Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.

Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answer received.

Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.

There were three questions from members of the public:

1.    Mr Marston stated that in 1928, the Rotherham Mayor signed an agreement with the National Playing Fields Association and Carnegie UK to accept a grant for the Herringthorpe Gardens and Playing Fields. The agreement was that the playing fields would be used in perpetuity for recreation. The Borough Engineer was instructed to produce detailed plans which had apparently been lost. Mr Marston stated that it was clear that the work had been undertaken to the satisfaction of National Playing Fields and Carnegie UK as the grants were paid out. By implication, the conditions of the grant became effective on the pertinent land areas. In the case of Herringthorpe, the then open land enclosed by Badsley Moor Lane, Middle Lane South and Broom Road, as shown in OS Maps from the 1930’s, had uses related to recreation, such as greenhouses and changing rooms. Mr Marston stated that, if the Council wanted to change the use of some parts of Herringthorpe Playing Fields, it had to get the agreement of Fields in Trust, successor of National Playing Fields, possibly with mitigating conditions. Mr Marston asked if the Council had done so.

Councillor Allen explained that, in terms of Boswell Street, the Council had recently carried out investigations as to the legal position. In 1928, the Council had purchased the land and the guidance received in relation to the land and grants received was that there was nothing that required the Council to keep it for recreation and leisure in perpetuity. A meeting was being arranged with ward Councillors although a date had yet to be agreed. Following that, residents who had been engaged with the matter would be contacted.

Mr Marston reiterated that there was an agreement signed by the Rotherham Mayor with Fields in Trust and Carnegie in 1928. The Council had since paid for the demolition of the Leisure Centre, demolition of the Old Pavilion, demolition of the toilet block and removal of the children’s play area. The only thing that had been put in was the paths with lighting and the fencing and this had been funded through grant funding. Mr Marston stated that the Council were using a policy of managed neglect to ruin the Playing Fields and ultimately take them over. He stated that a brown field site was not a description of the land, and it did not mean that it was automatically available for housing.

The Leader noted Mr Marston’s comments but strongly refuted the suggestion that the Council wanted to ruin the Playing Fields. A significant amount of money had been spent on the running track and more trees had recently been planted. The Council did however have an obligation to ensure it provided enough housing to ensure needs were met across the borough. As such, some of the land which had been built on previously, had been allocated for housing over ten years ago. The legal arguments would continue to be worked through to ensure that everything was being done correctly. Once ward members had been met with, residents would be engaged with. The Leader reiterated that there was no plot to run down the playing fields.

2.    Mr Hussain stated that at the last meeting he attended, Mr Horsfield (Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services) had stated that, by December, there should have been a resolution to the ongoing negotiations with Dignity in reference to the development of burial space. The matter had been discussed at the Improving Places Select Commission meeting on 10 December and Dignity clearly stated that they had submitted their revised proposals for a contract that had been signed. The Council were now trying to renegotiate that contract. The proposals had been submitted in September. Mr Hussain asked if the discussions had been concluded and if the burial space was ready to be developed.

The Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services stated that the discussions had not be concluded and nothing had been signed.

Mr Hussain stated that he was referring to the original contract with Dignity that had been signed a number of years ago. He felt that the group involved were not getting straight forward answers. He asked the Council to find the space or develop the space, otherwise there would be a crisis.

The Leader noted the point being made but confirmed that there had been no new agreements. The conversations with Dignity remained ongoing, precisely because the Council wanted to make sure their were delivering the services as agreed.

Mr Hussain stated that Dignity had stated that they had submitted proposals to the Council for the ongoing contractual agreement and part of that submitted to Cabinet in September. The fact it was being held back was why the space was not being developed. At the last Liaison meeting, assurances had been provided that the matter would be resolved in December, or the contract would be pulled.

The Leader explained that that was still fundamentally the position in that the contract had to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties or it would come to an end. The submissions from Dignity did not go to the Cabinet for final sign off until they had been through the legal process first.

The Assistant Director explained that negotiations were ongoing, and the Council were still looking to conclude those in December. The aim was still to ensure the provision of services to meet the needs of the residents.

3.    Mr Azam stated that he felt he was being gagged after only being allowed to ask one question at the Improving Places Scrutiny meeting the week prior. He stated that he had previously been allowed to ask multiple questions. However, without notice, he had been informed that he could now only ask one question and one follow up question. He did not feel that this was effective scrutiny as he could not ask all the pertinent questions. Mr Azam also stated that the Council had a contract with Dignity to provide services for 13 cemeteries. However, there were many other cemeteries and chapels outside of that that were not covered in that contract. A Councillor had raised a point regarding the health and safety of one of these chapels at the scrutiny meeting. Mr Azam asked if the Council had its own procedural document for those other chapels and sites and how was its performance against those.

Councillor Sheppard explained that Cabinet did not set the rules for Scrutiny meetings. The particular scrutiny meeting referred to was very busy; there had to be a limit on the number of questions from the public and sometimes, this had to be extended to elected Members. It certainly was not a gagging order as suggested. Councillor Sheppard was sure Mr Azam would provide answers to all of the questions he wanted to ask. In terms of the health and safety issue, Councillor Sheppard confirmed that Councillor Jones had asked a question relating to the cemetery in his ward. Councillor Sheppard was waiting for further details from Councillor Jones and once those details had been provided, discussions would take place with officers regarding the work that needed doing to ensure the safety of residents.

The Leader confirmed that Mr Azam would get the information about the cemetery Councillor Jones had raised. In relation to Dignity, the Leader confirmed that they managed the cemeteries that were in use. There were other arrangements in place for closed cemeteries.

Mr Azam stated that it would be useful for communities to have an information sheet detailing what was going on with those sites. In his supplementary question, Mr Azam stated that the investment set out by Dignity in their proposals would cost around £5 million. Mr Azam asked for assurances that the Council would provide that investment if the contract with Dignity was terminated. This was vital for services to be delivered across the borough. It would not be right to say the investment was not forthcoming because the contract had been terminated.

Councillor Sheppard confirmed that the Council would ensure all cemeteries, graveyards etc received the level of investment required. Work was already ongoing to make sure buildings in those cemeteries were safe. As for the future of the buildings, Councillor Sheppard confirmed that work would need to be done with community groups to see if the buildings could be repurposed.

Mr Azam asked for confirmation that, whatever decision was made by the Council, the capital investment funding would be in place to provide the services.

The Leader stated that he did not have a list of the investments and the Council had not set a programme of specific investments to the Leader could not commit to that. However, in broad terms, where the works were required in order to keep the cemeteries fully operational, the Council would step in in one way or another. The responsibility currently, was still with Dignity to provide those services.