Agenda item

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.

1.    Henry Marston asked a question in relation to Herringthorpe Playing Fields and the potential development of houses by Rotherham Council. He firstly thanked Councillor Allen for her correspondence on the matter following his questions at previous Cabinet meetings. He stated that the Herringthorpe Playing Fields Community Group would welcome a meeting to discuss the wider issues. Mr Marston stated that the legal issues needed to be resolved before a lot of money was spent designing the project which could need significant revisions afterwards.

Mr Marston wanted to place on record his thanks to Mr Lilleker and Councillor Yasseen for their work on this matter.

Mr Marston made reference to the history of the playing fields and the agreements with the National Playing Fields Association/ Fields in Trust and Carnegie UK Trust. He stated that the fields were to be held in perpetuity for recreational uses. This agreement was made in 1928, before smaller pieces of land were later added in the 1930’s. Mr Marston stated that the restrictions therefore clearly applied to the proposed development site. The agreement was put into statute in S.9(3) Rotherham Corporation Act 1928 and the land included the depot and nursery area as well as the site of the old pavilion. The depot and nursery were ancillary features that supported the playing fields and were therefore acceptable as legitimate parts of the land designated for use as playing fields. Transferring the land from department to another within the Council did not affect the lands legal status. Grants had been paid to the Council and it was therefore clear that discussions were required with F.i.T and Carngie for the proposed change of use. Mr Marston stated that in 2008, a Council officer was informed by F.i.T. that the contract between National Playing Fields and the Council required this consent for a change of use.

Mr Marston asked Councillor Allen what the position was with regarding to discussions with F.i.T and Carnegie UK with respect to the proposals for the proposed development?

Councillor Allen firstly thanked Mr Marston for being this matter to the Council’s attention as it was important they had the correct legal position. However, Councillor Allen confirmed that the Council had looked at the 1928 Act, but no associated plans had been identified. It therefore remained the view of the Council that the area proposed for development was not subject to any restrictions. Councillor Allen stated that it would have been helpful for these matters to have been raised when the Local Plan was being consulted upon. It remained the Council’s position that there were no covenants on the land and the proposed development was in accordance with the Local Plan.

It was confirmed that officers were continuing to investigate Mr Marston’s claims on behalf of the local community. Should the development proceed, the Council would want to involve the community and Ward Councillors in the design considerations for the site.

In his supplementary question, Mr Marston stated that the land was bought for £120 per acre and if sold for housing, each plot of land would have money associated with it. Mr Marston asked what the Council would do with the profits from the sale?

Councillor Allen confirmed that a meeting would be arranged to discuss the topic further. 

2.    Mezzmel Hussain asked a question regarding the Council’s flag flying decisions. The Council had stated that it followed government guidance regarding flag displays. However, this was not mandatory as shown by the York and Leeds Councils non-display of the Israeli flag. Ms Hussain therefore asked if the Council would raise the Palestinian flag as an act of solidarity like it did with the Ukrainian flag, particularly as over 4000 residents had signed the petition requesting this?

The Leader explained that the Israeli flag was raised following the terrible terrorist attacks in October 2023, as did a majority of Councils and public buildings across the country. The Council did this after major terrorist attacks across the world such as the Paris attacks and the Brussels attacks. That was in keeping with the agreed protocols. At the moment, there had been no guidance around flying the Palestinian flag but that was not to say that there would not be at some point in the future. The Leader explained that he was not aware of any Council’s flying the Palestinian flag at the moment.

In her supplementary, Ms Hussain asked why it would take so long for the Council to decide whether to fly the Palestinian flag?

The Leader reiterated that the Council acted within the guidance provided to them by the Government as did Council’s everywhere. They were conscious of the strength of feeling on both sides of the arguments in terms of flying the Palestinian flag. It was not standard practice to fly flags related to wars, the exception being the war in Ukraine.  

3.    M Ashraf asked a question regarding the comments made by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in relation to Israel. The ICC had ruled that Israel were breaking international law in a manner tantamount to genocide. In Rotherham, the community petition on Palestine received overwhelming support from residents gathering almost 4000 signatures. In light of those two facts, Mr Ashraf asked the Cabinet to demand that the local MP’s represent the will of Rotherham residents and demand that the Government end its complicity in Israel’s ongoing violations of international law? Mr Ashraf also asked if Cabinet would approach local MP’s to demand they actually represent the residents of Rotherham, rather than simply toeing the party line? Mr Ashraf asked that Councillor Read or Councillor Alam arrange meetings with them to ensure the accurate portrayal of Rotherham residents views on the issues in Palestine.

