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:
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.