Agenda item

Questions by Elected Members

To consider any questions which may have been received from Elected Members and which are asked pursuant to Standing Order No. 11.

 

a)    Councillor Osborne

 

“What actions have been taken to alleviate the risk of flooding in Darfield ward, especially in Low Valley?”

 

b)    Councillor Kitching

 

“At the last Full Council meeting on November 25th 2021, this council resolved to undertake its own assessment into the financial implications of bus franchising, in order to establish whether their impact on the Council’s finances and on taxpayers is reasonable.

 

Could the Cabinet member please update us on the progress of this assessment so far?”

 

c)    Councillor Osborne

 

“Following a recent spate of illegal flytipping of tyres in Darfield, waste tyres have been collected by council clean up teams.  What happens to the tyres?”

 

d)    Councillor Fielding

 

“Now that the developer of the allocated housing site adjacent to the M1 at Dodworth is proposing not to use the access point created by the Council demolishing 2 recently improved four bedroomed Council Houses in 2020 on South Road, Dodworth, can the Cabinet Member please detail the financial loss to the Council of this action? In particular can the cabinet member detail the costs of the following:

 

·         The costs of rehousing the sitting tenants including the purchase of alternative accomodation

·         The costs of demolishing the 2 houses and making good the site afterwards.

·         The loss of rental income from the date that the tenants were evicted to present

·         The loss of Council Tax income from the date of eviction to present

·         The value of the loss of the assets of the 2 Council Houses”

 

e)    Councillor Hunt

 

“At the Full Council meeting in July 2021, in response to my question, the Cabinet Support member confirmed that the Digital First project had created the capability of providing status updates to residents in relation to online requests. It was indicated that residents would start to receive these status updates by the end of last year. This timescale does not appear to have been met. Please can an update be provided?”

 

f)     Councillor Hunt

 

“In 2020 the council purchased new speed indicator devices and radar boxes. Please provide the locations where the speed indicator devices have been deployed over the last 3 months.”

Minutes:

The Chief Executive reported that she had received a number of questions from Elected Members in accordance with Standing Order No. 11.

 

a)    Councillor Osborne

 

“What actions have been taken to alleviate the risk of flooding in Darfield ward, especially in Low Valley?”

 

Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Osborne for his question, noting that his answer would be long, but that this was right and proper given that flooding events were disastrous for many residents, including in Darfield and Low Valley.

 

Members were reminded of an Overview & Scrutiny Commission review of the overall approach to flood alleviation in Barnsley where Councillor Markham and Councillor Smith had raised similar queries. With specific regard to Darfield and Low Valley, approximately 227 of the surface water gullies had now been inspected.

 

Of those investigated:-

· 73 required low-level maintenance – of which 69 had been cleared.

· 9 were initially unable to be cleared due to parked cars – all of which had been cleared following a return visit,

· 4 required further investigation with works now planned to rectify the issues identified.

· The remainder were all free-flowing.

 

An additional investment was made in 2020 in an Enhanced Drainage Programme. This saw stretches of highway inspected and any blockages cleared in the area which included:-

· Nanny Marr Road (20 Gullies)

· Snape Hill Road (36 Gullies)

· George Street (18 Gullies) and

·Stoneyford Road (10 Gullies)

 

The reported issues with road flooding on Old Doncaster Road and Pinfold Lane had also been remedied, and an extra gulley had been installed on Quern Way to cure ponding.

 

In the aftermath of the floods in November 2019, the Internal Drainage Board undertook dredging and clearance work along Bulling Dyke where it passes under Station Road. Heavy mechanical equipment was used to clear the banks in this section and increase the capacity of the dyke at that point. The bridge on George Street required attention to the downstream walls. This was being dealt with by the Environment Agency and the riparian owner, the owner of land adjacent to the watercourse.

 

On 28th January, the Council was part of South Yorkshire’s Connected By Water Plan launch and Low Valley had been identified and earmarked in the plan for a flood alleviation scheme. To accelerate the delivery of this plan, a highly experienced flood risk engineer had been appointed to a newly created Flood Risk Co-Ordinator position. The Connected By Water alliance will ensure that a collective approach to flood mitigation and protection measures are adopted. It was noted that, for Darfield and Low Valley, the Council would be working closely with the Environment Agency, the Independent Drainage Board, and Yorkshire Water.

 

Councillor Lamb also advised that, having had discussions with the Internal Drainage Board, additional improvement and maintenance work had been started along Bulling Dyke from Littlefield Lane to Yorkshire Water Sewerage Plant.  These works included flail mowing and desilting. It also included clearance of some sections of the watercourse bank to allow for annual maintenance to be carried out with greater efficiency and ease.

 

Councillor Osborne thanked Councillor Lamb for his response and said that since his election in May, there had been plenty of conversations with Ward colleagues and the Low Valley Flood Group, but he had yet to receive a reply from the Environment Agency. He therefore asked a supplementary question as to whether Councillor Lamb had any information from, or conversations  with, the Environment Agency on this.

