Agenda and draft minutes

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

The Mayor reported the sudden passing of Dame Julie Kenny DBE DL. Dame Julie had served as a Government appointed Commissioner at Rotherham Council from 2015-2018. She was well known for her achievements across Rotherham and was also one of Yorkshire’s most successful businesswomen and community champions. More recently, she was best known for her efforts to save and restore Wentworth Woodhouse. Dame Julie was granted the title of Honorary Freewoman of Rotherham in 2021 in recognition of her extraordinary contribution to Rotherham. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor sent deep condolences to Dame Julie’s family and asked everyone to join her in observing a minute’s silence.

The Mayor had been honoured to attend the tenth Holocaust Memorial Day event in Clifton Park. A full list of Mayoral activities was contained in Appendix A of the Mayor’s letter.

It was noted that the Council meeting was taking place during Ramadan. This meant members in the community and some elected Members were fasting each day from dawn until sunset and the Mayor gave them her best wishes. The Mayor also noted the start of Lent and wished those celebrating her best.

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

Resolved: That apologies for absence be received from Councillors Alam, Elliott, Fisher, Hall, Ryalls and Stables.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 15^th January, 2025, and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous Council meeting held on 15 January 2025.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 15 January 2025 be approved for signature by the Mayor.

Mover:- Councillor Read                         Seconder:- Councillor Sheppard

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.

There were no petitions to consider.

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.

Councillor Monk declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 10 (Budget and Council Tax 2025-26) on the grounds of a close family member who was a business operator in the borough. As this was a non-pecuniary interest Councillor Monk remained in the chamber and voted on the item.

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.

7 public questions had been submitted for the meeting.

(1)  Mr. Haycock referred to the New Bill taken to Parliament by M.P. Lee Pitcher calling for the tampering/vandalisation of emergency safety equipment to be a criminal offence. He asked would this Council continue to give full support and help the family to protect lifesaving emergency equipment.  Damaged lifesaving stations could not be accessed in difficult situations. Lifesaving equipment needed to be protected to save lives.

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, thanked Mr. Haycock for his question and for all the work he, his family and friends have done on ensuring lifesaving equipment was available and kept safe.

The Council would support the recent Bill introduced to Parliament by M.P. Lee Pitcher, which aimed to make the tampering and vandalisation of emergency safety equipment a criminal offence. The critical importance of protecting life-saving equipment was understood in communities, as damaged or inaccessible stations could have devastating consequences in emergency situations.

The Council stood united with Mr. Haycock, his family and the community in a shared commitment to safeguarding lifesaving equipment and would work diligently to ensure its effectiveness in saving lives.

Personally, the Cabinet Member wanted to thank Mr. Haycock for all he had  been doing in the meetings that have been held over recent years. It was a  privilege to work alongside him and the work he had done had been fantastic.

In a supplementary question Mr. Haycock pointed out he was aware that at some point there had been some work done on local bylaws that could prevent more damage to local equipment. He asked whether this was still going to be pursued despite the fact that it had also gone to Parliament.

Councillor Sheppard was aware there was a meeting to be held shortly so was happy to include this matter on the agenda.

(2)  Ms. Cartland-Ward asked a question in relation to the Rotherham Borough Selective Licensing Schemes, which were stated as "not having been successful" during the 2015-2025 period. What options have been fully reviewed by the Council as alternatives to the proposed 2020-2025 Selective Licensing Scheme, currently going through consultation?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained the phrase ‘not having been successful’ was not used in the Cabinet report so was unsure where this came from. The report stated that the previous Selective Licensing Schemes have focused strongly on the inspection of properties and enforcement. The Cabinet report also noted the positive outcomes of the sustained focus on these areas and credited the large numbers of landlords who have maintained improvements in both repair and management from the first scheme.

Alternative schemes considered would be detailed in the Cabinet report prior to any final decision but, briefly, these have included things like a reactive service model, a self-regulated model and the Council would also give consideration to alternative proposals made during the consultation.    

In a supplementary question Ms. Cartland-Ward asked why the Council dismissed its own  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

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 were 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.

