Agenda item

 

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

 

Recommendations:

 

That Cabinet:

 

1. Note the overall position in relation to the Year Ahead Delivery Plan activities.

 

2. Note the Quarter 4 data for the Council Plan performance measures.

 

3. Note the updates on the Council Plan long term measures of success.

 

4. Note that future progress reports will be presented to Cabinet in January and July 2027.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Leader, Councillor Read presented the year-end plan update for the first year of the current cycle, reporting that 82% of priority actions had been achieved, 81% of performance measures had been met, and 79% of long-term measures were moving in the right direction.

 

The Leader highlighted progress across a number of priority areas, including continued improvements to road conditions, completion of works at Rother Valley and Thrybergh Country Parks, ongoing play area improvements, and the opening of the Castle View Day Centre. Further updates included the securing of £75,000 in match funding for a multi-use games area in Kimberworth Park, the commencement of groundworks for new homes at Eastwood, progress on the Market Hall development, and agreement of contracts for the Whiston Flood Alleviation Scheme.

 

Several projects remained behind schedule. The Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy had been split into two phases, with the first phase due to be considered by Cabinet and further work on integrated community services continuing. Works funded through the Our Places Fund were progressing in Swinton, although public realm works in Maltby had been delayed until August.

 

The Leader reported that investment in community facilities had progressed well overall, although further surveys at the Black Hut in Kimberworth Park had identified more extensive works than originally anticipated, with options including a potential rebuild being explored. Delays to upgrades at some business centres had largely been resolved and the programme was back on track.

 

An update was also provided on independent travel training for children and young people. Delivery had been affected by staff absence during the year, preventing the target from being achieved despite strong demand for the service. Finally, the Leader noted that employee participation in the staff opinion survey had reached 49%, narrowly missing the 50% target.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions, with Councillor Blackham seeking clarification regarding page 58 of the report, noting that it referred to the demolition of burnt-out buildings on High Street in February and asking which February was being referenced. In response, the Leader advised that some demolition works had already taken place and deferred to Andrew Bramidge, Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment for an update on the programme. The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment confirmed that the demolition works referred to were scheduled to commence in September 2026 and reported that preparatory works, including the installation of hoardings, were underway and the project remained on track.

 

Councillor Blackham had observed that the buildings remained in place, noting that only one contractor had been erecting a fence between the Market Hall and the car wash. It was noted that there was no visible evidence of demolition works commencing other than publicity signage and questioned the reference in the report to demolition taking place in February, highlighting that this appeared to be incorrect given the update that works were now scheduled for September.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment acknowledged that the reference in the report was incorrect and clarified that the demolition works had not been scheduled for February but were due to commence in September.

 

Councillor Yasseen stated that a simpler approach was welcome. However, It was felt the findings should be taken seriously, as much of the deterioration identified was embedded within the more detailed equality analysis and long-term measures, which were considerably more extensive.

 

From a ward councillor perspective, Councillor Yasseen highlighted several statistics that aligned with three significant complaints received about the Council. These included that 50% of residents did not feel well informed, only 35% believed the Council provided value for money, and just 41% felt the Council acted on residents’ concerns.

 

Councillor Yasseen emphasised that the low level of confidence in the Council responding to residents’ concerns was particularly significant, reflecting concerns about delays and a lack of responsiveness over the previous two years.

 

Councillor Baggaley welcomed the completion of the actions but noted that several had experienced delays, with some impacts extending into the current year. It was queried whether greater visibility could be provided on delayed completed actions and any resulting knock-on effects for future years.

 

The Leader explained that reports were updated as close to publication as possible to ensure the most accurate information was included, as actions could be completed after the reporting period ended. The Leader added that, if a simple way could be found to highlight delays in completed actions, this could be incorporated into future reports.

