Agenda and minutes

No Declarations of Interest were made. 

The minutes of two previous meetings of the Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods held on 1^st and 8^th December, 2014, were considered.

Resolved: -  That the minutes of the previous meetings be agreed as a correct record. 

The minutes of the meeting of the RMBC Transport Liaison Group meeting held on 3^rd December, 2014, were considered.

Resolved: -  That the minutes of the previous meeting be noted. 

The Director for Housing, Asset Management and Neighbourhood Services (Environment and Development Services Directorate) presented a report seeking to enter into consultation with all council housing tenants on a proposed new Tenancy Agreement, the contract between the Council and the Tenant that set out respective rights and responsibilities.

The report noted that the previous revision to Tenancy Agreements had taken place in 2008.  The proposed consultation would include reference to the Localism Act (2011) and would cover lifetime tenancies as well as introductory tenants and fixed-term tenants. 

The process that the consultation would follow, including stages, actions and target date was considered.  This would allow tenants to comment on proposed variations within a time period specified by the landlord.  The Council was bound to take into account any considerations presented.  Failure to do so would void the variation.

There must be at least four weeks between the date variations would take effect and notification of the variation to tenants.

Stage two – preliminary notice of variation highlighting changes to the Tenancy Agreement that tenants should have regard to – was planned for the end of January, 2015.  This stage would cost approximately £60,000 for printing and postage costs.  This was not anticipated when the Housing Revenue Account budgets for 2013/2014 were set, however, costs would be met from forecasted savings within the supervision and management budget. 

Appendix two showed the proposed changes to Tenancy Agreements.  This included whether the changes had been re-written, were wholly new or where additions were proposed. 

Discussion was held and the Director for Housing, Asset Management and Neighbourhood Services outlined the proposed changes.  The Cabinet Member asked that the Director give consideration to consulting at the same time on bringing rent into a 52 week payment system.  It currently operated over 48 weeks.  

Resolved:-  (1)  That the draft Tenancy Agreement be noted and approval be given so that it can be the subject of consultation with all of the Borough’s Council Housing Tenants, including the addition mentioned above.

(2)  That the costs of issuing the Preliminary Notice of Variation and Notice of Variation at approximately £60,000 be noted, and that they will be met from forecasted savings.

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Transportation and Highways Projects Manager (Environment and Development Services) that outlined the latest award of the Local Sustainable Transport Funding (LSTF2) for 2015/2016 and the associated transport projects to be funded in Rotherham. 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, along with Barnsley, Doncaster, Sheffield and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, had received three successive grants after bidding into the Government’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund via the Integrated Transport Authority.  

Following the latest bidding round in the Spring, 2014, the Department for Transport awarded South Yorkshire a further £4.72 million to continue and refine existing revenue funded LSTF projects in 2015/2016.  South Yorkshire was considered to be best practice and exemplar. 

The projects funded in the current bid were: -

·         Cycleboost (Cycle Hubs);

·         Job Connector Bus Service;

·         South Yorkshire Wheels to Work;

·         Travel Choices;

·         Safe and Sustainable Travel;

·         Eco Stars;

·         Transport Academy;

·         Electric Vehicles Plugged in Project;

·         South Yorkshire Intelligent Transport System;

·         Inmotion.

The funding for the projects in 2015/2016, showing the LSTF2, match funding was considered, along with the total Rotherham benefit and the Rotherham funded match (£129,250).  The majority of match funding required in Rotherham was met from Partners, including Sustrans, British Cycling, local bike retailers and suppliers and added-value from service providers.  The remaining £25,000 would be met from the 2015/2016 Local Transport Plan allocation. 

Discussions were underway on funding options for some of the Rotherham LSTF2 projects and legacy issues.

Discussion ensued and the following points were raised: -

·         Available capital funding for 2015/2016 – a further report would be brought to the Cabinet Member in due course that outlined future years’ capital allocations, which were expected to drop significantly in the short-term;

·         Monitoring of the projects for impact and success;

·         Was there a strong appetite for cycling in Rotherham and how was this funding enabling cycling.

Resolved: - (1) That the report be received and its content noted.

(2)  That the LSTF2 be supported and the Department for Transport endorsed programme of works commence by April, 2015. 