The Leader was invited to present his statement. He noted that registration for the baby packs was now open. Vetro Lounge had been confirmed as the first bar and restaurant at Forge Island and was expected to open at the end of April. An announcement on a second restaurant was expected in the coming days. In relation to the Housing Delivery Programme, 630 new homes had now been completed with a further 102 under construction or in the process of being purchased. The week of the Council meeting had been the week secondary school places had been announced. 91.1% of Rotherham children would start in their first choice secondary school in September 2025. That was 9% ahead of the national average. 97% had got a place in one of their three preferred schools. This compared to 94% nationally. Finally, the Leader noted that International Women’s day was approaching and highlighted the personal safety app WalkSafe that had been launched in South Yorkshire. 

In response to the statement, Councillor Z Collingham and Councillor A Carter echoed the Mayor’s words in relation to the passing of Dame Julie Kenny. Both also asked questions in relation to Forge Island relating to keeping the pressure on to fill all of the units and on what lessons could be taken forward from the Forge Island development to the Markets and Library development. The Leader explained that the previous failure to fill some units was with the umbrella company that had wanted to fill them. They had got into difficulties and there was nothing the Council could do about that. It was in the borough and the Council’s best interest to see the units occupied so work would continue to ensure that. The market development was a very different development to Forge Island but the Council continued to work with new and existing traders to step up the offer at the new market.

Councillor Ball asked a question in relation to the Housing Delivery Programme and Cumwell Lane. He stated that residents in Hellaby had been assured that the land would not be developed for a number of years. However, plans were now progressing for a 260 home estate with no improvements to local services or infrastructure. Hellaby was already overburdened, and this would add to the strain. Councillor Ball asked the Leader to write to the government to oppose the development and push for a reassessment of Rotherham’s housing targets.

The Leader stated that he was unaware of the specific development and therefore could not comment on the details. In terms of the housing targets and representations to government, the Leader confirmed that representations had already been made. He had met with the Housing Minister around a month ago. It was about trying to find the correct balance between the national rules that had to be followed and the needs of communities in Rotherham. It had to be sustainable.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 20^th January and 10^th February, 2025.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked a question in relation to Minute 122 of the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2025 – Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy. He was disappointed that the work on the A630 would not be going ahead at this point. He asked if S.106 money was used for the Chesterhill Development that was part of the sustainable travel plan and, if so, was there anything remaining. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester also asked that, since the scheme scored so highly in regard to being able to use the CIL, did this guarantee a primary spot when the Department for Transport funding came forward? He asked if he and Councillor Ryalls could have briefing on the matter.

Councillor Taylor confirmed he would provide a written response and arrange a briefing.

Resolved: That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of Cabinet held on 20 January and 10 February 2025 be received.

Mover:- Councillor Read                         Seconder:- Councillor Sheppard

To consider and approve the recommendation from Cabinet – Budget and Council Tax 2025-26.

Further to Minute 121 of the Cabinet meeting held on 10 February 2025, the proposed Budget and Council Tax for 2025/26 was presented to Council for approval. This was based on the Council’s Final Local Government Finance Settlement for 2025/26, budget consultation and the consideration of Directorate budget proposals. A review of the financial planning assumptions within the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) had also been undertaken.

In moving the Budget, the Leader gave thanks to the excellent Finance team, Cabinet colleagues, the Chief Executive and especially to Councillor Alam.

The Leader explained that the long shadow of 14 years of Conservative austerity continued to hang over local government with thirty local authorities in receipt of bailouts this year because they could not balance their books. Six English Council were increasing bills by up to 10%. However, since the General Election in July 2024, the new Labour government had delivered a funding settlement for Rotherham that included an extra £14 million of central funding.

The Leader stated that this was not a solution to all problems, but it was the twelfth biggest uplift in funding for a Council anywhere in England. It showed that, instead of having a Prime Minister who redirected money from places like Rotherham to places like Tonbridge Wells, there was now a government that at long last had begun to distribute funding based on need. It was a government that wanted communities to succeed. The additional funding allowed for:

-       £450,000 more to support people facing homelessness.

-       £2 million more to support Early Intervention Work with families and children.

-       £4 million more for the Schools High Needs Block.

When the Leader had first delivered a budget speech in 2015, £68 million was spent on Adult Social Care. Next year that figure would be more than £120 million. The Budget therefore proposed an increase in the Adult’s budget of £17 million, with just 3.5% of that expected to come from higher fees and charges.

The baby packs programme would continue to be rolled out as a basic right for every newborn. The Leader stated that over half of the net revenue budget would be spent on Children’s and Adult Social Care to ensure that no one was left behind.

Difficult choices had been made throughout the austerity period but because those difficult choices had been made, the Council were now in a position to do more.

