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 11 questions submitted:

1.    Councillor Bacon: As a result of Labour’s vicious welfare cuts, 370,000 disabled people will lose PIP disability payments. Analysis reported by Sky News shows the average loss is £4,500. What is the Council doing to condemn these cuts and take action to support the most vulnerable in our borough?

Councillor Bacon agreed to have a written response.

2.    Councillor Bacon: As a result of Labour’s vicious welfare cuts, their own Government impact assessment say overall they expect 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, to be pushed into relative poverty – this is additional people going into poverty. Is there anything the Council can do additionally to support those affected in Rotherham?

Councillor Bacon agreed to have a written response.

3.    Councillor Jones: Over the last two years the road safety team has been delivering road safety projects in our wards funded by SYMCA can the member tell us how many of these suggestions have been delivered to the specifications of local Councillors and residents?

Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, stated that he understood that this was referring to the first tranche of the Local Neighbourhood and Road Safety schemes programme and, as of 8 April, six projects had been delivered and two were in progress.

In his supplementary, Councillor Jones stated that he believed there would have been more than that. Three schemes had been put forward in Councillor Jones’ ward. One was on a 60mph road and a 40mph buffer zone had been put in. The second was speed bumps that had been put in Bradgate Lane and they had been installed outside the house of the only person that had objected. The third was proposed by the local policing team who had asked for a one way system to be put onto a blind bend. SYMCA had originally said that they could not fund it because it did not include a cycle lane. When members proposed to use their ward budgets to fund it, they were told that the lane was not wide enough for cycling. He asked the Cabinet Member to explain how the road could be wide enough for two cars but not wide enough for one car and a cycle lane.

Councillor Taylor agreed to provide a written response.

4.    Councillor Hussain: It is clear that the people of Boston Castle Ward, along with residents in other affected areas, do not want selective licensing in their neighbourhoods. Why, then, is the council insisting on continuing with a policy that has already proven to be ineffective for another five years?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, advised Councillor Hussain not to prejudge the results of the consultation. The Council were currently analysing the responses, and no decision had yet been made. Over 500 responses to the consultation had been received and these would be factored into any recommendations regrading future schemes.

It was disappointing that in many areas, not all, but in many, high levels of failures had been found in private rented properties, even in a second period of a five-year licensing scheme. This was not a failing of the scheme however, but of private sector landlords. Councillor Hussain had stated that people in his ward were against Selective Licensing, but perhaps he failed to tell them that as a result, hundreds of local families would be living in unsafe homes. Councillor Allen did not think that was acceptable, and that was why the Council were looking at the best way to continue to protect tenants in the future.

In his supplementary, Councillor Hussain asked why only certain areas were included in the proposed scheme?

Councillor Allen explained that Selective Licensing was, by definition, targeted and that targeting was based on criteria as set out in the Housing Act 2004. As such, areas that met the criteria became the subject of potential schemes.

5.    Councillor Hussain: To date, we have not been provided with any information regarding how the council has spent the money collected from selective licensing fees over the past ten years. Could you please clarify what prompted the SL team to raise the fees by almost 100% without providing an audit of the expenditure in the last failed scheme?

Councillor Allen stated that there was no failed scheme. In terms of potential future schemes, the team had not raised the fees. Councillor Allen confirmed that any money generated from licence fees could only be spent on ensuring the conditions of the scheme were complied with. In the last year there was not enough funding generated from those fees to undertake those inspections, so they had to be subsidised from the Council’s general resources. The proposed figure was part of the consultation and, should a licensing scheme be adopted, it would of course be considered before a forward final proposals were brought forward.

In his supplementary, Councillor Hussain stated that if it was not known exactly where the money received was being spent, the Council could not know where the fee received as part of the next scheme, £995 per property, would be spent.

Councillor Allen explained that the agreed final proposals would determine the level of work that needed to be done which in turn would determine the level of resource required, resulting in the agreed fee. This would be set out in the Cabinet report.

6.    Councillor Yasseen: With the Labour Government pressing ahead with cruel reforms to PIP, will the Council urgently invest more into its benefits appeals team that has to date successfully overturned countless unfair benefit decisions? As more vulnerable residents are pushed to the brink, we must strengthen local support to fight these savage and unnecessary Labour Government cuts.

The Leader explained that the appeals team was part of the Money and Benefit Advice offer the Council provided and had a very successful track record in supporting residents with their benefit appeals, achieving a success rate of 81% on all appeals. A view had not yet been taken regarding future capacity. The benefit rule changes referred to were not being implemented until November 2026 if they were to be implemented at all. In the meantime the team would review demand and capacity during this current financial year and identify any resource requirements in good time.

