Agenda and minutes

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

The Mayor confirmed that he would continue with the tradition of reporting on his recent activities which would be attached to the Mayor’s Letter from July 2022.

The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, wished to send his deepest sympathies and condolences to Councillor Barley and her family. He asked Councillor Z. Collingham to convey the Council’s offers of support to Councillor Barley.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Allen, Atkin, Barley, Cowen, Thompson, Whomersley and Wooding.

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 13th April, 2022, and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 13th April, 2022, be approved for signature by the Mayor.

Mover:- Councillor Read               Seconder:- Councillor Alam

To report on any petitions 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 one petition received since the last Council meeting:

-                Containing 66 signatures calling on the Council to install a zebra crossing on Flash Lane in Bramley.

As the lead petitioner Rachel Carter was unable to attend the meeting and address the Council, Councillor Reynolds (Ward Member for Bramley,) read out a statement on her behalf.

Resolved:-

1)             That the report be received.

2)             That the relevant Strategic Director be required to respond to the lead petitioner, as set out in the Petition Scheme, by Friday, 10th June, 2022.

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.

Three public questions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12:

(1)  Mr. Tareen - What are the timescales respective to the commencement and completion of the drainage and walkways? We were informed a month ago that the process would be put into motion. As yet we have heard nothing about surveys, planning or budgeting. It’s important to all for reasons of safety that this work should be completed by the end of this summer”.

Mr. Tareen was not able to attend the meeting and as such, a response would be provided in writing.

(2)  Mr. Kapoor stated that he wanted some clarity in regards to is the Muslim burial section in Herringthorpe a landfill site and if so since how long has this been the case ?

Mr. Kapoor was not able to attend the meeting and as such, a response would be provided in writing.

(3)  Mr. Ahmed asked why, after serious concerns raised at the Muslim burial Section in Herringthorpe Cemetery which has been acknowledged by the Council and Dignity, are burials still taking place even though as we speak no concerns have been addressed?

Mr. Ahmed was not able to attend the meeting and as such, a response would be provided in writing.

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.

There were no items that required 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 explained that due to the length of the agenda, he would not be making a statement. Instead he invited questions relating to contemporary issues:

(1)           Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked a question in relation to the continuation of vouchers for meals during school holidays. He firstly explained how welcome it was but explained that, whilst parents were very grateful for the vouchers and the help they provided, it had been noted that a lot of the time, the vouchers were tied to one particular supermarket. On occasion, this meant some families were not getting the best value as they had to change where they usually shopped. Was there anyway the policy could be looked at to ensure families were given a choice of which supermarket they could use?

The Leader explained that, when the policy had been introduced, there were practical reasons for limiting the vouchers to certain supermarkets such as a supermarket being the closest to the schools where the voucher was issued. This had been considered to be the supermarket most likely to be used. However, the Leader stated that he would be happy to take the matter away and discuss with officers to see if there was any flexibility that could be built in. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester would then receive a written response. 

(2)           Councillor A. Carter stated that in recent weeks residents had been receiving letters from the Council regarding the Council Tax Rebate payments. The Government was funding the payments for Bands A-D but some households in Bands E-H had also received letters saying the Council was making a discretionary payment. He asked the Leader to explain the rationale behind that and what other options were looked at in terms of how to use that discretionary fund?

The Leader explained that most properties (excluding second homes) in Bands A-D were entitled to a £150 per household via the national scheme. That accounted for over 90% of households in the Rotherham Borough. Around 3,000 houses fell into Bands E-H. The Government had provided the Council with around £650,000 for discretionary funding. That discretionary funding could not be used for payments to properties in Bands A-D. The choice was then whether the Council should create a discretionary scheme for those households in Bands E-H (which would include some difficulties) or simply split the money across the properties, enabling all the households to receive some payment. The second option was chosen as it was seen as an easier solution for the residents. The households in Council Tax Bands E-H would, therefore, be receiving a payment of £90. This meant virtually every property in the Borough would be receiving some payment.

