To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
Question 1: Councillor Hoddinott:
Given the new statutory guidance on school uniforms to make things cheaper and easier for parents, it’s disappointing to see issues at the start of the new term. Who could intervene to ensure schools were complying?
Councillor Cusworth responding indicating that non-statutory guidance was issued in June 2023 by the Government to be read alongside the previous statutory guidance around the cost of uniforms from 2021. Both put more emphasis on governing bodies with regard to uniform being more affordable.
In the first instance any issues should be raised with trustees and/or school governors who had responsibility to ensure that all policies and statutory guidance was followed. Governors should take account of affordability when approving policies and ensure they were fit for purpose and the guidance was considered. Should any complaints needed to be raised regarding this a form was available on the Government website.
Thankfully Uniform banks were now being used by many without as much taboo as historically seen, often with swops taking place.
In her supplementary Councillor Hoddinott noted that the Youth Cabinet were considering the cost of school uniforms and uniform banks, and this would be considered as part of the Children’s Take Over Challenge. It was queried if the Cabinet Member would be supporting them with this issue?
Councillor Cusworth clarified that the Youth Cabinet would be supported.
Question 2: Councillor Tinsley:
The School Crossing Patrol Service Celebrated 70 Years in England this year. While Unison promoted earlier on in the year their everyday action hero’s, which included Maltby’s very own Lollipop Lady Sandy who was turned into a 3d printed action Hero. Would the service in Rotherham be celebrating the 70th Anniversary and recognising their contribution in the borough?
Councillor Cusworth said she was pleased to meet Sandy. She noted that Facilities Services had recognised the anniversary in February. A commemorative badge was issued to complement their uniform, along with a letter of recognition being sent to all employees as a gesture of thanks for their continued dedication to their role.
In his supplementary Councillor Tinsley noted the dangers school crossing patrols faced and asked if the Council took staff and children’s road crossing safety seriously?
Councillor Cusworth responded saying road safety was taken very seriously, which was why road traffic schemes were rolled out. She explained that every near miss was reported back in. Consideration had been given to wardens wearing body cameras however it was deemed inappropriate.
Question 3: Councillor A Carter:
Would the cabinet member assure him that any council plans to undertake moving traffic enforcement on Wood Lane in Brinsworth, would not apply when the three other road routes out of Brinsworth were blocked due to flooding, and signage be put up to that effect?
A written response would be provided to this question.
Question 4: Councillor A Carter:
Following the in-year reduction in district heating charges, meaning that residents were paying less for their energy, could the council confirm to him that they would reimburse residents who had overpaid so far, this financial year, and commit to doing so within the next month?
Councillor Allen noted it was the Council’s intention that all District Heating customers, would by the end of November 2023 have received the appropriate credit to their account. The majority of customers had already received their credit.
In his supplementary Councillor A Carter noted that whilst the credit was on their account, it would not be given back to them in cash terms until June and he queried if this was the case then could a review be carried out to ensure that the money was available to residents quicker.
Councillor Allen explained there were 35 residents who had yet to receive their credit due to problems with their meters, but she hadn’t come across a request for a cash refund. At the moment it was being issued as a credit to their account to ensure it was there in time for winter. She was happy to discuss the potential for refunds with officers. Councillor A Carter would provide details of the instance to Councillor Allen.
Question 5: Councillor Mills:
One hundred and twelve identified council cameras had been offline since June, why had it taken the council five months to upgrade the SIM cards?
Councillor Alam noted that due to increases in costs with the current supplier, and the need to comply with financial regulations officers had been required to source a new provider for the sim cards and arrange for installation. In addition, each camera required reprogramming with new software to enable the sim cards to work and additional security measures had been implemented to improve security and access to the systems. This upgrade required technical CCTV specialists to undertake the work and therefore this support had to be sourced and obtained externally, therefore it was not as easy as perhaps it sounded.
The Sim upgrade on the 112 cameras was expected to be completed by the end of October, with a third completed to date and cameras that had received the upgrade were now back on-line.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills expressed disappointment that the situation was this bad and asked if more were due to be upgraded in the near future.
