COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 34A
COUNCIL MEETING 10th October, 2007
Present:- The Mayor (Councillor Allan Jackson) (in the Chair); Councillors Akhtar, Ali, Austen, Barron, Barton, Billington, Binnie, Boyes, Burton, Clarke, Currie, Cutts, Dodson, Ellis, Falvey, Gilding, Gosling, Goulty, J. Hamilton, N. Hamilton, Hodgkiss, Hussain, Jack, Kaye, Kirk, Lakin, License, Littleboy, McNeely, Mannion, Nightingale, Rushforth, G. A. Russell, P. A. Russell, R. S. Russell, St. John, Sharman, Sharp, Smith, Stone, Stonebridge, Swift, Thirlwall, Turner, Wardle, Whelbourn, Whysall, Wootton, F. Wright, S. Wright and Wyatt.
A28 COUNCIL MINUTES
th Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 25 July, 2007, be approved for signature by the Mayor.
Mover:- Councillor Stone Seconder:- Councillor Sharman
A29 GOOD NEWS
The Leader was pleased to congratulate Ravenfield and Harthill Parish Councils in their success in the Yorkshire in Bloom Competition, which qualified Ravenfield in next year’s Britain in Bloom Competition.
Congratulations were also offered to James Toseland who regained the World Superbike crown at Magny-Cours.
The Leader also offered his thanks for all those who were involved in the organisation and participation in the best and well attended Rotherham Show during September, 2007.
Resolved:- That the congratulations of the Council be forwarded to Ravenfield and Harthill Parish Councils, James Toseland and all people involved in the Rotherham Show.
Mover:- Councillor Stone Seconder:- Councillor Sharman
A30 COMMUNICATIONS
(1) The Chief Executive submitted the following petitions:-
• From 17 residents of Marshall Grove, Wath upon Dearne regarding anti-social behaviour.
• From 21 residents in the Rotherham area requesting improvements to the Broom Valley Club Room.
• From 3,140 residents of Bramley requesting changes to the One Way Traffic System.
35A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
• From 61 residents of the Worrygoose Lane area of Rotherham objecting to illegal parking of vehicles in the area.
• From 53 residents of Knollbeck Crescent, Brampton regarding anti- social behaviour.
• From 53 residents of West Bawtry Road requesting a 40 m.p.h. safety camera.
• from 28 signatories regarding the area around Harrop Garden Flatts
Resolved:- (1) That the petitions be referred to the appropriate Cabinet Member for consideration, apart from the petition regarding Ulley Reservoir which would be considered as part of a report later on the agenda.
Mover:- Councillor Stone Seconder:- Councillor Sharman
(2) The Chief Executive submitted apologies for absence from Councillors Doyle, Foden, Havenhand, Johnston, Pickering, Robinson, Sangster, Slade and Walker.
A31 CABINET MINUTES
Resolved:- That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet (Section B) (pages 33B to 67B) be adopted.
Mover:- Councillor Stone Seconder:- Councillor Sharman
A32 STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Resolved:- That the reports and minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee (Section C) (pages 6C to 8C) be adopted.
Mover:- Councillor Hodgkiss Seconder:- Councillor Clarke
A33 QUESTIONS TO CABINET MEMBERS
(1) Councillor Cutts claimed it was now some three or four years since he first brought to the notice of this Chamber the inappropriate handling of public money within the public conveniences at All Saints’ Square. Since that date he had reported to this Chamber the replacement of two tills, but the system of handling cash had not improved. He asked could he be advised of the current position and any future intended developments?
Councillor Smith explained the provision of a washroom facility in All Saints’ Square provided a valuable public service. The management cost of running the service was kept to a minimum to reflect the modest
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 36A
income generated.
The system in place for accounting for twenty pence’s was in-line with the advice from Audit regarding income collection. Activity levels were monitored and reconciled with the income collected. Any unusual activity would be investigated. From a management perspective this was a cost effective system of accountability.
(2) Councillor Cutts asked now there were only five weeks to the Remembrance Day Ceremony in All Saints’ Square, as a mark of respect would the flagpole be resurrected. If this proved difficult, could he be given permission to supply and erect a flagpole? If this was not acceptable as an alternative could a temporary flagpole be utilised?
