...  view the full agenda text for item 242.

Proposed by Councillor Read and seconded by Councillor Watson:-

This Council:-

1.          Abhors racism in all forms.

2.          Notes the decision of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority to join with the government and other local authorities across the UK in signing up to the internationally recognised International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism on 3rd June 2019.

The IHRA working definition states;

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish Community institutions and religious facilities.

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectively. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

·             Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

·             Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

·             Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

·             Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)

·             Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

·             Accusing Jewish citizens as being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations

·             Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

·             Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

·             Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

·             Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

·             Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel."

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.          Restate its condemnation of all forms of racism in all its manifestations

2.          Adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as the working model for challenging and confronting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

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, recommendation and minutes of the meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee be adopted, but subject to an amendment to confirm a change to the date of the next meeting as being Wednesday, 18^th September, 2019.

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, recommendation and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Wyatt                      Seconder:-  Councillor Walsh

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, recommendation and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Roche                      Seconder:-  Councillor Mallinder

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendation and minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Sheppard                 Seconder:-  Councillor Williams

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendation and minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Board Sub-Committee and Licensing Sub-Committee be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Ellis                         Seconder:-  Councillor Beaumont

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).

(1)  Councillor Cowles confirmed he had been contacted by a resident who had his garage burgled. Discovered at 6:00 a.m. he spent the next four hours trying 101 to get a crime incident number for insurance purposes. His insurance company were not playing ball as they were unhappy with the reporting delay suggesting he was at fault. He, therefore, asked when would 101 be fit for purpose?

Councillor Sansome confirmed the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable would be holding their Public Accountability Board meetings on the 6th November, 2019 and 10th March, 2020 at Rotherham Town Hall.

He suggested that if the Leader of the Opposition wished to raise concerns with the Police and Crime Panel that Councillor Cowles join the membership thus holding the Police and Crime Commissioner to account.

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles reiterated had if he been involved he would not have accepted the 14% increase and would not have rolled over and done what was required.  He believed the Panel were not fit for purpose and that members of the public were sick and tired of the system and were reluctant to use it.  He reiterated he was not an insurance expert so could not confirm whether or not an insurance company would pay out for the items stolen from the member of the public’s garage so asked would the Police and Crime Commissioner pay for them.

Councillor Sansome pointed out that since he had been on the Police and Crime Panel he had raised a number of times the issue of 101 failing, but had not seen any Member of UKIP or the Brexit Party turn up to a Public Accountability Board meeting to ask the Commissioner or the Chief Constable face to face about the issues.

The only Member that had actually turned up was Councillor Short where the budget was passed which would see the number of officers increasing in South Yorkshire; not just for this year, but for the following two years as reported in the Sheffield Star.

Councillor Sansome took his responsibility seriously and would fight for Rotherham.  However, if Councillor Cowles had particular problems perhaps he would prefer to contact the Police and Crime Commissioner, with whom he was in contact regularly, to share the background and to see if this issue could be resolved.

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

(1)  Councillor R. Elliott confirmed it was good to see the Leader’s comments regarding the HS2 review, and asked if he were able to say if the Sheffield City Region and Dan Jarvis held the same views and would they be submitting evidence to the review? If so, would it be fair and representational including Rotherham and Doncaster Councils’ views?

The Leader shared the frustration that there had not been consensus across the City Region amongst the Councils about the best route.  Rotherham and Doncaster together have taken a particularly strong line about the M18 route saying that this was not the right route.  Sheffield have a slightly different view again. Douglas Oakervee who was chairing the Government's review had approached Dan Jarvis about a week ago and said could he come and meet representatives of the City Region for exactly the reason suggested.  Mayor Jarvis suggested that separate meetings with the different local authorities would be the better way of allowing the authorities to express their views either way. 

This was why last night, alongside Mayor Ros Jones from Doncaster, the Leader met with Doug Oakervee and set out the Council's concerns about the routes and the advantages/disadvantages which came at great cost and impact on communities.  Discussion ensued on where it was thought the high-speed network should run and how the cost savings were incorrect.  This would be followed up in writing and every opportunity would be taken to cast as much doubt as possible on the Government's plan.

In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott asked whether local action groups’ concerns would be represented in any current correspondence they may be between Sheffield City Region and the review bearing in mind that there was only Rotherham and Doncaster Councils who had listened to their residents’ concerns, considered the facts and used motions asking for the Leeds leg of HS2 to be scrapped.  Sheffield and Barnsley Councils were still sitting on the fence whilst at the same time all South Yorkshire M.P.s with the exception of Sir Kevin Barron, including Sarah Champion, continued to promote.  He, therefore, asked if the Leader would authorise the sending of a copy of the motion passed by this Council in December, 2018 for inclusion into the review.

The Leader confirmed he would send a copy of the motion.  He would argue that the Secretary of State at the time was ignored when the Government made the decision to change the route.  It would be more meaningful to the Government to adjust the impact on communities, as a primary concern, and the case would be made.  The motion would, therefore, be shared and any correspondence would also be shared.  The issue of action groups was also raised yesterday due to the short timeframe for the review, but the Chair of the Review did indicate that if groups wanted to send correspondence for Councils to passport through this would ensure views were available as part of the Review.

(2)  Councillor Carter asked would the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 249.

To consider any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items for consideration.