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 10 questions:

1.    Councillor Currie: Please could you tell me why each ward has a set amount of litter bins that can be allocated but still ask the general public on the online form if they desire more ?

The Cabinet Member for Street Scene and Green Spaces, Councillor Marshall, stated that she completely understood the concern around the expectations around new bins. She offered assurances that all bin requests, whether submitted online by residents or raised by councillors were assessed in the same way. A site survey was carried out for each location, and decisions made based on usage, safety, littering levels, and the overall number of bins.

In his supplementary question, Councillor Currie asked how many litter bins were allocated to each ward and how they could be allocated more?

Councillor Marshall confirmed that a written response would be provided.

2.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: What information do we have regards the number of ASB incidents and neighbour disputes arising from parking disputes on RMBC housing managed estates?

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that when the service logged an ASB case, it was categorised according to the issue reported. The NEC Housing Management System used a range of categories, including vehicle related nuisance. There was no separate category for parking disputes.  However, in the 25/26 financial year there were 49 cases reported in the Anti-Social Behaviour category for vehicle related nuisance. It was not known if these related to parking disputes.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that parking issues could lead to bigger disputes. He asked if the Cabinet Member would recognise that parking issues could cause problems, disputes and tensions with neighbours and he asked whether it should be looked in to.

Councillor Beresford agreed that parking issues could cause disputes to escalate, as could untidy gardens or barking dogs. She stated that the service would continue to look at Anti-Social Behaviour issues on the estates.

3.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: What information do we hold regards prospective tenants of RMBC housing declining properties or not bidding on properties due to inadequate parking?

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that from 01/04/2025 to 31/03/2026 there were 3 property refusals due to no car parking. The Council did not hold information relating to applicants who chose not to bid for properties due to parking considerations. Reasons for not bidding under the choice based lettings scheme were not captured or recorded within the system.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if the Housing Service could look at how long it took to let properties on older estates that had limited parking and how many bids went in for them. He was concerned that older estates would be left behind. 

Councillor Beresford confirmed that she would look in to it. However she stated that nearly all properties were very quick to let due to the demand.

4.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: When assessing the condition of our RMBC housing estates what assessments have been made of the blighting impact of limited parking on grass verges and green spaces on our estates?

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that all new Council Housing developments and acquisitions took account of parking demands according to planning guidance and permissions. Access to public transport was a factor in considering planning applications for new housing and could inform the amount of car parking provision required for a particular scheme, within national and local policy guidelines. Location specific estate parking and vehicular access needs were assessed on a case by case basis, looking at risk and feasibility.

To manage the substantial increase in car ownership since many of the housing estates were constructed, recognising that this had resulted in vehicles parking on grass verges, open spaces and edges of pavements, preventative measures were being employed, such as the installation of verge bollards, to protect green spaces. Where it had been able to do so, the Housing Service had also undertaken parking projects to improve parking availability.

In some locations, parking had been installed on grass verges or elsewhere to increase parking capacity, prevent highway obstructions etc. This work had been funded from various budgets, such as Ward housing budgets and the Housing Capital Environmental Works Programme.

Appropriate enforcement action was taken where such issues arose and where it was reasonable to do so, given the pressures that existed. This included tenancy enforcement action. Issues regarding verge parking and parking in communal areas such as green spaces, were dealt with by the area housing teams, in liaison with other services, such as Highways and South Yorkshire Police.

It was worth noting that the Council managed a significant number of garage sites across many housing estates, which provided a secure alternative to street parking.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that the damage from cars on grass verges demonstrated that support was needed from central government to being estates up to date. Since there was no capital programme regarding this at the Council, he asked if the Cabinet Member could urge central government to look into funding for grass verge repairs and to bring older estates up to date.

Councillor Beresford confirmed that she would enquire about funding.

5.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: How many requests have been received by RMBC for alterations to properties due to the purchase of or supply of electric vehicles via the Motability scheme?

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that the Housing Service had received 30 applications from tenants for permission to install EV charging points since May 2021. Only 1 of those applications specifically mentioned the Motability Scheme.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that some residents had been told it would be better to rehouse them than install EV chargers. There were also many residents who could not afford to install their own EV chargers.

He asked what plans were in place to prepare all houses on the estates for the move to electric vehicles, so that residents could park outside their house and get them charged accordingly?

Councillor Beresford confirmed that there were no plans in the short term to install EV Chargers at all Council estate homes. She stated that the Council would continue to administer requests on a case by case basis.

6.    Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please confirm if the ringfence around the housing revenue account means funding via the Pride in Place programme can or cannot be used to improve land owned by RMBC housing?

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that the ringfence around the housing revenue account did not prevent Pride in Place programme funding being used to improve land owned by RMBC Housing.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked for confirmation that Pride In Place funding could be used to tackle blight on the Council estates that look a bit older.

