Agenda and minutes

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

The Mayor asked members to join him in welcoming Councillor Hall to the Chamber and her first Council meeting as the newly elected Member for Dinnington following last week’s By Election. 

He was pleased to be able to welcome to the meeting, officers representing the winners of the LGC Public-Public Partnership Award for ‘'Walk with Us'’ – A Toolkit for Supporting Children, Young People and Families affected or bereaved by Suicide to accept the award. 

He was also pleased to invite officers to the meeting as winners of the Social Value: Public Sector Leadership Award. The award demonstrated the Council are leading the way in embedding social value into its business culture, processes and systems to ensure the needs of our communities are being met.

The Mayor was also delighted to hear that Rotherham MCVC had been awarded the prestigious ‘Silver’ status as part of the Ministry of Defence’s Employer Recognition Scheme.  The Rotherham MCVC volunteers should be rightly proud of this fantastic news, it was a very well deserved and suitable recognition for the significant difference their hard work has made to the military community.

The Mayor held a round of applause to congratulate all the award winners.

The Mayor expressed his sadness to be informed of the passing of Mr Frank Wells, former President of the Rotherham Branch of the Royal British Legion.

Frank who served as a Royal Air Force Policeman and was Chair of the Royal Air Forces Association, originally moved to Rotherham from Wales to work for a local business and was also a Church Warden but he would always be remembered as a very active and long-standing figure in our Armed Forces Community  and he had been a pivotal part of  armed forces civic events – ever present at our town’s  Remembrance Sunday Parades and Services  and Armed Forces Day. Only last year after proudly performing the raising and lowering Mr Wells was presented with the Armed Forces Day flag by the former Mayor.   To Frank’s son Russell and his Family, our thoughts were with you during that difficult time.

He was also very saddened to be informed of the untimely death of the former Vice Lord-Lieutenant of South Yorkshire, John Raymond Holt on Tuesday 30 May.  He attended the service held for John at Doncaster Minster, the numbers in attendance, the heartfelt eulogies, and the sheer emotion evident were indicators of the regard in which he was held and how much he would be missed.  The Council’s sincerest condolences went to John’s wife Lynn and his family.

The Mayor noted that since our last meeting in May his Mayoral diary has been extremely busy.  Notably, he was honoured to lead Rotherham’s Armed Forces Day celebrations.  The sheer number and variety of invitations was incredible, as were the universal warm welcomes he had received from organisations and groups, large and small, including from members across this chamber, he thanked them all.

His diary was filling up nicely and he looked forward to providing a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

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

Resolved: That apologies for absence were received from CouncillorsAveyard, Barker, Burnett, T Collingham, Mills, and Wilson.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 19 May and 24 May 2023 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 12 April 2023, be approved.

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 2 petitions received since the last Council meeting:

-         Containing 112 signatures calling on the Council to consider speeding and overweight vehicles, Brampton Road.

-         Containing 213 signatures calling on the Council to consider a pedestrian crossing near Elmwood Farm public house roundabout on A57.

The lead petitioners for the two petitions, Mr Andy Robinson and Mr Liam Fletcher both attended the meeting and presented their petitions to Council.

Resolved:

1.    That the report be received.

2.    That the Council receive the petitions listed at paragraph 2.1 of the report and the lead petitioners be entitled to address the Council for a total period of five minutes in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

3.    That the relevant Strategic Directors be required to respond to the lead petitioners, as set out in the Petition Scheme, by Wednesday 2 August 2023.

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 made.

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.

Question 1:  Saghir Hussain asked since when has RMBC been aware of flooding of the graves at the Muslim section of herringthope cemetery and what intervention have been undertaken by RMBC before Dignity takeover.

Councillor Alam responded indicating the Dignity became contractually responsible for the Council’s cemetries in 2008.  The records prior to the Dignity contract were incomplete as it was 15 years ago and well before he was first elected, therefore he could not comment on what might have happened at the time.

