To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Committee Chairpersons (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Currie asked please could the Cabinet Member explain the Council’s housing strategy when a tenant goes into care, in regard to the upkeep of the garden and hedges?
Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Housing, explained that when a tenant went into residential care, the gardens and hedges were generally maintained by relatives of the tenants. The service would organise for a garden to be cut back upon notification that the garden/hedges were overgrown, if they were aware that the tenant was in a care home and there were no relatives to undertake this work.
In a supplementary question Councillor Currie was aware of where this was an issue in three instances.
Councillor Allen agreed to pick this up with Councillor Currie outside of the meeting.
(2) Councillor Tinsley asked with the consultation now live for improvements on Maltby High Street, would the Council actually take on board feedback from Councillors and residents?
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leaderof the Council and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, explained the collection of feedback on the proposals from Councillors and residents was critical to developing a successful scheme. Therefore, the online survey and in-person event aimed to gather as many views as possible. Officers would review all comments and suggestions and endeavor to bring forward a scheme that was well supported locally.
In a supplementary question Councillor Tinsley outlined his concerns following the first consultation and the feedback received where virtually everything that had been identified was not actioned. He referred to the additional CCTV and lighting to make streets safer, the capacity of litter bins, placement of seating in areas where they were not wanted and development areas of the High Street.
It appeared no-one was listening and he expressed his concern that although comments were welcomed online and in person, only one face-to-face consultation event had been arranged. This scheme in Maltby was one of the biggest schemes of the Towns and Villages Fund so he suggested a meeting for a conversation take place. There were concerns and rather than pushing something through that residents were unhappy with, it would be better for an initial discussion.
Councillor Sheppard was more than happy for further discussion and would take this forward.
(3) Councillor Tinsley asked with the Tour of Britain coming through Rotherham on 5th September, could the Cabinet Member tell him of any financial contributions that may have come from RMBC or the SYCMA to host the event.
Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, explained that to date the costs incurred by Rotherham Council, as a “best estimate”, at this stage were £3,000 for bunting, large flags and hand waving flags and £3,000 for traffic management.
In a supplementary question Councillor Tinsley welcomed events such as this for the Borough, but his main issue was with the date it was scheduled. The event through the Borough took place on Thursday when many of the children had returned to school following the summer break. Was this good value for money as the event did not quite have the impact, although it did go down well.
Councillor Taylor explained that whilst there were always investments, events such as this were structured with rules and arranged well in advance. However, further discussions were taking place to bring the tournament back into South Yorkshire in the future.
(4) Councillor Beck pointed out that following a water main burst on 1st September several properties in Kiveton Park were flooded again twelve months after a similar incident at the same location. He asked did the Cabinet Member agree with him that this incident in addition to thirty-five other water main bursts along the three main roads through Kiveton Park since 2005 was completely unacceptable and negligent from Yorkshire Water.
Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, agreed with Councillor Beck about how the inconvenience for local residents must be deeply aggravating.
Yorkshire Water have confirmed that they have thresholds or triggers that have to be met before water mains could be considered for replacement. The Council’s Highways and Flood Risk Service have consulted with Yorkshire Water and they have confirmed that the water main on the B6059 Station Road, Kiveton Park had now met these requirements, and would be replaced between April 2025 and March 2026. Whilst these works would create further inconvenience it was hoped they would bring about the long-term resolution needed.
In a supplementary question Councillor Beck asked if the Council would consider writing to Yorkshire Water to express concerns regarding the adverse effects on residents whose properties sustained damage and the level of support offered to them. This was happening across the whole of the Borough and with ageing infrastructure parts of the system starting to fail. There were three or four properties that were devastated by an incident and twelve months after their refurbishment there has been yet another so there was an issue of compensation.
Councillor Taylor was happy to assist, but was unsure whether that work was ongoing. He had not received any dialogue, but would look to do a little investigating and come back to Councillor Beck.
(5) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester‘s question was asking the Cabinet Member if he could confirm or deny that in June RMBC officers were involved in serving notices and taking action regards travellers residing on land owned by Wickersley Parish Council?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(6) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question was asking what preparations were being made by Adult Social Care and Health authorities to deal with extra demand due to older people not being able to heat their homes this winter?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(7) Councillor Baggaley asked would the Cabinet Member commit to working with himself and his fellow Ward Councillor to engage residents in the consideration of future flood defences and improvements to warning systems?
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed he would work with others and was aware this was a huge priority for Councillors Baggaley and Adair.
