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 Ball withdrew his question.
(2) Councillor Whormsley referred to moving into the colder months and residents looking to prepare for winter found it hard to understand where winter grit bins were located so asked would the Council please publish a list of winter grit bins and their locations.
Councillor Beck explained there were over 400 grit bins placed around the Borough and the locations were already published on the Council’s website.
The location of grit bins could be found under the “find a grit bin near you” section on the Council’s website. An A to Z of records allows Councillors and residents to bring up a full list of locations.
(3)Councillor Castledine-Dack explained that in Dinnington people were very disappointed with the outcome of the bid for the Levelling Up Fund, which would have been transformative if successful. As a community, Dinnington needs to regroup whilst keeping up the momentum behind this campaign. She asked would the Council commit to review and resubmit a stronger bid when feedback was received?
Councillor Lelliott explained that the Council welcomed the successful outcome of two of the Levelling Up Fund submissions that had secured almost £40m for schemes across the Borough. The Cabinet Member shared the disappointment that the Principal Areas for Growth application did not secure the much-needed investment for projects in Wath and Dinnington.
At this time the Council was unable to speculate why it did not meet the Government’s assessment criteria and further feedback was awaited from Government which would be reviewed whilst waiting details of future Levelling Up Funding rounds.
In a supplementary question Councillor Castledine-Dack asked if the Cabinet Member would commit to working with the Dinnington Community Land Trust and the Town Council whose work was instrumental in delivering this bid.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed she would work within the processes laid down to secure this.
(4) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked could the Cabinet Member please account for the differences in the percentage of households subscribing to the brown bin tax between our most and least deprived Wards?
Councillor Beck pointed out the Council did not operate a brown bin tax.
There would always be differences in different areas in terms of a Garden Waste Collection Service and this could be for a number of reasons including whether residents had gardens or not. Households without gardens were higher in number in the more deprived Wards so it was expected subscriptions to be lower in those areas.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvester had looked at figures for the most deprived Wards of take-up between 15% and 65% taking out almost 30% and asked if a flat rate could be applied. This recharge was discriminative and exclusive against poorer communities and asked if, as part of the Local Government settlement, ways could be considered where communities were excluded and what the impact of a dual rate would be for this Council.
Councillor Beck expressed his sympathies, but pointed out that a review of Rothercard was to take place and Councillor Bennett-Sylvester may wish to raise his concerns in that forum to see what could be done for those most deprived.
(5) Councillor Reynolds asked would the Council assure the Council Tax payers of Rotherham that the Forge Island hotel would be a profitable venture by a private company and receive no subsidies or other preferential help from RMBC.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed a long lease had been agreed on market terms with Travelodge for the Forge Island development. Travelodge had no expectation of receiving a subsidy for its operations and there were no provisions in the agreement that would allow such a subsidy to be paid. The hotel would operate as a wholly private venture.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked about the long-term future of a hotel which was dependent on its own success and booking rates and, therefore, asked for confirmation that it would not receive a penny in subsidy from the Council.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed there would be no subsidies.
(6) Councillor Reynoldsasked was MAGNA still in debt to RMBC if so, how long had this situation existed and how much was owed.
Councillor Alam explained that as at the end of October 2021, Magna owed the Council £478,000.
This was made up of the two historic loans and there have been no loans since 2015.
Of the two loans, the Council provided a loan of £300,000 to Magna in November 2006. £110,000 of this loan had been repaid and £190,000 remained outstanding. This loan was secured against Magna’s Project Office building on Sheffield Road.
The Council then provided a further loan of £250,000 in April 2015 which remained outstanding. This loan was provided within a rolling annual loan facility in place from November, 2008.
Interest was payable on the loans at Bank of England Base Rate Plus 2%. Currently £38,000 of interest was outstanding.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds asked was it now £190,000 that was owed.
Councillor Alam confirmed it was.
(7) Councillor Ball withdrew his question.
(8) Councillor Baum-Dixon asked about the Bulky Item Collection Service in the Borough which was currently falling short of its SLA to collect items within ten days. He asked what actions were being taken to improve the Service and did the Cabinet Member think the level of service delivered was value for money for the taxpayer and justified the higher cost than other Bulky Collection services in Sheffield and Bassetlaw?
Councillor Beck confirmed the Bulky Item Collection Service was unfortunately currently working slightly behind target to collect items within ten workings days, with items currently being booked for collection within thirteen working days.
During the Covid-19 pandemic demand for the Bulky Item Collection Service had increased significantly. This had been exacerbated by the well-documented shortage of driving staff and a shortage of vehicles available for hire, due to shortages of components for manufacturing vehicles. This had made it challenging to increase resources to bring the Service back within the ten day target time.