Councillor Alam clarified that a third of the cameras had been upgraded with the remaining due to be upgrade by the end of October.
Question 6: Councillor Mills:
How much had it cost the taxpayer for a contractor to upgrade the SIM cards and why wasn't it done in house?
Councillor Alam explained the sim cards had to be replaced as the contract term was expiring. Had the Council not carried out this essential work, the cameras would not be accessible remotely.
The Council was unable to provide a full breakdown of costs at this time as work remained ongoing, as each unit was inspected there were some units needing additional work to be upgraded. This figure would be available at the end of the project when the full costings for the work could be provided.
The work undertaken to upgrade and re-programme the cameras, and security systems, required specialist knowledge and expertise, Rotherham Council did not require these specialists with this level of technical expertise on a full-time basis and this type of activity had always been outsourced to an external company.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills said he felt the Council had delayed identifying the need for the upgrade and would it be reasonable for an apology to be issued for the delay.
Councillor Alam explained that the technology was coming to the end of the contract so there was a need to renew and update it. It was hard to do this initially and the requested information would be provided at the end of the project.
Question 7: Councillor Ball:
The pocket park in the town centre was back on the agenda, could you let me know how much this had increased in costs from then and now?
Councillor Lelliott noted that the scheme had increased from £1m to £1.92m due to increased costs of demolition and remediation of the former Primark site.
The budget for the scheme was £1m Town Deal and £350,000 from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and £570,000 from the Council’s capital.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball felt that a good deal should have secured in the first instance and queried why the Council should be trusted to deliver if the charges were being increased?
Councillor Lelliott explained that the redevelopment of Forge Island had been possible through sound investment and planning.
Question 8: Councillor Ball:
What analysis had been done by the council to support having a pocket park in the middle of the High Street?
Councillor Lelliott explained that consultation carried out between 2019 and 2022 on the Council’s plans for improving public realm and open space in the town centre had consistently indicated that Rotherham residents wished to see more greenery and open spaces in the town centre.
To quote just one resident “I welcome more open green space within the Rotherham town centre. There were many historic and beautiful buildings in that area that were overshadowed by dilapidated and not-so-nice buildings. This space would give people of the surrounding area a place to enjoy that architecture. Also, as it was more open, it was less daunting walking through the town centre.”
The Council’s investment in public realm and open space is in direct response to resident’s wishes to see the town centre revitalised.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball asked why the available funding on upgrading other parks in the borough such as Coronation park. He queried why a new one would be built when others needed upgrading?
In response Councillor Lelliott, the consultation indicates that the public wanted a pocket park. The Council was regenerating spaces, making them more dynamic in accordance with the views of residents.
Question 9: Councillor Mills:
After recent ASB at Thrybergh Country Park would the Council commit to supplying body cameras to Park Rangers to better protect themselves and the general public?"
Councillor Sheppard thanked Councillor Mills for his concern about the issues faced by Park Rangers. Unfortunately, issues of anti-social behaviour did occasionally occur. We had staff who wore body worn cameras such as some Enforcement Staff in Community Protection, subject to the nature of their duties and the assessed risks.
At this time, we were working jointly between Green Spaces, Community Safety and South Yorkshire Police to understand the scale and frequency of the problems, as well as their root causes and would consider the most appropriate interventions. So, we would keep under review whether body worn cameras were warranted.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills acknowledged that it was positive news that this was being reviewed however some Park Rangers were recording instances on their phones, which could create more attention. He asked again if this could be reconsidered?
Councillor Sheppard reiterated that this was being reviewed but also stated the desire to ensure parks were welcoming and friendly places for people to visit, therefore the impact of cameras would need to be assessed.
Councillor Ball queried if it was a breach of GDPR regulations if Park Rangers were recording incidents on their phones.
The Monitoring Officer indicated that this was a separate matter would be responded to outside of the meeting.
Question 10: Councillor Ball:
What were the projections on how many additional visitors to the High Street a pocket park would bring and what was the economic benefit to the town centre?