He went on to explain that in October 2020 Dignity commissioned Clancy Consulting Limited to carry out a full investigation into these matter in October 2020.  The report said “The ground water measured was not thought to be representative of a consistent shallow groundwater body and was more likely to represent discontinuous perched groundwater”.  Since then additional drainage had been installed to ensure the ground water was able to flow away from these areas.

In his supplementary Mr Hussain noted that before Dignity took over their contract RMBC was responsible for the cemetary.  Drainage was installed in 1999 so RMBC was aware of the flooding issue at that time.  He felt he was not receiving a clear answer.  The graves were flooded and that needed to be rectified.  It was the responsibility of RMBC not Dignity, who had inidcated it was prior to their engagement, to fix the issue and apologise to the muslim community for their failings.  He asked if RMBC was going to fix the drainage system at the cemetary?

In response Councillor Alam clarified that he also had many relatives buried at the cemetary including his late wife.  He was aware that there was an issue with ground water but not with flooding.  When he became aware of the issues last year immediate action was taken and the Council forced Dignity to take action.  Dignity were operationally responsible for the drainage and the Council would continue to ask them to address this.

Question 2: Shazia Yousaf noted that Councillor Saghir Alam, at the last cabinet meeting, alleged that Mohammed Omar decided to pull out of the review due to being "hounded by the community", which "created a toxic environment". Is this hearsay, or is there evidence to back this up?

Councillor Alam explained that before he went on leave, which was the week before Mr Omar was due to attend, Mr Omar was fine with the schedule of meetings. He was due to be here for almost 3 days, holding 5-6 meetings a day. Councillor Alam was not certain what happened during his leave however Mr Omar had cancelled the days he was due to attend. When he raised this Councillor Alam was told that Mr Omar had been contacted by 6-7 members of the public pressuring him about the review. Mr Omar then decided to withdraw.

Councillor Alam sought clarification that no one from their organisation was contacting Mr Omar during the 5 days before his intended visit.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 that required the exclusion of the press and public from this meeting.

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

During his statement, the Leader congratulated Cllr Julia Hall for winning the Dinnington By-Election and welcomed her to her first Council meeting. 

He explained that last week the Council received confirmation from the government that England’s first Investment Zone would be in South Yorkshire. He noted that the Council was meeting in the so-called “spatial core” of the zone right now. It would stretch from here in the heart of town, out through the AMP and Sheffield Business Park and through to Sheffield City Centre.

He felt that the fact that the area was agreed was testimony to the hard work of staff from both councils, the MCA and the two universities. It recognised the national significance of the work being undertaken at the AMP.

The government’s funding package of an additional £80m over five years was a welcome commitment, but more significantly was that they recognised the flaws in the previous government proposals, rowed back on the kind of deregulation free for all that would have been bad for the wider economy, and put more control about the kinds of incentives for businesses back into local hands.

It was expected to create 8000 new jobs and bring in 31bn worth of private investment.

This week he was delighted to be attending the annual summer celebration event organised by our Looked After Children’s Council on Friday. This annual event celebrated the achievements of our Looked After Children and provided the opportunity for a lot of fun and laughter.

Other members also offered their congratulations to Councillor Hall.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester enquired if the investment zone excluded the deprived areas in the east of the borough and asked if he could elaborate on what benefits there might be in terms of employment opportunities with those areas?

Councillor Ball welcomed the investment in the region. He had previously asked a question regarding the SYMCA Strategic Plan, he had not received any response from April when it was raised, and the potholes mentioned were still on the A6321 and he would welcome an update.

Councillor A Carter welcomed the investment zones but highlighted the need to ensure those schemes represented and benefited the whole of the borough.

In response the Leader explained that the Government set out some rules about the size of the scheme regarding its size. He mentioned it because it could create some challenges for parts of the borough but also for others. The Council wanted to ensure it could get the benefits of that for the borough as much as possible. There would be challenges in relation to public transport. There was a proposal for a train station at Waverley that would help to connect places in south of the borough.

