Budget cabinet consider council tax increase suggestions

In a meeting of the Rochdale Council Budget Cabinet on Monday 18 December, members considered the proposed additional 1 per cent council tax increase by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee - the Liberal Democrat Budget Cabinet rejected the advice of the Labour chaired Scrutiny Committee to up the proposed 3.9% rise to 4.9%.

The Council is aiming to set one of the lowest tax increases in the Greater Manchester area and it was announced at last night’s Budget Cabinet meeting that they remained on course to do so. Councillor William Hobhouse declared: “We are determined to keep Council Tax as low as possible, as we pledged in our manifesto. We are still aiming for a 3.9% rise.”

Another item on the agenda was the proposed closure of ‘super loos’, of which there are two in Rochdale and one in Littleborough. These public toilets are leased by the Council at a cost of £87,000 but the Cabinet stated that it would not close the facilities until alternatives are made available.

It was proposed that when the new Council offices, to be located on the Yelloways site, were complete, the Cabinet would ensure that there would be public toilets available on site, which would be cleaned and maintained by Council staff. Only then would the ‘super loos’ be closed down.

Other items on the agenda included the raising of council house rent by 5%. The Cabinet announced that it was reluctant to make the increase but that it was necessary in accordance with a government policy that insists on converging public sector rent prices with those of the private sector. The Cabinet declared that if it did not follow this policy it would lead to an even larger rent increase next year as the government policy dictates the rise.

Similarly, Leisure and Recreation Service charges are also going to be raised to bring them more into line with the prices of the private sector. Lower prices will still be available through the ‘Passport to Leisure’ scheme.

The Lib Dems are seeking to fulfil one of their election manifesto pledges with the proposal of more funding for the voluntary sector. Council leader, Councillor Alan Taylor said: “We are pleased to put forward our three year funding promise to the voluntary sector, which will enable this sector to plan for the future with more confidence.

“For the first time we will give funding to 7 new groups who had not had Council funding before [Syke Community Base, Pride Media, Backdoor Music Project, Middleton Popstars Academy, Rochdale Connection Trust, Castlemere Community Centre and Langley Theatre Workshop]  - all of which are making contributions to the council’s ‘Aiming High’ objectives.”

The final items on the agenda concerned two environmental issues. The first concerned lamp posts, or ‘lighting columns’ to give them their proper title. It has been proposed to replace 83% (20,624) of Rochdale’s 25,030 columns – nearly 50% are thirty years old and only 17% comply with current lighting standards. The council would receive over £35 million in funding for such a project, at a cost of £624,000 in revenue contribution.

The final item has been one of concern for Littleborough residents and land owners: the Ealees Development Area. The council intends to enhance Littleborough into a more attractive area for both locals and tourists by building a family pub restaurant on the canal side, with an area of public open space with surrounding shops, as well as a facility for the Littleborough Historical Society to display exhibitions. It is intended that the development will create jobs, and increase the tourist attraction of Littleborough.

Having previously entered into an exclusivity agreement with Brother Developments, based in Waterfoot, the Cabinet, last night, entered into a new agreement.

Items 5.2 and 5.3 of the ‘Ealees Development Area, Littleborough’ Report, states: “The Agreement has had to be extended several times, and the latest period will expire on 29 December this year.

“A local resident has raised the question whether the various extensions of time have been properly granted. The basis for his query is that the extensions of time were entered into after the Exclusivity Period had expired. Having examined the terms of Agreement, it seems that the Agreement did not specifically authorise these extensions, although as a matter of general contract law parties to an agreement can agree to extend its terms. In order to clarify the position, it is thought that it would be best to seek a new authorisation and to enter into a new Exclusivity Agreement with Brother, which can be extended if necessary. This would confirm the matter for the future.”