Councillor Smith reported that as far as he was aware there were no plans to erect a permanent flag pole in All Saints' Square. He would follow up the question regarding resurrecting a flagpole that had previously existed, however, this was not something that was organised by ourselves and if it was within the Church grounds it would need following up with our contacts there.
It was worth noting that any activities linked to Remembrance Day in the town centre were usually organised by the Royal British Legion and as such it would be important to find out what plans were already underway, in particular with regards to the installation of any flagpoles. We were supportive of a temporary flagpole being erected, but would ask that any plans were passed by ourselves as we needed to ensure (as with any activity in the Square) that all health and safety considerations were addressed. If a permanent pole was to be installed there were other colleagues who would need to have input into the discussions regarding location and safety etc.
(3) Councillor Cutts having failed to obtain information through ‘Scrutiny’ now asked this Chamber for a detailed cash flow chart of the cash received from the donation/offering plate at the Crematorium?
Councillorth Ellis explained that following the Scrutiny Panel meeting on 20 September, 2007 and at Councillor Cutts’ request, the Director of Neighbourhood Services was responding to Councillor Cutts directly detailing the information he required.
Having spoken to the Director thtoday, the Cabinet Member confirmed the letter had been sent on the 4 October, 2007. However, the delay in receiving it could be due to the current postal strike. A copy was, therefore, provided for Councillor Cutts at the meeting.
(4) Councillor Cutts followed on from his April question concerning the seven widows and the Council’s report dated 7th June, 2007, and asked could he now have an update on the situation and intended action?
37A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
Councillorth Ellis explainedth that she had responded to the questions asked at the 13 June and 25 July, 2007 meetings and on both occasions reiterated that it was difficult to provide a detailed response without the names and addresses of the individuals concerned. Only on receipt of this information could a detailed response be made.
(5) Councillor Gilding asked why was the petition about anti-social behaviour at Warren Road, Wickersley not sent to the Police for action?
Councillor Ellis explained that the Warren Road Petition had been investigated by the Council's Anti-Social Behaviour Unit who worked closely with the Police through not only the Police Officers who were seconded to the Unit, but also the Safer Neighbourhood Team.
(Councillor Ellis declared a personal interest in Question 5 being a member of Wickersley Parish Council)
(6) Councillor Gilding asked why was 2010 Rotherham Ltd. £895,000 in the red?
Councillor Ellis confirmed that at 31st March, 2007, 2010 Rotherham Ltd. had a cumulative reserves deficit of £895,000. This was because the Company's brought forward reserves of £240,000 were exceeded by its 2006/07 trading deficit of £1.135 million on DLO trading account and Management Fee-funded services. The Board of 2010 Rotherham Ltd. had approved a Recovery Plan, after consultation with the Council, which would restore the Company's reserves to a positive balance by 31st March, 2009.
(7) Councillor Gilding asked how much did this Council hold in total reserves including any reserved funds?
Councillor Sharman explained the Council had been praised by the Audit Commission for its effective and robust management of reserves as part of the medium term financial planning framework. At 31st March, 2007 the Council held £59.6 million in revenue reserves, of which:-
• £5.4 million was earmarked specifically for the use of Schools and £16.9 million was ring fenced for Housing purposes.
• £23.3 million was specifically held for the future funding of payments under the Schools PFI project and other technical capital financing requirements.
• £8.4 million was held as a General Reserve, £6.4 million as a contingency against future financial risks and £2 million being used to support the 2007/08 budget.
• £5.6 million was held for a number of other identified specific risks (such as winter maintenance and property maintenance).
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 38A
(8) Councillor Gilding asked why was it not apparent that the decisions taken by the Cabinet with regard to the promotion of the “Sheffield City Region”, were further progress towards Rotherham being taken over by Sheffield?
The Leader assumed the costs associated with the recent study into the joint economy of Sheffield and Rotherham were split equally. There was no indication that Rotherham would be integrated into Sheffield and the name of the Sheffield City Region was the name given at the time. The study would identify the implications and opportunities for the future economic development of Rotherham and action taken would be in the best interests of the people of Rotherham.