 

Councillor Monk queried whether the reporting of action trends provided sufficient visibility of known delays, noting that some actions appeared to move from being delayed over multiple quarters to ultimately not being met. Councillor Monk went on to ask whether risks were being identified and managed early enough to prevent this outcome, acknowledging that while some delays were unavoidable, others might present opportunities for earlier intervention.

 

The Leader acknowledged the frustration caused when anticipated short delays extended beyond expectations. It was explained that some actions depended on specific trigger points, such as surveys, procurement processes, or technical assessments, which could reveal unforeseen issues and lead to further delays. Examples included procurement challenges, a lack of available providers, or works proving more extensive than originally expected. The Leader assured members that Cabinet Members and senior leaders regularly reviewed actions within their portfolios, and that robust scrutiny and oversight arrangements were in place to monitor delivery and manage risks.

 

The Chief Executive, John Edwards, advised that there was little to add to the Leader’s comments. The Chief Executive explained that delivery was closely monitored against key milestones and that actions considered achievable at one stage could be delayed due to unforeseen internal or external factors, such as survey findings or changing circumstances. Assurance was provided that progress against all Year Ahead Delivery Plan actions was subject to close management oversight, with measures in place to address actions that fell off track. The Chief Executive stated that internal scrutiny arrangements were open and robust, while acknowledging that some critical milestones could not always be achieved as anticipated. An offer was made to discuss individual cases in more detail if required.

 

Councillor Yasseen referred to the earlier discussion on how performance reports should be presented, noting that the Board’s role was to assess accountability and outcomes. It was questioned whether residents would feel the benefits if all actions were delivered. While acknowledging that meeting 81% of annual targets appeared positive, concern was raised that only 58% of long-term measures had improved. Assurance was sought that Cabinet gave appropriate weight to long-term measures when assessing whether outcomes for residents were improving.

 

The Leader advised that only around 50% of the long-term measures currently had available data, although further data would be received later. Of the measures reported, approximately four-fifths were moving in the right direction, and these were considered in detail. It was explained that the Council’s focus was on delivering high-quality services, meeting statutory responsibilities, providing value for money, and improving quality of life for residents where possible.

 

Assurance was provided that Cabinet Members and services reviewed performance information at a detailed level, alongside complaints data, councillor casework, and local experiences, to assess whether outcomes for residents were improving. Confidence was expressed that progress had been made in improving quality of life in the borough, while acknowledging that further work remained and that some outcomes were influenced by wider national challenges, such as economic conditions and youth unemployment, which were beyond the Council’s direct control.

 

Councillor Keenan queried the continued low uptake of the adults starting the residential rehabilitation placement to receive support for drug/alcohol misuse. (pages 72–73), noting that performance appeared unchanged since the previous report, with only around half of the available places being utilised. Reference was made to the reported delivery shortfall, attributed to high demand and pathway issues, and assurance was sought that the pathway concerns had been addressed, given the service's grant-funded status.

 

In response, it was acknowledged that the issue remained unchanged from the previous report, with insufficient numbers of individuals ready to enter residential rehabilitation placements. The Leader noted that placing people into rehabilitation before they were ready would be counterproductive and could lead to poor outcomes. Reference was made to significant challenges with the existing drug and alcohol treatment provider, and it was reported that arrangements were being made to appoint a new provider due to concerns that the previous provider had not delivered as expected. Assurance was given that performance was expected to improve once the new provider was in place, although the target had remained difficult to achieve because of the limited number of suitable referrals progressing through the pathway.

 

The Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health, Ian Spicer, provided assurance that the reasons for the current position were understood and related to the effectiveness of the referral pathway and the preparation of individuals for residential rehabilitation. It was explained that the provider was expected to undertake the necessary preparatory work in a timely and effective manner to ensure individuals were ready to progress into treatment. Where this groundwork was not completed to the required standard, referral numbers would remain low. It was reported that procurement of a new drug and alcohol service provider was underway, with the expectation that this would improve outcomes and increase uptake in future years.

