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) Mr. David Smith asked why the Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion tried to make out in the Rotherham Star that the reason for not building a leisure centre in Dinnington was based on financial constraints and also why he made it clear that the Council had no intention of making it part of the proposals for the Levelling Up Fund bid for Dinnington which he should have nothing to do with?
The Leader explained that the Council’s decisions were made collectively by the Cabinet and, in responding to the question, Councillor Sheppard was responding on behalf of the administration of the Council. Any Member of Cabinet would be able to comment on the issue.
Councillor Sheppard explained that there had been a question at the last full Council meeting about the provision of potential new leisure facilities in Dinnington which had been looked at. Unfortunately, the finances did not fit with the possibilities that were available at that time and were a huge ask at the moment. If there were any proposals that the Council was able to finance or find external funding for, the Council would look at them. However, the Council also had to consider the implications on the existing contract for leisure facilities within the Borough. This did not mean that the Council was not going to help the people of Dinnington and the Council would always be looking to provide as much sporting and recreational facilities as they could across the Borough.
In his supplementary question, Mr. Smith asked why it was not made clear that the real reason for not allowing Dinnington to have a much needed leisure centre, because of its major health problems that are worse than any other area in Rotherham, was because of the PFI contract that was agreed with the then DC leisure, which operated Aston, Wath and Maltby? The contract is still in place with the company (now called Places for People Leisure) and has a non-competition clause which is the real reason why Dinnington could not have the leisure centre. It was possible as it could form part of the Levelling Up Fund Bid as it met the Government criteria. It could have done it last time but it can also do it this time.
Councillor Sheppard stated that there were many considerations to take into account when looking at potential funding and there was not one thing that cancelled anything out. Over the last 20-30 years, lots of facilities had moved to more centralised leisure facilities which provided a much broader and wider range of activities as opposed to the smaller, more localised ones. The Council would always strive to deliver as many recreational opportunities across the Borough in order to improve health and keep residents active.
(2) Councillor Castledine-Dack asked for an update on the reworking of the Levelling Up Fund bid for Dinnington High Street including what iterations of the plan currently looked like with the deadline fast approaching in July?
Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, explained that officers had been working alongside Elected Members and members of the local community, including the Town Council to develop the bid prior to submission before the deadline. Verbal feedback on the Round 1 bid had been received from Government and the proposal was to have a bid in for Wath and Dinnington. The bids were being developed and the bid for Dinnington was focused on the High Street, diversification, the markets, the public realm and leisure opportunities for children and young people based on the feedback from the local community.
In her supplementary question, Councillor Castledine-Dack asked for confirmation whether or not the reworking of the bid would be based broadly on the first bid that was put forward? The first bid fell down on two parts, firstly the match funding element and secondly, on the application of the theory of change model. She asked whether the Cabinet Member could confirm that the reworking of the bid was based on the first plan put forward and was not an attempt to redraw the wheel 3 months before the deadline?
Paul Woodcock confirmed that there had been much positive feedback on the bid and the first bid would be worked on based on the consultation with the local community and within the remit of what was allowed within the capital criteria from Government and within ongoing revenue costs as plans progressed into the future.
(3) Mr. Ian Sanderson stated that the people living and working in Dinnington did not feel that they had been consulted on in relation to the Levelling Up Fund bid and on other regeneration projects in the town. He asked who in the local community had been worked with and when did this take place? He noted that with the first bid, the community did feel engaged and involved but the second bid felt like it was happening behind closed doors. He asked when the consultation would happen to find out what the local community wanted rather than ideas being imposed by the Council?
Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, explained that officers had mainly been working with Elected Members as representatives of their community and with the Town Council as elected representatives.
In his supplementary, Mr. Sanderson explained that that was disappointing as the Town Councillors and Borough Councillors felt that plans were being presented to them at a late stage and without chance to get community involvement. Mr. Sanderson gave the example of involving hockey in the bid and questioned who in Dinnington played hockey? He asked when officers would actually ask the community what they would want to see?
The Leader confirmed that a written response would be provided and any further conversations facilitated if required.
(4) Mr. Osman Suleman stated that, as a Muslim resident of Rotherham, he had significant concerns to raise about the Muslim burial section at East Herringthorpe Cemetery. A recently dug test grave had been flooded with what appeared to be contaminated water and had been poorly protected which was a further health and safety risk. The area around the Muslim burial section had been littered with soil, bricks and fencing which made the area look untidy and was disrespectful to those buried there and their families. Mr. Suleman asked what actions the Council and Dignity were taking to rectify the concerns?
