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:
The following questions were asked by members of the public and elected Members at the meeting:
1. Mr Dixon: Does the Council support the use of affordable family housing in the villages of the borough being converted to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) when there are no facilities or jobs in those villages and therefore no need for HMO’s?
Councillor Allen explained that there was a national housing crisis and shortage of properties with an ever increasing demand. Not only was this a national issue but it was also a local one; Rotherham was not immune to the situation. As a result, residents were finding it increasingly difficult to access housing that they could actually afford which was leading to a greater demand for shared housing. Rotherham Council was in the process of delivering hundreds of new homes to rent in order to address some of that demand. The demand however also meant that the private market was evolving with more shared housing. This was resulting in what were traditionally one household properties being converted by landlords into HMO’s. Private landlords would look for properties wherever they were available, including in the villages, as that was their choice.
In his supplementary question, Mr Dixon stated that it sounded like Councillor Allen was saying that the Council supported the proliferation of HMO’s into villages that did not have the facilities or jobs for such people and used affordable housing that should be being used by the people in that area as family accommodation. He asked Councillor Allen if this was correct.
Councillor Allen confirmed that the Council were supporting the development of housing to address the demand as it was the Council’s statutory duty to do so. If an application came through to develop a HMO, the Council were duty-bound to look at it.
2. Mr Hussain: A 35 year plan for Herringthorpe Cemetery had been published. However, at a meeting held at Rotherham Town Hall on Thursday 25 July 2024, Dignity had reneged on the proposed plan of developing the existing site. This had sent Rotherham’s Muslim community into a tailspin as it had already been established that there was a limited amount of space in the graveyard. The new proposal was for a site within the boundaries of the graveyard which would ultimately make the annex area that was supposed to be developed redundant. Mr Hussain explained that the residents were the service users, and the Council were the service providers. He asked the Council what they were going to do in order to compel the contractors to develop the site to alleviate the problem of burial space? In reference to the previous question, Mr Hussain explained that it had just been stated that the Council had a duty to provide housing space. Muslim’s believed that the grave was their final resting place and as such the Council had a duty to provide that space.
Councillor Sheppard explained that he was dismayed and angered at the decision Dignity had taken. He stated that an implicit part of contract was trust and the Council needed to be able to trust contractors to deliver. Dignity had to delivery for Rotherham Council but, more importantly, also had to deliver for the residents of Rotherham. Councillor Sheppard stated that there was a lot of work to be done to ensure the Council were certain that an appropriate plan was in place to ensure that there was sufficient space available for future years. This would ensure residents could rest peacefully and communities could be at ease with the knowledge that there was space in the borough’s burial grounds.
Phil Horsfield, Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services, had been in attendance at the meeting and explained that the plans that were presented at the meeting had not previously been presented anywhere else. The Council had not seen them prior to the meeting and as such, it came as a surprise. However, the Council had already taken action and was using all of the contractual levers and enforcement mechanisms available to them, including engaging external solicitors, to ensure that, not only was the space available, but that it was according to the plan and the required levels of assurance had been provided.
In his supplementary question, Mr Hussain stated that the answer sounded good but did not take away the stress and anxiety faced by the elders in the Muslim community. They were worried and stressed about whether they would get a space in the cemetery and a final resting place in Rotherham. Mr Hussain said that the Council saying they would hold Dignity to account sounded like a broken record. A robust plan was needed which would be a lasting solution; not something that was changed every six months.
The Leader stated that he understood the strength of feeling that there was on this matter and the level of concern in the community. The Leader wanted to be clear in that Dignity had a contract to provide a service through the Council to the people of Rotherham and if they were not delivering that service or honouring that contract they would not be providing that service any longer. There was a legal process that the Council had to follow, but if that is where the actions of Dignity took the Council, that is what would happen. Events in the last week had made that more likely. The commitment of the Council remained the same in that it wanted to ensure that there were safe burial places for people of all faiths and religions, whether Dignity were involved or not.
3. Mr Tareen: Graveyards were usually places designed to provide a place for peace and tranquillity. Normally in graveyard there were different categories such as squares, alignments of the graves and green areas. It had been established that, for years, the Muslim burial area had been badly neglected by Dignity. In the last couple of years there had been some improvements with the drainage system and the installation of a tarmac path. However, despite several promises made by Dignity, a landscape visual impact assessment had not been completed and a landscape plan had not been produced. In a visit to the cemetery, Mr Horsfield had emphasised to Dignity the need to produce a schedule and timetable for the landscaping of the area. This required a joint effort by Dignity, the Council and the community.
Mr Tareen asked Phil Horsfield what progress had been made since that visit?
Phil Horsfield, Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services, stated that the progress made was not up to the standard the Council or community had expected. The Council would continue to use all available options to secure burial spaces suitable for all communities.
In his supplementary question, Mr Tareen asked if Dignity did not fulfil their promises, who would eventually be responsible? He believed that the Council should be directing Dignity. It had been ignored for years and years and even when some progress was made, there was a change of management and the community felt like they were now back to square one. He asked what could be done and for the Council to guide them.
