Agenda and minutes

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 9^th September 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 9 September 2025 be approved as a true record with the inclusion of apologies for Councillor Allen.

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

Councillor Tinsley declared that he had previously held a licence in Maltby. It was not a financial interest and he would abstain from voting on the Selective Licensing Policy item.

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

No questions were received.

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

There were no reasons to exclude the press or public.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations

That Cabinet

1.    Review all options proposed in section 3 of this report and approve Option 3, which is to proceed to approve Selective Licensing declarations, including the establishment of a stakeholder steering group (based on the criteria set out within this report and appendices);

2.    Approve the revised Licence Fee and the Licence Conditions, in all of the proposed areas which are:

a)  Town centre / Eastwood / East Dene / Clifton / Boston Castle

b)  Masbrough / Kimberworth

c)  Thurcroft

d)  Dinnington

e)  Brinsworth

f)    Parkgate

Councillor Tinsley declared that he had previously held a licence in Maltby. It was not a financial interest, and he would abstain from voting on this item.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Housing introduced the report and made the following points:

·       The cross-party consensus on the importance of safe and secure housing for families in Rotherham was emphasised.

·       Highlighted achievements of previous selective licensing schemes:

·       The new proposals aimed to build on past success and target six areas with persistent issues: poor housing, deprivation, and antisocial behaviour.

·       The Housing Act provided the Council with the authority to require landlords in designated areas to license properties and comply with conditions.

·       The Council had engaged with 16,000 properties and acknowledged that while many respondents to the consultation did not support selective licensing in principle, there was strong agreement on the issues it aims to tackle.

·       The scheme was self-funding, with fees solely being used for administration and enforcement.

·       The previous scheme overspent by £90,000, which was covered by general funds.

·       The scheme was evidence-led, community-informed, and aligned with the Council’s housing strategy and plan.

·       The scheme was a tool to drive up standards, protect our tenants, support responsible landlords.

At the Chair’s invitation the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene acknowledged the extensive nature of the report, indicating that the most critical elements would be highlighted that demonstrated the evidential basis for the proposed selective licensing declarations and the effectiveness of the consultation process.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene explained that the report built upon the outcomes of two previous five-year schemes, which had run from 2015 to 2025. Those schemes had led to significant improvements in housing safety across Rotherham, in terms of the significant number of hazards identified. The Council had issued a number of notices and had prepared 48 prosecutions against non-compliant landlords which were in various stages of completion. Those interventions had made a substantial number of properties safer for families.

The report provided significant information regarding the evidence base and how it related to particular areas. The evidence base was set out within the Housing Act. Also required through the provision of the Housing Act was a formal and statutory consultation period. This included mailshots to over 16,000 properties and outreach to over 60,000 landlords via national bodies such as the National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA). Additionally, face-to-face engagement events were held in the affected communities. It was acknowledged that while many respondents did not support selective licensing in principle, there was widespread agreement that the issues the scheme aimed to address - poor housing, environmental crime, and antisocial behaviour - were real and persistent.

In response to the consultation feedback the Council had refined some of the boundaries after reviewing the evidence at a much closer street level.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

1.     Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment in consultation with the Head of Planning and Building Control andCabinet member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy to submit to the Planning Inspectorate all documentation and relevant evidence for their consideration and deal with all procedural matters that may arise in relation to this application and any future applications that fall under the legislation for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

2.    Agree to the proposal that a report be submitted to the Planning Board on a quarterly basis to provide a summary of all responses submitted from the Council to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the previous quarter.

The Chair began by clarifying that the item was for information only. The Whitestone proposal was a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which meant the decision would be made by the Secretary of State, not the Council. It was clarified that Rotherham Council had no power to approve or reject the application. The Council’s role was to provide factual information to the Planning Inspectorate, including a Local Impact Report. The Council could not make a recommendation either way.

The Chair went on to explain that if Members or members of the public wished to raise objections or concerns at this stage of the process, they must be submitted directly to the applicant and in the event a development consent order (DCO) was accepted, thereafter to the Planning Inspectorate. Local MPs, parish councils, and community groups could also make representations.

The Chair clarified that this was to give members and residents an understanding the process and the Council’s limited role within it.

The Chair then invited Councillor John Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy to introduce the report. In terms of outline and background, NSIP proposals were those planning applications or projects that the government deemed of such national significance and importance that the responsibility for granting planning permission rested with the government, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Council was not a decision-maker on those proposals.

Rotherham was facing its first NSIP: the proposed Whitestone solar farm, which also extended into Doncaster. This had prompted a review of the constitution, where it identified a gap in how the Council handled its statutory consultee role in the NSIP processes. The cabinet report aimed to establish internal procedures for responding to NSIP applications.

The Cabinet report proposed delegating the preparation and submission of responses to the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Head of Planning and Building Control and the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs, and the Local Economy.

This approach addressed two key issues:

1. Tight timescales – typically 28 days to respond, which made routing through Cabinet or Planning Board impractical.
2. Technical nature – responses were technical, not decisions requiring a vote.

While Whitestone was the immediate context, the report itself made no judgment on its merits. It focused on ensuring the Council had a clear process for handling any future NSIP proposals.

Simon Moss, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport stated that NSIP projects were of such national importance and scale that decisions were made by the Secretary of State, not the Council, and were handled through the Planning Inspectorate via a DCO.

