Agenda and draft minutes

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

The Mayor congratulated Rotherham Hospice on winning the Charity of the Year 2025 award and the Change Project of the Year 2025, for their Living Life’s Wishes Strategy, at the Charity Times Awards. It was also noted that the historic Walker Cannon had been restored and returned to the front of the Town Hall to coincide with the 220^th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

The 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 Knight, Hall, Havard, Marshall and Pitchley.

To receive the record of proceedings of the ordinary meeting of the Council held on 10 September 2025 and to approve the accuracy thereof.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous Council meeting held on 10^th September 2025.

Councillor Currie asked why the written responses from the September meeting had not been included with the minutes of the September meeting. It was confirmed that this was an oversight and they would be included in the January 2026 Council agenda. 

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 10^th September

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 allocate funds to install security measures along the length of Brook Hill, Thorp Hesley in order to prevent unauthorised vehicle access, including traveller encampments. It had 62 valid signatures. Mr. Wilson, the Lead Petitioner, did not attend the meeting. 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 relevant Strategic Director be required to respond to the lead petitioners, as set out in the Petition Scheme, by Wednesday, 19 November 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 declared.

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 were four public questions:

1.    Prior to asking her question, T explained that she had been unable to attend Council meetings in person for a long time due to chronic back pain caused by repeated rapes from grooming gangs when she was 12. She explained that her questions related to what the Leader had said to Look North in June 2025 regarding the National Enquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (CSEA.) T felt that, despite asking questions since 2017, she had not received any answers. She had had meetings with the Leader about her concerns and needs in 2018. 

T asked: In what ways does Chris Read, the Leader of the Council, believe that Rotherham Council should be used as a model for other towns and cities for how to deal with the rape of children (politely referred to by Baroness Casey as CSEA - Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse)?

The Leader explained that, in the interview, he had said that it was important that the events in Rotherham, including the suffering of people like T, were not lost in the National Enquiry. When Louise Casey published her report, what she described was a process very much like the one that Rotherham had been through over the course of the last 14 years. That was about a place based review of what happened, which in Rotherham’s case was the Jay report. Subsequent to that was a police criminal investigation in to specific allegation of crimes and that was Operation Stovewood. The Leader thought it important that the Government heard the Rotherham experience to ensure that other places learnt from the things that it got right and learn from the things it got wrong.

In her review, Louise Casey singled out the kind of taxi licensing reform that was put in place in Rotherham. The Leader wanted that to be adopted across the rest of the Country. Other changes had been made but that was not to say that the Council thought it had done everything right at all. The Leader explained that if the Government, in their review, did not consider the learning of the things that Rotherham had been through, there was potential that those mistakes could be made elsewhere.

In her supplementary question, T quoted what first tier tribunal judge Ord wrote in the decision that was sent out in 24 June which said: “when the witness T gave oral evidence we questioned T on the value to her of the information. Her reply was that she wanted to get the truth, that truth was important to her.” T stated that RMBC did not answer her questions, and she had many questions. She asked what the Council was doing to protect Muslim communities, what was the Council doing to protect other victims, survivors and members of the Muslim community from South Yorkshire Police.  T explained that she had met with members of the Muslim community and told them that in no way did she hold them  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

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 noted the launch of a new campaign for Rotherham’s new “Gateway” station which was part of a £300million regeneration plan that would put Rotherham back on the mainline for the first time in 40 years. The Leader and Councillor Williams had visited the site of the new tram stop at Magna. It was expected that trams should be stopping at the new station from early 2026. The Leader also reported that Davies Court Care Home in Dinnington had been rated good following a recent CQC inspection. He placed on record his congratulations and thanks to the team for their hard work. The Steel Minister, Chris McDonald MP, had visited the Liberty Steel sites in Stocksbridge and Parkgate along with the Leader, Chief Executive and colleagues from across South Yorkshire. The Leader believed that the conversations had been fruitful. The Leader confirmed that there was considerable commercial interest in taking on the sites and a real determination locally to protect jobs. The Leader had also written again to the Minister.

Members were asked to note the following upcoming events: Bonfire Night festivities in Clifton Park (on the evening of the Council meeting); Armistice Day and Remembrance Day on 9 November and the Christmas Lights Switch-on on Saturday 15 November.

