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 Hoddinott referred to the recent consultation and asked when building would start on the much-needed pedestrian crossing at the top of Morthern Road?
Councillor Beck explained that since the public consultation in March 2022, site investigations have identified significant challenges in accommodating?a viable design for a pedestrian crossing owing to congestion of utilities equipment in the footways. Options were presently being reviewed to resolve these challenges in order to see if a safe crossing point could be provided.
As part of the forthcoming Transport Capital Programme, it was intended to bring this specific scheme forward. Subject to a feasible and affordable resolution being found, construction could be during the 2023 school summer holidays. However, this was subject to finding a viable design solution.
In addition, there had been success with other schemes particularly the one on the A57 which Councillors Pitchley and Taylor had been lobbying for in Swallownest.
(2) Councillor Fisher referred to the Gold Award being the highest badge of honour in the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) Employer Recognition Scheme. Rotherham had been awarded silver, while Barnsley, Sheffield and Doncaster Councils have the Gold Award. He asked could the Council reassure all local veterans that the gold standard would be achieved and when.
Councillor Allen confirmed the Council would like to reassure all local veterans that it would be aiming to achieve the gold standard in 2024, when the annual application process opened up for local authorities to apply in January.
In a supplementary question Councillor Fisher asked about the declaration for this year which was due to expire in March.
Councillor Allen was unable to provide a definitive answer but would investigate and confirm this in writing.
(3) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester explained that 25% of visitors to Rother Valley Country Park do so by public and sustainable travel, but only 11% to Thrybergh Country Park. He asked what was the plan to increase sustainable travel to Thrybergh please?
Councillor Beck confirmed like Councillor Bennett-Sylvester he wanted to see the figures increase. On this basis the Council was continuing to work with the Local Transport Authority, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, to develop and deliver improvements to the public transport system along with walking and cycling. Unfortunately, it all came down to funding and what was available.
Some funding had been secured to provide shower facilities and cycle racks to support active travel for both staff and customers. This would remain an ongoing piece of work.
The Council would continue to look into opportunities where Public Rights of Way in and around the Park could be improved. There were many things going on.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvester referred to a Borough map in Rotherham bus station, Rother Valley Country Park was on it, yet Thrybergh Country Park was not.
In 2018, a local resident petitioned the Council regarding the speed limits on the A630 which the former Cabinet Member actioned, and the speed limit was lowered. Within this there was also a request to see if a central crossing island could be provided to stop the A630 being such a barrier for people walking or using public transport. This had been with the Council for the last 3 or 4 years so could this not be started at least to enable people travelling to the Park on the bus could at least get across the road.
Councillor Beck again confirmed it was down to funding and referred to the Transport Capital Programme which published a number of crossings that the Council were hoping to deliver.
The Council had been fortunate enough to put relevant funding forward as it did not receive enough from the Government for schemes such as this. As the funding was not now available like it once was, the Council had had to find and fund schemes like this itself. Local Ward Members, therefore, could potentially fund this type of activity, specifically the crossing referred to in your own Ward through the local Road Safety Programme.
When it was Dalton and Thrybergh’s turn (in either Tranche 1 or Tranche 2) Members could have the opportunity to sit down with officers along with Councillor Baker Rogers and discuss what was the number one priority. It was then hoped that schemes such as this could be put in place with the funding set up by the Council.
(4) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked how confident was the Cabinet Member that everybody paying for Rothercare as part of their RMBC bungalow tenancy, either through the benefits system or their own means, was receiving Rothercare?
Councillor Roche confirmed every household whose tenancy included Rothercare had the choice to receive the Rothercare Service, some chose not to.
He was confident that all those households who wished to benefit from Rothercare were receiving the Service. For tenants who made a choice not to receive the Service they were informed that the offer remained if they should decide to take up the Service in the future.
Prospective new tenants were informed about Rothercare and the applicable mandatory charge as part of the lettings process. The lettings agreement, which was signed and agreed by all tenants, also included agreement to the mandatory Rothercare charge as a stipulation of the tenancy - as per Section 2G of the tenancy agreement.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvester was concerned about the mandatory part of this providing a guaranteed cash income for the Service, and that was a priority.
He asked could the Council not just treat people as adults when taking on a tenancy for a bungalow and give them a choice of whether or not they wished to pay for Rothercare. That could save some pensioners £150 a year if they were not in need of the Service. A lot of time residents feel they have no choice in accepting a bungalow and end up having to pay this charge whether or not they need or whether or not, which seems unfair.
Councillor Roche confirmed that if the Council removed the mandatory charge, hundreds of households who currently have the charge met automatically through their benefits would have to find the money themselves. Having a service and not paying for it would simply increase the charge to others.
At the moment there was just under half of all residents who did not require the Service. However, it was pleasing to report that the Council was in the process of reviewing the whole of the Rothercare Service. The outcome was not yet known as the review was still ongoing, but the level of charges and how they were applied were all being looked at.
Councillor Roche would ensure Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s comments were fed in. The outcome of the review would then be presented to Cabinet sometime later on this year.
