Agenda item

Minute No. C106 (Page 117C-119C) (Capital Programme Monitoring 2014/15 and Capital Programme Budget 2015/16 to 2016/17)

Minute No. C107 (Page 118C-199C) (Mid-Year Treasury management and Prudential Indicators Monitoring Report 2014/15)

Minute No. C111 (Page 125C) (General Enforcement Policy) 

Minute No. C120 (Pages 132C-133C) (Calculation of the Council Tax Base 2015/16)

Minute No. C122 (Pages 135C-136C) (Housing Rent Increase 2015/16)

Minute No. C123 (Pages 136C-137C) (District Heating Scheme Charges 2015/16)

A number of questions were raised in relation to the minutes of the meetings of Cabinet as follows:-

Minute C103(1) (Question from Elected Members) – Councillor Cowles confirmed he had not yet received the response in writing as indicated by the Director of Housing and Neighbourhood Services at the meeting and asked that the costs be clearly indicated as to whether the costs included post and officer time or whether they had been excluded.

The Mayor confirmed this matter would be followed up.

Minute No. C110 (RLSCB Child Sexual Exploitation Action Plan) – Councillor Parker asked if it could be explained what the concerns were about in relation to the appointment of a person to oversee the work of the multi-agency safeguarding hub to ensure the right sort of person to deliver on this was appointed, given that this was a very important role and the people of Rotherham had a right to know.

The Leader confirmed that the concerns were about getting the right person to oversee this very important work.  A person had now been appointed and a response in writing as to who this person was would be provided.

Minute No. C112 (Private Rented Sector – Selective Licensing) – Councillor Parker referred to this scheme and asked if the proposed charge of £687 related to individual properties or was it a total amount for the properties owned by a landlord as it was not stated.

The Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods confirmed the suggested fee of £687 had since been reduced to £625, but this was being looked into to see if this could be reduced further.  A final fee figure would submitted to Cabinet for approval before the scheme became operational.  That fee was per property and reflected the cost of administering the scheme, but consideration was being given as to how this could be further reduced and a £100 discount would be applied for landlords who were part of a recognised accreditation scheme.  Paying by instalments and reductions for landlords with multiple properties were also being considered.

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker believed if this fee was payable for every individual property landlords would simply pass the cost on to the tenant and the rent would increase accordingly hitting the tenants the hardest.  He did not object to it being used against the properties of landlords that required some maintenance, but he did object to the fee being payable for each property as ultimately this would end up being paid by the tenant not the landlord.

The Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods clarified the Minute did refer to the original suggested fee as being £687, but this had since been reduced to £625.  It was recognised that this was a cost and there may be landlords that would pass on the sums via their tenants.  This was a one-off fee for a five year period and so had to be looked at in this context.  The benefits had to be weighed up against the production of a selective licensing scheme in certain areas where a great deal of work had already been carried out.  This scheme primarily attempted to deal with issues of poor quality housing following the measures already carried out over a number of years which have proved to be unsuccessful.  Compared to the fees charged nationally the fee payable in Rotherham was within the middle range and reflected the administration and inspection regime for the properties within the scheme.  Every effort was being made to keep this cost to a minimum.

Minute No. C114 (Sale of Unit at the Advanced Manufacturing Park) – Councillor Parker referred to the information shared previously where it was indicated the Council would receive a net profit of £40,000 and asked had the unit actually been sold, what was the actual profit made and what was the alternative option referred to?

The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed this was the second of the two units that the Council financed.  The first unit was sold and the Council received in the region of £40,000.  This second slightly smaller unit netted the Council approximately £20,000 profit after fees.  The exact details would be provided in writing.

This use of capital expenditure by the Council was not to make a profit, but purely to stimulate business growth and employment on the Advanced Manufacturing Park.  With the cuts to Government funding the Council was becoming ever more reliant on business rates.

The alternative options in the report related to a possible short term lease arrangement to a fairly new established company, which increased the security risk for the Council. 

The Advanced Manufacturing Park was successful and the Cabinet Member was very proud that business wished to operate from Rotherham.

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker referred to the profits of the first unit being in the region of £40,000 and the second unit being in the region of £20,000 and asked if there was a further unit was the Council just going to give it away and make no profit?

The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed there were no further units for sale.  He emphasised the Council had taken these decisions not based on profit margins, but simply by supporting the business community in Rotherham and was in a position to support business growth and employment.  It was the Council’s responsibility to support regeneration and the Growth Plan was currently out for consultation.