Finally, the Leader highlighted the Reclaim the Night walk taking place on Thursday 27 November. This year the walk was being dedicated to the memory of Kimberley Fuller who was stabbed to death on 5 November 2005 on a night out in Rotherham town centre after she confronted a man for touching her. Her killer was later convicted for separate child abuse offences as part of Operation Stovewood. The Leader stated that he did not know how people kept going after their families were violated by such crimes. He could not begin to imagine the bravery that it took. Being a Councillor meant coming into contact with people in all sorts of difficult situations – homeless people, broken families, victims of violence – and as a Councillor, the task was to organise against the evil in our midst. Kimberley’s family and friends had asked for her to be remembered as part of this year’s Reclaim the Night to mark 20 years since her murder and they would be attending the event. The Leader paid tribute to their courage and determination today as they continued to make the case against misogyny and sexual violence and for a more humane society. He asked the Chamber to pay their respects to Kimberley and her memory.

The Leader of the Majority Opposition Group, Councillor Z. Collingham, was invited to respond. He echoed the comments made in relation to Davies Court Care Home and he hoped the comments made by the Leader to the Steel Minister would lead to the retention of jobs for people in Rotherham and the wider region. He made references to the number of items on the agenda and stated that he hoped no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

To consider a nomination to create an Honorary Freewoman of the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham.

Consideration was given to a report which sought approval to create an Honorary Freewoman of the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham.

The report noted that under the Local Government Act 1972, the Council had the power to grant the title of Honorary Freewoman and Honorary Freeman of the Borough to persons of distinction who have rendered eminent service to the Borough. It was proposed that in accordance with the authority’s protocol in respect of awarding this honour that Christine Lunn MBE be considered to be made an Honorary Freewoman of the Borough in recognition of her outstanding service to Children and Young People across the borough as a Foster Carer with over 50 years’ service and in recognition of fostering over

250 young people.

It was noted that the proposal had been endorsed by the Mayor, the Leader of the Council and the leaders of the opposition groups.

Resolved:

That in pursuance of the provisions of Section 249(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and in recognition of her outstanding service to Children and Young People across the borough as a Foster Carer with over 50 years’ service and in recognition of fostering over 250 young people, Christine Lunn MBE, be admitted Freedom of this Borough at an Extraordinary Council Meeting.

To approve the appointment of Members to committees, boards and panels.

Consideration was given to the report which sought approval for the appointment of Members to committees, boards and panels, as detailed in the Mayor’s Letter.

The Head of Democratic Services had received notification that it had become necessary to make amendments to the appointment of Members to serve on the committees, boards, and panels of the Council.

Section 16 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 stated that where the Council had determined the allocation to different Groups of the seats to which the Act applies, it was the duty of the authority to give effect to a Group’s wishes about who was to be appointed to the Seats that they had been allocated.

Those members not in a political group could still at the discretion of the Council, be allocated a due share of seats, although the Council would decide how to allocate seats to non-aligned councillors.

Resolved:

That approval be given to the appointment of Members to committees, boards and panels, as detailed in the Mayor’s Letter and stated below:

Education Consultative Committee

Councillor Read (Remove)

Councillor Steele (Add)

Health Select Commission

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester (Remove)

Councillor Harrison (Add)

Standards and Ethics Committee

Parish Councillor Lisa Gibbins (Wales)

Parish Councillor Tony Griffin (Whiston)

Parish Councillor Mark Senior (Thrybergh)

Appointed in accordance with the elections cycle for Rotherham – May 2028 

Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation Joint Committee

Councillor Baker-Rogers (Remove)

Councillor McKiernan (Add)

Councillor Brent - Substitute (Add)

Mover: Councillor Read                          Seconder: Councillor Cusworth

To consider the recommendation from Cabinet on 15 September 2025, in relation to the adoption of the Community Safety Strategy.

Consideration was given to the report which presented the Community Safety Strategy, named the Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy 2025-28, for approval. The Strategy had been recommended by Cabinet for approval at the 15 September 2025 meeting.

