To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Atkin had submitted a question asking what the opinion of the Council’s external auditors was on the sufficiency of the Council’s reserves?
As Councillor Atkin was not present at the meeting, a response would be provided in writing.
.
(2) Councillor Ball stated that this Council adopted the IHRA after accusing a member of public of bringing it up due to it being political at the time. The Leader said it would not be adopted unless a complaint had been made. Can the Leader inform how many complaints have been made regarding anti-semitism between the question asked and adopting the definition?
The Leader stated that that was a caricature of what he had said. There were no complaints received by the Council regarding anti-semitism between the member of the public asking the question and the adoption of the IHRA.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball asked why the IHRA was not accepted in the first place. He had been to Auschwitz and come back to realise the Council had no definition in place. He asked the Council to adopt it and the Leader had flatly turned it down. Why was that?
The Leader explained discussions were had at the time and at the time of the adoption. There had been other things that had happened in the country at large and it had been adopted by the Combined Authority. That led to the Council adopting it around 6 months after Councillor Ball had asked the question.
(3) Councillor Castledine-Dack asked for an update on the master plan for Dinnington?
Councillor Lelliott explained that a draft masterplan for Dinnington was in development and was being informed by the ongoing work to produce a Round 2 Levelling Up Fund bid.
The draft masterplan boundary covered the High Street and immediate areas from St Leonard’s Church at the south end of the High Street up to Dinnington Resource Centre.
In consultation with Elected Members and the local community, the masterplan aims to make the High Street more attractive, support local business, and improve visitor experience in order to sustain a vibrant local centre in Dinnington.
The masterplan would serve as a road map to deliver the changes that were wanted and needed in the area and attract any available funding in the future.
At this moment in time the Council were concentrating on and prioritising a successful second round Levelling Up Fund bid which had to be submitted in July.
Once that bid had been submitted it would be all steam ahead on the Masterplan. Work would continue with the Dinnington Ward Councillors to make sure that the people of Dinnington got what they wanted.
In her supplementary, Councillor Castledine-Dack confirmed that that information had already been fed into discussions between the Cabinet Member and Ward Members for Dinnington. She asked if the Levelling Up Fund bid for the starting point which the Masterplan would then follow?
Councillor Lelliott answered yes and no. The Levelling Up Fund would go in and then the Council would concentrate on and consult around the Masterplan. Ideas for the Levelling Up Fund bid would feed into the Masterplan but the Masterplan would be a comprehensive plan for all of Dinnington that sets aside some of the Levelling Up things but would build on that to be bigger, bolder and better.
(4) Councillor Castledine-Dack stated that Outgang Lane in Laughton Common was an extremely busy connecting road between Dinnington and Thurcroft. What was the Council doing to improve the safety of this road?
Councillor Beck explained that he knew this issue was important to Councillor Castledine-Dack as she had raised it with him last week in an email. On that section of Outgang Lane there had been several improvements over recent years, including a roundabout, zebra crossing and pedestrian refuges which had all followed the development of Laughton Common. In the coming days all Members would be emailed to ask for suggestions for concerns around road safety in their own Wards. Councillor Beck encouraged Councillor Castledine-Dack to put this location forward if that was one of her concerns.
(5) Councillor Castledine-Dack stated that grass verges on estates like Limelands are [or they were at the time the question was written] extremely overgrown. What planning had the Council done to ensure that our communities remained tidy during the summer months?
Councillor Beck stated that quite a lot had been done. He was sure colleagues in the Chamber would remember the half a million pounds of investment that was brought forward a couple of months ago, investing in the Street Cleansing and Grounds Maintenance Services of the Council. That was a budget that Opposition Members voted against but it did not matter as it went through.
The budget allowed for more grass cutting, increasing eventually to 10 per year, more weed treatment etc.
In terms of Limelands particularly, events had superseded the question as work had been carried out on Limelands the previous week.
(6) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked could the Cabinet Member please report on the progress of the consultation over the REACH Service and advise on the next steps?
Councillor Roche warmly thanked all those that had submitted questionnaires and were engaged in the consultation. As many people had been reached out to as possible. The consultation had now finished and had been conducted over a period of 90 days and included face-to-face public meetings; online submissions with assistance from the Library Service and other support sessions; networking group discussions and individual, one to one, consultations. A Members Seminar had also been held with little contribution from some political parties.
The responses and analysis of the consultation would now inform the proposals for a Cabinet report due for submission in September 2022 that will recommend proposals for the building of a new day service to meet the needs of those with a Learning Disability and/or Autism with high support requirements. As part of that, Councillor Roche and some colleagues would travel to Liverpool in the near future to visit a newly opened similar centre and learn from their experience.
