Agenda item

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

There were 31 questions for Cabinet Members and Chairpersons:

 

(1)  Councillor Bacon asked would the Council finally implement a Public Space Protection Order on the Todwick A57 to crack down on the out-of-control racing?

 

Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, considered Councillor Bacon’s use of language in his question to be interesting with inference that the Cabinet Member had suggested painting a few lines that would be the ultimate solution to road traffic safety, which the Cabinet Member had not suggested at all. He suggested Councillor Bacon, therefore, watched this back.

 

The question did say would the Council finally implement a Public Space Protection Order which inferred there had already been quite considerable discussion. In the meetings the Cabinet Member had attended discussing this particular issue, including one with relevant officers, the Public Space Protection Order had never been mentioned. 

 

The Council were aware that there was the possibility that one could be imposed and address the situation on the A57. This was, therefore, one of the items that was under consideration along with others, which was an ongoing process.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Bacon confirmed it was difficult to decipher as first what the Cabinet Member was saying it was not mentioned and then later said it  under consideration. Clearly the Council needed to use all tools available to it, so he wondered what the Cabinet Member’s thoughts were on the use of a Public Space Protection Order against other tools.

 

Councillor Taylor clarified by confirming that he had not said it had not been discussed, he confirmed that in meetings he had attended it had not been discussed, of which there were many.

 

A Public Space Protection Order was one of the tools that was under consideration, but it was dependent on reaching certain criteria under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. If this criteria was met then it was a measure that would be considered in more depth. These kind or orders had been used in the other parts of the country, but what impact they have had would need to be considered in the findings to hopefully come to a satisfactory solution as it was a real problem to the people on the A57.

 

(2)  Councillor Bacon asked how much money was spent in Rotherham town centre compared to communities such as Aston and Todwick?

 

Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, explained it was quite difficult to estimate how much Council money was spent in any given ward because it followed individuals by and large rather than places which meant data sets were needed that did not really exist.

 

On a rough calculation it was expected the Council would spend £1.8 billion over the course of the next three years over both its revenue and capital programmes and approximately 0.35% of that would be spent on regeneration schemes in the town centre.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Bacon referred to vast sums going into Rotherham town centre, meanwhile communities like Aston and Todwick were only receiving pennies to pounds. He was wondering if the Leader would look at this and see how the spending could be balanced throughout the borough.

 

Councillor Read explained how more than 99.5 % of all the money the Council spent was not just spent on regeneration scheme in the town centre. It was spent on by and large individuals, residents and families in the places where they lived.

 

Referring back to the discussions during this meeting the majority of the regeneration money for the town centre was externally funded and intended for regeneration purposes.

 

It was hard to make a case that those regeneration schemes should be redirected into a village outside the town centre and say the Council decided to build a cinema and some restaurant units in Todwick village for example.

 

It was likely people would find that a bit of a challenge to understand why that was the case.  It was actually residents that set the task of regenerating the town centre and one the Council was undertaking in a prudent way and bringing in additional investment to do so. This made up a small proportion of the money that was spent right across the northern part of the Borough.

 

(3)  Councillor Thorp referred to Broom Lane crossing having had a lot of media attention on X due to how unsafe this crossing had become, both at the morning school run and then again when parents were collecting their children at the end of the school day. This was worse after the crossing attendant gave her notice, so what was the Cabinet Member going to do?

 

Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, explained in the immediate term Officers were liaising with the Central Neighbourhood Policing Team, who were prepared to deploy their team to this location for some limited periods. This may assist in providing some community confidence and a short-term improvement in driving standards. It would also give a better indication of the situation there. 

 

The Cabinet Member did not share the same links on X so was not aware of the conversations going on. He was aware through the consultation process that there were opportunities within that programme to implement something that had a true beneficial effect.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Thorp confirmed he had spoken to the Cabinet Member about this and submitted questions into SYMCA on the CRSTS funding which should be able to include making safer crossings and safer access to schools for children under active travel. He asked the Cabinet Member if he agreed with him that that was a good way to try and go to get funding for this instead of taking it as just a little side line to the cycle lane funding.

