Agenda item

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS TO ADVISORY CABINET MEMBERS AND CHAIRMEN

 

To put questions, if any, to Advisory Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Standing Order No. 7(1) and 7(3).

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor Julie Turner asked could an explanation be given on the Rotherham Town Centre First Policy. This has never been explained and frankly it was difficult to see how this was being pursued.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, explained that the Town Centre First was a national planning policy initiative that was reflected in the adopted Core Strategy.

 

In simple terms the Policy required that any proposals for development of uses such as new shops or offices, or leisure and entertainment facilities (things you would expect to see in a town centre) would only be granted planning permission outside of the town centre if it could be shown that there was no appropriate, available and suitable site in a town centre to accommodate the development.

 

The Council had produced a good practice guide to assist developers which explained the policy and its application in more detail. It was available on the Council’s planning consultation website or by calling the planning service.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Julie Turner referred to the Meadowhall development, which almost closed Sheffield and Rotherham town centres.  Then came Parkgate with work continuing to develop this area moving the town centre focus to this area.  At a recent meeting consideration was given to rent increases to town centre business and asked why local business were not contacted when it was difficult to trade and keep going.  On  a recent shopping trip the town centre was also found to be extremely quiet.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, was unable to pass comment on Meadowhall as this was in Sheffield, but confirmed discussions were taking place with local businesses and a meeting was held two weeks ago with the business community asking their views on how best to work together and deliver and development schemes.  There have been occasions when the town centre was quiet, but every effort was being made to improve the situation.

 

(2)  Councillor Julie Turner stated at the last Rotherham South Area Assembly meeting there was reference to the ‘Rotherham Master Plan’, and asked could it be explained what this plan was and why, in this supposed new age of openness and transparency, had she not been informed about such a plan?

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, confirmed the Rotherham Master Plan was a refresh of the  Town Centre Renaissance Plan.  The work had been awarded to Arup and officers were working on a list of the stakeholders for ARUP to speak to as part of the consultation process and invited Councillor Turner to be added to that list, should she want to be involved.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Julie Turner referred to a couple of proposals being shared at the same Area Assembly meeting of potential developments of Forge Island.  One involved retail development in this area and she asked who would buy retail space in this part of town.  At the same meeting she was advised that Councillors were unable to ask questions.  On looking this up in the Constitution she was unable to find where this was allowed and asked if an apology would be issued making it clear that Elected Members that wanted to ask questions could ask questions.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, was unable to pass comment as she was not at that Area Assembly.  However, with regards to Forge Island no development plans had as yet been put forward, which was why the Master Plan was under refresh.  All key sites in the town centre would be considered on how best they could be developed.

 

Councillor McNeely, on a Point of Personal Explanation, confirmed, as Chair of the Rotherham South Area Assembly, that any Councillors who attended Area Assembly meetings were asked not to ask questions of the officers as they could ask them in another place.  Area Assembly meetings were for members of the public and they should be allowed to speak rather than other Councillors taking up the time with their questions.

 

Councillor C. Vines, on a Point of Order, explained Elected Members were community leaders and, therefore, represented the community who were not always present or in a position to speak.

 

(3)  Councillor Fleming asked how much debt does Rotherham Borough Council have and what does it cost annually to service that debt?

 

The Leader explained, that under strict Government rules the Council’s debt could only be used on capital spend for the purchase of assets, land and buildings and not for the provision of services.  At the moment the Council’s current debt stood at £477.7m.  Half of this debt was owed against the Housing Revenue Account and about £200m was as a result of the Decent Homes Programme.  The remaining £200m approximately was historical debt.  The annual servicing costs had been reduced from around £20m in 2010/11 to its current figure of £14.8m.

 

The Section 151 Officer was also tasked with making sure the debts were affordable and sustainable.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Fleming asked if the capital amount was being paid off from that debt and how many years would it take to pay this off.

 

The Leader explained the minimum payment was being made against the cost of the interest.  There was no fixed date for paying this back.  The Council’s debt, depending on which it was, would roll forward at different times.  A decision would be made should a capital receipt be received to offset any debt.  Should a briefing with the Section 151 Officer be required for further information, the Leader was more than happy to arrange this.

