Agenda and draft minutes

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 11 March 2026 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 11 March 2026 be approved as a true record.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

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 Executive Director of Corporate Services.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Approves the commencement of a Boroughwide Community Governance Review.

2. Approves the Terms of Reference of the review as set out in Appendix 1.

3. Approves the timetable for review as set out in Appendix 2.

4. Approves that should any Community Governance Reviews be triggered by petition during the Boroughwide review, Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to amend the Terms of Reference as appropriate.

5. Note that a draft recommendations report will be brought for approval following the first round of consultation.

6. Note that a final recommendations report will be brought for approval following the second round of consultation. Cabinet will be asked to approve the final recommendations and recommend the report to Council.

At the Chair’s invitation the Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, Councillor Alam OBE, advised that the report sought approval to recommend a Community Governance Review to Cabinet. It was noted that the Council had a statutory duty to undertake such reviews approximately every 10-15 years, with the last review completed in 2008. It was explained that the review process required consultation with local residents and other interested parties, including parish councils, elected members and MPs. An initial consultation on current arrangements and potential changes would be undertaken, followed by a further consultation on draft recommendations, prior to Cabinet considering final proposals for submission to Full Council.

Members were advised by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Phillip Horsfield, that the Community Governance Review was an administrative process, with the formal political decision?making at its conclusion. It was noted that the criteria for the review were prescribed by legislation and set out in the agreed terms of reference. Subject to consideration by the Board and approval by Cabinet, the review would take account of representations received from residents and other stakeholders. The draft recommendations would then be prepared for consideration, which would be subject to further consultation process before final proposals were presented for Council determination.

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

Councillor Blackham noted that the presentation focused on outlining the process but provided limited detail on the criteria to be applied when evaluating parish councils and parish boundaries. He asked for further clarification on the assessment criteria, including how National Association of Local Councils (NALC) requirements and recommendations were considered, and whether the ratio of electors to councillors was a key factor.

In response the Monitoring Officer, Phillip Horsfield explained that boundary considerations included elector?to?councillor ratios and overall workability but also depended on the nature of each area and how residents identified with it. It was noted that there were no fixed minimum or maximum sizes for parishes, as circumstances varied between large towns and small villages. This area?specific approach was given as the reason why criteria were not defined rigidly at this stage, with consultation and feedback from local ward members and parish councils highlighted as essential. It was further emphasised that resident identification with an area was a key consideration, and that failing to take this into account often caused difficulties in boundary reviews.

In a follow up question, Councillor Blackham requested that, given the level of judgement involved due to significant differences across the borough in settlement size and representation, proposals should return to the committee for consideration before being submitted to Cabinet. It was agreed that this could be accommodated if the committee wished, enabling members to review and comment on the judgements applied prior to Cabinet consideration.

In response it was explained that there were no expectation of a wholesale review or widespread changes to all parishes in the borough, based on current indications from engagement with parish councils  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Agree the new Year Ahead Delivery Plan for 2026-27.

2. Note that future progress reports will be presented to Cabinet in January and July 2027.

At the Chair’s invitation the Leader of the Council introduced the annual delivery plan, explaining that it set out actions for the year within the context of the wider Council Plan and longer?term objectives. It was noted that the plan had been brought forward ahead of end?of?year performance figures, which would be reported later in the municipal year.

The plan included 81 priority actions aligned with existing decision?making frameworks, 35 corporate performance measures, and a small number of annual social care measures to ensure service?level performance remained visible within corporate reporting. Members were advised that the overall structure and thematic approach were consistent with the previous year.

A correction was highlighted relating to a performance measure on enforcement activity, clarifying that it applied specifically to the Street Safe Team. It was explained that the measure was intended to provide an indication of overall activity for the newly established service, recognising that its role extended beyond enforcement to include softer support and creating welcoming environments. The measure would be reviewed over the year to assess its suitability.

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

Councillor Allen raised concerns about the wording of Social Care Measure SC5, which referred to safeguarding outcomes being “at least partially met.” It was queried whether this reflected a lack of ambition to fully meet personal outcomes, whether it implied acceptance of falling short of full potential, and whether such wording could risk encouraging complacency among staff in meeting individuals’ needs.

The Leader responded that the social care measure referenced was a nationally recognised performance measure rather than one developed locally. It was emphasised that the measure was not intended to suggest that partially meeting outcomes was acceptable, nor to lower expectations for practice. Instead, it was designed to focus on the lived experiences and perceptions of adults involved in safeguarding processes, rather than solely on activity?based or output measures, ensuring service user experience remained central to performance reporting.

