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 Carter asked what independent legal advice had the Council taken that the service Dignity provided was not discriminatory?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the Council obtained independent Legal advice from Ward Hadaway in February, 2018 that the service Dignity provided was not discriminatory. This took into account the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equalities Act 2010.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter believed February, 2018 was before the court case in London and asked if any subsequent legal advice in light of that Coroner’s case had been obtained.
Councillor Hoddinott was happy to double check with officers to see if they had sought further legal advice.
(2) Councillor Cowles in considering the Eastwood plan, resources, tasks and timescales, was not aware of anyone who had ever seen such a plan showing the details in this way and asked could the Cabinet Member tell him when he could expect to see an acceptable end to the current cost and waste of resource?
Councillor Hoddinott wondered if Councillor Cowles was alternating each month about cost and action being taken.
The deal was on the Council website and reiterated that over the last two years:-
· Enforcement activity was up. Currently there were 115 open enforcement cases with over half of those receiving enforcement notices.
· Crime was down by 17%.
· Anti-social behaviour was down by a fifth.
· The quality of housing was up. Nearly half of all properties inspected had a Category 1 hazard with 99% being compliant with licensing conditions.
Had the advice from UKIP been followed then the Council would be looking at nearly half of the privately rented properties in Eastwood still being substandard.
In terms of the detail of activity and tasking this was agreed between officers and partners with regular meetings and in conjunction with feedback from Ward Members. The Council would continue to take action, in Eastwood, the same as anywhere else in the borough, based on the needs of each community.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles disbelieved the statistics and their accuracy. Baseline figures had been requested at the start to measure improvements and had never been set. In terms of selective licensing he had asked several times about individual properties and had brought these to the Cabinet Member’s attention. In relation to cost there were many reasons why money was short in the Council.
Councillor Cowles referred to an extract he intended to raise at the last Council meeting and quoted “Just back from a walk around Eastwood. What I have seen around the bottom of Grosvenor Road makes you feel sick. Groups of rats feeding on waste and St. Ann’s subway is the same with rats running around. This has all been reported many times and no progress.”
He asked, therefore, would the Cabinet Member include a task on the plan to call for the Pied Piper or would she take up the pipes herself to get rid of the rats as nothing so far has worked.
Councillor Hoddinott found it completely unfair on the work taking place in Eastwood and in the community to say nothing had worked. Baseline figures were from the Police and the Council over the last two years. There were still issues in the community and residents were encouraged to come forward to raise concerns and the Council would continue to take action.
The recent work in St. Ann’s subway between the community and Ward Councillors was transforming that area especially with the mural that had been created. Members and the community were prepared to roll up their sleeves and work for the better good and the Cabinet Member would not pull people down for working hard in that area.
(3) Councillor Carter asked if there weresanitary products freely available in schools within the borough for students to access without having to request them?
Councillor Carter would be provided with a written response to his question from the relevant Cabinet Member.
(4) Councillor Cowles pointed out some issues were considered to be important enough for public consultation, beyond those that required statutory consultation, prior to the decision being taken. He asked what criteria was used to determine whether or not public consultation was necessary for any decision that may be required?
The Leader confirmed that if statutory consultation was not required, then the need for consultation was at the discretion of the relevant service senior management (Assistant Director). There were no fixed criteria used to determine the need for consultation, but it was considered good practice to consult with the public when there was a planned service change, change in budgets or planned policy development that would have a significant impact on a community or service users.
Councillor Cowles asked this supplementary question because like many other people he had mistakenly believed that Rotherham had dispersal status imposed by the Home Office. He was in receipt of a FOI that clarified this was not so. In 2000 under the leadership of Councillor Mark Edgell Rotherham volunteered to become a dispersal town and clearly this was not up to public consultation. Due to the current position was it possible to end this contract until other leafy boroughs were prepared to share the burden as Rotherham was struggling to manage and pay for the situation.
The Leader was unable to comment on whether consultation took place eighteen years ago. Rotherham would continue to do its bit for the humanitarian efforts of this country by providing people who were in many cases fleeing for their lives looking for a home and sanctuary and he was proud to do this.