The final stages of the process moving towards the final report would be done in co-production with those involved.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester thanked the Cabinet Member for the critical friendship and good discussion they had had on this issue over the past few months. It was explained that the Service had encountered difficulties in relation to the prosecution of the former manager. Carers had pointed out that when the REACH Service was searched for online, it was mainly press reports relating to the abuse trial. They had suggested that with a fresh start should come a fresh name. He asked for Councillor Roche’s opinion on that point.
Councillor Roche explained that he was very sorry that those events had taken place but was very pleased that the whistle-blowers felt that they could report the matter to senior officers. Councillor Roche fully understood and sympathised with the concerns raised by the users regarding looking to the future. He thought a change of name was very important and would support such a move.
(7) Councillor Castledine-Dack stated that waste bins and dog waste bins were overflowing in Dinnington, especially on estates. The Council said that they could not increase bin numbers due to staffing constraints, but did the solar bins not reduce the need for operatives, thereby allowing for reallocation of operatives to traditional bins?
Councillor Beck agreed. In relation to the substantive issue regarding overflowing bins, as the rollout of the solar bins took place alongside the replacement of the older “other” bins, there was an issue of frequency and where the frequency needed tweaking and how often the bins were emptied needed changing, it was an ongoing matter throughout every year. This was because some locations were used more than others so the Council needed to be able to respond to that.
Councillor Beck encouraged Councillor Castledine-Dack to raise any specific issues/locations with the Service or himself.
(8) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that he had had e-mails and casework responses from officers on Sundays and late weekday evenings. What was the Council doing to monitor and ensure work pressures were not compelling officers to answer e-mails in non-working hours?
Councillor Alam explained that a large proportion of officer roles work included flexible working and, therefore, did not necessarily work a standard 9.00 a.m.-5.00 p.m. day. Hybrid working built upon previous flexible working policies and supported a culture of working wherever, whenever officers wanted to work.
However, Councillor Alam explained that the Council were committed to the health and wellbeing of its officers and promoted this through the Discover Wellbeing Programme. All managers were responsible for managing their staff and took seriously their responsibilities for health and wellbeing. Work was also done with Trade Unions to make sure officers had that balance.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that some officers felt that working from home had impacted their work/life balance. Another issue that had been expressed was the way Elected Members put demands on officers and Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked if there was any best practice following the conversations with Trade Unions about how Elected Members could best address case work so that officers did not feel any additional pressure to respond outside of normal hours.
Councillor Alam explained that no issues had been raised as yet but he would take the matter to the Trade Union Joint Consultative Committee for discussion.
(9) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester stated that many of the estates were built when there was no expectation of working class families owning a car, never mind two or more, leading to several problems from neighbour disputes to affecting the desirability of some properties and streets. What in your opinion could be done to improve the parking situation on council estates where these problems arose?
Councillor Lelliott explained that it was a real challenge and there were no easy answers. There were many streets across the Borough that were very narrow and where there was not much parking.
Where vehicular parking obstructed the safe and free-flow of traffic, waiting restrictions, such as double yellow lines, could be introduced. “H-Bars” could be put across residents’ drives to stop them being blocked in.
Where estates suffered from all-day commuter parking then Resident Only Parking zones could be investigated and consulted upon with residents in those areas. These were subject to an annual fee which could be off-putting but where those could be put in, the Council would do so but it was up to the communities affected to decide whether they want that scheme in their area.
The issue that had been raised could also lead to nuisance pavement parking, and the Council was looking to begin introducing more localized restrictions to prevent this. Beyond that the Council were open to ideas.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bennett-Sylvester explained that these parking issues did impact the desirability of some areas, particularly parts of East Herringthorpe. He asked whether, if capital were to arise, could off-street parking be an option to make properties more desirable and alleviate some of the problems, particularly with vehicle charging coming in the future?
Councillor Lelliott agreed that she and Councillor Brooks would pick up this matter with Councillor Bennett-Sylvester outside of the meeting.
(10) Councillor Ball asked whether the Council would look at implementing a clean air zone for Hellaby with it being in close proximity of the M18 and the very busy A631?
Councillor Beck explained that Councillor Ball had copied him into an email that he sent officers on this matter a few weeks ago. The response was received on 4th May, 2022, which stated that the Council had been monitoring this area since October 2021 and looking at the most recent data available, which was the 3 months from October to December, 2021, the mean monthly measure for Nitrogen Dioxide was below the national standard that would allow for the introduction of a clean air zone in that area.
