Agenda and minutes

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

Following the death of Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Kent, all present joined the Mayor in observing a minute’s silence.

The Mayor was delighted to announce that Rotherham Military Community Veterans Centre, AESSEAL and Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust had recently been granted the 2025 Defence Employer Recognition Scheme Gold Award. The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust had also received the 2025 Defence Employer Recognition Scheme Silver Award.

The award recognised organisations who pledged, demonstrated, and advocated their support for the Defence community. The Mayor offered her congratulations to the charities and employers in Rotherham who had received these outstanding awards.

Members joined the Mayor in congratulating Councillor Monk and her family on the safe arrival of a baby boy.

The Mayor had recently attended the Rotherham Show and praised all those involved in planning and delivering such a wonderful event. A full list of Mayoral Engagements was set out in Appendix A of the Mayor’s Letter.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Allen, Beck, Beresford, T. Collingham, and Monk.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 16^th July, 2025, and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous Council meeting held on 16 July 2025.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meetings of Council held on 16 July 2025 be approved for signature by the Mayor.

Mover: Councillor Read                          Seconder: Councillor Cusworth

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.

Consideration was given to the report which set out the petition that had been received since the last meeting. The petition asked the Council to install

speed humps on Melton Green, West Melton, Rotherham and it had 67 valid signatures. Mr Barksby, the Lead Petitioner, attended the meeting and gave a speech explaining the asks of the petition. The petition would be responded to by the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment within 10 working

days of the meeting.

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 or their representatives be entitled to address the Council for a total period of five minutes per petition in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

3.    That the relevant Strategic Director be required to respond to the lead petitioners, as set out in the Petition Scheme, by Wednesday 24 September 2025.

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 record.

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.

There was one public question from Mr Ashraf who asked:

Given the South Yorkshire Pension Authority’s investments in arms companies and Israeli government bonds, and the ICJ conclusion that Israel is committing plausible genocide in Gaza.

Will Rotherham Borough Council urgently survey its workers and pension scheme members on divesting these holdings to avoid complicity in war crimes, as demanded by thousands of local tax paying residents and scheme members?

The Leader thanked Mr Ashraf for his question and stated that most in the room shared his concerns. However, case law from 2020 said that funds invested in pensions fund were not to be considered public money, but rather effectively held in trust to pay pensions. In the Palestine Solidarity Campaign case, the Supreme Court held that it was not appropriate for political preferences to take precedence over what was required under the fiduciary duty which was about maximising the return for pension holders.

There were some circumstances under which the Pensions Authority could use Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues when making investment decisions and the Leader committed to writing to the Pensions Authority to see what action, if any, could be taken. He could not commit however to undertaking a survey of the workforce as it was not appropriate to ask them to take a view on something that might not be possible.

In his supplementary, Mr Ashraf asked how Rotherham Council would actively gather and formally represent the views of Council employees and pensioners to South Yorkshire Pension Authority to ensure the deeply held opposition to investments, that were actively complicit in the live streamed war crimes and genocide, would directly shape South Yorkshire Pension Authority's 2026 Strategy Review rather than being lost in the general consultation.

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 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 was invited to present his statement. He referenced the developments and challenges faced in relation to Liberty Steel and the nearly 1,500 people across the borough and wider sub-region employed by the business. The announcement by the Government that they would take indirect control of the steelworks was pleasing. However, this was time-limited, and the Leader stated that it was essential that a long-term solution was identified to ensure the continued success of the steelworks. He confirmed that he had written to the Secretary of State along with the South Yorkshire Mayor and Leader of Sheffield City Council. Assurances were required from Government about a long-term solution.

The Council had held its annual Social Value event in July, bringing together partners from the public and voluntary sector as well as over 70 representatives from the private sector. The successes of the social value initiatives were celebrated along with the impacts on the borough such as employing local people and providing training and skills. The Council’s procurements team publicised upcoming contracts and advised firms on how they could access those opportunities.

An initiative had been launched to support the retail sector in the borough’s principal towns with £270,000 of potential investment. Shop Unit Business Grants of up to £25,000 would be available to help high street businesses improve their overall look, feel and vibrancy.

The Leader congratulated those who had received their A-Level and GCSE results over the summer. Early analysis showed that A-Level students had achieved a pass rate of 97.6 % for grades A to E and, with more than 3 ,000 students collecting GCSE results, more than 60 % of those had received passing grades in English and Maths. Work continued to do better.

