Agenda and minutes

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

The Mayor was pleased to present his activity since the last Council meeting and reported on how by the end of June he and the Mayoress would have completed the same number of engagements as they had as Deputy Mayor and Mayoress in six months.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Beck, Beaumont, B. Cutts, M. Elliott, Jepson and Senior.

Any communication received by the Mayor or Chief Executive which relates to a recommendation of the Cabinet or a committee which was received after the relevant meeting.

There were no communications received.

To receive the record of proceedings of both parts of the annual meeting of the Council held on 18^th and 23^rd May, 2018 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 18^th and 23^rd May, 2018, be approved for signature by the Mayor.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To report on any petitions received by the Council received by the Council and receive statements in support of petitions in accordance with Petitions Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13.

The Mayor reported receipt of two petitions but they had not met the threshold for consideration by Council, and would be referred to the relevant directorate for a response to be prepared:-

·             Containing 21 signatures on the Rotherham Truth Campaign (RTC), calling on the Chief Executive of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) to make public the full email sent by the former Director of Children’s Services on 5th August, 2015 to the five Commissioners appointed to Rotherham and to state the position of the so-called expert.

Mr. L. Harron addressed the Council as part of the presentation of the petition calling on the Chief Executive to make public the full email sent by the former Director of Children’s Services.

·             Containing 31 signatures calling on the senior Rotherham Council officer:-

-              who was fully consulted about Voices of Despair Voices of Hope;

-              who ordered 1500 copies for Rotherham Council on 10 March 2015;

-              who joined the trip with victims, survivors and advocates to the Houses of Parliament and to Downing Street on 25 March 2015;

-              and who then sent a dreadful email on 15 September 2015:

to END HIS SILENCE and TELL THE TRUTH to adult survivors of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham about what he knows about why officials at Rotherham Council decided to return 1400 copies of Voices of Despair Voices of Hope (at a cost of £5600 to Rotherham Council)

Ms. Meleady addressed the Council as part of the presentation of the petition asking why officials decided to return 140 copies of the Voices of Despair Voices of Hope publication.

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.

Declarations of any disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in respect of items of business to be considered at this meeting were listed as follows:-

Councillors Alam, Jones, Pitchley, McNeely, Russell, Wyatt declared personal interests in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that they were members of the Community Union.

Councillor Albiston, Ellis, Jones and Read declared personal interests in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that a number of relatives were in receipt of a British Steel pension and that they were members of the Community Union.

Councillor Atkin, Cooksey and Napper declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that relatives were in receipt of a British Steel pension.

Councillor Bird declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that he was in receipt of a British Steel pension and that he was a member of the Community Union.

Councillor Hoddinott declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that she was supported by the Community Union during her election campaign.

Councillors Cooksey and Keenan declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that their husbands either were in receipt of a British Steel pension or worked for Liberty Steel and left the room whilst this item was discussed.

Councillors Sansome declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that he was in receipt of a British Steele pension and a member of the Community Union.

Councillor Walsh declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that he was in receipt of a British Steele pension.

Councillor Yasseen declared a personal interest in Minute No. 13 (Council Motion – US Steel Tariffs) on the grounds that a number of relatives were in receipt of a British Steel pension and that she was a member of the Community Union.

Councillor Wyatt declared a personal interest in Minute No. 10 (Cabinet Minutes – Minute No. 148 of 21^st May, 2018) on the grounds that he was a relative of a service user.

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.

(1)            Mr. Harron asked given the confusion about his question at the Council meeting on 23rd May would the Leader of the Council give his reasons for refusing to ask the Chief Executive for the name and position of the so-called independent expert who allegedly rubbished the publication Voices of Despair Voices of Hope.

The Leader confirmed that at the time that the Council asked the independent expert to review ’Voices of Despair Voices of Hope’ it was agreed that the expert and the organisation they worked for would remain anonymous.

The name of the independent expert was only known by a few officers in the Council, on a need to know basis.  This was in line with Data Protection Legislation.

The Leader confirmed he did not know the name of that person and was not sure if the Chief Executive knew the name, but could not give it to Mr. Harron due to the arrangement that was in place.

This linked into the email exchange that had taken place over the last few weeks he had had with Mr. Harron. The information could not be provided so the correct route, in accordance with the law and procedures, was to forward a Freedom of Information request.  The Leader had offered to forward this on for Mr. Harron, but this had been declined. 

Mr. Harron disagreed with the Leader’s answer.  On the first occasion the Leader claimed the information did not exist – he was wrong.  On the second occasion the Leader said he did not have it.  This would be pursued.

