Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

7 public questions had been submitted for the meeting.

(1)  Mr. Haycock referred to the New Bill taken to Parliament by M.P. Lee Pitcher calling for the tampering/vandalisation of emergency safety equipment to be a criminal offence. He asked would this Council continue to give full support and help the family to protect lifesaving emergency equipment.  Damaged lifesaving stations could not be accessed in difficult situations. Lifesaving equipment needed to be protected to save lives.

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, thanked Mr. Haycock for his question and for all the work he, his family and friends have done on ensuring lifesaving equipment was available and kept safe.

The Council would support the recent Bill introduced to Parliament by M.P. Lee Pitcher, which aimed to make the tampering and vandalisation of emergency safety equipment a criminal offence. The critical importance of protecting life-saving equipment was understood in communities, as damaged or inaccessible stations could have devastating consequences in emergency situations.

The Council stood united with Mr. Haycock, his family and the community in a shared commitment to safeguarding lifesaving equipment and would work diligently to ensure its effectiveness in saving lives.

Personally, the Cabinet Member wanted to thank Mr. Haycock for all he had  been doing in the meetings that have been held over recent years. It was a  privilege to work alongside him and the work he had done had been fantastic.

In a supplementary question Mr. Haycock pointed out he was aware that at some point there had been some work done on local bylaws that could prevent more damage to local equipment. He asked whether this was still going to be pursued despite the fact that it had also gone to Parliament.

Councillor Sheppard was aware there was a meeting to be held shortly so was happy to include this matter on the agenda.

(2)  Ms. Cartland-Ward asked a question in relation to the Rotherham Borough Selective Licensing Schemes, which were stated as "not having been successful" during the 2015-2025 period. What options have been fully reviewed by the Council as alternatives to the proposed 2020-2025 Selective Licensing Scheme, currently going through consultation?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained the phrase ‘not having been successful’ was not used in the Cabinet report so was unsure where this came from. The report stated that the previous Selective Licensing Schemes have focused strongly on the inspection of properties and enforcement. The Cabinet report also noted the positive outcomes of the sustained focus on these areas and credited the large numbers of landlords who have maintained improvements in both repair and management from the first scheme.

Alternative schemes considered would be detailed in the Cabinet report prior to any final decision but, briefly, these have included things like a reactive service model, a self-regulated model and the Council would also give consideration to alternative proposals made during the consultation.    

In a supplementary question Ms. Cartland-Ward asked why the Council dismissed its own service’s officers’ suggestion to put any new selective licensing scheme on hold until after the Renters’ White Bill had come into force.

Councillor Allen confirmed nothing had been dismissed as yet and with all the things considered none of them were related to the Renters Bill. What had become obvious was that this was a far more protracted exercise than anybody thought and by the end of this Selective Licensing period there was a mandatory three -month gap before any other scheme was actually introduced.

(3)  Mr. Azam made reference to Bereavement Services and asked, once the contractual negotiations with Dignity have concluded, could Councillor Sheppard state how long exactly it would take for the work that was required at Wath and the Muslim Section at East Herringthorpe to be completed?

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed it was Dignity’s responsibility as contractor to lead on the development works including the submission of planning applications, complying with Environment Agency requirements, undertaking grounds testing, and developing the programme of works. As Dignity have outstanding requirements to address on the existing East Herringthorpe planning application with the Environment Agency, no clear timescales have been given to the Council, therefore, the Council could not provide these at this time. The Council was addressing this through the penalty charge mechanism of the contract due to the lack of a proper plan from the Contractor.

The planning permission for Wath was granted in October 2023 and the Council understood Wath to be in a state of readiness for works to commence.

The Council’s obligation was to provide land for burial space in the Borough. At previous Council and Cabinet meetings it was stated that the Council would not allow burial space to run out in the Borough and the position in that respect remained unchanged.

The Council would continue to provide updates through the quarterly Muslim Bereavement Liaison Group meetings to ensure that communities were involved in the development of plans and aware of timescales. If it was believed there were matters that were pertinent to the group contact would be made between the scheduled meetings.

