Minutes:
(1) Councillor Thirlwall asked if the Leader could explain to this Chamber how the Chief Executive could fulfil his duties under the Emergency Plan when he lived outside Rotherham?
The Leader pointed out that if Councillor Thirlwall attended the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel of which he was a member, he would know how the Council responded to an emergency situation and how the emergency plan worked.
The Council had organisational arrangements in place to respond to any emergency situation, 24 hours a day, every day of the year. There were two officers available for initial response; a Forward liaison Officer and a Borough Emergency Co-ordinator (a named Chief Officer), who would arrange for the activation of the Emergency Plan. Part of this initial arrangement was to contact the Chief Executive, Leader, Cabinet Members and other senior managers and to mobilise the Council's response. This enabled the Chief Executive to determine his particular role as the strategic head of the Council and if necessary when to take direct control, should this be required.
These arrangements were regularly tested, reviewed and refined as required to ensure that Rotherham had embedded and resilient arrangements.
The Leader also pointed out that in 2007 when Rotherham experienced the dreadful flooding problems, the then Chief Executive lived in Derbyshire and the emergency plan was fully operational.
(2) Councillor Gilding referred to most Rotherham schools being closed during the recent snowfalls and asked what steps were being taken to ensure that schools remained open at such times and that they were available to serve the public?
Councillor S. Wright confirmed that due to the disruption caused by heavy snowfall across the country many schools had to close. Due to this consideration was being given as to the reasons why schools closed at this time and then discussing with the schools as to how best to solve the issues.
To assist the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee were to undertake a scrutiny review into what lessons could be learnt, reasons for why chools closed at short notice and where recommendations would inform the best way to proceed in the future.
(3) Councillor Turner reported that Maltby Leisure Centre was about to open and it appeared to be of an excellent design with already more than 700 people enrolled. He asked was there a point where the Council would see a return on this income above a certain turnover or did D.C. Leisure take it all?
Councillor St. John reported that this leisure centre was excellent, just like the other three that were now open. He confirmed that the PFI contract with DC Leisure included a provision whereby the Council benefited from a profit share arrangement on profits over the level assumed in the original DC Leisure business plan. This arrangement operated on a contract, rather than an individual facility basis. The gain share arrangements operated on a cumulative basis over a five year period, therefore, it was possible that early years’ profits could be reduced by later losses and vice versa. Any cumulative profits were shared out on the following basis:-
|
Cumulative Bands
|
Authority Share for community sport development |
Authority share of remainder of band |
Contractor share of remainder of band
|
|
£0 - £100,000 |
10% |
35% |
65% |
|
Above £100,000 - £200,000 |
10% |
45% |
55% |
|
Above £200,000 onwards |
10% |
50% |
50% |
The first 10% Authority Share Percentage was for community sport activities and increasing participation at the facilities, or as agreed with the Contractor.
Any cumulative losses were stood by the contractor, however, at the end of every five year period there was an adjustment to the management fee for the next five years to reflect the revised net cost of managing the facilities.
(4) Councillor Parker asked now that the recent bad weather had highlighted how inferior the quality of the roads and repairs was in Rotherham, could the Council explain how they intended to repair them to ensure that we did not experience the same issues if we have further snow and ice?
Councillor R. S. Russell reported that the general condition of roads within Rotherham (as measured by nationally set guidelines) was as good as most of our neighbouring authorities and the Council’s investment of an additional £5 million over three years in improving the condition of principal roads would help maintain this position.
The weather conditions were exceptional compared to those experienced in recent years, as shown by the number of potholes that have already been dealt with. The immediate response had been to deploy additional resources onto an assessment of the state of highways, followed up by urgent repairs to dangerous defects. The information gathered had been further used to revise the programme for patching works to deal with those parts of the network which have suffered the worst deterioration in condition. This revised programme extended initially to the end of March.
The assessment was now almost complete and it would provide a realistic estimate of the costs of dealing with impact of the cold spell. A report on this would be considered by the Council’s Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) shortly.
(5) Councillor Mannion asked why did the Council fail to fulfill its contractual obligations with regard to the quarry landfill at Maltby (Brickyard) and who was responsible?
Councillor Smith confirmed that the background to the issue of the matters surrounding the Maltby Landfill Site was long and had been subject to continuing legal arguments over many years.
The site at the old Maltby Brickworks was considered to be a closed landfill site, having been previously used for the deposit of municipal waste from Rotherham up to 1993.
Responsibilities for the closed landfill site at Maltby was originally with the South Yorkshire County Council, before being passed onto the Council’s Waste Management team and then latterly from April, 2006 to the Council’s Community Protection Unit.
A report made to Neighbourhoods Corporate Management Team Resources Sub-Group on 9th January,2006 by Waste Management laid out some of the historical context relating to the legal dispute between RMBC and Ibstock Ltd.
The lease was made between South Yorkshire County Council and Ibstock's predecessor in title, Tarmac, in 1984 for 21 years. The lease effectively allowed for Ibstock as land owner to quarry the land, thus create void space and then for the Council to fill that void with household waste, i.e. use the void as a landfill site. The lease then required the Council to restore the land to agricultural use, after filling. Upon the demise of the County Council responsibilities for this lease transferred to the Council’s Waste Management Team.
