Officer Decisions

Date Of Decision:

20 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Judith Badger

Section 151 Officer

Strategic Director Finance & Customer Services

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Appendix 9 of the Constitution (Responsibility for Functions) – Delegation to the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services to determine requests for early release and flexible retirement, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member

Brief Description of Decision:

Approval was given to request ERP0199 for a flexible retirement in the Regeneration & Environment Directorate

Reasons for the Decision:

The employing service had considered service delivery implications and was supportive of the request.  There was no cost associated with granting the early release of pension entitlements.

Details of Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None

Where the decision is made under specific delegation from a decision making body, the names of any member of the relevant body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision and name of the body granting the specific delegation and the date when it did so:

None

Background Papers:

Date Of Decision:

20 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Judith Badger

Section 151 Officer

Strategic Director Finance & Customer Services

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Appendix 9 of the Constitution (Responsibility for Functions) – Delegation to the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services to determine requests for early release and flexible retirement, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member

Brief Description of Decision:

Approval was given to request ERP0198 for a flexible retirement in the Regeneration & Environment Directorate

Reasons for the Decision:

The employing service had considered service delivery implications and was supportive of the request.  There was no cost associated with granting the early release of pension entitlements.

Details of Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

None

Where the decision is made under specific delegation from a decision making body, the names of any member of the relevant body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision and name of the body granting the specific delegation and the date when it did so:

None

Background Papers:

Date Of Decision:

20 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Judith Badger

Section 151 Officer

Strategic Director Finance & Customer Services

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Appendix 9 of the Constitution (Responsibility for Functions) – Delegation to the Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services to determine requests for early release and flexible retirement, in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member

Brief Description of Decision:

Approval was given to request ERP0197 for the compulsory redundancy of an employee in the Children’s and Young People’s Directorate

Reasons for the Decision:

It was not financially viable to continue offering the service where the individual was employed and the employee had not been successful in being redeployed. 

Details of Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Redeployment options had been explored and no suitable alternative post found.

Where the decision is made under specific delegation from a decision making body, the names of any member of the relevant body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision and name of the body granting the specific delegation and the date when it did so:

None

Background Papers:

Date of Decision:

21 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Anne Marie Lubanski

Strategic Director, Adult Care, Housing and Public Health

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

To allocate 70% (£376,892) of the Rapid Testing Fund Round III in accordance with the mandatory grant conditions, and to distribute the 30% (£165,700) discretionary element as set out below.

Additional guidance has been issued indicating that £35,549 of the 30% discretionary element should be ringfenced for Community Care providers in respect of the associated costs of PCR testing.

It is proposed to offer a range of organisations the opportunity to bid for a grant from the discretionary fund.

These organisations are:

·       Any CQC registered provider of residential care to adults with a registered location in Rotherham.  This includes care homes for older people and under 65 provision, including smaller homes to implement lateral flow testing as they may face relatively higher costs compared to larger homes.

·       Supported Living Providers.

·       Extra Care Housing Providers.

The above is in line with the conditions of the 30% discretionary grant.

In terms of reviewing the applications, these will be considered in this order of priority:

·       Supported Living Providers – providers not able to access the 70% mandatory grant.

·       Extra Care Housing Providers – providers not able to access the 70% mandatory grant.

·       Smaller care homes – as they may face relatively higher costs compared to larger homes.

·       Any CQC registered provider of residential care to adults with a registered location in Rotherham.  This includes larger care homes for older people and under 65 provision.

For care homes, the provider will need to have spent (or forecast to have spent due to the timescales of the reporting) their mandatory allocation (70% element).

This element will be allocated based on an assessment of the emerging risks, and in line with the wider testing strategy.

The providers will be asked to certify actual expenditure at the end of the reporting period and any unspent allocations returned to the council.

Any unspent grant funding is to be returned to Government.

Reasons for the Decision:

On 2 July 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced the extension of the Infection Control and Testing Fund 2021. The Fund has now been extended until 30 September 2021 and will provide an additional £251 million to support Adult Social Care.

The Council has been allocated £542,592 from the Rapid Testing Fund Round III.

The two grants do have some distinctions in how the monies are to be distributed. Both parts of the Fund are time limited, and need to be spent by 30 September 2021, and have clear eligibility criteria.

The Council has facilitated the distribution of the specified 70% of the Rapid Testing Fund in accordance with the mandatory grant conditions. If a provider refuses its allocation the funding will be added to the 30% discretionary element, in accordance with the grant conditions. This is recorded via the Record of Officer Executive Decision from the Strategic Director of Adults, Housing and Public Health.  

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

None considered.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

No conflicts of interest declared.

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

N/A.

Reports or parts of reports considered

None considered.

Date of Decision:

21 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Anne Marie Lubanski

Strategic Director, Adult Care, Housing and Public Health

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

To allocate 70% (£497,000) of the Infection Control Fund Round IV in accordance with the mandatory grant conditions, and to distribute the 30% (£213,000) discretionary element as set out below.

