Agenda item

To receive questions from members of the public who wish to ask a general question in respect of matters within the Council’s area of responsibility or influence.

Subject to the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may ask one question and one supplementary question, which should relate to the original question and answered received.

Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.

(1)          A member of the public referred to the Neighbourhood Working Strategy 2017/18 in relation to the proposed demolition of the former Kimberworth Infants School and how assets could be drawn on with buildings revitalised through community asset transfer and used as local community hubs.

Councillor Lelliott had chaired a meeting on 14^th March, 2018 which considered the Strategic Asset Management Plan and Property Reviews and a question was asked about non-operational properties and the criteria.  The criteria applied depended on the benefit to the community and use and demand for properties.  It stipulated consultation would take place with Ward Members and interested parties on the use of the properties going forward.

The member of the public, therefore, asked were the Ward Councillors consulted, did the Council explore all avenues, involve or find any interested parties, did the Council explore the possible benefit to the community and determine what the demand for this building would be, did the Council discuss, consider or determine what other use of the building and if so who and what were they.

Part of the process of asset transfers involved the asset management review and the member of the public also asked was there a stakeholder or any other list made before any decision was made to dispose of this building and why the community was not informed of the community right to bid for community asset transfers.  He referenced the Rotherham West Ward Plan which put building stronger communities at the heart. 

Councillor Lelliott confirmed the former Kimberworth Infants School building had not been declared surplus and still formed part of the Council estate.  Had it been, it would have followed the due process outlined by the member of the public as part of the asset transfer rules. 

The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Transport further reiterated the process if the building had been declared surplus to the Local Authority and how it would follow the asset transfer process.  Whilst this dilapidated building was no longer required the Council had not declared the site surplus and wished to retain this for its own use.  The building was recommended for demolition and the land was to be utilised by the Council.

In a supplementary question the member of the public failed to understand why the Council wished to retain the land, but not the building and asked what the Council required the land for.  The site co-located an NHS building at the bottom of the site and had adequate parking.  If this was to be used as further car parking this would come at a cost.  He further asked what other uses the Council had planned for the site when the building had the potential to become a fantastic community hub.  The Council’s own policy stated  that communities were to be consulted when a building was redundant, which was the case, but the land was still to be retained for further use by the Council.  In his opinion no other avenues had been explored as to the community asset transfer of this building and the community of Kimberworth knew nothing about it other than a notice of demolition poster which was pre-ordained and raised many questions.

Councillor Lelliott reiterated the building had not been declared surplus and the site in which the NHS building was located did belong to the Council. 

The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Transport confirmed Ward Members were consulted in early 2018 and the public consultation was via the published and posted demolition notice because the Council was not looking to dispose of the asset.  If the asset was not to be retained, either the building or the land, then it would have followed the asset disposal process policy.  The site initially was to be used as a car park to support the joint Council and NHS services co-located in this area. 

The member of the public questioned the level of car parking by the NHS building at the bottom of the site which he believed had adequate car parking and was not needed.  Since the publication of the demolition notice very few vehicles had been observed in the car park.

To assist the Leader of the Council asked that the Service set out in detail in writing the plans for this site.

(2)          A member of the public also referred to the response to the question raised at the Council Meeting on the 5^th September, 2018 relating to the former Kimberworth Infants School where he asked what were the Council’s operational requirements for this site if it did not require the building and regarding any security on the length of tenure on the asset transfer.  He referred to matters that were happening on this site and asked what the obvious things were when the car parking was adequate  for the NHS and nothing to do with the Council ownership on this land or an evident need for a car park.

The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Transport confirmed there were financial considerations around maintaining a redundant building.  Additional use for the site was for a car park to support the NHS and Council on that site.

In a supplementary question the member of the public asked what was happening on the site that would allow a poor security of tenure as referred to at the Council Meeting on 5^th September, 2018.

Councillor Lelliott again confirmed there was a requirement for car parking overspill for those co-located services that were already on the site. 

The Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Transport pointed out the Council did not deem this site to be sold or leased to another organisation, but the asset was to be retained.  Building demolition would follow and Ward Members had been informed accordingly.

(3)          A member of the public asked what was proposed or planned for the Addison Centre or the land when the building closed down for its services.

Councillor Roche confirmed a number of options were being considered, but no definite plan.  Nexus had now met with officers and had expressed interest in that building as a post-16 centre and this would be considered further once the centre was closed.  Any other interest in the building or the site would also be considered should any come forward.

In a supplementary question the member of the public asked why would the Council wait until the building closed before any changes occurred and would there be further consultation with the surrounding areas about future use.

Councillor Roche confirmed Nexus was not interested in taking forward the building until it was empty and he would need to look into whether or not further consultation would be required and appropriate legal advice sought.