To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gartside, Heakin, Meredith, Nickson, O’Neill and Zaman.

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.   

There were no declarations of interests.

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.

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

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

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

Decision:

That Councillor Zaheer be appointed Vice Chair of Rochdale Township Committee for the remainder of the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

To consider an update from Greater Manchester Police.

Inspector Paul Wood (Greater Manchester Police (GMP)) updated the Township Committee on activities and initiatives that were undertaken by GMP in the Rochdale Township.

Members of the Committee sought clarification with regard to the following issues, which Inspector Wood undertook to either determine or forward to his appropriate colleague(s) to action.

a.    A Member requested a police presence at Forum meetings that were held in the Bamford Ward, to allow local residents to advise GMP representatives of their concerns directly;

b.    A Member reported that speeding traffic in residential areas of the Milkstone and Deeplish Ward was such a hazard that parents were often preventing their children from ‘playing outside’. The Member also referred to the large amount of drug dealing that was taking place in that Ward.

c.    A Member noted that whilst ‘online PACT’ meetings were being successfully held these were not always accessible for more elderly residents who were less likely to have access to on-line facilities and he asked that GMP consider this in respect of future meetings.

d.    A member asked if there were any particular types of crimes that were on the increase, in the months that had elapsed since GMP last attended a meeting of the Rochdale Township Committee? Inspector Wood, in replying to this advising that there was no data available to support the idea that any one particular type of criminal activity had increased in recent months.

e.    A Member asked what, if anything, in a practical sense, GMP officers could do to tackle the issue of ‘dangerous’ car parking, which caused problems across the Borough and which was enforceable by GMP.

f.     A member referred to persistent problems that residents in the Healey Ward (and other Wards across the Township) were experiencing as a result of ‘quad’ bikes and ‘off-road’ bikes. Sometimes the bikes caused a nuisance on other occasions their usage constituted anti-social behaviour and sometimes these bikes were used for criminal activity.

g.    Members of the Committee raised concerns regarding the difficulty in getting a response when dialling the 101 police phone number to report incidents.

Decision:

That the Greater Manchester Police update be noted and welcomed.

The following matter was raised in the Committee’s Open Forum session:

a)    Repairs to Roads – Ashfield Road

The Township Committee received a written question, submitted in advance of the meeting by Mr. T. Butterworth who asked if the Council had plans to repair the roads in and around the Ashfield Road area of Deeplish, Rochdale. Mr. Butterworth was not in attendance at the meeting and it was agreed that the Head of Highways forward a written response to his question.

b)    Friends of Rochdale Maternity Care

Mr. Mohammed Hanif addressed the Township Committee regarding the work of the Rochdale Maternity Care group that was campaigning for a Birth centre and labour Ward to be established in Rochdale. Mr. Hanif explained that the group was actively campaigning for the introduction of these facilities for expectant mothers from Rochdale who had to travel outside the Borough, mainly to Oldham, to give birth. It was agreed that Mr Hanif’s question be referred to the Council’s Director of Public health for further consideration and that she be requested to write to Mr Hanif in this regard.

c)    Former TBA Site, Rochdale

Mr. Mick Coats addressed the Township Committee seeking information regarding the ownership of the former TBA Site in Rochdale; if the Council could facilitate a meeting between residents and the site’s owners; whether the results of the owners’ survey, undertaken in March 2017, had been shared with the Council; and what strategies the Council were developing to tackle the many issues presented by this site? 

In response Mr. Coats and the meeting were informed that the site was owned by Renshaw Properties Ltd, Geneva Place, Third Floor, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands. The Council was in contact with the site owner’s representatives and were willing to request if the owners (and/or their representatives) would be willing to attend such a meeting, as requested by Mr. Coats. In response to Mr. Coats’s third point the site owner’s representatives had explained to the Council that the site owner had received the report and was committed to sharing with the Council but had firstly wanted time to consider the findings. The meeting was informed that the Council was carrying out a range of measures at this location including periodic walkover surveys, air perimeter monitoring (to try to gauge if airborne asbestos posed a risk to residents). In addition the Council was examining ways of redeveloping the site, provided potential redevelopment plans were acceptable to the Authority.

d)    Friends of Heritage Green

Mr. Mark Hope, on behalf of Heritage Green, addressed the Township Committee updating Members on the application for village green status in respect of land at Cut Lane/Caldershaw Road. Mr. Hope explained that the application had been referred to a neutral third party to determine, in this case Cheshire East Council, however following discussions between officers at Rochdale and Cheshire East Councils it had been agreed that the application be brought back ‘in-house’ due to a change in the legal situation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Presentation by the Adult Care Service

The Township Committee received a presentation from the Adult Care Service regarding ‘Community Connectors’ which was a new service created as part of the Locality Plan.