It was noted that the process could take up to two years, which was much longer than typical planning applications and involved several stages, as outlined in the report. NSIPs frontloaded the planning process, placing greater emphasis on shaping the proposals before formal examination.

Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport clarified that as the host authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) was a statutory consultee and was consulted at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To consider the Board’s Work Programme.

The Board considered its Work Programme with the Governance Manager explained the information requested for the spotlight review on life-saving equipment was in the process of being collated, and it was expected it to be available shortly. Once received a meeting would be arranged with the review group to continue the work.

Regarding the grass cutting and grounds maintenance workshop that was held. A letter had been produced and sent to the Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces. It summarised the key points and outcomes of the workshop, which were that members acknowledged the information provided, particularly the update on cleansing services. They felt reassured that previous concerns were being addressed, and consequently, they agreed that there was no need for an in-depth review of grass cutting and grounds maintenance. It was resolved that OSMB members would receive an off-agenda update in 12 months to assess ongoing progress. A copy of that letter would be circulated to members following the meeting for their information.

Resolved: That the Work Programme be approved and that the letter to the Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces would be circulated to members of OSMB for their information.

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

Improving Places Select Commission Update:

The school road safety review had another meeting scheduled for that Friday to agree on the plan going forward.

Health Select Commission Update:

The commission scrutinised the following items during its 31 July 2025 meeting:

• The ADASS (Association of Directors of Adult Social Services) Peer Review
• The Healthwatch Annual Report
• The Yorkshire Cancer Research White Rose Report Update.

The Menopause Workshop took place on 16 September 2025 and was a well-attended and meaningful session, feedback from which was being prepared and would be brought to OSMB in due course.

Further evidence gathering sessions for the Access to Contraception Review took place on September 12^th and 23^rd, and finally October 8^th, 2025.  Draft recommendations have been developed, and the draft report was currently being prepared and would be shared with Health Select Commission and OSMB in due course.

The commission scrutinised the following items during its 2 October 2025 meeting:

• Physical Activity for Health (Sport England)
• TRFT Annual Report
• How Did We Do - Adult Social Care Local Account (For Information Only)
• Rotherham Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2025-2030 (For Information Only)

At its meeting on 20 November 2025, the Commission was scheduled to scrutinise the following items:

• Mental Health Strategy (Pre-decision Scrutiny)
• Place Partners Winter Planning
• Health and Wellbeing Board Annual Report (For Information Only)

Also, in conjunction with the Improving Lives Select Commission, an Unpaid Carer’s Strategy Workshop had been planned for 28 November 2025.

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification on the position of Healthwatch and if it had been considered?  The Chair of Health Select Commission responded that the Commission had discussed the role of the council in what was expected to happen going forward. It was confirmed that Healthwatch was going to be phased out.

Improving Lives Select Commission:

Since the last Improving Lives update to OSMB in September, the Commission had received and scrutinised an Annual Update on Child Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Members of Health Select Commission (HSC) were invited to join the meeting for that item. One additional HSC member attended the meeting.

Overall, the Commission were happy with the CAMHS Update, and resolved the following:

• That a further update on Children and Young People’s mental health and wellbeing be included on the ILSC work programme for 2026-2027.
• Requested that information relating to the following be included in future CAMHS updates to the Commission:

o   Additional data and information relating to performance and outcomes.

o   Further information relating to children in care.

o   Further information of the support available to children who are electively home educated.

• Requested that specific data relating to the eating disorder pathway and the most recent timescales and waiting times be provided to the Commission.
• Requested that further information and specific numbers relating to the Children and Young People’s Crisis pathway and the 99% of cases seen within expectation be provided to the Commission.

At its meeting in November, the Commission was to scrutinise the following:

• An update on the Looked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To review and identify items for pre-decision scrutiny from the Forward Plan of Key Decisions.

Link to: Browse plans - Forward Plan of Key Decisions, 2025 - Rotherham Council

The Board considered the Forward Plan of Key Decisions October 2025 to December 2025.

The Chair introduced the item and invited the Governance Manager to walk members through the forward plan for October 2025 to December 2025. The purpose was to identify which key decisions should be scheduled for pre-decision scrutiny at the next OSMB meeting on 12 November 2025.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1. Agreed that the following items would be added to the November agenda as part of OSMB’s pre-decision scrutiny work:

·       Rotherham Employment & Skills Strategy - Pre-decision scrutiny.

·       Medium Term Financial Strategy Update - Pre-decision scrutiny.

As part of their role the Chair and Vice Chair of OSMB are appointed to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chair of OSMB is the Vice Chair on this committee.  

This committee holds the MCA to account and ensure that all aspects of the decision-making process are transparent, inclusive and fair.   The Committee are responsible for checking that the MCA is delivering its objectives and that the decisions made in policies, strategies and plans have been made in the best interests of the residents and workers of South Yorkshire.

The published agenda packs and minutes can be accessed via: South Yorkshire MCA.

Members who have comments and queries regarding any item on any agenda should refer this to the Chair of OSMB and the Governance Manager at the earliest opportunity to ensure they’re reflected in debate during the relevant public meeting.

The Chair updated that Board that at the previous month’s meeting, the main topic of discussion was consideration of the Skills Strategy.

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.