To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
There were 21 questions:
1.
Councillor Bacon: Does the Leader of the Council agree that only a
national statutory inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation can get
to the bottom of the worst atrocity in modern British
history?
The Leader stated that it was now inevitable that the inquiry would
take place. However he stated that it remained unclear about
whether the Inquiry was proposing to look at gaining a
retrospective understanding or what questions it was seeking to
address. The Leader believed that it needed to be done in a way
that kept children safe presently. It also needed to be done in a
timely way, unlike the previous review which took seven years to
complete with the findings still awaiting implementation.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon asked, given what
was now known and the local context, did the Leader think that
Rotherham should have been an authority leading the call for a
national inquiry?
The Leader explained that he did not think Rotherham should be
leading the call. The Council needed to focus on its own
obligations and the priority had to be to make sure that Rotherham
services were as strong and effective as they could be. The Council
would continue doing all it could to achieve justice for survivors
who had been so badly let down. The Council would play its part in
whatever national requirements there were.
3.
Councillor Thorp: The new Walking Wheeling Bus and Cycle Scheme
from the Brecks to Broom Road Could you confirm this only will go
ahead if the cycle lane is built because that’s the reason
SYMCA have allocated it, and none of the other benefits will go
ahead if the cycle lane is not built?
The Cabinet Member
for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, Councillor Williams,
explained that any decisions on funding would ultimately be for the
South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and Department for
Transport. In response to the question, it was explained that
delivering only the neighbourhood streets elements of the project
would not meet the Government’s key requirement. That
requirement, which was set out by the previous government, was to
deliver a strategic route to enable people to walk and cycle more,
and to improve the speed and reliability of buses to access jobs
and opportunities. It was most likely therefore that the scheme
would only get the benefit of this funding if it included a cycle
lane.
4.
Councillor Bacon: Given the local Conservatives in Rotherham called
for free parking to help local people shop local in the town centre
years ago, why has it taken Labour so long to finally listen?
The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy,
Councillor Williams, explained that he had not heard any
Conservative members calling for the new parking offer that had
been proposed as part of the Labour Council Budget. It was not
included in the Conservative Budget amendment proposal in March
2025, but Councillor Williams was glad to have the support. In
response to the question of why the Council had not proposed the
offer sooner, Councillor Williams stated that 14 years of Tory
austerity and the millions of pounds that were cut from the
Council’s budget had prevented that. Councillor Williams was
pleased that in the first 12 months of the Labour government, the
Council now had more funding that enabled it to take positive
decisions such as the new car parking offer.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bacon asked if the Cabinet Member
agreed that the Labour group needed to take ownership of its own
policies which had led to wasteful spending which could have helped
the Town Centre? He stated that the Council had sucked money out of
the Town Centre through taxes on parking when it should have been
helping local business.
The Cabinet Member explained that this was not a new initiative.
Free weekend parking had been available for a number of years so
this was not out of the blue; it was building on what was already
being implemented. Councillor Williams stated that it was amusing
that Councillor Z Collingham had asked about stability in the
Labour group when some members of the Conservative group supported
this offer whereas others opposed it.
5.
Councillor Ball: What specific recommendations from the June 2025
grass cutting review are being implemented to improve green spaces,
and how will you ensure equitable benefits across all wards, given
concerns about town centre bias?
The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor
Marshall, explained that there were no formal recommendations from
the OSMB session, but officers did speak with members of OSMB about
a range of efforts to continue to improve the service. In
particular this year, the grass cutting service had implemented
several measures to ensure schedules were completed as efficiently
and effectively as possible. These included the purchasing of new
vehicles and equipment following additional investment. Also, the
Council had undertaken refreshed training and improved deployment,
underpinned by new IT systems that were also prioritised.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked what mechanisms were in
place to address resident feedback if disparities in green space
maintenance persist across Rotherham, as mentioned in page 25 of
the agenda pack?