The Executive Director, Adult Care, Housing and Public Health, Ian Spicer, explained that, in safeguarding cases, it was not always possible to fully resolve every outcome a person might wish to achieve, due to the complexity and limits of intervention. It was emphasised that the measure focused on ensuring individuals had as positive an experience as possible during safeguarding processes, recognising that the circumstances prompting those interventions were often challenging. While the wording might appear unambitious when read in isolation, it reflected a nationally set measure and acknowledged that not all desired outcomes could realistically be delivered in every case.

In a further question, Councillor Allen queried why actions relating to reference P31, ‘Increase the proportion of waste sent for reuse’ and reference 16 ‘Plant at least 500 trees across the borough’, were allocated to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, and sought clarification on whether this was intentional. The Leader suggested that the allocation may have been an administrative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

1. Agree provisional allocations of the CRF for the following areas of activity in 2026/27:

Crisis Support

Resilience Services

Community Coordination

Administrative Costs

2. Delegate authority to the Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to determine revised and final allocations for the CRF. This will include provision for other eligible actions in 2026/27 to ensure best use of the funding.

3. Delegate authority to the Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to approve amendments to existing service level agreements and approve new agreements where required, in relation to the allocations above.

4. Agree to receive a further report in December 2026 setting out specific proposals for future years of the fund.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Leader of the Council introduced the report, reminding members of the former Household Support Fund, which had provided grant funding for cost-of-living measures, including council tax support top ups and free school meal holiday vouchers. This funding had been replaced by the Government’s Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF), with a modest increase in funding but clearer requirements on how it had to be used.

The CRF required four elements. First, year-round crisis payments had to be available for residents experiencing financial emergencies, including energy costs. Given previous demand, £1m had been allocated to this element. Second, discretionary housing payments had to be included, with a similar level of funding allocated. Third, a small amount of funding had been set aside for community coordination to support oversight, engagement and promotion of schemes. Fourth, a significant proportion of the fund had to be used for “resilience”, defined as advice and advocacy services. Existing provision had been expanded, including the Open Arms scheme and additional support for care leavers.

Commitments for council tax support top up payments were to continue to be funded through the CRF. In relation to free school meal holiday vouchers, recent changes in Government guidance now allowed provision, but limited resources meant the scheme could not continue in the previous form. Instead, a single voucher payment would be made during the summer holidays to target support at a peak period of financial pressure for families. This would replace regular holiday payments. Other support, including Healthy Holidays food and activity provision, remained in place and was being expanded.

Overall, the approach aimed to balance proactive support for those most vulnerable to financial shocks, compliance with Government requirements on resilience services, and the availability of crisis support throughout the year.

The Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, Chris Paddock noted that paragraph 2.10 of the report set out the outcomes used to define resilience services, and members were encouraged to refer to this section, as it underpinned the distinction between resilience and crisis support and reflected the concerns raised about how resilience was defined.

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

A question was raised by Councillor Allen about whether spend under this fund would be reported separately or included within general financial monitoring. It was confirmed that expenditure would be closely monitored through existing financial reporting arrangements, with specific oversight and reporting in place where required by the grant conditions.

Councillor Allen suggested that, given the importance of the issues addressed by the fund, a separate programme report might be helpful to track progress, while recognising that the overall level of funding was relatively small. It was asked whether information could be brought back to scrutiny and Cabinet through existing processes. In response, it was noted that more detailed updates could be incorporated into quarterly financial monitoring, providing specific information on spend and any reallocation between elements. However, it was highlighted that such reporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

1. Notes the key achievements and progress made as detailed in Appendix 1 and section 2 of this report.

2. Approves the 2026/27 Climate Change Action Plan proposed in Appendix 2.

3. Delegates the specification, procurement, contract award and subsequent delivery of (i) the Corporate Property Decarbonisation Programme, Appendix 3a, (ii) the EV Infrastructure Programme, Appendix 3b and (iii) works referenced under the Energy section of the Climate Change Action Plan 2026-2027, Appendix 2, as well as any changes to these programmes and works, to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

4. Delegates allocation of the Council’s Capital Decarbonisation Budget and EV Infrastructure Capital Budget and the acceptance of any available funding streams such as from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), Great British Energy or other Government schemes for delivery as per Appendices 3a and 3b to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

5. Approves an amendment to the £1m renewable energy pilot project approved by Cabinet on 15 February 2021, to deliver instead an invest-to-save renewable energy scheme comprising rooftop or car park canopy solar PV, as detailed in Appendix 4 and section 2.20 below; and also delegates authority for site selection, procurement and delivery of the amended scheme to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

At the Chair’s invitation the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, Andrew Bramidge, reported that the annual climate change report set out the Council’s work to address climate change, including progress against agreed targets for the Council’s own emissions to reach net zero by 2030 and for borough?wide emissions to reach net zero by 2040.

