Public Document Pack
Meeting of: Middleton Township Committee Date: Thursday, 14th March, 2019 Time: 6.00 pm. Venue: Junction Library and Community Centre, Grimshaw Lane, Middleton, M24 2AA
This agenda gives notice of items to be considered in private as required by Regulations 5 (4) and (5) of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012.
Item AGENDA Page No No. 1. APOLOGIES To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary, personal or personal and prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests relating to items on this agenda and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.
3. URGENT ITEMS OF BUSINESS To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair decides should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.
4. ITEMS FOR EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS To determine any items on the agenda, if any, where the public are to be excluded from the meeting.
5. OPEN FORUM Half an hour has been set aside for members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township.
6. METRO MONEYWISE CREDIT UNION 4 - 11 Presentation by representatives of Metro Moneywise Credit Union
7. MINUTES - MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE 12 - 19 To consider the Minutes of the meeting of Middleton Township Committee held on 11th October 2018.
8. MINUTES - MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP DEVOLVED FUNDING AND 20 - 22 DEVOLVED SERVICES SUB COMMITTEE To note the Minutes of the meeting of the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub Committee held on 13th February 2019.
9. OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER - LODGE 23 - 36 STREET, BOARSHAW ROAD AND MORTON STREET, MIDDLETON To consider objections to a proposed Traffic Regulation Order on Lodge Street, Boarshaw Road and Morton Street, Middleton.
10. THE NEED FOR EXTRA PRIMARY SCHOOL PLACES 2019 - 2023 37 - 52 To consider proposals for additional Primary School Places at schools in the Borough.
11. THE NEED FOR EXTRA YEAR 7 SCHOOL PLACES 2019-2028 53 - 61 To consider proposals for extra Year Seven school Places in the Borough.
12. MIDDLETON NEW ALLOTMENT PROVISION 62 - 68 To consider new allotment provision in Middleton.
13. MIDDLETON GRASS VERGE MAINTENANCE 69 - 74 To consider grass verge maintenance in Middleton.
Middleton Township Committee Members Councillor Malcolm Boriss Councillor Phil Burke Councillor Patricia Mary Dale Councillor Neil Emmott Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Peter Joinson Councillor Donna Martin E Councillor Kallum Nolan Councillor Linda Robinson Councillor Sara Rowbotham Councillor Susan Smith Councillor Carol Wardle Councillor June West Councillor Donna Williams Councillor Peter Williams For more information about this meeting, please contact Alison James – Governance and Committee Services
Telephone: 01706 924711 E-mail: [email protected] Agenda Item 6 Page 4 Page
TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETINGS WHAT IS A CREDIT UNION
• Savings and loans Co-operative Page 5 Page • Redistribution of profits • Worldwide movement • 1.5m members in the UK • Metro Moneywise Credit Union • Employees and family members INTEREST RATES ON INSTANT ACCESS SAVINGS
2.5
2.0
1.5 Page 6 Page
1.0
0.5
0.0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Metro Moneywise CU High street Average WE PROVIDE AFFORDABLE CREDIT
600
500
400 Page 7 Page 300
200
100
0 Metro Moneywise Amigo loans 118118 Money Satsuma Loans ON-LINE ACCESS
• A range of on-line services including Page 8 Page • Join • Check your balance • Make a share withdrawal • Contact us • Coming soon – apply for a loan • But we’re always on the end of the phone if you need us WHAT OUR MEMBERS SAY ABOUT US Page 9 Page LENGTH OF MEMBERSHIP
2500
2000 Page 10 Page
1500
1000
500
0 Up to a year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 years plus WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR US?
•
Page 11 Page Join as a member • Promote us as an employee benefit • Encourage your staff to join us Agenda Item 7
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Thursday, 11 October 2018
PRESENT: Councillor Donna Williams (Chair); Councillors Boriss, Burke, Dale, Neil Emmott, Susan Emmott, Joinson, Martin, Nolan, Robinson, Rowbotham, Smith, Wardle, West and Williams
OFFICERS: Donna Bowler (Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Place)), John Rooney (Assistant Director – Neighbourhoods (Information, Customers & Communities)), Alan Webster, Val White, Julie Simpson and Lauren Mason (Neighbourhoods Directorate), Diane Higgins and Jill Amos (Children’s Services Directorate), Clare Poole and Alison James (Resources Directorate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Approximately 14 members of the public
APOLOGIES 70 There were no apologies for absence.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 71 There were no declarations of interest.
URGENT ITEMS OF BUSINESS 72 There were no urgent items of business.
ITEMS FOR EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS 73 There were no items for exclusion of press and public.
OPEN FORUM (6.15-6.45PM) 74 The following matters were raised as part of the Open Forum:
a) Guildford Grove/ Acresfield Road Ms L Woolfall raised the matter of fencing being fly tipped at the rear of Guildford Grove/ Acresfield Road.
The Head of Environmental Management would be requested to look into this matter.
b) Litter Bins Ms L Woolfall asked for litter bins to be installed adjacent to the Boxing Club on Stannycliffe Lane.
The Head of Environmental Management would be requested to look into this matter.
c) Horses at Dingle Ms L Woolfall raised the issue of horses on the Dingle. The Committee were informed that there were licences in place and the landowner was engaging with the Council.
Page 12 BURNSIDE COMMUNITY CENTRE - SKILLS TRAINING UPDATE 75 Decision: That the presentation be deferred until a future meeting of the Committee.
YOUTH SERVICE UPDATE 76 The Committee received a presentation from Diane Higgins and Jill Amos relating to Youth Service activity in Middleton.
The presentation included voice recordings of young people who participated in the Springvale Youth Group.
The presentation also covered a number of other projects such as charity fundraising, out-reach work and diversional activities.
Members of the Committee welcomed the presentation and thanked Officers for the work that they undertook with children and young people.
Decision: That the presentation be noted.
1001 DAYS 77 Decision: That the presentation be deferred until a future meeting of the Committee. MIDDLETON DRAFT ALLOCATIONS PLAN 78 The Township Committee received a presentation for the Director of Economy regarding the Borough’s Draft Allocations Plan. The Allocations Plan contains the sites to deliver the scale of growth set out in the Borough’ Core Strategy that was adopted in 2016. The Allocations Plan also designates areas for particular types of development, such as employment and also areas where development may be restricted, recreational open spaces for example. The Allocations Plan therefore forms part of the Local Plan for Rochdale, together with the Coe Strategy and the Greater Manchester Minerals Plan.
The key issues covered in the presentation were: housing, employment, retail centres across the Borough’ green belt and green infrastructures and transport.
The proposals, set out in the Allocations Plan, are currently subject to a public consultation exercise that commenced on 10th September 2018 and will conclude on 5th November 2018 and which includes a number of public ‘drop- in’ sessions. Following the close of the consultation exercise all comments received will be considered in the production of the finalised version of the Plan that is due to be published for consultation in the summer of 2019.
Page 13 Members of the Committee commented on various proposals within the Middleton Township area.
Decision: That the presentation be noted.
OUR ROCHDALE THE ONLINE DIRECTORY OF SERVICES 79 The Township Committee received a presentation from Mr. M. Hicks (HMR CCG) regarding ‘Our Rochdale’ an online directory of health and social care services, that are provided by the NHS in the Borough and by the Children’s and Adults Directorates of Rochdale Borough Council. The service was designed to give help and advice, if needed, to the website’s visitors and was proving to be very popular with several thousand visits to the website each month.
At the conclusion the presenter was asked questions by the members present and he was thanked for an informative presentation.
Members of the Committee referred to the forthcoming retirement of Dianne David, Assistant Director, Adult Care and wanted to place on record their thanks to Dianne for her many years of professional service to the Council.
Decision: That the presentation be noted.
MINUTES - MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE 80 Decision: That the minutes of the meeting of Middleton Township Committee held on 7th June 2018 be approved, as a correct record.
MINUTES - MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP DEVOLVED FUNDING AND DEVOLVED SERVICES SUB-COMMITTEE 81 Decision: That the minutes of the meeting of Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub-Committee held on 4th July 2018, be noted.
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING - APPLICATION FOR THORNHAM ST. JOHN'S NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA & FORUM 82 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy which stated that the Localism Act 2011 introduced new planning provisions enabling designated Neighbourhood Forums to prepare planning policies for a designated Neighbourhood Area, for consideration by the relevant local authority and by an independent examiner.
The Council had received two applications at a very early stage of neighbourhood planning– one to designate a Neighbourhood Area in Thornham St. John’s, Castleton and another to establish a Thornham St. John’s Neighbourhood Forum. The report made recommendations regarding
Page 14 the determination of both applications, specifically within the context for assessing the suitability of the proposed Neighbourhood Area and Forum.
Alternatives considered:
Alternatives to producing a neighbourhood plan were discussed with the community group and included: • Using other planning tools such as seeking to influence an emerging local plan; commenting on planning applications; get involved in pre- application discussions; influencing design and development briefs. • Producing a parish plan or community plan (though these do not have any status as statutory planning policy). • Developing a community project and raise funds for its delivery.