 

Councillor Lamb responded that Barnsley are members of the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee which has a six-year investment programme, 2022 – 2028. Through the committee, a case was made for improvements across the borough, with significant sums being earmarked. This was subject to funding being delivered by the Government, and the delivery of feasibility studies and business cases. The investment plan contained £5m of refurbishment to culverts across the borough, from which Darfield would benefit. £220,000 had been identified for Bulling Dyke in 2022-23, specifically for culvert replacements. £650,000 had been identified for Low Valley Flood alleviation in 2022-27 as previously referred to. £250,000 had also been set aside for a Darfield Bridge Study in 2023-24.   Within the investment programme was also monies identified for Wombwell, Lundwood and Darton.

 

b)    Councillor Kitching

 

“At the last Full Council meeting on November 25th 2021, this council resolved to undertake its own assessment into the financial implications of bus franchising, in order to establish whether their impact on the Council’s finances and on taxpayers is reasonable.

 

Could the Cabinet member please update us on the progress of this assessment so far?”

 

Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Kitching, for her question. He reminded Members that, at the Full Council meeting on the 25th November 2021, it was resolved that the Administration:-

 

1)    informs the South Yorkshire Combined Authority of its support for conducting a statutory assessment of franchising;

2)    requests a Combined Authority vote to release a “notice of intent to prepare a  franchising assessment” within 6 months.

 

The motion also resolved that these two requests only be implemented once the financial implications became clearer and their impact on the Council’s finances and on taxpayers was considered to be reasonable. Councillor Lamb confirmed that a report had been submitted to the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority on 24th January with these recommendations and in addition, a full franchising report was to be brought to full council on 24th February.

 

By way of supplementary question, Councillor Kitching asked for clarification that a full financial assessment had been carried out by the Council.

 

Councillor Lamb responded by restating there would be a report at the meeting of Full Council on 24th February, 2022.

 

c)    Councillor Osborne

 

“Following a recent spate of illegal flytipping of tyres in Darfield, waste tyres have been collected by council clean up teams.  What happens to the tyres?”

 

Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation) thanked Councillor Osborne for his question and stated that tyres were recovered to Smithies Depot and separated from other waste. The tyres were then collected and recycled to produce energy for UK construction aggregate production.  Councillor Lamb stated his unhappiness at the current situation, and the need to move the material higher up the waste hierarchy and to reduce the carbon involved in the overall operation. Therefore, a review was currently underway to look at alternative reuse of the material.

 

He added that fly-tipping was a blight on our borough and residents could help tackle fly-tipping across the borough by taking items to the Household Waste Recycling Centres and by using licensed waste handlers.

 

Councillor Osborne asked if a tyre tagging scheme was being investigated, which was currently supported by the Tyre Recovery Association, and used in West Mercia, and also asked whether alternative uses for tyre waste rather than burning were being considered.

 

Councillor Lamb stated that he was aware of the tyre tagging scheme. This relied on the cooperation of businesses in the area but was something that would be considered. In addition, alternative uses of tyres would be investigated.

 

d)    Councillor Fielding

 

“Now that the developer of the allocated housing site adjacent to the M1 at Dodworth is proposing not to use the access point created by the Council demolishing 2 recently improved four bedroomed Council Houses in 2020 on South Road, Dodworth, can the Cabinet Member please detail the financial loss to the Council of this action? In particular can the cabinet member detail the costs of the following:

 

·         The costs of rehousing the sitting tenants including the purchase of alternative accommodation;

·         The costs of demolishing the 2 houses and making good the site afterwards;

·         The loss of rental income from the date that the tenants were evicted to present;

·         The loss of Council Tax income from the date of eviction to present;

·         The value of the loss of the assets of the 2 Council Houses”

 

 

Councillor Cheetham, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Regeneration and Culture) thanked Councillor Fielding for his question and provided some context to the response.  The land to the rear of South Road was designated in the Local Plan (HS10) for housing development. Back in 2018, Persimmon Homes had made a planning application to build 146 dwellings on the private land to the rear of South Road, Dodworth. At the time, the Council entered into discussions with regards to creating access to the site, with the land to the south and west (via the existing housing estate) deemed to be unfeasible.

 

The decision to demolish the two properties on South Road to provide this access, which was a Berneslai Homes delegated decision, was made on the basis that Persimmon Homes would reimburse the Council’s for the costs of demolition, as well as dispersal and professional fees, upon securing the site etc.

 

The Council would have received a capital receipt of approximately £0.8M from the sale of the land awell as securing the new council tax receipts and new homes bonus from the new development. Persimmon Homes subsequently withdrew their planning application. The Council’s land, previously playing fields, is still designated for housing development in the Local Plan and therefore the access issue remains a Council priority.

