Agenda and minutes

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board held on 2 July 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 2 July 2025 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 Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Note the current General Fund Revenue Budget forecast overspend of £2.4m.

2.    Note whilst there is a projected overspend, the Council expects to be able to manage this pressure during the year and return to a balanced position following mitigating actions. Should that not be possible the Council will need to draw on its reserves to balance the 2025/26 financial position.

3.    Note the updated position of the Capital Programme.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety introduced the item and made the following points:

·       This was the financial monitoring report for the period ending July 2025.

·       The Council’s overall financial position remained positive, despite a forecast overspend of £2.5 million.

·       The overspend was composed of a £7.5 million pressure in service directorates, with was offset by £5.3 million in central underspends.

·       The overspend was attributed to demand pressures in residential placements, particularly in social care, which reflected the position nationally.

·       Inflationary pressures were also a significant factor affecting costs.

·       The treasury management strategy was performing well, with short-term borrowing being used to minimise interest costs.

·       The capital programme had been updated, with some reprofiling of schemes into 2026-27 but the programme remained ambitious.

·       Confidence was expressed that the Council would manage the pressures and return to a balance position through mitigating actions.

·       The financial monitoring would continue closely over the coming months.

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

Councillor Blackham expressed scepticism about the Council’s ability to manage the overspend, especially given that two directorates were already significantly over budget just a few months into the financial year. It was suggested that the budgets for those directorates may not be realistic and called for better forecasting.

The Assistant Director, Financial Services acknowledged the concern and explained the Council expected underspends in grant-funded areas. Noting that treasury management was performing well. The Children and Young People’s Services (CYPS) directorate overspend was anticipated and offset by central contingencies. The Adult Social Care pressures were being actively managed with mitigating actions. It was confirmed that budget and medium-term financial strategy (MTFS) work was underway to realign budgets.

Councillor Yasseen observed that CYPS had been consistently overspend for a number of years, indicating a mismatch between the resources and demand. It was asked how the Council planned to redesign resources to reflect the true cost of services and want impact this had on other services that were under budget?

The Assistant Director, Financial Services explained the CYPS budget had been reduced over time, even though the overspend appeared consistent. Aspects that had contributed to this were that the number of looked-after children had decreased, but inflation and market costs had driven up placement costs. The internal residential care programme delays had impacted savings. It was clarified that other directorates had made temporary savings without major service delivery impacts.

In a follow-up question, Councillor Yasseen queried how long the Council could continue relying on its reserves and at what point would that approach become a concern?

The Assistant Director, Financial Services confirmed the Council’s reserves were robust and had increased over the past few years, with the minimum balance now three times higher than seven years ago. The planned use of reserves was strategic and not a sign of financial weakness. There was confidence that mitigations would allow the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Report from the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Approve the works set out in section 1.7 in relation to:

(a)  The Black Hut;

(b)  Oaklea Retreat;

(c)  Clifton Learning Centre;

(d)  The Meeting Place (Wingfield); and

(e)  Artworks, Brook Hill

2.    Delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Property and Facilities Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety to amend the works as required within budget.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety introduced the item explaining the facilities mentioned within the report supported a range of community activities which included but was not limited to, youth clubs, healthy eating clubs, community meetings, sports recreation and various adult learning centres. The Council set out to invest in several community buildings, initially over the next two years, though the investment of £600,000, which had been approved by Council. That investment would target the buildings with the greatest need, with a focus on health, safety, compliance, structure and integrity.

Officers from property and facility services, in collaboration with neighbourhood teams and community groups would define the scope of the work and ensure investment was aligned with sustainable occupancy and good governance. Other funding opportunities both internal and external will be sought to complement the existing funding.

The Assistant Director, Property and Facilities Services explained that the Black Hawk was located in Keppel Ward, Oakley Retreat was in Hoober, Clifton Learning Partnership was in Rotherham East, Meeting Place was in Greensborough, and the Artwork was in Keppel. This work was carried out in collaboration with the neighbourhood teams and community groups, with the aim of investing in these buildings. The focus was primarily on health and safety, as well as meeting some net zero requirements in terms of energy sustainability, to ensure these facilities remained sustainable for the communities that used them.

