Contact: Peter Thompson Senior Committee Services Officer
To receive any apologies for absence.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Heakin, Iram Faisal and Winkler.
Minutes of the meeting of Rochdale North Township Committee held 18th February 2021.
That the Minutes of the meeting of Rochdale Township Committee held 10th Frebruary 2021 be approved as a correct record.
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.
Councillors O’Neill and Wazir both declared a personal and prejudicial interest in funding application RP/06/21, submitted by the Friends of Syke and Cronkeyshaw Common and Healey Ward Councillors for the development of a community sensory and herb garden at Cronkeyshaw Common. Councillors O’Neill and Wazir took no part in the consideration and determination of this funding application and Councillor O’Neill vacated the Chair, for the duration of this item, in favour of the Vice Chair, Councillor Ali Ahmed.
Up to half an hour has been set aside for members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township.
There was no business for the Open Forum session.
To consider the Township’s delegation arrangements and appointments to relevant bodies
The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Resources which requested that Members confirm their delegated decision making arrangements and make appointments to the Township’s Sub-Committee, including the Chair, Vice Chair and substitute members (where appropriate); the appointment of “lead” opposition spokespersons; and the appointment to other bodies.
The Committee could choose not to appoint Sub-Committees and undertake all delegated functions itself, however this could have a detrimental impact on the ability to progress Township priorities or to deal with urgent items of business. The Committee could also, if it chose to do so, adopt alternative Sub-Committee arrangements.
1. The proposed Sub-Committee structure of the Rochdale North Township Committee comprising of the Rochdale North Township 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 North Township Delegated Sub-Committee: Councillors – O’Neill (Chair), Ali Ahmed (Vice Chair), Iftikhar Ahmed, Sultan Ali, Gartside, Heakin, Holly, Iram Faisal, Rachel Massey, Rana, Wazir and Winkler
b. The ‘lead’ opposition spokesperson to be Councillor Winkler;
c. The relevant Ward Councillors be appointed to attend their respective Ward Forum;
d. Rochdale Regeneration Group – Councillors Sultan Ali, Holly, O’Neill, Rana and Wazir;
e. Township Older Persons Champion – Councillor Sultan Ali;
f. Township Young Persons Champion – Councillor Rachel Massey;
g. Township Highways Champion/Road Safety Group – Councillor O’Neill;
h. Rochdale North Township Planning Panel – Councillors Rana (Chair), Ali Ahmed, Iftikhar Ahmed, Sultan Ali, Gartside, Heakin, Holly, Iram Faisal, Rachel Massey and Winkler.
3. Any amendments to the appointments be delegated to the Chair of the Rochdale North Township Committee to determine.
Reasons for the decision
The Council has established and appoints Township Committees that may exercise both executive and non-executive powers as set out in the Responsibility for Council Functions in Part 3 of the Constitution, which states that: appointments to Township Sub-Committees, Township Working Parties, Partnership Arrangements and Local Outside Bodies shall be made at the first meeting of the appropriate Township Committee in the new Municipal Year’. The 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.
Eligible for call-in: No.
The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods, which explained that the Council has a Statutory Duty to maintain and keep the definitive map under continuous review and that this may be carried out by many methods, diverting, closing or adding a right of way.
The Committee were informed that the property owner (the applicant) of Stoney Heys Barn has applied under Section 119 Highways Act 1980 to divert part of a legally recorded right of way running adjacent to the front of their property, to allow for a development to be carried out.
Section119 of the Highways Act 1980 allows the Council to consider an application if it is in the interest of the owner, occupier or lessee. As part of that order there is a consultation period, should the Council receive relevant objections to the order the Council have no option other than to refer it to the Planning Inspectorate.
The property owner has received Planning authorisation from Rochdale Council to undertake development works to their property in the location where the right of way currently runs.
The landowner of the adjacent properties and land over which the diverted route will run has provided his agreement for the footpath to be diverted from his land fronting the other properties to the proposed location.
This diversion will not alter the use of the section of the right of way to be diverted it will send the legitimate users across a field area instead of a road.
The applicant is responsible for all fees in respect of this diversion.
Alternatives considered: to not to make the order and to maintain the current location of the restricted byway, However, the Council has already provided Planning Permission for improvement works to the property. It is possible that these works could not be implemented should the right of way remain running along the road to Stoney Heys.
1. That rochdale North Township Committee, after reviewing the report, agrees to procceed with an order under section119 Highways Act 1980 to divert part of definitive footpath RocDRupp12.