It was not possible to withdraw from the scheme; once an area had signed up and it was part of the scheme indefinitely. The Leader agreed the scheme would be much better if it was mandatory across the country and everyone was doing their bit the same as in Rotherham. If housing system was not run for profit by G4S where there was low cost housing, concentrations of people who were seeking asylum would not be put into specific places.
The Leader had issues about the way the Government ran the scheme, but Rotherham backing out now would be a retrograde step.
(5) Councillor Carter asked did the Cabinet Member have full confidence in the Parking Enforcement Team?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed, as the Cabinet Member, she had full confidence in the Parking Enforcement Team.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked, given the last financial year had 10% rescinded parking tickets, did the Cabinet Member think the parking enforcement was too draconian in the town centre.
Councillor Lelliott did not agree. The Council did listen and sometimes enforcement tickets were issued, but there may be a genuine reason why someone was parked illegally. She had every confidence in the work of parking enforcement.
(6) Councillor Carter asked did the administration believe their Town Centre Parking Policy encouraged the use of the town centre?
Councillor Lelliott believed the Council’s Town Centre Parking Policy encouraged the use of the Town Centre. Over the last few years, the Council had introduced a number of schemes to make parking easier and to support economic growth.
The Council simplified town centre parking charges and significantly reduced medium and long stay tariffs in April, 2016. The number of medium (4 hour) and all day parking activities have increased significantly since the tariff changes which indicated that customers were staying in town for longer periods.
Since then a range of concessions had been introduced at a number of Rotherham’s car parks including:-
· Free parking all day on Saturdays in the whole of Forge Island car park and free parking for 2 hours in Forge Island car park “Red Zone” from Monday to Friday.
· Free parking for 2 hours in Drummond Street car park “Red Zone” from Monday to Saturday.
· Buy 2 hours, get 2 free offer, in Wellgate multi-storey, Drummond Street, Riverside, Clifton Hall and Scala car parks on Saturdays.
· 60 free limited stay parking spaces on Sheffield Road.
· Concessionary priced parking permits in a number of off-street car parks.
· Free parking is in place on each of the six Saturdays on the approach to Christmas.
The Council had also made paying at car parks easier with the introduction of a ‘pay on foot’ system at Wellgate multi-storey car park and whilst finances remained tight options for further discounts remained limited, but the service would continue to see what could be done.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter pointed out he had in the past six weeks received two Fixed Penalty Notices, both of which had been rescinded as it could be proven the appropriate parking charge had been paid. If this had happened twice to him did it not cause a distraction for people coming to the town centre and may lead to residents preferring to shop elsewhere. Would the Cabinet Member agree these charges detracted from people coming to the town centre.
Councillor Lelliott found the question confusing, but confirmed the Service listened to comments from residents and business and had a number of initiatives ongoing. Rotherham also benefitted from sustainable transport and clean air zones and with the improvements to the interchange this would assist in getting more people back into the town centre.
(7) Councillor Cowles reiterated during the budget setting process savings of £100k were proposed by the Strategic Director based on a contract directly with Kingdom for a future enforcement programme. He asked if the Council now contracted via a third party would these savings still be fully realised, if not, what mitigation was proposed?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the details of the proposed SLA with Doncaster were currently being finalised. Officers from Rotherham and Doncaster were working alongside their lawyers to conclude the legal drafting as soon as possible. This was new money into the Council and those that littered should pay to assist with clearing up.
Whilst that process was not yet complete, it did seem that the surplus generated may well be less than £100k a year and if this was the case then measures to address the budget position would be agreed through Cabinet.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the discussions in scrutiny and the attempts to reconcile where savings have been proposed and not realised. It would seem that the savings proposed were never likely to be realised based on the Cabinet Member’s answer and asked that this be kept under review. Scrutiny would want answers from the Strategic Director and the Cabinet Member as to why £100k of savings were brought forward which were accepted and would not be achieved. There was no wonder the Council could not balance the budget if these actions were taken.
Councillor Hoddinott agreed the savings should be tracked and monitored. The savings were around enhanced enforcement and not specifically around this contract and in looking back through the papers all the figures were estimates and projections. If the savings did not hit the estimated target officers have to find the savings and come up with ways this could be mitigated. This would come back through Cabinet. This was good budget management.