The Safer Rotherham Partnership (SRP), of which the Council was a key statutory partner, had agreed a new Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy, setting out priorities and commitments for the period 1st April 2025 to 31st March, 2028. The previous Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy 2022-25 guided the Partnership in delivering significant work to protect vulnerable children and adults, build safer, stronger communities and tackle domestic abuse, serious violence and organised crime.

The Safer Rotherham Partnership had used an evidence-based approach to agree the new priorities, drawing on analysis of partnership crime and community safety data and the outcomes of a comprehensive programme of consultation to capture the views of key stakeholders, including people who lived, visited or worked in Rotherham. This process identified 3 main priorities that shaped the new Strategy: Safer Neighbourhoods; Tackling violence, abuse and exploitation; and preventing offending and building resilience. The objective areas and commitments that sat under the priorities were detailed in paragraph 2.4 of the report.

Paragraph 2.5 of the report outlined the Cross Cutting Themes which impacted all community safety priorities. These were Online Crime; Service User Voice; and Equality.

Section 4 of the report and Appendix 2 to the report detailed the consultation outcomes. SRP partner agency consultation and data gathering took place from September 2024 and continued until the final draft strategy was circulated to SRP Board members prior to their meeting on 15th April, 2025, and the Strategy was finalised. The wider stakeholder, Elected Member and public consultation on the proposed priorities ran from September 2024 to December 2024.

The outcome of the consultation was broadly supportive of the priority areas identified. In relation to the areas of focus, there were some variances but generally people thought the partnership should focus on raising awareness and delivering prevention and early intervention activities. The full outcome of the consultation had been provided to each SRP priority lead to inform development of their action plans.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 16, Councillor Bacon moved the following amendment during the meeting: That the Council recommends to the Community Safety Partnership that they embed into the Strategy a way of combating antisocial behaviour. Councillor Bacon stated that the Strategy only mentioned tackling perceptions of antisocial behaviour and he simply wanted to ask the partnership to embed a way of combating antisocial behaviour to make residents feel safe.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester seconded the amendment and asked if the idea could be explored, and proper structures put in place to deal with antisocial behaviour.

As the mover of the original motion, Councillor Alam addressed the amendment. He stated that, under legislation, the Safer Rotherham Partnership had a duty to tackle antisocial behaviour. Page 15 of the Strategy set out the Safer Rotherham Partnership Priorities for 2025-28 and that included Safer Neighbourhoods which involved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

To consider the recommendation from Cabinet on 15 September 2025 in relation to the adoption of the proposed Licensing Act 2003 - Statement of Licensing Policy.

Consideration was given to the report which presented the Licensing Act 2003 – Statement of Licensing Policy. The Policy had been recommended by Cabinet for approval at the 15 September 2025 meeting.

Licensing officers presented a draft Policy to Cabinet in April 2025 and this Policy had been developed following a period of informal consultation with partner agencies, licence holders and members of the public, along with a review of other policies from across the UK to identify best practice that could be adopted in Rotherham. Following Cabinet approval, the draft policy was then subjected to a six-week period of consultation.

All responses to the consultation had been consolidated and reviewed. The significant majority of the responses indicated a general support for the proposals within the Policy, and therefore it was recommended that the draft Policy agreed by Cabinet in April was accepted as the final version of the 2025 – 2030 Statement of Policy.

The Policy promoted environmental best practice as set out in paragraph 2.15 of the report. It also provided advice and guidance on the practical steps licensed venues could take to keep women safe as detailed in paragraph 2.17. The Policy recognised that premises operating hours could have a significant impact on local residents, the economy and the local area. It therefore set out a number of core hours that were applicable to each type of licensed premises. Specific areas relevant to each class of premises were also set out. Further detail was included regarding large events as detailed in paragraph 2.23.

Resolved:

That Council adopt the proposed Licensing Act 2003 Statement of Policy.

Mover: Councillor Williams                     Seconder: Councillor Hughes

To consider the recommendation from Cabinet on 15 September 2025 in relation to the adoption of the Local Development Scheme.

Consideration was given to the report which presented the Local Development Scheme for adoption. An updated Local Development Scheme was required to reflect the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in December 2024 and the significantly increased housing target for Rotherham, which necessitated a new Local Plan. The housing target for Rotherham had more than doubled from 544 to 1,111 new homes a year.