 

(4)  Councillor C. Vines asked could he have a full explanation as at the last Council meeting on the 16th September the Leader stated that the bid put forward by Sheffield City Region to the Government did not include an Elected Mayor, but two weeks later it was announced that the deal did include a Mayoral Model.

 

The Leader confirmed the Council entered the negotiations not wanting an Elected Mayor and this remained the position.  The Government came back fairly quickly ranking the bid as one of the best in the country and fast tracked this in order to move this forward.   The negotiations for the quicker deal included a Mayor in exchange for the possibility of significant investment in the city region (£30m over thirty years) plus devolved powers.

 

The agreement in principle had been shared with Members subject to the spending commitments in the Autumn statement.  This would also then be subject to approval by each of the Local Authorities making up the Combined Authority early in the new year and decisions made on whether the devolution deal with an Elected Mayor was acceptable.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor C. Vines referred to the BBC Sunday Politics Show on the 18th October, 2015, where the fiasco over the Elected Mayor for the region, for the bribe of £30m investment, meant a dictatorship rather than a democracy.  He said that Angela Smith MP had  indicated, what was already known, that a deal was confirmed which contradicted everything being suggested by the Council’s Labour Leader in that an Elected Mayor and the £30m investment was just a proposal.  He said that this indicated that local Labour Leaders were holding their electorate in utter contempt.

 

In response the Leader said he was unable to comment on the Sunday Politics Show as he did not see the interview.  He reiterated that there was an agreement to take forward on the basis of a number of proposals for Members’ consideration as to their suitability and valid principles.  The Leader’s view was that the proposals pulled power and money down to the city region level.  The Government, therefore, required that there was a directly Elected Mayor responsible for the decisions.  Also in taking forward these discussions consideration would be given as to what powers the directly Elected Mayor had.

 

The Leader reconfirmed that the proposals were not “done deals”, but simply the starting point for firm discussions with the Government about taking forward a devolution deal for South Yorkshire.

 

(5)  Councillor Beck asked did the Leader agree with him that the proposed Gulliver’s Theme Park development on the Pithouse West Site was a tremendous coup for Rotherham and would contribute significantly to the Growth Plan jobs target.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, fully agreed with Councillor Beck that the Gulliver’s theme park was fantastic news for the local economy, and a major contributor to the Growth Plan jobs target of 10,000 new jobs over the next 10 years.

 

More than 250 full time equivalent jobs would be created in the first phases, rising to 400 jobs including seasonal positions, when the whole development was complete and fully operational. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Beck welcomed the plans coming to fruition on this site which was undergoing a comprehensive consultation process, which was well received by the public.  However, he asked for assurances that the concerns about additional traffic, particularly through the Kiveton Park, area would be considered as part of the planning process.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, confirmed that all matters would be considered as part of the planning process.

 

(6)  Councillor Beck pointed out that following the Steel Summit held in Rotherham last week with the Secretary of State, it was more important than ever that support was given to the the steel industry locally, and crucially, the jobs that came with it. He asked for an outline of the support offered to Kiveton Park Steel who recently entered administration.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, confirmed that on the 29th September, 2015 RiDO contacted the Administrators after the announcement that the company had gone into administration to offer the free redundancy support that Jobcentre Plus and National Careers Service could provide via Rapid Response, should they have to make any redundancies.

 

The Administrator had advised that all staff were still there and the company was still trading and fulfilling customer orders whilst actively looking for a buyer.  The Administrator would advise if they have to make any redundancies and if this was the case, links were required to local recruitment agencies which RiDO could facilitate along with helping to organise a jobs fair on site.

 

Councillor Beck welcomed the support being offered and pointed out that Kiveton Park Steel were a long standing manufacturer of steel and every effort should be made to avoid redundancies.

 

Councillor Jepson was aware that people in his own Ward were employed by Kiveton Park Steel and asked that other Councillors be kept in the loop for information.