They were a team based in and around EASY Hubs in localities providing people with information, advice and signposting to appropriate organisations. They would support people in the Borough with issues affecting their health and wellbeing such as employment/training, money management, lifestyles (including mental health), preventative services (such as stopping smoking), community opportunities (volunteering) and housing.

They can also give advice to anyone over 18 years but also have links with the Early Help Team if the person is under 18 and can signpost them there.

Referrals can be from anyone – professional or the public and can be via one email, one telephone number or attending a drop in session within their community.

In considering the presentation a Member asked if there were plans for the service to operate from locations in Rochdale town centre as the current base, on site at Rochdale Infirmary was not always accessible for all residents of the Borough. Another member sought clarification regarding the hours of operation of the service, being advised in response that it will operate from 8.30am – 5.30pm but that ‘out of hours’ appointments could be arranged.

Decision;

That the presentation be noted and welcomed.

To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Rochdale Township Committee held on 7^th February 2018.

Decision:

That the minutes of the meeting of Rochdale Township Committee held 7^th February 2018 be approved, as a correct record.

To note the minutes of the meeting of the Rochdale Township Action and Resources Delegated Sub-Committee held on 13^th March 2018.

Decision:

That the minutes of the meeting of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Delegated Sub-Committee held 13^th March 218 be noted.

To review the polling districts and places within the Township.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Assistant Director (Legal, Governance and Workforce) that consulted Members on the review of Polling Districts and Polling places within the Township. The consultation period was due to run from 2^nd July – 25^th July 2018. A report on this matter was planned to be submitted to the Council meeting scheduled to be held on 17^th October 2018.  

Alternatives considered:

The report was brought to the Township Committee as part of a statutory consultation, therefore no alternatives were considered.

Decision:

That the proposed Polling Districts and Polling places within the Township be supported.

Reason for decision:

The existing arrangements within the Township were considered to be satisfactory for the functions of administering elections.

Eligible for Call-in: No

To consider an application for a Neighbourhood Area and Forum.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy which advised members that the Council had received two applications in relation to the neighbourhood planning process: one to designate a Neighbourhood Area in Thornham St. John’s, Castleton and another to establish a Thornham St. John’s Neighbourhood Forum.  The Director’s report made recommendations regarding the determination of both these applications, specifically within the context for assessing the suitability of the proposed Neighbourhood Area and Forum.

If approved the next stage was that the Council would then publicise and undertake formal consultation on both the applications and consider any representations that might argue for different boundaries from those proposed or broader representation in terms of membership. 

Alternatives considered:

The Committee was advised that alternatives to producing a neighbourhood plan were discussed with the community group and these included: Using other planning tools such as seeking to influence an emerging local plan -   commenting on planning applications; getting involved in pre-application discussions; influencing design and development briefs; producing a parish plan or community plan (though these do not have any status as statutory planning policy); and developing a community project and raising funds for its delivery.

Decision:

That the Township Committee approves the proposed Thornham St. John’s area boundary (as described in the plan that was appended to the Committee’s report) and the Thornham St. John’s Forum neighbourhood application as a basis for public consultation.

Reasons for the decision:

The decision was made to allow the Committee to comply with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended), specifically regulations 5 and 8. The application of a Neighbourhood Area and Forum would enable the community to begin the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan for their area.

Eligible for call-in: No.

To consider matters relating to land at Turners Place, Rochdale.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy that related to an area of land that had been considered incapable of independent development adjacent to a successful flat development at Turners Place, Rochdale. There were issues regarding the inability for bin wagons to service the property safely and a minor area of trespass that needs remedying. The proposed land sale deals with all these issues.