However, none of the above alternatives were considered appropriate for the requirements of the group. In addition, where a community group can meet the basic conditions for preparing a neighbourhood plan, the Council has a duty to consider and support the preparation of that plan.
In considering the report, Members of the Committee outlined some concerns they had with the suggested geographical boundary of the proposed Plan and Proposed Forum.
The Committee also received representations from Mr Gordon Tilstone in support of the Plan and the Forum.
Decision:
That the Township Committee approves as the basis for public consultation the proposed Thornham St. John’s area boundary subject to the boundary being revised to be curtailed at Bentley Avenue and the Thornham St. John’s Forum neighbourhood application.
Reasons for the recommendation:
To comply with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended), specifically regulations 5 and 8. The application of a neighbourhood Area and Forum will enable the community to begin the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan for their area.
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MODYFYING THE DEFINITIVE MAP AND STATEMENT TO INCLUDE A FOOTPATH RUNNING FROM MIDDLETON ROAD (ADJACENT TO 300) TO SIDDAL FARM MIDDLETON 83 Under section 130 Highways Act 1980 the Council has a duty to protect and assert the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway defined on the map of rights of way and supporting statements. The Council are also required to maintain and keep under review a map, the Definitive map, and statement showing the public footpaths and bridleways in its area.
Page 15 One of the circumstances in which the map can be modified is the expiration of any period such that the enjoyment of the way by the public during that period raises a presumption that the way has been dedicated as a public right of way. Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980, provides that any way over land which has been actually enjoyed by the public, as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, shall be deemed to have been dedicated as a public right of way unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention to dedicate the way for public use.
Any person may apply to the Council under section 53(5) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 for an order to be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement to include a path or way. Such an application must contain the evidence on which the applicant relies; the applicant must notify the landowner of the application.
The Council received such an application to claim a right of way running over land from Middleton Road, Middleton adjacent to number 300 Middleton Road, Middleton to Siddal Fold Farm, Middleton as a result of the use of the route by the general public being questioned and obstructed by the land owner. The location of the route used was shown by a thick black line on the attached map to this report. The evidence provided indicated that the path/way had been used by the public as of right for over twenty years and that there was a case to make the order.
Alternatives considered:
The only alternative would be to decline to make the order. This would mean that the Council was in breach of its duty and would entitle the applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against the Council’s decision.
Members of the Committee advised that this particular matter may also form the border with Heywood Township.
Decision:
1. That the Council proceeding with a definitive map and statement modification order under section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as detailed within the submitted report be approved;
2. That if no objections are received to the order, that the order be confirmed as an unopposed order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and if relevant objections are received that the order be referred to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
3. That the Head of Legal be authorised to make an Order under the relevant Acts, the effect of which, if confirmed, would be to create a public footpath along the route shown on the map appended to the report.
Page 16 Reasons for the recommendation:
The application submitted to the Council is supported by 16 evidence forms each indicating an uninterrupted period of enjoyment of the path between 1 and 80 years. 7 of the forms of evidence had provided sufficient use prior to 1977.
The applicant had also provided historical information regarding this route; it was identified within the “Walks Around Heywood” pamphlet compiled by the Heywood Civic Society. In addition, the applicant provided evidence that the way previously formed part of the Rochdale Way and the Council’s Countryside Services incorporated the route in a recognized circular walk.
The applicant was required to inform the landowner(s) of their intention to claim a footpath over their land and the applicant carried out this part of the process. The Council contacted the landowner(s) in order that they may submit any evidence in support or against the claim. Only one landowner submitted evidence against the claim. Three other landowners did not submit anything.
A landowner provided evidence that the footpath could not have been used from 1977 when he owned/occupied Saxon’s Farm. He erected barriers and notices that were occasionally torn down by the general public to gain access.
Prior to the creation of the M62 motorway, discussions took place with the owner/occupier of Saxons Farm (situated on the other side of the M62) to establish the location for a footpath that currently ran over land where the M62 is now located. The footpath was diverted onto land pertaining to Saxons Farm under a side road order. The landowner was entitled compensation for the loss of land however no compensation was paid. Seeing that neither the Council nor the Highway Agency obtained a full agreement with the landowner to create the route over the M62, it is questionable whether this route exists or not.
Should the Council agree to proceed with the order the process requires notices to be erected during the objection period on the land. Any relevant objections must be considered by the Council. If the Council is unable to resolve any objection and the Council will not be able to confirm the order. If this is the case then the process requires the matter to be referred to the Secretary of State for a conclusion; this could be by way of written representations or a Public Inquiry.
REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING PLACES 84 The Township Committee considered the report of the Director of Resources which outlined that the statutory review of Polling Districts and Polling Places was underway and the consultation period ended on 27 July 2018.
Page 17 A final report on any recommendations arising from the review would be taken to full Council on 17 October 2018 for approval.
The only recommendation relating to Middleton Township related to the correct polling station being assigned to properties on Wood Street that had been raised by Councillor Neil Emmott.
Alternatives considered:
Any alternative polling districts or polling stations proposed during the consultation period will be considered.
Decision:
That the proposed changes to polling districts and polling places within the Township arising from the review be noted.
Reasons for the decision:
The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 included a new provision altering the timing of statutory reviews of parliamentary polling districts and polling places. This meant that all local authorities were required to complete a statutory review between 1 October 2013 and 31 January 2015. Subsequent compulsory reviews must be started and completed within the period of 16 months that starts on 1 October of every fifth year after 1 October 2013.
The review must be completed and implemented by the end of December 2018, so for the changes to be included in the register on 1 December this year, Full Council must consider and confirm the proposals at their meeting on 17 October 2018.
CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW BY THE TOWNSHIPS REVIEW STEERING GROUP 85 The Township Committee received a report of the Assistant Director (Information, Customers and Communities) which advised members that in January 2018, the four Township Committee Chairs and a cross-party group of Elected Members had formed a working group to look at how the Council engages with local communities, and on the workings of the Townships.
The group was facilitated by Sir Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Council, and officers from the Local Government Association. Its purpose was to consider the following in the context of cooperative values – self-help, self- responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity, and behaviours playing a key part in the future role of the Townships.
The report of the Township Review Members Panel contained a number of recommendations for consideration - which were attached at Appendix 1 to the Committee’s report. The views of the Township Committee’s membership were sought as part of the consultation exercise, noting that any changes to
Page 18 the Township Committee governance structure would be subject to approval by full Council.
The report detailed six specific recommendations: a. Members to have a broader role in having oversight of issues such as Health and Social Care and other issues at a township level, and should play a stronger role in developing more resilient communities. b. Continued recognition of different needs and priorities throughout the Borough, across townships and at a neighbourhood level. c. Members to have a role in encouraging co-creation within communities d. A re-structure of the Rochdale Township (the establishment of two Township Committees to cover the current nine Rochdale Township Wards) e. Consideration to be given to developing greater core capacity of Township staffing levels f. Creation of Ward Alliances
In considering the submitted report, Members of the Committee commented that the current thematic groups were felt to be working well and that the Ward Alliances would not be appropriate for Middleton.
Resolved: That the report be noted.
Page 19 Agenda Item 8
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP DEVOLVED FUNDING AND DEVOLVED SERVICES SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday 13th February 2019
PRESENT: Councillor Smith (Chair); Councillors Boriss, Burke, Dale, Joinson, Martin, West and Williams
OFFICERS: Lauren Mason and Ian Trickett (Neighbourhoods Directorate) Alison James (Resources Directorate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Scott Hardy (Link4Life) and approximately 12 members of the public APOLOGIES 11 Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Neil Emmott, Councillor Susan Emmott, Councillor Robinson, Councillor Wardle and Councillor Williams. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 12 Councillor Peter Joinson declared personal interests in the application for a guardrail on Manor Road.
URGENT ITEMS OF BUSINESS 13 The Chair indicated that additional applications received had been added to the papers that had been circulated.
MINUTES 14 Decision:
That the minutes of the meeting of the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub-Committee held on 24th October 2018 be approved and signed as a correct record.
MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2018/19 15 The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Neighbourhoods which provided an update on revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Middleton Township Funds 2018/19 and to enable the Sub-Committee to consider the allocation of funds to proposed projects.
Alternatives considered:
In considering the report, Members could decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to projects.
