Minutes:
(1) Mrs. C. Sadler referred to plans for a travellers’ site at Dog Kennel Hill, Anston and asked could the Council assure her that the Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration would vote in the interests of the people of Anston and not with the Labour Council in order to protect his job?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration was clear about his personal thoughts on the proposed site for gypsy and traveller allocation and would not advocate that responsibility, but explained that all Elected Members were aware of the obligation to act reasonably when taking decisions on sites which were not always in their own areas and to only take into account relevant considerations and to disregard those which were irrelevant in order to adopt a robust Local Plan at the relevant stage.
In a supplementary question Mrs. Sadler explained that she was not aware of anyone who lived in Anston who had an idea why this particular site been considered due to its total unsuitability. There were a number of points that had been raised and asked why the site has been considered in the first instance?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed that he had been part of the Local Plan process for nearly four years and indicated that by law the Council had to allocate a site for gypsy and traveller use. In the absence of any other site this was probably not the best site, but the Council would have to adopt a robust and rigorous local plan for the next twenty years or so and if that was not the case the Independent Planning Inspector would make the final decision.
(2) Mr. R. Bartle referred to headlines in The Star on 7th January, 2015 which suggested that compensation claims from victims of child sexual exploitation may have to be met by the local taxpayer, currently there were thirty-four claimants each estimated to receive £100,000. Could the Leader confirm that the taxpayer would have to foot the bill?
The Deputy Leader explained the cost of meeting any compensation claim as a result of child sexual exploitation was divided between the Council and its insurers in accordance with the terms of its insurance policies. Each claim would be carefully considered on its merits, although a decision had not yet been made. Any amount not covered by insurance could be met from Council reserves. The £100,000 figure quoted was derived from the experiences of another Local Authority. Currently no claims have been settled and, therefore, it was not known how much the figure may be. However, it was clear the Council must meet its legal responsibility to victims where compensation was deemed to be due and the Council, as a public service, was funded by the taxpayers.
In a supplementary question Mr. Bartle referred to the Leader when asked that the insurance would cover the bill even though it was pointed out it was likely that Councillors knew this was happening, could the Leader tell us why the taxpayers should pay for the incompetence of the Councillors and why were they not required to pay the bill?
The Deputy Leader was clear that the Council would not shy away from the responsibilities and where it was proven would meet its legal responsibilities and obligations to what had happened in the past.
(3) Mr. C. Tawn asked given the verdict in Heesom v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales why was the Monitoring Officer pursuing an Anston Parish Independent Councillor? The summary related to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Leader explained that in considering its approach to the issue of standards of ethical behaviour at Anston Parish Council, the Standards Committee (which oversees the approach to ensuring high standards of behaviour of all Elected Members) was well aware of the decision in the case of Heesom v The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (2014). The case confirmed the limits that may legitimately be placed upon a Councillor’s freedom of expression.
In a supplementary question Mr. Tawn asked why the Monitoring Officer was enquiring into an Independent Councillor for allegedly breaching the Code of Conduct when the Code of Conduct no longer applied to Councillors. The allegations were politically motivated and the Council cannot disqualify or suspend a Councillor.
The Leader confirmed the Monitoring Officer would provide a written response.
(4) Mr. D. Smith asked why does Rotherham Borough Council insist on robbing Dinnington and Anston of large swathes of its Green Belt?”
The Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods explained the Council was obliged to prepare a Local Plan, which set out development requirements for housing and employment over a fifteen year period. The Council was obliged to allocate sufficient land to serve that need. Ideally the Council would like to have enough brownfield land in the Borough to provide for that requirement. Unfortunately, this was not the case and there were some areas of Green Belt throughout the whole Borough which were having to be allocated for employment development. Within the Dinnington, Anston and Laughton Common area the Core Strategy identified a broad location for growth to the east of Dinnington with the overall need to provide for around 1,300 homes in these settlements and specifically for around 700 homes to the east of Dinnington, recognising that parts of the town have the highest levels of deprivation in the Borough and there was a need to encourage investment and development, which had been agreed by the Inspector.
The sites required to accommodate this approved level of growth were being proposed in the Sites and Policies Document which had just been out to public consultation.
The majority of Green Belt release would be in and around the main urban area of Rotherham. There was also Green Belt release in Dinnington, Anston and Laughton Common as one of the main settlement areas, along with some release in other smaller settlements.
For the Borough as a whole only 1.8% of the current Green Belt would be built on during the plan period.
In a supplementary question Mr. Smith referred to the Core Strategy and the reference to the area of Todwick North along the A57 which featured in the Rotherham Business Plan for 2015-2025. The information was misleading as it referred to Dinnington being home to 650 businesses employing 6,800 people. It indicated that development of the colliery site had proved very successful with Phase 1 being fully occupied and Phase 2 starting to fill up. This was incorrect. Phase 1 had twenty-two units empty, Phase 2 was two-thirds empty. There was 52 acres of site for development already with road infrastructure yet, because it was cheap and easy to develop, prefer to take a whole swath of agricultural land along the A57 because this was part of the Sheffield City Region. Reference to the employment of Dinnington people was incorrect as it was only a small number of Dinnington people that were employed in the area. Why take agricultural land along the A57 when well equipped brownfield sites were available.
The Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods explained the reason this site had been allocated or proposed for allocation in the Local Plan was because it provided a need for high quality employment along similar ilk to that being provided on sites such as the Advanced Manufacturing Park. The assessment formed part of the Economic Growth Plan because a site such as the Advanced Manufacturing Park was nearing completion. This was considered to be an appropriate site given its location, relationship and proximity to the motorway and the improved highway infrastructure provision. This had been subject to a public consultation process and all the responses were in the process of being analysed. In addition it would also go through examination in public and be subject to scrutiny by the Independent Inspector before any site was allocated for that purpose.
(5) Ms. K. Johnson referred to 33.3% of non SLT staff at Abbey School being off work with medically diagnosed stress/depression or anxiety issues. Why have H.R. or Health and Safety not investigated the reasons behind these extraordinary high figures?
The Leader explained that there was an ongoing review taking place into matters related to Abbey School and the School was subject to pre-consultation. The sickness absence of staff was a confidential matter between employee and employer. There were robust policies and processes in place in relation to staff wellbeing, safety and welfare. Sickness absence was monitored by individual schools’ policies and processes as sanctioned by the Governing Body or Interim Executive Board. The Council’s Human Rescourse procedures for managing sickness and absence inform strategies for staff absence, support and reintegration with support back to work. It would be inappropriate for Local Authority officers to comment further.
In a supplementary question Ms. Johnson asked where the Council’s duty of care was to its workforce? This was obviously an unusual situation and it was felt not being investigated adequately.
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(6) Ms. A. McGuinness asked in the rush to move students from Abbey School to other placements proper transition procedures could not have been carried out. What had been put in place to reduce stress and upset to the children and their parents/carers?
The Leader explained that children have been moved to other schools where parents/carers have asked for this to happen or where parents have expressed concerns about current inadequate provision and an alternative placement had been agreed with all concerned.
In a supplementary question Ms. McGuinness explained she had spoken to some of the parents of the children from the school who had an interest in this current investigation and they had assured her that there had been no contact made with them during the process and to help with their current situation. One parent had had to resign from her employment to care for her child. At what point would it become clear and the truth told about what had happened at this school?
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(7) Mr. P. McLaughlin asked why were support staff being blamed for the failures at Abbey School by Local Education Authority Officials, Jan Ormondroyd in her response to the local Member of Parliament, the Chief Executive, Management Teams and the then Director of Schools and Lifelong Learning, Dorothy Smith, when highly paid managers were not who were still in place?
The Leader explained that the Ofsted inspection report highlighted wide ranging concerns. At no point had the Local Authority blamed any individual person or group of people.
The Interim Chief Executive reaffirmed that no blame was being apportioned to staff and the outcome of the independent investigation was awaited.
In a supplementary comment Mr. McLaughlin pointed out that if support staff were spoken to they would reiterate their feeling that they were being blamed for the matters at the school. These were excellent staff and the care they showed to some vulnerable students was fantastic. Their attitude was loving and caring and for them to be treated in this was disgraceful and appalling.
The Mayor confirmed the point would be taken on board.
(8) Mr. I. Cammock asked would the Local Authority officials and management team stop using the term historic failure or problems when referring to Abbey School? They seem to think that the term historic referred to a brief period of eighteen months that the Winterhill Management Team were in charge before the Ofsted report. Historically Abbey School was an extremely successful, happy, family educational institution well respected by all.
The Leader confirmed the comments had been duly noted.
In a supplementary question Mr. Cammock asked why in a Cabinet meeting held on the 26th November, 2014 where it was stated “The Director for Schools and Lifelong Learning pointed out that the Local Authority had put in arrangements to support Abbey School. The school had given the Local Authority concern for the past eighteen months, long before the Ofsted inspection.” when for the eighteen months before Ofsted Mr. Burman, Executive Head Teacher from Winterhill had been in charge and his Executive Deputy Head had been Deputy Head Teacher in charge she also said “Significant support was provided to the Executive Head Teacher and the Head Teacher of the school to secure the improvements that the Local Authority deemed necessary. The recent Ofsted inspection deemed the school to be “Inadequate”. So Mr. Burman and Mrs. Holford were given significant support yet they failed, why have they not been replaced?
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(9) Ms. D. Savage recognised that the Local Authority was facing severe budget cuts as a result of the Government’s austerity programme and asked was the closure of the Abbey and other places just a cost cutting exercise in response to this?
The Leader pointed out that the Cabinet Member report seeking approval to commence consultation on the proposed closure of Abbey School clearly stated that budget issues have no bearing on the decision by officers to recommend consultation on closure.
In a supplementary question Ms. Savage asked if the school were to remain open how would the Council justify keeping the school open now all the children or the majority of children had been moved out?