Alternatives considered:

The land in question could be retained, but this would mean that bin wagons would continue to struggle to service the development safely and the Council would continue to own the site and its liabilities without any beneficial return, financial or otherwise.

Decision:

That the land at Turners Place, Rochdale as identified in the Director of Economy’s report, be declared surplus to requirements and that it is released for disposal to the developers of the flats.

Reasons for the decision:

The recommendations in the report were presented in order to create a safe turning facility for the Council’s bin wagons to service the site and to remedy a minor trespass issue.

Eligible for Call-in: Yes.

To consider the release of land for disposal in the Township.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy that detailed a number of sites in Rochdale Township that were being recommended for disposal.  The sites were considered to be surplus to the Council’s operational requirements. The sale of the sites would generate capital receipts for the Council and reduce its maintenance liabilities.

Alternatives considered:

The sites detailed in the Director of Economy’s report could be retained in their existing uses. Retention of these sites would not secure capital receipts or beneficial development, nor would it reduce the Council’s financial and/or environmental liabilities. Retaining these sites in their current use also carried the risk of liabilities such as fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour and regular or ad hoc maintenance obligations.

Decision:

1.    The site at Woodbine Street be retained in its existing use (detailed at Plan 1, Plot 1 on the submitted report);

2.    The site at Moss Mill Street be declared surplus to requirements and released for disposal (detailed at Plan 1, Plot 2 on the submitted report);

3.    The site at Manchester Road be declared surplus to requirements and released for disposal (detailed at Plan 2, Plot 2 on the submitted report);

4.    The site at Healing Street, Rochdale be retained in its existing use (detailed at Plan 3 on the submitted report);

5.    The Council’s Head of Legal Services be authorised to prepare the appropriate legal documents and execute such documents on behalf of the Council in respect of the above mentioned areas;

6.    The purchaser in all cases will pay the Council’s legal and surveyor’s costs.

Reasons for the decision:

The recommendations in the report were presented as the Director of Economy is charged with the continual review of the Council’s land and property holdings to identify those that are viewed to be surplus to requirements and which could be sold.

Eligible for Call-in: Yes

To consider the proposed programme for additional highway investment.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods that sought approval of proposed carriageway and footway improvement schemes. 

Alternatives considered:

The alternative to carrying out this programme would be to select schemes based on condition only. This approach would lead to a deterioration of the network overall and it is poor asset management to treat only the worst roads in the area. Using an asset management approach will assist Rochdale Borough Council in maintaining its current level three funding from the Department for Transport.

Decision:

1.    That the proposed carriageway and footway improvement schemes for Rochdale Townships be approved.

2.    Where events external to the Council require rapid response or agreement in principle, the committee authorise the Head of Highways to vary the programme in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Chair of Rochdale Township Committee.

Reason for decision:

To maximise the improvement to the network by carrying out the most efficient and cost effective works to the carriageways and footways.

Eligible for Call-in: Yes

To consider the Township delegation arrangements and appointments for 2018/2019.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Assistant Director (Legal, Governance and Workforce) which asked that Members confirm the Committee’s delegated decision making arrangements and to make appointments to the Township Sub-Committees, including the Chairs, Vice Chairs and substitute members; the appointment of “lead” opposition spokespersons; and the appointment to various Priority Groups and Other Township Bodies.

Alternatives considered:

The Township Committee could choose not to appoint to sub-committees and undertake all delegated functions themselves, but that this may have a detrimental impact on the ability to progress Township priorities or deal with urgent items of business.

Decision:

(1) the current Sub-Committee structure of the Rochdale Township Committee comprising of the Rochdale Township Action and Resources Delegated Sub-Committee and the terms of reference, as outlined at Appendix 1 of the submitted report, be approved;

(2) Members be appointed as follows: –

(a)          Rochdale Township Action and Resources Sub-Committee:

Councillors – Shakil Ahmed (Chair), O’Neill (Vice Chair), Zaheer, Farnell, Sheerin, Biant, Sultan Ali, Sullivan and Gartside.