(3)           Councillor Miro explained that there had been an accident in Waverley recently. There was significant damage to the cars involved but no injuries. Residents questioned the lack of roads signs in Waverley and Councillor Miro wanted to raise their concerns and try and avoid future incidents. He asked for further information on the road signs?

The Leader explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 25th April, 2022.

Resolved:- That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 25th April, 2022, be received.

Mover:- Councillor Read                         Seconder:- Councillor Sheppard

To note the outcome of the Referendum and adopt the Wickersley Neighbourhood Plan.

Consideration was given to the report which explained that Wickersley Parish Council had produced a Neighbourhood Development Plan for the Parish area in accordance with the Localism Act 2011. The Plan had subsequently undergone a successful independent examination and referendum. In accordance with s.38a Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), the Council was required to make (adopt) the Plan as part of the Statutory Development Plan for Rotherham following the successful referendum.

The referendum had taken place on 5th May and the result was 1,455 in favour, 334 against and 22 ballot papers were rejected. Having achieved just over an 80% majority in favour, the Plan was successful. The Neighbourhood Planning Regulation required the Council to make the Neighbourhood Development Plan within 8 weeks of the date of the referendum.

At the meeting, Councillors Ellis, A. Carter and T. Collingham expressed their support for the Development Plan and thanked Wickersley Parish Council for their work. They noted that it was good to see local democracy in action and encouraged others to do the same.

Resolved:-

1)             That the outcome of the Wickersley Neighbourhood Plan Referendum, as set out at paragraph 1.5, of the report be noted.

2)             That the Wickersley Neighbourhood Development Plan be adopted as part of the statutory development plan for the Rotherham Borough.

Mover:- Councillor Lelliott                       Seconder:- Councillor Sheppard

To report on the establishment of political groups, the political balance of the Council and the entitlement of each group to seats on the authority’s committees.

Consideration was given to the report that detailed the membership of political groups on the Council, political balance and the entitlement to seats on, and the proposed appointments to Committees, Boards and Panels.

It was noted that Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 placed a duty on local authorities to set out the principles to be followed when allocating seats to political groups and for these principles to be followed when determining such allocation following formal notification of the establishment of political groups in operation on the Council. It was noted further that there was a requirement on local authorities to annually review the entitlement of the political groups to seats on the committees of the Council.

The report stated that the allocation of seats must follow 2 principles:

a)             Balance must be achieved across the total number of available seats on Committees; and

b)             Balance must be achieved on each individual Committee or body where seats are available.

The report stated that there were presently 4 political groups in operation on the Council – the Labour Group (majority), Conservative Group (opposition), Liberal Democrat (LibDem) Group and Rotherham Democratic Party (RDP) Group – with one non-aligned Councillor (members who were not in a political group).

It was noted further that there were 149 seats available on Committees, Boards and Panels, and under the calculation the Labour Group was entitled to 83 seats, the opposition Group 45 seats, the LibDem Group 10 seats, the RDP Group 8 seats. Three seats had been allocated to the one non-aligned Councillor. This included Councillor Bennett-Sylvester replacing Councillor C. Carter on the Improving Lives Select Commission.

At the meeting Councillor Wyatt advised that he should be listed as a substitute Member of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Burnett thanked Councillor Wyatt for his support on the Improving Places Select Commission during his time as Vice-Chair. Councillor Cusworth thanked all Members involved in the review of the Corporate Parenting Panel.

Resolved:-

1)             That the operation of 4 political groups on the Council and the detail of their designated Leaders be noted:

a)      Labour Group – Councillor Chris Read (Leader of the Majority Group)

b)      Conservative Group – Councillor Emily Barley (Leader of the Majority Opposition Group)

c)      Liberal Democrat Group – Councillor Adam Carter (Group Leader)

d)      Rotherham Democratic Party Group – Councillor Rob Elliott (Group Leader)

2)             That the entitlement of the membership of the political groups be agreed and such entitlements be reflected in Council’s appointments of Members to Committees.

3)             That approval be given to the appointment of Members to Committees, Boards and Panels, and the appointment of Chairs and Vice-Chairs, as set out below:

Cabinet

Leader – Cllr Read

Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Working – Cllr Allen

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People – Cllr Cusworth

Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health – Cllr Roche

Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy – Cllr Lelliott  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To report on the Disclosure and Barring Service Checks on Councillors that have been undertaken since May 2021.

Consideration was given to the report which had been submitted for information to confirm that all current Councillors serving on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council had commenced the process to complete the checks on offences and convictions by the Disclosure and Barring Services.

In response to the findings of the Casey Review of corporate governance within Rotherham MBC, the Commissioners identified that all Councillors should be required to be subject to a Disclosure and Barring Services check, as part of rebuilding trust and confidence in the leadership of the authority.

This requirement was also included within recommendations in an Internal Audit report on Elected Member Conduct – April 2016.

The approach adopted in administering DBS checks was to require any Councillor elected following the May 2021 election to undertake a standard check through the Disclosure and Barring Service. Elected Members appointed to Corporate Parenting Panel were also asked to complete an Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Services check as these Members have responsibility and oversight of issues in respect of Looked After Children.

At the time the report was written, with the exception of 2 checks that were yet to be completed, all other checks had been returned.

Resolved:-

1)    That the report be noted.

Mover:- Councillor Read                         Seconder:- Councillor Alam

To note the Climate Emergency Annual Report.

On 25th April, 2022, Cabinet had resolved to submit the Climate Emergency Annual Report and associated decisions to the next Council meeting for information. Cabinet had resolved to:

1.      Note the progress to date towards the NZ30 and NZ40 targets.

2.      Note the progress against the actions from the 2021/22 Climate Emergency Action Plan.

3.      Agree the approach laid out for continued development of the Council’s response to the Climate Emergency, including an updated Action Plan in 2022.

4.      Agree that the Climate Emergency Annual Report be submitted to the next Council meeting for information.

5.      Agree that developments related to the Environment Bill and the subsequent impact on the waste and recycling strategies be submitted to the Improving Places Select Commission in due course.

The report had also been the subject of pre-decision scrutiny by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board at their meeting on 20th April, 2022.

At its meeting on 30th October, 2019, the Council declared a climate emergency and produced a policy and action plan “Responding to the Climate Emergency”. This set out key policy themes of Energy; Housing; Transport; Waste; Built and Natural Environment; Influence and Engagement.

At its meeting on 23rd March, 2020, Cabinet resolved to establish the targets of:

·        The Council’s carbon emissions to be at net zero by 2030 (NZ30)

·        Borough-wide carbon emissions to be at net zero by 2040 (NZ40)

A Climate Emergency Action Plan for 2021/22 was included in the previous Climate Emergency Annual Report on 22nd March, 2021. The report provided an update on progress against actions outlined in the 2021/22 Action Plan, with particular attention paid to baselining work, which would be an important factor in the continuing strategic development of the Council’s response to the climate emergency. The report then outlined next steps on this agenda, particularly the ongoing development of a new Climate Emergency Action Plan.

Councillor Lelliott explained that a capital proposal for £6.4million had been approved as part of the budget for Phase 1 of the Heat Decarbonisation Plan. Energy performance upgrades had been delivered to 217 homes in The Lanes, East Dene. Further, more than 22,000 trees had been planted. The Youth Cabinet in Rotherham had questioned Council officers and Cabinet Members on the Climate Emergency as part of the Children’s Takeover of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board.

In seconding the report, Councillor Roche explained that he had put forward the motion to declare a Climate Emergency in 2019 and acknowledged the progress and work done by Councillor Allen and Councillor Lelliott. Councillor Roche explained that work on the Climate Emergency would be good for public health.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester thanked Councillor Lelliott for the invite to the Climate Change Working Group which was very constructive.

Councillor A. Carter offered his support for the report but stated that there was a need to move quicker in relation to the actions. He also asked that the Carbon Impact Assessments that accompanied Scrutiny and Cabinet reports be move comprehensive.

