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.   

Councillor Faisal Rana declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the submitted funding application on grounds as a member of the orgsanisation.

Minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held 9^th March 2021.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2021 be approved as a correct record.

To consider proposals for a footpath.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for / Director of Neighbourhoods, seeking approval to proceed with a Public Path Extinguishment Order to stop up part of the footpath under Section 118 Highways Act 1980.

Mr N. Borrell addressed the Sub-Committee objecting to the proposals on behalf of local residents groups.

Alternatives considered

The alternative is to leave the full length of footpath HeyFp25 on the definitive map and statement. Divert the section of footpath to meet with the network of rights of way in the area. However, the land owner may not accept this proposal and the costs of diverting may fall to the Council.

RESOLVED

That Members of the Sub-Committee visit the site to view the proposals and the item be brought back for consideration at the next meeting of the Sub-Committee.

Reason for resolution

Under section 130 Highways Act 1980 the Council have a duty to assert and protect the rights of the general public to the use and enjoyment of any right of way. Under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the Council should keep the definitive map and statement under continuous review and one method is to permanently alter a definitive footpath either by extinguishment and/or diversion.

On the definitive map and statement the footpath does not appear to continue to link the network of rights of way on the south easterly side from Black Dad Farm.

To consider objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at Heights Lane, Rochdale.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Housing and Highways / Director of Neighbourhoods which presented objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at Prohibition of Waiting, Heights Lane, Rochdale.

In light of the objections received the restrictions had been reduced.

The Highways Officer advised that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order had been advertised in line with statutory requirements.

Alternatives considered

To refuse the proposals within the Traffic Regulation Order.

RESOLVED

1.    That the waiting Traffic Regulation Order, ‘Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Rochdale Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 187) Order 2021’ be implemented as advertised (included as detailed in Appendix D to the submitted report).

2.    That the original scheme elements for proposed 20mph speed limit with associated new pedestrian crossing and traffic calming features should be implemented as advertised and that this is implemented in conjunction with a reduced prohibition of waiting scheme in light of objections received.

Reason for resolution

The proposals are intended to enhance road safety by reducing vehicle speeds along Heights Lane; by introducing improved crossing facilities where they are most necessary; and by removing the negative effects of kerbside parking (in terms of compromised carriageway width for passing traffic and restricted visibility) in the vicinity of key visitor sites.

To consider objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at Town Lane, Norden, Rochdale.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Housing and Highways / Director of Neighbourhoods which presented objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order at Prohibition of Waiting, Over Town Lane Area, Norden, Rochdale.

In light of the objections received the restrictions had been slightly amended.

The Highways Officer advised that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order had been advertised in line with statutory requirements.

Alternatives considered

To refuse the proposals within the Traffic Regulation Order.

RESOLVED

ommittee should consider whether the Traffic Regulation Order, (Borough of Rochdale, ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Rochdale Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 189) Order 2021, be implemented as advertised, or be amended in light of the objections received. 1.7 Although the advertised scheme (Appendix B to this report) is considered to have satisfactorily met the requirements of the commissioning brief, Highways have nevertheless amended the design and, without any loss in either parking provision or passing space, the revision (presented in Appendix A to this report) may be considered more acceptable for Committee approval in light of the specific objections received.

Reason for resolution

To improve highway safety within the area.

To consider applications made to Rochdale North Township Fund 2021/2022

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.

RESOLVED

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.    That 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: