Agenda item

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS TO CABINET MEMBERS AND CHAIRMEN

 

To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor B. Cutts was unable to attend the meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

 

(2)  Councillor B. Cutts was unable to attend the meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

 

(3)  Councillor Carter asked when would he be able to see the expected improvements to road safety on Bawtry Road?

 

Councillor Hoddinott explained the consultation started in February and no objectives were received.  The Cabinet Member was pleased to report that the works would now be progressed and this would take place during the summer holidays.

 

(4)  Councillor Carter asked following earlier commitments, which two new pedestrian crossings did the Authority plan to erect during this financial year?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the following crossings would be delivered through the 2018/19 Highway Capital Programme:-

 

·             Fenton Road, Wingfield

·             Morthen Road, Wickersley

 

Both schemes were at the design stage and would be delivered within this financial year.  The Fenton Road crossing was at a more advanced stage in the design process and was likely to be delivered first. 

 

Councillor Hoddinott thanked Councillor Carter for raising this issue, but pointed out that it was part of the budget proposals to increase the number of pedestrian crossings each year which Councillor Carter had actually voted against.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked given the crossings were based on order of priority where was Bawtry Road on the list.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the Bawtry Road pedestrian crossing was number three on the list so residents would see works commence at the start of the next financial year.  However, as works were already due to take place on Bawtry Road it was feasible to start some of the works on the crossing in preparation this summer with an anticipated completion date early in the next financial year.

 

(5)  Councillor Napper asked how many planning applications a year did R.M.B.C.’s Planning Department receive?

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed in 2017 there had been 1,862 applications received.  This represented an average of 1,729 applications over the period.

 

(6)  Councillor Napper asked how many people worked in the Planning and Building Control Department from Strategic Director down?

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed there were 48 officers which was 43.21 full time equivalents.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper referred to complaints he had received about the time it was taking to process applications and where there appeared to be discrepancies in what was allowed to be built in certain places.

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed she was happy to meet Councillor Napper outside the meeting to discuss.

 

(7)   Councillor John Turner asked what was the present cost to run the waste disposal wagons per year and what was the cost of hire when vehicles broke down (how much per year)?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the total cost of running the Council’s refuse and recycling collection fleet was £1.73 million per year and of that cost, £1.03 million (60%) was associated with the hire of vehicles.

 

Within these costs there were a number of ‘spare’ vehicles which covered breakdowns, and scheduled MOTs, servicing and vehicle inspections.

 

At the last Council meeting the decision was taken to allow the service to go out to tender to buy a number of replacement refuse and recycling collection vehicles. This approach was expected to save the Council around £470,000 per year.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Turner referred to the process of emptying refuse vehicles, the speed of the refuse vehicles travelling he had observed in his own area and the damaged caused to vehicles through speed reduction measures.  He asked if this had an impact on the hiring of vehicles, if the decision was taken to purchase Council owned vehicles and if an incentive could be adopted for operatives in keeping costs to vehicles to a minimum.

 

Councillor Hoddinott would happily pass on the suggestion.  Any concerns about refuse vehicles speeding on residential roads should be reported and to alleviate costs the first thing management had introduced in refuse vehicles was fuel efficiency in-cab technology which could be viewed on site at the depot for any Members wishing to visit.   The purchase of refuse vehicles was also another measure to reduce costs.

 

(8)  Councillor John Turner asked was there a particular area of the refuse vehicle that was vulnerable to breakdown e.g. suspension?

 

Councillor Hoddinott had been advised by the service that it was the compaction body of the vehicles where defects tended to occur most often.

 

(9)  Councillor John Turner withdrew Question 9.

 

(10)  Councillor Carter would be provided with a written response to his question from the relevant Cabinet Member.

 

(11)  Councillor Carter thought about the consultation on learning disability services held late last year and asked how well were those using the services able to engage in the consultation?

 

Councillor Roche explained consultation over Rotherham’s offer to people with learning disabilities took place in two stages. In November 2016, Cabinet and Commissioners agreed the first stage, a broad consultation about the Council’s services and the expectations of service users, their families and other stakeholders.

 

This ran between 5th December, 2016 and 2nd February, 2017, and engaged 627 people, including 23 engagement opportunities (one to one conversations, group discussions and focus groups).

 

That consultation informed a further report to Cabinet and Commissioners in July 2017, which proposed further consultation, including specific proposals for the building-based day services at Oaks Day Centre, Addison Road, and Treefields and Quarryhill respite centres.

 

That consultation period ran from 3rd October to 22nd December, 2017. 

 

In the pre-consultation period, the Council engaged with customers with a learning disability and their carers about the content, process and method of consultation to ensure equity of access across the stakeholder groups.  Following this engagement an online questionnaire was finalised; a set of flashcards developed for people with complex needs and an easy read paper based questionnaire was developed with the support of a doctor and researcher specialising in learning disabilities and autism.

 

Engagement sessions were set up and facilitated by the Council and Speakup Advocacy service. A ‘train the trainer’ programme was run to support and prepare twelve consultation champions: a one hour session every two weeks for the duration of the consultation period repeated in each of the three day centres.  The sessions encouraged feedback from those present at the sessions.  The consultation champions then fed back to the Council in week twelve of the consultation period.

 

Flyers were produced and distributed to customers and their carers. In order to promote maximum awareness of the consultation to the wider community, a total of six press releases were distributed to launch the consultation and remind people to take part and as a result the story featured in local news publications including the Rotherham Advertiser. The consultation was advertised on RMBC’s website with a bespoke consultation page and a news story linking to the online consultation.  Information about the consultation was shared with our communication partners including the Rotherham Together Partnership (consisting of 19 different organisations) and local colleges. 

 

Hard copies of the easy read consultation questionnaire were also available on request.

 

473 responses were received which formed the basis of the report to Cabinet and Commissioners in May this year and the Cabinet Member and other officers had spoken to the Carers’ Forum several times.

 

The view was that the core principles that must be followed in any lawful public consultation process have been complied with: the Council had been open and transparent; there have been various opportunities to encourage engagement and include people in a variety of ways to elicit informed responses that were taken into account when a decision made about the future of the in-house respite and adult day services.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked about the 473 responses to the consultation, what proportion of these were service users and of these the proportion who had severe needs.

 

Councillor Roche confirmed 177 were from people with a learning disability, 112 carers, 99 staff and 85 members of the public.

 

(12)  Councillor Carter asked could the Cabinet Member assure residents that the changes to learning disabilities services would safeguard against those with learning disabilities becoming socially isolated?

 

Councillor Roche explained that he would very much hope that the changes would help those with learning disabilities to have more opportunities for social interaction, not fewer.  If he did not believe that the changes being brought in for the better he would not support them.

 

No changes would be made to anybody’s service without a full reassessment if the outcome of that reassessment was that people need support to maintain their friendships and not doing so would have a significant impact on their wellbeing as the Council were duty bound to facilitate and support these relationships.  This could be done in a variety of ways and settings outside of the building-based model.

 

Social isolation and loneliness covered all sectors and all ages and not just those with learning disabilities which was why an action plan was being put together to tackle this aspect in Rotherham.  Councillor Roche was happy to sit down with Councillor Carter and answer any questions about this process.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked about the move away from building based learning, which had been reported in Southampton, which showed this move to person based provision did increase the level of mental ill health and social isolation.  Given this fact why was the Council moving away from the building based provision?

 

Councillor Roche explained he was aware of the reports, but he was more than happy to discuss this in more detail.  However, moving to a personalised based service did not increase social isolation and as reported already today the Council, as part of the assessments, would take seriously into account friendship groups.

 

(13)  Councillor Carter asked with the escalating costs and restrictive opening times, could the Cabinet Member confirm that two letters to Dignity was the total correspondence they have had since May 2017 and what had the response been from Dignity?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed this was not the total.  In addition to the letters referred to, officers were in regular dialogue with Dignity in respect of a wide range of issues including reviewing service provision and monitoring the performance of the contract. As reported previously a new performance management regime was being implemented with regular monthly meetings.

 

The Chair of the Improving Places Select Commission had invited Councillor Carter to the meetings as they had been involved with the performance framework and the reporting lines.  The meeting later this month would also be looking into this further.

 

As reported previously Dignity had not yet increased prices in 2018, the next price increase would be considered in October 2018, following completion of the refurbishment works but no fees have been set.