The Cabinet Member explained that the new IT system was making it
more equitable across the borough.
6.
Councillor Ball: What are the key actions and investments planned
for green spaces in 2025-2026 under the Council Plan’s
“thriving, safe, and clean” goal, and how will success
be measured?
The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor
Marshall, explained that a lot had been done over the past 12
months and more was planned for 2025-26. This included new cafes,
event venues and better parking. £8million of Levelling Up
Funding had been secured for café and playground
updates. Thrybergh Country Park
redevelopment works had been completed and an additional
£8million of funding had been secured. At least 500 trees had
been planted across the borough. The Our Places Fund project in
Maltby was in development and would include opportunities for
increasing greenery on the High Street. Further, Green Flag
Accreditation had been sought for four sites and there was a
£1.8million capital budget for new play facilities,
replacements of at least six urban play areas and improvements to
the Water Splash Facility at Clifton Park. Investments had been
made for drainage improvements at Waleswood Caravan and Campsite
and a £33,000 investment had been made to improve ground
conditions for large-scale events in Clifton Park.
In his
supplementary, Councillor Ball asked what would happen if it went
over budget as there were a lot of projects that were going over
budget at the moment. What contingency plans were in place in case
that that happened again?
The Cabinet Member confirmed that a written response would be
provided.
7.
Councillor Reynolds: What is the cost of the work to be carried out
on the old Primark site?
The Cabinet Member
for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, Councillor Williams,
explained that the acquisition and demolition of the old Primark
building cost £1.3m. The estimated cost for the pocket park
was £450,000.
8.
Councillor Ball: What legal powers will the Street Safe Team use to
tackle anti-social behaviour, and what contingency plans exist if
it fails to meet objectives by April 2026?
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, Councillor
Alam, explained that the Street Safe Team would use legal powers
under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and
the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to tackle anti-social
behaviour. This included Community Protection Notices, Public
Spaces Protection Orders, Fixed Penalty Notices, and Closure
Notices. They would also address statutory nuisances like noise and
littering. Officers would be trained in enforcement, safeguarding,
trauma-informed practice, and cultural competency. The initiative
was a long-term investment in community safety, with a formal
review scheduled for March 2026. If early objectives were not met,
contingency plans included performance reviews, operational
adjustments, and enhanced partnership working.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked that, given the
licensing subcommittees concerns about alcohol related antisocial
behaviour, how would the Street Safe Team’s powers
specifically address such issues around licensed premises and what
coordination with licensing enforcement was to prevent overlap or
gaps in tackling antisocial behaviour?
The Cabinet Member explained that the licensing enforcement
officers were in a different team to the Street Safe Team but they
would be working together to stop anti-sociable behaviour, making
use of any powers available.
9.
Councillor Ball: Provide an update on the recruitment and roles of
new street cleansing officers as of July 2025, and how will you
address OSMB concerns about missed bin collections?
The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor
Lynda Marshall, explained that Street Scene had recruited four
frontline staff, three Bands C and one Band D who were now in
training. The recruitment for the two Senior Band J officers would
begin soon. These roles took longer due to the need for new job
descriptions. The Cabinet Member explained that overflowing bins
had been reduced by 75% over five years due to extra investment.
The recent complaints were preceded by a hot bank holiday weekend
and were not widespread.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked how the Council were
addressing the financial pressures noted in the agenda of an
overspend of 12 .8 million, to ensure sustained funding for the
street cleansing initiative? And what specific steps had been taken
to reduce missed bin collections in wards with the highest missed
bin ratios?
The Cabinet Member confirmed that a written response would be
provided.
10. Councillor
Bennett-Sylvester: What estimates do we have of the amount of hours
spent caring or volunteering of working age residents classed as
"economically inactive"?
