Agenda item

To report on any petitions received by the Council and receive statements in support of petitions in accordance with Petitions Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13.

Consideration was given to the report which provided Members with details of all petitions received by the Council since the last Council meeting on 15 July 2026. One petition had been received, asking the Council to Review and Rebalance Rotherham’s CRSTS Active Travel Schemes - Prioritise

Pedestrian Safety Over Dedicated Cycle & Bus Lanes. This petition had received 3609 valid signatures.

The lead petitioner, Councillor Thorp, was given five minutes to present the

petition at the meeting and the petition was then discussed by Councillors

for a maximum of fifteen minutes.

In accordance with the Petitions Scheme and Council Procedure Rule

13(7) the Council were to decide how to respond to the petition and could

decide either:- 

(a) to take the action the petition requested; 

(b) not to take the action the petition requested for reasons stated in the

debate; 

(c) to commission further investigation into the matter, which might include

reference to a particular committee for its views, prior to consideration at a

future meeting of the Council; or 

(d) to refer the petition to the Cabinet where it related to an executive

function, in which case the Council might make recommendations to the

Cabinet, but Cabinet would not be bound by those recommendations in

discharging its executive functions.

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, thanked Councillor Thorp and other Councillors for their work on this matter on behalf of their residents. Regarding the Broom Road scheme, Councillor Williams confirmed that this scheme would not be taken forward as the consultation and petition had clearly indicated that residents did not support any of the proposed measures. Regarding the Eastwood scheme, Councillor Williams explained that there had been broader support for some of the measures so officers in the transportation service had been tasked with producing revised proposals that better reflected the feedback received. The Leader had announced these changes in a statement in August 2026. Councillor Williams stated that he had been clear throughout that the consultation process would be meaningful and that it was part of the Labour Groups manifesto that it would not go ahead with active travel schemes if the community did not support them. The administration had engaged, listened and acted on the feedback given.

As the Cabinet Member responsible for active travel, Councillor Williams confirmed that the first ask of the petition, which was to review the schemes, had already been completed. In relation to the reallocation of funding, it was confirmed that there was now greater flexibility in what the funding could be used for. He confirmed that the administration accepted the asks of the petition.

Councillor Yasseen wanted to thank Councillor Thorp personally for ensuring residents were listened to. She was glad that the administration were finally listening to residents as they did not listen during phase one, two or three. Residents and communities had been ignored for a long time, particularly around road safety.

Councillor Bower stated that this was being presented by the administration as a result of the consultation which was not accurate. The consultation had not reflected what Elected Members had fed back. The scheme had been driven by the Mayor of South Yorkshire, not from the residents or Elected Members. It was a top-down driven agenda that made people doubt local democracy. Councillor Bower stated that £750,000 had been spent on this so far, which could have instead funded what was actually wanted and needed in terms of road safety. He encouraged the administration to influence the Mayor and get him to listen to what people actually wanted.

Councillor Reynolds said that the petition should act as a reminder to all Members that they represent the people and it was about the people telling the Members what they wanted, not the other way around. He hoped that would continue.

Councillor Currie also praised Councillor Thorp for being an excellent Councillor. He encouraged Members to be more like Councillor Thorp, to stop being negative on social media and instead get out into communities and speak up for residents.

Councillor Adam Carter spoke in support of the petition. He also wanted to make sure that there was more flexibility within the funding and that scrutiny reviewed how much officer time and money had been spent on the process so far.

Councillor Ball refuted what Councillor Williams had said. He explained that the bus lane in Hellaby had been installed despite 70% of people saying they did not want it.

Councillor Cusworth stated that the administration had listened to the consultation. She also explained that the scheme in Boston Castle referred to by Councillor Yasseen was different in that the funding was very prescriptive around cycle lanes. In relation to the money spent on the Broom scheme to date, Councillor Cusworth stated that a certain amount had to be spent in order to have proposals to consult on. She stated that the Council could either listen to residents and stop the scheme or continue with it because money had already been spent. It could not do both.

Resolved:

That Council:

1.    Receive the report;

2.    Receive the petition listed in paragraph 2.1 of the report and note that the lead petitioner or their representative is entitled to address the Council for a total period of five minutes in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme; and 

3.    Note that Council may debate the petition listed at paragraph 2.1 of the report for a total of 15 minutes in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

4.    Agree to take the actions the petition requests, as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.