Agenda and minutes

Venue: Rochdale Town Hall, The Esplanade, Rochdale, OL16 1AB. View directions

Contact: Michael Garraway  01706 924716

Items
No. Item

29.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Butterworth and Hussain.

30.

Declarations of Interest

Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary, personal or personal and prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests relating to items on this agenda and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.   

Minutes:

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor Emsley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 11 (Objections to Traffic Regulation Order – Brown Lodge Drive, Littleborough) and she left the room during the consideration of this agenda item.

31.

Urgent Items of Business

To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair decides should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items of business for the Committee to consider.

32.

Items for Exclusion of Public and Press

To determine any items on the agenda, if any, where the public are to be excluded from the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no confidential items for the Committee to consider.

33.

Open Forum

Minutes:

Road Safety

Mr J. Taylor addressed the Committee with regard to the seemingly ever increasing incidents of dangerous and careless driving across the various roads and streets of Pennines Township which was as well as being a menace and nuisance for local residents was also an increasing danger to public safety. Mr Taylor advised that he had raised this issue in numerous fora thus far including local PACT meetings, with Greater Manchester Police and with the Council’s Highways Service. Members of the Committee were generally supportive of Mr. Taylor’s question and comments but noted that the responsibility for enforcing road traffic offences, such as speeding and dangerous driving, rested with the police rather than the Council.

 

The Highways Officer in attendance at the meeting did though agree to write to Mr. Taylor regarding the Council’s current system for logging various highways related incidents (such as complaints and service requests). The Highways Officer also agreed to meet with Wardle and West Littleborough Ward Councillors to discuss with them issues raised by Mr. Taylor insofar as hey impacted on that Ward.

34.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 63 KB

To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Pennines Township Committee held on 27th September 2017.

Minutes:

Decision:

That the Minutes of the meeting of Pennines Township Committee held 27th September 2017 be approved as a correct record.

35.

Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub-Committee pdf icon PDF 61 KB

To consider the minutes of the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub-Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 18 October 2017.

Minutes:

Decision:

That the minutes of the meeting of Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub-Committee held 18th October 2017 be noted.

36.

Presentation - Transport for Greater Manchester

Transport for Greater Manchester will address the Committee regarding the impact of the Bus Act on transport in the Township.

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Mr. Martin Shier, Bus Delivery Partnership Manager at Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), who delivered a presentation to the Township that outlined the impact of the Bus Act on transport across Greater Manchester in general and Pennines Township in particular.

 

The Committee were informed that Greater Manchester has a deregulated bus market and around 80% of recorded mileage was operated on a commercial basis. For these services bus operators set the routes, timetables, fares, frequencies and quality standards. The remaining 20% of bus services were financially supported by TfGM. These were services where there was a social need but which weren’t provided by the commercial market. Therefore the bus system was not planned or marketed in an integrated manner, with a focus on competition between services, with a focus on competition between services rather than with the car.

 

Mr Shier explained that a new law, the Bus Services Act, came into force on 27th June 2017. Amongst other things, the Act provided the Greater Manchester Combined Authority with new powers to reform the bus market, to help achieve the transport objectives in the 2040 Transport Strategy.The powers included new types of partnership and the option to franchise bus services. On 30 June 2017, Greater Manchester Combined Authority instructed TfGM to prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme.

 

The Bus Services Act granted the Mayor of Greater Manchester powers to franchise bus services, subject to public consultation; which was similar to the situation that currently appertained in Greater London. Services would be run by private operators under contract to TfGM.

 

Teams across TfGM were working to explore the new options which the Bus Services Act grants, including partnership and franchising options. Once an assessment had been developed there would be consultation exercises with the public in order to seek the views of passengers, future passengers and stakeholders on plans. This would provide Greater Manchester’s Mayor with the information to make an informed decision on future reform of the bus market.

 

The Township Committee considered Mr. Shier’s presentation, asking various questions of him, and he was thanked for providing such informative and interesting information.

 

Decision:

That the presentation be noted and welcomed.

37.

Presentation - Virgin Media

Representatives from Virgin Media will address the Committee in relation to digital infrastructure within the Township.

Minutes:

The Township Committee received a presentation from Ms. Sarb Wren, on behalf of Virgin Media, that outlined the Virgin Media ‘Project Lightning’ roll-out insofar as it affected Littleborough. The aim of Project Lightning was ultimately to get the country connected to ultrafast internet; which was to be done by privately investing in the country’s digital network, along the way by creating jobs, ‘empowering’ local businesses and ‘supercharging’ the economy.

 

The works that would have to be carried out in the delivery of this project revolved around three options. Option one involved always advising residents to speak to the work gangs on site. The gangs will have a supervisor for the area who will attempt to resolve any issues there and then. Virgin Media felt that this would be the best resolution for the fastest response for any street work complaints that Councillors may come across in the Township. Option two stated that if the first option was unsuccessful, or there are no visible work gangs on a street to report issues when they arise, residents were advised to contact Virgin Media’s telephone helpline.The helpline should then contact the contract partners who will be performing the street works and they’ll also ensure that Virgin Media’s delivery and compliance engineers are aware of the potential issues so they can be resolved and overseen. Option three asks that the complainant emails Virgin Media directly, providing an address details and a contact method to reply back to the complainant.

 

The Committee was advised that prior to build work commencing residents would receive a letter advising them of the upcoming works in their street.Information Boards and/or Road Closure notices would be displayed prior to works commencing; materials and equipment being pre-positioned for start of works and Virgin Media would then commence marketing services to local residents and businesses.

 

The Township Committee considered Ms. Wren presentation, asking various questions of her, and she was thanked for providing such informative and interesting information.