 

Councillor Taylor agreed with anything that improved the safety standards on roads, but there were certain criteria that had to be dealt with within those bidding processes. The design was underway after the first stage of consultation and there would be a further period of consultation to examine to  see whether there was an appropriate means to address the issue in that area.

 

In addition, the Crossing Warden post had been out to advert since the 6th January, 2025 on a rolling programme until the position was filled.

 

(4)  Councillor Thorp would receive a written response to his question from the Cabinet Member for Finance & Safe and Clean Communities.

 

(5)  Councillor Bacon asked how many times had the Leader of the Council, as a portfolio holder, reported to the SYMCA’s scrutiny board as per Government scrutiny guidance?

Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, confirmed he had been as many times as Councillor Bacon had invited him to go, which confirmed he had not been whilst in this portfolio role.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Bacon reiterated that he had not received the answer he expected. Government guidance of the scrutiny protocol issued in November was very clear in that it was for portfolio holders of the Mayoral Combined Authorities to go to these meetings whether they were invited or not. The portfolio holders had responsibility and should be  answerable to scrutiny. No doubt that invitation would come, but he asked would the Leader make sure that where there was an opportunity to attend he would go to scrutiny?

 

Councillor Read responded by confirming all Leaders were very happy to go to scrutiny. Councillor Bacon appeared to indicate that Leaders should simply turn up to scrutiny meetings just on the off chance that there was something that could be raised. 

 

The MCA board meetings were all public meetings and open to public questions at the beginning. The Leader would be very happy to see Councillor Bacon there.

 

(6)  Councillor Bacon asked how important was SYMCA to Rotherham Council?

 

Councillor Read, Leader of the Council, confirmed the SYMCA were fairly important to the Council.

 

In a supplementary response Councillor Bacon did not expect the Leader’s response considering the millions of pounds that they were being given every single year, but on this did the Leader think it acceptable that for one of his representatives, who was supposed to attend the Audit Committee, had not attended a single meeting in six months and only half of those times sent a representative?

 

Councillor Read started with the first part of Councillor Bacon’s question in that Rotherham was a net beneficiary to the tune of tens of millions of pounds a year from membership of SYMCA. The contributions that the Council made were overwhelmingly for transport purposes because SYMCA was the transport authority, and those payments were required either way or under any other kind of transport authority arrangements.

 

Perhaps Councillor Bacon was misled in his understanding of how that worked. The Leader was happy to talk to Audit Members of the Committee who took those roles very seriously. If there was a difficulty or a challenge that somebody was facing against attending those meetings, then this was perfectly understandable.

 

The Leader found it odd that Councillor Bacon would seek to criticise other people when he had not managed to invite him to a meeting or turn up to one of the other meetings to ask the burning questions he had.

 

(7)  Councillor Thorp had asked how many children in RMBC care were housed outside Rotherham. The Cabinet Member had said that £4.4 million could be saved if they were cared for in Rotherham and the supplementary question had asked how many could the Council bring back into Rotherham with the facilities. No number was given to the question. He asked was this an impossible question to answer.

 

Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, explained it was not possible to give a specific response to how many children could return as this was such an individual care planning issue. The Council would not wish to move children on a large scale as this would not be supportive to their needs. As indicated previously, the Council were trying to locate more children within the borough where this was possible and appropriate for them. 

 

The numbers of children coming into care was reducing, but if a child was brought into care, then ideally they should be placed within the borough if appropriate.

 

It was more difficult to start bringing children back from out of the borough. Sometimes this worked and sometimes this could be a really positive move for them. The thing with residential care was that it was always hoped that this would eventually be a step down to foster care.

