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 nine questions:

1.    Councillor Yasseen stated that 17 March was the last day of the Selective Licensing consultation. Over the last decade, Selective Licensing had failed to sustain improvements in private housing standards, as stated on the Council’s website. Councillor Yasseen stated that Sheffield, Leeds and Doncaster had ended or narrowed their schemes, but Rotherham was planning an expansion on a failed scheme. She asked if the Council would work with tenants, landlords and wider stakeholders, especially Councillors, to develop an alternative approach instead of persisting with the current proposals?

Councillor Allen stated that the scheme in Rotherham was not an entire expansion. There was one new area, and other areas had been removed or amended. If the Council received information that would lead to an alternative scheme, they would be considered as part of the consultation feedback.

2.    Mr Hussain asked a question in relation to Herringthorpe Cemetery, Dignity and Bereavement Services. He asked why the Council were not concluding the contract. Mr Hussain stated that at the liaison group meeting, Dignity had reached out to the Council’s legal services, asking to arrange a meeting so that any outstanding matters could be resolved. In the second part of his question, Mr Hussain referenced the independent review of Bereavement Services that had been commissioned by the Council. He had previously asked to see this document but was informed that it was being factchecked by the Council. Mr Hussain believed that it would cease to be independent if the Council manipulated it in any way.

Councillor Sheppard stated that the meeting with Dignity would be taking place next week and he was hopeful that there would be progress. It was however a long term contract and as such the discussions were very detailed. If any information could be shared after the meeting it would be. In relation to the independent review, Councillor Sheppard explained that the report author was still out of the country and there were a few details in the report that needed to be updated to ensure they were factual before it could be shared more widely.

In his supplementary question, Mr Hussain asked if the meeting next week was to conclude discussions or to fine Dignity for failings. In relation to the independent review, Mr Hussain asked why the Council needed to go back to the author when the author had submitted the final report.

Councillor Sheppard explained that he could not pre-empt what would happen at the meeting. In relation to the report, the Council wanted to make sure the detail was correct before it was published.

3.    Mr Azam stated that the latest saga regarding cemeteries, Dignity and the Council had started in August 2024. He had been informed that it would be resolved by December 2024, but it was now March 2025 and discussions were still ongoing. Mr Azam stated that Dignity had to put a large amount of investment in place and were most likely looking at options on how to recover that, along with some contractual changes. He believed that meetings should be taking place weekly to resolve the matter with urgency. Referencing Councillor Sheppard’s comments at the previous Council meeting, Mr Azam stated that there was not 1.2 years’ worth of capacity for baby graves; there was no capacity. Urgency was required and Mr Azam asked for some proper answers. He stated that the Muslim community felt underwhelmed and fobbed off.

Councillor Sheppard refuted Mr Azam’s comments and stated that the Council were working as hard as possible. He reiterated that the borough would not run out of graves but acknowledged the frustration felt.

In his supplementary question, Mr Azam referenced the independent report and stated that the author returned to the country at the end of February. The report had been submitted and the Council had responded with some required changes. Mr Azam stated that the community did not want a presentation. They wanted to see the report so they could work with the Council on how to progress going forward. There were 151 graves that were currently unmarked but there was no urgency from the Council. He asked why the report could not be released.

The Leader stated that Councillor Sheppard had already responded to that question. The Council were waiting for a report that met the terms of reference that had been set out. This had been delayed as the report author had been away. However, it was standard procedure to make sure an independent report met the terms of reference agreed. Once this procedure had been concluded, the report would be made available.

4.    Mr Smart asked what Rotherham Borough Council’s definition of racism was.

The Leader explained that, to the best of his knowledge, the Council did not have its own written definition of racism. He would consult with legal services and provide a written response.

In his supplementary question, Mr Smart asked if the Council, Council Members or Council Officers were able to discriminate on any basis?

The Leader answered no. All were bound by the law and the Council’s Constitution.

5.    Ms Boote referenced the exhibition by local residents and artists on Monday 25 November to Friday 6 December 2024. She asked why the exhibition had been subject to censorship, how had that kind of censorship been allowed to happen and had it happened before.

The Leader stated that the items displayed in the library at Riverside House on the dates specified had been removed as the proper process for displaying them had not been followed. There was a process in place relating to the displaying of items in Council buildings that needed to be followed, and it had not been in this case. The Leader was not aware of any particular similar incidents but believed there would have been similar incidents previously.

In her supplementary, Ms Boote asked what steps had been taken to rectify the acts of censorship.

The Leader acknowledged that people could feel what they wanted to but in his view, it was not censorship and to say so was an inaccurate description of what happened. He reiterated that there was a process around displays, and it was common sense to have such a process to determine what was appropriate and how that came to be signed off. In the case referred to, this process was not correctly followed. It was not a matter of censorship or rectifying censorship but of ascertaining if displays were appropriate.

The Leader stated that the process could be shared with Ms Boote.

6.    Mr Ramzan stated that at a meeting held with Councillor Sheppard on 2 December 2024, he had promised than an investigation would be undertaken on why the library had censored the Palestine art exhibition by local artists and members of the public. Mr Ramzan asked if an investigation had been done and if any documentation relating to the investigation could be provided by email.

Councillor Sheppard stated that since the Council had been made aware that the correct process had not been followed regarding the exhibition in the library, work had been done with the museum service who had a more advanced protocol for dealing with artworks. This had been reflected in the library protocol and lessons had been learnt.

