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 13 questions:

1.    Councillor Bacon: The invasion of thugs racing on the A57 is putting residents at risk - when will the Council finally act, implement a PSPO, put pressure on the police, and stamp this out before somebody dies?

Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, explained that the Council wanted to see the end of this type of criminal and anti-social use of vehicles and it understood the frustrations of residents that Councillor Bacon had raised. Officers continued to work with the Police and others, such as the retail outlets whose land was sometimes used, to prevent and deter the behaviour. At present, while a draft proposal had been considered, there were several factors that meant the Council were not currently pursuing a PSPO in this area.

Firstly Councillor Alam had been advised that in terms of the data needed to legally justify a PSPO, this did not exist or was not of sufficient quality. He therefore encouraged people to report these issues to the Police as often as they could when they witnessed them.

It was also important to note that many of the behaviours associated with vehicle nuisance could already be addressed using existing legislation and enforcement powers. There was a concern that a PSPO might not offer any additional capabilities beyond what was currently available.

Councillor Alam was happy to ask officers to meet with Councillor Bacon to discuss this in more detail.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon confirmed that he would be happy to meet with officers. He disputed the answer provided regarding PSPO’s not offering additional powers to the Police as they had been used across the Country where racing was a problem. He asked Councillor Alam, as an elected official, to tell officers that a PSPO needed to happen there. Data was not needed to know that hundreds of people were racing on the A57, putting lives at risk and impacting the fire station.

Councillor Alam confirmed that he would ask officers to meet with Councillor Bacon.

2.    Councillor Bacon: The Council raised the cost of the Brown Bin Service, it raised Council Tax, people are paying more and getting less from this service. Does the Council understand that this so-called 'refund' is insulting given the huge failure?

As the Cabinet Member, Councillor Marshall, was not at the meeting, a written response would be provided.

3.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please explain how tenants will be able to influence the Selective Licensing Steering Group in a way that is safe from the types of landlord coercion that we have witnessed throughout the consultation process?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained that the terms of reference for the stakeholder group had not yet been fully developed, but the importance of ensuring that tenants could participate in a way that was both meaningful and safe was recognised.

It was appreciated that some tenants could be uncomfortable expressing their views directly to landlords, or their representatives. The Council aimed to provide a number of routes where tenants could provide input to the Steering Group and would discuss the best models with interested parties. The solutions could take the form of anonymous opportunities for tenant input, independent tenant representation on the steering groups, providing safe spaces for engagement as part of the work of the groups as well as clear reporting mechanisms and ongoing monitoring and review of any arrangements established.

The Council was committed to creating a space where tenants felt empowered to contribute without fear, and it welcomed ongoing dialogue to strengthen these protections.

4.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: What measures will be taken to ensure the Pride of Place programme does not lead to highly deprived communities just outside its geographic scope such as Dalton, Munsbrough and Thrybergh being even more left behind neighbourhoods?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that the Council welcomed the significant, long term investments being made by the Government. Of course it wanted to see more, but that was not a reason not to be positive about the resources coming to Rotherham communities.

The Phase 1 Pride in Place geography was prescribed by Government and focussed on the most heavily populated central area of the Borough - covering a population of 71,600 - including the Town Centre.

Despite the prescribed geography, the way in which the funding would be delivered had the potential to improve the lives of those living both within and outside of the identified spatial area. The Phase 1 fund would deliver improved access to health provision, better safety and security, and access to skills and employment opportunities – the impact of which would be felt more widely than the prescribed geography.

Of course, it was recognised that more funding over a wider area would be welcome, and this was why the Council continued to invest in place-based improvements right across the Borough.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that one of the concerns he had was that some of the areas such as Dalton, Thrybergh and Munsbrough for instance, were net contributors into the Housing Revenue Account with the way that neighbourhood budgets were funded. The deprivation figures released previously were incredibly depressing and Rotherham was seeing growing gaps between the highly priced central belt and areas particularly in the south of the Borough. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked whether the Council could make it policy that anything it looked at should be attuned towards narrowing the gap between the highly deprived SOAs, the 21% Rotherham had in total across the Borough, and those less deprived. He asked if the Council could enshrine that as an actual function in this and other regeneration products that whatever it did had to look towards narrowing those gaps?

