Agenda and draft minutes

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 5 February 2025 and 12 March 2025 and to approve them as a true and correct record of the proceedings and to be signed by the Chair.

Resolved: - That the Minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 5 February 2025 and 12 March 2025, be 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 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.

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

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

The Chair advised there were no items on the agenda requiring the exclusion of the press or public.

A 15-minute question and answer session with the Leader of the Council on matters relating to his portfolio.

The Chair invited questions from members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to the Leader of the Council, and the following were noted:

1. Could you justify the decision made at the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SY MCA) to allocate £496 million of City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements (CRSTS) funding to Sheffield trams – given that this overwhelmingly benefited Sheffield residents, offered only slight benefit to Rotherham, and that CRSTS money was usually split equally among constituent authorities – when that funding might have been better spent on improving transport links to the rural villages in Rotherham?

The Leader explained that, although the decision fell outside his SY MCA portfolio, the £496 million investment was justified because allowing the tram system to fail would have been disastrous for South Yorkshire. It was emphasised that the tram was a regional asset – owned by the SY MCA – even though it operated mainly in Sheffield. He explained that supporting a strong central city benefited the entire region and that letting the tram collapse would have been a step backward – especially when other cities were investing in light rail. He concluded that the funding met South Yorkshire’s shared obligations.

2. In light of concerns regarding the tram’s status as a regional asset, and given that the government intended to enhance rather than reverse the scrutiny protocol, why did the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) delay its full implementation of the protocol?

The Leader had outlined that public transport, including the tram system, should not have been treated solely as a commercial venture, as it provided essential services for those who relied on it, particularly in areas where private transport was not an option. The Leader drew a parallel with franchising bus services, which also required subsidies to ensure accessibility. It was emphasised that public transport, whether buses or trams, was a public good that always needed government support, with the focus being on determining the appropriate level of subsidy and its allocation. Regarding the scrutiny protocol, it was confirmed that it had been implemented, with the only outstanding issue being the allowances for members of the scrutiny committee.

3. If the tram system was considered a South Yorkshire asset, did that mean Sheffield would have been subsidising the tram station at Magna?

The Leader explained that all tram assets, including the new stop at Magna and the park and ride at Parkgate, were considered South Yorkshire assets. Therefore, they were funded from the same pool of money as the Supertram assets, with Rotherham also having a bus station in a similar context.

4. Do you believe there was a conflict of interest in your role as both the Leader of Council and the Chair of the South Yorkshire Transport Committee, where you signed off on funding for cycling lanes that were decided locally in Rotherham?

The Leader stated that he did not believe there was a conflict of interest. It was explained that, while each leader represented an area within South Yorkshire,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Report from the Assistant Chief Executive.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet agree:

1. That provisional allocations of the Household Support Fund Grant of £4.387m be made as follows:
   1. £2.687m for food vouchers to children eligible for free school meals for school holidays up to and including Easter 2026.
   2. £950k towards the estimated costs of the Council’s Local Council Tax Support Top Up Scheme.
   3. £500k to support applications from households for assistance with energy costs, through the Council’s Energy Crisis Support Scheme.
   4. £90k to provide additional financial support to care leavers.
   5. £60k to local voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations to support vulnerable households over Christmas / New Year through a supplement to the Crisis Support service level agreement.
   6. £100k to provide parcels of household items to be distributed through VCS support.

2. Delegate authority to the Assistant Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader, to determine revised and final allocations for the Household Support Grant. This will include provision for other eligible actions within the use of Household Support Fund should it not be possible to achieve full spend of the grant through the approved options.

Consideration was given to the update introduced by Councillor Chris Read, the  Leader of the Council, regarding the Household Support Fund allocation for 2025/26. Members were informed that this was expected to be the final year of the Household Support Fund in its current form, following its initial launch in 2021. The fund for the coming year was just short of £4.4 million. The fund was intended to support vulnerable households with the cost of living. Some of the previous rules had been removed, such as the requirement to spend at least 50% of the funding on families with children and another rule that required spending a certain amount on pensioners. With these rules no longer in place, there was greater flexibility in how the funds could be allocated.

