Agenda and minutes

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 24 July 2024 and to approve them as a true and correct record of the proceedings and to be signed by the Chair.

In relation to the previous minutes on the 24 July 2024, it was agreed by the Chair that the minutes on page 20 in relation to the Dennington project, be amended to state that it was critical for the completion of the project to have been finished by the end of the first quarter, 2026.

Resolved: That the minutes with the noted amendments of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on the 24 July 2024 were approved as a true record.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

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

There were no questions from the members of the public and press.

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

There are no items on the agenda to exclude the public and the press.

Report from the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Note the current General Fund Revenue Budget forecast overspend of £6.1m.

2.    Note that actions will continue to be taken to reduce the overspend position but that it is possible that the Council will need to draw on its reserves to balance the 2024/25 financial position.

3.    Note the updated position of the Capital Programme, including proposed capital programme variations to expenditure profiles and funding.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities introduced the report and explained that the report set out the Council’s financial position as of July 2024, with an estimated overspend of £6.1 million for the financial year.

This was largely due to demand which had put additional pressures on children’s placements, adult social care packages, and home to school transport as well as the expected impact of the Local Government Pay Awards.

In addition, the Council had been impacted by inflationary pressures within the economy. Whilst the actual overspend of £17 million was concerning, it was stated that elements of the overspend had been forecasted and the two key budget contingencies were created as part of setting the Council’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy for 2024/25. The Council had set Social Care contingency of £3.4 million and a Corporate Budget Provision of £3.5million to support anticipated pressures across social care and home to school transport. The Cabinet Member explained that detailed review work of those services had begun, and operating improvements had been made to reduce cost pressures and create avoidance in further overspend.

The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy had continued to perform well as a result of the Councils’ approach to borrowing, which had been adapted to minimise its level of borrowing. Members were informed that this position had improved due to reprofiling of the capital programme delivery, which had pushed back the requirement to borrow more. It had been estimated that this would support the Council to generate savings of at least £4 million, however, Members were informed there was still a possibility that this figure could change due to market conditions which were beyond the Council’s control.

As a result of the corporate provision and savings, an underspend of £10.9 million had been forecasted within Central Services bringing the Council's net overspend to down to £6.1 million. The Overview and Scrutiny Manager Board (OSMB) was told that uncertainty still remained within the local government sector beyond the 2024/ 25 budgets, in relation to further allocation funding beyond one year. It was acknowledged that the financial challenges faced by the Council were the same challenges faced by other the councils across the country, with some local authorities even being issued with section 114 notices.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for this overview and then invited the Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services, Judith Badger to provide some further context. The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services felt it was important to emphasise the various budget contingencies put in place at budget setting, which were there as some overspend was expected.

OSMB was informed that while some of the overspends were expected, it was important to consider the context of why they had occurred. This was illustrated by an example in relation to the placement pressure on Children and Young People's services which had been managed through a long-term plan which had been in place for several years. This plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

1. To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Town Centre and Clifton Park Public Spaces Protection Order.

2. To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Borough wide Public Spaces Protection Order specifically dealing with dog fouling and control.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities explained that The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) provided powers to introduce PSPO’s in order to prevent individuals or groups committing anti-social behaviour (ASB) in public spaces.

The current Town Centre/Clifton Park Protection Order and the Borough-Wide Dog Fouling Protection Order were renewed in January for a period of twelve months. The Town Centre/Clifton Park Protection Order contained a number of conditions linked to anti-social behaviour whereas the Borough-Wide Dog Fouling Protection Order dealt with dog fouling.

The report proposed consultation would take place with established stakeholders to seek their views in relation to both PSPO’s and gain support for future designation, which would be sought regarding the conditions not included in the order. The number of complaints related to dog fouling across the borough had steadily increased, and anti-social behaviour continued to be a concern. He also informed members that inconsiderate and rowdy behaviour had been the most prevalent form of anti-social behaviour and had increased further in Quarter 1 of 2024/25 compared to the previous year.

