Agenda and minutes

Venue: Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Contact: Caroline Denyer  4717

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 32 KB

    Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest.  Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda. 

     

    Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.

     

    Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no declarations of interest.

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 81 KB

3.

Bamford and Oakenrod Area Forum pdf icon PDF 65 KB

4.

Brimrod, Marland and Sudden Area Forum pdf icon PDF 65 KB

5.

Castleton Area Forum pdf icon PDF 67 KB

6.

Central Rochdale Area Forum pdf icon PDF 64 KB

7.

Healey Area Forum pdf icon PDF 62 KB

8.

Milkstone and Deeplish Area Forum pdf icon PDF 59 KB

9.

Norden Area Forum pdf icon PDF 64 KB

10.

Sparth Area Forum pdf icon PDF 61 KB

11.

Spotland and Falinge Area Forum pdf icon PDF 68 KB

12.

Rochdale Township Communities and Engagement Priority Group pdf icon PDF 47 KB

    To note the Minutes of the meeting of the Rochdale Township Communities and Engagement Priority Group held on 28th January 2015.

    Minutes:

    DECIDED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Rochdale Township Communities and Engagement Priority Group held 28th January  2015, be noted.

13.

Rochdale Township Clean and Green Priority Group pdf icon PDF 68 KB

14.

Shawclough Road, Rochdale pdf icon PDF 4 MB

    Minutes:

    The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy and Environment Services that advised Members of objections and comments received in response to the proposed ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ with peak loading restrictions on Shawclough Road and some side streets in the Healey Ward.

     

    The recommendations were presented to comply with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Members were advised that the report had previously been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 20th January where it was resolved to make the Traffic Regulation Order as originally proposed. However due to a technical oversight not all of the objectors and interested members of the public were given advance notification of the meeting date so that they may be afforded the opportunity to attend. Hence the report was resubmitted to the Sub-Committee’s next meeting on 24th March When the Sub-Committee further considered this report on 24th March 2015 it was decided to defer consideration to this meeting.

     

    Alternatives considered - None.

     

    The Sub-Committee considered the views of Councillor Shaun O’Neill, a Healey Ward Councillor, who addressed Members in support of the proposals contained in the report.

     

    DECIDED – That theTraffic Regulation Order Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Street) (Rochdale Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No.83) Order outlined in Section 7 of the submitted report be implemented.

    Eligible for call in - Yes

15.

Bury Road, Rochdale and Side Streets pdf icon PDF 942 KB

    Minutes:

    The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy and Environment Services that advised Members of objections and comments received in response to the proposed ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions on parts of Bury Road, Rochdale B6222 and some of its side streets in the Bamford Ward.

     

    The recommendations were presented so the Council must consider all objections submitted during the consultation period of at least 21 days, in order to comply with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders, Regulations 1996. Before making a Traffic Regulation Order, the Sub-Committee was asked to consider objections received and make a decision as to whether the scheme should be progressed and the new restrictions introduced. Members were asked to note further that in considering the report, the Director of Economy and Environment Services had deemed the proposed Order to be strategic in nature and therefore should be dealt with in accordance with Section F2 of the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees. The Sub-Committee had delegated power to confirm the proposals and the Order. However, if the Sub-Committee wish not to confirm the proposals and the Order, the matter must be referred to Cabinet for decision.

     

    Alternatives considered – The proposal to make a Traffic Regulation Order affecting parts of Bury Road, Lansdowne Street, Leopold Street, and Beatrice Street has been developed for and commissioned by the Sub-Committee. Should Members decide not to introduce the restrictions then the issues of junction visibility would not be addressed. It should be noted that this Traffic Regulation Order had been proposed as a consequence of indiscriminate parking at the junctions of each of the three side streets with Bury Road affecting driver visibility and road safety. To address this issue it was considered necessary to introduce the proposed Order as originally advertised.

     

    The Sub-Committee considered the views of Mrs Jean Fitton and Mrs Beryl Hill who addressed Members in support of the proposals contained in the report. 

     

    The Sub-Committee considered the views of Councillor Pat Sullivan, a Bamford Ward Councillor, who addressed Members in support of the proposals contained in the report.

     

    DECIDED – That the Traffic Regulation Order – Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Rochdale Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 94) Order outlined in Section 7 of this report be implemented.

    Eligible for Call in – Yes.

16.

