To receive questions relating to items of business on the agenda from members of the public or press who are present at the meeting.
Minutes:
The Chair changed the order of the agenda and moved public questions to follow the presentation of the petition and subsequent questions. In line with meeting protocols, questions from members of the public present at the meeting were directed to the Chair who verified for each question whether the Cabinet Member and officers were able to respond at that time. All questions posed were answered at the meeting.
Cllr Clark referred to the photograph shown earlier of an HGV asked whether it would be possible to request MHH Holdings to apply for planning permission for access off the A629. This would be far safer as this was a main road into Rotherham that had been used in the past when tipping was taking place, as part of the issue was health and safety and she understood a protocol existed around the safety of pedestrians.
- Cllr Hoddinott replied that officers would raise this issue with the Health and Safety Executive and that any supporting photos and videos would be invaluable. Dialogue was needed with residents regarding how to improve access and officers would be asked to look at options.
Cllr Clark queried how a public interest case would be defined if this was not one in the light of what had been heard.
- The public interest test was purely with regard to Rotherham MBC taking legal action against the Environment Agency.
Cllr Hague asked why having obtained a legal brief from a top QC on environmental matters it could not be shown to the Environment Agency to ask them to put in closure procedures and if not why was it not in the public interest to do so.
- It was reiterated that the legal advice sought was for the Council only and was protected under legal professional privilege.
Cllr Hague followed up by inquiring whether Legal Services thought it was good value for money to spend money on legal opinion that was then not discussed. – No further comment ensued.
Lisa Silcock inquired what the Environment Agency intended to do in terms of monitoring air borne particles and in particular silica dust.
- The Environment Agency did not carry out such monitoring, this was up to the operator as there was no requirement in the permit. If dust from the site became problematic the permit could be varied to include monitoring.
Ron Branagan queried the Environment Agency referring to the slippage of Phase 1 as trivial when it had slipped several metres and stopped close to the first pitch, and that having seen it first-hand it was not trivial but a major slippage.
- The officer from the Environment Agency said he was unable to comment as he had not been involved in regulating the site at that time although he had seen the photos and investigation afterwards.
Mr. Branagan followed up by saying that on Phase 1 there was no history of land fill waste management and stated his concern regarding stability as there was no supporting evidence.