Agenda and minutes

-           to receive the minutes.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Tourism Forum held on 15^th April, 2008.

Resolved:-  That the minutes be received.

-           to note progress and emerging issues.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Rotherham Local Development Framework Steering Group held on 18^th April, 2008.

Resolved:-  That the minutes be received.

-           to receive the minutes.

The following report was submitted:-

Health, Welfare and Safety Panel

25th April, 2008

-           to note progress and receive the minutes.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Clifton Park Restoration Project Board held on 30^th April, 2008.

It was reported that the Cabinet Member had, under urgent business powers, approved the Select List of Tenderers on 6^th May, 2008.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the minutes be received.

(2)  That the action of the Cabinet Member be noted (Minute No. 256 refers).

-           to note the petition and the anticipated report.

Further to Minute No. 65 of the meeting of the Council held on 23^rd April, 2008, consideration was given to a petition from residents who were unhappy with the shrubs being planted at Broadway East, Rotherham.

It was reported that the Programme Co-ordinator, Rotherham East, had been asked to liaise with Streetpride and the Transportation Unit and to present a co-ordinated response to a future meeting.  (See also Minute No.  29 of the joint meeting of the Cabinet Members for Regeneration and Development and Streetpride held on 19^th May, 2008 refers).

Resolved:-  That the petition be received and the report awaited.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to report the outcome of investigation into issues raised in a petition.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, detailing the results of an investigation into the allegations raised in a sixty one signature petition regarding traffic problems in the Worrygoose Lane area.

It was reported that the petition raised two issues and these had been investigated as follows:-

(i)                   indiscriminate parking in front of the shops and on the footpath

This issue meant there was no obvious, safe route for pedestrians.  Therefore, in additional to bollards already installed by Streetpride in early 2008, it was proposed to introduce a time limited waiting restriction in the parking lay-by off the service road adjacent to the shops to allow more short term parking

(ii)                 speed of vehicles

Results of speed surveys indicated that there was general compliance in the 30mph area.  It was reported that a gateway treatment to encourage drivers to reduce their speed on approach had been implemented during summer 2007.

Those present asked for further information regarding the times of the proposed parking restriction, together with clarification about verge parking along the rest of Woorygoose Lane.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Director of Planning and Regeneration, in accordance with powers delegated to him, promotes a Traffic Regulation Order in respect of the introduction of a time limited waiting restriction in the parking lay-by off the service road adjacent to the shops on Worrygoose Lane, as outlined in this report and outlined on Drawing No.  128/17/TT13, and if no objections are received the proposal be implemented.

(2)  That the Lead Petitioner be informed of the outcome of the investigation.

(3)  That the Transportation Unit Manager submit a report to a future meeting in respect of the proposed times of the waiting restriction, together with an update on the verge parking situation along Worrygoose Lane.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to consider a request for a controlled crossing at the point where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses Dearne Road, Manvers.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, relating to a scheme to implement a Pegasus and Toucan crossing at the point where the Trans Pennine Trail crosses Dearne Road, Manvers.

The scheme proposal was illustrated on Drawing No. 126/WN appended to the report.

It was reported that, although the scheme did not meet the Council’s own criteria for installing controlled crossings, there were particular circumstances which were felt justified the crossing facility.

Reference was made to:-

•         the need for consistency across the length of the trail

•         the aim within the South Yorkshire Local Transport Plan to improve accessibility in the Dearne

•         the creation of 700 new homes and therefore increased usage

•         tourism potential

•         funding of the proposal via Yorkshire Forward

Resolved:-  (1)  That the necessary consultations be undertaken regarding the proposed scheme.

(2)  That, subject to no objections being received, approval be given for the detail design to be undertaken and the scheme be implemented.

(3)  That it be noted that the scheme is to be funded by Yorkshire Forward with a potential for a contribution from the Local Transport Plan Integrated Transport Programme for 2008/2009 should additional funding be required due to unforeseen circumstances.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to consider a request for permission to extend the contract for a further year.

Further to Minute No. 62 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services held on 31^st July, 2006, consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, requesting to extension of the 2007/2008 cycle training contract for a further year.

It was reported that the original contract included a clause allowing the Council, subject to satisfactory performance by the provider, to extend the contract for a further year.