The Cabinet Member explained that several powers that could be used against individuals committing anti-social behaviour, and the PSPO would serve as an additional tool. The town centre, considered part of the Council’s regeneration programme which included Forge Island, required available tools to address anti-social behaviour to ensure the successful completion of the projects. Members were informed that the consultation would take place over a few weeks and would involve engagement with key stakeholders including elected members, businesses, partners, and the public.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene informed members that, as indicated in the report, it was part of the legal process for introducing Public Space Protection Orders(PSPO). Public Space Protection Orders gave authorised officers, whether police or council officers, the power to take certain things against individuals committing criminal offences.

Members were informed that PSPOs could only be implemented where specific legal thresholds had been met, as detailed in the legal section of the report. However, PSPO’s could only be introduced where activities were carried out in a public place or were likely to impact the quality of life for those in that particular area. Furthermore, the behaviours must be persistent or continuing in nature and sufficient to justify the conditions proposed within the order. The report indicated that the Council was satisfied that these initial thresholds had been met and that the consultation was a legal necessity. The matter would then go for public consultation before being submitted back to Members to seek permission to introduce orders in the future.

Councillor Joshua Bacon asked a question on behalf of Councillor Tinsley, who had provided his apologies for the meeting. He enquired, whether in addition to the dog fouling PSPO, if any consideration be given to other borough-wide PSPO, such as protecting life-saving equipment. He asked if there could be a PSPO for Rotherham’s parks, such as Rother Valley, to deter swimming and stipulate that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

For OSMB to consider the outcomes from the Improving Lives Select Commissions spotlight review on preparation for adulthood, in relation to children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

The Chair explained to members that this agenda item had been a scrutiny review, which had been carried out by the previous Improving Lives Select Commission (ILSC) and was a review of adults and children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, known as SEND.

The Chair informed Members that the Chair of ILSC (Councillor Pitchley) was unable to attend to present the report.  However, the Joint Assistant Director for Commissioning & Performance and the Assistant Director for Adult Care and Integrationwere present at the meeting to answer any questions from Members in relation to the review.

The Chair explained that once the report had been considered by Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB), it would then be considered by Cabinet who had an eight-week period to respond back to the OSMB. The Chair then asked if members if they had any questions or comments in relation to the report.

Councillor Yasseen stated that she had been involved in the spotlight review at some stage and had contributed to the report. She felt it was crucial for Cabinet to understand this situation, given the previous discussion around the Council’s overspend and weekly expenditure for Rotherham’s Children in Care.

Councillor Yasseen raised her uncertainty as why Rotherham had such a high percentage of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) compared to the national average and other councils such as Barnsley, Doncaster, and Sheffield. She felt that this report did not provide clarity on the issue. Additionally, Councillor Yasseen was concerned that the long-term implications for Rotherham, particularly around the school-to-home transport service. She stated that a higher number of SEND children would contribute to increased transport costs and affect transition services into adult social care. She suggested that there should be an academic inquiry or a commissioned report from scrutiny to better understand why Rotherham had such high prevalence of SEND pupils, as this could lead to further overspend for years to come.

The Joint Assistant Director for Commissioning & Performance stated that the area raised by Councillor Yaseen would be more relevant to an independent inquiry from the service. However, she informed Members that it had not been in the scope for this particular review to consider why Rotherham had such high SEND numbers. She apologised for being unable to provide a response to the question at the moment.

Councillor Yasseen was concerned that as this report would go to Cabinet it did not include any in-depth investigation as to why Rotherham was an outlier which should have been considered within the report. She believed to really understand the reasons behind such high figures there should be an academic piece of work undertaken if there was not the right expertise in Children’s Services. Councillor Yasseen stated that as these young people entered into transition services there would be a greater impact on the system, which would result in a greater overspend for the Council. She proposed that an additional recommendation should be submitted to Cabinet, in addition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To consider the annual update on activities and outcomes achieved in respect of Overview and Scrutiny during the 2023/24 municipal year.

The Chair introduced the Scrutiny Annual Report 2023/2024 and confirmed that this was on the agenda for Overview & Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) and would be going to Full Council on 11 September and would be presented by the Chair and Vice-Chair, Councillor Bacon.

No comments or questions were raised, and the Chair thanked Members for their consideration of this report.

Resolved:  That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1.    Noted the Scrutiny Annual Report 2023/24; and

2.    Noted that the Scrutiny Annual Report 2023/24 was being presented to Council on 11 September 2024.

To consider the Board’s Work Programme.