The Council and Environment Agency (EA) have committed to investigate flood alleviation schemes around Catcliffe and Treeton and the proposal had been placed on the Environment Agency’s medium-term plan and the Council have funded hydraulic modelling of the River Rother to view suitable options. Initial discussions have taken place with Derbyshire County Council to discuss joint working on upstream storage to attenuate flood water during storm events.
The Environment Agency have carried out a full review of the flood alerts and warnings offered to residents of Catcliffe Village and Treeton Village. The Council attended the Environment Agency’s incident room following Storm Babet to provide feedback on how improvements could be made to the warning system and the Environment Agency have made changes to the Treeton flood warnings. Both officers and the Cabinet Member remained committed to working with all relevant stakeholders to seek to improve flood defences and the response to such incidents.
In a supplementary question Councillor Baggaley welcomed the Cabinet Member’s commitment, but had yesterday attended one of the first drop-in sessions for Storm Babet at Catcliffe Memorial Hall and had talked with a number of partners.
One of the issues discussed was around the time the flood warnings were issued and how quick the volunteer Flood Wardens were in operation. He, therefore, expressed thanks to the volunteer Flood Wardens and sought assurances as to what the Council were doing to ensure that the concerns, suggestions and the local intelligence of the Flood Wardens was acted upon by the Environment Agency in response to a flooding incident.
Councillor Sheppard considered the work of the Flood Wardens to be absolutely vital to reassure communities and provide assistance when there was a major flood event. There was a limited number of officers who were able to help out in various locations across the Borough, but if support with additional training and equipment was available it would be less burden on local residents at those times.
The four South Yorkshire authorities were coming together to focus on how improvements could be made and the reactions to flooding events. Rotherham had taken the lead on community leadership and had done some work in pioneering new ways of working with communities with parish councils.
(8) Councillor Tinsley asked with consultations set to start shortly around Public Space Protections Orders across the Borough, would this factor in the motion previously presented around byelaws and protection of parks and lifesaving equipment.
Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities, explained that as Councillor Tinsley was aware, following the previously presented motion, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board was asked to undertake a review which happened in May last year.
That review heard how other powers were likely to be more effective in these circumstances. However, the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board did discuss a further specific review on life-saving equipment and the Cabinet would consider the findings of that review when they were concluded. Until that stage a further extension of byelaws was not being considered as part of the Public Space Protections Orders review.
In a supplementary question Councillor Tinsley asked if consideration could be given to the motion with throw lines being damaged.
Councillor Alam was aware of one recorded case of damage to the equipment, but would wait for feedback.
(9) Councillor Tinsley asked when the Our Place Fund became available for projects around the Borough, could this be used to complete or make further enhancements to Maltby High Street.
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, explained the detailed set of criteria for the Our Places Fund projects was currently being developed.
A report was scheduled to come to Cabinet in November with proposals around this. Consideration would be given to adding value to existing schemes where appropriate, but also the prioritisation of areas that have not received significant funding.
(10) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referring to it being estimated that nearly 4000 Rotherham pensioners failed to claim Pension Credit that they were entitled to. His question asked what extra measures were the Council putting in place to ensure uptake of this benefit ahead of the 21st December, 2024 Winter Fuel Allowance cut off?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(11) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referred to how in July a meeting was held with the Cabinet Member and local Members over the latest cuts to the Thrybergh Country Park development. He asked when could he expect to see the notes from that meeting?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(12) Councillor Clarke explained how she was pleased that after Purdah, Dinnington Ward Councillors were receiving monthly updates again regarding the regeneration project. However, she had not received an update regarding the flood alleviation work for Laughton Common so asked could she be assured that this work for Laughton was on track and like the regeneration project, the Ward Councillors would get regular updates.
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed that he was pleased to be able to confirm that the work on the development of Laughton’s flood defence scheme was on track.
The “Approval in Principle” phase was approaching completion. Ground investigations were now in the process of being organised with the RMBC Land Team. As was often the case with such projects there were other potential developments that the Council needed to be mindful of – in this case a solar power development received planning permission on one of the identified sites for flood storage. Fortunately, the Council was currently having positive discussions about collaboration with the developer to find a way for both schemes to be constructed.
Updates relating to the six Priority Flood Alleviation Schemes, which included the Eel Mires Dike Flood Alleviation Scheme at Laughton Common, were regularly provided at the Improving Places Select Commission meetings. During the feasibility study for the proposed scheme, the Council had delivered over two thousand leaflets to residents in Laughton and the surrounding area updating the community on the scheme's progress, which was now nearing completion of the “Approval in Principle” phase.
