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 Simpson asked could the Council support his national petition to limit the sale and use of Fireworks to around 5th November (along with New Year’s/Chinese New Year and Diwali festival.)
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed that if Councillor Simpson could send her a copy of his petition she would be happy to have a look at it.
(2) Councillor Simpson referred to “Fast 4’s unlicensed taxi driver fine” and asked was it about time the idea of taxi dashboard photo ID was implemented?
Councillor Ellis thanked Councillor Simpson for raising this matter. The successful prosecution of Fast 4 and the significant fine of £1,300 showed how seriously the Council took taxi licensing and that the Council would act robustly if drivers and operators did not abide by the rules.
In 2015, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, set what was generally accepted to be the highest standard with regard to taxi and private hire licensing in the UK. Many of the standards have subsequently been adopted by other local licensing authorities. Rotherham had even been cited as best practice in revised national guidance.
However, the Council was not complacent. Following a review of the current Policy, Cabinet would be considering a report, proposing to consult on a revised Taxi Licensing Policy.
The current Policy required all drivers to wear an identity badge on their person. However, feedback from both taxi users and drivers was that this was often not as visible as it could be to passengers. As part of this review the Cabinet would be considering the most appropriate information for internal display.
In a supplementary question Councillor Simpson confirmed he had spoken over two years ago to the National Taxi Association about displaying information. However, being a taxi user himself he only considered it right that identification should be on display for safeguarding purposes rather than being clipped onto a jacket. A passenger could then clearly see the identity of their driver.
Councillor Ellis reaffirmed that the policy currently dictated that all drivers must wear their personal licensed identification. However, she urged Councillor Simpson to include his comments as part of the consultation.
(3) Councillor Cooksey indicated that when carers have a respite package from Adult Social Care she understood it had to be re-assessed every year. This causes unnecessary stress for the carer so asked would the Council reconsider?
Councillor Roche confirmed there was a requirement under the Care Act to review support plans at least every 12 months and this was to make sure that eligible needs were still being met.
A more detailed reassessment would only take place if there were changes or circumstances that had arisen and a new support plan was needed. This was not intended to be a stressful experience, but one that provided reassurance that needs were being met appropriately whilst discharging the Council’s statutory duties.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cooksey explained this concern had been said to her anecdotally, but understood that in some other authorities the respite package could roll over rather than being re-assessed in circumstances where someone was terminally ill or had a long term condition.
Not only was there a financial cost to the process, but also in manpower and the re-assessments did cause undue stress to carers, so asked if it was correct that other Local Authorities could roll over assessments if circumstances had remained in the same.
Councillor Roche reiterated it was a requirement of the Care Act for an annual assessment, but would check with senior officers to determine if national statutory guidelines were being followed with assessment rollovers.
(4) Councillor Wyatt was very pleased to hear that Rotherham’s Archives Service was granted accreditation status by the national body. He asked could the Cabinet Member provide the Chamber with some further details about the award and what benefits this would be for residents and visitors?
Councillor Allen explained the National Archive Service Accreditation was the UK-wide standard for Archive Services, assessed and awarded by a partnership of bodies including The National Archives and representatives of the professional and national archive bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It was a national benchmark and quality standard which had only been awarded to 153 of the 2,500 Archive Services across the UK.
Rotherham was presented with the award on 21st October, 2019 and the Director for Research and Collections spoke warmly about the Rotherham Service.
This was a genuine achievement for the Archive Service and a recognition of the dedication of staff who were thanked for their hard work given the submission was described as one of the best organized.
There were benefits for Rotherham’s residents and visitors as they would be able to engage with high quality records from family history and local heritage to the industrial past and parks, urban landscapes and waterways. The accreditation provided a quality mark for the work that the service delivered with schools and local community groups, using the collection to better understand Rotherham’s shared history and the forging of new partnerships.
The Service received a number of national inquiries and demonstrated to potential donors, partners and fundraisers that Rotherham had a Service that was a trustworthy recipient of artefacts and records. Again the National Director of Research and Collections reported the importance of Archives Services meeting standards.