He felt the more that could be done to help create greater centres of employment and greater demand for both those high-skilled jobs along with other roles the more the benefits will be felt by the more deprived areas of the borough.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 19 June 2023.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 19 June 2023 be noted.

To consider the recommendations of the Constitution Working Group in respect of proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution and to adopt the document for the 2023-24 municipal year.

Councillor Read introduced the report explaining it was the annual review of the Council’s Constitution ensuring it remained fit for purpose. There were limited amendments and updates proposed. Items to make it easier to follow the flow of debates, provision for administrative amendments along with information regarding the terms of reference for the Audit Committee.

There was also a proposal in terms of allowing substitutes. Substitutes had been allowed for planning meetings for some time, but this was to ensure that, as far as possible, meetings were quorate and able to function properly.

Councillor Ball seconded the report noting all the members of the Constitution Working Group had worked together to produce the amendments which would be kept under constant review.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester welcomed the amendments but expressed concerns regarding substitutions in particular for non-aligned members. He asked if non-aligned members could call on a member from another political group to act as a substitute at a meeting on their behalf.

Councillor A Carter expressed concerns regarding the Constitution overall, in particular the officer delegations regarding the revenue budget as this took responsibility from members. He also sought clarification regarding member questions to this meeting, whereby a member had submitted a question which they were not able to ask. He expressed a need to ensure that officers understood that where the question did not specifically mention an individual and was intended to highlight a wider issue, it should be considered. Members needed to ensure that policy and boroughwide issues were able to be heard.

Councillor Read responded indicating that as a principle bringing forward a situation that may expose an individual was not something the Council would want to do. Discretion for the interpretation of the Constitution sat with the Monitoring Officer as it did in all councils.

He noted that the Chair of a committee already had the discretion to invite members to attend and speak at meetings on specific items. As part of the ongoing review of the constitution consideration would be given to enabling the scheme of delegation to be adapted to allow non-aligned members to request a member from another party to act as their substitute.

Resolved: That Council approved:

1.    The Substitution Scheme set out in Paragraph 2.7 be added to the Constitution.

2.    The amendments to the Motions process and the Motion/Amendment Flow Chart set out in Appendix 1 be added to the Constitution.

3.    The provisions of the Constitution relating to administrative amendments set out in Paragraphs 2.15 and 2.16 be made to the Council’s Constitution.

4.    The amendments to the Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee set out in Appendix 2.

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.

Councillor Read proposed the report asking all to check the nominations listed in Appendix B of the Mayor’s Letter.  He noted that a further report would be brought to the October meeting to reflect the changes required after the recent by-election.

The report was seconded by Councillor Allen.

Resolved: That Council:

1.    Noted the political balance of the Council has changed due to changes in the number of Conservative, Non-aligned members and the creation of a new Conservative Independent Group which took place in May 2023.

2.    That the entitlement of the membership of the political groups was agreed and such entitlements be reflected in Council’s appointments of members to committees as detailed in the Mayor’s Letter.

3.    That the nomination for the Local Pension Board Rotational Member and Transport for the North Audit & Governance Committee was agreed as detailed in the Mayor’s Letter.

POLITICAL GROUPS

*Non-Aligned Members: Cllr Bennett-Sylvester, Wilson, Elliott, Jones (1 x vacancy Dinnington Ward - Independent as of 24 May 2023*)

*The calculation that includes the outcome of the result of the Dinnington Ward Election will be brought to the next Council meeting.

NOMINATIONS TO COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND PANELS

To approve the amendments to the District Heating charges for 2023-2024.

Councillor Brookes proposed the report explaining that in March 2023, as part of the HRA report, the Council agreed to increase the district heating charges as a result of significant inflation and the need to purchase the energy to be used at that point.

The report proposed at the meeting was responding to national policy as well as the stabilisation of the energy market meaning the Council was able to reduce bills for district heating customers.  The report also sought a delegation to officers to enable them to react quickly should there be the ability to further reduce residents’ bills.

