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 Cowles referred to hearing mention of a study/proposal/revamp, not sure exactly what, concerning re-development of the town centre and asked would this include a study as to whether or not the town centre or any part of it has a future for re-development as a centre as we know it?
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, confirmed the study underway concerning the town centre was a refresh of the Town Centre Masterplan.
The time was right to ensure the Council had an up-to-date plan for the town centre relevant to current conditions and circumstances and fit for purpose, in terms of guiding a strategy for the next ten years. Particularly important as the role of town centres was changing right the way across the country. The refresh would provide an analysis of the town centre, an assessment of opportunities and constraints and a vision for the town centre’s future that was relevant to the needs of residents and visitors. It would also include recommended proposals for the Council and its partners to action and build the confidence of investors and businesses.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles explained he wanted things to happen properly and referred to claims about increased spending and increased footfall in the town centre, but the problem was he could not find any evidence to support this. He had spoken to market traders and businesses and the feedback he had received was this was the worst year for some time. He had also spoken to some small accountants, estate agents and solicitors and their view was different to what we believed was happening. He did not want to see the Council getting into any large studies that would need a large cost by Consultants until there was some idea of what was required and asked for some reassurance that this information be obtained before a further cost study was entered into.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, listened to what Councillor Cowles had to say and confirmed local businesses were spoken to, visited and consulted through the Rotherham Voice. A Town Centre Partnership Group had also been established to look at this and once the masterplan had been considered by Scrutiny it would go out for consultation and questions could be asked. This masterplan would unpin what the Council wanted to see for its town centre and was there to attract investment. Some businesses were losing trade, but every effort had to be made to encourage investors and until it was known what was required it was not possible to move forward.
(2) Councillor Cowles, having been asked by residents, via the Area Assembly, to help and support them with some of the issues they have in Eastwood pointed out it was clear and repeated evidence that plan A was not working and asked if there was there a plan B?
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, confirmed she attended a first session of a community drop-in for local residents in Eastwood.
There were clearly issues in Eastwood which continued to cause concern to many of the residents living there, however, there was some evidence of improvement in the incidence of fly-tipping and noise nuisance.
Officers were tasked with producing plans to deal with the entrenched problems in Eastwood. This would be a partnership plan that involved the community as well as the Council and colleagues from other agencies and would be based on a three-prong strategy including Education, Enforcement and Waste Collection/Cleansing.
Councillor Sims was also part of a multi-agency meeting looking at issues across the central area of Rotherham and this included Eastwood.
(3) Councillor Currie asked the Leader whether he believed in taking on board best practice to ensure the best for Rotherham Council going forward?
The Leader confirmed he would always try to do so.
In a supplementary question Councillor Currie was pleased to see the governance arrangements were being looked at with an independent overview along with support from the Centre for Public Scrutiny and the Local Government Association and a suggestion that there be more opportunity for minority parties to chair meetings. However, he asked if the recommendations coming out of the governance review indicated such a proposal would this Council be supportive.
The Leader confirmed the review was currently ongoing on a cross party basis. It was not possible to prejudge on the findings of the report, but it was his view that it did strengthen the role of minority parties within scrutiny.
(4) Councillor Currie asked could the Deputy Leader ensure that all the recommendations that our looked after children have forwarded to the Corporate Parenting Panel be given a place in the scrutiny process?
Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, thanked Councillor Currie for his question.
The Corporate Parenting Panel on 19th January, 2016 had a themed agenda of ‘voice of the child’. The Panel received reports, questionnaire responses and watched a DVD produced by our Looked After Children to provide feedback on their experiences.
The Panel was strongly of the view that all Councillors should be made aware of the views and issues for children in care and arrangements were taking place to set up an all Member Seminar to look at the voices. The offer would be repeated following the election for anyone new.
A meeting was set up with officers to ensure that their messages were fed into the scrutiny process as well.
In a supplementary question Councillor Currie referred to performance management data not getting through to Elected Members and how it was previously agreed for this to be placed on the Members’ site so they could view the performance figures each month. This had been removed and the last time Improving Lives received this information was five months ago. He asked that the performance data be reinstated so that all Members could view this accordingly.
Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, believed, but would check, that monthly performance data was circulated to all Elected Members. If this was not the case he would ensure that it was circulated.
(5) Councillor Currie asked whether the Advisory Cabinet Member could please reassure him that the selective licensing scheme would achieve the outcomes officers and Councillors have worked hard to implement?
Councillor Wallis, Advisory Cabinet Member for Housing, confirmed the Selective Licensing scheme implemented in May, 2015 aims to improve property and letting standards in the private rented sector in four areas of the borough. This was a five year programme and would be monitored by officers.
This will be measured by:-
· Reductions in occupier turnover of properties in the area.
· Reductions in empty property levels.
· Reductions in the level of anti-social behavior.
Selective licensing could not on its own solve all the problems in some of the more deprived communities, but was only one part of the Council’s wider housing strategy and relied to some degree on partnership working.
Nevertheless, the Council were confident this would have a positive effect and early indications were that this was the case. Through the annual checks on license compliance which happen, more than eighty landlords were identified as failing to comply with the basic conditions on gas safety certificates, and through informal enforcement all but one of these was now fully compliant.
The further issues would be looked into further and prosecutions may arise as a result.
(6) Councillor Rose referred to the Government announcing that four year funding settlements were available to local councils and asked had the Leader looked at whether this would be beneficial to this Council?
The Leader confirmed that the Council had to rely on an estimate of what the Government grant would be often coming late in December. The intention to offer Council’s a four year funding settlement was to be welcomed and would help future financial planning. However, based on the information currently available it was not possible to form a judgement as to whether signing up for a four year settlement would be in the best interests of the Council. More detail was expected on this when the Final Settlement was published during the first week in February. When this information was published the Council would be in a better position to make a recommendation.