Page 20 Decision:
1. That the expenditure, commitments and balances for Middleton Township revenue and capital funds as detailed in Appendix 1 and 2 of the report be noted;
2. That decisions made under delegated authority as detailed in Appendix 3 of the report be noted;
3. That it be noted that the Townships & Communities Manager has assessed proposed projects to be considered for funding against the criteria of eligibility for the Middleton Township Fund, the priorities of the Township and that any specific risks had been identified in the report;
4. That the applications for Township Funds be dealt with as follows:-
APPLICATION DECISION APURC War Memorial Allocation of £2,200 from South Ward Revenue Funds Greengate & Mainway East Allocation of £5000 (£1000 from Junction Study each Ward Revenue Funds) Protest & Peterloo in Allocation of £2125 from Middleton Middleton Township Revenue Funds Tonge Field Knee Rail Allocation of £653 from East Ward Fencing Revenue Funds Middleton Popstars Academy Allocation of £486 from Middleton Costs Township Revenue Funds Middleton Holiday @ Home Allocation of £15000 from Fit, Read and Feed 2019 Middleton Township Revenue Funds Dippy The Dinosaur Garden in Allocation of £1760 (Half from West Truffet Park Ward Revenue Funds with the other half to be split between the other four Wards Revenue Funds) Fit, Read and Feed 2019 at Allocation of £3500 from West Langley Library Ward Revenue Funds Fit, Read and Feed 2019 at Allocation of £3500 from East Ward Junction Library Revenue Funds
Mellalieu Street 20MPH Application Declined Speed Limit with Traffic Calming Peach Bank Prohibition of Application Deferred Driving First World Ward Plaque Allocation of £12,700 (£1763 from Township Capital Funds with the balance £10,937 from the
Page 21 remaining Armed Forces Project Fund) Stanycliffe Lane (Boarshaw Application Deferred Mews) – Proposed Waiting Restrictions Alkrington Green Planting Allocation of £9027.16 from Scheme Township Capital Funds) Latrigg Crescent Shrub Beds Allocation of £6834 from West Scheme Ward Capital Funds Manor Road Guardrail Allocation of £7700 from Middleton Township Capital Funds Footway Bollards - Application Deferred Sherbourne Road, Middleton Middleton Roadside Verges Item Withdrawn Middleton Floral Displays & Allocation of £2860 from Township Landscapes Capital Funds Wince Brook Access Allocation of £6640 from East Ward Improvements Capital Funds Windermere Road Grass Allocation of £3179 from West Verge Protection – Knee Rail Ward Capital Funds Fencing Bowness Road and Wood Allocation of £6358 from Township Street Grass Verge Protection Capital Funds – Knee Rail Fence Middleton in Bloom Allocation of £2044.05 from Middleton Township Revenue Funds Middfest 2019 Allocation of £15,500 from Middleton Township Events Fund 2019/2020 Mayday 2019 Allocation of £5,500 from Middleton Township Events Fund 2019/2020
Reasons for the Recommendations
Management of the Middleton Township Fund is delegated to the Middleton Township Devolved Funding & Devolved Services Sub Committee.
Middleton Township Funds are allocated to projects that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and realise the Township priorities and to enable the committee to monitor and review the use of the Middleton Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of the funds.
Eligible for call in - yes
Page 22 Agenda Item 9
Report to Middleton Township Committee
Date of Meeting 14th March 2019 Portfolio Cabinet Member for Environment Report Author Andrew Cowell Public/Private Document Public
Objections to Traffic Regulation Order - Lodge Street, Boarshaw Road and Morton Street, Middleton
Executive Summary
1.1 A request was received from Middleton Township for the Council to investigate the introduction of parking restrictions at Lodge Street, Middleton. Members of the public reported issues of obstructive parking at Lodge Street / Boarshaw Road in the vicinity of Morton Street. It was reported that parking occurs near to the junction and on both sides of the main road and that this interferes with the flow of two-way traffic and affects visibility at the junction.
1.2 New parking restrictions were drafted and approved by ward members. The restrictions were formally promoted and during the consultation period the Council received one letter of objection to the proposal.
1.3 In general, the objector reports that the restrictions will unnecessarily reduce the number of available on-street parking spaces for customers.
1.4 The report outlines the reason for the proposal, the objections received and a response to the objections.
Recommendation
2. The Committee should consider whether the proposed Traffic Regulation Order, Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Middleton Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No.61) Order be implemented as advertised, be amended, or be abandoned in light of the representation received, which is outlined in Appendix B of this report. It is the recommendation of Officers that the objection be dismissed and the proposal introduced as advertised.
Page 23 Reason for Recommendation
3. Copy of Statement of Reasons
Several requests have been received for the Council to address issues of obstructive parking at Lodge Street / Boarshaw Road in the vicinity of Morton Street. It is reported that parking occurs near to the junction and on both sides of the main road. This interferes with the flow of two-way traffic and affects visibility at the junction.
The location concerned is positioned to the north east of Middleton town centre. Although not designated as a strategic road, Lodge Street / Boarshaw Road provide one of the main routes into the residential area in the north east of Middleton. The roads also form part of a bus route. The properties which front on to the road in this area are mainly businesses and shops.
Existing prohibition of waiting restrictions are in place at the western end of Lodge Street providing some protection near to the junction of Townley Street. On the south side there is a bus stop marked immediately east of these restrictions. Continuing further east there are no further restrictions until the junction of John Lee Fold Bridge. On the north side there is a limited waiting bay positioned east of the restrictions and then a gap up to the restrictions at Morton Street.
Its proximity to the town centre makes this area a convenient place to park. Parking occurs within the gap on the north side resulting in reduced visibility for motorists emerging from Morton Street. Parking also occurs on the south side to the east of the bus stop and opposite the limited waiting bay. This prevents the flow of two-way traffic.
Parking on Morton Street close to the junction of Lodge Street adversely affects manoeuvres around the junction. Parking also occasionally occurs on Boarshaw Road where forward visibility is reduced due to the geometry of the road and the proximity of the building line at the back of the highway.
It is proposed to introduce new prohibition of waiting restrictions on:
• the south side of Lodge Street and Boarshaw Road between the existing restrictions 21 metres east of Townley Street and 22 metres south of John Lee Fold
• the north side of Lodge Street between the existing limited waiting bay 79 metres east of Market Place and the prohibition of waiting restrictions 13 metres west of Morton Street
• the east side of Morton Street from its junction with Boarshaw Road for a distance of 26 metres north
Page 24 The proposed restrictions will:
• prevent parking in the gap in restrictions on the north side of Lodge Street, increasing visibility for motorists emerging from Morton Street
• prevent vehicles parking on the south side of Lodge Street opposite the limited waiting bay and on the outside of the bend, improving the two-way flow of traffic including buses
• prevent parking on both sides of Boarshaw Road, increasing forward visibility, improving the two-way flow of traffic, including buses and improving visibility to the north of Morton Street
• prevent parking on both sides of Morton Street, easing traffic manoeuvres around the junction
3.2 To address the issues reported, it is necessary to introduce the proposed Order as originally advertised (see Appendix A).
Key Points for Consideration
4. During the consultation period the Authority received one objection letter on behalf several businesses.
4.1 To comply with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the Authority must consider all objections submitted during the consultation period of 21 days before ‘Making’ a Traffic Regulation Order.
4.2 It should be noted that in considering the report, the proposed Order is deemed non-strategic in nature and should be dealt with in accordance with Section 8.2.2 of the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committee. Committee has delegated power to confirm or abandon the proposals and the Order.
4.3 In considering the objections the Committee should be mindful that the only right the general public has on the highway is a right of passage along it. The Council, acting in its capacity as Highway Authority, have a duty of care to ensure the safety of the travelling public and a duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to maintain the expeditious movement of traffic.
4.4 The Objectors’ comments and the Director of Neighbourhoods response are attached at Appendix B and C of this report, respectively.
Alternatives Considered
4.5 The Committee could consider recommending that the proposal be
Page 25 amended or abandoned.
4.6 Should Committee decide not to introduce the restrictions proposed then the issues with parked vehicles, which were reported to Middleton Township Committee, will not be addressed.
Costs and Budget Summary
5. Middleton Township approved £4000 to propose the Traffic Regulation Order outlined in this report.
5.1 Should the committee choose to amend the current proposals additional funding may be required from Middleton Township to complete the scheme.
Risk and Policy Implications
6. The Council has a statutory duty to ensure that its highways operate safely and efficiently, for all traffic including pedestrians.
Consultation
7. Consultation required by the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders, (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 has taken place.
7.1 The Emergency Services, Transport for Greater Manchester, The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association were consulted on 13th November 2018.