Archives mattered as they were a collective memory allowing society to hold institutions to account, to explore collective and personal identities to underpin research, to connect generations with stories from the past, to the present and to the future and inspire innovation and creativity.
(5) Councillor Buckley asked, with the emphasis on environmental issues and in particular the desire to reduce carbon monoxide emissions and promote the use of electrically powered cars, would the Council consider the installation of a vehicle charging facility in the car park adjacent to the new Library facilitated by Brinsworth Parish Council and RMBC?
Councillor Allen confirmed that the Council was allocated a grant, as part of the Clean Air Zone Early Measures Fund, to install 28 electric vehicle charging points in Council-owned public car parks.
Unfortunately one of the criteria from national Government for the installation was that the sites were fully owned by the Council. This meant there was a responsibility on the owner of the site for the electricity charges incurred as part of any installation and, therefore, sites not in Council-ownership had not been able to be prioritised.
Unfortunately, the site in question was not owned by the Council, but the Council was providing support to Brinsworth Parish Council on how it may move forward with an electric vehicle charging point installation.
(6) Councillor Hague referred to the Environment Agency saying Watsons Tip was inert and asked did the Council intend to challenge this assertion?
Councillor Hoddinott clarified the Council’s position and their opposition to this tip 2 years ago when it passed unanimously a motion condemning the granting of the licence by the Environment Agency. The Council was supporting local residents given the decision to allow retipping and was aware of the environmental and community impact.
The Council and Councillors were doing all they could to raise its concerns about Droppingwell Tip and the Cabinet Member had met regularly with the Action Group. A further meeting had taken place with the Environment Agency and many of the questions raised today were raised with them.
It was recognized that all concerned were fighting against the law on this one and Sarah Champion, M.P. was raising this in Parliament. The Cabinet Member having raised this with the Minister had received a disappointing response as there was unwillingness to address really what was a unique position Rotherham found itself in. In terms of the question raised, the Environment Agency's own website acknowledged that the site was not inert.
In a supplementary question Councillor Hague referred back in 2016 when on site the Environment Agency said that this tip was not inert. However, test drilling indicated that with the smell of marzipan there were various contaminants within the site. This would indicate there was cyanide in the material that was unsealed with 3 old mine shafts underneath.
When it rained water percolated through the material down into the mine shafts and ultimately into the watercourse. This Council had the power to go onto that site under the Environmental Protection Act 1995 and undertake drilling operations to find out what was in that site so asked why were the Council not doing it.
Councillor Hoddinott did not dispute the concerns around the tip site, but pointed out it had been in operation since 1929. The contaminants on site were a concern and it was for Environment Agency to be monitoring regulation themselves. This was mentioned to them this week and questions raised about the groundwater and the monitoring of that site. It was a necessity that they did this.
(7) Councillor Hague asked was the Cabinet Member aware of what toxins were in Watsons tip?
Councillor Hoddinott before responding pointed out that Councillor Hague had had plenty of opportunities to ask officers about the detail. However, if he had important information he should pass this to the Cabinet Member to pass onto the Environment Agency rather than grandstanding.
Councillors and officers have spent hours and hours going through documentation to look at every avenue to stop this tip operating. With regards to the drill holes, the Cabinet Member would take this back to officers, but offered her reassurance that the Council would try absolutely everything it could, but ultimately rather than blaming the Council it was the Environment Agency that had decided the tip could open by issuing the tip operators a permit. This had been done with no consultation with local residents or the Council and it was their decision to remove the permit. The Council would continue to challenge and lobby the Government for them to take action.
(8) Councillor Hague asked did the Council intend to take enforcement action against the operator of Watsons tip for breach of planning?
Councillor Hoddinott explained that if there was a breach of planning, the Council would take action.
The Cabinet Member had spoken to the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning and if Councillor Hague had additional information that would be useful please could he forward this on. The Council had looked at details of the 1958 planning permission which had very few restrictions and very few conditions on such things like operating hours. Consideration had also been given to the agreement in 1994 and the public inquiry in 1992. The current position from Planning was the site did not require any further permission and actions on the site could take place under the original permission.