Councillor Reynolds stated that he believed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive updates from ward councillors from Greasbrough, Wickersley North and Boston Castle on the activities supporting Thriving Neighbourhoods across the Borough.

Further to Minute No. 55 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19th November, 2018, consideration was given to the annual Ward updates for Greasbrough, Wickersley North and Boston Castle as part of the Thriving Neighbourhood 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 were supported by the Neighbourhood Team and worked with officers and residents from a range of organisations to respond to residents.

Councillor Read explained that this item gave Members the opportunity to inform Council about the work that they are doing in their Wards and communities. It was right that when spending public money and engaging with residents, the highlights be presented and Members be accountable for those decisions. The item allowed Members to talk about what they did most of the time which was directly representing their residents in their communities. When in political debates, this could be lost sight of.

Update reports had been provided as part of the agenda. However, each Ward Member was invited to speak.

Boston Castle

Councillors Alam, McNeely and Yasseen provide an update for Boston Castle Ward:

-         There were five priorities for the Boston Castle Ward:

o    Help communities to be safe and feel safe

o    Ensure families are supported as we emerge from the pandemic

o    Support initiatives which bring together new and existing communities in the Town Centre and beyond

o    Work with communities to improve local green spaces; in particular Clifton Park, Boston Park and Herringthorpe Playing Fields

o    Support initiatives designed to develop an understanding of, and involve, our diverse communities

-         Work had also been done to support Rotherham Social Supermarket who provided food and support to the most vulnerable residents.

-         The Community Summit, which had been postponed due to Covid-19, had been re-organised and would allow up to 20 community stakeholders the opportunity to come together and discuss issues which were important to them. The topic for the next summit would be the community recovering from the Pandemic. The topic would change for each summit.

-         The three Councillors for Boston Castle were returning Councillors and therefore very much involved with residents.

-         The diversity of the Ward was noted and celebrated. The community groups reflected that diversity.

-         Thanks was given to the Neighbourhood Teams and thousands of residents and businesses whose hard work allowed good things to happen in the Ward.

-         The compassion, community spirit and hard work of those residents and businesses made the work of Elected Members possible.

-         Many residents were thanked personally.

Greasbrough Ward

Councillor Elliott provided an update for Greasbrough Ward:

-         The report for Greasbrough was something to be very proud of.

-         The team, Elected Members and Neighbourhood Officers, in Greasbrough had been working hard on all the priorities and plans. 

-         The local Police Officers attended local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

That this Council:-

Notes we are in the middle of a nature crisis. Almost half of all UK wildlife is in long term decline and 15% of species are at risk of extinction. The climate crisis is only hastening this destruction of the natural environment, damaging habitats and disrupting ecosystems. Yet it is these very habitats that have the potential to lock up carbon and fight back against rising global temperatures. It is essential that we not only protect these spaces, but let them thrive – for the benefit of people, planet and nature. We recognise that the terms Nature, Ecological and Biodiversity can be and are often used interchangeably by people and, for the purpose of this motion, all mean the same thing.

Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta’s review into The Economics of Biodiversity, commissioned by Her Majesty’s Treasury, highlighted that humanity does not exist in isolation from nature but sits within it. Nature is an asset on which all aspects of our society depends and with biodiversity declining faster than at any time in human history, we are undermining the productivity, resilience and adaptability that nature lends our society.

As we recover from the Covid-19 crisis, the need for nature-rich green spaces where we live and work is clearer than ever and will help health, education and the economy build back stronger. We recognise that the Climate and Nature emergencies are intrinsically linked with each other and also to social justice; and by building a better world to deal with the Climate and Nature Crises we will also be building a better society. We recognise that action must be taken now to remedy this and to put nature into recovery at a local level, not only to benefit Rotherham, but in support of regional, national and international work to do the same.

This Council therefore notes and recognises that:

a)               Nature is in long term decline and urgent action must be taken to reverse this

b)               A thriving natural environment underpins a healthy, prosperous society

c)                The nature and the climate crises are intrinsically linked and that the impacts of the  climate crisis drive nature’s decline, while restoring nature can help to tackle the climate crisis.

d)               Local people and groups have recognised the issues and have declared a Nature Crisis for Rotherham themselves and call on the Council to do so too. 