The Council were working hard to get additional resource and were confident that the Service would be back within the ten day target by the end of the year.
In a supplementary question Councillor Baum-Dixon pointed out that according to the Advertiser following an FOI request, comparisons of fly tipping of 450 incidents in two months whereas the Worksop Guardian reported 300 incidents which was 30% less. He compared the incidents and charge in Bassetlaw which was 26% less than Rotherham and asked if the Cabinet Member would look at the amount charged for incidents of fly tipping and do a cost benefit analysis of the bulky waste inspection fee.
Councillor Beck did not believe the charge for residents was prohibitive. He confirmed that residents who had a Rothercard could get 50% discount. The Council would continue to consider charges made by neighbouring authorities.
(9) Councillor Castledine-Dack referred to there being several new housing developments under construction in Dinnington, predominately Wentworth Way and Oldcotes Road in Throapham. Residents on both sites report continuing problems with developers not adhering to the conditions of their planning permission and making their lives a misery. She asked what enforcement actions had been taken at these sites?
Councillor Atkin confirmed the Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer as well as officers from Environmental Health and Streetscene had made numerous visits to both of these sites when reports of any breaches of conditions had been made. In accordance with the Council’s adopted enforcement plan, where a breach of planning control was identified, the developer was made aware of this and the steps required to rectify the situation.
If compliance could not be secured by agreement through these initial processes, the Council would consider taking more formal action.
With regards to both of these developments, verbal warnings had been issued and a Breach of Condition Notice has been served on Taylor Wimpey, developers of the Wentworth Way site, in respect of breaches of construction hours as set out in the Construction Management Plan.
In a supplementary question Councillor Castledine-Dack confirmed, having spoken to residents at these sites, and accepted enforcement action had taken place, but there was still a strong feeling this was not where it needed to be. She asked what could the Council do to bridge the gap between residents and developments.
Councillor Atkin confirmed that with regard to the development at Wentworth Way, additional complaints had been made about mud on the road and positioning of the site cabins. Both issues had been reported to the site manager and further investigation work was being undertaken to determine if further action was required.
With regard to the development at Oldcotes Road, the main issue had been the amount of dust that was generated during dry weather. This matter was investigated and machinery brought onto site to overcome the problem. Both sites would be monitored during the construction phases to ensure continued compliance.
A planning representative attended a meeting with the local residents and Alexander Stafford M.P. on Friday, 5th November, 2021 specifically about the development at Oldcotes Road.
(10) Councillor C. Carter asked what was the Council doing to tackle anti-social behaviour on the path colloquially known as the Black Path (behind Campbell Walk) in Brinsworth?
Councillor Alam explained the Council was aware of the issue of anti-social behaviour from the path colloquially known as the Black Path towards the neighbouring residences.
Police colleagues had organized regular cycle patrols and plain clothes patrols and in addition, work had been done in local schools, with individual children and their families in relation to the throwing of fireworks. Although officers believed issues had reduced slightly, they did continue to work with residents to try and resolve the issues fully.
The issue had also been discussed at the Community Action Partnership with Council officers and colleagues from South Yorkshire Police and a plan was being produced. Officers were considering increased lighting and CCTV to try to address the issue, but both have difficulties in terms of cost and vandalism as the path was secluded in places.
Any ideas or proposals were welcomed to feed into the development of a plan taking into account the physical challenges.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Carter asked why the cameras previously funded by Brinsworth Ward Councillors had been removed, if there was a plan and what were the timescales associated with this.
Councillor Alam would seek information from officers and would contact Councillor C. Carter after this meeting.
(11) Councillor Miro asked did the Council have any extra/additional activities planned in view of the COP 26 Climate Change Summit and did it have in place any mechanisms to implement any relevant recommendations that come out from that conference?
Councillor Lelliott explained COP 26 was a meeting of the World Leaders where hopefully global agreements were developed with individual countries agreeing specific contributions.
The outcomes of the conference this week were awaited as to complete set of commitments being made by the UK Government.
(12) Councillor Ball withdrew his question.
(13) Councillor Reynolds asked how long would it take to complete the block paving outside the old Burton’s Tailoring building, how much did the work cost and how was it an improvement on what was already there.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed the new public realm works in College Street would be complete by the end of November 2021. This was one of three projects within the first phase of Public Realm improvement.
The College Street project was estimated to cost just over £1 million including all design costs.
The works included an entire replacement of all the hardstanding surfaces, as well as the addition of improved and varied seating provision, additional parking spaces in close proximity to the town centre, as well as making a raised area more accessible for users in wheelchairs and those using prams.
In a supplementary question Councillor Reynolds confirmed he regularly passed and had seen several crews working on a Sunday evening so asked why was it so imperative that work took place so late and at what rate on a Sunday evening at nearly midnight.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed that this was a private contract so it was up to the sub-contractor when they worked and how they paid their staff.