In a supplementary question Councillor Hague made reference to the site’s topography. The 1958 planning permission set out tipping heights which had been exceeded. It was documented by the Secretary of State's Inspector that this was overturned. A letter dated 19th January, 1996 from the Head of Planning to a local resident told them that operators were in breach of its planning. If this was correct why was the Council not taking enforcement action against this operator for breach of planning. The Council could take out an injunction and did not have to wait for works on site to start.
Councillor Hague had spoken to Planning on many occasions, but if it was documented this site was in breach of planning was enforcement action going to be taken against the operator for a planning breach.
Councillor Hoddinott explained that planning was a separate process within the Council and it was up to the Planning Board if they wanted to take action. She urged Councillor Hague to share any information he may have rather than everyone getting frustrated, aggravated and blaming each other. If there was something the Council could do it would have taken action years ago and the passing of the motion then indicated every effort was being made to stop tipping operations.
In terms of the particular planning issue it was known that Phase 1 was over tipped. However, there was an accepted variation in January 1994 around the restoration capping this scheme which was regularized. This did not mean that Phase 2 could also be filled to that level, but had to sit within the 1958 permission. If Councillor Hague had other documentation from 1996 then he was asked to submit this to the Planning Department so it could be considered.
Councillor Hague asked if he could have a copy of the variation agreement as he had not got a copy nor had he seen it. He again expressed his concern about the Secretary of State’s acceptance of fill heights, but pointed out this had no bearing on the planning permission. The fact that the Council accepted the Secretary of State's report meant nothing in planning terms and did not mean that the operation was not in breach of this planning. He again asked if the Council was going to take legal action and stop blaming the Environment Agency when the Council could stop the operation of this tip.
Councillor Hoddinott responded expressing her own concern about the need to make an argument to the Environment Agency. She was willing to sit down with Councillor Hague and talk through his concerns, but was concerned that his frustrations would not make this possible to work together. She did point out, however, that the 1994 amendment did recognise the position, but if Councillor Hague had different advice or if he had a different opinion to the advice that the Council had, he could submit a complaint.
(9) Councillor Hague asked had a variation been issued against the existing 1958 planning permission to facilitate the compliance to tip on phase 2?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed notification of the intention to start the restoration/capping scheme was submitted to the Council in January, 1994 and was accepted as a variation to the 1958 permission which was and still remained extant. Since 1994 there have been no subsequent variations.
(10) Councillor Hague asked did the Council intend to take legal action against the Environment Agency for their abuse of their own permitting procedures in issuing a permit for Watsons Tip and did the Cabinet Member believe it was not in the interests of the public purse to pursue legal action against the Environment Agency or the tip operator?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed that action would be taken where it was in the public interest. However, legal advice had been taken on a number of matters relating to this site, but the Council would lose legal privilege with the disclosure of any information relating to legal advice or potential action in the future. The Council was, therefore, not in a position to give any further information at this stage.
The Environment Agency should have consulted with the Council. However, you could see from the latest letter from the Minister he did not think to do so would materially have changed the outcome and they would have been given the permit which was extremely disappointing.
Had the Environment Agency consulted it would have enabled the Council to bring up lots of issues currently being dealt with. One of the concerns and real issues was because the operators were working off a 1958 planning permission. The permit would normally rely on such things and this was why there were calls for regularisation around the operating hours of this tip which was a concern for residents.
In a supplementary question Councillor Hague asked if the Cabinet Member could elaborate on the legal advice.
Councillor Hoddinott expressed her concerns about the sharing of legal detail which may jeopodise any case in the future and advised Councillor Hague to carefully think about what information he may share.
Councillor Hague pointed out the Council could take legal action and referred to the Environment Agency acting unlawful if the issuing of a permit.
Councillor Hoddinott was seriously concerned about information shared and how Councillor Hague may be jeopardising any chance the Council may have in making a case. She expressed her disappointment in his actions.
(11) Councillor Hague asked was the Cabinet Member aware of the unstable nature of Watson’s tip?
Councillor Hoddinott had visited the site several times and there were concerns about slippage that had happened down the side of the tip. She had raised this with the Environment Agency who were saying they had had engineers out on site and they were satisfied that it was stable. Again this week the Council had shared evidence to question that judgement and the Environment Agency had gone away to relook. This was a real concern as any disturbance could be disastrous.
