Public Document Pack
LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
Linda Fisher Service Director
COMMITTEE SERVICES SECTION PO Box 15, Town Hall, Rochdale OL16 1AB
Telephone: Rochdale (01706) 647474 Fax: Rochdale (01706) 924705 www.rochdale.gov.uk
To: All Members of Rochdale Your Ref: Township Committee Our Ref: Enquiries to: Peter Thompson Extension: 4715 Date: 29 th June 2010
Dear Councillor
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
You are requested to attend the meeting of Rochdale Township Committee to be held in on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 commencing at 6.15 pm, in Committee Rooms One and Two at the Town Hall, Rochdale.
The agenda and supporting papers are attached.
If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please contact staff in the Committee Services Section at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
Yours faithfully
Linda Fisher Service Director – Legal and Democratic Service
Rochdale Township Committee Membership 2010/2011
Councillor Abbott Councillor Couzens Councillor Neilson Councillor Farooq Ahmed Councillor Peter Davison Councillor Rodgers Coouncillor Imtiaz Ahmed Councillor Ted Flynn Councillor Sharif Councillor Daalat Ali Councillor Pat Flynn Councillor Thirsk Councillor Sultan Ali Councillor James Gartside Councillor Todd Councillor Zulfiqar Ali Councillor Jane Gartside Councillor Wazir Councillor Bailey Councillor Hobhouse Councillor Duckworth Councillor Biant Councillor Mahmud Councillor Clayton Councillor Metcalfe Councillor Colclough Councillor Mulgrew
1
2
ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 7 July 2010 at 6.15 pm
A G E N D A
1. Apologies for Absence 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Greater Manchester Police (6.15pm) An opportunity for Greater Manchester Police to update Members on current issues of concern. 4. Open Forum (6.35pm) The Open Forum is intended to allow members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township. The session will start shortly after 6.15p.m., and last for up to 30 minutes. Any questions not considered by the Committee will be answered in writing (please note that priority will be given to questions submitted in advance, in writing, to Rochdale Township Office).
MINUTES 5. To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26th May 2010 as a correct record (7.05pm) 6. To Note the Proceedings of the Open Forum Session of the Township Committee held 26th May 2010 7. Rochdale Township Planning Sub-Committee - 13th April 2010 ITEMS FOR DEC ISION – NON EXECUTIVE
Report of the Service Director - Schools Service 8. Lenny Barn - Proposed Landsite (7.10pm) 9. School Governing Body Vacancies - Local Authority Representatives (7.30pm) ITEMS FOR DECISION – EXECUTIVE
Report of the Service Director – Highways & Engineering Service 10. Highways Capital and Revenue Funding 2010/2011 - Delegation Arrangements (Service Director - Highways & Engineering to report) (7.40pm) Reports of the Service Director – Property Service 11. Disposal of Land off Halifax Road, Rochdale (and McClure Road Fire Station) (7.40pm) 12. Disposal of Land off Clementina Street, Rochdale (7.55pm)
3 ITEMS FOR CONSULTATION
Report of the Service Director – Regeneration Service 13. Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership: Safer Communities Plan 2008-2011 - Annual Update for 2010 (8.05pm) REPORT FOR INFORMATION
Report of the Service Director – Legal and Democratic Service 14. Petitions (8.20pm) 15. Updates on Proposals to Replace Central Leisure Centre (8.35pm) The Chair has requested that the items detailed below be added to the agenda for information and may be considered separately or in conjunction with any of the above listed items. 16. Proposals to re-develop Rochdale Town Centre and TRO's in Rochdale Town Centre (8.45pm)
4 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 7
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 13 April 2010
PRESENT: Councillor Peter Clegg(in the Chair); Councillors Abbott, Farooq Ahmed, Bailey, Coric, Ted Flynn, James Gartside, Mahmud and Sharif
OFFICERS: M. Robinson and P. Ambrose (Planning and Regulation Service), T. Wood (Highways and Engineering Service) and M. Garraway (Legal and Democratic Service)
Also in Attendance: Councillor Peter Davison
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 1 None
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 2 In accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Voting Co-opted Members and the Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with planning matters, Councillors Ted Flynn and James Gartside declared a personal and prejudicial interests in planning application D52212 for the refurbishment and extensions to existing farmhouse, together with change of use and conversion of barn to form additional living accommodation at Heywood’s Farm, Birtle Road, Heywood.
SUBMITTED PLANNING APPLICATIONS
D52212 4 REFURBISHMENT AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING FARMHOUSE TOGETHER WITH CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF BARN TO FORM ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION HEYWOOD'S FARM, BIRTLE ROAD, HEYWOOD, BL9 6UU
The Head of Planning & Regulation Service reported (RT.49/10) on submitted planning application D52212 for the refurbishment and extensions to the existing farmhouse together with change of use and conversion of barn to firm additional living accommodation at Heywood’s farm, Birtle Road, Heywood. DECIDED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the submitted report.
D52767 5 OUTLINE APPLICATION (INCLUDING MEANS OF ACCESS AND SITING) FOR THE ERECTION OF 19 DWELLINGS ON LAND REAR OF 331 - 335 SHAWCLOUGH ROAD, ROCHDALE The Head of Planning & Regulation Service reported (RT.49/10) submitted planning application D52767 for the erection of 19 dwellings on land at the rear of 331-335, Shawclough Road, Rochdale. The Planning Officer updated Members on a couple of changes to conditions and correspondents in relation to the application.
Page 1 The Sub-Committee considered the views of A. Kenny from Campian Way, who addressed the Sub-Committee objecting to the application as detailed in the submitted report. The Sub-Committee considered the views of Mr Chamberlain, an agent for the applicant, who addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant. DECIDED – That the Regulatory Committee be advised that this Sub Committee would be minded to grant permission subject to conditions set out in the submitted report.
D52934 6 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - 14 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING ALTERATIONS OF EXISTING HOTEL CAR PARK - RESUBMISSION D52520 - NORTON GRANGE HOTEL, MANCHESTER ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL11 2XZ The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning & Regulation Services (RT.49/10) in relation to planning application D52934 for the residential development of 14 dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping on land at Norton Grange Hotel, Manchester Road, Rochdale. The Sub-Committee considered the views of residents on Saxonholme Road who addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to the application. The Sub-Committee considered the views of E. Trinda an agent acting on behalf of the applicant. The Sub-Committee considered the views of Ward Councillor Peter Davison who addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to the application. DECIDED – That the Regulatory Committee be advised that this Sub – Committee would be minded to refuse permission of the planning application.
D52936 7 INSTALLATION OF 12M HIGH NET FENCING –RETROSPECTIVE AT CASTLE HAWK GOLF CLUB, CHADWICK LANE, HEYWOOD, OL11 3BY DECIDED – That the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee to allow Members to view the proposed site for themselves.
D52949 8 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO SHOP 970, MANCHESTER ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL11 2TL The Head of Planning & Regulation Service reported (RT.49/10) on submitted planning application D52949 for a single storey rear extension to the shop at 970 Manchester Road, Rochdale. DECIDED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the submitted report.
D52975 9 PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ALTERATIONS, EXTENSIONS AND REFURBISHMENT OF SCHOOL TOGETHER WITH OUTDOOR SPORTS PROVISION INCLUDING MULTI USE GAMES AREA, HARD & SOFT LANDSCAPING WORKS AND REVISED ACCESS AND PARKING ARRANGEMENTS AT MATTHEW MOSS HIGH SCHOOL, MATTHEW MOSS LANE, ROCHDALE, OL11 3LU
Page 2 The Head of Planning & Regulation Service reported (RT.49/10) on submitted planning application D52975 the partial demolition, alterations, extensions and refurbishment of school together with outdoor sports provision including multi use games area, hard and soft landscaping works and revised access and parking arrangements at Matthew Moss High School, Moss Lane, Rochdale. DECIDED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the submitted report
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED PLANNING APPLICATION D52706 10 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING ON LAND AT JOWKIN VIEW, FURBARN ROAD, ROCHDALE The Head of Planning & Regulation Service reported (RT.50/10) on submitted planning application D52706 for the erection of a detached dwelling on land at Jowkin View, Furbarn Road, Rochdale. The Sub-Committee discussed drainage on the site including all parties. The Sub-Committee considered the views of Mr Fletcher an agent for the applicant who addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to the application. DECIDED – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the submitted report.
TREE PRESERVATION ORDER 23B (1976), RYEFIELD, BURY ROAD, ROCHDALE 11 The Head of Planning and Regulation Service reported (RT51/10) on a request fell one Lime tree protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 023B Ryefield, Bury Road, Rochdale.
The basis of the recommendation is that the tree is very close to the building and its branches touch the roof and windows of the building which causes a nuisance to the residents and creates difficulties for carrying out maintenance work.
The alternative for consideration was to refuse consent. DECIDED – That the felling of the Lime tree protected by TPO.023 be approved
PLANNING APPEALS 12 Notification that the following appeal has been allowed:
D51674 - 7, Falinge Fold, Rochdale – appeal against condition relating to materials for the erection of a private detached double garage.
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 9 REPORT FOR DECISION
Agenda item no: . Rochdale Township Committee, Wednesday 7th July 2010 Report of the Schools Service Director
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES – AUTHORITY GOVERNORS
Wards affected: All Wards Report author: Paul Hyde Assistant Governor Support Officer Telephone: (01706) 925175
This report outlines the current Authority school governor vacancies, listed in Appendix B, and requests that Township Committees make the appropriate appointments
1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Township appoints Authority (previously referred to as Local Authority and LEA – 5.7 below) Governors to serve on: • the school Governing Bodies currently with vacancies; • the school Governing Bodies with forthcoming vacancies; and • the new permanent Governing Body for Kingsway Park High School from 1 st September 2010, as highlighted in Appendix B.
2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The Township Committee acts in accordance with the agreed procedures in appointing Authority Governors to serve on school Governing Bodies.
3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 There are no alternative methods of filling Authority Governor vacancies.
4. Equal Opportunities Implications: 4.1 The Council are committed to a policy of equal opportunities and in making their recommendations, the Committee are asked to recognise that there is an under representation of disadvantaged groups on governing bodies. Black and minority ethnic groups are under-represented on governing bodies particularly in the Rochdale Township. Similarly disabled persons are generally under-represented on governing bodies.
5. Background Page 5 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc 5.1 Following a decision of Council on 14 July 2000 new reports dealing with Authority Governor vacancies will contain no reference to which political group should make the nomination to fill the vacancy and no reference to which political group made previous nominations.
5.2 Governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution, which they can bring to the school in terms of skills and experience.
5.3 Every effort will be made to fill Authority vacancies at the first meeting at which the vacancy is discussed. Where there is no nomination they will appoint governors from the list of applicants contained within the Committee Report. (See Appendix A).
5.4 Members are asked to ensure that for nominations not included in the report, that, the agreement of the nominee is obtained prior to appointment.
5.5 The School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2007 have the effect of disqualifying Governors who have been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of the any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification. This should be taken into account when appointments are made.
5.6 Details of current Authority vacancies are attached at Appendix B together with other relevant information e.g. willingness to be re-appointed and details of new applicants. Appendix A lists those people who have indicated their willingness to serve on any governing body.
Change in Terminology – LEA/LA Governor to Authority Governor
5.7 Two Parliamentary Orders come into force on 5 May and 12 May. The effect of these Orders, amongst other things, is to change terminology in education legislation from "local education authority" to "local authority", "LEA" to "LA" and "local education authority governor" to "authority governor" (NB not "local authority governor").
