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 27 questions:

1.    Councillor Thorp: Do schools within the RMBC area, have to supply alternatives to the standard meal if meat products are served in that meal i.e. a Halal or Vegetarian alternative, or can any school serve meals for just the majority of pupils attending that school?

Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, explained that there was no specific national requirement that schools had to provide particular alternatives such as halal meals in every case. However, schools were expected to act reasonably in meeting the needs of their pupils and whether the Council provided catering, the service specification supported dietary needs.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that he was specifically referencing one school who only served vegetarian food or halal meat. He asked if this was allowed.

Councillor Cusworth stated that she was not aware of that school, but she was happy to meet with Councillor Thorp to discuss this further and she would raise the matter with officers.

2.    Councillor Thorp: Following on from question 1, if the school delivers meals just for the majority do they have to show this within their literature?

Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, explained that there was no specific requirement for a school to formally state in its literature that it provided meals in the way described. However, schools and catering providers were expected to be clear and transparent about their menu offer. This expectation came from a combination of national school food standards, wider legal responsibilities and, where applicable, local service specifics.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that Oakwood Academy was only providing halal meat or vegetarian food; it did not provide non-halal meat, but this was not communicated. He stated that this was a problem.

Councillor Cusworth stated that Oakwood Academy was part of an academy trust and therefore outside the control of the Council. She did confirm she would discuss the matter further with Councillor Thorp.

3.    Councillor Reynolds: As it nears completion, can we be told how much solar power the new Market scheme will generate. In simple terms will it power half the Market, all the Market, or all the Market and still export some power to the Grid?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that there were two systems installed on the new library and Outdoor Covered Market to maximum spatial capacity, generating 195kW peak output and it was expected that jointly they would generate 12.5% of both sites annual predicted consumption. This was based on the new supply capacity, so it was likely that the real use of solar would be greater than 12.5%. This was due to day by day usage and consumption variance. Generation would also vary depending on season and operational activities, and there would also be a small amount of spill to the grid during closed hours of daylight or low use.

In his supplementary, Councillor Reynolds sought clarity around the 12% figure.

Councillor Williams confirmed that the solar installation was expected to power around 12% of the Market and Library overall power requirement.

4.    Councillor Reynolds: What has been the total cost of the Solar installation for the Market?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy stated that the total cost was £298,000.

5.    Councillor Ryalls: Would the recent successful prosecution of the rouge landlord on Foljambe drive Dalton have been made easier if it had been in a selective licensing area, and if so, how?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing firstly thanked Councillor Ryalls for her hard work on behalf of the impacted resident. It had been noted and was appreciated. In response to the question, Councillor Beresford stated that this case demonstrated that the Council would take robust enforcement action where serious hazards were identified. In this instance, officers had used existing Housing Act powers to investigate, serve a legal notice, and successfully prosecute when the landlord failed to comply. It was worth noting that this action followed a complaint, meaning the response was reactive in nature.

Selective Licensing could have made the process easier by providing additional tools. It introduced clearer and more straightforward offences through licence breaches, and supported a more proactive approach, with earlier identification of issues through licensing and inspection activity. In areas subject to Selective Licensing, issues were also less reliant on tenant complaints being made; sometimes tenants were reluctant to make those complaints themselves. However, it was important to note that the absence of licensing did not prevent a successful prosecution in this case.

In her supplementary, Councillor Ryalls asked if the Dalton area could continue to be monitored and if it would be considered in the next round of selective licensing.

Councillor Beresford stated that the introduction of the Renters Rights Act would hopefully improve matters. Tenant engagement officers were also available to speak to tenants and provide advice. In relation to Selective Licensing, Councillor Beresford confirmed that Dalton had not been selected in the previous round as it had not met the required criteria. This was because it did not have the density of private rented properties required. However it would be assessed again for the next round.