(11) Councillor Ball asked had the aquifer situated on Cumwell Lane been included into the plans for the new development that was going to be situated on it?
As Councillor Atkin was not present at the meeting, a written response would be provided to Councillor Ball.
(12) Councillor Ball stated that recently he requested a bin, but he was knocked back for this with an officer stating that "because [he] had received a solar bin they had removed 2 normal bins." Could the council provide a list of how many bins have been removed in each Ward due to the implementation of these solar bins?
Councillor Beck explained that part of the whole ethos around introducing the solar bins was around rationalisation. As such, on occasion, more than one bin had been removed to be replaced with the single solar bins that were being introduced. This had largely been successful. Councillor Beck was aware that Councillor Ball had raised this a number of times with officers as he had been copied into emails. One of the responses from the Head of Service recently stated that there was the opportunity for Councillor Ball to have bins re-sited.
In his supplementary, Councillor Ball stated that he did not think his question had been answered. He stated that he had been asking for the business plan for solar bins for around a month and had not been provided with it as the officer responsible could not find it as it was before his time in post. Councillor Ball stated that, had he known that the introduction of one solar bin would result in the loss of two “normal” bins, he would have kept the original bins. He asked if he could see the business plan?
Councillor Beck explained that this matter had been was dealt with before Councillor Ball had been elected as a Councillor Members had, over the last 18-24 months, received emails informing them about the plans, in relation to bins, for their Wards. These emails stated which bins would be removed, which bins would be replaced with a solar bin and how many would be removed as a result.
The business case had been gone through but due to timings, Councillor Ball had missed out on seeing that. However, Councillor Beck reiterated that he wanted to work with Members and all residents across the Borough to ensure that they were happy with the approach. Where there were issues, and there would undoubtably be, it was important that they were dealt with. Members did not need to wait for a Council meeting to raise these issues. It was acknowledged that Councillor Ball had raised the issue outside of the meeting.
Councillor Beck explained that officers were trying to accommodate requests and an offer had been made to Councillor Ball to replace the bins and that offer stood.
(13) Councillor Miro asked, in view of Mr. Alex Stafford MP getting involved between Harworth and the Waverley Juniors Academy regarding the number of children on the Waverley estate who did not get a place at WJA, could he ask where the Council were at with trying to accommodate those children in temporary classrooms for the academic year starting this September?
Councillor Cusworth explained that the Department for Education (DfE) had made their position clear in that there was no projected shortfall of available places in the wider Planning Area that Waverley Junior Academy sits within for the foreseeable future (up until 2025/26) with approximately 20% surplus capacity currently in place across schools in this area.
Therefore, the Government’s views was that it was reasonable to expect parents who failed to secure their preferred school of Waverley Junior Academy to take up places at one of these other schools and not to expand any schools.
There were 2 immediate challenges; firstly, that the DfE criteria would not permit Government funding for temporary classrooms. And secondly, the consequences of moving children would be immediate and damaging to the other local schools where they had been allocated places. Resolving these twin issues would require special dispensation and funding arrangements from the DfE.
The Council has reached out to Mr. Stafford MP to help facilitate conversations with Ministers and DfE officials to help progress this and which Council officers would support.
Beyond this immediate question, officers continued to work with the Principal Developer, Harworth, in relation to a variation to the current Section 106 funding agreement to bring about an earlier release of funding for the next phase of creating additional permanent primary school places on the Waverley estate.
It should be noted that the developer has met its obligation to provide primary school places aligned to the occupation of 2,000 dwellings in line with the national formula for pupil school place planning. There were currently significantly less that 2,000 dwellings built and occupied at Waverley at this present time.
(14) Councillor Bacon asked what was the Council doing to ensure it took a proactive approach in its responsibility to maintain the Borough to a high standard, so it could attract new enterprise and opportunity for residents?
Councillor Beck explained that, as previously mentioned, there had been extra investment of around half a million pounds in the budget as well as the additional funding of £24m to 2024 Roads programme. That built upon millions of pounds that proceeded that to improve the condition of the road network that everyone was benefitting from. It had been a huge success.
In addition, work continued with Elected Members through Neighbourhood working via the zonal working approach, which was where officers in localities worked with local Members to ensure issues were hot spotted and attention could be given to improve the Borough.
In his supplementary, Councillor Bacon explained that his question related to proactive measures. One example was of the pro-Russian Government ‘Z’ propaganda symbols that had been graffitied around the Town Centre. They were up for far too long. Councillor Bacon had seen one and reported it on Sunday. He asked that surely a more proactive response was required to sustain the appeal of the Town Centre?
