The Board considered a report of the Interim Deputy Place Lead / Director of Strategic Performance which sought approval of the revised Section 75 Agreement between the Council and NHS GM ICB. The agreement would cover the health budgets held at locality, following delegation from NHS GM ICB. The budgets delegated by the Council would not change from the original Section 75.

The Local Authority approved a balanced 2022/23 budget at Budget Council on the 3rd of March 2022. The CCG Governing Body approved a draft budget for 2022/23 on 20th May 2022 in line with the allocations received.

The Integrated Commissioning Board approved the opening Pooled Fund budget for 2022/23 and the continued pausing of the risk share on the 31st May 2022.

The CCG ceased to exist as a legal entity from the 1st July 2022. NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care (NHSGMICB) is the successor entity from 1st July 2022 and as such will be a party to the Section 75 with the Council.

Resolved:

1.    That the revised budget for Health and the opening budget for the Council be noted;

2.    That the revised Section 75 Agreement for 2022/23 be approved;

3.    That delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive / Place Based Lead to sign the documentation.

Reason for decision:

Before considering this item, the following members of the Locality Board declared a pecuniary interest by virtue of their employment with Northern Care Alliance and left the meeting. They did not take part to the discussion and decision on this agenda item, neither had they received the relevant paper in advanced or at the meeting. The Board Members in question were:

Steve Taylor, Rochdale Local Care Organisation Chief Officer and Nicky Clarke, Northern Care Alliance Representative.

The following Officers also left the meeting room during discussion and decision on this item as employed by Norther Care Alliance: Alison Kelly (Northern care Alliance) and Owen Williams.

The Board proceeded giving consideration to a report of the Head of Planning and Improvement, Public Health which sought approval of the recommendations concerning Public Health contracts as identified in the report. Approval was also sought to delegate the signing of any contract extensions or contract award associated with this report to the Director of Public Health in consultation with the lead Cabinet Member for Health and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and Scheme of Delegation.

Resolved that the recommendations as outlined at point 2.1 – 2.5 of the report be approved.

Reasons for decision:

To ensure that the Council remained contractually compliant in relation to the services in scope. The context around each separate recommendation was detailed in the ‘key points for consideration’ section of the report.

 Alternatives considered and rejected:

Alternatives had been considered when developing all of the recommendations in this report. The recommendation for each element ensured that high quality services would be delivered in the borough, best value was achieved, and where possible, stability for staff and services users was prioritised.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of HR, Rochdale Care Organisation and the Assistant Director Workforce and Organisational Development Rochdale Borough Council. The report outlined the key component of the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Health and Care People Strategy which had been co-developed through engagement across the sector.

The strategy set out HMR’s integrated approach to improving recruitment and retention within health and care by aligning organisational strategies and highlighting how HMR was a great place to work for health and care. The strategy also outlined how the organisations would work together with local communities and how those who were furthest from employment would be supported through social value impact.

Resolved that the strategy be approved.

Reason for decision:

To support the delivery of the system strategic objectives.

Alternative considered:

Not to approve the strategy. This would negatively impact on the ability to progress health and social care integration in the Borough.

The Committee considered a report of the Head of Commissioning (Mental Health and Learning Disabilities), which provided an overview of the Night Support service and sought approval to proceed with a competitive tender process in conjunction with the delegated authority arrangements.

The Interim Director Adults Social Services was in attendance, presented the report and answered questions of the Committee.

Resolved:

1.    That the commencement of a competitive tender process for the night support service for the value indicated in the report be agreed;

2.    That the Interim Director of Adults Social Services, Interim Director of Corporate Services and portfolio holder be given delegated authority to award the night support service contract;

3.    That the Interim Director of Adults Social Services, Interim Director of Corporate Services and portfolio holder be given delegated authority to award any extensions to the night support service within the constraints of the contract.

Reasons for the decision:

The reasons for the decisions have been outlined at points 3.1 – 3.8 of the report.

Alternatives considered and rejected:

Not to undertake the procurement activity for Night Support service. This would not be feasible as extremely vulnerable adults would be left with no support during the night.

The Board considered a report of the Interim Director of Integration and Transformation NHS GM IC HMR which sought approval of the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Integrated Care Partnership Agreement.

The Partnership Agreement was one of the three key documents required, together with the Locality Board Terms of Reference and Section 75 Agreement, in order to complete the constitution of the Locality Board with delegated decision making from NHS GM Integrated Care Board.

This approval would be confirmed and the Partnership Agreement would be signed at today’s meeting of the Locality Board by the following:

Ø  GM Integrated Care System – Warren Heppolette, Chief Officer for Strategy & Innovation

Ø  Place and Rochdale Borough Council – Steve Rumbelow, Place Lead and Chief Executive of Rochdale Council

Ø  One Rochdale Health and Care – Steve Taylor, Chief Officer

Ø  Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust – Owen Williams, Chief Executive

Ø  Pennine Care Foundation Trust – Anthony Hassel, Chief Executive

Ø  Primary Care Networks – Dr Mo Jiva, CEO Rochdale Health Alliance (RHA), CEO Rochdale & Bury LMC & Clinical Director Middleton Primary Care Network (PCN)

Resolved:

1.    That the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Integrated Care Partnership Agreement be approved;

2.    That the submission to NHS GM Integrated Care Board of the Partnership Agreement, together with the Section 75 Agreement and the Locality Board Terms of Reference be approved.