Substitute Members - Councillors Daalat Ali, Heakin, Rana, Howard and Holly;

The opposition spokesperson be Councillor Sullivan;

(b)          The relevant Ward Councillors be appointed to attend their respective Ward Forum;

(c)          Clean and Green Priority Group - Councillors Cocks (Chair), Hornby (Vice Chair), Heakin, Shakil Ahmed, Zaheer, Meredith, Ali Ahmed, Howard and Winkler;

Substitute Members – Councillors Nickson, Biant, Brosnan, Angela Smith and Gartside;

(d)          Communities and Engagement Priority Group – Councillors Rana (Chair), Rashid (Vice Chair), O’Neill, Brosnan, Brett,, Nickson, Ali Ahmed, Angela Smith and Gartside;

Substitute Members – Shakil Ahmed, Farnell, Sheerin, Sullivan and Winkler; 

(e)          Rochdale Regeneration Group – Councillors Sultan Ali (Chair), Biant (Vice Chair), Shakil Ahmed, Zaheer, Farnell, O’Neill, Sheerin, Sullivan and Holly;

Substitute Members – Daalat Ali, Rana, Zaman, Angela Smith, and Winkler;

(f)       Township Older Persons Champion – Councillor Sheerin;

(g)       Township Young Persons Champion – Councillor Meredith;

(h)       Rochdale Township Planning Panel – Councillors Sultan Ali (Chair), Heakin, Brosnan, Brett, Meredith, Sheerin, Cocks, Iftikhar Ahmed, Angela Smith and Gartside;

Substitute members: Councillors Ali Ahmed, Hornby, Sullivan and Holly;  

(3) any amendments to the appointments be delegated to the Chair of the Rochdale Township Committee.

Reasons for the decisions:

The recommendations were presented as the Council has established and appointed Township Committees to undertake certain executive and non-executive powers, as set out in the Responsibility for Council Functions in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution.  In addition the Township’s Sub-Committee exercises either delegated powers or acts on any matter detailed in the Committee’s Terms of Reference on which it is essential to take a decision. Appointments to the Sub-Committee are made, as far as is possible, in accordance with the Township Committee’s political balance. The proper appointment of Sub-Committees is required to permit the undertaking of delegated functions in accordance with statutory and procedural requirements, and appointments to Working Groups and Other Bodies are required to enable the Township Committee to undertake and to respond to the full range of issues relevant to the Township.

Eligible for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider Township Funds for 2018/2019.

The Township Committee considered a report which presented a review of the Township revenue and capital expenditure during 2017/18 and provided options for the allocation of funds for 2018/19.

Members were also requested to consider the Rochdale Township Funds terms and conditions and to agree delegation arrangements concerning funding decisions.

Alternatives Considered:

The Committee could decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to funding streams and adopt the terms and conditions.

Decision:

1.    That the expenditure, commitments and balances for Rochdale Township revenue and capital funds at financial year end 2017/18 be noted.

2.    That the findings of the review of Township Funds 2017/18 and evaluations received to date for some of the projects funded be noted.

3.    That the allocation of Rochdale Township Funds to funding streams in 2018/19 be approved.

4.    That the terms and conditions for Rochdale Township revenue and capital funds for 2018/19 be approved.

5.    That the delegation arrangements for Rochdale Township Funds 2018/19 as detailed in the report be approved.

6.    The Committee agrees that any uncommitted/unspent funds be reallocated to a central revenue or capital funding stream as appropriate before the end of January 2019, to enable members to spend/commit all Rochdale Township Funds during the 2018/19 financial year.

Reasons for the Decisions:

Management of the Rochdale Township Fund is delegated to the Rochdale Township Action and Resources Delegated Sub-Committee. Rochdale Township Funds were allocated to projects that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and which realised the Township’s priorities.

Eligible for Call-in: No.

To consider an update on Rochdale Township in Bloom.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods advising that the Royal Horticultural Society has awarded Gold Medal Status to Rochdale Township for the last two years. As a result Rochdale has been selected by North West In Bloom to represent the North West nationally at the 2018 RHS Britain In Bloom awards. This was considered to be a great honour and the first time that Rochdale Township has ever been selected.

In 2018/19 the Council had received £107,000 funding approved by the Leader for landscape schemes, plus additional funding to ensure maintenance of the landscape schemes is of the highest quality. Work had already commenced on a number of projects.

Decision:

That the report be noted.