Agenda and minutes

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Town Centre Management Group held on 6^th November, 2006.

Reference was made to the on-going review of the function of this group.

Resolved:-  That the minutes be received.

Principal Engineer to report.

-           to receive the petition.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Principal Engineer, relating to the receipt of a petition, containing twenty seven signatures, regarding the traffic diversion on the B6060 Laughton Common Road and the adjoining Hawk Hill Lane, and requesting the following:-

(a)                temporary speed limit of 40mph on Laughton Common Road (B6060) and the nearby Hawk Hill Lane

(b)                temporary triangular warning signs indicating accompanied horses

It was noted that the traffic diversion was being implemented due to the closure of Todwick Road at the ‘road over rail’ bridge near to Houghton Road and the North Anston Trading Estate, and that the closure would be in place for about a year.

It was pointed out that there were existing related polices and guidance in respect of long term works, and also that the request did not relate to the site of the road works, but to the diversion route some distance away.

It was also pointed out that all A and B roads in Rotherham would be reviewed over the next few years in accordance with the guidance, (see Minute No. 116 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Development Services held on 16^th October, 2006) and it was therefore recommended that it was not appropriate, at this stage, to pre-empt this review in view of the temporary, long duration of the bridge closure near to Houghton Road and the North Anston Trading Estate.

Resolved:-  That the request for temporary speed limit reductions and warning signs be not acceded to and the lead petitioner informed of the reasons for this decision.

Best Value Officer to report.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Best Value Officer, detailing the performance results for the second quarter of 2006/2007 (April to September).

Reference was made to the following:-

-           adoption of Performance Plus system

-           BV 109 (a, b, & c) Planning Applications:-  it was noted that performance had dropped in this quarter.   However the forecast was that the indicator, (at outturn), would be on target.  The impact of staffing and recruitment issues was noted.

-           BV 156 Buildings accessible to people who have a disability:-  lack of performance was noted.  It was pointed out that if funding was made available in the current financial year the issue would be one of completion of works within the timescale.

-           LPI 31 – Informing HSE of reportable injuries and dangerous occurrences within 10 working days:  It was noted that this was still an issue, particularly in Children & Young People’s Services, and was being actively pursued by the Health, Welfare and Safety Panel, and by the Chief Executive, via the Corporate Management Team.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the position of the results with comparison to targets be noted.

(2) That the performance indicator second quarter results for 2006/2007 be noted.

(3)                     That the Council’s position, in comparison with the Audit Commission 2004/2005 All England results, be noted.

(4)  That the continued poor performance of LPI 31 be drawn to the attention of the Corporate Management Team.

(The Cabinet Member authorised consideration of the following extra item in order for the responses to be submitted to the January, 2007 meeting of the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel.)

Head of RiDO to report.

-           to consider a suggested response to the Christmas Illuminations Scrutiny Review.

(Councillor St. John, Cabinet Member, Lifelong Learning, Culture and Leisure) attended for consideration of this item)

Further to Minute No. 73 of the Regeneration Scrutiny Panel held on 7^th November, 2006, consideration was given to a report, presented by the Head of Rotherham Investment and Development Office, which set out suggested responses to the recommendations made by the Christmas Illuminations Scrutiny Review Group.  The proposed responses had been drawn up jointly by Economic Development Services and Culture and Leisure Services.

It was noted that the current budget and management arrangements were spread across different parts of the Council, involving Streetpride, Culture and Leisure Services and Town Centre Management.

Reference was made to Minute No. 89 the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning, Culture and Leisure held on 28^th November, 2006, noting that a one year extension to the present Christmas Illuminations contract had been agreed.

The following issues and concerns were raised:-

-          initial decision which lead to the Call-In re:  not providing district trees to effect a budget saving

-          scope of the review

-          Culture and Leisure Services’ budget and priorities

-          background history to the provision of district trees

-          Recommendation 6.3.1 re: recommended Gateway sites – how these had been identified and whether these were the best/preferred locations

-          Sponsorship – with local businesses and/or with the Council’s major partners

-          cost of the trees

-          the need for a co-ordinated budget and team of staff

-          Recommendation 6.2.1 – responsibility of district trees and lights transfer to each Area Assembly Co-ordinating Group:-  it was pointed out that although Area Assemblies covered the whole Borough, the town centre was covered by three Area Assemblies.

-          current trading position of businesses in the town centre

-          involvement of Parish and Town Council’s;  other local ‘Carnival’ committees

-          involvement of Neighbourhoods programme area

-          opportunity for community involvement

-          practicalities of the recommendations

Resolved:-  (1)  That clarification be sought in respect of Recommendations 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 in the light of the above comments and concerns.

(2)  That the remaining recommendations be supported ‘in principle’ with the  comments made and concerns expressed, as detailed above, in respect of the Review Group’s recommendations and proposed joint Economic and Development Services and Culture and Leisure Services responses, being reported back to the Chair of the Scrutiny Review Group.

(3)        That the Chair of the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee receive a copy of this Minute, together with the proposed joint responses to the Review Group’s recommendations.