(9) Councillor Gilding asked why had it been necessary to have Council employees escorted by Community Support Officers when returning to their cars on the Fitzwilliam Road Area Car Parks and had the Police Divisional Commander authorised this action?
The Leader explained that following a number of reports of threats made to our employees walking from their place of work to the Fitzwilliam Street car park, the Safer Neighbourhoods Team have deployed members of their Community Wardens Service to provide an increased presence in the area around the early evening period. The South Yorkshire Police Divisional Commander would be aware of, but did not need to give authorisation to, this action.
(10) Councillor Gilding asked what was the latest position with regard to the Weights and Measures Department at Chapeltown?
The Leader assumed that Councillor Gilding was referring to the South Yorkshire Trading Standards Unit, which was currently the subject of a Police investigation.
(11) Councillor Gilding asked what would be the total cost of establishing a Town Centre Safety Manager?
Councillor Smith confirmed that the cost of the Safety Manager, including overheads and business crime system was:-
Year 1 £30,128 Year 2 £40,896 Year 3 £42,744
The role was to deliver a Town Centre Safety Plan, establish a Business Crime Partnership and manage a range of crime reduction projects to support the regeneration of the Town Centre and in order to attract more visitors and businesses. The role was funded initially by RERF (Rotherham Economic Regeneration Fund) and also received contributions from Westgate Sinking Fund. Revenue funding of this post
39A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
would be supported by income from a town membership scheme to ensure sustainability.
(12) Councillor Gilding asked what would be the cost of the proposed “Bicycle Salary Sacrifice Scheme” and what was the anticipated take-up?
Councillor Smith explained the Bicycle Salary Sacrifice Scheme would operate at no overall cost to the Council.
Whilst employees made national insurance and income tax savings, the employer also made savings because it did not pay national insurance contributions on the amounts of gross salary sacrificed by employees. The Council was also able to claim back VAT on the lease cost of bicycles whereas it sub-leased to employees at a rate that includes VAT. Furthermore, at the end of the scheme, employees were given the opportunity to take ownership of the bicycles through a Transfer of Ownership Payment. Ordinarily, this payment would be made to the lease company, but we have negotiated an arrangement where the Council would accrue these payments.
The current scheme was launched as part of the European Mobility Week in September and was open until the end of October, 2007. Take up was good, considering that this was not the ideal time of year to promote cycling. With that in mind, another scheme would most likely be opened in April/May, 2008 to exploit the attraction of cycling in summer months. The number of bicycles leased over the two schemes would generate more than enough savings to make the overall project cost neutral.
The staff costs of setting up and overseeing the scheme formed part of the general duties of Strategic HR and the Transportation Unit and were contained within existing budgets.
(13) Councillor Gilding asked was the Chairman of Licensing happy about the decisions made by the Licensing Board with regard to the age- limits for taxi-drivers?
Councillor Barron confirmed he was happy with the decisions. The Licensing Board considered a detailed report including arguments on the matters, the decision showed the balance of evidence was taken into account. The decision to not implement an “age related” policy, but to base the policy implemented on “on the road” related driving experience, shown via the years a DVLA licence had been held, had been accepted as the appropriate decision.
(14) Councillor Clarke asked if there were any potential Post Office closures in the Rotherham Council area, would the Labour Councillors on this Council fight to keep them open?
Councillor Smith explained that with any other businesses at risk of closure where job losses may be incurred, the Council would do all it
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 40A
could to firstly protect those jobs in the area and, secondly, if that was unsuccessful would work with those employees affected in helping them to find alternative employment. No Rotherham Post Offices have been included in the recently published national list.
(15) Councillor Clarke pointed out that on looking at the South Yorkshire Second Local Transport Plan 2006/2011, Chapter 11 of the South Yorkshire Investment Programme gave him fears for the future of the Council’s New/Local Road Schemes.
As he understood it, it was the Bus Priority Schemes, Public Transport Interchanges, Park and Ride and Bus Infrastructure that have an estimated cost of £42 million and the New/Local Road Schemes just £1.69 million over 5 years.