Consideration was given the report presented by the Transportation and Highways Projects Manager (Environment and Development Services Directorate) that outlined the actions taken following receipt of a petition from the Maltby Town Council stating ‘petition against the increasing traffic and the speed at which they drive on the roads through Maltby, i.e. Tickhill Road, High Street, Rotherham Road etc.  Tickhill wants to go back to 30’.  Sixty-six signatures had signed the petition which was accepted on 1^st December, 2014 (Minute Number J.71 refers). 

The report noted that speed limits were set in accordance with the Department for Transport Circular Roads 1/2013, entitled ‘Setting Local Speed Limits’.  The factors suitable for 40mph roads were noted, and, as the A631 from the M18 Motorway through Hellaby until close to the junction with Harvest Close was bordered primarily by industrial and retail land, had minimal junctions or residential frontage, the 40 mph speed limit was in accordance with the Guidance. 

From Harvest Close the speed limit defaulted to 30mph until it changed back to 40mph near to Strauss Crescent to the east of Maltby.  The 30mph limit passed through areas with direct residential frontages and retail activity in the centre of Maltby, including on-street parking and substantial pedestrian movements across the road.  The section of 40mph were where residential properties were set-back from the road and there were pedestrian refuges present to assist pedestrians across the A631. 

The submitted report outlined that a speed survey had been undertaken on the 40 mph speed limit near to Lumley Crescent.  This resulted in 35mph average speed towards Maltby, and 37mph towards Tickhill.  This demonstrated that motorists were travelling at speeds commensurate to the speed limit.  To support lowering the speed limit, the average speed would have to be below 35mph. 

Collision records showed that of the injury accident database for the last three years within the 40mph on the A631 Tickhill Road, only one slight injury accident had been recorded, which had been during a period of snow falling when one vehicle slid into another. 

Speed surveys had been undertaken on Tickhill Road near Hamilton Road, and on Rotherham Road near to Dunstan Road in the 30 mph zone.  The 85 percentile was recorded at 31mph for both directions on Tickhill Road and 32 mph and 33mph on Rotherham Road.  This suggests that there was good compliance with the speed limit in those areas.

South Yorkshire Police operated mobile safety camera enforcement between Blythe Road and Addison Road.  South Yorkshire Safety Cameras had been informed of the petition and had indicated that the enforcement of the speed limit in the area did not result in many offences being captured.  This suggested that there was good compliance with the speed limit. 

Traffic volume on the A631 had been assessed and had seen both increases and reductions.  Whilst recent slight increases had been seen, they were significantly below the levels recorded in 2006. 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the result of the investigation into the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

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 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the local authority).

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 Paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (information relates to financial or business affairs, including those of the Council and information relating to legal professional privilege).

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Procurement Category Manager that outlined the tender process for the provision of Floor Covering Services to Rotherham’s Housing, Asset Management Neighbourhood Services, through the Housing Renewal Account.

The submitted report outlined the procurement and tendering process that had been followed and the assessment of the bids that had been received, including additional benefits like apprenticeships and utilising the local supplier base for the contract.  The contract agreement would run over four years, which would be renewed annually subject to satisfactory performance. 

Four bids had been invited to tender and the report outlined the performance of the bids and how they had been graded.

A ten day standstill period was applied to all tenderers upon notification of the preferred bidder.  Should any provider believe they had been treated unfairly in the procurement process they had the opportunity to submit a challenge within this period. 

Resolved:- That the tender submitted by Pyramid Linoleum and Carpet Company Ltd for the provision of Floor Covering Services be awarded.  Pyramid Linoleum and Carpet Company was a local company and were the incumbent supplier. 

The Cabinet Member and Adviser for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods considered the draft report relating to a proposed Housing Rent Increase for 2015/2016.  The report would be considered by the Cabinet on 14^th January, 2015. 

The opportunity to view the report before it was considered by the Cabinet provided the Cabinet Member and Advisers the opportunity to be consulted on the proposal. 

Resolved:-  That the report be noted. 

The Cabinet Member and Adviser for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods considered the draft report relating to proposed District Heating Scheme Charges for 2015/2016.  The report would be considered by the Cabinet on 14^th January, 2015. 

The opportunity to view the report before it was considered by the Cabinet provided the Cabinet Member and Advisers the opportunity to be consulted on the proposal. 

Resolved: -  That the report be noted. 

·         Monday 2^nd February, 2015, to start at 10.00 a.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall. 

Resolved: -  That the next meeting of the Cabinet Member for Safe and Attractive Neighbourhoods take place on Monday 2^nd February, 2015, to start at 10.00 a.m. in the Rotherham Town Hall.