In a supplementary question Councillor Rose asked whether this was four more years of Tory cuts and four more years of misery for the residents of Rotherham?
The Leader explained the reality was this Government had changed local government funding, which former Governments fought hard to achieve. There was an agreement that post industrial areas or those that had high levels of deprivation received higher levels of central Government funding. They had higher pressure on their children and adult services. There were greater costs associated with doing what the Council were doing in Rotherham than in other areas of the country. It was all down to fairness. The current Government had broken that agreement so it was already known that even with a four year settlement to give some certainty around planning the main grant from the Government would end by 2020 and in its place would be some arrangement around business rates so economic growth was important, but no detail was known to enable the Council to plan properly. If this deal was not right then by 2020 it would be the end of Local Government, not just in Rotherham, but across parts of the north.
(7) Councillor Fleming asked who was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the cemeteries in Rotherham?
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, confirmed burial grounds in Rotherham were owned and operated by a number of organisations.
Cemeteries and crematorium owned by the Council were operated on the Council’s behalf by Dignity Funeral Services Ltd (Dignity). Dignity had a 35-year contract with the Council that commenced in August, 2008. They were responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the Council’s cemeteries at East Herringthorpe, Greasbrough, Wath, Maltby, Moorgate, Masbrough, Rawmarsh High Street, Rawmarsh Haugh Road and Rawmarsh Greasbrough Lane.
Church of England graveyards were the responsibility of the relevant parochial church council and some closed churchyards were maintained by the Council.
Other faith groups may also operate their own burial grounds, for example St. Bede's Roman Catholic Church.
Some Parish Councils in Rotherham operate their own cemeteries
South Yorkshire Woodland Burial Ground, near Aughton, was run by an independent operator (Peace Funerals).
In a supplementary question Councillor Fleming explained he had received a number of complaints about the upkeep of Maltby Cemetery in particular. The pathways were uneven and unsafe, the trees were overhanging and there were no benches. The company already mentioned had a contract in place until 2043 so asked what safeguards were in place to hold the company to account to take up their contractual responsibilities.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, was aware of some complaints about the issues in Maltby having been informed by a Ward Member. She had taken this up with officers who confirmed if the remedial works had not already been done they were planned to be completed in the near future.
(8) Councillor Mallinder asked what impact would proposed reductions in PCSOs and Police Officers have on the Council's work on Community Safety.
Councillor Sims, Advisory Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, confirmed that last year there was a reduction of fourteen Police Officers in Rotherham and next year there was a £10 million funding gap.
The Police and Crime Commissioner had confirmed his intention to keep numbers at the same level for the next four years.
(9) Councillor M. Vines referred to the 8th July, 2015 Council meeting where she asked the question regarding the missing Risky Business Files. The Leader answered they were awaiting the outcome of an audit report regarding the file and she further asked whether the audit been completed yet.
The Leader confirmed the audit was not yet complete. Information relating to the audit continued to be received until October 2015 and was subsequently assessed and, where appropriate, verified by Internal Audit. A draft report had been produced and Internal Audit were currently consulting on the draft with appropriate individuals and organisations. A final report would be produced following all relevant consultations.
In a supplementary question Councillor M. Vines asked could a copy be provided once the Leader was in receipt of a copy.
The Leader confirmed he would endeavour to do so.
Questions 10 and 11 from Councillor Reeder were to be answered in writing as she had to leave the meeting prior to her questions being asked.
(12) Councillor Reynolds referred to the last Council meeting where the fact that Rotherham had won the Great British High Street Awards 2015 was applauded and asked how did this chime with the fact that W.H. Smith was set to close on the bottom of the High Street?
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, pointed out that it was always disappointing when a store was to close. However, whilst it had been intimated that they were closing no confirmation had been received despite them being contacted.
In terms of the High Street there was ongoing work taking place and the improvements were evident for all to see. Every effort would be made to support retailers in Rotherham.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds pointed out that having won this award and receiving the applause a bid by the British Heart Foundation had already been made for the building and asked did this undermine the award that was won at all with it being yet another charity shop.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, referred to her former answer in that W. H. Smith had not confirmed its intention to close. However, it should be viewed as a positive in that a retailer was already interested in a unit that would not be left vacant.
W. H. Smith had announced that it would be closing a number of stores up and down the country as people’s shopping habits had changed, but Councillor Lelliott urged everyone to shop locally and support town centres.
(13) Councillor Reynolds asked could he be provided with visitor profiles and numbers to Magna, as a tourist attraction, since it opened.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, confirmed that in the 2014/15 Financial Year, Magna’s visitor numbers to the tourist attraction were as follows:-
Leisure – 92,151
Education – 27,745
Total – 119,896
Further information relating to previous financial years would be provided in a written response to Councillor Reynolds.
In a supplementary question, Councillor Reynolds asked what was the analysis of any customer feedback since Magna opened as a visitor attraction.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, did point out to Councillor Reynolds that for this level of questioning the best people to contact were Magna and their business team.
(14) Councillor Reynolds asked as a tourist attraction only, had Magna ever made a profit
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, explained the accounts filed with Companies House for the Magna Trust did not specifically separate out costs and income relating to the tourist attraction.
If this level of information was required Councillor Reynolds himself could access Companies House or he could ask Magna direct.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked should Magna remain open or closed as a visitor attraction.
Councillor Lelliott, Advisory Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, referred back to her previous answer and suggested that Councillor Reynolds contact Magna direct. Like the town centre Rotherham should be proud of Magna as it was part of the town’s heritage and would soon be lost as steel works up and down the country closed. She, therefore, urged everyone to support Magna especially when it had over 120,000 visitors last year, which showed this was an attraction people were interested in.