 

Councillor Cusworth was appreciative of Councillor Thorp’s interest in the particular issue, but there must have been some sort of a revelation as the Conservative Group had voted against every single proposal before the Planning Board  to have residential homes within the borough of which Councillor Thorp was a member.

 

In a supplementary response Councillor Thorp believed the Cabinet Member’s statement to be incorrect. Before he became an Elected Member, Councillor Bacon had actually voted for a children’s home. The only property that had been to Planning Board while he was a member was a property on Broom Lane, which was a semi-detached.  He had asked for Housing Officers to attend to ascertain their views, but they did not turn up.

 

(8)  Councillor Thorp asked if children who were within RMBC care placed in homes within Rotherham in private children's homes or were the service actually having to hire in outside contractors to do this job. These contractors obviously must be purchasing homes in Rotherham, making them as homes or were the service actually pressing ahead with a new home. He further asked was there a new one coming up shortly?

 

Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, explained yes there were some children placed within Rotherham Borough living in independent residential homes. These homes could set up as private businesses and had been the market for the past fourteen years under the Conservative Government, of which there had been much profiteering.

 

However, there were some good providers out there, albeit expensive, but the Council had good relationships and confidence in some companies who had residential homes for children where some of Rotherham’s children were placed.

 

The decision was always made in the best interest of the child involved at the time and place was based on available options. There was huge pressure on the placements and demand for them was high. This was why the commercial element of care had come forward and every Local Authority across the country was in the same position obtaining placements for children.

 

Rotherham was much further ahead than other Authorities in that it was looking to provide its own in-house residential care so hopefully when the next application came before Planning Board, Councillor Thorp would be supportive.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Thorp asked if the service had a further home coming forward and hoped this was going to be rolled out as this was something the Council needed.

 

Children needed these homes and if it was the right house in the right place then Councillor Thorp would be in favour. He asked, therefore, if when the application came forward that the right people be in attendance to answer questions and could this be arranged.

 

Councillor Cusworth confirmed the Council had a strong Commissioning Team in Children's Services led by Helen Sweaton and a great deal of work was undertaken before an application was put before Planning. There were lots of consultation with Ward Members as long as they were not on Planning.  Every effort would be made to ensure the right people were in attendance, but officers from the service were usually present.

 

(9)  Councillor Bennett-Sylvester would receive a written response to this question.

 

(10)  Councillor Bennett-Sylvester would receive a written response to this question.

 

(11)  Councillor Thorp asked why did so many of RMBC consultations have the main agenda set out beforehand or the questions set so that only one outcome could come from it. Just like this question, as he could only see one consultation that had not followed that path.

 

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed every consultation was undertaken for a specific reason and that meant the consultations were different as they were tailored to the issue that was being considered.

 

However, the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Framework set out the standards to be achieved, including being clear about why a consultation was being held and what impact it may have. The framework clearly stated that:-

 

• Consultation needed to take place when proposals were still at a formative stage.
• The Council should enter into the consultation with an open mind. 
• Consultation needed to take place before decisions have been made.

 

Many consultation exercises have led to improvements in the decision-making process, for example, town centre redevelopment plans were changed to better reflect the needs of visually impaired people following a consultation exercise. Meanwhile, Wath Town Centre scheme was changed following feedback from the community with the library being moved to the ground floor of the development.

 

Finally, in the Budget item this was an open ended consultation, as was the Council Plan and the Council were already acting upon some of the issues raised with the investment in the Street Safe Team. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Thorp asked if it was possible for the Council to look back at the way these consultations were set out. There were certain consultations that when you start to answer  them you could not move forward unless you answered the questions in the way the Council wanted or gave the answers that they wanted. Now whether this was Council policy or not would the Cabinet Member please look into this because in certain consultations this was not happening.

 

Councillor Sheppard asked Councillor Thorp if he had specific details to share as there would be different responses to different questions. If evidence could be provided the Cabinet Member would certainly look into it.

