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 answer received.
Councillors may also ask questions under this agenda item.
Minutes:
There were six questions from members of the public:
In response to the question, the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment stated that a lot of the issues raised concerned a lot of different duties that the Council had. In relation to pavement parking, the Strategic Director stated that London had different powers compared to the rest of the country, including Sheffield. The policies referenced looked at what could be done within the scope of powers available. Powers for enforcement in relation to pavement parking rested with the police – Council’s in England did not have those powers. There had been some consultation from the Local Government Association on giving Council’s those powers, but the Government had not yet responded. The Council did have powers in relation to cars driving the wrong way up one way streets and blocking junctions. The PSPO powers were very specific.
The Assistant Director of Community Safety and Street Scene stated that the Council would use any opportunity to use CCTV for enforcement action in relation to crime or civil offences. However, there was still a reliance on the public to make reports as to when and where incidents might take place. That would help the Council make the best use of officer time. There were some challenges, particularly relating to vehicle nuisance. There was often limited audio range attached to CCTV which made providing evidence of that nuisance difficult. The Head of Community Safety also reiterated that there were real limitations on Council’s outside of London in terms of how it could use cameras, particularly to enforce parking offences. There were however some cycle lanes that could be enforced.
The Assistant Director of Community
Safety and Street Scene confirmed that the Council had continued to
invest in CCTV cameras over a number of years to increase that
capacity and provide a greater opportunity for the Council to catch
offenses.
In his supplementary, Mr Matthews stated that there were a number
of matters concerning the community that crossed into so many
different departments of the Council. Mr Matthews asked for the
Leader and lead Member for Community Safety to coordinate and look
to meet with him to discuss cross-department and even a
multi-agency approach to restore faith in the Town Centre, both for
local residents and those further afield. He stated that people
from the wider Rotherham area had concerns about returning to the
Town Centre and a resurgence of the Town Centre needed to be
encouraged. Lots of work was being done on the Town Centre and was
due to be done on Wellgate but that work could be undone by
inappropriate and illegal behaviour. Mr Matthews stated that this
needed to be handled and he would welcome the opportunity to meet
with those that handled those issues. This would protect the
Council’s investment as well as the commercial sector. If the
Council did not protect itself, there would be a downturn in inward
investment. Mr Matthews noted the good things, such as Forge
Island.
The Leader stated that he largely agreed with what Mr Matthews had said and clearly, the Council wanted to make sure that it was making people’s time in the Town Centre as pleasant an experience as possible as well as giving confidence to those from further afield. The Council wanted to improve footfall in order to help local businesses and create a thriving town centre.
The Leader also reiterated how difficult it was to work across all of the different regulations and legislation in terms of community safety. However all of the relevant teams worked side by side within the Council.
It was agreed that Councillor Lelliott, as lead Member for the Town Centre, would coordinate the meeting requested.
2.
Jane Patching asked a question in relation to
Herringthorpe Playing Fields. She stated that she was curious about
the funding for the maintenance of improvement of Herringthorpe
Playing Fields. Ms Patching asked for some figures in relation to
what money had been spent over the last four or five years and
whether it was felt that the Playing Fields had actually been
maintained for recreational purposes? Ms Patching stated that this
was something the Council was supposed to be doing.
The Leader stated that he could not provide the exact financial
figure but confirmed that the Council did spend a certain amount of
money on staffing, grass cutting, maintaining the trees etc, on
Herringthorpe Playing Fields on an annual basis. There was also
some capital investment that went into the sports facilities (the
“stadium.”)
The Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Environment confirmed that the Council was always conscious of making sure that all users of Herringthorpe Playing Fields were consulted on everything that it did. The Council also wanted to make sure that playing fields had the facilities that people wanted and used. Herringthorpe Playing Fields was a big area with a lot of different activities available.
Ms Patching stated that trees had been planted by the Council as part of a royal celebration a number of years ago but about 20% of them were now dead due to a lack of maintenance. When the trees were planted, a number of Council lorries and vans were used and driven across the fields. This consolidated the ground. 20-25 years ago, the Council had invested in improved drainage at Herringthorpe Playing Fields, but nothing had been done since. Ms Patching stated that, due to the compacting, a substantial area around the paths flooded and covered in leaves and mud that were never picked up or swept. These matters were never addressed unless residents complained.
Ms Patching also had concerns regarding the brown
field site that the Council were thinking of building on at
Herringthorpe Playing Fields. She stated that a large proportion of
the site, at the Boswell Street end, had never had concrete or any
permanent type of building on it. It had had aluminium greenhouses,
but these had been removed. Ms Patching asked how it could be
considered as a brown field site when it was full of natural trees,
shrubs, other plant life and animals. She stated that the Council
had not used any of the budget wisely in terms of planting and
maintaining things and now they wanted to destroy plants and
trees.