7.2 Notices of intention were posted on site and published in the local newspaper on 15th November 2018.
7.3 The objection period ran until 6th December 2018.
Background Papers Place of Inspection None
Page 26 APPENDIX A – Notice of Intention and plan
BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE ((CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) (VARIOUS STREETS) (MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP) ORDER 2008) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 61) ORDER
Lodge Street, Boarshaw Road and Morton Street, Middleton
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Rochdale Borough Council, in exercise of its powers under Sections 1(1), 2 and 4 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, intend to make an Order, the effect of which would be to:-
(i) Amend the Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Middleton Township) Order 2008 by inserting the following:-
Schedule No.1.1 No Waiting At Any Time
Lodge Street, North Middleton Ward
n(iv) the south side from its junction with Market Place to its junction with Boarshaw Road
n(v) the north side from its junction with Morton Street for a distance of 23 metres in a westerly direction
Boarshaw Road, North Middleton Ward
n(vi) the east side from its junction with Lodge Street to its junction with John Lee Fold
n(vii) the west side from its junction with Morton Street to a point 93 metres south of its junction with Bardsley Street
Morton Street, North Middleton Ward
n(ii) the east side from its junction with Boarshaw Road for a distance of 26 metres in a northerly direction
(ii) Revoke those parts of the Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Middleton Township) Order 2008, as follows:-
Schedule No.1.1 No Waiting At Any Time
Lodge Street, North Middleton Ward
(i) the north side from its junction with Morton Street to a point 13 metres west of its junction with Morton Street
(iii) the south side from its junction with Market Place for a distance of 21 metres in an easterly direction
Boarshaw Road, North Middleton Ward
Page 27 (ii) the east side from its junction with John Lee Fold to a point 22 metres south of its junction with John Lee Fold
(v) the west side from a point 93 metres south of its junction with Bardsley Street to a point 142 metres south of its junction with Bardsley Street
A copy of the proposed Order and a map showing the lengths of roads concerned, together with the Council’s Statement of Reasons for making the Order, may be inspected at The Customer Services Centre, Middleton Library, Long Street, Middleton M24 6DU during normal office hours, or viewed on the Council’s website www.rochdale.gov.uk/roads, or by phoning Highways on 0300 303 8879.
Objections to the proposed Order, stating the grounds on which they are made, must be made in writing and forwarded to [email protected] or, alternatively, to Network Management, Floor 2, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU to reach the Council on or before 6th December 2018, quoting H60/1276.
Dated this 15th day of November 2018
David Wilcock Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce) Resources Directorate Rochdale Borough Council Number One Riverside Smith Street ROCHDALE OL16 1XU
Page 28 Page 29 APPENDIX B – Objection
Page 30 Page 31 APPENDIX C – Response to Objections
The Council appreciate that the availability of on-street parking is important to local businesses and therefore will always try to maintain parking places where possible. However, the areas of highway that the objectors wish to remain un- restricted have been the subject of complaints from users of the highway for some time. As Highway Authority, the Council’s duties are in respect of road safety and maintaining traffic flows, both of which must take precedence over the provision of on-street parking places.
Lodge Street and Boarshaw Road provide one of the main access routes between the residential area to the north east of Middleton and the town centre, and vice versa. The roads also form part of two bus routes. Whilst parking in this location may not entirely prevent the passage of vehicles along the route, it does prevent the flow of two-way traffic at a location where forward visibility is already reduced due to the road geometry. Parking activity on both sides of the road reduces forward visibility further making this section of the route awkward to negotiate. Further to this, parking on the south side often takes place on the footway which obstructs pedestrian movements. Officers have witnessed pedestrians with push chairs having to walk within the carriageway to negotiate parked vehicles and a complaint about the footway parking has been made directly to an officer whilst working on site. It should be noted that the proposed restrictions would also remove parked vehicles near to the junction of Morton Street thereby improving pedestrian to vehicle sight lines.
Contrary to the objectors concerns over loading and unloading, it should be noted that the proposed waiting restrictions will not prevent such activity. The introduction of further waiting restrictions should also assist by allowing further space to load and unload.
The Council have followed The Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 in advertising this proposal which involves publishing a notice of intent in the local newspaper and posting copies of the same notice on site. The Council do not generally consult with persons whom it believes may be affected by a proposal as there may be supporters of the scheme whom would not be afforded the same opportunity to make representations. Supporters of a scheme may be regular users of the highway and not necessarily local residents or businesses. Further to this, it is not always clear which properties may be affected or not, which can lead to further claims of inconsistency in the way in which the Council advertises a new traffic order.
In summary, the Council do not believe that the parking activity on this area of highway is acceptable in terms of ensuring the safety of road users and the expeditious movement of traffic. The photos below highlight the obstruction issues on both the carriageway and footway.
Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Agenda Item 10
Report to Middleton Township Committee
Date of Meeting 14th March 2019 Portfolio Cabinet Member for Children's Services Report Author Fay Davies Public/Private Document public
The Need for Extra Primary School Places 2019 - 2023
Executive Summary
1.1 There is a need to keep under review the need for extra class places in each Township. The purpose of this report is to set out proposals to address the need for extra Reception.
1.2 Pupil place planning seeks to ensure Townships are aware of school spaces and pupil numbers within their area and aids local government decision making processes.
Recommendation
2. To consider proposals to increase capacity at Schools within the Township based on expected future requirements.
Reason for Recommendation
3. The council has a statutory duty to provide education and school places to all school aged children living in the borough and consequently has a duty to plan adequately for predicted pupil numbers.
Key Points for Consideration
4. Heywood
4.1 Primary schools in Heywood have been working close to capacity for several years. Five schools have been extended since 2013 with Woodland Primary going to 3 forms of entry from September 2018 and St Lukes CofE Primary going to 2 forms of entry in September 2019.
4.2 Rising birth rates in Heywood mean that Reception numbers are due to rise and there will be insufficient capacity by 2020/21 and for 2021/22 (Appendix 1 figure 2). However Nationally birth rates have started to decline and 2017/18 birth rates from child health data in Heywood show a slight decrease
Page 37 in forecasted Reception intake numbers in 2022/23. The timing and duration of temporary and/or permanent builds need to be considered carefully.
4.3 On 22nd March 2018 the Rochdale Council Planning Licence Committee reported a hybrid planning application for the development of land close to Junction 19 of the M62 which includes up to 1000 new houses in south Heywood. This proposed housing development is not yet considered in the forecasts given in Appendix 1, figures 1 and 2, but does include a new 1 form of entry Primary school, which is needed in order to accommodate the predicted 250 additional primary aged pupils. Since in Rochdale there is a tendency for pupils moving into the borough in-year to be predominantly in the key stage 1 year groups, more than an additional 1 form of entry may be needed.
4.4 Current forecasts suggest two years of bulge classes are will be needed for 2020/21 and 2021/22 but consideration of needing to expand one school by 1 form of entry through all year groups should be investigated. Harwood Park Primary have been approached and have agreed to two years of bulge classes if sufficient classroom spaces can be created.
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Extra Places 0 spare places so spare Needed 9 spare Minimum of 5 places needed capacity needed 19 spare Plans St Lukes PAN Harwood Park 2 classroom extension (PAN 60 to 90 for 2 30 to 60 years) permanently Possible (i) Investigate feasibility to extend a school in ways Heywood by 1 form of entry permanently (30 forward pupils per year group) (ii) New 1 form of entry Primary school required in the long due to the new housing developments.
Middleton
4.5 Extra Primary school capacity has been created recently in 6 schools in Middleton. In 2016 Bowlee Park Primary expanded to 4 forms of entry and in September 2018 Boarshaw Primary expanded to a permanent 2 forms of entry.
4.6 Although extra spare capacity has been created for the high level of in-year and new start pupils, there are only 2 spare places in each of year 4 and year 5 across the Township as of January 2019. There are also 5 classes with over 30 pupils in the year 5 cohort. Class sizes are not limited statutorily in this year group. The spare capacity created in key stage 1 year groups is also causing difficulties with the subsequent low levels of funding for some schools, where classes are not full.
4.7 Reception pupil numbers are due to level off because of the lowering of the birth rates in Middleton (Appendix 1, figure 4). However latest Office for National statistics birth data for intakes in 2021/22 show an increase in this year. Current forecast suggest there will 0 spare capacity in 2021/22
Page 38 (Appendix 1, figure 5 and table 3) and with current levels of inward migration this would mean not enough capacity.
4.8 Middleton currently has 3 sizeable housing developments under construction; two on the Langley estate and one in East Middleton. It has a further 3 sizeable housing developments with planning permission and where construction of access roads has started; including Hollin Lane and Langley Lane and a further one in East Middleton. These together suggest an expected build of between 180 to 260 houses per annum which would yield between an additional 45 and 65 Primary aged pupils per year. House building rates will be considerably altered by economic conditions and so are estimates.
4.9 Nationally birth rates have started to decline but the most recent Middleton birth data shows a rise for 2021/22. This along with the large housing developments coming forward in North Middleton and South Heywood means that further expansions or a new Primary school could possibly be needed in the long term.
4.10 Current forecasts suggest one year of bulge classes may be needed for 2021/22 and but consideration of needing a new 1 form of entry Primary school in North Middleton school should be investigated in the long term depending on rates of additional children due to the new housing developments.
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Extra 55 spare 53 spare 0 spare places so spare 38 spare places but more Places capacity needed spare capacity may be needed Needed Plans/ (i) A bulge class will be required for 2021/22 and Possible possibly for 2022/23 depending on migration ways (ii) New 1 form of entry Primary school may be required forward in the long term depending on new housing developments.