It is proposed to offer a range of organisations the opportunity to bid for a grant from the discretionary fund.

These organisations are:

·       Day opportunity services (including micro-enterprises) and other providers who are not eligible to access the mandatory element of the grant.

·       Care homes and supported living services for people who are under 65.

·       Any other CQC registered service who are operating in Rotherham.

This element will be allocated based on the applications which are received, and if the criteria for the grant will be met.

The applications from non-CQC registered services will be considered as a higher priority. The CQC registered providers will be expected to have forecast to have spent their allocation of the mandatory grant.

The providers will be asked to certify the expenditure at the end of the reporting period and any unspent allocations returned to the Council.

Any unspent grant funding will be returned to Government.

Reasons for the Decision:

On the 2 July 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) announced the extension of the Infection Control and Testing Fund 2021. The Fund has now been extended until 30 September 2021 and will provide an additional £251million to support Adult Social Care.

The Council has been allocated £710,000 from the Infection Control Fund round IV.

The two grants do have some distinctions in how the monies are to be distributed. Both parts of the Fund are time limited, and need to be spent by 30 September 2021, and have clear eligibility criteria.

The Council has facilitated the distribution of the specified 70% of the Infection Control Fund in accordance with the grant conditions. If a provider refuses its allocation the funding will be added to the 30% discretionary element, in accordance with the grant conditions. This is recorded via the Record of Officer Executive Decision from the Strategic Director of Adults, Housing and Public Health.  

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

None considered.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

No conflicts of interest declared.

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

N/A

Reports or parts of reports considered

None considered.

Date of Decision:

29 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Tom Smith; Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

The agreement is to ensure a compliant route for the purchase of street lighting lanterns for the Street Lighting Service, as detailed within the Procurement Business Case, which was approved by Tom Smith; Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene on 28/04/2021.

Following the evaluation of this tender it is the recommendation of the project team that the Council progresses to issue an award to ASD Lighting Plc.

Reasons for the Decision:

The result of a competitive procurement process.

The procurement process was undertaken as a further competition via YPO 1027 – Street Lighting Products and Services – Lot 1 Exterior Electrical Products and Equipment, which was conducted in line with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (as amended) and the Council’s own Financial and Procurement Procedure Rules (FPPRs)

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

NA

Where the decision is made under specific delegation from a decision making body, the names of any member of the relevant body who has declared a conflict of interest in relation to the decision and name of the body granting the specific delegation and the date when it did so:

NA

Background Papers:

Tender evaluation report

Date of Decision:

12 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director – Regeneration and Environment

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Nonspecific

Brief Description of Decision:

1.  That the updated Anti-Social Behaviour Policy be approved.

2.  That a further review of Policy be undertaken within a two-year period.

Reasons for the Decision:

It is a statutory requirement to have in place a policy in relation to anti-social behaviour and in addition, there have been a range of changes both nationally and locally which the new Policy aims to capture.

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

The Council could choose not to update the Policy however, due to the legal requirement for a clear Policy to be in place, alongside the need to update and reflect legal changes since the Policy was last agreed, this option is not recommended.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

None

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

None

Reports or parts of reports considered

The report of the Strategic Director - Regeneration and Environment - Revised Anti-Social Behaviour Policy 2021.

Date of Decision:

22^nd July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Paul Woodcock

Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

To approve the suspension of garden waste collections, from Monday 26^th July, initially for a period of two weeks in order to ensure that priority waste collection services can be delivered reliably.

Reasons for the Decision:

To ensure the continuity of critical waste service, given high levels of staff absence.

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

See enclosed report.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

No conflicts of interest declared.

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

Not Applicable.

Reports or parts of reports considered

Report to Cabinet Member of Waste, Roads and Community Safety dated 21^st July 2021.

Date of Decision:

23 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director – Regeneration and Environment

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

That the proposed list of activities contained in the report are approved for implementation using the Welcome Back Fund monies.

Reasons for the Decision:

To agree to a proposed list of activities and interventions funded through the Rotherham’s RHSS/WBF allocation of £471,455

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

That the proposed list of activities is agreed and officers commence delivery as quickly as possible – Recommended option.

If some or all of the activities are not approved, new activities would need to be identified and submitted to MHCLG, costing time and making it more likely the full allocation would not be spent in time.

The Council could consider not utilising the funding and returning the allocation (or part) to MHCLG (Government). This is not recommended as the proposals put forward seek to utilise the funds in order to benefit Rotherham both in terms of economic recovery but also assisting with managing the spread of Covid 19.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

Not applicable.

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

All spend must completed by 31^st March 2022, with claims made quarterly in arrears on defrayed spend.

The Council is the accountable body for the project, signing a grant funding agreement with MHCLG.

Reports or parts of reports considered

Report of the Strategic Director and associated appendices.

Date of Decision:

19 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Paul Woodcock, Strategic Director – Regeneration and Environment

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Nonspecific

Brief Description of Decision:

1.    That the Strategic Director – Regeneration and Environment requests that Legal Services make a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO) to add the routes as detailed in the officer’s report to the Definitive Map as public footpaths.