 

(12)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(13)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(14)  Councillor Yasseen asked why was there no prior consultation with Ward Councillors before the Selective Licensing Cabinet report was published and in most cases not even before the Selective Licensing public consultation?

 

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed the Cabinet report in September was to seek approval to consult on the proposed Selective Licensing areas. All Members would have been aware that it was coming from the Forward Plan of Key Decisions. 

 

All Ward Councillors for the affected areas were emailed directly on the 19^th December 2024, prior to the consultation going public on the 6^th January 2025. The email gave information on the proposals, directed Councillors to the dedicated webpages and made an offer to attend Community Action Partnerships (CAP Meetings) to discuss the proposals in more detail. The Cabinet Member was informed by officers that they did not receive a response from Councillor Yasseen.   

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Yasseen pointed out about having a neighbourhood working agenda and would have liked to have seen this being brought forward for an agenda where regular slots were provided. The Neighbourhood Office should have been aware of this if it was something affecting a particular ward. Where it would have made a difference was if Ward Members had been involved from an earlier point in this consultation. It could have helped and given better understanding  why the Council was reluctant to support a more tailored and area specific approach across Rotherham and not what seemed like with a select group of VIP landlords.

 

Councillor Allen reiterated that an offer to come out to Community Action Partnerships or ward briefings if required was made. This had only been taken up in one area, but the offer was there as the Council was in no way restricting who it talked to about these proposals.

 

(15)  Councillor Yasseen asked on behalf of a resident from Boston Castle, why, when Rotherham’s Selective Licensing scheme had failed for the last ten years, should good tenants and landlords pay for the Council’s failure for another five years?

 

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed under the 2020-25 selective licencing declarations, 2,021 full proactive property inspections under the Housing Act’s Health and Safety Rating system where 69% of properties (one in seven properties) in selective licensing areas had Category 1 or 2 hazards present. This was not the Council failing, this was landlords failing their tenants.  It was also pointed out that the fee for selective licensing did not have to be passed on to tenants, but some landlords chose to do so and good landlords could receive a rebate on the fee they paid when properties were well managed and in good condition.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Yasseen  asked how could  the Council justify stricter regulations and private landlords while neglecting compliance in its own properties?  For example, there had been a 12% drop in meeting decent home standards in 2023/24, which obviously in terms of the context could potentially lead to inevitable negative impact on Council tenants.

 

Councillor Allen confirmed this was a valid question which highlighted the difference between social and private rented sector properties and the management of them. The Authority had flagged up that change in the number of properties meeting the decent homes standard because it was recognised there had been a numerical error made. From the 12% drop the Council was already on its way back up to 100% compliance.

 

Also as a Local Authority, with every other authority in the country, the Council was subject to regulation by the Social Housing Regulator who would have their own programme of inspection. This again highlighted the parity there between the private and the social sector. So it was not just about justifying anything, this was about good practice in housing management aimed at improving the living standards and health of local residents.

 

(16)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(17)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(18)  Councillor Yasseen referred to tenants’ fear that the proposed increased selective licensing fees would push rents up, making them unaffordable and push some of Rotherham's poorest tenants into homelessness. With the Council already struggling to accommodate rising homelessness cases, could the Cabinet Member guarantee that those affected would not end up in Carlton Park hotel or other hotels due to an inability to pay higher rents?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, reiterated what she had just said in answer to the last question. Fees do not have to be passed on to tenants.  The landlord could decide as part of their social conscience to not do so.

 

Rotherham Council had a Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy which quite clearly stated the intention to stop the routine use of hotels as temporary accommodation. However, when someone presented as emergency homeless would people rather see the Council turn them away instead of using a hotel as the only available option.

 

The current license fee of £521 had been a feature of the housing market for the last five years without significant homelessness being attributed to the declaration and the new fee was subject to consultation.