He asked why was so much being put into the Bus Priority Scheme and very little into the New/Local Road Schemes in the next five years, which may undermine any future schemes for road repairs which were in need of urgent repair in the borough, or were we just going to accept the programme that may be given to us?
Councillor Smith explained that South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) and the Council were committed to improving transport facilities for all users and were currently investing in schemes to enhance the journeys of public transport passengers, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
The figures from the second Local Transport Plan to 2011 quoted by Councillor Clarke needed qualifying and did not fully reflect what was being spent on improving facilities in Rotherham. To enhance public transport the PTA/PTE was spending £42 million, but this was being spread across the whole county, not just in the Rotherham district and covered the full Plan period.
Over the period of the second Local Transport Plan many millions of pounds were targeted at roads in Rotherham, not just the £1.69 million as quoted. “Road schemes” in Rotherham were funded from a variety of sources and we focus revenue funding on introducing noise reducing road surfaces, strengthening roads, structural maintenance and enhancements to existing highways.
As well as these maintenance works and other ‘minor’ improvements, the Council, through the Plan, was promoting a series of 'major' road schemes which, as well as assisting public transport, were intended to support economic regeneration, accessibility [particularly to jobs], reduce congestion and improve road safety and air quality. These included:-
• Highfield Lane Bridge [recently completed]. • A631 West Bawtry Road Improvement [under construction].
41A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
• A57 Improvement [planning permission secured]. • Waverley Link Road [DfT programme entry]. • Catcliffe/Parkway Junction Improvement [about to start]. • SYITS [South Yorkshire Urban Traffic Control scheme which included Rotherham]. • Todwick Road Dinnington Improvement [on site, about to be formally opened.
amounting to a total of around £40 million investment up to the end of the Plan [2011].
Such investment should be welcomed and should be seen as additional to and not instead of “road repair” schemes
(16) Councillor Clarke asked why a firm of builders were not going to go ahead with a residential development on the land, which was formerly the Henley’s Garage Site in Rotherham.
Councillor Ellis explained that the site which was formerly the Henley’s Garage Site was not owned by the Council and had been sold to Ben Bailey Homes. The Housing Market Renewal Team had been in a series of discussions with Ben Bailey Homes regarding this residential development site, which was granted planning permission for 128 apartments plus a retail component. Ben Bailey was the speculative housing developer.
Following Ben Bailey gaining planning consent for the site they launched their company, including land holdings, on the market for sale, which resulted in a delay in a start on site.
Gladedale were the new owners of Ben Bailey who bought the company about six weeks ago. Only last week we entered into discussions with Gladedale to better understand their ambitions for the site and set out the Council’s concerns relating to no activity on a prominent town centre site. A meeting took place with the Directors of Gladedale today who indicated that they were still committed to town centre regeneration development on this site.
(17) Councillor Clarke asked if the former M.P., Mr. Tony Benn, had asked to be considered as a candidate at the next general election for any one of the three constituencies we have in the Rotherham area and did the Leader think he would have any support. If not could the Leader tell Councillor Clarke why?
The Leader pointed out that Mr. Tony Benn would not have any support as the three candidates had already been selected. The three M.P.’s here in Rotherham worked very hard for the Borough and had the Leader’s full support.
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 42A
Questions 18, 19 and 20 from Councillor Mannion were ruled out of order.
(21) Councillor Mannion had attended a training course in emergency planning on the morning of Wednesday, 10th October, 2007, and a buffet lunch was being served. He asked what was the cost of that lunch?
Councillor Smith explained that the buffet lunch for the Elected Members Training was £5.50 a head. This was a standard charge when booking a room in Bailey House. Lunch was being provided as the Elected Members were required to work through their lunch break as it was important that Members remained at the session to ensure that they were familiar with their role in an emergency.
(22) Councillor Mannion explained that when attending briefings on the A631 improvements at Whiston crossroads it was said that ‘it will all be over by next Christmas’ and asked would we be meeting that, often used and rarely achieved, prediction and if not what was the latest estimate and if the finish had been delayed what were the reasons and any cost implications? He also asked could he have this answer in writing please.