The lease allowed for this process to happen in two phases. The first phase was completed in the early 90’s, whereby the void which Ibstock had created was filled by the Council and fully restored. This was phase 1 and this land was in fact transferred to the Council.
However, in the early to mid 1990’s, new environmental legislation meant that the engineering requirements for landfill sites were vastly increased. The cost of these engineering requirements meant that it was not financially viable to use the phase 2 void as a landfill site. Also at the same time and as a result of the same legislation the Council's function in respect of this type of waste disposal transferred to BDR. Due to the increased engineering requirements and associated costs, they did not want to operate the site as a landfill site.
Therefore, the primary purpose for which the lease was made in 1984 was effectively frustrated - the Council could not use it as a landfill site. As such, the deal which was concluded in 1984 became a "bad bargain" for the Council.
Following the introduction of the Environment Act, 1995 Ibstock submitted an application to update conditions on their mineral planning permissions on 28th June, 2000. This led to the Council issuing 49 conditions on Ibstock, to which Ibstock appealed on 4th January, 2002 leading to a public inquiry on 11th-12th March, 2003 and ultimate determination of conditions by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 1st October, 2004. These conditions have been referred to as the ROMP (or Revision Of Mineral Permissions) conditions.
Apparently, alternative uses for the site were explored by environmental health, after it became apparent that the phase 2 void could not be utilised as landfill, however it was not possible to come up with a suitable use.
When the lease expired in 2005, Ibstock claimed that the Council's obligations to fill the void and then to restore it had not been complied with. This was when the litigation started, as they stated that due to the Council's non-compliance with the lease, they would have to fill the void and restore it themselves. They stated that the cost of doing this was £1.2 million.
Ibstock contended that the Council breached the terms of its license with Ibstock to restore the site to agricultural use and failed to comply with the ROMP conditions laid down.
Throughout this legal process the Council contended a number of issues including:-
· The obligation to reinstate the land to agricultural use as required by the licence was not effective as the licence required reinstatement once tipping had been completed. Council’s position was that the tipping had never been completed.
· The Council was frustrated in restoring the landfill site because of changes in legislation with the Environment Act, 1995 meaning that the costs of engineering increased dramatically and that the type of waste disposal was transferred to BDR and consequently the Council could not use the site as landfill.
· The Council was frustrated in restoring the landfill site because of the ODPM ROMP conditions 37 and 38 requiring the land to be filled with onsite material, as there were no soils on site that could be used to backfill.
Determination of compensation was heard at the High Court in Leeds in March and September, 2009 and settlement for the Council’s breach of contract was established at £780,000 compensation with £220,000 costs.
(6) Councillor Gilding made reference to the Car House Recycling Centre closing in October, 2009 for a two month period to enable refurbishment to take place and asked why was this centre nowhere near ready for use and when would this essential facility be available for public use?
Councillor R. S. Russell reported that the Council had received a grant from DEFRA through the Waste Infrastructure Development Fund which was being used to improve the infrastructure of all four Household Waste Recycling Centres over a two year programme.
The works at Car Hill commenced in October, 2009, however, due to some problems encountered after excavations on site, further drainage works had to be planned into the works programme.
This site had received extensive re-development through:-
· The erection of a gabian wall at the back of the site to support the embankment.
· The laying of new concrete pads for the skips.
· A new drainage system for the site.
· New asphalt roadways.
· The inclusion of a new traffic management system on site.
Due to the extra drainage works encountered, days lost when concrete could not be laid due to bad weather and the period of ice and snow from the end of December, 2009 (three weeks), this project had been subject to unexpected delays, which meant the site did not open in early to mid January, 2010 as originally expected.
It was reported that the infrastructure works were now almost complete and the waste contractor would shortly be in the process of moving all skips and ramps back on to site.
It was expected the site would open in mid February, 2010.
The site improvement had been long overdue, but with the grant from DEFRA it had allowed the Council to invest in these facilities and make them better for residents visiting the sites.
For information site improvements at Common Road, North Anston and Lidget Lane, Ravenfield would be undertaken in the new financial year using the remaining grant funding.
(7) Councillor Turner reported that a friend of his, an avid reader, recently purchased a hard backed novel by a popular author. He read it in a week and then tried to give it to the library, in mint condition. The offer was declined. Considering the fiscal constraints the Council would face in the near future, was this practice a lost opportunity?
Councillor St. John reported that donations to the Library Service were accepted in line with the Stock Management Policy, which was currently under review. At this time that stated that the service would accept donations, subject to appropriate selection criteria.
(8) Councillor Gilding referred to the land at Doncaster Road near to the “Pumping Station” which contained the premises of the former Burberry factory, the Foljambe Public House, the Tasty House takeaway and the Fitzwilliam Centre Laundry and asked as this area formed a prime “Gateway” site for development had this Council any interest in any of these properties apart from the Laundry?
Councillor Smith reported that the only asset the Council owned was the site of the Fitzwilliam Centre Laundry. The former Burberry factory, the Foljambe Public House site and the Tasty House Takeaway were all in private ownership.
Answers to all questions that remained unanswered after the thirty minute guillotine would be provided for all Members in writing.