 

The alternative to this sort of scheme was that significant numbers of Rotherham residents were forced into accommodation that was not safe and not fit for human habitation. Councillor Yasseen would form her own view about whether she was able to tolerate that, but for the Council that would be unconscionable.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Yasseen explained she had dealt with lots of complaints with the largest landlord locally, which was the Council.  She went to many places which were regarded as not habitable, but they were not always in the private sector.

 

The Cabinet Member agreed that hotels were not a sustainable solution and were expensive. Councillor Yasseen asked would the Council recognise that it was in the best interest of tenants that private landlords were seen as a key partner in addressing social housing needs and adopt a more asset-based approach instead of treating them as Adversaries.

 

Councillor Allen confirmed work had taken place with landlords and they have been invited to training sessions to explain the purposes of selective licensing.  The Council had also tried to get them to have a self-regulated approach around selective licensing but, unfortunately there had been negligible uptake on that. This was not just about landlords, this was about the housing conditions that people encountered.

 

The Cabinet Member had also brought a number of photographs that showed the sort of hazards found in private sector properties.  This was not about an adversarial relationship with landlords as the Council was always available to talk with them.

 

(19)  Councillor Yasseen asked why did the Council not commission an independent body to undertake public consultation on Selective Licensing as was proposed in the relevant Cabinet report of 16th September 2024?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed this was explored before starting the consultation and private companies were approached to quote to deliver the process independently. However, no company could deliver the full consultation specification and, therefore, this could not be progressed.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Yasseen asked if the Cabinet Member thought on reflection that maybe the Council should have gone independently as she had been to drop-ins, reviewed the website and organised her own community meetings yet it felt that an independent approach would have been better.  Residents felt that this was not undertaken as the Council were frightened of what the responses might have been and may not have received the right answers to the questions asked. Therefore, there was loaded bias.

 

Councillor Allen explained the suggestion would not have been put in the September 2024 Cabinet report to use an independent body to do the consultation if it had not been meant. This was clearly the intention at the time and the Council would have preferred that route. However, feedback through the comments so far from the consultation had criticised the consultation methodology. However, from the latest update on 27 February, thirty-five emails about the proposals had been received for the Selective Licensing areas and of those only six mentioned their dissatisfaction with the online survey. So, it appeared that some have criticised the consultation whilst many have been able to engage without any concern.

 

(20)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(21)  Councillor Yasseen asked how did the Council justify proceeding with the current Selective Licensing consultation that had been publicly criticised for being misleading, confusing, and inaccessible to many residents?

 

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed the consultation would be reviewed to inform the Council’s final decision on whether to implement the Policy or not. Some have criticised the consultation, whilst many others have been able to engage without any concern. All of this would be considered when the Council made its final decision. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Yasseen confirmed she had spoken to hundreds of people now and even in the meeting a few weeks ago at a drop-in session there was nearly one hundred people present. So there was a body of people that actually were criticising it.

 

Even now after having raised it in these drop-ins the Council website was incorrect.  For example the northern part of Boston Castle Ward had been renamed Eastwood, which was in Rotherham East Ward. 

 

Given this confusion and misleading description, did the Cabinet Member not think the Council should show more due diligence and consider essentially addressing some of these mistakes that were still there on the website.  Councillor Yasseen had raised this at several meetings now.

 

Councillor Allen was always interested to hear that there were errors on consultation documents and indeed any correspondence that the Council actually sent out. She herself had not been in those meetings where the specific details had been raised, but asked Councillor Yasseen to let her know and she would be more than happy to take them up with the service concerned.

 

(22)  Councillor Yasseen asked why were areas such as Kimberworth and Clifton not clearly referenced in consultation documents for Selective Licensing, leading to residents, especially tenants, receiving inaccurate or misleading information?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed she had learnt as part of the Selective Licensing consultation that Jordan was a hamlet of Kimberworth which she had to go back and clarify. So she expressed some personal sympathy with some of the confusion about the areas that were identified.