In a supplementary question Mr. Azam believed the motto that should be used would be if you have an issue blame Dignity, then tell everyone and if they believe this give yourself a pat on the back. Otherwise if you could not do what was asked you would find a reason to blame Dignity and if they believe this give yourself a pat on the back.  Finally if you could not find anything then you would shout as loud as possible to ensure everyone believed it was the fault of Dignity. He, therefore, referred to a report given to the Council in December, a meeting being scheduled, but cancelled, with a follow up meeting in January where it was reviewed. There was an agreement that the report would be issued in time for Cabinet in January, but this did not happen and further information was now awaited before the report could be issued.  He asked the Cabinet Member to advise him when the report would be released to the Muslim Community so they could actually review it and understand the contents or was the Cabinet Member going to blame the delay on Dignity as well.

Councillor Sheppard pointed out that this was discussed at the previous meeting held in the John Smith Room a couple of weeks ago.  The report author was currently out of the country and their return was awaited before some of the issues could be addressed.  As soon as the report was available it would be issued.

(4)  Mr. Bashir asked had any other art exhibition ever been censored by initially having its context cards and some of its art exhibits taken down before the entirety of the art exhibition was removed? 

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, clarified that there had been no intention to censor art exhibitions or similar events. However, it was essential that there was a process to approve artworks when they were placed in public buildings.

In a supplementary question Mr. Bashir asked how many people requested the library exhibition of local residents and the artists of Monday 25 November 2024 to Friday 6 December 2024, to be taken down on and before Thursday 28 November 2024 with full removal by Saturday 30 November 2024. He also asked under what basis was this decision made, rules or legislation and could documentation to this effect be shared with him via email.

Councillor Sheppard was not aware of any numbers of people, but in terms of the process it was brought to the attention of the Culture and Leisure Team who have responsibility for the libraries and the decision was made to remove exhibits from display as the proper procedure had not been followed.  Attempts were made to liaise with the artists involved to explain about the improper process. Development plans were in hand to develop a new protocol in conjunction with the  Museum, Arts and Heritage Service to ensure a situation did not occur like this in the future.

(5)  Mr. Smyth asked if selective licensing was truly successful, why was the Council expanding it rather than reducing its scope, given that an effective scheme should decrease the need for intervention and how did the Council justify this approach over using existing enforcement powers under the Housing Act 2004?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained about the change to the proposed declaration, but not only to expand, but also to remove some areas from the scheme. The area most notably removed was Maltby and this was done because the landlords there have undertaken works to reduce hazards by some 50%. Unfortunately, this was not the case everywhere.

Other enforcement powers included in the Housing Act 2004 were not enough to deliver the proactive and focused work necessary to identify hazards in areas where vulnerable private tenants were perhaps reluctant to complain. The boundaries of the proposed scheme were part of the live consultation and the member of the public had made his own representations. 

The live consultation would conclude on the 17 March and residents, tenants and landlords of the affected areas or around them were encouraged to share their views via the online consultation.

In a supplementary question Mr. Smyth referred to Maltby's removal and questioned the validity of the data used to support its removal.  He asked would the Council commission an independent review of the consistency of the data used to justify selective licensing success in that area.

Councillor Allen confirmed the Council were waiting to see the outcome of the consultation process via online, feedback from the face-to-face events or from the leaflets distributed to households in affected areas. At this moment in time, the Cabinet Member was not able to commit to anything until the feedback from that consultation had been seen.

(6)  Mr Khan asked did the Council think it was right to issue enforcement notices for landlords to repair damaged caused by tenants, who have been served with eviction notices, thereby stopping the eviction process until the repairs have been done?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, sensed that there was a specific case behind the member of the public’s question so encouraged him if he had specific details to share so this could be looked into.

Whilst a tenant was in occupation the landlord must ensure the property remained free from serious hazards. Landlords were obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 that even if the tenant had contributed to the damage causing the hazard. Landlords may exercise their right to evict a tenant who abused a property, but must maintain a minimum level of safety for their occupying tenant during this period.

In a supplementary question Mr. Khan asked how would the Council support responsible tenancies while also addressing the challenges that may arise such as preventing situations where eviction processes become unnecessarily prolonged or where landlords feel unfairly burdened?

Councillor Allen explained that in terms of support for tenants who were going through an eviction process, the Council’s services could support them with advice and guidance on how to get through that period and this would continue throughout the duration of the eviction period.

(7)  As Ms. Boote was unable to attend the meeting in person she would receive a written response to her question.