Crawford Street and Hume Street, Rochdale - Traffic Regulation Order objection. pdf icon PDF 791 KB

    Minutes:

    The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy and Environment Services that advised Members of an Objection received in response to the proposed ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions on parts of Crawford Street and Hume Street,  Rochdale in the Kingsway Ward.

     

    The recommendations were presented to comply with the proposed Traffic Regulation Order Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Rochdale Township) (Order 2008) (Amendments) (No.93) Order, which was outlined at Section 7 of the submitted report. The Sub-Committee was asked to consider the objection to the Order that had been received and make a decision as to whether the scheme should be progressed with new restrictions being introduced or whether it should be abandoned. 

     

    Alternatives considered – An alternative to the proposal laid out in the report was to continue without any restrictions on the highway on the affected sections of Crawford Street and Hume Street by not introducing the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.  The proposal to make this Order has been developed for and commissioned by Rochdale Township Action and Resources Sub-Committee.  Members were asked to note that this Traffic Regulation Order was being proposed as a consequence of indiscriminate parking on parts of Crawford Street and Hume Street (including their junction), which affected goods vehicle access and deliveries to the industrial premises, driver visibility and road safety, and the ability of through traffic to pass along Crawford Street.  To address these issues it was necessary to introduce the proposed order as originally advertised, as detailed at the appendix to the submitted report.

     

    The Sub-Committee considered representations on the proposed scheme, which reflected a diverse range of opinions, including issues and concerns raised by Members and residents relating to safety and access that had been highlighted during the consultation process.

     

    DECIDED – That the Traffic Regulation Order – Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Rochdale Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No.93) Order, outlined in Section 7 of this report, be refused.

    Eligible for Call in - Yes

17.

Rochdale Township Funds 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 473 KB

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Interim Head of Customers and Corporate Services presented a report which updated the Sub-Committee on revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Rochdale Township Fund 2014/2015, to enable the Sub-Committee to allocate funds to proposed projects.

     

    The recommendations contained in the report were presented as the management of the Rochdale Township Fund was a function delegated to this Sub-Committee to determine. The Rochdale Township Funds were designed to be allocated to projects that benefit the Township’s communities and environment and which realise the Township’s stated priorities. The Sub-Committee monitors and reviews the use of the Rochdale Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of the Township’s Funds.

     

    The Sub-Committee were asked to note the expenditure, commitments, balances and decisions made under delegated authority for the 2014/2015 In Appendix 1, 2. Members were asked to note the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed in Appendix 3 and to consider and approve, defer or refuse the allocation of funds to proposed projects detailed in Appendix 4. Members of the Rochdale Township Action and Resource Sub-Committee were requested to note the Principal Townships Officer’s assessment of the proposed projects to be considered for funding against the criteria of eligibility for the Rochdale Township Fund, priorities of the Township and any specific risks identified.

     

    Alternatives considered - in considering the report, Members were asked to decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to projects/schemes as appropriate.

     

    DECIDED – That (1) the expenditure, commitments and balances for Rochdale Township Revenue and Capital Funds, as detailed in Appendices 1 and 2 of the submitted report be noted;

                (2) the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed at Appendix 3 of the submitted report be noted;

                (3) it be noted that the Principal Township Officer had assessed the proposed projects to be considered for funding, against the criteria of the Rochdale Township Fund, priorities of the Township Plan and any specific risks had been identified, (as detailed in Appendix 4 of the submitted report);

                4) applications for Township Funds, (as outlined in appendix 4 of the submitted report); and as, verbally updated by the Principal Township Management Officer, be dealt with as follows:-

    (a) RP/03/15 –£700 be approved from the projects fund for the preparation of an estimate for the introduction of a turning head on Muriel Street, Rochdale;

    (b) RP/04/15 –£3,200 be approved from the projects fund for the provision of a new nativity display at Rochdale Town Centre;

    (c) RP/05/15 - £5,000 be approved from the projects fund towards the preparation of the site and installation of a carpet bedding scheme in Broadfield Park, Rochdale;

    (d) RP/06/15 - £2,200 be approved from the projects fund for the Young at Heart Group’s ‘Carry on Singing and Dancing’ project;

    (e) TC/02/15 – the application for the Sandy Lane, Rochdale,  Pelican Crossing to new Puffin Crossing Conversion be deferred to a future meeting of this Sub-Committee pending an investigation/clarification as to why a 20mph speed limit has not been implemented;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.