2. That the Council should confirm the order if there are no objections or to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision should one or more relevant objections be received by the Council.
3. That following receipt of any instructions from the Head of Environmental Services, the Assistant Director (Legal, Governance and Workforce) be authorised to prepare the appropriate legal documents and execute such documents on behalf of the Council.
Reasons for the decision:
The Council is obligated under Statutory Duty to keep and maintain the definitive map and statement and to ensure it is under continuous review.
A method of reviewing the map and statement is by the implementation of a Highways Act order under Section 119, a Public path Diversion Order to divert part of a definitive route if it is expedient to do so in the best interest of the owner, occupier or lessee of land crossed by the path. ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
To consider proposals for a footpath.
The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods advised Members that Section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, confirmed that the Council may stop up a right of way should it be expedient to do so and if it is not needed for public use.
Definitive footpath HeyFp25 shown by a solid black line, on the plans attached to the report, identified on the definitive map and described in the related statement as running from Black Dad to Black Dad Lane, Rochdale and continuing to Shepherds Hey. The description in the statement did not state that it ran from HeyBp111 which would connect the footpath to the network in the vicinity of the farm. The footpath appeared to lead from the rear of Black Dad Farm and proceed in a north-westerly direction away from HeyBp111. This route would not therefore connect with any highway nor to the definitive route at Black Dad.
A bridleway runs over Black Dad Lane labelled as HeyBp14 that leads to Black Dad Farm and linked in with s the network of rights of way in the area.
The landowner at Black Dad Farm had applied to the Council to delete that part of definitive footpath HeyFp25 that leads from the rear of Black Dad Farm to the bridleway HeyBp14.
The report stated that the Council could proceed with this request by implementing Section 118 Highways Act 1980 as:
· HeyFp25 did not appear to connect to the network leading south from Black Dad Farm.
· There was a route of a higher standard that leads to Black Dad Farm and the network of rights of way in the area.
· It did appear to the Council that the section of HeyFp25 requested to be stopped up is not needed for public use.
Section 118 Highways Act 1980 confirmed that should the order be opposed the Council may not confirm the order and an application will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State to decide whether the footpath will likely be used by the public having regard to the effect the extinguishment of part of this right of way would have on the land served by the footpath.
The associated costs for Officer/Legal time and advertising costs are to be borne by the Landowner.
That consideration of this report be deferred to the Rochdale North Township Committee’s meeting that is scheduled to be held on 9th November 2021, thereby allowing the proposals to be considered in the meantime by the Norden Area Forum.
Eligible for Call-in: No.
To review funding arrangements for Rochdale North Township.
The Township Committee considered a report from the Director of Neighbourhoods which presented a review of the Township revenue and capital expenditure during 2020/2021 and provided options for the allocation of funds for 2021/2022.
Members were also requested to consider the terms and conditions for the Rochdale North Township Funds and to agree delegation arrangements concerning funding decisions.
1. That the expenditure, commitments and balances for Rochdale North Township revenue and capital funds at financial year end 2020/2021 be noted;
2. That the findings of the review of Township Funds 2020/2021 and evaluations received to date for some of the projects funded be noted;
3. That the allocation of Rochdale North Township Funds to funding streams in 2021/2022 be approved;
4. That the terms and conditions for Rochdale North Township revenue and capital funds for 2021/2022 be approved;
5. That the delegation arrangements for Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/2022, as detailed at paragraph 4.6 of the submitted report, be approved.
Eligible for Call-in: No.
To consider applications for assistance from the Rochdale North Township Fund.
The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods that updated members on the revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/2022 and which enabled the allocation of funds to proposed projects, as detailed within the report.
Alternatives considered - in considering the report, Members were asked to decide whether to approve, refuse or defer the allocation of funds to projects/schemes as appropriate.
1. That the expenditure, commitments and balances of the Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/2022, as detailed in Appendices 1 and 2 of the submitted report be noted;
2. That the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed in Appendix 3 of the submitted report be noted;
3. That the Townships and Communities Manager, in consultation with the
Chair, Vice Chair and opposition spokesperson of the Sub-Committee, be given delegated authority to make decisions on any deferred projects;
4. the Sub-Committee notes that the Townships and Communities Manager has assessed the proposed projects to be considered for funding against the criteria of eligibility for the Rochdale North Township Fund, the priorities of the Township and any specific risks have been identified within the report;
5. That applications for Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/2022 (as outlined at Appendix 4 of the submitted report), be dealt with as follows:-