 

(7)  Councillor Hoddinott stated that it had been a year since the Ofsted report into the Council's Children's Services and Local Safeguarding Children's Board and asked what progress had been made and specifically on the disappointing fact that only 41% of looked after children had had a dental check.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, reported that throughout the last year the Council’s Children’s Services Directorate had been working to a robust and substantial improvement programme. Much progress had been made, although it was acknowledged there was much to do.

 

The CSE service had been remodelled and was now delivered through the Evolve team, the MASH (Multi-agency Safeguarding Hub) which went live on 1st April, 2015 and had recently been Ofsted inspected.  The work on CSE was praised considerably and permission was asked to use the working protocols for use with other local authorities.  The progress in this area was remarkable.

 

The delivery of work was continuing to improve performance and quality across services.   This was still work in progress and would not be solved in six months, but was part of a three year recovery plan.  Further information was also to be provided on the steps being taken moving forward.  Funding would also be required in order to make the changes and put things right.

 

Performance in relation to dental checks for Looked After Children exemplified the progress being made, which nationally had been reported through an older model.  This model assumed checks  were undertaken every twelve months giving a figure of 42% when in fact they were undertaken every six months giving a more realistic figure of around 80%.

 

Through concerted joint working with health colleagues and commissioning framework there had been a significant shift in checks now being undertaken and as could be seen from the performance figures with over 95% of children in care now receiving the dental checks they needed with the aim of increasing this to 100%.

 

April, 2015                               70.5%

May, 2015                                64.7%

June, 2015                              86.6%

July, 2015                                94.1%

August, 2015                           95.8%

September, 2015                    95.2%

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Hoddinott welcomed the progress made and the aims to increase performance of dental checks up to 100% which was a measure of how looked after children were cared for  and asked about the recent inspection of Children’s Services and if the information could be shared with Elected Members to see the progress being made.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, confirmed he was not yet in receipt of a written report, but once he had received a copy he would ensure Elected Members received a copy.

 

(8)  Councillor Cowles alleged that when asked if Dignity managed other assets on behalf of the Council, Councillor Sims had given a brusque no, but this was not true.  Dignity managed a number of cemeteries in the borough, Moorgate, Wath, Greasbrough, Maltby …  good market coverage, was Councillor Sims aware or did she mislead Members.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, referred to the previously asked question and reported that as stated in the response to Councillor Cowles there had been no attempt to mislead and that the Council’s Bereavement Service was now delivered through Dignity Funerals Ltd. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the share price of Dignity which had doubled and bonuses had been paid out.  He had also looked at why the company were doing so well and when comparing simple funeral costs Sheffield was 27% cheaper, Barnsley was 19% cheaper and 16% cheaper in Rotherham if Dignity was not used.  If other services were added on the gap increased significantly.  Some of the other processes employed were not particularly as comforting as one might have wished and asked was the Advisory Cabinet Member aware of their other business practises being used.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, was not fully aware of the pricing structure, but believed this would vary according to the services offered.  He confirmed a response to this would be provided in writing.

 

(9)  Councillor Cowles stated that in the article in the Advertiser concerning the Crematorium and Dignity, Councillor Sims suggested the people of Rotherham got a far better service than they otherwise would. If the private sector did it better should we outsource much more, if not why not?

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, stated that the decision to outsource any element of a Council service to an external organisation was something that should be considered on a case by case basis. The Council was committed to securing the best services it could at the lowest cost and in some cases that would mean that others provide the service on our behalf. The Council was open to all types of service delivery, recognising that one size did not fit all.

 

He identified that in 2004 the Council had undertaken a significant review of its Bereavement Service.  This review identified the need for significant investment in the service and a number of options were considered.  The decision was made that the most appropriate option was that of a public/private partnership between the Council and Dignity Funeral Services Ltd. who had invested £3m into this service through capital expenditure.  A significant element of this decision was the need for extensive investment in the service that the Council was unable to fund, even via prudential borrowing.  This included the construction of a Bereavement Services administration centre, grounds maintenance depot, gardens of remembrance, car park for cemetery users and improvements to the crematorium (including bringing the cremators up to the required environmental standards).