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

Councillor Yasseen no objection in principle to investing in community buildings to improve usability. However, it was felt that the report lacked sufficient information, particularly regarding the locations of the buildings and the selection process. Councillor Yasseen welcomed the Chair’s clarification on locations.

Councillor Yasseen queried why those specific buildings had been chosen for investment and not others, asking what criteria had been used to select them and how was equity being ensured across the borough in the selection process?

The Strategic Director for Finance and Customer Services explained the buildings were listed in the March budget report and selected based on health and safety needs, starting with the Black Hut, which had to be closed due to safety concerns.

The Assistant Director, Property and Facilities Services added that legacy condition surveys and input from neighbourhood teams were used to prioritise buildings. A new round of condition surveys is being commissioned to inform a long-term investment plan. Information on the criteria used to select the properties could be shared outside of the meeting.

Councillor Lelliott asked if all the buildings on the list were well-used or was the investment intended to increase their usage? The Assistant Director, Property and Facilities Services indicated it was for both reasons. Some buildings were underused due to disrepair, and fixing issues such as roof leaks would increase usage. The focus was on buildings with high demand and a potential for greater community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Endorses the Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy and recommends it to Council for approval.

2.    Notes the requirement for scrutiny of the Safer Rotherham Partnership Annual Report, which is discharged by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board.

3.    Approves the ongoing informal consultation to capture service user voices throughout the duration of the plan.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety introduced the item outlining the purpose and scope of the new Community Safety Strategy. He explained that the strategy was developed to guide the work of the Safer Rotherham Partnership (SRP) over the next three years, with a focus on enhancing safety, protecting vulnerable individuals, and tackling serious violence and organised crime.

He emphasised that the strategy was built on an evidence-based approach, incorporating:

• Community safety data
• Partnership intelligence
• Extensive consultation with residents, stakeholders, and organisations

The strategy identified three core priorities:

1. Safer neighbourhoods
2. Tackling violence, abuse, and exploitation
3. Preventing offending and building resilience

Additionally, it included three cross-cutting themes:

• Online crime
• Service user voice
• Equality of access to services

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety highlighted that the strategy aligned with statutory requirements and reflected local need. He noted that the SRP would report annually to the Council and OSMB to ensure transparency and accountability.

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

The Vice Chair queried why the wording under antisocial behaviour in the strategy was less robust than that used for combating alcohol and substance misuse, asking why stronger language to reflect a zero-tolerance approach wasn’t included?

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety explained that the strategy aimed to address both actual antisocial behaviour and public perceptions of safety. It was noted that while some concerns were perception-based, the Council maintained a zero-tolerance stance on actual incidents.

The Head Of Service Community Safety and Regulatory Services clarified that the strategy included both quantitative data (e.g. incident reports) and qualitative data (e.g. perceptions of safety). It was emphasised that the partnership was committed to reducing antisocial behaviour through coordinated interventions and monitoring.

Councillor Lelliott expressed support at the inclusion of perception data in the strategy, arguing that it was essential to address both actual and perceived safety concerns to encourage public confidence in town centres.

Councillor Blackham expressed concern that the strategy might downplay real antisocial behaviour by focusing too much on perceptions. He cited examples such as quad bike nuisance and rural crime, which were clearly not perception based. In response the Chair acknowledged the challenge of distinguishing between perception and reality, noting that antisocial behaviour occurred across all wards and required the appropriate police response.

Councillor Yasseen queried why there were no baseline key performance indicators (KPIs) included in the strategy. The Head Of Service Community Safety and Regulatory Services explained that KPIs were being developed in action plans under each priority and would be reported annually to OSMB. In response to a follow-up question regarding how the consultation feedback influenced the priorities, it was confirmed that the consultation had influenced the inclusion of rural crime and perceptions of safety. In a subsequent question Councillor Yasseen asked why ward councillors were not more directly involved in the consultation? The Head  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To consider the progress update on the implementation of the Pathways to Work Economic Inactivity Trailblazer programme.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy opened the item by welcoming the opportunity to provide an update on the Pathways to Work programme, a government-funded initiative aimed at tackling economic inactivity.