The report outlined activity across seven thematic areas: monitoring and measurement, energy, housing, transport, waste, the built and natural environment, and influencing and engagement. Members were asked to note the achievements delivered through the 2025–26 Climate Change Action Plan and to approve the proposed activity for 2026–27.

The report also sought delegated authority for the allocation of funding to specific projects within corporate property and electric vehicle infrastructure, to be exercised jointly by the relevant Cabinet Member and Service Director. In addition, approval was requested to reallocate £1m previously assigned to a renewable energy project that was no longer proceeding, to support the development of rooftop and car?park solar schemes in line with a motion approved by Council in January of the previous year.

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

Councillor Tinsley began by asking about whether the 2030 target for achieving net zero emissions for the Council remained realistic, particularly given current challenges with decarbonising the vehicle fleet. It was noted that suitable electric technology was not yet available for some larger operational vehicles, such as refuse collection vehicles, and clarification was sought on whether the target should be reviewed.

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment acknowledged that the 2030 target for achieving net zero emissions was extremely challenging, due in part to factors outside the Council’s control, including slower?than?anticipated decarbonisation of the national electricity grid. It was noted that current indications suggested full grid decarbonisation was more likely to be achieved around 2032–33.

It was explained that, while the Council continued to take action within its control, overall progress was dependent on national developments. During the current financial year, further analysis would be undertaken to assess projected emissions by 2030, alongside accelerated work to support the transition to electric vehicles as part of the procurement plan.

It was stated that a further report would be brought back to Cabinet in the next financial year, setting out a detailed assessment of progress and proposing whether the current targets remained realistic or required revision.

Councillor McKiernan raised concerns that a number of actions within the climate change action plan had been delayed across several areas, including where delays were not solely attributable to external factors. It was questioned whether the Council was taking delivery of the programme as seriously as required and whether sufficient urgency was being applied given the scale and breadth of the delays identified.

It was stated that the Council was taking climate change action seriously, with strong internal governance through an established Climate Change Board and committed officer involvement. Specific delays, particularly in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

To consider the Board’s Work Programme.

The Governance Manager advised the Board that in relation to potential review regarding antisocial behaviour in country parks, it was noted that information had been requested from officers on the number of local and country parks, along with related antisocial behaviour statistics. Members were informed when this information had been received.

Councillor Allen raised questions regarding the work programme format, specifically why certain items were presented as information briefings rather than formal committee reports. It was suggested that bringing matters to the committee as reports could improve transparency, scrutiny, and democratic accountability. An alternative proposal was also raised to consider related matters together through a single Regeneration and Environment directorate OSMB session.

The Chair responded that work programmes were determined by individual committees. A personal view was expressed that where work was intended to progress to Cabinet, it should be supported by a formal report to enable effective scrutiny and recommendations. However, it was noted that a lack of member volunteers to undertake work programme items had presented challenges. Members were encouraged to be more proactive in shaping work programmes when consulted. While reservations were expressed about relying on information sheets, it was acknowledged that some items had progressed through the appropriate governance processes, and agreement was expressed with the principle of clearer and more structured reporting.

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:

• Health Select Commission
• Improving Lives Select Commission
• Improving Places Select Commission

Update from Health Select Commission:

This update was noted as presented within the agenda pack.

Update from Improving Lives Select Commission:

This update was noted as presented within the agenda pack.

Update from Improving Places Select Commission:

The Chair of Improving Places Select Commission, Councillor McKiernan reported on a recent site visit to Rother Valley Country Park, noting that attendance had been limited but that the visit had been productive and treated as a scrutiny exercise. It was stated that members reviewed what had worked well and what had not, with issues identified primarily relating to HR and procurement.

The concerns around procurement were highlighted as an area potentially outside the Places remit, and it was indicated that this issue could potentially be brought back to the committee for consideration. It was also noted that similar scrutiny visits had been undertaken, including visits to libraries and the new café, with the intention of increasing the number of site visits in future to support effective scrutiny of council activities.