Councillor Smith agreed to provide this answer in writing.
(23) Councillor Mannion asked what had been the cost to the taxpayers of Rotherham for ‘in house’ catering for courses, meetings and seminars for the past three years and the cost so far this year and asked could he also have this answer in writing please?
The Leader explained that the catering normally provided amounted to tea, coffee, milk and fruit juices with the occasional biscuit. The cost of these items last year amounted to £977 and this was considered to be broadly in line with the spend in the previous two years. The spend on these items this year so far amounted to £420.
(24) Councillor Mannion asked having completed the follow up ‘flood’ meetings did the Labour Leader now consider the issue over until the next flood?
The Leader confirmed that the Council would continue to look at the questions asked and the information from local people, would continue to do what it could with the drains and look at ways and means of dealing with alien events. This would take some time and would remain ongoing with links to the areas affected to try and alleviate the problems experienced.
(25) Councillor Mannion thought the meeting in Whiston went very well for the Labour Leader and asked did he think that all the issues, questions and queries were adequately answered?
The Leader explained not all questions raised could be answered. However, he wished to thank the three Ward Members for their support
43A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
during the meetings that had taken place.
There were still some questions raised during the meeting that were not answered to the satisfaction of all residents and some which the Council could not resolve as they were the responsibility of Yorkshire Water. The Council would be approaching Yorkshire Water on behalf of the affected residents. Liaison would also take place with Parish Councils to ensure information and all outstanding issues had been completed to everyone's satisfaction.
(26) Councillor Mannion asked how many times in the past three years had the pumping station at Worrygoose Island pumped sewage into Whiston Brook?
The Leader confirmed that Worrygoose Island Pumping Station was owned and maintained by Yorkshire Water and Yorkshire Water would have records of the number of times that the pumping station had overflowed into River Whiston Brook.
On the 8th October, 2007 the Council contacted Ian Davies of Yorkshire Water and requested the above information. The Council was at present awaiting confirmation from Yorkshire Water.
(27) Councillor Mannion asked when did Whiston Brook become a ‘Main River’, and asked should we be looking to change the name and was it a ‘Main River’ throughout its length or just at the points where various agencies wished to pour various substances and fluids into it?
The Leader explained that Whiston Brook became a main river on 13th August, 1999, and was now known as the River Whiston Brook. The River Whiston Brook was a main river throughout its length which commenced at Moat Lane and Green Lane, Whiston and discharged into the River Rother at Rother Way.
(28) Councillor Mannion pointed out that most people, like himself, welcomed the decision to return Ulley Reservoir to its ‘pre-flood’ state. However, in his statements to the press the Labour Leader said that the choice was taken despite there being cheaper options. Did the Leader agree with him that the second option of ‘basic discontinuation’ of the Reservoir would have left a scar on the face of the countryside and that the difference in the highest estimate for that option was only £100,000 from the lowest ‘rehabilitation’ estimate, furthermore does this not make his statements on the subject to the press disingenuous and could be classed as ‘spin’?
The Leader explained that no decision had yet been made and was subject to further discussion at Item 9 on today’s agenda. The Cabinet had made a recommendation that the report be referred to the Council Meeting for consideration as this would have an effect on the Capital Programme.
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 44A
(29) Councillor Mannion pointed out that the report mentioned that further cost implications could arise with the investigations planned, and asked could the Labour Leader assure the Chamber and the people of Rotherham that should the balance of costs shift significantly towards one of the other options that the ‘Rehabilitation’ option would remain Council policy?
The Leader pointed out that the report to Cabinet recommended the rehabilitation of the reservoir and that report would be submitted to this Council meeting. Clearly, further work was required to clarify what needed to be done and how much this would cost. However, cost was only one factor in coming to a resolution of the future of the reservoir.
(30) Councillor Mannion asked how much had been spent on the hire of the pumps at Ulley reservoir?
The Leader explained that detailed accounts have yet to be submitted to and audited by the Council's retained consultants, but costs to the end of the first week in October were approximately £200,000.