Pennines
4.11 For the purpose of Primary School place forecasts the Pennines Township has been split into North and South Pennines areas. North Pennines consists of the Littleborough Lakeside Ward and the Wardle and West Littleborough Ward. South Pennines consists of the Milnrow and Newhey Ward.
4.12 The birth rate in the north Pennines area drops for the 2019/20 intake year group but rises again, and current forecasts show insufficient capacity for the 2021/22 intake year (Appendix 1 figure 6 & 8). Pennines South (Appendix 1, figure 7 & 9) also shows a rise in birth rates for 2021/22 with insufficient places available. Historically in-year moves are low throughout the Pennines township but a considerable number of new housing is currently being built and planned in the north Pennines area, so current low rates of spare capacity in years above Reception needs to be kept under review.
Page 39 4.13 Housing developments in the North Pennines, either under construction or with planning permission, currently show a new house build rate of up to 100 additional houses per year. This will impact on migration into the area and could impact current in-year application rates. The current draft of the Greater Manchester spatial Framework also contains allocations in Pennines South.
4.14 Places may be needed for 2021/22 in both north and south Pennines and possibly for south Pennines in 2022/23. Creation of additional places in the more central Pennines areas will be considered.
2019- 2020- 20 21 2021-22 2022-23 Pennines Extra Places 47 14 A minimum of 3 North Needed spare spare additional places 59 spare Plans/ (i) A bulge class will Possible be required for ways forward 2021/22 Pennines Extra Places 11 A minimum of18 Minimum of 2 spare South Needed spare 3 spare places needed. places needed Plans/ (i) A bulge class will be required for 2021/22 and Possible 2022/23 ways forward (ii) Or an Extension of Crossgates from 45 to 60 PAN will be considered for 2020. (iii) A new school in north Pennines may be required depending on size and timing of new housing developments.
Rochdale
4.15 Rochdale Township includes almost half of children educated in Rochdale Borough. For school place planning purposes this has been split up into four areas: Rochdale North East, North West, Central and South West (see appendix 1 figure 1).
4.16 Recently a bulge class was created in Greenbank Primary in 2017/18 for a peak in births in that year. Extra capacity was also created in Whittaker Moss Primary which went to 2 forms of entry in 2017/18. For the September 2018 intake extra capacity was created at Lowerplace Primary (now 3 forms of entry) and Belfield Primary (now 2 forms of entry). Castleton Primary also accommodated an additional form of entry for both Reception and Year 1 classes in the September 2017 intake, and created additional spaces to make their year 4 class also 2 forms of entry.
4.17 The birth rate in the North-west & North-east combined area dropped for the 2018/19 intake year group, but rises again to 2020/21, and current forecasts show insufficient capacity for one year (Appendix 1, figure 10). Consequently a bulge class will be needed to meet the forecast need for 1 year only in 2020/21.
4.18 The birth rate in the SW and Central Rochdale area has zigzagged for
Page 40 several years and forecasted pupil numbers follow this trend. Predictions show pupil numbers will be close to capacity for September 2019 and additional places will be needed for 2021/22 (Appendix 1, figure 13). Rochdale Central Reception classes are forecasted to have spare capacity for the next 4 years (appendix 1, figure 14 & table 8). In the Rochdale South- west area however, a shortage of places is predicted from 2019/20 to 2021/22 (Appendix 1, figure 15 & table 8).
4.19 The forecast shortage of places in the south-west area of Rochdale Township is predominantly due to the rise in births in the ward of Castleton. However new housing developments in both Castleton, and Balderstone and Kirkholt Wards combined are due to add an estimated 120 new houses each year for the next 5 years and will add an approximately additional 30 children per year to the primary school sector. Consequently a new permanent extra form of entry for Reception year children will be needed in the area of South- west Rochdale for 2019/20.
4.20 With the additional new housing mentioned above and the allocation of further land for housing development mentioned in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, a new school will possibly be needed in the area of South-west Rochdale Township in the medium term.
2022- 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 23 North- Extra A minimum of 10 west and Places 13 spare extra places will be 27 spare 30 spare North Needed needed East Plans/ (i) A bulge class Rochdale Possible may be required for Township ways 2020/21 forward Central Extra A minimum of 14 9 places will and Places 18 places will be extra place swill be be needed south- Needed needed in Castleton needed, but up to 61 in Castleton west Ward may be needed in ward Rochdale Castleton Ward Township Plans/ (i) Castleton Primary school is currently undergoing internal Possible restructuring to accommodate pupils taken in the 2017/18 year. ways (ii) Extra capacity will be needed in Castleton Ward. Castleton forward Primary already has 3 bulge years and expansion of Castleton Primary to 2 form entry permanently will offer enough places to 2021/22 (iii) A second bulge class could be needed for 2021/22 for 1 year (iv) Additional housing developments along with allocations from the Greater Manchester spatial Framework (GMSF) means a new school will be needed in the area in the long term. New housing from the south- Castleton GMSF NG2 area will require Thornham St. John to become a full one form entry school.
4.21 Further extra needed capacity will be sought and reported subsequently.
4.22 Housing build estimates are affected by economic conditions and could be materially different from those estimated here.
Page 41 Alternatives Considered
4.23 In the last few years 30 of the 69 mainstream Primary Schools have taken bulge years or increased their PAN. The majority of these have had either internal restructuring or major building carried out. All extra classes are being discussed with Head teachers and Governing boards.
4.24 In Heywood, Middleton and South Rochdale primary schools are reaching the point where they cannot be expanded further and the possibility of the council needing to open new schools must be considered. With the current government’s Academy/Free school programme new schools can only be opened as independently run Academy schools and must be provided under the centrally funded Wave programme or through the council funded Presumption route.
Costs and Budget Summary
5. The costs associated with co-ordinating admission arrangements are met from the Dedicated Schools Grant.
A cost of approximately £500,000 for creation of classroom spaces for the bulge classes mentioned in paragraph 4.0 and 4.20 will be funded by the EFA annual allocations of Basic Need capital budget.
Where applicable, schools offering additional pupil places to meet the LA’s statutory need, may also be eligible for revenue funding from the Council’s Growth Fund, which is approved by Schools Forum.
Risk and Policy Implications
6. The application of pupil place planning arrangements contributes to the Council Business Plan in ensuring an effective allocation process for school admissions.The council has a statutory duty to offer a school place to every child living in the borough and must manage the schools estate to meet the predicted need.
For any new school needed the Council does not have under its direct control the legal mechanisms to create new schools and must, under the Academies Act 2010 and Education Act 2011, seek Department for Education approved academy trust providers to provide the schools
Consultation
7. A formal consultation on schools increasing their PANS permanently will be conducted as defined by the government guidance on Prescribed Alterations to Schools.
Background Papers Place of Inspection
Page 42 8.
For Further Information Contact: Fay Davies, , [email protected]
Page 43 Appendix 1: The Need for Extra Primary School Places 2019-2023
Figure 1 Rochdale Borough Primary Planning Areas
Heywood Heywood reception pupil numbers are due to rise because of the rising birth rates in Heywood (figure 2).
Figure 2: Reception intake forecast to 2022/23
Page 44 The predicted capacity in Reception class will be 5 places short of meeting the forecasted pupil numbers in 2020/21 and will have 0 spare places in 2021/22 (figure 2 & table 1).
Figure 3: Predicted Reception Places and Expected Pupils for Heywood
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 Reception Places 475 475 475 475 Expected Pupils 466 480 475 456 Spare places 9 -5 0 19 Table 1: Predicted Reception Places and Expected Pupils Heywood
The number of Reception class places currently available in Heywood schools in September 2018 is set out in the table 2: Place Plac Plac School School School s es es Heap St Joseph's 25 60 Hopwood 60 Bridge RC Our Lady & St Harwood St Paul's 30 60 Michael's 30 Park RC CE VA St St Luke's CE Margaret's 30 30 VC CE VA All Souls CE Woodland 90 30 VC Table 2: Number of Reception places available Heywood
Middleton
Middleton reception pupil numbers are due to level off because of the lowering of the birth rates in Middleton (figure 4). However latest Office for National statistics birth data for intakes in 2021/22 show an increase in this year.
Page 45 Figure 4: Reception Intake Forecast data to 2022/23
The predicted capacity in Reception class is forecasted to have 0 spare places in 2021/22 (figure 4 & table 3).