 

Councillor Allen went on to confirm the Council was made aware early in the consultation that not all residents, tenants and landlords realised via the correspondence that the boundaries of the areas proposed had changed.

 

Once this feedback was received by the Council on the Sunday 26^th January, the changes were made to the website and was amended to make this more explicit.  These amendments were made on the first working day after the initial email, which was Monday 27^th January, 2025.

 

The original hard copy leaflets produced and delivered to 16,000 addresses referred to ‘Eastwood/Town Centre’ for the proposed areas which included Clifton and referred to ‘Masbrough’ for the area which included some areas of Kimberworth. Maps of both areas were included in the correspondence to show the full extent of the proposal and the Online Survey included all the individual areas by name.

 

In a supplementary Councillor Yasseen believed this whole consultation had been rushed and, therefore, mistakes were being made. A failure to generally explore alternative approaches with tenants, landlords and residents had been a missed opportunity and she hoped that this was not going to be a forever missed opportunity.

 

In light of the Government introducing the Renters' Rights Bill, what was the rush, why was it being pushed forward with a poor defective licensing scheme when time could be given to reflecting on what was needed.  She agreed with the Cabinet Member that no-one should live in a house that was not habitable and the Council should strive to be raising housing standards.  This, however, was not the way to do it.

 

Councillor Allen did not feel the consultation was being rushed.  The report in September was seeking permission to go out to consult.  A statutory ten-week consultation would have been implemented by the 17th March and the results of that consultation would be brought in June.

 

So, between the 17th March and the beginning of June, there would be time to reflect upon the consultation outcomes.  The current scheme would cease at the end of March and there was a requirement to take a mandatory three-month break. This would be happening and time would be given to reflect on what had come back via the consultation and this would be included in the final report that would be presented in June.

 

(23)  Councillor A. Carter thanked the Cabinet Member for his email last week confirming that the parking changes at the shops on Brinsworth Lane would start on 10th March. Given the year delay, would the Cabinet Member commit to doing a thorough review into delays and stakeholder communication issues, so these could be improved upon for future projects?

 

Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed the complexity of the Brinsworth Lane project lay in the private sector land ownership matters which required resolution prior to the project commencing. Whilst every effort was made to communicate this, these challenges perhaps could have been better anticipated in order to manage expectations.  

 

It was good practice to evaluate the successes and potential for improvement as projects drew to a close and this would be undertaken on the Towns and Villages programme.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter asked when that review came would the Ward Members be consulted and could the Cabinet Member confirm the results of any consultation on any review.

 

Councillor Sheppard confirmed as soon as this information was available he would be happy to share that with Ward Members.

 

(24)  Councillor A. Carter asked regarding Selective Licensing, what steps had the Council taken to engage and seek views of tenants directly affected by the proposed new Selective Licensing scheme?

 

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed the Council was very keen to hear tenants’ views to balance the consultation feedback and would ask Members to encourage private tenants and residents in proposed areas to participate in the consultation.     

 

The online consultation survey was available for private tenants to express their views anonymously if they preferred. 16,000 information leaflets have been posted out to every postal address in the proposed areas to advise of the proposal, including maps and basic information, with a QR code link and a web address to access the online consultation survey. The leaflet also offered access to a paper version of the survey and invited tenants to six consultation events in the proposed areas to let them speak to officers directly. A further consultation day on 1^st March 2025 was added and publicised in the local press and on social media to allow anyone who had not been able to attend previous consultation events.

 

To complement the leaflets, similar information had been displayed on lampposts in each of the areas and two paid advertisements and an editorial in the Advertiser, have informed residents of the proposals and the ways to become engaged in the consultation.

 

In a supplementary Councillor A. Carter explained having gone to the consultation event in Brinsworth found it was poorly attended with only a handful of tenants present.

 

Councillor Carter hoped that the online consultation had elicited more views from tenants certainly and throughout the borough and in Brinsworth.  He had a number of concerns regarding the consultation in that the areas looked at for selective licensing were often more deprived areas.