The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy,
Councillor Williams, explained that there were no estimates of that
nature. However, the Carers Trust estimated that approximately 25%
of carers were unable to work as a result. This would equate to approximately 6,600 carers in
Rotherham. Specific information on volunteering hours by
“economically inactive” people was not
available. However, the State of the
Sector report 2024, carried out by Sheffield Hallam University,
stated that there were 6,017 volunteers in Rotherham with an
estimated contribution of £17 million to the economy per
annum. Equally, the Council knew that
there were many people with caring responsibilities who would like
to work. A survey by the Centre for Social Justice found that 3 in
5 unpaid carers said that their care duties currently prevented
them from taking up paid work or as much paid work as they would
like to.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester explained that
some volunteers felt like a burden by being classed as
“economically inactive.” He asked if by encouraging
volunteering, were the Council inadvertently adding to the
economically inactive figures, despite volunteers saving millions
of pounds by litter picking, providing children care, adult care or
cleaning. He asked if the Cabinet Member would champion all the way
volunteers add to the local economy?
The Cabinet Member was more than happy to champion the work of
volunteers and the incredible contribution they made to the
Borough.
11. Councillor Ball:
How will the proposed Adult Care Charging Policy avoid harming
vulnerable residents amidst economic hardship, and what mitigation
measures are planned based on consultation feedback?
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health explained that
the consultation on the charging policy for Adult Social Care would
close on 28 September 2025. Once the
consultation closed, Adult Social Care would review the feedback
which would inform the final recommendations back to Cabinet in
December 2025. This review would include consideration of any
suggestions made during the consultation period by residents,
partners and other stakeholders.
Everyone accessing adult social care support was subject to a means test (ability to pay) and The Care Act set out that no one should pay more than they could afford and ensured that they were left with a minimum income guarantee. In Rotherham, there were currently 2,759 people who received non-residential services and had been financially assessed. Of these, 42% did not pay anything at all, 50% made a partial payment, and just 197 people paid the full cost.
The Council would consider the consultation findings carefully, but
the intention was that changes would only affect those who could
afford to pay more, with the appropriate safeguards in place.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked, considering the Health
Select Commission's focus on the Unpaid Carers Strategy, how would
the Adult Care Charging Policy ensure that unpaid carers,
particularly those in low -income households, were not
disproportionately burdened? And what specific support would be
offered to them based on the consultation outcomes?
The Cabinet Member explained that a response would be provided when
the consultation had finished.
12. Councillor
Bennett-Sylvester: We have seen again in the local press this week
the threat by landlords to pass on the cost of selective licenses.
What savings can we evidence for tenants having their homes
properly maintained?
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, thanked
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester for raising this question as it
provided an opportunity to highlight that selective licensing was
not merely a regulatory tool; it was a mechanism for ensuring that
rental properties met essential standards of safety, maintenance,
and habitability. When homes were properly maintained under this
framework, tenants experienced several measurable benefits such as
lower living costs, healthier homes, more stability, and stronger
communities.
A 2019 independent review by MHCLG backed this up as one area saw a 16% rise in house prices after licensing, linked to better property conditions and landlord management. No strong link to rent increases was found as licence fees were too small to drive these. Licensing also led to higher tenant satisfaction, fewer empty homes, and improved neighbourhood appeal. The Council acknowledged concern, but the priority was safe, decent housing for all. The final decision on future licensing areas would be made by Cabinet on 15 September 2025.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if one
potential benefit was saving people the cost of a funeral.
The Cabinet Member explained that improvements in health situations
could indirectly reduce the need for a funeral.
13. Councillor
Bennett-Sylvester: Can the Cabinet Member please give members a
statement on the failure to collect brown bins across much of the
borough and steps they are taking to rectify the situation
please?