Councillor Lelliott explained that the ‘pocket park’ scheme removed a building which sat vacant in a prominent position on the High Street for 4 years. The closing of Primark was estimated to have reduced footfall along the High Street by as much as 40%. The scheme removed the liability of a large, difficult to let retail unit in which the private sector market clearly had no interest, from this prominent town centre location and created an opportunity for future development more suited to today’s climate.
In the meantime, the ‘pocket park’ itself would provide more reason for town centre users to visit the High Street and the businesses operating in this location. It was estimated that the scheme would increase footfall by 20% above 2020 levels.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball asked if the scheme did not reach the predicted numbers, would the Council apologise?
Councillor Lelliott said she had every confidence that it would reach those targets.
Question 11: Councill Mills:
How many small road safety schemes were ready to be carried out and what was the average wait time for works to be carried out?
A written response would be provided to this question.
Question 12: Councillor Mills:
What were the Council doing to ensure residents in Council ran Care Homes stay warm this winter?
Councillor Roche indicated all council run care homes had central heating systems installed to ensure an optimal temperature. The temperature was set to reflect the current season and was informed by weather alerts for adverse conditions. All heating systems were serviced annually, and daily building temperature checks were completed to ensure that the building remained at a constant, optimum temperature.
During the winter period, summer tog rated quilts were replaced with a higher tog rated replacement as well as additional blankets and throws being available for residents. Hot water bottles were not used due to the potential health and safety risks these could pose.
All Council run care homes had robust business continuity plans in place to mitigate against adverse weather for both hot and cold weather conditions. Ensuring that our buildings were at the optimum temperature was a priority for the Council as it ensured the environment supported people to regain their independence and improve wellbeing.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills indicated that he had recently spoken with a resident who’d indicated how cold they were and when raised they were only offered a thin blanket. The new starter had indicated nothing further was available at that time. He sought assurance that training would be provided for all new starters to address this.
Councillor Roche acknowledged that everyone had different perceptions of hot and cold. He had investigated this instance with the service and was assured that it had been resolved. He indicated that this question related to casework and should not have been raised in this manner, where individuals may be identified.
Question 13: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
Pedestrian visitors to Thrybergh Country Park using the main entrance had to walk part of the way on a road with no extra reduction in speed limit. When would we expect an entranceway where those on foot, using wheelchairs or pushing buggies would be separated from road traffic into the park?
Councillor Sheppard explained that unfortunately, the funding secured for the Country Park did not stretch to this request for an entrance that was separated from the road, however the Council would ensure this was considered for any future proposals and funding bids for the park.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester indicated his disappointment regarding the scaling back of proposals for the park but asked in the meantime if options such as a speed reduction be considered, along with additional signage and the option of a temporary surface to use as a footpath on the verges?
Councillor Sheppard indicated he would work with officers to ensure there was a safe and welcoming environment to the country parks.
Question 14: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
The failure to move the car park at Thrybergh Country Park meant the play area move discussed in consultation could not take place. When could we now expect a replacement play area at the park?
Councillor Sheppard indicated they had hoped that the relocation of the play facilities could have been achieved as part of the Levelling Up funded project, however this had not been possible due to cost constraints. Fortunately, the existing play area was not impacted.
As part of his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester said that over the years he had noticed the water sports facility being removed from Thrybergh Country Park along with other activities only for them to then be developed at Rother Valley County Park, he felt this may indicate favouritism towards some areas.
Councillor Sheppard clarified that there was no favouritism, all parks were valued and would be invested in when the possibility to do so arose.
Question 15: Councillor Mills:
What was the policy on Councillors doing work in other members wards?
Councillor Allen clarified that members were not expected to be proactively seeking work in other members wards. However, if a member was approached by a resident with some casework who didn’t live in your ward, you could direct that resident to the relevant member for their ward or you could pick it up and action it, but it is incumbent that you advise the relevant member of what you’ve received and what action had been taken.