Councillor Beck condemned graffiti of any kind and thanked Councillor Bacon for referring this issue to officers. Councillor Beck confirmed that he would follow up the matter to ensure the Council was as responsive as it could be with the resources it had.
(15) Councillor Bacon stated that he has received numerous reports of injuries due to potholes on pavements in Aston and Todwick. When could residents expect to see greater priority given to pavement repairs?
Councillor Beck explained that in the coming year, the Council was bringing forward £800,000 investment in repair of footways across the Borough. This was part of the wider programme on roads. There had been huge success in reducing the number of slips, trips and falls on the highway, which included footways, to an all-time low. In 2021/22 there were just 147 claims which resulted in costs of just £80. That was a reduction of over £100,000 over the last 6 years.
In relation to the question regarding Aston and Todwick, Councillor Beck stated that the Aston and Todwick Ward would have 40% of the footways resurfaced in 2022/23. This included footways on 15 roads in Todwick. As a former Councillor for Todwick, Councillor Beck knew that to be around two-thirds of Todwick village. Todwick had, therefore, done quite well out of the Labour Council budget.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Bacon stated that they appreciated the support in Todwick but surely it was too late? There had been injuries and the reason Todwick required so much work on its footways was because it had been allowed to get too bad in the first place. Could a more proactive response be taken?
Councillor Beck was pleased that Councillor Bacon welcomed the policies and initiatives done by the Labour Council.
(16) Councillor Tinsley asked, with any new large-scale housing developments, was there any way to encourage or make it a requirement of the developers to install a Community Accessible Defibrillator?
Councillor Lelliott explained that unfortunately, there was nothing in national or local planning policy that would enable the Council to put a requirement on a developer to provide a community defibrillator as part of a planning application.
As anyone who sat on the Planning Board would know, matters had to be material considerations to be discussed. This was not a material consideration but Councillor Lelliott agreed to go back to the Planning Service and encourage them to ask developers at the pre-planning stage to include Community Accessible Defibrillators in their developments. It would be voluntary and a choice for the developer to make.
In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley stated that the cabinet and defibrillators usually cost around £800-£900 and when spread as a management charge across developments it would be a cost of pence per house. He asked if he could talk to the Cabinet Member outside of the meeting and get the matter progressed?
Councillor Lelliott replied that she would be happy to discuss the matter outside of the meeting and reiterated that should would speak to Planning Officers.
(17) Councillor Tinsley stated that weeds along walls and pavements were continuing to be a big problem around Maltby with some now being over a metre tall. When would the Council get on top of this?
Councillor Beck explained that the Council could get on top of it as soon as Members confirmed the specific locations that were being referred to. It was acknowledged that the weeds were at their longest at this time of year due to the rain and warm weather. The new quad bike had been out and about already which helped weed the pavements and the roads. If there were any specific locations where this did not appear to be taking place, Councillor Beck asked Members to let him know.
In his supplementary, Councillor Tinsley stated that everywhere in Maltby was a problem at the moment. The weeds had gone past the point where they needed spraying, they actually needed pulling out. Councillor Tinsley asked how the Council was going to get on top of this?
Councillor Beck emphasised the need for the help of Members. Issues relating to Street Cleansing and Ground Maintenance in communities did not need to wait to be raised at a Council meeting but needed to be reported to the relevant Service who would respond in good time. If that did not work, Councillor Beck encouraged Members to report matters to him and he would follow them up.
(18) Councillor Jones stated that over the last 2 years, the Council had consistently maintained that they did not own the accessway between Droppingwell Road and Grange Landfill Ltd site. He asked if this was correct and could the Cabinet Member tell him who the Council believed did own the accessway?
Councillor Beck explained that the Council had not maintained that it did not own the access. What the Council had consistently maintained was that, whilst it owned the land over which the access ran, it had no responsibility for the physical surface of the road and no duty to maintain access.
The access road to the Grange Landfill site was on land owned by the Council and the owner of the tip had a right of way over the land. The Council had a duty not to obstruct the use of the access way, but it had no duty to maintain the access route in a useable condition. The Council was not, therefore, responsible for the access road itself.
In his supplementary, Councillor Jones stated that there had finally been an admittance that the Council owned the accessway. He also stated following the repeated denials that he had received regarding the ownership of the access road, the Council had produced documents showing that they had contracted the contractor that laid the tarmac on the road on behalf of Millmoor Juniors FC. He asked the Cabinet Member to explain why the Council thought that it could give permission to use the accessway to third parties if indeed they maintained that they did not own the road?
