Minutes:
(1) Councillor C. Vines asked why was the Rotherham Advertiser informed of the new director and manager appointments before Elected Members?
The Leader confirmed as a matter of general principle, officers worked on the basis that any information to be shared more widely with a range of stakeholders would be shared beforehand or simultaneously with Elected Members.
On the assumption that Councillor Vines’ question related to the proposed restructure within Children and Young People’s Services, and a number of interim appointments pending consultation, it was confirmed that information was sent to Elected Members in an email from Ian Thomas, Strategic Director of Children and Young People’s Services, on 12th January, 2015.
Gareth Dennison, a reporter from the Rotherham Advertiser, interviewed Ian Thomas on Thursday, 8th January, 2015 when initial information about the new appointments was shared, on the basis that this would not be appearing in the newspaper until Friday, 16th January, 2015 (given that the interview was too late to appear in the Advertiser’s edition of Friday, 9th January, 2015) – after information had been shared with Elected Members and staff.
In a supplementary comment Councillor C. Vines pointed out the information had been shared with Elected Members late on the Thursday afternoon, following which the information appeared in the press.
The Leader agreed with Councillor C. Vines and it should not have happened in this way. The information was shared at the interview on the basis that it would not appear until the following week’s edition, but unfortunately it appeared in the edition of the same week.
(2) Councillor Cowles asked according to the press RMBC refused to name care homes found to be failing vulnerable adults by putting them at the risk of harm. The reason given in the article was that by doing so would harm their future business prospects, was this correct?
The Cabinet for Adult Social Care and Health found the question useful. To be helpful he explained that when the Care Quality Commission undertook an inspection of a care home that information was placed on the website and was available for public view. On occasions this was picked up by the local press. Following a Council inspection which resulted in an action plan with a care homes as a result of a problem that occurred, this was passed to the Cabinet Member who would disseminate to the Ward Members. This could possibly be more transparent and officers were being asked to look at ways to see how that information could be disseminated wider to the full Cabinet.
In relation to the question this related to a report from the Adult Safeguarding Board relating to the previous year where care homes referred to had issues that have now been resolved. Once the issues had been resolved the care home had 12-18 months to continue successful trading without any concerns. If a former care home that had had concerns previously had to be named in that report it would engender concern amongst residents and families which was unnecessary as the home was operating well.
The Council had to take account of influence to a business that had had a previous problem as this could put people off. The Council had received a challenge some years ago, but this was withdrawn before the case went to Court.
The Cabinet Member supported a more open and transparent process, but pointed out that former problems could do harm to a business that may now be performing well.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles pointed out if these businesses were producing a product or a service then it was right that they were highlighted. In this case the businesses were providing care and, therefore, the public had a right to know. It had been highlighted that the Council had been found in the past not to be good at looking after children, other people’s money and now vulnerable old age people. Perception was everything and the way the article read it appeared the R.M.B.C. was putting profits before people and this was a concern and these people should be named.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health pointed out when there was an issue with a particular care home all the residents and their families were informed. The concerns may not necessarily be about care, it could be about the fabric of the building. This was about people’s homes where they lived and it was the Council’s responsibility to work with these care homes, if they had an issue or a problem, to work together to resolve the concerns to ensure they were continuing to provide excellent care.
The Council had a number of different ways to do this. The Council’s Home from Home Inspection Scheme was now similar to the recently adopted Care Quality Commission’s system of operation where homes were encouraged to raise their standards by obtaining a rating from the Local Authority, which would assist with raising standards. This positive proactive way of working and the stick approach were measures that could be put in place to try influence those changes. The Local Authority, however, did not have the power to close any of these homes, but could take action to remove residents who were paid for by the Local Authority or raise concerns about problems if they were related to a particular home.
(3) Councillor Jepson asked did the Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration believe his Cabinet role and Chamber of Commerce employment adhered to the Public Life Principle that stated holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside organisations that might seek to influence them in their performance of their official duties?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration was very aware of his obligations and that placed upon all Members to ensure that he and they have no real or perceived conflict of interest when undertaking Council duties. To this end the Cabinet Member regularly took advice from the Monitoring Officer with regard to any potential conflict of interest and would ensure that he did not participate in any decision-making where this could be an issue.
(4) Councillor Cowles referred to late last year RMBC signing off £1.6 million in order to extend the broadband network to cover 97% of homes and businesses. This sum was to be covered by a grant from SCRIF and to be confirmed by December. Have the Council received confirmation that this funding would be received?
The Deputy Leader confirmed the broaadband bid for SCRIF funding to meet the local authority contributions towards extending the superfast broadband network in South Yorkshire was still going through the approval process. It had successfully got through the Outline Business Case stage last year. Further work was being undertaken for the second stage for the approval process and a decision on this was due in April, 2015.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles confirmed the funding had not yet been received, but asked where the extensions to broadband was going to take place as this appeared to be unknown?