She also explained that as the Leader and Cabinet Members held a boroughwide portfolio they would work across the borough in terms of discharging those responsibilities.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills indicated that it had been mentioned in a previous meeting that Councillors represented everyone, and he sought clarity.
In response, Councillor Allen said that if a resident of the borough approached any member of the authority, then it was their duty as a public servant to assist that resident whilst giving courtesy to the relevant ward member.
Question 16: Councillor Ball:
Could you provide me with the sickness levels RMBC currently had?
Councillor Alam said the Council’s sickness absence rate for August 2023 was 12.63 average working days lost per FTE.
This information was included in the council’s regularly performance reports to OSMB, where members had the opportunity to scrutinise those figures.
Question 17: Councillor Ball:
How many job vacancies were left unfilled at this present time?
Councillor Alam explained that vacancy information was held at service level as part of the budget monitoring process but was not currently reported on centrally.
However, to give an indication of the current vacancy position, as of Friday 29th September, the Council had 59 live adverts for vacancies advertised externally and two jobs being advertised internally.
The 59 external adverts equated to 103 current vacancies that were being advertised and two of the adverts were rolling recruitment campaigns for Social Workers in Adult Care and Children’s Services.
This equated to around 2% of the Council’s overall headcount and was in line with the latest annual turnover rate of 10.98%.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball noted he felt things were taking a long time to do at the moment and he felt some members were having to trail back through emails to find information relating to casework to ascertain how long it had been in progress for.
Councillor Alam indicated this would be picked up with Democratic Services and a response provided in writing.
Question 18: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester
When would the full resurfacing of the path take place of the path around Thrybergh Country Park?
Councillor Sheppard noted that whilst there was a desire to improve the path around the Country Park this required significant capital investment. Opportunities to fund this provision would continue to be explored.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester noted that at the same meeting as approval for funding for this scheme was agreed another item was approving funding for other non-Council owned properties. He felt we should be ensuring our own properties were supported in the first instance.
Councillor Sheppard whilst the Council was very happy to have secured the levelling up bids from central government, it was clarified that there was only so much the Council could do with that funding. The Council was keen to get as much investment in as it could and would always work to ensure the Council’s facilities were at the best they could be for residents; it was working within constrained means.
Question 19: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
Who was the “we” you refer to in a RMBC social media post of September 11th regards the unveiling of a blue plaque to Arthur Wharton and what role did you and RMBC play in the unveiling?
Councillor Sheppard explained he was invited by Rotherham Civic Society to the unveiling of the blue plaque for Arthur Wharton which they had organised. To his mind the “we” in this case was Rotherham. The plaque was to celebrate Arthur and draw attention to a citizen of our Borough who we were all proud of and glad to celebrate.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester noted that others had put a lot of work into the project and felt those people had not been properly recognised. He sought assurance that if anything of this sort progressed again that those outside groups would be properly recognised.
Councillor Sheppard noted the event had been organised by the Rotherham Civic Society and the Mayor was present as the Council’s civic representative at the event.
Question 20: Councillor Ball:
Could the leader of the council make a statement on how RMBC planned to mitigate the traffic chaos in and out of Maltby on Bawtry Road caused by several ongoing developments and road layout changes?
A written response would be provided to this question.
Question 21: Councillor Ball:
Would the leader of the council commit to helping secure the future of Maltby Miners' Community Recreation Ground for future generations of Maltby residents?
The Leader said he was aware of concerns in the Maltby community about the much-loved facility. He did not know what intervention Councillor Ball had in mind but on behalf of the Borough Council he was happy to take representations to the Town Council to consider what may or not be able to be done.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball said there had been recent examples of another ground that had been sold off for a housing development and he was seeking assurance that the Council did not want to lose this as a Maltby asset. He asked the Leader to do everything in his power to save the site.
The Leader clarified that he did not want the site to be lost either however he did not know what may be able to be done. He knew there had been concerns regarding the capital receipt received that then wasn’t invested in the community and he thought this may be a bigger issue than the Council was able to deal with but understood the frustration. If Councillor Ball knew of particular things that he or the Town Council felt the Council should be doing, then he was very happy to have that conversation.