The Orders are: • The Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010. Si No 2010/1158. This changes terminology in primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) and comes into force on 5 May. • The Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) (Local and Subordinate Legislation) Order 2010. Si No 2010/1172. This changes terminology in secondary legislation (Regulations) and comes into force on 12 May.
For further Information and Background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Paul Hyde, Governor Support Team, Schools Service, Municipal Offices, Smith Street, Rochdale Tel: (01706) 925175, Fax (01706) 925030.
S J Brown, Service Director
Page 6 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX A
GENERAL LIST OF INTERESTED APPLICANTS
Name & Address Parent of Child Previous Governing Bodies Special of Experience Currently Serving Requests School/College On Age
Mr S Bashir No No None Rochdale 12 Wickentree Holt Secondary Rochdale Schools
Mr M Brennan No No None Rochdale 463 Halifax Road Secondary Rochdale Schools
Page 7 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
KINGSWAY WARD
BELFIELD COMMUNITY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Mrs C Dodgson on 31 st August 2010. Mrs Dodgson wishes to continue to serve as an Authority governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Ms D Thorpe
2. Mrs S J York
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 8 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
BRIMROD WARD
BRIMROD COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL
TWO VACANCIES caused by the end of term of office of Mrs S Moneypenny and Cllr P Clegg. Both Mrs Moneypenny and Cllr Clegg do not wish to be considered for re-appointment as Authority Governors at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr I U Niazi
2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 9 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
NORDEN WARD
CALDERSHAW PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Mr J Walton on 31 st August 2010. Mr Walton does not wish to be considered be for re-appointment as an Authority Governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Cllr W Hobhouse
2. Mrs D Mitchell
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 10 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
CASTLETON WARD
CASTLETON PRIMARY SCHOOL
TWO VACANCIES caused by the end of term of office of Mrs A M Williams and Mr F Cryer on 31 st August 2010. Mrs Williams wishes to continue to serve as an Authority governor at the school. Mr Cryer does not wish to be considered be for re-appointment as an Authority Governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
FOUR AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mrs C Clarkson
2. Mr N Crewe
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
4. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 11 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
MILKSTONE AND DEEPLISH WARD
DEEPLISH COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Ms A Coric on 31st August 2010. Ms Coric wishes to continue to serve as an Authority governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr S Ahmad
2. Cllr I Ahmed
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 12 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
SPOTLAND AND FALINGE WARD
FALINGE PARK HIGH SCHOOL
THREE VACANCIES caused by the end of term of office of Mr H Choudhury, Ms A Coric and Mrs G Foster on 31 st August 2010. Mr Choudhury, Ms Coric and Mrs Foster all wish to continue to serve as Authority governors at the school. It is requested that members take into consideration their experience and current involvement with the school, the BSF programme and potential forthcoming Ofsted Inspection. Mrs Foster is currently Chair of Governors.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
FOUR AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mrs C Adams
2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
4. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 13 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 14 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
CENTRAL ROCHDALE WARD
GREENBANK PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Cllr S Wazir on 31 st August 2010.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr I A Khan
2. Miss R Mughal
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 15 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
HEALEY WARD
HEALEY PRIMARY SCHOOL
TWO VACANCIES caused by end of term of office of Cllr T Bailey and Mrs A Sexton on 31 st August 2010. Cllr Bailey wishes to continue to serve as an Authority Governor at the school . Mrs Sexton does not wish to continue to serve as a governor.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
TWO AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010 Mrs J Shooter None – Mrs Shooter was 2 Hillstone Avenue a member of Staff and a 2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010 Rochdale Governor at the School.
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 16 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
CENTRAL ROCHDALE WARD
HEYBROOK PRIMARY SCHOOL
THREE VACANCIES caused by the removal for failure to complete a CRB Disclosure of Mr T Sharif on 4 th May 2010 and the end of term of office of Mrs A Talukdar and Mrs A Shamim on 31 st August 2010. Mrs Talukdar and Ms Shamim wish to continue to serve as an Authority Governor at the school. Ms Shamim is currently Chair of Governors.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
FOUR AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr I A Khan
2. Vacancy
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
4. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File Page 17 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 18 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
BALDERSTONE AND KIRKHOLT WARD
HOLY FAMILY RC PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Cllr D Mulgrew on 31 st August 2010. Cllr Mulgrew wishes to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
ONE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 19 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
KINGSWAY WARD
LOWERPLACE PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the change of category of governor of Dr A Blacker on 24 th May 2010 from Authority to Community.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mrs J Edge Miss N Zaman None 173 Milkstone Road 2. Mrs C Whiddon Rochdale
3. Vacancy
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 20 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
CASTLETON WARD
MATTHEW MOSS HIGH SCHOOL
FOUR VACANCIES caused by the resignation of Mr L J Rowe on 1 st October 2010 and the end of term of office of Cllr T Flynn, Mr N Lever and Mr B Redman on 31 st August 2010. Cllr Flynn and Mr Redman both wish to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
FOUR AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010 Miss N Zaman None 173 Milkstone Road 2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010 Rochdale
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
4. Vacancy wef 1-10-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 21 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 22 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
NORDEN WARD
NORDEN COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL
TWO VACANCIES caused by the end of term of office of Cllr James Gartside and Cllr A Metcalfe on 31 st August 2010. Both Cllr Gartside and Cllr Metcalfe wish to continue to serve as governors at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Cllr Wera Hobhouse
2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 23 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
SPOTLAND AND FALINGE WARD
OULDER HILL COMMUNITY SCHOOL AND LANGUAGE COLLEGE
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Mrs J Ingham on 31 st August 2010. Mrs Ingham does not wish to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
FOUR AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr W Hobhouse Mr J Iqbal Ashfield Valley Primary 39 King Street South 2. Mr I Niazi Rochdale
3. Mr M Rowley
4. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 24 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
CASTLETON WARD
ST EDWARD’s CE PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Ms J Block on 31 st August 2010. Ms Block wishes to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mrs T Seddon
2. Mr B Townsend
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 25 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
BALDERSTONE AND KIRKHOLT WARD
ST MARY’S CE PRIMARY SCHOOL, BALDERSTONE
ONE VACANCY caused by the resignation end of term of office of Mr G Layfield on 31 st August 2010. Mr Layfield wishes to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
TWO AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Cllr E Thirsk
2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 26 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
KINGSWAY WARD
ST PETER’S CE PRIMARY SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Mr D Blake on 31 st August 2010. Mr Blake is currently Chair of Governors and wishes to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
TWO AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Cllr N Mahmood
2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 27 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
NORDEN WARD
WHITTAKER MOSS PRIMARY SCHOOL
TWO VACANCIES caused by the end of term of office of Mr R Cudworth and Cllr Jane Gartside JP on 31 st August 2010. Mr Cudworth wishes to continue to serve as a Governor at the school . Cllr Jane Gartside does not wish to continue to serve as a governor at the school.
Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.
THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mr D Whitehead Cllr A Metcalfe Norden Community Primary The Chapel 2. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010 Red Lumb, Norden
3. Vacancy wef 1-9-2010
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File Page 28 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc APPENDIX B
ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
KINGSWAY WARD
KINGSWAY PARK HIGH SCHOOL
ONE VACANCY caused by the establishment of the permanent governing body with effect from 1 st September 2010.
The following nomination has been put forward by the Kingsway Park High School Temporary Governing Body:
Cllr P Colclough Currently a Local Authority appointed Governor on Kingsway Park High School Temporary Governing Body.
Expressions of interest have also been received from 2 existing Springhill High School governors: Mr Shahzad JP OBE and Mrs M Holland.
The TGB at a meeting on 20 th May agreed the LA proposal that the current size and composition of the Temporary Governing Body (as agreed by Members on 11 March 2009) is adopted for the new Permanent Governing Body as follows:
4 Parent Governors – Elected by the parents of registered pupils; 3 Staff Governors – Headteacher plus 2 elected from staff of new school; 1 Local Authority appointed governor* 2 Partnership Governors appointed by the Permanent Governing Body at its first meeting
ONE AUTHORITY GOVERNOR APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving *Vacancy (wef 1-9-10) Councillor Colclough Kingsway Park TGB Mrs M Holland Springhill High School Mr G Shahzad JP OBE Springhill High School
APPOINTMENT Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………
Address ......
......
For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File
Page 29 LEAAppointmentsreport0.doc This page is intentionally left blank
Page 30 SCHOOLS SERVICE
ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
Susan J. Brown Service Director
PO Box 70, Municipal Offices Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1YD To: Chair of Rochdale Township Committee Tel No: (01706) 647474 Fax No: (01706) 925030 E-mail: [email protected]
Our Ref: SC3/PH Enq To: Paul Hyde Ext: 5175 Dear Chair, Date: 21 st June 2010
Rochdale Township Committee – Wednesday 7 th July 2010
Please find enclosed a copy of the School Governing Body – Authority Governor Vacancy report, which is due to be considered at the next Rochdale Township Committee on 7th July 2010. Also listed below for ease of reference, are details of the vacancies.
Members should note that two Parliamentary Orders come into force on 5 May and 12 May. The effect of these Orders, amongst other things, is to change terminology in education legislation from "local education authority" to "local authority", "LEA" to "LA" and "local education authority governor" to "authority governor" (NB previously "local authority governor").
The Orders are: • The Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010. Si No 2010/1158. This changes terminology in primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) and comes into force on 5 May. • The Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) (Local and Subordinate Legislation) Order 2010. Si No 2010/1172. This changes terminology in secondary legislation (Regulations) and comes into force on 12 May.
Please note: “Following a decision of Council on 14 July 2000, new reports dealing with Authority Governor vacancies will contain no reference to which political group should make the nomination to fill the vacancy and no reference to which political group made previous nominations.
Governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution which they can bring to the school in terms of skills and experience.”
Please could you confirm with nominees, where not named within the Township report, their willingness to stand as governors
PTO
governor support Page 31 LEAAppointmentsLettertoChair0.doc
Please note that there is no restriction on the number of Governing Bodies a person can serve.
If you have any queries, please contact Paul Hyde on (01706) 925175.
Yours sincerely
Governor Support
Rochdale Township
* Supporting information for nominations provided below where available.
