Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, ROTHERHAM. S60 2TH

Contact: Debbie Pons  The webcast can be viewed at http://www.rotherham.public-i.tv

Items
No. Item

112.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were no Declarations of Interest to report

113.

Questions from members of the public and the press

Minutes:

There were no questions from members of the public or the press.

114.

Communications

Minutes:

The Chair was pleased to welcome Paul Whitehouse, BBC Local Democracy Reporter, and also Councillor Steele, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board to the meeting.

 

The Commission were also encouraged to attend the development session on Strengths for Asset Based Approaches to Community Development taking place on Tuesday, 20th March, 2018 in the John Smith Room commencing at 2.00 p.m. till 4.00 p.m. and repeated at 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

115.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Minutes:

Resolved:- That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Improving Places Select Commission, held on 7th February, 2018, be approved as a correct record.

 

Reference was made to Minute No. 109 (Governance and Performance - Repairs and Investment Contract) and whether there had been any further consideration to a member of the Improving Places Select Commission being involved in the retendering/commissioning process of contracts.

 

This would be followed up and ascertained.

 

With regards to Minute No. 110 (Temporary Relocation of the Bus Interchange) information requested was to be shared.

116.

Revised "Rotherham MBC Code of Practice for Highway Inspection and Assessment" pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair introduced Councillor Hoddinott, Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety, who presented the report proposing a revised “Rotherham MBC Code of Practice for Highway Inspection and Assessment”, including policies for both Highway Safety Inspection and Skidding Resistance.

 

The revised “Rotherham MBC Code of Practice for Highway Inspection and Assessment” took account of recommendations within a report commissioned by the Department for Transport named “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure” (A Code of Practice). This new code will replace “Well-maintained Highways”, “Management of Highway Structures” and “Well-lit Highways” in October 2018.

 

The new code significantly changed from the reliance on specific guidance and recommendations to a risk-based approach to highway asset management.  The purpose of a risk based approach for highway safety inspections was to determine the scale of the risk presented by a highway defect in order to prioritise the appropriate category of response.

 

The introduction of a risk-based approach to highway inspection moved away from a highway inspection system based on specific defect intervention/repair levels and replaced it with a system that required risk assessment to determine the need for repair works. Therefore, the proposed “Rotherham MBC Code of Practice for Highway Inspection and Assessment” had been developed taking into account the change in national guidance.

                                              

Councillor Hoddinott invited Colin Knight and Andrew Rowley to give a presentation on the Revised Code of Practice for Highway Inspection and Assessment.

 

The presentation drew attention to:-

 

·                Rotherham MBC Road Network.

·                Guidance  and the programme of highway maintenance.

·                The existing Code of practice for highway inspection and assessment.

·                National Guidance - ‘Well-maintained Highways 2005.

·                The New National Guidance - ‘Well-managed Highways Infrastructure’.

·                Highway Inspection Policy and its Objectives.

·                Developing a Revised Code for Rotherham.

·                Determining Frequency of Inspections for Carriageways and Footways.

·                Minimum Investigatory Levels.

·                Defect Identification and Evaluation - Risk Based Approach.

·                Highway Defect Risk Matrix.

·                Response Times/Repair Types.

·                Defect Categories.

·                Skidding Resistance Policy.

·                Guidance and Training for Officers.

 

A question and answer session ensued and the following were raised and clarified:-

 

·                If there was any methodology with regards the location and benefits of trees and with the management of the root action close to highways and footways.

 

Whilst the primary objective was to keep the tree safe as it grew within the community it was important to liaise with the Tree Section to maintain the safe passage on highways and footways.  The Cabinet Member was briefed on the trees in the Borough and additional funding to address condition of the footpaths had been secured.   Work to look at tree lined routes within Rotherham would take place in the longer term.

 

The Cabinet Member for Waste, Roads and Community Safety confirmed there were no plans for tree removal.  Each area was different and concerns and risks would be assessed and mitigated as and when they arose.

 

·                The Highways Section was commended for the work it undertook across the Borough and the work it did on the pavements in the town and districts.  Page 13 of the report referred to implications for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

117.

Strategic Asset Management Plan and Property Reviews

Minutes:

The Chair introduced Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy who introduced this presentation.  This involved the Strategic Asset Management Plan which formed part of the Council’s health check.

 

Paul Smith and Louise Murray from Asset Management gave a PowerPoint presentation which drew specific attention to:-

 

·                Background information.

·                Strategic Asset Management Plan.

·                Policy and Strategy.

·                Objectives.

·                Action Plan and Delivery.

·                Operational Property Review.

·                Non-Operational Property Review.

·                Surplus Properties.

·                Community Buildings Review.

·                Other Reviews.