 

The most recent letter was sent to Dignity on 29th May, to which they had not yet responded.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked would the Cabinet Member be chasing up this latest correspondence and what response was the Cabinet Member hoping to receive from Dignity.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed she would chase up the correspondence, but the Council also had the opportunity at scrutiny to put this to Dignity. 

 

The Cabinet Member would continue to press on the concerns raised by residents about the costs, comparisons to other authorities, opening hours, how it was dealing with religious requirements, costs of memorials etc.  There had been a bit of movement on the freeze of costs, but the Cabinet Member would continue to press Dignity on these issues to get the best from the contract for residents.

 

(14)  Councillor Carter asked about a senior coroner for Inner North London who was found to be discriminatory by not taking into account religious beliefs and customs when managing workload. Given Dignity’s restrictive opening hours did the Cabinet Member share his concern that a similar case could happen here?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed she was aware of this key case in terms of discrimination.  Both the Cabinet Member and Councillor Alam had looked in terms of equalities and sought assurances that the Coroner in Rotherham had always and continued to take into account religious and non-religious requests.  The Coroner had not been operating in the way that had been criticised in North London.  

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked how the restricted opening times of the Dignity contract could be deemed discriminatory and whether as a Council this was something we had considered.

 

Councillor Hoddinott explained the case in North London was more about the Coroner not making any changes in terms of religious beliefs and simply dealt with things in date order. 

 

Dignity did offer a short notice burial service for religious or non-religious reasons and would endeavour to meet requests for short notice burials so did not feel they were in breach of this duty, but would continue to look at this further.

 

This was a key legal case, but it was more for what was wanted for residents which was beyond that to provide a good service in Rotherham.

 

(15)  Councillor Carter asked when people with learning disabilities were re-assessed, would they get the same level of support which they have currently, and could the administration guarantee that this would be at no extra cost to both them and their families?

 

Councillor Roche confirmed the assessment process would determine the best way to meet each person’s unmet eligible needs and this would be discussed with the family and people who were part of the customer’s life.

 

As part of our Care Act 2014 duties the Council were required to review individuals who receive funded care at least annually and/or when individual circumstances changed. The assessment process was holistic and person centred. The outcome could not be determined by the amount of funding available.

 

If a need was identified, which was impacting upon an individual’s wellbeing, the Council was duty bound to meet that need.  

 

A detailed co-produced support plan would be agreed with the customer and/or advocate. It, therefore, could not be agreed that the same level of support would be provided following the assessment as this would not take into account individual needs and support requirements.

 

Some customer may receive less funded care as suitable no cost or low cost alternatives were available to fully meet their needs. However, some customers may require more support following a review, as their circumstances have changed.

 

It must be stressed that the Council could not change the services customers receive without conducting a full assessment of their needs.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked about direct payments and how these families would be taken into account as part of the assessment process. Would they be able to access the same support through the direct payments scheme and use this for similar sort of services determined by the assessments.

 

Councillor Roche pointed out that the day care services would not be there.  Until all the assessments were complete it was not possible to say what provision would be available.

 

The Cabinet Member was more than happy to discuss this further with officers with Councillor Carter about direct payments, but this was only one way forward not the only way.

 

(16)  Councillor Carter asked how could the Council guarantee that there would be enough suitably trained care workers to meet the needs of residents with learning disabilities?

 

Councillor Roche confirmed that as part of the learning disabilities transformation work there had been engagement and discussion with 51 new and existing providers to continue to shape and expand the current offer for people with learning disabilities and or Autism.

 

Some of these organisations were run by former day care centre staff and the Cabinet Member had heard presentations from them.  He was pleased to see what a good job they were going to do.  Existing learning disability providers did have skilled and experienced staff.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter was aware that 30% of carers moved between jobs and asked did the Cabinet Member think this process would increase or decrease this level for service users.

 

Councillor Roche was unable to say one service could be substituted for another.  However, in some cases some provision would be similar as there were organisations out there to meet the need.  This was about personalised services and it may be that a group of friends during the assessment could decide themselves with support that they would go to an existing provision.  Until all the assessments were completed it was not possible to predict whether levels would increase or decrease with the moving away from building based provision.

 

(17)  Councillor Carter asked could the new learning disability strategy also guarantee a bed for emergencies or in sickness like the Council could presently offer?