Work continued at Thrybergh Country Park and the Leader echoed the words of the Mayor in celebrating the success of the Rotherham Show. Over 95,000 visitors attended, and it continued to be the largest free outdoor cultural festival in the north of England.

The Leader of the Majority Opposition Group, Councillor Z Collingham,

was invited to respond to the statement. He echoed the Leader’s comments on Liberty Steel and welcomes the government’s intervention in taking on the wages and costs whilst a buyer was sought. He welcomed the representations made by the Leader. Councillor Collingham also welcomed the announcement of the funding for Doncaster Sheffield Airport which he said was vital for the region.

The inability of the Council to resume a full programme of bin collections was referenced, particularly in relation to garden waste which residents had paid for and were not getting. Councillor Collingham asked why the Council was still not able to source the necessary staff and what making amends actually meant.

Councillor Collingham also thanked all those involved in the Rotherham Show, particularly the Assistant Director, Polly Hamilton. He noted that hundreds of attendees had engaged with the Conservatives campaign regarding installing solar panels on rooftops and brownfield sites, not greenfield sites. Following this, he asked if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

To receive the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board Annual Report 2024-25.

 Consideration was given to the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report

2024/25. It provided an overview of activity undertaken by Scrutiny over the last year through key lines of inquiry, evidence gathering, and findings leading to recommendations. In addition, it also provided a selection of the year’s achievement of Scrutiny as a supplement to full agendas and minutes of Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Management Board and the three Select Commission meetings throughout the year.

Councillor Steele thanked officers for their hard work in supporting scrutiny. He noted that throughout 24/25, Scrutiny had considered 84 substantive items, there had been 29 pre-decision reports scrutinised, two decisions had been called in, seven workshops had been held, one site visit conducted and there had been 26 off-agenda briefings. He also noted that the Improving Lives Select Commission had co-opted three external members.

Full details of details of the work carried out were set out in the Annual Report attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

Councillor Steele thanked Councillor Pitchley, former Chair of Improving Lives and Councillor Knight, former Vice-Chair of Improving Lives, for the work they carried out. He reaffirmed that Scrutiny should be a cross-party matter, and it had to be non-political.

Resolved:

1.    That Council note the report.

Mover: Councillor Steele                        Seconder: Councillor Bacon

To receive the Audit Committee Annual Report 2024-25.

Consideration was given to the Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25 which brought together in one document a summary of the work undertaken. The production of the report complied with current best practice for Audit Committees allowing it to demonstrate how it had fulfilled its terms of reference and shared its achievements with the Council and served as a useful reminder to the organisation of the role of the Committee in providing assurance about the Council’s governance, risk management and financial and business controls.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) had

previously issued guidance to local authorities to help ensure that Audit

Committees operated effectively. The guidance recommended that Audit

Committees should report annually on how they have discharged their

responsibilities.

The CIPFA guidance was revised and re-issued in 2022. As a result, the Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference were updated and agreed at Audit Committee in March 2023, and were approved by full Council on 19 July 2023. A copy of the Annual Report of the Audit Committee was attached at Appendix 1. The Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference were included as Appendix C of the Annual Report for information. Minor amendments had been made to them to change the reference to the new Global Internal Audit Standards (UK Public Sector).

In moving the report, Councillor Baggaley noted the training programme undertaken by members of the Committee. He thanked officers for their work in supporting the committee and Thilina DeZoysa from the external auditor Grant Thornton for his work and engagement with the committee.

Resolved:

That the Audit Committee Annual Report 2024/25 be approved.

Mover: Councillor Baggaley                    Seconder: Councillor Elliott

To receive updates from ward councillors from Aughton and Swallownest on the activities supporting Thriving Neighbourhoods across the Borough.

Further to Minute No. 55 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19

November 2018, consideration was given to the Ward update for Aughton and

Swallownest as part of the Thriving Neighbourhood Strategy. An

update report had been provided as part of the agenda and each Ward

Member was invited to speak.

Councillor Pitchley moved the report and highlighted the first two ward priorities. The first was to develop and support initiatives that would improve health and well-being and tackle poverty. Work done included working with all junior and infant schools on projects such as democracy week and enhanced reading services. Alongside this, gaps in youth provision had been identified and neighbourhood facilities improved and used to support community activities. The second priority was to develop and support initiatives around crime and community safety. Work included improvements to road safety outside Aston Fence School and on Chesterfield Way.