Following the recent publication of the ‘Storm Babet – Section 19 Report’, the Council had arranged a “Drop in” session to be held at the Lyric Theatre Hall in Dinnington between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 18th September 2024. This was to invite residents and other stakeholders to discuss any issues or questions relating to the events of Storm Babet or the proposed flood alleviation scheme and, of course, would ensure that appropriate updates were provided to Councillor Clarke and the other Ward Members.
(13) Councillor Clarke noted that there were two vacancies advertised recently for Resilience Officers as part of the Council's Emergency Response Team. She appreciated the closing date was very recent but asked could she please be updated regarding the recruitment to these important roles.
Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities, confirmed shortlisting took place on Friday, 6th September for the Resilience Officer roles, which sat as part of the Council’s Emergency Planning Team. A good number of applications had been received which would be measured against the shortlisting criteria and, where appropriate, invited for interview in line with the Council processes. Interviews were set to take place in mid to late September.
(14) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question asked how at the July meeting the Cabinet Member confirmed the HRA was used to fund officer hours in neighbourhoods so had asked what was the total staffing cost for neighbourhoods and how much was contributed from HRA?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(15) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referred to one of the biggest mistakes by this Borough over the past decade was the scrapping of the Dolly Parton Imagination Library. He asked what would need to happen to restore it?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(16) Councillor A. Carter asked did the Cabinet Member share the frustrations of Brinsworth residents that the promised adaptations to the parking outside the shops on Brinsworth Lane have not yet happened?
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, confirmed that frustrations regarding the delays to the delivery of this scheme were appreciated and he thanked residents and stakeholders for their patience and understanding.
Some legal requirements were still being resolved to enable the Council to bring forward the improvements. Ultimately, the Council could not make improvements on private land until the necessary agreements and permissions were in place. In the meantime, the Deputy Leader was pleased to advise that the procurement process was underway to bring a contractor on board to deliver the scheme. A programme for the delivery of the works was expected to be finalised in the coming weeks and this would be communicated to Members and residents.
In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter referred to briefings in late February/early March where it was believed legal agreements had been received and it was hoped work would have commenced by Easter. He expressed his frustrations at what appeared to be ever changing goal posts and delays to get this scheme off the ground. He, therefore, sought assurances that there would be progressed by the next Council meeting or by Christmas.
Councillor Sheppard apologised that there were delays, but gave his assurance that he himself and officers were working as quickly as they could to get those legal requirements in place. Once they were this information would be communicated to Councillor Carter.
(17) Councillor A. Carter referred to Brinsworth having one of the lowest vaccination rates in the Borough so asked what work was being done to improve this situation?
Councillor Baker-Rogers, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, explained Rotherham’s Public Health Service was working with colleagues in NHS England’s Screening and Immunisation Team in South Yorkshire to raise awareness of the importance of childhood vaccines and identify areas where vaccine uptake was lower for specific targeted work. A letter had been sent to parents via Rotherham schools as part of the return to school information, reminding parents about the importance of checking their child was up-to-date with vaccines, giving more information and urging anyone missing doses to contact their GP for a catch-up appointment. This would also be included in neighbourhood newsletter communications.
Public Health and Immunisation leads have discussed with local community organisations and schools’ further ways of increasing messaging and reaching unvaccinated children and several GP practices with lowest uptake were currently offering some additional catch-up vaccination clinics. Intrahealth (the local school aged immunisation provider) were also supporting by addressing missing childhood vaccines particularly in areas of low uptake for those rising five years of age and reviewing the records of all Year 11 young people to check vaccination histories and offer missing immunisations prior to leaving school.
The 2022/23 latest data showed uptake for Brinsworth Medical Centre was 88.3% for children aged five who had received a re-enforcing dose of the diphtheria, tetanus, polio and pertussis/whooping cough jab and at least two doses of MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) between the ages of one and five years. It was worth noting, that Rotherham did have comparatively good vaccination rates, so whilst this figure was not high enough, the South Yorkshire average was 85.3% and England 81.5%.
In a supplementary question Councillor A. Carter confirmed that the 88% referred to the answer was nowhere near the level needed to tackle the rising epidemic of measles in our country and in localities around here. Councillor Carter was particularly interested to hear what the Council and Public Health were doing. It was not just about writing to people in the hope that they would read it and then book a GP appointment. Some would be reluctant to discuss concerns and it did not seem a very effective way to encourage immunisation.
