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 16 questions:

1.    Councillor C Carter: The new children’s play area and outdoor seating at The Waterfront at Rother Valley are great for families wanting to enjoy a refreshment while children play, but I find the lack of shade concerning. Are there any plans to install any shade or provide any parasols on these tables?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces, stated that it was a wonderful play area but understood the concerns raised. She had asked the service to review the options and feasibility for the provision of shaded areas through the winter months prior to the start of the summer season. Councillor Marshall committed to informing Councillor Carter on the outcome of the review.

2.    Councillor Ball: Following Health and Wellbeing Board on 2 September, will the Cabinet Member name the social housing complex with the ongoing Legionella outbreak, confirm the landlord, whether it is council-operated, what tenants have been told, whether anyone has been ill, and the date the water will be declared safe?

Councillor Baker Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, stated that the social housing complex was not owned or managed by the Council, but the Public Health team was working closely with the landlord.  It was noted that there was not an on-going risk to residents, who had been made aware of the circumstances.

The social housing provider had undertaken extensive remedial work to eradicate the legionella from the system. This has included chemical treatment of the water system, taking away redundant pipe work, installation of insulation to reduce heat transfer and also the removal of an external pond and water feature. While these interventions had significantly reduced legionella levels, a small number of outlets continued to return positive tests results. The social housing provider was working closely with the Council and the UK Health Security Agency to bring this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible. Further ground work and investigative work were currently being carried out on site.

In his supplementary, Councillor Ball stated that this had been ongoing since June 2024 and was referred to at the Health and Wellbeing Board as an ongoing outbreak. He asked what happened if it was still ongoing on 1 October 2026?

Councillor Baker-Rogers confirmed that the Council would continue to work with the landlord to ensure residents were well and safe.

3.    Councillor Ball: Will the Cabinet Member set out how Pride in Place and High Street investment, though Maltby East designated, will deliver measurable outcomes in Hellaby and Maltby West, and confirm what West consultation has already informed the Regeneration Plan due by end of 2026?

As Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Communities, was not present to respond to the question, a written response would be provided.

4.    Councillor Ball: Given FOI figures of over £175,000 spent clearing fly-tipping in 2024/25 and 2025/26 and Hellaby and Maltby West being named hotspots, will ward level clearance costs, FPNs and enforcement outcomes be published, with extra patrols planned this year?

As Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Communities, was not present to respond to the question, a written response would be provided.

5.    Councillor Ball: After the loss of a direct Maltby hospital bus, what firm timetable exists for better hospital access from Maltby and Hellaby under X11 permanence plans?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, explained that the responsibility for buses and timetabling sat with South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. They had confirmed that the X11 timetable, which had run from May 2025, was the current timetable and would not change before bus franchising in 2028.

In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked if the council asked residents how many people had missed appointments at the hospital due to this inadequate bus service?

Councillor Williams advised Councillor Ball to attend the Transport Advisory Group meetings to raise these matters and hold SYMCA and the bus operators to account.

6.    Councillor Ball: Taxpayers fund the South Yorkshire Mayor through the Combined Authority levy, yet FOI 2026/5325 shows this Council then borrows tens of millions back from SYMCA at around 4.2 percent. Does Cabinet accept that this is a poor moral deal for residents?

Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, did not accept this. The Combined Authority levy and the Council's borrowing arrangements served different purposes and operated under different statutory and financial frameworks. The levy contributed towards the functions and services delivered by the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority on behalf of the region. The Council’s borrowing arrangements were entered into to support the Council’s day to day cashflow requirements and financing of historical and new capital programme requirements as part of the Council’s Treasury Management operations, with each loan taken assessed on their own merits. It would be wrong both procedurally and ethically to confuse them.

Where the Council borrowed, whether from the Public Works Loan Board, the market, or another public sector body such as SYMCA, the overriding consideration was securing funding that was prudent, affordable and provided value for money for local taxpayers. Borrowing from other Local Authorities or Combined Authorities predominantly provided the most cost effective source of short term borrowing for the Council.

Treasury management decisions were made in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 and the CIPFA Prudential and Treasury Management Codes, which required Councils to ensure that borrowing was proportionate, sustainable and undertaken at the most advantageous rates available at the time.

Any borrowing from SYMCA was therefore evaluated against alternative sources of finance and was only undertaken where it supported the Council's capital programme objectives while representing an appropriate use of public funds. The fact that both organisations were publicly funded bodies did not, in itself, make such arrangements inappropriate or disadvantageous to residents.

