Minutes:
(1) Councillor Fenoughty asked would the Council agree with him that the increase in looked after children had come about because of the policies of Labour?
Councillor S. Wright reported that overall the policies in respect to the way that the Council responded to children in need meant that numbers have reduced; certainly in the 60s/70s and even into the 80s. After a decline following the introduction of the Act in 1991 (1991 - 59,834 to 1995 - 49,500), there had been an increase in numbers (1996 - 50,600 to 2004 - 61,200). Since 2005 the figures have fluctuated between 59,400 and 61,000. The initial rise began in 1991 towards the end of the Conservative Government and continued from Labour coming into power in May, 1997.
(2) Councillor Gilding asked how many years lease would this Council have on the new Civic Offices now under construction at Main Street, what would be the initial annual rent and how frequent were the rent reviews?
Councillor Wyatt reported that the lease was over thirty five years with commencement at completion of landlords works, programmed for September, 2011.
The initial rent was £2.9 million per annum and the rent reviews were every five years.
(3) Councillor Cutts referred to a £14 million fraud, court hearing, judges damning statement and our representative Councillors on the Governing Body failing to “give warning shots” and asked why were there to be two concluding reports – only one for the public that was to be delayed for a further period?
The Leader reported that the Council’s representatives on the Governing Body for South Yorkshire Trading Standards were also unaware of the problems until they came to light. The four South Yorkshire Councils would now meet to discuss the next steps to be taken. These would include discussions as to how to deal with the losses incurred and what reports should be made public. It was not possible to share any information at the moment as none had yet been made available.
(4) Councillor Fenoughty referred to there being a projected £60,000 overspend within interpretation costs within the Children and Young Peoples Service and asked did the Cabinet Member think families with unemployed parents, who were competing with immigrants for jobs, think this was acceptable?
Councillor S. Wright reported the Council, including the Children and Young People's Service had a legal duty to ensure the public had sufficient understanding of its policies and procedures. In some cases the interpretation and translation could be very straightforward and relatively low cost. However, higher costs were incurred when written translation had to be provided and in the case of child protection, this had to be of sufficient detail and accuracy to be acceptable to Courts.
The high level of expenditure in this area was due to requiring translation of assessments, casework details and legal documents that were required when a case was presented to Court, for a Court to determine whether a child should become looked after. As Corporate Parents, the Council had a legal duty to protect all children in the borough, irrespective of ethnic origin and their reason for living within the boundary of the borough.
In recognition of the increasing pressures that this placed on our budgets, the Children and Young People's Service had instigated a whole Council review of such services and work was currently underway to examine alternative methods of procurement which could significantly reduce the costs and this was being addressed across all Directorates in the Council and opportunities for even greater economies of scale were being explored with the Local Strategic Partnership.
(5) Councillor Gilding was informed that the merger of the Thrybergh Rainbow Centre and Willow Tree Centre was creating problems for mothers using the Willow Tree Centre in that they were not being guaranteed places in the new amalgamated unit and asked was this true?
Councillor S. Wright reported that the Early Years and Childcare Services were working with Thrybergh Rainbow Centre and Dalton Willow Tree Centre to identify places for parents based on the information given so far. Places for all children within the Centres could only be confirmed once all the information had been received from discussions with the parents, their individual childcare needs/usage and whether they would accept a place at Thrybergh Rainbow Centre or would prefer to look for alternative provision. Some of this information would be gathered from parents at a meeting to be held on 4th March, 2010. Meetings were to take place with the day care managers and the Heads of the Centres on 3rd March, 2010 to confirm that the information being gathered was accurate and matched their registers.
Information was also available on vacancies in other childcare settings within the areas where the parents lived. Again parents would need to be consulted, given the information and the opportunity to visit the alternative settings to see if they met their needs. At the meeting on 25th February, 2010 two parents said they had already made their own arrangements to use alternative childcare provision. To help the process extra support would be offer to parents and children through the proposed period of change, until the start of May, 2010. There was no intention of stopping the support for pre-school or family support services in this area.
(6) Councillor Cutts reported that he had recently had the opportunity to be conducted round the “Mansion House” in Doncaster which was greatly appreciated and learnt that it was their intention to refurbish the “Council Chamber” and he asked how many other Councils were refurbishing their Council Chambers in South Yorkshire?
The Leader reported that Rotherham was refurbishing its own Council Chamber and suggested that Councillor Cutts contact the other Local Authorities to ascertain their own plans.
(7) Councillor Cutts referred to the thirty minute restriction on the last Council Meeting being reduced, thereby restricting a question and answer to a letter outside the public domain and asked would the Council accept a gift of a large clock to allow a visual timepiece for all?
The Leader explained that such a gift was not be necessary as the Council already had a clock which was being used today.
(8) Councillor Cutts withdrew this question.
(9) Councillor Cutts asked whether in this economic climate, a “vitality grant” for a coffee shop of £7,500 plus rate reduction of 50% for the first year then 25% for the second year was appropriate and also asked what of the struggling existing outlets?
Councillor Smith reported that supporting new retailers into Rotherham Town Centre was very appropriate, especially as customer/shoppers surveys have revealed that people want to see more shops and choice within the town centre. The grant scheme was specifically designed towards meeting perceived gaps in the retail offer (e.g. fashion, deli’s, coffee shops). Councillor Cutts was incorrect to say the grant contributed to a reduction in business rates. It did not, but it did, however, contribute towards lease/rent costs.
(10) Councillor Cutts asked what was the historical context relating to the legal dispute with Ibstock Brick Ltd., submitted to Neighbourhoods Sub-Group on the 9th January, 2006, by Waste Management?
Councillor Smith agreed that as this question was asked at the last Council meeting he would provide the answer in detail after the meeting.