Councillor Allen indicated this demonstrated the Council’s willingness to show support where possible.

Councillor A Carter welcomed the proposals and that they would be back dated and sought clarification that the delegation would only be for a reduction in costs not to raise prices.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester welcomed that the proposal would be backdated for residents.  He asked for a review as to how information was provided to residents be carried out to ensure information was a clear as possible going forward.

Councillor Cusworth supported the report and the benefits it would bring to the residents of the borough.

In response Councillor Brookes confirmed that the delegation was for one year only and was to give the ability to make in year reductions only.

Resolved: That Council:

1.    Noted the decision Council took in March 2023 to increase the District Heating unit charge to 20.68 per Kwh for 2023-24 so that an average bill was equivalent to the heating element of the then Government’s Energy Price Guarantee, leading to a proposed District heating budget deficit of £2.592m.

2.    Noted that the actual cost to the Council of purchasing energy to supply District Heating schemes is lower than the cost assumed in March 2023; and that the agreed unit charge now exceeds the Energy Price Guarantee and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) price cap for July 2023 onwards.

3.    Agreed that in light of these changes, the District Heating unit charge per Kwh for 2023-24 is reduced to 15.94 pence per kwh and weekly prepayment charges are reduced by 59% to 67% depending on property size (Option 4 in this report), bringing prices into line with the Ofgem price cap for July 2023 onwards and well within the Energy Price Guarantee.

4.    Agreed that this charge should be backdated to 3rd April 2023.

5.    Agreed that the decision to reduce the price further during 2023-24 be delegated to the Assistant Director of Housing in conjunction with the Assistant Director of Financial Services following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing. The delegation would only be used to respond to a change in Government policy or a significant change in the Ofgem price cap that has the effect of necessitating a lower unit price, and the approved budget deficit of £2.592m cannot be exceeded through a delegated decision.

To receive the annual report on the activities of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny bodies in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.

The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, Councillor Clark proposed the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report. She explained that as with last year’s report, the report had been aligned to the Council Plan priorities to demonstrate how the scrutiny had shaped service delivery and positive outcomes for the Rotherham residents.

A substantial portion of the scrutiny work programme focussed on monitoring specific performance objectives, key initiatives and partnership work. The work programme also retained an element of flexibility, to consider and respond to other important issues as they arose such as referrals from Council or suggestions from Members or the public. 

2022/23 was an important year for Rotherham’s continued recovery from the pandemic and response to the cost-of-living crisis. Across the commissions, scrutiny had looked at wide-ranging issues. Examples of this included Improving Places work on selective licensing; Health’s work on access to dental care along with the Improving Lives review of the draft Child Exploitation Strategy.

One of the highlights of every year was the opportunity to work with Rotherham Youth Cabinet in the Children’s Commissioner Takeover Challenge. This was due to take place in July but was postponed due to exam pressures. A further highlight was participating in the LGA pilot on Scrutiny of Children’s Services and the follow-up work on work planning.

A personal highlight for me was the review into modern slavery which highlighted the work across our partners and agencies. The response to the recommendations was currently being formulated and we look forward to making a timely contribution to this important agenda.

She thanked all scrutiny members for their questions, enthusiasm and dedication and each of the chairs and vice-chairs for their work during 2022-23.  She also added thanks to Caroline Webb, Senior Governance Advisor and Katherine Harclerode, Governance Advisor for their work on the report.

The Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, Councillor Bacon seconded the report.

Councillor Pitchley thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and the work undertake by the Chair and Vice-Chair. She also thanked members of the Improving Lives Select Commission, noting everyone was very committed and able to add value where needed.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester took the opportunity to thank Councillor Clark saying she had been the best of them, and her leadership of the Board had given him every confidence that scrutiny did work, and he thanked her for this.

Resolved:

1.    That the report be noted.

To receive updates from ward councillors from Rother Vale 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 Rother Vale as part of the Thriving Neighbourhood Strategy.