This Council resolves to:

1.    Declare a Nature Crisis for Rotherham.

2.    Ask the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board to consider commissioning a review into how the Council can support improvements to ensure a more natural environment is enhanced.

3.    Ensure our responsiveness on tackling climate change is extended to be complimentary to this separate but well aligned cause.

4.    Continue to further our work on enhancing biodiversity by adopting innovative approaches to support wild flowered areas and ecological approaches to grounds maintenance.

5.    Note the ongoing significant progress the Council is making through its Climate Change Action Plans for a carbon neutral Council by  ...  view the full agenda text for item 23.

It was moved by Councillor Havard and seconded by Councillor Beck:

That this Council:-

Notes we are in the middle of a nature crisis. Almost half of all UK wildlife is in long term decline and 15% of species are at risk of extinction. The climate crisis is only hastening this destruction of the natural environment, damaging habitats and disrupting ecosystems. Yet it is these very habitats that have the potential to lock up carbon and fight back against rising global temperatures. It is essential that we not only protect these spaces, but let them thrive – for the benefit of people, planet and nature. We recognise that the terms Nature, Ecological and Biodiversity can be and are often used interchangeably by people and, for the purpose of this motion, all mean the same thing.

Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta’s review into The Economics of Biodiversity, commissioned by Her Majesty’s Treasury, highlighted that humanity does not exist in isolation from nature but sits within it. Nature is an asset on which all aspects of our society depends and with biodiversity declining faster than at any time in human history, we are undermining the productivity, resilience and adaptability that nature lends our society.

As we recover from the Covid-19 crisis, the need for nature-rich green spaces where we live and work is clearer than ever and will help health, education and the economy build back stronger. We recognise that the Climate and Nature emergencies are intrinsically linked with each other and also to social justice; and by building a better world to deal with the Climate and Nature Crises we will also be building a better society. We recognise that action must be taken now to remedy this and to put nature into recovery at a local level, not only to benefit Rotherham, but in support of regional, national and international work to do the same.

This Council therefore notes and recognises that:

a)      Nature is in long term decline and urgent action must be taken to reverse this

b)      A thriving natural environment underpins a healthy, prosperous society

c)      The nature and the climate crises are intrinsically linked and that the impacts of the  climate crisis drive nature’s decline, while restoring nature can help to tackle the climate crisis.

d)      Local people and groups have recognised the issues and have declared a Nature Crisis for Rotherham themselves and call on the Council to do so too.

This Council resolves to:

1.             Declare a Nature Crisis for Rotherham.

2.             Ask the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board to consider commissioning a review into how the Council can support improvements to ensure a more natural environment is enhanced.

3.             Ensure our responsiveness on tackling climate change was extended to be complimentary to this separate but well aligned cause.

4.             Continue to further our work on enhancing biodiversity by adopting innovative approaches to support wild flowered areas and ecological approaches to grounds maintenance.

5.             Note the ongoing significant progress the Council is making through its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

That this Council notes: -

The Conservative Government is proposing to fly UK Asylum Seekers, who cross the English Channel  in small boats, to Rwanda, 4,000 miles away at an estimated initial cost of £120 million. This practice  of offshore processing UK Asylum Seekers, should their application be successful, would provide them with long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

Rwanda has been accused of human rights abuses on numerous occasions. In January 2021, the UN  Human Rights Council was told by Julian Braithewaite, Director General for Europe at the Foreign,  Commonwealth and Development Office, “We remain concerned... by continued restrictions to civil  and political rights and media freedom. We urge Rwanda to model Commonwealth values of  democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights.” The UK’s International Ambassador for Human  Rights, Rita French, has since expressed regret that Rwanda has so far largely ignored this advice. In  addition, the US Government, in its most recent assessment of Rwanda, stated they had extensive  concerns about their human rights practices.

