Agenda and minutes

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Health, Welfare and Safety Panel held on 15^th January, 2010.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of a meeting of the Members’ Sustainable Development Advisory Group held on 5^th March 2010.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Tom Finnegan-Smith, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Acting Transportation Unit Manager concerning the award of a grant for cycle training from the Department of Transport via Cycling England and a 1 year extension of the existing cycle training contract.

The Council had been informed by the DfT and Cycling England that they had been successful in securing funding of £68,000 for 2010/11.

Cycling England required a small element of match funding towards the capital grant, and therefore £10,048 would be allocated from the LTP Integrated Transport capital programme for 2010/11.  In return for a modest outlay from the capital programme our combined cycle training budget for 2010/11 would be £78,048.

Cycle Training in Rotherham was delivered by Cycle Experience who provided accredited National Standard Cycle Training for the Borough’s school pupils and our adult population.  They were appointed to deliver cycling in April 2009 on a two year contract.  The award of the second year of the contract was subject to satisfactory performance in year one.  It was noted that that Cycle Experience had exceeded expectations and would be asked to continue providing cycle training until the completion of the contract in April 2011.

A discussion took place around the facilities available in schools for children to store their bicycles should they choose to cycle.  A query was raised as to how many schools provided cycle bays for children and it was agreed that this would be investigated and reported back to members.

Resolved:- (1) That the content of the report be noted.

(2) That work be undertaken to establish the number of schools providing cycle bays for children wishing to cycle to school.

Tom Finnegan-Smith, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

The Acting Transportation Unit Manager presented the submitted report which outlined the Council’s proposed LTP capital programme for 2010/2011, as part of the countywide programme.

Integrated Transport

As in the 2008/09 financial year, 50% of the Integrated Transport block had been allocated to the Passenger Transport Authority for sub-regional/strategic proposals across South Yorkshire.  This funding was referred to as the South Yorkshire Strategic Fund and included work on key bus corridors, congestion schemes to progress the Congestion Delivery Plan and the “worst-first” road safety project and the supplementary programme of works that supports the Objective 1 programme.

An exercise had been undertaken by the four South Yorkshire Local Authorities and the SYPTE to determine which schemes the Strategic Fund should treat as a priority, and Rotherham had had £3,066,761 approved for programme entry for 2010/11.

In addition, there would be spending on some jointly promoted county-wide schemes in Rotherham, which resulted in Rotherham’s local programme no longer including work on the Key Bus Routes or on larger congestion schemes.

The remaining £11.62m had been apportioned as previous years, resulting in Rotherham being allocated £2,277,000 for 2010/11 for its own local priority schemes.

The provisional programme for 2010/11, including the strategic allocation and partnership schemes to be carried out within the Borough was included within the report.

Maintenance

The allocation of Local Transport Plan capital expenditure for maintenance for Rotherham was £2,515,832 in 2010/11.  This had been allocated as follows:

Highway Maintenance                        £1,733,409

Bridge Maintenance                              £650,774

Street Lighting                                       £131,649

Funding of £5,000,000 had been allocated over three years towards Highway Maintenance from the Councils capital funds, of which £1.5m was programmed to be spent during 2010/11.

In addition, £583,000 (provisional budget) of Council revenue funding had been allocated to Highway Maintenance during the 2010/11 programme.

Bridge Assessment

The programme for Bridge Assessment and Strengthening included the ongoing principal inspections, other investigation works and development of Asset Management as well as repair works on a number of bridges, footbridges and underpasses.

Street Lighting

This year £131,649 had been allocated from the LTP for improvements to the street lighting stock in Rotherham.

It was noted that this would be the last year for significant funding for the LTP and as of next year this would be cut by 40%.  The Acting Transportation Unit Manager agreed to provide an update report on programme delivery on a quarterly basis to keep the Cabinet Member informed.

Resolved:- (1)  That the specific allocations for Integrated Transport and for Maintenance for 2010/11 be noted.

(2) That the principle of the proposed programme detailed in the appendices be agreed as the basis for detailed design and implementation during 2010/11.

Matthew Lowe, Engineer, to report.

Consideration was given to a report which informed the Cabinet Member of objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on Boston Castle Grove and Boston Castle Terrace relating to the introduction of a Residents’ Parking Scheme.

In outline, the parking scheme sought to introduce parking restrictions on Boston Castle Grove and Boston Castle Terrace to ensure the free and safe movement of all traffic.  Currently parked vehicles could cause access problems to large vehicles and due to the width of the road, vehicles were frequently parked on the footway.