There were a few different reasons for vaccine refusal within a population with discredited and untrue fears from the nineties. There were also cultural and historic reasons within certain demographics where there was lower take-up vaccinations due to potential mistrust of the healthcare professions. There were also those in deprived areas and those who struggled to find time in very busy lives through their work and childcare commitments to then prioritise something that may possibly help their child in the future.
There were groups that were difficult to engage so what approach could be used to increase vaccination rates when the current approach did not appear to be working.
Councillor Baker-Rogers pointed out every effort was being made to reach out and encourage parents to ensure their children were vaccinated. She agreed to seek further information to see what was being done to engage with hard-to-reach groups, but welcomed any ideas as to how vaccination rates could be increased.
(18) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referenced how for several months the bus station had been blighted by ripped and vandalised seating. He asked what conversations have been had with SYMCA regards its management and the look this vandalism gives to our town centre?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(19) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referred how on August 27th @Rothbiz published an article regards new possible bus lanes in Rotherham and asked when would somebody be talking to Members in the Wards that may be affected by such a move?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(20) Councillor Clarke asked did Elected Members receive training to be effective on the ground when an emergency response was required, not just in her own Ward, but to contribute to the resilience to the team Borough-wide. She asked could she please be included in forthcoming training dates.
Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities, confirmed the Council had in place a robust approach to responding to major incidents which recognised the significant role that Elected Members could and did play in the event of a major incident.
Whilst there was no expectation for Elected Members to become directly involved in responding to a Major Incidentthe plan did recognise the need to keep Elected Members informed so that they in turn could provide a trusted source of information in the community. Members also provided critical feedback and information in relation to their communities and often played a significant part in the longer-term recovery from any major incident.
To support Elected Members, a briefing in relation to Emergency Planning was part of the induction programme. This broadly outlined the Council’s arrangements to respond to a major or critical incident as well as spotlighting the specific expectations placed on Elected Members. In the event of any major incident, Elected Members could expect to receive relevant information and updates.
In a supplementary question Councillor Clarke thanked the Cabinet Member for his response, but confusingly her question was more around the Flood Wardens and if there was any opportunity just to offer support.
Councillor Alam welcomed any support and would take back the request and make contact with Councillor Clarke outside of the meeting.
(21) Councillor Currie asked could the Cabinet Member please tell him if the footfall in the Town Centre was recorded as a key performance indicator following events or interventions held in the centre?
Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, confirmed the Council continuously monitored footfall across the town centre through footfall cameras. The cameras monitored footfall at specific fixed locations across the town. Daily footfall data could be produced including footfall counts on days when specific events or interventions took place.
Appraisal of town centre events typically also included a broader range of information, including data, interviews and feedback to appraise success alongside cost considerations.
In a supplementary question Councillor Currie asked whether there was any possibility of reintroducing certain events such as Rotherham By The Sea.
Councillor Taylor confirmed all things would be considered. From the information he had received he was encouraged that there was a constant uptrend in the footfall in the town centre and around the attendance of events, which were worthwhile and attractive to people.
(22) Councillor Sutton asked would the Cabinet Member join her to speak to residents about the proposed development which was bringing well deserved investment into Maltby and ensure the public consultation and feedback was taken seriously and the best value for money was ensured?
Councillor Sheppard, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion and Neighbourhood Working, thanked Councillor Sutton for her question and offer, and confirmed a joint approach to speaking with local residents was welcomed. He was happy to agree to her request. The public consultation was a timely opportunity to gather the views of Maltby residents on the proposed High Street improvements. All feedback was valuable and would be considered to ensure that the scheme delivered on local priorities and, therefore, represented value for public money.
In a supplementary question Councillor Sutton pointed out there was a consultation booked in for tomorrow, so asked Councillor Sheppard if dates could be arranged to do further consultation?
Councillor Sheppard was aware the consultation was during the daytime so suggested there was a variation in time so more people could attend. He was more than happy to look at evenings in venues such as the library when it was open later in the evening.
(23) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referred to carers at Gateway expressing concerns over the support for their loved ones when they as carers passed away. He asked what conversations had taken place with care groups to develop support and policies for when such a sad occasion occurred?
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.
(24) Councillor Bennett-Sylvester’s question referred to the issue of Beirut blocks in the Town Centre being raised before. Rather than concrete ones there were plastic variants around Minster Gardens. He asked was anybody thinking of an alternative that was not an eyesore.
Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed to receive a written answer to his question.