Rwanda had a similar agreement, to offshore Asylum Seekers, with Israel, between 2014 and 2017 that failed. Almost all the 4,000 Asylum Seekers quickly left, to once again, try to travel to Europe. This  journey, fraught with danger, left many at the mercy of human traffickers; the very people that the  Conservative Government is claiming they are trying to protect UK Asylum Seekers from.

There is further evidence of the failure of detaining Asylum Seekers at offshore locations. In 2013, Australia introduced a policy of transporting Asylum Seekers fleeing war zones to camps in Papua New  Guinea and Naura. This process was widely condemned by refugee advocates, human rights groups, and the United Nations. The failure of these camps was marked by numerous major incidents of  violence, riots, and even murder, and thirteen Asylum Seekers died. Australia ceased to transfer  Asylum Seekers to Papua New Guinea as of the 31st December 2021. 

The African Union has also objected to the transportation of Asylum Seekers from European Countries as “burden shifting.” As recently as August 2021, the African Union condemned “in the strongest terms  possible” Denmark’s plans to send Asylum Seekers to Africa for processing.

Introducing offshore processing for UK Asylum Seekers, who only arrive by boat across the English  Channel, is discriminatory practice. For those who arrive by other routes or other countries, such as people fleeing the war in Ukraine, the Conservative Government is not only allowing them to stay but encouraging the British public to house them. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection for UK Asylum Seekers wherever they have fled from. Only offshoring  those who arrive by boat crossing the English Channel, introduces fragility to this proud customary  practice.

In summary, the practice of offshoring Asylum Seekers, has been shown on numerous occasions to  fail. It is not wanted by the African Union, is discriminatory, incredibly expensive, and puts the very  people that the Conservative Government is claiming to protect, at significant personal risk.

Therefore,  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24.

It was moved by Councillor Baker-Rogers and seconded by Councillor Cusworth:

That this Council notes: -

The Conservative Government is proposing to fly UK Asylum Seekers, who cross the English Channel  in small boats, to Rwanda, 4,000 miles away at an estimated initial cost of £120 million. This practice  of offshore processing UK Asylum Seekers, should their application be successful, would provide them with long-term accommodation in Rwanda.

Rwanda has been accused of human rights abuses on numerous occasions. In January 2021, the UN  Human Rights Council was told by Julian Braithewaite, Director General for Europe at the Foreign,  Commonwealth and Development Office, “We remain concerned... by continued restrictions to civil  and political rights and media freedom. We urge Rwanda to model Commonwealth values of  democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights.” The UK’s International Ambassador for Human  Rights, Rita French, has since expressed regret that Rwanda has so far largely ignored this advice. In  addition, the US Government, in its most recent assessment of Rwanda, stated they had extensive  concerns about their human rights practices.

Rwanda had a similar agreement, to offshore Asylum Seekers, with Israel, between 2014 and 2017 that failed. Almost all the 4,000 Asylum Seekers quickly left, to once again, try to travel to Europe. This  journey, fraught with danger, left many at the mercy of human traffickers; the very people that the  Conservative Government is claiming they are trying to protect UK Asylum Seekers from.

There is further evidence of the failure of detaining Asylum Seekers at offshore locations. In 2013, Australia introduced a policy of transporting Asylum Seekers fleeing war zones to camps in Papua New  Guinea and Naura. This process was widely condemned by refugee advocates, human rights groups, and the United Nations. The failure of these camps was marked by numerous major incidents of  violence, riots, and even murder, and thirteen Asylum Seekers died. Australia ceased to transfer  Asylum Seekers to Papua New Guinea as of the 31st December 2021.

The African Union has also objected to the transportation of Asylum Seekers from European Countries as “burden shifting.” As recently as August 2021, the African Union condemned “in the strongest terms  possible” Denmark’s plans to send Asylum Seekers to Africa for processing.

Introducing offshore processing for UK Asylum Seekers, who only arrive by boat across the English  Channel, is discriminatory practice. For those who arrive by other routes or other countries, such as people fleeing the war in Ukraine, the Conservative Government is not only allowing them to stay but encouraging the British public to house them. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection for UK Asylum Seekers wherever they have fled from. Only offshoring  those who arrive by boat crossing the English Channel, introduces fragility to this proud customary  practice.

In summary, the practice of offshoring Asylum Seekers, has been shown on numerous occasions to  fail. It is not wanted by the African Union, is discriminatory, incredibly expensive, and puts the very  people that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Over 70% of Rotherham Borough is classified as Green and its many trees and woodland areas have positive environmental, physical and mental health benefits.  The Council is committed to planting many more trees to tackle the declared Climate Emergency and is responsible for the care and maintenance of tree stock and woodland areas.

Some residents have raised concerns that certain trees and woodland areas need to be more proactively maintained by the Council. 

There are trees in areas of our Borough that are of a disproportionate size and too closely located to residents’ houses and gardens.  Examples include those on Anston Plantation and The Steadlands, Rawmarsh.  Such trees have caused significant issues for residents, including blocking light and heat, interference with telephone signal, overhanging branches, undue leaf fall in gardens, and damage to properties, fencing and equipment from falling branches and trees.  Many are of a type and location that would not be permitted under current planting practices.

Many of these issues present a significant health and safety risk, highlighted during recent storms when several such trees fell, causing damage to properties and crashing into internal rooms.  They also cause residents undue stress and anxiety, creating noise in high winds, fear of injury, damage to property and undermining their quality of life.  The impact is more acute for many elderly residents, for whom this anxiety is coupled with a fear of slipping on an undue leaf fall and suffering serious injury, compromising their amenity.

The Council’s Tree Management Protocol and Guidance currently places a disproportionate emphasis on the arboricultural needs of trees.  It does not sufficiently consider the welfare, interests and views of residents living in close proximity and the exceptions to the policy of non-removal of trees are too narrow and inflexible.  Residents feel that their needs and views are not given appropriate weight in the decision-making process and the current Protocol allows for these to be ignored, providing an excuse for inaction.

A more proactive Protocol, that gives greater consideration and weight to residents’ concerns, would improve their health and safety and quality of life, cut the costs of reactive maintenance, and minimise property repairs and insurance claims.  It would also give the public a greater stake in tree management, improving engagement and public confidence and engendering greater support for sensible tree planting in line with the Council’s targets.

Therefore, this Council will:

·         Undertake a review of the current tree management Protocol and Guidance to ensure that it:

o   Follows best practice;

o   Maximises opportunities to seek the views of residents living in close proximity to trees and woodland;

o   Ensures RMBC always acts as a "good neighbour" when dealing with residents in connection with trees and woodlands, undertaking proper consultation, keeping them informed of actions, dealing with issues promptly and circulating the results of any tree and woodlands surveys to proximate residents;

o   Provides the flexibility to give appropriate weight to the nature and scale and resident concern and, where sufficient, attribute this equal or greater weight  ...  view the full agenda text for item 25.

It was moved by Councillor Baum-Dixon and seconded by Councillor Castledine-Dack:

Over 70% of Rotherham Borough is classified as Green and its many trees and woodland areas have positive environmental, physical and mental health benefits.  The Council is committed to planting many more trees to tackle the declared Climate Emergency and is responsible for the care and maintenance of tree stock and woodland areas.

Some residents have raised concerns that certain trees and woodland areas need to be more proactively maintained by the Council.

There are trees in areas of our Borough that are of a disproportionate size and too closely located to residents’ houses and gardens.  Examples include those on Anston Plantation and The Steadlands, Rawmarsh.  Such trees have caused significant issues for residents, including blocking light and heat, interference with telephone signal, overhanging branches, undue leaf fall in gardens, and damage to properties, fencing and equipment from falling branches and trees.  Many are of a type and location that would not be permitted under current planting practices.

Many of these issues present a significant health and safety risk, highlighted during recent storms when several such trees fell, causing damage to properties and crashing into internal rooms.  They also cause residents undue stress and anxiety, creating noise in high winds, fear of injury, damage to property and undermining their quality of life.  The impact is more acute for many elderly residents, for whom this anxiety is coupled with a fear of slipping on an undue leaf fall and suffering serious injury, compromising their amenity.

