Agenda and minutes

-           to receive the minutes.

The following report was submitted:-

Tourism Panel

Monday, 15th September, 2008

-           to receive the minutes.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Tourism Forum held on 18^th September, 2008.

Resolved:-  That the minutes be received.

-           to note the work in progress, and receive the minutes.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Local Development Framework Members’ Steering Group held on 19^th September, 2008.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the emerging issues and progress made be noted.

(2)  That the minutes be received.

-           to receive the minutes.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the RMBC Transport Liaison Group held on 22^nd September, 2008.

Resolved:-  That the minutes be received.

-           to consider attendance.

Consideration was given to attendance at the following:-

TRA – New Workshops for Planning/DC Committees – ‘Good Practice for Planning/Development Control Committees’ – York – 8^th & 9^th December, 2008.

Resolved:-  That approval be given for the attendance of two Elected Members.

Ryan Shepherd, to report.

-           to authorise adoption of the Interim Planning Statement.

Further to Minute No. 246 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services held on 21^st April, 2008, consideration was given to a report, presented by the Senior Planner, relating to the production of a final Interim Planning Statement for Rotherham Town Centre which had taken account of comments received during consultation on the draft version.

Authorisation was sought to adopt the final document as an Interim Planning Statement.

Details of the consultation carried out, together with the main issues identified, were set out in the report.

The report also contained details of proposed main changes to the Interim Planning Statement, and comments relating to the weight and status of the document.

It was noted that the proposed Interim Planning Statement would form part of the Local Development Framework evidence base.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the adoption of the Interim Planning Statement be approved to be taken into account when determining planning applications.

(2)  That the Interim Planning Statement form part of the Local Development Framework evidence base.

(3)  That the report be referred to the Planning Board for information.

Peter Thornborrow, Conservation & Urban Design Officer, to report.

-           to consider the proposed extension to the Town Centre Conservation Area.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Conservation and Urban Design Officer, relating to the forthcoming departure of the NHS Drop-in Centre from the Doncaster GateHospital, to the new building nearing completion at the rear of Bailey House.

It was reported that this had brought pressure from members of the public and amenity groups for the Planning Department to designate Doncaster Gate as a conservation area amid fears for the demolition of the hospital, or parts of it, thus affording the historic, original part of the hospital and its attractive landscape setting some protection from demolition and insensitive alteration.

During the Summer of 2008 the Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer, with the help of the Assistant Conservation Officer, had both surveyed the area and conducted research into its history and buildings, to consider if the area merited conservation area status, and to produce a map with a defined boundary.

It was now reported that Officers (Conservation Section of Forward Planning) were of the view that the area merited conservation area status, and had  proposed a boundary line.  A map with photographs identifying the principal buildings had been produced (a copy was made available at the meeting). Subsequently an appraisal document had also been produced.

Rather than create a separate conservation area, consideration was given to extending the existing Rotherham Town Centre Conservation Area that this area immediately abuts.

It was noted that Rotherham District currently had 26 conservation areas which would be reviewed in due course. It was pointed out that this proposal would not create a new additional conservation area, but would form an extension to the existing Rotherham Town Centre Conservation Area.

Elected Members present commented on:-

-                      the need to advertise in the London Gazette

-                      buildings in that area which already had planning permission

-                      location of the Civic Theatre and its future use and possible constraints for redevelopment once the new Cultural Quarter had been developed

-                      protection for the view of the Minster from Doncaster Gate

Resolved:-  (1)  That approval be given to the proposed extension of the Rotherham Town Centre Conservation Area to include the buildings fronting Doncaster Gate up to the junction with Clifton Lane, as defined by the boundary shown on the accompanying map.

(2)  That the Conservation Section goes forward with this proposal and initiates a public consultation exercise prior to adoption and formal advertising of the extension in the London Gazette and in the local press.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to receive the petition and correspondence and consider the outline investigations.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, relating to the receipt of a 58 signature petition and 1 associated piece of correspondence regarding parking problems on Byrley Road, Kimberworth Park, requesting that a grassed verge/banking be hardened and turned into parking for residents.

The report outlined officers’ investigations into the following issues:-

-           residents’ inability to park close to their properties

-           alleged road safety issues

Investigation had shown that vehicle speeds in this location were slow due to the problem of vehicles parking on the road.  Also the volume of traffic using this road was not significant with the majority of drivers being local residents.  It was therefore considered that there was not a particular road safety concern at this location.