Phil Horsfield reiterated that the Council were looking at every single lever available to it, including who provided the contract.
4. Mr Mahmood: Some serious answers were necessary to some extremely concerning issues which had not been adequately addressed by RMBC or their representatives. With the imminent intervention of the medical examiner’s commencing in September, concerns were growing in the Muslim community that the release from mortuaries and burials of loved ones would suffer unnecessary delays and add further to the pain and suffering. A documented review was to be carried out on the process, but the community was still waiting for this. At the Muslim Burial Liaison meeting on 25 July, two medical examiners were in attendance. However, they were never introduced. There was no agenda prior to the meeting and the community were therefore none the wiser. Could the Council explain?
Phil Horsfield, Assistant Director of Legal, Elections and Registration Services, stated that the delay was from the Government, not the Council. The service was delivered by the NHS and the Council were liaising with them to ensure that it got the information as soon as it was available. That information would then be disseminated through the Muslim Burial Liaison meetings.
Mr Mahmood stated that there were two medical examiners present at the meeting, and they could have provided an update.
In his supplementary, Mr Mahmood stated that digitised maps of the graveyard were supposed to have been provided. Residents had been waiting for two years but nothing had been provided. Mr Mahmood stated that this showed how slowly the Council and/or Dignity was moving on these issues which was heartbreaking.
Phil Horsfield explained that the maps should have been provided and as they had not been, Dignity had been subject to other contractual enforcement mechanisms. The Council had recently been informed that the maps would be delivered shortly but they continued to press the matter.
5. Mr Azam: In 2022, two planning applications were submitted. One was for Wath and was a Christian extension. The other was for East Herringthorpe and was a Muslim extension. The whole area was supposed to be allocated for the Muslim community. The Christian extension had gone through planning with no issues. Dignity had invested in it, and it had moved forward. For East Herringthorpe, it was like a broken record. There was utter disappointment at what had been going on. There were sixty lined graves and three earthen graves. There was no plan for baby graves and there was no urgency. With regards to the Muslim application, Dignity did not know whether they would proceed with it or withdraw it. The Council did not have a plan (one year, two years, 5 years or 10 years) of how the land would be utilised. The answers provided to questions ask at Cabinet meetings and the answers provided at the Liaison group meetings were utterly disappointing. What commitment could the Council give regarding when there would be clarity as to what was actually happening?
Mr Azam stated that he did not want assurances or promises of what the Council would do. He wanted to know what action was actually going to be taken and by when.
The Leader explained that the improvements at Wath had not been without issues. In relation to Dignity, the Council had had an expectation that Dignity would provide the agreed service and that they were working on the development plan. They then attended the meeting on 25 July and, without any notice, announced a change of plan. This was not something the Council knew about and was completely unacceptable. That was not how business was done. As mentioned previously, the Council would use all levers available to it to ensure that Dignity were doing the things that they needed to do to make sure that those graves were available. That included measures such as removing them as service providers.
The Leader explained that he could not provide a timeline or date as information was required from Dignity and the Council had been let down by them. It would be wrong to make promises regarding timings.
Mr Azam explained that this caused problems. If the three earthen graves were used, what happened then? In relation to the operational plan, Mr Azam stated that in January the previous Business Manager at Dignity was saying it was red but had been downgraded to amber. The land was waterlogged with cables running through it, yet no one seemed to know if the cables were live. Mr Azam acknowledged that the Council was going through the legal processes, but he asked who was managing the day-to-day delivery of the contract? Mr Azam did not believe anyone was on top of the situation. He stated that it showed there was no due diligence done by the Council as they did not know that a different plan was going to be presented to the community meeting.
The Leader stated that there certainly were people who were managing the contact which was why Dignity had been fined substantial amounts of money over the last few years. The enforcement had been ramped up over that period of time. The Leader reiterated that Dignity had turned up to the meeting with the revised plans and those plans had not been seen or approved by anyone at the Council. The Leader acknowledged that this was a difficult situation for Mr Azam but stated that it was also a difficult situation for him as Leader of the Council. No one wanted to be in the current position. The Leader confirmed that an update would be provided to the group before the next Cabinet meeting on 16 September.
6. Councillor Hussain: Can the Leader and Cabinet make sure this situation (East Herringthorpe Cemetery) was treated as an urgent matter that was given full consideration and priority? It needed to be dealt with as soon as possible because it was causing chaos in the community.
The Leader stated that the Council were treating the situation with the upmost seriousness and urgency. It was a position that nobody wanted to be in, and everyone wanted to see it resolved as quickly as possible.
7. Mr Ashraf: The Year Ahead Plan was on the agenda for today’s meeting. Was there anything in the Plan in relation to cemeteries and Dignity? Mr Ashraf also asked a question in relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. He stated that he and the Council were at cross-purposes on this subject, and he asked the Leader to write to him with all of the historical and legal arguments along with any other reasons as to why Rotherham Council had adopted and continued to use the definition since 2019.