Councillor Beck reiterated that the Council did own the road but was not responsible for its maintenance. Councillor Beck was sure that could be understood to see a situation whereby the people and organisations with responsibility for maintaining the road had sought the counsel of the Council as to how they could go about doing that and discharge their duties in relation to it. If the Council has helped those parties out, Councillor Beck saw no problem with that.
(19) Councillor Jones asked if he or any member of the public wanted to hold an event on Council land, maybe a park, could he be advised who would give that permission and what documentation would he be required to provide?
Councillor Sheppard explained that for anyone wishing to host an event on Council-owned land there was an Event Application process which was dealt with by the Council’s Events Team. This included events taking place in Town Centres, Parks and Green Spaces and Public Highways.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Jones explained that he would be expected to provide a full risk assessment if he wanted to hold an event on Council-owned land. However, in an email exchange with the Monitoring Officer last week, Councillor Jones was advised that a motion he wanted to submitted for this meeting could not go forward because it was believed that the Council did not hold the power to require anybody to submit a full risk assessment to travel over Council land or use that land. He asked the Cabinet Member to explain what the difference was between a member of the public and a landfill company?
Councillor Sheppard explained that he had not had sight of any of the emails referred to but would be happy to look at them if Councillor Jones would send them onto him. A written response would then be provided.
(20) Councillor Jones stated that in 2020, RMBC undertook a risk assessment of the accessway at Grange Park and, as part of that assessment, several mitigating actions were recommended. He asked the Cabinet Member to explain why 2 years later none of these had been implemented?
Councillor Beck explained that it was not the responsibility of the Council that they be implemented.
In his supplementary, Councillor Jones explained that in 2020, the vehicle movements on the site were light in comparison to today. There were now up to 200 vehicle movements a day. In 2020, when the risk assessment was carried out, Grange Landfill accepted 40 lorry loads of blast furnace slag from the Westgate site yet it was still recommended that several mitigating factors would be needed to make the route safe. Could the Cabinet Member explain if this would be okay in a green flag park like Clifton Park or were the Council waiting for someone to get badly injured before acting?
Councillor Beck explained again that it was not the responsibility of the Council to implement what was found in the risk assessment. The Council was just trying to be helpful as it was Millmoor Juniors and MHH Contracting Limited who had to comply with their duties in respect of Health and Safety and in ensuring matters established in the risk assessment were dealt with and implemented.
The Council had asked to have sight of their own risk assessment and offered to broker any conversations with a view to assisting in the implementation of any of the measures recommended. The Council had not received any response to the correspondence but was just trying to be helpful in ensuring that third parties were compliant.
(21) Councillor Jones asked, since 2016, had the Council signed any “Right of access agreements” with Grange Landfill Ltd.?
Councillor Beck explained that the Council granted a number of short licence agreements to MHH Contracting between October 2016 and March 2017.
In his supplementary, Councillor Jones explained that a Right of Access Agreement was something that a Court of Law could consider should the land owner and the person/party using the access not agree on the use of that access. As part of the consideration, the Court must also consider whether the granting of that right of way would inadvertently effect the neighbours of the land and have a detrimental effect on the public’s right of enjoyment of the asset. If so, a consultation process must take place. Could the Cabinet Member explain if the Council had consulted as it was also agreed by the Council in a motion in 2020?
Councillor Beck explained that the licensing agreement referred to was granted without prejudice to any legal arguments from either party. It was not the Council granting any longstanding permissions but was simply the Council protecting its own position at the time whilst legal advice was sought. That legal advice stated that they were able to use the access road. Therefore, no licence agreement was necessary.
(22) Councillor Jones stated that the Council had maintained they had no way of placing conditions on the accessways use. He asked if the Cabinet Member could confirm if they had investigated using a Court Order for excessive use?
Councillor Alam explained that there were no conditions attached to the use of the access road and, therefore, such action would not be possible.
In his supplementary, Councillor Jones stated that there were now over 200 vehicle movements a day on the accessway. In 1958, a Waste Licence allowed for up to 25 vehicle movements. This remained the case until modification number 7 where it was written in the margin that there should be an increase of up to 40. This was never enacted. There was also a difference in the size of the lorries visiting the site from 4 tonnes to 30 tonnes. Councillor Jones personally classed that as excessive use. He asked the Cabinet Member to explain why the Council had not applied for a Court Order?
Councillor Alam explained that, as previously mentioned, there were no conditions placed on the access road and, therefore, there were no legal actions to take.