To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question.
Minutes:
(1) A member of the public asked would you please explain why RMBC invited expressions of interest for Greasbrough Public Hall in October, 2016 only to inform the four parties who had submitted interests in December, 2016 that a complete U turn had been made and decided to retain ownership and demolish the building to make way for a traffic congestion programme.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained it was an unfortunate situation when expressions of interest had been invited for the acquisition of Greasbrough Public Hall through private venture or asset transfer. Unfortunately, staff were unaware that colleagues in Transport were also looking at this area as part of the Bassingthorpe Farm development and potential solutions for the traffic requirements to alleviate the current congestion and traffic management following the development of housing on this site. The options being considered both required the land adjacent to the roundabout to do the improvements necessary. The timing was unfortunate as the service at the time were not aware of the potential traffic management solutions when the expressions were invited.
(2) A member of the public asked if the demolition proceeds Greasbrough would be left without a public hall. Could a new public hall be built as part of the Bassingthorpe Farm development under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 thereby reducing the impact on the community, the cost of which could be recovered from the developers. This would resolve the problem and replace the public hall. In light of this could the Council please advise if Greasbrough could expect to see a new public hall.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment advised it was too early to predict what the development would look like and how viable, subject to a business case and viability assessments as part of the housing proposal. However, the member of the public was correct there was the possibility of using Section 106 monies, which was replaced by the Community Infrastructure Levy, which does allow the use of funding where it was able to be determined it was a viable proposition and there was enough money to contribute to the infrastructure needs with monies set aside for community use. A number of reasons would come into play around the community size, which in theory could potentially be the case due to number of houses planned, but this would come down to viability as the Council could not insist on something being built that rendered the development non-viable. So, yes potentially funds could be set aside, but there was still a way to go before this could be determined.
The Chair confirmed this was a fair challenge and this would be carefully monitored to see what could be done.
(3) A member of the public asked in these days of austerity where the Government was urging people to be more involved with communities, what consideration did RMBC give to Greasbrough Public Hall Community Trust’s market research, which was compiled with help of views of local people where 90% of those interviewed expressed their support and interest in keeping the public hall as a community hub for the village of Greasbrough.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment confirmed a number of discussions had taken place with Ward Members and members of the Community Trust regarding the sensitive subject of a removal of a hall which had been a community facility for some time. Under normal circumstances asset transfer could take place to community groups unless there was a strategic requirement. In this case there was a strategic requirement for highway infrastructure that overrode the benefit of transfer to a community group.
The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Transport confirmed the market research document had been received and the detail considered in meetings with Ward Councillors, the Cabinet Member and members of the Community Trust. The document was well put together, contained lots of information about the hall and potential uses. This led onto further discussions about what elements of the hall could potentially be kept and salvaged for reuse and forms part of the report on the agenda for today’s meeting.
(4) A member of the public asked, in light of growing problems of social isolation especially in economically deprived areas, could you explain how RMBC believe that local residents and community groups would experience greater benefits from the hall’s demolition from it being used as a much needed resource for local people.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained that as a result of the removal of the hall for public use as to requirements or future provision, this was a discussion that could take place with developers to see if there was demand or need for a facility. Failing this a look would need to be made at other assets in the area that may be utilised, such as Greasbrough library and whether it could it be used more appropriately for public use. The public hall has been redundant for some time and there was now a strategic requirement need to improve the access arrangements at that junction which overrode the need for the pubic hall.
(5) A member of the public asked would you explain why it was that Rotherham Borough Council considered only the public hall junction to be of primary importance when the Church Street and Cinder Bridge Road junctions were of secondary importance, when improvements to all three junctions should be carried out as all three junctions were equally as important in alleviating the traffic congestion throughout Greasbrough.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained all the junctions have been looked at and whatever happened at the roundabout would impact on the other junctions. The options that have been explored up to now did consider all the junctions including the Church Street area. The final design solution had not yet been agreed and would be something that would be discussed further as the proposal emerged.