2.    That the statutory consultation takes place for the required 6-week period.

3.    That in the event of no objections being received, or if such objections are received and are subsequently withdrawn, that the Order be confirmed.

4.    That in the event of any objections being received, and that are not subsequently withdrawn, that the Order be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.

5.    That officers work with media outlets, local interested parties and through site signage to ensure that members of the public are aware of the situation relating to public access to the site until the matter is formally resolved.

Reasons for the Decision:

To comply with the Council’s statutory duty to assess claims made under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 53(3).

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

The Council appointed an experienced consultant to investigate the claim. The report advised that many, but not all, of the claimed routes ‘subsists or [are] reasonably alleged to subsist.’ Officers have carefully studied the report, its evidential based investigations and conclusions, and are happy that it represents a fair and comprehensive assessment of the claims.

The Council could, on reflection and further investigation, choose to ignore the report or open further investigations of their own. However, this option was not recommended as the investigative report had been undertaken by a consultant of considerable experience and expertise.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

None

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

None

Reports or parts of reports considered

The report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment - Claim to add public footpaths to the Definitive Map at Kimberworth.

Date of Decision:

14 July 2021

Decision Maker:

(Including Job Title)

Judith Badger

Strategic Director of Finance and Customer Services

Specific Delegation:

(If any)

Non-specific

Brief Description of Decision:

The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for the legislation that sets out the framework for the Blue Badge (Disabled Persons’ Parking) scheme. The Council is responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme.

Effective  from 30 August 2019, the DfT introduced a number of legislative changes to the Blue Badge parking scheme; requiring the Council to change its administrative processes and applicants to provide more detailed and descriptive responses. The time it can take for some applicants to obtain the newly required documentation and evidence can create anxiety for existing Blue Badge holders who now have to reapply rather than renew their Blue Badge when it expires.

In November 2019 the Council took steps to mitigate the adverse impact this might otherwise have on existing Blue Badge holders and implemented a permissible local discretionary arrangement.  The arrangement was reviewed in September 2020 and a continuation of the discretionary arrangement approved by SLT Gold until 31st July 2021.

Following a further review in June 2021 it was agreed that the discretionary enforcement arrangement should continue indefinitely whereby:

·       the enforcement team are instructed to avoid issuing a PCN purely on the grounds of an expired blue badge being displayed; subject to the displayed badge being no more than three months out of date.

·       this is a local discretionary arrangement which only applies to use of an expired Blue Badge within the Rotherham Borough and only when using ‘on street’ parking or when parked in a Council owned car park.

·       the arrangement will be kept under regular review to ensure continued compliance with the Council responsibilities as set out by the DfT

Reasons for the Decision:

·       The rationale put forward in October 2020 to support the recommendation for the local discretionary enforcement arrangement remains valid. Customers continue to experience delays when trying to acquire evidence/professional input and there is no current indication that the DfT plan to introduce any new and/or significant changes to the scheme that might alleviate/remove these challenges.

·       The Council can legally apply leniency for existing blue badge holders and the three-month grace period does not appear to contravene any legislation or guidance.

·       The current discretionary arrangement provides a temporary and local extension of three months beyond the date of an expired Blue Badge. Where there are delays in obtaining information and evidence, this grace period helps minimise the impact any delay might otherwise have on the customer and their ability to make an essential journey. It is considered that a three month grace period is sufficient but this will be kept under review.

·       The Parking Services Manager considers that the continuation of this arrangement presents low potential risk of abuse; but this will be kept under review.

Details of alternative options considered and rejected:

An option to withdraw the local discretionary arrangement was considered and rejected on the basis that:

·       There is no indication that the DfT plan to introduce any new and/or significant changes to the scheme that would change the information/evidence the Council needs customers to provide and the associated timescales.

·       Customers continue to report difficulties/delays when trying to obtain the appropriate information/evidence to support their application and the varying nature of individual health conditions mean such delays are always likely to occur for some people. Whilst it is the customers’ responsibility to provide the Council with this information, it can be difficult for applicants to secure an appointment with their health professional.

·       If the 3 month grace period for existing Blue Badge holders is removed, those  customers with an expired badge who are awaiting an award decision are likely to be unable to undertake essential journeys because they would not be able to park close enough to their destination and/or make use of wide bays to help them exit/enter the vehicle.

In view of all of the above, it is considered highly probable that removing the current discretionary arrangement would immediately reintroduce similar issues to those first experienced in September and October 2019 before the local parking enforcement arrangement was applied.  ie. limit the ability of some residents to make essential journeys, increased customer anxiety and a greater number of complaints.

Conflicts of interest declared by any Executive Member consulted by the decision maker which relates to the decision:

No conflicts of interest

Dispensations Granted:

(If any)

None

Reports or parts of reports considered

Briefing Paper:

Blue Badge Parking Scheme – Review of Enforcement Arrangements