The proposal was to continue with the schemes that had been successful in the past. This included allocating nearly £2.7 million for free school meals holiday vouchers, which provided support to eligible children during school holidays. Another £950,000 was proposed for the council tax support top-up scheme, which would be supplemented with reserves to ensure continued support for working-age households. Approximately 14,000 households benefited directly from this scheme. Half a million pounds were designated for the energy crisis grants, which offered £250 grants to households facing energy challenges. These grants had an open application process and were not means-tested, allowing people from all income levels to apply, as energy challenges affected more than just low-income households.

An additional £90,000 was allocated to support care leavers, with a particular responsibility to assist this group. £60,000 was spent on the Christmas hamper scheme, in collaboration with Voluntary Action Rotherham (VAR), which had gone out to hundreds of families, mainly through the food bank network. Finally, £100,000 was set aside for items such as sanitary products, shampoos, soaps, and other essential goods for food banks – items that might be too expensive for some families to obtain otherwise.

In summary, the goal was to balance the allocation of funds between providing direct financial support to those already identified as being in financial hardship – such as those receiving free school meals and council tax support – and offering an open application process for the energy crisis grants, which recognised that financial challenges could impact people in a variety of circumstances.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier.

Councillor Steele queried whether the amount allocated through vouchers for children was sufficient, particularly in light of rising inflation and the current value of money.

The Leader explained that there was a rationale for the current amount, as it was linked to the value of free school meals. The intention was to provide a continuation of the support children received during term time into the school holidays. However, he noted that in his personal view, this level of support was unlikely to be sufficient for a comfortable standard of living for families  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:-

1. Approve acceptance of the Council’s indicative allocation of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazer funding to deliver activity targeted at implementing an integrated employment, skills and health system.

2. Approve use of the funding to manage the programme, commission community-based engagement activity, and personalised support (to include flexible support budgets), activate employers to create job opportunities for participants, pay for additional staff salaries (within RiDO, Employment Solutions and for other Pathways to Work roles within the Council) and cover miscellaneous costs.

3. Delegate authority to the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy and the Section 151 Officer to determine detailed use of the grant or make any subsequent amendments to the proposed budget allocations.

Consideration was given to the report introduced by Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, and Tim O’Connell, Service Manager, regarding the Economic Inactivity Trailblazer programme. Members were informed that South Yorkshire had been selected as one of the national pilot areas for this initiative, aimed at addressing economic inactivity and supporting individuals back into employment through coordinated, targeted support.

Councillor Taylor reflected on the initial launch of the Pathways to Work Commission report the previous summer, describing the potential of the programme as highly aspirational. He noted that while it had been known for some time that South Yorkshire would serve as a trailblazer, clarity on the operational framework only emerged following a recent government announcement. He commended the report’s author for the significant work done to date and emphasised the ambitious targets ahead, alongside the opportunity to make a meaningful difference in residents’ lives.

The Service Manager provided an overview of the issue, explaining that an ageing UK population, a persistently high number of economically inactive individuals, and increasing job vacancies had created a growing mismatch in the labour market. In Rotherham, approximately 40,000 people had been economically inactive for several years. He highlighted that many of these individuals, despite not actively seeking employment, had indicated in prior research that they would prefer to work under the right conditions. The reasons behind economic inactivity were identified as complex and varied, ranging from caring responsibilities and education to long-term health conditions. The Trailblazer programme sought to address these barriers by unifying existing support systems such as NHS Growth Accelerator, Department for Work and Pensions support, and a forthcoming programme titled Connect to Work. The aim was to deliver personalised assistance, collaborate with employers on sustainable workplace changes, integrate data to drive effective intervention, and ultimately grow the local workforce.

It was reported that across South Yorkshire, the initiative aimed to help approximately 2,000 people secure employment, including 420 individuals in Rotherham. In addition, the programme sought to prevent around 950 people from becoming economically inactive. While acknowledging the difficulty and ambition of the project, officers emphasised the significance of the opportunity and requested the Council’s support in accepting the grant and proceeding with implementation.

Following the introduction of the report, the Chair invited further clarification regarding the allocation and use of the Trailblazer grant. In response, it was explained that the funding would initially be received by the SY MCA, which would then distribute the allocated amounts to local authorities. Rotherham’s allocation was confirmed to be approximately £1.7 million.

