Agenda and minutes

To consider and approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 21 October 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 21^st October 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.

Councillor Sheppard declared a personal interest in Minute No. 38 (Annual Bereavement Services Update) on the grounds of being the former Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for this Service within the last 12 months.

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 invited members of the public present to read out their questions.

(1)  From Mr. A. Azam – regarding the Annual Bereavement Services Update. The following questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting via email.

Within the Council's Annual Report can the following points be clarified :

• Section 2.5 Is Valley View part of the long-term strategic expansion of Herringthorpe Cemetery Yes or No ?
• Section 2.0 Can the council confirm that a Pathologist is available to undertake a review of the report 5 days a week.
• Section 2.0 As part of the metrics can you add the following:
  • % Report reviewed and submitted to Coroner's Office the same day as autopsy undertaken for expedited requests.
  • % acceptance of report by Coroner's office
• SIP Point 1, sub 1.2 Can the Council Share a copy of this digital guidance.
• SIP Point 3, Sub 3.6 is not needed, we already have engagement with Dignity and formal meeting is what is required, with all parties.
• SIP Point 4, Sub 4.5, paperwork to be submitted by 3pm. As a SIP why can't we undertake burials 365 days a year, other councils provide this service. Outside of this SIP where is all of this documented?
• SIP Point 9, Sub 9.1 can you confirm correct dates when compared with Point 3 sub 3.1
• General SIP Why are certain tasks red when due date isn’t until 31/12/2026?

The Chair advised Mr Azam that he would receive a formal written response to his questions but invited him to make any statement he wished to. Mr Azam took the opportunity to publicly thank Phil Horsfield, Assistant Director of Legal, Elections & Registration Services (Assistant Director) and Kim Phillips, Rotherham Business Leader, Dignity Funerals Limited (Dignity Business Leader) for their hard work and commitment in driving the Bereavement Service forward, which, Mr Azam felt, had greatly benefitted those within Muslim community who had suffered bereavements in the past year.

Mr Azam further went on to briefly summarise the issues raised within his questions and drew particular attention to the fact that there was already a “Friends of East Herringthorpe” group that the Muslim community worked with and that the separate Muslim “Friends of” group suggested at 3.6 of the Council’s Key Improvement Recommendations was neither necessary nor desired. Similarly, Mr Azam felt it was unnecessary to label the quarterly “Muslim Bereavement Liaison Meetings” which take place as “Muslim”, when all parties and communities joined together to discuss matters at these meetings.

Mr Azam further requested that an update be provided from Dignity with regard to the current status of Phase 2 of the expansion of the Muslim burial section within the East Herringthorpe cemetery.

Councillor Beresford, the Cabinet Member for Housing, thanked Mr Azam for his questions and confirmed that a written response to them would be provided by Bereavement Services.

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.

1)    To receive an update on the Council’s Bereavement Services cemetery chapels, digital autopsy contract, boundary and capital works and management of the contract between the Council and Dignity Funerals Limited (Dignity); and

2)    To provide a performance update on the contractual agreement between Dignity and the Council for 2024-25.

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Beresford, introduced the item and commented that Bereavement Services provided a vital service for all residents of Rotherham, supporting residents through difficult times to say goodbye and remember their loved ones. Councillor Beresford explained that Members would hear from both parts of Bereavement Services – an update from Dignity who were responsible for operational delivery under a 35-year contract with the Council, and an update from the Council on management of the contract with Dignity Funerals Limited (Dignity) and the retained services and assets under Council control.

Councillor Beresford alerted Members that details of Dignity’s fee increase for the year 2026-2027 had been expected in advance of the meeting but that this information had not been forthcoming. Councillor Beresford expressed disappointment at this delay and expected Members to request that this information be provided to them, once available.