In a supplementary question Mr. Harron asked the Leader if he remembered on the 18^th October Elizabeth and T, two adult survivors, presenting a petition asking for meaningful consultation about their needs.  The response to that petition was dire.  He asked did the Leader share his admiration and courage of Elisabeth and T, who had both been through the horrendous process of a trial leading to convictions, and would he thank them for everything they were doing to bring about a better Rotherham.

The Leader did associate himself with the comments of Mr. Harron and had been fortunate to be able to speak with one of the people concerned.  However, he commended their bravery and acknowledged wholeheartedly the suffering caused to too many people for far too long in Rotherham and, therefore, in position respected the steps they were taking to improve the town and he was happy to meet with them.  In answering Mr. Harron that could not step outside the boundaries of the law and rules and procedures under which this Council had to operate.

Councillor Roche confirmed RMBC’s Shared Lives scheme was registered with the Care Quality Commission and was rated as ‘Good’.  Shared Lives schemes were regulated in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Should it be necessary, in the opinion of the Mayor, to consider excluding the press and public from the meeting in relation to any items of urgent business on the grounds that private information is likely to be divulged.

There are no such items at the time of preparing this agenda.

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

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

The Leader wished to provide a brief statement and confirmed:-

·             The joy and news that Rotherham United Football Club had secured promotion.

·             The Impendent Health Check commissioned by Commissioners to supplement information to Government.  This information recognised all the progress made which was now in the public domain.

·             Rotherham Together Partnership one year on from launching the Partnership Plan celebrated together the progress made and the challenges ahead.  From there it was confirmed that McLaren had now taken ownership in the AMP and the owner of Gulliver’s Theme Park spoke passionately about the forthcoming project at Rother Valley Country Park.

·             The Council had also formally appointed a new Director of Children’s Services, John Stonehouse, who would join the Council at the end of the summer from York.

The Mayor invited other Members to ask questions of the Leader’s Statement.

Councillor Reeder referred to the health check outcome for Commissioners and further the decision of the learning disability closures and the sale of some homes that were designated for people with learning difficulties that were now for sale in Eastwood.  She asked was it not premature that they were for sale when they may well now be needed.

The Leader believed the two areas were entirely different.  The Commissioners had to report on the governance of the Council of which there had been good progress and this was validated from people outside the authority.

This was distinct from the difficult decisions that had to be made The Council had heard today from people in relation to learning disabilities and understood why they felt strongly about the changes being made.  The decision was to be implemented over two years and whilst this had been reflected upon and the decision hard, this had been discussed with the Commissioners but the decision sat with the Council.

It had to be recognised that all Councils made the difficult decisions about needs and about services.  This would continue as policies were implemented and it was hoped that at the end of the process the services would be improved so that those affected now would come back in the future and speak about the changes and how this could be improved in the future.

Councillor Cowles also commented on the learning disability closures and the arguments presented at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board.  The advice of officers was taken on board, but a number of recommendations were made relating to the need to relationships between users must be maintained, transition into the community must not be rushed, provision for long term residents must be available and that most importantly visits to Councils where there had been successful implementation of this policy and this was available to carers and users.  If the issue was so important the visits should have taken place.  He expressed his concern about this.  He also referred to an extract he had received from a service user which raised his concern further.

He asked why the Council had not ensured visits took place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet and Commissioners’ Decision Making Meeting held on 16^th April, 21^st May and 11^th June, 2018.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet/Commissioners’ Decision Making Meeting held on 16^th April, 21st May and 11^th June, 2018, be received.

Mover:-  Councillor Read                       Seconder:-  Councillor Watson

To consider a recommendation from Cabinet to adopt of the Sites and Policies Document of the Rotherham Local Plan.

Further to Minute No. 159 of the Cabinet held on 11^th June, 2018, Council were recommended to approve the adoption of the Sites and Policies Document, as modified by the Inspector’s Main Modifications. The Sites and Policies Document allocated development sites to meet the targets for new homes and jobs in the Core Strategy. Having passed examination by a Planning Inspector, the Council could now progress to adopt and implement the Sites and Policies Document.

Adoption of the Plan would enable the release of the development sites chosen by the Council as the most appropriate to promote the sustainable growth of Rotherham. This would significantly boost the supply of new homes and jobs that Rotherham needed and support the delivery of the Council’s Economic Growth Plan and Housing Strategy. Crucially, it would also help ensure a five year supply of housing land to protect the Council against speculative development on other non-preferred sites.

Adoption of the Plan would also bring into force the development management policies designed to protect and enhance the environment. This policy protection was required to complement the Plan’s growth ambitions and ensure new development was delivered in a sensitive manner.

A number of Councillors expressed their concerns and were unable to support the recommendations.

Councillor Cowles believed the process to be flawed and a number of issues remained unsatisfactory answered and some information misleading.