In response the Leader confirmed that Councillor Sheppard and
Officers would pick that up outside of the meeting. He also
confirmed that brown field and green field were planning
designations. There were already commitments to meetings and
conversations with residents regarding that development
specifically so Ms Patching would be invited to join
those.
3.
Henry Marston asked a question in relation to the
Boswell Street development at Herringthorpe Playing Fields. He
thanked Councillor Allen for the plan that he been sent to him
following his question at the previous meeting. He asked if there
was a similar plan of the land specified for Herringthorpe Playing
Fields in the Rotherham Borough Act of 1928? In relation to the
site that was marked out for future proposed development, Mr
Marston stated that the only part that was formally nurseries and
the depot was on the right but on the left, there was a plateau
area with trees that had been planted, where the old pavilion used
to be. Mr Marston stated that this was the gem of the Playing
Fields for recreation and for people walking through. Mr Marston
thought it could be developed with picnic tables but definitely
should not be barred to people coming through.
Councillor Allen confirmed that she would raise the matter with
officers and see if a map could be found.
In his supplementary, Mr Marston stated that there was land behind
No. 69. When the rugby ground had been built, there were problems
with access from Badsley Moor Lane due to it being waterlogged in
winter. Members of the public were discouraged from going along
there and as such, there were drug dealing issues. Mr Marston said
that the Council needed to make sure that members of the public
could use that access at Boswell Street corner.
Councillor Allen confirmed that she would work with Councillor
Sheppard and the green spaces team to look into the issues
raised.
4.
Farooq Tareen stated that since his last visit to
the Cabinet meeting, the 35 year plan for cemeteries across the
Borough had been submitted by Dignity. This was submitted on 30
January 2024 and had been compiled by the local manager who had
only been in post for the previous seven months. Mr Tareen stated
that on page 11 of the report, it said that the area of most
concern was within the Muslim sector, specifically the current
demand for burial provisions. The report further stated that 20
burials a year were taking place in that section and given the
timescales and the time left, the Muslim community were rightfully
concerned about running out of space. Mr Tareen stated that more
accurate figures should be between 30 and 40 burials given that 10
had already taken place since the start of 2024.
Mr Tareen stated that the report had failed to mention that some
graves were still filled with water. The report also failed to
mention that, despite the outcry from the Muslim community, both
Dignity and the Council had failed to commission a hydrogeologist.
The source of water had to be established. Additionally, the report
did not mention that, through fines, the Council had received a
substantial amount of money to improve the Muslim section of the
cemetery but had failed to invest that money wisely on the drainage
system and improvements to the landscape. Nothing had been done
about the landscape at all except from a path and a rail. A wall
had been built to stop the land from sliding away.
Mr Tareen’s question was what had the Council done
effectively so far apart from hold various meetings without any
results?
The Leader stated that he was sorry to hear that
there were ongoing issues but confirmed that action had been taken
and improvements had been made. Councillor Alam confirmed that the
Council were still holding Dignity to account for flooding in the
cemetery and were making sure the graves were not waterlogged. The
Council were also trying to ensure that services users were engaged
in the consultation process. Councillor Alam confirmed that there
were issues at Dignity in terms of retaining managers. New managers
only tended to stay a matter of months before moving on. As
commissioners of the contract, the Council were enforcing that
Dignity had to engage with the community and make sure that all of
the reports produced were accurate. The 35 year plan had been
delayed as it did not contain all of the relevant figures and the
Council went back to Dignity to get it updated.
Councillor Alam stated that Dignity would need to look at the
drainage system to ensure graves were not being flooded as it was
very concerning for the families of those buried in the cemetery
and for future burials. As such, the Council would continue holding
Dignity to account. The Plan included space for seven years and the
expansion that had been agreed was now just for the Muslim section.
This was due to a change in the demographics of the area.
Councillor Alam stated that it was his understanding that the
figures referenced 28 burials a year for adults with children
separate.
The Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and
Registration Services explained that, in addition to the approval
at Council of developments across the cemeteries, the fines that
were received from Dignity were invested into the whole range of
Council cemeteries. The investment totalled around £250,000.
The work done with Dignity and the community in applying pressure,
had resulted in further investment of more than £1m
throughout the last 18 months to two years. The Assistant Director
did believe that the investment was visible on the ground having
visited himself. He recognised and valued the communities
involvement in working to get those improvements and wanted to
continue working together to make sure the improvements
continued.
