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 six public questions:

1. Councillor Thorp asked a question regarding Minute 9 on the agenda, disposal of land at Worrygoose Lane, Whiston. He asked how the development had got planning permission if it was landlocked with no way out. He was also concerned with how the £4.5million would be spent. Councillor Thorp asked if the money could be spent in the Sitwell Ward, like had happened with a development in Swinton Ward.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the ownership of this particular piece of land was not known at the time planning permission was granted. For the purposes of planning permission, land ownership was irrelevant. The matter before Cabinet was to address landownership. They did not have the authority to address planning matters.

The Leader stated that the Swinton scheme was different in that it was always intended as a regeneration scheme in which the Council did a deal with the developer. However, he would be happy to have conversations with Councillor Thorp regarding the options that could be delivered to benefit residents in the local area.

Councillor Thorp accepted the invitation to hold a conversation with the Leader.

2. Andrew Claxton also asked a question in relation to Minute 9 on the agenda, disposal of land at Worrygoose Lane, Whiston. He confirmed that he had already submitted a formal complaint regarding this matter. Mr Claxton stated that the Council Planning Department granted a lucrative outline planning permission which artificially inflated the value of the ransom strip. He said he was concerned because the Council should strictly separate regulatory duties (like Planning) and the corporate financial interests of the Council. He asked if there was a conflict of interest because of this and what proof existed that the £4.5million valuation had been obtained from independent valuations.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Planning Board Members did not have a conflict of interest when granting the planning permission as they were unaware of the land ownership matter when making this decision. In relation to ensuring safeguards were in place for when the Council was a landowner of a site seeking planning permission, it was confirmed that all matters were dealt with through the formal committee process, and in public. This was done in this circumstance. The Monitoring Officer directed Mr Claxton to the publicly available Cabinet report for the legal implications.

Mr Claxton asked if the issues raised concerns regarding the competence of the Planning Department as they had failed to identify this issue.

The Leader explained that the Planning Department were not responsible for knowing the ownership of the land and it was not a matter considered as part of the planning application process. The Leader did agree that not knowing the ownership did not speak highly of the Council.

3. Dawn Ordish asked a question in relation to flytipping in Eastwood and Rotherham generally. She asked why some rubbish was removed by enviro-crime but other bits were ignored. Ms Ordish stated that just cleaning up at great expense each time was not the solution but something needed to be done, particularly in Eastwood, as residents did not want to live on a rubbish tip.

The Leader agreed that residents should not have to put up with flytipping. The circumstance that existed in Eastwood was not acceptable, nor was it acceptable anywhere. He explained that an investment had been made in the 2026/27 budget for additional civil enforcement staff for selective licensing areas and it was expected that there would be a marked improvement in enforcement.

The Service Director of Community Safety and Street Scene explained that the Council was seeking to achieve consistent outcomes across the whole borough in terms of the cleanliness of communities. There were some areas, including Eastwood, that suffered higher levels of fly tipping, and the Council needed to act accordingly. The Council did seek to take action in all possible circumstances, but it was not always possible to identify perpetrators. In terms of national data, Rotherham did perform quite well in terms of taking action.

Ms Ordish stated that she could not believe that anywhere in the country was worse than Eastwood. As soon as the rubbish was cleared, more was back the following day. Enviro-crime attended to put stickers on the rubbish but did not remove it. Ms Ordish stated that St Anne’s Road looked awful and could lead to racism.

The Leader reiterated that the situation in Eastwood was not acceptable. The tape being used by enforcement officers was part of the investigation process. Whilst the waste was easy to remove, in order to find the perpetrators, a full investigation was required. It was confirmed that if rubbish was dumped in the garden of a private property, it was the responsibility of the owner of that property to remove it.

The Leader confirmed that the Council would look into the matter if Ms Ordish provided the details of the property. The Leader also confirmed that a selective licensing board was being brought together, for residents, landlords, tenants and council staff, to make sure everyone was working together to find solutions to matters like this.

4. Rachel Johnson expressed concerns regarding an overgrown hedge that was obstructing a public footpath and preventing wheelchair users, mobility scooter users, parents with pushchairs and other pedestrians from using the pavement safely. She stated that she had reported this to the Council but was told that people could use the footpath on the opposite side of the road instead. Ms Johnson asked what action the Council would take and within what timescale to remove the obstruction and restore full access to the pavement.

The Leader and Service Director stated that they would need to know the specific location but stated that, on the face of it, the proposed action of using the footpath on the opposite side of the road did not seem right.

Ms Johnson stated that she had reported several hedges and instances were footpaths were unavailable. The Council said DEFRA guidance meant hedges could not be cut until September because of bird nesting season. Ms Johnson did not feel this was correct.

The Leader confirmed a written response would be provided.

5. Kath Reeder asked a question regarding empty properties on Cambridge Street that had been empty for 25 years. Ms Reeder stated that she had been trying to find out who owned the properties for twenty years but had never got an answer. She was concerned that they had been taken over by stealth and used EU funding.

The Leader stated that he did not know the particular circumstances of this matter. In general terms, if people owned buildings, they could keep them empty as long as they were kept safe. The Leader confirmed that he would get officers to look into the matter and provide a written response.

6. Mohammad Ashraf asked for the names, roles and functions of the people on the Selective Licensing Board and Stakeholder Steering Group. He also asked if all of the roles had been filled.

It was confirmed that the Terms of Reference had been drafted and were being consulted on. The roles had not yet been recruited to and there was still plenty of opportunities to get involved.