Figure 5: Reception Places and Expected Pupil numbers for Middleton 2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 20 21 22 23 Reception Places 675 675 675 675 Expected Pupils 620 622 675 637 Spare Places 55 53 0 38 Table 3: Reception Places and expected Pupils Middleton
The number of Reception class places currently available in Middleton schools in September 2018 is set out in the table 4: Place Pla Place School School School s ces s St John Middleton 30 60 St Peter's RC 30 Fisher RC Parish CE VA Hollin 60 Parkfield 30 Alkrington 60 St Thomas Boarshaw 60 Elm Wood 60 45 More RC
Page 46 Bowlee Little Heaton CE St Michael's 120 30 30 Park VC CE VA St Mary's St Gabriel's CE 60 30 RC VC Table 4: Reception Places available Middleton
Pennines
The birth rate in the north Pennines area drops for the 2019/20 intake year group but rises again, and current forecasts show insufficient capacity for the 2021/22 intake year (figure 6). The most recent birth rate data for intake year 2022/23 is not official Office of National Statistics data but locally sourced data which tends to be less accurate. Pennines South (figure7) also shows a rise in birth rates for 2021/22 with insufficient places available.
Figure 6: Reception Intake forecast for Pennines North
Figure 7: Reception Intake Forecast for Pennines South
The predicted capacity in Pennines North Reception class is forecasted to have a shortage of 3 places in 2021/22 (figure 7 & table 5) and in Pennines South a shortage of places is predicted in 2021/22 and 2022/23 (figure 8 & table 5).
Page 47 Figure 8: Places and Expected Pupils Pennines North
Figure 9: Places and Expected Pupils Pennines South
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 20 21 22 23 Pennines Reception Places 305 290 290 290 North Expected Pupils 258 276 293 231 Spare Places 47 14 -3 59 Pennines Reception Places 171 171 171 171 South Expected Pupils 160 168 189 173 Spare Places 11 3 -18 -2 Table 5: Spare places in Pennines North and south
The number of Reception class places currently available in Pennines schools in September 2018 is set out in the following table: School Places School Places School Places Stansfield Hall St Andrew's 20 60 Moorhouse 30 CE VC CE VC Littleborough 75 Smithy Bridge 60 Crossgates 45 Holy Trinity CE Milnrow Parish CE 30 Hamer 45 30 VA VA Kentmere St Mary's RC 30 45 Newhey 45 Academy Alice Ingham St James' CE F 30 24 St Thomas' CE VA 21 RC Table 6: Pennines Schools Places September 2018
Page 48 Rochdale
Rochdale Township includes almost half of children educated in Rochdale Borough. For school place planning purposes this has been split up into four areas as shown in figure 1.
Historically Primary school planning was done at the Township level, and with high birth rates predominantly occurring in the central Rochdale zone, overall Township predictions for pupil places was sufficiently accurate. Now with a significant increase in birth rates in the south of the Township and increasing amounts of housing development in the Balderstone and Kirkholt Ward and Castleton Ward, there is a need to do more focused projections. For ease of display, data is shown for two zones; North West and North East Rochdale combined and Central and South West Rochdale combined.
The birth rate in the NW & NE combined area dropped for the 2018/19 intake year group, but rises again to 2020/21, and current forecasts show insufficient capacity for that intake year (figure 10). Previously a bulge class was created in Greenbank Primary in 2017/18 for a predicted peak in births in that year. Extra capacity was also created in Whittaker Moss Primary which went to 2 forms of entry in 2017/18.
Figure 1: Forecast for North East and North West areas of Rochdale Township. The predicted combined capacity in Rochdale NW and NE Reception classes is forecasted to have spare capacity to 2020 (figure 10). However, as shown in figures 11 and 12, the spare capacity will be primarily in the north east area of Rochdale Township with a shortage of places in Norden Ward. It should be noted however that there is normally a net movement of children into the Norden area to attend school from the Healey, Spotland and Falinge areas.
Page 49 Figure 2: spaces and Expected pupils in North-east Rochdale
Figure 3: Spaces and expected pupils North-west Rochdale
2019- 20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 North Reception 429 429 429 429 East Places Rochdale Expected 398 429 418 416 Townshi Pupils p Spare places 31 0 11 13 North Reception 375 375 375 375 West Places Expected Rochdale 393 385 359 358 Townshi Pupils p Spare places -18 -10 16 17 Table 7: Spaces and Expected Pupils North East and North West Rochdale Township
The birth rate in the SW and Central Rochdale area has zigzagged for several years and forecasted pupil numbers follow this trend. Predictions show pupil numbers will be close to capacity for September 2019 and additional places will be needed for 2021/22 (figure 13). For the September 2018 intake extra capacity was created at Lowerplace Primary (now 3 forms of entry) and Belfield Primary (now 2 forms of entry). Castleton Primary also accommodated an additional form of entry for both Reception and Year 1 classes in the September 2017 intake, and created additional spaces to make their year 4 class also 2 forms of entry.
Page 50 Figure 4: Reception Forecast for Rochdale Central and South-West areas.
Rochdale Central Reception classes are forecasted to have spare capacity for the next 4 years (figure 14 & table 8). In Rochdale South-west area a shortage of places is predicted from 2019/20 to 2021/22 (figure 15 & table 11).
Figure 5: spaces and Expected pupils in the Central Rochdale area
Figure 6: Spaces and Expected pupils in the South-west Rochdale area
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 20 21 22 23 Central Reception Rochdale Places 480 480 480 480 Township Expected Pupils 468 428 433 440 Spaces 12 52 47 40
Page 51 South- Reception west Places 304 304 304 304 Rochdale Expected Pupils 313 322 365 286 Township Spaces -9 -18 -61 18 Table 8: Spaces and Expected pupils Central and South-west Rochdale area
The number of Reception class places currently available in Rochdale Township schools in September 2018 is set out in the following table: School Places School Places School Places Healey F 30 Whittaker Moss 60 Marland Hill 60 Shawclough 60 St Vincent's RC 60 Brimrod 30 All Saints CE Bamford Ashfield Valley 30 45 30 VA Academy Greenbank 60 Belfield 60 St Mary's CE VC 30 St Patrick's Sacred Heart Sandbrook 45 30 90 RC RC Heybrook 90 Broadfield 60 Holy Family RC 30 Meanwood St John's RC St Edward's CE 60 30 52 VC Norden Deeplish Castleton 60 60 30 Academy Spotland St Peter's CE St Gabriel's RC 60 60 30 VC Caldershaw Lowerplace St John'sCE 30 90 12 T'ham Table 9: Places in Rochdale Township in September 2018
Page 52 Agenda Item 11
Report to Middleton Township Committee
Date of Meeting 14th March 2019 Portfolio Cabinet Member for Children's Services Report Author Fay Davies Public/Private Document Public
The Need for Extra Year 7 school places 2019-2028
Executive Summary
1.1 Strategies for managing the predicted shortfall in year 7 places are outlined for the intake year of 2019 and 2020. The schools team is working to aid the DfE and any successful academy to open a new school in the borough for September 2021 for future places that are needed.
1.2 The schools organisation and planning team is still in discussions with schools about any additional places offered for September 2019 and the number of additional places will change from those presented here for own admission authority schools. In particular more places in Pennines schools are being sought due to the ongoing shortage of places for pupils living in the Pennines Township.
1.3 The government has made an announcement to say they will fund all special school applications that “meet the criteria”. Rochdale Council has submitted an expression of interest to have a new secondary special school specializing in Autism and Communications special needs.
Recommendation
2.1 Consider the proposals to meet the additional demand for secondary school places in future years.
2.2 That Township note the announcement about special schools made by the government and considers that a site will need to be named for the school. A report will be brought before Cabinet with a recommendation for the nominated site in due course.
Reason for Recommendation
3.1 Since 2005 the number of pupils in schools has been rising steadily. Extra capacity has been created in both the Primary and Secondary school estates. 11 of the 12 secondary schools in the borough have had building expansions
Page 53 or taken number over their Pupil Admission Number (PAN). Two schools are currently undergoing building works but have already raised their PAN to take extra children. No further secondary school expansions are in the pipeline and 2 new schools are needed in the borough; one in the north Pennines and one in Middleton.
3.2 A shortage of places in year 7 is forecast for September 2019 and September 2020 and the DfE’s current stance is that any new school given the go ahead will not be open until 2021 at the earliest. Strategies for dealing with any possible shortage of places must be in place for 2019 and in development for 2020. 3.3 Appendix 1 shows a breakdown of the shortage by Township that will occur if the two new schools needed in the borough do not open.
Key Points for Consideration
4.1 The Borough has seen consistent growth in the school cohorts. In October 2005 there were 2138 pupils in the year 7 cohort and this year are predicted to be 2916 pupils; which is a 36% increase.
4.2 Since 2012 Secondary schools in Rochdale have been expanded and/or taken more children creating another 330 places per year group, or a total of 1650 additional school places. Building extensions are currently underway at Matthew Moss High School and Siddal Moor Sports College. This means there are currently 2880 year 7 places available in Rochdale schools with no further opportunities available for expansion.
4.3 Previous reports to Cabinet (31/10/2016) noted the need for 2 new secondary schools in the borough. This continues to be the case, with a shortage of school places now forecast for every year from September 2019.