The Leader confirmed that the Council was in regular contact with all three of the Borough’s MP’s who had all expressed different views about the terrible conflict. The Leader agreed that he would pass on the petition and associated recommendations to the MP’s. However, the Leader stated that he had to be mindful that there were people in the Borough with differing views on the matter.

The Leader confirmed that it was not the role of the Council to lobby MP’s on matters of foreign policy. They had to make their own decisions based on the information available to them. The Council could not be arbiters on foreign policy. The Leader advised the people who signed the petition to contact their MP’s directly.

In his supplementary, Mr Ashraf stated that the Council had a precedent of challenging decisions made by national government. It was involved in a case regarding the allocation of funds that went to the Supreme Court. Mr Ashraf asked if the Council would adopt a similar proactive approach in challenging the national government in regard to the Overseas Anti-Boycott Bill, particularly due to its infringement upon the rights of the Council to effectively represent the will of Rotherham residents on issues of funding and investment?

The 1988 law had been mentioned previously and Labour had repealed clause 28. Mr Ashraf asked if the same could be done with clause 17 or if it could be rewritten.

The Leader stated that the legislation being brought forward by the Government was a political act rather than something that was going to fundamentally change the legal position of the Council in terms of its procurement. The Council would always want the maximum freedoms; there was enough legislation binding it in many different ways. The Leader explained that he was not inclined to play political games Michael Gove MP in terms of this legislation. The Leader confirmed that he would consider what had been said in relation to the 1988 legislation as that was not something the Council or Local Government Association had taken a view on before.

4.    Susan Gruzka asked a question regarding the Article 4 direction that had been served on residents of Clifton Bank and Wellgate. Mrs Gruzka stated that it had recently come to light that several residents on the street were being threatened with enforcement action to replace windows. Over half of the windows on the street were UPVC and had been done sympathetically in accordance with the style that was previously there. The Article 4 direction was causing a lot of stress and anxiety for residents. The Planning Department had requested that one of the residents apply for planning permission but made it perfectly clear that they would refuse the application. Some of the information in the Article 4 direction were inaccurate. For example, it said that planning permission was free when it was not. Mrs Gruzka questioned whether it was fit for purpose.

Mrs Gruzka also stated that the Council had dug the road up and taken away cobbles that had been there for hundreds of years and the footpaths were a disgrace. The residents looked after their properties and took pride in their appearance but it was not practical to still live with the Victorian fittings anymore.

The Leader stated that this was the first he had heard about this and that he understood the concerns of the residents. It was confirmed that a meeting would be set up by the Council with Mrs Gruzka and other effected residents to go through the information in more detail.

In her supplementary, Mrs Gruzka stated that the residents wanted some flexibility and to be able to talk through the issues with Council Officers but Council Officers were apparently frightened to speak with residents. There was some confusion as some residents had been told that they did not need planning permission.

Councillor Lelliott explained that discussions were already ongoing with the planning department following a meeting with another resident but she was quite happy to have a further meeting following Mrs Gruzka’s question.

5.    Tracey Edwards asked a question in relation to the Climate Emergency that had been declared in 2019 by the Council. Ms Edwards stated that According to the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy report, a climate emergency was declared by Rotherham Council in March 2019.      What evidence was considered and produced that led to the declaration? Is the evidence available online? Was all evidence considered and was there any conflicting evidence that would have affected the declaration? If carbon is a greenhouse gas that is harmful to the environment, why do food and plant growers use CO2 for the essential component of photosynthesis, which feeds the plants?

The Leader stated that, the Council, in keeping with other councils across the country, the Government’s position and the UN’s position as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, represented the broad mainstream scientific position on climate change which was that the climate was warming and extreme weather events were becoming more frequent. This was affected by the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Leader stated that the scientific consensus on that was very strong. The fact that carbon was used for other things did not detract from that.

In her supplementary Ms Edwards asked if any dissenting evidence was considered when declaring the emergency?

The Leader explained that the decision to declare a Climate Emergency was taken by full Council and he did not know what information they each individually concerned when coming to their decision. It was not a decision made based on the recommendations of Council staff. The Leader thought the declaration was adopted unanimously.