Wishes to Other School Name Office Expires Continue? Nomination(s) Belfield Community Mrs C Dodgson 31/08/2010 Yes None Brimrod Community Primary Cllr P Clegg 31/08/2010 No None Brimrod Community Primary Mrs S Moneypenny 31/08/2010 No None Caldershaw Primary Mr J Walton 31/08/2010 No None Castleton Primary Mr F Cryer 31/08/2010 No None Castleton Primary Mrs A M Williams 31/08/2010 Yes None Deeplish Community Primary Ms A Coric 31/08/2010 Yes None Falinge Park High Mr H Choudhury 31/08/2010 Yes None Falinge Park High Ms A Coric 31/08/2010 Yes None Falinge Park High Mrs G Foster 31/08/2010 Yes None Greenbank Primary Cllr S Wazir 8/2010 No reply None Healey Primary Cllr T Bailey 31/08/2010 Yes None Healey Primary Mrs A Sexton 31/08/2010 No Mrs J Shooter Heybrook Primary Mr T Sharif Removed N/a None Heybrook Primary Mrs A Shamim 31/08/2010 Yes None Heybrook Primary Mrs A Talukdar 31/08/2010 Yes None Holy Family RC Primary Cllr D Mulgrew 31/08/2010 Yes None Lowerplace Primary Dr A Blacker Change of Category Miss N Zaman Matthew Moss High Mr L J Rowe Resigned 1/10/2010 Miss N Zaman Matthew Moss High Cllr T Flynn 31/08/2010 Yes * None Matthew Moss High Mr B Redman 31/08/2010 Yes * None Matthew Moss High Mr N Lever 31/08/2010 No reply None Norden Community Primary Cllr James Gartside 31/08/2010 Yes None Norden Community Primary Cllr A Metcalfe 31/08/2010 Yes None Oulder Hill Community Mrs J Ingham 31/08/2010 No Mr J Iqbal St Edward’s CE Primary Ms J Block 31/08/2010 Yes None St Mary’s CE Primary, Balderstone Mr G Layfield 31/08/2010 Yes * None St Peter’s CE Primary Mr D Blake 31/08/2010 Yes None Whittaker Moss Primary Mr R Cudworth 31/08/2010 Yes None Whittaker Moss Primary Cllr Jane Gartside 31/08/2010 No Cllr A Metcalf
Kingsway Park High n/a n/a n/a Cllr P Colclough Mrs M Holland Mr G R Shahzad
governor support Page 32 LEAAppointmentsLettertoChair0.doc
Supporting Information
GENERIC APPLICANTS – APPENDIX A
Mr S Bashir Having been born and raised in Rochdale I feel it is important to give something back to the community. I attended local schools of which I have fond memories and experiences and was able to continue my education which led to degree level. I understand the importance and requirement of quality education for our town’s children and am keen to help in whatever capacity to enable them to receive it. Having recently become a parent, this has become even more of a priority.
I am a volunteer for two organisations, Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) and the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM) who have a branch in Rochdale (Neeli Mosque, Hare St). Through these organisations I have been involved in a number of community projects to promote community cohesion and positive citizenship and identity, such as providing workshops for youngsters to better understand their views as well as helping organise sports events and weekend outings. I am also involved in Neeli Mosque’s 'Primary Schools Mosque Tours Programme', in which local schools were invited to tour the mosque to aid their religious education lessons.
Throughout my volunteer work I feel that I have been able to work and communicate well with teenagers and I would like to be involved with a secondary school to help identify and cater for their educational and social needs
Mr M Brennan I am a former teacher, a head of Department in my last regular school. Between 2001-2004 I worked as a supply teacher in the Greater Manchester area. During that time I taught in around 40 schools. Although it is unlikely that I will teach again, I would like to think that I still have something to contribute to schools and the educational arena.
SCHOOL SPECIFIC APPLICANTS - APPENIDIX B
Healey Primary School – Mrs J Shooter I have had a close relationship with Healey since my eldest child started school in 1979. My three children all attended Healey and my eldest grandson is currently in Year 4. I returned to teaching in 1983, working on supply for two years until gaining a permanent position as a Year2/3 teacher at Healey in 1986. I became the 'teacher governor' for Healey in 1987 until my retirement in August 2009. During this period I was also a 'parent governor' at Thrum Hall Middle School and a representative on the joint Governing Body for Thrum Hall and Falinge in the reorganisation of education in Rochdale of 1989/90.
Matthew Moss High School – Cllr T Flynn and Mr B Redman The School would like to make members aware that both Cllr Flynn and Mr Redman have been very supportive to the school in their capacity as governors through the valuable input as local Councillor and in areas such as Finance and Health and Safety.
Mr G Layfield – St Mary’s CE Primary School, Balderstone Governors have expressed concern at the lack of attendance of Mr Layfield at Governing Body meetings.
Miss N Zaman – Lowerplace Primary School and Matthew Moss High School I was a pupil at Deeplish primary School and later attended Balderstone Technology College, leaving with 3A*,5A, 2B's at GCSE Level. I went to Oldham Sixth Form college to do A levels in English, Politics, Economic,(B,A,B) and AS Levels in Critical Thinking and Citizenship (B,A). I graduated from Manchester Metropolitan University in Politics and Culture (2:1).
governor support Page 33 LEAAppointmentsLettertoChair0.doc
I worked as a Teaching Assistant in Falinge Park High School from October 2007-July 2008 and can appreciate and understand the complexities involved in teaching and the challenges schools /school staff face on a daily basis.
I am interested in being a school Governor, as Education is extremely important to me, and having benefited from an excellent education provided by Schools in Rochdale and I would like to support Schools to ensure younger residents of the Borough benefit from a similar if not better service. I am delighted that Rochdale's Sixth Form College will be opening soon and this an opportune time to ensure more younger pupils are accessing local colleges and increasing their aspirations to attend Further and Higher Educational institutions.
Mr J Iqbal – Oulder Hill Community School As an experienced teacher and parent of 4 young children, I would like to get involved in the development of local schools and young children. I believe I have much to offer in terms of educational experience and insight into curriculum development and child development and behavioural psychology. I would also like to use the opportunity to personally develop and enhance my educational skills further. 3 of my children are currently at Ashfield Valley Primary School, and being a former pupil of both Matthew Moss and Oulder hill and having taught at Springhill are just some of the further reasons that motivate me to becoming a governor at the schools indicated.
governor support Page 34 LEAAppointmentsLettertoChair0.doc Agenda Item 11
REPORT FOR DECISION
Agenda item no:
Rochdale Township Committee 7th July 2010
Report of the Service Director - Property Services
Disposal of Land off Halifax Road, Hamer, Rochdale
Wards affected: Central Report Author: N. Riggs
Telephone: (01706) 923274
This relates to an area of land off Halifax Road, it is recommended tat it is is sold to Greater Manchester Fire &Rescue service (GMF&RS). For the construction of the new Rochdale Fire Station and Area Command Offices
1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Land to the to the south of Halifax Road close to it,s junction with Hamer Road is sold to GMF&R . 1.2 A new Fire Station and Divisional Command Offices are to be constructed on site.
2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The .GMF&RS have found the existing Fire Station on Mclcure Road to be unsuitable for its current requirements 2.2 They also found the costs of trying to carry out a refurbishment to be uneconomical 2.3 GMF&RS (Impact) have carried out a comprehensive search for alternative sites. This site has been identified as the preferred location to ensure comprehensive cover for Rochdale is maintained.
3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 GMF&RS has considered remaining at its current location .They have also considered other sites in Rochdale 3.2 The proposed site is part of a comprehensive redevelopment area. It is not envisaged that this development will prevent the redevelopment of the remaining site
4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 Rochdale Development Agency has been actively involved in the proposal and fully support the suggested new site
LandatHalifaxRoadreport0.doc Page 1 of 2
Page 35 4.2 The Community Hub Steering Development Group have approved the use of the site, 4.3 The general principal for the use of the whole area was agreed in a cabinet report of 1st June 2009 4.4 The report will go to AMG
5. Main text of report: 5.1 GMF&RS have identified their current base as unsuitable to meet their current and future requirements 5.3 This site has been identified as meeting their requirements and being large enough to accommodate both an operational Fire Station and administrative accommodation for the Divisional HQ 5.4 Although the site has been maintained by RMBC .Part of this site (hatched ) is not within the Council ownership. It is proposed the that the Council acquire this site and transfer to GMF&RS to ensure there are no long term maintenance issues 5.5 The Council /RDA are in discussion with GMF&RS over the future use of the existing Fire Station. These discussions are on going
6. Personnel Implications: 6.1 Not applicable
7. Financial Implications: 7.1 The price for the land has been determined by an independent valuation by the District Valuer, and is based on residential value 7.2 There may be a small cost associated with the acquisition of the land not in council ownership. This figure is not yet established as negotiation have not been completed
8. Conclusions: 8.1 That the land oat Halifax Road Should be sold to GMF&RS
For furt her information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Nick Riggs Tel: 01706 923274
Mike Crompton Operations’ Director ,Property Services
LandatHalifaxRoadreport0.doc Page 2 of 2
Page 36 Page 37 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 38 Agenda Item 12
REPORT FOR DECISION
Agenda item no:
Rochdale Township Committee 7th July 2010
Report of the Service Director - Property Services
Disposal of Land Clementina Street , Rochdale
Wards affected: Central Report Author: N. Riggs
Telephone: (01706) 923274
This relates to a plot of land bounded by Clementina Street, Alma Street, Sladen Street. off Whitworth Road approximately ½ mile north of the town centre
1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The council accepts the surrender of the existing lease 1.2 The site is sold and the proceeds are split 50/50 with the existing tenant. After the cost of demolition and any outstanding grant , have been deducted.
2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 A lease was granted to the Anchor Housing Trust for 99 years from 27.04.1972 2.2 The site was to be used for the provision of accommodation for the elderly. 2.3 Accommodation of 36 beds was provided, consisting of one bedroom flats and studio apartments 2.4 This accommodation was designed to have split level floors 2.5 The building is now considered to be functionally obsolete, the split level floors make wheelchair access difficult. Demand is low especially for the studio apartments. 2.6 Due to its design it is not economic to refurbish the building 2.7 Due to it’s location there has been an increasing number of issues with anti social behaviour from some tenants and their guests
3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 Consideration was given to refurbishing the building, this was declared to be uneconomic 3.2 Other Registered Social Landlords (RSL) uses were considered there was no identified demand in this area
LandatClementinaStreetreport0.doc Page 1 of 2
Page 39 3.3 The sale of the existing building on the open market, was considered but was dismissed because of the nature the building and its location. As it may have given rise to significant anti-social issues
4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 Strategic Housing have been involved in all discussions with the tenant and have been involved in trying to identify alternative RSL’s 4.2 The report will go to AMG
5. Main text of report: 5.1 The land was let in 1972 and a purpose built 36 bed block was built 5.3 The building does not meet to day’s standard for elderly care accommodation 5.4 The building’s split level design and its one bed apartments and studios make the building functionally obsolescent. The building has a high room void rate 5.5 No alternative RSL have indicated they wish to use the property. 5.6 Strategic Housing have not identified any specialist use for the site 5.7 The tenants have a small out standing Housing grant on the site, which will be deducted from the sale price. It will be used by tenants in its other properties in Rochdale. 5.8 The land be sold for redevelopment with the benefit of a planning brief 5.9 The proceeds of the sale after any cost of demolition and the outstanding Housing grant have been deducted. Will be shared with the tenant
6. Personnel Implications: 6.1 Not applicable
7. Financial Implications: 7.1 The council will receive a capital receipt
8. Conclusions: 8.1 The council accepts the surrender of the existing lease, and jointly dispose of the site
For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Nick Riggs Tel: 01706 923274
Head of Property Services
LandatClementinaStreetreport0.doc Page 2 of 2
Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 42 Agenda Item 13
REPORT FOR CONSULTATION
Agenda item no:
Policy Overview Committee 21st June 2010 Township Committees 5th – 8th July 2010 Cabinet 12th July 2010
Report of the Head of Regeneration
Rochdale Sa fer Communities Partnership, Safer Communities Plan 2008 – 11 annual update for 2010
Wards affected: All Report Author: Adam Sutcliffe
Telephone: (01706) 924975
This report seeks to raise awareness of the 2010 annual update to the Safer Communities Plan 2008-2011 and secure endorsement of the implementation plans contained within
1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Committee endorse the Safer Communities Plan annual update, prior to onward submission to Townships and Cabinet. The update to the Plan has been approved for implementation by the Safer Communities Partnership at its Board meeting on 26 th May 2010. 2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The Safer Communities Plan 2008-11 was adopted by Council in July 2008 2.2 In accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and changes introduced via the Police and Justice Act 2006, the Safer Communities Partnership has produced its 2010 annual update to its three-year Plan, to cover the period from 1 st April 2010 to 31 st March 2011. 2.3 The attached DRAFT update (text only, graphics and corporate image to be applied by RSCP PR & Marketing Team on approval of update) refreshes the Safer Communities Plan. It describes progress made during the past year, addresses performance issues, reflects changes in national and local priorities and emerging issues arising from our Strategic Threat Assessment. 3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 None, production of the Plan and the annual update are statutory requirements 4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 The update has been compiled after taking into consideration: • Consultations with the partnership’s seven strategic priority groups • A strategic away day to understand and review the threats identified by the partnership’s Annual Strategic Threat Assessment • Consultations with the Partnership Business Group (PBG), Township Tactical Tasking Groups (TTGs) and reviewing the priorities raised at the Partners And Community Together (PACT) Panels • Reviewing the priorities identified in the GMP Neighbourhood Surveys
4.2 This report will go on to the Township Committees for information on 5th - 10 th July 2010 prior to submission to Cabinet on 12th July 2010.