Reason for decision:

To enable to finalise the constitution of the Locality Board from 1^st April 2023.

Alternatives considered:

To not to approve the Partnership Agreement would negatively impact on the ability to progress the implementation of Integrated Care Systems in the Borough.

The Committee considered a report of the Township Business Officer which provided an update on revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Pennines Township Funds 2022/23 and to enable the allocations of funds to proposed projects.

Members were informed that the Pennines Township Capital Funds available for allocation was £42,554 and that the Pennines Township Revenue (Projects) Funds available for allocation was £38,147.

Alternatives considered:
Members were asked to decide whether or not to approve the allocations of funds to projects as appropriate.

Resolved:

1. That the expenditure, commitments and balances of the Pennines Township Funds 2022/2023, 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 Committee, be given delegated authority to make decisions on any deferred projects;

4. That the 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 Pennine Township Fund, the priorities of the Township and any specific risks have been identified within the report;

5. That applications for Pennines Township Funds 2022/2023 as outlined at Appendix 4 of the submitted report be dealt with as follows:

Reasons for the decision:

Management of the Pennines Township Fund is delegated to the Pennines Township Committee.

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

To enable the Pennines Township Committee to monitor and review the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of the funds.

The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Neighbourhoods which outlined objections to the Proposed Traffic Regulations Order – Prohibition of Waiting, Croft Street, Pennines.

The Highways Officer was in attendance to present the report and addressed the questions of the Committee.

Highways had developed and promoted the Traffic Regulation Order scheme for the proposed implementation of a prohibition of waiting restriction along the eastern side of the southern section of Croft Street. The intended proposal would prevent obstructive footway parking from the eastern side and improve operational width for the passage of traffic, including larger commercial vehicles using the route.

As detailed in Appendix C of the submitted report, objections were received during the formal advertisement period from 70% of all properties along the Traffic Regulation Order subject section of Croft Street (both sides) as well as the wider area.

The Township Committee was informed that nine individual written objections had also been received by the Highways team, including a petition with 41 signatures seeking a halt to progression of the proposed Traffic Regulation Order.

Alternatives considered:

Presented in Appendix A of the submitted report, Highways recommended that the proposed scheme be abandoned and withdrawn due to the nature and scale of objections received.

The Committee could decide not to withdraw the scheme and continue to implement the scheme as originally advertised.

Resolved:

That the proposed scheme for Traffic Regulation Order, (Borough of Rochdale, ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 85) Order 2022 be abandoned and withdrawn.

Reasons for the decision:
Although the advertised scheme would satisfy the requirements of the commissioning brief, Highways would be unable to sufficiently mitigate the nature and scale of the objections received in relation to the Proposed Traffic Regulations Order – Prohibition of Waiting, Croft Street, Pennines.

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Economy and Regeneration / Director of Economy that sought approval of the draft Asset Management Plan and Strategy for adoption as Council policy.

Alternatives Considered:  Not to approve the draft Asset Management Plan and Strategy – this option would not be best practice and was not recommended.

Resolved:  That the draft Asset Management Plan and Strategy be approved for adoption as Council policy.

Reasons for Decision: The Council was not obliged to produce an Asset Management Plan but it was considered best practice by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The Strategy provided a link between service and project planning and the management and maintenance of land and building assets. It helped identify sites to meet the Council’s regeneration objectives, housing needs and climate change priorities. 

Consideration was given to a report of the Cabinet Member for Highways and Housing / Director of Neighbourhoods that sought authority to accept specific funding streams either secured or hoped to be secured within the next 12 month period.

Alternatives Considered:  Not to accept the funding.  This would fail to maximise revenue and/or capital grant funding which would reduce the ability of the Council to deliver significant schemes within the Borough.

Resolved: 

1.    That the funding offers, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, be accepted;

2.    That the Director of Neighbourhoods be granted delegated authority for the relevant expenditure of the funding offers, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Reasons for Decision:

·         To allow for delivery of the schemes as listed within Appendix 1 of the report.

·

·         Without the ability to take receipt of external grant monies the specific programmes would not be delivered by the Council.

Proposal: Erection of extensions to side elevations, alterations to fenestration on existing front elevation at first floor, new raised terrace area to front, formation of overspill car park and other associated works, following demolition of existing extensions to front and side elevations.

The Interim Development Manager introduced the report which advised that it was considered that there were very special circumstances that would outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt, in terms of inappropriateness and loss of openness of the proposed car park.  The economic investment in the site would secure the long term use of the building, which would in turn contribute to the local economy and result in the creation of additional jobs in the local area.  Investment in the site would also secure the long term future of the heritage asset, which had previously been harmed by inappropriate extensions, and which was currently degrading due to its vacant nature.  It was considered that the applicant had adequately demonstrated that the level of parking was required for the proposed development and it was considered that these matters would clearly outweigh the limited harm identified.

The Committee was recommended to approve the application.

Steve and Sushma Davison, neighbouring residents, spoke in objection to the application.

James Ramsbottom, the applicant, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Gartside and Councillor Holly, spoke as Ward Members, in objection to the application.

A discussion took place and the Committee gave careful consideration to all of the issues raised and the merits of the scheme.

A proposal to approve the application, in line with the recommendation and conditions set out in the report, was moved and seconded.

Resolved – That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.

To update member on the Upperbanks hotel project and secure specific approvals relating to the future operation of the hotel