Question 22: Councillor Mills:
How much had it cost the Taxpayer to sort out Eastwoods rat infestation and how many rats had been caught to date?
Councillor Allen explained that the cost of the baiting programme was just under £60,000 and the number of rats caught would be available over the coming weeks as the information was being gathered by multiple teams and would be provided when available.
In his supplementary Councillor Mills said he had previously suggested that communal bins may assist in some streets to help reduce the problem. How did Councillor Allen think that communal bins would help to reduce the rat infestation and help clean up the streets?
Councillor Allen said that prior to implementing the baiting programme a lot of debate was held around the conditions that would make it successful. Part of those conditions was around removal of waste that was already present and around an education programme with residents on how they could work with the Council to understand what the current refuse collections were. The consideration of communal bins was on hold to await the outcome of the current programme.
Question 23: Councillor Reynolds:
At our last full Council Meeting Councillor Beck promised to report back to the next meeting with an update on how successful Recycling had been since new system launched, e.g., what contribution had separate waste made compared to the earlier waste arrangements.
A written response would be provided to this question.
Question 24: Councillor Ball:
What were the plans for the big empty space at Riverside once the library moves out?
Councillor Lelliott explained that it was not expected that the Library at Riverside House would transfer across to the new Library site until September 2025 at the earliest. Therefore, at this point final decisions on future usage hadn’t been confirmed.
Question 25: Councillor Mills:
Did the Council recognise the need for a reduction in speed on Moor Lane North, outside Ravenfield Primary School to a 30mph from a 40mph?
A written response would be provided to this question.
Question 26: Councillor Ball:
Should an impartial council be liking, sharing, retweeting and commenting on a politicians x account?
The Leader said that if the content supported the Council’s objectives and wasn’t party political in the nature of that content and particularly in the circumstances where a national politician came to the borough to support it in a major piece of investment and delivery, then yes, it was acceptable and applicable.
In his supplementary Councillor Ball noted that it was a council invite and he understand it was a Cabinet Member who sent the invitation to the MP, he asked where and when would that invitation be shared with all members for their information?
The Leader indicated he did not know where the trail of correspondence around this was or where the conversation took place and as the relevant member was not present no further information could be provided.
Question 27: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
The North Area Housing team had been severely understaffed for several months with his ward having just two of its usual three area housing officers in position. When would this staffing crisis be resolved?
Councillor Allen explained that the recruitment of three new staff had taken place and staff had and were returning from sickness so he should already have seen some improvements but if not, he definitely would over the next few weeks.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester expressed concerns regarding the workload for these officers in some wards and asked if the workload was apportioned equally across the team?
Councillor Allen noted it had been 18 months since the service had reviewed the distribution of its officers across the borough. She would speak with housing management to seek reassurance that work was as balanced as it could be.
Question 28: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
When would the first opportunity arise to bring the council’s housing repairs and housing caretaking services back in house?
Councillor Allen noted the current contract was for another 2 years and if it was decided to bring the contract back in house it would take until 2027 at the earliest.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester noted that services were usually brought back in house due to failings and queried if the Council should be considering the long-term benefits of re-establishing service in house as a matter of principle.
Councillor Allen indicated she supported that view in principle.
Question 29: Councillor Ball:
Did the Leader of the council support the South and West Yorkshire mayors in wanting HS2 being built right through our borough?
The Leader said he had checked what the 2 mayors had said and doesn’t believe it’s what they said. He said what they had called for was the full construction of HS2 through to Manchester and for routes to extend north from east midlands parkway through up to Leeds, which was the position the Council had advocated for from the beginning. No one wanted to see the M18 route being built through the borough and thought there were no advantages and were clear disadvantages, which was understood by both mayors. Following the recent announcement, the Council would be looking if the full benefits of that would reach residents, he was conscious for example the safeguarding land issue was not resolved 18 months ago therefore the Council would need to wait for further information before all became clear.
Question 30: Councillor Tinsley:
Was Access to Primary Health a material consideration in Planning?