Councillor Beresford stated that the Council did not decide where the Pride In Place funding was spent. That was for the Panel led by the Local MP to decide. However, it they did want to improve an area, and it was on Rotherham Council housing land, the Council would support it.

7.    Councillor Yasseen: Despite overwhelming resident opposition in the consultation, the Council is proceeding with the Eastwood Lane cycle scheme. Can you explain how this decision reflects meaningful public engagement, what threshold of opposition would trigger reconsideration, and why alternative options or modifications have not been brought forward in response to clearly expressed community concerns about this proposal and its local impact?

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, Councillor Williams, explained that the Council’s approach was exactly meaningful public consultation. A decision had not yet been made either to proceed with the scheme, or to drop it.

The Council carefully considered the responses from the first round of consultation and had developed alternative options and modifications to the concept ideas consulted on previously, based on what residents said. A further consultation process was now commencing through which the results of this work would be shared: the proposal was now tighter, and the Council were keen to see what the views were from Rotherham’s community.

When the consultation closed, the Council would consider all the responses and officers would draft a report on the findings. As part of that, an analyse of what this meant for the scheme going forward would be undertaken.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked if the Council would provide some evidential base about how the modal shift to cycling would happen and how CO2 emissions would reduce as a result of this scheme.

Councillor Williams stated that the infrastructure needed to be in place so residents could make informed choices about how they wanted to travel. He encouraged Councillor Yasseen and residents to get involved in the consultation.

8.    Councillor Yasseen: The landlord I receive the most complaints about is the Council itself, particularly delays in engagement and action. Can you explain why the Council is not meeting the standards expected by its tenants, what steps are being taken to improve response times and accountability, and how tenants can have confidence their concerns will be addressed promptly and fairly? 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beresford, explained that, as the largest social landlord in the borough, and one of the largest stock holding authorities nationally, it was recognised that tenants expected a timely, reliable service from their landlord. The Council welcomed the feedback that helped improve services. Whilst service demand and complexity of need had increased, positive progress was being made following feedback from tenants. The most recent tenant satisfaction results highlighted strong core landlord responses, including tenants feeling safe in their home (81.5%), being treated fairly and with respect (83%), satisfaction with repairs and maintenance (78.9%), and being kept informed about matters that affect them (75.6%). These areas consistently scored higher than national comparators and reflected the professionalism of staff interactions, strong compliance arrangements, and improving communication.

The focus was now firmly on building a stronger service response, underpinned by clear service standards for contact, updates and escalation. These standards were embedded across housing services and supported by robust performance management and oversight, including routine monitoring of response times (which were now meeting or exceeding the Council's target), overdue actions and repeat contacts, with clear management escalation where standards were not met. A tenant-led ‘Learning from Complaints Panel’ had also recently been launched.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that the Council were not good at responding to residents in a timely manner. The smallest issue when on for months and it seemed that the Council was frightened of speaking to residents.

Councillor Beresford encouraged Councillor Yasseen to contact her directly if these issues continued.

9.    Councillor Yasseen: Following the Government’s recent announcement on council tax debt reform, including a 63-day grace period and mandatory repayment plans, can the Cabinet Member confirm when this Council intends to implement these changes, given national rollout is expected from April 2027, and whether our current policies already reflect this more supportive approach to residents in arrears? 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, Councillor Alam, explained that the change to the grace period before recovery action could commence, contained within the Government’s response to the council tax administration consultation, would require changes to council tax legislation. 

These changes would, therefore, be implemented in line with the Government’s intended timeline from April 2027.  Current legislation provided for a 14 day period from an instalment being missed to an application for a liability order being made. A reminder notice could be issued as little as one day after an instalment had fallen due, if not paid, the full balance fell due 7 days later and an application for a liability order could be made 7 days from that date.

The Council’s current process was to set a timetable for the year which ensured no action to recover debt was taken outside the timescale set in law. However, the actual number of days’ grace varied depending on the allocation of court dates by Sheffield Magistrates Court and the date an instalment fell due.

Wherever possible the Council worked with debtors to agree a repayment plan which took into account the customer’s financial position.

There was no supplementary question.

10.  Councillor Yasseen: In light of recent concerns surrounding decisions taken by the Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, including the Mandelson appointment, can the Leader of the Council clarify whether any representations have been made to Labour Government, and how they ensure residents’ confidence is upheld when national decisions risk undermining public trust in leadership and accountability?

The Leader stated that the Council made representations to the government on a variety of topics at any given time. It had not made representations, to the best of the Leader’s knowledge at least, either in regards to the appointment of ambassadors like Peter Manelson or in a broader question of accountability in the way that you've described it.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that Rotherham should be knowledgeable on this due to the historical response to CSE and its improvements journey and that this should be used to inform others on accountability and leadership. In that regard, she asked the Leader if he thought it reasonable to expect that knowingly associating or doing business with a well-known paedophile should have disqualified someone from being put forward for a diplomatic role.

The Leader had nothing further to add.