Through the Budget consultation and the consultation on the Council’s new Council Plan, residents had expressed their views. The top thing residents wanted to see improved was community safety and tackling anti-social behaviour. As such, it was proposed that employing ten new staff as part of the Street Safe Team would mark a visible change on the principal town high streets. They would have powers to enforce Public Space Protection Orders, tackle dog fouling and illegal parking.

The Budget contained proposals for one hour’s free parking in off-street car parks throughout the week. This would support developments such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

To approve a calendar of meetings for the Council and its committees for the 2025-26 municipal year.

Consideration was given to a report, submitted in accordance with the rules of procedure as detailed in the Council’s Constitution, that set out the proposed Calendar of Meetings for the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

Resolved: That the Calendar of Meetings for the 2025-26 Municipal Year be approved.

Mover: Councillor Sheppard                   Seconder: Councillor Read

To note the Cabinet’s response to the Improving Lives Select Commission Scrutiny Review on Preparation for Adulthood.

Consideration was given to the report which presented Cabinet’s response to the Improving Lives Select Commission Scrutiny Review on Preparation for Adulthood. Preparation for Adulthood had been an on-going area of interest for the Improving Lives Select Commission (ILSC) over recent years, following the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities inspection in 2021. In discussions with the Improving Lives Select Commission, the Rotherham Parent Carers’ Forum highlighted that a greater focus was required to identify what was in place, to support successful preparation to adulthood for children and young people in Rotherham with SEND and consider whether there were any gaps in the available provision.

The Improving Lives Select Commission agreed to hold a spotlight review on preparation for adulthood which took place on 15 February 2024. Planning sessions were held in advance of the spotlight review meeting to determine the scope of the review. Briefing materials and resources were circulated in advance of the review session, to inform key lines of enquires (KLOEs). The review itself took place over a single afternoon, with many partners present to provide a range of perspectives and information. This work enabled the sub-group to establish an understanding of the services that were being delivered in Rotherham to support preparation for adulthood.

The recommendations from the sub-group were presented to Cabinet on 14 October 2024 and Cabinet provided a response on 20 January 2025.

Resolved:

That Council note Cabinet’s response to the recommendations as summarised in the Cabinet Response to the Recommendations from the Scrutiny Review - Preparation for Adulthood for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) report, attached at Appendix 1.

Mover: Councillor Cusworth                    Seconder: Councillor Baker-Rogers

To appoint to vacant committee seats.

Consideration was given to the report which explained that the Health Select Commission, the Improving Lives Select Commission, the Licensing Board and the Licensing Committee currently had vacant seats. As these had been vacant for longer than three weeks, Council were asked to appoint to these seats. As per the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, if a group failed to express its wishes within a period of three weeks of being notified of the allocation or vacancy, the Council could make such appointments. There was therefore no political proportionality requirements for the vacant seats.

Nominations had been received and these were listed in Appendix D of the Mayor’s Letter. During the meeting Councillor Fisher was nominated for the Health Select Commission.

Resolved:

That Council appoint the following Members to the vacancies:

1.    Councillor Thorp – Licensing Board

2.    Councillor Currie – Improving Lives Select Commission

3.    Councillor Fisher – Health Select Commission

Mover: Councillor Read                          Seconder: Councillor Sheppard

To note receipt of the Audit Committee minutes.

Resolved: That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee be noted.

Mover: Councillor Marshall                     Seconder: Councillor Baggaley

To note receipt of the Health and Wellbeing Board minutes.

Resolved:  That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board be noted.

Mover: Councillor Baker-Rogers             Seconder: Councillor Cusworth

To note receipt of the Licensing Board Sub-Committee.

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

Mover: Councillor Hughes                      Seconder: Councillor Beresford

To note receipt of the Planning Board minutes.

Councillor Williams reminded Members that the seminar on the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would be held on Thursday 6 March 2025.

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

Mover: Councillor Williams                     Seconder: Councillor Mault

To receive and consider reports, minutes and recommendations of the Staffing Committee including approving the Pay Policy Statement 2025/26 for publication under Chapter 8 of the Localism Act 2011.

Resolved: That the recommendation of the Staffing Committee be accepted, and the minutes of the meeting be noted.

Mover: Councillor Read                          Seconder: Councillor Jones

To note receipt of the Standards and Ethics Committee meeting.

Resolved: That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee be noted.

Mover: Councillor Monk                          Seconder: Councillor Clarke

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, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).