Councillor Atkin explained that primary health was recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, so if health implications had been identified as a relevant issue, access to health services could be taken into account as a material consideration when making Planning decisions.
However, it’s important to note that the weight to be attached to any material consideration was a matter of judgement for the Local Planning Authority. Provided that the planning authority had regard to all material considerations, it was required to give them whatever weight the planning authority thinks fit or no weight at all.
To give this important issue more emphasis, the Council had also adopted a Supplementary Planning Document for ‘Developer Contributions’, which acknowledges that ‘Local Primary Care Provision’ could form part of a developer contribution via a section 106 Agreement if there was an identified need.
In his supplementary he asked if councillors on Planning Board should be empowered to stick up for the access to local health services such as doctors and should they feel that they can challenge information provided even if its representation by the NHS saying that local provision was sufficient.
Councillor Atkin asked if what was being suggested was that councillors on Planning Board should disregard information provided by health experts, so health expert say no identified need councillors disagree and insist on it.
It did crop up on a recent planning application and one of the things the Health Authority say was that housing developments were built in stages and not all built at the same time. He said that he had moved house three times and stayed with the same doctor.
Question 31: Councillor Tinsley:
Why was it taking so long to receive consultation materials for the Maltby High Street towns and Villages fund Project?
Councillor Allen explained the Maltby High Street Development proposal was approved by Cabinet in August. Derivative consultation materials were being developed to be used in a number of forums throughout November. This was a major project and deserved due care and attention.
Councillor Allen felt that the proposal could do with moving faster and agreed to undertake a conversation.
In his supplementary he said it seemed to be delay after delay after delay with only 3 meetings taking place with officers. It was noted that there was local concern, and they wanted to feed into the project but there was a delay and information wasn’t filtering through.
Councillor Allen noted that she had attended one ward meeting to discuss and would be happy to attend a future one. All were in her diary, and she would attend the next with officers to update.
Question 32: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
Considering the current climate emergency what estimates had been done regards any increase in vehicle emissions from a move to have staff who could work from home spend 3 days in office?
Councillor Alam explained during Covid over half the Council were still in work due to the nature of their jobs. Subsequently there was a policy that allowed staff who were more flexible to work from home or office bases. It had always been the informal position that staff work in borough for three days a week as delivering the best possible services for residents was always the priority. The recent working locations policy had formalised the position.
Therefore, estimates haven’t been undertaken on emissions as over half the staff were travelling to a location and many staff were already working 3 days a week from a base in the borough. Approximately 50% of the workforce live within the Borough so staff do tend to walk, cycle or use public transport.
In his supplementary he raised concerns around staff welfare around moving to three days working and had other reservations. Surely the logical conclusion should be that if someone could work from home and this didn’t affect the service that was better in terms of vehicle emissions generally than anything else. With the Climate Emergency being the largest threat to ourselves as a society and this council had declared a climate emergency shouldn’t we be enabling staff who wished to work from home and not contribute to vehicle emissions to do this and have a choice to work from office or home.
Councillor Alam confirmed when it was decided if officers come in it depends on service provision and needs of residents, so all these considerations were taken into account.
Question 33: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
Do crews emptying litter bins count bags of domestic rubbish left next to bins as small fly tips?
Councillor Beck was not present to respond to this question. Written response to be provided.
Question 34: Councillor Tinsley:
The Government had launched a 1-million-pound defibrillator grants scheme. Would the Council be applying for both fully funded defibrillators and part funded ones. Where this could be placed for example in the Town Centre to expand the current provision.
Councillor Roche confirmed that he supported the general points behind the question and confirmed the need to ensure full coverage across the Borough and look for funding from appropriate sources. He noted that several ward councillors had funded defibrillators in their own wards. He said in his ward 8 had been funded or part funded.
The Council was aware of the DHSC Community Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Fund and would give consideration to application(s) with our partners. Evidence highlighted that there was unequal distribution of AED devices within communities and a need to improve access within deprived and rural communities, and that where possible devices should be located where there was high footfall.