Page1 43
5. Main text of report: 5.1 The Safer Communities Partnership is required to publish an annual update to its three yearly Safer Communities Plan. The update sets out the Partnership’s vision and strategic priorities for this period, which are: • Feeling safer • Reducing crime • Reducing the harm caused by drugs and alcohol • Preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour • Preventing offending by children & young people • Reducing adult re-offending • Developing community cohesion
5.2 Within the sections of the update on each Priority, the Partnership’s performance and progress during the last year is described and its priorities and targets are set out for the 2010-11. 6. Personnel Implications: 6.1 None 7. Financial Implications: 7.1 There are no financial implications as the update is part of the Safer Communities three year Plan approved by both Committee and Council in 2008. 8. Conclusions: 8.1 The Safer Communities Plan update sets out how the various member agencies that constitute the Safer Communities Partnership will work together with local people to tackle the key crime and disorder threats to the Borough over the next year. 8.2 Committee are requested to endorse the plans and strategies set out in the Plan and to promote widespread co-operation with implementation activities undertaken by the Partnership’s Strategic Priority Groups during the forthcoming year.
For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Jeanette Staley, Safer Communities Manager, Tel: 01706 924987
Attachment :
DRAFT Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership, (Text only) Safer Communities Plan 2008 – 11 annual update for 2010
Page2 44 Safer Communities Plan Annual Update 2010 Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Police & Justice Act 2006) requires the Council, Police, Fire & Rescue Service, Primary Care Trust and Police Authority to work with each other to tackle crime and disorder and the misuse of drugs and alcohol.
Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership has been in operation since 2000 and is responsible for delivering the current Safer Communities Plan and developing strategies to deal with emerging issues and problems. In addition to the agencies listed above, the Partnership comprises a wide range of other public, private, voluntary and community bodies with a stake in improving community safety.
The main Partnership Board meets quarterly to approve Partnership policy and strategy, oversee activity and manage performance. Delivery of the objectives of the Safer Communities Plan is undertaken by seven multi-agency Priority Groups and complemented by specific issue groups such as the Domestic Violence Forum, Multi- agency Race & Hate Forum and Prostitution Forum.
Safer Communities Plan Annual Update
Every three years Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership has to publish a plan detailing how it will tackle crime and disorder in the Borough. The most recent of these plans was published last year. The Partnership is also required to produce and publish an annual update that tells people how it has performed and details the Partnership’s issues and priorities for the forthcoming year.
This is the first annual update, dealing with progress and performance during 2008/09 and setting out our priorities for 2009/10.
How you can help
By letting us know what you think is a problem either where you live or work. This can be done by attending ward based Partners and Communities Together (PACT) Panel meetings which are held on a regular basis across the Borough or you can contact your Township Community Safety Service officer.
Community Safety Officer Contacts
Township Telephone 01706 Email
Heywood 691835 [email protected] Middleton 923139 [email protected] Pennines 924982 [email protected] Rochdale North 924979 [email protected] Rochdale South 924980 [email protected]
Page3 45 2009/10 Performance Key Highlights and Issues
• Serious acquisitive crime fell by 14.8% • Anti-social behaviour incidents fell by 16.6% • Criminal damage incidents fell by 24% • Gun and knife crimes fell by 24 and 16% respectively% • Violent crimes increased by 5.1%, while repeat indicence of domestic violence remained at the same levels as in 2008/09 • Numbers of accidental fires remained the same as in 2008/09, while deliberate fires fell by 14.1%% • Numbers of people engaging in alcohol treatment services reached 1188 during 2009/10, well in excess of the year’s target • Numbers of young people becoming first-time entrants to the criminal justice system continued to fall, the year-end figure of 229 being almost 100 fewer than the 2008/09 figure% • The percentage of probation clients time spent on unpaid work remained at 31.8% at year-end, though the average for the year was 36.5%, exceeding the Probation Service target of 30% • 59.5% of people responding to the GMP Neighbourhood Survey in March 2010 felt that the Police and Council were dealing with the crime and anti-social behaviour issues that mattered most in their community
2008/11Strategic Priorities
In the Safer Communities Plan we told you about the Partnership’s strategic priorities for 2008-2011. We have re-titled some of them to make them easier to understand, the updated list being as follows:
• Feeling safer • Reducing crime • Reducing the harm caused by drugs and alcohol • Preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour • Preventing offending by children & young people • Reducing adult re-offending • Developing community cohesion
Page4 46 Feeling Safer
In this section we will tell you what we’ve been doing to promote and increase public confidence and to reduce crime, what we’ve achieved and what our plans are for 2009/10.
How we’ve performed in 2009/10
• There were 179 accidental dwelling fires during 2009/10, over 100 fewer than our target for the year • Over 60% of people surveyed by GMP during December 2009 agreed that the police and council were dealing with the crime and ASB issues that mattered locally
What we’ve been doing
Implementing the Government’s Neighbourhood Crime and Justice programme under the campaign heading ‘Justice Seen, Justice Done’. This has featured the promotion and delivery of a range of campaign-related activities including
• Launched the Community Crime Fighter Programme locally developing stronger links between crime fighter agencies and the communities they serve. • Delivered Community Payback schemes in partnership with Greater Manchester Probation directly nominated by members of the public. • Implemented Partners and Communities Together (PACT) panel toolkit which ensures minimum standards across the borough.
Developing and implementing a coordinated community safety communications strategy. The aim of which is to maximise opportunities to devise and deliver campaigns and messages that are supportive of partner objectives. This strategy will help the partnership achieve: • Better community understanding and support for the partnership’s work • Change community attitudes to work being dine to tackle crime and disorder • Build community confidence and trust in the agencies that form the partnership.
In line with this strategy, the following campaigns have been carried out: 1. Think safe, drink safe campaign Promotional activity took place throughout the party season (leading up to Christmas) to encourage safe and responsible drinking. Result: 100% positive feedback on marketing collateral and carried out almost 500 face to face contacts.
2. Hands Off! Rochdale’s Action Against Abuse campaign Completed internal launch of campaign with Rochdale Borough Council. Result: 79% of council staff surveyed had heard of the campaign and through the sale of wristbands raise £628 for the Domestic Violence Forum.
Working with the media Issued 92 press releases, gaining regional and national coverage on 11 occasions which means that approximately 2 positive press releases were issued every week. Also, managed and responded to press enquiries on a daily basis.
Production of marketing materials
Page5 47 Ongoing support for the partnership services and events through the professional production of marketing collateral e.g. Strategic Threat Assessment, all partnership plans and strategies, Heywood’s crime and grime blitz
Introducing Communities Matter Communities Matter was introduced as a centre page spread in Local Matters and delivered neighbourhood news at a township level about what work the partnership had been doing to tackle crime and disorder and keep communities safe. Result: Local survey data suggests that out of 106 respondents 60% of readers thought the introduction of Communities Matter was useful!
Strategic support and advice Providing communications advice to the partnership at a local and regional level. Fostering positive working relationships at a regional level to maximise opportunities for efficiency savings. Our priorities and plans for 2010/11
• Further development of one dialogue with communities on crime, anti social behaviour and action taken by partners to tackle issues that affect them. Predominantly by producing a ward based pilot newsletter which will include a full evaluation of its effectiveness. • Increase public information, knowledge and understanding of sentencing outcomes, punishments and rehabilitation of offenders. • Continue to promote and support local communities to nominate suitable Community Payback projects. • Collaborate with partners at a regional level to achieve efficiency savings and gain maximum exposure for generic communications campaigns. • Align community safety brand to the new borough branding. • Explore and evaluate the success of direct and targeted communications against mass communications methods.
Page6 48 Reducing Crime
How we’ve performed in 2009/10 The Partnership has again been operating in a difficult climate this year in terms of reducing crime, particularly in view of the recession. However, the figures below present a positive picture of the progress being made.
• Serious Acquisitive Crime fell by 14.6% from 5363 in 2008/9 to 4580 in 2009/10. • Crime overall fell by 11.0%, this means there were 2700 less victims of crime in the borough. • Serious Violent Crime remains an issue for the borough and the number of such offences has risen from 240 in 2008/9 t0 267 in 2009/10. This will be a Priority for the Borough’s Reduce Crime Group over the forthcoming year. • Reports of Anti Social Behaviour have decreased significantly and this is dealt with in detail in a later section.
What we’ve been doing • Smartwater property marking technology has been utilised in several areas of the borough. • A one stop shop, the Omega Womens Centre, has now been opened to assist victims of Domestic Abuse. • 64 alleygating schemes have been completed, leading to inproved security for residents. • Crime prevention advice has been provided to new householders and those going on holiday via estate agents and travel agents. • A theatre group has given four performances of a production to elderly and vulnerable people regarding prevention of doorstep crime. • A decoy vehicle has been deployed on over 100 occasions to catch car thieves. • A Knife Arch has been used 8 times in the town centre to deter people from carrying knives. • Trading Standards have conducted 26 test purchases to detect under age sales of knives.
Our priorities and plans for 2010/11 We will implement plans to reduce all crime and there will be a specific focus on reducing violent crime. • A Junior Crimefighter Scheme has been successfully piloted and will be rolled out across all primary schools this year. • The Community Safety Team have secured funding to improve security of houses in areas where burglary becomes a problem. • The ‘Spotlight team’ will continue to be developed. This is a multi agency team deigned to target and manage known prolific offenders. • A scheme to close South Parade to traffic on Friday and Saturday nights, to create a sterile zone and reduce violence, was used with positive results. We will seek to use this tactic on a more permanent basis. • Operation Aegis, which is a police led multi agency operation to combat violence in the night-time economy, will continue to be developed. • A specialist Domestic Violence Court has just been established and will lead to improved outcomes for victims of domestic abuse. • Multi agency Weeks of Action will take place across the borough.
Page7 49 • A scheme to promote the use of CCTV systems in taxis is to be implemented, which will reduce robberies and assaults. • New ‘No Cold Calling’ zones will be created to reduce incidents of door step crime.