Officers had an advisory visit from the Planning Inspectorate in January 2025 to explore options for continuing the Core Strategy Partial Update. However, given the significant uplift to Rotherham’s housing target and the likely changes to the distribution of growth around the Borough this implied, the Inspector’s clear advice was to prepare a complete new Local Plan under the new plan-making system. Continuing with the Core Strategy Partial Update would result in a significant risk of the Local Plan not being found sound during the Examination in Public by a Planning Inspector and would, therefore, not be fit to be adopted by the Council, resulting in abortive work, wasted time and considerable expense. The updated LDS therefore replaced the Core Strategy Partial Update and set out a timetable to produce a new Local Plan. This course of action was unavoidable, given the Government’s changes to the NPPF and the imposition of a much higher housing target on Rotherham.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill published in March 2025 introduced Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), to be prepared by combined authorities. The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) would be responsible for preparing the SDS for South Yorkshire, in conjunction with the constituent local authorities. Local plans had to be in general conformity with the SDS. The Council was working with the other South Yorkshire authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield to prepare a new Joint Waste Plan, to replace the Plan adopted in 2012. Work was ongoing to reconsider the scope and content of the Joint Waste Plan and its relationship with the emerging South Yorkshire SDS, given the strategic nature of waste planning. Due to this new requirement, it was not possible for the LDS to give a timetable to prepare a Joint Waste Plan at present.

The LDS did not cover the detailed content of the new Local Plan or other Local Plan documents nor the process for preparing and consulting on them. Any future draft documents would be subject to separate reports requiring Cabinet or Council approval prior to public consultation, submission and adoption. The milestones for the new Local Plan were summarised at paragraph 2.5 of the report with Adoption of the Plan by Council being in July 2029.

The cost of producing the LDS had been managed within existing budgets. The adoption of the LDS set out a timeline for completion of the Local Plan and South Yorkshire Waste Plan. There was no provision for these costs, which were estimated to be £1.1m and as such, would need to be considered as part of the 2026/27 budget setting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

To receive updates from ward councillors from Bramley and Ravenfield 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 Ward update for Bramley and Ravenfield 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 Duncan noted the three ward priorities which related to improving road safety and addressing crime and anti-social behaviour; improving the environment and enhancing community facilities and bringing people together and improving mental and physical wellbeing. Work had been done with many local organisations and community groups, including the local parish councils. Work done included assisting with Parliament week and litter picks. Speeding and road safety was a particular concern outside Ravenfield Primary School and work was being done to address this. Fly tipping, particularly in rural areas had been an issue and work was progressing to install CCTV to tackle this problem. 

Councillor Reynolds made particular reference to the Whitestone Solar Farm and the negative impact it would have on Bramley and Ravenfield in particular. He implored everyone to do everything they could to object to the proposal. Councillor Reynolds thanked Councillor Duncan for the work she had done since becoming a Ward Councillor in 2024 and noted that they had worked very well together.

Both Members noted the invaluable support they had received from their Neighbourhoods team, particularly Nicola Hacking and Nicola Fletcher.

Resolved: That the update report be noted.

To receive updates from ward councillors from Brinsworth 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 Ward update for Brinsworth 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 A. Carter stated that it was a privilege to be able to represent Brinsworth and do his bit as part of local devolution. He noted the work that he been done through the Towns and Villages Fund to get the parking outside the Brinsworth shops sorted. He hoped to see more devolution to ward Councillors in order to benefit all areas of the borough.

Councillor C. Carter highlighted particular projects that had been delivered such as bulb planting and crafts with school children. A family fitness session was being planned for after Easter in 2026 and work was being done to reduce dog fouling. She also noted the work done to improve the parking around the shops and stated that it had given the area a facelift and improved safety.

Both Members thanked their Neighbourhood Officers, particularly Mandy Ardron, Andrea Peers and Kyley Taylor.

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked to what extent was the usage of all budgets related to the needs of the community or needs of upcoming elections?

Councillor A Carter stated that the spending had nothing to do with elections but simply that 2024 had been the start of a new cycle and new projects took time to plan.

Resolved: That the update report be noted.

To be moved by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Currie.