As the location of devices was a key factor in maximising the benefits that they offer it was important that consideration was given to the location of existing devices within the Borough and available locations for further devices. With partners we would consider opportunities within both within RMBC and wider partner estate and support the most appropriate application(s) to improve access to devices for residents.
In his supplementary nothing to disagree with. Welcome them across the borough and asked for the grant information to be made available to members and stakeholders across the Borough.
Councillor Roche confirmed that the information was usually provided by the Strategic Director, and he agreed to take the request back to the appropriate Director.
Question 35: Councillor Tinsley:
Home Analogue phone lines were being phased out by 2025 with digital lines taking their place. What effect would this have on the Rother care alarm system.
Councillor Roche explained the Rothercare service was being reviewed with a paper expected to be brought to Cabinet.
He said this was being managed as part of the overall Council switch over. Digital services were working with Adult Social Care to support the best solutions for customers as Rothercare services move off the analogue system and transition to a digital solution.
There would not be any direct impact on the delivery of Rothercare services as it was currently implementing a replacement programme to be completed by the December 2025 deadline. This digital switchover would see the traditional analogue lines decommissioned and replaced by a fully digital infrastructure.
All new Rothercare customers were receiving the new digital units and existing customers would receive the new equipment by the deadline.
Impact on customers would be minimal consisting of a prearranged visit to remove existing equipment and fit the new equipment. The new equipment would be demonstrated to the customer, and the property would be left neat and tidy. The new equipment would no longer require the use of a landline. There was no charge to the customer for providing the new equipment and switchover, and existing charging arrangements remained in place subject to a review of the Rothercare Policy.
In his supplementary he said it would go to a Sim Card device as digital doesn’t work when the power is turned off. So Vodaphone say.
He referred to a case where the service had been rolled over within 3 days and said if the programme was to complete by 2025 this was a good service.
Councillor Roche pleased that some constituents found the service roll out to be well run and offered for members to get in touch will him if there are issues with the roll out.
Question 36: Councillor Bacon:
Speaking to residents around Aston & Todwick I noted their many concerns for roads such as the Red Lion roundabout at Todwick, Worksop Road in Aston and Mansfield Road in Aston leading to east Swallownest. Would the Cabinet Member support me in my local neighbourhood Safety fund bid so the council could finally look at ways to improve these roads?
Councillor Beck was not present to respond to this question. Written response to be provided.
Question 37: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
To misquote Daphne and Celeste U.G.L.Y. we ain’t got no alibi they ugly. Who made the decision that “Beirut Blocks” were a good look for Rotherham Town Centre?
Councillor Lelliott advised that Town Centre Events were required to implement counter-terrorism measures which were approved by the Rotherham Events Safety Advisory Group (RESAG) which included measures to prevent attacks from hostile vehicles known as HVM (Hostile Vehicle Mitigation). Whilst unsightly, those blocks were a necessary part of ensuring that thousands of residents who enjoy the Town Centre Events programmes were kept safe.
The blocks were originally put in place to support the Yorkshire Day activities which took place on 1st August but a series of events throughout August for Yorkshire Day were hosted. In addition, there were many events coming up including Christmas. It was therefore decided to keep the blocks in situ until 4th January 2024 because it was more cost-effective to keep them there than bring back for Winter events. Saving approximately £4,000. The blocks did need to be in place as a Counter Terrorism measure.
In his supplementary Councillor Bennett-Sylvester said that they looked bad and referred to the solution implemented during the Women’s Euros with metal gates and barriers. He asked why this could not be brough back?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester said there were great ideas for the Town Centre, but we kept mis-queuing on delivery. Late on delivery for Forge Island and for costs. Then seeing issues with the Bus Station, Bridge Gate. He asked what the impact would be and suggested asking retailers what it would look like for visitors.
Councillor Lelliott explained whilst it might look unsightly it had been seen where especially around Christmas abroad where people have taken vans and utilised them as weapons so it was necessary to think what would happen if something did happen.