Page8 50 Reducing the harm caused by drugs and alcohol
How we’ve performed in 2009/10
• 270 new Problematic Drug Users (PDU’s) have entered treatment and of those 89% were effectively engaged (above national average) • In total 402 new clients (all adult drug users) have engaged in treatment in 2009/10 (Feb 10) • Planned exits from treatment have improved from 29% in 2008/09 to 46% 2009/10 • 335 Young People are currently engaged with Substance Misuse Services and 233 have received structured, Tier 3, treatment • 1155 clients have received effective treatment for Alcohol Use (exceeding the LAA Stretch target of 980) • The Drug Intervention Programme has continued to improve with 90% of those tested on arrest being Assessed by drugs workers and 100% of those requiring further intervention being taken onto caseload • 73 Drug Rehabilitation Requirements where commenced and 50 successfully completed (exceeding the 45% completion target)
What we’ve been doing
• We have successfully implemented IDTS (Integrated Drug Treatment System) in HM Buckley Hall, 33 prisoners are currently receiving drug treatment interventions • In partnership with Acorn and Supported Housing we have been awarded Capital funding of £400K to develop a ‘Recovery Communities Model’. An eight bedroom property has been purchased and will open in May 2010 • Held a very successful awareness raising event during the National ‘Tackling Drugs’ week and developed a directory of Treatment Services available in the Borough • Tendered and awarded new contracts for Prescribing, GP Shared Care and Young Peoples treatment services following the development on new service specifications that focus on recovery. • Piloted two Motivational Programmes that promote Recovery and Abstinence. • Adopted a new 3 year local Alcohol Strategy • Implement Alcohol Treatment Referrals
Our priorities and plans for 2010/11
• To revise the service specification and tender for the Alcohol and Abstinence Treatment Services • To review the entire Drug Intervention Programme with a view to revising specifications and tendering services • To increase the numbers of Problematic Drug Users in Effective Treatment to 1161 (NI40) • To develop creative and innovative ways in which to identify and attract the treatment naïve clients, into treatment • Work with the newly commissioned ACORN treatment and housing services to develop the Recovery Communities model • Increase the number of young People receiving effective treatment interventions and increase the number of planned discharges and positive outcomes • Increase the number of offenders receiving a treatment service for their alcohol problem
Page9 51 • Slow the growth of the number of Alcohol related Hospital admissions (NI 39) • Develop the Integrated Drug Treatment System at Buckley Hall by improving client perceptions and extending the range of treatment options available • Reduce re-offending by providing more assertive engagement of those people presenting in custody and developing the Spotlight scheme to ensure a rapid response
Page10 52 Preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour
How we’ve performed in 2009/10 • Achieved a 16.6% reduction in all categories of ASB. The highest reduction in Greater Manchester • Achieved a 24% reduction in criminal damage and arson. The second highest reduction in Greater Manchester
What we’ve been doing • Established further family intervention projects to tackle youth crime and child poverty. • Increased provision of parenting intervention for 1-1 parenting support for identified families, including increased numbers of parenting courses. • Implemented a range of new enforcement measures to tackle anti social behaviour including parenting orders and measures to tackle alcohol related anti social behaviour. • Continued to provide and develop programmes and inter-active sessions in primary, secondary schools and colleges. • Successfully operated the stop and account scheme with partner resulting in over 550 warning letters being sent in relation to low level anti social behaviour.
Our priorities and plans for 2010/11 • Establish further family intervention project to focus on women offenders with funds secured from Home Office. • Improve the treatment of victims and witnesses of anti social behaviour through the introduction of ASB minimum standards. • Implement a range of measures to combat ASB including introduction of new legislation to tackle persistent nuisance properties and areas of high alcohol disorder. • Establish further Safe 4 Summer initiatives and Operation Treacle initiatives to provide positive activities and tackle ASB throughout the summer and bonfire periods. • Continue to minimise the sale of alcohol to underage young people, including carrying out test purchases and maximising the ‘Validate’ scheme. • Reduce the number of deliberate fires across the Borough, including delivery of educational packages re consequences of fire and links with ASB in the community.
Page11 53
Page12 54 Preventing offending by children and young people
How we’ve performed in 2009/10 • The number of children and young people who are first time entrants to the criminal justice system has continued to fall. The Government Office North West statistical release in November 2009 indicated a further reduction from 418 in 07-08 to 360 in 08- 09. • Rochdale Youth Borough Service’s Street based detached team and mobile youth facilities have been able to deliver provision for young people in areas defined as crime “hotspots”. Working closely with partners, particularly Greater Manchester Police, this has contributed to the largest reduction in Greater Manchester compared to last year in juvenile youth nuisance. • The Youth Offending Team enabled over 400 young people to participate in reparation projects around the Borough contributing to the reduction in re offending.
What we’ve been doing • Targeted Youth Support (TYS) continues to form a multi agency ‘team around the school’. Panels, chaired by the Youth Service, meet regularly in all of the Rochdale Borough secondary schools to formulate, implement and evaluate often complex interventions for more vulnerable pupils. This means that at least 420 young people who would not usually have accessed services have benefited from early intervention via TYS. Of these active interventions many have been referred by the Police as part of their stop and account arrangement. This enables us to identify ASB needs earlier than ever. • A fleet of three Youth Service mobile youth facilities and a team of three detached youth workers have engaged with young people in crime “hotspot” areas often in areas with few or no facilities. • The number of young engaging with Rochdale Borough Youth Service provision has increased from 4,790 contacts between 01/04/06 – 31/03/07 to 7,025 contacts in the period 1/4/09 – 31/03/10. • Rochdale Borough Youth Service have delivered a wide range of community cohesion activities with over 1,500 young people taking part; this includes the Fusion Project delivered in partnership with secondary schools • The Youth Offending Team has worked closely with the Supporting People team to develop suitable accommodation placements for vulnerable 16 & 17 year olds, helping to reduce the risk of re-offending.
Our priorities and plans for 2010/11 • To increase the number of young offenders engaged in suitable education, employment or training by targeting those most vulnerable with additional support. • This will include engagement with the YOT keeping young people engaged worker (KYPE) and local initiatives such as Rebuild and Fairbridge and additional support through the Connexions service. • To develop Youth Crime Action Plan initiatives to meet local needs. • This will include targeted detached Youth work and early engagement with those at risk of offending using the YOT Triage worker. • To increase young people’s participation in positive activities working with the Local Authority’s communications team, Link4life and YCAP street based team.
Page13 55 Reducing adult reoffending Work with offenders, particularly those who most prolific or harmful, to reduce their risk of further offending, can have a major impact on preventing further victimisation of individuals or communities. It can also have a major impact on crime rates in the community as well as helping offenders become law – abiding members of their community. In this section we describe the work of the Greater Manchester Probation Trust – Rochdale and its range of partners during 2009 / 2010 and some of our key plans for 2010 / 2011. How we have performed in 2009 /10 • Greater Manchester Probation Trust has achieved Green star ratings, meaning that it is meeting all its targets. The Trust has contributed to a reduction in re offending. In Rochdale, with caseloads of 3,602 offenders over the year, there was an actual re- offending rate of 9.77%. This means that 352 offenders were convicted / cautioned for a further offence in the measurement period. This is 31 less than been predicted (10.64%). These results reflect that in Rochdale there has been a decrease in re- offending of 8.16% compared to the baseline. • Justice seen Justice done has been a big success in the borough and 49,453 hours of Community Payback have been worked by offenders on probation’s caseload, making a positive contribution to our communities. • The Greater Manchester Employment Coalition’s Green team has offered employment to 5 ex offenders – we know that employment makes a big difference to stopping offending. Green Team: Groundwork is a key partner in the government's Future Jobs Fund Initiative. Groundwork Oldham & Rochdale was looking to find around 30 people aged 18 - 24 who had been unemployed for more than nine months. (*One offender is in his forties). Groundwork Oldham & Rochdale approached ALMO Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH) to support the Initiative. The two organizations saw an opportunity to work with young offenders and provide them with a chance to start again and create a clean slate. Meet the Green Team initiative is split into three intakes with around 13 people in each who would be employed for six months. The first Green Team started in November 09 and finish their six month training in April 2010. Job Centre Plus was charged with recruiting the non offenders to the Green Team but Groundwork and RBH worked closely with the police and the probation service to identify the offenders who would most benefit. A key feature of this initiative is rather than split the Green Team into a non-offending team and an offending team, each intake would comprise a mix of both. • Typical work includes: General clean up of streets; Bulb planning Clearance of shrub beds; Removal of fly tipping; Cutting back vegetation; Small repairs of external properties; Resurfacing of pedestrian walkway; Clearance of snow during extreme weather; Dog fouling was identified by a group of primary school children; Helping individuals such as cleaning up a garden for a single parent who has a disabled child. All Green Team members receive: Risk assessment training Manual handling Health and safety Basic literacy and numeracy skills to ESOL Level I Abrasive wheels training Handling mechanical equipment CSCS certificate. At week 16 they receive training on job searching, writing a CV, interview techniques and practical help in applying for a job. What we have been doing • Spotlight Integrated Offender Management has been implemented and is now focusing on around 200 offenders identified as posing the greatest harm to communities and individuals. They are closely monitored. If the offender is ready to change, they are offered support to do so. Partnership activity is intelligence led which results in a rapid response if this is required. Compliance with court orders is required and offenders are returned to court or prison for failures to comply. Page14 56
• There are good links with local and other prisons which we use to make sure that offenders do as much work in prison as possible to reduce the chances of reoffending on release e.g. problem solving courses, drug treatment, education. Probation and partners then plan for their release making sure that services are carried on and that any return to offending is identified and appropriate action taken. Our priorities and plans for 2010/11 • Consolidate the Spotlight Integrated Offender Management model for reducing reoffending and reducing harm to victims and communities by:- • Sharing intelligence and information • Co-ordinating interventions that reduce the likelihood of a return to crime e.g. employment, education, training; victim awareness work • Focus on 18 year olds on the Probation caseload and, working with the Youth Offending Team, identify more productive and successful ways of engaging and working with this group. • Make links with other strategic partnerships in the borough, to promote understanding of and commitment to their contribution to reducing reoffending. • Play a full part in the Better Life Chances project on Kirkholt to help improve life chances for all.