The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor
Lynda Marshall, stated that residents had been very patient over
the last few weeks and this was
appreciated. The Waste Collection
service had faced increasing challenges, driven by higher than
normal levels of sickness combined with limited agency staff
availability. This had meant that the team had had to make a number
of operational decisions and changes to rounds in order to ensure
the most offensive waste was collected first. Staffing resources
had improved as of the beginning of the week, and the Cabinet
Member was pleased to confirm that all brown bins were collected as
per the schedule on both Monday and Tuesday of this week. She would
be closely monitoring the situation in the days and weeks
ahead.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester raised the issue
of refunds for residents. He also asked for improved communication
for ward members as he had had to chase
the Council for information rather than information being provided
to him as a ward member.
The Cabinet Member explained that she would raise the matter with
officers.
14. Councillor Z
Collingham: With recent escalating delays in bin collections across
the Borough, what steps are being taken to address the root causes
of these within the service, for example sickness absence?
The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor
Lynda Marshall, explained that to manage sickness absence, the team
operated under the usual policies and procedures of the Council
which sought to support people back in to work wherever possible
and address any repeated or long term absences for both the benefit
of the individual and the Council. In light of the increase in
cases, additional HR support was being provided to the team to
manage this alongside reviewing any new requests for annual leave
during this period.
In his supplementary Councillor Z Collingham asked if information
was being provided to the Cabinet Member on whether there were any
trends in the high levels of sickness and whether anything could be
done operationally? He also asked what mechanisms were in place to
respond to a situation like this if it happened again, such as
agency staff or redeployed staff?
The Cabinet Member explained that agency support had been sought
but there had been a lack of available staff. She was being kept up
to date on the changing situation.
15. Councillor Z
Collingham: How have we reached a position where we are spending
nearly half a million pounds on the Mecca Bingo building,
Corporation Street, simply to stand still and what is the plan to
urgently bring this building into use as part of Rotherham's
redevelopment?
The Cabinet Member
for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that the
Council had not spent nearly half a million pounds to simply stand
still. The money was being spent to make the building safe and
secure and to protect the listed aspect of it.
Works included:
The Council had undertaken feasibility work to determine the future for the Mecca site as well as a survey into the condition of the building. The development of a Business Plan was also currently underway to examine its potential future use as a leisure and culture venue.
In his supplementary Councillor Z Collingham questioned how the
Council had ended up in this position given it had owned the
building for around three years and he hoped that feasibility
studies were well underway. He stated that the building was in a
fantastic location and was ideal for what was being done as part of
the Town Centre regeneration. Councillor Collingham therefore asked
if the Cabinet Member could commit to driving the project
forward?
The Cabinet Member explained that the Mecca Bingo
building was part of the Council’s Town Centre Regeneration
Strategy. Works were due to start on site in August and a business
plan was being developed. Councillor Williams stated that he was
keen to drive the big projects forward and make sure they were
delivered.
16. Councillor
Yasseen: Has any legal risk or procedural flaw been identified in
the original Selective Licensing consultation, which closed three
months and two weeks ago and is this why the consultation has now
been reopened without prior notice to councillors or
stakeholders?
The Cabinet Member
for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that no legal risk or
procedural flaw had been identified. As
explained earlier in the meeting, the Council were undertaking
further consultation precisely in response to the kinds of issues
that Councillor Yasseen and others had raised. The issue of ward
members not being notified prior to the extension had been raised
with officers.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that she had never
known a statutory consultation be reopened months after it had
closed. She asked for information on what issues had been raised
and corrected between the previous consultation and the new
consultation?
The Cabinet Member explained that there had been issues around
boundaries being unclear and there were issues around people not
being sure whether the consultation referred to Clifton or
Eastwood. There were also the concerns around a mandatory
question which was now optional.
17. Councillor
Yasseen: Is the decision to reopen the Selective Licensing
consultation a response to the volume of objections received, and
is it intended to shift or influence the overall outcome of an
already criticised and biased consultation process?
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, answered
no.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked if the Communities
team within the Policy, Performance and Intelligence service had
been consulted on in either the first or second consultation?
The Cabinet Member confirmed a written response would be
provided.