 

Lots of the consultation literature sounded quite technical and very much in Council speak and from his experience in Brinsworth of the areas that were proposed the issue on those streets was engagement with Council services.

 

Councillor Carter, therefore, asked would it not be better to proactively knock on the doors of those residents and would the Cabinet Member agree that any new Selective Licensing should be paused until the Renters’ Rights Bill had come into force and the Council could then evaluate the impact this was having on residents.

 

Councillor Allen noted the point about the areas being amongst the most deprived. This, indeed, was one of the criteria for an area being included in a selected licensing declaration.

 

Some door knocking had been undertaken, but the Cabinet Member was listening and would take this back to the survey and see if more could be facilitated.

 

Councillor Allen hoped this had been demonstrated in her answer to Councillor Yasseen that the consultation was not being rushed, that it was in accordance with the statutory consultation period, there would be that mandatory three-month break and a further couple of months before the report was brought back for final approval.

 

(25)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(26)  Councillor A. Carter asked with the introduction of RSV vaccination in certain groups, what had been the impact in the borough so far on deaths and pressures on health and social care services?

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, confirmed the RSV vaccination program was introduced in the UK in September 2024 and was targeted at older adults aged seventy-five plus and pregnant women to provide protection to their infants. 

 

The vaccine programme was the responsibility of NHS England and the question should be addressed to the regional screening and immunisation team who should be able to provide data on uptake and the impact so far.

 

(27)  Councillor A. Carter asked would the Cabinet Member support RSV vaccination to health and social care workers, and other frontline Council staff?

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, confirmed the national RSV vaccination program was targeted at two vulnerable cohorts, infants under the age of one year (protected through vaccination of the mother during pregnancy) and those aged over seventy-five. 

 

There was no evidence to support a more universal approach, so in this case the Council would not support the vaccination of health and social care workers.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter asked was this the same strategy applied with the flu vaccination as he was aware of a number of organisations and companies that offered this staff to reduce sickness during that winter period.

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers believed this to be the case, but would confirm for definite in writing.

 

(28)  Councillor Ball would receive a written response to this question.

 

(29)  Councillor A. Carter asked with the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders project set to conclude in September, what was the strategy to continue supporting affected children beyond this time?

 

Councillor Cusworth, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, confirmed One Adoption South Yorkshire (the regional organization that managed adoption processes for the Borough) funded a two-year project attempting to identify the prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) in adopted children and supported the development of pathways to meet their needs. This had been led by Chris Clark from Doncaster Council, which hosted the One Adoption Service and would conclude in March 2025.

 

It had been difficult to establish the prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in South Yorkshire as indeed was the case across the country. With the ending of the project for this very small group of children, it had been recognised by both Public Health and ICB colleagues that this was potentially a broader public health issue.

 

There would continue to be representation from the Best Start and Beyond Public Health team in the working groups for the One Adoption Project and the programme lead would provide details of progress.  

 

In addition, there would continue to be Public Health membership in South Yorkshire groups with focus on FASD including the Local Maternity and Neonatal System (LMNS) Prevention steering group; South Yorkshire Safeguarding In the 1^st Year of life group and the ICB led South Yorkshire FASD Prevention Group. The output from these groups was largely focused on prevention and raising awareness. The project lead, Chris Clark, was working with the Assessment and Diagnosis Group to identify leads to continue practice as business as usual once the project had ended.

 

The Public Health Team have an e-learning package which had been widely promoted and there had been encouraging take up of this offer.

 

A Community of Practice had been created for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders run by NHS England Sheffield. This was provided via Professor Mukherjee, who has developed a pathway for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders assessment and diagnosis and all four areas within South Yorkshire have access to the monthly supervision. Awareness raising and training would continue to be delivered by the project until the summer.