Page15 57 Developing Community Cohesion
How we’ve performed in 2009/10
• The Place Survey results were published and revealed a 5% improvement for the community cohesion indicator NI 1: People from different backgrounds getting on well together
What we’ve been doing
• Successfully applied for an additional £317,000 from the Migration Impacts Fund to help develop innovative ways for the delivery of services impacted upon by migration • The Lets Live Together project helped families move into non-traditional areas • A series of interactive workshops and football matches between the Fire Service and young people • Sporting events were used as a vehicle to integrate individuals back in to society • Rochdale Mediation Services offered accredited training courses to give people the skills to mediate • The Saturday Short Break Scheme enabled people with disabilities from all communities to engage in diverse activities together. • An event called U-NITE took place that built a mutual understanding between young people aged 12-16 from different socio-economic groups, ethnic backgrounds and areas of the borough • A Faith Communities project officer was recruited to work with faith organisations in Rochdale Borough, to build capacity and empower religious communities • And the Peace Parade took place in Rochdale in September 2009 in recognition and support of the UN International Day of Peace and Non-violence
Our priorities and plans for 2010/11
• Develop a refreshed community cohesion strategy for the period 2011-2014 • Identify a range of projects to commission to help achieve the Boroughs community cohesion aims and objectives • Continue to embed community cohesion in to core services and public understanding • Look for solutions and offer further support to those communities who feel marginalised • Tackling inequalities in accessing suitable housing, health and employment opportunities • Increase awareness around the different communities that exist in the Borough • Develop opportunities for contact between different faiths, generations and other groups • Advance the role of local third sector organisations
Page16 58 PRIORITY 1: FEELING SAFER TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high Reduce the percentage of people who perceive there to be Low 16.2%% 13.0% 12.0% high levels of anti-social behaviour in their area (NI 17) (see also Priority 4) Dealing with ASB & crime issues that matter to High 60.5% 59.5% 65% people in their local area (NI 21) LAA TARGET Increase confidence that police and local authority High understand local concerns regarding ASB and crime (NI 27) Reduce the percentage of people who perceive drunk or Low 24.1% 24.1% 22.0% rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area (NI 41) (see also priority 3) Reduce the percentage of the public who perceive Low 30.8% 28.8% 26.0% Page 59 drug use or dealing to be a problem in their area (NI 42) (see also priority 3) Reduce the number of accidental dwelling fires LAA Low 302 (2005/6) 179 290 STRETCH TARGET Reduce the number of i) primary fires Low i) 877 651 754 ii) related fatalities ii) 1 2 0 iii) non-fatal casualties (NI 49) iii) 34 20 31 Increase percentage of people who think the criminal justice High 23% 41.1% To be set by system as a whole is effective (PSA 24) LCJB Increase the percentage of people who think the criminal High 30% 44.4% To be set by justice system gives victims and witnesses the support they LCJB need (PSA 24)
NI National Indicator LAA Local Area Agreement ASB Anti Social Behaviour PSA Public Service Agreement
17
PRIORITY 2: REDUCE CRIME TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high Reduce the number of serious violent crimes (NI 15) Low 213 (2008/9) 268 198 Reduce the number of serious acquisitive crimes (NI 16) LAA Low 5464 (2007/8) 4549 5055 (7.5%) TARGET Reduce the number of serious acquisitive crimes (NI Low 4561 4561 4014 (12.0%) 16) GMP TARGET Burglary Dwelling 1685 1685 1473 Aggravated Burg. Dwelling 10 10 9 Business robbery 77 77 68 Personal Robbery 326 326 286 Theft of Motor Vehicle 741 741 653 Aggravated Vehicle Taking 50 50 44 Page 60 Theft from Motor Vehicles 1682 1682 1481 Reduce the number of assaults with less serious Low 1581 (2007/8) 1706 1318 injury (NI 20) Reduce the number of serious violent knife crimes Low 232 (2008/9) 195 No target set (NI 28) by GMP Reduce the number of gun crimes (NI 29) Low 58 (2008/9) 44 No target set by GMP Reduce the number of domestic violence incidents Low that are identified as repeat victimisation (NI 32 )
NOTES: NI 15 Serious Violent Crime includes the following crime types – Homicide and child destruction, attempted murder, Wounding or other act endangering life, Grievous Bodily Harm without intent (including racially and religiously aggravated, Causing death by dangerous driving, Causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs, causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving
18
PRIORITY 3: REDUCE THE HARM CAUSED BY DRUGS AND ALCOHOL TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high DRUGS Increase the number of problematic drug users recorded High 1073 (Apr 09) 1161 as being in effective treatment (NI 40) LAA TARGET Reduce the rate of drug-related offending (NI 38) Low 0.99 0.80 Ratio below 1(see note) Reduce the percentage of the public who perceive drug Low 30.8% 28.8% 26.0% use or dealing to be a problem in their area (NI 42) Reduce levels of substance misuse by young people Low 13.2% 10% 10% (NI 115) – drugs All schools to be engaged in the Healthy Schools Enhancement High Model by 2020 (70% by 2015) NEW TARGET
Page 61 ALCOHOL Number of clients to have received an effective treatment High 650 930 intervention (ie actively engaged + brief intervention +successful completions) NEW TARGET Reduce rate of hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related Reduced rate 2271 2496 harm (NI39) LAA Stretch of increase Reduce the number of alcohol specific admissions Low 1850 (2009/10) NEW TARGET Reduce the percentage of people who perceive drunk or rowdy Low 24.1% 24.1% 22.0% behaviour to be a problem in their area (NI 41) Reduce levels of substance misuse by young people Low 13.2% 10% 10% (NI 115) – alcohol
Note: NI 38 – an identified cohort of offenders who have tested positive for drugs in a custody suite or are on a Drug Rehabilitiation Requirement with the Probation Service are chosen each year. Based upon their previous offending history a prediction is made as to their future offending. We then monitor their actual offending, in order to establish a ratio of predicted offending versus actual offending .i.e. their future offending rate should be no more, and ideally less, than their historic offending rate. EXAMPLE – Cohort size 165. Predicted offending rate 438.8. Actual offending rate 436. Ratio 0.99.
19
PRIORITY 4 PREVENT AND TACKLE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high Reduce the percentage of people who perceive there to be Low 16.2%% 13.0% 12.0% high levels of anti-social behaviour in their area (NI 17)
Perceptions of parents in the area taking responsibility for the High 20.3% 31.3% (Sept 25.3% behaviour of their children (NI 22) 09)
Reduce the number of deliberate i) primary fires and Low 28.6 16.89 18.5 ii) secondary fires per 66.3 46.32 52.6 10,000 population (NI 33) LAA TARGET Reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents Low 15757 15757 14182
Page 62 recorded by Police (GMP Divisional target) (2009/10) (2009/10)
Reduce the number of criminal damage incidents recorded by Low 6332 4339 Police (GMP Divisional target) (2008/9) 4821
20
PRIORITY 5 PREVENT OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high Reducing the rate of proven re-offending by young people Low 47.7% (2005/6) 05v09 19.0% TBA (NI 19) 08v09 30.8% Reducing the number of young people who are first time Low 415 (2007/8) 229 TBA entrants to the Youth Justice System (NI 111) LAA TARGET
Reducing the percentage of 16-18 year olds not in education, Low 8.8% 7.9% 7.0% employment or training (NI 117) 10.9% 10.7% 8.9%
Increasing numbers of young people participating in positive High 67% 59.9% 75% activities (NI 110)
Ensuring that numbers of custodial sentences are Low 7.2% 11% 5%
Page 63 proportionate to the overall number of young people’s convictions (NI 43) Maintaining proportionate representation within the Criminal Zero change 9% -1.3% Justice System of people from BME groups (NI 44)
Increasing the percentage of young offenders engaged in High 80% 77.8% 90% suitable education, employment or training (NI 45)
Increasing the number of young offenders with access to High 98.5% 98.8% 100% suitable accommodation (NI 46)
Notes: NI 117 – top figure is using residency model, i.e. % of 16-18 year olds that live in Rochdale that are NEET. Bottom figure is national model, i.e. % of 16-18 year olds that live in Rochdale that are NEET in Rochdale. This model excludes those who are in education employment or training out of the Borough (currently about 11% of the cohort)
21
PRIORITY 6 REDUCE ADULT RE-OFFENDING TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high Reducing Re-offending Reduce the level of proven re-offending by adult offenders Low 10.32% 9.2% under probation supervision, including serious re-offending (NI 18) Reduce the re-offending rate of prolific & priority offenders Low Not yet TBA by GONW (NI 30) available Resettlement pathways Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision 74% 90% 75% living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of High
Page 64 their order or license (NI 143 / OM 17) Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision High 32% 42% 40% in employment at the end of their order or license (NI 144 / INT 9) Number of DRRs completed High 34 54 38 Percentage of Probation High 31.8% 31.8% 30% clients time spent on unpaid work benefiting the community Compliance and enforcement Percentage of breaches of community orders that are High 68% 71% 62% resolved within 25 working days of the relevant failure to comply Percentage of cases that reach six month stage without High 86% 82% 70% requiring breach action to be taken (OM 6) Percentage of order and licenses that are successfully High 74% 85% 70% completed
22
PRIORITY 7 COMMUNITY COHESION TARGETS 2010/11
Best outcome Baseline Actual 2009/10 Target 2010/11 Indicator low or high % of people who believe people from different backgrounds High 57.2% (2008) 47.7% (Sept 61.3% get on well together (NI 1) 09)
Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with Low 30.0% (Sept 30.0% 28.0% respect and consideration (NI 23) 09)
Build resilience to violent extremism (NI 35) High 2.25 (2008/9) 2.30 2.75
Page 65 Protection against terrorist attack (NI 36) Low
Awaiting guidance from the audit commission to be able to establish baseline data and methods of measuring
23
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 66 Agenda Item 14 ITEM NO.
CABINET
Subject: Petitions Status: For Publication
Report to : Cabinet Date: 1st June 2010 Policy Overview Committee 21 st June 2010 Regulatory Committee 24 th June 2010 Council 21 st July 2010
Report of: Email: [email protected] Director of Legal and Democratic Service Tel: 4702 Cabinet Member : Councillor Couzens
Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer
Key Decision: Yes / No
Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 This report seeks approval for the adoption by the Council of a “Petition Scheme” and to authorise the Borough Solicitor to amend the Council’s Constitution to reflect changes in the Council’s arrangements vis-a-vis the promotion of good governance and the promotion of democracy.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The Petition Scheme, attached at the Appendix of this report is adopted by the Cabinet insofar as it relates to Executive functions and that Full Council approves the document in relation to non Executive functions 2.2 The Head of Legal and Democratic Service be authorised to amend the Council’s Constitution and Scheme of Delegation
2.3 The Head of Legal and Democratic Service be authorised as the Petitions Officer and be instructed to report annually to Council on the operation of the Scheme and determine any Complaints that may be considered to be vexatious, abusive or inappropriate
Version Number: Page: 1 of 6
Page 67
2.4 The Council is asked to determine the threshold for activating a debate at Full Council and for referring petitions to a Scrutiny Committee
2.5 That the Head of Legal and Democratic Service be authorised to set up the modern.gov system to facilitate the Council’s on-line facility
3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
3.1 The Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 was given Royal Assent in November 2009. Part 1 Chapter 2 of that Act deals with local authority petitions. It imposes a new statutory petition scheme on local authorities to have a scheme for handling petitions which must be approved by Full Council and be published on the Council’s web site. 3.2 The main statutory requirements of the Act include: - i) To have an on-line petition facility which allows anyone to petition the authority, and allows anyone who lives, works or studies in the authority’s area to sign the petition on-line. ii) To adopt a petition scheme which sets out how the authority will acknowledge receipt of petition whether made on-line or otherwise , and advice the petition organiser how the petition will be dealt with. The Act requires that the petition scheme defines different categories of petitions and sets a minimum number of signatures for each type of petition. iii) In the case of Borough Councils a petition need not relate to their functions, but can relate to an improvement in the economic, social or environmental well being of the area to which any partner authorities/bodies can contribute (e.g. AGMA or RBH). iv) The Council will be able to delegate to an appropriate officer the power to reject petitions which are considered to be vexatious, abusive or inappropriate. The Council should base their decision on the same test that would be used for Freedom of Information requests. It is suggested that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services perform this role. v) The new Petition Scheme does not apply to petitions received under statutory procedures, such as petitions for a mayoral constitution or consultations on matters relating to planning or licensing. vi) The Council will be given flexibility to set the threshold numbers of signatures and to determine how such petitions will be dealt with. vii) Petitions that will require a debate must be reported to Full Council for a debate, and the Council will be able to set a higher number of signatures as the threshold for any petitions that will require a debate at Full Council meetings.