Feedback from schools about the provider had been good and their performance was considered satisfactory.

It was explained that further funding had been obtained from Cycling England and the DfT’s Extra Cycle Training Grant scheme.  This would be matched with funding from the LTP Integrated Transport Capital Programme.

Resolved:-  That permission be given to extend the existing cycle training provider contract for a further year.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to determine a suitable contractor for the operation and maintenance of the model.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, detailing the tender and selection process that had been carried out in order to award the contract for the final Joint Sheffield and Rotherham Multi-Modal Transport Model.

It was explained that, amongst other things, the Model would be used to support strategic transport schemes e.g. the Sheffield and Rotherham Bus Rapid Transit Major Scheme Business Case Bids to the DfT.

It was pointed out that this was a 3 year ‘call down’ contract with no immediate financial impact on the Council.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the award of a 3 year contract for the application and maintenance of the Joint Sheffield and Rotherham Multi-Modal Transport Model to MVA (Manchester) via Sheffield City Council’s tendering process be noted.

(2)  That approval be given to the authorisation of the signing of a contract between MVA and Rotherham MBC for services outlined in the report submitted.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

to report receipt and result of investigation into a petition submitted by residents.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, setting out the results of an investigation into the request for access only signs, or traffic calming, following receipt of a petition with 33 signatures from residents of Upper Wortley Road Service Road.

It was reported that the following investigations had been carried out:-

•         a peak time vehicle registration survey which showed very few vehicles using the service road as a thorough route without calling or stopping.

•         a speed survey using loop detection which indicated that the 85%ile vehicle speed along the service road was 20mph.

•         examination of the injury accident database which showed no recorded injury accidents on the Service Road.

On the evidence gathered it was therefore recommended that no further action be taken.

Those present commented on:-

•         Congestion at Oaks Lane

•         Issues of enforcement

•         Traffic calming

•         Cost of access only signs

•         Cost of a TRO

Resolved:-  (1)  That the petition be received.

(2)  That the request for traffic calming and access only signs be not acceded to.

(3)  That the lead petitioner be informed of the reasons for reaching the decision.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to consider the response to the DfT consultation.

(Councillor Walker declared a personal interest in this item being a Blue Badge holder)

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, setting out a response to the DfT’s consultation on developing a comprehensive Blue Badge (disabled parking) Reform Strategy.

It was explained that this was the first review since the introduction of the Scheme in 1971.  Reference was made to the social, political, environmental and technological changes that have occurred since the scheme’s introduction.

Those present referred to:-

•         abuse of the scheme

•         how to check misuse

•         the appeal process

•         the driver of the vehicle not necessarily being the disabled person

•         changes to the category re:  raising the minimum age for the main Assessed Eligibility Criteria from 2 years to 3 years

•         response from other Service Areas and User Groups which had fed into the response

Resolved:-  That the response to the DfT consultation, as detailed in the report now submitted be supported.

Tracie Seals, Affordable Housing Officer, and Nick Ward, Planner, to report.

-           to report on the consultation response and request that the amended document be accepted.

Further to Minute No. 172 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services held on 17^th December, 2007, consideration was given to a report presented jointly by the Affordable Housing Officer and the Planner, which detailed the results of consultation that had been undertaken in respect of the introduction of an Interim Planning Statement re:  Affordable Housing.

It was reported that the consultation period ran from the beginning of January to 12^th March, 2008.  During this process 49 comments were made and these were detailed in the appendices to the report.

Overall feedback indicated that stakeholders thought that the process had been carried out in accordance with Government guidance and that Rotherham’s approach was good.

It was pointed out that the document was intended for use by the Council’s Development Control Service and needed to be effective at the earliest opportunity.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Interim Planning Statement, Affordable Housing for residential development, to be introduced and applied to all applicable planning applications received after approval of the Interim Planning Statement, Affordable Housing, be approved insofar as the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development is concerned.

(2)  That the operation of the Interim Planning Statement, Affordable Housing be reviewed in the Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report.

(3)  That Cabinet be asked to consider the Interim Planning Statement and refers the policy to the Council for approval and immediate introduction.

The Cabinet Member authorised consideration of the following three items in order to progress the matters referred to:-

Asif Akram, Project Development Officer, to report.