 

Councillor McKiernan queried whether recruitment difficulties were linked to pay levels. The Leader advised that no general correlation had been identified. It was noted that underspends on new posts were common where vacancies were filled partway through the year, and that one Street Safety vacancy had resulted from a candidate withdrawing. Delays in job evaluation and budget setting affected salary projections, while some posts remained unfilled for operational reasons. Pay levels were constrained by the Council’s job evaluation framework and national pay agreements. Overall, staffing variations were expected to balance out by year end, and no significant concerns were raised about the underspends. The Chief Executive added that salary budgets were based on midpoint pay scales, which could create small variances, although the timing of appointments and payroll start dates remained the main cause of salary underspends.

 

Councillor Yasseen expressed concern that underspends resulting from recruitment delays were affecting frontline service delivery and resident satisfaction, citing vacancies in areas such as street cleansing, fly-tipping and community safety. Clarification was sought on the timescales for filling vacancies and ensuring sufficient staffing to deliver services. In response, the Leader clarified that the reference to “no financial implications” related only to noting the report and did not suggest that service delivery lacked financial impact. It was noted that the report provided a progress update rather than a full assessment of financial implications. The Leader highlighted ongoing investment in frontline services and emphasised the importance of translating approved funding into service delivery. While acknowledging that recruitment delays could occur, including where candidates withdrew, it was stressed that management was expected to fill vacancies and use budgets as intended to achieve outcomes for residents.

 

Councillor Baggaley welcomed the progress made in engaging fathers and male carers through Family Hubs and sought an explanation for the decline in registrations during quarters two and three, followed by a subsequent increase, as well as details of actions being taken to increase registrations. In response, the Leader advised that the reasons for the variation were not fully understood. Nicola Curley, Executive Director of Children and Young People's Services, explained that the registration measure was locally defined and set at a challenging level, although performance remained strong compared with other authorities. She noted that families were engaged through partners, including midwifery services, and that participation in schemes such as the baby pack programme resulted in automatic registration. Registration was not required to access services, reflecting the universal nature of Family Hub provision. Performance had exceeded the 90% target in March, and work continued to maintain this level, with fluctuations attributed to varying levels of family engagement.

 

Councillor Baggaley queried whether the attendance figures reflected a genuine seasonal trend or whether they may have been affected by changes to the Family Hubs introduced around September. Members were advised that there was no evidence of any link, as the centres themselves had not changed. It was explained that the changes related primarily to rebranding and simplifying service names following Department for Education requirements, and that attendance had not been impacted by confusion about the service or its location.

 

Councillor Keenan commended the Cultural Services team for the range and quality of activities delivered across the borough over the previous year. Positive feedback was provided on several events and initiatives, including the skate park activities, Armed Forces Day celebrations and the football-themed public art installation. A suggestion was made to expand the programme further and deliver more activities in different parts of the borough in the future.

 

The Vice-Chair questioned whether the Street Safe service continued to represent good value for money, noting that 50 interventions appeared to equate to a significant cost per intervention. The Leader responded that the team’s primary purpose was to improve safety and the attractiveness of town centres, with activities extending beyond enforcement to include tackling antisocial behaviour, supporting police investigations, gathering intelligence, assisting vulnerable individuals and providing a visible presence. Positive feedback from retailers regarding the team’s contribution was also noted.

 

In a supplementary question, the Vice-Chair queried why the service focused on principal towns when antisocial behaviour affected communities across the borough, expressing concern that villages and other areas saw limited benefit. It was suggested that the Council had not fully utilised powers such as PSPOs or worked proactively enough with the police on issues including illegal racing.

The Leader responded that the service had been established to target the borough’s busiest high streets, where it could have the greatest impact within available resources. It was noted that the Community Protection Unit continued to address local issues and work with the police on antisocial behaviour. While future expansion could be considered if additional resources became available, the current approach was considered the most effective use of resources given financial constraints and community priorities.