 

In specific response to the question, the cost of rehousing the sitting tenants was £12,656 (dispersal compensation / home loss), the cost of the purchase of alternative accommodation, a 4 bedroomed property in Dodworth (Hawthorne Crescent), with associated works to bring up to the Barnsley Homes Standard, was a total of £140,000 which the Council funded this from its approved acquisitions programme and voids budgets respectively. It was noted that this was now part of the Council’s assets.

 

The costs of demolishing the 2 properties and making good the site was £28,604, including service disconnections. The loss of rental income since the time of the cessation of both of the tenancies to, equated to around £24,472, but this had been offset by £12,259 from with the rent yielded from the purchase of the alternative accommodation.

 

The loss of council tax to the Council since the time of the cessation of both of the tenancies to the end of January 22 totalled £5,627. Both properties were written out of the Council’s accounts at £46,207 each (£92,414 in total), based on the prescribed methodology under the RICS Red Book/ CIPFA Accounting Code of Practice, at its existing use value, that of social housing. This did not reflect the market value of the property as the existing use value takes into account a secured tenancy where the tenant enjoys lower than market rents and the option of right to buy.

 

Councillor Fielding thanked Councillor Cheetham for his answer and the information supplied.  He added that there had been two developers interested in the site, neither of which had chosen to use the access. By way of supplementary question, he asked why didn’t the Council come to some firm financial and legal agreement with a developer before the action to evict the tenants and demolish the properties was taken, and asked would the houses be replaced?

 

Councillor Cheetham responded that care must be taken not to prejudge any planning applications. Developers could apply and may not wish to use this access as part of their proposals. The action was taken under planning advice, and it was likely that access would be required through this site as the land is earmarked for development. Therefore, it would be premature to decide whether or not it was a necessary action and to describe costs as losses, as development at some time in the future would more than offset the costs. In addition, one of the properties had already been replaced with an alternative.

 

e)    Councillor Hunt

 

“At the Full Council meeting in July 2021, in response to my question, the Cabinet Support member confirmed that the Digital First project had created the capability of providing status updates to residents in relation to online requests. It was indicated that residents would start to receive these status updates by the end of last year. This timescale does not appear to have been met. Please can an update be provided?”

 

 

Councillor Franklin, Cabinet Support Member for Core Services thanked Councillor Hunt for his question and replied that, regrettably, there has been some slippage to the launch date. Like many other services, staff had been supporting the COVID response for residents, alongside dealing with reduced staffing capacity.

 

It was confirmed that the rollout of the functionality was due to start by the beginning of March at the latest, initially providing updates to residents who reported fly-tipping issues online. The IT and Waste services teams had worked together to ensure that back-office systems were ready for the change and accurately show this status. The work to obtain status updates would then be rolled out to other transactions, offering residents status updates for their online enquiries.

 

Councillor Hunt gave thanks for the response and said that the project was much delayed and had caused frustration for residents.  The roll out was welcomed and a supplementary question was asked as to when the project would be finished.

 

Councillor Franklin responded that the project would be monitored and that he would report back on progress.

 

f)     Councillor Hunt

 

“In 2020 the council purchased new speed indicator devices and radar boxes. Please provide the locations where the speed indicator devices have been deployed over the last 3 months.”

 

Councillor Lamb, Cabinet Spokesperson for Place (Environment and Transportation)  thanked Councillor Hunt for his question, noting that many Members had expressed an interest in having devices deployed in their wards. However, owing to a number of operational impacts, it had been difficult for officers to implement the expected programme of Speed Indicator Devices and Radar Box deployments.

 

The 4th COVID wave impacted many organisations across the country, and the Council was no exception, dealing with supporting the COVID response alongside reduced staffing capacity had been difficult. In addition, a number of key vacancies within the section had also been hard to fill; there were over 100 public sector engineering vacancies just in Yorkshire alone. This has forced the Council to prioritise capacity where it was needed the most. Unfortunately, this had resulted in the Speed Indicator Devices not being deployed over the past three months.

 

It was reported that this was a temporary situation, which had been resolved. In the coming weeks Speed Indicator Devices would be deployed in Staincross Common (Darton East), Intake Lane (Darton West) and Racecommon Road(Kingstone), each for a period of 4 weeks. The programme of locations beyond this was being reviewed and it was noted that this would be shared with Members in due course.

 

Councillor Hunt thanked Councillor Lamb for his response and asked a supplementary question posing how to get greater transparency and visibility over the use of the devices going forward so all Members know where they will be used, and what the programme of deployment would be.


Councillor Lamb responded by suggesting that there were issues in creating a programme, firstly due to issues with current numbers of officers and the additional administration and bureaucracy this may entail. He added that urgent issues may occur which may require immediate deployment of devices. The latter would risk disappointing certain communities.  It was therefore suggested that a full 12-month programme may not be desirable, but the concept would be considered.

Supporting documents:

 

A - Z Directory