 

Councillor Roche explained that in respect to emergency beds or emergency placements this would be looked at on an individual basis and there was capacity within the external market to provide respite beds for customers if it was deemed that this was needed. There were currently 10 externally commissioned beds and this capacity was due to increase in the future as part of the Council’s Learning Disability Strategy.

 

In addition to the respite beds, there was also emergency support for carers available through the Carers’ Emergency Service in their own home.  This was when the carer could not provide their usual substantial level of care to a relative or friend due to an unforeseen situation such as ill health, accident or admission to hospital. The care under this scheme could be provided on the day of the request, within two hours if necessary, and may be for short periods of time to undertake specific tasks or for up to 24 hour care in the home.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked if any of these current beds were closing as a result of these current changes.

 

Councillor Roche pointed out that respite care was provided at all times for all users.

 

(18)  Councillor B. Cutts was unable to attend the meeting so his question would be answered in writing.

 

(19)  Councillor Carter asked how could the Council justify sacrificing vital green spaces to developers when they were unable to deliver housebuilding projects on vacant brownfield sites in the borough?

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed there was simply not enough suitable brownfield land within Rotherham for the new homes and jobs needed. Because of this, the Council had had to identify some greenfield sites along with Green Belt land that could be released for new homes and employment.

 

The Council had negotiated a lower new homes target, which the Inspector agreed with for around 14,000 houses. This met the Borough’s needs for new homes and jobs whilst limiting the amount of greenfield and Green Belt for development.

 

The sites identified by the Council have been through many stages of public consultation and then examined by a Government Inspector. The Inspector had made some limited changes to the plan, but had accepted the vast majority of sites. He said that they were the most appropriate choices and should be supported.

 

The plan included strong policies to protect land that was now allocated as Green Space.

 

(20)  Councillor Cowles referred at a Neighbourhood Watch Meeting Inspector Paul Ferguson saying, “Eastwood is affected by many problems and, there does not seem to be any effective counter measures. We continue to repeat previous efforts. In particular those of Steve Parry, now regarded as ineffective.” and asked why was the Cabinet Member not listening and learning?

 

Councillor Hoddinott was aware of the meeting and had been in contact with the Chair and spoken to Inspector Paul Ferguson directly. It would appear Councillor Cowles had not.   Inspector Ferguson had not said what Councillor Cowles claimed he had.  So rather than accusing the Cabinet Member of not listening, perhaps Councillor Cowles should take the time to stop misrepresenting people and get his facts straight instead.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the last Council Meeting when Ward Councillor Fenwick-Green asked about what improvements had been made with the Eastwood Deal and asked for confirmation.  For those not familiar with the state of Eastwood  there was a plan which needed major revision.  He suggested that an action be included that the Cabinet Member send for the pied piper or learn to the play the pipes as it was the only way to get rid of the rats in Eastwood.

 

Councillor Hoddinott asked the Mayor to ask Councillor Cowles to apologise for his last comment as it sounded as though he was referring to the people of Eastwood as rats.  She hoped this was not the case and his comments were clarified.

 

The Mayor believed the comments to be totally inappropriate and invited Councillor Cowles to make any apology.

 

Councillor Cowles did not wish to offer any apology.

 

(21)  Councillor Carter asked would the Cabinet Member agree with him that the departure of yet another store from Rotherham High Street in Greenwoods was another example of a lack of confidence in the Council's Town Centre Masterplan and also its failure to implement a radical solution?

 

Councillor Lelliott disagreed with Councillor Carter.

 

(22)   Councillor Cowles understood that following the earlier successful trial of litter enforcement it was proposed to re-engage Kingdom. Previously the Council contracted directly with the company and he asked would the Council continue to contract directly with this company, or would an alternative arrangement be put in place and, if so, why and with whom?

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the trial did show enhanced enforcement was successful and was keen to pursue this further and discussions were now ongoing about the provision of additional enforcement resources on an ongoing basis through a partnership arrangement with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to continue this approach.   The decision was taken in January and a full report was taken to Cabinet.  The Cabinet Member was happy to share the detail.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to previous arrangements i.e. Dignity and the contract which was less than ideal which the Cabinet Member had not negotiated.  With this new arrangement contracted through a third party would the Cabinet Member confirm if this resulted in a positive position on the Council’s finances or a negative one.  If it was negative, by how much and why was this option selected.