6.    Councillor Thorp: Can you give me a ball park figure of how much the total cost of the consultation, to date including the design and costing format used to conduct the Ward Councillors survey, for the proposed new cycle lane from the Brecks extending to join the Broom road cycle lane and the surrounding roads included within this Active Travel funding?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that he could not give a specific figure just relating to what the consultation was, in order to get to the point of consultation, work had to be undertaken on design and feasibility. The total cost for the project referred to to date, for all activities done so far, was just over £732,000 and this was funded from the Department of Transport’s City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp asked if Rotherham Council would be required to pay that amount if the final scheme did not go ahead.

Councillor Williams confirmed a written response would be provided.

7.    Councillor Thorp: Why when the proposed new cycle lane project is announced from the Brecks to Broom Rd, and a online consultations has been completed, then several in person consultations at selected locations. Then a focus group is formed, but no RMBC councillor is allowed to be present because, we may have to much influence, why?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy stated that the focus groups referred to were held in early 2025 and were just one way of collating local views. They were designed as a place to capture independent, honest views from local residents. To ensure the feedback was non-political, elected members were not invited to these sessions. This was not uncommon for a resident focus group process. Similarly, elected members were briefed and given the opportunity to comment on proposals in separate meetings with officers.

Councillor Williams also confirmed that, on the back of concerns shared by Councillor Thorp outside of the meeting, a number of actions were now underway.

 
In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp stated that he had been told that a member from a cycling group from London had been at one of the meetings to try and push for cycle lanes. He asked Councillor Williams if that was correct.

Councillor Williams confirmed that a written response would be provided.

8.    Councillor Thorp: Why after online consultations, then in person consultations then a series of focus groups. Followed by a very thorough road by road and even junctions questionnaire giving 3-4 options and costings for each area, road, and junctions' completed by all 6 Ward councillors highways believe they know better and submit a never before suggested road layout for Broom Lane?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy stated that the Council had listened to views from residents throughout the process of looking at active travel measures along Broom Lane – and of course it was the role of Transportation officers to validate and bring forward proposals for consideration, which was what they had done. Given the focus of the funding made available by the last Conservative government, officers had developed a design that incorporated Active Travel elements on Wickersley Road and Broom Lane and the associated surrounding neighbourhood. To meet the outcomes of the funding the Council had been given for the transport improvements on Broom Lane, the design had to create a balance of opportunity to access to cycle routes and safe pedestrian spaces. 

As a result of the feedback the council had received, new plans included options to reduce the impact on trees along the route, improved paving and more tactile crossings to assist pedestrians, signalised crossings at the Stag roundabout, plus a new controlled crossing and raised crossing close to Sitwell Academy on Broom Lane.

It was now the community’s opportunity to inform the Council whether these interventions were happening in the right place at the right time or whether changes should be made. The Council were now inviting views and representations from everyone as part of the final consultation stage, and only then would it be in a position to make a decision as to whether the scheme went ahead.

9.    Councillor Thorp: Has any data been collected regarding the use of the new cycle lane infrastructure regarding any increase in use these schemes have created if not why?

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11(8), question 6 would be responded to in writing.

10. Councillor Thorp: When new cycle lanes are suggested it talks of cycling wheeling and walking, what data have you collected to show that only by introducing designated cycle lanes you can reduce the danger to pedestrians?

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11(8), question 7 would be responded to in writing.

11. Councillor T Collingham: Following the motion agreed at Full Council on 22 April 2026 to review barriers affecting use of lighting columns, what immediate short-term support has been put in place for parish councils and community groups, including any interim financial assistance, guidance, or relaxation of requirements while the full policy review is undertaken?

Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Communities firstly apologised for the lack of timely communication on this matter with Parish Councils and other groups, stating that it was regrettable that the Council had not got this right. In relation to the interim assistance, Councillor Allen confirmed that the Council had agreed to:

-       Pay 75% of the costs of the inspections of the lighting columns.

-       Allow Parish Councils to raise their 25% contribution either this year or next year.

-       Pay 50% of the costs for when re-inspections were required (which would be in three years.)

-       Allow Parish Councils to commission their own inspectors to speed up the process. The Council would also offer advice on suitable contractors.

Councillor Allen also confirmed that, as Parish Council liaison was now under her portfolio, she would be taking this forward as a key learning point.

