To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question.
Minutes:
(1) A member of the public referred to the appointment of Sir Derek Myers as a Commissioner to improve Rotherham’s governance by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles during 2015. Sir Derek Myers was prior to this the Chief Executive of Kensington and Chelsea, the borough where the Grenfell Flats were located.
Kensington and Chelsea had been criticised including by the Government for the governance and way they performed following the disaster at Grenfell.
Sir Derek Myers was also the Chair of Shelter and he had had to resign because Shelter also had been criticised for its poor governance and who had not commented on the matter of Grenfell flats for which it had been criticised. Along with the resignation of Sir Derek his acquaintance, Tony Rice, involved with a company who provided cladding to buildings and which it was revealed provided the cladding to Grenfell Flats. The member of the public found it completely absurd that Commissioners were in charge in Rotherham at £800 a day when they ought to go back and put their own home in order. The Leader and Commissioner Ney were asked for any comments.
The Leader confirmed the member of the public was raising matters that were of local and national concern and in the public domain. He was unwilling to get drawn into discussions about individual responsibility at this stage.
Commissioner Ney had nothing further to add.
(2) A member of the public referred to question he made on the 11th April, 2017 regarding the expenses claim by Sir Derek Myers made for the day he attended the count. The member of the public did not think he should have claimed and should not have been at the count.
Commissioner Ney had responded in writing and referred to his activity on that particular day and so signed off his expenses, some of the time which was spent observing the count. That was the function of the Chief Executive, Commissioner Manzie, to oversee the count. Commissioner Kenny was also at the count, but did not claim. The letter from Commissioner Ney went on to refer to her own experiences as a Returning Officer, but the member of the public believed he had further experience as he had been involved in various roles including being a supervisor, a counting assistant, a candidate and an agent. For this reason he did not believe Sir Derek’s attendance contributed to the count process.
It was difficult to understand or believe when Commissioner Ney signed off Sir Derek’s expenses for that day if she had looked at his diary or even knew what he had done on both that day and all the other days she had signed expenses for. On this basis the member of the public suggested that the expenses for Commissioners should be vetted by some independent person, presumably the Director of Finance which would give some confidence in the process.
In response Commissioner Ney clarified the letter she had written spelt out more reasons that that for signing off the payment. Commissioner Myers was to be Rotherham for the two days that week and had decided to base himself at the count as Commissioners to support the smooth running. Also this was an excellent opportunity to meet first hand Councillors and staff in the first few months of intervention. In terms of referring to past Returning Officer experiences this was merely about legitimacy of count observations and the motivation for staff and Commissioner Manzie was not in charge of the count this was for the Returning Officer. In terms of external vetting for the Commissioners’ expenditure claims these already go through the normal Council processes through the Finance Department. The Commissioners were more than happy for Strategic Director of Finance to look at those claims.
In a Point of Information regarding the asking of additional questions the member of the public referred to agenda Item 3 (to receive questions from the public who wish to ask a question) to which he believed was not set down in the Constitution so he was entitled to ask several questions unless this had been altered.
The Leader referred to the schedule which outlined the rules about questions from members of the public and which did specify one question.
To assist the Monitoring Officer confirmed there was a recommended procedure regarding questions from members of the public, included within the Executive Procedure Rules of the Constitution, and would provide the link.
In a supplementary question the member of the public referred to Commissioner Myers doing other work on the day of the count, when his diary actually indicated he did three hours and forty-five minutes of work. The remainder that day was booked to the count and on the Friday he had nothing in his diary other than the Parliamentary count.
In terms of Commissioner Manzie it was indicated in her job description that she was responsible for the count, but again the member of the public could not see what purpose Commissioner Myers could have served at that count and he asked Commissioner Ney if she agreed.
Commissioner Ney did not agree with the member of the public, but suggested should he wish to take matters further then he was advised to contact DCLG as part of the Commissioners’’ protocol on the website.
(3) Councillor Cowles referred to his area where some OAP bungalows had recently been clad. He asked for assurances that the OAP bungalows were safe and also buildings like Oakwood School and the hospital. He considered it a pity that Commissioner Myers was not present as he was an authority on cladding and could possibly help.
The Leader confirmed no-one from Housing was present today, but with buildings like the Beeversleigh tower in the borough he had lots of questions about other potential buildings with different cladding along with private rented properties and suggested that a full breakdown of this information be provided and for this to be shared with all Members.
(4) Councillor Reeder confirmed she had recently been to the Local Plan Drop-in session where she saw Herringthorpe Playing Fields was still designated for building on and wanted the Cabinet and the Labour Group to look at this again with a view to removing this site altogether. She had walked through Moorgate and there were sites that had been empty or for sale for years so why should there be building on our open spaces for Sheffield people.
Councillor Lelliott explained all sites allocated had been put forward via the Local Plan which had been vigorously consulted upon and which was currently sitting with the Inspectors. The 14,000 housing capacity was for future growth for the people of Rotherham.
Housing had to be built somewhere and the Council had been successful in arguing that the 23,000 housing number was too high and this was reduced to just over 14,000 houses which the Inspector agreed for future development and the growth of Rotherham.
In a supplement question Councillor Reeder again asked what action was being taken about sites on Moorgate which had been empty for years.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained the projections were for a fifteen year plan. Local Plans took account of growth, employment and housing projections on all brownfield sites, planning permissions that were already in existence and growth projections for future years. This was a long five year process requiring strategic marketing assessments, employment land assessments, research into what projections were required including engagement with landowners to ensure any sites were sustainable and deliverable in that time. Some sites were allocated, but where permissions were not brought forward some sites did get deallocated.
The Inspector appointed had produced a report following his inspection of the Local Plan during July to December, 2016 and was in agreement with the Local Authority’s projections subject to some modifications.
Councillor Reeder just asked if the Labour Group could look at this site one more time.
The Leader reiterated this Local Plan was compliant with Government rules in order to meet estimated housing need projections going forward. It had been produced on the expectation of that need and whilst there were still some concerns about the sites being developed, by law the Plan had to set out the sites to ensure developers were not building on sites where they wanted. He understood the concerns, but could not confirm the site referred to would be looked at again.