Ward Councillors were invited to give their view on the proposals for Greasbrough Public Hall.
Councillor R. Elliott described how Greasbrough Town Hall was built in 1926 by public subscription in a prominent position in the heart of the village, the first building seen on the approach from Potters Hill and a beautiful backdrop to a vibrant village.
He explained how Greasbrough Town Hall was a vibrant well used facility, used daily by the public for a variety of classes and groups and a popular venue for birthdays, presentations and weddings. All of which brought economic benefit to the village. Suddenly RMBC increased the high charge to an incredible amount, resulting in the hall being too expensive to hire and unused. Cynically it was thought this was the result the Council had wanted and with hindsight something should have been done by Ward Members at the time.
Speaking as a resident of Greasbrough and a past hirer of the hall Councillor Elliott shared the frustration and anger of residents and with the development of Bassingthorpe Farm no-one from RMBC seemed to listen. Despite consultations, signatures and discussions public opinion appeared to count for nothing. The end result no matter what RMBC would prevail.
Councillor Elliott, therefore, urged the Council to save the hall as the junction was not needed and Councillor Williams would explain further. He asked let the people of Greasbrough have the hall as those residents present today had an excellent business plan that would breathe new life into the hall and provide a new hub for the community. This supported the new mantra for RMBC and Ward Councillors’ locality working for the community.
Councillor Williams offered his thanks for the opportunity to speak today and also to the Chief Executive and officers who had met with Ward Members and members of the Community Trust about the concerns.
He described how Greasbrough Public Hall was considered an Iconic local building, which was part of community and local heritage and the much loved heart of the village. In fact he had his own fond memories of birthday parties and attendance at events, which would be a similar situation for people not just from the area, but across the Borough.
From his election in 2016 Councillor Williams described his proud involvement with the Community Trust and their hard efforts and dedication which was highlighted and reflected in the documents. He expressed his disappointment and frustration that it had reached this point.
Describing what he believed to be main justification for the demolition of the hall with a road congestions scheme, he was concerned that whilst tackling the congestion that existed there were other pinch points in the system that required action. Action which should be taken before the demolition of Greasbrough Public Hall.
The current congestion problems were not just around the roundabout near the hall, but on Main Street and Church Street with no proper lanes to filter traffic which also caused tailbacks and queues. The location at the Wince at the junction of Cinder Bridge Road also caused problems with traffic from Rawmarsh and Parkgate.
The concerns had been raised at meetings with officers and community groups and it was suggested the traffic congestion at these two locations should be tackled first before the demolition of the hall. Even if a new road scheme was installed at the location of the public hall it was felt this would still not tackle the congestion as Greasbrough was a village with village type roads on the approaches and would prevent any proper solution to the congestion that existed today.
The proposed demolition of the public hall was a sad reflection of the current economic times. However, the Government’s austerity measures and budget cuts were preventing local councils from providing community facilities in local buildings. Demolition of Greasbrough Public Hall would not only be a loss of a community facility it was also a loss of a local asset and heritage.
Councillor Williams was deeply saddened by the decision today and the possible demolition of a much loved iconic building and even at that this late stage urged the Council to pursue all other options that would tackle congestion and protect a much loved local building as well.
Councillor Allen echoed the comments by Councillor Williams at being given the opportunity to speak and the discussions that had taken place with officers and particularly thanked Greasbrough Public Hall Community Trust for sticking with the proposals here today.
She shared advice she had received from a Baptist Minister that the process was often far more important than the outcome, which was why she was so disappointed in the way the process had unfolded in relation to Greasbrough Town Hall.
As had already been indicated expressions of interests were invited by one section of the Directorate which was then nullified by another section and the requirement for the land for a traffic improvement scheme. It was highly regrettable that expectations were raised and cruelly dashed and unfortunate. If demolition was agreed this would leave a gap in community provision in Greasbrough.
Being pragmatic work had been taking place with officers looking at replacement facilities and identification of these was now available. As a result it was likely that proposals would be submitted back to the Cabinet for a community campus which would capitalise on existing facilities, which it was hoped would be supported as recognition of the loss of the hall.