Councillor Hague did not wish to ask a supplementary question and also wanted to withdraw his submitted questions from number twelve to fifteen.
(16) Councillor Carter asked could Councils tender bus services out to bus companies and which services, if any, did RMBC currently tender out to bus companies?
Councillor Lelliott explained that the Council did not tender bus services.
Most bus services were operated on a commercial basis by privately owned bus companies, and these services were registered with the Traffic Commissioner.
The SYPTE subsidised, through a tender process, around 30 services in Rotherham during off peak periods, mainly in the evenings or on Sundays. This was generally to ensure that areas of the Borough have a limited service during these periods where a commercially operated service would not be feasible. The value of these tendered services represented circa £1.384M per annum.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked would the Council consider tendering or a change of the route for some bus services that currently go through Brinsworth.
Councillor Lelliott advised that South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) would assess the requirement for a subsidised service should an area of the Borough not be serviced by a commercially registered service. In these circumstances a tender may be issued by the SYPTE (but not the Council directly) for a bus company to operate a non-commercially viable service. As had been mentioned in previous meetings, Councillor Carter was advised to speak to the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and lobby to get the services that he required in his Ward.
(17) Councillor Carter stated that RMBC was the freeholder for a substantial amount of community land (for example, Crowgate playing fields in Anston) that was leased to or maintained by the parishes and asked which sites have these arrangements and did the Council have a policy to promote asset/freehold transfers of such land to the community bodies that maintained them for the benefit of residents?
Councillor Lelliott explained the Council had an adopted Community Asset Transfer Policy, which had recently been updated and approved by Cabinet. The updated Policy would be available to view on the Council’s website in November, 2019.
A core principle of the Policy was to empower community organisations to deliver their own solutions to meet local needs.
From 2007 to date 26 Council-owned assets had been let to community/third party organisations for use by the wider community.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked if he could please be sent a copy of the updated Policy when it was publically available and with all the asset transfers was there the presumption the Council would transfer these assets when it was a Parish Council.
Councillor Lelliott misunderstood what Councillor Carter was asking, but confirmed that the Policy would shortly be available on the website. However, she would also send over a list of the completed lease applications for information.
(18) Councillor Carter reported that Carole from Brinsworth had been in touch having had difficulty renewing a blue badge for her husband who had reduced mobility following a stroke and asked how could it be fair that under this Labour administration frustrations, delays and unjust rejections of applications have become commonplace?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed that on the 30th August, 2019 the Department of Transport implemented new regulations for the Blue Badge Parking Scheme providing Councils with a new model application system. This required applicants to provide more description information on their health conditions. The Council was an administrative authority, but it was the Department for Transport that set out the policy.
There were delays caused by the changes to the rules made by Central Government
To mitigate the adverse impact this might have on existing Blue Badge holders, the Council had implemented a discretionary arrangement. Providing a customer had applied for a new badge before their current one expired, they could continue using their existing badge in Rotherham as though it had not expired (until they either received a new badge or they were informed that their re-application had not been successful).
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter sought clarification on the policy protocols for the Blue Badge Scheme and asked what evidence was required for those who had hidden disabilities.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed there were guidelines to follow much like any other application and documentation such as medical letters. It was a long process and more paperwork for the applicant to complete. A copy of the DfT guidelines relating to the Blue Badge Scheme would be sent over to Councillor Carter.
(19) Councillor Carter explained there was land that was owned by RMBC and leased to organisations such as grass verges, parks and recreation facilities, community buildings and Drew from North Anston wanted to know what the Council’s policy was on collecting the so-called ‘peppercorn rent’ (e.g. £1/year) specified in such leases and asked did the cost (including staff time) of processing payments outweigh the income generated?
Councillor Lelliott explained leases were granted by the Council at peppercorn rents (as opposed to commercial rents) when they were considered to provide some form of wider community benefit.
This may be, for example, that the leaseholder was able to deliver services from the land/building that benefited both the Council and local communities.