At the request of the Chair of the Boston Castle Park Project Board, a meeting had been held between Ward Members, Residents and Officers from the Transportation Unit to discuss residents concerns to the scheme.

The TRO for the proposed residents’ parking scheme was advertised on 18^th December 2009 and six weeks were given for any objections to be made.  At the same time a letter was sent to all properties on Boston Castle Grove and Boston Castle Terrace containing a copy of the notice and plan of the proposed scheme.

A total of six objections were received in response to the notice and letter and these were summarised as follows:

• It was suggested that Thomas Rotherham College be provided with a new access point directly off Moorgate Road.  Confirmation was given that Thomas Rotherham College had already applied for planning permission for an additional access directly off Moorgate Road which had been refused partially on the grounds that the additional access “would introduce a further point of potentially conflicting vehicular turning movements in the busy classified road to the detriment of the free and safe flow of other traffic”
• Two residents objected as they had no off road parking and it would prevent them from parking outside their house during the day.  In addition the proposed residents’ only parking spaces were too remote from their house and would exacerbate problems that they currently had with vandalism to their vehicles.
• One resident objected stating that the problems were caused purely as a result of Rotherham Thomas College.  Also they commented that waiting restrictions would not solve the problem as these were frequently ignored.
• One resident raised concern that the proposed scheme would reduce the value of their house by tens of thousands of pounds.
• One resident objected stating that it was possible to allow parking on Boston Castle Grove and there still be enough room for large vehicles, such as refuse wagons, delivery lorries and buses to pass safely.  Confirmation was given that it was not wide enough along the majority of its length to allow roadside parking and leave enough space for large vehicles.  The road width varied between 4.55m and 4.72m and to allow roadside parking and safe passage of a large vehicle a minimum width of 4.75m was required.

A letter was also received from the Thomas Rotherham College supporting the scheme.

Resolved:- (1) That the objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Lucy Mitchell, Principal Project Officer, to report.

Consideration was given to a report concerning the Rotherham Central Station Redevelopment.

A business case for the project had been submitted to Yorkshire Forward and ERDF to secure their investment and was approved at their Board meeting on 23^rd July 2009.  The project had now started on site and was expected to be completed January 2011.

As part of the proposals for the station’s transformation, it was anticipated that an improved station gateway to the town centre would be created (to reflect the renaissance aspirations) and improved turning facilities to the station car park would be provided.

In order to achieve this, the Council were in the process of acquiring the adjacent land from British Waterways under Section 120 of the Local Government Act 1972.  The property currently comprised of a 2 storey former grain warehouse and canal embankment which was largely overgrown with vegetation, extending to approximately 0.11 hectares.  Immediately fronting the canal there was a level area which gave access to boat moorings.

Knight Frank had prepared a land (and building) valuation, concluding that the freehold interest for the land was £60,000 and negotiations with British waterways on the heads of terms for the land acquisition had now been concluded with a purchase price of £60,000 having been agreed.

However, during these negotiations, British Waterways requested that an area of land previously included, be excluded to enable mooring opportunities in this location and access to them.  This area was detailed on a plan attached to the report which would not form the basis of the land purchase.

The retention of this area of land by British Waterways would not affect the value of the land, was not necessary for the improvements to be delivered and reduced the council’s future maintenance liabilities.  It was therefore considered acceptable to the Council.

Resolved:- That the amended plan be agreed as the basis for the land purchase from British Waterways.

Tom Finnegan-Smith, Transportation Unit Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Acting Transportation Unit Manager concerning Mobile Vehicle Activated Sign and Vehicle Activated Sign/Speed Indicator Device criteria.

Vehicle Activated Signs had been developed to address the problem of inappropriate speed where conventional signing had not been effective.  The signs themselves only activate when vehicles were detected travelling above a preset level, as determined by the Engineer, during all other times the sign face remained blank.

Guidelines had been developed to assist with identifying suitable sites for vehicle activated signs/speed indicator devices, and it was proposed to use these criteria to assess all future proposals/requests to use such signs.

Following a review of speeding complaints from members of the public a number of locations had now been assessed against the criteria and identified as being suitable for use of the Mobile Vehicle Activated Sign.  These locations were:

-                      Woodsetts Road, NorthAnston

-                      Penny Piece Lane, NorthAnston

-                      High Hazel Road, Treeton

-                      Swinston Hill Road, Dinnington

-                      Church Lane, Dinnington

-                      Blyth Road, Maltby

The proposed sign would display the speed limit of the road, and when vehicles were detected travelling above the present threshold level would inform motorists to ‘slow down’.  Once vehicles had passed the sign their speed would be recorded and stored on an internal memory enabling the information to be downloaded.

