Agenda item

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

 

To receive questions from members of the public who may wish to ask a general question of the Mayor, Advisory Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee.

Minutes:

(1)       Mr. J. Martin asked that, in view of the content of the 343+ representations lodged with the Council last November via refs 528645 and 775490, please confirm that site LDF0237 has been dropped from the final version of the Sites and Policies document accordingly?

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, explained that a report on the Local Plan Sites and Policies document was being considered by this meeting under Item 13 on the agenda.

 

If the Council approved public consultation on the document, it would be released on 28th September, 2015. At this time all interested parties could make their comments on the document and with this in mind it would be premature to confirm the content or otherwise at this stage.

 

In a supplementary response Mr. Martin pointed out that the question had not been answered.  If the plan was approved the Council had turned its back on the will of the community, were ignoring the community plan and were not supporting the people they represented and were elected by.  Mr. Martin’s conclusion was that the Council were either incompetent or in a conspiracy.

 

(2)       Mrs. C. Peters stated that Rotherham’s young people, were a credit with:-

 

·                67.1% GCSE grades A*-C

·                A level results exceeding national average

 

and asked what strenuous, ambitious, urgent efforts was RMBC making to attract high skilled, well paid, 21st Century jobs in IT, Communications, Finance, Insurance, Scientific, Technical, Professional sectors where we lagged woefully behind the national average?

 

The Leader acknowledged the young people and their results were a credit to the  Borough.  The Council needed to do more to bring higher value jobs into Rotherham and referred to the work taking place at Dinnington Incubation Centre, with the Sheffield City Region and the growth projections.

 

The Council were partnering with Sheffield Council and the University of Sheffield to develop a new Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District that would build on the success of the developments at Rotherham’s Advanced Manufacturing Park, with success in attracting highly skilled and highly paid jobs with excellent training opportunities for young people.  

 

The Rotherham Economic Growth Plan was also due to be considered at the next Council meeting.

 

In a supplementary question Mrs. Peters welcomed the efforts, but asked why contact was not being made with the large scale manufacturing industries to adopt Rotherham and this should be moved forward.

 

The Leader agreed with Mrs. Peters’ sentiments and pointed out the industries already attracted to Rotherham at the Advanced Manufacturing Park and the developments taking place at Waverley.

 

(3)       Mr. M. Eyre referred to the one thing being mentioned in the reports into Rotherham was poor standards and the resulting failures of the Council partly due to there being a lack of real opposition and asked did the Leader hope after next year’s full Council elections there would be real opposition or a one party state?

 

The Leader explained he was unable to prejudge the election as the public would decide.  He hoped they would make the right decision when they voted.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Eyre referred to the previous results and in the spirit of scrutiny and representation asked that parties not field three candidates in some Wards.

 

The Leader pointed out that this would be a spirited campaign with all parties choosing to field their own candidates.

 

(4)       Mr. B. Cutts referred to the Magna Trust and how in:-

 

2010 lost £1,990,059

2011 lost £2,005,146

2012 lost £1,207,910

2013 lost £1,256,593

2014 lost £1,261,156

 

and in total in five years had lost £7,720,864 and asked what would it be this year?

 

The Leader stated that the trading performance of the Magna Trust was a question that needed to be directed to the Trust itself and its Board of Trustees.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Cutts asked what the likely 2015 loss was to be.  If the Council did not know then it was time it did.

 

The Leader again confirmed that he was not party to this information and Mr. Cutts would be better contacting the Magna Managing Director.

 

(5)          Mr. P. Thirlwall asked could the appropriate Member tell him if they were prepared to recommend to the Commissioners that the Section 106 or Community Infrastructure Levy money received from the Lidget Lane housing site and the new Aldi should be used to return the ill-conceived Bramley one way traffic system back to two way?

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, replied that the Section 106 contributions or planning obligations were only required to mitigate the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms.  When Section 106 contribution was asked for it had to relate to the development that had been submitted and must meet the national tests of being necessary, directly related to the development and be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.  Section 106 money could not, therefore, be used in the manner suggested. 

 

The Council did not currently have an adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in place. Following adoption the Council could set a date to commence charging. The future use of Community Infrastructure Levy money was at the Council’s discretion, but a draft list set out infrastructure priorities for Community Infrastructure Levy. This covered things like junction improvements, school provision and health facilities that would be required to support the growth planned by the Local Plan. It would not be appropriate to use Community Infrastructure Levy money for the purpose suggested.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Thirlwall referred to the decision taken at the time by the former Cabinet Member, which was contrary to that proposed by officers and not supported by Ward Councillors and officers of the Area Assembly.  He asked if consideration could be given to reversing the scheme back to two way operation.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, was unable to comment on the previous decision not being a Councillor at the time, but confirmed she would take further advice from officers.

 

(6)          Mr. A. Osborne asked why was South Yorkshire Police covering up crime as well as Social Services cases of up the 1,400 or so people in Rotherham who have been attacked by others?

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, thanked Mr. Osborne for his question. The Council did not run the Police Force, but it did have a statutory duty to work alongside the Police and Crime Commissioner and his officers to ensure children were protected. The Leader and Deputy Leader had placed on record acknowledgement of the Council’s past failings and with the Leader apologised on behalf of the Council for the children who have suffered from such horrific abuse, at the hands of, what could only be described as evil criminals.

 

However, as some of the victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation have recently confirmed publicly, things have changed. Learning from the past and today the Council was working determinedly with South Yorkshire Police to ensure that perpetrators of these awful crimes were brought to justice and to ensure that any victim that came forward was fully supported to tell their story. The Council would continue to appeal to anyone who had suffered to come forward and assured them the Council would listen and respond.

 

Children’s Services have been entirely remodelled to make sure that victims could have absolute confidence in the support they would receive,  the multi-agency Child Sexual Exploitation Service, ‘Evolve’, had been re-built and additional Social Workers have been recruited, trained and developed to ensure children received the very best support.

 

‘Operation Clover’ - a partnership between Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police - had seen over 100 charges brought to date and a dedicated victim support team had been put in place as part of that operation, with Social Workers seconded to work alongside the Police to provide  each victim with an individual support plan.

 

The work had not been limited to Children’s Services. The Council’s Fresh Start Strategy signalled the ambition in becoming a truly child-centred Borough. The new policy had been informed by the views of victims and survivors and once fully implemented would be one of the most robust regimes in the country, offering better protection to vulnerable children.   

 

The views of victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation would continue to be listened to.  This included research into the kinds of support needed in the long term, and also the creation of a multi-agency Survivors’ Board which contributed to the work of the Council and partners. So far over £500k had been invested into support services for victims and survivors – with £262k more invested in the voluntary sector by the Government.  Further, the Council had put together a funding package of £3.1m in partnership with KPMG Foundation, the Government and leading children’s charity Barnardo’s to help prevent young people from becoming a victim of child sexual exploitation in the first place.

 

In a supplementary question Mr. Osborne asked why some calls to the Police were not taken seriously, especially given the disturbance following the demonstrations in the town centre and the reported incidents on Wellgate.

 

The Deputy Leader confirmed that any reasonable citizen would report any concerns to the Police.  However, if Mr. Osborne had any further details that would help the Police with their enquiries he should be forwarding information on.