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.
Minutes:
(1) A member of the public referred to the two year budget proposals for the financial year 2021 when the number of Councillors was set to reduce by four. This meant a potential saving of £42,000 which was not listed or could not be seen in the consultation proposals and he asked was this because after the next local elections it was the intention to secretly and quietly confirm an increase of 6.7% in the many Councillors’ basic allowance?
The Leader, supported by the Strategic Director of Finance, confirmed that a reduction would be built into the Medium Term Financial Strategy so where costs naturally fell out these would be included. There was no secret plan for increasing Members' allowances.
In a supplementary question the member of the public referred to the difference in special responsibilities where Rotherham’s were far higher than in Sheffield by around £100,000. This in itself was far more than twenty of the separate items on the list of budget proposals. He asked was this more important to maintain than say the budgets for Healthwatch, libraries or the Sight and Sound budget?
The Leader explained the allowances paid to Members were set by an Independent Remuneration Panel. This was looked at three years ago when the Panel were challenged with reducing the allowances. A substantial amount of money was taken out at that time as part of the challenge. This was about making sure Rotherham was in line with other South Yorkshire authorities. Whilst attention was drawn to Sheffield the figures were comparable with Barnsley and Doncaster and slightly lower.
Members had to receive some remuneration for the work that they did and whilst the Independent Remuneration Panel determined what Rotherham should receive, Sheffield in turn would determine their own. Whatever was decided in Rotherham paying politicians was always unpopular.
(2) A member of the public made reference to the development of York Road (Item 14 on the agenda) where he had a couple of garages. He explained about the difficulty he experienced on returning home in the early hours from work and being unable to park his vehicle. He, therefore, asked if there would be any parking provision for the two or three residents who actually used their garages each day and the restrictions created by the parking permits in that area.
Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, explained consideration would be given as part of the development brief. It was noted the garage sites were currently on the short term let only due to the proposed development in that area.
In a supplementary question the member of the public asked if consideration could be given to parking bays during the building work stages.
Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, confirmed this would be given consideration to see what space was available at the start of the process and what conditions could be included to put something in place.
(3) Councillor Cooksey, in her capacity as a Ward Councillor for Rotherham East, sometimes attended a Neighbourhood Watch Group which met at St. Steven’s in Eastwood. Concern had been expressed about the high number of privately rented accommodation in Eastwood which, in some cases, had incidents of anti-social behaviour. This had caused problems for the well-established occupants in that area and it was requested that, as part of the development, there be a mixed tenure accommodation and it was asked what kind of guarantees were available for buyers to adhere to this aspiration.
Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy, confirmed that consideration would be given to the wider area and the development brief. There would be conditions attached for whichever developer came forward, but controlled wherever possible.
The Leader pointed out that the Council would have some control over the development rather than just selling the land off. However, the Council could not guarantee who would purchase the properties, but it would do everything in its power to maintain as much control as possible.