Agenda and minutes

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 June 2025 as a true and correct record of the proceedings and to be signed by the Chair.

Resolved: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 10 June 2025 be approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.

To receive declarations of interest from Members in respect of items listed on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest to report.

To receive questions relating to items of business on the agenda from members of the public or press who are present at the meeting.

The Chair advised that there were no members of the public or representatives of media organisations present at the meeting and there were no questions in respect of matters on the agenda.

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any part of the agenda.

The Chair advised that there were no items of business on the agenda that would require the exclusion of the press or public from the meeting.

To consider the report which presents a summary of the findings, alongside recommendations to enhance the quality and consistency of delivery, transparency of purpose, and overall impact of the Tenancy Health Check visits.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford introduced the report saying the review was conducted by the Tenant Scrutiny Panel as part of the Council’s broader tenant engagement strategy. It aligns with one of the five outcomes in the Council Plan that is ‘residents live well,’ by ensuring tenants were supported and their needs were understood.

The Cabinet Member for Housing emphasised three key reasons why tenant engagement is important, these were:

The Cabinet Member for Housing went on to note that the Council was undergoing an independent review of its tenant engagement practices by the Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS), a national tenant engagement expert. Results would be shared with the Commission once available.

The Housing and Estate Services Manager highlighted the following points:

• Explained that the Tenant Scrutiny Panel had selected the Tenancy Health Check process for review in April 2024.
• The review focused on the following aspects:
  • The purpose and scope of the visits.
  • How visits were arranged and conducted.
  • Communication clarity and tenant understanding.
  • Effectiveness in identifying any support needs and safeguarding issues.
  • Consistency across the housing officers and localities.
  • Frequency of visits and whether the four-year cycle was appropriate.
  • Review of the questions asked during visits to ensure they were fit for purpose.

• The methodology used during the review included:
  • Tenant surveys.
  • Benchmarking against other housing providers.
  • Officer interviews.
  • Case studies.

• The key findings from the review were:
  • The term “Tenancy Health Check” was misleading; many tenants thought it referred to physical health.
  • The name was changed to “Your Tenancy Review” to better reflect the visit’s purpose.

• Progress and Next Steps
  • An action plan was developed in response to the panel’s recommendations.

o   The plan would be monitored by the Tenant Scrutiny Panel, with regular updates from officers.

o   A follow-up report will be presented to the Commission in 12 months to track progress.

The Chair invited members of the Improving Places Select Commission (IPSC) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier.

Councillor Thorp asked if there were plans to install solar panels on council housing to reduce emissions? The Cabinet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider and endorse the outline schedule of scrutiny work for the 2025-2026 municipal year.

The Chair acknowledged that many members had submitted suggestions for the work programme via email, in response to Councillor Steele’s communication. The Chair explained that the suggestions were still being reviewed and collated, which was why they were not yet included in Commissions work programme. The Chair confirmed that once reviewed, the suggestions would be brought back to the Commission for discussion.

The Governance Manager then introduced the work programme report and noted the following.

School Road Safety Review Update:

• A meeting had taken place with:
  • Councillors Cusworth, Williams, and Tinsley, the Interim Head of Transportation Infrastructure and the Assistant Director of Property and Facilities Services
• The meeting aimed to align the Commission’s review with Cabinet’s interest in the same topic.
• It was agreed that the Commission would continue its own review independently.
• Therefore, a new meeting of the working group would be convened to revisit the original motion and clarify the scope and direction of the review.
• The membership of the working group was to be reviewed as the previous members were Councillors Baggaley, Beck, Thorpe, Tinsley, and Stables. It was noted that Councillor Baggaley was no longer a member of the Commission.

At this point, Councillor Jones volunteered to join the group. Councillor Jones recommended involving a representative from SYMCA (South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority) in the review, since much of the funding for road safety work came from that body. The Chair agreed and said they would look into identifying a suitable contact.

The Chair expressed frustration that the Housing Strategy 2025–2028 was not ready for consideration as expected, noting that the delay was only communicated a few days before the agenda was due to be published.

Once the Housing Strategy 2025–2028 was ready for consideration the Chair proposed to hold an online workshop, potentially during August where officers would present the strategy and take questions. Any recommendations would be formally submitted for consideration at the September meeting.

The Chair explained that this was the preferred approach as the September meeting already had a full agenda, including Selective Licensing, which was expected to take significant time. Members agreed with the proposed approach and the Chair confirmed that members would receive an email to confirm availability for the online session.

Resolved:  That the update on the Work Programme be received and noted.

To consider any item which the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chair advised that there were no urgent items of business requiring the Commission’s consideration.

Councillor Allen referred to an item listed for the upcoming 2 September 2025 IPSC meeting titled: “Plan for Neighbourhoods (Long Term Plan for Towns)”. Councillor Allen welcomed the inclusion of a place-based improvement item but expressed confusion over the terminology and queried if the focus was on “neighbourhoods” as currently defined by the Council or was it on “towns” such as Wath, Dinnington, Maltby, and Swinton?

Councillor Allen requested clarity on how this item fitted into the broader strategic planning framework and suggested that the Commission be shown how various regeneration and improvement plans (e.g. town centre masterplans, Our Places Fund) fitted together like a jigsaw.  Councillor Allen also asked that the funding sources for each plan be included in the September presentation to help members understand the full picture.

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained that the item’s dual title reflected a rebranding by central government, indicating that the original programme was called the “Long Term Plan for Towns”, and was launched in 2023. He noted that Rotherham was one of 75 towns awarded £20 million over 10 years for regeneration. The programme was paused in July 2024 following the general election and was relaunched in 2025 as the “Plan for Neighbourhoods”.

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment noted that the scope remained the same: focused on town centres and surrounding areas. The Council needed to submit a spending proposal by November 2025, with Cabinet approval expected that month. The September IPSC meeting would be used to scrutinise the draft plan. 

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment agreed with Councillor Allen’s suggestion and committed to including:

·       An opening slide showing how all regeneration programmes and funding streams fit together.

·       A clear explanation of the strategic framework and funding sources.