4.4 Government legislation currently dictates new schools must be delivered either by the centrally funded Wave process or through the council funded Presumption process. Due to the change of government in 2017, there was a delay of more than 18 months in the central government’s new Free school programme. Wave 13 of the governments centrally funded new school bidding round closed on the 5th November 2018. Four bids were submitted from academy trusts to open new secondary schools in Rochdale. Three of the bids were for a new school in Middleton and the fourth was for a new school in north Pennines. Notification of success of any of the bids is not due until Spring 2019. The government has said that the number of new schools funded centrally will be limited.
4.5 Any successful bid to open a new school in Rochdale is required to go through full planning procedure and it is considered would take a minimum of 30 months to deliver. The council has named two suitable sites (in North Pennines and Middleton) and has Cabinet agreement to lease the named sites to the successful academy trusts (Cabinet 30/10/2018). In this respect the council has done everything it can to shorten the delivery time of any new school.
Page 54 4.6 In summary the council is in the position that the projected pupil numbers now exceed place capacity for the September 2019 and September 2020 intake, with the consideration that a new school will be open for September 2021. Contingency plans have been discussed with the borough’s existing schools and the DfE have been notified of the situation.
Strategies for September 2019 • Borough’s schools have been asked to increased PAN by 5 places each – additional places are now agreed
• If over 120 places are needed then a bulge class in modular accommodation will be created – not now needed.
Strategies for September 2020 Current forecasts suggest there will be a shortage of between 78 and 132 places across the borough in September 2020. • If less than 10 additional places per school are needed, the council will ask all schools to increase their PANs by 10 for one year.
• If over 120 places are needed then a bulge class in modular accommodation will be created
• If over 180 places are needed then the council will negotiate the early opening of the new school with the DfE and the relevant academy.
4.7 The deadline for year 7 applications for September 2019 has closed but the school admissions team continue to process late applications up to the start of the new school year.
4.8 A summary of applications is given in table 1; however it is important to understand the context of the numbers. Rochdale borough has a high commuting school population with large numbers of children, either living in borough and commuting out for school, or living out of borough and commuting into borough. It is the net number of these two elements that will determine if Rochdale has sufficient places.
Pupil Numbers Available School Places – PAN 2019 2880 1st Preferences applications in Rochdale Mainstream - 2755 2019 1st Preference applications in Rochdale Mainstream - 2018 2740 2018 Total offers made on offer day 2774 2018 Children nominated a place 131 2018 Children nominated a place more than 3 miles 37 2018 Secondary Preference Demand Met (Rochdale 96% Children)
Table 1: Secondary school applications 2018 and 2019 comparison
4.9 For September 2018 there were 2850 PAN places on offer, the forecast showed 2813 pupils needing places, there were 2740 first preference applications and 2747 pupils were on roll by October census day.
Page 55 4.10 For September 2019 there are 2880 PAN places on offer, the forecast shows 2916 pupils needing places and there are 2755 first preference applications to in borough schools. Consequently from current applications approximately 90 children more have opted for out of borough first preferences, and our ability to successfully place all children is dependent on how many pupils take up places out of borough. Oldham had two new academy schools open in 2018 and does have sufficient places for its own pupils, Bury has not created any new capacity recently but historically has had approximately 5% more places than children due to the number of faith schools.
4.11 With current extra capacity being offered in existing schools there is sufficient capacity projected for September 2019. 4.12 The government announced the opening of a new bidding round for approximately 30 centrally funded new alternative provision and special schools on the 24th July 2018. Local authorities were asked to put cases together to submit as expressions of interest for the government to then allocate. Rochdale Council had submitted a bid to a previous bidding round which had been unsuccessful. That bid had been developed with consultation with stakeholders and community groups. The current SEND strategy and separate Autism strategy, which has also been developed through stakeholder engagement, also states the Councils need for additional school capacity for Autistic children in the borough. 4.13 The government special school bidding round closed on the 15th October 2018. The listing of authorities that have applied can be found on the government website and on the 16th December 2018 the Education Secretary announced he will “approve all high quality bids in the current round of special and alternative provision free schools applications”. Rochdale is still awaiting formal notification on its application and needs to name a specific site.
Alternatives Considered 4.14 Children’s services is working to meet the statutory requirement to offer all pupils living in the borough a school place and will continue to discuss options with borough schools.
Costs and Budget Summary
5.1 The costs associated with co-ordinating admission arrangements are met from the Dedicated Schools Grant.
5.2 If one or more modular units are needed to create bulge classes a cost of approximately £500k will be needed. This will be provided through the school capital Basic Need budget.
5.3 Agreement for costs associated with any new special school will be sought if and when a formal notification is received by the council.
Page 56 5.4 Where applicable, schools offering additional pupil places to meet the LA’s statutory need, may also be eligible for revenue funding from the Council’s Growth Fund, which is approved by Schools Forum.
Risk and Policy Implications
6.1 The application of pupil place planning arrangements contributes to the Council Business Plan in ensuring an effective allocation process for school admissions. The council has a statutory duty to offer a school place to every child living in the borough and must manage the schools estate to meet the predicted need.
6.2 The Department for Education is aware that there is a risk that the council may not meet its statutory duty to offer a place to every child living in the borough due to a lack of sufficient capacity in its current schools. Existing schools accepting over PAN numbers are only doing so as a short term solution which cannot be continued indefinitely.
6.3 The council continues to work with the Department for Education on the delivery of the needed new schools.
Consultation
7. The strategies for manage the temporary additional pupils forecasted may require temporary planning permission which will follow the required procedures
Background Papers Place of Inspection
8.
For Further Information Contact: Fay Davies, , [email protected]
Page 57 Appendix 1: The Need for Extra Year 7 school places 2019-2028
Heywood
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Year 7 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 Places Expected 381 372 380 413 436 429 431 483 499 Pupils Spare 39 48 40 7 -15 -9 -11 -62 -79 places
School Published Admission Number Holy Family RC &CE 150 Siddal Moor Sports College 270
Page 58 Middleton
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Year 7 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 Places Expected 658 694 793 825 806 775 819 790 790 Pupils Spare -28 -64 -163 -195 -176 -145 -189 -160 -160 places
School Published Admission Number Middleton Technology School 270 Cardinal Langley RC 210 St Annes Academy 150
Page 59 Pennines
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Year 7 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 Places Expected 577 630 642 648 687 709 625 631 669 Pupils Spare -67 -120 -132 -138 -177 -199 -115 -121 -159 places
School Published Admission Number Hollingworth Academy 270 Wardle Academy 240
Page 60 Rochdale
2019- 2020- 2021- 2022- 2023- 2024- 2025- 2026- 2027- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Year 7 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 Places Expected 1321 1328 1259 1254 1310 1346 1324 1401 1382 Pupils Spare -1 -8 61 66 10 -26 -4 -81 62 places
School Published Admission Number St Cuthberts RC 240 Kingsway Park 270 Matthew Moss High 240 Oulder Hill 300 Falinge Park 270
Page 61 Agenda Item 12
Report to Middleton Township Committee
Date of Meeting 14th March 2019 Portfolio Cabinet Member for Environment Report Author Ian Trickett Public/Private Document Public
Middleton New Allotment Provision
Executive Summary
1. 1.1 Rochdale Borough has 524 allotment plots across the Borough but this is not enough to meet demand and is less than half the amount Government recommends (Thorpe Report 1969). Demand for allotments has boomed nation-wide with a massive increase in requests for leisure allotments from people who are still in fulltime employment and young families. As of 25th February 2019 there were 985 people on the waiting list for an allotment in the Borough, more than quadruple what it was four years ago.
1.2 Plots are allocated at circa 30 plots a year through natural turnover but on average the Council receives 160 new applications for an allotment year on year. The waiting time has therefore increased significantly from 7 years, 4 years ago to a potential 33 years if demand remains constant and the Council does nothing to address this situation.
1.3 An allotment is good for physical and mental health and wellbeing. Rochdale Borough has high levels of health deprivation. Expanding allotment provision will help the Council achieve its aims of reducing health deprivation.
1.4 Environmental Management Service has been tasked with creating 100 new plots a year, every year, for the next 5 years. This has been approved by Cabinet with provisionally allocated Capital funding to enable delivery.
1.5 The next step of the planning stage of this project is to identify viable sites for individual Township Approval. Environmental Management Service have been working with Planning & Estates colleagues to create a list of potential sites for Township consideration
1.6 Members are asked to approve and or comment regarding the potential use of the following sites for new allotment provision: 1. North of Croftgates Road, Rhodes 2. Part of Clough Road / Brassey Street recreation ground
Page 62 3. Part of Mount Road / Penrhyn open space
Recommendation
2. 2.1: That Members approve the shortlist of sites above for change of use (subject to further technical assessments e.g. contamination surveys, Planning permissions etc) to new allotments sites within their Township.