6.    Stacey Bradley asked a question in relation to the cycle lane in Wath-Upon-Dearne. In July 2023, a cycle crossing with several traffic lights were constructed across Biscay Way in Wath Upon Dearne. A speed ramp was also constructed on Moor Road. There was a lot of money spent on that project. Ms Bradley lived in that area and was yet to see any cyclists use it. Who or what organisation were the facilitators of that construction? Were any cycling organisations involved in the facilitating of the crossing? How many accidents or near accidents or reports of speeding vehicles on Moor Road were received by the Council from members of the public?     To date, can the Council provide how many cyclists have used the crossing? If not, then how many cyclists are likely to have used the crossing? Were any potential negative effects of the traffic lights being installed investigated? Since the installation the congestion, particularly around the roundabout was ridiculous and caused several backups. There had been an increase in traffic.

The Leader explained that he did not have the specific figures or detail in relation to the usage or accidents to hand so a written response would be provided on those. The Wath scheme, in line with other schemes across the borough, had been put forward in accordance with the Government programme which required the Council to relate to transport schemes to either active travel schemes or public transport schemes to secure funding. That money came through the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the Council had to put a case to them.

The Leader stated that the schemes would only come to fruition over a period of time once people’s behaviour has changed and this was known when the scheme was being built. It was never expected that there would be floods of cyclists from day one. It was about offering people choices and building the infrastructure to facilitate those choices. The Leader stated that he had certainly seen people using the cycle way and he himself had used it.

Ms Bradley stated that she agreed regarding the choice, but local people did not have a choice. The work on the bus station was causing major disruption and it could lead to the closing of independent businesses. The money that had been spent on “useless” cycle ramps could have been better spent. Ms Bradley suggested the Council speak to the local people more.

The Leader confirmed that the schemes were subject to consultation and local people were spoken to. The works in the bus station were important infrastructure works and needed to be done. The Leader did acknowledge the negative impact the works did have on local businesses.

Ms Bradley raised concerns regarding the workmen at the bus station and the Leader confirmed that the service would look into the matter and a written response would be provided.

7.    Councillor Taiba Yasseen asked a question in relation to consulting with local residents, particularly in relation to the proposed development at Herringthorpe Playing Fields. Councillor Yasseen stated that it was vital to listen to local residents as they were the soul of local communities and knew what was best to happen in their areas. She stated that the Council needed to be able to tap into that experience of wealth in the local community and not see them as obstacles.

Councillor Yasseen held up a sign saying, “Save our Herringthorpe Playing Fields” and explained that the sign was at least 15-18 years old. The development of Herringthorpe Playing Fields predated everyone in the room and historically, the local people had not been listened to. Councillor Yasseen stated that she had sent four emails that had not been responded to but Councillor Allen had provided a briefing on 21 February. However, the requests for a meeting between Council officers and the Herringthorpe Playing Fields Community group had gone unanswered. Councillor Yasseen therefore asked if the meeting could be arranged, and all the information shared? She asked that the local residents be seen as partners as there was currently a trust deficit model in Boston Castle. The bicycle lane and associated development had led to a lot of mistrust in decision makers representing the voices of local people. Therefore, when further developments took place in Boston Castle, the Council needed to take account of the mistrust and rebuild relationships.

Councillor Yasseen offered her support to the residents of Clifton Bank who had asked a question earlier in the meeting regarding the Article 4 designation.

Councillor Allen stated that she was happy to meet with the action group. Councillor Allen, in referencing the “Save our Herringthorpe Playing Fields” sign, stated that the Council were not suggesting going anywhere near Herringthorpe Playing Fields. The proposed development was on the site off Boswell Street. Councillor Allen confirmed that the Council certainly did not want to do anything illegal so would listen to the representations.

Councillor Yasseen stated that the Local Plan was clear that it was just the land off Boswell Street, but she stated that residents did not trust the Council. The trust needed to be rebuilt and residents needed to be seen as something other than obstacles.

The Leader confirmed that the Council did not see residents are obstacles. The Council were simply working through challenges in order to make changes, specifically the need to build more Council and social housing that was affordable for residents.  An ambitious target had been set because there continued to be big challenges around keeping residents in safe, warm and affordable homes. As such, the Council were bringing forward sites that were in their ownership and in the Local Plan. Of course the Council wanted to do that in the right way and in a way that was sympathetic to communities. However to make those changes, residents physical realities were going to have to change.