It was moved by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Currie that:

Summary/Background:

This Council understands that the Environment Agency undertook a permit variation of an historic permit “Watsons tip Droppingwell” in December 2016. Residents had always been aware of the reported Dangerous substances that were tipped into phase 1 of the site between 1958 and 1989, these substances were both in liquid and solid forms and included barrels of cyanide and various heavy metals from local steel production facilities. In 1989 it was also discovered that the site was also receiving medical waste and some of this was being discovered in the nearby aptly named “Sicley brook “this gave rise to a big concern around local environmental health risks and testing of the site lead to a public enquiry.

In 2016 the Environment agency supplied the names of two EA officers to a consultant working for Grange Landfill Ltd, who in their words “had done this before” and could help them get around the issues. The “issues” referred to related to the inability of the company to navigate a way around the legislation contained within the European landfill directive to allow the re-opening of the site due to its previous “toxic” history. We presume the officers obliged with the advice (no physical records of the meeting exist, only a note that phone calls took place) and in December 2016 the EA issued a variation without any public or local authority consultation.

The Permit variation was a substantial document and included 5 prerequisite actions required by the operator prior to the permit variation allowing the commencement of landfilling at the site. One of those prerequisites was the implementation of a QA assured ground water and gas monitoring regime that tested both phase1 and phase 2 of the site, something that should have been in place since 1978, however this had never been enforced. In January 2017 the site owner sunk 5 boreholes around the whole site and 4 boreholes directly into the waste mass in phase 1. During this process, a previous Councillor of this authority asked the contractors why they had removed themselves from the phase one site after drilling 3 of the 4 holes, he was told by the site foreman that, in the 9 acre site drilling with a 4 inch drill two of the holes had hit a “marzipan smell” this is the smell that Cyanide gives off, he also said that “they were not made aware of the site contents and didn’t bring any PPE for working on a contaminated site” after this conversation became public the site owner brought in a second contractor to complete the works and within 6 weeks the first contractor went into liquidation.

The material from these boreholes was left in a public area for several days, in clear plastic bags, before being sent for Lab testing. One of the boreholes BH5 was drilled outside of the permitted area on public land and on two occasions was accidentally destroyed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To be moved by Councillor Ball and seconded by Councillor Bacon.

It was moved by Councillor Ball and seconded by Councillor Bacon that:

This Council notes:

·       The brown bin garden waste collection service, for which residents pay an annual subscription fee, was suspended with immediate effect from early August 2025 due to a staff shortage, with disruptions continuing well beyond the initial end-of-August resumption date.

·       This suspension and subsequent delays have led to widespread inconvenience, with many subscribers unable to dispose of garden waste through the service they have paid for, forcing them to seek alternative disposal methods at significant personal cost, often exceeding the value of any proposed compensation.

·       The Council’s offer of a £10 refund or discount on next year’s subscription has been widely criticised as inadequate and insulting, failing to address the full extent of the disruption or the financial burden placed on residents.

·       These service failures have disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, including disabled residents who rely on the brown bin service for accessible waste management and have faced additional hardships in managing garden waste without it.

·       Public confidence in the leadership of the Council’s waste management service has been severely eroded, as evidenced by ongoing complaints and media coverage highlighting persistent issues.

This Council believes:

·       Subscribers to the brown bin service deserve fair treatment and full compensation for a service that has not been delivered as promised, rather than token gestures that do not reflect the true costs incurred by residents.

·       Waiving the subscription fees for the affected period is essential to restore trust in the Council’s ability to provide reliable public services and to prevent further alienation of ratepayers.

·       Continuing to charge full fees amid such disruptions undermines the principles of accountability and value for money expected from local government.

·       Prioritising resident welfare, particularly for disabled and vulnerable individuals, must be at the heart of any response to service failures, and that the current approach falls short of this standard.

This Council resolves to:

1.    Offer residents who subscribed to the 2025 brown bin garden waste service a waived subscription fee for the 2026 service, provided they take up the offer to continue their subscription in 2026, as compensation for issues experienced this year.

2.    Issue a public apology to affected residents, acknowledging the inadequacy of the £10 offer and the broader impacts of the service disruption.
 

3.    Conduct an independent review of the garden waste service incorporating feedback from residents, including disabled users and present these findings to the Executive for their consideration and decision on any subsequent actions.