(14) Councillor Castledine-Dack referred to speeding vehicles becoming more problematic as traffic volumes were increasing post-lockdowns, especially at School Road in Laughton-en-le-Morthen and Outgang Lane in Laughton Common. She asked what steps could the Council take to make these roads safer and would they commit to improving safety along them before anyone was hurt or worse?
Councillor Beck explained that at School Road in Laughton-en-le-Morthen through the Neighbourhood Road Safety Programme, a scheme had been developed to install a central refuge where the speed limit changed (where School Road met Hangsman Lane) to create a ‘gateway effect’ on the approach to the School. This should help to regulate vehicle speeds in this area and would build on the School’s 20 mph signage that was installed in 2017 which indicated to drivers that they should not exceed 20 mph when the lights were flashing.
Whilst there were no other proposals for School Road at this time, concerns about speeding traffic would be noted for consideration for funding should they arise in the near future. In the meantime, School Road would be added to the list of sites for future deployment of a Vehicle Activated Sign.
Regarding Outgang Lane, over recent years a number of road safety improvements have been made such as yellow highlight backing for the 30 mph signage, a gateway feature near Station Way, a zebra crossing, a Vehicle Activated Sign and pedestrian refuges, together with developer improvements such as the roundabout at Knavesmire Avenue.
Recent mobile enforcement by the Safety Camera Partnership detected 39 offences in 1½ hour attendance on site and this stretch of road would remain on their list of sites to target in the future.
(15) Councillor Miro asked what was the Council’s experience of working with landowners in big housing projects such as Harworth for example?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed the development at Waverley was the largest single residential development dealt with by this Council. The outline planning permission was granted in 2011 for 3,890 houses and lasted for thirty years allowing the developer to submit details of the houses as they came forward for development on each smaller parcel of land. To enable this to happen, the Planning Team had provided a dedicated officer to work alongside Harworth’s as a single point of contact and to ensure that the vision and quality that was built into the outline permission was delivered over the lifetime of the scheme.
In a supplementary question Councillor Miro explained over the last few months he had had a variety of communication with Harworth. He was not criticizing them, but found the communication variable. This had been not so good over the last month of two in terms of complaints, especially with the loss of a community organization first shop where those involved had decided to stop progressing a mechanism of improving communication with Harworth.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed she would go back to officers to see if she could arrange a meeting of the community liaison group and contact Councillor Miro by email accordingly.
(16) Councillor Baum-Dixon referred to last week when children attending Dinnington High School, who lived in Woodsetts, were stranded on at least two occasions when the 19A bus did not arrive. This left children as young as eleven, in the dark unable to get home. The walk to Woodsetts was rural roads with no footpaths or streetlights. He asked did the Cabinet Member agree that this was totally unacceptable?
Councillor Beck confirmed the Number 19 and 19a bus routes were provided by Stagecoach Services. The service failures have been attributed to the current market conditions - shortage of bus drivers due to the current pressure on supply chains for HGV drivers and warehouse staff, creating a migration of workers to better paid professions.
The Council was also seeking to understand what planning the bus operators had done to mitigate the problems, along with what efforts they had made to ensure school services were protected during periods of driver shortages. The Council would work with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority on these matters and hoped that market conditions improved.
In a supplementary question Councillor Baum-Dixon referred to a text issued by the School only last week to parents about the dedicated bus from Woodsetts. He asked if this was a matter for RMBC and as Cabinet Member could there be a guarantee to get the dedicated service reinstated.
Councillor Beck was not sure whose responsibility this was, but would investigate this further and liaise with the School.
(17) Councillor Reynolds asked did RMBC negotiate a rent reduction with the Landlord during lockdown in Riverside and if not why not?
Councillor Lelliott explained the Council had not negotiated a rent reduction
for Riverside House during the pandemic because the building
remained operational throughout, though with significantly reduced
staff use and the public areas closed.
During lockdown the Community Hub operated a food bank from the building and a number of key worker staff required continued access such the multi-agency safeguarding hub, Registrars and IT.
Since the lifting of restrictions, the public areas of Riverside House had re-opened and more staff were attending as part of the new Hybrid working arrangements.
In a supplementary question Councilor Reynolds referred to the whole country negotiating with landlords and mortgage providers during the pandemic. This was a new era with new attitudes so why, if the building was not fully occupied, had the Council not negotiated a reduction for Riverside House in an attempt or at least tried to get hard earned council tax back.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed the building was operational throughout the pandemic and had been the Council’s headquarters with 1,925 food parcels being delivered and 550 people asking for loneliness services. It was morally right the building was open to support them.