In his supplementary, Councillor Collingham asked how this proposal had been received by Parish Councils.

Councillor Allen confirmed that she would write to them and ask.

12. Councillor Bower: How can local residents have any faith in the consultation process for the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement when their view have been ignored throughout the process so far?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy did not accept the premise of the question. In any consultation the Council received a very wide range of views. Some would be actionable and some would not. However, when a public consultation ran, where there were responses along a theme that could confidently be addressed within the bounds of the funding and scheme, the Council were able to make those changes.

Councillor Williams stated that he set out in response to an earlier question changes that had been proposed in relation to the Broom Lane scheme, but for example, on the Fitzwilliam Road scheme, the Council had not now taken forward proposals to close some of the side roads from Fitzwilliam Road – because of the feedback received in the first round of consultation. Possible radical changes to St Anne’s Roundabout that would have restricted access to the south were also no longer being considered.

Councillor Williams encouraged those concerned to take part in the consultation, as that would be the basis for a final decision on the scheme.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bower expressed the strong feelings of residents on this scheme. He asked if the strict way in which the funding had been laid meant that there would be no funding if there were no cycle lanes. He asked if residents were just being consulted on so they could be blamed if the funding was not provided.

Councillor Williams offered his reassurances and the reassurances from the Head of Transportation Infrastructure Service that the consultation had to be meaningful.

Councillor Williams did question why Councillor Bower, a Green Party representative, was against cycle lanes.

13. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Following the success of the MiCard Barnsley reported at last week's Transportation Advisory Board is there and if so what is the plan to introduce the scheme in Rotherham?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that at a South Yorkshire level, learning was being taken from MiCard in Barnsley to determine the viability of similar schemes elsewhere in South Yorkshire in the future. It would come at significant cost, but the Council continued to liaise with SYMCA and will receive briefings on the evaluation of the MiCard scheme as appropriate which could inform future discussions.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if Councillor Williams would be happy to discuss the options with cabinet, particularly in terms of looking at how Barnsley  provided actual benefits in terms of uptake of usage, savings and better school attendance. There were massive benefits to be had, even though there would be a massive cost.

Councillor Williams was happy to have discussions with Cabinet and keep evaluating and monitoring the scheme in Barnsley.

14. Councillor Ball: There were 49 vehicle-related ASB cases on RMBC estates last year but only three parking-related refusals. What is your time-bound plan to fix verge damage and parking shortages?

As Councillor Ball was unable to attend the meeting, a written response would be provided.

15. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: When resurfacing footpaths in a street is it still our practice to offer discounted drop kerbs to residents?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that, during planned footway resurfacing schemes, it remained the Council’s practice to offer residents the opportunity to install dropped kerbs, for vehicle access, at a discounted rate, where it was operationally and economically viable to do so.

This arrangement applied only where full resurfacing works were being carried out and did not apply to micro asphalt or surface treatment schemes, as these did not involve using construction plant or resources required to accommodate new crossings. There were specific requirements that had to be met in order for any dropped kerbs to be included in a resurfacing scheme.

The Council sent all residents a letter, prior to the delivery of a footway resurfacing scheme, that offered residents who were considering having a vehicle access crossing the opportunity to have it installed at a reduced rate of £1,500 whilst these footway repairs were taking place.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if this could be reviewed in light on the issues relating to parking on grass verges and pavements. He asked if Scrutiny could review the matter to see if there was a cost benefit to an alternative approach.

Councillor Williams said he was happy to look into the matter and see if there was any further flexibility or options available. He confirmed that it was up to Councillor Steele and Scrutiny members to set their own work programme.

16. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Can you please give an update on the timescale to re-instate some showering facilities to Thrybergh Country Park and how this is being communicated to users such as Rotherham Sea Cadets?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces explained that, unfortunately, it was going to take a long period of time to get the facilities in the building working. This was because the oil-filled boiler needed to be replaced which required extensive electrical and plumbing work. As the project also required additional power, the utilities provider had notified the Council that there would be an 18-week lead in time, which along with time for design and tendering, meant the project would take an estimated 26 weeks to complete.