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles pointed out that also in the Advertiser Councillor Sims that this profitable business needed investment of £3m.  Dignity did not invest £3m in one go, but this investment was provided over time from profits of the business and £3m investment was only half of the investment into DRL.  He would like to know more how decisions were made about what to invest in and what was outsourced as the track record was consistently bad.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, confirmed that decisions were taken on a case by case basis and this decision taken in 2004 to move forward with the Dignity proposal.

 

(10) Councillor Reynolds asked was the report on Magna from PwC delivered yet and what were its conclusions?

 

The Leader confirmed the report had now been received earlier this month and its conclusions and findings were now being considered. A report would be brought forward for consideration by the Managing Director Commissioner at one of her formal decision-making meetings and would then be shared with Members.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked if all Members could have sight of the report.

 

The Leader confirmed that would be made available in the next few weeks.

 

(11)  Councillor Reynolds asked what was the cost of the one way system in Bramley and what were the benefits to the shops and residents?

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, confirmed the cost of the Bramley Traffic Management Scheme was approximately £533k.

 

The benefits for shops and residents were predominantly associated with easing congestion through the Village Centre. The scheme also eased congestion on the A631 for traffic turning right into Cross Street, which previously queued past the end of the right turn lane. The traffic scheme acknowledged the demand for on street parking and accommodated it where possible, with four parking spaces (including two disabled spaces) on Main Street and echelon parking provided on Cross Street.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds referred to a previous article in the Rotherham Advertiser about the Traffic Regulation Order being illegal and asked if this was going to be re-looked at as part of the decision making process.

 

Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, was unable to comment on the legalities of the Traffic Regulation Order so confirmed a response to this would be provided in writing.

 

(12)  Councillor Reynolds asked who paid for the Enough is Enough full page advertisement in the Rotherham Advertiser which appeared in the issue on 9th October, 2015?

 

The Leader confirmed the advertisement in the Rotherham Advertiser on 9th October, 2015 was paid for by the Council, acting in its community leadership role, on behalf of the individuals and organisations who signed up to the statement of solidarity published in the advertisement and was funded via the Corporate Communications and Marketing budget.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds pointed out that he had not been contacted about signing this petition until it appeared in the newspaper and queried whether this was political advertising.

 

The Leader confirmed this was not political advertising, but was for a good cause.

 

(13)  Councillor Reynolds asked how long would the Willmott Dixon contract run for, who awarded it and who decided its duration?

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, reported that the Housing Repairs and Maintenance contract was awarded by Cabinet on the 21st July, 2010.  

 

The contract was awarded to two companies, Morrisons (who were subsequently taken over by Mears), and the Willmott Dixon Partnership.

 

The contract period was for ten years subject to the achievement of stipulated performance targets. These targets have always been met and surpassed.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked why the contract had been awarded for a period of ten years, when contracts were normally awarded for three or even five years, and how this was considered cost effective.

 

Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing and the Local Economy, explained this contract was subject to the achievement of targets, which if not met, would result in the contract being revoked.

 

(14)  Councillor Parker congratulated the Leader on the sentiments in the article in the Rotherham Advertiser about the waste of money that Rotherham was suffering due to the demonstrations, but could he please explain why Members of the Opposition were not asked to support this.

 

The Leader pointed out that on reflection he apologised for not being able to involve everyone, but the initiative was agreed at a small meeting of community leaders. 

 

It was agreed that the most powerful way of expressing the views of most people in Rotherham was by a statement signed off by all the leaders of the key organisations in the Borough.

 

The purpose of the advert was to raise awareness and for people to express their frustration in a peaceful way and by standing in solidarity.  As Leader of the Council and not Leader of the Labour Group he had also signed the petition and other Councillors were asked to consider signing also.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Parker suggested the advertisement and petition had been put together in a rush and no real thought had been given to including Members of the Opposition.  He suggested more needed to be done to work together rather than be unco-operative.

 

The Leader responded that he was more than happy to work together with other Members and had led this petition as Leader of the Council and in retrospect other people could have been asked to sign up to the petition.  With hindsight this could have been done differently and he apologised for this.