Bal Nahal, Head of Legal Services (Head of Legal) provided a summary of the Council’s Annual Bereavement Services Update Report and drew Members’ attention to the following points of note:

·       Dignity was required to provide annual assurance to the Council that key performance targets were being met and service improvements were being made. The Council held monthly meetings with Dignity and would escalate matters where necessary. A performance management framework was used to monitor performance which was updated after every meeting with Dignity and Members could request sight of this for visual insight into the Council’s management of the contract with Dignity.

·       Using this framework, financial penalties were levied to Dignity where there had been performance failures and in 2024-2025, a total of £107,580 of financial penalties were imposed on Dignity.

·       The Council had been expecting to receive Dignity’s draft schedule of fees for the forthcoming financial year by 1 December 2025 but had been informed that it would not be available until 31 December 2025. As it could not be presented to Members at this meeting, the Head of Legal suggested that a recommendation be made by Members for the confirmation of Dignity’s fees to be brought back to the Improving Places Select Commission (IPSC).

·       With regard to the proposed expansion of burial sites at Wath Cemetery, Dignity had previously assured the Council that work would commence once planning permission had been granted, which was in October 2023. However, works were still yet to commence. Dignity had confirmed that works were due to begin at the start of 2026 and the Head of Legal pointed out that the relevant planning permission would expire in October 2026.

·       Dignity had a phased plan in place to develop increased availability of plots at East Herringthorpe Cemetery, and works were underway to extend the availability of the Muslim burial section.

·       There were a number of disused cemetery chapels in varying state of disrepair within Council-retained cemeteries. The findings of an asset management review of these buildings would be added to a paper which would be presented to the Strategic Asset Management Board in the 2026-27 financial year. The Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

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

The Governance Advisor introduced the work programme report and drew Members’ attention to the following developments:

·       School Road Safety Review:

Two further meetings of this Review group had taken place with officers in Highways at RMBC and an officer from Sheffield City Council, who had been involved in implementing a School Streets scheme. The group would be moving on to look at crossing patrol and enforcement and hoped to make contact with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority.

·       Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Workshop – 4 December 2025

The ASB workshop had taken place on 4^th December 2025 and was a very useful and insightful workshop which allowed Members the opportunity to ask questions of a number of Officers who worked within Housing across the borough.

The Housing team delivered a very informative presentation, covering topics such as: what does and doesn’t constitute ASB; the legal position under the Council’s tenancy agreement; what tools and powers were available to tackle ASB; and service KPI data and customer feedback. Input was also provided from the Community Protection Unit, which worked closely with Housing Officers on tackling ASB.

Members also took part in a breakout Case Study group session where Members and Officers worked together through real-life scenarios and were able to discuss the particular complexities of each case and valuable lessons learnt. Feedback from the session was that both Members and Officers found it very useful to consider each other’s experiences and the session could be rolled out further to wider Members.

·       Markets/Library Redevelopment Site Visit (joint with OSMB)

This visit had been planned for 10 December 2025 but had to be rescheduled due to the timing of key works on site during that week which made visits impossible. It was hoped to reschedule this visit for the end of January/beginning of February 2026 and those IPSC members who were due to attend would report back on findings.

·       Municipal Year 2026-2027

The Governance team were working to set dates for the calendar of meetings for the next municipal year (2026-2027) and it was felt that this would be a good opportunity to conduct a survey of IPSC Members as to the future timing of meetings. The Governance Advisor advised that a Microsoft Forms survey would be sent out to collate responses so that preferences could be considered when planning future meetings.

The Chair asked Members to consider as part of the survey, whether Members felt that IPSC were conducting effective scrutiny and also, whether a formal pre-meet should be structured into the meeting schedule. Councillor Lelliott commented that in her view, a pre-meet should take place to allow Members to get into the detail of the items prior to the meetings. However, Councillor Allen felt that pre-meets were not necessary and would not suit everyone’s way of working when reviewing papers prior to meetings.

Councillor Lelliott commented that the schedule substantive item within the Work Programme on Children’s Capital of Culture, should be undertaken as a full review of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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.