Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH

Contact: Debbie Bacon, Senior Democratic Services Officer. 

Items
No. Item

17.

Introductions and Welcome

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced those present and welcomed everyone to the meeting.

18.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 18th October, 2011 pdf icon PDF 40 KB

Minutes:

Agreed:-  That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18th October, 2011 be received as a true record.

19.

Update on the Library Review

Minutes:

Karl Battersby, Strategic Director for Environment and Development Services, gave an update on the Library Services Review that was currently taking place and which would be presented to Cabinet on the 21st November, 2012.

 

The review was originally requested by Cabinet on the 23rd November, 2011 and hopefully would deliver a comprehensive and efficient library service for all.

 

Following a period of consultation a revised service model had been developed, which took account of many factors including the responses to the consultation, local need, areas of deprivation, current performance and use, demographics, equalities analysis, and closer working with Customer Service Centres.  The Library Service was clearly valued by the public, which had resulted in over 1700 forms being submitted, many emails and eighteen drop in sessions.

 

The proposed new service model which was to be presented to Cabinet took account of the public consultation, listened to the views put forward by the public and their representatives and either recommended a change to opening times or proposals to close some provision, but in the main would create a greater range of services.  It was noted that six of Rotherham’s libraries had already received significant investment.

 

Discussion ensued on the mobile library provision and it was confirmed that some areas would receive a mixture of mobile provision, but services received currently by the elderly and infirm would continue.

 

Agreed:-  That the information be noted.

20.

Items Requested by Parish Councils

 

The following items were submitted by Parish Councils prior to the meeting:-

 

(a)       Submitted by Catcliffe Parish Council - The Restoration of Highfield Lane

 

The Community Gain and resources from the Waverley Development.

 

(b)       Submitted by Ravenfield Parish Council

 

            Highway Network Maintenance Programme 2013/14.

Minutes:

The following items were submitted by Parish Councils prior to the meeting:-

 

(a)     Restoration of Highfield Lane, Community Gain and Resources from the Waverley Development

 

         Karl Battersby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, gave an update on the current position with regards to the restoration of Highfield Lane and the reasons why it had not taken place previously.  What had been agreed as part of the revised application was that a red shale public right of way would be erected for pedestrians and others for a safe walking route where Highfield Lane was previously.  The restoration of Highfield Lane would then be undertaken incrementally as the development progressed.

 

         A representative from Catcliffe Parish Council pointed out that a surveyor working on the Waverley development had indicated that Highfield Lane would not be restored as a road, which was actually incorrect.

 

         Karl Battersby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, also provided information on Community Gain which formed part of the original Section 106 Agreement, which was part of the planning application.  Copies of the Section 106 Agreement could be provided if this was felt appropriate.

 

         A representative from Catcliffe Parish Council expressed some concern that some villages surrounding Waverley such as Treeton, Woodhouse Mill, Handsworth and Orgreave received some monies, but none was provided to Catcliffe and asked if this could be revisited as it appeared to be unfairly proportioned.

 

         Karl Battersby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, confirmed that the Community Gain details could not be revisited, but was based on an assessment of need and sums of money were identified to fund gaps and to provide facilities to the areas identified.

 

         One significant investment for Catcliffe had been around flooding and the development work that had since taken place to mitigate risk to the area.

 

         A representative from Catcliffe Parish Council also referred to the negotiation of funds from British Coal relating to the open casting on the site and asked why there was no bid on behalf of Catcliffe.

 

         Karl Battersby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, referred to the planning application which had been approved by the Planning Board, the need for regeneration and what could be achieved in planning terms regarding the impacts on provision and the discontent this had caused in Catcliffe.

 

         Another representative from Catcliffe Parish Council was of the view that Catcliffe had been overlooked completely and argued about the quality of provision, such as play in Catcliffe, and whether this was adequate.

 

         Karl Battersby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services referred to the many sessions about Waverley that were held and open to members of the public and the ample opportunities that Catcliffe Parish Council could have aired their views.  He pointed out that there would be a range of access to better facilities, not just in Catcliffe, and that the public open space would be freely available for anyone to use.  It was suggested that if there were concerns about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

Any Other Business

Minutes:

(a)     The Chairman advised that free parking on a Saturday had now been approved on the run up to Christmas.

 

(b)     A representative from Ravenfield Parish Council asked about the Local Development Plan and the timescales for implementation and was advised that the next round of consultation would take place early in the new year.  The plan setting out Rotherham’s proposed housing target was due to be lodged this month with the Government.  The number of properties had been significantly reduced and work was continuing on the responses received as part of the consultation process.

 

         It was intended to do further work on individual sites and to assist in the process it was suggested that a further Parish Liaison meeting be arranged early in the new year to look at the next steps and consultation process/timescales.

 

         Discussion ensued on the allocation of sites, the consultation process and how, having listened to local people, some sites had been altered.

 

         A representative from Dinnington Town Council pointed out that the objections in Dinnington were around the use of Greenfield sites as opposed to brownfield sites and it was pointed out that there was insufficient brownfield sites to fulfil the housing need.  With negotiation some Greenfield sites would have to be released and Dinnington had significant development potential in an urban area.

 

         A representative from Anston Parish Council was aware that some developments in Dinnington had stalled due to some developers not wish to develop on brownfield sites.

 

         Karl Battesby, Strategic Director of Environment and Development Services, pointed out that the policy around Section 106 agreements was changing and each site that came forward would be judged on whether it was an economically viable prospect for development.

 

(c)     A representative from Aston-cum-Aughton Parish Council asked about the proposed charges for grounds maintenance and was informed that further information would be sought and this would be circulated with the minutes.

22.

Closing Remarks

Minutes:

Councillor Smith thanked the Parish Councils’ representatives for their attendance and closed the meeting at 7.05 p.m.