The Leader explained that there was nothing specifically relating to Dignity in the Year Ahead Plan. The Leader explained why that was. The Council provided thousands of services on a day-to-day basis, some through external private providers. That work typically was not included on the Plan. The Plan detailed work that the Council wanted to see happen in a given year whereas the provision of cemetery services was more business as usual. It was a service that needed to be delivered at all times. As such, there was no particular measure in the Plan but that did not undermine the commitment given earlier in the meeting that the Council wanted to move quickly on this situation and provide updates to the community over the coming weeks.
In relation to the second part of the question, the Leader confirmed that he was happy to write to Mr Ashraf as requested. The correspondence would outline the process the Council went through to adopt the definition which was through a motion to Full Council. There had been a number of people who had asked the Council to adopt the definition and it was a particularly sensitive issue at the time. The Council considered the request for a period of time, during which the IHRA definition was adopted by a number of national organisations. The Council took the view that it was the right thing to do. Since the adoption, the definition had not had to be tested in Rotherham as there had not been incidents of antisemitism.
In his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf asked for copies to be sent to him via email of all correspondence that the Leader, Councillors and Council Officers had undertaken on residents behalf to MP’s etc?
In the second part of his supplementary question, Mr Ashraf stated that the video recordings (webcasts of the meeting) were 2040I which was very low quality. He asked whether this could be increased to a minimum of 1080P? He stated that the subtitles left a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy and he asked how this could be improved. Mr Ashraf also stated that the minutes of the public questions asked at Council meetings were not fully accurate with information missing. The example of referring to Councillor Alam as Councillor Allen in the 28 February Council meeting minutes was given. Mr Ashraf asked how the public would know the difference from the minutes if the Officers of the Council could not tell the difference between Councillor Saghir Alam and Councillor Sarah Allen. Mr Ashraf stated that as information was missed and not accurate in the minutes, could the minutes be changed to verbatim minutes, which, in tandem with emailed questions and webcast should be doable. He asked the Leader to provide a rough timeline.
The Leader asked Mr Ashraf to put his concerns into writing and send them to him due to the volume of questions asked. Responding to question regarding the quality of the webcast, the Leader explained that the decision was taken as part of the budget setting process in February and March 2024 that more public money would not be spent on upgrading the webcast system as it was adequate for the needs of the Council. If money was to be spent on that it could not be spent on something else. Council had taken the decision recently not to update the system. In terms of minutes, it was important they were accurate and did not confuse Alam and Allen. The Leader asked Mr Ashraf to highlight where the errors were in the minutes so that they could be corrected. In terms of verbatim minutes, the Leader confirmed that the webcast of a meeting was available for a year so anyone could hear verbatim what was said at a meeting. The purpose of minutes was not to provide a verbatim record but was to record the decisions taken in the meeting along with a sense of the discussion around that. That was the stance taken by most Council’s and the stance taken by Rotherham for a long time and that would not be changing.
8. Mr Iqbal: The OSMB Councillors passed the recommendations of the sub-group on the Gaza Petition at the 24 July meeting. The Chair had communicated with the Leader, asking him to expedite the approval. Could the Leader of the Council given assurances that he would do so and give a timeline for that?
The Leader confirmed that the Chair of OSMB had written to him in the week prior to the Cabinet meeting asking him to expedite the recommendations. The recommendations were not able to be presented at the current Cabinet meeting as items for decision had to be published a certain period in advance of the meeting. Due to the timing of the OSMB meeting it was not possible to publish those recommendations in time for the Cabinet meeting. The recommendations would be presented to Cabinet in September 2024 and discussions would be held over summer to inform the decision which would be taken as quickly as possible.
9. Councillor Thorp: In the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule it says the Council are spending around £850,000 per school for near enough all schools to build extensions. How much in pupil numbers for school was this expected to deliver?
The Leader explained that no one in the room would be able to provide that level of detail. He advised Councillor Thorp that if he did want to ask questions that required detailed figures he should send his question in in advance so that research could be undertaken, and a full answer provided in the meeting. A written response would be provided to the question asked at this meeting.
In his supplementary question, Councillor Thorp stated the Council was spending £850,000 on schools but there was a planned £30 million to replace a railway bridge that was surely owned by Network Rail. Why was Rotherham Borough Council spending money on structures that they did not own?
The Interim Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment explained that the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule itemised the key components of infrastructure that were required to support growth in the Borough. They were not necessarily things owned by the Council or things that would be funded by the Council. Some contributions would come from developers to contribute towards the infrastructure items. In relation to the bridge, the Council were committed to undertaking design and feasibility work only on Eastwood Bridge and that was funded by South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. Not Council resources.
Councillor Thorp stated he was referring to Canklow bridge.
The Leader explained that this would be to do with the pinch point on the highway network. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan was a number of years old and the principle of it was that if the pinch point on the road network could be resolved, it would lead to economic benefits in the borough. It did not mean that there was a commitment from the Council to fund those works. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan kept items such as the bridge on the agenda for if Network Rail did approach the Council at any stage. It was basically a wish list of infrastructure schemes.