Further it was reported that funding did not exist within the Local Transport Plan for the creation of residents’ parking spaces by verge hardening.    Reference was made to the significant cost of the works which would be required.

However, it was explained that the costs for this project might be met by residents applying to Rotherham North Area Assembly for funding from the devolved budget, although it was highly likely that the whole of this budget would be used up on this one single project and at the present time the budget had already been allocated to other projects within the Rotherham North area.

Due to these budget implications, although the Service will ask for this scheme to be considered by the Rotherham North Area Assembly, at the present time there were no resources available to investigate the matter further.

Elected Members present commented on the following:-

-                      use of external funding

-                      maintenance responsibilities

-                      other areas throughout the Borough that were under similar pressure

Resolved:-  (1)  That the petition to request that the green verge on Byrley Road be hardened and turned into a parking area for residents be not acceded to.

(2)   That the lead petitioner be informed of the decision and the reasons why.

(3)  That Ward Members be informed accordingly.

(4)  That the Transportation Unit liaise with Neighbourhood Services and the Rotherham North Area Assembly to explore the possibility of external funding.

Richard Baker, Senior Technician, to report.

-           to update the Cabinet Member on further investigation into signalisation.

Further to Minute No. 251 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services held on 21^st April, 2008, consideration was given to a report presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, updating the Cabinet Member on the further investigation into signalising Ravenfield crossroads and seeking approval for implementation of the scheme.

Reference was made to Drawing No.  122/B6093.013-2 attached to the report which illustrated the design of the proposals.  It was reported that sufficient capacity existed within the modelled traffic signalling operation that vehicle and pedestrian needs could both be accommodated.  It was explained that Traffic Regulation Orders were not likely to be involved.

It was proposed to work with the Area Assembly to agree any local requirements e.g. paving etc.

It was reported that the junction had been identified for improvement in the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme, and funding was available from LTP Integrated Transport Budgets.

Resolved:-  That approval be given to the improvements to Ravenfield Crossroads, as shown on Drawing No: 122/B6093.013-2, and detailed design and implementation as part of the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme 2008/09 & 2009/10.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-     to report on the results of a public consultation exercise with regards to conversion of existing loading bays to shared use, together with reporting receipt of an objection to the introduction of on street parking on Hall Street and the receipt of a petition regarding proposed changes to the taxi rank on Main Street Rotherham.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, relating to the results of a public consultation exercise with regards to:-

(i)                   shared use blue badge parking/loading bays – Howard Street and Eastwood Lane

(ii)                 Time limited parking – Hall Street

(iii)                Taxi Rank relocation – Main Street

Reference was also made to receipt of an objection to the introduction of on street parking on Hall Street and the receipt of a petition, submitted by the Hackney Carriage Association, regarding proposed changes to the taxi rank on Main Street.

The Transportation Unit Manager explained in detail the three issues and presented proposed amendments where appropriate (details of which were set out in the submitted report).

Those present were advised that the measures outlined would remove objections to current scheme proposals and that there were no additional funding requirements as a consequence of the proposed changes.

Elected Members referred to the following:-

-                      provision at Howard Street/Eastwood Lane to drop off of disabled from taxis

-                      signage in a language other than English

-                      affect on delivery vehicles

-                      pedestrian safety issues Pool Green roundabout

-                      siting of a hot food take away

Resolved:-  (1)  That with regard to the proposed shared use bays – Howard Street and Eastwood Lane, the objection be acceded to and the bay on Eastwood Lane (Drawing No.126/18/TT391EL1) remain solely for the use of loading and unloading vehicles and the bay on Howard Street is amended so that loading can take place between 4pm and 9am the following morning.

(2)  That with regard to Time limited Parking – Hall Street, the objections be acceded to and the parking be moved from the northern side to the southern side and that the parking restrictions be amended to prohibit return in 2 hours rather 3 hours.

(3)  That with regard to Taxi Rank relocation – Main Street:-

(i)  the receipt of a petition objecting to the relocation of the night time taxi rank on Main Street be acknowledged.

(ii)      the petitioners’ objection to leave the taxi rank in its current location be acceded to.

(4)  That in all cases the objectors/lead petitioner be informed of the above decisions.