Councillor Lelliott took his point that they may look unsightly but noted that feedback from local businesses was that they would like to see permanent measures in place. However, it would be a significant cost.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed that a Cross-Party Working Group would be established to look at proposals. Councillor Lelliott agreed to confirm when the Working Group was set up with Councillor Bennett-Sylvester.
Question 38: Councillor Burnett:
Our recent Sitwell Ward newsletter was to include a picture of local MP Alexander Stafford and a ward councillor attending a public meeting at St Cuthberts. The publication of this was rejected by RMBC, can you explain the process of rejecting this?
Councillor Allen explained to all Members in the Chamber that guidance had been in place for a number of years surrounding the production of newsletters and other ward publications. This was all aimed at being apolitical. She confirmed that the guidance referenced would be added to the next Member Briefing so all could have a look at what it said.
Councillor Allen offered reassures that had this been an event at St Mary’s in Greasbrough and Councillor Allen had arrived with Sarah Champion MP and had a photograph taken whilst Councillor Elliott was at the alter etc this would have also been rejected as it was very much around those documents not being turned into a form of propaganda.
In his supplementary Councillor Burnett referred to an earlier question to the Leader that RMBC sharing via social media and publicising a by the Oldham MP and the benefit of this. He did not understand why when there had been no objection from labour councillor in the ward, the neighbourhoods team obtaining the communications themselves. What were your views on the message this gave to members on this side and the publication about RMBC being apolitical if we could not publish our own MP when two of the three ward councillors were conservative as well. He didn’t feel this was fair.
Councillor Allen offered a message for all Members on both sides of the Chamber. Ward Newsletters were about promoting the work within communities of local councillors and what we as local councillors are doing and deliver. She noted that had the article remained an article about what you and your colleagues had done in Sitwell at St Cuthberts at the event it would have been fine. She referred back to St Mary’s and Greasbrough and said if she had written an article and got herself a picture with Sarah Champion MP this would not have been fair so it was about celebrating what councillors do and picture should have been of the ward members.
Question 39: Councillor Bennett-Sylvester:
When could we expect the council’s CCTV estate to be back fully functioning following the SIM card upgrade issue?
Councillor Alam explained that it would be end of October.
In his supplementary he raised concerns that there were issues around this that could have been predicted before the issue arose e.g., SIM card replacement. He said that some of the things he had heard were stereotypical of some of the things that people hold regarding local government and the way things work. He had two concerns:
- Possible danger to public safety. If occurs there had been an incident where evidence could have been gathered by a camera being out of action. Who would be held responsible?
- What action was being taken to review the situation to ensure this didn’t happen again and to learn lessons for the future?
Councillor Alam noted the concerns and explained that learning would be captured in terms of how services could be improved in the future and confirmed the need to capture the evidence if serious about prosecuting people.
Question 40: Councillor Tinsley:
Why was only the Cenotaph at Clifton Park Rotherham included within the Dignity Contract for repairs/maintenance? When Rotherham Borough Council was also the guardian for other cenotaphs like the one at Maltby for example?
Councillor Alam explained there were no cenotaphs included in the Dignity contract other than the one in Moorgate Cemetery which was in the Cemetery.
He confirmed that Dignity was not responsible for the cenotaph at Clifton Park or Maltby.
In his supplementary Councillor Tinsley asked what had been the decision to include Moorgate Cemetery in the contract?
Councillor Alam confirmed that it was in the Cemetery.
Question 41: Councillor Tinsley:
With the potential that a large majority of current Scrutiny Chairs would be standing down and maybe even would not be reselected at the next election. Would Labour be open to the possibility that chair roles should be offered across the room to all parties.
The Leader thanked Councillor Tinsley for the assumption that they were going to be able to make a decision next year. He explained that he was unable to promise the role of Chairs after the election although they were reviewed from time to time. He noted that at the current time there were 10 opposition unfilled vacancies on Scrutiny, so he urged colleagues across the Chamber to fill those roles and play a full part in it to make those conversations easier.
In his supplementary he said whatever experience in the room. Glad to hear open to the suggestion.