Councillor Marshall stated that she knew this was frustrating. Officers had been in touch with the Sea Cadets and were working on a number of temporary options.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that this had been going on since October 2025. He asked if a welfare unit could be set up in order to offer warm showers as the lack of warm showers impacted health and safety.

Councillor Marshall confirmed that she would raise this with officers. She also confirmed that the planned temporary arrangements would be in place by the end of May and that the Sea Cadets had been offered alternative arrangements at Rother Valley Country Park.

17. Councillor Tinsley: With the government reviewing the legality of plug-in solar systems—which cost up to £500 and can save roughly £150 a year on electricity—is the council reviewing the possibilities for council housing?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing explained that, where the council was currently installing solar PV as part of the Warm Homes and wider retrofit schemes, all systems were hard-wired. Plug-in solar panels were currently not legal to install in a UK home, although the government's announcement suggested that regulations would be relaxed to allow for their use. If and when that happened, Council tenants would have the same rights as everyone else. However there were a number of health and safety considerations that the Council needed to consider in terms of the possibilities for its council housing as it must ensure that its approach prioritised safety and responsibility every step of the way.

Firstly, any potential installation would require checks on the wiring system to ensure that it would be able to handle the additional power flow safely. Beyond electrical considerations, the Council would need to consider the safety of balcony installations from both a fixings and weighting perspective to ensure that the structural integrity of its properties was not compromised. The Council also needed to be clear on achieving value for money alongside accountability and tenant responsibilities.

Whilst the market was constantly developing new technology to improve the energy efficiency of homes, the Council’s retrofit strategy had to promote a fabric first approach to retrofit; ensuring that properties were as thermally efficient as they could be in the first instance in order to maximise the additional efficiency and effectiveness of new technology.

In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley asked if the Council were looking at preparing guidance for residents on the matter.

Councillor Beresford confirmed that guidance would be produced when the government had provided more details on the proposals.

18. Councillor Tinsley: Is the council keeping check on the progress of the Little London Maltby Development and it's lack of progress?

Councillor Mault, Chair of Planning Board, explained that outline planning permission for the site known locally as The Derelicts was granted on November 3 2025. This included the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of 15 new dwellings. As part of that permission a condition was imposed that an application for approval of reserved matters be submitted within one year. At the moment the applicant was still within this timeframe, and council officers would ensure that the developer was aware of their requirements.

In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley asked for confirmation that conversations were being held on this matter as this had been an issue for many years.

Councillor Mault confirmed that it was on the radar but the Council were limited in terms of what could be done as the developer was still within the agreed timeframe.

19. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Dalton Parish Council have been chasing information on £60,000 of s106 monies from the Gleesons Myers Avenue development for several months when can they expect an answer?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that the S106 monies referred to have been received, and the Council’s Green Spaces team were aware of the request from Dalton Parish Council to use the monies to match fund a bid to develop a pump track. A Strategic Outline Case was currently being prepared, in line with the Council’s Capital Programme Management procedures, to enable this to happen.

Subject to necessary approvals, this would progress through the stages, with key decisions and funding arrangements expected over the Summer, followed by delivery phases thereafter.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that it had been an incredibly frustrating process. He stated that his major concern was whether the Council were keeping a full and proper record of s106 monies when they were allocated to future developments, especially for Parish Councils. He asked if the back history could be reviewed to make sure that a proper register was being kept.

Councillor Williams confirmed that he had not had any other concerns raised to him so far during his tenure as cabinet member for this area but he was more than happy to pick up the conversation outside of the meeting and try and get Councillor Benmett-Sylvester that reassurance.

20. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Regards congestion on the A630 in Dalton & Thrybergh we have had two potential schemes in the last 5 years to tackle congestion fail to cross the line, suggestions from residents around lights, box junctions, removing bus lanes rejected, when can we expect a scheme to tackle this issue?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that it had not yet been possible to find a viable solution to creating additional capacity to improve congestion, owing to site constraints and restrictions on Government funding. The South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority were presently developing a scheme for improved bus priority on the A.630 in Dalton, on which they consulted over the winter. Councillor Williams stated that this should help mitigate the impacts of congestion for buses along the corridor.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if more could be done to look at delays further along the system on Herringthorpe Valley Road in order to improve the traffic flow through this particular area.