Version Number: Page: 2 of 6
Page 68 viii) Any petitions that “hold an officer to account” must name a senior officer of the Council and will activate a meeting of the appropriate Scrutiny Committee at which the officer may be questioned in relation to their actions or advice (as the individual circumstances dictate). As in vii) above the Council is able to vary the number of signatures that are required as a threshold for activation. ix) Where a petition organiser is not satisfied by actions taken by the Council in response to a petition, the organiser will have a right to appeal to the Council’s relevant Scrutiny Committee. 3.3 What is a Petition? The 2009 Act defines different categories of petitions: - a. Petitions for Debate” that must be reported to and debated at Full Council b. “Petitions to hold an Officer to Account” that will trigger a meeting of the Council’s Performance Scrutiny Committee at which the named officer will report and be questioned on their actions c. “Exempted Petitions” which are received in response to statutory consultation on planning and licensing applications will continue to be reported to the Township Planning Sub-Committees and to the Regulatory Committee d. “Ordinary Petitions”, for which the authority can determine how these petitions will be handled The Department for Communities and Local government has issued statutory guidance on Petition Schemes which suggest that authorities should set the number of signatures required for each category of petition at levels which encourage rather than discourage petitions, and should set a lower threshold for petitions on local rather than authority wide matters. The Petitions Scheme would only apply to petitions which relate to matters for which the Council has responsibility or which it is able to influence. 3.4 In considering the number of signatures that are to considered to be a suitable threshold the Council will also have to take account of local circumstances. Any threshold that is set should be achievable and set as a simple figure so that people will know the number of signatures that will be required from residents to activate a debate at Full Council.
3.5 The Department for Communities and Local Government have issued a draft model scheme based on an authority with a population of 150,000. The thresholds in the scheme for petitions requiring a debate at a Full Council meeting are 1,500 whilst the threshold for schemes that “hold an officer to account” is 750. The draft Order states that the absolute maximum threshold which can be set is 5% of the local area (in the case of Rochdale MBC this would equate to just over 10,000 people).
Version Number: Page: 3 of 6
Page 69 3.6 A signature will count only if the name and address of the individual(s) are given and if the petition is electronic with means of identification verification as required by the Council. The Government’s model scheme suggests that this might be name, postcode and an individual’s e-mail address. The legal requirement to have a petition scheme in place is enshrined in the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Therefore the Council has no choice but to have in place an effective and usable Petition scheme including an e-petition facility. In finalising the Petition scheme the Council will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the statutory guidance issued in relation to this duty and any amendments which would impact on the proposals set out in this report will be reported to the Cabinet and to Full Council at the appropriate time. An appropriate officer needs to be designated as the Petitions Officer, (recommended to be the Head of Legal and Democratic Service) to be responsible for recording all petitions received, responding to petition organisers, ensuring that petitions are reported to Full Council and/or the appropriate Cabinet Member, updating the “Petitions” section of the Council’s website, inviting petition organisers to attend meetings. The Council needs to determine the number of signatures required for petitions. It is suggested that there be a minimum threshold for ordinary petitions of 50, but that 1,500 signatories be required for a petition to “hold an officer to account” and 3,000 signatories for a “Petition for Debate”. These figures can be revised at any time, especially if they are found to be a deterrent to petitions, or to encourage vexatious or trivial petitions. In this regard it is recommended that the Head of Legal and Democratic Service submit an Annual Report to Full Council to ascertain how the Petitions process is working. The Council is required to determine to whom Ordinary Petitions should be reported for decision. It is recommended that the relevant Cabinet member be accorded this responsibility but that that Cabinet Member maintains the right to refer a petition on to the Cabinet if they felt that it raised wider issues, or fell outside the remit of their portfolio.
The Council needs to determine who will be provided with copies of the petition(s). it is suggested that the political Group Leaders and relevant Ward Councillors be provided with a copy of each petition within a period of five working days of receipt, at the same time that it is put on to the relevant page of the Council’s website. The Council is required to determine the length of time that is to be allowed for discussion of petitions at any particular meeting of Full Council or of the Cabinet. Whilst no statutory timeframe has been set out the Council needs to be able to ensure that other business is dealt with effectively. It is suggested that a maximum of 30 minutes be allowed at any meeting that can be extended at the discretion of the person chairing a particular meeting. No alternatives have been considered as it is a statutory requirement for the Council to have an effective Petitions facility (including an e-petition facility) in place.
Version Number: Page: 4 of 6
Page 70 4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The Consultation Paper that was issued to authorities on the proposals stated that whilst the proposals may impose new costs they may also deliver savings and that “any additional net cost will be fully and properly funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government so that no additional pressure is placed on council tax bills”. 4.2 The cost of dealing with petitions under the draft Petition Scheme, if adopted, cannot be ascertained in advance, as they will depend on the number of petitions received. Currently the majority of petitions received relate to statutory consultations, for example, on planning applications, which will continue to be handled as at present.
5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The report is presented to ensure that the Council’s governance arrangements fully comply with changes in legislation.
5.2 The report sets out the legal requirement for the Council to have a “Petition Scheme” which sets out how it deals with petitions and 15 th June 2010 to adopt a Petition Scheme setting out how we deal with petitions. To have a e-petition facility in place and presents a model for consideration by Cabinet Members in the first instance with a view to it being formally adopted by Full Council on 21 st July 2010. 5.3 The Council is required to have an e-petition facility by 15 th December 2010.
6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 There are no personnel implications.
7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
7.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.
Version Number: Page: 5 of 6
Page 71
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection
Or there are no background papers (delete where applicable)
Version Number: Page: 6 of 6
Page 72
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Petition Scheme
The Petitions process allows members of the public to have direct influence on the political process and to raise concerns that are important to them.
Members of the public can submit petitions on the following:-
• Issues relating to Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council’s responsibilities.
• Issues which affect the Borough or communities in Rochdale, as long as they Council is in a position to exercise some degree of influence.
• Anything relating to an improvement in the economic, social or environmental well being of the Borough to which any of the Council’s partners could contribute.
The Council will respond to all the petitions it receives. We will be as flexible as we can when handling your petition so that it is considered quickly and in the most appropriate way.
Essentially there are three types of petitions:-
• “Ordinary” Petitions These must be signed by at least 50 people but the Council will use its discretion where there are fewer than 50 signatories in cases where there is clear local support for action (e.g. where the residents of an isolated community have petitioned for traffic calming measures).
• Petitions requiring debate Petitions which contain 3000 signatures or more will be debated by the full Council.
• Petitions to hold Council employees to account Petitions which call for evidence from a senior Council employee and have at least 1,500 signatures will trigger that response.
Page 73 2
How can I submit a Petition?
The Council welcomes petitions and recognises that petitions are one way in which people can let us know their concerns. All petitions sent or presented to the Council will receive an acknowledgement from the Council within 14 days of receipt. The acknowledgement will set out what we plan to do with the petition.
Paper petitions can be sent to:
Mrs Linda Fisher Borough Solicitor Legal and Democratic Service Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council PO Box 16 ROCHDALE OL16 1AB
Telephone: - 01706 924702 e-mail: - [email protected]
Or can be created as an e-petition , signed and submitted online by following this link [link]
Petitions can also be presented to a meeting of the Council. The Council meets ordinarily on four occasions per year, with additional meetings for the establishment of the Council's Council Tax rate and its Annual meeting with additional special meetings convened as and when necessary. If you would like to present your petition to the Council, or would like your Councillor to present it on your behalf, please contact The Borough Solicitor on 01706 924702 at least 5 working days before the meeting who will talk you through the process.
What are the guidelines for submitting a petition?
Petitions submitted to the Council must include a clear and concise statement covering the subject of the petition.
• It should state what action the petitioners wish the Council to take • the name and address and signature of any person supporting the petition
The action should be within the powers of the Council. The Council will not generally lobby or challenge other authorities as a result of a petition. Members of the public can submit petitions on the following
• Issues relating to the Council’s responsibilities • Issues which affect the borough or communities within Rochdale MBC, where the Council is in a position to exercise a degree of influence • Anything related to an improvement in the economic, social or environmental well-being of the country to which any of the Council’s partners could contribute
The Council works with a large number of local partners and where possible will work with these partners to respond to your petition. If we are not able to do this Page 74 3
for any reason (for example if what the petition calls for conflicts with Council policy), then we will set out the reasons for this to you. You can find more information on the services for which the Council is responsible here Home Page
Petitions should be accompanied by contact details, including an address, for the petition organiser. This is the person we will contact to explain how we will respond to the petition. The contact details of the petition organiser will remain confidential and will not be placed on the website. If the Petition does not identify a petition organiser; we will contact signatories to the petition to agree who should act as the petition organiser.
Petitions which are considered to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate will not be accepted. If a petition does not follow the guidelines set out above, the Council may decide not to do anything further with it. In that case, we will write to you to explain the reasons.
Who can submit a Petition?
Anyone who lives, works or studies in Rochdale, including under 18s, can sign or organise a petition.
What will the Council do when it receives my petition?
An acknowledgement will be sent to the petition organiser within 14 days of receipt of the petition. It will let them know what we plan to do with the petition and when they can expect to hear from us again. It will also be published on our website. If we can do what your petition asks for, the acknowledgement may confirm that we have taken the action requested and the petition will be closed.
If the petition has enough signatures to trigger a Council debate, or a senior officer giving evidence to a Scrutiny Committee, then the acknowledgment will confirm this and tell you when and where the meeting will take place.
If the petition needs more investigation, we will tell you the steps we plan to take.
We will not accept Petitions?
If the petition applies to a planning or licensing application, or is a statutory petition (for example requesting a referendum on having an elected mayor), or on a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal, such as Council tax banding and non-domestic rates, other procedures apply.
We will not take action on any petition which we consider to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate and will explain the reasons for this in our acknowledgement of the petition.
Page 75 4
Where a person or organisation (or someone on their behalf) has submitted a petition which is the same or substantially the same or one submitted in the previous twelve months.
How will the Council respond to petitions?
To ensure that people know what we are doing in response to the petitions we receive the details of all the petitions submitted to us will be published on our website, except in cases where this would be inappropriate. Whenever possible we will also publish all correspondence relating to the petition (all personal details will be removed). When you sign an e-petition you can elect to receive this information by email. We will not send you anything which is not relevant to the e-petition you have signed, unless you choose to receive other emails from us.
Our response to a petition will depend on what a petition asks for and how many people have signed it, but may include one or more of the following: • taking the action requested in the petition • considering the petition at a Council meeting • holding an inquiry into the matter • undertaking research into the matter • holding a public meeting • holding a consultation • holding a meeting with petitioners • referring the petition for consideration by the Council’s Scrutiny Committee* • referring the petition to another authority • writing to the petition organiser setting out our views about the request in the petition • In addition to these steps the Council will consider all the specific actions it can potentially take on the issues highlighted in a petition.
*The Scrutiny Committees are committees of Councillors who are responsible for scrutinising the work of the Council that have the power to hold the Council’s decision makers to account. In addition to these steps, the Council will consider all the specific actions it can potentially take on the issues highlighted in a petition.
If your petition is about something over which the Council has no direct control (for example the local railway or hospital) we will aim to make representations on behalf of the community to the relevant body.
If your petition is about something that a different Council is responsible for we will give consideration to what the best method is for responding to it. It might consist of simply forwarding the petition to the other Council, but could involve other steps. In any event we will always notify you of the action we have taken.
Full Council debates
If a petition contains more than 3000 signatures it will be debated by the full Council unless it is a petition asking for a senior Council officer to give evidence at a public meeting. This means that the issue raised in the petition will be discussed at a meeting which all Councillors can attend. The petition organiser will be given Page 76 5
five minutes to present the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes. The Council will decide how to respond to the petition at this meeting. They may decide to take the action the petition requests, not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate, or to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant Committee or Cabinet. The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision. This confirmation will also be published on our website.