Councillor Carter was also unable to support the recommendation on the grounds that the number of brownfield sites was not known, there was a need to rejuvenate the town centre and this Plan did not go far enough.

Councillor Reeder too was unable to support this on the grounds that there was little chance of younger people getting on the housing ladder.

Councillor Napper too expressed his concern about key sites being left derelict in his own ward, but believed there needed to be a good excuse as to why developers were building on green field land instead of brown.

Councillor John Turner was worried about congestion around some key sites identified in the Plan.

Councillor Steele confirmed the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board had taken a key interest in the document as part of the pre-scrutiny process and sought clarification on issues from the Cabinet Member and relevant officers.

Councillor Cusworth, Mallinder and Watson wished to express their support and took pride in the fact that 70% of the borough remained green.  Only 1.1% of the borough’s green belt was to be included in the Plan for development.

Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, took on board all the comments, confirmed only 1.1% of the borough’s green belt was to be developed and pointed out the negotiations that led to a reduction in the housing target from 17,000 to 14,000 over the next five years.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Inspector’s final report and the recommended Main Modifications be noted.

(2)  That the Sites and Policies Document, as modified, be adopted as part of the Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To approve the making of the draft Reorganisation of Community Governance Order following the review requested by Orgreave Parish Council.

Further to Minute No. 192 of the meeting of Council held on 23^rd May, 2018, consideration was given to the report which sought approval for the making of the Reorganisation of Community Governance Order required to bring the Final Recommendations into effect.

Following the receipt of a proposed amendment to the final recommendations and for these to be properly considered it was suggested that this report be deferred to allow for consultation with the Waverley Residents Association to take place.

Resolved:-  (1)  That consideration of the implementation of the Community Governance Review be deferred until the next meeting of Council on the 25^th July, 2018.

(2)  That the Assistant Director of Legal Services consult the Waverley Residents Association on the budget requirement for the proposed Waverley Community Council and provide a further report to the meeting of Council on 25^th July, 2018.

That this Council notes:-

1.          With alarm the decision of the US President Donald Trump, to impose a 25% tariff on imports of steel from the European Union, including the UK, to the USA, and a 10% tariff on aluminium.

2.          That the UK sells approximately £360 million of steel to the USA annually.

3.          That when the USA last imposed tariffs on EU steel imports under President George W. Bush in 2002, they cost the US economy an estimated 200,000 jobs – more than the entire US steel production workforce at that time.

4.          The continued importance of steel production to the Rotherham economy, with 12% of revenue to Liberty Speciality Steels in Rotherham reportedly coming from exports to the USA.

This Council believes:-

1.          That the imposition of US tariffs will be harmful both to the US and global economies.

This Council resolves:-

1.          That the protectionist policies of the current US administration be condemned.

2.          That the government be urged to make the strongest possible representations on behalf of the UK steel industry.

3.          That the Community Union’s “Stop Trump Tariffs” campaign be supported.

Proposer:-    Councillor Sansome           Seconder:-    Councillor Cusworth

Proposed by Councillor Sansome and seconded by Councillor Wyatt:-

That this Council notes:-

1.          With alarm the decision of the US President Donald Trump, to impose a 25% tariff on imports of steel from the European Union, including the UK, to the USA, and a 10% tariff on aluminium.

2.          That the UK sells approximately £360 million of steel to the USA annually.

3.          That when the USA last imposed tariffs on EU steel imports under President George W. Bush in 2002, they cost the US economy an estimated 200,000 jobs – more than the entire US steel production workforce at that time.

4.          The continued importance of steel production to the Rotherham economy, with 12% of revenue to Liberty Speciality Steels in Rotherham reportedly coming from exports to the USA.

This Council believes:-

1.          That the imposition of US tariffs will be harmful both to the US and global economies.

This Council resolves:-

1.          That the protectionist policies of the current US administration be condemned.

2.          That the government be urged to make the strongest possible representations on behalf of the UK steel industry.

3.          That the Community Union’s “Stop Trump Tariffs” campaign be supported.

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

To approve the following membership changes to Committees, Panels and Boards:-

·             Councillor Short to fill the UK Independence Party Group vacancy on the Standards and Ethics Committee.

Further to Minute No. 190 of the meeting of Council held on 23^rd May, 2018, consideration was given to the request for Councillor Short to fill the UKIP vacancy on the Standards and Ethics Committee.

Resolved:-  That the request for Councillor Short be appointed to the Standards and Ethics Committee be approved.

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

Resolved:-  That the reports, recommendation and minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Roche                      Seconder:-  Councillor Mallinder

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

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

Mover:-  Councillor Sheppard                 Seconder:-  Councillor Williams

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

To confirm the minutes as a true record.

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

Mover:-  Councillor Ellis                         Seconder:-  Councillor McNeely

To put questions, if any, to the designated Members on the discharge of functions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority and South Yorkshire Pensions Authority, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11(5).