Councillor Taylor seconded the report and highlighted the last two ward priorities. In relation to developing and supporting initiatives to improve the environment and neighbourhood, work included walkabouts with the Parish Council to connect with local residents and initiatives such as litter picks, community skip days, planting trees etc. The fourth priority was to support local communities to come together and celebrate local and cultural heritage. Work included funding social activities such as Aston Carnival, Ulley Brass Band concerts and Aston Crickey Club. Funding for a sensory bench at Ulley Country Park had been provided and support provided to local schools and Swallownest bowling club for intergenerational projects. Councillor Taylor was proud of the work that had been done in the ward to engage with schools.

Councillor Pitchley and Councillor Taylor thanked the neighbourhoods team and residents for their support.

Resolved:

The update report was noted.

To receive updates from ward councillors from Boston Castle on the activities supporting Thriving Neighbourhoods across the Borough.

Further to Minute No. 55 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19

November 2018, consideration was given to the Ward update for Boston

Castle as part of the Thriving Neighbourhood Strategy. An

update report had been provided as part of the agenda and each Ward

Member was invited to speak.

Councillor Alam moved the report and stated the ward priorities as set out in the report. He explained how the priorities were agreed and how they supported the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy. Working in partnership was key, as was cross-party working. Councillor Alam detailed the progress that had been made so far in achieving the ward priorities. Extra CCTV had been purchased, and funding had been provided to Rotherham Hindu Community and BME Young Carers for Diwali events.

Councillor Hussain stated that, as a new elected independent Councillor, he had experienced some difficulties in accessing Council services and getting issues dealt with. He noted that concerns raised with him centred on crime and, specifically, rising gun crime. He did however feel honoured to support his residents and make a difference.

Councillor Yasseen highlighted the investment from the Towns and Villages Fund for work on Wellgate. She also highlighted the work done in community areas, such as planting trees at Broom Valley school. A defibrillator had also been funded. Councillor Yasseen specifically thanked the Friends of Groups that operated in Boston Castle ward as they played a huge role in delivering activities and protecting the areas. Councillor Yasseen was proud to have been involved in the Save Herringthorpe Playing Fields campaign, the campaigns regarding selective licensing and cycles lanes, and work on homeless solutions. Finally, Councillor Yasseen thanked those involved in efforts to improve East Herringthorpe Cemetery, specifically Hajid Zaheer, and those involved in the campaign for peace in Palestine.

Resolved:

The update report was noted.

To be moved by Councillor Steele and seconded by Councillor Clarke.

It was moved by Councillor Steele and seconded by Councillor Clarke that:

Summary/Background:

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council acknowledges the historic significance of the Orgreave events and the need for a comprehensive inquiry to address longstanding concerns within the community. This resolution expresses the Council's unequivocal support for the Orgreave inquiry, outlines the historical context, articulates the reasons for supporting such an investigation, and reaffirms the Council’s commitment to justice, healing, and reconciliation within the borough and beyond.

The events at Orgreave on 18th June 1984 were a pivotal moment during the UK miners’ strike of 1984–1985. On that day, striking miners assembled near the Orgreave coking plant in South Yorkshire, protesting against pit closures and the wider policies threatening their livelihoods and community stability. They were met by thousands of police officers, on foot, in riot gear and on horseback. The confrontation between the miners and police culminated in scenes of violence, mass arrests, and accusations of misconduct, which have echoed through the decades since.

For years, campaigners, former miners and their families have sought a full independent inquiry into the policing and subsequent legal proceedings at Orgreave. Concerns have focused on issues including:

·       Allegations of excessive use of force by police toward striking miners

·       Claims of wrongful arrest and prosecution

·       Accusations of evidence fabrication and perjury

·       The broader context of state intervention in industrial disputes

·       The lasting impact on the wellbeing and reputation of those involved and their communities.

Rotherham Council’s Position

As a Local Authority directly affected by the legacy of the miners’ strike and its aftermath, Rotherham Council has a moral and civic responsibility to support all efforts aimed at truth and reconciliation. The Council recognises that the events at Orgreave were not isolated, but part of a larger narrative affecting many mining communities, including those within Rotherham borough. The Council therefore welcomes the announcement of an Orgreave inquiry. We stand in solidarity with all those seeking answers, believing strongly that a transparent investigation can help to:

·       Establish the facts surrounding the events of 18th June 1984

·       Ensure accountability where wrongdoing is found

·       Restore public faith in our policing and legal systems Supporting the Community.