(31) Councillor Mannion was currently looking into the sale of Daneshill, Moorgate Road as he believed that the sale had not generated the funds for Rotherham that it should have and asked did the Labour Leader believe that the sale was handled with the financial interests of the taxpayer as paramount?
Councillor Smith explained that this sale was, at all times, handled with the financial interests of the taxpayer as a paramount concern.
At every key stage, issues of value and capital receipt were reported to the Property Board (later Regeneration and Asset Board), including these reports:-
• 12th January, 2004 - resolved to appoint outside agents to act in the sale of this property, to be by informal tender - Minute 15 refers.
• 6th July, 2004 - Report detailing offers received - Minute 16 refers.
• 22nd March, 2006 - Resolved to place the property to open market by an auction sale - Minute 136 refers.
• 14th June, 2006 - Report detailing outcome of the auction sale - Minute 10 refers.
(32) Councillor Mannion asked what was the Labour Leader’s view on the letter Members received from the Legal Department on the allegations about pressure being applied to avoid car parking fines by Members and Senior Officials?
45A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
The Leader fully supported the letter which provided useful clarification for Members. Following the adoption of the new Code of Conduct for Members a letter was issued, which explained how far Members should go under the Council’s agreed procedure in making representations on behalf of somebody who had received a Penalty Charge Notice.
(33) Councillor Mannion asked if there were any plans to, or did the Cabinet Member currently, give green bins to flats or apartments, other than those at ground level?
Councillor R. S. Russell explained that an assessment had been carried out on all flats/multi occupancy accommodation.
Up to two Storeys - All flats up to and including two storey have been issued with green bins. Flats that have individual 240 litre black bins have also been issued a 240 litre green bin. If requested or due to storage capacity some flats have been issued with one 240 litre green bin between two or even four flats on a shared basis.
Three Storeys and Above - Not all three storey flats have been issued with green bins. However, they may be requested on a ‘opt in’ basis either for an individual or shared.
Flats that receive a shute fed refuse system have not yet been put on to the alternate week collection scheme and would remain with a weekly refuse collection service for the interim period.
Flats may use the green bins for garden waste if applicable, clean cardboard, household plants, flowers, compost and shredded paper.
(34) Councillor Turner referred to the recent remorseless increase in fuel tax and further subsequent increases which were unacceptable and on top of existing full taxes were horrendous. He asked could we expect that these taxes would be directed towards improving the terrible state of our roads in Rotherham?
Councillor Smith confirmed that it was for the Chancellor normally via his annual Comprehensive Spending Review to determine allocations both at a local and national level. It was part of the Local Transport Plan Government capital funding that was primarily used for highway maintenance schemes. In view of the fact that a large number of authorities including Rotherham were bidding for additional funding to deal with flood damage, he doubted whether additional Government funding would be made available for Highway Maintenance.
(35) Councillor Turner pointed out that it had been evident for sometime that immigration from all parts of the world to Britain was actually increasing rather than being controlled or reduced. A lot of people think that these immigrants were all coming to Rotherham and he asked would the Council or dare the Council ask Mr. Brown to stop and reverse this
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 46A
trend immediately?
Councillor Hussain explained that migration was a two way process and there were no 100 percent accurate measures available, especially since there was free movement of people to live and work within most of the European Union. For 2005/06 there were an estimated 574,000 people migrating to the UK and 385,000 migrating from the UK. Net immigration fell by 28% compared to the previous year.
If international migration was compared to total population, Rotherham was in the bottom quintile of English local authorities (ranked 293 out of 354). The average number of international migrants per 1,000 population in England was 16 per year (2001 - 2006) but in Rotherham the figure was only 5.
Only 0.16% of international migration affecting England involved moves to or from Rotherham, although the Borough had 0.5% of the national population. In terms of National Insurance registrations, there were 1,150 in Rotherham in 2005/06 which was 0.25% of those in England, again much lower than the proportion of population.
(36) Councillor Turner referred to a Channel 4 documentary the other night which indicated that of all the different nationalities that have come to England, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities were the major claimants of benefit and most likely to remain at a high level of unemployment. The Indian communities, however, were more accomplished than the original English in terms of education and achievement. This community takes less from the state per head than the original English.