18. Councillor Z
Collingham: Now the Council has finally secured agreement to
purchase all outstanding properties for the Dinnington Levelling Up
scheme, 2.5 years after opening negotiations, what are the
remaining steps and estimated timeframe for work to commence?
The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy
firstly thanked all the officers that had been involved in the
processes behind the scenes. The final stages of design were
underway and were due to complete in early October. The procurement
of a contractor would then follow by the end of the year. A start
on site would be confirmed once a contractor had been appointed,
but this was expected to be in early 2026 and officers were looking
into the potential for demolition and site clearance before this
date.
19. Councillor
Yasseen: Has the revised Selective Licensing consultation addressed
previously submitted concerns about survey bias, compulsory
questions and the misrepresentation of areas like Clifton,
including confusion over which streets fall into which wards?
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained
that she did not recognise any concerns about survey bias. She had
already confirmed that the compulsory question referred to was no
longer compulsory, and the misrepresentation of Clifton had been
updated. The Council had always provided an interactive map on the
consultation website, allowing residents to check whether their
property was included in the proposed licensing zones. The service
had acted on the feedback received regarding the clarification of
area boundaries and, as a result, the leaflet to inform people of
the extension of the consultation had been revised.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that, in the
printed information, which was not interactive, one example of
something that was missing from the last consultation was the whole
of the Boston Castle Ward from the map. It was titled Eastwood.
Councillor Yasseen asked if that had been corrected?
The Cabinet Member explained that a written response would be
provided.
20. Councillor
Yasseen: Was the decision to reopen the Selective Licensing
consultation made by Cabinet, a delegated officer or both and can
the Council provide an explanation of how that decision was
reached?
The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained
that the original decision to undertake a consultation on the
proposed Selective Licensing scheme was made by Cabinet in
September 2024. That decision authorised officers to carry out a
public consultation to gather views on the proposed licensing areas
and conditions. The current consultation period, which was extended
on 30 June 2025 to 20 July 2025, was not a new or additional
consultation, but rather an extension of the original consultation
period, made in line with that delegation.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that residents were
very confused as leaflets had been delivered about the new
consultation and had contacted ward members who had not been
advised that the new/extended consultation was taking place. She
asked if the Cabinet Member was aware of that?
The Cabinet Member explained that all addresses had received a
leaflet, but it did take time to get around to all of the impacted
addresses. As previously stated, the issue of members not being
notified in advance had been raised with officers.
21. Councillor
Yasseen: What is the Council’s process for informing and
supporting ward councillors and residents when an evacuation is
taking place in their ward, and how are responsibilities
coordinated between departments during such incidents?
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, Councillor
Alam, explained that the Council’s Major Incident Plan
outlined the command-and-control arrangements that would be put in
place in readiness for, and in the event of an incident
occurring.
The Council had a Borough Emergency Coordinator, who was a Strategic Director or Assistant Director, who would manage, oversee and lead any response, on call 24/7, as well as a Forward Liaison Officer who often would attend the scene of any incident. There was also a member of the Emergency Planning Service on call, who was responsible for mobilising the initial response from the Council under the direction of the Borough Emergency Coordinator.
It
was the role of the Borough Emergency Coordinator to determine when
it was appropriate to alert ward members. They were also
responsible for ensuring that the responses of any council
departments were coordinated.
In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that there had been
three major incidents in the Boston Castle ward within the last few
weeks. There had been two fires and a major gas leak. The gas leak
could have led to a serious fire and 20 families were told they
were going to be evacuated. Councillor Yasseen had contacted the
Council for information but did not receive a response until the
next day when she was told to contact the utility service.
Councillor Yasseen felt this was a failure by the Council and not
an appropriate response. She asked the Cabinet Member if he
agreed?
The Cabinet Member explained that Councillor Yasseen had already
received an apology from the Assistant Director for Community
Safety and Street Scene for an error made by the coordinator. The
Council always wanted to make sure ward members were involved and
engaged.