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 4 questions:

1.      Mr. Ashraf asked if the Council would fly the Palestinian Flag on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian people on 2th9 November as they had done in 2024. He stated that Rotherham had a proud history of supporting global humanitarian causes, such as resisting South African apartheid, welcoming Chilean refugees and supporting Mayors for Peace. Mr. Ashraf requested that the flag be flown for the Rotherham Palestinian families who had suffered and for the people of Palestine whose genocide was being livestreamed. He asked that the invitation to the flag raising event be sent to all Rotherham MP’s, Councillors and local dignitaries. Mr. Ashraf would send through details when they had been finalised, and he would be happy to have a meeting to facilitate the event if needed.

The Leader agreed to consider the request and provide a written response.

In his supplementary, Mr. Ashraf asked a question in relation to South Yorkshire Pension Fund investments. He asked for the overall numbers and details of investments in Israeli bonds, complicit companies and companies supplying armaments to Israel before and after the 3 years of information already provided.

The Leader confirmed that the comments would be passed on to the pensions authority.

2.      Mr. Mohammed asked a question in relation to Selective Licensing as he was a private landlord. He stated that he understood the legitimate reasons for the scheme but questioned why it needed to be a blanket scheme. He stated that he had properties just off from the Town Centre and, particularly on Sherwood Crescent, there were no issues of concern. Mr. Mohammed asked if certain streets could be removed because there were no issues.

The Assistant Director of Community Safety and Street Scene explained that officers had responded following the consultation period and feedback had led to the proposals presented in the report. The proposals were based on evidence relating to issues such as deprivation, anti-social behaviour and local crime. Following the discussion at the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board it was confirmed that a review would take place 12 months after implementation to consider if there were high areas of compliance and whether or not Selective Licensing should continue there.

The Leader confirmed that he was happy for the service to speak directly to Mr. Mohammed after the meeting regarding his particular circumstances.

3.      Mr. Collins asked a question on behalf of Mr. Herbert in relation to the Council’s role in responding to the proposals for the development of the Whitestone Solar Farm. He asked how the Council would ensure that it effectively reflected the views, opinions, local experience and expertise of the impacted communities by the consultation milestone. He also asked how the community response would be reflected in the approach taken by the Council in the preparation of the local impact report.

Councillor Williams stated that he understood the concerns of the local residents, however, he did clarify that the Council would not be making any decisions in relation to the Whitestone development. The decision would be made by the Planning Inspectorate. Councillor Williams did confirm that the Planning Service would hear local concerns and feedback on the proposals. The Council would be submitting the Local Impact Report but that did have to present both sides of the argument. Councillor Williams confirmed that he was happy to have a conversation with Mr. Collins and/or Mr. Herbert outside of the meeting.

Simon Moss, Assistant Director of Planning, Regeneration and Transport, confirmed that the Council as the Local Planning Authority would be consulted at every stage of the process of the Development Consent Order. The Local Impact Report would take account of the views that had been collated from impacted communities. The Assistant Director also confirmed that any local residents or interested parties could make representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate. Officers would be providing Ward Members in impacted areas with advice on how they could feed local concerns into the process.

The Leader confirmed that information would be published on the Council’s website detailing the best way for members of the public to share their views on the Whitestone proposals.

In his supplementary, Mr. Collins asked a question in relation to the democratic oversight and the reporting to the Planning Board that was detailed in recommendation 2 of agenda item 9. He asked how the reporting would fit into the deadlines set out by the applicant. He also asked how the impacted community would see and understand the actions and decisions made by the Council in its role as a host authority in a timely and relevant matter.

Councillor Williams confirmed that the report would be made quarterly to the Planning Board in recognition of the significant public interest in Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP’s.) However, these were just for information. The Council would not be making any decisions. The submissions were technical planning matters, and they would be presented to the Planning Board to ensure the public were aware of what was going on.

The Leader confirmed that Councillor Williams and a member of the Planning Service would talk to Mr. Collins and other residents outside of the meeting.

4.      Councillor Yasseen asked how the Council could claim that the Selective Licensing consultation was meaningful when 68% of residents and tenants had said no to Selective Licensing but were ignored. She asked if it was a betrayal of public consultation principles and if the Council thought it knew better than tenants.

Councillor Beresford explained that the consultation had been extensive. She detailed the various methods used in the consultation and who had been consulted. It was acknowledged that the majority of respondents had not agreed with the proposal of Selective Licensing. However, they had agreed that there were problems with anti-social behaviour, poor housing, high levels of crime and deprivation in the areas selected. Councillor Beresford stated that she understood that landlords did not want to pay but this was something that needed to be done to ensure residents were living in safe, decent homes. The Council was doing the same with its own properties. Councillor Beresford reiterated that over 8,000 hazards had been removed which showed that some landlords were not being proactive and the Council needed to step in.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yaseen stated that the Council had had the opportunity to do something progressive following the decade long Selective Licensing in Eastwood for example. She stated that going back to the same streets and same homes showed the previous schemes had failed. Councillor Yasseen wanted a more community partnership approach with all stakeholders, importantly tenants first who did not have a good relationship with the Council, then landlord and home occupiers. Councillor Yasseen felt that the new scheme would not work, and this was reflected in residents’ responses to the consultation.

Councillor Beresford did not believe that the previous schemes had failed. Removing over 8,000 hazards, seizing cannabis farms and combating organised crime was not evidence of failure. It was acknowledged that community engagement was important and that was why the Stakeholder Steering Group was being established so that those involved could help shape the scheme. Councillor Beresford referenced Maltby where, after 10 years of Selective Licensing, the standards had improved so much that it had not been included in the latest proposals. She reiterated that it was up to landlords to improve their properties for the good of the tenants.