-           to consider the development of proposals to bring an indoor bowling venue to Rotherham and to establish a project steering group, chaired by the Cabinet Member for EDS, to monitor progress and oversee the development of a Rotherham indoor bowling facility.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Project Development Officer, relating to a proposal to form a Steering Group to oversee the development of the proposal to create an indoor bowling venue in Rotherham.

It was reported that there were currently no purpose built indoor bowling facilities in Rotherham.  Also the English Indoor Bowling Association currently considered that indoor bowling facilities were required in a number of areas and they had highlighted Rotherham and Sheffield as ‘Areas of High Priority'

It was explained that it was proposed to put together detailed project proposals and to seek to work with a private sector partner to bring an indoor bowling venue to Rotherham.

The formation of a steering group would oversee the development of the proposal, and this would be chaired by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services.

Resolved:-  (1)  That approval is given to develop proposals to bring an indoor bowling venue to Rotherham.

(2) That a Project Steering Group be formed, chaired by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services, to monitor progress and oversee the development of a Rotherham indoor bowling facility.

-           to consider attendance.

Consideration was given to attendance at the following:-

-           Planning Convention – 9^th to 11^th July, 2008 – London

Resolved:- (1)  That approval be given for the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Board to attend.

-           RTPI – Planning Summer School – August/September 2008

– St. Andrew’s, Scotland

(2)  That approval be given for 2 places at the Planning Summer School and;-

(i)   details be provided for all members of the Planning Board.

(ii) the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development approves attendance.

Steve Hallsworth, Leisure Services Manager, to report

-           to consider names for the four new sport and leisure facilities.

Consideration was given to a report, presented jointly by the Director of Culture and Leisure Services and the Leisure Services Manager, relating to the naming of the new sport and leisure facilities which were currently being designed, built and managed in partnership with DC Leisure Management.

Reference was made to the need for simplicity, ability to be used for marketing and to identify Rotherham as a national venue.

Resolved:-  That the four new Sport and Leisure Facilities be named as follows:-

-                      Aston cum Aughton Leisure Centre

-                      Maltby Leisure and Services Centre

-                      Rotherham Leisure Complex

-                      Wath upon Dearne Leisure Centre

The following items are likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under those Paragraphs, indicated below, of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended March 2006).

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those Paragraphs, indicated below, of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended March, 2006).

Gary Gaunt, Project Manager, Asset Management, to report.

-           to report the requirement for a Depot Review, and to consider initial recommendations.

 (Exempt under Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Act – information relating to financial/business affairs and labour relations matters)

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Projects and Partnerships Manager, which set out the requirement for a Depot Review, and which provided option valuations of existing stock, and initial recommendations.

An explanation was given of the background to the need for a Depot Review, and the need to now consolidate the depot provision.  Reference was made to the Greasbrough Road Depot and to the loss of service due to the 2007 floods and to the estimated cost to effect improvements to that depot.

Reference was made to the following:-

•         option valuations of existing stock and anticipated capital receipt from disposals, and the possibility of ring fencing receipts to fund the acquisition of a ‘Super Depot’.

•         availability of a town centre site which was considered to be of the right size, topography and location.

•         the requirement for a Planning Application to be submitted

•         traffic implications which would need to be assessed

•         changed employment pattern and welfare facilities

•         establishment of a working group and its terms of reference

It was reported that it was intended to report to the Regeneration and Asset Board in the Autumn 2008.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the background to and the requirement for a Depot Review be noted.

(2)  That support be given to exploring the use of land at Masborough as a ‘Super Depot’, as identified in the report now submitted.

(3)  That approval be given for a review to be carried out.

(4) That an End User Working Group be established comprising representatives from:-

-                      Asset Management

-                      Streetpride, including Ringway

-                      Neighbourhoods

-                      2010 Rotherham Ltd

-                      Corporate Transport

(5)  That the Director of Asset Management commences negotiations with the agents of the available site (as detailed in the report submitted), and reports progress with the review and the negotiations to a future meeting and to the Regeneration and Asset Board.

(Exempt under Paragraphs 1, 3 and 7 – staffing, financial/business affairs and labour relations)

-           to note the outcome of the Panel.

Consideration was given to the notes and decisions of a Stage 3 Complaint Panel held on 24th April, 2008.

Resolved:-  That the notes be received and decisions noted.