Would the Council initiate further concrete procedures to encourage the Pakistani community to take better advantage of the educational facilities such that their expectancy could match that of, for example the Indians?
Councillor Rushforth pointed out that the Channel 4 documentary gave an overview of the situation across the country and there was no evidence to suggest that the national picture, or that of any other specific part of the country, was repeated in Rotherham.
Approximately 7% of pupils in Rotherham schools were from BME communities, with Pakistani pupils forming the highest percentage (roughly 80%) of these. Schools in Rotherham worked very hard to ensure that children from all cultural and socio-economic backgrounds were fully engaged in the educational process and their specific learning requirements were addressed. Secondary schools that have a high proportion of pupils from BME communities were not the lowest performing schools in the Borough.
There was no evidence to suggest that children and young people from the Pakistani community were not fully engaged and accessing
47A COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07
educational facilities.
Unsurprisingly, pupils whose language of thought was not English did not perform as well in curriculum areas that relied heavily on English skills. However, the gap between their performance and that of the white-British pupils in other curriculum areas, such as mathematics, was much smaller. Specific programmes of support were used in schools to try to overcome the language difficulties in order to maximise the achievements of all pupils. There was no evidence that children from Pakistani background did not engage fully in the life of the school or that they did not take advantage of the facilities available to them.
(37) Councillor Turner pointed out that South Yorkshire Ambulance was being moved to Wakefield despite the fact that no-one seemed to be in favour of this move. A consultation was carried out, but only thirty-one people responded. He asked would the Council agree with him, that the response was derisory, that the decision had already been made?
Councillor Turner had not been able to find anyone in Rotherham who was in favour of this move and was told that North Yorkshire Ambulance Service was financially in deficit and the sale of properties in Rotherham would go towards rectifying this book entry.
Councillor Kirk pointed out that there were many larger organisations that had responded to the consultation, including this Council, who gave views against the move away from Rotherham. This Council disagreed with comments made about North Yorkshire Ambulance Service benefiting from the sale of properties in Rotherham.
Councillor Kirk confirmed that a three month consultation process was carried out to determine the relocation of this service. This consultation was then considered by the SHA and PCT Boards before any decision was reached on at a regional level on the reconfiguration of this service.
Ambulance stations would continue to be based in Rotherham, although the deployment of an ambulance would be undertaken from the Wakefield Site.
This action followed on from the merger of the following Ambulance Trust in July, 2007.
South Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust merged with West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust and Tees East and North Ambulance Service Trust (East and North Yorkshire part only) to form Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
A34 ANNUAL SCRUTINY REPORT 2006/07 AND SCRUTINY PLAN 2007/08
Councillor Stonebridge presented the 2006/07 Annual Report and the 2007/08 Scrutiny Plan.
COUNCIL MEETING - 10/10/07 48A
Resolved:- That the Scrutiny Report for 2006/07 be received and the Scrutiny Plan for 2007/08 be supported.
Mover:- Councillor Stonebridge Seconder:- Councillor Whelbourn
(THE MAYOR AUTHORISED CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF ULLEY RESERVOIR)
A35 ULLEY RESERVOIR
The Leader introduced a report by the Director of Streetpride which provided details of recent events at Ulley Reservoir and outlined the options for the future of the reservoir in both the short and long term.
There were essentially two principal courses of action open to the Council. The reservoir may be retained (rehabilitated) or removed or reduced to a level whereby it was no longer subject to the provisions of the Reservoirs Act (discontinued).
Consideration was given to a petition containing over 4,000 signatories requesting restoration of the Ulley Reservoir and Country Park.
Resolved:- (1) That in the short term, the reservoir be maintained in its current state (drawn down with pumping support).
(2) That a site investigation be commissioned, at a cost estimated to be £35,000, to give some clarity to the cost of rehabilitation.
(3) That the pumps that were currently on site and on hire be purchased at a cost of £156,720 funded from the Council’s capital programme.
(4) That the implementation of Option 1 – rehabilitation of the reservoir be approved.
Mover:- Councillor Stone Seconder:- Councillor Sharman