4.    Explore options for enhancing support for vulnerable residents, such as assisted collections, to prevent similar disproportionate impacts in future.

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

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2) Councillor Ball had requested that a recorded vote should be taken on the proposed motion. Five Members stood to show their support for a recorded vote to be taken on the motion. The vote was as follows:

For (21): Councillors Bacon, Ball, Baum-Dixon, Bennett-Sylvester, Blackham, Bower, A. Carter,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

To be moved by Councillor Baum-Dixon and seconded by Councillor Z Collingham.

It was moved by Councillor Baum-Dixon and seconded by Councillor Z. Collingham that:

This Council believes:

Rotherham deserves a Council that values its rural communities as vital to the borough’s wellbeing, sustainability, and prosperity. By passing this motion, we commit to ensuring rural areas receive the attention and support they need to thrive.

This Council notes:

1.    That 70% of Rotherham is rural, providing vital space for recreation, wellbeing, and biodiversity, while being home to communities that face unique challenges in accessing services, infrastructure and protecting against rural crime.

2.    That the current system of determining eligibility for free school transport is based on distance measured "as the crow flies." While this system works in urban areas with direct links to schools, it disadvantages rural pupils who may live within distance catchment but have to travel significantly further due to indirect routes and lack of safe, direct paths.

3.    That rural communities are often poorly connected to public transport, impeding access to essential public services, including health and wellbeing services.
 

4.    That responsibility for public transport, particularly buses, now rests with the South Yorkshire Mayor, and that the Leader of the Council, in his role with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), should ensure the needs of rural communities are taken into account during the rollout of the new publicly owned transport system.

5.    That access to reliable 5G mobile phone service and high-speed internet is essential for rural residents and businesses, yet many areas, including parts of Rotherham, face significant connectivity gaps.

6.    That rural crime, including off-road bikes, cannabis cultivation and fly-tipping on farmland, leave many rural residents feeling unsafe and lead to financial hardship for landowners and damage to our environment. Effective and timely collaboration and deployment by South Yorkshire’s Rural and Off-Road Policing Team is vital in the fight against rural crime.

7.    That rural communities, particularly farmers, act as custodians of our environment, safeguarding wildlife, promoting sustainability, and leading efforts to combat climate change.

8.    That many family farms are asset-rich but cash-poor, with profitability often disconnected from land values. Such farms are at risk of forced sale due to Government reforms to Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR). The National Farmers Union (NFU) estimates that around 75% of working farms could be affected, with a typical cereal farm making a profit of £34,000 and being hit with ten annual tax instalments of £53,000, over 1.5 times its profits.

This Council resolves to:

1.    Develop a Rural Strategy for Rotherham, prioritising transport, digital access, healthcare, and economic opportunities tailored to rural needs.

2.    Work with, encourage, and facilitate the installation of 5G infrastructure in rural areas, like Woodsetts and Thorpe Hesley, while ensuring that culturally significant sites are respected.

3.    Ensure rural issues are considered in all Council policies and decisions at both borough-wide and local levels.

4.    Advocate for improved public transport access for rural areas, including public services and school routes, by working with SYMCA and the South Yorkshire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

To be moved by Councillor Baggaley and seconded by Councillor Duncan.

It was moved by Councillor Baggaley and seconded by Councillor Duncan that:

Summary/Background:

The proposal for a 750 MW solar farm across Rotherham and Doncaster is likely to be the first Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project to apply for planning permission in the local authority area. The motion calls on the developers to hear the concern of the community, withdraw their proposal, and significantly scale back any future proposals.

That this Council notes:

1.    Proposals for the Whitestone Solar Farm, which would stretch from Conisbrough in the north to Woodall in the South, a total area of 2,000 hectares, have recently completed their pre-statutory consultation phase. It would potentially be the largest solar farm operating in the United Kingdom.

2.    The proposal has already attracted significant local concerns. It would disrupt more than 60 rights of way, force significant traffic for construction and maintenance along narrow countryside roads, remove land from agricultural use, and alter the appearance and “landscape value” of miles of local countryside. It would be an impact on an historic scale.

3.    If developed as it is currently proposed, there is no clear benefit to local communities. Residents who would face the most direct consequences of the development are not currently expected to see any direct benefits to their energy bills, or local employment.