Reason for Recommendation
3. 3.1 To enable Rochdale Borough Council to meet recommendations of Government standards on how many allotment plots should be provided (Thorpe Report 1969)
3.2 To enable EM Services to progress a programme for achieving an additional 500 allotment plots across the Borough.
Key Points for Consideration
4. 4.1 Further detail on each individual site is attached in a supplementary document. This gives the exact location, area / number of plots that could be created and an initial assessment infrastructure investment required
4.2 All of the sites for Member consideration will enable sufficient space to remain in use for informal open space recreation by the general public
4.3 Public consultation about any individual space approved by members will still need to go through the Planning process and at this stage public consultation would be carried out through that formal process
Alternatives Considered
4.4 A much wider variety of sites across the Township have already been considered and declined at the shortlisting stage by officers for technical reasons e.g. they have potential for disposal for housing, access difficulties, are too small to have any space removed for allotment use etc
4.5 Members are also invited to nominate additional sites for technical testing to see if they are viable options
Costs and Budget Summary
5. There are no direct costs to Township devolved budgets associated with this decision. Funds have already been identified to carry out necessary Capital works. Additional management and maintenance requirements of the new
Page 63 sites will be carried out within core Environmental Management Service budgets with a contribution created from new funding generated by rents charged for the additional allotment plots in line with the current discretionary fees and charges policy.
Risk and Policy Implications
6. 6.1: The Thorpe Report was advisable only so there is no legislative risk to not expanding allotment provision but there is considerable risk to the Council’s reputation in not carrying out the expansion if it became public knowledge that the effective waiting list for an allotment is now potentially anywhere up to 33 years.
6.2 There is a risk that even if Members approve a site for use as allotment, that because of potential additional technical complications it becomes impossible to change land use to allotment e.g. if tests show the land to be heavily contaminated.
6.3 If no sites are approved then it will not be possible further address in any way the demand in our allotment provision.
6.4 Section 23 Small Holdings & Allotments Act 1908 places a statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient number of allotments to persons desiring to take the same.
6.5 Where allotments are provided on land owned by the Council, such allotments are deemed to be Statutory Allotments and obtain ministerial protection, since such allotment land cannot be disposed of or appropriated for some use other than an allotments without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment (now ODPM) in accordance with Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925. The Secretary of State will not give consent to the disposal of allotment land unless he is satisfied that adequate alternative provision will be made for the plot holders to be displaced or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable. Such adequate alternative land should be purchased or appropriated (not leased) for allotments and therefore subject thereafter to the protection of Section 8.
6.6 Members are advised that Council land appropriated for Statutory Allotments may inhibit any future development of that land.
Consultation
7. 7.1 We know there is demand from analysis of the allotment waiting list
7.2 Consultation for each individual site will only be carried out if Members approve a site for use as an allotment. At that stage a public consultation will be carried out and indeed will be required as part of the Planning process
Page 64 Background Papers Place of Inspection
8. Detailed report each potential Green Lane, Heywood location
For Further Information Contact: Ian Trickett, Tel: 01706 922073, [email protected]
Page 65 Expanding Allotment Provision
Middleton
Location North of Croftgates Road, Rhodes Description Multiple parcels of land some maintained grassland, some scrub, some trees Size / number plots Part of site could be used, anywhere from 50 to 120 plots Rights of Way / paths No RoW or formal paths Infrastructure required Car parking required and could be extension existing car parking area to South of maintained grass field (need Highways comment) Covenants Planning status Potential for housing No M.Robinson comment Looks like a valuable piece of formal public open space, levels look to be challenging so think this has limited potential. Access and parking look difficult. Other information Limefield Park 800m. scrub vegetation to North are indicates low usage levels. Per M.Robinson comments, needs further site investigation ease of access etc
Page 66 1 Location Clough Rd / Brassey St Recreation Ground Description Mixed formal recreation and unused rectangle bottom South East corner of the site 9shaded darker pink) Size / number plots 3,000m2 area of site shaded darker pink = 45plots Rights of Way / paths None Infrastructure required Fencing to secure the site Covenants Planning status Potential for housing No M.Robinson comment Other information Discussion with RBH required potential transfer Tennyson St land back to the Council. They do not want to do this. Clough Rd (Council)
Tennyson St
Clough Rd
Page 67 2 Location Mount Road / Penrhyn open space, Alkrington Description Remnant piece of play equipment on general open space Size / number plots 9,500m2 total size, potential area of site shaded darker pink for allotments = 2,950m2 = 44plots Rights of Way / paths None on area shaded Infrastructure required Fencing to secure the site where not bounded by houses Covenants Planning status Potential for housing M.Robinson comment Other information
Page 68 3 Agenda Item 13
Report to Middleton Township Committee
Date of Meeting 14th March 2019 Portfolio Cabinet Member for Environment Report Author Ian Trickett Public/Private Document Public
Middleton Grass Verge Management
Executive Summary
1. 1.1 Rochdale Borough maintain approximately half a million square meters of roadside grass verges across the Borough, the equivalent of 100 football pitches, but much more difficult to maintain due to their locations and the inherent risks to our maintenance teams alongside obstacles such as inclines, cars parked up to the verge, lamp posts, knee rails road-signs, bins, trees etc. This makes traditional verge and open space maintenance ultimately more expensive than non-grassed verges.
1.2 Environmental Management Service has been tasked with delivering new methods of grass verge maintenance to deliver improved appearance, improved wildlife value and reduced pollution from fuel use by strimmers and mowers whilst also reducing maintenance costs. This is to be achieved with a roll out programme to the majority of sites over a number of years. The methods to be implemented are: - Use of a growth retardant chemical to slow the rate of grass growth and therefore reduce the frequency of mowing. Mainly for use on verges where expensive Traffic Management Orders are required. - Replacing turf with informal flowering lawn. This is a mix of low growing plants that produce flower in summer but retain leaf and therefore a green sward in winter e.g. clover, daisy, grape hyacinth etc as pictured below.
Page 69 - Cease mowing entirely, only for rural / informal areas where it will look natural
1.4: Benefits of this approach: - Delivering mass floral features for the enjoyment of the general public where informal flowering lawn used - Wildlife habitat provision - Reduced carbon and particulate emissions from reduced use mowers and strimmers - Cost savings This compares to turf which has zero wildlife habitat value and requires high maintenance input to keep looking neat
1.6: These methods are not standard practice and we do not know how the public will react to them. A communications plan is in place to inform the public of the aims of the project.
1.7 The next step of the planning stage of this project is to identify viable sites for individual Township Approval. Environmental Management Service have a proposal list, see attached site specific information sheet.
Recommendation
2. 2.1: That Members approve the shortlist of sites provided in the attached document or suggest alternatives if there is a specific reason not to lead with the proposed sites.
Reason for Recommendation
3. 3.1 To enable EM Services to improve the quality of grass verges in terms of floral features, wildlife habitat value, reducing pollution and delivering budget savings.
Key Points for Consideration
4. 4.1 Implementation of chosen sites will take place in spring and autumn and will be delivered in-house, not by contractors.
4.2 Members can suggest additional / replacement sites.
4.3 When rollout is imminent Environmental Management Services will carry out extensive public information using a range of media to ensure the public know what is going on and the benefits that will be achieved.
4.4 This is the first time the Council has attempted this and we will learn lessons and some sites will be more successful than others. We ask Members to bear with us for 2 years whilst plants establish themselves Page 70 fully and we refine the techniques used.
Alternatives Considered
4.4 Ceasing mowing entirely. Option not to be pursued except for rural / informal areas where that method will not look out of place.
Costs and Budget Summary
5. There are no costs associated with this decision. Funds have been allocated by EM Services for initial capital outlay. Savings will be achieved by reducing the Traffic Management Order outlay and managing down staff numbers engaged maintaining grass verges by not replacing as people leave.
Risk and Policy Implications
6. 6.1: Initial public concerns about appearance as the new informal flowering lawns start to grow but before they produce full flower displays. Considerable effort will be put into communicating with the public of how the benefits of flowers in summer, wildlife value and reduced pollution outweigh the slightly less manicured look that turf gives
6.2 Risk of weed growth in areas treated with growth retardant. This will be managed by a three times a year application of selective weed-killer to prevent growth of dandelions etc.
Consultation
7. 7.1 We have consulted with Cabinet Members on the principle of the project, with operational staff when developing a list of sites suggested for the first phase of rollout and now via Township on specific sites.
7.2 Future phases of the project will also go via Members for approvals
Background Papers Place of Inspection
8. Detailed report each potential Green Lane, Heywood location
For Further Information Contact: Ian Trickett: [email protected] tel 01706 922 073
Page 71 Grass Verge Locations Proposals
Middleton Informal Flowering Lawn Sites
1. Heywood Old Road Near Bowlee – both the existing wildflower verge but extending to include the opposite side of the road
2. Slattocks roundabout (not verges surrounding it)
3. Waverley Road
Page 72 4. Brookside Crescent
5. Alkrington roundabouts Kingsway, either end of Mount Road
Page 73
Middleton Growth Retardant Site (Traffic Management Order locations only)
1. J19 of the M62
Page 74