The Council recognises that the trauma experienced at Orgreave and throughout the miners’ strike continues to impact on local residents. Many families lost livelihoods, suffered legal consequences, or faced social ostracism as a direct result of their involvement.

Therefore, this Council resolves to:

1.    Officially welcome and support the Orgreave inquiry.

2.    Encourage full co-operation from all relevant parties, including local residents, former miners, police, and legal representatives.

3.    Work with neighbouring authorities in South Yorkshire to coordinate efforts and share best practice in supporting affected communities.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

To be moved by Councillor Z Collingham and seconded by Councillor Bacon.

It was moved by Councillor Z. Collingham and seconded by Councillor Bacon that:

The Council notes:

2025 has been the worst year ever for small boat crossings, with over 25,000 people crossing the Channel this year alone. Since July 2024, over 50,000 people have crossed the Channel.

The increasing pressures faced by local communities, both across the country and recently in Rotherham, where hotels are designated for use as migrant accommodation without proper consultation or local input.

The successful High Court judgment granting Epping Forest District Council a temporary injunction to prevent such use of the Bell Hotel, and the current uncertainty as to whether this use can be lawful.

The need to balance the interests of migrants needing to be accommodated nationally alongside the wellbeing and concerns of local residents, including in relation to the public benefits available to asylum seekers placed in Rotherham.

The Council believes:

That local communities must be properly consulted before significant decisions are made that impact local services, housing, and community cohesion.

That the use of local hotels as long-term accommodation for migrants is not a sustainable solution and places disproportionate pressures on local infrastructure and services.

That local councils, as the democratic voice of their communities, should have a say in how accommodation needs are managed and delivered.

That the public benefits available to asylum seekers from the Council must address their basic needs, rather than support leisure pursuits like dingy days out and gym sessions, if residents are to have confidence in the proper use of taxpayers’ money.

This Council resolves:

1.    To ask the Group Leaders to jointly write to the Home Office:

a)    Expressing this Council's concerns about the past use of hotels in our area for migrant accommodation and to request full consultation with this Council on any future decisions.

b)    Requesting immediate action from the Government to address the impact of illegal migrants and asylum seekers on our communities, including:

·       reviewing current asylum seeker housing placements in the authority.

·       deporting failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants without lawful reason to remain.

·       further increasing funding for the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal to speed up claim determinations.

·       developing a sustainable, properly planned, and community consulted approach to housing migrants, that considers alternatives to hotels such as immigration centres and former or repurposed MOD sites.

c)    Requesting uniform national guidelines on asylum seeker benefits that focus such support on essential need, and not on providing leisure opportunities that exceed those available to low-income working residents.

2.    To ask the three Members of Parliament representing parts of Rotherham Borough to co-sign a letter to the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary supporting the above measures.

3.    To ask the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Council’s legal team, to review the Council’s readiness to seek an injunction to prevent the use of local hotels for migrant accommodation in future, should this be proposed before the legality of this use is determined.

4.    To review any available data on the use of the Rothercard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 7^th July, 2025.

Consideration was given to the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 7 July 2025.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked a question in relation to Minutes 31 and 32 regarding the public realm works on Effingham Street and the Town Centre Health Hub. He asked for clarity on what work was being done in terms ensuring quality in the works. This was due to improvements on Bridgegate and College Street now looking grubby, only a few years after completion. He also asked if the two schemes could be linked in order to make parking more accessible.

Councillor Williams confirmed that he would respond in writing to the comments made about Bridgegate and College Street. In terms of accessible parking, he stated that the new offer of free parking for two hours should help alleviate some of those issues.

Resolved:- That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 7 July 2025 be received.

Mover: Councillor Read                          Seconder: Councillor Cusworth

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 Baggaley                    Seconder: Councillor Elliott

To note receipt of the Health and Wellbeing Board minutes.

Councillor Baker-Rogers provided an update on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board. It was noted that over 1000 baby pack had been delivered and the Giving Your Child the Best Start in Life Guide was available. Changing Places had been installed at Rother Vally and Thrybergh Country Parks and the Mental Health Community Connected initiative had been launched. Rotherham Show had been a huge success and Reclaim the Night would be back for 2025. Councillor Baker-Rogers thanked all members, officers, partners and residents from making the achievements possible.

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 and Licensing Sub-Committee minutes.

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

Mover: Councillor Hughes                      Seconder: Councillor Garnett

To note receipt of the Planning Board minutes.

Resolved:- That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the

meetings of the Planning Board be noted.

