To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence received.

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 interest received.

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.

The Chair agreed to receive as an item of urgent business a verbal update from the Environmental Action Unit Manager on deployable CCTV cameras for the geographical areas comprised in the Rochdale North Township, as measure to deter fly tipping and other environmental issues.

The Environmental Action Unit Manager informed Members that Rochdale North Township had already committed £15,000 circa for the purchase of two deployable CCTV cameras and asked Members whether they would be interested in purchasing additional CCTV units to strengthen the action against fly tipping with the view to deter and/or investigate to support enforcement action.

Members asked and received clarification on several points concerning the specification, cost, value for money, social value in the procurement activity, mobilisation and use of the CCTV cameras.

Members asked the Environmental Action Unit Manager to return to this Committee at its next meeting in March 2022 with a full report and options to consider for the purchase of additional CCTV cameras with the view to have one camera per each ward comprised in the Township.

RESOLVED:

1.    That a report be presented at the next meeting of the Committee in March 2022 to consider the purchase of additional deployable CCTV cameras so that each ward could have its own equipment to deter fly tipping and other environmental matters; the areas to monitor would be agreed with the ward Councillors;

2.    That the Environmental Action Unit Manager share the deployable CCTV cameras specification details with the Committee.

To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 30^th November 2021.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 30^th Nov 2021 be approved as a correct record.

To consider Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/22.

The Sub-Committee gave consideration to a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods which provided an update on revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Rochdale North Township Funds 2021/22 and to enable the allocations of funds to proposed projects.

In considering the funding applications, the Sub-Committee received oral representations from the representative of the 7^th A Rochdale Scout Group and the Team Leader Network Management.

Alternatives considered:

Members were asked to decide whether or not to approve the allocations of funds to projects / schemes as appropriate.

RESOLVED:

1.            That the expenditure, commitments and balances for Rochdale North Township revenue and capital funds in Appendix 1 and 2 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 it be noted 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 in the report;

5.            That applications for Township funds 2021/22 (as outlined at Appendix 4 of the submitted report) be dealt with as follows:

Reasons for decisions:

Management of the Rochdale North Township Fund is delegated to the Rochdale North Township Delegated Sub-Committee.

Rochdale North Township Funds are allocated to projects that benefit the Township’s community and environment and realise the Township’s priorities.

To enable the committee to monitor and review the use of the Rochdale North Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of the funds.

Report of the Director of Neighbourhoods to follow.

The Sub-Committee gave consideration to a report of the Cabinet Member for Highways and Housing seeking approval to proceed with a Diversion Order to divert the footpath HEYFP25 under Section 119 Highways Act 1980.

The Right of Way Officer attended the meeting to present the report and addressed the questions of the Sub-Committee.

Alternatives considered

The Council has considered whether to stop up this section of HeyFp25. However, there would be several public oppositions to this method of dealing

with a “Cul-de-sac” footpath.

Council records does not show that this section of HeyFp25 leads to another

highway that the general public may legally use to continue along the network of rights of way and therefore they should support the diversion of part of HeyFp25 to provide a connection from this route to other rights of way in the area.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Council proceed with a Diversion Order to divert the footpath under Section 119 Highways Act 1980;

2.    That in the event the Council receive objections to the order the matter be referred to the Secretary of State for their consideration and decision;

3.    That the Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce) be authorised to execute the Change of Control Notice and enter into any legal agreements necessary to give effect to this decision in accordance with the Council’s constitution.

Reasons for decision

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.

There are no historical features along this route that may indicate that it should be in existence.

The general public appear to use the bridleway leading to Black Dad Farm to connect with other rights of way in the area.