The Council’s Tree Management Protocol and Guidance currently places a disproportionate emphasis on the arboricultural needs of trees.  It does not sufficiently consider the welfare, interests and views of residents living in close proximity and the exceptions to the policy of non-removal of trees are too narrow and inflexible.  Residents feel that their needs and views are not given appropriate weight in the decision-making process and the current Protocol allows for these to be ignored, providing an excuse for inaction.

A more proactive Protocol, that gives greater consideration and weight to residents’ concerns, would improve their health and safety and quality of life, cut the costs of reactive maintenance, and minimise property repairs and insurance claims.  It would also give the public a greater stake in tree management, improving engagement and public confidence and engendering greater support for sensible tree planting in line with the Council’s targets.

Therefore, this Council will:

1.             Undertake a review of the current Tree Management Protocol and Guidance to ensure that it:

a)      Follows best practice;

b)      Maximises opportunities to seek the views of residents living in close proximity to trees and woodland;

c)      Ensure the Council always acts as a "good neighbour" when dealing with residents in connection with trees and woodlands, undertaking proper consultation, keeping them informed of actions, dealing with issues promptly and circulating the results of any tree and woodlands surveys to proximate residents;

d)      Provides the flexibility to give appropriate weight to the nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:- That the report, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee be adopted.

Mover:- Councillor Baker-Rogers            Seconder:- Councillor Wyatt

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:- That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board be adopted.

Mover:- Councillor Bird                           Seconder:- Councillor Sansome

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

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

Mover:- Councillor Ellis                           Seconder:- Councillor Hughes

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).

There were no questions.

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

(1)      Councillor Atkin had submitted a question asking what the opinion of the Council’s external auditors was on the sufficiency of the Council’s reserves?

As Councillor Atkin was not present at the meeting, a response would be provided in writing.

.

(2)      Councillor Ball stated that this Council adopted the IHRA after accusing a member of public of bringing it up due to it being political at the time. The Leader said it would not be adopted unless a complaint had been made. Can the Leader inform how many complaints have been made regarding anti-semitism between the question asked and adopting the definition?

The Leader stated that that was a caricature of what he had said. There were no complaints received by the Council regarding anti-semitism between the member of the public asking the question and the adoption of the IHRA.

In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked why the IHRA was not accepted in the first place. He had been to Auschwitz and come back to realise the Council had no definition in place. He asked the Council to adopt it and the Leader had flatly turned it down. Why was that?

The Leader explained discussions were had at the time and at the time of the adoption. There had been other things that had happened in the country at large and it had been adopted by the Combined Authority. That led to the Council adopting it around 6 months after Councillor Ball had asked the question.

(3)      Councillor Castledine-Dack asked for an update on the master plan for Dinnington?

Councillor Lelliott explained that a draft masterplan for Dinnington was in development and was being informed by the ongoing work to produce a Round 2 Levelling Up Fund bid.

The draft masterplan boundary covered the High Street and immediate areas from St Leonard’s Church at the south end of the High Street up to Dinnington Resource Centre.

In consultation with Elected Members and the local community, the masterplan aims to make the High Street more attractive, support local business, and improve visitor experience in order to sustain a vibrant local centre in Dinnington.

The masterplan would serve as a road map to deliver the changes that were wanted and needed in the area and attract any available funding in the future.

At this moment in time the Council were concentrating on and prioritising a successful second round Levelling Up Fund bid which had to be submitted in July.

Once that bid had been submitted it would be all steam ahead on the Masterplan. Work would continue with the Dinnington Ward Councillors to make sure that the people of Dinnington got what they wanted.

In her supplementary, Councillor Castledine-Dack confirmed that that information had already been fed into discussions between the Cabinet Member and Ward Members for Dinnington. She asked if the Levelling Up Fund bid for the starting point which the Masterplan would then follow?

Councillor Lelliott answered yes and no. The Levelling Up Fund would go in and then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items for consideration.