(1)            Councillor Carter asked how did the spokesperson for the Police and Crime Panel propose to hold the commission to account for the discharge of their statutory functions now that these functions have been restricted to only those on the meeting agenda?

Councillor Sansome explained the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Police and Crime Panel have been provided with detailed legal advice by the Monitoring Officer/Solicitor to the Panel.   The Panel would consider questions that fell within its statutory functions, but it may also consider other questions that were necessary for the Panel to carry out its functions.  It was important that questions should not relate to operational issues for which the Police and Crime Commissioner was responsible in holding the Chief Constable to account.  

Some Panel Members were frustrated with the weakening of power to the Panel, but it was important to note that it was not the Panel’s role to hold the Chief Constable to account only the Police and Crime Commissioner.

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked about representatives on the Panel being able to ask about these issues as and when they arose, when contacted by residents, and asked if the representative agreed.

Councillor Sansome explained there may be opportunities when situations arose, but the Panel had to work within confines of its work plan, holding the Police and Crime Commissioner to account the same as any other scrutiny panel.  The Panel was unable to look beyond its remit and had to act in accordance with the rules and procedures agreed at the start of every municipal year. 

Unfortunately, there were some people who preferred to raise issues and challenge the Commissioner on social media when Councillor Sansome would prefer them to come to a meeting and raise the issue about what action was being taken to address child sexual exploitation, hate crime and domestic abuse.

(2) Councillor Cowles referred to a recent press article where Councillor Sansome made some disparaging comments about the 101 service. He was the first Labour Councillor he had heard express concern. Yet the public were still being asked to use this unfit service.  He asked would the Spokesperson tell the Council what he proposed to do about it.

Councillor Sansome confirmed Councillor Cowles was right he had made comments about the long running saga it had taken to get the 101 system up and running.  He was surprised that he was felt to be the first Councillor to raise concerns as at a recent meeting with the Chief Constable other Councillors were also present and stated their feelings regarding the 101 service. 

If he was understanding the thoughts and comments raised by colleagues in that meeting Councillor Sansome felt it only right that he arrange through the  Cabinet Member a meeting, involving Councillor Cowles, in order to sit with the Commissioner to look at the failings in the 101 service and how these could be rectified and when.

Councillor Cowles thanked Councillor Sansome for his response and would certainly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

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

(1)  Councillor B. Cutts was unable to attend the meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

(2)  Councillor B. Cutts was unable to attend the meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

(3)  Councillor Carter asked when would he be able to see the expected improvements to road safety on Bawtry Road?

Councillor Hoddinott explained the consultation started in February and no objectives were received.  The Cabinet Member was pleased to report that the works would now be progressed and this would take place during the summer holidays.

(4)  Councillor Carter asked following earlier commitments, which two new pedestrian crossings did the Authority plan to erect during this financial year?

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the following crossings would be delivered through the 2018/19 Highway Capital Programme:-

·             Fenton Road, Wingfield

·             Morthen Road, Wickersley

Both schemes were at the design stage and would be delivered within this financial year.  The Fenton Road crossing was at a more advanced stage in the design process and was likely to be delivered first. 

Councillor Hoddinott thanked Councillor Carter for raising this issue, but pointed out that it was part of the budget proposals to increase the number of pedestrian crossings each year which Councillor Carter had actually voted against.

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked given the crossings were based on order of priority where was Bawtry Road on the list.

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the Bawtry Road pedestrian crossing was number three on the list so residents would see works commence at the start of the next financial year.  However, as works were already due to take place on Bawtry Road it was feasible to start some of the works on the crossing in preparation this summer with an anticipated completion date early in the next financial year.

(5)  Councillor Napper asked how many planning applications a year did R.M.B.C.’s Planning Department receive?

Councillor Lelliott confirmed in 2017 there had been 1,862 applications received.  This represented an average of 1,729 applications over the period.

(6)  Councillor Napper asked how many people worked in the Planning and Building Control Department from Strategic Director down?

Councillor Lelliott confirmed there were 48 officers which was 43.21 full time equivalents.

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper referred to complaints he had received about the time it was taking to process applications and where there appeared to be discrepancies in what was allowed to be built in certain places.

Councillor Lelliott confirmed she was happy to meet Councillor Napper outside the meeting to discuss.

(7)   Councillor John Turner asked what was the present cost to run the waste disposal wagons per year and what was the cost of hire when vehicles broke down (how much per year)?

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the total cost of running the Council’s refuse and recycling collection fleet was £1.73 million per year and of that cost, £1.03 million (60%) was associated with the hire of vehicles.

Within these costs there were a number of ‘spare’ vehicles which covered breakdowns,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were none.