He explained that the programme was part of a national pilot being delivered in nine regions, including South Yorkshire, and was designed to test new approaches to supporting people furthest from the labour market.

He emphasised that the programme aligned with Rotherham Council’s Employment and Skills Strategy, which focused on:

1. Enabling more residents to progress into work.
2. Investing in residents’ knowledge and skills.
3. Securing a resilient, diverse, and skilled workforce.

Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy highlighted that successful delivery depended on strong collaboration between the Council, employers, the NHS, DWP, voluntary and community sector organisations, and residents. Going to note that although the programme had experienced a slower-than-expected start, momentum was now building.

Key developments included:

• Commissioning of the Employment Solutions Team to deliver 138 job outcomes.
• Grant funding to VCSE organisations to deliver an additional 272 job outcomes.
• Establishment of a single point of contact (phone and email) for individuals and employers to access support.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy concluded by referencing the government’s Get Britain Working White Paper, which criticised the current employment support system as outdated. The Pathways to Work programme, was Rotherham’s response to that challenge, aiming to build a more integrated, accessible, and effective support system.

The Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport, Simon Moss introduced Fiona Fletcher, the newly appointed System Service Manager for the programme in Rotherham. He noted that Fiona had joined in August and would lead the local implementation of the programme, driving system change and integration across employment and health services.

Fiona Fletcher, the newly appointed System Service Manager for the Pathways to Work programme in Rotherham, provided a comprehensive update on the programme’s implementation since she took up the post in early August.

It was explained that the programme was not a standalone employment service but aimed to drive system-wide change by integrating employment and health support services. Its goal was to make services more accessible and easier to navigate for residents who were unemployed, economically inactive, or in work but facing barriers.

The System Service Manager outlined the three key initiatives under the programme:

1. Economic Inactivity Trailblazer – supporting those furthest from the labour market.
2. Connect to Work – helping disabled people and those with health conditions into employment.
3. Health and Growth Accelerator – supporting people in work, especially those at risk of leaving due to ill health and improving occupational health for SMEs.

It was reported that:

• A triage system had been established with a dedicated phone line and email to direct individuals to the most appropriate support.
• A team of employment advisors had been recruited to deliver personalised support.
• Nine VCSE organisations were delivering engagement activities, and thirteen others had been commissioned to provide tailored employment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider the annual update which is to be presented to Council on 10 September 2025 on activities and outcomes achieved in respect of Overview and Scrutiny during the 2024-2025 municipal year.

The item was introduced by Chair, who explained that the annual report was scheduled to be presented to full council the following day. The Chair apologised for the delay in bringing the report to the Board, noting that it should have been submitted in July. It was confirmed that steps would be taken to ensure future reports were brought to the July meeting to allow members time to propose amendments.

The Chair thanked officers for their work in preparing the report and highlighted efforts to make it more accessible and readable for the general public, moving away from dense documentation toward clearer communication.

The Chair followed by reflecting on the volume and breadth of scrutiny activity over the past year. Noting that the overview and scrutiny function had considered the following:

• 84 substantive items considered across all commissions.
• 29 pre-decision scrutiny reports,
• 7 workshops,
• 5 reviews, and
• 2 call-ins.
• 26 off-agenda briefings and
• 1 site visit.

He emphasised the strong engagement with partner officers, the public, and the Youth Cabinet, and expressed pride in the collective work of all scrutiny commissions, Health, Improving Lives, and Improving Places.

The Chair invited any chairs or vice-chairs of the commissions to contribute to the presentation of the report at full council, should they wish to do so.

No further questions or comments were raised, and the Board unanimously approved the report for submission to full council.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board:

1. Acknowledged and considered the content of the report; and
2. Approved the Annual Report for consideration by Council on Wednesday 10 September 2025.

To consider the Board’s Work Programme.

The Board considered its Work Programme.  The Governance Manager provided an update regarding the Spotlight on life-saving equipment and related bylaws. Noting that the review group had met with the Assistant Director a couple of months ago to request further information. A timescale of a couple of months had been determined adequate for the information to be sourced.  This would be followed up now that the summer recess had concluded.