Councillor Alam explained that the concerns had been raised on Good Friday after the test grave, which had been covered, had been uncovered by unknown persons. At no time was it planned to use the test grave for an actual burial. The Council had taken action over the drainage issue and was working with Dignity. Council engineers had visited the Cemetery on Tuesday, 19th April, 2022, to identify the source of the leak and look at potential solutions, such as a new drainage system. Councillor Alam agreed that the Cemetery did need tidying up but it was a live site where graves were dug. As such, work was underway to look at how live graves could be dug in batches of 20 or 30, to stop repeat visits by workers and accompanying vehicles. This would have to be done sensitively to meet the cultural needs.
In his supplementary question, Mr. Suleman asked whether an underground water risk assessment would take place and what steps could be taken to improve communication with the local community?
Councillor Alam explained that both Council engineers and Dignity engineers would be assessing the site to look at the issues. In relation to the communications, he confirmed that there was a Muslim Liaison Group but that it had not met for the last year and a half due to COVID-19. There were other groups, that included local Imam’s, that looked at the ethical needs for Muslim graves and gave independent advice to Dignity.
(5) Ms. Nida Khan explained that her family had recently lost their Mum to COVID-19 and had been spending a lot of time at East Herringthorpe Cemetery during what was a very difficult time for them. On the Thursday prior to Good Friday, the family had been at the Cemetery from the time it opened to the time it closed. They had watched the test grave being dug and then watched the water be pumped out for most of the day. The grave was dry when they left but the workers never supported the grave next to it. Later that day the family noticed that parts of the existing grave, including items left on the grave, were falling into the newly dug test grave. They then tried to get in touch with anyone that could help, phoning all numbers that were available but they could not get through. The family then decided that the best way to show respect to the person that was resting there was to try and support the grave with a piece of metal fencing that had been left. Ms Khan stated that the newly dug test grave had more resembled a well, given that it was half full of dirty water and this was extremely concerning to families, such as her own, that had recently buried relatives in that same ground. She felt that she had to speak up for those buried there as they could no longer speak for themselves. Further concerns were raised as even more new graves were being dug in the same location. There had been no rainfall so it was not known where all of the water was coming from. Ms. Khan stated that she had tried to contact groups, Councillors, Dignity and the Council but had no response. As such, the family asked the community to meet and raise any concerns. Over 200 people attended. Ms. Khan explained that no-one in her family had seen any testing being done at the Cemetery, despite someone being there for the duration of the opening hours.
Ms. Khan asked what a test grave was and what action was being immediately taken?
The Leader expressed his condolences to Ms. Khan’s family and offered his sincerest apologies for the difficulties faced at what was already an extremely challenging time. In addition to the response for Councillor Alam below, the Leader confirmed that Ms. Khan would be updated on what action was being taken outside of the meeting.
Councillor Alam explained that he felt a personal obligation to this matter as Ms. Khan’s mother was one of his aunties. He explained that as he was in a position of public leadership, he felt he had a responsibility to make sure that those buried in the Cemetery were in a safe and dry environment. Councillor Alam explained that the test grave was filled in and covered and not used for any burials. The Leader explained that a test grave was simply a hole dug to see if water was present in that location and if so, what actions were necessary. Councillor Alam explained that the Council was ready to fund their own works on the drainage system and he assured Ms. Khan that this was being taken very seriously. He explained that the issue was in identifying where the leak was as the drainage system was quite old, having been installed about 60 years ago.
Ms. Khan explained that the “hole” very much resembled a grave as it had the breezeblocks in it. Ms Khan also explained that the new graves were being dug level with the test grave and that family members were not informed of the issues prior to burials. She questioned why burials were still being allowed? Ms. Khan also raised the issue of health and safety as the test grave was not fenced off and anyone could have fallen into it.
Ms. Khan explained that Councillor Yasseen had attended the gathering but Councillor Alam, along with other Councillors who had been invited, did not.
In response to further comments, the Leader explained that Councillor Alam was not responsible for the day-to-day running of the cemetery and was not in charge of operational matters such as who gets buried where. The Leader confirmed that the issues raised would be looked into.
(6) Ms. Farzana Khan stated that she has a disabled niece who has Downs Syndrome but cannot visit the grave because there is no disabled access or even footpaths in that area of the Cemetery. Ms. Khan asked what the Council was going to do to rectify this matter?
Councillor Alam explained that the Council had been chasing Dignity for the last 6 months and a temporary footpath had been installed. It was hoped that this would be tarmaced and Dignity had committed to making the layout disability friendly.
In her supplementary question, Ms. Khan stated that the path referenced by Councillor Alam was not close to her mother’s grave and, therefore, tarmacing would not help matters.
Councillor Alam explained that Dignity had been asked to do a Disability Access Audit to make sure it was accessible. He explained that he had been raising this for a significant period of time and he understood the concerns. He confirmed that it was being raised with Dignity.