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 19 questions:

1. Councillor Bacon: Given Aston & Todwick residents are paying ever increasing amounts in council tax, can the council ensure that it at least gets the basics right and empties the public bins?

Councillor Alam stated that yes, the Council were doing this.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon stated that no, the Council were not doing this. He stated that if the Council had extended their consultation, residents would have been able to state that. Councillor Bacon stated that it was clear that the Council were not emptying the bins as there had been reports in Aston, Swallownest and Brinsworth. He stated that the Cabinet Member should know this.

Councillor Alam explained that since 2020, the Council had increased the number of bins on the streets from 2,402 to 2,536, many of which were double the capacity of the original bins. During the same period, it had increased the frequency of street bin emptying which had resulted in a 73% decrease in reported complaints.

The Council were also taking robust action with over 4,500 littering tickets issued during the last financial year. Councillor Alam stated that whilst the Labour administration had been investing in frontline services, Councillor Bacon had been voting against it.

2. Councillor Bacon: What progress has been made on the PSPO for the Todwick - Aston A57 and other road safety concerns such as the Ulley/Treeton cross roads?

Councillor Taylor explained that officers were continuing to work with South Yorkshire Police on what the correct method of stopping the illegal car events was. It was not as simple as simply putting a notice on it. There were implications about going over the border into Bassetlaw. Councillor Taylor explained that the Council did not want to rush into a decision and that decision be ineffective. This had happened in other parts of the country.

In relation to the Ulley/Treeton crossroads, Councillor Taylor confirmed he had been in numerous discussions and visits over the years, including a visit to the location with the local MP a few weeks ago. As Councillor Bacon was aware, the Council had to use criteria to prioritise the allocation of funding and, unfortunately, based on collision date, there were greater prioritises elsewhere. Congestion schemes had not been and were not currently a priority for government funding.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon referred to Councillor Taylor’s comments regarding not making a hasty decision and stated that this situation had been going on for years. He asked if the incoming Cabinet Member could commit to reviewing the legislation around Public Space Protection Orders because Councillor Bacon felt that there was a clear case for a PSPO on the A57.

Councillor Taylor could not respond on behalf of the incoming Cabinet Member but did state that he used that road regularly and felt that Councillor Bacon was overblowing the situation. He stated that he was not dismissing the concerns and work was ongoing. Councillor Taylor referenced schemes in Bradford and London that had not worked and explained that the Council did not want to be in that position. Discussions were ongoing on finding the right solution.

3. Councillor Thorp: Can you confirm what procedure RMBC follow, once someone has missed a council tax payment. including the time frame before that debt is passed to any form of debt collection?

Councillor Alam explained that the Council had a robust process in place to address collection of a missed Council Tax payment.

The Council’s process for addressing a missed Council Tax payment varied, as the dates available for liability order hearings were gained through agreement of the Magistrates’ Court.  As such the Council was not able to fully control the timeline. The Council held on file mobile phone numbers for most council tax accounts and the service endeavoured to use these before it resorted to the statutory enforcement notices, to try to minimise the number of cases taken through the liability order process.  Where the Council did not hold a mobile number for that customer, it had no choice but to issue the statutory reminder notice.

Clearly the Council would try to ensure that everyone paid as quickly as possible, but if all else failed, it could take about 80 to 90 days after the missed payment date before enforcement agents were engaged.

Councillor Alam stated that it was a slightly complicated process, but he would be happy to provide Councillor Thorp with more detail in writing.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Thorp asked for that written response. He also asked for confirmation that the Council did not just go straight to enforcement action.

Councillor Alam confirmed that he would provide the written response, and that enforcement action was a last resort.

4. Councillor Reynolds: We recently passed a motion stating, brown fields first, green fields last resort, for Solar Panels. How is this being enforced?

Councillor Taylor reminded Councillor Reynolds that the original motion resolved to:

adopt a political stance in favour of small, discrete, solar panel installations, supporting their installation on:

·       Rooftops of commercial, residential, and public buildings.