 

The Vice-Chair raised concerns about levels of antisocial behaviour in town centres and questioned the value for money of the Street Safe service. Reference was made to a personal experience in the town centre, the Council’s use of enforcement powers, and the need for clarity on officers’ performance measures, working hours, methods of assessing effectiveness, and any recorded reduction in antisocial behaviour over the previous six months.

 

The Leader advised that Street Safe officers worked into the evening, with shifts recently extended until 10.00pm. It was noted that performance was monitored against a range of indicators previously shared with Members, which could be circulated again. The Leader emphasised the importance of focusing on practical solutions, making effective use of resources, and improving residents’ quality of life, and stated that the Street Safe service formed part of the Council’s wider approach to tackling antisocial behaviour and enhancing the town centre environment.

 

The Vice-Chair welcomed the Shop Unit Grant Programme but questioned whether it would be sufficient to improve the appearance of high streets. It was suggested that greater use could be made of planning controls, partnership working and approaches adopted elsewhere, and clarification was sought on whether the programme or related planning measures would be expanded. The Leader advised that planning controls on shopfront signage already operated in some areas, but there were no plans to extend them more widely due to the potential impact on small businesses. It was emphasised that a balance was needed between improving the appearance of high streets and supporting local traders. The Leader noted that the Shop Unit Grant Programme criteria had been strengthened to encourage shopfront improvements and that trader uptake and outcomes would be monitored.

 

The Vice-Chair acknowledged concerns about placing additional burdens on businesses but argued that shop owners also had a responsibility to maintain shopfronts and ensure they reflected the character of the area. It was suggested that existing planning controls were not delivering the desired improvements to town and district centres and that both regulatory and funding approaches should be reviewed. Concerns were also raised about the long-term value of grant funding where improvements might not be sustained. A recommendation was proposed that Cabinet and senior officers review current policies to consider whether further measures could support the appearance and maintenance of high streets.

 

The Vice-Chair proposed an additional recommendation that Cabinet, in consultation with senior officers, review additional mechanisms available to the Council to further enhance and strengthen the Shop Unit Grant Programme.

 

Councillor Monk sought clarification on the proposed recommendation and asked for greater specificity regarding the improvements being suggested to the Shop Unit Grant Programme. In response the Vice-Chair explained that the recommendation was not intended to place additional requirements on Cabinet, but to request a review of the existing powers and mechanisms available to the Council to enhance the Shop Unit Grant Programme. It was suggested that further options may exist to support the programme’s objectives, particularly in relation to shopfront improvements, and that the findings of any review could be reported back to Members for consideration.

 

Following a majority vote, the recommendations outlined below were approved.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

 

1. Note the overall position in relation to the Year Ahead Delivery Plan activities.

 

2. Note the Quarter 4 data for the Council Plan performance measures.

 

3. Note the updates on the Council Plan long term measures of success.

 

4. Note that future progress reports will be presented to Cabinet in January and July 2027.

 

Additional recommendations to Cabinet from OSMB were that:

 

5. OSMB recommends that Cabinet ensures the Council clearly demonstrates in future updates how delays affect residents, the seriousness of the associated risks, and the measures in place to mitigate them.

 

6. OSMB recommends that Cabinet ensures the Council clearly identifies the main reasons for missed targets, demonstrates what actions are being taken to improve performance, and evidence whether those actions are delivering results, supported by named ownership, detailed action plans, progress tracking, impact data, and clear examples of learning and escalation.

 

7. OSMB recommends that Cabinet, in collaboration with senior officers, undertakes a review of the shop unit grant programme to assess whether the full range of available mechanisms and powers, such as planning controls, design standards, and regulatory tools, were being effectively utilised to maximise long?term improvements to Rotherham’s high streets.

 

Further actions that arose from discussions were:

·       OSMB agreed that a workshop be held to identify the key performance measures and information Members want included in future Council Plan and Year Ahead Delivery Plan reports.