The Board considered its Work Programme which was attached for members information and was related to a previous workshop held at the beginning of August. Members at this workshop had discussed and reviewed the work programme which represented all the Scrutiny Commissions as well as Overview & Scrutiny Management Boards (OSMB) own work programme. The Chair then invited Members for any comments or questions relating to the work programme.

Councillor McKiernan commented that in relation to the Improving Places Select Commission there had been some disappointment from Councillor Jones as this Commission would not be reviewing the Grounds Maintenance Policy but instead this would fall to OSMB. Councillor McKiernan accepted that it was a decision that already had been taken and it had gone to OSMB for the reasons in relation to grass cutting. However, Councillor Jones expressed that he had hoped to look at the overall Grounds Maintenance Policy and just asked then OSMB would themselves, look at the whole policy and not just the aspect of grass cutting within that policy.

The Chair stated that if OSMB had done the full resolution which had not been submitted to Full Councilthe process would have taken two years to have done a full this review. Following discussions with the Vice Chair of OSMB and officers, it was agreed that the best approach would be for OSMB to look at just the grass cutting section. However, the Chair reiterated that any Member could put themselves forward as part of a working party which would look at this area.

Resolved: - That the Work Programme be approved.

To receive updates from the Chairs of the Select Commission on work undertaken and planned for the future.

The Chair asked Councillor Kennan to provide a progress update on work by the Health Select Commission.

Councillor Kennan explained that the agenda for the Health Select Commission (HSC) would include the Annual Report from TRFT, which was the Rotherham Hospital, and they would also receive an introduction and overview from Healthwatch, Their work programme also included Place Partners ‘Winter Planning,’ Adult Social Care Update and the Director of Public Health Annual Report.

In addition to this the HSC were also looking at new ways of dealing with some of the other issues that had come up for consideration, such as Menopause and Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights. The Commission would be also working in a very dynamic way with Council’s partners such as Rotherham United Community Sports Trust and RDaSH.

It was hoped that HSC would undertake reviews as well as conducting workshops. In addition, the Commission would explore a new topic to its work programme ‘Veterans' Mental Health and GP Practices.’ Councillor Keenan informed Members that this had originated from the Armed Forces Covenant Working Group which involved collaborative work with the veterans from the Covenant Group and would be brought into the Commission. Another topic was Physical Activity for Health (Sport England).

Councillor Keenan noted that she has had incredible support from the Governance Officer who was supporting this Commission and allowed HSC to approach reviewing important topics in a unique way. She explained that instead of reviewing items scrutiny would be done in a more interactive way through workshops and other interactive methods.

Councillor Keenan noted that it was an exciting programme for the Commission over the next included variety of interesting topics including ‘Sleep Pathways’ which would be a forthcoming report. Councillor Keenan then offered an open invitation to Members for them to attend HSC meetings if they were interested in any of the areas discussed.

Councillor McKiernan then proceeded to discuss the work programme for Improving Places Commission (IPSC) but noted that due to the General Election there had been some delays with meetings which had been frustrating for its Commission members. However, they were looking forward to their future meetings and their new work programme.

Councillor McKiernan confirmed that the upcoming IPSC meeting in October, would focus on the ‘Section 19 Flood’, which he believed would be an interesting area. He mentioned that he would be inviting external partners that contributed to the report so they could be questioned as part of this review.

Councillor McKiernan acknowledged the significance of this topic as it was an area that affected the entire borough. However, he noted that this review would only focus on the areas highlighted within the report and asked Commission Members to suggest who they should invite to the meeting to discuss ‘Section 19 Flood’.

Councillor McKiernan then stated that the next item for the Commission would be ‘Flood Alleviation’ which had been delayed due to the ‘Section 19 Flood’ which needed earlier considered given its importance when there could be considerable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To review and identify items for pre-decision scrutiny from the Forward Plan of Key Decisions covering the period from 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2024.

The Board considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2024, which had been circulated along with the OSMB’s papers.

He informed members that this was a standard item on the agenda and asked if members had any questions relating to it. He reaffirmed that the Forward Plan and Key Decisions could also be used to identify future areas for review by any of the Commissions.

Resolved: - That the Forward Plan be noted.

To consider any issues referred for call-in from recent Cabinet meetings.

There were no call-in issues.

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

There were no urgent items.