The leases for a peppercorn or nominal amount usually went on to state “to be paid if demanded”. Where leases stated this, the Council’s position was that it did not collect these small nominal rents as it was not cost effective to do so.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked what level of threshold for these peppercorn rents was in place and how many of these rents have been collected in the past 5 years.
Councillor Lelliott did not have the information to hand so would provide an answer to the question in writing.
(20) Councillor Jepson asked if the Cabinet Member was able to update him regarding the 6 bungalows that were to be purchased by the Council from Duchy Homes at their Penny Piece Lane, North Anston development, have they now been purchased and if so when, have tenants been allocated, when would they be completed and what was the total cost to the Council including any adaptations?
Councillor Beck explained that on 19th November, 2018, Cabinet approved the purchase of 6 bungalows on Penny Piece Lane, North Anston, from Duchy Homes, to add to the Council’s housing stock.
The homes were due to be completed and handed over to the Council in January 2020 and shortly after this the homes would be allocated via the Housing Register from Key Choices.
The total cost was £592k, of which a 25% deposit had already been paid and the rest would be paid on completion.
In a supplementary comment Councillor Jepson referred to information indicating some of the properties were shown as being sold when the site was nowhere near completion and he was concerned that Council had paid money, but would be waiting some considerable time.
(21) Councillor Jepson explained that, following its recent Ofsted report, Anston Park Junior School was again rated as ‘requires improvement’. This followed full and monitoring reports in 2015 and 2017 which also rated it as ‘requires improvement’ and asked was he also concerned about this latest one and what help and assistance was the Local Authority able to offer the school to improve the situation.
Councillor Watson explained Anston Park Junior School was a maintained school.
There had been significant turnover of staffing during the last academic year which had now been resolved. All 3e Y6 teachers left the School mid-way through the year following challenges from the leadership team.
The School was the first in the Authority to be inspected under the new framework; the emphasis on subject leadership was difficult for them because of the number of new staff who had only recently (within the previous 2 weeks) been allocated a curriculum area and so were unable to discuss it in sufficient depth – no allowance was made around this from Ofsted.
For the past year the School had had a Steering Group, which had included representation from the Council. RoSIS had allocated a National Leader for Education to support the School with termly visits who could identify any bespoke support the School needed which would feed into the Steering Group.
Reading the report in detail it talked about the leadership recognizing that the outcomes had not been good enough. However, there was now only four bands within the Ofsted inspection regime, but it was with a little bit more work the school would improve and was going in the right direction.
(22) Councillor Jepson referred to the Chesterfield Canal Members Steering Group which had not met since 17th January, 2019, and asked had any progress been made with regard to future meetings of the group and could the Cabinet Member also confirm that the Council was still fully committed to supporting the Trust in its restoration of the canal as well as developing its future use.
Councillor Allen explained the Chesterfield Canal Members Steering Group took place following the Kiveton Waters Stakeholder Group. The sequence of these meetings was important as the Kiveton Waters Group updated the Chesterfield Canal Members Group.
The Kiveton Waters Stakeholder Group last met in July and was due to meet again in September, but this was cancelled due to lack of availability. The next meeting was due for mid-November and officers were awaiting confirmation of the preferred date, based on the availability of the different partners.
The Council remained committed to supporting the project. The lead organisation was the Chesterfield Canal Preservation Trust and the Council would continue to work alongside other partners such as the Canals and Rivers Trust.
This commitment was further evidenced by the recently published Cultural Strategy – Things to Do, Places to Go – which was endorsed by Cabinet on 10th June, 2019. The Strategy outlined in one of its 7 Game Changers - “Adventures in Rother Valley” its commitment to “the development of the historic canal network”.
(23) Councillor B. Cutts asked could the Cabinet Member give him an outline of the current position of the Guest and Chrimes Building and the future expectation?
Councillor Lelliott reported that Guest and Chrimes was a privately owned listed building which was subject to a fire. This caused substantial damage to the building. Following the fire, several inspections and visits were carried out by Building Control to ensure that appropriate demolition, to make the building safe, was carried out. The site had been made secure with permanent fencing around the full perimeter of the site.
As the Council did not own the site Councillor Lelliott offered to put Councillor Cutts in touch with the owner’s for him to get information from them.