(8) Councillor Brookes asked would the Council consider adopting bee-friendly grass cutting as well as implementing a pollinator action plan? Councils that have introduced these were not only discharging their duty to conserve biodiversity in the most comprehensive way, but were saving between £35,000 - £93,000 a year.
Councillor Allen confirmed yes the Council would be more than happy to consider Councillor Brooke’s suggestion. The Council’s approach to grounds maintenance was constantly under review.
The Council already had a number of areas across the Borough where grass was cut less often, in order to encourage wildlife and save tax-payers money and the Council was willing to consider whether the number of areas could be increased. A number of central reservations across the Borough also had bee-friendly wildflowers in place, instead of the short grass that had historically been in place. This had saved the Council money and encouraged biodiversity.
Given Councillor Brookes’ passion and knowledge on this subject the Cabinet Member wondered if she would be prepared to meet herself and relevant officers about what further possibilities could be implemented.
In a supplementary question Councillor Brookes referred to a recent poll where the public were calling on Councils to cut grass less frequently to encourage bees. Given how easy and cost effective this would be with the public would the Cabinet Member agree that this should be a priority for the upcoming budget?
Councillor Allen pointed out there would be a whole raft of priorities for the budget. As part of the grounds maintenance provision there was a Members’ Working Group around Streetpride Services and it could take recommendations to the Budget Working Group. Councillor Brookes was invited to work with the group and join them in taking this issue forward.
(9) Councillor Carter referred to the Council already accepting that Bawtry Road was so dangerous that it needed a puffin crossing, but asked how could they justify axing the lollipop lady this summer when the Cabinet Member had said there would not be a puffin crossing until summer 2019?
Councillor Carter would be provided with a written response to his question from the relevant Cabinet Member.
(10) Councillor Cusworth asked could the Cabinet Member please provide an update on the 2020 Roads Programme?
Councillor Hoddinott explained this was a key pledge of the Labour Group and it was a common complaint from residents. This Three Year Programme would deliver an extra £10m of investment in local estate roads across Rotherham and would aim to bring roads up to the national standard. Progress was good.
In 2017/18 the Council repaired an extra 90 local estate roads, covering over 13 miles and in 2018/19 122 local estate roads would be repaired, covering approximatively 17 miles.
The 2020 Roads Programme would also deliver £1m of investment in footpaths in 2018/19. This would focus on improving the condition of pavements, based on highways inspections, customer reports, and feedback from Ward Councillors. This year 104 footways would be repaired, amounting to around 23 miles.
It was also worth noting that, across all road classifications and all funding streams, the Council would have repaired over 350 roads over the course of the last year and this.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cusworth confirmed it was apparent that it was not the odd isolated road that required some repairs. Residents in Swinton were delighted not only with the standard of repair, but also the communication from the teams ahead of time and consideration by staff out there doing the job. She asked had the comments received in Swinton been echoed across the borough.
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the service did receive compliments and it was important to share these with staff. The road repair service was provided in-house and the satisfaction rates were positive, despite the disruption and noise caused by the work taking place. The Cabinet Member was proud of the work undertaken by in-house staff.
(11) Councillor Carter asked, given the strength of feeling from day care centre users at the last Council meeting, would the Cabinet Member agree to meet with the lead campaigners?
Councillor Roche confirmed he had already met and quite regularly met with carers from a range of services including two recent meetings with the committee from Deaf Futures and with people concerning disability access.
In relation of the day care closures for example he regularly went to a pre-meeting of the Carers Forum where questions have been put to him and points made about the day care closures both during the consultation and further, once the decision had been made.
Councillor Roche had also recently attended a meeting at Rotherham Trades Club where there were approximately fifteen people present. He regularly met with carers including some this week. He was not aware of the people who were leading the campaign, but assumed that some of them had attended the meetings he referred to above and raised questions/put their points of view.
The decision concerning day care centres had been taken by Cabinet and he strongly believed the Cabinet’s decision was right.