The Deputy Leader explained the surveys were being carried out currently and there was now a Programme Manager in place working out of Barnsley Council leading on the project for the four South Yorkshire Authorities. The Project Manager was happy to come and brief Members on the progress of the project and the relevant phases and milestones over the next few years.
(5) Councillor Jepson confirmed it was announced last week that that £65 million was to be invested to create Sheffield’s own version of China Town. Did the Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration think that this would have a negative effect on the Council’s own Visions of China Project and could he give an update on its current position?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration explained that the proposal was not seen as negative, but potentially complimentary. Consideration was being given how to develop this area across the other Local Authority boundaries and a piece of work was looked at last week on the Advanced Manufacturing Park by an academic how Rotherham and Sheffield could work together to promote employment and jobs. The Sheffield development was different to that proposed by the Visions of China Project in that it included more offices, restaurants and also residential accommodation.
The Visions of China Project was private sector led and not a Council project as such. The current position on Visions of China was that the developer was exploring a number of funding options. An update report was to be submitted to the Cabinet in within the next two months.
In a supplementary question Councillor Jepson asked if the Visions of China Project failed to materialise what did the Cabinet Member think the impact would be on the Rotherham Growth Plan in terms of the loss of employment and inward investment?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed this would have to be considered as the Rotherham Growth Plan included six key themes around housing, town centre and how to give people the skills to seek employment and be aspirational. The Council had a 10,000 job target to achieve in Rotherham which was not easy. There were still huge obstacles and constraints to overcome, but every effort would be made to achieve this target which was ambitious. The Visions of China Project or any project on this large development site would deliver significant benefits for the wider region, including employment.
The Council had a responsibility to ensure the Growth Plan was a success and this was supported.
Councillor Parker sought clarification on the future of the Visions of China Project and its viability as he had asked a question at a previous Council Meeting and been told it had no future. He had also asked about this development site and the potential for this to be allocated for residential purposes rather than the Green Belt area in Greasbrough arising from its brownfield status.
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration explained this was a private sector led development and until such time that the Visions of China Project and its developers presented a fully costed out business proposal and business plan to deliver a leisure project on this site, the Council could not confirm its viability and were open to other suggested offers from other developers. This site was recognised in the Growth Plan as a key development site opportunity.
Councillor C. Vines commented on the use of false statements in the Council Chamber. The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration had clearly stated previously that the Visions of China Project was dead and now it was being reported that the Council were unable to confirm the viability. It was suggested that false statements and lies should not be given in the Council Chamber.
Councillor Reynolds sought clarification on the ownership of the development site and on receipt of confirmation that the Council did own this site, asked a supplementary question relating to the brownfield status and that residential accommodation could be built upon it?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed the plan for this site was to deliver a leisure/commercial project to deliver employment and its historical mining history made this a suitable place to develop such a project. This site had never been part of the Local Plan considerations to deliver residential development in that area.
Councillor Middleton asked about the legal status of this Council-owned land and whether a lease arrangement existed setting out a clear timetable of expectation with a break clause if the scheme was not delivered. Simply to say the Council was unclear as to what was happening on this site was inappropriate as the Council would be the landlord to any lease arrangement that existed and would know exactly what was happening.
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration reiterated his point that this was not the Council’s project, although the land was owned by the Council. A previous report to Cabinet last year formerly ended the agreement with the Visions of China developers as the funding proposals were never submitted and at that stage no information had been provided. An update report to be submitted to the Cabinet in two months would provide more information on the status of any projects for that area. The Council did know what was happening in that the agreement with the Visions of China Project had ended until such time as firm proposals were submitted.
In a supplementary question Councillor Middleton asked if the agreement with the Visions of China Project had ended, why were the matters being discussed when the land was now available for other uses?
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration confirmed this to be correct and that an update report was to be submitted in due course as this action was agreed at Cabinet in August, 2014.
Councillor Reynolds expressed his concern that this information should have been provided initially, but asked why houses could not be built on this brownfield site as this created jobs and houses were required.
Councillor Parker had observed a number of commercial units and office blocks stood empty in Rotherham and believed no more were required for many years. He asked why the Green Belt area at Greasbrough was to be built over when there were brownfield sites such as this that could be developed for residential purposes, which also already had excellent infrastructure links to the surrounding area. This was a perfect site for residential development and the dogmatic approach to using this area for commercial development should be ignored and the voices listened to. This site was ideal for those properties.
The Cabinet Member for Business Growth and Regeneration for clarity confirmed the site was in fact designated Green Belt land and not brownfield.
Councillor Parker pointed out that this site was former brownfield land and had been redesignated as Green Belt land.
Councillor Reeder expressed her concerns about being misled about the Visions of China Project and referred to the numerous questions that had been asked why this site was not being allocated for residential development. It was appalling how the residents of Rotherham were being treated and the Council needed to listen to the people of Rotherham and where they wanted their houses building.