So, in summary, the payment of the levy and the use of SYMCA as part of the Council’s borrowing arrangements were not directly linked; the Council operated within the law and financial governance arrangements to secure best value for money for the Council and residents at all times.

In his supplementary, Councillor Ball stated that the Council was basically borrowing its own money but paying interest on that money. He asked if this was morally right.

Councillor Alam stated that Councillor Ball was incorrect. The Council paid a levy which was like a membership fee. When borrowing money from SYMCA or other bodies, the Council made sure they got value for money.

7.    Councillor Yasseen: The 3,609 petition led by Cllr Thorp again shows widespread opposition to cycle lanes being imposed without meaningful community input. Given longstanding objections, safety concerns and poor public support, how many times must residents say no before the Council listens? Will it revise or stop schemes that communities reject, or continue forcing badly designed infrastructure upon us?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, stated that the Council took the feedback received from consultations very seriously.  Residents did not want this particular scheme to progress, and the Council have said it will not. On the Broom scheme in particular, residents told the Council that they did not support any element of it, so it was not being taken forward. In Eastwood there was some broad support, and Officers had been asked to revise that scheme to reflect that feedback. Councillor Williams stated that this was because the Council took consultation seriously.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Yasseen stated that she hoped that would happen as it had not in Boston Castle. She asked for timescales and if the Ward Councillors would be involved.

Councillor Williams confirmed that the Ward Councillors would be involved with the revised proposals.

8.    Councillor Yasseen: Rotherham proudly became the first UK home of Mrs Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library in 2007, giving Rotherham children (5 & under) a free book monthly, sadly the Library was cut during austerity. I admired Mrs Parton’s commitment to literacy & opportunity, will the Cabinet Member reinstate this proven, affordable programme and bring back to Rotherham the gift of reading?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces, stated that Rotherham never lost the gift of reading.  As Cabinet Member she had visited the libraries in the borough and saw the excellent provision for under-fives that was on offer.

There were currently no plans to reinstate the programme. When the decision was taken to cease the scheme in 2015, Council reports stated that the programme cost approximately £400,000 over a two-year period. Undoubtedly this would now be significantly higher. Reintroducing the programme would therefore require a significant and sustained funding commitment, and at this moment there were no identified funding sources available to support a scheme of that scale. 

The Council did continue to support the BookStart scheme locally, which provided books and other resources to families, and it had invested heavily in the borough’s traditional libraries, the book fund, and the home library service.

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen stated that this was disappointing and asked if it could be looked at again, possibly with a more targeted approach for areas with low literacy scores.

Councillor Marshall stated that the Council already did support literacy through BookStart and through investment in Grimm & Co. Literacy and access to books remained a priority.

9.    Councillor Yasseen: During Sheffield Road Cycleways phases 1, 2 and 3, I was repeatedly told that the SY Mayoral Authority, could only support cycle lanes. The same fund supported bus corridors, crossings, public realm and other infrastructure. Why was I misled about the available options?

Councillor Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy stated that Councillor Yasseen was not misled. The funding for the Sheffield Road cycleways was Transforming Cities Fund. This was funding allocated through the combined authority.

There was a clear government ask for carbon reduction priorities and “modal shift” to lie at the heart of the spend of Transforming Cities Funding, in which the then Conservative government clearly prioritised cycle and bus lane schemes. That was why these had been developed by councils across the country, and indeed across South Yorkshire.

The Council had been robust in its engagement with SYMCA on behalf of residents, supported by the feedback from residents, and assisted by a generally more relaxed approach from the current government. As the previous questions showed, the Council had very much listened to the views of residents. 

In her supplementary, Councillor Yasseen asked if the current criteria allowed for the funding to be used to fill potholes.

Councillor Williams stated that he was sure that potholes were not included but he confirmed that he would double-check. 

10. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Do we know or have a best estimate for the number of two or more bedroom RMBC council houses how many are occupied by just a couple or single person and what is the percentage of those so occupied please?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed that the number of council houses where there was at least one bedroom more than the number of household members is 3,623 which was around 18% of Council stock. This was where there was one occupant living in a house with two or more bedrooms and where there were two occupants living in a house with three or more bedrooms.

There were two occupants in two-bedroomed houses in 865 instances. They might have different relationship statuses to ‘couple’, for example parent and adult child, and may require two separate bedrooms; the figures for this were unavailable.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if the Service could look at the number of Council homes being built, the areas and whether smaller properties, such as one bedroom bungalows, could be built. He asked if the Council could adjust its offering.