Minute No. C124 (Education Lifestyle Survey) – Councillor Parker referred to the survey of young people and safety in the town centre and confirmed that he had spoken to a number of middle aged or older people about their concerns.  It appears that 60% of young people within the Rotherham Borough did not visit Rotherham because of concerns about their safety and asked what was the Council doing about this?

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health confirmed 60% of young people did not come into the town centre, but there were a raft of reasons why this was the case.  Some young people lived on the outer fringes of the Borough and, therefore, did not identify as much with the town centre.  However, where those concerns particularly related to the Interchange these concerns have been raised with the Passenger Transport Executive for action to be taken to ensure young people and even older people feel safe.

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker referred to the Minute as written and the words “unsafe” which the Opposition Members had been telling the Council about for some time and brought the subject up previously.  People regardless of age did not feel safe coming into Rotherham town centre for shopping etc. and it was not just the Interchange, but Rotherham in general.  What were the Council doing, in co-ordination with other agencies, to make people feel safe?

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health explained this was about partnership working and no single agency could tackle this issue alone.  It was also about perception and actuality and there was a need for a co-ordinated approach to ensure these perceptions were changed.

Councillor Burton confirmed this issue was an area for some discussion at the Improving Lives Select Commission that morning following the publication of the Lifestyle Survey and when the issues around safety were looked into further it was about the perception and not evidenced by the results.  There was a need for ongoing work with partners and schools to look at perception to see how this could be improved.

Councillor Reynolds confirmed he too was at the Improving Lives Select Commission meeting and referred to the results of the survey where many young people felt worse about themselves than they did last year.  Surely it was the duty of this Council to give young people hope and encourage ambition and asked what action was being taken given than the results that 60% of young people did not come into the town centre?

The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration pointed out the need to breed ambition in young people, but there were mechanisms currently in place like the Town Centre Partnership which had been in existence for a number of years.   The Partnership was made up of relevant partners and a piece of work could be undertaken to look at these issues and was willing to take this forward.

The Mayor commented on the discussion that had taken place and that in his Civic capacity had attended many functions and initiatives in the town centre.  He acknowledged the survey results, especially around perception, and as a Rotherham citizen often travelled on public transport and visited the town centre.  He offered any Elected Member the opportunity to accompany him into the town centre to show him the fear that existed within the public of Rotherham.  There was a great deal of good work taking place in the town centre and this should not be ignored.

Minute No. C109 (Rotherham Local Safeguarding Children’s Board Annual Report) – Councillor Middleton referred to the section in the Minute which referred to the early help dashboard and further on about front door referrals and asked that this could be more explicitly explained.

The Mayor confirmed an explanation on this was to be provided in writing.

Councillor Whelbourn referred to the former Plain English Report Writing Guide, which had been designed for report writing and which should be available on the intranet.  This Guide was designed to assist report authors on their formation of their reports.

The Leader acknowledged the need for professional officers to ensure that reports submitted for consideration were in plain English and in a format that was easy to understand.

Councillor Middleton also referred to the same Minute and the later reference to the first meeting between the Chairmen of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board having taken place and asked why the respective Chairmen were not meeting anyway as a matter of course?

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health advised that arrangements were being made for the three Chairmen of Health and Wellbeing Board, Adult Safeguarding Board and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board to meet on a more formal basis.

Councillor Wyatt, the former Chairman of the Health and Wellbeing Board, also referred to the local protocol that had been established which sought to develop constructive and productive working relationships with other bodies.

Minute No. C122 (Housing Rent Increase 2015/16) – Councillor Reynolds asked about the proposed housing rent increase for the coming year and asked what the level of non-payment rent arrears was in total?

The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Adult Services confirmed the answer for this would be provided in writing.

However, it was pointed out that 2.2% rent increase was much lower than it had been in previous years and hopefully would not generate any significant increase in rent arrears.

In a supplementary comment Councillor Reynolds referred to those families who were already in arrears and the impact of any kind of increase.

Resolved:-  That the reports and minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet (Section C) (pages 115C to 144C) be adopted.

Mover:-  Councillor Lakin                          Seconder:-  Councillor Hoddinott

(Councillors Andrews, Astbury, Dalton, Dodson, Ellis, Lakin, Whelbourn and Wyatt declared disclosable pecuniary interests in Minute No. C122 (Housing Rent Increase) and Minute No. C123 (District Heating Scheme Charges)