Councillor Blackham sought clarification on whether the issues raised related to a specific procurement matter or a broader, general procurement issue. It was confirmed that the concerns related to general procurement processes.

Councillor McKiernan explained that procurement issues had contributed to delays in opening, with some ordered items arriving late. Further difficulties were highlighted in relation to catering supplies, where standard procurement arrangements designed for school catering had not aligned well with the needs of a café setting. It was noted that, as a local authority, procurement was required to follow government legislation, including formal tendering and framework agreements, which limited flexibility in purchasing day?to?day items. An issue relating to the YPO framework was acknowledged and was being pursued separately.

The Chair sought clarification on whether the café was council?run or operated by a private provider. In response it was confirmed that the café was council?owned and council?run, which explained some of the HR challenges encountered. It was noted that recruitment had been affected by the council’s requirement for three years of references, which had created difficulties for younger applicants and those returning from university.

It was highlighted that the café operated with a dedicated head chef, which was unique within the council’s cafés. If successful, this role could support improvements across other council?run cafés in country parks. The café was also noted to be producing food in?house rather than relying on pre?purchased products, which had implications for procurement processes.

The Chair commented that, as the café was newly opened, it would need time to settle before any formal scrutiny review could be undertaken into the issues raised at the meeting. It was emphasised that the café would be expected to operate on a viable, income?generating basis. Any future scrutiny, if undertaken, should consider all council and externally operated cafés across the borough, rather than focusing solely on one location.

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, with the Chair outlining the proposed items for inclusion on the next OSMB agenda. It was noted that the Progress Update on Future Rothercare Model would be considered at the May meeting, having been deferred due to the length of the current agenda. Additional items proposed for consideration were the Homelessness Prevention and Rough Sleeper Strategy, Rotherham Market and Libraries (with a focus on financial and programme issues), and the Selective Licensing Community Impact.

Councillor Yasseen raised concerns about agenda length and the risk of excessive items limiting effective scrutiny, suggesting that a maximum of three substantive items may be more manageable, in line with practice elsewhere.

The Chair emphasised the importance of scrutiny and noted that failure to scrutinise items could lead to concerns being raised later. It was highlighted that the frequency of OSMB meetings had reduced in recent years, and that effective scrutiny could still be achieved provided members prepared in advance by reading reports and submitting focused questions.

The Chair proposed that all four items be included on the next agenda. A vote was taken, and it was agreed that all four items would be brought forward to the next OSMB meeting, with no votes against or abstentions recorded.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

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

·       Homelessness Prevention and Rough Sleeper Strategy 2026 2031

·       Rotherham Markets and Libraries

·       Selective Licensing Community Impact

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.

An update was provided by the Chair on South Yorkshire Combined Authority (SYMCA) matters, with it noted that bus franchising was the most significant recent development and was progressing well. SYMCA had taken control of the bus stations, including responsibility for repairs, and was progressing plans for electric buses across South Yorkshire. No specific issues were raised at that stage.

Councillor Blackham raised concerns regarding electric bus procurement, highlighting recent media commentary on the impact of overseas manufacturers, particularly from China, undercutting UK bus manufacturers. It was suggested that consideration should be given, where possible, to the impact on UK manufacturing and jobs when procuring vehicles.

The Chair responded that procurement processes required open competition and compliance with regulations, and that contracts would be awarded based on value for money. It was noted that a range of fleet options were being considered to ensure the best financial outcome and passenger experience for residents.

Councillor McKiernan asked for clarification on progress relating to the devolution proposals involving the South Yorkshire Fire Authority and its potential incorporation into SYMCA. Concerns were raised about the lack of clarity around the governance and scrutiny arrangements, and it was requested that this be raised through SYMCA scrutiny channels. The Chair advised that the matter had previously been raised and that plans were still developing. Members were reminded of recent training sessions with SYMCA officers, which had low attendance but had provided relevant information. It was also noted that further engagement opportunities were planned by the SYMCA Mayor, including six?monthly consultations with elected members, some of which had been delayed due to elections. It was agreed that the issue could be raised again.

Councillor Yasseen raised reports that Doncaster Council had withdrawn support for Doncaster Sheffield Airport and asked whether this could be followed up to understand any implications for South Yorkshire and previous investment plans. The Chair responded that the Mayor’s position may differ and that this was a matter primarily for SYMCA leadership. It was agreed that the issue would be discussed with the Leader to seek clarification.

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.