In his supplementary, Mr Tareen stated that Councillor Alam had
confirmed that the report had said there was space for seven years.
Mr Tareen challenged that and asked what would happen if the space
ran out in the next six or seven months? What provisions were there
to bury loved ones?
The Leader explained that it was his understanding that there was
already over 100 spaces set out in the plan for Muslim burials. The
Council therefore believed there was adequate space based on the
trajectories to meet the need in the medium term. There was also
then the planning application to expand that further which the
Leader hoped would be expedited to give some certainty to the
community. There was an on-going issue with the Environment Agency,
but the Council were working through that.
The Leader reassured Mr Tareen that the Council certainly did not
want to run out of spaces and wanted to ensure that all Muslim
burials, along with other burials, took place within decency and
dignity in the expected way.
5.
Arshad Azam stated that he had attended the scrutiny
meeting in December 2023 and was interested by the lack of
financial information put forward in the report. It was Mr
Azam’s understanding that in 2021/22, Dignity were fined
£232,935 and in 2022/23, they were fined £328,290. The
fact that the fines were going up showed that the service was
getting worse, not better. Over two years, that totalled
£561,225. It was also Mr Azam’s understanding that in
2022, there were seven items that the Council wanted to reinvest in
and that totalled £148k. Of those items, four related to
improvements around the cemetery walls and accounted for
£108k. However the cost had now increased to £193,286
which was an 80% increase on what Cabinet had approved. Mr Azam
asked what due diligence was done on the original submission for
that money and how it would be progressed forward?
Mr Azam also refenced the end-to-end review and Mohammed Omar. He
stated that the latest response from the Council was that there was
no one suitably qualified to undertake the review. That was then
coupled with the changes to the medical examiner process that was
to be introduced in April 2024. Mr Azam stated that Doncaster had
sorted out there processes and Sheffield were piloting their
system. Mr Azam stated that he was not getting a clear answer from
Rotherham Council on what they were actually doing.
Mr Azam also referenced the 48 graves that were remaining and the
proposed expansion options. One was to expand by four rows which
would impeach onto the land that was included in the planning
application. The planning application process had been ongoing for
a year and a half and had not been expedited. The other option
presented was to use land across the road that contained a large
number of trees. The community had previously asked about that land
but were told that the land was used for the throwing/dispersal of
ashes and as such was not an option. The report was showing as
amber but when Mr Azam spoke to Dignity it was actually red. Mr
Azam stated that they were running out of grave space and asked
what the timescales were and what was the Council doing about it?
Where was the urgency?
When Mr Azam had attended scrutiny in 2022, he had
been informed that he could ask multiple questions which he did.
However, in 2023 he was only allowed to ask one question with a
follow on. In relation to the Muslim Bereavement Liaison meetings,
they had previously been fully documented. There was a record of
what was discussed, who had said what, what was agreed etc. Now,
only an action record was produced. Mr Azam stated that at the last
Cabinet meeting, the Leader had stated that if meetings of the
liaison group had been missed, conversations needed to take place
and the meetings needed to be rearranged quickly. Mr Azam confirmed
that it was a month later and Dignity did not have a new manager
and the Council did not want to have meetings with the group. He
asked how he could raise issues if the meetings could not be
rearranged within a month and the next one was not until April? Mr
Azam stated that it was woeful and disappointing. He asked how
things could be moved forward.
The Leader stated that it was his understanding that efforts were
being made to arrange a meeting with Dignity and the Medical
examiner prior to the April meeting in order to address some of the
practical issues raised. He understood the frustrations and doubts
that Mr Azam had but the Leader had some assurance regarding the
number of burial spaces and the availability of land.
In his supplementary, Mr Azam asked for some clarity around whether
the annex that the planning application was for, was to be used
solely by the Muslim community.
Councillor Alam confirmed that the expansion was for the Muslim
community only due to changes in demographics.
Mr Azam asked if the Environment Agency could be invited to the
meeting. The Leader explained that they could be invited but they
were under no obligation to attend.
6.
Saghir Hussain stated that new graves were being dug
but were filling up with water and within three days, the whole
area was saturated and flooded. As such, that space was no good to
use. Mr Hussain’s question was why did there have to be a
planning application for a graveyard that had been used as a
graveyard for the past one hundred years or more?
The Leader explained that the planning application was for land
that had not been allocated for burials as part of the process. It
was all to do with planning designations.
Mr Hussain stated that it was an existing graveyard and should not
require any further planning applications.