Councillor Allen indicated she was keen to be genuinely involved in the asset management process to ensure no other community had to endure such an unacceptable and painful process as here today.
(6) A member of the public referred to an item on today’s agenda relating to the “Introduction of a Public Spaces Protection Order for Rotherham Town Centre” and his disappointment at the consultation process. A drop in session for the 10th August, 2017 between 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. was advertised on the 21st July, 2017, with a consultation end date of 16th August, 2017.
The member of the public reiterated his dissatisfaction with the consultation process, the lack of appropriate information to fully understand what the Protection Order entailed, whether this was Borough-wide or restricted to the town centre, the limited information that was available and the impact this would have on unsuspecting vulnerable members of the public and communities who received £80.00 fines for littering, often only for a discarded cigarette butt.
He described the role of private security companies like Kingdom and their disregard for equal opportunities in the pursuit of profit fining victims, which was a fundament change. It was for these reasons he regarded the consultation process as being flawed, did not bring people in and affected communities more due to not following guidelines issued by the Local Government Association about consultation duration and holiday periods, unlike Newcastle who had allowed a two month period of consultation prior to the implementation of their Protection Orders.
The member of the public, therefore, asked if he was approached by a member of a private sector firm was it not the case that he did not have to reply, could just walk away and nothing could be done. This would cost the Council more in the future. The legislation indicated these Orders should not be used unless it was absolutely necessary taking into account the difficult and delicate position Rotherham was in.
The Chair summarised the member of the public’s question which appeared to be in two parts; the first about the consultation process and the number of people engaged, how that was run and whether it was an equitable process and secondly, who was doing the enforcement and the role of Kingdom.
Councillor Hoddinott, Cabinet Member for Waste, Road and Community Safety, confirmed a formal consultation process had been undertaken and the feedback and reasons received for doing it were not uncommon. As part of the consultation a number of roadshows had taken place across Rotherham, with discussions at Rotherham Show and as part of the Town Centre Masterplan. The main feedback was around safety in the town centre and the need to address the concerns and the behaviours of the minority who were spoiling it for the rest.
94% of the public and 99% of business agreed with the proposals, which was very high by public sector standards and this was one tool that could demonstrate that inappropriate behaviour in the town centre was not acceptable.
In terms of the role of Kingdom this was on a pilot basis as part of enforcement working closely with the Police and existing Council. This already had had an impact as part of the enhanced enforcement.
The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment confirmed the consultation process was a month long and compliant with current legislation. This was not just undertaken online, but involved the local media, the Council’s website, Member seminars, Overview and Scrutiny visits, drop-in sessions, attendance at the national citizen scheme, Youth Cabinet, visits to businesses along with consultation with the Clifton Park Friends Group and the Police. Comprehensive survey statistics were so high in support of action being taken, when compared with performance on footfall in town centre which was down.
In addition, it was noted that littering was an offence across the U.K. not just in Rotherham Town Centre, and those individuals that chose to walk away from officers could possibly face obstruction offences.
Councillor Yasseen as Ward Councillor confirmed this had raised a huge amount of debate in the Ward, especially around the inclusion of Clifton Park, the need to combat the undesirable behaviours and the engagement of the public during holiday periods.
(7) A member of the public confirmed he had attended the consultation at Riverside House, which he described as not adequate. He believed a further period of consultation was warranted given the constraints being placed on dog walkers in Clifton Park, when often for pensioners this was the only time they came out of the house.
The Chair advised changes had been recommended following feedback about keeping dogs on a leash in Clifton Park.
Councillor Hoddinott, Cabinet Member for Waste, Road and Community Safety, confirmed having listened to the consultation a number of changes had been made since the original proposals. The proposal was now for dog exercise areas to be designated on the green space areas to allow walkers to allow their dogs off leash. However, the water and play areas accessed by adults and children required dogs in these areas to be kept on leads and kept under control.