Councillor Williams confirmed that he would raise this matter with officers and would try and facilitate officer attendance at CAP meetings. He also encouraged Councillor Bennett-Sylvester to include this matter in the Road Safety Plan.

21. Councillor Tinsley: Can new built housing with outstanding planning conditions be sold and moved into before being resolved?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that yes, in some circumstances not all conditions related to planning permissions needed to be discharged before occupation. If conditions that were required to be completed before occupation were not discharged, occupying the properties would be in breach of those conditions.

In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley stated that it had been reported that residents had moved into the new development on Highfield Park despite their being an outstanding condition relating to contamination. He asked if this could be looked into urgently.

Councillor Williams confirmed that officers were fully aware of the situation. A preoccupation condition requiring validation evidence for the land remediation was part of the planning commission and unfortunately had not been addressed. Officers were engaging with the developer alongside contaminated land colleagues to seek an acceptable resolution. However, if the matter could not be resolved promptly, then the planning service could consider any enforcement action that might be necessary and needed. The planning service were also taking legal advice to ensure the most appropriate course of action.

22. Councillor Tinsley: There has been little investment from the Council in Coronation Park Maltby with the exception of Ward Capital and Section 106 Money. With the park still needing investment to make play areas safe, when will the council be allocating money for Coronation Park?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces explained that the Council had made funds available via Ward Capital budgets which were in the control of local Members to spend on priorities within their ward – such as investment in local parks. This and Section 106 funding had delivered a £75k in investment in the last 2 years. The Green Spaces team carried out monthly inspections of play equipment across the borough to ensure that it was safe. From the most recent inspection of the play area on 11 May, only low risk or very low risk issues were noted: paint chips, wear on chains, worn surfacing under the swings and minor damage to seats.  The good news was that Coronation Park was safe to use. The next inspection was due in mid-June and if additional issues had arisen during this time, works could be ordered at that point.

In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley stated that ward members had had to scrimp and save to keep the park open and the money could have been spent elsewhere. He did not think the park was safe. Councillor Tinsley stated that the tennis courts had been shut for nearly three years and were not included in the Playing Pitch Strategy. He invited Councillor Marshall for a walk around the park so she could assess the safety herself.

Councillor Marshall accepted the invitation. She also encouraged Councillor Tinsley to consider applying for Pride in Place funding for the park when that process was open.

23. Councillor Ball: The Rotherham Markets and Library scheme has now reached £46.84 million after a further £6 million overspend. When will the Chief Executive’s investigation findings be published?

As Councillor Ball was unable to attend the meeting, a written response would be provided.

24. Councillor Ball: Despite overwhelming opposition to the Eastwood Lane cycle scheme, what exact opposition threshold would make you abandon or change it?

As Councillor Ball was unable to attend the meeting, a written response would be provided.

25. Councillor Ball: RMBC is still the landlord with the most tenant complaints over delays. What are current average response times, and when will the new standards show real improvements?

As Councillor Ball was unable to attend the meeting, a written response would be provided.

26. Councillor Tinsley: How much in revenue is the council set to lose from lower collection number in cans and plastic due to the incoming deposit return scheme?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces explained that, at present, there was no confirmed figure for how much income the Council could lose as a result of the Deposit Return Scheme. This was because the scheme was still being finalised nationally, and key details, such as payment arrangements and operational design, were not yet agreed.

In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley asked for confirmation that conversations were being held regarding this matter as it was due to be introduced in 2027.

Councillor Marshall confirmed it was being looked in to. She also stated that she very much welcomed the proposals due to the amount of litter collected by the verge cleansing teams.

27. Councillor Tinsley: When fitting new heating systems such as air source heat pumps, do the council review associated Electric tariff prices to run these, in comparison to using traditional Gas Heating Systems?

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11(8), question 6 would be responded to in writing.