Officer evidence
Your petition may ask for a senior Council officer to give evidence at a Council Scrutiny Committee about something for which the officer is responsible as part of their job. For example, your petition may ask a senior Council officer to explain progress on an issue, or to explain the advice given to elected members to enable them to make a particular decision.
If your petition contains at least 1500 signatures, the relevant senior officer will give evidence at a public meeting of the Council’s Scrutiny Committee. A list of the senior staff that can be called to give evidence are http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/council_service_structure.as px
You should be aware that the scrutiny committee may decide that it would be more appropriate for another officer to give evidence instead of any officer named in the petition – for instance if the named officer has changed jobs. Committee members will ask the questions at this meeting, but you will be able to suggest questions to the chair of the committee by contacting Committee Services 01706 924712, up to three working days before the meeting.
E-petitions
The Council welcomes e-petitions which are created and submitted through our website [link ]. E-petitions must follow the same guidelines as paper petitions [link to guidelines]. The petition organiser will need to provide us with their name, postal address and email address. You will also need to decide how long you would like your petition to be open for signatures. Most petitions run for six months, but you can choose a shorter or longer timeframe, up to a maximum of 12 months.
When you create an e-petition, it may take five working days before it is published online. This is because we have to check that the content of your petition is suitable before it is made available for signature. If we feel we cannot publish your petition for some reason, we will contact you within this time to explain. You will be able to change and resubmit your petition if you wish. If you do not do this within 14 days, a summary of the petition and the reason why it has not been accepted will be published under the ‘rejected petitions’ section of the website.
When an e-petition has closed for signature, it will automatically be submitted to the Borough Solicitor.. In the same way as a paper petition, you will receive an Page 77 6
acknowledgement within 14 days. If you would like to present your e-petition to a meeting of the Council, please contact the Borough Solicitor (details above) within five days of the petition closing.
A petition acknowledgement and response will be emailed to everyone who has signed the e-petition and elected to receive this information. The acknowledgment and response will also be published on this website .
How do I ‘sign’ an e-petition?
You can see all the e-petitions currently available for signature here [insert link]. When you sign an e-petition you will be asked to provide your name, your postcode and a valid email address. When you have submitted this information you will be sent an email to the email address you have provided. This email will include a link which you must click on in order to confirm the email address is valid. Once this step is complete your ‘signature’ will be added to the petition. People visiting the e-petition will be able to see your name in the list of those who have signed it but your contact details will not be visible. What can I do if I feel my petition has not been dealt with properly?
If you feel that we have not dealt with your petition properly, the petition organiser has the right to request that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee review the steps that the Council has taken in response to your petition.
The Scrutiny Committee will consider your request within 30 days of receiving it or the next available meeting whichever is sooner. Should the Committee determine we have not dealt with your petition adequately; it may use any of its powers to deal with the matter. These powers include instigating an investigation, making recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet and arranging for the matter to be considered at a meeting of the Full Council.
Once the appeal has been considered the petition organiser will be informed of the results within seven days. The results of the review will also be published on our website.
What can I do if I feel my Petition has not been dealt with properly?
Complain under the Council’s complaints process –
Rochdale Council’s Corporate complaints and compliments
We work hard to provide the best service for all our customers and we appreciate you taking the time to let us know what you think. You can contact our Customer Services staff, your local Councillor or MP for help making a complaint.
Page 78 7
How to make a complaint, compliment or comment
You can get in touch with us in any of the following ways by logging on to http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/corporate_complaints_and_ compl.aspx
• By filling in the online feedback form • By email to [email protected] • By telephone, to any member of staff or to the Contact Centre :
Service Contact details Council tax and housing benefit. Revenues and Tel: 0845 121 2970 Benefits - for council tax, housing benefits, [email protected] council tax benefits and payments. Environmental health. For pest control, drain Tel: 0845 121 2971 problems, noise nuisance, food safety, dog [email protected] warden and pollution. Environmental management. For refuse, Tel: 0845 226 1800 recycling, fly tipping, dog fouling. [email protected] Highways and engineering . For parking, car parks, street lights, path and road Tel: 0845 121 2979 maintenance, bridges and structures, design and [email protected] construction, traffic management, and road safety.
• By letter or fax to the head of service • By filling in the feedback form in our Have Your Say leaflet, available from our Customer Service Centres (freepost return address) • In person, at any of the our Customer Service Centres
Complaints - procedure
If you are not happy with something we have or have not done, we want to hear from you. Your complaint will be treated seriously and in confidence.
Most complaints are dealt with under this procedure, however some types of complaints need to be looked at under different procedures. Details of these types of complaints can be found at the end of this page.
If you would like advice on this procedure, please contact the People's Champion Team.
• How to contact us to make your complaint
What happens when we receive your complaint?
Stage 1
When you first contact us to tell us about your complaint, you can expect:
• an immediate response, or if we need more time • a full response within 10 working days Page 79 8
Not happy with our response?
Stage 2
You can ask for your complaint to be looked into again by the Service concerned. This is a stage 2 investigation and you can expect:
• an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and • a full response to your complaint within a further 15 working days
Stage 3
If you are still not happy with our response, you can appeal to the People's Champion Team for an independent review. This is a stage 3 review and you can expect:
• an acknowledgement of your appeal within 5 working days, and • a full response within a further 20 working days
This is the third and final stage of our complaints process.
Letting us know
If you are not happy with our response at stage one or two, please let us know within 28 days so that we can look into your complaint again.
What to do if you are still not satisfied
If you are still not happy with the way we handled your complaint after it has been looked into at all three stages, you can contact the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
Local Government Ombudsman
What if we need more time to investigate?
Occasionally, we may need more time to investigate your complaint. If this is the case, we will let you know how the investigation is going, how much longer we think we will need, and the reasons for this.
How did we do?
After your complaint has been looked into, we will ask you to fill in a form to let us know how easy it was to use our complaints procedure, and your comments on how well we dealt with your complaint.
Anonymous complaints
Although we cannot let you know the outcome of your complaint if we do not have your contact details, you can make a complaint anonymously. Your complaint will be recorded and investigated by the Service concerned.
Page 80 9
Linda Fisher Borough Solicitor
Page 81 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 82 Agenda Item 15 ITEM NO.
Subject: Update on the proposal to replace Status: For Publication Central Leisure Centre with a modern leisure centre. Report to: Rochdale Township Committee Date: 7th July 2010 Report of: John Percival – Special Projects Email: [email protected] Manager Tel: 01706 924843 Cabinet Member: Cllr Clayton Cllr Mulgrew
Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer
Key Decision: No
Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To update Members on the progress towards a replacement sport and leisure centre for Rochdale Central Leisure Centre.
2 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That Members note the information contained in this report
3 MAIN TEXT
3.1 Background
3.1.1 Central Leisure Centre is more than 70 years old and whilst it continues to provide facilities for swimming, health and fitness these facilities do not satisfy current day standards and changing customer expectations. 3.1.2 The Council included funding for a replacement for Central Leisure in the capital programme 2010-11 and 2011-12. The required capital comes partially from capitalising efficiencies generated by the Link4Life business plan. 3.1.3 A project team consisting of officers from Special Projects, Link4Life, RMBC Sustainability Team and Impact Partnership has considered technical feasibility issues and is managing procurement of a suitable contractor. 3.2 Feasibility
Version Number: Page: 1 of 3
Page 83 3.2.1 The project team considered options for locating the leisure centre and concluded that the land next to the existing facilities is the best compromise of location, land availability and cost. This land previously used by the Council as a vehicle depot and workshops is located centrally for a significant proportion of the population to be served, is owned by the Council and is currently vacant. Investigation into the ground conditions and discussion with the Development Control and Highways officers concludes that given adequate remediation and environmental protection measures it is technically feasible to build the new facilities on this site. 3.2.2 The second stage of investigation looked at whether we are able to provide adequate replacement facilities on the available site. An outline design has been produced which demonstrates that the site is large enough and has adequate access. Extracts from the outline design are appended to this report for information. 3.2.3 Using this outline design the project team produced an outline cost plan. The estimated cost of the proposed design and a separate sum for site remediation was approved at the Cabinet Committee meeting on the 18th February. 3.2.4 An application for Outline Planning Permission has been approved and consultation with the key statutory agencies has been concluded. We are therefore able to move forward with the project. 3.3 Contractor Procurement 3.3.1 Every project needs to achieve a balance between cost, delivery time and quality. A key issue in this is effective management of risk. This is achieved most effectively by placing control of risk in the hands of the people best able to manage it. Part of the Council’s approach to this contained in the contract strategy. 3.3.2 The approach chosen is a two stage Design and Build contract. The first stage is to produce a detailed design and cost plan. It is important at this stage that the contractor is fully engaged in the design development, value management and value engineering to ensure that the design is efficient and buildable. Our approach is to commit only to the first stage so that we are clear that what is proposed is affordable – including consideration of whole life costs - and meets expectations. There is a break at the end of stage one where we can choose whether to proceed. 3.3.3 At stage two we will commit to the project and the responsibility and risk around delivery and cost will rest with the contractor. 3.3.4 The project has been advertised through OJEU and CHEST and the pre qualification process completed. We have a shortlist of six contractors who have been invited to submit a tender: 3.3.5 Evaluation of the tender has been completed and a recommendation will be made to Cabinet as to which contractor should be selected. 3.3.6 Subject to tender evaluation, acceptable design cost, planning and control of key risks the estimated start for the construction phase will be January 2011. Completion is subject to programme which we will understand when the design stage is finished but a realistic estimate is 15 months giving an estimated completion of spring 2012. 3.4 Consultation Undertaken/Proposed 3.4.1 The Portfolio Holders for Finance and Regeneration, Chair of the Rochdale Township and Ward Councillors have been consulted and there have been five events held where local people including some young people have been invited to comment on the proposals. To date we have had sixty four written responses. 3.4.2 We have consulted the Carbon Trust on sustainability and energy reduction issues. The Carbon Trust has agreed to pay for eight days professional advisor support for the project.
Version Number: Page: 2 of 3
Page 84 3.4.3 We have consulted the Amateur Swimming Association on the design of the pools and changing accommodation and they have agreed that the proposals for the pools meet their requirements for regional level short course (25m) competition. The ASA has agreed to continue to contribute their expertise during the design development and consultation process. 3.4.4 We have consulted the local swimming clubs on the concept designs and feed their feedback into the scheme. 3.4.5 The Project Team met with pupils at Matthew Moss School to discuss their ideas for the project, these have been fed into the design meetings and further school visits have been planned. 3.4.6 As the project progresses further consultation will take place with members and local people. The designers and contractor will be involved in this consultation with the aim of involving local people in the detail design process and of facilitating some knowledge transfer.
4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
5 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no legal implications arising from this report.
6 PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 None arising from this report.
7 RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The key technical risks for the project will be in the ground works, sub-structures and remediation. The site presents some considerable challenges in this respect. As part of the feasibility work on the project a detailed site investigation was completed by specialists in this area and the outline cost plan has taken account of the advice received. 7.2 A two stage design process has been adopted to control the risk that the full design is unaffordable since we will only be committing to the cost of the design stage. 7.3 The contract strategy is designed to minimize the risk of cost overrun on the project. Variations to the project will be strictly controlled and any changes that result in additional costs will as far as is possible be off-set by savings elsewhere in the project or contained within contingency.
There are no background papers
Version Number: Page: 3 of 3
Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 86