Councillor Beresford confirmed that this was already taking place and the Housing Allocations Policy would be reviewed towards the end of 2026. A key indicator of demand was the number of bids for a property and this data was being monitored.

11. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Do we know or have a best estimate for the number of two or more bedroom private sector houses how many are occupied by just a couple or single person and what is the percentage of those so occupied please?

Councillor Beresford, Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed that the Council did not hold this information regarding the private sector. There was information about occupancy ratings for the private sector (rent and home ownership combined) from the 2021 Census, which calculated where homes had more or fewer bedrooms than required. The Cabinet Member offered to send this information to Councillor Bennett-Sylvester following this meeting if it would be helpful.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester confirmed he would like the information. He asked what more could be done to encourage builders and developers to offer smaller properties, especially for retirees and disabled people.

Councillor Beresford stated that this was a regeneration and development matter as the Council’s housing service could not influence this is any way. She did confirm that the Council did work hard to ensure that Council homes lost under the Right to Buy Scheme were brought back into the ownership of the Council when they were put up for sale.

12. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Since 2022/23 what has been the change in real terms of the spending power of members’ devolved community leadership funds, devolved capital budgets and ward housing funds please?

Councillor Cusworth, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, confirmed that there had been no cash increase in the ward members devolved budgets since 2022/23. Spending power had inevitably been reduced with the impact of inflation and other rising costs: since 2022/23, based on the Consumer Prices Index, the real terms reduction was about 17%. In light of this, Councillor Cusworth stated that the budgets needed reviewing.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that members were experiencing difficulties in stretching their budgets to cover what they had previously covered. He asked if the lost spending could be recovered in future budget settlements and if best practice could be shared to ensure the money was used well.

Councillor Cusworth thanked Councillor Bennett-Sylvester for his suggestions and invited him to discuss this further outside of the meeting.

13. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester: Thank you for your written response to my question on bailiff usage at last full council. Can you please clarify were the 476 cases of vulnerability mentioned identified by enforcement agents or Rotherham Council officers?

Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, confirmed that the 476 cases of vulnerability were identified by enforcement agents during visits to properties.

Enforcement Agents had vulnerability and safeguarding policies and procedures, and welfare teams routinely signposted people to independent support organisations. They were only used as a last resort when a customer had failed to engage with the Council.

In his supplementary, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that he was angry at the Council for this approach. He asked why Enforcement Agents were identifying cases of vulnerability and why this had not been picked up earlier. He also asked the Council to review its approach and look at places like Manchester, Preston and Newcastle who operated different models for vulnerable residents.

Councillor Alam stated that it was his understanding that this related to residents who had not previously contacted the Council but he confirmed that he would look into the other models as requested.

14. Councillor Thorp: How much did it cost to put free films on at Snail Park this summer?

Councillor Marshall, Cabinet Member for Waste Services, Leisure and Green Spaces, stated that the cost was £35,000 and it was funded in its entirety by an external grant – the Local Growth Fund.

In his supplementary, Councillor Thorp asked why the Council was taking people away from the cinema it had just built.

Councillor Marshall stated that not all children felt comfortable in a cinema and an outdoor event could be more welcoming to neurodiverse residents. Further, it brought more people into the town centre which was very much welcomed by the local businesses.

15. Councillor Thorp: Since as confirmed at the last full council that all roundabouts are maintained by RMBC can you give me the cost to maintain the roundabout at the junction of Warren Vale Rd and Wentworth Rd compared to Worrygoose Island on East Bawtry Rd?

As Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Communities, was not present to respond to the question, a written response would be provided.

16. Councillor Yasseen: Rotherham’s online petition portal repeatedly fails residents. Residents & my historical (& documented) experience was appalling but it continues to fail in 2026. A broken system obstructs public participation & undermines residents democratic right to be heard. Why has the Council allowed this failure to persist and will you meet with me to review, repair and improve the portal?

The Leader disagreed that the system was broken as nearly 500 people had signed a petition currently active on the portal. The Council also accepted petitions in paper form as evidenced by the petition discussed earlier in the meeting. The Leader did however agree that the online process was clunky but stated it was the reality of the system that Rotherham and most other local authorities used. He agreed to arrange a meeting for Councillor Yasseen with the appropriate people to see if any improvements could be made.

In her supplementary question, Councillor Yasseen stated that she thought it could be easily fixed, explaining that it needed to be more accessible. The need for an account and password made the system inefficient and, in her and other people’s experiences, often did not work.

The Leader understood the point but explained there was a need for an account to ensure signatures could be verified and addresses checked to ensure that signatories lived, worked or were in education in the Rotherham Borough.