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification that members of the Improving Places Select Commission would be invited to attend OSMB to consider the Selective Licensing Policy as part of OSMB’s pre-decision scrutiny work? The Governance Manager confirmed that this was due to be considered at the next Cabinet meeting, therefore members of IPSC would be invited to join the OSMB meeting scheduled for the 8 October 20205.

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.

Improving Places Select Commission Update:

The draft Housing Strategy 2025–2030 and the Neighbourhoods Plan was reviewed at the meeting last week along with looking back at the previous Selective Licensing Scheme.

Items for the next meeting included the draft Housing Strategy Action Plan and the Neighbourhoods Plan. It was noted that IPSC would also usually cover flooding and allotments, however one of those items may be postponed to a future meeting due to the length of the last session.

The IPSC also welcomed the new Governance Advisor, Kristianne Thorogood, who would be taking over responsibility for supporting the Commission from Barbel Gale, Governance Manager.

Improving Lives Select Commission Update:

Since the last meeting, one ILSC session had been held. The Commission received the Children and Young Persons Annual Outturn Performance Report. Members were satisfied with the progress made to date, but requested further information on:

·       Engagement levels with Family Help

·       A summary of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, was requested by the Commission

It also considered the draft Elective Home Education Policy in pre-decision scrutiny, ahead of its presentation to Cabinet. Members were generally happy with the policy but requested further information on three specific items. Written responses were provided to any additional questions raised during the meeting.

The service also considered how flexi-schooling should sit alongside elective home education. A further update on the strategy was requested to be provided annually or earlier if significant changes occurred.

In April, ILSC considered the No Family Left Behind Strategy. Although this jumped back in time, it was relevant as several items came to fruition after the July meeting. At that time, members made several recommendations, all of which were later incorporated. Since then, the strategy was revised further and reviewed by Improving Lives ahead of Cabinet consideration.

The Chair noted that several commission members, had attended bespoke trauma training in John Smith’s Room, which was very informative.

At the next ILSC meeting (scheduled for next week), an annual update from CAMHS, including a separate neurodiversity report was expected. This would be the first CAMHS update to the Commission since it moved under Improving Lives from Health Select Commission. Members of the Health Select Commission had been invited to attend this item due to its crossover relevance.

Health Select Commission Update:

The Chair explained there was no report from HSC as both the Chair and Vice-Chair were unavailable. Officers would not be asked to deliver the report, and it was deferred.

The Chair explained that the Chief Executive had asked that these updates be provided as a briefing note in the agenda pack going forward.  The intention of this was to improve openness and transparency. Before responding to the Chief Executive about this the Chair wanted to seek members views on the following:

·       Did members feel a short-written briefing was appropriate?

·       Would members prefer to rely on the minutes instead?

The Chair went on to explain that it was not expected to be a lengthy document, just a brief summary and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

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 September 2025 to November 2025.

The Chair introduced the item and invited the Governance Manager to walk members through the forward plan for September to November 2025. The purpose was to identify which key decisions should be scheduled for pre-decision scrutiny at the next OSMB meeting on 8 October 2025.

It was agreed that the Selective Licensing Policy would be considered and that members of the Improving Places Select Commission would be invited to join that meeting.

Resolved: - That the Forward Plan be noted.

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 explained there were two main items considered last week. They covered the franchising of buses and the associated implementation plan.

The first phase of implementation was set to begin in Sheffield and Doncaster, followed by Barnsley and Rotherham, and then further developments in Sheffield. A small report was submitted to the committee on this topic.

The other item was the Economic Inactivity trailblazing initiative. This had been presented from a view of what was happening across South Yorkshire.

During the meeting, the main questions focused on Doncaster Airport. A decision was made that morning by the Combined Authority regarding South Yorkshire Airport. The key scrutiny questions directed at the Mayor were about the airport and the feasibility study.

The Mayor gave assurances that he believed the feasibility study was fit for purpose. He felt the targets outlined in the study were achievable. An independent body had conducted the study.

Both the South Yorkshire Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the South Yorkshire Audit Committee had received a joint presentation on the report prior to the Overview and scrutiny meeting. He concluded his update by indicating it was a comprehensive report.

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.