Agenda and minutes

- to record the action of the Cabinet Member

Resolved:-  That the action of the Cabinet Member on 31^st May, 2011 in opening offers and e-tenders for the following be recorded:-

-          Former Queen Street Depot, Queen Street, Dinnington – offers

-          Swinton Fitzwilliam Primary School lift – e-tenders

Consideration was given to a report relating to the receipt of a petition relating to the operation of the residents’ parking scheme at Clifton Bank.

Resolved:-  That the receipt of the petition be noted, and the petition referred to Parking Services for investigation and a report to a future meeting of the Cabinet Member for Town Centres, Economic Growth and Prosperity.

Andy Butler, Senior Engineer, to report.

-  to inform the Cabinet Member of the receipt of a petition requesting residents’ only parking and report investigation of the issues raised.

Further to Minute No. 96 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Development held on 17^th September, 2007, consideration was given to a report, presented by the Transportation Unit Manager, informing the Cabinet Member of the receipt of a petition, containing 32 signatures from residents, requesting residents’ only parking on St. Ann’s Road and Bramwell Street, Eastwood.

Reference was made to previous concerns about non residential parking on the periphery of the town centre which lead to proposals for residents’ only parking in the Eastwood North (including St Ann’s Road and Bramwell Street) and the Eastwood South areas being developed.

It was pointed out that, following extensive consultations, a majority of Eastwood North residents rejected the proposals. Therefore a residents’ parking scheme was only implemented in the Eastwood South area.

It was explained that St Ann’s Road and Bramwell Street could not be considered in isolation. As any non residential parking would be displaced into the adjacent streets it would be necessary to look at the whole of the Eastwood North Area.  However, due to reductions in the Local Transport Plan Integrated Transport block funding, there were insufficient resources available to undertake a further study and investigation to consider if a residents’ parking scheme should be established in the Eastwood North area.

Reference was also made to the cost of implementing, administering and enforcing a residents’ parking scheme.

It was also considered  there was a very high risk that such a proposal would fail again due to the high level of public opposition that the earlier consultations established.

In view of the above it was recommended that the request for residents’ parking on St. Ann’s Road and Bramwell Street should not be acceded to.

The submitted report set out the detailed investigation into the issues raised and the conclusions reached.

Consideration was also given to representation from a Ward No. 12 (Rotherham East) Councillor.

Resolved:-  That the petition be not acceded to and the lead petitioner be informed accordingly.

Ryan Shepherd, Senior Planner, to report.

-  to report the background to the consultation and consider the suggested response.

Consideration was given to a report, presented by the Senior Planner, relating to consultation regarding the Government’s proposals to relax planning rules re:  the amendment of planning rules to allow changes of use from commercial (B use classes) to residential use (C3 use classes) and from shops (A1) and financial and professional services (A2) to mixed use of A1 or A2 plus more than one flat without the need for planning applications.

Deadline for the submission of responses was 30^th June, 2011.

The report set out:-

-          the background to the consultation

-          details of the proposed changes

-          aims of the changes – noting primarily to bring redundant commercial premises back into use

-          potential benefits

-          Building Regulations and Development Control

-          Environmental health and safety considerations

-          potential impacts and risks

-          options on which the Government was consulting

-          the Council’s proposed response

-          possible financial implications

-          the suggested RMBC response (appended to the submitted report)

Following further discussion a proposed altered response to question C of the government consultation on relaxing planning regulations was suggested as follows re:-

“Question C:

Do you agree that these proposals should also include a provision which allows land to revert to its previous use within five years of a change?

No

Comments:

Switching between two very different land uses would prove difficult to manage in the interests of both businesses and residents.  For example, it would not be desirable to allow a reversion to Class B use on sites where more than one dwelling has been provided within the building or on the land because of the potential adverse impact on the remaining residents; issues such as noise, odour, security and parking would need to be properly addressed. 

Reversion would also have implications for enforcement and could prove to be very complex, such as when extensions and alterations are carried out to a building, we would need to establish whether the use was residential or commercial in order to decide whether the works were permitted development.  This proposal would also compromise our ability to monitor the supply of housing and industrial land.”

Members present commented on:-

-          danger of overcrowding sites

-          possible conversion of a number of existing premises within the borough

-          location of premises within industrial estates and issues such as noise

-          safeguards through Building and Development Control and Environmental Health

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

(2)  That the submission of the comments, including the amendment detailed above and as set out at Appendix A, be approved as Rotherham’s response to this Government consultation.