·       Car parks through the development of solar canopies.

And to encourage the use of brown field land for large-scale solar farms.

Councillor Taylor confirmed that the Council were also taking forward a number of its own solar installation schemes including rooftop installations at Wellgate Multistorey Car Park, Riverside House, Thrybergh Country Park and Rother Valley Country Park. There were also plans in the pipeline for other solar installation at Springwell Gardens, Swinton Customer Service Centre and Library and solar canopies at Riverside House and Drummond Street Car Parks.
 

The Council did offer a paid pre-application service and always encouraged developers to consider any available brownfield sites ahead of green field sites for these types of development. 

Planning applications for renewable energy schemes on rooftops and car parks were also encouraged through pre-application discussions subject to other material planning considerations. However, Planning applications were determined on their own merits after having regard to national and local planning policy. Despite the “political stance” endorsed, there was no such national or local planning policy that would require a sequential test approach to any proposals for solar farms and so this was not something that could be given weight in the determination of a planning application.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Reynolds displayed a leaflet that was encouraging farmers to sell their land for solar panels at a rate of £1000 per acre. He asked what progress was being made on the brown field sites and whether the market would have solar panels installed. Councillor Reynolds also asked for a comparison between the cost of installation on brown field sites and on selling farmland to a private company with no interest in the country.

Councillor Taylor confirmed that solar panels would be installed on the markets. Regarding the leaflet, Councillor Taylor stated that commercial transactions between a farmer and a private company could not be controlled by the Council. It would be decision for the farmer to take on what benefitted them.

5. Councillor Reynolds: Why are we completely refurbishing the whole outdoor Market area – new block paving, new street furniture, etc. when around the corner is a firebombed gym or a pop-up park that shows no sign of popping soon?

Councillor Taylor explained that the Rotherham Markets & Library redevelopment was a key project in the regeneration of the town centre. It was the heart of retail provision and a community asset to be proud of. The Centenary Markets is over 50 years old and in need of a new lease of life. It was appropriate that the public realm was renovated around the markets area, so that there was a comprehensive approach to the regeneration. Councillor Taylor stated that to say this work should not be done because other areas also needed regeneration was quite ridiculous. Councillor Taylor also confirmed that other issues were being dealt with.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Reynolds asked how much it cost for the refurbishment of the outdoor market area and how much it would have cost to make the area boarded off look tidy.

Councillor Taylor stated that, in relation to Rhino’s, of course the Council wanted to redevelop it. There was a Planning permission in place and the Council had also served a S215 notice on the owner of the pub which led to a successful prosecution in July 2024 which resulted in a fine of £1,848 being imposed by the courts due to non-compliance. Any further action was currently on hold due to the building going through probate but clearly the Council would do all it could to bring that site back into use.

The Snail Yard project had been underway since 2021 when the former Primark building was demolished. The project encountered difficulties when the appointed contractor went into administration. The project was now being delivered by the Council’s own Highways Delivery Team and was due for completion this summer.

6. Councillor Tinsley: Will the Council commit to not purchase any properties on the Highfield Park development Maltby. Until further information from the Current EA investigation is released and any potential  measures are put in place on the adjoining former Maltby Colliery Site?

Councillor Tinsley was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

7. Councillor Tinsley: What powers will the Street Safe Team have to deal with ASB. When they come into post later on this year?

Councillor Tinsley was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

8. Councillor Tinsley: With the implementation of software  (confirm) for Regeneration and Environment. This saw a reduction in previous street bin schedules across the borough. Would you agree that bin scheduling should of remained at previous levels with a view to have increased or reduced the emptying of bins once we had relevant data and feedback?

Councillor Tinsley was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

9. Councillor Tinsley: Dust and detritus regularly blight Maltby roads due to being both a main throughfare to the cost and to the nearby motorway network.  As well due to having both a nearby Quarry and the Maltby Restoration Site. Will the Council commit to regular proactive road sweeping. As the current road sweeping policy is to sweep roads once a year?

