Agenda item

Members' Questions to Cabinet Members and Chairpersons

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).

Minutes:

There were 22 questions for Cabinet Members and Chairpersons:

 

  1. Councillor Bacon: Following the Council’s loss of nearly half a million pounds of tax payers’ money in a capital project, will the council commit to reviewing what went wrong, and give strong assurances that lessons have been learnt?


Councillor Alam explained that he presumed that this question related to the write off approved at Cabinet in November 2024, as part of the Council September Financial Monitoring report. The Council proposed to write off a debtor balance in relation to IIiad (Rotherham) Ltd, to the value of £466,360.22, dating back from 27 March 2013. The debt stemmed from an old regeneration scheme where RMBC entered into a Development Agreement with the developer Iliad to deliver the Westgate Demonstrator Project.  Under the terms of the Development Agreement just prior to commencement of construction on site, Iliad and the Council would enter into a long term lease. As the buildings were completed Iliad would then pay to the Council a Lease Premium. However, IIiad got into significant financial difficulty and were unable to meet the lease premium and ultimately fell into liquidation. As a result of this the Council was not able to recover the lease premium that it had raised as a debtor.

 

Councillor Alam explained that even with the best due diligence in the world, sometimes private companies did go bust. The Council had taken steps over a number of years to pursue the debt as there was a small possibility of debt recovery even with the company being in liquidation, however, the Council’s efforts had not been able to recover the outstanding balance. In terms of the Councils own actions to try to avoid such things arising, with projects such as this the Council always carried out financial viability checks on businesses that it looked to engage to help mitigate any potential risk. Whilst the Council took steps to ensure that it ensured it was working with financially robust organisations, the risk of a business falling into financial difficulty could never be fully eradicated.    

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon stated that this highlighted another failure on Labour’s watch. A recent audit report had revealed a series of failings in the way that the Council managed public finances when it came to big projects. He asked if Labour would acknowledge the internal audit report, support publishing as much of it as possible and apologise to the public for the serious failing on their watch.

Councillor Alam explained that there were recommendations from the audit report. The failings mentioned were in 2013 and improvements had been made to the monitoring of capital projects by officers and members since then.

 

2.    Councillor Bacon: Following complaints from residents that utility companies are allegedly not fully restoring areas of works to the standard they found them in, what steps will the council take to ensure these companies look after public infrastructure?


Councillor Taylor was not present at the meeting to respond so a written response would be provided.

 

3.    Councillor Thorp: How many children from Rotherham who need to be in care, but due to the lack of homes, are having to be cared for outside of the Borough, and how much is this outside care costing RMBC?


Councillor Cusworth explained that there were 180 children and young people placed outside the borough. Of these, there would be some where this was purposeful for safety reasons, specialist education placements or placement with family. Whilst the Council did want more spaces for children and young people within the borough, it would always need spaces outside the borough for specialist needs and to be able to be flexible in the management of placements for children and young people. 

 

The external placements currently cost about £19.9m; if all the children and young people involved were able to be cared for in area, then the cost would be approximately 14.5m.


In his supplementary question, Councillor Thorp acknowledged that there were circumstances in which out of borough placements were required. He asked how many of the 180 children could be brought back to Rotherham if the right facilities were in place.


Councillor Cusworth explained that a written response would be provided with the figures. Members did have to be mindful of the amount of money made by private care homes. For example in 21/22, local authorities in England spent approximately £1.5 billon on care for children and private providers made around £300 million of profit. The Childrens Wellbeing Bill that was set to be introduced would put a cap on that.


Councillor Cusworth stated that it would be extremely helpful if all Councillors could promote fostering from the widest range of communities in Rotherham, which would help to increase the number of homes available to children and young people in Rotherham.

 

4.    Councillor Sutton: Will the cabinet member recognise the concerns the residents of Maltby have around the planning application for the Maltby colliery site which will not only bring an environmental impact on our community with the CLO and other contaminants it will bring an increase in size and numbers of lorries through Maltby if the planning for the reclamation scheme goes ahead?


Councillor Taylor was not present at the meeting to respond so a written response would be provided.

 

5.    Councillor Monk: What can the cabinet member tell us about the impact of this Council's decision to auto enrol eligible families for free school meals in Rotherham?


Councillor Monk was not present at the meeting to ask her question so a written response would be provided.

 

6.    Councillor Baggaley: Could you provide an update on the expansion works at Waverley Junior Academy and reassurance to parents that additional places will be available from September 2025?


Councillor Cusworth explained that Wavery Junior Academy had been consistently over subscribed for several years. This meant that some local parents had not aways been able to get their first choice of school and some children had not always been able to be educated at their nearest school. The Council had worked with the school to increase the number of places by extending the school building itself. This had always been the plan as part of the Waverley development however it had been brought forward by 12 months.


The expansion will support parental choice and allow more children to be educated locally. Councillor Cusworth noted that the sponsors of the academy had worked with the Council at speed to get the expansion done.

In his supplementary, Councillor Baggaley stated that with the additional 210 places, it would increase pupil yield to 630 with an FS0/FS1 provision on top. Councillor Baggaley expressed concerns for child safety around the school, especially after the school crossing warden had left the post. He asked what could be done to improve road safety around schools.


Councillor Cusworth explained that the vacant post was being advertised and service wanted someone in post as quickly as possible. The site also formed part of the survey for school crossing patrols and traffic management. Conversations were ongoing in traffic management around this issue. Further information would be provided in writing and Councillor Cusworth invited Councillor Baggaley to a meeting with her and Councillor Taylor to further discuss the matter.