 

Councillor Cusworth also gave further assurance that this was something she was very passionate about and since the new research where more children may be affected than initially thought, it was something that she would closely monitor.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter welcomed the prevention work and identification on the increased prevalence of incidents happening in the region, country and world. He asked about the process of how these children were going to be identified moving forward, for them not to be lost in the system in the first place and whether this was prevention during the antenatal period and then referral into service.  He asked was this a specific service or what extra support could be given to that neonatal infant and onwards and whether this had improved to what had been available prior to this trial.

 

Councillor Cusworth confirmed she would provide more information in writing on the actual process. The balance was for children receiving support that they needed regardless of the diagnosis or the cause of that need, versus campaigns around the dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy and the impact that that might have in trying to campaign and lobby from a public health point of view.

 

(30)  Councillor A. Carter asked how did the Council identify, interact, and support unpaid carers within the borough?

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, confirmed the Council had a variety of ways in which it identified, interacted and supported unpaid carers within the Borough as the Council recognised the invaluable contribution carers made and wanted to ensure they were fully supported to sustain their caring roles for as long as they were able and willing to do so.

 

The Adult Social Care Teams were fully trained to recognise informal carers where referrals were received for adults who had presenting needs for care and support and/or where carers were referred or self-refer for assessment and support. 

 

The Adult Care and Integration Service had recently established Carers Link Officer roles to enhance the offer further and to ensure informal carers received the support they need at the earliest opportunity. Types of support offered were dependent on the individual circumstances of the carer and could include the provision of information and advice, one off support services, carers breaks, registration with commissioned Carers Emergency Scheme as well as ongoing support linked to the carers’ specific individual needs.      

 

In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter asked if the Council was sure it was adequately capturing the full amount of unpaid care within the borough and if yes how sure could the Council be and if no was there anything that should be done additionally to proactively do this. He further asked how this could be facilitated for those who were doing a good service for their families, their friends, and therefore by extension as a whole being unpaid carers.

 

Additionally, he asked how were the Council then being able to support them moving forward perhaps into a time where they needed to balance other varying roles alongside their care and responsibilities.

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers confirmed the Council had recently updated its web page information to provide full information to carers about the support available via the Council and other commissioned services and groups such as the Making Space Dementia Cafes and Carers Forums. The web pages also included information about financial, emotional wellbeing support and training available to carers as well as links to the Carers Directory and Carers Newsletter, which was published bi-annually.

 

In terms of how many carers were reached a definitive number could not be provided, but the Council was doing as much as it actually could to  reach out to unpaid carers so that they could find out about the support that was offered by the Council and other third parties in the town.

 

(31)  Councillor A. Carter asked what was your view on the current waiting times for NHS talking therapies within the borough and was the Cabinet Member helping to ensure these waits were as low as possible?

 

Councillor Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, confirmed Talking Therapies for Rotherham residents are provided by the Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humber NHS Trust (RDaSH). Targets for assessment and treatment were four weeks, and eighteen weeks respectively. Currently the service was achieving:-

 

·       telephone or on-line assessment for individuals within  days of referral.

·       face to face assessment within 7-8 weeks.

·       10-14 weeks for remote counselling.

·       30-35 weeks for face-to-face counselling.

·       12-16 weeks for remote CBT.

·       and 16-25 weeks for face-to-face CBT.

 

Councillor Baker-Roger’s assessment would be that some of those timeframes were being met, but it also depended on how the service was actually delivered. There was work to do to improve, but the Cabinet Member was committed to reducing those timeframes.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter was pleased to hear the targets were often less than the eighteen-week target. At the risk of straying into his own professional experience in healthcare Councillor Carter expressed concern about NHS Talking Therapies and their target levels being far too long.  He asked would the Cabinet Member agree those targets set as an ICB and as a Council everyone should try to make sure that those waiting times come down. From experience this could lead to much more prolonged and mental health medications that could be addressed through talking therapy.

 

Councillor Baker-Roger’s simple answer to this was yes when it was possible to do so.