7.    Councillor Yasseen: Question caps, debate limits and amendment bans, what’s next, a mute button for the opposition? These are just some of the new constitutional changes being proposed. Is this really what democracy looks like in a Labour-run council?

The Leader reiterated what he had said in the earlier debate which was that the Council needed to have rules that allowed for all of the necessary business to be undertaken in a practical way. The Leader stated that the current meeting had been underway for 5 hours and 15 minute and a number of members had already had to leave. The Leader believed that the right balance had been struck in terms of the proposals that had been agreed earlier in the meeting.

8.    Councillor Yasseen: Can the Cabinet Member confirm that any future proposals to develop a Selective Licensing scheme or my preference a wider Rotherham private sector housing plan,  will undergo pre-decision scrutiny and that ward councillors will have an opportunity to influence the draft plan before any implementation decisions are made?

Councillor Allen explained that no Cabinet Member could choose which reports or decisions went forward for pre-scrutiny. Councillor Allen stated that member engagement with the proposals was very important to her, and she would be keen to engage and support any such scrutiny.

9.    Councillor Yasseen: With American tariffs now threatening key UK export sectors, what work is being done by the Council and South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority to assess and mitigate the impact on local manufacturers and small exporters in Rotherham who are affected?

Councillor Taylor stated that decisions on global trade policy taken by the US were clearly matters outside the Council’s control and most economists agreed that tariffs were blunt instruments and could be damaging for the world’s economy and, by extension, the borough.

The particular picture for companies in Rotherham was complex and would vary by individual circumstances. The Council would continue to stand by its businesses as the situation evolved. The approach included engagement; collaboration with trade and support bodies; assistance to exploring alternative markets; and access to financial and advisory support.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked if Councillor Taylor agreed with her that it was worrying that the Prime Minister did not seem to have a plan in response to the tariffs.

Councillor Taylor stated that it was correct to respond in a cool way and many other economies had responded in a similar manner.

10. Councillor Thorp: When is RMBC going to take action over the Broom Lane School crossing instead of waiting for a child to be knocked down, even Cllr read admitted more funding than the CRSTS cycle lane funding may be needed when people seem to be prepared to drive through crossing while people are crossing?

Councillor Taylor stated that the fastest way to deliver a solution was to use money already allocated, as part of the Broom Road cycleways project, to develop works as part of the Neighbourhood Streets part of that project. Councillor Taylor did not understand why Councillor Thorp kept advocating to pull the funding and set the process back. The budget of the CRSTS project was likely to be sufficient to cover mitigation – this would not necessarily be the case if the Council were dependent on finding other funding. Designers had been instructed to investigate improvements at this location, and the comments made by Councillor Thorp at last month’s Cabinet meeting had been shared with them.

Councillor Taylor felt that Councillor Thorps interventions were hindering the process, not progressing it.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that he did not believe something could be hindered when there was being no progress on it anyway. He also stated that this was not the only school crossing with problems. Councillor Thorp asked if the Council could talk to SYMCA to see if CRSTS funding could be used for schools all over the borough to make them more active travel, so they were safer for children to get to school.

Councillor Taylor stated that every time there was a new discussion or proposal, the process went back to square one. He reiterated that there was a proposal in place and the consultation process was ongoing. Councillor Taylor encouraged Councillor Thorp to engage through the process.

In regard to other crossings, Councillor Taylor explained that there was a programme in place for school crossings that worked on a points based system. If the Broom Road crossing was taken out of the CRSTS project, it would fall into this project but would not necessarily be top of the list.

11.Councillor Thorp: What time frame are we looking at to have East Bawtry Road and especially Worrygoose roundabout resurfaced. Last week a cyclist fell off his bike on the roundabout after hitting a pot hole luckily the car following stopped in time?

Councillor Taylor stated that it was interesting that Councillor Thorp used a cycling incident to highlight his concerns given his previous protestations regarding efforts to improve safety for cyclists on the highway. Councillor Thorp had been against dedicated cycleways that would keep cyclists safe and away from cars but would also fund resurfacing works in those areas.

In regard to East Bawtry Road and Worrygoose roundabout, the works were in the Highway Maintenance Programme and the programmed date for commencement was 28 April 2025. These works included the resurfacing of Worrygoose roundabout.

Councillor Thorp responded that it needed to be done as soon as possible.