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(10) Ms. J. Tang asked would there be provision for the children that were left in Abbey School if, tragically, it closed after the consultation period and would they be guaranteed a place at another special school?
The Leader confirmed that all children were statutorily entitled to an education. Should Elected Members approve closure following statutory consultation then the SEN Service would work with parents and professional colleagues to secure an appropriate educational placement for every child.
In a supplementary point Ms. Tang explained the Ofsted report indicated that the school would close, not that it was proposed for closure. All this time she felt left in the dark, not had any support and every question asked remained unanswered and she still did not know what was happening. It was worrying for the children and was affecting everyone in the school.
The Leader was concerned that Ms. Tang felt unsupported and asked that the Interim Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services make contact immediately following this meeting to advise on what was happening at the school and that the help and support for Ms. Tang’s child was provided.
(11) Mr. F. Sprague referred to Vanessa Vaughn being on the I.E.B. for Abbey School. She was the Head of Dinnington Primary School that was joining Winterhill Academy chain in March and asked if there was a conflict of interest might potential exist in the I.E.B. and the executive headship?
The Leader explained that Secretary of State for Education determined the appropriateness of membership of the I.E.B. taking due consideration of skills and experience of prospective I.E.B. members ensuring that they could effectively contribute to the governance of the school. The Secretary of State for Education approved the I.E.B. and its membership in November, 2014.
The Local Authority did not have any concerns about the ability of Ms. Vaughn to act only in the best interests of the children who attend Abbey School.
In a supplementary question Mr. Sprague asked what input the Local Authority had in the selection of the members of the I.E.B. at Abbey School?
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(12) Ms. C. Carroll was unable to attend the meeting to ask her question -could children who have been moved to other schools be kept on the Abbey’s roll until after the consultation period to protect its viability?
A response in writing would be provided.
(13) Ms. M. Browne was unable to attend the meeting to ask her question - Karen Halford, the Associate Head, was still in place. Why was she not fighting to keep Abbey open? Had she been offered a position elsewhere if the school closed?
A response in writing would be provided.
(14) From Mr. S. Johnson asked why was Abbey School closing when Clifton and other Rotherham schools in special measures were being kept open and given support?
The Leader confirmed the Local Authority was currently consulting on the proposal to close Abbey School and no decision as yet had been made.
In a supplementary question Mr. Johnson confirmed the consultation process was taking place, but Clifton School was apparently £1 million in the red and given support to stay open and asked how much had been spent on Abbey School since the Ofsted report had been announced?
The Mayor confirmed this would be responded to in writing.
(15) Ms. S. Turner was unable to attend the meeting to ask her question - do you agree that closing the Abbey School would cause trauma and upset to some very vulnerable students and their families?
A response in writing would be provided.
(16) Ms. T. Wright was unable to attend the meeting to ask her question - it was evident from the previous questions that the Winterhill Management Team and the Management Team at the Abbey were not fit for purpose. Why have they not been removed?
A response in writing would be provided.
(17) Mr. Cutts referred to the “stage managed” Professor Jay’s Report at the recent Scrutiny enquiry where he was unable to ask Professor Jay a question due to her absence and asked why the Cabinet Member for “Cohesion”, Councillor Mahroof Hussain, was not asked or volunteer to provide a statement and assist on the child sexual abuse situation?
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board explained he would be answering the question as Councillor Hussain was not involved in the scrutiny review process. Cabinet referred its response to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for its consideration who agreed that a more in-depth review was required to scrutinise Rotherham’s plans to address child sexual exploitation. This would examine how effectively agencies across Rotherham were working together to make sure that children and young people were kept safe and victims provided with appropriate support.
As part of its review, the Board looked at the Safeguarding Board’s detailed action plan which incorporated Professor Jay’s recommendations and the other improvements identified in previous reviews and inspections. The review also received expert testimony and challenge from a range of witnesses. The draft minutes of the meeting were available on-line and were a full reflection of the level of discussion and questioning.
The scrutiny session took place in public over two full days on Friday, 12th and Thursday 18th December, 2014. As with all scrutiny meetings, there was a dedicated slot at the beginning of the agenda for members of the press and public to ask questions. Mr Cutts declined to ask his question even though the offer to send the question to Professor Jay was provided.
No previous portfolio holders were invited to give evidence as the focus of the review was to challenge the current plans to tackle child sexual exploitation. The issue of community engagement featured a number of times over the two days and there is a specific recommendation for the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board in respect of this. In addition, the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services were invited to attend There were recommendations to strengthen victim support and the Cabinet’s oversight of the action plan. The review had made a number of recommendations which would be fed into the Cabinet and Improvement Boards in due course.
The draft plan went to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board on Friday, 23rd January, 2015 and only one further recommendation was indicated from the Opposition, which the Board agreed to look into.
In a supplementary question Mr. Cutts asked why was Professor Jay not in attendance at the meeting?
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board explained Professor Jay was unable to make the time suggested and only required a slot of one hour. It was, therefore, believed that the questions that could be asked within the hour could easily have been asked via email and this was agreed.