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

Councillor Brookes noted that the overarching aim of the thriving neighbourhood’s strategy was for “Every neighbourhood in Rotherham to be a thriving neighbourhood, where people are able to work together to achieve a good quality of life.’  It was understood as councillors, that their constituents wanted more than a ring-fenced place to live. They wanted a quality of life and a livelihood. A useful shorthand for this was perhaps to talk, as we do, of a thriving neighbourhood.

However, outside of the framework that had been constructed, people were more likely to hear reference about properties and areas, estates, villages and towns. Particularly in the private sector world of development and construction, reference to neighbourhoods was more of a footnote. And when it came to new neighbourhoods, they were viewed primarily as a means of supplementing the UK’s housing stock.

Private sector delivery of this demand was alas programmed to sell, and so to value, individual properties as opposed to neighbourhoods. They traded in one-off transactions with individual clients. They were not equipped ? or inclined ? to ascribe a value to communal facilities or public space, let alone to collective aspirations or societal change. This was a palpable failure of the market and a disconnect from what the Council was trying to achieve as community leaders in local government.

Given this environment, the modest projects and initiatives that councillors were able to effect within the parameters of neighbourhood working were ever more important. The many qualities that combined to create a thriving neighbourhood were interwoven and mutually dependent, and it had been seen that small, inexpensive, local initiatives could have an outsize effect. Particularly in places where community had yet to be defined.

One of the challenges for Rother Vale ward as a neighbourhood unit was with geographical spread and varied composition of different villages and communities. were they one or several neighbourhoods? Did they work together, or (as was often the case) did they compete?

It was known that neighbourhoods had to be socially as well as physically constructed. Most people felt they intuitively understood those constructed boundaries and measures, in the shape of either a ‘good neighbourhood’ with friendly, neighbourly interactions, security, gathering places and a clean, attractive environment – or in a “bad neighbourhood”, with dereliction, low trust, anti-social interaction, and isolation.

People spent the majority of their lives in their neighbourhood. This was readily recognised for the older generations whom on the whole travel for work less and were often physically less mobile. However, there was an increased impact for people of working age, for whom technology had now liberated from commuting to the workplace. A new class of people hidden away from view and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Notice of Motion – Sewage discharge into rivers

To be moved by Councillor Sheppard and seconded by Councillor Monk:

This council notes:

That there is great public concern over the recently released statistics detailing sewage discharges into our local rivers by Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water.

The number of occasions when this happens and the total numbers of hours involved show that these discharges have now become routine practice, rather than an emergency response to extreme weather events.

Since privatisation, water companies in England have paid out an average of £2bn per year in dividends to shareholders, paid out huge salaries and massive bonuses to executives whilst ignoring the need to invest in their creaking infrastructure.

The effect of the horrific levels of sewage discharge into our rivers is seen in a negative impact to local wildlife coupled with the detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents who live near rivers.  It also restricts the enjoyment of water-based activities for everyone.

This council believes:

That government inaction has allowed Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water, along with the other water companies in England, to prioritise their profitability as a business over their responsibilities to their customers and the environment.

Whilst this affects local areas to different degrees, as rivers flow across local authority and geographical boundaries, the government has to lead on this issue and provide a strong national response.

The rules on sewage discharges must be tightened and the Environment Agency needs to be given the resources to monitor and enforce on any breaches of the rules.

This council resolves to:

Write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, requesting that the government set out an ambitious strategy to reduce and ultimately eliminate sewage discharges into rivers and the sea.  The financial cost of this programme must not rest on the shoulders of bill payers whilst at the same time these water companies continue to pay out dividends on their profits.

Ask our Improving Places Select Committee to invite Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency to attend a meeting to explain what measures they are taking to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers now, plus outlining their future plans to address this issue in the medium to long-term, with annual updates on their progress to follow.

Notice of Motion – Sewage discharge into rivers

It was moved by Councillor Sheppard and seconded by Councillor Monk that:

This council notes:

That there is great public concern over the recently released statistics detailing sewage discharges into our local rivers by Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water.