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to report and consider objections to bus stop improvements.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, relating to the receipt of objections to proposed bus stop accessibility improvements at the following 5 bus stops on the Rotherham – Dearne  bus key route (QBC):-

Stop 35058 on A633 Blyth Avenue, Rawmarsh;

Stop 30627 on A6022 Rowms Lane, Swinton;

Stop 35405 on Quarry Hill Road, Newhill;

Stop 35779 on Quarry Hill Road, Newhill;

Stop 30802 on Cemetery Road, Newhill;

Details of the specific objections were set out in the report.

It was pointed out that the accessibility improvements were being carried out by the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive to bring 29 stops to ‘benchmark’ standards.  Officers considered that, because the improvements will impose a restriction on parking and loading, the Cabinet Member should be informed of the concerned raised.

It was reported that the cost of the accessibility improvements would be covered by the SYPTE Local Transport Plan allocation for 2008/2009.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the objections received to the bus stop accessibility improvements at bus stops 35779 and 35405 on Quarry Hill Lane, Newhill; 30802 Cemetery Road, Newhill; 35058 on the Blyth Avenue (A633), Rawmarsh; and 30627 Rowms Lane (A6022), Swinton be not acceded to.

(2)  That the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive and the Council inform the residents of the reasons why.

(3)  That the works to implement the accessibility improvements be undertaken.

Bernadette Rushton, Assistant Town Centre Manager, to report.

-           to consider the update.

Further to Minute No.  224 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services held on 17^th March, 2008, consideration was given to a report, presented by the Assistant Town Centre Manager, which set out an update on the policy amendments recommended following an interim review of the Town Centre Spaces Policy.

It was reported that following the implementation of the policy on 1^st June, 2008 a number of issues had come to light relating to the following:-

-                      Charitable collections and public fundraising

-                      Direct debit collections and ‘harassment’ of the public

-                      the need for two licences (one for permission for a street collection and another for the pitch)

-                      current enforcement through Highways legislation

-                      awaited implementation of legislation – the Charities Act 2006

-                      licensed pitches for town centre events and charging for staff time

-                      decommissioning of the fountain outside the markets entrance

-                      public realm works for the redevelopment of the market square

-                      mobile catering units – enforcement of conditions of licence

Resolved:-  (1)  That the content of the report, in particular the updates relating to Charitable Collections, Events and Mobile Catering Units be noted.

(2)  That, with regard to charitable collections and direct debit collections:-  a joint meeting be arranged between the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services and the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods to discuss issues relating to both the Town Centre Management and Licensing Section.

(3)  That, with regard to charging for staff time to oversee events organised by external parties:-  the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services discuss the issue with the Strategic Director, Environment and Development Services.

(4)  That, with regard to Mobile Catering Units:-  the license for pitch 1 be revisited at the end of October, should the conditions still not be met.

(5)  That efforts be made to link the decommissioning of the fountain with the anticipated public realm works in order to create one scheme.

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 Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended March 2006) (financial/business affairs).

Ken Wheat, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

-           to report receipt of the petition and seek authority to investigate.

(Exempt under Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Act – identify of individuals/business/financial affairs)

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, relating to receipt of a petition from local residents alleging that parking permits for the Eastwood South Residents’ parking scheme were being used by a shopkeeper and his employees.  It was reported that this address was outside the aforementioned parking zone.

It was noted that Streetpride Services had been asked to investigate the alleged misuse.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the petition be received

(2)  That Streetpride Parking Services investigate the allegations of residents’ parking permit misuse and undertake appropriate enforcement action if the misuse can be verified, and submit a report to a future meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development Services.

(3)  That the petitioners be informed accordingly.

Tim Devine, Development Surveyor, to report.

-           to consider the lifting of the restrictive covenant.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act – business/financial affairs)

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Development Promotion Manager, relating to the construction of Phase 2 of the BrookfieldsPark development at Manvers Way, Wath upon Dearne. 

It was reported that the lease contained Restrictive Covenants regarding the construction of additional starter units. However, the market in this sector had failed and approximately 50% of the space already built remained un-let.  The developer had a significant inward investor wanting to relocate on the site and had requested the removal of the lease covenant in order to facilitate the construction of a large unit for the new investor company.

Consideration was therefore given to the removal of the existing restrictive covenant in the lease of Phase 2 by way of a Deed of Variation to allow the new development for an inward investment to go ahead.

Resolved:-  That approval be given for the removal of the Restrictive Covenant for the reasons stated in the report.