·                Next Steps.

 

A discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

·                Would Ward Members be involved in the report for more specific information for the Community Buildings Review which would be submitted to the Asset Management Board.

 

Ward Members would be consulted.  Only 12 buildings were affected so did not involve each of the Borough’s Wards.

 

·                Was there any criteria to retain buildings of benefit to the Borough for non–operational properties.

 

There was some criteria, but this depended upon the benefit to the community and the use and demand for those properties.  Consultation would take place with Ward Members and all interested parties on the use of those properties going forward.

 

·                In the objectives it referred to supporting economic growth and the town centre regeneration.  Would this include outlying town centres as well. The building asset list circulated to Ward Members was also out-of-date.

 

Comments on the building asset list were welcomed and this would be updated with a more comprehensive representation in due course.

 

In terms of town centres, consideration was being given to Swinton and Wath and others going forward.

 

·                Objective 4 related to developing growth income for non-commercial activities and a smart action plan.  Could clarification be provided on quantitative measures, figures, direction of travel, financial targets and delivery outcomes.

 

From a savings point of view there was to be £1 million this year and next year combined.  The planned reviews would assist, make better use of facilities and development of working practices was key.

 

There were some income targets with growth in academy income.  The trading income was looking at a larger planned investment strategy in developing other property.  For example the site in Manvers next to the business incubation centre may be developed on a commercial basis and invested in by the Council to provide much needed jobs and provide income.  A report on this commercial approach was to be submitted to the Asset Management Board.

 

·                Did it cost anything to be members of CIPFA and were officers able to provide a challenge to service areas on how to use buildings more effectively and deliver a better service, are they able to do this through this strategy.

 

The Council did have CIPFA membership.  Challenges to service areas were primarily to do with building usage and not delivery of the services within it.  WorkSmart initiatives would be reinvigorated to help reduce the building catalogue.

 

·                Anston Library is a building that appeared to be in Council ownership, but was in fact owned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

118.

Rotherham Town Centre Masterplan

Minutes:

The Chair introduced Councillor Lelliott, Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy who introduced this presentation which formed an overview  of the Town Centre Masterplan and following the consultation the process of moving forward.

 

Officers from RiDO gave a PowerPoint presentation which drew specific attention to:-

 

·                Masterplan Overview and the Approach.

·                Shaping Strategy.

·                Masterplan Recap.

·                Forge Island.

·                Riverside Residential.

·                Indoor and Outdoor Covered Markets and the view from Drummond Street.

·                Guest and Chrimes.

·                Bus Interchange and Multi-Storey Car Park.

·                Streets and Spaces for Improvement.

·                Results of the Consultation.

·                Town Centre Transformation – Achievements and Progress.

·                Forge Island Development Timetable and Flood Defences.

·                Markets Investments.

·                Public Realm.

 

A discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

·                Welcomed investment into the town centre and the need for quality developments with the impacted businesses given adequate notice.

 

Careful consideration would be given to developments to ensure future problems did not occur.  Some business were affected and any relocation would be supported to the benefit of the town centre.

 

·                The need for good quality well designed buildings in the town centre to replace those lost.

 

This would be controlled by the development agreement and written into the agreement to control quality and design.  The end product had to be high quality and attractive from a user point of view and include linking through to Forge Island and the Minster Gardens.

 

·                The shaping strategy referred to quality drinking.  It was hoped the right balance of establishment could be easily managed and for this to be family orientated to prevent the risk of anti-social behaviour.

 

The phraseology could have been better.  The plan was for more leisure and food outlets.  This was very much a quality family destination not a set of bars. The competition stage 1 tenders had been sent out inviting a number of developers to come to stage 2 and the elements would be a mix of competitive features and not just one developer or design.

 

·                Shopping was not always the answer.  Were there any plans to reduce the shops around town to avoid sprawling gaps.

 

The town centre was too large and drawn out with Tesco at the one end of the high street. This would form part of the Local Plan to look to shrink the town centre from Wellgate and reclassify as part of the Local Plan adoption.

 

·                If Rotherham was to become a Child Centred Borough how was this reflected in the master plan.

 

Young people had been included as part of the consultation and generally liked the ideas, especially for the cinema.  The Interchange had been  highlighted as an area of concern and this had been taken on board as part of the redevelopment.

 

·                Delivery of the photo montages, especially for the market, would set Rotherham on the map, but was there concern about competition from developers from areas like Sheffield.

 

Sheffield was a city and had high quality public realm, some of which was the best in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

119.

Date and time of the next meeting

Minutes:

Resolved:-  That the next meeting of the Improving Places Select Commission take place on  Wednesday, 18th April, 2018 at 1.30 p.m.