4.    The concern of residents about the nature of the consultation taken so far, which have been technical and abstract, with hard copies of materials only available at considerable expense to consultees.

Further notes:

1.    The objections made to the developers by all three Rotherham MPs, and by a cross-party group of local councillors, as well as a number of affected local parish councils.

2.    The January 2025 motion agreed by this council on a cross-party basis, which calls for solar panels on buildings to be prioritised over those in undeveloped countryside.

3.    The Leader of the Council has written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to express the concerns of the community that allowing a development free for all, rather than a managed process of solar farm expansion especially in more rural areas, will undermine support for the government’s Net Zero ambitions.

4.    Moreover, there is a risk that confidence in potentially more acceptable, smaller scale solar farm proposals is undermined by industrial scale proposals of this nature.

5.    The Whitestone proposal is not expected to make a formal application to the Planning system until May 2026 at which point it will be determined by the government as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

6.    That technical aspects of the Planning process, including production of a Local Impact Report, will be undertaken by the Council’s Planning officers. This process must be undertaken impartially, in line with the requirements of Planning rules, in order to protect the integrity of the process and the best interests of council tax payers. This work will be reported to the Planning Board on a quarterly basis, in accordance with the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To be moved by Councillor Tarmey and seconded by Councillor A Carter.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 15 (10) a period of no more than 90 minutes was permitted for the discussion of Notices of Motion. As consideration of this motion was after the 90 minute time limit, it was, in accordance with Procedure Rule 15 (11) moved, seconded and voted on without debate.

It was moved by Councillor Tarmey and seconded by Councillor A. Carter that:

This Council notes:

The Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system is under severe strain, with some families struggling to secure vital support. Children with SEND deserve the same opportunities as every child, including access to the support they need to thrive.

In December 2024 the Government introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, with the overall of better protecting children and raising standards in education. The Government also announced £740 million in new funding to support students with special educational needs and disabilities, and those needing alternative education within mainstream schools. Inclusion remains the overarching policy, so that as many our children and young people as possible are educated together with their peers in their own community.

Research commissioned by the Liberal Democrats has revealed that private equity–backed SEND providers are making over £100 million a year in profits, with some achieving margins of over 20%. Many of these companies are backed by firms registered in tax havens or foreign sovereign wealth funds.

Meanwhile, councils across the country face spiralling costs, severe budget pressures, and in some cases effective bankruptcy - leading to the reduction or withdrawal of vital services for vulnerable groups.

This Council welcomes:

1.    Government action to curb profiteering in children’s social care. Through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, it has introduced powers to cap the profits of providers of illegal or exploitative children’s homes, alongside enhancing financial transparency and greater enforcement by Ofsted.

2.    The Government review of the SEND and Alternative Provision systems.

This Council believes:

1.    Whilst there is potentially a role for some independent or private provision – profiteering from the needs of children with SEND is unacceptable and must end.

2.    Children with SEND are not commodities for profit and should never be treated as such.

3.    Resources must be directed into improving provision and outcomes for children, not into shareholder dividends or inflated executive pay.

4.    Local authorities should be supported to provide sustainable, high-quality inclusive SEND provision within both their mainstream and specialist settings; including by building and operating their own schools to accommodate those with the most complex needs if necessary.

Therefore, this Council resolves to:

1.    Call on the Government to eradicate profiteering by private SEND providers, including consideration of sanctions against providers, where necessary.

2.    Support further reforms to boost the SEND system, including strong financial oversight of providers, transparency, and new powers and funding for councils to build and manage local mainstream and specialist provision directly.

3.    Endorse the principle that SEND reforms must put children first - not corporate greed.

4.    Request group leaders to write to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

To note the minutes of the Cabinet Meetings held on 15^th September and 20^th October, 2025.

Consideration was given to the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of Cabinet held on 15th September 2025 and 20th October 2025.

Resolved:

That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of Cabinet held on 15th September 2025 and 20th October 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 Allen

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 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 Garnett                       Seconder: Councillor Steele

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 note receipt of the Standards and Ethics Committee meetings.

Resolved:

That the reports, recommendations and minutes of the meetings of the Standards and Ethics Committee be noted.

