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.

There were five public questions:

1.    Mr Andrew Bates: Parishes are inundated by public concerns regarding land use. The absence of a resource showing the cumulative effect is not helping. Borough Councillors must have the same problem. The Land Development Plan is out of date. Can Parish/Borough Councillors look forward to a consolidated not piecemeal approach to planning to enable some proportionality to be taken during this unprecedented demand?

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that Parish Councils, and local residents, could view the Council’s adopted Local Plan online. The plan identified areas of land which could be built upon, and which areas were to be protected by allocating all areas of land across the borough for identified land uses. The Plan did not show the cumulative effect of development, but the interactive map on the Council’s website showed areas where planning applications had been submitted.

The current Local Plan needed to be updated to reflect the new National Planning Policy Framework and the Government’s new housing targets. This was likely to require more land than was currently allocated to meet the requirement. This would be considered carefully, proportionately and in consultation with the local community when looking at allocating land as part of the preparation of a new local plan and it would need to consider the cumulative impact of growth over the Plan period. The Council would commence work on the production of a new Plan in 2026 but no changes to sites had yet been agreed or would be agreed some time yet.

2.    Ms Karen Kirby: Can the Council tell me why it has failed to share any information as to the extension of its Rotherham's Plans of Selective Licensing of Private Landlords?consultation via its recently revised published leaflet?

The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that the revised leaflet which had been circulated to properties in the affected areas had been circulated precisely to inform people about the extension of the consultation. This had been done to respond to previous feedback where people felt that the locations had not been made clear enough. The consultation had been extended to ensure that anybody affected by the proposal had the opportunity to comment. The Council valued feedback and sought that feedback in multiple ways. There was an online survey, paper-based surveys and meetings had been held. All responses would be transparently reported.

In her supplementary, Ms Kirby asked if the Council was aware that a specific reason should have been given for the extension?

The Cabinet Member explained that there was no specific reason other than taking on board feedback from residents, landlords and tenants on information that had not bee made clear. It was not a new consultation, merely an extension of dates.

3.    Ms Tracy Cartland-Ward: What is the reason for the Council making an exceptional decision to re-open the consultation for the proposed 2025-2030 Selective Licence, especially considering this was done before notifying the Ward Councillors?

The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that the consultation had been extended to address feedback relating to unclear information. Feedback was sought from all interested parties and stockholders. The comments that had been taken on board in the first round had been from people like Ms Cartland-Ward who had been to the chamber to raise issues including in  relation to the locations, use of the wrong names for locations, and people not knowing that they had actually received a leaflet previously. Officers contacted the relevant ward members on the day the consultation was reopened. The Cabinet Member appreciated the fact that ward members would have liked more notice and this had been raised with the relevant officers.

In her supplementary, Ms Cartland-Ward asked, given this step was unusual and some suggested was possibly manipulative of the results of the original consultation period, what guidance, if any, had the Council applied from the government's guidance document, Selective Licensing in the Private Rented Sector, a guide for local authorities, last updated on 16 December 2024?

The Cabinet Member stated that she did not think it was unusual as the Council were simply listening to what people had said and responding. It was not new consultation. It was merely an extension of the date of the original consultation to give people an opportunity to share their voices with the Council. The Council had followed the government guidance and would be totally transparent when detailing the results of the feedback. The feedback would be broken down into the two different periods so everyone could see if there was any difference in the responses.

4.    Mr Tony Mabbott: SYPA will be agreeing its three-year review of pensions strategy in March 2026, and will be consulting 'stakeholders' (including RMBC) before then. How will the Council ensure that staff, pensioners, unions and local people will be involved in the response to SYPA?

Mr Mabbott was not present to ask his question and as such a written response would be provided.

5.    Ms Lisa Smith: Why is the council pushing a selective licensing scheme that will raise my rent and make it unaffordable for me. It will increase homelessness for many tenants who can't afford prices going up, while you claim it's in tenants best interests?

The Cabinet Member for Housing explained that the Council’s goal in consulting on Selective Licensing was to bring forward ways to ensure residents across the Borough had safe and decent housing and raised the standard of private rented properties. Conditions in some areas were poor; in the previous scheme, issues were found in 83% of properties. 1 in 7 properties were found to have the most serious types of faults. Selective Licensing was the only legal tool the Council had to ensure proactive inspections of properties.

It was acknowledged that there were a range of views and that was why consultation had been and was taking place. No decision had been made yet and the consultation was seeking views, such as the one Ms Smith had offered, in order to inform the decision.

The Council had seen no evidence in previous schemes of rents increasing and nor was there any evidence to support increases in homelessness.

In her supplementary, Ms Smith asked if her rent goes up now, would the council be blamed, since her landlord had not raised it in a while? She also asked why the Council assumed and blamed tenants for problems like fly tipping on her street when it was the probation house causing problems?
 

The Cabinet Member stated that the Council would not be responsible for any rent increases. The landlord would be to blame because it was the landlord who was responsible for setting the rent. In regard to fly tipping, the people responsible should be the ones held to account. There were mechanisms for reporting fly tipping and the Cabinet Member urged Ms Smith to use those mechanisms so that it could be removed as soon as possible.