Councillor Tinsley was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

10. Councillor Currie: Last year we encouraged our hard-to-reach groups to be involved in the ‘our places ‘ neighbourhood all borough consultation , we only know that Keppel ward made the highest contribution, we would like to know the outcome of the survey including every answer to every question?

Councillor Read explained that a summary of the responses had been produced. He was seeking advice from the Information Governance Unit as to what information from the survey could be shared with members whilst still ensuring that GDPR was complied with.

In his supplementary, Councillor Currie explained that he was asking this question as the hard to reach groups were saying they were not being heard again. Councillor Currie asked if the responses from the Keppel ward could be shared with him so he could see if the responses by the hard to reach groups had been incorporated. He also wanted to know how much money would be spent in his ward because of all the work the ward members did to get consultation responses.

Councillor Read explained that the first part of the money had been allocated in line with the published Cabinet report. No further decisions had been made about how to spend the rest of that money. A further Cabinet report would come forward with that detail in the coming months.

11. Councillor Currie: Since the cabinet past the £200K investment into the ‘black hut’ community resource in Kimberworth park , we have been trying to get an assurance on a start date for the agreed work  ,please could this date be given to all ward councillors ?

Councillor Read explained that a scope of works had been defined and a procurement package was to go to the market which was currently being prepared. Once the full procurement activity was concluded, it would define the timeline of works. Consultation and engagement would take place with the operators of the Black Hut and Elected Members once the timeline was known. All work was to be completed no later than the end of the financial year.

12. Councillor Ball: Labour insists that selective licensing is the solution to poor housing conditions, yet even after a decade of costly schemes, your own report admits continued high levels of property failure. Isn’t it time to admit that punishing decent landlords while driving up rents for low-income families is simply failed Labour dogma?

Councillor Ball was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

13. Councillor Ball: Given that Rotherham has some of the worst health inequality outcomes in South Yorkshire, and your board has had years of Labour leadership, why should residents trust this Council to deliver on the new Health and Wellbeing Strategy when past performance has been so poor?

Councillor Ball was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

14. Councillor Ball: Rotherham received over £450,000 from Sport England to tackle inactivity, yet the borough still suffers from among the lowest physical activity levels in the region. Where has the money gone, and why should taxpayers believe this Labour Council will do any better with future grants?

Councillor Ball was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

15. Councillor Ball: With the Council admitting it had to subsidise failed selective licensing inspections from general funds, and facing rising costs, why are you not publishing a full audit of where nearly a decade’s worth of licensing fees have gone? Is Labour once again hiding poor financial management from public view?

Councillor Ball was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

16. Councillor Ball: With £5 billion PIP cuts hitting Rotherham’s 24,200 claimants, and your Deputy Leader resigning in protest, why haven’t you opposed these reforms publicly as urged on 9 April 2025

Councillor Ball was not present to ask his question and as such would receive a written response.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11(8), the following questions were not put verbally at the meeting but would be responded to in writing:

17. Councillor Ball: Despite the Health and Wellbeing Board’s focus on mental health, with only 31% of employment outcomes sustained via Individual Placement Support by December 2024, why has your administration failed to enhance job support for those with severe mental illness, and what urgent steps will you take?

18. Councillor Ball: The 9 April 2025 motion to condemn welfare cuts and protect Rotherham’s 1,640 residents projected to fall into poverty was rejected, why are you prioritising political loyalty over the wellbeing of our most vulnerable?

19. Councillor Ball: Rotherham’s £4.39m Household Support Fund allocation this financial year is a 12% cut from the previous £4.98m awarded under the last Government, despite rising poverty due to the winter fuel cuts, rising unemployment and upcoming disability payment reductions. How will you protect vulnerable residents from the impact of this reduced support during worsening economic hardship?