In addition, further sites were to be investigated with a view to adding them to the list above, if considered suitable.

Once it was confirmed that the sign was operating correctly steps would be taken to move it around the sites listed.  It was likely that the sign would be deployed at each site for approximately 4-6 weeks before being moved to another location.  The effectiveness of the sign would be assessed in terms of the actual speed reduction of traffic and feedback from Area Assemblies.

Should the sign prove to be successful, consideration would be given to providing additional signs which would be subject to a future Cabinet Member report.

Resolved:- (1) That approval be given for this Mobile Vehicle Activated Sign to be used at the locations identified

(2) That the Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) (permanent and mobile) and Speed Indicator Device (SID) criteria be endorsed.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Planning Manager concerning the establishment of a framework for the introduction of charges for property addressing.  In order to do this the following issues were considered:

The Public Health Act 1925 - Street Naming

Section 17 of the Act requires that before any street is given a name, notice of the proposed name shall be sent to the Council by the person (usually a developer) proposing to name the street. The Council would then have one month to object to the proposed name. If the person proposing to name the street disagrees with any objection made by the Council, there is a right of appeal to the local Magistrates’ Court. This provision would give the Council control over new street names proposed for use within its area.

Section 18 of the Act enables the Council to alter the name of a street, or part of a street or, if a name has not been given to it, to give a name to the street, or part of it. Any aggrieved person has a right of appeal to the changes proposed to a local Magistrates’ Court.

Section 19 of the Act requires the name of every street to be marked in a conspicuous position in or near the street (e.g. by street name plates) and specifies the penalty that can be imposed on any individual who interferes with it.

The South Yorkshire Act 1980 – Property Numbering

Section 15 of the Act enables the Council to allocate, alter and enforce the display of property numbers. Subsection 5 of the Act allows the Council to require that a building be marked with some other form of identification instead of a number, if it decides that this is more appropriate.

Formal Process for Adoption of The Acts

Once the legislation is adopted, the Council will have the option to charge for its Street Naming and Numbering Service as the provisions are discretionary (under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003).

The statutory notices referred to in the report and which require advertisement, are to inform the public of the intended adoption and are not part of a consultative process. In this regard, there is no right of appeal or objection, following due advertisement, for any person who may take issue with the proposed adoption.

The statutory notices will, if members agree, be advertised for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. Following this, a reportwill be submitted to full Council to consider adoption of the Acts. If adoption takes place, the introduction of charges can take place.

The Statutory Basis for Charging

The Local Government Act 2003

Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 enables local authorities to charge for the provision of discretionary services but on a cost recovery basis only in relation to each kind of service and taking one financial year with another so as to allow for any adjustment, if in a preceding year, there is a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Robin Lambert, Markets General Manager, to report.

The Markets General Manager presented the submitted report concerning the annual review of Centenary Market Fees and Charges.

A consultative meeting had been held on 24^th February 2010 where market trader representatives requested that the Fees and Charges be reduced or frozen as many traders were suffering hardship during the current economic climate.

Whilst reduction in the rent was not possible under the conditions of the existing indoor market tenancy agreements and not feasible on the outdoor markets in order to maintain current services standards, consideration of a temporary freezing of charges was explored.

All parties at the meeting agreed that although there were early signs of improvement in trading levels and renewed interest in stall uptake, an increase in charges at this time could have a detrimental effect on this improvement.

It was therefore agreed that a freeze on charges for six month be proposed with a further review taking place at the end of this period.  If the trading conditions were to improve an increase in charges may then be possible.

It was further agreed by all parties that the trader car parking charge be increase by 10%.

Resolved:- (1) That the Fees and Charges as identified in appendix 1 be frozen for the first six months of the financial year 2010/11

(2) That a further review of the fees and charges be carried out in September 2010.

(3) That the charge relating to the trader car parking be increased by 10% from April 2010.

Robin Lambert, Markets General Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Markets General Manager concerning the annual review of Fairs Charges.

An increase in rent of 3% per annum was proposed on the following fairs, raising charges for each fair as follows:-

·        Wath Bonfire Ground increase from £174.00 per day to £179.50

·        Thurcroft Recreation Ground increase from £74.50 per day to £76.75

These fairs were not held in 2008 or 2009 due to antisocial behaviour problems, application had been made for 2010.