 

Decision:

That the presentation be noted and welcomed.

38.

The Need for Extra Primary School Places 2017- 2020 pdf icon PDF 163 KB

To consider proposals to address the need for extra Reception and Year 1-6 places up to September 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Children’s Services advising on the need to increase capacity at Schools within the Township for Reception Years and Years 1 - 6 places up to September 2020.

 

The Committee was informed that the report was being submitted to the four Township Committees for consultative purposes and that any views thereon, expressed by Members, would be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 19th December 2017.

 

Alternatives considered: To not increase places available could leave the Council at risk of not meeting statutory responsibilities in education provision.

 

Decision: That the report be noted.

 

Reason for decision: To enable Townships awareness of school spaces and pupil numbers within their area and aid local decision making.

 

Eligible for Call-in: No.

39.

The Need for Extra Year 7 School places 2017- 2027 pdf icon PDF 148 KB

To consider proposals relating to the need for Extra Year 7 School places from 2017- 2027.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Children’s Services which presented information on the School Place Planning from 2017 to 2027 for secondary places. The Township Committee was advised that in recent years there had been a continuing increase in the number of children born across the Borough, and who in turn would need Secondary School places. Data presented in the report at Borough and Township level showed there were different demand pressures in each of the Borough’s four Township areas.

 

The Committee was informed that the report was being submitted to the four Township Committees for consultative purposes and any views thereon expressed by Members would be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 19th December 2017.

 

Alternatives considered: To not increase places available could leave the Council at risk of not meeting statutory responsibilities in education provision.

 

Decision: that the report be noted.

 

Reason for decision: Rochdale Borough Council, as the Local Authority has a statutory duty to secure a sufficient number of school places across the Borough.

 

Eligible for Call-in: No.

40.

Objections to Traffic Order - Brown Lodge Drive, Littleborough pdf icon PDF 321 KB

To consider objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at Brown Lodge Drive, Littleborough.

Minutes:

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods that reported upon a previous decision by Members to commission work towards the possible introduction of parking restrictions on the bend at Brown Lodge Drive, Littleborough. Following the necessary investigative work a proposed Traffic Regulation Order was advertised and four objections were received.

 

The submitted report to the Committee explained the background to the proposal and commented upon the points made by the objectors to assist the Committee in coming to a decision whether to, and to what extent, the Order may be introduced.

 

Alternatives considered:

The Committee could decide to amend or abandon the proposal. If the Committee decided not to introduce the restrictions and to abandon the proposals then the identified issues with parked vehicles and forward visibility on the bend would not be addressed.

 

Decision:

The proposed Traffic Regulation Order, Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No.60) Order be implemented as advertised.

 

Reasons for the decision:

The Committee were advised of reasons for the report’s recommendations. Firstly a sharp bend on Brown Lodge Drive, Littleborough Lakeside Ward meant that motorists, and pedestrians, suffered from poor forward visibility of oncoming traffic. Secondly indiscriminately parked vehicles often caused traffic to approach the bend on the wrong side of the road, thus increasing the possibility of a collision. Thirdly situated on the outside of the bend was a minor junction with an access leading to some properties (Brown Lodge Farm development)which also formed part of Definitive Footpath No 428 Littleborough and a link in the National Cycle Network which crossed Rochdale Canal at Lodge Bridge to reach its towpath. Fourthly introducing ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions on parts of Brown Lodge Drive and Abbey Drive would assist the passage of vehicles around the bend and operation of the minor junction by improving forward visibility, and would assist in the operation of the Brown Lodge Drive and Abbey Drive junction.

 

The Committee were informed that had been no recorded injury accidents in the last three years on Brown Lodge Drive or Abbey Drive. Brown Lodge Drive and Abbey Drive were residential streets and neither street was on Rochdale’s strategic highway network. The proposals that were detailed, devised and advertised were intended to address the identified problem (as outlined at Appendix A of the submitted report).

 

Eligible for Call-in: Yes

41.

Hollingworth Lake Car Parks - Objections to Parking Charges Proposals pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider objections to parking charges at Hollingworth Lake Car Parks.

Minutes:

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods which advised that the Council’s review of Discretionary Fees and Charges, in relation to car parking charges, was implemented in August 2017 with the exception of proposals for the Hollingworth Lake Car Parks. The Cabinet considered objections to proposals to the Hollingworth Lake Car Parks and decided to advertise alternative charges in their place which attracted four objections. The Director’s report explained the background to the proposal and comments upon the points made by the objectors to assist the Committee in coming to a decision whether to, and to what extent the Order may be introduced at Hollingworth Lake. The report sought a decision about the charges to be implemented.

 

In considering the report Members asked that, subject to approval, the Cabinet be requested to consider utilising some of the funds raised from car parking at Hollingworth Lake Car Park to improve the quality of the same car park.

 

Alternatives considered:

The Township Committee could decide to further amend the proposals, outlined in the report, or to abandon the proposals. If the Township Committee had decided not to introduce the advertised charges, and to abandon the proposal, this would have represented a failure to meet the Council’s financial expectations of its discretionary fees and charges, as previously determined by the Cabinet.

 

Decision:

That (1) the Township Committee determines that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order, Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Off-Street Parking Places) (Tariff and Operational Hours) Order 2017) (Amendment) (No.1) Order be implemented as advertised;

(2) the Cabinet be advised of this Committee’s request that some of the funds raised from car parking at Hollingworth Lake Car Park be used to improve the quality of the same car park.

 

Reason for the recommendation:

The Township Committee’s decision was sought to conclude implementation of the Discretionary Fees and Charges insofar as it related to charges for car parking.

 

Eligible for Call-in: Yes