 

Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the primary reason for this contact was to bring about enhanced enforcement.  As a result of the number of fines issued some income came back into the Council after legal costs and processing which went back into the service.  It was important to get the contract right and a long session took place at Improving Places where Members had the opportunity to look in detail at the trial and decide what they wanted from the service going forward.  This would then ensure that the recommendations put forward were in place in the contract and feedback from Members at the forefront.  There would be a positive impact as it would provide income to the Council.

 

(23)  Councillor Napper referred to R.M.B.C.’s Local Plan and the areas where building was planned and asked were there any covenants on any of this land apart from Boston Park.

 

Councillor Lelliott explained when the Council prepared the Local Plan, any constraints such as covenants on land were taken into account, where known. The Council did, however, rely on information provided by the land owners and developers who put forward sites for the plan.

 

The examination of the plan by an independent Government Inspector allowed for scrutiny of each site. Therefore, anyone with an interest in a site could identify and make known, any covenants or other issues which may have affected the development of the site. Following the examination process, the Council was not aware of any covenants directly affecting the development sites in the plan.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Napper asked if Legal Services had looked at all the land to ensure there were no covenants and had the Inspector been given all the information required.  This would prevent old landowners objecting to development on land that they gave over.

 

Councillor Lelliott explained the role of the Local Plan was to establish that a site was suitable in principle for development.  The Plan did not assess in detail every eventuality for sites, as these were matters that were explored in specific planning applications.

 

Granting planning permission did not override the restrictions that might be contained within a covenant. It would be for the developer to ensure they had unrestricted rights to implement any planning permission or seek to overcome those issues.

 

(24)  Councillor Carter referred last year to the Council expecting incidents of fly tipping to increase. Given this, what additional resources have the administration planned to introduce to combat this issue?

 

Councillor Allen explained in terms of resources to combat fly tipping the service had installed ten CCTV units in selective licensing areas, purchased a number of covert cameras to be used in rural locations and were in the process of recruiting an additional enforcement officer to work on this, as well additional CCTV to tackle all sorts of anti-social behaviour cross the borough. 

 

Councillor Allen was pleased the Council had made this commitment in the budget and was sure residents in Councillor Carter’s ward would be interested to know that he voted against the commitment. 

 

In the way the Council investigated fly tipping, to make the most of the intelligence, this has led to real improvements in the level of enforcement action being undertaken. There has been a 68% increase in enforcement action for fly-tipping, with 14 fixed penalty notices issued and 28 prosecution cases developed for fly tipping and other waste offences. This year the Council used these powers for the first time to seize 18 vehicles which had been used in the commission of fly tipping and other waste offences, which was an overall robust approach to enforcement.

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Carter referred to a number of fly tipping hotspots in his own ward and asked could the Cabinet Member ensure the service was shown areas such as Grange Lane in Brinsworth and if this would be a priority for some covert cameras in the future.

 

Councillor Allen confirmed if Councillor Carter wanted to share the details of the hotspot areas this would be checked against the information and she would feed back to Councillor Carter in due course.

 

(25)  Councillor Cowles referred to the Howard family have written to the Chief Executive requesting an explanation of why RMBC plan to allow Yorkshire Water to build a reservoir on park land burdened by a restrictive covenant. It suggests the Planning Board were not given the full facts and asked were they misleading?

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed that when a decision is made on a planning application, only certain issues were taken into account; these were often referred to as ‘material planning considerations’. These were issues that may be relevant to the decision. The weight attached to material considerations in reaching a decision was a matter of judgement for the decision-taker, however, the decision-taker was required to demonstrate that in reaching that decision that they have considered all relevant matters.  Generally greater weight was attached to the relevant issues raised which were supported by evidence rather than solely by assertion.  

 

Private issues between neighbours, such as restrictive covenants were non-material planning considerations and thus not relevant to the decision by the Planning Board. The planning officer’s report, which was part of the agenda supplied to Members (and which was available to view on the Council’s website) clearly stated on page 42 that restrictive legal covenants were not something that could be taken into account when considering a planning application. Any refusal of planning permission based on the status of a restrictive covenant could expose the Council to risk of legal challenge. 

 

In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles understood the netting of trees in the park to avoid nesting and being disturbed by construction work had now been removed.  Normally a minimum of early March to early July would be recommended for the procedure and asked what the significance of this was.

 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed a response to this would be provided in writing.