Councillor Roche was more than happy to meet with carers concerning day care centres on an individual basis and strongly believed that in terms of meetings the priority now must be meeting carers in such meetings where they have questions, concerns to raise, to try to support and re-assure those people with concerns as the process went forward. This was rightly where his priority needed to be.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked, given the Cabinet Member had met so many residents, service users and carers involved why was there still so much anger about how they felt in the dark about the changes made and the Cabinet Member had not been able to adequately explain the rationale for the decision.
Councillor Roche explained the Service was putting in place the assessment process and once in chain people would start to see progress and their anxieties would be lessened. Councillor Roche was unable to answer for the service users and carers themselves.
(12) Councillor Cusworth asked how did RMBC compare with our local neighbours when it came to housebuilding?
Councillor Beck confirmed Rotherham generally compared well with its municipal neighbours and was on a par with places like Doncaster, Barnsley and Bassetlaw. Over the last three years the Council had brought 1600 new homes into the social rented sector of which about 20% the Council had directly contributed towards.
The Council was committed to replace as many Council homes as possible lost through the Right to Buy and so has allocated £50m of Housing Revenue Account to fund the construction of 443 more new homes over the next three years as a direct result of getting involved. As a result of this nearly 40% of the new homes being delivered were as a direct result of the Council’s involvement through direct delivery or projects like the one at Braithwell Road, Maltby or with Housing Associations.
The Council was progressing, but wanted to do more. It was remarkable from where it started and when comparing against other Local Authorities Rotherham should be proud that it was doing all it could to try to replace homes lost through the right to buy scheme which was 202 during 2017/18.
The Cabinet Member also wished to place on record his own thanks to the Housing Team and the officers that worked very hard on behalf of residents providing a good quality service.
(13) Councillor John Turner asked after the current house building programme had been completed and we began to experience the effects of this on road congestion, loss of green space, lack of doctors’ services and lack of school places etc., what plans were the Council making to resist future demands on our space?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed the growth proposed by the Local Plan would be supported by an infrastructure delivery plan that highlighted such road improvements, school places, local facilities and improved green spaces required, which would be part of the planning process.
When the plan was drafted and consulted on, all the proposed development sites were assessed to look at the impact they may have and a sustainability appraisal carried out. The sites chosen were those with least impact, or where mitigation could be put in place.
Having a plan in place ensured that there would not be unrestricted sprawl. Growth would be planned so that developers knew where they could and could not build – and local communities knew which areas were protected.
At the last meeting the Cabinet Member confirmed only a small amount of green belt was expected to be lost over the next fifteen years, meaning that residents could look forward to hundreds of years of green belt land in the borough.
In a supplementary question Councillor Turner asked would the Council be aware he was seriously concerned about the future consequences about traffic congestion with unrestrained building with very little amenity and grass left. The Planning Board would become an enforcement agency.
Councillor Lelliott pointed out that 70% of the borough was green. The Local Plan protected green belt and green spaces. This would stop the unrestrained development. Traffic congestion was not always caused by housing developments, but with people wanting cars and not using public transport. Infrastructure needed improvement, but this was a national issue.
(14) Councillor Cusworth confirmed she grew up on Bramwell Street in Eastwood and some of her happiest memories were of visiting Clifton Park on hot summer days throughout my childhood and she asked how did Clifton Park rate when compared with other parks and green spaces across the Region?
Councillor Allen confirmed she too had similar memories about visiting Clifton Park. This enduring fondness by many people had contributed to the Park being voted as being one of the country’s top ten parks in a popular vote organised by the Green Flag scheme.
On regional basis it was the only park in Yorkshire that had the Green Flag Award scheme recognised. Not only had Clifton Park achieved this award every year since 2011, but it had also received special recognition in both 2016 and 2017 when it was selected as one. It was one of only two parks in the north to win in 2017, and one of only six parks nationally to retain the title. Furthermore, the Park had been accredited as a Green Heritage Site for the first time in 2018, recognising the high quality of care given to the historic character of the Park and available for many generations to come.
(15) Councillor John Turner asked if he could be assured that future trips to the continent with the Police Band, of which suitable explanations were resolutely not given, would not take place again such that neither would the consequences?
The Leader confirmed yes Members could be assured that this would not happen again during his term as Leader.