There were 9 questions for the designated spokespersons:

(1)  Councillor Ball noted the data sharing assisted bin collection collaboration between RMBC and SYFR had now started so asked how could this be promoted more as it would ultimately save lives?

Councillor Knight, Designated Spokesperson on South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, confirmed the Fire Authority very much welcomed the collaboration with the Council around assisted bin collection data, which it hoped would make hundreds of people safer by allowing the service to offer Home Fire Safety Visits to residents who may be at greater risk of fire. The Fire Service had already promoted this initiative in the local press and online and would now use the initiative as a case study to encourage other partners to securely share appropriate levels of data where there was a clear public safety benefit.

In a supplementary question Councillor Ball gave praise to Barry Connolly and his team they had got this well organised. He, therefore, asked if the Spokesperson could provide assurances that this would be effectively monitored and reviewed to ensure it delivered real safety improvements to the residents of Rotherham and how would he let all Members know.

Councillor Knight was sure the communication would be forthcoming when it was available in terms of the data collected. He provided some additional background information in that the service had data from 900 residents of 7,000 and there was an incremental proposal to contact more residents in stages up to October 2025. That would obviously promote a discussion or a response from those residents and that data would then be shared in due course.

(2)  Councillor Ball referred to Labour’s plan to ban zero hours contracts which would directly impact SYFR. He asked what would be the financial cost of replacing this flexible workforce and how did the service plan to fund it without cutting other vital services or increasing taxes?

Councillor Knight, Designated Spokesperson on South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, advised the service only had a very small number of zero hours contracts in place - almost exclusively relating to its contingency fire crew arrangements. The service would look to put in place alternative contracts of employment should it be required to do so, and this would have limited impact on the service's financial position.

In a supplementary question Councillor Ball expressed his worry about a possible strike happening where there was not cover anymore. He asked the Spokesperson to explore a little further into if there was a house fire in say Maltby, where there was not the contingency crew, who and how were they going to get an adequate response to that house fire when it needed three appliances to get to.

Councillor Knight explained that if this actually was a problem then clearly it was an issue that needed to be raised. He would question this with the Chief Fire Officer so asked Councillor Ball to forward him by email the exact wording and he would raise it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

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

There were 31 questions for Cabinet Members and Chairpersons:

(1)  Councillor Bacon asked would the Council finally implement a Public Space Protection Order on the Todwick A57 to crack down on the out-of-control racing?

Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, considered Councillor Bacon’s use of language in his question to be interesting with inference that the Cabinet Member had suggested painting a few lines that would be the ultimate solution to road traffic safety, which the Cabinet Member had not suggested at all. He suggested Councillor Bacon, therefore, watched this back.

The question did say would the Council finally implement a Public Space Protection Order which inferred there had already been quite considerable discussion. In the meetings the Cabinet Member had attended discussing this particular issue, including one with relevant officers, the Public Space Protection Order had never been mentioned. 

The Council were aware that there was the possibility that one could be imposed and address the situation on the A57. This was, therefore, one of the items that was under consideration along with others, which was an ongoing process.

In a supplementary question Councillor Bacon confirmed it was difficult to decipher as first what the Cabinet Member was saying it was not mentioned and then later said it  under consideration. Clearly the Council needed to use all tools available to it, so he wondered what the Cabinet Member’s thoughts were on the use of a Public Space Protection Order against other tools.

Councillor Taylor clarified by confirming that he had not said it had not been discussed, he confirmed that in meetings he had attended it had not been discussed, of which there were many.

A Public Space Protection Order was one of the tools that was under consideration, but it was dependent on reaching certain criteria under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. If this criteria was met then it was a measure that would be considered in more depth. These kind or orders had been used in the other parts of the country, but what impact they have had would need to be considered in the findings to hopefully come to a satisfactory solution as it was a real problem to the people on the A57.

(2)  Councillor Bacon asked how much money was spent in Rotherham town centre compared to communities such as Aston and Todwick?

Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, explained it was quite difficult to estimate how much Council money was spent in any given ward because it followed individuals by and large rather than places which meant data sets were needed that did not really exist.

On a rough calculation it was expected the Council would spend £1.8 billion over the course of the next three years over both its revenue and capital programmes and approximately 0.35% of that would be spent on regeneration schemes in the town centre.

In a supplementary question Councillor Bacon referred to vast sums going into Rotherham town centre, meanwhile  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items to consider.