In his supplementary question, Mr Ramzan stated that he had previously asked for any documentation relating to the removal of the Palestine art exhibition from the library but had not been provided with anything. He asked if the Council intended to provide any documentation.

The Leader reiterated that the process and rules around displays would be shared.

7.    Mr Ashraf asked if all the correspondence on Gaza and Palestine, from any Councillor or Council Officer to any external organisation (including the national government,) could be sent to his email address. This should initially cover the period 7 October 2023 to the current day but then anything preceding that date. Mr Ashraf stated that he would provide a copy of his question to the Leader and to Governance for the sake of clarity as he did not feel his questions and answers were accurately minuted.

The Leader stated that this would not be possible as the Council did not have access to all correspondence sent by individual members. As such, this would also be outside the scope for a Freedom of Information request. As far as the Leader was aware, the Council had already published all the correspondence he as Leader and Councillor Alam had sent and received especially with the government. The Leader agreed to check this and provide correspondence if it was not already in the public domain.

In his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf asked if there were any UK laws that Rotherham Borough Council, Councillors or Council Officers were not subject to and if so, could details be provided.

The Leader answered no. The Council, Councillors and Council Officers were subject to the law in the same way as everyone else.

8.    Ms Cartland-Ward asked a question in relation to the information provided at the Selective Licensing consultation meeting on 17 February at the Town Hall. She stated that there was a statement at that meeting saying that Masbrough was poor quality accommodation with 83% of properties failing on first inspection. Ms Cartland-Ward stated that she had been a good landlord, following Selective Licencing rules since it started 10 years ago. There had been no context as to what the 83% represented. Ms Cartland-Ward asked if this was 83% of properties inspected, 83% of properties that had applied for a licence or 83% of all licensable properties?

Sam Barstow, Assistant Director of Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that the 83% related to the properties that had been inspected and had failed. Failure meant the identification of category one or category two hazards. He confirmed that he would check the figures and get back to Ms Cartland-Ward in writing.

In her supplementary question, Ms Cartland-Ward stated that category two hazards were, in the main part, advisory and not failures. She also stated that in any Selective Licensing scheme, there would initially be failures over the first few years as it took time to implement changes. Ms Cartland-Ward confirmed that she had sent Councillor Allen and others an alternative proposal. She wanted Rotherham to be the number one Private Rented Sector area in the country. She asked why the 83% was still classed as failing if they had passed, been remediated or reinspected and fined for not applying the desired changes. She stated that the ones still failing now were surely the ones that had not previously been inspected. If this was the case, it felt like the Council was aiming to alienate landlords when some of them wanted to work with the Council, not against.

Sam Barstow stated that Ms Cartland-Ward was right in terms of the context where officers served those notices, particularly where those notices related to issues that were not of an advisory nature. Officers ensured that those issues had been rectified. However, the data suggested a significant level of failure across the properties in the particular areas as identified by officers during those first inspections. The Council was keen to continue to work with landlords and would consider in detail any alternative proposals such as the one submitted by Ms Cartland-Ward.

Ms Cartland-Ward urged the Council to reconsider putting good landlords through more Selective Licensing when it was likely new landlords that were failing.

9.    Councillor Thorp asked why the Council were not acting more urgently in relation to Broom Lane crossing. It had been reported by MP’s and ward members, but it seemed all the Council wanted to do was use funding from the cycle lane. Councillor Thorp had asked the question of SYMCA if they could use funding for the STRS. An answer had come back, not from SYMCA but from RMBC. Councillor Thorp asked, if the Council were not going to use the funding or not trying to get funding, what were they actually going to do quickly.

The Leader stated that the Council had been out to consultation and were considering a major programme of road traffic management, which included the cycle lane referenced. That would give the Council the opportunity to potentially undertake a substantial piece of work, more than, for example, putting a signal control crossing in place. The Council needed to look at how it could fund that. It would be strange to put that work to one side and then try and find some money from somewhere else to do something separate. It made more sense to look at the bigger picture and take a more holistic approach given there was funding available to do that. There was a challenge, given the reported levels of poor driving in that area, what steps the community would support.

Simon Moss, Assistant Director of Planning, Regeneration and Transport explained that drivers failing to stop at zebra crossings such as the one at Broom Lane was a huge issue. As the matter had been raised as part of the consultation, improvements were being considered at that location. Simon Moss encouraged Councillor Thorp to engage in the next steps on that project in terms of public engagement. In the meantime, the Council continued to liaise with South Yorkshire Police with a view to attendance on the site to encourage improvements in driving standards.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Thorp reiterated that there was no urgency, and he believed that it would only become urgent when a child got knocked down and hurt or killed. He stated that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding could be used for the one crossing, and he asked if the Council would be prepared to look at that if it could be done quicker than the prolonged cycle lane extension.

The Leader did not rule it out but in order to use the CIL funding, the Council would need a scheme that was more worked up and this would take time. He also explained that this was not a simple matter of installing traffic lights because if people were willing to drive their cars into the school crossing warden and possibly kill them, they would be willing to drive through red lights. More decisive action was required to stop that behaviour and traffic in general needed to be slowed down. Forcing cars to drive slower and more sensibly would require bigger changes and more funding. The Council would continue its work looking at all the available options before making a decision on how big an internation needed to be taken.