The grant would be used to support several key elements of the programme. This included the establishment of a system service manager function within the local authority to coordinate and improve integration across support services. Funding would also be allocated to provide personalised employment support. It was noted that Rotherham already operated a successful employment support service, Employment Solutions, and the grant would allow for the expansion of this provision as well as the development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendation:

That Cabinet approve the draft Licensing Act Statement of Licensing Policy attached to this report as Appendix 1 for consultation in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.

Consideration was given to the report introduced by Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, and Alan Pogorzelec, Service Manager, regarding the Statement of Licensing Policy. It was noted that the policy formed part of the cyclical review process and sought to align the current licensing framework with previously adopted taxi policy decisions. Members were informed that the borough’s existing taxi licensing policies had been widely regarded as some of the most effective in the country, offering high levels of public protection. The revised Statement of Licensing Policy aimed to bring other areas of licensing in line with the ethos and ambition established through those prior decisions.

Further detail was provided on the scope and intent of the proposed policy. Members were informed that the policy took an ambitious approach, mirroring the borough’s leading stance on taxi licensing. While the Licensing Act 2003 policy had previously adhered strictly to statutory requirements, this revision demonstrated a broader vision, aiming to enhance local standards and outcomes.

It was noted that the report had been presented at a previous meeting, but issues had arisen regarding the completeness of the documentation. In particular, key appendices had been omitted at the time. Members’ attention was therefore drawn to the appendices included in the current report – specifically Appendices F, G and H – which contained significant additions and revisions, highlighted in yellow for clarity. The main body of the policy remained largely unchanged, save for updates reflecting legislative amendments and minor procedural refinements. However, the appendices contained more substantial changes. Appendix F detailed policies related to the licensing objectives, Appendix G detailed premises specific policies, while Appendix H introduced measures concerning environmental best practices, women's safety, and the implementation of core operating hours. Additional clarification had also been provided throughout the document concerning the management of large-scale events.

Additionally, it was informed that while the management of large events was not new at the national level, it represented an emerging area of focus within the borough. Reference was made to the success of the Reyton’s concert in Clifton Park, which had sparked further interest in hosting similar events locally. The policy therefore included provisions aimed at facilitating well-managed, responsible large events, including those at Wentworth Woodhouse and Hooton Lodge.

In conclusion, it was emphasised that the revised policy struck a careful balance. While ensuring the effective implementation of the Council’s responsibilities under the Licensing Act, it also supported economic development by avoiding an overly restrictive or bureaucratic approach. Members welcomed the ambition and considered the policy a positive step forward for licensing across the borough.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier.

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification on how current licence holders would be informed of the proposed changes to the Statement of Licensing Policy. Concern was expressed that simply issuing the updated policy may not be sufficient and that additional steps should be taken to ensure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

To consider the Board’s Work Programme.

The Board considered its Work Programme and received the following updates:

·       Spotlight review into life-saving equipment - This review was still in the early stages, with further information being obtained to understand the work already undertaken as part of the ‘Open Water Safety Meetings’.

• Regarding the Grass Cutting / Grounds Maintenance review – A date was being sourced for the initial meeting to be held.

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 of the Improving Places Select Commission (IPSC) reported that the Commission had recently considered topics such as, the Bereavement Services Annual Report, Flooding Alleviation Update, Thriving Neighbourhoods Annual Report, an overview of the portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Finance & Safe and Clean Communities, Consideration of the outline plan of the planned trainline extension to Waverley and Parkgate (Mainline station proposal, considering any potential impacts, the tenant Scrutiny report: How Rotherham Council supports new tenants and the Climate Emergency Annual Report 2025.

The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board would be conducting a spotlight review on Grass Cutting and Ground Maintenance, members of IPSC would be invited to join the review.

The initial scoping information for the School Road Safety working group was being sought and collated.  Similar work was being undertaken by officers within the Council so discussions were taking place to determine how this could be linked, to avoid duplication of work.

The workshop to review the findings of the consultation conducted for the 2025-2028 Housing Strategy prior to the strategy’s final development took place in December 2024 and the outcomes will feed into the Cabinet report when brought forward.

In relation to future work, the Commission was due to scrutinise the final progress report on the 2022-25 Housing Strategy, in June 2025, the Tenant Scrutiny Review on Tenancy Health Checks report, in July 2025 and the Consultation on the Housing Strategy for 2025-28 report, in July 2025.

