Minutes:
(1) Councillor Middleton referred to the Local Talking Newspaper, a service to those with impaired sight and how it had had its funding withdrawn in 2008 and after moving to new Council premises (rent £2,676), had now seen its rent increased to £4,742, a 76% rise and asked was this considered to be fair/equitable treatment towards a charitable organisation for the vulnerable?
Councillor Doyle reported that the Talking Newspaper had moved to premises which were not owned by the Council, but by NHS Rotherham. The Council was fully supportive of the Talking Newspaper and their objectives.
A meeting had been held recently to discuss ways in which the Council could help the Talking Newspaper with their financial situation in the short term and to help them identify alternative Council owned premises if and when they become available to help with their rent issues.
(2) Councillor Gilding asked the Leader to update Members of the current liabilities of this Council in regard to the former South Yorkshire Trading Standards Department at Chapeltown and the Digital Region.
The Leader confirmed that the outstanding liabilities with regard to the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit were still the subject of on-going negotiations between the affected Councils.
With regard to Digital Region, the Council as a shareholder was working with the other shareholders including Central Government, to complete a procurement exercise for the digital network that would help to maximise the financial interests of the Council. This process was subject to commercial sensitivities and nothing further could be reported at this point.
(3) Councillor Middleton referred to a sign reading “Wind Farm Traffic Use Junction 31” which had suddenly appeared on East Bawtry Road that the proposed traffic should use to this inappropriate development and asked how much traffic was projected?
Councillor Smith confirmed that the transport data submitted with the planning application (RB2009/824) outlined a ten month construction period during which a variety of vehicles would access the site ie. HGV’s (to deliver stone and concrete), flat bed lorries, extendable trailers to deliver turbine components (abnormal loads), cranes and construction personnel/deliveries by private car, light van or mini bus. To give a worst case scenario, the report assumed that 100% of vehicles would utilise the M1 and the A57, although in practice the abnormal loads would approach via J1 of the M18 and Cumwell Lane/Kingsfirth Lane through Thurcroft.
The average daily movements based on a five day working week have been listed for each of the ten months and these range from 31 No. movements to 76 No. movements (in and out combined).
(4) Councillor Middleton asked had the success, or otherwise, of the car sharing scheme advertised on lampposts in the Borough been measured and if so, what was the result and what costs have arisen from the promotion/administration of it?
Councillor Smith reported that as the first anniversary of the erection [of the signs] approached the membership statistics for the scheme would be collated for the year and reported to the Cabinet Member with responsibility. Administration of the scheme was funded centrally from the LTP across South Yorkshire as were the costs for the signs. Administration costs were fixed and did not fall to the Council. No additional promotion was undertaken in Rotherham during this year (in order to accurately determine the efficacy of the signs), therefore, no promotional costs have been incurred.
(5) Councillor Middleton asked that whilst congratulating Rotherham United on the completion of the New York Stadium, what now was this Council’s financial commitment to it in terms of loans and/or grants?
Councillor Akhtar confirmed that in accordance with Cabinet approval (8th June, 2011), the Council was making available funding up to £5m to facilitate the development of the new community stadium. The funding would be provided on a commercial basis and appropriate financial security would be put in place to ensure that there was no financial cost to the Borough’s Council taxpayers. To date the Council had advanced £4.1m by way of secured loans.
(6) Councillor Middleton asked following the acceptance by Valuation Office Agency of the principle that the blight of nearby windfarms reduced the value of houses, would the Deputy Leader confirm that the owners of houses affected by existing/proposed windfarms in Rotherham would be sympathetically treated in applications for reductions in Council Tax banding? ''
Councillor Akhtar pointed out that the Valuation Office Agency, a Central Government Office, was responsible for the valuation of properties and it was to them that taxpayers within Rotherham would have to appeal. The Council would not be in a position to influence any Valuation Office Agency decision on the Council Tax bandings for those houses affected by windfarms in Rotherham.