·        Kimberworth St. Pauls Fields increase from £84.20 per day to £86.75

·        Thornhill Recreation Ground increase from £178.50 per day to £184.00

Permission for this fair was granted in 2008 & 2009 but the fair was not held due to inclement weather.

·        Rawmarsh Victoria Park increase from £207.00 per day to £213.25

·        MaltbyCraggs increase from £ 110.80 per day to £114.00

·        Greasborough Recreation Ground increase from £178.50 per day to £184.00

This new fair in 2009 prompted numerous complaints from local residents prior to the fair but none at all during or after the event.

·        Rotherham Show increase of 3.0% on all equipment charges.

·        Clifton Park no increase in charge be considered as both fairs for 2010 were subject to relocation due to park refurbishment.

·        Spring Fair HPF no increase in charge as this fair is already charged much higher than all others. The operator had previously applied for a reduction in the rent.

Resolved:- That 3% per annum increases be approved as itemised above with effect from 1^st April 2010.

Robin Lambert, Markets General Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Markets General Manager concerning applications for the operation of Farmer/Craft Markets within the Borough.

Applications has been received or were expected for the following Farmers/Craft events in 2010 :-

·        Victoria Park Rawmarsh – Easter, May Spring Bank and August Bank Holiday Markets – Partnership operation with Culture & Leisure Services.                

Shared Income.

·        Wentworth Garden Centre Victorian Market December 2010.

£25.00 Licence fee.

·        Rosehill Victoria Park Family Fun weekend. This was a proposed event to replace the event previously held at Rothervalley Country Park.                                              

Partnership operation with Culture & Leisure Services.

Shared Income.

·        Clifton Park Christmas Festival – 12^th December. Partnership operation with Culture & Leisure Services.

Shared Income.

·        Whiston Parish Council Summer and Christmas Craft Market -dates to be confirmed.

£25.00 Licence fee.per event

·        Thrybergh Country Park Christmas Extravaganza December 2010.      Partnership operation with Culture & Leisure Services.

Shared Income.

Resolved:- That approval be granted for the operation of Farmers/Craft type markets as itemised above.

- Matthew Lowe, Engineer, to report

Consideration was given to a report concerning the proposed revision to the method of assessing requests for controlled pedestrian crossings to make it more responsive to community needs.

A review had been undertaken into the effectiveness of the revised assessment method which was agreed in February 2006.

It was proposed to add three modification factors to the assessment method to take account of:

• Community demand for a crossing; where there were three or more requests for a crossing, that a modification factor of 1.1 would be applied and where a petition had been received a factor of 1.2 would be applied
• The potential to improve access to the bus service; if the crossing would improve access to public transport, a modification factor of 1.1 would be applied
• The number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) using the road.  Larger vehicles can be intimidating to pedestrians and can make it harder to cross; if there were between 2% and 5% HGV a modification factor of 1.1 should be used, and between 5% and 10% HGV a factor of 1.2 should be used and above 10% HGV a factor of 1.3 should be used.

In addition to these changes it was proposed that:

·        When an existing signal controlled crossing was due for refurbishment or its location would be subject to significant maintenance a review be undertaken to establish if the crossing is still required or if the right type of crossing was in place.  This review should then be used to inform potential changes at the site.

Resolved:- (1) That the revision to the assessment method be adopted

(2) That all requests made for controlled pedestrian crossings in the last 18 months be reassessed against the proposed criteria.

The following items are likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended March 2006) (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular individual (including the Council)):-

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).

Tim O’Connell, Business Development Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Business Development Manager concerning Town Centre Business Grants.

The report sought approval to award Rental Contribution and Capital Grant, under the Town Centre Business Vitality Scheme to support the establishment of a new prom wear business on Moorgate Street.

Resolved:- (1) That the rental contribution be awarded to this project to provide a contribution of 50% of annual rent in year one and 25% of annual rental in year two.

(2) That a Capital Improvement Grant be awarded to this project to cover 75% of total cost of eligible works (excluding VAT, up to a maximum grant payment of £7,500 in respect of fitting out and shop front sign writing.

Tim O’Connell, Business Development Manager, to report.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Business Development Manager concerning Town Centre Business Grants.

The report sought approval to award Rental Contribution and Capital Grant, under the Town Centre Business Vitality Scheme to support the establishment of a new menswear shop in Imperial Buildings.

Resolved:- (1) That the rental contribution be awarded to this project to provide a contribution of 50% of annual rent in year one and 25% of annual rental in year two.

(2) That an additional capital grant to cover the fit out of an additional retail unit as detailed in the report be approved to a maximum sum of £5,000.