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.
Minutes:
There were two questions:
1.
Mrs Hazel Hubbard asked a question in relation to the use of the
pavement by shops to display and sell goods. She stated that shops
were now taking up large sections of the pavement and pedestrians
could no longer walk properly along this path. Mrs Hubbard
referenced shops on Effingham Street and Howard Street and
explained that it was not fair on the market traders who had to pay
for their stalls. It was also impacting people with disabilities
who relied on walking aids as they could not fit through. Mrs
Hubbard stated that it was ridiculous and they should use the shop
they had, not the street. She asked how this could be
stopped.
Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the
Local Economy said that he understood the frustration. There were
conflicting rules in place due to planning law, licensing law and
highways law but Councillor Williams committed to raising the
matter with those services outside of the meeting and providing Mrs
Hubbard with a point of contact.
In her supplementary question, Mrs Hubbard stated that she had been
complaining for three months and nothing was improving. She had
been joined by two Conservative Councillors in the Town Centre but
the Labour member had refused to attend as she disagreed with Mrs
Hubbard’s viewpoint.
The Leader confirmed that Councillor Williams would walk around the
Town Centre with Mrs Hubbard and look into the current rules
regarding this matter.
2.
Mr Saghir Hussain spoke regarding Dignity and burial services. He
stated that Dignity had increased their rates by approximately 16%
and they had put this down to a number of reasons. This included
inflation, previous rate freezes and the cost they had to pay to
Rotherham Council. Mr Hussain referenced High Wycombe where it cost
£1500 less, even though it was close to central London. He
asked what the Council could do to subsidise or remove the
charges.
Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing with
responsibility for Bereavement Services, explained that the Council
were aware that fees were increasing and would have a big impact on
Rotherham residents. The Council had already made it clear to
Dignity that the rise was disproportionate, and they did not
support it. The Cabinet Member stated that, whilst the Council
disagreed with Dignity, they were entitled to take decisions to
increase the fees. She therefore advised Mr Hussain to contact
Dignity directly with his concerns.
In
his supplementary, Mr Hussain stated that he had already spoken to
Dignity, and they had stated that the reason they were putting up
the rates was because there had been no increases for seven years
and, more importantly, because of the cost they had to pay to the
Council as charges. He asked the Cabinet Member to support the
community by absorbing the costs and fetching the charges in line
with other local authorities.
The Service Director of Legal Services stated that the information
provided by Dignity to Mr Hussain did not accord with the
information the Council had received from Dignity in relation to
the pressures and reasons for the cost. The Council did not
recognise the answer Mr Hussain had been given. The Leader
confirmed that the Council would seek clarity on the facts of the
matter and arrange to discuss further with Mr Hussain.