 

7.    Councillor Yasseen: Who decided the new and existing cycling routes?


Councillor Taylor was not present at the meeting to respond so a written response would be provided.

 

8.    Councillor Clarke: Following the local area inspection in September, please could you give me an outline of what is next for the Rotherham SEND provision?


Councillor Clarke was not present at the meeting to ask her question so a written response would be provided.

 

9.    Councillor Yasseen: With the Council committing to building more homes, why is it not working with local partners, such as the NHS, to maximise housing opportunities from Partners surplus estate sites?


Councillor Allen explained that the Council facilitated bi-monthly meetings of the Strategic Estates Group, which brought together public sector partners, including NHS organisations, to discuss a range of issues including the best use of surplus land and assets to meet wider Borough objectives and priorities. Councillor Allen reiterated that meetings were held regularly.


In her supplementary question, Councillor Yasseen stated that there had been community members at the meeting fighting for the NHS accommodation. For her research, Councillor Yasseen stated that it did not look as though people were meeting and the right support had not been put in place. It was only once the campaign had started that the Council helped. Councillor Yasseen referenced previous comments that there was a lack of funding but she asked if the underspend from the HRA could be used and conversations held with NHS partners regarding the accommodation blocks.


Councillor Allen explained that the Council would expect partners to raise such issues at the Strategic Estates Group meetings. Councillor Allen said members of the community knew more about it before the issue was raised at the Group. In terms of the NHS accommodation blocks, the Council had been led to believe that the blocks would be repurposed. The Council would, via the Strategic Estates Group, continue to push the NHS to be clear about their intentions. Finance would be a major consideration should the properties become available. However, there were also concerns that the blocks were in the middle of the hospital site and therefore may not be suitable for general accommodation.

10.Councillor Yasseen: Can you reassure us that child safeguarding is fully embedded in all Council services, reflecting our commitment to a ‘Child-Centred Borough’. What specific measures are in place to ensure safeguarding remains a consistent priority across all services?


Councillor Cusworth explained that safeguarding remained a priority for all services across the Council and there was a Council Safeguarding Policy in place and available on the intranet which reinforced that safeguarding was everybody’s business. This was recognised by Ofsted at the last Focused Visit in May 2024, which concentrated on safeguarding across children in need in Rotherham and they commented that “strong corporate support ensures a whole-council approach to understanding children’s vulnerability and responding to risk and need.” They also noted the political leadership and Strategic Leadership Team with safeguarding running from the very top.

 

The Council had a Safeguarding Champions Group which included representatives from all Directorates across the Council so that safeguarding remained a golden thread. There was mandatory safeguarding training for all staff and safeguarding training for Elected Members with 6 monthly updates. Child Exploitation also formed part of the induction course.

 

Councillor Cusworth concluded by saying there was lots of other work going on and that Rotherham was seen as the Gold Standard when it came to child safeguarding.


Councillor Yasseen raised various points in her supplementary question that the Mayor deemed not to relate to the original question. As such the Mayor rejected the question and moved on to the next.

 

11.Councillor A Carter: What date can we expect work to start on the improvements to parking outside the Brinsworth Lane shops?


Councillor Sheppard stated that it was expected that the works would be complete before the end of the financial year and they were scheduled to take around 4 weeks for completion.


In his supplementary, Councillor A Carter asked for confirmation that work would start by the end of February 2025.


Councillor Sheppard confirmed this was correct.

 

12.Councillor A Carter: Would the cabinet member support our submission for improvements to Brinsworth Gateway through the Our Places Fund project, that would see improvements to shop frontage, essential road resurfacing, and improvement of the street scene, that would complete the projects we originally submitted to the Towns and Villages fund four years ago?


Councillor Sheppard confirmed that he would be considering it along with various other locations across the borough in response to the consultation.

In his supplementary, Councillor A Carter stated that if any further information was required, the Brinsworth Neighbourhood Officer would be able to assist.


Councillor Sheppard thanked Councillor Carter for that information.

 

13.Councillor A Carter: What is the financial cost to the council and therefore Rotherham taxpayers due to empty units at the new Forge Island development, including lost business rates, lost rent, and consequent impact on paying off the capital investment loan?


Councillor Taylor was not present at the meeting to respond so a written response would be provided.

 

14.Councillor Ball: Can you provide a detailed breakdown of how council tax revenue is being allocated and how you justify recent increases in light of ongoing service cuts?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

15.Councillor Ball: How do you plan to improve procurement practices to ensure better value for money and reduce unnecessary spending?

 

Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

16.Councillor Ball: Can you explain why investments in the EV infrastructure are limited to singular charging points rather than exploring Gridserve-style hubs that could generate jobs and support economic growth?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

17.Councillor Ball: What is the council doing to secure and maintain essential public safety equipment, such as throwline boards, across all high-risk areas?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

18.Councillor Ball: Can you provide evidence of measurable outcomes from recent public spending initiatives, particularly those marketed as tackling antisocial behaviour and community safety?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

19.Councillor Ball: How is the council collaborating with local police to ensure consistency in tackling antisocial behaviour and reducing strain on emergency services?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

20.Councillor Ball: What more can be done by the council to engage with local community groups, such as Maltby Happy Gardeners, to develop sustainable, cost-effective solutions for maintaining green spaces?


Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

21.Councillor Ball: Given ongoing issues with speeding and antisocial driving, what is your long-term plan to address these problems across Rotherham?

Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.

 

22.Councillor Ball: What is your five-year plan to balance economic growth, environmental sustainability, and public service improvements, and how will you ensure tangible benefits for residents?

 

Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask his question so a written response would be provided.