Mover: Councillor Clarke                        Seconder: Councillor Lelliott

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 was one question from Councillor Yasseen:

1.    Could the Spokesperson outline what action the Panel is taking, in partnership with South Yorkshire Police and other agencies, in light of survivor testimonies alleging that some serving police officers were involved in abusing victims during grooming investigations, and what assurances can be given to survivors that these claims are being fully investigated?

Councillor Harper, the designated Spokesperson on South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, stated that the Panel was deeply concerned by recent survivor testimonies alleging that serving officers within South Yorkshire Police might have been involved in the abuse of victims during grooming investigations.? These accounts were deeply distressing and represented a serious breach of public trust.

At the Police and Crime Panel meeting held on 15 September 2025, Members heard from the Deputy Mayor for Policing and were told that: 

·       A criminal investigation into any police involvement in the Rotherham grooming scandal based on claims in the media was already taking place, led by South Yorkshire Police (SYP) under the direction of the national watchdog – the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). 

·       In response to concerns from victims about the suitability of these arrangements there was a joint request by SYP and the IOPC for the National Crime Agency (NCA) to take over and continue the investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse by former SYP officers. Full responsibility for the investigation had now been handed over to the NCA. 

·       It was critical that victims and survivors felt heard, believed, and supported, and they must have confidence in the people and systems that were there to make sure justice was done. On this basis the transfer to the NCA was welcomed as an important acknowledgement of these concerns. 

The Panel received assurances that the Deputy Mayor would be keeping this situation under close review and would provide regular updates to the Police and Crime Panel. 

Councillor Harper encouraged anyone who had not yet come forward to do so; all experiences would be treated with the seriousness, dignity, and the care they deserved. 

Councillor Harper confirmed that he would pass on an update after the December 2025 meeting of the Panel via email if Councillor Yasseen wanted this.In her supplementary question, Councillor Yasseen confirmed that she did want these updates and Councillor Harper committed to provide them.

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 13 questions:

1.    Councillor Bacon: The invasion of thugs racing on the A57 is putting residents at risk - when will the Council finally act, implement a PSPO, put pressure on the police, and stamp this out before somebody dies?

Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, explained that the Council wanted to see the end of this type of criminal and anti-social use of vehicles and it understood the frustrations of residents that Councillor Bacon had raised. Officers continued to work with the Police and others, such as the retail outlets whose land was sometimes used, to prevent and deter the behaviour. At present, while a draft proposal had been considered, there were several factors that meant the Council were not currently pursuing a PSPO in this area.

Firstly Councillor Alam had been advised that in terms of the data needed to legally justify a PSPO, this did not exist or was not of sufficient quality. He therefore encouraged people to report these issues to the Police as often as they could when they witnessed them.

It was also important to note that many of the behaviours associated with vehicle nuisance could already be addressed using existing legislation and enforcement powers. There was a concern that a PSPO might not offer any additional capabilities beyond what was currently available.

Councillor Alam was happy to ask officers to meet with Cllr Bacon to discuss this in more detail.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon confirmed that he would be happy to meet with officers. He disputed the answer provided regarding PSPO’s not offering additional powers to the Police as they had been used across the Country where racing was a problem. He asked Councillor Alam, as an elected official, to tell officers that a PSPO needed to happen there. Data was not needed to know that hundreds of people were racing on the A57, putting lives at risk and impacting the fire station.

Councillor Alam confirmed that he would ask officers to meet with Councillor Bacon.

2.    Councillor Bacon: The council raised the cost of the brown bin service, it raised council tax, people are paying more and getting less from this service. Does the Council understand that this so-called 'refund' is insulting given the huge failure?

As the Cabinet Member, Councillor Marshall, was not at the meeting, a written response would be provided.

3.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please explain how tenants will be able to influence the selective licensing steering group in a way that is safe from the types of landlord coercion that we have witnessed throughout the consultation process?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained that the terms of reference for the stakeholder group had not yet been fully developed, but the importance of ensuring that tenants could participate in a way that was both meaningful and safe was recognised.

It was appreciated that some tenants could be uncomfortable expressing their views directly to landlords, or their representatives. The Council aimed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Any other public items which the Mayor determines are urgent.

There were no urgent items.