(5) Councillor Ball was aware the Children’s Capital of Culture was fast approaching so asked when could Members expect parks to be brought up to standard and out-of-date play equipment replaced?
Councillor Sheppard confirmed play would form an important part of the Children’s Capital of Culture programme and the Council had invested over £462,861 in improvements to 28 play areas across 16 Wards over the last 2 years and would continue to manage and maintain play equipment at 35 play areas in the Borough.
In a supplementary question Councillor Ball could understand what was put in but asked would the Cabinet Member commit to carrying out a survey of all play equipment to ensure that they were in date and safe and would replacements be provided for those items damaged or past their use by date. He gave examples of where in Coronation Park there were 4 or 5 play pieces missing equipment so asked would the Council commit to putting those back in.
Councillor Sheppard explained that Members and residents could report where there were pieces of equipment that had been damaged. The Council did carry out standard checks, but things happen at certain times.
In terms of Maltby’s Coronation Park, as Councillor Ball would be aware, the Council still had Section 106 monies to be spent in this area of around £40,000. The Council would continue to consult with Ward Members on what equipment that required being replaced for those lost over time and would be in regular dialogue over this action.
(6) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked how many instances have there been of cross contamination of communal bins serving Council flats in the past year and what was, as well as who, had covered the cost?
Councillor Beck confirmed it was not possible to give a figure for instances of cross contamination of communal bins from Council flats as the current system did not record the information specifically for communal bins. The service did recognise this as a problem and were working to replace the existing system, so this information would be more readily available in future.
The Service was aware of particular issues with communal bins and were working with relevant stakeholders, such as Housing and Waste colleagues, to try and address individual issues. Some of the actions so far had included visits to hotspots and use of CCTV as well as engagement with residents.
There should be no excuse, but there were sometimes reasons for it. Every effort would be made to provide relevant education and improve on the waste calendars that were distributed.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvesterhad noted at the last meeting that there was a £2.6 million cost to the Housing Revenue Account for putting the infrastructure in for these bins effectively creating pockets of little dump-it sites in various estates.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester was concerned that, as a result of the rushed implementation following this Council being embarrassed about being the last mainland authority not to have cut plastic collections, could it not be an idea to be like private landlords and just have a pink bin until the situation could be sorted. This would then provide a service that did not look as unsightly as people that live on these estates.
Councillor Beck could remember the roll out as he was Cabinet Member for Housing at the time. It was a good piece of joint working when plastic recycling was introduced. This had been a huge success and had increased recycling rates across the Borough. This was a continuing trend.
The Service would not want to take a step backward with Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s suggestion. Yes, it was not easy, and Ward Members were receiving casework reports on this from people living in communities where this was a problem.
This had to be approached in a more positive way around educating people and looking at other places where there were some good examples.
Rotherham was not the only place where there was a significant conurbations of Council flats where communal bins were in operation and there might be places the Council could learn from as well, so this was an ongoing piece of work.
It was recognised this was an issue and work would continue with Ward Members where there were problems.
(7) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester explained there were 125 Council properties managed by the Homeless Section as temporary accommodation so asked what was the criteria for selecting properties to be managed as “crash pads” as they were known?
Councillor Brookes confirmed the Council’s Temporary Accommodation properties were selected to ensure temporary accommodation was available in as many Wards as possible, so that those affected by homelessness could be placed close to their existing support networks and schools etc. However, this was not always possible, as it very much depended upon the availability and turnover of properties in each area. For this reason, some Wards may have higher numbers of temporary accommodation units than others.
The portfolio was periodically reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the accommodation available continues to meet service and customer requirements. For example, if homelessness presentations increased for families, the Team would look to adjust the supply of family accommodation, whilst releasing any oversupply of single persons accommodation back into general housing management.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvester referred on the range of these crash pads the 5 most deprived Wards in the Borough with just 37% of housing stock had 56% of these crash pads, while the 5 least deprived Wards have 9% of the housing stock could only carry 3%. There was a massive difference when you look at areas like Bramley, Ravenfield, Wickersley, where there were not any at all. These properties do cause a range of challenges but was it not time that some other areas start to carry the burden and look to have the same criteria.
Councillor Brookes confirmed that with the same distribution figures Greasbrough had the most general stock, so it followed that it had more provision. If Members had any particular concerns about percentages in deprived areas, then may be this could be looked into as part of the review.
(8) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester asked with the cost of hire increasing for community skips and challenges over the disposal of foam furniture had any consideration been given to altering the 10% operational spending limit or any other aspect of Ward Housing Hub spending?
Councillor Brookes confirmed she was aware that the cost of hire of a community skip had increased by approximately 10.5% over the past year. As such, she had asked that a degree of flexibility be applied with regard to the current guidance during this financial year and that the guidance be reviewed ahead of the next financial year.
The current Ward Housing Hub project approval guidance advised that no more than 10% of Ward Housing Hub funding should be committed to community skips. This was to ensure that most of the budget was spent on projects which delivered a longer-term sustainable benefit to neighbourhoods.