The Vice-Chair of the Improving Lives Select Commission (ILSC) reported that at the most recent meeting, the Commission scrutinised the Rotherham Kinship Care Local Offer and an update from the Youth Justice Service. Recommendations were made on both updates. At the next meeting in April, the Commission would scrutinise an update on the progress of the Domestic Abuse Strategy.

The Commission were recently involved in an additional consultation engagement session with the Access to Education Team. The Team captured members feedback on the revision of the Elective Home Education Policy Review. The revised policy would be presented back to the Commission, before going to Cabinet.

The Commission had an additional workshop arranged to focus on the scrutiny of updates on the Prevent Programme and Keeping Children Safe in Education.

Work had begun to scope a potential review on “Trauma and Children Missing Education”, which had been proposed by a member of the Commission.

The Vice-Chair of the Health Select Commission reported that the Commission had recently scrutinised Sleep which was relevant to the People Are Safe, Healthy, And Live Well and Every Child Able to Fulfil Their Potential Council Plan Themes. The Commission had also scrutinised the Adult Social Care Commissioning, which was relevant to the People Are Safe, Healthy, And Live Well and Expanding Economic Opportunity Council Plan themes. The Rotherham Foundation Trust (TRFT) Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) Centre Development and the 18 Week Waiting Time Challenge were both scrutinised and were relevant to the People Are Safe, Healthy, And Live Well and Expanding Economic Opportunity Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

To review and identify items for pre-decision scrutiny from the Forward Plan of Key Decisions covering the period from 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025.

Link to the lastest Forward Plan of Key Decisions.

The Board considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025.

The following items were considered as possible items for pre-decision scrutiny at the May OSMB meeting:

• Council Plan 2025 - 2028 & New Year Ahead Delivery Plan
• Interim Local Development Scheme
• Employment Solutions 2025-26

It was discussed that the Improving Lives Select Commission could give consideration of the Family Prosperity Strategy (Addressing Child Poverty) item which was due to be present to Cabinet in May.

The following items were considered as possible items for pre-decision scrutiny at the June OSMB meeting:

• Finance Update - June 2025
• Social Value Annual Report

It was discussed that whilst OSMB could lead on consideration of the Selective Licensing Policy, members of the Improving Places Select Commission be invited to join OSMB for that item as it fell within the remit of both bodies.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1.    Considered the contents of the Forward Plan of Key Decisions 1 April 2025 to 30 June 2025 and

2.    Agreed that the Council Plan 2025 - 2028 & New Year Ahead Delivery Plan, the Interim Local Development Scheme and Employment Solutions 2025-26 items would be considered at the May OSMB meeting.

3.    Agreed that the Improving Lives Select Commission would give consideration of the Family Prosperity Strategy (Addressing Child Poverty) item which was due to be present to Cabinet in May.

4.    Agreed that the Finance Update - June 2025, and the Social Value Annual Report would be considered at the June OSMB meeting.

5.    Agreed that there would be joint consideration of the Selective Licensing Policy due for presentation to the June Cabinet meeting by members of the Improving Places Select Commission and OSMB.

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.

The Assistant Chief Executive, Jo Brown explained that the Council had an initial informal peer assessment against the Equalities Framework for Local Government by colleagues at Doncaster Council, which took place just prior to Christmas.  In order to provide a comprehensive review, Doncaster Council had asked if a wider cohort of members, not including Cabinet Members could be involved in order to provide a final report during May 2025. 

This was an open invitation to members of OSMB, many of whom were interested in the Council’s equalities journey to be part of that review.  A date and time for this would be circulated following the meeting but members were invited to provide their feedback on how the Council was progressing on its equalities journey.  The meeting would be held face to face.

Councillor Yasseen went on to raise a general point regarding OSMB meetings moving to Tuesdays to avoid clashes with Council meetings.  She felt there were many other opportunities to hold OSMB meetings on a Wednesday that would avoid clashes with Council.  The Governance Manager explained that there were a couple of occasions where OSMB meetings had been moved to avoid Council meetings however due to the scheduling requirements for Cabinet meetings, there were limited options as to when the OSMB meetings could be scheduled for to enable pre-decision scrutiny to take place.  Councillor Yasseen felt this was an added pressure for members that could be avoided in future.