Councillor Williams accepted the challenge Councillor Bennett-Sylvester had raised and acknowledged that deprivation and inequality was a challenge for all in the Chamber. He agreed to take the queries away. Councillor Williams was, however, proud of the work done by the Labour administration to tackle deprivation and inequality, such as investment in community facilities, the Council’s house building programme, the Towns and Villages Fund, Our Places Funds, road investment etc.

5.    Councillor Ball: Could you please provide details on the number of financial penalties, each up to £30,000, that have been issued in Rotherham as an alternative to prosecution for unlicensed properties since Selective Licensing was first introduced in 2015?

As Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question, a written response would be provided.

6.    Councillor Ball: Could you please provide details on the number of successful prosecutions by RMBC for unlicensed properties in Rotherham that have resulted in unlimited fines since Selective Licensing was first introduced in 2015?

As Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question, a written response would be provided.

7.    Councillor Reynolds: Why, in the face of absolute rejection by the people of Rotherham for the Whitestones project, are the Labour Government  and Labour Council not 100% behind  the people that elected them?

Councillor Williams explained that a motion had been passed in the meeting by all political groups, rejecting the proposals. A cross-party approach had been taken on the issue which recognised the substantial concerns that had been raised. Councillor Williams thanked Councillor Collingham for his submission and confirmed that, as Cabinet Member, he had written in to the consultation precisely to reflect the strength of local concerns. The Leader had also written a strong letter to the Secretary of State so much action had been taken at a local level.

8.    Councillor Reynolds: Can the solar power plan for the refurbishment of the new Markets be shared please?

Councillor Williams explained that the solar power plan for the new markets was:

·       Installation of rooftop solar PVs with panels mounted on the new outside market roof structure, feeding into the new single metered supply for the Market; and

·       Installation of rooftop solar PVs mounted on the new library roof as part of the redevelopment, connected to the building’s internal distribution board and supporting its fully electric systems.

The combined capacity was approximately 203 kW across the 2 schemes. The combined scheme was expected to generate approximately 150,000 kWh per annum, displacing 27 tCO2e [tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent] per year, compared with grid average electricity supply.

The Council believed that this would deliver significant benefits of reduced energy costs, carbon savings and supporting local traders at the Market through lower electricity charges.

9.    Councillor Ball: Could you please provide details on the number of Rent Repayment Orders that have been granted by tribunals in relation to unlicensed properties in Rotherham, enabling recovery of up to 12 months’ rent or Housing Benefit/Universal Credit, since Selective Licensing was first introduced in 2015?

As Councillor Ball was not present at the meeting to ask the question, a written response would be provided.

10.Councillor Thorp: Can you confirm how the Council has implemented the motion on solar panels passed on the 15th of January. The Council resolved to adopt a political stance on solar panels on rooftops of commercial buildings, public buildings, car parks, and encourage the use of brown field sites instead of farmland being eaten up by solar farms.

Councillor Williams explained that a motion is an expression of a political view and such a motion did not have a binding effect on, for example, the Planning Board. It was confirmed that there were no national or local planning policies that required brownfields or roofs to be used instead of far land. However, the Council was acting on the political view expressed in terms of the Whitestone proposals. Further, the Council were putting solar panels on the market and library development, on the car park at Drummond Street and on Riverside House so locally, the Council was promoting the political stance passed in the motion.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that it sounded like the Council had ignored the motion. He asked if something could be included in Planning Policy to ensure new build housing had to have solar panels and electric vehicle charging points.