The number of occasions when this happens and the total numbers of hours involved show that these discharges have now become routine practice, rather than an emergency response to extreme weather events.

Since privatisation, water companies in England have paid out an average of £2bn per year in dividends to shareholders, paid out huge salaries and massive bonuses to executives whilst ignoring the need to invest in their creaking infrastructure.

The effect of the horrific levels of sewage discharge into our rivers is seen in a negative impact to local wildlife coupled with the detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents who live near rivers.  It also restricts the enjoyment of water-based activities for everyone.

This council believes:

That government inaction has allowed Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water, along with the other water companies in England, to prioritise their profitability as a business over their responsibilities to their customers and the environment.

Whilst this affects local areas to different degrees, as rivers flow across local authority and geographical boundaries, the government has to lead on this issue and provide a strong national response.

The rules on sewage discharges must be tightened and the Environment Agency needs to be given the resources to monitor and enforce on any breaches of the rules.

This council resolves to:

Write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, requesting that the government set out an ambitious strategy to reduce and ultimately eliminate sewage discharges into rivers and the sea.  The financial cost of this programme must not rest on the shoulders of bill payers whilst at the same time these water companies continue to pay out dividends on their profits.

Ask our Improving Places Select Committee to invite Yorkshire Water, Severn Trent Water and the Environment Agency to attend a meeting to explain what measures they are taking to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers now, plus outlining their future plans to address this issue in the medium to long-term, with annual updates on their progress to follow.

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

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 meetings of the Audit Committee be adopted.

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 meetings of the Standards and Ethics Committee be adopted.

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 for designated spokespersons.

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

Question 1: Councillor Baker-Rogers asked to encourage participation in parkrun, please, could car parking charges be waived at the Clifton Museum car park until 1030am on Saturday mornings?

Councillor Sheppard explained that fees and charges were set annually through the budget setting report to Council in March and could not be altered at this time. Many of the events organised at the parks and green spaces by others shared objectives with the Council’s own, in terms of promoting healthy lifestyles and encouraging people to take part in physical activity. The income collected from parking formed part of the budget available to the Green Spaces service which ensured safe and enjoyable spaces. Reducing that income would impact on the Council’s ability to provide or maintain such spaces so that activities could take place.

In her supplementary Councillor Baker-Rogers indicated that park runs were a fantastic initiative but asked how the Council would encourage participation in the Clifton Park Run?

In response Councillor Sheppard said the Council was happy to work alongside partners who had the commitment to promoting physical activity and exercise and understood they were popular events.

Question 2: Councillor Bacon asked would the Cabinet Member help me in allowing our churches in the borough to use the council’s bulky waste service?

Councillor Beck indicated that as a rule the bulky waste service was only available to residential properties due to the capacity and demand for the service however if there was a particular circumstance Councillor Bacon had in mind, he was happy to discuss this.

In his supplementary Councillor Bacon indicated it would be beneficial to speak with Councillor Beck outside the meeting but was a little confused as the churches were able to subscribe to the Council’s Brown Bin service but not use the bulky waste service.

Councillor Beck agreed to speak with Councillor Bacon after the meeting about this particular issue.

Question 3: Councillor A. Carter asked what briefings had the council leader had regarding areas of Brinsworth and elsewhere in Rotherham becoming part of a new enterprise zone?

Councillor Read explained a report on the Investment Zone was presented to the MCA on 5 June 2023 to approve submission of an application to Government. The papers and minutes were available online or could be provided directly if needed.

In his supplementary Councillor A Carter indicated his understanding of the paper was that it included significant parts of Brinsworth including areas of Phoenix Sports Club. He queried when that location and other locations that affected the Borough announced and when was the Leader planning to discuss that and seek the views of local councillors regarding use of that land moving forward?

Councillor Read as indicated at the beginning of the meeting, the overall geography of that spatial core was subject to discussions with civil servants in London, so there had not been local consultation on each part of that. He felt the more relevant question was regarding when proposals would come forward in each place and how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items to consider.