In a supplementary question Councillor Bennett-Sylvester pointed out that over 1,800 Council homes in the least deprived parts of town get £29,000 Ward Housing Hub yet just under 1,083 properties in Dalton and Thrybergh get £13.500. He asked was it time to scrap this £4 million and pay a direct £10.00 per house per Ward so that it was distributed where the problems were the most and where the most deprived communities were.
Councillor Brookes was aware Councillor Bennett-Sylvester had raised this issue previously, but the answer remained the same. There were no plans to review, and the system would remain as it was.
(9) Councillor Ball referred over the last year could the Leader inform him how much Rotherham had paid into the SYMCA Strategic Economic Plan and how much had been spent in the Rotherham area?
The Leader confirmed the economic plan was a policy of the Mayoral Combined Authority, so there was no kind of entry fee for the policy, and it did not necessarily mean that money was received on the other side.
The Council paid an annual membership fee to SYMCA of £35,900 as part of the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Council did not directly make a payment for the SYMCA Strategic Economic Plan.
The total SYMCA investment into Rotherham during 2022/23 was £45.5m.
In a supplementary question Councillor Ball asked if it was possible to be provided with a full list of monies spent outside of the town centre for areas of Thurcroft, Maltby, Dinnington and Swinton and if possible, to report on 2 potholes on the A631 (one outside the Hellaby Depot and one at the bottom of Addison Road) and hoped they would soon be repaired.
The Leader confirmed he was sure it would be possible to provide Councillor Ball with a list of projects and would look to see if there was first a sensible way of dividing those up rather than providing a full list.
(10) Councillor C. Carter asked could the Cabinet Member confirm which at library sites in the Borough the Council does not employ any staff?
Councillor Sheppard confirmed there were 15 libraries across the Rotherham Borough and the Council employed staff across at 14 of these sites, with the exception being Brinsworth Library.
The library at Brinsworth was community managed through Brinsworth Parish Council with support from the Council. Whilst the Council did not employ staff at this site it continued to provide support services including the supply and maintenance of stock, transporting of books/stock, access to the Library Management System and the training of volunteers.
The arrangement was reached by a voluntary agreement with Brinsworth Parish Council and saw the Council making an investment of more than a quarter of a million pounds into the building and facilities, helping to ensure the library was on a sustainable long-term footing.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Carter asked if the Cabinet Member believed residents of Brinsworth were getting a bad deal in that they were being taxed twice for their Library Services, once through their Council Tax and once in their Parish precept in comparison to other areas of the Borough.
Councillor Sheppard did not think residents were getting bad value. Investment had gone into Brinsworth Library with £124,800 of Section 106 money being used to build the new library and using capital funding of £148,401 for additional capital works and fitting it out.
The Council had invested heavily in Brinsworth the Cabinet Member hoped the residents of Brinsworth really appreciated that facility and continued to go along and enjoy each day.
(11) Councillor Tarmey asked was the Council aware that the electric vehicle chargers in Wellgate (multi-storey) car park were not functional. This did not bode well for the electric vehicle charging initiative so asked when would these chargers be working again?
Councillor Beck explained there were 5 electrical vehicle chargers in Wellgate Car Park (each with two sockets), and 3 were out of the 5 were functional. At present this had been adequate capacity for those needing to charge.
The Council was aware of the issue which had been identified by the maintenance partner. The issue was caused by low voltage on one of the electrical supply phases which had been reported to Northern Powergrid who attended on 4th April, and the maintenance partner was scheduled for a follow-up visit tomorrow. Unfortunately, grid supply issues were somewhat out of our hands.
In a supplementary question Councillor Tarmey had been advised by a local resident who had reported the problem to himself. Councillor Tarmey had visited to check, and it seemed to be a problem with actually getting the app to log in. It was tried on a couple of the chargers. He, therefore, asked who would be the best person for the resident to contact if they require support in how to operate the devices.
Councillor Beck confirmed if residents contacted Councillor Tarmey if he then contacted Councillor Beck the situation would be resolved.
(12) Councillor C. Carter asked did the Cabinet Member agree with her that public buses taking children to and from school should be required to collect students directly outside school premises, as opposed the collecting them from the nearest public bus stop, which could be some walk away?
Councillor Beck confirmed he did not agree, and that South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority did not site bus stops directly outside schools. This was to remove any potential conflicts with School Keep Clear markings and other school transport, traffic, and pedestrians, in order to ensure the safety of all road users.
In a supplementary question Councillor C. Carter made reference to Bonet Lane where there were large volumes of Brinsworth Academy students waiting at one particular bus stop. This was causing issues for residents and anti-social behaviour in the area so asked could the Cabinet Member support to have the bus re-routed at school time to pull outside Brinsworth Academy’s lay-by as opposed to at this bus stop.
Councillor Beck confirmed he would be happy to look into this issue and would raise it with the Transport Authority, which was SYMCA on this who may well have a view as the operators. If this was a safety issue and there was something within the rules that was possible, then the Cabinet Member was happy to look to see what could be done to improve that situation and work with Councillor C. Carter on this.