Councillor Williams stated that the Council had not ignored the motion, as evidenced by the examples given in the previous answer. He committed to raising the matter of what could be done within Planning Policy with officers but explained that there would be the opportunity to discuss these kinds of ideas and suggestions as part of the Local Development Scheme which had been agreed earlier in the meeting.

11.Councillor Yasseen: Does the Leader of Rotherham Council believe that ignorance is now an acceptable defence for landlords committing criminal housing offences (Section 95(1) Housing Act 200), or is that defence a privilege reserved for senior Labour politicians, like the Chancellor Rachel Reeves?

The Leader stated that he believed that everyone in public life should do their best to follow the rules and pay their bills. He asked if Councillor Yasseen agreed.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that Chancellor, Rachel Reeves had admitted to failing to apply for a Selective Licence, highlighting that even councils like Southwark did not know who all the landlords were. She asked, given Rotherham’s Selective Licencing proposal, and the fact it had already been running for 10 years, how will the Council ensure every landlord knew that they had to apply and how would the Council identify unlicensed properties?

The Leader confirmed that a written response would be provided with the details but there was now legislation that required all landlords to register under the Renters Rights Act so there was a legal obligation on landlords to come forward. The Leader stated that the difference between him and Councillor Yassen on this subject was that he believed that when someone was running a business, which was what a landlord was doing, they should be aware of the legal requirements and regulations that they had to operate under and they should follow them. The Leader believed that Councillor Yasseen was arguing that landlords should be able to get away with not following the rules and he did not believe that was acceptable.

12.Councillor Yasseen: Please confirm how many individuals or households the Council has placed at the Carlton Park Hotel as temporary accommodation during each of the following periods:

Councillor Beresford explained that the Council had increased the portfolio of self-contained temporary accommodation provision by 45 units, taking the total to 173 units, which were situated across the Borough. This had helped to reduce the use of hotels.  For example, in May 2024 there were 88 households placed into hotels, and as at end of October 2025, this had reduced to 13 single person households. The average length of stay in hotels was kept to a minimum as the aim was always to move people into more stable accommodation as quickly and safely as possible.

The number of new placements in the Carlton Park Hotel had been reducing: between 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025 there were 286 such households, with the average placement at 17.9 nights per month.  Between 1st April and 4th November 2025, there were 111, at an average of 11.9 nights per month.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that that the Carlton Park scenario was a really good example of how one policy could have such a detrimental impact when it was not properly consulted on. When the decision was made by the Council to use Carlton Park, anti-social behaviour had gone up 5 times. Councillor Yasseen asked what lessons the Council had learned from this and how will it be engaging local residents and Councillors to manage housing pressures differently?

Councillor Beresford explained that she was not around at the time of the situation Councillor Yassen had described. However, she was committed to learning from past experiences and, where possible, engaging with local communities via consultation. It was noted, however, that consultation was not always possible, particularly during emergency situations.

13.Councillor Yasseen: Could the Cabinet Member please confirm how many businesses in Rotherham Town Centre have received support through the £270,000 High Street Regeneration Fund, and of these how many are owned or led by ethnic minority business owners?

Councillor Williams stated that the Fund was not just for the Town Centre but covered 5 areas, the others being Swinton, Maltby, Wath and Dinnington. It was a £270,000 scheme to help support small business, shops and local high streets across the Borough. The Scheme had been oversubscribed, and the level of demand had been very high. Councillor Williams confirmed that the Council were actively looking  at additional funding to be able to support as many of the applications as possible. It was hoped that progress would be made on this over the next few weeks and Councillor Williams would be able to provide more information after that time.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen explained that she had received lots of emails and phone calls from concerned ethnic minority-led businesses as it was felt that they got little support from the regeneration funding schemes. She felt that there was a disparity and inequity in the Council’s approach

Councillor Williams explained that he would be happy to discuss the issues raised with Councillor Yasseen when the final allocations had been made. He did reiterate that the funding needed to be spread fairly across the eligible areas.