Mover: Councillor Mault                          Seconder: Councillor Jackson

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 two questions:

1.    Councillor Yasseen: The South Yorkshire Pension Fund states that it has an ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) policy. Can the Council’s Pension Representative clarify what this policy means in practice and whether they have ever raised or spoken on any ESG related issues at the Fund?

Councillor Sutton, the Council’s Representative on South Yorkshire Pension’s Authority, stated that the Pensions Authority maintained a responsible investment policy detailing its approach to its ESG responsibilities and provided quarterly updates on activity in this area which were available on the Authority’s website. Councillor Sutton confirmed that following the concerns raised she had communicated these to the Authority.

The Authority regularly engaged with Border to Coast as its fund manager where it saw issues in relation to specific investments and had done so over particular investments made by PIMCO, a manager within the Multi Asset Credit Fund. The Authority and Border to Coast had been disappointed by the lack of detailed insight and transparency provided by PIMCO and continued to follow this up and seek clear answers to the questions raised.

The Authority was, however, limited as to what it could do given the fiduciary duty placed on it, which was as set out by the Supreme Court, and meant it had to place primacy on delivering in the financial interests of scheme members. Further, in line with Government policy, investments were held in pooled funds meaning that SYPA could not act on issues in isolation from its pooling partners.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked if anybody, Councillor Sutton or any other local authority representative on the pension fund, had raised concerns about the investment into Israeli arms and bombs.

Councillor Sutton confirmed that these questions had been raised at authority level and were still in discussion.

2.    At the last meeting, the Pension Representative didn’t understand my question (I was speaking English) and avoided it. The SYPA of which Rotherham Council is a member has invested nearly £2 million in Israeli bonds and £117million in arms firms. With over-whelming evidence of Israeli war crimes and genocide, what have you done to challenge this under the ESG policy?

Councillor Sutton, the Council’s Representative on South Yorkshire Pension’s Authority, stated that, as indicated in answer to the previous question and questions raised at previous meetings, she continued to raise Cllr Yasseen’s concerns and those of other members.

While the Pensions Authority had and continued to raise questions about investments which were made by an external investment manager within the terms of their mandate, the Authority could not act in isolation to sell any specific stocks. In relation to investment in arms companies, these companies were acting under the terms of licences from the relevant government and even if the Pensions Authority could act in isolation to sell such investments, it would be legally unreasonable to do so given the companies were acting within the specific sanction of the relevant government.  

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked Councillor Sutton if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

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 32 questions:

1.    Councillor Bacon: Will the council conduct a full review into the way it handled changes to the way bin crews work, which reportedly led to chaos in the collection of household waste?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, firstly thanked residents for their patience and understanding in relation to the garden waste collection service issues. She did not accept that there had been chaos in the collection of household waste as Councillor Bacon had suggested. The collection of household waste had been prioritised. As the situation had not yet concluded, Councillor Marshall stated that she was not in a position to commit to a review.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bacon stated that the Council was not interested in learning lessons from its failures to do the basic jobs right. He asked if the Cabinet member would be issuing a proper refund to the residents who had not received the service they had paid for.

Councillor Marshall explained that the original question had asked for a review into the collection of household waste, not garden waste. She confirmed that the Council would look into some form of recompense for the garden waste collection issues.

2.    Councillor Thorp: Would the council ever consider or comply with a request from the government to sell off allotments to use for building new houses as a very concerned constituent of mine is very worried RMBC would just say yes to any Government request to do so?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, stated that the Council had not had any request from Government to sell off any allotments  and, by statutory protections, the Council had no intention to identify any allotment land for other purposes.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp asked would the Council sell them if the Government asked them to.

Councillor Marshall explained that the sale of an allotment had to go through a rigorous protocol, including consultation with the National Allotment Society and through the planning process.

3.    Councillor Thorp: RMBC spent a fortune laying new pedestrian walk ways in the town centre, trying to improve the visual effect for visitors. Then along comes someone who needs to get to underground utilities, but is there any care in what is put down, the simple answer is no. Why spend this money if you don't keep up its appearance.

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, stated that he shared the frustration. However, the Council’s Highways team had protected the recent resurfacing works in the Town Centre against any utility company carrying out excavation works in the roads and footways. However, in the legislation that governed this matter, exemptions were provided for utilities companies to carry out emergency works and provide a new connection or supply to a new customer. Any planned works or emergency works delivered on the adopted highway by a utility company required approval in accordance with the Street works and Roadworks Permit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items to consider.